Reviews

For all the people who gives this movie a 10, I notice they are usually *young* and living the poor attention span world of the video game. They have no clue about substance, and thus they worship "The Matrix." Unfortunately, substance is what the Matrix lacks. It is no secret why the box office has steadily began to fail since the invention of CGI. It has become too easy to do anything you want in Special Effects, thus *substance* is no longer as attractive. In movies such as Jaws, you could not do anything you wanted. The shark didn't work. They had to use orange barrels to show where the shark could be on the ocean. Thus *substance,* that is, the plot, had to take over where special effects could not take us.

Unfortunately, the reverse is true of the Matrix. Special effects can take us anywhere now, and unless there is a really good plot, like in the Lord of the Rings (because the plot had been written in a time when splashy special effects were nonexistent) special effects are not enough to hold a story together. Thus, this is why Peter Jackson's "King Kong" didn't hold together as well. Find another novel by another good author Peter. Novels have to have substance, and that is what any movie needs, regardless of the quality of special effects.

Another thing that bothered me about the Matrix was the contrived way in which it attempted to immerse us into a paranoid world. In just practical terms, it would take far more energy to run a complete virtual reality world, than *any engergy* that could be derived from a human body. Psst! Next time machines, just get a good waterfall and a hydrolic generator, or even just some wind turbines. Much more efficient, and the wind turbines won't revolt against you.

Seriously. How much "electricity" aka energy can you derive from a human body? I doubt very seriously the energy output vs. the energy needed to submerge all of your "prisoners" in a virtual reality world, would work. Let's face it, the "machines" would be left with a huge energy deficit.

So, I'm sorry, I could not get past that little nugget of factual error. The entire premise left me unable to suspend disbelief.

So sorry all those video game lovers who worship this movie. It isn't "War and Peace," it isn't "Lord of the Rings" and it isn't even "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" (aka Blade Runner). It's just an excuse for guys dressed in black to do cool, splashy, special effects, based on a so ridiculously contrived plot, that obviously the plot wasn't what really mattered.

Tell me the movie is cool, fine. Tell me it's the basis for a philosophy course and I'll tell you, you need to find another college.

I first saw Dragon Ball Z on the International Channel. It was entirely in Japanese with no subtitles, yet I could still get the gist of the story.

When tried watching the English dub on Cartoon Network, I couldn't get over it. It was an entirely different show. The music is different, the dubbing is horrible, they cut out huge scenes practically blotting entire episodes, digitize out a lot of the blood, change a lot of the great lines, for some reason change a lot of the names, and basically change plot points.

I couldn't stand it. Since then, I've gone to collecting it on DVD so I can watch the show as I am accustomed to watching, in Japanese. It's definitely not for children. It has profanity (and for some reason some of the profanity is in English some of it is your basic "k'usos"), nudity, blood, violence, and a lot of death (see Bejita;).

I keep my kids from watching those. They can see it on Cartoon Network if they want. That's just fine. The show was definitely "dumbed down" for children as if should have been for a non "Adult Swim" show. (But don't ask me why CN never thought DBZ qualified for Adult Swim instead of "Inuyasha.") However, if you are an adult, and want to watch the best anime show this side of "Akira," definitely watch DBZ, but ONLY in Japanese.

I've read some of the reviews regarding this film and there seems to be a grave misunderstanding regarding this film.

Many list it as the third in the "series" of Sherlock Holmes films starring Basil Rathbone, but that's quite inaccurate.

This film was not the 3rd in a series, following "The Hound of the Baskervilles" and "The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes.

"The Hound of the Baskervilles" and "The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes were a series aborted by 20th Century Fox because of the start of WWII.

With the start of WWII, 20th Century Fox decided these films, set in Victorian times, were far too elaborate and expensive to continue during war times. Thus, the entire series was dropped.

After this, Rathbone and Bruce continued doing Sherlock Holmes on the BBC as a series of radio productions. (this included Mary Gordon who always played Mrs. Hudson) With the success of the BBC radio serial, Universal pictures in 1942, picked up Rathbone and Bruce to play Holmes and Watson. However, because it was still during WWII, Universal decided to set their Holmes in what was modern times. Universal did this for extremely practical reasons which had nothing to do with artistic "interpretation." This was done as a cost cutting feature as the same sets and supporting actors (as any keen eye would notice) were then used in other films and vice versa. (The other films usually featuring Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney, Jr. or Boris Karloff) Such a cost cutting feature would not have been possible had Universal set the films in Victorian, London.

Thus, "The Voice of Terror," although the third time for the team of Rathbone and Bruce, was the first film in the Sherlock Holmes series, for Universal pictures.

It is a grave misunderstanding to confuse the two series (the first by 20th Century Fox and the second by Universal). The first were made in the 30s in pre-war Hollywood with much larger budgets. The second were made during the war with the rationing and most understandable budget problems that accompanied such pictures of the day.

Which brings us to the subject of the Voice of Terror. It happens to be my favorite of the Universal Sherlock Holmes movies, despite it's short comings. Rathbone is still at the top of his game and doesn't have the "bored to death with Holmes" appearance he had by the time of his last Holmes film, "Dressed to Kill." Despite reusing the train crash from "The Invisible Man" the film has the tension and mystery intended to give audiences who still saw the Nazis as a real nightmare, instead of the pantomime joke they have become today.

Full of British patriotism and the stalwart attitude the British still display when their home is attacked as the recent London attacks prove. Thus, the "Voice of Terror" is not really as much archaic hokum as the modern, casual viewer might assume. Instead, the same attitudes in display today, remind us that the more times change, even with "Voice of Terror," the more they remain the same.

Thus, enjoy "The Voice of Terror" even though it is only VERY LOOSELY based on the Conan Doyle great detective. The film is still a lot of fun, and people forever when thinking of Holmes and Watson cannot fail to evoke the mental memory of Rathbone and Bruce.

Worth the Watch.

I just saw "War of the Worlds" today and I have to say, it was a home run for me. Best movie I've seen in years. It's not often there comes along a movie that I want to go right back into the theater and see again that very minute. "War of the Worlds" is one of those movies.

Despite all the negative publicity around Tom Cruise, Spielberg picked him well. He carries the part beautifully as a two time loser, who is determined he won't strike out keeping his two children alive, and returning them to their mother.

The movie has terror, chills, grisly horror, and most important, the movie has heart. I'm not going to elaborate because to do so would cheat you of all the fun I experienced.

Suffice it to say if you see one film this year, make it this movie.

The movie of the year!