Fahrenheit 9/11
by Michael Moore (II)
Director: Michael Moore (II)
Average Customer Review:
Theatrical Release

US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

To anyone who truly understands what it means to be an American, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 should be seen as a triumph of patriotic freedom. Rarely has the First Amendment been exercised with such fervor and forthrightness of purpose: After subjecting himself to charges of factual errors in his gun-lobby exposé Bowling for Columbine, Moore armed himself with a platoon of reputable fact-checkers, an abundance of indisputable film and video footage, and his own ironically comedic sense of righteous indignation, with the singular intention of toppling the war-ravaged administration of President George W. Bush. It's the Bush presidency that Moore, with his provocative array of facts and figures, blames for corporate corruption, senseless death, unnecessary war, and political favoritism toward Osama Bin Laden's family and Saudi oil partners following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Moore's incendiary film earned Palme d'Or honors at Cannes and a predictable legion of detractors, but do yourself a favor: Ignore those who condemn the film without seeing it, and let the facts speak for themselves. By honoring American soldiers and the victims of 9/11 while condemning Bush's rationale for war in Iraq, Fahrenheit 9/11 may actually succeed in turning the tides of history. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (1833)

I WOULD PUT 0 STARS IF I COULD
This isn't a documentary. It is just a fat, left wing, welfare loving, Democratic but kissing idiot's "OPINIONS" about President George W. Bush. I am a Bush supporter, (that isn't to say I haven't had any disagreements with him) but even if I were a Democrat I would find this film unsettling. He mocks the commander in chief, harrasses Republican Senators, Interviews some troops over in Iraq and adds a few news clippings and calls it a documentary. And for what? It didn't change the outcome of the elections. Or did it. It could be Michael Moore's
efforts backfired on him. His film may have enraged many Republicans and Moderates and it got them to make sure they went out and voted for Bush on November 2nd. And this time the outcome was clear: BUSH DEFINATLEY WON THIS TIME. And he won with a record amount of votes. John Kerry realized this and conceded, which does give me some respect for the man by NOT being Al Gore: the sequel. I am a film maker (not documentary though) and I think it is a shame that any studio would release this film. But Bush won this time, fair and square, and most Americans, Left wing and Right wing, have accepted it this time around. Except for Jesse Jackson, a real idiot. As for this movie, regardless of your party, if you feel you must see it, fine. But be carefull what you believe, after all, he is a film maker, and they do have tricks up they're sleeves. I should know.

TRUTH...by clever editing!
I can't say it any better than columist, author, filmmaker Christopher Hitchens has already. I quote him here:

"If you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (...), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage."

Full column at http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723

Unbelievably bad....
Michael Moore thinks that America is a lunatic aggressor nation.He thinks that the "insurgents" in Iraq are the heroes of that particular war.He thinks that the terror attacks on America were entirely justified.

Now, just for fun, write a 500-word essay distinguishing between Michael Moore and Osama bin Laden -- in the thought department.Could a reasonable citizen possibly wonder whether or not Michael Moore was giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

Even more thought-provoking: the left wing of the Democratic heart took this film (and this ... person ...) to their hearts, and actually tried to make this idiotic piece of propaganda into an integral part of Campaign 2004.Have any of those people apologized yet?

Not holding my breath here... ... Read more

Asin: B00005JNEG

Spider-Man 2
by Tobey Maguire Kirsten Dunst Alfred Molina
Director: Sam Raimi
Average Customer Review:
Theatrical Release

US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

More than a few critics hailed Spider-Man 2 as "the best superhero movie ever," and there's no compelling reason to argue--thanks to a bigger budget, better special effects, and a dynamic, character-driven plot, it's a notch above Spider-Man in terms of emotional depth and rich comic-book sensibility. Ordinary People Oscar®-winner Alvin Sargent received screenplay credit, and celebrated author and comic-book expert Michael Chabon worked on the story, but it's director Sam Raimi's affinity for the material that brings Spidey 2 to vivid life. When a fusion experiment goes terribly wrong, a brilliant physicist (Alfred Molina) is turned into Spidey's newest nemesis, the deranged, mechanically tentacled "Doctor Octopus," obsessed with completing his experiment and killing Spider-Man (Tobey Maguire) in the process. Even more compelling is Peter Parker's urgent dilemma: continue his burdensome, lonely life of crime-fighting as Spider-Man, or pursue love and happiness with Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst)? Molina's outstanding as a tragic villain controlled by his own invention, and the action sequences are nothing less than breathtaking, but the real success of Spider-Man 2 is its sense of priorities. With all of Hollywood's biggest and best toys at his disposal, Raimi and his writers stay true to the Marvel mythology, honoring Spider-Man creators Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, and setting the bar impressively high for the challenge of Spider-Man 3. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (628)

What a Downer!
This film was so depressing that I couldn't wait for it to be over.Yes, it had a big budget and great special effects.But it was so melancholy and nonsensical in its storyline, that it was a burden to watch it to the end.I hope there will be no more Spiderman movies if this is the route the writers want to take.My whole family thought it was a downer.We don't want to see another.

O what a tangled Web we weave...
I have a confession to make: I hated the first Spider-Man.

I despised it, loathed it all the more for having anticipated it so much. For a big-budget superhero flick I thought it looked astonishly cheap; it was poisonously saccharine-sweet, and the spectacle of the two masked super-adversaries---Green Goblin and Spider-Man---taunting each other without being able to see their mouths---was ridiculous.

So I came into Spider-Man 2 with a mix of dread and boredom.

Faced!

I can report that Spider-Man 2 is not only a deleriously enjoyable film in its own right, but it is that rarest of sequels: the sequel that makes its predecessor better by virtue of its sheer existence.

The best thing about this Spidery successor is it feels shot like a horror flick: this is, after all, Sam Raimi, the abrasive, hyperkinetic, revolutionary young director who had conjured up the unabashedly gory and improbably funny "Evil Dead" movies. Spider-Man 2 succeeds in large part because of the camera-work, which delivers because it mimics the movements of the hero and villain , whether we're webbing through the Manhattan canyons with Spidey or lumbering up the side of a skyscraper with the brilliantly evil---albeit enslaved---Doctor "Octopus" (played to fleshy perfection by the underrated Al Molina).

Tobey McGuire has toned it down in this installment: he's more relaxed, more comfortable with the role even as his stymied superhero is becoming less comfortable with his powers. James Franco (Osborn Jr.) flexes some acting chops with his parsed, but critical role; Kirsten Dunst is amiably bland, as always; and of the wildly overracting JK Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson) the less said, the better.

But the real jewel in Spidey's crown is its villain: Spider-Man has found a worthy foe, and the flick its lodestone, in the tormented and complicated Dr. Octavius, played to perfection by Molina.Molina gives this second outting its gravity, tragedy, and (no pun intended) heft---props as well to the FX crew on the tentacles, each of which bristle with menace.

And that's another place where Spider-Man 2 shines: its judicious, effective use of CGI. For a blockbuster, SM2 made use of many traditional effects, eschewing CGI unless the scene was literally impossible to creature with stunts, sets, and props. That realism gives the film a gritty heft, a raw physicality, missing from other CGI-larded blockbusters, and it redounds to Raimi's credit.

One slight complaint and a general note to Hollywood: stop killing off a supervillains every single flick---these guys are good for at least another picture, especially Doc Ock! Besides, a lower supervillain bodycount means less money spent on brainstorming new sequel stuff, and surely that can't be bad for business.

JSG

Just Not Spiderman...
2 & ½ stars for SPIDERMAN 2.Where should I start with this disappointment?Well, there was an underlying feeling of dissatisfaction for this reviewer with the `beat down' approach to the film-that is, with the way that absolutely nothing seemed to go right for Peter Parker.While there was an expectation that things would begin to look up as the cinematic denouement approached, the grim experience that was SPIDERMAN 2 was slow to improve as the movie progressed.

There were several other things that I can quickly point out after watching the movie too:

First, was the dippy and drawn out `train scene.'For this reviewer, this is where a lot of the problems began.Aside from the villain having no reason whatsoever to even drag Spiderman into his problems (he could have very easily taken what he wanted from Peter's `friend' without this preposterous detour, though SPIDERMAN 2 would have been missing about 30% of content), after the villain taunted Spiderman to `catch the train,' it was really quite boring to watch him do things that were so absurd:you have to watch Spiderman throw webbing around, which does nothing...until he throws a little more webbing around.Bravo.But before you have to slog through twenty minutes of web-throwing, Spiderman tries to drag the train to a standstill with his foot!Spiderman isn't Superman, and he could no more stop a train by using his foot as a brake than I could.I just hate it when superheroes that we know and love do things that we very well know that they could not do, or when their powers are inconsistently displayed throughout the movie.Well, if you don't like this phenomenon, then you will really have to be patient in order to get through SPIDERMAN 2.

Second, Spiderman's identity-his SECRET identity-is revealed way too much, so much that it made this reviewer roll her eyes and just sigh several times.Spiderman stops the train, gets bodysurfedto safety by its passengers and because all of these passengers see his face (he takes off his mask sometime during this sequence...and generally way too often throughout the movie for my taste), they solemnly swear not to reveal his identity.If this sounds corny, then your blood sugar will thank me for not telling you more about this silly scene.And then this same secret identity is revealed to the friend of Peter Parker's who has got the grudge against him (for being Spiderman's friend or for killing his father, depending on how you look at it).It's really too too much.

