Reviews

My wife and I bought into the hype of the commercials, which made the show look interesting. We then made the mistake of watching the show.

The plot holes were so incredibly painful it wasn't funny.

So we have Sean Walker (played by Jason Ritter) on a plane - and he manages to get a gun onto the plane. Seriously? So you're asking us to completely suspend reality in the opening scene, because apparently the writers have never been through an airport security screening. Fine, then we go back in time to have a flashback. Cool - we need some set-up.

So Sean and his soon-to-be fiancé' Leila Buchanan (played by Sarah Roemer) are going on a cruise. Leila is a single mom, with her daughter being left with Leila's parents. Okay, fine. Then we flash forward. Then we flash back. That continues happening all throughout the whole episode - and basically ruined the whole episode.

Let's see - what other reality breaks were taken? I can handle Blair Underwood portraying a President. Except that his character, Elias Martinez, apparently was a Cuban refugee, based upon the comments made, which means he's not eligible to BE President of the United States.

In another scene, we have Sean on the plane, standing around being full of angst because he's trying to get into the cockpit of the plane. (Which is going to be 'crashed' into the President by Leila's father, in order to obtain the release of his granddaughter from kidnappers, even after his wife was killed in front of him...) Just so happens that there's an Air Marshal on the plane. Sean is distracted - Air Marshal has a clear shot at him. It would screw things up, but the Air Marshal isn't going to say, "Drop your gun!". He's going to put two into center of mass, one into the head, and take out the hijacker.

Oh, and in another flashback, Leila stayed on the cruise ship because she wasn't feeling well. Sean, who was supposed to be proposing to her, goes snorkeling with another woman that he'd rescued. He gets back onto the cruise ship and suddenly his key doesn't work for his room, someone else is in there, and the ship doesn't show any record of being on there. Except, of course, that also shows that the writers have never been on a cruise ship, either. When you come back onto a cruise ship after having been ashore, you have to swipe your card to get through security just to get back ON the ship. If his card didn't work on the room, it wouldn't work to get him onto the ship in the first place.

Oh, and obviously if the President has an IQ higher than room temperature, he's going to figure out that when the head of the CIA and his Vice-President, who were supposed to be at his speech and mysteriously weren't there when suddenly there was an assassination attempt is going to have something to talk about. And we won't even talk about the failure of the Secret Service as shown. The President would have been simply picked up, thrown into that car, and it would have been squealing tires to get out of there, regardless of what was going on - instead of suddenly everyone just sitting there watching an airplane heading at them.

I notice that here on IMDb that they have 8 episodes of this made. I'll be amazed if they all actually air.

Wow! Mind you, I've been a Star Trek fan for as long as the show has been around - I remember watching the episodes first run. ST:TOS, ST:TNG, ST:DS9, ST:VOY, Enterprise - all the movies... They all made and or changed things.

There are, no doubt, going to be purists that are offended by this movie. But they actually mention this in the movie - this IS an alternate future. It was changed when George Kirk was killed on the Kelvin. In the 25 years since that incident, our main characters have grown up differently.

But...

This is the most exciting reboot of any franchise that I've seen. I kept waiting for a break or a dull moment to get up and go get a refill on my pop and popcorn, figuring that somewhere along the lines it'd slow down. Never happened. My wife and I were both amazed at this movie - how Bones was still Bones, Scotty was still Scotty, and really the only thing that amazed her was Spock and ... Uhura? The cockiness of Jim Kirk - supergenius. Portrayed beautifully.

Considering that I'm a middle aged Star Trek fan that owns every episode of all the TV series, all the movies, and still has my original James Blish books and I do own a Bat'leth - (Okay, I'm a Trekkie) - I didn't want this movie to end. I want more.

SPOILERS AHEAD! BE WARNED! Okay, that's out of the way.

John Hancock - played quite aptly by Will Smith - is a superhero with a problem. He's anti-social, rather apathetic to how people feel about him, and quite frankly has seen better days. For all that, he's still got the desire to fight crime, criminals, and be the good guy.

Ray Embrey - played by Jason Bateman - is an idealistic ad man. He wants to make a difference in the world.

Mary Embrey - played wonderfully by Charlize Theron - seems to be the perfect housewife. She's quite happy with her life, her family - and for some reason has real issues with Hancock.

Aaron Embrey - Jae Head - is the son of Mary and Ray, and thinks that Hancock is neat.

