Catherines Blog

Product: Flip UltraHD Camcorder, 120 Minutes (White) List Price: $199.99 Average customer review: Amazon Price: Too low to display Add to cart to see low price@ Availability: In Stock Usually ships in 24 Hours Free Shipping Available

Compare Prices on Flip UltraHD Camcorder, 120 Minutes (White)

I previously owned the Flip MinoHD so this review is based on a comparison between the Flip MinoHD and the unique Flip UltraHD.

After reading about the Flip UltraHD’s addition of an HDMI output, larger shroud, and longer battery life I decided to sell my 4 month venerable Flip MinoHD and choose the Flip UltraHD. Since the MinoHD is very sleek and tiny in size, my first reaction to the UltraHD was that it was quite a bit larger and bulkier to own, and has taken some time to accumulate mature to. However, unless you’ve old-fashioned a MinoHD the larger size of the UlraHD will probably be less noticeable. I found the camera controls on the UltraHD to be slightly easier to operate vs. the touch sensitive buttons on the MinoHD. As far as video quality between the two, I compared two different videos and both are about the same, however, the colors appear to be slightly more vibrant with the UltraHD.

If you are trying to choose which one to acquire, if maximum portability is distinguished to you than the MinoHD is the better choice. Otherwise, if you’re looking compact camcorder with more features (HDMI output, replaceable batteries, longer portray time) then you can’t go noxious with the UltraHD.

My ultimate wish is for Pure Digital/Cisco to introduce a MinoHD with all of same functionality as the UltraHD. Until then, the UltraHD is the all-around better choice.

So when I was 17 (and convinced that I would someday be eminent) I really wanted a video camcorder to try my hand at making movies, or to film myself to inspect whether I had what it took to be a TV reporter, but never could justifying spending $500+ on one. Over the years I moved onto other tech cravings and ambitions. Then last year a friend showed me the Flip Mino - and I had to have one. It was dapper easy to consume and fun, and I started getting huge videos of my fill kids - and captured moments that otherwise would have been fleeting, including my youngest child’s first steps. I wish this had been around when I was a kid. Anyway, the Mino is mountainous, but it’s dinky miniature shrimp. That’s convenient when it comes to having a camcorder on you at all times, or when trying to accumulate into events that prohibit cameras, and the hide is really itsy-bitsy. So I honest picked up this unusual Flip - the Ultra HD. The cover is wonderfully enormous. It comes with a rechargeable AA battery support, which works through the USB, but it looks like you can throw in regular AA batteries in a pinch. Sound quality is tall, video seems even better than the Mino. Only drawback with both the Mino and Ultra is you have to maintain your hand actual when filming - but I accept that easier to do with the Ultra than the Mino. Also, it’s not ideal for filming kids’ concerts, because the zoom is only 2x. But for capturing otherwise fleeting moments in vast quality, the Ultra HD is now my standby. The software that comes with it makes it easy to email videos to family and friends, or to upload a video to Flickr or wherever. Bottom line is I’ve been carrying this thing around nonstop since I got it. Hasn’t made me eminent yet, but I adore my Ultra.

Product: Caselogic UP-2 Universal Pockets Medium (Black) List Price: No List Price Available Average customer review: Amazon Price: Too low to display Add to cart to see low price@ Availability: In Stock Usually ships in 24 Hours Free Shipping Available

Compare Prices on Caselogic UP-2 Universal Pockets Medium (Black)

The “Case Logic UP-2″ is a very well made soft pouch/case that perfectly fits my Flip Video Ultra Series Camcorder, 60-Minutes (White). This case has some great features:

* A silky smooth inside so it will not scratch my lens

* “Locking” draw string wrist strap to keep your camera snug and protected

* Metal ring clip (removable) to attach to a belt loop or shoulder strap

* Very low price for such a well made case

This is well padded enough to protect my camera, but still fits in my pants pocket without being too bulky.

Highly recommended!

Used this for a Flip MinoHD at work. Nice and cushy, good fabric. It only gets 4 stars because the caribiner clip is cheap and hard to use. I would swap it for a better one if I actually wanted to carry it on my belt-loop.

Product: SanDisk 8GB MicroSDHC Memory Card List Price: $67.99 Average customer review: Amazon Price: Too low to display Add to cart to see low price@ Availability: In Stock Usually ships in 24 Hours Free Shipping Available

Compare Prices on SanDisk 8GB MicroSDHC Memory Card

FYI, this product, SDSDQR-8192-A11M, is the same as Sandisk 8GB MicroSDHC Memory Card w/ MobileMate Reader (SDSDQR-8192-E11M, Retail Package), the only difference is the region it was sent to. “A” being for America and “E” for Europe. The products are no different (spoke with Sandisk directly). Be aware that some sellers are selling the E11M for more $$$. Check your product code when product arrives to make sure you are getting what you ordered.

Blackberry curve 8310 with 4.2 build recognize only 4gb. If you format this card in Curve you will get only 4gb. Format (ntfs) using Windows and then insert it into blackberry to use the whole 8 gb.

If I go to Options->Media Card -> mine says Total space available 7.5GB

Product: SanDisk Ultra II SDHC 32GB Card List Price: $212.97 Average customer review: Amazon Price: Too low to display Add to cart to see low price@ Availability: In Stock Usually ships in 24 Hours Free Shipping Available

Compare Prices on SanDisk Ultra II SDHC 32GB Card

So far I’ve had no trouble with this card, but I am not happy with the product description which is incorrect. The current description reads:

“15MB/s Read/Write”

This is false. I was a bit disappointed when I saw on the item’s package that 15 MB/s only referred to read speeds, with only 9 MB/s write speeds. That’s still reasonably fast — although I’ve seen other reviews which state that when tested the cards do not reach those max values, but I haven’t tested mine.

