diff --git a/all_agents_tutorials/query_agent_for_reviews.ipynb b/all_agents_tutorials/query_agent_for_reviews.ipynb new file mode 100644 index 0000000..602a6a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/all_agents_tutorials/query_agent_for_reviews.ipynb @@ -0,0 +1,1611 @@ +{ + "cells": [ + { + "cell_type": "markdown", + "metadata": {}, + "source": [ + "# Building an Intelligent Query Agent for Product and Service Reviews\n", + "\n", + "## Overview\n", + "\n", + "This tutorial demonstrates how to build an intelligent query agent using **LangGraph** that answers user queries about products and services by categorizing questions, selecting the appropriate database, and generating precise responses using structured data.\n", + "\n", + "## Motivation\n", + "\n", + "In a world inundated with reviews, finding relevant information can be overwhelming. Before making decisions, users often spend significant time parsing through reviews for insights. This agent addresses this challenge by:\n", + "\n", + "- **Comparing Reviews:** Assisting users in evaluating two products, books, or services.\n", + "- **Recommending Items:** Offering suggestions tailored to user preferences.\n", + "- **Providing Summaries:** Delivering clear, concise descriptions of items or services.\n", + "\n", + "By integrating user reviews from various sources into an intelligent system, this project demonstrates the value of combining structured data with advanced query workflows." + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "markdown", + "metadata": {}, + "source": [ + "\n", + "## Key Features\n", + "\n", + "#### 1. State Management\n", + " - Define and manage the state of each user interaction using `TypedDict`. \n", + " - Ensure smooth data flow across query handling steps, such as query type, database selection, and response generation.\n", + "\n", + "#### 2. Query Categorization\n", + " - Classify user queries into distinct categories:\n", + " - **Comparison:** Evaluate differences or similarities between two entities.\n", + " - **Recommendation:** Suggest items based on preferences.\n", + " - **Descriptive:** Summarize or explain details about a single item.\n", + "\n", + "#### 3. Database Selection\n", + " - Route queries to the most relevant database:\n", + " - **Amazon Books:** Reviews of books and literature.\n", + " - **Yelp Businesses:** Reviews of restaurants, services, and businesses.\n", + " - **IMDB Movies:** Reviews and ratings for films and series.\n", + "\n", + "#### 4. Response Generation\n", + " - Employ **Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)** to craft answers by integrating structured data and language model capabilities.\n", + "\n", + "#### 5. Evaluation\n", + " - Measure response relevance and quality by assigning scores, ensuring high utility for users.\n", + "\n", + "#### 6. Workflow Graph\n", + " - Design a **LangGraph**-powered workflow that represents the entire query handling process using nodes and edges for modular, extensible implementation.\n", + "\n", + "#### 7. Tracing\n", + " - Use **LangSmith** for detailed tracing and debugging of workflows, enabling prompt optimization and better system insights.\n" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "markdown", + "metadata": {}, + "source": [ + "![Review Radar](../images/review_radar.png)" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "markdown", + "metadata": {}, + "source": [ + "## Libraries used \n", + "\n", + "- **LangChain**: Used for building a conversational pipeline. \n", + "- **LangGraph**: Helps visualize interaction flows in the agent. \n", + "- **LangSmith**: Tracks API calls, node outputs with the decorator. \n", + "- **Groq**: Access LLM model execution for faster responses. \n", + "- **FAISS**: Enables fast vector-based search for relevant documents." + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "markdown", + "metadata": {}, + "source": [ + "### Imports and Secret Keys\n", + "\n", + "Configure libraries, dependencies, and APIs.\n", + "\n", + "Keys used in this tutorial are stored in .env file.\n", + "```\n", + "GROQ_API_KEY=''\n", + "LANGCHAIN_TRACING_V2=true\n", + "LANGCHAIN_ENDPOINT=\"https://api.smith.langchain.com\"\n", + "LANGCHAIN_API_KEY=\"\"\n", + "LANGCHAIN_PROJECT=\"review_radar\"\n", + "```\n" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": 1, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [], + "source": [ + "%%capture --no-stderr\n", + "%pip install -U langgraph langchain-openai langchain-groq python-dotenv langchain scikit-learn faiss-cpu torch sentence-transformers" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": 2, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [], + "source": [ + "import getpass\n", + "import os\n", + "from dotenv import load_dotenv, find_dotenv\n", + "\n", + "_ = load_dotenv(find_dotenv()) # read local .env file\n", + "if \"GROQ_API_KEY\" not in os.environ:\n", + " os.environ[\"GROQ_API_KEY\"] = getpass.getpass(\"Enter your Groq API key: \")" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": 3, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [ + { + "name": "stderr", + "output_type": "stream", + "text": [ + "/usr/local/anaconda3/envs/review/lib/python3.10/site-packages/tqdm/auto.py:21: TqdmWarning: IProgress not found. Please update jupyter and ipywidgets. See https://ipywidgets.readthedocs.io/en/stable/user_install.html\n", + " from .autonotebook import tqdm as notebook_tqdm\n" + ] + } + ], + "source": [ + "from typing import (\n", + " Annotated,\n", + " Sequence,\n", + " TypedDict,\n", + ")\n", + "from langchain_core.messages import BaseMessage \n", + "from langgraph.graph.message import add_messages \n", + "from langchain_core.output_parsers import PydanticOutputParser\n", + "from langchain_core.prompts import PromptTemplate\n", + "from pydantic import BaseModel, Field\n", + "from langchain_core.messages import AIMessage, HumanMessage\n", + "import json\n", + "from langchain_groq import ChatGroq\n", + "from langsmith import traceable\n", + "from typing import Dict, Any\n", + "from pydantic import BaseModel, Field\n", + "from pprint import pprint\n", + "import numpy as np\n", + "from groq import Groq\n", + "from typing import List, Dict\n", + "import pandas as pd\n", + "import faiss\n", + "import torch\n", + "from random import sample\n", + "from sentence_transformers import SentenceTransformer" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "markdown", + "metadata": {}, + "source": [ + "## Prepare Dataset\n", + "\n", + "#### Key Databases:\n", + "We took the subset of data for a set of movies, books, businesses for the purpose of hackathon. Take the data for any of the datasets available.\n", + "\n", + "- **Amazon Books**: Reviews of books available on Amazon.\n", + "- **Yelp Businesse**: Reviews of businesses like restaurants and services.\n", + "- **IMDB Movies**: Reviews and ratings of movies.\n", + "\n" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": 4, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [], + "source": [ + "yelp_df = pd.read_csv('../data/yelp.csv')\n", + "amazon_df = pd.read_csv('../data/amazon_books.csv')\n", + "imdb_df = pd.read_csv('../data/imdb.csv')\n", + "imdb_df = imdb_df[imdb_df['rating'].notna()]" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": 5, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [], + "source": [ + "yelp_df = yelp_df[['name', 'stars_x', 'text']].rename(\n", + " columns={\n", + " 'name': 'item',\n", + " 'stars_x': 'rating',\n", + " 'text': 'review'\n", + " }\n", + ")\n", + "\n", + "imdb_df = imdb_df[['movie', 'rating', 'review_detail']].rename(\n", + " columns={\n", + " 'movie': 'item',\n", + " 'rating': 'rating',\n", + " 'review_detail': 'review'\n", + " }\n", + ")\n", + "\n", + "amazon_df = amazon_df[['Title', 'review/score', 'review/text']].rename(\n", + " columns={\n", + " 'Title': 'item',\n", + " 'review/score': 'rating',\n", + " 'review/text': 'review'\n", + " }\n", + ")" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "markdown", + "metadata": {}, + "source": [ + "## Initialise LLM\n", + "\n", + "We use the Groq API to access the `llama-3.1-8b-instant` LLM." + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": 6, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [], + "source": [ + "from langchain_groq import ChatGroq\n", + "\n", + "model = ChatGroq(\n", + " model=\"llama-3.1-8b-instant\",\n", + " temperature=0,\n", + " max_retries=2,\n", + ")" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "markdown", + "metadata": {}, + "source": [ + "## State Definition\n", + "Create structured data representations for managing query context, categories, and database selections." + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": 7, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [], + "source": [ + "class AgentState(TypedDict):\n", + " \"\"\"The state of the agent.\"\"\"\n", + " messages: Annotated[Sequence[BaseMessage], add_messages]\n", + " category: str = Field(description=\"to store the selected category from (Comparison, Descriptive, Recommendation)\")\n", + " db_type: str = Field(description=\"to store the selected database from (IMDB, Amazon, Yelp)\")" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "markdown", + "metadata": {}, + "source": [ + "## Classification Node\n", + "\n", + "Classify the query into one of the categories (Comparison, Descriptive, Recommendation) using a custom prompt." + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": 8, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [], + "source": [ + "class ClassificationNodeOutput(BaseModel):\n", + " query: str = Field(description=\"The query from the user\")\n", + " category: str = Field(description=\"The type of the category: descriptive, comparison, or recommendation\")\n", + " db: str = Field(description=\"The type of the database to search from: amazon, imdb, or yelp\")\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "@traceable\n", + "class ClassificationNode():\n", + " @staticmethod\n", + " @traceable\n", + " def classify_query(state: AgentState):\n", + " parser = PydanticOutputParser(pydantic_object=ClassificationNodeOutput)\n", + "\n", + " classification_prompt_template = (\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + " Classify the user query into one of the following categories: \n", + " - Descriptive: if the user is asking for general information or details about a particular subject. \n", + " - Comparison: if the user is comparing two or more items to understand which one is better or to see differences. \n", + " - Recommendation: if the user is seeking suggestions or advice for a particular choice. \n", + "\n", + " Based on the query, also choose the most appropriate database from the following options: \n", + " - Amazon: for product-related queries or recommendations. \n", + " - IMDb: for movie or TV show-related queries, comparisons, or recommendations. \n", + " - Yelp: for queries related to restaurants, businesses, or local services. \n", + "\n", + " Examples: \n", + " - Descriptive: \"What is the best movie of all time?\" -> Database: IMDb \n", + " - Comparison: \"Which movie is better, Inception or Interstellar?\" -> Database: IMDb \n", + " - Recommendation: \"Suggest some good restaurants nearby.\" -> Database: Yelp \n", + "\n", + " Your task: \n", + " Given the user query below, classify it into one of the categories (descriptive, comparison, recommendation) and choose the appropriate database (amazon, imdb, yelp). \n", + "\n", + " {format_instructions} \n", + "\n", + " Query: {query}\n", + "\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + " )\n", + "\n", + " classification_prompt = PromptTemplate(\n", + " template=classification_prompt_template, \n", + " input_variables=[\"query\"],\n", + " partial_variables={\"format_instructions\": parser.get_format_instructions()},\n", + " )\n", + " classification_model = classification_prompt | model\n", + " query = state[\"messages\"][0].content\n", + " output = classification_model.invoke({\"query\": query})\n", + " response: ClassificationNodeOutput = parser.invoke(output)\n", + " AIMessageresponse = AIMessage(content=json.dumps(response.model_dump()), name=\"classification_node\" ,additional_kwargs = {\"query\": query, \"json_output\": response.model_dump()})\n", + " return {\"messages\": [AIMessageresponse], \"category\": response.category, \"db_type\": response.db,}\n" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "markdown", + "metadata": {}, + "source": [ + "## Category Nodes\n", + "Each category node (Recommendation, Comparison, Descriptive) generates the structured output with the fields mentioned below. " + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": 9, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [], + "source": [ + "from abc import ABC, abstractmethod\n", + "\n", + "class Category(ABC):\n", + " @abstractmethod\n", + " def process_query(state: AgentState):\n", + " \"\"\"Process the query based on the category type.\"\"\"\n", + " pass\n" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": 27, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [], + "source": [ + "class DescriptivePromptOutput(BaseModel):\n", + " query: str = Field(description=\"The query from the user.\")\n", + " primary_focus: str = Field(description=\"The primary category or topic type of the query (e.g., 'movies', 'technology', 'books').\")\n", + " keywords: Sequence[str] = Field(description=\"A list of keywords and phrases extracted from the query that will assist in semantic search.\")\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "@traceable\n", + "class DescriptiveCategory(Category):\n", + " @staticmethod\n", + " @traceable\n", + " def process_query(state: AgentState):\n", + " parser = PydanticOutputParser(pydantic_object=DescriptivePromptOutput)\n", + "\n", + " descriptive_prompt_template = (\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + " You are an expert in descriptive analysis, specializing in creating comprehensive lists of key elements, Themes, or characteristics that are central to answering detailed query.\n", + " Your goal is to produce a detailed list of concepts, keywords, and specific features related to the main topic of the query:\n", + "\n", + " {query}\n", + "\n", + " To structure your response:\n", + " 1. **Analyze the query**: Identify the main topic and any specific subcategories or descriptors implied in the query.\n", + " 2. **Generate a List of Keywords**: Think about genres, notable characteristics, influential figures, popular examples, and historical context relevant to the query. Include broad themes and specific details.\n", + " 3. **Support Semantic Search**: Ensure that each keyword or phrase will enhance the relevance of results in a vector database search.\n", + "\n", + " the output should be structured as follows:\n", + " \"query\": 'What is the best science fiction movie of all time?',\n", + " \"primary_focus\": 'movies',\n", + " \"keywords\": ['science fiction genre', 'top-rated movies', 'popular sci-fi themes',]\n", + " \n", + " REMEMBER: Your analysis should be structured, detailed, and relevant to the query. \n", + " DONT ADD ANYTHING ELSE TO THE OUTPUT.\n", + " DONT FORGET to add the query, primary focus, and keywords to the JSON response.\n", + " You must always return valid JSON fenced by a markdown code block. Do not return any additional text.\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + " )\n", + "\n", + " prompt = PromptTemplate(\n", + " template=descriptive_prompt_template,\n", + " input_variables=[\"query\"],\n", + " partial_variables={\"format_instructions\": parser.get_format_instructions()},\n", + " )\n", + "\n", + " descriptive_model = prompt | model\n", + " query = state[\"messages\"][0].content\n", + " output = descriptive_model.invoke({\"query\": query})\n", + " response: DescriptivePromptOutput = parser.invoke(output)\n", + " AIMessageresponse = AIMessage(content=json.dumps(response.model_dump()), name=\"descriptive_node\" ,additional_kwargs = {\"query\": query, \"json_output\": response.model_dump()})\n", + " return {\"messages\": [AIMessageresponse],}\n" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": 11, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [], + "source": [ + "class RecommendationPromptOutput(BaseModel):\n", + " query: str = Field(description=\"the query from the user\")\n", + " category: str = Field(description=\"the category/field of the items being recommendation\")\n", + " criteria: Sequence[str] = Field(description=\"the criteria for recommendation, optimized for semantic search relevance\")\n", + "\n", + "@traceable\n", + "class RecommendationCategory(Category):\n", + " @staticmethod\n", + " @traceable\n", + " def process_query(state: AgentState):\n", + " parser = PydanticOutputParser(pydantic_object=RecommendationPromptOutput)\n", + "\n", + " recommendation_prompt_template = (\n", + " \"\"\"You are an expert recommendation analyst. Your task is to analyze this query: {query}\n", + "\n", + " Your role is to:\n", + " 1. Determine the category/field for the query\n", + " 2. Generate relevant criteria to make top recommendations\n", + " 3. Structure the output as JSON\n", + "\n", + " **Example criteria by category:**\n", + "\n", + " MOVIES:\n", + " - Genre alignment with viewer interests\n", + " - Audience ratings and review sentiment\n", + " - Plot originality and complexity\n", + " - Character and actor performance\n", + " - Publicity events for movie promotions\n", + " - Actors familiarity and fan following\n", + " - Technical quality (cinematography, effects, vfx, screenplay)\n", + " - Legacy and cultural relevance\n", + " - Relatability to the viewer\n", + " - Unique factor to attract the audience\n", + "\n", + " RESTAURANTS:\n", + " - Food quality (ingredients, freshness)\n", + " - Price range and value for money\n", + " - Ambiance (interior design, atmosphere)\n", + " - Chef expertise and background\n", + " - Preparation techniques (traditional, fusion)\n", + " - Menu authenticity\n", + " - Accessibility (location, parking)\n", + " - Customer feedback and service\n", + " - Specialty offerings (unique dishes, chef’s expertise)\n", + " - Cultural dining practices\n", + " - Take out options\n", + " - Dietary accomodations (Vegetarian, vegan)\n", + "\n", + " BOOKS:\n", + " - Genre suitability\n", + " - Reader engagement (plot, character depth)\n", + " - Book popularity \n", + " - Awards and features for the author and book\n", + " - Writing style and originality\n", + " - Critical reviews and ratings\n", + " - Influence and cultural impact\n", + " - Author reputation\n", + " - Level of reader\n", + " - Language of the book written in \n", + " - References and sources\n", + "\n", + "\n", + " the output should be structured as follows:\n", + " \"query\": \"query\",\n", + " \"category\": \"category\",\n", + " \"criteria\": [\"criterion1\", \"criterion2\"]\n", + "\n", + "\n", + " REMEMBER: Your analysis should be structured, detailed, and relevant to the query. \n", + " DONT ADD ANYTHING ELSE TO THE OUTPUT.\n", + " You must always return valid JSON fenced by a markdown code block. Do not return any additional text.\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + " )\n", + "\n", + " prompt = PromptTemplate(\n", + " template=recommendation_prompt_template,\n", + " input_variables=[\"query\"],\n", + " partial_variables={\"format_instructions\": parser.get_format_instructions()},\n", + " )\n", + "\n", + " recommendation_model = prompt | model\n", + " query = state[\"messages\"][0].content\n", + " output = recommendation_model.invoke({\"query\": query})\n", + " response: RecommendationPromptOutput = parser.invoke(output)\n", + " AIMessageresponse = AIMessage(content=json.dumps(response.model_dump()), name=\"recommendation_node\" ,additional_kwargs = {\"query\": query, \"json_output\": response.model_dump()})\n", + " return {\"messages\": [AIMessageresponse],}" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": 12, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [], + "source": [ + "class ComparisonPromptOutput(BaseModel):\n", + " query: str = Field(description=\"the query from the user\")\n", + " items: Sequence[str] = Field(description=\"the items being compared\")\n", + " category: str = Field(description=\"the category/field of the items being compared\")\n", + " criteria: Sequence[str] = Field(description=\"the criteria for comparison, optimized for semantic search relevance\")\n", + "\n", + "@traceable\n", + "class ComparisonCategory(Category):\n", + " @staticmethod\n", + " @traceable\n", + " def process_query(state: AgentState):\n", + " parser = PydanticOutputParser(pydantic_object=ComparisonPromptOutput)\n", + "\n", + " comparison_prompt_template = (\n", + " \"\"\"You are an expert comparison analyst specialized in structured analysis. Your task is to analyze this query: {query}\n", + "\n", + " Your role is to:\n", + " 1. Identify the items being compared\n", + " 2. Determine their category/field\n", + " 3. Create relevant comparison criteria\n", + " 4. Ensure the criteria list contains keywords and phrases that will optimize relevance in a semantic search, particularly for use in a vector database.\n", + " 5. Structure the output as JSON\n", + "\n", + " Example criteria by category:\n", + "\n", + " MOVIES:\n", + " - Genre alignment\n", + " - Audience ratings and review sentiment\n", + " - Plot complexity and originality\n", + " - Character development\n", + " - Technical aspects (effects, cinematography)\n", + " - Cultural impact and legacy\n", + "\n", + " BOOKS:\n", + " - Genre and thematic alignment\n", + " - Writing style and readability\n", + " - Character development and depth\n", + " - Plot complexity and originality\n", + " - Critical reviews and reader sentiment\n", + " - Author reputation and influence\n", + " - Cultural impact and legacy\n", + "\n", + " RESTAURANTS/SERVICES:\n", + " - Quality of service/food\n", + " - Price range comparison\n", + " - Atmosphere and ambiance\n", + " - Location and accessibility\n", + " - Customer satisfaction metrics\n", + " - Unique selling points\n", + "\n", + " the output should be structured as follows:\n", + " \"query\": \"query\",\n", + " \"items\": [\"item1\", \"item2\"],\n", + " \"category\": \"category\",\n", + " \"criteria\": [\"criterion1\", \"criterion2\"]\n", + "\n", + "\n", + " REMEMBER: Your analysis should be structured, detailed, and relevant to the query. \n", + " DONT ADD ANYTHING ELSE TO THE OUTPUT.\n", + " You must always return valid JSON fenced by a markdown code block. Do not return any additional text.\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + " )\n", + "\n", + " prompt = PromptTemplate(\n", + " template=comparison_prompt_template,\n", + " input_variables=[\"query\"],\n", + " partial_variables={\"format_instructions\": parser.get_format_instructions()},\n", + " )\n", + "\n", + " comparison_model = prompt | model\n", + " query = state[\"messages\"][0].content\n", + " output = comparison_model.invoke({\"query\": query})\n", + " response: ComparisonPromptOutput = parser.invoke(output)\n", + " AIMessageresponse = AIMessage(content=json.dumps(response.model_dump()), name=\"comparison_node\" ,additional_kwargs = {\"query\": query, \"json_output\": response.model_dump()})\n", + " return {\"messages\": [AIMessageresponse],}\n" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "markdown", + "metadata": {}, + "source": [ + "## Conditional edge\n", + "Choose a category node using this conditional edge." + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": 13, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [], + "source": [ + "def identify_category(state: AgentState):\n", + " return state[\"category\"].lower()" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "markdown", + "metadata": {}, + "source": [ + "## RAG Pipeline\n", + "\n", + "Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipeline using FAISS for efficient similarity search, enabling the retrieval of relevant documents from a dataset. The pipeline processes different types of queries—comparison, descriptive, and recommendation—by extracting context and generating responses using a language model (Groq) and a reviews dataset." + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": 14, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [], + "source": [ + "class RAGPipeline:\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + " RAG implementation using FAISS vector database for efficient similarity search\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + " def __init__(self,\n", + " df,\n", + " embedding_model: str = 'all-MiniLM-L6-v2',\n", + " llm_model: str = \"llama-3.1-8b-instant\"):\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + " Initialize the RAG system with FAISS vector store\n", + " \n", + " Args:\n", + " embedding_model (str): Name of the sentence-transformers model\n", + " groq_api_key (str): API key for Groq\n", + " llm_model (str): Name of the Groq model to use\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + " self.encoder = SentenceTransformer(embedding_model)\n", + " self.groq_client = Groq()\n", + " self.llm_model = llm_model\n", + " self.index = None\n", + " self.df = df\n", + " self.dimension = None\n", + " \n", + " def create_index(self, batch_size: int = 32):\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + " Create FAISS index from dataframe texts\n", + " \n", + " Args:\n", + " batch_size (int): Batch size for processing embeddings\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + " self.df = self.df.copy()\n", + " texts = self.df[\"review\"].fillna('').tolist()\n", + " \n", + " # Generate embeddings in batches\n", + " embeddings = []\n", + " for i in range(0, len(texts), batch_size):\n", + " batch = texts[i:i + batch_size]\n", + " with torch.no_grad():\n", + " batch_embeddings = self.encoder.encode(batch, convert_to_numpy=True)\n", + " embeddings.append(batch_embeddings)\n", + " \n", + " embeddings = np.vstack(embeddings)\n", + " self.dimension = embeddings.shape[1]\n", + " \n", + " # Initialize FAISS index\n", + " self.index = faiss.IndexFlatL2(self.dimension)\n", + " # Add vectors to the index\n", + " self.index.add(embeddings.astype('float32'))\n", + " \n", + " print(f\"Created FAISS index with {len(texts)} vectors of dimension {self.dimension}\")\n", + "\n", + " \n", + " def save_index(self, index_path: str):\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + " Save the FAISS index and DataFrame to disk\n", + " \n", + " Args:\n", + " index_path (str): Path to save the FAISS index\n", + " df_path (str): Path to save the DataFrame\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + " faiss.write_index(self.index, index_path)\n", + " print(f\"Saved index to {index_path}\")\n", + "\n", + " \n", + " def load_index(self, index_path: str):\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + " Load the FAISS index from disk\n", + " \n", + " Args:\n", + " index_path (str): Path to load the FAISS index from\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + " self.index = faiss.read_index(index_path)\n", + " self.dimension = self.index.d\n", + " print(f\"Loaded index with {self.index.ntotal} vectors of dimension {self.dimension}\")\n", + "\n", + "\n", + " def retrieve_relevant_documents(self, query: str, top_k: int=10) -> Dict:\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + " Retrieve the most relevant documents given the query\n", + "\n", + " Args: query (str): Query text\n", + " top_k (int): Number of most relevant documents to retrieve\n", + " \n", + " Returns:\n", + " str: Retrieved Context\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + " if self.index is None:\n", + " raise ValueError(\"Index not created. Please create or load an index first.\")\n", + " \n", + " # Generate query embedding\n", + " with torch.no_grad():\n", + " query_embedding = self.encoder.encode([query], convert_to_numpy=True)\n", + " \n", + " # Search in FAISS index\n", + " distances, indices = self.index.search(query_embedding.astype('float32'), top_k)\n", + " \n", + " # Get relevant documents\n", + " relevant_docs = self.df.iloc[indices[0]][\"review\"].tolist()\n", + " \n", + " # Convert L2 distances to similarity scores (smaller distance = higher similarity)\n", + " max_distance = np.max(distances) + 1e-6 # Avoid division by zero\n", + " similarity_scores = 1 - (distances[0] / max_distance) # Normalize to [0,1]\n", + " \n", + " # Prepare context\n", + " context = \"\\n\\n\".join([f\"Document (relevance: {score:.2f}): {doc}\" \n", + " for doc, score in zip(relevant_docs, similarity_scores)])\n", + " \n", + " return context\n", + "\n", + " \n", + " def comparison_query(self, query: str, context: Dict) -> Dict:\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + " Answer the Comparison type query using RAG\n", + " Args:\n", + " query (str): Query text\n", + " \n", + " Returns:\n", + " Dict: Contains retrieved context and generated response\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + "\n", + " retrieved_context = self.retrieve_relevant_documents(query, 30)\n", + " criteria = context[\"messages\"][-1].additional_kwargs[\"json_output\"][\"criteria\"]\n", + " items = context[\"messages\"][-1].additional_kwargs[\"json_output\"][\"items\"]\n", + "\n", + " prompt_template = \"\"\"You will be given a query which asks you to compare two items, criteria on which you need to compare those items, and some audience/user reviews related to the query obtained from a reviews dataset. \n", + " This query requires you to compare the two items, {items}. You will be given the metrics on the basis of which you should compare the two items. \n", + " Using the given information, give a detailed comparison of the two items. \n", + " If the answer cannot be derived from the context, say so.\n", + "\n", + " Question: {query}\n", + "\n", + " Items: {items}\n", + "\n", + " Criteria: {criteria}\n", + "\n", + " Reviews: {retrieved_context}\n", + "\n", + " Answer:\"\"\"\n", + "\n", + " prompt = PromptTemplate(template=prompt_template, \n", + " input_variables=[\"items\", \"query\", \"criteria\", \"retrieved_context\"])\n", + " \n", + " model = ChatGroq(model=\"llama-3.1-8b-instant\", \n", + " temperature=0.1, \n", + " timeout=None, \n", + " max_retries=2)\n", + " \n", + " comparison_model = prompt | model\n", + " \n", + " output = comparison_model.invoke({\"items\": items, \"query\": query, \"criteria\": criteria, \"retrieved_context\": retrieved_context})\n", + " response = output.content\n", + " \n", + " return {\n", + " 'query': query,\n", + " 'retrieved_context': context,\n", + " 'response': response\n", + " }\n", + " \n", + " \n", + " def descriptive_query(self, query: str, context: Dict) -> Dict:\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + " Answer the Descriptive query using RAG\n", + " \n", + " Args:\n", + " query (str): Query text\n", + " \n", + " Returns:\n", + " Dict: Contains retrieved context and generated response\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + " keywords = context[\"messages\"][-1].additional_kwargs[\"json_output\"][\"keywords\"]\n", + " keywords_sample = sample(keywords, 5)\n", + " keywords_str = \" \".join(keywords_sample)\n", + "\n", + " retrieved_context = self.retrieve_relevant_documents(query + \" Keywords: \" + keywords_str, 20)\n", + "\n", + " prompt_template = \"\"\"You will be given a query, some keywords related to the query, and some audience/user reviews related to the query obtained from a reviews dataset. \n", + " This query will ask you to describe something related to an item such as a movie, book or restaurant. Use the details mentioned in the reviews to answer the \n", + " query. Give a detailed answer to the query. \n", + " Using this information, provide a comprehensive answer. If the answer cannot be derived from the context, say so.\n", + "\n", + " Question: {query}\n", + "\n", + " Keywords: {keywords}\n", + "\n", + " Reviews: {retrieved_context}\n", + "\n", + " Answer:\"\"\"\n", + "\n", + " prompt = PromptTemplate(template=prompt_template, \n", + " input_variables=[\"query\", \"keywords\", \"retrieved_context\"])\n", + " \n", + " model = ChatGroq(model=\"llama-3.1-8b-instant\", \n", + " temperature=0.1,\n", + " timeout=None, \n", + " max_retries=2)\n", + " \n", + " descriptive_model = prompt | model\n", + " \n", + " output = descriptive_model.invoke({\"query\": query, \"keywords\": keywords, \"retrieved_context\": retrieved_context})\n", + " response = output.content\n", + " \n", + " return {\n", + " 'query': query,\n", + " 'retrieved_context': context,\n", + " 'response': response\n", + " }\n", + " \n", + "\n", + " def recommendation_query(self, query: str, context: Dict) -> Dict:\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + " Answer the Recommendation type query using RAG\n", + " \n", + " Args:\n", + " query (str): Query text\n", + " \n", + " Returns:\n", + " Dict: Contains retrieved context and generated response\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + "\n", + " retrieved_context = self.retrieve_relevant_documents(query, 30)\n", + " criteria = context[\"messages\"][-1].additional_kwargs[\"json_output\"][\"criteria\"]\n", + "\n", + " prompt_template = \"\"\"You will be given a query which would ask you for recommendations, some criteria on the basis of which you can provide recommendations\n", + " and some audience/user reviews related to the query obtained from a reviews dataset. \n", + " Use the query and the criteria given along with the reviews to recommend items to the user.\n", + " If the answer cannot be derived from the context, say so.\n", + "\n", + " Question: {query}\n", + "\n", + " Criteria:\n", + " {criteria}\n", + "\n", + " Reviews: {retrieved_context}\n", + "\n", + " Answer:\"\"\"\n", + "\n", + " prompt = PromptTemplate(template=prompt_template, \n", + " input_variables=[\"query\", \"criteria\", \"retrieved_context\"])\n", + " \n", + " model = ChatGroq(model=\"llama-3.1-8b-instant\", \n", + " temperature=0.1,\n", + " timeout=None, \n", + " max_retries=2)\n", + " \n", + " recommendation_model = prompt | model\n", + " \n", + " output = recommendation_model.invoke({\"query\": query, \"criteria\": criteria, \"retrieved_context\": retrieved_context})\n", + " response = output.content\n", + " \n", + " return {\n", + " 'query': query,\n", + " 'retrieved_context': context,\n", + " 'response': response\n", + " }" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "markdown", + "metadata": {}, + "source": [ + "### Vector DataStore\n", + "Create index on FAISS embeddings for each database and create a vector store. " + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": 15, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [ + { + "name": "stdout", + "output_type": "stream", + "text": [ + "Loaded index with 2872 vectors of dimension 384\n", + "Loaded index with 1600 vectors of dimension 384\n", + "Loaded index with 3000 vectors of dimension 384\n" + ] + } + ], + "source": [ + "imdb_rag_system = RAGPipeline(imdb_df)\n", + "if not os.path.exists(\"imdb_faiss_index.idx\"):\n", + " imdb_rag_system.create_index()\n", + " imdb_rag_system.save_index(\"imdb_faiss_index.idx\")\n", + "else:\n", + " imdb_rag_system.load_index(\"imdb_faiss_index.idx\")\n", + "\n", + "yelp_rag_system = RAGPipeline(yelp_df)\n", + "if not os.path.exists(\"yelp_faiss_index.idx\"):\n", + " yelp_rag_system.create_index()\n", + " yelp_rag_system.save_index(\"yelp_faiss_index.idx\")\n", + "else:\n", + " yelp_rag_system.load_index(\"yelp_faiss_index.idx\")\n", + "\n", + "amazon_rag_system = RAGPipeline(amazon_df)\n", + "if not os.path.exists(\"amazon_faiss_index.idx\"):\n", + " amazon_rag_system.create_index()\n", + " amazon_rag_system.save_index(\"amazon_faiss_index.idx\")\n", + "else:\n", + " amazon_rag_system.load_index(\"amazon_faiss_index.idx\")" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "markdown", + "metadata": {}, + "source": [ + "### Hash Map to store RAG for each database " + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": 16, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [], + "source": [ + "db_to_rag_pipeline = {\"imdb\": imdb_rag_system, \n", + " \"yelp\": yelp_rag_system, \n", + " \"amazon\": amazon_rag_system}" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "markdown", + "metadata": {}, + "source": [ + "## Run RAG Pipeline" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": 17, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [], + "source": [ + "@traceable\n", + "def generate_rag_response(state: AgentState):\n", + " query = state[\"messages\"][0].content\n", + " db_type = state[\"db_type\"].lower()\n", + " category = state[\"category\"].lower()\n", + " \n", + " rag_pipeline = db_to_rag_pipeline[db_type]\n", + " \n", + " response = {}\n", + " if category == \"descriptive\":\n", + " response = rag_pipeline.descriptive_query(query, state)\n", + " elif category == \"comparison\":\n", + " response = rag_pipeline.comparison_query(query, state)\n", + " elif category == \"recommendation\":\n", + " response = rag_pipeline.recommendation_query(query, state)\n", + " \n", + " AIMessageresponse = AIMessage(content=response[\"response\"], name=\"RAG_node\", additional_kwargs={\"query\" : query ,\"json_output\": response})\n", + " return {\"messages\" : [AIMessageresponse]}\n", + " " + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "markdown", + "metadata": {}, + "source": [ + "## Evaluator Node\n", + "Assess the generated responses, scoring their relevance and clarity." + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": null, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [], + "source": [ + "class EvalType(BaseModel):\n", + " score: str = Field(description=\"Score from 0-100 according to match\")\n", + " summary: str = Field(description=\"Summary of the evaluation\")\n", + "\n", + "@traceable\n", + "def evaluate_output(state: AgentState):\n", + " last_massage = state[\"messages\"][-1]\n", + " original_query = state[\"messages\"][0].content\n", + " response = last_massage.content\n", + " parser = PydanticOutputParser(pydantic_object=EvalType)\n", + "\n", + " eval_prompt_template = (\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + " You are an expert evaluator. Your task is to grade the following output on a scale of 0-100%, where 0 is poor match and 100 is excellent match with exact keywords. \n", + " Consider the following criteria:\n", + " - Relevance to the original query\n", + " - Accuracy of information\n", + " - Clarity and coherence\n", + " - Completeness of the answer\n", + " - Semantic similarity\n", + "\n", + " Original query: {original_query}\n", + " Output to evaluate: {response}\n", + "\n", + " Provide your score in JSON format:\n", + "\n", + " {{\n", + " \"score\": \"76\", # Example score as a string\n", + " \"summary\": \"evaluation summary\" # Example summary\n", + " }}\n", + " \n", + " YOU MUST ALWYAS return valid JSON fenced by a markdown code block. Do not return any additional text.\n", + " \"\"\"\n", + " )\n", + "\n", + " prompt = PromptTemplate(\n", + " template=eval_prompt_template,\n", + " input_variables=[\"original_query\", \"response\"],\n", + " partial_variables={\"format_instructions\": parser.get_format_instructions()},\n", + " )\n", + "\n", + " eval_model = prompt | model\n", + "\n", + " evaluation = eval_model.invoke({\"original_query\": original_query, \"response\": response})\n", + "\n", + " response : EvalType = parser.invoke(evaluation)\n", + " AIMessageresponse = AIMessage(content=json.dumps(response.model_dump()), name=\"evaluation_node\", additional_kwargs={\"query\": original_query, \"json_output\": response.model_dump()})\n", + " return {\"messages\": [AIMessageresponse]}" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "markdown", + "metadata": {}, + "source": [ + "### LangSmith Dashboard\n", + "\n", + "To monitor and analyze API interactions with the LLM, we used the `@traceable` decorator from LangSmith. This allowed us to trace every step of the pipeline, capturing inputs, outputs, and performance metrics in real-time. By visualizing this data in the LangSmith dashboard, we could optimize model selection and refine our workflow.\n", + "\n", + "**Tutorial Steps:**\n", + "1. **Enable Tracking:** Decorate each function or node in your pipeline with `@traceable`.\n", + "2. **Visualize Insights:** Access the LangSmith dashboard to review tracked API calls, latency, and responses.\n", + "3. **Iterate and Improve:** Use the insights to select the most suitable model and refine queries for better results.\n", + "\n", + "Below is a snapshot from the LangSmith dashboard illustrating how we tracked and analyzed requests:\n", + "\n", + "![Review Radar-LangSmith Dashboard](../images/review_radar_lang_smith.png)" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "markdown", + "metadata": {}, + "source": [ + "## Workflow and examples" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": 29, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [ + { + "name": "stdout", + "output_type": "stream", + "text": [ + "The history saving thread hit an unexpected error (OperationalError('unable to open database file')).History will not be written to the database.\n" + ] + } + ], + "source": [ + "from langgraph.graph import StateGraph, END\n", + "\n", + "@traceable\n", + "def run_workflow():\n", + " workflow = StateGraph(AgentState)\n", + "\n", + " workflow.add_node(\"classification_node\", ClassificationNode.classify_query)\n", + "\n", + " workflow.add_node(\"comparison_node\", ComparisonCategory.process_query)\n", + " workflow.add_node(\"recommendation_node\", RecommendationCategory.process_query)\n", + " workflow.add_node(\"descriptive_node\", DescriptiveCategory.process_query)\n", + "\n", + " workflow.add_node(\"RAG\", generate_rag_response)\n", + " workflow.add_node(\"evaluation_node\", evaluate_output)\n", + "\n", + "\n", + " workflow.set_entry_point(\"classification_node\")\n", + "\n", + " workflow.add_conditional_edges(\"classification_node\", identify_category,\n", + " {\n", + " \"comparison\": \"comparison_node\",\n", + " \"recommendation\": \"recommendation_node\",\n", + " \"descriptive\": \"descriptive_node\", \n", + " })\n", + "\n", + " workflow.add_edge(\"comparison_node\", \"RAG\")\n", + " workflow.add_edge(\"recommendation_node\", \"RAG\")\n", + " workflow.add_edge(\"descriptive_node\", \"RAG\")\n", + "\n", + " workflow.add_edge(\"RAG\", \"evaluation_node\")\n", + " workflow.add_edge(\"evaluation_node\", END)\n", + "\n", + " return workflow\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "agent_graph = run_workflow().compile()" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": 30, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [], + "source": [ + "@traceable\n", + "def stream_graph(stream):\n", + " for s in stream:\n", + " \n", + " message = s[\"messages\"][-1]\n", + " if isinstance(message, tuple):\n", + " print(message)\n", + " else:\n", + " if message.name:\n", + " if message.type == \"ai\":\n", + " print(f'\\n\\n================================== \\033[1m{message.name.upper()} AI Message\\033[0m ==================================\\n\\n')\n", + " pprint(message.additional_kwargs[\"json_output\"])\n", + " else:\n", + " message.pretty_print()" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": 32, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [ + { + "name": "stdout", + "output_type": "stream", + "text": [ + "================================\u001b[1m Human Message \u001b[0m=================================\n", + "\n", + "Mention amazing points in the plot of the book Harry Potter, Goblet of Fire according to the reviewers?\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "================================== \u001b[1mCLASSIFICATION_NODE AI Message\u001b[0m ==================================\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "{'category': 'descriptive',\n", + " 'db': 'imdb',\n", + " 'query': 'Mention amazing points in the plot of the book Harry Potter, Goblet '\n", + " 'of Fire according to the reviewers?'}\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "================================== \u001b[1mDESCRIPTIVE_NODE AI Message\u001b[0m ==================================\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "{'keywords': ['Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire',\n", + " 'J.K. Rowling',\n", + " 'plot twists',\n", + " 'Triwizard Tournament',\n", + " 'Cedric Diggory',\n", + " \"Lord Voldemort's return\",\n", + " 'Barty Crouch Jr.',\n", + " \"Moody's true identity\",\n", + " \"Hagrid's role\",\n", + " 'Quidditch World Cup',\n", + " \"Weasley's Wildfire Whiz-bangs\",\n", + " \"Goblet of Fire's themes\",\n", + " 'coming-of-age story',\n", + " 'friendship and loyalty',\n", + " 'good vs. evil',\n", + " 'magic and adventure'],\n", + " 'primary_focus': 'Harry Potter series',\n", + " 'query': 'Mention amazing points in the plot of the book Harry Potter, Goblet '\n", + " 'of Fire according to the reviewers'}\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "================================== \u001b[1mRAG_NODE AI Message\u001b[0m ==================================\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "{'query': 'Mention amazing points in the plot of the book Harry Potter, Goblet '\n", + " 'of Fire according to the reviewers?',\n", + " 'response': 'Based on the reviews provided, here are some amazing points in '\n", + " 'the plot of the book Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire '\n", + " 'according to the reviewers:\\n'\n", + " '\\n'\n", + " '1. The Triwizard Tournament: Many reviewers praised the exciting '\n", + " 'and thrilling scenes of the Triwizard Tournament, which included '\n", + " 'the challenges of retrieving a golden egg from a dragon, saving '\n", + " 'a loved one from the Black Lake, and navigating an enchanted '\n", + " 'maze.\\n'\n", + " '2. The return of Lord Voldemort: The reviewers appreciated the '\n", + " 'darker tone of the movie, which marked the return of Lord '\n", + " \"Voldemort, the main antagonist of the series. Ralph Fiennes' \"\n", + " 'portrayal of Voldemort was particularly praised for its chilling '\n", + " 'and menacing performance.\\n'\n", + " '3. The death of Cedric Diggory: The reviewers were moved by the '\n", + " \"emotional and intense scene of Cedric's death, which was handled \"\n", + " 'well by the director and the actors.\\n'\n", + " '4. The character development: Many reviewers praised the '\n", + " 'character development of the main characters, particularly '\n", + " 'Harry, Ron, and Hermione, as they navigated the challenges of '\n", + " 'adolescence and the wizarding world.\\n'\n", + " '5. The themes of friendship and loyalty: The reviewers '\n", + " 'appreciated the themes of friendship and loyalty that were woven '\n", + " 'throughout the plot, particularly in the relationships between '\n", + " 'Harry, Ron, and Hermione.\\n'\n", + " '6. The coming-of-age story: The reviewers noted that the movie '\n", + " 'marked a significant coming-of-age story for Harry, as he faced '\n", + " 'the challenges of adolescence and the wizarding world.\\n'\n", + " \"7. The magical world-building: The reviewers praised the movie's \"\n", + " 'ability to bring the magical world of Harry Potter to life, with '\n", + " 'its richly detailed and immersive world-building.\\n'\n", + " '8. The performances of the actors: Many reviewers praised the '\n", + " 'performances of the actors, particularly Daniel Radcliffe, '\n", + " 'Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson, who brought depth and nuance to '\n", + " 'their characters.\\n'\n", + " '9. The special effects: The reviewers praised the special '\n", + " 'effects, which were seamless and immersive, particularly in the '\n", + " 'scenes of the Triwizard Tournament.\\n'\n", + " '10. The music: The reviewers praised the music, particularly the '\n", + " 'score by Patrick Doyle, which was haunting and memorable.\\n'\n", + " '\\n'\n", + " 'However, some reviewers noted that the movie had some flaws, '\n", + " 'such as:\\n'\n", + " '\\n'\n", + " '* The pacing was too fast, with some scenes feeling rushed or '\n", + " 'cut short.\\n'\n", + " '* Some subplots were left out or underdeveloped.\\n'\n", + " '* The movie did not fully capture the complexity and depth of '\n", + " 'the book.\\n'\n", + " '* Some characters, such as Rita Skeeter and Draco Malfoy, were '\n", + " 'underutilized or felt like they were missing from the movie.\\n'\n", + " '\\n'\n", + " 'Overall, the reviewers praised the movie for its exciting plot, '\n", + " 'memorable characters, and immersive world-building, but noted '\n", + " 'that it had some flaws and did not fully capture the complexity '\n", + " 'of the book.',\n", + " 'retrieved_context': {'category': 'descriptive',\n", + " 'db_type': 'imdb',\n", + " 'messages': [HumanMessage(content='Mention amazing points in the plot of the book Harry Potter, Goblet of Fire according to the reviewers?', additional_kwargs={}, response_metadata={}, id='6bfc3830-66d3-4bd9-a801-194a2594fe13'),\n", + " AIMessage(content='{\"query\": \"Mention amazing points in the plot of the book Harry Potter, Goblet of Fire according to the reviewers?\", \"category\": \"descriptive\", \"db\": \"imdb\"}', additional_kwargs={'query': 'Mention amazing points in the plot of the book Harry Potter, Goblet of Fire according to the reviewers?', 'json_output': {'query': 'Mention amazing points in the plot of the book Harry Potter, Goblet of Fire according to the reviewers?', 'category': 'descriptive', 'db': 'imdb'}}, response_metadata={}, name='classification_node', id='80676291-5131-43b4-897d-0019f91cf7b9'),\n", + " AIMessage(content='{\"query\": \"Mention amazing points in the plot of the book Harry Potter, Goblet of Fire according to the reviewers\", \"primary_focus\": \"Harry Potter series\", \"keywords\": [\"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire\", \"J.K. Rowling\", \"plot twists\", \"Triwizard Tournament\", \"Cedric Diggory\", \"Lord Voldemort\\'s return\", \"Barty Crouch Jr.\", \"Moody\\'s true identity\", \"Hagrid\\'s role\", \"Quidditch World Cup\", \"Weasley\\'s Wildfire Whiz-bangs\", \"Goblet of Fire\\'s themes\", \"coming-of-age story\", \"friendship and loyalty\", \"good vs. evil\", \"magic and adventure\"]}', additional_kwargs={'query': 'Mention amazing points in the plot of the book Harry Potter, Goblet of Fire according to the reviewers?', 'json_output': {'query': 'Mention amazing points in the plot of the book Harry Potter, Goblet of Fire according to the reviewers', 'primary_focus': 'Harry Potter series', 'keywords': ['Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire', 'J.K. Rowling', 'plot twists', 'Triwizard Tournament', 'Cedric Diggory', \"Lord Voldemort's return\", 'Barty Crouch Jr.', \"Moody's true identity\", \"Hagrid's role\", 'Quidditch World Cup', \"Weasley's Wildfire Whiz-bangs\", \"Goblet of Fire's themes\", 'coming-of-age story', 'friendship and loyalty', 'good vs. evil', 'magic and adventure']}}, response_metadata={}, name='descriptive_node', id='cd137301-c7b1-44e5-a8d4-2f42cdcce113')]}}\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "================================== \u001b[1mEVALUATION_NODE AI Message\u001b[0m ==================================\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "{'score': '88',\n", + " 'summary': 'The output is a comprehensive summary of the amazing points in '\n", + " 'the plot of the book Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire '\n", + " 'according to reviewers. It covers various aspects of the book, '\n", + " 'including the Triwizard Tournament, the return of Lord Voldemort, '\n", + " 'character development, themes of friendship and loyalty, and the '\n", + " 'magical world-building. The output also mentions some flaws in '\n", + " 'the movie adaptation, such as pacing issues and underdeveloped '\n", + " 'subplots. The information is accurate, clear, and coherent, and '\n", + " 'the output is a good match with the original query.'}\n" + ] + } + ], + "source": [ + "descriptive_inputs = {\"messages\": [(\"user\", \"Mention amazing points in the plot of the book Harry Potter, Goblet of Fire according to the reviewers?\")]}\n", + "stream_graph(agent_graph.stream(descriptive_inputs, stream_mode=\"values\"))" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": null, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [ + { + "name": "stdout", + "output_type": "stream", + "text": [ + "================================\u001b[1m Human Message \u001b[0m=================================\n", + "\n", + "What should I watch Doom or Rent movie next, which is the reviewers choice?\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "================================== \u001b[1mCLASSIFICATION_NODE AI Message\u001b[0m ==================================\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "{'category': 'comparison',\n", + " 'db': 'imdb',\n", + " 'query': 'What should I watch Doom or Rent movie next, which is the reviewers '\n", + " 'choice?'}\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "================================== \u001b[1mCOMPARISON_NODE AI Message\u001b[0m ==================================\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "{'category': 'MOVIES',\n", + " 'criteria': ['Genre alignment',\n", + " 'Audience ratings and review sentiment',\n", + " 'Plot complexity and originality',\n", + " 'Character development',\n", + " 'Technical aspects (effects, cinematography)',\n", + " 'Cultural impact and legacy'],\n", + " 'items': ['Doom', 'Rent'],\n", + " 'query': 'Doom vs Rent movie'}\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "================================== \u001b[1mRAG_NODE AI Message\u001b[0m ==================================\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "{'query': 'What should I watch Doom or Rent movie next, which is the reviewers '\n", + " 'choice?',\n", + " 'response': \"Based on the given information, here's a detailed comparison of \"\n", + " \"the two items, 'Doom' and 'Rent', considering the provided \"\n", + " 'criteria:\\n'\n", + " '\\n'\n", + " '**Genre alignment:**\\n'\n", + " \"Both 'Doom' and 'Rent' are movies, but they belong to different \"\n", + " \"genres. 'Doom' is an action horror film, while 'Rent' is a \"\n", + " \"musical drama film. Considering the genre alignment, 'Doom' is \"\n", + " \"more aligned with the action horror genre, while 'Rent' is more \"\n", + " 'aligned with the musical drama genre.\\n'\n", + " '\\n'\n", + " '**Audience ratings and review sentiment:**\\n'\n", + " \"The audience ratings for 'Doom' are mixed, with some reviewers \"\n", + " 'praising its action sequences, gore, and faithfulness to the '\n", + " 'game, while others criticize its poor acting, weak storyline, '\n", + " \"and lack of character development. The average rating for 'Doom' \"\n", + " \"is around 5.5 out of 10. On the other hand, 'Rent' has a more \"\n", + " 'positive audience rating, with an average rating of around 7.5 '\n", + " 'out of 10. Reviewers praise its music, performances, and '\n", + " 'emotional depth.\\n'\n", + " '\\n'\n", + " '**Plot complexity and originality:**\\n'\n", + " \"'Doom' has a relatively simple plot, which is based on the video \"\n", + " 'game of the same name. The movie follows a team of soldiers as '\n", + " 'they fight against demons on Mars. The plot is not particularly '\n", + " \"original or complex, and it relies heavily on the game's \"\n", + " \"storyline. 'Rent', on the other hand, has a more complex and \"\n", + " 'original plot, which explores the lives of a group of artists '\n", + " 'living in New York City in the late 1980s.\\n'\n", + " '\\n'\n", + " '**Character development:**\\n'\n", + " \"'Doom' has limited character development, with the characters \"\n", + " 'being more like archetypes than fully fleshed-out individuals. '\n", + " 'The movie focuses more on the action and gore than on character '\n", + " \"development. 'Rent', on the other hand, has well-developed \"\n", + " 'characters, with each character having their own unique '\n", + " 'personality, backstory, and motivations.\\n'\n", + " '\\n'\n", + " '**Technical aspects (effects, cinematography):**\\n'\n", + " \"'Doom' has impressive technical aspects, including its special \"\n", + " \"effects, cinematography, and sound design. The movie's use of 3D \"\n", + " \"and CGI is particularly noteworthy. 'Rent', on the other hand, \"\n", + " 'has a more traditional cinematography style, with a focus on '\n", + " 'capturing the emotional depth of the characters and their '\n", + " 'stories.\\n'\n", + " '\\n'\n", + " '**Cultural impact and legacy:**\\n'\n", + " \"'Doom' has had a significant cultural impact, particularly among \"\n", + " \"gamers and fans of the video game. The movie's success has \"\n", + " 'helped to cement the Doom franchise as a cultural phenomenon. '\n", + " \"'Rent', on the other hand, has had a more limited cultural \"\n", + " 'impact, but it has still been influential in the musical theater '\n", + " 'world and has helped to popularize the concept of rock '\n", + " 'musicals.\\n'\n", + " '\\n'\n", + " \"Based on these comparisons, it's clear that 'Doom' and 'Rent' \"\n", + " 'are two very different movies with different strengths and '\n", + " \"weaknesses. While 'Doom' excels in terms of its technical \"\n", + " 'aspects and action sequences, it falls short in terms of '\n", + " \"character development and originality. 'Rent', on the other \"\n", + " 'hand, excels in terms of its character development, originality, '\n", + " 'and emotional depth, but may be less impressive in terms of its '\n", + " 'technical aspects.\\n'\n", + " '\\n'\n", + " \"Ultimately, the choice between 'Doom' and 'Rent' will depend on \"\n", + " \"individual preferences and tastes. If you're a fan of action \"\n", + " \"horror movies with impressive technical aspects, 'Doom' may be \"\n", + " \"the better choice. If you're looking for a more emotionally \"\n", + " 'resonant and character-driven movie with a unique storyline, '\n", + " \"'Rent' may be the better choice.\",\n", + " 'retrieved_context': {'category': 'comparison',\n", + " 'db_type': 'imdb',\n", + " 'messages': [HumanMessage(content='What should I watch Doom or Rent movie next, which is the reviewers choice?', additional_kwargs={}, response_metadata={}, id='9b7294e0-5947-4476-b036-7433972c1a53'),\n", + " AIMessage(content='{\"query\": \"What should I watch Doom or Rent movie next, which is the reviewers choice?\", \"category\": \"comparison\", \"db\": \"imdb\"}', additional_kwargs={'query': 'What should I watch Doom or Rent movie next, which is the reviewers choice?', 'json_output': {'query': 'What should I watch Doom or Rent movie next, which is the reviewers choice?', 'category': 'comparison', 'db': 'imdb'}}, response_metadata={}, name='classification_node', id='abacef49-f466-4c35-9c9d-ded63e3c127f'),\n", + " AIMessage(content='{\"query\": \"Doom vs Rent movie\", \"items\": [\"Doom\", \"Rent\"], \"category\": \"MOVIES\", \"criteria\": [\"Genre alignment\", \"Audience ratings and review sentiment\", \"Plot complexity and originality\", \"Character development\", \"Technical aspects (effects, cinematography)\", \"Cultural impact and legacy\"]}', additional_kwargs={'query': 'What should I watch Doom or Rent movie next, which is the reviewers choice?', 'json_output': {'query': 'Doom vs Rent movie', 'items': ['Doom', 'Rent'], 'category': 'MOVIES', 'criteria': ['Genre alignment', 'Audience ratings and review sentiment', 'Plot complexity and originality', 'Character development', 'Technical aspects (effects, cinematography)', 'Cultural impact and legacy']}}, response_metadata={}, name='comparison_node', id='9d6d878c-efed-42fe-940c-3fe99df9ae21')]}}\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "================================== \u001b[1mEVALUATION_NODE AI Message\u001b[0m ==================================\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "{'score': '82',\n", + " 'summary': 'The output provides a detailed comparison of the two movies, '\n", + " 'covering various aspects such as genre, audience ratings, plot '\n", + " 'complexity, character development, technical aspects, and '\n", + " 'cultural impact. The evaluation is thorough and provides a clear '\n", + " 'analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each movie. However, '\n", + " 'the output does not directly answer the original query, which '\n", + " \"asks for the reviewer's choice between the two movies. The output \"\n", + " 'provides a balanced analysis, but does not explicitly state which '\n", + " 'movie is preferred by the reviewers.'}\n" + ] + } + ], + "source": [ + "comparison_input = {\"messages\": [(\"user\", \"What should I watch Doom or Rent movie next, which is the reviewers choice?\")]}\n", + "stream_graph(agent_graph.stream(comparison_input, stream_mode=\"values\"))" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": null, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [ + { + "name": "stdout", + "output_type": "stream", + "text": [ + "================================\u001b[1m Human Message \u001b[0m=================================\n", + "\n", + "Recommend the best restaurant in Las Vegas according to the reviews\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "================================== \u001b[1mCLASSIFICATION_NODE AI Message\u001b[0m ==================================\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "{'category': 'recommendation',\n", + " 'db': 'yelp',\n", + " 'query': 'Recommend the best restaurant in Las Vegas according to the reviews'}\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "================================== \u001b[1mRECOMMENDATION_NODE AI Message\u001b[0m ==================================\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "{'category': 'RESTAURANTS',\n", + " 'criteria': ['Food quality (ingredients, freshness)',\n", + " 'Price range and value for money',\n", + " 'Ambiance (interior design, atmosphere)',\n", + " 'Chef expertise and background',\n", + " 'Preparation techniques (traditional, fusion)',\n", + " 'Menu authenticity',\n", + " 'Accessibility (location, parking)',\n", + " 'Customer feedback and service',\n", + " 'Specialty offerings (unique dishes, chef’s expertise)',\n", + " 'Cultural dining practices',\n", + " 'Take out options',\n", + " 'Dietary accomodations (Vegetarian, vegan)'],\n", + " 'query': 'Recommend the best restaurant in Las Vegas according to the reviews'}\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "================================== \u001b[1mRAG_NODE AI Message\u001b[0m ==================================\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "{'query': 'Recommend the best restaurant in Las Vegas according to the reviews',\n", + " 'response': 'Based on the reviews provided, I will analyze the criteria and '\n", + " 'identify the top-rated restaurants in Las Vegas. Since the '\n", + " 'reviews are mostly about buffets, I will focus on the '\n", + " 'buffet-related reviews.\\n'\n", + " '\\n'\n", + " '**Criteria Analysis:**\\n'\n", + " '\\n'\n", + " '1. **Food quality (ingredients, freshness)**: Many reviews '\n", + " 'mention the high quality of food, with specific mentions of '\n", + " 'excellent seafood, meats, and desserts.\\n'\n", + " '2. **Price range and value for money**: Some reviews mention '\n", + " 'that the prices are competitive, while others mention that the '\n", + " 'prices are high, but the quality justifies the cost.\\n'\n", + " '3. **Ambiance (interior design, atmosphere)**: Some reviews '\n", + " 'mention the beautiful interior design and atmosphere, while '\n", + " 'others mention that the buffet is a maze and difficult to '\n", + " 'navigate.\\n'\n", + " '4. **Chef expertise and background**: There is no specific '\n", + " 'mention of chef expertise or background in the reviews.\\n'\n", + " '5. **Preparation techniques (traditional, fusion)**: Some '\n", + " 'reviews mention the variety of food options, including '\n", + " 'traditional and fusion dishes.\\n'\n", + " '6. **Menu authenticity**: Some reviews mention that the buffet '\n", + " 'offers a wide variety of international dishes, but the quality '\n", + " 'is not always consistent.\\n'\n", + " '7. **Accessibility (location, parking)**: Some reviews mention '\n", + " 'that the buffet is located in a convenient location, while '\n", + " 'others mention that the parking can be a challenge.\\n'\n", + " '8. **Customer feedback and service**: Many reviews mention the '\n", + " 'friendly and attentive staff, while others mention that the '\n", + " 'service can be slow.\\n'\n", + " '9. **Specialty offerings (unique dishes, chef’s expertise)**: '\n", + " 'Some reviews mention the unique dishes and specialty offerings, '\n", + " 'such as the crab legs and sushi.\\n'\n", + " '10. **Cultural dining practices**: There is no specific mention '\n", + " 'of cultural dining practices in the reviews.\\n'\n", + " '11. **Take out options**: There is no specific mention of '\n", + " 'take-out options in the reviews.\\n'\n", + " '12. **Dietary accommodations (Vegetarian, vegan)**: Some reviews '\n", + " 'mention that the buffet offers gluten-free options, but there is '\n", + " 'no specific mention of vegetarian or vegan options.\\n'\n", + " '\\n'\n", + " '**Top-Rated Buffets:**\\n'\n", + " '\\n'\n", + " 'Based on the reviews, the top-rated buffets in Las Vegas are:\\n'\n", + " '\\n'\n", + " '1. **The Buffet at Bellagio**: Many reviews mention the high '\n", + " 'quality of food, beautiful interior design, and friendly staff.\\n'\n", + " '2. **The Wynn Buffet**: Reviews mention the excellent variety of '\n", + " 'food options, including seafood, meats, and desserts.\\n'\n", + " '3. **The Buffet at Caesars Palace**: Reviews mention the wide '\n", + " 'variety of international dishes, including seafood, meats, and '\n", + " 'desserts.\\n'\n", + " '\\n'\n", + " '**Recommendation:**\\n'\n", + " '\\n'\n", + " 'Based on the reviews, I recommend **The Buffet at Bellagio** as '\n", + " 'the top-rated buffet in Las Vegas. The reviews consistently '\n", + " 'mention the high quality of food, beautiful interior design, and '\n", + " 'friendly staff. While the prices may be high, the quality '\n", + " 'justifies the cost.',\n", + " 'retrieved_context': {'category': 'recommendation',\n", + " 'db_type': 'yelp',\n", + " 'messages': [HumanMessage(content='Recommend the best restaurant in Las Vegas according to the reviews', additional_kwargs={}, response_metadata={}, id='4227e3c6-5542-42af-a6e6-319b0ae234f6'),\n", + " AIMessage(content='{\"query\": \"Recommend the best restaurant in Las Vegas according to the reviews\", \"category\": \"recommendation\", \"db\": \"yelp\"}', additional_kwargs={'query': 'Recommend the best restaurant in Las Vegas according to the reviews', 'json_output': {'query': 'Recommend the best restaurant in Las Vegas according to the reviews', 'category': 'recommendation', 'db': 'yelp'}}, response_metadata={}, name='classification_node', id='0cc5a8df-e1b9-4247-ad44-db5b7df34305'),\n", + " AIMessage(content='{\"query\": \"Recommend the best restaurant in Las Vegas according to the reviews\", \"category\": \"RESTAURANTS\", \"criteria\": [\"Food quality (ingredients, freshness)\", \"Price range and value for money\", \"Ambiance (interior design, atmosphere)\", \"Chef expertise and background\", \"Preparation techniques (traditional, fusion)\", \"Menu authenticity\", \"Accessibility (location, parking)\", \"Customer feedback and service\", \"Specialty offerings (unique dishes, chef\\\\u2019s expertise)\", \"Cultural dining practices\", \"Take out options\", \"Dietary accomodations (Vegetarian, vegan)\"]}', additional_kwargs={'query': 'Recommend the best restaurant in Las Vegas according to the reviews', 'json_output': {'query': 'Recommend the best restaurant in Las Vegas according to the reviews', 'category': 'RESTAURANTS', 'criteria': ['Food quality (ingredients, freshness)', 'Price range and value for money', 'Ambiance (interior design, atmosphere)', 'Chef expertise and background', 'Preparation techniques (traditional, fusion)', 'Menu authenticity', 'Accessibility (location, parking)', 'Customer feedback and service', 'Specialty offerings (unique dishes, chef’s expertise)', 'Cultural dining practices', 'Take out options', 'Dietary accomodations (Vegetarian, vegan)']}}, response_metadata={}, name='recommendation_node', id='c2e8df21-7ab0-4b15-a3ae-324e0aa36320')]}}\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "================================== \u001b[1mEVALUATION_NODE AI Message\u001b[0m ==================================\n", + "\n", + "\n", + "{'score': '82',\n", + " 'summary': 'The output is well-structured and provides a clear analysis of '\n", + " 'the reviews. However, it lacks specific details about the '\n", + " 'criteria and does not provide a comprehensive comparison of the '\n", + " 'top-rated buffets. The recommendation is based on a general '\n", + " 'consensus, but it would be more convincing with specific examples '\n", + " 'from the reviews.'}\n" + ] + } + ], + "source": [ + "recommendation_input = {\"messages\": [(\"user\", \"Recommend the best restaurant in Las Vegas according to the reviews\")]}\n", + "stream_graph(agent_graph.stream(recommendation_input, stream_mode=\"values\"))" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "markdown", + "metadata": {}, + "source": [ + "## Workflow Graph" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": null, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [ + { + "data": { + "image/png": "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", + "text/plain": [ + "" + ] + }, + "metadata": {}, + "output_type": "display_data" + } + ], + "source": [ + "from IPython.display import Image, display\n", + "\n", + "try:\n", + " display(Image(agent_graph.get_graph().draw_mermaid_png()))\n", + "except Exception:\n", + " pass" + ] + }, + { + "cell_type": "code", + "execution_count": null, + "metadata": {}, + "outputs": [], + "source": [] + } + ], + "metadata": { + "kernelspec": { + "display_name": "review", + "language": "python", + "name": "python3" + }, + "language_info": { + "codemirror_mode": { + "name": "ipython", + "version": 3 + }, + "file_extension": ".py", + "mimetype": "text/x-python", + "name": "python", + "nbconvert_exporter": "python", + "pygments_lexer": "ipython3", + "version": "3.10.15" + } + }, + "nbformat": 4, + "nbformat_minor": 2 +} diff --git a/data/amazon_books.csv b/data/amazon_books.csv new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ee47313 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/amazon_books.csv @@ -0,0 +1,3001 @@ +,Id,Title,Price,User_id,profileName,review/helpfulness,review/score,review/time,review/summary,review/text +0,9562910334,1984,,A20VXF9DYI0I6H,J. Norburn,0/1,4.0,1156896000,"Unflinching, uncompromising - and yes, a little preachy","This is one of those rare books that isn't necessarily a pleasure to read but is definitely worth reading. Orwell's novel manages to affect you long after you've read it - possibly even haunt you. It's a bleak novel (some might say downright depressing) - but it's also powerful and uncompromising.Over 50 years have passed since 1984 was published (the year itself came and went over 20 years ago) yet this novel is still relevant today. 1984 is a remarkably ambitious work; unflinching and perceptive. Orwell isn't just telling a story though; he is using this novel as a soap box to warn us all of the dangers of totalitarian governments.1984 is a novel about big ideas; about the machinery of totalitarian governments and how people can be manipulated and controlled by those in power. I did find however that the characters weren't as developed as I would have liked, as if Orwell felt they were a secondary consideration. As a result, I found the novel lacked a personal quality that I think would have made it all the more compelling. Winston Smith is not an especially sympathetic character (or for that matter, all that memorable a character). What is memorable about 1984 is the world Orwell creates - a world of contradiction, oppression, and betrayal.This is not a book that will bring a smile to your face. Its message is delivered with a heavy hand but 1984 will make you think. If it doesn't make you paranoid, it should at least make you cynical." +1,9562910334,1984,,A2C4WZEWXKXQON,"D. M. Z. ""Dee Zee""",1/2,5.0,1277337600,Perfect,This is such a great book! I ordered it on cassette so that I could listen to it on a long road trip and the product arrived right on time in great condition. +2,9562910334,1984,,A2JPT2LH3AVA1A,Mr. Chris,0/1,5.0,1029283200,More than just entertaining...,There are many works where the story is the content. These books are usually for entertainment. This book uses the story to deliver its content. It uses the story to illustrate some awsome philosophical ideas. By presenting the ideas in a story they are easier to understand and they are more entertaining.I could not put the book down as I got towards the end. This is the only book I have ever read that has given me the shakes. +3,9562910334,1984,,A1KVQGI88RA90Q,"Rebecca ""Rebecca""",0/1,5.0,1212105600,Is this Bush and Ahmadinejad's playbook?,"I never read Orwell in school for some reason and I am glad I waited. I can't believe this was written in the late 40's. O'Brien's descriptions of seeking power for power's sake and the mutability of truth and history have never been more applicable to current events. Reading this book now, you really start to feel like this must be on Karl Rove's desk." +4,9562910334,1984,,AESAZJGNDPRBY,"Laura Wright ""Laurawrites~net""",1/1,5.0,1214870400,Amazing,"Orwell was a pioneer in this form of literature. His insight into a ""possible"" future held more accuracy than I'm sure even he imagined.The book is a struggle of man vs. ministry. How far will the few in positions of power go to improve their personal ideals in the guise of overall social improvement?I would recommend this to anyone who enjoys dark themes. The ending had me in tears." +5,9562910334,1984,,A1ARA52HB238HT,"Matthew M. Yau ""Voracious reader""",2/3,4.0,1073088000,1984 or 2004?,"Eric Blair's 1984 is not only his finest work but also one of the most influential and provocative books of our time. The work obviates to us to full actuality how the world had evolved for the worse during the dark period from 1932 to 1949. Winston Smith and O'Brien are the most important characters whose keystone dialogue raises alert for the prospect of human future.Prophecy or Caution?While we might prefer to interpret ""1984"" as a precautionary tale or some social warning, bloodshed, warfare, massive torture and murder, not to mention Stalin's cruelty, the Nazi mechanized techniques of organized massacre, the Cambodian, the Iranian and the Iraqi, the North Korean, and all the other countless horrors, have inevitably to a certain degree changed ""1984"" from caution to warning, further elevating the work to a 20th century prophecy.Despair about Future of ManA sense of hopelessness about the future of man hovers over the book. In a way ""1984"" is an expression of such a hopeless mood about the bleak future of man. It warns readers that unless the course of history (and leaderships) changes men all over the world will forfeit most of their human qualities and become soulless automatons without being aware of the depravity.In the Winston Smith-O'Brien dialogue, ""Imagine a boot stamping on the human face-forever"" might have exaggerated the current state of human soulness. The 20th century history has confirmed and fulfilled dehumanized practices as mentioned in ""1984"" like 24/7 surveillance of all sounds, activities, and conversations; deprivation of freedom of speech, penitence for thought crime and wiping out of existence and memory and thus forfeiting any way to make appeal to future. For example, a Party member lived from birth to death under the eye of the Thought Police. Even when he was alone he could never be sure he was alone. Wherever he may be, he could be inspected without warning and without knowing that he was being inspected.The Party tacitly encouraged prostitution as such outlets for instincts that could not be altogether suppressed. This unforgivable crime was promiscuity between Party members in order to remove all pleasure from sexual act. Even to his wife, a Party member was expected to have no private emotions and no respites from enthusiasm. A real romantic love affair was all it took to crumple the Party. Desire was deemed thought crime, which entailed death.The Party saw that it was not infallible and that all its belief rested on the omnipotent Big Brother. It therefore called for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts-alteration of the past and rewrite of history in order to wipe out existence of certain human beings and historical facts. It was not merely that speeches, statistics, and records of every kind must be constantly brought up to date in order to show that the predictions of the Party were in all cases accurate. It was also that no change of doctrine or in political alignment could ever be admitted. Whatever the Party held to be truth was truth. It was impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party.Notwithstanding the Party contrived to have its way and imbued the belief in people, how could the Party control people's memory? The Party had wiped out most of the older generation during the great purges and the few who survived had long ago been terrified into complete intellectual surrender (sounds familiar like the Chinese Cultural Revolution?) When memory failed and written records were falsified, the claim of the Party to have improved the conditions of human life had got to be accepted, because there did not exist, and never again could exist, any standard against which it could be tested.""1984"" is meant to be read as a warning, an exhortation, and not so much prophesy. However exaggerated and haunting the negative utopia is being depicted, the book is a startling work of an imaginary world that is convincing. 4.0 stars.2004 (4)" +6,9562910334,1984,,ADF2EY2ET0MD6,Nicole,0/3,5.0,1040256000,My "1984" Review,"I think that the book "1984", written by George Orwell was a book that raised many questions. It was a book about a man fighting for his rights only to fine out he had to give in a bit. "1984" was a book that captured me into its story and I couldn't stop reading. I highly recommend this book to someone looking for a challenge and a well written book!" +7,9562910334,1984,,A3JD07VHDLT5FF,"isala ""Isabel and Lars""",5/7,5.0,1089504000,A warning that has not been heeded,"Orwell wanted to warn his readers about the danger of totalitarian regimes. The promises of the fascist and nazi ideologies had misled millions and thrown the world into the ravages of the second world war. Stalinist Soviet Union was seen by many as a model state. Orwell knew far too well what was hidden beneath the promises of security, bread, and jobs for all.1984 has become a household name as few other books; who does not know about Big Brother, or the Thought Police, nowadays? Even the title has become a catchphrase. I do not know any other cult-book that has been so thoroughly ripped apart by other famous authors; I remember Isaac Asimov thrashing it in the nineteen-eighties for instance. Many seem to believe that the society described by Orwell is an impossibility. The problem with the book is that Orwell thought his society would be a product of revolutions. When instead, in reality, the changes creep upon us. A new law here, a small change to statutes there.The most obvious paralell to the book we have now is, of course, the war on terror. We have from top officials that it is going to go on for a long time, and that it is, essentially, unwinable. Readers of 1984 of course recognize the eternal war described in the book. Another paralell is how history changes; Winston Smith's job is to rewrite history so that it suits the present situation. Don't we recognize that? In the ninetenn-eighties, Iraq was our ally; now, Iraq has always been our enemy. Thought Police, I need not even mention this; the administration knows everything about us, and is prepared to use it.We even have paralells to the Anti-Sex movement! The list can just go on.Orwell's book was a cry for reason in the aftermath of a world gone mad. As with so many other cries for reason it disappears among the siren calls of our leaders.I first read it over twenty years ago, in a different world; it was good then - it should be essential reading now!" +8,9562910334,1984,,A20WLDH5XV1L07,"Bill Warren ""Informed Papa""",1/2,5.0,1253923200,NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR,"A very well written piece of literature for its time. In light of the current state of affairs, it is rather frightening. It was a good read in High School and an even better fread today." +9,9562910334,1984,,A2XZNI0EEYOPUN,"Captain Solaris Lyra Corthon ""Solairs""",1/8,5.0,1152230400,Wilson Welcome To Room 101,I love distopian Novels dont you???The way the magick of the words float off the page and into your minds eye.Warning you that any or all of these distopian futures can occur.Depending on your quantum view point.Welcome to Room 101 Wilson says O'Brien...I am not going to go into a full synopsis of the book. Thats just lame and a waste of time.Basically if you want to see a socialist agenda for world police state control. Or should i say the illuminati agenda.Then read this book; i know i did when i used to be paranoid about the NWO.When i reread the book next time and maybe for the last time; will i when i lift my head off the page be living in that world or imagining it???Every day; i feel we are approching and reproching ourselves towards 1984's police state and totalitarian ideals.In one way or another we should take a look at the stats. The earths resources are running out. A dictatorship may come about if techno-spirituality or spiro-technology does not come in first.Whether this police and Illuminati controlled state runs by Huxley; Orwell or Mrs. Atwood. It looks; sounds; and feels to me very much like it will happen.I; like you the reader will have to wait... +10,9562910334,1984,,A20RHRHAZ2YE1G,Chris Florian,1/1,5.0,1016582400,1984 Review,"...1984 is about totalitarianism. It is about a society ruled by a dictator named Big Brother. The thought police carefully scrutinize everyone in the society. They arrest you if you show signs of rebellion or dangerous behavior. Everyone is under constant observation by devices called telescreens; devices that are like two way TVs. One of the points of their society is to make everybody the same. They are working to destroy all things that are individual about people. They also destroy all evidence about the past. They invent and change events so that they are made to look good. They have abolished marriage in the common meaning of the word. You may only get married if you do not have any interest in the person. The main Character, Winston, questions this society. He longs for a time in which people had freedom. He starts a journal, a crime punishable with death, about the things he feels is wrong with the society. He meets a woman named Julia and they begin a secret affair. They find hideaways in the woods and go there separately because if they are seen too often together the thought police will get curious and investigate. They get a room over an antique shop in a poor neighborhood and use that to meet in. Eventually they meet up with a man named O'Brien who asks them to join the brotherhood, an anti Big Brother organization. O'Brien turns out to be a member of the thought police in disguise and they are arrested. They are tortured and made to confess everything. When they are released, they have no strong feelings for each other anymore and are for the rule of Big Brother.I think the significance of this story is to bring to attention the dangers of dictatorships. What Orwell did with his novel was create a hypothetical situation representing what could come if we are not careful. This book was written at a very tumultuous time in history where there were many emerging dictators. This book is Orwell's warning to society." +11,9562910334,1984,,,,1/1,5.0,924220800,"A TERRIFYING VISION OF THE FUTURE, SCARY AND PROVOCATIVE","An unforgettable book. A wonderful respite and a refreshing alternaive from all the modern every-day reads, I would say. What makes this book so good is the character development and the sudden events which are totally unexpected. The book is unpredictable and there are always new twists and turns to explore. George Orwell created a virtual city and his own political parties and ideas perfectly and they seamlessly bind together to make this the most substantial book I have ever read. Possibly the best as well.Big Brother is watching you so read the book!" +12,9562910334,1984,,A27ODAWWIDYU9T,Alice,2/2,3.0,1346803200,Good book for its time,This book was prophetic in many ways. The ideas of Big Brother and War is Peace described what society was and was developing into. The bleakness of the story adds to its futuristic vision. I recommend this book to those who analyze society and governments. +13,9562910334,1984,,A2VOUYD2VO9GHB,"S. Koterbay ""Professor of Art History""",2/3,5.0,1256342400,"Orwell was right, but","That's not why you should read this edition, since any good copy of 1984 is going to feel like a poignant precursor to the mess we live in now (as for those machine mentioned in a recent review, I don't think that's the problem: rather, it's the speed that digital processing of stock market manipulation allows that is truly becoming one of the worst problems negatively affecting the world economy today).No, the reason to read this edition is for the Pynchon foreword! Pynchon's voice has been, since ""Gravity's Rainbow"" almost the inheritance of 1984; as a dislocation of the predictiveness of the Orwellian text, it also has functioned as a panacea to this nightmare we live on, precisely because Pynchon's language doesn't allow for any concreteness. Go read ""Gravity's Rainbow"" then go read ""Inherent Vice"" (or vice-versa, since the latter is infinitely easier to read than the former), and get a taste of the way the world should be." +14,9562910334,1984,,A2WHQEDEOKKY7F,"Beth Chalfin ""kid in the glasses""",3/4,4.0,1182643200,1984 - did it turn out any better?,"This is one piece of fiction that is too close to a potential reality. Of course, because it is fiction there are slight exaggerations, but overall this novel takes you into a world that is actually in the past. When reading this novel, keep asking yourself is this possible? If you say no, perhaps it is. Telescreens-->television?This novel is one that will awaken your senses, yet, you may not find yourself smiling. It is a serious read, but one that gets you to think and question." +15,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,4.0,939686400,Awsome made up world type of book.,"I read 1984 for a book report. It is really interesting and doesn't make you bored. It is kind of disapointing in the end, but it is the most creative book i have ever read. Im 14 and i really enjoyed this book." +16,9562910334,1984,,A3DKP67DK28RUB,"asphlex ""asphlex""",0/0,5.0,1008547200,a concentrated narrative . . .,"1984 is a lovely book. In it we find bland descriptions choreographed with a rhythmic, powerful force of language and an internalized graphic depiction of a mind on the brink of rebellion.It is false to claim that this is a 'probable future', as many of the issues and threats of the time of the prophecy have come and gone and been resolved by the evolution of society. But the meaning is lasting, regardless of your meaning of oppression.There tends to come a time in life when everyone feels oppressed, trapped by the state of the world and angered over their perceived restrictions. In the case of this novel the specifics of the dictatorship are agonizingly detailed, the interest maintained by Orewell's natural story-telling abilities and spectacular wit. But the meaning is meant to go deeper, filtering away the extremist exaggeration of the satirist and searching for clues in the muck of human nature.These issues are timeless and therefore the threat of 1984 will never likely go away. There will always be either a real or perceived oppressor and there will always be a basic human instinct to rebell. Nowhere is this principle more lucidly articulated than in 1984." +17,9562910334,1984,,A5R39GO609ZRM,"Ashish Patel ""Jersey Bird""",1/1,5.0,1178582400,a must read,"one of the best books i've ever read. makes you think about what is true and what isn't. though written in the 50's i believe, the concept can be applied to the present and the future." +18,9562910334,1984,,A3TUTAUY04A63Z,Krishna Motukuri,0/0,5.0,944179200,A must read,This is one of the few books I think everyone should read at one point or another of their life. I read this book about 7 years back and I think it does an amazing job of narrating the harrowing experience of people under an oppressive regime. +19,9562910334,1984,,A33FTIJPUKFPTK,Jeff,1/1,5.0,1101686400,1984,"1984 by George Orwell is an excellent novel that displays the possible horrors of a `utopian government'. The novel takes place in London, a large city in Oceania. The main character is Winston, and he is able to see the lies of The Party, which rules the nation.Throughout history, Oceania has been at war with either Eastasia or Eurasia. The Party uses censorship to revise history to make look as if Oceania has been at war with Eurasia and allied with Eastasia, or vice versa. Winston is employed by The Party and his job is to change these past records.Along with censorship, The Party uses techniques like newspeak and doublethink to control the masses. Newspeak is an effort by the government to create a very simple language that is dull and not descriptive. This `lean' language is designed to minimize the brain use of Oceanians. Doublethink is another effort of The Party to control Oceanians. Doublethink is a technique taught by The Party that requires people to believe things that they know are not true. For instance, a citizen may know for a fact that Oceania was at war with Eastasia only a few years ago, even though The Party insists that Oceania is an ally of Eastasia and always has been.Winston begins to question the greatness of The Party when he sees how blindly some people can follow the party. This really struck Winston one day during the `two minutes hate', in which The Party shows enemies of Oceania on the telescreen, and all of the Oceanian citizens scream at the person on the screen. Winston is bothered by this, and gains a deep desire to `bring down Big Brother'.This book is an excellent read for people of all ages, and can show the dangers of government intervention into personal life." +20,9562910334,1984,,A3PES3V8TBTRVK,Cynthia Lyles,1/1,5.0,1354320000,It is nice.,Everyone should read this book. It has a lot to teach us about today's society. I love George Orwell! (: +21,9562910334,1984,,AUDWSMF9R8ON9,"Alvaro Basulto Vila ""Loraine""",0/0,5.0,1315440000,great novel,I enjoyed this novel so much! I'm still reading it but it is so engaging that I can't put it down. George Orwell was a great writer and he always had that vision of the future that was truly amazing. It is a sin not to read this novel! +22,9562910334,1984,,A1SL93ZIONY4Y5,Sochele Sanchez,0/2,4.0,1089590400,Hummm....interesting,"I am not going to summarize the book becuz I am going to leave it up to the 1000 people who did the review of the book before me. This is a pretty good book, I probably wont read it again but it was still good. I love Orwell's pessimistic view on life it is some what enlightening. He is a realist and I entirely respect that he doesn't sugar coat anything or wrap it up in happily ever after. well any who read this book if you would like a shot of reality to the head." +23,9562910334,1984,,A2Y10DWNT2X4XB,Kevin Black,3/3,4.0,1168473600,Execellent book for Students of Philosophy and Politics,"I found Nineteen Eighty-Four to be genius in the respect that it is absolutely consistent, and original in some cases, in detailing the State's efforts in gaining total obedience from its victims. Most importantly, Orwell acknowledges the means of gaining unquestioned obedience: annihilating man's reason and independent thought, which in turn erodes his will to live by his own efforts. Despite some minor inconsistencies in the plot, Orwell's theme about man's struggle to live in a totalitarian state is an intense, emotional experience.Cleverly labeled concepts such Newspeak, Doublethink, Thoughtcrime, Sexcrime, etc, are an interrelated, systematic means of destroying man's ability to reason and observe existence objectively. Objectivity is the means of identifying and differentiating percepts from reality, which are then condensed into concepts. Without objectivity, concepts cannot be formed; without concepts, language is not possible. Big Brother recognizes this fact and works backwards by manipulating language to shape concept formation. The resulting oversimplification of concepts and ideas eventually leads people to question their observation and knowledge. How will one discern the real truth? By relying on an outside authority: the State.The obliteration of the mind is compounded day by day by the harsh, desolate environments and the endless repetition of propaganda. Dependence, anxiety, and helplessness soon replace independence, confidence, and strength. Students of philosophy will no doubt see the State's stance on gaining knowlegde, ethics and politics similar to that of Plato, St. Augustine, the Medieval Church, Calvin, Luther, Hegel, Marx, etc.Finally, Orwell states the real reason for gaining man's obedience: power for the sake of power. Orwell is consistent: Big Brother does not pay lip-service to man's supposed base and evil nature. No, the state wants obedience because it can take it. This is the politics of, as Ayn Rand once stated, ""might makes right.""Of minor point, there are some minor inconsistencies in the plot. One must ask the question: how can citizens/automatons, who are constantly conditioned to be totally intellectually and perceptually dependent on the State, run a quasi-technological industry by their own independent reason and actions? Despite this, the overall point of an omniscient and omnipotent State is understood.Nineteen Eight-four is an excellent book if one wants to observe the effects of the loss of independence and freedom on individuals. One noteworthy point: Orwell, an avowed socialist, indirectly attempts to distinguish socialism from communism or fascism. Throughout this work he demonstrates the essential need for objectivity and reason in man's life. Despite this, there is no objective reason to believe that man is his brother's keeper and that he must surrender the fruits of his labor under threat of government compulsion. History demonstrates socialism (government control of personal property) as the transitional period from some governmental controls to total control. Observe as evidence the fall of Rome to the Dark Ages, Czarist Russia to Soviet Russia, and Weimar Germany to Nazi Germany." +24,9562910334,1984,,A3B1UAWVJX3I7B,"A. Kodadek ""Alicia""",1/1,5.0,1017014400,Everyone should read this book,"This is one of my favorite books. I read it again every few years. This is such a scary look into what the future could be. I can't imagine what ran thorough peoples minds who read this book when it was first written in the 1940s. They must have held great fear for what was to come. Since I was 7 in 1984 I, obviously, did not read this book until well past that year.The world that this book describes is a scary place that none of us can begin to fathom living in. Upon reading the first few chapters it was odd to me that people existed in this world without striving for change. Upon finishing the book, I can state that I quickly saw how overpowering the government was and how things would most likely be impossible to change.Lastly I want to add that the scariest part of all is that some of the ideas in the book no longer seem so "out there"." +25,9562910334,1984,,A1ZDTIVZA9R8G4,"Seth G. Macy ""friendship alliance""",2/5,5.0,1168560000,Winston Smith 4 Life,"1984 was a successful record not only because it contained solid, catchy hard rock, but also because it incorporated synthesizers into the mix, the first metal album to do so to any serious extent. Although the advances in electronic music make this material sound dated now, it's still a highlight of Van Halen's career. Songs like ""Jump"" contain a pop element that gave 1984 mainstream appeal, and David Lee Roth turned the frontman role into an art form on songs such as ""Panama,"" ""Hot for Teacher,"" ""Drop Dead Legs,"" and ""I'll Wait."" To a large extent, it was 1984 that set the standard for '80s pop metal, and David Lee Roth who set the standard (or takes the blame, depending on your point of view) for the aggressively good-time attitude most pop-metal bands took for their own. --Genevieve Williams" +26,9562910334,1984,,AURQTR6LF0WYS,Jose Marval,1/1,5.0,1286150400,"Awesome Novel, one of the best Ive read","I see 1984 not only as the classic book people read for its metaphoric view of politics and history, but as a great novel as well. Its a highly entertaining book that makes you think and wonder, excellently written from beggining to end.If you have not read it, consider its among the best novels ever written, and one great page turner too.HIGHLY RECOMENDED" +27,9562910334,1984,,A1ZU4FK1OQR5P6,Amanda,3/3,4.0,957916800,A Mind-Boggling Read,"1984 was the most mind-boggling book I read. George Orwell'simagination captivated the mind throughout the novel. One constantlyforgot that Orwell was a man of the 1940s writing his view of what the world would be like in 1984. It was amazing to read Orwell's perception of the future in such vivid detail. This is the story of an entirely new world. Just as people thought that the world would become utter chaos in our far future, the year 2000, George Orwell believed that in his far future, 1984, there would only be three superstates in existence: Eastasia, Eurasia, and Oceania and the world would live under complete government control. ...The totalitarian government present in Orwell's novel is in many ways similar to those which have existed throughout history in Russia, China, Germany, etc. It is fascinating to think how Orwell was impacted by the events going on around him. This novel was the means by which George Orwell warned the nations of the possibility of complete loss of individualities and freedoms. 1984 screams to be read by all. It is a disturbing leap into the reality that these circumstances could come to be, but it is also a novel of great imagination and creativity and tells a story that one could never forget." +28,9562910334,1984,,A76T8DP8P16E,Rod Serling,12/21,1.0,1342656000,1984: The Ministry of Truth Edition,"ISBN: 978-0-451-52493-5Let me start by saying that 1984 is my favorite book of all time. I want to be buried with this book...but this version leaves something to be desired.I recently purchased the Signet Classic paperback version, which is one of those taller (7 1/2"" X 4 1/4"") paperbacks that started appearing in recent years. I started reading it and noticed there was something subtly different about it. It turns out that my version has been altered. Words that originally had an English (British) spelling in the original, have now been Americanized. Just on the first page, coloured has been changed to colored; moustache to mustache and metre to meter.Now, to some people this may seem like a small thing. To me though, this is aggravating...possibly disturbing. Did the American publishers think that Americans aren't smart enough to read it with the English spelling of some words? The odd thing is that while they altered the British spelling, they left in words that are typically British like: flat (apartment) and lift (elevator)...and again these are just on the first page.To me this is akin to a British film that gets distributed in the US, then the US film distributor decides that they need to overdub a British actor's voice with an American's because they're worried your average Americans wouldn't understand the film.I have found out that there is a Penguin version offered that is the original un-dumbed down version. It's located here:Nineteen Eighty-Four (Penguin Modern Classics)" +29,9562910334,1984,,A2ENIQZX6VJYUM,J. Robinson,2/2,5.0,1133308800,More Than Just Fiction,"Most lists of top fiction of the 20th century place this book in the top 10.Is this the future? The book is a social warning of sorts written by Orwell about the extreme directions that governments might take its citizens. The book follows the Nazi era of WWII, and the socialist revolutions in Russia and China. Orwell got his original idea from reading H.G. Well's ""Utopia"" written 50 years earler. Here he takes the concept a step farther with a breakdown of the government to become a flawed and highly controlling socialist society run by the political elite.This is a very interesting book that should be read along with the author's other book Animal Farm. I read the book and saw the VHS starring Hurt and Burton which is mostly a faithful representation of the book - and a good movie in color.Once the smoke and rhetoric clears this is essentially a love story about a man living in what appears to be a communist society or perhaps the National Socialists that has evolved into a tightly controlled and hero worshipping society, i.e.: pictures of the leader (""B.B."") big brother are omnipresent and everyone wears similar blue overalls, eats similar food, etc. Big brother has taken on a persona similar to Stalin or Mao and like those totalitarian communist societies, the misfits or independent thinkers or small business people are banished to camps or simply killed. Propaganda is the norm and (again) like similar 20th century communist countries history is re-written almost daily to reflect the current whims of the leaders.Unlike many imperfect countries including most western countries and other free countries that have survived the upheavals of the 20th century, we are subject to government propaganda and media bias but we are free to turn off our TV sets, not read the papers, buy any book that we so desire, have religious freedoms or free to be agnostics, and choose to protest and vote as we see fit. This is all lacking in 1984 where society is strictly controlled. Each TV is interactive and monitors the owner for deviations from the accepted patterns of behaviour; it is connected with the ""thought police"", and is turned on all the time to monitor the citizens. Only high party members have the luxury of turning off their interactive TV connected to the ""thought police"" and drinking wine and participating in the normally accepted pleasures of life. As we read in the book Animal Farm, the utopian ideals of a perfect society are replaced by the corruption brought on by absolute power.The ""average citizens"" including our hero in 1984 are subject to a continuous stream of propaganda about external armed conflicts, false production figures to offset real material shortages, criminal activities against big brother and the party, confessions of party members gone astray, etc. They cannot read independent books or articles. Such books, that would expose the government propaganda for what it is, are all banned. People who do not conform are routinely arrested and hung at public hangings - that are televised seemingly daily.The plot is sinister in that the ruling party members use thought control and torture to manipulate the masses including our hero, so the citizens lose most of their human qualities and are zombie like. This is a chilling movie about how a society can take a wrong turn.Written by George Orwell late in his short life, this remains a compelling and unusual read about a society gone mad. It is a ""must read"" work of 20th century fiction." +30,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,924134400,"Orwell is magnificent, however...","Another Orwell Down the Road? What Orwell did with 1984 is truly amazing. Look around you today, Big Brother has all but come into existence. They are watching you! Who is watching me? You will find out soon enough. I'm still shivering at the thought. Thank you Mrs. Hanthrop-Fifteen years later I finally did read this book and absolutely loved it. But I must say that was then, this is now. Now I have found the next generation man of insight and novel for my time. Mind Bomb, by John Mayer is comparable to 1984 or Stephen King's The Stand to which Mayer takes this ""More is NOT better"" idea concerning the awesome deluge of people in the world and really makes you wonder if everything is going to fall apart. Or if there is someone out there ready to rise up and make certain it will. I highly recommend both books. Please read them, but note that Mind Bomb is only available at Xlibris.com.E-Mail me if you have trouble finding it" +31,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,4.0,1199664000,Orwells dark but good book,"George Orwell's, ""1984"", is a classic and detailed adventure that will leave you asking for more. The story is set in London where Winston, the main character, works for big brother. But he soon finds himself questioning Big Brother and how he works.For a while Winston tried to blend in with the crowd and not really stand out. But when Winston starts to remember his childhood, he begins to question Big Brother. Winston soon finds himself wondering what life was like before big brother. But unless he takes a real chance, he has no way of changing anything.One flaw I found with the book was its detail. I like a lot of detail, but this book overdid it. I would soon found myself thinking about other things and not the book." +32,9562910334,1984,,ARR92XMJVBGQQ,Seth Kindel,0/0,5.0,1360972800,Masterpiece,A great page turner. Featuring one of the most creative plot lines i have ever read. Amazing imagery. Great characters. +33,9562910334,1984,,A29HHD1M6QPCWX,sr,1/1,5.0,1360022400,Very relavent,"this book is timeless, and very relevant for current situation with the marxists destroying my Constitution and the marxist controlled media assisting and not reporting violations, and hindering the flow of information." +34,9562910334,1984,,AD6HOIH67EY5W,glydee22@aol.com,0/0,5.0,931219200,The greatest novel of the 20th century,"Simply put, I beleive 1984 to be the greatest piece of writing of the 20th century." +35,9562910334,1984,,AGZ7T67MMIIHJ,"Jeffery Sweeney ""Jeff""",0/0,5.0,1158019200,Best Dystopian Literature,"Many readers will love the way that Orwell is able to paint a vivid if bleak picture of the futre of London. In this masterpiece of dystopian literature, you will find yourself questioning everything that happens in the book. From the perceived reality to the altered history, it is difficult to tell what is real and what is planned. This is also the brilliance of the book since you are able to feel as Winston does, never quite sure what the Truth is. For those that are fans of dystopian lit and even casual readers, 1984 will grip you from the beginning until the ultimate end." +36,9562910334,1984,,A1DYI06T7GEGB7,S. Key,2/2,5.0,1276128000,Brilliant Piece of Literature,This is a wonderful book that describes a dramatically dark world ruled by Big Brother. Orwell uses vivid imagery to show you an exaggerated world where government has been given too much power. Orwell warns the reader of what government could become without the balance of power. A brilliantly written piece of literature that everyone should read at least once. +37,9562910334,1984,,A6NJ1GAUXC1JW,A Customer,2/2,5.0,1101081600,"Quite Possibly, the 20th Century's Most Important Book","It is easy to see why Orwell envisioned the world he did in 1948; the year he wrote the immortal ""1984."" The world was already in fact, engulfed in a period of total warfare. (Many historians now consider WWI & WWII to be a single event - a first and second act, if you will, of the most deadly struggle in the history of the earth, with a cooling down period or intermission, in between...).Even WWII never actually resulted in any kind of resolution or conclusion, but rather, settled into an uneasy ""truce"" involving a new confrontation that rose out of the ashes of post-war Europe and Asia, between Soviet Russia, China, and their communist allies, and the United States, and (what remained) of western powers - namely, France & Britain.The events of Korea were looming large and the cold war was about to get very hot, played out on the stage of the Korean Penninsula. Framed as a ""UN intervention"" supporting South Korea against invasion from the North, the Korean war was less than a year away when ""1984"" was first published: an event that was nothing short of a direct military confrontation between the United States and China and the Soviet Union which nearly became WWIII.Moreover, a substantial percentage of the world's population was already under the direct control (China & USSR), or at the very least, the yoke (North Korea, Mongolia, Eastern Europe, etc.,) of oppressive, bloody supreme dictatorships led by cult-of-personality leaders in Mao and Stalin.Meanwhile, American Democracy faced its greatest crisis since the Civil War, during the Korean conflict. General MacArther - a figure beloved by the American people of an almost ""God-like"" status challenged President Truman by publicly advocating the use of nukes against China and escalating Korea into an all-out war with the Communists.In the ensuing showdown the American people and press sided with MacArthur, villainizing Truman. As we all know, MacArthur, dismissed by Truman, stepped down and peacefully abdicated his position. In retrospect, the wisdom of Truman's policy was obvious, but fortunatley for all the world, the maligned president, Truman - despite the frightening times - kept his sanity, stuck to his guns, and made the politically unpopular decision of keeping Korea an isolated conflict and standing up to MacArthur...If not for Truman (and MacArthur's decision to obey the Commander and Chief), it is frightening to imagaine just how close the world Orwell predicted could've come to fruition.Orwell's analysis and predictions of the fate of human nature, society, and politics contained in 1984 are absolutely piercing and frightening. This book should be required reading (where it isn't already) in U.S. high schools and universities (or for that matter, the world's educational institutions). Orwell teaches us, in shocking, disturbing prose, that the freedoms and liberties that we all take for so much granted everyday, are much more precarious than we presume. Indeed, at times, their fate hangs in the balance. The price of protecting freedom and liberty depends on nothing less than the eternal vigilance of an informed, invested, and educated populace.1984, in my opinion, stands as the most important novel written in the 20th Century." +38,9562910334,1984,,A3J7QTHYIZ3XQT,J. Lindsay,0/0,5.0,1025654400,A twisted eery tale,This is one of the most disturbing stories ever written. But it is done so perfectly. If you want to read about messed up polatics and a twised state of human affairs than this is the book to read. It had parts where my brian would tingle as it talked about the economics behind war the the strength in developing a conflict. It was truely remarkable. A very influencial peice of literature. +39,9562910334,1984,,A1A24DE1UA4930,Ghost,1/9,3.0,1079654400,19-eighty four (opinion),"My name is Kevin Olson I am a senior at walla walla high school and I recently read the book 1984, I really enjoy most science fiction books, but in 1984 I had complaints about the fact that I felt like i was outside looking down on the characters instead ofbeing along side of them during the different ordeals through out the story. the mood generally seemed hopeless in both the beginning and the ending. I think that it was like a movie with a very bad ending. so if you want to watch a movie thats based on this book, but has a better ending then go ahead and watch the movie equilibrium." +40,9562910334,1984,,A39CMSLU5DOCES,Matt Sabins,0/1,5.0,994377600,Effects of Now.,"I believe that everyone should read this book. While being fiction most of the book is a political satire. The most similar book that I have read to it is actually Jihad Vs. McWorld. It is the first fiction book I have read that valued the importance of language and the "Love impulse". This is seen even today in advertisements. The importance of the name Big Brother is that it is sononomus with the Christian Father and Son figure although not implicitly stated. Newspeak also culminates the impulse. In 1984 the characters follow the teachings of IngSoc, which by looking at it seems harmless but it a abreviation of English Socialism that can hold connotation's in peoples mind. The same techniques are used in modern government and consumerism. The story is also compelling, and shows both a triumph and a failure of love under certains circumstances." +41,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,927158400,A powerful consideration of totalitarian politics,"While this work clearly explores the effects of Big Brothers totalitarian regime upon the individual, I must agree with the comments made by a reader from Brisbane, Australia, as this is not in any way an attack upon Communist ideology. As for comments made by another (American) reader, Orwell does not set out to somehow reveal a 'secret Communist agenda' and does not attempt to portray a Socialist government. Many references made throughout the novel actually highlight his opposition to fascism and the extreme right, after the devastation of World War II. While ultimately, Orwell successfully explores the impact of complete political control by a small elitist group over a general population, his work is deliberately politically non-specific. 1984 applies to a number of regimes based upon general terror, and not directly to Communism, which in many cases has arisen, and is sustained, through popular demand." +42,9562910334,1984,,AYFZ6RAXGZTMV,Michael D Ward,1/2,4.0,968716800,Very good book.,"Very good book, and certainly deep in terms of political ideas, but a little slow in the middle, and the ending is too pessimistic. "We" by Evgenii Zamiatin (which was written first) is similar and though it has its own weeknesses is probably a better book overall. Nevertheless 1984 is a thought provoking book and well worth reading." +43,9562910334,1984,,A1DQM6JCKG7VYF,Grilch,2/3,5.0,1100217600,"Oh my GOD, this book is finally becoming our reality","It's been on my list for a couple of years so I finally broke down and just bought it. It's thick with philosophy and politics but these rarely overwhelm the gripping narrative and impressive characters. I've been around the spinoffs and derivations of this story all my life, so I thought the original might seem tame, but what was most compelling about the novel for me was just how terrifying and vivid Orwell's world is. I mean, I could TASTE it. Grim and relentless, yet thrilling and emotional. The some key parallels between Ingsoc and U.S. ""democracy"" today are pretty chilling. ""Endless war for endless peace"", anyone?" +44,9562910334,1984,,A97TN3DADHIRB,A. Bz,0/1,5.0,975801600,1984- awesome book,"From cover to cover 1984 captivates the reader with its insightful, intriguing, and disturbing look at human nature. Winston, the hero of the novel, lives in a totalitarian government that has control over every aspect of his life. The government has made privacy obsolete and love a sin; therefore, making life for many people unlivable.But with the slogan ""Big Brother Is Watching You"" reigning over every wall and building, many people are far to afraid to speak out against this so called ""perfect"" government, in fears of loosing their life. Winston however, feels that as long as he is living under the rule on INGSOC (the official name of the government) he might as well be dead. So he looses his fears and slowly takes action against INGSOC. He falls in love and for the first time in his life he is truly happy. But everything that he is doing is against the law. The government views love as something that is dangerous to the party; therefore it must be destroyed. Ultimately the government turns out to be far more complex and powerful than anyone imagined.I am assuming that many people are reading this before they have actually read 1984. I will not reveal more because I do not want to ruin the plot for you. AlI can say is that it has a surprise ending that you would have never expected.1984 was written by George Orwell in 1949, yet its theme and ideas still holds true in many ways to today's world. That is one, out of many reasons, as to why 1984 will forever be a classic. Set in 1984, Orwell's depiction, of what was then considered the future, is both horrific and in some ways accurate to the governments of today.There is great deal of symbolism in this novel. I believe that Orwell's intention, as Goldings had been in Lord of the Flies, was to reveal the evil that drives people and to show how that evil is apparent even in today's modern societies. Orwell worded this book so eloquently that it is easy for almost anyone to pick up the symbolism.1984 was so eye opening for me, that after I read it I walked morbidly around the house just thinking about what ultimately happened to Winston. This book pulls everyone in because it has all the elements - drama, action, suspense, and romance. I only recommend this book to people that are at least in 6 grade. The reading isn't challenging, it is just the actual concepts about the goal of governments and human spirit that might be confusing. If you are the type of person that likes to get absorbed in a book, not just have a quick read, then this is the book for you. If you enjoy books such as Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, or The Giver, then 1984 will undoubtedly become a favorite." +45,9562910334,1984,,A28P3CNT3G7DIG,"jenna ""jenna""",2/2,5.0,1138752000,Great Read,"1984 is a book of great importance, no matter the time or socio-political period that we live in. It is a bizarre and somewhat scary piece of literature that relates closer to our current social situation than one may think. I am a college student who has just read this book for the first time. The parallels between Big Brother and our current political administration is astounding, I had no idea. I would recommend this book for everyone. This book makes the reader think critically about our current political environment." +46,9562910334,1984,,A2IUOJVG32WJOR,Geebus,2/2,5.0,992908800,Think again,"Not all doom and gloom from page 1, 1984 is still one of the most intense, dark and thought provoking books I have ever come across. What makes it compelling is the way in which it not only examines the human condition but also bludgeons it to a bloody pulp. So why have so many people enjoyed reading such a depressing story, ever since it's release in the late 1940's? I believe it to be the manner in which the novel blurs your ""in-built"" judgement of what is right and wrong, good and evil, in respect to civil liberties and the power of governing authorities. The way it inspires you to look behind the diplomacy and see the agenda. And the way it forces you to examine your own rationale for your assumptions and actions. The more I think about it, the more I like this novel and how it manages to look at the big picture and yet still remain personally affecting." +47,9562910334,1984,,A3F92L53BM439E,Tommy York,1/2,3.0,992908800,"Umm...ok, yeah, I can see that.","Once again, in my quest to expand my literary experience, I read '1984' because it is considered a classic. I've also been on a Utopia kick, reading books such as 'Brave New World,' 'Island,' and, of course, '1984'. In my opinion, it is a good story, but I am not very alarmed about Orwell's ominous predictions of the future. I mean...yes, the massive possibilities given us via the internet do seem to mirror those of the telescreen that always knows what Winston is doing, but I cannot forsee the decline of the human spirit. The book in itself begins interestingly enough, but by the middle, I was more interested in finding the switch to the reading light so I could drift off to sleep. There are about 20 pages that are very slow reading, but I was captivated by the last part (part 3). However, the ending left me with a very sour taste in my mouth, mainly because it is not the conclusion I would have picked; but that's kind of my point...I still have (<---if I could use italics...ooo) my opinion, and Orwell has his. I would read this book if you are interested in the Utopian works, but if you are looking for purely a good story, try Steinbeck." +48,9562910334,1984,,AJDD13W7UQ6LN,Readin&Writin-Books,0/18,2.0,1277337600,not good,"Cannot say that I enjoyed reading this book, because I did not approve of a lot of the things the author included. However, I did find some of the main points interesting to create a story. But definitely not the type of good book to read, nor would I recommend it." +49,9562910334,1984,,AL2FJHTJJKE5D,Rachel,2/3,5.0,1093564800,1984- My Favorite Book,"1984 is my favorite book. Its not just its prophetic insight, or its plots many twists and turns, its just that it is equally profound and entertaining. Sure there are a lot of profound books, and yes, there are many entertaining books, but this book is both. Its one of those books that you finish reading and you just cant stop thinking about. ""What's for dinner?"" ""Who cares, I just read 1984, food's not important."" Its unpredictable, its innovative and creative, and its captivating; all while making very good political points. Theres much more I could say, but I think this does it justice." +50,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,921196800,Chilling Book!!!!,"It is hard to belive that a totalitarian government can happen, People say it can't, but in truth it has. George Orwell's book has almost in a cense read the future. Take what happened in Stazi Germany, it is identical. And i belive that anyone who can guess at the future like that and be so right is deserving of some complement. And for the people out there who think that the readers of this book are all paranoied they are wrong. Read this book and then take a look around, how close are we really?" +51,9562910334,1984,,A1Z2ISQ4Q66KTS,Adam J. Apicella,0/0,4.0,1177200000,1984--Great book--bad ending.,"I recently chose to read this book as an assignment for my english class. I've always heard that it is such a great piece of literature, so naturally I wanted to experience it. At the beginning of the novel, I was taken in by the way Orwell starts describing Oceania. Then he goes into describe how the party uses telescreens to watch everything that is done by members of the party. These as long as many other elements of the story were very intriguing and are what kept me reading to the end. For the most part, I greatly enjoyed this book, but I would have been happier if the ending was different." +52,9562910334,1984,,ARYEAKJSIATCP,"Katieq ""readaholic""",0/0,4.0,1011052800,A Modern Classic,1984 is a great read but not a compelling one. It can be a little hard going at times. The characters are a little frustrating thus making it a little annoying to read. Still it is a great classic and well worth persuing to the end. +53,9562910334,1984,,AKDQL8PRQ37SY,"T. Price ""Ty Price""",3/6,4.0,1275004800,#8 Where all socialism will lead!,"Even though George Orwell was a socialist he chronicled totalitarian socialism in this book and he like most socialists did not realize that is exactly where all socialism ends up and is where we are all headed.He coined things like big brother is watching you, newspeak, thoughtcrime and doublethink...and thoroughly goes over what a socialist society does to language to limit thought, and the ability to discuss any idea in order to stop treats to its self or even simple changes much less a full revolution.Have you noticed all the cameras the government (Big brother) is putting up all over the last 10 to 15 years?" +54,9562910334,1984,,AXY76G6NS1B4A,Carpz,0/0,5.0,1093392000,Incredible,1984 is most likely my favorite book. Most of my friends didnt get it or didnt like it but i found it really really excellent. If you haven't read this book and like to call yoourself aware you are crazy.This book opened my mind. Everything about it is good. The characters are very likable and developed. I am 15 so you might be surprised that I have read it but it is incredible. If you want to be a punk kid you need to read this book. +55,9562910334,1984,,A1X9UB9494ZOBT,"Rak ""Author""",0/1,5.0,1246579200,1984,"2084: Mars, A New WorldSince I am the author of the referenced book, I am naturally familiar with George Orwell's book ""1984"". It was originally intended to be a 100 year update of his novel which unintentionally led to many of the same conclusions that he reached over 60 years ago. And although the totalitarian planetary government in place in my story is much the same as Orwell described in his book, I believe I have described it's origins in greater detail. Many of the accepted practices in today's world lead to results very familiar to Orwell's readers. Such concepts as ""Newspeak"", ""Doublethink"", ""Thought Police"", and even ""Big Brother is Watching You"",are being implemented today by contemporary democratic societies, including the U.S. In addition, we now have increased security provisions caused by the war on terror that could result in a severe loss of freedom if left unchecked. I believe my story not only shows that Orwell's warnings were valid, but that given the environment in the world today and the increased apathy of its citizens, many of his prophecies have increased odds of becoming reality." +56,9562910334,1984,,,,2/3,5.0,1038009600,Everyone Must Read This,"My brother isn't a person who reads so when he proudly told me he finished 1984, and that I MUST read it, I decided to try it.I was caught up in this book very quickly and I found myself reading it at work. I couldn't put it down. The story is frightening, especially when you think about some of our current issues such as "Homeland Security", and the new measures the government is taking to "protect" us. Given the current situation in this country I think it is essential to read 1984. This book has made me rethink somethings." +57,9562910334,1984,,A2206QUNDF2ZM2,Alan R. Weiss,1/1,5.0,993254400,"If you only read one more book, read 1984","If you only read one more book, read George Orwell's ""1984.""Other reviewers including the ... reviewer, has captured the essence of this incredible, disturbing, poignant, an accurate view into the mind of the totalitarians - and yes, folks, they live among us even today.I'll only add this: the ""book-within-a-book"" by Orwell's fictional author, Emmanual Goldstein, should be required study by every single high school and college student in the world. Don't know what I'm talking about? Read ""1984"" and look for Emmanual Goldstein within this book's pages. Then ask yourself the questions you dared not ask yourself before.Then go read ""Brave New World"" and ""The Probability Broach."" The first is a different, altogether more pleasant version of Hell. The second holds out the real promise of freedom-loving people (""Broach""). Then tell others what you have learned." +58,9562910334,1984,,,,2/2,5.0,936316800,One of the greatest 20th Century novels.,"Breathtaking, in one word. Compellingly written, with a chilling plotline which is familiar to virtually all: a terrifying vision of an authoritarian future. It doesn't matter that it didn't happen, or that the settings are stylised: the real undertows of emotion and concept are played out in your head. It may have drawn inspiration from contempary communism, but the true commentary is far deeper - freedom, compromised in any system, and the appearance of freedom. The beginning is monochrome (dull, as some have referred to it) because Orwell was crafting some of the finest textural novel-writing ever - the contrasts with Winston's violent mental rebellion, the freedom of his reckless affair and the dark, futile scenes in Minilov are there for a reason. The ending may be 'depressing' but it is also one of the most powerful and affecting conclusions devised. The courage to end this way is telling of Orwell's uncompromising artistic stance, and his deeper intentions behind the novel.Three things really stand out. Firstly, the interesting and intriguing conceptual work expertly weaved into the plotline. Orwell used both satire and philosophy to emphasise a single variable - control - in his fictional world. It's a gritty, naturalist way of working; rather than through elaborate symbolism, and Orwell's journalistic style shines through. Secondly, his portrayal of this world. Although repeated readings have bought out subtler tones eg.the proles, newspeak, my first reading was dominated by the overwhelmingly convincing tone of observation and everyday slavery. The opening section builds up to a great atmospheric crescendo. Finally, although I mention a lack of symbolism, 1984 stands as a symbol itself for all the great struggles of the individual. Within its pages are independence against control, love against adversity, the vivid against the mundane, freedom against propoganda and expression against conformity - perhaps even life versus death. (see the attitude of the Party towards death, both in regards to others and its own continued existence). In displaying Winston's will waged against fate and society, Orwell has created one of the great political fables, and a supremely human novel." +59,9562910334,1984,,A3EU3ET85O8ZFX,Steven,0/10,5.0,1325289600,1984? MORE LIKE 198-AWESOME,"AY YO MAN THIS BOOK IS CRAZY I'M GLAD I GOT THE SOFT BOUND LEATHER BOOK BECAUSE I GET TO EASILY SIFT THROUGH THE PAGES LIKE WHEN MY GRANDMA MADE SOME GOOD CHICKEN NOODLE SOUP YA FEEL ME AND CAN'T FORGET THE APPLE PIE AND SOME 95-96 BULLS YA FEEL MENo but seriously, this book is good." +60,9562910334,1984,,A3UJKWL31KDZ2D,Fork Lift,0/1,4.0,1088467200,4.5 stars....for an almost amazingly complete book,"Wow. I couldnt, and still cant, believe how amazing this book was. It is truly a masterpiece. Of course, what i think is a masterpiece might not end up being one for you.I realized during my read of this book that i felt really attached to it because of my own personal experiences...my own university background (political studies). To me, this book is a searing critique of the modern human condition...of modern society. When i read through these pages i found an author that was describing what was going on around us: people living in an unthinking comfort, people almost consciously avoiding the obvious truth about society...people failing to open up their eyes.It really focuses your attention on how society can just turn its cheek to homelessness, poverty, consumer culture, capitalism. We are all taking part in the process of doublethink.I took all of this away from the book...you might not. It might even mean something different to you. This review is for myself, for others that see what i see, and for those who are willing to see what i see. Otherwise, you will have to read the book through your own lenses and decide for yourself whether this is a classic. But for like-minded people, you will understand how powerful this book is from page one.The only reason why it did not get 5 stars is because of the ending. I really felt it wasnt the right way to end this book. It just didnt seem to flow with the rest of the pages. I am a little disappointed that Orwell decided to finish this amazing novel with such a drawn-out, tired ending." +61,9562910334,1984,,A32JKNQ6BABMQ2,"abe ""starman""",1/2,5.0,1159056000,the 2nd best book ever,"this book was unstoppable!i couldnt put it down.i suddenly felt like i was being watched from everywhere just like the folks in the book.ive read it twice.the 1st time i was on winstons side but i learned to love big brother by the time i was done the 2nd time.big brother is watching!writer george orwell gets a lot of props for ""animal farm"" but this ones way better!" +62,9562910334,1984,,ACQ2YU0CP68WC,Turiel,1/1,5.0,1182384000,The terror of 1984,"Thankfully in the year I was born which was 1984, the world wasn't exactly like it was in the novel.What makes 1984 important to the modern reader is several things.First is the fact that culturally its an incredibly relavent book. Most people have today heard terms like ""How 1984"", ""Orwellian"", or even ""doublethink"", in the modern vocab. Hell, even Radiohead did a song called 2+2=5. The reader, particularly the young one trying to grasp a sense of history, in the sense of the progression of modern thought, will find this book very important.That relates to the 2nd reason why you need 1984, not only is it culturally relavent in its influence and often referenced nature. But it is one of those books that have shaped the way that we think, particularly in the free market west, and has helped give us moral justification in avoiding what becomes the excessive totaltarian nature of many collectivist style government. Perhaps in Orwell's mind he may of been more successful then he orginally planed to be in his warning, as he was a english socialist, and was deathly afraid of what he had seen happen with Stalin in Russia.As a story, 1984 is a well thought out and griping story. The intergration of idea's, action, depth, and even a great deal of dark satire blend together well.Although it is a good idea if one does have at least a decent understanding of Marxism before approaching it, as i've seen younger people in my generation approach the novel without the understanding of Marx and walk away with little more comprehension of the tale's warnings then they could.Overall however, one of the few books everyone in our culture should at least attempt to read." +63,9562910334,1984,,,,22/42,4.0,1007424000,Proof that a must read is not necessarily a good read.,"Written in the late forties, Orwell's 1984 is clearly a product of its time; a time when the advent and eventual use of the atom bomb threatened the end of civilization. I admire Orwell for the amount of thought and imagination he must have put into the development of this book. It is an example of how a powerful imagination can teeter between extremes of pure optimism and, in this case, paranoia. In 1984, Orwell's vision of the future is grim: war is constant; freedom, as we know it, is an ancient and outdated concept; and love, for anything but government, is perverse. Winston, the book's protagonist, struggles with a lost sense of self and his fear of a government (the Party) that punishes the pursuit of individual fulfillment. Most disturbing is that, in the end, rather than die as a martyr, he embraces his oppressive government fully aware his capitulation will precipitate his own death.Orwell's commentary on the evolution of totalitarianism is profound. Orwell asserts that post-Neolithic governments, with the benefit of written history, were, over time, able to reduce the threat of overthrow using lessons learned by fallen predecessors. Orwell argues that throughout history people have been divided among high, middle and lower classes; and that, with the advancement of successive governments, the intent of the higher class to maintain power over the lower classes has become less explicit. This has left the lower classes less inclined to revolt. In 1984, the proletariat is under the illusion that their government represents their interest. The Party fosters this illusion, in part, by constantly ""updating"" any record of the past. As a result, people are unaware of how terrible their lives are relative to the lives of those who lived before them.Newspeak, the language created by the ruling party in 1984, is amazingly detailed and seems feasible. It is based on the English language, and its vocabulary grows smaller instead of larger every year. An appendix, included in the book, enumerates some of the terminology and syntax of the language, and explains how the language is designed to control the thoughts of those who utilize it.Orwell's prose is not noticeably good or bad. The book's strength is in its power to make people think." +64,9562910334,1984,,AIMGHPI1AGVRF,Davewise,3/3,4.0,1211155200,Withstands the test of time,"Several concepts from ""1984"" - especially ""Big Brother"" - have been popular cultural references for many years. Despite being familiar with them long before reading the novel, I still found the novel to very engaging and entertaining. One easily identifies with Winston Smith, trapped in a brainwashed society and wanting to rebel, knowing things could be better. Instead of feeling dated, the story feels even more relevant today with the level of surveillance that governments across the globe exercise currently.Some elements such as doublethink may appear to be a bit far-fetched, but still remain scary because one can see a government seeking absolute and unending control going to any lengths to achieve their goal. Indeed, attempting to control people's thoughts isn't outside of the realm of possibility; it can almost seem like ""political correctness"" taken to an extreme. So while fans of science fiction and readers of almost any dystopian future story will be familiar with some of the concepts seen here, this is well worth a read, being both one of the earliest examples of the story and still one of the best." +65,9562910334,1984,,A30M0KPRMMQWO5,"William B. Haden ""WBH21C""",2/3,5.0,1247875200,True Prediction,On of the best and prophetic novels ever written about the descent into dehumanizing socialism. +66,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,1019779200,Excellent Reminder To Keep An Open-Mind!,"I read this book many years ago and have re-read it several times. This is a must-read for all who would dare to close their minds for it describes the end result of a dictatorial society in which no-one is allowed to think, speak or publish freely. The "Thought Police" will punish anyone trying to do so! It is an exciting storyline with a profound message. Yet, despite all our freedoms there are not many such thoughtful, newly written books on the store shelves these days. I would therefore, like to sincerely recommend one that issued recently. It too reminds us to keep an open mind and lend an ear to our global ecological mess. It is a sharp 21st century social critique in the form of an exciting, fun and enlightening science-fiction, entitled, "ACCUSED BY FACET-EYES" (C.B. DON) --- and just like "1984", it too makes one stop to ponder about our many thoughtless human actions...but thank goodness that we have the freedom to do so!" +67,9562910334,1984,,A2XCU6GW6UYLT0,scott morris,0/0,4.0,1022457600,Ain't the future scary?,"THe Party dominate all aspects of life and Big Brother is everywhere with cameras and microphones. Winston Smith is the central character whose diary gives him away along with his affair with Julia. Both are brainwashed into thinking The Party is always right, despite evidence to the contary and Winston ends up staing his love for Big Brother- the ""victory over himself"". O'Brien is Winston's nemesis in breaking him down and is a most interesting characther. ..." +68,9562910334,1984,,A2CFKWCCM6SQ9V,jason glyn,0/3,3.0,1050537600,1984,"This was a decent book it was written well, there was times when I did not want to put down the book becuase it had some interesting parts in it. But the down side is that I thought that these were to few and far inbetween becuase it was kinda of slow paced and I would lose interest and want to do something else. I found myself forcing myself to read it (becuase I had to for school) rather than read for enjoyment. another negative about the book is that 1984 has pasted and it was nothing like this and it just kind of ruins it for me I would have given this book a 4-5 stars if I had read it sometime between 1950-1965 which I bet was a very good book back then. But I think that some people would really enjoy it and I can understand why alot of people rated the book higher than I did but I personally didnt feel the book." +69,9562910334,1984,,A20EEWWSFMZ1PN,"bernie ""xyzzy""",1/1,5.0,1343692800,Deviates corrected for their own good,"In a society that has eliminated many imbalances, surplus goods, and even class struggle, there are bound to be deviates; Winston Smith is one of those. He starts out, due to his inability to doublethink, with thoughtcrime. This is in a society that believes a thought is as real as the deed. Eventually he graduates through a series of misdemeanors to illicit sex and even plans to overthrow the very government that took him in as an orphan.If he gets caught, he will be sent to the ""Ministry of Love"" where they have a record of 100% cures for this sort of insanity. They will even forgive his past indiscretions.Be sure to watch the three different movies made from this book:1984 (1954) Peter Cushing is Winston Smith1984 (1956) Edmond O'Brien is Winston SmithNineteen Eighty-Four (1984) John Hurt is Winston Smith" +70,9562910334,1984,,A2H3ZR18EN574K,Lunarnia,7/7,4.0,1311638400,Great book! But poor editing for the price,"If you have not yet read this classic, you absolutely MUST. That is all that can be said about the book itself. Its impact on popular culture alone necessitates a careful perusal.However, after paying almost $9 for this Kindle version (when I'm fairly confident that a trip to a used bookseller would have uncovered a physical copy for less than $5), I was disappointed to find 3 typographical errors in the first chapter of the book, specifically:""victory Mansions"" -- On the very first page, in the very first paragraph, no less!""The instrument (the telescreen, it was called) could he dimmed"" -- On the second page (depending on how large a font you use on the Kindle).""ordinary shops (' dealing on the free market', it was called)"" -- I've re-created the spacing exactly as it is in this version.I can understand that the publishers are rushing to make their books available electronically, but surely, even Spellcheck would have found some of these errors. Am I the only one bemoaning the lack of craftsmanship in publishing anymore?" +71,9562910334,1984,,A1CHM200OEN65X,"Eric Wilson ""novelist""",3/3,5.0,1308960000,4.5 Stars . . . What You Already Know,"Winston Smith, the main character in ""1984,"" says that ""the best books are the ones that tell you what you already know."" I had this very sensation as I read George Orwell's classic novel. Orwell speaks with a prophetic tone from the year 1949, with many of his comments on totalitarianism proving true during the Cold War and popping up under new guises in recent years.""1984"" tells the story of Winston Smith, a man employed by Big Brother. His job is to correct and effectively erase bits of history that don't line up with Big Brother, the Thought Police, and ""doublespeak."" Through this regime, the masses are controlled on all fronts, emotionally, intellectually, physically, even spiritually and sexually. Orwell takes us into this colorless world a step at a time, leading up to the horrifying realities of what happens to those who oppose Big Brother. Along the way, he lets Winston find love with Julia, but even they recognize that their love cannot be pure. He lets the two of them expand their revolutionary wings. And he lets them face the consequences.Orwell doesn't tell a tight, fast-paced story, at least not by modern standards. He is more interested in communicating ideas. But he does allow us to care for his characters. He gives us just enough time to connect with them, even though they themselves are already disconnected on many levels. They join the Brotherhood, a resistance movement, and in doing so get their hands on a book detailing the realities of Big Brother. Although ""1984"" is a rambling, sometimes loosely cobbled story, it is a fascinating manifesto on the dangers of governmental control and the age-old struggle of the High, the Middle, and the Low. It's amazing of accurate some of Orwell's observations still prove to be, but as Big Brother's slogan goes: Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past."" And: ""The heresy of heresies was common sense."" Or how about this? ""Stupidity was as important as intelligence, and as difficult to attain.""Personally, I am more frightened by the less totalitarian, more consumerism-driven ideas of Huxley's ""Brave New World,"" but ""1984"" is a classic for good reason, and it casts its shadow over many stories to come, including ""Fahrenheit 451"" and ""Minority Report.""" +72,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,871430400,Reflection of Society,"I really liked this book a lot. The main reason for this is that I managed to read it after I had been in the Army for over three years. After reading it I realized that the Army wasn't just an OK place anymore, it was actually bad, very, very bad. After I got out I realized just how much it applied to general society outside as well. I guess what I am trying to say is that everyone should read this book to realize just how important the right to make your own decisions about your own life really are" +73,9562910334,1984,,A128G9CAVHH60Q,Mr Ben Wa,0/0,4.0,1340928000,Could have been written yesterday,"I found very amazing how contemporary so many concepts in this book are: it is easy to imagine the political context into which Orwell wrote this book, but you can also turn on the news today and see exactly the same things... politics, (social) media, war... it's all in there. Also from the same author ""Animal Farm"" is pretty good, but 1984 really pushes it to the extreme." +74,9562910334,1984,,A3E9O36OXY37J,kirsten - hen79@ivillage.com,0/0,4.0,926035200,Amazingly horrifying,This book is one of the markers of it's time. It is amazingly horrifying in it's portrayl of our future. There is so much to be learned and feared from this book that it can give you nightmares. This is one of the best books I have ever read and chewed on in discussion. The ideas and theories - the concept of "Big Brother" definitely gives me the feeling that this is what a Nazi rule would have been like. +75,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,842486400,A timeless classic that's an unforgettable must-read.,This is the timeless classic which the term "Orwellian" and"Big Brother" are derived. This terrifying look into apossible future in which the Government "Big Brother" holdstotal control over the populace. Orwell's vision of thefuture still holds very true to this day and is a must-readfor anyone concerned about the future of technology andgovernmental control.-Hans Chen +76,9562910334,1984,,A274ENGOQB11H9,Julie,127/138,5.0,888883200,The History Lesson You Wish you Had,"George Orwell's final novel, 1984, was written amidst the anti-communist hysteria of the cold war. But unlike Orwell's other famous political satire, Animal Farm, this novel is filled with bleak cynicism and grim pessimism about the human race. When it was written, 1984 stood as a warning against the dangerous probabilities of communism. And now today, after communism has crumbled with the Berlin Wall; 1984 has come back to tell us a tale of mass media, data mining, and their harrowing consequences.It's 1984 in London, a city in the new überstate of Oceania, which contains what was once England, Western Europe and North America. Our hero, Winston Smith works in the Ministry of Truth altering documents that contradict current government statements and opinions. Winston begins to remember the past that he has worked so hard to destroy, and turns against The Party. Even Winston's quiet, practically undetectable form of anarchism is dangerous in a world filled with thought police and the omnipresent two-way telescreen. He fears his inevitable capture and punishment, but feels no compulsion to change his ways.Winston's dismal observations about human nature are accompanied by the hope that good will triumph over evil; a hope that Orwell does not appear to share. The people of Oceania are in the process of stripping down the English language to its bones. Creating Newspeak, which Orwell uses only for examples and ideas which exist only in the novel. The integration of Newspeak into the conversation of the book. One of the new words created is doublethink, the act of believing that two conflicting realities exist. Such as when Winston sees a photograph of a non-person, but must reason that that person does not, nor ever has, existed.The inspiration for Winston's work ,may have come from Russia. Where Stalin's right-hand man, Trotzky was erased from all tangible records after his dissention from the party. And the fear of telescreens harks back to the days when Stasi bugs were hooked to every bedpost, phone line and light bulb in Eastern Europe.His reference to Hitler Youth, the Junior Spies, which trains children to keep an eye out for thought criminals- even if they are their parents; provides evidence for Orwell's continuing presence in pop culture. "Where men can't walk, or freely talk, And sons turn their fathers in." is a line from U2's 1993 song titled "The Wanderer".Orwell assumes that we will pick up on these political allusions. But the average grade 11 student will probably only have a vague understanding of these due to lack of knowledge. It is even less likely that they will pick up on the universality of these happenings, like the fact that people still "disappear" without a trace every day in Latin America.Overall, however, the book could not have been better written. Orwell has created characters and events that are scarily realistic. Winston's narration brings the reader inside his head, and sympathetic with the cause of the would-be-rebels. There are no clear answers in the book, and it's often the reader who has to decide what to believe. But despite a slightly unresolved plot, the book serves its purpose. Orwell wrote this book to raise questions; and the sort of questions he raised have no easy answer. This aspect can make the novel somewhat of a disappointment for someone in search of a light read. But anyone prepared to not just read, but think about a novel, will get a lot out of 1984.1984, is not a novel for the faint of heart, it is a gruesome, saddening portrait of humanity, with it's pitfalls garishly highlighted. Its historic importance has never been underestimated; and it's reemergence as a political warning for the 21st century makes it deserving of a second look. Winston's world of paranoia and inconsistent realities is an eloquently worded account of a future we thought we buried in our past; but in truth may be waiting just around the corner." +77,9562910334,1984,,A1AQAAZUDCSDGQ,N. Delen,1/1,5.0,1067817600,There is something in human in the book,"It is not a book for entertainment for sure. You just want to forget about the whole thing once you finish reading it. There is something in human in the book, something that turns your stomach, almost like ""devil"" and you want to get away from it. May be Orwell did this on purpose, to make you feel what one feels under that sort of an oppressive government.Some of his predictions in the book are ""eerie"" to say the least. Some people might want to specify this government or other for the subject of the book, but I think at different degrees, one can find dark forces that want to control and oppress others for their interest everywhere and every country even in the West.It is not a long book, which is a plus. You can finish it while the whole story is still in your mind.PS: In War and Peace Tolstoy writes about Pierre's Masonic initiation ceremony. In there Pierre is asked what he is afraid of, the most. Now, ""1984"" gives a possible answer why this question had to be asked in the first place." +78,9562910334,1984,,A3EJT905S6ZS4K,R. Schwartz,4/10,5.0,1104710400,Powerful Existential Warning,"A very meaningful book. I was taken back at how intense it turned out to be; socially, politically, psychologically and existentially. And it really gives one the awful nausea that Sartre spoke of and the angst of Kierkegaard, the existential despair, emptiness, loneliness, the awful outcome that leaves you with a sour pain in the pit in your stomach. But that is only if you remain too attached and subjective. On the other hand, if you can detach yourself from this book and view it objectively, it is the most meaningful and explanatory lesson in awareness to the distinct and very real possibility of a utopian world gone bad. This book is a valid warning.The book is brilliant, portraying an authoritarian government that recreates all thought, erases all history, negating it all into solipsism, that all reality is simply the creation of man - The Party of Ingsoc- and in doing so melts into a radical blind relativism. Ingsoc, the Party of Big Brother which rules, also attempts to create an entirely new form of language - Newspeak - that reduces the variations of meanings to prevent people from independent thinking. In this new language, the word called, ""Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them . . The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt.""It's ironic, but ultimately the fundamentalists are blind relativists in that they violently enforce their view and then change to a completely new view - new history, and then re-enforce this view in staunch, one-sided fundamentalism. This is truly blind relativism, which is different from cultural relativism and pragmatism, where there can still be a limited form of relativism that retains values, but not in the world of Big Brother. This is important because there is a huge difference between mindless relativism and the compartmentalization of absolutes in pragmatism, which maintains value retention while tolerating cultural differences. But in Big Brother, all becomes a relativistic void for the Party, which uses hate, fear and torture to achieve its end goal, the goal of power; power for the Inner Party.The government of Orwell's 1984 is different from all the previous authoritarian governments, as it does not fool itself that it trying to help the people. At the end of the current edition is a short essay of Erich Fromm, with an analogy in comparison to two other negative utopian novels with three other positive utopian novels and how society went from such positive idealism to the recognition of negative possibilities in the direction of our future and how our responsibilities and the limited amount of time humanity has as a species to make the necessary changes towards heeding this warning and directing itself towards the positive outcome.Despite the outcome and utter despair the book leaves you with, the valuable lesson speaks for itself. And I think in America, we must recognize our free-market fundamentalist mentality, our military bullying and authoritarian nature that puts the dollar and large corporate control over the proletariat. We need to value Orwell's warning and work towards repairing the great democratic dream of a equalitarian society that puts the rights of the individual ahead of monetary gain and looks towards the preservation of our environment - to restore the ideas of Emerson, Whitman and James and pragmatist values of democratic government actively engaged by the educated working classes.The year 2005 represents a major time for America (Amerika) to wake up from the partisan, unilateral decisions of the Bush Administration's lone ranger policies, which include torture (congress just re-defined this word!) and lies. And in addition to the United States Imperialism, there is another major serious global development resembling Big Brother which has already begun; the WTO (World Trade Organization), well underway with a pseudo-democratic, secretive, powerful, small elite group of plutocrats (mostly United States corporations) enforcing global limits on protective government regulations, reducing environmental protections and proletariat rights, all so under a ""newspeak"" (rhetorical-beneficial) language of ""free-trade."" Orwell has become a superior prophet over Nostradamus.""Is not a matter of whether the war is not real or if it is. Victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past. And no different past can ever have existed. In principle, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects. And its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or Eastasia, but to keep the very structure of society in tact."" George Orwell, 1984""In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird."" p. 156WAR IS PEACE - and great profits are gained by large corporate military contractors and the vast oil supply (Halliburton). The economic gain is not for the working class, but for the corporate elites and their private ownerships. Thus the government remains financed and ready for further imperial maneuvers.FREEDOM IS SLAVERY - and we now have tight security measures, wire tapping, censorship and the Patriot Act. All of this enslaves us and removes many of our liberties and private rights, all so for the sake of keeping our freedom secure, slavery to protect freedom. Ultimately, censorship prevents the working class from Socratic inquiry of government policies, thus the government remains in tact. Labor parties, Poplulists-Farmers, Feminists, African Americans/Civil rights, evironmental protections, minimum wage requirements and the working man and woman themselves loose their rights and voices of active participation. They are simply ""prols,"" while the corporate elite, the plutocrats increase their rule, working their way towards totality. Open Democracy and human rights die, aristocracy enslavement lives, all so to protect the freedom of the country.IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH - and to remain in ignorance is keep the proletariat quietly content in his mediocre existence, either in poverty or struggle, ceasing the time, strength and desire for Socratic inquiry of government policies. The result; mindless flag waving nationalism. Ignorance masked under the newspeak of ""Free Trade"" and radical privatization without regulatory control leads to monopolistic corporate state owned society. And the flags keep waving. The breakup of a Hollywood couple takes the headlines, while WTO is quiet in the media background. The elite in Control increase and maintain strength. Ignorance is strength." +79,9562910334,1984,,A21SVQPWF2P7D3,Zac,0/0,4.0,1086134400,1984 Review,"The book 1984 by George Orwell was a very interesting yet different book. I had read Animal Farm and thought it was decent so I figured why not try 1984. The book takes place in the future in a time when everyone must obey the law. There are hidden telescreens that are around to view anyone who goes against the law. The book was kind of hard to understand at first because of the language but after the first few chapters I was able to slide right through out. I found it to be very enjoyable because I like the science fiction type genre. Also, it was a different kind of science fiction since it wasn't based on aliens; it was based more on futuristic type inventions and the pros and cons that arose. I would definetly recommend this book for anyone who is interested in sci-fi type books. There really isn't a required reading level but it is probably better for advanced middle school readers and high school readers because of the language and topics covered." +80,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,884736000,To kill Big Brother...,"Make no mistake about it, this novel is possibly the most terrifying thing ever written,c ertainly one of the few that shocked me. But the Party is not a masterpiece society. For example, if the mythological, immortal Emmanuel Goldstein(get it?) , the face to be forever stamped on, is said to be a traitor, once a member of the Party. What problem should BB have with thoguht criminals walking to the stake proclaiming their heresy? Also, within years of the story, all Inner Party members would be dead. But the Party would still continue, the old world abolished? No, as was seen with Julia, even those raised from birth by the party still occasioanlly break free from the rule. Also, there is hope int he proles. A thought-criminal might have no more to dot han get some possessions of the Inner Party to the hands of the proles, enough to make them realize they are oppressed. This novel is, however, horribly accurate in its prediction of dehumanization by technological advancement. I suppose however, I see hope int his dystopia, because perhaps, unlike Winston, I do believe in God. Down With Big Brother!" +81,9562910334,1984,,APGMYH5EFUVJR,Raimonds,1/1,5.0,1193616000,This was the reality on the other side of the Iron Curtain,"Orwell has masterminded the collection of terminology resources that today we are aware of, but at times, I guess, without knowing their origin. Although modern terms like ""hatecrime"" and ""hatespeech"" in the book do not come to the surface, I am sure now, that they are implicit product of the heritage left by Orwell.The true value of a book is in the aftertaste, which urges one to think about human instincts and their function. And at the end, it is almost impossible to object to Orwell's argument, that the strongest human instinct is self-preservation and only then comes the drive to procreate.Winston Smith lives in the society founded upon hatred, he believes in the proles, and rightly so. Regardless of the fact, that two, and in some cases, even three generations of the Eastern Europeans experienced a number of Orwell's revelations to become reality (and to become truth!), they managed to change the course of events. In certain circles, though, the collapse of the Soviet Union is still being regarded as the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. As long as such a view will exist, Orwell's messages will not loose their urgency.Finally, I remember that those who studied the law in the former Soviet Union were taught that every crime is two-sided, having its subjective and objective side. While fully understanding what is being meant by first, there was some difficulty, though, among the students, in embracing the later. This novel is like a textbook to understand that concept." +82,9562910334,1984,,ARNT0XEYPL961,galbright@fuhsd.k12.ca.us,0/0,5.0,876700800,A terrible future,"1984 wasn't like 1984, but if the future will be like this sometime I don't want any part of it.In the world of 1984, a communist-ish government called Oceana is in charge of the Americas, Austrailia and the British Islands, at constant war with three other similar governments. (You'll read more about that in the book--it's pretty fascinating.) Thinking unorthodox thoughts about the government and the way things are is a crime, punishable by torture and death. Everywhere you go you are in the presence of a telescreen, a sort of two-way TV where they can see you instead of you just seeing them. The English language is in the process of being modified so that unortodox thoughts are not possible.Other than that, the government seems pretty fair...:)Definitely one of my favorite books. Read it now, if you haven't already, but I wouldn't reccomend it to the young'ins (6th grade and below)...there's...uhh...stuff they wouldn't understand." +83,9562910334,1984,,A4O1MF0NU4FS1,Sam Weisman,0/2,5.0,1072915200,I wrote this review for a book project in my English class.,"1984 by George Orwell was brilliant, disturbing, excellently written, depressing and most of all eerily predicting of the future. I enjoyed reading it very much. Orwell's writing is phenomenal. The way he describes things is incredible and beautiful. I admired his bold statement against socialism. His book was extremely persuasive and should be read by all that have not yet read it. It is a classic, yet it holds all the contemporary aspects of a newer book. No part of this novel was unsatisfying for me. There were no parts of the novel that did not keep me waiting for what would happen next. This could quite possibly be my favorite book that I have read yet." +84,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,4.0,1170201600,1984,"The name of the book that I am reviewing is 1984 by George Orwell. I choose to give this book four stars.The reason that I give this book four stars is because it is an excellent written book that gives a scary future of what the people in the 1950's thought the world was coming to. It follows the main character Winston Smith who is a member of the party of Oceania in a oligarchial world of three superpowers: Oceania, Eastasia and Eurasia. Winston feels as if he is different because he doesn't believe that they are getting the best that they could be getting. He decides to join a secret organization that goes against the government. He learns in a book that is given to him how the government works and why makes the certain choices that it does. The book shows that in the future war will just be used as a way for a power to get rid of surplus goods. The book also states how the government works with the ministries of peace, love, plenty and truth.It also seemed very cool to me some of the ways the government would manipulate the people just so they could maintain control. In the book Winston begins an affair with another party member named Julia and they together plan against their oligarchial society. They rebel at the fact that the government changes history so that it may be able to control there country with ease. With nothing for them to judge there life against they are forced to go by what the government tells them and they each have. They are captured at there secret hideout by the thought police(a group of individuals that monitor for traces of thoughtcrime punishable by death). They are thrown into a jail cell to rot untill they are forced to confess for what they have done. The only reason that I would not give this book five stars is because most of the concepts in the book were very hard to follow.Other books that I would recommend would be Shogun by James Clavell, the Cherub series by Robert Muchamore or Animal Farm by George Orwell. I am a student at HRMS and am in seventh grade." +85,9562910334,1984,,A2T9MGCQBJ4UW8,Uncanny Bryan,1/2,5.0,1178496000,Thank God 1984 wasn't like 1984,"Ever wonder what it would be like to fear for your life after having bad thoughts about the war in Iraq or perhaps even the president himself? What about being watched and monitored while you exercise? Ever wonder where Big Brother came from? Then George Orwell's 1984 is for you! 1984 is a book about a government that controls every aspect of life. They control language, history and even your thoughts. While the book starts off slow, it quickly picks itself up and then some. It constantly kept me reading just so I could find out what happens next. This book is an experience I won't soon forget and believe everyone their mothers and even grandmothers should read! So pick it up and be amazed at the power Big Brother holds over the people and their every day lives. Read the classic that will never fold over and become outdated like so many others. One you can understand whether you are from 1984, 2007 or 2099." +86,9562910334,1984,,AMZPTAHUMLX9U,JohnyC,8/11,5.0,971740800,1984 is Here!,"Anyone who read George Orwell's classic 1984 when they were younger and didn't enjoy it, needs to give it another read. I understood its freightening warning much better when I read it as an older more mature person.I just saw a show on MSNBC the other night about real "Big Brother" technology that is in use today. Some cities in England are using stratigicly placed surveillance cameras that can actually automatically focus in on suspicious looking characters and run a picture of their face against a database of known criminals. Another example of "Big Brother" technology is electronic toll collection systems that allow the "authorities" to track your whereabouts.Certainly, doublespeak is often used in politics and to shape public opinion today. Bombing innocent civilians and causing widespread destruction is now the meaningless term "collateral damage". The "Defense Department" is more of an offensive international policing agency that is ready, willing, and able to wreak havoc on any country which is diagreeable to the United States. Nuclear missles are dubiously named "peacekeepers".IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH is America today. How many people in America actually educate themselves about the issues of the day and about the real nature of the politicians running for office? It's pretty obvious to anyone who has bothered to educate themselves that many politicians often don't practice what they preach. People are too quick to just accept sound bites as facts, and don't bother to educate themselves regarding the issues of the day.The only way we can prevent a totalitarian regime like George Orwell described in 1984 from becomming a reality is for every person to be vigilant about protecting their rights and the rights of others, and for people to constantly question things and educate themselves. Unfortantely, I don't have much hope that people will actually prevent George Orwell's nightmare vision from becoming a reality. We're closer than most people realize. 1984 is here!" +87,9562910334,1984,,A28KTSRJD9LJN1,Titanium,2/3,5.0,1121040000,1984 for 2005,"I love 1984: I think it's one of the most powerful, chilling books I've ever read. As such a big fan, I thought I'd alert other 1984 enthusiasts to a new book that updates Orwell's classic for the PATRIOT Act era. The book is John Twelve Hawks' electrifying, impossible-to-put-down The Traveler. In it, Twelve Hawks introduces us to the Vast Machine, an omnipresent surveillance entity every bit as brutal as Big Brother. With all the political poignancy of 1984--and Hollywood-caliber suspense to boot--The Traveler is a must-read for admirers of Orwell's masterpiece." +88,9562910334,1984,,A3BBVVCUTS8DJ6,Andrea Ray,0/1,5.0,1098057600,1984- book review,"1984 is a story about Winston Smith, a member of the totalitarian communist party of the country Oceania. 