This is not your typical Marvel or DC comic adaptation. It's also not quite the funny comedy that a lot of people apparently thought it was supposed to be. Oh, it starts out quite funny. You've seen part of the opening in trailers - criminals running from the police, shooting at them. A kid wakes up a drunken Hancock, who then 'saves' the day, while in the meantime causing millions of dollars in property damage. (Which is something that was NEVER addressed in Fantastic Four, Superman, Spiderman, or ANY other superhero movie - which is one reason I liked this movie!) Ray has a positive attitude towards life, and believes in the best part of people. While stuck on train tracks in traffic, Hancock saves his life (and causes millions MORE in property damage - nice train wreck). Hancock takes Ray home, and Ray invites him in. Mary is QUITE displeased to see Hancock - yet you can tell that there's something going on with her about him.

You find out that Hancock isn't really his name - someone told him to put his John Hancock on a form, and that's what he thought his name was, so he's been going by that ever since. Ray decides, since he's indebted to Hancock and that since advertising is supposed to be his game - he should help Hancock with his image.

Of course, going to jail, coming out, becoming a costumed hero and actually getting recognition from the public and police for being the good guy is all well and good. This seems to really be turning Hancock around - and that's when the movie changes from being a comedy about a superhero to being a tragic love story.

I'm not going to spoil the ending - but just when you think that the clash between a second super-hero and Hancock is going to be comedy also - you realize that actually, this wasn't really a comedy at all. It's a love story that has, quite literally, spanned thousands of years. One that, for there to be a happy ending, has to remain unrequited - because otherwise all involved will die.

Oh, and don't leave right when the credits start - there's an extra scene set in Hancocks new home of New York.

This is not one of the classic movies of all time - Sixth Sense. It still ranks as one of MNS best efforts for me because of what it's not. It's not a typical Hollywood disaster film, and I think that's where the VAST majority of reviewers here miss the boat. This is an everyman film.

What do I mean by that? Simple. Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg) is a goof. He's still a kid at heart, in love with his wife, and a nerd. He's just a guy trying to deal with a situation that he's not used to, being thrust into a leadership role that he's not comfortable with, and trying to survive. Alma Moore (Zooey Deschanel) hasn't quite grown up yet either. She's not sure if she's really married to the right guy, and she's not someone that is comfortable outside of her little circle.

So now you've got two quite ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances. How do they react? How do they survive? That's what makes this such a compelling and thoughtful film. Watching Elliot and Alma try to grow beyond the empty and facile people they started as - actually becoming more than they were, such that by the end of the movie you know that they're now mature - that's the point. You don't have to start with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie to have a husband and wife that can become heroes and grow beyond themselves.

Many people have commented the rationale behind the disaster is implausible. That's hubris talking - we don't control nature. While it at this point seems unlikely, it is potentially possible for this to occur. Mother Nature is quite capable of wiping out the dominant species on the planet - just ask the dinosaurs.

'Flags of our Fathers' is the powerful and moving true story of what happened to the three survivors of the six men that raised the flag on Iwo Jima as immortalized in the Marine Corps Memorial.

The editing of this film, utilizing flashbacks and showing how something as simple as a lightning bolt flashing can bring back memories that haunt veterans of combat is very true to life. My wife is a nurse at a Veterans Home - thunder claps in the middle of the night will invariably bring out cries from the sleeping combat veterans.

What is also true to life is how these men - Rene Gagnon, Ira Hayes, and John Bradley - did not see themselves to be heroes. They felt that the heroes were those who had fallen on Iwo Jima - yet the public was continually holding them up to be more than they thought they were. This is shown very well when James Bradley is going through the box of his fathers possessions and pulls out an envelope with the Navy Cross stuffed in it. The Navy Cross is one step down from the Medal of Honor and is awarded for extraordinary heroism in combat - normally one who earned it would put it on display.

The use of sepia tone at times - plus the sheer starkness of the black sands with the stark white of flares - gave this film a look that was very compelling. As far as how emotional of a movie this was shown in the theatre where I saw it - which was a full theatre on Veterans Day. At the end of the movie, the credits started rolling - and no one stood up. A lot of noses were being blown and tears were being shed, but no comments were made at all - this movie affected the audience that much.

I consider this to be equal to Citizen Kane as far as quality movies are concerned. This isn't light entertainment.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS (as it were) INSIDE I just saw this on National Geographic channel, and I was quite pleased with this movie.

In our modern day era of crossing the sea via airplanes and large cruise ships and freighters, it's nice to see how, barely 300 years ago, sloops where the cannon ports were only a few inches above the waterline, dared to cross the Atlantic. Also, it nicely showed how a smaller vessel could catch and out sail a much larger one.