Also, unclear from the description (and even the literature on the SanDisk site), is the fact that this is a Class 4 device. That is important to know for many devices such as HD camcorders, but not clearly indicated.

So every digital camera now a days does some sort of video shooting as well as still photography. With a 32gb card, I doubt that you will ever run out of space…however you should be aware that if the card goes bad you will have a lot more to lose.

32gb for less then $199 gives you the ability to store a lot of information and from what I am seeing, people are even using these to install operating systems and booting up from them. This is a techy type process but it is possible none the less and can be done.

Read/Write Speeds - In my tests I inserted the card into a reader into a usb port on my Macbook Pro laptop and used a utility to test the read/write speed. It is the same utility I would use to test a Hard drive. I came up with an average of about 16-17-/mb/s read and about 10mb/s for write.

It is a great card and works perfect….I paid a bit more for it when I bought it but it is GREAT to see Amazon dropping the price as market conditions change.

5/5

Product: Sto-Fen OMEW Omni-Bounce Diffuser List Price: No List Price Available Average customer review: Amazon Price: Too low to display Add to cart to see low price@ Availability: In Stock Usually ships in 24 Hours Free Shipping Available

Compare Prices on Sto-Fen OMEW Omni-Bounce Diffuser

This seemingly simple piece of molded plastic was recommended to me by a professional photographer. Basically it’s the shape of an open box that slides firmly onto the flash. It is small and sturdy enough to stash in your camera bag without worrying about damage. When used the light disperses more evenly and is less harsh on the subject being photographed.

The white box is for general use. Also available are the green Omni-bounce for florescent lighting and the gold Omni-bounce for a warming effect.

PROS:

Inexpensive solution for better flash photography.

A quality product that works.

CONS:

Reduces the amount of light cast upon subject (should be expected with these types of products).

If you have a flash, this or a light sphere is almost a needed item to improve your creative range with your shots. Though, I highly recommend this product over the light sphere, as they both have about the same visual effect, but the light sphere costs dramatically more.

This device fits easily onto your flash and holds tight. No need for ugly tape or sticky velcro pads that look tacky. This thing merges into the form of your flash and looks like it belonged there the whole time. Looks aside, what does it do?

It diffuses your flash’s light so you get a softer and more spread-out look to your flash. No more pictures looking like you’re shining a spotlight on people. This has a more “natural soft light” look to it. I highly recommend it for indoor use, because you’ll want a soft flash with it being the only light source, and the omni-bounce spreads out the light so you are better able to light up the scene and room.

The only downside is that since it is softening the light, you may need to adjust your flash output. You may have to dial up your exposure (meaning slower flash recycle times and faster battery drainage). The tradeoff is irritating sometimes, but well worth it for the improved looks in your photos.

Download & Watch Love Actually at Amazon.com. Click Here Now to Download & Watch Love Actually Online Now!

“Love Actually” is just the right mix of romantic comedy and drama to leave you with that warm, fuzzy feeling as you leave the theatre. It’s an ideal Christmas movie for moms and dads who want to see something else while the kids venture into more PG films.

Writer/director Richard Curtis enlists a plethora of some of the finest British actors (and a few noteworthy Americans) to tell several different love stories. While it seems that there may be a few too many characters at first, the overall flow of the film allows the viewer to keep track quite easily. The cast is led by the ever-so-charming Hugh Grant as the British Prime Minister. While some critics have called this casting unbelievable, Grant actually pulls it off by portraying a more human, but yet stronger PM that we would all love to have leading us. His dance to the Pointer Sisters’ “Jump for My Love” borders a bit on ridiculous, but it is nevertheless fun to watch. In the film, the PM is caught between leading his country with a clear head, or giving in to his feelings of attraction to his tea server Natalie (played by musical actress Martine McCutcheon).

And then there’s Emma Thompson, who plays Karen, sister to Grant’s PM and a long-married devoted mother. She suspects that her husband Harry (Alan Rickman) may be cheating with a sexy co-worker. Her performance, simply put, is a revelation. The scene where she is in her bedroom is an example of phenominal acting. Hollywood Foreign Press and Academy members: please take notice!

Another strong performance award goes to Bill Nighy, who provides most of the film’s comic relief as aging rock star Billy Mack. He puts out a cheesy Christmas record and then publicly bashes it. But in classic Hollywood ending style, he does have an epiphany and realizes his wild musician life has been missing true affection.

Liam Neeson shines as widower Daniel who tries to help his young stepson win the heart of a popular school crush. Equally sweet is Colin Firth as Jamie, a man recovering from a broken relationship in France who falls for his monolingual Portuguese maid. You know what? This film is such an abundance of great performances that I will run out of space discussing them all! Everybody shines! My only cast complaint is that Rowan Atkinson should have been given more screen time.

What I also love about “Love Actually” is that Curtis doesn’t, if you’ll pardon the pun, wrap up each story in a happy little Christmas package. There are a few sad, realistic moments, particularly in the Karen/Harry subplot and in Laura Linney’s turn as Sarah, an assistant who has waited so long to be with the man she loves. She realizes, in some of the film’s key dramatic instances, that family matters are getting in the way.

