ZookGuy

As of this writing, Benjamin Button is number 70 on IMDb's Top 250 movies of the year list. Many people believe this film deserves, in a year with films like Frost/Nixon and Doubt (and many others which I will not mention) that this is the one film which will bring home Best Picture.

Wow. This is overrated. It will bring home the Oscars it deserves: Cinematography and Makeup, and if it's very, very, lucky, Special Effects.

What bugs me most about the film is the thing at the core: the relationship between Daisy and Benjamin. It misses something very, very, important: why they fell in love in the first place.

The most interesting section is one that completely captivated: when he has a love affair with a lady at the Russian hotel, why? Because they kept it at a brisk 30 minutes so it doesn't drag on for 2 hours, it gets you captivated, and it ends when it is meant to end. You can also tell why they had the affair in the first place: they wanted to find out to what it was like to be in love, or in the girls case: Benjamin's strange affliction.

You (or at least me) become sick of Benjamin's relationship with Daisy when you realize it fails to ask the most important question at what is the dead center of the entire 2 hour 48 minute film: Why did they fall in love???

Pitt gives a tolerable performance, nothing Oscar worthy. Blanchett, on the other hand was very good as Daisy, trying to fuel the chemistry with Pitt that just isn't there.

It's also very long with a 168-minute runtime, it thinks it can spend all the time trying to win, but in the end, it fails. There are many useless scenes that could've been thrown out (particularly this one scene in which it shows all the things, which could've happened to prevent Daisy being hit by a cab, which leaves you thinking in the 5-minute section that feels more like 30 minutes which left me thinking "when will this end???").

Worth a rental for the astounding cinematography and makeup.

First off, let me just say that you should see it just to see Indy's return to the silver screen, but don't expect the wait was filling up the gas for the franchise to release another Raiders. The film is far, and I mean far, from the greatness of Raiders, but if you just stay in the moment and try to ignore all the flaws until the credits, you will have a fun time watching this, that is until you actually see the ending, which is the ultimate disappointment of any Indy fan.

Let me point out the pros first: Indy's return to the big screen since the 80's (which gives you enough reason to Netflix it). Entertaining action sequences. A good performance from Ford. The cinematography is excellent (should be Oscar nominated, but not Oscar winner).

Not the cons: Horrible performance by Shia LaBeouf (I probably spelt his name wrong), Spielberg giving his arguably 2nd worse directing ever (War or the worlds is a well deserved #1). Not a much humor as the past Indy movies. Hiding in fridge, the film tells us, can help you survive a nuclear blast, which I'm sorry, is horribly cheesy. Labeouf horribly trying to imitate Brando in the Wild One (black leather and all).

And the biggest con: The worse ending of the decade: a UFO comes out of the temple (a UFO that is so cheesy cinema hasn't seen a UFO so cheesy since the 50's) and then the film ends. You kinda have to watch the entire film to notice the randomness and kinda stupidity of the ending.

The spoof movie was started in the hilarious AIRPLANE!, the trend continued with THE NAKED GUN and TOP SECRET, those were funny movies, it has since turned itself into a horrible, money controlled scheme to take peoples hard earned cash.

EPIC MOVIE (about as epic as a kindergarten play), is and I'm going to emphasize it as hard as I possibly could a horrible, horrible, HORRRIBLE movie. I actually got a headache watching this piece of crap. It makes PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE look like POLTERGEIST, JAWS, PSYCHO and THE SHINING'S greatness combined.

None of that hasn't bee said before. But let me tell you this film is about as funny as a funeral. No worse, as funny as going to prison. The film tries to rely on it's "jokes", which are no better then fart and poop jokes. My 5-year old cousin could've wrote a better script.

so, in another words, only watch this if someone else's life in is danger.

In the reviews I read for this film I'm surprised no one has mentioned the classic Being There (1979), Peter Sellers 2nd to last film, because there are many similarities between the two, to some extent as completely stealing from the film (they both are devoid of the racism and greed around because them, etc.).

