Reviews

Seriously, Michael Bay & Co. should pay me for sitting through this ridiculous pile of tripe.

Grew up with the comics and cartoon show, loved the 1990 movie. Every sense I possess was repeatedly violated with this poor excuse of a greedy cash grab and pizza hut endorsement.

I knew not to expect, well, anything really that has Michael Bay's name attached to it, but somehow still managed to be surprised at the sheer badness.

The turtles themselves look strange, and act strange. Michaleangelo is like some weird semi-gangsta who is downright creepy in a continuing reference obsession with April O'Neil. Raphael is aloof, but exists little beyond that. That's as far as they went trying to define either one of them.

Leonardo, the brave leader, was completely robbed of his personality, characteristics, leadership and anything that would define him, and has always in the past. He is instead a dissolved Bouillon cube in a large pot of water....bland, bland, bland. His voice (Johnny Knoxville) is miscast, and would've been better befitting either Mikey or Raph...that is if they'd bothered to give them any personality.

The biggest violations however, lay with Donatello and Splinter, as it seems they thought that hyper-charging the characters would somehow make them interesting, endearing or watchable. "Donatello does machines" translates into exploiting him as a constant, textbook, super nerd. And he does absolutely nothing beyond that. Also, he looks like a Ghostbuster. Say hi to Dr. Donatello Stantz.

Instead of making Splinter the wise, insightful, deep, sensei he always has been, he's instead to a cardboard cutout that does a lot of "action stuff". Don't get me wrong, the Splinter of the cartoon and comics could certainly hold his own, but violence was always the last resort, and had a rationale. (reminds me of what they did to Yoda in the Star Wars prequels.) And he learns Ninjitsu from a book in the sewer, gone is any mysticism or any pivotal, emotional, or vital connection to important characters in the story.

Shredder is lame. There's no other way to put it. He is also a hyper charged extension "more blades piled on the suit will make him better!" He is unrecognizable beyond the pile of CGI blades, has no depth, no real motivation, and feels needlessly shoe horned into the "story" Especially since they terminated any connection with Splinter, or the long important history between them. (by the way, welcome to "plot convenience playhouse" when you find out that the turtles and Splinter were pets of April's when she was a girl. How convenient.

The biggest human violation is no doubt Megan Fox, who continues to show she's a vapid, terrible actress, incapable of emotion, facial expressions, or the ability to close her mouth. She's absolutely terrible and is no April O'Neil. Michael Bay continues to have an obsession with Megan Fox like you would not believe.

She also has no class, instead of choosing to take criticism constructively and look to improving herself and growing into a mature, capable lady, she instead publicly insults any who bashes this movie; (rightfully so) by saying "f**k you". Real mature Megan, and a great example for your children.

The best actor of the bunch, William Fichtner. I'm still trying to figure out what purpose he served and why he's in this movie to begin with, I keep looking, but...folks, I got nothing' (why is Will Arnett even here?)

There's also some defiance of physics as a mountain the size of Everest is apparently located not too far outside NYC, complete with a truck that slides down the side of it for ten straight minutes, with fast paced, confusing, unimpressive special effects.

The turtles are ridiculously bullet-proof (which leads me to why are the foot soldiers carrying machine guns? Or any guns for that matter?) The answer I came up with: lazy. Why bother to have some Ninjitsu students, or experts, or extras, in your Ninja movie, when it's easier to have a stunt guy fire a gun. (That or the entire budget went to lame special effects.)

Lots of low energy, thick glass shattering, metal side of van punching through escapes that make no sense at all. A yawn inducing, passionless, "tower rolling down the buildings of NYC" anti-climatic moments. Lame, just lame.

The solution: a marathon of the late 80's cartoon followed by a viewing of the 1990 movie..just to prove that Michael Bay hadn't killed my soul completely. 1/10.

I saw this movie with my two cousins. We sat slack jawed for nearly 2 hours while we waited for the Lone Ranger to show up. I don't always agree with critics, sometimes they won't like movies that I do, and vice versa, so I thought give it a shot in case this was one of them. Nope.

This movie would've been great if it has been the first half hour, and the last half hour. Instead, it was needlessly over complicated with as many characters shoe horned in a possible.

the bad and how to fix it: Tonto. I know some people didn't like Depp. I didn't mind Depp. But there was absolutely no reason to elaborate into his character as much as they did. He's the sidekick, the helper, perhaps give him a few minutes of story exposition so he has a motivation, but no longer than that. And enough of the quirkiness...Tonto doesn't need to be quirky, or really humorous. I just sat there rolling my eyes after a while saying "let's get on with it."

Nix the wife and kid. Yeah. Nothing to throw the emotional undertone more off than being in love with your dead brother's wife, especially all while trying to avenge his death, throw in annoying kid to boot, and this storyline becomes even worse. I would've thought becoming the ranger and avenging your brother's death would have been sufficient motivation. They should've never been in this film, any generic damsel in distress would've done fine if you insist.

The kidnapping of said wife and kid. Once again, catching the bad guy should've been enough, this was a big stupid add on.

Too busy. There's too much going on, and none of it interesting enough for me to recall almost a year later. Some crap about a hostile takeover? A third layer of villains? Corrupt and immoral confederate soldiers? (are they confederate or just army, I don't know, it doesn't matter really, it was completely unnecessary.)A waste of Barry Pepper, and his time.

You could've just had a movie about the bad guy killing the brother (and other lawmen) AND stealing silver, and the ranger stopping both, that would have been sufficient.

The Horse: Really, Enough about it being an unusual horse, or doing weird things, Why all this attention on the horse.

Removal of the whole museum subplot and scenes...depressing.

And why all the non-sense about the Ranger's reluctance to impart some justice...the first or second time fine....the 15th or 16th...starting to draw thin. Obviously by the book isn't working.

The Good: The last half hour. When the Lone Ranger music started playing, I finally felt like I was in a Lone Ranger movie. I had no problem with the entire ensuing train chase scene, I found it refreshing, tense, and well done, (especially after the butt numbing boring 2 hours preceding it.

Armie Hammer. I Liked him as the Ranger. I liked his acting, handsome guy and has the look of the Ranger, he tried, he really did, it's not his fault the script sucked, and he was forced to cough out some of the worst dialog ever written.

William Fichtner. Great villain, great actor. Why needlessly over-complicate his role? And why the cannibalism? Shock Value? I never was able to figure it out unless the writers figured it would make for a great "heart" related line later on in the movie.

The scenery and sets/costumes are amazing and the cinematography is well done. The West is Gorgeous.

Here's a good Lone Ranger movie plot: Ranger's brother, a good man, killed, possibly in group ambush that includes other brother. Tonto finds, other brother barely alive, nurses him to health, brother vows to bring evildoers to justice, but is reluctant to stoop to the same level to do so...all the while training to be ranger with Tonto...they become close, maybe even save each other's lives a few times, etc. Maybe they even have a few smaller encounters like saving a family from a burning house, or thwarting a robbery, this spreading this undercurrent around the land of a masked man of justice and his mysterious sidekick, all leading up to the embracing of the Ranger, a little Texas justice, and avenging the dead brother. There ya go, I'll bet reading that paragraph made you feel better than watching the movie.

2/10 for the aforementioned good items.

I was excited for this show, being a huge Marvel/Avengers fan I was looking forward to it. The Pilot was "ok" but I couldn't help thinking, "why are they using an Extremis based storyline? Didn't we just go through this in Iron Man 3? Don't they have something else from all the comics throughout all the years, or come up with something original (god forbid this ever happen anywhere anymore.)

But here we are months later, and mostly I'm bored to death watching this series. I was thrilled at first to see Agent Coulson back in action (one of the main reasons I watched it to begin with.) But now sadly, I find myself becoming more and more uninterested in what happens to him, and to be frank I never cared about any of the rest of the team to begin with.

There have been a few interesting episodes…very few. A couple that stick out in my mind the most is that episode with the Asgardian "berserker" staff, and the one with the cyber eyeball. That's it. The "team" is generic, cliché, apparently invincible, they have zero personalities, or likability, and I don't care what happens to not one of them. Especially Sky, who I loathed since day one. Why they seem to be molding her "mysterious past" and ongoing "mysterious" present into some supposedly interesting storyline is beyond me, it's not interesting, she's not interesting, and neither is anyone else.