All in all, Curtis has struck gold again, in tradition of movies like “Four Weddings and a Funeral” and “Bridget Jones’ Diary.” Yeah, some of the love stories may be a little far-fetched, but aren’t they all in fantasy movie world? What matters is that they are sweet and not without their share of obstacles. This film is a nice departure from some of the more disturbing violent films as of late. But be warned: it is a little more adult than most other comedies in theatres. The innuendos, language, and nudity earn the R-rating. So see it without the young kids, but do enjoy.

My rating is based on my enjoyment of this film. It has both major strengths and serious weaknesses, and as other reviews indicate has fostered very strong reactions, both positive and negative. Its format is somewhat disconcerting if you are not prepared for the methodology of the director. It contains nudity, profanity, sexual situations, and several situations that are very suggestive and some moviegoers may consider to border on the obscene. However, the situations that some people may consider offensive actually serve a purpose in developing the overall theme of the film.

Love, in all its manifestations - wonder, joy, pain, happiness, passion, grief… is the theme of the film. A very talented ensemble cast is utilized to tell several somewhat interrelated stories concerning the emotional lives of the various characters. The cast includes Hugh Grant, Liam Neeson, Colin Firth, Emma Thompson, Laura Linney, Kiera Knightley and Alan Rickman. There are also telling cameos by Billy Bob Thornton and Rowan Atkinson. There is one other essential element of the story, it begins five weeks from Christmas and there are several aspects of the various vignettes where the seasonal aspect is a crucial element.

One of the more interesting and complex stories involves Liam Neeson and his young stepson preparing for the funeral of his wife, which has been moving scripted by her prior to her death. As he subsequently tries to deal with his grief, he is worried about the fact that the boy is isolating himself in his room. He is surprised to discover that while his son is disconsolate at the loss of his mother, more importantly he is heartsick over his unrequited love for a girl with whom he attends school. As they concentrate on his son’s dilemma and develop a plan to attract her attention, the dialog ranges from comic to quite profound. And, as the movie progresses to the time of the school Christmas pageant their story gradually becomes interwoven with several of the others. Some of the most hilarious segments are in another thread of the movie involving Bill Nighy as a washed up pop singer trying to recycle one of his old love songs as a Christmas record. He effectively caricatures the dissolute rockers who abused their bodies for too long with drugs, booze and sex. Yet in the end, the alternate humor and pathos of his situation are resolved in a very effective and quite emotional scene. In yet another thread, a scene with Emma Thompson listening to a Joni Mitchell recording and thinking about the “both sides” of her life and love is a real tearjerker.

So this is a roller coaster of laughs and cheap humor combined with real insights about love and the pain that it can cause. If you aren’t living in a bubble, you will probably relate to the experiences of at least one of the characters to some degree and knowingly nod in recognition of the similarities of others to people that you know. It is arguable whether the message of the film would be better conveyed with a fewer number of stories examined in somewhat more depth, but I think the result is quite powerful. Lives which seem only tangentially connected turn out to have a profound influence on others, and we really feel that we have come to understand the characters that we have been watching.

My first difficulty with the movie is that the complexity of developing so many stories means that it is well over two hours long (with the previews and unconscionable ads we were in the theater for well over two hours). Second, the audience is introduced to a very large number of characters during a very short period of time, since all the stories are interspersed sequentially as the movie proceeds toward Christmas Day. Very few individual segments until the finale are more than three or four minutes in length. However, the disorientation that I felt at first from the constant scene shifts was offset by the fact that this technique was successful in keeping the audience very interested; the film actually seemed shorter than it was because of the constant action. So, it was fun while actually conveying a message at the same time. I also want to see it again, since this is the type of movie that I often enjoy more during subsequent viewings. I find that once I know the basic story line and the relationship of the various characters, I can then pay attention to a lot of the details that went were difficult to appreciate because there was so much constantly happening during the film. (In fact, as I was thinking about the film prior to writing this review a few such instances came to mind.) So, go see this film when you have time to relax and want to laugh and contemplate life for a few hours.

Tucker Andersen

If there is a film out this year that is destined to make your heart smile and eyes tear, it’s this film. It’s Christmas time again in London as unexpected (almost magical) things happen in very simple, heartening ways to the most unlikely people. With love lost and love found, courage found and courage lost, this movie is all about the love we have in our daily lives. The love we receive from those unknown people to us (sometimes form those who show slight animosity toward us.)

The characters will capture your heart (Emma Thompson is phenomenal.) For me, the scene that really did capture me was that of Emma Thompson in her bedroom listening to Joni Mitchell’s perennial Both Sides Now. That scene made me cry.

This is the sweetest movie I have seen this year. I highly recommend seeing it during the Holidays with people you love.

Download & Watch Hamlet (1996) at Amazon.com. Click Here Now to Download & Watch Hamlet (1996) Online Now!

Part of the genius of Branagh’s interpretation of Hamlet is in the use of the techniques of the cinema to enhance the production. Branagh has not condensed the acts like some mass market soup, as was done in Olivier’s 1948 Oscar-winning production, or in, say, Zeffirelli’s 1989 Hamlet lite starring Mel Gibson (both excellent, though, within their scope), but has kept every word while directing our understanding so that even those only casually familiar with the play might follow the intent and purpose with discernment. Recall that for Shakespeare–the ultimate actor’s playwright who wrote with precious few stage directions–interpretation was left to the direction and the actors, an open invitation that Branagh rightly accepts.