It's also nice to show that the life of the pirate was not all glamor. Teach was more than adequately portrayed by the same actor that played the Prince in 'A Knights Tale'. The psychosis of Teach (Blackbeard) was that he didn't care about fortune in the least - he just wanted to be remembered. It may seem comedic to us nowadays, but in those days, the sight of someone with slow burning fuses or flames coming from out of his head would've terrified the average person - more so the superstitious sailor.

There was only one thing left open, and that was the fate of Frenchy. I ended up watching the ending of this twice to try to figure that out, and didn't see it. There was a lot of historical accuracy, and the costuming and props were dead on. Very well done.

Possible spoilers contained within.

I just finished watching this movie with my wife. She is a health care professional - a nurse - and a former military medical professional. I'm also former military - an NBC specialist - so I know way too much about this stuff in real life.

After watching about half an hour of this movie on FX, the first comment we made to each other was that this is entirely too realistic. The second comment after about an hour was that this movie is scarier than any slasher flick that we've seen.

The premise behind the movie is simple - a terrorist infects a small population in New York City with smallpox, which, with modern travel, is able to go around the world during the incubation period and eventually kill millions around the world.

We did not particularly care for the ending - it is possible that a terrorist might have not had his identity discovered. It is highly unlikely that the nationality of the terrorist would not have been found, though. One thing that we both found to be incorrect was in the burying of the bodies. That may have been the only thing to do in third world countries. However, the only real way to insure that the bodies do not continue to be breeding colonies would be cremation. So in this case the film makers missed the mark.

By not using well known actors, the film makers made this look just like real documentaries that play on the History Channel. The voice actor that impersonated President Bush was very good as well, and including Al Sharpton in a cameo made for a nice touch as well.

I did find it interesting that there were no comments in the film about infections in the middle east. Perhaps this was a deliberate attempt not to mention Iran, Libya, North Korea or any other country where such biological weapons have been known to be made. Another note is that such an event was covered quite nicely by Tom Clancy years ago as a prelude to a military action.

One comment by the Russian scientist - these are not weapons of mass destruction, just mass casualties - is true to a certain extent. The film makers did not cover - perhaps wisely - that if this had been found to be the result of action by a nation state, that the response of the U.S. is to respond in kind. And the U.S. considers gas to be a bug to be a nuke - so while we don't have massive stocks of nerve gas or bio-weapons, we do have plenty of nukes available.

The last few minutes of the movie seemed quite rushed. I think this one could have lasted about another hour, and been fleshed out MUCH more - instead of going from day 31 to day 91 so quickly.

All in all, a 10 for realism, a 5 for being rushed, and an 8 overall. Very scary stuff, when you really think about it. It would have only taken a bit more for the pandemic to have killed many, many more people around the world - and that should have been covered.

SPOILERS (I suppose)

I'm not going to talk about plot, or lack thereof. That the Navajo Windtalkers were a vital asset in WWII is true enough - my uncle served in the South Pacific. Instead, let's talk about how to make a war movie totally unwatchable.

In the opening sequence, we get to watch someone firing a Thompson sub-machine gun off-hand. Anyone who has ever served in the military and fired any kind of automatic weapon knows how impossible this is - yet this is repeated OVER and OVER again in this movie.

Then we get to see actors firing the .45 caliber pistols and hitting targets 40 or more yards away - without aiming. Not going to happen!

Battleships - which fire shells that are 16" in diameter - think about this for a minute, a shell that is over a FOOT in diameter, and also happens to weigh in at about a ton - so you're talking an explosive shell the size of a Volkswagon here - that makes small holes in the ground. How about more like a full broadside making holes about the size of a two story HOUSE in the ground - and there's 9 shells in a broadside, not just one.

The airplanes looked SO computer graphic that it wasn't funny, although close air support did get that close to the ground. Of course, you're not going to drop a bomb at 300 mph and have it visibly arc down like someone let a baseball dribble out of his hand, either - which was just stupid.

Oh, well - this had a chance to be a great war movie and truly tell the tale of some brave Marines. Too bad this chance was blown.

Having read all of the negative comments about this movie - and having just wasted a few hours of my life by watching it - I can pretty much say that they're ALL true.

The scenery is great, but I think my wife said it all. During the windstorm scene, she remarked, "What a tough place to live. Why would they continue to want to live there?"

Why did they continue to want to make this movie? 5 stars for scenery, 1/2 star for acting ability, which was SORELY lacking.

This probably would have been a good book - something about perseverance in the face of tragedy and everything that nature throws at you - but for a movie to plod along like this without you ever really caring about the characters **Spoiler** such as when the husband is robbed - his emotion and her face as she held him were just NOT there.