1984 was written by George Orwell describing the consequences of a communist government taking hold. Winston Smith works at a government office that publishes propaganda and changes historical records on a daily basis. It operates under the idea that ""Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past"". This is central to the government and revolves around the realization that history is only made of human memory and records, because it can not be made of matter. In 1984, records are constantly destroyed and rewritten, to the point that no one is actually sure that it is 1984. In order to control human memory, citizens are taught to deny past memories consciously while simultaneously denying that they are denying anything. Winston goes on to rebel and then suffers a fait similar to that of those determined ""counter-revolutionary"" by the Russian socialists. In the end, Winston experience an almost religious change to becoming a devoted follower of the Party.I found 1984 entertaining and challenging, but it not the most exciting or gripping read. Compared to similar books like A Brave New World and Orwell's own Animal Farm, 1984 fell short. The general pessimistic darkness became boring and trite instead of disturbing because there was never a hint of contrast. Oppressive despair as the general mood is fine, but obsessively mulling it over and over is worse than beating the reader over the head with it.I think that 1984 was centered around an idea rather than an emotion, set of characters or plot, and because of this I think that many elements of the story, dominantly the characters, suffered. Instead of the actions being caused by what the characters personalities were, the characters were designed around the actions. The only traits shown were the ones that were necessary to make the actions reasonable. Because of this, even the most important characters were often extremely developed in on area and flat and dull in another. On the other hand, a nice touch was that throughout the story, Winston mentally accepts that he will be caught, but when it actually happens, he is emotionally unprepared. I thought that this made him more realistic and human.As stated before, 1984 prizes an idea above all else, and Orwell seems willing to sacrifice anything and everything to nock it into the reader's head. Newspeak, the language of Oceania, is a good idea to show another aspect of this atrocious government that Orwell wants to illustrate, but did nothing for the plot or the characters. It was supposed to enhance the sense of absolute orthodoxy, but in the end it just seemed bothersome and distracting.While 1984 is a great intellectual triumph, it lacks in everything but mental capacities. It was stilted, stiff and insipid compared to Orwell's other stories." +89,9562910334,1984,,A39VDRF5UG9REO,Terra,1/1,5.0,940291200,Definitely the best book ever written.,"I would reccomend this book to anyone, especially someone who is fed up with the "fluff" that they are having students read in high school. I read this book for my honors english class, and was surprised at it's similiarities to the present state of some countries in the U.S.A. If I could put in a section in the library under horror. How are Orwell's telescreens that much different from the security cameras popping up on every main street corner and sometimes even in your office or home. With the way technology is people can listen to your phone calls and read your E-mails I would like somone to tell me how far we are from a totalitarian society. When I read this book I got chills. Maybe, as Winston is convinced at the end, 2+2=5 and the idea that 2+2=4 is ludicruous. The scariest part to me is that we could be wrong." +90,9562910334,1984,,AYABUEJC2SEHQ,Patrick Julian Cassidy,1/1,5.0,1013212800,A suggestion...,"I think that every good aware American citizen shouldread this book every five years or so. Our freedom is whatmakes this country so great. The freedom to be different.The freedom to dream and love according to your owndesires. Go into Orwell's world of supression andlive out the danger with those who dare to rebel. Iread this book to remind myself that the freedom we alllove and flourish in, can be restrained in the name ofthe "state's interest." Reread this book. Encourage yourkids to read it. Orwell is an excellent writer." +91,9562910334,1984,,ARH9IQEMFKR6M,Doug Vaughn,10/11,5.0,944611200,Control language; control the world,"So much has been written by others on this classic text that I will limit my comments to that aspect of the book I feel is still the most important - the manipulation of language to control behavior. Orwell understood how crucial meaning and communication is to social and political behavior. The Bolsheviks first and then the Nazis both went to great lengths to manipulate meaning, creating an acceptable vocabulary of politically positive words and images and an equally negative vocabulary for that which was to be vilified and destroyed. Attempting to channel behavior into patterns predefined by these limited modes of expression represents the greatest part of the state propogandist's art. Orwell reduced the complexity of this enterprise to something that could be seen for the con game it is. His invention of 'newspeak' demonstrates the reducto ad absurdum of such verbal restrictiveness.In our day, whether Big Brother is really watching or not, we suffer from some of the same contraints of limited language and, in term, limited behavioral options. On the one hand we suffer from a language of polictical correctness that strives to offend no one, but makes speech clumsy and artificial. On the other extreme we suffer from the limited categories that the professional news media use - the narrow meanings available to them for understanding and communicating what is considered 'news'. Since politicians contribute to this limited vocabulary and play off of it, it saves them from facing much real in depth analysis and critique and limits the public to shallow expositions that distort reality and make meaningful political choice impossible.So 1984 has come and gone and we haven't fallen into the dramatic pit that Orwell pictured, but the language we use to deal with social and political issues has been so attenuated that we are in danger of becoming slaves to a limited set of possibilities because we cannot even articulate any alternatives." +92,9562910334,1984,,AFBBRLA6RP5W0,Bruce Deitrick Price,2/2,5.0,1182816000,One Of the Great Novels In English,"George Orwell did two supremely difficult things in this book: he wrote a brilliant polemic (unless you're a Communist, you'll know that polemics don't get any better). And he wrote a dark, unforgettable story in a perfectly crafted style. Ignore the polemic and you still have one of our best novels.Orwell gives us so many brilliant insights. I'll mention my favorite. Orwell saw that totalitarians will always hate beauty and try to drive it out of ordinary life. Why? Because beauty reminds people of what freedom feels like! This theme runs through 1984.Want to see Orwellian in action? Letting a far-left thinker like Erich Fromm write an essay for this book. Fromm manages to turn things upside down so that what Orwell is REALLY writing about is conformity in American corporations. Totalitarian twaddle." +93,9562910334,1984,,A1WBD2ERGW33ZB,Heather,1/3,3.0,942624000,Intriguing and very thought-provoking.,"This book at first seems so far away from the life we live that it is hard to compare to, unitl part two. One has to tolerate alot of abuse from this book, however, it does get the reader thinking about the numerous issues mentioned in 1984. THis book sounds boring, but it does keep the reader intriguied with its variety of vocablulary of the world of Big Brother." +94,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,972864000,1984-A World of the Future,"In a utopian society there is no pain. There is no disease, and there is no jealousy of any sort. What would happen if there would be no thought allowed too? Would not this eliminate pain, worries, and jealosy? Would it be chaos, or would it create the ultimate utopian society? In the city of Oceania, one man would dare to question the paradisiacal utopian society which was created. Winston Smith was alive during the glorious revolution, when Big Brother and the Brotherhood commandeered control. From then on, there were three basic rules: war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. Big Brother was supreme. If you uttered a word against him, you would be vaporized, and erased from society. Who controls the present controls the present controls the past. Those who control the future controls the present. Winston needs to find a way to end the reign of Big Brother, and time is running out. The Thought Police are coming for him, and by the time he finds how to vanquish them, it may be too late." +95,9562910334,1984,,A3B1VHNCY7OLXW,Edgar Lipsey,4/7,3.0,1185580800,1984 and still interesting for years afterward,"This is one of those books that I had always meant to read, but never got around to. Finally, one of my college classes required it, so I was happy to pick it up, though not without some reserved skepticism beforehand. I knew it was one of those books that is constantly referred to by people who are paranoid about government and distrust everything the government does, which wouldn't really describe me, in general. But, I have to admit that Orwell's writing is masterful. Right from the start, the world he presents is mesmerizing. I think I am safe in saying that in the first third of the book, almost nothing happens. Yet, I can also say that the first third of the book was just as interesting as any of the action that comes later. Every detail, every description, every movement is analyzed in the most fascinating way. Orwell is no idiot. He has that very rare ability of few great authors to show the workings of the inner mind of man in such a true and believable way that you very well believe that he could look at you and know what you are thinking. After the first third of the book, when the story actually progresses, it gets exciting almost in the way that a thriller does. You keep on wondering what move will be next and how the character is going to strategize the demise of the enemy. Then the last third of the book is a devastating, but still masterful analysis of the human mind, free will, and reality. At almost every stage, Orwell presents his ideas with a written clarity that is a language all in its own. In spite of this whole experience and my recognition at how skillful the writing and analysis was, I cannot say that I liked the book, or even if I would recommend it. The main reason for this is that I believe Orwell cheated at the end. The protagonist was putting up a fight against the machine, and in spite of its all-powerful, seemingly omnipotent status, he held off. Now, Orwell had two options. The protagonist either would capitulate under the increasingly intelligent pressure put on by the oppressor, or he would outlast and maintain his own free will to the end. I think that the ending Orwell chose was contrived, and what he did to get the protagonist there was unbelievable. Maybe it's my own principles or feelings, but I suspect that if Orwell had done it well enough, I would have at least respected his approach. But as it is now, I had to shake my head and say to myself: No. That's not true to human nature. I don't buy that. And what's worse, I felt that Orwell must have known that himself. His writing was too brilliant before, too logical, too well-reasoned. The person who wrote all of that can't possibly believe in this moment either. So, I suspect, that in order to get the ending that he wanted, he contrived the tipping point and then returned to his brilliant form to bring the story to its conclusion. One misstep is a harsh way to judge a truly exemplar book, but I believe that it was a key moment and it unravels all the true elements Orwell had so carefully set up before. Overall, however, it would be difficult to say to not read the book, because this type of writing and insight is difficult to come by. So if you are looking for a meaty intellectual treat, read it. But don't let him cheat you in the end." +96,9562910334,1984,,AXDW2SMM4A11M,Mindy Cassall,2/3,5.0,1146614400,And it has been happening in America most notably since 1980 !,"With freedom on the Internet under attack after big business already mugged the rest of the media and turned them into government sock puppets, this book is more important than ever to read. You may hate Winston Smith for going against himself in the end and being forced to call defeat a ""victory"" but blissful ignorance and non-cooperation and no motivation of putting checks and balances on the elites, whether we're talking business giants or our ever-corrupt politicians especially the neocons will only make it easier for the government and their henchmen elite to take away what previous generation Americans had long fought for and that's the BIG WARNING this book sounds the BIG ALARM on ! Read it, drop that ignorance, and help take back America while there's still a chance to salvage what's left after the damage done for decades !" +97,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,928713600,The best book of this (and any other) century.,"Orwell's descrption of a dark future is so perceptive it is truly frightening.The world that our hero steps into is not an evil world, it is not a fantasy description of a world where evil creatures beyond our world has taken over and forced humanity into slavery. Rather it is a world where the dark sides of the human nature has been given the chance to rule. The book holds numerous references to the horrors of stalinism and nazism as well as describing the problems with democracy (the same argument that he brilliantly describes in his previous novels and essays). Also it shows the problem of the individual within the collektive and how easily groups and structures can hold the individul hostage. I belive that this book goes beyond describing a world that was, but instead should be held up against a world that could be if we are not carefull.I recomend this (and any other Orwell) book with every fiber in my body ." +98,9562910334,1984,,A13LQ2RNZ1DCE,"leafreader ""leafreader""",0/0,4.0,995673600,Haunting,"The book takes the manifestation of totalitarianism to the worst imaginable degree. George Orwell described a world where people are constantly under surveillance by its totalitarian government. By employing two-way televisions and police in civilian clothes, the government monitors people's behavior, deed, and most frighteningly - their minds. No individualism is permitted, and anyone who remotely opposes the government will somehow be caught and completely distroyed.The idea of the book is as far-fetched as it is realistic. That's what's so haunting about the book. The described totalitarian practices may seem absolutely impossible, while when compared to the world we live in, we see more eerie resemblences than not. Moreover, the writing itself was splendid. The descriptions were so vivid that you literally feel yourself a persecuted citizen of the world described.On the negative end, perhaps in an effort to accentuate the point of atrocity of the negative utopia described, the author employed too much descriptions and time on the actual persecution process. The descriptions were grotesque at some points that you really have to have the stomach for it. My advice is, read it, but read it in small dosages. I read the second half of the book in one day, and was gravely depressed for three hours after I finished." +99,9562910334,1984,,A398PPW7XOK03S,Ryan Williams,2/2,5.0,1040601600,Reality Check,"If you're buying this book and you don't know much about it then you're in for a trip down a pretty disturbing road. The obvious questions it raises about society, government, control, power, unity, trust, and faith in the human character might leave you thinking critically about humanity's direction (if you haven't before). Ultimately I felt like the book's strongest point was it's exploration of what "reality" becomes when manipulated by the mind's interpretation of it. But I think people's reactions to 1984 will vary according to their own insight into the books topics, especially within the political realm. Without a doubt, a great book." +100,9562910334,1984,,,,0/1,3.0,880848000,1984 has come and gone...,"Orwell's "1984" is a classic piece of 20th century literature, no doubt. While I can see many things of which he speaks of in today's society (doublespeak, Big Brother, etc.), this book was not written as prophecy, as some might suggest. It should serve as a warning, nothing more.Instead, I'll say that I read it as required reading in a high-school literature class and found Orwell's "Animal Farm" to be a less heavy-handed approach to storytelling. I enjoyed "1984" only slightly more than the later film based upon the novel <yawn>." +101,9562910334,1984,,A2ECA0PZ8WMVIA,Luis Hernandez,2/2,4.0,1070668800,Manipulation to read 1984,"George Orwell's 1984 is a book about control in the reality of his world to the connection it has to ours; it's fascinating and shocking how Orwell was able to see a world such as the one in his book. The book is a prediction and shadow of our world today. Ever since Orwell published his book, it has been like a bible to people everywhere. This book is fascinating not because of the feeling put into it, but because of how it shows and gives the reader a sense of how humanity is and can become like the world in Orwell's book.The only freedom shown in the world of 1984 is the self-thought of what the word actually means. Winston Smith is the man who experiences this and leads us through this horrible world. He doubts the righteousness of the totalitarian government (Big Brother) that rules Oceania, (one of three superstates in the world of 1984). The book starts with Winston and then shows how Big Brother (the government) is unreal. The government made its own language, is at constant war with the other two superstates, and watches its citizens at all times. As Winston's rebellion develops, we see how Big Brother is not as unreal as we think, he seems real, and to all the citizens he is real, this is what helps control Oceania the belief of Big Brother.Oceania, Eastasia, and Eurasia are the three battling superstates. All want control, have the same kind of government, and are at constant war to obtain what they want. The process used to get absolute power is one used by past, present, and future dictators, like Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler. Big Brother manipulates its citizens psychologically into suitable ways of thinking. Instead of only using propaganda techniques, Big Brother also uses something called Newspeak and telescreens. Newspeak is the official language of Oceania, and it is used to control the citizens' unorthodox thinking. Winston works at the base of Newspeak; he changes words, news, stories, and information for the government. The telescreens monitor each citizen and stop them of their privacy, revolt, or un-orderly behavior.Winston meets a girl named Julia who also feels the same as Winston does about Big Brother. They become lovers and their relationship leads them to what gives the reader the true sense of what the book is truly about. The backbone of Big Brother (the government) is revealed. When Orwell shows what really is Big Brother, gives the reader the true sense of the masterpiece of George Orwell's book.The manipulative technique used by Big Brother to control their citizens is unrecognizable; it is all about mind control. The secret for Big Brother's success is doublethink, the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously and fully accepting both. Big Brother is supposedly a person, the head leader of the government in the book 1984, but he doesn't exist. The government controls people by creating a false leader with a system of mind control.The book shows us how a government can become powerful and how it is possible in our world today. The thought of the possibility actually happening is frightening because our world now can become the world of greed for control, violence, mystery, and slavery that is shown in the book 1984. That is what makes this book so good; it truly pulls us into the reading because the reality in the book and our life, is paralleled by the possibility that can exist." +102,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,895190400,"The Best of Orwell's Books, No doubt","I'll admit the book starts sorta slow but once you get 20 or so pages into it, it's hard to put down. While I found the world that Julia and Winston lived in scary, what was even scarier is that some day this could actually come true! While I'm only 14, anyone who is 13 or above should be able to grasp the main concepts of this book. You are very compassionate when you realize the vain struggle of Winston and Julia. This book also shows that human emotion while difficult can be altered and controlled. Your only hope in totalitrain society is mass rebelion or death. And the song, "Under the spreading chestnut tree, I sold you and you sold me." When that played at the end my heart dropped cause it makes you realize that when humans are dissected to the core all they care for are themselves. If you think you are liberal enough to get a new view on life, read this book for it will change your outlook on life, love, and politics. It you like this book you will also like "Animal Farm" although not as good as 1984, still a classic." +103,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,899596800,doubleplusgood,"it moved me to tears and no book has ever done that, it was very deep. very scary because its pluasable" +104,9562910334,1984,,AT9YSY20RJUDX,"M. A. ZAIDI ""Ali Zaidi""",1/1,4.0,1060905600,political statement,"Nineteen Eighty-Four is not and never has been just a year. Nor is the world portrayed by George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four a place or even merely a set of political or social circumstances. Rather, Nineteen Eighty-Four is a state of mind, a way of being, an atmosphere in which the dark side of our nature lives and turns all around it darker still. It is a time or place which we create when we turn away from the light that is within us, within each individual self, to the empty darkness of group will and psychology; of ""massmindedness"". Thus do we create for ourselves to live in the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four.Orwell's ""fiction"" of a world in which, but for a lingering echo, individuality had all but passed into extinction, could have been set in any time or place where ""massmindedness"" is paramount and where the individual exists merely to serve the group. Throughout history, most religions have preached, most governments have practiced and most societies have been organized around such ""massmindedness"". It is only the calendar which might confuse and comfort us, which might convince us that Nineteen Eighty-Four was merely a gruesome story about a time and place that never was nor could ever be. But nothing is further from the truth. And the simple truth is that Nineteen Eighty-Four is NOW.In Nineteen Eighty-Four, there are no heroes, except as an idea, an ideal may be said to be a hero. All of its characters are exceedingly human, and this is what makes Nineteen Eighty-Four both timely and timeless, both powerful and profoundly pathetic. Nineteen Eighty-Four is often upsetting, sometimes disheartening, but, when its main lesson is learned, never depressing. It is fundamentally a story of hope, of a truth which can be discovered (although too late for all concerned); a truth which can be seen by us and taken as not only our ideal, but as the practical guide by which, to a greater or lesser extent, we can avoid the very pitfalls which consumed Winston and Julia and O'Brien and Big Brother, and liberate ourselves from the tyrany and ultimate destructiveness of the group and its massminded stranglehold on our minds, our hearts and our souls.Nineteen Eighty-Four is a simple story of faith wrongly placed. Winston Smith, its main character, searches to escape the suffocating and oppressive world manipulated by and for a ruling group, The Party. He believes that he is seeking a political, a social solution with which he can combat, can destroy the evil of group-think and the ""massmindedness"" in which he lives. Instead, he finds the most exquisitely human, individual ""weapon"" with which to pursue his salvation: love. But, as we humans are too often prone to do, Winston overlooks what is simple and obvious, what is at hand, and, even as do those he disdains, he puts his faith in another group, The Brotherhood. (It is not for Winston to realize that his answer lies in the idea and practice of ""brotherhood"", rather than in the imaginary purity of ""The Brotherhood"".) In the end, Winston is betrayed not by his enemies, but, in a real sense, by himself, by his failure to see the worth in the object of his own worship; the individual and the emotional life with which he or she can find their own peace and presence, even in a world gone apparently mad.Winston, with his male oriented solution, seeks one group to combat another group, while Julia, a woman, brings the possibility of true salvation to him (and them) in the idea and practice of individual love. Julia knows the truth, and what is worthwhile, but Winston (the very name of the great male war leader of Orwell's recent past) plunges on ahead, seeking a ""political"", ""social"" solution (not unlike the many male ""leaders"" of all time past). This may be a small (or maybe the greatest) point of the book.It is an instructive book; there is a good deal of What Every Young Person Ought to Know - not in 1984, but 1949. Mr Orwell's analysis of the lust for power is one of the less satisfactory contributions to our enlightenment, and he also leaves us in doubt as to how much he means by poor Smith's ""faith"" in the people (or ""proles""). Smith is rather let down by the 1984 Common Man, and yet there is some insinuation that common humanity remains to be extinguished." +105,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,992390400,The Best Book!,When my English teacher made a reference to 1984 I knew I had to read it and that was the best decision I ever made! 1984 is so deep with many twists and turns. Just the idea of "crimethink" and "telescreens" and "big brother is watching you" expresses the deep and futuristic feel of the entire book. Really relating to Winston and Julia helped a lot and when at first I thought it would be to deep for me as I am 13 I actually really enjoyed it alot. But you are warned. Once started you wil not be able to put it down! +106,9562910334,1984,,A2YJ9DT9YZ0DUN,"Matthew K. Minerd ""The Coding Catholic""",1/3,4.0,1204329600,"A Classic Dystopia Against Hard, Fascistic Communism","Often cited by many as a central text in the fashion of twentieth-century dystopias, 1984 remains a classic in spite of its inextricable connection to Soviet-style communism. While the work does not have the sociological poignancy of Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, 1984 does remain a telling oracle of the psychological tendencies which could destroy the human soul even in the post-Soviet world. While the text only cursorily treats the rise of the zeitgeist, one can easily glean several dangers which are oracularly pronounced by the narrative.First of all (and most obviously), there is the danger of a lack of human questioning which, given enough coaxing and time, can render man nearly impervious to the spirit of questioning which is necessary to prevent the enslavement of man. While this condition is basically taken a priori by Orwell as a setting for his work, this is the closest point of contact between 1984 Bradbury's aforementioned work. Additionally, the psychological ramifications of breaking free from such thralldom take two distinct paths, that of hope for change (even if that becomes somewhat mitigated into the hope for change in an indistinct future) and one of self-indulgence in the midst of an unchangeable zeitgeist. These, coupled with the final realization of hope which is found (albeit meekly) in the lower, ignored (and therefore free) class, are the true content of 1984.While the text is markedly tied to the state of affairs found in a state of established Soviet-style communism, it also narrates the psychological situations (and outer-methods of psychological suppression and control) which still remain poignant to a Western society which is on the brink of destroying its own notion of liberty. For this reason, I can easily overcome the misgivings which I have for the text's nearly direct connection to already-dead Soviet Union. The message does indeed exist beyond that historical fact and therefore comes with my personal recommendation." +107,9562910334,1984,,A2NDOA78AB0NNV,sarah,0/0,5.0,1360972800,Good Buy,Great! it has been awhile since I read this...more dated than I remember. I still like the other ones best. +108,9562910334,1984,,AC2TC4SYCA3CE,megan,3/8,5.0,1041552000,this review...its not here. it never was,why? read the book...i dont exist +109,9562910334,1984,,A3R8PXSFGY9MC2,Spider Monkey,1/1,5.0,1294531200,1984,"This book provides a dark but compelling vision of the future. It isn't always comfortable reading, but you are engrossed in the concept and the relationships in the book. One mans struggle against the totalitarian system is fascinating to read and the ideas of societies development is scary to consider. A classic book, well written and should be on every bookshelf.Feel free to check out my blog which can be found on my profile page." +110,9562910334,1984,,AG4J1EPXZZKKB,"G. Torres ""Book_worm""",2/2,3.0,1322611200,Ahead of its time,"**Minor SPOILER""There is no doubt that George Orwell was ahead of his time when he wrote this book. If you look at our society today, although no where as severe as Orwell's vision, the shear human stupidity that abounds and the oppressive governments still present in certain parts of the world leads one to believe that his vision if we are not careful could become a reality in the near future. It seems that as time goes by and with all the technological advancement we've made, individuality and uniqueness are in danger of becoming extinct. It's enough to listen to today's music, to see what we now call ""entertainment"" for the masses to know that George Orwell ( at least when it comes to human beings) was right on the money.It certainly wasn't a pleasure read and while I do admit that it is a relevant book and it is one of the most thought provoking books I've ever read, I can't say that it is one of the best books I've read in my life. It was deeply disturbing and depressing and I was thoroughly disappointed with the end. I consider myself a realist but I was really hoping that Winston's idea of the defeat of Big Brother would become a reality, but in the end the Party is the one that wins. Did Orwell write this book with the intention of scaring us? No, he wrote it as a warning of how seriously screwed up the world can become if we stop thinking for ourselves. I only recommend this book if you like dystopian (opposite of utopia) society books." +111,9562910334,1984,,A1ORX9O3E8J6NL,"Kevin Jacobson ""Kjac22""",2/2,5.0,1232582400,A great book that endures,"Orwell depicts a vivid portrayal of the ills of a totalitarian regime - even the consequences of government overreach in general. His society is the most extreme one imaginable created by a government with absolute power. While painting his picture of a dystopian world, Orwell links us into Winston Smith, the main character, an everyman who the reader is able to identify with. He is someone like us - an outsider in this totalitarian world, who is unable to completely submit his mind and will to Big Brother (the State). We are able to experience the absolute control of the government through Winston's eyes - its physical and psychological control of its subjects, to Winston's expanding discontent, his rebellious acts and finally their destined consequences.Under this veil, Orwell demonstrates how weak and frail a totalitarian regime truly is. In order to control its subjects, Big Brother has to have absolute control of information - to even alter the past, to constantly control minds through propaganda, to create constant war to keep the society poor, and to use fear mongering (i.e. encouraging kids to rat out their parents to the thought police) to force its will on the people. It even uses language as mind control - whittling language away to limit thoughts and expressions. Ultimately, Big Brother is only able to force Winston to submit by torturing and brainwashing him into an empty shell like the rest of its subjects.This book is great for the high school reader and beyond - it is an easy read while allowing the reader to consider the implications of living in such a society. Its endurance is also impressive - this book was originally published in 1949 - the same work could be published today and be just as relevant." +112,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,935971200,A very good book.,George Orwell's book shows what could happen in any society and any government when collectivism and oneness are valued above any other idea. Orwell tries to warn his readers into not letting go of the self for the well-being of society. This book is a must for everone at least once. +113,9562910334,1984,,AVSTN584FGZRO,Adah Hoermann,0/0,5.0,1238544000,Thank you,"My mom loved it, the everything in the transaction went well also. Thank you!" +114,9562910334,1984,,A30H8VH724GYQ,John Heggie,1/1,4.0,1157673600,21st century reading,It was interesting to read this book again in 2006. It is fascinating to read this book and then analysis and compare the different governments in today's world. +115,9562910334,1984,,ARYEAKJSIATCP,"Katieq ""readaholic""",1/4,4.0,1011052800,A Modern Classic,1984 is a great read but not a compelling one. It can be a little hard going at times. The characters are a little frustrating thus making it a little annoying to read. Still it is a great classic and well worth persuing to the end. +116,9562910334,1984,,ACZ2CLZ2WNBBD,Chad R. Reihm,0/0,5.0,1029715200,"FRIGHTENING, HORRIFYING, and so IMPORTANT!!!","This is truly a great and important Novel! The story that dared the world to behold its possible future during a time when the future was terrifyingly uncertain, still today holds its grip on the reader!Orwell could have been a tennis player, because he serves you up so perfectly with the heroic struggle of a man and woman against the omnipotent, ever-watchful State, and then smashes you into oblivion with the absolute destruction of any hope for a good ending or bright future.This book warns you as obnoxiously as the whistle of an approaching train of the dangers of absolute government that has technology at its disposal and ignorance its only adversary! Many people believe that 1984 never happened because '1984' happened....I would be inclined to agree. Read the powerful book! It will Stun you, I promise!" +117,9562910334,1984,,AV9ZV65ZORLLU,quatrefilles,0/0,5.0,1331424000,A modern masterpiece,"I decided to read 1984 because every single book list on the web recommended it on its top twenty. I can now see why! This book seems to me to be the basic foundation for every revolutionary idea, rebellious thought, or conformist ideology that was written in our modern time. I was mesmerized, betrayed, bewitched, and baffled by how real it felt especially since the world today is witnessing similar kind of revolution in the shape of the Arab Spring. It was a wonder to equate this work of fiction into reality and ponder if the very revolution he depicted can be stifled through the destruction of the human spirit." +118,9562910334,1984,,A5L1DFVIC7C22,adobe princess,3/3,5.0,1160352000,"It did not happen in 1984, but what about now???","1984 came and went un eventfully, but if you read this now you might see some parallels to modern day things. It is 2006 they were told they would always be at war sound familiar. Rumsfield told us that too. Read the book and see what Orwell predicted would happen and what is happening. Then watch the movie made near 1984. See what you think. You might want to read brave new world after that by Aldous Huxley. It is interesting that these authors were so far ahead of the times." +119,9562910334,1984,,A3F1O2JSOMW3FB,D. Haggerty,0/0,4.0,1246924800,Great!(:,The book was a little slow being delivered but no problems! It also came in better condition than I was expecting! (: +120,9562910334,1984,,A2OABLR6P59PAI,"B. Zediker ""AKZ""",2/2,4.0,1233792000,War is Peace?,"War is PeaceFreedom is SlaveryAnd Big Brother is watchingThese are the slogans that the people in George Orwell's book, 1984. George Orwell does a great job of telling the story of Winston Smith's life and how he goes through life rebelling against the government. He describes every setting with emence detail and it felt like I was right there with Winston going through his every day struggles to survive and remain in his eyes sane. The way Orwell conveyed the story through the diary as well as just writing it really worked well. The diary tells about Winston`s character and how he reacts to life around him. I believe that when writing this story George Orwell wrote a book that is a great success.As a high school student I enjoyed 1984. It challenged me to think outside of the box and more critically. To say that War is Peace and Freedom is Slavery and actually believe it causes one to question the meaning of certain things. In our world war is not peace and slavery is the opposite of freedom, so what could have led people to believe and just accept that these things are true. That is what 1984 truly explains, that humans can become brain washed into believing almost anything. The scary part about this is that it actually can happen as shown in the book through a series of torture and reeducating Winston was reformed into one who believed in what the Republic of Oceania believed. With propaganda, the party ruling over the people in 1984 can shape the minds of jst about anyone.In conclusion, 1984 is a well written, suspenseful story of a man who becomes the same as everone else. There is no room for individuality in the setting created by George Orwell. Everyone believes the same or are arrested and reformed!" +121,9562910334,1984,,A3FHAMLNGHCFU7,James Yanni,3/3,5.0,1043107200,"One of the ""best"", and most enduring, of the distopias.","Written in 1949, this book has become such a part of the culture that even people who've never heard of it (if there are any such) would recognize the terms ""doublethink"" and ""thoughtcrime"", among others that this book introduced to the lexicon. The truly scary thing is not that there are noticeable similarities between our political culture and the culture portrayed in this book, but rather the even closer similarities between that culture and our corporate culture.After all, in the corporate world, as in the ""Oceana"" of this book, the ""proles"" (common laborers) can pretty much think and say what they want, although it IS possible for individuals to go too far. But if one wants a comfortable life in an office job, one not only has to watch what one says, but how one says it, and what one can be demonstrated to think. If one is caught in the ""thoughtcrime"" of being insufficiently enthusiastic about one's company, or showing doubts about whether what it's doing is right or not, one will surely be ""disappeared""; one's co-workers will show up one day and simply not find you there, and if anyone is foolish enough to ask what happened, they will simply be told, in a tone of voice that brooks no further questions, ""s/he is no longer with the department"". If the offense was serious enough, that person will never work in as high-level a position again, anywhere. They won't have been taken off and tortured; they will simply have been exiled to the status of common laborer, where they're no longer dangerous.Also, if you doubt the existence of ""doublethink"", consider that corporations want honest, trustworthy employees, but heaven help the employee who speaks his/her mind (even quietly, on his/her own time) if it disagrees with corporate policy.The real world may be more subtle than the novel, but truth is no less truth for being subtle." +122,9562910334,1984,,AYBJNKGTDUCSE,Mrs. Chips,0/0,4.0,1289779200,Political Correctness Writ Large,"This is another must-read dystopia. I don't recommend it for children, however. It is quite frightening for anyone with an imagination. Avoid the Ministry of Love whatever you do! This book warns against the manipulation of people through twisting meaning truth=deception; love=destruction. Evil remains evil no matter what it is called, but evil is most dangerous when re-named." +123,9562910334,1984,,,,6/70,1.0,1069286400,Nineteen Eighty Flub,"I recently took up the hobby of reading "classics" instead of teenage dramas or mysterys. 1984 was second on my list. But now I'm left wondering why is this book a classic? This book was descriptively crude with its love affair and prostitute, redundant with its thoughts and routine, and overall dull. I admit that this book did have a good message and was thoroughly enforced from the beginning to end. However, thats all that happened.It was just thoughts of a sad man with perverse and suspicouis thoughts. The main character constantly dwelled on how horrible everything was and eventually how he was going to fight against it. But never did, unless you count having an affair and writing in a journal or buying an old paperweight.At times the story would pick up, and just as quickly as it picked up it drastically fell back into the continuous complaints of Winston.1984 is well written. I guess, there were quantities of complex words tied in with a new language created within the book (Newsspeak). Keep your dictionary handy.The chararcters also lacks personality. They were so 2 deminsional.Overall it was impossibly hard to follow, and paragraphs could be skipped and you wouldnt miss a thing.Not to mention that tragic ending. No steps were made toward anything! It stops about were it left off except Winston loves BB and loves his torturor.This book was an overrated classic and a big fat FLUB!" +124,9562910334,1984,,AD0J5KK4WQXNS,OverTheMoon,1/3,5.0,1109203200,The Dead Who Have Not Yet Been Born,"Inspiring piece of worldly paranoia, that is truth, quoted well into the twenty first century as the future, and it is, not because mankind doesn't think it will ever go this way, but because we know full well we are, but somehow are allowing it to happen everyday. It is decentralization of power from the human being, in all aspects of one's life, to a higher power, a bigger cause, communism called the great Lucifer because all was given to the collective body and not to God, now God is the great Lucifer because we give ourselves to the collective body of something that we can not prove, so Science is the great Lucifer, producing weapons to kill the world a million times over, toxins to poison us a million times over, are all forms of giving to a collective body the nature of death? Is it the giving to a collective body that robs the soul of its power? Is it giving oneself wholly and utterly to something other than one's own self the conduit of decent into the investment of despair. 1984 sees men and women working their themselves to skin and bone to achieve a greater good that never emerges, the ultimate failings masked by a strict authoritative regime, BIG BROTHER, the power all seeing and ever controlling, rewriting history, editing the world around them, at war with this nation one minute and switching to another the next, neighbours up and vanish and protagonists invest in each other for but a fleeting glimpse of love only to be captured by the THOUGHT POLICE for engaging in illegal activity, men at the top of this society using torture and mind control to enforce a pathology of unquestionable and undeniable supremacy of all the power to the BIG BROTHER system, and that this is the system and that is why they are alive at all, at which point we question if it is worth living at all to which Orwell delivers a resounding, no, of course it is not worth living this life, why bother at all, and that this is a piece of work that must be understood by everyone and anyone who can read and is certainly mandatory reading for anyone in least bit interested in politics or political science.Unfortunately however we tend to vote in military commanders, lawyers and extreme capitalists into government and then ask why it is all going down hill.The problem is there is no terminology in the English language to describe the act of one human being killing their unborn future children by process of setting up a bad management system with a legal body incorporated into that system before they die. This prison kills, yet it is justified. 1984 is maybe that word, filicide being the closest English equivalent." +125,9562910334,1984,,A193B0HKS6OY2X,"Thynil ""Senmore""",0/0,4.0,1103241600,Interesting and though provoking,"1984 is very unique. The whole story is about a man named Winston Smith, who starts to have questions in his mind about the totalitarian government that he has always known and lived with. As is typical of Orwell novels, 1984 is about one man who is all alone in the world, who tries to break away from conformity.The world that Orwell has created in this novel, called Oceania, is so very different from our own, that it is almost impossible to imagine. The Party is in power, and they can ""vaporize"" anyone who they even suspect of ""thoughtcrime"" (thinking things contrary to the Party's beliefs). The main figure of the government of Oceania is Big Brother. The term ""Big Brother is watching you"" comes from posters that the Party put up all over in the book.This novel makes you realize just how precious the freedoms we have are. I would recomend this book to anyone interested in politcal fiction. But a word of caution, this book is not very cheerful or uplifting, so this is not a book to read if your not in the mood for something depressing." +126,9562910334,1984,,A1RLSS2EB99H66,ErickWrites,3/4,5.0,1297555200,Science fiction or science fact?,"Whether you enjoy science fiction or not, Orwell's 1984 is a must read. Orwell writes like Monet paints, in that his description of 1984 is opaque yet colorful, mysterious, and beautiful.Throughout 1984, the reader follows Winston Smith, who lives in Airstrip One. The world is subdivided into three major super powers. Winston lives in Oceana, which is run by Big Brother. Three ministries govern Oceana: The Ministry of Truth, Ministry of Love, and Ministry of Peace. Winston works for the Ministry of Truth, and it is there he meets Julia.Much like Orwell's description of the scenes themselves, he creates a world in which the reader feels they are looking at Oceana through a sheet. Orwell never describes Oceana or 1984 in too much detail; though, in his descriptions of Winston's relationships to the world he lives in, Julia, and Big Brother, he writes with enough description that Orwell's vision of the future becomes more apparent with each page.The most striking scene is when a poet is thrown into prison because he refused to take out the word, ""God"" from a poem he transcribed because no other word fit. No matter a person's spiritual background, the critical person should find it uncanny that in 1949 Orwell imagined a world in which the name `God' would become illegal.Though, we do not live in a world in which three empirical superpowers govern us, the critical person should wonder if we are closer to Orwell's 1984 than we realize. Or, perhaps, ideologically, we are there and realize it; though, we have become so accustomed to living in Orwell's 1984 that we willingly give up our rights and personal identity in the name of government sanctioned security and equality." +127,9562910334,1984,,,,2/2,5.0,934675200,One wonders...,"I first read this book about 5 years ago ( being 9 years old !! ) and at the time I didn't understand it well, considering its a book based on life experiences but after it I felt sad and a little scared ( of O'Brien ). Now I'm older ( and re-read the book ) I think different of the book. I find it ironic that the bad reviews here tend to have the effect "it never happened and its unrealistic" because they don't seem to think of the effect some things have on them. Personally, I think its double-standards to MAKE people read this since they have the freedom not to.This book is brilliant. O'Brien is probably the scariest person created by an author, and in the end when Winston traces 2+2=5 in the table you see the fraility of the human spirit. You can see many parrells to today in many of the events in the book ( people disappear in Latin America everyday ). I think this is A LOT better than Animal Farm. Also, for those out there who gave this 3 stars or less, 1984 is NOT insulting communism. You can see that it represents other systems other than communism more. You can see where you would fit in ( I would most probably be Syme ) and where you would turn out. And the best thing about this is that the more you discover about life, the more you discover in this book. I am no way near understanding ALL points in 1984 since I am only 14. My ending note would be - READ, that is if you dare... You'll be trapped into a new realm for life." +128,9562910334,1984,,AQ5UX3AVZPAPN,"""cmerrell""",1/4,5.0,1031529600,1984,"ORWELL'S PESSIMISTIC LOOK AT THE FUTURE IS A GLIMPSE OF THE WORLD THAT HE FORESAW AS A RESULT OF GLOBAL COMMUNISM. ORWELL WAS LARGELY CRITICIZED FOR BOTH ANIMAL FARM AND 1984 SINCE AT THE TIME THEY WERE WRITTEN THEY WERE PERCEIVED AS A RAGE AGAINST STALINIST RUSSIA, WHICH WAS AN ALLY OF GREAT BRITIAN. AT THE TIME.HIMSELF A SOCIALIST, IN '1984' ORWELL PRESENTS A PICTURE OF SOCIALISM GONE AMOK. THE WORLD IS COMOPSED OF THREE SUPERPOWERS-EURASIA,EASTASIA, AND OCEANA. THE BOOKS HERO, WINSTON SMITH, IS A MID LEVEL BUREAUCRAT WHOSE JOB IT IS TO REWRITE THE PAST. WINSTON LIVES IN LONDON WHICH IS PART OF OCEANA: OSTENSIBLY THE BRITISH ISLES AND NORTH AMERICA. THE SUPERPOWERS ARE CONSTANTLY AT WAR WITH EACH OTHER AND THE CITIZENS OF OCEANA ARE BRAIN WASHED TO THE POINT THAT THE LEADERS CAN CHANGE THE ENEMY WITHOUT THE CITIZENS EVEN NOTICING.WINSTON SEEMS TO REMEMBER A DIFFERENT PAST THAN THE ONE THAT HAS BEEN HAMMERED INTO HIS AND EVERYONE ELSES' MIND BY BIG BROTHER. WINSTON HAS COME TO HATE BIG BROTHER BUT HE IS TERRIFIED WITH HIS OWN THOUGHTS. THE 'THOUGHT POLICE' ARE EVERYWHERE AND CAN READ A PERSONS MIND. DISCOVERY BY THE THOUGHT POLICE WILL RESULT IN CERTAIN TORTURE AND DEATH.STILL WINSTON CAN NOT HELP WHAT HE THINKS AND HE TAKES ON A LOVER, AN ACT TOTALLY FORBIDDEN. HE ALSO SUBLETS A ROOM LOCATED IN A SHOP IN THE WORKING CLASS SECTION OF LONDON. EVENTUALLY WINSTON AND HIS LOVER ARE BETRAYED BY THE SHOPKEEPER, WHO IT TURNS OUT IS ONE OF THE THOUGHT POLICE. WINSTON IS TORTURED BOTH MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY AND IS LEFT TOTALLY BROKEN AND DEFEATED. WINSTON IS HOWEVER FINALLY BROKEN TO A POINT THAT HE BECOMES THE TOTALLY DEVOTED CITIZEN THAT BIG BROTHER DEMANDS.ORWELL WAS TRULY ONE OF THE GREAT THINKERS OF HIS TIME AND, HAD HE NOT DIED SO YOUNG, ONE WONDERS WHAT OTHER GREAT LITERARY ACHIEVMENTS HE WOULD HAVE PRODUCED. ONE ALSO WONDERS WHAT INFLEUNCE HIS VOICE MAY HAVE HAD DURING THE COLD WAR." +129,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,876009600,This is amazing!,"Overall, this book is pretty good. It's creepy, though! We should all take it as a warning about the kind of world we could become-- one with a totalitarian government who watches you constantly and takes away your every freedom, even freedom of thought-- if we don't adhere to our beliefs and preserve the human nature." +130,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,4.0,895536000,definately a book for the intelligent reader,"In this book, George Orwell paints a very dark future for human kind in his novel 1984. One must wonder how accurate he is about this, society's future. He shows how a gov't can alter the past just as quickly as the present occurs and still maintain full power over it's people. Today is the world going in the direction that this book depicts, to the exact destination, or are we going the opposite way. One can only think and worry about this situation, but it does appear society is heading towards what Orwell wrote so many years ago. The people of Oceania in this book were governed by telescreens monitoring everybody's moves and giving them rules to abide by. This book depicts a communist gov't and a guess at how the future will be. I personally really enjoyed this book. It was one of the few books that kept my attention on every page. This is definately a book for the intelligent reader. END" +131,9562910334,1984,,A2G00E835L0AYB,Shantel,1/1,5.0,1174953600,A horrifying but wonderful book,"This book was great but made me so afraid for the future. The book was written sometime in the 40s or 50s and takes place in England in 1984. In this futuristic world Big Brother is the boss and everything he says is right even if he's wrong. Everyone is under constant surveillance and history can be erased or changed at Big Brother's whim.The form of government in this book is similar to that of any tyrant totalitarian. What happens in this book is something that I believe could happen to society if we let the government obtain too much power over the people. It really gave me a new perspective on just how easily things can change in the world. Overall I was really nervous for the future of the world, but I couldn't put the book down. It is really well written and it kept me guessing until the end.I felt really badly for the two main characters. I couldn't even imagine what I would do in their situation. This was a great book. I love it. This is a must read for everyone." +132,9562910334,1984,,AGJSWCPF8T3LI,Paula,0/0,5.0,1048723200,Big Brother Is Watching You.,"This classic novel, written in the late 1940s, is deeply imaginative and intriguing. Orwell's insight into politics and human nature is brilliantly expressed throughout the novel, which vividly depicts a society in which people's lives are monitored and controlled to an unprecedented degree. Many parallels can be drawn between this ""futuristic"" government structure and several present-day political regimes. Orwell's ideas are clearly articulated and well expressed, while the story itself thoroughly engages the reader. Many of the concepts introduced in this novel have become embedded into the collective conscience of western nations. This novel should be taught in Canadian classrooms" +133,9562910334,1984,,A3LSLD9Y2P0UTD,"Karrie Hunter ""Stop Googling Me""",3/4,5.0,1187049600,Required Reading for any thinking person,"1984 should be required reading for any thinking person. Not only is the base story line compelling and thought provoking as a lesson on the more obvious problems presented in Orwell's dystopia, the ideas and thoughts presented through such things as the book the ""resistance"" reads are extremely relavent to today's world. The view of the military-industrial complex and how it helped lead to the society shown are amazingly prescient of how many industrialized nations are conducting business in modern society." +134,9562910334,1984,,A3BT8RS7JVOZY7,"B. Agarwal ""Book Muncher""",2/2,5.0,1149897600,Reality at its best,"A passionate, exciting novel of the portrayl of a chilling grim depiction of how government could dominate every aspect of human lives. The motto of the book, ""WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."" These are the statements used by the party to make ocenias society abide to its laws. Orwell uses this novel as a passage to describe the blind patriotism that powered dictatorships, such as Adolf Hitler, Soviet leader Joesph Stalin. Orwell uses Big brother its revered leader of Ocenia, just as the Germans cheered for hitler and respected him as their beloved father. Ocenia uses big brother as their all mighty protector who will watch over the citizens. Pictures can be found everywhere which is a reminder of Chinese communist leader Mao Tse-sung. A fantastic novel" +135,9562910334,1984,,A1U8DHSI18EEJ1,Richard E. Noble,1/2,5.0,1199577600,the hobo philosopher,"When I was young and read this book for the first time strangely enough I never thought of it as a warning about some other country's type of government. I thought of it as a description of what could happen in my own country if the wrong type of thinking was supported by a majority of the people of my country. I don't know what Mr. Orwell intended it to be but looking at my own country today I still think that my original interpretation was accurate.I felt the same way about Animal Farm.Richard Edward Noble - The Hobo Philosopher - Author of:""Hobo-ing America: A Workingman's Tour of the U.S.A..""" +136,9562910334,1984,,A3FTUPUS2TL0UP,Alfred Loera,0/2,5.0,1079913600,The world to come,"1984 is probably the best book out there. I cant believe how George Orwell comes up with this stuff. He desribes a world free form love, emotions, and privacy. His great use of charactres and plot makes the book a page-turner. I also believe that George is describing our wourld in the futre. If our civilization keeps doing what we are doing our would is going to end up like 1984." +137,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,936230400,Frighteningly real!,"Orwell creates in writing for us, a world that we may, in fact, create for ourselves. Through his genious words and the underlying truth of it all, Orwell makes Oceana real. Almost as though you expect to see it on a map, when, thankfully, it won't be there. The book is a work of genious and should be read by every person remotley concerned with the future of the human race. Very highly recomended!!" +138,9562910334,1984,,A9AGAF00QB28K,Chad L. McLendon,2/2,5.0,1355356800,A Classic for Today's World!,"One of my favorite classics that I, even though it is very depressing, recommend anyone interested in reading to read this book.Set in a nightmarish London of 1984 – we see life in a totalitarian state through the eyes of a single character, Winston Smith, who dares to standup against the notorious – notorious in our world – Big Brother in his own ways, through little defiant acts, such as keeping a journal stating his disapproval with his world and the government, to sneaking off and having sex with a woman for pleasure which is looked down upon as sex is only seen as a necessary for procreation.In this world, Freedom was only attained through total obedience to the Party, and the love of Big Brother, who watched you at all times. Winston works as a functionary of the Ministry of Truth where history is rewritten to favor the Party’s line summed up beautifully by the Party’s slogan "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." A little at a time Winston begins to realize that things are not as they should be and that those things should be changed. This book is drowned in hopelessness, but it is something we all need to read and keep close to our hearts, because during these troubling times it is too easy to forget how easy it is to fall into the trap that leads to Socialism to Communism to Totalitarianism.With today’s technology, Big Brother is a real threat and with the Government growing larger and larger the world of 1984 can become our future – if we are not careful." +139,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,4.0,901929600,Great fiction...Don't really see the "cutural significance","I read it in a day. It was a great story, but where people come up with "must read" and comments on how true it is is confusing to me. Orwell has some interesting ideas, esp. the vocabulary thing. However, it is fiction. If it is regarded as such, enjoy it. If a philosophetic novel is expected, look elsewhere." +140,9562910334,1984,,A1KKTLPJG5J1ZZ,Adam,0/0,5.0,970272000,Thought provoking,"Set in the imaginary totalitarian state of Oceania, whose population is controlled in word, deed and thought of the Party, the menacing but unseen Big Brother, the Thought Police and all - pervading propaganda. The main character Winston Smith, tries to stand up for the truth and humanity but is broken by the system. 1984 is an anti-utopian novel that examines the dangers of totalitarian rule and the loss of individual freedom, which is arguably a satire on Stalin's USSR. It seems that governments will never learn the lessons from history..." +141,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,919900800,One of the most powerful novels ever written,"There's not much you can say about this book that hasn't been said a thousand times before. It is well-written, the characters are excellently portrayed, the themes are strong and compelling... But for me the one thing this novel does better than all that is paint an atmosphere. Orwell draws you into the world he creates so expertly you can *feel* the sense of oppression, it's so real it is perfectly palpable. When the lead characters breaks free, you will him with all your soul to succeed... One of the greatest books ever written. And one of the most affecting." +142,9562910334,1984,,A31F46SL73DQYG,John W. Oliver,1/2,4.0,1117670400,A Thoughtful Read,"Though the novel does drag when you read tracts from the conspiracy's manual, I found the novel to be rather enjoyable. The idea of how the world would be shaped and for what reasons was interesting, and the narrator was able to lead the reader into the world and allow the reader to be engulfed into things.The end was well done, and it was a good closure to the work. The character does not die, but he is changed. Indeed, he awakens to thye doctrine of the state and accepts it. Yeah, he has been tortured and brainwashed, but he does not give in under that torture, though seeds are definitely laid.If you have the time and you like depressing books about totalitarian states that try to stamp out individual thought and reason, go ahead and pick this book up. If you want something lighter though, I would try to find something else." +143,9562910334,1984,,A854V9QPG3N1D,"metafora77 ""metafora77""",1/2,5.0,1051315200,1984 - Fascinating and Terrifying (Doublethink at work!),"This book is a work of genius. It is so much more than science fiction. In fact, it's bleak vision of the world is scary because of its plausibility. It is so completely credible and convincing. It is brilliant philosophy, masterful thriller, and love story all at the same time.There is enough explanation about the plot of the book in other reviews, so I'll spare you. This book captured me completely. Read this book if you like thought provoking literature." +144,9562910334,1984,,,,8/9,5.0,1224115200,"A Warning, A Prediction...A Terrifying Truth","First off, this book is incredible. At 13 years old, I didn't understand every aspect of it, but in a whole, everything made perfect, clear sense.I'm very interested in socialist governments(no, I don't like communist views; I'm a die-hard patriot at 13!), and I consider myself well-informed on up-to-date politics and such. And so, upon reading this book which was recommended to me by one of my teachers, I was horrified at the resemblances that Oceania and the direction our government is headed shared. The foresight of Orwell was shocking, and he kept the book very interesting.But a good portion of the middle was....awkward. Like, mature-content awkward (most teachers gave me girl-are-you-crazy? looks when they saw I was reading it. Later, I realized why). I almost didn't finish the book, but knowing its importance to my knowledge, I finished it. I definitely do not recommend it to anyone my age....-shudders-But its imperative that we as Americans read it. Remembering the mistakes of the past (and, in this case, the future) is imperative to keeping our nation a democracy. If we heed most of Orwell's warnings, we will be better equipped to save the future, and in doing so saving the past." +145,9562910334,1984,,,,2/2,5.0,1049760000,True prophecy,"I just finished reading CONQUEST OF PARADISE, a brilliant book about the decline of the entire world into a totalitarian dictatorship that seemed as real any I've ever read. It reminded me of the prophetic Orwell's 1984. As the years pass on, the foresight of George Orwell's book becomes more and more amazing. He writes the book as if 1984 is a distant future year when the government and the press run the present, past, and future. Are we not getting to that point now? I highly recommend this book to anyone who would like to wake up and see the state of affairs we are in presently in this country, and CONQUEST OF PARADISE paints a frightening picture of how technology may take us there." +146,9562910334,1984,,A3R3AD6D9HEZK9,Gerald,78/136,1.0,1247788800,Big Brother Lives,"Amazon offered 1984 for its Kindle E-book reader, but then the electronic version's publisher decided it didn't want to make the book available that way. So Amazon deleted the book from the Kindles of customers who had already purchased it and credited their accounts. A small problem: what about annotations people had made on the book for their term papers? A big problem: what if I buy a book by a liberal and Amazon decides they only like books by conservatives, so they delete the book from my player? This is a despicable action, and I will be boycotting Amazon until they publicly change their policy. There are plenty of places to buy books online." +147,9562910334,1984,,A2VB9T8SJ4X4Z3,Erik,1/1,4.0,1343606400,"lame build, rude ending, strong book","When it comes to this book, I have to recommend it. I listened to this book during my deliveries via audiobook. It took me quite a few attempts to actually indulge myself into the story, but once I managed it, I found myself wishing to know more. The book is QUITE slow in the beginning. The whole point is to build up an understanding of why Big Brother is hated. The author puts so much time and words into this, that there is no way you can miss it. By the time it is apply, you are hooked. The climax hooks you in and makes you go page after page in a sitting.The ending.... oh my. You just don't see it coming. I give Orwell Kudos for daring to go there, but you just can't be prepared for it.The point of books like this... is to have you turn the back cover over, with a burning in your stomach and a feeling tingling through your nerves. This book accomplishes this. You leave the book feeling content, yet angry, yet sad, yet longing. You wish for more, but you have to be content with what you were given.A lesson you learn from Big Brother." +148,9562910334,1984,,AMG2D71WHKI46,Kenan_conan04,0/1,5.0,1337040000,Fast shipping,"Fast shiping, the item arrived as described. Different cover though, but it's alright.I have not started the book yet, but I have heard that it was a great book" +149,9562910334,1984,,A2TQQJZKUHYL7Z,Xeno,0/0,4.0,1312243200,As relevant today as it was when written,"This was my first time ordering 1984, and figured it'd be a drawn out and dry book considering when it was written. I was quite surprised when it kept my attention after the first few pages; the parallels between what is in the book and what is going on today are unnerving. Read it and see what I mean. Read other reviews to get a better idea of the synopsis of this book." +150,9562910334,1984,,A16IAIV6KZHRI0,"""neoeva00""",2/2,5.0,1052006400,1984,"Few books I have read have captivated me as much as 1984 did. In the two days I read it I actually stayed up near midnight and it took me all the willpower I had to put it down and finally go to sleep. I would highly recommend this book to any reader and personally consider it one of the greatest political statements agains communism ever written.George Orwell's grim tale begins after a future government's attempt to create a utopia goes awry. We start the story as it pertains to Winston Smith, a man who works in The Ministry of Truth, which, despite it's misleading names, works on the 'correction' of 'false' records. Despite his desires to fit in, Winston is at risk merely because he can remember what life was like before 'Big Brother'. He knows that much of the party's propogands is fluid fiction; he realizes that the party controls individuals by brainwashing them with lies and alienating them from each other.Winston soon begins having a love affair with a woman named Julia. In their hatred of Big Brother, they both decide to join an underground resistance call the Brotherhood. However, the organization is not quite as Winston had conceived, and he and Julia realize just how hard it is to resist Big Brother and the Thought Police." +151,9562910334,1984,,AH0QQRZ1DQIIB,Tim Flipton,0/0,5.0,1359331200,Classic,"A classic of literature that should be read multiple times by everyone, it predicts a bleak world of misinformation and mind control. Still chilling every time I read it." +152,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,860889600,Big Brother is watching.,"Through out the centuries, men have preached altuism and unity. They were Big Brother. Through out the centuries, men have preached equality and hipocrosy. They were Big Brother. Through out the centuries, men have preached non-thought and conformity. They were Big Brother. Through out history, a long line of men have stood, begining with Plato, continuing with Stalin, and propagated today by every man, woman, and child who believes that 2+2=5, that A is not A.These men have stood for Big Brother, have stood for Ingsoc, have stood for evil, and have stood for 1984. George Orwell's masterpiece stood for all that which conflicted with those ideals: for love, for happiness, for individualism, for ego. On the surface, Orwell paints a picture more sickening, and more chilling to any person who believes that they are, that they are not a group, not a consortium, but exist in and for their own right.This is not a Utopia; this is what could happen, not what has happened. It is a testament to those who will not take the easy way out, will not conform. It is instead a tribute to those who rage against the dying of the light, for those who think, and those who know that 1984 can be stopped, by those who have stopped it through out the centuries: those who will not sanctify the punishment of virtue. The hero of this book is not Winston; it is the old prole' hanging out laundry, and making the song written by a machine a thing of beauty. In the end, the proletariat must rise; for they are not the lowest class, but the highest. The party members consider themselves higher because they have force, and therefor, by their reckoning, power. But they do not; they have nothing; everything is the Party's. But they are not the party; Big Brother is the Party. In the end, the Prole's are the powerful ones, for they know the beauty of reality, and of the of the simple phrase, "It is mine." +153,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,921196800,Intruiging look at Big Brother diminishing thought.,"This was an excellent book, and I recommend this to everybody. It held me in suspense till the very end. The way it makes you think emotional and psychologically about the love of Winston and Julia, and how Big Brother destoryed it. The mutual trust between Winston and the man he trusted and how it was broken, and the pain he suffered more mentally than physically really make you think. After reading this book, I am sure you will be pondering its agenda and reality for time to come, and you will learn to think of your own life and freedom.I recommend also "Animal Farm" by George Orwell Also an excellent look at communism." +154,9562910334,1984,,A5RH34IFB8U6M,Kindle,3/3,2.0,1337558400,Poor quality on Kindle,I purchased the e-version of this book to be read on my Kindle. There were numerous spelling errors where two words had been combined into one. The further intothe book theworse it got. Two to three errorsper page. I believe a spell checkwould have pickedthese allup. +155,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,923702400,One of the the best books ever written.,"George Orwell was a genius when writing this book. This book is pure genius! I reccomend everyone to read this book. It shows how much we really have in life, and that we need to protect our freedom and rights at all costs. It would be a nightmare to live in his world" +156,9562910334,1984,,ARDC3OLHY48L4,Adam,0/0,5.0,1101686400,For the technical predictions,"I'm amazed at the technical predictions in this book. I do think fortunately we will not produce a future society so blah and uncreative. As far as big brother, well it may happen but I'm pretty certain it wont be like this or so intrusive to our regular lives. Just look at normal everyday people in your life and you'll know we will never be like the eerie people in this book. I don't think most of the story in the book Utopian Reality will happen either, but its scientific predictions were really incredible as well. I did thoroughly enjoy the different perspective of 1984. I guess I also read dis-utopian kind of books because it makes me live my life with a smile, knowing I would never allow myself nor my children to become so bleak and cause I know many other people share the same feelings." +157,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,912384000,George Orwell- the psychic,"I read this book when I was 13 and couldn't put it down. I can't believe some lo-life's are giving it one star- this witty, enchanting book should be a basis to everyday life. It has predicted a lot of the future and nothing is stopping it happening again. I recommend everyone to read this book." +158,9562910334,1984,,AKN15O9QRWO2D,"Ryan K. Baker ""monkeyspinach""",29/53,1.0,1216771200,"Great Book, Inumerable Glaring Errors","I love this book, it was a great read.However, there are simply too many mistakes, misspellings, etc in this version. This is the very worst edition of any book I have ever read. I started highlighting the mistakes on my kindle, but there were just too many and I gave up.Add to that that the chapters are not marked, and there is no proper index.If you do buy this horrible edition, be prepared to read around an obvious error every other page or so.Some examples include:""There were four others oil the committee""""And they would sit round die table""Bottom Line: I want my money back." +159,9562910334,1984,,A329ZI4RB2HKPC,Alison,1/1,4.0,1024963200,A perspective into the Future....,"I read this book in an honors lit class in 9th grade and was surprised to find that it was not a suspended book at my high school yet (and at the same time I was glad it wasn't). Now I am a Junoir and able to fully apprieciate the well written polital novel. As I recall, it is about a man named Winston and is based in the furture where the government was nearly in complete control over a person and their thoughts. This place is Oceana which is located in London and at war or allienced with East Asia and Eurasia (Winston is the only one who knows the truth to this and is therefore especially watched closely as he contains top secreate information from the ""Truth Ministry""). Big Brother is the politacal party that controls London and the secrete police is basically it's secrete weapon to reading the peoples thoughts and killing them off. Winston falls in love with a woman (illigally) named Julia and therefore ends up joining the Brotherhood (good political party against Big Brother). Here we see telescreens that are hidden all over secrete and public places to moniter peoples movements and thoughts. Winston gets caught doing something he wasn't supposed to be doing and is sent to one of the prisons (the most interestingly detailed part in the novel). Here Wiston must face the ultimate punishment of his life...his own fear. Read it, ponder over it, and fear it, and enjoy it. I've even heard that today London has at least 1 survalence camera for every 15 people (sounds kind of like the telescreens to me)....." +160,9562910334,1984,,AWXPHJ44YEV87,The Bookie,2/4,5.0,1099353600,What more are you waiting for?,"If you haven't read this book, get it. What are you waiting for?Almost every book or movie in the genre since this book has in some way been influenced by it.It still manages to inform our discussions about privacy to this day." +161,9562910334,1984,,A2TI0UDDSXHH9X,Tala Ashrafi,0/4,3.0,943920000,A little outdated- but does convey a point,"Upon reading 1984 I found myself questioning many things about different economic and social societies. When George Orwell wrote this, ideas of Communism were just beginning to become known and many people questioned Capitalism. This is greatly reflected in the book. However, the so-called hero of the book, Winston, wasnt really a hero at all. In the end, he was brainwashed and lost his sense of individual thought. This was to prove to "evils" of not having Capitalism- The biggest problem with the book was that I feel it is outdated in that it does not have as great of an impact in our society today due to the increasing rise of Capitalism and the fall of several Communist countries. It presents a very extreme idea, but not a very likely one." +162,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,1020729600,An amazing and thought provoking novel,"George Orwell had my attention from the first to last page of his novel 1984. 1984 is a fascinating and mind-inducing novel. The story of Winston Smith's struggle through life in Oceania is extremely captivating and thought provoking. Orwell's sharp, detailed descriptions paint an image of an unforgettably unique society. His story is a detailed description of a man living in the worst case scenario communistic society. Orwell's ideas and images are extremely brilliant. His extreme communist society brainwashes their citizens to become emotionless, violent, and thoughtless. I was mesmerized by the way the society dehumanized its citizens. People had no freedom what so ever. The concept of people having the inability to think, loves, and express themselves is engaging. I found 1984 to be an extremely thrilling novel, I recommend it to anyone interested in a classic and contemplative piece of literature." +163,9562910334,1984,,A1QGDMR4XJOA6N,Top Dragon,2/2,5.0,1243468800,Big impact literature,"So what can I say about this book that hasn't been said before? Having read it I can see how it has become regarded as classic fiction. Of course the year 1984 has come and gone and many folks say had it been titled ""2009"" it would have been much more accurate. I chose this book because my son had to read it for school (I was never assigned this one myself) but I always felt I ""should"" read it. So I have now.For those of you who haven't read it, it is a complex novel but with a fairly basic plot. The protagonist, Winston Smith, is a functioning member of a society in the future who meets a woman he is attracted to. Much of the book surrounds their attempt to form a relationship in this society that just won't allow that sort of thing. Of course the real point and value of the novel is to illustrate where our current society may be headed if we don't change course, a sort of anti-utopian (dystopian?) novel. This book has brought us common terms such as ""Big Brother"", ""doublethink"", and ""thought police."" There are long sections where Winston reads to his girl friend from the official government manual detailing how the society came to be as well as the evolution of the government-speak (""Newspeak"")language. I am glad that I've read this novel but at the same time I can't say that I would ever want to read it again. My political/societal views are already pretty much cemented in place and this book, while thought provoking, did not change my views. I do agree that it should be studied at the High School level though, not only for its value to the world of literature but also as a way to kick start young people's thinking on what a society should and shouldn't be." +164,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,1055980800,Absolutely Enraptureing!,"George Orwell writes an amazing book on one mans life, from what he thought 1984 would be like. it was stunning and wonderful. I definetly reccomend this book!! I had no idea what i would be reading when i came home from my sister's house when she gave me 1984." +165,9562910334,1984,,,,2/2,5.0,1053648000,1984= USA Today,"This Book covers ""The Theory and Practice of Oligarchic Collectivism"" which is rule by the oligarchic plutocracy with or without rigged elections or a ""choice"" of 2 corporate owned candidates. This is fascism: the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary components of the oligarchy and finance capital. The regime is protected by dumbing down the population, scapegoating demagogues, fake terrorism....anything to focus the attention of the populace on anyone but their real enemies the looting parasitical oligarchy. The only socialism involved here is socialism for the rich (bale outs for the rich, subsidies from the state). Free enterprise for the working class. George Orwell got it right. In response to the person who claims that this is a book about ""socialism"": socialism is collective ownership of the means of production by the working class. We obviously do not have this in the US. The oligarchs own the means of production and the government and the tax payers subsidize them and their corporate fist known as the pentagon. Also, saying that Russians have a dead look in their eyes from living under totalitarianism: would it suprise you to know that in the 2002 Russian elections that the largest bloc of votes was for communists??? The oligarchs then removed the communists from the Duma (Nazi DICTATORSHIP style or USA style). This was not reported in the US corporate media cartel propaganda outlets because it blows the lies that the Russians are happy that the oligarchs are in charge again and have looted 40% of them into poverty in just 10 years." +166,9562910334,1984,,A25PAECTYS2CDO,"James P. Brett ""Publius""",200/290,4.0,1002067200,This is where we're headed folks,"The ideas in this book are ones that are as appropriate now as when Orwell first wrote them. In this time (2001), we have our "Two Minutes Hate" with Osama bin Laden.Many of the principles that Orwell writes about (e.g., thought control) are done in a quite blatant way in the book. In the real world of the 20th/21st century they're done, only much more subtly. That way, we don't know they being perpetrated on us.Here's how 1984 applies to current events:WAR IS PEACEThe new "War on Terrorism" is being sold as a guarantor or our safety. While this war is being waged, we're to accept permanent war as a fact of life. As the unavoidable slaughter of innocents unfolds overseas, we are told to go back to "living our lives."FREEDOM IS SLAVERY"Freedom itself was attacked," Bush said. He's right, though here's the twist: Americans are about to lose many of their most cherished freedoms in a frenzy of paranoid legislation. The government wants to tap our phones, read our email and seize our credit card records without court order. Further, it wants authority to detain and deport immigrants without cause or trial. To save freedom, we have to destroy it.IGNORANCE IS STRENGTHAmerica's "new war" against terrorism will be fought with unprecedented secrecy, including press restrictions not seen for years, the Pentagon has advised.When you read this book, you'll be better able to see the signs around you. The world portrayed by Orwell may well come to pass by the end of this century." +167,9562910334,1984,,AXC7Y4M3C2CLY,"mroxie ""mroxie""",1/1,5.0,1161216000,Startling View of a Future World,"""1984"" has made an impressive impact on literature, as well as society in general. It is a classic of the dystopian (or ""Negative Utopia"") genre. Though it was written in 1949, and the real year 1984 has already passed, the totalitarian society of the future George Orwell describes is remarkably believable and seems more possible than ever.The world of ""1984"" is much different than our present world; the territories are now divided into Oceania (which includes Great Britain and the Americas), Eurasia (includes the Soviet Union), and Eastasia (includes China, Japan, and Korea). These three powers are engaged in perpetual war, in which alliances are constantly formed and split. The governments of each of the three ""superstates"" has an enormous amount of control over the citizens and media. ""Big Brother"", ruler of Oceania, is seen as an omnipotent, infallible leader. The departments of Oceanian government are the Ministry of Peace (concerned with war), the Ministry of Plenty (concerned with rations of food and other goods), the Ministry of Love (concerned with the arrest and torture of those opposing the government), and the Ministry of Truth. The Ministry of Truth is perhaps the most influential of the four, as it is concerned with spreading propaganda of the Party (the only political group allowed in Oceania). The government places ""telescreens"" in most of the citizens' homes and various public places, which are generally unable to be turned off. These telescreens continuously provide information about government affairs. They can also be used as monitors for the government to observe what citizens are doing inside of their homes at any given time.The book centers around the protagonist, Winston Smith, a citizen of London, in Oceania. He is employed in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth, where he alters recent and historical articles and documents to coincide with what the Party desires to be represented as absolute fact. He finds his work challenging and interesting, but starts to increasingly wonder about the real facts that are hidden in the past and deeply questions ""Ingsoc"" (the form of English Socialism in Oceania's government). Winston begins keeping a journal of his thoughts about life and government, sitting at a place in his house away from his telescreen so he can't be watched. This is just one small part of a chain of events that leads him to become increasingly evasive and defiant of the Party, trying to keep out of the government's watch.Winston becomes romantically involved with a girl named Julia, who also detests the government's restrictions and lies. Winston and Julia try to sneak away to places free from government surveillance as often as they can, so they can be together. Winston hears rumors of a ""Brotherhood"", a group secretly working to disobey, and perhaps eventually overthrow, the Party. He constantly searches for evidence that such a group really does exist and that there may be hope for a revolution after all.Orwell takes important details into consideration to make this society seem real, particularly ""Newspeak"". Newspeak is regarded as Oceania's official language, and is ""the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year"". The goal of Newspeak's usage is to narrow the range of thought and individuality. Synonyms and antonyms are constantly being obliterated and many meanings can be summed up with greater rapidity than in ""Oldspeak"" (standard English) through abbreviations. Though Oldspeak is still used throughout the course of the novel, Newspeak phrases often appear in government publications and occasionally in dialogue. One of the common expressions, ""doublethink"", occurs when citizens accept the government's new and false facts as truth, in the place of previously established and real facts. The fear and oppression within such a society, where words are twisted in the government's favor and freedom of expression is destroyed, is conveyed with incredible believability in Orwell's work." +168,9562910334,1984,,A1JRO90875F5DZ,"""serbianspaceinvader""",1/2,5.0,1051401600,World Of Us,Through out the coarse of my reading carrier I must say that I have found only a few novels that may compare with "1984". The cunning realism that is embedded upon every page is something truly worth reading. Personally as a writer I feel that after reading this novel I have grown and improved my own writing technique. Not to mention the actually genius involved in contemplating the elaborate world of restricted freedom and no piece of mind. George Orwell completely shatters all walls of possibilities when he introduces many variations of mass control as well as mass acceptance of lies. The complexity of the main character Winston Smith in itself is simply astonishing. So tragic and heart felt is his predicament that sympathy is quickly given to the fictional character. This is mostly because of the fact that certain freedoms that we have are taken for granted. While in "1984" the lack of freedom is equally accepted and taken for granted by the people of the novel. Which reminds us to think and judge for our selves what it is right. This is the utmost reason for me appreciating and taking to heart this novel.>>Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak my mind...<< +169,9562910334,1984,,A173DIVMRN49OW,A customer,2/3,4.0,1234396800,2008 is 1984,"""It's a beautiful thing the destruction of words"" This appelation coming out of the mouth of a character Syme seems strange for any author to intone, tantamount to writer's heresy. In a way, this whole book was about heresy, 'thoughtcrime' towards the regime which ruled Airstrip One. This book will be able to teach a lot about politics in the modern day. The only place where it really strays is at Orwell's atheistic uterances. Otherwise a great read." +170,9562910334,1984,,AAO1132KN8P32,"Yvonne Kirk ""My personal rants at blog.woosan...",2/2,5.0,1149292800,A vision from the past..,"OK I have been reading some reviews of this book. The book itself, is a fantastic story of a man (Winston) who is beaten down by the society he lives in. Unable to accept the Party, he commits a Thought Crime. He gets away with it for a while, but then he meets up with a girl and this leads to his down fall. Now lets not take the story at face value. The book was written in 1949 (??) just after world war 2. Orwell didn't actually expect his future society to happen by 1984, it probably seems like a nice far enough in the future time. We could rename it 2184 and it will have the same effect on its readers and be just as relevant.Big Brother in the book does not relate to some silly 1990's (2000's) fad TV show. BB is a political party. Now look around at our society. We have CC TV Cameras, a person can't use a phone of an ATM without the government knowing. You can't catch a train without cameras watching you. Neighbour sying on you looking for terrorist activities. (Like the Macarthy era, and now today)This book is a warning to us from the past about allowing government into our private lives. Will we be a free peole, of a society of slaves to a goverment party? This is what Orwell and Huxley (Brave New World) are trying to tell us." +171,9562910334,1984,,AEMEWGHD4SYIV,vanessa,0/0,5.0,1020038400,What a way to interpret life,i thought the book 1984 was the most well written book ever +172,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,1031184000,Excellent,"This is my first time writing a review, and i'm not going to bother writing a synopsis because other people before me have taken the liberty in doing so. What's the point in a synopsis? Read the book and absorb it, try and see the parallels. For those of you who might view this book as some communist/socialist manifesto it actually really isnt. The book spoke bluntely to me, further solidifying in my mind what is happening in our present time and the path we are paving towards the future.Written in 1949 a few decades before the advent of the personal computer and worldwide networks. Orwell lacked the means of explaining the technology by which ""big brother"" was able to keep a watchful eye via the tv. He touched briefly on the two way communication capability. If you relate that to present day. The computer is what he would have meant if the book was written a bit later. If you havent noticed, computers, high speed internet, multimedia accessories, etc are all being thursted apon us. We reach out for it willingly as means of entertainment. Will we ever get to a point when we are required to have such things by law so we can be monitored? I doubt people will fuss over it either, they'll accept it willingly. Just as we accept walking through security checkpionts at airports that violate our personal privacy (referring to the latest see through scanners). Yet we do so willingly, because of fear caused by ""terrorist"". Tell the sheep its for their own protection that a wolf is gaurding them from others much like himself and they shall be content. We shed our freedom bit by bit, until we become happy secure little drones. Long live the empire..." +173,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,928454400,"IT WAS COMPLICATED,BUT VERY COMPELLING","1984 WAS THE BEST BOOK THAT I HAVE EVER READ. I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYONE AT SOME POINT TO READ THIS BOOK. ORWELL'S THOUGHTS OF THE FUTURE WERE VERY REAL AND SOMEWHAT FRIGHTENING. IT WAS A COMPLICATED BOOK TO READ, WITH SO MUCH COMING AT YOU AT ONCE. OFTEN I FOUND MYSELF READING PARTS OF THE BOOK OVER AGAIN AND FINDING SOMETHING THT I HAD MISSED OR FORGOTTEN. IT WAS ALMOST LIKE THE BOOK WAS PLAYING WITH MY MIND." +174,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,925430400,Orwell smelled the New World Odor,"I loved this book, and couldn't put it down. It should be required reading if it is not already. What I find so intriguing is how did Orwell have such vision? I know writers have unequalled ability but to me Orwell's abilities were almost shocking! He was a definitely a man out of time, I have to say. I'm reading another great book now. I picked up Mind Bomb by John Mayer at Xlibris.com, and it's making me lose sleep as well. Thanks Phoebe37@aol.com for recommending it in your review. I am now getting another whiff of World O[dor] :-) --Henry" +175,9562910334,1984,,A16KOXUJ718RYC,KimBook,1/1,4.0,1332892800,Devestating,"While the subject of this story intrigued me it also really disturbed me at the same time. I think it was an important read. Big Brother, here we are. I won't say you'll have fun from reading this book but I will say you will learn a thing or two about our world and where we are going." +176,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,924307200,good,After i read this book i made a doodi +177,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,838339200,A great book about what the world will be like in "1984","This book is wonderful. It goes into detail about how thegovernment can do pretty much whatever it wants. In the bookthe government controls all the people through tv and tortureif you do not do exacly what they tell you to. People arepunished for having their own opinions. This book is a mustread, despite its age." +178,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,930614400,Very realistic!,In my opinion this is Orwell's best novel and is also my favorite book. It can happen to us as long as their are power hungry human beings in this world. +179,9562910334,1984,,A3KEZLJ59C1JVH,Melissa Niksic,2/2,5.0,1217635200,Big Brother is watching you!,"""1984"" is George Orwell's warning of the dangers of a totalitarian society. The main character in the novel, Winston Smith, is a low-ranking member of the ruling Party in the country of Oceania. Winston and his fellow citizens are monitored everywhere they go, even in their own homes. Party members spy on everyone using ever-present telescreens, and pictures of ""Big Brother,"" the Party's leader, are on display everywhere. The Party's main goal is to eliminate all forms of individual thought, which can lead to rebellion. In order to do that, the language of Newspeak is being integrated into society in hopes of eliminating 80% of all words and thus reducing the chances of a revolt. Sex is also another aspect of life considered taboo by the Party, and Winston eventually begins an affair with a woman named Julia with full knowledge of the fact that if they get caught, they could both be killed by the government. Winston ultimately finds himself fighting a dangerous battle with the Party, and it's a fight he cannot possibly hope to win.This novel is as powerful now as it was when it was written in the late 1940s. Orwell's commentary about the dangers of totalitarianism coupled with an analysis of the powers of psychological manipulation are truly frightening. I can't say that this book is enjoyable to read because the subject matter is very disturbing, but ""1984"" is a well-crafted and thought-provoking book that should be ready by everyone." +180,9562910334,1984,,A3Q4M556CLF59R,Nataly Martnez,0/1,3.0,1352937600,Great condition,"The book was in perfect condition when I received it. It is an interesting read, but it was too long." +181,9562910334,1984,,A62IECUD1998Q,Cedric D. Fonville,0/3,5.0,1238889600,nineteen eight-four,"the product was delivered in a timely fashion and was in the ""as-stated"" condition. it was used but the book was still in tact with no damage. highly recommend seller to any potential buyers" +182,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,910742400,Beautiful. Horrifyingly beautiful.,"You feel a sense of doom from the beginning. Even as Winston and Julia are embracing each other in the field, or in the dusty room above Mr. Charrington's shop, you instinctively know that in the end they will have to lose. I was surprised when O'Brien came in and now I can't decide whether he is good or evil. Like the book said, O'Brien tortured Winston and eventually sent him to his death. But still...did he really mean it? Or was O'Brien yet another brainwashed victim of The Party? You should not read this book if you do not like unhappy endings." +183,9562910334,1984,,A2Z1VRET1SFMJK,Andrew R. Allen,1/2,4.0,1193616000,Big Brother Is Out to Get You,"This classic story of Orwell's imagined future in 1984 written during the 1950s is a stark warning against totalitarian systems of government. In the story the government is headed by a shadowy figure titled Big Brother. This popular reference to ""the man"" or other monitoring organization originates in this story. The basic concept is that the ruling party monitors all aspects of a person's life through telescreens, microphones, and an elaborate spy system, among others. They create their own history and destroy all accounts which differ from their account of history.They also invent a language called Newspeak which could be a reference to using politically correct language. Newspeak is structured to comply solely with the political philosophies of the Party and is intended to make thought which occurs contrary to this philosophy impossible. If someone tries to make claims to the contrary or engage in discussions that oppose the party it is considered ""crimethink"" and the person is taken away to be ""fixed.""If current events or philosophies change, a complex system of forgery and reworking is in place to rewrite history so that Big Brother always makes accurate predictions, the economy is always better than it was in the past and things appear to be great on paper. In reality, people barely subsist, disease and crime is common, and life in general is much worse compared to life prior to the Revolution which occurred in the 1950s-60s in conjunction with wide spreadnuclear war. Old copies of books and newspapers are burned to eliminate any hardcopy of actual history.There is no reality but that which the Party and Big Brother espouse. If you think outside or remember something different from the stated reality, you are considered delusional and in a minority of one. Those who persist in the belief that Big Brother is wrong, are arrested and systematically tortured and brainwashed to the point where they begin accepting the Big Brother philosophy and reality as truth.The main character works for the Party but has doubts as to the positive benefits of the Party and its philosophy. He feels repressed and seeks out ways to fight against this overwhelming power. The first part of the book walks through his growing realization of the continuous brainwashing and creation of reality which can change at the drop of a hat.The 2nd part adds very little to the overall plot and really could be skipped without much loss in value. It additionally contains a gratuitous amount of promiscuous behavior which serves little purpose other than an appeal to the prurient interest.The last part of the book describes in detail the arrest, torture, and brainwashing of the protagonist. He has many logical arguments and perspectives which would likely occur to the reader fighting against the philosophy of Big Brother. This helps to make believable his eventual conversion to belief that Big Brother is good and right regardless of the reader's perspective grounded in the reality of today's thought.1984 is quite thought provoking and serves as a good reminder that any political party or dictator with absolute power is dangerous and measures should be taken to avoid movement towards this type of system." +184,9562910334,1984,,A5JMVTX6EJX9F,Billie Frechette,0/0,5.0,1358294400,So eerily prophetic,"There are very few books that make you afraid for the future and current day as much as this. This novel will make you look at today's changes and wonder how much of it is truly science fiction. Almost 30 years beyond the predicted time, this book reveals how foolish and unaware we often choose to be. To remain free, we must be unwilling to relinquish our knowledge no matter what others may think. No other novel has directly changed my thinking (so far) as much as this one." +185,9562910334,1984,,A38GWU69DNQDAM,Danielle Nuhfer,0/0,5.0,1211155200,A Book to Boggle the Mind,"Imagine, for a second, that tomorrow a large Atomic War starts, and the world is divided into three states. You are under the command of a leader called ""Big Brother"". Constantly on government surveillance, you try to escape Big Brother's listening and viewing devices, but, of course, you can't. Nobody can really escape.In the year 1984, bombs invade the city of London. On the Malabar Front a war starts, in another state of the world, called Eastasia. The Ministry of Truth, a government organization, broadcasts to the population via a network of telescreens. These devices, which intrude on all aspects of people's lives, are also capable of monitoring their every word and action. They form part of an immense surveillance system used by the Ministry of Love -another government organization- and its dreaded agents called Thought Police, to serve their singular goal: the elimination of ""thought crime"". Winston Smith is a Party worker; Part of the social party known as the Outer Party, the pity of the intrusive government. Winston works in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth - the government organization in charge of modifying historical news for consistency. When Winston finds proof that the Party is lying, he starts off on a journey of self-questioning. In doing so, he becomes a thought-criminal. Winston begins to notice that a young Party member, Julia, is watching him. She wears the special sash of the ultra-zealous Anti Sex League and Winston fears that she is an informant. However, to his surprise, she reveals herself as a subversive, and they begin a dangerous relationship. This inspires Winston to explore deeper the difference between propaganda and reality. Ultimately, it leads him to O'Brien - a member of the Inner Party who sets Winston on the beginning of an amazing discovery.The book 1984 is a perfect read for anyone that is willing to see the world in a whole new aspect. Not written to a specific group of people, this book can be perceived from any point of view, and from any part of a modern-day- society. One reason people should read this book is because it sees the government from a whole new perspective. The book, 1984 was published in 1949. It predicts the way that a slightly communist government, would function in the future. What I find completely surprising, is that many of the futuristic devices in the book 1948 have become true to this day. When you put a good amount of thought into it, it all becomes reality. Today the government watches our every move through computer, phone, and ever video surveillance. It's scary to think that even now, as you read this, someone could be watching you. Also, the government still hides secrets through propaganda press. Another reason why this book should be read, is because it has a large array of quotes, such as: ""War is peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"" (Orwell, 1949, p.27). It provides the reader with a complete set of wisdom and knowledge through its quotation and lessons. The last reason that I will share, why someone should read this book, is because it keeps your interest. Even though the book isn't exactly a fast read, it's completely addicting the entire way through. Keeping your hands off of it is an almost impossible task to accomplish. It contains the ability to keep the attention of a monkey, and yet can relate to someone with the intelligence of Einstein.In conclusion everyone, and I mean everyone, should read this book. With its perspective of government conspiracy, relation to modern day life, knowledgeable quotes, ability to contain attention, and its intelligent relation; I am positive it will keep you, and anyone else, on the edge of their seat.-Jonathan Lightcap" +186,9562910334,1984,,ABQEKKRD6WZFA,cpt matt,0/0,5.0,1259020800,Still a Classic and Relevant Today,"When I read this book in High School, 1984 was still in the future. I just re-read the book and it still packs the wallop now as it did then. Perhaps even more so since one can see parts of this book coming true.This was required reading back in the day, and I am glad it was. A series of ""Negative Utopias"" such as Animal Farm, Farenheit 451, Brave New World warned of the dangers of societies where personal freedoms are lost, the individual and free spirit are crushed.These warnings and themes are ingrained in our speech today, which is a good thing. 1984 speaks of a world always at war, citizens are under constant surveillence, history is changed on a daily basis. It is a sharp criticism of Communism, Fascism or any government that restricts personal freedoms.It can be a depressing read, since the environment is dark, oppressive, gloomy and the sad ending is foreshadowed by the characters. But it has to be dark, because a society so stripped from freedom would be impoverished. Highly recommended for all High School students, for anyone who hasnt read this, and yes, for those who read it a long, long time ago." +187,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,885340800,A book that made me physically ill,"I will never read this book again. It broke me to pieces. I was bed-bound for days. It changed the way I thought about government and, in fact, just about everything. A terror of giving the slightest degree of control to anyone, because they could take more. Read it if you dare." +188,9562910334,1984,,A912QKZ7UYI8L,"Chris Gladis ""Chris""",2/2,5.0,1293840000,Doubleplus depressing!,"Gods, where do I even start with this?As with To Kill a Mockingbird, I wanted to read this during Banned Books Week for two reasons. First, it's on the ALA's list of top banned or challenged books, and second because it's really, really good.As with all the books I read, there's always a little part of me thinking about what I'm going to say about the book once I finally decide to write about it. Sometimes I start composing in my mind, coming up with the pithy words and phrases that have made me into the international book reviewing superstar that I am.This time, however, I could barely concentrate for the cacophony in my head. There's just so much going on in this novel that doing it any sort of justice would probably require writing a book that was longer than the book that it was analyzing. And as much as I love you guys, I'm not about to write a whole book about this. Probably because I reckon better minds than mine already have.Regardless, it's hard to choose where exactly to go on this one. There are so many political, sociological, psychological and philosophical threads to pick up here that no matter what I write about, I'm pretty sure I'll get responses about how I didn't mention the solipistic nature of Ingsoc and its relationship to the philosophy behind modern cable news network reporting strategies. Don't worry, guys - I got that one.I suppose two big things came to mind while I was reading it this time, and the first of them was inspired by the previous book I read, To Kill a Mockingbird. In that book, Atticus Finch talks a lot about bravery. To teach his son about what it truly means to be brave, he gets him to take part in an old woman's struggle to free herself of a morphine addiction before she dies - an excruciating process that is more likely to fail than to succeed. But she does it anyway. Atticus says to his son about bravery, ""It's when you're licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do.""The question in my mind, then, was ""Is Winston Smith brave?""It's a hard question to answer, really. By Atticus' definition, you could say that he is. A member of the Outer Party that rules the superstate of Oceania, Winston Smith is a part of a greater machine. He works in the records department of the Ministry of Truth, diligently altering and ""rectifying"" the data of the past to bring it into alignment with what the Party wants to be true. His is a world where there is no such thing as objective truth - the truth is what the Party says it is.A good member of the Party sublimates his will to that of the Party. What Big Brother wants, she wants. She has no love but love for the Party and no dreams but to do what the Party wants of her. A good Party member doesn't have plans or hopes or dreams. He doesn't ask questions or idly wonder if things could be different from what they are. A good Party member doesn't think. He is born, lives, consumes, and dies.Winston, however, cannot be a good Party member. He wonders why the world is the way it is, and begins down a road to assert his own identity as a human being. He knows full well that he will fail, that in the end he and the woman he loves will be delivered into the hands of the Thought Police, and he is appropriately terrified. But he goes through with it anyway. He keeps a diary of his thoughts and actively tries to join an underground movement that is determined to overthrow the Party and Big Brother. He declares himself willing to undertake acts of heinous treason, all in the name of resistance against the Party.And in the end, he fails, just as he knew he would. So does this make Winston, a man who is so far in character from Atticus Finch, a brave person? Well, yes and no.He does meet Atticus' definition of bravery - persisting in what you believe to be right, even in the knowledge that you will probably fail. Winston puts his own life on the line multiple times, committing Thoughtcrime of the highest order. But is he doing it for some higher ideal, or is he doing it for more selfish reasons? Flashbacks to his younger days suggest that Winston Smith was an unrepentantly selfish child, who was willing to disregard the dire straits of his own mother and baby sister in order to get what he wanted. Could we not say that the adult Winston does the same? That he is more interested in freedom for himself than for others? Is his rebellion against Big Brother political or personal? He claims that he wants to see the world changed and freedom brought to all people, but how far can we trust a mind that's been well-trained in Doublethink?This, of course, gets right back to the Big Question of why people do the right thing, when it might be so much easier and profitable to do otherwise. Atticus Finch could have let Tom Robinson swing, thus saving himself and his family a whole lot of trouble, just as Winston could have just given up and emulated his neighbor, Parsons, becoming as good a Party member as possible. Neither man could do that, though, because is was not in their nature to do so. It was impossible for Winston to continue to live the way the Party wanted to and, given time, he may have been able to reach beyond meeting his own personal needs and seen to the needs of his greater community.Unfortunately, we never get the chance to find out, as the Thought Police eventually get tired of watching him and take him in. To his credit, he does hold out to the last extreme before he betrays Julia in his heart, so perhaps he is brave after all.The other thing that came to mind while I read was the modern use of the word ""Orwellian,"" and how it falls vastly short of what is depicted in this book. It gets thrown about any time a city puts up a few CCTV cameras downtown, or a business decides to put surveillance cameras in their store. It comes up when we put RFID chips in passports and credit cards, or when we think about how much data Google can hold about us. The word brings to mind a sense of constant surveillance, never being able to move or act without some government or corporation knowing what we're doing.While the concept of the two-way telescreens in this book certainly are a logical extension of surveillance culture, to call a customer database or red light cameras ""Orwellian"" is like calling a Bronze-age chariot a Ferrari. It betrays an incredible lack of understanding of what exactly is going on in the world that Orwell has built. We may be watched by these people, but in comparison to the average citizen of Oceanea - prole or Party member - we are still remarkably free.There are still freedoms available to us that people like Winston never had, and couldn't understand even if they were offered. We can protest, we can voice our disagreements, we can channel our energies into whatever pursuit we choose, or not channel them at all. We have the freedom to decide who we want to be and how we want to live, at least within the limits of a well-ordered society. We do not live in daily terror that we might be abducted from our beds, our lives ended and our very existence erased from record and memory. Honestly, I think a few security cameras pale in comparison to the horror that is Oceanea and the world of Big Brother.There is so much more to talk about with this book. I find Newspeak fascinating, and its foundations both amazing and terrifying. The idea that a concept can only truly exist if there's a word for it brings to mind those ""untranslatable"" words you find in every language. For example, there's no equivalent to the English ""miss"" in Japanese, as in ""I miss my mother."" Does that mean that people in Japan are incapable of missing people? Of course not, but the underlying theory of Newspeak suggests otherwise. Once the party reduces the English language to a series of simple words with no nuance or subtlety of meaning, the idea goes, Thoughtcrime will be literally impossible. After all, how can one wish for freedom if the concept itself is impossible to articulate?Then there's the idea of the mutability of the past. The way the Party exerts its unbreakable control over the population is by virtue of the fact that they control all media - newspapers, radio, television, publishing of all sorts. If the Party wants to, say, claim that Big Brother invented the airplane, all they have to do is revise all relevant media to reflect their desired past, and then replace and destroy anything that disagrees with them. With no evidence that Big Brother didn't invent the airplane, all that's left is fallible human memory, and those who do think they remember the ""right"" version of the past will eventually die anyway. Whoever controls the present, the Party says, controls the future. And whoever controls the past controls the present. By remaking the past, the Party guarantees that they can never be gainsaid or proven to have erred in any way.Fortunately for us, Big Brother never had the internet to contend with. As anyone who's been online for a while knows, nothing on the internet ever goes away. Ever. The words of any leader or influential person are all there, in multiple copies, all of which can themselves be copied and distributed in mere seconds. While it is possible to fake a photograph, the awareness of that possibility, as well as the technology to suss out the fakes, are just as available to anyone who wants them. Even in cases where there are disputes about the past, or re-interpretations of past events, it is impossible for one version to systematically replace all others. While this sometimes results in competing versions of the past, the one with the most evidence tends to prevail.Continuing in that vein, the understanding that the Party controls all information about itself leads to a very interesting question that's not addressed in the book - is anything that is not directly witnessed by Winston Smith true? We are led to believe, for example, that there are three world powers - Oceanea, Eastasia and Eurasia - which are locked in a state of perpetual war. The nature of this war and how it serves the interests of these three nations is laid out in Goldstein's Book, which is the text of the Revolution that Winston and Julia want to join. But here's the thing - Goldstein's Book is an admitted fiction, written by the Party as a kind of honeypot to bring suspects through the last stages of their Thoughtcrime. So we have no proof that the world of Nineteen Eighty-four actually is laid out the way it appears.The Party could in fact dominate the world, using the pretext of war to keep the world's citizens terrified, needy and compliant. On the other extreme, Oceanea could just be Britain, turned in on itself like some super-accelerated North Korea, its borders sealed and its citizens kept in utter ignorance of the world outside. We don't know. We have no way of knowing, and neither do any of the characters in the book. Even the Inner Party members might not know the truth of their world, and wouldn't care if they did.One more thing, and I'll keep this one short - Doublethink. The ability to hold two contradictory ideas in your mind, believing in both of them simultaneously and yet being unaware that there's any conflict at all. Knowing, for example, that last week chocolate rations were at thirty grams, and at the same time knowing that this week they had been raised to twenty. All I can say here is to look at the current health care debate in the United States. Here's a fun game: see how often someone says, ""We have the best health care in the world,"" and then see how long it takes before they tell us that health care in the United States is irrevocably broken. Your average politician and pundit does this kind of thing all the time and, in accordance with the basic principles of Doublethink (also known as Reality Control), they immediately forget that they had done it.This game is much easier if you watch Glenn Beck for half an hour.There is just so much to be gleaned from this book. Probably the most important is this - the world depicted in Nineteen Eighty-four is certainly not an impossible one, but it is unlikely. The people of that world allowed the Party to take over for them in a time of crisis, and in that sense this book is a warning to us all. It is a warning to keep the power that we have, and to resist the temptation to let a government decide who we should be.-------------------------------------------""I understand HOW: I do not understand WHY.- Winston Smith, Nineteen Eighty-four-------------------------------------------" +189,9562910334,1984,,AO0VCG9XB1M3Z,"S. Vohra ""coolsaru""",0/0,5.0,1037836800,A deep reading,"First of all, I would like to say that I dont usually read 'fiction' books... but this one is not really fiction ...I think you understood the main part of the story from the other reviews already...According to me, this novel really makes you think about the world we are living in ..when discussing with friends about '1984', they told me that this book represents our future ... but I have the feeling that there is already some truth in this novel ...When G. Orwell writes about the control of the history, and the publications .. I see some parallelism with the way our medias are controlled as well ..This book really makes you think.. that s what I liked about it..." +190,9562910334,1984,,A2VP7JOT3K7PFM,"Stephen Pletko ""Uncle Stevie""",3/3,5.0,1127260800,WAR IS PEACE; FREEDOM IS SLAVERY; IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH,"+++++This novel by George Orwell (whose real name was Eric Arthur Blair, 1903 to 1950) is about the effects of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is a characteristic of a government or state in which one political party maintains complete control under a dictatorship and bans all others.This story, which takes place in London in 1984, follows one man (named Winston Smith) and his love interest (Julia) as they struggle against this totalitarian party (""The Party"") whose leader (actually dictator) is ""Big Brother."" The Party political orthodoxy rules the giant country of ""Oceania"" (in which London is located).At the heart of this party's political orthodoxy is the process of controlling thought through the manipulation of language and information by the use of ""Newspeak"" which utilizes what is called ""doublethink.""Newspeak is the official language of Oceania (but is not the only language spoken). It is a language that eliminates unnecessary words and is designed to diminish rather than help expressive thought. For example, Newspeak states that there is no good and bad but only good and ""ungood."" Doublethink is the ability to simultaneously hold two opposing ideas in ones mind and believe in them both. The three Party slogans that title this review are examples of doublethink. Another good example is that (2+ 2 =4) and (2 + 2 = 5).The Party keeps everybody in line through Newspeak and doublethink. But they also have other methods. For example, they have the ""Thought Police"" that investigate ""thoughtcrimes."" These are ""crimes"" of just having negative thoughts about The Party. Another example are telescreens that watch your every move even in bathroom stalls. Thus, ""Big Brother is watching you"" at all times.Winston and Julia are discovered to be guilty of thoughtcrimes by O'Brien (who is the personification of The Party). O'Brien also represents those leaders who use cruelty and torture as their primary method of control (like Hitler and Stalin did). He makes them pay for their ""crimes.""This novel clearly shows how totalitarianism negatively affects the human spirit and how it's impossible to remain freethinking under such circumstances.This novel also contains an appendix written by Orwell. Here he explains various aspects of Newspeak and to my surprise he states that by the year 2050, Newspeak will be the only language that anyone will understand. Why does he state this? He wanted to keep the fear of totalitarianism alive in his readers well past the year 1984. (Thus, this novel is still quite relevant for today!)Finally, this novel in a word is fascinating! It is well written and is filled with symbolism and imagination. It begins slow but gradually picks up speed. And the story is very interesting.In conclusion, this novel is a masterpiece of political speculation that serves as a warning to us all. Read it for yourself to see why it brought Orwell world-wide fame!!(first published 1949; 3 parts or 24 chapters)+++++" +191,9562910334,1984,,,,0/0,5.0,898214400,"Harrowing, thought-provoking, powerful",I just finished 1984 about a week ago and loved it. Orwell showed his maturity as a writer and his evolution from Animal Farm (also great). 1984 shows the force of totalitarian governments and the faults of human nature. This should be read by any progressive-minded persons in the world. +192,9562910334,1984,,A3IKBHODOTYYHM,"fra7299 ""fra7299""",1/1,4.0,1311465600,Down with Big Brother,"So much has been written about Orwell's classic dystopian novel that it is tough to add anything new, many reviewers having offered well-thought of critiques. Orwell's futuristic novel makes one contemplate a world in which various elements of humanity--memories, important events, identities, personalities, family experiences--are rendered obsolete and transparent. 1984's afterword poses a question that is at the core of the novel: ""can human nature be changed in such a way that man will forget his longing for freedom, for dignity, for love--that is to say, can man forget that he is human?"", a question that the book's protagonist, Winston Smith, struggles with. Unlike some other dystopians (Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, The Giver, The Hunger Games), which share glimmers of hope for mankind, 1984 is a novel that leaves you shocked, upset, depressed and cold. Reading 1984 is a paranoid, hopeless kind of experience, particularly part three of the novel, but, to apply the oft used expression, it is a ""cautionary tale"", a dark parable to what could happen in a society devoid of humanness and ruled by oppressive forces.Orwell uses his main character, Winston, as a scapegoat to this disillusioned society. A sort of everyman, Winston experiences a rush of revolt during early on in the novel during the Two Minutes Hate, where the people stop to decry and lash out against Goldstein, an individual who advocates free speech and liberty. Winston takes measures to silently rebel against The Party: he scribbles thoughts on paper; he ventures outside the district; he buys an ""ancient"" relic, a glass piece, a link to the past. Despite his fatalistic attitude that he will eventually be caught and persecuted, he longs for information--and signs--- that will contradict the preachings of Big Brother; he ventures into a pub to engage an old man into a conversation about the world before the revolution, but is frustrated to find that the man only knows meaningless facts about the past. Winston later meets Julia, a woman who he distrusts initially, but comes to trust, as she despises everything about the Party. Winston enjoys the liaisons with Julia, and continues to try to understand more about the past and the possible existence of the Brotherhood. Instincts tell him that O'Brien, a man who works in the department, is the key.Orwell's 1984 is a work that epitomizes futuristic fears of a brainwashed society, evoking emotions on the part of the reader to root for the individual over civilization. As others have noted, 1984 depicts a pessimistic world view with a bleak message. It is, therefore, a bit of a downer to read. However, 1984 is powerful and has redeeming qualities, as evidenced in Winston's valiant struggle and attempt to retain his identity and his hatred for Big Brother; however, we see an inevitable, unalterable conclusion that still leaves us a little bit shaken.Similar to many of you, I was ""forced"" to read 1984 in high school; after rereading in college, the book's message was so much more powerful. It's a book that we often have to read, but it is a book that we should read." +193,9562910334,1984,,A5KRSBWGPDIC1,James May,4/4,5.0,1273622400,Perception and subversion,"To me it is somewhat surprising how few people think this is a book about perception and how that perception can be circumvented and subverted by the use of semantics. This should be obvious since Orwell actually takes the trouble to stop the book in mid-stride and lecture the reader about things like ""doublethink"". Jane Austen's ""Pride and Prejudice"" is also a book about perception, so much so that one of the Penguin Paperback editions has an entire introduction devoted to this idea. This is why Austen's book is still so timely and why ""1984"" is more timely than ever.The liberal left in America has had it's ability to reason literally overwhelmed in some instances by it's own political agenda. If Orwell could have I'm sure he would have coined the phrase, ""political correctness"". Political correctness blinds a person to any solution that does not fit in with their world view and so America has become a very troubled place indeed; in America, rape by one group can be the result of 'generational rage' and by another a predatory crime. Crime itself becomes politicized according to skin color. Words like 'colonialism', and 'imperialism' have had to be redefined by the Left in order to portray America in the light they wish. On the Left, it is taken for granted that all cultures are equal, separated only by opportunity and not by an inherent brilliance or lack of it; the benefits of multiculturalism, as a result, are taken for granted and not to be even questioned and America's immigration policy reflects this tenet.The political Left in America in the 21st century has taken on the delusional aspects of the Right in the 1960,s, seeing what it wishes to see and deriding all else with an airy, moral wave of the hand. Obsessed with race, the Left projects its own obsession with skin color onto millions of white Americans it doesn't even know.The Left in America projects it's own oppressive and smothering presence onto the country as a whole in the name of political freedom while absolving America's criminal oppressors of guilt; it is the 'system' that is guilty and the 'real' criminal. Criminals become heros, and lack of achievement celebrated in patronizing asides while success itself is deemed immoral without regard to the intent of the opposite side of that success. Thus failure attains morality in an Orwellian way that is most troubling. The left assigns morality wholesale in stereotypes that consign a banker to spiritual bankruptcy and a college student the opposite in a bigoted default system totally unaware of it's own racism and lack of perception of reality.The political Left in America is caught in the very perceptual trap that Orwell warned about; that trap is insidious and blinds one to it's very walls.Lack of achievement in America on the part of certain groups in relegated to a concept of a generational hangover while achievement is deemed a result of privilege; in the eyes of the Left, both groups are in fact exactly equal in terms of competence.In America, the Left would have you believe that everyone is exactly equal, the ""dictatorship of the proletariat"" as it were in not a class struggle but an evening out of class, based on the 'coulda, woulda, shoulda' view that there must be a reason why some groups achieve and others do not aside from their own endemic value system or lack of it. In this scenario success itself achieves a type of tainted corruption while lack of success is to be excused, examined, mitigated and measured in every possible way but what counts and that is as Orwellian as it gets.""Big Brother"" isn't watching everyone, just those it deems watchable by skin color, success and and entirely de-contextualized cultural history every bit as subversive as Winston's job." +194,9562910334,1984,,A2R3XFLY1XGKKN,Yolita de Houston,1/2,3.0,1345680000,1984... kind of depressing,"I bought this book about 3 weeks ago and I'm still ""trying"" to read it. It's depressing and the theme is kind of old, so I'm not that enthusiast with it. I was born abroad and this was not a required reading material while I was in school. I'm just very happy that I've never lived in a place like that. Hope it gets better towards the end." +195,9562910334,1984,,A2T5FFATKEQQEV,monkeytot,1/4,5.0,1181088000,"Genious, Peo-ple!",have you read? Its the book everyone is reading now. It shows what its like to live in a totalagrarian society like Nazi Germany or W. U.S. +196,9562910334,1984,,,,0/1,5.0,836265600,Orthodoxy is unconsciousness . . .,"Orwell writes beautifully of the horrors of a future withoutthought, without love, without language. This book is aboutthe erasing of memory and with it the human soul. Finally wehave the articulation of pure hell where a human beingis likened to a cockroach . . . watched, forever, watched." +197,9562910334,1984,,A2VD39HSA4GFC0,Knot,3/62,1.0,1051488000,ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ,"1984 by George Orwell, is the most BORING book I ever read for school. To me the plot was not interesting, the characters were useless and the time period .... Although the idea of the government controling everything is scary and most likely true it just didn't have any emotions to make it good. For a book to be good it needs to have emotions, and this book lacked them, and there was also no dialouge which to me is important.KNOT" +198,9562910334,1984,,A3GYBMJ844W36X,Charlise Tiee,0/0,5.0,948931200,Highly impacting,"This book is incredible and terrifying, it is well-written and the topic is highly salient to our time. This is about more than communism, but about humanity. If you have read We, by Yvegeny Zamyatin, you really must read 1984. (I, for some reason, read them in that order) I would say that 1984 is the superior. Erich Fromm's afterword is worthwhile, additionally, it is quite short and readable." +199,9562910334,1984,,A1M0HJGD1WBWSP,MICHELE B,1/5,3.0,1284768000,1984,The book is a little bit more yellow and worn than I would like. This was not metion. +200,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,909187200,Into politics? relig? sci-fi? econ? eco? drama? LOVE DUNE,"I've read all 6 books several times (and I have a life!). The way Herbert builds a society, and describes its many aspects, is unparalleled. The entire series is really about control and power. Who/what is in charge? The government? econmics? religion? technology? military? males? females? nature?Once the reader gets by the new vocabulary (interestingly based on Hebrew & Arabic), and gets into the story (you may wish to have a scorecard), you will be completely absorbed and will not want to put the books down.P.S. Even though the movie is pathetic, I have to thank its creators. I had not yet read the books, but the story seemed compelling. I bought the first book the next day, and my literary life was changed. This got me into sci-fi reading (Asimov, Heinlein, etc...). Thank you Frank Herbert." +201,1556909330,Dune,,,,1/1,5.0,987552000,A great read!,"Herbert's Dune is truly one of the best books I have ever read. It has everything in it that one could want: war, heroes, futuristic technology, villains, suspense, you name and Dune probably has it. I strongly recommend the book over the movie. There is far more detail in the novel and you gain a better understanding of who everyone is and what the different people are about. The copy of the book I have has a dictionary of words that you may not understand, and it has a map so you can see roughly where each scene takes place. Herbert was able to keep my attention throughout the whole book and the way it was written kept me glued to the book and it never seemed like it was as long as it really is, about 500 pages. I thought that it had strong similarities to a Star Wars type story; however, it was at the same time completely different. I would recommend this book and I plan on reading some of the others in the series." +202,1556909330,Dune,,A2NJO6YE954DBH,Lawrance M. Bernabo,7/11,4.0,1005696000,The weakest volume in Science Fiction's best series,"For me, "Dune Messiah" is clearly the weakest book in Frank Herbert's "Dune" series. The problem from my perspective is a significant and radical shift in the character of Paul Muad'Dib. One of the things that particularly struck me in "Dune" was the sense in which Paul was similar to the Messiah awaited by the Jews: King David reincarnated to use the sword to sweep away the oppressors of his people. However, in "Dune Messiah," Paul becomes more of a traditional Christ figure, down to the symbolic crucifixion that makes up the climax of the book. For me that was too much of a shift to accept, because I felt it undid one of the principle strengths of the original novel and all you have to do is put the two volumes side by side to see that this is not another epic novel.However, this does not mean that you should skip "Dune Messiah" as you work your way through the series, because it does set up several new elements that are ultimately more important than much of which was originally established (i.e, Duncan Idaho as a ghola, the twins, etc.). My strong recommendation has always been that you need to let time pass between each of Herbert's novels, because each one goes off in a new direction. I think that if you read them one after the other you simply cannot appreciate the strong points of each shift. So if you let time pass and then have a hankering to go back to Arrakis, I really believe you will be more open to the changes. Maybe the shock of the first change of direction has stayed with me, or the fact that the epic heights of the original "Dune" can never be equaled, but others have struggled through this second novel as well. However, everyone who has worked their way through the entire series has found it well worthwhile and we all would trade all the prequels for just one more volume from Frank Herbert." +203,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,929404800,WOW... it changed my life,ok... you know... i thought that this book was amazing... it was well written and the idea was fabulous... Herbert really pulled it off.... +204,1556909330,Dune,,A10YG5BXSCPD91,Aeiou,1/3,5.0,1020038400,If you don't like Dune . . .,"If you love politics, intrigue, and a marvelous world that just leaves you wanting more and more, DUNE is it. I have yet to meet a fellow Political Science major who didn't find these books inspired. If you don't like Dune . . . then you can check out the Dick and Jane books in the children's section." +205,1556909330,Dune,,A2OWFRFAEJ65HD,"""sr_hadden""",2/2,5.0,987984000,I will not fear. Fear is the mind-killer...,"If you are intimidated by what you've heard about Dune, pay it no mind. Never before, even in the works of Tolkien has such a detailed and intricate world been created within the pages of the book. Arrakis and the world surrounding it is as real as our own as told through the cryptic yet poetic words of author Frank Herbert.So much can be said for what this book symbolizes. Not only does it take modern religions and translate them to the 110th century, not only does it argue philosophically with the nature of war, not only does it show fascism, communism, oligarchism and democracy in truly creative lights, but it also is one of the greatest adventure stories ever written. Paul and Jessica's journey through the desert (and eventually the Fremen way of life) will keep you interested the whole way through. It is a page turner until the very last page.Pick up the original Dune - and when you're done with that, read the next two. The three after that aren't for all tastes, but they too enrich the original even further (as do the prequels). And whatever you do - DON'T watch that god-awful 1984 movie version. If you really must watch one before you read the book, pick up the DVD of the 2000 Sci-fi miniseries. It doesn't have fantastic production values (... for 4 1/2 hours doesn't look great) but it's heart is in the right place. But I'm wandering. Go by the bloody book." +206,1556909330,Dune,,A32NRFFXDMDSU6,Leanne Burns,0/1,5.0,1053993600,It's a great buy!,This is a really great book. It is long but you will not want to put it down. I would suggest getting the movies too. The second and third books came out as the movie Children Of Dune.You will want to buy this! +207,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,884044800,Long Live Maud'Dib!,"Hungrily my mind devours the writings of Science Fiction writers in an never ending quest for my reading satisfaction. Alas "Dune" does not quench my thirst, Herbert's vivid imagery and the depths of his plots within plots only intensified my thirst for MORE! While a pleasing and enjoyable experience "Dune" has left me stranded in a desert void empty as the southern hemisphere of Arakkis itself. Such is the reading experience of "Dune" I have yet to find another Sci-Fi novel as good as this one, "Dune" is like the precious waters on Arakkis , the very essence of life. Long Live Maud'Dib!" +208,1556909330,Dune,,,,7/12,2.0,933897600,a disappointment at best,"the climax of Dune Messiah is mindblowing, shocking, thrilling and brilliant- getting there is one huge pain in the back.this book is roughly half the length of Dune, yet took me nearly twice as long to read. the focus shifts from Muad'Dib to a conspiracy against him and the effects his victory in Dune have had on the Fremen and Arrakis itself.the jihad of the Fremen that Paul feared has been allowed to occur. meanwhile, Dune has begun to be made green, alienating the older Fremen. the Bene Gesserit, Bene Tleilax, spacing guild, and Paul's own wife- the Emperor's daughter- scheme to rid themselves of Atreides rule. the palace intrigue and underhanded maneuvers that fill this book are niether engaging, nor particularly interesting. it is only when at last the novel truly brings the focus back to Muad'Dib that things begin to pick up.Paul has always known the path he must take, yet in the stunning conclusion, he rejects it and passes the legacy and responsibility onto his infant son Leto, setting the stage for the books to come.Muad'Dib's true end illustrates why so many Dune fans hate David Lynch's movie with a passion." +209,1556909330,Dune,,A1X9YPNW705CHG,Erik Martin,1/2,5.0,1197936000,What else is there to say.,"I read Dune for the first time when I was 21. I loved it and went on to read the rest of the saga through Chapterhouse. The series has been a corner stone of my literary exploits. While I rate this story at a solid five stars, there is not much more I can say about this book that has not already been said.Never the less, this story is everything that a reader could possibly want in any fiction, whether science, fantasy, or otherwise.Even though this book falls into the ""Science Fiction"" Category, this story is so much more than fantastic space battles, cool gadgetry and futuristic scapes that encompass much that is ""Science"" fiction....This book is a story of love, betrayal, intrigue, personal trial, and triumph against overwhelming odds all set about 20,000 years into our future.There is much food for thought with this book and those that follow it.For any Star Wars fan, read this book. This book was no doubt where Lucas got his ideas. Star Wars borrowed so much from it, yet failed to give credit where credit is due.This book should be required reading in any high school English curriculum." +210,1556909330,Dune,,A3CCQC21RO215E,Kyle Stewart,0/3,5.0,1069545600,The end of Dune,"Sometime in this book Dune ended. It wasn't that the following books are bad, or that I don't count them as canon. They are still great, they just lost the sheer awe of Dune, the feel was different, more scifi and less spiritual. This book (and to some extend COD) tie them together, comining the two styles. Saying goodbye to one thing, and hello to something new." +211,1556909330,Dune,,A2F7P3H8K56VMF,Miss AF Day,1/1,5.0,964224000,IF YOU ONLY EVER READ 6 BOOKS IN YOUR LIFE,"Then these are truly the ones.They are not fiction, they are an education. This first book is an amazing introduction to Dune, the planet Frank Herbert created with his own bare hands. Frank Herbert, just for creating this world so imaginatively and vividly, deserves godly status,for he is truly a genius unlike myself.I have never read such an enchanting, amazing, horrifying, insight into our world around us and our religions and societies, yet this book really does teach everything whilst telling the most enriched story at the same time.Whether you read between the lines or accept the text literally there is pure delight and contentment in reading it. The Bene Gesserit are most fascinating, intellectually supreme, devine genetically engineered beings. They show you something beyond your reach that makes you want to be like them, wise and spiritual.Paul Atreides is an amazing character to follow and I recommend that you MUST read the following books in the series and they only get more and more amazing and above beyond where the wildest imagination can take you.You live Dune. An amazing literary works that really does describe everything, putting you there watching everything happen as if it were there in front of you, although you would still not get the insight if you were there- as you could not perceive the situations on such a vast scale!I only wish I had a wide enough vocabulary to fully express the true pleasure I enjoyed while reading this book and if you pass by the opportunity of reading it you are missing one of the greatest experiences of your life." +212,1556909330,Dune,,,,1/1,5.0,928972800,One word: Wow...,"This book is a masterpiece of the century, a book that will set the standerds for all sci-fi novels to come. Never have I seen such a book that created such a world in my mind, the world of Muad'Dib and his Fremen riding across the desert. This book was mentioned to me by my friend, and I loved it so much, that I have read every other book in the series! Do yourself a favor sci-fi fans and anti-fi fans alike. Read Dune and travel to the world which you will never want to leave..." +213,1556909330,Dune,,AEJ31WGHJ59C,Adam Shah,9/12,3.0,959731200,A Competent Sequel,"This is the second book of the Dune series by Frank Herbert. This book picks up soon after the end of the first book. Paul Maud'Dib Atreides, main character in the first book and now emperor of the galaxy, has to deal with the results of the jihad he reluctantly released on the galaxy as well as the threats to his power from within his own palace. This book is more introspective than the first book, lacking most of the action and focusing instead on the foibles of the various characters and Herbert's musings on religion and politics.This book makes even more clear than the first book that Paul is not actually a hero, but a flawed man trying to cope with the enormity of his own power and the terrible bloodshed that is being committed in his name. The book is an essay on the dangers of absolute power and of the combination of religious and political power.Dune Messiah is also a story of the danger of a ruler becoming disaffected from those closest to him. The greatest danger to Paul comes from his disaffected wife. Paul also cuts off his beloved concubine from his decision-making and instead chooses a course which leads him towards personal destruction to save the galaxy. Perhaps Herbert's real message here is that domestic bliss is the key to happiness even for the all-powerful.Although this book is interesting, it is mainly filler between the masterpiece of Dune and the very good Children of Dune." +214,1556909330,Dune,,A3TWQKLEE0GHBA,Marwan Sehwail,0/0,5.0,951350400,More than just average sci-fi,"Most scholarly literary minds consider the realm of Science Fiction to be be suited for nothing more than children. Books such as Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, 2001 and Dune are much more than typical sci-fi fair. Dune is a masterpiece in the art of litarature just like any other more traditional classic such as The Great Gatsby. Dune is a reflection of the human condition and the implications thereof. Herbert explores the structure of society, religion, messiahs and god figures, honour, violence and so forth. Dune should be required reading in English classes, just as The Scarlett Letter is. A masterpiece, nuff said." +215,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,868060800,Best science fiction book ever,"Thats it, actually.It is the best I've ever read, anyway.P.S.When you have read it, please visit alt.fan.dune for discussion of this awesome book." +216,1556909330,Dune,,AQZH7YTWQPOBE,Enjolras,0/0,4.0,1279756800,"Great plot, sometimes thick writing","I like the direction Frank Herbert took the Dune series in his first two sequels. This book has a bit more development than the original Dune. We get to learn more about the inner turmoil of Paul, Alia, and then meet the kids. Frank has a way of creating politically exciting twists and power struggles, without making any one character the villain. Paul and Alia in their own ways are both despots and victims. In terms of storyline, I think this brings the story to a satisfying conclusion (I'm not so big a fan of what happens afterChildren of Dune (Dune Chronicles, Book 3)).Frank's writing style can be a bit dense. Sometimes the dialogue is filled with philosophical or nonsensical musings. Some of it is quite deep - but certainly not how people actually talk. It takes some getting used to. I'd recommend only continuing on to this book if you got through the original Dune and liked it.If you liked the books, I highly recommendFrank Herbert's Children of Dune (Sci-Fi TV Miniseries) (Two-Disc DVD Set)- it's a pretty good film adaptation ofDune Messiah (Dune Chronicles)andChildren of Dune (Dune Chronicles, Book 3)." +217,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,884217600,SF's Best!!,"I have had a paperback copy that I have read for years and recently had to buy a new copy because the old one fell apart. This is one to read over again. Some of the concepts are hard to visualize, but when the movie is watched, it becomes a little clearer. The movie falls way short of the book and leaves the viewer puzzled if without prior knowledge of the subject matter (ie: reading the book), but should not be discounted either. This book can change beliefs and ideas. This is the ultimate SF book ever!" +218,1556909330,Dune,,A2UN4S3N7VYLEV,Charles E. Stevens,4/4,5.0,1029024000,Epic,"For me, finishing Dune was like walking out of a great movie with a smile on my face thinking, "Damn, that was good." I'm not a regular reader of science fiction, but I can see why the cover proclaims it "Science Fiction's Supreme Masterpiece." Herbert combines politics, religion, strategy, psychology, intelligence, and emotion inside an incredibly detailed and seemingly tangible universe.Despite the alien environment, Dune is a book that drew me in instantly, and didn't let me go until the end. Herbert's writing style was a joy to read, as he managed to find the delicate balance between detail and brevity, resulting in a fluid tale with both depth and raw emotion. What makes books like Dune and the Lord of the Rings series so great is that their respective worlds seem completely natural and real to the reader. Add some great action, plot twists, and wonderfully fleshed out characters, and you have a masterpiece of not just science fiction, but modern literature as well. The incredible epic of the Muad'Dib, the deadly beauty of Arrakis and its inhabitants ... Dune is a novel I will never forget." +219,1556909330,Dune,,AEJ31WGHJ59C,Adam Shah,3/5,5.0,959731200,A Powerful Beginning To One of the Best Sci-fi Series,"Dune is Frank Herbert's masterpiece about Paul Maud'Dib Atreides, descendants of the House Atreus of Homeric fame, and his battles with his arch-enemies, the Harkonnens and, eventually, with the combined forces of the galaxy. The first of six books in an unfinished series--Herbert died before he brought his series to a conclusion--this book is the best of the series.Set far in the future, after humanity has not only left Earth, but humanity's origin is probably forgotten, the setting for this book is a neo-medieval world of strict castes, nobility and civilized warfare. The basic plot is rather standard: the young hero, Paul must come of age quickly when his father is treacherously killed by agents of the hated rivals. Since Paul loses his rightful throne, he must come of age among the violent indigenous population known as the Fremen.Although Herbert does write the action scenes well, the plot is not the strong suit of the book--later books in the series have better plots. The strongest part of the book is the theme of religion and politics that runs through the book. Herbert combines many different religions in this future galaxy including Christianity, Islam and various eastern religions.Herbert sets his hero, Paul, up as a messiah to the planetary population, the Fremen and possibly to the entire galaxy. This path may ultimately lead to a bloody jihad. However, Paul realizes that being a messiah is a dangerous path to take, ultimately ruinous to humanity as later books show. However, Paul's desire for power and the evilness of the alternate leaders, the corrupted by power emperor, the overly secretive female priesthood named the Bene Geserit, the no longer human Guild, and the entirely evil Harkonnens force Paul at every fork in the road to choose the path that leads to his anointing as messiah. Herbert thus creates a hero who is not as virtuous as he seems at first glance.A final note: as with any good first book in a sci-fi/fantasy series, there is much that remains unexplained in this book. Anyone who says that they understand the entire book is either lying or missed something. Some of the mysteries in this book become explained in later books, and one--the reference to Richese--in the prequel recently co-written by Herbert's son. There is also a great deal of mysticism and musing on the general state of humanity, some of which was, frankly, over my head.Therefore, if mysticism and unexplained mystery are not your cup of tea, then you should skip this book." +220,1556909330,Dune,,A350VKGS0RXGOZ,"David Clinthorne ""Evan Clinthorne""",2/3,5.0,1161561600,the seed for all sci-fi,"dune is not only a book, it is a world in which you must immerse yourself. this is a daunting task in thd beginning of the book because there is so much to learn. a load of names of places, people and ideas.i personally enjoyed this book very much.as an avid sci-fi reader, it was obvious to me that this book should spawn the sci-fi literature we know today. frank herbert's works are not as widley know as say, issac asimov although Herbert played as big of a role in the modern evolution of this delightful genre.purchase dune and immerse yourself in a new intergalactic environment with herbert's first installment of Dune." +221,1556909330,Dune,,A1G6M86XS35YS3,"Paige Turner ""Paige""",2/3,5.0,1268092800,Kindle Version: Flawless,"This is a review of the Kindle Version.Dune is arguably the best science fiction series of all time. I won't go into a more detailed review because there are over 1000 on Amazon and I can add little to the discussion.What I will review is the Kindle Version of this book. It is flawless, an exact clean copy. (I have the original Dune in paperback, and have read it several times). This Kindle version is perfect, down to the same misspellings in the original paper book. The fonts are even similar, including the slightly different font in the preludes to each chapter. This may seem trivial, but it the number of errors in Kindle versions of books like this is astounding.Some might quibble over the pricing, because if you really wanted to, you could get a paperback version cheaper than the Kindle version. However, to me, the value of having all of the Dune books in a nice thin package of the Kindle more than makes it worth the extra buck.There is a interesting point in the book in which Paul Atriedes gets a tiny little scroll-like reader of the O.C. Bible as a gift. He had to use some type of magnifying device to read it. This was, ironically, one of the only future technology concepts that Frank Herbert ""guessed wrong"" about. Funny - even the most forward-looking science fiction writers could not foresee the magic of the Kindle!" +222,1556909330,Dune,,A300N25RXDG8D1,A. Tresca,1/1,5.0,971395200,Herbert creates a unique and beautiful universe.,"One of my all-time favorite novels, I cannot say enough good things about it. It's a book that every science fiction fan will instantly fall in love with. It's the kind of book you can also read over and over, and you will find new meanings each time.The novel follows the young Duke Paul Atreides in his feud with the rival noble house of Harkonnens. The politics in this universe of the future are complex as well as very deadly. In addition, every family in the galaxy is driven by their greed over the addictive spice that is mined from the planet Arrakis, or Dune. A mind-enhancing drug, the spice is expensive, difficult and dangerous to mine, and very valuable. Whoever controls the spice calls the shots.Paul and his mother become outcasts after the Harkonnens raid their home on Dune and kill the old Duke. Then begins the adventure which transforms Paul into a legend in his own time. Throw in suspicious natives, a demented baron Harkonnen, an Atreides traitor, ancient rituals, psychic abilities and giant sand worms and you've got a definite page-turner by a fabulous writer. If you'rea sci-fi fan and haven't read this book, you're truly missing out!" +223,1556909330,Dune,,A2RA04JGBNEUK6,sarahmarlowe,0/0,4.0,1350086400,Glad I read it!,"It took me a little bit to get into the book because of the (albeit necessary) complicated, lengthy exposition. Once I got a handle on the characters and backplot, however, it was difficult to put this novel down. I enjoyed the character development and the relationships between them. I see why it is a classic!" +224,1556909330,Dune,,A8MIY5Y87C5BO,"Phuong N. Le ""manfromnam""",0/0,4.0,1358726400,My first Dune experience,"I put off reading this a long time and finally got caught up to read it. I thought it was a good read, but not as great as some claimed it to be. Maybe the expectation was unrealistic and I would've been better off not having any and be surprised by it. Overall it was entertaining." +225,1556909330,Dune,,A2NNIXYIJGHZJP,Jesse Milligan,0/1,5.0,1005091200,The Best SF Book Ever...Period,Herbert's classic! I won't bore you (like many other reviewers) by telling you an abbreviated version of the story. Just know this: this book is simply amazing. The movies pale in comparison. GET THIS BOOK! +226,1556909330,Dune,,A7YRO6JIVVG7D,"S. Kay Murphy ""Heretic""",0/1,5.0,1206748800,Why did I wait so long?!?,"I read it recently when one of my high school students loved it and said, ""You have to read it!"" So I did--and loved it. (Thanks, Orion!) Don't know why I didn't just jump on the band wagon decades ago when my friends were reading it, but I'm glad to have read it now. A truly satisfying sci-fi read." +227,1556909330,Dune,,A3HG4SPN5MVZ09,Armando L. Franco Carrillo,0/0,5.0,947030400,A great book!,"I am always looking for good books, and so I look for reviewed books at Amazon, and browse through the comments in order to select what to read. This one is highly recommended, so I bought, and...It is great! This dates from the 60's (past century) and is way better than the most known dessert planet with Jedi Knights.When I bought the book, I was reading Lord of the Rings (I know what I did was heresy) but I read some ten pages of Dune, out of curiosity... And I was hooked! I have finished books one and two, and I am still around page 200 of Lord of the Rings, ouch!In short, I must also highly recommend this book to those who like Sci-Fi mixed with Fantasy." +228,1556909330,Dune,,A2BDQE7EAYPYND,"""rpgguy77""",1/1,5.0,965347200,Comparable to Dune? No. Just as good? Yes.,"In fact, I would consider Dune Messiah to be better than the original Dune. Dune is a masterpiece, don't misunderstand, but Messiah goes much deeper. Dune was about Paul, rising to become the leader of the Fremen, and focused on his power and prescience. In Messiah, we find out that prescience is not a gift, and is much more a curse. Paul Muad'dib goes through many trials in this book, but the recurring theme is how his prescience warps him to become less of a God, and more of a man. Paul was not perfect, as we find out, and while the book is more philosophical than action-packed, it is a much better experience. Many say that because it is not like Dune, it is not good. The good in this book is hidden. The conspiracy to kill Paul, the hidden intentions of Reverend Mother Mohiam, Paul's mind, Alia's abrasiveness, Hayt's true purpose, the list goes on. To understand these things is to understand the entire Dune series, and to say that this book is not as good as Dune is to admit that you didn't understand Messiah for what it was." +229,1556909330,Dune,,AV3FNX6R84FOP,"J. Rogers ""JContact""",2/3,5.0,1114214400,One of the Greats,"I love science Fiction, but really I only watched science fiction films. Once I decided to through myself into the book world I researched what books to read. Dune came up everytime as THE book to read. So, I went out and bought it. This book was truly an experience. You get lost in that world and start to see things the way they see things. I never want to give the book away, so I will be vague. I have to say, this is the best book I've read so far. It had everything in it: Adventure, Action, Romance, Drama, Comedy. If you haven't read this book then you have missed out. And hopefully ever science fiction fan has read this, it's a classic." +230,1556909330,Dune,,A2ELZ5B0TVZDZQ,Charles E. Brown Jr.,1/3,4.0,1265328000,good but not the greatest,"This is an impressive novel, though not quite the Great American Sci-Fi Novel. What makes it impressive is that in an era of technology-obsessed sci-fi, Herbert succeeds in fleshing out the characters of Paul, Jessica, and a few others; Dune was the best-described planet in science fiction until Robinson's Mars came along three decades later.The problems? It's rather difficult to get American readers to care about a feud between two aristocratic families in a future Empire, culminating with the hero making himself king, so Herbert has to turn Harkonnen into the ultimate heavy (including making him homosexual, which dates the story) while making Leto and Duncan into cardboard heroes. And sometimes the mumbo-jumbo gets ridiculous: in the first chapter Herbert says ""The statement violated what his mother called his INSTINCT FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS"", as if there was something exotic about having moral standards; why not just say Paul disagreed? And, unfortunately, the mumbo-jumbo dominates most of the sequels, as reflected in titles like ""The God-Emperor of Dune""." +231,1556909330,Dune,,A36AMFJYBND5UB,miaplacidus@hotmail.com,1/2,3.0,881539200,Does not hit par with foundation,"Sure the book had some good concepts but the way the author had to constanly remind me that paul was a hero, got a bit on my case. Also the man managed to write a 500 page novel in which hardly anything takes palce. Having read foundation by asimov i find that this collection is paled in comparison. The work was creative but not creative enough to be hailed like the way it is." +232,1556909330,Dune,,A10OFC8N3BKVRJ,Kadie,1/1,5.0,1103155200,A true genius,I admire Frank Herbert for writing what is quite possibly the best science fiction novel ever. The way he created this whole world and these complex characters shows how truly genius he is. I really felt for the characters as I read through the story. I could feel the nervousness in Paul when he realized that he was to become most important of leaders. I look forward to reading further in the Dune series. +233,1556909330,Dune,,AXPTG070Y84CL,Cadet17,1/3,5.0,1126569600,Dune,I thought Dune was a great book despite the extensive length of the book. It was very challenging with the figurative language. The quest of Paul Atreides was very adventurous and mysterious. Definetly on of the top sci-fi novels aroundand I look forward to reading the rest of the books in the Dune Chronicles. +234,1556909330,Dune,,ACK3TZEDR258N,Travis Stein,3/4,5.0,1212624000,An excellent book for any fan of science fiction!,"When I started off reading Dune 3-4 years ago, I gave up about 200 pages in just because it seemed too complex to me at the time. Years later, I came back to it again because the summertime is quite boring with no job/school.Suffice to say, not only did I understand what was going on a lot better, I actually loved the book in the end.Dune is set on a planet known as Arrakis, which happens to be the gem of the interstellar empire that House Atreides and Harkonnen are in. As it turns out, Arrakis is the sole source of spice/melange that is vital for traveling the galaxy as it helps to sharpen psychic powers and vision for pilots.Recently, the control of Arrakis has been shifted from House Harkonnen to House Atreides. House Harkonnen does not want to give up its source of wealth and power quietly and plots to make matters very turbulent for House Atreides on Arrakis.The Baron, head of House Harkonnen, plots to rid Arrakis of the Atreides anyway he can and eventually sends the young heir to the throne (Paul) into the hostile desert sands. Paul meets the Fremen (sand-people) during his time in the deserts and ends up, no thanks to the Baron, surviving and goes about biding his time until he can somehow convince these people to fight with him to get his rightful throne back on Arrakis.A sub-plot to this book is the fact that Paul Atreides is much more than a mere overthrown duke. He is the product of a plan by the Bene Gesserits, a class of humans highly trained in the psychic arts, to breed one of their own that can see into depths of the future and mind far better than any of their typically female members can.This book was a real joy to read. Sometimes it was tough getting bogged down in all of the characters and places, etc. However, it was not as difficult to read the second time around and I thoroughly look forward to the reading of the second installment in Dune Messiah." +235,1556909330,Dune,,A1VTHUZIN04QQW,Jeremiah J. Timmins,2/2,5.0,1021420800,A triumph. PS - Readers are the ultimate critics,"Frank Hebert wrote Dune, only to be denied by at least twelve publishers before he connected to a publisher of technical manuals, who took a gamble and published Dune.It was panned and trashed by almost all the critics who initially read it. But the first printing sold out anyway, and the second printing did too. People were picking up on the quality of this amazing book. Hebert starting mail from fans describing their fascination with Dune. Then he got a call from a reporter asking him if he was trying to start a cult. His answer was ""God no!""It's amazing that this book almost never existed, because this is one of the best books ever written. The novel is flawlessly conceived and visualized. The characters are very convincing. I don't think this book was a metaphor for the world situation. The Fremen borrow heavily from the Arab world, but look at the Arab world, much of it is desert. If Europeans who fight in the desert end up using Bedouin techniques and use Arab words like wadi and hammadas, then anyone living and fighting in a desert environment would naturally use the techniques and vocabulary of the world's best desert dwellers, who happen to be Arabs.Dune does an amazing job of combining love, hate, economics, politics, and destiny. There are so many good storylines in this book that an average author could have derived at least five books from it. The concept of the Kwisatz Haderach alone, the ultimate being, is handled expertly here. What would an ultimate being, a living, breathing man who is worshipped as God, be like? How could you make the ultimate being, and how could you prepare the masses for their messiah?Describing this book in a short review is nearly impossible. However, I do have to talk about the spice melange. I'm not sure what psychoactives Herbert ever tried in his life, or even if he ever did anything, but the effects of melange are like the effects of a popular but illegal herb that most Americans have tried at least once, only multiplied a thousand-fold. Anyone who's read the book knows spice is the cornerstone of the Empire, as its mind-expanding powers allow the human mind to manipulate space and time. The spice also has the power to unlock genetic memories, extend longevity, and is used recreationally. In a very subtle and engaging way, Herbert explicitly prescribes the use of mind-expanding drugs. Mua'dib definitely follows William Blakes advice when he says ""The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom,"" as Mua'dib completes his development as the Kwizatz Haderach by ingesting a toxic overdose of spice, and then experienes a 'trip' in which the deepest mysteries of life are revealed to him, and he becomes nearly omniscient.The love stories and relationships within this book are as compelling as in it.As far as the bad guys in the book go, the Emperor Shaddam the IV, and his tool the Baron Harkonnen are excellent. The Baron is truly terrifying, and he makes a horrible image. When telling his nephew, Rabban, how to govern Arrakis, he says ""You must be always hungry, always thirsty. Like me."" He then lovingly strokes his rolls of fat. The Baron's sexual tastes and appetite are also sickening, yet they are described implicitly, unlike in the recent ""prequel"" books by Herbert's son. At the same time, the Baron never falls into the cliches of most bad guys, and the scene in which Jessica and Paul are able to excape his cluthes is done in a very convincing way. They didn't escape through the palace air shafts or because the Baron designed an overly complex spectacle death for them.All in all, buy this book, since it's most likely the best sci-fi you'll ever have the pleasure of reading.-- JJ Timmins" +236,1556909330,Dune,,AOBKVZWEIHLR6,relaxinjaxin,4/4,5.0,1021939200,A very good story...even for those that don't like sci-fi,"I've always been a fantasy fan...I enjoy reading Jordan, Tolkein, etc. All of these books created a world from basic ideas. Herbert does much of the same...Dune is a desert land that requires a hard existence. The Fremen, people that naturally habit this land, are a troubled people that exist for nothing more than to create life from nothing. Paul, the main character, is adopted by these people, and becomes their spiritual leader. It is a good story that is very origonal (I haven't read any other story that compares). I find that as you read fantasy books, many of the ideas presented by todays top writers are borrowed from one another (just written in a different way, with different characters). I don't know about you, but this gets old after a while.Anyways, I started reading dune 5 years after I bought the book. I had tried reading the story many times over those five years, but I'd get lost or disinterested in the story because of all the made up language, philosophical mumbo jumbo, and from the fact that basically, the book starts out slow. After getting through the first 50 to 100 pages, the story becomes very involved and very real. It was written very well. I understand why this is the highest selling sci-fi of all time.For those that enjoy fantasy, this book is clasified as a sci-fi, but really, it is in between. It doesn't have the space-flying-fighting juck that i normally would associate with a sci-fi novel. It's definitally worth the money and the time. Buy this book. You'll enjoy it." +237,1556909330,Dune,,A16QUOMSREK0ZR,"Graeme Blake ""Author Of Hacking The LSAT""",0/0,5.0,1355184000,A Classic,"I almost gave this book four stars, because I felt there was something missing. I can't quite place why I feel that way.I gave it five, because I've rarely seen a fictional world more convincingly created. Everything works. The sheer imagination is inspiring. And there is profundity hidden in small passages. This may have been why I felt a nagging concern. Where other books would have hit you over the head with their brilliance, Dune is understated. When I fairly consider all the knowledge embedded in it, it's a true classic. The ecological understanding was ahead of it's time. I mean ecological in the fullest sense, as a system." +238,1556909330,Dune,,,,1/2,2.0,900979200,A mere shadow of the magnificence that was Dune.,"Unfortuantly, Dune Messiah does not live up to Dune. Dune I gave five stars, however, this book does not go in depth about anything. It merely skimms the top of everything and doesn't explain or explore as well as it could have, and should have.Dune Messiah attempts to build on Dune, the ultimate in sci-fi, and fails miserably. Instead of bettering the Dune story, it weakens it with bad plot twists that are nothing like that of Dune.I had trouble reading the end of this book because it starts out slow, and doesn't improve. It laggs through the whole story whereas Dune the origional glued you to the book.Finally, Messiah mocks the origional Dune by weakenning the structure with which Dune was created and the glory was origionally born.So if you're looking to find the magic that Dune brought, don't read Massiha, it just doesn't live up to the name Dune." +239,1556909330,Dune,,AS1PCSQU09PFS,glh52,0/1,3.0,1312588800,Dune Messiah (school library binding),"In description of the binding type you need to specify dimensions of the book. I thought I was getting a standard size library book, not a glorified hard bound paperback." +240,1556909330,Dune,,A3VR2Y9LTL5XJY,C. Marsh,0/0,5.0,1310428800,Dune: the high standard from which to evaluate other science fiction books.,"There is very little to add that hasn't already been said in the 5 star reviews. This is an excellent and enthralling science fiction book. Every character is well-developed, the story flows exceptionally well, and the philosophical aspect helped me to discover a different perspective in my own life. This book has made it into my top 5 favorites. I recommend this book to anyone." +241,1556909330,Dune,,A2VEB2L5XF222M,Mike Goret,4/6,5.0,1114473600,Dune,"Dune, by Frank Herbert, is the most fascinating book I have ever read besides The Lord of the Rings trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien.Dune is about a Royal Family of the Atriedes lineage. The Atriedes House are rivals with the evil House Harkonnen. The Atriedes receive the desert planet of Arrakis, also known as Dune, from the Harkonnens because the Harkonnens want to be in favor with the emporer. After the Atriedes move to Arrakis from their safe homeworld of Caladan, this doesn't come with out cost though. This is when the story starts to get action packed. At this point in the story things start to get complicated.Something about ""Dune"" is that it has so much detail. Every thing in the world has it's own name in the ""Dune"" universe and is so detailed. However, this means that it takes a while to get into the story and understand everything. New characters are introduced continuously, and the reader thinks ""Where did you come from?"". Also, many plot twists add to the confusion. These things make the book harder to understand the first time around, but they make sense looking back at it when it is finished. Dune overall is completely satisfying as a science fiction novel. It's tough to get at times, but hang in there; it is totally worth the read." +242,1556909330,Dune,,A39B0BH02D9PKV,wcj,2/2,5.0,945043200,Nicely Done,"I enjoyed this book to be sure, and although it was quite lengthy, I found myself unable to part with it easily. I finished it within a week simply because the story was so gripping. I'm not sure how Herbert manages it, but it seems that he can endlessly descibe something yet never bore someone. Highly Recommended." +243,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,924825600,The Best Science Fiction Book Ever Written,"Dune is the most amazing, most richly detailed, and most thought provoking book I have ever read. Herbert's insight into religion, society, and the dangers of a messiah are absolutely frightening in their accuracy and foresight. If you are looking for a thought provoking, exciting, and deeply entertaining book, read Dune." +244,1556909330,Dune,,A2POYXTGSPSW7O,William A. Hensler,2/3,5.0,1139875200,The Spice Must Flow,"Dune is a five star book because it deserves the honor. This book is perfect and of thousand of books written per year it's doubtful there is a book of this quality produced every five years.The main character in the book is Paul, the son of Duke Leto. Paul and his family have to move to Dune, a desert world. It is at Dune that the ordeal of Paul and his family begin.The novel Dune could best be called a science fiction version of Lawrence of Arabia. But this isn't quite true. Dune has some plot similarities, such as a stranger in a strange land becomes a leader of a revolt. However, Dune is so much more than that.There are lots of politics and opposing forces in Dune. There is the Guild, this group controls interstellar space transportation. There is the Sisterhood, a group of women looking to use eugenics in a quest to produce the ultimate human being. There are the Harkonnen, a vicious group of people who wish to exterminate Paul and his family for a past perceived slight. Another force is the Fremen, the inhabitants of Dune itself. Last, there is the Planet Dune.Dune is a perfect world. Dune requires perfection. If you are less than perfect you die. The enviorment is as unforgiving as space. Basically, it has no water. A world like Dune should either keep people away or invite terra forming. However, this is not done. It is on Dune that ""Spice"" is found. Spice's other name is Melange.Spice is the driving force in this book. Spice is everything. Spice allows the Guild pilots to peer into the future to allow faster-than-light spaceships to navigate in space. Spice allows very long life for humans who take the drug. The trouble is Spice is addictive. If you quit taking Spice you die.Dune is the only source of Spice. The economy of the universe depends on the free flow of Spice.Frank Herbert's Dune is a perfect book because it takes place nearly 8,000 years in the future. It removed from our modern world by sheer volume of time. Everything has changed. The Catholic church has survived as the only religion but not as something we would recognise. The ""Orange Catholic"" Bible is an amalgamation of all the worlds religions. Guilds control working life. Planets have been populated by people, and have been populated for thousands of years. An emperor governs the galaxy. However, his power depends more on alliances power rather than his own monopoly of power.Herbert's Dune is full of political forces fighting for the planet. All of them want the Spice and raw power.What makes the book so timeless, it was written over 40 years past, are some parts read like how the people of today would act them out. Example, people in the future use personal ""shields"" for protection. If a laser hits a shield the energy release produces an near nuclear sized explosion. One of Paul's bodyguards rigs up a shield because some attacking enemy troops are using lasers in an attack.After the explosion a briefing is given to Baron Harkonnen. You can just see the word ""spin"" leap off the pages. The Baron ends up thinking to himself ""it was pretty bad"" despite the briefer's wish to give a different impression to Baron Harkonnen.The book is full of examples like that. It's over 10,000 ACE and some basic things about people have not changed. A Fremen woman steals damp rags, sells the squeezed water to beggars, and commits pilferage against Paul's family. The Fremen see Duke Leto risk his life to save the crew of a Spice mining machine, the Fremen are impressed with his concern for his men.Another thing is thinking machines, computers, are banned in the future. Why? They are used to oppress people and a revolt led to their destruction. Amazing that Frank Herbert in the early 1960s had to foresight to see the oppression that we will be living with in the future.Paul himself is a perfect character for Dune. The book starts with Paul as a young teenager. The book concludes with his as a young man, sure of himself and in control of all around. We get to see a man who was bred, literally, to be summation of all people in the universe. Paul makes the connection between the worms and Spice. Paul builds up the Fremen to be the ultimate soldiers in the Universe.My poor words do not do justice to this book. I re-read Dune ever five years. Yes, the book is that good. I always find something I miss in the book.Now, Dune has been made into a wretched big screen movie. That was back in '82 and I suppose the makers of the film just threw money at Frank Herbert until he agreed to make the movie. It's terrible. Avoid it. Dune has been made into a Science-Fiction channel movie. It's not bad. It's not in the same class as the book, what mini-series is? However, if you don't want to spend the energy reading Dune, Dune Messiah, and Children of Dune then they are not too bad.Warning, I gave up reading the Dune series after God Emperor of Dune. Past that point, over 5,000 years removed from Dune, you wonder if the government that poor Arrakis (it's not Dune at that point) got would have been any worse if the Harkonnen been in charge.Dune is a perfect book. It should be one 100 best books of the 20th Century.Five stars" +245,1556909330,Dune,,A23CPJK68TW1UK,Eric P. Medlock,0/0,4.0,1057881600,Good book!,"I liked Dune and so far I'm liking Children of Dune better then Dune Messiah, that's why I only gave it 4 stars. It was a great book that bridges the stories in Dune and Children of Dune well. You have to read this book if you want to be well read in the classics of Science Fiction. Frank Herbert is an awesome writer and this was a very enjoyable tale. Its made more enjoyable by the fact that it is the prerequisite to reading Children of Dune, which is GREAT!" +246,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/10,3.0,1057449600,OK but no Lord of the Rings,DUNE was an ok book. I read it once and that was enough but it was rather enjoyable.However Mr Herbert seemed to want to invent a religion based on the Holy Scriptures (he used enough Bible references!) but without its discipline. He failed.As for Huge on Brazil if that is the kind of person who recommends this book -- don't bother. But I rather think that he is making fun of the book.Dune is ok but IT AINT THAT GREAT. +247,1556909330,Dune,,AOZT2QHQ1O45D,Ricardo Loureiro (ricardojoseloureiro@yahoo.com),7/55,1.0,942105600,The Mountain has birthed a mouse,"Time after time I've seen Dune acclaimed as one of the masterpieces of SF. It consistently tops the charts when readers are asked for the best SF novels. Being a SF reader myself it was almost heretic not to have read it before, so after more than 30 years I decided to give it a try. Awfull, is the word that best describes my experience. I couldn't find any sense of wonder or anything else for that matter that justified such high praises. To compare it to The Lord of the Rings is to commit a crime. This novel is a fraud, a naked king pretending to be wearing the finest clothes. Forget the hype, this is a complete waste of time." +248,1556909330,Dune,,A38TOQL3KMPQTD,dkdinst@lightspeed.net,0/0,5.0,884304000,the best sci fi book ever,"i am 42 and read this book for the first time when a teen ager. it still holds up. i have read the many reviews and am surprised that no mentioned the astounding theory of time presented by hebert and also his fusion of mysticism with space travel. in a time when humanity seems second to machine he proposes that the ultimate secrets of the universe are found within, not by the scientst or machines. when the world said no to drugs in the 80's dune proposed the only way for true space travel was with the use a mind and body altering drug, the spice. what would nancy think? this book changed the way i thought of my relation to the universe and has left me with a hunch that time is both predtermined and unpredictible, like a river wide at times and narrow and defined and at times a "pit" which is horrible to "see" . but most of all it instilled a faith in the human soul as one of the greatest mysteries and force in the universe." +249,1556909330,Dune,,A1TRW59RTDET6Y,chelsila,1/1,5.0,953251200,The Rune of Dune,"I am an Asimov fan, but a friend recommended this book to me. I read it and found myself going back and forth from the library until I was done with the sixth book, CHAPTERHOUSE: DUNE. DUNE is action packed and opens up another scifi universe that is equally complex and eye opening...a book that will keep you up until 3 am on the weekend finishing it." +250,1556909330,Dune,,A1UXNF5OPDNLGB,"J. W. Bottomley ""James the Englishman""",1/1,5.0,1130889600,All about prescience (prediction) and very prescient it is too,"Dune is a wonderful adventure, a dazzling piece of sci-fi, a great political thriller and a moving, memorable evocation of another world and a believable, whole people (the marvellous Fremen), vividly imagined to fit a profoundly hostile desert world, complete with a well-imagined culture, religion, social code, and so on.It is all these things - but it is also amazingly predictive. The novel is basically about a desert people with an intense religion who happen to be co-located with the most valuable resource in the universe - which they only come to realise with the help of a new and even more fanatical religious leader - and manipulate to take control of everything. All the great powers must focus on this wild tribe of outlandish religious tribal people and will eventually be defeated by them. And it's all the Universe's own stupid fault - for relying so heavily on a precious resource only found in their desert realm and so vulnerable to their control. Sound familiar at all??!" +251,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,924998400,I am thirsty,This is one of the best books I have ever read . He describes the desert so well that you will have to read this book with a glass of water beside you +252,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,915062400,cant think of anything,this book(and its sequel) is an incredible nonstopping flow. the base/start of an incredible story...