Reviews

I honestly do not understand the hate and poor box office numbers for this film. The visuals were absolutely stunning. The universe of the story is truly epic in scale and scope. The acting was decent except for a few minor points: Eddie Redmayne's Belam is always talking at a whisper (SPEAK UP!); Channing Tatum's Caine is unemotional to almost robotic levels; and Mila Kunis's Jupiter is unrealistically taking the existence of aliens and everything that is happening to her waaaay to calmly.

Looking back, the one thing that I think truly hurts this film's acceptance by audiences and critics is the story. The story is epic...unfortunately, I think the Wachowski's tried to show too much in a very limited 2 hours. People have complained that the story felt rushed at times, which is indeed true. But does that mean the movie is bad and not entertaining? No, it is still an incredibly well made and well told movie for what the Wachowski's were limited by.

Despite this, I believe the story would have played out masterfully over several installments like a TV or anime series.

Another reviewer likened this film to Loony Toons. Given the sheer insanity of the film and the indestructible nature of Chev I can understand that. But this film sadly is nothing like the comedic genius of Loony Toons...but I digress. Crank: High Voltage is, in my humble opinion, simply an excuse for the creators to do a movie filled with insane and bloody violence and throw in ungodly amounts of nudity, language, and...oh...I almost forgot, pornography. In fact, the reviewer would have been more correct as to compare this film to an porno pumped full of action. I loved the first film and was utterly disappointed with this so-called "attempt" at a sequel. Action was still top notch, but everything else was simply horrible with any shred of realism left from the first film completely thrown out the window. About the only other thing that I liked in the film apart from the action was the subtle references I noticed throughout the film (or at least I thought they were references). References ranging from Takashi Miike to "The Princess Bride" to Walt Disney. And David Carradine makes a strangely ironic (or should I say foreshadowing) cameo. Worth viewing only by truly hardcore (no porn pun intended) fans of the first film. Film is rated R but only (in my opinion) because they blur out much of sex that would have given this film (and what it should have received) an X rating. NOT TO BE VIEWED BY CHILDREN, EVER!

Films that follow the "documentary" style of story telling, with its crude camera work and choppy editing, tend to fail miserably in creating a believable story (films like Cloverfield, which was supposed to be this great horror film but was pure trash and laughable)...District 9, thankfully, achieved and even surpassed the "believability test." For those who haven't seen it, over a million aliens have "crashed landed" on earth in South Africa and are being "isolated" in an area known as District 9. The "documentary" follows a civilian NGO (non-goverment organization) member who is supervising the transfer of these aliens from District 9 to the up-to-date District 10. Needless to say, things do not go smoothly. Produced by Peter Jackson (who directed horror films before his Lord of the Rings fame) if this gives you any indication to the creepiness of the film...believe me, this film gets down right disturbing 1/4 of the way through and doesn't stop till the end.

Sadly, the hype generated for this film and the chance to have Depp and Bale go at each other in a deadly game of cat and mouse fell short of the mark. Three things kept this film on a short leash, teasing the audience but never fully delivering.

1) Camera work. I have noticed a trend in the film industry to film action with shaky, quick-cutting camera work. I understand it is intended to give the audience the same sense of chaos that the characters are feeling, but I find it distracting and just pure sloppiness. What was worse was that the "shaky camera" was use throughout the film even when there was no action to speak of. I absolutely despise this "style" (I use the term loosely) of camera work. Couldn't the studio have spent a few dollars more for a still camera set a vastly improve the quality of the film? Speaking of quality of film: 2) "Digital film quality." A film that is supposed to be set in the 1930's certainly lost its appeal when it feels like it was filmed with a digital camcorder. The "digital" quality of the film made the movie feel unrealistic and out of place with the gritty world of the Great Depression.

3) Lack of connection to characters. Given the last two problems I've discussed and adding to it the style of story telling, you feel absolutely no connection or sympathy for either Dillinger or Purvis. Its almost as if the director said, "Here is Dillinger...here is Purvis...this happened...this happened....the end." And this unemotional story is dragged out for over 2 hours.

Sadly, it has the potential of being a great film but will ultimately become just another one of the hundreds of films that are released each year and will disappear into film history.

My expectations for this live-action retelling of the one of anime's/manga's most beloved stories were generally mixxed going into the theater.

Bad: Son Goku played by an actor of non-Asian descent and without a martial arts background (as far as I could tell); reports that they wanted this film to be more "realisitc" as apposed to the mystical-fantasy realm of the original; and the massive amounts of bad reviews and predictions from critics didn't help either.

