Reviews

I have seen some good Hitchcock movies: The Birds, Psycho, and The Lady Vanishes rank among them. This does NOT.

I found Number 17 to be such a disappointment! The plot had appeal(some strangers try to figure out what's supernatural about a hotel room), but this movie is an epic fail.

Before I get into that, let me start with what works. The plot did engage me at times, and the acting is somewhat decent. About half the movie was satisfying.(I almost gave this a 4 but decided to "meet the middle man").

Now, let's talk about the issues I had with this movie:

1. The picture quality sucks. Okay, I know this movie is 88 years old, but Frankenstein and City Lights are both a year older and they look much better! And fine, Scrooge from 3 years later looks poor too, but still! Couldn't someone restore this movie a bit?

2. Ben, the sidekick character, talks WAY too softly. His accent also gets out of the way out of understanding 99% of what he says. Unfortunately the DVD I saw this on did not include subtitles.

3. The movie sometimes goes a few minutes without any dialogue, which can work, but here it doesn't seem to. My mind wandered when this happened.

4. Plot-wise, not everything makes sense, and you can't tell why everything is happening in the story. Some of it's even boring, especially the end that seems to drag without a clear destination.

5.There was also a scene that could have been avoided if the characters noticed their surroundings. 2 people lean against a banister and you can clearly hear it crack but it has to FALL for the characters to notice! This makes such a scene cliche and not suspenseful.

Unless you want to see every Hitchcock movie ever made, or want something on while you do housework, Number 17 is the Number 1 Hitchcock movie to avoid.

Note: This is an edit of a review from 10/9/19.

Jesus is a made for TV movie from 1999 that retells the greatest and most famous of all stories-the life of Jesus as told in The Gospels. However, the movie also takes liberties with The Bible, which at times makes it a compelling perspective on the most influential person in history.

Jesus Christ Himself is played by Jeremy Sisto(who is actually a Buddhist that left Catholicism). This film not only follows the 4 Gospels, but it also speculates on His human side. For theological background, Christianity teaches that Jesus was not just a man but God in the flesh.

The Bible and many close movies adaptations of it portray Jesus as a holy and perfect man, and He was. I won't argue otherwise. However, it's also important to recognize His humanity as well. He struggled with sin, even if He never committed any, see Matthew 4:1-11.

It is often hard to portray this to film. One of my favorite Biblically inspired movies, The Last Temptation of Christ, was Martin Scorsese's view of this theological point, and that had violent results from conservative Christians. And a more recent film, The Young Messiah, does this with a youthful Jesus and has caused some polarizing views.

I happen to love both of these movies, and I admire this one as well. If you want a Scripture to script adaptation, this may not be the best fit for you. But if you are interested in another take on it, this is highly recommended.

Many Biblical points on Jesus DO occur in the movie. EG, The Easter Story(Palm Sunday-The Resurrection) is very Gospel based. We also see miracles like Walking on Water, Water Into Wine, and The Catching of Fish, and His teachings are portrayed often.

Some are shown in action rather than taught. For example, someone hits Jesus and asks Him to hit him back. Instead, Jesus turns his cheek and asks him to hit the other, echoing what Jesus taught in Matthew 5:39.

Things like this are what make Jesus, the movie, well worth seeing. However, there are some issues I had with the movie:

1. 23 minutes in, Jesus hears how Mary got pregnant with Him, however, this is the first Biblical thing to happen in the movie. It takes 23 minutes to get to The Bible-based stuff. Again, I don't mind some creative liberties in certain circumstances, but since this is also Gospel-based, I wished it wouldn't take so long to GET Biblical, if that makes sense.

2. 34 minutes in, the story of Jesus at the Temple when He was 12 happens. This can be found in Luke 2:41-52. It's said in the movie that this happened 20 years ago, and Jesus has not preached yet. This can't be Biblically OR mathematically.

Luke 3:23 says he was about 30 when He began preaching and he preached for about 3 years. Assuming He was 30 when He started preaching, that causes a problem. Though, since the number is an estimate, I guess it's not a huge flaw. That was just a perk I had.

3. Jesus asks John The Baptist to be baptized the night before He is. We are told in the Gospels that He asked to be baptized right away. Again, that's minor, but still a perk.

Also, John says He can be baptized if He confesses His sins. We know form 2 Corinthians 5:21 that Jesus was sinless, and yet Jesus never addresses this. The scene also ends and cuts to the baptism. That could have been the procedure for a baptism from a historical standpoint, but that still seemed a bit off.

So Jesus, the movie, has some flaws. But the good most certainly outweighs the bad and the movie is therefore well worth seeing.

I also found an interest in Satan's role in the movie. He's not a scary black ghost or anything cliche like that, he's a regular guy in a business suit. He follows the same temptations that he does in Matthew 4(Bread to Stone, Worship Me, etc.), but He also tries to convince Jesus to not be crucified while in Gethsemane by showing Him that the Crusades and other wicked acts will be done in His name.

Jesus rejects this temptation as well, and suffers for the world's sins. He knows that this will happen, but He also understands that those who truly love and serve Him will gain eternal life due to His death and Resurrection. This was actually my favorite part of the MOVIE, and I saw that part twice due to my emotion for it.

In the end, Jesus DOES die for us and rises again, the core message of the Gospels, and the movie. Again, there's many Biblical things in the movie even if interpretation is added in. And the ending is among the most powerful of any Jesus film I have ever seen.

While I wouldn't rank this with the likes of, say, The Passion of the Christ or Jesus of Nazareth, I was still moved by this movie, and I would see it again.

For Christians, I highly recommend it if you are open to the non-Biblical parts. Anyone else should see it as an uplifting 3 hour pass time.

No matter if you are Christian, of another faith, or even atheist, there is enough here to satisfy the spirituality of any viewer.

Note: This review was originally written in March and was edited in May.

This is simply Steven Spielberg's greatest movie. I dare you to challenge this. Sure, ET is great, and so is Jurassic Park, and so forth. But of all the movies Spielberg has directed, how can any of them top the power and importance of Schindler's List?

Schindler's List is the true story of Oskar Schindler, portrayed wonderfully by Liam Neeson. He is a German who saves the lives of over 1,100 Jews during the Holocaust. Schindler does this out of greed, making them low wage workers in his factory for his benefit, but then he does it out of compassion for his fellow man.

That's the theme of the movie that echoes throughout long after the credits roll, and from where the film's power stems. The Nazis considered Jews to be "vermin" and not humans worthy of love, care, or compassion. Oskar Schindler over time sees that they ARE in fact worthy, and uses this basic human value to change the world.

Steven Spielberg waited over a decade to make this movie. He wanted to it after making E.T., but he felt that he wasn't ready to tackle the Holocaust yet. (Note that Spielberg himself is Jewish.) The time he took is well worth it, since he crafted it so well.

The movie won 7 Oscars, including Steven's sole Best Picture win and his first of 2 Best Director wins(the other being for Saving Private Ryan). All 7 are well earned for this fantastic movie.