(read the sequels)....its been a tremendous pleasure reading it.. +253,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,4.0,1059609600,"Amazing book, but.....","Dune is a great book, the problem however is with this edition. There are several obvious spelling errors, and at least twice i've seen whole lines repeated twice in a row. Try a different editon." +254,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,940636800,Science Fiction At It's Best,"Don't let the horrid 1984 film Dune scare you away from reading one of the finest science fiction books of all time. Frank Herbert's DUNE is a masterpiece, exceptionally well written, with it's uniquely thought-out plots, which are all woven together to form the ultimate science fiction story. But this book offers much more than just a story. It's packed with a plethera of philosphy and insight into the themes of government, religion, control, power, and life itself. A MUST HAVE for any science fiction reader." +255,1556909330,Dune,,A22T6UQ9U2VOQQ,"""kalisti23""",5/5,5.0,984528000,One of the True Classics,"Dune is perhaps the last great work of a Golden Age of Science Fiction. This is not to say that Sci-Fi as a genre is no longer worth reading, but nearly all authors of the genre now conceptualize of themselves as 'Science Fiction authors', and this was not always the case.Dune is not, first and foremost, science fiction. It is commentary. It is some of the most biting and intelligent commentary on religion and government (as well as a plethora of other subjects, ranging from trade unions to ecology) ever written.The fact that it is cloaked in a fantastical future should have no more bearing on our treatment of it than does, say, the fictions of 1984.Dune is one of the greatest stories ever written. This is my firm belief, having read more books than I can care to count. The characters are deep and passionate. Entirely unlike anyone most of us have ever known, yet immenently believable all the same. They are the sort of people we are assured must exist; the sort of people we know mankind is capable of producing.The villains are evil, the heroes are good. There is no ambiguity, but that is because the purpose of the book is not to shed light on the distinctions of good and evil within individual humans, but to investigate the power-plays among people on the grander level.One thing I would caution against when reading this book: commit yourself to reading it. Many find the first half of the book quite slow. Some would even say tedious. Push through it, I beg you. For if you do not, you are cheating yourself of a great joy.And when you finish Dune, continue to the rest of the books in the series. Part of the reason the first half can seem to drag is because Herbert was establishing a universe of incredible complexity. He was thinking in the long term, over a span of six or seven books.And he succeeded in building that universe. The universe of Arrakis. Of Dune. And it will live on in people's minds for many years to come." +256,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,3.0,927072000,Not a great sequel,"This is not a worthy sequel to the original. However, it is a worthwhile read because the rest of the series is very good, and you will be lost without reading this one first." +257,1556909330,Dune,,A3PO9UQ783VUAI,"""ullyses""",2/3,5.0,966816000,interesting,"This book introduced me to a whole new universe. It's quite starnge that it was this book that introduced me to the sci-fi genre, I originally intended on buying a different book, but eventually ended up with Dune. I loved every word of it, the scene is intense and captures your attention. It might not be the easiest of books, but it is one of the best books. It has multiple layers, each time I've read it, I've come across a new layer, each layer has it's own truth. The characters are interesting and even though they act like demi-gods they remain human beings with their own problems they must solve in the bigger hole of their lives. An excelent book, you can clearly feel the level of inteligence behind it, as can you can almost sense the universe in which it occurs.A must read for all." +258,1556909330,Dune,,AIT9FN3VDKVG2,Andy R.,0/0,5.0,1313798400,Classic,Does it get much better than this? I think not. Many have tried and many have failed. This has and will stand the test of time. +259,1556909330,Dune,,A14W7YPO4KKTEV,"Joan B. Lopez ""jblo""",0/0,5.0,1008460800,in the beginning,"My favorite book from Dune serie is God Emperor of Dune; but this one is the first, and it opened our eyes to a new universe, a new thought.Really, it's a hard and complex universe with a lot of different people with them own objectives, ideas, fears, ambitions... Translate it from an extended universe to the city, the street... and you'll see it in a shorted scale. F. Herbert is talking about an extense universe but it's near in distance and relationship. It's not about far away worlds, forgotten worlds... it's near, it's between members of a great family with diferents thoughts and ambitions.All the incredible world of Dune itself is fabulous, the factions along the universe (the powers than tries to dominate or tries to update the human race), the fight of Atraides spirit against the terror...In the other hands you see how the climate, how the economy; works really hand-on-hand with politic and war; how the people tries to move inside a sea (sea of water or sand, it's not different) dominated for those forces.The Dune world is very close to us" +260,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,859075200,Alternative Reality,This is The MASTERPIECE of Sci-fi.Its greatness is the ability of F.Herbert to create a real world with a realistic culture in such a way that the reader enters so deeply in this alternative reality that begins to think like a fremen would do and he can't look at the sand on the beach without thinking that it would be better to walk in a non-ritmic way because the worm can hear you.So you enter into a world you'll never forget and the words that the Bene-Gesserit say to fight the fear will never let you alone +261,1556909330,Dune,,A2P8BJHO6P89MM,RYCALTOR@aol.com,0/0,5.0,907632000,I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.,"You must not fear either, to read Dune that is. It is a wonderful, well-written tale and was and is very innovative and draws the reader into the story. The detailed background of each place and character just deepens the sense of reality gained by this knowledgeable book. My favorite!" +262,1556909330,Dune,,A32UVORM7873FP,Paul,1/2,5.0,1099267200,Timeless masterpiece,"Dune is without a doubt one of the best novels ever to be written. It takes the reader far off into the future where space travel is made possible by a substance called the spice melange, only available from a single planet in the known universe, planet Arrakis, also known as Dune.Long before Dune there was a Butlerian Jihad when artifficial intelligence threatened to end human life. Ever since, computers have been banned, high technology being replaced by other means, specially trained humans acting as computational minds.Intriguing and original concepts. Frank Herbert writes about many different aspects thus painting a comprehensive and complete picture of his vision.A must read not only for the sci-fi fan." +263,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,913420800,By far the greatest work of sceince fiction!,The Dune anthology is a classic work of the imagination. Herbert crafts a new world that will send you on a sci-fi power trip. I reccomend this to anyone who can take two or three chapters of introduction. It is great!! +264,1556909330,Dune,,A3H08UKJU74C4U,Reader,0/2,5.0,1138838400,a classic masterpiece,"Rarely has anyone managed to achieve the excellence that Frank Herbert has with the spectacular tapestry of future fantasy in his Dune series. An epic masterpiece and MUST read for any serious fan of science fiction. The rich Dune storylines weave such disparate disciplines as philosophy, economics, politics, anthropology and religion into engrossing storylines so effortlessly the reader forgets he is being treated to speculative treatises on social, religious and economic systems spanning galaxies and time. Dune is the greatest scifi epic ever created and the shining jewel in the crown of the genre." +265,1556909330,Dune,,A4WFIX090LSUQ,"""noodlewriter""",4/4,5.0,962841600,knowledge is power,"On the encouragement of a friend who was very into the "Dune" series at the time I tried reading this first book about sixteen years ago and couldn't get into it then. The movie came out about that time and I was lost in it also. Recently I picked this book back up and found it a joy not only to read, but to complete.The only thing I can add to these already glowing reviews for "Dune" is if you had tried reading it when you were younger and couldn't muddle through it, try it when you're older and have a little more experience and knowledge (and patience) about life and it's workings and it should be a lot easier. It's worth another attempt-or two-for it is one of those rare experiences that will change your life, and make you see the world in a different way, enriching it.Also I recommend checking out the movie before you start the book. Even though it only touches upon the events in "Dune", skimming over them almost in a superficial way, it will help you to understand the deeper actions in the novel, and bring together some of the more confusing elements-of the "plots within plots", that incredible tapestry that Herbert succeeds in weaving so well. It works great as a "travel guide" to the "Dune" book." +266,1556909330,Dune,,AM9LYLBFA5VK4,"Chad Stewart ""Chad""",0/0,4.0,1202169600,Short but great,"A little shorter than the massive Dune first installation, but Frank doesn't disappoint in the manner of the storytelling. Not as sweeping as it could have been, but a great gateway to The Children of Dune book." +267,1556909330,Dune,,A1JBC1AZ68ADD3,"Scott Fitzgerald Gray ""Scott Fitzgerald Gray ...",0/0,5.0,1316390400,Nothing else comes close,"It's hard to add anything to what's been said about Frank Herbert's ""Dune"" in the 45 years since it first appeared. ""Dune"" was already a classic when i read it in 1981, and unlike many SF books from the cusp of speculative fiction's New Wave, its impact remains as timeless now as it did then. Herbert grounded his sprawling tale of imperial politics and ecological revolution in a character story worthy of Tolstoy, downplaying the nuts-and-bolts aspects of his milieu's technology in a way that prevents ""Dune"" from seeming stale, even today.As with many of the most seminal works of speculative fiction and fantasy, the most amazing thing about ""Dune"" is how close it came to never seeing print, having been passed over by twenty publishers before being initially picked up by a nonfiction small press. In the canon of F&SF;, there are few books whose importance literally cannot be understated. ""Dune"" is one of those. Without it, the world of imaginative literature would not be the same.I break with a lot of Herbert fans in my complete dispassion for the later ""Dune"" books, including the capstone of the original trilogy, ""Children of Dune"". To anyone who hasn't read the books, my recommendation is always to read ""Dune"" and ""Dune Messiah"" back to back as one continuous narrative, with the sequel bringing Herbert's vision to a satisfying and heartbreaking end." +268,1556909330,Dune,,A1CVG1ZTLGK83A,"Wizard's Staph ""madmardy""",3/3,5.0,1241654400,The true standard for literary science fiction,"Any genuine understanding of science fiction begins with Dune. It is not only a quantum leap ahead of anything from its time, it is arguably still today rarely equaled and even more seldom surpassed, in spite of the fact that Frank Herbert's successors have his own work (and all of the ensuing derivative work from the intervening decades) to guide them.Although Herbert originally wrote six Dune novels, I have come to think of the first three as a single work, simply because I never feel like I am done reading if I stop at the end of the first or even the second book. So this review should be considered to regard Dune, Dune Messiah, and Children of Dune. If you are not willing to read at least those three (and the second three, while worthwhile, are much less contiguous and less indispensable), you are missing a good deal of what is great about this work.The first word that comes to mind to describe Dune is ""smart."" Herbert's main writing innovation is the amount that he leaves out. Although the POV is omniscient, it is still the POV of an omniscient in Herbert's world and not in ours. So, there is much that could have been written to acclimate a visitor from our world to the world of Dune. Herbert's mastery is in leaving it all out, and still leaving you totally aware (at least, if you are paying careful attention) of what you didn't read explicitly. The author never underestimates his readers, instead making leaps in narrative, character arc, and history, and expecting you to follow. You find yourself rising to the challenge, and feel smarter just by virtue of having read and understood.The characters are also ""smart."" I have read science fiction from childhood on, and the more I read, the more I am amazed at how intelligent the characters in Dune are. There are factions within factions, schemes within schemes, bitterly opposed and fully developed characters locked in truly epic struggles for their own survival, the survival of their respective dynasties, and the success of plans whose maturity is measured in millennia. And the best part is, none of these characters need to be described as geniuses--we already know that just by reading.There is an old political joke that a candidate, when asked how he will address a given problem, answers ""I'll just imagine a guy smarter than me, then do what he would do."" Obviously, it's not that easy. The same concept holds in writing fiction--it is impossible for a character to be both well developed and smarter than the author. This is doubly true in science fiction, where the myriad plot and character threads must intertwine with a society truly alien from our own, which nonetheless has a dazzling array of strictures in its religious, political, economic, and metaphysical aspects, all of which must be consistent and believable. Herbert set an extremely ambitious goal in creating the world of Dune, and the cast of characters with which to populate it. And he accomplishes that goal in grand style. It is the literary equivalent of knocking one out of the park, in the bottom of the ninth of World Series game 7.If you like science fiction and have not read Dune, you will be astounded at what you have been missing. If you do not (yet) like science fiction, you may find it both too dense and too vague, as a certain amount of literacy in the genre is required before you can confidently fill in the blanks and make the leaps required by the text. It is the book equivalent of a movie where you can't miss a moment, for fear of not understanding something later on. That said, you shouldn't let the book intimidate you, as it is a real pleasure to read. If I got more out of it in my 30's than I did in my teens, that is only to be expected. But whenever I have read it, I have been not only entertained, but broadened, awakened--in a word, edified." +269,1556909330,Dune,,A3S738GO35SH0W,Greg Hughes,5/6,4.0,944611200,A barren planet with a rich story,"This is the most famous science fiction novel of all time. I read "Dune" (and all its sequels) when I was 21, turning 22. This was after I'd seen the books in the shop for so many years. As a youngster I was attracted by the airbrushed covers, with the giant worms, the robed religious followers, the sand. The books looked frighteningly thick though.I finally gave "Dune" a go in 1998. Arthur C. Clarke was right to compare this novel to "Lord of the Rings". The planet Arrakis is described in as much detail as Middle-Earth, the story is monumental. When Paul Atreides' father is assassinated by the rival House Harkonnen, Paul flees into the desert with his mother. They join the native Fremen and eventually Paul leads them to greatness. There's a lot more to the story than that of course, but it's too much to describe in a paragraph.If you plan to read the entire series its probably best if you space the novels out a bit, read a couple of different books in between. It will give a better sense of time passing. I read the books one after the other. By the time I finished I thought I would see a Reverend Mother in the street. I found the last two books a bit slow, but I felt obliged to finish them. The original "Dune" is by far the best of the series.I've also seen the film (I think David Lunch did the best he could under the circumstances). We have the computer game too. It's amazing all the merchandise that has been created by this one book." +270,1556909330,Dune,,,,4/5,5.0,942796800,"The Greatest story, the greatest book...","This is the best book I have ever read. Not only is it the most complete work of imagination ever written since the first story ever, but it tells the greatest story: The story apon which two of the 3 great Monotheistic religions, and therefore a great deal of Western culture is based: Messiah. I am not making a statement of religion, but simply saying that the issues dealt with in this book are more important than anything else to more that a billion people world over. This was a universal theme put into science fiction extremely well. This is possibly the most important novel ever. Anyone who says this book was bad is out of his got- dang mind." +271,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,867801600,"Dune is an excellent, amazing book...","The Dune SERIES, although I am only partway through it is AMAZING... He creates a world so realistically scary, with its secrets and conspiracies, some that you would never suspect- yet still puts in details about the wants of the people, and the other characters. In a single word: brillian" +272,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,898387200,More then FINE It is SHEDERVAU,I am Russian man And Live in Kazachstan. I ret DUne approx 4 yeras ago And I fallen love in this book I not ret only last book about DUNE By Russian it called Brotherhood of Dune When I ret Children of Dune I begin to search film by D. Lynch "Dune" When i did it I saw this one 20 times in same day!!!! +273,1556909330,Dune,,A2E5R6EENU329L,"Costantini Aldo Maria ""Giuseppe Maggiore""",0/0,5.0,1261180800,A great classic,"Engaging to the point where it is hard to stop reading, with wife already asleep on your side while you are trying to keep on reading in silence!" +274,1556909330,Dune,,A36PBOE0YJB3CS,Dan,0/1,2.0,1354060800,Dusty old drab of a book that could have been awesome,"Here's how I review. No synopsis, no narrative. Just get to how I was introduced to the book, what I liked and didn't like and maybe some spoilers. Enjoy!I was introduced to Dune after googling ""best sci-fi books of all time"". So when Dune popped up at the top of almost every list I saw I decided that I had to read it. There were some interesting concepts I loved but ultimately the book didn't really do it for me.::: Things I liked :::-The concept of Arakis (Dune) being a desert world with a unique ecosystem etc.-The idea of blue-eyed Freeman with stillsuits and all their other abilities got me really excited.-How the worms and spice were related was fascinating!::: Things I didn't like :::-This book has extensive politicking in it and does not really provide any background for why the political groups are at each other's throats-I found myself confusing characters and I realized half way through my read that it was because they were forgettable or didn't seem to have real human reactions and emotions.-Prepare yourself for a long wind up. I read through about 40% of the book until the main characters even reached the desert and culture of the Freeman began to be revealed.-Granted this is the 40 year anniversary edition of this book but the dated language and flow really made it a chore to read sometimes.-Overall the plot was a bit vague with visions and mystical characters that never really receive and explanation. The writer forces you to pick up tidbits and try to piece them together yourself.::: The Verdict :::Ultimately there was nothing that held me to finish this book. I always give a book at least a 50% completion before setting it aside and making a judgement. With Dune I gave it 60% because I really wanted it to be good. In the end I set it aside and decided to watch the tv/movie adaptations to see if the ending is really worth the trudge through the book. I really had high hopes for the ""all time best sci-fi book of all time"" but found an old drab of a book that could be awesome if the right person came back to revive it." +275,1556909330,Dune,,A2H27DE552XKF5,Christopher Mahoney,1/2,5.0,1205798400,An Epic Story for Any Reader,"Dune is one of the greatest books, not just science-fiction books, of all time. It is an epic story in which intergalactic fiefdoms vie for power under the cryptic mechanizations of the galactic Emperor.The story begins when House Atreides is granted stewardship of a desert planet that is the sole source of the spice mélange. The spice is exceedingly important to the galaxy as it is used by the Spacing Guild in interstellar navigation and by the Bene Gesserit to extend their psychological powers. The empire cannot exist without space travel nor the Bene Gesserit's controlling influence. So, it cannot exist without the spice. The Atreides are immediately aware of this and the tenacity of their situation, especially with their rivals and the former custodians of Dune: House Harkonnen.All this is backdrop to the real story though: the plight of a young man named Paul Atreides heir to House Atreides. Paul is the son of the Duke Atreides and the Lady Jessica, a Bene Gesserit and bound concubine to the Duke. Sharing both his father's noble upbringing and his mother's special powers, Paul is quickly identified as a powerful future leader and potentially the messiah of ancient Bene Gesserit lore: the Kwisatz Haderach.When the Atreides are betrayed by the Emperor, who reveals his true allegiance to House Harkonnen, a gripping saga commences that challenges Paul to survive to avenge his family against an empire bent on destroying him.The entire Dune series is engaging and complete in its imagined universe that each book is a treasure in its own right. The first book however stands even above the rest as the fantastically imagined beginning to the legacy of Dune. It is a must-read for anyone." +276,1556909330,Dune,,A3UHWNH1PZYEUJ,DonkaDoo,2/7,4.0,1126656000,Not a sci-fi fan? You will LOVE this book!,"My fiance has been trying to get me to read these books for months! And usually this is not my cup of tea...but I finally read it and I'm glad I did!I would give the book 5 stars, as it is a great first novel to a 6 part series. But as a novel all on it's own I give it 4 stars, because the ending of the book is not all that satisfying. It leaves you drooling for more, and thankfully there are 5 more books to devour." +277,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,900028800,Magnificent Science Fiction!!,"Dune is the epiphany of Science Fiction, it is not for those who read cheap sci-fi from the super market. It is magnificently written and has intricate plot and character developments that glue you to the book. Although the sequals don't live up to Dune, the origonal is a must!!" +278,1556909330,Dune,,A18T2BRUG3II38,saturn17x,2/4,4.0,1302652800,Love this book Hate the Price,"Dune is one of my favorite books, but $16.99 for an e-book is crazy. I own a paperback copy and would still by the e-book for my kindle, but not at that price. I will keep checking back for a lower price, but so far in the last year it has only gone up in price." +279,1556909330,Dune,,A2W2E6BPPYZO0T,YA book lover,1/1,4.0,1271289600,"A masterpiece of science fiction, and rightfully so","I like books for different reasons - characters, writing style, exciting plot. I will remember ""Dune"" for its remarkable world-building.Dune (or Arrakis) is a desert planet. It is barren, almost waterless, and it is the only source of melange - a spice with unique geriatric qualities - it extends lives, enhances mental abilities, and is necessary for space travel. Dune is at the center of an Imperial scheme to bring down the influential House of Atreides led by Duke Leto Atreides. The plan is to give Leto the rights to extract spice on Dune, the rights that previously belonged to Atreides' century-long enemy - House of Harkonnen with Baron Vladimir Harkonnen as its head. The feud between the Houses is later used as a cover-up for the extermination of the House of Atreides. This plan however has a flaw, as it doesn't take into consideration that Leto Atreides's 15-year old son Paul is not an ordinary child, but the end product of a long-term genetic experiment designed to breed a super human. It's Paul's destiny to give Dune back to its native people - Fremen and to upset the power balance in the Universe.Having finished ""Dune,"" I now understand why this book is considered to be for science fiction what ""Lord of the Rings"" is for fantasy - basically, it's a standard all other works in the genre are compared against.The world of Dune has an unprecedented depth to it. Herbert creates an entire culture built around the world that simply has not enough water. This planetary condition affects Fremen tremendously - they constantly wear stillsuits that are designed to conserve and recycle bodies' water emissions, dead bodies are processed to extract water, the population is controlled to accommodate the a total amount of water available. I found this world extremely interesting and well thought out.The concepts of Bene Gesserit (a school of mental and physical abilities whose hidden mission is to advance humanity through various genetic manipulations), Mentats (people trained for supreme accomplishments of logic, human computers), Missionara Protectiva (a wing of Bene Gesserit order whose goal is to plant superstition on primitive worlds to later make these regions easier for the order to manipulate), etc. are equally fascinating.The depth of the world, however, is the biggest weakness of the book as well as its biggest strength. It takes a while to figure out various concepts and terms which are introduced early on (thankfully, there is a very helpful glossary at the end of the book). The narration is a little too dry at times, especially when characters' mental abilities are explored. The book is in many ways happens inside people's minds, so there is a lot of thinking and analyzing involved.But these negatives aside, ""Dune"" is rightfully called a masterpiece of science fiction. It is much more that a story about aliens and space travel, it is an ambitious philosophical work which explores the issues of ecology, cultural identity and the nature of religious leadership. Although I am not sure I will read the rest of the books in the series (as far as I know the total book count is now 16), I will always remember ""Dune"" as an impressive work of literature which will definitely stand the test of time.P.S. I also watched David Lynch's movie adaptation of the book. My advice - spare yourself, DO NOT watch it." +280,1556909330,Dune,,ADPQEGWWM91OE,Roald Olos,0/2,5.0,1219017600,"Really, this is such a fine book","It is the one time Frank Herbert let himself (or his editors let him) become truly literary in the series of books about Dune. It must be in the nicest sense of that term.I remember being young, near to thirty, and reading the first time, comparing impressions with friends in the quiet, hands-on moments at our r&d; work.Perhaps we didn't feel the sweep of the original Dune, though in another way it is actually there -- behind, and in the spaces opened by many observations in the text. And it didn't seem to compare with the adventures of Leto and Ghanima and the D-wolves, though today for all that the Children of Dune book is important, it is lesser.In Dune Messiah, the depth of individual story is drawn almost as with Asian brushes: swift, naturally spreading strokes, that you take a moment with to let the understanding come to you, how evocative. There is not summary, yet also there are summaries of whole thoughts, as in the sad ending not of Paul, but of Bijaz, whose power as a person and character just give glimpses of Frank Herbert's breadth of achievement.I have never been able to understand the later books after Herbert died, though there can be a certain fascination in some of them, and now think that they are simply very different works, as if a very different historian had been read to us. Then there is credit where due.Of Frank Herbert's deep and long creation, it's apparent also how he took different avenues himself, perhaps guided by editors, by 'results' for this Dune Messiah particularly. He had a life to support, and could no doubt find fun and satisfaction in putting forward what people most seemed to want to hear, all the way to Miles Teg, who was a great creation also.Would that he could have pursued the tracks of Dune Messiah further in some places and ways, and perhaps he did -- the rest of the series I also have before me to read over. What he did here shows the soul there was behind it all, and it is a thanking matter indeed to meet him so.Highly recommended, and as you see, for reading 'again'." +281,1556909330,Dune,,AKA1BO09MI170,"Richard Stone ""Author""",2/3,5.0,1169337600,"Great Sequel, last of the good Dune novels","Is Dune Messiah as good as the original? No, it is not, but it's still a great book.**Spoilers**Dune Messiah takes places a little time after Dune, when Paul's Jihad is sweeping the known universe, and Paul is now the Emperor of the Theocracy build around his own mythology. Paul in this book is happily married to Chani, who is having trouble conceiving a child. He haas to deal with the many people who don't like how Paul has brought water to Dune, thiking it has made the culture weak. Many who have lost loved ones in the Jihad wonder why they followed who seems to be now just another megalomaniacal tyrant.The tragedy is that Paul does not want to be where he is, and really wants only to escape, leaving the future path to his heirs. The ghola Duncan, a blast from the past, only worsens his psyche but he can't destroy him, even as he knows the ghola is programmed to kill him. He's not completely helpless in the novel, as there are many plans up his sleeve as well.The ending is a satisfying conclusion, and it's recommended that you don't bother with the rest, as they become practically unreadable after this Messiah." +282,1556909330,Dune,,A1WL1C69T3KJIC,Tom Huston,1/1,5.0,942192000,"Intricate, complex, flowing, exciting . . .","The environmental pictures painted are peerless. The characterizations are excellent. The religious intrigue, while not mystical or deep, is nonetheless captivating (especially if you're a fan of messianic, "Chosen One" tales). And the story is wonderful! If you like fantasy, sf, or great novels in general, check it out. (But be sure to get this new Ace edition; it certainly can't have _more_ typos than the Putnam hardcover.)" +283,1556909330,Dune,,AM2KH1MMXO2FB,Bingzing,0/1,5.0,1036281600,Great reading,"A friend had recommended this book once. I am glad I read it. The characters are excellent, especially the young boy Paul Atreides. The development of this kid to a powerful creature will make hooked from the first page. I don't think you have to be a sci-fi reader to enjoy this book." +284,1556909330,Dune,,A3PIJJ4J2DDI6Q,"Shawn M. Warswick ""High School History Teacher""",1/1,5.0,991267200,Stunning Literary Achievement!!!,"Dune, Frank Herbert's Masterpiece, is a Literary Achievment, and, in my opinion, the greatest Science Fiction Novel of all time. Set in the future, this novel covers themes ranging from politics to economics, religion and philosphy to environmentalism. In other words, Herbert is a genius and you will be able to tell this within the first few pages.The central theme is that of messianic religions, and the effects of such. Because of the fact that Paul Attredies (the main character) is a messiah, we get to see his point of view on being one. Herbert deals extensively with the feelings such a person might feel about having a fate which is unaviodable.The characters Herbert created are outstanding. You'll hate the Baron Vladimir Harkonnen and love Paul. You'll be intrigued by the guildsmen and in awe of the Bene Geseritt.If you like dense plots, this is the book for you. There are more layers to this novel than you can count on both hands. I should warn you that you will miss many many things after the first reading. I recently finished reading it for the third time and I was still discovering new themes,new ideas. IF you have not yet read it, Dune is a Masterpiece and should be a part of your collection." +285,1556909330,Dune,,A3PDFD2GPD5BNZ,"Chad ""Scooby""",2/2,5.0,1162598400,I've always stayed away from Science Fiction . . .,"I have always shied away from Science Fiction. I don't know what it is about it, but it has never appealed to me. To illustrate: a friend of mine bought me this book four years ago with the promise that it would be worth my while and I have only recently read it.If DUNE is a good representation of Science Fiction, then I have been missing out. What a great book. I always hesitate to voice my opinion on books that are time tested. I mean, do you really need someone to tell you that the LORD OF THE RINGS are good books. Still, if you, like me, eschew Science Fiction for fantasy or other fare, then hopefully my review will persuade you.I enjoyed the technique the author used of dropping the reader into a new world together with the protagonist. We learn as he does. This keeps the pace of the book brisk. Other authors have employed this technique less effectively.The world - Dune - is original and intriguing. The originality of the book is probably its greatest selling point. I have not seen, or imagined this type of world (apart from the obvious homage in Beetlejuice).I thought that the development of characters - both as to the insight into their character and their acquisition of skills and powers - was also a great contributor to my enjoyment of the book. One gets a good feel for the motivation and reasoning behind all of the characters actions, be they prominent or not. Also, the book does not waste a great deal of time developing the protagonist. His progression as a powerful figure progresses quickly. This I think lends itself to better story telling.My experience with many fantasy books is that the development of super-powers IS the story. Once the protagonist has developed the powers, then the final conflict is brief and ultimately unsatisfying. Here, there is a story to be told after the pieces are in place, so to speak. It works.In all, I think that whether you're a fan or Science Fiction or not, you will enjoy DUNE. I whole-heartedly recommend it. It has inspired me to read ENDER'S GAME. Another Sci-Fi book I've put off for years. I'll report back to you on my impressions of it here." +286,1556909330,Dune,,A3LANSRXLT1PW0,Atredes,2/2,5.0,1352851200,Watched the Movies,"I am surprised that I had never read this before now. I have fallen in love with the Dune Universe through the movies and identify with Paul Atreides so much with the regards to the relationship with his father and the loss of his birthright. Anyone who has lost their father at an early age coupled with more tragedies after will know what I mean. This book still amazes me at how meaty it is. When I told several of my friends that I was reading this book, they were amazed I would take on such an opus. The only downside is not about the book, but the electronic format for eReaders. There is a lot of typo's throughout the book and became a distraction at times." +287,1556909330,Dune,,AHMUJBLH99VKK,Ryan Delaney delanry@earlham.edu,0/0,5.0,908928000,"Sweeping, awe-inspiring","Many times when reading this book, I became so enveloped by the story I even forgot that I was reading; turning the pages was only a reflex, necessary to maintain the even flow of time. It is the one book which I have been the most sad to see end, and yet the most happy to have read. Let Frank Herbert bring you into his world of great sandworms, Gods and Emperors, villains, heroes, and a small boy at the center of it all.If there were only one book I would ever read, this would be it." +288,1556909330,Dune,,A123DU9X8MV7CV,cjh,2/2,3.0,1356134400,"Great book, poorly formatted kindle version","I thoroughly enjoyed this book, the story itself was very gripping and enjoyed each and every character, I would easily have given it 5 stars.The kindle edition however leaves much to be desired, misspelt words (including character names), missing spaces, missing punctuation (often the leading quotation mark for speech was absent), etc.At times this edition detracted from the beauty of this novel.The kindle edition feels like it was generated using an OCR system, I can't think of any other explanation for the poor quality.In general there is little excuse, the digital version should be at least as good as the physical book, however the sf masterworks project is ambitious and so for this I am willing to grant a little leeway.I also wish the included dictionary (explaining foreign words that are used heavily throughout) was easier to access, ideally being used to supplement the kindle's built-in dictionary, however this is a limitation of the kindle rather than the text.Overall I would still recommend this book, and despite all of this, I will be reading the rest of the series in this same format.After reading more about the sf masterworks project I still think that what they are trying to achieve is fantastic.Given the choice between reading Dune on the kindle in it's current state vs reading it in paperback (or worse, not reading at all); I would still pick reading it on the kindle." +289,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/1,5.0,1074384000,Stellar stuff,"This book is great. Its got a good story that explores many political principles through a sci-fi atmosphere. If you are a sci-fi fan, pick it up." +290,1556909330,Dune,,A8778DM9ZBH4V,"Mary Baumer ""darlin13""",0/1,5.0,1022198400,watch out for the sandpeople,"this is the best work in the dune series. I love rereading this book, i loved the dune movie (yes the david lynch one!) and miniseries. This is a great book if you are looking for a long scifi series" +291,1556909330,Dune,,,,11/43,1.0,993427200,Cosmic nonsense,"Thank goodness it takes only eight thousand years for a little political instability to worm its way in. Dune is crap. It's a bunch of pseudo-science hoodoo. I tried reading this book as a child and I was enchanted for awhile, the idea is so lovely it practically throbs. But really, for some reason, I just couldn't finish it. Now as an adult I tried again to read it and it's just more than silly. I guess Proust is right, you can't go home again. Or whatever. Maybe there was a time to read it and it passed. Of course, the idea is nice. If there was a book on the idea of Dune I'd probably read it. Even the idea of Frank Herbert. Just a book about some cat with a big prophet beard and a penchant for writing crackpot books of science fiction/philosophy. That would be nice. That would compel. Even if he veered at times dangerously close to fascism, which he does, and so does that Nazi Heinlein. It would be hilariously funny to read about some chubby floodge who wrote silly books of facsistic science fiction but never had the heart to get them published (there's a spin on things), and whose rantings were restricted--safely--to the confines of his kitchen. Funny. Sabbath's Science Fictional Theater. Yeah. But Dune is, sadly, really sadly, poorly written and should have been better. Sorry." +292,1556909330,Dune,,A141X8GIWT74LP,"St Corner Press Stewart ""ss_reno""",0/1,5.0,1149379200,Well worth the time,"For one reason or another, I put off reading this ""classic"" for years. What can I say? If you haven't read it... read it. It's wonderful storytelling. The tale incorporates recognizable political and religious references without being trapped in specifics of previous or current historical events. A grand tour indeed." +293,1556909330,Dune,,A1UKFI49VRK0PS,"G.Jones ""book junky""",1/1,5.0,1142467200,my first sci fi experience..and what an experience it was,"let me just tell you all one thing... i loved this book... i have told (literally) hundreds of people about this book and much to my surprise they have read them all. i am floored by the imagination that this author had, this vision of a far off place that and an entire universe that relies heavily on the substane known as melange. yes the first installment is quite heafty and i do suggest reading continuously for this is not a book that can be read and then stopped and picked up later ( i know i did it and frequenlty caught myself going back to say where was i when that happened). this book has an incredible character development and in most books i would have a problem with how people can measure great distances and tell how much sand there is out there by making an educated guess, but with this book i came to understand that those guesses were not educated ones and they were the product of years of training and practice in the ways of the sister hood. i am not here to critique this book in any way , but merely offer my feelings about the book so that others can experience the adventure i had in the depths of my mind when everything in the world was silent and i was out on Arrakis, in those stillsuits right behind paul all the way to the last page ( sure some translation was needed, thank gaia for that damned encyclopedia/dictionary in the back of the book).i know that what i just said is so cliche, but i dont care, people dont need complex thoughts written down or very harsh words to say that a book was not good, or that the plot needs more work, but what they do need to know is whether or not the book was worth the read. i am here to tell you all it was. i swore i would never read a series of books in my life, but i renounce that claim and am here to say that i am now a dune junkie. hello sci fi sagas and series, my name is tyler durden (this is my alias)and i am here to stay. so for those who are afraid of the stigma that comes with being labled as a sci fi freak of nature, for all those people that are trekies and star war people who are apart of the extended universe (even though i may never fully understand you) keep on treken and may the force be with you and for those who speak the language of the freemen bi-la kaifa." +294,1556909330,Dune,,AAH3XMNLL053E,"posixoptions ""posix""",13/42,1.0,1245196800,"The best science fiction novel of all time, or just nostalgia?","I didn't like the Dune book and here are my reasons why.It should be noted that I'm rating this book without taking into account at all that it is 49 years old -- had I done so this review would be different.This review might contain spoilers.Having just finished the four novels set in the Hyperion universe and the single short story in the same setting I was shocked that something so great (the Hyperion series) could have existed for so long without myself knowing about it. Having grown up as very young with the ""Dune 2"" real time strategy game on the PC which I have fond memories of I later on always had a strong suspicion that the Dune books must be truly great -- but for some reason I never got around to reading the books despite reading a lot of other fiction. Finally I bought all the books in the Dune series -- I was THAT certain this series must be so good I would want to buy all of them anyway; or so I'd been told, things like ""So you thought Hyperion was good? You should read Dune."".I was deeply disappointed. For starters I didn't like the tone and style of writing, but I didn't like Hyperion immediately either, and I went into the book with enthusiasm, a truly open mind and embraced every idea when I started reading and didn't care if things didn't make sense at first.I'm soon finished with the second book now and here are my thoughts: Dune has little or nothing to do with science fiction and technology, it has everything to do with politics, religion and what I'd call magic -- the abilities of e.g. the protagonists to manipulate their own bodies and see into the future with no explanation whatsoever or even vague references to physics is hard to grasp. It is even told that the magic spice can ""bend space"", presumably as implied by GR. It is even harder to accept that in a high tech, interstellar fairing civilization computers are outlawed and knives are extremely effective weapons.As said already ""The universe that Frank Herbert creates here is a humanistic one, almost a mideval renaissance world."", if you can accept this as science fiction in addition to a lot of seemingly absurd babble, then you will probably enjoy the book.The author seems to employ cheap plot devices to elude the burden of having to speculate on the technology of the future. E.g. all computers are illegal due to a ""jihad"" that banned them a long time ago. Apparently digital guidance computers are not needed to navigate nor control the massive interstellar spacecraft that are present in the novel but never discussed in detail. Instead they are navigated using one of the several magic forces of the ""spice"" in addition to so-called ""navigators"". The most sad thing is that exactly how this (and basically anything else too) works is not even mentioned as far as I can recall.To imagine strong AI is forbidden is possible, but to imagine that not only weak AI (expert systems) are illegal but ALL computers altogether are illegal? Give me a break. Supposedly ""Ornithopters"" are used as aircraft on Dune, with no explanation as to why this is cheaper and more effective than regular aircraft -- however, are we meant to believe these aircraft are operated with analog electronics? Is all communication analog too?""JIHAD, BUTLERIAN: (see also Great Revolt) -- the crusade against computers, thinking machines, and conscious robots begun in 201 B.G. and concluded in 108 B.G. Its chief commandment remains in the O.C. Bible as ""Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.""""Since computers per se are never mentioned in the book as far as I can recall I can only interpret the Butlerian Jihad as outlawing ALL computers -- as is actually stated too in the quoted text. Are we really meant to believe that an interstellar civilization operates a vast network of huge, massive spacecraft of all kids, without using any form of digital computers? All sensors, attitude control, thrusters, life support systems, GN&C;, communication, command and data handling are all analog, and somehow fed through a mutated creature that is this ""navigator"", who uses a magical spice to fold the very fabric of spacetime itself? And none of this needs to be even remotely explained or even mentioned how actually works?Other works of science fiction often refrain from explaining the inner workings of arbitrary technology too, but in those cases the underlying concepts or ideas that are implied (or stated explicitly) are often familiar ones that are easy to imagine -- the reader can fill in the voids and gaps on his/her own, however with Dune I'm unable to do this. It seems impossible.It is perhaps at least as hard to accept that weapons are near useless, due to everyone in a military situation being equipped with a ""shield"", which supposedly causes subatomic fusion upon being struck by directed energy from a weapon. To suppose that nothing, not particle weapons nor energy weapons are useful at all, because of a shild that can stop ANYTHING, seems not only unrealistic but makes again for a poor excuse as means to exclude such weapons from the universe altogether.In all Dune seems more like a desert fantasy universe with the technology so distant and so remote that it is felt as if it is not even there at all. The ideas and concepts seem more magical than scientific.Due to the age of the work I expected a space opera/soft science fiction -- little talk about technology and science, but as I've tried to explain there is less than that, there is so little science in the book that fantasy is perhaps a better term.Although if you can live with what I've briefly mentioned so far, the rest of the book must be said to be great, but there are plenty of other reviews that deal with what the book is really about. I'm just disappointed from a *science fiction* point of view." +295,1556909330,Dune,,A2PQEL3MRML7EY,"""crazedscot""",0/0,5.0,917049600,Science Fiction masterpiece of the Millenium,"This is by far the most absorbing and entertaining science fiction book I have ever read. It must be read, again and again. If you've seen the film, read the book!!" +296,1556909330,Dune,,A16JTNAEKD139I,Reader from the North,3/3,4.0,1130630400,Unexpected plot-twists to great book,"Dune is the SF ""everything including the kitchen sink"" classic. It is the rise of the hero. In ""Messiah"" we get the Greek tragic hero's fall.Once again, Herbert dealt with complex themes with far-reaching implications. Will a man detroy himself rather than become something which he is not? Will a hero allow himself to become a focal point for great evil? Great concept.Many who have read this book are disappointed--they wanted another sprawling space melodrama. Instead, we get a morality play. But every time I've read this novel, my opinion of it has gone up. Read it. Think about it. Herbert said he had this book in his head when he wrote Dune. Ask yourself what he's saying. Your opinion of it will improve too." +297,1556909330,Dune,,A3CSRRA4PZ2FU4,mader_michael@gsb.stanford.edu,8/8,5.0,894240000,One of the few Sci-Fi stand-alones,"How often do you find a book of moderate length with original and complex characters, set in a compelling historical and physical context, that has a complete story arch that lets you close the book satisfied? Infrequently, especially in the world of Sci-Fi. It is the accomplishment of all of these that allows "Dune" -- if not its sequels -- to hold its own among all the great stories of our time.Many others here have written about Herbert's brilliant character development and his incredible creativity in conceiving the world of "Dune". I would like to call your attention, though, to the satisfaction that comes from reading a well thought out story that is told deftly and with passion. All too often in Science Fiction (and non-Sci Fi for that matter) we see books premised on a few ideas that go nowhere as a story. Authors have very original ideas that suck us into the book, tease us along for a while, and then end the story with a fizzle, dragging us into a morass of over-wrought characters and needlessly complicated plot-lines. Neal Stephenson's "The Diamond Age" is a perfect example. Your feeling after the first 50 pages is, "What a cool idea! This is great!" But the book ends up taking you on a long, slow downhill ride with an ending that is nowhere close to the brilliance of the original concept."Dune" does not do this. It lifts you gently into the main story, making sure to point out the relevant characters and side-plots as you go along, builds your anticipation over its entirety, and continually keeps you fresh and interested. The resolution is complete and timely, and doesn't leave you slogging through 20 meaningless pages at the end. When you finish, you can look back and say, "What a great story, and what a great storyteller."I believe the goal of all fiction should be to make readers say that, and with "Dune" Frank Herbert has definitely made me say it." +298,1556909330,Dune,,A3CJV4IG4XBCRW,"Antonomasia ""Anton""",0/0,5.0,1066780800,Leaps outside sci-fi to mainstream literature,"Dune is possibly the best science fiction novel ever written. Most importantly, the story is engrossing; it's a page turner, a book that you stay up reading into the wee hours. The characters are well developed, and the future worlds created are entirely believable. I've worked in politics and the political machinations in Dune ring so very true. Many of the insights into human philosophy and psychology are extraordinary; importantly they occur in the course of the story, and don't slow the pace of the story - they're not laboured. I first read Dune when I was about 14 and last read it when I was 36, and I read it 2 or 3 times in the intervening years. These days I find much science fiction trite and tedious, but Dune continues to entertain and intrigue me.The first 3 books in the now over-extended series are by far the best." +299,1556909330,Dune,,A3Q01J29CXK9V0,What the Cat Read,1/5,3.0,1338249600,Mixed Feelings,"I will be honest; I've known about this book's existence for years, but never had any interest in reading it. In fact, I have gone out of my way not to read it because I'm generally not a big fan of straight science fiction. However, when author Sarwat Chadda told me in a tongue in cheek way to read this book else our friendship would be in jeopardy, I decided to give it a try. Generally when I get a challenge like that, I follow through on it.So what were my thoughts on this book upon finishing it? Well it was an interesting read. While I liked various parts of it, other parts were just boring. And yes, perhaps my dislike of straight science fiction clouded my feelings and made it impossible to read with an unbiased eye, but in the long run, the book just simply didn't do much for me.The ideas behind the Bene Gesserit teachings and the Fremen way of life I found immensely intriguing. The Litany against Fear especially caught my eye and left me thinking. In truth it was the thoughtful, intellectual moments in the book that were the most enjoyable for me. Herbert poses some truly deep philosophical ideas within this novel and those ideas held my interest far more than the actual plot of the story. Try as I might, I just didn't care what happened to the characters or the power struggle between political houses. And once Paul became the ""messiah"", I lost what little respect I felt towards him.At the same time, I struggled with Herbert's writing style. To me it was dry and extremely confusing. The general pacing of events took far to long and often times I found myself wanting to scream, ""Get on with it already!"" Not that that would have done much good. In fact, by the time I finished with the story itself, I chose to completely skip the appendices and glossary. Plus, the inner monologues just killed me. Almost all of Herbert's characters engage in inner contemplation to the point where it was overkill.Yes, Herbert created a world that truly was unique, however the actual story just didn't work for me. I've heard that it has been compared to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy, but if I had to choose between the two, I'd go with Tolkien long before I'd ever choose Herbert." +300,1556909330,Dune,,A39YIVT7HK10Y1,Ben Hunt,0/1,4.0,977443200,Dune it is wordy but great,this book is an exelant book it has twist and turns that are unexpected. The auther is cunning and layers and layers of diffrent plots aginst each other. The worst thing about the book it is a slow read becuase you are getting some much differnt twist and turns in just one page. +301,1556909330,Dune,,A33T4OQBH7UCTZ,Aj,1/5,5.0,1110844800,Review Of The Book,"In Dune the author Frank Herbert used 3rd person omniscient. He shares the perspectives, thoughts, and feelings of multiple characters. Frank Herbert uses symbolism as a literary device. One of the symbols he uses in the book is water. The Fremen refer to blood as ""the body's water,"" suggesting that the Fremen view water as the blood of the environment. When Thufir Hawat agrees to join the Fremen, he enters the ""bond of water,"" rather than a blood oath. People show their loyalty to one another by spitting or sharing water. Paul and Jessica, during their time with the Fremen, engage in many rituals that involve water. For example, Paul accepts the water of Jamis's corpse after he kills him. After drinking the water, Paul is baptized into the culture of the Fremen, and he is reborn as a leader in their world. For the Fremen, water and life are the same.One of the themes Frank Herbert uses in the book is religion and power. Religion represents a source of comfort and power throughout the novel. Paul pursues the same goals as Kynes, but uses his religious power over the Fremen as their messiah to gain control of the entire Imperium. Paul possesses mystical abilities that go above and beyond a simple heightened awareness or intelligence, but his clever exploitation of religion is his most powerful advantage. Paul's manipulation of religion and the calculated use of legends contrived by the Bene Gesserit allow him to rise to the position of emperor. I would recommend this book to anyone who likes science-fiction and fantasy." +302,1556909330,Dune,,AS1AJOCM0GSNH,psychnp@harborside.com,0/1,5.0,895881600,one of the best sci-fi books writen ever,dune is one of the best books ever written it is a must read book i have read and reread it many times it is captivating and beliveable.it is clearly a true piece of literature.only one book could equal and that is JRR Tolkiens middle-earth +303,1556909330,Dune,,A671GGV9ALOJL,Arwythur,0/0,5.0,1323475200,Dune: A Classic Epic,"If you do nothing else in your life, read this series, including the works continued by Mr. Herbert's son. It is a feast for the mind, and a thousand lessons in the bit's and pieces that make up our collective unconscious." +304,1556909330,Dune,,A2H3F2VMWQKWQB,Harry,0/0,5.0,1354838400,Dune: The Majestic Desert of Science Fiction,"There has always been writings of science fiction, but the novel Dune, by Frank Herbert, sets a new standards. Dune does more than create a fantastic feudalistic universe, Herbert uses his characters to express key aspects of humans. The novel starts with a young boy, Paul, the son of a strong-willed Duke, who is about to move to a dangerous new planet. Along with this stress Paul has been visited by an old woman called a Reverend Mother who tests if he is a ""real"" human by seeing if he had control of his mind. After this quick but significant trial Paul is told that he is to become a great prophet (who can see the past through his ancestry and predict the future). The novel consists of his evolution from this boy pondering the aspects of human nature and what is means to be human to a leader with foresight in a world of chaos.Herbert does a great job of emphasising human behavior through the characters that value power, greed, honor and just water. The men plotting against Paul's father want to claim the emperor's place by killing Paul's father. Paul's father is a leader of men. He inspires intense honor and loyalty with his commanders and servants. The indigenous population of Dune called the Fremen who live in the desert value water more than anything else because there so little on the planet. Herbert comments on extremists by emphasizing the pure focus the Fremen have on water and how the religious dream of their planet maintaining a water cycle is enough for the Fremen to give up their lives. He also brings in the philosophy of harsh conditions create the strongest people, by having the feared warriors of the emperor come from a once prosperous planet turned into a slave planet, for the purpose of breeding superior warriors.Sometimes when reading this book the reader might feel that they are receiving a psychology lecture instead of an actual story. Especially in the beginning when Paul is receiving lessons from his mentors. ""A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it."" Also Paul, when he has the need to put aside his emotions to think clearly, has several insights into how to overcome emotion, ""Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration. ... Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."" These mini quotes of wisdom can sometimes make the story seem to be prolonged by the time Herbert spends integrating them with his story.Even though this book has a lot of philosophy it contains a mystical world much like the captivating epic Star Wars. Dune, however, came before Star Wars. Dune could be argued to be the novel that set the standard for current science fiction pieces. Dune uses its futuristic world to predict like Paul does, the future our own world could become. Dune is realistic, though, in that people act rationally and many aspects of the futuristic culture are explained with principles known today. Herbert uses rational thinking when he explains the purpose of his many imaginative mechanism, which he takes the time to explain rather than leaving the reader confused.Dune is appealing because even though it is futuristic, it is based off of basic systems of society. The Political structure is based off of a feudalistic kingdom with rulers and subjects but instead of having countries to rule and fight over, Herbert has planets. Herbert chooses to have the main struggle between these kingdoms to be over a simple spice (with the bonus of cognitive properties), instead of some futuristic object. In this way Dune has a deep connection to medieval and basic human nature.The book though can be hard to follow because of its sudden rush into the world of reason and political warfare. Herbert relates these tensions by writing from the perspective of several characters, including the antagonist. Also the sudden jumps in time can be annoying because Herbert will suddenly skip ahead in the story because Paul has an insight on how things are going to turn out, and then that insight suddenly happens. This could leave the reader feeling gypped out of storyline.Overall this is a novel that everyone with a taste for imaginative and ingenious writing should read and appreciate as a classic that is the heart of modern science fiction." +305,1556909330,Dune,,A1XNXHTPQRACRO,Barry C. Chow,3/3,5.0,1001376000,A "masterpiece" deserving of the claim,"There is no praise that can be sung about this book that has not already been sung. When it was first published in 1965, it burst upon the science fiction scene like a supernova. Nothing had ever been written that was even remotely similar. Reviewers coined new phrases to describe the novel: �space feudalism�, �feudal-futurism�, even �sand fiction�. Yet, anyone who has read the novel can attest to the poverty of such labels. This is a book that defies pigeonholing.Where shall I start? Firstly, unlike so much in science fiction, even by grand masters like Asimov and Clarke, this book develops characters of exceptional depth. They each have such vibrant inner lives that it is impossible not to identify with them. The writing is absolutely first class. Spare, tight, exquisitely metaphorical, not a word wasted, it�s a pleasure to read. The imagery is so effective you can feel the grit of sand in your teeth. Then there is the sheer genius of Herbert�s imagination. He borrows from history the religious and feudal societies, but transform them into something unique and original.This is one of the most complete science fiction classics ever written. Whether it is writing skill, plot, themes, setting, characterizations, breadth of imagination or sheer weight of ingenuity, it beggars parallel. I can�t think of a single fault, except perhaps that it had to come to an end.The only unfortunate aspect of this work was that it scaled pinnacles of such extraordinary height that Herbert would never attain them again. Each of his sequels fell further and further from the mark set by this novel, and some of his later works were simply embarrassing.Beg, borrow or steal this book. Just don�t pass up the chance to read it." +306,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,922838400,Absolutely the most breathtaking sci fi tale ever written,"Herbert is like a prophet, he seems to have the same vision of the future that I do, the battles will keep you reading hours into the night, and the storyline seems to keep on rolling, and rolling, and rolling, never a stop in the excitement. The story begns on Caladan- the homeworld of House Atreides, The house is being "relocated" so to speak, to the desert planet Arrakis, otherwise known as Dune. The previous rulers there were the Atreides sworn enemy- The Harkonnens, when the atreides move in to take over, everything goes okay, for a while, then the Harkonnen treachery kicks in, and the Atreides duke is killed, the title falls on his son- Paul, yet he was thrown into the desert to die. The natives, known as the fremen, capture him then realize that he is the Lisan al Gaib, the voice from the outer world, a figure that their religion is based upon, Paul trains the Fremen in the way of battle that he had been taught his whole life. They become his army, and together, they take Dune back from the Harkonnens. If I could give this book more than 5 stars, I would, READ IT!!!!!" +307,1556909330,Dune,,A3UXLGZLFMB9UQ,James Cooper,0/0,5.0,1310947200,Its reputation as one of the best scifi stories is not overrated,Herbert's Dune series is a life's work that made the world of literature better. It introduced characters and circumstances that carved out a place for world building and space travel in literature that few other stories ever accomplished. +308,1556909330,Dune,,A3U8VJ6ZD8AU2,C. Buechner,3/4,3.0,960508800,Pretty good but not the greatest,"Dune was pretty good, but I don't think it is the greatest book I've ever read. It started off well, but it seemed like the last part of the book was rushed with the author jumping over large periods of time. I also had difficulty finding any characters that I could really like. They all seemed a little shifty. I will probably eventually read the rest of the books to see what happens, but I won't be rushing out to buy them." +309,1556909330,Dune,,A3N8FOBZLIX97J,joelamb@webtv.net,0/0,5.0,911174400,mind boggeling intricacy,"The depth of this book is awsome! I am the type of sci-fi fan that loves books that deal with societies, and Frank Herbert has definatly developed an inricate society in Dune. I definatly recommend this book to anyone; at least try it!" +310,1556909330,Dune,,A1P8DIBAXF6H37,Kurt Conner,1/1,4.0,1274140800,Detailed and epic and beautiful and thought-provoking,"I read this book twenty years ago and bought it again to try to remember if I had liked it or not. I may not have appreciated it then, but I really enjoyed it this time. The story is an epic one, set on an intricately-designed desert planet with a variety of cultures and individuals scheming for political power. At the heart is a tale of a reluctant messianic figure who experiences tragedy and tries to find a way to rise again that will not cause his followers to doom the universe. Herbert plays up the epic nature well, by starting each new section with a quote from some fictional chronicle of these events. The effect does take out all tension of whether or not Paul (the messianic figure) will live or die, but the benefit of knowing that these events are Historical and Significant far outweighs the lack of tension.I imagine that the frequent references to jihad will offend many modern readers, as will the mingling of quotations from the Torah and the Koran without any reference to a supernatural God (in fact, I have been surprised to see this book described as a religious work, since there are numerous ceremonies and scriptures but no real concept of a supernatural force of any kind, and the salvation that Paul is expected to bring is an ecological and philosophical one). I also think the ecological significance of this book has changed a bit since its 1965 publication (I don't know that many environmentalists today are looking to convert deserts into rainforests, although the end of the book does point to a certain restraint and respect for systems that soften the thrust a bit).For me, though, the best part of the book is the way that some of the characters are gifted at translating conversations and reading body language. There is a particularly good scene at a dinner party when no one really means what he says, and the more astute characters observe and tell the reader what each exchange really means. It changed the way I listened to group conversations for a while, honestly, and made me think a lot about the layers of meaning I hide in my own speech. I have no plans to finish this series, as I'm quite satisfied with the state of things as Herbert left them at the end of this book, but I recommend this to anyone interested in science fiction and fantasy, especially those looking for something to compare favorably with the Lord of the Rings and Wheel of Time classics." +311,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,891820800,Read the Series,"I only read Dune after I had seen the movie (2 hour version) and was overwhelmed! I then proceded to read the rest of the series (6 books) and tape all three (the two, three and four-hour) versions of the movie. The book Dune is one you must read thru at least twice, including the glossary and index before all the ramifications of the 'history' start to become clear (The Butlerian Jihad, for example) and the realizations will change your first impressions, and so you will READ IT AGAIN!! I would love to read a 'prequal' of this series, but alas, for naught. For a great time on a rainy Saturday, get all six, sit down, and read them in order. You will not be disapointed." +312,1556909330,Dune,,A1179RZON69VSO,Agent Cooper,0/2,3.0,1312761600,"Good read, good sequel, but NOT deep","Messiah is a good enough next step in the story of Paul and his family. I would recommend it to anyone who has read Dune first. However, if you want deep philosophical reading, go elsewhere. There's a lot of supposed deep thought in here but it's really just a bunch of rambling verbiage that fills the pages. Nothing deep. Go read the Tibetan Book of the Dead if you want deep thought!" +313,1556909330,Dune,,A3UYHUASZMM3V4,Chuck,45/54,1.0,1273536000,Kindle Edition is Rife with Format Errors!,"Okay, it's hard to give this wonderful novel a bad rating, but the Kindle edition is so bugged, it makes me wonder if any human ever proofreads these new-fangled E-books.During almost every instance of italicized passages, there are numerous missing spaces between words. For example:thedoor notcorrrect requiredto A rrakisE-book publishers: Hire some proofreaders, or buy better translation software!" +314,1556909330,Dune,,,,2/3,5.0,1020297600,I love this book!,"I love this book! On a scale from 1-10 I would rate it ten. DUNE is the first book in a trilogy a book for readers at about 12 years old and up because it is very complex. An example of how complex it is that there is a dictionary of the unusal or madeup words.DUNE is a little bit like STAR WARS, if you like STAR WARS, you would like DUNE. It is set in the future. Bene Gesserits are a little like Jedi Knights except they are all female. What happens in DUNE is that the Atreids, people from a planet with a normal amount of water (Caladan), come to a planet with almost no water (Arrakis/Dune). The main setting is on Arrakis. Arrakis is a planet that is all a desert where water is used instead of water. The Atreides came to defeat the Harkonnens, they have been fighting for a long time. The Fremen are native to Arrakis. Water is a treasure to the Fremen so precious that when a person dies they squeeze the water from his skin.The main character is Paul. He is a very complex character because he changes completely. During most of the book he is smart but at the end he gets smarter than his Bene Gesserit mother. An example is that he can se many ways that he could change the future. Jessica is Paul's mother. She is a very loving and compassionate person, but when she needs to fight she will. She is very logical and intelligent. Paul's mother is a Bene Gesserit. There is only one Kwisatz Haderach (A male Bene Gesserit) that could do things no Bene Gesserit can. Could that be Paul? Bene Gesserits have the power to use the voice a way to tell people what to do and they do it without thinking they are under the Bene Gesserit's power." +315,1556909330,Dune,,A1EM1MMZJJH5W,"""linthepanda""",1/1,5.0,978480000,Could not put it down!,"This book has got to be the absolute best science fiction book of all time! When reading this masterpiece, I was lost in time and reality. I felt emotional yet it was subtle. All characters were intricately detailed and believable. I am reading the 4th book as we speak and will attempt to continue on with Brian Herbert's sequels. Although no one could mimic Frank Herbert's style!" +316,1556909330,Dune,,,,1/3,5.0,976665600,Excellent,"Dune is one of the few books I have read numerous times. The tale is believable once one allows for the place. Herbert's sense of time, ecology, heroes and the impact one has on society and the power of the human collective ego is phenomenal.The new SciFi movie is much better than the original, which focused on the absurd rather than the tightly written story line. Read the book upon which two movie have attempted to tell the immense story" +317,1556909330,Dune,,A3013MHSQS4Y8Y,Ricardo Julio Riera,1/1,4.0,1024272000,"Great story, but no match for the original.","Dune Messiah is a much less ambitious book that its predecessor, but that doesn't mean it comes short as one of the greatest sci-fi books ever. Much shorter than "Dune", this sequel focuses on just a couple of storylines at a time, and basically serves its purpose: present the outcome of Paul Muadib as ruler of the universe and prepare us for the coming of his children, whose actions, narrated on the forecoming novels, are the real juice of the saga. Anyway, Dune Messiah has a simple, entertaining story, but you certainly can't stop there. In order to find out what's the destiny of the universe, you need to read the ones that follow this sequel." +318,1556909330,Dune,,A3J5FMYHRFP32U,just a reader,1/1,5.0,1338163200,yup dune is excellent,If you have ever watched the movie just know the book is much better and doesnt have sting in it. I could write you a book report but im doing this review on my droid (sorry) so if you like indepth sci-fi this is the novel that got it right. Long live the intergalactic jihad! +319,1556909330,Dune,,,,2/6,5.0,945388800,"Arrakis, Dune, Desert Planet.","Dune is approximately 1,000,000 times better written than the following reproduction."The Bene-Gesserit have many tests... The most famous one may be the Gom Jabbar, but it is by no means the most interesting. Why, only last week Mother Frosynozy, stationed on IX, came up with a new version of her Bib Habbib test. It uses a sphere instead of a rectangular box, glows in the dark, and uses Pain-by-tickling-induction instead of the traditional nerve-induction variant."The young boy Paul was sitting in his chambers, using an ancient iMac to cruise the net. He was very clever. As Yueh, Gurney and a human-computer Mentat code named Eyebrowz approached the room, Paul quickly hit Alt-F4 to close his connection to www.babes4all.com. Behind the now closed window were still photographs of Worms from Dune.The trio came into the room, but Paul, with his back turned to the door, did not look back. Yueh was thinking about saying, with a very irritated voice: "Paul. How many times have I told you, don't sit with your back facing the door. It's impolite." - but before he could speak, Paul yelled: "I heard You, You and You. All three of you, my friends, walk into the room.". "Our sounds and smells can be immitated!" raged Eyebrowz. "I'd know the difference."Yes, Paul would know the difference. For Paul was the first and only son of Jessica, the Bene Gesserit witch that married Duke Leto Atreides of House Caladan. For 90 generations, the Bene Gesserit had been manipulating bloodlines of many great Houses, so that they can eventually produce the Universe's Super Being, the Kwisatz Haderach. The Kwisatz Haderach was supposed to be born in Generation 91. But the Bene Gesserit wanted Paul to be a woman, but he wasn't. Otherwise he would be visiting hotmen.com and not babes4all.com. Thats how the Bene Gesserit found out, after checking Paul's log files. So Paul knew the difference because he was the Kwisatz Haderach, the Universe's Super Being.Meanwhile, back in his laboratory on Geidi Prime, Piter De Vries, Master Mentat and Assasin King for House Harkonnen, was working on his Juice of Saphoo recipe.Read the book for the real story." +320,1556909330,Dune,,AQZH7YTWQPOBE,Enjolras,0/0,4.0,1279756800,"Great plot, sometimes thick writing","I like the direction Frank Herbert took the Dune series in his first two sequels. This book has a bit more development than the original Dune. We get to learn more about the inner turmoil of Paul, Alia, and then meet the kids. Frank has a way of creating politically exciting twists and power struggles, without making any one character the villain. Paul and Alia in their own ways are both despots and victims. In terms of storyline, I think this brings the story to a satisfying conclusion (I'm not so big a fan of what happens afterChildren of Dune (Dune Chronicles, Book 3)).Frank's writing style can be a bit dense. Sometimes the dialogue is filled with philosophical or nonsensical musings. Some of it is quite deep - but certainly not how people actually talk. It takes some getting used to. I'd recommend only continuing on to this book if you got through the original Dune and liked it.If you liked the books, I highly recommendFrank Herbert's Children of Dune (Sci-Fi TV Miniseries) (Two-Disc DVD Set)- it's a pretty good film adaptation ofDune Messiah (Dune Chronicles)andChildren of Dune (Dune Chronicles, Book 3)." +321,1556909330,Dune,,A7YVIF4DUU98C,RCermak610@aol.com,0/0,5.0,903830400,One of the most life-changing books of my life...,"After reading Dune, and of course every other book in the series that followed, I looked at my life in an entirely different way. I was able to indentify my strengths, and recognize my weaknesses. I no longer took the simple things in life for granted. Through the eyes of Paul and the nomadic lives of the Fremen, one gets educated in desert survival, knife fights, water conservation, and the subtilities of politics in any system....I re-read this series EVERY YEAR, and CONTINUE to be enriched by its unique perspective on the world." +322,1556909330,Dune,,AZFCPRC5EPTCL,"Candice Ball ""Speed Reader""",2/2,5.0,1197072000,The Best Science Fiction Book ever writen.,"This is undeniably the best SciFi book ever penned. I've read it numerous times and every time I learn something new. This book is meticulously planned so an entirely new world (worlds) is created. Down to peoples nationalities, religions and style of dress, everything is created new by this author. There is no lingering tant of earth or stupid weapons that are simply discribed as ""Laser guns"". For those of you who haven't read this book the best I can describe it is to picture the Star Wars series for the amount of backstory the author put into even minor charactors and worlds. If you haven't read this book, you are missing out on something truly great. Frank Herbert is the best that SciFi has to offer, and Dune is his masterpiece. Oh and if you ever saw the mini series of this book on t.v. and therefore are dismissing the book, please don't. Do yourself a favor and read this book. Those mini series were a disgrace." +323,1556909330,Dune,,A1RSXP7MB772E3,"Jeff W. Shimkus ""Movie Manji""",0/0,5.0,1103500800,Enter the Sci-fi Genre with Dune.,"Dune is a long novel. it's split into two books, that each make up this story. Science fiction always seems to rely on the human factor. The struggles that we deal with today. The dirty politics. The writer can only write what he knows, that's what makes this genre so compelling and yet so frustrating for the writer. And at times the audience can translate that frustration. It is this that punctuates his core characters. I could feel the struggles he took in deciding things for his characters. I fought with his characters with great apathy. I felt fatigued at one point, At midsection through the book, when poor Paul is left with his mother. Estranged, driven out of their proud house. I wanted to believe that only good would come for the young boy and his mother. Frank makes good use of his genius and technical sources. He made a world, a world of fabulous riches and depth, real. This is the hardest single achievement for writers. Shakespeare created a world where you could imagine anything occuring. Tolkien created, gave birth to a cultural sense for his beloved LOTR's. Frank takes us to a desert planet, on the shoulders of a royal family. A duke, and his mistress, whom he shares love with, and with Paul whom belongs to a rare school of teachings, in which he is the only male. A living legend it is told, and great turmoil, mixed with hope. Paul, as a young boy, is faced with this legend. You are tossed into his mind for instances. You read in soliquy. His thoughts are aged and his coherence is quick. Every step of his realization, do you follow. Every love, and then the betrayel. You follow it all, and inside this young boys head, you hear the unnerving duty that calls him. His attraction to the spice. His inherited understanding of the world of Arrakis. The mysterious spice. It is the power of Arrakis, and the understanding of the spice is his destiny. I am proud to have read this book.-jeff" +324,1556909330,Dune,,A12W7H818BG2L5,"brad ""brad""",0/1,5.0,1113264000,Dune- a very unique novel,"The book Dune, by Frank Herbert kept my interest throughout the 489 pages. Although the book was in times very confusing to me mainly because of all of the new words and things that Herbert created. I did though like the story and enjoyed reading the book. I got attached to many characters but mostly enjoyed reading about Paul; the main character, which is expected, but I also loathed more than I liked. I thought that the bad guy Baron Harkonnen was a very evil, somewhat pathetic man in some ways but I also did not like some of the good characters. I did not like Paul's mother Jessica mainly because I disliked the Bene Gesserit who are a group of women that think that they control everything. When I read a book I do not like certain people or groups of people that try to control everything. Even with these things that bother me I thought that the book was very entertaining and well written. How Frank Herbert thought of this incredible world amazes me. He created many characters with different personalities and goals. The world of Dune is very well thought up and I got a very clear picture of it, going beyond seeing a giant desert. The fact that Herbert can think of a series of planets that have very detailed descriptions, and then create a whole new civilization on each one, especially one as complex as the Fremen, is incredible. The others are made to seem as a futuristic us, but the Fremen are completely different. They are what we would become if we were trapped in the desert, and I think they are really cool. Since most events in this novel are somewhat difficult to comprehend, I would say this is not a book for children under thirteen. For everyone else who has an imagination and enjoys reading a good science fiction, I would definitely recommend this book, it was one of the better books I have read." +325,1556909330,Dune,,AHHRUROG32CVP,"Branescu Gabriel ""gb""",1/1,5.0,1267401600,Not for Star Trek fans,"I always find it instructing to start with the one and two stars reviews, when I try to form an opinion... Herbert's writing skills and his characters are the favorite targets of these reviewers. Many of the reviews here are based on a hidden presupposition that all readers share the reviewer's view of the world. They are not literary criticism, but rather philosophical critiques. IF one happens to agree with, or is persuaded in the process by Herbert's arguments, swayed to his weltanschauung so to speak, then the plot and the characters are VERY adequate, being intensely allegorical yet realistic, in a fractal-like relationship, in which the individual microcosm is reiterated to ever larger encompassing structures/universes. If you don't think the universe is funny, if you don't buy into poetic justice and the noble savage fairy tales, if your view of the world is realistic - as in positivistic, scientific and pragmatic - then your reaction to Dune is bound to be different and the author's literary craftsmanship (or lack thereof) will have nothing to do with it.As far as his writing skill is concerned, many seem to find his omniscient, character shifting third person lacking, in that it prevents one from empathizing with one character or another. I find it brilliant and a delightful tour-de-force, with so many points of view in the same scene and each character a mirror to the others.This book is not for Star Trek fans. It is not uplifting, it does not speak of the glory of Man, it is not about exploration, it does not serve any system's propaganda. On the contrary, it is anti-establishment in a broad sense and anti-democratic to the extreme... On second thought, it should be banned! :) Burn it! :)))" +326,1556909330,Dune,,A3HVL7MRK1OWIE,"Mathew Titus ""Mathew Titus the Great""",3/3,3.0,1052611200,An Epilogue of Dune,"Dune Messiah is an epilogue to Dune. Those who found the original masterpiece enthralling will find this work just a little less engaging. The freshness of ideas, together with some plausibility is lost - as it is in any sequel. We are, perhaps, a little to well prepared by the time we have finished the first book, to appreciate this one. And some creations, spring out - not naturally, but almost in an ad hoc manner, making whatever surprise they were meant to offer, look incredulous instead.Dune Messiah is not badly written. But because the light of its predecessor was so bright, it appears somewhat paler, by comparison. It is apparent, even to the casual reader that this book has far more subdued overtones. And perhaps, just barely, the hint of trying to stick to a formula.However, the saga of Dune itself is far from over. And to appreciate the latter books in this series, of which Dune Messiah is an integral part, no serious fan should skip reading this. It will be evident, much further down the road, of how some seemingly random creations fit into the overall scheme of things.No one has been able to lay down such controversial ideas - should I even call them Heretical? - into a more digestible form, than Frank Herbert. Unfortunately Dune Messiah makes is just a bit too easy in the digestion, and just a tad too close to orthodoxy!Perhaps, my review is not entirely free from personal bias. In Dune, Frank Herbert created a hero that I grew to love. In this book, I am forced to watch his career and life ebb slowly away. (This book is aptly named! A messiah cannot escape his personal doom.)All in all, it is still an astounding piece of fiction. Read it. But don't stop here. Go on to the next book. And the next! Profound ideas will arise yet again - when you meet The God Emperor!" +327,1556909330,Dune,,A3FEDS6APKGVZX,Scoot65,9/11,1.0,1319328000,Ebook Version,"The prices that publishers are now charging for eBooks ($15) are ridiculous and makes me regret the purchase of my e-reader. If the prices were like they used to be (9.99) I'd buy it without hesitation. Well, they are not going to get my money anymore, I'll go to the library or look for a good used copy on the Market Place. Shame....." +328,1556909330,Dune,,AAG231B9RSSIN,Darby,4/6,5.0,1187481600,A classic of high-brow SciFi,"[Review written in Dec 2004]It's credentials say it all ... winner of the Hugo and Nebula awards, and widely acclaimed as one of the crowning masterpieces of Science Fiction.Before I begin, the first thing that people need to do is to ignore the exceedingly mediocre and disappointing theatrical movie. The made-for-TV mini-series by the SciFi Channel was marginally better, but still fell well short of the quality and depth of the original books. Readers also need to completely forget (and avoid) the highly mediocre `fluff' offering by Brian Herbert, who is apparently trying to ride to success on the coat tails of his departed father.That having been said, the Dune Saga (referring to the series as a whole) tells the tale of how an intergalactic empire, stuck for countless centuries in a rut of social and technological stagnation, suddenly reaches a political, military, economic and religious ""tipping point"" ... and then suddenly slides headlong into war & chaos, as military alliances, political powers, economic cartels, and secret societies/orders all begin vying desperately for control over the most precious substance in the known universe: The Spice Melange (which extends life, expands consciousness, and makes interstellar travel possible).It's a tremendously complex and sweeping story, pulled off in elegant fashion by a grandmaster writer ... and the amazing thing is that it can be read on so many different levels, and that it touches on so many different branches of academic interest - cult dynamics & religious engineering, philosophy, ecology, eugenics & selective breeding, medical ethics, super intelligence & racial memory, etc ad infinitum.This is not a series to be attempted lightly by casual SciFi day trippers ... this is fairly toothsome, polymathic and intellectually challenging series that lays the burden of keeping up with the sweeping social avalanche(s) underway squarely in the lap of the reader. If you prefer your scifi lite and not too challenging, then you're probably better off avoiding this series, because you won't be happy.Highly recommended - for high brow readers." +329,1556909330,Dune,,A1PZNRFIR96NFI,Kid Snotty,2/3,5.0,1200268800,Still the Greatest,"Nothing overrated about the most perfectly realized universe in science fiction. To paraphrase the great Arthur Clarke, ""nothing compares to it except THE LORD OF THE RINGS."" While the series eventually peters out toward the end of the six book cycle, the first three are masterpieces and the original is a classic. Where else will you find a great feminist religious conspiracy, giant ""sandworms"" or fanatical desert tribal warriors? And then there are the heroes (Atreides), the villains (Harkonnen scum) and a vast dramatis personae that no novel (SF or otherwise) can match (save, of course, LOTR). Why settle for later and lesser ripoffs? Want to know where George Lucas got ""Tatooine?"" And learn how religious dogma and messianism can raise up and then throw down a great desert people. Did I mention there are GIANT SANDWORMS -?? If you only read one SF novel, read this one. If you want to become a fanatical follower of a fictional universe and can't stand elves, this is the book for you! Highest possible recommendation." +330,1556909330,Dune,,A21SRL5AY4BM99,"MichiganMarty ""Not enough time!""",1/1,5.0,1192320000,England?,"When I purchased this book, it was not available anywhere locally. Amazon fullfilled the order, albeit at a much higher price than the book cover required. It was only after I completed the order did I discover the Amazon vendor was in the UK.The book indeed came with a cover designed for the UK market. Probably the only difference being the ""L"" instead of our $ symbol. Who cares, right? It has the same exact story inside! Well, I care. I would have rathered spent my money to support a business within our own borders.The book arrived in perfect condition - not a scratch or so much as a corner bent on any page." +331,1556909330,Dune,,A2VTGT6KAIOKC6,"Pei Kang ""Author of Legacy of Fire and Wind: ...",1/3,4.0,1156464000,"I'd really give it a 3.5-4 great sci-fi book, but not for beginners","I am not going to rehash what others have said about Dune. But, I will construct some pros and cons (from what I remember reading it only once, so far).Pros:1) Complex political world that spawned many other writers of today (Robert Jordan, for one)2) Imagination before his time : the CHOAM institute, the self-sustaining spacesuits etc.3) As someone referred to: the JEdi-like powers of the Mentats and Bene Gesserits. However, people forget, that Herbert wrote this book BEFORE Lucas' Star Wars world erupted.4) the in-depth cultures, I wanted to know more about them.5) the beautifully written sceneries, albiet sometimes too short.6) the usages of his characters' powers are nicely done.Cons:1) The characters are not as fleshed out as they can be, but this is NOT a character world. It's a plot/political and scenery novel.2) the battle action scenes were not as well described as I liked.3) the powers of the characters were too quickly developed. One day, Paul was a normal guy, and then he became a Prophet? Without background to this? Hello? No description of his dreams? His actual events that took him to become the Prophet?Overall though, Dune's prose is excellent, story telling is superb and it's a highly creative piece of work. Not a masterpiece, but close to it." +332,1556909330,Dune,,A2J8HGE26ZPM0B,john,13/44,1.0,967420800,interesting but...,"I must admit I heard a lot about the book prior to reading it: 1. One of the top ten 2. Question antisemitism 3. A little boring at times. Honestly, I can only agree to 1 and 3. I don't think it is in the class of the Lord of the Rings, but it is certainly noteworthy science fiction if you can slog through some of the more longwinded passages. Herbert's GRAMMAR skills are in question at certain points. Finally, except for it's small cult fan base, no one talks about this book....at all. No one buys Dune calendars, plays Dune games, etc. Thus, the emotional bond that Tolkien established in the Lord of the Rings is obviously absent here. Tolkien influenced generations with his story, and clearly Herbert has not." +333,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,932428800,An unforgetable vision!!,Dune is a rare find! In the 1st few pages you are transported to another world that begs you to get lost inside it. It is hands down THE BEST book I have ever read. A combination of high tech space age adventure and gothic beauty. Please read it!!! +334,1556909330,Dune,,A3BZ8BVZGK7OHQ,"Craig Callais ""skelator666""",0/0,5.0,1052092800,grab a highlighter,"Dune is an amazing book. Even though it was written in the 1960's it is still a solid sci-fi book. This is the first book I have read that made me want to grab a highlight at highlight certian passages. Granted, the first fifty pages are the hardest, but after you get used to the language it runs smoothly. Frank Herbert is not afraid to kill off main charaters either(something more authors should do). Forget about the terrible movies and take a ride to Arkeen, just be wary because you will want to read the rest of the series." +335,1556909330,Dune,,,,1/1,5.0,926294400,This book is a must-read for any science fiction fan.,Frank Herbert vividly describes all of the characters and created a very intriguing plot. This book is full of un-expected twists and is very exciting to read! +336,1556909330,Dune,,A3VHOVP0AQOO0U,Bianca Brock,0/0,4.0,977443200,Opens the doors in the mind,"Dune is a very complex novel. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It allowed you to understand every character by the italisized writing. A key to their thoughts and inner selves. There was much excitement to everything that was going on, and something was always going on. Never a dull moment. Everytime you had a question about what was going to happen or how a particular thing came to be a few chapters later it would answer it for you, which made it more fun to read, more intense. It made you want to know what was going to happen next. I've always been a Science Fiction Fan, Dune is one of the better ones I've read.Sincerely, Bianca Brock" +337,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,897868800,Dune is the best sci-fi ever!,"Dune by Frank Herbert is a wonderful book. From the water rich oceans of Caladan to the soaks and sinkwells of Dune (Arrakis), Dune is the best sci-fi ever. It's sister books, the rest of he series, end the story of the Atredies, but Dune can be read ovver and over again." +338,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,926208000,Perfect. No other comments.,"READ IT. You'll never look back. Treachery,adventure,and deep meanings are all over the place. I read 5 of the 7 books.I'm about to buy the other two. This is NOT a fake review.And I heard that Brian Herbert is releasing a sequel!???!Cool!Any Dune fan please contact me with the email above" +339,1556909330,Dune,,A2KU88V4H625PU,"""the_reviewer""",1/1,5.0,960163200,Dune the book for the ages,This book was the greatest most intricate novel I have ever read. Save "The Lord of The Rings". The book was not an overnight job. It had Tons of info to back up every event in the book. It is a whole world with a long history and a reason for every event. It shows what good and bad things can come from ultimate power. The Long animosity between House Aterdies and House Harkonnen came to a climax in the Harkonnen attack on the Atredies. Paul survives by falling in league with the fremen and comes back to defeat the Harkonnens and the Padish Emperor. +340,1556909330,Dune,,A27L9UA2CAZSO4,"Patrick Curren ""The no self""",0/0,5.0,1301011200,Timeless,"I read this book the first time when I was in High School. I went to the theatres to see the Dune movie. I got addicted to computer gaming after playing the Dune strategy games; so I had to read the book 30 plus years later. I definitely got more out of this book the second go around. 30 years of experience also helped. Mine is the hard copy version. It has a durable book cover and the color of the hard cover is white with black binder strip. In terms of the quality of the book material, the hard cover and paper are average. Nothing of the quality of what can be acquired for any of JRR Tolkien's LOR, Silmarillian and The Hobbit books. In terms of the content, still not as good as LOR but still brilliant. I don't consider this book purely a SCI FI book. The fusion of religion and spiritually in my opinion puts the SCI FI aspect of this book as secondary. While the politics in this story are simplified, the work is a most enjoyable and rewarding experience. Much of what I remembered from the first read was false; maybe due to the movie and computer games. I don't typically reread books. But was glad I did. This look into our probable future is a good example of how we ""could"" change our perception of the ""dream"". The story is timeless." +341,1556909330,Dune,,A2RRTDRDB0JUAB,Paige,1/1,5.0,1344297600,A genre definer for good reasons,"I will start this review by telling you who I do not recommend this book too. I do not recommend this book if you are look for a light, easy time waster, a book just to relax. Dune is a book that requires not just your full attention, but your full mind.Set on the desert planet Arrakis (Dune), a fifteen year boy boy named Paul, accompanies his father, a duke, to the new world to supervise the cultivating of the addictive spice Melange.This is an extremely brief summary of the incredibly complex book and plot.One of the things that impressed me most about Dune was the world building. Everything works to make this world, nothing is added just for the sake of feeling 'exotic' or 'cool'. Everything works together in order to make this world seem so whole and unto itself. One thing about Sci-fi is that it can easily be dated by advances in technology, but Dune does not feel dated. I feel it could have been easily written today in the same form. That is how good the world building is. I cannot recall being pulled out of it for a moment.I think i large part of it is the focus of politics and philosophy also keep it from being dated. Since so much of it revenant to us, especially the commentary on the interplay of religion and politics. Some of the quotes and lined made me pause and just think about them and their place in the contemporary world. The only other author that has ever made me do that is Orwell.If you are looking for a book that can be considered 'brain food' and challenging to you, then pick up a copy." +342,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/1,5.0,941068800,!!!The God of good books!!!,"GREAT BOOK. Love the way Herbert has made up a "new" religion, based on Islam and Christianety...It gives the reader a perfect picture into a futur, where humans relly more on other people, then robots. Also the part about "making a perfect humaniod" is great." +343,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,898819200,I'd give it 10 stars!,"This book defines escape for me. No matter how tired, stressed-out, and frustrated I am, I can dive into the Dune series and the rest of the world disappears." +344,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,939772800,Classic in every sense of the word.,"This book is one of the best science fiction books ever written. It is a classic in every sense of the word. It is one of the (very) few science fiction works that will cross over to the list of General Classics.This book is not easy to read, but well worth the time and effort applied to doing so. Frank Herbert often presents an event and then "listens in" on the thoughts of those present. This could have made it seem tedious. But Herbert pulls it off inspiring rapt attention. This plethora of viewpoints is one of the strong points of the novel.This book includes many themes including: Fate, Duty, Honor, Despotism, Suffering/Hardship and its effect, Addiction, Sexual descrimination, Autocratsy vs Democracy, Power, Religious Ferver, Genetic Engineering and others.This book is a MUST READ!" +345,1556909330,Dune,,A1FPF8LDJ58EWC,Ryan Arch,0/1,5.0,1013644800,Greatest Science Fiction Story Ever Told,"The mother of all modern sci-fi, this book is a testiment to contemperary literature." +346,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,894326400,Ender's Game,"For those of you that love Dune, I would suggest a very good SF book. Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card, as been compared to Dune. I would highly suggest it. If you love Dune, you will obsess over Ender's Game." +347,1556909330,Dune,,A2QWNNF5YQLTM2,Dan P.,1/3,5.0,1088035200,One of the Greatest Sci-Fi Trilogy Ever Conceived,"The Dune Trilogy, written by award winning author Frank Herbert, is a spellbounding trilogy that captures the hearts of billions. At first glance, Dune seems no more than another tale of fueds and conspiracies, but after reading the book through, it is a complex, deep story that will keep you from putting the book down. The Dune Chronicals is by far one of the most compelling pieces of writting in modern literature and is science-fiction's answer J.R.R. Tolkien's 'The Lord of the Rings'. Dune is a grand story and should never be without the rest of the Dune Trilogy that ties it's concept together. I myself am looking forward to the conclusion of the Dune Chronicals in Brian Herbert's 'Hunters of Dune' and 'Sandworms of Dune'." +348,1556909330,Dune,,A3MOFE6HJA5DCI,Tim Huffman,0/0,5.0,996969600,A gateway to the genre,"If you have never read Dune, then use it as your gateway to the genre of Speculative Fiction. Once you pass through these portals you will never turn back, and you will never want to. Dune was one of the first SF novels I ever read and I can still remember it like a first kiss." +349,1556909330,Dune,,,,1/1,5.0,884476800,A book as precious as water in the desert.,"Thank you, Frank Herbert. Thank you, thank you, thank you.I first attempted to read DUNE when I was 13. I didn't understand it. I was bored by it. I decided all the hype around it was undeserved, and I cast it off.The more fool, me. This is without doubt the best sci-fi book ever written, and perhaps the best book, period. It's changed the way I look at everything. When I was 17, I just decided to pick it up again for no reason--and I was in love. I've never been the same since. Paul, Jessica, Stilgar, Alia, even old Baron Harkonnen--the characters all found their way into my mind and heart. DUNE is a novel of incredible scope and power, ranging from musings on ecological themes to an exploration of the messianic desire that has always pervaded society. The time Herbert must have invested to research and create such a detailed universe took my breath away. I was riveted from the Introduction all the way through the Appendices. I'm still finishing the rest of the series, and while none of the other books have left the same impression on me, they are excellent books--especially CHILDREN OF DUNE. I advise all fans of great literature to pick up this book at once; you'll never really put it down." +350,1556909330,Dune,,AQIQG0MK1RENX,"Gabrielle J. Brown ""Lady Grift""",1/2,5.0,1166745600,How envious I am....,"Every time I read this, I am completely enveloped in some sort of magical fiction-haze, and cannot keep from thinking throughout the day about how much I'd like to have the Voice!!!Imagine, if you will, being able to cast a simple phrase such as ""Excuse me,"" with tones that make the smelly guy squished next to you on the crowded subway at 8:45 in the morning move away!!This book makes me want to dream all day long..." +351,1556909330,Dune,,A1TUT1PGWOTJOV,Lincoln Rodman,0/0,4.0,1325894400,Slow in areas but still a great work.,"I was hesitant to read this book because I had seen the disastrous movie several years earlier.However, I can testify that David Lynch made absolutely no effort whatsoever to turn the book into a script. He just filmed portions of the book being ""acted out"", almost at random. The result: surprise...the movie made no sense.The book is quite a masterful piece of writing, describing an outer space society that has a fully explained economy and political structure, all while maintaining a good pace given the inherent dryness of many of the topics involved.Subsequent attempts to make a decent movie from the material also failed...but it remains a very good book." +352,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,889401600,Excellent!,"One of the most outstanding novels ever written. After first finishing it, I read the glossary, and began again on page one. Each reading yields new knowledge, and I have read it approximately twice a year since it was first published. Recommendation without reservation, and I would not consider myself a sci-fi reader." +353,1556909330,Dune,,A2U8K4ACRGC2CA,macky1@mindspring.com,0/1,5.0,886896000,A modern epic.,"Absolutely the best fiction book I have read, Dune is an increadably thoughtful insight into the workings of human thought and ecology. Beyond the brilliant concepts Herbert not only creates an amazing cast of fully developed characters but a novel and exciting Universe. From the Bene Gesserit to Mentats and Truthsayers to Paul himself Herbert awakens the sleeper to the potential of human thought and awareness. If you havent read it yet your missing out, and if you've already read it read it again." +354,1556909330,Dune,,A8WT4KBGVCURZ,"Kim F. Bell ""Movie Buff""",15/22,1.0,1296864000,Too pricey for an Ebook,"I wanted to get this for my 16 year-old son, but refuse to pay the price for the Ebook. I love my e-reader and hope to never buy a traditionally bound book again, but when the Ebook is more costly than a bound book .... Well Amazon just lost a sale.With that said, I think anyone who is an officiando of great Sci-Fi, that has something to say, should read at least the first three Dune books. I personally got burned out after three, but have never forgotten the ones I read and would love to share them with my son." +355,1556909330,Dune,,A1CG5DA1X23NMK,Rich Markwart (markwart@andrew.cmu.edu),2/3,3.0,893289600,Overrated but still worth-while book,"In Dune, Frank Herbert tries hard to craft a complete world by throwing a lot of strange words at the reader, and it doesn't really work. The science and logic is dubious at best (memories passed down through genes, the premise that living in a desert makes people into invincible warriors), etc. As a book of epic battle it is mixed, with the first half done in wonderful detail, but with the climax simply glossed over, the hero's victory seemingly inevitable making description unimportant (or so it seemed to me). The book is poorly paced, to say the least. But what makes Dune a decent book afterall are the characters. The characters are beautifully drawn out, each with their own motivations so that friends are drawn into conflict and enemies drawn together. Dune is by far the best in the series, the other books lacking any real tension, since the protagonist's victory is all but assured from the first page. In Dune, the final outcome is uncertain up until the last moment, and even then there are plenty of unresolved plot lines that leave room for a wonderful (but unrealized) sequel." +356,1556909330,Dune,,A3N7004BQPNZ81,Thesprep,3/11,2.0,948326400,Eeeehhh.....skip this one,"I basically found Dune to be an airball in comparison to the reviews some people gave me. The plot was too intricate, the book was too long, and for God's sake it is a pain to have to flip back to the glossary every page or so. I actually began to uderstand the book at page 425 when the Baron is discussing his plans with Thufir Hawat...but I shouldn't have to read that much for it to get interesting. And I hate to get all of you SF freaks angry...but Frank Herbert was a BAD WRITER. Some of the things he describes are very clunkily worded, sentences either too brief or two wordy. Plus he never used the word "and" in the entire book. An example would be a sentence like "He walked over to the case, opened it." It just got annoying after awhile. It is a long dull story told with modest talent." +357,1556909330,Dune,,A1PA28VO4IDT09,"T. Charlesworth ""tysiva""",1/1,5.0,1066003200,wicked good!,"I do not generally write reviews but this book was a necessary exception. I loved it. From the second I began to the instant it concluded, I was completely engrossed.The world that Frank Herbert creates is believable (as much so as can be expected for the genre) and the characters are very real. They suffer and we suffer; they succeed and we are irrepressibly happy. It is a well-written novel with an engaging plot. Above all, however, the book addresses universally applicable themes and profound concepts. It is this fact that allows Dune to transcend to a higher plane than the average science-fiction novel.The only negative aspect I found with this book is that, upon finishing it, I was terrified to experience anything else, any of its other forms. The sequels(Dune Messiah, House Harkonnen, etc.) and the movie stood no chance at all in matching this masterpiece. I am, to this day, paralyzed with the thought that at some time I may inadvertently witness some horrific misappropriation of the beautiful original. It would be a vile tragedy." +358,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,922838400,Absolutely the most breathtaking sci fi tale ever written,"Herbert is like a prophet, he seems to have the same vision of the future that I do, the battles will keep you reading hours into the night, and the storyline seems to keep on rolling, and rolling, and rolling, never a stop in the excitement. The story begns on Caladan- the homeworld of House Atreides, The house is being "relocated" so to speak, to the desert planet Arrakis, otherwise known as Dune. The previous rulers there were the Atreides sworn enemy- The Harkonnens, when the atreides move in to take over, everything goes okay, for a while, then the Harkonnen treachery kicks in, and the Atreides duke is killed, the title falls on his son- Paul, yet he was thrown into the desert to die. The natives, known as the fremen, capture him then realize that he is the Lisan al Gaib, the voice from the outer world, a figure that their religion is based upon, Paul trains the Fremen in the way of battle that he had been taught his whole life. They become his army, and together, they take Dune back from the Harkonnens. If I could give this book more than 5 stars, I would, READ IT!!!!!" +359,1556909330,Dune,,A1I2O9Y3X3HXLS,Arthur W. Jordin,29/33,5.0,1205884800,The Beginning of the Tale,"Dune (1965) is the first SF novel in this series. Paul Atreides was born to Duke Leto Atreides and the Lady Jessica in the 57th year of the Padishah Emperor Shaddim IV. For his first fifteen years, Paul lived on Caladan, the Atreides home planet. Then the Emperor exchanged Arrakis -- Dune -- for Caladan.In this novel, Duke Leto is a leader of men and sees Arrakis as an opportunity to expose the former possessors -- the Harkonnens -- as incompetents. Arrakis is the only planet that produces Melange, popularly known as Spice. The substance allows Guild Navigators to guide ships between the stars and extends the life of any who can afford it.Duke Leto also sees a great opportunity in the Fremen, the dwellers of the Arrakis desert. The Harkonnens have hunted the Fremen for sport and consider them to be native trash. But the Duke knows that the Fremen are potentially as deadly as the most elite force within the Empire, the Sardaukar.The Duke and his retainers are preparing for the move. Yet Paul is being prepared for something else. Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam has come to Caladan to test him with the gom jabbar.The Bene Gesserit have been breeding for a Kwisatz Haderach, a person with unusual talents and a strange destiny. The first step in testing for such a person is the gom jabbar, the test of pain. When Paul inserts his hand into the box, he fells as if his hand is being burned to a blackened stump.His mother Jessica knows that he will be subjected to extreme pain, but she doesn't question the need. She has been trained by the Bene Gesserit and accepts their goals. Yet she was ordered to produce a girl child and she is not quite certain why she had disobeyed.Baron Vladimir Harkonnen sees the turnover of Arrakis as an opportunity to destroy Duke Leto. He and Piter -- his Mentat -- brief his nephew Feyd-Rautha on the plan. But the Baron and his Mentat can't converse without bickering. Feyd-Rautha would rather be elsewhere than to witness their quarreling.Wellington Yueh is a Suk Doctor in the household of Duke Leto. The Baron Harkonnen has captured His wife Wanda and is pressing the doctor to kidnap Paul. The doctor has convenient access to Paul and is trusted by the Atreides.In this story, the Atreides take their household and possessions to Arrakis on a Guild freighter. Rather than occupying Carthage -- the former Harkonnen capitol -- the Atreides land in Arrakeen, which Thufir Hawat -- the Duke's Mentat -- has decided is more defensible. The Atreides family resides in the household of Count Hasimir Fenring.The Atreides contact the Fremen and learn of a Harkonnen force disguised as Fremen. Duncan Idaho and his men take the Harkonnens captive, but the Harkonnens severely wound the Fremen courier. He dies in transit to the Atreides medical facility.Stilgar -- chief of a Fremen sietch -- comes to Leto to evaluate him. He honors Leto enough to give him permission to unsheath a crysknife found near the courier. Duke Leto then gives Duncan Idaho leave to return to the sietch with Stilgar.This story tells of the death of Duke Leto and the transfer of loyalty of his men to Paul. It takes Paul to the Fremen and makes him one of them. It lays the foundations of the fall of the Empire and the rise of the God-King.This novel is only the first of a great series. It creates a very fascinating universe that is still being read and expanded. It may be the best of the author's works, if only for its great scope and backstory.Highly recommended for Herbert fans and for anyone else who enjoys tales of exotic societies, political intrigue and strange powers.-Arthur W. Jordin" +360,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/1,5.0,925776000,a stupid ming,"ming is a dum dum, he always want to buy a house but he never buys it, ha ha ha" +361,1556909330,Dune,,A3V6NS8CX2TFVW,"P. J. Scott ""PJ""",0/1,5.0,1320192000,One of My All Time Faves,"This book is one of my all time favorites. While the Lord of the Rings trilogy stands out as the best fantasy novel, I view Dune as the best science fiction novel. I am an avid reader and when I find authors I love, I devour everything the write. The first Dune book is the best in the series, but I liked the first three books. I made the mistake of watching the movie Dune (the version with Sting in it) before reading the book, and I hated the movie, which caused me to avoid the book for several years. Finally, a friend of mine who had read the book strongly recommended I read it anyway and I broke down and picked up the book at a library. It drew me in so quickly, I bought it and have read it several times since. I love the intrigues between the royal houses, the devious manipulations and scheming (breeding programs, power, control of spice, Arrakis/Dune and space travel) which extends even to the planting of religious seeds into undeveloped civilizations so that a reverend mother would be recognized and embraced by these civilizations generations down the road. The political and religious themes are woven powerfully through the plot. I cannot recommend this book strongly enough." +362,1556909330,Dune,,A2ATWKOFJXRRR1,"B. Merritt ""filmreviewstew.com""",0/1,5.0,973641600,Truly the Masterpiece of Science Fiction...No equal,"There's not much else to say about this book that hasn't already been said a million times...but if there is one word that can describe this book, I would have to say that word is "WOW!" The depth of characters is unbelievable, the history of the human race, the development of technologies around the spice, the Bene Geserit training and discipline, all come together with twisted plots within plots to score the highest possible marks by this reviewer. No wonder this book is on many college lists as required reading." +363,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,868924800,Completely Engaging,"Dune is not only a Sci-Fi masterpiece, it is (in this reader's opinion), a literary masterpiece. It is a fully realized world, peopled with interesting, and very real characters. Dune has no rival, and has no equal in the annals of modern fiction. This is my third reading, and every read brings more depth and understanding of the novel. It is one of the few novels I will actually re-read every few years, and enjoy it as much or more than the first time I read it.One of the best works of fiction ever." +364,1556909330,Dune,,A359N2JQP3ZNE8,"zenben ""zenben""",3/9,3.0,1004054400,"A Bit Over Dune, Perhaps","A fascinating concept, well executed. I particularly liked the blade fights and the desert culture Herbert created. I defy anyone to read this book without getting thirsty. Only beef: I think the book could have been as good with about 75 fewer pages.Dune is a great book for those who like science fiction. I am not sure if it merits another two-dozen sequels, though.Be sure to catch the newest Dune sequels coming out:"Son of the Cousin of the Messiah from the House of Atreides that Jack Built"AND..."Milking the Dune Pony for Every Freaking Dime"(both also by Herbert)" +365,1556909330,Dune,,A1IO99HKGUYE7W,Cory Cummins,0/2,5.0,1042934400,"great read, geniously written.","the book may have a high reading level and fairly difficult to understand at times, but if you stick with it I garuntee you will like this book." +366,1556909330,Dune,,A33AF0NONWCWGI,erdostom@mail.matav.hu,1/1,4.0,922060800,Not Bad,"This book isn't bad, however, it doesn't have the edge that some of the other classics have. The main attraction of Dune, is its characters and setting. I have to admit the plot gets monotonious and hard to read at times. The main reason that I didn't give five stars, was because the unreal change that Paul goes through to become prophet. He changes his personality, and thus the quality of the book (for the worse)," +367,1556909330,Dune,,A2QKCNTSSGTAMQ,ijk3@po.cwru.edu,0/0,5.0,886550400,Best Novel Of 20th Century?,Is there any doubt that Dune deserves a shot at the title of "Best Novel of the 20th Century"? The book transcends the S-F genre... it is the finest book of our times. I have faith that it will survive the filter of time and its zealots will sustain it forever! +368,1556909330,Dune,,A1ODR7I1NZU5FW,J. L. Miller,0/1,3.0,1361577600,Tense and satisfying,"I read Dune and Paul of Dune before this and like that order. This one is quite tense and very thoughtful, though I think it ends a bit abruptly." +369,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,933206400,What fiction should be,I read Dune once a year to remind myself what excellent writing is. I love science fiction and have very high standards for it. Herbert created a world so completely and with such depth that it seems to breathe on its own. It is the best novel I have ever read and will definitely stand the test of time. +370,1556909330,Dune,,A1AUL88YHQAZJ2,wilcox.andre@cyh.sa.gov.au,0/0,3.0,892512000,I had expected more but a good read wnyway.,"Although the scope seems limited compared to Dune, there is plenty of intrigue to captivate readers. While not as gripping as Dune itself, Dune Messiah features new faces and new places, as well as old friends. I found it somewhat disjointed to begin but as the final chapters approached and the senarios emerged I couldn't put the book down." +371,1556909330,Dune,,,,1/2,5.0,978307200,Dune,"I have to admit that this is not a proper review of the book Dune, but actually more of a review of the mini series. The other reviewers have done well in convincing me that I should buy the first book, but it was actually the mini series that first provoked me. This is not the movie I am talking about, this is the mini series of 3 parts. Each one is more or less feature length. The movie was not very good and friends of mine assure me that it was a complete failure in capturing the book's mystical fantasy and amazing vision. When I saw the mini series of Dune I was amazed. My friends who have read the book say that it is a very good representation of the story, but as with any re-make or television adaption there will be parts you dislike or parts that you wish were included. Watch it! It is great! I think it's better than any Star Wars episode I have seen to date. That's why I knew I had to find the book, because if the TV version was that good, the book had to be out of this world. Muah'dib, the Spice, worms, everything! If you don't like it...keep in mind that it was at least good enough to make me want to read the novel and all the other books in the series." +372,1556909330,Dune,,AWBXJLG3N2P37,justin Coleman,1/3,4.0,953596800,Dune,"Dune is one of the most inspirational sci/fi books that I hav ever read. The technology in the book seemed to be extremely none feasible to the recent human culture thst sorrounds us as a people. The story of the chosen one,Paul Mau'dib a man that was given to the fremen as there saviour. He was the chosen one, the only male that could stand to the poisonious juice that only the benajesuits have the power as women to resist the power of the jui ce in order to become one of there own. As the story went on thw character of mau'dib feel in tot he world of the fremen and wanted to help them out of there fight for freedom . He was the only one that could do it for them. If he didn't do it he would just be wasting his talent. His talent to control the world in his fingers. He do it all he had the people afraid of what he could do , and it was all over one little insignifacant thing. He now controls the spice and will for a long time never be harmed." +373,1556909330,Dune,,A28S829RU5A3MS,fredacat@aol.com,0/0,5.0,956188800,The Vote is in.,"Well, after reading all of the other reviews on Dune it is pretty clear that most people feel that Dune is rightfully one of the classic Sci-Fi pieces. I agree, as one of the first science fiction books I have ever read it was imaginative, complex, and full of emotion and not that BS emotion like some SF/Fantasy novels have but a real-life connection to the Paul and the other characters. ( )" +374,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,862012800,Great Literature,"Frank Herbert has not only achieved science fiction greatness, but also literary greatness with his masterpiece, "Dune". Other reveiwers have commented on the supreme tension and intrigue he weaves, but to me the lasting excellence of this book is to be found in the carefully crafted characters.Each of Herbert's characters evolves as a real person; the flaws of his heroes are not hidden or glossed over and even the villians are not without their strengths. Each time I reread this classic, I learn more about the wonderful men and women crafted by Herbert."Dune" is a must-read, which is as timely today as it was three decades ago when it was written. How can any speaker of the English language deem himself literate without having treated him or herself to this wonderful and timeless novel?" +375,1556909330,Dune,,AS5ERWDSXRDNX,N. Mozahem,1/2,5.0,1206835200,Wow!,"This has got to be one of the best books ever. There is such creativity in this book that while I was reading it I kept asking myself how can a single mind accomplish such a thing. Everyone has to read this book, not only science fiction fans." +376,1556909330,Dune,,A1GROCR40WX9M0,"Mrs. Garside ""Reader and Writer""",1/3,4.0,1174867200,A Genuine Classic-despite the flaws.,"I hadn't read 'Dune' cover to cover in more than twenty years. I must say that it holds up. I couldn't put the thing down.Yes, there are problems. An editor might have trimmed some of the 'terrible purposes' and 'plans within plans within plans' and other repetitions, and sometimes the mystical-messianic stuff sticks in the throat. But few books rival Herbert's for sheer inventiveness and conviction. Not to mention that he seems to think that readers are intelligent people who like books that make them pay attention.Is it the Greatest Science Fiction Novel Ever? No.(That title goes to 'The Left Hand of Darkness'). But it is a classic. Anyone who has an interest in serious sci-fi needs to read it." +377,1556909330,Dune,,A3M77GPST0EICR,Norm Zurawski,8/21,3.0,1070064000,A Pretty Mediocre Classic,"It's been a month since I read this book. I'm not sure what that says about the book overall but take it for what it's worth. I debated for a bit about whether I liked it or not. It was a good enough read, which is not exactly a thrilling testimonial. But it didn't make my pulse quicken with excitement.I thought the first third of the book was very good and it had me eager to read the remainder of the book. But after that, it was slow, methodical, and generally boring. I wasn't waking up every day looking forward to reading it. To me, that's the ultimate non-vote of confidence for a book. A book needs to be calling your name for it to be read. This one was not.In the science fiction genre, I think Assimov has a lot more interesting material out there. Even though this is considered a classic, I don't see it as worthy of such a lofty distinction. I think his aims at religion and philosophy were too grand for what he was capable of.I agree with some people who said the buildup to many scenes was anti-climatic. Many words were poured out for events that would go nowhere. And the events that did generate action were often times written as if the main character was taking out the laundry. There was no fire to many of the characters and scenes.I note 2 things about the Amazon listing of this book. The first is that it's been reviewed 814 times. The second is that it has an average rating of 4.5 stars. At the end of the day, my review isn't going to change many people's minds out there. But I feel obligated to write it anyway.Having said that, proceed as you will. This review isn't going to change many opinions and most will think I'm probably out to lunch with this review. Fair enough, I suppose. Maybe I just didn't see the brilliance on the pages. Or maybe my expectations are higher.If you must, you must. But I think there are much better books on the market that you can pass your time reading." +378,1556909330,Dune,,A2RTRMQZOXUXT5,slayer,0/0,5.0,1049760000,By far this one of the best science fiction novels,"BY far Dune is one of the best science fiction novels ever written. This book gave me a stronger view, and a better perception on understanding science fiction. Many story lines that run at the same time through out the story really keep you into the book, but many readers can get lost through out the book in between story lines. Overall I give dune a five star reading! Dune is the best science fiction novel I have ever read and I definatedly recommened this book for anyone who likes to read. It is spectacular.Dune is based in a galaxy far away much like most science fiction novels of it's time. A boy named paul has caught word that he may be the Kwisatz haderach. He has to travel through out the planet Arakis and train his followers to defeat the emporer and the Harkoneons, the defeaters of his father. I will not reveal the end of the story so I don't spoil the reading." +379,1556909330,Dune,,AR027FH7MC3TL,Harold M. Schreckengost,1/1,5.0,1322352000,A true classic of the genre,"Frank Herbert's ""Dune"" is, in my mind, one of the most influential science-fiction books ever written. Its seamless blend of religion and science is engrossing and thought-provoking.Overall, the entire Dune series is fantastic -- examining sacrifice, love, religion, and culture -- and this is where it starts." +380,1556909330,Dune,,A1X1XQOJZII1ZM,G. Harboe,0/0,5.0,895795200,A work of genius masquerading as Star Wars,"(no offense to George Lucas)To say that DUNE has many layers is a gross understatement.On a first, casual read, it might seem just another (but brilliant) SF adventure novel. A mix of Star Wars and Foundation, perhaps, or a coming-of-age/hero tale, like the epic sagas of mythology and folklore. The Forces of Good fights (and conquers) Evil, everyone lives happily ever after..?Then, you may notice the setting. From the harsh desert world of Arrakis to the byzantine intrigues of the drug-embracing feudal Imperium, DUNE creates an environment unparalleled in SF.Next, free your mind from the heroic mystique, and put it to what actually happens to the characters. Do they live happily ever after? Do most of them live at all? DUNE becomes a tragedy; beautiful and sad and strange.And only then will you notice the things that don't seem to fit. Like why did Paul have drums made from the skin of his enemies? And why does Jessica refer to her saviours as 'peasants'. And what happens to the power? Above all, what happens to all that power!? And maybe you will see the philosophy and morality of DUNE. The wisdom of DUNE.Notice the language. The delicate use of contrast and surprises, allusions and understatements. The way Frank Herbert seems to toy with his readers, distracting us from the point on enjoyable side-trips. Notice the irony, how DUNE continually questions its own premises and concepts.And you will suddenly realize, that on top of all, against all probability, DUNE is incredibly, impossibly, hilariously FUNNY!Then read the sequels. Then come to alt.fan.dune to share the experience with the rest of us. Enjoy! I wish I could do it all again. (And I can. I reread it at least once a year. :-D )I truly pity those who don't like it because they think the vocabulary is too difficult." +381,1556909330,Dune,,A26CUH99TWQ6HY,"J. Tesch ""PerfectZero""",0/2,5.0,966211200,What can I say?,"There isn't much I can say about this book that hasn't been said already. It has everything: suspsnse, political intrigue, even a little romance thown in. Herbert is simply amazing." +382,1556909330,Dune,,A2E5RCH91HA20Y,"Anna Wantz ""LA8""",1/4,5.0,1113782400,Dune Messiah,"Mr. Herbert's novel Dune Messiah is an excellently written book about an emperor named Paul Atreides. Ruling from Arrakis, he spots trouble from a mile away with his melange induced powers of prescience.Of course if you have not yet read the prequal, Dune, then by now you are obscenely lost and would strongly encourage you to run to the nearest book store, pick up a copy of both books, and read them in chronological order.This book, although difficult to understand is awesome to read and is very easy to get into. Some of the qualities are bewildering plot twists, bizarre characters, and an entertaining and action packed story line.This book is so awesome it has often been compared to The Lord of the Rings books, however like LOTR it is extremely difficult to read. Don't read this book unless you are both patient and have a lot of time on your hands because if you want to get all you can out of this book you will read some particularly hard sections over again.This particular author, who has also written Dune, Children Of Dune, House Harkonnen, House Atreides, and many more. He has never ceased to amaze Science fiction fans and this is one of his best books yet. This book has reserved it's well deserved place among the ranks of Science Fiction Classics, so if you haven't read it ... Read It!A Dune Messiah review by,Daniel Marchioni" +383,1556909330,Dune,,A26RQWZILWO3YX,Colin,2/4,2.0,1360800000,This book ruined me,"At first I was really loving this book. The whole idea of this desert planet where water is gold and worms s*** money. But as time went on, I started to become really paranoid about water. I had to have a glass of water next to me every time I would sit down and read a chapter. It was bad. The book kept making me so thirsty. Eventually it became even worse when friends would come over to my house and ask for a drink. I couldn't bring myself to hand them a bottle of water. That's my water, all right? Back off; get your own. Dune's effects then started to show whenever I would be out in public. I found myself licking my arm for the few droplets of sweat that perspired there. Completely embarrassing, I know. Yet I'm not just going to let that water go to waste. Suffice it to say, I have gone crazy. I now have tens of buckets on my lawn in order to catch rain. At night, I sneak over to my neighbors' yards, and I turn on their hoses and fill more buckets with their water. Avoid this book if you can because it will ruin you." +384,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/2,3.0,899596800,"A classic, but too dark for me.","This book is a classic, but the movie looks Disneyesque in comparison. Although messianic the story is more Muslim then Christian. To some extent it seemed like a straight up retelling of how Islam united the Arab tribes and their later conquests. As Muslims out there would likely say Paul is different then Muhammed & possibly not even a Muhammed figure. As a Catholic I don't like it when sf insults my religion so if I've unintentionally insulted yours I truly apologize. In fact I was only comparing the story not the characters. Still a knowledge of Sufi & Islam is there. I recently found out that thing about the slow blade penetrating was first in "The Paradox Men" by Harness. Herbert & Harness are very different authors, but you might try Harness out if you got the time." +385,1556909330,Dune,,A2F3M93RRLFQNJ,mrliteral,0/1,5.0,1045180800,One of the all-time classics,"One of the landmark novels in science fiction, Dune is worthy of its rank as a classic. Prior to its appearance in the mid-1960s, few science fiction novels even approached its level of depth.The story, which follows Paul Atreides and his growth into the messianic Muad'Dib, is rich in detail. There is a feudalistic galactic empire with all the attendant political intrigues. There are numerous religious movements, some operating more scientifically, others quite mystically. And there is the subtle character of the planet Arrakis (or Dune) itself, whose hostile environment, precious spice resources and devastating sandworms make it not only the most important planet in the galaxy, but also arguably the most interesting planet in science fiction.There is too much here to detail in one review. While it is not perfect - Herbert does have his writing flaws - the imperfections pale in comparison to the importance of this novel to the genre. Just as the Lord of the Rings is an essential fantasy read, this book is a must read for any science fiction fan." +386,1556909330,Dune,,AF603UFOX3ANE,Murariu Iosif Daniel,0/0,5.0,1261699200,Great book,"Great book! Great story and author. If you played the Dune game series, this book is a must have." +387,1556909330,Dune,,A2GQFY0NFLGWMR,"S. Burke ""morgypants""",1/3,5.0,1077235200,Wow :),"Really good book :) It is very easy to read, and the flow is really good!" +388,1556909330,Dune,,A2E5RCH91HA20Y,"Anna Wantz ""LA8""",2/3,5.0,1114128000,"Ingenious Science Fiction Masterpiece, February 21, 2005","Dune is probably the greatest Science Fiction book you can find, excluding Fantasy. If I were to recommend someone (especially someone who doesn't read Science Fiction) a Science Fiction novel, Frank Herbert's Dune is what I would primarily recommend. Frank Herbert adds myriad, quite verbose and hard to read details to intensify the condition of this story. While these details may be considered unneeded to some people, without them many people would probably be reading Arabian Nights even though these two books are scarcely similar.Frank Herbert creates a nearly uninhabitable landscape for the moisture-lacking desert planet of Arrakis for the Atreides family including Paul, the main character, to live on. However, Arrakis was once inhabited by House Atreides' archenemy, House Harkonnen and is also currently inhabited by Arrakis natives called Fremen during the story. The Fremen are an intelligent race that do everything they can to survive on the planet which includes wearing special suits called stillsuits to preserve the ""body's water.""Adding yet another variable to the living conditions on Arrakis are the colossal sandworms; many are larger than whales. They reside under the sand and can hear movements on the sand's surface. They hunt down travelers and spice factories alike, completely consuming anything moving on the surface of the sand. Fremen have adapted to this way of life but people like the Atreides have much to learn.There are two things that are valuable on Arrakis. One is water and the other is mélange spice. Spice is the only reason why people other than Fremen inhabit Arrakis. It is the major export and profit maker of Arrakis. It is addictive like a drug to and is prized among the wealthy outside Arrakis. Atreides make portable spice factories to mine this spice despite their high vulnerability to sandworms.15 year-old Paul Atreides has intelligence beyond perceptibility in this novel. He is the son of the Duke Leto Atreides, leader of the Great House Atreides. Much of his intelligence comes from special training, but it is easy to doubt this is where he gets all of his superhuman adeptness. He is burdened by a self-founded ""terrible purpose.""I really enjoyed this book. It isn't a book that I couldn't put down. It's too much of a mind-draining book to read it continuously for hours. I wouldn't recommend trying to read this book all at once. Dune gives you an idea of how good your present living situations are compared to the characters in this book. This is a book that I would have regretted not reading.Tyler H." +389,1556909330,Dune,,A4FX5YCJA630V,"R. M. Fisher ""Raye""",3/3,5.0,1162252800,"""Fear is the Mind-Killer...""","I'll keep this review brief, as to be honest, I'm not sure that there's much to say that hasn't already been said (and said much more eloquently) by other reviewers. First published in the 1960s, Frank Herbert's ""Dune"" and its consequent sequels are the science-fiction equivalent to fantasy's ""The Lord of the Rings."" Dense, detailed and complicated, ""Dune"" cannot be read just once in order to fully appreciate the immense time and effort that went into its creation.Best (but over-simply) described as a story of political intrigue and power, ""Dune"" takes place predominantly on the planet Arrakis, where immense sandworms traverse the endless deserts and cultivate the substance known as spice, the most precious commodity in the universe. Governance of this planet has recently passed from the Harkonnen to the Atreides household, and Duke Leto Atreides and his family is preparing for the upheaval in their lives. His young son Paul, the product of the Duke and his beloved concubine Jessica, is greeted with particular interest on arrival in Arrakis, believed to be a subject of prophecy by the native Fremen people.But the Harkonnen household will not so easily give up their hold over Arrakis and the spice, and have taken measures to ensure the death of the new royal family. Thrown in amongst the fierce Fremen people, Paul creates a new identity for himself as messiah and ruler, the only one who can restore the planet to its rightful inhabitants. Of course, that's easier said than done and the effort takes place over a great number of years, filled with intrigue, betrayal, love, allies, enemies, war, marriage and political manoeuvring. It is intensely complicated, with many futuristic customs and ideologies that are never fully explained, effectively throwing the reader into a brand new world in which they must sink or swim. Many will find this exhilarating, others will be immensely confused, despite the presence of Appendixes and a Glossary of terms used.Herbert's great novel is unique because, despite the fact that it is science-fiction, it still has plenty of room for religious belief and practice, which in fact makes up the most intriguing part of the novel. The Bene Gesserit order was (for me) immensely fascinating, what with its elaborate scheming and genetic planning. Their unique fighting abilities, their prescience, their sheer calculated guile - it all makes for one of the most interesting and imaginative components of the story.The narrative is primarily centred on intrigue and movement as opposed to any descriptive passages on either character or setting, making it a rather difficult read at times. In fact, the narrative technique of the novel is utterly unique given that it is so intimate in detail despite the fact that the story is so epic in scope; you never get any `eye-of-God' passages, all events are strictly presented through the experiences of the character involved. A story that is told almost entirely through internal soliloquies and dialogue between characters - that's a rare thing, and it is a testimony to Herbert's skill that he got away with it. I must admit though, that at times I felt a little claustrophobic in terms of the intimacy of the writing. I know it is considered hubris by many to criticise such a work, but a little more ""breathing room"" amongst the density of the plot and ideologies would have been much appreciated.But in a way my complaints are irrelevant, as ""Dune"" should be read in any case. A milestone in the tradition of science-fiction as well as a fascinating read in its own right (both through technique and story), ""Dune"" is one of those modern classics that has to be read and appreciated before you die." +390,1556909330,Dune,,A2EF6F0IUAH365,GBC,2/2,5.0,1279411200,Unabridged audio version,"I have read and reread Dune many times, but listening to it is a whole new adventure, and this audio version is excellent. Whether you have read the book before or not, try this audio version. You will love it." +391,1556909330,Dune,,A1AQR9B06OXRH3,KRISTI WILBERT,1/1,5.0,944265600,Dune,"My grandmother first raved about this book when I was younger, but my first exposure to the story was the movie. I did not understand all that took place in the movie, so I read the book (I did the same thing with 2001). I was overwhelmed by the depth of the story and it's implications. This book is not just for Sci-Fi fans: It helps to understand how cultures come to differ, it is an epic (coming of age) story, and it blazes a trail for those who want to learn how far imagination can take you. This book immerses you into the venue of religion AND politics, leaving you with comparing our world at any time with the universe described in it's pages. Sci-Fi fan or not, you would truly miss out on a literary classic if you just saw the movie, or didn't read it at all." +392,1556909330,Dune,,A17D77DFID0GZG,"dsrussell ""greyhater""",2/2,5.0,908496000,How does one review a true classic?,"The late, great, Frank Herber's ""Dune"" is a classic in the true sense of the word. I've read many wonderful novels (2001, Stranger in a Strange Land, Foundation, Hyperion, Ender's Game, etc, etc.--classics all) that will stay with me for life, but none `wormed' its way in so deeply as ""Dune"". Herbert's masterpiece works on so many different levels, it would take another novel just to describe the depth.I won't lie to anyone, when I first picked up this novel many, many years ago and took a look at the dictionary, I began to wonder what I got myself into. This isn't a `light' read. However, Herbert hooked me on the first page and never let go. For me personally, this novel had everything a great classic should have, including stunningly rich, vibrant characters (something most sci-fi novels grievously lack). Granted, there are many that may not like this novel as much as I do, but I believe ""Dune"" is the standard by which all science fiction novels should be judged, and the goal all authors should try to attain--a quite daunting task, I might add.After many years (and a few failed attempts), ""Dune"" was made into a movie. Now I know that most people didn't like the movie (me included), but let's be fair. How does anyone make a successful movie of a novel that has so many intricate layers? While I thought the casting was first-rate and the costumes authentic, the task before them was monumental (and, alas, the special effects were `cheesy' at best). The movie tried desperately to be true to Herbert's vision, but it just cannot be done, and probably should never have been attempted.Between 1 and 10, ""Dune"" gets a solid 10. This is the only 10 I have given any novel, because no novel I have yet read matches the artistic depth and richness of Frank Herbert's ""Dune""." +393,1556909330,Dune,,AIR3R5SOB4TJG,Mikemilf@aol.com,0/0,5.0,923270400,Mental gymnastics.,"of all the science fiction books i've read this is by far one set apart. it's not cyber babes and explosions, but a thinking person's read. herbert's attention to detail and his ability to keep the story line intact throughout the book is uncanny. herbert has a tom clancy-esque ability for character development and details. it is not light reading, but it gives a unique insight to the possible future." +394,1556909330,Dune,,,,0/0,5.0,849571200,Quite possibly the best book ever written.,Frank Herbert takes you on a voyage of discovery that is unparrelled. His explorations of politics and religion are enlightening. Anyone would thoroughly enjoy this wonderful book +395,1556909330,Dune,,A1UX6L7NEJQ6VY,Keitheaux,1/1,4.0,1313366400,Second book in the classic Dune series.,"This is the second novel in the classic Dune Series by Frank Hebert. It might be noted that the Dune books were originally planned to be a trilogy. This would have been the second book and ""Children of Dune"" would have been the conclusion. Some would say that it should have remained that way. However, regardless of how you read the books, I'd advise you DO read the original trilogy: ""Dune"", ""Dune Messiah"", and ""Children of Dune."" The latter-written Frank Hebert books are optional: ""God Emperor of Dune"", ""Heretics of Dune"", and ""Chapterhouse Dune"". These latter three books almost seem to tell a different story, set in the same universe in a much later time frame.OK, so ""Dune Messiah"" itself is a good book. However, it does seen to suffer slightly from ""second book of a trilogy"" syndrome. It picks up after the masterful conclusion of Dune, and it takes a while to get all the complex plots going again. Kind of a slow reboot if you are reading it right after Dune, but keep in mind it took that story a while to get going as well." +396,1556909330,Dune,,,,2/4,2.0,935539200,"Good, except for the characters",I heard a lot about this book but when I actually read it I was not impressed. Everything in this book is great except the characters. They are overbearing and ridiculous. It is hard to read a book when you hate the characters. +397,1556909330,Dune,,A3V1AHX8P4R839,"Forrest Wildwood ""Phil""",3/4,5.0,1126656000,Folding Space..Travel without Moving.....,"Dune is one of the best Sci-Fi novels available. This novel delves into the world and surface of the planet Arrakis..a desert planet that contains the most precious spice in the known universe..'Melange'. This spice allows for visions, longer life and space travel. The Spacing Guild navigators uses this spice to fold space and travel to any part of the universe without moving. Control of this planet is vital and whomever holds this place..rules. The Fremen live on this desolate planet and have a prophecy that a man would come..a messiah..to lead them on to freedom.Frank Herbert created a masterpiece of science fiction. This is the world of Paul Atreides, heir apparent to the House of Atreides. Filled with court intrigue, politics, mystical religious overtones, and technology, this novel flows in many different directions. The main focus is that the House of Atreides has been chosen to rule Arrakis and there they are pitted against the House of Harkonnen for control of the planet..with the Fremen caught in the middle. Hidden in the back of this..and carrying alot of power and control..is the secretive female order called the Bene Gesserit.For those interested in Sci-Fi, this is a highly recommended read. The part where Paul's younger sister Alia faces down Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (Leader of the House of Harkonnen) with her..poison needle 'Gom Jabber' was particularly satisfying.His other Dune series books are good, but they don't measure up to this first book. Well worth getting." +398,1556909330,Dune,,A1PD57C6XD75MV,Mark Fellin,36/95,1.0,993772800,Done with Dune,"Like many others, I picked up DUNE based on its broadly accepted status as a SF classic. I don't read much SF, so I try to get to the Big Books (War of the Worlds, Ender's Game, Fahrenheit 451, "The Year's Best" anthologies, etc). This was not a good book. The dialogue is stilted, the characters are caricatures, and everyone's always "hissing", "glaring", or "swallowing with a dry throat". The plot is interesting enough, but not nearly as complex or Byzantine as I had expected: warring factions, religious fervor, double-crossing, nefarious rulers, ulterior motives - standard stuff, really. If anything, the plot seems complicated because we're told so little about what the Guild, the Great Houses, and CHOAM really are. Anyway, as a non-SF connoisseur I realize that I don't get to vote on which books are the classics. But from where I stand, DUNE is a poorly-written, lackluster, repetitive tale. It's not the best SF I've ever read; it's not even the best book I've read this month." +399,1556909330,Dune,,A1MR9XL10ID150,Science Fiction Student,0/0,5.0,1290211200,DUNE,"Masterpiece! Tackles religion, politics, economics, ecology, with such finese and grace. Truly one never to be trumped. And lets face it, how many time has the world killed for ""spice"". Brilliant job Herbert." +400,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,28/34,1.0,1073260800,"A reader from High Ridge, MO","I picked up a copy of ""Eragon"" after it received so much favorable press because it was written by some 19 year oldwunderkind, but I have to tell you: it's a clunker. I mean, it's a great effort for someone his age, but I found myself constantly thinking, ""This isn't bad.....for a 15 year old."" I finally gave up after reading almost 100 pages. The writing is highly derivative and the characters are not well realized, but it's a story that a 10 or 12 year old might enjoy. I was irritated by cutesy affectations such as his referring at one point to a dragon named ""Bid'Daum."" Anyone read ""Dune"" lately, and recognize that as Muad'Dib spelled backwards? I do not appreciate that kind of distraction when I'm reading, and I kept wondering what other references I might be missing. The author shows a great deal of talent and potential, however, and I will be interested to see what he does in about 10 or 20 years." +401,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A5CPJZV6BX3WZ,"""bjb_2002""",1/4,5.0,1085788800,first book i liked,"Simply Amazing, Didnt think i would like it, amazed though, deffinatly buying inheritance(the Sequel) when it comes out (august)!!!!" +402,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1YI659HTLCVMF,Kristen,1/5,5.0,1195430400,"I love it, my mother loves it, my nephew loves it","There aren't that many books that three different generations and two different sexes with like, but this one does it. It is a fast paced story about the adventures a young man embarks upon after a dragon egg hatches for him and he becomes a dragon rider. This is in a land where the dragon riders once ruled the skies, but the current king, (a dragon rider himself,) turned on the others and along with a few followers killed all the riders and their dragons. If you want a book you can discuss with your older child, this is it. They won't want to wait for the second book in the installment, (which is equally good.) The movie didn't do the book justice at all" +403,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A31UAJMF9W7U96,"green alchoseltzer ""matt""",3/6,5.0,1112227200,Eragon is not gone!!!!,"This fabulous book reminds me of the lord of the rings books. Although, I happen to like this book more then Tolkien's stories. Eragon will be with us for a long time on the count of its part one of a trilogy. The plot of this book will keep you reading non-stop. I highly recommend this book to you!!!!!" +404,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A15F4HYXYNDEEW,Spikes,1/4,5.0,1296000000,Five BIG one's!,"A treasure! it's the kind of book you just can't put down. I started reading in the morning and read ( with a few stops) till 1:30 in the morning, Then finished it the next afternoon. and unlike the Hobbit it does not bore you with tiny details. It's long and rich and you get that sensation of "Whats going to happen!" five BIG stars!" +405,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A10QSIBIAWPMN2,"Henry ""PS53""",12/18,1.0,1125878400,Save Your $ For Something Worth While,"Like so many others I wasn't going to comment on either of these books but some of the recent reviews pleading with people to read it makes me sick. Begging people to read this? DO read the reviews however AND DO read them with a grain of salt the good obviously are there to promot the book,but many of the not so good reviews are there to promote it too. Don't fall for this and waste money lining this author's pockets. I rate this as NEGATIVE -5 star! Don't buy this book! You are better off without it." +406,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1TQIBGPYV74R0,Fiction and Fantasy Fan,5/13,5.0,1120003200,A solid fantasy novel deserving of praise in its own right.,"Although B. Capossere's review had some minor, almost-valid points, it couldn't be further from the truth. Of course, if you make your list of other authors and novels large enough, and you read into ""Eragon"" hard enough, you will be able to find examples of other works imbedded in ""Eragon"". However, these imbedded pieces are merely well-established facets of fantasy that Paolini abides by, just as Tolkien did decades ago, and authors have as well. ""Eragon"" is far from being full of predictable and boring plots, emotionless dialogue, and unrelenting clichés. Having read all three of J.R.R Tolkien's ""The Lord of the Rings"" novels multiple times, I can honestly say I enjoyed ""Eragon"" much more. The story is written in an enjoyable style that doesn't require you to run for your dictionary every time an archaic word is uttered or bombastic language is unnecessarily used. It would seem that some of today's contemporary authors like to inflate their egos by injecting high-class vocabulary into their works when simpler terms would have sufficed; this is not so with Paolini's ""Eragon"". The story advances at a refreshing pace without lingering on any one aspect more then is necessary, and all key characters present in ""Eragon"" are properly fleshed out. Simply put, ""Eragon"" is a solid fantasy novel that deserves the praise it receives." +407,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,1/5,5.0,1174003200,The Whole Shebang!,"Eragon is a book filled with action, love, and adventure. It is one of my favorite books and I couldn't put it down! I know what other reviewers say about this book and plagarism, but when you really think about it, every author plagarises in some sort of way; taking old ideas and giving them theeir own twist. So, whatever the truth is, no matter what, this book is great. Sure, I have the normal fantasies of Murtagh being my (HOT) boyfriend (yes, I am a girl), and is probably one of the reasons why I couldn't put the book down, but nevertheless the actual storyline is what makes it. It was a wonderful idea for a book and movie, and I can't wait to read Eldest (in fact, it's sitting on my bed waiting for me to open it right now). So, to wrap this all up: READ IT!N.M." +408,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,0/2,5.0,1138060800,Eragon book reveiw,"My Book Review for EragonThis awesome novel, Eragon, is about how Eragon, a 15 year old boy, and his life get turned upside down. He finds a polished blue stone that attracts strange travelers. Then Eragon finds out that it isn't a stone, it is a dragon egg! The strange travelers are called the Ra'zac; they end up killing Eragons's uncle trying to find Eragon. After that, Eragon must go on a journey to find and hunt down the Ra'zac. Then Eragon finds an elf that was in a prison, but is unconscious, so Eragon must go to the varden but Murtagh ,the son of Marzan of the foresworn( riders who turned evil ) only slows Eragon down by saying that he won't go , and argues with Eragon. I recommend this to anyone who is into action and adventure.Courage, friendship, loyalty, and death are the main themes in this novel. Eragon shows courage Togo into the spine, even though few who went in ever came out, Eragon is also loyal to Brom. Eragon is Saphira, &Murtagh;'s friend. Then he shows courage to go after the Ra'zac. After Eragon finds Arya, the elf, he shows even more courage to change direction and go to the vaden. All of these themes make up a lot of the book.There are 4 main characters in this book, Eragon Brom, Saphira, and Murtagh. Eragon is the first character in the story. Saphira is the dragon that Eragon found in the Spine as a ""polished blue stone"". Brom is the one who trains Eragon. Murtagh is the on who saves Eagon and Brom from the Ra'zac. All these characters come together to fight against the empire.Eragon must go through the spine, Carvahall, Drasleona, and many other places. The spine is a mountain range that stretches from; Carvahall to Feinser. Carvahall is where Eragon lives before he went on the adventure of a lifetime. Drasleona holds Helgrind, ""the gates of death"". All of these places are inside of Alagaesia the total setting of Eragon.This book is for people who like adventure and warfare. Eragon is the main character. The novel Eragon is mostly about courage and loyalty. The setting for Eragon is in Alangesia. If you like adventure and warfare, then this is the book for you! I recommend this to anyone who is into magic, dragons, and adventure." +409,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,0/1,5.0,1086912000,Great Book,This book was simply amazing. I read this book in less than a week and I can't wait for the next book (Eldest) to come along. If you are thinking on not buying this book you are missing so much. Buy this book. Two thumbs up. +410,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1254L9G2IRUC3,Jules,2/3,1.0,1235779200,Story line fades...,"Many reviews I've read on amazon compares Eragon to LOTR, Star Wars, and other books. I admit that I've never seen the Star Wars films nor read the LOTR trilogy (only saw the movies) so I can't call out the similarities of this book to the other works. However, I am writing to warn other potential readers to beware of the flat characters, the thin storyline, and an extremely dry sequel (Eldest). After finishing this book, I though ""ok, its a little like lord of the rings with the elves, and dwarves but whatever."" What nags me the most is the unlikable and cliche main character. The farm boy who becomes super strong to save the world from evil. To me, its just stupid that the boy can become the savior of the land through a few weeks of hurried training by a wise ""story teller."" I feel like I would've like the book more if the author made the characters more realistic (Eragon struggling with his new role as savior and his struggle with learning magic, Elf-lady not so impossibly beautiful, and the rest of the characters worship the farmboy a little less).As for the second book, I couldn't finish it. It was boring, especially with the introduction of Eragon's cousin Roran.This could've been a good story, because it started out interesting. I would've liked the farmboy saving the world if only they would make the farmboy more human.I would only recommend this book to young adult readers because it is a simple read and kids should always be reading.Books > movies!" +411,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,AFN32PGTZ31MV,B. Capossere,1847/2377,2.0,1068768000,"impressive for a 17-yr-old, clearly written by a 17-yr-old","What you almost always hear first about this book is ""wow, it was written by a 17-yr-old"". And the author is fully deserving of the respect and admiration he gets--it is indeed an impressive book for a 17-year-old to have written. What he probably should not have gotten was a publishing contract, since while it is impressive for a 17-yr-old, it is less than impressive for a published work of fiction.If an adult had written and published this, I would have been disgusted (as I was with the Sword of Shannara) with the clear calculation that had gone into the work: ""ok, I'll take a lot of Tolkien, a lot of McCaffery, a good amount of Leguin, some Dragonlance, some Star Wars, etc. It will be a can't miss book."" Since it's the product not of an adult but of a teenager, it comes across much more positively--as a work of fiction by someone who has read lots and absorbed lots of fantasy and simply didn't have the experience (or the good editor) to take out all of his favorite parts of other works. How can I dislike or be too critical of someone who so obviously loved some of my own favorite authors, loved them so much that they simply took over his book through I'm guessing no fault of his own.And that in a nutshell is the problem with Eragon. The story is cliched, formulaic and barely passable as are the characters and the language is simply what you would expect from a somewhat precocious teen fan of adult fantasy. If you have any experience in the field of fantasy at all, reading Eragon will feel like a visit to Las Vegas (though not so tacky)--sure you can see New York and Paris and Italy, but they are mere shadows of the real thing. So McCaffery's telepathic link between dragon and rider is here, but not the powerful emotionality of her (especially earlier) works. LeGuin's idea of one true name and one true language forming the backbone of magic is here, but not her masterful sense of order and balance and restraint, not to mention the sparse beauty of her language. And of course, the graceful, bow-carrying elves, the gruff and secretive mentor with magical powers, the withdrawn dwarves, etc. all show up in their correct place and time. As a high school English teacher, the story and characters are exactly what I would expect to see if I picked up one of my fantasy fan's personal notebooks off of their desks and began reading. Even the people and place names are far too imitative (as opposed to inspired by). To be perfectly honest, it was so much like my students' writings I had to struggle to continue past the first ten pages.Does that mean nobody could enjoy this book? A quick look at the reviews clearly shows that many have (most of them young I'm sure). If you have read Tolkien, McCaffery, LeGuin, Jordan, Lewis, Pullman, Donaldson, etc., then I'd strongly suggest skipping Eragon. You'll not only be heavily disappointed by the weaknesses in plot, character development, and language, but you'll probably be annoyed at how often your favorite authors appear in borrowed and poorer clothing. If you have little experience in fantasy and so won't be bothered by the obviously derivative nature of this book, you'll probably enjoy it but there are far better works to begin a lifetime of fantasy reading with and even if you start with Eragon, I hope you quickly move onto them, beginning with the above list and adding for younger readers people like Lloyd Alexander, E. Nesbit, Robin McKinley, and many, many others. I'd like to see what this young author comes up with in another five-ten years, but for now he's still retelling the stories he liked himself, rather than writing down his own." +412,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,1/3,5.0,1086048000,This book rocked!,I started this book around nine o'clock at night and didn't put it down untill i had finished it somewhere aroud noon the next day. This is just one of those books that i just couldn't put down. If that doesn't tell you wht you need to know i don't know what would. +413,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2MA51SB4HTQC9,"Tim Ruppert ""I'm a retired teacher of the bli...",0/1,5.0,1359763200,Loved it!,"The descriptions of scenes were eloquent and the characters were compelling. I usually moan when I realize a book is 600 or 700 pages, but with Eragon I just thought, yippie I've just got that much more to read." +414,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,1/5,5.0,1042502400,Best Book of the Year!,"Eragon is a masterpiece. Every word, every page, every chapter is woven together in a great tapestry, a flawless portrait conveying meaning, purpose, and divine joy of life and friendship . Christipher Paolini has inspired me to write more. A truly ingenious work of art." +415,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,0/1,4.0,1088640000,Awesome,This is an awesome book. I would definately recommend it to anyone who likes J.R.R. Tolkien and other authors like him. There's alot of their influence in Christopher Paolini's writing. I absolutely loved this book and would recommend buying it. It's worth it. +416,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,1/5,5.0,1109548800,Eragon,"The book I read was Eragon by Christopher Paolini.This book is full of magic and adventure.It is a 500 page book and has a lot of twists and turns.There are two main characters,Eragon and a dragon named Saphira.Eragon has to learn how to weild magic and how to ride Saphira.It all starts when the Raz'zac destroy Garrow's (Eragon's uncles) house and Garrow gets injured and dies.An old storyteller,Brom,guides and teaches Eragon on his long quest.I give this book a five star rating.If you like long,magical books then this one is for you." +417,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,0/2,5.0,1095465600,WOW! A spectacular book that you've GOTTA read..,"This has got to be one of my fave books, as it has everything in it... I WANNA READ THE SEQUEL, ELDEST!!!!! That was supposed to come out this past summer, but now, I guess it's unknown. I'm sorry I won't be more helpful in the book, but even the smallest detail will give away a huge part, as each detail plays a role in the story.G2G. Make sure you read this book." +418,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2TAUO8665M5O,Brandon,0/4,4.0,1088985600,coping a few other books,this book was great i was glued to the pages. Then i found a book called the eye of the world by Robert Jordan. It was written before Eragon. The story lines are very similar. If you find the eye of world read it and tell for yourself. +419,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,3/5,3.0,1070668800,"Not entirely original, but enjoyable nonetheless","I first became interested in this book when I heard that it was written by a teenager. Being a teen myself, I was extremely curious to see just how good this book was because I had seen many people reading it and had heard high praises for it. When I started the book, it started off a bit slowly but I was surprised with how smoothly the book flowed once the action began and how easy it was to follow, but throughout the reading I often thought to myself, ""This is just like LOTR, except simpler."" If you're looking for a fantasy book that has created a class of its own, Eragon would be the wrong place to look. It has many of the elements of fantasy that have already been used: dragons, elves, dwarfs, cities hidden in the woods and stone walls, etc. But by no means does that make it a bad book. It is thoroughly enjoyable and although you can pretty much guess what the outcome of the trilogy will be, it still keeps you wishing that you had the next book in your hands to continue in Eragon's journey." +420,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A90G65PNBHBGT,Rockey Mountain,16/24,1.0,1145664000,"Oh my GOD I'm dying! a.k.a. Use the force, Christopher!",Age is no excuse for crime.Parents should protect their children.You should use critizism to your advantage.Something very smelly smells better than Eragon's I'm-so-perfect-and-everyone-agrees-stuff.A scar on your back doesn't mean you're crippled and the world is ending.That's the five rules of life and I stick to it. +421,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A22SW1EIL4ER0K,Fallon Niedrist,2/2,5.0,1018137600,Fantastic Fantasy Book,"If you are a lover of fantasy novels, then you'll love this book. Christopher Paolini did a wonderful job describing the surroundings and the people. Eragon was easy to follow, but exciting all the way to the end. Several twists and turns kept the story alive. I highly suggest you read this book." +422,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,1/1,5.0,1169164800,Eragon,"Eragon was a great book I really recomend it, I can't wait to read Eldest. It has a great plot and I recomend it for anybody, because it is a great book and I think that it is a great book for people young and old, that is what I think of the book.Monica" +423,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A34NPLPLN7NN94,Kala,3/4,5.0,1016323200,A page turner,"One of the best reads I've had in a very long time. I've been waiting for years for something different, a book that takes me beyond the stock clichés of fantasy stories. This is it. Go Christopher Paolini! I know its hard to believe, but man, this young'un really has done it.This book was a page turner from the moment I opened it. Paolini paints a vivid picture in a richly developed story and set of characters. It captured my imagination. Eragon is breathtaking in its scope. It's rare for me to remember much of a book after I'm done reading it, yet Eragon's storyline and characters get under your skin, and everything is so real.This book ranks with Tad William's Otherland series, Tolkien's Middle Earth, Jordan's Wheel of Time, Brooks Shannara, Eddings's Belgariad and Malloreon, Feist's Krondor and Magician.Buy it, steal it, rent it, borrow it. However you get it: READ IT!Kala" +424,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,1/4,5.0,1173225600,the best book ever,"One boy, One dragon, A whole world full of adventure. The book Eragon by Christopher Paolini, is about a boy named Eragon and he finds a rock well hunting. It was oddly colored so he decided to keep it. Then one night the rock fell of his shelf and a little head pops up. He noticed that it was a dragon and he decided to name it Saphira after the very first rider. If you want to find out what happens after this little blue head pops up, then buy Eragon (its about $[...]) and read it. Its one of the best books that I ever read" +425,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1RX4IV21GPMM3,TC Bookbug,2/2,1.0,1136246400,The product of a twisted market,"I don't mean to add salt to the wounds (if you don't know which wounds I am referring to, continue searching through these reviews) but this book is a sad representation of literature. Many argue that if a book can get kids to read than it can't be bad, but the truth of the matter is books like this should result in legal action rather than video game licensing and movie deals.I struggled to find a single original idea in this entire work, that's right there is not even one. What's worse is the presentation of the stolen ideas doesn't come close to the quality of the originals from which it steals.I agree with what others have said in that the biggest tragedy is that there are dozens of authors out there who have struggled to come up with original fantasy novels that have gone unnoticed by the masses. This is a sad exercise in the power of money when it comes to promotion. Let's face it, anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of the English language coupled with a near limitless parental budget and a head full of borrowed ideas should be able to duplicate this novel's efforts.Finally to everyone who insists that all fantasy is a rehash of prior concepts, I say simply this: Put down Eragon and read more fantasy. There are original works out there; if not entirely original races and settings, there are more original plots, less stereotypical characters, fewer literary cliché's.Give Harry Potter a try, Artemis Fowl, Inkheart, The Uncommon Adventures of Tucker O'Doyle, Erec Rex: The Dragon's Eye, etc." +426,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A3GORW5MBKH7AS,Ellen D. Jorgensen,11/15,1.0,1126742400,Save your money,"Wish I'd read the first review on Amazon before buying this overhyped book. I can't say it any better then he- it is an impressive effort for a teenage author, but a poor imitation of Tolkien and McCaffrey's stories. The characters are wooden, and what really gives it away is the total lack of humor and the author taking himself and his story too seriously. Read the Bartimaeus books for a refreshing contrast. It did get me thinking about what qualities separate a good book from a bad one, though... When the author has to TELL you how the characters are feeling rather than letting their actions and dialogue speak for itself, that's one sign of a poorly written tome." +427,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A27LTBQKFE087,Kyle Patrick,3/4,5.0,1129766400,Eragon is a must read book!,"Eragon is unique, and it is extremely hard to stop reading. This is Christopher Paolini, who was fifteen when he wrote this story, first book. Also, Eragon is the first book in the trilogy, which is a lot like Terry Brooks' Shannara collection. In both, there are mystic elves, stout dwarves, mighty dragons, and powerful magic.Eragon, a youthful farm boy, while hunting in a dangerous mountain range, stumbles across a wonderful blue rock. Thinking to sell or trade it to help his family through the harsh, northern winter, Eragon keeps the stone. Before he gets the chance to sell it, it hatches something thought to be extinct... a sapphire-blue dragon! Eragon develops a mental connection with the dragon, and when the murdering Ra'zac kill his uncle, he leaves his village only to find out that he is the first of the new generation of Dragon Riders. The Dragon Riders were the peacekeepers of Alagaesia Eragon is fated to be the one to turn the tide of the coming war to overthrow the cruel king, Galbatorix. Eragon and Saphira, his dragon, set out to find their way through the darkness, constantly growing in strength and knowledge.Though this novel is exceptionally interesting, it is sometimes hard to understand, but Christopher Paolini has already taken care of that. There are maps, glossaries, and definitions within the book to help you along the way. Eragon is definitely for fantasy readers, ages twelve and up. Be sure to have the sequel, Eldest, close at hand, because you won't be able to wait by the end of Eragon." +428,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A26DJ4HHUV3UBP,S. L. Small,0/0,3.0,1092960000,A good story but heavily based on other sagas,"A great new saga and world for fantasy fans to get lost in, with the two main characters being a boy and a dragon trying to stay alive under relentless pursuit by a tyrannical emperor while at the same time learning the extent and limitations of their powers. Not a terribly intellectual book, but I think it's a good book to get kids interested in fantasy and then get them hooked on Tolkien and other ""meatier"" fantasy and sci-fi authors." +429,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,AIBRTGBN07D6A,Scott,14/17,1.0,1071014400,This book was edited?,"I won't echo the other comments about how the work is unoriginal or taken from other writers. I didn't care too much about that, mainly because I couldn't get past the horrible use of language. I think this book got caught up in the whole ""the writer's 18 years old!"" hype. Had this book been written by Robert Jordan and published as a Wheel of Time novel, it would have been flambayed.The use of the English language is absolutely horrible, for all the reasons described in the reviews below, and I blame this not on Paolini's education, but on his editors, who failed to clean up this book into something readable. Maybe some of you can get past it, but I couldn't." +430,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,0/1,4.0,1128816000,Saphira,I highly recommend this book for anyone who likes interesting adventure/fantasy books. I give it four stars! +431,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,0/2,4.0,1085443200,Enjoyable,"I really enjoyed reading this work. I admire Chris Paolini for having the determination to tackle such a monumental task. Get over the name similarities, and the Tolkien comparisons - it just doesn't matter. Chris has created a terrific atory, and I am looking forward to Eldest." +432,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,0/0,5.0,1156377600,"Terrific book, but full of Cliches","This is an absolutely amazing book, yet it is extremely unoriginal. Copying what one reviewer said, it is clear that he was 15 when he wrote this. Every page is full of cliches. I don't know if you have seen the entire starwars, but the basic plot for the first movie is exactly the same as Eragon (by the way, does that name remind you of anyone)Basic plot= A servant of an evil emperor attacks, with an army at his disposal, a convoy bearing an object of power to a rebellion against the Empire. The servant captures the convoy and its leader, but the leader (a princess, no less) sends the object away in hopes that it will fall into the hands of a wise old wizard, who is the last of his kind. The object is found by a poor farm boy, whose family (not parents but uncle) is killed as a result, leaving him nothing to stay behind for. He joins the wizard on a quest, as well as a rogue who has no love for the ""empire."" They save the princess, then the three flee to the rebels. This could be used to describe the first Star Wars movie, and no one would know the difference.Also, the names of many people and places copy Lord of the Rings.Arya - Arwen, ArdaArdwen - ArwenIsenstar - IsengardMithrim - Mithrim or mithrilEragon - AragornAngrenost - Angrenost, the Sindarin name for IsengardMorgothal - MorgothElessari - ElessarFurnost - FornostHadarac Desert - Harad DesertMelian - MelianVanir - ValinorEridor - EriadorImiladris - ImladrisUndin - Fundin/UdunAlso, Brom and Obi-Wan are almost exactly the same also. Think about it, old wise guy, the last of his kind, teaches a farm boy his tricks, swordplay, etc.Brom's sacrifice for Eragon also mirrors Obi-Wan's sacrifice for LukeEven in the second book Eldest, there are many similarities to the second Star Wars; the farm boy leaves the rebels after fighting a battle to train with an old hermit in the jungle ( Yoda in Star Wars, and the old dragon rider in Eragon) There the farm boy undergoes a life-changing experience, and later participates in another great battle to aid his friends when he sees a vision. He deuls a powerful enemy, only to be defeated, and then learns that that enemy is a family member and that one of the enemie's lord's main commander is his father (Vader, Morzan, Morzan, Vader)Overall, this is a truly great book, but that is to be expected when it is pretty much an exact copy of one of the world's most famous fiction stories. Most people think that this book copies Lord of the Rings, but it really copies Star Wars" +433,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,1/6,4.0,1131148800,An Inspiring Story,"The story of Eragon is a definite read. It begins with a normal farmer boy that finds a stone in The Spine. He finds it unusual that a perfect smooth stone should happen to fall into his possession. When he realizes that this stone will lead him into the fantasy world there is no turning back. I enjoyed this book so much because magic is such a great theme. As people we really don't know if there is a world of magic and it is fun to think of all the impossible actions that could happen. The events come in an assiduous matter, which made me want to keep turning the page." +434,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A29DRSUUFBZRR,"PAB ""I LOVE Amazon you can get everything here""",0/1,3.0,1326585600,"not great but a good book, liked the movie better","Great theme and characters- I had to speed read through some long boring details that would have been better left out. Why do authors think a book is not great unless it is really long? Kudo's to a Christopher Paolini writing this book,while a teenager. Yes it does ring strongly of borrowed stories and characters. But how many authors have copied vampire type themes after Twilight hit it big? Overall I enjoyed the characters and plot. A good book. I liked it better than ""Eldest"" the 2nd in the series. I really liked the movie better than the book- which is something I never ever say." +435,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,AW5MVAOIM9N6J,"Mark Martin ""Author of the Scifi Novel ION.""",2/4,5.0,1301961600,Impressive,"I just got thru reading a critical review of Eragon and was really surprised that their was someone that did not like it. Christopher Paolini no matter what his age has done a faboulous job creating the impressive story of Eragon. Fiction stories that can capture your imagination such as this story are truly original. I realize that this review is coming very late in the ball game, but I just had to say if you're looking for a great fiction story for you or your children, then this is a good place to start. I highly recommend all of the books in this series." +436,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,0/0,4.0,1075507200,"A writers ""Dragon Egg"" hatches","Eragon is an excellent book mastering the daunting field of fantasy writing. Focusing on the (Arguably) the most famous creature in the style, Eragon shows most of what Paolini may be capible of. He shows a couple of fractures in what would be an interesting plot, and it is enough to get most people reading. And keep them reading. Most of my class agrees that the book is worthy of the price. Somhow, things feel a little wierd in parts and some of the sentences were just SO ANNOYING. I still look forward to the next book and hope to see the same Tolkien-esque magic that made this a real winner.