By thinking throwing in occasional cameos (Sam Jackson, Cobie Smulders) or mentioning well known and far better liked characters (Barton, Romanoff, Thor, Stark) or occasionally throwing in tidbits from the movies (anything Chitari, Asgard, and the tired "Extremis" which was better done and as far as I'm concerned finished in "Iron Man 3.") Is going to somehow connect us with the bigger Marvel movie world or give us warm feelings about nostalgia from the beloved Marvel universe, they're dead wrong. All it really makes me want to do is immediately delete the show form my DVR and put in a Blu Ray of one of the movies. This show should be simplistic, it should limit itself to "monster of the week" an occasional 2 part episode about a couple of Agents who work with some lower end super heroes ("comic B reel") defeating some evil, and ditch all these generic, dead weight and unlikable characters. (Especially Sky.) The ongoing "conspiracy" story lines only really worked for the X-Files…and this is nowhere near the X-Files.

The only other alternative is to yank Agent Coulson from this series and insert him back into the movies in his supportive role. I

I've given this series several months, and my opinion hasn't been changed. The only reason I keep watching is because i'm afraid they'll do something that will tie into some upcoming Avenger or Avenger member film and I'll not understand something. Sad. This had potential to be something fun and great. Instead it's clunky and boring. Gets 2/10 for the two episodes I liked, and for Agent Coulson, who's story and character they are slowly destroying (not cool.)

Well, I liked it better than I did the first Thor (my problems with the first being that I didn't find the time allowed for redemption believable, and there was a lot of unnecessary CGI.) And i'm a nerd, especially a big Marvel nerd.

While it's true that this movie had a little more going on, my main issue was with how rushed the scenes that were supposed to be emotional, poignant and devastating were.

The death of Frigga, the "death" of Loki, and the scene where Thor visits Loki are great examples of this. Now, I've read contradictory things on the IMDb message boards with some blaming the director, others, the editors. I don't know who the blame lies with, but not allowing the full emotional impact of this scene to ride out so everyone- in movie and audience could be allowed to feel this was a mistake. Yeah I know that Frigga's tribute is a grand Viking funeral, but this comes after those personal to her are gathered around her.

As far as the "death" of Loki is concerned, I just believe extending that scene an extra minute would have been more powerful, especially seeing as he is a major and popular character.

The elves looked menacing, and like a force to be reckoned with, sadly there's no dimension to them or any dimension to Malekith. They're the bad guys, and we're given little more to their motivation other than wanting the universe in darkness. Hardly any time is spent on them.

I'm still not sold on Natalie Portman as I still think her part could've been played by anybody, but at least she's less frumpy here, and boy, does she know how to slap people in the face, oh boy does she ever. A little too convenient that she find herself the one infected by the Aether out of a planet full of billions, but I guess for the sake of the story i'll buy it.

Why does Selvig have no pants? And why is he "crazy"? What drove him to these things, what's the point of it.

(What happened to Odin ultimately? Was he killed? was he sent into suspended animation? cast off to a different planet/dimension completely?)

Why wouldn't they be gods and immortal? Why would Odin say that? You mean to tell me they can fly, conjure magic, get beaten to a merciless pulp by the Hulk, stabbed, shot with fire balls/flames, hit by cars, endure apparent space travel by falling into the void, and battle with countless entities including but not limited to frost giants, but a mere impaling into the chest would be enough to kill them? or they would simply die after approx. 5,000 years? I felt that line was out of place and unnecessary.

Sometimes the CGI was a little overwhelming, and some "landscapes" were awful dark and drab, almost to the point of the darkness interfering with me seeing/understand what was happening.

Some of the dialog at times I found corny.

Now the great:

LOKI. so glad he's a big part of this movie too. I highly anticipated seeing what had become of him post Avengers. Every second he's on screen he steals the show. Loki consistently remains the only one in this series with any dimension, development or understandable motivation. Hiddleston is a great actor and has done an outstanding job, The scenes between him and Thor make the movie.

Thor: he's grown on me. It took me a while to warm up to Thor, something that didn't start happening for me until the Avengers. Thankfully he's starting to have a personality, and thinking wisely. And yes, his physique is something to behold!

Sif and The Warriors Three: They were great, glad we had the opportunity to see them in action again. It will be interesting to see what happens with Sif.

There were lots of little moments sprinkled throughout this film, clever little happenings (ie: Thor hangs the hammer up on the coat hook, the subway, the Captain America cameo.)

The end scene was great...people cheered in my showing (including myself), and left for a pretty good Asgard cliffhanger.

Also, thank you Del Toro, now i'm psyched for a "Guardians of the Galaxy" movie.

Overall not a bad addition, and yes, I'll be buying on Blu-Ray.

PS- Studios, yes, give Loki his own movie. But only if you do it right, don't change the character for monetary reasons, and don't take him out of character, you can find some decent script writers who understand what this is all about.

I can count on one hand how many times i've seen a movie and have been completely, utterly enraptured and on the edge of my seat. Cauron once again proves his competency as a director and storyteller. (see the excellent: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban as reference to his excellent work.)

This is one of them. I've seen it twice, once in 2D, and the other in 3D IMAX.

The 2D experience:

1.) Visuals: Absolutely breathtaking. The CG used here is so well done, and seamlessly blended I couldn't tell what was CG and what wasn't. The colors and rich and vibrant.

2.) Attention to detail. Was meticulous. I liked "no sound in space" I liked that the only sound we had was in the presence of air, and the reverberation through and in the space suits of the using of tools, etc. I enjoyed the physics and realism, the sometimes clunky and awkward movements of the astronauts as they are limited by the bulky space suits, and lack of gravity or air pressure to assist.

3.) Clooney and Bullock do a spectacular job, I was invested and concerned in the story and felt real emotions at the unfurling of events. I CARED what happened.

4.) I found myself leaning, shifting, and making gestures with my hands, face, feet, whatever (as if that was going to alter the outcome of what was happening.) Not to mention muttering under my breath "look out!, "go,go,go" "grab that!" amongst other things.

5.) The score was spectacular. (And not overwhelming,) powerful and appropriate. I believe this is Steven Price's first "big" work. Well done.

6.) Kept me guessing until the end. I honestly didn't know if this was going to be a happy ending. All the signs of good story telling.

The 3D IMAX experience. (everything great from the 2D experience, and some bonuses!)

3D is something I rarely invest in. Usually it's pointless, annoying and adds nothing significant to what i'm watching. It's just a way for me to part with extra $$ for no real reason and a disappointing experience.

Gravity is an exception to the 3D rule. And seeing it in IMAX is a special treat. The expansive screen swallows you whole and makes you experience space and the unfolding events as if you were actually there.

3D is well done and well used. I've become accustomed in my 3D experience to things popping out of the screen towards the audience, things, in the foreground separated from the background, fireballs, etc. etc. etc.

I cannot recall one instance in any of these previous movies where I actually flinched, blinked, and raised my hand up as if to protect myself from something coming at me.

I did this for Gravity. To me that debris was coming straight at my head.

To the naysayers and nit-pickers: all I'll say is "really?!" How much better do you get? I dare you to find a more realistic space movie.

Whatever way you view this movie, the important thing is you do. I highly recommend the 3D IMAX version (Something I rarely do.) Blu-Ray will be spectacular, but nothing will touch seeing this in a theater.

Bravo gravity, Bullock, Clooney, Price, and especially you Cuarón. I will see you come awards season.

10/10

"Man of Steel" is not just a failure on it's story, but a catastrophic meltdown right down to the fundamental core.

1.) If you didn't have tinnitus going into the movie, you will when you come out. This is one of the most unnecessarily decibel cranking movies I have ever seen, that's not me being oversensitive, i've sat through plenty of loud movies.

2.) The Krypton story. I appreciate that time was taken to explore Superman's home planet, parents, and how he came to be on Earth. It's also when I started to become uneasy with this movie. Zod & co. are convicted and sentenced, and a huge spacecraft collects them for punishment.