Spielberg also chose to shoot this in black and white, based on documentaries he saw with actual Holocaust footage. This was done to make the movie seem even more real, and this goal succeeds.

This was also done so a girl with a pink coat can stand out. While she never speaks, she inspires Schindler to have compassion for the Jews, she's a sight that speaks to him louder than words. In addition, the black and white cinematography is glorious to look at.

Since this movie is centered around the greatest tragedy in all of human history, the film gains an R Rating for it's realistic violence. Prepare for Jews to be shot, burned, or gassed for what they believe in. It's hard to watch, but it's the most effective quality. There were people who took pleasure in killing millions of their own kind, and Spielberg exposes this horror to perfection.

I first saw this in 10th grade in History class, so I was 16. I would say 15 or 16 would be the best age to see this, and 13-14 if there is parental supervision since younger teens may have questions about the Holocaust, and for emotional support. I say this because while everyone should see Schindler's List, it is not for the young, and historical prior knowledge is necessary.

Aside from the flaw of crimes against humanity, my only critique of Schindler's List is that the German accents of Non-German actors are so thick that I needed subtitles to follow the dialogue. Apart from this, Schindler's List is nothing short of a masterpiece.

Despite it's grim subject matter, Schindler's List must be seen, even if just once. Seeing it for the 4th time in my life put it in my top 10. Thank you, Oskar Schindler for your heroic act, and thank you Steven Spielberg for telling us his incredible story.

This is a powerful film that will leave a great impact on you. It should never be forgotten. If all but a few movies are wiped away from human memory, let Schindler's List be one that remains.

Note: This ties with Shoah in my top 10. This is a 9.5 hour documentary with real survivors and witnesses to the Holocaust. It's $100 from the Criterion Collection. This is another movie that I consider to be a must see, despite its cost and run-time.

This was the lone Psalty tape I had when I was little, and I got rid of it in a garage sale when I was 7. It has probably been 15 years since I had last seen it. When I found it on You Tube last night after midnight, I decided to kill 23 minutes and re-live some childhood.

Now that I have, let me tell you...some childhood memories should just be left behind and buried.

For those who don't know, Psalty is basically a Christian knock off of Barney. Psalty actually pre-dates Barney, but you would easily see the comparison. That alone may turn off a bunch of people, and as a Christian myself, I say GOOD.

Now, this isn't the worst thing in the world. The video has some classic religious kid songs that are catchy no matter your age-like Jesus Loves Me, Give Me Oil In My Lamp, This Little Light Of Mine, and God Is So Good. Those songs briefly make the video tolerable. The video also has a good lesson that God loves us, which is well explained in a toddler-level way of understanding.

But that leads me to the flaws- for instance there's some songs made for the video that are instantly forgettable.

One big annoyance the video has is a character named Mr. Nose It All. N-O-S-E. That's not a typo. He's a nose with lots of knowledge. Mr. Nose It All has a voice that is a cross between Ed Wynn and a clown, and trust me when I say that is NOT pleasant to listen to!

The kids do not assist with this matter. One girl asks: "Mr. Nose It All, who loves more than anyone in THE WHOOOOLE WOOOOORLD?" Mr. Nose It All says "God loves us more than anyone in the WHOLE WIDE WORLD!"

Then a boy named Josh wants to sit under the nose, because before he answers a question, he sneezes out confetti. (I felt bad for whoever was in charge of cleaning that up!) To activate the confetti, Josh asks "How do we know that God loves us?" Mr. Nose It All sneezes and cites John 3:16, the most famous verse in The Bible to which, I must add, is a minor pleasure within itself.

There's also a few times where the Nose runs away, and Psalty makes a terrible pun that it's a "running gag." There's other puns on that level in the video as well, which have escaped my mind. What doesn't haunt me was either a forgettable scene or a classic song.

Oh, and the nose in these running scenes has legs coming out of the nostrils. If that isn't disturbing enough, Psalty is a hymnal with a face out the spine of the "book"!

That's the kind of thing that really brings this down. I feel that this earns 2 separate ratings-3/10 for anyone above kindergarten, and 6/10 for anyone under. Unlike a Christian series such as Veggie Tales, the show Psalty only appeals to a young target audience, and them only.

My overall recommendation is this: This video can be found on You Tube. If you want to show it to your youngster, set it up on your phone or electronic device, and flee the room as soon as possible. Otherwise, you will be salty, and NOT in a Christian way!

Reverse Recommendation: If you want to teach kids how much God us, it would be better to You Tube search "Veggie Tales God Loves You Very Much", which has a catchy song about God's love and 3 Bible parodies about it. It's an hour longer but MUCH, MUCH BETTER!

For Earth Day, Disney Channel decided to air this year-old movie, and I am so glad they did. Penguins is the most adorable movie I have ever seen.

The documentary is narrated by Ed Helms(Stew from The Hangover), who shows us the life of Steve, a cute penguin who learns how to survive the harsh cold of Antarctica, and how he leaves his family to start his own.

There is one thing I must give the film credit for, and that's how much it made me love penguins. I've seen March of the Penguins, Happy Feet, and I grew up on a video series called 321 Penguins, and no other movie has made me love the animal more. This literally made penguins my favorite animal.

From a film-making standpoint, Penguins is glorious. This is all natural, no sets or anything. This is actual Antarctica, with actual penguins, actually waddling over God's Green Earth. The look is beautiful, and stunning as a result.

As a documentary, this is very educational. For example, before watching this, I never knew that penguins shed into being black and white. This process is called molting. If you love learning new facts about animals, then Penguins should be on your radar.

Simply watching the penguins is precious as well. Whether they are playing, waddling, or feeding their young, witnessing everyday life for a penguin made me beam bright. That's why I consider this to be so adorable.

There is even a scene where an egg hatches and we see life for a baby penguin begin. This was the most precious scene., and it was hands down the best one for me. I nearly cried with awe at that point.

For parents, you may want to be consider your child's age before showing them this. Really young kids(like toddlers) will most likely find this to a bore, and sensitive kids will be upset at predators quickly eating members Steve's family near the end.

This is quick and not graphic. As this a G rated movie from Disney, this won't be like watching Jaws. but kids may get upset at this after falling in love with these creatures. Even I was a little shaken at the sight of this for that reason, and I am 21 years old.

If I had to critique one thing about it, my one teeny tiny flaw would be that some scenes have no narration, and watching it in the dark made me nearly fall asleep. So, don't watch this too late or if you are tired. However, there is a positive with this as well, as the action tells a story within itself, which is sweet too.

I also couldn't help but notice that Ed Helms narrated this, and Morgan Freeman narrated March of the Penguins. Both of these stars were in Evan Almighty. To any directors reading this. if Steve Carell does a penguin documentary, my life will be complete.

Penguins is also evidence on the necessity of film as an entertainment medium. This is a story that could not be told on paper. The connection we have with Steve must be seen, not read or heard.