(Add one star if you enjoyed Tolkiens LOTR trilogy. Eragon isn't nearly as slow, but its akin to the tail and should thrill some of them...)" +437,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A117B82KL8YDOB,TROGDOR,2/7,5.0,1100044800,magical,"Eragon is one of the best books i have read. if u havnt read it i dont know where've youve been. oh well. the story starts out with a bang leaving you in question, when the plot shows you Eragon, a 15 year old, who is hunting when he stumbles upon a large blue rock, or so he thinks. The rock ends up being a dragon egg and when it hatches, Eragon becomes her rider. i wont say anymore, it has a lot of dramatic points and its sure to keep you occupied." +438,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A18Y2L0227NAYS,Crusader,2/8,3.0,1086307200,To the people claiming Tolkien created Elves and Dwarves!,"I haven't read Eragon, but I do plan on doing so soon. However, this ""review"" is actually directed at all the ignorant people here that have the audacity to claim that Mr. Tolkien created Elves, Dwarves and Dragons. That claim couldn't be more incorrect and ridiculous. Elves and Dwarves are originally from Norse Mythology. And Dragons have been around for thousands of years!To assure myself of this, I did a little research and what I found was truly shocking. I have learned that Mr. Tolkien COPIED the names Gandalf (the protagonist of his epic story) and Middle-Earth (the setting of his world) from Norse Mythology. So in turn, anybody has the right to ""use"" Elves or Dwarves in their work as much as anybody else.I am not defending Mr. Paolini. I agree with the notion that he should develop his own material and refrain from further derivation of other fantasy novels. However, I do defend him in the sense that anybody can use Elves and Dwarves. Trust me he's not the only one. Below, I have provided two paragraphs which I cut and pasted from a Norse Mythology site which clearly states Mr. Tolkien took ideas from Norse Mythology and used it for his work.In conclusion you people really need to wake up and get a grip. Mr. Tolkien was great, but he's not the fantasy novel god here. People shouldn't be compared to him in everything regarding fantasy. My advice to you is just enjoy fantasy to its fullest. Have a nice day.Cut and Pasted Material Below:""Many people are familiar with J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings or Wagner's The Ring of the Nibelung, but they are not familiar with Norse mythology to which both of these works are heavily indebted.Tolkien was very well acquainted with Norse mythology, as can be seen by the use of it in his books. The name of one of his main characters, Gandalf, is found in The Poetic Edda. Gandalf is, in some ways, reminiscent of Odin, the leader of the Norse pantheon. Even the name Middle-earth, the setting for Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, comes from Norse mythology."" (...)" +439,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,3/6,4.0,1070755200,My advice: read this book,"I have read a few reviews that complain that this book is too much like some other story you might be familiar with that takes place in Middle Earth. I have two things to say in response to that...one, Tolkien was so exhaustive in his efforts to create a working alternate planet, that it is virtually impossible to write a fantasy novel without drawing comparisons; and two, so this book is similar to one of the greatest books ever, how can that be a bad thing?Eragon is a wonderful story. I think the best praise I can give to it is that the world seems to have been created first and the story almost an after thought, because jsuta few chapters in and you find yourself almost another citizen. The Spine seems like a real place.This book was so good that I withdrew my usual stipulation of not reading a series book until the entire series is published. If you consider yourself a fantasy fanatic, I think you owe it to yourself to read this story." +440,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,1/2,5.0,1074556800,I LOVE THIS BOOK!!,When my friend told me about this book I wasnt quite sure about it but once I got it and read the first sentance I was hooked. i couldnt but it down and now my dad is reading it and loves it too. a great book for young aduls and adults alike. I cant wait for Eldest. +441,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,2/16,1.0,1102723200,NO NO NO,Eragon is the worse book I ever read. It just a stupid awful book with no point. Read anything else!!!!!! +442,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A6IVUWETPJQPV,Calala71,0/2,5.0,1330905600,great book @#$% the bad reviews,the inheritence series is a great series to read. i loved every word in it. Also read the next 3 books +443,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A3MH67X7IPT7LL,Steven Grey,1/4,5.0,1105401600,Best fantasy book I've ever read,This book is the best fantasy book I've ever read. It hooks you into the story as a 13 year old boy discovers a dragon egg and raises it. His uncle (the only person close to him besides his cousin) gets killed by the king. He decides to ride his dragon to have his revenge on the king. +444,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A7F4FQJM6DRDV,Amber,7/8,2.0,1071187200,too predictable,"this book couldn't hold my attention. i didn't really finish it, because i just didn't care enough. everything was too predictable, one thing after another. it's all been done. if you want to read fantasy that will hold your attention, read garth nix or philip pullman" +445,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,AE8YCYQ87ZQ7Q,Tywin Seaburgus,2/2,4.0,1075593600,Solid,"It had a few errors, and the plot was not entirely origanal, but it flowed very smoothly. I have read better, but not an author's first. Plus, to write such a book at 15 years old is a great feat. Not to mention graduating from high school at 15. I hope that he gets better, but this is good enough as well. All in all, this book will be enjoyable except to the people who pay too much attention to the quality. This is more of a can't put it down book then a unique artsy book." +446,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2G603HC3KRERO,stanley30,0/4,5.0,1281398400,Excellent Book,The beginning is a little slow but once you get through the first couple of chapters you are hooked! It makes you feel like you are there fighting with Eragon and makes you want to keep reading. I am ready to find out what happens in the next. +447,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A3P99TPRWA78YQ,Sushi,8/10,5.0,1124150400,"A fun book, highly recommended","I'm an avid reader who enjoys all genres and styles, but when it comes to fantasy I was never really a huge fan. I read Lord of the Rings, and was put to sleep by it. Boring, overly long, etc. Only the characters, use of archetypes and moral messages are anything to write home about with Tolkien. Other fantasy I've read is the same way: It follows all the traditional rules and comes off as dull reading, to me at least. So when I received Eragon as a gift I wasn't excited. Upon hearing that it was written by someone so young though, I was more interested.And from the first page I was loving this book. It's actually fun to read, as opposed to the more ""traditional"" books. Though it borrows from Tolkien, Star Wars, hell even the Matrix it seems, all that doesn't matter because it's an entertaining book full of grandeur and wonder. The Dungeons and Dragons playing, middle aged grizzled fantasy veteran reviewers here bashing the book for being written by a 17 year old need to lighten up and be entertained for once. I despise most fantasy novels because their goal isn't to entertain, and forgive me for reading because its fun but that's why I read. Sure Eragon isn't original, but guess what: It rocks. It was a page turner, and I'll be picking up book #2 no questions asked, day it comes out. It is NOT a children's book, don't know why it gets labled as one. Fantastic read, highly recommended. If you haven't read it, do so as soon as possible." +448,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A39MULB7OU501,Dana Nourie,1/5,5.0,1152230400,Wonderful dragon adventure,"This novel was entertaining from the first page to the last. I felt a little put off by some of the comments from other reviewers, namely saying there were too many characters, but I didn't find that to be true at all.The characterization in this story was excellent. It took me a bit to get used to the idea of a dragon communicating so well, but the author pulled it off well. It was great to read a dragon story where the dragons are not horrible fire breathing creatures, set out only to destroy human kind.I'm so impressed with the writing ability of so young an author. Good job!" +449,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A33V29EHMG9XVJ,fire dragon99,0/4,5.0,1114560000,Very Very good book,This book is about A boy named Eragon who finds A cool lookingstone and brings it back tohis house the next morning it turns out to be A dragon egg.It's boring as wall paper at first but if youkeep reading it gets A lot better. +450,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,4/8,5.0,1133222400,Eragon book 1 of Inheritance by: Christopher Paolini,"EragonBy: Christopher Paolini""A wisp of smoke curled in the air, carrying a burnt smell. In the center of the blast radius lay a polished blue stone.""Eragon was just an ordinary boy but when a dragon egg fell into his hands his world turned upside down.Eragon's uncle was killed by the Ra'zac. He wanted revenge so he left Carvahall. He traveled all over Alagaesia through the mountains, forests, and deserts.Brom found out about Eragon and Saphira and went with them on their journey. Along the way he taught Eragon about fighting and using magic.Later Murtagh joined Eragon on his journey to the Varden. On the way they discovered an elf, and encountered a shade and urgals. But when Murtagh reveals something will he be trusted anymore?Eragon has to bring peace in Alagaesia, but will he choose the Varden or Galbatorix.This book is the best book in the world. It was always suspenseful. I would recommend this book to anyone who likes fantasy. Eragon is ht e first book in the three book series. Also this is the best series in the world." +451,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,1/4,5.0,1057536000,Three-timer,"I just read Eragon for the third time and I love it! I can't wait for more.Eragon has the right combination of action, story, and adventure. It is a believable tale.Jeremy Miller" +452,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A3UGV42LSBL0ZL,Belinda Euans,1/3,5.0,1074816000,This book is an innovative fantasy.,"As a nonfiction writer, when reading fiction, I want innovative fantasy and this book delivers just that.I have not read a book that harbors the reader as much as this one since J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter novels.If you enjoy reading books that will encase you completely with cogent characters and an efficacious story, read Eragon." +453,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A3J0OXB9KIC5SS,WILLIAM H FULLER,6/6,3.0,1082764800,Old Characters + Old Plot = A Good Read Nonetheless,"In this, his first published novel, Paolini does not create any new themes, story lines, or characters. Rather, he takes several popular characters from other sources and molds them to his needs. Likewise, the story lines of bad king versus good-but-outnumbered rebels, young innocent farm boy evolving into heroic warrior, etc. are hardly unknown to the science fiction genre but are nonetheless well handled by Paolini in creating a highly readable and entertaining story. While Paolini may not be a creator of totally new concepts, he certainly shows himself skilled at adaptation and improvisation, building a good read out of old materials.The reader will easily recognize many influences on the author as he created the novel Eragon. Anne McCaffrey's series of novels about the dragonriders of Pern are an obvious influence, but I believe that J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings novels have had even a greater influence than McCaffrey's works. Some parallels with J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter stories can be argued, and the ""Evil Empire"" against which the rebels struggle evokes images of the Star Wars motion pictures. Readers familiar with these various sources will quickly see Paolini's Brom as the counterpart of Tolkien's Gandolf. Paolini's Urgals are dead ringers for Tolkien's Orcs. The Elfin race goes by the same name in both Paolini and Tolkien. Paolini's two Ra'zacs remind one of Tolkien's nine Nazgul. The words that Eragon uses to lift stones and cast destruction on his enemies suggest the magic of Rowling's Harry Potter. And on and on go the parallels.Paolini's strength, however, lies not in the direct retelling of any of his source materials but in the adaptation of the sources' character types to his own ends. His novel is not a close variation of any of his sources' story lines but is his own creation. That the reader recognizes others' characters reborn in Paolini's work actually makes them even more endearing. Here are some of the old friends that we first met in other books reborn into a new environment and a different time. Their resurrection is pleasant and we are happy to see them in action once more.Unhappily, a very few grammatical errors found their way past both the author and his proofreaders. While these are but few, they still assault readers' sensibilities and leave behind a most unpleasant residue in their minds. In each instance, these involve the use of the first person objective case pronoun when use of the nominative case is appropriate. These would probably not be so jarring were overall usage elsewhere in the novel less excellent.In sum, I believe that those who have has enjoyed McCaffrey's dragonrider novels or Tolkien's Lord of the Rings will also enjoy Paolini's Eragon. If one has read neither McCaffrey nor Tolkien but still enjoys an adventure fraught with peril, magic, a few monsters, and a sentient dragon, then I would still feel safe in recommending Paolini. On the other hand, if a reader seeks classical conflict, detailed character development, and the relief of an effective denouement at the end of it all, then he probably shouldn't be looking for a novel in the modern science fiction genre in the first place! I am anticipating Paolini's next novel in what he calls the Inheritance Triology with eagerness." +454,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A3GIRU8ZGZ0Z4O,"Katherine Cail ""kcail""",4/7,4.0,1185408000,"Appropriate ""Childrens Lit"" book","I just finished this book (albiet the hardcover- but no big difference.)The author hits on many unique ideas in his story about humans, dragons, elves and dwarves vs. Evil but it's easy to see a homage to Tolkien, McCaffrey and other ""titans"" of this genre.The plot is light and easy to follow, although you can tell he was a teenager when writing this novel. It belabors details ad-nauseam, such as what the characters did,ate,slept,walked almost every day of their journies. I understand he was trying to show character growth, maturation and move the plot along but at times it was tedious.His dialoges are also a bit over the top as well. Young writers, I think, try to be think BIG about how adults and people of power speak and it doesn't convey realism. I wish Mr. Paolini had kept it simple and not have his characters give these verbose monologues from time to time.The story is intriuging, and I will read Eldest as well. For people who maligned the movie, they had to cut out a lot of the meandering across the land stuff to keep the movie interesting! And I felt it was a fair adaptation and casting." +455,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1AFXJ8U72MD6L,"MISTER SJEM ""sonofhotpie""",6/9,3.0,1125446400,SOME INTERESTING IDEAS; BASIC FANTASY STORY,"I find it extremely impressive that this was written by a teenager whose family helped him self-publish it until it got picked up by a publisher for young adults.CONS(1) Too much analyzing by the main character on issues which don't need to be raised or which are superfluous;(2) Some of the character interplay doesn't feel believable; I won't say what or I'd spoil the story;(3) Basic fantasy story with the usual archetypes.(4) Standard elves and dwarves if this bothers you. If not, then it's a bonusPROS(1) Standard fantasy elements;(2) An impressionable minor character dies and will hopefuly stay dead. Hate it when they bring the person back. What was the point of the sacrifice in the first place?;(3) Great interplay between the lad and the dragon;(4) History is interesting even if it's dumped too often at times and not in an interesting fashion;(5) Pacing is on; the story moves and doesn't drag overall even if the actual movement may sometimes be questionable.(6) Some good imagery and metaphors" +456,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,0/3,5.0,1066089600,One Of The Best Books Of All Time!!,I am a big magic fan. When a girl in my grade reccomended this book to me I could tell it was going to be great. I got it a few days after the girl reccomended it to me and I couldn't put it down. I am also a big Harry Potter fan. I used to think that Harry Potter was the best series in the world. Now that I have read Eragon I think that The Harry Potter seroes is tied with The Inheritance Triolgy. Read it!! +457,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,1/3,4.0,1168819200,Eragon,Book View for Eragon The book eragon is a fun filled and full of advance. Nonstop thrillers. So if you like all this in a book and more in a book. I recommend eragon.I think any one will love the book Eragon. I think the setting in the book is the best decried. It is almost like you can touch it. It makes me want to go and visit aligasa. With all of the mounts and rivers. And some of the cities seem very nice. But the bigger places are in the vardon. The vardon plays a big roll in the story. All of the carters are traveling to the vardon. The main caroter is eargon he is only 15. And will go no the biggest jurny of his life. The next is sahpria she is a dragon. She is a blue. Aria sent sahpria to eragon. Aria is a elf. The next is brome. He was a rider. Now he is teaching eragon.now mertog he travels with eragon. Eragon is a big part in the theme. He is to save the kingdom. From the evel galbetorex. So he has to go to the vardon to get an armey.it is a big oner. He is one of the last ridders. This is the best book ever. I think any one will love this book. Even it is fancies. +458,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2CR57GAJKNWVV,"booksforabuck ""BooksForABuck""",3/3,3.0,1073001600,Star Wars meets Lord of the Rings,"Raised as a humble farmer, Eragon discovers a strange jewel--which turns out to be a dragon egg. Dragon riders once protected the land and ensured justice, but now, except for the evil King, the dragon riders are destroyed. The King's spies learn of the dragon's birth and destroy Eragon's uncle in an effort to find him and the dragon. If they can turn Eragon to the dark side, the King will be unstoppable. Fortunately, Eragon escapes and, with the help of an old bard, Eragon learns magic, swordfighting, and dragon tactics. Still, the King's power is too strong to confront alone.After a narrow escape, Eragon finds a beautiful elf-woman held captive by the King's shade. Together with a stranger who saves him, Eragon, the dragon, and the unconscious elf make their way to a rebel fortress deep in the dwarvish mountains. Yet the King has created evil alliances and his Urgal (Orc) subjects invade the Dwarf kingdom where all of Eragon's magic and power avail him little against the powerful shade.In the movie business, high-concept projects are frequently described as a combination of two well-known films. Eragon is definitely Starwars meets the Lord of the Rings. Set in a Middle-Earth world of elves, dwarves, orcs, and dragons, we have the familiar adventures of Luke Skywalker--the loss of his uncle, his aging warrior-bard teacher, the somewhat disreputable buddy, and the beautiful princess. Pretty good stuff.I'm torn in this review. On the one hand, it's an incredible feat for a fifteen-year-old author like Christopher Paolini to complete an entire novel, let alone an epic five-hundred pager. For the most part, Paolini's writing is competent, only occasionally drawing the reader out of the story. And the story is an exciting adventure as Eragon is thrown from adventure to adventure. On the other hand, Eragon doesn't really grow as a character. Sure he learns magic and swordfighting, but he's still the same whiny kid at the end of the story that he was at the beginning.Paolini is an author to watch. He's got talent and a fine sense of story. With a bit more experience in the world and some serious effort on character development, he may become a major author. ERAGON only hints at this promise, but it's a pleasant hint." +459,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A3GM5NC4RVSQZN,Allison Ebert,2/2,4.0,1139961600,It's a fun read,"Yes, Christopher Paolini does seem to have taken a lot from well-known fanatasy authors (it seems to me that he must have read Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series right before writing this book). Yes, he really likes to flaunt the fact that he knows a lot of big words, although he doesn't seem to know quite how to use them within the context of the story and to help the language flow nicely. And yes, the characters lack a lot of personality and development. However, all that aside, Eragon really is a fun book to read, as is its sequel, Eldest. As long as you're simply reading for enjoyment, these books are a great choice. Especially considering the fact that Paolini was 15 when he wrote it. Kudos to him for that alone, because no matter how much I complain about the things that bother me about his writing, he did actually write a novel (two, even), and get it published, which is something that I've yet to do. I think these books are also a good starting place for someone who hasn't read much fantasy because there isn't as much depth to it as Tolkien, Jordan, and the like.Whether or not it is entirely original material, Eragon is full of adventure and is very enjoyable light reading." +460,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1O9AUAF7CTX2X,Sarah Knudsen,2/7,5.0,1126137600,One of my favorite books,This is definitely one of my favorite books! I cannot wait to read the next one! +461,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,ARG9FU3M47YP9,Gavin S. Richmond,25/30,1.0,1164758400,Unoriginal Doesn't Even Begin To Describe It,"I was suckered into buying this because I bought into the hype that it was Potter-esque with LOTR trappings. I should have read the reviews first, because the ones here that call it derivative are right on target. I hated to slam the book after I first read it because it was written by an adolescent, but oh how it shows. There are much finer books for the target age range to be enjoying than this hacked together bit of fluff. Don't waste your time." +462,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,AUB63LI1AEUF5,N. Baker,10/11,3.0,1123286400,Believe the good AND the bad,"Eragon the book is a textbook example of a tragedy: the very thing that makes it great, the hype, is its downfall. On the back cover there is a New York Times quote that refers to the book as ""An auhetntic work of great talent."" This book is neither authentic, nor of particularly great talent.Is Eragon an enjoyable book? Yes. I read it in about a week, and will admit I put off other things to finish it. That being said, it isn't nearly deserving of the praise it's received, and this has been the source of my frustration with it. Paolini's a decent writer FOR HIS AGE, but that doesn't make him a writer who was ready to be published. If Paolini's writing abilities where akin to his basketball skills, he would have gone on to play college ball; he wouldn't have graduated to the NBA. And these weaknesses really come through in the book. Ultimately, Eragon reads like 500 pages of well-composed Internet fan fiction.First, it's most predictable fault: it is, as so many before me have asserted, largely a story of Star Wars meets Pern set in Middle-Earth. This, of course, is the first classic pitfall of a young author. That being said, once you accept the paradigm, Paolini does a very good job of immersing you in this parroted world he has fashioned, and it's a fun world to be immersed in.Paolini makes some writing mistakes that just aren't acceptable, however. For example, in one rather drawn-out and pooly written scene, Eragon chastizes his friend Murtagh for slaying an enemy in lieu of showing mercy. Yet later in the book before a big battle, Paolini writes that Eragon was glad Murtagh was fighting beside him PRECISELY BECAUSE Murtagh is a merciless fighter! Either mercy is good, Chris, or it ain't; you have to pick one.In addition, he makes his main character both excessively powerful and at the same time excessively weak. Halfway through the book Eragon is declared to be the greatest swordfighter Brom (the Obi-wan character) has ever met. This sentiment is confirmed by later characters, including Murtagh, who apparently has been sword-training all his life. That's right; Eragon goes from being a farmboy to a blademaster in a mere 250 pages. Who woulda thunk it'd be so easy? At the same time, Eragon gets captured TWICE, and can't seem to take on a single opponent without fainting.Paolini's real weaknesses as a writer, however, emerge whenever he tries to achieve the so-called ""lyrical beauty"" he asserts to aspire. On his website Paolini states, ""I strive for a lyrical beauty somewhere between Tolkien at his best and Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf."" Tolkien was a professor at Oxford and Heaney won the Nobel prize. Home-schooled Christopher Paolini doesn't come close to reaching either, and he shouldn't even compare himself with them.For example, at one point he gives a description of the Sea, referring to it as as ""emotion incarnate"" and some such. This might have been a good passage, except it doesn't feel genuine. The passage doesn't read like Paolini truly BELIEVES the Sea is emotion incarnate; it reads like he flipped through Tolkien, read his descriptions of the Sea, and tried to imitate them. Ultimately, it makes for unconvincing writing.This problem similarly emerges whenever Paolini attempts to show Eragon's doubts. There are several passages throughout the book where Eragon wonders ""what kind of god could allow such horrible things to happen,"" etc. Theoretically, these scenes would help develop Eragon as a character and elevate his adventure from being merely a good story to a good book.However, these scenes involve only one or two sentences before Eragon gets on with his life in the next paragraph. For the reader to genuinely feel Eragon's confusion and frustration, more exploration and depth into that confusion is required. As it currently stands, the passages are too shallow to be believable. Paolini currently lacks the emotional depth as a writer, and perhaps even as a person (the pitfall of many young writers, who stereotypically ""have nothing to say""), to really carry these scenes.All that being said, Eragon is a good read, and definitely worth the buy. Just go in expecting to be disappointed with Paolini as a writer at several points." +463,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A3TMJYL82G0EEH,Luke,12/20,1.0,1085788800,amazingly bad,"considering all the hype this book is AMAZINGLY bad. Unoriginal and badly repped off prose. the only good parts are imitative and taken from other better authors. the bad parts are just bad: pooorly written and DULL. the female characters might as well not exist except as convenience for the overblown adolescent ego of the so-called hero.Another annoying thing: not even poalini claims to have written this book when he was fifteen. he STARTED IT when he was fiftenn--big deal, lots of people start lots of projects but it' when you FINISH trhat matters. this book was published when he was NINETEEN and anyone knows that means he finished it then. what a load of hype. stinks." +464,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2P1G1N0HK2DLU,"Jonathan D. Ruark ""The Druid Heart of the Wol...",2/6,5.0,1125014400,GREAT for those who love adventure!,"Ya I wanted to tell everyone that this is a GREAT book, for ALL ages, Now I have read this book and wanted to do nothing more than read more. This book made me laugh out loud, made me attempt to hold tears back, made me smile, made me mad. This is an EXCELLENT book! Now it upset me to hear someone down thi book in reviews, but I can tell by his/her words that it is a person who is one of those I know everything I am grand lord of al people, so if your like that, then I dont know what to say, if you simply want a GREAT book that you can enjoy and fall in love with, the join the world of Eragon, If you love action adventure, and emotions to be invoked as you become intimate with the characters and their adventures, this is the book for you. =) Enjoy" +465,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,1/3,5.0,1022457600,The Best Book,I would highly recomend this book to any lovers of fantesy! I read the book twice and am thinking about reading it a third time. It was intreaging!! +466,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,AFZ8JJW7GQ16F,"Lane Young ""Teacher and Librarian""",0/1,5.0,1089590400,An OK Book Made Excellent by the Naration,"Eragon's life is pretty typical for a farm boy until he goes exploring one day and discovers a dragon egg. Eragon becomes the first Dragon Rider, a position of extreme importance and power, in a hundred years. When he is forced to flee the village he does so with Bram, the local story teller. Adventure and trouble awaits as Eragon learns more about his powers and the dangerous situation swirling all around him. This book is in the first in a trilogy and the somewhat abrupt ending might leave readers a bit frustrated, if wanting more.This book suffers from somewhat pedantic writing, but listeners of the audio will never know it. Doyle's narration is among the best I have ever heard. His deep voice, evoking the finest of English performers, is remarkably versatile as each of the characters has an immediately recognizable, and appropriate, voice. Doyle's narration is highly recommended for any, especially those well read in fantasy, who want to see what all the fuss is about with this bestselling book." +467,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2XFBOA55W2AQ9,Kelsey,3/7,5.0,1117152000,Well worth the read!,"If you are considering buying Eragon right now but are not sure if it's quite what you are looking for, I am writing this reviewto tell you it is definitely well worth the read (and purchase)! I'm a very picky reader, as I truly enjoy fantasy novels but have a clear idea in my head of what one entails. Paolini truly captured the essence of this in his first book by including maps, languages, and plenty of adventure in what's sure to be an unforgettable trilogy!" +468,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2I78F68T1AIYP,Jonathon Jenkins,0/1,5.0,1222905600,great series,I love this series! don't bother with the movie... it's a terrible representation of the book. +469,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A3DBICL8CL2MNK,wirelocked,7/7,2.0,1164499200,Nothing New,"Borrows HEAVILY from other fantasy novels, most notably the Pern series by Anne McCaffrey. Nothing original, but still entertaining. I enjoyed the book, but I don't feel it deserves all the credit and publicity it has been getting." +470,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1XWMD41P0JT4S,Erin Jump,1/6,4.0,1176940800,Not an epic.... yet.,"A bit choppy in places, especially the beginning, but I am excited to see Christopher develop into a mature writer over the years. He is most definitely a new voice in fantasy even though the stores stock his books in the ""young adults"" section. As an avid reader of scifi and fantasy I still enjoyed the story and believe we will see more from Mr. Paolini." +471,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1BOL072ZS7CYI,C. Williams,5/8,3.0,1105056000,Good for kids only,"I must agree with an earlier reviewer... ""If you're 10 years old or younger, you'll love this book."" My 9-year-old son loves Eragon. He read this lengthy book straight through as quickly as the school year permitted, disappearing into his room for a week. I had read it first, having found it in the ""young adult"" section at the bookstore. I'm thrilled that he loves it ""as much as Harry Potter,"" but as a 44 year old SF and Fantasy fan, I can't say I was as excited. Eragon is a first novel by a young writer and does have flaws in language, description, and plot. I'm sure Christopher's writing will improve with time.While I don't think it holds a candle to the Harry Potter series, I'm happy to have found another book that will allow my son to transition from the more simplistic fantasy books (i.e. Deltora Quest series) to the more advanced (Earthsea, Lord of the Rings...)." +472,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2Z3XK5AERF4K8,Nathaniel Forrest,2/5,3.0,1131148800,"Eragon Doesn't Hit the Mark, but Close","It is amazing that a 15 year old, now older, wrote such a long compelling story. However, it reads like a teenager wrote it at times and does not stand against the imagination of Harry Potter stories and the genius of ""Lord of the Rings"". It would have been nice to see some more originality.That said, it is a story worth reading and I definitely am hooked enough to read the Eldest book. I am hoping and optomistic to see improvement by this remarkable young writer." +473,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2O9AIP4CV4RV6,"Book-a-holic ""Kelly""",2/3,5.0,1076457600,A wonderful book for young readers!,"My 10 yr. old son loved this as much as the HP books, which is a rare find. He did not critique the book, as many of the reviewers have. He just enjoyed it, as it should be. This book is not a ""literary masterpiece"", but it serves it's purpose well. Paolini gives the kids what they want...a hero, a dragon to wish for, and an exciting storyline...who cares if it's been ""done"". My son would argue against any critique, and so would I. Excellent book! We both eagerly await ""Eldest""." +474,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A14S5UJAF1R4VU,Boba Fett,2/3,4.0,1074556800,"Great, but done before","This book will probably be a favorite for years to come. Although, as others have stated, it has taken ideas from other authors. First off, the dragons, and dragon riders, just like the Pern series. Then all the characters and races are pretty much taken from Tolkien's LOTR series. And the magic, its entire basis seems to come word for word from Ursula K. Leguin's Wizard of Earthsea series. Although she probably based it on ancient myth's and legends of our world. Anyway, it is really a great book, and i suggest you read it, and the other series i've mentioned it." +475,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A25Y19K481GPNV,"Avid Reader ""Thomas Anderson""",1/2,3.0,1114560000,Paolini's attempt at Star Wars...,"Eragon is a simply written, easy-to-read novel with minimal plot errors. Young adult readers between fifteen and seventeen should thoroughly enjoy reading this book, although parents should be cautioned that at times the content of this novel occasionally leans towards violence and the grotesque, such as when the author describes a baby mounted on a spear over a pile of slaughtered villagers.The seasoned reader will find that this novel is too simple, overly formulaic and rather predictable in that it follows the same plot and themes to a greater or lesser extent as the Star Wars series. In other words, although the author has yet to confirm some of the details, the reader has been given enough information to deduce these similarities:A young farm boy raised by his (aunt and) uncle because his mother wished to hide him from his father, an evil fallen knight, accidentally receives a package stolen from the empire which leads to the death of his uncle, the destruction of his home, and a hasty flight from all that he knows and loves. The farm boy soon discovers and accepts a mentor who is more than he seems.This mentor, who was once a great knight, gives him his father's magic sword, and after introducing him to the ways of the old knighthood, willingly dies at the hands of the empire's servants to save the farm boy. This leads to the introduction through chance of a long lost, still unrealized, sibling who like Eragon / Luke is a child of a fallen hated knight. Their father, like Vader, also betrayed and helped hunt down his fellow knights.The similarities continue down to smaller details such as helping the princess escape, the evil fallen knights sword being red, a hatred of slavery, a terrible battle where our hero saves the rebellion by performing a nearly impossible task in combat shortly after finding the rebel's hidden base, and finally a magic summons to a new master who will complete Eragon's training as a knight.Paolini will have a difficult task if he decides to break from this mould now that it is set, in that doing so he will create fractures and inconsistencies between books and will leave the readers of his works frustrated at the irrelevant information that they had previously been given. In order to remain Gricianly cooperative (see Grice's Maxims), Paolini is stuck with the plot and details listed above until they are revealed or fulfilled.In short, this book has a difficult time fitting into a safe age category. It is too violent for younger children, but too predictable for a seasoned audience. If you or your older children have to read something, and have read everything else, you may want to consider this book. It certainly isn't worse than Shadow Puppets by Orson Scott Card or the endless go-nowhere Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan." +476,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A3DRWE4S17B013,"M. T. E. ""Big Tony""",9/15,1.0,1125273600,Poorly written,"What a disappointment this was!!! The story goes on and on, but doesn't go anywhere. The worst I've read. Waste of my money!" +477,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,1/3,5.0,1090886400,A GREAT BOOK. BRILLIANTLY WRITTEN.,ERAGON WAS AN AWESOME BOOK. I ENJOYED READING IT. BRAVO TO CHRISTOPHER PAOLINI ON HIS FIRST BOOK. I RECOMMEND THIS BOOK TO ANY KID OR ADULT WHO LIKES SCIENCE FICTION AND ACTION. I GREATLY ANTICIPATE THE SECOND NOVEL IN THE INHERITANCE SERIES. +478,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A3N0WXQO19LIZ7,N. Yates,1/6,5.0,1131494400,Awesome!,Enjoyable at any age - even for a 39 year old female. I loved it!!!! Can't wait to read his next book. +479,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1JHPF2HNL8MU4,N. Cook,4/7,4.0,1159228800,Slightly unoriginal yet entertaining none the less,"As said before, there is s slight resemblance to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. However it is still defineatly worth the read if your willing to start it with an open mind. I began this book, ready to criticize, knowing it was written by a 17yrold, but once accepting that, I was really able to enjoy it (especialy at the end your really drawn in). All in all, I would recommend this book, hence the 4 stars; just be wary, there are some slow parts." +480,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A8Z9CAQ4JU0ZK,"Angela Eastman ""Angela Eastman""",9/13,1.0,1191369600,What utter drek.,"I was excited to read this book, what with all of the praise I had heard for the 17-year-old that had written. How disappointed was I. This is, without an ounce of doubt, the most poorly written book I have ever regrettably paid money for. Shoddy characters, a splotchy story, and an over all plot that seems to pull from other fantasy writers that are much, much better than he is. Honestly, I cannot believe how many mistakes he made while writing his story. I just wanted to take a red pen and scribble out whole pieces of useless details.If you want to read an adolescent fantasy novel, go read The Golden Compass, or a Wrinkle in Time. Don't even bother touching trash like this." +481,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,0/1,5.0,1075939200,looking forward to Inheritance 2,"Great book! I'm impressed...and I compare everything to Tolkien, Brooks, Eddings, and McCaffrey. The best part is that he's only 19 and has lots of years and books to come! I'm really looking forward to the next installment in the trilogy." +482,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,0/0,5.0,1083024000,Astounding Achievement,"High adventure, coming of age, a ""mama"" dragon, suspense, blood, romance, fantastic events in a fantastic land: they're all in Eragon by Christopher Paolini. I'm a librarian in a middle school, and just as excited as my students about Eragon; I loved it. It was beautifully written; the different levels on which it can be read excited me. There is a real following in our school just waiting for the second installment. Bravo, Chris Paolini!" +483,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1AG04TSRAF74P,"C. R. Christley ""Book Addict""",3/9,5.0,1162857600,Absolutely Amazing - A great read!!!,"Eragon is an amazing book. Don't let the size of the book disuade you from this great adventure. This book is incredibly intriguing. A fantasy that sweeps you up and drops you into the story. I felt like I was right there on the journey with Eragon and Saphira. Definitely make time to read this book. You won't regret it! : ) Also, don't miss Eldest (Inheritance, Book 2)." +484,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A31JC6RV4951A0,That one guy,2/2,2.0,1287964800,Long winded any one,"When I was a little kid, I started and read this book, and I found it quite good, then I read decent fantasy novels. This book is so immensity long winded that if you cut it down to important details, it would have been maybe thirty pages. In addition to having a paper thin plot that anyone could guess the ""twists"" the author blatantly rips off other authors and works as opposed to creating his own ideas. The ancient language is Latin and dwarves speak german! Urgales are simply orcs. All of the characters are shallow and make nothing but one terrible decision after another. Also, the magic users in this book are super weak and whinny ""oh, I can't heal him easily, it a paper cut, better draw on my magic reserves!"" seriously, this book is nearly as bad as Harry Potter. Don't waste your time on this book if you can read above a third grade level." +485,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A3II1ACACC5MTX,Pastor of Disaster,2/4,4.0,1233100800,"""By the Gods of Kwondor, I will be avenged!!!""",". I like sci-fi and dislike that the sci-fi part of most bookshops has been taken over by stories involving dragons. And elves. Sci-fi is about spaceships and lasers and stuff. The only goblin I want to hear about is during the love interest and that's only if its critical to the plot! So I have had to generate some rules to filter prospective reads. These are:-a) Never read a fictional book that has a map at the start that features place names ending in ""or"" or with names such as ""the enchanted forest"", ""the mountains of doom"" ""the desert of almost certain death"".b) Never read one where the protagonist has a name with a ""Z"" or an ""X"" in it, or ends ""or"" unless it's Trevor. Or Ivor.c) Features dialog on the first page that sounds something like ""Prince Zandor drove his gasping steed the last furlongs up the hill to castle Gardornack. He had ridden hard for 3 days since the Battle of the Kongor Hellpots had been lost of the Death Legion of Pooglplop rode unchecked through the Kingdom of Xantac"". Or indeed the classic theme,"" By the 12 Gods of Zonkotax, I will be avenged!!!""And of course Eragon features lashings of all of the above with jam on, and little cakes around the side. The language of the book is clumsy and it indeed reads like an adolescent fantasy of some young type who really wanted to have a girl-friend and be a big hero and all of that, but he didn't get out much because he was shy and had never seen a girls boobies, so he wrote what might happened if you could order a dragon over the internet and use it to push those big bullies about at school that made fun of him being a virgin etc etc.And what happened? He took his destiny in his own hands and wrote what is still a pretty impressive book, with a complex enough plot, reasonably rounded characters and an impressive scope. Now he can probably buy a dragon, and lives in a castle with The Sugarbabes or something and has more money than I can ever dream of. Fair play to the lad.When I was 15, I could hardly finish a 2-page essay because I was too busy having girlfriends, being good at sport and bullying that little nerd down the road who kept going on about goblins and dragons and stuff.If I had a fraction of this lads stamina, my conceptual proto-novels, ""Dave Jesus Investigates"" would have turned into a multi-million selling franchise, with a film and everything. Think of it, The Second Coming in 1987 San-Francisco, with Our Lord walking the earth in the guise of a private investigator, ""Dave Jesus"", who solves cases using his otherworldly miracle power, much to the amazement of his hard-bitten side kick Stan Legions who had lost his faith after his wife and family had been killed in a tragic church collapse. I suppose I could have added a dragon or two on retrospect...Anyway. The lad has written a book, that isn't particularly original, but it is better written than many, if not most, and was readable enough for me to read the second one as well, and the missus has the last one which I will no doubt read when I have finished my grown up books. So well done Christopher, gold star and top of the class!Edit - Oh No, ""Dave Jesus Investigates has just been optioned by Kevin Coster, oh crap!" +486,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,0/5,5.0,1166745600,Good,This book is really good. I like it alot and I don't get why everyone else doesn't. I say read this book and don't listen to the other people. +487,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,AUO3I75DY0J02,FOULdragon,0/1,5.0,1359417600,A captivating and wholesome read!,"This book isn't just a book to pass the time, for those that pay attention to the minor details you can constantly be surprised by how well thought out this world is. this entire series is certain to suck the reader out of this world and entrance you from cover to cover! sometimes you read about a certain event that seems insignificant but could eventually lead to a surprising twist later in the story, I struggle not give away anything about the story so as not to ruin the experience for a new reader, but just to clue you in on how good this book is for any fantasy reader searching for the next good book I will say that over the years i have read this book over, and over, and over. As of this review, the count is up to 9 times. and I still get a thrill of excitement and weep with sorrow whenever I read it.This is a definite read for the person seeking the thrill of adventures and the avid fans of any fantasy would be hard-pressed to put this book down!!!" +488,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,3/4,5.0,1049587200,Amazing,"Although I am only 16, I spend much of my time reading and for the most part, I read only fantasy. This book has to be one of the best I've ever read - in my mind, although not as good as Tolkien, it has become one of my favorite books. I can hardly wait for the rest of the series to be released." +489,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2FCPM6HFY06YB,Robert A. St George,3/5,5.0,1115596800,Egaon,"As a kid without videogames, I read alot. So far I have not read a book as good as Eragon. This book really took hold of me and draged me into the story. It is really long but I read it in about five or say six days. Since then I have read it over and over again picking up new thing from the text as I read on.Laddy St.George" +490,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1VOYVW7Z0L7ET,Lizabeth A. Townsend,1/2,5.0,1028246400,Eragon--C. Paolini---Fantasy at its best!,"I have just finished reading Eragon by Christopher Paolini for the second time. The book caught my eye because of the beautiful illustration on the cover. Eragon was highly recommended, so I purchased it. As an avid reader of Fantasy, I can honestly say this is one of the finest stories I have read in a long time. Christopher Paolini tells a story as well as Tolkein, and I do not say that lightly. I highly recommend this book to anyone who loves elves, dragons, magic, or just a fabulous story to captivate a reader." +491,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A3NK1M3EB9G4UT,Mel G.,4/7,3.0,1129852800,Hmm.... Surprisingly familiar....,"As I was reading Eragon, I got really into it. I thought (and still do) it was a great book. However, all through reading the book, I couldn't stop thinking about how familiar the whole book was. Then during the whole Star Wars mania, I ended up watching the original 3 Star Wars movies and there was my answer. Eragon is pretty much just a midieval retelling of Star Wars. Same plot, identical characters, just different names. The worst part is that Christopher Paolini doesn't even site that he used Star Wars' plot! He mentions he based things on Lord of the Rings, but no Star Wars! I was very disappointed when I discovered this. As most people have already stated, Eragon was CLEARLY written by a teenager. I guess we can pretty much guess what will happen in the sequal." +492,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2FS38D943KX12,chefdevergue,36/45,3.0,1065139200,Imitative & utterly derivative,"OK OK, so the author is only a teenager, and I give him kudos for his initiative. However, I liken his effort to all of those romance novels that are written by bored housewives --- it is very nice that the initiative is there, but it is nothing we have not seen a thousand times before.Only the most dense reader could fail to see the obvious imitations of Tolkein strewn liberally throughout the work. Paolini may someday develop into a writer of some distinction, but for now he is a verbose imitation of the many fantasy authors that have preceded him. Even his decision to frame his story in the form of a trilogy is irritating --- how many trilogies can the world endure? Just because practically every other fantasy author has done it doesn't mean Paolini has to do it as well.Definitely, this is juvenile literature, written by a juvenile author & best left to young readers without much literary experience. Judged on its own merits, this book leaves little lasting impact." +493,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,ABNI7Z61A82R4,"R. Morris ""Rob & Matt Morris""",6/8,4.0,1166918400,A Well-Turned Tale: For Adults and Kids,"One of the advantages of being a parent is having kids who recommend books for me to read. I am pleased that my son recommended the Harry Potter series to me. Not something I normally would have read, but I enjoyed the series immensely. And now, he is enjoying the Inheritance series by young Christopher Paolini, and convinced me to give it a read. I did so, even after reading the reviews on Amazon that criticized it for being derivative and unoriginal. And while I found certain elements to be derivative, one would have to go back several centuries, way past Tolkien, Lewis, Wagner and the rest, to find a work that is not, to some extent. Most of the modern fantasy stories, the good ones anyways, are heavily influenced by Norse and German mythology, and Eragon is no exception. I do not pretend to be an expert in this area (I am a military historian) but I do know that Tolkein and Lewis also borrowed heavily from ancient legend to craft the Rings books and the Narnia series. Paolini is like a young bard who, having learned from the masters before him, sets out to create his own universe using the rubrics of northern European mythology, and I think he succeeds.I have read all of Tolkein's work, as well as Lewis's, and I found Paolini's book to be as good a read as either. Perhaps because he is less encumbered with the need to pass on the Norse legends, Paolini's narrative flows quickly and there is rarely a break in the action as the story moves foreward. The characters are well-drawn and interesting. None are two-dimensional. The main characters are living, breathing individuals with a combination of good and bad inside. Even the important villains have a reason for being as evil as they are, though I hope Paolini goes into more detail on their backgrounds in books two and three.If you are looking for a fun, fast-paced fantasy adventure, I would highly recommend this book. It's not just for kids. This old dad liked it and is now working on 'Eldest'. Congratulations to my fellow Montanan Paolini on a good read!Four and a half stars." +494,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,0/3,5.0,1176681600,One of the best books I've ever read,Eragon draws you in so that it's very hard to put it down. I like the way the book surprises you. I would recommend this book to anyone who liked the Redwall series. +495,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,8/9,5.0,1162252800,Eragon Book by: Christopher Paolini Review by: name withheld,"Eragon, a boy with a mysterious past, goes hunting in ""The Spine"" and has too find food. After losing his deer, he stumbles upon a saffire colored stone. Although he tried to sell the stone for food, he gets to keep the stone. One night, he relizes that the stone is a dragon!! After taking care of it, he loses his parents.The story follows Eragon and his dragon, and all the adventures he has.I started reading the book soon after he found the stone, because it got very intesting. You wouldn't believe how long I stayed up just following Eragon! Once you get into the book, you won't believe you've read all those pages. This book you should at least read, or at the very least, get the tapes with someone reading it. There are some words that i can't beleive that Christopher Paolini put, it's just amazing.""*sigh*,wish i found a saffire rock......wait! I have Eragon!!!""" +496,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,1/4,4.0,1141776000,Eragon the great,"There aren't any dragons around because they don't exist right?This is what Eragon thought until one strange day he found a weird stone...or at least he thought it was a stone. This ""stone"" turned out to be a dragon egg.Eragon thought dragons were extinct since Galbatorix killed them all.Eragon had to keep his dragon hidden. He had to keep it hidden for if the king found out about the dragon the king would want him captured and possibly killed.Some how the king found out about Eragon's dragon and sent his servantsthe Ra'zac after Eragon. Now the king has got Eragon on the run from the Ra'zac.Eragon does not have any other place to go except the land where the kingrules. Along the way he makes a few friends and loses some.The Ra'zac are un human like and have somehow caught up with Eragon.Now Eragon is on the verge of being caught. The book Eragon is truly magnificent.It was a page turner I could not put down. Although it was written by 17 year oldChristopher Paolini it seems as though it was written by someone as great as Avi or J.K. Rowling. So will Eragon be captured by the king? Will he lose any more friends?Read the book Eragon and find out!" +497,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,0/2,5.0,1099094400,THIS BOOK IS THE BEST,"i love this book, it is the best ever. the plot is thrilling and the book takes me into its fantasy world. It is like lord of the rings too." +498,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1Q5ZZXRIC3L66,"""mel-mel4ever""",1/1,5.0,1082764800,Awsome,I so loved this book and I highly recommend it. I couldn't put it down because I just had to see what was going to happen next. I can't wait for the next book of this trilogy. +499,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1NPVII8KCCTUE,Seth Vaught,2/4,4.0,1075852800,More Fantasy Please,"With Eragon, Paolini ventured into a flooded market of fantasy books. As many have commented in previous ""reviews"", Paolini's book does have some similarities to Tolkien and other prominent fantasy writers. But with so many fantasy books, it is difficult, if not impossible, to write something completely original. Paolini's work is obviously inspired by the Lord of the Rings, but instead of copying Tolkien's format, he wanders off into his own land, with its own history and own uniqueness. For that, I applaud him.While reading this book, I was immersed into Paolini's, characters, story and world. I began feeling the emotions that the protagonist was experiencing in the story. Is that not the job of a writer? On this level, I believe Paolini was quite successful.However, when I read Eragon as a writer reads, I see some problems with his composition. The most glaring issue is his dialogue. The dialogue itself doesn't have the punch that I would have hoped and it seems as though he tried to come up with as many ways possible to say ""Eragon said."" The true power of the dialogue should be what is said, not how it is said.Finally, I have an issue with some of the other ""reviews"" of Eragon. The trouble with previous reviews is that adults are putting adult perspectives on a book that is intended for students and kids. Overall, I would recommend this book. It is entertaining and it kept me reading. Kids looking for something to fill the LOTR void will enjoy this book; they will look forward to its sequels. As a teacher, I know that kids will appreciate this book and accept it for what it is: a good young adult fantasy book." +500,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,0/4,5.0,1143504000,Eragon : I Luv It !!!!,"Eragon, by far, was the best action/adventure book that I've read. It was kind of gory and has quite a bit of blood and destruction. Eragon takes place in a kind of midevil time with dragons, potions, witches/wizards, dwarfs, elves, and swords. Alagaesia, the empire in which Eragon and Saphera live, kind of resembles Alaska as far as the placement of mountians and oceans. Alagaesia even has the shape og Alaska. Anyway, Eragon takes a long journey around Alagaesia chasing the Razac(dark creatures that bring death and dispear, they also killed Eragons uncle)with his companion, Brom. Brom was killed by the Razac when he was found. Eragon's new companion was the son of a forsworn rider. The three(don't forget Saphera) Made their way to the varden. The Varden is a very peaceful place in the mountians outside of the empire. It origanlly belonged and was carved by the dwarfs. The finest marble and the largest precious stones that you'll ever 'see'. When they least expect it, the varden is attacked by the kull, very large and strong urgals controlled by the shade. The shade is a evil wizard like guy that Eragon must defeat. The bad thing is, the shade is the most powerful being on the planet and only 2 people in all of the peoples living days have fought aganst a shade and lived. Eragon is facing the bigest life and death situation of his life.... Suddenly, Saphera burst out of the dragon hold and distracted the shade. Eragon gets a good shotat the heart and the shades mind. He makes a stab with his sword, hits the target, and watches the shade vaporize into nowhere. The shade is dead.I reccomend this book for boys mostly because of all of the blood and stuff girls might not like, but haygirls, im not stoppin you from reading it!! Also, if you are like me and only are intrested in action/adventure series books, read on!!!!" +501,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,AXQ217TNPOHLK,"J. Marable ""Not 'the""",4/6,3.0,1125878400,A way to kill time. If you're really bored.,"Are people really so starved for fantasy that they think this book is good or well written? I can only assume that the positive reviews are from the extremely sheltered. Otherwise they would recognize the cliched and painfully predictable plot from page one. They would see that the characters are the mediocre type casting of someone with little imagination. That the ""surprizes"" in the plot are anything but surprizing.But even though reviewer after reviewer points out the obvious people continue to say that this is a highly original work. That they think it's the best fantasy they've ever read. That everyone should read this book.I will spell it out for you. This-book-is-not-good. If you are starved for entertainment, as I was, then check it out from your local library. No need to waste your money on the hardcover or paperback.Why is it bad? It is poorly written because I failed to find a single original thing in the book.First: take the characters from Star Wars. Brom is Obi Wan. Eragon is Luke. Murtagh makes a good Han Solo. Not to mention Arya as Princess Leia. Then you add dragon riding instead of Jedi training. The dragonriding is a faint shadow of The Dragonriders of Pern series. Once again, nothing new here. Add a mockery of the magic system devised by Ursula LeGuinn. Then add the monsters from Robert Jordan's the Wheel of Time series. Urgals instead of Trollocs, and a Shade instead of a Fade. The differences are enough to almost seem original. Then sprinkle heavily with elves and dwarves straight out of Tolkien. (Or is that Dungeons and Dragons?)Even all that could be forgiven if the story itself had been original in the least. But no, we are treated with a plot as bland and prepackaged as a McDonald's hamburger. No plot twist is surprizing. No character entrance or death is not expected. Reading this book was like watching a made-for-cable movie. The idea sounds good, but it just falls short in the execution." +502,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2TZP16ISULSRO,Emily,2/6,5.0,1117411200,Read it... You'll love it!,"I happen to love fantasies and was looking for a book when someone recomended Eragon. I read it, and I have to say I love it as I love Harry Potter (if not more.) I kept on wondering what was going to happen next, but I was so curious that I wouldn't have any time to guess because I would be reading it. It was exciting and interesting. The main charactor was different in the beginning than he was in the end, but I couldn't pin point any specific spot where he changed. I never would have guessed if it was written by a teenager. If you like any type of fantasy you have to read this book. Don't let anyone convince you to not read it. Read it and get your own opinion. It can't hurt." +503,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A20LOHT7X97G6P,DragonGirl,12/15,2.0,1119484800,Make your own decision. My review will help.,"Good things first, since I feel like being generous and caring. This book has its issues, yes, but here are someone things to help your decision on why to buy this book. After all, we aren't here to debate if Eragon should have been published or not.Good item number one: This book reads fast, despite its size.Good item number two: Many kids, with the number of young authors falling daily, will find this book inspiring. After all, it was written by a fifteen year old peer.Good item number three: Some kids (please excuse the following information as coming from another person) do not have the attention spans to sit and read through the Lord of the Rings. They're intimidating books to someone whose just out of chapter books.Good item number four: It was interesting; I finished it in two days. Why I gave it two stars comes next.Bad items, yes, there are many. Here's how to use this review. If the above four outway the following one, two, three, four, five......etc.....then buy this book. I'm pretty sure most kids under 12 will enjoy this book.Bad item number uno: Characters aren't nearly as devloped and captivating as most teens (Paolini's target age group) like to see. Personally, I really only cared for the dragon.Bad item number two: Relatively classic plot and execution. Left with nice plot holes to be patched poorly later.....sorry, lost the neutrality. Yes, there are some gaping holes in this book that should have been resolved more before publication.Bad item number three: The emotions characters should leak out of you is absent. in other words, if something happened to a character, I couldn't care less. If the world came to be ruled by the evil person, I could not care less.Bad item number four(corresponds with bad item number three): The author needs to do less telling, more showing...... The reason I couldn't care less is because I'm given no reason to fear or dread the stereotypical evil person. I'm only given the anger and hatred of the 'good guys', who i really don't care for, so again, I couldn't care less.Bad item number five: author trys to sound like an expert on war and battle, swords and weapons. By trying to give too much detail in cities defenses and battlements, armor, and weapons, in attempt, of course, to make it sound believable, the author does the opposite. He 'reveals his weaknesses' too much. I'm not expecting Paolini to be an expert, but he shouldn't act or pertend to be one. Writer to writer (yes, I write) Paolini, find your strengths and use them. Avoid the weaknesses, but not too much.Bad item number six: author likes to repeat phrases over an over again. Several times I read: a (scream, cry) tore from (his, her) lips. It is a nice phrase, yes, but it suffers from overuse.Bad item number seven: unlike bad item number six, author, in trying to show off his ability, UNDER uses the word said. Yes, that was a petty number seven, but it gets worse. Some of those substited words should be used sparringly, but aren't. Also, many of the alternates don't seem to fit in with the dialogue. It is okay to use said. As a writer, I limit my words to said, whisper, murmur, mutter, and exclaimed. You might never come across a 'banter' or 'barked' in any work of mine. (Except the previous sentence, of course)Bad item number eight: There are a LOT of rip offs in the story. Take Lord of the Rings setting, combine with Star Wars plot, add Dragonriders of Pern characters. Garnish with doxens of other works. No baking necessary, things don't need to blend. Congrats, you've just made Eragon all over again.Bad item number nine: Things are a little too convenient for the main character. He always gets saved after he faints or gets knoced out. I don't know if this is supposed to be a ""Alagaesia's hero is a kind of a loser who hasn't stayed awake to see the end of a fight"" but it does get annoying.Bad reason item ten: Ah, yes, one of my favorite bad items. This book is written in third-person limited. That POV doesn't allow for things from OUR world, Earth, to creep in. I do not think Alagaesia would have seen a mummy, much less know how one unravels........Bad item number eleven:I'll make this the final one. A major plot hole that keeps nagging at me. 1) dragon scales are ,emtioned to me as solid as armor, yet an arrow peirces it and goes straight to the dragon's heart, killing it. 2) dragons are mentioned to be full grown, later they are mentioned to never stop growing. Editing, bad job on that one....Yes, there you have it. If you couldn't care less about the bad items, or they are outweighed, go buy this book, though I say try the paperback version, it would be a better buy. If you're about even, go check it out from our local library or borrow it from a friend. If you are appalled by the bad items, turn away and run, there are better books to buy, and you're wasting your time reading all these reviews....." +504,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A136XGI4QC0XHH,"""bjohnst36""",12/23,2.0,1087948800,A (Self-consciously) Precocious Debut,"This book was disappointing. As stated in other reviews, it was derivative and cliché. It had all of the same elements as every other bland fantasy book, along with the extra baggage of a teen-aged writer trying to flex underdeveloped vocabulary muscle--one gets the feeling that Paolini wrote the book with his high school vocabulary lists on one side, a dictionary on the other, and classic fantasy books in his lap. The dialogue was stilted and unnatural, and the reader finds it hard to care about any of the characters because they're not well developed. One of the review blurbs on the dustjacket's back calls Eragon a ""precocious debut."" I think that's true; but Paolini's quite aware that he's out of his league, and tries to compensate for his uninspired vision by using big words as well as stereotypic characters and generic action sequences. Unless Fox makes some drastic changes in dialogue and character development in its upcoming film adaptation, the movie will flop due to poor critical reviews and snickering, exhasperated audiences. Hopefully the rest of the planned trilogy will improve the story and make ""Inheritance"" worth the readers' time and money." +505,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,1/3,5.0,1179619200,what makes this book so interesting???,"Eragon was an ordinary fifteen-year old boy living with his uncle Garrow and his cousin Roran in a farm outside of the small town of Carvahall. When a stone magically appeared during a hunting trip to the mysterious mountains, which are known as the spine, his life was about to change forever. Bringing the big beautiful blue stone with him, Eragon had no idea what this stone was! He tried to trade the stone for meat whith the butcher, when the butcher found out it was from the spine he would not trade because it was said that the spine was haunted and anyone who when in there never came out alive,,except eragon!" +506,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,AGEXAZRBMBQBJ,"Eric Palmer ""the loner""",5/7,2.0,1211500800,A Galaxy Not Far Enough Away,"I don't know why everyone is so blind! Allow me to shed a little light. This is Star Wars with dragons!!!! Everytime someone mentions this book, I keep hoping they'll see the connection, but they don't. Any fan of that famous galaxy far, far away will be astounded by Christopher Paolini's lack of shame. He might want you think this is a homage to Star Wars, but I know what a homage is. When you change the names of characters and places, but keep the plotline and pretend its a different story, then its not a homage, its a rip-off!!In the story, the land of Alagaesia is ruled by a tyrannical Empire (an obvious theft), and the only hope is a band of rebels known as the Verdan (Rebellion), and the last remaining dragon rider (jedi knight). That hero happens to be a young boy living in a poor household, and whose adoptive parent eventually gets killed (oh, come on!!). He is taught to become a warrior by a retired rider named Brom (Obi-Wan Kenobi). There is also an elf maiden named Arya (Princess Leia), who gets kidnapped by the evil Durza (Darth Vader). I can go on and on.Still, it is entertaining to read because you are always curious as to how these books will sink with the movie (not the Eragon movie). Plus, it's hard for me to put a story down. I'll be happy when I read the third and final book because then I'll finally be able to toss the whole trilogy away." +507,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,ARMVAHWQQ9S8A,"Pat Shand ""Pat Shand""",0/1,4.0,1149638400,"So Many People Hate It, So Many People Love It","Christopher Paolini's ""Eragon"" has its supporters (""who is a fan of fantasy books will absolutely enjoy Eragon"") and it's naysayers (""heavily disappointed by the weaknesses in plot, character development, and language... annoyed at how often your favorite authors appear in borrowed and poorer clothing""), which inspired me to ignore the hubbub and just give it a try myself. Admittedly, by the fourth chapter, I was weary. There was hardly any dialogue, and while the imagery was vivid, some of the descriptions went on into overkill. However, this was not enough to feign my interest, because by the time Saphira (the dragon) was introduced into young Eragon's life, I was intrigued enough to commit to the lengthy novel. This was a good choice, because by the time Eragon is preparing to leave home and go on his journey, the story has picked up quite and bit and became thoroughly enjoyable.Eragon's journey with Brom, the old storyteller, is a fascinating and touching part of this fantastic epic, though no relationship in this book can be compared to that of Eragon and Saphira. She calls him little one, for God's sake. Very cute, and successfully shows that the dragons in the world of Alagaesia are not beasts, but magical creatures that may even be mentally superior to humans. The rest of the story, including the foreshadowing of a budding romance between our hero and an elven woman, an escape to a sanctuary (the Varden), two tragic deaths, and a war between good and evil.This book kicks off The Inheritance Trilogy with a bang, and overall, I have to say that this piece of work is a great book. Not only that, I must say that I envy the young Paolini for his mastery of the English language, as well as his vast and seemingly endless vocabulary. My one complaint, other then the somewhat slow start? Eragon falls asleep and wakes up about a million times over the cores of the book!Forget what everyone else says, pick up ""Eragon"" for yourself, and keep an open mind. You'll enjoy it!8 out of 10" +508,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,0/5,5.0,1143763200,Cool Book!!!!!!!!!!,Eragon is a book about a boy and his dragon friend Sapheria. They travled around helping people with Eragon's power of bein able to talk to dragons. I got this book for Christmas a few years ago. I never knew how great it was. My dad was amazed that a 17-year old collage student could write a 600 page book. But three of thim is amazing. I loved this book and reccomend this to anyone that loves dragons and lore. +509,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,9/9,1.0,1108080000,Well...,"All I can see in this book is a rip off of several fantasies that I can name off the top of my head. It's very predictable and that made it rather unenjoyable. If he maybe put a few more years into it, he could have written it better. Well, by the end of the book we don't have any clue what the main character's hair color is, yet we know the ground is glistening white with snow. Right? It has no sense of location or time and is very poorly woven." +510,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,AJ4GQZCXU0ABP,Dustin Taylor,2/3,5.0,1027987200,An outstanding writer,"Eragon, what can i say. It is one of the best books I have ever read. It has action, romance, mystery, and always kept me guessing. Unfortantly I am one of those people who sits in the movie theaters and shouts out the story line before it happens and it is suprising, not to mention embarssing, when I am wrong. Eragon was one of those books I should tape my mouth shut for. This book combines the both a well thought out story line that is interesting and a world fully created and decribed by Christopher. Reading Eragon is like being straped into the seat of a F-15 and hitting the after burners. THe only thing i wish was that i didnt have to wait for next book , but it will be worth it." +511,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A37O1OP6BYVWKE,Bill,0/2,5.0,1335139200,One of the best books I've read,"Now, before moving on, I would like to say that Paolini borrows a lot of elements from The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and other books the author himself explains that have influenced him. He is no match for Tolkien's superb writing style. However he started writing this book out of his love for fantasy back when he was 15. He didn't try to cash on other peoples success; he wrote the book because he enjoyed writing. Money and fame came much later. And because of that, despite shared elements with other great works, his book is an original story that especially young readers will enjoy." +512,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A3RK7WHOXBE5OA,Wityshyn,2/2,3.0,1229644800,"Good, not great.","I am writing this as I wait with little anticipation for the final book of the inheritance. I agree with some of the other reviews that this book is just too similar to many of the other dragon/middle earth type fantasies. On the other hand, if you like that kind of thing, that isn't much of a deterrent.My biggest issue has been that while the first book was good enough and easy to plow through, the second one was a little drier and the third was an endless dragging on of every mundane detail. It does include the full saga of a revolution which of course entails more than a one-battle victory, but Paolini might as well tell you everytime Eragon sneezes or picks dirt from his fingernails in between. You can't fault him for leaving anything out, but I found myself glazing over, waiting for the plot to pick up again. In addition, the writing itself is not challenging, but then I believe its only intended as entertainment. I don't think that there are too many characters or places to follow (especially with a map insert to follow for fun), but I do feel that most of the characters are underdeveloped. Unfortunately, Eragon is the worst. Three books in and I am still waiting for a personality to emerge. On the converse, I suppose it is a device well recognized in anime illustration, where the main character is a nondescript as possible to encourage the reader/viewer to relate. I just wish he was more of an inspiration, role model or hero.All that being said, the first book is not bad. The plot is interesting enough and I don't know too many young readers who could read it and not imagine what it would be like to be that special kid selected by destiny to be a great dragon rider. If this is your genre, go ahead, pick this book up, but do so in a paperback. I'm afraid this one falls a bit short of becoming a timeless classic." +513,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A29WIY3HH4UXWH,"Over The Rainbow ""Whyrens""",3/3,5.0,1182816000,Very Entertaining,"I enjoyed this book quite a bit. While it is a bit derivative, the way it was written is entertaining and there are enough original components to keep you interested." +514,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1CH7RKCX5W2C5,"N. Bernadsky ""ski429""",28/41,5.0,1091923200,Nothing New Under the Sun,"Okay people, give Christopher a break. Of course it's been done before. EVERYTHING has been done before, especially in the Fantasy and Science Fiction genre. There just aren't a whole lot of options here. (Trust me, as a writer, I know.)I happen to think that Eragon is very well written. Mr. Paolini has an astounding grasp of dialogue and sets a scene better than a lot of authors old enough to be his parents (if not his grandparents even). His characters have depth, including flaws, and come across very three-dimensional instead of the paper cut-out roles I've read in many similar novels.This book is well-paced. It doesn't drag despite the distance and time covered by the characters. Mr. Paolini's fantasy world is well-constructed and believable.There is plenty of action, although it lacks a lot of the gore that Fantasy authors tend to fill their pages with. Not a bad thing at all from my perspective.I am looking forward to the continuation of the series, and whatever Mr. Paolini may have up his sleeve in the future. He is a swiftly rising talent, and I expect we will see a lot more of him." +515,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A3SHS5Z8PFTTP1,B. Sharp,0/0,4.0,1354406400,Love dragons - love high fantasy - read this one!,"Truly enjoyed this book. This was the second time I have read it, but it has been a few years. Was refreshing to reread and realize that I liked it as much the second time through as I did the first time.The characters are fantastic and the plot exceptional. Well worth the read! I am hoping to find time to finish the rest of the series now that I have refreshed my memory of book one." +516,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A35P8FNOQRH0NL,"""myreviewisbetterthanyours""",1/5,5.0,1073520000,Eragon,"This book was just plain hard to put down. I consider myself a ""Fantasy Weenie"", but this book is way up there with Tolkein and C.S. Lewis.Right away you can tell this book has been mostly influenced by Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. This did not distract me as much as I thought it would. As much as retards want to hammer Paolini for ripping off Tolkein, you can't help but love the book.Anyone who ever read a fantasy book and liked it, I would recomend this book to them.TRY IT" +517,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A3THGQ6RPVTHD1,Robert W. Ceyanes,0/5,5.0,1131494400,Eragon (Inheritance Book 1),Enjoyed the book very much. I have already ordered the next book in the series. +518,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A38ZV63MQIIIAP,Jan Sturn,13/31,1.0,1089072000,"Ah, youth.","Amazing? The best book ever? Incredibble [sic] writing? Ahhh...to be young and stupid again! These youngsters will probably be ashamed to remember their bright-eyed, glowing praise for what is not even a sub-par fantasy knockoff when they get older and discover real fantasy. I read this to my kid. I was ashamed to have finished the book, even in that capacity. He lost interest about 1/2 way through--I lost it much earlier. I guess you can't blame the kids for their poor taste. I listened to the Monkees when I was younger ;-) Consider ""Eragon"" the Monkees of fantasy novels....it looks pretty but their isn't much there when you actually stop and pay attention to it." +519,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2FS38D943KX12,chefdevergue,26/35,2.0,1088035200,Attack of the mutant modifiers,"I eagerly opened this book and excitedly began reading it. After a few excruciating minutes, my wife walked by quietly.""What are you reading?"" she asked curiously.""Eragon,"" I replied discouragedly.""Why do you sound depressed?"" she inquired inquiringly.""Every other word is a damned adverb or adjective,"" I replied irritatedly.""That could be a problem,"" she replied knowingly.""Yes, it IS a problem,"" I muttered angrily. ""Nobody simply DOES something in this book, they have to do it DESCRIPTIVELY. (...)""""One might say his writing is rather prolix,"" she observed sagely.""Actually, I like the word prolix and I even use it from time to time, but yes that about hits the nail on the head,"" I declared emphatically.""How much shorter would this book be if some editor hacked off all the deadwood adjectives & adverbs?"" she mused bemusedly.""Probably about 100 pages,"" I replied speculatively." +520,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,3/5,5.0,1133222400,Eragon book one of inheritance by: Christopher Paolini,"EragonBy: Christopher Paolini""A wisp of smoke curled in the air, carrying a burnt smell. In the center of the blast radius lay a polished blue stone.""Eragon was just an ordinary boy but when a dragon egg fell into his hands his world turned upside down.Eragon's uncle was killed by the Ra'zac. He wanted revenge so he left Carvahall. He traveled all over Alagaesia through the mountains, forests, and deserts.Brom found out about Eragon and Saphira and went with them on their journey. Along the way he taught Eragon about fighting and using magic.Later Murtagh joined Eragon on his journey to the Varden. On the way they discovered an elf, and encountered a shade and urgals. But when Murtagh reveals something will he be trusted anymore?There was war between Alagaesia. Eragon had to solve the problem, but would he choose to join the Varden or Galbatorix.This book was really good. It was always suspenseful. I would recommend this book to anyone who likes fantasy.This book is the first in the three book series." +521,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A320J2VGBP8ZGF,optimistic girl,2/8,5.0,1093824000,One of the best!,"Very enjoyable book.when u start reading u can't close the book.after u finish reading it ,all u talk about is Eragon .I can't wait to c it on screen.Waiting to read eldest..." +522,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2AHLB4E82GC8T,Dani H.,0/0,5.0,1321228800,an excellent book,"The book Eragon was written by the American author Christopher Paolini. Christopher Paolini began writing the book when he was just 15 years old and he published it on 22 April 2004 in the United States.The book tells the story of the 15-years-old Eragon, who lives with his uncle and his cousin in the small village Carvahall. Someday he finds a mysterious, blue stone in the mountains. Eragon attempts to sell it and therefore he takes the stone to a trader specializing in jewels. But the trader says to him, that he has never seen anything like this before. Soon afterward Eragon realizes that the stone is actually a dragon egg and as it hatches into a dragon he names Saphira. After a few days two mysterious strangers enter the town looking for the dragon. Saphira leaves the town with Eragon and while Eragon is away the mysterious strangers kill his uncle and put his yard on fire. On his return Eragon meets Brom the village storyteller, who wants to flee Carvahall with Eragon and Saphira. At the evening Brom explains to Eragon the situation, in the process he says that Eragon is the last Dragon Rider. A long time ago the Dragon Riders were peacekeepers with magic skills, but then the evil king Galbatorix has killed them and now this evil king wants to kill Eragon. On their journey Brom helps Eragon to discover his magical abilities, but they are lured into a trap of the evil forces. Brom dies and before his death he reveals that he was once a Dragon Rider and that his dragon was murdered by Galbatorix. Brom advices Eragon to find the ,,Varden"" (These are rebels who are fighting against Galbatorix). When Eragon finds the secret hiding of the Varden, Galbatorix sends an army to this place. A battle that everything decides is coming...I really enjoyed reading the book, because the story is very exciting and the characters are well presented. Furthermore Christopher Paolini describes the imaginative world very precisely so that the reader can easily imagine the landscapes, the persons and the buildings. I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who enjoys fantasy, because I think that this book is one of the best I have ever read, once you pick this book up you will not be able to put it down until you finish it." +523,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2D22X7ROZ5IQE,Olesja Lapteva,4/5,5.0,1021852800,A star in the making,"WOW! If Christopher Paolini keeps writing books like Eragon it will only be a matter of time until his name will be mentioned with the best fantasy writers out there.The story of Eragon is captivating, the characters very real and fascinating and I just adore his writing style. It is very rare nowadays that a 15 year old (now 18) has such an extensive vocabulary.This is a book every fan of fantasy writing must read. No, I take that back, everyone that likes to read a well written and well thought through story must read this book. This book is definitely a five star buy...." +524,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,1/2,5.0,1179446400,"""Best book I have ever read""","If you like a great book about fantasy and dragons this is the book for you. I guarantee that it will grab your mind and make you not want to put it down. The story is told in such detail that you would think that you were actually there watching it unfold. This is what made me read it from the beginning all the way to the end, and I don't even like to read.The story is the journey of a 15-year-old boy named Eragon as he runs from his sad life and creates a life on his own. He then finds a blue rock that eventually hatches out a baby dragon. Eragon and his new companion travel across a continent into the Unknown. He always has his enemies right on his tail. But he somehow always manages to escape their grasp and away from danger. The whole story has you sitting on the edge of your seat waiting to see what will happen.The author Christopher Paolini did a fantastic job with the storyline making it a non-stop action filled book. The book was so good that it was made into a movie, but the book is 100 times better than the book because the movie didn't even go by the storyline. The book may look huge but the reason for that is because of all of the great writing and action that is needed to make it such a great book.Eragon will be the best book that you will ever read. I guarantee it." +525,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1G814XQ983UP5,"Idril Fefalas ""Christine""",4/6,2.0,1119225600,Too Early,"When I first saw this book and what the title was, I thought, ""Eragon? Sounds a LOT like Aragorn..."". Nevertheless, I read the book and I loved it for it's easy to understand writing and plot...I still think that with time and experience, Paolini could shine because he DOES have potential, but he shouldn't have written so early. Perhaps he needs to grow into his talent before he writes because although his writing showed promise, there were WAY~ too many similarities between his book and LOTR, SW Trilogy, etc...I felt like I was reading a fusion of the above mentioned fantasies (a quite MESSY fusion)...I'm quite sure you all know what I am talking about. If not, just read the other reviews.All in all, I am disappointed because of paolini's TOTAL lack of creativity. Hopefully he develops his OWN plot in the next book of the Inheritance..." +526,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A20NRFX7FDRWH,Imperial Book Man,6/7,5.0,1069804800,An Authentic Adventure from they Eyes of a Boy,"This book is a fresh perspective on fantasy. A teen-aged boy finds a dragon, Saphira, and sets out to avenge the death of his uncle, battling the forces of darkness along the way. The best part -- this book was written by a boy who is about the same age as the hero, Eragon. The result is authentic storytelling.Eragon, the main character, grows from a naive hunter to a budding Dragon Rider with the powers of magic. Knowing that Paolini started the book at the age of 15 gives credence to his view of the loss of a relative, young love and crushes, oppression of well-meaning teachers, and the looming dark forces of evil kings and wicked sorcerers. The result is striking. This book gives readers a peek at how teenagers feel about the world around them, which older and more powerful people control, not unlike the perspective of most teenagers.Other reviews that pooh-pooh Eragon should cool their heels, get over their jealousy and realize that this book is fresh and entertaining. Some have said that Paolini has 'ripped off' other fantasy writers. They have somehow forgotten that the genre of fantasy -- the world of elves, dwarves, dragons, and wizards -- has been well developed by previous writers, most notably Tolkien. Those who pick up the torch of fantasy story-telling need not recreate that world, which makes it the perfect playground for young writers such as Paolini because they need not remake what has already been mapped out. The same is true of writing about the mafia in New York City, for example. The skyscrapers, taxicabs, and gun-wielding thugs in dark coats need not be recreated. Paolini chose a perfect subject to launch his writing career on because he can legitimately rely on those masters who have already created the fantasy realm.Finally, the critics of Paolini betray their jealousy too easily. Anyone who has written a novel or short story and has tried to sell it knows that there is a sea of self-involved souls who view other writers as competition and take every opportunity to tear down others on the way to success. They cloak themselves in the skin of creative criticism but they possessed by the spirit of If-I-Can't-Publish-Neither-Can-You. Do not listen to those that attack Paolini because of his age. They are merely frustrated after years of trying to publish their own boring works, and now are enraged that someone so young could find success so early. Well, more power to Paolini. He has given us an entertaining read and a new look at fantasy from a fresh perspective." +527,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1XH2M30WR30Q7,"T. Krolick ""tom149""",5/10,2.0,1125964800,To put it more succinctly.....,"There is nothing innovative in this book. What was innovative of Tolkien, LeGuin, and Mcaffrey has been regurgitated in Eragon. It is remarkably well done for a teenager's mimicry of greater works, but will remain just that. Mimicry. Two stars instead of one because it was readable." +528,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A19W8STM5AFD52,Tharani Loganathan,10/12,1.0,1130544000,a dissapointing read,"I bought this book before I knew it was written by a 15 year old. The story is a sorry hodge- podge of the favourite fantasy authors, but without the in- depth character creation or story , that one would expect. I'm sorry to say that mid-way I had started skipping pages ,to get through faster. Anyway it was not all bad, the beginning at least had promise, even if it didn't follow through. I will not be buying the sequel, but hopefully with time,maybe a decade or so, and a good editor, Paolini would be writer to watch for." +529,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,1/1,5.0,1076716800,I COULDN'T PUT THIS ONE DOWN!,This book is 500 pages long and I read it in 5 days. Putting the book down was impossible and I took it wherever I went. Even though the book is kind of a copy from LORD OF THE RINGS it still will get you hooked. I recommend this book for ages 11 to adult. Interesting turns are always happening to the characters. If you can live through the semi-boring first 40-50 pages you will love this book. +530,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1RWFYBR2LSBTB,"""xxchingchingxx""",14/18,1.0,1075939200,Not enjoyable,"They say that I should like this book. I love J.K Rowling and J.R.R. Tolkien - the perfect gift you'd expect. However, as I read the first chapters, I found myself being needled with the feeling that I had read something similiar before, and it was better then. As I read more, I became bored with the whole thing. The whole thing was so predictable and unoriginal. I thought it sounded like a English class fantasy assignment gone crazy. I have read books that definitely took ideas from other ""original"" fantasy authors and managed to like them a little. But in Eragon, it was so OBVIOUS. Overall, I thought it was something you'd praise on the fanfiction level, but it shouldn't of been published. Glad I borrowed it instead of buying it." +531,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1JG7N0JJKI0M4,Jessica A Warren,0/1,5.0,1359331200,Great story,"I am not a fantasy buff. Did the author borrow from other writers of his genre while writing the Inheritance cycle (Eragon, Eldest, Brisingr, and Inheritance). Maybe. I can't say. What I can tell you is that this is a great story no matter whay type of books you usually like to read. It has adventure, action, fantasy (dragons, dwarves, elves, magic, etc.) war, love, mystery, and much more. You can really melt into this series for a couple of months and enjoy something new, if like me, you haven't read many fantasy books.When I am choosing a new book to read, what I really want to know is will this bring me entertainment? So here is a reviewer who is saying yes it will. Is this book worth the purchase? I think so.The writer was young when he began writing the series, so you might find some things about his writing style to pick at, like the fact that he drags things out a little too long and gives a bit too much description in the wrong places, but over all it is well written and tells a great story." +532,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A12TDWLN3ZUMY1,"""twilliams66""",2/2,4.0,1073001600,"Very familiar, but fun nonetheless.","I probably wouldn't have bought this book for myself, but when I got it for Christmas and had some free time on my hands, I figured, ""What the heck"". Right out of the gate, you can see where Mr Paolini's influences lie. All the standard elements are in place and ready for action. People with strange names, creatures with strange names, places with strange names. Extraneous apostrophes cavort with their umlaut buddies in all sorts of unexpected places. The good guys are attractive and the bad guys are ugly. Very black and white stuff. It's the superficial elements of Tolkien, Pratchett, Zelazny, McCaffrey and a host of others, all crammed into a single volume. I kept reading anyway.Before long I was rewarded with character development, a deepening plot, and a very readable writing style. So readable, in fact, that by 5:00 the next morning I was eagerly awaiting the next installment. When it hits the stores, I WILL buy it for myself." +533,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A3TU8C62NQLNYG,Margaret Hemric,1/5,5.0,1111190400,Wonderful Book,"As a homeschool mom, I am always looking for good books. This delightful book was great to read aloud to my children. I got a little too into it and had to read ahead. My 9 year old decided to to the same. It was clean, well written and definately a page turner. I would recommend this book to all ages." +534,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A38O4UFW0DCNG6,The Last Mango,2/6,2.0,1087171200,Eragon- A Story I've Heard Before,"First of all I'd like to congratulate Mr. Paolini on publishing a book at the age of 19. That is an incredible feat, which would be more remarkable if the ideas portrayed in the story hadn't already been used. Sure the captivating story of a young boy who is lost in the world and is just trying to figure out his place is interesting, but the interest tends to fade about the one-thousandth time you read it. The other flaw that I found in the book was the familiar characters from J.R.R. Tolkein's Lord of the Rings Trilogy-The elf with mysterious powers-the dwarves that tunnel underground-The monstrous creation of a seemingly unbeatable army and the familiarity of names such as, Arya and Arwen, Eragon and Aragorn, Urgals and Orcs. I also observed a dash of Harry Potter magic between the pages. I hold a love for Fantasy novels, but just because it is catagorized as a fantasy doesn't mean it has to include elves dwarves, magic, and dragons- I think the tires on that wagon are running thin (the extreme length of the story didn't help either). I look for a fantasy novel that invents new ideas and new creatures for the mind to explore, that it why I rated this book as a TWO. I also like a novel that can keep my attention for the entirety which Eragon also lacked to do. So I would only reccomend this book to someone who really enjoys the same old thing, all you other adventurers look for your entertainment elsewhere." +535,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2SV5JPVTBKP60,ira a. rosenberg,1/6,5.0,1211587200,Eragon,"This book is amazing. I love the expression shown and how you can easily visualize everything.I couldn't wait to read the sequal. Now that I read Eldest, I'm even more interested and I feel that I want Brisnger to come out now." +536,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,16/27,4.0,1068681600,Yes its cliche but GIVE IT A BREAK,"Sure, all you english know it alls can go off and tell us about how cliche the book is. You're completely right! The book is a total cliche, but not every single piece of literature must be bursting with new well thought out philosophical ideas and exciting new story lines. The kid wrote it when he was 15. 15! In my opinion that is an amazing thing to accomplish. You can't expect a Tolkien level book from a 15 year old kid who hasn't even been alive as long as most well known authors have been writing. Sure there are tons of ripped off names and ideas (i.e. Tronjheim. Ever heard of Trondheim, Norway?) but that does not make this a bad book! I personally like just sitting down to read an entertaining story, and this did just that. All you cynics need to calm down and appreciate the story for what it was written for. I doubt the author set out to change the world of Fantasty writing when he began this, and the book should be judged accordingly. In my opinion: not a waste of my time." +537,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,0/2,5.0,1139443200,Eragon,This book is one of my favorite books that I have ever read. It was so suspensful. There was a lot of action scenes. I bought the second book and I can't wait to read it. +538,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2H50I8Y6XZ8KR,Raza Ali,2/2,4.0,1088640000,Entertaining ... but I see where people might not like it,"Considering his age when he began this book, it is well written. It is entertaining, and kept me interested for the most part. There were parts that did ultimitly bore me, but overall, I enjoyed it.I noticed, like others have, some of the characters are very shallow, I he spends to much time introducing to many new characters, that the reader gets lost trying to decipher each one's personality, and in the end, this leads them to be somewhat 1-dimensional.There are exceptions to this of course, but it seemed like a prominent problem throughout the book.The other thing that dissapointed me was his basic photocopy of many of his ideas from Tolkien's Ring Trilogy, and McCaffrey's Pern books, but I attribute that to his young age. Overall, I enjoyed the book, and would recommend it, but do not expect to be dazzaled by a brilliant fresh new writer. Remeber, he was young, and was still searching for his voice. He can only get better with time ... or so we hope." +539,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,6/7,3.0,1074470400,Good book but immensely dry at times,"My friend let me borrow the book ""Eragon"" not too long ago, and I finally started reading it. I must say, if you like fantasy, you will definately like this book. And the first thing you will notice is that it has every aspect you can think of, or at least recognize, from other fantasy and sci-fi novels - common ones in fact. This leaves the story dry at times, as Paolini tries to rush into things, especially at the beginning. It seems when you read the first few chapters, you've already read half the book. But his writing is wonderful for someone so young to be published, I must give him credit on that.But things that caught my eye is the way he practically excerpts other fantasy books, most of which you may have read already. Reading about trolls, dwarves, and elves and the ""Ancient Language"" was practically cut from Lord of the Rings, and even by just watching the movie, everything that relates is clearly evident. Also, I am a huge Anne McCaffrey fan of her Dragonriders novels, and I felt a bit strange to see it ""ripped off"" so to speak...He speaks of ""Dragon Riders"", as of course the main character (Eragon), goes through the similar process of obtaining a dragon as ""Dragonriders of Pern"" novels write, and McCaffrey's books are practically a legacy. Simply, Eragon finds a ""rock"" (it's really a dragon egg) that hatches into a dragon and connects ""mentally"" with his mind, ect. Brom even explains the dragon chooses the person, and all of that seems directly taken from the Pern novels. A bit different, all in the end.As good as a writer he is at his age, there are still things that he needs to work on. I'm not a genuis writer myself, but you will find yourself baffling at times when a random comment/explanation comes up in the middle of an unrelated conversation, which leads to more and more unrelated ideas. It seems Paolini put more ""information"" into his characters rather than personality, which leaves it bluntly, DRY. You will quickly get over his ""saids"" and ""dids"" at first, and become used to the over-under descriptiveness, or the more/less detail needed for a certain situation. But the book is great, and will keep you reading for a while (as thick as it is).Final conclusion - not for hardcore fantasy readers. I'm not even a hardcore fantasy reader, and I still feel like I'm reading 10 books at once, all ideas taken from other books (Tolkien, McCaffrey, ect). It's not necessarily a ""fresh"" new fantasy world with beliefs, ect, but certainly enjoyable to most." +540,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,AWZSDEMVQKPW1,J. M. Galloway,2/2,4.0,1136678400,A Surprise!,"While I don't profess to be an expert on Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels, I did enjoy this book. My husband and I have created a habit of me reading aloud to him in the evenings. We started just before HP6 came out, going through the whole series in just over two months. Since we have finished that I have been looking for another series to read to him. One of our 17-year- old's friends let me borrow Eragon, knowing of our tradition and liking for this style of reading. Despite the sometimes juvenile feel, it was a wonderfully cozy book. Congratulations to Mr. Paolini for his courage to write his book. Who better to write a book about a young man coming of age while having to make adult decisions, than a young man.To those critics who don't like it, fine. Just remember, he will only get better with time and experience. Give him a chance." +541,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,1/4,5.0,1069372800,"The Lord of the Rings, for Kids!","I am pretty picky about the books I read, but this one is a winner! It started out pretty weird, but by the time I got to the end of the second chapter I was hooked. Eragon is a book written in the calibur of Lord of the Rings (I don't consider myself to be exaggerating one bit), but not as violent, and better for younger audiences. I'd recommend ages 13+, not because of content (though there is some violence), but because younger kids might not be able to understand some vocabulary. I must warn, you, though, the end left me in suspense, and I can't wait for the next book in the Inheritance trilogy: Eldest." +542,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A83EBDBWC6C8P,Sam,2/2,4.0,1075248000,Exceptional Plagurism,"Eragon is an amazing story and it's incredible to think that a kid could have such an incredible personal voice. Before you start thinking that I didn't like the book-remember that I really did enjoy it. However, as a huge fan of the Harry Potter series and a fan of The Lord of the Rings, I could not help but notice numerous parallels. The characters for starters: Eragon-name that sounds like Aragon (the hero in The Lord of the Rings) and has a very similar destiny as Aragon's. Also, Eragon closely resembles Harry Potter-two confused teens who are of low self-esteem and are having trouble accepting their destinies as two of the most powerful people in their worlds. On the other hand, the Shade is akin to Saruman (LOTR), Golbitrox to Sauron (LOTR) and to Voldemort (HP), the urgals and the kull to the orcs, etc. Furthermore, the theme of Eragon and LOTR is incredibly similar in that a fellowship go and try to rid their world's of evil and establish justice, peace, and prosperity.If you are able to get over these parallels among countless others, then read-I certainately got over them and was enveloped into this kid's epic tale." +543,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,8/10,1.0,1087430400,Shameless stupidity,"Stupid, moronic, idiotic. I'm twelve. This is the stupidest fantasy I've read in a long time. You other young readers make me sick." +544,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,2/5,4.0,1078704000,Definately a Worthwhile Read.,"I picked this book up out of curiosity and a couple of friends' reccomendations. And while I have to say, yes, at the beginning one cannot help but think about Tolkien and compare the two (it's inevitable), but after the first couple chapters, I forgot all about the comparisons and got into the story for its own merits. There are many ways to depict a struggle between men, dragons, elves and dwarves without 'ripping off' Tolkien. And Christopher Paolini's mythology of the Dragon Riders is absorbing, as is the the wonderful relationship between Eragon and his dragon Saphira. I found myself racing to the end of the book, and I can't wait for the release of Book 2. So read it for its own sake, not because people say it's a take on Tolkien. I promise you won't be disappointed." +545,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,1/3,5.0,1301443200,AWESOME!,"Everyone at my school who read this book gave high praise to it. I must say they were right. I finished this book in 5 days! It was utterly suspenseful from the first word. From the first word, I was caught by the book as if it were a magical spell, and 3 months later, after being gone reading it, I'm still under the spell, because the characters are unforgettable. In truth, I must say this book deserves a 100 out of 5, but sadly 5 stars is the highest I can do." +546,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,1/5,3.0,1123891200,"I'm the kid right below me, too","Yes, that's two reviews, but I apologize for the other one sounding so lame. A lot of the content got edited out, not that it was really that bad....hence the [...] everywhere...Basically, it just said that Kenneth shouldn't be talking about his own book that way. Its rather conceited and arrogant, I'll say. He is entitled to his own opinion, but he doesn't have to share it and use it as a marketing scheme to bring attention to his own book.I hope this doesn't get edited out again....On to Eragon, again. I liked it once, and it has a few very good ideas and some cool characters..." +547,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A10G7H6P5NOA5S,atransparenteyeball,6/9,2.0,1075680000,Wow,"I recieved this book for Christmas after hearing a lot about it's 19 year old author. I originally thought wow, a nineteen yearold writing fantasy awesome, but then I started reading it. WOW this is a piece of crap. I'm going to assume that Chris has read a lot of fantasy, and because of this has been influenced by the books that he has read to the point that he is lacking any original thoughts at all. The only reason I'm giving this book two stars is because he is 19 and he needs props for getting a book published (even if his family oned the publishing company) when he is so young." +548,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2LDLBYSYPUURT,"""hananim""",11/24,2.0,1055462400,not believable,"This book was a bore. It was too unbelievable and never really captured my attention. So eragon finds a dragon egg, big deal. It has an unbelievable ending to a simply bad book. ..." +549,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,AYTX622FY3LFB,A Customer,0/1,5.0,1262304000,awwwwsssssoooomee,this book is the best yet in the inheritance series and i have read brisingr and eldest and both are really good but eragon is the best out of the first three and hope the forth one is even better i hope the series keeps goimg and have murtagh be the person they kill because he took galbatorixs throne and the characters have to deal with a whole new array of prolems!!!! ps this is the best series of book i have read in six years since the harry potter series. +550,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2BSOBYKLGRPJK,Paris HIlton,6/9,1.0,1112140800,ewww!,"This was one of the worst books I have ever read. The plot was quite interesting, but the way it was wrtitten was horrible. It dragged on and on about unimportant topics and was extremely boring. The action started around the two hundreth page. I would definitly not recomend this book." +551,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1VPS4QJ86Q9VX,"Hawkin Noosters ""The Bomb""",1/4,5.0,1109548800,Amazing,This book is very well written. It had me on the edge of my seat the whole time. Amazing. Read the next book as soon as it comes out! +552,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A36X89SJXM8XPN,VaDogLover,1/3,5.0,1186099200,Great Book,"My nephew Nathan says: ""I think that the dragons and the dragon riders were cool. I also liked Durza. Overall, it was a really good book. I highly recomend it if you're really into magical beings""." +553,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A3H0E8O3NN549Q,_________,2/13,5.0,1107388800,15!,"Dear faithful browsers,I have yet to actually read this book, though I plan to start tomorrow. All I know is the regardless of the sheer quality of the literature, I will regard the author with utmost defference and respect. He has achieved literary success at such an early age, and my salutations are unceasing.Continue your browsing!sincerely, anonymous" +554,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,0/5,5.0,1281484800,Awesome book!,"I am not much into reading, but I can't put it down. Only 130 pages in and it's my favorite book. Can't wait to buy the next two!" +555,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2O77FOZDYWBRI,"""reganaxp""",1/1,3.0,1075334400,Fast moving - but very familiar,"Granted that this author is young and his writing style has not been fully developed as some other authors. I can think of some other authors who's early works are more stilted and whose plots are just as ""tired"" as this one. Also, many of parts of the book are painfully reminiscent of other authors: Tolkien, McCaffery, and possibly Lackey or McKiernan.But overall, who is to say that for a first time book that it was all bad? I think that if Mr. Paolini stays with writing that he will mature in hiw writing style and have a fruitful career. There are so few ways to deal with ""fantasy"" plots that there is going to be repetition of ideas between authors.Overall, this book was a nice diversion. A classic? No. Very few fantasy books can be categorized as classics. Is this book going to be on my top 10 list of all time? No. But is good enough that I am looking forward to his next book so I can see how he can deal with his version of this fantasy plotline." +556,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1D0XRFSK5QKZM,Mark Twain,13/22,1.0,1109894400,"I have ""A NEW HOPE"" for your book Paolini","Thats right, ""A New Hope"" from Star Wars. Paolini did little more than copy the plotline of Star Wars exactly. He is also the only one I know who uses 7,000 synonems for said. This is amatuer work. This book is not up to the game. Poor and overrated. Two thumbs down and one star." +557,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A30HZQGNXI3KHA,A Customer,0/2,5.0,1294963200,Outstanding,I have read hundreds of books in my lifetime and this book by far is one of my favorites. It will make you want to keep reading until you have remembered the book from cover to cover. You will not regret reading this book nor will you get boared with only half finished. +558,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,10/11,2.0,1074211200,He needs an editor . . .,". . . not a thesaurus. In the first few pages, I wanted to duck to avoid uninteresting flying adjectives. And you can't use the word ""stuff"" in a fantasy novel. And fantasy characters get sick. They do not throw up.I'm excited about the fact that this book was written by a teenager, but I don't think we should ignore the rules of style and usage (and plot) just because he's 19. There are some mature ideas in the book (e.g., Eragon's discovery of his own mortality), and some of the passages obviously thought-out (good description of a battle scene -- not easy to do), but the characters'actions are inexplicable (people show up in places with no explanation of why they are there; characters express strong emotions or sarcasm that has no connection to the content of a conversation) and the language is . . . what a 15 year old thinks a fantasy character would say. In general, the writing is distractingly unsophisticated." +559,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,19/32,5.0,1074470400,Archetypal? But great!,"I'm almost finished with the book, and I love it! I've read a lot of fantasy books, and I can see what the less enthousiastic readers mean by ""archetypal"" and ""traditional Tolkienien"".What I go for though, is a book I enjoy and captures my imagination. Not per definition something new or cleverly wrought, but utterly boring to read! After all the reviews I read it with a critical eye, but until now I just love it! I am totally immersed in the story and the world Paoloni has created, and looking forward to the time I can pick it up again. I recognize a lot of themes and parallels with other fantasy stories of course, but still I think Paolini gives them his own twists to keep you interested. There are also enough new things and inventions, though not shockingly so, it'll keep you interested but comfortable.I think all fantasylovers will enjoy this book, and I am looking forward to the next one!" +560,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,AL8XKB126Y6XZ,Mrs H,0/0,5.0,1346889600,Book beats movie,"I watched the movie of this and thought it was alright, so I bought the book and got through that in few days. Was so much more than the movie if your into magic, dragons and fighting then this is the book for you!" +561,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,ACX80IV6CGBZ0,Gagewyn,3/7,3.0,1116460800,Like reading mediocre fanfic,"The big draw to Eragon is that it was published by a young author in his teens. That seems cool, especially for a teen or preteen audience. However, the obvious problem with Eragon hits like a brick wall. In high school I had friends who wrote fan fiction for whatever fantasy series was currently popular. Eragon reads like that fiction. The language is stilted with layers stiff sounding words. It has long words but doesn't flow. The plot is also soooo predictable and derivative: dragons, magic, etc. All the cliches are there and the author is taking them seriously, not putting them there to build up a cliche and then knock it for comic relief (no comic relief in the book by the way). Plotwise imagine a lifeless parody of fantasy literature.Now coming from your friend's notebook during recess that is fine and if a friend wrote this and asked me for pointers I wouldn't bash them. There is a huge difference between reading a published book and reading something a friend passes to you. Different expectations will leave you disappointed unless you are a proud parent or close friend of Chris Paolini.An aside on teens writing fiction: The Distant Soil series by Colleen Doran was published in installments starting when she was in her teens. That was an intricate and well done fantasy series by a teen (although perhaps not suitable for teens).I recommend that you find another book to read. This book will waste your time. Read reviews to find a better fantasy book. If you are looking for a book to give as a gift to a teen or preteen then there are definitely better choices. Look elsewhere." +562,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1H8O04VGCJ3M1,Jennie,0/2,5.0,1035676800,Eragon,This book is one of the greatest books I have ever read. I would rate it 5 stars. You can tell that the author took a lot of time and effort into his book. Its great. Buy it! +563,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,AV1KYJXHOWPMD,"N. HAGAN ""Anime Brothers""",1/2,5.0,1166572800,Very entertaining read. STAY AWAY FROM THE FILM!,"My title says it all. The book is great (no matter how unoriginal it is) the movie sucks eggs. This book is well written and actually entertains you. The crappy film butcher's the book and totally changes the characters so that they have nothing to do with their book counterparts. Give this book a read, you'll love it. But, stay away from th hack job movie." +564,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,3/7,5.0,1148256000,The Forceful Journey,"My book is Eragon. It's about a young boy who finds a stone in a forest called the Spine. It eventually reveals it's not a stone; it's a dragon's egg! Owning a dragon makes a lot of trouble for Eragon. It gets several people killed or hurt. He then realizes he can't live a normal life and embarks on a journey with a village storyteller, Brom. Brom teaches him to fight in sword and magic. Telling anything past this would be a spoiler, so you'll have to read it for yourself.My favorite part of this story is when Eragon and his allies, the Varden, fight a war with the Urgals, which are human like except they're bigger. I like it because it is fast paced, full of swords and magic. This is especially true when Eragon fights a Shade, which is basically a possessed human. It's a fight between two skilled swordsmen/magic users, so it'll keep you on edge until the other is dead. This conquest over the Shade gains him the alias ""Eragon Shadeslayer"". That is why it is my favorite part." +565,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A8GU4S1KRDK7,Tommy Wallace,1/1,4.0,1081382400,Awesome book!,"I think this book will appeal to readers of all ages. I have a neice who is 11 years old who read and loved it, while I am 30 and I loved it also. It's a great and fun read, and I would recommend it to any fantasy lover. He needs to work a little on Character development, to really get the reader in touch with the characters, but other than that the book is excellent." +566,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,0/2,5.0,1081814400,Great Book,"This is a great book. I will not listen to anyone bashing this book unless they have written one themselves. So what if the name 'Eragon' is similar to 'Aragorn' of Lord of the Rings, people in the real world have similar names too:Zac-Zack. This is a good book that envolves dragons, magic, elves, and dwarves so what show me a fantasy book that doesn't. But Christopher brought a new life to all of these characters. This is a great book and i have yet to read a better one." +567,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A3MT45E59NRJJY,STEPHEN WEBER,0/2,4.0,1208390400,OK,"This was a very well-written story with an intricate plot and believable charecters. It wasn't the best book, because it lacked realistic dialogue.4 1/2 Stars." +568,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2FO7TO2JBOFO2,Karen D. Lewis,1/3,4.0,1136592000,Interesting enough...,"For readers who like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, the Inheritance series is an experience very similar, thus inevitably enjoyable. Going into the story, I knew how young its author was, adding to the difficulty for gathering maturity from the plot. It has excellent vocabulary, some words I've only heard in the most developed novels, but the dialogue itself between characters lacked a sense of... personality. It felt very young to me when the characters would speak to each other, like Eragon, Saphira, and even creatures like the Ra'zac. It was a great read, one I couldn't put down, but it was very unoriginal to me. It is impossible to dislike the series because of its relatives in fantasy, but it really isn't anything new." +569,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2QMMBGZFFKYYN,Caitlin N Murray,3/4,5.0,1072915200,Worth your While,Eragon is one of the best fantasy novels that I have read in a long time. It keeps you on your toes and leaves you begging for more when its done. I believe that this book is good for young and old readers a like and that the second and thrid books in the trilogy will be just as entertianing. Christopher Paolini has achieved in writing one of the greastest fantasy novels of our time. I would highly reccommened this book to people of all ages. +570,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,AM6HTWTF68AOT,"Veronica, just an average reader, you know?",3/5,5.0,1167264000,"A fast paced, absorbing read","While I am no book critic, I will say that I highly enjoyed this book, and began to re-read it almost as soon as I finished it. Despite the bad reviews some people gave it (which mostly reveal a certain jealousy at the thought of a teenager writing a successful book) I decided to give the book a try, and I'm glad I did. I couldn't put it down, and enjoyed both the story and the characters, which in my opinion are very likeable and very human: all of them have their own background story, flaws and virtues and powerful motives for their actions, even the villians. I also sincerely appreciate how the author avoids a VERY common trap that most fantasy authors fall in, which is to spend endless paragraphs describing everything down to the last detail, even the things that aren't relevant to the story itself. I can't describe how annoying it is to read a book where nothing happens for pages and pages as the author devotes a multitude of words describing things that could perfectly be left to the imagination of the reader. Kudos to Mr Paolini for telling a story straight and not losing its focus! I already ordered 'Eldest' and I'm quite looking forward to it. If you enjoy fantasy, give this series a try!" +571,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A253R6IVZMHXT2,Dan Bloch,11/15,1.0,1080864000,"bad, bad, bad","As we all know by now, the author was fifteen when he wrote Eragon. Whoever he showed it to should have said, ""This is a great book, kid. You should become an author when you grow up!"" But instead they went and published it.Aside from the beautiful cover, the book has almost nothing to recommend it. There are nearly no original elements. The characters have no personality to speak of, except for the dragon, who is smug. The action is patently unbelievable from paragraph to paragraph--I remember one scene where Eragon draws his bow and fires an arrow behind him to kill an opponent who's chasing him, and I finally quit reading when he was able to beat one of the best swordsmen in the world, left-handed, after only a few months of practice since growing up as a farm boy." +572,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,1/2,5.0,1083024000,One of the best new yarns in years,"This book immediately jumps into the pantheon of outstanding epic fantasy stories. I read this book with my family - wife, daughter 15 and son 12 and we all loved it. In the best heroic tradition, he has created an entire world with carefully crafted history and back stories, characters who remain true to their part throughout and an adventure that grabs hold of you. Can't wait for book 2 in this trilogy." +573,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A14K2TTRL6O30O,LW,0/6,5.0,1284508800,This is amazing!,"This book is gripping. When you pick it up, it is nearly impossible to put it down, even if you arent supposed to read it at the moment!" +574,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,ALU8NZVZ5ZY9O,AstraeaAntiope,14/16,2.0,1126569600,"Something Old, Little New, A Whole Lot Borrowed, and a Dragon Blue","I just returned from a summer working as a camp counselor, and I'd heard great things from my campers about Eragon so I decided to give it a shot. Fantasy is one of my favorite genres (lots of McCaffrey and Tolkein) so I had high hopes despite the fact that I had actually not purchased the book earlier because the jacket design looked rather childish. I had no idea until halfway through the book that Christopher Paolini started writing Eragon at 15. I discovered this, however, because I had gotten frustrated with the writing and needed to take a break, so I read the author bio in the back.He was 15 and boy does it show. If I had to describe the book in three words they would be repetitive, derivative, and undeveloped.Repetitive- How many times can this flipping kid Eragon fight someone, pass out, and wake up safe and sound in a warm bed soon after? It happened so many times in the book I literally threw it on the floor in disgust at one point. It was like playing an RPG!Derivative- I know Paolini probably couldn't help himself and didn't know he was doing it but he has blatantly copied storylines and lore from some of the best authors in the business. Though having grown up with McCaffrey and Tolkein it can be hard to imagine the realm of fantsy in any terms other than their own. The relationship of men and dragons is straight McCaffrey, I am absolutely certain that the third book will contain a ""Luke, I am your father"" moment with Eragon and Galbatorix, and the Kull are so derivative of Tolkein's Uruk-hai I have actually called them that while discussing the book with my father.Underdeveloped- Good lord. The writing. The characters are so undeveloped, and until about halfway through the book (when I suspect his mother began helping him) Paolini showed absolutely no inclination to include scene-setting details or incidents that don't advance the plot but do flesh out the story. He just goes from fight to fight to fight, with nobody having truly compelling reasons for anything they do. What is worse is that he is not very good at describing the fights themselves, so they all run together. His foreshadowing is glaringly obvious (I use Brom's true occupation and the uses of the really big slide to illustrate this). He fails to evoke empathy for his characters, and he even wrote in a mommy and daddy to usher Eragon through the story (Saphira and Brom). The first half of the story, before the dramatic shift in writing style (but unfortunately not plot development) reads like a story my brother wrote about a spy when he was in 7th grade.Incidentally, given the colors of the gemstones he named in his description of Tronjheim, the city-mountain sounds exceptionally ugly.He also failed to create a nuanced, compelling kingdom or distinct races. All the names across every race sound similar, different races' languages all sound the same...the only difference is their physical descriptions.All this being said, I do not think he is a bad writer. I think he is merely inexperienced. It is obvious from his writing that Paolini did not spend much time out of his bedroom as a child, so he has very little by way of experience to bring to his novel. His characters are so pitifully developed because he really only has the emotions and responses he has observed in himself and his parents to draw from. I think with a little time and a lot more real-world experience he could be an excellent fantasy writer.I wouldn't recommend this book to a discerning fantasy reader, it is my Dad's opinion that at the ripe old age of 20 I could write something better, but for a younger boy it would be just the thing." +575,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1PSQPJM3R8GL2,Ken,0/0,1.0,1334275200,Sucks,"Eragon was the worst book I've ever read in my life. The concept was stolen from Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. He didn't even add anything new to it.There's a difference between paying homage to something and outright ripping it off. I believe that christopher paolini should be in prison for copyright infringement. He ripped right off Star Wars, which itself wasn't even that good. If you're going to steal ideas, steal GOOD ideas.Okay, I take it back. I've read books far worse than Eragon (for example, maya angelou's books all suck). But that doesn't mean that Eragon should be given leeway. And he shouldn't be given leeway just because he WAS a teenager. Lots of teenagers write great books. For example, Nancy Yi Fan, who became a bestselling author at age 13.I know it's a bit late to post about Eragon, but for those who are about to get into it, I strongly advise you to stay away from this ""novel""." +576,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2ZGGCUIK0CDU9,jeri hurd,16/19,2.0,1170633600,Very derivative,"Having just finished reading Eragon I thought I needed to write a more objective review than the, I'm sure, glowing reports, already on Amazon. Only to find, Lo! The previous review says exactly what I wanted to say. Had this been written by anyone but a 17 year old, it would not receive the volumes of praise being heaped upon it. As a 20 year veteran of the high school English classroom, this is exactly the sort of over-the-top, rehash-every-trope-I've-ever read sort of fiction I'd expect my creative writing students to turn out. As Paolin matures and develops the confidence to travel into less well-known, more imaginative, territory, I'm sure he'll turn out some interesting fantasy. As it is, anyone who has read the fantasy canon will experience deja vu repeatedly as they make their way through this novel. One can argue that most fantasy is derivative--Tolkien borrowed from the various world mythologies, for example--but the very best fantasy carries a depth of tone and meaning simply missing here. Paolin has taken all the fantasy motifs and plot elements (the quest, the sword, the wise elder with a secret past, the dragon/rider bond (stolen from McCaffrey in such a blatant way I'm surprised she can't sue!), etc and simply strung them together with no consideration for the more archetypal meaning. And the writing style is that of the above-mentioned precocious teenager, with its purple prose and loaded adjectives: ""He found a sympathetic Rider, and there his insidious words took root. By persistent reasoning and the use of dark secrets, he inflamed the Rider against their elders. Together they treacherously lured and killed and elder. When the foul deed was done, Galbatorix turned on his enemy and slaughtered him without warning."" I was laughing so hard at this point, my fiancee asked me what I was reading. Suffice it to say that, when Galbatorix wins his showdown with the good dragon rider by kicking him in the groin (excuse me, ""the fork of his legs"") this becomes not epic fantasy, but farce.Having said all that, if it gets kids to read, more power to it. And maybe they'll then move on to the really great fantasy: Tolkien and LeGuin and McKillip, and Kay, among others. Paolin is trying to fill big shoes; given time, I hope he can. Good fantasy is hard to find." +577,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,0/4,5.0,1099008000,BEST BOOK EVER,"i thought eragon was an amazing book. although i think he copied a lot from lord of the rings a lot of parts were different. its about a boy named eragon who becomes a dragon rider with his dragon saphira. when tragety hits eragon and his family, he and brom the storyteller must go against all odds to get revenge on the ra'zac. their quest started as a journey for revenge, but became a struggle for life.liza age 10 mass. usa" +578,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A33R2Y97JQ63N6,"Tesa Marlow ""Tess""",0/1,4.0,1128816000,Can't wait to read the next one,"Bravo to the author. This is a great first work for such a young novelist. Although clearly borrowed from Lord of the Rings, what great fantasy isn't? Paolini does a great job with personifying the dragon in this novel and making it a thoroughly fleshed out, likeable character. I enjoyed the changing landscape, all the characters, and the story concept. Will definitely read the next books in the trilogy." +579,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,AH1UOF41H53BW,Irish Mike,3/8,5.0,1134432000,Best fantasy ever,"This is one of the best fantasy books I have ever read. It is a perfect book for the fantasy lover. Personally, I read it all in one sitting, just couldn't clolse it. When the next Inheritance books come out, Christopher Paolini is going to give Rowling a run for her money. LOOK OUT HARRY POTTER!" +580,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A3T5M135WS7MCZ,Whimsical Impulse,0/4,3.0,1088035200,Considering his age..,"This is a very good book, considering the age at which it was written. I'm in agreement with others in that the poetry bit wasn't the best I've ever read.. perhaps some more creativity and thought should have been put into it. For the most part, the characters are believable.. however Brom does leave you wondering, even after the ""loose ends"" are tied up.I did find this book hard to put down, and I am looking forward to the next of this series; I'll definately read it. But I do hope it's a little better put together than this one.." +581,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,ALF73HBA3PCSL,Johnathan,0/1,5.0,1356912000,Loved this book!,"I was very happy with this product. With just mild shelf wear, this was the best money i ever spent." +582,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,2/7,5.0,1123200000,You should check out this other review,"I completely agree with this other reviewer. Her/his name is Dragon Quill and her/his review is titled 'Eragon Exposed'. I'll say again, I completely agree. The five stars is for his/her review. You should check it out, its about on the next page...I give Eragon four stars. Its not perfect, but it got me to love reading. My friends have always acted as if I'm abnormal because some of them are reding freaks and I just like video games. They begged me to read this, and now I love reading, and have read so many other books, and i owe it to Eragon.If a book is read, and its good enough to get me to LOVE reading, then it's a success...that's pretty much what Dragon Quill said....." +583,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2K7JJRDB7RHKY,"Ara Lyman-gregg ""araautumn""",6/7,3.0,1137024000,entertaining for a young reader,"Maybe this will be a book that will get a child into reading? That being said, if you are a parent and your child likes this book please provide your child with more quality reading than this. Mr. Paolini is obviously precocious and has read a lot of fantasy but he does not have the emotional maturity to develop complex characters. If he had been able to do this, the formulaic writing could be less obvious. I have read a lot of fantasy and junior fantasy myself so I may be more critical than the average Joe. If you get this book and like it, great! Read more books!For example, try the Dark Is Rising series by Susan Cooper. They are within the age group Paolini is aiming for. They are truely wonderful and underrated." +584,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,2/5,5.0,1074124800,AWESOME!,I love this book so much! My mom got it for me for christmas and I can't put it down it's so good. I would definitely recommend this book to fantasy lovers. It has a lot of words and creatures you would'nt understand... that's why I love it! Plus at the end of the book there's a language dictionary for the book. Definetely worth checking out. +585,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,0/1,5.0,1082764800,I Loved Eragon!,"This exhilarating book is about Eragon, a destitute boy who goes hunting in the jagged mountains to get food for his family. Eragon finds a blue rock, and tries to sell it for food, but before he manages to, it hatches into a sapphire-colored dragon, named Saphira. When alien-like creatures, called the Ra'zac, kill his family, Eragon decides to get revenge on the Empire. Along the way Eragon and Saphira have many breathtaking adventures. He meets an aged man, named Brom, who teaches him magic and swordfighting. He gets an ancient sword with a destiny of blood. He gets captured by the Empire, and escapes with an Elf. At the end of the book, he joins the Varden, a band of people bonded by the will to defeat the Empire.I liked the book because it was very creative and it had innumerable imaginative ideas. Christopher Paolini's descriptions were perfect - I could see the story better than if it was a movie... It was as if I were really there. (...)" +586,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1D0OHKHC9PZQ9,ANNETTE B THORNTON,1/2,5.0,1082505600,wonderful book for the juvenile soul!,"This definitely was my favorite book ever. It has the feel of The Lord of the Rings, and the touch of Harry Potter, making you beg for the sequel. It has the well rounded ability to change settings from a mountain, to a plain, to a desert, to a mountain. Deadly brutes called urgals, possesed men known as shades, a disorientated race called the raz'ac, and an an insane king named Galbatorix,constantly stock Eragon, and constantly refresh your supplies of suspense, and adreniline. And then finally the climax explodes like a vaccant rocket that was just launched through the air, and falls back to the earth. I sincerely hope you buy this prtoduct from Amazon.com because it is worth every penny." +587,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A34VV92TSLC37R,Adam Craig,3/4,5.0,1136419200,An enthralling adventure,"Christopher Paolini has created what is destined to be the Lord of the Rings equivalent of my generation. Yes, there are many similarities, but on the whole, the story is very original and, most importantly, wildly entertaining and engrossing. The book pulls you in from the very first paragraph of the prologue, when we are introduced to a character called a Shade (can't wait to see him in the movie) who is chasing after an elf in possession of some sort of precious stone. The meaning and purpose of the stone can be found within the amazing 497 pages of this book. The characters are great and you find yourself either rooting for them, crying for them, or hating them (in a good way). The best part about this book is that it is only the first of a trilogy, and its author is only 21 years old, so there is much more to come from Paolini. Quite simply, if you are a fantasy fan, you cannot go wrong with Eragon. It is destined to be a classic." +588,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1IK3AFKFORHR5,"Tamara Harrison ""Andrew""",1/9,5.0,1137196800,ERAGON ROCKS DUDE!!!!!,"It is the best book I've ever read! I could not put the book down. I like that it was based on the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. I thought the dialogue was great. I thought the characters were very creative. I like the names of the cities.Overall, I'll say again it is the BEST book I've ever read, and I highly recommend it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" +589,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,4/4,3.0,1078099200,Awfully familiar....,"In this book, Luke Skywalker, um, I mean, Eragon, raised by farmer on the edge of the [Galactic] Empire but of uncertain (but surely noble) parentage, is trained to be a Jedi Knight, um, I mean, a Dragon Rider, by a former Knight/Rider, Obi Wan Kenobi, um, I mean, Brom. Eragon wants to be a Knight/Rider because he can then fight the powers of evil, including the Emperor and his half-human minion Darth, um, I mean, Darza. Eragon must go off on a quest to avenge the murder of his parent, which leads him to dwarves who are good at tunneling, and elves who have retreated from the world of men and who live beyond the sea but are very good at making swords. He also meets up with orcs, um, I mean, urgals, and super-orcs called uruk-hai, um, I mean, kells, all of whom need to be directly controlled by an evil mind or else they fight aimlessly. During this quest, Eragon also learns how to be a wizard and to do magic by using Tolkienian Middle English or quasi-Celtic phrases instead of Harry Potter�s Latin, and by aiming his wand, um, I mean, the special mark on his palm, in the right direction. There�s basically nothing else to this, but boys 9-12 will love it." +590,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,ACVUKS0VV4LYC,Deidre H. Bell,2/2,5.0,1070668800,Great book - Cannot wait until the next one!,"Eragon is a fascinating story of a sixteen-year-old farm boy that comes upon a magnificent blue stone while hunting for food for his family. Unsuccessful in his hunt, Eragon wanders back to his hometown, Carvahall, trying to sell the blue stone for some meat. When his trade is refused, he takes his stone back to his house. That night it hatches into a baby dragon! He attempts to keep the dragon secret, but is somehow found out by an evil adversary.Soon enough, Eragon finds himself on a magical quest with the aid of his dragon and an old ""storyteller"" named Brom. They are on a hunt to seek revenge on the evil that has taken something from Eragon. Something that he had a great affection toward. Throughout their journey, Brom teaches Eragon of his purpose on ALAGASIA. Eragon learns how to harness his new powers with Brom's help. With Saphira (Eragon's dragon) and Brom, Eragon learns of what he must do to stop the evil running through the land.This book is a real ""page-turner""! With the exciting plot line and great character development, I couldn't put it down. Christoper Paolini creates an excitng story filled with engaging battle scenes and great descriptions of the landscape. It seemed like I was traveling with Eragon and felt his emotions through the entire story. I especially enjoyed flipping to the maps on the inside of both covers to follow Eragon's wandering path through ALAGASIA.I cannot believe a fifteen-year-old could write such a gripping tale! He excellently portrays Eragon and shows how he matures from a farm boy to a young man who learns a great deal as his adventure progresses. Paolini shows that all the choices Eragon makes will affect him (positively or negatively) in his future. Paolini is a mastermind and better hurry up writing the next book in the trilogy. I cannot wait!" +591,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A3FBLYST3IYA7O,Helen Cooper,0/0,5.0,1352505600,Great read,Page turner interesting characters that you wish to see what happens to them all . Will have to read the series +592,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,2/3,5.0,1122940800,Eragon Rocks!!,"ERAGON is a gripping story that I think is creative, absorbing, and it gives you a sense of being in a different world, following the steps of Eragon, Brom and Saphira.Eragon is a teenaged boy livingin a time of Kings, war, dragons, elve realms and magic. Eragon is hunting along the Spine Mountains, when he comes across a blue sparkling stone, a big one at that. The stone is a mysterious item and gives Eragon the fright of his life. So begins the quest of a boy, a dragon and a storyteller.This book has a strong plot is nailbiting and very enjoyable. It empasises love, death, courage and magic.I would reccommend it for anyone over ten years old and up. Boys, girls and adults will LOVE this book, a lot!!!" +593,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A1THVBDB353E1P,.,6/11,5.0,1117584000,My favorite book!,Don't listen to the people who are giving this 1's and 2's. This is the best book i have ever read! If you like fantasy books you definately have to read this! +594,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,1/3,5.0,1103673600,Eragon Shadeslayer,I was nine when I first read this book. This book is a great fantasy book. It is a great influence towards the imagination. I can not wait for the second book to come out. Though this book is probably not good for 7 and under because of some of the disturbing details. Though it is your choice parents. i would go to the store and buy this book immeditly +595,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2SCC8W318CA4C,"J. Llewellyn ""xx""",0/0,4.0,1221955200,Surprisingly good...,"I actually didn't think I'd like this book, I was always aware of it, but I put off reading it for ages and ages.I ended up picking it up because I kept seeing the series in all the bookshops, so I decided to just give it a try.I actually really really enjoyed it. It was a very easy read, very engaging. The characters were interesting, and the plot had a good combination of high and low moments.I had seen the movie previously - but it was long enough ago that it didn't influence my own internal images while reading.I was very keen to read the second in the series after completing it." +596,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,A2WIZO4KS4W139,thecynicalone,7/11,2.0,1138060800,"Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away... wait, wrong series",I'm surprised that nobody was ever told to use the force. +597,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,ADRP3DOWV3JVB,"James DeSantis ""Elevate""",3/6,5.0,1133395200,Person below doesn't know what he is talking about.,"Problem with today is people go into books way to much finding everything bad about it...Sad it is. So i wanted to get this out to people who are still wondering if it's worth picking up the book or not. Yes pick it up, i enjoy this book very much, almost done now. If you want a nice read and want to sit back and enjoy then this is your book. I am a fan of both this and Harry potter. I like them both almost equaly." +598,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,1/5,5.0,1070236800,ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE!!! READ IT!!!,"This is probably the best book that I have ever read. And I've read lots of books. I'm waiting and waiting for the next in the trilogy to come out. It shocked me to see how such a young person (age 15 when he started) could write such a masterpiece. I've never read anything that had such imagination put into it. Unlike Harry Potter, they don't just say words and stick there wand out, they get drained of energy which adds a whole twist to the story. Everything about it is amazing. Christopher, you're incredible. Thank you." +599,B000J521DU,"ERAGON: INHERITANCE, BOOK ONE.",,,,0/1,5.0,1041984000,Eragon (Great new book),"Of all the books I read last year this one was the most exciting. The only 3 to come close were by some pretty famous authors like Melanie Rawn, John Marco, and Robert Jordan. The difference was this book was just so hard for me to put down that I read it in just 3 evenings. I would highly recommend this book to anyone looking for a little something new!" +600,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A3C2A3D2KG1F1A,Steven,4/4,2.0,1264377600,"Went in with high hopes, came out disappointed.","I feel almost guilty giving this book a review like this, it is hailed as a classic and usually when I read books that are considered classics I can see the many strong qualities that put them on the 'classic' pedestal. But I must be honest, I'm not going to make this book sound better then I thought it was simply because it is considered a classic. The only redeeming quality this book really has is the overall idea and like many reviewers have already pointed out - the idea is good, the execution of said idea is quite lacking.This story follows Guy Montag, a fireman. Unlike the firemen of today, these firemen burn books rather than put out fires. The world has become a dystopian society that favors pleasure over reality. We almost have a 'stepford-society' of sorts. Critical thinking is said to create sadness and conflict so something must be done about it. The books must be burned.In Fahrenheit 451 Montag has an epiphany after talking with his light-hearted neighbor Clarisse. Clarisse represents the very thing this society is trying to rid. Guy Montags wife represents the opposite. You can already see the conflict here, so what is Guy to do?I'll admit the first 40 pages or so really had me going. The story was unique and the message was interesting. I did notice right away that Bradbury likes to be overly-poetic in some parts, and a straight-shooter in others. His writing is a little inconsistent but I was able to look past that. At first I really hated Montags wife (a good thing, when books conjure up these types of feelings then they are doing their job) and I really felt empathetic towards Guy. The problem is that this book really started becoming silly. The characters really become forced and the plot as a whole takes an eye-rolling turn for the worst. The ending is one of the most forced endings I've ever read. This book could have been written a million different ways and Bradbury chose a really silly path. I had to force myself to finish the book and I started to lose my feelings towards the main characters, I just started to not care anymore. It's almost as if Bradbury had a good idea for a short-story one day and forced it into a novel.In the end I would give this book a 2.5/5. There are some interesting ideas and some of the writing is pretty good, though it is inconsistent. Unfortunately I can't give half-stars so it's either a 2 or a 3. Tough choice but ultimately this book was more on the disappointing end of the spectrum for me." +601,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A3LRYY6WO5DGLS,darkcooger,2/2,5.0,966556800,Should Be A Requirement for EVERYONE!,"Ray Bradbury is amazing. Fahrenheit 451 is an amazing book. So amazing in fact that I did my senior research paper on it. The plot is about Guy Montag (protagonist) learning about censorship and the death that accompanies it. The symbolism is very deep in this book. For example, the story mentions burning books, which is linked to destroying knowledge. Through intricately woven twists, it becomes apparent that Bradbury wants us to realize that knowledge and individuality are the keys to being alive and that when those are lost, regardless of our medical condition, we are dead.The obvious theme is of course censorship, but if you're willing to read it carefully and give some serious thought as to what's being said, you can see a much deeper message. This book should be required for admittance to society. Read it. You won't be disappointed.And don't pay any attention to those negative reviews - they are the people that this book talks about: the morons in our society who don't see the folly of ignorance." +602,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A1OI9N09GGF34M,Jacqueline D,2/4,2.0,1067212800,Fahrenheit 451,I first read this book in my L.A. class at school. This book has many meanings tied into it. Fahrenheit 451 is different then what I usally read. This book has so many hidden detals in it. In this book I can acutally see our world now ending up like the world in this book. The author of this book was brillant to make up a world like this. The main character Montag was great I could realt to him and put myself in his shoes that's what I like so much about this book. If I didn't read this book in class I probably would never read it.Hi Ms. O!!!! +603,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,,,2/14,1.0,931392000,A very disturbing book,"I thought this would be a interesting look at the future, and since it's heralded as a great classic, I decided to read it. I'm sorry, but this book is just DISTURBING. I couldn't even bring myself to finish it. The plot was confusing, the characters were dull, and the idea is to horrid to contemplate. The "hero", Guy Montag, is a strange man in the beginning, and becomes a fugitive murderer later on. Unless you want to see an awful, bleak look into the future, DO NOT READ FAHRENHEIT 451!" +604,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,5/6,4.0,1099526400,"Farhenheit 451, Jessica H's Review","I believe that the book Fahrenheit 451 was very well written and very interesting. Mr. Bradbury made the book have a lot of good vocabulary for a 12 year old to learn. This book is one of the better books that I have had to read in school. Prior to reading this book I never really liked science fiction books. This book has changed that dramatically. It also taught me fun facts like (before reading this i didn't know) paper burns at 451 degrees. WOW if a book can just do that, i don't even know why people would ban them in the future. LOL :)" +605,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A3LCSQ4G4Y54C8,anonymous reader,1/1,5.0,1334707200,Changes the way I see the world.,"At first it seemed like a stretch, but the more I read, the more I realized that this book is telling the truth about society. People dictate the way we think using the media. In the past, everything reflected truth and reality. Now, everything goes deeper and deeper into nonsense to the point that the truth is not a value at all. This book helped me to realize that." +606,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,ADSUGT5QDUY7N,Sawsees,2/2,4.0,1303862400,Fahrenheit 451 Review,"The beauty within Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 comes from how it begs you to look at the world around you. The futuristic society depicted by Bradbury in the 1950's is almost frightening because of how closely it resembles the world that we live in now. We have filled our lives with technology and arguably have become more removed from society than ever before. Instead of sitting on the porch and conversing while watching the sunset or listening to crickets we tend to turn our television sets and let the propaganda and the garbage be forced down our gullets. This book opens your eyes and paints the picture of a very feasible and very scary future and it forces you to be aware of what is happening around us.I have read positive reviews from people who love this book and also reviews from those that think it is an overrated piece of garbage. When forging my own opinion of this book I look at the messages that Bradbury seems to be trying to convey and how well he does that. I have found that the most acclaimed message in the book is that propaganda and technology are poison to the human mind. The book creates a world where human beings have been hollowed out by these things and have become nothing more than automated drones seeking only entertainment - and to be free from worry and woe. Bradbury has said that the theme of his book is that television takes away the desire for people to read and appreciate literature.Aside from the previously mentioned theme - I feel that the most spectacular part of this read is the satirical society that Ray Bradbury has created. I feel the message goes further than television eats away at your mind. I found that the most significant message in the story is that technology as a whole is dangerous to us. The book illustrates how technology has people moving faster and faster and becoming detached from each other (comparable to real life). People in the society only care about what is on television, or about driving a 100 Miles Per Hour, or going to amusement parks. Families are not close-knit; people send their children away to school and never really know them. It seems that every person in the world around the main characters are completely empty and do not care about the well being of anyone. This is one of the most interesting points of analysis that I have found in this book. Comparing this to how people are becoming in real life. It is almost hard to admit how similar our world is to the horrible place from Bradbury's imagination.I cannot say that this is the greatest book that I have ever read, but I did really enjoy it. Fahrenheit 451 is one of the most thought provoking stories that I have ever read. I find it to be extremely interesting from cover to cover. It is a book that you can read several times and come away with different ideas and messages each time." +607,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,2/3,4.0,1179619200,Steady Blaze,"This is an excelenent book about book censorship and its tale still fascinates the mind today as much as it did when it was written in the 1950's. This book however i should notice reads in some parts more like a poem then a novel, sacrificing plot and dialogue for poetic beauty.The characters in this book are very deep and realistic leaving a haunting feeling on you, however interestingly he doesn't actualy spend much time actualy describing them, but somehow from the story you can draw so much more than you would from a description, however short or indepth it may be. I suggest this book as a standard reading for all people who wish to understand what the world could (and inevittably is) comming to." +608,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A2QMIV44WDUDMI,Sean,0/2,3.0,1068076800,Confusing,"Fahrenheit 451 is a book with a lot of confusing symbolism between good and evil.Reading the book becomes fun when you can relate the events in the book to your own life. Except for burning almost every book it is suprisingly close to our lives now. Fahrenheit 451 is confusing and sometimes boring but overall it's not bad. The main character of Fahrenheit 451, Guy Montag, lives in a very demented world were owning books is illegal." +609,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A1LVZOK9F7K4CN,JR Pinto,1/1,4.0,1019088000,The one that made Ray famous.,"They say that this will be made into another movie by Mel Gibson. It has all ready been made into an indifferent film by Francois Truffaut. In the end, this is one novel that deserves to stay a novel. It will always remain because it tapped into powerful metaphors - firemen STARTING fires instead of putting them out, a society ruled by interactive TV (or is it really?), banned books, and books as human beings. If we ever do reach a state where books have to live in people's heads, this will be one of them." +610,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A1PR6W7U7Y3K4B,"Bethanie Frank ""book dreamer""",0/0,5.0,1095292800,Love it!,"I am not a science fiction fan in the least, but this is such a classic - how can you NOT like it? It speaks volumes on the way things are today even. I so respect the author's views and thoughts on life and censorship. I think it should make us all pause and consider our own lives and if we're living them to the fullest and grabbing it by the horns!" +611,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A1RPK8RKJ88JZ1,mrtennis01@earthlink.net,0/0,4.0,900201600,One of the best Utopian books I have ever read!,"I thought that "Fahrenheit 451" was a superb representation of what our society is turning into . Bradbury explained in great detail how book reading, libraries and thinking would diminish in the future.