IndustriousAngel

Very entertaining film - crime doesn't get much funnier or crazier. Much better than e.g. "Wild at Heart" which tried similar things a few years earlier. Good soundtrack too. Highly recommended but I suppose everyone here has seen it already

Beautiful animation is something I can't resist; the story though wasn't good enough to get an "A" from me. Ok, Gaiman's book is a children- or early teenager horror story, so I expected it not to be that frightening, but the film had definitely some lengths. I also remember that the sound and voice work (which are even more important for animation) weren't that good.Technical POV: Probably the best puppet animation I ever saw. For people interested in this technique an article from the animation world network.

I thought it was rather boring.

"Perfection" is never reached but you rarely see a work of art where everything comes as close as here.- Direction: Superb, tense, no fat anywhere- Design: Outstanding. Not only Gigers Spaceship/Alien Design; also involved was french artist Jean Giraud aka Moebius. Sadly, the actual execution of the designs was very difficult and some scenes showing the monster couldn't be used at all because they looked ridiculous. (At least according to Ridley Scott - haven't seen them myself)- Sound: Plays an integral part. Listen to those periodic sounds throughout the film - klicking, heartbeats, breathing, beeps, dripping ...- Cast: Great. I wouldn't pick anyone as exceptional, this was a verrrry fine ensemble.- Music: OK, good decision to keep it low and in the background. The sounds are more important.- Cinematography: I still haven't got the BR (nr. 1 on my to-do-list) but even on DVD you can see it's beautiful; lighting is a bit "typical Scott" but does it's job.My favourite scene is Brett (Harry Dean Stanton - always a joy!) searching for Jonesy (the cat) inside a wet, industrial (and rather expressionist) part of the "Nostromo".I was only 11 when this opened here, so I didn't actually catch it until much later on TV, but I was already heavily into SF in '79 and can remember the discussions the film triggered in journals, fanzines etc. This was no box-office monster, but it made quite an impact, also outside SF, and has formed part of our society's conception of space and life since then. The thought model of a parasitic species specialising in "manned" space expeditions (which maybe happen every few thousand years to come by this remote planet) and finally evolving into the "alien" brings new meaning to the term patience

I agree, very good film. It shares the claustrophoby and military action genes with Abyss respectively Avatar. If you compare this to "Alien", Aliens is longer (maybe a bit too long?) and it raises the stakes by throwing a child (Newt) into the action. While this works on an emotional level, it also makes for some cheesy and/or forced moments.My favourite character is Bishop (Lance Henriksen - I like his face, he lifts most films he's in to a better level - see "Pumpkinhead").One question remains: What's the matter with those motion detectors?! It seems they're not only useless; in contrary they always worsen the situation. Here as in "Alien" everybody would be better off just throwing those buggy things out the nearest chute (or at the nearest alien!)

Tintin isn't much of a character; the books were mostly about exploring something together with Tintin (they were targeted at kids in a time when the Americas or the Balkan or even Scotland - or the moon! - were foreign territory for even most grown-ups). Main protagonist was the place. You might compare that to Avatar, where Pandora played a major role. JakeSully was the one through whose eyes we learned about the place, but they had to give him a love interest and loyality conflicts to keep us interested in his character. So, to stay true to the Tintin-books character, Spielberg should have concentrated on the places (especially the sukh) and inhabitants. Instead he choose to treat them strictly as background for the action sequences. So, that's what we got: Flawless action, beautiful scenery, non-stop entertainment but little (for Spielberg, anyway) emotional involvement.

I second that ... LotR is one over-long film, not a trilogy. We never watch, say, only TT - we always watch them back-to-back (maybe split over 2 or 3 days with the EE at home; or in an 11-hour-session at our theatre). It also makes no sense reviewing them piece-wise; my review in the RotK-thread is for the whole project. Of course, from a box-office-perspective it makes sense to count them as a franchise and list the single takings. In reality, the budget and earnings were counted for the whole project (or did anyone believe that each part cost exactly 93 million?)

The bar scene was hideous ... the tension steadily rising and no getting out, easily one of the best scenes ever. Fassbender was great (as nearly always). Waltz and Laurent steal the show; Pitt's performance was the weakest element in the film. A.