In short, Penguins gets my highest recommendation for animal lovers, anyone who wants to learn something new, or anyone wanting a sweet way to pass 76 minutes. The setting for Penguins may be freezing, but the movie itself is sure to warm your heart.

Happy Easter, everyone! To celebrate, I watched Ben-Hur AND The Greatest Story Ever Told on TCM. I have seen Ben-Hur 5 times in my life, and it never ceases to amaze me. Watching it on Easter Sunday only broadened the experience it gives.

The movie follows Ben-Hur, a Judean prince betrayed by his Roman friend and enslaved as a result. Years pass, and he seeks revenge. While he succeeds, he still has a hole in his heart, only to be fulfilled by a kind stranger who is later crucified. (Can you guess who He is?)

Ben-Hur was a huge hit when it came out. While it cost $15 million to make, it made roughly 9 times that in the box office! And mind you-this is in 1959!

Not only that, but it won 11 Academy Awards, including Best Picture. Bible movies like The Robe and The Ten Commandments were nominated for the honor but lost to From Here To Eternity and Around The World In 80 Days, respectively. Ben-Hur, however, did win, and it's the only religious film to ever do so, unless you count Chariots of Fire.

Back to the 11 awards, this has been equaled twice by Titanic in 1997 and Lord of the Rings: Return of the King in 2003, but it has never been topped. That alone is quite astonishing.

Ben-Hur deserves all of the praise it gets and it highly succeeds as an epic. Ask anyone what some of the best epics ever made are, and you'll get Ben-Hur any second. They would foolish to not do so, even if they have never seen it. Unless they have never even heard of the movie, to which you may want to make sure they are part of the human race. Ben-Hur is a flawless model of a grand epic, for countless reasons.

Allow me to start with the look of the movie. The costumes are glorious to look it, whether it be a Jew's robe or a centurion's glimmering suit. The cinematography is also still beautiful to look at 61 years later, and it hasn't aged all that much.

In fact, everything visual that Ben-Hur has to offer shines to the highest extent. It's no wonder that the cinematography, costume design, and other similar film-making aspects were awarded at the Oscars.

Then of course, there's the Christian elements of Ben-Hur. I have asked atheists before what their favorite religious films are, and quite a few people have cited Ben-Hur among them. This shows that a lack of belief in Jesus does not diminish the power of this grand epic.

Many modern Christian movies are disliked, and one reason is because the religious message is put before the story. In other words, the message is hammered in, and the story is put last. Those who feel this way should put Ben-Hur on their must watch list.

Jesus is the center of the message, but He is barely shown. In fact, we never hear His voice or see His face. We hear others repeat His words, but Christ Himself is mute whenever He appears. This makes for a unique depiction of Him, and His message actually speak louder than words, to use a common phrase.

While the common Christian message that Jesus died for mankind is shown, another one shines more-Christ-like love. When Ben-Hur sees that God loves him so much that He became man to die for him, he finds the strength to forgive his Roman friend-turned-enemy.

If Christ can forgive all the sins of all mankind, how could he not forgive the one sin of his betrayer? I struggle with this myself, but it's still inspiring.

Oh, and who can forget to mention the most iconic scene, and rightfully so? The chariot race. Ben-Hur challenges his enemy to a chariot race as his revenge, and it's gripping to watch. Words would fail me to describe it, it must be seen to be believed and agreed on that it's so great.

No matter your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, you owe it to yourself to see Ben-Hur. It's a masterpiece that works on many levels-visually, thematically, and spiritually, among others.

As I watched it, I realized a Biblical epic of this level and quality has not been made since The Passion of the Christ, which released 45 years later. That's disappointing. I wish more Biblical epics could be made on this level. But for now, I'll be eternally grateful for the powerful epic that is Ben-Hur.

Note: I wrote this review on Easter Sunday but due to the late hour it will say that it posted the day after.

Warning: I should mention that the movie runs for 212 minutes, or 3 hours and 32 minutes. I personally feel that the time goes by quite decently, but be prepared for that before you watch it. Prepare and plan accordingly.

If you asked me before Good Friday what my favorite movie about Jesus's entire life was, I would have said The Greatest Story Ever Told. But after seeing Cecil B. DeMille's The King of Kings for the 3rd time, I truly believe that this is it. This is my favorite. The King of Kings is the most beautiful film about Christ ever made*.

Now, how do I go from saying that The King of Kings is my favorite Jesus biopic to saying it's the most beautiful Jesus film ever made? That may seem like quite a presumptuous statement, but allow me to defend it.

The King of Kings, as I have mentioned, is about Jesus's whole life as told in The Gospels. It skips over His early life and so His first scene starts with Him healing a blind girl. In this movie, the miraculous side of The Savior is shown most. De Mille clearly wanted to emphasize Jesus as a miracle worker more than a teacher.

That's perfectly fine, and he shows it brilliantly. If you want a broader adaptation of His life, I suggest seeing the aforementioned movie-The Greatest Story Ever Told. But on it's own, this vision is spectacular. Then, we see His Passion(Palm Sunday to Crucifixion to Resurrection to Ascension into Heaven) for the 2nd half.

As a Biblical adaptation, The King of Kings is very faithful. Since this is a silent movie, whenever someone speaks, their dialogue is shown on a text card. Most of the quotes come straight from The Bible, and the verse is written and cited in the corner.

For example, at the end, we see Thomas doubt that Jesus rose from the dead. When he sees it for himself, we see through a text card that Jesus says "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed. Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." The corner of the text card then cites John 20:29. Not only does this show the movie's faithfulness to Scripture, but it can help others, Christian or not, to memorize parts of the Gospels.

On a scale of 1-10, I would rate the Biblical accuracy at a 9.5/10. However, the additions help with the story 's flow. The movie opens with an 8 minute introduction with Mary Magdalene, who is living in adulterous and riotous sin. She wonders where Judas is, and she learns that he now follows a carpenter. This, of course, is Jesus.

There is also a little girl that can't be found in the Gospels, but she is blind, and she is led to Jesus to be healed. For the illustration that Jesus healed the blind, it fits just fine. There's also a sweet scene where Jesus lets the children see Him, and He fixes a child's wooden doll, which has a broken leg. Not only does this show that Jesus was a healer, but it shows that He was compassionate as well.

From a technical level, The King of Kings is astounding. If you watch the 2.5 hour cut, the opening is in color and so is The Resurrection scene. (Only The Resurrection is in color if you see the nearly 2 hour cut.) It was clearly painted in, but it's still gorgeous to the senses. It also emphasizes the change Jesus brought into the world on Easter morning with no dialogue, which is beautiful within itself.

The miracles look impressive as well, and the light that shines around Jesus in such scenes is glorious.

Emotionally, The King of Kings is very uplifting. Seeing how compassionate Christ is, or witnessing His miracles is powerful and moving. So is His death on the cross. Even if you don't adhere to Christian doctrine, I can't see why this film wouldn't move you.

