Great movie....but what do they have against Meg?
586748
This movie is a great hour and a half of family guy....It had definate rewatch value if ur a fan but if not don't bother even renting because u won't like and and won't get the inside jokes.  But i have to ask, like so many others, what do the creators have against meg?
4777196
After seeing this "o.g." when it came out in the 80s, I'm watching it again 2017 and totally seeing Mary Lou as a feminist...but she's the bad guy? Too bad. Am I f.u.? No. I saw her as an anti-hero back in the day w/o understanding why I liked her. Now, I get Mary Lou' s f/u purpose but with more dimension.
3085583
The action is supposed to take place in England.  Why are there so many American actors?  Are there no more British actors left, who don't have to fake a sophisticated accent?  I didn't mind Sam Neil. But why on earth Meg Ryan?  Now granted, she is not awful, and she doesn't ruin the movie, but there are so many great blonde 30-something British and Irish actresses that I can think of right off the top of my head.  Why did pick a romantic comedy icon?  I guess, the movie was intended for American audiences.  It had too many tear-jerking moments, not enough history and politics.  It's a costume romance drama, not a true historical piece.
3261984
Well my Dear friends at Amazon have gave me hell for doing
a review to a classic movie of total despair! But wrong cover.  In this we
have a 16 yr.old girl named Meg who is beaten torched stabbed
raped and than some all from her aunt and cousins.  You really
feel for Meg and you just want to set her free and kill her
folks!  This is a sad,sad,sad story of a girl who did nothing
to have such cruelty be bestowed on her.  Please watch this movie
for you will look at life I believe a little different.
Thanks to my Dear friends at Amazon for telling me about this
great movie and for letting me know about the wrong DVD movie
I covered earlier..."WHEW"  I'm glad I fixed that!!!
3449328
I liked the movie, but it didn't really make sense.  Who was the original target for the female assassin?  If it was Clooney whey go through the entire process of making the gun etc?  She could have killed him a dozen times anytime.

I like to think the priest for some reason was the original target, but then it changed after Jack said 'he as out'.  Why else would she be at the procession?  How could she possibly know he would be there?
2335705
The movie is faithful to the book- In this movie, as in the first book, there is no talk of killing god but it is coming in the second book! The movie is prettily made. My only concern for children, is the possible sequel. The series IS about killing god, it is actually explicitly stated in the books- those who deny it are staring at white and calling it black. You do not have to be a religious zealot to see it you just need half a brain. The anti religion whiff is already in this one, but very mild. If you yourself hate god this is definitely a series for you. If you don't, you can still enjoy the special effects. As long as you are a thinking adult, aware of the antireligious undercurrents and the God hating agenda (which Pullman admits freely) you can definitely use this movie to promote thinking. For young unsophisticated children who are yet incapable of multidimensional thought, the book is cunning brainwashing; this movie is just a little dip.
3307676
The reason I gave it four instead of five is that it is misogynistic in it's treatment of women's role in world history - as really nothing but tempters, although in the movie, I think Martin Scorsese tempers that verdict by showing that Mary Magdalene supports Jesus' and God's plan to show humans what they are really worth - she is shown as his Soul Mate (not so in the book). I saw the movie when it first came out and recently watched it again and decided I had to read the book. I usually don't go backwards like that, but I'm glad I did. The writing is superb, but I've heard Greece is a very paternalistic society that puts women second, so that slant doesn't surprise me. If that wasn't the case, I'd give the book five stars. I definitely give the movie a thumbs up. They're food for thought, anyway.

The iconoclastic part of this book (that I love) is that it gives Jesus free will - and why shouldn't Jesus have something we all have, and why shouldn't we all have what Jesus had: a direct connection to God ("are ye not gods," Jesus asked IN THE BIBLE of the infant creators who were trying to crucify him).
4929957
I have to admit that I thought the storyline centered too much on the "M.J. aspect" of Peter Parker's life. But then, Spiderman has always been one superhero a little more preoccupied by the women in his life than most. I will give a little on that front, even though I believe that most movies with a hero grappling with world-wide (or galaxy-wide) consequences end up putting a little more romance than neccessary into the story.

  My main beef with all superhero flicks is this: A strength of the hero in one instance will be forgotten or overcome a few minutes or scenes later into the movie. I don't want to give anything about the movie away. I won't give examples that spoil the story or plot, but I am a very critical eye when it comes to superhero strengths. I catalogue them. I see that a superhero can perform a certain feat, and remember it!