Good: Produced by Stephen Chow (the writer/director/star of SHAOLIN SOCCER and KUNG FU HUSTLE, classics); directed by James Wong (who gave us the action packed JET LI'S THE ONE); and Chow Yun-Fat starring as Master Roshi (a bit young but hey, it's Chow Yun-Fat!).

With these "good" points, I figured that even if this was a bad film (which most martial arts films are) it would still be enjoyable and relatively faithful to the spirit of the original. What I saw, however, was a film that tried to live up to the original but falling way short of the mark and flat on its face. Not that it wasn't enjoyable, it was...it was that it wasn't Dragonball.

I biggest complaint leaving the theater was that the film felt way too short. I know the director wanted to keep the character's to a minimum to build on characterization, but even with the characters present the story felt rushed with little time to truly enjoy them. The action also felt rushed, especially the final battle between Goku and Piccolo, deminishing the one thing that everyone loves about Dragonball: epic martial art battles. The attempt to make the story more "realistic" was more detrimental than anything else in this film.

5 out of 10 for even attempting to make a live action film out of a story that spans hundreds of anime episodes and manga volumes into the length of an hour and a half. Still an interesting "retelling" despite its downfalls. Enjoyable but don't expect anything great.

The final film in the Rocky series returns to its roots of the first two films as a serious drama of searching for one's identity amidst the backdrop of boxing. Stallone proves that a 60 year old Rocky can still be rock hard and able to dish out the pain while at the same time struggling with his own personal demons of Adrian's death, his son's distant behavior, and mid-life crisis of "who am I?". Antonio Tarver (real life boxer) as Mason Dixon also gives a good performance as a troubled boxer with a (as I call it) "Mike Tyson syndrome" where he's so good he can beat anyone in one round and is causing him to start doubting his own worth. I can go one but this film is more than about Rocky trying to get back what he lost, its about every character in the story searching for answers in their lives at pivotal down moments in their existence. Excellent all round and is one of the best of the Rocky films. A must see, should be nominated for an award or two.

If you didn't know any better, you would have thought that this story was written by Shakespeare. I mean it has everything: complex characters, heavy accents (Bostonian) that are near incomprehensible, plenty of language (oh yes, Shakespeare was quite vulgar for his time), sex, witty comedy relief, and an extremely high body count (along with gallons of blood). What starts as a simple undercover job turns into a deadly cat and mouse chase between the two rats (DiCaprio and Damon) to discover the identity of each other without getting killed in the process. Jack Nicholson is, as always, superb and delightfully evil as the vicious mob boss who, like everyone else in the film, has something big to hide other than the fact that he is a mobster. Minor roles of Alec Baldwin and Martin Sheen almost steal the show with their off beat humor and sheer presence (respectively). Fair warning, this film has some very rough cursing and very graphic mob violence and is definitely not for anyone below 17. No nudity, surprising for a Scorsese film, but he makes it up with plenty of graphic sex talk (mostly from Nicholson). An excellent film.

I read the book a week before the movie and, despite serious objections to the falsely claimed "facts" given by Dan Brown, I was drawn in by the engaging cat-and-mouse/treasure hunt story and wanted to see how this story can be adapted to the big screen. Despite the film's keeping to the basic storyline (search for the holy grail and its true meaning while evading multiple opposing forces) I left with the overwhelming sensation of "what the heck did I just see?" Granted, one can never transfer all the minute details, exposition, dialog, or action that the book contains into a 2 hour film; however, there is a fine line between editing out certain parts and adding new parts that have absolutely no relevance or relationship to the original story. In the film version of "The DaVinci Code", director Ron Howard not only crosses this line but leaps over it with reckless abandon. The pacing was all wrong, far too fast to develop any sense of tension (except the scenes where Silas physically attacks his adversaries). Character interaction in some cases were so different from the book that you are looking at a completely different person (see spoilers below). The ending was for the most part completely different (again see spoilers below). But despite all these changes, the overall film (standing on its own) was a serious let down in the entertainment factor. Bad pacing (as stated before), motivation of major characters changed unreasonably or were never explained, dialog seemed forced by some of the characters (Sofie and Langdon), and the ending just reeked of cheese.

6 out of 10. Definitely no where near the quality of film that Howard or Hanks usually produce.

********************************** SPOILERS **********************************

This is mostly for those who have read the book. As I watched the film I couldn't help but cringe or scream (internally, wouldn't actually do it in the theater) "HOWARD YOU *******" based on these blatant changes:

1) Silas's eyes are blue in the film, not red as the book states.

