|By date||Most helpful reviews||By my score||By metascore||By user score|
Average User Score: 8.1Jun 19, 2011The first I heard of 127 Hours was when I saw the poster of it. I expected the film to be a documentary of some sort by just looking at theThe first I heard of 127 Hours was when I saw the poster of it. I expected the film to be a documentary of some sort by just looking at the poster, for no reason whatsoever. But then I heard about it some more online, and so I researched it. Turns out, it was much more than I assumed. Itâ… Expand
Average User Score: 8.6Jun 18, 2011Dances With Wolves is the 1990s version of Avatar. Wait, let me rephrase that; Avatar is a 2000's version of Dances With Wolves. It'sDances With Wolves is the 1990s version of Avatar. Wait, let me rephrase that; Avatar is a 2000's version of Dances With Wolves. It's well-done, exciting, and truly emotional. It's Kevin Costner's best film,for none of his other's can beat it. It gets you emotionally drawn to the film throughout, and you never want any of the characters to be forgotten. While watching the film, I quickly realized it resembled many characteristics that I had seen in previous movies. The cinematography, the acting, and the story had all been recreated in films that had come out after the movie, and this was a basic beginner of many films in Hollywood. ItÃ¢â… Expand
Average User Score: 7.6Jun 8, 2011Gangs of New York is a pre Civil War film based in, of course, New York. Now, looking at the title of this film, most would think this was aGangs of New York is a pre Civil War film based in, of course, New York. Now, looking at the title of this film, most would think this was a present day gang film in New York with mafias and what not. But it's nothing like that. These gangs are the type of gangs which scrimmaged for food in the city and rely on others to get what they need to survive in the perilous city. The story revolves around a man named Amsterdam, whose father was part of a gang called the Dead Rabbits. His father was killed by a gang leader named William Cutting, otherwise known as "Bill the Butcher", who now owns and runs New York. It has been 16 years since Amsterdam's death, and sure enough, Bill still runs the town. The rest follows Amsterdam's life in New York, and his attempts to avenge his father.... Gangs of New York was nominated for 10 Academy Awards, winning none. But to many it was no surprise, for it was extremely close for making the cut for the Razzie's. But I could accept the fact that the film was nominated for Best Picture, for it truly deserved that kind of recognition. The acting within Gangs of New York was more than ordinary. A cast you wouldn't expect to see in a film like this (Leonardo DiCaprio, Daniel Day-Lewis, Cameron Diaz) all played their very best parts. Leonardo did his average acting, but a little more better than usual. I loved Diaz, for I've never seen her in such a dramatic historic film before, and it was entertaining to see how she coped with it. Then Daniel Day-Lewis also did an exciting performance, although I believe he should've been nominated and won Best-Supporting Actor, instead of being nominated for Best Lead Actor. But the cast I liked best were the supporting actors crew. Meaning, the small cameo or occasional performances by actors, was the best part of all the acting. They added emotional or suspenseful impact to the film, and always made it better. Then, I enjoyed the cinematography. It was also nominated for an Oscar, and it was well nominated. I enjoyed some of the screen shots and single shots. Then I enjoyed the Direction. Of course, who couldn't like Martin Scorsese? He never seems to disappoint the audience, with films ranging from the Godfellas to The Departed, he is one true audience pleaser. But then, here comes the cons of the film. One thing was the opening sequence. It was a very pathetic battle scene, made in the worst way possible. It seemed fake on many levels, and thank god the film got better as it went on. Then the other dissapointing asspect was that it's running lenght was very lengthy, and could've been shortened some. Then the last part was that it was historically inaccurate. Otherwise, it was great. The best part of the film though was the fact that two great problems in New York was going on at the same time. One with the gangs, and another with the populace and the government. It was a great idea to base the story on. And as I end this review, I have to say one thing; Scorsese might be the oldest director out there, but I don't think he or his films will ever die.… Expand
Average User Score: 8.8Jun 3, 2011Horror movies are either going to be your best friend, or your worst nightmare. They either scare you to death, or you love them. Now mostHorror movies are either going to be your best friend, or your worst nightmare. They either scare you to death, or you love them. Now most people would say the scarier, the better. But if something is scary to you, I don't see how you could like it. And yet, this film had scared me like never before and yet I can never let go of the feeling of how amazing it was. The Silence of the Lambs is a crime-suspense thriller, starring Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins. It's about a FBI trainee Clarice Starling, who is assigned to help capture a serial killer by the name of Buffalo Bill. She simply has to question a former murderer, Hannibal Lector, better known as "Hannibal the Cannibal". The FBI believes there might be some sort of connections between the two killers, and asks Clarice to figure out what. And what begins as a small questioning process begins to evolve into one of the greatest crime story ever told. The Silence of the Lambs won 5 Academy Awards, including Best Lead Actor, Best Lead Actress, and Best Picture. It truly deserved all these wins, especially the acting. Jodie Foster's acting as Clarice Starling was great, but what really made this film worthwhile was Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lector. Never have I seen a villain so kind, yet so sinister and evil. Every word and breath he takes is haunting. You know that even when he talks so kindly to Clarice, he has some evil thoughts or something processing in his mind that the viewer can't just understand. That's what makes Anthony Hopkins the best thing about the whole film. Then I believe the second best thing is the cinematography. This film's cinematography is excellent, and done like no other movie before. You see that whenever there's a new character introduced, it's shown in the perspective of the main characterâ… Expand