The use of flashback scenes of things implied, such as the amorous union of Ophelia and her Lord Hamlet abed, or of a vast expanse of snow darkened with distant soldiers to represent the threat of Fortinbras’ army from without, and especially the vivid remembrance in the mind’s eye of the new king’s dastardly deed of murder most foul, helps us all to more keenly appreciate just what it is that torments Hamlet’s soul. I also liked the intense closeups. How they would have bemused and delighted an Elizabethan audience.

Branagh’s ambitious Hamlet is also one of the most accessible and entertaining, yet without the faintest hint of any dumbing down or abbreviation. A play is to divert, to entertain, to allow us to identify with others whose trials and tribulations are so like our own. And so first the playwright seeks to engage his audience, and only then, by happenstance and indirection, to inspire and to inform. Shakespeare did this unconsciously, we might say. He wrote for the popular audience of his time, a broad audience, it should be noted, that included kings and queens as well as knaves and beggars, and he reached them, one and all. We are much removed from those times, and yet, this play, this singular achievement in theatre, still has the power to transcend mere entertainment, to fuse poetry and story, as well as the high and the low, and speak once again to a new audience twenty generations removed.

Branagh himself is a wonderful Hamlet, perhaps a bit of a ham at times (as I think was Shakespeare’s intent), a prince who is the friend of itinerant players. He also lacks somewhat in statute (as we conceive our great heroes); nonetheless his interpretation of the great prince’s torment and his singular obsession to avenge his father’s murder speaks strongly to us all. Branagh, more than any other Hamlet, makes us understand the distracted, anguished and tortured prince, and guides us to not only an appreciation of his actions, wild and crazy as they sometimes are, but to an identification and an understanding of why (the eternal query) Hamlet is so long in assuming the name of action. In Branagh’s production, this old quibble with Hamlet’s character dissolves itself into a dew, and we realize that he was acting strongly, purposely all the while. He had to know the truth without doubt so that he might act in concert with it.

I was also very much impressed with Derek Jacobi’s Claudius. One recalls that Jacobi played Hamlet in the only other full cinematic production of the play that I know of, produced in 1980 by the BBC with Claire Bloom as Gertrude; and he was an excellent Hamlet, although perhaps like Branagh something less than a massive presence. His Claudius combines second son ambition with a Machiavellian heart, whose words go up but whose thoughts remind below, as is the way of villains everywhere.

Kate Winslet is a remarkable Ophelia, lending an unusual strength to the role (strength of character is part of what Kate Winslet brings to any role), but with the poor, sweet girl’s vulnerability intact. She does the mad scene with Claudius as well as I have seen it done, and of course her personal charisma and beauty embellishes the production.

Richard Briers as Polonius, proves that that officious fool is indeed that, and yet something more so that we can see why he was a counselor to the king. The famous speech he gives to Laertes as his son departs for France, is really ancient wisdom even though it comes from a fool.

Julie Christie was a delight as the besmirched and wretched queen. In the bedroom scene with Hamlet she becomes transparent to not only her son, but to us all, and we feel that the camera is reaching into her soul. She is outstanding.

The bit players had their time upon the stage and did middling well to very good. I liked Charlton Heston’s player king (although I think he and John Gielgud might have switched roles to good effect) and Billy Crystal’s gravedigger was finely etched. Only Jack Lemon’s Marcellus really disappointed, but I think that was mainly because he was so poorly cast in such a role. Not once was he able to flash the Jack Lemon grin that we have come to know so well.

The idea of doing a Shakespearean play with nineteenth century dress in the late twentieth century worked wonderfully well, but I know not why. Perhaps the place and dress are just enough removed from our lives that they are somewhat strange but recognizable in a pleasing way. And perhaps it is just another tribute to the timeless nature of Shakespeare’s play. The mirrors in the great hall added to the effect of a vast and indifferent castle environment, and in the scene with Ophelia and Laertes returned tended to magnify the focus.

There is so much more to say about this wonderful cinematic production. It is, all things considered, one of the best Hamlets ever done. Perhaps it is the best. See it, by all means, see it for yourself.

There is a moment at the start of this film when Hamlet, until then holding himself rigidly erect through sheer force of will, seizes a moment of privacy and literally deflates with exhaustion and despair. In itself, this perfect gesture would mark Branagh’s portrayal a masterful work. But what follows raises his performance to the sublime: He embarks on the “O that this too too sullied flesh would melt, /Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew…” soliloquy not with Burton’s anger, Olivier’s melancholy or Gibson’s bitterness, but with an exhalation that embodies the emotion most genuine given the circumstances: overwhelming grief. This is a perfect note, and what follows shows an understanding of the play’s mental and emotional landscape that puts other portrayals to shame.

I have seen many performances of Hamlet, but I have never seen one as perfectly pitched as this. Branagh’s Hamlet is strong, resourceful, thoughtful and restrained. Branagh purposely rejects the psychological poses that other actors find so hard to resist. After all, Hamlet and Richard III are the two Shakespearean plays that afford actors the most range. It’s hard playing the Dane on a leash when one can go wild with existential abandon and not only dodge the charge of overacting, but actually attribute such excess to the character. There are few meatier roles in the repertoire that simultaneously offer the actor such depth on the one hand and such leeway on the other.

For me, such moderation exemplifies Branagh’s devotion to Shakespeare. It must have been tempting for a man of his talents to show off. But to forego such gestures, to offer in its stead restraint, is to put service before self.