I could accept that perhaps this supposed advanced culture's arrogance stopped it from seeing it was doomed (I'll reluctantly give it a pass, it's been in every Superman i've ever seen, But why didn't Jor-el utilize a bigger ship? Surely he'd figure out how, or own one of his own. I didn't question this in the original Donner version because no Spacecraft scene was there, only the weird mirror.

3.) The Codex. Jor-el swims through fields of growing babies left over from the Matrix, grabs a skull, dissolves it, and infuses it into his baby. Couldn't we just stick with he obtained powers from passing through a sun?

When you suck all the mysticism and wonder from a story, something is lost in translation. (that's you Star Wars prequels).

Likewise this happens when you try to shovel in as much ridiculous crap as you can.

4.) Pa Kent. Wasn't this supposed to be the surrogate father that Clark loved, respected and who helped to mold him into a good man? Watch as he treats his son with indifference and coldness. His demise, a scene that is supposed to be powerful and poignant, is instead boiled down to a stupid action scene for no real reason at all. Costner really phoned this one in.

5.) Some stories are means to be dark and full of drama and angst. Superman is not one of them, and it shows. It's a huge trend now to make every super hero story dark and depressing, this works great for comics like Batman or Watchmen, but backfires horribly for Superman,(Take a note from "The Avengers" guys, it's possible to be successful and convincing without being dark all the time.)

Am I saying he can't be frustrated, angry or upset? No, of course not. Reference again the Donner version for how this can be achieved properly and effectively.

6.) Numerous miscasts. Don't care for Henry Cavill...I just couldn't get into him as Superman, and I tried, I really did, he just didn't convince me.

Likewise on Amy Adams, who took me so far outside the character of Lois Lane there was no going back. She also lacks any chemistry what-so-ever with Superman.

Fishburne is well...there, but nothing about him is memorable. Diane Lane is serviceable.

7.) Superman doesn't act like Superman, and may actually cause more casualties that any villain, device, in this movie. Huge buildings are destroyed, countless people are incinerated, crushed or seemingly blown up, and it goes on forever.

This contributed greatly to the further removal of myself from the Superman character, frankly this molds him into more of a douchebag hellbent on personal vengeance than it does as a hero. (btw there is continuance here of the "Jesus" savior references from the last movie..ridiculous.) There no way I could invest in him, I promise I tried, I did.

8.) Other misc. stuff thrown in that bothered me. Lois in the Arctic, there was absolutely no reason for her to be there. The dumb Arctic spaceship and the equally ridiculous contents therein. The anti-climatic death of Zod.

9.) Lois Lane on board with the army/Air Force with the baby ship. Why do movie makers constantly feel the compulsion to have characters do things for the sake of having them in some big action scene. Lois functions best as the snoopy reporter, and occasional damsel in distress.

A few things I liked about the movie:

1.) The terraforming machine was cool. I "guess" I could buy the explanation about terraforming other planets. It's not the worst plot line they could've come up with. I liked the way the CGI/special effects for it were done.

2.) General Zod. One of two characters I actually enjoyed. Too bad they didn't develop him more or give him some real dimension. But Michael Shannon does a great job. After a while his scenes were the only ones I looked forward to. At least he had some passion, conviction, and reasons behind him doing the things he's doing. After the disaster the rest of this movie is, you'll find yourself rooting from him. (um, filmmakers, this is what you intended right? You didn't want me to root for the hero did you?)Too bad we won't be seeing him again as Superman offed him horribly.

3.) Jor-el was great. Russell Crowe did a great job. He was a highlight for me. There was more intensity and emotion in interactions between himself and Zod (both "hologram" Jor-El and person Jor-el) than collectively between anyone else in the entire movie. Great job guys.

Skip this one, you'll feel mad at wasting your hard earned money on the ticket. If you were a fan of the Donner series (I am.) Remember your hero as Christopher Reeve portrayed him, brave, honorable, kind, and properly angsty and emotional.

2/10 for Shannon and Crowe, and for some of the effects.

After a lackluster summer of disappointing action flicks (that's you "Man of Steel", and "Star Trek Into Darkness")I didn't go into "Kick Ass 2" with very high expectations. I was pleasantly surprised and how much I actually enjoyed it, (every so often I need to remind myself that there are quite a few films that critics didn't like, that I found great, and vice versa, so thanks KA2 for the reminder.)

Chloë Grace Moretz is back as Hit Girl, struggling to come to terms with her identity outside of Hit Girl, and trying to differentiate herself from the two sides of her personality, Mindy and Hit Girl. Kids can be cruel, and while most of us have had a lifetime to get used to the fact and steel our nerves, Mindy has not, so her experiences are raw. The payoff, however is classic, and something i'm sure more than once we've envisioned wanting to do. I'm all about character development and believability in my movies, and this is is one of my favorite characters, i'm glad they gave her the opportunity to grow into more dimension, there is a part of me that secretly wished for a less repressed "Hit Girl" persona, but when she's there, she's there big, and it pays off.

Christopher Mintz-Plasse is great as well, I enjoyed the storyline, and the rise and assemblage of the "toxic c***s". His transformation into The "Motherf***er" was initially a little too rushed for me, but then again, the will and predisposition to evil already were existing, so i'll give it a pass.

Aaron Johnson was good too, loved the end face off between Kick Ass and The Motherf***er, reminded me a lot of the end face off from the first movie, but this time, it's a role reversal.

Jim Carrey as Colonel Stars and Stripes, however, stole the show every second he was on screen. I read his total screen time added up to approx. 8 minutes, and I enjoyed every second of it. Carrey, (as he usually does) completely and believably immerses himself in character, I enjoyed Colonel Stars & Stripes immensely. (*NOTE to studio, I would love a "Colonel Stars & Stripes" origin story.) (*NOTE to Carrey, I hope you will consider this a possibility if offered, even with the objections you had to KA2.) Easily tied with Hit Girl for my favorite character.

The rest of the cast was good too, everyone worked well together, and chemistry was there, and relaxed.

I've read some flack about the Katie break up scene. It didn't really bother me that they broke up, but the reasoning was odd. It should have been an off screen mention of an event that happened prior to the events of the film. People break up all the time.

Bottom line: great story, memorable characters, I didn't find myself once wondering what time it was, or "is it going to end soon." That to me is a good sign.

9/10. Blu-ray worthy.

I'm happy that the $1 I paid to rent this movie went to a good cause in supporting my local library. That being said, it's one of the only positives about this movie experience. Dreary, dull, meandering and boring. A yawn inducing ghost story, that offers little more than long drawn out scenes, un-suspenseful build up, no pay off, not even jumps or scares. There was at no time that I cared or was interested in the "story". There were no characters that I really cared for, and nothing that particularly impressed me. Basically, an idiot stays in a house, long after anyone with any common sense would have said "the hell with all this" and left.

A CGI ghost that also shares a boring story, and isn't scary or believable....mind numbing. And some toys, which are easily the creepiest part of the movie.

The only remotely interesting scene I can give this movie credit for is the bringing up the carriage from the bog. There you go...that's the best 5 minutes of the movie right there.

I also did like Ciarán Hinds, who did the best he could with a boring story and a terrible script. It's hard to care for your movie when you just don't care about your characters, the story, or what happens in general. I am still mad at myself for wasting the time to watch this.

I think Radcliffe is a great actor, and versatile. I understand that he probably wants to try new things outside of Harry Potter. But the only ghosts he should stick with are The Bloody Baron, and Nearly Headless Nick. I cannot force myself to give this anything above a one, even though I liked Ciaran Hinds...sorry Ciaran.

I didn't go to this movie expecting Oscar winning caliber, I did want to be entertained, even in a "turn your brain off" way. I understand that more often than not when books are adapted into movies, things are changed, cut for time/story, etc. Preserving the main idea of a story can be done even implementing this method without the nuclear meltdown that occurred with this adaptation.

I LOVED the book. I loved the way time was taken to carefully develop the characters & story, & weave them into coordination with true historical facts, & events.

I'm not saying this needed to be "Batman Begins", i'm willing to accept the fact that studios aren't willing to provide unlimited funds for films they might consider "going out on a limb."