Average User Score: 8.7Jun 1, 2011When I first heard of Fargo, I thought from all these reviews that it was a comedy. When I read the genre, it told me it was a crime-thriller.When I first heard of Fargo, I thought from all these reviews that it was a comedy. When I read the genre, it told me it was a crime-thriller. And before I watched it on Epix, I learned it was a dark comedy. Then I thought I was gonna hate this movie, for the film "A Serious Man" was a dark-comedy and was also directed by the Coen brothers, was a complete and utter failure to me. But I soon came to realize something during the film; this movie is amazing. It started as a comedy, in which the laughs were very dark and enjoyable, then grew into a problematic drama, which grew into a crime film, and then quickly into a thriller. All the genres that I expected were in the film, but never was my first thought about it. Fargo is a film that surprised me completely. Winning two academy awards (Best Actress and Best Original Screenplay), Fargo is an exciting adventure to watch. Based in small cities of Minnesota, Fargo is about a car salesman who tries to buy an investment on a parking lot. He needs money, so he decides to hire two thugs to kidnap his wife and ask for ransom from her father (who is extremely wealthy) so he can get the money to invest. But not all goes as planned, and murder, lying, robbery, and much more occur in the events that happen afterwards. Joel and Ethan always seem to make me happy (besides "A Serious Man"), and not many directors can do that. The Acting was very well done, and I disagree with the Academy at not giving William H. Macy a nomination for Best Lead Actor, and not giving him a win for Best Supporting Actor. I believe his acting was more better than Francis McDormand, although she also did deserve her win. Steve Beschumi also played his part as a villain well, as he always does. The Cinematography of this film was good. But I am also upset with the Academy for not giving this film a nomination for the score, which was excellent. It was perfect for the film, and fit the scenes well. If I heard this score again, I'd know it was from Fargo. The film really revolves around the characters alot in the film, and I give much respect for the film. The different character's lives and feelings were depicted in a very different way, with scenes that just brought happiness, terror, or humor to the eyes of the character's, and the audiences. But, there were little parts in the film that I didn't like, starting with some unnecessary scenes. There were amounts of sex in the film which didn't need to be there, and some scenes that didn't make any sense. And then there was the fact that the police officer was pregnant, which brought a few laughs to the film, but no actual meaning to the plot. That's really all. All in all, this was a film that should be viewed by any happy, mature audience, and should be praised highly by everyone.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.3May 29, 2011While I watched The Departed, I grew to like it more and more with every growing second. It was either the vigorous cast of DiCaprio, Damon,While I watched The Departed, I grew to like it more and more with every growing second. It was either the vigorous cast of DiCaprio, Damon, Nicholsan, and Whalburg, or the interesting "rat" storyline, or just the fact that people were just dropping dead for, actually, good reasons. The light humor was also very entertaining, as was the non-stop action. But I can truly tell you, this film is a must watch. The Departed takes place in the city of Boston. It follows to pure rivals; an Irish gang and the state police. During the coarse of the film, both the police and the gang have a "rat", or a mole, each coming from the other rival. It shows the police rat's side, (DiCaprio), to be the good guy. But then it also shows the gang rat's side (Dammon), to be the bad one, obviously. So the film just becomes a race to see who each other's rat is, and to get the Irish gang obilorated once and for all. You just have to see the rest to see what happens.
The acting in this film just blew your mind, right from the very moment that you saw the freakin amazing casting of Damon, DiCaprio, and Nicholsan, you knew you were getting yourself into an action packed movie. I would personally say that DiCaprio and Nicholsan were tied as the best actors in the film, for there was just so much intensity coming from the two. It was as if they had perfect chemistry, but they were scared s**tless about each other. I wouldn't have been surprised if Nicholsan won Best Supporting Actor at the Academy Awards, for this is the type of guy the Academy likes. Really, who doesnt like Nicholsan? And who doesnt like Scorsese? I can tell you that I freakin love him, and adore him for his work. It's extremely wrong that his previous films never won for Best Picture, but truly, if there had to be one film that would've won, it would've been this one. He gives a clear message at the end of the film, if you want a happy ending, sad things have GOT to happen. And that's what makes him the best director of 2006, and this the best film of 2006.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.8May 28, 2011Pure crap. (with a little interest) it was hard to understand what they were saying. very hard to even try to comprehend the story (especiallyPure crap. (with a little interest) it was hard to understand what they were saying. very hard to even try to comprehend the story (especially the beginning). Shouldn't have been nominated for best pictue. and to the Cohen Brothers......COME ON.