For, of course, Hamlet is restrained. His very life depends on it. His whole course of action is based on it. His safety revolves around it. Hold off the will to strike, restrain the impulse for vengeance, apportion each action in only the most miserly measure. The walls have ears, conspiracies abound and death lurks around every corner. In such an environment, is it plausible that a man of Hamlet’s intelligence would show his hand by indulging in excess? A restrained performance feels right because a restrained course of action is the only course possible for our hero.

This does not stop Hamlet from making bold gestures. But such gestures must always be made under cover, and here again, Branagh shows his creative mettle. The Player King scene provides a counterpoint. Branagh lets go here and shows his excitement when the occasion demands it. Likewise, his graveyard response to Ophelia’s death: the cover of madness conflates with reality because Hamlet’s act cannot be sustained forever. Branagh knows exactly when to allow the cracks to show.

Those used to earlier works may find Branagh’s version overly long and laboured. Many directors have cut out scenes and soliloquies in a misguided attempt to “tighten up” the production. Branagh makes what I believe is the right decision: to leave them all in because every scene, every soliloquy adds texture and is indispensable to the whole.

The best Hamlet I have seen.

Phenominal acting by Kenneth Branagh makes this film both entertaining and a fine addition to anyone’s library, be they a Shakespeare afficionado or simply looking to enjoy a good film. This is a refreshing switch from the stereotypically stale rap such a wonderful playwright is encumbered with. While it does take some time to watch, this is not necessarily a bad thing. As a result, there are always new things to discover with susequent viewings. Admittedly, the language itself is a barrier at first. For me, it is much more difficult to comprehend without the text before me. But, once realization dawns, I would say it is well worth the wait. Currently, my favorite part is when Hamlet tells his uncle to go to hell on the first tape. The delivery is subtle enough to elude most on the first pass, myself included. While this is not a line unique to this film, as the text exists in others, it is a high point for me. Kenneth Branagh makes the film, though. Accolades are also due equally noteworthy actor Charleton Heston for a brief but inspiring appearance. I am eagerly awaiting this title to emerge on DVD, as I hope many others are too. Perhaps a public outcry would prompt the distributor to arrange its (hopefully forthcoming) release.

Download & Watch Running Scared at Amazon.com. Click Here Now to Download & Watch Running Scared Online Now!

Director Wayne Kramer’s follow-up to his directorial debut (The Cooler) shows that he is a rising talent in Hollywood with a flair for drama and suspense that borders the line between reality and surrealism. Running Scared has such a gritty, washed out look right from the get-go that one starts to think it’s a film lifted right out of the 70’s. But that is only part of what Kramer does in creating a look and feel for Running Scared. Kramer actually uses every kind of trick in a director’s book to give his film such an over-the-top sense that the audience really doesn’t know what to expect just around the next dark corner.

Running Scared’s first ten minutes sets up what the rest of the next two hours are going to be like. Kramer direct’s this ten minutes like a man possessed. The direction and editing is frantic and frenetic. Some have said that it’s all been done before by Tarantino, Woo and a dozen other action-stylists out of Hong Kong, but I disagree. Kramer’s style owes alot more to the grandfather of excessive film violence and that’s Sam Peckinpah. I’m not comparing Running Scared to Peckinpah’s seminal classic The Wild Bunch but the pace and look of the chaotic shoot-out in the tiny apartment in the beginning brings to mind the opening and closing shoot-outs in that film. Kramer knows he’s not making a social statement or even an intellectually relevant film. What he does know is that he wants to tell a fairy tale of one man’s hectic day and all the craziness he has to go through during that day. And this is what Running Scared really has turned out to be. A fairy tale set in an modern, dank, urban landscape where our hero (though anti-hero is more like it) and the two kids in his life must travel a surreal place filled with mack-daddy pimps, hooker with a heart of gold, corrupt cops and even a pair of child pedophiles who also turn out to be husband and wife. Running Scared is a like Grimms fairy tale as seen and told in a modern setting.

The cast of actors Kramer has assembled all do a good job in populating this violent, profane modern fairy tale. I’d be the last to think that Paul Walker was an actor who had any talent, but his performance in Running Scared has given me pause to think that maybe its not him, but the projects he’s been doing that’s given him a bad reputation as an actor. Gone is the California surfer dude persona he seems to be saddled with in all his films. He actually inhabits the low-level mobster soldier he plays as Joey Gazelle. This film may not be his breakout performance but it will open up some eyes. The boy’s got some skill he’s never been able to show before. The other actor who makes a standout performance is one Cameron Bright who plays Oleg. The neighbor kid whose theft of a mob gun Joey is suppose to make disappear turns Joey’s life upside down. Cameron’s almost like Pinocchio in that its through him that we see all the crazy characters he runs across. It’s a testament to Kramer’s direction that he’s able to get such good performances from Walker,Bright and the rest of the cast in a film that’s as confusing, complicated and surreal as Running Scared.

Running Scared is a wonderful surprise of a film for 2006. It’s an unabashed fun, thrilling urban fairy tale that goes for broke in everything it does. Wayne Kramer’s direction shows that his very good work in filming The Cooler wasn’t a fluke and one-time deal. This is a new director who has shown that he has the skills and talent to stay in the business. He’s no Tarantino and surely not in the same league as Sam Peckinpah whose films this one owes alot to in style and feel, but he’s making a name for himself as one who can do good work. Oh, Paul Walker does a good job in it as well. I highly recommend this to people who like their films to be fun, but at the same time to have some flash and style.