I liked Matrix but thought (even on 1st viewing) that it didn't live up to its potential. It's one of the Philip K. Dick-iest films ever made even if its not based on any actual work from his, and as an adult-life-long fan of Dick I was waiting for some important questions to be asked (not answered) but they didn't come up. Visually excellent, though. The sequels, while asking a little bit more, were not as coherent.Still, I'm glad this film got made - I just wish there were more high concept thrillers (Inception comes to mind, though that wasn't perfect either). If you compare it to, say, "In Time", "The Adjustment Bureau" or "Source Code" from 2011, it still outshines them in that it treats its premise seriously and not as an excuse for a forced romance flick. (To say nothing about the action)

still missing

Charming, intelligent, but also pointless. Still, recommended for Paris-lovers (like me).

Entertaining film made with some real love for the source material. The story was a bit silly but ok, that's Star Trek. My only real problem was Zachary Quinto who really was no match for Nimoy as Spock. Benedict Cumberbatch as Spock, now that would have been something ...

You can trust Disney where it concerns kids. Dumbo, Aristocats, The Lion King ... (to name a few highlights from different eras)

YEAH! I just find it charming and fun PLUS it has Andie McDowell - never understood why this film is so frowned upon.

TangledBlack SwanThe King's SpeechTrue GritRangoPaulThorWater for the ElephantsHannaThe Lincoln LawyerX-Men First ClassSuper 8Rien à déclarerBridesmaidsMidnight in ParisThe DebtTintin (2x)Cave of Forgotten DreamsContagionLordOfTheRings triple showing

For us (meaning age 40+) this was a delightful and nostalgic film. I don't need to watch it a second time but we'll check out the sequel. While I usually like a good story, sometimes two hours of mindless action are fun too and that's what this was. Still, I liked "R.E.D." a lot more.

While I have to disagree with 75live (the time travel element is in fact rather weak) I tend to agree with the overall "what an enjoyable film"-opinion. If you have two hours of free time you don't know what to do with, there cannot be many better ways to spend them than watch BTTF. Rewatchability is simply superb!The sequels were not bad either but couldn't reach the levels of BTTF.

Welllll, Conan certainly was parts cheesy BUT he (the film - that's a male one) had his qualities as well. Among them, not the least, that he was a solid "R" as it's termed in the US. Grown up fantasy was never big, so there was real risk involved getting this shot - I don't think such a film would find a producer today.

I liked it on the big screen but we never bothered to buy it for home cinema or watched it on TV, so I guess it didn't leave much impression. Maybe I should give it a new try; from what I remember it was beautiful - if mindless - fun (and I had a thing for Laura Dern then )

Beautiful film, but (from my POV) it shares a problem with most of Nolan's others: A kind of coldness or distance to the characters so you can't really sympathise. Plus, the Tesla solution was 1.) stupid and 2.) should have been a surprise turn (like the twin solution) but was hinted at much too obviously.

B)In the case of "Kingdom" you really can't understand what the studio (or whoever shreddered the thing down to its absymal, incoherent theatrical cut) might have been thinking. With a frontloaded blockbuster there's a certain reasoning behind cuts (1 show more per day = $$$) but with "Kingdom of Heaven" ?????I also believe the EE of the LotR-films would have done nearly as well in cinemas as the TC.

I have to agree with tribefan here; this felt rather split-in-two. The children were good to fantastic, a lot of work went into the setup and this setup should have been allowed to play out in a much more realistic way. It was not even the alien which took me out of the film (though that wasn't too good either) but the scene where the boys run through the village with tanks firing around, grenades going off everywhere and so on.Still, more enjoyable than not and we bought this on BR

There was some nice acting so the film didn't get boring but the story as a whole was rather pointless. The telling of history through the eyes of someone standing outside (like an alien oder in this case B.B.) has potential (wasted in this film). Best moments were the intimate scenes with Pitt & Blanchett and watching Tilda Swinton is always a joy.

It should be noted that with LotR, the term is "Extended Cut" - Jackson himself did NOT call it a director's cut; it was primarily done for the fans who couldn't get enough of Middleearth.Concerning "real" directors cuts: Some of my favourite ones are from Ridley Scott, "Blade Runner", "Legend" and "Kingdom of Heaven". Kingdom especially was nearly unwatchable in its theatrical cut, the DC is a real good film. Still, most DCs or extended editions are made to generate more business and as such are mostly unneccesary. And THIS trend became big after LotR.(I only bought the EE of LotR so no extra cash from my side but I'm sure there are lots out there who own both editions)

Couldn't agree more. Out from a very thin premise Cameron really made a visual feast and a very entertaining film, partly influenced by his experiences in nature docs. And he has a secret for drawing the ladies into theatres ... I wanted to watch it twice; but after that my woman dragged me three more times ... "Neytiri in war paint, she looks sooooo pretty".