thankyou for your time.… Expand
Average User Score: 9.1May 15, 2011Just to warn you, this might be my longest review. Ever. Lord of the Ring The Return of the King is directed by Peter Jackson, starringJust to warn you, this might be my longest review. Ever. Lord of the Ring The Return of the King is directed by Peter Jackson, starring Elijah Wood and many others. It was released in 2003, following the previous two film, The Two Towers and The Fellowship of the Ring. Its success in the box office made it the 2nd most grossing film of all time back then. Then, a year after it's release, the folm got nominated for 11 Academy Awards. It went on to win all of them. Never had a film done so well financially, critically and with fans. Yes, this sparked one of the biggest franchise makings ever. With the longest lenght of game ever, one of the most character figures in stores, and so much more. Fans were never more pleased. And so, here I write the review on The Lord of the Rings The Return of the King, the film that changed the entertainment industry forever. The Lord of the Rings The Return of the King is based in the fictional world of Middle Earth. It follows a young Hobbit, Frodo, and his guides and friends (The Fellowiship of the RIng) as the journey on a quest to destroy the Ring and to bring man back to it's rightful throne. In the first film, the quest begins, in the second one, it is continued and more complexity is brought to the plot, and in the third film, it is at it's climax and is concluded. On the quest, the Fellowship seperates form the fact that they were attacked by a battalion of Orcs. They are seperated into 3 groups; Frodo and Sam; Pippin and Merry; and Gimli, Legolas, and Aragorn (who are later meet up with Gandalf). We follow all three of the groups as they fight, survive, and save Middle Earth.
This film is like no other I have ever seen. And for that, i have to break it down into five parts. (1) Story (2) Acting (3) Vissuals and Cinematgrophy (4) Score (5) Directing.
(1) Story; When JRR Tolken fisrt wrote The Hobbit, he knew he could get farther with the story. After years of writing, he finally came up with The Lord of the RIngs. When Peter JAckson first started filming the movies, people said it couldn't be done. But oh, were they wrong. Never have I seen such a complex, exciting, and moving story come to the big screen. It's spectacular sense of drama and action all put into one is a masterpiece. Story: 10/10
(2) I don't know what idiots run the Academy, but I can tell you that they are some stupid people. To rob this fillm of any acting NOMINATION is just sad, sad supidity. When you got the only good acting from a fantasy film ever, you might as well congratulate it with atleast a nomination. But no, just go and screw up the voting proccess with not adding any actors from this film to the ballot. With the best acting coming from Viggo Mortenson, a supporting actor, he brought so much fun to the dull parts and to the exciting parts of thr film, as well. Elijah Wood also brought clear emotion and pain to his character, which is what was needed to make his character perfect. And he did make it perfect. Acting: 10/10
(3) When it comes to visuals and cinematgrophy, this film had the very best. Angles that blew your breatha way, and special effects that looked so real that you could tough it, critics just knew nothing could beat this in those two aspects (besides Avatar). With years of designing beasts, creatures, and other organisms for Middle Earth, the special effects team put those long years to good use. One scene, in which Gandalf and Pippin are climbing to the top of Minis Tirith, the angles and use of camera were so amazing, that no place on Earth could rest your pleading for Middle Earth to be real. But sadly, it's only real in the film, and that's good enough for me. Visuals and Cinematography: 10/10
(4) Score: Howard Shore's score for this film brought a sense of amazement, such as John Williams did to Star Wars. Intensity, sadness, and joy were all felt in the making of thsi score. When the score was needed most, this film gladly used it to it's best extent. I advise everyone reading this review to check it out one YouTube, for it can go with almost anything you're doing (peeling potatoes, drying yourself with a tower, etc.) The Academy Award winning song "Into the Woods" is being played while I write this review. Yup, one of the best scores ever. Score: 101/10
(5) Directing; Saving the best for last, the directing. Peter Jackson brought every, freakin good part from the books to every freakin scene in the film. 'Nuff said.
So, as I complete my longest review ever, I just wantn to say to all the haters: You guys hate, us lovers will love. Now this is probably my most unproffesional review, for I am just loving it and loving it for no reason. But you don't need reason to know that the best film in the world is the best for it's brotherhood, friendship, and love; The Lord of the Rings The Return of the King.
