heyanerd

For those expecting "Beavis and Butthead" right out of the gate when Judge and co. created "King of the Hill", the audience looking for silly shock humor were surprised to find spot-on characters populating the screen that could have come from their real life. That meant plenty of younger folks tuned out... But lots of us saw it for what it was and enjoyed the hell out of it. Now, to be fair, I'm not saying "ALL HAIL MIKE JUDGE", especially considering that I was not a big fan of "Extract" and was ho-hum on "The Goode Family.". Yet I DO have faith that Judge's work is trying to make something more thought-provoking with a good storyline than the average comedy.

As a satire, this show is smart and funny and treading ground by focusing on a microcosm of society that in itself has it's own hierarchy and character. Despite the high amount of Geeks on screen, each has a unique personality and dynamic that feeds into the overall story. Not every episode ends happily, and some have a great silver lining, leaving expectations up in the air. It's saddening that Christopher Evan Welch has passed on seeing as how great of a performer he was and key to the show's vitality. However, there is still plenty of ground to be covered by this show and I have the feeling it'll be creative, funny and spot-on, not necessarily "SCATHING" as some reviewers had hoped for, and look forward to enjoying any subsequent seasons.

This movie wasn't supposed to be dramatic, epic, serious or whatever. I don't want to point out to people that it's a Neveldine/Taylor flick, but their style doesn't mesh with everyone. My friend thought "Crank 2" was a disaster, while for the people I went with it was the most fun we've had at the movies in forever. So if you're not big on the crazy, stunty, overly stylized antics, you ain't gonna like this one. They don't create a precious world, which is important for this type of Marvel title.

As for myself, I thought it was it was cool, like watching WWE cool. You know everyone's over- the-top, but at least it's not trying to be awe-inducing like the original Ghostrider flick and falling on it's face. Everyone's in on the joke. If you're not, again, you'll hate it, and I don't blame you, but really, have fun guys.

It's kind of messy, like Punk Rock, or Tarantino film (why else would he attach his name to it?), but the Rza does a BANG-UP job directing this movie. If anybody thinks it's terrible it's because they're taking it too seriously. A simple, fun, colorful movie with a bit of CGI to highlight what is already well-choreographed practical FX action. Although some can complain there's not enough Russell Crowe, or that it has every action cliché in the book, but therein lies the fun of it. Nothing's too precious, and lots of stuff is in there just because it's cool *cough Iron Fists cough* Ever see Iron Monkey, Hero or even Shoot 'em Up? This is along those lines. I'm glad that when a Wu Tang member went kung fu, they went all out. Worth watching with friends.

I seriously thought this looked too ambitious and would just end up pretentious and dumb.

If anything, it ended up being a movie made up of separate parts that flowed so well together that you felt it more than understood it. Often, that is a point of weakness in my opinion (Babel, anybody?). In this case, though, good directing, acting and editing made the whole thing work.

As with most people, some parts fell flat, but it was like watching a massive episode of "Lost", where you have some favorite characters, some not so favorite, but it all works together. If you're looking for a film that wraps up everything in a really obvious but cool way, watch "Fish Story". If you'd rather have some interpretation left to interconnecting worlds your entertainment, watch "Cloud Atlas".

I saw this in theaters about a year ago. I was able to make complaints about pacing, a certain lack of character shading, and some technical issues with sound and sfx visuals. Since then, I recently woke up thinking about the intro of this movie for some reason and how well it placed you in this Parisian setting. I loved watching it in 3-D due to the TASTEFUL use of the effect that Scorsese placed in it -- particles of dust, a foreground object here or there, with only 2 or 3 major set piece 3-D scenes. I watched it again and felt comforted by the simple story, the straightforward emotions of the characters...it kind of reminded me of when we watched "Little Lord Fauntleroy" or "Oliver" in elementary school. These movies were set in a period far removed from ours yet struck a chord by teaching you something or giving you a bit of perspective on the lives of kids from previous generations. Even if the sets were blatantly artificial. Like any good Scorsese film, though, the movie is ultimately about redemption. The sadness of the toy shop owner and his redemption through the children who are still able to be inspired by his dreams. Even if it's still got some flaws, "Hugo" is a pretty solid movie, and if your kids are ADHD-rattled punks who will watch colorful, crass kid's stuff (which, I will admit, are still likable), it ought to give them a movie to feel comforted by, especially on a cold winter's day, warm under a blanket. A movie experience like "cuddling up with a good book".

While the first movie was unflinching, and left me with a constant sense of dread, this one played out like an episode of "Lost". The reveals weren't interesting or new, just soap opera plots with a kick-butt punk lead actress. It was well-acted but the story was just "this person goes here and there's a fight" and it seems as if Lisbeth has been elevated to some superhero status. I never felt actual danger in this film like in the first. I would hope those who have seen the extended mini-series version did quite enjoy it as it must have had some more build-up or interesting things within it. I just felt a bit let-down on this one.

Watched this last night and found myself waiting for the movie to make that odd little death- flop that comes with simply making itself an advertisement for "The Avengers" (which is what I felt "Thor" ended up being).