Cecil B. DeMille considered this movie to be a passion project, and it shows. He clearly put his heart and soul into putting this movie together. He also had strict rules on the film set to make this a God-honoring project, such as no smoking, drinking, or even playing cards, among other odd rules.

No one could look at HB Warner when he wasn't playing Jesus, and you had to pray after each day of filming, according to TCM and IMDB's trivia page. While Cecil B. DeMille may have overdone his devotion to the project, it paid off for such a wondrous production.

I could give The Kings of Kings more praise, but this should give enough justification to show why this IS the most beautiful movie about Jesus ever made. It's nearly a century old, but few Jesus movies match the wonder of this one. The King of Kings is simply a majestic work of art.

Note: I mentioned there being 2 cuts of the movie. The longer one was for the premiere and the shorter was for general release. Both can be found in the Criterion Collection release, which I own. Both have their own merit, but I have a slight preference for the shorter one. However, I recommend both to the highest degree.

*That is, if The Gospel Road counts more as a musical.

I first saw Juno on the night before Valentine's Day, and I instantly fell in love with it. It became one of my top 10 favorite movies as soon as it ended.

This morning, my Grandma channel surfed the TV guide and it turned out that Sundance was airing Juno. I saw that and said: "Oh, Juno! That's a great movie!" So she turned it on and watched it, and I saw half of it with her(since I was getting ready for the day.) She loved it too. In fact, when I joined her, she told me that she was hooked.

Juno is about a teen girl, who after a one night stand with her best friend, gets pregnant. After rejecting an abortion, she finds and befriends an adoptive couple, and a relationship blooms.

I personally find Juno to be a flawless movie. If I had to nick pick anything, it would have to be the one pointless F bomb that's used in the labor scene. That would seriously be it.

Juno works on many levels. For starters, the character development is a pleasure to witness. Juno and her friend Paulie have great chemistry together and their transformation from friends to a couple is very realistic and heartfelt.

Vanessa and Mark also work well as the the to-be adoptive parents. There is even a change in their relationship at the end, making for a great twist in what otherwise might have been a cliche or simple pregnancy story.

Juno is also a very effective comedy. For instance, my favorite joke happens in a scene where Juno asks her father if true love can really last. He describes what a person who truly loves you does, which includes: "The right person will still think the sun shines out your a$$." It's funny, but so true!

Juno has many witty jokes and one-liner like this, and that's part of it's charm. Even when a joke isn't cracked, it's still a pure delight that never fails to make one smile.

The camera work success most with the color contrast. Jason Reitman, the director, blends clothes with backgrounds and sets in a way that it's pleasing to the eye, even if it's just everyday looking.

Juno is not just great entertainment, it can be a great educational tool. If you have a teenager, know a teenager, or you ARE a teenager, this is a movie you should get around to seeing. This wonderfully shows what pregnancy is like, and why, while it's beautiful, it should be saved for someone special and at the right time.

As I mentioned in the plot summary, Juno considers and rejects having an abortion. As someone who is pro-life, I really appreciated that aspect. Juno did have a choice, and she chose to benefit another couple before herself, which is really moving.

The movie doesn't really condemn abortion though, it just shows that it wasn't the right choice for Juno. That makes for a nice balance that wouldn't cause rallies in front of Fox's movie studio.

People like to say that there is really no such thing as a perfect movie. I offer Juno as my rebuttal. It's a masterpiece in a way you wouldn't expect. As a teaching tool or a piece of time-killing entertainment, Juno succeeds on all possible levels. It takes true talent to make a movie this special. I'm grateful that such talent exists.

As I said in my previous review, Spider Man 2 is my favorite superhero movie. I was very excited to see the 3rd one, though I had not heard the most praise for it. In fact, some really dislike it.

Before I get into that, I should explain what Spider Man 3 is about. This is Peter Parker's biggest challenge yet. Along with relationship issues with his friends Harry and Mary Jane, he has 3 villains to overcome- Sand Man, the New Goblin(This is Harry's conflict) and Venom.

Once again, he has to battle villains with daily life, causing numerous issues for Peter to resolve by himself.

I personally really enjoy this movie. To me, Spider Man 3 really works like Magnolia or Love Actually, a movie with numerous plots intertwined with each other.

As I already mentioned, he has 3 villains and 2 relationships to deal with. I see this as a plus and a flaw. It's a plus because it gives Spider Man a challenge unlike any other. How do you challenge Spidey? Give him more villains!

However, the movie WOULD work better if a couple of those plots were removed and was saved for a 4th movie or, honestly, just scrapped.

When it comes to what makes SM3 work, that would have to be with the story. It's web of plots aside(no pun intended), it's still very entertaining. There's also many action scenes that are thrilling, like when a building almost crumbles with Gwen Stacey inside.

I enjoyed a couple other things as well. There's also a heartfelt scene near the end when Peter Parker forgives Sandman for something I won't spoil, and Harry repairs his friendship with Peter, and they work together to save the day, which is really satisfying.

I'm giving the movie a 9 because of certain minor flaws that keep it from being a 10 like the first 2. I have 6, so I will list them now in no order:(SPOILERS POSSIBLE):

1. There is a scene where Peter and Mary Jane have a break up. They both cry, and it's very corny looking, to the point that I cringed. The break up is fine. The crying need to be more realistic and less corny.

2. There is a scene where Harry winks at Peter and disappears. Where did he go? Was it imagination? We don't know, and maybe that was the idea, but it's still quite annoying.

3. Harry tells Peter that he loved Mary Jane too. Why though? Why wait 3 movies to say this? It's hinted in the Thanksgiving scene of the first movie that he likes her, but does it take 5 years and 2 more movies in real time to have him to confess this?

4. The Goblin, an evil Spider Man, kidnaps Mary Jane and, seeing how hot she is, says "My spidey senses are tingling!" Even as I type this I shutter at how disgusting that line is! That's not a flaw like a plot hole, but I could live without the line.

5. Peter and Harry have a fight 19 minutes in(That's easy to remember because there was exactly 2 more hours of the movie), and Peter tries to tell him that his father's death from the first movie is not his fault. Harry completely ignores this and tries to punch Peter. Because Harry ignores this, we have a conflict that extends much longer than it needs to.

6. Finally, the movie ends with Mary Jane and Peter resolving their problems, but then it just ends. The 2nd movie ends with MJ leaving her wedding for another man to confess her love for Peter. Shouldn't this one end with their own marriage? Because of this, the end kind of left me cold.

Despite these flaws that I have with the trilogy's conclusion, the action and exciting plot outweigh this, making for a worthwhile movie. Sure, it is without a doubt the weakest movie, but that doesn't mean it's awful.

Spider Man 3 satisfies as a conclusion, but it also shows why good things must eventually come to an end.