Average User Score: 7.2May 7, 2011The Kids Are All Right has a fairly simple plot. A lesbian couple have 2 children. The two children meet there sperm donor. Easy, right? Yup,The Kids Are All Right has a fairly simple plot. A lesbian couple have 2 children. The two children meet there sperm donor. Easy, right? Yup, it is. The Kids Are All Right is one of the finest dramedies that I have ever seen. The acting form the cast is spectacular, riveting, and memorable. The way the film makes one character seem like the bad guy or good guy in the film, suddenly changing them to good guys or bad guys, is fascinating. The supporing actors in this films were the very best. Nothing can beat the laughs they brought ot the film or the drama they did as well. The sublte humor was amazing, for it is what I liked the most in the film. The obvious humor was also hillarious, but not as good as the subtle. They also made very crude sexual jokes most of the time, which I personally enjoyed the least. But on the comedy side of the film, it deserves excellent marks. Next, on the drama side, this film is just full of it. Tense, exciting, relationships, all that a drama needs. At one point, a lesbian couple is cheating on her wife, and when you notice its kinda strange that a lesbian is cheating on her wife with a MAN, you might think its comedy. But not at all. It's very true drama if it happened in real life, because it doesnt happen very often. The fast paced drama, although there wasn't much, was good. When the characters are in arguments, you notice the tension in the room, and you cant help but root for one character oover another. Lisa Cholodenko knows how to add drama factor, to the lauch factor. I aslo have to give alot of credit to the amazing acting. Annete Benning, Julianne Moore, Mia Wasikowski, Josh Hutcherson, and Mark Ruffalo all starred in this film. And they made the film a star. The ensemble cast are all perfect with each other. The casting director, who ever he/she might be, should be given an Oscar. They all seemed to love each other like family in real life, just the same way they did in the film. You could literally feel passion coming out of the screen from each individual, as if you were part of the family, too. The acting nominations for Annete Benning and Mark Ruffalo were truly deserved. In the beggining, you thought Benning's character was going to be the villian in the story, and you also thoguth that Mark's character would be the good guy. But as the story continued on, you realized everything was not as it seemed. I personally thought Mark Ruffalo was the best actor out of all of them. He brougth so much joy and despair to every one of the characters, and you think about how he did it, but you really cant figure it out. I had mixed feelings about his character in the end, unlike any of the other characters. As you watch the film, you really have sympathy toward his character more than anyone else, and that's what made him stand out the most. So, the acting was great. But then comes the negatives. Lets narrow it down to four. (1) The crude sexual jokes. I shouldnt have expected less from a rated R film, but if you make a dramedy and most of the laughs come from sex jokes, then I would call it more of a perv dilm than anything else (but gladly most of the laughs weren't perverted).(2) The score. It was so boring and dull and was repeated so many times. Only a few times did the score fit a scene. I hope to never listen to it again. (3) Not a film to see again. Maybe one day if their were 50 films at Blockbuster, and this one was the best, then I would watch it again, otherwise the film was memorable, but I wouln't really watch it again any time soon. (4) Last but not least, the slow moving pace. At times (as I've said previouslly), the fim was fast, but sometimes it REALLY lagged. You'd see there expressions and be so bored that you might turn off the film, but then a sudden burst of comedy or dram saves you, and your back in. And that's really all the negatives in the film. Other than that, the film was excellent. The film also had a recurring message. No matter how hard you try, you can never lose family, and they will never lose you. Check back at my page for a new review every week. Thanks and enjoy the film.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.5Apr 30, 2011I know most of my reviews consist of 10/10, but that's because I think lots of movies are excellent. And so is this one. By all means, one ofI know most of my reviews consist of 10/10, but that's because I think lots of movies are excellent. And so is this one. By all means, one of the best films I have ever seen. Million Dollar Baby is more than just a film about boxing, it's about believing, never-giving-up, and the harsh reality of life. And truly, life. Is hard. The film has so many memorable moments. The acting, the directing, the story is all spectacular. Ive never seen a film like this. Million Dollar Baby is about a boxing trainer and manager, Frankie (Eastwood). A woman, Margaret Fitzgerald (Swank), wants him to train her. Frankie claims he can't train her, but as she grows in potential and determination, he starts to. The story follows Maggie and Frankie as they try to fulfill their dreams, and show the world that they believe. Unlike no other film I have ever seen, the acting in th
Is film is just riveting. Clint Eastwood deserved an Academy win, not a nomination. His acting was just moving and amazing throughout. He wasn't a lovable character, but Clint showed his character had a heart and was memorable all the same. Hillary Swank was outstanding, deserving her Oscar. Morgan Freeman is always a man to love. His comedic, nonchalant acting in this was stupendous. No wonder people always say he should get an Oscar for every film he does. The directing from Clint Eastwood was great, too. He always knows how to make a movie the right way. He should be directing all the intelligent and moving films out there, and then Hollywood would be even better than it is now. In the end, the movie is all about believing, which is risking it all for a dream that nobody sees...but you.