Slight spoilers

First off, let me say that we watched this film on DVD, and our family loved it. BUT - this was geared more to the age of my kids, who are teenagers, and not your typical Disney pre-teen audience. That, I think, is one reason why this didn't do so well in the theatres - they targeted the wrong audience. Your normal 5 - 10 year olds just aren't going to get a lot of the teenage angst in this movie.

Also, that they went for a film based on the Robert Louis Stevenson classic meant that, if you'd read the book, you'd see a lot of things that you could get - but if you hadn't, they'd just go over your head. Again, targeting an older audience would probably have helped. (Let's face it - little kids can watch Beauty & the Beast 50 times a day - not this one.)

You can forgive them regarding space and vacuum - perhaps there was some bubble of atmosphere, or their clothing generated atmosphere - who cares about that, it's a cartoon, I can forgive them that one. That was at least consistent throughout the movie. But the inconsistency was in the gravity field. I could see the first mate being pulled away because he was drawn by the stronger gravity well of the pulsing black hole. But the spidery guy should have been drawn back to the ship. It seemed that they played sort of loose with gravity, which I can't really agree with.

I sat down to watch this one and was prepared to be slightly amused at best. I was very pleased by the end of the movie to have been entertained by what is a good comedy. It's a fresh approach to the blonde issue - especially since it starts with the stereotypical ditzy California blonde and ends with a confident young woman, ready to take on the world on HER terms. The steps that Elle Woods (Reece Witherspoon) take in growing up are humorous, touching, and quite affirming that there is something inside all of us that we can bring out to become confident adults.

*Minor Spoiler* - It was only when looking through the deleted scenes that we realized that the ex-wife was Raquel Welch. And the two California girls coming to see Elle at the trial - 'with a judge and jury people and everything' - is sidesplitting.

*Minor complaint* - The deleted scene (shown on the DVD) where Emmett tells Callahan he's an ass because he hit on Elle should have been left in. That would have given the scene later in the courtroom a little more background.

There are some comments about this movie that are from people who are either too young to have experienced the era, or have just never had the thought that some of this could have actually occurred. Some small spoilers may occur in these comments.

I was the age of the coaches daughters in 1971, and I can remember the tension in the nation during this period of integration. This movie captures that era - captures the feelings that were being spread at that time. It's obvious the language was cleaned up for Disney - the brick would have said Coach N, not Coach Coon.

By the same token, what it does also show is how a sports team in a community can bring pride to the community, no matter what the divisions are. It doesn't matter whether you understand football or not - the plays on the field were not the defining moments of the movie. Simply having one of your supposed teammates let you down - and then having to re-examine your own values because of what happened - THOSE ideas are what this movie is about.

Denzel gives in this movie an Academy Award winning performance. As a sports movie, this ranks up there with the pantheon of basketball movies, Hoosiers. (If you don't get football, then don't come to Indiana and ask about basketball. Football here is a sport - basketball is a religion.)

I've been reading the comments here and I can see that a lot of people who are commenting on this movie just don't quite get it.

*** SPOILER ALERT ***

Okay, by now you should know that this is a movie based in a military prison. What most of the people who are commenting on here on this board don't realize is that this movie is based in a MILITARY PRISON! It may seem like I'm repeating myself - there's a reason. Military prisons do not operate under the civilian criminal justice system. They operate under military law, military regulations, and are governed (as Redford / IRWIN says in the movie) under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ for short).

(And in case you think I have rocks in my head, or should have to move the pile of rocks because I don't know what I'm talking about - I have a Masters Degree in Criminology, did an internship in the US Federal Prison in Terre Haute, and was also an officer in the INARNG.)

Does anyone recall 'The Dirty Dozen'? Those guys were all prisoners - yet they took their chances in combat because they were soldiers. I suspect that most of the people who are making derogatory comments about the prisoners have never served in the military themselves, or they would understand something that we who have do understand.

First, we all volunteer to serve in the military - to be soldiers. Being a soldier is special - because you are what is preventing the barbarians at the gates from pillaging your home (when it's broken down to the basics.) This is taught to every person in every branch of the service - because it's true. Second, if you are in a prison, and you are abusing the prisoners, you should be behind the bars as well. (Anyone ever heard of human dignity?) Third, men will follow a leader. (Anyone who doubts that should read up on Theodore Roosevelt and George Patton. They had lousy personalities outside the service - but they had the ability to lead.)

