Reviews

Finally! After waiting for years the big payoff is here and it couldn't be better. Return of the King is a definitive culmination of a journey and have essentially wrapped the trilogy into one big film.

Again I walked out the theatre with a big grin and a feeling of light-footedness, much like after watching the first two. It has great character moments akin of The Fellowship of the Ring, and spectacular battle scenes bigger than The Two Towers. But while TT focused more on the world of Men, this time the Hobbits have taken the centre stage, especially that of Frodo and Sam. Memorable visuals are plentiful like the beacon of Minas Tirith, the sight of Orc armies marching out from Minas Morgul, Trolls beating the drums of war, rampaging Mumakils and more.

What else can I say about this movie except to gush more about it? I love the book and the movies, and very grateful to both J.R.R Tolkien and Peter Jackson for their respective talents.

Those useless movie reviewers who complained that the ending "dragged on" for too long are not worth their salt. Its not even long at all! These guys just reek in their over-glorified short-attention span and they have a "Made in Hollywood" stamped over their foreheads. Since the first two did not have endings, the third film demand proper closure. This film has the dignity to say goodbye to the characters in a proper fashion. After all, when you reach the end of a gigantic NINE hours trilogy, wouldn't YOU want an ending that takes it time to reward its audiences instead of rushing straight into the credits?

Good god, not another one of these Disney rubbish again. Each year after year I spent my money on tickets, hoping that they will improve. I loved all their pre-Lion King era features so I gave them my chances, my benefit of the doubt. So did they ever learn from their past mistakes? That's wishful thinking. Even my 11-year old cousin left the cinema half-asleep. This will be the LAST time I will give a Disney feature a go. EVER.

Now they stated that 2D animation is dead. Well just look WHO killed it in the first place! Disney have only themselves to blame for not listening to us for years.

Its official that Nemesis is the last outing for the beloved Next Generation cast, but somehow I came out of the theatre feeling that it could've been more. There are many plot holes, and simply too many moments where its there just for the sake of being there, like the desert buggy-car chase and that infamous "mental-rape" scene involving Shinzon and Troi. The presence of B4, which in terms of story continuity does seem like a bad joke. Also, Nemesis tried too hard to be on the level that Wrath of Khan was, which incidentally is not even on my top 5 best Star Trek movies.

Despite its many flaws however, Nemesis still manages to entertain. Great all-around performances by the cast, the ships look impressive, Worf can still make me laugh, and the Remans looked cool. I enjoyed the intense persona of the villain Shinzon, and Captain Picard had never let us down. Honestly I can't understand those who slammed this movie so hard. Unlike a certain naive reviewer here, I'd rather watch Nemesis anyday than the collosal snore-fest called the Phantom Menace. In Nemesis, at least there isn't a stupid cretin named Jar-Jar, and the entire cast of Star Trek have never given us wooden "faster, more intense" performances.

I guess many fans wanted the TNG era to end with great splendour, much like The Undiscovered Country. But instead we are left scratching our heads, wanting for more. Star Trek is rapidly losing its general audiences, and this can be blamed squarely on the producers who are too busy with making money rather than telling us good stories. Nemesis also suffered from a bad stigma, because it was released at the same time when the TV show Enterprise is on the decline. I say give Star Trek a well-deserved rest for a few years and to get some breathing space. Perhaps money wouldn't be such an issue then and creativity will win out.

Now this is what I call a great superhero flick. I remembered feeling brutally robbed after seeing Batman Forever in the theatre (to this day I still cringe whenever I see Jim Carrey in his green spandex), and needed an emotional "healing" so immediately I rushed to my local videostore to rent this definitive version of our caped crusader. Tim Burton deftly combines style with great character drama, and I believe this is why the movie was such a big success.