Now with Robert Zemeckis, the man behind the Back to the Future trilogy and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, you expect a great film, and Forrest Gump is. But it does NOT deserve to be in the top 50. For instance, I find very hard to believe that Forrest could be at so many important events at such small period of time. Also if his legs are so strong wouldn't his good balance keep his back from being so crooked (I'm no chiropractor so it could be plausible). I also find it hard to believe about Forrest's and Jenny's relationship, she only sees him when she's in need.

Now lets focus on the positives: special effects are awesome, you can easily believe he is there. Tom Hanks does an excellent performance as Forrest, which makes the special effects even more believable. So if you have three hours to spare Forrest Gump is an excellent choice to watch.

Wow. Just Wow. This films amazing, not just as a superhero movie but as a movie period. Christian Bale does an excellent job as Bruce Wayne/Batman, Morgan Freeman does an excellent job as Wayne's technology guy, almost everybody does a great job in the film except for Lt. Gordons family, gosh his bratty kid was annoying.

Now Heath Ledger's performance deserves a section to itself, I would be more than happy to sign any petition for him to get a posthumous Oscar, it's a shame he had to die so prematurely and as soon as his career was beginning to start. Because trying to top a role originally done by Jack Nicholson is not easy at all, but Ledger does it. He brings to the Joker a disturbing and confused character, but nonetheless human at the same time.

Kudos should also go to director Christopher Nolan for making a radical departure from different superhero films, Batman is not trying to save the "good people of Gotham" the people of Gotham are selfish and greedy and ready to kill one another for survival. Batman himself is not portrayed as a hero.

All in all The Dark Knight was a great film.

Does Wall-E, the newest film in the Disney/Pixar cannon, a bit preachy at parts? Yes. Did some of the themes become to much in one scene? Yes. Do some characters get extremely annoying? Yes. Will it probably be the greatest film this year? Heck yes. Considering the rental-and-nothing-else value of Hancock and Get Smart.

I walked into the theater thinking that it wouldn't be thought-provoking, I just expected a cute 110-minute film. But I did become thought-provoked. Especially when there portraying humanity in 800 years as obese, mind-numbed, and idiotic and relying on machines to do all the labor is pretty interesting, considering that most of us can't find our own home without a GPS. Also with a corporation (Big'N'Large or simply BNL) taking over government and consumerism (think Wal-Mart taking over the world) is just another factor showing humanity's empty-headed materialism.I also think Wall-E was Disney's best character since Woody in Toy Story a truly memorable sci-fi epic.

When you have a family film produced by Steven Spielberg, the genius behind the only wonderful family film E.T., you're in for something really good. And the Goonies doesn't lie about that. There is humor for the kids and adults, also it has something that most family films don't, the characters actually are successful and they aren't all happy sappy.

While parents might be shocked by the kids behavior (a 14 year old kissed a ten year old by accident OH NO! (sarcasm intended)) the kids wont imitate that impossible stuff. And sure the villains malformed son might scare kids. There's something in the Goonies that most family films are devoid of, imagination.

Poor Walt, poor Walt sacrificed life and limb and had such a rough childhood, his only escape was this film company of his... am I the only one who remembers this? If so, I must tell you that Disney is, unfortunately, only in Tinsel Town because it's the only way McDonalds can persuade kids to waste there money on Fatty Meals. Dianey Channel was, and still is, a crappy idea. I mean shows like 'Suite Life' are tolerable but HSM, Jump In! Disney, YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR!!!!! It's as clear as crystal that this show is only too promote a singer who can't sing. It's like a Spiceworld for our generation. This crap is loaded with terrible jokes, bad acting, and... Billy Ray Cyrus! How can people stand this!?!

After bad overly happily bad kids movie that have taken over the industry (Happily N'Ever After, etc.) CGI world needed something dark, something original, and Monster House was just that.

Now I'm not saying that you should get the DVD for a six year-old, there are some really dark, and arguably... violent, scenes. All the characters are well-rounded, and the plot never gets to dull, and the black comedy is always high-key, and I mean how often do you get a CGI film with Spielberg credited as producer let alone a comedy. And there are some really scary stuff and violent in there, but being a family movie, the scares aren't half as good as Jaws.