Third, getting back to this notion about endowing heroes with abilities that they would never have...in the final action scene, Spiderman holds up a side of a building or some kind of wall-??-and then throws it like it's a feather!Okay, now this is something that I would not blink at if it was Superman or the Incredible Hulk or that rock monster guy from Fantastic Four (a name anyone?), but Spiderman?!No, he could not throw that wall anymore than Batman could. Again, too too much.

And finally, speaking of overkill, the only way the last sequence with M.J. fleeing a very important event and ending up in the last place she is expected to be would have been acceptable, is if when she prompted:`Well, say something,' the other person had said:`Wake up.You're dreaming.'Believe me, I wish I had been dreaming, but it's true:SPIDERMAN 2 didn't fulfill its great potential.They had all the makings for a great action/drama/romance, but it was only pretty okay.I guess they forgot that `to whom much is given, from much will be required.'

Wish It Had Been Better, But It Really Wasn't.
... Read more

Asin: B00005JMQU

The Passion of the Christ (Widescreen Edition)
by James Caviezel Monica Bellucci
Director: Mel Gibson
Average Customer Review:
DVD (31 August, 2004)
list price: $24.98 -- our price: $18.74
(price subject to change: see help)
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

After all the controversy and rigorous debate has subsided, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ will remain a force to be reckoned with. In the final analysis, "Gibson's Folly" is an act of personal bravery and commitment on the part of its director, who self-financed this $25-30 million production to preserve his artistic goal of creating the Passion of Christ ("Passion" in this context meaning "suffering") as a quite literal, in-your-face interpretation of the final 12 hours in the life of Jesus, scripted almost directly from the gospels (and spoken in Aramaic and Latin with a relative minimum of subtitles) and presented as a relentless, 126-minute ordeal of torture and crucifixion. For Christians and non-Christians alike, this film does not "entertain," and it's not a film that one can "like" or "dislike" in any conventional sense. (It is also emphatically not a film for children or the weak of heart.) Rather, The Passion is a cinematic experience that serves an almost singular purpose: to show the scourging and death of Jesus Christ in such horrifically graphic detail (with Gibson's own hand pounding the nails in the cross) that even non-believers may feel a twinge of sorrow and culpability in witnessing the final moments of the Son of God, played by Jim Caviezel in a performance that's not so much acting as a willful act of submission, so intense that some will weep not only for Christ, but for Caviezel's unparalleled test of endurance.

Leave it to the intelligentsia to debate the film's alleged anti-Semitic slant; if one judges what is on the screen (so gloriously served by John Debney's score and Caleb Deschanel's cinematography), there is fuel for debate but no obvious malice aforethought; the Jews under Caiaphas are just as guilty as the barbaric Romans who carry out the execution, especially after Gibson excised (from the subtitles, if not the soundtrack) the film's most controversial line of dialogue. If one accepts that Gibson's intentions are sincere, The Passion can be accepted for what it is: a grueling, straightforward (some might say unimaginative) and extremely violent depiction of the Passion, guaranteed to render devout Christians speechless while it intensifies their faith. Non-believers are likely to take a more dispassionate view, and some may resort to ridicule. But one thing remains undebatable: with The Passion of the Christ, Gibson put his money where his mouth is. You can praise or damn him all you want, but you've got to admire his chutzpah. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Features

• Color
• Closed-captioned
• Widescreen
• Dolby
• DTS Surround Sound

Reviews (1745)

Yeah well i will call 666 and see what satan has to say
Hey Martee where have you gone i hope your still laughing hard so you become sick and eventually die.Oh and Daniel relax man don`t worry about hyped up vibrator fans these type of people belong in retard school but for poor old Martee its clear theres no hope he will always be a retard carn`t you tell.

HAHAHAHA oh POOR VICE AND DANNY GIRLS
LMAO. God there moronic, retarded posts keep getting funnier each time. I have never laughed so hard at such stupidity in all my life. These girls do have a way with crap I will say that. Or should I say the same poster that likes to use 100 different id's. Hahaha not to hard to spot such mental defects as they have. These mental midgets are certainly worth a laugh. You know the type that has those INTERNET MUSCLES but are actually the biggest and most gutless cowards. They do make everyone laugh but never taken seriously. Anyway enough of the no class no brain fools. Mel Gibson created a masterpiece.His film of the last hours of Christ is true and moving. Mel you are a credit to the human race unlike the retards such as vice, dano , subconcious or whatever she calls herself on that particular day. Mel you have calss, integrity and intelligence. Unlike these fools. lmao

SATAN LEAVE THIS SITE
OH JESUS GET RID OF SATAN PROTECT MARTIN FROM THIS VILE DISGRACE OF JESUS WE NEED YOU SHOW THESE PEOPLE THE TRUTH THE WAY TO YOUR EXERLASTING LOVE AMEN.Martin help these people they need cgrist together we can solve this nonsense and help them recieve christ please brother lets unite and confront satan. ... Read more

Asin: B00028HBKM
Subjects:  1. Feature Film-drama   

AVP - Alien vs. Predator
by Sanaa Lathan Raoul Bova Lance Henriksen Ewen Bremner
Director: Paul W.S. Anderson
Average Customer Review:
Theatrical Release

US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

In delivering PG-13-rated excitement, Alien vs. Predator is an acceptably average science-fiction action thriller with some noteworthy highlights, even if it squanders its opportunity to intelligently combine two popular and R-rated franchises. Rabid fans can justifiably ask "Is that all there is?" after a decade of development hell and eager anticipation, but we're compensated by reasonably logical connections to the Alien legacy and the still-kicking Predator franchise (which hinted at AVP rivalry at the end of Predator 2); some cleverly claustrophobic sets, tense atmosphere and impressive digital effects; and a climactic AVP smackdown that's not half bad. This disposable junk should've been better, but nobody who's seen Mortal Kombat or Resident Evil should be surprised by writer-director Paul W.S. Anderson's lack of imagination. As a brisk, 90-minute exercise in generic thrills, however, Anderson's work is occasionally impressive... right up to his shameless opening for yet another sequel. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (425)

PYRAMID SCHEME
As you get older, you learn that some things are worth waiting for.

Then there's Alien Vs. Predator, a belated hybrid sequel that attempts to revive two flagging franchises. It fails. It's disheartening after two Predator and four Alien films, plus numerous comic books, it all comes down to this, a flaming bag of dog poop that smells worse every time director Paul W.S. Anderson steps on it.

More than twenty years of moon dust has settled on the two franchises. Predator booked its last vacation in 1990, while the face-huggers of Alien: Resurrection last gestated in1997. If anyone thinks Alien Vs. Predator is happenstance, look back at the final scenes of Predator 2, when Danny Glover's New York cop lays witness to a Predator trophy case. Among the souvenirs is an Alien skull. Funny joke at the time, not so funny when you realize what Anderson has done with it.

Instead of delivering a full-throttle, no-holds-barred grudge match between two of the universe's most deadly killing machines, Anderson slops up a generic monster mash completely devoid of suspense, thrills, logic, and most important, genuine horror. As a director who cut his teeth on hard-R science-fiction and horror films (Resident Evil, Event Horizon), Alien Vs. Predator feels like an abbreviated vision.

What distinguished the Alien and Predator films from their B-movie predecessors were their unrelenting creatures and vicious, sadistic violence that propelled the audience into visceral mind- trip. Aside from that kid in school who ate a bad cafeteria burrito, up until Alien no one had seen what happens when a parasitic creature bursts through your chest. The original Predator upped the ante, manufacturing new and interesting ways to dissect a human.

So why, after years of waiting with baited breath, do we get this watered-down Alien Vs. Predator, a film made and rated for 14-year-old boys who will probably find most of this insulting and silly. Why make and market a film to people who weren't even DNA when the originals were released, and who have since seen them uncut on cable or DVD? Who exactly are they protecting?

Teenagers, who always seem to find a way into R-rated movies? Investors, who believe making a PG-13 film gives them more bang for their buck? Or fans, who will undoubtedly feel betrayed and dismayed that what was once defining and cutting-edge has become nothing more than artifice? Anderson's plot has promise, but it's a promise he can't keep.

While scanning the globe for new mineral deposits, billionaire industrialist Charles Bishop Weyland (Lance Henriksen) is intrigued when his satellite uncovers a hot spot underneath Antarctica. Further investigation unveils a pyramid buried deep under the ice. After quickly assembling a crackerjack team of scientists, adventurers, and security personnel, Weyland (whose ties to the Alien franchise are well known) descends into the pyramid.

Team leader Alexa Woods (Sanaa Lathan) and chief archaeologist Sebastian De Rosa (Raoul Bava) realize that they have literally stepped back in time, when aliens taught humans how to build pyramids (presumably by watching Stargate). De Rosa can literally read the writing on the wall (what rugged, handsome archaeologist worth his Ultra-Brite smile couldn't?), and the news isn't good. They have stumbled upon a Predator training camp, where a captive Queen Alien is being forced to breed eggs and offspring as prey.

Filled with constantly changing chambers and revolving rooms, the team members become separated, forcing them to go one-one-one with their non-human hosts. Talk about having a bad day. If aliens aren't hugging your face and bursting through your chest (a process expedited for time), they're turning you into Hamburger Helper. Which would be fine if the action were on the screen and not relegated to reaction shots.