2) "The Sacred Feminine" theory that is so blatant in the book is not as aggressively "preached" in the film. A change that I actually found relieving.

3) Bishop Aringarosa, to put it bluntly, is not the same person. The book portrays him as a righteous priest duped by to find the Holy Grail in hopes of saving Opus Dei from being excommunicated and is horrified at what was done in the name of God. The movie, however, portrays him as a zealous member of a inner circle within the Vatican (no where mentioned in the book) who will do anything to destroy the Holy Grail including lying and murdering.

4)Fache's motivation for thinking Langdon is guilty is different. It starts off like the book, Sauniere left Langdon's name at the crime scene thus, in Fache's mind, Langdon is identified as the killer; however, later in the film we are told that Fache is after Langdon cause Aringarosa lied (as later revealed) that Langdon told the bishop he committed the murders in confession.

5) Fache and Aringarosa's relationship. The movie portrays Aringarosa as a manipulator like "The Teacher" and pulls the strings of Fache's sense of faith and duty by framing Langdon. When the truth is revealed in the end, Aringarosa is unrepentant and still hell bent on his mission. The book is nothing like this. Why Howard decided to make a blatant change to the story is beyond me.

6) Only one cryptex, the smaller one with the Issac Newton riddle, is kept in the film. Any reference to the larger (heavier) cryptex and the "Sofie" riddle are completely gone.

7) Langdon is approached by Collet at the lecture and not at his hotel room. Minor point, I know.

8) Langdon and Sophie's trip to the Swiss Bank is on foot instead of by Taxi (they even added a scene of Sophie paying a guy to not take drugs).

9) Rosalyn Church is completely different than described in the book. Don't know if the movie shows the actual church or not. Furthermore, Langdon and Sophie actually go beneath the church and find Priory documents and evidence at the sarcophagus was present. No such event was in the book.

10) Major changes concerning Sophie's family: Sauniere was not her grandfather but acted as one after Sophie's family died to protect her; Sophie and her brother were in the car wreck and only she survived; as stated before, her brother is really dead; it was her parents that took her to Rosalyn church not her grandfather; she was scolded (rather harshly) by Sauniere because she was trying to find out what happened to her family (not because she snuck into his room and found the key).

11) Langdon figures out the rose line riddle all on his own with absolutely no help from Sophie's grandmother.

12) Sophie confronts Silas in the airplane. This scene didn't make any sense. Not the way Sophie acted, but how Silas talked to her which I felt was totally out of character.

Its sad to see a writer/director like Wimmer go from the visually appealing, methodical, and excellent film like Equilibrium to a film that promised much and yet delivered little. The film does deliver non-stop action from beginning to end, unfortunately the action does nothing more than make the audience yawn and wish the film would continue. Another IMDb member put it well when he said Wimmer doesn't know when to hold back or restrain himself. The fight scenes were often repetitive, one dimensional, and did little to boost our impression or awe of the title character. Another fault with the film was the utter reliance of "suspension of disbelief" to an extreme. Yes, Violet says this is a world we will not understand, but to simply leave it at that and do little (practically nothing) to help the audience to understand this strange world is unjustifiably. This film simply had me going "eh, it wasn't horrible" instead of the "HOLY #*#$" that Equilibrium gave.

Wait to rent. See it simply to enjoy the visuals effects (superb), but be warned the plot feels rushed and almost jumbled. Definitely not one of Wimmer's best, see Equilibrium for that.

Films based on comic books (aka graphic novels) are often a hit or miss situation. There have been some great hits: Spider-Man, Batman, X-Men...and some notorious misses: The Punisher, Daredevil. Sin City, based off of Frank Miller's series of graphic novels, is not just a hit, it is without a doubt the best film adaptation of a comic ever. The story (or actually 4 different stories that are loosely connected by their shared setting) is captivating from the very start, filled with indomitable heroes, sympathetic anti-heroes, despicable villains, and one down right freaky Elijah Wood. The casting for this film employs a long list a stars and "little" stars which, to my pleasant surprise, emboldens an already spectacular film. Visually, the film is so sleek, so unconventional, so comic bookish it is down right beautiful. You feel like you are actually inside the graphic novel and almost forget that this is a live-action film. More films should be done in black and white (with a little bit of spot-coloring for intensity).