  For an example, I'll use Superman 2. When Superman meets Jor-el's nemesis General Zog, he employs a few tricks that you never get to see him use again, and they would really help him keep his untouchable image. He can disappear and reappear in three or four places, and he can "zap" with his hand. There are very many points in the sequels where these powers would make things easier for him.

  Not to make this about Superman, but I won't mention any part of Spiderman 2 for fear of ruining the surprise. Suffice to say that it seems that spidey has an advantage in some parts of the flick that evaporates into weakness. You can make a great movie that has everything in line, but if I notice a small inconsistancy like that, forget about it. I'll still love the movie, but my tongue will be bleeding heavily from my bite.

  Conclusion: Great movie! I own it without regret, but will always pick it and any other movie with that sort of inconsistency.
2055226
The movie is great!  But the people that review these movies are morons.  If a person has not seen the movie, did you really want to give away the plot and all the details?  I have been attempting to find out a little bit more about it's appearance on the screen, as Amazon isn't doing such a great job with format detailing.  Is there anyone who might provide THOSE details?
723842
The film is well made for the most part and it captures most of the action leading up to the trial of the West Memphis Three nicely.  I understand the choice of music by Metallica because that is what the defendents  listened to, but the areas in the film where it is employed feels misplaced and really jarring.  The question of the knife being sent and accepted by the filmmakers and then turned over to police feels undeveloped and somewhat shady.  Why didn't the filmmakers want to interview themselves on this situation that they found themselves in?  This whole thing made them part of the story now--in a very provocative way.  You know, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.  I found the film a good companion piece to the book, though, "Devil's Knot," which seems to go much, much deeper into he story.  While the film was very good and it brought all the players and events into view, it doesn't go very much beneath the surface of this controversial murder case.  My big question: why didn't the defendants at any point just jump up and just scream, "We are innocent...we didn't do this!"  It's a good question, no?  Because while they may have been innocent, and I think that they are, they sure look and act pretty guilty in the film. Very strange case, indeed.
656087
How do you write a review about a movie without using spoilers when the ending is what you truly have an issue with? Something practically unforgivable happens, you have to live with the progeny of said event, and the story ends the way the movie does? The only reason this movie got 4 stars from me, because it has superb acting, and has a great story. Even though I do have such an issue with the ending, the story does stay true to its overall message about "Hate", and that is an important part of storytelling. If it ended the way we would want/expected it to, the story would veer from the main point. The movie would probably be more liked by its viewers, but the message would be lost.
601935
First things first this is my favorite film.  Everything else now.  It's down right stupid.  I don't think I'll change many peoples mind but being a historian and a fencer (sword fighter), I want to point out that the film was tactically a bunch of rot.  ... First of all the arrows.  I don't know what [person] was in charge of the films tactics department.  I suspect they didn't have one.  Am I the only one who's noticed that it take four slashes with a sword to kill somebody and one shot with an arrow?  In reality it is the other way around.  One hit with the sword would more likely kill a man than one hit with an arrow.  ...  Ever notice how the dragon only took one shot to send it running?  Why was everybody so scared of it?  Why didn't they just take one simple shot at it and get back to their lives.  Hitting that thing isn't tough to do.  Next.  Archery tactics.  The English sometimes began shooting at an enemy at ranges of a quarter mile, and the elves begin shooting at the last possible moment?  Remember the battle of Helmsdeep?  Next.  When the short hand held ladders went up to the castle, why didn't anybody try pushing one off?  ...  They just stood at the top of the ladder and waited politely for their enemies to climb up.  Next the big ladders: that contraption to hook it to the wall has to be one of the world's stupidest things.  Number one the chances of firing that grappling hook up and hooking it just on the wall is probably mathematically a zero.  Second the chance that one elf or human won't cut the rope that holds the grappling hook to the ladder is absolutely nothing.  (I'm just getting started here!)  The explosion that blew out the wall.  Am I the only one who noticed they picked the absolute worst place to waste on explosion?  Why not set the explosion against the base of the keep?  If you look closely the outer wall did not defend the base of the keep; and the orkii had already reached the base of the keep they could have one the battle right there!  ...  Next when the horses charged out of the castle to meat Gandalf the horses had no armor?!  And not one of them went down!  What kind of code of honor do you think orkii have to not slash out a horses legs?  No way!  Those horses would have been downed in seconds.  Again when the horses charged down the mountainside to save the day.  They would have been murdered by all those spears no questions asked.  (And don't tell me the light did them in remember in Fellowship of the Ring it was said that the orkii traveled by day.  Sun was maybe not their favorite thing, but they could deal with it.)  Next magic: what in the world was the director thinking?  I think Gandalf has used magical abilities a total of ONE time this film.  He's a wizard; he just doesn't do magic.  ...  When Gandalf charged over that hill he should have thrown out his staff and knocked back a hole for the horses to charge through.  Now that combined with the sun and the surprise attack would have been a believable victory. ...
2792256
I love this movie and would have given it a 5 with the exception of the storyline...,this supposedly picks up after Daredevil obviously b/c she is resuscitated from "death".  Sorry to those, if you haven't seen this.  Love love the martial arts and how she is such a strong female lead but really...wasn't she "supposedly" in love with DD...since it picks up with. Her returning from the dead...yadda yadda...this attraction to the dad of the girl she's suppose to assignate / protect so close on the heels???didn't make sense that part and the whole once in so many years a chosen one is born....so what's that got to do explaining Electra's story.  Otherwise a kick ass martial arts movie with a strong female lead!!! AWWWWEESSSOOOMMME. Makes me feel like I should get back to the gym!
3075909
Mickey was a bit over the top, and iwould have preferred someone besides Megan Fox, but otherwise this is aa great film!
1976511
I feel the story line is great the movie is good. Meg Ryan as much as I love her in so many of her films somehow in this movie she didn't put her full potential. Hugh Jackman considering his role he played in the movie he did extremely well.
4385530
I just got pinged by Amazon - a web site in which you might be familiar - that recommended the movie "Young Adult," most likely based upon my previous ratings.  Well, I've already seen it and I really liked it.  So to Amazon I would say, "Better late than never" but it made me want to rate it.