While everyone instantly knew that they had a winner in Jack Nicholson after seeing his antics onscreen, it was Michael Keaton's brooding performance that won the hearts of fans. Forget Val Kilmer's stupid pouts, and forget George Clooney's lack of one. Keaton was the underestimated underdog as almost everyone didn't expect him to pull off the role of Bruce Wayne so well. While a natural like Christopher Reeve is every inch the dashing Superman, Keaton's appearance is much more deceiving. He is not tall, his hair is curly, and he doesn't have a big superhero jaw. But boy, when he puts on the costume he literally BECAME the very persona of the dark knight. His voice has just the right tone, and his eyes glares through his mask like a hawk on a prowl for street thugs. What can I say, except that I heard Dave Letterman had once said on TV about Keaton "Well to me, he is always going to be THE Batman," this sums it up quite well!

What a great movie The Two Towers is, chiefly because it is the exact opposite of its smashing prequel The Fellowship of the Ring, and yet the movie still delivers and much more! My opinion on both movies stands on an equal ground, because these two complement each other. The differences are very apparent, especially on second viewing: it feels less intimate, has much more action sequences, doesn't have the prequel's linear pace and progression, the emergence of an important CGI character, and overall has a much more perilous tone than the last.

It is true that much has been left out or changed, even more so than the first movie. But most of the crucial events as well as tone & movement is all there, and that is all that matters to me (this is speaking from a BIG fan of the book who has read many of Tolkien's works and understood much of Middle-Earth's lores).

My instinct tells me to put a hold on all opinions until The Return of the King comes out, and then watch all three one after the other in the same day. We'll then realise at how AWESOME the trilogy is and marvel at its unimaginable scope. It is the only way the story can be enjoyed - after all, no die-hard fan of the book stops reading it when it gets to a certain part!

Once again well done to Peter Jackson & writers, the stellar casts, and all at Weta workshop for a wonderful movie.

Quite an impressive work by Terry Gilliam, and that's a nice change after all the mind-twisting numbness of Brazil.

12 Monkeys has a brilliantly constructed plot about the destruction of mankind by a virus, but I won't go into the plot details here. Bruce Willis gave one of the best performances in his life, but I don't agree with the majority of people about Brad Pitt's acting. He is quite distracting and a bit exaggerated, but obviously he's having a time of his life playing a nutty character.

The best moment is when the character is in the theatre, feeling a sense of deja vu, that he is somewhat re-living a phase of his memory. That scene became genuinely creepy when Hitchcock's Vertigo is playing in the background.

For those of you who struggled with Brazil (watched it several times already) 12 Monkeys is more fun and comprehensible, but by no means I'm suggesting that the movie itself is simple-minded. If there is any criticism, I'll say that the ending is just isn't satisfying enough. After all the twists and thrill, one would expect an equally, if not more, startling ending. But it ended in a way like someone has walked around in a circle.

Highly recommended viewing!

Big accolades have been heaped upon this 2nd venture to space, and the mere mention of this movie can bring smiles upon thousands of die-hard Trekkies worldwide. Many even said that this is the best of the movie series. While I thoroughly enjoyed it, Wrath Of Khan is certainly one of the best, but it is not THE best. That honor still belongs to the 4th movie The Voyage Home, an immensely entertaining movie that holds true to the real essence of Star Trek.

All in all, its not hard to see why so many people love this movie. There are some exciting ship battles to be seen, an unusually sombre ending (and one of the most touching), and two very angry men trying to outwit one another. What more could you want? Also, the old gang are all here despite Shatner's overtly-generous screen time, the real star of this movie is the inimitable Spock. However it would have been wonderful to see the rest of the crew to interact more with each other, which is the biggest single weakness that had always plagued the original series. Luckily, they were given that chance in the excellent 4th and 6th movies (see also the action-packed First Contact, another must-see movie).

For those who hasn't watched Wrath Of Khan, do so on a relaxing weekend with a bowl of crunchy popcorns but don't bring any unrealistic expectations or criticisms. I guarantee that the moment you just 'go with the flow' and immerse yourself is when the movie will hit you right on the buttons.

This is a brilliant movie, and I personally don't understand why some reviewers here loathed it so much. The film has great acting, deliciously dark & narcisistic characters, and a plot that at times reminded me of Hitchcock. It is a story of a great talent born out of self-hate.