Wow, what a movie. ‘Running Scared’ is not to be confused with the 80’s movie by the same title starring Gregory Hines and Billy Crystal. This is a completely different storyline, and there is no comedy involved whatsoever.

‘Running Scared’ is the tale of Joey Gazelle (Paul Walker), who handles weapons disposal for the illicit actions of his friends. But when a gun is used to eliminate a crooked cop, Joey treats it as casually as he treats all his charges, putting it in plastic and hiding it in his house. But this time, he is seen by his son Nicky and neighbor boy Oleg Yugorsky (Cameron Bright - The Butterfly Effect).

Oleg takes the gun and shoots his abusive stepfather Anzor (Expertly played by Karel Roden - The Bourne Supremacy, 15 Minutes, and Hellboy). Now, Joey not only has to find the gun, but protect Oleg and Nicky from being discovered by his mob connections, and still produce the gun for his benefactors.

This movie is a non-stop thriller, literally flowing from one tense moment to another without pause. It’s definitely an “edge of your seat” movie. There doesn’t seem to be one particular good guy in the entire film, everyone is seedy and foul of character. But when Joey’s wife Teresa (Vera Farmiga - 15 Minutes, The Manchurian Candidate) confronts the child molesters, you will raise your hands above you head, clapping and cheering for the white trash woman.

Its not so much the shock level or any surprises that make this film so good as it is the tension level. The director managed to keep a high level of tension throughout the entire movie, which is a rare achievement. ‘Running Scared’ is a definite nail biter. Incredibly fast-paced, the tension makes the movie seem more graphic than it is. It’s the intensity that will make you jumpy, not the graphics. It’s worth a purchase. Enjoy!

Running Scared is one of the most intense movies I have seen in some time. What I liked about Running Scared is that it kept my attention almost the entire time, and if a movie can do that to me it has to be a really good flick. I don’t want to give the details of the movie away since many reviewes have done that, and I don’t want to ruin it for those who have not seen it. I will say this movie is intense and throws some major stuff at you that makes you at times find it very hard to watch. The movie is filmed very different than most movies today and it has sort of a raw feel to it. Paul Walker does a truly amazing job in his performance and deserves an OSCAR or at least a Oscar nomination for his performance. That may sound far fetched to some doubters, but really he is that good. He shows when given great material he can be one hell of an actor. He truly embodies this character and to see him with this high stress level throughout the movie and be able to maintain it just makes me respect his acting more than I thought I ever could. TO be honest I am surprised the movie got an R rating and not a Unrated or NC-17 rating. The movie has more bad words than any movie I can remember in recent memory. As for the blood and violence there is quite a bit, but it is done with a purpose and not just for the sake of being violence. Check out running Scared if your in to movies that keep you on the edge of your seat, but better yet check it out if you like a good action packed movie!

Download & Watch X-Men Origins: Wolverine at Amazon.com. Click Here Now to Download & Watch X-Men Origins: Wolverine Online Now!

I want to get this out first, I love the comics. I think none of these movies are anywhere close to represent the X-men as they are in the comics. That said, I think these movies exist in a different world that has nothing to do with the 616, except for the characters names and most their powers. I have no problems with these movies; X-men 1 and 2 were very entertaining action movies. But even those movies should have been called, “Wolverine ‘N Pals”, because they didn’t focus on the X-men, but on Wolverine’s interaction with the other characters. My expectations of this movie were not based on the comics themselves, but on the previous movie storylines. I knew in my heart that Hollywood would somehow find a way to rape the image of one of my favorite characters in the Marvel Universe, Deadpool. So when “Weapool 11″ popped up at the end I wasn’t even surprised they would do something that silly. I read an interview a long time ago that about X-men 1 that the producers had to fight to have Cyclops wear the visor because the director didn’t like it. So, I am not surprised nor bothered by the fact that these Hollywood interpretations don’t have a clue about how these characters should be handled. I did like the previous movies (except 3), and understand that this is merely a diferent interpretation of these characters.

Wolverine Origins or, “Wolverine ‘N Pals 4; how this mess began”, is a very entertaining movie. But it fails to deliver a comprehensible story line. A lot of the story doesn’t make any sense. The movie,( as you might be have been clued to know), is about Wolverines origins, its shows you where he came from and how his powers manifested, leading to spending a long part of his life with his half brother Sabertooth, whom we were introduced to in the 1st X-men. After many adventures and wars, the pair ends up joining a military group of people with superpowers led by Stryker. On one of the missions, Wolverine angered by Sabertooth’s actions leaves the group to pursue a nicer lifestyle. This is when he falls in love with Silverfox and the pair lives happily for a while. Many years later Sabertooth comes back in a killing rampage taking out some old members of Stryker’s group, and Wolverine’s love is killed during this. To get his revenge, Wolverine agrees to have done on him an experimental procedure that with give him metal plated bones.

Not bad right? Love, family, betrayal and revenge. All the stuff to make a great story. This is where it doesn’t add up. For those of you that don’t want “Spoilers” please don’t read, as I might give away some plot details.

-After wolverine finds Silverfox dead, Wolverine a veteran of many wars, doesn’t check to make sure she is in fact dead? Why did he leave her body there in the field? Couldnt’t his enhanced smell detect the fake blood? Was it her manipulation power that convinced him to just move on instead of taking her to a medic.