I mentioned in my review of the first Spider Man movie that superhero movies are hit or miss to me. However, Spider Man 2 is the best superhero movie I have ever seen, and I doubt that any will top it. And yes, I have seen The Dark Knight. That's a great movie too, but I still cherish this one the most.

The movie focuses on Peter Parker, and his struggle with being a normal guy and a superhero. It's kind of tough to be the city's superhero and also be a college student, a pizza delivery guy, and to also help out your elderly widowed aunt AND balance a romance with your crush.

Spider Man 2 is the most human superhero film I have ever seen. Most movies in the genre focus on action and less on telling a great story. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen comes to mind at how that happens and therefore fails.

But because Spider Man 2 tells a very compelling story and weaves the action in when it helps the story, it balances out and makes for an extremely satisfying experience.

Spider Man 2 also has what may be the greatest villain I've witnessed in a movie. He is Dr. Octopus, brilliantly played by Alfred Molina. He is humanized as well, and isn't evil for the sake of evil.

Without heading into spoilers, he steals money for a project and has arms so powerful that even he can't control them. He also self-sacrifices at the end, redeeming himself in the best way possible for the story.

Like I said, the action in the story does help tell it. I don't think I can name a film with better action. Witness the train scene where Spidey and Doc Ock battle on top of a train. From the acting to action to the shots made throughout, the action scene is top notch within itself.

Any time the 2 collide, it's thrilling to watch. Whether it be that scene, their meeting in a restaurant, or the bank chase, the hero and villain are enthralling to watch in battle.

Spider Man 2 is not just a great superhero movie. It's a fantastic movie, period. Take away the action scenes and you still have a compelling story anyone can enjoy. Peter Parker is so relate-able that even those who steer from superhero flicks can find his character's struggles compelling within itself.

Someone sides with me in these thoughts, and that is Roger Ebert. In his review, he wrote:

"Now this is what a superhero movie should be. "Spider-Man 2" believes in its story in the same way serious comic readers believe, when the adventures on the page express their own dreams and wishes.

It's not camp and it's not nostalgia, it's not wall-to-wall special effects and it's not pickled in angst. It's simply and poignantly a realization that being Spider-Man is a burden that Peter Parker is not entirely willing to bear."

Ebert gave the movie 4/4 stars, and he later called it the 4th best movie of 2004. He also said that it was the best superhero movie ever made. So if I can't convince you to see this, can the greatest film critic who ever lived? I sure hope so!

Spider Man 2 is one of the finest examples of great action storytelling ever. It's a sequel that stands out so much from the original that it stands alone as a great movie. I have seen it about 5 times in the last couple of years, and I intend to see it many more times. It's satisfying on so many levels, thus making a perfect cinematic experience.

I like some superhero movies, but it's hard for me to love them. I have a few favorites(Spider Man 2 is my favorite thanks to Roger Ebert), but I have a tendency to not be thrilled by them.

I like Tim Burton's Batman movies and Spider Man: Homecoming for instance, but I feel that overall are rather empty. By that, I mean they are good but I don't leave "satisfied", if that makes sense.

Either the story is undermined and the action is overdone or I don't feel that the action is done right. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, for example, has many flaws and too much action in the last half hour.

Because of this, I have only seen a handful of superhero movies. This was actually the first PG-13 movie I ever saw(At about 7 or 8), but I left it for many years and re-visited it when I was 19, nearly 2 years ago.

As I got older, I could actually appreciate what Sam Raimi did with Spider Man's origin story. It takes about half the movie for Spider Man to show up, and until then we get to know Peter Parker as a human: a bullied nerd, close to his aunt and uncle, in love with his next door neighbor, etc. Even with spider powers, he is still a kid.

That's one thing I enjoy about this movie, and especially the 2nd one. Sam Raimi takes a cartoony character and fleshes him out to make him relate-able.

The action is exciting as well, since it comes in when it is necessary and it's not over-blown.

There's nothing about the acting I can't complain about as well. Tobey Maguire is a great Spider-Man. He's fine in Sea biscuit and The Great Gatsby, but he's great in this. Willem Defoe is fantastic as The Green Goblin, a Mr. Hyde type character that becomes Spider Man's nemesis. That's his best role since Jesus in The Last Temptation of Christ.

Of course there are also the actresses Rosemary Harris and Kristen Dunst, and a young James Franco as well.

What Spider Man therefore delivers is a fun plot, good action scenes and great acting performances, all balanced very well. The sequel is better, but this is still an excellent origin story that was very much worth telling.

Note: This review was originally written on 4/16/19, and has been re-edited and re-posted. I intend to review Spider Man 2 and 3 next.

I was about 11 years old when I first saw The Ten Commandments. Seeing it on VHS, DVD, and television in a whole decade, I have probably seen this masterpiece 7 times from start to finish, including last night on ABC. With nearly a 4 hour run time, that is quite time consuming, but well worth it.

The movie was directed by Cecil B. DeMille, who, in his last and most known movie, uses the Books of Moses in the Bible and historical documents to bring an epic on the story of Moses-how he went from a baby saved from death to the leader of God's chosen people.

The movie clearly uses Exodus 1-14, 20, and 32 to tell the story. While other Bible quotes and scenes are used, the Exodus passages are the main focus.

However, it is important to note that according to the credits at the start, other historical writings were used, and both Jewish and Christian historians were consulted as well. So, when the movie is not following Scripture, keep in mind that a historical source is being used then.

From a visual viewpoint, The Ten Commandments IS visually stunning. From the costumes to the ancient Egyptian buildings and statues, to the effects, it's quite fascinating. Even the Red Sea parting, which looks a little bit dated 64 years later, is still chilling to witness.

The acting is on par as well. Moses is famously played by Charlton Heston, in arguably his best role. (I used to say Ben-Hur was best, though I do think his portrayal of Moses is better and more powerful. I can see the argument for either of those movies being better.)

Anyways, Yul Brynner is Ramses, who was Pharaoh when the slaves were freed. This is tradition, not Biblical, but it still works for the story. This is most likely done to give him a name instead of just referring to him as Pharaoh. (Fun Fact: Yul was in The King and I the same year as The King of Siam.)

I won't take the time to talk about the other actors, but they all do a great job playing their part. Some lines weren't well delivered at times, but the high majority of their work is superb.

Despite some minor flaws, as an epic, I consider The Ten Commandments to be a masterpiece. It's been beloved by many for decades, and it's no wonder why. Even my Grandma gave this a 10 when we viewed it last night, and she rarely does that.

No matter your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, The Ten Commandments should be considered to be a must see as an epic and a piece of classic cinema. There is enough spectacle and entertainment to more than justify the film taking up 1/6 of your day. For epic film-making and powerful storytelling, thou shalt see The Ten Commandments!

Note: Happy Palm Sunday, and I hope all reading this have a great Easter, even in these tough times! :)

In the 70s and 80s, Disney's animated movies were considered good but not at the quality of Walt's features. To give you an example, The Rescuers and The Black Cauldron were not on par with Snow White and Cinderella. Even critics did not like these as much as their predecessors.

