IndustriousAngel

I liked it as a kind of fairytale/fable; the animation was very fitting in this. I also thaught it courageous of Pixar to feature death and old age as prominently in a children's film. This was my first 3D film ever, the effects were good.

Yep, Nicholson was superb. There are too few films focused on older protagonists. A lovable little film, nothing more (but nothing less either).

The only thing saving this from complete negligibility is Tom Cruise. Don't plan to rewatch this anytime soon but his performance was at least memorable

Wall-E is a very entertaining and pretty film; the exceptional thing about it is of course the first sequence which depends on pantomime and patience. Doing a blockbuster as (kind of) a silent movie had to be considered a big risk, so kudos to Pixar for having the balls to do it right. It's also pretty nostalgic, reminding us of Luxo jr.Still, only a B from me because after the incredible start on earth the story gets by-the-numbers; the whole space ship sequence is a bit bland. I would rather watch Wall-E's and Eve's shenanigans on old earth for a while longer but that's just me I guess.

As with some mystery thrillers the tension is missing if you watch it multiple times, still there are memorable scenes and the camerawork and haunted-house-atmosphere are splendid. Anthony Perkins had a hard time getting out of this prototype role.

A real classic. I'm no friend of boxing myself or of sports films as a genre but this is one of the best feel-good films ever. The underdog card played right. This and Rambo highlight Stallones talents; sadly in both cases the themes were perverted or chewed to death in numerous more or less unnecessary sequels.

This was better on the big screen because the destruction really worked - the crane chase scene is stunning. Compare this to "Matrix: Reloaded" from the same year for a fine example how real action beats CGI. Other aspects of T3 simply fell flat, among them the ridiculous "Terminatrix" (sorry, Mrs. Lokken, not your fault). Arnolds one-liners were shoehorned in and served no purpose. Not a film i plan to rewatch anytime soon except maybe once more on the big screen if there's an opportunity.And I abhor product placement. Put me completely off James Bond films as well (never been a fan in the first place).

One of the best comedies ever, endlessly rewatchable.

From the contenders mentioned I still have seen neither "Hugo" nor "War Horse", they open here soon, but now that I've seen "Tree of Life" I would be very surprised if it does not win. That was photography in it's truest sense (painting with light).For the record, last year I was rooting for "Black Swan" but Inception's win was ok I guess. Still, I hope Matthew Libatique gets his Oscar somewhere down the road; same as Roger Deakins.

Predictable but ok. In books this kind of alien-invasion-scenario was already done 20 or 30 years ago; it was high time someone put this into a film script.

OK for an agent thriller, very good actors. Not my kind of film but if you're into those, "The Debt" is a very serious and well-executed film. The action stays strictly small-scale which fits the intimate nature of the film which concentrates on 2 characters.

Hmm. I AM a fantasy and SF fan, so I'm biased but I liked this quite a lot. Sure, it has flaws, not the least one the too-big budget which was not always used in the wisest way. On the other hand, it has beautiful cinematography (which is no given with a spoof film) and some fine actors. Danny McBride and James Franco as the brothers are really good, they make the absurd rivalry almost believable. Natalie Portman is superb as the elfin (but bloodthirsty, deceitful and revengeful) warrior! And she keeps a straight face while delivering lines like: "That feeling is all too familiar. It's been burning in my beaver since the day I lost my brothers." That has to be worth something, so B from me.This went straight-to-DVD in Austria and Germany, I would like to watch this on the big screen because it IS beautiful. It seems to me producer and/or director didn't really have an idea where to go or what to do with the material; there are many superfluous or not-that-funny scenes while other scenes where the 3 questers are simply crossing landscapes or talking/flirting are too short.

This film has superb production values in every respect but didn't connect with me. I found it, in fact, rather tedious (as I found the books of Virginia Woolfe I read). Still, a look into the mind of depressed or mentally deranged persons will rarely be enjoyable and this gets at least a B for excellent execution!

Interesting concept, well realised. Good cinematography; score is fantastic (if sometimes a bit prominent). As in many Nolan films, it left me a bit distanced and cold. At heart, this is a heist film - I like to compare it to "The Sting", and in "the Sting" you see how the single characters make up a team. In Inception, we also have these specialists but they never became a team for me nor did I really care about them.The wires running down their sleeves took me a bit out of the film; I'm always apalled by bad science and there is so much wrong with these wires I found them very distracting. If you do a film about people sharing dreams don't show the tech - compare this to 2011's "Source Code" where we live in a world made up from dead people's last thoughts - they didn't show the tech there and the film, though full of plot holes, works in that we can accept the premise. I can't accept the wires in "Inception"!!

OK but really not on the same level as 1 and 3.

Very nice film, with good use of music and fantastic costume and set work. They tried to focus a bit on the relations and showing the team at work, getting us to care for them. If you compare this to "Inception", that's the main difference. In inception, the characters were just there to have someone execute the story; in "The Sting" they get a little breathing (and shining) space.

Liked it but don't plan to see it again, but then I'm not much into secret service or action thrillers in the first place. Ronan was good, location shooting was very good, the story was rather forced.

Funnier than I thought it would be. Simply superb but loses a lot on repeated viewing because you're no longer surprised by the visual jokes and story twists. B from me but absolutely recommended for 1st viewing if you like the absurd.