Now, Charlize Theron is not just another pretty face.  She proves that over and over, and if you disagree with me, just watch "Monster."  (Yikes.  While her performance was maybe too good in that film since she was the spitting image of the serial killer she played, she surely couldn't be called "attractive" in that film.  Must have required some great makeup work and incredible acting.  A big recommendation by me on that film as well, however.)  But in real life, if you took Ms. Theron's looks away she would still get work, and that's what I would call an actress.

But she also has terrific range.  "Devil's Advocate," where she plays the confused housewife where her life is falling apart.  "Monster," just mentioned.  "Hancock," where her performance - and the movie itself - was highly underrated.  "Snow White and the Huntsman," where she played the meanest person in history.  And then "Young Adult," where she plays a completely unsympathetic character, but paradoxically one that you still care about for some reason.  (Can't quite explain why or how this is possible, but it just is.  At least to me.  Maybe it was her acting?  Maybe it was because she gets humiliated at one point and you understand her pain?  Who knows?)

Now, we haven't even talked about Patton Oswalt yet.  He is pitch-perfect here, a guy that for some reason understands the Ms. Theron character, and maybe even cares about her.  Perhaps he's looking at it from the same perspective as the audience?  Maybe he's just looking for someone to hang out with and drink home-grown whiskey?

A pretty big recommendation from me on "Young Adult."  But then again, can you ever go wrong watching a Theron film?
3006503
I began to watch this movie wondering what it would be like. It was completely different from what I imagined, but, what else is new? The Voyage of The Unicorn was a really good movie, with both good parts and one or to bad parts. The only bad part I can think of is when they had the nerve to make Medusa very un-Medusa-like. She didn't even have WINGS! And, everyone knows that Medusa is supposed to be ugly. In this movie, she was actually quite pretty! Oh, and by the way, fairies don't have vampire teeth like the Fairy Queen did. That was really weird. And I didn't even know she was a queen or a fairy, much less a Fairy Queen. The costuming was pretty good, though. They looked recognizable as trolls, and at least they thought to give Sebastian pointy ears. And the unicorn looked great, just like a real unicorn. The small fairies looked like fairies should, too. The dragon looked liked a dragon, and not like some overgrown winged lizard. The settings looked really nice, too. And when Miranda was thinking about her mother, it looked like she was thinking, and not as if it was just happening right then and there.