The naiveté that greeted Alien and Predator is sadly missing here. Characters do and say the dumbest things. Anderson tries to replicate the dynamic of Alien by putting a woman in charge, which feels like an act of desperation rather than an homage. Sanaa Lathan is tough, but she's no Ripley.

She's like Lara Croft without the smarmy smirk. Bava carries the lead weight of the script on his broad shoulders, the voice of reason forced to utter extremely unreasonable dialogue. The performers in the rubber alien suits are lucky. They don't have to keep a straight face.

Like the little quirky Canadian thriller The Cube, the remainder of the film finds our reluctant heroes trying to escape the maze before becoming toast. Oddly, we're rooting for the Predators.

I cant beleive it's getting a sequel.
When I saw the trailer for this, it really looked great. But when watching it you watch a bunch of humans find a place buried 100's of feet below ground and end up stuck in there as a war between the Aliens and the Predators begins. But the stupid thing is, the first half is setting up the charactors, then the next half they have been killed off before you've blinked and it's just focused on one person, one Predator and there partnership. (They may as well have given her and the Alien a love scene to put the nail in the coffin)

There was too much charactor development to just off everybody suddenly and focus on the warriors from another world. The ending was completly predicted and it revealed nothing memorable or worth remembering.

How does this crap end up with a sequel? "we screwed up the first time, where gonnah try again, we only have have half a script, lets shoot it already" (another flop in the making)

great great great
This movie is one of the best movies ever made.This has very good special affects.So if you think on buying this don't think twice just buy it. Because your going to regret all the time you miss not watching this movie. ... Read more

Asin: B00005JMZI

Resident Evil - Apocalypse
by Milla Jovovich Sienna Guillory Oded Fehr
Director: Alexander Witt
Average Customer Review:
Theatrical Release

US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

2002's popular video-game-derived hit Resident Evil didn't inspire confidence in a sequel, but Resident Evil: Apocalypse defies odds and surpasses expectations. It's a bigger, better, action-packed zombie thriller, and this time Milla Jovovich (as the first film's no-nonsense heroine) is joined by more characters from the popular Capcom video games, including Jill Valentine (played by British hottie Sienna Guillory) and Carlos Olivera (Oded Fehr, from 1999's The Mummy). They're armed and ready for a high-caliber encounter with devil dogs, mutant "Lickers," lurching zombies, and the leather-clad monster known only as Nemesis, unleashed by the nefarious Umbrella Corporation responsible for creating the cannibalistic undead horde. Having gained valuable experience as a respected second-unit director on high-profile films like Gladiator and The Bourne Identity, director Alexander Witt elevates this junky material to the level of slick, schlocky entertainment. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (236)

Apocolyptic Script Writing and Production Values
This 2004 horror/action sequel from Sony is among the first titles to be ported to the PSP UMD video format.Starring the lovely Milla Jovovich, RE:A is loosely based on the video game series from Capcom.

The Movie

Let's just be honest here: when you're dealing with a movie based on a B-genre video game title you are asking for trouble.The fact that said movie is a sequel further exacerbates the problem.Now, the first RE movie was actually amoderate success.Beautiful Milla was a likeable heroine and the plot was servicable, if full of blatant rip-offs from a host of better sci-fi/horror flicks.Still, the movie was well-paced, and had a killer opening sequence.There was a fair balance of action, horror, and science fiction throughout.

RE:Apocolypse, by contrast, is a more straight forward action film that suffers as a result of it's own failed expectations.The story basically centers around how the shadowy, uber-corporation, Umbrella, ends up pitting their two greatest genetic warriors, Alice and Nemesis (her now mutated beyond recognition old partner/lover), against each other.The whole middle of the movie is simply filler to allow a couple of characters from the game series (Jill Valentine and Carlos Olivera, played by Sienna Guillory and Oded Fehr respectively) to make an appearance and provide a plot device to segue to a possible third sequel.

Granted you can't expect too much from a movie like this, but my biggest gripe by far is the very lame guy-in-a-rubber suit fight at the end.Director Alexander Witt tries his best to hide this really really really bad attempt at a "Big Boss Battle" between Alice and Nemesis with very close-up, choppy camera work, and quick-cut edits, but it's pretty obvious that they needed a budget for digital effects that they did not end up getting.

Overall, this movie is at least half-way entertaining, especially if you're a fan of Milla as she is quite the ass-kicker.Jovovich is quoted as being a fan of the game, and it's to her credit that she takes this role seriously enough to lend it some credibility despite the tacky premise and uninspired, contrived scripting.

The Video

Pretty close to what you would find on DVD.There is some bleeding/saturation of dark scenes that you would expect from the LCD screen, but overall it's nothing that only a real videophile would get riled over.

The Sound

Dialog is soft, but the general sound field and effects are well done.For example, helicopter rotors moving across the screen have the appropriate effect on the headphones.Nice.

Special Features

There are none.

Summary

Despite it's many flaws, RE:A is really the kind of movie the PSP is going to be concentrating on for now: relatively short, action-oriented films with cheap thrills.Taken for what it is, it is more of a "guilty pleasure" than anything else.

I can't really recommend it, but being a Milla softie I enjoyed it.

Silly action with entertaining value
With the success of the original movie, Resident Evil.I find myself seeing the sequel to it, Resident Evil: Apolcalypse.With low expectations I found that this movie was silly, filled with action, and didn't have much character development nor a very good atmosphere that usually makes up a great film.With that said, the movie was still good enough to be enjoyed as an entertaining movie.With another solid acting job as the hero, Milla has convinced me that she belongs as a bad-ass super-hero.

too much mindless action
I like Milla Jovovich as a superhero.Her breakout role in "The Fifth Element" was all that was needed to sell me on her.She was fine in the first "Resident Evil", which was better than perhaps it was given credit for.But in "Resident Evil: Apocalypse", Jovovich's Alice is given something of a makeover.When we last saw Alice at the end of the first movie she had been captured by scientists from the evil Umbrella Corporation and was subject to some tests and experiments.At the end of the movie we saw Alice walking alone on a street that was desolate and ruined, as if there were some sort of war or battle.It is at this point that "Resident Evil: Apocalypse" begins.

Raccoon City is the victim of the T-Virus from the Umbrella Corporation.This virus turns ordinary people into flesh eating zombies (is there another kind?), and like any good zombie virus, it is highly contagious.Umbrella Corporation apparently has the power to lock down the city and prevent anyone from leaving, but there are still some citizens left alive, including "disgraced" police officer Jill Valentine (Sienna Guillory).Jill, and another officer attempt to hide before leaving the city and while being confronted by some nasty zombie creatures they meet Alice.During that whole period where she was a captive and the victim of experiments, Alice has apparently picked up some sort of upgrade to her natural biology because she kicks serious butt here.She fights like a super soldier or super hero, more like "The Fifth Element's" Leeloo than anyone else.

Besides the hordes of zombies, there is also a new super zombie looking creature called Nemesis which is stalking the city.Exactly what Nemesis is and where it came from is a little bit of a mystery, though a little thinking about the clues given will solve the riddle fairly quickly.

This is a nothing special action/zombie movie.Fans of the first "Resident Evil" may be disappointed.I know that despite myself, I did enjoy the first movie.There was more character interaction and character development, but this movie just had hordes of zombies and a bit too much action.And while I like Jovivich as a superhero, this didn't seem to be a role that really needed to such an incredibly strong superhero.I guess I didn't belive it.The door was left open for a third movie, and perhaps there will be one, but until that point there is no real reason to watch "Resident Evil: Apocalypse".There are far better movies out there.

Grade: C

-Joe Sherry ... Read more

Asin: B00005JN3O

Kill Bill, Volume 2
by Uma Thurman David Carradine Michael Madsen Daryl Hannah
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Average Customer Review:
DVD (10 August, 2004)
list price: $19.99 -- our price: $14.99
(price subject to change: see help)
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

"The Bride" (Uma Thurman) gets her satisfaction--and so do we--in Quentin Tarantino's "roaring rampage of revenge," Kill Bill, Vol. 2. Where Vol. 1 was a hyper-kinetic tribute to the Asian chop-socky grindhouse flicks that have been thoroughly cross-referenced in Tarantino's film-loving brain, Vol. 2--not a sequel, but Part Two of a breathtakingly cinematic epic--is Tarantino's contemporary martial-arts Western, fueled by iconic images, music, and themes lifted from any source that Tarantino holds dear, from the action-packed cheapies of William Witney (one of several filmmakers Tarantino gratefully honors in the closing credits) to the spaghetti epics of Sergio Leone. Tarantino doesn't copy so much as elevate the genres he loves, and the entirety of Kill Bill is clearly the product of a singular artistic vision, even as it careens from one influence to another. Violence erupts with dynamic impact, but unlike Vol. 1, this slower grand finale revels in Tarantino's trademark dialogue and loopy longueurs, reviving the career of David Carradine (who plays Bill for what he is: a snake charmer), and giving Thurman's Bride an outlet for maternal love and well-earned happiness. Has any actress endured so much for the sake of a unique collaboration? As the credits remind us, "The Bride" was jointly created by "Q&U," and she's become an unforgettable heroine in a pair of delirious movie-movies (Vol. 3 awaits, some 15 years hence) that Tarantino fans will study and love for decades to come. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Features

• Color
• Closed-captioned
• Widescreen
• Dolby

Reviews (512)

Yeah. Kill him, already.