As for the casts, they did a great job. Jude Law is great being an obnoxious rich boy. Cate Blanchett, while she did not have much onscreen time, she is as lovely as ever. I've always viewed Matt Damon as the more talented actor than his other "creative" counterpart, Ben Affleck. In the beginning of the story, Mr. Ripley is a social mess, always nervous around people, and hates himself. However at the end of the film, he is the epitome of moral grayness, a dangerous mix of being a sociopath and conflicting emotions. He becomes both repulsive and pathetically sad at the same time. Hoooboy, not good.

As for people hating this movie, I often hear complaints regarding the character Mr Ripley; about how bad, wacko, and crazy he is and that the movie is terrible because of him. Well I always say to these people: what is wrong with you?? It is like having an unstable element - much like the excitement of waiting for a deadly fire underneath the shimmering surface to explode - that makes Talented Mr Ripley worth watching. Another word, this movie is nothing less than a A+ grade psychological thriller. Did those who criticized this movie saw their own insecurities within Mr Ripley and in turn becomes uncomfortable to fully appreciate its finer points? Perhaps, I don't know for sure.

I loved The English Patient with its melachonly, ambient middle-eastern atmosphere, and now Anthony Minghella has taken us inside one person's dark & disturbing mind and his pathetic effort to cover his own identity ... at all costs. Highly recommended for the intelligent viewers.

After seeing Peter Jackson' miraculously brilliant movie version of The Lord of the Rings, I had to finally see the much maligned 1978 animated version.

Let me get this off my chest first. There are those out there who thinks that the movie is alright to watch, and there are those who still cannot get over the shock of seeing their beloved story being torn and shredded into little pieces. At first I thought, how bad can it be? But upon seeing this movie, I became a true believer. A believer that Ralph Bakshi had indeed turned a great novel into trash.

For those who hasn't seen this movie and need recommendation, you just hav e to watch this movie just to understand why it has deserved so much criticism for all these years. First of all, the artwork is TERRIBLE and very, very inconsistent to the point where you think that Ralph Bakshi must have ran out of time and money to do a decent job. The movie combines characters that seemed naturally hand-animated with rotoscoped human beings that looked eerily real, it doesn't look like if it belongs there. Just imagine an artist blending surrealism with cubism into one canvas, or Walt Disney with Leonardo Da Vinci. Chaotic backgrounds is often depicted as rough paintbrushing work. Visually, this movie is a total mess.

Now for the characterisations, which I'm afraid its no good either. Saruman is often pronounced as "Aruman" and he wears red and not white gown, and as a wizard who supposedly possess a beautiful and spellbinding voice, he sounded like a croaking frog. Gandalf is so theatrical its not funny, with his riverdance-esque spins and exaggerated hand-weaving gestures. Samwise Gamgee is being turned into such a coward, all he does is hug people when he gets scared (but unfortunately the other hobbits do the same thing) and instead of being down-to-earth and courageous, he is too effeminate and annoying, unlike his likeable novel counterpart. Aragorn wears Robin Hood's short skirt, Gimli is turned into a monstrously tall Dwarf, and Boromir is now a Scandinavian Viking sporting an awfully thick red beard. Why did the Nazguls limped at first but later on managed to walk normally? Also, there are a lot of bad editing, such as the fellowship suddenly arrived in front of Galadriel from Moria's exit without any transition shots of them travelling from one point to the next. The Balrog looked laughable as opposed to be striking fear into our hearts, and what's up with his growling? The Balrog is no zoo lion, and it does not growl! The soundtrack did not enhance any emotions or situations in the slightest bit, which doesn't help at all.

There are some good, well-executed moments, but they are a rarity. This movie has too many flaws, and that is not good enough considering the mythical status of Tolkien's stories. Peter Jackson's version is billions of times more superior in every single way, and thank goodness we can all watch that one instead!

