Reviews

Don't bother seeing this movie. Especially not with the kids. In the show that I saw, there were a total of 10 of us in a theater which could accommodate about 150. There were 4 kids. I pity the parents of the kids who had to pay to get the kids here. Total waste of time! Possibly the worst movie I have sat through. Was this supposed to be a comedy or an action movie or an action comedy movie. I don't know where it was going anyways. Just a jumble of ideas. I guess there were too many cooks, and boy did they spoil the broth! To be honest, there were a couple of funny moments in the movie (okay more like chuckle moments). But nothing worth even a penny. I went to this movie because I saw "Jerry Bruckheimer". Wrong reason!

At first, when I saw this movie in the video library, I thought it had something to do with racing or a road trip and go it home. I was in for a pleasant surprise. Not only was it not a racing movie, but it was also not in English as I had expected. But anyways, I decided to watch it for about 5 minutes and then decide. Boy did I decide to do that! While watching the movie, I researched about it on wikipedia and found that it was a movie based on the early life of Ernesto "Che" Guevera, the Argentinian-born, Cuban revolutionary leader. So I decided to just watch it for the non-political content.

The acting by the two principal actors (and also the others), is AMAZING! Not only is the movie amazing (so say the least), but the special features are excellent also. Also included in the spl fea is an interview with the original Alberto Granada, the companion of Ernesto in this movie. Believe it or not, Robert Redford was the exectuive producer for this movie.

A "MUST-WATCH" movie of all time! Doesn't matter if you like/don't like road trip movies. But donot expect too much political views in this movie. There is just a hint of the reasons why Che turned a revolutionary from a life destined to be a medical doctor. But not too much. In the first half, it is more like a comedy movie and then more like a "coming-of-age" movie.

In the couple of episodes i have seen this series, i have come to love it. Lori Loughlin (of "Full House" fame) has not aged a bit since "Full House". She looks real beautiful. The actors are convincing esp the Kay Panabaker who plays the role of the middle child of the parentless trio now in the care of Lori. Taylor Cole who plays the surfing instructor of the eldest son of the trio. She is HOT HOT HOT! Oh man! I am sure a lot of people agree with me on this one. U know what! She actually is the step daughter of Shawn Christian who plays the male roommate of Lori in this series. Let us see if the cast can keep us glued to the "idiot" box much longer or if the series just goes bust.

Okay, so there was one BIG hole in the storyline. so what! It was a good movie over all. If you look at the history of the cinema, in there was a movie released in 1941 called "Citizen Kane", regarded by the AFI as the "Numero Uno" movie of all times. It was an amazing movie. I liked the makeup especially of Orson Welles, where he is transformed into an old man while he was still only in his mid-twenties. He was an amazing actor and director. But I guess he was a bit brash in his early years. I also like the acting of Joseph Cotton. If you are interested in knowing about the background of the story, a good place to start would be "the Battle over Citizen Kane". Anyways, now to the story. The movie of Citizen Kane is about an extremely successful businessman (mirroring the life of William Randolph Hearst - the media moghul in the early part of the last century). It is about the murder of a lady he loved and the coverup(see "The Cat's meow" for more details of one of the versions of the real murder). Because of that movie, Hearst, seems to have targeted Welles, who never again was able to get financing for a movie that could showcase his talent as well as he did in "Citizen Kane". Welles's career seems to have both started and ended with "C.k.". What a shame! "Antitrust" seems to have taken the same route in a sense. At times, it seems like the villain in the movie resembles either Bill Gates or Larry Ellison, but more like Gates. The concept of the movie is quite scary though. It shows how too much reliance on technology could lead to transfer of power to the person who holds most of the technology. But at the same time the premise of the movie lies in the fact that there are individuals out there who might work on the "shady" side of the corporate world but are a necessary evil to the technology world in the fact that they at times act as the "regulatory board" for the industry. Fine! The screen shots of the PC monitors and the portrayal of the hi tech industry is so real. But the fact cannot be ignored that this movie didn't do much business as it should have. Can this be due to a phenomenon similar to Hearst controlling the media after "C.K.";s release? Or is it just that the audience just didn't digest the concept? Or was it too into the "evil" side of things that people just wanted to look at the rosy side and ignore the fact that in this age of info tech, power lies in the hands of those who control the info? Decide for yourself after seeing the movie once or even twice. The only "hole" in the movie is why did Lisa write a workable code of the software when all along she was working for the villain? Rating: 3.75/4

Very funny movie. I saw it on the day of release. The theater was full and the audience loved it so much that there was an ovation at the end of the show. I loved the movie myself. I think there were very few minutes in the movie which was not funny. I would highly recommend this movie for one viewing at least. The message behind this story (both 1 &2) is - "Be proud of who you are and how you look. External beauty isnot everything and it is only what is inside that counts." There is an additional character in this movie - namely, Puss in boots (spanish version). Voiced by Antonio Banderas, it is a take-off on "Zorro". The acting rendered by the character is especially worth watching. This movie is "The King of spoofs". I could identify atleast 25 movies that were spoofed in this movie. The fairy godmother is hilarious too since she tries to imitate a vamp. All in all, the movie has the original cast like Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy and Cameron Diaz, who jell so much with each other in the form of the characters. Some of the other big names in the movie are Julie Andrews, John Cleese, Rupert Everett, and Larry King.