Director Joe Johnston understands the era, though, as seen thru his film "The Rocketeer", and realizes that one can put characters in peril all while not completely depending on new technology. The movie also does an excellent job of poking fun at the cheesier side of the 1940's war efforts while contrasting them with the dankness of actual war.

There were some steam-punk elements to this film that reminded me of the show "The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr." and led the film easily into connecting with the upcoming "Avengers" with hints of modernization.

The Actors played each character well, ESPECIALLY Chris Evans who, obviously, as the titular Captain, wears both bravery and humility on his shirtsleeve without becoming a parody of a weakling. Each supporting actor seemed to be having fun, not unlike actors in Johnston's "October Sky". Hugo Weaving was a great choice for Red Skull IMO. Also, UNLIKE "Thor" (sorry to rain on his parade), you feel like Cap and Red Skull are a perfect match for each other. Either one could kick the others' butt, it was just a matter of who would get the upper-hand. In "Thor", Thor and Loki would get in a fight and it would look good but you had no reason to believe one could be more powerful than the other outside of the fact that the movie was Thor's to begin with.

What I was happy about is that there were a few very explicit connections to The Avengers and a few subtle HINTS at other Avenger-related franchises. While I will not give them away, each seemed to have a purpose that suited the characters and their function in the film, which was incredibly satisfying to me (again, considering what I thought was truly weak about "Thor"). If this film had simply had to run on its own merits, minus the possibility of any sequels, we would have had quite a good film alone.

If I had to compare it to any other Marvel film, I would mostly compare it to the first "Iron Man" because it uses War as a backdrop to test our characters. And Tony Stark and Steve Rogers have completely different approaches to survival. Sure, the war in the movie realistically gritty as actual war, but that really doesn't affect how you feel at the end.

This is a pretty good movie to take your 10-year old to (minus some violence) on a Sunday afternoon. Here's to Marvel and their success in making more fine films that blend Character, Action and Story together, just like their Comics do!

As a fan of the 2007 original, I really did not understand why they had to remake this movie JUST for American audiences. I mean, it was in English and directed by AN American, for cryin' out loud!!!

I decided to give it a chance because I love Chris Rock, even though a few of his choices in movie roles haven't been quite up to par with his talent. With a producer credit, though, on this film, I figured he was a fan of the original and wouldn't try to rework it too much. That and PETER DINKLAGE was asked to actually agreed to reprise his role!

Although some jokes are slightly more heavy-handed in this version, and some jokes not as kinetic (Father Falling out of Casket didn't strike me like it did in the Frank Oz version), it is overall the same movie with a different cast.

In fact, in a weird way little bits were improved and gave the movie an overall flow that worked. Where Luke Wilson plays the Ewen Bremner character, his successful yet sleazy character was made as a foil to the James Marsden character, as opposed to some slime hitting on Alan Tudyk's fiancée. And even though they beefed up the James Marsden freak- outs over Alan Tudyk's amazing ones, these ones still had me laughing.

I guess in the end the movie feels like you are watching a play put on by a different production company where they keep the same book, script, and basic concepts and add a few flairs of their own style to it. For those of you thinking "this must be the BLACK version of the original, eh??", I would say yes, it centers around a black family with more of an African-American aesthetic and motifs, that certainly isn't the point of the movie. Perhaps lots of camera angles, shots and ideas wouldn't have been in director Neil LaBute's head if it weren't for the original, yet this movie is able to make it's "own thing" happen.

Overall, I recommend this film, as reluctant as I would have been when I knew it was being made. Also, I recommend the original too because it's also good and has a cast that will make you laugh in a different way.

The only reason I vote this film so highly is because of the real circumstances it was based around. It is inspiring in a way that I have seen in sports dramas, but those aren't life and death. It makes you think about what you would do in a similar situation. No, you may not be a Canyoner, but if there is ever an event where your arm is pinned down by something heavy and you may be able to survive but only if you use your all and make a sacrifice, you wouldn't have to be a person who skips around canyons for fun, would you?

What surprises me most about this film is that it keeps you on edge with lots of quick shots and camera variances, all while inter-cutting flashbacks and hallucinations. Hell, I haven't read up on whether or not Aron Ralston had these instances or not, but you've got to think, how else would your mind be working under such duress? We all know Danny Boyle likes to get flashy and artsy on us, but keep in mind that we think in such ways also. We illuminate and dampen and imagine and hallucinate whether or not we are 'artsy-fartsy' types.

As a true story, it's incredible and inspiring. As a film, it will keep you awake and alive. Why 9 out of 10 instead of 10 out of 10? Truth is, real life did half the work, even including Ralston's own video footage of himself which actor James Franco studied in order to accurately capture the gravitas of the ordeal. So it being a true story is what I feel really makes it such a good movie.

Well worth the watch.

The best thing about this movie is that despite how much you THINK you've seen this story before, no elements of the tale overstay their welcome.

It's like when a band you really like comes out with an EP. You enjoy it for what happens within the boundaries it's length.

What works best is the acting, particularly that of Joel David Moore, who simply seems to be enjoying himself while finding depth in this character him & Adam Green more than likely collaborated on. Amber Tamblyn was also not annoying to me in this. Sounds back-handed, I know, she's talented, but just ain't my style most of the time.