This movie would've been great if it had gone one of two ways: A goofy, campy, slaying story in the spirit of Sam Raimi's "Evil Dead" series (which I thoroughly enjoy). Or, if it had closely followed the tone & story of the novel. This movie did neither of those. The ONLY resemblance to the book are some character's names.

Here are my quarrels:

1.) A completely changed & rushed back story. What was so carefully plotted out in the book & gradually developed both story & character wise (so you can feel for Abe, his plight, motivations, feelings, & destiny) is now a completely different story with omissions of important characters, events, situations, mindsets, emotions, etc. & the addition of characters & situations not in the book.

It's rushed through in approximately 5 minutes, leaving you wondering why you should give a crap at all. You have no connection with Abe, or any other character for that matter. I was actually stunned.

2.) There's a training sequence that's laughable, & approximately 3 minutes long, with some of the worst CGI ever.

3.) Henry. His back story is unfortunately butchered & laughably unbelievable. As is his initial meeting (and ensuing friendship) with Abe. Gone is his meticulous nature, and important contributions to the story, and left is a husk of the character from the book.

4.) And what's this crap about vampires can't kill their own? And how vampires are made vampires? The explanation for how vampires are made vampires is so ridiculous, you'll want to puncture your own eardrums for having heard it.

5.) Continuing omission of key characters & events which continually leave you detached from any characters or the story. Adam, & the female vampire (? name) are a prime example of additional made up characters shoe horned in the movie. If they had followed the original story they would have had more than enough material without needing to invent these two silly, cardboard characters,

6.) Continuous, unemotional, passionless, mind numbingly repetitive "Matrix" like slow motion vampire killing scenes. Silly fight in a herd of wild running horses....horse "tossing".

7.) Silly subplot about silver. It's not ever in the book as being harmful, or the making of weapons from them. (PS: writers...stop putting silver in vampire movies, save it for the werewolves.)

8.) Mary Todd was never savvy to what her husband was up to. But here, less believably, distributing silver weapons out in the battlefield, where she could then have a stupid scene where she shoots the female (name?) vampire, who is running at her with full "Ahhhhhhh!!" battle cry.

But I guess the "writers" figured they needed to amp it up & give her a scene where she does something.

9.) I'm confused as to what happened at the end. Who is it in the bar? Why couldn't they just have had the ending they had in the book? The ending in the film reminds me of that ending from "Interview with the Vampire" with Tom Cruise telling Christian Slater he's going to give him the choice he never had. Cheesy.

Imagine my shock to find out that Seth Grahame-Smith was involved with the screenplay. SHAME ON YOU SETH! Did you have little creative control, or did you not care & sell out completely??!!

Tim Burton should hang his head in shame too (even though he hasn't been involved with a quality flick since "Sleepy Hollow")(with the "possible" exception of "Sweeney Todd".)

In my showing there was a group of gabby tweens who literally burst into giggles every time something happened on screen. Most of the time it was something that wasn't meant to be funny, but due to the nature of this "film" -was. Normally this behavior annoys me, but I couldn't even get annoyed with them, as it was justified.

So what did I like you might ask? If you're still reading. Well, I liked Benjamin Walker as I thought he looked the part, especially in Abe's later years, & he tried. But due to poor writing, and equally poor direction, his performance throughout the film is uneven and shockingly wooden as Abe in his younger years.

I liked Dominic Cooper as Henry, who like Walker, did the best he could with the crappy material and direction, at least he had a little more passion in his performance. It's not his fault the script sucked.

I liked that the vampires didn't sparkle.

If you enjoyed or have any respect for the book this is "based" on, I urge you to refrain from spending your hard earned money on a vastly overpriced ticket. You have been warned.

Having devoted years of my life to customer service, I thought this might be a funny anecdote and a prelude and homage to the poor schlep just trying to etch out a living by putting up with difficult people.

Instead I was sadly disappointed at what seemed to be little more than bathroom, sex and genitalia jokes that dominated the movie and culminated into moments of "who cares?" and it makes no sense.

If you could imagine filming grade school aged boys in the privacy of their own thoughts and circles of friends, then you might get a similar result to any given moment of "waiting". If you worship Beavis and Butthead to the point of enacting their every move and mindset, you'll enjoy "waiting."

The thing is, everyone in this cast i've seen in other movies and enjoyed, it's not that there's no talent, I don't blame the actors, what a genuine shame at a waste of everyone's time and talent. I'm not even sure who to pinpoint the blame on.

There's nothing funny, amusing, or thought provoking, about "waiting". There's nothing funny about the "game" played amongst the male staff, messing with food, bathroom sex, nervous urinating, crude discussions, nothing.

In fact the only sympathetic or relate-able character in the whole movie is Mitch, who seems to escape the charade of stupid and genuinely acts like a real human being. The rest of the overtired, clichéd one dimensional staff are so unlikable that it's impossible to feel empathy towards them when they have horrible customers.

I'm giving a generous 1 star, for the cast who I felt sorry for, and for the story thats suckitude is legendary.

My sister and I recently attended a preview screening of this in Toronto, I watched the trailer and knew this was going to be a simple, fun movie. It's not that I had low expectations, but I didn't set any either.

I have to say I was pretty impressed with what I saw. There's no new formula here, it's revenge in the workplace, the difference is unlike the insipid "Waiting" it's fun, and tactful, not gross and unnecessary, and while it was somewhat predictable, I still enjoyed the ride and enjoyed the characters. If you've ever served time in the wait/customer service industry, than you too can relate (as I certainly did) to the tiring everyday, irritating situations and customers and strange/rude situations encountered in the industry of "dealing" with people.

Kudos are also in hand for Margot Kidder (who I didn't even recognize until I saw her name in the credits) she looks great (even if she couldn't move her mouth), and as a rabid 20+ year fan of Kids In The Hall, it was a guilty pleasure, and awesome to see Dave Foley, (he still looks great, and hasn't lost a beat of the dark sarcasm that endears us to him so much). Also, loved the German corporate buyout guy (Franz), perhaps my favorite character next to Foley.

A simple, thoroughly enjoyable little film. And a great Canadian export.

I remember seeing a preview for this at the theater with a friend of mine, I remember leaning over to her and stating "that looks cheesy as hell." When it arrived in theaters...I smartly avoided it, saving my viewing of it for it's recent "Cinemax" premier. I'm glad.

The star power is there...so how did this manage to go horribly wrong? Well, some of the opening shots of the landscape, etc., and the Gothic gray tone are alright. But it quickly delves into a convoluted, snooze inducing, borefest.

Supposedly Del Toro was on board and gung ho about the project since 2006. Really? You couldn't tell. Del Toro looks and sounds bored, and delivers a more wooden performance than Pinnochio.

Hopkins likewise seems to phone in his performance, not much can be said about him as he exudes about as much excitement as a stagnant puddle. Normally I enjoy him a great deal, when this movie ended there was little that I could remember about him other than he played the Harmonica and hated his sons.

I felt sorry for Hugo Weaving as it seems he at least tried to be interested in his role...(the only one who seemed to be) but sadly he is underutilized as a generic Scotland yard inspector. It almost seemed about halfway through he realized what a horrible error he had made accepting this role.

There was no chemistry between any of the leads, the "love" story (if you could even call it that) felt forced, and Del Toro and Blunt had zero chemistry. Blunt herself, was terrible. She never seems sorry, or mournful, or shocked at the horrible death of her fiancé. Half hearted pleas of "stay with me." Seemed to solidify her non chalantness of the situation at hand.

I wondered how it was possible to make a movie about werewolves boring. Brother is killed by werewolf, other brother returns, other brother and dad don't like each other, other brother is bit, becomes werewolf, father is werewolf also, they fight, house burns down, other brother wins, other brother is killed, numerous flashbacks to mother's death, and other scenes you care nothing about.

There's also some crap thrown in about Hopkins's werewolf origin as he stumbles across Gollum in a cave some years earlier and is bitten. Seriously? All the CGI computer guys you had at work on this, and this is the best looking thing they could come up with? A LOTR rip off?

There's no redemption for any character, nor did I care about what happened to any of them, every single situation is predictable, the outcome...just as predictable, CGI is overused, cheap looking, and horribly fake, (werewolves look like furbies) and the ratio of werewolf screen time vs. human story screen time is vastly off balance.