I just came back from watching the film. I would say that this movie is worth watching once (but maybe only once since it is almost 2hrs 45 mins long). Given the storyline, the director has tried to create a believable epic. But i would say that he has only tried but not completely succeeded. There are a lot of similarities to "Gladiator" including the music and the haunting, "wailing" woman singing in the background. "Gladiator"'s music was well set for a lot of reasons. Here the sound effects during the fight scenes esp the fight between Hector and Achilles is jarred by onerous music in the background. The music in such "tense" sequences, could be playing second fiddle to the sound effects instead of the other way around. There is some nudity in the film. But i think it is unnecessary and has been added purely for box-office reasons. Nudity could have been avoided by using subtle indications.

As for the performances, i would definitely give 10/10 to Peter O'Toole for playing the king of Troy so incredibly well. He is very convincing as the proud and confident king before the battle, as the scared father during the battle and as the father who lost his son after Hector's death. Eric Bana (I first noticed him in "Black Hawk Down") does justice to the role of Hector, the prince and heir of Troy and also the best Trojan warrior. His acting is just perfect, not underacting not overacting. Diane Kruger as Helen of Troy, makes us wonder how she could have been the "face which launched a thousand ships". She is definitely good-looking, but doesn't have that "out of the world" beauty that Helen was famed to have. Even Liz Taylor did justice to "Cleopatra" much better. And definitely she should learn more in the acting department. Orlando Bloom: Oh my god! What a waste of money! He could have been replaced by an unknown actor who could have gotten a chance to prove himself. He is not convincing at all as the "ladies man" when he steals Helen, as the cowardly warrior when he fights the husband of Helen, or as the warrior who has suddenly realized that honor is more important and fights back. He has a long way to go in learning what characters he might fit best.The person who stands out though is the actress playing the cousin of Hector. I don't know her name, but definitely she has played her part very convincingly and she also is a "looker".

Okay, okay! I know you have been waiting for my views on Brad Pitt. Actually, i have none except that he shoudnt have played the part of Achilles. He struggles throughout the movie to be convincing as Achilles. Waste of money, again! But i guess ladies will go to the movie to see him nude.

Neways, as a person who has read "The Illiad" by Homer, i can confidently say that if you have read the work or have come across parts of the work somewhere, definitely there might be some gaping holes in the movie. But this is a Hollywood movie and you can expect that from one since they are made to make money, not be true to a literary work of do justice to history. That is why, the studio has very clearly stated that this movie was made based loosely on "Illiad". But to the average moviegoer, "Helen abduction", "thousand ships", "Trojan Horse", "Achilles heel" etc might seem familiar and associated with the war between Greece and Troy. The makers of this movie have been sure that all these popular components have found their way into the movie. But definitely, who said that they stuck by the literary work!

The graphics in the movie are very convincing and to the naked eye, very "realistic". Locations are superb, photogrpahy is stunning and so also the special effects. Don't expect to have any emotions like you might have felt in the "Gladiator" because though the makers have tried to weave 2 love stories(Paris's and Achilles's), father-son sentiment, husband-wife sentiment etc, it doesn't jell well with the audience because of the jarring music and the "wailing" woman singing.

Go to this movie expecting to get your money's worth of entertainment, but nothing more. BTW if you hadnt noticed, i have not given the story away, since i want you to see for yourself to judge the movie.

I saw this movie recently and was really surprised. Because when i had seen this movie the last time(when i was a kid of 3 yrs old, i loved this movie so much that i was singing its songs for about 2 yrs after that. But when i saw it recently i couldnt understand how it could have become a cult favorite that it was about 23 yrs ago. But whatever, it was definitely a very entertaining movie by Rajini's standards. Would recommend this for Rajini fans to watch once only. I guess this was one of the earlier movies which took Rajini from a regular movie star to "superstar" dom. The song "My name is Billa" is my favorite. This was the song on my lips for 2 yrs when i was kid. Even now i remember the words though i heard the song the last time i watched the movie and had not heard the song in 20 yrs.

First when i checked out this DVD, i thought that this was a documentary. I do like documentaries which are well made. But i was extremely delighted to find that this was a movie. It is actually one of the best "made for TV" movies i have seen in recent times. The acting is so real. And the dialogues so eloquent. Each word is as if it were chosen to convey exactly the feeling of the characters at each point in the movie. It was also delightful to learn a bit more about someone whom i have just heard as being the "worst traitor in the history" of the USA. All in all, the acting of Kelsey Grammer and Aidan Quinn, itself is a treat to watch. I would highly recommended movie to anybody interested in a history lesson on the formation of the USA. ****.