Let me be harsh here. I ponder what went wrong inside John Woo's head when he made this stinkbomb? Has he finally succumbed to the big dollars of Hollywood, so much that he has the nerve to make movies like M:I2? Although Windtalkers is nowhere as bad, nonetheless its still a shallow exercise in style. I sat down with a couple of friends, and throughout the movie we were bombarded with nothing but the sounds of guns, explosions, and flying corpses. Never once the movie made me feel the destructive power of mankind's stupidity. Even though some war movies depicts a lot of violence, movies like Saving Private Ryan was never gratituous. Windtalkers - or John Woo - is more in love with explosions, slo-mo gunfights and painfully cliched dialogues than its purported subject. At the end, I asked myself "Where on earth were those noble Navajo Indians???" Like many people, the "subject" of the story drew me into buying a ticket. On the big screen, the Native Americans have rarely been portrayed correctly (which also can be said to many minorities living in the states). So I thought everyone will finally get to see them being heroic and brave, and Windtalkers does that to an extent, but not nearly enough. Alas their presence and contributions here were so numbed down, and instead we get too much of Nick Cage's character, (whose job here is to sell movie tickets) looking like a madman spraying bullets to no end. Why can't we get Windtalkers starring a real Navajo Indian anyway? The entire movie feels like a false advertisement to me.

This is an elegant haunted house movie in its purest, most classic form. It relies solely on atmosphere, creepy music and sense of foreboding, without ever resorting to those cheap and overused "jolts" that pops up from the side of the frame to scare us. The script is well-written and in certain cases it makes you think. I recommend watching this movie without any preconceptions of any kind, otherwise it might ruin the experience and surprises.

I must point out that after reading several of the critics' reviews, I cannot understand those who claim that the movie is too slow. Why? Have they been so desensitized by movies with big explosions and CGI graphics that they cannot envelope themselves in a movie's atmosphere without a guiding hand? The comparison of this movie with The Sixth Sense is well deserved, and this I believe says a lot about its quality. Every frame and moment are filled with a thick atmosphere that never lets up, and the answer always seems out of reach until the very end. Interesting and hard questions are also being raised about our perceptions of the supernatural as well as religion, and the movie handled these issues very well with overlaying subtleness. I have to say that the movie is also nicely cast, the two kids are great and convincing without any hint of cliched sentimentalism about them. Nicole Kidman did a good job, she got better throughout the movie and in one scene looked positively ravishing.

After seeing several of those special effects-laden haunted house flicks such as the remakes of the Haunting and House on the Haunted Hill, I was so sure that nobody understands how to do this particular genre justice anymore, and that we'll just have to resort to its teen-lite version such as Scream. Well thankfully The Others proved that with the right approach and thought, substance and style always go well hand-in-hand. If you enjoyed rewarding and intelligent thrillers like The Sixth Sense, then this movie is for you.

Goodfellas is about a journey of an outsider who makes it good in the world of Italian mafia, and befriends two mobs for the remainder of his career. Much like Forrest Gump, its a story being told largely through one person' point of view. I conclude at the end that although the movie was exteremely enjoyable, its a bit overrated and it did not bear any lasting images in my psyche. There isn't a single aspect that strikes me as memorable or powerful. Thus it irritates me to no end that Goodfellas is constantly being compared to The Godfather, because I couldn't disagree more. What makes The Godfather so good is that its not really about gangsters running a business, but a deep look on family relationships and how their respective roles and personalities contribute to the family's successes and downfall. Goodfellas is only about three men working together, having the time of their lives, and occasionally punching and kicking their way through obstacles before things starts to fall apart at the end - nothing is out of the ordinary. The only message I get from the story is that becoming a gangster gives you power, but you must pay for that power dearly in exchange for absolute loyalty. Problem is, I've heard of this countless of times already.

Goodfellas has a great cast (especially Pesci), nicely paced storyline and unfortunately an average soundtrack trying hard to "capture" the feel of the period. I like it and its really entertaining, but at the same time its an utterly forgettable gangster movie.

There's nothing like watching a Star Wars movie for the first time. When the sound of trumpets blaring, and the word "Episode II" pops out, I was overwhelmed with emotion and I gripped my seat tightly ... but then I thought hold on, the movie hasn't even started yet. But boy, when I walked out from the theatre, I was consumed with an overwhelming desire to buy another ticket and walk right back in. Yes I am a huge Star Wars fan, and with Attack of the Clones, the magic is back once again and I'm loving it.