Gore is over the top and pointless. How many times do you need to see people beheaded, organs ripped from bodies, limbs ripped, throats gouged, and claws impaling through things before you figure out that the werewolves are "really bad guys" with zero characteristics, attitudes, or personalities outside of ripping apart people, nor do they seem of any intelligence as they never seem to be able to weed out "bad" people from innocent bystanders. This combined with cardboard cutout human characters give the audience nothing to latch onto or cheer for. (Did you feel the least bit bad or upset when Del Toro's werewolf was killed? No? Neither did I.)

Del Toro's werewolf also displays nothing different from the werewolf persona of his father or any other werewolf in this hot mess. What a dragging, depressing, joyless, lame, poorly scripted movie, and a waste of actors who have genuine talent. Avoid at all costs.

I think my headline says it all. I knew this was a "kids" movie before I watched it, I expected a simple, whimsical, lighthearted fantasy/adventure, about a (lonely) boy who created a world in his mind to escape to and have adventures with the creatures who live there. Simple enough, something any small child can certainly relate to.

WRONG! Instead Max, who have hints of perhaps being lonely youth (overworked mom, older sister with friends, dad (dead, divorced? I dunno, it's never made clear.) Is completely overshadowed by the fact he goes on violent, destructive rants, acts out, bites his own mother, destroys sister's property and thoroughly soaks both her carpet and bed with snow. All because the people around him aren't constantly paying attention to him 24/7. (Great lessons for kids too huh? Life happens, but even negative attention is still attention right? So do whatever possible to get people to notice you!) It made me lose any warm feelings I might have for Max, they should have just left him as a lonely youth with no friends and a mom who is constantly working, etc.

The extreme disjointed feel of the movie arises from when Max steals away to a far off island full of the "wild things." (I am never clear if this is for real in the movie, or a product of a sleeping Max, again, it's never made clear.)

I honestly had no idea what was going on, and did try my best to follow it. I tried even turning my brain off to just go with the flow, but found that impossible as there is no flow. After a while I took to just psychoanalyzing the "wild things" and trying to decide which creature matched what manifestation of Max's personality...or the personalities of the people in his life.

While most of the time it was one creature or another's non stop whining for most of the movie...it was also violent dirt fights of creatures pelting each other about the face, head, and body with huge painful dirt clumps, violent destruction of creature's homes by Carol, general violent outbursts, threats, smashing and destruction, and the actual violent ripping off of Douglas's arm by Carol. The next scene we see Douglas, he has jammed a white stick into the hole to act as a makeshift arm. This isn't even mentioning the sarcastic overtones, mocking, and general depressing overtones of this movie.

At no time did I feel anyone learned any lessons, grew, changed, anything. Maybe a little at the weird ending where the boy is eager to get home...perhaps he learned a little bit to be a little nicer and more respectful to those in his life. Whatever.

I have 2 young godsons, who not only would I never consider showing them this dreck, but even if I did, they'd be bored out of their skulls and most likely be finding something else to do within the first ten minutes.

Why couldn't this story have been kept about a lonely young boy escaping into his imagination, instead of terror inducing, boring, Freud fest that the writers decided to make it?

2/10, being generous because the animatronic creatures we're actually impressive to look at, and nothing looked overly fake.

I remember several years ago watching "Saving Private Ryan" with my grandfather, a WW2 vet, who also survived storming the beach that day. Ten minutes into the movie he had to leave the room, because of how "real & accurate" the beach scene was for him. I think i've made my point. Bigelow needs to learn from this kind of example. It's possible to recreate a scene/war realistically.

I have a few friends who have bravely served in Iraq, most, more than one tour of duty in infantry, tanker, equipment mechanic, etc., who put their lives in danger patrolling streets, dodging gunfire, detecting IED's, in some cases assisting to disarm and quarantine off areas, & processing the gruesome aftermath of an incident, or suicide bomber.

That being said, from the previews, & ridiculous hype, I figured this was going to be a no holds barred, gritty, realistic peek into the everyday life of American Soldiers more specifically, bomb tech soldiers.

I realized the inaccuracies start almost immediately, no skilled soldier in his right mind would've let that guy with the cell phone even start dialing...he would've been shot dead right away, IED units, patrolling alone, soldier wandering on vigilante mission alone in the night through dangerous Baghdad, are just some of the dangerous situations you can expect to see, glaring errors even to a non military observer.

No team leader would EVER risk the lives of his entire team plunging them into nighttime, uncharted territory "on a hunch" because he feels that whomever set up/detonated this nighttime bomb was surely hiding in the shadows watching. When in truth, they likely would've been long gone, blended in with the locals, if they were in the vicinity at all.

No team would've tolerated the rogue, "wild card" bomb tech, who repeatedly defies orders & odds, placing his entire team at risk, time & time again. In the words of my friends "would've zip tied his a** and thrown him in the back of a Hum Vee first." Do I need to go on? Ladies & Gentlemen, who else is going to know what's wrong with this picture more than the people who were there for real?

The main actors are clichéd cookie cutter cutouts. I found myself not caring about any of them as they meandered through the predictability of the movies as one cliché after another was rolled out: the various types of bombs, the shady terrorists, the doctor who is killed, ironically while on his first voyage out into the field, the angry by the books soldier, the "wild card", rule bending soldier, the innocent, sweet, soft spoken soldier. The done to death conversations and "coming to term" conversations. "By the books" soldier clashes with "Wild Card", but in the end, likes & respects him, despite his crazy methods, and realizes himself, he's overcome his fear of procreation, and indeed, wants children. "Wild Card" has trouble adjusting to civilian life, and in a dull scene, realizes he loves "one thing", which left me wondering, "is it war he loves?, or his son?"

Not one storyline is deep enough for me to give a crap what happened to any of them. Camera work is sloppy, & abrupt (not quite to Blair Witch levels, but irritating enough), if a director is going for a realistic camera situation, I think it's more important to not have to take Dramamine when watching it.

Ralph Fiennes & Guy Pearce also throw in a much too short cameo as apparently ridiculously inept British Officers, (their appearance subconsciously beckon you into wanting to watch a better film.) They of course are taken out by terrorist snipers occupying the only structure within eyesight.

The Academy needs a serious overhaul...it's absolutely shocking to me that this won "Best Picture". It's fine that someone wants to make a movie about the day to day of soldiers in Iraq, but for gods sake, at least make it accurate.

2 stars--for Fiennes & Pearce, & for the sets & locations...which are the best things about the movie.

Let's review this checklist of actors: Edward Norton, Tim Roth, William Hurt, and awesome cameos by Lou Ferrigno and Robert Downey Jr., not to mention Stan Lee's. So how is it when you have this sort of team you manage to make a movie that is boring, dull, and convoluted? And that's even during the action sequences.

I don't blame the actors, they've well proved their abilities in other movies. (With the exception of Tyler, who's crowning cinematic achievement was in the LOTR trilogy, she was right where she should be...a minor character.) The performances are phoned in, and as the movie progresses, you can almost see the realization cross faces, as they realize how ridiculous, bland and half assed the lines they're reciting actually are. The story is overcomplicated and ridiculous.

There's nothing intelligent about this movie, nothing suspenseful, or even remotely insightful. The CGI is terrible and overwhelming, and battles wage on way too long. Hulk vs. bad guys, Hulk vs. military, Hulk vs. Tank, Hulk vs. government created super creature. Of course Hulk wins...was there ever a doubt? Not when a sequel could yank in more cash.

Norton looked about as enthusiastic as going to the restroom after eating some bad seafood, Roth tried his best with his overused clichéd character - evil, psychopath war vet part of gov't experimentation turning him into super evil, psychopath war vet, unstoppable creature hell bent on destroying Hulk and anyone else in the way. Hurt is out of place as a hippie looking general who's appearance alone violates several conditions of military protocol. Tyler's standard performance as love interest has been reheated so many times it's unrecognizable. There's not a convincing performance in the bunch!