Then in 1989, a game changer came out-and that film was The Little Mermaid. From then, a "Disney Renaissance" was born, and Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King proceeded.

While I haven't seen some of these in a while, I love Beauty and the Beast the most. After Hunchback, this is my next favorite Disney movie. In fact, it was my favorite movie when I was 17, and I had a brief obsession with it then.

Anyways, it's clear that this movie has been beloved by many for the last 29 years. In fact, it's quite surprising if you haven't seen this movie, since it's such a classic.

If you live under a rock and have never seen or heard of this movie, it's about a bibliophile named Belle, who is rejected by everyone in her town for how strange she is, except for a snobbish and selfish man named Gaston, which SHE rejects not only as a date, but as a husband.

Her father is later locked away by a beast-a prince who's castle is cursed for his own selfish heart, and Belle takes his place and lives with the beast. Then they must love each other before a rose fully wilts to break the castle's spell.

This is simply one of Disney's finest movies. One reason why is how beautiful the animation is. Take the Be Our Guest scene. With the colors, it's a gorgeous sight. From the food, to the dishes, to the setting, the musical number is astonishing. Forks are even animated to kick-line near the end of that song!

Another beautiful musical number is the title sharing Beauty and the Beast, which was drawn to look like a real camera was filming the 2 of them dance. That is much more impressive when you are an adult!

Even non-musical parts can be awe-inspiring, like the Beast becoming human again. Every shot, every scene, and every part of Beauty and the Beast is simply gorgeous. As an animated film, it's perfection.

This movie was so acclaimed when it came out that it made history in the Oscars. In 1992, it became the very first animated movie ever to get nominated for Best Picture. Let me re-phrase that: Hollywood said that this animated movie was among the best movies of the year, along with the live action ones!

This was the only animated feature to do this for 18 years, then Up was nominated for 2009 and Toy Story 3 was nominated a year later. Sadly, they all lost. In fact, back to BATB, it ended up losing to...of all movies...THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS!

Don't get me wrong, SOTL is not a bad movie, but this movie is so much better. Being animated aside, it's a great love story and musical, and it was a bigger box office success than Lambs. Therefore, BATB had more Oscar qualities. It's a travesty that it lost to a movie about a cannibal.

I have given Beauty and the Beast lots of praise, and I could give it more. As an animated movie, or movie in general, it's a masterpiece. No matter if you are young or old, this is a movie to always cherish. This "tale as old as time" will forever be timeless.

In cinema, Citizen Kane is cited as the greatest movie ever made. I mention this because Girlz II Women should be considered the Citizen Kane of Kid's Television.

Citizen Kane changed how film is made. Girls II Women changes how kid shows can represent kids.

In this episode, Sydney, a 12 year old girl, gets her first period. Her Grandma explains it to her, and Sydney struggles with having it at school. She over-reacts a little, but she still has very human reactions to dealing with it. I want to discuss more, but I am stopping here to avoid spoilers.

About Monday I learned that this episode was airing, and I had mixed feelings about it. I was excited that Disney was going that deep and grown up, but how do you do this for a show aimed at young kids?

I must tell you that they did a fantastic job doing it! Little kids may have some questions on what a period is for and more on how it works, but it does do a great job on getting kids interested ON how that works.

However, make sure you are READY for your kid to see it and be ready to answer those questions. But please let them see it one day, because they need to!

I was sheltered as a kid, and my Mom didn't really explain periods to me. I'm a man, so I don't need to worry about having one, but I still didn't know what it was, aside from the fact that blood flows through the vagina.

I had to research it years later, and the most help I have received is, ironically, another Disney short-called The Story of Menstruation(1946). This can be seen on You Tube, and it's 10 minutes long.

If you don't want your kid to be raised like that, then show them this episode. It is an excellent conversation starter!

This is simply the greatest thing Disney Channel has ever done. It's a little awkward, but so very necessary. I'm so glad they did it, and that's an understatement. Forget 10/10 stars, how's infinity?

As a film buff, I have heard of the Marx Brothers, but I really never got around to seeing one of their movies. That is, until last night. It turns out that I have waited too long to see one!

A Night At The Opera is considered to be their magnum opus, and it is easy to see why. It follows 3 stowaway men on a ship, a business manager with 2 friends, who find success on the ship they land on.

The type of comedy this movie offers are chuckles, but few gags make one laugh loud and hard. They work, click, and satisfy.

Most of the jokes are one-liners, such as: "There ain't no sanity clause!" ,"He's got insomnia, he's trying to sleep it off", and "Let me see that... 9 dollars and 40 cents? This is an outrage!", lines like that. They are quick jokes, but they are all successful.

Then we have physical humor commonly found in this kind of comedy. Take a scene where a Marx Brother says: "I can't walk down 4 flights of stairs!" and another person says "Here, I'll help you!" and he is shoved to the bottom. If 3 Stooges or Abbott and Costello humor works for you, this movie will be your pleasure.

Then there is a running gag about contracts. I'll leave that statement as is for your enjoyment!

Also, even though the movie is 85 years old, the movie looks very good and lacks film dirt or other ugly signs of age. There's a Scrooge adaptation that's the same age and that doesn't age very well. This was preserved much better, and that is wonderful!

As enjoyable as the story and comedy is, where A Night At The Opera falls short is, ironically, with the opera numbers. They are fine for a while but the plot drags after some time.

On my computer's DVD player, I can increase the speed with the sound still there, and I was skipping through 3-5 minute opera numbers a handful of times. Even at 91 minutes, this could have been 80-85 minutes instead if it focused more on jokes than opera numbers. At that shorter run time, the movie would have paced a little bit better.

Despite this, A Night At The Opera is a comedy classic for a reason, and for those who love slapstick and one-liner comedy, this should be seen whenever possible. It's not laugh out loud funny, but it'll turn any disappointed frown into a very uplifted smile.

Roger Ebert did not sit through every movie that he saw. Movies like Caligula, Jonathan Livingston Seagull, Tru Loved, etc. When I see bad movies, I can't finish them. I try, but life is too short.

I must have seen 5 minutes of August's Underground Mordum at most. My conscience could not take seeing the whole ...project? I hesitate to call it a movie. Citizen Kane, Hoop Dreams, and Fargo are movies, and masterworks at that.

I found the movie on effedupmovies after doing some research on it. I did not "want" to see it, but I thought that I should try it before judging. I should have been more trusting.

The movie has no plot. I skipped through it and there appeared to be no story. The plot given on here says that "Two friends bring along a newcomer to go on a killing spree."

Is that all there is? There seems to be. Especially when we see a man having sex and seconds later we learn the woman is the guy's sister.

IMDB's parents guide also names many things I was glad to not have seen. This is what the Sex section reads:

* Extreme scenes of perversion, rape and sexual sadism throughout, including intense scenes involving necrophilia, infanticide, castration, torture, and incest.

*A man and woman are seen having sex (they are brother and sister).