I say I rather liked this movie, it's a must-see.

This is my least favorite 'Star Wars', as the head line states. Why? Because this film is full of flaws, not physical flaws; duologue and character flaws. First things first, why did they have to do Jar-Jar Binks, he keeps an annoying presence in whatever scene he is in, that it is almost tiring. Second, knowing what he's going to be, you have to take him seriously and young Jedis and future Sith people don't 'whoopie' and 'oops' what are you going to send him too? Preschool? Third, the cartoony look of the bad guy, I mean, he looks like a costumed guy in Disney World! If you want the audiences to be scared of a bad guy you can't make them imagine him next to Mickey Mouse! This truly is the worst 'Star Wars' movie.

There are some bad films that don't overdo the badness, but don't under do it, making it a film that's so bad it's good (ala Plan 9 From Outer Space.) The performances are bad. The directing was bad. Bad duologue. But an original concept. And as Mystery Sciennce Theater 3000 states 'Every frame of this movie looks like someones last known photograph.' But who cares??? If you like bad movies, you will love this movie. If your tired of great films, and want to watch some awesome drek, you will love this movie. The twist ending is so cool, that's all I'm going to tell you about the end, and who could forget the watermelon in Torgos pants???

Where to start? Oh, God, help me. why don't we make a list? #1: It has Zac Efron (start ringing the sirens) who is one of the, if not the worst actor of all time. #2: It's a made-for-TV sequel movie to another made-for-TV movie, and worst of plus, IT'S A SEQUEL TO HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL!!!!!!!!!! #3: It rips off Caddyshack, and it doesn't even try to hide it. #4: Ummmmmmmmmmmmm, hello did any one involved with this movie even, ah I dunno GO TO HIGH SCHOOL!?! #5: They stereotype everyone, from the rich even to golfers? #6: The musical numbers, oh god the musical numbers!

So all and all if you want a good musical, go see Wizard of Oz or Sound of Music. You want your kids to have a taste bud of culture, right?

There are few films to exceed the imagination of Beetlejuice, King Kong, maybe Wizard of Oz, but then we must remember that this film is much darker than Wizard of Oz. It's here and Batman that Micheal Keaton is at his finest, his (or at least IMDb trivia states) eighteen minute appearance is not bad by horror-comedy standards. And black humor is very relevant throughout, and the ending, where we have a creepy Beetlejuice and a non-dead dying couple is suspense-loaded. And the other ghouls are some of the most imaginative things in film to date.

It's not the greatest movie ever, but it's certainly the most imaginative.

Mystery Science Theater 3000 is extremely funny, it gives one thousand gems in ninety-minutes. There are only three people that can make it funnier, Leslie Nielsen, "Weird Al" Yankovic, and Terry Gillam. Now the plot, I suppose you can call it that, it's sort of a three ring circus, you it things go flying around everywhere and you can't really, hold on to it, but you see more every time you watch it. OK, plot: MAd scientist Dr. Clayton Forrestor, and his assistant Dr. Laurenece Erhardt (later to be replaced by TV's Frank) kidnap janitor Joel Robinson (Also played hilariously by Joel Hogdson) who works for Gizmonic Institute,, and is forced to watch bad movies (So Dr. Clayton Forrestor can unleash the perfectly terrible B-movie on the populace, so he can complete world domination), to that extent, Joel makes four robots, Cambot (only seen in opening credits but interacts with the characters sometimes, but rarely) Crow T. Robot, Tom Servo (originnaly named Beeper and had a horrible design when he was Beeper), and Gypsy. And Joel, Tom Servo , and Crow T. Robot have to sit through the bad movies and deliver there own commentary throughout, usually making of the movie.

Okay, not much of a plot is it? But who cars I sure don't. People watch the show to laugh, not to put there eyes only on the plot, t's not a soap opera.