Bewarned, Sin City is not for the faint of heart. The film is filled with lots and lots of violence: a broken bone here, a decapitated head here, a dismembered victim here, an impaled head here, a guy punching another's face to a bloody pulp here...you get the idea. But, despite this, the violence is not "gratuitous" but completely necessary for the film. There are also nudity in this film along with one sex scene. The language for the most part is imperceivable, you are so engulfed by the story and the violence that the language just doesn't register. The film also deals with issues that are completely not appropriate for young kids: cannibalism, vengeance by any means necessary (see the explanation on violence), molesting serial killers, and torture to name a few.

The film is rated R for the above reasons mention and that warning should be heeded.

A masterpiece through and through, an instant classic.

Technically the film was superb: realistic make-up; excellent use of lighting and filters; smooth and realistic sound...an A+ for the technical guru's behind this film. If you can stand the 3 hours long film just to bask in the glorious visuals and audios, you will have no regrets.

The action in this film can only be described as a don't-blink-hold-your-breath-till-its-done tour de force. Each action sequence begins with a bang (literally) and ends with a bang. They are violent, terrifying, and yet beautiful to observe at the same time. A+ for the choreographers, stunt-men, and actors for giving us high octane action scenes that, without any doubt, stole the show.

So why only a 7 out of 10? Two words....story and pacing. The story, in premise, has potential for being a great classic film of cat-and-mouse between a hardcore cop against a cold and determined crook. And yet we, the audience, are subjected to 3 hours of long, drawn out scenes mostly involving the mediocre lives of the two main characters. There are scenes in this film which in the grand scheme of things have absolutely no point what-so-ever in being in this film. Plot points that would have been taken care of in probably 5 minutes are drawn out in complex detail to the point of monotony. Now, in some cases, this approach works; however, for the vast majority of the film they are unnecessary and ruin the overall pace of the film. Mann, a veteran film-maker, should have known better. C for effort, but even that is generous in my book.

I also felt the ambiguous morality of the film to be questionable. When the film nears its climax, you are still divided over who to cheer for: the cop or the crook. In a film that clearly shows that the cop, although flawed, is good and the crook, with "some" redeeming qualities, is evil, the audience is left with an ambivalent attitude toward the fate of both. Once again, pacing is at fault. After 3 hours of feet dragging, you simply don't care about either of them anymore.

No, we are not talking about another Matrix-esque film where the world is really a virtual reality dream/nightmare...this is a film that takes a serious look at one of the many great "what if's" in history and shows how the world would have been. One of my favorite things about this film is that it shows the extremes of what people will do to either keep that history or change it. Its race against race; father against son; and friend against friend in a race for a nation's identity. Who will win, who will lose, and who will ultimately decide the fate of the world? Fantastic action sequences that seem almost too real. The bloodshed abounds in this film as we see repeated scenes of terrorists face off against police forces in shoot-outs that can only end with the annihilation of one group or the other. The battle scenes are realistic in that you don't see your standard "good guys never miss while bad guys can't hit the broad side of a barn" routine, these are truly horrific battles with a large casualty count from both sides.

The film, however, isn't all about action. The story itself stands on its own as you try to piece together the jigsaw of clues and dead-ends to find out what in the world is the truth. Even when you arrive at the climax of the whole story you are left on one cliff-hanger after another, wondering if this will be the final bullet to decide it all...and at the ending there is no cliff hanging, the writers have thrown you off the cliff and you wonder what awaits you at the bottom.

Despite this nail biting ending, the film had is draw backs: 1) a plot that progresses like a starting train, VERY slow at first before gaining tremendous steam at the end; 2)lots and lots of blood, not for the squeamish; 3)the ending had a loose end that was never explained; and 4)you will want more character background and insight from the two main characters.

A very good film that had plenty of room for improvement.

...then you are a cold hearted, low down, self-centered, merciless...down right "Hum-bug!" You rank right up there with Scrooge and the Grinch.

How can one not like this story of Charlie Brown's quest for the true meaning of Christmas amongst the commercialism that has slowly but surely gaged the Christmas spirit out of almost everyone today. The story is simple yet profound in its presentation. The music is just simply awesome (Schroder is the man...who else can go from Beetohven to Jazz without a moment's hesitation). The characters are lovable and laughable. And Snoopy (We're Not Worthy!) steals the show with his antics.

I'd recomemd it for anyone who wants to enjoy a good half hour. Have fun with it. If something is funny, don't hold it back, laugh! And if you feel like dancing and you start (then you are getting into the film way too much).

The war for Middle Earth has begun, and we are given just a glimpse of what is to come. You read that right, a glimpse. What you will see in The Two Towers is only a hint at the epic grandure of next year's film, Return of the King. But I'm not here to talk about what is to come, I am here to tell you about what is now...and that, my dear friends, is The Two Towers.