Thankfully Downey Jr. & Ferrino spare themselves as they're in the movie for about a minute each. It's the only thing that prevents me from giving this one star. The Hulk is without a doubt Marvel's most boring franchise. (Ghost Rider was a least amusing, and the CGI was appropriate.) Sorry guys, Ferrino's late 70's Hulk TV show is still boss in my book. 2/10

I was nervous about a "PG-13" Terminator film, so I put off seeing this for quite a while after it came out...however curiosity and being a fan of the other Terminator films won out.

I have to admit I really enjoyed this movie. I needed the bad taste that was "Transformers 2" washed away and this did the trick.

The Good:

Sam Worthington. One of the two best performances in the movie (he was recommended to McG by both Cameron & Russell Crowe.) It's nice to see that Terminator can still be a great story even if John Connor isn't your main focus. (and honestly it was about time some character rotation took place, no offense, I still love the other T films.) I really could feel emotion for and beside him (and his predicament.) I really wish they had given his character more development and room for a possible sequel or spin-off instead of his ultimately disappointing end.

Anton Yelchin. Continually surprises me with the range he shows in his acting. He had huge shoes to fill with Kyle Reese, and he did a great job. At times I could actually feel him channeling the Kyle of T1 through him. Well done, between this and Star Trek he's having a great year!

I thought the desolate look of the future was great. Thankfully McG directs masterfully and is the "Anti-Michael Bay." No sickening "Cloverfield"esque shaky cam, or constant huge explosions needlessly in cities for the sake of just blowing things up. What's blown up here has a purpose for blowing up (for the most part.)

I thought the story was OK, there wasn't a whole lot script-wise that bothered me or stuck out as dumb or corny. (There are a few sub-plots and dialog scenes that I can nit pick at, but nothing too major.) I liked the T-800 cameo too. (I know it wasn't really Arnold, but it really made for a nice connection to the previous movies.)

The Bad:

Christian Bale. Sorry, and i'm a Bale fan. He just seemed as if he was sleepwalking his way through. Although some of his performance comes across as genuine, most of the time it's borderline wooden. I also didn't care for the "shallowness" portion that came through on his prejudiced feelings towards the machines, even though by now he's well into the war and know that with the right programming the terminators can be turned. (Also the writer's seem to have forgotten the experiences he's had in the past knowing it's possible for a terminator to learn and change.)

The female element. Helena Bonham Carter is without a doubt the most interesting female in this movie, and her screen time is around 5 minutes. McG has said with his casting of Bloodgood he was hoping to continue with the "strong woman persona" of the previous movies. But I fail to see that in her. There was nothing particularly memorable about her, nor that strong. Pure placement as a "romantic interest" to be vulnerable around Worthington.

Howard puts in a small role. There's nothing great about her, nor anything bad, she's just there. The pregnant wife/doctor. Since it was not deemed to advance her character at all, I can't say anything about her either way.

The resistance is hidden underground in a secret labyrinth, avoiding any explosions, noise, lights, etc. as to avoid detection by the machines, but when Worthington's character escapes, all hell breaks loose above ground. Guys with lights and guns waving them about and shooting, multiple helicopters, not to mention a huge hell fire bombing of the forest terrain above. Even if they thought he was going back to report to the machines, would they really want to deal with all the enemy attention they have undoubtedly just drawn to themselves?

As mentioned above, lame ending for Worthington. How can they even be sure that his heart would work and be compatible with John? And how lame is it to think that not only does John Connor have to worry about machines constantly coming after him, but life long possibility of organ rejection as well?! Even if the whole purpose for ending the movie was Worthington's character somehow die, you're telling me that's the best you can come up with?! Come on!

But all in all, I thought it was a pretty good movie. It held my attention, was entertaining, and I didn't feel ripped off leaving the theater...will add to DVD collection. 8/10

I was wary about watching this movie ever since I found it it was "starring" Jessica Alba & Hayden Chrsitensen. Specifically more for Alba.

The anesthesia awareness takes a back seat to tepid "tension" anyway. The anesthesia problem had no bearing or effect on the ultimate outcome of the movie would have happened regardless. In fact, it's only use is to flash back to the same scenes we've already witnessed, over and over again. The writers lack the storytelling skills to be innovative on revealing a dastardly plot, and must rely on shoving the same scenes down your throat for you to pick up on "something ain't right here."

Hayden plays boy billionaire Clay Beresford Jr. Clay, also has an undiagnosed generic movie heart condition that is apparently so severe he requires a heart transplant and is on the transplant list. He actually looks pretty damn good for someone who is sick enough to need a new heart. He walks around, runs, fishes, conducts business, and even has a healthy sex life. Absent are any signs of what someone might normally expect from a heart patient, like cyanosis, fatigue, being bed ridden, edema, pale color, breathing problems (neigh for one scene that involves some slight asthma like wheezing.) Clay seems nothing like a heart patient.

I wonder, did anyone do ANY medical research? The answer is a resounding "NO" as this is just the beginning of medical inaccuracy.

Clay's surgeon (Terrance Howard, is confident about his ability to successfully transplant a new heart into him, despite the fact that the guy has 4 medical malpractice suits against him, both the hospital, and Clay are dumb enough to let him operate.

In a rapid succession of events, Clay's relationship with Samantha (Alba, who is also his mother's personal assistant)is revealed, mother disapproves, they get married, and after healthy honey moon sex (again for severe heart patient?) his beeper goes off indicating a donor heart has been found.

Once in the hospital, in a final act of childish defiance, Clay sticks to his malpractice ridden surgeon, over the top heart surgeon in the country.

The medical team assembled to transplant his heart, is atrociously laughable...first off, they have a room about the size of a broom closet, no real equipment, and there's a total of 4...yes count them....4 people conducting this delicate and life threatening surgery. (Malpratice surgeon, evil doctor, and crooked nurse.) And they're all out to kill Clay for his money neigh the Anasthesiologist who is a drunk (complete with flask) and a last minute replacement for the evil one. Turns out even Samantha is in on the kill Clay conspiracy as she is the one time nurse, and lover of the evil surgeon.

I always wondered...Clay is such good friends with this surgeon, and despite his malpractice suits, failed to notice the framed large photograph in this guys office which prominently features the evil team, complete with a scrub clad Samantha in the foreground, looking exactly the same way she does when they meet.

Throughout the surgery, the evil doctors and nurses come and go from the room, take their masks off, make phone calls, fight with each other. (the unsuspecting anesthesiologist actually leaves the room for a lengthly amount of time.) NONE of these things would be allowed by any real hospital. Even former nurse Samantha comes in at one point, completely ungloved and injects some sort of a poison into the new heart, to ensure he won't survive. Tell me, what kind of hospital would allow this apparent high traffic with a minimal medical team, a surgeon accused in 4 malpractice suits to operate on a high profile billionaire?! The plot holes are just terrible.

Somehow Clay (who is awake but paralyzed.) is able to channel the extreme pain of being cut open with a dull scalpel, having his ribs cut and chest spread apart, by thinking about Samantha....yeah...right. After being slapped with the repeat scenes you witnessed earlier in the movie, and some silly "ghost" plot involving Clay running around the hospital and his home.

The mother through an unbelievable series of events figures out the conspiracy, phones hero top surgeon, OD's on a bunch of pills, and sacrifices herself to save her son's life. Top surgeon arrives in time complete with team, takes bad heart out, transplants mother's heart in (guess it was just an assumed match, who needs to test compatibility anyhow right?) And Clay after a heart felt goodbye in ghost land with his mother, wakes up.

It's too bad the movie ended up this way, it was an interesting idea "what if someone experienced this anesthesia awareness?" But it is lazily, inaccurately, and stupidly written, with shallow characters, medical inaccuracies, and large plot holes that suspension of belief couldn't even fill. The cast (except for Olin) is terrible.

I'll give in credit in the way of I didn't see the two major twists coming, they managed to do that right. But just sloppy, and terrible overall. 2/10

I put off seeing this for over a month until all the fuss died down.

What a dragging dog of a movie! Just who was this movie supposed to be aimed for? Testosterone filled jocks?

The Bad: The plot, was really convoluted and awful. Half the time it moved so quickly, and so many new twists were thrown in at breakneck speed that I had no idea what was going on.

The toilet humor & general unnecessary grossness. 2 dogs humping each other repeatedly, really overlong and embarrassing stoned scene involving the mother eating a pot brownie and running around campus like a fool. Every minute she's on screen is excruciating.