When you are at blockbuster and ask yourself the question "The Mark Wahleberg version or the Charlton Heston version?" the answer is totally obvious. This one. The new ones twist 'ending' (to be frank I don't think it had an ending) had as much twist as three week old lemonade. This one had an ending that'd shock you and (in some cases) would make you fall out of your seat. It has an ending worthy of Rod Serling, speaking of him, he also penned the screenplay for this thrill ride. That's it about the ending, my lips are sealed about everything else about it.

The performances are awesome (espically Charlton Heston as astronaut Taylor) you would believe there them, not an actor hoping for a big paycheck. So if I could put 'Planet of the Apes' in one word, it'd be 'Awesome'.

Charectar development has been a huge problem for an anthology show, especially if the show is only an hour and a half, bu Rod Serling pulls it off.

The episode of 'The Twilight Zone' entitled the 'The Obsolete Man', is awesome, the acting is awesome,the duologue sets in the mood perfectly. And Rod Serling can control you're mood. All of this gold of this is shown in this episode.

It starts out in a police state, where books are banned (notice Faherheit 451 similarities.) Where a man is arrested for being a librarian.

This episode ha great performances from everyone, even extra's, you can believe you're there. And the setting matches this depressing future perfectly. So all an all this is the best 'Twilight Zone' episode.

Okay, I'll agree that it wasn't as good as Raiders or Crusade but it wasn't one of the worst films ever. So a guy's heart gets ripped out? Big deal? But that moment is my favorite moment in the whole film.

It doesn't recollect the humor or suspense of Raiders, but who could not laugh at Short Round's remarks? Especially when Short Round says: "He no nuts, he's crazy!" And it was stereotypical at parts, (espically the natives), but it worked better then it did in High School Musical for example. And the 'Indy, didn't make it... oh look, INDY MADE IT!' would be used in Crusade and the fourth one. But no matter how bad people may think it is, this is still a great movie.

Whacking Day is probably the second funniest episode of 'The Simpsons' season 4 which was probably the best 'Simpsons' season. The guest voice of Barry White puts in a fine rap to the episode. And it has one of the best 'Simpsons' lines. When he's starts to introduce Whacking Day, he doesn't know what it is, but when he finds out, he tells the people "You people sicken me!" And the crowd cheer. So it's probably safe to say that whacking day is the second best episode of season four of 'The Simpsons', next to 'Krusty Gets Kancelled.' What also gives it kudos is it's Johnny Tremain homage (one of my favorite books.) So I guess it's pretty funny.

Conquest of the Planet seems to work really well, it works with the absence of Charlton Heston (something that Escape From the Planet of the Apes failed to do.) The film starts twenty years after Escape (YAY!) in where the intelligent ape couple child, named Caeser (played beautifully by Roddy MacDowell) is struggling with ape slavery after a deadly disease kills off all cats and dogs so humans want new house pets, noticing apes quick intelligence. It's not long before the apes become outright slaves. Then the humanity has to deal with outright rebellion.

The first plus of the film is Roddy MacDowwels awesome performance, the director lets him go free letting Roddy make the character, instead of nameless, uncredited screenwriters. And the breathtaking 'future' production design should also be noted. But what's left out of this one is the sense of hope as in the original. Another con is how could Caesar teach the apes how to killif they knew was how to there certain slave. And luckily the director doesn't really focus on the dystopian government that much which would ruin the whole point of the film. But no matter, what it's age, even if 1994 is now considered the past, it will still put audiences on a wild 100-minute ride.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS: This is a great movie, don't get me wrong, the acting is great, the special effects are excellent, the songs are memorable, and the storyline doesn't go all over the place like that dentist. But for those who know the play, most will be kind of disappointed with the 'happy ending' instead of the play (or if one could call the 1960 version having this kind of ending) a 'dark ending' (where the plants take-over and one learns the danger of greed.) But enough nagging about the ending, lets go onto acting, the acting was spot-on (even if the only person from the stage musical to be on here was Ellen Greene) Rick Moranis is, also, at the best he could do (which is quite good, actually.) So all in all this is a great movie. Good songs, good singing, good instrumentals, that's all it takes to make a musical.