What strikes me about Episode II, is that there are more CGI in it than all the Jurassic Park movies put together. Even the venerable Yoda is no longer a muppet. All of the Clone army is done entirely with computers, even in scenes where there is only one or two of them, which is pretty strange. Can't they just get extras to walk around in suits? So I'm not sure if all this excess CGI is a good thing, but nevertheless Episode II managed to be one of the best Star Wars movie yet, even though I still miss that expressive Yoda puppet from The Empire Strikes Back ... its like casting Miss Piggy as a CGI character - its just not the same.

Unlike the previous Phantom Menace, the biggest improvement is that there is finally a good chunk of story to bite into. Now we have the pre-requisite love story of Anakin & Padme, a relationship that's destined to end in tragedy (and twin babies). Its quite nice, but however the actual story on politics is more interesting because its starting to draw parallels to Anakin's fate as the future Jedi terminator. He is portrayed nicely by the newcomer Hayden Christensen, who managed to project his dark emotions and desires very well, and there are several powerful scenes where Anakin showed his early inclinations towards the dark side. In fact, many of the movie's best moments are provided by him. When it comes to the love story however, Anakin & Padme lacked the natural spark & wit that Han Solo and Leia exhibited in the original trilogy. But it is not as bad as some people think, and they do make a cute couple together. The "romantic" dialogue is as Star-Warish as it can get; sometimes cheesy, sometimes not. But considering their young age and the period of time they live in, its perfectly acceptable and works well for me. Ewan McGregor is great, even better than before. He is becoming more and more like the original Obi-Wan Kenobi played by Alec Guinness, sporting a beard and a cynical attitude to boot. Obi-Wan even has a sense of humor on occasions, and his banters with Anakin are insightful. McGregor remains one of the most inspired casting in the trilogy.

Now for once, I can comment on the soundtrack since The Phantom Menace has hardly any - except one - memorable tracks that one can whistle to. Now we get a sweeping, haunting score reminiscent of the original love theme, plus other original tracks and delightful cameos that brings tears to those who grew up on the original movies.

But the best thing about Episode II is that it brings us much closer than ever to the third chapter, where many questions and mysteries will finally be answered. How will Anakin turn to Vader? What is the mysterious connection between Darth Sidious and Palpatine? Who exactly is Darth Tyrannus? Imagine, all of this goodies will be revealed in the next one, and the whole saga will finally make sense!!!!! George Lucas has done very well in that department, considering that re-telling a story in backward order is no easy task. Suddenly, 2005 seems like an eternity ... but hey that's exactly how I felt back in 1999. Episode II is definitely worth waiting for, and now I can't begin to imagine what magic Episode III has in store for me (besides what probably be another cheesy title). Well done Lucas!

It's easy to see why so many were captivated by this movie. After watching this little gem, chick flicks like Dirty Dancing becomes even more worse than it already is. Here, the joy of dancing and the quirky characters are the focus, not some cheap teeny-bopper love story. Shall We Dance truly takes dancing movies into a new level of greatness.

I dare anyone not to feel refreshed and lifted after viewing this. Highly, highly recommended. Watch out for Aoki! That guy was just a blast, he is SO funny and I never laughed so hard in my life. I even got up at the end and did a little steps or two. One, two, three... quick, quick, slow...

I felt compelled to write a review for The Phantom Menace, the dark horse of the Star Wars saga. Nowadays, it seems that either you love it or hate it. Personally I had a great time watching it, me being this huge Star Wars fan who loves nothing more than being transported into another world far, far away. The venerable Qui-Gon Jinn is well played by Liam Neeson, and Ewan McGregor is an inspired - or make that great - choice to play Obi-Wan Kenobi. As usual, Ian MacDiarmid gave us an exciting, subdued performance that underlies his sinister nature.

Okay, so the movie may does not have the same wit and energy as the original trilogy, nor its more intimate settings, due to the expanded sets and gargantuan CGI environments. Nevertheless, its still a fun ride, and we get some early ideas on how the Empire may got its foothold in a form of Darth Sidious aka the Emperor.