The same things that irritated me about Vol. 1 are all here, plus a certain dragginess of pace.

Why am I not impressed? Because I've seen all the movies Tarantino is aping, and they are better movies, and watching this only made me wish I was watching them.

I have the same weakness for European and Asian "trash" movies - but I can't understand why anyone would want to recreate them. This sort of homage shows a lack of creativity. What made the movies that are endlessly referred to here interesting is their inventiveness - usually within very limited means. Directors like Bava and Fukasaku and Misumi and Lam and even Leone were great because they managed to create great cinema and develop a personal style out of practically nothing. Tarantino has a blank check and all of the resources in Hollywood behind him, and the best he can do is copy these others? Okay, maybe most of you haven't seen this stuff before. But to me this is just one long retread of other people's stuff. There's a whole universe of buried cool movies out there. If you like this, why do you have to wait for Hollywood and someone like Tarantino? You can do better.

I recognize that Tarantino has some talent - but he has yet to break out of his copycat mode, and it's getting very old. Why doesn't he try to make a movie with something he HASN'T seen before? He's obviously seen plenty of Mario Bava's pictures, so why hasn't he learned resourcefulness? Why hasn't he figured out from the Italians that, even when you're rehashing a formula that's been beaten to death, it's that little something different that turns it into cinema? As more of these sources become available and grow in reputation, I don't expect "Kill Bill" to age very well. And I've stopped expecting Tarantino to mature as an artist. Maybe there really isn't anything there but an ability to produce snappy rip-offs.

A few years back a friend of mine was raving about "Pulp Fiction." Then we watched Kubrick's "The Killing" together, after which he turned to me and said, "Wow, 'Pulp Fiction' doesn't seem all that original anymore!"

Indeed not.

I'm throwing down the gauntlet, Tarantino. Do something different, or scoot your fanboy hiney out of town. The kids may suck it up, but don't expect to see me at the multiplex the next time you're passing off your tired, stale leftovers as the latest in cool. I've seen all those same movies - so you can save your shoddy, overproduced knockoffs for somebody who doesn't know any better.

Good finish to a great movie.
I saw Kill Bill Vols. 1 and 2 in one sitting.Loose ends are tied up.We get to see some awesome fight scenes (including one especially cool scene in a trailer), and we get some funny lines to make up for the first one's lack of dialogue.Bill, although maybe a little old for The Bride, shows a lot of charisma, and we are a little disappointed when our hero carries out her plan.

My only complaint is that we shouldn't have heard the Bride's name.It would be like learning what's in the suitcase in Pulp Fiction.It's so much better when we don't know.

In the second volume, we continue our hero on her non-linear (revenge is never a straight line) path towards Bill, and we get introduced to Pai Mei (means "white eyebrow" I think), who continues to crack me up.

Although there isn't as much slicing, chopping, and slashing involved as in the first movie, this movie makes up for it with perfectly chosen musical selections and a great sense of atmosphere.The people who made this movie pay attention to what it looks like and they know when they're being ridiculous (Bill introduces the "five point palm exploding heart technique", which, "simply put, is the deadliest movie in all of martial arts").Tarantino does not disappoint.

I can't say much about this movie that hasn't already been said.There's a lot of fighting, Tarantino knows what he's doing, and this movie is awesome.

Kill Bill Volume 2
Yes! Volume 2 ties the Kill Bill series together so nicely. It fulfills the classic Tarantino dialogues and storylines. But it also has amazing fighting scenes reflective from the crazy first volume. The fight between Elle Driver and The Bride is crazy and is the best thing ever. The movie becomes surprisingly very touching near the end and the soundtrack goes SO well with it (take a listen to those songs, by the way). Some people found it too slow (volume 2) but if you watch the first and the second together, which is what was meant to happen, it works perfectly. Amazing movie. Great action. Great story. Great acting and characters. So memorable. ... Read more

Asin: B00005JMUA
Subjects:  1. Feature Film-action/Adventure   

The Chronicles of Riddick
by Vin Diesel Colm Feore Judi Dench
Director: David Twohy
Average Customer Review:
Theatrical Release

US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

Bigger isn't always better, but for anyone who enjoyed Pitch Black, a nominal sequel like The Chronicles of Riddick should prove adequately entertaining. Writer-director David Twohy returns with expansive sets, detailed costumes, an army of CGI effects artists, and the star he helped launch--Vin Diesel--bearing his franchise burden quite nicely as he reprises his title role. The Furian renegade Riddick has another bounty on his head, but when he escapes from his mercenary captors, he's plunged into an epic-scale war waged by the Necromongers. A fascist master race led by Lord Marshal (Colm Feore), they're determined to conquer all enemies in their quest for the Underverse, the appeal of which is largely unexplained (since Twohy is presumably reserving details for subsequent "chronicles"). With tissue-thin plotting, scant character development, and skimpy roles that waste the talents of Thandie Newton (as a Necromonger conspirator) and Judi Dench (as a wispy "Elemental" priestess), Twohy's back in the B-movie territory he started in (with The Arrival), brought to vivid life on a vast digital landscape with the conceptual allure of a lavish graphic novel. But does Riddick have leadership skills on his resumé? To get an answer to that question, sci-fi fans will welcome another sequel. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (251)

Complex & Quality Story - Don't Believe the Critics
I am a discriminating Sci-Fi fan, both literature and film, and I definitely do not agree with what professional critics had to say about this movie.I'm glad I didn't pay attention to the reviews and watched it for myself.

The story includes Dune-like intricacies but without the extended, drawn-out politics to slow the story.It is fast paced and entertaining along with the important issues and messages.The art in this film is breathtaking including the rocky fins and caves of the ice planet, the Necromonger ship; the sparkling seas, sands, and architecture of Helion Prime; and the brutal beauty of the jagged, glassy, and blistering Crematoria.The DVD version really showcases the artistic elements of this movie.

The film has a Conan flavor with the non-traditional and non-innocent hero doing the right thing instead of the easy thing, and getting involved though he doesn't have to.The superhero qualities of the Riddick character are also a nice addition to the story.The combination of weaponry is interesting, unique craftsmanship blades mixed with Sci-Fi technology weapons.However, the violence in this film is very tasteful, similar to the Zatoichi movies, where our hero is able to kill without a lot of blood and gore.There is also a similarity to Kurosawa stories as well, specifically Yojimbo and Sanjuro regarding the flawed hero and the motives of the characters.

The acting is first-rate.All of the actors did a fine job, but Vin Diesel's performance is truly exceptional.I had no idea he was so incredibly talented.(I always thought he was mainly an "eye candy" actor.Not so.)He is amazingly expressive throughout the movie without the use of his eyes at all.(They are surgically enhanced with no pupils and covered with goggles part of the time.)And his voice, diction, and inflection are obviously a product of natural talent, serious training, and careful attention to his craft.I now have a new appreciation for the quality of his work.

I would rank this film right up there with some of the greatest Sci-Fi movies of all time including Metropolis, Blade Runner, and Forbidden Planet; and the story itself merits comparison to classic Sci-Fi books such as the Robot novels, Dune, The Chronicles of Amber, and the Foundation series.I recommend people watch this film and judge its merits for themselves.I don't think the critics of this movie watched it very carefully.

J.H. Sweet, author of The Fairy Chronicles

Riddick Should Not Have Been Chronicled
You should be able to tell from the premise this was a bad film. What do you get when you make a sequel to a bad science fiction film that no one saw? A bad sequel.

The plot: A sequel to `Pitch Black', Riddick (Vin Diesel) is on a futuristic alien planet, of which we learn NOTHING about. This planet is taken over by a computer generated alien race who reshape it to look like an HR Giger painting and act like the characters in `Dune'. Hero Riddick brings down these conquerors via hand-to-hand combat in fight sequences more boring than `Steel Magnolias'.

`Chronicles of Riddick' did seem to have many die hard sci-fi supporters. As a sci-fi fan myself, I was curious. But `Chronicles of Riddick' fails for the exact same reason `Pitch Black' failed. The characters are flat and the plot is pointless and downright silly. We learn nothing about who these characters are so we care NOTHING about what happens to them the whole story is just so silly; there is no real conflict. We drift from scene to scene with no sense of what is taking place or what Riddick's mission is.

This film was obviously backed only due to Vin Diesel's rise to fame. By this logic we can make good sequels to bad movies that featured big stars before they were famous. So since `North' stared Elijah Wood before he was famous, `North II' should also be good.

Sci-fi fans, don't be fooled, this whole film is utterly a waste of time, just like `Pitch Black'.