*A woman cuts a man's penis off and tortures his girlfriend with it.

*Two women are very graphically sexually abused by another woman, she wears spiked panties and rapes them, she also vomits on them, a man is masturbating to all of this, this scene lasts for 8 or 9 minutes at least.

*A man disembowels a woman and has sex with the entrails, this is very gross to watch.

*A man is seen raping a dead child, arguably the worst part of the film.

I could talk about the violence as well, but look at the guide yourself, and find anything of worth.

The use of f**k is also tedious. Apparently the word is said over 600 times. In 77 minutes, the language surpasses The Wolf of Wall Street's usage in a 3 hour span. I mentally counted the F bombs for reference and for purposes of writing this critique for the first 3 minutes and 43 seconds. There were 56 or so uses in that time alone.

I heard there was no script for this movie. No kidding! A newborn baby could create better dialogue than what this movie has!

I skipped through the movie too see anything-anything at all, worthy of interest in praise. I found nothing.

The camera work is also terrible, it makes The Blair Witch Project look like Citizen Kane.(Which,despite THAT movie's profanity, is a MUCH more decent film.)

One day I will see a ZERO STAR movie and see it all. Today is not it. See anything else, this is despicable as a piece of filmmaking. I'd rather stab my arm with pin needles then see this movie in whole.

I live with my Grandma and we are both Elvis Presley fans. As a film buff, it was only natural for me to fall in love with his movies.(In 18 years, the rock and roll idol starred in 31 movies.)

Of the 31 movies, I own and have seen 8 of them, and the 2 best that I have seen are Kissing Cousins and Jailhouse Rock.

Anyways, I re-watched Viva Las Vegas on St. Patrick's Day since it's in the Best of Warner Brothers 100 Film Collection. As I said in my title, it's good but not great. More on that in a minute.

Viva Las Vegas is where Elvis plays Lucky Jackson, a race car driver who loses his money at a hotel and works there to pay off his bill. While he is there, he meets Rusty Martin(played by Ann Margaret), and falls for her.

The best part of VLV is easily the songs, which should be a no-brainer, as the story is guided by The King of Rock and Roll. The titular song is sung twice, once in the opening credits and another on stage exactly an hour into the movie.

Elvis also sings The Yellow Rose of Texas in the beginning, which is a traditional song, but catchy nonetheless.

The other standout song is called The Lady Loves Me, where Lucky hits on Rusty. I won't spoil it, but how it ends is pretty funny!

However, that song leads me to the minor flaws I have with the movie. Since this was made in 1964, this movie seems to have a tolerance for objectifying women.

For example, Lucky hits on Rusty in a way that annoys her, and yet this leads to romance. Wait, what? That was strange and unrealistic, even in a musical. I felt that to be a bit rushed, aside from being rude. Not to mention the dancers that shake their booty in Elvis's face in another scene.

Also, this is the shortest Elvis movie, running at only 85 minutes. While that is nice for timing purposes, I do think that the romance could have developed more within another 10-15 minutes of screen-time. Usually I feel that a movie is too long, but here, it's too short.

Finally, this is more of a personal gripe, but the car race at the end dragged a little, and so did the first few minutes. So even though the movie's short, it has imperfect pacing. Which is kind of odd, because I've seen 3-plus hours movies with perfect pacing.(The Ten Commandments, Ben-Hur, Gone With The Wind, to name a few.)

Despite it's dated portrayal of women and it's pacing, Viva Las Vegas is still a very entertaining musical with fun songs and simply a fun time. This is an Elvis musical that's worth the gamble!

Romantic Comedies, or romance films in general, are hit or slight miss to me. That's because the best ones lack cliches and focus on developing the relationship, and not focusing on sex. Unfortunately, many miss the mark because they lead to such cliches.

Luckily for us, Breakfast At Tiffany's lacks the cliches and tells a very compelling story, making it a delightful movie and, like my title states, one of the best romance movies I have ever seen.

It stars Audrey Hepburn as Holly, a girl who develops a relationship with a man who just moved into her apartment building. (His name is Paul and he is played by George Peppard.) Paul ends up in a love triangle with Holly and the designer for his apartment. But who will he choose to love?

When it comes to the praise Breakfast At Tiffany's earns, I would have to start with the acting. I can't fault it at all.

Audrey Hepburn is great, as always, with all of her elegance and grace. This greatly exemplifies why she is my favorite film actress of all time. It's not my favorite movie of hers(That will always go to My Fair Lady), but it's very much up there!

All the others are good too. Mickey Rooney is in the movie as well, and people often criticize the role because he's an American playing a very stereotypical Asian character. While that's nothing to be proud of, it works and I don't hate the character's existence. Compared to Holiday Inn's blackface scene, this isn't so bad, the way I see it.

The romance is very compelling as well- Holly and Paul are one of the finest couples I have ever seen in all of cinema, and that's NOT an exaggeration! Why is that, you ask? Because the chemistry with them is very believable.

They don't fall in love right away, they develop their friendship before their romance, and best of all- their relationship is quite original for a Hollywood movie. Characters meet, talk, and fall for each other, just like in real life.

Even 58 years later, this still holds up and is very endearing. For anyone that loves romance flicks or simply old movies, Breakfast At Tiffany's is a pure delight.

I am grateful that one of my Grandma's friends recommended that we see 1917. All I knew about the movie was that it was a war movie, it has lots of critical praise, and that it was nominated for Best Picture. After seeing the movie, let me tell you that all this hype is well earned.

While 1917 is set in World War 1, it reminded me of a classic World War 2 movie-Saving Private Ryan. Both films are about the horrors of war and a dangerous mission to find the brother of another soldier. 1917 has another plot point as well though, where 2 soldiers are going to enemy territory to offer peace and stop a battle that will have deadly results if pursued.

1917 succeeds most with the emotion, and that's what carries most of the movie. For example, one of the 2 soldiers is stabbed and then dies in the other's arms before he can get proper help. This is very emotional, especially since the viewer can connect with the bond that they have. Any death, whether from an enemy or not, is felt by the viewer.

Speaking of the deaths, the violence is very effective as is necessary, of course. I especially appreciated that the gore was shown but not as graphic as Saving Private Ryan. Simply put, it shows enough war violence to stun the audience but not be too depressing.

1917 is also effective with jump scares. Yes, there are jump scares, but not in a lame horror-film way. These are jump scares done right and well deserved. A character may be walking around and then without warning...BOOM! A gun is shot or a grenade is thrown.

The movie also has great cinematography, as other reviewers have said-this should be considered to be among the best camera work of any film this year.

Another great film-making aspect is that it has a "one shot" feel that makes the movie look to have one continuous shot, not broken up into different angles(The Oscar winner Birdman was filmed this way as well).

1917 also does a great job of taking us to the year. That is, it really feels like it's 1917 now, even though it was 103 years ago.