However some things still bugs me. There are glaring, sinful flaws that George Lucas somehow put in the film without even realising it. Anakin Skywalker was played terribly! Whether that problem is caused by either Jake Llyod's poor acting or Lucas' poor directing, we will never, ever know. The young Jedi-to-be managed to be emotionless throughout the movie, and when he does show some emotion we were instead given the god-awful line "Yipeee!" I don't know how I managed not to vomit in the theatre years ago ... its much worse than Luke's whiny voice when he complains about getting power converters at Toshi station. The scene when Anakin tells Padme about beautiful angels was just wooden and laughable too.

Another problem is Jar-Jar Binks, but not because of his appearance and his silly accent, because he is actually quite cool. But I sincerely believe that he is a character that tries desperately to be funny, a sort of a wink-wink-nudge-nudge appeal to the kiddies, so his jokes often fell flat because there's nothing spontaneous about his situation. No wonder many fans ended up hating him.

I watched this film with wide-eyed wonder, as much as I did when I first saw the original three many years ago. Thus I enjoyed it thoroughly, but that experience is somewhat marred by a couple of bad choices from Lucas himself.

Ran is a great movie, because its a lot of fun in a spectacular way. Much like the Seven Samurai and Yojimbo, its a great mix of serious filmmaking and entertainment, which means you can just sit down on a couch for more than 2 hours, absorbing all the little details while munching on popcorns. I tell you, this is rare since most movies are either too cerebral (not a bad thing) or too bombastic (sometimes not a bad thing). The battle sequences are very, very nicely done, and the characters are so tragic. Seeing someone like Hidetora falling downhill into a crazed, senile old man has never been so much fun. All sorts of characters appear in a form of double crossers, weaklings, manipulators, fools, honourable warriors, tragic victims, heroes... they're all here. Its easy to get convoluted in its plot, dialogue and visual scenes and say "oh Ran is about betrayal" or "Ran speaks on the horror of war." Look closely, and you'll see that Kurosawa uses the whole film to point out that mankind are foolish and questions our ability to change, even though we are aware of it (Ikiru shares this subtle parallelism on theme). The very last scene with Tsurumaru alone on a cliff is unforgettable.

Buy it, hire it, or borrow it, it doesn't matter as long as you get to watch Ran, because it will be a blast.

This is another enjoyable outing from one of the world's most beloved film director, Akira Kurosawa. In my opinion its much more like a comedy, yet never ignored the serious aspects of human nature - which is why I enjoyed it so much. But when it comes to slash & hack samurai-themed movies of his, I think the Seven Samurai & Yojimbo is still unbeatable.

Its a bit strange to hear that so many have to mention Star Wars with this film. Okay so Lucas is a rip-off (a pretty good one though) but its free publicity nonetheless!

Also, any comparison between the two is downright stupid because Star Wars is purely a Sci-Fi movie and Lucas' directing skill is ... well, rather abysmal (but not awful, American Graffiti is a great movie - so give this guy some merit). Don't get me wrong, I love Star Wars and I think Lucas is a brilliant storyteller. However, Kurosawa is in an entirely different class, and like other greats such as Hitchcock and Godard, he is incomparable. I would list him in the top 10 most influential film director of all time. He inspired and influenced other heavyweight directors such as Scorsese, Spielberg, Herzog, John Sturges (The Magnificent Seven). Oh, and yes ... Lucas too, for those of you who are hardcore Star Wars fans.

I hate these candy floss teen films that popped out nowadays from the Hollywood factory. They got "we are here to make a quick buck" labels all over them. But upon seeing the the premise of this movie, I thought the potential is there - in Tinseltown, being a blonde female who also happens to be smart means a lotta power (and admirers) and it seeks to destroy the myth that all good-looking people have no brains. Interesting, I thought - the chance for social commentary is vast, as well as its entertainment value. So I went in to see it.

At first, I enjoyed it and laughed a few times. On a side note, Reese Witherspoon is one of those rare actresses who always manage to deliver intelligent performances (see Election, where she really shines). There's a spark that makes her good to watch.

But alas, after a reasonably good start and several funny moments (the "Bend down ... and snap!" routine is particularly amusing), the movie plunges headlong into your typical movie. I suppose, what else can they do? It IS just another teen movie, with an ending that I haven't already seen a billion times (dear lord, not another courtroom showdown again! jeez). I can only blame myself for walking in expecting something different.