Bots performing bodily functions such as puking, farting, and crying were terrible, and absolutely unnecessary.

That small "Pesci-bot". Even worse later in movie when Pesci-bot humps Megan Fox's leg.

The 2 "ghetto-bots" who were the worst "comic relief" and blatant racist characters i've ever seen. Jar Jar, take a seat, you might've met your match. How they got away with them is beyond me.

This movie has an obsession with testicles like you wouldn't believe. Whiny roommate complains at least 2-3 times about his being flattened, squished, fell on, tasered, etc. Not to mention the large "destructo-bot" than assembles itself at the end has big balls....literally. The bot has 2 large wrecking balls hanging between it's legs. Who's idea was this?!

Female decepticon ripped right from "Terminator." That's right, hot chick who's really a robot....she even walks in menacingly slow style, expressionless and all.

Once again during the drawn out big battles, it's hard to tell who's who, and who's on what side doing what. Bots are left and right, and often times changing so quickly it's difficult to appreciate the complexity of the robot, or all the thought that went into the CGI as everything's so dam fast all the time.

I still see not much reason for Megan Fox other than the eye candy love interest. She doesn't say or do anything interesting, or add much to the story. Revlon and Collagen must be happy for the promotions she's brought to them.

The "Say I love you first" sub plot is painful and ridiculous, it's would be like watching a movie with two people on the phone saying "hang up." "no you hang up.", "no YOU hang up first." Crossing borders with armed guards is as easy as saying "We're from NY." and they're waved right in, no passports, no searches, nothing. Are you kidding? I've been given bigger hassles at Canadian bridges WITH my passport.

Human visits robot heaven...'nuff said.

"Old fart" robot. Complete with cane, he can barely walk, and mummers his way through long boring stories, but he's a sophisticated jet who flies and warp travels with no problem.....give me a break.

The tag-along roommate was irritating as hell.

How is it with all these major daylight battles, some of which are at prominent famous landmarks is the gov't still managing to keep these robots under wraps? They must be working hand in hand with the guys at MIB.

These are just some of the generalized things that make no sense.

Nitpicky: I thought it was strange that Sam's father remarked about him being "the first Witwicky to go to college." They live in suburbia California, in a pretty nice modern home with all the creature comforts, and look to be at least a comfortable income. Just what in the hell does his dad do for a living to afford all that? There's not a whole lot of people I know who didn't go to college who are living that comfortably, and some of the one's who did don't.

Elaborate 2 1/2 hour commercial for GM, and the Army. Not that I have a particular problem with either but most of the robots function little other than to show off GM's new line of cars and the cool things they can do. Likewise the Army guys over the top parachuting antics.

The good: Optimus Prime is awesome. Though the story about the primes is kinda hokey, he's still kicks butt.

Bumble Bee: Always did like him, they still haven't given him the screen time he deserves, but it's pretty cool to see him back in one piece and fighting fearlessly. I do still wish he'd remained as the VW bug. Camaro, although cool, is too noticeable....too flashy.

Some of Shia's humor is OK.

The sound effects can be pretty cool at times.

Sam's dad isn't actually all that bad. He's funny without making you want to jab something into your eye.

John Turturro. period. I like John, i'm still trying to figure out what he was doing in the first one, more or less the sequel. Picking up a little vacation paycheck apparently. I was mildly amused at the butt shot tho, as I was amused by his Sector 7 under-gear in the last movie, I don't know, he's a good actor, i'm just still trying to figure out what he's doing in these movies.

A real dragging headache inducing classic Michael Bay boobs & explosion fest. 2/10

Here I finally get around to writing a review on this horrible movie, 3 years after wasting and hour and a half of my life watching it in the theater.

I hate this movie. There's no other way to put it. I've read some reviews on here that stated gamers will like it, well, I know plenty of gamers, and it's their general consensus that it's an insult to gamers everywhere.

This enormous waste of money & time sports a group of gamers, all of whom start dying in "innovative" ways from playing a game and dying like their characters in the game do. To top it off, they've incorporated the true legend of Countess Bathory as her evil spirit is somehow alive, inhabiting this game and her blood lust cannot be satisfied unless she's picking off another bad teenage actor/actress every five minutes. Give me a break. This movie is not only insulting to it's audience, it's insulting to history as well.

Not to mention it's rated PG-13, so anything horrifying occurs off screen and is left to your imagination. Be aware of the game haunting you! What a joke.

I probably should've written this sooner as it's been a long time since I saw it, and remember little else about it except that it sucked. I do however, remember being mad at my now ex for dragging me to see it, and for shelling out the hard earned money for the ticket. 0/10

This certainly isn't the worst movie i've ever seen, but it's far from the best. If you go into it with an open mind just wanting to be entertained and not expecting anything cerebral, than you'll likely be amused.

The Good:

Ray Park as Snake Eyes. Ray Park never disappoints. His martial arts style and amazing flexibility shine through here too. I was pleased.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Probably the best performance of anyone in the movie (right up there with Park.) I was very impressed with his portrayal of the half mad genius doctor. He captured the atmosphere of the character dead on. You'll enjoy him every second he's on screen.

A lot of the POV shots are very cool (esp the "Joe plane"). The attention to detail in most parts of the film is really very good. Particularly the shot of the city "grid" below when a complicated sky shot is occurring. Even if it is CGI, it's done very well, and doesn't look fake. The traffic action sequences are nicely done, as are the destruction of the "metal objects" of different heights and lengths. I also enjoyed the transitions from scene to scene, esp. during battles. (Matching what the plane was doing, and then morphing to the submarine in a similar position was pretty cool.)

Your all around performances by the rest of the cast really aren't too bad, but at the same time isn't anything remarkable either.

The Bad:

If you're expecting any character development....don't, there really isn't any. A few characters have a few brief flashbacks to establish quick parts of their lives, but it really isn't anything substantial or particularly revealing.

Don't expect anything special from the dialog either, it's not deep, and most of the time not really particularly interesting. It's not necessarily monotone as much as it is flat and consistent. Few characters ever seem to be astonished or overwhelmed by the situations/battles/action sequences they've found themselves in. I'm willing to believe this is a casualty of acting in front of green screen with mega effects and explosions added post production, or just lazy script writing and the failure of the director to envision what will eventually be added and directing his actors to feel it.

The movie is laughable unintentionally in certain parts, mostly thanks to cornball dialog and occasional over the top acting.

A few nit-picky items I had with the movie:

Why is it all the women have this long hair all over the place all the time, even in the heat of battle? Seems to me a ponytail could at least have been utilized, instead super model hair abounds! Oh well.

Could we make the Cobra Commander a cooler mask? In the cartoon he had this faceless mask that you never saw through. It was simple, and yet effective in it's design. I got all excited in this movie when the doctor finally donned his commander mask, only to have it look like something you'd use around your house when doing projects, covered in something cheap looking & shiny, with large, clear, plastic eye-holes. If Gordon-Levitt could pull a performance that surpassed expectations, than surely the effects department could whip him up a mask to match.

Like I said, not a bad movie if you have no expectations and can enjoy big dumb fun, but nothing too cerebral. 4/10

P.S. - Watch for a "blink and you'll miss it" cameo by Brendan Fraser.

I contemplated seeing this in the theater, just to see what the fuss was all about. I'm sincerely glad I dodged that bullet, instead waiting for the DVD.

This movie is nothing more than porn for tweens who are anxious to drool over Pattinson or Stewart, although I can understand Pattinson's dark, brooding appeal, he's got talent, it's a shame that neither the director or the screenwriters chose to use any of it. Instead he's reduced to a emo, glaring, statue.

Stewart was absolutely terrible. She was so wooden, that I kept looking for strings attached to her body. She consistently holds the same monotone voice, same expression, and sleep walks through the movie. Nothing of the unworldly events, or shocking revelations, or uprooting her character experiences seems to shock, please, sadden, etc. her at all, she just holds that tranquilized expression through everything. Also, her delivery of lines is horrendous, awkward delivery, and pauses where none should be, one could almost feel violent waiting for her to finish the simplest of sentences. Let's not even get started on the group of friends.