Everything that was good about Fellowship of the Ring and everything that made it one of the best films of all time is right here in The Two Towers. Epic battle scenes...fantastic creatures/characters...internal and external conflict on multiple fronts...treachery...magic...comedy...love...there is so much about The Two Towers that can not be confined within the limits of this Commentary.

The Two Towers, like its predecessor, is very faithful to the written work of J.R.R. Tolkien; however, like Fellowship, this film does take a bit of artistic license to keep the audiance informed of what's happening in Middle Earth that Tolkien didn't mention in his Novel, and to keep the audiance engrossed and entertained for the near 3 hour film. Yes, the 3 hour (actually 2 hrs and 59 min) seems a bit daunting, but believe me that by the time the film is over you will be wishing for more. You will not be bored a single minute of the film. There is always something happening that will make you either cry, laugh (humor abounds in this film), or simply sit in you seat in complete and total awe.

10 out of 10. This film is definate Best Picture contender....gollum....

After countless 1/2 hour videos and even more countless silly songs, Veggie Tales hits the big screen with a whale of a tale (get it, WHALE of a tale? HA HA!) in JONAH: A VEGGIE TALES MOVIE. True to the Veggie theme, the entire cast is made completely of talking fruits and veggies (save for a camel, a whale, and an annoying little catapillar named Khalil). Although the movie tells the biblical story of Jonah, plenty of artistic lisence is taken to provide an upbeat, musical, and knee slapping experiance for the entire audiance. And when I mean the entire audiance, I mean everyone from little bitty kids to adults. You see, the creators of Veggie Tales (Big Idea) always try to throw in a few jokes every now and then that only adults will be able to enjoy, but unless you are actually paying attention to the film you might miss it.

Now I've said that artistic lisence is taken in telling the Jonah story; however, this does not mean that you are being told an entirely different story from the one in the bible. Overall, the story told in JONAH is basically the same as it is told in the Bible, so parents don't worry about showing this film to your kids...in fact, I encourage you to see this film with your kids. Have a good time with them. Know that you are seeing a quality film and a pretty faithful retelling of the Jonah story.

Herald as "The First Martial Arts Film Made By Hollywood," it is also sad that this was the last film Bruce Lee ever did (he had to leave production of GAME OF DEATH to make this) before his untimely death. How fitting that his last film is the one most people remember him by and it is this film that spawned a whole new genre in Hollywood made films.

The film itself is not oscar material and almost has a B-movie quality to it. Violence, nudity, almost cheesy dialogue...all thats needed is some monster running around killing hot babes (sorry, trailed off a bit). Despite this, we have some fine quality fight scenes especially the Lee/Wall and Saxon/Yeung fights. We also have a story that has been the standard for all future Martial Arts films that have a tournament as its main focus. Don't believe me? Look at THE QUEST or BLOODSPORT or MORTAL KOMBAT (just to name a few), compare them with ENTER THE DRAGON and you will find an uncanny resemblance they have with ENTER THE DRAGON.

Lee was as usual superb. Cold and calculating, this master of the Martial Arts knows how to kick some serious behind while keeping a sense of humor (you read right). Saxon was excellent as well, although Lee was a better fighter, Saxon was the better actor. This film also introduced the film world to Jim Kelly who portrayed the arrogant Williams. Kelly was the happy medium between Lee's incredible fighting skills and Saxon's excellent acting. Kelly even said my favorite line the film. When Williams (Kelly) was asked why he wouldn't notice being defeated he replied, "I'll be too busy looking good."

A must see for any martial arts film goer or any action movie buff. A bit dated but still a classic none the less.

Alright lets get a few things straight: 1) this film has gratuitous sex, graphic violence, some drug use, and language; 2)Plot? What Plot?; 3) art was...well...it's not Disney quality.

Enough of that. The film itself is...well...its not your typical animated film. Its a collection of short episodes based on the popular Heavy Metal magazine...the only thing connecting the stories together is that an evil green meteorite called the Locnar is present and/or the source of conflict in each of the episodes. The episodes being:

"Soft Landing" - Typical early MTV'ish style animation with an astronaut re-enter earth...via an old Corvette convertable! Just filler for the credits...but awsome music.

"Grimandi" - Very short clip introducing the Locnar and the daughter of Grimandi, the astronaut/scientist who found the Locnar.