This is a a rare and pleasant surprise. The movie is witty, sarcastic, and full of fun while shows a little of our society's dark sides, albeit in a cartoonish, light-hearted way. Matthew Broderick is great as well as Reese Witherspoon, whose convincing delivery of her character is a blast. She's annoying, ruthless, pushes and manipulates people just so she can be the top dog. It is worth noting that the ending is really good - which is rare nowadays. Highly recommended.

For anyone who's familiar with Shakespeare's Macbeth, there's no need to go in length with the plot detail. Kurosawa has adapted the story quite faithfully. Toshiro Mifune was, and still is, one of the most spell-binding performers ever to grace the cinema. To watch him act is riveting, and he is especially great in films like Yojimbo and Sanjuro.

But I'm very disturbed by some of the reviews here, as I found a lot of ignorance. Exaggerated acting??? What a bunch of hogwash. Anybody who's knowledgeable in arthouse films KNOWS that the three major asian nations - China, Japan, and Korea respectively - have an ancient and deeply held tradition of stylised opera acting, which explains the difference with Hollywood acting that's rooted in Stanislavsky's method that embraces realism & experience. Please people, get your facts straightened out - and watch more movies and educate yourselves. Also, to call Kurosawa as a "cold" director is totally unjustified, as the director is a staunch humanist. Obviously those people have not seen Seven Samurai and Ikiru, the latter film is especially one of the most moving story about humanity's downfall. One very good example of a director with a "cold" directing approach would be Stanley Kubrick. There is a difference!

All in all, this movie is really good, and gives an interesting Japanese angle to a literary classic.

For a movie filled with spectacular special-effects, some cliched moments as well as a plot with more holes than a moon's surface, The One manages to be vastly entertaining. For starters, Jet Li is a great martial artist and his english is much, MUCH better than Jackie Chan's (don't even get me started on that awful movie called Rush Hour 2). On occasion, he even managed to deliver some of his lines fluently without any hindrance ... very impressive. Because his character possess inhuman strength and speed, the fight scenes are being done with slow-motion effects. Yeah its nothing new but a real crowd pleaser nonetheless.

Okay, so a lot about this movie just doesn't quite add up together. For instance, if Gabe gets stronger by the death of his own mirror selves, wouldn't everyone be just as strong as him too? I mean, everybody must die sometimes - even of old age! Yet I chose to sat there in the theatre, devoid of any constructive criticisms that I usually reserve for more "serious" movies and found myself cheering and having a lot of fun. Wham, bam, thank you ma'am. So even if the plot is practically non-existent, this movie will definitely brighten up your day.

At the moment, things are not looking good. Horrible opening music aside, the captain is lame and Scott Bakula does not have a commanding presence, and the show still lack character chemistry and atmosphere. But nonetheless, I'm willing to give it a chance to grow, so let's see if Brannon Braga can pull this one off. Seven seasons later, maybe things will turn out for the better, and it better be be because I am a big Star Trek fan that does not want to be let down. If anything, this show made me realise how much I've missed watching Voyager! If only they would just churn out one more season...

John Woo proves to us again that once he doesn't have Chow Yun-Fat's deadly charisma at his side to save his ass, he is all hype and no go. We all know by now that John Woo's unabashed over-sentimentalist approach is enough to make some people puke, and this movie is no different. But that's just him, besides he does have an uncanny ability to choreograph graceful gunfights, so I'll leave him at that. The real problem however is that Tom Cruise is only an average actor (see him over-acting in Magnolia). Throughout the movie, I cannot identify his struggles against the "bad guys" no matter how much I want to, so therefore I fail to see the relevance of this movie. Whatever happened to the good old days when Bruce Willis captured the audience's sympathise in Die Hard? Anyhow being a big-budgeted movie, the stunt sequences just tries TOO hard to impress the audience, but again what does it have to do with anything? Its just eye-candy, and its not THAT great to begin with. So I sat there in the theatre, bored to tears, wishing that I didn't took a chance on this worthless flick.