Reviews

I think Spiderman 3 suffered (as a lot of movies do these days) from a lack of material on the cutting room floor. The story line was a bit hectic and there were too many characters flying/climbing/changing, but the biggest problem I had were some scenes that caused me to keep checking my watch. A couple were just downright embarrassing to watch like the ones with Peter Parker strutting around town as an "irresitable" jock. Give me a break. Toby McGuire just doesn't fit that bill in the role of Peter Parker. In addition, the entire scene in Harry's apartment between Harry and MJ could have been deleted without any loss of storyline. The "Twist" dance scene was stupid and merely filler for whatever reason. It was boring and a time waster.

Topher Grace was great in both his roles as Eddie and Venom. He was mean, sad, pushy, competitive, yet somehow likable at the same time. I was sorry to see his demise but it seemed fitting to the storyline.

Kirsten Dunst was okay but the role has always been a bit shallow. She is a good screamer, so plays the damsel in distress well, but her performance is nothing memorable. Same with Toby McGuire - okay but nothing spectacular.

All in all - certainly worth seeing (and worth the big screen special effects) but don't expect to be blown away.

I have been waiting for the release of this movie and was excited about seeing it. Unfortunately, it did not live up to my expectations.

I was expecting to see a representation of the Mayan culture as a tribute to the advanced culture they must have been based on the ruins left behind. Instead they were shown to be a blood-thirsty, primitive society that were scared of a solar eclipse. This type of people could never have been organized enough to create the fantastic cities found in the Yucatan. The Mayans were quite advanced in astronomy and would have known the eclipse was coming. In addition, the time "spent" with the Mayans was minimal in the realm of things. Since the portrayal of them was incorrect, I am not too upset with the short time spent in the city but the trailers are misleading. This is not really about the end of a civilization - it merely takes place at that time.

Now, if this "movie about the Mayans" intention is to include the tribal people as Mayans, I would then have to question whether the tribes in the forest were Mayans at all. My understanding is the Mayans were the city dwellers of that particular time in history. The people living in the forests were certainly native Mexicans but I question whether calling them Mayans is appropriate.

So I am still wondering how the movie can really be called a movie about the Mayans when it contains so little about them.

Also, Mel does seem to have the Mayans and Aztecs confused in some respects. Some of the scenes were taken right out of the book "Aztec". The sacrifices on the pyramid, the march of the captives to the city to be killed, etc. I agree with those who feel Mel Gibson is confusing the two cultures. Cortez and his group destroyed the Aztec civilization NOT the Mayan. The great Mayan cities were abandoned long before Cortez showed up although the descendants of the city dwellers were the first people Cortez encountered in Mexico. From a historical perspective, this movie just does not work.

I came away from the movie trying to determine the point. I thought the movie was going to speculate on the unfortunate early demise of a glorious and advanced culture and honor that era. Instead I am left with a feeling of "who cares".

I give the movie a 5 because there were some really good scenes and the acting was great given the script. The use of the Mayan language was impressive (assuming it was really the Mayan language - not sure we actually know that). I just think something was lost in the translation.

I went to see this movie because of the cast. My thinking was, with the likes of Meryl Streep and Stanley Tucci, something good would have to surface. My thinking was correct. This is simply a good story. Meryl Streep plays her "evil" role to the hilt but still manages to make you like some little part of her. Stanley Tucci always amazes me as he turns up when I least expect him and nails his roles. This one is no exception. Ann Hathaway does a good job going from college prep to hat couture. She is a very lovely actor and one that should continue to grow. The rest of the cast was equally entertaining.

Do not go expecting some great life lesson but, if you want to see an interesting look into the fashion world, watch a few people question their choices and some others who just do not care who they step on, this is a good choice as an alternative to the action and animation movies out there. The movies weaves a good tale and, even with the expected ending, still made me walk out smiling.

The only reason I am happy I saw this movie is because I like to keep on top of all the propaganda being put out by today's movie makers. If you enjoy political statements, someone trying to teach you about social issues, and Bush bashing, this is the movie for you. If not, don't waste your money.

Apparently the Britain that exists in this movie is a direct result of Bush's actions in Iraq and those actions resulted in the totalitarian regime portrayed, as well as the disintegration of the social structure in the United States. Throw in some gay bashing, Muslim hating, mistreatment of Blacks, Bush creating Avian flu to use as a biological weapon, and you have the gist of the movie. Short of actually saying, "Citizens of the US rise up and revolt", the implication is obvious. I am sure the movie was set in Great Britain to imply that the rest of the world better watch out as well.

I enjoyed the music and the fireworks, otherwise this rating would be a 1. I also thought Natalie Portman did a decent job with the part. The rest of the acting stunk.

This is a film worth seeing. Although there were a few things that were predictable, the path taken to get to the end is winding and sometimes disturbing.

Samuel Jackson and Julianne Moore were both wonderful in their roles. They work very well together in telling the story. Granted the story is not new - White woman blames black man for stealing her car with her child in it. The reaction of the police was also from headlines - black neighborhood locked down because of a supposed crime. The one thing I truly liked about the film was the fact that it did not really preach any side. You were allowed to come to your own conclusion about the right or wrong of how things were handled. I do not like to be spoon fed a story and this movie did not even make a pretense of doing so.