(which is the 90's) I thought book burning was the end to learning and clearly represents some people and their beliefs today." +612,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A1XQEHDWZPSFJV,Sean,0/0,4.0,1076371200,Fahrenheit 451,"Fahrenheit 451I like the thought that the world could be a completely different place if we did not have books. Before I read this book, I always used to think that it would be cool and a lot better if books did not exist in the world. However, I realized that without books nobody would have their own views on certain subjects, and everyone would be dull like Montag's wife. This fantasy no longer appeals to me, because I hate talking to people like Mildred. Everyone would live in their virtual world and the television would tell them what to think. I like the fact that Montag is forced to think about what he is doing, and he steals books because he has a desire to learn. I feel that I would have done the same thing in his situation, and I feel that I am a lot like him because I like to go with the flow but I don't agree with everything, and I question what I feel is wrong. I strongly recommend this book to anyone who feels the world would be a better place without books." +613,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A1ZOF747O5EB6R,Andrew Desmond,2/3,5.0,1169251200,Censorship is Always an Evil,"I have always meant to read ""Fahrenheit 451"" but had never managed to get around to it. In a world where time is scarce, I neglected this classic work by Ray Bradbury. I regret this situation very much. ""Fahrenheit 451"" is a modern classic that deserves to be read. The individual is poorer for not having done so.If the novel has any message, it is that censorship is a very great danger. In the extreme case, we have the official authorisation of book burning. Books contain evil thoughts and encourage individuals to think for themselves. If books are removed from society then the power to control the individual is that much greater.Although written more than fifty years ago, ""Fahrenheit 451"" still resonates today. Yes, the evils of the Soviet Union and its satellites are no longer with us and the cold war has been left to the dustbin of history. However, whenever given the chance, governments of all colours just love to seek control through censorship. Even in the west, governments hanker for greater control as a means of stemming the growth of terrorism or whatever else they deem to be a danger to them. As citizens, we should always question any attempt to increase the power of government over what the population can read or watch or listen. We must always be vigilant.Ray Bradbury is a man of great prescience. ""Fahrenheit 451"" can legitimately be compared with the master works of George Orwell. This is true praise as Orwell rests in the pantheon of the geniuses and Bradbury deserves his place in the sun just as much." +614,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,,,1/1,5.0,919209600,More relevant than ever,"It's the late '50s, I'm in my early teens, cutting my teeth into English, and gobbling up scifi by the truckload, from Asimov all the way through the alphabet down to Wells. Occasionally, I reread those books, and some of them still flare up my imagination. F451 is one of those. There is a misconception that scifi authors must predict the future in minute detail, the more so if they deal with social issues, lest their work becomes "dated". Not so; good authors write about the present. If one chooses to select current trends and extrapolate them, it's irrelevant how accurate a prophet one is. It matters not whether or not firemen will ever go from firefighters to firesetters. What matters is that Bradbury foresaw, and denounced, a society drowned in entertainment - worse still, "infotainment" -, assailed by a barrage of GUIs, emoticons, acronyms, shoot-'em-down, trigger-happy computer games, "educational" software that is none other than, "interactive" TV shows plastered on wall-sized screens, complete with FX and surround sound ... And never a moment to be alone with ourselves and just plain think. From readers'comments, I garner F451 is being given as an assignment to 7th and 8th graders. Too little, too late. Their brains have already been washed away by too much through the day MTV, and no week in Paris - or Mars - will ease the bite of it." +615,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,ADM7Z034FEABK,Kyriarch,0/2,2.0,990144000,I had high hopes,"First off, I have to say that the idea isn't that far fetched. It's hard to imagine that someone in 1953 could depict our life so close to what it is like today. Television seems to run our lives and less people settle themselves in books. I say this because I'm one of them, although I do enjoy a good sci-fi novel (ie. 1984, Dune, Brave New World). That said, I have to conclude that Bradbury did in fact write a flop! It is true what they say about how you can't buy a book by it's cover. I, just as many others, was encouraged to read from the title. The concept is excellent and to a point, realistic. What seems "wrong" with the book however is the lack of depth the other characters have. Clarise, the girl who turned Guy Montag's head in the other direction, who had great potential, dies in the begining of the book. Her death seems meaningless as a result of lack of depth... Mildred, Guy's wife, who turns in her own husband, also lacks depth. The second reason which makes this book a flop is the lack of a conclusion. Not to spoil the ending of these great literary pieces, but the main characters in 1984, Brave New World, and Dune either die, are defeated, or emerge victorious (not in that order). But in F451, Guy ends up roaming the lands with a bunch of Harvard and Yale hobos. The government, Big Brother, or whatever you want to call it, which was so obviously against him, couldn't care less if he existed. And Guy's cause failed to alter anything, other than relocating him to the woods. There seemed to be no major conflict. Sure, people will argue that the chase was a conflict, but it was not solved. Now, if this book was part of a trilogy, then maybe there is some reason to leaving the question unanswered to what was the purpose of Guy's puiny uproar. But the fact is that the book is cut short. It deserved a better ending or even a better beginning. Whatever the case I felt thirsty for more at the end of the book, I had many questions unanswered, like what really happened to Clarisse, was she killed by a racing car or was she hiding from the government too? Does Faber get in touch with those printing guys or is he caught by Big Brother? There needn't be a happy ending, but to deprive the audience of an ending of any type spells out B A D S T Y L E." +616,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,5.0,919123200,Great a wonderful novel!!,"When I got this 7th grade assinment to read this book I didn't want to do it. But once I got into the book I really enjoyed it. Some of it's concepts are a little hard to understand,but it was a wonderful assinment. I'm really glad my teacher gave me this assinment!" +617,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A1O3F4SF2IXD7K,Justin,0/0,4.0,1085011200,Fahrenheit 451,"Farenheit 451 was overall a good book. It did have some strong points as well as its weak points as well. The characters in the novel I thought were very well developed and gave enough detail to make you get a picture in your mind about what he/she looked like. The character that I thought was the best developed out of them all was Guy Montag. He was described physically but also mentally so you could really understand what he was thinking in certain cituations, like how he goes against his heritage of a fireman and decides to start reading books. Guy was a fireman, and firemen in these times burned books. The book says "" First Fireman: Benjamin Franklin"" (64)I also like the technology of the novel. The technology was very relavent to what is reaslistic. The ear peaces that they wore to listen to the radio could become very popular in the near future. When Clarisse McClellan said ""...did you know that once billboards were only twenty feet long? But cars started rushing by so quickly they had to stretch the advertising out so it would last"" (39). This shows what society was and that technology got so fast that they had to change billboards.The setting of the novel was developed well also. The setting was in a futuristic city, which seemed very high paced, like I would envision most large cities to become in the future.I did not like the fact that people did not have there own feelings about things. They never came up with there own ideas and just seemed to go through everyday monotonously. I do not agree that this is what the future holds and that people pride themselves on having there own ideas.I also disagreed with that nobody likes books and doesn't read them anymore. I feel that it was not a good idea to say that nobody reads and most of the people don't mind that. I would think that if people enjoyed reading like the group led by Granger, there would be violent revolts. When Mildred says ""...Why should I read? What for..."" (101). It shows that people had no desire to read or what reading had in store for them.Overall the book was very good and I suggest that you should read it if you are in the mood for an action novel." +618,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,5.0,984614400,Fahrenheit 451,"This novel is a great way to explore what might happen in the near future if the public decides to allow technology do everything for them. It shows the power of popular thought, and also shows its distructiveness. I would not say this novel is science fiction, even though it has some qualities of that. I would call this book a classic, and wonderful. Bradbury really grabs the reader with the way he discribes everything. It is almost like reading a collection of poems that are in sequence. I highly recommend this wonderful master piece." +619,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,AJ98YA4Y333BK,"CJA ""CJA""",0/0,4.0,1361145600,Intriguing and Still Relevant,"Bradbury considered this novel his best work -- identifying himself on his tombstone as the author of Fahrenheit 451. It is an intriguing piece of work, though more fable than novel. Bradbury, like Dick, was never one to develop great characters, though his dialogue is a lot better than Dick's. And while Bradbury's plots are never as brilliantly convoluted as those of Dick, the imagination and philosophy behind his plots are his strength.Here Bradbury anticipates by 60 years the plugged-in, hyper consumerism of our present society. Books and ideas are abandoned voluntarily - first the books are condensed, then outlined, then just not read at all. And finally society as a whole mobilizes against the perceived snobbery and divisiveness of intellectuals, resulting in organized bookburning. In the background is a commitment to a permanent state of war with other countries.Like the interrogator of the hero in 1984, the chief book burner who tries to keep Bradbury's book-burning hero on the straight and narrow is one of the most interesting characters in the book. One gets the impression that he's an intellectual who has recovered from his heresy with a vengeance. Also interesting is the character of Clarisse, who first persuades the hero to ask questions about his life. I wish that character had been better developed.This is a very good book, though it has a truncated feel. The novel would have benefitted from expanding the characters and from giving a better feel for day-to-day life in this imagined future dystopia." +620,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,3.0,1174608000,Thoughtful and Intereseting,"Fahrenheit 451 is a great book, it was interesting, and is a good for a thoughtful reader. It's a quick read, and I'm busy so it was nice to have an interesting story with some depth. Sometimes I get too busy and it's hard when I'm reading a long book and try to come back to it from a prolonged absence. 451 is around 165 pages, with really no slow tedious parts, which helps keep you on track.The gist of the book is a futuristic society/science fiction. Formerly a banned book, it suggests patterns of human behavior that very well may be the result of the changing patterns of society today. The main character, Guy Montag, is a fireman, however it is his job to burn books, and the houses that they are in. The question of what is in the books he is burning perplexes him, and it pushes him to the extreme. According to the author, Ray Bradbury, this book is just set in the future, no specific time frame, however in this futuristic world, knowledge is considered dangerous.One thing I would like to mention again is the pattern of society and social interaction. There are very little social interactions between people; they don't talk just to talk. There is very little regard for human life, and they speak of death and especially suicide as if it was as common as waking up in the morning. ""The Family"" entrances people for hours, and TV is now the size of the entire wall, and is nothing more but shapeless programs of color and video clips no longer than 10 seconds. Wages are much less than in today's world, for Guy Montag, $6,000.00 is his income for an entire year, and he would be considered middle to upper class.Personally, I don't think I would buy this book. Its not something that I would want to read again, however I got a lot out of it, and it gave me a lot to think about. It is a book that everyone should read, however I think borrowing it from the library is a better decision. There are a few confusing parts, and it takes a little time to understand a few things, but overall it all comes together in the end, and really is a good book and gets you thinking." +621,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A250AXLRBVYKB4,"Nathan Beauchamp ""ConsumerAdvocate""",0/0,5.0,1230768000,The power of writing and learning to love to read,"When I first encountered this book at the age of 13, I was more accustomed to 'choose your own adventure' books or pulp science fiction. I'd never heard of Bradbury, but realized as I fought through the first few chapters that I was in over my head. I stuck it out however, and when I was done, my life had changed forever. Since then I have read this book many times, and it is always with a particular fondness because this is the book that taught me to read. To read as more than someone who desires nothing more than to be entrained.That is not to say that Bradbury isn't entertaining. I've always found him to be one of the most successfully entertaining science fiction writers of all time. FAHRENHEIT 451 is on of his best. Conceptually simple (books are outlawed and the world has become a dreary, dystopian place where cheap thrills and wars fought with disease bombs are the norm) but wise and deep in substance, Bradbury successfully weaves characters and plot into a profound statement about the essential nature of human kind and how the best of our writing can, if used (read) properly, even save us from ourselves.There are few accolades that I can give this book that have not been already said more eloquently elsewhere. This is book filled with profound truth, a book that inspires, and a book that illustrates the best and worst of what men are capable of. Ultimately about the hope we have in the sum of human knowledge, few other books will make you treasure the act of reading and the privilege of owning books like this one will." +622,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,4.0,914716800,One of the books that make you think of your own!,"Fahrenheit 451 is one of the best books I have ever read. This book potrays a society, which may look too fake to be true, however, when we realise in what society we live in, we understand that it is not too far away. Every charachter of this novel wants to learn something to us.I liked especially one phrase of Beaty about Clarisse which shows exactly what people the government of the novel wants "She did not want to learn how a thing was done, but why.That can be embarrassing"" +623,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,,,2/14,1.0,1039132800,Not very good...,"I really did not enjoy this book at all. I felt that the plot was hard to follow and somewhat confusing. Some people have said that this book is written for high school students, but I really don't think that it is. I'm a freshman in high school and I really did not understand what was going on. I figured it out enough to kind of follow the story, but definitely not enough to actually get into the book. This is one of only about 3 books that I have ever read that I did not perfectly understand and enjoy. The basic idea of the plot is that Guy Montag, a fireman in the future, is paid to burn down houses that illegally store books in them. He meets some other characters (such as Clarisse, a 17 year old who lives in his neighborhood) who help him open his eyes to the world that he is being so blind to. If you enjoy reading about censorship or science fiction, this book might be okay for you. If you like stories that are pretty easy to follow and have a more realistic plot, don't bother. -- luckiestarre" +624,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A1VQBHHXIKHIGS,A Customer,1/1,4.0,1156636800,It'll never go out of date,"I was at the Foreign Language Bookstore on Yanan Road here in Hangzhou when I saw this classic on the shelf. Would you believe I'd never read it? We read some Bradbury in school about 25 or 30 years ago, and he didn't make much of an impression on me. I can't remember why. But knowing the fault could've been mine, I gave him another shot. Books are cheap here, and hey, it's famous, right?Well, folks, it's famous for a damn good reason. Many, in fact. Fifty years old, and it is perhaps more relevant than ever. But so what? Is it good writing? Does it entertain? Does it have real characters? Is it more than just an oh-so-correct theme dressed up as a novel? Oh, yes it is! It's absolutely fantastic and I just plain can't recommend it enough.If you love sci-fi, great. If not, it doesn't matter. I can say ""transcends the genre"" with a straight face. Yes I can. I'll be reading this one again, folks. I didn't write it and I'm just sick with jealousy about it, okay?" +625,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,3.0,920851200,"This book was confusing, but overall a fun adventure!","This book was confusing, but overall a fun adventure! I punched Schesnuk in the FACE!" +626,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A7TQR7XFKSOWT,"R. Guy ""Sir Readsalot""",1/1,5.0,1332892800,A classic worth reading,"This book is a true classic. The story remains relevant today...and I would think should enjoy a resurgence during the current craze for the dystopian.Bradbury imagines a future that seems imminently plausible. But, more than creating an interesting world, Bradbury captures your heart and soul. You become emotionally involved in this story. You eagerly look forward to the next sentence. You wish there was more when you're done.Readalbe. Entertaining. Thought provoking. Everything you could ask for in a book." +627,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A3CMAZMNIYJGH5,Scott T.,6/7,5.0,960768000,ATTN: Fundies! I own this book and WILL use it!,"What a profound Novel!This should be required reading to all students. But alas, the future Bradbury predicted has come to pass.... Today, we are seeing more and more ""Concerned Parents"" reacting with a mob mentality in banning books from libraries and schools. Most have never read the books they have chosen to vilify. Strange that only a few outspoken right wing groups think they speak for all of society.The irony of it all is that Fahrenheit 451 has been banned from schools and classrooms because of its ""negative"" views toward those individuals that ban books. What is more tragic than a books that decries book banning, being banned itself?Do yourself a favor.... read this book. Pass it along to your child. Read other banned novels and keep them in circulation.The days of the Fireman are quickly approaching.""Play the man, Master Ridley; we shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, as I trust shall never be put out!""" +628,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A27XECRQWJVEMN,Crazed One In The Burg,1/1,4.0,1161648000,Fahrenheit 451,"Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 is a frightful vision of what the future may have in store for us. The novel follows a fireman, not just any ordinary fireman that puts out fires and rescues people. This fireman, Guy Montag, creates fires. They are required by law to destroy all books and the houses that contain the books. Weird, I know! Montag's society believes books bring harm and destruction to people mentally and even physically. However, Guy soon begins to realize that all the ideas he once believed in were all morally incorrect and he begins to embark on a quest to cease this destruction and find true meaning in himself and in society.I chose this book for an independent reading assignment for school and I first thought, ""Wow, this is gunna suck!"" However, like they always say dont judge a book by its cover. This novel gave way to a new way of thinking about how the future may end up. It was realistic and I guess that's why I enjoyed it. I do recommend this book to anyone that likes easy reading and realistic fiction, though I dont recommend doing four seperate essays afterword for a test grade!" +629,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,1/12,1.0,917481600,This book is boring!,"This book doesn't deserve a maximum of 1,000 words! It is pointless and inconsistent. Don't read it! How could our society ever become one not dependent on books for knowledge and wisdom?" +630,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A31I7N7PHRHOK4,Sharon Wayne,0/1,5.0,1036800000,This book changed the way I look at all books.,"Guy Montag is a fireman who job it is to start fires instead of stoping the. In this backwards world of his he burns books and the houses that they are hidden in. In this future world reading a book is against the law because it gives peoples ideas. Guy never qustioned his job until he actually thinks what it would be like to read a book.....I never never really thought what our world would be like with no books, but now that I think about it I can't believe how monotonous and boring it would be. Now that I think about it I am glad I dont live in a world like Guy Montag's.This book has become on of my favorites and I highly recomend you read it!" +631,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A3TSE6WDC8152O,"A. Perdiue ""sybersatyr""",0/0,5.0,1006128000,"Sweet, sweet irony","The irony of this book always slayed me. Here is a book of a future where books are like drugs: outlawed, sold on the black market, and if there's a "library," firemen destroy it. And the added bonus is that the main character, a loyal fireman, has a library! The irony that gets me is that this book is about banning books, yet it is a banned book, so nobody read it! (Ha ha, just kidding folks!)" +632,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,AIH25C2PJ1CV6,"M. Dees ""Fla mom""",6/24,1.0,1345248000,Too bad Amazon can't help out students,"I am admitting this review does not relate to the actual book but to Amazon so with apologies to Ray Bradbury...Ten bucks? Really? Come on Amazon, you know this book is on a lot of school reading lists. My kid loves her Kindle but when I can buy her school reading book lists for $2 at the used book store, you lost. In fact, it is a weird circle of irony - we used to buy books, they got too expensive, bought the kindle, it was great, then you made the books expensive again and... now we buy the books. You lost an opportunity here, Amazon. For the record, she hasnt picked up her Kindle in a month.Too bad for you." +633,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A2E3GFHUDNPYDH,"Julee Rudolf ""book snob""",3/3,5.0,1197072000,Hot hot hot,"Guy Montag is a fireman. But he doesn't fight fires. He starts them. And he starts them to burn books. Already a bit disillusioned about his job, he meets an almost seventeen-year-old girl named Clarisse, whose nonconformist views on life are a breath of fresh air. He secrets away some books. He fights with his wife, whose overdose on pills can neither be categorized with certainty as intentional or accidental. He defies his boss, a walking book of quotes from famous novels. He makes some potentially deadly choices in turning away from the expected behavior of the masses: mindless, ad nauseam TV watching. Short, splendid sci-fi on the subject of censorship. Also good: The Book Thief by Markus Zusak, and Planet of the Apes by Pierre Boulle." +634,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A2NYP1VC6FOFER,Lawrence Zieminski,2/2,4.0,1286496000,"Great book, especially the 50th Anniversary Edition","The story is simple, but powerful. As other reviewers have noted, some of the details that Bradbury imagined in 1950 (when he wrote it, not the publication date of 1953) have come true (large TVs on the walls, a move towards simplistic sensationalism, the deep distrust of education and educated people, etc.) I found the writing to be serviceable, sometimes brilliant. Occasionally the metaphors get too long winded and overly descriptive.The 50th Anniversary Edition, published by Ballantine Books/Del Rey is wonderful. Not only do we get the full unedited text (ironically, this book about censorship has been censored frequently over the years), but we also get the afterword and coda (added in the late 70s, early 80s) and an illuminating 10 page interview with Bradbury himself. In the interview he describes his writing process, how he thinks the book holds up today, and whether or not he'd write a sequel. It's a great addition to the book." +635,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A1CHM200OEN65X,"Eric Wilson ""novelist""",0/0,5.0,1062201600,Feeling the Heat,"This, I'm sad to say, was the first time I'd taken the time to read a Bradbury novel. I had no idea what I was missing! This book deserves the status of a classic, all right. It has memorable characters, vivid sentences and scenes, and holds a mirror to the errors of society. Though fifty years old, the book is surprisingly modern in its perceptions.The story follows Guy Montag, a fireman. His job is to start fires, rather than put them out. When the station receives calls about homes that harbor books, the Salamander fire engine races out with kerosene hoses to douse the residence and destroy the threatening pages.What is really under attack in Montag's world is thought, intellectualism, connection between people. The effects of TV and useless trivia, the conflict between art and entertainment, are highlighted here in the flames of Montag's burning. When Montag turns the corner, deciding to combat this world gone mad, he faces deep and long-lasting consequences. And the world will never be the same.Bradbury succeeds in writing a very personal, yet very global tale. The heat of this novel still emanates today. Pick up this book--at the risk of feeling the heat!" +636,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A1IU7S4HCK1XK0,Joanna Daneman,8/8,5.0,1028764800,Bradbury's scarily perceptive novel is a must-read,"This novel is, in my opinion, Bradbury's absolute best. Bradbury's excellent prose allowed some of his novels to escape the ""science fiction ghetto"" and surely this is one book that made the jump over the barbed wire.The plot is simple but shocking; books are dangerous to a trivial and controlling culture--therefore, burn them. Without books, there can be no memory of how things were or should be. Montag is a fireman who's job is, of course, to start fires and create bonfires of contraband books. His wife is absolutely shallow and ""normal""--she watches the daily soaps on TV, which in this futuristic society are full wall-sized plasma screens. She nags Montag to earn more so she can install a fourth screen and surround the room with the escape from reality. Even some part of her, however, senses the bleakness of the world, and witlessly tries to escape in an overdose of drugs.Montag is dedicated in his work, but perhaps his investigative nature leads him into the world of the contraband book-hoarders. What drives a man to leap upon a funeral pyre of his library? A shaken Montag must find out.Bradbury sketches the frightening world of a society with non-readers and non-thinkers, dumbed down by design. What did he see in the 50's that we are just realizing today? He was not only amazingly prescient in his description of wall-sized flatscreen TV, but in the trend to a world where education, reading, and reason are being made extinct, if not downright subversive. Read this novel and marvel at Bradbury's chilling insights." +637,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,4.0,1085097600,GOOD BOOK,The book Fahrenheit 451 was a very realistic novel. I believe the future will bring people to eventually hate books. There are more and more ways to read a book without even reading. Television is a big part in why people today do not want to read. Children begin watching TV at a very early age and just lose complete interest in reading period. There have been studies where watching television for a couple of hours each day causes ADD which will effect the amount of reading a person will do.This is an easy read for any type of reader. There is a clearly outlined plot. There is nowhere to get confused or even lost. Guy Montag is a fireman who burns books. Now you might think a fireman burning books is lame but it really just makes this entire novel so much more interesting to read. The people can't even remember the last time a fireman put out a fire! Than Guy Montag's new neighbor clarrise shows him why reading is not bad but good. Clarrise shows him the beauty of reading and all of its positive feedbacks. Of course this is a very dangerous game he is playing for if he would get caught he could be arrested. When Montag finds out that his chief fireman knows he has a stash of books in is house Montags ends up burning his own house down.The Characters in this book are explained to you in a really interesting way. Guy Montag is explained in great detail on both his physical appearance as a fireman and mentally. Each character is explained on how he or she acts and this helped me a lot when I was reading this book it helped me understand each character a lot better than any other book. +638,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,5.0,834364800,Literal bookburning in a world too like our own,"In Fahrenheit 451 (the temperature at which books burn, for the curious), the Ray Bradbury evokes a terrifying America similar to our own in all respects but one- the fireman there burn books. With the aid of a mysterious girl, Clarice, who says she is "seventeen and crazy," fireman Guy Montag chooses to defy society and is forced to run for sanctuary, even as a nuclear Armageddon approaches. Bradbury's love of books is evident in his theme, and his love of language is evident in his linguistic acrobatics. Anyone with a burning love of books should read Fahrenheit 451- it is truly a masterpiece" +639,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,1/4,2.0,877132800,Turn the stove up to 451 degrees and throw this book in!,"Okay,first off I would like to say that I enjoy almost any book I read. This book has made it to the top of my "burn this book" list. Dont get me wrong, the idea was well thought up, but the book wasn't well written. First off, the book starts off with someone trying to commit suicide,and this character is saved even though she's totally wack. Second, the main character is named "GUY MONTAG". How origanal. Third, the people in this book are IDIOTS! I mean, first they outlaw all "offensive" material, then they condense great novels into two page stories,and then they sit around on thier butt all day watching the "family" argue and OFFEND each other. The best character in the book simply dissappears in the middle of the book, and then she is found dead. Not only that but no one has friends. Not even your spouse is your friend. What kind of wack society doesn't have friends. This book needs to be re-written, and seriously re-done" +640,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,AIQEHMC9TKGK5,AN AVID READER,0/0,5.0,1361059200,A must read,"I doubt I can add anything new to a book with over 1500 reviews. So, like always, I'll just give my personal insights. In my opinion, what makes a classic a classic is something like this. . .it's pretty obvious that this book, when it was written, takes place in the future. Never do we know exactly when, and never is it actually stated that this book takes place in the future, yet it is. The fact that the fictional plot isn't really far-fetched is spooky, and mabe that's what caused such a stir when this book was causing controversy.Another thing is that a classic can not be defined as just one genre. This book is sci-fi, but it's not hard sci-fi. It's not the sci-fi that Asimov presents, where it takes place in space, across planets and galaxies and so on (by the way, I like Asimov alot, I'm not at all saying this type of sci-fi is bad), but with the little details, such as a Mechanical Hound (who was quite intimidating I might add), and the seashell worn by Mildred. It was more science fiction than I expected it to be, yet it was far from just a science fiction novel. It is also mostly a dystopian novel, yet at times it's also a thriller, even a tad of horror, and not to mention some heavy pyschological tendicies. And all of it works beautifully together.This story also does two things that a classic does: it takes a toll, or has a profound effect, on you, and also gets you thinking. From early on, and I mean the very first pages, the mood is dark and gloomy, and already the reader feels dreary. Montag's unhappiness is so realistic, his world so seemingly hopeless. Instantly the reader pities and sympathizes with Montag. His unhappiness, his refusal to just do as he's told like everyone around him does, is so well written as to be completely relatable and realistic. The scene where he watches his wife being ""operated on"" after she overdoses is both intense and horrific.It's pretty amazing that this book was so controversial and so challenged, especially considering the plot. Bradbury fit a whole lot of story into 150 pages here, and whatever he was trying to accomplish, I'd say he was extremely successful. Something Wicked This Way Comes was a good book, a really fun read (one thing I really liked better about fahrenheit 451 is that Bradbury's writing is much more concise) but THIS book is the real deal, and this is what proved to me that Bradbury deserves the praise and accolades he received throughout his lifetime. One of the best books I've read and I certainly recommend you read it." +641,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,ABDZF9JM9MG1Q,Justin Eberlin,0/6,3.0,960163200,The Review,I by reading this book I learned many interresting thing on the future. the future is fulled with many possiblitys and learning. hi +642,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A1X8VZWTOG8IS6,"Blue Tyson ""- Research Finished""",1/9,3.0,1188691200,Not Free SF Reader,"Watch tv, sheeple.In the future, books are banned, and drugs and the good old electronic screen are used to keep the population docile and uninformed. Firemen don't put out fires here, they burn books when they are found, in a big macho showy way. One such bloke begins to have doubts about his occupation and society, and breaks away." +643,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A1XHTFWCN8H26N,matt dimgman,0/0,4.0,1342656000,Great book.,"Let me preface this review with the statement that I was supposed to have read this book years ago, when I was still an English Major and for some reason or not I never got to it. I now understand why it is considered a must read and classic. Its a great book with such insight to our culture that I now regret greatly not reading it sooner." +644,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,4/4,5.0,953164800,How could you give it less than five stars?,"When in 8th grade I had to read this for school, the first thought that came to mind was "Oh boy, another dull, uninteresting novel to add on to all the rest." Little did I know that Farenheit 451 would come to become one of my favorite books ever. I didn't even need a teacher to tell me what Bradbury was trying to say. That is the strength of his message. When we finished discussing the book in class, I even went out and bought it. Not only is this book exciting, but it is thought provoking as well. If I had my way, I would have this novel, 1984 by Orwell, and Brave New World by Huxley stressed in school far more than the meaningless stories that children have to read. A better understanding of these novels could change the world." +645,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A2AC8C52AX9QWI,Mr. BUm Bum,0/1,3.0,991094400,Fahrenheit 451,"Fahrenheit 451 was an interesting book, not because of it's plot, but because of the way it made you think. It's exemplification of the way too much censorship can ruin the world makes you a little more aware of censorship everywhere. The book is about Montag, a fireman who starts fires that destroy books. In this futuristic world, Books are not allowed due to the controversy they create. People who do not follow the strict code of staying home and watching TV are persecuted. One day, after a meeting with a girl, Montag begins to realize the true beauty of books. Not a terribly hard book to read, Fahrenheit 451 had a few difficult vocab words and a few chaotic scenes, but mostly kept the plot simple. I would recommend this book to 6th or 7th graders trying to expand their vocabulary, or anyone else who wants a book that makes them think. I give this book a 7/10, only because I like more complex plots." +646,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A2CBSDN2Y3XT51,"Maitreya Sengupta ""reader""",5/5,4.0,1198195200,An imperfect gem...,"An important statement against censorship and anti-intellectualism, Fahrenheit 451 presents a prophetic vision of a world where people are pre-occupied by 'popular entertainment' and distracted away from any serious thought and true learning (as represented by books). The disturbing similarity of this fictional world to the one we actually live in today, makes this a thought-provoking must-read.I must say, however, that I am not a big fan of the writing style. Points are driven home without much subtlety. It even sounds a little preachy in places. This style actually takes away from the importance of the message for me, much the same way that an over-eager preacher can sometimes diminish the impact of an important sermon. Even the imagery of book-burning, though very provocative, ultimately makes the world of Fahrenheit 451 seem more un-real and distant from ours than it actually is.The other problem is that the book never gets past the central premise to explore questions like why or how such a world might come to pass in any real detail. This is probably because it was originally written as a short novella. However, in this case, I would have liked to see a sequel!In the end, this is the kind of book that every thinking person should read for themselves, so read it and make up your own mind! :)" +647,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A3N7004BQPNZ81,Thesprep,2/2,5.0,947376000,A True Masterpiece,"Very few authors have written a book this significant, this succinct, this brilliant. This is one of my all-time favorite books. I love how he describes everything; and furthermore, the ending was astonishing. The imagery, the action, and the meaning of it all was just stunning. Anybody who knows how to read, must read this book. Starts a bit slow, but once I got into it, I began to appreciate it for what it was. Starting with page 100, I couldn't put it down. I picked up the book at eleven o'clock at night, and by the time it was three in the morning, I was finished. It is that gripping. We need more authors of Bradbury's stature around today." +648,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,4.0,898905600,"Interesting, futuristic","Kind of confusing, but is wonderful once you get into it. Really makes you think. I had to read for school but I would have even if I didn't have to." +649,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A3NJKCGI6TDLLR,Erika Miller and Brein Weir,0/0,4.0,952041600,Blazing Book Review,""With this great pythoon spitting it's venomous kerosene upon the world, the blood pounded in his head, and his hands were in the hands of some amazing conductor playing all the symphonies of blazing and burning to bring down the tatters and the charcoal ruins of history." This is one of many examples of bradburys excessive use of poetic imagery. With the use of his imagery, you see his world in a different perspective. The different dramatic pauses throughout the story, give it character and leave you with the feeling of tension and anxiety, not knowing whats coming next. In Fahrenheit, Bradbury uses flashbacks as a way to fill the reader in on what they missed before opening the book; like the characters had another life. Overall, we recommend this book to not only highschool student, but to anyone in search of good science-fiction." +650,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A209SHOF8Q626S,Court Bennett,0/0,4.0,1033430400,A very interesting and intriguing book,"This book is very intriguing both in what its theme is and also in how much the main character changes throughout the course of the story. It has great discriptions even if they are abstract and also a great development of characters within an action plot. I would have to say that my favorite character in the entire book was Clarisse. She seemed so soft, so fresh, so new, and so likeable, especially compared with some of the other characters in the book. She was so full of life and the joys she could find in it that I really enjoyed her character and I was very sad when she dies. This book always kept me interested with its implications and its deep meanings and because of that it always kept me thinking. I would have to stop for a few minutes to think about what I had just read but that is a good thing and it made me feel like I became more familiar with the book becuase of it. Overall I think that it is a very well written book in every aspect. The main character though not very likeable in the beginning becomes someone you can and want to cheer for as the book progresses. I really enjoyed reading this book and am glad that I did pick this book to read." +651,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A1UEQ1YYZ8S6KM,Nereida,0/0,5.0,1117065600,I really enjoyed this one!,"For grade levels 11th and up, Fahrenheit 451 is sure to please readers of all intrests. Fireman Guy Montag is deeply troubled when he meets a local girl and watchs a women burn in her home. He then realizes the importance of those books he keeps burning and within a few days, he is a totally diffrent person.Author Ray Bradbury predicts the future and successfuly holds the reader's intrest. Frightingly, Ray predictions are quite acurate. Read it and see for yourself." +652,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,6/8,5.0,938476800,We are already living FH451,"I am writing an essay for my 8th grade AP English class about this book. This is definitely one of the more thought provoking books I have ever read in my 13 years on this earth. Considering that it was written nearly 30 years ago, it is quite remarkable in its prophecy. Just look at what's happening in this country today - countless numbers of mindless chatterboxes on every one of our 325 or so cable stations babbling on about Monica Lewinsky or OJ Simpson or George Bush's alleged cocaine use, or some other utterly senseless topic. And just look at all of these old fools in congress and the senate with nothing better to do than talking about Monica Lewinsky and preaching morality to all of us while they're all sleeping around on their own wives. I think the time is already here. There is no desire in this country for any meaningful ruminations of philosophy or history or the meaning of life. We have become that nation of vain, selfish dullards with no other goal in life except to make ourselves happy with our big screen tv sets and our armies of idiot babblers to tell us what to think. Mr. Bradbury, please write another book to help snap us back into real life." +653,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A1VF0102Z9VITO,Joseph M. Reninger,0/0,5.0,1343606400,"Thoughtful, Lyrical Sci Fi Masterpiece","This is the fourth time I've read this book, though the first time in over 15 years. It's a science fiction classic about firemen who burn books in a not too distant and far too dystopian future. Bradbury is a great storyteller and weaves an amazingly lyrical narrative. It first grabbed me in childhood as an exciting adventure with a very vivid portrayal of the life of Guy Montag, fireman turned rebel.One of the delightful things I discovered in this re-reading was the idea of the proper relationship to books. The government represented by the firemen sees books as a hazard that causes both inequality (reading books makes people think they're better than others) and rancor (people may disapprove of how they (as minorities) are depicted in books). The citizens have fallen away from reading and are constantly plugged in to their living rooms, which are now nothing other than parlors with wall-sized TVs on every wall. Montag's wife wants them to buy a fourth wall TV to complete the room. If she isn't watching TV, she's listening to audio programs on little seashell devices in her ears. Books don't even register as reality for her; when Montag brings them into the house she is filled with horror at what they mean. Not that they contain horrible ideas, but that their house will be burned down if they are discovered. It's as if the government had already won their point.On the other hand, Montag learns to appreciate books, first by meeting Clarisse. She's the seventeen-year old neighbor with the funny family (her uncle was once arrested for driving too slowly at 40 miles an hour). She is interested in nature and people. She has real conversations with Montag about things that matter. She is a catalyst for Montag to explore the forbidden fruit he has been roasting for so long.Like any amateur, he makes a bit of a mess in how he handles things. He tries to convince his wife's friends that they should listen to books but they all recoil in horror. He tries to play cat-and-mouse with his boss at the firehouse but he is not up to the challenge. He eventually has to flee for his life.He falls in with a group of people who have been memorizing books, to preserve them for the time when the culture is ready. Interestingly, they constantly tell themselves that they are not more important or better than others for what they are doing. They are keeping a trust for civilization. In one scene, Montag is talking to Faber, a former professor who has been keeping a low profile though is in touch with the book people. Faber explains the difference between four-wall TVs and books:.""..you can't argue with the four-wall televisor. Why? The televisor is 'real.' It is immediate, it has dimension. It tells you what to think and blasts it in. It must be right. It seems so right. It rushes you on so quickly to its own conclusions your mind hasn't time to protest, 'What nonsense!'""[Montag:]""Only the 'family' is 'people.'""""I beg pardon?""""My wife says books aren't 'real.'""""Thanks God for that. You can shut them, say, 'Hold on a moment.' You play God to it. But who has ever torn himself from the claw that encloses you when you drop a seed in a TV parlor? It grows you any shape it wishes! It is an environment as real as the world. It becomes and is truth. Books can be beaten down with reason. But with all my knowledge and skepticism, I have never been able to argue with a one-hundred-piece symphony orchestra, full color, three dimensions, and being in and part of those incredible parlors.""The difference is between what's engaging and what's overwhelming. Books are a help in understanding reality, not a substitute for it or a way to tune reality out (though certainly some have used books that way). They help the reader to understand other people, other times, other places. But they don't force you to agree with them. The proper attitude toward books is not one of hostility or fear or submission. It's of wonder and learning and growing.The book is definitely worth reading and worth re-reading. Bradbury's death a few months ago really is a great loss.Hear some better commentary on A Good Story is Hard to Find, which is what inspired me to re-read the book. And now I am finally starting Jane Eyre, which they discussed quite a while ago." +654,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,,,7/7,5.0,1044230400,The Temperature At Which Books Burn,"I give Fahrenheit 451 five stars because it is very interesting and pulls the reader into the life of Guy Montag, the main character and narrator. Ray Bradbury uses great imagery in this book so that the reader can picture exactly what Montag sees. Another thing that makes this book so great are the ideas that we take for granted such as thinking. In this book there are very few people who can think for themselves. It also makes you question things like, if there were no book would people still be able to think for on there own? This is a really great book.In this book you will read about a society that is very different from our own. This society takes place in the future. All the houses there are fire proof making firemen obsolete for their old job. There the firemen start fires instead of putting them out. Instead of using water they now use kerosene. Their job is to burn books and the houses they are in as soon as they are found. They follow strict rules which are1. Answer the alarm swiftly, 2. Start the fire swiftly, 3. Burn everything, 4. Report back to firehouse immediately, and 5. Stand alert for other alarms. According to them the first firehouse was built in 1790 to burn books. The first fireman was Benjamin Franklin. All books are banned from everyone. Being caught with a book is a punishable offense.This was Montag's job. He never questioned why he burned them or anything else in his life. Until he meet a girl named Clarisse McClellan who helped him start to think for himself. She asked him questions he never thought of before such as if he was happy and she pointed things out that he never noticed like how the billboards got longer because the cars got faster. All these new realizations helped Montag open his mind to start thinking and opened his eyes to what the government was doing.Clarisse spends her days outside exploring her environment and thinking about how strange the world is. She does not go to school because people think of her as anti-social when she just has a different idea of what being social is. Montag sees her doing some of the most peculiar things such as shaking a walnut tree or knitting a blue sweater. He saw her outside one day in the rain and she explained that she loved the way the rain tasted. Montag had never thought about how rain tasted and that day on the way to work he tilted his head back and opened his mouth to taste the rain. This was not the only time she told Montag something that got him thinking. One morning when they were talking and she told him she thinks dry leaves smell like cinnamon. Her odd revelations to him helped him think more and more.Montag starts to question all the people around him but mostly his wife, Mildred. She does nothing all day except watch her three-wall TV. He realizes he does not truly love her because he does not really know her at all. One night Mildred has two friends over to watch the three-wall TV. Montag listens to there conversation. They were talking about the up coming war and one woman said that her husband is in the army. She talked about how her husband might die but its okay because it's the third marriage for both of them and she won't have ant trouble getting over it. This shows Montag that people are incapable of feeling also. They can't think or feel they just live life and care only of themselves.Another person that helps Montag to start to think and question authority was an old professor called Faber. Montag had met Faber in a park a long time ago and Montag decides to call and then visit him. Faber tells him of a time when people read books and were not afraid of being caught with them. Faber lost his job as a professor when one year he came back to teach and only one student had signed up for the coarse. Faber thinks of himself as a coward because he loves book and believes that they should not be banned but he does not do anything to stop it. He was there when books were being banned and he said nothing because he was afraid. But Faber's compassion and wisdom give Montag courage. Faber stays in his house all the time and creates new inventions. One invention is a little speaker you put in your ear so you can talk to someone. Montag and Faber use this to there advantage.These characters help Montag a lot through out the book. If it were not for them Montag would have never started to realize what he has to do. He must change the society in some way but how? He is only one man. It all starts when he confronts his fire chief, Beatty. But to find out what happens read Fahrenheit 451. This book is a page-turner and you won't want to put it down." +655,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,3.0,923961600,"another must read for illiterate people","Ray Bradbury's novel of censorship in a post-war future is a novel of many contrasts. It is about a future with no books or free thoughts and how humanity has been outstripped by our technology. The books plot and teachings are very important now since our technologies and inventions are being created and upgraded at amazing speeds. The book is also very well-written, with great comparisons and a defining language. The ending, however, is unfulfilling, especially after the incredible suspense the book builds up. On the other hand, a person with other tastes might view this book as a waste of time and money. This is not a book for everyone and the plot and writing might seem just as atrocious as it is excellent to almost anybody. Though by no means a must-read, this book is a source of insight on our ever changing world." +656,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,5.0,1085011200,Fahrenheit 451,"Guy Montag is a fireman whose job it is to find books and burn them. A short while into the story it becomes apparent that Montag already has a certain unease about his job, when he meets a new neighbor of his, Clarisse McClellan, who makes him realize the discomfort he's been feeling. He and the other people around him, including his boss, the Fire Chief, become doubtful of his devotion to his job. This book follows Montag on his journey as he discovers the impotance of literature in a world where knowledge is strictly prohibited.The characters are for the most part non-charismatic and without enthusiasm, with the exception of Clarisse who, having served her purpose, dies within the first few pages. It's a shame, but it is balanced out by the introduction of an old professor named Faber. Both these characters act as guides for Montag as he becomes self-aware and abandons his ignorance.This is the first book in a long time that has made me really think, about what the book means, about what the future will look like, about a life without books. It is an extraordinary piece of writing about a repressive society caught up in its own rules and ideas. Reading through it and hearing as the Chief describes to Montag the history, the process of how slowly, books went from being solely for intellectuals, to being superfluous and completely replaced by television, and finally to being illegal, hits very close to home. While the situations in this books are very extreme, it brings out ideas of this two-dimensional world that doesn't seem so far away." +657,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,AN77UA4ICII6J,C. Vesperman,0/0,5.0,1361059200,best book ever,I love this book! i tried to read it when i was younger but couldnt understand it and when i read it all the way through a few years ago i feel in love. this book is so beautiful and hopeful even through all the darkness. Ray Bradbury is an amazing author and knows how to bring a story to life. +658,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A3TSE6WDC8152O,"A. Perdiue ""sybersatyr""",0/0,5.0,1006128000,"Sweet, sweet irony","The irony of this book always slayed me. Here is a book of a future where books are like drugs: outlawed, sold on the black market, and if there's a "library," firemen destroy it. And the added bonus is that the main character, a loyal fireman, has a library! The irony that gets me is that this book is about banning books, yet it is a banned book, so nobody read it! (Ha ha, just kidding folks!)" +659,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A19ZFJM7HA62MZ,J. Deen,19/20,5.0,1045612800,Impossible? Hardly!,"Several reviews on here have given Fahrenheit 451 a low score because they thought the premise was too far-fetched. These reviewers aren't aware of the situations that exist in certain theocracies around the world. Afghanistan under the Taliban outlawed television and women were not allowed to read or educate themselves. In several Middle East countries, merely speaking up against the government makes you a target.Bradbury looked at different phenomena in our society- the desire to not offend anyone, the dumbing-down of a society in love with television, etc., and simply extrapolated these until he reached an end very similar to the conditions that existed under the Taliban.Part of the point of science fiction is to be far-fetched, but good science fiction uses those far-fetched ideas to warn us of the dangers of the present, in this case the dangers of censorship, of political correctness, of television, and anyone who thinks those dangers are not real, that this book doesn't have relevant warnings, hasn't studied the real world enough.Everyone should read this book. It's an entertaining and easy read but also has a lot of idealogical depth behind it for those who are willing to think and read at the same time. If you don't want to think about what you read, well, go watch TV and be done with it!" +660,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A300F70EX0G688,Bryce Landry,0/0,5.0,1357084800,A good book,This was a great book especially the ending of it. I thought it was confusing in the beginning but then caught on in chapter 2 +661,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A3D1PWU3O2SQUX,"Pamela A. Rogers ""devourer of words""",0/0,5.0,1171324800,"Sparks insightlful thought, while still entertaining","Some of the reviewers have panned this book for the writing style. I thought it was wonderful and honest. The emotional, and some times totally unemotional, conversations are so close to true speech. I think it was probably easier to understand that in the audiobook format. The version that I checked out from the library had an afterword written by Mr. Bradbury, after looking at the story over 30 yrs after he wrote it. In it, he addressed some of the feedback he has received over the years about this book. He also stated, in no uncertain terms, exactly his views on censoring of books and even of opinions.I REALLY enjoyed this book and some of the conversations it has sparked with my husband and friends about the subject matter. I highly recommend it. Especially to those who think there is nothing wrong with the empty entertainment that is pressed upon us today. We need to start thinking and talking again about things that matter. So we , too, can remember...remember...I love it. Read it (or listen to it)." +662,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,ABCQUA65LGRKK,Ski_AEX,1/1,5.0,1102723200,Quite Possibly the Future,"This timeless classic speaks to what can happen as life continues to speed out of control. Censorship runs rapid as people seek to become more efficient. The phrase ""take time to smell the roses"" has been obliterated as these people would only recognize a rose as a colored blur as they speed through their lives. It is a story of one man, full of hope, listening to his heart as he figures out that there is a sense of purpose for all of us. Originally published in 1950 under the title ""The Fireman,"" this story has stood the test of time." +663,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,5.0,929577600,One of the Greatest Books I've Ever Read,This is a great book for people of all ages. It will keep you in suspense until the bitter end and you'll never be able to put it down. You'll enjoy this one from start to finish. It takes twists and turns that'll keep you reading all night. This book is a keeper. +664,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A1EG7RYVJXJPD1,A. Matsen,2/2,5.0,974160000,Don't Censor Me Just Because I'm Beautiful!,"Everyone who reads this book (but especially Americans) should be outraged. Bradbury takes an ugly stick and beats the present day American philosophy down with it. We are a society based on instant gratification. Our slogan is "Right here, Right now. It's your Right!" (How many magazines about fashion, cars, and the ever expanding number of ways to cook chicken can we read before our curiousity is deadened?). This is the type of thinking that Bradbury criticized. What especially frightened me was the concept of MAKING everyone equal. Paradoxally, this is the dumbing down of America, so that no one could be made to feel dumb. It is in settling for society's values without critical judgement that we give up our freedom. Thank you, Mr. Bradbury, for putting it much more eloquently and forcefully than I ever could. Now everyone out there reading this ... BUY the book, READ the book, then tell me if you aren't outraged at the lack of neuron firings in the heads of our society." +665,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,4.0,932601600,Fahrenheit451 is a great book and I would reccomend it,I gave fahrenheit 451 4 stars because it was an interesting and thoughtful book. It shows that books have been an advent to all major ideas.Without books creativity and thought would be stifled. Ray Bradbury`s classis story is a sure bet for good reading.I deducted 1 star because the book was sometimes hard to follow but don`t let that deter you from reading it. +666,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A2CGCG29138USE,H.C.,0/0,4.0,1021766400,Fahrenheit 451,"In Ray Bradbury's novel Fahrenheit 451, Guy Montag, the main character is a fireman that instead of putting out fires, he starts them because reading and owning books is against the law. The book is set in the future, but we don't know when. We learn that Montag has a stash of books that he has been stealing from houses he had burned that are hidden in his air-conditioning vent. Beatty, his fire chief, tells him he has one day to decide if books are any good then bring the book to work to be burned. Montag had met a retired English professor named Faber at a park a year ago. He reads poetry to Mildred and two of her friends; they get scared and go home. Montag goes to work and hands over one of his books, then the alarm sounds, when they get to the house they realize that it is Montag's house. His wife and her friends had called in the report. Beatty forces him to burn down his own house then places him under arrest, then he turns the flame-thrower on Beatty and knocks down the other firemen. The Mechanical Hound that Beatty had set against Montag injects some anesthetic into his leg. He walks off the numbness and goes to Faber's house. Faber gives Montag some of his clothes and tells him to run out of the city. He follows an abandoned railroad until he finds a group of ""Book People"" that have memorized the great works of literature and philosophy.In my opinion, Fahrenheit 451 is hard to understand and enjoy if you don't like futuristic fiction. The plot seemed like it happened too quickly and it doesn't seem realistic. This would probably never happen because people enjoy books too much. The characters don't seem disturbed about the fact that books aren't part of their lives. All they do is sit in their ""parlors"" watching TV on huge screens. This book is made more for people that are interested in futuristic novels and censorship. The characters are only used to not having books as a part of their lives, the government controled everything that was printed until society decided that they didn't want books anymore, as to not offend anyone. The people of this society don't think freely or spend time by themselves." +667,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,,,2/2,5.0,912988800,Strangely real. Scarily true.,"Ray Bradbury's novel is about censorship and how a single thought can change your whole life. The main character, Guy Montag is a fireman of the future--paid to set books ablaze. In the beginning, he finds comfort in this. Then he begins to question authority and the sensless laws set forth by a faceless government. From beginning to end, this story is a thrill ride, cover to cover. Mr. Bradbury has you guessing. His characters are so unique, and at the same time, truly everyday people. This book is truly enjoyable. Younger readers will not get the symbolism; however, older readers will see just how close we probably are to this virtual insanity of lies and deception. In the end I was left wondering, "Who saw that books were so harmful?" Was it one man or the whole nation, slowly evolving from our current lawsuit happy world, to this insane world of deception? I just have to wonder. I would recommend this to teachers. For the student's sake, it is a fairly short story but there is a lot that can be done with it. I would reccomend this to students, except that they will probably have to read it some day for school." +668,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A2GZFQPKW2KBXK,"Disaffected Youth Extroidinaire ""Amanda""",1/2,5.0,1126396800,an incredible book.,"it's just amazing.aside from that, i have a leather bound edition signed by ray bradbury himself, seeing as how he's my good friend's godfather.and yeah.it's one of the greatest science fiction novels ever written-truly a masterpiece." +669,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,AQAF9XQQ9HDHP,"Bryan Kerr ""BSK""",0/1,3.0,1341187200,This was a bit of a let down,"I finally finished reading Fahrenheit 451 by Bradbury. For such a small book I sure took my time finishing it. I did not enjoy this book. It had its moments, as do all books, but they were minimal. The characters don't develop much, and the ending is a bit extreme. I'm not a fan of long books but this one was just too short for the story to go anywhere. The ending felt rushed and a bit too dramatic for the speed at which it developed. I probably won't read another Bradbury book for a long time. This book was so hyped up, and for me it just didn't deliver." +670,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A3CCQC21RO215E,Kyle Stewart,0/1,5.0,1085875200,Not 1984,"I've heard some people say that this book rips off 1984, that is NOT true. It's essentially the converse of 1984. In Orwell's masterpiece (I won't deny either of these books that title) the government has absolute power. 1984 has been called "The end of all Utopias" because the people can't win.In Bradbury's work, however, the government is not all powerful, and still has those who work against it that it foolishly ignores. Furthermore, the war is not to permanently distract the people, it is a real thing to win or lose. The people aren't closely monitored, they can even have ideas so long as they don't have books. In the end this is the beggining of a Utopia, in 451 the government can't win, they will eventually fall and a new age of learning will rise...to fall again, and again, and again, but as Bradbury points out unlike the Phoenix we may eventually learn NOT TO JUMP IN THE FREAKIN' FUNERAL PYRE, OR EVEN TO BUILD IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!" +671,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A2BTTP7LS8OI6X,Karl Mohd,1/1,4.0,1139875200,The Brain-Child of a Literary Lover,"Having met and seen Mr. Bradbury speak in person in the very location where he wrote this book out on type-writer, the Powell Library at UCLA, I have tremendous respect and admiration for the message this novel conveys. Serving as a warning to the intellectual and knowledge seekers, Guy Montage's search for information and logic is heroic considering the political repression present in his society. One of the pre-eminent beacons promoting freedom of speach and the free exchange of information, this novel continues to serve as a guideline and reminder of the importance of the open exchange of ideas. In a society where many governments and religious regimes seek to curtail information flow, this is a message of the necessary pro-activeness and vigilance necessary to preserve the Alexandria library of modern civilization, the printed word." +672,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,2/2,5.0,1130457600,Fahrenheit 451,"The book Fahrenheit 451 written by Ray Bradbury was in the Science Fiction section and was located in the future. Guy Montag was a fireman, but in the future they do not put out fires, they they start them. Guy is trying to figure out his hard and confusing life in the future. When he meets a girl named Clarisse McClellan who changes everything and gives him a new point of view of the world.What I like most about this book was the setting and the time, the future makes you wonder about what you're living in now and what might happen in the future. What I didn't like about the book was that it was a little hard and confusing at times for my age reading.My favorite charater in this book was Clarisse McCellan because she has such a different mind than everyone else and sees things in different perspectives. A paragraph that meant something to me was on page 37 and said ""Books bombarded his shoulders, his arms, his upturned face. A book lit, almost obediently, like a white pigeon, in his hands, wings fluttering. In the dim light, a page flung open and it was like a snow feather, the words delicately painted thereon."" It meant something to me beacause all of these books around him makes him wonder about his job, life, and Clarisse and what she had said.I would tell someone about this book that it is great but to read it at a good reading level. So it's not too hard or confusing to read. The only question I have after reading this is, in some ways is Beatty the villan of Station 451? My strongest reason for recommending this book is that it describes each pararaph beautifully and has a great plot." +673,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A2S6R50S7BFNL2,S. Sherman,0/0,5.0,1276992000,Simply Amazing,"It's hard to think of what to write in a review for your favorite novel, but I will certainly try. Fahrenheit 451 is frightening in the fact that the events laid out are plausible; it's completely accessible to a variety of readers. It has everything that a dystopic novel needs, even if the future setting is a bit vague. Bradbury's writing has stood the test of time and there's no doubt that high schoolers will still be studying this novel in another 50 years." +674,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,,,4/4,4.0,969580800,�The Burning of Individuality�,"Firemen no longer save lives. Instead they burn books and the people who harbor them. Censorship is the way of life in the science fiction world of Fahrenheit 451. Conforming with government, destroying individuality, and asking no questions are the rules of Guy Montag's world. Set in the twenty-first century, Ray Bradbury's novel tells the tale of the fireman who begins to question the rights and wrongs of his life. In this world books promote thinking and wondering and acting. Compliance is necessary for the government to ignore its people and watch over its ""thirty-second"" wars. The government wants assimilation and ignorance of differences. So modern technology produces television that is interactive and family rooms are replaced with television parlors - four walls of larger than life TV screens. The firemen hunt out owners of books and burn them, their homes and their books to the ground. ""It was a pleasure to burn,"" is the opening line of the story. In the beginning burning books is a source of joy, an excitement programmed into Montag by his world. Then he meets a girl whose family raised her with an encouragement of challenging what she is told. Montag is amazed, almost scared of the idea of questioning life. She begins to question him too. ""'Do you ever read any of the books you burn?' `Is it true that long ago firemen put out fires instead of going to start them?' and the worst of all, `Are you happy?'"" And there begins Montag's conflict with the government and with himself. When he reads a line of a book he realizes that there is no turning back. He can't be who he was before. And maybe he doesn't want to be. The book is set up as a narrative of one man's experience in trying to rebel against a world that has almost complete control. It is written partly as a typical novel and partly as a sequence of Montag's thoughts. The plot is hard to follow in places and often confusing but the idea behind the story is important enough to make reading the book worthwhile. Bradbury attempts to warn us of what the future may hold that we might prevent the beginning of a world of tyranny. He tells us to remember and cherish the attributes that make us who we are. He teaches us to be an individual and challenge the world around us. Although I did not enjoy the novel, because of the confusion, its message is very important if I want a world where what I think and say is important. A world in where I am a person with rights and opinions that are as valued as any other person's. I do want that world." +675,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,5.0,928108800,Absolutely Marvelous!,"At first it takes a while for one to understand the setting, but once it gets going this book just doesn't stop! An action-packed novel with a beautiful ending. Quite possibly Ray Bradbury's greatest piece of Literatue! Hands down this is one of the best books ever written. I think siskel and ebert said it best when they said, "Two Thumbs Up!"" +676,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A317CUPDD6NKJN,shel99,2/2,5.0,951436800,Chilling,"To you reviewers who had to read this book for school and hated it: I too was forced to read it when I was in 8th grade, and felt the same way about it that you do. I thought it was the dumbest most boring book I'd ever read.I'm telling you now: wait 5 or 6 years, and pick this book up again. I promise you will enjoy it. It's a story of an oppressed society and a man with the courage to try and break free. Please, give Farenheit 451 another chance. You won't regret it." +677,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,,,1/6,4.0,939340800,Good book,"The book I read this quarter is called Fahrenheit 451. The author of the book is Ray Bradbury. The book takes place in the future. Some of the environments include: Montag's house, the fire house, and Faber's house. In my oponion, the city and the river were the most important sites in the book. The city is were Montag was chased, and the river is important because this is where Montag finally dodged the city officials. I think that Fahrenheit 451 would best be classified as a science fiction. It is this genre because it is set in the future. Also, it is make believe because firefighters don't burn books in our society. Ray Bradbury has written many short stories, novels, plays, and poems. At 12, he wrote his first short story. He has produced two of his own plays, made two musicals, and helped with an animated film. In 1962 Icarcs Mantgolfer was nomanated for an academy award. Ray Bradbury has had his own television show, named the Ray Bradbury Theater has won many different cable awards. The book is about a firefighter named Guy Montag. His job is not to put out fires, but to set books ablaze. As the story goes along he starts to question many things about his job and the books he burns. About this time Guy starts stealing books. He made many attempts to read them, but he didn't understand them. Guy then contacted Faber, a retired professor, to help him interpret the books. Then Beatty, the fire chief, suspected Guy of burning books. Because this was aganist the law, Bettay went to Guy's house to burn his books. At that time Bettay placed Montag under arrest. Fearing he might be killed, Guy flees from city officals. He finally loses them when he hides in the river. When Guy emerges he meets a group of retired professors and teachers. They helped Guy escape and they recite to him as they travel. That is where the book ended. . The main character of the book is Guy Montag. He is a firefighter. Montag was not very educated, but he was ""programed"" to set books on fire. Guy is important to the book because if he wasn't there then there would be no book. He is also important because he is the olny person with the drive needed to change the laws of owning books. He is married to Mildred Moontag. Another improtant character of the book is Faber. He is a retired professor who quit when the college where he taught closed. Faber, a very well educated man, had been illegally reading books very discreetly. Faber is improtant to the book because without Faber's help Montag never would have escaped. Faber is also the person who coached Montag whenever he was in trouble. I think the theme of the book is that we shouldn't take books forgranted. I think Farheniet 451 is saying that books are very important resources and that slowly with technology thay are becomming more and more obsolete. Overall I liked most of the book. There were many dead spots in the book that left me lost. At the begenning I really didn't catch on and understand the it. But, when it picked up, it was a very good and interesting book. This is why I would reccomend it to a friend." +678,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A10OAYZ44KV5WY,"B. LaVictoire ""B. Beneshe""",0/1,5.0,1088985600,An Enduring Classic,"In an age of instant "classics", this book has stood the the test of time. Let us remember, this book was written in the 1950's, not today. So, yes, the story line might seem a little worn, but that's because it has been repeated, used, and indead, to pardon a pun, worn by humanity for five decades. Like many of Bradbury's works, this stands as a warning of humanity's arrogance, dependance upon technology, and lack of learning." +679,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A33K60CSQDJTKZ,Sarah Baker,0/0,3.0,1047340800,School Review,"Fahrenheit 451 was a twisted novel where everything you had previously believed in, was proved wrong. It created a world where fireman started fires instead of putting them out. It was a time where houses were all made fireproof. It was a world where people didn't just sit and talk, and have educated conversations, there was actually very little exchange between people. Its quite on the contrary, it's a world where TV's lined whole walls, and if you pay extra they can even say your name! The fireman lived in firehouses, but had robotic dogs that were trained to attack and kill! The story is about a fireman, Guy Montage, who meets a young girl who tells him how life used to be, and about what can be found in books. Guy then steals books and reads them. In reading these books he has discovers the truth, he discovers the way life was and should be, he reads about philosophy and poetry, even the bible. His wife rats him out to the fireman and they come to burn down his house to destroy all the books kept inside. He then becomes a criminal running from everyone. His goal is to set up fireman across the world by planting books in their homes, therefore destroying all firemen and hopefully returning the world to the way it used to be like in the young girls stories.This was a very exciting book, and very colorful. It painted a very beautiful painting in my head and described things so thoroughly that I believed that a world like that might possibly exists somewhere out there." +680,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,AJQ1S39GZBKUG,"A. T. A. Oliveira ""A. T. A. Oliveira""",4/4,5.0,1068249600,Great book from a good writer,"At some point, Ray Bradbury states in his novel `Fahrenheit 451': `The good writers touch life often. The mediocre ones run a quick hand over her. The bad ones rape her and leave her for the flies'. Bearing this in mind, it is doubtless that Bradbury is included among the good writers. In his novel, he managed to create a parable about the intellectual wakening of a man and the dangers of censorship, in a society where people are not allowed to think.In an undefined future, the firemen job is to start fire. They are supposed to burn books, and the houses of people who keep published material. Guy Montag is a fireman who has never questioned the pleasures of burning, until one day when out of curiosity he takes a copy of a book home and together with his wife he tries to read. However, they have never read a book, and while they can read, they are not able to understand, to connect the sentences. This is just the awakening of Montag's mind. We know there is something about him, and that he won't be the same until we reach the last page.Rather than being far fetcher Bradbury created a timeless story. Things like those describes in the book have been happening for ages. We may not literally burn books, but books, newspapers and magazines are burnt everyday. Like he describes in the book it began with one minority ripping one paragraph, then another, then one more... until the day that it would be better to burn the whole book. We live in the age of minorities, and we should watch out some request.The present edition is followed by an `Afterword' and a `Coda' written by Bradbury in first person. In the first he tells specifically about this novel, the process of writing and once more give voice to his characters to talk about themselves and they world they --and us-- live. In the second part, the writer talks about how timeless his novel indeed is. These two last chapters are very clarifying and help a lot in the understanding of the book. My suggestion is: read this novel, think of it, and see how the world can be one day. And then do your part to avoid things in this book becoming real, because `Fahrenheit 451' can be anything, but far fetched." +681,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,5.0,895104000,your life is not complete till you read this book!,"how can anyone NOT read this book?? i noticed that it is categorized as young adult, but this poignant and moving story, about living and loving life as much as it is a warning for the future, is for everyone. this book had me up until three in the morning because i literally could not put it down. i read it in one white-knuckled, wide-eyed sitting. because rain really DOES taste just like wine, if you tilt your head back and let raindrops fall on your tongue..." +682,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A10CVTNS7PB9ZW,Per Hammarlund,0/9,1.0,1324252800,Useless that text to speech is not enabled!,"Hi!I guess I didn't look too carefully and missed that text to speech was not enabled.Is there a way to get the publisher to change their mind?Thanks,per" +683,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A31A1WTC7QED83,Kharmic Tide Pool,0/0,4.0,1046131200,What a Book is.,"Everyone seems to think this book is about censorship. I don't really think this is the case. 451 is a book about what books should be about. Books should inspire us to think, to challenge ourselves. The best poetry should make us cry (so, too, should the worst but for other reasons.) Books should make us question our society and it's assumed intrinsic goodness.John Cheever said, in his Pulitzer acceptance speech, that books, maybe, could prevent nuclear war. Bradbury, too, makes this point in the speeches of the wandering academics Montag meets at the end of 451.If you're interested in reading a book with a purpose, with a meaning -- a book which strives to show us where we could go and the bad we could do -- read 451 and let yourself question the status quo." +684,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A2B9Y0WXNSN17U,doomsdayer520,4/4,5.0,1038960000,Bradbury Battles Conformity � Twice,"Sure the story of a nightmare world in which free speech is forbidden, as a parable for the directions our real-life society is going, has been done a million times - both before and after ""Fahrenheit 451."" So why is Bradbury's book a classic? The key is his superior writing skills and offbeat social subversion. In Bradbury's world, free speech has not been suppressed through a fascist exercise in social control and forced conformity, as in Huxley's similar ""Brave New World."" Instead, in this book free speech has been eliminated indirectly through what would now be called rampant political correctness. Every single piece of free speech might be offensive to someone somewhere, so all books and entertainment are eliminated so the masses can waste away in feel-good conformity. Ignorance is bliss in this world. This is a groundbreaking concept for a book written way back in the 50's. Bradbury must have been terrified by the PC hordes that broke out 30 or 40 years later. The one major problem with this book is the characters. The protagonist Montag is ultimately narrow and undefined, even though most of the story concerns his inner struggles. The other main characters - Beatty, Faber, and Granger - exist only as longwinded speechifiers for Bradbury's ideas. But the book is saved by the real sense of creeping dread and social agony lurking in the background, all highlighted by Bradbury's intriguing prose and curveball plot techniques.Be sure to read an edition of this book published after around 1980. Prior to that, editors had abridged the book without Bradbury's consent, removing some troubling passages for the sake of helpless schoolkids (or more likely, their holier-than-thou educators). This is the ultimate irony - censorship of a book about censorship! Be on the lookout for an edition containing Bradbury's ""Coda"" (or epilogue) - a blistering indictment of this issue in which Bradbury essentially tells all opponents to kiss his you-know-what, in a quite scathing way." +685,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A20TVLIF29Z4HV,Jen Kimball,0/0,4.0,960076800,Fahrenheit 451,"Fahrenheit 451, written by Ray Bradbury, is a book that attacks what our society is becoming. Yes, we have a long way to go to be in a state where books are outlawed and firemen start fires instead of stopping them. But still, we have a good head start. People come home from work and plop on the couch and watch TV. You have to be an intellectual to read books. It's just not the norm anymore. In this book, TV has taken over people's lives with wall to wall TV screens. The imagination is lost in the hours of meaningless violence and comedy that is blasted through cables to people's homes. Then, through an array of events, the main character, Montag, starts to wonder about things and think for himself. With society frowning upon thinking, he's in a world of trouble. Fahrenheit 451 is a book that makes the reader think "What really is important in my life?"" +686,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A22YN904L739II,"Eli Freese ""Eli Freese""",0/2,4.0,1098748800,Fahrenheit 451 Book Review,"I really enjoyed this book because of all the suspense it has to offer and just the fictitious setting in the near future. Montag, the main character in this book is a firefighter, but he is not your average firefighter. Firemen now start fires instead of putting them out; and they fuel the fires by burning books.This book has a very futuristic setting to it. People watch television on screens that are as big as the walls because books have been outlawed because the higher authorities were becoming offended by what was said in them. Therefore, soon it was impossible to write something without offending a person, which made literature dull and all the same. The world is going through very harsh times, there have already been a couple of wars since 1990.Montag is fed up with life until he runs into an open minded younger girl named Clarisse. She is different from most people at the time with a passion for nature and a love for other people. After Clarisse dies, Montag begins to turn to books for answers as to why they are being burned. Montags firechief Beatty finds out and gives Montag 24 hours to read as much as he wants. Montag will later find out that his wife betrays him because she is disgusted that he is reading and leaves him. Beatty orders Montag to burn his own house then places Montag under arrest only before Montag turns and burns Beatty alive.Montag then has to escape the law from a mechanical hound that is out to get him. In the end, Montag joins up with a group of ""book people"" that have memorized great literary pieces and are basically outlaws on the run. He stays with them and helps to rebuild society.When i got done reading this book i was very surprised to think that this is the way society is slowly becoming. Many more things are being censored now for fear of being chastized then in previous times. Kids nowadays are also much lazier and much less reading is being done by newer generations. This book, although fictitious, still shows what a world without books could do to a society." +687,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A1Y2QZIEH6NRTS,Sophie,1/1,5.0,1324339200,captivating,"As Montag's fire captain tells him, ""You ask why to a lot of things and you wind up very unhappy indeed."" An important difference between this futuristic society created in 1953 and George Orwell's world of 1984 is that Orwell's government was top-down while all the minorities (of every race, color and creed) in Bradbury's dystopia got together to burn everything that offended them. In this case, lack of tolerance for differing voices led to no voices at all--democracy has eaten itself by misunderstanding itself." +688,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A33L7G4E8CID3,"Adam Dukovich ""colts_19""",30/39,3.0,1128729600,Good stepping stone to 1984 and Brave New World,"I'll admit it, in the interest of full disclosure: I don't like Ray Bradbury. Not so much his work, but him. His quasi-luddite persona that distrusts ATMs but dreams of flying cars, his palpable (and occasionally justified) pretentiousness that allowed him to transcend pulp sci-fi in the 50s while still pandering to that crowd. That out of the way...Fahrenheit 451 is an excellent book for a high school sophomore/junior about the dangers of anti-intellectualism and censorship. It is a bracing look at what such policy might lead to. It's fairly well-reasoned and it remains gripping throughout. On the other hand, however, it lacks the sort of over-arching philosophy that can be found in other dystopias. Although it's a great way to get into the subgenre, it's by no means the only or best word upon the subject. It happens to be oversimplified and narrow in focus.It is also, though, excessively didactic. There's very little nuance here, and it's none too subtle about getting across its message. It doesn't quite match up to 1984 and Brave New World, both of which ponder higher philosophical questions and give us plausible scenarios in which the human spirit is broken. In fact, 1984 is now only really significant in its portrait of humanity, since the state it depicts is no longer achievable (I guess Orwell never thought that it would be companies and individuals and not the government who would develop computer technology). Brave New World is the most prophetic of all, largely because it depicts the final showdown of the human spirit and the wheels of society not as a bang, but a whimper, with people so preoccupied with sex and drugs that they just push out thoughts when they come.In fact, Fahrenheit 451 is not all that prophetic. As a warning sign, sure, it retains currency, but it was written before the sexual revolution and the civil rights movement, in Eisenhower's America, where paranoia over Red invasion and Soviet spies like the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss made such private invasion seem inevitable in the name of preserving liberty. In fact, restrictions on expression have been almost infinitely eased since 1954. The Supreme Court under Earl Warren began to strike down state obscenity laws prohibiting mostly porn, but also avant-garde films, to the point now where they're all gone. I'm not about to argue that the arts now are more vital and important than they ever have been, but it helps when the most popular show on TV is The Sopranos when it used to be All in the Family. Now, much more than ever, we live in a society where the minority is free to say what they wish, thanks to the Internet, the great equalizer. That these voices don't all make it into the mainstream is the fault of the media corporations and the anti-intellectual public, not moral queasiness by the majority. In fact, looking at the 50's, with the Hollywood Ten who went to prison for refusing to answer questions about Communists, where being a Communist and speaking out against the government (in some circumstances) were crimes, and Joe McCarthy decrying such people as Arthur Miller and Defense Secretary George C. Marshall as Communists, it is difficult to argue that censorship has worsened. In every measureable respect, things have gotten much better. That's not to say that tomorrow it might go the other way, but it hasn't and it probably won't.In spite of the recent Ray Bradbury renaissance, we need to put all of his work into context. The outwardly-happy-inwardly-freaked-out 1950s led to many great artistic works, like On The Waterfront and film noir, as well as great popular works, like The Twilight Zone, all of which had underneath them the peculiar paranoia of the time. Fahrenheit 451 is no different, and I would implore you to read it and take this into account. It is highly readable, but let's be honest about its impact and accuracy as prediction." +689,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A33OOFRJ2JC00B,Neil Chafin,1/1,5.0,1158796800,read me,"Fahrenheit 451 is a read rich with a delicious story and social commentary. Guy Montag lives in a world made ironic because of the stark contrast to the way we wish our society was today. Firemen don't keep people safe from fires, they bust into houses starting fires. Scholars and professors live on the outside of society because of their love for books, philosophy, and sociology where in our world professors are on the inside and the ignorant majority are on the outside because of their lack of interest for the said disciplines.Literature is correctly portrayed by the leaders of Montag's twisted Earth as a tool that helps people keep in touch with their government and the reality of the world in which they live. This realization by the government lead to a life in which people are encouraged to live `within' the television. Not literally within the television, but completely enamored by a world of entertainment, visual images, and trivial information symbolized by the television. I have a feeling this society isn't hooked to the Discovery Channel.Some go as far as to suggest that our world today is headed towards being like the world of Fahrenheit 451. The explosion of television, fashion, cinema, video games, and the internet certainly suggest that our society is very much interested in entertainment, and probably at the expense of intuitive thought. However entertainment is not a crime, as we all enjoy being entertained. The publishing business is thriving, and so are newspapers, blogs, and other sources of text. It will be interesting to see how far our Earth will progress towards the world of Fahrenheit 451." +690,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,4.0,938044800,A review from Mr. Entertainment Lover,This book is powerful and interesting. It is the future and books are outlawed. Opinion isn't allowed and people are all brainless. In this book a man named Montag must go against the rules and break the law to do what he feels is right. It is indeed a spooky book about a dark future. +691,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,4.0,893808000,"A decent book, I see somwhat related to 1984",It's a book that basically tells of censorship. It is well written and makes you think about censorship today. +692,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A2MPXQB68PGSM8,Chris Howard,1/1,5.0,1174953600,Classic Bradbury and a Classic Novel,"Fahrenheit 451 is such a classic, and sadly, I had never read it. Now that I have, I can see why it's a classic and can see why it will always remain one and remain relevant. This was a very powerful book. Picture a world engaged in war, a world full of censorship, a world where there is no speed limit, a world where people do not engage with each other, but rather engage with the walls. This is the world that Ray Bradbury has created in Fahrenheit 451.451 is the number that the firemen wear on their uniforms. The jobs of the firemen are not to put out fires, but rather, start them. Books are banned in Bradbury's world. Books are seen as not real, silly, impersonal, influential, propaganda and will not be tolerated by the government. So it is that the job of the firemen is to burn every book in existence and to imprison the owner of the books. Quite a scary thing. One of the firemen, Montag (the central character) has kept some books of his own. Upon reading them, he finds that books should exist, and you can see the dilemma that this could cause. That's all I'll say so as not to ruin the story for those who have never read this.This is also my first Bradbury work, and I'm very happy that I've finally discovered him. He is Orson Scott Card's favorite author, so I figured he had to be a pretty damn good writer...and he is! I look forward to reading more of his work. I have Something Wicked This Way Comes sitting on my shelf, so that'll be the next Bradbury. I also have a short story by the name of The Homecoming illustrated by Dave McKean.It's very ironic that this book has been banned seeing as the book is about books being banned and censorship. My thoughts on why it may be banned is because of Montag's challenge of authority. This is shown as a good thing in this book and he is the hero, and it's generally not well taken in our society when one goes up against the government or any form of authority. I think it's ridiculous to ban this book though. This book speaks volumes about power in the wrong hands, ignorance, and many other themes that I could go on forever about. Bottom line is that this is a wonderful book and although it has been banned in some places, I'm glad to see that it is required reading in so many other places." +693,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A2WVR09LBLGUJ5,Beatrice Abdulina,1/3,2.0,991094400,"Fahrenheit 451, Burning Up My Brain","I read Fahrenheit 451 this year, in the seventh grade, as a required reading. As I read this book, I got more and more confused. The plot twisted and turned and left me hanging wondering ""wait... what happened?"". Mr. Bradbury used large words that I learned as vocab. I would recommend this book to no one under the age of about 13, maybe 12. I chose this age because of the hard concepts of burning books and the fast-moving plot of the hound." +694,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A2FPK2P4E0CGR9,Kimkim,0/0,5.0,1277596800,"A Timeless, Thought Provoking Story","I first read this book in high school and loved it. Since then, I've read it again and still love it. Fahrenhiet 451 addresses the serious issues of censorship and how a controlled society of this sort could limit the well being of society as a whole. In this frightening world Ray Bradbury created, books are not allowed and people are encouraged to escape into fantasy television shows that encourage shallow thinking. Guy Montag, a fireman who burns books, begins to question his reality and sets out on a journey in pursuit of freedom and truth. The novel is highly thought provoking because it encourages its readers to think about societal rules and to question the structural foundations of the group mentality. It was also an exciting read." +695,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,4.0,942019200,I really enjoyed this book,"After reading this book, I realize that our society is really destroying itself. I really enjoyed this book, and I think other people should read it, so they can think about ways to help society." +696,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A3FVFJ8D95E9KY,"K. Bentley ""amateur critic""",1/1,5.0,1041984000,Surprisingly a reflection of today's society,"It is pretty up to date, and reflects society, since the concept of different ideas and philosophies is ignored in favor of TV, and remembering the dull words of pop songs, and the dull and almost pointless existences of some people, reflected rather grimly in this book. It was very powerful, and a very remarkable book to say that least. Probably the most realistic and the least sci-fi influenced of all those 'utopian society' novels." +697,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,AOCLOC1KQDS1N,fzwz,0/0,5.0,1360195200,Reread every decade or so,"When he's in the mood, Ray Bradbury can raise his prose to the level of poetry. This entire book is in that surrealistic style, beautiful to some and maddening to others. As the years go by, Fahrenheit 451 becomes ever more prophetic. For me, the most haunting theme is that this is not some 1984 style dictatorship. We subjugated ourselves through apathy and fear of anything different. Recent hits such as "Feed" by M.T. Anderson are deeply in debt to this novel." +698,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A3CCQC21RO215E,Kyle Stewart,0/1,5.0,1085788800,Not 1984,"I've heard some people say that this book rips off 1984, that is NOT true. It's essentially the converse of 1984. In Orwell's masterpiece (I won't deny either of these books that title) the government has absolute power. 1984 has been called "The end of all Utopias" because the people can't win.In Bradbury's work, however, the government is not all powerful, and still has those who work against it that it foolishly ignores. Furthermore, the war is not to permanently distract the people, it is a real thing to win or lose. The people aren't closely monitored, they can even have ideas so long as they don't have books. In the end this is the beggining of a Utopia, in 451 the government can't win, they will eventually fall and a new age of learning will rise...to fall again, and again, and again, but as Bradbury points out unlike the Phoenix we may eventually learn NOT TO JUMP IN THE FREAKIN' FUNERAL PYRE, OR EVEN TO BUILD IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!" +699,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A14WO7K1XGJGYQ,Kme Yay,3/7,3.0,993168000,"Fascinating, Yet Somewhat Confusing","Fahrenheit 451 is a book about firemen burning books. The story is quite fascinating but the way Bradbury works it along is a little confusing. The storyline- Guy Montag is a fireman who burns books and is very proud of his job, that is until one day he meets a girl named Clarrisse and an old man. The story is basically what he decides to do in order to find out why books were banned and what is inside a book that leads people to love them or hate them. The confusing part of this book is that it leaves you thinking "Ok, What just happened?". I recall that more than once I had to re-read a page 4 times and still couldn't figure out what happened. I'm guessing that the reason this book is so confusing is that it takes place in the future yet sometimes it seems so old (probably because it was written awhile ago). You sit there thinking "Is this the real world (in the novel) or are they discussing the past, or are they discussing the future?". If you happen to watch the movie of Fahrenheit 451, watch it after you read the book, or better yet, don't watch it at all. The movie is different in many, many ways, including names and plot." +700,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,AAV8Y7OWQ4038,Katie Simon,0/0,4.0,1074211200,Fahrenheit 451,"For Guy Montag burning the books is a way of life. Never once did he give a second thought to the fact that there was a time, and could again be a time when firemen prevented fires instead of starting them, and book were meant, and allowed to be read, not burned.My favorite aspect of Fahrenheit 451 was how real it was. Although it is a fictional, futuristic novel, the sense that the senerio could happen is chilling to a society that prides itself on freedom of speech and equal liberties.I like Bradbury's writing style also. At first I had little faith that this book could keep my interest, but not too far into reading I couldn't wait to find out what happened next. The language kept you hanging onto every word. Not only was it catching, it was easy to understand and read, yet had a sense of maturity to it." +701,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A1JTG5X4VHJV27,"Plume45 ""kitka12345""",3/3,4.0,1023667200,BURNING TO SWITCH SIDES,"Bradbury's 1950's sci fi classic presents a plot frequent in futuristic tales: the rebellion of the protagonist against the mind-numbing status quo. Fireman Guy Montag knew the pleasure and psychological rush he experienced while burning books; it was privilege to ride the Dragon, to bear the Salamander emblem on his clothing. He delighted in destroying remnants of a previous era, when people foolishly believed and reacted to the printed word. Seeking ever more speed, noise and violence to substitute for lack of intellectual and emotional stimulus, this culture has become shallow, enjoying superficial interactions and slavish obedience to mass mentality. This was a disposable society, where the government manipulated war and city officials doctored the news--to keep an audience or merely save face.But Montag gradually realizes his own dis-ease, as doubts creep into his mind; he begins to stash forbidden books in a secret chache, and to seriously consider the ideas of the school girl next door, whose family has been watched and labeled as antisocial for years. It is very dangerous for an individual to question or defy the prescribed pattern for Happiness, as dictated by mass media techniques. Was there some secret--vital to mankind's happiness and peace of mind--hidden within those scorned and banned books? Could one man save civilization from its own misgudied zeal? This gripping tale (under 150 pages) depicts a society gone amuck; RB provides many serious themes for thoughtful readers of all ages to digest.The 1968 film, though inevitably different from the original, is also a powerful statement. I saw it as a student in Italy. While walking home from the theatre, my companion remarked grimly: "Nobody's getting My books!" It made us realize that we should not take books for granted or ever underestimate the power of the written word." +702,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,AK59I5AB2ZHIR,Jason Ard,1/1,5.0,1184630400,Great book,"This book is a science fiction classic that really gets you thinking. In America it is difficult to imagine a world where free thought is so blatantly censured, but other governments in our world seek to keep their peoples ignorant of the great ideas of writers. This is one of those ""it could happen if we're not careful"" books." +703,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A2N99G1VGFFEO,"Susan M. Wallior ""Didn't Vote for Bush""",15/18,5.0,1221523200,Fahrenheit 451,"Fahrenheit 451At the tender age of 9, as my 30 year old father lay in a hospital dying of cancer, my grieving young mother packed me off to a theater nearby. The feature was Fahrenheit 451, the year was 1966, and I was amazed by the message in this movie, enough to go back every night for a week, and beg my mom for the book. Growing up, I often reflected on how I lost I would be without books, and vowed I would read voraciously through life, and never willingly be part of a society who believed in spoon feeding propaganda to people to make them complacent. Lo and behold, my America has crept in that direction. The message of the movie is not what Government can do to society, but what society allows those in power to do to control them. Reading is indeed the antidote to blind faith in bad leaders. This movie carries a timeless message, one I have shared with my children and grandchild, and everyone who I have lent it or given one to." +704,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,5.0,917481600,Censorship,"I recently read this remarkable novel and felt that the other commentaries were correct in stating that regardless of cowardly, bitchy, and psyco immigrants we should not censor ANYTHING just because they are offended. Minorities are nothing to be concerned about and should all just drop dead if they complain. Thank you." +705,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,,,2/3,4.0,1179705600,Steady Blaze,"This is an excelenent book about book censorship and its tale still fascinates the mind today as much as it did when it was written in the 1950's. This book however i should notice reads in some parts more like a poem then a novel, sacrificing plot and dialogue for poetic beauty.The characters in this book are very deep and realistic leaving a haunting feeling on you, however interestingly he doesn't actualy spend much time actualy describing them, but somehow from the story you can draw so much more than you would from a description, however short or indepth it may be. I suggest this book as a standard reading for all people who wish to understand what the world could (and inevittably is) comming to." +706,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,1/1,5.0,940464000,Ray Bradbury's Best,"I picked up an old paperback copy of this book at a flea market 8 years ago. I couldn't put it down. It's a quick and enjoyable read. Bradbury doesn't hit you with the message until he's ready. He prepares you for it with the main body of the story, and, in the last few pages he provides a biblical quote, from revelations, regarding what books are really for. The quote describes the tree of life and says "And the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." Quite a slam dunk ending that you won't get unless you're ready for it. True literature, he is saying, is to serve a higher consciousness and heal our world. And the tree of life is books, and the leaves on the tree are the pages in those books. This book changed the way I saw and understood things. It's amazing how one book can awaken your vision, and, in turn, awaken your understanding." +707,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A1NVFGV0KB1ITH,SpeedReaderJ,0/0,4.0,1347667200,Amazingly Relevant!,"Amazingly relevant for our times. Story is a little odd and wordy, but it is an excellently crafted piece that will go down in history as a classic." +708,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,AEM2I4LAIJXFZ,"Keith Dougherty ""klayy""",2/3,5.0,971913600,Scary Thought,"Bradbury's classic is another look at how the world could be headed for literary distruction. In his own thoughts at the end of this novel he compares the actual burning of books to the figurative slow burning of books by abridging. He believes that every book should be left in it's original text as the auther so intended; every verb, adjective and comma.This book is a must read for all appreciaters of any type of literature. It reinforced my forgotten belief of a book's true value.So throw down that remote and pick up a good novel, unless of course there's a good episode of Seinfeld on ... or a good movie... and of course you have to watch the world series, and every other sports playoffs .... ahhhh forget books they take up to much time anyway. That didn't last long, did it?" +709,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A2TIXGLD011G9I,Jeff,3/4,5.0,1146096000,"A true classic, and to close to being non-fiction","The reviewer who said there are frightening similarities between the book and what we see happening today is bang on the money.I first read the book in highschool, then reread it several times when I became an adult. I hope they still give this book to high school students to read. It's written clearly and cleanly and is easily digestible. Much like brave new world, we should be shocked at the society portrayed in the book. But if you look carefully around you we are more like that society that we care to admit. I have a friend, a university grad, who refuses to read any books because she thinks they are geeky and dry. She prefers the world of TV and glossy magazines with few words. How different is she from the main characters wife?It's an excellent book you will read quickly but think about for ever." +710,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A3OPEQSTIJ9VCO,"Bianca Muller ""princess_bia""",1/2,4.0,980899200,How dare they burn books...,"This is about a time so far ahead in history that humans have decided that books are evil. and they are banned. people live very superficial lives. the book, as i remember, i read it like years ago, follows this one guy who starts to think that maybe all this anti-book is wrong. he finds a group of people that had all the classics memorized, each book one person. i was amazed to see how the author had chosen to protect the written world, he brought it back to spoken stories. this book was great. it really brings you to a time where everything u believe in is thought to be wrong. strange thought huh? :) i enjoyed this book a lot. happy reading." +711,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A27EU1ZWCOVLWR,mike,2/2,5.0,1040342400,censorship in america,"Fahrenheit 451 is a very interesting book. Written by Ray Bradbury in the spring if 1950, this book gives a somewhat scary view of the future. In this future knowledge is suppressed. Fireman burn books, and start fires instead of preventing them. Life has only one purpose: to be happy. Now this doesn'tsound too bad, but when life loses all purpose, things are pretty bad. This book concerns censorship and how far it can go unchecked. It is also interesting to see what people thought the future would be like. It can be a little confusing for some, but overall it is a superb book." +712,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A2SDRCBPIAXVDW,J. Plummer,2/3,4.0,1174694400,Don't lose Focus,"I'll spare you the summary (you can read that in many other reviews) and tell you that this story is very easy to read and understand. The main idea of the story is that censorship (especially concerning books) is very dangerous and damaging to society. Whether you know it or not, books (especially the classics) are everywhere. From nursery rhymes to mythological stories, they play an important part in our daily lives. They are referenced in tv shows, movies, and in our vernacular. Think of Shakespeare. How many times do we see the Romeo and Juliet story whether it be in movies or music, etc. Or Homer's Odyssey? Or the Bible? If we were to lose these gems, our lives lose that important element. You don't have to be a reader to not feel the magnitude of losing our greatest stories. What I got out of the book also was Mr. Bradbury seemed to be warning the reader that if society doesn't open their eyes and take notice of important issues, the rug is going to be pulled out from under us. If we keep burying our heads in the sand and hiding behind celebrity rags, video games, and sporting events, we'll lose touch with the world around us and become victims of something bigger. He's not saying that fun can't be had, but if our lives are simply filled with sloth and fluff, we are going to be no better than a lemming. It's our duty to educate ourselves in order to prevent things like censorship or war from happening. A very good read, indeed." +713,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A2HII4U9WQ0XUV,"Dark Mechanicus JSG ""Black Ops Teep""",4/4,5.0,1131235200,"24th Century version of RIF: ""Reading is Flammable""","Ray Bradbury's 1953 phantasmagoric blockbuster ""Fahrenheit 451"", written at the height of the fabulist's authorial powers, is a tale of a world gone mad, a topsy-turvy America in which black leather-clad firemen race laughing on their steely Salamanders on midnight alarms, not to quench fires but to start them.The firemen of the nightmare world of ""Fahrenheit 451"", of which the novel's hero Guy Montag is a dedicated one, comprise an army turned against an enemy far more insidious than Flame: they mobilize against ideas, and turn their napalm hoses on the feeble paper on which those subversive ideas are printed, and on the vulnerable binding in which the paper is housed.When I first read ""Fahrenheit 451"" nearly two decades ago, I felt beaten down, nauseated and fatigued. I believed then, and believe now, that it was the most scarily bleak and mercilessly depressing book I had ever read. Even then, I felt the cushion between Bradbury's 24th century nightmare and what we call modern reality was thin and worn.Bradbury gave us until the 24th century to submerge ourselves in the dark, sedated, media-slaked night of ""Fahrenheit 451."" Looking around me, I have come to the conclusion that Bradbury was a pretty optimstic guy.Like Orwell's ""1984"" and Aldous Huxley's ""Brave New World"", Bradbury's ""Fahrenheit 451"" is a dystopian vision, a glimpse into a future America that is frighteningly familiar and yet horribly wrong. It is a technologically advanced, subtle, sophisticated world, full of high-definition television screens that take up an entire wall and beam 24 hour programming to a vacant and eager television audience, 24-hour Reality programming that serves up a TV ""Family"" more engaging, more lifelike, more agreeable, than their own.This is a world where bored, vacuous housewives exchange barbs on the latest presidential contenders laced with observations on which candidate is the most handsome, and which has the most noticeable (to the Television Audience, naturally) facial bunion or boil. It is a world of 'seashells', tiny earphones designed to nest in the inner ear and breathe a sussurus of music into the mind of a medicated listener.Like his English counterparts Huxley and Orwell, Bradbury has served up a soft tyrannical state manned, not by the zealous, but by zombies. It is a world ruled by the media-addicted, the apathetic, the listless, the medicated, the overdosed, the sleeping. Books have been banned, and consigned to the Flame, not because of a despotic regime, but by the common, courteous consensus of a modern democracy desperately eager not to give offense to anyone.Sound familiar?Much like ""1984"", ""Fahrenheit 451"" works because it drills down on an unlikely protagonist. Guy Montag, at least when we meet him, sincerely loves his job. His fellow firemen are not zealots or fascists, but simply pragmatic working men who enjoy what they do. There are unpleasant aspects to the work, naturally---among them the incineration of an old eccentric woman who prefer to die with her beloved books---but like most of ""Fahrenheit 451""'s society, Montag prefers not to think about it. Take a pill, or better still take two---and don't call me in the morning. For Montag, truly, it is a 'pleasure to burn'.Like most revolutionaries, though, Guy Montag is simmering from within; dissatisifed with his wife, whose stomach must be pumped on the very evening he returns from the euphoria of the Burn; dissatisifed with the apathetic society in which he lives; dissatisfied with a job which fails to give expression to the rebel soul that burns within, that impels him to challenge his wife's brazen, flippant friends.There are three catalysts that propel Montag to rebellion: the girl Clarisse, whom he befriends; the immolation of the old woman at the Fire; and his own clandestine book collection.""Fahrenheit 451"" succeeds as both jeremiad and prophecy, true, but it also engages because Bradbury is a literary master: his spare, mechanical narrative of Montag's wife having her stomach pumped by two callous, dirty, jocular technicians practically breathes pure horror, and is one of the most soul-deadening passages I have ever read.But ""451"" also succeeds because it is a mirror of our own increasingly apathetic, violent, media-saturated world: is it so hard to see ourselves in Montag's trackless, cookie-cutter suburban landscape where bookish teenage girls are run down beneath the wheels of speeding pranksters, themselves bored and looking for the cheap thrill of ultra-violence? Is it so hard to see ourselves in the avidity of the Television Audience, watching the panicked, doomed, frantic rictus face of the condemned man stalked by the mechanical Hound, the images of his death broadcast back by the electronic antennaes on the monster's back? Isn't that merely COPS or ""Survivor"" with a bite?I've seen the Future, and it works. Because it is our world I see, our world upon us---for that reason, ""Fahrenheit 451"" is the most terrifying book I have ever read.JSG" +714,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A3KF4IP2MUS8QQ,"Daniel Jolley ""darkgenius""",55/61,5.0,1052352000,A message that grows more important every day,"It was a pleasure to burn. So begins, with this absolutely perfect opening line, Ray Bradbury's celebrated exposition of the dangers of censorship. Everybody knows that Fahrenheit 451 is a novel about book-burning, but this story goes much deeper than those not having read it may suspect. Its message truly does become even more germane and prophetic with every passing day. The skeleton of the plot is rather basic, really. Guy Montag is a fireman whose job it is to burn books and the houses in which these dangerous manifestations of inane scribbling reside - usually hidden. No one even remembers a time when firemen actually put out fires. We join Guy's life as he enters into a cusp of uncertainty. He has dared to pilfer a book here and there and stash them in his house, a most dangerous crime indeed. He soon meets a free-spirited teenager who breathes life into his state of uncertainty and opens his mind to brand new thoughts and possibilities. When she makes him admit that he is not happy, his life is changed forever. He can't take the lack of substance all around him, the wife who thinks of nothing but ""the family"" (a type of interactive programming that dominates the living room), the impending war which everyone essentially ignores. He knows there must be something else in life, and he comes to believe that the enlightenment he is after must surely be contained in books. Montag's conversations with his Fire Chief on this subject are quite astounding and revealing, and between this and Montag's friendship with an old former professor, we learn how Montag's world came to be this way.The government did not simply ban books overnight. Censorship started slowly and at low levels. Some minority group complained about this - deleted; another group complained about that - gone; these fellows over here object to so-and-so - zip. So many little pieces of books were removed that, over time, the very essence of books was destroyed. While the government has now come to insist that reading books is a crime, the horrible truth of the matter is that the society itself, in its fractious ways, is the party responsible for this tragic state of affairs. Can there be a more timely topic for our own time? We continually see history books being rewritten, ""objectionable"" words, phrases, and (horror of horrors) ideas removed from novels and poems so that no one can possibly be offended by anything under the sun. Censorship is a cancer on society, and the world needs visionaries such as Ray Bradbury to forcefully draw attention to the cold hard facts that a majority of the population seems to ignore or fails to acknowledge. Once the true meaning has been chopped out of the books lining our shelves, it will be too late to reverse the momentum without the aid of some kind of miracle. Fahrenheit 451's message is one that all people should be exposed to, and this novel is such a quick (but powerful) read that everyone really should read it. As horrible as it is to envision, I fear that this type of censorship could indeed happen here." +715,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A1Y35PRP3PG9HV,Spencer Limbach,0/0,4.0,1245283200,Scary similarities to modern society,"Fahrenheit 451 is a great book that should not be taken in a literal sense, as it is jam packed with symbolism. In this futuristic setting, nobody seems to be concerned with anything but their own happiness. These people spend majority of their time on frivolous things like fast cars, large televisions, and a type of ear-piece radio. All of the books in the city are to be burned because they create conflicting views amongst the people, ultimately resulting in fighting and unhappiness. Majority of the people are unable to form their own independent thoughts, as the schools are even changed in a way that students only learn facts and not problem solving, logic, reason, or other philosophical subjects. The main character, Montag, is a firefighter that has always done his job (burning books) without questioning. However, after a strange series of events, he slowly begins to develop his own thoughts, and starts questioning the society he lives in." +716,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A68Q0QYU8T29K,Peripa,1/1,4.0,1107302400,One of the quickest classic reads around,"Bradbury makes it look effortless. The story reads so fast it is as if the author wrote it in one sitting with no revisions. This book is the perfect quick read for those on-the-go folks who have little time for leisure reading. And when you are finished, you will uncover another reason the book is so short." +717,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,ACIW8J8AQI2RI,"C. Hulshof ""Sic transit gloria mundi""",2/2,4.0,945043200,Strange and disturbing,"A cynical, yet prophetic view of the world as it is today. The upside-down trick (making fire instead of extinguishing it) has been used to great effect before ('freedom is slavery') and perhaps better. Still, this book is worth the read, if only for the moral warning to society it contains." +718,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A20EGNN8LA38K2,S.R.F.,0/0,5.0,1355702400,I love this book,It was just amazing! It was required reading in high school and then again in college where I had to buy the book. I will always recommend this book to anyone who is interested in it. +719,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A1UJYD8VTPGETJ,Ronald,0/0,5.0,1312243200,Fiction? No longer,"A highly prophetic story about the voluntary dumbing down of society that in today's day-and-age hardly passes as fiction (it's not really about government censorship, as some seem to believe). This is a must-read with a great (and alarmingly urgent) message. The only annoyance for me was the writing style, which I felt was a bit on the tacky side, but the core message here is too important and otherwise well-stated to let that influence my rating. Everyone should read this at least once, and hopefully we'll all learn something from it before it's too late; though the thought seems somewhat optimistic at this point." +720,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A15QIQ9R6RQ4H3,Sierra Carlson,0/0,4.0,1357603200,Strange,The book was amazing and filled with so much symbolism. I liked it but I had to re-read things many times. Once I understood it it was a masterpiece. +721,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,5.0,862358400,A terrifying yarn on extremeist censorship.,"A darkly terrifying tale of an extremist future wherecensorship has married family values: if a six year old shouldn\222tbe reading the material, then no one else can either. Our Hero, who sneaked some books and has been secretly reading them, shows us just why the faceless Authority burns all books at Fahrenheit 451. The future has a strong emphasis on interactive television (hey, it covers the four living room walls), and literacy seems to be at the bottom of the heap. Dossiers are kept on all individuals who show an intellectual spark. Such individuals are swatted out of existence, though there seems to be no shortage of those willing to covertly buck the Authority. Plenty of backstabbing neighbors lead to the climax of the novel.With the emphasis today on television and computer skills, and less emphasis on the basic reading skills (just look at reading scores), one can imagine our future, just 4 generations from now, subtly turning into the extremist future world of Fahrenheit 451. A recommended read for any wishing to extol the virtues of more reading and less television; for those wanting a glimpse of a future where technology has suppressed the creative spark; and for those wishing to learn exactly what censorship does to a society." +722,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A1AYCC9PFQ2UQV,Jorge,2/4,3.0,1010275200,It's gettting hot in here!!,"If you have ever heard the saying ""Don't judge a book by its cover"", you'll notice how Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 is a perfect example of that. Since I was assigned this book to read, I didn't get that enthusiastic with it at first, especially with that title. I thought it was going to be a book were I had to struggle to keep myself awake to read it. After reading the first 4 or 5 pages though, I was proven totally wrong. I became engulfed in this book and couldn't stop reading it. The story felt so real that I could picture it happening in our society without a doubt in my head.I enjoyed reading about how Guy Montag's character unfolded throughout the story and how he realized that just because something was the law didn't mean that it was exactly right. It is good how he followed his beliefs and didn't let anyone tell him that he was wrong. A downside to this book though is that my favorite character, Clarisse, was run over by a car. I believe that Bradbury just added that part to just take her away. I believe if Clarisse would have lived, she would have been at Montag's side and the overall story could have been so much better.Also, I believe that Bradbury could have changed the ending a little. That was the least exciting point of the book. The jets flying by overhead and the city being destroyed was very exciting, but after that, the overall excitement of the book just died off. I am not going to be stereotypical and say that all of Bradbury's books have a dull ending (because I haven't read any other one), but I will say that he should have fixed this one up a little.All in all, Bradbury has written a good book. Not perfect, but good. I think that this is a book that few should be without reading because it can actually knock some sense into them to not be fools and stand up for what they believe in. The book portrays a world that could possibly be our own in a few years. The fate of this world though, will rest upon our own hands." +723,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,5.0,911433600,This Book is one of the best I've read.,This book is really good because it offers a different perspective on life. Some of the things in the book are coming true already. For example as soon as my sister comes home from school she turns on the TV and watches talk shows and soap operas. +724,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,ARUE2BHA15ID5,"Twilightdreamlover ""Mariangeles""",2/3,5.0,1281312000,"Brilliant, depressing, electrifying, profound!!","Ray Bradbury's books make for immediate, mesmerizing, entirely compulsive reading. His prose is electrifying in its use of poetic metaphor and dramatic syntax. The reader is instantly plunged into an alien culture, or a terrifying future, and is not really released even after the last page is turned.I had been postponing reading this novel for years. I am, after all, a confirmed bibliophile. Reading a novel with a plot involving the burning of books would, I kept telling myself, be too traumatic for me.I finally decided to wade in.Need I say that I only put the book down when I absolutely had to, when reality intruded? The novel carried me along on its relentless wave of narrative. Of course, I tried not to picture the books burning as I read, but Bradbury wouldn't let me. Not when he was describing them as living creatures, dying, their pigeon wings flapping.... The fact that I managed to endure this at all is a real tribute to the greatness of his writing.The characters are indelibly imprinted on my brain. The most compelling, of course, is the protagonist, Montag. Equally compelling are Faber, who is obviously Montag's alter ego, and the numinous Clarisse. She is the one who first awakens Montag to the futility of denying his own soul, the stirrings of thought and penetrating questions that reading invariably arouses. The most tragic character is Beatty, who struggles hard against his love of books, in his work as chief fireman. This struggle culminates in a final, ironic conflagration. Montag's wife, Mildred, is to be pitied, since she is unable to acknowledge her emptiness, her consuming loneliness. She pushes away the power and beauty to be found in books. She refuses to come out of denial, preferring `the family', a banal cast of characters she endlessly watches on the living room `wall-to-wall TV', in order to anesthetize the deepest longings of her soul.As I read, I became aware of a deeper sense of discomfort, underneath that elicited by the burning of books. Due to my own life experiences, I, along with this disturbed society, had been unconsciously longing for a world in which no one would ever get his or her feelings hurt - a world where everyone's rights would be respected, especially those of minorities.Bradbury gave me a sobering look at such a world, and it was absolutely terrifying. It was ""American Idol"" gone wild, a world in which people no longer thought, felt, or even communicated on a soul level with other human beings. Instead, they spent all their time being `happy', through mindless, ongoing entertainment.I realized that I didn't want to live in such a world; it would mean the total annihilation of what makes us most deeply human - the ability to dream, to wonder, to ponder the deep truths of life.Books and the questions they raise are incompatible with living in a world where nobody would offend anyone else. Books disturb, probe, anger and challenge. Books are flawed at times, due to their authors' all-too-human penchant for furthering their own pet theories, however twisted they might seem to a reader. Books can make us squirm, for they can force us to face the unwanted realities we try to bury.There is still a part of me that thinks that books such as ""Mein Kampf"" should be burned, or at least, allowed to expire by going, and staying, out of print. The Marquis de Sade also comes to mind as an author of books with a markedly offensive subject matter. Then there's Anais Nin. One of her books chronicles the incestuous relationship she had with her father...The problem is, where do you draw the line? Who decides which books merit extinction?I don't have a final, satisfactory answer.And so I am left feeling restless and slightly depressed, although I'm glad to have read the book, nevertheless. It has caused me to ponder what I really and truly believe regarding the banning of books, and their potentially harmful influences.Yet another uncomfortable element of the plot is Montag's desperate, evil act toward the end of the novel. I suppose it is inevitable, however. It is indeed immoral, but then, so is the entire, nihilistic society he is a part of. It is the act of a man who has turned on a symbol of that society, and so, turned on himself, in a sense, in order to be reborn as a new man, a man who thinks and feels, even if doing so causes him some measure of unhappiness. This act could, itself, be considered a harmful influence on a reader, since Montag evades punishment. Yet, as an act of rebellion, of a misplaced sort of justice, it is totally fitting. Therein lies ""the treason of the artist"", as Ursula K. LeGuin puts it. For the artist makes meaning out of pain, suffering, and tragedy. This is also part of the value to be found in books.The symbol of rebirth is ubiquitous in the novel. At one point, the myth of the Phoenix is mentioned. Ironically, civilization is being reborn out of the very fire it has used to destroy the very objects that had given it meaning - books.By the end of the novel, groups of people have quietly begun the reconstruction, the return to reading. It is a movement that is slowly gathering momentum. Civilization, suggests Bradbury, as Miller's ""Canticle for Leibowitz"" was to do years later, is constantly rising from the ashes of every Dark Age in order to reinvent itself.So I know that I will be re-reading this book sometime in the near future, as I intend to do with Miller's. Both are books that apparently dwell on despair, only to end with a feeling of hope.Bradbury has once again sparked my imagination and tickled my intellect. He also refuses to let me forget his incredible take on a future that may or may not turn out to become all too real." +725,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A3PTCXDS1OELN5,lizbo,0/0,5.0,1347321600,Farenheit 451,I read this book many years ago and enjoyed it then and having re read it was suprised that it was better than I remembered. +726,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A2QWA2R8V3I0UN,1st name= Jasna Last name= Wouldnt u like to...,0/0,4.0,1067385600,hello there,"I thought Farenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury was an excellent book. I loved the metaphors, similies, and symbolism throughout the book (although at first I had no idea what the guy was talking about haha). That was one of my favorite things about it. I also liked the plot of this story. At first, I thought, "This is so weird, who would think of a future with no books and firemen starting fires instead of extinguishing them?" But as the book progressed, I started to realize that this could actually be possible in reality in the future. Right now, most of us would go and reach for the remote instead of a book. Yea, don't try to hide it, you know it's true. Anyways, if this habit of ours soon becomes like a big thing, Ray Bradbury's idea of a book-burning future wouldn't be too out there, if ya know what I mean.I reccomend this book to 7th-8th graders and above, since there are many similies, metaphors, symbolism, etc. in this book(as stated before) that younger readers wouldn't understand. At first it's hard to understand for anyone, including myself, but if you're daring enough to try it out, this is the book for you!" +727,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,AGGD15S0QO5L5,"Xolin ""Set nothing in stone.""",1/1,5.0,1127174400,One of the best books I've ever read!,"Having first heard of Bradbury after reading The Martian Chronicles, I immediately fell in love with his writing and was itching to read Fahrenheit since I had heard so many good things about it.The brilliant novel was better than I thought. What took me the most was the sheer realism of such a strange world. I could feel the pain and fear the characters endured throughout the story as the infamous ""burning of books"" took lives and houses. I really got the sense that books were as taboo (let alone illegal) as narcotics are today.The edition I read included an afterward by Bradbury reflecting upon his own story after about 20 years. I was impressed that he felt that he wouldn't have changed much if he had the chance. This was but another bulletpoint in my list of reasons to have such high respect for this acclaimed author. Fahrenheit 451 was a fantastic read and I encourage everyone to read it, especially sci-fi fans and librarians :)." +728,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,,,1/1,5.0,888451200,"A good book, with many hidden concepts.","I am a 13-year-old girl in an Extended Projects Program English class, and so I read this book (because it was a classic, and that fulfilled the assignment). I think that this was a very futuristic and imaginative story, as other Bradbury creations. I would reccomend this book to any bright student who enjoys any type of books ranging from sci-fi to plain fiction, or anyone who just likes to read classics. I must admit that there were some facts and happenings in this book that I did not necessarily understand completely, or a line of events that seemed out of order or somewhat confusing. This is definitely not an easily interrupted book - one must have a long period of time on his hands to get through a few chapters. Overall, I recommend any of Bradbury's books to anyone with truly good taste in books. :-) Thank you for reading this On-line Review." +729,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A38YJGUCEJ6JZB,"Robert Weitzman ""High Tech High""",3/4,4.0,1195257600,"Fahrenheit 451, as seen by high school students","Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury, is a controversial book that takes place in the future. It revolves around a firefighter named Guy Montag, but is very unlike firefighters of our time. In Fahrenheit 451, the job of firefighters is to burn books and houses where they are kept, even if that means burning the people in the homes. The people of authority believe that books are bad for society because they cause conflict between groups of people. They also make people think more than necessary, which always causes trouble. Because of the censorship in society, the citizens have become no more than robots; the few people who refuse to conform are killed by the government. Montag finally sees the truth to the life that he has been blindly living for thirty years and decides that there is need for reform in society, and that he can help to change it.The main characters of this book are Montag, Mildred, Clarrise and Fire Captain Beatty. Montag is a fireman from the third generation that burns books. He is not often aware of the actions that he takes. But when he meets Clarisse he opens his eyes and starts to realize the true meaning of books and life. Mildred is Montag's sick wife. She is suicidal and her only life is with her fake ""family"" within the walls of her parlor. Mildred doesn't care about Montag, nor does she understand him. Clarisse is an intelligent and adventurous seventeen year old girl who becomes friends with Montag. She introduces him to the meaning and beauty of life. Clarisse is very different from other because she ""ask's `why' rather than `how'"". Captain Beatty is perhaps one of the most interesting characters of the story because he is the enlightened man who has given up because it is simply easier to lose than to fight.The main themes are censorship, ignorance, and redemption. Censorship is shown in destruction and fear because authoritative figures burn houses down that have books and other material that is harmful to the community; books, magazines, and anything that is educational that might cause someone to question the community that they live in. For example, the firefighters burned an elderly ladies' house because she questioned the community. The leadership is so corrupt that they end up burning the old lady as well because she wanted to stay with her books and they didn't feel like trying to get her to leave. Montag shows ignorance when Clarisse starts sharing her ideas with him and he thinks that she is crazy even though almost everything she says is completely true. Eventually he starts to question his own actions about burning houses. He redeems his ignorance by listening to her and finally by having a paradigm shift and fighting back against his own fellow firefighters and society's structure.One of the strengths of the book was a strong use of imagery. One example being what Montag said about his wife Mildred: ""If only someone else's flesh and brain and memory. If only they could have taken her mind along to the dry cleaner's and emptied the pockets and steamed and cleansed it and reblocked it and brought it back in the morning."" In this small passage you could imagine the picture your head and live the scene. Ray Bradbury used strong imagery to enhance the story and make it seem more real. Another strength of the book is the use of symbols, such as Montag, which is the name of a paper manufacturer. Some of the weaknesses are that some of the characters, mainly Mildred and Clarrise, did not play a big enough role in the story. They made short appearances and then left or died, but they were two of the most interesting characters. One final weakness of this story was that the end came so suddenly and it felt as though we had been ripped off because the whole story led up to an unexciting end. In conclusion, the book was a good book it was very interesting and had some meaning in it." +730,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A2Y5MXIRBMI4B7,Tara Mallory,0/0,3.0,1130198400,Fahrenheit 451,"Fahrenheit 451 is a book that is set in the futuristic time of the 24th century. Ray Bradbury, the author of the book, tells his vision of the future which is definitly technology enhanced.The main character, Guy Montag, is a fireman who loves fire. In this time it is firemens job to start fire to a house of those who have disobeyed the law, like possesing a book. The people of this society are to think the same and to know of no different. Guy Montag is of course one of these people. However this soon changes when he meets a young girl names Clarisse who is quick to change Montags beliefs.Montag begins to realize that that book burning is wrong and the thing that he loves burning is the very thing that spreads knowledge and opinion. After he realizes this he is tempted to steal one of his own. He does this and the plot begins to unfold. He tells his wife of his secret and that he actually has stolen many more. His wife disagrees with him that this is the right thing to do and turns him in. Guy Montag meets new people along the way that have the same opinion about this stuff and they help him. Montag tries to rebuild his society with new freedoms after it is destroyed in war.I enjoyed this book becase Bradbury's descriptions and vocabulary usages are amazing. I liked how he showed that the things we think so little of are really very important to the life and freedoms that we have today. He also shows that sometimes inventions can get out of control and we forget how to do the simple things becase the machines do it for us. The author creates a world that is threatening and exotic but at the same time is is familiar enough to seem real. I enjoyed this book even though at times it could get confusing and complicated it is definitly one of the better thought-provoking books I have read yet." +731,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,,,2/4,3.0,941932800,"In the words of Homer Simpson "Good, but not Great"","When I was handed my copy of this book I thought that it was going to be up there with "1984" and "A clockwork Orange" "Lord of the flies", that sort of thing. But I was mistaken. The book was kind of shallow at times and left me thinking "there should be more to this" but there was not. The whole book I was waiting for something big to happen, but nothing ever did. The book did however have some good points. Bradbury has an odd writing style that I'm not a big fan of. That is why, it got 3 stars from me." +732,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,4.0,900288000,A futuristic page-turner!,"A remarkable tale of censurship and the decay of human knowledge. This is the first Bradbury book I've read and I must say that it impressed me greatly. Not only is it extremely easy to read, but it has a remarkable (yet chilling) plot." +733,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,4.0,931651200,Great book about a bleak future. I read it in one day.,"Fahrenheit 451 is a novel about a future where books are banned, yet it makes you think is it possible? Ranks with 1984 and Brave New World in bleak future worlds where education is not widely promoted. A very scary thought for book lovers." +734,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A2NHDYVPWKRFTS,"harvey dent ""harvey_dent""",0/0,4.0,992476800,Twilight zone material,"I always like to read a classic every once in a while, whether it be a mystery, literature, or good old science fiction. It seems that many of the classic science fiction novels deal more with man's attitude toward his surroundings rather than the stories of aliens and the future world gone crazy thru technology. This book takes the simple premise of a world where books are illegal and turns it into a Twilight Zone episode. The best part of a novel such as this is that the reader is forced to contemplate a scenario which is actually imaginable and decide how he or she would act and react. An interesting story to say the least....." +735,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A1N8PQA470MQXE,Andrew T. West,0/0,4.0,1257638400,Read this for the first time as an adult and enjoyed it,"Fahrenheit 451 sees the future of the world, and it hates what it sees. People have become apathetic and worthless. No one cares about morality or the search for truth. Everyone is a mindless drone.As mentioned by other reviewers, the story is in many ways prophetic. It's fascinating how the author predicts modern technologies like projection TVs (the TV parlor), iPods (ear thimbles), and even Bluetooth headsets (Faber's ""green bullet"").My favorite part of the story is Beatty's lecture in Montag's house, just before he leaves. Through Beatty's character, Bradbury warns of out-of-control government growth and the brainwashing and indoctrination of children. We'd be wise to heed this warning.This book is a fairly easy read because it's short, but it provides plenty of food for thought." +736,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A41N2XHK2AXKM,Jack Collens,1/1,5.0,945216000,WOOOWWW! I'm impressed with this book!,"This book was your average school assigned novel. NOOOOTTTTT! It was jam-packed with humor, drama, horror, and action. Guy Montag, the protagonist, turns upon his profession as a fireman. Firemen in the future burn books and the houses that contain them. IF YOU DON'T READ THIS BOOK, I'M GOING TO GET YOU! HA HA HA HAAA!" +737,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A3C9SLIWJRC5TI,Joanneva12a,3/4,5.0,1191888000,Fahrenheit 451,"Timeless work on a futuristic society completely and utterly ignorant of any reality except their corporate jingles, giant TV's, and fake families. A look into a shallow desensitized self censored society where intellectuals are targeted as criminals, books are outlawed, and those who refuse to submit are tracked down by the mechanical hound.Fahrenheit 451 is a frightening look inside of a corporate dystopian hell where there is no `We the People' just `we the market' and the State is omnipotent. Out on the fringes of the state's control remains a remnant of society, mostly hobos, who are dedicated to preserving the words that many will never read. A classic example when people stop thinking for themselves." +738,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A21OPYQEVFAW62,"M. Weaver ""marcopolo""",2/2,5.0,1289433600,"Intricate, Prophetic, Beautiful","I really loved this book. I'm sure the average reader will, too. Bradbury's prose is rich in metaphors and images and most of all, you capture his intent and feeling that he perfectly places in every moment of the book.The world the book is set it is ironically similar to ours today, and I find it kind of funny how Mildred is so incredibly similar to some people I know myself.Science Fiction is a label and this book is more of a homily. It's an important read because it asks so many questions...how does Our America compare to his?Read this book and decide for yourself...are you in progress and on track to being in a ""parlor family"" or are you curious enough to learn and love the World we live in." +739,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A3OYAKW99QA9UH,Katey,0/0,5.0,1122854400,Brilliant,"Many other people have already said that they liked the book, but I really have to say, this is one of the most brilliant stories of all time. From the first sentence 'It was a pleasure to burn' to the end, I couldn't put this down. It's almost poetic, you don't get stuck in bogged down writing full of unimportant details. This book is an extremely easy read, yet it is a hundred times more impactful then a 500 page book that takes you weeks to finish. Sure, you'll think about that while you're reading it, but this book will come back to haunt you years down the line.For a story written so long ago, it's frightening that society has done nothing to prove it wrong. This is a classic story about censorship that manages to enforce it's point without sounding at all preachy. It encourages thought. I wish they had made me read this in school, surely this would strike a chord in many people bored by the onslought of bad shakespeare movies. Hopefully this story serves as a cautionary tale to the people of today. Our TV's keep getting bigger, our music more portable, our transportation faster, but it feels like, in our need for speed, we're leaving the important things behind.To conclude, this is a brilliant story, even who people who read but once a year. While it's simple to understand, It's one of the most profound things that you'll ever read." +740,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,ADNACZMEIDO6Q,Marty,2/2,4.0,1008115200,A Unique Outlook on the Future of Censorship,"Many writers have been called ahead of their time. Raymond Bradbury is a prime example of this. His novel, Fahrenheit 451, is far and away the most original book this reviewer has ever read, not to mention one of the best written.Bradbury has a unique style which allows the reader to picture the story in their mind in the style of a David Fincher movie. Chuck Palahnuk, author of Fight Club, shares this same quality.The most striking aspect of Fahrenheit 451 is by far its plot: firefighters who burn houses, rather than put out the fires. (...) the novel itself becomes hard to put down. As the reader follows the movements and thoughts of Guy Montag, rogue firefighter who dares to read books, making him a hypocrite. Montag's progression from book burner to advocater of reading, to fugitive on the run from a world who decides that he has learned too much is as strange as it is heroic.Bradbury's unique take on the future is common only with the views of George Orwell, author of 1984. In both of these novels, the government decides that it has had enough of the uniqueness that makes America so great, so ""Big Brother"" must eliminate. Despite this similarity, Fahrenheit manages to distance itself with the use of censorship. Censorship as it is is out of control in the United States, and Bradbury's tale is hopefully not prophetic. Overall, few books are as captivating and original as Ray Bradbury's beautiful Fahrenheit 451." +741,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,5.0,881280000,"Alright, but sort of weird","Ray Bradbury's book, Fahrenheit 451 is actually a pretty good book. I read it in seventh grade and I recommend it to anyone who likes books. Fahrenheit 451 has a very captivating plot and is pretty well written, but at some parts it got extremely confusing, especially at the part when Guy Montag's wife took too much drugs or something like that. I read that part over 50 times and I still didn't get it until I had to asked my brother." +742,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,AER53DQFRU9PJ,"""blackarrow017""",1/1,3.0,1066003200,Great concept,"The premises of Fahrenheit 451 are promising: the ever looming "this-could-happen" is enacted out in the form of Guy Montag and his little world where people desire only 4 screen televisions in their parlour, where advertising reigns supreme, etc. A vast majority of books are illegal because they inspire conflict (the Koran and the Bible, Wealth of Nations and The Communist Manifesto) with conflicting ideas. Who would want that? The human race might actually get somewhere.It's a fantastic concept, and should lead to a great book. However, I've read this three times and each time I get the same general feeling: this could have been so much better. So, read it, just for the sake of reading it, but don't expect a huge masterpiece." +743,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A1241U6QCSX5YJ,Erren Geraud Kelly,0/0,5.0,999561600,Guy Montag knew what he had to do...,"he stopped worshipping fire and treated it like the enemy it was when it came to books, except when it came it beatty, whom he turned into a marshmallow. then he met the others who were doing their best to keep the words alive to pass along to the next generation... don't be put off by the fact that it's sci-fi. i love reading stuff that no one thinks i would read. it's not " war and peace " ( 165 pages ) you can read it in a day. and the message will stay with you for life...don't make any more excuses...." +744,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A2T6RWGHT3DIDH,"Suzanne E. Anderson ""Author""",6/7,5.0,1004400000,Frightening......and beautifully written,"This short book has been around for over forty years and I'll bet it will be around for at least another hundred because the truth of its message is a constant reminder of the value of books and priceless-ness of freedom of speech.Ray Bradbury takes a simple scenario....what would the future look like if "real" media were the only allowed form of information, and books, especially fiction, was outlawed. At first blush, there would be a few who might say, "well we don't read that much now...we get most of our information from tv, our entertainment from movies, or our computers." But it's more than that if you really stop to consider that when you choose to pick up a book of YOUR choosing your are excercising not only a basic intellectual freedom, you are also exerting your privacy, your right to choose how you'll spend your time, and how you'll choose to look at the world.Bradbury considers all of these things and the choices one man decided to make as a consequence. What was so exciting for me was to be able to contemplate these ideas within the context of a story told with beautiful language and images and a story that will grab you until the very end.I know this book is one of those that gets assigned in high school and then never sees the light of day afterward......well, as an ancient 40-year-old, I think that's a shame. It's a great read no matter what your age.Highly recommended." +745,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,AIFDGL2APO07N,H Park,22/23,4.0,948758400,"A book rich with literary devices",""Fahrenheit 451", written by Ray Bradbury, is the chilling, prophetic, science fiction novel of the future. About censorship, it portrays a world where books are outlawed by a totalitarian goverenment, it shows how society's only goal is to achieve "pleasure" through the senses. It tells of a world where petty facts are more valued than knowledge and ideas; a place and time where no one questions what they are doing and why, but just doing it by rote. Guy Montag is a fireman of the future. Ironically, his job is to start fires, to burn everything, especially "corrupt" books that contradict the government, and society's way of life; books that make people think and learn to question things. Like all others, he doesn't ask questions, and enjoys his job, enjoys burning things, because "fire is bright and fire is clean." He lives oblivious to the frightening realities of life until his next-door neighbor, Clarisse, a young girl of seventeen, teaches him to ponder what might be behind the books that he burns, to learn to ask the question "why?" This causes him to undergo a "crisis of fiath." Examining his life for the first time, he sees how empty and meaningless it is. His wife cares for nothing else than her "television family" and is sucked into a world of endless chatter, movement, and moving images. He realizes the terrible horror of what society is doing; watching the tube, "oohing" and "aahing" but not really talking nor communicating with one another. Montag grows to recognize what a corrupt society he is living in. When clarisse mysteriously disappears, Montag is motivated to make some changes in his life. During nighttime "calls," he starts hoarding books away in his home, determined to understand what is behind those pages. Montag also tries to ignore Captain Beatty who tries to confuse him in his search for the meaning of books. Pondering the questions of life, his futile search for the ultimate "truth" leads him to Faber, a retired English professor. With Faber's help, Montag finds the road to justice and restoring the "past" where people are not afraid. Written in third-person, this book is an excellent portrayal of human nature; the good, the bad, and the in-between. Ray Bradbury, the author, paints a vivid picture of a future with no books, and makes the reader realize that without books, creativity and thought would be stifled. Literary devices such as similes, metaphors, and rich symbolism (example: "seashells" are the future generation's discmans) are used by the author to enrich the story. There are many types of conflicts shown in "Fahrenheit 451;" person vs. self, person vs. society, and person vs. person. Montag struggles with himself and tries to distinguish between right and wrong. He also battles with the society around him, and tries to make them realize that books are not to be feared, but worshipped. This is evident when he reads the poem to Mildred and her friends while they are in the "parlor" watching the "walls." But becuase of their lack of understanding and depth, they do not udnerstand the purpose and meaning behind the poem and regards Montag as being "crazy." Montag'ss struggles with Captain Beatty is the person vs. person conflict represented in the book. Since the world declining to conditions recounted in the book is hgihly possible, the novel has an "aura of chilling prophecy," which I like. A sense of the "not so distant future," with fantastic magical realism such as "spacecrafts"are common in all of Ray Bradbury's work, such as the "Illustrated Man" and "Fahrenheit 451." I enjoyed reading this "thought-provoking novel," about the future and censorship. It is no small wonder why there are over four and a half million copies in print all over the world." +746,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,2/4,2.0,936144000,it was okay,"I had to read this book for school, and at first I hated it. The beginning chapter is hard to understand because of all the symbolism, however, it eventually gets better. (slowly) It is easy to miss some concepts if you don't read slowly enough. I felt that the ending was far-fetched and boring. I did enjoy reading about a dystopian society, but altogether, the book is tedious and slow-moving." +747,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A2BON03VAFS1SZ,Michael Fishman,6/11,2.0,1297468800,Didn't hold up for me,"If you look at Farenheit 451 from the perspective of when it was written, you can be amazed at Bradbury's prophecy. I tried to keep that thought in mind when reading the book but I wasn't able to put myself into any type of Cold War paranoia mind frame and as a result, I kept coming back to my 2011 mindset and thinking, hey, we have bigger fish to fry, or bigger books to burn, nowadays.Anyway, that's just me.The idea of censorship and government control and general public apathy was interesting, and the idea of society possibly heading there, or already there if you want to think about the obsession with television, is frightening, but when I finished the book I'm sitting there thinking, That's it? That's all? So we suffer through all of this to find out that there's a group of people in the country who have memorized books? That's great, books and ideas and free thought live!, but then what in the world was the whole sense of Montag's story leading up to that great revelation?I thought Montag was a little wimpy and the whole chase at the end wasn't exciting. I found the writing a little difficult to read at times, very choppy and dull. I wouldn't recommend this book" +748,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A3VNS3XRRW5FU7,"Dustin A. Demille ""Dustin Augustine DeMille""",2/2,5.0,1335571200,"An amazing, profound piece of classic literature.","Fahrenheit 451Ray Bradbury's novel, ""Fahrenheit 451"" is a fascinating depiction of a world where books are banned and burned. It is a frightening vision of a fascist, future America where dissent and independent thought is discouraged. Supposedly, books conjure up to many feelings and questions; people are better off in ignorant bliss. Reading books is illegal. People are absorbed by huge televisions displaying mindless programming. Written in 1960, the novel is set around our time. In our alternate history, people stopped reading books, and humanities courses in college lost interest and were dropped. Society became ever more automic and fast-paced. War is ever-prevalent, as fighter jets are constantly heard, screeching across the sky. It is a picture of a society in decline.Our protagonist Guy Montag is a fireman whose job it is to seek out and destroy books. Houses are all made of brick now, so they can't burn. He meets a lovely, young lady who asks him questions and gets his mind thinking. In secret, he begins to keep and read some of the books and discovers a new world. He also meets an old man who used to be a humanities professor; he shows Montag his library and helps him to see things in a new light.This is an amazing classic novel. Its implications for our society are profound. People should slow down, stop being brainwashed by television, and open their mind to the world of books. This novel is intelligent, extremely well-written, and a pleasure to read." +749,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/10,1.0,1041897600,Fahrenheit 451,"We thought this book was a good one, but it started out to be slow and confusing. It is about a person name Guy Montag and he is a firefighter that burns books. He is starting to find out that it is not a good job, and he wants to quiet. This is all i can say because if I tell you any more it will give the book away. I can tell you that this is a science-fiction book, and it involves a different society. This is what makes the book so great.In conclusion, this is a good book, and even though it is hard to read in the begining, it gets much better.