While I have not seen any other of the nominees for Best Picture, I agree that this deserved one. I have minor flaws with it, but they don't affect the movie's overall high quality.

This ranks with American Beauty, Road To Perdition, and Revolutionary Road as one of Sam Mendes's best movies, and is well worth the time to see, so please do so!

Note: After the movie ended, I asked my Grandma what she would rate it, and she said a 9.5 or a 10. I was shocked, as she hardly ever gives 10s. This got me asking what other movies she would rate a 10, to which she listed Hidden Figures, My Fair Lady, Titanic, Mary Poppins, among others.

Since this is the case, that is 2 10/10s for you to base your decision on to see this movie. I hope you choose to see it, 1917 is a rewarding experience!

*If you enjoyed this review, please click on cinephile-27690 for more. Movies are my passion so allow me to share it with you. I know I am a bit amateurish, but I hope I am improving over time! Thank you for reading this and any other review!

I just finished this movie and I am stunned. Million Dollar Baby must have the saddest ending in a movie that I have ever experienced. This is kind of ironic, considering the rest of the movie made me feel so good and excited.

The movie may remind you of Rocky, which won Best Picture as well, 28 years prior. While I do agree that this was the best of the nominees(though I have not seen Finding Neverland), I personally love The Passion of the Christ and Spider Man 2(by one spot) a bit more.

This stars Hilary Swank as Maggie, a poor waitress who struggles so much that she has to take hardly eaten steak home to eat for dinner.

She asks Frankie, a trainer played by producer-director-composer Clint Eastwood, to train her. He refuses at first since she's a girl, but with the help of his friend, played by Morgan Freeman, he agrees.

She gets good, but tragedy strikes, and Frankie, who grows to like her, has to make a very difficult choice.

I have already mentioned my emotions while watching this movie. That pretty much summarizes what makes this movie so great. It put me through a ton of emotions, and the story was so well told.

The ending made me tear up and cry a little, and few movies make me do this. Million Dollar Baby has the saddest ending since The Green Mile, assuming few sadder movies were made in the next 5 years.

(Besides The Passion of the Christ, which came out earlier that year-though that makes me tear up throughout, so that doesn't count in this scenario.)

As I watched the movie, I thought that this must be a true story-it seemed very realistic, and the kind of true story that would be adapted to film. But as I looked at the special features, I found out that it was fictional. Isn't amazing how great of a story humanity can tell to others?

If I had to have one gripe about the movie, it would have to be something that may not apply to you. I have partial hearing loss, and it was hard to hear the actors most of the time, so I watched the movies with subtitles. Though that's a minor complaint.

These aspects now makes this one of the best movies I have ever seen! Million Dollar Baby is a priceless masterpiece.

4 quick cool movie facts I want to share:

1. This was the first Best Picture winner to be released on HD DVD and Blu-ray.

2.It was in theaters for 6.5 months.

3.Roger Ebert also called this the best movie of the year.

4. This is the 2nd Clint Eastwood movie to win Best Picture-the other is Unforgiven from 1992. Morgan Freeman stars in this, as well.

There's not much to say here, but I will go straight to the point on this one and say that this is an 8 because this movie is pretty weak for a John Landis work.

I have seen 2 other movies he made: Coming To America and A Fish Called Wanda-both of which came out in 1988. When it comes to humor and an interesting plot, this lacked it for me.

Perhaps the best part are the comedic lines, most notably "You son of a motherless goat!" , and the overall plot of 3 actors thinking they are in a movie when they are really under criminal attack is genius.

Though not every moment stuck with me, I still recommend this movie. This has a few laughs, but this is not the strongest comedy ever.

Edit: I originally wrote this on 1/30/19. I was just starting to write reviews at the time. I therefore apologize if this is not the best review I have written.

Black Robe may have been better if a similar movie hadn't crossed my mind as I watched it. That movie was Silence, Martin Scorsese's masterpiece with similar themes that was released 25 years later. While this is good on it's own, Silence is far superior.

The movie focuses on 2 Christian missionaries who meet some Indians and teach them about Christianity. This leads to some persecution, but many come to faith in the process.

There is much to admire about the movie, one thing being the cinematography. The atmosphere is very pretty to look at. The acting is fine as well, but nothing amazing or Oscar worthy. Also, overall, despite some slow parts, the movie is overall quite engaging.

However, Black Robe is not a perfect movie. There are quite a few problems that I had with the movie:

1. Like I said, the first 10 minutes were a bit slow and I had a hard time following it at first. There are other slow parts as well, but that doesn't last LONG at any time.

2. Some of the scenes didn't make sense. For example, the main character walked into a room and my Grandma and I wondered what the room was. I suggested it was the monastery, but I wasn't sure.

3. This movie had 3 graphic sex scenes between 2 people, and they serve no purpose. This R Rated movie could have been PG-13 without it, and I wish the movie could have went without them. Look, I'm not a prude, but if sex is going to be in a movie, it should have a purpose, and this movie added it with none.

4. There were a couple of theological issues I had with the movie. For example, an Indian asks a missionary why he should go to Christian Heaven. The missionary says that if he believes in Jesus he can be with Him forever for eternity. The Indian asks "But what if my wife doesn't go to Heaven? How can I be happy?"

The missionary does not give a proper answer to this(which I will not spoil), and I found that disappointing. A good response would have been "If your wife believes, she can have eternal life as well." Sadly, that was not the response in the movie.

So there are indeed some flaws with Black Robe, but that said, I still enjoyed it and recommend it, because the good I mentioned overshadows the bad.

In summary, Black Robe is a beautifully made movie, and despite it's downfalls, it is worth at least a watch.

Note: I may see this again, but I am in no rush to do so.

This is known as the only movie Eddie Murphy ever directed. It's no mystery on why he never directed a movie ever again!

I am not even sure what this movie is supposed to be about! The movie follows 2 people who run a gambling business, but the movie hardly follows the story-line!

The movie in all honesty seems to just be an excuse to curse constantly, there's around 130 F words alone, and other curse words to fill in those blanks, and they serve no purpose.

I don't care if a movie has profanity, but I do care if it uses it constantly with no purpose. I make exceptions like with The Departed, but some movies like this use it to no advantage whatsoever.(Another example is The Wolf of Wall Street for it being pointless.)

Even Roger Ebert in his 2/4 star review made note of this, writing: "Murphy and Pryor are famous for their liberal use of four and 12-letter words in their comedy monologues, but did Harlem dandies in the 1930s speak like stand-up comedians in the 1980s? I don't think so. " I don't think so, either.

There are a handful of scenes I enjoyed, like Eddie Murphy's fight with Della Reese for instance, but I would rather look them up on You Tube then see the whole movie again!

Overall, there is no reason to see this movie. Coming To America or The Nutty Professor would be better comedies Murphy did. I wouldn't even tell someone on a mission to see every Eddie Murphy movie ever made to see Harlem Nights!

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen, and I don't say that much! Nearly any other Eddie Murphy movie is more worthy of seeing.