-If she can manipulate people by touch, how the hell didn’t she manipulate Stryker in letting her sister or any of the other kids go? She spends 7 years of her life with Wolvie and doesn’t manipulate him, and indestructible man, to kill Stryker? Was she having to much fun maybe?

-After Wolverine has adamantium put on his bones and escapes to visit the “Kents”, why on earth would Stryker send Maverick with a rifle to shoot a man that can’t die with metal bones? Was he going to shoot through an eyeball from a helicopter? He missed pretty badly by the way, twice. Superman gonna be angry when he goes home to visit.

-Its revealed that Silverfox wasn’t killed by Sabertooth yet after Sabertooth saves Wolverine from falling off the cooling tower, Wolverine tells him “this doesn’t change anything”. Why? She’s not dead. She fooled you. He saves you from falling and having your butt kicked but Weapon 11, why the hell are you still mad at him?

-Stryker failed to wipe Wolverine’s memories so the solution is to shoot a guy with metal on his skull on his head? How the hell does that work? How did he know it would work?

-Why did the most powerful telepath (Professor X) not control someone inside the 3 mile island release the kids? Why wait 7 years and then help. Why didn’t he do that stop time thing from the previous movies so he can save the kids? Where was Magneto? Doesnt he care about abused mutant kids? (One of the restrained kids looked like Quicksilver, who is Magnetos son in the comics)

-How come those kids couldn’t get away on their own? What was that chain link fence cage they were in made of? Adamantium?

-Why was Gambit hanging out in a casino, when he knew he was being looked for by Stryker? How was it that Stryker can’t find him in a long time and yet Wolverine finds him in a day? Maybe Stryker didn’t want him anymore. Maybe they couldn’t persuade the Blob to talk?

-Why add the scene in the end where Stryker is going to be arrested for his crimes, when we well know that he was a high ranking military official in X-men 2?

Well these are most of the plot points from the movie that just don’t make any sense. It’s ok for an action movie to be extremely silly and self referential in that way. For example in Transformers when they have the teen kid take the cube and the alien so they can hide in the populated city, one of the characters mentions how dumb that idea is. They make no excuses in this movie, and just because it’s “supposed” to be a dumb action movie, there is no justification for the producers of this movie to assume their viewers are idiots, and won’t care about a story plot that doesn’t make any sense. Which, apparently they are correct because this movie made a boatload of cash. I will not act like there is nothing wrong with this movie just because it’s flashy and has lost of explosions.

In my arrogant opinion, it’s a onetime watcher. This is not a boring movie by far, yes, it’s a lot of fun and tons of action and the movie’s cast was really great. But the story is convoluted and nonsensical, it seems to take the audience for granted. So, if you want to enjoy this mess, just ignore the entire story and watch the shiny stuff happening on screen.

Awesome movie, does most of wolverine’s history justice, only part that kinda stunk was…SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!….what they did with deadpool/ryan reynolds character, he could have been so much more in the movie, but it was a very enjoyable movie, watched it twice allready!!! blue ray is awesome!!!

Over the course of the “X-Men” trilogy there has been one constant story thread that has been touched upon, yet it’s never been fully explored. For those of you that have watched the series, then you most likely know exactly what I’m referring to… the origin of the most popular mutant of all, Logan/Wolverine. Finally, after three highly successful films chronicling the adventures of the X-Men team, 20th Century Fox has chosen to spin-off Wolverine into his own movie and potential franchise by providing his official origin story with “X-Men Origins: Wolverine”.

“X-Men Origins: Wolverine” presents many key events in Wolverine’s (Hugh Jackman) life prior to his fateful arrival at the X-Mansion in the original “X-Men” film. Beginning with his initial discovery as a youth that he possessed the ability to unsheathe claws from beneath his skin, to his complicated friendship and eventual hatred of his former best friend Victor Creed (Liev Schreiber), his time spent working for the government as part of an elite team of mutant trackers, and all of this culminating in a senses-shattering showdown that will leave no one unscathed.

The mystery behind Wolverine’s origin has been a long-standing plotline, not just in the film trilogy, but in the various comic books in which the character has appeared. In 2001, Marvel Comics began a six-issue limited series aptly titled “Origin” that would establish the official backstory for the berserker mutant once and for all. Obviously, so long as interest in the onscreen version of the character remained alive, it would only be a matter of time before his origin, or at least some semblance of it, made it to the big screen as well.

Many times with spin-offs, the story tends to be weaker than those utilized for the main franchise; however, this film appears to be one of those very rare exceptions where the quality actually remains intact. Written by David Benioff (”Troy”) and Skip Woods (”Swordfish”), with some elements loosely based upon the mini-series “Origin”, the story focuses upon some of the various influences, circumstances, and powerful outside forces that shaped Logan into becoming one of the most dangerous mutants on the face of the Earth.

The story spends ample time showcasing the extremely visceral nature of the film’s two primary characters, Wolverine and Sabretooth, and how they deal with their inner beasts in drastically different ways. Along with this complicated relationship, the film delves into the almost constant, yet subtle, manipulation that eventually led to Logan’s decision to participate in the excruciatingly painful Weapon X program, which bonded liquid Adamantium to his bones. It’s during these moments of manipulation, mostly at the hands of William Stryker (Danny Huston), that the film’s story really shines.