An Entertaining & Action-Packed Dark Sci-Fi Adventure
In 2000, writer/director David Twohy introduced the world to his dark hero character named Richard B. Riddick (Vin Diesel) in the sci-fi/film noir film entitled "Pitch Black".Four years later, he wrote/directed the sequel that was entitled "The Chronicles of Riddick".In this action-packed film noir sequel, Riddick, after having been on the run for five years, has been captured by a group of bounty hunters lead by a man named Toombs (Nick Chinlund).While en route to the planet Helion Prime (where the bounty on Riddick was initiated), Riddick escapes and takes over Toombs ship.He lands on Helion Prime and goes in search for Abu 'Imam' al-Walid (Keith David, a returning character/actor from "Pitch Black").Unfortunately, Helion Prime has also become the latest target of conquest for a group called the Necromongers that are essentially the living-dead (not vampires though).The Necromonger attack fleet wreaks havoc upon the population of Helion Prime, whose survivors are then given the "opportunity" to become Necromongers themselves by their leader known only as Lord Marshal (Colm Feore).Many refuse this "offer", including Riddick who is also present.Riddick is taken by the Necromongers for further questioning at the request of a woman named Dame Vaako (Thandie Newton), who is the wife to a leading Necromonger general named Vaako (Karl Urban).Using Necromongers conditioned to be powerful mind-readers, the Necromongers quickly discover that Riddick is a Furian, which is a race that Lord Marshal fears most.Though Riddick is able to escape from the Necromongers, he is again captured by Toombs and his latest crew who decide to take him to an extremely inhospitable penal planet called Crematoria.It is there that Riddick comes across the prisoner Kyra (Alexa Davalos), but Lord Marshal is determined to recapture Riddick, so he sends Vaako and a group of Necromonger soldiers in pursuit from Helion Prime.

With a combination of elaborate sets, CGI special effects, dark cinematography and good costuming, "The Chronicles of Riddick" is visually very entertaining.The plot is interesting and the dialog is fair; but the editing was not as good as it could have been. Overall, though, it's an entertaining and interesting film that I rate with 4 out of 5 stars.Other notable characters include the elemental human Aereon (Judi Dench), the Necromonger Purifier (Linus Roache), The Guv of the Crematoria prison (Yorick van Wageningen), Lajjun (Kimberly Hawthorne), Ziza (Alexis Llewellyn) and Eve Logan (Christina Cox). ... Read more

Asin: B00005JMY4

Uncovered - The Whole Truth About the Iraq War
by Robert Baer David Albright John Dean (III)
Director: Robert Greenwald
Average Customer Review:
DVD (30 March, 2004)
list price: $9.95 -- our price: $9.95
(price subject to change: see help)
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Features

• Color
• Closed-captioned

Reviews (106)

A let down
I bought this based on several positive reviews, but I must agree with the earlier comments of one buyer who said the format is too busy, as they trot expert after expert across the screen, without time for the information to sink in.There was no overriding theme to tie everything together, just more than you ever wanted to know about WMD and probably already knew from other sources.

Just a reminder.
When you call someone an extremist left wing nutcase or call them an America hating liberal - you are succumbing to Mcarthyism. This mania and swelling patriotism you feel is a national phenomena defined and practiced most eloquently by Chairman Mao. Few people will have any idea what I mean.

Noam Chomsky is a brilliant governement watchdog. He points out discrepanices and hypocracies in every administration.
By no means has he been kind to Clinton - or Carter.
Chomsky has been a PACIFIST and pro-labor supporter since the 60's.

Dismissing this movie as trite propaganda is dismissing the statements and reputations of the dignified soldiers and statesmen that were interviewed.

It is a point of view.
What i didn't like about the film is it assumes the general public did not know their information was being sugar coated, refined, and spun before being delivered across mass market channels.
Americans who have watched the middle east drama unfold over the last 20 years knew eventually we would have to put up or shut up. We have been bouncing mujadeens against wassabes against soviets etc since the iran hostage affair (at least).
America has had an Iraqi presence for 30 years.
A presence that multiplied exponentially in 92.
If we were going to put boots on the ground anywhere with minimal American losses, of course it would be Iraq. It was Iraq or nothing. It was invade Iraq or just let 9/11 slide.
No war - No profit - No positive side to 9/11.
In many minds the war in Iraq is the positive side of 9/11.

Anyway this movie just points out the obvious.
Yes the press corp wears kid gloves.
Yes we elect officials and after they are elected they are not accountable to the public. Yes we know that chomsky.
Tell us something new!

I don't think this movie ever specifically places judgment about going into Iraq. It's biggest thrust is bit of theatre used to acclamate the country to the concept.
And not the entire country either...Only those who strictly rely on Network programming for their news sources.

Iraq is just another day at the office for the pentagon.
This particular regime change has just gotten more publicity because the White House decided it should.

Gives a thorough cover of the lies from G. Bush
You know, there is nothing like reading junk oppposing junk or the truth about something written by honest people.

This is not a neo-liberal look at the war in Iraq but an honest look at what is possible about the "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Why on Earth would our president lie abour these "Weapons"?

Factually, I think George Bush is just fabricating to start this war either to further his father's aganda(his pa was our "leader" remember?[wink]). It could be possible that Saddam was wanting to murder Daddy George Bush. Perhaps his son wanted to seek revenge on his father would-be assasin. Who knows? Well too late the War rages on and will for another decade, or better. ... Read more

Asin: B0001IXT36
Sales Rank: 709
Subjects:  1. Documentary   

Catwoman
by Halle Berry Benjamin Bratt Sharon Stone
Director: Pitof
Average Customer Review:
Theatrical Release

US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

For a certain segment of the population, the vision of Halle Berry in shredded skin-tight leather is reason enough to see Catwoman. As Patience Philips, Berry plays a mousy graphic designer for a cosmetics company who learns a little too much about her employer's new beauty cream and gets flushed down a waste-disposal pipe. A supernatural cat brings Patience back to life and brings up a new persona from the depths of her psyche; soon she's bounding around fire escapes, cracking a whip, and getting framed for a couple of murders by a villainous ex-supermodel (Sharon Stone, Total Recall, Basic Instinct). If you're hoping for a Catwoman with bite, this is not your movie--this Catwoman rescues children from malfunctioning ferris wheels and apologizes for stealing jewels. The movie's script and visual style are as fresh as used kitty litter. Also featuring Benjamin Bratt (Miss Congeniality), and Frances Conroy (Six Feet Under). --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (271)

Catwoman Rocked !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG!!!!!!! I'm so sick of critics for bringing down this movie, This movie had a great story line and their were many jokes and they were all funny.The only bad thing about this movie is when she would jump from building to building and when she fought the thief's in the jewelry store it did look fake and you could tell it was CGI, but how can you make that kind of fighting look real? What i'm tring to say is look at Spider-Man 2 most of that movie was CGI but nobody cared but I did because every male superhero movie like Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man critics loved and then when Catwoman came out they hated this movie even though it was based off a Spider-Man charcter. All I know is that I looked beyond the CGI in Catwoman and I found out that I love this movie

Now why not take a crazy chance and buy this AWESOME MOVIE!!!!!
Trust me on this one.

Meow Mix
"Catwoman" was not nearly as bad as I thought it to be.Considering it won the worst film of the year award from various sources, one can only expect "the worst".The only thing that saves "Catwoman" from being a total loss is the "camp" value and the "so bad it's good" quality that made many a film famous including "Showgirls".Halle Barry has never been an A List actress so you can't really expect much from her, but she does know how to gage her characters to a degree where it's effective but not spectacular.Sharon Stone enters to add a strange chemistry with Miss Halle and oh NO!, that is when the movie gets really funky and oh so.... CAMPY!! (the word d'jour).A most meomrable line from the movie that gives this film it's campy kick goes something like "It's OVER. No......It's over......TIME!!!!!!!. Yeah, you tell em girrl!Hey, it's better than Avant garde BS like "Elecktra".

"Catwoman" leaves a painful mark
For one hour and 44 minutes, even Halle Berry's exotic beauty cannot salvage the credibility of "Catwoman," a comic book-cum-box office joke. The movie was released July 23, 2004, and by some miracle of God grossed $16,728,411 at the weekend box office, almost $2 million more than the sensational "Spider-Man 2."

Berry's leather cat-suit seems a bit much (or little), especially the way over-the-top mask, which would hardly keep her identity a secret to Benjamin Bratt's character Tom Lone, the detective she's dating as Patience Phillips and who she continually bumps into as Catwoman. Indeed, Berry is more likeable as the apologetic, forgettable advertising artist Patience Phillips.

Added to the mix is the awkward subplot with Frances Conroy as Ophelia Powers, a former college professor-turned-Catwoman expert. Her house is overrun with cats, including the extraordinary Midnight, an Egyptian Mau, which supposedly is a cat with supernatural powers. To tell the truth, the sight of the adorable, cuddly Midnight almost makes the $5 paid for a student ticket worthwhile. Almost.

In short, this film is a laugh and a half, but was obviously not meant that way. I am thoroughly disappointed that two such credible stars as Halle Berry ("Swordfish," "Monster's Ball") and Benjamin Bratt ("Traffic," "Miss Congeniality") would sacrifice their dignity by associating themselves with such a production.

Furthermore, Miss Berry already has a comic book identity. Was "X-Men" and "X-2"'s weather-manipulating, ivory-haired Storm persona simply too credible?