"Harry Canyan" - Think "Taxi Driver" set in the distant future. Gritty animation fits into the bleek and almost depressing atmosphere of a future NYC. Sex, Violence, Corruption on all levels...Ah New York hasn't changed.

"Den" - Teen-age boy's dream come true: 90 pound nerd-boy to hulking Barbarian who also happens to be God's-Gift-To-Women. Pure fantasy story complete with sex, violence, and of course nudity. Even the animation is dark and Conan-ish. (Never knew the word "dork" could be used that way.)

"Capain Sternn" - Humorous sci-fi bit about an infamous space villan who is brought to intergallactic trial for...well...try to keep count of the charges. Animation is sleek, almost cartoonish. Violence, language...but no nudity. (hmm)

"B-17" - (Most well done of all the episodes, in my humble opinion) Pure horror. Its "Tales From The Crypt" meet "The Twiligh Zone" or "Outer Limits". Gore and Violence...what did you expect from a horror story? Animation was superb. (No nudity again...oh well)

"So Beautiful And So Dangerouse" - Personally, I think the guys who made the film decided to throw in some sophmoric humor involving two stoned aliens, a beautiful Earth woman, and a over-sexxed robot...you add it up. Some violence, nudity, and more drugs than on a Columbian drug running plane.

"Tarrna" - Its Xena meets Mad Max meets Conan meets a Clint Eastwood Western (watch and see). Sci-Fi and Fantasy collide in this violent story of one woman standing up against an army of evil. To hell with Xena...Tarrna rules. The animation seems to have been slowed down a bit during the fight scenes. (I never knew putting on clothes would be so sexy)

Heavy Metal...masterpiece(s) or just pure crap. Only way to find out is for you to grab the video and watch it.

As if we didn't get enough torture watching Hugh Grant (and others) belittle us with down right "dribble" with Four Weddings and a Funeral, we now have to deal with Grant (and a new batch of conspirators) in this one.

I saw the previews, and I thought I would being seening an enjoyable commedy (especially with Robin Williams, the King of Comedy, in it). What I saw, however, was something all together different. This "comedy," how dare they even call it that, was nothing more than a drama trying to pay off to the movie world as a comedy...and failing misserably. I paided money to see a comedy, not a drawn out and horrible drama about this couple and the nine months leading to their first born child. The film focused mainly on Hugh Grant, its greatest mistake, and we are forced to watch him once again prove to us that he can not act! Nine Months...it almost felt like it was that long.

Only redeeming quality of this film was Robin Williams who, once again, proved that he is the King of Comedy. His scenes made the film almost bare-able to watch...almost.

Don't waste your money seeing this film...OR ANY HUGH GRANT FILM for that matter.

If you seen one western you probably have seen them all. I mean the formula or the progression of the storyline is the same in all of them. Drawn out, lots of dialogue...and of course, the gun fight. Where Unforgiven is different from the rest is that it makes it believable.

Anyone who loves westerns should see this film.

Eastwood and Hackman steal the show with their incredible acting, some of there best work. My major gripe of the film is that Richard Harris's character was on in it for a short amount of time. I wanted to see more of English Bob. Why he didn't get the Oscar for that role I will never know.

What I enjoy so much of Veggitales is not the wonderful and delightful stories told by Bob the Tomato an Larry the Cucumber (well, ok, I love the stories too) but what makes Veggitales really entertaining are the infamous...the awe inspiring...SILLY SONGS! These little intermission fillers (intermission on a 30 minute show?) are not Grammy material and they wont make it on the Billboard Charts...but by GOD they are hillarious. Kids will love them because they are...well...silly. Adults will love them too because not only are they silly, but the guys at Big Idea are the masters of the hidden joke or allusion that only the adults would understand and enjoy. No, its not like the sick people over at Disney, these guys do it while keeping the high moral standards the Veggietales try to teach.

Did I mention that Silly Songs were silly?

The film itself depicts the days leading up to 1st modern amphibious assault and the battle itself. Focusing mainly on the ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps), with Mel Gibson as one of the soldiers, we are given a glimpse into the lives of the ANZAC soldiers during WWI with particular attention to their "training" in Egypt and their final days at Gallipoli. As the film ends you are overcome with shock, mild depression, and bewilderment. Shock and depression for the senseless lose of life at Gallipoli...and bewilderment for the choice of cheesy synthesizer music for the climatic final moments of the film. The music had, up till then, appropriately followed the aura of the film. You are enthralled and enchanted by the story...only to fall out of your seats laughing at the early eighties' music interjecting into the film's final minutes. All and all a great film (if you can stomach the final music).