Another strong aspect of the film is the sharply written, and often times witty, dialogue. The interactions between the characters felt believable and completely natural within the scenes. Some spin-offs suffer from an over-abundance of clichés or merely recycled lines and moments from the original franchise on which they are based; however, “Wolverine” easily side-steps these issues in every respect. In the hands of less capable writers that didn’t feel some responsibility to keep the quality of the franchise intact, the dialogue, and the rest of the story for that matter, could have potentially gone the way of so many other spin-offs and failed miserably, thus hurting the main franchise in the process. As a fan of the series, I am very pleased by the fact that even though this is the fourth film in the franchise, the creative minds behind the series continually try to surpass what has come before.

For all you action fans out there do not worry. This series hasn’t lost sight of one of its key elements. Throughout the film’s story the action scenes never take a backseat to the drama unfolding within the characters’ lives. The fights are much more violent and at times graphic in comparison to the previous three films of the “X-Men” franchise; not to mention, even more up close and personal due to fewer mutants with projectile-like abilities. The decision to make the fights even more brutal worked very well alongside the animalistic overtones of the story; although it may have resulted in some parents not wishing their children to see the film, despite the fact that they may have seen the other three in the series.

Of course, what would a comic book movie be without the use of visual effects? Well, obviously it would be quite boring, but that almost goes without saying. For the most part, the CGI-intensive sequences were well executed; however, there were some surprising scenes in which the effects looked a bit shoddy. Oddly, enough these scenes involved the use of Wolverine’s claws, which by this point should have been mastered and no longer a cause for concern. I’m not sure what caused the problem, if it was a lack of texture on the CGI claws or what, but something was definitely off about them during a couple of scenes. Please note, that these are not pivotal scenes and that the problem was not all that detrimental to the end result of the movie, it’s just something that I found frustrating and thought honestly shouldn’t have occurred within the film. Otherwise, like I said, the visual effects were very good, and at times numerous sequences were truly awesome to watch and easily overshadowed any of the weaker moments in this area.

Lastly, the acting for the film, just as it was in the original three movies, remains consistently high throughout. Despite having played the role of Wolverine three times already, Hugh Jackman is still able to bring a fresh new approach to the character that is crucial to the continued success of the series. No doubt the ability for Jackman to convey such enthusiasm for the role was assisted by the fact that he was so passionate about finally getting to tell the official origin for this beloved comic book icon. Another neat aspect of the character that was explored a little further in this film than in the previous movies was Wolverine’s famed “Berserker Rage” (comic book fans know what I’m talking about). Although, we don’t necessarily get to see an all-out fully realized rage, we are given a much closer look at what he would be like if he succumbed to his unbridled fury, and it was obvious that Hugh enjoyed this new side to the character being explored.

Supporting Hugh are some extremely talented actors beginning with Liev Schreiber (”The Sum of All Fears”). Liev takes a role that was relatively wordless in the original film, and was tasked with creating a character that was dramatically rich, incredibly feral, and ultimately could become the nemesis to Wolverine we saw in the first movie. Not necessarily an easy job, but Liev pulled it off perfectly. He delivered a multi-layered villain that was a prime example of what Wolverine could have become if given a couple of different choices along the way, and Liev is clearly relishing every evil moment he gets onscreen. Next is actor Danny Huston (”30 Days of Night”) taking over the role of William Stryker from Brian Cox (”X2: X-Men United”). Danny played Stryker with the perfect blend of subtle manipulation and malice. At times he would be fatherly, especially towards Logan (albeit only to further his own agenda), but then he would snap and show his true colors by unveiling an obviously twisted, sadistic, and potentially unstable man who wanted nothing more than unlimited power to quell the surging mutant problem.

Rounding out the supporting cast is actor Ryan Reynolds (”The Proposal”) and singer turned actor Will.i.am (”Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa”). I’ve become a fan of Ryan’s work over the last few years, and I enjoy his unfettered sarcasm that he seems to imbue into almost every single character he portrays, but never in a way that feels unnatural or tired within in the role, mind you. In this film, Ryan isn’t given all that much screen time, but what he does get he definitely makes the most of by making his character of Wade Wilson (comic book fans know him as the Merc with the Mouth, Deadpool) an enjoyable addition to the group of rogues that Stryker has assembled. Sadly, his role was intended as an introduction to the character in hopes of getting an eventual spin-off for him as well, a tactic that most likely worked given the film’s success; however, I for one wish there could have been a little more of the character in this story, not to mention fewer major tweaks to the character’s origin that don’t line-up with the comic books. But, I digress. Last, but not least, is Will.i.am as John Wraith, a mutant teleporter. Will shows that he definitely has potential, displaying some good comedic timing in a few scenes, and a natural charisma that makes for a more interesting character than I believe he would have been if played by another actor.

Directed by Gavin Hood (”Rendition”), “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” is an incredibly fast-paced action film that delivers on all counts. Granted there are some gripes with the movie, but overall it’s a very solid addition to a terrific franchise. This is a must-see for fans of the original trilogy and a perfect jumping on point for newcomers to the series.

“X-Men Origins: Wolverine” is rated PG-13 for violence, language, and brief nudity.

Download & Watch Robots at Amazon.com. Click Here Now to Download & Watch Robots Online Now!

but adults probably need to look elsewhere. There are some good lines, but overall the story comes across as trying too hard in spite of its creative vision of the future. Unless you’re enamored of the animation, I’d pass on this one. It gets a “meh” from me.

Great animation. I love fact that the robot’s tribulations as a child gives him the experience he needs to become a hero in the end.

Robots is really funny. Despite being an animation movie about robots, the characters really shine through & connect with you, making for a very entertaining movie.