So, what do we have here? Redford / IRWIN is a 3-star general. He's survived 6 years in the Hanoi Hilton. He's led his men into combat numerous times - given orders that have no doubt led to some of their deaths in the past, that's just part of it. He faces a court-martial for disobeying an order from the president which led to the deaths of 8 of his soldiers. He accepts the responsibility for this, because as their leader, he caused their deaths, and pleads guilty at his court martial. He gets to the prison, where Galdonfini / WINTER is the warden. WINTER has never served in combat - never heard a shot fired in anger. (Which is entirely possible, given that he's an MP.) Many of the prisoners have already served with WINTER, during Desert Storm, or had family, such as Ruffalo / YATES, whose father was a POW with WINTER in Vietnam.

Apparently a lot of people didn't pay attention - the trebuchet was built from the weight benches. Easily done, especially if planned in advance. One of the most effective devices for laying siege to a castle - especially since it could throw weights in excess of 500 pounds almost half a mile. And the slingshots - we used to use something similar to that back in college in water balloon fights. We called them a gazorch - surgical tubing, a funnel between the tubing, two-four strong guys to hold the tubing, and you can send a water balloon 300 yards or more. (Been there, done that!)

Most of the guards knew that ZAMORO was killing the prisoners with headshots with the rubber bullets, and that was wrong. Why do people think that those guards would have shot WINTER from the towers? The prisoners had control of the prison - they could have easily maintained that control - but they didn't. They had already turned control back over the military. The men on the walls were soldiers, also. Unlike a regular prison guard, they are not going to follow an order that they believe to be unlawful. Shooting an unarmed prisoner would have been an unlawful command. (Goes back to the UCMJ - which is NOT civilian law!)

As for Collins / AGUILLAR - don't forget one detail. He was apparently the only Marine in the prison (which in and of itself was an error - he should have been in a navy prison, not an army one, although I'm not sure if there IS a navy prison anymore). A Marine, especially a corporal, is going to respect the rank of a 3 star - period.

To give you some idea of how the UCMJ works - read Article 99. Punishment is death, and may be by summary court martial. Misbehavior before the enemy - so being a coward can get you shot by your own side. This is without a trial - your commander can be the judge, jury, and executioner - and is perfectly legal. WINTER was guilty of Article 93 under the UCMJ, the prisoners knew it. The prisoners themselves could, technically, be subject to Article 94 of the UCMJ, but since IRWIN was leading the prisoners, then he probably would have been the only one punished.

Hey, under the UCMJ, you can go to prison for one year for adultery - so all you people out there who think this is a typical prison film just have no idea what you're talking about.

10 out of 10 - excellent movie

So many people, it seems, have gone to this movie, thinking that they were going to see pure action, have lots of fun, and not have to do any thinking.

They were wrong.

<Possible spoilers in discussion>

This is a thinking movie - possibly one of the most subversive movies that has come out of Hollywood in decades. There happens to be action involved - darn good action, too.

Keanu Reeves is back as Neo - which is in itself an anagram for One - since he is The One. He's been there before, in case everyone missed that minor detail in the scene with the Architect. In fact, everyone has been there before - this is the sixth time that Zion has been attacked by the machines.

Think about this movie as a combination of Gnostic gospels, along with Zaroastian, Budhism and Hinduism. Then you've got some concept of what you're dealing with.

Everything is in this movie for a reason - and I feel sorry for those programs, er, people, who have missed it.

It's not too much a spoiler to mention that there is an attack on the President in the opening sequence, especially since it's shown in the trailers. There are complaints here that this is unrealistic.

IT'S A COMIC BOOK! Granted, on the big screen, but still a comic.

We're not talking War and Peace or Gone with the Wind here, people. This is based on a comic book. It is incredibly cool to see Wolverine, Professor X, Mystique, and all the others actually come to life. Just keep in mind when you critique this that we're not talking great literature - we're talking BAM and POW, action, and adventure. In this respect, X2 is fulfilling and a great movie.

One nice thing - they've taken note that the viewers are a little more adult than comic book readers - or that audiences in general are a little more mature nowadays. Mystique flipping off Stryker as she slides through the door, Wolverine saying "S**t" - all nice little touches that make the movie characters more believable.

My only wish is that Beast had a bigger role - but I think in X3 (possible title - X3, the Dark Phoenix) we're going to see more action and mutant powers than you're going to be able to keep track of.

I will have to say that the CGI effect of the alien changing was good. This seemed to be accomplished very seamlessly. Other than that, I think a group of high school students could have made a better movie. The 'acting' was pathetic, and the death scene of the Russian soldier was laughable. Can it be a spoiler to say that it took him almost 15 seconds of screaming "ARGH" as he slowly crumpled to the ground - almost as a parody of good acting.

Actually, if you approach this as a comedy, it's almost watchable. As a science fiction movie, it takes itself way too seriously. Maybe spending money to make movies like this is why the studios never show a profit on the good movies.