\Thanks for reading this." +750,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,5.0,984787200,Why the bad reviews?,"As I looked up this book after reading it, I saw it had an average rating of only four stars. What was wrong with it? People claim they don't understand it, but it's very simple and clear. And what is wrong with it? This book is classic, and is one of the most perfect foretellings of the future ever. Read it and ignore the two star reviewers." +751,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,4.0,1085011200,GOOD BOOK,The book Fahrenheit 451 was a very realistic novel. I believe the future will bring people to eventually hate books. There are more and more ways to read a book without even reading. Television is a big part in why people today do not want to read. Children begin watching TV at a very early age and just lose complete interest in reading period. There have been studies where watching television for a couple of hours each day causes ADD which will effect the amount of reading a person will do.This is an easy read for any type of reader. There is a clearly outlined plot. There is nowhere to get confused or even lost. Guy Montag is a fireman who burns books. Now you might think a fireman burning books is lame but it really just makes this entire novel so much more interesting to read. The people can't even remember the last time a fireman put out a fire! Than Guy Montag's new neighbor clarrise shows him why reading is not bad but good. Clarrise shows him the beauty of reading and all of its positive feedbacks. Of course this is a very dangerous game he is playing for if he would get caught he could be arrested. When Montag finds out that his chief fireman knows he has a stash of books in is house Montags ends up burning his own house down.The Characters in this book are explained to you in a really interesting way. Guy Montag is explained in great detail on both his physical appearance as a fireman and mentally. Each character is explained on how he or she acts and this helped me a lot when I was reading this book it helped me understand each character a lot better than any other book. +752,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,5.0,916358400,Farenheit 451: The relevant and haunting masterpiece,"Guy Montag is a hero of heroes in this masterpiece of a book. He is a misguided soul who never wonders whether his and his companions' actions are just and right. When the idea of the flaw of his society is introduced, Guy goes on a difficult journey for the truth. This is a book that will stay with you forever." +753,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A32M45IN1VE2XW,Lili Machado,0/1,5.0,1348617600,Guy Montag é um bombeiro cujo trabalho é destruir o mais ilegal dos meios de comunicao - os livros impressos.,"O internacionalmente aclamado romance de Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451, é uma obra-prima da literatura de fico científica do século XX, tendo como cenário um futuro preocupante e assustador, para nós leitores.Guy Montag é um bombeiro. Seu trabalho é destruir o mais ilegal dos meios de comunicao - os livros impressos - juntamente com as casas onde esto escondidos.Em seu mundo, onde a televiso impera e a literatura está em extino, os bombeiros iniciam os incndios ao invés de debelá-los.Guy Montag nunca questiona essa destruio produzida por seu trabalho, retornando todos os dias para sua casa e sua esposa Mildred, que passa o dia todo assistindo televiso, e implorando para que ele trabalhe cada vez mais, para que eles possam comprar um aparelho mais moderno.Mas quando ele se encontra com sua estranha e jovem vizinha Clarisse, que o apresenta a um passado onde as pessoas conversavam, no viviam com medo, e a um presente onde se olha o mundo através das idéias lidas nos livros, e no através dos programas de tv.Ninguém mais tem pensamentos originais; com a destruio dos livros, a criatividade se perdeu...Quando Mildred tenta o suicídio e Clarisse desaparece misteriosamente, Montag comea a questionar tudo que conhece.Ele comea a esconder livros em sua casa, e quando é descoberto, tem de fugir para sobreviver.Ele acaba se juntando a um grupo de acadmicos que tentam manter vivos os conhecimentos dos livros queimados, em suas mentes, esperando que, um dia, a sociedade volte a precisar da sabedoria da literatura.A sociedade apresentada por Ray Bradbury tem a aprncia de felicidade completa - um lugar onde a informao banal é a boa informao, e o conhecimento e idéias novas so o mal que ameaa.Na palavra do Comandante dos Bombeiros, Capito Beatty: ""D às pessoas, concursos onde elas podem ganhar ao se lembrar das palavras das canes mais populares... No d a elas coisas como filosofia ou sociologia, para complicar e trazer a melancolia.""O mais perturbador sobre Fahrenheit 451, escrito em 1953, é atualíssimo. Estamos quase chegando a realidade apresentada.Os livros ainda no foram banidos, mas a indústria do entretinimento é quem está no controle das mentes das pessoas, através do politicamente correto.O desenvolvimento tecnológico é real demais para deixarmos de notar as semelhanas. O rádio-concha de Montag é o nosso MP3, as telas de tv esto crescendo cada vez mais, indo em direo à televiso de parede inteira de Mildred.Ignore as pessoas que continuam a no entender o simbolismo deste texto primoroso. Infelizmente, é a grande maioria dos leitores. O engraado é que este livro é exatamente dirigido para estes.Este livro de Bradbury me fez ficar mais corajosa. Nunca conseguiro tirar os livros de mim. Será mais fácil queimar-me junto com eles, antes que eu desista de minha liberdade de pensar por mim mesma." +754,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A2HII4U9WQ0XUV,"Dark Mechanicus JSG ""Black Ops Teep""",4/4,5.0,1131235200,"24th Century version of RIF: ""Reading is Flammable""","Ray Bradbury's 1953 phantasmagoric blockbuster ""Fahrenheit 451"", written at the height of the fabulist's authorial powers, is a tale of a world gone mad, a topsy-turvy America in which black leather-clad firemen race laughing on their steely Salamanders on midnight alarms, not to quench fires but to start them.The firemen of the nightmare world of ""Fahrenheit 451"", of which the novel's hero Guy Montag is a dedicated one, comprise an army turned against an enemy far more insidious than Flame: they mobilize against ideas, and turn their napalm hoses on the feeble paper on which those subversive ideas are printed, and on the vulnerable binding in which the paper is housed.When I first read ""Fahrenheit 451"" nearly two decades ago, I felt beaten down, nauseated and fatigued. I believed then, and believe now, that it was the most scarily bleak and mercilessly depressing book I had ever read. Even then, I felt the cushion between Bradbury's 24th century nightmare and what we call modern reality was thin and worn.Bradbury gave us until the 24th century to submerge ourselves in the dark, sedated, media-slaked night of ""Fahrenheit 451."" Looking around me, I have come to the conclusion that Bradbury was a pretty optimstic guy.Like Orwell's ""1984"" and Aldous Huxley's ""Brave New World"", Bradbury's ""Fahrenheit 451"" is a dystopian vision, a glimpse into a future America that is frighteningly familiar and yet horribly wrong. It is a technologically advanced, subtle, sophisticated world, full of high-definition television screens that take up an entire wall and beam 24 hour programming to a vacant and eager television audience, 24-hour Reality programming that serves up a TV ""Family"" more engaging, more lifelike, more agreeable, than their own.This is a world where bored, vacuous housewives exchange barbs on the latest presidential contenders laced with observations on which candidate is the most handsome, and which has the most noticeable (to the Television Audience, naturally) facial bunion or boil. It is a world of 'seashells', tiny earphones designed to nest in the inner ear and breathe a sussurus of music into the mind of a medicated listener.Like his English counterparts Huxley and Orwell, Bradbury has served up a soft tyrannical state manned, not by the zealous, but by zombies. It is a world ruled by the media-addicted, the apathetic, the listless, the medicated, the overdosed, the sleeping. Books have been banned, and consigned to the Flame, not because of a despotic regime, but by the common, courteous consensus of a modern democracy desperately eager not to give offense to anyone.Sound familiar?Much like ""1984"", ""Fahrenheit 451"" works because it drills down on an unlikely protagonist. Guy Montag, at least when we meet him, sincerely loves his job. His fellow firemen are not zealots or fascists, but simply pragmatic working men who enjoy what they do. There are unpleasant aspects to the work, naturally---among them the incineration of an old eccentric woman who prefer to die with her beloved books---but like most of ""Fahrenheit 451""'s society, Montag prefers not to think about it. Take a pill, or better still take two---and don't call me in the morning. For Montag, truly, it is a 'pleasure to burn'.Like most revolutionaries, though, Guy Montag is simmering from within; dissatisifed with his wife, whose stomach must be pumped on the very evening he returns from the euphoria of the Burn; dissatisifed with the apathetic society in which he lives; dissatisfied with a job which fails to give expression to the rebel soul that burns within, that impels him to challenge his wife's brazen, flippant friends.There are three catalysts that propel Montag to rebellion: the girl Clarisse, whom he befriends; the immolation of the old woman at the Fire; and his own clandestine book collection.""Fahrenheit 451"" succeeds as both jeremiad and prophecy, true, but it also engages because Bradbury is a literary master: his spare, mechanical narrative of Montag's wife having her stomach pumped by two callous, dirty, jocular technicians practically breathes pure horror, and is one of the most soul-deadening passages I have ever read.But ""451"" also succeeds because it is a mirror of our own increasingly apathetic, violent, media-saturated world: is it so hard to see ourselves in Montag's trackless, cookie-cutter suburban landscape where bookish teenage girls are run down beneath the wheels of speeding pranksters, themselves bored and looking for the cheap thrill of ultra-violence? Is it so hard to see ourselves in the avidity of the Television Audience, watching the panicked, doomed, frantic rictus face of the condemned man stalked by the mechanical Hound, the images of his death broadcast back by the electronic antennaes on the monster's back? Isn't that merely COPS or ""Survivor"" with a bite?I've seen the Future, and it works. Because it is our world I see, our world upon us---for that reason, ""Fahrenheit 451"" is the most terrifying book I have ever read.JSG" +755,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A305TEJ64XTH6Q,J. Effinger,2/2,5.0,1201392000,Great Book,"Everything that needs to be said, already has been in other reviews. All I will say is this book is one of the best I have read in a while. The scary thing is, it isn't to far from the truth as well.People who don't like reading SHOULD read this book. It will make you think, and it only takes a few hours to read. So why not read it?" +756,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A234D1X7271Y7U,"Logan L. Masterson ""the Agonyzer""",16/45,1.0,1020124800,All books begin with a premise...,"... and this one also ended there. Compared to Orwell's 1984 and similar works, this novel is teen romance. It light-heartedly bounds through what it likes to think is a dark future. With all respect to the esteemed Mr. Bradbury, it reads more like Futurama.Aldous Huxley and George Orwell both cover this subject in much greater detail and provide a deeper sense of the darkness of our future. The themes of ignorance, gleeful mass-media mesmerism and inner conflict are better represented in their works.If you understand doublespeak, give this one a miss. It's double-plus-ungood." +757,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,5.0,928368000,Frighteningly Prophetic,"Farenheit 451 tells about a future United States. Keep in mind, this was written some 40 years ago, but his predictions can be alarmingly accurate. Montag's society's obsession with t.v. is frighteningly prophetic, as is the obsession with dieting. Also, has anyone ever thought of the similarities between the recently popular laser-light shows and the White Clown show? I must say that the most frightening part of this novel is how everything begins to move faster and the thoughts of the individual are lost - something I see happening in today's society." +758,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A1DFI5AMTLXURO,Lauren,0/0,3.0,991094400,Fahrenheit 451,"Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 is a science fiction book that is a very different type of book, and at sometimes confusing. No matter when you read it in you are able to imagine the future. The plot was complex and was suspenseful. And the characters in the book were not the same as some of the other characters you may have read about in other books. Montag the main character in the story was a fireman and his job was to make fire and burn books and not put fires out. Most of the people in the book seemed the same and rather dull, but there was one character that was different from all of the rest. Clarisse was a seventeen year old girl who was not as dull and flat as some of the other characters that you would read about. She would always be thinking about things others thought were foolish and strange. And when Montag meets her he begins to change. Books in this story was a danger to their society and mad people ""unhappy"" as the government would say. The style of the book was confusing and difficult, and it was also easy at other times. Parts of the vocabulary was difficult but it helped the story. The sentences described a lot and helped to create images of the near future. I would recommend this book to all science fiction lovers and also people who like to use their imaginations. This is because when you read the story it is very scientific and hard. If you don't like to read these types of books I would not recommend reading it." +759,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A26BWRBPP4V2WF,Craig MACKINNON,1/1,4.0,1144108800,Possibly more true now than when it was written,"In Farenheit 451 (the temperature at which paper burns, says the prologue), Guy Montag is a ""fireman"" whose job it is to burn books, and any building and/or people associated with the crime. After an old woman commits suicide by lighting her own house on fire instead of escaping and allowing her books to burn, Montag has a crisis of faith. He's always believed in the rightness of his cause, but now is not so sure. So he pockets a few books and takes them home. He tries to read poetry to his wife, to disasterous effect. Montag has to make a choice - the life he knew or a life (possibly very short) of scholarship where books supply the grist for the intellect.Although the story is putatively about book-burning, censorship, and propoganda, that is just the surface story. Bradbury paints an eerily prophetic picture of a land so in love with its own happines (and leisure) that no one wants to rock the boat. Deceased relative are not grieved. Whatever grief is present is drowned out by the cacophany of ever-present televisions, advertisements, and catchy tunes. Keep the plebes disctracted and they'll let you get away with anything! There is also some wicked social commentary on the lack of accountability in society, which is even more apparent today than when the book was written.Often, when one finally gets around to reading a modern classic like Farenheit 451, one is dissappointed. Not so with this book - the action is exciting, the resolution is satisfying (if dystopic), and the philosophical debates between the characters is interesting. At less than 250 pages, it is a quick read, but this is one classic that every science fiction fan will enjoy." +760,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,AG9A3ZL7ODL6X,"JR Felisilda ""jfelisilda""",1/1,5.0,1335916800,Classic Book that Makes you value Books,"""Fahrenheit 451"" is a science fiction thriller that should be made into a better movie. There was a movie made in 1966 but it did not translate as well from the book. As far as the book, it is a well-written book about government control.Knowledge and the application of knowledge (specialized knowledge) is important and essential. Much of that knowledge will come from books. When the government banned books, it is easy for them to ""re-write"" history then control and manipulate its people.Images of the mechanical hound, the burning books, etc. are engraved in my mind whenever I read this classic novel. Just like ""1984"", ""Brave New World"", and ""Animal Farm"", this classic ""Fahrenheit 451"" is well-written literature with an important theme.JR FelisildaAuthor of the book, ""Nanay: Lessons From a Mother""" +761,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A2L8A1CYKI9ORK,Pamela A. Bowe,0/0,4.0,1242777600,Not What You Expect,"Guy Montag is a firefighter, but not what you expect. He starts the fires. Guy meets a girl who turns his whole world upside down. She opens the doors to his mind and changes his whole perspective on life. She changes everything he ever knew.I enjoyed this book. I learned that you might not know people or even yourself as well as you thought. I also learned that you don't really know what you have until you have it ripped away from you.Some parts in this book made me want to keep reading because it was so interesting. Other times the reading was harder and it went slower. A lot of the little questions went unanswered; however the big ones were answered and basically laid out for you. It wasn't that hard of a book to understand. It didn't skip around too much. It stayed with Montag until the end." +762,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A28WY29EPF0NS5,C.J.,1/1,5.0,1039996800,what a sad world it would be...,"I LOVED this book. For me, it gave a jolt of fear on the possibility of a world like that one, though ours is not too far away. I've read two other books of Bradbury's but I'd have to say this is my favorite. I would recommend it to anyone who has a passion for books and reading, for it caters to them. I would read it just for Beatty's dream about his quoting battle with Montag, but I guess you'll have to read it..." +763,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A3SSGQBIWK8T9I,"Todd M. Jeffries ""TJeffries""",13/16,3.0,1338940800,Proving in its own way the truth of the book...,"I just purchased the Kindle version of this classic today. I paid $9.99. On the ""fourth"" page, there is an error at the end of Clarisse's statement, ""But, you're just a man, after all..."" The truncated end of the next paragraph is attached, so that it reads, ""But, you're just a man, after allon again too soon...""I certainly hope the rest of the text isn't riddled with such sloppy proofing. This wasn't a free e-book, or even a deeply discounted ebook. It's a classic priced at $9.99. I expect better than this, Amazon.I bought the book today, June 6,2012, because of this morning's news of Ray Bradbury's passing. I thought, how clever, to own a book on the demise of books on my Kindle. Ironic, that the Kindle version starts off with such a sloppy mistake. Ironic, and sorely disappointing." +764,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A2A66UF7SQ745J,"daflowers ""daflowers""",0/0,5.0,1355875200,For the book lover,"Bradbury's classic book about a place where books are outlawed...Can you imagine?This, of all books should be read on paper - not Kindle. :-)" +765,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,AWVBNRGEJ6AC6,Tebucky,0/0,4.0,1076371200,A World Without Books,"I have really enjoyed reading the book Fahrenheit 451. The book takes place in a society which is completely different than ours, at some point in the future. In this society it is illegal to have books of any kind, and the story depicts the man whose job it is to go around and burn these books. The fireman, Guy Montag, begins to go against his job, and sneaks books so that he can read them. I am not usually a fan of many books, so I thought that a world without books would be a great place to live. After reading this Ray Bradbury novel my view has changed. Because there are no books in this society there is no way for the people to express themselves, and everyone ends up being almost exactly the same. This type of uniformity was the direct result of not having books for people to read and allow them to write to express their feelings. This story has taught me that books are an important forum for expression, and when a book can keep me interested and reading throughout, and send an important message, that is a quality book in my mind. That is why Fahrenheit 451 got a four star rating from me." +766,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A1L10XK94U8YQL,Henry W. Wagner,1/1,5.0,1176076800,Bradbury's classic novel only improves with age,"""The whole culture's shot through. The skeleton needs melting and reshaping. Good God, it isn't just as simple as picking up a book you laid down half a century ago. Remember, the firemen are rarely necessary. The public itself stopped reading of its own accord.""--Faber to Montag in Fahrenheit 451Montag is a fireman, but not in the sense we understand. In Bradbury's bleak vision of the future, houses are fireproof, freeing firemen from their traditional roles. Instead, firemen burn books, which have been banned by an oppressive government. A fireman for ten years, Montag takes great pride in his work, but has always harbored curiosity about the objects he destroys.Montag's life is changed by a chance meeting with his new neighbor, a young girl named Clarisse. At the end of their initial encounter, Clarisse asks him if he's happy. The question reverberates in Montag's consciousness, causing him to question his ideas and attitudes, especially on the subject of books. Simply put, Montag's life and psyche are transformed by an idea. At novel's end, he has become a fugitive from justice, but he's happier than he has ever been, for he has discovered the power of the written word.Bradbury's classic novel has only improved with age. Reading the book, you have to be impressed by his prescience in predicting the advent of political correctness, teen violence, the ascendancy of television, the sound bite, and the general decline of our society. You'll also be impressed by his economy with words--in less than 200 pages, Bradbury conveys a powerful, moving message about overwhelming social problems. If you have read it before, it's time to reread it. If you've not yet had the pleasure, you'll get to enjoy a sublime reading experience." +767,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A2ENWMGSIJ6QGH,David,1/1,5.0,1114646400,Eerie reflection on our American culture today,"Fahrenheit 451 is a book with incredible meaning for our American culture today. It begins in an unknown city somewhere in America in years and decades directly after the McCarthy era levels of censorship. Media has become the center of American culture, and many people's parlor walls are covered with giant, super-enhanced HDTVs, lowering their level of interaction with each other to almost nothing in respect to both its quantity and its quality. The main character, Guy Montag, is a fireman, but he has never actually put out a fire in his life (at least not intentionally). All houses have been permanently fireproofed with plastic sheaths for nearly 50 years, and the jobs of firemen have been changed from protecting the public from fire to ""protecting"" the public with fire. As reality TV, comedy shows and pulp fiction/romance novels became more and more popular, non-fiction and the classics were read less and less until, as Captain Beatty, the fire captain and primary personified villain of the novel, says, ""(Most people's) sole knowledge of Hamlet was a one-page digest in a book that claimed: 'now at least you can read all the classics; keep up with your neighbors.'"" As public interest in books, newspapers, and other sources of information waned, the school system and general level of education grew less and less complex/competent, until eventually the government took advantage of the situation and began cutting off all books which ""offended"" any minority, no matter how small, proclaiming equal treatment for all and the evils of literature loudly. In order to enforce this ban which the people had so perfectly brought down upon themselves, the government changed the fire department into its secret police, stating that they were protecting the public from the ""harm"" of these books while truly cutting them off from the only source of knowledge able to save them from the impending but largely ignored or unconcerning massive international atomic war. As Guy races against time, the odds, and the power of the government and its incredibly seductive mass media, he attempts to break through to someone, trying to find some way to destroy the killer system before it's too late. Can he destroy the system with the help of an old retired English professor named Faber? Or will Captain Beatty and the government's deadly Mechanical Hound catch up with him first? The playing out and ultimate conclusion of this conflict is an incredibly deep and powerful reflection on our American culture today, and on our seemingly insatiable desire for pleasure and entertainment without having to do any more work or self-education/learning in order to get it than we see as being absolutely necessary. Written in McCarthy era America before the dawn of the television, the rise of televised NFL and ESPN, and the surrealistic and ever growing worlds of video games, movies and the Internet, Fahrenheit 451 predicts with eerie accuracy directions in our culture which 50 years ago would have been regarded as impossible science fiction dystopia, but now are considered an ever growing part of normal daily life. As the quality of our public school system continues to decline, and fast cars, pornography, and having fun with friends quickly become more important than keeping on top of government, state, or even local affairs for the vast majority of the American population, one might stop to wonder between one's job and the entertainments we all seem to live for and rush home to every night why we're doing anything like this-what is it we really value in life? In Montag's world, the sources for those values have been taken away, sacrificed to the peoples' ever-growing and insatiable desire for pleasure. Will--or could--our civilization go the same way, walking blindly to the very edge of a worldwide atomic war? Judge for yourself after reading America's fate in the incredible future-predicting novel Fahrenheit 451." +768,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,4.0,946684800,excellent and memorable,I remember reading this book in sixth or seventh grade. This book was interesting enough to make me read it in one or two sessions. I still remember the book and how I felt about it as a child reading it. I vaguely remember my teacher at the time saying in certain places they have outlawed this book but have never thought of it until it was in a daily program on disney recently. I have never really watched this program as it is primarily a childrens show but the advertisement caught my eye as I was flipping channels. It was showing a teacher getting arrested along with his students for merely reading this book. This is when I remembered my teacher saying something about its legality in some states. Is this Union such that we have to hide to read such works of art? I think this action is exactly what Bradbery was trying to prevent in society. He may have been trying to show people what the world would become if we tryed to enforce a sort of literature policy. Where would we be if Shakespeare's works had been baned? I believe this was an excellent book and every child should have the freedom to enjoy it. I hope that when my son is that age he will have the same freedom that I enjoyed in school. +769,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A2NHDYVPWKRFTS,"harvey dent ""harvey_dent""",0/0,4.0,992476800,Twilight zone material,"I always like to read a classic every once in a while, whether it be a mystery, literature, or good old science fiction. It seems that many of the classic science fiction novels deal more with man's attitude toward his surroundings rather than the stories of aliens and the future world gone crazy thru technology. This book takes the simple premise of a world where books are illegal and turns it into a Twilight Zone episode. The best part of a novel such as this is that the reader is forced to contemplate a scenario which is actually imaginable and decide how he or she would act and react. An interesting story to say the least....." +770,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A21MBOKCOZGYL6,jemge,0/0,5.0,1349481600,Great Book!,"I picked up this book because I was just in need of something to read. Once I began, I could not put it down! Farenheit 451 is set in a not so far away distopian future where media rules and books are illegal. In this place, firemen start fires on books rather than put fires out. Guy Montag is fireman who begins to see the truth in books. When this is discovered though, he has to run for his life. This is a great book for pretty much everyone, but there is aare heavy phycological thoughs throughout the whole book, and sparce mild language. Overall, if you want a great book to read, choode this!" +771,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/2,4.0,1003622400,I liked this book a lot,"This Book is very cool. I liked it a lot, because of it's seeming reality to real life. The reason this book is so freaky is that it's slowly coming true. I really liked the way it ended, also the way you struggled with Guy Montag(the hero) as he struggled with himself. This book is really cool." +772,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A1S2L1JOH7T8V7,"""piper_piddles""",4/4,5.0,1040860800,From a Teenager's Point-of-View...,"I first read Ray Bradbury in my literature book, in English class. I was instantly hooked. His writing has a simplicity to it, but at the same time, an amazing profoundness. I immediately went out to the bookstore and bought a book of his short stories--then another, and finally, I read Fahrenheit 451. His style is constant--his use of metaphors has more of an impact than any other author I've ever read. He has a rare ability to deviate from the regular stereotypes of the future, making the settings as believable as if they were set in the present time.I immensely enjoyed this. It really conveyed the image of what a world would be like without books--lacking substance and meaning; having pleasure at violence and taking for granted what they had. Mr. Bradbury never ceases to amaze me. The character, Montag, was a perfect balance of the influences society had impacted him, and his own emerging understanding of reality.I'm greatly inspired by this, and I hope to mature enough to write something of as much quality as Fahrenheit 451." +773,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A27JKOZCQBOE5L,PhoenixConstantine,0/0,5.0,1352851200,Sheer genius and brilliance,"Whenever I first read this book it scared me because of the realism and how relevant it was to how American society is and where it is going. Even though I was much younger than I am now when I finished it (I'm 20), I was still able to realize that the future Ray Bradbury portrays in this wonderful work of fiction is entirely possible. I absolutely love to read, a bibliophile if you will, and when I first realized that the world in this book takes pride in BURNING them AND the people who read them I remember thinking, ""God help us"". What made me say that is the realization that many of my fellow class mates all throughout school (K-12) did NOT like to read one bit but they did like to burn and destroy things. Society, in the story, values everything that destroys knowledge and wisdom so that those in charge are able to stay in power and keep everyone under there thumb. Turning people into mindless sheep. Many of the technological ""advances"" (I consider them more of a step back then a step forward) include only a few hours of school with nothing actually learned, destruction parks where people can go smash and destroy everything there, insanely fast cars, and (in my opinion the worst one) the ENTIRE room dedicated to television. This book is an extremely accurate portrayal of where American society is headed if we do not do something to stop this trend. We must value knowledge and wisdom above all else because those two things are what primarily separate us from all other animals. I absolutely loved this book and author and I hope you will pick this up and give it a try." +774,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A1OI9N09GGF34M,Jacqueline D,2/4,2.0,1067212800,Fahrenheit 451,I first read this book in my L.A. class at school. This book has many meanings tied into it. Fahrenheit 451 is different then what I usally read. This book has so many hidden detals in it. In this book I can acutally see our world now ending up like the world in this book. The author of this book was brillant to make up a world like this. The main character Montag was great I could realt to him and put myself in his shoes that's what I like so much about this book. If I didn't read this book in class I probably would never read it.Hi Ms. O!!!! +775,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,AH0NHQQMDSSYV,"Shannon M. Mcgee ""Confuzzled Books""",1/1,4.0,1332806400,Strong Writing,I was surprised by this book. I knew of it but did not know what it was a about. Firefighters now take away books from the people who love them and the knowledge they bring but in this world knowledge is considered something bad they want people not think for themselves.I also feel like there is more to this book that i am not saying. It is a book that I think if you read over and over again you will understand more of the world. Sometimes that is what I have to do with Shakespeare's books. +776,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A1DZ4CCSW29JTI,"Seldom Scene ""avid listener""",1/14,1.0,1140825600,poor reading,I bought this book on tape as read by the author. It is excruciating to listen to. Don't get this! I should have known that an actor would be a better reader than an author!! +777,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A10OAYZ44KV5WY,"B. LaVictoire ""B. Beneshe""",0/1,5.0,1088985600,An Enduring Classic,"In an age of instant "classics", this book has stood the the test of time. Let us remember, this book was written in the 1950's, not today. So, yes, the story line might seem a little worn, but that's because it has been repeated, used, and indead, to pardon a pun, worn by humanity for five decades. Like many of Bradbury's works, this stands as a warning of humanity's arrogance, dependance upon technology, and lack of learning." +778,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A1R32YQAJM5X1G,L. Spangler,1/1,5.0,1098835200,"Wow, this book is nifty.","Ok. I read Fahrenheit 451, and I have to say that I should have read it earlier. The story encased in this bound grouping of parchment is a warning to the societies of today against censorship and ignorance, which I really enjoyed.The book takes place somewhere in the 21st Century, and revolves around a man named Guy Montag, who is a fireman, but not of the conventional sense. The government of the story's time is one of ignorance and arrogance. It boasts several nuclear wars and a ban against books, which is where the firemen come into play; whereupon books are found, the firemen appear soon afterwards.The entire line of events surrounding Guy and his job is very interesting and thought-provoking, lined with intellectual discussions concerning firemen, the ban, and the emotional detachment to most other people that is sported by the entire population of the country.The conclusion of this book is surprising, and highlights a miniscule but hardy population of intellectuals living outside the public eye, just waiting for the opportunity to bloom in a society wiped clean by their own conceit and cruelty. Plus, it's nice to think that, even in a world full of lies and spite, intelligence and compassion can still survive, even if it's only in a brilliant literary work.At around 179 pages long, Fahrenheit 451 is a fairly easy read, as well as a powerful one. I was able to finish it up on a ferry ride to Victoria, and then still had time to sit around and chew on pocky for the rest of the trip. You should read this book, it's very good." +779,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,AJPNK5C4L91MM,"A. K. Berger ""filburt_girl""",0/0,5.0,950832000,"Thought-provoking, Mind-Shattering","I read this book hearing that it was "pretty good." What I was expecting was a traditional science fiction novel of good vs. bad and a weird plot. But Fahrenheit 451 was so REAL, it left me in tears. On the surface, it's entertaining, and a person with little patience will definitely find it boring but this story carries an important concept: Is censorship REALLY ok? I know very well that this book was written nearly 50 years ago, and describes a dark vision of the future. But this so-called "vision" is terrifyingly similiar to our own society and its present situation. Are we truly headed for the same fate described in the end of this literary masterpiece?" +780,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A1ERWU29BJFP9I,Leo Sun,1/2,5.0,1008547200,"Fun, fast reading which raises deep, thoughtful questions.","One of the best books I have ever read. Bradbury's prose is direct but beautiful, full of sylistic twists that enhance the reading experience greatly. The story moves quickly, and the brisk pacing is expertly handled, never leaving the reader minutely bored. At under 200 pages, the length is perfect for the story, yet delivers its haunting message about censorship, superficiality, and the dumbing down of America with force without ever becoming preachy. Truly a magnificent accomplishment and should be required reading for everyone!" +781,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A2C8DOPH7FGA0N,Dane,0/1,5.0,959817600,This bock is far out!,Read this book.The plot is amazing. If you are into real indepth thoughts and plots then you will like this book.Oh and hi Miss Hill! +782,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A2O4820X0UIJCW,chris.,0/0,4.0,984182400,Censorship has never felt so real...,"This book blew me away, but to appreciate it, you must understand how technology has affected us and how we already act. Plus, you must understand, that this book was written in the 50s where they thought we would be even further in the future.In the time of Guy Montag, no book-readers were free. they were behind bars, or running from the law; and he was one of the people who put them there.this book is so moving and compelling i could only grasp the rhythm of Bradbury and his magnificent language that lets you know the fear and hatred of Montag.Before you start, you need to know that this book will be weird and confusing. You must appreciate philosophy and know how strange this world is." +783,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,AZB9P0CI09KFI,Asad Haider,5/9,2.0,983750400,Ultra-overrated,"I picked up this book with such high expectations-Ray Bradbury is relavtively famous, the book is fantastically reknowned, and it is about censorship, an issue that I really care about.Well. My expectations were smothered, stabbed repeatedly, and left on the floor to die. This is not a good book. Bradbury's writing is incredibly confusing, and some pivotal parts of the story are so removed from the main plot that you can't understand them.Bradbury has a penchant for killing off characters. For example, one character, that changes the life of the main character, is dead 20 pages into the book. If she was burned 'cause she had books, fine, but she got run over by a car. How stupid is that?Pass this one up, and for a real futuristic utopia, try 1984. Just not this." +784,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,5.0,916790400,Excellent. A great book,"This book is about a mentally sick, futuristic society. Some of the actions of the people in the book are quite startling. I recomend this book to young adults. It is a good example of what our society should not end up as." +785,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,5.0,1137456000,Fahrenheit 451,"Possessing books is illegal, for which your house may burn. Guy Montag is a man in living in the near future and his occupation is a fireman, whose job it is to burn books. He grows sick of his the society and decides to see what is all about the books he burns. He sees another man in the city who enjoys books as well and they plan to bring them back into society. But after being forced to burn his own house, he commits murder and runs away. He flees to the outskirts of the city where there are retired philosophers and literaturists who help Montag. They watch as an atomic bomb destroy the city, then go and put their book knowledge to use. This book is excellent and very unique and is recommended to all readers.The plot and flow of this story is also interesting. It begins with Montag first meeting Clarisse who strikes him as an odd person. He then comes home to find his wife unconscious and overdosed on sleeping pills. He burns a lady and her house, and begins to read the books he steals from the homes. After seeking help from a retired professor, Montag is forced to burn his own house. There he commits murder, which sends him on the run from the city. Outside the city, he witnesses it being destroyed by an atomic bomb.Fahrenheit 451 is a very interesting story because of the unique setting. It is set in the near future in a modern city, but with a much different type of society. Thought they do not realize it, everyone seems to be depressed, compared to real modern society. The setting is also interesting because of the censorship at full extent. With houses being fireproof, firemen's new job is too set them ablaze. With no books, the true facts a completely unknown to the public, with false facts like Benjamin Franklin began the Firehouse and that houses have always been fireproof.The characters are also interesting. Guy Montag is the lone person he knows who reads books, though he burns them and makes no sense of them. Beatty is an ironic man. Though he is big on burning books and how useless they are, it is obvious he reads them as well because he is a rather cunning intellectual and is able to manipulate almost anybody effortlessly. Another unique person is Clarisse McClellan. She is what one in their society might call an antisocial figure because of her odd habits and strange curiosityThis book is a must read, with such realistic settings and people. It almost seems like a real event, which took place in the past. This book is indeed unique and the best among all the novels.I.Leung(Vin)" +786,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A2RRYJOX48JLPE,"Brian Jones ""Brian Keith Jones (www.new-gate....",6/6,4.0,1197331200,Still Relevant,"When my youngest son read Bradbury's classic Fahrenheit 451 for his honors English class, he was amazed that I had never read it - so much so that he went out and purchased a copy for me. It's easy to see why this book has become standard reading in High Schools and Universities. Bradbury is obviously an accomplished writer, and he focuses on the timeless topics of freedom of information, government control and war. Written nearly 55 years ago, he could have never realized how close to the mark he was going to hit regarding the central role virtual relationships would play in our world today. A quick and worthy read that you need to squeeze into your schedule." +787,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,5.0,939081600,"Such an ironic relationship between their society and ours","The sense of doom was so overwhelming as I slowly examined the book. Knowing that the book was written more than 30 years ago was even scarier.For, my boy, Ray to be so realistic in his views of the future gave me the hint of him owning some sort of time travel machine.I also appreciated his form of writing. It helped me to reach deeper, and deeper, and deeper, and deeper into my intelligence and really feel what the man was saying." +788,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,,,1/3,4.0,962582400,a book that makes you think,highly recommended reading by Bradbury fans as well as those not familiar with his work +789,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,ABY41A9BSUUU5,Tori,0/0,4.0,1067126400,Fahrenheit 451,"Fahrenheit 451 is a very interesting, yet challenging book to read. Its use of symbolism was sometimes difficult to comprehend, but our teacher was helpful in helping us to interpret what these symbols meant through class discussions. For example, a beetle, which was a black car, represented evil (Satan-like), and when Bradbury referred to a black cobra crawling down her (Mildred) stomache, they meant a stomache pump. Through all this symbolism, Ray Bradbury truly made this a great book because you had to piece everything together as if it were a puzzle. I liked how the setting took place in the future. Their world was always "on-the-go" and non-stop in a way that they had no time to socialize. They always had a controlled schedule. The government was very strict because they controlled what they were allowed and not allowed to do, and if anyone disobeyed these harsh rules, the consequeces would be severe and possibly fatal. If you like a challenge and enjoy reading through the similes, symbolism, and many other forms of figurative language you will love this book!" +790,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,1/1,5.0,1135123200,This Book Is On Fire,"Bradbury's best; A non-stop look at the supreme ignorance that comes with totalitarian regimes. A dystopia like BNW and 1984, this dystopia is littered with awesome similes, startling paralles, and absurd contradictions such as firemen who light fires, instead of putting them out. Whether your of Liberal mentality (Michael Moore took his bush-bashing doc title from this book.) Or if your of a Conservative mentality, (this book gives a great account of what true conservatism is all about.) The story is prophetic, and will manifest itself in America now or later. Just like G.Orwell's Big Brother has now manifested itself through the Patriot Act. This book is a must read, and if you don't like it, well, you can always burn it!" +791,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,AQWVJJLP53X0F,R. Guevara,0/0,5.0,1141776000,I LOVE IT!!!!,"I had to read this book for a high school assignment. I personally hate a lot of books, especially if I am forced to read it. But as soon as I read the first chapter I was hooked! It a riveting tale of freedom, and fighting for what you believe in. It is absolutely a page turner! If you like books that have a great flow of action, then this book if for you!" +792,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A2EU5HXQR1VTGV,April Segars,4/4,4.0,979257600,Fahrenheit 451,"In Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury's frightening vision of the future, firemen don't put fires out; they start them to burn books. In Bradbury's fictional world, it is better not to know or find out anything because if you know too much, you could be in danger. This book is closely related to the book 1984 by George Orwell because you can be put to death for simple things like writing in a diary. In Fahrenheit 451, you can have your house burned down and go to jail for the rest of your life if you are caught with books because reading for pleasure is against the law. The main character, Guy Montag, is a fireman who burns books for a living. He sees his wife sit at home everday with the ""family"" who is actually just a television that surrounds the walls, when he starts to question his life. Why are books burned? Why are they so destructive to society? He makes the decision to change his life, risk everything he's worked for and discover what it is that books contain. Montag starts secretly hiding books in his house and reading them at any opportunity he gets. He learns that there is a whole world inside of books that he never knew existed. He tries to tell his wife about this and how books are so important but instead of agreeing, she turns him in to the police. After this incident, Montag's house is burned down and he is confronted by the police chief, Captain Beatty, and has to decide what he is going to do. Although this book was published back in 1953, the idea of firemen getting paid for burning books seems very real. These ideas make you think that maybe someday this could happen. Fahrenheit 451 is a book for ages 13 and up. The incredible descriptions of books burning,along with houses and the mechanical dog are very realistic. I thought this book was good because of the descriptions, you felt like a part of the book and it made you want to keep reading. I would recommene this book to any and everyone." +793,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A39ODE45SHBX33,Carl H. Brinton,1/1,5.0,942105600,Philosophical,"This book should not merely by its face value. It is a "good" book on its plot and development alone. Its insight into life, however, knocks it up a step. It is very profound and warns us of an ignorant, entertainment society." +794,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A1I2RG1BCLYUO2,"""mufon""",1/1,5.0,1056412800,a classic,When I first heard of the basic plot in which Firemen burn books rather than putting out fires I was a little skeptical. I was most definitely mistaken. This prophetic short story was engrossing. There is nothing I can say which hasn't been said before. Yes the underlying themes aren't so underlying but they are multilayered and provide a buffet of ideas to feast upon. +795,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A1URQD1BLNNHT8,Notavailable@aol.com,0/1,3.0,929491200,A good book to get into and think!,"This book really makes you think and most of the things that are in this book about teens and technology is coming true in our world today, kinda scary." +796,B000GL8UMI,Fahrenheit 451,,A2KLCY14R8LEQ5,Janel,2/2,5.0,1005523200,Not like any other sci-fi book.,"I hate science fiction books.So why am I giving this book 5 stars? Because it's simply wonderful, that's why. You won't get that feeling from the first couple pages, but if you stick with it, I swear, you will. The end of the book is best. The thoughts that Bradbury puts into his character's minds are so beautiful, sharp, and alive. I guess I like this book because even though it is supposively sci-fi, it's REAL too. The emotions are real, and even the setting & society are familiar. It's wonderful. I started out hating it. Don't give up on it! Keep reading. I'm a sophomore in high school . . . but everyone, regardless of age should read this." +797,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,0/0,5.0,1219708800,a great book of our time,"A science fiction thriller. A true masterpiece that will blow you away. Although it's a science fiction book, it has some frighening resemblances to our own world. I could easily see this world turning onto the thoughtless ""utopia"" described by Ray Bradbury.The government tries to keep everyone happy in the process of no self thought and the burning of things that would cause debate and conflict, such as books. Now that houses are completely fireproof, the firemen no longer need to stop fires. Instead, the have a new job: to burn books.I liked this book because it kept me wanting it to keep reading and reading to the end. It was even hard for me to go to sleep some nights I was reading it. All in all it was a great book about one of the ""bad guys"", a fireman, who stood up agains the grasp of a corrupt society." +798,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,,,1/1,4.0,1128038400,Farenheit 451,"An excellent read, thrilling and provocative. Bradbury has a gift for descriptions, and he makes a wonderful story even better through his use of language. A future civilization has banned books, and it's the firemen's job to burn any books people have hidden, and the houses in which they are concealed. Guy Montag is a fireman who has done his job for ten years, never questioning the pleasure of seeing books burned and consumed by flames. Then he meets a girl who shows him that life is not all burning and speeding. She shows him that if you take the time, life has a deeper meaning. He begins to question the burning of all the books he never had time to read and understand. He is driven by a madness to find out what the books say. Unfortunately, he'll have to break a few laws and give up the life which he's lived for so long. He has to make a choice between the illegal life he never knew and the ignorant life as a fireman." +799,B000TZ19TC,Fahrenheit 451,,A2NTJUI2DLZF4R,"Craig Chalquist, PhD, author of TERRAPSYCHOLO...",0/0,5.0,959990400,If you can read this book....,"....and not feel outraged at the well-intentioned censors of the world, then you probably didn't understand it. But then, you probably wouldn't be shopping here for books, either. In a world in which literature and philosophy and all "deep" writings suffer the fate of the lost library at Alexandria, Montag's dilemma involves all of us." +800,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,AJAF1T6Q7XM94,A Customer,3/5,5.0,949449600,Perhaps the finest sci fi series of all time,"In reviewing the book Foundation I am recommending that you read all of the Foundation books by Asimov. Just get started and read them all. Even though each book can be read individually, do yourself a favor and read them in order. I won't be reviewing any other books in the series. I want you to do the whole series.One of the most interesting ideas that Asimov gives us is the ultimate form of self defense. No, it isn't karate or jiu jitsu, boxing or wrestling. It's touching the other person's mind.There are enough circles within circles, things that aren't what they seem to be, surprises that put the theories into a cocked hat, to keep you on your toes.Don't deprive yourself of the best sci fi series ever written." +801,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,AC1A0YFXNWOKM,Chief_mlo,2/3,5.0,1344211200,Always liked Asimov,"I always liked Asimov, but finding series books in sequence is difficult with print books. Kindle makes it easy! Now they're all cataloged in order and I don't even have to get out of bed for the next one.Reading the ""Foundation"" series in order rather than by availability makes a great writer even better." +802,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A79C6KJL2SG4J,Donald E. Ellis,0/0,5.0,1356825600,readingfan,"I avidly read these novels and really enjoyed them. Though they have been around for quite a while, they are still relevent!" +803,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1A8D8UEV96HHO,minusthedrifter,1/1,4.0,1294358400,A Classic,"Slow on the pick up as many of the early characters are not developed very well making it difficult to sink into. However, about midway through, things begin to get going and characters are finally given time enough to develop. After that point is really when the book becomes a classic and hard to put down; even if it has aged. A classic by any accounts even with it's few bumps." +804,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,AP80EPUVFRA7F,BMore XPlant,0/0,5.0,1346803200,The Genius of Asimov,"I had read the Foundation trilogy when I was a teenager/early 20's. The first book was required reading for a college SciFi literature course and I liked it so much I read the other two. They were my introduction to Isaac Asimov. Grand in its sweep, Foundation explores societal disintegration and renaissance. The trilogy is dated; Asimov wrote it before the computer revolution. However, it still holds up amazingly well.Asimov was regarded as one of the greatest explainers of everything. He richly deserved the accolade. For someone who hasn't read him before, Foundation is a wonderful introduction. You'll read more." +805,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A7CAHIXZOAC9R,Readingdude,0/0,4.0,1360540800,Good Book,"I really liked this book,especially the fact [SLIGHT SPIOLER] That you get to see different people's perspectives at different periods of time. [END OF SPIOLER] I would reccomend this to anyone who likes books by Isaac Asimov or a story that takes place over a long time. ****" +806,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A2QYBDHVVSSGU4,"Dave H ""Dave H""",0/0,4.0,1360195200,Classic sci/fi from a master storyteller...,""Foundation and Empire" by Isaac Asimov is a remarkable expedition into the unknown that is spellbinding, imaginative, and original. Indited by master storyteller Asimov, it will startle, astound, and capture your imagination. A must read by one of my favorite authors who is revered the world over..." +807,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A3BZMNBFPT3UG2,"Davis ""Davs""",2/2,4.0,1106784000,Foundation By Isaac Asimov,"I always enjoy reading Isaac Asimov's writing, and foundation was no exception. The plot is imaginative and original, like much of Asimov's writing. Foundation is set in the future, a time when our galaxy is ruled by a failing empire. Hari seldon, a psychologist, must prevent the galaxy from falling into anarchy and barbarism by creating a foundation of scientists. Foundation is fun to read, and provides ample entertainment. I recommend reading it." +808,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A28WJUJF6D2ULA,Notnadia,13/18,3.0,1140220800,"Mind-Expanding Concept But (I'm Ducking, Folks) A Mediocre Novel","I know I'll take some major heat in saying this, but I wasn't that impressed with this beloved classic. Oh, the idea intrigues me, surely, that of humankind eons in the future existing across the galaxy on a multitude of worlds, so far removed from earth that eminent masters of science themselves debate whether earth was even the planet where human life began, but once the dust settled from an idea that lofty, what did Asimov really DO with it? He used it for unexciting little tales of science v. military might. I love the parallel between the fall of this vast space empire and the fall of Rome. The way bands of scientists struggled in a dark age to keep the light of knowledge alive was thought-provoking (which is high praise in my lexicon) but this was backdrop, and the plot Asimov employed in telling the story of all this was (sorry to say) dull, slow, simple, and unworthy of the imaginative concepts he thought up in his setting for this tale of knowledge overcoming strength of arms. I haven't read the later Foundation novels, so maybe they're the ones where the brilliance of the series exists, but I found this book from Sci-Fi's golden age so demanding on my patience that I didn't finish it the first time I tried to read it and barely made it to the end the second time. I wish I shared the glowing praise for this classic that millions of others claim they feel, but to be honest, I just don't." +809,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,AVAYPIMDXYNRF,Plutonis,1/3,3.0,1158278400,Romans in Space,"I like Foundation because it's a solid piece of sci-fi from olden days. (George Lucas's stealing of Asimov's city-planet for his Coruscant - tsk tsk, Georgie - amazed me most.) Foundation does have peculiarities. People hundreds of thousands of years in the future speak like us. They use phrases like us. They also have the same atomic technology as people did in the 1950s. Asimov got a bit lazy here; he could've imagined something cooler than nukes. The galaxy is a metaphor for a crumbling Roman empire. Perhaps Terminus is Ireland. As for A's style, I found his use of long adverbs rather funny. In sum, a good book if you can ignore this stuff." +810,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A3BZMNBFPT3UG2,"Davis ""Davs""",2/2,4.0,1106784000,Foundation By Isaac Asimov,"I always enjoy reading Isaac Asimov's writing, and foundation was no exception. The plot is imaginative and original, like much of Asimov's writing. Foundation is set in the future, a time when our galaxy is ruled by a failing empire. Hari seldon, a psychologist, must prevent the galaxy from falling into anarchy and barbarism by creating a foundation of scientists. Foundation is fun to read, and provides ample entertainment. I recommend reading it." +811,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A31UA8WE18RKH3,PPK,2/7,1.0,1344384000,zzzzzz.....,"I am a huge fan of science fiction and fantasy, and have been reading these books for 20 years. I picked up the Foundation books because Asimov was supposed to be so great, and I really enjoyed his short stories. This book - all of the books in this series - is so amazingly boring it could be used to replace Thorazine. The concept was solid, but the characters made me not care at all. I kept hoping they would die simply so there would be something interesting happening. If you must read it, check it out from the library and save your money. Unless of course you're a chronic insomniac; then, by all means, buy this book." +812,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,AG0K8NHQ8XS97,The_BookLover,3/3,5.0,1091318400,On With the Foundation!!,"I always prefer to think of the foundation Trilogy as one book.They are meant to be read one after another and are also written that way.While the first part(Foundation) gives us the historical perspective and a sketch of characters who influence the events,this book is where it gets better in a serious way!!There is not much of a point in discussing the plot-lots of other people have commented on that.But i'll tell you this - the 2nd part of this book- which talks about the Mule and his rise to power is THE best part of the ENTIRE FOUNDATION series ( Yes all the 7 books!!).IT ends with the most famous twist on paper it will make your mind reel!! It sets up the things nicely for the Second foundation - the 3 book in the series.I have read almost everything that Asimov's written.The foundation series and the End of Eternity are my favourites.The difference between Asimov and the other Science Fiction writers is that he makes the Science Fiction believable.Asimov is also a very good mystery writer(no kidding!! - he's right up there with the authors who write mystery alone).It's easy to write a Sci Fi book with an amazing amount of Science and imagination- but how well you can bind it to a story and make it real, that is the deal.Apart from the idea the story has to be told well. This is where the good doctor excelled.Trust me if you have not read the Foundation Series you are missing something which in indelibly written in the records as the one of the best books on paper.Asimov's written it so that you are sufficiently intrested for more at the end of the book one , by the time you finish the second book you are thinking this is great stuff - desperate for more you go the 3rd book. By the time you are through you think this is soooo cool - it might be the best thing you ever read.Do yourself a favour go read the Foundation and Empire , follow that up with the Second Foundation.You'll be glad you did when you return to it over the years!!" +813,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,AOGE8PM6KED3O,"Trevor Kettlewell ""trevsbookreviews""",2/3,4.0,1159228800,"Good idea competently realised, but...","Not surprisingly this is a second reading - I first enjoyed this classic about twenty years ago.There's much to enjoy. Or, rather, there's the central idea to enjoy: Asimov is generally at his best in short stories with a single `what if' notion. What's unusual about Foundation is that he managed to successfully spin his workable `psycho-historian' idea out into a (wisely short) novel. The series even kicked along OK for a while, but by the time we get to the dreadful fifth Foundation and Earth Asimov had spun out of control into event horizon of his ego.One way he gets away with a whole novel here is by basically telling the same story three times (only the character's names have been changed to protect the word count). Hari Seldon, Salvor Hardin and Hober Mallow are all puppet master politicians who keep their master-plans carefully hidden, pulling a clever rabbit out of a hat at the last minute to thwart their thug foes: I can't really remember who's motto was something like, ""Violence is the last resort of the unintelligent,"" but it works as well for any of them. The latter two are a bit annoying in their reiterated, `Look, it's obvious how to solve this crisis - Seldon's plan means there's no other way', when it's no such thing, but the joy of fiction is never having to say your wrong. I mean, Asimov's quasi-Marxist political theory of historical progress is, at heart, flapdoodle, but he can have the fun constructing his universe to confirm his protagonists' convictions. We can have fun to: it's a nice idea competently realised.The leading men are arrogant, spurning or using public opinion with machiavellian disdain while they manipulate enemies with the same Trojan horse technique. Oh, and they are, of course, leading *men*: Asimov's SF futuristic orientation didn't stretch as far as women being any more than pantomime caricatures, if indeed they exist at all. His only female character is execrably predictable: vain, pretty and shrewish. People are basically divided into three groups: realists (successful scientists, businessmen and/or politicians); greedy amoral militaristic imperialists; and sheep." +814,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A3LI8P7VU8UWPU,N. Kunka,1/1,4.0,1311638400,Groundbreaking for its time,"Asimov continues with his narration of the history of the interregnum between empires in pretty much the same anthology format used in Foundation. Actually, upon further thinking, there's probably no way really to tell the story of a 1,000 year journey on the part of humanity without doing it in snippets. More and more the series begins to read more like a history book with some dramatic events being highlighted for their importance as turning points. These turning points are called Seldon Crises, foreseen events by Hari Seldon, Psychohistorian, which impel the people of the Foundation forward to galactic dominance. Throughout the first book and a half, Asimov establishes a bit of fatalism - nothing can stop the foundation by historical imperative, and for that reason the people of the Foundation, especially it's leadership, become apathetic.Asimov throws a wrench into the status quo with the rise of a mutant, a statistical improbability and anomaly that could not possibly be accounted for in the creation of the Seldon Plan and therefore the first truly unknown quantity with the ability to destroy the Foundation. This mutant, called the Mule, has psychic ability and the great revival of technology in the Foundation is powerless to stop him from manipulating people and working his way to dominance. The Mule consolidates his power, takes over the Foundation and destroys the remnants of the former galactic empire and it looks like Seldon's prophecies could be wrong. That a single individual upset the 1,000 year plan to turn the Foundation into the Second Empire, in only 5 years.Asimov again explores the themes of individuality, stagnation, complacency and religion. Choice and free will are major foci for the novel. If the Seldon Plan is mathematically and psychologically accurate like a prophecy, if certain things are meant to happen, just because human beings will predictably react in the same ways in given situations, do we really have free will? What is the role of the individual in society in in the historical process? Asimov treats history like a Marxist, influenced by Hegelian dialectics. Conflicts and crises between opposing forces give birth to a third new status quo until it comes into conflict with an opposing force. These moments of intersection are the Crises predicted by Seldon and the focus of Asimov's 1,000 year narrative. But the Mule changes that. He challenges the notion of inevitability and proves the fallibility of Seldon's prophecies. But by doing so he introduces another free will paradox. The Mule has the ability to modify emotions and create complete loyalty in people. He wins victories by converting the opposing sides' generals and leaders into giving up and then serving him, destroying free will again by creating it out of the tight confines of the Seldon Plan. It's truly and interesting concept. How will the Mule be stopped? Enter: the Second Foundation. Established on the other side of the galaxy as a failsafe in case of the failure of the Foundation. But no record exists of where that foundation is or what type of society it will become. Will the Mule find it and destroy it? Does it exist after 300 years?My major problem throughout the narration is that it is assumed that the Seldon Plan represents the ideal in some way. Seldon was a human being, capable of manipulating and creating situations a millennia in advance and manipulating the fate of quadrillions of human beings. Who says his plan needs to be fulfilled? What if people don't want Seldon's future? What if they don't want to live in an all-encompassing empire? I would maybe believe Asimov wants you to question that, but he gives himself away in little asides in the narration, inserting emotional declamations against the upset of the Plan." +815,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A1A1GDY7PAZ06L,B. Orban,5/30,1.0,1253145600,Foundation,"The Foundation is completely undeserving of the fame accredited to it. Had it been more eloquently executed, the collage of textbook style narrative and bad dialogue might have been sufficient to generate a bearable story. All the social concepts Asmov brings up are well worn and ill-portrayed on the backdrop of a generic, illogical sci-fi universe. His writing style is bland and every one of his characters can be found by an other name in star wars." +816,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A1HVMK2W17T9ZU,a spiritual practicioner,1/1,5.0,1138060800,A fast reading timeless SF masterpiece,"I first read Foundation as a bored teen, with no idea what it was about. Foundation is a book which demands to be read quickly, and thus the impression, amidst the brilliant storyline, is often shallow.I read it this time in a couple of hours; I would've read it quicker without work and cafes and other impediments, but basically I devoured it. And because it read so fast, the impressions of the individual stories flickered past too.The sense of history as pattern is stronger in this book than any single narrative. Having read the brilliant new Foundation trilogy, written by the three Bs (Brin, Benson, and Bear) which tells the personal life story of Hari Seldon, the very brief treatment of Seldon in the first trilogy is more notable for what is unsaid. Hari is just another name in history for Asimov; the hero is the idea, even the fast-flow of the narrative of itself might be called the Hero, because the whole notion of story here is webbed against historical patterns so closely.Briefly, then, Foundation has the setup and three payoffs. The setup is Hari Seldon arranging exile to Terminus.Salvor Hardin's politicization of Terminus is the first payoff, and is especially brilliantly written.Smyrnian Trader Limmar Ponyet's chicanery on planet Askone's closed market demonstrates the limits of religion and is the second payoff.Then Hober Mallow's power grab and abandonment of religion for trade as a means for influence in the third.The story starts and ends with court cases, first against Hari Seldon and last against Hober Mallow. The ideology of the book is anti-violence and pro social and economic measures. In fact it may be the first really positive exploration of what has come to be called ""soft power"", of which the European Union is the present example.The great touches of image serve to cast a deeper shadow on the role of public morality in sustaining a civilisation. For instance, the ambassador from Anacreon presents the hilt of his gun as a symbol of peaceful intentions when he visits Salvor Hardin on Terminus.In the context of history the book is extraordinarily complex and sophisticated. Social and economic complexity is reduced and strained free of dense matter and difficulty, like consomme soup, made to be thin yet delicious and easily consumed. The very first thought I had at the end of reading Foundation was ""how I wish there were a history of Rome so readable and fast and easy to consume!""Normally I read Foundation in a great hurry (as I have this time) in combination with the other two books, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation. But I only have a copy of the first book of the trilogy and must make do with it.The first payoff is quite brilliant, because it is delayed and played out indirectly, thus deflecting the thrill of emotional rush into intellectual wonder. Specifically, Salvon Hardin delays the confrontation between Terminus and Anacreon for thirty years, years which Asimov summarizes in a bitter and brilliant battle of words between the old Hardin and young Sek Sermak. Thus the reader feels that the payoff is deferred. The reader senses an even bigger payoff at the far end of the section, ""Mayors"". And Asimov does not fail us. For Salvor Hardin travels to Anacreon to personally entrap the evil regent there and defeat him - again, inevitably, with soft power. Hardin defeats his enemy on the enemy's territory, at the precise moment when it seems all is lost for the Foundation.One is left with the distinct impression that brains defeat brawn, skilled inaction and insight defeat busyness and boldness, and that the power of wisdom and foresight overcomes even a social collapse on the scale of the fall of the Roman Empire - as indeed they did. For the Fall of Rome resulted in the rise of Christendom, and with it a grand tradition - so Asimov's message, by locating a historical European lesson in the distant future - becomes a timeless affirmation of human excellence.Foundation thus stands virtually alone in the field of science fiction novels in excellence." +817,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A35VENIHB8NQQQ,Carlos E. Silva,0/0,5.0,958348800,Can I borrow another star?,"So adictive that you finish it in 3 days, maximum. But the better is... You keep reading the 2nd and third books of the original foundation trilogy. All of them amazingly perfect. The first book tell about the stablishment of the Foundation and it's romantic era, with the first Great mayors Salvor Hardin and Hobber mallow. a must have." +818,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,AR91CHBY2FI77,Robby B.,1/3,4.0,1039392000,A Good Step Forward,"Asimov's Foundation Trilogy is seen as classic science fiction. Shockingly, Foundation is hardly a classic. Its theme of history repeating itself is drilled into the readers head. However, Foundation and Empire, the second book in the trilogy, continues with these themes with better fluency and character.""The General"" continues with the stories of Foundation. General Bel Riose of the old empire tries to conquer the Foundation, and Asimov, once again, reassures that Hari Seldon's plan can never go wrong. With this setup of reassurance and the death of the first empire, Asimov raises the reader's hope that the Foundation will never fall.Immediately in ""The Mule"" Asimov rattles his audience with the fear that the Foundation, like the empire, will fall. The Mule, a mutant with psychic powers, was not seen by Seldon's Plan. The conquest of the Foundation is unstoppable. The second part of the novel allows readers to actually know the characters. They are not just people who act, but we can see their motifs. The end of the book is supposed to have many plot twist that shock the reader, but with foreshadowing, many revelations are undermined. Bayta, one of the main characters, has a deep dread every time something happens with the Mule. This gives away the identity of the Mule.Foundation and Empire is a great read through its despair and hopelessness. It left me on the edge of my seat scrambling for the next book." +819,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A3IQNSSFHW4UI9,Christopher A. Horan,1/4,5.0,1022976000,"Wow, I sure am WITTY","The time frame in which the book takes place can best be described as "A Long time ahead, in a galaxy far far away". Yes, that is a cheesy Star Wars cliche. However, readers expecting anything star warsey about this should expect to be sorely disappointed. This book focuses primarily on politics. There is not one ounce of violence in the book, which is a good thing, it is a nice break from almost everyother contemporary scifi novel, which all seem to impress people with their space ships 'n' aliens. The book is very good, but sometimes does get a little boring. I suppose this may be my fault, as I do have a short attention span. Anyhow, this book does a few twists in it, as everything may not be what it seems with Hari Seldons dream!So if you've been on the fringe of being a sci fi fan, but detest the embarassment of carrying around a book with giant robots on it, this book is for you." +820,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A2RBF3WSMAF76O,Ralph-Michael,1/1,5.0,1127692800,Sci-Fi Masterpiece,"Asimov is a must read for any science fiction reader. Even though the writing style leaves something to be desired, the pure imagination of his writing is something memorable. It's hard to imagine Star Wars or any other sci-fi without this book. Asimov barrels through time and the universe passing through hundreds of years in the turn of a page in a way that is rich and convincing. He builds many worlds, characters, and ties it all together through Hari Seldon and his psychohistory (a previously worked out map of human reactions, and thus events, for generations to come) and the Mule (a mutant who throws a wrench in the plan and--like most bad guys, or in this case mutants--seeks world domination). What's incredible about this villian is his strange depth which the reader gets completely secondhand. The book goes on and on with one beautiful idea after another. For example, a strange jester/clown character, Magnifico, that the heroes--Bayta and Torie--pick up plays an instrument called the sono-visor. This instrument harnasses the alpha waves of the brain and mixes melody with image in each listener. Now how's that for cool? Asimov wows the reader again and again with clearly explained inventive ideas. This book is the first of a trilogy. A must read for anyone with an interest in literature or science-fiction." +821,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,AQOGAX8SCA765,canis_major,2/2,4.0,1123977600,A good read both entertaining and thought-provoking,"I do not know much about science fiction. For this reason, I read <Foundation> just as I read a fiction. Although so far I read only the first one of the trilogy, I liked it.What is interesting and strange at the same time in this book is that, in every chapter, a new main character appears. It takes time for a reader to develop familiarity with a character and to get interested and affected by the character's thoughts and actions. By the time one forms such a tie with the character, however, the chapter somewhat abruptly ends and the character is finished! The chapters of this book, therefore, could be seen as self-contained short stories loosely connected by the theme of the development of the Foundation over one thousand years.One thing about this kind of way in which each chapter unfolds is that it may well have been inevitable for the author because he had to cover so long a time period. The other thing is that somehow it leaves a lot of room for a reader to think back more about what a character did in each crisis and how history set the stage for the crisis, whether this effect was intended or not by the author.This book was a good read both entertaining and thought-provoking." +822,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,AMVC9WTXYKNJ1,"J. Edgar Mihelic ""Failed Mime""",0/0,4.0,1283385600,Going deeper,"I read this book after coming blind to the foundation books - I've never read Asimov in a novel before. I've noted how Asimov, when writing the books, was very much a part of his time. When a character doesn't smoke, it is a character trait to point out where everyone else smokes by course. Also, sexism is taken for granted, and when a female character assumes to be treated with equal rights it is a place for comment. I had hoped that we would have found better ways to get high and allowed more equality that far into the future, but I suppose smoke 'em if you got 'em.Anyways, I like this book better than the previous one because there are characters that you can root for and unexpected jerks in the plot-line and a more linear narrative based on the fact that a lot of the exposition is out of the way from the first book. I now cannot wait for the finale of the original series and debate weather to read the other three ancillary books that Asimov wrote later." +823,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,AP5NXS66INNOB,newyork2dallas,5/6,4.0,1075334400,Very good anthology,"The first book in Asimov's Foundation Series is actually an anthology of stories tracing the formation of the Foundation to its growth into a competitor of the Galactic Empire. The premise is simple, its execution complex: the Galactic Empire has started to decay even though the Empire itself denies the truth. Hari Seldon is a psychohistorian whose mathematical theories of historical psychology have allowed him to determine when the Empire will crumble and the probabilities of the aftermath. To avoid a Dark Age, he sets up the Foundation at the outer edge of the galaxy to preserve the knowledge of humanity. The stories in Foundation deal with the formative years of the Foundation and its growth from an (outwardly) academic's and historian's interest into a power on (and behind) the galactic stage guiding humanity's redevelopment.Cleverly written and plotted with quick-moving events and the interesting theory that humanity's future for hundreds and thousands of years can be predicted based on probable outcomes. This is the foremost intellectual, yet generally accessible, science fiction series ever written. The lone drawback is that Asimov did not finish it before he died." +824,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1RYNK630N62BY,Ron [deaddude@kua.net],0/0,5.0,936144000,Best science fiction series to date!,"The Foundation series is the most involving and gripping set of science fiction novels I have ever read. And each time I read them, I only enjoy them more and more. But what would really make my millenium (can't forget to interject a Y2K joke...) would be to see at least the first Foundation book made into a feature length movie or at least a direct-to-video production. So, if you're a film-maker that's reading this, why not consider it? You'd make a killing at the box office, that's for sure." +825,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A1ZKEGFNVA5O7S,Charles,1/4,4.0,1314748800,"Not A Great Book By Any Means, But Well Written","Political space tales aren't really my thing, but I must say that, politics aside, I was astonished that Asimov was so young when he wrote this. Few writers can write such good prose before middle-age. The story itself is rather mundane for a true sci-fi enthusiast. You'll not find any great discoveries by astronaut explorers or the like, but what it does do, it does well. His treatment of religion is silly though, and like most atheist writers, it's not very well thought out. I've not read anything else by him, but one hopes his later novels were better developed in that area. The mystical hints that run through nearly all of Arthur C Clarke's stories are the most intriguing thing about them. Asimov would have done well to have studied them." +826,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A2QEQ26KKK6DIM,Steven Liu,2/2,5.0,1076889600,Great twist at the end!!!,"Hari seldom, the man who predicted the fall of the empire in the first book, established foundations on each end of the galaxy to prevent the rise of a dark age. The fallen empire from the first part of the book has incresed it's strength and with that strength, it plans to seize control of the foundation. With an ambitious and skilled general, and dozens of battle fleets, the foundation faces it's greatest enemy.Personally, I liked the second part with the mule better then the war with the empire, because the main characters have nothing to do with the foundations victory, which makes the plot not a major factor for the story, but this also leads the reader into more surprises for the end of the section.""I am the mule"". As the reader discovers the identity of the speaker, all loose ends are tied up while creating a great twist for the end. Even though Seldon's predictions guide the foundation to overcome the first four crises, this is the book where his predictions turn the foundation into a disaster. A mutant is born, having the power to fight against any great power of the galaxy, a man that is able to defeat dozens of battle fleets, with the intelligence greater then any scientist of the foundation. .The second part of the book is full of surprises, so please finish the book if you have started it or you might miss one of the best plots in science ficiton. While reading the story of the two couple's adventures, the reader needs to think deeply in their every move. Isaac lets the reader feel the negative consequences in prediction. The more hope the foundation has on Hari Seldon's prediction, the greater fall they will need to suffer. Although the plot of the couple's is resolved, the foundations destiny is discovered in the third book, the second foundation. I believe any reader that has read this book will definitely also need to read, the second foundation, so I recommend buying both books." +827,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A1WA5SZRJHAWTL,A Customer,4/6,3.0,908755200,A classic appropriate for scifi newcomers & series lovers,"First, I read quite a bit from all genres, primarily to expand my world. Foundation is a very good series, but here's a few reasons why this book might not expand *your* world: 1) you were a statistics/religion/philosophy major in college (it may annoy); 2) you want a book for entertainment, not to ponder (it may bore); 3) you really think character development is important in a book (it spans generations, hence little/no development); 4) You're already a scifi buff (most of the books you've read have already assimilated the ideas of Foundation -- credit where due!). Biggest reason to read: its robust, well-crafted universe. Other tidbits: I've tried to read this series a second time, but it can't sustain my interest quite like other 5-star selections." +828,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1LVZOK9F7K4CN,JR Pinto,0/0,4.0,996192000,Encyclopaedia Galatica,"I find the Foundation series to be more interesting than the Robot series. I read the short story which was the seed for this book; unfortunately, it ends completely up in the air so you are sucked into reading the whole novel. I have my problems with Psycho-History...but so will the characters in this universe, as we shall see." +829,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A370T7ZOJJ76I2,"fluffy, the human being.",7/11,3.0,1178323200,a sane reflection for those thinking about buying this.,"i am 45, and recently decided to expand my horizons. i have read very little poetry, few mysteries, and fewer works of science fiction. i know that lots of people enjoy these things, and i am jealous of them. so i am trying to get the joy from this stuff that others do. i gave ""Foundation"" a shot because i know that lots of fine folks consider this to be a SF masterpiece, a great book. well, i have read great books, and this is not one. this is quite mediocre, actually. mildly amusing in spots, at best. not really a novel, it's basically a few short stories threaded together by a premise that i won't bother going into. if you have read this book and loved it, and are just looking for confirmation from others that it's as great as you thought: sorry. my review is more for the person looking into science fiction as a novice, and trying to find works of excellence as a gateway into the genre. to such a person, i say ""look elsewhere."" there has got to be better stuff than this out there. there just has to be. in my twenties i read a few philip k. dick books, and loved them. so i am not without hope. i really want to like science fiction. this book just did not make me do that." +830,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A1K1JW1C5CUSUZ,"Donald Mitchell ""Jesus Loves You!""",5/8,5.0,970012800,Sociological Insights Into Stimulating Human Progress,"Foundation is the story of one man's attempt to positively influence human history beyond the grave for centuries to come. Set far in the future, Hari Seldon's goal is to shorten an impending period of Dark Ages from tens of thousands of years to one thousand years. To do so, he creates an organizational entity, the Foundation, and maneuvers to create circumstances so that the Foundation will recreate the Galactic Empire amid a blossoming of science and technology.This book is the first in a series that will keep you happily reading for days. In Foundation, the stage is set for the problem, and you will begin to understand the plan that Seldon has employed by examining the first 150 years after the Foundation is established.The book is built around four crises (Seldon Crises) that shape the potential of the First Foundation to fulfill its goal. In the first crisis, the Foundation is viewed as being a traitorous activity by the political authorities. Seldon explains that his purpose is to create an encyclopedia to encompass all current knowledge before it is lost. The crisis is survived when he agrees to take the project into exile on a planet with few natural resources at the far edge of the galaxy.Fifty years later, that fledgling is threatened by its powerful neighbors who have greater resources and military power. The Emperor can no longer protect the Foundation. Thirty years after that, another attempt to militarily capture the Foundation occurs. Another seventy years later, a fourth crisis occurs when remnants of the Empire start funneling advanced weapons to planets at the edge of galaxy that oppose the Foundation.Each crisis is overcome with a different approach, by a different leader. And the Foundation continues to develop towards its eventual form.These crises are much like a good mystery story. You know there's been a crime that needs to be solved, but you haven't quite figured out how yet. Because there are four crises, you get to enjoy that problem-solving experience four times in one book! Pretty neat!The Foundation's advantage in all of these crises is that it has advanced knowledge and has applied it, while the rest of the Empire is losing knowledge. Pretty soon, things are falling apart technically for those outside the Foundation. The key technology is built around atomic power (as it appeared it would developed in the 1950s).Reviewing Foundation is a challenging task. This book has become a science fiction classic, yet many will see little value in it because the science fiction perspectives and forecasts about science are dated. The book has to be read in the context of the books that follow to be fully understood and appreciated, but how does that help the person who has just finished Foundation? Isaac Asimov used a most unusual style in the book, as though you are a historian uncovering bits of primary and secondary sources concerning a long ago period in time (that occurs in our future). That either makes the book more authentic (if you like that) or annoying (if you don't).At bottom, these contrasts require the reviewer to attempt to capture for the potential reader what makes this book an enduring classic.First, Foundation squarely asks a fundamental question: How should knowledge be built, maintained, and used for the benefit of all? A subset of that question is: What are the appropriate uses of knowledge? These are questions that we do not wrestle with nearly enough today. Many people enjoy thinking about these questions, and welcome their introduction by this book.Second, Foundation suggests that progress is faster with the benefit of planning that takes into account human nature. Seldon's discipline is the reliable behavior of large groups of people (psycho-history). Those who like to plan and those that do not will equally enjoy Asimov's scenario for making his point that we should build from our understanding of human behavior. You can debate the point and have lots of fun forever, based on what is here.Third, many social thinkers have been inspired by the Foundation concept to structure their own changes. Nonviolent political movements match the Foundation concept in many ways, for example. This book gives you a lens to consider many of the global agencies that have been created by international organizations.Fourth, what should be the relationship between knowledge and power? Usually, they are united. But the Foundation posits a world in which they can be divided, and that division could have some benefits. A current example would be the unharnessed knowledge of the Internet. No government will probably succeed in trying to hold dominion over it.Science fiction has long played a useful role in helping society to examine its most important scientific questions in advance. Then the concepts that seem useful become the early paradigms of scientific and social progress. In the case of Foundation, that paradigm here is applied to social progress primarily . . . not scientific progress. So think of this as a book about the science fiction of governing.Foundation suggests a world where knowledge has more power than today, and is also more effective at curbing harmful exercises of power than currently. That shining ideal, I believe, is at bottom the key to understanding Foundation's lasting and broad appeal.Whether you like, love, are indifferent to, or hate Foundation, I suggest you read the initial trilogy before making up your mind about this book. Much of the genius of Foundation (the first book) isn't apparent to most readers until the trilogy is read and grasped.One word of caution: Asimov wrote lots of one-draft wonder books, and was certainly not a great craftsman in his writing. Look past that writing quality to the conceptual brilliance of the picture he is painting.After you have finished the trilogy, ask yourself the question of how you can make knowledge more effective in promoting human moral and economic progress. I think you will find that to be an intriguing question well worth the attention you give to it. And you can think of Foundation to remind you of the question." +831,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,AWLFVCT9128JV,"Dave_42 ""Dave_42""",3/4,4.0,1109635200,The Best Of The Original Trilogy,"This is the second of the three novels in the original ""Foundation Trilogy"", which was published in 1952 by Gnome Press. An edited version of it was published by Ace Books in the 1950s under the title ""The Man Who Upset The Universe"". It consists of two sections which are taken from shorter fiction that was published in ""Astounding Science Fiction"" in the 1940s. While better than the first novel in the series, there are still some weaknesses as a result of age. Asimov himself wrote in 1982 that the knowledge of astronomy at that time was ""primitive"" and that he could now take advantage of electronic computers in his stories, which hadn't been invented until he was halfway through the series in the 40s.The two sections of ""Foundation And Empire"" are:""The General"" - In this story, the Foundation is attacked by what is left of the Empire. The Empire, though much weaker than it once was, is still stronger than the Foundation. This was first published as the novelette ""Dead Hand"" in the April 1945 edition of ""Astounding Science Fiction"".""The Mule"" - Perhaps the best of the Foundation stories; in this one the Seldon plan is destroyed by its inability to predict a singular event. The Foundation is threatened by a person known only as The Mule. He is mysteriously able to defeat more powerful forces, with inferior forces. This was first published as the novella ""The Mule"" in ""Astounding Science Fiction"" in November and December of 1945.The trilogy has been recognized by readers and critics alike over the years. In 1952, it was rated as the 15th best book overall by the Astounding/Analog All-Time Poll. It moved up to 12th on the same poll in 1956, and then to 1st in 1966. In 1975 it was ranked 6th on the Locus poll for All-Time Novels. In 1987 it was 6th on the same poll for SF Novels. In 1998 it was ranked 4th on the same poll for novels before 1990. It also received the 1966 Hugo for All-Time Series, beating out Tolkien's ""The Lord Of The Rings"", Smith's ""Lensman"", Heinlein's ""Future History"", and Burroughs' ""Barsoom"" series for the award." +832,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A16JTNAEKD139I,Reader from the North,3/3,5.0,1130630400,Continuation of Great Series,"You can read the publisher's summary for yourself, but let me just add that this is THE classic SF trilogy. Book one, ""Foundation,"" creates the future world, its declining culture, and how a group of strong-minded individuals don't want to see knowledge die. How they do that drives this novel. In book two, Asimov introduces the mystery of the mule, and in book three Asimov pulls a rabbit out the hat called the Second Foundation.If you enjoy books that entertain, books that offer good mysteries, and books that make you think about bigger things in life, than this series is for you. It's too bad our political leaders don't read novels like this. Maybe we'd avoid the continual messes they get countries in." +833,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A2YJ9DT9YZ0DUN,"Matthew K. Minerd ""The Coding Catholic""",0/1,5.0,1155168000,Individuality in the Face of Psychohistory,"Once again, Asimov serves up a thrilling read for the sci-fi fan. The two story-lines followed in the text pertain particularly to the question of if/how spectacular individuals can alter the Plan of Hari Seldon. The first pertains to a final thrust of the Empire while the second pertains to the question of an anomalous power known as the Mule.The final expeditions of the Empire attempt to take over the foundation by means of the talented general Bel Riose. Bel Riose launches a campaign against the Foundation and pushes toward victory with nearly unprecedented ease, backed by the Imperium. This first half of the book considers the power of the individual and the mass with respect to the great movements within the Foundation according to the Plan. Although I will not reveal much more than this, I will at least say that the outcome of part one is intriguing in comparison to part two, dealing with the Mule.The second half of the story deals with the relationship of Seldon's plan to the possibility of a mutation which begets a figure who is an extremely powerful galactic conqueror, destroying the overall political milieu foresaw by Seldon. To speak much more of this would spoil the read for you. However, I must say that it is a thrilling text which kept me on the edge of my seat all the way through the end. The ending itself was such a surprise that it indeed reminded me that I was reading Asimov, for it is just the type of intellectual curve-ball that he would throw just as the novel ends.Once again, we have a stupendous text on our hands in these two. It raises major questions about the plausibility of psycho-history, some of which are raised again in the third text in the series. I suggest this text most thoroughly to all sci-fi fans. I only suggest that you at least read Foundation before reading this book." +834,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,AIQEHMC9TKGK5,AN AVID READER,2/2,5.0,1328400000,Out of nowhere,"Comes this novel, given to me on Christmas, by my dad, on the recomendation of one of his co-workers. I am not a big science fiction fan, not that I've read dozens of sci-fi books and hated them. It's just that besides what I run into in the occasional Koontz or King, I have little interest in sci-fi.So after Christmas, a month or so goes by, and I finally open ""Foundation"". Doing research before reading this, I am quite impressed at how popular this series is. After reading the book, I clearly see why. The first few pages took a re-read, as I was very confused. Before I knew it, im onto part 2 and not able to put this book down. All I can say now is I can't wait to get my hands on the rest of the series. I was in the mood for something different than my usual reading, and this really delivered. Asimov writing is intelligent, yet simple. His character's aren't deep, but the plot amazes. His imagination is amazing.What I especially enjoy about this book, is that each of the five parts takes place many years after the previous part, so you really feel as if you know the whole empire's history.All in all, this book took me from not caring much for sci-fi, to at the bare minimum reading the rest of this series, and eventualy, probably reading alot if not all of Asimov's work. A book that's on the short side never contained so much in opinion. I am now an Isaac Asimov fan. Recommended HIGHLY!" +835,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,,,1/1,5.0,837129600,A life-changing and mind-opening classic,"The instant I read this wonderful series, my life changedin some very significant ways. I have two degrees inmathematics, and am working on a Ph.D. in mathematics as a DIRECT RESULT of these books. Asimov explores the whole notion that human behavior is predictable on a very large scale, but completely unpredictable on an individual scale. The marriage between the clockwork Universe and the humanistic feeling that we have free-will is masterfully completed in this award-winning work. The Foundation series is classified as Sci-fi, but it is in a league of its own!" +836,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,,,0/0,5.0,865468800,the best of the serie,I think this book have to read for every fanatic of science fiction.Is the first of the serie and the best.Is just a classic. +837,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,AAGL3QS0XT2DT,"""worldtree1""",3/5,3.0,949622400,"Good, but not the best","I was expecting so much more from this book as it was once awarded best sci-fi series ever. It was good, but not that great. Maybe in the 1950's it was the best of sci-fi, but compared to today's standards it was a little boring and out of date. It contains long dialogs and a lot of politics wrapped in a sci-fi environment. It doesn't contain fascinating worlds and interesting glimpses of the future. There's not a lot of action but I have to admit the dialog is pretty good. If you're into nostalgia, politics and interesting dialog this book is for you." +838,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,AT8Y6TWP3HZEZ,Galactus,1/1,5.0,1275523200,Superb,"Foundation is the only book I have ever read twice. The second time around, I was shocked to realize that not much ever happens. There is something about this series that makes it one of the best I have ever read but I am not sure what it is." +839,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,,,1/2,5.0,883094400,Asimov's Best Book!,"In my humble opinion, this is the best Foundation book and the best overall novel that Asimov ever wrote. It's a work of genius! There are two sections of the book. The first is a seemingly typical war story of the conflict between the Galactic Empire, led by a strong emporer and a firebrand general, and the dumb-luck, mediocre leadership of the Foundation. It illustrates how, under the Seldon plan, it is virtually impossible to defeat the Foundation. The second part is just phenomenal. Word spreads of a mighty mutant, the Mule, who is conquering the galaxy with unprecedented mental powers. The Foundation is astonished when they don't beat him;the Mule is the .001% that the Seldon plan left room for and dismissed. The Foundation falls, and only a small group of hopefulls dare to go to the library of Trantor to find the Second Foundation and defeat the Mule. This book has it all;plot twists, philosophy, and colorful, memorable characters. I highly recommend it." +840,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,AUJ3DJD0UXUII,DevilDog,0/0,4.0,1356739200,If you liked the first one...,You will like this one. A little easier to get into than Foundation since you understand where he is going with the series now. +841,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,AINR77DQ4DIM6,Joseph Satterthwait,1/2,5.0,964224000,"Asimov, the best scifi writer of all time","The books in Asimov's universe are by far the best scifi to date. I enjoyed the Foundation and Robot books so much I collected all 45 books that are set in the Foundation universe, written by Asimov and other authors. While not all authors live up to Asimov, their contribution allows his loyal fans a chance to slip back into the universe he created. If anyone is interested in Scifi books, the Foudnation series is a wonderful place to start." +842,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A164FG4K3GCAYS,Avid Reader,0/0,5.0,1198281600,A Real SF Classic,"Foundation is the first book of the outstanding Foundation Trilogy. Asimov builds drama with believable characters struggling against bureaucracies and political manipulations on a grand scale. As a central government weakens, planets often show less respect for the core authorities and go there own way, sometimes forming their own alliances. Hari Seldon, master of Psychohistory, uses Psychohistory to make predictions far into the future. Hari Seldon does more than predict outcomes--he has a plan. Seldon does not expect to alter the eventual course of huge historical events, but constructs a strategy to minimize the length of time of the darkest days for the Galactic Empire.The emphasis of the book, and what makes the book a true science fiction classic, is the imagination that takes the reader through mind whirring possibilities for the future." +843,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,AZTYHKV3MI0YL,"J. A Lewis ""brewman63""",40/89,1.0,997228800,This is a classic?,"I just finished reading Foundation and was extremely disappointed. Maybe I was expecting too much, something grander along the line of the Dune series. But the book in of itself is an extreme disappointment. I realize Asimov was young (21) when he wrote this, but his style leaves a lot to be desired. I'll take an early Arthur C. Clarke book over Asimov any day. This is the first book by Asimov I've read and I'm not sure I want to read another. His style is very dialogue driven with very few, if any, detail given to what the characters think. Everyone is very two-dimensional. And he never describes any of the scenes were all of this dialog takes place. Part of the interest in science-fiction is exploring new places, seeing different things. This entire story could have taken place on an empty stage. In fact, it seems like it's written more for a play than a novel. As for the story, it starts out interestingly enough. The Empire is going to crumble and to avoid thousands of years of dark-ages, a Foundation is set up to preserve the past learning's of the Empire. Well, that's what the original thought was at least. Soon we discover there's an alternate motive to this. Once we learn of this motive, the story goes straight downhill. Asimov skips decades from one page to another. Characters are introduced that we know practically nothing about, and he never tells us anything about them. I've read history books that had more character development than he gives the people in this book. By the time I got to the end I found myself saying "So what"? Am I supposed to continue on reading this series because it's been called a "classic". I've seen the word "classic" thrown around a little too much sometimes. This is definitely one of those times." +844,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,,,0/0,5.0,940464000,A MUST,"This is a MUST for any Sci-Fi fan. Unbelievable! It was written in nineteen fourty something and it's as modern as ever! This is the first part of the trilogy (Foundation, Foundation and Empire, Second Foundation), but not the first book chronologically (Prelude to Foundation, Forward the Foundation, Foundation Trilogy, Foundation's Edge, Foundation and Earth). Also read the robot series connected to Foundation (The Caves of Steel, The Naked Sun, The Robots of Dawn, Robots and Empire)." +845,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A3T4E36TIGPIV3,"Karlie Piekkola ""Nyte""",1/1,5.0,1312156800,Foundation and Empire,"This book is fantastic! The first time I read it, I wanted to read it again immediately upon finishing it. There were so many twists, turns and details that you just don't catch the first time through. Love!" +846,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A2ERBVY57L6JJR,David Kidwell,3/3,4.0,1133136000,A Definite Improvement,"""Foundation and Empire,"" the second novel in Isaac Asimov's landmark science fiction series, is a definite improvement on the first novel. The first novel was hardly a novel at all, but rather a loose and uneven collection of short stories. ""Foundation and Empire"" is actually two novellas, and more care has obviously been taken with writing style, pacing, and character development.The second story, ""The Mule,"" is perhaps the best of the entire Foundation series. The characters are enjoyably real and likable, and there are two masterful surprises at the end.The entire Foundation series is essential reading for any science fiction fan." +847,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A2YJ9DT9YZ0DUN,"Matthew K. Minerd ""The Coding Catholic""",2/3,5.0,1155168000,A Thrilling Sci-Fi Classic,"It had been quite some time since I had read Asimov, so I was relatively excited when I picked up Foundation. I was not disappointed in the least. This novel is an absolutely fabulous piece of psycho-political drama that is perhaps most enjoyable because of its suspenseful trill as well as its political/sociological considerations.The entire text, built on the theories of the fictional character Hari Seldon, is driven by the concept of psycho-history. This is primarily a form of mathematical sociology that allows for the statistical prediction of galactic masses, given a set of variables. As the Galactic Empire is beginning to crumble, Hari Seldon perceives this fall and takes the precautions to insure a quick return to a Second Empire. The development of his Plan spurs him to create two foundations at the ends of the galaxy to promote this return.This text chronicles the early founding and rise of the first foundation. Given the nature of psychohistory, most events unfold in such a way that a critical moment, at which the probability of success is nearly 100%, always arrives for solutions to the problems facing the foundation. This drives the story in a suspenseful manner, as Asimov pursues the interrelation of individual freedom and the ""mob psychology"" of psychohistory. The text is also an interesting exploration into the rise of power by a means of a variety of factors, concealed in this review for the sake of not spoiling the story.Foundation deserves the accolades of the Sci-Fi community and truly should be read by anybody who has any latent interest in science fiction or fantasy. It is an exciting, and fulfilling read." +848,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A3I7M8EUQ3BG5Q,Sasha,1/1,5.0,1275264000,Entertaining introduction to an interesting and vividly-drawn world,"Having always been a big Asimov fan, (after readingmany of hisshort stories, along with some of the Robot series) I was very excited to start reading the Foundation series. The Foundation series describes a world in which humans live on planets throughout the galaxy. In this world, the 12,000-year old Empire is in decline, and Hari Seldon has established a Foundation in the corner of the galaxy in order to reconquer and rebuild a new empire after the current one dies -- he estimates the intermediary period of barbarism can be reduced from 30,000 years to only 1,000.Going into the first book of the series, I have to say I had high expectations, but this book managed to exceed them. Many people complain about the character development in these novels, but while each of the five stories introduced new characters, I still found each set of characters to be interesting in very important ways. Throughout these stories, the question of individuality is touched on: are these characters merely following Seldon's plan with no ability to shape events, or are our heroes shaping their futures through their decisions? I have only read Foundation so far, but I expect this theme to continue in the other novels.Also, I have to say that Foundation is very easy to read, entertaining, and I would recommend it without question, even to someone who had never read Asimov, and also to someone who had no interest in the Foundation series. Though, anyone who finishes Foundation will likely want to proceed to the other novels in the series." +849,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A3P4BDLBH7TXX2,"J. Stoner ""Plants and Books""",2/4,3.0,1093219200,"Better than ""Foundation"" by ten-fold but....","That's not saying much since I thought that ""Foundation"" was pretty poor.""Foundation and Empire"" was pretty good, but still lacked in certainareas - mainly character development and also the first third of thebook had a very weak story line. The whole battle with the Empire bythe Foundation was very very weak, I cannot stress that enough. Maybe Iwas just hoping for an epic battle between the renegade Foundation andthe dying Empire. Nothing really happened to spur the victory of theFoundation, there wasn't even really a battle. But I guess that mightbe the point that Asimov was making since Seldon predicted the choicesand decisions of the Emperor about the passion that the characters hadfor the battle. It wasn't even a battle between the Empire, it was somemission designed and orchestrated by some general in the navy thatthought it would be a good idea to take over the Foundation.This book also lacked in strong characterizations, but not as much asthe first ""Foundation"" by a long shot. The last two thirds of the bookstick with the same characters the whole time. It also enters apowerful mutant, the Mule. I won't give much away about the Mule andhis plans because I don't want to spoil the book but it sets up for thesequel, ""Second Foundation."" Once again the idea of the Mule is a goodidea but is somewhat poorly executed until the ened when everything isexplained about the effects the Mule has on the Foundation and thepeople in the main storyline.Get ready for ""Second Foundation"" because it will probably be the bestof the first trilogy. This book is worth reading and if ""SecondFoundation"" is better than this book then I will recommend the""Foundation Series"" to anybody who can persist in their reading anddoesn't mind a long slow beginning." +850,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,AIQEHMC9TKGK5,AN AVID READER,1/1,5.0,1332201600,The saga contiues! 4 1/2 stars,"It's kind of funny when i think that less than 3 months ago, i had never heard os Isaac Asimov, and i had not much interest in reading science fiction. Then i get some book called ""Foundation"" for christmas, and it kind of interested me although i didn't read for over a month after i had it.Well since then, not only have i read it, and not only have i done alot of research on Asimov and science fiction in general, but i've also bought and read ""Foundation and Empire"". Quite a difference one book can make.I can not get enough of Asimov's Foundation series. I own over 100 books that i've found at thrift stores and second hand stores by many different authors. However the second day that i owned ""Foundation and Empire"" i dove right into it, and it did not dissapoint. The only negative thing i can say is that it's just barely not as good as the first book (although that book really blew my mind and was my very first sf novel).Regardless, ""Foundation and Empire"" is another solid tale by Asimov, filled again with great characters (even a clown!), and written with top notch imagination and imagery. Particularly amazing is how Asimov created the character of Hari Seldon. He appears in this book for about two pages, and yet the man's presence is a highlight. I did question if Asimov wasn't skilled at creating solid character's with real depth. However, when a man who was only in 40 or 50 pages of the first book makes an appearance in this one, it was easily my most anxious moment of the story, and i truly felt just as eager as everyone else sitting before the vault for Seldon to appear. Consider my question withdrawn haha.I am really loving the Foundation series, just the whole creation of, the many planets, the talk of ships, the different classes of people, everything! Not only am i very antsy about continuing this series (which i will definitely be doing soon), i am dying to read his robot novels and his stand-alones as well. Great book!" +851,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,ALWB64XOXNMDP,mark twain,2/5,2.0,977875200,Dry Sci-Fi,I respect Asimov as a writer of science fiction. However after reading all of the Foundation series I wish it had more humanity in it. The book was overly complex. The characters did nothing for me. The Foundation series is over rated in my humble opinion. It falls in the category that I call dry sci-fi. Asimov's Robot series was better than this. +852,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A7O7ZF2ILOAWJ,"MR Dave ""Mr Dave.""",1/1,5.0,1225411200,Amazing Asimov read !!!!!!,"I can't say enough about this book, weather you like SF or not this book is a MUST READ!!! It's more about people/civilizations/political systems than SF but either way I highly recommend it.As for SF it is simply the best SF book ever written!!!!" +853,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,,,0/1,5.0,925257600,This was the best book that I have ever read!,Foundation is the complete book of adventure. Brilliantly written by Asimov (as usual). This book is a must-read for all readers! +854,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,,,1/1,5.0,995846400,Amazing glimpse of a not so distant future(in some respects),"Isaac Asimov captivates the reader in this book, the "unofficial" start to the Foundation series. The story revolves around 3 major characters, Hari Seldon, a famous psychohistorian and predictor of the Empire's demise, Salvor Hardin, mayor of Terminus, home planet of the foundation, and Hober Mallow, a Master Trader who rises through the ranks. I found the 3 separate yet interweaving storylines appealing, much like The Martian Chronicles by Ray Bradbury but not nearly as divided. Each character has their own opinion in how to accomplish a goal and presents each in a logical and realistic way. The thing that's amazing about the Foundation is that it doesn't have to rely on epic battles, hyperdetailed sensory imagery, or ridiculously long monologues by static, stereotypical characters. The characters are real, they get afraid, they make mistakes, and they change throughout the story. The writting is paced just perfectly so that it doesn't tire you out yet it provides enough details about any given situation. Asimov is a literary genius and I can't recommend the whole Foundation series enough to anyone who just has a little free time on their hands. And remember, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" - Salvor Hardin" +855,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,,,0/0,5.0,904348800,Great Series,"I have read every book in the Foundation Series. The First must be read to fully appreciate all the others, but the best one in the series is Foundation and Earth. It's so unfortunate that the publishers who don't have the rights to this novel in the series don't include it in their lists." +856,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1JJOV69MAU2J2,Steven Dennis,1/1,5.0,999561600,Mind-blowing!,"The Foundation series is Sci-Fi's grandest and most accessible epic. Asimov's writing style focuses on the story, not the jargon, so you never get bogged down. The hero is Hari Seldon, who is able to scientifically predict the future (don't ask how), and he knows that the vast Galactic Empire is soon headed for the dustbin of history...Hari, the prophet that he is, endeavors to shorten the time before another Galactic Empire can restore civilization to 1,000 years instead of 10,000 or 20,000...surely a worthy goal. This book will amaze you, will excite you and have you wanting more. It's fun and thoughtful at the same time...And, IMHO, these books get even better later on in the series.This book, which is later linked to the Robots series, may also be one of the most influential sci-fi books ever. (The galactic empire of Dune shares a lot of similarities)...Great stuff from the Grandmaster!" +857,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,,,0/0,5.0,999561600,a creative take on the future,"Throughout the past 12,000 years, the Galactic Empire has been expanding from Trantor, its capital planet, throughout the galaxy. How humans found Trantor, or where Earth is (and other questions about Earth), are currently unanswerable. All that is known is that this empire, which controls billions of worlds, is in a permanent social and political recession -- in other words, it is dying. Hari Seldon, reknowned psychohistorian (AKA scientist who predicts future trends) has predicted that 30,000 years will pass before a second Galactic Empire will rise. To shorten the dark age to 1,000 years, he has created a Foundation - a group of people dedicated to preserving knowledge - on the edge of the galaxy in the hope that they will share their knowledge after the fall of the Galactic Empire and create a new, and greater, Galactic Empire. Foundation is divided into four stories, which go through history from Seldon's project through the ascent of the Foundation. Taking concepts from Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Foundation is an extraordinary book and is strongly recommended to all readers of science fiction." +858,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A3VS1OUD96H6HZ,Peter Thatcher,1/1,5.0,1209340800,One of the greatest sci-fi books of all time.,"To me, the Foundation series is the greatest sci-fi series of all time. The earlier books are the best, as the latter books aren't as good. This is favorite of the earlier books.It's broken into two halves. The first half is pretty good, but it's really the second half, called The Mule, that's incredible. It's fantastic.It's style isn't like modern sci-fi, which is usually dark and action-packed. If that's what you're looking for, you won't enjoy this series. This series is much more about imagining a universe with a certain set of rules and how those rules might play out over time. To enjoy it, you have to think and imagine along with Asimov. If that ""golden age"" style sci-fi suites your taste, you will love this book.Obviously you can't read this book in isolation. You really need to read the Foundation before it and Second Foundation after it. The three togother make the best triology I've ever read. After those three, you can continue, but the quality of the books trails off from there.If you're a ""golden age"" sci-fi fan and somehow haven't already read the Foundation series, get the first three Foundation books. You'll really enjoy them, especially The Mule." +859,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A2TQ3XWGG57HFU,"K. McMillan ""What do you see when you stand a...",0/0,5.0,1276819200,Asimov and the Foundation books are awesome,I loved this series... couldnt put it down. I highly recommend these books to anyone who loves sci-fi. +860,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,ASOPGE821S0WC,"""jimjoe65""",0/0,5.0,965347200,The follow-up to the best book ever.,"After the Seldon Plan was followed, without its followers actually understanding what was going on, the Empire, although falling, is still the mightiest force in the Galaxy and the only challenge to the Foundation. For them to overcome, the Seldon Plan must be taken into account..." +861,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1HVMK2W17T9ZU,a spiritual practicioner,1/1,5.0,1138060800,A fast reading timeless SF masterpiece,"I first read Foundation as a bored teen, with no idea what it was about. Foundation is a book which demands to be read quickly, and thus the impression, amidst the brilliant storyline, is often shallow.I read it this time in a couple of hours; I would've read it quicker without work and cafes and other impediments, but basically I devoured it. And because it read so fast, the impressions of the individual stories flickered past too.The sense of history as pattern is stronger in this book than any single narrative. Having read the brilliant new Foundation trilogy, written by the three Bs (Brin, Benson, and Bear) which tells the personal life story of Hari Seldon, the very brief treatment of Seldon in the first trilogy is more notable for what is unsaid. Hari is just another name in history for Asimov; the hero is the idea, even the fast-flow of the narrative of itself might be called the Hero, because the whole notion of story here is webbed against historical patterns so closely.Briefly, then, Foundation has the setup and three payoffs. The setup is Hari Seldon arranging exile to Terminus.Salvor Hardin's politicization of Terminus is the first payoff, and is especially brilliantly written.Smyrnian Trader Limmar Ponyet's chicanery on planet Askone's closed market demonstrates the limits of religion and is the second payoff.Then Hober Mallow's power grab and abandonment of religion for trade as a means for influence in the third.The story starts and ends with court cases, first against Hari Seldon and last against Hober Mallow. The ideology of the book is anti-violence and pro social and economic measures. In fact it may be the first really positive exploration of what has come to be called ""soft power"", of which the European Union is the present example.The great touches of image serve to cast a deeper shadow on the role of public morality in sustaining a civilisation. For instance, the ambassador from Anacreon presents the hilt of his gun as a symbol of peaceful intentions when he visits Salvor Hardin on Terminus.In the context of history the book is extraordinarily complex and sophisticated. Social and economic complexity is reduced and strained free of dense matter and difficulty, like consomme soup, made to be thin yet delicious and easily consumed. The very first thought I had at the end of reading Foundation was ""how I wish there were a history of Rome so readable and fast and easy to consume!""Normally I read Foundation in a great hurry (as I have this time) in combination with the other two books, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation. But I only have a copy of the first book of the trilogy and must make do with it.The first payoff is quite brilliant, because it is delayed and played out indirectly, thus deflecting the thrill of emotional rush into intellectual wonder. Specifically, Salvon Hardin delays the confrontation between Terminus and Anacreon for thirty years, years which Asimov summarizes in a bitter and brilliant battle of words between the old Hardin and young Sek Sermak. Thus the reader feels that the payoff is deferred. The reader senses an even bigger payoff at the far end of the section, ""Mayors"". And Asimov does not fail us. For Salvor Hardin travels to Anacreon to personally entrap the evil regent there and defeat him - again, inevitably, with soft power. Hardin defeats his enemy on the enemy's territory, at the precise moment when it seems all is lost for the Foundation.One is left with the distinct impression that brains defeat brawn, skilled inaction and insight defeat busyness and boldness, and that the power of wisdom and foresight overcomes even a social collapse on the scale of the fall of the Roman Empire - as indeed they did. For the Fall of Rome resulted in the rise of Christendom, and with it a grand tradition - so Asimov's message, by locating a historical European lesson in the distant future - becomes a timeless affirmation of human excellence.Foundation thus stands virtually alone in the field of science fiction novels in excellence." +862,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A3NKUKGTD1MXIQ,CoMoBytes,1/1,5.0,1346889600,Still one of best,"Assimovo should be required reading for all teens. His characters are very believable. Even the smart ones do dumb things, they just do them for smart reasons." +863,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A13CDWRMWX0ZZ5,"K. Stevenson ""ancient_mariner""",1/1,4.0,1325980800,"Better in some ways, but worse in others...","continuing the lifetime Hugo award winning series written by Isaac Asimov...lest my snarkiness towards this venerable and respected author and his writing give anyone the wrong impression.. I am very much enjoying this reread! But the world (and I) have changed a LOT over the last 50-60 years (or in my case 40 years). Rereading the books that we loved when we were younger gives us insight into who and what we are today...Foundation and Empire (Foundation Novels)Isaac Asimov; continuing the 12,000 years-in-the-future saga of cigar chompin', blaster-totin', space-faring men and women (yes the women also lovingly smoke cigars... much to the consternation of the men) as they attempt to unravel the mystery of The Mule and The Second Foundation.I cannot imagine anyone reading this series for the first time having any flicker of comprehension as to why it was so popular and how it garnered a lifetime Hugo award... but again.. kids these days have little appreciation for The Beatles and Elvis... so there you are." +864,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A30KEXFT9SILL6,"frumiousb ""frumiousb""",2/2,5.0,1012867200,The fallibility of Hari Seldon,"The story of Foundation continues in F&E;, with the stories in this book taking us through the final fall of the old Galactic Empire and the power vacuum left in its wake. The most known aspect of the second book however, is the idea that psychohistory is limited in that it is not able to predict aspects caused by wild chance-- and in this second Foundation book, wild chance threatens Foundation in the person of a powerful mutant called the Mule.Well-written, as Asimov always is." +865,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,,,0/2,5.0,850521600,An amazing story by the world's greatest author,"<pr>In "Foundation," Asimov produces a world so real you feel you could live there and characters so great you'd vote for them, if only you could.<pr>In "Foundation and Empire," he lets a mutant psionic loose in the galaxy. The invincible foundation is overrun, the land of your beloved characters is defeated!<pr>And THAT'S just the start of the fun! This book is so well written and Asimov's universe is so well developed, you fell as if your there when the troops of "The Mule" land. You want to scream as the Foundation is defeated, and when you finish this book, you want to fly to the nearest bookstore to get the next one in the series.<pr>This story is amazing. Asimov has long been regarded as the best there is, the foundation series has long been reguarded as Asimov's best, and this book is the best of the foundation trilogy. IF you don't read it, you should never forgive yourself." +866,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A1NM9023KLTWL3,"Diran Hafiz ""dirandirandiran""",3/3,5.0,981244800,Amazing,"The second book of the original trilogy, this book is an amazing follow on to "Foundation". The seven books of the Foundation series together form what I consider to be the most complete and astonishing blend of deep reality with science fiction. The septet, for the uninitiated, include (in the order I believe they should be read in): Prelude to the Foundation, Forward the Foundation, Foundation, Foundation and Empire, Second Foundation, Foundation's Edge and Foundation and Earth. Do yourself a favor, buy them all. If you don't drool over the books by the time you're done with them, read them again." +867,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A93R161EX209N,Scott McNulty,1/1,5.0,1241827200,A SciFi classic.,You would be hardpressed to point to another of Asimov's work and name it better the Foundation. +868,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,AV74NYPSKHXBU,Black Plum,0/0,4.0,1350950400,Political Science Fiction,"Foundation is an interesting technological/political science fiction. A very famous book, obviously. The Galactic Empire has lasted 12,000 years, but it is predicted by Hari Seldon, a genius scientist/psychologist/mathematician that the Empire will fall within 300 years. So he takes a large group of people to the distant planet of Terminius, to create the Encyclopedia Galatica, a book of knowledge. It won't save the Empire, but at least will prevent the world from falling into chaos for too long. At least, that's what I got from the purpose. The various parts of the book skip from generation to generation of people on Terminus, and their various political problems.The political element of Foundation was very interesting to me. I hadn't read much political science fiction before. I don't think the world was that well developed; there wasn't a lot of description of it, it was more focused on the various power-plays and intrigues going on. Also, the way that each part is a different time period was a little off-putting; I really would have liked to know more about Gaal Dornick and some of the other characters. But you can't really narrate 300 years of history without skipping many years. At first, I thought Gaal Dornick was going to be the protagonist. I was wrong.Anyway, Foundation was an intriguing science fiction with an interesting plot, and I'm certainly glad that I decided to read it. The cover says ""The Foundation Novels"", so perhaps there are other books about this world too? If so, I look forward to (possibly) reading them.All of my reviews can be read at my blog (novareviews.blogspot.com)." +869,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A3NKUKGTD1MXIQ,CoMoBytes,1/1,5.0,1346889600,Still one of best,"Assimovo should be required reading for all teens. His characters are very believable. Even the smart ones do dumb things, they just do them for smart reasons." +870,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A34WJQK50FLL34,Christopher,0/1,5.0,1087257600,Not just the greatest trilogy ever...,"But Asimov is one of the greatest science-fiction authors to have every lived. His massive work adding itself to works by other such sci-fi masters: "Childhood's End", "Rendezvous with Rama", "Stranger in a Strange Land" as well as the more modern cyberpunk works like "Neuromancer", "Mona Lisa Overdrive", "Snow Crash", "Prey", and "Cyber Hunter". All are must-reads for any hardcore science-fiction and cyberpunk collector." +871,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,AZD3ZGELAE1CU,liquifyx,1/1,5.0,1281398400,just timeless,one would be hard pressed to find better sci-fi in the last 60 years than the foundation novels. what amazing insight these books had. +872,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A2JV30NDMKJS0T,bach@volcano.net,0/0,5.0,888019200,I can't believe that this series was written in the 40's!,I read this series when I was 15 years old and could not put it down. Ten years later and it still comes to my mind from time to time. Asimov had a wonderful imagination. I would like to have met him. +873,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1FS66MS8FRSXI,G. Krehbiel,6/44,1.0,1155859200,Silly religions ideas mar an otherwise average book,"I tried to listen to this story on CD, and aside from the story not being terribly interesting, I was surprised at Asimov's attitude towards religion. I suppose I shouldn't have been. He is a sci fi writer, after all. But I thought he was supposed to be a smart guy. He's not -- at least on this point.The basic outline of the story (at least the beginning -- I didn't make it all the way through) is that some guy predicts that the galactic empire is going to fall, so he tries to make provision to preserve technology so that the succeeding dark ages don't last as long as they otherwise might. Toward that end he gets a select group of scientists onto this relatively isolated planet where they can carry on their work, which becomes the invention and maintenance of a religion that's supposed to preserve certain technologies through the coming dark ages. In this religion the high priests understand the theory -- the technology and all that -- but the local priests and the people are duped into believing in some mumbo jumbo.It's as if you're supposed to picture some priest waving incense and saying prayers while he adjusts the knobs on the nuclear reactor, believing that it's God doing something while it's really just technology.I know that ""technology as magic"" and ""religion = magic"" are common themes in the sci-fi genre, but for some reason I expected better from Asimov. It shows a rather alarming lack of thought.Religious rituals are always geared towards the chaotic and the mysterious. There aren't religious rituals to cause the sun to rise, because it's regular and dependable, but there are religious rituals for storms and floods and harvests and childbirth and whatnot. Religion is also used to explain hidden things -- psychology, forgiveness, etc.IOW, religion is subject to criticism (""it's not measurable"") in precisely the area where Asimov is trying to squeeze it. He's trying to make religion the mystical cloak for something that's regular, predictable and logical. It just doesn't work that way.If religious rituals had precise, measurable results, people would suspect that there's nothing religious or mysterious about them and they'd look for a material cause. Anyone who doubts that simply doesn't understand the religious mind, or hasn't been paying attention. Sure, there are gullible religious folk out there who'll believe anything, but the majority have half an eye out for tricks and deceptions.The very idea that you can hide technology behind a cloak of religious ritual is a rather silly science fiction writer's fantasy.Anyway, the story wasn't that compelling, and this ""religious cover for nuclear technology"" business was so incredibly stupid, I couldn't finish it." +874,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,,,0/1,5.0,911606400,The greatest classic of all times,This book is definetly a CLASSIC of all times(not only in SF).A must read for all SF lovers.I have read the book some 20-25 times so far and its simply mind-blowing.The whole concept is well thought of and pararells can be drawn to imperialism(religion and trade).You are made to realise the futility of trying to avoid destiny and realise that its the best to do the obvious in any situation.Definetly the best of all times. +875,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A6SQMX0PILRME,joe c mufalli,11/46,1.0,961113600,"Boring,complicated...What's all the hype about?","Being a sci-fi fan myself, I decided I wanted to try reading some of the works by the giants of sci-fi. I had always heard how great "Foundation" was, so I thought I'd start with this one. I was thoroughly disappointed! Asimov used way too many large words ("using dollar words where dime words would suffice"). The story seemed to jump around from one time to another. The characters were very one-dimensional and very flat...I didn't have that "I wonder what's going to happen next to ---". I just didn't care what was going to happen next to the characters or in the story. There didn't seem to be anything to propel this story along; nothing to develop the characters or the story. I read over 100 pages and I still had no interest in what was happening. (Even Stephen King, who can be pretty tough to get into his stories, has me hooked within 50 to 60 pages!) I just don't get what all the hype is over this book. Could someone out there PLEASE tell me! I will try to get into his Robot series...maybe he has better character and story development in them...I hope!" +876,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,AFCQWNNJW6S9G,Katharine Coldiron,4/5,5.0,1179187200,"Dr. A., I salute you.","This book was recommended to me for a writing exercise, and I was surprised to find that I enjoyed it as much as I learned from it. I had lumped Asimov in with Clarke as a boring SF writer, and I was quite wrong. This book also works amazing magic with the passage of time and circumstance, and despite how quickly characters drop out of the landscape of the novel, the reader remains interested. A masterful work from one of the great masters.If you don't know much about SF, this is a good book for you; if you are a SF fan who thinks Asimov has nothing to offer you, this is a great book for you. Pick it up." +877,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,AJAF1T6Q7XM94,A Customer,3/5,5.0,949449600,Perhaps the finest sci fi series of all time,"In reviewing the book Foundation I am recommending that you read all of the Foundation books by Asimov. Just get started and read them all. Even though each book can be read individually, do yourself a favor and read them in order. I won't be reviewing any other books in the series. I want you to do the whole series.One of the most interesting ideas that Asimov gives us is the ultimate form of self defense. No, it isn't karate or jiu jitsu, boxing or wrestling. It's touching the other person's mind.There are enough circles within circles, things that aren't what they seem to be, surprises that put the theories into a cocked hat, to keep you on your toes.Don't deprive yourself of the best sci fi series ever written." +878,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A3PWVZRIHDMLXF,madlie,1/1,5.0,1252540800,Awesome,"The Foundation is a series of books about two Foundations at the end of the Galaxy, at the rotting fringes of the Galactic Empire. Psychohistorian Hari Seldon has predicted the fall of the Galactic Empire, and 30,000 years of barbarism that will follow. The Foundations are established at two opposite edges of the Galaxy, little settlements that contain all human knowledge. The problem is that there are certain crises that the Foundations must overcome, with as little guidence from Seldon as possible.This was the first Asimov book I've ever read, so I didn't know really what to expect. I found I loved it! It was full of interesting characters, and each novelette showed a different point of time in the Foundation, so instead of slowly going through each year in the 1000 years of barbarism, you actually get somewhere. The characters had pros and cons to them, and seemed well rounded. It also showed a change in character through time, such as characters that were once sharp become dull and characters that used to rebel fall in line. Instead of telling you all about the character on the first page, it gave a general idea and then let the story tell the characters. One part I really liked was that it had plot twists that I didn't see coming, and the plot wasn't completely transparent.In the end, this book was a very interesting sci-fi novel that kept me going, and held my interest until the end." +879,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,AIQEHMC9TKGK5,AN AVID READER,2/2,5.0,1328400000,Out of nowhere,"Comes this novel, given to me on Christmas, by my dad, on the recomendation of one of his co-workers. I am not a big science fiction fan, not that I've read dozens of sci-fi books and hated them. It's just that besides what I run into in the occasional Koontz or King, I have little interest in sci-fi.So after Christmas, a month or so goes by, and I finally open ""Foundation"". Doing research before reading this, I am quite impressed at how popular this series is. After reading the book, I clearly see why. The first few pages took a re-read, as I was very confused. Before I knew it, im onto part 2 and not able to put this book down. All I can say now is I can't wait to get my hands on the rest of the series. I was in the mood for something different than my usual reading, and this really delivered. Asimov writing is intelligent, yet simple. His character's aren't deep, but the plot amazes. His imagination is amazing.What I especially enjoy about this book, is that each of the five parts takes place many years after the previous part, so you really feel as if you know the whole empire's history.All in all, this book took me from not caring much for sci-fi, to at the bare minimum reading the rest of this series, and eventualy, probably reading alot if not all of Asimov's work. A book that's on the short side never contained so much in opinion. I am now an Isaac Asimov fan. Recommended HIGHLY!" +880,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1WA5SZRJHAWTL,A Customer,4/6,3.0,908755200,A classic appropriate for scifi newcomers & series lovers,"First, I read quite a bit from all genres, primarily to expand my world. Foundation is a very good series, but here's a few reasons why this book might not expand *your* world: 1) you were a statistics/religion/philosophy major in college (it may annoy); 2) you want a book for entertainment, not to ponder (it may bore); 3) you really think character development is important in a book (it spans generations, hence little/no development); 4) You're already a scifi buff (most of the books you've read have already assimilated the ideas of Foundation -- credit where due!). Biggest reason to read: its robust, well-crafted universe. Other tidbits: I've tried to read this series a second time, but it can't sustain my interest quite like other 5-star selections." +881,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,AMVC9WTXYKNJ1,"J. Edgar Mihelic ""Failed Mime""",1/1,5.0,1281398400,Asimov: a product of his time,"I like science fiction in a generalized idea, but sometimes in particular it doesn't work. I think this is mainly because I see two kinds of science fiction. One is what are essentially westerns in space. The second tries to give perspective on the current times by creating some sort of objective viewpoint on current events by giving it distance in space or time. Asimov is more of the second one. I haven't read much of his work as an adult, but I did like his short stories as a child in magazines. Genre stories, until lately, haven't had any pull in the academy so they don't get studied or legitimized scholastically. I like this second kind much better.I like this book, the first of a trilogy and the foundation for several others (pun intended). Asimov explores our relation to information and the predictability of the future based on full information awareness. I will read more of these books, perhaps the whole series because I enjoyed and was tantalized by the possibilities of action in the future of the series. However, one interesting thing is that although Asimov was looking to the future, he was still a product of his time. When he was writing, the technology was nuclear and the future was nuclear. Thus, the future Empire is ruled by nuclear technology. Compare, for example, the cyber-punk fascination with computer technology as a driving force. Computers are almost absent from the world of the Empire and the Foundation. Instead, there are still newspapers (96) and messages are transferred physically. At the very least, if you take this as a futurological document, humanity abandoned mythological superstition. So - you have to read this book as both a look into the future and a historical document. Asimov is a fantastic writer, but he couldn't overcome the limitations of his time." +882,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A3FJUN61YCMNKP,"Mitchell S. Wagner ""Mitch Wagner""",0/0,3.0,1324944000,Very relevant today,"I recently re-read this classic work of science fiction, and was pleasantly surprised to find it's still relevant today. The characters and language are a bit creaky, but the social issues Asimov raises are sound. Under what conditions is it ethical for a self-appointed academic elite to hoodwink and trick the general population for their own good? Phrased that way, the answer seems obvious -- under no conditions at all? -- but what if it really IS for their own good, and if disaster is the alternative?We don't have any better answers to those questions today than we did 70 years ago, when Asimov was writing." +883,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A126KX6FVI4T66,"R. Bagula ""Roger L. Bagula""",0/0,5.0,1217808000,The middle book and the mule,"I first read the foundation triology in high school in the early 60's.Nearly 50 years later, reading it again was almost like reading forthe first time. Asimov added two more books later, but the first threeare the real classics here. The concept of psychohistory may be as importantas the novels are good. I haven't seen any movies made from thesestories, but it seems like they deserve that.Before there was ever an x-man there was the mule;that chance of genetic nature of a psi mutant who could change mens mindsas he pleased. The plan couldn't account for this, but the second foundationwas never found by the mule. I recognized in the mule a manvery like the French Napoleon who could take advantage ofthe weaknesses of others. In later life Asimov became verymuch 'hard science' orientated so that these early space operatype novels were actually rationalized into an artificial unified time linethat really does a disservice to their original intension in my view.I still like this book with age!" +884,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,AUB4J6R3C78PK,Martin Piper,0/0,5.0,885340800,"Excellent, but it now!","I admit it, I am an Asimov-phile. This is yet another book by Asimov that is very hard to put down. I rate this, and all of Asimovs books with the highest regard. Quite simply buy it now, or you are a fool. ;-)" +885,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1MAG8BDOVJHTT,"G. Swift ""97jedi""",6/6,5.0,991526400,Foundation Onward!,"As in Foundation, this is actually not a single story. Here are presented two separate episodes in the development of the Foundation toward the establishment of the Second Galactic Empire.The first details the encounter between the growing Foundation and the still-very-powerful Empire. At the forefront is an Imperial General of outstanding ability and charisma. Unfortunately, Hari Seldon, the architect of the Foundation, predicted all this with his psychohistorical calculations. While the general is very successful in his opposition to the Foundation, his very nature ensures his downfall.The second story is quite ingenious, in that the single large failing of Seldon's psychohistory is brought to light. An individual beyond the predictive nature of psychohistory has appeared and done the impossible. While there is a type of mystery presented, Asimov either wanted the reader to know the answer before the characters, or he didn't try very hard to obscure the nature of things. But this is a crucial moment in the Foundation's development, as they seem to be vulnerable after all. This story depends heavily on a plot element present in all the Robot-Empire- and now Foundation Series: psionic abilities. Clearly this was a favorite concept for Asimov, and he never seems to abuse it; that is, it never seems there for its own sake but always represents a fundamental encounter when it appears, and you can bet there are severe ramifications.While I have noted a few complaints about the second of these two stories, this book is still very well written, with action and suspense as good as any I've read. Asimov did such a wonderful job crafting this future history that I can only applaud having had the pleasure to read it. If you like S-F, you will love this whole series, chosen as the Best Series Ever Hugo winner. Need I say more?" +886,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,AOP5K4K01B0PH,Joseph Palen,2/2,4.0,1248393600,Political alternatives to war in a far off Galaxy,"A science fiction book where the science is more political than technological. Psychology had advanced to the point where mathematical models of mass psychology could predict large group social behavior far into the future ( rather like the meteorological models attempt to predict weather several days in advance). The predictions in this case extended over several centuries and predicted the galaxy would undergo a dark age in which civilized learning and behavior would decrease and collected knowledge could be lost. A Foundation was formed at the far edge of the galaxy with the sole job of organizing and saving all knowledge. Since the book takes place over a long period of time we follow the adventures of several heroes involved with the Foundation's effort to not only maintain knowledge (for the time when civilization will return) but to do so while maintaining peace. This was done first by creating a religion based on the fact that only the Foundation had technology, most importantly nuclear power. This source of power, needed by all, then became an object of worship, and priests were trained in how to present the dictates of the Foundation (Source of Power) as a reason for good behavior. When this sham began to fail, it was found that trade between the high tech Foundation and the low tech other nations was more profitable than war, and could maintain peace. This is the first book in a series of three, so most likely the next book tells how the trade idea worked out. Although my description does make it sound boring, I found it to be an interesting book, the politics of which sound familiar in today's world - I may read the next in the series." +887,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,,,0/0,5.0,931219200,The Best series of books ever written,"I'm teeenage kid and before i read the foundation series i was reading Clarke's book (particarly the RAMA series, they are almost as good) The first foundation book i pick up was Foundation and Empire. I didn't even finish it. Then a month or two later at a libary i stumbled on the Foundation book. I started reading and all of sudden Foundation and Empire made sense. Along with Second FOundation these three books are the best ever written (i haven't read the other foundation books yet). As a result of these books i have decided to devote my life to math, or pyshcology, or history, ormabye even physcohistory!!" +888,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1IA4UGA26QBQE,EriChanHime,2/3,5.0,1176249600,"Fantastic concept, well executed","Asimov's Foundation books are well-crafted, masterfully imagined, and peopled with fascinating characters. Spanning some several thousand years, and multiple generations of characters (often more than one per book), the author does a fantastic job keeping each set unique and captivating. The stories follow the progression of Psychohistory, a technique for predicting the future behavior of masses of people, and the people set up to use its information to further the birth of a greater galactic empire. Space battles, intrigue, mutants, telepathy and mind control, as well as personal triumphs and failures run throughout all the novels. They are, in my opinion, among the best crafted series in the sci-fi genre ever produced." +889,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A14GVMN3PFKFIS,William Henry Baker,1/11,2.0,958867200,I just cant do it.,I read the foundation books and was reminded why I don't like asimov. The man has Phd's in chemistry and a gazillion other physical sciences and he likes to show it off. And that makes it very hard for us lay scifi geeks. +890,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A16JTNAEKD139I,Reader from the North,1/1,5.0,1130630400,Start of Great SF Series,"You've already read the publisher's summary for yourself, so let me just add that this is THE classic SF trilogy. Book one, ""Foundation,"" creates the future world, its declining culture, and how a group of strong-minded individuals don't want to see knowledge die. How they do that drives this novel. In book two, Asimov introduces the mystery of the mule, and in book three Asimov pulls a rabbit out the hat called the Second Foundation.If you enjoy books that entertain, books that offer good mysteries, and books that make you think about bigger things in life, than this series is for you. It's too bad our political leaders don't read novels like this. Maybe we'd avoid the continual messes they get countries in." +891,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,AYFZ6RAXGZTMV,Michael D Ward,2/5,3.0,961459200,"Pleasant SF outing, but little more.","Three stars is a bit generous, but this certainly isn't a bad book. In fact, it is easy to read, always interesting, and often exciting. But that's all it is. It is not deep or meaingful. It is not profoud. It is not thought provoking. It isn't even particularly well written. But it's so easy to take and has enough good qualities that it can't be disliked.The plot center's around the creation of a Foundation, a place where mankind's accumulated knowledge can be protected from the approaching collapse of civilization. This is an interesting enough premise and very original in its day, but the blending of mathematics and psychology into a science that can accurately predict much of the future is hard to take seriously.If you come across a copy of this book, read it. It won't take long and you'll probably enjoy much of it even if your not a SF fan, but I don't recommend anyone by this book. There is to much out there that is much much better." +892,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1Q8E89P3DF5UM,Aniket Desai,0/0,5.0,1003881600,Foundation is the best,"Let's get started with one of the most celebrated science fiction sagas of all time: Foundation. originally Asimov wrote it in form of a trilogy: Foundation, foundation and empire and the second foundation, to be read in that order. Then Asimov expanded his ""foundation universe"" to tie it with his ""robot universe"" by adding 2 more novels to the series: Foundation's edge and foundation and earth. All these 5 books are a must read if you consider yourself a sci-fi fan. Besides there are 2 more books: prelude to foundation and forward to the foundation, which must be read before actual 5 novels. It's quite a complex maze. It will also help if you are familier with Asimov's robot series. But you can nevertheless read only the 5 foundation books as a standalone and still enjoy them greatly.So what is foundation (as in neo asks in matrix)? Well foundation is the fictional name of a futuristic society, which is founded by a great scientist called hari seldon. In Asimov's foundation, humanity has expanded over the galaxy, hyperspace travels have advanced and an ""empire"" rules over millions of planets in the galaxy. The ""empire' has seen its best days and is living in the relic of its past glory, a.k.a. it is crumbling. However all phegmatic rulers, the rulers of the empire refuse to accept their weakness. However Hari seldon, through his scientific and mathematical eyes, predicts that empire will soon crumble and humanity will be reduced to abject barbarism for a long time.On the preset of this plot, hari seldon establishes ""foundation"" to save the humanity.Ok, let us not delve too much into the plot as I am not playing spoiler. Why should you read Asimov? Apart from foundation being one of the greatest sci-fi saga, you can find several refreshing ideas, which have been adopted ubiqutously by most sci-fi series later. Take star trek, star wars, dune, even the most recent matrix, everyone borrows heavily from Asimov. Asimov not only introduced scientific concepts of hyperspace travel, he also introduced the concept of ""control"", which is used heavily especially in matrix. throughout his foundation saga, one is left wondering ""who is the ultimate master?"" the answers come as you keep reading through the novel.Asimov also explains a futuristic society in its sociology, politics, power struggle and human nature. No other sci-fi writer has cared too much to explore how a society will behave in future. Asimov stands unique in that respect.I would highly recommend all 5 foundation books." +893,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A11S16XIQ0ICCX,Bladud,0/1,5.0,1002844800,Read or be visionless.,"The original Foundation trilogy won the Hugo for the best series of all time. It deserved it. For those who like "hard" (science-driven) sci-fi as opposed to emotion-driven sci-fi, this is a must. Actually, the premise is not as outrageous as it first appears... We can all vaguely predict the general reaction of the human race to a certain idea, which means it does follow some rules. It would be difficult, but not impossible, to find some generalised maths to describe it, but the rewards would certainly justify it." +894,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A2HVUD1AEHZGVR,William Wells,1/1,3.0,1338163200,"Classic but drifting, give it a second chance","In my initial read of this book, I stuck with it because it is a classic and everyone loves it. However, after about half of the book I got bored, nothing seemed to be building or catching, so I stopped. I have restarted and am more interested now because I know some more of the background story. So far, the second trip through this book is much more enjoyable than my first slow trip." +895,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1PTVQ8MCKKA2F,Eric,0/0,5.0,1087344000,The "Foundation" series was mesmerizing!,"But, then, how could it not be when its author was the incomparable Isaac Asimov? There are, of course, plenty of other noteworthy works by all manner of Old Masters as well as newer authors that, in my opinion, at least belong next to the "Foundation" series simply because they, too, are great sci-fi adventures and space opera: "Stranger in a Strange Land", "Puppet Masters", "2001", "2010", "Rendezvous with Rama", "Ringworld", all the "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" books, as well as books as new to the genre as "Advent of the Corps" and others. I mention them only to show that what great sci-fi authors like Isaac Asimov started decades ago still lives and breeds more and more fantastic works!" +896,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,,,0/0,5.0,897955200,Fantastic - Deserves a Movie Version !!!,"This book was almost perfect. It was actually better than the stellar first book (Foundation), which was also great. I just hope that we will one day get to see a 'Big Budget' movie series on the Foundation Series. But the stories are so good that they don't need the hype (but a movie would be fun)." +897,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A10KKJMBY5L7TK,Richard La Fianza,1/1,5.0,976752000,Classic. A good as "Foundation","Foundation and Empire is the second book in this series. If you have not read the first one yet, you should. Still, because of the rare and very clear writing found here, you can read this book and never be confused. Since both books are so good, why skip the first one?In this book, we return to the future. A small empire, the Foundation, is on the edges of a greater one. The "Empire" currently encompasses thousands of worlds. Still, compared to its past, it has been shrinking. One of its most able generals, aware that the Empire is less then it once was, decides to expand the Empire. Unfortunately for the Foundation, he has choosen the systems occured by it, as the best direction for his expansion.Like the first installation, this book continually talks about the "inevitable" victory of the Foundation. Since they are being systematically destroyed by the Empire, such predictions ring hollow. How the book solves this problem seems to make sense. But this war is only the prelude for a greater conflict - a Civil War in the Foundation itself.Here is a really interesting dilemena. Since the Foundation is "fated" to survive, what will happen if it wars with itself? And, to make things more interesting, a third party joins the conflict. This mysterious entity, the "Mule", leads forces that beats both foundations back. What is happening here?Again, like the first book in this series, Foundation and Empire is as much a mystery story, as science fiction. How the author solves these problems are great fun. The ending, actually the middle of the book, is a great surprise on your first read. What happens afterwards, and the new developments, make for a great twist to this story and a powerful new development in this series. A great story. It is great fun and easily as enjoyable as the first book which, on its own, was a classic. Read and enjoy." +898,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1618E10JGZO5X,Shayne D. Cairns,0/0,5.0,1346889600,Asimov succeeds again!,I started reading the Foundation series this year and I can't believe what I've been missing. One of the best sci-fi series and one of the best sci-fi authors! +899,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A3MNGI81TEAJFQ,Axel,1/1,4.0,1121212800,Foundation,"There are a lot of people reviewing this book on this website who give it low reviews because it's dated. Yeah, sure, it's dated...it was written in the forties, it's going to be dated, but that doesn't lower the quality of the story.Now that that's out of the way: this book is great. Asimov is unbelievably smart, and Foundation shows it. The story to Foundation is interesting: the Galactic Empire is crumbling and its demise will turn the entire galaxy to barbarism for thirty thousand years, if steps arn't taken to lighten the blow. That's where the Foundation comes in. Through a series of crises, the Foundation should be able to shorten the length of time of barbarism from thirty thousand years to only a thousand.Foundation just covers the first few crises, so the book skips forward in time. This causes the trouble with the character development that everyone complains about. When a character is given only a few chapters to develop in, they won't really develop.Asimov really is the master of science fiction." +900,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A1HEEDADJKS9YZ,Daniel J. Cook,2/2,5.0,1219104000,Good for digestion,"Great book! First in the series of three novels, all three are worth the read. I read all three in about two and half weeks. It might be interesting to read them in conjunction with Kuhn's Structures of Scientific Revolutions. Every ""Seldon Crisis"" brings about a ""new world"". Really fun stuff. Don't miss out!" +901,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A3B5OBFQ7VUXGR,slick,0/0,5.0,1354665600,Get foundation first,"I'd say that you will probably be a bit lost if you don't start with foundation and plan to continue with second foundation after this book. Reading this as a stand alone would be a bit like reading Tolkien's two towers without having started at the beginning of the series. You could probably do it and get something from the story, but the beauty of the foundation series is that it is a series telling one coherent story. This book shows it's age with some of the technology it discusses, but it is also vividly imaginative and full of timeless lessons." +902,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A3OPCA6YWLAMAB,Lawrence,1/1,5.0,1347840000,Fantastic.,"I had never read any of the foundation novels and yet, considered myself a science fiction fan. Im glad to say i have corrected this glaring error." +903,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1HJZL0WKCOTSF,"Dan ""Longsword""",1/1,5.0,1115510400,Among my favorites books,"This book sets the stage for the rest of the series. Hari Seldon is introduced and his theories of Psychohistory are explained. Then Seldon's Foundation is established on Terminus, a remote planet at the edge of the Empire, with the goal of shortening the period of barbarism the universe will experience. However, there are no Psychohistorians located in the Foundation... only scientists. The planet has very few native metals and virtually no defenses. The scientists must figure out how to rule their world and fend off avaricious neighbors as the Empire begins to crumble. The majority of this first volume contains vignettes chronicling the Foundation leaders responding to various crises that Hari Seldon predicted centuries before. The crises are varied and plausible. The solutions to the problems that arise are not solved by any miraculous means, but by tough, clever political maneuvering. Watching the crises and their solutions unfold is very enthralling and keeps you turning the pages at a rapid pace." +904,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,ATOY4NGAV65W0,"Jason Gonella ""philosopher""",0/0,4.0,979603200,An Excellent Work for any Sci-Fi Library,"First I will detail the faults of this book. It is too brief. Mr. Asimov was working under the assumption that he had to keep it under a certain length, and so abbreviated it unfairly, cutting certain amounts of plot and character development.That aside, this book is excellent, showing the struggle against adversity and brains versus brute force that is so lacking in most modern literature. It is true that Science Fiction is the Modern version of Romantic (the time period) literature, and Asimov carried the beacon." +905,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A3MQXFVZ9DCE8M,R. D. Allison (dallison@biochem.med.ufl.edu),11/12,4.0,930268800,Attacks on the Foundation!,"This is the second volume published of Asimov's classic Foundation series (originally published as two novellas in 1945). Part I is titled "The General." A military leader in the Old Empire sees the Foundation as a threat (about forty years after the end of the events described in "Foundation"). He gets permission from the emperor to wage a campaign. The Foundation must find a way to stop him. Fortunately, the mathematics of Hari Seldon has already considered a course of action. In Part II, called "The Mule," a mutant with unparalleled power (power never considered in Hari Seldon's psychohistory; he can control the emotions and commitments of others) fights and defeats the Foundation about 300 years after the start of the novel "Foundation." But, now the Mule has to go in search of the Second Foundation which is made up of psychologists and psychohistorians (the First Foundation had been set up primarily with physical scientists). When "The Mule" appeared in magazine format in 1945, it wowed the readership. With these stories, the series really began developing a following. I am in my 50s and have read the books a couple of times. But, my father has read them ten times!" +906,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,,,0/0,5.0,929836800,The Essence of Science Fiction.,"Although the fact that this novel was really several stories put together into one format, which was slightly disconcerting, I still must say that Foundation is a masterpiece, and you cannot wait to see what happens next. With every story the Foundation grows in power and you see the intracacies involved in politics and war, trade and power. A blueprint for the eventual realization of a real Psychohistory. Another one of The Greats." +907,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A32PBNS7SGYRWE,J. S. Harbour,3/3,5.0,965260800,Book 2 of 14 in the Foundation series,"I give all 14 books 5 stars!For those of you who would like to read the Foundation story in it's entirety, from beginning to end, chronologically, then I suggest following this course. There are 14 books in the series! In the end, it was R. Daneel Olivaw who designed and created the Trantorian empire in the first place, and so the robot novels--which introduce the cradle world of Earth before the dawn of the empire--come before the Foundation Trilogy:The Caves of Steel, The Naked Sun, The Robots of Dawn, Robots and Empire, Prelude to Foundation, Forward the Foundation, Foundation's Fear, Foundation and Chaos, Foundation's Triumph, Foundation, Foundation and Empire, Second Foundation, Foundation's Edge, Foundation and EarthNow some of you might not recommend that one read the Second Trilogy before the first. True, but they come chronologically BEFORE the first Foundation Trilogy! I do recommend that you at least read Foundation's Edge and Foundation and Earth AFTER you have read the second trilogy (Foundation's Fear, Foundation and Chaos, Foundation's Triumph) because the subjects in the last two (chronological) books are more interesting that way." +908,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A2ITEMEL0DTX8A,Ritesh Laud,4/6,4.0,1010102400,The fall of the Galactic Empire begins,"Foundation consists of five stories separated by several decades each. The Trantorian Empire has lost its hold on the outer perimeter of the galaxy. Hari Seldon, founder of the predictive science of psychohistory, knows that the Empire is doomed to collapse and that thirty millennia of barbarism and anarchy will ensue before a second empire will rise. But Seldon claims to know a way to shorten the dark ages from 30,000 years to a single millennium.The stories in Foundation chronicle the infancy and development of Seldon's Foundation society initially established on the remote planet Terminus. Seldon's psychohistory predicts several crises that the Foundation must survive in order to bring about the desired drastic shortening of the dark ages. Four of the five stories each describe a crisis that confronts the Foundation.So far I've read the Robot series, the Empire series, and the first three books in the Foundation series (Prelude to Foundation, Forward the Foundation, Foundation). I find the epic story so far to be extremely engaging and imaginative. The stories in Foundation are a bit disconnected and not fleshed out enough, but nevertheless do a more than adequate job of describing the fall of the Galactic Empire." +909,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,AGCPVN4E9RQ5J,Lenoci P. Robert,0/0,5.0,1348185600,Classic science fiction,"I remember walking to the library as a thirteen year old with my back pack, smile on my face between each of the foundation books. Now, I have read them over again (a few times) and the only difference is that I now own them so no more walks to the library." +910,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A3GVN0D20PS4SM,Gustavo Fischer,4/4,5.0,951177600,Just Great!,"This is just about the best SF series ever, and this book is the best in the series. If you want to get into Asimov's universe this is the place to start. Just as good are his Robot series. Every one of Asimov's characters are expertly defined and easyly remembered. One of the best reads I ever had. Excellent (that's why I won't spoil the plot)." +911,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,,,0/1,5.0,930096000,Wonderful Futuristic Story of the clash of Titans.,"F&E shows in marvelous guise the slowly growing power of Terminus, the inevitable clash with the still powerful remnants of the Galactic Empire, and the downright weird occurrances that follow the conquests of the Mule, a Telepath who can shape other people's minds to suit his permanantly, and who aspires to dominance. Great stuff." +912,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A12FFFY7WOZIZS,Justin LeCheminant,2/2,5.0,1031097600,"excellent book, highly recommended`","This was the first book I have read by Isaac asimov and I can say it was worth the wait. While this book is very old it is still an excellent read. Asimov presents a very convincing future for humanity. The book is broken into several sections that were originally short stories in a sci-fi magazine. They gel togethor perfectly and the overall story is wonderful. This book details Hari Seldon and his prediction of the fall the galactic empire and the rise of barbarism for 30000 years. He however thinks he can avert the disaster and only have 3000 years of barbarism in the galaxy. Based on this he sets up two seperate foundations that are supposed so achieve this goal. This book is focused on the first foundation and it's trials as the fall of the galactic empire begins.THe characters in this book are good. While each section is short you really empathize with the characters and their lives. The plot is excellent some of the suprises he throws at you are quite extrodinary. My only complaint is some the terminology in this book is quite old and often times is quite funny to read. However the ideas, characters, and plot make up for the archaic wording in the book.I would recommend this book to any science fiction fan!" +913,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,,,2/2,5.0,903830400,One of the best books EVER written!!!,"This book is astonishing! Foundation was great, but this book was even better. I was hooked from the moment I started reading. It immedietly strung together details in the first book which I thought were meaningless. Although the war between Foundation and Empire was good, the best parts of the book was the story of the Mule. This was one kick-a** story! The moment when everyone found out that Hari Seldon's plan had gone wrong in the Vault was one of the series' finest written moments, and the end, oh don't even get me started about the end of the book. I won't spoil it for you, but it is a great plot twist!" +914,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,AL1FKM2O8G9KO,Glenn P.,1/1,5.0,1232582400,Foundation Review,"This book, Foundation, is a very detailed fictional book that place in the future. Isaac Asimov wrote many books and series in his lifetime and this book along with the series was one of his first books written. This story is mostly about the First Galactic Empire and its fall. Hari Seldon was a psychohistorian, and, using his advanced mathematics, was able to conclude that the Empire would soon fall in 500 years, and then be followed by 30,000 years of barbarism. Hari, however, could limit the 30,000 years to only 1,000 years, by having the people on a planet called Terminus follow an Encyclopedia Galactica that Hari Seldon had made. They followed this for 50 years until they found out it was a fake. Many years pass, and there are many different people who try to do something to help. Each person had a crisis to get past in order to keep doing what had to be done to limit the barbarism to 1,000 years. This continues until the end of the book, and is then continued in the sequels. I think that this book was very interesting and I enjoyed it a lot, but the only problem about it is that it is very difficult to follow because each chapter, new characters are brought in and it take place 50 or more years later in time. Other than that, if you are a good reader and enjoy fiction books then this is a great book to read. Also, if you really like the book, there are a ton of other books that he wrote, including several other sequels that you can read." +915,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1JZLZGQZ62RSO,"Thomas Wikman ""Texas Swede""",195/220,5.0,1213833600,Epic,"The Foundation trilogy (three first books) and the Foundation series (all seven) are often regarded as the greatest set of Science Fiction literature ever produced. The Foundation series won the one-time Hugo Award for ""Best All-Time Series"" in 1966. Isaac Asimov was among the world's best authors, an accomplished scientist, and he was also a genius with an IQ above 170, and it shows in the intelligently concocted but complex plots and narrative. There are already 331 reviews for this Science Fiction novel, however, I still believe I have something unqiue to contribute which is stated in my last paragraph.This book and the rest in the series take place far in the future (allegedly 50,000 years) at a time when people live throughout the Galaxy. A mathematician Hari Seldon has developed a new branch of mathematics known as psychohistory. Using the law of mass action, it can roughly predict the future on a large scale. Hari Seldon predicts the demise of the Galactic Empire and creates a plan to save the knowledge of the human race in a huge encyclopedia and also to shorten the barbaric period expected to follow the demise from 30,000 years to 1,000 years. A select people are chosen to write the Encyclopedia and to unknowingly carry out the plan to re-create the Galactic Empire. What unfolds in this book and in the books that follow is the future history of the demise and re-emergence of a Galactic Empire, written as a series of adventures, in a similar fashion to the Star Wars series.Even though this is arguably the greatest set of Science Fiction novels ever written, I do not recommend it to those who are only mildly interested in Science Fiction. Character development is not the focus of these novels and the large amount of technical/scientific details, schemes and plots can become both confusing and heavy for the unitiated Science Fiction reader. If you read this one you will feel the need to read the others which may take a long time. If you are new to Science Fiction start with something lighter and when you are hooked you can continue with this series. Also, in my opinion the second and third books were better than the first." +916,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,,,0/0,5.0,1168819200,Foundation: A Precocious Child Reviews a Classic,"Ah, Isaac Asimov. A god, some would say, in the sci-fi genre. I picked up this book at the urging of a friend, trusting in its reputation.At first I found Foundation unusual to read, it covers large swathes of time at once. However, Asimov