Also, the choices of music in the film add to it's uniqueness.

Please, do enjoy "Spiral."

I saw this a couple times when I was 19-20. I even love most films that "try to do something different". but this movie just seemed like incidences strung together to "make a movie".

there was half-drama. half-emotion. and it just reminded me of the only things I don't like about tropical areas. to me it seemed to epitomize depression, but unlike some dramatizations, a clear cut seed to a solution never was shown. There just happened to "be a transformation" in the character, as if that is a "film requisite" as opposed to it happening organically.

love Lauren Ambrose. just didn't really get this movie I might try again to watch it. doubt it will end up having any impact on me, similar to the first few times.

during the 90's there was a slew of movies of this Genre coming out. I had no interest in Freddie Prinze, Jr., The American Pie Cast or Rachel Leigh Cooke at the time...Not because they weren't talented, but because of the amount of fluff their names were attached to. As a Teenager, I could not relate to ANY of these Teen Flicks until "Can't Hardly Wait" came along. It was practically a Spoof with a Plot. I remember being happy about the Character's resolutions, and most of the characters were played by funny actors. I decided pre-Robot Chicken that Seth Green was a genius after this movie. Perhaps it is the way you recognize all these characters hitting their extremes as Caricatures that makes us want to keep watching this movie.

The other teen flick from the 90's I recommend is "10 Things I Hate About You." Again, another movie that goes overboard showing the High School experience, and doesn't force a sincerity that isn't there.

The only reason I really started watching this show is because it has Jason Segel, aka NICK ANDOPOLIS! in it. My sister was telling me about the first episode over the phone, and I was not interested.

But after seeing an episode, I really started to dig this show! the little flashbacks, and twists, and P"oor Li'l Ted", who doesn't really treat himself as much as a victim as most shows would portray their protagonist.

I really like the Sides that Ted has to deal with too:

A) Barney, the Womanizer who is all OVER the damn place B) Marshall and Lily, who are naturally perfect for each other

these two teams are polar opposites as Ted's friends, while Ted just sits in the middle having to deal with his decisions while viewing THESE two models.

Anyways, Great Show, and even the Short Theme Song brings up my Spirits on a Monday Nite.

PS if you like this show, check out "The Class." Definitely not the same as this show, and not with the same taste, but a similar kind of cast, yet original. WORDPEACEBLAH

This show reminds me of The Prisoner, 90210, Survivor, and all sorts of stuff at once. I like how pasts are developed on this show and is simply not about 'ooh! AHH!', even though that is ALSO a legitimate concern.

MY ONLY FEAR!!!

for this show is that since people are so wrapped up in "WHAT ARE THE ANSWERS?!?!" that they will say this show SUCKS. Yes, I can say that I always got SOOOOO DARNED ANGRY at "The X-Files" for pulling this trick that I stopped watching it altogether. On this show, though, the pay-offs are spaced moderately, perhaps with ONE big one at the end. One we are NOT waiting for. One that will 'change the nature' of the series like a couple M. Night Shyamalan twists did.

NO 'X-FILES'!!! PLEASE!!!!!

cuz a couple of my friends saw this show and said 'it's not so great.' I respect characters, and the only one who seems flat in the past to me is Kate, because she is the 'bad girl with the kind face'. If I first watched one of HER episodes, I wouldn't care for the show that much either.

Anyways, great show, always looking forward to the next one, even buying them on DVD won't ruin it.

PEACE OWT!!!!!!!

I loved the books but found no faith in the movie. The best actor who nailed the character is the guy who played Slartibartfast. And, well...voicewise, Alan Rickman was perfect.

My compliments?

******** SPOILERS!!!****

*My friends and I liked the whole getting-hit in the face part. That's something you can't put in a book.

*The inside of the planet where they build new planets? Very Cool!

* There are a few gags that are neat and unexpected.

COMPLAINTS!!!

* Now SERIOUSLY!! this movie would have been TONS better if directed by someone who KNEW Douglas Adams. They would have understood that HIS HUMOR IS SOOOO AWESOME THAT IT DOES NOT NEED EXTREME SPECIAL EFFECTS TO BE FUNNY!!!!

* Zoe Deschanel was given nothing to do as one of my favorite characters in the series =( instead she was just "girl role."

* Mos Def is an awesome actor but not Ford. I was hoping for that neurotic guy who played Raymond's cousin on 'Everybody loves Raymond'...yknow, the one who acts just like him? Except maybe a tad more confident.

* Voices! Everybody was so FLAT!

* Not enough INSANITY!!! all contrived, almost-arbitrary insanity.

* MOUSE CHILDREN?!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!??!!?!?!?!?!?!??

*More British accents next time: PLEASE =D !!!!!!!

* All too rushed, or too slow. This movie had no cool rhythm. Didn't give you much to look forward to one scene after-the-other.

So take a cue from the world of Douglas Adams, and don't try and make your Americanized, Modern version of a cool British Classic. Just watch a ton of Monty Python and do your best to emulate. PLEASE! I hope for a 'Restaurant' that is wonderful