My Rating: One star (out of however many you want: five, ten, five hundred)
Rated: PG-13, for action violence and some sensuality ... Read more

Asin: B00005JN2L

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2-Disc Widescreen Edition)
by Daniel Radcliffe Rupert Grint Emma Watson (II)
Director: Alfonso Cuarón
Average Customer Review:
DVD (07 June, 2005)
list price: $19.97 -- our price: $12.98
(price subject to change: see help)
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

Some movie-loving wizards must have cast a magic spell on Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, because it's another grand slam for the Harry Potter franchise. Demonstrating remarkable versatility after the arthouse success of Y Tu Mamá También, director Alfonso Cuarón proves a perfect choice to guide Harry, Hermione, and Ron into treacherous puberty as the now 13-year-old students at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry face a new and daunting challenge: Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) has escaped from Azkaban prison, and for reasons yet unknown (unless, of course, you've read J.K. Rowling's book, considered by many to be the best in the series), he's after Harry in a bid for revenge. This dark and dangerous mystery drives the action while Harry (the fast-growing Daniel Radcliffe) and his third-year Hogwarts classmates discover the flying hippogriff Buckbeak (a marvelous CGI creature), the benevolent but enigmatic Professor Lupin (David Thewlis), horrifying black-robed Dementors, sneaky Peter Pettigrew (Timothy Spall), and the wonderful advantage of having a Time-Turner just when you need one. The familiar Hogwarts staff returns in fine form (including the delightful Michael Gambon, replacing the late Richard Harris as Dumbledore, and Emma Thompson as the goggle-eyed Sybil Trelawney), and even Julie Christie joins this prestigious production for a brief but welcome cameo. Technically dazzling, fast-paced, and chock-full of Rowling's boundless imagination (loyally adapted by ace screenwriter Steve Kloves), The Prisoner of Azkaban is a Potter-movie classic. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Features

• Color
• Closed-captioned
• Widescreen
• Dolby

Reviews (1091)

Dedicated fans of the BOOKS should turn away
It always annoys me when someone says they are a 'Harry Potter fan' but have never read the books. Why, you ask? For one, the books are what started the craze, and two, the movies are a complete injustice.

If you are a dedicated fan to the books, you know what I mean. The movies are horrible in comparison, and only the first movie can dare show it's face on my TV screen. This third movie, however, may be the worst of the three, and I tremble in my boots to think on how badly the forth book will be mutilated by the movies.

So, Harry Potter BOOK fans, here's why this new movie is so bad. Everything that is enjoyable about the book, Harry getting his broom, the Quittich Cup, the House Cup, Sirius Black, and especially Professor Lupin are extremely poorly done. The last quittich match, where Griffindor wins, is nonexistant. So is the House Cup. Sirius Balck is mediocre. Professor Lupin--- does he look poor and tattered and tired? I think not!

The characters never seem to wear their uniforms. They dress like "muggles' 24/7. Hermione is just plain dorky, and the dialogue sucks. Rons rather boring, and Harry is pathetically portrayed. For heaven's sake, he has to tell Professor Lupin all about what he imagines for his 'happy thought' against the Dementors.

So, more about what's so horrible? Blame it on the new director. Nothing looks the same. Does Hogwarts change in between the second and third book? NO, so it shouldn't between movies. Hagrids' hut is different, the grounds different, the lake different, the Whomping Willow different (and about the Willow, the werewolf and that entire scene is grotesque). Wise, old Dumbledore looks like a poor old man, his beard all skimpy and his clothes very un-Dumbledore like: they look like the clothes Lupin should have worn.

The bismal ending mad me want to puke. I can't believe I wasted money seeing it in theatres, and its defintely not worth buying on DVD or Video. Unless of course, you've never read the books, but even then, this third movie does injustice to the first two movies. Take my word for it.

Third Chapter in the Harry Potter Saga
The Prisoner of Azkaban is the continuing story of Harry Potter and his friends at Hogwart's School of Witchcraft and Wizardy.The films recreate the books by J.K. Rowling.In this film, Harry is being pursued by murderous Sirius Black, who has escaped from Azkaban, the terrifying prison for wizards.He is also having premonitions of a legendary black dog called "the Grim," which brings death to all who see it.Hogwart's is being guarded by menacing creatures called Dementors, black spectres who are prison guards at Azkaban.

This film has a new director, Spanish director Alonzo Cuaron, who took over from Chris Columbus.Columbus remains involved in the Potter movies as a producer.Cuaron's style is very different from Columbus.For example, the trio of Ron, Hermione, and Harry are rarely seen in their Hogwart's uniforms, but mostly in street clothes.Personally, I preferred Columbus' directing.The film also has a new Albus Dumbledore, after the passing of Richard Harris.The new Dumbledore, Michael Gambon, does an excellent job and is virtually indestinguishable from Harris' Dumbledore, which adds seamless continuity.

A new teacher for the Defense of the Dark Arts is one of the best characters in this movie and indeed in the series.Professor Lupin (David Thewlis) is a kindly father figure to Harry, helping Harry overcome his paralyzing fear of the Dementors.But Lupin has a terrible secret.

There is a werewolf in this movie.I must say I think this werewolf is the most authentic ones ever depicted on screen.A werewolf is a wretched creature doomed to a life of violence and painful transformations.Unlike the werewolf with the twelve-pack and glorious mane in Van Helsing, the werewolf in "Prisoner" is truly terrifying.

The second DVD is packed with extras that take almost as long as the movie to enjoy.There is a "Marauder's Map" that features different areas such as Hogsmeade, the Great Hall, Defense for the Dark Arts, etc.There are two games, "Catch Scabbers" and "Sir Cadugan's Quest."I could not figure out how to play the Scabber's game with just a PC keyboard.There is a conversation between Cuaron and Rowling, which shows a lot of the making of the film.

Alan Rickman continues to do a superb job as Professor Severus Snape.Snape is one of my favorite characters, and gets a fair amount of screentime here.

"Not good...Brilliant!"
Though many accuse Alfonso Cuaron of "royally screwing" this film up, I for one agree with JK Rowling: It is my personal favorite of the three films thus far. While Cuaron does make several changes to the story, none of them harm it in the least. In fact, Rowling commented in one interview that she wished that she had invented the shrunken heads first! That aside, the actors continue to amaze, especially the trio (Harry, Ron, and Hermione). They are maturing with each film, and it is apparent. This film is much darker, so it would be wise for parents to see it first, but for everyone over the age of 12 it is an excellent and exciting ride. Mischief Managed! ... Read more

Asin: B00005JMAH
Subjects:  1. Feature Film Family   

Outfoxed - Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism
Director: Robert Greenwald
Average Customer Review:
DVD (13 July, 2004)
list price: $9.95 -- our price: $9.95
(price subject to change: see help)
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism uses the inflammatorytactics of the Fox News Channel to demonstrate the conservative biasthat's handed down by Fox's owner, media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Thedocumentary gathers interviews from media watchdogs and former Foxemployees (including a former anchor, Jon Du Pre, who describes his flailing efforts to create a celebration for Reagan's birthday when the one he was sent to cover never materialized), but their overwhelming condemnation of Fox's skewed newspractices isn't half as effective as footage taken directly from Foxitself--an appalling montage of pundit Bill O'Reilly telling guests toshut up; repeated efforts to paint Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry as weakand waffling, while President Bush is captured in respectful, reverentimages; and management memos dictating language, subject matter, and pointof view. Outfoxed is unlikely to persuade Fox News fans to changetheir views, but it may spur outraged liberals to take action. --BretFetzer ... Read more

Features

• Color

Reviews (339)

An Ode to Intelligence
A European joke poses the question: "What do you call an intelligent person in America?" to which the answer is, "A tourist." If there are really people in the USA who watch the tripe that Fox churns out and seriously take on board all its backward fascist war-mongering, homophobia and Jesus club Bushie propaganda, then there is indeed cause for alarm. Presumably, people with basic educational backgrounds would be in possession of the critical insight to see far beyond Fox's joke-like existence, would they not? Cleary not. This documentary, posed as it is from it's own ideological position (we know, of course, that there is no outside to ideology, just as there is no "truth" or "God"), nevertheless succeeds in exposing much of the darkness at the heart of the Murdoch empire and its incestuous fornication with the American Empire. It should be watched by anyone who underestimates the power of the corporate media in shaping the outcomes of political processes. In this film lies a partial answer to the question posed in the Daily Mirror the day after Georgie's re-election: "How could 59,054, 087 people be so dumb?" It might well have to do with the fact that a vast number of them watch Fox News.

It can't be true...can it?
During the last election, when speaking out against the dichotomizing of conservative (i.e. patriotic, God-fearing, right) vs. liberal (i.e. a traitor, heretic and radical), I was looked at like I was a nut.When pointing out America's role in the rise in terrorism, I was branded a liberal (as if that's a bad thing).All of these counter views have been effectively squashed by big media.These dissenting views are unwelcome and the media has effectively swayed a large portion of our population to believe this.

So of course I was beginning to think it was me and that I was alone on this, that all liberals are required to put on the uniform of bad hair and bad clothes so we can be set apart, branded and quarantined.

Thank God (yes, God) for this video.Sure it's one-sided.So what?It makes no bones about its intentions.And it pulls out all the stops.That's what is necessary to awaken us from our desensitized slumber, taking in what we are fed by most news outlets.We can no longer just accept what's given; we must hunt out what is really happening.And so, this video.Fox 'News' is exposed for what it is - an adjunct of the GOP.

Former Fox associates being interviewed with snippets of Fox talking heads corroborating their statements (Sean Hannity's comments that we are 'X number of days from Bush being re-elected' should make your hair stand up on end) make up the bulk of the documentary.

