Reviews

I do not fully understand why this movie is so underrated. People seem to be stuck in the morality of the movie, feeling that Downey's character didn't really do what he was "supposed to". I think that it is irrelevant, the story may not unfold as people expect or want it to unfold, but it is still a powerful story. Not only as a story of one man, but as tale about how life often unfolds.

The movie revolves around the life of Steve Lopez, a journalist who, while searching for his next story, happens upon a homeless man, Nathaniel Ayers, who is playing a violin with only two strings. Lopez becomes interested in how Ayers, a very gifted musician and former Juilliard student, ended up homeless on the streets of LA. While writing his articles, Lopez starts trying to help Nathaniel to escape his life as a homeless man and to help him "become good again", as a musician.

The two become close friends, but Nathaniel, suffering from mental illness, refuses Lopez's help. All he wants to do is play music on the streets, and, in the end, he ends up helping Steve by enlightening him, spiritually with his music and his character.

This movie has some outstanding elements, most important of which are the performances and the score.

Jamie Foxx is brilliant as the schizophrenic homeless man. He manages to be convincing as man who, even down on his luck, finds happiness as he loses himself in music.

Robert Downey Jr. proves again that he is a great actor who can flawlessly portray a troubled, dramatic character.

The musical score of the movie is like a cheat. For me at least, being a lover of classical music, the score sold the movie completely. The tracks are perfectly chosen for each scene, transmitting feelings of happiness, despair, friendship and love in a way that no other genre of music ever can.

This movie is a must-see for everybody, but especially any lover of classical music.

It is impossible to objectively review this movie. The very thing that makes this movie great is the fact that everybody has different perceptions about it. It's a mind game, brilliantly written from beginning to end.

Sure, everything contributed into making this movie into a hit, from acting and directing to musical score and special effects, but what I think we can all agree on is that all of it fades in comparison to the genius of the screenplay.

Even though many people don't realize it, it's beautiful too see how Nolan manages to actually put his idea behind the screenplay into real life practice. Sure, he doesn't invade your dreams to do it, but he manages to plant ideas in the viewers heads throughout the movie. Is this real? Is the dream really the dream or is the dream the reality, or the other way around? He makes you expect so many twists and turns and when the twists actually happen, you realize you weren't actually expecting them.

The ending speaks to this mostly. Many movies have used this "technique" in the past, by placing a little hint or doubt in the end that makes you think about it for days, but never like this. Everybody sees what they want to see in the end, much as it is for the characters in the movie. Some people see the children the same age and the top spinning, others see the top wobbling, but you're not really sure.

In the end, I think "Inception" could have been a low budget movie and still have the same success, because of the genius behind the writing. I hope that Nolan will continue to amaze us in the future with similar writing.

While this pilot has many of the BSG characteristics, it is a totally different film. It starts off in the same dark, messed up and chaotic way (that we all love) that BSG does, but it turns out to be more of a drama than a Sci-Fi.

The plot is great in my opinion, it promises to answer a lot of questions and fill in a lot of the gaps in Battlestar Galactica. If this is going where i think it is going: basically a mind of a child becoming the architect of the events in BSG, it should prove a very interesting and unique show to watch.

The acting is above average. The actors are mostly new to the movie scene, either coming from theater, supporting roles in other TV shows or brand new, but they do a really good job in portraying their characters for the first time in this pilot.

I cannot really comment on the special effects, since there weren't so many to speak of in this first part. All we got to see was an explosion and some computer generated images of Caprica, both of which i think were well done, and of course a little CGI time with a Cylon, which looked rather realistic.

I have to mention that the show does have it's flaws, especially visible to the first time viewer of the BSG universe. The biggest one i think is switching from SciFi-Drama to a more Drama-SciFi type of show.

Overall, it shows a great deal of promise. Even though it has a good start, I personally do not think it will match Battlestar Galactica, but i might be proved wrong.

I am a big fan of The Mummy and The Mummy returns, and i have to admit this sequel has let me down a lot. However, it does not deserve to be bashed so hard by people that had such high expectations from it.

First of all, yes, it is not as funny as it's predecessors, dialogues are not as original, acting is not as great, and yes, Rachel Weisz is no longer in it. In my opinion the absence of Weisz is the biggest thumbs down for the film, since everyone loved her charm and the chemistry between her and Fraser.

Still, the film has very nice man vs. so called "mummy" (which is actually an statue-like undead Chinese emperor) fights and great special effects, which makes you stay in your seat eagerly biting your nails waiting to see what happens.

In conclusion, "The Mummy 3: Tomb of The Dragon Emperor" does not have the same charm and originality of the previous "Mummies", but how can it, it is already the second sequel, but the fast paced action makes up for the lack of interesting and funny dialogue, and makes this film worth losing 2 hours of your life watching.