It is a disturbing movie and the confusion and the sometimes frantic filming was done (in my opinion) intentionally to show the grit. I went down a couple of different avenues before finding out the true story and I do like a movie that is not overly obvious. Although I did realize what happened to Brenda's son from the beginning, the supporting characters kept me guessing as to how the crime actually transpired.

At the end, my only thought was "what is the point of this movie". I believe the answer to be - "there is no obvious point, it's just life", life told in a honest and sometimes painful manner.

I knew very little about this story before seeing the movie. I have not read the book and only saw one preview that prompted me to see Memoirs.

This is a touching movie that grabbed me from the first moment of the isolated, sad, and lonely house by the sea from which the lead character was sold. The expressions on the faces of Sayuri and her sister as they rode away brought tears to my eyes and those tears continued on and off throughout the movie.

The acting was wonderful, the costumes exquisite, and the scenery alone was worth the price of admission. I am not Asian so I guess that is why I just don't get the uproar about the casting. I simply saw beautiful actors playing characters as they lived and changed.

I will not take up time going through the scenes except to say most of them were gripping. I went through a lot of emotions watching this film and that is always an indication to me that the movie is great. I came away with a feeling of awe, satisfaction, and happiness.

I am only saddened by the negative reception some are giving this movie. Even the theater I was in stuck this movie in the smallest room, way off the beaten path as if they assumed it would flop (or maybe were told to make sure it did??????).

This is a fairly deep movie and does not spoon feed the audience. If you do not like a movie that makes you think, skip this one. However, if you like thought provoking movies with outstanding visual treats, make sure you see this before the critics make it go away.

Just got back from seeing King Kong and I am really surprised to have to say that it was not what I was expecting.

First of all, it was about an hour longer than it needed to be. Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to sitting in a theater for 3 hours if I am entertained. However, there were so many scenes in the movie that were two or three times longer than necessary to get the point across.

*** Note: the remainder has lots of spoilers *** For example - the scene where the dinosaurs were falling after one of them was shot. This long segment, coming after the one where the men were running along with the dinosaurs (underneath, side by side, etc.), was just too much and way too long. I found myself wanting to scream, "Enough already, get on with the movie".

Another example - when Kong was fighting the three T-Rex, and they all fell off the mountain into the tree roots (or something similar to giant spider web threads). How many times did we need to see Ann Darrow falling, looking scared, being transferred from monster to monster? And what was with the sliding on the ice scene in what I assume was Central Park? Slow motion spinning around while Kong and Miss Darrow smiled at each other - come on.

And all the bugs - scenes way too long and why didn't any of the men get shot when the bugs, attached to them, were being bombarded with machine guns. I can suspend disbelief with the best of them but this was over the line.

I could go on but I won't - I think the point has been made.

Now for the good parts. Kong was absolutely fabulous. He made me say "WOW" when I first saw him. I would love for someone to take this creature and replace the original Kong in the original movie. How great would that be? The island was scary and awe-inspiring, although I am not sure I understood the native village. Did the people build houses and then move into the caves or were they hiding from the movie crew? Why was it necessary to make them all look like "Night of the Living Dead" characters? The scenes in New York were well done and the Empire State Building scenes were thrilling. The exchange between Kong and Ann during the sunset was touching, as were the last moments before he fell off the building.

I am glad I saw the movie but it is not one I would sit through again and again. Any movie that makes me look at my watch and wonder when a scene will end, does not deserve any more of my time.

I first read the Chronicles of Narnia when I was around 11. Since that time (many, many years ago), I have hoped for a big-budget version of this wonderful story. I am sure this great achievement couldn't have happened much sooner as the quality of the special effects needed to do the story justice simply didn't exist until recently.

The movie was well worth the wait. I was captivated from minute one and was so excited to see some of the scenes that I actually found tears in my eyes. Reliving the story, watching the characters, meeting the creatures, it was all like coming home.

The casting was great and was done by someone who obviously had read the books and knew the characters as well as serious fans know them. Tilda Swinton was fabulous as the White Witch and made the transition from the nice "queen" who "snowed" Edmund to the terrifying war waging witch perfectly. The children played their roles flawlessly, going from scared war "orphans" to mature royals saving their kingdom. I was amazed to see them at their coronation, seeming so grown up and seeming so wise.

The special effects were just amazing. The variety of creatures in the book were shown in such a real manner. I particularly enjoyed the method used to portray the tree spirits. None of the mythical beings were unbelievable and Aslan was simply magnificent, although I pictured him a bit larger. I did not pick up on Aslan's voice being Liam Neeson's, I merely knew the voice was familiar and his was a perfect voice for Aslan.

The battle scenes and some of the "dark" creatures may be too intense for younger children but this is a children's movie based on a children's story. However, most adults should find it enjoyable. It may be helpful for adults to be familiar with the series to really appreciate the movie. I recommend this movie for everyone with an open mind to fantasy and the age-old, good winning out over evil tale.

P.S. Do not leave the theater when the credits start rolling.