Bill O'Reilly is taken to task.Yes, we get to see an update on the Jeremy Glick's appearance on his show.For those who may not remember, Glick was the young man whose father had been killed in the 9.11 attacks, who signed an anti-war petition.O'Reilly had claimed that no one who had lost family in the attacks would dare do such a thing.Mr. Glick did.Fox got him on the show.O'Reilly nearly accosted the young man.Fair and balanced my a**.

It's about time someone exposed this stuff.Again, the video is not claiming to be 'fair and balanced'.It merely takes Fox's outrageous claims of being fair and balanced to town, revealing that this is nothing but advertising, as if by stating it it makes it so.

The video is segmented into various sections (e.g. Election Day coverage, etc.) and is a whirlwind of editing prowess, composed of soundbytes - fitting, in my opinion, considering that the 'world update' on most news channels comprises about three minutes, just a bit longer than the feel-good story they tack on at the end.

Though a bit tedious - we get the point very early - this is an eye-opener.You'll laugh or you'll cry, or even through things at your television, but it's important to watch this.You are being lied to.

Using amateur propaganda to debunk professional propaganda?
I gave this documentary two stars because the Bill O'Reilly "shut up" montage made me laugh out loud.That may be worth the price of this DVD, as long as you buy it used for about five bucks and then sell it used for about five bucks.

Other than that, I was left unconvinced that there's anything all that wrong with Fox News, or at least that there's anything more wrong with Fox News than with any other news network.Now for some particulars:

First, why is "corporate control" of a news network suddenly so bad?I remember when the "big three" were independent corporations, and now ABC is owned by Disney, and NBC is owned by General Electric, right?Oh, and there's MS(Microsoft)NBC.Isn't Microsoft a corporation?

Second, the editing made the heads of interviewees jerk around almost like that old "Max Headroom" character of the 1980's.I felt like the tapes of the interviews had been extensively rearranged for propaganda purposes.It also gave me the impression that the people behind this documentary didn't know how to do their jobs very well.

Third, I'm really not impressed by a voice telling me bad things about Fox while I'm staring at a microphone, a recorder, and volume meters bouncing up and down.Anybody could phony up something like this.

Fourth, the technique of taking quotes out of Fox memos, highlighting the first and last sentences, and greying and fading out the middle before I even had a chance to read the entire quote seemed like blatent in-your-face twisting of facts.I suppose I could have hit pause and carefully analyzed those quotes anyway, but by then I was so let down by the amateurishness of this production that I didn't really care.

Fifth, what totally discredited this entire documentary is what seemed to be a condemnation of Fox simply for reporting good things our military people are doing for the people of Iraq.The not-so-subtle implication is that any "smart" and "enlightened" person knows that there is absolutely no way our military could possibly be doing good anywhere in Iraq.Thus, showing our military doing good is bad journalism and that's all there is to it.

Finally, I watched this after Dan Rather "memogate" fiasco went public.That made the entire premise of this documentary seem dated and wrong.

I'm not convinced that Fox News is as "fair and balanced" as they would want me to believe, but I am convinced that this "documentary" is little more than red meat for the Howard Dean segment of the Democratic Party; meat that is already spoiled and rotten.


... Read more

Asin: B0002HDXTQ
Subjects:  1. Documentary   

Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind (Widescreen Edition)
by Jim Carrey Kate Winslet Tom Wilkinson
Director: Michel Gondry
Average Customer Review:
DVD (08 February, 2005)
list price: $19.98 -- our price: $14.99
(price subject to change: see help)
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

Screenwriters rarely develop a distinctive voice that can be recognized from movie to movie, but the ornate imagination of Charlie Kaufman (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation) has made him a unique and much-needed cinematic presence. In Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, a guy decides to have the memories of his ex-girlfriend erased after she's had him erased from her own memory--but midway through the procedure, he changes his mind and struggles to hang on to their experiences together. In other hands, the premise of memory-erasing would become a trashy science-fiction thriller; Kaufman, along with director Michel Gondry, spins this idea into a funny, sad, structurally complex, and simply enthralling love story that juggles morality, identity, and heartbreak with confident skill. The entire cast--Jim Carrey, Kate Winslet, Kirsten Dunst, Elijah Wood, Mark Ruffalo, Tom Wilkinson, and more--give superb performances, carefully pitched so that cleverness never trumps feeling. A great movie. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Features

• Widescreen
• Color
• Dolby
• DTS Surround Sound

Reviews (467)

Forget and Forgive?
A great direction by Michel Gondry of Charlie Kaufmann's screenplay on the role of memory in relationships and heartache.A great film with creative cinematography and decent acting by Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet.

The plot line is too convoluted to explain in this review and to do so would spoil the story.The story is however quite creative and explores some rather complex psychological/philosophical premises as to the function of memory and relationships.Is the memory of a departed lover merely a nuisance to one's state of mind or is it a reminder about what our subconscious minds feel is best for us?Can we truly erase memories or do they stay with us one way or another no matter what we do.These are some of the themes the film seems to touch upon in its plot.

This is an interesting film typical of Kaufmann's imagination found in other screenplays by him such as 'Being John Malkovich' and 'Adaptation.'This is a fun film to watch.

A Sleeper (Snore)
A sleeper in the sense that it made me doze off!!!

What a waste of time. I only finished watching it because my son was watching it with me and he actually liked it!

I thought it was pretentious, incoherent, and plodding. The so-called plot was ludicrous and contrived. It was way too strange for this viewer.

I have taken to calling this movie "Eternally Mindless", which would seem to be a better title.

Skip this stinker!

bland execution of old concept
What would it be like to have one's memories erased?Hasn't this concept been beaten to death by at least a dozen films in recent years?This flick is dull, dark, and often stupid (see Kirsten Dunst's role for illustration).Carrey's talents are not suited for a serious movie, and I kept expecting him to just start making those silly faces that propelled him to stardom.He did reach a new level in his abilities to annoy the heck out of me.
Kate Winslet is the only saving grace here.How does she manage to make something out of this largely thankless role is a mystery.The point is that she does -- she's very convincing and interesting to watch.Therefore, I gave it 2 stars. ... Read more

Asin: B00005JMJG
Subjects:  1. Feature Film-comedy   

Hellboy (Two-Disc Special Edition)
by Ron Perlman Selma Blair Doug Jones
Director: Guillermo del Toro
Average Customer Review:
DVD (01 February, 2005)
list price: $19.94 -- our price: $14.96
(price subject to change: see help)
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

In the ongoing deluge of comic-book adaptations, Hellboy ranks well above average. Having turned down an offer to helm Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban in favor of bringing Hellboy's origin story to the big screen, the gifted Mexican director Guillermo del Toro compensates for the excesses of Blade II with a moodily effective, consistently entertaining action-packed fantasy, beginning in 1944 when the mad monk Rasputin--in cahoots with occult-buff Hitler and his Nazi thugs--opens a transdimensional portal through which a baby demon emerges, capable of destroying the world with his powers. Instead, the aptly named Hellboy is raised by the benevolent Prof. Bloom, founder of the Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense, whose allied forces enlist the adult Hellboy (Ron Perlman, perfectly cast) to battle evil at every turn. While nursing a melancholy love for the comely firestarter Liz (Selma Blair), Hellboy files his demonic horns ("to fit in," says Bloom) and wreaks havoc on the bad guys. The action is occasionally routine (the movie suffers when compared to the similar X-Men blockbusters), but del Toro and Perlman have honored Mike Mignola's original Dark Horse comics with a lavish and loyal interpretation, retaining the amusing and sympathetic quirks of character that made the comic-book Hellboy a pop-culture original. He's red as a lobster, puffs stogies like Groucho Marx, and fights the good fight with a kind but troubled heart. What's not to like? --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Features

• Color
• Closed-captioned
• Widescreen
• Dolby

Reviews (307)

Hell Goes Red
I had never even heard of Hellboy before the movie arrived, and I instantly wondered just what type of harbinger of doom and destruction could anyone be with the word "boy" in their name. Even the paltry Babel Fish of Hitchhikers fame would merely die choking on its own laughter.....or so I thought. I was very pleasantly surprised by the movie "Hellboy" and the overall story that it followed.

The main character is a demon, called "Hellboy" (Ron Perlman) funnily enough, who comes through a portal opened by Rasputin, (Karl Roden), at the behest of the desperate Nazis in 1944. After the portal is closed with the help of Professor Broom, (later played by John Hurt), Hellboy is found and becomes the FBI's latest weapon against the "things that go bump in the night". The bad guys come back in the present day to end the world, and they are Rasputin, his girlfriend Ilsa, (Bridget Hodson) and Karl Ruprecht Kroenen, (Ladislav Beran). To add to the mix, Hellboy has a new "babysitter" in Agent John Myers, (Rupert Evans) and a love interest in Liz Sherman, (Selma Blair).

Ron Perlman was basically born to play the role of Hellboy, from the basic structure of his face to the very mannerisms and attitudes that Hellboy exudes. Perlman was absolutely stunning in this role, and had the right, sardonic wit to pull it off with class and panache. Even with a huge amount of prosthetic make-up, Perlman was not limited in his expressiveness during the movie. The action scenes were also excellent, and the make-up did not seem to inhibit Perlman's movements at all.