does this extremely well. He gives us little anchors of information or characters that we can recognize, so we can figure out where we are in the time line without him having to come out and say it.Much of the book is dialogue, which is something I have not encountered before. Most of the story and characterization is carried in the dialogue rather than through plain description. Asimov doesn't tell you what the characters are thinking, he *shows* you what they're thinking as they explain it to other characters. This rather prevents us from growing too close to the characters, but that is rather the point because the time line goes so fast.Foundation was an unusual novel, but I can see why it is still a classic. It may be a little dry for some, but I enjoyed it." +917,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1ZDDLHFSUGILJ,S. Clark,0/0,5.0,935280000,Excellent!,Totally gripping and involving. Very imaginative and successful fantasy/mystery. +918,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A3P4BDLBH7TXX2,"J. Stoner ""Plants and Books""",2/17,2.0,1091577600,Superman sydrome and weak characterization,"I can understand why this book is considered one of the best science fiction books ever written, especially considering the time period it was written in. It has a very interesting concept of destination and cause and effect (although it is weak in execution and very weak in explanation). For these reasons and other I should only give this book a one star, but instead I gave it two and I will explain why later.There is almost zero character development in this book. The extremely short chapters jump thirty years to eighty years and more between chapters. Almost every "book" within this book has a new set of characters with only a few references of the "heroes" from the previous "books." At times, this makes for very confusing reading because I had no idea who the new people were in the successive chapters.As mentioned in the title, this book suffers greatly from the Superman sydrome. By this I mean that you know the outcome before the events have unfolded. Superman can't be beat (except for by Doomsday in the comics but he comes back anyway) and therefor when watching the movies you know he wins. So there just has to be more elaborate plans and more complex ways of defeating him but he still will win. The same is true with the foundation. Harry Seldon, the prophet who esentially created the foundation, knew what was going to happen because he could see the future. Every "book" in "Foundation" will ultimately see the Foundation as the victor, so there just must be more complex problems arising, but of course the Foundation will ultimately prevail. And in this book, the problems are not really that complex, just different social economies arising to counter the previously established social economy that prevailed in the previous "book." I can only imagine that in the later books the problems will get ridiculously complex - maybe even too complex for enjoyment.Because this book has almost zero characterization and is very predictable I would give this book one star, but instead I gave it two. The reason for this is because I have read the backs of the other books in the Foundation series and other reviews of them and I am interested in the storyline. I want to read about the Mule in Foundation and Empire, and I want to read about Earth in Foundations Edge. If not for that this book would recieve a one star rating from me and I would also never recommend this book or ever pick it up again.It may be a classic, but it's not that great. It's not great at all." +919,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A2LB8DEB7Q2Z68,Rmin,0/0,4.0,1351555200,Foundation and Empire,"As is all Issac Asimov Novels this is good reading! The 4 star rating is that the story does not seem to come to a complete end, I did expect more." +920,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A3BICBHAJH9GLQ,John Lee Pesta,0/0,3.0,1354320000,this story is a very slow paced,when I was child we read this story and did essays in high school ... today I find it hard to follow the story line or read more then a few pages at a time. +921,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A19VJA4IMAGAKG,C.L. Mershon,4/4,4.0,1332979200,Redefined my expectations of the SciFi genre,"I love this book and now fully understand why Asimov is considered one of the grandmasters of this genre. Over the years I have read a considerable amount of Science Fiction; books ranging from military exploits to technological exploits, but never have I read one that I would consider high literature.In this book Asimov deals with issues such as religion, politics, economics and the control that they all grant in such a deft way that it in no way detracts from a riveting and page turning novel. Take, for instance this quote from page 210.""The religion we have is our all-important instrument toward that end. With it we have brought the Four Kingdoms under our control, even at the moment when they would have crushed us. It is the most potent device known with which to control men and worlds""In regards to the power of economics""The whole war is a battle between those two systems; between the Empire and the Foundation; between the big and the little. To seize control of a world, they bribe with immense ships that can make war, but lack all economic significance. We, on the other hand, bribe with little things, useless in war, but vital to prosperity and profits."" - Pg. 231My one complaint is really based on a personal preference. I really enjoy a novel which has one central character that I can get to know and even identify with. I think that it helps to draw the reader into the story. However, Foundation covers several hundred years in just a couple hundred pages thereby making this impossible. This is a small point, but for me detracts slightly from the story.That said I adore this book and am eagerly looking forward to finishing out the series. If you have not read it then I say move it to the top of the list. This is truly one of the great SciFi stories of all time.Leave a comment below and let me know what you think!" +922,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A2YNIRQA2JJTKQ,"Tory ""toryofmaine""",3/3,5.0,1092096000,Great Trip Around the Stars,"I have not readf the Foundation series in years. However, the other day I was thinking about how much fun the trilogy had been. One has to remember that most of the scifi you read today has at least some of its roots based in Asimov's work, Asimov was not the best writer, nor was he the most creative. What he did accomplish was selling you another time and world that you could believe in. So, taking it for what it is, not a great piece of literature but a really enjoyable trip, i need to give the trilogy 5 stars." +923,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A3MQXFVZ9DCE8M,R. D. Allison (dallison@biochem.med.ufl.edu),23/26,5.0,930268800,One of the classics of 1940s and 1950s science fiction.,"This is the first published volume (which was originally published as four short stories in "Astounding Science Fiction" magazine, 1942-1944, with an introductory section written in 1949) of Asimov's famous trilogy, which affected many later works. This trilogy, which won a special Hugo Award in 1966 for the best science fiction series of all time, was later expanded into further volumes by Asimov (in fact, two prequels are Asimov's "Prelude to Foundation" and "Forward the Foundation"; after Asimov's death in 1992, other authors [for example, Gregory Benford's "Foundation's Fear," Greg Bear's "Foundation and Chaos," and David Brin's "Foundation's Triumph"] have contributed to the series [note that there are now five novels that serve as prequels to Asimov's first published Foundation book!]) . In these stories, spacecraft travel over large distances via "jumps." The ships spend most of their time in a form of hyperspace, each jump being aimed at a certain target star. The central character, Hari Seldon, is a psychohistorian. Psychohistory is the mathematics dealing with the reactions of very large masses of mankind to social and economic stimuli (and the recent advances in chaos theory in advanced mathematics lends credibility to Asimov's psychohistory). His calculations predicts an end to the Galactic Empire (an empire remarkably similar to the Roman Empire on Earth). Two Foundations are set up to ease mankind through the dark area predicted (or else, the dark period will last 30000 years) and, after a thousand years, will join together to form a second Empire. Although Asimov's early writing style leaves much to be desired (recall this was all put together in his early 20s during World War II when he worked for the U. S. Navy and when he was finishing his graduate work at Columbia Univ.), it is still fun reading; I enjoy every time I reread it. It is particularly enjoyable in the context of the other volumes. This first published volume has five parts. In "The Psychohistorians," an introductory tale (which begins about 46 years after the events described in "Prelude to Foundation" and thirteen years after the events described in the last story of "Forward the Foundation"), Dr. Hari Seldon and a young colleague are arrested on the planet Trantor (the governing center of the Galactic Empire) and tried for treason. Seldon's group are to be exiled to the planet Terminus on the galactic rim where they will form a scientific refuge. Seldon also plans to set up another group somewhere else. We later learn, in Part III, that this other group (the Second Foundation) is located at a place known as Star's End at the other end of the galaxy. In "The Encyclopedists," taking place about fifty years later, a large number of members of the original Foundation are on the planet Terminus and are compiling a massive encyclopedia to prepare for the upcoming dark age. But, why were no psychobiologists and only one psychologist present among the original colonists? The remaining three parts continue the development of the Foundation on Terminus." +924,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A2LJ3AURXJLRUC,Mike Kenny,0/0,5.0,1352678400,Foundation and Empire,"Foundation and Empire is the second volume in Isaac Asimov's Foundation series. Originally published as two novellas, Foundation and Empire the novel is made up of ""The General"" and ""The Mule"".In ""The General"", as the Galactic Empire crumbles, General Bel Riose launches an attack on the Foundation. Although the Foundation is theoretically stronger than the Empire, General Bel Riose has access to greater resources and personnel and so his attack does begin to threaten the Foundation. A Foundation citizen named Devers intercepts a communication that details the General's double dealings and attempts to escape to Trantor so that he can show the communication to the Emperor and hopefully stop the attack.""The Mule"" is set roughly one hundred years after ""The General"". The Empire has crumbled, Trantor has been sacked by invaders, and most of the galaxy has split into barbaric factions. Due to its extensive trading routes, the Foundation is now the major power in the galaxy. Until, that is, a new threat arises in the form of a growing army of barbarians led by a mysterious individual known as the Mule. Once it is discovered that Hari Seldon has failed to predict the existence of the Mule, Foundation citizens Toran and Bayta Darell, along with psychologist Ebling Mis and a refugee clown named Magnifico Giganticus, travel the galaxy attempting to locate the Second Foundation that had been established by Seldon.Although a much darker and more intense book, Foundation and Empire is an excellent follow up to Foundation. Asimov's writing is excellent as ever, with his descriptions of the alien worlds and his characterisations being particularly strong. The whole Foundation series is fantastic and Foundation and Empire is further proof that Isaac Asimov is one of the greatest science fiction writers of all time." +925,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,AX049BFYDYXV8,Joshua Fraser,1/1,4.0,1346371200,A great read - too short though.,"Really an enjoyable book to read. Asimov had such a hard task in this book, introducing his readers to a large span of history. Most of the book maintained immersion, but the smoking of the characters threw me off a bit (I wish someone would go through and pull the smoking out, as well as the newspapers, and change them to something else). Many people complain about character development being non existent in this book, but character wasn't the point of this work. I have never seen another author try in under 300 pages to cover the span of time covered in Foundation. For the constriction he put himself under, the characters are developed as far as they need to be with broad strokes.For people who are critical of this work, read contemporaries of Asimov, and you will find that only he, Bradbury, Herbert, and a few others even bother to develop characters. Most Scifi doesn't even bother to develop the science enough to stand on it's own. In this case, Asimov simply developed what he knew on the time through scaling the size, and using hyperspace to solve distance problems, so it was easy to accept every premise he laid down (well except for the smoking...)The whole point of the premise is that the main characters all have an inkling that there CAN BE NO HERO for Seldon's plan to work. If at any point, someone had acted with rash heroics, his mathmatics would be rendered null, and the decay of the galaxy would last for ten millennia instead of one." +926,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A3LI8P7VU8UWPU,N. Kunka,1/1,4.0,1311638400,Groundbreaking for its time,"Asimov continues with his narration of the history of the interregnum between empires in pretty much the same anthology format used in Foundation. Actually, upon further thinking, there's probably no way really to tell the story of a 1,000 year journey on the part of humanity without doing it in snippets. More and more the series begins to read more like a history book with some dramatic events being highlighted for their importance as turning points. These turning points are called Seldon Crises, foreseen events by Hari Seldon, Psychohistorian, which impel the people of the Foundation forward to galactic dominance. Throughout the first book and a half, Asimov establishes a bit of fatalism - nothing can stop the foundation by historical imperative, and for that reason the people of the Foundation, especially it's leadership, become apathetic.Asimov throws a wrench into the status quo with the rise of a mutant, a statistical improbability and anomaly that could not possibly be accounted for in the creation of the Seldon Plan and therefore the first truly unknown quantity with the ability to destroy the Foundation. This mutant, called the Mule, has psychic ability and the great revival of technology in the Foundation is powerless to stop him from manipulating people and working his way to dominance. The Mule consolidates his power, takes over the Foundation and destroys the remnants of the former galactic empire and it looks like Seldon's prophecies could be wrong. That a single individual upset the 1,000 year plan to turn the Foundation into the Second Empire, in only 5 years.Asimov again explores the themes of individuality, stagnation, complacency and religion. Choice and free will are major foci for the novel. If the Seldon Plan is mathematically and psychologically accurate like a prophecy, if certain things are meant to happen, just because human beings will predictably react in the same ways in given situations, do we really have free will? What is the role of the individual in society in in the historical process? Asimov treats history like a Marxist, influenced by Hegelian dialectics. Conflicts and crises between opposing forces give birth to a third new status quo until it comes into conflict with an opposing force. These moments of intersection are the Crises predicted by Seldon and the focus of Asimov's 1,000 year narrative. But the Mule changes that. He challenges the notion of inevitability and proves the fallibility of Seldon's prophecies. But by doing so he introduces another free will paradox. The Mule has the ability to modify emotions and create complete loyalty in people. He wins victories by converting the opposing sides' generals and leaders into giving up and then serving him, destroying free will again by creating it out of the tight confines of the Seldon Plan. It's truly and interesting concept. How will the Mule be stopped? Enter: the Second Foundation. Established on the other side of the galaxy as a failsafe in case of the failure of the Foundation. But no record exists of where that foundation is or what type of society it will become. Will the Mule find it and destroy it? Does it exist after 300 years?My major problem throughout the narration is that it is assumed that the Seldon Plan represents the ideal in some way. Seldon was a human being, capable of manipulating and creating situations a millennia in advance and manipulating the fate of quadrillions of human beings. Who says his plan needs to be fulfilled? What if people don't want Seldon's future? What if they don't want to live in an all-encompassing empire? I would maybe believe Asimov wants you to question that, but he gives himself away in little asides in the narration, inserting emotional declamations against the upset of the Plan." +927,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1MC6BFHWY6WC3,D. Blankenship,7/8,5.0,1152921600,THIS ONE IS GREAT BUT DEPENDS UPON YOUR TASTE,"I personally enjoyed ever word of this particular work. Many other reviewers have gone into the plot, etc. so I will not do so here to any depth. This is one of those works of SiFi that will appeal to certain taste, while others may find it not to their liking. There is a great deal of politics (almost Pre WWI European) involved in the story line. As the story covers (all books included) over one thousand years, there are many, many characters to track and keep track of. This is indeed a series of short stories, all linked. I personally enjoy this sort of thing but can see where some might not. That being said, it, the book, can certainly be regarded as a classic in this particular genre and certainly should be read by any student of such. You certainly cannot fault the author's story telling ability and imagination. I enjoyed this one a lot and do highly recommend it." +928,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A2I5P86O9TT5PZ,Matthew M. Howell,2/2,4.0,1335657600,A sci-fi classic,"Foundation is a classic of the Sci-Fi genre, and that is nearly everything you need to know. If you like Sci-Fi, and are willing to put up with some of it's common shortcomings, this book will appeal greatly to you, for it truly deserves its place in the Sci-Fi canon." +929,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A1XAU6DHRFGK8P,Adrian,1/1,5.0,946944000,Setting the stage,"Foundation was the first Asimov book I read and that was about 15 years ago. Subsequently I purchased and read multiple times, every Asimov sci-fi book. All but one of the Foundation Series I have in hard-cover in addition to paperback.Reading Asimov is for me a pleasure. How he wrote in conjunction with his rich and diverse use of English I have found unequalled.A must read without which the stage for the rest of Foundation remains unprepared.True it is not his best book, but how do you decide between Masters from The Master." +930,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1BAHRA63IPKR6,Bethany,3/15,1.0,1331424000,Misleading,"The title of this item says ""(3 books boxed set..."" however, when I purchased and received this item, I was only sent one book. I was expecting three books, especially for the price that I paid, and was only sent one. Therefore, I am rating this item very poorly." +931,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A3CITLWK3LBOCL,COSMOS,1/1,5.0,1270425600,The Zenith of Asimov!,"I highly recommend the time to read ""Foundation""...it just may convince you to continue on with the rest of the series. I believe it was the forerunner and main idea behind the concept of a galactic empire as has been expanded on by Star Wars and Star Trek. If you would like to see the genesis of the idea behind those phenomena then you'll very much be rewarded by reading the Foundation series...besides, anything by Asimov is worth its weight in gold and this is the zenith of his space operatic writings!" +932,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A3LQS4AUYG3WR,jseeher2@seas.upenn.edu,0/0,5.0,890697600,One of the best there is,"Although Asimov's Foundation Trilogy is over 40 years old, his overall writing is still top notch. There's just something about it that draws you in, and then you can't put the book down. Unfortunately, many people get unhappy when they read this first book alone. Because it was written originally as a magazine serial, it sometimes has a choppy format. But as a whole, its superb. Only after reading all three one can appreciate the magnitude of Asimov's work. There is simply not a sci-fi trilogy anywhere that can compete." +933,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1LALTU7MHSAXB,Ro Bo,5/18,1.0,1338940800,A Dud,Pssst! The Emperor has no clothes. All but a few seem afraid to admit it. Thank goodness for those brave folks who panned this vaunted 'classic' here. I only wish I had heeded their warning. +934,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1YWMNILDUIHY,Leon Grossman,11/41,1.0,1300233600,Text to speech disabled = no sale,"I read this book as a teenager and was excited to be reminded of it recently. I went to Amazon to purchase the book to find that it is one without text to speech enabled.I make it my policy not to buy any book that doesn't have this feature as I prefer to read when I'm stationary and listen while I'm driving. Since the future isn't here yet and I can't safely read while I'm driving, this is a problem for me.Listen up publishers. I'm not going to buy your audio book. Disabling this feature just ensures that I'll not buy your ebook either. If I really want to read this book, I'll find a used copy because you've annoyed me that much." +935,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,,,1/3,3.0,904867200,"A pleasant book for a beginning reader, not much else...","I read this book as a teenager, and loved it. Read it again several years later, and could not understand what it was that I liked. Sure, Asimov writes with ease - and it is equally easy to read. But the characters are totally flat, the plot (?if any) is thoroughly predictable, and he also shows a terrible amount of prejudice against women, minority people and just about anything that does not fit the template of "middle-age white american male". The book generally left a bad taste, as if you'd stuffed yourself on marshmallows - mostly air but enough sugar to make you feel sick." +936,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A3GAAAG9Y42XAU,Richard Laven,0/0,4.0,1002672000,A classic,"If you haven't read this or the other two books in the original trilogy, you're in for a treat. This series is almost 50 years old but still among the best SF stories ever" +937,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,AGISHRJAV0DLQ,John A. Gutierrez,3/3,5.0,946339200,REPLY TO SHERRY V. NEAL,"If you had bothered to read the entire series, you would know that one of the major heroes in the book is a young girl, Arkady. In fact, once the Foundation books tie in with the Robot series, you will find another woman hero, the "mother of robotics", Dr. Susan Calvin. So your comment about the "deplorable" lack of women in the Foundation books is off the mark. And the characters are not poorly developed - what you learn about characters like the Mule is staggering - but you wouldn't know that because it is in the second book. I hope you don't do this with all literature - try getting the facts first, then give an honest opinion. You will be well respected for it, even if most people disagree with you." +938,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,,,0/0,5.0,892944000,The Order,Some people have said that they read the prelude and went on to foundation. You will probably be mixed up because you skipped a book!!! AFTER READING PRELUDE TO FOUNDATION READ FORWARD THE FOUNDATION and then jump on to the classic book that started it all. +939,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A2JB6FQVIPC77J,"poolnutz ""sf fan""",0/0,5.0,1358553600,great series,I loved reading the Foundation novels a long time ago and was glad I found them on Kindle. Can't go wrong with Asimov. +940,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,AP80EPUVFRA7F,BMore XPlant,0/0,5.0,1346803200,The Genius of Asimov,"I had read the Foundation trilogy when I was a teenager/early 20's. The first book was required reading for a college SciFi literature course and I liked it so much I read the other two. They were my introduction to Isaac Asimov. Grand in its sweep, Foundation explores societal disintegration and renaissance. The trilogy is dated; Asimov wrote it before the computer revolution. However, it still holds up amazingly well.Asimov was regarded as one of the greatest explainers of everything. He richly deserved the accolade. For someone who hasn't read him before, Foundation is a wonderful introduction. You'll read more." +941,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,AF8JXBGPFQNFM,patrios,0/0,5.0,1357689600,Great,"I bought the complete series of the Foundation for my husband, because he hadn't read it before. There are 7 books, not three, and I can say that Isaac Assimov is one of the great brains of the past century. His story about the History of the future is so awesome!" +942,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1AUBGENRIZODO,Dave Deubler,14/16,5.0,992217600,Astounding Scope; Unity of Vision - A Must Read,"Asimov's classic series has a quaint, nave simplicity about it that never fails to entrance this reader. For all its episodic construction (unavoidable, considering the unparalleled scope) and its rather flat, exclusively male characters, the Foundation Trilogy takes readers back to a time when America was making the world safe for democracy, personal freedoms were a given, and science seemed to be the salvation of a fallible humanity.The first volume, Foundation, sets up the whole idea of the Seldon Plan, a mathematically based view of sociopolitical forces that enables one brilliant scientist to mold a new galactic empire from a foundation of one hundred thousand scientists and their families. After the introduction, whose final paragraphs subtly lay out the whole structure without our knowing it, we get to see the Plan in action as the Foundation faces a series of political and military crises. Because the scientist/hero is long dead before the second chapter, the heroes are the political and economic, rather than scientific, leaders who must resist the temptation to take direct military action, and instead allow events to proceed until Seldon's Plan points out the answer. The magic of this book is the exquisite means the Foundation uses to defeat its enemies without resorting to force, and the convincing arguments Asimov uses to make these solutions seem inevitable. As such, each chapter is like a sociopolitical puzzle that challenges the reader to find the move that will defuse each situation, and taken together these stories comprise a virtual primer in diplomacy.Countless millions of fans have enjoyed Asimov's Foundation Trilogy, consisting of Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation. Other Foundation novels, written by the master in his later years, lack the simple charm that makes these earlier works so popular. They were tacked on solely because the power of those first three created a demand that Asimov felt obligated to try to fill, but they have an entirely different feel, and don't possess that single-minded surety of artistic vision that marked the original series.This book is about political maneuvering, not action, so it may not be a favorite of action/adventure fans, although the next book in the series, Foundation and Empire, is a little more dynamic, and reading the complete Trilogy is a must, since the first two volumes don't so much end as just leave off. Still, the vast historical vision begun in this book is so sweeping, it should not be missed by any fans of speculative fiction." +943,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A18MOT6U1I3IGV,Scott Kruis,0/0,5.0,976147200,OF THE BOOKS/AUTHORS WHO MADE ME WHO I AM,"I first read this book when I was young, perhaps in my early 20's. I remember it as astounding, but recall little of it's content. In my early 30's, I went through and reread the entire trilogy straight through, which by then was a total of seven books. I believe Isaac is a true genius beyond most any man of our age. His insight into politics, religion, society, hope, hatred, love, friendship is beyond most anything I have known. And how he was able to incorporate these things into a series of books about the future of humanity nearly overwhelms me when I consider it. Most of what happens in the world, especially in the world of technology, has been shown in his books. It seems as if he must have has a direct link to the future." +944,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,,,7/7,4.0,879379200,Future history,"I first read this book maybe 20 years ago, when I was more accustomed to 'action' sci-fi replete with ray guns and space ships and trying to guess how such technology shaped society (a la Larry Niven, to name one). This book is more like an historical novel, or a future history, like reading Gibbons or Kennedy. What is particularly astounding about this work, which he first published in 1951 at age 31, is Asimov's ability to scale- from the drama of a handful of individuals to the seminal events of the last decades of the ancient, galaxy-wide empire (which does not even remember its Earthly origin!). Unlike Heinlein's _Citizen of the Galaxy_ or _Friday_ (or many others) we do not follow the story of a single person or family in the backdrop of a civilization, but rather, the original Foundation trilogy makes both the individuals as well as the whole history of the galactic empire come alive in an extremely concise work. Here, the context is just as important as the characters, a scaling rarely seen elsewhere. This is the book's greatest strength- which becomes one of its weaknesses: To be sure, and Asimov himself admitted as much about sci-fi in general, the characterizations are not terribly deep. Much time, he has written elsewhere, is required to build the context of the worlds that sci-fi writers create, with little time left to build characters to any depth. But we are watching the fall of worlds, so the relatively shallow characters may be overlooked.A must read among the classics of sci-fi." +945,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A2ERBVY57L6JJR,David Kidwell,3/4,3.0,1132099200,Be Careful of the Edition,"Isaac Asimov was one of the greatest science fiction minds of the twentieth century. He was NOT, however, a great writer. At times it is difficult to separate the brilliance and scope of his imaginative ideas from the pedestrian and awkward manner in which he presents them.""Foundation,"" the first novel in the ever-lengthening Foundation series, is a collection of short stories originally published in ""Astounding"" magazine. The first couple are very good, but the last few are pretty uninteresting. The writing is uneven, dialogue is unrealistic, and characters are wooden and one-dimensional. And yet, through Asimov's wonderfully creative idea of psychohistory and its use in saving a dying Galactic Empire, this series became one of the best science fiction stories of all time, and well worth reading.Do be careful which edition you read. I read the Del Ray paperback edition, and I have never seen so many typographical errors in a published book." +946,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A26V53WVCEM51L,"R. Riordan ""dirk1234""",5/34,1.0,1089849600,Waste of time;Stick to Robot novels.,"This book is one of the most overrated books I have ever read. There is very little in the way of plot and character development. There is no climax in this book. The book reads like a historical record, similar to Tolkiens Silmarillion, rather than an actual story. If you like reading historical records, you may like this book. If you are looking for an exciting novel.... better luck elsewhere." +947,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,AAGL3QS0XT2DT,"""worldtree1""",3/5,3.0,949622400,"Good, but not the best","I was expecting so much more from this book as it was once awarded best sci-fi series ever. It was good, but not that great. Maybe in the 1950's it was the best of sci-fi, but compared to today's standards it was a little boring and out of date. It contains long dialogs and a lot of politics wrapped in a sci-fi environment. It doesn't contain fascinating worlds and interesting glimpses of the future. There's not a lot of action but I have to admit the dialog is pretty good. If you're into nostalgia, politics and interesting dialog this book is for you." +948,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A2KVUYPLEW4LXT,"Strategos ""The Guardian of Time""",66/74,5.0,1030233600,The First Part of One of the Finest Series of All Sci-Sci,"The Foundation Trilogy is my favorite sci-fi book series, and also my favorite work by asimov. The first book in the series, Foundation, is concerned primarily with two concepts. The first is the concept that history repeats itself over and over again, and that just as great empires fell in the past, the same problems will in the future aflict empires once they become too big. And naturally after the fall of a great empire, chaos ensues. The other concept this book describes is the theory that science and mathematics are capable of predicting the trends in complex systems such as large groups of people.I am going to be honest. This book was revolutionary for its time, and a great many famous sci-fi writers were inspired after reading this book. I know that I personally could never look at world governments the same way after reading this book. It truly opens your eyes to tendancy of people to make the same mistakes over and over again, repeating the same patterns on a large scale. And not only is this book easy to read and greatly thought-provoking, it is also great fun. It uses Asimov's trademark style. Little violence, even less sex, but a great plot and lots of cool technology. If you take science fiction at all seriously, you owe it to your self to give this book a read." +949,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,,,4/4,5.0,942796800,"A brilliant, awe inspiring masterpiece...","Isaac Asimov's Foundation is one of the most extraordinary books I've ever read. Its brilliant plot, minute detail and far-ranging scope are unequaled. Another plus for this book is that you realised it didn't focus on 1 main character; it's focus was on the evolution of the Foundation as a whole. More, it's the first book in the most famous science fiction series ever. A must-read for any serious SF fan." +950,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A1Q8E89P3DF5UM,Aniket Desai,0/0,5.0,1003881600,Foundation is the best,"Let's get started with one of the most celebrated science fiction sagas of all time: Foundation. originally Asimov wrote it in form of a trilogy: Foundation, foundation and empire and the second foundation, to be read in that order. Then Asimov expanded his ""foundation universe"" to tie it with his ""robot universe"" by adding 2 more novels to the series: Foundation's edge and foundation and earth. All these 5 books are a must read if you consider yourself a sci-fi fan. Besides there are 2 more books: prelude to foundation and forward to the foundation, which must be read before actual 5 novels. It's quite a complex maze. It will also help if you are familier with Asimov's robot series. But you can nevertheless read only the 5 foundation books as a standalone and still enjoy them greatly.So what is foundation (as in neo asks in matrix)? Well foundation is the fictional name of a futuristic society, which is founded by a great scientist called hari seldon. In Asimov's foundation, humanity has expanded over the galaxy, hyperspace travels have advanced and an ""empire"" rules over millions of planets in the galaxy. The ""empire' has seen its best days and is living in the relic of its past glory, a.k.a. it is crumbling. However all phegmatic rulers, the rulers of the empire refuse to accept their weakness. However Hari seldon, through his scientific and mathematical eyes, predicts that empire will soon crumble and humanity will be reduced to abject barbarism for a long time.On the preset of this plot, hari seldon establishes ""foundation"" to save the humanity.Ok, let us not delve too much into the plot as I am not playing spoiler. Why should you read Asimov? Apart from foundation being one of the greatest sci-fi saga, you can find several refreshing ideas, which have been adopted ubiqutously by most sci-fi series later. Take star trek, star wars, dune, even the most recent matrix, everyone borrows heavily from Asimov. Asimov not only introduced scientific concepts of hyperspace travel, he also introduced the concept of ""control"", which is used heavily especially in matrix. throughout his foundation saga, one is left wondering ""who is the ultimate master?"" the answers come as you keep reading through the novel.Asimov also explains a futuristic society in its sociology, politics, power struggle and human nature. No other sci-fi writer has cared too much to explore how a society will behave in future. Asimov stands unique in that respect.I would highly recommend all 5 foundation books." +951,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A1BAHRA63IPKR6,Bethany,3/15,1.0,1331424000,Misleading,"The title of this item says ""(3 books boxed set..."" however, when I purchased and received this item, I was only sent one book. I was expecting three books, especially for the price that I paid, and was only sent one. Therefore, I am rating this item very poorly." +952,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A2EIHD451BP10S,Cylon39,0/0,5.0,1346457600,Stepping Back to look ahead,"Isaac Asimov is my favorite author and that makes it difficult to say anything negative about his work... So I won't.This work takes you back in time so you can see the future, a future that is yet beyond tomorrow, in a different light than you can see it in today.A future visualized as having similar morals, social interaction and ideals based on and somewhat similar to those held by Americans of the past.A dark future, full of bright possibility." +953,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A9G3RBW0S77GN,Mark Scheck,1/2,5.0,1213142400,True Classic,"I first read this in the early 80's when I was a teen, and I was blown away by the economic theory. I just reread it, great short story's. The story of the galactic empire is very interesting." +954,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A3VLAZEPO9UJEA,L. E. Cantrell,12/12,5.0,1140307200,Galactic Empire Building for Dummies,"Isaac Asimov's ""Foundation"" was not conceived as the beginning of series of novels. It was not conceived as a novel. It was not even conceived entirely by Isaac Asimov.Beginning in the late 1930s and for decades thereafter, the editor of the most prestigious and far more important, the best-paying monthly publication in science fiction was John W. Campbell of Astounding Science Fiction (now known as Analog.)Before taking over the editorship of the magazine, Campbell had been a popular hack writer of unabashed, wild-eyed space opera. A typical Campbell plot involved a couple of young American go-getters who whomp up a superduper space cruiser in their garage, set out on a test flight around Saturn, find themselves hurled into another dimension by a short circuit, and stumble on a planet inhabited by humans who are at war with some interplanetary Nasties who display unusually bad table manners. They forge an alliance with the good humans against the bad Nasties which, a few hundred pages later, inevitably leads to the utter annihilation of the world of the Nasties, not to mention the Nasties themselves and every vestige of their million year-old civilization and culture. By the literary standards of pulp magazine science fiction in 1936, this was pretty sophisticated stuff.When Campbell took over the reins of the magazine in 1938, he raised his sights. In short order he dumped the old stable of writers whose collective knowledge of science could have been stuffed into a peanut shell with room to spare and began cultivating new ones. A. E. van Vogt specialized in social science mumbo-jumbo that actually sounded like it meant something. L. Sprague deCamp had a sense of humor. Robert Heinlein possessed a literary spark that might be carefully fanned into a flame. And Isaac Asimov was a college kid from Brooklyn who wrote stories to stretch out the limited income generated by his father's candy store.All these and many others were overawed by the wondrous fact that the godlike JWC deigned to accept their humble stories--after he mercilessly picked apart their flaws and demanded re-writes, pronto!Those were the heroic days of magazine publishing. Editors in general and Campbell in particular did not wait for undisciplined and slothful writers to hatch ideas. No, JWC would call in his disciples and hand out plot lines and devices to be made into short stories, novelets and serialized novels. To van Vogt he tossed the idea of a totalitarian society whose tyranny was leavened by weapons shops that sold guns which could only be used in self defense. From deCamp, citing Mark Twain's ""A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court,"" he demanded to know what would happen if a contemporary American were hurled back from Mussolini's Italy to post-imperial Rome. Of Heinlein he demanded a series of stories that would collectively outline the history of the next few hundred years. For Asimov he reserved a far larger patch of history. What, he queried, would happen when a galaxy-spanning empire finally decayed and began to fall?Asimov pondered. Then, in his own words, ""With a little bit of cribbin' / From the works of Edward Gibbon / And that Greek Thucydides,"" Asimov took the Roman Empire of the Fifth Century and cast it into the stars as the expiring Empire of Trantor. From Eighteenth Century France he took the Encyclopedists and renamed them the Foundation. Finally he spiced up his literary gumbo with blather about ""psychohistory,"" a mathematically-based fortune telling system which yielded valid results when the human population achieved the vast numbers only attainable in a galaxy-spanning civilization.Campbell bought the first story. The fans--at the time, a demographic aged 12-25 and virtually all-male--loved it. Campbell ordered more stories. The Trantorian Empire fell, but slowly and reluctantly. The fans loved it. The Empire blazed up under the last great imperial general, Bel Riose. (Gibbon's Belisarius, get it?) The fans loved it. A Napoleon-like conqueror appeared to muddy up the predictions of the psychohistorians. The fans loved it. Darkness and barbarism followed the collapse of civilization across the Milky Way. And the fans loved it. On and on it went, to book, to trilogy, beyond--even to new books written by other hands long after the passing of Campbell and Asimov.The fans still love it." +955,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A3VKTL2STG4482,"kpsting ""Katarsis""",2/2,4.0,1302480000,The Foundation,"After reading the whole trilogy I must say that the first installment still has the biggest impact for the single reason that this is where the whole grand idea was conceived and presented for the first time.The best aspect of this story is, of course, the awsome interplay between technology, politics, religion, economy, and culture within the galactic periphery in the immediate vicinity of planet Terminus, the location of the so called First Foundation. This interplay is cleverly woven into a series of plots propelled by a handful of characters. That focus upon a few key characters in a sense brought the whole story down to earth (and for the better).The founder himself, Hari Seldon, is already long dead by the 2nd chapter but the plan he and his co-conspirators set in motion lingers on.Couple of problems are evident with the story and some suspension of disbelief is required to overcome them.First is the time scale in which the changes are set in. To put it simply, descend of parts of the galaxy encompassing hundreds of planetary systems into that sort of technological and scientific barbarism"" within mere 50 years is not belivable. Establishing a religion based on technology within 30 years after that is still kind of on the less belivable side but it depends strongly on the magnitude of the technological difference between barbarians"" and the foundationeers, so there is room for interpretation.Second is the technology itself. Nuclear fission has been known and used for 60 years and lost most of its appeal as the ultimate energy source of the future.In the meantime there has been countless ideas about alternative sources of energy much greater than fission and entirely possible (notably: nuclear fusion and matter/antimatter annihilation). To put it simply, the idea that nuclear fission will be powering everything at the point in time 12 millenia from now is archaic.Besides nuclear power, there are number of minor ideas introduced in the book that also did not hold well or at all since its writing (prevalent smoking, for instance). Together, the whole technological and cultural setting of the book has sort of a retro feel now... kind of like the Fallout games.All that, however, can be forgiven for the most part since it is often impossible to write about technology of the future merely decades from now let alone whole millenia from now. Asimov was a writer and a scientist, not a psychic.Striking is also the absence of biochemistry or genetics, since one would assume that those would be Asimov's strong points for the fact that he majored and worked in biochemistry.Third, while the passage of time had appropriate atmosphere of scale (more or less), the galaxy felt kind of small. The distances weren't shown or explained very well so a trip from the Periferies to Trantor or Kolgan(sp?) seems like a trip to an amusement park only some 100 miles away.Nevertheless, the best what Foundation has to offer more than makes up for its shortfalls." +956,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,AYFZ6RAXGZTMV,Michael D Ward,2/5,3.0,961459200,"Pleasant SF outing, but little more.","Three stars is a bit generous, but this certainly isn't a bad book. In fact, it is easy to read, always interesting, and often exciting. But that's all it is. It is not deep or meaingful. It is not profoud. It is not thought provoking. It isn't even particularly well written. But it's so easy to take and has enough good qualities that it can't be disliked.The plot center's around the creation of a Foundation, a place where mankind's accumulated knowledge can be protected from the approaching collapse of civilization. This is an interesting enough premise and very original in its day, but the blending of mathematics and psychology into a science that can accurately predict much of the future is hard to take seriously.If you come across a copy of this book, read it. It won't take long and you'll probably enjoy much of it even if your not a SF fan, but I don't recommend anyone by this book. There is to much out there that is much much better." +957,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1G9G267P4AW1X,Translucent Dragon,2/3,5.0,1231891200,Incredible Science Fiction Novel,"The Foundation Trilogy is a ""trilogy"" of thirteen books. This review will mainly talk about book one. The Foundation, a group of scientists and engineers writing a galactic encyclopedia, starts before book one takes place. The prologue is about an apparently irrelevant person. Nonetheless, I think it is important to read the beginning because it sets up the story. The main story takes place much later, when the actual Foundation is formed at the edge of the galaxy. This entire group of people are the main character, though at time other people take the spotlight.During the book, challenges arise to meet the Foundation, and at each challenge, the Foundation uses a different and unique method of dealing with the task at hand. As the book progresses, the Foundation gets more and more technology, while the empire at the center of the galaxy dies away. The Foundation was created to start a new empire after the old empire is destroyed. To make sure this would happen, Harry Seldon used psychohistory to predict the future and lock the foundation in a path that will reach its goal.I think that this book should only be absorbed by people in college or beyond because it has very advanced ideas." +958,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,,,0/0,5.0,921542400,Just kidding around,"This book was hilarious. I read it yesterday, and I am still laughing my Asimov. Get it? Hahahaha. Huh. Okay. Nevermind." +959,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A1AQ1NX589Y19O,michael wilson (etienne9@hotmail.com),0/1,5.0,940377600,excellent reading for an asimov fan,i loved this book and how the 2 great cultures of new and old me +960,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,ASOPGE821S0WC,"""jimjoe65""",0/0,5.0,965347200,The follow-up to the best book ever.,"After the Seldon Plan was followed, without its followers actually understanding what was going on, the Empire, although falling, is still the mightiest force in the Galaxy and the only challenge to the Foundation. For them to overcome, the Seldon Plan must be taken into account..." +961,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,,,0/5,4.0,1052438400,A ok book.,I enjoyed this book when I read it a couple of years ago and it is still ok I guess. +962,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A2VZ7YU67PY632,MW,0/2,3.0,1325721600,The Softest of Soft Sci Fi,"I read this* because it presents a galaxy without aliens, colonized by people. It was soft SF in so many ways (incl. FTL, antigravity, flying cars, walnut-sized nuclear reactors, laser pistols, personal and city force shields, egregious use of energy in the form of anti-gravity elevators) and the psychohistorian-predicts-future-events-to-the-day plot was dumb--not to mention the idea of civilizations with FTL ships incapable of harnessing nuclear power. With repeated suspensions of disbelief, it was pleasant enough. The characters were not such nitwits as those of ""Prelude to Fdn."" No need to read his other books.* after reading If the Universe is Teeming with Aliens...Where is Everybody?: Fifty Solutions to the Fermi Paradox and the Problem of Extraterrestrial Life (2002) by Stephen Webb" +963,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A22UCQ7WIYIJE3,A. J. Cherrington,0/0,5.0,1053043200,The greatest of them all,"Millions of words have been written of this now dated novel yet it is still so enjoyable to read. The influence of the Sci Fi generation that would give us so much to enjoy.The genesis of a great story based in the distant future where space travel is normal as the Galaxy ruled by a human empire, ruled from the planet city of Trantor, that is about to collapes under it's own weight (sounds familiar?) and of one man that will predict it's fall and end result.This book is part of a trilogy that would spawn both sequals and prequils that will eventually lead back to the place where it all began. Earth." +964,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A27GRAGDTE4M2,"debbie_200052 ""debbie_200052""",2/2,5.0,1265846400,"Creation of Universes, indeed","When I was a teenager, I was stunned by ""The End of Eternity"". When later I started reading the Empire and Foundation novels, I was unpleasantly surprised by the style simplification that seemed to accelerate with every novel. Now, when I've read them all, I think I understand what happened: there was no time for a better literature craftsmanship, new universes took all the time. Somehow, it resembled Federico Fellini's movies - same feeling of creation of the worlds just in front of you." +965,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A2AYW8P160KZHL,Mark,0/0,5.0,1076976000,The best from one of the greats,""Foundation" is just one of the many sci-fi/high-tech books and sci-fi in general books that Asimov has written, along with "Empire", that takes us into the far-flung future like no one else can. Other great books by other Masters worth owning are "Stranger in a Strange Land", "Childhood's End", as well as the more modern cyberpunk like "Neuromancer", "Snow Crash", Cryptonomicon", and "Darkeye: Cyber Hunter". I say get 'em all!" +966,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A2NTPZZ5FS19Q,Bic,1/1,5.0,1221696000,One of the best SF series ever written.,"The scope of this series is astounding. It wasn't written for the teenager or preteen like so many pathetic series are these days, but for the thinking person with a bit of imagination.Truly one of the greatest SF series ever written. And as such, never loses it's appeal even when read decades apart." +967,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A3BQE4QGYJ0UWW,Alexis Gervais,2/2,5.0,970099200,Beginners: This book is NOT a series beginning,"For beginners into this serie of Asimov, know that their are other books before Foundation, and they are all tied-up.-----------------<Robot serie>:I, Robot/ The Caves of Steel/ The Naked Sun/ The Robots of Dawn/ Robots and Empire<Bridging novel>:Tyrann<Foundation series>:Foundation/ Foundation and Empire/ Second Foundation/ Foundation's Edge/ Foundation and Earth----------------Some highligths:-I, Robot: The beginning of the robots themselves-The Robots of Dawn: Early mention of psychohystory as a possible new field-Robots and Empire: The Earth starts becoming unlivable-Tyrann: A view between the two series ('Robot' & 'Foundation'). You can recognize the Spatians from 'Robot', and also get a feel of the de-information humans will receive about their origins in the later 'Foundation'.-Foundation and Earth: The loop is complete. We understand the ultimate fate of Earth, robots and humanity." +968,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,AHJ3244J4A9QM,amsunshine,1/1,5.0,1349136000,Azimov The Great,I read these books for the first time over 30 years ago. They were my first exposure to Sience Fiction. I loved them then and every 5 years or so I read them again. Azimov got me hooked on the genre and I remain a fan of scitech. +969,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A1EKTLUL24HDG8,Bill R. Moore,7/7,4.0,1015027200,The essence of Asimov,"Foundation is a landmark in science fiction, and epitomizes the best of what Isaac Asimov stood for. This book proves that you don't have to have a lot of sex and mindless violence (""-the last refuge of the incompetent"") to make a book suspenseful and a page-turner. The book is entirely without action and romance in the normal sense, and consists almost entirely of dialogue. What makes it so interesting is the ideas (and reversals of ideas) that it presents, in all their aspects, subsequently debates, and solves. It has an aura of almost detective story fascination with regards to political ideas. What is interesting is that the book takes a pacifistic approach to politics, and thereby forces itself to present a plausible solution to occurring problems (say, rebellion, anarchy, and war) without degrading into violence. Each self-contained story (the book is not a novel, but a collection of stories that were originally published stand-alone) is therefore a sort of logic puzzle (much the same, in principle, as Isaac's Robot stories) that you must delve into and accede all its ramifications, and come out with an answer that will work, without using violence. It's a credit to Asimov that he could not only achieve this, but make it interesting, and, indeed, arresting. This is an essential science fiction read, and perhaps Asimov's apex." +970,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1H9U6A0LCLG3Z,"Cap ""Dangeroux""",1/1,4.0,1271548800,Best ever?,"Over time, the stories are good but not the best ever. Somewhat erratic and hard to follow." +971,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A18NLR1ERR3J03,Michael Bazik,0/0,5.0,1357862400,Great Read,"This book is amazing. After waiting all these years to jump onto the Asimov train I am glad that I am finally here; the book is thoughtful, smart, and paced wonderfully. The solutions to the Seldon problems all provoke different themes the novel wishes to convey.The book is a short easy read and if you like Sci-Fi, I recommend this book to you." +972,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,AZTX82BMWF8QU,M Smith,1/3,5.0,1098576000,This is both the best science fiction story and series ever,"The writing is hard and cynical. Characters are intelligent and clear. There is scant attention paid to emotional content or the softer virtues. The writing is clear and precise. The premise of the story is simple: civilization is decaying in the future. A colony is set up on the periphery of the known universe.This colony emerges as a society and faces challenges to both it's growth and survival. There's a clever premise to raise the stakes a bit; this society is the Foundation of a new Galactic Empire, created to close the gap of a fifty-millenia barbarity." +973,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A32D133H27KN6F,P. Lauber,0/0,4.0,1197676800,"Sci-Fi Goodness, not without it's problems...","The great thing about Foundation is it's scope. It's a bit unsettling at times that you don't really get to know a character considerably well as the parts of the book break down over the span of several generations, but reading everything unfold and the implications that the events have in the long term is really fascinating.Asimov's writing is a mixed bag. It's imaginative and has a great vision. But at times the people seem too... squeaky-clean to be people. Every character seems unrealistically eloquent and proper and the dialogue doesn't fall too far from what I'd imagine Asmiov may say himself. There are few differences between the characters in regards to linguistic tendancies. Also, and I know the book was first published in the early 50's, but there are hardly any women even mentioned in Foundation and they certainly don't play significant or visible roles.It's still quite imaginative and quite good, in spite of these flaws. I understand Asimov was my age (21) when he began writing Foundation, so taking that in consideration it seems like an even more awesome literary feat." +974,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A3G2W8WUYKTW8N,"Jimi Dracutt ""Tusken Hawk""",1/3,5.0,1052438400,"The King of Sci-Fi, I can see why!!",I can see why Issaac Asimov is consider the king of science fiction. To be honest this is the first book I read by him. When I read this book I was flabbergassed that this book was written back in the early fifties. He was so ahead of his time!!! I was amazed of how much this book was mostly all dialouge usually I would of been bored if the book was mostly dialouge but the theories in this book can they be all real one day!! The thought of psychohistory should be a considered science of future and politics. Most of the books I read that are consider science fiction I feel is mostly influence by this man. I know there are more to this series but after I read this book I felt I needed much time to absorb of what I just read because it was such a mind opening experience. +975,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A2924CRHEV9B3,Christopher,2/3,5.0,1076976000,Not only the greatest trilogy ever...,"But Asimov is one of the greatest science-fiction authors to have every lived. His massive work adding itself to works by other such sci-fi masters: "Childhood's End", "Rendezvous with Rama", "Stranger in a Strange Land" as well as the more modern cyberpunk works like "Neuromancer", "Mona Lisa Overdrive", "Snow Crash", "Prey", and "Darkeye: Cyber Hunter". All are must-reads for any hardcore science-fiction and cyberpunk collector." +976,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,,,0/0,5.0,906336000,The Grand-Master Of Science Fiction At His Very Best!,"If you think you might even possibly like science fiction, this is a must read book!" +977,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1X8VZWTOG8IS6,"Blue Tyson ""- Research Finished""",0/0,4.0,1186099200,Not Free SF Reader,"The second book in the foundation trilogy is again a story combination, but this two two novella length works.Foundation and Empire : The General - Isaac AsimovFoundation and Empire : The Mule - Isaac AsimovWar and Trantor.3 out of 5Mutant wild card means psychohistorical predictions up the proverbial faecal watercouse in a flimsy metal vehicle without a steering implement.4.5 out of 5" +978,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,,,1/1,5.0,995846400,Amazing glimpse of a not so distant future(in some respects),"Isaac Asimov captivates the reader in this book, the "unofficial" start to the Foundation series. The story revolves around 3 major characters, Hari Seldon, a famous psychohistorian and predictor of the Empire's demise, Salvor Hardin, mayor of Terminus, home planet of the foundation, and Hober Mallow, a Master Trader who rises through the ranks. I found the 3 separate yet interweaving storylines appealing, much like The Martian Chronicles by Ray Bradbury but not nearly as divided. Each character has their own opinion in how to accomplish a goal and presents each in a logical and realistic way. The thing that's amazing about the Foundation is that it doesn't have to rely on epic battles, hyperdetailed sensory imagery, or ridiculously long monologues by static, stereotypical characters. The characters are real, they get afraid, they make mistakes, and they change throughout the story. The writting is paced just perfectly so that it doesn't tire you out yet it provides enough details about any given situation. Asimov is a literary genius and I can't recommend the whole Foundation series enough to anyone who just has a little free time on their hands. And remember, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" - Salvor Hardin" +979,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A1QILMVU64EDGA,Alicia Harding,2/2,5.0,1271980800,Reading can seldom be this much fun!,"Foundation is a great book to read. The Foundation trilogy is a great series to read. That being said, there are little elements within the story that date some of the points of reference Asimov ascribes to his characters, but it's actually charming to read the references to 'atomics', etc. Asimov is a master at story-telling, and this series certainly helped to cement his reputation." +980,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1H09SYW5J5UMM,"""drdave_22""",1/1,4.0,919555200,Give the man SOME credit,"Very briefly, to the pair of one-star reviews below, keep in mind that these stories were written in the 1940's! Must you blame Mr. Asimov for "inaccuracy" in a time where much more mainstream sources felt that by 1980 we'd all be zipping around in flying bubble cars? Obviously you missed the point here. The Foundation series is about our own humanity, not about where we will be technologically in the year 15000. No, I can't prove that there could actually be a Mule, but why waste your time trying to? The Mule is probably one of the best literary constructs to grace the world of science fiction, one that isn't decked out in gadgets and laser beams. There's something to be said about a writer that can make a sci-fi villian without resorting to hi-tech hijinks. You didn't like the Mule? Well tough luck and go back to reading your Star Trek novels." +981,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A21HKDOW2FWVX,Dustin R.T.,7/9,2.0,1330300800,Vapid Interaction on a Skeleton of a World,"Disclaimer: I am judging this book as a standalone piece of work.Isaac Asimov's Foundation is the first of a series that would eventually be considered a cornerstone of the Sci-Fi genre. While it is certainly a solid piece of work, I don't quite understand how it is deserving of such praise. In my opinion, it suffers from an abundance of poor storytelling techniques, which reduce what is a great concept to a finished product that left me feeling empty. In fact, I struggled to finish the final pages, nearly racing through it solely for the sake of completion. I have rarely, rarely done this before. I'll start with the good aspects along with plot setup type-stuff first, and then finish with the overwhelmingly bad.The ideas and concepts behind Foundation are wonderful. The basis of the book is the work of Hari Seldon, the master practitioner of a discipline called psychohistory. If executed correctly, psychohistory has the ability to predict behavior of human beings thousands and thousands of years in advance through a combination of many disciplines, including mathematics, statistics, and psychology. It is, in essence, what modern day economics aspires to be. Being an economics major who currently works in the field, I found this to be highly compelling. In fact, it was from a blog post suggestion by Paul Krugman that I picked the book up in the first place.A bit more of the plot: Hari Seldon, the well-known psychohistorian, seeks to avoid an extended Dark Age, a period of 30,000 years in which barbarism runs rampant and tons of information is lost. His work in psychohistory leads to the establishment of the Foundation, which send ripples through the universe and ultimately attempts to shape its fate for the better. Hari Seldon is the first of a string of highly intelligent characters you'll meet, and Foundation is saturated with clever and thought-provoking dialogue amongst these characters. This, unfortunately, is where the good stuff ends.To say that this book is saturated with dialogue is a vast understatement. This book is 95% dialogue and it is the vehicle through which the story is told. This, I found to be abysmal. Even with an omniscient narration technique at hand, rare are the thoughts of characters, their descriptions, or an inkling of the settings on which these dialogues are taking place. One of the largest structural weakness of this storytelling style is that Asimov must infuse important details into his conversations. The problem with this is that these are details that would never come up in normal conversation. Thus, they come off as very awkward and ultimately serve to cheapen the dialogue. Not being able to get into the minds of characters leaves too much unsaid, which is the part of the cause of every section having the same structure: Person A is the plotter, Person B is the questioner. Person A knows something that Person B doesn't, Person B continually questions Person A about his plans, which all finally ends with a ""Don't you see?"" moment by Person A in which he explains his elaborately constructed conspiracy to Person B. This is the essence of every single section. By the time you get to the end, nothing is unexpected.And worse still, every single character is similar (except for one, who speaks with an accent and makes for a very comical section of the book). They are all intelligent, but not wholly different. Their lack of physical descriptions and thoughts serve to make them feel like the same lifeless replica of one another. The nature of the story, which causes there to be major gaps in time, make this even more egregious because just as you are getting used to one character, his section ends and a new character has replaced him. I felt zero emotion for these characters. As for the setting, this universe is not a living, breathing world. It is merely the outline of one, a skeleton of what could have been something magnificent. This bothers me. I am confident when I say that this book would have been absolutely stunning if Asimov had included 100 pages more of thoughts, descriptions, and settings.Some other small gripes: Asimov is prone to overusing adverbs, usually considered a literary sin. Foundation also has not aged well in terms of technology, as Asimov really misses on a lot of advancements that it seems other Sci-Fi authors were able to catch. I do not take any points off off this review for that, however, because the predictions he did make were far better than any I could have ever fathom, and I commend him in that regard. All I'm saying is that these misses, relative to other authors, aren't helping." +982,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1GHUN5HXMHZ89,"C. A. Luster ""The Rook""",1/1,5.0,1209600000,Foundation,"Over the years I have read a great many books from many, many authors and yet the ""Foundation"" series pops back into my head somewhat regularly. I often wonder why it has not been made into a series of movies. After all in my mind it would rival ""Star Wars"" or ""Lord of the Rings"". Isaac Asimov was a gifted writer and I was fortunate to know his works while he still lived. Unfortunately I never got to meet the man. This series is some of the best stuff he ever wrote. It delves into humananity and how our unique abilities may sometimes stand out. In the case of ""Foundation"" it centers around one empire and it's unusual ruler that expands their domain beyond any other into the far reaches of space. It looks closely at how a handful of people truly make a difference in the scheme of things and what becomes of that empire. Another great series, the ""Robot"" series was later linked to this series and although I enjoyed the link not everyone may enjoy it. Nonetheless you should read the ""Robot"" series as well if you get the chance. I will be very surprised if after you set the ""Foundation"" series aside, it doesn't make you reflect on it the rest of your life. Excellent read from a master of SciFi." +983,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A2B9Y0WXNSN17U,doomsdayer520,1/1,4.0,1028160000,Slightly Problematic Second Installment of the Trilogy,"The classic Foundation trilogy continues on pace in this second installment. The first half of this book is rather flat with uninspiring political wrangles and a story of the Empire's last general who is defeated by the Foundation and is never mentioned again. This episode has little effect on the overall flow of the story and is a curious piece of filler in this otherwise strong trilogy. However, the second half of this book, taking place many decades later, more than makes up for it. Here we learn that Hari Seldon's once flawless predictions on the course of humanity throughout the galaxy are starting to break down, because of the passage of huge amounts of time and the introduction of an unforeseen variable. This variable is a mutant known as The Mule, who has strange mental powers that are outside the realm of Seldon's psychohistory and throw his ancient predictions out of whack. Soon both the Foundation and the Empire are in ruins, and barbarism reigns throughout the galaxy. Only the mysterious Second Foundation, which has not been heard from since Seldon's day, can possibly help. Whether or not the Second Foundation can save the galaxy from the dark ages, and whether this is all really a part of Seldon's plan after all, are questions that arise in this book but are not answered. Thus we have an excellent intellectual cliffhanger that gives a great reason to continue to the third installment of the trilogy.There are two strange occurrences in this book that speak volumes on the time period in which Asimov wrote it, that being the 1940's. First, there is a prominent female character in this book, which was nearly unheard of in the sci-fi of that area. Furthermore, Asimov writes as if this is an amazing occurrence, and other characters are shocked and uncomfortable with this woman's status as an ""equal"" among the male characters around her. This sure seems strange today. Was Asimov slyly commenting on the state of women's rights back in mid-century, or did he think he was making a grand statement about the future? Either way, the sentiment is oddly outdated and even more oddly takes place in the distant future of humanity, where I would hope things would have progressed. Finally, in the second-to-last line of the book, Asimov inserts a rather sick dirty joke through the use of a sly double entendre (the key word is ""mule"").. Back in 1952 Asimov probably thought he was making a goofy in-joke to his learned friends that would not be caught by the general public. If that's the case, the joke in question seems extremely silly and predictable today, and brings the book to a close that is rather difficult to take seriously." +984,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A3V47FB4YYSYUH,David Berbessou,0/0,4.0,1191628800,Science-fiction classic,Definitely a must-read. The story gets better and better with each book. the ending is surprising :-) +985,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A2JNFJ13U4KR2K,Freyja's Books,1/1,4.0,1292198400,Good book,"I liked this book. I don't really have anything profound to say, I'm only writing a review because for some reason Amazon is not giving me the option of rating the book without a review.Asimov seems to have an interesting twist on European history in this book, as the events that occur in it seem to parallel the fall of the Roman Empire, the successor Germanic kingdoms, and the rise of the merchant class in the Renaissance. Understanding the history of Western Civilization probably has given me a fun comparison to Asimov's fictional Galactic history." +986,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A1FV9SYA3XQNUS,Ian Rowlands,0/0,4.0,1348185600,Foundational series!,"If this series seems a little dated and naive now, try to cut yourself back to when it was read! I appreciated the imaginative leaps, as well as the way the whole series observes the discipline of the genre -- make one fundamental alteration to science as we know it, and then see where the thread leads you." +987,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A1OWXJW71XP2CR,Justin,1/1,5.0,1001030400,"If you love Sci-fi, this is a must read!","I had read Foundation when I was in High School and I decided to revisit the book later. Last summer I revisited the book and by the end of the summer I had read all of the books in the series. Asimov had combined 3 series into one leading to 15(?) books. I can't remember how many I read. I even checked out the Foundation books written by "the Killer B's." Read this book. It is a pillar of Sci-fi as is his "I, Robot." There is a reason that these books were in contention with Tolkien for the Sci-fi series of the century. Foundation is a wonderful starting point for an engaging series.If you decide to read the "series." Understand that he took 3 different series, his robot series, foundation series, and the empire series and combined them to create a vision of future history. Few authors have tried to create a series in such a grand scale and Asimov is the master of grand scale. Only the empire series (which is currently out of print) feels outdated. Yet, all parts must be read to truly enjoy the second foundation trilogy.If you want to get your feet wet with Asimov, start here or with his "I, Robot."" +988,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,AENNW2G826191,Ashish A,1/2,4.0,963792000,Excellent stepping stone to world of SF!,"Folks, till foundation happened to me, I had for some inexplicable reasons never got introduced to world of science fiction (SF).(unless you call hitchhikers guide to galaxy as one) Based on influence of the die hard coterie of Asimov's fans, I decided to start my journey with Foundation...........and I have really found it cool stuff............worth reading and excellent investment of time..........since it rejuvenates you with fascinating ideas and terrific narrative. Looking forward to picking up the next one." +989,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A2MF338Q12XI3H,Frank Bierbrauer,0/1,5.0,975715200,Other books are judged next to this,"This review is intended for the entire Foundation trilogy and as such this series of books even though written in pieces in Science Fiction magazines is woven together in an astonishingly complex web of ideas and mystery. This series stands as the epitome of the science fiction classic, what science fiction should be about and how it should be written. As a classic it is only superseded by "Dune" and only a few others come close eg "Ender's Game" (Orson Scott Card) series and the "Galactic Milieu" series (Julian May). The whole series is epic and yet does not loose sight of the characters or the story which is all important in science fiction, without it the wizz-bang effect takes hold and the whole thing collapses, eg Terminator could not have been held together without the excellent storyline. Other examples of great science fiction stories include "Blade Runner" and "Alien" both of which had great stories without a reliance on effects which some films have done eg the extra added graphics to the original Star Wars and too much graphics in Episode 1.These stories also provide a fascinating tale of science yet to come such as psychohistory which totally fascinated me when I read about it and some other physicists I have known. The possibilities are incredible a science of probabilistic mathematics used to predict the future given historical events. In addition we are of course confronted with the politics and the usual human weaknesses including greed, corruption and the like, much akin to the degenerate aspects of the Roman Empire. The new mathematics of psychohistory developed by Hari Seldon working on Trantor and trying to set up the two Foundations to at least control the eventual collapse and fall of humanity into a dark age and the Mule the one person not predicted by the original theory who is the defeated through remarkable twists and turns in the story which is full of intrigue and mystery, simply unputdownable. I have read the books many times and will do so again although psychohistorical mathematics is beyond current attainability I believe, but then maybe not.Other books are judged next to this." +990,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A1HJZL0WKCOTSF,"Dan ""Longsword""",1/1,5.0,1115510400,Among my favorites books,"This book sets the stage for the rest of the series. Hari Seldon is introduced and his theories of Psychohistory are explained. Then Seldon's Foundation is established on Terminus, a remote planet at the edge of the Empire, with the goal of shortening the period of barbarism the universe will experience. However, there are no Psychohistorians located in the Foundation... only scientists. The planet has very few native metals and virtually no defenses. The scientists must figure out how to rule their world and fend off avaricious neighbors as the Empire begins to crumble. The majority of this first volume contains vignettes chronicling the Foundation leaders responding to various crises that Hari Seldon predicted centuries before. The crises are varied and plausible. The solutions to the problems that arise are not solved by any miraculous means, but by tough, clever political maneuvering. Watching the crises and their solutions unfold is very enthralling and keeps you turning the pages at a rapid pace." +991,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,,,0/0,5.0,924048000,Wonderful,"What can I say??? Asimov at his best. It's impossible to stop reading this book. The chapters are so incredible, that you can't wait to get to the finish to know how the plot ends. If you haven't read it, you don't know what you are missing" +992,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A3FPNLO06IC8P9,"D. Rahmel ""Dan Rahmel""",9/24,2.0,1118188800,Very dated,"The Foundation novel is very dated, which I suppose is a function of the time it was written. Women are almost entirely absent except when they turn to putty over pretty pieces of jewelry. A gun is an ""atomic blaster,"" and other quaint 50s relics.The one dimensionality of the characters is problematic. I have to admit that although I don't read a lot of science fiction, I know priority is never put on characterization. However, since nearly all of the ideas of the book are no longer relevant, this shortcoming becomes glaring. The book is more of a time capsule than a living book.There is actually a single main character who re-occurs as 3 different personas (Seldon, Hardin, and Mallow). SeldonHardenMallow is calm, calculating, and always right. His opponents flail around until the denouement when SeldumHardenMallow has maneuvered them into exactly the right position and emerges victorious. It's so predictable that there isn't any dramatic tension.The biggest problem I had with the book is that the politics seem very nave. This novel was supposedly based on Gibbon's ""The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,"" but Foundation seems to have only to most primitive understanding of that work.I don't really understand the love generated toward this book. It seems particularly flat. A lot of people seem to enjoy it -- just not me, I guess." +993,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A1618E10JGZO5X,Shayne D. Cairns,0/0,5.0,1346889600,Asimov succeeds again!,I started reading the Foundation series this year and I can't believe what I've been missing. One of the best sci-fi series and one of the best sci-fi authors! +994,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,,,0/0,4.0,915494400,Excellent unless you are looking for Star Wars,This book is a highly cereberal study of history. I you want a lot of action look somewhere else. (I suggest David Drake or S.M. Sterling) If you want something to ponder this is the book. Asimov's ideas have been borrowed by other works so some of it will not seem new. The science is somewhat dated (nucleur light bulbs and economical transmutation). This book does give an excellent veiw of the forces of history. If you want to understand what causes nations to fall read this book. Just don't expect Star Wars style entertaiment. +995,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A3AR89Z050QFYR,"Pen Name ""P.N.""",3/3,4.0,1151798400,Good? You bet. Great? Not sure ...,"I found the politics of this novel interesting enough to disregard the dated scientific references. Seldon and his science was fascinating to behold, and the plot was masterful. What concerned me was (dare I say it?) the fairly amateurish use of dialogue tags and the fact that each character seemed pretty much to speak with the same voice. Asimov wrote this as one of those authors who are at pains not to repeat 'he said'. So it must be a new tag each time, no matter how ridiculous, often paired with an adverb that makes you cringe: ('spluttered angrily', 'cried sternly', 'mumbled grumpily', so on.) Sad this very basic trick of writing lets down passages of vivid description and intriguing plot.Also, some things seemed implausible to me, such as: how was the foundation, which exported its technology across the galaxy, able to keep its technology secret?Nonetheless, this is a series every sci-fi fan has to read - its attributes outweigh its faults by a fair margin." +996,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,,,17/54,1.0,902448000,An Example of What is "Classically" Wrong with SciFi.,"I only recently read this so called masterpiece. I even went do far as to order the special complete edition from the Science Fiction Book Club. Even though I got through it I cannot believe all of the outstanding reviews and awards this series has received. No characters, no science, no mystery (who couln't figure out the identitiy of the Mule?). In addition the story is basically one of the collapse of the Roman Empire. It probably could have been rewritten replacing historical language instead of spacefare and it would not have mattered in the slightest. The only science fictional element was Psychohistory which is not developed at all due to the nature of the plot. If this is a classic, I shall stick to more obscure and worthwhile reads. Blech." +997,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A1I2O9Y3X3HXLS,Arthur W. Jordin,37/40,5.0,1185321600,A Psychohistorical Guide,"Foundation (1951) is the first SF novel in the Foundation series. Although originally a series of novelettes published separately in Astounding, it was later combined into this novel.""The Psychohistorians"" (1950) was created as an introduction to the series with the publication of the Gnome press novel. It describes the political maneuvering by Hari Seldon to establish the Foundation on Terminus.""The Encyclopedists"" (1942) relates the first of the ""Seldon Crises"" when the Foundation is caught between the retreating empire and the growing Anacreon kingdom.""The Mayors"" (1942) tells of the second crisis when Wienis, the Prince Regent of Anacreon, decides to take over the Foundation.""The Traders"" (1944) depicts the third crisis after Askone arrests a Foundation agent trying to spread the Scientism religion.""The Merchant Princes"" (1944) recounts the fourth crisis when a Foundation trader discovers a market for his advanced technology devices.Although the empire portrayed within this novel was actually based on the Roman empire, technology itself became a major force in the story. Thus, slavery was not a problem in this empire until it began to decline and lose its technology. This decline also allowed the Foundation to spread its influence through advanced technology.When these stories were written, computers were only laboratory toys. Thus, the original Foundation series didn't incorporate computers as such. These stories seem strangely old-fashioned without household, business and embedded computers. Nonetheless, the author did foretell the use of electronic hand calculators.The author did include computers in the robot stories written during this timeframe, but they were massive devices used in the factories to design and manufacture robots. The emphasis was upon positronic brains -- something like neural nets -- rather than true computers. Maybe our industry just hasn't yet caught up to his technological projections.This novel is one of the most famous works of science fiction. While it describes future sciences far beyond current capabilities, it still inculcated a sense of the methodology underlying real science and technology. While the author went on to become a major writer of science fiction, he also became one of the best elucidators of popular science in the world.Still, this tale contains all the flaws of Campbellian science fiction. The major characters are always male. The dialogue is somewhat stilted and old-fashioned. In addition, the story contains more ideas than action. Of course, this tale is also outdated because of all the imitations and stimulations resulting from it.Highly recommended for Asimov fans and for anyone else who wants to read classic works of science fiction.-Arthur W. Jordin" +998,B000PBZH6Q,Foundation,,A1TW2QLV10DMC8,F. S. Kilroy,0/2,2.0,1321488000,letdown after the first book,I realize I'm in the minority compared to the other reviews but I don't feel this book is even close to being half as good as the first foundation book. The two stories lacked charters that I cared about and unlike the first foundation book their was very little to contemplate. Also I guessed the big twist in the second story by the third page. +999,B000PBZH5M,Foundation,,A3UXLGZLFMB9UQ,James Cooper,0/0,5.0,1310947200,Smart. Thought provoking. Classic. Sci-fi at its best!,Asimov was one of the founding fathers of Sci-fi and to him we owe a debt of gratitude for making the genre worthy of the literary title. His messages and considerations give the reader a lot more than just something to kill time. It makes sci-fi an avenue to real soul searching. +1000,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2HW4GC6H0L2LR,"T. George ""anne-with-an-e""",2/4,3.0,1090972800,Worth Reading In Spite of Itself,"Well, unlike the multitudes in America, I was NOT forced to read ""Great Expectations"" in high school or at any other time. However, lately it seemed like it was time to pick up this old classic and to dig into its treasures.The story starts out with an unlikely scene in a graveyard in a small English village. There we meet a little boy named Pip, who is visiting the gravesites of both of his parents. There we also meet a desperate convict who is cowardly enough to scare the little boy half to death in order to get some food and other items. Pip - an earnest, battered little orphan being raised by his sister and brother-in-law - anxiously sets out to please this convict. And so starts the tale of Pip's life.After the convict scene, Dickens takes his time in setting up exactly what Pip's life was like as he was groomed to take his brother-in-laws place as the blacksmith in the town. Dickens' genius for wit, along with some very likeable characters, help pull the reader through the endless pages of details and slow action.Soon, however, Pip's fortunes change...and then they change again...and then yet again. Yet, while the storyline somewhat resembles a roller coaster, the pacing is so slow that one is never overwhelmed by the action. In fact, I was rather underwhelmed by the amount of action there was for the number of words I was reading.Even so, I would say that this book is worth the effort. Dickens explores human nature of an average man when beset by a number of unusual situations, each one building on the last. Pip is likeable in these scenarios because he is never obnoxiously perfect or unaffected by his changing fortunes. In some ways, he ""learns his lesson"" by the end. In others, he does not.While Dickens tackles some rather weighty issues in this book, he does so in his distinctive, chipper, witty manner. Thus, one never really understands the emotional depths that the characters experience due to either their oppressive or their opulent fortunes. But, of course, one does not go to Dickens for emotional depth. One reads Dickens for explorations of tough circumstances with happy endings. If that is what the reader wants, Dickens is probably as able to handle the issues as anyone." +1001,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2JTRLTBOBAIW9,MooooMauren,2/11,1.0,974937600,Don't Have Great Expectations For This Novel.,"You won't be needing a bookmark with this novel- more like a pillow! I read this my freshman year of high school, maybe I was just too young to understand it and appreciate it, but I could not read the whole thing without falling asleep. After reading half the book, I read the cliff notes and actually found them more interesting than the novel itself. Unless you are suffering from insomnia, I wouldn't buy it." +1002,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A3GIYC4RZ9PE4R,"Beanbag Love ""Beanbag Love""",1/1,4.0,1200787200,Always a favorite!,I was brought kicking and screaming to this story thanks to high school English Lit requirements but it ended up being my favorite of the term. I loved and hated various major characters strongly which is why I just couldn't put it down until I was finished.I've seen film versions since reading this book and I've never seen anything live up to the experience of the text. This is a classic to add to your home library. +1003,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,5/17,1.0,1051747200,Review,"Charles Dickens ReviewI think that this book was a little bit advanced for us to be reading there was way too many different characters and way to many character changes. If he would have kept the book simpler, it might have been a little bit easier to read and understand. It also would have helped if the author would have only given some of the characters one name instead of giving some people two names making it look like they were a completely different person, that was very confusing.It was good at the end when things finally started coming together and making a little more sense. One of my favorite parts was when Pip finally realizes that he is not meant to be a gentleman, and that he was meant to be a blacksmith. The major themes were the only thing that really helped me understand the book. I really didn�t like this book very much because I couldn�t really relate to it, therefore, I couldn�t understand it. I think that we should have read a book that was more modern and practical." +1004,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AN9WG4PT5KA71,"Juan Tonamata ""Juan Tonamata""",0/21,1.0,1145923200,Why don't I do something fun like beat my head against the wall for three hours?,"A guy I work with read this book and it seemed like he was reading it for three years! Every day he sat there with his legs crossed sipping his tea and reading Great Expectations, spending about an hour on every page! What an aristocrat. It was brutal!Than I tried to read the book.I couldn't get past the first stage or the first part or whatever because it was so f*cking boring i thought my f*cking head was going to explode! NOTHING HAPPENED!That freak I work with didn't like it either.I'm just surprised he could read the whole thing without completely losing his mind." +1005,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AGZJEUQXB2150,Michael S.,0/0,5.0,1325376000,Great classic story!,"I simply loved this book. The characters are so rich, and the story so intricate and well written, I found it engrossing from beginning to end. I loved how the author explored Pip's journey of the desire and love, which really lives in the heart of everyone. This is a ""must read"" for those wanting to catch up on all the classics. I have not read much else of Dickens' work, but this story is a masterpiece." +1006,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,2/9,1.0,936144000,Absolute Garbage by Dickens,"Boring, pointless story of a pathetic imbecile whose life seems to be not much more than a bizarre journey through an insane asylum. I just can't believe that this story was preceded by "A Tale of Two Cities", which is an absolute masterwork of a historical novel - I cannot believe they were written by the same person!" +1007,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AAIL33CYCT47J,Gregory Baird,6/6,5.0,1171843200,What really matters to you?,"Dickens, for whatever reason, never crossed my path in high school, and in the years since I have found myself intimidated to pick up one of his books. This year I resolved to get over that and selected 'Great Expectations' to be my first venture into Dickens' famous fictional worlds. And what joy! As it turns out I had no reason to be intimidated because Dickens is imminently readable and highly enjoyable.This novel is told from the point of view of Philip Pirrip, nicknamed Pip, who begins his tale as a young boy visiting the graves of his parents when an escaped convict happens upon him and threatens him into helping him get food. This experience will have a huge impact on Pip's life, although just how huge is left to be discovered until much later in the novel. Pip soon finds himself in the service of an eccentrically, manically wounded old woman and her beautiful but cold-hearted charge Estella, whom Pip is doomed to fall for and spend the rest of his days pining for. He begins to feel oppressed by his poor life, anguished that his miserable situation will never be good enough to win Estella's heart. And so it seems to be a blessing when a mysterious benefactor takes Pip away from his home to make a gentleman of him in London. Certainly Pip is pleased to have been ""rescued"", but over the course of his teaching a curious thing happens to him: he begins to lose the humanity that had made him such an upstanding young man in the first place. He forsakes relations with his loving family, judges his best friend as a great guy doomed to failure, and slowly allows his finances to spin out of control as he begins to spend more and more of his unnamed benefactor's money.'Great Expectations' is, ultimately, a journey of self discovery. Pip rises in society and leaves his life behind him without realizing just how much it had been worth to him. When he reflects on all that has happened to him and wonders if the inaptitude he had sensed in his friend ""had never been in him at all, but had been in me,"" it is a thoughtful discovery that really makes you think about what is truly important in your own life. What makes someone a success? Is it the amount of money in their bank account? Or is it the friendships they forge? Does someone need to be educated to be happy, or can they just be satisfied with what they have? Dickens pulls you along through Pip's story with a great deal of wit and a dash of cynicism that, refreshingly, serves to enlighten the reader rather than depress them. It is an intelligent and heartfelt novel that has become a classic for all of the right reasons, and is one that remains relevant to modern readers -- the true test of a classic, in my opinion. As for myself, I have been thoroughly enchanted by my first experience with Dickens, and look forward to reading many more of his books in the coming year." +1008,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A3SAE4HWC0NNNB,"The Lady Washington ""Alyssa""",0/0,5.0,1097712000,"Scathing, Complex, and Brilliantly Observant","Victorian society got a good spanking when Great Expectations was published, at the time Dickens's anger and frustration was at one of its highest points. Pip, the novel's protagonist - I hesitate to call him the hero - is at once likeable and recognizable as a powerful symbolic tool, though the former quality intentionally decreases as the novel progresses.Pip is joined by a cast of the most memorable characters in literature - the cold, ethereal Estella, the crazy, wounded Miss Havisham, loveable dullard Joe, whip-smart lawyer Jaggers - the list could, and possibly might, go on for pages. If there were literary awards for Best Ensemble, the characters in Great Expectations would clinch them all. The characters function as both political/social symbols and, though they exist in a time period far removed from us, identifiable and memorable figureheads that will - and should - be a literary hallmark forever." +1009,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A32DPXWFZYNR6N,Chicago Bookworm,1/1,5.0,1328572800,"Great place to start, or return to, with Dickens","I was compelled to read Dickens (""A Tale of Two Cities,"" in my case) in eighth grade and decided that I didn't like his writing. I managed to avoid Dickens and the Victorian novelists for several years, even as an English major. It wasn't until I was in my mid-20s that I read ""Great Expectations,"" and I'm glad that was so, because I was finally ready to appreciate Dickens. If you've ever picked up a Dickens novel and put it back down with relief, you might try again in a few years. If you do, ""Great Expectations"" is an excellent choice for meeting, or for encountering again, this amazing author.Like ""David Copperfield,"" this novel is written throughout in the first person, and follows the title character from childhood to adulthood. The first-person point of view gives the story vividness and impact, as we see everything that unfolds through Pip's eyes. The difference between the perspective of Pip the boy and Pip the adult, looking back and writing, colors the plot and creates suspense.There are many possible reasons to read this book (other than having it assigned to you, of course).You could read it for its astonishing characters -- Miss Havisham, defiantly moldering away and shut up in her never-used wedding finery; Magwitch, the escaped convict with a backstory you'd never expect; Joe Gargery, the blacksmith whose external roughness is matched only by his inner tenderness; Estella, as self-divided and self-destructive as she is beautiful. You could read it for its settings -- the spooky marshes, the busy streets of London, the gothic horrors of Satis House. You could read it for the plot -- the hidden connections, unexpected reversals, and ambiguous endings. You could read it for its social criticism -- the comprehensive view of working-class, middle-class, and upwardly-aspriring characters; the insight into what people will do to themselves and others for money; the unsparing look at ideas of gentility versus actual nobility of character. You could read it for its language -- the idiosyncratic dialects, the indelible scenes, the variety of prose rhythms Dickens employs.In the end, there are two main reasons to read this novel: pleasure and wisdom. ""Great Expectations"" is of its time without being dated, and can be enjoyed as a satisfying story. The themes Dickens addresses are timeless, and speak to the 21st century as forcefully as they spoke to the 19th.This isn't my all time favorite Dickens novel -- that would be ""Bleak House,"" followed by ""David Copperfield"" -- but it's one of his best. If you've never tried it, or if it's been a while since you did, give it a try. You may well become a Dickens addict." +1010,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A3AKWA5CWSKOOH,"Ilaxi S. Patel ""Editor, kidsfreesouls.com & A...",0/0,4.0,1108598400,A Classic for Classroom,"Thirteenth of Dicken's four major novels, Great Expectations has the most dramatic and gripping start that unfolds a story that drives eagerly forward, full of emotion and humor and many unforgettable characters. As a kid, we had this book on our Literature List and every time we had to write down the answers of Literature tales, it was rather strenuous and boring as this meant to be a part of education. However, when it came to conduct a teaching class in literature, Great Expectation turned out to be an adventure. Unlike Oliver Twist and David Copperfield, Pip is not really a hero and also it does not end a Happy ending but Pip is being stripped of his wealth and his position in society. Pip is sent to London to be educated as a gentleman, he is impressed by the wrong people for the wrong reasons. He neglects and abandons the honest, hardworking folk who care for him and his pride is hurt when he learns who his mysterious benefactor is. Pip express guilt for his behavior who have a violent nature and crude ways but altogether he is courageous too. Pip, his father surname being Pirrip and his Christian name Philip, that's how he is called `Pip' , has a fascination for Estella but is brought up by Miss Havisham to wreck revenge on all male sex and break hearts. Herbert Pocket is a character who has frankness was amiable and cheerful who became a friend of Pip. Dicken's novels have a central theme `rags-to-riches' tale of a poor, underprivileged boy who is finally accepted into society. Strangely, this one has a different end. A nice read and great pick for Classroom Literature workshop." +1011,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/3,3.0,1049846400,Great Expectations,The Great Expectation was a great book. I thought that it was a little hard to read. But I just read the part over that I didn't understand and I eventually understand it. Another thing that confused me is that Charles Dickens uses a lot of names for his characters. He should of just stuck to one name per character so that the readers wouldn't get confused. He also had some unrealistic plot in the story. Otherwise this was a great story how a boy becomes a gentleman and learns how to act. I would recommend you to read this book if you want to keep guessing. +1012,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A3IYP3MS6N8ZKV,Andria Redlin,2/19,2.0,1253664000,Charles Frickin' Dickens is Overrated.,"I have been a great reader my entire life, having read and enjoyed many classics as well as the modern books of today, but never in my life have I had such a difficult time getting through a book. I usually fly through novels within a few days, but getting through this one is likened to going through a maze in the dark. I give it two stars because I do think the plot was interesting, but the execution was abominably horrible. I actually had to have a dictionary next to me in order to understand all the weird words Dickens used, words such as 'peppercorny' and 'farinaceous.' Now, I usually pride myself on having quite an excellent English vocabulary, but I felt utterly lost when trying to read this book. Some of the dialogue was completely unfathomable and pointless, and about a quarter of the time I did not have a clue as to what he were talking about. Many of the characters were annoying, Mr. Pumblechook for example. I cringed during the chapter when he saw Pip, after Pip had become a gentleman, and the stupid man kept saying ""May I? May I?"" Ugh. There was so much this book could have done with out; the endless pointless descriptions, the useless minor characters, and the stupidity of some of them was unbearable. What I mean by that is Miss Havisham's voluntary reclusive existence; I mean, how can somebody live like that without going completely insane, just sitting in the dark day after day, wearing the same clothes, and throwing her life away for a man who was only after her money? Stupid and lame that was, if mildly noble (her behavior). I cannot understand why Dickens is so praised as a writer. His plot may be good in this book, but it is terribly written. I have made two attempts in my life to read this book. The first time, I got about halfway through and had to stop because it was about as enjoyable as plucking my eyebrows. A few years later, the second attempt got me to about the 42nd chapter, but again, my interest fizzled out. I do not think I will ever finish this book, and would only advise reading it if you have trouble sleeping, because it will knock you out fast. As a final note, I could not get through Oliver Twist either. Again, a great plot, but poorly written." +1013,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A35O30UHOH7P90,"Robert U. Hablutzel ""It Is Written""",0/0,5.0,1308614400,My Great Expectations Realized!,"I got bogged-down fairly early in this book and almost decided to stop reading it. Fortunately for me, it soon re-kindled my interest (no pun intended), and only got better as it progressed. This was my first foray into Dickens, and if his other works are as entertaining as this one is, I anticipate a world of wonderful reading ahead. Be forewarned that some of this book's reviews give away too much of its plot (I made the mistake of reading them first). Do yourself a favor: Just trust that Dickens deserves his legend and dive-in. I can't imagine that this famous classic will disappoint you." +1014,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1JLEHQDIBJM2Z,Leigh Munro,3/4,3.0,1002758400,Charles Dickens - Read a contemporary review,"Great Expectations is Dickens' classic novel about the life of a young poor boy and his voyage through life. To me, it is not dissimilar to David Copperfield in its themes; however, David Copperfield moves me to tears every time I read it.I came across an original review of Great Expectations at The Atlantic Monthly's website. The reviewer wrote of Dickens and this work "The very title of this book indicates the confidence of conscious genius. In a new aspirant for public favor, such a title might have been a good device to attract attention; but the most famous novelist of the day, watched by jealous rivals and critics, could hardly have selected it, had he not inwardly felt the capacity to meet all the expectations he raised." T.A.M. then went on to state that they felt the book did in fact live up to its title.Unfortunately I am not permitted to type in the whole web address so that you could more easily find this review, but if you are interested, go to The Atlantic Monthly's website and under the section entitled "Books and Critics" type in "greatexp.htm" at the search engine. The review itself was posted in September 1861." +1015,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1UTGHJD17V3LQ,"""bunnygirl-12""",25/27,5.0,964915200,A True Classic!,"I love this book! This is one of my all-time favorite books ever. I had to read it eons ago when I was in ninth grade, and now (14 years later) I am still enjoying it. Every few years I take this one down from my bookshelf to revisit. This is the story of Pip, a small orphaned boy living in poverty in the English countryside with his much older sister and her husband. Pip meets a convict in a graveyard one damp morning and helps him out in the form of some vittles and an iron file. Later in the story, Pip moves from poverty to being a "gentleman" due to the influence of a mysterious, anonymous benefactor. This book tells of his adventures and how Pip's expectations guide him through life. Towards the end of the story, Pip finds out that reality is sometimes very different from what we expect it to be. The characters are what really make this book stand out. Charles Dickens is a master of character development, and his descriptions of Miss Havisham, Wemmick, Joe, and the others is brilliant! The dialogue is great, with the words written the way a commoner would have spoken in England in the 1800's. Another thing I really liked was how all of the characters are inter-related to each other in ways that you may not discover until you get to the end of the novel.This novel will make you laugh and it might make you sad, but it is always entertaining. If you are in high school and reading this book for the first time for English class, keep at it! It may seem difficult at first if you are not used to Dickens, but this book is well worth it! It is truly a gem." +1016,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A24AK00TJPGX55,trippin toadie,0/0,4.0,1284768000,"Slow start, but riveting end","Great Expectations is hailed as a one of the great masterpieces in literature and for good reason. However, it does drag in the beginning and current audiences may not be able to fight through to reap the rewards this book gives out. Also, the language used in the book is not used currently in use and may throw off some readers. Midway threw the book I was enjoying Great Expectations, but disappointed in the pace and flow and ready for it to quicken. But it did and I was enthralled with the final 200 pages." +1017,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A28VG83BJQ7F5F,DA Chen,0/0,4.0,1357948800,Excellent book,Excellent book. A little difficult to understand some of the old English terms but quite enjoyable. I wish I had read this in high school. +1018,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A313FHXGRZNB68,The Internet Ghost,4/4,5.0,1088726400,Passionate throes in woes begone...,"...endless is the error of intimacy.Such is the story of "Great Expectations." I have to say that Dickens totally floored me with this magical tale of love and pedestals. I don't even know what made me read it. I think I just found it in my mother's house amid throwaways in the attic. Oh no...this is NOT to be thrown away, this treasure of English literature. This is the reason why we read.Pip is an orphan with no prospects in sight. But one day, under the strangest of circumstances, he becomes the veritable ward of an unknown benefactor and hurtles toward the gentlemanly future of high living and culture. Along the way, he is placed in the almost daily charge of the bitter and rich shut-in Miss Havisham, guardian of the irresistable, yet bitchy Estella. Poor Pip spends a great deal of his days partaking in the education of a gentleman, doing the bidding of the witchy Havisham woman and pining after the girl who uses and abuses him. It sometimes seems like this high society training is a big freakin' mistake.Things heat up when he comes across the criminal Magwitch and doesn't turn him in to the authorities. From there on in the piece continues to fill the mind with limitless imagery. The writing style is a beaut and the characters continue to intrigue with every passing page, from the disgustingly prunish Miss Havisham to Pip's dim-witted, but thoroughly likeable father - a man he sadly comes to see as shameful as his education and training strengthens.This is a story of yearning and loss, guilt and foolish pride as one person after another gets a wish granted and regrets it or waits for a train that never comes in. Yet somehow the ending leaves behind a great feeling. This is among my favorite books ever." +1019,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/0,4.0,990662400,Great Expectations,"I like the book "Great Expectations." I really like this book and many lessons can be learned from it.Pip handles most of his situations pretty well except for at the end.From the first time he saw Estella he knew she was his love and he never gave up.I thought it was neet how the convict helped Pip after Pip had helped him.I also thought it was cool that all through the book you think Pip's benefactor is the old lady, but at the end you figure out it is the convict.I dont really like the fact that Pip's aunt beat him.I also thougth it was pretty low of Estella to treat Pip how she did, and yet he would do anything for her.It was kind depressing at the the end because you know Pip wont get Estella.I also thought it was mean of Pip to just desert Joe after all he had done for him.When the convict gets caught at the end it is kinda sad because you just dont think he should.Anyone would like this book if they were into realistic fiction." +1020,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,2/8,3.0,1053302400,Great Expectations Review,"I thought this book was a little hard to understand with the way they talked. Some of the words the use you don't normally hear everyday or the way they phrase some of their sentences makes it harder to know what is going on. I liked this novel though the story was great in how all the events that took place connected to something else in the end of the story.My favorite parts in this book were when Pip was finding more and more about Estella and her family because it kept you wanting to read more and more of the story so you could find out what happened. The major themes of the story were kind of hard to understand because some of them are hidden in the story and Dickens doesn't come right out and say what's happening and sometimes he drags out the seen and makes it really easy to lose interest or just get confused.Dickens didn't really bring the story alive for me because I didn't really understand some of the parts in the book, but I did like the story." +1021,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1R90KXMPXCAP,Andrew,5/16,1.0,1003104000,It was the worst of times...,"when I read this book. Honestly, after I liked "A Tale of Two Cities" I was expecting more from Dickens. Maybe Dickens wrote in the style of his time, which was to be very detailed, but it really doesn't translate well to today. I don't mind long books (I'm reading War and Peace now) but this book went into extreme detail about the most meaningless things.This story was essentially a Victorian soap opera. Theres all sorts of unknown parents, secret coniving, mysterious benefactors, and worst of all, many unrealistic characters. This book was so contrived and unnatural that I really don't see how it's attained "classic" status.If you don't mind meticulous attention being payed to the minutia, which is Dickens's style, then I'd recommend "A Tale of Two Cities." If not, there are many other authors much better than Dickens that you can read." +1022,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AI0WDOQ4TOLUO,Ryan Eder,1/1,5.0,1076371200,Very Good Story,"Charles Dickens develops the characters, the plot, and the conflicts in Great Expectations spectacularly. The characters Dickens develops throughout the story are human and easy to connect with. Pip is the most real to life character, because he exhibits the most human-like qualities. Pip is a very personable character that makes the reader feel sorrow and happiness along with him. As Pip looks to better himself and become a gentleman, he comes to realize a very important life lesson; money cannot buy happiness. As Pip goes through the story, he allows the reader to see and feel exactly what he feels and sees.Estella is described as a beautiful young woman that captures Pip's heart. Estella has a very insensitive personality, and enjoys making Pip cry; something everyone has encountered in a person some time in his/her life.Herbert is a young man with many dreams and aspirations. Herbert becomes Pip's best friend, and Pip realizes that this young man works very hard for what he believes in. This is the kind of friend that will push a person where they would not normally go by themselves.Abel Magwitch is the convict that Pip encounters at the beginning of the story. Magwitch gives Pip a large amount of money to start his life as a gentleman. Magwitch is the kind of person that would give the clothes off of his back to anyone in need. Magwitch is also a very personable character because he is not all good or all evil. He exhibits both of these; he is a convict and he devotes his life's earnings to Pip.Charles Dickens develops an outstanding plot as the novel unfolds. There are many life lessons throughout the novel. Pip realizes that all of the money in the world cannot buy happiness. Pip also finds out that true love is not just the woman he cannot obtain, because love has to be much more. The plot has many twists and turns throughout. There is always something new happening to Pip. It is almost like a soap opera, because there are so many people and events interacting with each other during the novel. When the plot becomes a little thin, Dickens begins to create suspense for the next big event about to occur. Dickens chooses to develop the plot through the character's actions. Not once did Dickens explain what was happening in the story, he let the characters take over, and within a few pages all questions were answered.The novel has many conflicts that develop throughout the plot. Pip and Estella have a love-hate relationship going on. Pip loves Estella, but she could care less about him. Pip and Joe have a conflict, too. Pip wants to see much less of Joe now that he is a gentleman, but Joe just wants to see Pip, period. Pip thinks he is too good for Joe, even though he is still just the same human as he was before. Money changes people's outlook on life. Pip was once a benevolent, caring, young man, but once he fell into money, he changed dramatically in the way he acted towards others. These conflicts provide for some pretty interesting facets in the story. Charles Dickens develops the characters, the plot, and the conflicts excellently throughout the novel." +1023,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A34LZI23RDEU85,"Alesha N. Gates ""Christian, Mother, Daughter,...",82/103,3.0,1146096000,True Confessions of a High School Teacher,"I've taught this book in 9th grade for years because it is a curriculum requirement. During that time, I have raved about the incredible abilities of Dickens to create memorable characters, plot fascinating fiction, make the lives of ordinary people in England memorable, write incredibly descriptive passages . . . .The time has come to tell the truth. While it may be a great *work of literature*, Great Expectations is a tough book to like.There is much to appreciate - in the intellectual sense of the word - about GE, from carefully drawn characters to an infinitely detailed plot. Without exception, students love to play *connect the characters* as the novel progresses. They discuss the unrequited love between Pip and Estella, Biddy and Pip - they love the relationship between Joe and Pip. They are fascinated and repulsed by Miss Havisham and her house. They are shocked by Magwitch, and enthralled by his sacrifice. Truly, this has all the makings of a 9th grade *hit*! So what's the problem? Language,length, and format.The language is off-putting. So much is colloquial to the time and difficult to bring current. Joe's dialect (along with the convict's) is VERY difficult for my deep south students to imitate when reading aloud, and sometimes even difficult for them to decipher at all. Sentences can go on (and on and on and on and on) so that the end hardly seems connected to the beginning. While common when Dickens was writing, these patterns are a bit difficult for a modern audience.Length and format are a problem that go together. Originally published as a serial, this novel was presented a chapter or two at a time, with a wait between installments. That allowed a reader to digest the events in a chapter, contemplate the relationships, discuss them with friends and build up anticipation for the next installment. By virtue of that style, many side-stories are included that have little bearing on the overall plot. Likewise, there is much detail included that seems almost irrelevant when one is reading the novel in full. Those are the very things that fostered interest in the serial, and yet in a novel, they seem extraneous and confusing. At the end, the novel seems (just a bit) overwritten (and perhaps that is because it wasn't originally a novel).In summary, my feelings about this novel are mixed. The story itself is fascinating, but I find myself eternally dreading that time of year when I will yet again introduce it to another crop of unsuspecting students . . ." +1024,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1V9F2RG4SBIPZ,Blackberry,0/0,5.0,1252022400,"Wonderful Story, Wonderfully Told",I agree this is a great car book. The only problem is I don't want to get out of my car.The reader does a fabulous job of bringing Dickens many wonderful characters to life. I heartily recommend. +1025,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A27IJV60JCCY2,SBO,2/2,5.0,1199059200,pure enjoyment,"When I was a teenager, I loved Dickens. In later years, however, I abandoned Dickens for more overtly ""intellectual"" authors. The wonderful thing about great books is that they do not suffer from multiple readings. Returning to Great Expectations after maybe 20 years was a delight. It is simple, accessible, gently humorous and heartbreaking. Dickens' love of language is simply a joy to experience. The novel is beautiful, effusive and yet tinged with Pip's own discomfort of class and self. Dickens holds his own as the Master Storyteller of the 19th Century." +1026,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AL7PNSOYPBVG4,Jenn,2/2,5.0,1081036800,Incredible Read,"Absolutely one of my favorite books ever written... superb, intense and emotional, this books is highly reccommended to anyone who likes literature. Follows the coming of age of Pip, who is realized so fully that the reader cant help but identify with him, and come to feel as if he knows him. Anything by Dickens is bound to be something special, but in my opinion this one takes the cake." +1027,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,4/5,4.0,896745600,Better than you think,"When I found out I had to read Great Expectations, by Charles Dickens for school, I was extremely dissapointed. I had already read A Tale of Two Cities, and absolutely hated it. Students in other classes had read Great Expectations and not liked it either, so I figured I would not enjoy it either. But I decided I would read it anyway, because it is considered to be one of the best books of all time. The books starts out fairly slow, and it takes the reader a few chapters to get used to Dickens's writing style, for he uses an abudance of description. He was paid by the word so he had incentive to do so. For those who are able to survive the first few chapters, they will enjoy an extremely lovable book and not be dissapointed. The book is timeless, with the basic story line being one that has affected almost everyone sometime in their life; falling in love with somebody who does not return the feelings. Pip, the main character, falls in love with an exotic and beautiful girl, Estella, but of course she does not have any feelings for him. So Pip does everything he can to win her approval, and most importantly her heart. It is hard to skip around in the book. While some passages might seem as if they have nothing to do with the story, they do. Everything in the story is tied together somehow. Skimming the book is not going to help. Certain events and people the reader thinks are insignificant or forgot completley, will appear over and over throughout the book. I am glad that i decided to read Great Expectations, despite the negative remarks from peers. I found out that most of them never made it past the first few chapters, so they missed out on the good parts. The only reason I did not give the book a higher score is that parts of it are slow and dry, but stick with it, you will not be upset." +1028,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AFE9RSMXII4B9,V. Nguyen,3/6,5.0,1067212800,Expectation met and exceeded,"Some may call me a classic book snob, but here it goes.Great expectations may be at times tedious and I won't deny that, but it is worth it.Charles Dickens goes into great depth of detail and at times a bit overly detailed and I'm sure that is where many people get lost. But if you get the main plot, then you can get the jiff of it.The characters in this book transcend time.Pip, the poor boy who finds himself wondering if he can love old Joe know that he is rich.Estella who cannot love truly but yet brought up to love and destroy.Miss Havisham, the old rich woman who had her heartbroken and know is trying her best to seek revenge.Joe, Biddy and others also play a pivotal role.The story itself plays on the role of moral and also mercy. It shows a colorful and at times exaggerated array of feelings. From grief to greed, to deceit and happiness.Pip, a lonely orphan and living with his sister, finds and help a criminal. Although it was not completely of his own will.Then Pip is introduced to the sad and luxurious world of Miss Havisham where he met Estella, the girl he loved from then on.From then on he resents his meager living until one day he finds out that he had just inherited a large fortune.Then on Pip goes on a quest to truly become a gentleman and win Estella's heart.But how can he win Estella's heart when she doesn't have one?Can he really forsake his family for money?Who gave him that money?" +1029,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AOTBYI7DL3USN,A Customer,1/5,2.0,1292198400,Fair...but....,This book has a good story concept and Dickens writes well...but the story would have been alot better had he not been paid by the word. His lengthy descriptions of mundane tasks serve to break the pacing of a novel that already barely dredges along. +1030,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AWS5NBJCYLY7A,Subhankar Mondal,4/7,5.0,1153526400,A Saga of Human Expectations and Failures,"Of all English writers,Charles Dickens is the champion of the genre of ""Bildungsroman"",a department of fiction writing pertaining to growth and development of the protagonist. Dickens's writings are darkly underlined by an all-dimensionsal illustration of aperson's character and by an uncanny portrayal of childhood. ""Nicholas Nickleby"",""David Copperfield"" and ""Great Expectations"" have gone into the literary folklore as novels containing some of the finest amd most vivid passages ever composed on children's psyche and indignified lives. Perhaps the author's this ability to paint children's woe stems froms his own abusive and disruptive boyhood and perhaps in several of his fancy's infants,Dickens was actually trying to reflect his very own horrible childhood. ""David Copperfield"" is undoubtably his most personal and in certain fractions autobiographical novel but in ""Great Expectations"",employing a compatible first person narrative method,Charles Dickens conjures up a very much real life character who,like David Copperfield,narrates the story of his life as he progresses through his childhood,errors of judgements and unseeming expectations to a tragi-joyous adulthood;as he stives on in life with a plethora of illusions;as he realises the moments of truth one by one.""Great Expectations"" is young Pip's story,a trajectory of his yearning to excel and drift away from the ""oncommon"",a desire to be loved and respected in society, a not-so-uncommon craving to grow up and establish himself. For an orphan living in the country marshes in England and brought up ""by hand"" by his sister Mrs. Joe Gargery,Pip's on;y genuine friend in his early boyhood was Jor Gargery,the blacksmith---also supposed by the central character to have been made to ""marry her by hand"". But a sudden and apparently misfortunate meeting with a fugitive from the nearby Hulks---and the consequent burden of guilt his troubled conscience has to bear---a visit to the queer Miss Havisham's and an unexpected deliverance of all his miseries all consire to Pip's rise in life. The mysterious London lawyer and master defender of criminals Mr. Jaggers arrives one day to inform Pip that if he would,then he is entitled to excercise a proposition of going to London and studying and doing all he can to rise up in life and be an established gentleman with no cost from his side---a mere boyish fancy of Pip till that moment. so marches on our gentle little gentry class boy to the city on te back of the notion that it was Miss Havisham who was actually his benefactoress and who had destined him and her adopted daughter,the cruel,unforgiving and heartless Estella,to be together. And thus begin young and inexperienced Pip's trysts with harsh realities of life.In a novel that essentially figures around human expectations and failures through the tame medium of words,Pip's story is massively apt for the enlightenment of this theme. Pip is found to be a real-life character leafed out of life's own text book and not an imaginary effigy of fairy-tale gratifications,which David in ""David Copperfield"" in some stretch is. He's an ordinary person with extraordinary aspirations but as he moves on in life,he learns about himself and this personal growth is exquisitely and relistically portrayed by Charles Dickens. Indeed it's in a great city like London where truth dawns upon Pip,truth that demolishes all ethereals about life,about riches,about Miss Havisham and EStella,and most important truth of them all,the truth about himself. Pip runs into debt,makes several mistakes,is broken down and broken apart by an illusory love and endures fits of remorse,which punctuate his entire existence arising out of a marked ingratitude towards Joe and Biddy,his friend from his old school. His only means of moral salvation from this quicksand of sin is te hearty relationship with Herbert Pockets,his best friend and companion in all his catastrophes. Actually in Herbert and his father,also the tutor of Pip,Charles Dickens creates two characters dissolved in innocence and ignorance with no big aims for money. When all of Miss Havisham's near and distant relatives are coaxing her to milk her fortune,the Pockets are the sole remaining figures to brush aside such ideas. This is one of Dickens's numerous tricks as a writer to subtlely show that goodness can still be glimpsed in an otherwise sadly denudating world.Charles Dickens is believed to have gone through his work ""David Copperfield"" thoroughly before writing ""Great Expectations"" but even so on certain occasions,the reader does decipher resemblance between these two high acclaimed novels. The shape of Pip's path i life doesn't bear that great degree of difference with these two popular fictional characters are often found to merge. Miss Havisham is reminiscent of Betsy Trotwood's resentment towards the male society,only more elongated and elaborate;in Pip's detest of Drummle and his love for Estella,the reader catches a fair glimpse od David's own contempt towards Uriah heep's lust for Agnes;Mr.Pockets and his family's fiascos and innocence bear a certain kinship with those of Mr. Micawber's;and Pip's deep friendship with Herbert reminds the reader of David's relationship with Traddles. These similarities could blot Dickens's claim to unprecedented imagination power or may strangely prove that life of one is often intertwined with aanother's. The first person narrative technique used to describe Pip's story in this book too isn't without some strong criticisms. The opinions and witty contemplations formed by Pip of people both is his marsh country as well as in London from an early stage in his life render the reader musing as to how his innocent and delicately humorous conjectures could suddenly be transformed into something satirical and concrete. Are his views constructed on the spur of the moment or are they being built now as Pip stares down the years and pens down his history? If the latter be more inclined towards the truth,then it definitely distorts Pip's authenticity as a writer and his memoir is left somewhat ineffective with misleading overlapping of the past and te present.Certain detractions are not so difficult to eke out from ""Great Expectations"" really but flaws are a regular parameter of any work of literature. The genius of Charles Dickens is never in doubt in this book as the reader discerns the author's accustomed mingling of humour and dark pictures in a book that promises life as it is. Dickens's obsession with wit and humour is revealed in the features of Mr. Pumblechook and Mr. Wopsle and in incidents such as the latter playing Hamlet on the stage. That when perceived from te swift flow of narration perfectly complimented by the dialogues and conversations and punctuated by moods of reflections makes the book instantly appealing. The caricature of the marsh country is another point of revelation of the author's informed and classy state. The world of Dickens is one of individual identities and aspirations,where all characters find their own proper places. And this world isn't a big one but a narrowed and trimmed realm of compulsive non-overlapping characters all fuctioning significantly in the due course of Pip's realisation of the world and its intricacies.The most beguiling factor in providing Pip's tale a touch of realism and in turn making the novel more touching and endearing is the evident defects in his character. He feels remorseful at his ingratitude towards his poor and ""common"" family;he is exasperated at the return of his ""old convict"" years later and in his refusal to address him not as Magwitch,his real name,but as Provis,his assumed name,he subconsciously admits denial of his own humble past. Pip isn't mature enough to handle his own humble past. Pip isn't mature enough to handle his own present either,and time and again has to rush to Herbert and wemmick,Mr. Jaggers's assistant,for solace and help. As illusions fade one by one and emotions of al sorts jumble up together in Pip's life,he's found to portray at least fractions of our own lives. ""Great Expectations"" is vastly a cofession of a dilapidated soul whose expectations in life are not without unforseen twists and turns. This is an immensely moving tale of a young man's ineptitude and discontentment told in restrained sentimentality,empathic ruminations and glittering descriptions. This classic is a gem for any literature lover,where Charles Dickens;s authority as a writer is amazingly deft." +1031,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A38RMZ39278OAT,redsox989,1/2,4.0,1057622400,A great read,"I spent a whole term going over this book in freshmen English class. It is an overall good book, full of interpritations. There are many symbolisms and allusions. However, it is important to remember that this book was originally a serialization, as it came out every week in the paper. There are some parts when Dickens drawls on with his plans, events, ect. However, there are scenes that are very fast paced and action filled. The overall plot is a young, naive boy of about ten lives with his sister and her simple husband named Joe. However, Pip is given a secret benefactor and is thrust in the life of nobility. Pip is tangled in his probelems of leaving Joe behind and his encouters with the shallow (and I mean SHALLOW) Estella and the wicked Miss Havisham. Dickens is a master with characters and the languege, but he doesn't describe any everyday events. For example, Pip goes to study law, but thats all we know. In my opinion, it gives the characters this higher than life importance, and less real. But, if you take this book slowely, maybe a chapter a night (instead of the five I had to do), you will definately enjoy this book." +1032,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A3L5TH54UGXQUQ,Linda Li,0/0,5.0,1356912000,Great Product,i received the book today and it is brand new! great book and i recommend this book for all ages +1033,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2QHJJC0L01IS3,James Schmidt,1/1,5.0,1343260800,Simple and Timeless; Kind and Heartbreaking; Brilliant,"I am making my way through Charles Dickens...not in any particular order...the first few I've picked are mostly familiar through TV or film adaptations that I've enjoyed and/or on the recommendations of friends.""Bleak House"" was my first read, finished last month. ""Great Expectations"" is my second read.What can I say? I am just so enamored with Dickens's story-telling and character development that I have a fear that when I am done reading his canon I'll have to declare a 13-way tie for first place. We'll see.Between Bleak House and Great Expectations I *almost have a two-way tie for first place, in no small part because they are such different types of books...Bleak House was a universe of characters and subplots; Great Expectations fewer characters and not as much intrigue, although the last 1/4 to 1/3 of the book is riveting. And some good comedy also.But I am going to put GE at #1 and BH at #2...while I loved Bleak House as I read it, and have a few favorite characters, ""Great Expectations"" will *stay with me* much much longer I think...Bleak House is brilliant (really brilliant) for its commentary on the period and for its settings and for its intricacies; Great Expectations is brilliant because it is simple and timeless.I'm not nearly vain or clever enough to think I'm the first to recognize this, but three neat things about Great Expectations are: 1) it's a novel which illustrates the old warning ""Be Careful What You Wish For..."", 2) it is the complete opposite of ""Catcher in the Rye"" - an earnest, non-cynical first-person narrator who meets so much kindness along the way, and fewer ""phonies"" (although there are a few), and 3) it's such a personal novel that anyone who dares wonder what they could possibly learn about human nature by reading such an ""old"" book NEEDS to read it for that very reason.The characters are just so memorable...if I had to pick a favorite, I think it would be Wemmick...you probably work with him and don't even know it: he's the man (or woman) who is competent at work, works for an insufferable boss, and has a completely different home life than work life. His care of ""The Aged"" is a remarkable example for any of us in caring for our parents.The love stories are also very touching - especially the ones that turn out for the best...but no spoilers in this review.And the story of Pip's unrequited love is so true to life...and although I think it would have been worse for Pip to lose Estella had she been more than just beautiful outside but also beautiful inside, Dickens wrote beautifully and agonizingly of the highs and lows associated with unrequited love as only one who has experienced it can truly identify. One of the worst and most painful aspects is not the fact that you aren;t chosen but that they chose *that* person. And all you can think is: anybody...anybody but *them*.A memorable book and must reading.Now on to another Dickens novel! :-)" +1034,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1BJLZ8UNAZX2D,"""littleoldme""",4/5,5.0,1023321600,Outstanding - one of my all-time favorites!,"What can I say that hasn't been said already? "Great Expectations" is a tremendous novel from the introductory paragraph to the final sentences. The plot is deep and intricate, and there's even a surprising plot revelation occuring late in the book about the origin of Pip's wealth and opportunity in life. The characters are all well-defined and inherently interesting, and such major characters as Pip, Estella, Joe, Miss Havisham, and others vividly live in the mind. Even minor characters such as Mrs. Joe and the Aged Person are memorable and amusing. The novel's storyline, beginning with Pip's early childhood and ending in his late middle age, is epic in breadth. "Great Expectations" treats the reader to a delightful plot and scene for all of its five hundred pages.Even better, however, is the brilliant prose Dickens gives us in the novel. It is humorous, moving, touching, witty, clever, and always perfectly phrased. Never for a single second does the reader feel bored. Like many great works of literature, there are plenty of moments where the writing is almost awe-inspiring in its beauty and language. With a talent as great as Dickens, one could write about almost anything and it would be tremendous reading. When paired with the brilliant plot of "Great Expectations," it feels almost heaven-sent.Many readers see the term "classic" on a novel and feel that it becomes a type of chore, and add it to a laundry list of literature that somebody felt would be good for them. "Great Expectations" is a classic, but it's not at all the literary equivalent of medicine. It's a delightful treat, and a quick read despite its length. I can't imagine reading this and not treasuring it. It is, quite simply, fantastic." +1035,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AMMOPE8D6S2WL,"Deborah A. Chaidez ""amazon shopper""",0/0,5.0,1267142400,High School Assignment,"I needed to purchase 3 books at one time for my daughters high school assignment, I was given a ""short"" notice. I was able to locate all three books quickly and easily. The price of each of the 3 books were reasonable giving me a wide selection(s) to choose from. I received all 3 books quickly and in excellent condition." +1036,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1FD9PCK528NR1,Storyteller,1/1,5.0,1208044800,Expect Great Things,"I agonized through this book in HS and have recently breezed through it. About 30 years have passed in between.What I was most struck by in my second reading was how relevant the story was to our own times. Child abuse and emotionally damaging relationships, celebrity lawyers, prison reform, the dangers of easy credit, how easily a person can dispose of their past identity. Dickens wrote about this 140+ years ago but he could have been writing about the present day. Yes, a reader has to warm up to the 19th century language, but once that happens, the characters and their emotions are so authentic and fully developed. I found myself so annoyed at Pip in the middle of the novel, I almost put it down. How could I possibly care about such an obnoxious young man. But I did care and cared more and more deeply as the book wound down. Pip's transformation was convincing because the reader sees how it occurs in small increments. In the end I took a deep breath and thought to myself, well, Pip, you finally grew up. It may not be the best book to force teenagers to read, but I hope mature readers will take it up and find the treasures inside." +1037,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AVC94DRR6L3UO,"Dr. H. C. Vogler ""Dr. h.c. Vogler""",1/1,5.0,1232668800,nice copy,"This seems to be a very nice copy of the book, it is easy to read in its big font and looks nice aswell. :)" +1038,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A3B1OFWRIM9TVD,ManaStone,3/10,3.0,975801600,funny,"I didn't actually read the book, but I saw the South Park version of it. It starts out as Pip is about to go to the graveyard to see his parents but meets an escaped convict. Pip free's him and then goes home. His brother in law ,I think it is, makes a metal newspaper and finds a job for pip entertaining this old women. This old women tries to get pip to like her daughter so she can break his heart and get his tears to get the Genesis device to work. At the end pip, the brother in law, and the convict fight the old womens robot monkeys and kills the old women." +1039,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A10VOQM712TOYP,flpcn,1/1,5.0,1341705600,Great!,It is one the novels I love most. I love it very much! Wish Amzaon provide frequently this kind of excellent novels by free. +1040,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2Z4BQQPWR9H29,Sara Stanch,0/0,4.0,987552000,One High School Student's Review,"This novel is excellent. Although it starts out slowly, it begins to pick up in the middle. After giving many details about the main character Pip's family, Dickens gets into a little action. For example, the meeting with the convict in the churchyard is where the action starts to pick up. Seeing Pip grow up, I watched him go through a transformation. Once an unitellegent child, he grew up to be an intelligent young man. The book deals with child abuse, social status, and family and friendships. I saw how a sister took in her little brother to raise him and keep him from dying like the rest of their family. Love is another thing that continually comes up. When he was young, Pip fell in love with Estella and I saw how she tortured and teased him. This would be a great choice for those who love great classics." +1041,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AXPATWM9YL2PL,"John Smith ""Robert""",0/0,5.0,1325980800,Great Story,"This book failed to capture my attention in school, but having read the first chapter more recently I was immediately hooked and couldn't recommend a greater classical read with a style that is still relevant to today's reader." +1042,158726398X,Great Expectations,,ADHUBDNBY9MLQ,"R. G. Guentner ""Bro Gee""",0/0,5.0,1358035200,Great Expectations,"Nice story, interesting characters, language is a little old fashion, but all and all a good read. Author shows great promise.." +1043,158726398X,Great Expectations,,ARUDSK3SWRSB6,Libby,0/0,4.0,1346889600,Beyond my expectations!,Our book group decided to read a book by Charles Dickens in this the bicentenary of his birth. I had read some books by Dickens when at school and found them rather dry so chose Great Expectations because it was one I hadn't previously read. To my surprise I really enjoyed it especially the language used and the unusual characters. +1044,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A3MDLKLJQ1JEN6,"""marc83""",0/1,2.0,968976000,Not as great as I was expecting,"I was assigned to read for my honours English class and I have never read a more stupendesely boring book.It's a revered book but it lacks everything that makes a book truly great.It's poorly written,uninteresting,the characters are unlikable,there is very little theme or characterization,the plot is virtually non-existent.The chapters are so meandering and pointless you have to force yourself to read it.English students shouldn't have to suffer by being made read this incomprehensible,boring, overrated 'novel'.I'd rather watch paint dry than read this book again.Still,any insomniacs looking for a cure,this book's for you." +1045,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,1/9,1.0,948758400,Hard to read,The book was long boring and hard to understand +1046,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A3TYLT1P5J586Y,Misha,1/1,4.0,1295740800,Dickens never disappoints!,"`Great Expectations' is one of my favourite Charles Dickens', second only to A Tale of Two Cities. Those who are not habituated to his style of writing may find it a bit difficult, but eventually that hurdle too would be overcome and the reader can enjoy the work of one of the finest authors of all time to its fullest.Phillip Pirrip was an orphan living with his dominating elder sister with no great ambition for the future, other than to become a blacksmith like his brother-in-law, Joe Gargery. But that was before he inherited a large amount of money from a mysterious benefactor. Now, leaving behind his shallow ambitions and old acquaintances, Pip follows his dream of becoming a `gentleman'. Then maybe the beautiful but cold-hearted, Estella, the ward of the eccentric Miss Havisham, would accept his love for her. But will the unsolved mysteries of his past hinder him from fulfilling his `Great Expectations'?Though Great Expectations first appeared in Dickens' weekly magazine, All the Year Round, more than a century back the story and the characters of the book still live on. Like all other books by Charles Dickens `Great Expectations' too, does not just tell a story but also gives a message to its readers. Pip after coming into his inheritance starts ignoring his old friends because he feels that they are inferior to him, little realizing that they were the ones who loved and cared for him when he had no money. This situation is not something unique or something that can be related to only by the people of that time. This happens with almost every one of us. Once we achieve our goals we conveniently forget about those who helped us reach that goal. The way Dickens' has woven this message in his unforgettable story makes the book all the more beautiful. One thing I liked about this book is how all the seemingly unconnected characters seemed to fit together like the missing piece of a jigsaw puzzle by the end. What makes this book truly unforgettable is its characters. Every character of the book has an eccentric side to them. The only character that I think is ""normal"" is Pip and I did not find him interesting at all (I like eccentric characters. Am I weird?). Maybe that's how the author wanted it to be. Though the book has only a few female leads, they are the ones who steal the limelight. The eccentric Miss Havisham who sits in a room with a rotting wedding cake, wearing her wedding dress seemed more alluring to me than any of the other characters. It was her eccentricity that truly attracted me to her. If she had been some old, moody spinster, I would not have liked her half as much.Though I have repeated the point more than once, but `Great Expectations' is truly an unforgettable book. Combined with prolific writing and memorable characters, this book is something which should be read at least once by all.Favourite Quotes:""Suffering has been stronger than all other teaching, and has taught me to understand what your heart used to be. I have been bent and broken, but - I hope - into a better shape""""Heaven knows we need never be ashamed of our tears, for they are rain upon the blinding dust of earth, overlying our hard hearts. I was better after I had cried, than before--more sorry, more aware of my own ingratitude, more gentle""""There either is or is not, that's the way things are. The colour of the day. The way it felt to be a child. The saltwater on your sunburnt legs. Sometimes the water is yellow, sometimes it's red. But what colour it may be in memory, depends on the day. I'm not going to tell you the story the way it happened. I'm going to tell it the way I remember it.""Overall:Beautiful and one of its kindRecommended?Yes, to everyone. This book should be read by all at least once because I belive, every person will find their own little meaning from this book." +1047,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A27DVNFGWQT0AX,Cadfael,0/0,5.0,1348099200,Great read!,This classic book is a wonderful and engaging read. I loved every part of it and had difficulty putting this book down! Everyone should own this classic novel. +1048,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2NL2V53F8Q20,"Ms. S. Mubvakure ""Sarudzai Mubvakure""",1/1,5.0,1205107200,Marvellous,"This is an incredible masterpiece of storytelling. Charles Dickens is witty and intelligent. He creates characters that you are able to warm to and he is able to sculpt a brilliant plot. Without putting in any spoilers i will let you know that the main character PiP, definitely got what he expected ! and he learnt something in the process - that character is far more valuable than status - even the status of being a gentleman !!""" +1049,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2EAXVBRMN36SE,Sir Michael,2/2,4.0,1152921600,Phenomenal,"Dickens's Great Expectations is a novel of exceeding quality with, perhaps, only a few minor flaws that fail to significantly detract from the overall greatness of the work. Were I able to, I would give the book four and a half stars, rather than the four I've assigned it. As other reviewers have already amply commented on the book's numerous merits, I should like only to point out , what I thought to be, its foremost shortcoming. Although intentional by Dickens, I found my extreme dislike of Pip for much of the book to be a nuisance, chiefly because, as narrator, Pip set the tone of the narrative. It can be difficult not to equate the loathing of the narrator with the book itself. Luckily enough this was not a particularly prominent failing, and did not heavily tax me. Besides this, I found the book to be splendid, particularly during the bits concerning Joe and Mr. Wemmick, who were, at times, heartwarming and emotionally evocative to an extreme degree. In short, Great Expectations is one of Dickens's greats, with only minor, easily overlooked flaws." +1050,158726398X,Great Expectations,,ALE50GOMNWNZ0,Bob Marley,1/11,1.0,983836800,It ...,"I can't understand how anyone can stand to read this dribble. A "Book" consisting of 50 pages of people standing around talking reads more like a court transcript than a "great novel." If you own this book, burn it." +1051,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AN6K3RMBSKQAT,Reader,0/0,5.0,1099785600,Brilliant Classic,"I respect the point of view of the reader who said that he/she can't add much to the opinion of countless generations who read this classic for the past 150 years. Classics last this long because they're masterpieces, and hence this work deserves five stars.The only thing to add in my point of view, is that I won't be surprised to learn that Dickens wrote this story especially for school boys who are really struggling to identify themselves and determine what is really important in life. No wonder this is one of the most required readings in middle school. In other words, adults won't find in it a mature story like the one in Steinbeck's East of Eden, or the taboo-sex theme of Nabokov's Lolita. This is about a young boy who goes on a long journey and ends up finding himself and realizing what really gives him happiness in life.As for the ending, there are two endings; published and unpublished, and I like the published more. Don't read further for I will give the ending away, unless you've read it already, but in the last paragraph Pip says that the mist of the evening when he held hands with Estella reminds him with the morning mist when he left the forge. The way I see it is that Estella will go through the same journey that Pip went through when he left the forge and went to London, the journey that was initiated by Estella's father and that helped Pip to be a better man. Now Estella will go through a journey initiated and guided by Pip in order to make Estella a better woman. Magwitch hurt Pip in the beginning but Pip helped him so Magwitch gave him all his money. The money was gone but was left was more important than money: The journey and experience that made Pip a better man. Estella was mean to Pip, but Pip loved her, and destiny put them both on a crossroads at the end of the novel, but because Pip loves Estella and because she is Magwitch's daughter, Pip decided to walk with her in a journey that will make her a better woman.Magwitch and Estella, father and daughter, never met. But there was a link between them; Pip, who became a better man because of the father, and who will now pay him back by making his daughter a better woman. Great Expectations is about the magical and ironic links between people, and how the person who you think hurt you the most may end up to be the person who helped you the most. The fact that an evil man is not as evil as he seems, and a pure man is not as pure as he seems.And these are just few of the many other themes in this classic. So the bottom line is, this novel may be more meaningful to the middle school son than to the forty something father. Read it early before you get older!" +1052,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2W4FO4KKFFWU7,Tyler,4/7,5.0,1140480000,"Great book, man. Dickens was a genius.","Dudes. You gotta read this book. It's totally awesome.Charles described the people and places so well, it's like its real and your there with everybody.Pip and Estella's love story might be the greatest love story in history. Greater than Rhett and Scarlet. Greater than Romeo and Juliet. Greater than Spiderman and Mary Jane. Yes, it's that good.Sure, there are plenty of movies, but none do it justice. Its like the Scarlet Letter. You've gotta read it." +1053,158726398X,Great Expectations,,APXJ6URPBN4JL,"JAJAJA ""jajaja""",0/10,5.0,1111363200,Great Book,"What a great book!!! Just kidding. If u read this, u r crazy. THis book is boring, has no plot, bad language, no descriptions, and Pip is very bored. Of course, he has fun wit Joe when Mrs. Joe uses Tickler on him and they have lots of memories together. That was the best paryt." +1054,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A36IPENNRGXI51,Tich,1/1,5.0,1330819200,A must read,I didn't enjoy this book in high school back in 2000. I am re-reading this book again after 12 years.What an amazing gift we have inherited from Charles Dickens. I am enjoying revisiting the Victorian society again. +1055,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2O1FLF439GX3P,E. Johnson,3/3,4.0,967852800,Slow but certainly worth a read,"Having seen the many reviews written by students, I must say that I would agree. In fact, they sounded like they could have almost been my students from the past. Overall, GE is well liked, but the major complaint most have is that the story line is too slow-developing. I think this is a fair assessment. Of course, this was the style chosen by Dickens since this book was compiled from serial form. How many people would claim that we ought to take a week's worth of a soap opera program and turn it into a movie? I doubt such a production would attract much attention. In the same way, a serial writer's objective was to build mini-climaxes throughout the book, twisting and turning to get the audience to scream with anticipation, so that the next segment would sell. From what I understand, Americans could hardly wait for the shipments to get off the ships. They would purchase the newest segment and immediately dig in!If you are a teacher, I highly recommend showing the 4-hour movie starring Anthony Hopkins (produced in the late 1980s, I believe). It is the best and most accurate of all the GE movies. This works really well in conjunction with the book, and it truly helps in the interest level for those students who are not as motivated as "the readers." So go ahead and find out about the adventures of squeezable Pip, lovable Joe, the mysterious Miss Havisham, sweet Biddy, snooty Estella, and of course the mysterious Magwitch. I think you will be as surprised as I was when I first read it. (I've read an abridged version four or five times!)" +1056,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2VEV9P31LBRJQ,Bill Walls,0/0,5.0,1355270400,Second Time Around,"If you hated this book in high school (like I did), give it another try. Loved it this time (35 years later). I Read it on my Kindle." +1057,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1X751ST6QV8XR,Marlene Boudreaux,0/0,5.0,1359072000,A Tale of Romance and Tragedy,This was a tale of intrigue in that the twisting intermingling of characters gave forth to romance and human tragedy. +1058,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/0,4.0,942105600,This is a very good book. I would recomend it,This book shows alot of character and keeps you wondering what this little boy is going to go through next. charles dickens is a wonderful writer. This book should be made mandantory for all students to read while they are still in high school. +1059,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/0,5.0,931996800,Great Expectations should be required reading.,"Great Expectations is a magnificent metaphor of humanity vs. life. It is the story of what each of us would probably do if placed in the situations Pip deals with. There are love, friendship, and warmth, which are nearly destroyed by obsession, discontent, and the desire to keep up appearances during the course of this powerful novel. These seemingly necessary emotions and acts of something near betrayal are finally exposed as cheap and worthless when the hero's true benefactor is known in the end. Pip, the main character, is something like all of us, and the people he encounters are very likely to be similar to those we encouter in our own lives." +1060,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,2/12,1.0,994032000,Overrated Book,Charles Dickens and this book are very overrated. Charles Dickens does not make anysense in this book. Very confusing. The talks about the same subject forever. I skipped a whole chapter and he was still talking about the same thing. I give this book a minus 200 on a scale from 1-5. +1061,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1DODXXNG3ZXK5,humblegraeme,0/1,2.0,1339804800,Let down,I am no english literature purist by any stretch of the imagination but I did have high hopes for this book.The characters are realistic to the period but the story is very slow. The first half of the book is little better than boring. It picks up through the second half but finishes rather disappointingly.This book was purchased after a book club suggested it was Dickens' greatest work. Having read David Copperfield a number of years ago I would have to disagree.I am glad I read the book even if the only thing I got out of it was to be able to relate to it when others are discussing it. +1062,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,3/4,5.0,945043200,Very amusing comments on one of the all-time champs,"It's rather amusing to read some of the comments -- obviously written by people (i.e. teenagers) forced to read it for sophomore English class. Hating "Great Expectations" is kind of like hating Beethoven, Shakespeare, or Monet: O.K., it's not your taste, but it's really a waste of time to say "IT SUCKED."Dickens's novel is one of the all-time champs. Unforgettable characters, beautiful writing, and a depth of understanding of human nature rarely equaled in English or American fiction. As they say in theory class, it works on many different levels. If you hated "G.E.," well, then, you probably wandered into the Literature aisle by mistake. You probably also don't like "Wuthering Heights," "Jane Eyre," "David Copperfield," or anything by Hardy or Austen, if you've bothered.Otherwise, if you love literature and haven't read "Great Expectations," consider your education incomplete." +1063,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1ACG5CNVT61PO,Julio Espiritu,1/11,3.0,975974400,A Waste of Time,Great Expectations by Charles DickensOne of the most popular books ever written by Charles Dickens was Great Expectations. It is considered to be his greatest work to many critics. I read the book and found that it was probably the most boring book I had ever read in my life. Overall the book had a pretty well thought out plot. To me though the book was a classic and masterpiece only when it was first became published. People now in the present are not very easily satisfied with a book with a good plot and are well written. People now are just more interested in books that have a lot of twists and turns in the story. They want be able not know what is going to happen next in the story. The book Great Expectations even though it was such a boring book it did have some very interesting parts. Also the book was overall well written by the author. One strength that the book had was the fact it had such interesting characters. The author had well character development throughout the book. All the characters in the book were described that you tell each character apart because of their personality or physical appearance. The main character Philip Pirrip also nicknamed Pip was very well described as a character. The author told everything possible about Pip so throughout the book you saw the main character grow into man and also grow as person in general. When Pip when through something you almost felt like it was you in the book. Also another strength in the book was the great setting descriptions. It was so good because when you were reading the book you could actually picture the setting in your head. The book had very little strengths because I was forcing myself to actually read it. If it had actually been actually interesting I would have finish the book in one day instead of a three weeks. The only reason that I actually read was the fact I knew had to do a report on it. The book had many faults for a classic book. The main weakness of the book was the chapters that were pointless and just there to take up space. The book seemed was written to just tell a story of boy without any really interesting parts. I was somewhat disappointed in the fact that the book was considered a classic book because a classic book to me is book that can interest anyone and any age. The book had great plot and well-written characters but I thought that the book could have been shorter. It could have been shorter and would still have the same impact on a reader. The reader will eventually find out that the book Great Expectations is just a book to read when you have nothing else to read. Think this book just wasted my time. I hated every minute that I spent reading this book. In scale of one through to ten I would give it a four. The book is fairly good but the book is simply too long to tell a simple and boring story of a boy named Pip. I wouldn't recommend this book because I think that the reader will be truly bored. Probably the main target audience of this book was of young adult. The book is good for that age range because of the somewhat difficult and confusing vocabulary. The book Great Expectations is just a book to be read when there are no more books to read. +1064,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/0,5.0,933292800,Interesting,"Well i'm 14 and i think this is a great novel, that i was intially forced to read for an english project....The characters were complex, but dickens did an exceptional job of describing the life of the main characters and their lives in 19th century england.and it's pathetic to see so many people my ages who 'don't understand'...why because it's 'sooooo boring'..gimme a break..it's a novel!! what did u expect? the matrix?please don't think all teens sit around the TV all day and don't care about good literature or don't bother to understand." +1065,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A26QQ25ME462ZH,Dr. Janet C. Herrmann,0/0,5.0,1358553600,A must have,A great classic. I just 'have to have it ' on the Kindle Fire . Like a familiar leather shoe! +1066,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/0,2.0,933379200,It was better than i remeber...,"I was forced to read this in school and despised it with a passion. I read it again recently, for some reason, and was surprised at how much I liked it. I guess the reason I didn't like the first time was because I was forced to read it; it's that 'Peace forced is tyranny' mentality." +1067,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1Y0CZ902HQG4A,amaksoud,0/0,5.0,1360195200,This is an abridged VERSION,"I just recieved it and this is an unabridged version, it depends on the seller your buying it from because some sellers sell abridged versions so watch out and choose wisely. But my copy was an unabridged copy, I've heard my friends said it was abridged, but this is unabridged so be assured. I bought it and this is a satisfactory copy and remember DEPENDS ON YOUR SELLER, their are abridged copies of this type so watch out but my copy was unabridged." +1068,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A3EN6SZ2M1Y7IG,Laurie S. Lechlitner,0/0,5.0,1345852800,Great Expectations Granted,"This book is classic Dickens. It's a winner. It lives up to my expectations. Anyone who loves Dickens will enjoy this book. Again we see a young person growing up on the ""wrong side of the tracks"" become a hero in his own right. Pip learns many things in his journey and comes to terms with the folks who shaped his understanding, even though they are simple folk." +1069,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A20JKM3HKVAE96,J. E. Tipre,0/0,5.0,1123804800,Great Expectations,One of the great novels in the English language. It would be presumptuous of me to add more. Most readers would benefit from reading this book. My first time was forty years ago. Great novels should be spaced out in one's life and reread at specific junctures. +1070,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AXQCTOZ2LS12J,LightRailReader,3/3,5.0,1133827200,Moral redemption story that is surprisingly contemporary,"As young men and women, at some we must make the choice to stay in the community and be a humble fish in a little pond or strike out on our own in the big city.There are many ways to do this and Pip, the main character, does it scornfully although he does not know it at the time. Like so many people, he is lured by the bright lights, ""sophisticated"" culture and big money of the big city. He has no problem leaving behind a simple world where he is cared for via an unknown benefactor for an unknown reason. He guesses at whom the benefactor might be and what their intent is, but he gets it all wrong. He falls from the path of moral righteousness and has no idea what his life really means. Dickens masterfully crafts together this story. I think that Joe represented good Pip and Orlick was the alter ego. Additionally, I was kicking myself for not seeing a couple of plot twists, but I was so engrossed that I didn't see them coming. I hope the same thing happens to you.I wonder if F.S. Fitzgerald was influenced by Dickens because there is a fantasy like worship of the rich, followed by a downward spiraling degradation. Although F.S.F writes about the rich with outright contempt, Dickens neutrally accepts them more as a vehicle for the story.Anyway, I highly recommend this book." +1071,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A23D3XTBXA63RW,Avid Reader,2/2,5.0,1143331200,A spectacular reading,"Michael Page gives a wonderful performance that brings ""Great Expectations"" to life. I have a minor complaint regarding the editing of the CD -- several of the chapters had the last word or two of narration cut off.Note that this is a MP3 CD which cannot be used in standard audio CD players." +1072,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AVW63MOA2GZPM,Greg,0/0,5.0,1340064000,Great Expectations,"Service was great and received the books quickly. My duaghter is reading this book for school and the price is better than other websites. Print is a bit crowded on the page, but you can't beat the deal. Would definitely purchase from this seller again." +1073,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/0,5.0,914544000,Gripping!!!,"From start to finish, awesome. From the moment I opened it, until I finished, I was entranced. Read it in one sitting. Without a doubt, my favorite book of all time." +1074,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/0,5.0,896745600,Couldn't put down this book!,"This is definitely one book that I'll read again and again throughout my life. If I had to pick a favorite character, it would probably be Estelle because even though she was cold and distant and VERY conceited, she still had a heart of gold. It was lonely Miss Havisham who made Estelle the cold-hearted person that she was. I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in reading about interesting characters that continue to develop throughout the story." +1075,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,3/14,1.0,1036022400,Worst book ever,"this has got to be the worst book i have ever read. first off, for me, the storyline shure cured my insomnia. you will get bored from the first paragraph. his sentences are difficult to understand and very lengthy. my sugestion, borrow from the library before you consider buying this book." +1076,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2KDGQ0Q5LIWZA,"Akida Shephard ""ATL Mom""",0/0,5.0,1305072000,Best novel I've ever taught!,"I am a high school English teacher who has taught 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th grade English. Of all the novels I've ever taught my students these 12 years I've been in Education, this novel, Great Expectations, by Charles Dickens, is by far the best! It is easy to read and understand, and it holds students' attention until the very end. The plot is like a roller coaster and all the characters seem to be connected in some way. The end of each chapter leaves the reader in suspense and anxious to continue reading. Although the setting of the novel takes place in 19th century England, the novel's themes and the characters' experiences seem to relate to all social classes, races, and both genders. Even my students at an inner-city high school in Atlanta rush home to read ahead to find out what will happen to Pip next!" +1077,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2VZAIPH9D4TGI,Joseph Perry,0/0,4.0,1307577600,A Must Read,The setting is good. The beginning of the book was dry and hard to get through. However once the first quarter of the work is finished the story just takes you along with it. The plot is interesting but the spin at the end is terrific. A must read... +1078,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,1/1,4.0,963446400,A GREAT READ,"Like many of the people who have rated this book, I am reading it for school (over the summer, doesn't that bite?). Anyways, I found this to be a great book. The storyline is fascinating and unpredictible, and the characters are marvously developed. The reason I gave the book only 4 stars, though, is because it is such a long read." +1079,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1IAPN5BNNIPGQ,steph,3/12,1.0,1298073600,this page is unhelpful,"This page tells me next to nothing about this product. When I try to find out anything at all about this audio version, I can't. I can't see the back of the package, which would tell me something, because when I click ""see the back cover,"" it gives me the Norton Critical version, which is NOT this product. The reviews also are of the paperback version, NOT this product. Please provide adequate product information. Who is the reader? Is there just one reader, or a cast? What else have the reader(s) done in their careers? Is this their first professional job? How is the audio quality? Etc." +1080,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2ANXCMA3VGKCE,Vinz,0/0,5.0,1323216000,Amazing Read,I read this book when I was a kid and I still remember Pip and Estella. Amazing depiction of characters that stick with you and linger even after finishing. +1081,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/1,5.0,903916800,A deliciously piece of work for all time.,I too have been out of school for some time. I decided explore the classics. Mr. Dickens has such a command of the English language so much so that I could not put it down. He expatiated very well throughout the entire pages of the book. I did not read it without my dictionary; which is the reason I read it to expand my vocabulary. After reading this book television became very boring to me. My favorite is Joe Gargery and John Wemmick. Joe because of his stick-to-itiveness. He is the same no matter what. The latter because of his ability to separate work with Jaggers from home. He enjoys life to the max and loves his father so. Pip is also to be appreciated for he does see what is most important in life and the value of love is what is important. After reading this book I have embarked on two others: Much Ado About Nothing (which I have thorougly enjoy) and Silas Marner which is great also. I hope everyone can find the enjoyment of reading for pleasure and learning as I have. Happy reading +1082,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A39AKV9IAL1REW,Robdad,0/0,5.0,1357948800,Another Dickens masterpiece!,My objective is to read as many of the classic books as possible. I found this book to be very hard to put down and kept me wondering what was going to happen next. +1083,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A3MNV2UOUTCY5H,"Lorilyn Roberts ""writing to inspire""",1/1,5.0,1267401600,Redemptive Themes are Always Among my Favorites in Books,"Pip, the main character in Charles Dickens's Great Expectations, writes the story in first person as a middle aged man looking back on his life. Pip's parents die when he is young making him an orphan. Pip is ""brought up by hand"" by his sister, who treats him with scorn. His sister's lack of love, however, is tempered by her husband Joe, a blacksmith. Joe is a simple, uneducated man and Pip's only ""friend"" during childhood. Pip commiserates with Joe about his sister's verbal thrashings, trying to make the best of his unhappy upbringing.Early in the story, Pip has an encounter with a convict in the cemetery among the marshes near his home. Unbeknownst to him, this man would be the source for his ""Great Expectations"" later in life.One day Pip is invited to the home of Ms. Havisham. Ms. Havisham is a single, eccentric, old woman who stopped living in the real world many years earlier when she was spurned by her lover on her wedding day.Ms. Havisham has adopted the beautiful Estella, and from the moment Pip meets her, he is infatuated with her beauty. Estella represents wealth, education, success, and opportunity--things Pip values but thinks he will never have.Dissatisfaction within himself grows as he wants to be more in life than a partner with Joe in the forge. Pip becomes unhappy not only with himself, but also with Joe, who represents what he does not want to be--uneducated and simple. Failing to appreciate Joe's moral character, Pip's world view begins to change as he sees education as something to be attained--the sure way out of his wretched life and the means by which he could woo the object of his unmerited affections, Estella.Pip's life changes dramatically when he is visited by a well respected and fiercely admired lawyer, Mr. Jaggers, who brings him an unusual message. Mr. Jaggers tells Pip he is to receive ""Great Expectations,"" but the benefactor is to remain anonymous until and only if they choose to reveal their identity. Pip mistakenly assumes the benefactor is Ms. Havisham, and the manipulating, self serving woman does nothing to dissuade him from his incorrect assumptions.The story takes Pip to London where he lives a life of excess and discards many virtues from his childhood. He no longer wants anything to do with Joe and believes his future course has been immutably set--that he is to marry the beautiful Estella. He shares his indulgences with his new friend, Herbert, whose acquaintance he had made years earlier at Ms. Havisham's place. The two of them rack up excessive debt as Pip sees himself as ""a man in waiting"" for all his fortunes to come to pass.Things are not what they seem, however. It is eventually revealed that the benefactor is not Ms. Havisham but the convict, Mr. Magwitch, whom Pip had met in the cemetery many years earlier when he was a young, impressionable boy.Pip is confronted face to face with the despised convict, hounded by the remembrances of him torturing him in the cemetery, dreams that lingered, causing him much consternation. But now he has to accept the undeniable truth that his turn of fortune is not because of Ms. Havisham's provision, but the despicable convict's desire to make him a gentleman. The convict wants his life to be redeemed for something good and chooses Pip to be that vehicle.Through a series of events, Pip acknowledges the inexcusable way he has treated Joe and wants to make amends. Before he can accomplish this, however, other happenings complicate his life. The convict, now in England, needs Pip's protection. Pip must make a way for Magwitch to leave England without being discovered.While Pip hides him with a trusted friend, Pip comes to realize that the convict he had earlier despised has more redemptive qualities than Pip has within himself. As he makes provision for the convict's escape, Pip sees Magwitch change for the better, and in so doing, Pip also changes. Instead of hating the convict, Pip grows to love him. The self centeredness of Pip's indulgences is replaced with care, not only for the convict, but in growing degrees, for others.In the process of trying to escape, the convict is attacked by his long-time archrival and enemy. As a result, Magwitch is severely injured, discovered by the authorities, put on trial and convicted, but dies from his injuries before his death sentence can be carried out. Magwitch's estate is turned over to the authorities to make restitution for past wrongs. Pip is left penniless and obligingly accepts that his Great Expectations and source of income have dissipated into nothing. Meanwhile, Estella marries someone else--a man whom Pip despises.A few years earlier, Pip had secretly made arrangements for his friend Herbert to have a small expectation out of his ""Great Expectations,"" amounting to a sizable sum of money. When it becomes known to Pip that he will lose his ""Great Expectations"" to the authorities, his only thought is for his friend. Pip returns to visit Ms. Havisham and requests, in a show of repentance for the wrongs she had done to him, a sum of money that Pip could again secretly provide to Herbert.Herbert wisely uses this money to successfully buy into a business venture. He later marries and moves overseas in his business pursuits--none of which would have been possible without Pip's anonymous provision to Herbert.Pip credits this as the only redeeming thing he has accomplished, reflecting on all the other things he did or didn't do that could have been used for good.Pip falls ill following the death of his convict friend, Magwitch, and Joe comes to England to care for him until he is well. Joe surreptitiously leaves early one morning when Pip is sufficiently recovered, and when Pip wakes up, he discovers Joe has paid off all his creditors. Pip immediately returns home in penitence to confess to Joe all his past wrongs, realizing that Joe is a better man than he. He recognizes in his now humble state that his ""Great Expectations"" deceived him into using it as a source of pride against Joe.Upon arriving home, Pip's expectations are not what he envisioned. His sister who raised him by hand has long since died as a result of an attack on her by the evil Orlick. His childhood friend and confidant, Biddy, has just married Joe. In the end, redemption works its way for good. Joe and Biddy are happily married and the sore memories of Pip's sister are forgotten.Pip returns to London and within a month, leaves England and joins Herbert's firm, Clarriker and Company, overseas. Pip lives abroad with Herbert and his wife, and after successfully making partner, eleven years later, returns to his boyhood home in England. He discovers Joe and Biddy now have a son who reminds him of himself.Before bidding Joe and Biddy a final farewell, Pip makes one last trip to the Havisham place, the old woman having died many years earlier. Pip discovers Estella in the garden, a chance meeting since she no longer lives there. The old house and brewery have been torn down and sold off except for the garden enclosed by the ivy covered wall.Years of a stormy, failed marriage have softened Estella's vindictive, prideful nature, and she confesses that ""suffering has been stronger than all other teaching and has taught me to understand what your heart used to be.""The reader is left to ponder whether Pip and Estella ever marry because Pip says, ""I saw no parting from her.""In the end, Pip learns much about what matters--wisdom he would not have possessed if he had stayed working at Joe's forge. As a middle aged narrator looking back, there is sadness but sweetness about what he has lost because of what he has gained. Perhaps the reader is the real winner, having seen redemption on so many levels within each character. In the end, if we are honest, we can identify these shortcomings in ourselves. If Pip can work out his ""Great Expectations"" to bring redemption, perhaps we can, also--that is, again, if we are honest. Our sinful nature will always be there, but if we look for good, God will not disappoint us. Maybe ""Great Expectations"" will not only find us, but redemption will be there, too, just as it was in Pip." +1084,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2Q40T4N4500EE,John Casey,0/0,5.0,1361059200,dickens,very pleased with this product that is nearly new and was shipped promptly and was was well packed so thanks +1085,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A3R1E4K7B6RUHP,Michele,0/0,5.0,1360454400,One of Dickens' finest,"Great Expectations is widely regarded as one of Charles Dickens' finest works and I have to agree; it is one of my favorites, second to A Tale of Two Cities. The story of a young boy's growth to manhood, and his rise to unexpected prosperity and subsequent fall, is strongly written and captivating. Great Expectations captures the attention from the first page and, unlike some of Dickens' other works, it never has a dull moment. Like all of Dickens' works, it is peopled with a large cast of unique and quirky characters whose relationships to each other, as the story unfolds, end up being as intertwined as a plate of spaghetti. Some of the scenes and characters in Great Expectations are downright bizarre; the scenes involving Miss Havisham and the Pocket family felt distinctly Alice in Wonderland-ish in their weirdness.What makes Great Expectations so strong is the main character, Pip. He is that rarity among Dickens' characters, one that has depth and more than one dimension and mood. He tells his own story and, as an adult reflecting back on his own childhood and adolescence, he reveals his own youthful selfishness with a poignancy that surely every listener can connect with. Haven't we all been Pip, selfish and unappreciative of the goodness of others and unworthy of their admiration?I did not listen to this particular audio edition, although I know that Brilliance Audio produces top-notch audio books and Michael Page is an excellent narrator. I highly recommend the edition I listened to, produced by BBC Audio. It is a no-frills production, but the narrator (Martin Jarvis) is outstanding. He truly has a gift for voices (I especially loved his rendition of The Aged), and adds color and personality to the story." +1086,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A6W3D62IF8WON,Cmc123,0/0,5.0,1360281600,Excellent Quality,When I ordered this book it was my absolute first time ordering anything from Amazon! I was a little hesitant on whether to get it or not. But I went for it! The price of the book definitely convinced me. When I got the package I was satisfied with the product! I would recommend it to anyone! +1087,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A3QVAKVRAH657N,"Orrin C. Judd ""brothersjudddotcom""",7/8,5.0,970790400,interesting contrast with David Copperfield,"When his magazine, All the Year Round, began failing due to an unpopular serial, Dickens was forced to begin publishing installments of a story of his own. The resulting work, Great Expectations, was published weekly from December 1, 1860 to August 3, 1861. This was his second semi-autobiographical work, but where David Copperfield was a confident expression of faith in middle class values, Great Expectations offers a bleaker view of whether those values will lead to happiness. In fact, Dickens own marriage had just come to an end after many unhappy years. Indeed he had recently changed the name of the magazine from the more bucolic Household Words. Despite, or because, of this ambivalence, Great Expectations became one of his greatest achievements.Pip, a boy of the marshes, is being "raised by hand" by his shrieking harridan of an older sister and her seemingly doltish husband, the blacksmith Joe Gargery. One day, while visiting his parents' gravesite, Pip is accosted by an escaped convict who demands that he bring him a file and some "wittles". When the convict, Abel Magwitch, is later captured, he accepts the blame for stealing the file and food before being carted back to prison.Shortly thereafter, Pip is invited up to Miss Havisham's manor house to play with her beautiful ward Estella. Miss Havisham's life came to a halt when she was jilted at the altar, all clocks are stopped at the hour of her betrayal, the feast lies rotting on tables & she wanders about in the decaying wedding gown. Estella is to be the instrument of her revenge upon men.Eventually, "Great Expectations" are settled upon Pip when a secret benefactor sets up a trust in his name and sends him to London to be educated and become a gentleman. Pip assumes, and Havisham allows him to believe, that she is his benefactress and that he is being elevated to a position that will make him worthy of Estella.As Pip rises in society, he leaves Joe behind, despite the many kindnesses Joe had shown him growing up. He becomes a shallow arrogant middle class climber. So he is stunned when he discovers that he is actually benefiting from the secret wealth of Magwitch, who made a fortune in Australia after being transported. Moreover, Magwitch's unlawful return to England puts him and Pip in danger. Meanwhile, Estella has married another, a horrible man who Pip despises. Eventually, with Magwitch's recapture and death in prison and with his fortune gone, Pip ends up in debtors prison, but Joe redeems his debts and brings him home. Pip realizes that Magwitch was a more devoted friend to him than he ever was to Joe and with this realization Pip becomes, finally, a whole and decent human being.Originally, Dickens wrote a conclusion that made it clear that Pip and Estella will never be together, that Estella is finally too devoid of heart to love. But at the urging of others, he changed the ending and left it more open ended, with the possibility that Estella too has learned and grown from her experiences and her wretched marriages.This is the work of a mature novelist at the height of his powers. It has everything you could ask for in a novel: central characters who actually change and grow over the course of the story, becoming better people in the end; a plot laden with mystery and irony; amusing secondary characters; you name it, it's in here. I would rank it with A Tale of Two Cities, Oliver Twist and David Copperfield among the very best novels of the worlds greatest novelist.GRADE: A+" +1088,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A9ISL710BD1N9,pov,0/0,5.0,1283817600,a masterpiece,All that can be expected from great English classic is here. This is arguably the best piece written by Dickens +1089,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,8/9,4.0,950140800,"Interesting book, but a nice challenge","First of all, I too am a student forced to read this book for a Freshman Honors English class, and I fail to see how many people can call this book a waste of time. Sure, I know the language is a bit of a challenge, but that's what a dictionary is for!Anyway, I haven't yet finished the book (I still have a long way to go,) for I'm only on chapter 13, but I had to chime in and counterattack what all of the rest of the whiney students have said. So far, the way Dickens portrays his characters (by means of language, description, and dialogue) seems ultimately realistic (it should be, considering it was written in the 1830's) and there are many things throughout the book one has to come to love: Pip's almighty guilty conscience, the friendship bond between Pip and Joe, etc.I can't sum up everything, for as I've said, I'm not finished yet, but for those of you who are being forced to read it, read it with an open mind. One of the reasons why I understand this book and find it a good read may be due to the fact that our class discusses the book as a whole, AND we have vocab sets weekly to help enrich what we read." +1090,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/0,5.0,861667200,My best reading experience ever.,"This book helped me realize I do not need to read books in a conventional manner to fully enjoy them. I read the book with the aid of books on tape while in the back of my parent's Toyota riding through Holland. The atmosphere of the many hours spent enjoying the book while I would have been sleeping or staring vacantly at the fields still calls me to thank my eighth grade teacher for assigning it to me. Even though I remember groaning at the first sight of the thick novel, I am happy to have known the eccentric nature of the rich old lady, the adventuresome curiousity of young Pip, and most of all the intriguing presence of the girl Pip would be affected by for his whole life" +1091,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1RDFW3HFRF98Z,CJ,0/0,5.0,1356480000,classic,Classic novel i read in middle school. Loved this book so much i traveled to England with it -_- cried when it disappeared in the airport on the way back. So happy i have a copy on my ipad iphone and itouch now! +1092,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A3GL8AFVTGE11V,"V. Hardisty ""Book Lover""",0/0,5.0,1194825600,This was an amazing novel,"Well, i have read all of the previous reviews, and it is apparant that people either love this book or hate this book. I was 15 when i first read this book, and have since read it again and it is probably my favorite book of all time. Yes, it is rather boring at times, and yes, it has a long, involved, and confusing plot, and yes, Charles Dickens gives very tedious descriptions of everything. But the morals and meanings portrayed in this book far outshine the faults. If you cannot find them, then it will most likely be boring and dull. If you can, it will probably become one of your alltime favorites." +1093,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AX28GY1ZYYOXM,Margaret P Harvey,1/1,5.0,982281600,Good Book--- GREAT Edition...,"I really loved this book, but the best part about this particular form of Dickens's classic novel is the section at the end of the book that included Dickens's notes on the characters and plots, an alternate ending, and footnotes about the use of language or phrases that might be confusing to the modern reader. Also, the cover does not press an image of the characters or setting onto you, and allows you to picture your own Pip or Estella. Other editions of this book might not give you so many resources and be so reader-friendly. I am glad that I was forced to read this book, because I would have never read it on my own, or I would have quit after the first book---- which is a little boring, but reveals some very important facts to develop the intricate and complex plot. Isn't it great how everything ties up so nicely in Dickens? Read this book, but make sure never to question the genius of Dickens... putting you halfway to sleep before dropping a bomb and putting a huge plot into action. Stick with it, and you'll be glad you did. But make sure to get this edition of the book, because it is far superior!" +1094,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2A4X8O8CP616H,"A. P. Enders ""Book lover""",0/0,4.0,1197417600,A Pleasure To Read,"Great Expectations is an amazing novel that truly upholds the style of literature found during the Victorian period. Although some parts are the book were less adventuresome in comparison to other sections, the book over all was quite pleasant to read. If you like a little thrill and narratives that grasp your attention and have huge climactic endings, then Great Expectations is for you!" +1095,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A22IX5BJOM056M,Karen Mendez,0/0,5.0,1114041600,A Memorable Experience,"Great Expectations reveals the life of an orphan, Pip, who is alone in a desolate world even though he lives with his sister. Charles Dickens, develops a plot that portrays true life in the 19th century. Pip undergoes several events that reveal the true motives of life, the happiness in true love and the curse of wealth.The audience can easily relate to the overall theme of Great Expectations, the familiarity of the sycophant, ambitous characters enable the reader to apply the concepts to their own life. This novel, in all its intensity is filled with details that make reading enjoyable and very realistic. Personally, I enjoyed this novel very much, its is a great book to read becasue it reminds a person of the immense value of the simple, loving things in life." +1096,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A3JSRMS7FO6EKQ,"C. Brandt ""I gave the propina to Guy.""",2/2,5.0,1189382400,Expectations Met...,"All the standard Dickensian motifs are present in this book: deus ex machinae, factitious coincidences, longueurs, inventive names, an empathy towards children in a world of pompous adults, and sheer expository brilliance.Dickens paints a picture in your mind...you see the country, smell the air, and hear the voices of the characters as if they are actually speaking. This being Dickens, you must allow for some patness in the plot...grant that, and then you can enjoy the genius of his phrases, metaphors, characterizations, and recounting of the absurd.