Mostly I was left confused with what I considered to be a poorly written tepid storyline. Edward glitters like a craft store special when in the sun, he and his clan hunt and drink blood from animals rather than people, and play baseball. There's one "climatic" "matrix-esque" battle with some evil vampires., all because this girl and whatever she emanates is like vampire cocaine. Yay.

Never was I convinced of any great love between the two leads. There were one or two moments where I felt an almost warmth or desire between their characters, otherwise I was mostly bored at the endless staring scenes, Edward's apparent "bi-polar" behavior as he apparently has some inner-war with himself about Bella, "I love you, but it's dangerous for us both to be together." Give me a break.

Not to mention some very strange adults....Bella's mom and dad show about as much concern for her as a piece of moldy fruit found in the refrigerator, the whole family text messages one another, and no one seems to give a squat what happens with anyone else.

I haven't read the book, and seeing this movie gives me no desire to do so either.

I have read Anne Rice's series on vampires, and enjoyed it immensely as she had the ability to fill in characters, and personalize them so well, you feel for them even through the text of the page. This movie however, what a fault ridden waste of time!

This was a depressing, awful, dark, dank, and damp (OH GOD was it ever damp, This version of London has to be the wettest i've ever seen.)

Although going full well into this movie knowing it was based on the macabre and mysterious Jack The Ripper, it was more depressing, insulting, boring, and bland than it was suspenseful and scary.

It's sad too, because it appears the Hollywood machine went full force in recreating 19th century London, CGI, costumes, and props. It Could have been a great, terrifying suspenseful mystery adventure. Instead it takes a little Alan Moore, history, and mixes in a terrible script. I actually cringed at the awful, screeching Cockney accents provided by the non British/UK actors and actresses. (Depp was OK though, his being mellow and not seemingly screeched at the top of his lungs like the "unfortunates" was.)

There was no chemistry what-so-ever between Depp and Graham, at no time was I convinced of their attraction to each other, or of their predictable "romance", if you could call it that. Depp seemed to sleepwalk his way through most of this picture, (I wish I could've done the same.) The "unfortunates" are portrayed as the dumbest group of screeching harpies I have ever seen spread across the screen. How many moments of stubborn pride "I won't take charity from nobody" "I'm not a whore", "I wasn't always a whore." "I need to work to live/eat." moments did you count? Especially from Graham?

Even late into the movie, as all her friends lay horribly slain, she still stubbornly sticks her nose in the air with these ideas rather than just taking the money offered to her (and at this point it should be quite obvious that it's not someone trying to get in her pants) and getting the hell out of dodge. It's nothing more than a bad script setup to share a "passionate" kiss with Depp.

The killer story, for one of the most infamous and gruesome murderers in all of history is really quite boring, and lacking any mystery and aforementioned "suspense."

I felt sorry for Depp and Coltrane, I really did. Having seen them both in much, much better roles, at least the friendship and work between the two of them was comfortable and convincing. It's too bad that no one involved in writing/producing/directing this disaster decided that anyone else should be.

Want to see a movie done right with Depp as a detective? I suggest "Sleepy Hollow."

2/10 for Depp & Coltrane.

I was in the process of reading the book as this movie came out, and had not yet finished with the book...now that i'm done with the book, I can now I feel, write a proper review.

There were things I liked about the book more than the movie and vice versa. The changing of Vittoria's character into more of a support scientist didn't truthfully bother me. I liked that her character in both movie and book as a smart female, but I understand the decision to nix the romantic plot, and her father being changed into "research associate." Her revenge driven romantic interest wasn't at all missed by me. Also, for the time constraints of the movie, it wouldn't have properly been laid out.

I did however, prefer the "hassassin" of the book to the surprisingly minor character he seemed to appear as in the movie. Somehow I couldn't be frightened or intimidated by the "bookwormish" appearing "hassassin" vs. unstoppable buff killing machine the book offered us.

No complaints on Hank's front. He still remains one of my favorite actors, and seems to have more comfortably slipped into the shoes of Robert Langdon than seen in the DVC.

Ewan McGregor was perfect in the role of the Camerlengo. He was exactly as I pictured the character in the book.

The basic story is kept in tact and follows pretty faithfully to the book, a mystery, a forgotten path needing to be uncovered, murdered Cardinals, etc. I was wondering though, why the decision to save the final Cardinal?

I'm on the fence about the helicopter escape from the book vs. the helicopter escape in the movie, but I kind of liked the idea about not suspecting a thing about McGregor until almost the last minute. I do however wonder why he chose self-immolation so rapidly after entering the Sistine Chapel, before even anyone could verbalize an accusation, it's as if in a nano-second he knew. Perhaps his own guilt overwhelming him?

The cinematography is astounding, really beautifully done. And the use of statues, paintings, and other works of art is gorgeous. (Although yes, I know a lot were sets.) Clever book = clever movie, however changed it was. It was slow starting...but so was the book.

I do however wonder why the decision to make this a sequel to DVC instead of a Prequel such as the book was. I was confused (as I still was reading the book when I saw this, and the book made no mention of any "previous events from last year", as was referred to in the movie, as the reason for Langdon's rejection from access to the Vatican archives. Did they not think the audience could put 2 and 2 together to figure out that this series of events could possibly be beforehand.

Of course the movie was seemingly endlessly debated in the row behind me where a bunch of American Eagle wearing tweens were having they're own running commentary throughout, but I learned to tune them out.

Not a bad film. 7/10

Not a bad story overall, but I do have some nit-picky items i'd like to list.

The Good: Jackman: Besides being pumped up visual eye candy, makes the character of Wolverine his own yet again. I thought he was fabulous in the X-Men movies, and he does a great job overall here too.

Schreiber: Made a great and convincing Sabretooth. The chemistry he shared with Jackman was spot on and they worked well together.

Reynolds, Kitsch, Monaghan, etc.: All the mutants who made an appearance in this film were great. I've no complaints as far as their depiction or who was assigned to play them.

The scenery (esp. in Canada) is gorgeous and scenes are well shot. The musical score is impressive, battles are well done and engaging. The Adamantium scene is awesome and everything it should be. The opening credit scene depicting his long lifetime involving all these different wars is great.

The Bad: Writing: was lacking and wooden in many spots, it left you wanting for something more, for the money and team they had invested in this, I honestly expected something better. Some of the dialog honestly had me wincing "Walk until your feet bleed.....then....keep on walking." Would be a good example.

Too many shots of Wolverine looking up and screaming at the camera. He does it like 4 times...how many are really needed to add a dramatic effect?! He does it as a child over the body of his "father", over the body of his girlfriend, etc.

Lots of great characters, yet fails to really flesh out any of them. I'm just really not convinced enough of anyone's emotions to motivate their situation. Characters just seem to "do" things, and with a "rushed" feeling. Stryker is really the only one who's drive for what he's doing seems deep and driven. Even Wolverine is a SLIGHT casualty to this.

I would have liked to have seen more of Deadpool (who could seriously have a whole movie devoted to him.), and Gambit.

Even the "death" of his girlfriend didn't convince me that was enough to drive Wolverine to the extreme and life altering decision to have that Adamantium grafted to his skeleton, it just seemed that there should have been more. Although I admit, I couldn't wait for the razor claws first appearance, or the metallic "ping" that accompanied something or someone hitting him.

Also, was Scott able to see through the visor device implanted on him by Stryker? I wasn't clear on that....if yes, than wouldn't he have recalled Wolverine later? It's not everyday that a buff, big haired, metal clawed guy frees you from a prison. My friend who went with me was pretty sure he couldn't see, but I think if he was safe wearing a $5 pair of ray bans to high school and was OK, then he was able to see through that special "visor."

I know some people have complained about the beginning story, but it's pretty accurate to the "Origin" comic. The bone claws, the killing, etc. So I don't have much complain about on that end other than, it's never explicitly stated that Wolverine and Sabretooth are brothers, it's implied, also they left out the "Rose" character, who turns out, even after her death, to play an important role in Wolverine's psyche throughout his life. I think it would have been nice to include her.

Overall though, it's not a horrible movie, the effects are great, and are never too over the top. Jackman is great, but what it's lacking does show through in areas. 6/10