Karl Roden brings an intense and deeply emotional Rasputin to the movie, and particularly in the last scenes brings through an intense amount of feeling. However, I would not say that the eerie sense of evilness really came from him. That was really provided by the near-silent Karl Ruprecht Kroenen and his deadly blades. Kroenen is very much the silent type, and mostly communicates through gestures, if at all. The masks that he wears through the movie also add to the inhuman quality of the character, as well as a very quiet, but noticable hissing as he breathes.

For the special effects and the set designs, I can only add to the positive comments for this movie. The dark feel of the movie was excellent and added to the sense of forboding that was brought by some characters. Also, the achievements of the effects team were really stunning, and what they managed to do with various everyday items has been great. Also, the robotics and so on have been excellently executed and have only added to the movie's overall feel and atmosphere.

The 2-disc set provides some interesting information on both the making of the film and various characters as well. I found them to be very informative and well set out. If you do not want to wade through stuff that is not interesting to you, you can go straight to that section, rather than watch the entire "Making Off..." thing.

For action and a good story that combines history, fantasy, Hell, magic, and some very interesting characters, "Hellboy" is pretty hard to pass up. I thoroughly enjoyed every aspect of it, including the Samaritan, which "uses really big bullets."

good
overall this is a great movie... no great acting or story but the whole movie just "works"... one of the best comic book based movies ive seen... this is what sin city should have been like... the cheesy acting & dialogue are way better than that suck-fest called sin city...

the start of the movie reminded me a lot of the nazi stuff in indiana jones... but the hellboy nazis were not as goofy & lame as the ones in jones... until the end, which brings me to one of my biggest gripes with this movie...

all the main villans were shown to be very smart & in conrol leading up to the final battle... then all of the sudden everyone loses their mind, start rambling like madman, & let hellboy do whatever he wants... wtf? lame! its like they got to writing the end & tacked on the same crappy ending from any number of other action movies...

one other problem with the movie was the relationship between hellboy & selma blair... their "romance" was as interesting to watch as the blue guy eating rotten eggs in the fish tank...

entertaining but not worth the cash
The action sceens were awesome but unfortonetly the action

sceens are the only good part they are boring and did not keep

me interested in the movie. With the action sceens at 5 stars

and the normal sceens with no vilonce The average is 3.

Most movies I am still interested in the story and enjoy seeing

non vilent sceens.This movie is different I can only enjoy

action sceens. ... Read more

Asin: B00008EY65
Subjects:  1. Feature Film-action/Adventure   

Super Size Me
by Morgan Spurlock Dr. Daryl Isaacs
Director: Morgan Spurlock
Average Customer Review:
DVD (15 February, 2005)
list price: $24.99 -- our price: $18.74
(price subject to change: see help)
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

Filmmaker Morgan Spurlock, rejected five times by the USC film school, won the best director award at the 2004 Sundance Film Festival for this alarmingly personal investigation into the health hazards wreaked by our fast food nation. Under extensive medical supervision, Spurlock subjects himself to a steady diet of McDonald's cuisine for 30 days just to see what happens. In less than a week, his ordinarily fit body and equilibrium undergo dark and ugly changes: Spurlock grows fat, his cholesterol rockets north, his organs take a beating, and he becomes subject to headaches, mood swings, symptoms of addiction, and lessened sexual energy. The gimmick is too obvious to sustain a feature documentary; Spurlock actually spends most of the film probing insidious ways that fast food companies worm their way into school lunchrooms and the hearts of young children who spend hours in McDonald's playrooms. French fries never looked more nauseating. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Features

• Color

Reviews (270)

mission accomplished for Super Size Me
The main goal of this movie was to show America just how bad our favorite fast food restaurant is for our bodies. The movie continually shows the health risks of eating McDonald's food is and that too much can almost kill you. For everyone that has watched it already the goal of this movie was reached for them. Atleast for me I can say that I have considerably cut down the fast food I have eaten, especially McDonald's, since watching this movie. In the movie/documnentary Morgan Spurlock goes on a challenge to eat nothing but McDonald's three meals a day and no outside food for 30 days. Also if the employees ask if he wants to supersize his meal he has to accept. Before he goes on this challenge, he basically takes all of these tests to show how healthy his body is before he eats all of this McDonald's. He also shows how McDonald's has affected the country's obesity rates over the past 15 years. He really discourages anyone and everyone from eating fast food throughout this movie. After a few days of this diet he throws up several times after eating his meal and he is already showing considerable weight gain. By day 21 and 22 he his having heart and liver problems and already gained over 20 pounds. It almost has him killed at this point. He still decides though to continue the challenge and finally finishes it having gained about 28 pounds and much damage to his internal organs. This movie is good because it explains what McDonald's actually puts in their food and that is what gets to the viewer the most as discouraging to eat fast food. This is a good movie to watch and one that will really teach you a lesson that will help you make healthier choices in the future about what you eat.

..."moralist vegans take on the lazy working class"...
Supersize Me is entertaining. Spurlock's dramatic illustration of what fast food does to the body certainly has impact, but having watched the film I realized (pun intended) something just didn't sit right. Julie Devaney's take on the film pefrectly captures issues that the movie obscures or does not discuss. Whether you agree with every word she writes or not, her commments are thought provoking:

----

Morgan Spurlock has been criticized for only presenting individualistic solutions to systemic problems, but on this charge I would like to defend him. His social conclusion is quite clear: "Get back in the kitchen, ladies, get in shape, and make me an organic sandwich"

A film, documentary or not, cannot be judged merely on what it says verbally, or purports to stand for ideologically. Visual imagery is an essential tool in carrying a message. And on this score, Supersize Me pulls no punches.

It opens with a 1950's scene of an apron-wearing woman standing at her stove and merrily cooking away. In the voiceover, Spurlock tells us of how his mother home-cooked all of his meals when he was growing up. Every time he saw her, she was in the kitchen.

Without any analysis of the changing roles of work and the family in advanced capitalism, he mourns the loss of the perennial wife and mother, waiting at home to nourish her family.

Luckily for him, Spurlock manages to recreate this familial relationship with his vegan chef girlfriend, who serves him an organic, nutrient packed meal before he embarks on his fast-food binge.

As the film progresses, it highlights the growing problem of obesity in the United States with the sensitivity of a sledgehammer.

Deviant bodies that demonstrate more than acceptable amounts of fat, are objectified as the camera voyeuristically lingers on fleshy folds and bouncing cellulite. Women's bottoms are particularly targeted for ridicule and the peels of laughter from the audience reward this age-old sexist humour.

No questions are asked of a system that markets both excess and shame as a way to promote equally dangerous and unhealthy fast food and dieting industries.

Supersize Me does not challenge this contradictory message by recognizing that healthy bodies come in a range of forms. Instead, it jumps on the popular bandwagon that fleshy bodies belong to lazy deviants and healthy bodies should consist only of bone and muscle.

Spurlock's construction is "moralist vegans take on the lazy working class".

This theme is revealed most concretely in Spurlock's device that measures the number of steps he takes each day. As soon as he reaches the number that an "Average American" takes, he reluctantly jumps into a cab.

The fact that the people are working longer and longer hours in restrictive conditions is not considered. We are just told that Detroit, an industrial city, is the "fattest" city in America.

Ostensibly, the film is reproducing this culture of shame as a way of shocking people to stop eating at McDonald's. But all it really does is give respectability to ideas that ultimately divide movements instead of building the kind of solidarity based on genuine respect that will ultimately be required to take down corporate giants.

----

Food for thought????
I must admit that for the first half hour of the movie, or at least up until the part where Morgan eats that nasty looking fish fillet sandwhich, I had the strong urge to run out to McDonalds for a Big Mac and a large fry. Not anymore. This movie really opened my eyes to a lot of things going on in thefood industry that I didn't know was going on, or at least I didn't want to really think it was going on.

Morgan's experiment was a bit extreme, so of course the results are going to be a bit extreme because there are few people who actually would eat fast food 3 times a day for 30 days, but he did let me realize that I am in control of what I eat and I can do something about it before it's too late. Morgan, for this I thank you. I'm pretty sure that McDonalds doesn't thank you, but I do.

This movie is very entertaining and I found myself with the McGiggles more than a few times and so did my friends. I will never feel the same about a McDonalds french fry again after the Smoking Gun experiment. What planet did those fries come from, anyway?

I can't say that I will never eat fast food again, in fact, I did today, but instead of getting a Double Cheeseburger and an order of fries I got a grilled chicken salad, with fat free dressing, and bottled water. I sure did miss that great greasy taste, but I didn't have that guilty feeling that I always got when I was scoffing down all that fat.

Anyone who is trying to diet should watch this movie. Not only will it make you think twice about eating fast food so much, it can actually help you save money in the long run. See, I tried a little experiment of my own after I watched the movie.Every time that I would have normally called in a pizza or went to a drive thru I just said "Nope, I'll just find something around here to eat." Then I would take the money out of my wallet that I would have spent on the take out food and put it in my piggy bank. I have already filled my car up with gas twice just from that money.

Watch the movie. It can't do you any harm and it may even do you some good. If it doesn't change your mind about eating all that fast food then the next time you go out, have a Big Mac for me, because I sure won't be enjoying them any time soon. ... Read more

Asin: B0002OXVBO
Subjects:  1. Documentary