I was flipping through channels when I found Superman on HBO Family, and I liked it from the start. And for it's time, it had very impressive special effects. Sure it's a bit campy, but thats the fun of it. Marlon Brando was so good as Superman's father on Krypton, but he was only in the film for about seven minutes (He got crushed by a meteor or something that destroyed Superman's home planet.) And Gene Hackman's excellent as Lex Luthor, the maniacal, homicidal, super-rich, super-evil villain (I'll bet you Jack Nicholason learned a few tips by watching Hackman in this movie for his role as the Joker in the ten-years latter film Batman.)Christopher Reeves does a high-flying job as the high-flying superhero. What makes this film have so much wonder is that it's like other superhero films and comic books earlier, but than it's not like them. So all and all, Supermen is a fine superhero movie, just don't watch the sequels besides the Bryan Singer one.

I had seen many films, but none were like Casablanca, it's duologue never failed, and it can touch the hearts of many without being too too touchy and romantic. It also has many plot lines, which is no mistake to the directors, because for some of them, it answers them as soon as you see them, it answers them in the middle, it leaves it for the end, or cliff hangs you on with not a single intention for a sequel. Besides, a sequel will destroy it's premise. While many actors are excellent in the supporting cast, Humphrey Bogart is spectacular as the selfish, money loving, one-woman, man, but gets his heart at the end. It's shocking that he didn't win the Oscar, (well he was nominated.) And this film never gets too predictable, when you pause, you still look at the single frame, looking for clues. This film is to be enjoyed for people of all ages, for the present and future.

Benig a fan of the 1933 King Kong, my family obviously knew this so one of my Christmas presents was the 1933 version and this version (Peter Jackson's version (thankfully wasn't out yet.) And this was not better than the original, it's a dang good match for it. Charles Grodin did a fantastic job as the greedy oil company owner that we are strangely feel sorry for him when he dies. Jessica Lange did a good job too. But Jeff Bridges however, was superb as his role as a scientist/environmentalist who'll be very, I repeat, very angry if they kill Kong, which they sadly, in the end, do.

The directors (including the one and only Dino De Laurietes)obviously realized from the start that they could not duplicate the spirit created in the original (another mistake Peter Jackson did) they decided to go for modern and replace it the Empire State Building with the World Trade center (which makes this Kong death a grim reminder of 9/11) and added more dark humor, but it's almost impossible impossible for being angry at them for leaving out the dinosaurs.

High School Musical, pure torture and ear-bleeding singing. Jump In, utterly forgettable, but good none the less. Here comes Tiger Cruise. The best made-for-TV movie, and unlike most Disney Chanell movies, it doesn't do extremely serious situations and joke on them unsuccessfully (Dad caring only about his sons basketball skills in High School Musical, etc.) This takes serious topics and portrays with, ummmmmmmm, seriousness.

The film begins with a girl who eagerly awaits her father coming home from being a captain on a navy ship for so many years. And this is at the beginning of the school year of 2001, so you can guess what will happen from there.

This is perhaps a career highlight for almost everyone involved, including Hayden Paniterre and Brenda Song ( who would later go on to be on TV's awful 'Suite Life') this is the perfect film for kids so they can understand what happened on 9/11. A good film.

Everyone I know for some strange reason likes the Peter Jackson remake better than this. I mean, just because something has Oscr-winning special effects doesn't make it an instant classic! This 1933 version (directed by Merrian C. Cooper who produced Western classic The Searchers) is the real jewel of the crown. The superb acting, even the special effects are superb by todays standards (in my opinion, that is.) I was amazed when Robert Armstrong or Bruce Cabot weren't nominated for Best Actor (special effects award I could understand, because it didn't exist yet.) It's an excellent film. Period. I own the DVD for this film for crying out loud! Films like Jaws and others prove that you don't need fancy, top-notch, special effects to make a classic, and King Kong is now reinforcing it still, especially the infamous scene where gets the better of a T. Rex, snapping it's jaws in half, is still a classic scene in my mind. No mater how many people think the remake was better, this Kong will still be King.