This IS a strange film. A a rule I don't like the postmodern, overly self-conscious or ironic approach, especially when doing fantasy. Why then is ist that I can watch "The Princess Bride" at least twice a year and always enjoy? Must have been pure luck, I can't imagine those wildly differing elements coming together into a similar nice film ever again. Compare this to 2011's "Your Highness" and you see what I mean. (And "Your Highness" wasn't that bad, have already seen it twice and have no objections to watching it again, but "The Princess Bride" is superior on almost every level)So, what is it that works?- Peter Falk: He keeps it all together. Absolutely necessary narrator.- Music: Mark Knopfler is a treasure. Sadly, he doesn't do much film music. Think about "Local Hero" without the music - ugh ... His music in Princess Bride is simple but effective.- The humor: It actually works; in some scenes it even takes off into something MontyPythonesque (ROUS), in others it's simple wordplay and in others visual jokes like the somersaults in the duel between Inigo and Wesley. Many comedies rely on cheap laughs or raunchy scenes, here we have some actually good and intelligent jokes.- Buttercup: Neither Robin Wright nor Cary Elwes went on to great careers, but Wright was fantastic casting. She brings an innocent stare and stance to the role which is necessary not to sink the film.- André the Giant and Mandy Patinkin: Inspired casting as well.There are things in "Princess Bride" which could be better - the camerawork is basic; some studio scenes look really cheap; Buttercup is too passive during the finale; they might have found someone for Wesley with a slyer face than Cary Elwes ... But this deserves an A for joining the most impropable elements into such an enjoyable film!

I have to disagree ... I found this trainwreck of a film cringeworthy even on initial viewing and this feeling is not getting any better. The cast was quite good (stellar, even) but they were completely wasted here. The science was laughable (always a bad thing for a SF film, especially if it's trying for the realistic approach). Liv Tyler's tearjerker scenes were hideous, took me completely out of the film (must have been put in by Touchstone's marketing division, sure didn't feel necessary) - some people actually laughed in my theatre. (Not me, I just grind my teeth on such occasions). The effects were good but this couldn't save this film for me.If you do such a film again: Make it completely action/fantasy (like Transformers - I don't like them, but at least you're not reminded every 5 minutes how wrong they got it because the whole concept is ridiculous from the start). If you try the realistic approach, get your science and procedures at least believable. For a desaster as portrayed in Armageddon, procedures would include multiple agencies, long planning times and a rather low-brow execution - more in the lines of this years "Contagion" which was interesting because it actually tried to portray a disaster as it would really happen.For the record, I liked "Deep Impact" (also from 1998) better. Propably I'm with the minority here but in "Deep Impact" at least they stayed true to their simple concept (focussing on the earth and the impact on people's lives and society).

Just caught this on BR (missed the theatrical release).What a beautiful film !While I usually prefer "good story" to "pretty picture", "The Tree of Life" does nearly without story and still kept me interested and invested for its not-too-short running time. Most images were shot with rather big f-stops and have incredible depth of field (something I prefer in my own photo-work), creating a very neutral tone (not centered on the actors); in contrast the camera often came very close to the faces and hands of the protagonists - and this all with natural light (often backlight) whenever possible. In fact, so close and under such difficult lighting conditions that they decided to shoot in 1.85:1 instead of Superscope to avoid grainy images (same with high f-stops which need faster, grainier film material).The music is perfect AND they keep it low or even completely silent if necessary."The Tree of Life" has been compared to "2001" and not for nothing - it shares some of its images, the use of music and the focus on picture instead of story. Bit I might add two other films to which you might compare this: Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" (mostly for the camerawork), and Aronofsky's "The Fountain" (not primarily, but also because of the macro-camerawork). While 2001 had kind of a story while philosophising about the universe, "Tree of Life" needs no story to medidate upon the poignancy of life in face of death (same theme as "Fountain", to a lesser degree "Barry Lyndon"). By letting us know at the very beginning of the film that the brother will end up dead age 19, the whole portrayal of (more or less) happy family life carries a bitter taint but also poignancy, reminding us (me at least) that everyone will end up dead sooner or later and you better take care not overlooking the importance of your and your people's days. In this, it also reminds me of the Sandman storyline "Brief Lives".Edit: I hope to catch this on the big screen one day. Shame I missed it

A beautiful film, good acting (at least the main characters) and nice costumes. Most interior scenes are lit far too bright. Takes some liberties with history and biography but that makes fur a fun Mozart.

I'm not into horror OR crime mostly, but this is one very good film! Very intense. The only drawback: Usually I don't need subtitles for english films but I had a hard time following Jodie Foster's accent. I understand that was needed to define her outsider status in the force but still, makes for a not-so-enjoyable watching experience. (The same happened to me e.g. with Robert Downey's Sherlock Holmes)

If you look at this and the original "Terminator", you'll notice that they're both action films but from completely different shores of the genre. Terminator: Small scale, low budget, relying on atmosphere, small target group - Terminator 2: Large-scale, budget ridiculous, relying on visuals, tries to adress as many target groups as possible. Both are fantastic and enjoyable films, but you would never guess they were from the same director. With Terminator 2 and Aliens, Cameron became master of large-scale action spectacles, leading to Titanic and finally Avatar, but at the same time his work became much more calculating. Some elements in Terminator 2 and later works have the feel of something designed by a PR-division. While I enjoy all of his work, I still wish he still had some of the energy visible in the original Terminator. Still, A- for T2!

Classic small-scale action cinema. Career-defining for Arnold and Cameron. Fast-paced where necessary but Cameron also gives time to the characters. Looking at this today you would never guess that the budget was below 7mio $; it was shot in mono instead of stereo. Both Cameron and Arnold went on making much more expensive films but none better than this early work. There's a raw energy at work here you won't find in "Terminator 2" or "Aliens". Together with "Alien" this also defined the "female action hero"-theme. Sigourney Weaver and Linda Hamilton had a hard time doing something different from the famale bad-ass for the rest of their careers.Highly recommended!