(Wopsle's go at Hamlet in London should have you laughing out loud.)This is an excellent book...a classic." +1097,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A14T66V9KFLKRF,"Worldclassfad ""Blake""",0/0,4.0,1265760000,Wonderful Version...horribly organized,"This audio version is phenomenal...full of lively interpretation all by one narrator. Yet the lack of a chapter guide makes it extremely difficult to use should you be interested in tracking down a particular chapter. Some chapters start in the middle of disks or even in the middle of tracks. My 7th graders love to listen to it, so it has been worth the aggravation of trying to find which chapter is where." +1098,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AH43A9XCZ4YU5,Charles Foster Kane,1/1,5.0,1108425600,Possibly the greatest novel of all time,"Though someone stated you have to be over 21 to appreciate this book (and I am 21 now) I first read this story when I was 14 years old, in 8th grade, and understood (and loved) it right away. Why? As an adolescent struggling with popularity (the modern, teenage equivalent of the English class system) and unrequited love, I immediately identified with Pip. Furthermore, the romantic atmosphere was completely intoxicating, from the vast marshes to the city of London; though the narrator describes it as disappointingly crowded and dirty my sense of the city from this book was much more elevated. I also admit I was helped by the updated Classics Illustrated comic book version of the book, which I peeked at now and then while I was reading Great Expectations--despite my aversion to revealing the ending before I reached it in the text (eventually, I succumbed to my temptations). If you can find this (probably) out-of-print illustrated version of the story--not sure what the status of Classic Illustrated is these days--make sure to buy it. But to return from my digression, the novel is where it's at. Dickens' impeccable imagination creates an vivid sense of place, an unforgettable cast of characters (including the ultimate romantic ideal: Estella), a rich and textured story, and an immortal message of aspiration, disappointment, and dreams. This story really fired my imagination as a teenager, so I encourage those youngsters who may be dissuaded from reading it to pick it up--I'm not guaranteeing you'll like it but if you read it before you're forced to you just may find something valuable in it. As for the rest of you ""grown-ups"" if you haven't read this masterpiece yet, get off yer asses and take a trip to the local library. It'll make your day." +1099,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A3ORZWA7BQYC9E,John,0/0,5.0,1356998400,Excellent classic. Better the second time,"Loved reading this classic again. Enjoyed it as a youth but as an adult, it had a more realistic effect on me." +1100,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AJ1994G0AK900,"Hersh Mehta ""www.hershmehta.com""",0/0,5.0,1244332800,A High Schooler's Prespective on Great Expectations,"Well, I was looking through some of the reviews posted here on amazon just to get an idea of what to write because this is my first review, and saw that a few people said that you need to be an adult to read this book. I kind of understand what they mean because this is a pretty dense novel, as most of Dicken's writing is. However, I don't feel that an individual's determines his maturity as a reader, and so, I dont feel that people should be discouraging teenagers from reading this classic book.Having said that, let me discuss a few key points that are important to keep in mind when considering whether or not to buy the book. Firstly, this is a very difficult read, so unless you are accustomed to reading classical fiction, be prepared to devote more time to reading the book than you generally would to a novel of similar length (450ish pages). Furthermore, the book is a drag at times, especially in during the first part. Often times, I would get lost while reading the book because I couldn't focus on the descriptions which seemed to get in the way of the plot. However, I have to give Dickens credit on doing a remarkable job of writing the dialogue between characters which allows the reader to immerse into the story. Whenever I wasn't lost, I would often feel as if I was right in the center of the scene and could vividly visualize what was going on around the protagonist.As for the theme of the book, I felt that it tried to impart a good, however slightly shallow, message on the reader. By the end of the book, it is very clear what the message is as all of the characters get what they deserve. However, having read a lot of philosophical literature, I feel compelled on extracting deeper meaning from everything around me, which is kind of hard to do from this book.My recommendation of this book would depend on the reader, I feel that if you have read another book of a similar genre or time period, then you would really enjoy this book otherwise it might be very boring. If this is your first time reading a book by a classical writer, might I recommend visiting sparknotes after every couple of chapters to get a clearer understanding of the plot. Also, I would recommend to every single person to only buy this book if they can dedicate significant time to reading it. Don't think this is one of those books that you can just read anytime you have a few minutes here or there because you will be lost and won't understand it at all. I feel it would be best to sit down and just read for an hour or two (depending on your attention span) and delve deep into the world of the characters. Not only does this process make identifying character development easier, it also makes the book more enjoyable.Also, for anyone who finds Dicken's writing style interesting, I recommend looking at David Copperfeild (just read the first paragraph, and you will be hooked)." +1101,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/0,2.0,905126400,The Strongest Sedative Available Without a Prescription,"I had to read this book twice: once in the ninth grade and once in college. While I think it is better suited for the college level, I can't say that I found it much more enjoyable the second time. The story revolves around the coming-of-age of Pip, the main character. Raised an orphan, Pip acquires a mysterious benefactor who funds his attempt to become a gentleman. There are some interestingly eccentric characters, and the book relies more on the characters themselves than the plot. However, this is an example of Dickens' wordiness becoming too cumbersome; it simply couldn't maintain my interest throughout the book." +1102,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A303ODQ5WR8DSZ,"Peter Lemongellow ""Tierra Del Fuego""",0/1,3.0,1188432000,Slow Read,"Great Expectations didn't meet my expectations. I was a little bored throughout the begining and middle of the story. I think what kept me reading on was the desire to read a ""classic"" (I usually read biography or history).I continued reading because I wanted to find out if Magwitch would meet his daughter. In addition, I was interested in Pip's strong desire to be a gentleman. Other than help his friend in business and dawdle about thinking about an emotionally deadweight chic, Pip didn't seem interested in obtaining a job or taking real advantage of his opportunities. I'll give Pip credit for helping his friend attain stature in business, and eventually going on to operate with his friend after losing his unearned wealth. But the lazy part is 19th century gentleman, huh?Maybe Dicken's purpose was to show the benefits of wealth and the slothfullness of one who didn't have to work himself to attain it. Maybe it hit me at the wrong time, as my fiancee just took a hike and left me after I just sold my house (and now have no place to go). Trust you me, I won't be wasting my life away like Ms. Havisham though. I haven't reached gentlemanly status and need to continue working . . . .I've only read Charles Dicken's Nicholas Nickleby and Oliver Twist in addition to ""Great Expectations"". Of these, I thoroughly enjoyed Nicholas Nickleby. In the future, I'll look for Kates and Madellines and not Estellas. Great Expectations was a tougher read for me as these characters just simply didn't entice my interest too much. Of course, maybe I needed a brighter read . . ." +1103,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A4LJNZ8MBF76P,S. Gul,1/1,5.0,949708800,loved it!,"Great Expectations is one of the best books I have ever read. Dickens provides the reader with a great story and a wonderful mistery. His presentation of the identity stuggle within Pip is, at the lack of a better word, marvelous.Everytime I thought I had the story figured out, I was presented with a jaw droping event that got me even more interested.I would recommend this book to anyone! It's worth taking on your next trip to the beach. Cheers!" +1104,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/0,4.0,920246400,This novel is an emotional rollercoaster.,I enjoyed this story. It had it's ups and downs on the emotional scale. It taught some morals and keep me as a reader on the edge of my seat to see how Pip will finally end his most adventerous days. +1105,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1CRUG39LGR2PH,"""bobjenn1""",1/1,5.0,977270400,An amazing book,"Any one with a passion for literature (and those who don't) should read Great Expectations. Not only is the story itself wonderful, but Dickin's underlying messages of about life and circumstances that lead people to their destinies are amazing. While a bit wordy at times, the style is superb and outlives the era to speak to modern people as well as it did one hundred years ago. Please, don't let your view of Dickins be "old"! This book is as relevent today as it was when first published. Read it today!" +1106,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2F7YJYZIG8YQ7,"a highschool kid ""Nolram""",3/24,1.0,1137456000,"Great Expectations, a great disapointment","Great Expectations was a mediocre book. I was not impressed. I had to read this book for my 9th grade honors English class. It was too long and boring. I see were Dickens was trying to go with the suspense, but it just made the book monotonous and boring. The uncanny coincidences just did not seem real. It's ok to use a coincidence as a tool of suspense, but this was just overkill. Every chapter was boring. I got tired pretty quickly of pip wishing he were with Estella for the whole book. Also, the book seemed to stray away from the main point for chapters at a time. Who cares about Wopsle's stupid plays? This could all be summed up in a couple of page short story. In conclusion, this is another swing and a miss for Dickens. STAY FAR AWAY FROM THIS BOOK! If you want to read a good Dickens story, read ""A Christmas Carol"" and nothing else written by Charles Dickens." +1107,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/0,4.0,930182400,"The book was kind of confusing, but the idea was great.","It took me a little while to get into the story and get to know all the characters, but once I did I couldn't put the book down. Charles Dickens is a wonderful writer, and Great Expectations prooved it." +1108,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A90JVYU6K6A5F,"Christopher Andrew Garcia ""Solomon""",3/3,5.0,1113868800,A Very True Side of Human Nature,"Charles Dickens' novel Great Expectations explores the side of human nature that many do not like to read in novels. In the United States, in the 21st Century, people would rather read about romantic-style plots where all turns out well for the protagonists. Dickens, however, chooses to illuminate what man can really be capable of: betrayal, duplicity, unfaithfulness, and a handful of other negative characteristics.Definitely an interesting novel, Great Expectations will undoubtedly have its audience intrigued and constantly pondering.I would highly recommend this masterpiece." +1109,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/0,4.0,949017600,"Great book, But you have to finish it","I had to read Great Expectetions for school, at first it seemed like the worst book ever written, it was boring, confusing, and seemingly pointless. But, of course that was before I finished it and fully understood what Dickens was tying to convey. the whole book is a mystery, only in the very end do you finally find everything out. Note: if you are going to read the Cliffs Note version of the book (which i highly recommend you do) do not read the character summaries, because that will kill the whole book for you. Believe it or not, this is probabaly the only classial book with enough suspense to compete with the modern thrillers. Oh, and by the way, if you don't have to read it for school, I highly recommend you listen to the audio tape." +1110,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1TW0KGSHVVCMS,Crystal Pisenti,0/0,5.0,1360281600,Yo Pip!,Decided to revisit this great book as an adult...soooo glad I did! Thank you for making it available for free <3 +1111,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A321AOSPSGEJZ4,"John M. Somero ""jsomero""",0/0,5.0,1351209600,First read of a popular classic...,"Finally read this classic, and enjoyed every minute of it. While some of the language was a bit of a challenge to decipher, that contributed greatly to the enjoyment of this book. Highly recommended..." +1112,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A10R1WAP6HFFEP,Rose Mathew,0/0,4.0,991267200,Great Book!,"I had to read this for my AP English class. At first, it didn't catch my attention, but to my english teacher's urging (Mrs. Brodmerkel) I read on. Actually, if she wasn't there to explain each chapter after we had read it, it wouldn't have been As good. This was a great book, and I think everyone should have to read it. There are so many different social conditions that still pertain to life today. Dickens does well in making this novel timeless." +1113,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2YTHMJJJQCOZ,Ethan Cooper,0/2,5.0,1061510400,Worth the Effort,"It's ridiculous to review Dickens, who is as secure in the Western canon as Shakespeare. Nonetheless, I'll make two points about ""Great Expectations"", which is the first Dickens novel I've read since my adolescence. (Kennedy was President, alas.)First, I'll say that the characters in this book are affecting exaggerations and not quite real. For example, Joe Gargery, the blacksmith, is touching in his decency and saintly in his generosity. But Dickens gives him no rough emotional edges, and so he never rises beyond rustic sentimentality. Likewise, Hebert Pocket, Pip's friend, is a lovely young man but exists in friendship with out making any demands. And, there is the resolute and controlling Mrs. Havisham and her pathetic martyrdom. Yes, she was hurt by a man. But, it's hard to imagine a person living in the filth and disorder of her mansion, unless she is crazed, like a modern street person. To sum this up, I'd say that his characters are not really persuasive, even though they resonate emotionally.Second, I was surprised by the near total lack of visual effects in the writing. Early on, there's a moment of visual writing when young Pip is in the cemetery. But thereafter, this element is all but lacking in the book. Even after several re-readings, for example, I could never quite see Magwitch tumble into the river.Regardless, I enjoyed the read and did not find it discursive or too long. Go for it!" +1114,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A40QECSPDH74R,Ferenc Fuzesi,0/0,5.0,1353110400,Sweet story,"I had a chance to see the film several times. I really loved it. It is a bitter-sweet love-story of a boy with deep feelings. It is not an easy-to-read book, not everyone will like it. It is much better, than the film I also like." +1115,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2ZJWAKYVKH32C,Melissa Gray,3/4,5.0,950745600,This is a great novel,"I read this novel for my freshman english class and I thought it is one of the best! It has such a strong story line to it. I thought it was an excellant book and I recommend everyone to read it. It will give you a whole new prespective of love, family, and yourself." +1116,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1YD2KUVZZUPG5,Crissy,1/1,5.0,1287446400,Love Great Expectations!!!!!,This is a great classic. One of my favorite books by Dickens.A book everyone should read at least once....(though you will probably read it more than once!!!!) +1117,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/0,5.0,919728000,Great Expectations equals Great Book,"I remember having to read this book when I was a sophomore in high school. At the time I hated the book with a blue passion. Basically becuz I didn't understand it. Just recently, I decided to give it another chance (fifteen or so years later) and could not put it down. Although Pip is the main character, I found my sympathies lying with Estella. So young, so beautiful... so hardened. Ms. Havisham, in her greedy bitterness, deprives Estella the chance of real emotion, real love. Although I believe Ms. Havisham realizes what she has done near the end of the story, it is much too late for Estella. The re-written ending, although it pulled at my heart-strings, didn't work for me. The original ending is the only logical, perhaps realistic, ending in light of the events that occur within the story. For you kids who are forced to read it, try it again in a few years. I know your perception will have changed." +1118,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1K1JW1C5CUSUZ,"Donald Mitchell ""Jesus Loves You!""",7/7,5.0,1000598400,The Sources of Goodness,"Great Expectations succeeds beyond almost all novels of its time in exploring the roots of character and moral behavior. Charles Dickens makes the case for there being the potential for good in everyone. Evil and sin follow from a combination of being self-absorbed and selfish. What is remarkable about the way these themes are handled is that they are clearly based on an assessment of human psychology, long before that field was established.The book is also remarkable for its many indelibly memorable and complex characters. Miss Havisham, Pip, Magwitch, Mr. Jaggers, and Estella are characters you will think about again and again in years to come.The book also surrounds you with a powerful sense of place. Although the England described here is long gone, it becomes as immediate as a nightmare or a dream that you have just awakened from.For a book about moral questions, Great Expectations also abounds in action. The scenes involving Pip and Magwitch are especially notable for way action expresses character and thought.Great Expectations also reeks of irony, something that is seldom noticed in more modern novels. Overstatements are created to draw the irony out into the open, where it is unmistakable. Yet the overstatements attract, rather than repel. The overstatements are like the theatrical make up which makes actors and actresses look strange in the dressing room, but more real on the stage when seen from the audience.At the same time, the plot is deliciously complex in establishing and solving mysteries before that genre had been born. As you read Great Expectations, raise your expectations to assume that you will receive answers to any dangling details. By reading the book this way, you will appreciate the craft that Mr. Dickens employed much more.This is the third time that I have read Great Expectations over the last 40 years. I found the third reading to be by far the most rewarding. If you like the book, I encourage you to read it again in the future as well. You will find that the passage of time will change your perspective so that more nooks and crannies of the story will reveal themselves to you.If this is to be your first reading of the book, do be patient with the book's middle third. It may seem to you that the book is drifting off into a sleep-inducing torpor. Yet, important foundations are being lain for your eventual delight.Mr. Dickens wrote two endings for Great Expectations. Be sure to read both of them. Which one do you prefer? I find myself changing my mind.Give love with an open heart, without expectations!" +1119,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A34IKILOI5POIO,Esther Becker,1/2,5.0,1289952000,Great Expectations,"A classic! This was the full story, unlike the money I wasted at Wally World on an abridged copy" +1120,158726398X,Great Expectations,,ARN7DGB6TRE08,"Elise D. Jones ""jonese""",0/0,5.0,1252713600,great expectations!,"I am a teacher and tried last year to read and teach this novel but used the original. (6th graders) This copy is the novel but an adapted version. The print size, the text appearance are friendly. The authenticity and truth of the story are upheld. All my expectations have been met. There are questions at the end of the text. Wanted about 20 copies but did not want to pay the top price! Like usual Amazon came to the rescue. Can't wait to introduce the children to a classic but closer to their level. It is authentic to so many of the important quotes. Not too many authors have one of their novel's characters last the test of time, meaning Scrooge. Dickens created him and we know the symbolic Scrooge, one hundred years later...we need to acknowledge his greatness as a writer." +1121,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A26YBMUGWE2RML,Deborah Kehoe,0/0,5.0,1357776000,one of the classics,"This is one of my favorite books, so when I got my kindle I was delighted to see it for free. Had to have it." +1122,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A33FA68V0NCM5E,TheIrrationalMan,1/1,4.0,989366400,A love story and a social critique,"It may be difficult to rehabilitate Dickens from the reputation assigned to him by his critics, such as his being labelled as a spinner of popular yarns; a prime representative of Victorian strait-laced morality; a notoriously verbose prosaist whose writing teems with rhetorical redundancies and digressions; a careless plotter and over-plotter with a propensity for hyperbolic and grotesque comedy, depicting grim and depressing situations peopled by caricatures and abnormally exaggerated personages. The criticism that he commits a number of unforgivable Freudian flaws cannot so easily be obviated as well. Unlike the more firmly established exponents of the realist novel, such as Stendhal, Balzac and Dostoevsky, with their searching psychological assessments of character and motive, Dickens seems concerned mainly with evoking the idea of a certain character and not the character itself in its concrete, three-dimensional actuality. This explains his penchant for caricature. Nevertheless, his ability to present concrete characters is illustrated in "Great Expectations", one of his later and finer works, particularly the characters of Pip and the convict Magwitch, who are psychologically profound and sympathetic portrayals in comparison to the host of other characters. His ability as a profound satirist and social critic is conclusively demonstrated by his interweaving his analysis of class, injustice and crime with the narrative. Pip, who finds himself elevated from his humble origins to one of the highest strata of society, by being made into a gentleman by a mysterious benefactor, is shocked to discover that this same benefactor, the agent of his social progress, is a despicable criminal who offends him by his sight. The message is obvious: society is a complex network of interrelations that interpenetrate class divisions; Miss Havisham is jilted by Compeyson, who is Magwitch's accomplice; Magwitch is the benefactor of Pip, who is in love with Estella, Magwitch's daughter. All, Dickens seems to say, are equal, regardless of their class or origin, before the judgement of God, which transcends human judgement. This is memorably brought out in the courtroom scene, during Magwitch's trial, in the description of the shaft of light that illuminated the room, ""between the two-and-thirty [prisoners] and the Judge, linking them both together and perhaps reminding some among the audience, how both were passing on with absolute equality, to the greater Judgement that knoweth all things and cannot err."" Dickens's moral is the necessity of human fellowship, which we see lacking in the dehumanised Jaggers and Wemmick and in Estella and Miss Havisham, who both come to tragic or regrettable ends, through their coldheartedness and pitilessness. This quality, Dickens's use of plot coincidences to deliver profound human statements, partially redeems him from the charges of being a mere popular storyteller or a romanticist. In this respect, and also with regard to his verisimilitude in rendering authentic detail, he invites comparison with the great realists, such as Flaubert and Joyce, the masters of radical and even amoral realism, though Dickens, with his undisguised moralising, his chaste heroes and puritanical heroines, does not sit comfortably amongst these two; both of whom had works banned, one for his apparent frankness, the other for his obscenity and scatology. "Great Expectations" remains, however, as one of the great representatives of the realist, or social, novel, the product of an age that abolished serfdom and slavery, that witnessed the Industrial Revolution, the growth of large towns and the expansion of business enterprise. as such, it is an invaluable document of its time." +1123,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1DO2UGRK9GKCQ,"Deanna Anderson ""Author""",4/8,2.0,1113436800,Not as great as I expected,"This is often listed as a reading requirement for college and high school classes alike, I read it in college. But there are other great stories that Dickens has done such as ""A Christmas Carol"" and ""A Tale of Two Cities"" and I am unsure why this one is always required reading.The story itself is mildly interesting and the characters and dialogue are unrealistic. There were many times that I felt like I was visiting an insane asylum.Dickens is labeled as a classic author, and often that gives reader's pre-conceived notions that his novels must be good. But even the best of author's can have a mess-up every now and then and ""Great Expectations"" is certainly not one that I would recommend reading." +1124,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/0,4.0,987984000,Just Great!,"Great Expectaitons by Charles Dickens is a good book. I recommend to anyone who enjoys reading realistic fiction books. It captures you from the second you open the book wntil you put it down. It has humor, action, and romance in it. I enjoyed reading it beacse the plot was good as well and the character's personalities." +1125,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A15HZS9RVI9ZXO,Raskolnikov,4/4,5.0,1139270400,"Fun, really.","First of all, in reference to the reviewer who seemed to think the title was inapropos, all I can say is that I hope that they didn't read the book, for such a lack of understanding would be pathetic. I digress. I am here to dispel some myths. Since this book is often assigned in school, and perceived as ""important,"" as another reviewer noted, I think a lot of people shy away from it and assume it will be boring or difficult to understand. Dickens' novels, however, work on multiple level. There certainly is important social criticism and a web of subtly laced motifs within this novel, but on the surface, it's just a good read. I read it on a whim and ended up staying up all night to finish it. So, don't dispel this novel and turn to the many vapid works available to you. One piece of advice, read the real ending before the changed ending (though the changed one will appear first). I felt that the original one was far better, more relevant, and sadly invalidated by the changed ending thrust upon me first. Happy reading!" +1126,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A5ICDTC3HI26L,Brian P. McDonnell,1/2,4.0,1043884800,While a very good book I Expected it to be better,""Great Expectations" seems to be a term used to describe a young man with expectations of becoming a Gentleman. This is the story about a young boy named Pip who though considered poor, was raised as an apprentice in a respectable trade. When his parents died when he was very young he was brought up by his older sister and her husband Joe Gargery the blacksmith. Joe although a little slow, acts in many ways as a loving father and friend to the boy, and is more noble than any of the other characters in the whole book. His older sister however isn't as nice, and in the modern day world probably would have been brought up on charges of child abuse. (If this book was ever remade into a modern day movie I couldn't think of anyone else I'd rather see playing Pip's older sister than Kathy Bates. I pictured her every time the character is mentioned.)Pip then comes into some money by a mysterious benefactor, and becomes an ungrateful little boy who looks down upon those he used to associate with and puts on airs. At this point, in my opinion Pip becomes a very unlikable character for most of the remainder of the book. He believes Miss Havisham who is a mysterious mean old wealthy lady is his benefactor and falls in love with her adopted daughter Estella. I believe this makes Pip look very shallow, since the only redeeming quality she seems to possess is her looks.Pip moves to London and is entrusted to a lawyer named Jenkins and his assistant Wemmick to teach him how to become a gentleman. The lawyer Jenkins, while unloving, is likeable, and in his own way noble. Wemmick who leads a double life is one of the best characters in the book. (I believe there are many people who would like to keep their work life separate from the home life, and can relate to this character.)Jenkins hires a tutor for Pip to teach him how to act like a gentleman. It seems that all the gentleman in this story do however is spend money. Pip and the tutor's son Herbert who becomes Pip's best friend then proceed to work themselves into debt.A pirate which Pip met in his childhood comes back into this life, and brings many changes. (The pirate Pip meets reminded me of the sea captain from "Treasure Island", or the main character in the "Count of Monte Cristo".)In the end Pip tries to redeem himself, and in some ways does.There are some plot twists and mysteries to solve. Some work out well and are pleasant surprises, others just seem unnecessary to the story." +1127,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2KGG61U2S2CXR,"""jimbruin04""",1/3,5.0,1073779200,"So...Dickens, So Good",The reason I choose to write this review is quite simple: to tell of a great book that gets better every time you read it. The compelling twists of "Great Expectations" are very involved and makes for a book that not only comes off extremely in depth but also entertaining. I first read this book and high school and have since read it twice more. It seems the more knowledge I have gained the more I take out of each segment of this book as it is more closely tied into my real life.Simply put this is Dickens masterpiece and that should not be overlooked as many of his books were of extreme quality. +1128,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1IHJE4CZA4YJB,C. Bassett,0/0,5.0,1357084800,Dickens Classic,How cold you not love this book? It's a classic. The internal struggle Pip goes through and crazy old Miss Havisham are brought to life through the author's mastery of the written word. +1129,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AZI0O32W4ZYGH,"Michael Gordon ""Michael Gordon""",6/6,5.0,1069891200,Exceptional Tale from an Exceptional Writer,""Great Expectations" is Charles Dickens classic novels that portrays the story of Pip, born into a destitute and poor family, with little hope for a bright future. We would expect someone born into his social class to remain in this position forever, without much hope for improvements. However, Pip surprises us when he has a chance encounter with Miss Havisham, an old, grumpy, widow. She's obviously delirous, upset at men who have crossed her, and does take out some of her anger at poor Pip. But yet Pip is lucky behind his wildest dreams, for he is about to meet the beautiful Estella, and while this may appear normal, it is definitely not. And this is what makes "Great Expectations" a classic: the book is about Cinderella from reverse: it is the man, in this particular instance, who moves from working-class peasant to meeting an upper-class elegant lady who is beautiful beyong Pip's dreams.It is an aspiring tale in that it tells the reader that they, too, may be able to have widespread class mobility. They are not stuck in their present circumstances and may indeed exceed their own expectations.-- Michael GordonLos Angeles" +1130,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/0,4.0,924220800,The Best Little Poorhouse In London,"When a game of leap-frog goes awry, young Pip Maplethorp's father is killed.With the family crumb-winner out of the picture, Pip is forced to travel to London where he finds employment as a Governess to the Lingus family (whose daughter, Constance, taunts him with cries of ""you're lost - lost in a Fog of Lag !""). On day, while gathering pond scum, Pip meets and befriends Dr. Wetherbee. This chance meeting provides the book with one of it's few moments of comic relief, as Dr. Wetherbee repeatedly strikes Pip about the face and head with a cricket bat that he affectionately calls ""Trevor"". I won't ruin the book for you by telling you what Pip sees behind the potting shed that makes him no longer desire to be a Pediatrist, but I will tell you that, after reading that chapter, I never looked at pudding the same way again. I predict that this book will have resurgence in popularity and soon everybody will be saying, "" Is that your Dickens in your hand?""" +1131,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2J1J3FEGUALK8,Adam Conner,0/0,3.0,968112000,Great Expectations for Great Expectations?,"Now I'll admit that when all is said and done I am a newborn to the world of so called classic literature. So when I was assigned to read Great Expectations for English class, I'll admit to being a little more than skeptical. However once I began to read the novel I discovered something. The novel wasn't that hard to understand. While it did take a while to get fully immersed in the novel, once you were in you really wanted to see the novel to its resolution. The prose was easy to understand, and the plot crossed generations easily. Maybe classics just have a bad reputation with the younger generation, but Great Expectations went a long way to helping to shorten that gap. I think the driving force that leads me to recommend this book is the fact that we all have great expectations of life, and that we all dream of improving our status in the world. People will always share a common bond, and in this novel Dicken's truly shows us that." +1132,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1ZUKHV6VPLFXL,"Mr. D. James ""nonsuch""",0/0,4.0,1360108800,"One of the Best, but ...","Charles Dickens, Great ExpectationsDickens tells an intriguing yarn, creates suspense and amuses us with a range of eccentrics, friendly such as Wemmick or Herbert Pocket, or macabre as with Pumblechook or Jaggers. As in David Copperfield, he gives us strong and often threatening women, like Betsy Trotwood, and here Mrs Joe. Both of these semi-autobiographical novels begin with a shock to a child that reverberates through the rest of the action. Both are seen from the dual child-adult perspective; both belong to the Bildungsroman genre. Both have been repeatedly adapted for stage, screen and radio drama, and yet both have their weaknesses of characterisation and narrative tedium.Several decades ago it was not unusual to find a Dickens novel as a set text for public examinations. Today this would be unheard of: `Too long, Sir!' `Boring, Sir!' I recall attempting to `teach' Nicholas Nickleby to secondary modern school pupils in the Sixties. Then that outmoded method of `reading around the class' was still in vogue. The lads enjoyed that and were doubled up laughing as Nickle Arse and Queers went about their business. Those who say they still love Dickens today, are probably thinking of one or more of the excellent BBC adaptations rather than the text of the book itself. Reading a Dickens novel today, except as a Simplified Classics text, is no mean feat.It has taken me several weeks to get through Great Expectations, reading it in bite-sized pieces, often as a Book at Bedtime treat. That is probably the best and most appropriate method, since like most Victorian novels it was designed for serialisation, which also of course accounts for the repetitiveness and the prolonging of tension by ending each Part on a cliff-hanger. It is not easy for the modern reader to read with the eagerness and innocence of his Victorian counterpart. The sheer thickness of the books and the at times plodding nature of the narrative demand a time and patience that for most of us today is in short supply.Nevertheless, I am pleased to have made the effort, and was for the most part captivated by the narrative and relished the sheer exuberance of the language, as when Dickens allows Pumblechook or Joe Gargery to indulge in their respective bumbling monologues. True, I got tired of Pip's continual self-analysis as he expounds on his guilt in rejecting the advances of good friends like Joe, Biddy and, later, the convict Magwitch aka Provis. I cringed, too, at the moral miracles of a converted Miss Havisham, kneeling before Pip. And the fire was an unconvincing contrivance. As for the cooked-up non-serial happy ending, the less said the better." +1133,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AP7BKISBZ8UN1,M. Buchanan,0/0,5.0,1198972800,Excellent Intro to Dickens' work,"I highly reccomend this book to anyone interested in reading the classics. I first read the story in high-school and immediatly fell in love with Dicken's eloquent style. His descriptions of Pip's surroundings, emotions and experiences never fail to capture my imagination and tug at my heart. Dickens can be very tough to read, but also very rewarding because you know that you are enjoying a piece of literary genius. Great Expectations provides a nice into into his style and prepares readers for his more challenging stories.The story is long, and detailed but extremely captivating. The characters are complex and the mystery will keep you turning the pages. Even if you've never considered reading Dickens before, read this one!" +1134,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/0,5.0,889660800,Human nature sure hasn't changed much since 1860.,"Pip craves the approval of Miss Havisham and the love of Estella, who basically treat him like dirt. Even when he's with them he's miserable and knows it. Pip also knows that he's being an ungrateful snob towards Joe and Biddy, who've done nothing in his life but love, respect, and protect him. This because he cannot help but view them through the eyes of the rich and vindictive Miss Havisham and the beautiful but really darn mean Estella. Despite all this, Pip is a likeable character with whom it is easy to identify and sympathize. Eventually he confronts the superficiality of his expectations and embraces his true nature. In the process he transforms both Miss Havisham and Estella into feeling human beings, understanding and remorseful of the pain caused by their previous conduct." +1135,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2BUTJ2DDRVMI1,Birgit Johannessen,3/3,4.0,1238371200,Very good audiobook,"I had great expectations, because I had listened to a very good Charles Dickens recording by Martin Jarvis earlier (Hard Times), and Great Expectations was also good, even if it did not make me laugh quite as much as the Hard Times audiobook." +1136,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A3K9QK5VTOWDQA,"Andrea Maynard ""island mom""",7/7,4.0,1285977600,Still a classic....,"Having not read this since high school (and not being able to finish it due to boredom), and now having the ability to rediscover it since it was a free download, i decided to give this book another whirl.I was pleasantly surprised....I loved it. I found the book to be moving, interesting, and an all around great read. It has all the classic Dickens-style plot twists, with some great surprises, as well as some pretty contrived coincidences (also classic Dickens).I only took off a star because the ending was changed from how i remembered it. When I googled it, I found that Dickens often changed the endings of his books in to go with the times..... not a big fan of that!!" +1137,158726398X,Great Expectations,,ALIUNQ1RJQL19,John,1/1,5.0,1299110400,One of the Greatest Coming of Age Stories Ever Told.,"I read this book in high school and loved it! Charles Dickens is one of my favorite authors of all time next to Sparks, Crichton, Irving, Brewer, and Bradbury. The story follows the inheritance into wealth of a fourteen year-old in 18th century England. Told with detail, finesse and a mystery that will keep you hooked, don't miss out on this first rate literary experience.The young orphaned Pip, the sensual Estella: the boy's love interest, the enigmatic and vengeful Miss Havisham in her bridal wear. These are images you will never forget. Pick up a copy (unabridged if you can) and loose yourself in this carefully and masterfully wroght world.I also recommend John Irving's works, mainstream fiction, and Dandilion Wine by Ray Bradbury. Also look for the edition with the forward by Irving and the original ending.Check them out and buy while prices are cheap!" +1138,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1QP8TNYTTZMNO,Hopeless Romantic,1/1,1.0,1290297600,Do NOT Buy this Edition!,"After having finished the novel and feeling uncertain as to what was meant by the ambiguous ending, I did some research in some critical journals. Lo and behold, I came to find that the sentence, as published in this edition, is NOT what was supposed to have been written. Doubtless it is a (large) typographical error, but it changed the entire ending of the novel. Shameful to have happened, particularly for a book that markets itself towards classrooms and reading groups.The only good thing that developed from this experience is that through my research I discovered an alternate ending that Dickens had originally intended to use. Reading about the controversy between the two endings was interesting. Aladdin's nonsensical third ending was not. Further, it makes me wonder what else in the story was horribly wrong......Great novel, but don't buy it from Aladdin. I won't be buying anything further from them in the future." +1139,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1KLJA2KSB6JZN,ronsantacruz,2/8,1.0,1326758400,Poor quality illustrations,"Do not give this book as a gift. It will disappoint. I am still looking for a high quality illustrated version of Great Expectations. However, I can vouch for the vendor who offered a low price and shipped promptly." +1140,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A7P4F23NQGCRL,"Neri ""Neri""",1/1,5.0,1012694400,A great coming of age story,"Dickens was part of a great humanistic effort, of the 1800s, that more than ever evoked and espoused the Christian principles of human respect for one another. Great Expectations is about the unexplicable evil youth encounters and how one should rise above the hate and vindictiveness of stupid, petty people. It is a book that explains that there is great suffering in the world and there are those that will hate you for no other reason than that you look the way you do, or simply for the fact you exist in the form you are, or have the ancestors you have. And this hate may never be fully exposed, but be there none-the-less, lingering in mysterious shadow and never seen. An honest read of this book by my ninth graders allowed some, who felt anger and self-pity in the form of vengful hate, to rise a little out of their cycle of dispare. The greatest revenge, some say, against your oppressor is to live happily. The book shows how a vengeful heart is so self mutilating and unfulfilling. Great Expectations runs the coarse of someone who managed to forgive. It is a moving book and one that gives inner strength and respectful grace and recognition to the divine in all of us. It is better to not get bogged down in a discussion of Dicken's personal life, which is a mixed bag, but just read the book. Why would ultra feminists hate this book? Because they hate. Hateful people will hate a book that so poignantly exposes these wreched people for what they are. The book also shows, most significantly, and contrary to much of the belief of the time, that bad people can reform and become good. The significance of this, and its effect that Dicken's made upon this notion, is as haunting and deep a goodness as the evil Mrs. Havisham placed in Stela's soul." +1141,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AP397HRS2GE68,Rebecca M. Henely,1/1,5.0,1095811200,My favorite book!,"I never wanted to read this book, but a friend convinced me when he learned that I loved Pip on South Park (I found the little nerd funny). This was the best advice I'd ever taken. Reading this not only made me love Charles Dickens, but gave me a late start on loving reading in general.Granted, it's a difficult book to read. Dickens packs his book with descriptions and long sentences (yet every word is important and helps with understanding) and he's not easy to get through. Yet Dickens still, with all his flaws, remains a masterful storyteller. His characters aren't deep, but they're relatable and memorable. I love Pip, Estella, Miss Havisham, Joe, Herbert Pocket, Magwitch, and Aged P, and even though I've read this book a long time ago, I love them just as much now as I did then.It's a shame that people have to read this for school (I did so for my second time). It's a wonderful story that should be enjoyed by itself. If you haven't been made to read it, do so now. Push yourself through it and take your time (it took me a month to finish the book myself). You'll be glad you did. Assignments make you rush and over-analyze stories, and Dickens should never be read that way." +1142,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A3RBEP5G0NBCV7,M. Stark,1/2,5.0,1089158400,No contemporary writer can touch this stuff...,"I must admit that beyond my initial attraction to the novel's title I made several attempts over a period of years to settle into the story but could not get past the first several pages. There are many things to throw off potential readers to aged classics like this one, not the least of which is Dickens' choice of character names such as Pumblechook, Wopsle and Magwitch, which I at first found absurd and annoying. However on a recent attempt I made it as far as chapter 10 (of 59 total) when it dawned on me suddenly and unexpectedly that I was hooked and that there was no turning back.The unabridged version is not something one can breeze through in an afternoon, especially considering that it requires the development of a certain skill to absorb Dickens' narrative style, much as it is with the often difficult prose of Henry James. Some parts read very fast while others are tortuously overwritten creating a virtual standstill as the eyes glaze over and one starts to look for good reasons not to throw the book against the wall and pull out tufts of hair from one's head in frustration - a good editor would do this book no injustice but I am not going to recommend the abridged version because most parts are not to be played with. But as is the case in life, our accomplishments must be earned, and so I will make this promise to those contemplating reading this work: make the effort, put forth the time to read this novel, which is not a short one, and before long it will grow on you and you will come to treasure your time spent with it, and even savour its pages as the story unfolds and comes to an end.It would be so much easier for the many students who are assigned this book to take the low road and read only a study guide and then rent one of the movies of it and then definitely not ace the class, but the intelligent ones could pull off a pass; but they would be cheating themselves of something that one cannot put a price on- a well told story with vibrant characters who share in our capacities to be hurt, to feel joy, to be knocked down and to live life, for what are stories if they are not reflections of ourselves, our desires, our fears, our untold secrets, our ability to connect to other souls and grow or be cut off and wither.Let me tell it to you straight. Dickens is a master storyteller. He has created a legacy that has been surpassed by only a few and is a standalone in terms of sheer narrative prowess. Modern writers, especially screenwriters (like myself, eventually) would do themselves no harm if they took Dickens' work to heart and used it as a model for their own for here there are no pyrotechnics, no stretching of rehashed plot ideas into the thinness of an overblown balloon, no exaggerated or contrived formulae, granted there is no small measure of coincidence in his stories, but here there are real characters with beating hearts and flesh, fully capable of a misstep and fall, part of a story that is relevant and timeless and enriching, even necessary to the human spirit if we are to grow and thrive and not kill one another with the evil and savagery that we are all capable of.As Nicole Kidman said during her Oscar acceptance a few years back: ""art is important,"" and for Dickens' contribution I am grateful and would be doing a disservice if I did not write this ditty for those that may listen. To Kidman's remark I would like to add that without art, life would no longer be tolerable and not worth living. It even convinces one to stick around for a little while longer. Those who do not feast on classics like ""Great Expectations"" are paying a very heavy price, one that not even Mr. Gates can well afford." +1143,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1PQ9XPPU873GB,NICOLE S,1/2,4.0,1344816000,Second Time Read,"Charles Dickens really takes us on an adventure of what it is like for a poor boy (Pip) raised by his sister, and brother in law to come across riches and wealth, graced in servicing the needs of Miss Havisham (I believe), and Estelle. Of course, the moral of the story is, even when you have everything you want, money still cannot buy you love nor necessarily happiness.Other than that, this is yet another one of Charles Dickens' reads, that is classical, and will help expand on your vocabulary, and build on reading comprehension. My opinion is if we can understand the story that Charles Dickens has created ever so descriptively here, and in other stories, then we will understand present day literature, as it appears much easier to comprehend (from my personal perspective)." +1144,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2K9TZQGIIWD08,"Wynreader ""winrover""",1/1,5.0,1349395200,Frank Muller brought Great Expectations to life,"I've always adored Dickens, and even read eight of his novels for a class in undergraduate school. I have also become a great admirer of the work of Frank Muller, who has recorded countless works, both popular novels and classics (including Moby Dick, the brave soul!)When Mr. Muller sank his teeth into Great Expectations, he created a performance with the perfect combination of innocence, humor, irony and adventure. He had me laughing out loud despite being stuck in terrible rush hour traffic.The actor manages to become the characters to the point where you forget only one man is reading all of the parts. He has created convicts you could easily picture, and almost smell. His portrayal of Joe Gargery makes you love the character for his heart of gold. His portrayal of Wemmick's ""castle"" and the ""ancient"" was so hilarious I was almost in tears.Of course, Dickens had quite a bit to do with it too.I realize there are countless recordings of this great work, and I'm sure this won't be the last I will ever hear. But I will always remember Frank Muller's rendition with great appreciation and a broad smile." +1145,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AAP7B0V6GEMV3,Jo potter,0/0,4.0,1356912000,Great expectations,"Great expectations was a wonderful book about not giving up even when things get hard. Pip is extremely sweet and mischievous. This book starts out slow biut once you get into it, it gets really interesting." +1146,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A10R1WAP6HFFEP,Rose Mathew,0/0,4.0,991267200,Great Book!,"I had to read this for my AP English class. At first, it didn't catch my attention, but to my english teacher's urging (Mrs. Brodmerkel) I read on. Actually, if she wasn't there to explain each chapter after we had read it, it wouldn't have been As good. This was a great book, and I think everyone should have to read it. There are so many different social conditions that still pertain to life today. Dickens does well in making this novel timeless." +1147,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/2,4.0,1050278400,Great Expectations is pretty good.,"This novel was pretty good. I liked how everyone's lives in it were somehow connected. I also liked how Pip matures and learns the big lessons of life.One thing I didn't really like about it was that it was hard to understand. The English dialect was hard to follow, all the different names were hard to sort out, and there were manyold-time-ish and confusing words. But other than the confusion, the story line was great and Dickens wrote it really well and brought everything and everyone in the book together nicely. All of the characters were fun to read about and Dickens made them seem interesting and some very weird. I would recommend this book to anyone because it seems like anyone could connect with the characters in this book." +1148,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A3PMOYMMEZAPW9,John P. Mastrorillo,4/4,5.0,997747200,Emotional and Suspenseful,"As a student, I had to read this book as a requirement for my junior year summer reading. Being the largest book of them all, I reluctantly started on this one. However, after giving it the twenty-five page test, I found the book terribly addictive. Had I had a more generous time budget, I would have finished the book in two to three days. As it was, it took me over a month. The storyline, with Pip intertwined in a weird emotional triangle with one Miss Havisham and Estella, has the reader wondering "Who is on Pip's side?" and "What the heck is going on with this Estella babe?" The emotions Pip felt, the things he went through, and just the thought of actually having to go through what he did brings tears to the eyes (even mine, which had been dry for years). By reading this book, I even became more in-tune to my emotions. This novel is an excellent piece of literature for any language buff (Dickens is a sheer master of the English language), and for anyone who loves a good tearjerker. Happy reading!!" +1149,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/1,4.0,1049673600,Great Expectations is a good book!,I thought the book Great Expectations was a pretty good book. At parts of the book it was good but then there were those parts where I didn't like it in all books there are usually those parts. I though it was easy to understand.For the major themes I didn't always understand it all. Some parts I never really caught on to were at the beginning when he was a little kid then he had grown up I never caught on to that right away. But when I finally did it was good and interesting to find out.I do think Charles Dickens did bring the story alive. I think also he should have had so many characters because then it was hard to understand who was who and where did they come from. At some points I wish he would have had explained himself more then what he did. I got mixed up so much with all the characters it was hard to keep track of them because they were in the story and then they were gone then all of a sudden they came back. But out of it all it was a good book. +1150,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1KXONMEYYD844,Andrew Georgiadis,0/1,4.0,1026432000,Tip Top,"There are two main sorts of novel - those that end quite happily and satisfactorily, with everything essentially ""working out"" for the better and most great problems resolved. The second kind is quite the opposite, an about-face, and of course ""Great Expectations"" would fall into the latter category. It's only main tender-bellied spot for me to prod with critique would be the fairly obvious plot unfolding, even to someone unfamiliar with the story as I was.As so often happens with ""classics"", in the end the main characters end up being one another's long lost aunts or cousins, fathers, daughters, stepmothers, caretakers, lovers, or perhaps the cause of misery to one or many, of course all unbeknownst and hidden until you happen to stumble in on their story. That's not really giving anything away, for those that are worried. And it is not to say that Dickens was unoriginal with this one, because it's a fantastic read, but that he's had better - even in the form of ""Oliver Twist"".Those that like the happy ending shouldn't really be too interested. Those who like ..., intrigue - um, stay away too. The heart of this pup is dialogue and the torture of internal thoughts and personal dissatisfaction. The protagonist is poor, so desperately wants to be a gent and have ""expectations"", ... The guy doesn't get the girl. No real living happily ever after. But I don't see why that's necessary." +1151,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2SKP0EXTNWV8B,Ellen Henricks,0/0,5.0,1329609600,A timeless classic,I recently reread this wonderful classic and was mesmerized by it all over again - a must read for anyone who has not read this book. +1152,158726398X,Great Expectations,,ABTUNH7645QJL,Peter Reeve,109/123,5.0,1114128000,"Dark, brooding, profound","Great Expectations is one of Dickens's later novels, a work of his artistic maturity. The narrative is symbolic rather than realistic. Although, as in most of Dickens and in Victorian literature in general, the plot relies heavily on coincidence, it is acceptable here because the events are true to the internal, psychological, logic of the story.After writing A Tale of Two Cities, which was unique among his novels in that it had none of his trademark humor, Dickens set out to make Great Expectations rich in comic elements. This despite, or perhaps because of, being in a depressed state of mind himself at the time. The conventional critical view is that he largely failed in this attempt, but I strongly disagree. The book is hilariously funny in parts and the main character, Pip, exhibits a characteristically British humour-in-adversity throughout his adventures. There is also the host of minor comic characters that we expect from Dickens. And he for once manages pathos without spilling over into bathos, so there are tears as well as laughter here, sometimes both at once.If you have not yet read any Dickens, this is not a bad book with which to start, although for younger readers (teens) I would recommend Hard Times or A Tale of Two Cities as their first. Great Expectations demands a mature sensibility to appreciate its symbolism and psychological depth. Perhaps because it chiefly concerns the childhood and youth of the protagonist, it is often given to young people to read and is a set text in some High School classes. This is a pity because, in its dark complexity, it is more likely to turn youngsters off, rather than onto, Dickens." +1153,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/0,3.0,935712000,BOTTOM LINE,"This review comes from a 15 year old male. I found this to be a rather good novel. If you are willing to read a big novel, do so and you should find some enjoyment in this book. If you can't stand reading some pages with just too much detail to get to the actual plot, avoid. Email me your comments, peace." +1154,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A115MZZUS4VVM5,Lindy,0/0,5.0,1361145600,Read in context...,"Definitely not a modern read, but that can be a good thing. The style of of writing in Mr. Dickens's era may seem a little over the top by current literature, but the character's grab you, you want to know how they do, what they do. Inlove good storytelling." +1155,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,3/3,5.0,941932800,BY FAR ONE OF THE GREATEST BOOKS,"I think this book is so good, it doesn't need to be explained. However, if you dispise this book, I emplore upon you to try the book on tape. After all, these books are meant to be read out loud. Happy reading!" +1156,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A57JIBFWM3L0H,JfromJersey,0/1,4.0,1205971200,Enjoyably Obvious,"Dickens is to me the most obvious of writers. Most of his novels are to various extents semi autobiographical. Most are populated by people with amusing names who, aside from the main characters, seem to be caricatures more than humans who think and feel with any semblance of subtlety or complexity. Most are deeply concerned with social injustice and class struggle. Most are filled with plot twists, and almost all are very enjoyable reads. Dickens is nothing if not a master storyteller who loves to manipulate the emotions of his reading public. His stories are theatrical more than novelistic. It is no wonder he is the most popular author of the Victorian age, and maybe second only to Shakespeare in the history of English literature.GREAT EXPECTATIONS and DAVID COPPERFIELD are my 2 favorite Dickens novels, probably because they both have more overtly autobiographical elements than his other works. I also love BLEAK HOUSE. GREAT EXPECTATIONS is the story of Pip.. of his rise and fall, and ultimate redemption. This novel gives us a clear window into the heart and mind of Dickens himself. The story itself held my interest from beginning to end, had important themes to explore, and despite it's lack of introspection in examining personality issues, made you care about the main characters. Dickens was one of the great writers but he is not my favorite novelist of that period. I prefer George Eliot's style as a novelist. To me, Dickens power was in connecting emotionally with his audience and it must have been some experience hearing him tell his marvelous tales in person." +1157,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A22K1KRPE9AQER,Christopher Dudley,15/16,5.0,948672000,"A great book, wonderfully read","I got the "cover-to-cover" book on tape for a long road trip, never having heard the story before. I loved every minute of it. The things that Dickens does with the English language is endlessly entertaining, the story he tells fascinating and fast-paced. The highly talented Martin Jarvis reads wonderfully, giving great characterization to the many people appearing in the story, allowing me to see them all as completely distinct.It's a shame that people feel such resentment when forced to read something. Most of the bad reviews this book gets are from young people who were forced to read it for a class. When taken at one's own leisure, and in one's own time, it is quite entertaining. I'm not sure that the teachers who assign the book are pointing out all the things that make the book great, such as Dickens's flair with the language, the point he's making about a society that places birth above worth, and his ability to make abstract arguments that enhance the story. I'd be interested in hearing from literature teachers to find out how they use the book in their classes.One of the best books ever written, this reading is one of the best investments of my time I've ever made." +1158,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2EFRO2YMQGO9K,"Russ's Girl ""Starks""",2/2,4.0,1114300800,My opinion,"Great Expectations by Charles Dickens was a very good novel in my eyes. The main character Pip believed, as a true Victorian, that a gentlemen is made solely of financial aspects and physicall possessions, and he is oblivious to moral aspects of the positions. Upon recieving his great expectations, he moves to London for a further education, and to become what he thinks is a gentlemen. Through Pips life he learns that his life as a gentlemen is not what he thought it would be, and his views of a true gentlemen start to change. With thanks to Dickens and Great Expectations, we realize that sometimes even a convict may be more genteel than a traditional gentlemen. He may start as a poor orphan boy, like Pip, or labour as a blacksmith, like Joe. truly, what matters is the heart and inner worth that make a genuine gentlemen, and social prestige has not a bit to do with it." +1159,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A18PCOAE02O3SC,Curtis Lane,1/3,4.0,1022976000,"Not quite as good as I expected, but not bad","This is one of Dickens's better known classics, though not his best. The theme is worthy enough of study, though, and the reading is enjoyable. Recommended." +1160,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/0,4.0,871430400,Money per word...,"People have enjoyed the adventures of Pip and friends (or enemies, as the case may be) for decades! Though quite confusing at times, Great Expectations was a well thought out novel. This book required more concentration than most, with a cast of characters that would fill the world many times over. I had trouble reading it in the normal haphazard fashion I usually take; a chapter here, a few pages on the way to school, because of all the details put into it. I know this classic was written with money being paid per word, but I found much of the long, rambling, descriptions to be the one major fault of the novel. I think that the one reason people accept and cherish these lengthy descriptions is because Great Expectations is one of the "classic classics", so to speak. People expect it to become tedious in places, filled with descriptions of anything from a desk drawer to toenail clippings. But overall, I found this to be a touching book, about mangled love, childhood, and life in general. A great read for anyone with patience!!-LJ" +1161,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1ZNATPHIK2B3Y,Charlene Devitt,0/0,5.0,1358121600,Nice,My daughter needed this book for school and the weather was too bad to go out and look for it. We found it on Amazon and had it shipped to us. It was delivered sooner than expected. +1162,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A15IK0978DBL14,kad,0/0,5.0,1356566400,school resource,I love the free books for the Kindle. They greatly expand our homeschool reading beyond what we can find at our library as well as allow us to keep a copy as long as we need. +1163,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2TZZQUHX0PVN4,lolo,1/18,1.0,1104883200,Great Expectations is possibly the worst book ever,You guys should never read this book everCharles Dickens just goes on and on trying to make a point that you can do in a sentence. He takes the whole chapter. I don't recomend this for anyone. Only read it if forced to. It is not a good book. +1164,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AST8AAKSJKAQ1,"thing two ""thing two""",0/0,3.0,1283558400,"Well written, engaging, detailed, - it's Dickens.","How does one review Dickens? This book is well written, of course. The plot is engaging, of course. The descriptions are detailed, of course. The fact he wrote this in sections to be published in the newspaper just amazes me. However, I found the coincidences in this story too contrived to be really believable. It is a fascinating look into 19th century Britain." +1165,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2BGSI2K1U8ZPF,Story Lover,1/1,4.0,1336348800,A Deeper Pip,Worth re-reading as an adult. This was mandatory reading in middle school. Nobody of that age could get the full story with all its nuances at that age. It's like reading a new book. What a wordsmith Charles Dickens was. +1166,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2UHIQNHUD3XFR,Jesse,0/2,5.0,1322006400,Great book,I was forced to read this book in school. If you think you know what is happening then your paying attention to something else. +1167,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AZYNKGFXK0WWK,Susan,0/0,4.0,1348704000,Good Read,Great Expectations follows Pip's life goes from childhood to adulthood with many twists and turns. Some predictable others unexpected. Many hours of good reading. +1168,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1VIQTR7EZ8FCT,"Jan-Micheal ""Farmer's Wife""",0/0,4.0,1313539200,Terrific study in human nature,"I thoroughly enjoyed this book. I'm not sure how I got through school without reading it and I'm sure I would not have enjoyed it as much in my student days. However, it truly is a wonderful peek into human nature at its worst and at its best." +1169,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/0,5.0,924220800,Great Expectations is a wonderful book....,"Great Expectations is the story of a young boy, Pip, and how he struggles to reach the experiences of Estella, the girl he loves, as he grows up and matures. This novel, written by Charles Dickens, explains the disappointment of loving someone without response, and being unsatisfied with one's life, because of having such high expectations that one cannot meet. I liked the way that the author portrays the characters and the setting to give a resemblance of the theme. I was interested throughout the story, for it is gripping and unpredictable. I sincerely recommend this book to anyone who enjoys novels that one can relate to with a deep meaning. Also, to anyone that likes a challenge Great Expectations is an ideal book." +1170,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2VXZYVRBWRG0A,Gulley Jimson,3/4,5.0,940291200,A classic for all times.,"This has to be my favourite Dickens novel. In fact, I would go so far as to place it alongside Flaubert's "Sentimental Education" and Dostoevsky's "Brothers Karamazov" as one of the great novels of the 19th century. I am astonished by the number of one and two star reviews even though they do appear to come mainly from high school students being "forced" to read the novel for English class. Judging by the spelling mistakes and grammatical errors which proliferate these submissions, Dickens is not the only thing that they've had trouble staying awake for. In addition, it is ridiculous to suggest that Dickens's novels were so lengthy because he was "being paid by the word." His books initially appeared in serial form as books were very expensive in the Victorian era and he understandably wished to avoid precluding large sections of his target readership from being able to sample them. The fact that some current "readers" find this novel "too long and boring" is, I believe, a sad reflection on our media saturated society where a two-second attention span is rapidly becoming the norm." +1171,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A38PC4TN9YSF2T,ktcramer,0/0,4.0,1360108800,Such a story,"A great, epic, tale. Lovely to have easy access through Kindle, and much lighter weight than carrying around the original hard copy variety." +1172,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,2/2,5.0,938044800,"For the love of God, you all think everything is boring","Okay, look. I'm a teenager, 15 years old. And even I have to appreciate this classic. Charles Dickens knew what he was doing, okay? Great Expectations is a classic, and there's a reason it's a classic. For the plain and simple fact it was well written, with an interesting plot and a good twist. Just because something doesn't contain profanity, sex and violence doesn't mean it should be presumed boring. A basic summary - it tells the story of life, obsessions and social status. As far as I'm concerned, it isn't boring. Just wake up to yourselves, teenage world. Virginia Andrews isn't the extent of reading pleasure." +1173,158726398X,Great Expectations,,ATJKFBFS3PWYW,Krystal,0/0,5.0,990576000,An Inspiring Classic,"I have always been an avid reader, always in search for a book that would enlighten and ispire me. Great Expectations by Charles Dickens fulfilled this. It is a compelling story about a young man who through a series of circumstances meets a beautiful yet cold hearted girl named Estella. The book follows him through his adolence an adult years. To me this book still hold very true today. It tells about love and how time may not heal all wounds. And also about how some people are manipulated, as Estalla was, into living out others lives." +1174,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A8G19HA74KL7I,ToomuchAP,0/0,5.0,1342137600,Great expectations,I love the way this book was printed.I want to buy all my books from Vintage Classics.The words in the book aren't super small so its easy to read but theres still room to write on the margins and at the bottom of pages.The story line is kinda slow but it gets good.This book is one of the five most often referred to on the AP literature exam.Good Luck too other APers +1175,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2WOTC29G6Q32K,Laura Soto,0/1,3.0,1355875200,Wrong picture in display?,"Book is lovely but is not actually yellow, the cover color is actually orangish and I've seen better quality in Penguin Classics (the really thin parts of the cap are covered with ink).A bit deceiving, but would really appreciate if the cover photo was true to the product." +1176,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2VXCCJ13M5ULJ,"""nobodyanybody""",1/2,5.0,945216000,Sorry for the previous mean spirited review,"Sorry for the nasty mean review. Totally uncalled for, caught me on a bad day. Everybodys different and everyone has their own opinions and just because someone else doesn't like something is no reason to put them down. Its just frustrating because these kids reviews always say the same thing, "this sucked", or "this was boring" and thats all they can say about it. But anyway, if thats the way they feel then I guess thats just the way they feel and nobody should write such nasty reviews or get mad for such a petty, stupid reason anyway. So, anyway, this is one of Dickens best, as I've said before." +1177,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/0,5.0,912211200,A true masterpiece!,"I am not going to bore you with excerpts from the text. But I'll say this, Great Expectations is one of the most compassionate novels a person can read. The complexity of the plot adds a certain greatness which undoubtedly entices the attention of the reader. The story itself teaches us to never give up hope and that our destiny does not depend on our social status; but rather, the quality of our character." +1178,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2SKC6HA7XZO56,Marisara,1/2,5.0,1344643200,Great Expectations book,Really good book. It's a classic that my girl has to read for English class. I'm sure she will enjoy it. +1179,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A3C27VBUN1M27Z,ileana gonzalez,0/0,5.0,1347840000,Very good,"This book is in excellent conditions, the only thing is that they lost the first book they send me, but the this is excellent" +1180,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A22N0P1M6KHQUI,DaJet,1/1,5.0,1346889600,Great Read,Well written and the drawings are wonderful. The story itself is well written and put in a time period which was a difficult time for children who didn't have much finances or many options to obtain employment they would enjoy. the thoughts through the boys eyes are amazing after all the situations he gets into. even a little trouble could be a really big deal back then. +1181,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2V3P1XE33NYC3,Jeffrey Leach,14/15,5.0,1177372800,A true masterpiece,"I have absolutely no doubts whatsoever that Charles Dickens, if he lived today, would still classify as an author's author. He's a master of all the things that make for great writing and storytelling. Dickens has an ear for dialogue most authors would kill their own mothers to possess. He also is a master of creating vivid scenery, another sign of excellence essential to great writing and one which many authors lack. Finally, but not least in importance, Dickens knows character development. He REALLY knows how to develop intriguing characters, to the point where many of his books spawned figures that have become literary archetypes. Not bad for a guy who grew up in extremely adverse circumstances. He even spent some time in a factory sticking labels on bottles after his father's imprisonment for debt. Most people wouldn't recover from such poverty, but Dickens did. He went on to a successful career in journalism before settling down as an author of serial novels. This format, which allowed Dickens to write and release his stories piecemeal, made him a great success with the public. The anticipation for the latest chapter or two of his stories often led to near riots. Not many writers can elicit such a response today.Many consider ""Great Expectations"" a seminal work by a master. Millions have read it, most unwillingly, but most consider it one of Dickens's most accessible stories. It's a tale about a youngster named Phillip Pirrip, known throughout the story as Pip, and his rise from relative obscurity to the heights of wealth and privilege. As the story opens, we see Pip lamenting the passing of his parents in the local cemetery. Their deaths resulted in Pip living with an older sister and her blacksmith husband Joe. Life is tough in Pip's village. His sister wields a heavy hand against her younger brother, relatives like Uncle Pumblechook berate him, and they live in a place where convicts often escape from barges floating on the river nearby. In fact, Pip has a frightening encounter with one of these prisoners at the beginning of the book. His actions, undertaken at the command of this felon, result in a series of incidents that lead Pip to the home of the local recluse, a dour old woman by the name of Havisham. This woman, as rich as a lord but as unhappy as one could ever be, takes a liking to Pip and keeps him around for entertainment.It is during his tenure as Havisham's court jester that Pip comes into contact with several important figures that feature prominently in the story's later episodes. He meets the cold yet beautiful Estella, Havisham's adopted daughter, and falls in love with her. He also makes an initial contact with the old lady's lawyer, the highly successful Mr. Jaggers, and an odd young man named Herbert. All play an integral part in what is to follow, namely the announcement (through Jaggers) that Pip has suddenly come into fortune, or great expectations, that require him to move to London in order to train as a gentlemen. In London Pip spends time with Jaggers, his assistant Wemmick, Herbert, and even Estella. He spends his money, helps his best friend in covert ways, and wonders who in the world set him up with this money and property. Jaggers makes it clear that he isn't supposed to dig too deep concerning the origins of the fortune. Instead, he is to wait until the day when the individual responsible steps forward. When that happens Pip's world as he knows it nearly collapses. He must move heaven and earth to avert disaster while at the same time coming to terms with who he is and what his future holds.""Great Expectations"" is, in a word, great. It contains all of the hallmarks one associates with Dickens. The characters, everyone from Wemmick to Jaggers to Havisham to Joe, sparkle brightly as fully formed individuals living and laboring under very real problems. Atmosphere is divine: Pip's village and London come to life under the writer's pen. Even the author's penchant for examining social ills moves to the fore in a chapter that looks at the horrific conditions in London's main prison. Another real plus is the humor. If you haven't read Dickens, you don't know what your missing in the humor department. This author has an amazing sense of what is funny, and it is nowhere more apparent than in the scene in which Pip and Herbert take in a play starring one of our hero's relatives. This short chapter along with the ones describing Wemmick's abode are absolute masterpieces of hilarity, and they're actually bright spots in what is otherwise an occasionally dark piece of writing. And last, but not least, there is the downbeat conclusion. There are actually two conclusions to ""Great Expectations"". Make sure you pick up a copy that has both of them.About the only thing ""Great Expectations"" lacks is length; it's one of Dickens's shortest novels, which is probably the reason millions of teachers assign this book to their students. That's unfortunate because most kids want nothing to do with this book once it's forced upon them when in fact they could actually benefit from reading it. Why? Because ""Great Expectations"" teaches us a lot about love and identity, two things that matter quite a bit (or should matter) to young people. The teachers ought to assign something like ""Hard Times"" and let those who want more seek out ""Great Expectations"". The prevailing opinion on this book is that it is semi-autobiographical. It doesn't really matter whether the story is about the author's life or not. What is important, I think, is that this story attains a perfection that few books ever reach. That's why it's a classic, I guess. If you haven't read Dickens before, you should start right here." +1182,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AIKFG2VPTO10H,Trent Taylor,0/0,5.0,1227916800,bought this book for my daughter,"my 14 year old daughter needed to read this book for one of her classes. she didn't think she would like it, but she ended up loving it. my 17 year old son is also reading it now and he also really likes it." +1183,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,2/5,3.0,1080432000,WAIT!,"I liked this book, I really did, I promise. But in my opinion, Dickens's other novel "Nicholas Nickleby" is much, much better.So before you buy this book, check out "Nicholas Nickleby" as well. Maybe you can buy both. :) Just don't go with "Great Expectations" because it is more well-known. That doesn't mean that it will be better in all people's opinions." +1184,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2UCYNJVUJQDX1,Steven Morales,1/1,5.0,948067200,Dickens Greatest Work,"Being a fan of Charles Dickens novels I can honestly say Great Expectations is his greatest work. The characters are unforgettable and the story which starts out slow in the beginning grows very quickly. The book is about life, living and the disappointments that come with it. The novel seems to have a very sad and uneasy tone throughout it. And if you have right version of the novel you will be able to read Charles Dickens original ending for this novel. Its very sad and disappointing to the reader but you cant help saying to yourself that the ending fits." +1185,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AHVBYTEZHOWHR,A Customer,1/1,5.0,1268006400,Great Expectations,Read this book in high school many years ago and probably did not understand the story fully. Just reread it and I absolutely loved the story. The depth of the characters is amazing. You feel like you have know them all of your life. Much more enjoyable now than at the high school level. +1186,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A18YMFFJW974QS,CKE,0/0,5.0,1070928000,Not for your typical High School Student,"During the course of the year I try to read a few, "Important Novels" in order to get a fuller understanding of literature. Dicken's "Great Expectations" has been on my list for nearly a year. I completely dreaded reading what I thought would be a long and drawn out story about something I could careless about. Well, I was wrong."Great Expectations" is now #1 on my all-time favorites list. While, admittedly, it took me roughly 150 pages to get any enjoyment out of the novel- once I was in- I was hooked. Pip's journey through life is a very refreshing look at how distorted we let our lives become by focusing on the unimportant. Dicken's ability to slowly alter Pip's views on life, without changing his essential character/morales (Ex. How Pip looks to help his friend in his business pursuits). Some have called "Great Expecations" his masterpiece... but in my opinion, it may be the "Masterpiece" of English Literature.I also wonder why this is required High School reading. While I loved this book at age 28, I think most 16 year-olds would find it unbearable. It seems like such a waist to ruin both the book and Dicken's name on minds that are not ready for such a reading task." +1187,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AUE6FDELIEULM,"A. C. Hopson ""The Once and Future""",0/1,1.0,1353888000,Wanted More of a Hardcover,"I wanted to start collecting the Penguin Classics hardcover editions, and I needed this book for a class so I bought it, and I guess I'm glad I hadn't bought a couple other novels to round out my purchase! The cover was rubbing off by the time it arrived to me, in a padded box. However the print on the cover is made, it is done very shoddily and couldn't handle being on a shelf, much less being read. I am very unhappy indeed. Phooey on whoever came up with this." +1188,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,3/3,5.0,967680000,I don't read books,"...that is unless i have to. i had to read this book for my english class and it way surpassed MY expectations. i actually liked reading this book, it didn't bore me. even though it was long i still found myself looking forward to the next chapter. i found a lot of humor in it. Pip was a highly interesting character. out of all the books i was ever forced to read in my life this one is hands down the BEST BOOK EVER." +1189,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A15DLG41650O0X,"S. Nakai ""destination tortuga""",1/1,4.0,1181779200,Delightful Read,"Many people scoffed this book back in my freshman English class, because it was Dickens, and Dickens meant ""boring"" to them. However, shrug off the normal tendencies to stereotype an old-time classic to be a bore, one can find a true delight in this beautiful story of a young man struggling with an impossible love, the pressures of money and society, and, of course, himself. It is an excellent, absolutely enriching read." +1190,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1OGIZ1BHIYKAM,Megan,5/6,4.0,1332979200,Doesn't Contain the Original Ending,"When reading this book in high school, I considered myself very fortunate that the copies we had contained the original ending. It was placed at the end, after the ending that was originally published. I much preferred the original ending from the momentI read it, and have since checked every copy I have come across to see if it is in them. Sadly, often it is not.The kindle edition does not contain the original ending. I did not see any reviews of this edition that mentioned it, so I thought I would post one for anyone else who finds that important, as I do." +1191,158726398X,Great Expectations,,,,0/0,5.0,946252800,Timeless Masterpiece on the Trials of Growing Up,"Dickens is a rare genius who succeeded in capturing vividly the manifold pains - physical, emotional, and moral - of childhood and the effect of these scars in the adulthood. As a result, his stories still resonates powerfully after so many years. On the weak points, Dickens tends to rely on remarkable coincidences to tie the plots together, and the psychological studies of his characters are not as sharp and profound as those of Dostoyevsky or Henry James. I also found the contrived happy ending very unsatisfying." +1192,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A3ILPPZ9RBE1U3,Bryan Jacobs,1/1,5.0,1140307200,"""Brought up by hand""","This is another book which is forced upon unsuspecting high school students. With many younger reviewers giving this classic 1 and 2 stars shows that this novel will not be appreciated by most studetns. If you hated this book in high school I recommend picking it up again after college.This novel follows the protagonist Pip, from inncocent boy, to dreaming adolecent, to proud gentelman, and comes full circle to the disullusioned adult. Tha characters he meets along the way are some of the most memorable in english literature, especially Miss Havishham, Estella, and Magwitch. Dickens also treats us, about half-way through, to perhaps the best twist of any novel I've ever read.The only thing I at first disliked about this novel were the bizarre coincidinces which caused seemingly unrelated characters to actually have close histories with each other. But I reconciled this for myself in the following way: A major theme of this novel are the machinations of characters to control other characters. Well we must not forget that there are meta-machiantions above this by Dickens himself, and for that all readers can be thankful." +1193,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A2WB4OWBUH2VQX,"HardyBoy64 ""RLC""",1/1,5.0,1245628800,No one did it better,"In my opinion, Charles Dickens remains the writer who defined the art of characterization in the 19th century. This novel contains a bevy of characters that the readers will find unforgettable. The haunting figure of Miss Havisham has stayed with me since my 10th grade literature class (almost 30 years ago) and my recent rereading of the novel brought her horrid existence into full view again. The plot has twists and turns and although I found myself having to stop reading and letting certain episodes sink into my understanding, the beauty and scope of the writing is truly remarkable. As a young student of Dickens, I resisted the long descriptions and difficult dialogue and I don't remember loving the book when I read it the first time. As an adult, however, my admiration for the novel is undeniable." +1194,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A23NSKTMSPPBTR,Wayne,4/4,5.0,1265155200,What's in addition in this edition,"Since a potential buyer might be wondering which edition to buy, I've decided to give a brief review of the edition instead of one of the story.This is the 2003 reissue of the 1986 edition of the Bantam classic edition. This edition has the 1986 introduction by John Irving. It contains the Dickens classic in its intact form, with the original ending following it separately. It is 528 pages.When Dickens first wrote Great Expectations, it had a different ending. There are some who feel that the original ending is more in line with modern tastes, and that Dickens ""caved in"" by changing the unhappy ending to one that was ""more acceptable."" Some feel that Dickens went too far in order to cater to his audience rather than stick to a literary standard. In the introduction, Irving discusses this issue among many others and suggests that Dickens was not so much driven by the audience as he was in touch with their lives when it came to inspiration. Ideas in literature may seem fantastic and improbable, but Irving points to events in Dickens's life that would seem equally improbable had they appeared in fiction. He also mentions modern real life events that, if put in a novel a decade earlier, would have seemed impossibly unrealistic.Yes, Dickens was an optimist. But the new ending is not a ""happily ever after"" one so much as one that leaves the door open. I can't think of anything more suitable for a book entitled ""Great Expectations.""" +1195,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AFSMGASIANB67,"A Williams ""honestpuck""",4/4,5.0,1003276800,A deserved classic of coincidence and pace,"I love the cover of this edition. The painting seems almost perfect for Dickens novel.But on to the novel itself. ""Great Expectations"" was the first of Dickens' novels that I read and I had to read several more before I found another I liked anywhere near as much. It is a small work compared to ""David Copperfield"" and his other massive English comic novels. It is a much darker work, too with less of the comedic touch.Dickens published and/or edited several magazines and some of his novels were first written as serials to bolster flagging circulation, ""Great Expectations"" is one and it shows. The novel grabs you fast and has a story with many surprises and twists along the way. The one drawback to the earlier serializaztion is that the book probably has too many small climaxes and cliffhangersLike many of the other great novels of the 18th and 19th century a modern reader may well find it a little too full of long descriptive passages. I personally feel that it travels along fast enough that you won't notice.I feel a word or two may be necessary about coincidence in the novel, certainly some other reviewers here at Amazon have felt there was too much. The first thing that should be said is that Dickens readers would not have criticised the coincidence, at the time they had a much firmer belief in ""fate"" and would have felt that the coincidence showed how much of Pip's tale was fated to be. The other thing worth mentioning is that the coincidence is no less than one can find in quite a lot of modern television if you just explain the plot. We need to ask if the number of coincidences seems unnatural within the book and if the book works. My answer would be that this tale runs along at a fine pace, well written and well worth the read. The coincidence does not detract from the novel.I'd recommend this book to anyone who wants a good, classic read. As one of Dickens shorter works it is also a fine place to start." +1196,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AUPO4RWY77MPN,Nancy Karis,0/0,5.0,1360800000,Loved this book!,"I didn't want this book it to end. Would highly recommend it for all ages. Am renting the movie this week, too!" +1197,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A7TUCENNPHHCZ,Khaleel Sabdia,4/5,5.0,1132185600,Rich and thoroughly enjoyable,"My grandad recommended I read this. I will admit to being very skeptical on the first few pages. I had to read and re-read some of the passages quite a few times to undesrtand what was being said through the old english slang. However, once I passsed that, I found it to be a touching and very interesting story.It is filled with some of the greatest characters ever created in literature.Along the way you will find many truths applicable even in today's society and Dickens expresses it in way unique to him.Dickens has created one of the most beautiful novels ever written: Great Expectations. It's a must read for any book lover and it is by no means overated.This is one you would want keep as part of your collection. It is simply a treasure." +1198,158726398X,Great Expectations,,A1Y0WPL4ZYFEEZ,john mclaughlin,0/0,4.0,1348704000,Dickinson classic,Maybe Dickens most heartfelt book! A great classic read.Filled with memorable characters and scenes. I recommend itFor everyone. +1199,158726398X,Great Expectations,,AVBNXSAWNGOHV,Sparky,0/1,1.0,1344902400,Great Expectations Deflated,"I was greatly disappointed with the way this classic story was printed. The typing errors throughout the book ie.words that all ran into each other, and even pages of the story missing, made what should have been a pleasant read into a chore to finish it.I had looked forward to re-reading all the old school classics on my new Kindle but if the conversion of the old publications to e-readers are of the same standard, then I will not want to do so.I fear that ""Oliver will not be asking for more"" unless the recipe is improved.I have rated it only one star ,not because of Dickens Story but because it was spoiled for me by it's typing." +1200,0736641238,Little Women,,ATTHVPSQEIK2D,H. Clark,2/3,5.0,1140220800,Little Women,"I usually only read Action/Adventure, so when my friend request that I read this book I just stared at her with a blank expression.I started reading and I could not get through the sentences fast enough. I laughed and I cried.This truly is a great read!" +1201,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,5.0,903830400,This is my absolute favorite book ever!!!!,"This was a GREAT book! I didn't want it to end! I would like to know what happened in between the end of Part 1 and the beginning of Part 2, though. My favorite of the March sisters were Jo and Amy. I liked them because they each did something. (Jo wrote stories and Amy made art.) Meg just married and that seemed like the end of her. And Beth was too shy to anything before she died. EVERY GIRL HAS TO READ LITTLE WOMEN!!!!" +1202,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,4.0,900288000,This shows girl power!,Our favorite charcter was Amy. She was a cool chic. The only thing she didn't like was her nose. We have no idea why. It is a classic story that we will never forget. +1203,0736641238,Little Women,,A1H2E7W11BLAYS,S. Hinkle,4/8,4.0,1229385600,OK,Book came in great condition. Just don't order if you need the book quickly--it took the full shipping time they stated. I've had books come the week after I order but this one took a full 3 weeks to receive. +1204,0736641238,Little Women,,A2BRECGRCPZ1AS,"E. Bucci ""Ellie""",3/5,5.0,1178928000,Nice edition of my all-time favorite book,"I've always owned a copy of Little Women ever since I first read it at aged 9 (which means I've gone through numerous copies over the past decades!) This particular edition is sturdy, attractive and exactly what I needed to replace my last falling-apart copy. Since I read this book every year, I expect this copy will see me through at least another few decades!" +1205,0736641238,Little Women,,A1LPIPZVAMT482,Karlea,0/0,5.0,1360972800,The classic never go out of style!,"AS ALWAYS IT WAS A THRILL READING LITTLE WOMEN, IT'S TIMELESS. IT HAS EVERYTHING FROM STRUGGLES, FAMILY,HAPPINESS,SADNESS AND LOVE. THANK YOU" +1206,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,5.0,904953600,"This is the most heartfelt book I have ever read, I love It!","Little Women is a hard book to put down.It is also a hard book to put into words.There are new suprises after every page.My favorite sister was probably Jo, she was so deticated to writting and she was great at it!I didn't want this great and unforgetable book to end!Please read this wonderful book,you'll be glad you did!" +1207,0736641238,Little Women,,A3NI29U4P5NQF1,michaelle,0/0,5.0,1357603200,thank you,digital books are perfect and easy to use! They take up no space on the bookshelf and are always with you!!! +1208,0736641238,Little Women,,,,4/5,3.0,1148083200,Little Women,"I read Little Women recently and I would probably reccommend it to anyone that is okay with a sad, romantic book. The main character is Jo, a tomboy growing up in the late 19th century. It is Jo's story as she becomes an adult, and I think it is a great coming-of-age book for both boys and girls. (Girls would probably enjoy it a little more than boys.) Either way, it's a great book and you should read it as soon as you get your hands on it." +1209,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/1,5.0,1081468800,A wonderful Book By Louisa May Alcott,"I read this book month ago. I love it. Lousia May used her childhood stories wrote this book. In the book there was Meg who was a really lady like Louisa's older sister Anna, there is Beth, who is my favarite, she may be sick, but she is a very nice girl; there was a Amy who love to paint, and of course there is the tomboy Jo, who may be a girl but a tomboy in her heart. This book tell the stories that the four March sister have while their father are away. They have some awasome advangers. If you like to knew about Louisa May Alcott, you should read this book, Jo acted a lot like Louisa May herself. I like is book very much it's wonderful." +1210,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,5.0,988156800,"Life, It's Trials Included","This book is great! I love it and would even say that it is my favorite book. It is a charming story about 4 sisters, Meg (Margaret), Jo (Josephine), Beth( Elisabeth), and Amy. The book includes the truth about real life. It's not perfect and the author, Louisa May Alcott, understands that and therefore includes some tribulations throughout the lives of these charming girls. The book is set around the 1800s and includes all the prides,joys, fashions and styles of this time. I recomend that you read it. I know I enjoyed the descriptive tale of Little Women." +1211,0736641238,Little Women,,A1SEG1NRR6VRKK,Lindsey,6/7,5.0,1015113600,Little Women: A Classic,"The first time I read Louisa May Alcott's Little Women, I fell in love with the story. Little Women is the story of four girls that were coming of age during the civil war. Each of the girls, all sisters, has different personality traits and characteristics that are developed throughout the book. Meg, the oldest, is the sensible sister, while Jo is hot-headed and independent. Beth is musical and Amy, the youngest, is the more material of the four. The girls grew up in a very close family and strived to support each other in their dreams. But Jo, the second-born, has a difficult time seeing all of them growing up and leaving home. She wants things to remain the same, always. Change is inevitable, however, and throughout the book, the girls' love for each other is strong, as they face different challenges and joys of growing up. They keep their strong sense of family... I thoroughly enjoyed reading Little Women. It has been awhile since I was able to sit down and read a book I so love. Louisa May Alcott's character, Meg, did not hold much interest for me... Amy, the baby of the family, was too materialistic for my taste. The character I related to the most was Jo. I do not know if it is because I am like her, or if it was her spunk that I really liked. I loved to see the blossoming love Laurie had for Jo... I think that Louisa May Alcott did a wonderful job in writing Little Women. I could relate to the book and with how the four sisters were at home with their mother and their father was off doing military things. I grew up with a father in the Navy and he was gone a lot. My mom, brother and I had to take care of things while he was gone. Life goes on even if the whole family is not together.I fell in love with the Little Women at a young age and I hope to read this book to my children as they get older... This is a great book for teaching these things to children." +1212,0736641238,Little Women,,A1D2C0WDCSHUWZ,"E. A Solinas ""ea_solinas""",6/8,5.0,1114732800,"From ""Little Women"" to ""Good Wives""","Louisa May Alcott wrote many books, but ""Little Women"" retains a special place in the heart of American literature. Her warmly realistic stories, sense of comedy and tragedy, and insights into human nature make the romance, humor and sweet stories of ""Little Women"" come alive.The four March girls -- practical Meg, rambunctious Jo, sweet Beth and childish artist Amy -- live in genteel poverty with their mother Marmee; their father is away in the Civil War. Despite having little money, the girls keep their spirits up with writing, gardening, homemade plays, and the occasional romp with wealthier pals. Their pal, ""poor little rich boy"" Laurie, joins in and becomes their adoptive brother, as the girls deal with Meg's first romance, Beth's life-threatening illness, and fears for their father's safety.The second half of the book opens with Meg's wedding (if not to the man of her dreams, then to the man she loves). Things rapidly go awry after the wedding, when Laurie admits his true feelings to Jo -- only to be rejected. Distraught, he leaves; Amy also leaves on a trip to Europe with a picky old relative. Despite the deterioration of Beth's health, Jo makes her way into a job as a governess, seeking to put her treasured writing into print -- and finds her destiny as well.There's a clearly autobiographical tone to ""Little Women."" Not surprising -- the March girls really are like the girls next door. Alcott wrote them with flaws and strengths, and their misadventures -- like Amy's embarrassing problem with her huge lobster -- have the feeling of authenticity. How much of it is real? A passage late in the book portrays Alcott -- in the form of Jo -- ""scribbling"" down the book itself, and getting it published because it feels so real and true.Sure, usually classics are hard to read. But ""Little Women"" is mainly daunting because of its length; the actual stories flow nicely and smoothly. Don't think it's just a book for teenage girls, either -- adults and boys can appreciate it as well. There's something for everyone: drama, romance, humor, sad and happy endings alike.Alcott's writing itself is nicely detailed. While certain items are no longer in common use (what IS a charabanc anyway?), Alcott's stories themselves seem very fresh and could easily be seen in a modern home. And as nauseating as ""heartwarming"" stories sometimes are, these definitely qualify. Sometimes, especially in the beginning, Alcott is a bit too preachy and hamhanded. But her touch becomes defter as she writes on.Jo is the quintessential tomboy, and the best character in the book: rough, gawky, fun-loving, impulsive, with a love of literature and a mouth that is slightly too big. Meg's love of luxury adds a flaw to the ""perfect little homemaker"" image, and Beth just avoids being shown as too saintly. Amy is an annoying little brat throughout much of the first half of the book, but by her teens she's almost as good as Jo.""Little Women"" is one of those rare classic novels that is still relevant, funny, fresh and heartbreaking today. Louisa May Alcott's best-known novel is a magnificent achievement." +1213,0736641238,Little Women,,A1HGT0SMPSCXBN,B.Howard,0/0,5.0,1356825600,Coming of age tale,"I never had the chance to read this book while in my younger years, like most girls do, but at the age of 22 I still feel as if this book can inspire women at any age as they transition through the various phases of womanhood." +1214,0736641238,Little Women,,A1X924K6BRC8PK,Lisa R,0/0,5.0,1356134400,All time classic,"Little Women, always a classic. If you are young and have never read this book, it is highly suggested. The classics are classics for a reason.Good movie too!" +1215,0736641238,Little Women,,A2IVVR7QXDCBGJ,"Regina ""Believer in what you can't see""",0/0,5.0,1356480000,One of the best story ever told,"This is one of my favorite stories, it's very honest and kind, loving and hopeful. I like that the women are strong and that they stick together. The story is better than any of the films, but I love the films too." +1216,0736641238,Little Women,,,,4/4,4.0,1152662400,Interesting,"I love to read and have begun reading many classics. My teacher recommended ""Little Women"" for me to read. So, I went off and bought it at the bookstore. In this edition you read an introductin first which I thought was a bit boring and long. It tells about the back round of the author and how this book was made. This story is broken up into two parts. The story starts out with four girls- Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy. Their father is away at war. The first part of the story was too drawn out I thought. There is a description for everything. I did however enjoy reading it. The second part had a lot of action. There are weddings and births, and sadly even a death. It was more paced then the first part. I think Jo had the best character. She was so realistic. All in all, I thought this story was pretty good and I am not disappointed in it. I am very happy I read it. I know it is a classic and I do understand why." +1217,0736641238,Little Women,,A1S52XH2CS4Y26,Fitzgerald Fan,18/20,5.0,1161216000,Alcott Threw Me For A Loop!,"This may sound ridiculous, but I was bound and determined to hate this novel. I had managed to avoid it all my life, but was recently assigned the text in a graduate class on the ""Study of the Novel."" I consider myself a feminist, and a somewhat cynical one at that, and was sure this was going to be too ""Pollyanna"" for my literary tastes. I stand corrected!I absolutely fell in love with Jo's tomboyish headstrong character and furthermore, I must confess that next to Dolores Price (from Wally Lamb's ""She's Come Undone) and David Copperfield (Dickens' own), Laurie has become one of my all-time favorite literary characters.There are a lot of overly religious maxims being spewed forth in the first half of the book, but it was not enough to detract from my overall enjoyment. And while the book is ""light hearted"" in many respects, there are many serious topics worthy of graduate level discussion, such as the suppression of feminine anger and utilization and importance of self control, inner versus outer appearances, Victorian expectations of behaviors across classes and genders, and the cause and effect of the absence of the ""father"" for the sisters, as well as Laurie.My overall literary experience has been greatly enriched by having read this book and I recommend it to all who have not yet had the pleasure of reading it. Of course, I especially recommend it to those skeptics out there, like me, who think they already have the whole thing pegged for ""fluff"" :)Alcott's ""Little Women"" is, without question, an American masterpiece and deserves to be on the shelves with the ""Huck Finn""s and ""Great Gatsby""s." +1218,0736641238,Little Women,,A3T7RT7MV1DGRU,Sara A. Pauff,0/0,4.0,1281052800,A childhood favorite,"I like this book because of Jo March. And I never cry when Beth dies, because she annoys me." +1219,0736641238,Little Women,,AN8UQVMDL5SVN,"Kat ""Katy B""",2/2,3.0,1287532800,Great for the price!,"Nothing is better than free! Aside from a few typographical errors in the Kindle version, this book is an excellent e-book freebie. I had put off reading it since I was very young but had always wondered at the hype of this book. It may well be considered a literary classic, although I still don't consider it a must-read for every young girl." +1220,0736641238,Little Women,,A3LUOKZULKUHMZ,Mary Pearson,0/0,5.0,1358294400,"Enjoyable,wholesome,reading","A book for the refreshment of the soul, a fresh look at the beauty and joy that family,love,and goodness can cause to blossom." +1221,0736641238,Little Women,,A8DJ9EU2QP2JM,Wayne A. Smith,1/1,4.0,995846400,My Daughter Liked It,"The four March girls (Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy) come of age in Civil War America in this classic from Louisa May Alcott.This is a morality tale in which the girls experience separation from a parent (Dad is off to fight for the Union), caring for each other and their mother, travel, loss and death, love, marriage and most of the life experiences one might expect a young woman to encounter.My abridged edition proved to be a good reader... The story held her interest and the experiences of the sisters almost always led to good discussions about dating, loss, marriage, caring and the other topics Ms. Alcott does a good job of rostering up a chapter at a time.A good book for the elementary school set." +1222,0736641238,Little Women,,A25BVI7W6FDM98,"B. Mayer ""b. mayer""",0/0,5.0,1356998400,Classic not to be missed,"I neglected reading this classic for thirty years, and am stunned by the simple beauty of the characters and subject…" +1223,0736641238,Little Women,,A2W9V5QEQ1OO60,Donna O'Donnell,0/0,5.0,1297728000,Little Women,I'd read this book 60 years ago and had forgotten how beautifully it was written. I recommend a re-read of this charming book!! +1224,0736641238,Little Women,,A2BKL7UWZ2MI64,Kevin,0/0,5.0,1358985600,Fantastic!,"This has got to be one of the greatest books I will ever read. And this is coming from a 5th grade boy. I love classics, and have read books like Treasure Island and A Christmas Carol. But this may just be the best of the three.Now I want to say specifically to Pete, yah, you know who I'm talking about, that how the heck could you say this book is bad? IT'S AWESOME! And then I want to say to aaman or whatever your name is, come on. Really? Did you have to write TWO reviews on how bad this book was? No. And then there was someone else who said they tried to read it twice with their mom, but hated it. Anyway, I'm on very low battery, so I need to go. Good-bye." +1225,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,4.0,913075200,Good book!,"I am nine years old and read Little Women recently. This book is very poetic. I like the way the four girls are each interested in different things; for example Meg is very motherly, Jo is a tomboy and loves to write and do plays, Beth is shy and thoughtful and Amy is good at art and is very concieted. Some parts did go a little slow. It's very realistic because the girls do have some fights and act very much like sisters. Their father is at war and they are not very wealthy, but throughout the book they learn that they love eachother and have good times without money. They realize that without a lot of money they are really very lucky and also realize that there are others with money that don't have as much family love as they do. I think you will really enjoy this book." +1226,0736641238,Little Women,,A3I4FFFOXEDQAE,hiruni perera,0/0,5.0,1356566400,Amazing book,"One of the few classics that are highly engaging. I loved the warmth of love, family, and friendship this book teaches us." +1227,0736641238,Little Women,,AAVVQKHCQITTJ,Aamna B. Zaki,0/37,1.0,1267056000,THE ABSOLUTE WORST BOOK THAT WILL EVER EXIST IN THE HISTORY OF ALL BOOKS!,LITTLE WOMEN BY LOUSY LOUISA MAY ALCOTT( I THINK THAT'S HER NAME ) IS THE UTMOST WORST BOOK YOU WILL EVER READ IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IM GOING TO CALL lOUISA lOUSY... BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT DESCRIBES THIS BOOK. lOUSY WRITES A LOUSY 1800'S BOOK THAT IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BORING!! THIS BOOK IS VERY INFORMATIVE AND IS NOOO FUN TO READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! +1228,0736641238,Little Women,,A29DRSUUFBZRR,"PAB ""I LOVE Amazon you can get everything here""",1/1,4.0,1326585600,almost perfect,"Read the book, watched the movie and read the book again. This book will pull at your heart strings. A different time/era. But it is easy to relate to. It reminds us to embrace our families, be strong in our ups and downs. Step back and view complicated relationships and remember somehow it all works out." +1229,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,5.0,1034121600,A timeless Treasure for girls,"Little Women is a story of four sisters with thier own point of views. This book has a very strong romantic field, but yet it has all of our child hood fantacies. The story is about four remarkable young girls, and as the pages turn they all grow up. Each one finds thier own love but desperate times happen more often. I love this book and, I think that this is a remarkable story of four sisters growing up together. As you read this book you may feel sad but everyone faces tough times. So read this book, It truly is worth reading." +1230,0736641238,Little Women,,A3HLY2DN5Z0693,Jenna,0/0,3.0,1360195200,Ok book,"I know it is a classic, but it is a hard read now a days. Has a very sweet story though." +1231,0736641238,Little Women,,APPZ3MDZ9M9M6,Rebecca Moss,0/0,5.0,940032000,An all-time favorite,"I have loved these books ever since my mother introduced me to them at a young age (I was probably six at the time.) To this day, she remembers me asking tearfully, "Mommy, Beth's not really dead, is she?" Now, at age 21, I've read two copies until they fell apart and plan on buying a third as soon as I can afford it." +1232,0736641238,Little Women,,A1D2C0WDCSHUWZ,"E. A Solinas ""ea_solinas""",10/13,5.0,1113868800,"From ""Little Women"" to ""Good Wives""","Louisa May Alcott wrote many books, but ""Little Women"" retains a special place in the heart of American literature. Her warmly realistic stories, sense of comedy and tragedy, and insights into human nature make the romance, humor and sweet stories of ""Little Women"" come alive.The four March girls -- practical Meg, rambunctious Jo, sweet Beth and childish artist Amy -- live in genteel poverty with their mother Marmee; their father is away in the Civil War. Despite having little money, the girls keep their spirits up with writing, gardening, homemade plays, and the occasional romp with wealthier pals. Their pal, ""poor little rich boy"" Laurie, joins in and becomes their adoptive brother, as the girls deal with Meg's first romance, Beth's life-threatening illness, and fears for their father's safety.The second half of the book opens with Meg's wedding (if not to the man of her dreams, then to the man she loves). Things rapidly go awry after the wedding, when Laurie admits his true feelings to Jo -- only to be rejected. Distraught, he leaves; Amy also leaves on a trip to Europe with a picky old relative. Despite the deterioration of Beth's health, Jo makes her way into a job as a governess, seeking to put her treasured writing into print -- and finds her destiny as well.There's a clearly autobiographical tone to ""Little Women."" Not surprising -- the March girls really are like the girls next door. Alcott wrote them with flaws and strengths, and their misadventures -- like Amy's embarrassing problem with her huge lobster -- have the feeling of authenticity. How much of it is real? A passage late in the book portrays Alcott -- in the form of Jo -- ""scribbling"" down the book itself, and getting it published because it feels so real and true.Sure, usually classics are hard to read. But ""Little Women"" is mainly daunting because of its length; the actual stories flow nicely and smoothly. Don't think it's just a book for teenage girls, either -- adults and boys can appreciate it as well. There's something for everyone: drama, romance, humor, sad and happy endings alike.Alcott's writing itself is nicely detailed. While certain items are no longer in common use (what IS a charabanc anyway?), Alcott's stories themselves seem very fresh and could easily be seen in a modern home. And as nauseating as ""heartwarming"" stories sometimes are, these definitely qualify. Sometimes, especially in the beginning, Alcott is a bit too preachy and hamhanded. But her touch becomes defter as she writes on.Jo is the quintessential tomboy, and the best character in the book: rough, gawky, fun-loving, impulsive, with a love of literature and a mouth that is slightly too big. Meg's love of luxury adds a flaw to the ""perfect little homemaker"" image, and Beth just avoids being shown as too saintly. Amy is an annoying little brat throughout much of the first half of the book, but by her teens she's almost as good as Jo.""Little Women"" is one of those rare classic novels that is still relevant, funny, fresh and heartbreaking today. Louisa May Alcott's best-known novel is a magnificent achievement." +1233,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,5.0,1086048000,Terrific.,"My God-mother gave me this book. After chapter one, I was hooked, but since I'm not usually into the ""classics"", I was quite surprised at how much I liked it. I read this book in about 3 or 4 days. It's a must read. Read this one. Your eyes will thank you later." +1234,0736641238,Little Women,,AWKNYHEA5SCUT,Yule Linden,0/0,5.0,1355702400,mpressive story,"Little Women tells the story four sisters that live in the North America during the civil war. What makes this book a great read is the excellent development of the characters and the emphasis on family, relationships and moral values." +1235,0736641238,Little Women,,A39RBPQU4FA6FW,Bibliophile without borders,0/0,5.0,1360886400,perennial favorite for the ages,"A very early reader, I received a copy of ""Little Women"" at age 7. From the very first time I read this lovely book, I fancied myself as Jo, and so thoroughly identified with her that even through all the succeeding decades and thousands of other books read, this book will remain one of my top five favourite books because of her. I read and reread this book sitting in a big apple tree in my parent's back yard, laying on the grass on a summer's day, and under the sheets with a flashlight I now suspect my parents knew I had stashed under my bed.In an age of easily digested and mass-produced books with weak characters and plot, ""Little Women"" is a stand-out that resists the passage of time for its exemplary characters, theme of family unity, and love on so many different levels (friendship, familial, true love, and romantic love).Readers today might find the writing and occasional chirpiness of the March sisters when faced with their poverty a bit difficult to relate to, but knowing stories of how my own mother and sisters faced the Depression and then WWII in the UK made me realise from an early age that trying to find things to rejoice in is essential to surviving tragedy and loss on a personal level.The March sisters encapsulate female society in most countries even now, and are well-written individual characters, each with a different goal they wish to fulfil in life. The girls do not become career women, and their parents do preach the importance of family life and sacrifice, however, each one does what was expected of young girls at that time. Jo's daring in writing a sensationalist ""man's"" story and insisting on payment commensurate with a man was unheard of in those days and when one considers that women are still underpaid, it makes Jo's triumph still relative today. Amy's goal of being comfortably well-off is eventually tempered by her own personal sorrow at the poor health of her own little Beth, Meg wants to be a mother and wife, and she learns not to overachieve, and Beth who overcomes pathological shyness through her altruism and empathy for others and which leads to her death is still inspirational today.My suggestion is that if you have a daughter, sister, granddaughter or friend, take turns reading it. It will improve your vocabulary, make you smile, and dear Beth's stoicism will bring a tear to your eye." +1236,0736641238,Little Women,,AUYCH66QDL9PB,Deniece Wood,0/0,5.0,1358467200,Same as ever....,I so love the adventures of these four sisters and laughed and cried almond with them! I may read it again! +1237,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/1,4.0,1055980800,""" The Little Women"" are all grown up","I think the title of this book is wrong. They are women, but they aren't little. They are very mature for their ages. Beth is 13, almost like me, but she acts like she is Meg's age and above. Amy is a little whiner. She dislikes her nose and loves to paint. Jo is a dreamer. She has all the dreams of writing and such. Meg is the oldest. She has a job as a governess for two little kids. Little Women is a great book, although it gets a little lengthy." +1238,0736641238,Little Women,,,,1/1,5.0,982022400,Little Women,"When I first read "Little Women" I was twelve years old and now, several years later, it is still my favorite book. One of the reasons for that is that the book is effidently written with much love and feeling, which is quite understandable, knowing that it is based on Louisa Alcott's own life. It is really tragic when one finds out what Louisa's real life was like and the way she describes it in "Little Women". It is as if she were decribing the life she wished for, while she tries at the same time to depict the truth. The way she describes the family life is heartwarming and I always hope that my children will love me as much as the March girls love their mother. The book is a picture of love, confidence and goodness. Some people may say it is too soft and moralistic, but I think that it can't do any harm to think about that once in a while. I mean, what is wrong with being good? The March girls are not saints, not even Beth, but they try to be as good as possible and many people should try that too. This book is most surely the loveliest story I have ever read and probably the best I'll ever read. And I don't think I am alone in that, otherwise it wouldn't be so popular today, over a hundred years after its first publication." +1239,0736641238,Little Women,,,,1/1,5.0,988070400,This book changed my life,"This is how my life used to be: I get home from school, wander around in the pantry for awhile wondering what to eat, snatch a bag of chips, grab the comics, sit down and read the "Marvin" and "Pickles" comic strips. Marvin's fun to read, and the Pickles' characters, Earl and Opal, put on an entertaining show. That was the past. Now I've found a book that sends Marvin, Earl, and Opal packing. When I started to read Little Women, things dramatically changed. It was good-bye to Marvin, Earl and Opal and hello to Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy. It was Little Women before food. It was Little Women first. Because of poverty, the characters stumble over many rocks on the road of their lives. Once in a while, they find a golden nugget lying in their path. In Little Women, author Louisa May Allcott shows the life of four sisters. Meg is a quiet proper young lady, who in spite of here desire of wealth, falls in love with her neighbor's poor tutor. Jo is the wild one with the lowest amount of properness and the highest amount of dreams. She is a young and talented writer and finds a deep friendship with the neighbor boy, Laurie, because of their great similarities. Amy is the artist. Her wish is to be popular at school. She is proper and receives great credit for it. As for Beth, she has nothing to look forward to. This frail young girl knows her future and has no wish other then love and happiness. Now I leave you, my friend, to find the future of these women by picking up the book and entering their lives." +1240,0736641238,Little Women,,A256A340QH0CWQ,Zoe Schoenthal,0/0,2.0,1359331200,Little women,I think this book is a touching story of a mother and her kids trying to live happy romance and more. Mother got what she wanted a grand child and even though they never became rich they were rich in love affection and happiness. +1241,0736641238,Little Women,,AIDYYJJAEUFDF,luvmykindle1104,0/0,5.0,1337126400,Always reminds me of my childhood!,This was one of my favorite novels as a child. I just recently read it again and it was still a wonderful and entertaining book. It is still one of my favorites! +1242,0736641238,Little Women,,A10LIUHN9UTH7O,Lucy,0/0,5.0,1349654400,little women,"I really enjoyed that book, because the kids in the book have different kind of personalities that makes more interest,reach,active.you will really enjoy it is not boring at all, also the person who reads the book has good intonation while read it." +1243,0736641238,Little Women,,A1C0PHJN6AUZT6,"T. Steffes ""tawniemarie""",0/0,5.0,1185494400,The Best Louisa May Alcott Novel!,"I read this book when I was a little girl and I love it as much now as I did then. The neat thing about Little Women is how I connect more with different characters during different points in my life. Romantic Amy, Rebellious Jo, Homemaker Meg, I love them all. This is a definite must read!" +1244,0736641238,Little Women,,A1M7VDZ49ADI0J,Cowabunga,2/2,4.0,1212451200,Frustratingly realistic.,"I first read this book when I was in third grade. I was about halfway through the book when I had to fling it across the room from me in utter horror. Eventually, the pull of the book was too strong: I picked it up, finished it, and sulked for a week. And ever since then, whenever I try to reread it, I end up tossing it across the room, screaming, pulling my hair: the characters just get under your skin. You *care* about what happens to them.The little women are Meg, Jo, Amy, and Beth. They have flaws, just like real people: Meg is vain, Jo is boyish, and Amy is a bit of a brat. Beth is utterly angelic, and can do no wrong. But while these may sound like pasted on personalities, they're not. Over the course of such a long book, you become deeply attached to the characters, and get to know and love them.The story centers primarily around tomboyish Jo. She is constantly getting into scrapes, but is dedicated to her family and goes to great lengths to prove it. It's a growing up story: we follow Jo from a carefree girl who whistles and runs outside to a wife who would give everything for her husband.Now for the bad: Louisa May Alcott is fond of injecting moral lessons into every chapter. That might have been nice in the 1800s, but now, it can seem a bit cloying. That said, the stories themselves are enjoyable enough if you can get past the morality.Further, this book offers some of the most emotionally dissatisfying scenes I've ever read. Hence me throwing the book across the room. I don't want to spoil it for you; you'll know it when you get to it. And you'll be as upset as I was. So be prepared.Overall, Little Women is a good family story with realistic characters. Young girls will probably enjoy it the most, but I think anyone can get something out of it." +1245,0736641238,Little Women,,,,1/1,5.0,986169600,The Best Classic on the market,"Little Women is the best book I have ever read. The heartwarming story of the four sisters Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy is a classic everyone should grow to read and love. The story depicts one family's hope and strength to overcome one struggle after another. This story is wonderful for both children and adults, and it really shows how close families can be and how their love can affect one another. I think that anyone in need in a good book to read whenever should pick up Little Women by Louisa May Alcott. The sequels Little Men and Jo's Boys also give readers the stories of the March family after Little Women ends. Five stars for sure!!" +1246,0736641238,Little Women,,A3C2RGMRAI1JG1,"Evenstar ""Busy Reader""",0/0,5.0,1286755200,One of My Favorites,"This book is without a doubt one of my all-time favorites, and I have read it over and over without tiring of it. I am a teacher and just ordered several copies to share with some of the students in my class who are avid readers and will love the storyline. It's filled with moments of joy and sorrow, and by the end of the book you almost feel as if you are a part of the March family. A MUST-read!" +1247,0736641238,Little Women,,AA4XUIQTSER8S,Mary,0/0,4.0,1360368000,Little Women,"Re-reading it now. A good balance between superfluous writing and practical observation of women in that era. I enjoy Little Women both for the natural and whimsical natures of the girls and have always been a fan of their funny personalities, especially Jo and Amy. Highly recommended." +1248,0736641238,Little Women,,A1D2C0WDCSHUWZ,"E. A Solinas ""ea_solinas""",0/0,5.0,1271376000,From little women to good wives,"Louisa May Alcott wrote many books, but ""Little Women"" retains a special place in the heart of American literature. Her warmly realistic stories, sense of comedy and tragedy, and insights into human nature make the romance, humor and sweet stories of ""Little Women"" come alive.The four March girls -- practical Meg, rambunctious Jo, sweet Beth and childish artist Amy -- live in genteel poverty with their mother Marmee; their father is away in the Civil War. Despite having little money, the girls keep their spirits up with writing, gardening, homemade plays, and the occasional romp with wealthier pals. Their pal, ""poor little rich boy"" Laurie, joins in and becomes their adoptive brother, as the girls deal with Meg's first romance, Beth's life-threatening illness, and fears for their father's safety.The second half of the book opens with Meg's wedding (if not to the man of her dreams, then to the man she loves). Things rapidly go awry after the wedding, when Laurie admits his true feelings to Jo -- only to be rejected. Distraught, he leaves; Amy also leaves on a trip to Europe with a picky old relative. Despite the deterioration of Beth's health, Jo makes her way into a job as a governess, seeking to put her treasured writing into print -- and finds her destiny as well.There's a clearly autobiographical tone to ""Little Women."" Not surprising -- the March girls really are like the girls next door. Alcott wrote them with flaws and strengths, and their misadventures -- like Amy's embarrassing problem with her huge lobster -- have the feeling of authenticity. How much of it is real? A passage late in the book portrays Alcott -- in the form of Jo -- ""scribbling"" down the book itself, and getting it published because it feels so real and true.Sure, usually classics are hard to read. But ""Little Women"" is mainly daunting because of its length; the actual stories flow nicely and smoothly. Don't think it's just a book for teenage girls, either -- adults and boys can appreciate it as well. There's something for everyone: drama, romance, humor, sad and happy endings alike.Alcott's writing itself is nicely detailed. While certain items are no longer in common use (what IS a charabanc anyway?), Alcott's stories themselves seem very fresh and could easily be seen in a modern home. And as nauseating as ""heartwarming"" stories sometimes are, these definitely qualify. Sometimes, especially in the beginning, Alcott is a bit too preachy and hamhanded. But her touch becomes defter as she writes on.Jo is the quintessential tomboy, and the best character in the book: rough, gawky, fun-loving, impulsive, with a love of literature and a mouth that is slightly too big. Meg's love of luxury adds a flaw to the ""perfect little homemaker"" image, and Beth just avoids being shown as too saintly. Amy is an annoying little brat throughout much of the first half of the book, but by her teens she's almost as good as Jo.""Little Women"" is one of those rare classic novels that is still relevant, funny, fresh and heartbreaking today. Louisa May Alcott's best-known novel is a magnificent achievement." +1249,0736641238,Little Women,,A3PRUGJG39KOTM,Dott. Italo Perazzoli,0/0,4.0,1321315200,Little Women,"Louisa Alcott was born in the 1832 in a town called Germantown, Pennsylvania United States.Her father was a philosopher and teacher averse to any work activities.For this reason the family was forced to move in areas in and around Boston Massachusetts.In my opinion it is wrong to criticize him like an layabout mainly because he was surely against the labor exploitation and the alienation of the man - machine.The family was involved in an intense moral conviction, for instance they did not wear cotton, because it was produced by slave labor in the south of the United States.Reading this novel we will be conscious of the good teachings and the tension due to the Civil War.In my opinion this is a fundamental reading for young and adult readers, because they will learn the significance of poverty, the importance and rules of the family for the evolution of the society, and the collateral effect of the American Civil War on a family of four daughters.From the first paragraphs emerges their purity and social commitment when the girls decided to renounce of their Christmas' gift for buy a present to their mother and their commendable attitude in regard to the Hummels.The central character is Josephine March, in my opinion the author of this novel and the particular description of her childhood in a difficult context in a difficult time and her true love for a man and the culture.Before analyzing the most important phrases, I have to say that the good teaching of this novel is that as responsible citizens we must empower our children about their centrality for a proper development and maintaining of the society." +1250,0736641238,Little Women,,A1UIM8430PR6XI,"L. Hall ""kamheskin""",0/1,3.0,1090022400,An Overlong Soap Opera!!!,"An adorable book that may seem long at times.The story is about a family with four daughters,Meg,Jo,Beth and Amy. The book opens when the father is away at war. It is Christmas time and the girls and their mother, whom they call Marmee, haven't much to live on but love. This book is a recounting of their lives, until three of them get married and have babies of their own.The book ends with them all attending a birthday party, and eachrealizing that they couldn't be happier for they all have whatthey always dreamed of.As I said before, this book is overlong at places. Iprefer to watch my soap operas on tv. And some of the words were British, and I never did find out what they meant. Other than those faults, it was a grand book, and I give it a rating of 3.5 stars:)" +1251,0736641238,Little Women,,A17S15ZHWFVNKK,A 12-year old reader,0/0,5.0,999561600,A story of family's struggles and hapiness: Little women,"This is a book about family. It shows struggles and hapiness. The story is about 4 girls growing up with their mom. Their father is not there because he is at war. Their names are Joe( main character) Amy, Beth, and Meg. Beth struggles from a disease and is usually not well, so her family must care for her when she is in need. Joe, the main character wants to be a writer but must put that a side when her sister is sick. Amy is the youngest, she trys to help Beth but is sent away because they fear she will get sick also. Meg, the oldest is married and lives at the house so she can help with the gardening and wathing Beth. The last character is Lorie he is their neighbor, he helps them out a lot. Once he sent a carriage to transfer the girls mom to their father because he is ill. Lorie ends up marrying one of the girls, but I won't tell you who. This book is one of the best books that I have read. So I suggest you read it." +1252,0736641238,Little Women,,A6LNR499ZAMQ4,J. Tarwater,0/0,4.0,1359590400,I like this book because...,It has adventures as well as relationships and humorous sections. Even though I struggled through some parts I still think that it is a great book. +1253,0736641238,Little Women,,A157EB6ORDDZVD,"JA McCarter ""Jayne""",18/19,5.0,1225324800,"Wonderful book, very tasteless introduction!","The book was absolutely wonderful!! But the introduction was written in very bad taste. The insinuations were offensive and with out just cause!!Had I read the introduction before I purchased the book, I would have chosen another copy. I had purchased it and then read the introduction, so as I write, the pages have been cut out of this book. Louisa May Alcott did not deserve the insinuations from this person." +1254,0736641238,Little Women,,,,2/6,4.0,1136592000,I LIKE IT,ITS A GOOD STORY I WISH JO WOULD HAVE BE MORE TOMBOYISH BUT I LIKED IT +1255,0736641238,Little Women,,A1R77GO77FBLMJ,Min Farshaw,0/2,4.0,1008720000,um.,"I read this book when I was 10 and on a vacation, and for my lil brain at that age it was great, but now it's just a little too simple that the children always try to do the right thing no matter what, always do as their mother tells them to, and always end up learning something wonderful. For the young reader, read it! If you're older and you want to read a children's story, read it! but if you want to read a book that seems realistic, don't" +1256,0736641238,Little Women,,A2CLCWLN7PZ3U6,Coppertop,1/1,5.0,1140048000,Timeless Classic,"The story of the March girls is a timeless classic that will never get old or out-dated. It is a book that can make you cry and sing. It is the story of life and the trials faced within it. It is a book everyone should read - and not because they have to, but because they want to." +1257,0736641238,Little Women,,A3NORJZI0E85ZL,Hilda,2/2,4.0,1231718400,Still a delight after all these years...,"I've read ""Little Women"" several times through the years - the first time when I was about 10 years old I guess, and always enjoyed it.The story is simple and sweet, but I think it still carries a strong message about the strength in the bonds of women. Progressive for the time, Alcott presents in the March women different ""types"" - Meg, the pretty, domestic one; Jo, the tomboyish, independent rebel; Beth, the too-good-for-this-world moral angel; Amy, the flighty, spoiled, bratty princess - at least at first; and then Marmee, the redeemed wild child who is now their strength and moral compass. The men, while not maligned are almost incidental, serving as props to highlight the different personalities of the women.The characters are wonderfully developed, as we see them grow through the years. The setting is very well described - you can ""see"" the gardens and rooms. And again, having been written for young women, the writing is easy to read and follow, if a bit long-winded. Despite Jo's detailed character development, I feel her love story was rushed and not developed enough - as opposed to those of Meg and Amy. I imagine her relationship with Bhaer is delved into more in the sequel ""Little Men"", which I haven't read yet.Although I like the book very much I think it suffers in comparison with Jane Austen's ""Pride and Prejudice"". Even though the time frame of ""Little Women"" - during and after the Civil War - is almost 100 years later than ""Pride and Prejudice"" - late 18th century/early 19th century - I think Austen's classic feels more relevant.I definitely recommend ""Little Women"" to everyone, not just pre-teen and teen girls. It's a beautiful, well-told and surprisingly progressive story." +1258,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,5.0,921715200,A story about four girls who change their whole lives.,A brilliant book of true lives. Of great hopes and tragedies. A story someone has to read till the end. +1259,0736641238,Little Women,,A2H74L652G33YS,Susan J. Bybee,7/7,5.0,1108944000,One Of The Great American Novels,"This edition of LITTLE WOMEN is great! First of all, there's the wonderful story of the March family in the years during and after the Civil War, as the 4 daughters -- Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy -- grow to womanhood, experiencing joy and overcoming obstacles and tragedy. This edition stays true to the language and grammar used in the original. I have read versions of the novel in which the girls' grammar is cleaned up for them!In addition, the introduction by Susan Cheever is first-rate; it is neither too long or too short, and she beautifully ties it to her own experience without being cloying.Another reason why I so highly recommend this edition is because there is a glossary at the back to explain some of the obscure (to modern readers) terms and obsolete slang. Also, there's a nice essay/review by G.K. Chesterson, who warmly praises Alcott's book." +1260,0736641238,Little Women,,AMCAID3LTHKEC,"Tara Walker Gross ""Avid Reader""",1/5,3.0,1236124800,"Great history lesson, bad moral tirade.","I am absolutely torn as to how to rate this book.On one part, I feel awful about giving it a BAD rating, because it is a classic novel with an impeccably clean story.On the other hand, I can't bring myself to give it a GOOD rating, because the whole thing read like a Puritanical rant.Therefore, I think I will go with a 2.5 out of 5 star rating.I feel that Ms. Alcott said it best in the following quote: ""'You said, mother, that criticism would help me; but how can it, when it's so contradictory that I don't know whether I've written a promising book or broken all the Ten Commandments?...This man says, ""An exquisite book, full of truth, beauty, and earnestness; all is sweet, pure, and healthy""...The next, ""The theory of the book is bad, full of morbid fantasies, spiritualistic ideas, and unnatural characters.""'""As this quote was found in Part 2 of the book, which was written some years after Part 1 was published, I can only assume that the quote itself reflects real criticism that Ms. Alcott received for Part 1 of Little Women and reiterate that ""I couldn't have said it better myself.""Of course, all of this is coming from one who is long past childhood and young adulthood and therefore somewhat jaded in both spiritual and relationship matters, and as this book is basically the epitome of happy endings and moral tirades, I just could not bring myself to enjoy it as much as I may have 10-15 years ago." +1261,0736641238,Little Women,,ARLOHQTLYDPBD,pamela flores,0/0,5.0,1359676800,Awesom,Fcfcxvv c.f. vBulletin c f v crucibLe ox amoralvcvcc c.f.xxx :/ ghost charm c.f. b c.f. fvcgbcfhcfhv c.f. v c.f. v +1262,0736641238,Little Women,,A3CCXRDBP9MDOT,julie piehn,0/0,5.0,1360800000,Childhood Literature,Little Women was one of my favorite books as a young adult. I downloaded it so I could reread as an adult. So glad to have a free version for my Kindle! +1263,0736641238,Little Women,,A2IZPIQUIPGS83,tony,0/0,5.0,1358812800,Little women,I love it so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so much so that you have to get it. +1264,0736641238,Little Women,,A164XECGE6QE0E,Sailing Maine,3/4,5.0,1141603200,Absolutely a MUST read!,"You know the story. If you don't, many of these other reviewers have done the job for me. For me, this is my most favorite book in all of American literature. Growing up, I had a friend who was just like Beth and everytime I re-read this book, I remember my childhood adventures with Beth. The fictional Beth in ""Little Women"" was as much of a friend as my other friend, too.I cannot recommend this book enough. If you haven't read it -- you must read it." +1265,0736641238,Little Women,,A1JD7802SN0MNZ,Gwen,0/0,5.0,1294185600,A childhood favorite revisited,"This was one of my favorite books when I was little. I read it multiple times, and even held my own version of their Pilgrim's Progress roleplay. I hadn't read it for years, but when I got my Kindle for Christmas and saw this free version, I had to download it. The book is still as wonderful as I remembered (and some part of me still pulls for Jo and Laurie to get together, though I love Professor Bhaer, too). It's a gentle, quiet book filled with profound wisdom and loving relationships between family members. The path of growing up is never easy, but this book shows how for many, faith and family can be the underpinnings for a bright future." +1266,0736641238,Little Women,,A36CPLOZJ24K15,Tiglet,0/0,5.0,1353801600,A classic,"I enjoyed it a lot. All of my sisters had read it but me and I wanted a little fun reading it was great funny, sad, and a great ending" +1267,0736641238,Little Women,,A148XXF75WXFVA,"Arkie Gal ""avid reader""",1/1,5.0,1350604800,Classics are sometimes best,"I read ""Little Women"" when I was in junior high school and I loved the book. I decided to re-read it and I am glad I did. So much fiction today is lacking in plot, character development, and thought, in short, this is good literature. This is one of the best books around for people of all ages. I so appreciate that the March family experienced the joys and pains of everyday living and handled both with dignity, spirit, and a genuine love for each other. Even though poor, the March family rose above it. So many lessons are taught in this book that young people, particularly, could benefit from reading it. I will add this to my reading list of books that I read every couple of years!" +1268,0736641238,Little Women,,A1POFVVXUZR3IQ,Z Hayes,1/1,5.0,1275782400,One of the best coming-of-age stories!,"I first read ""Little Women"" by Louisa May Alcott almost twenty years ago and it remains one of my favorite coming-of-age stories. The story of four sisters - Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy and their trials, tribulations, joys, and life with their beloved mother Marmee appeals on so many levels. These young ladies go through so much, and bear it all stoically, especially with their father being away during the Civil War.Jo, the protagonist in this story is a strong-willed, independent-minded young woman and the character that appeals to me the most. She chafes against the strictures imposed against the women of her time, and struggles with her losses whilst trying to establish herself as a writer. The themes in this novel are varied - poverty, family, friendships, grief, and female emancipation and are deftly dealt with. This will always be a classic and one I hope to share with my own young daughter in the near future." +1269,0736641238,Little Women,,A2XKCCMWX25D49,C. L. Leeper,9/10,3.0,1202688000,Wonderful Story but Lacking in Quantity,I was in the middle of Meg and John's first real dinner together since their babies were born and all of a sudden the story switched to Laurie and Amy. Pages 383-430 were missing from my book! Quite a disappointment. I would recommend a better quality book from a publisher who won't leave out 47 pages. +1270,0736641238,Little Women,,,,5/5,5.0,947980800,Touching and Thought Provoking,"This is now my favorite book! The struggles that the whole family goes through touches me. It reveals how sorrowful and joyous a person can be in a matter of time. Happiness doesn't come with your wealth or belongings, but with your family and friends. I can relate to the girls in the different situations. The story made me laugh and made me cry! I would say it is by far better than the movies. The use of detail and description is beautifully done. I like how the language and story are so old fashioned and find myself using such dialect after reading it! I would recommend this book to anyone who likes bitter-sweet stories that make you think." +1271,0736641238,Little Women,,AKSLXRY0MQH58,Gabrielle,0/0,5.0,1326844800,AMAZING BEAUTIFUL FAMILY STORY!,"This novel touches my soul and warms my heart in ways I never thought possible. I find myself relating to Jo, then to Beth, then to Meg, and rarely, to Amy. I understand these girls and feel as if they are my sisters. Marmee is my second mother. Professor Bhaer is my hot older intelligent German professor. Laurie is my tag along buddy. This story speaks to me. I'm so in love with it that words will not do them justice. This novel produces feelings so strong and sure. I bought this edition at BN for the full retail price. It's a beautiful linen cover and, unfortunately, I GOT A LITTLE NAIL POLISH ON ONE OF THE PAGES! Sorry, I had to vent. Anyway, I'm not sure why some people rate this as one star. This is certainly not an abridged version, there are no pictures, and it's definitely not written for children. Perhaps the picture is deceiving customers and we are not talking about the same edition?GABRIELLE" +1272,0736641238,Little Women,,AVL5IDEE8YA3D,Rachel McElhany,0/0,4.0,1335312000,Little Women audio book by Audio Go,"I read Little Women as a girl and loved it so I was excited to have the opportunity to review an audio production of the book. However, I was quite surprised when the audio book abruptly ended in the middle of the story. I discovered that Little Women was originally two volumes: Little Women and Good Wives. They were first published together as one book titled Little Women in 1880. Most versions of Little Women published today are both volumes together in one book. This audio recording is just the first volume. Because what most people read as Little Women is actually both volumes, I feel like there should have been some indication on the box somewhere that this audio book does not include the second volume.(I don't want to spoil it for anyone who may not have read it yet so I'll say this - remember the Friends episode when Rachel convinces Joey to read Little Women? And he has to put the book in the freezer because of one particularly sad part? This audiobook ends before that sad part happens.)Even though this book was written more than one-hundred years ago, it still has relevance today. I think that the four March girls and Marmee have some good lessons to teach young girls that are timeless. Reading it now as a mother myself, I marveled at Marmee's patience and wisdom. I could learn a lot from her! I was very impressed at how independent and free-thinking the girls and their mother were given the time period the book was written in and took place. (Of course, Louisa May Alcott was a Unitarian so I shouldn't have been surprised at that.)Lorelei King narrated this audio book. I thought she did a great job for the most part. The two voices I didn't like were Beth and Amy's. I thought Beth's was too breathy and Amy's was too babyish - they didn't sound realistic to me. Overall, I enjoyed this audio production. My biggest complaint is that it left unexpectedly hanging at the end." +1273,0736641238,Little Women,,A1D2C0WDCSHUWZ,"E. A Solinas ""ea_solinas""",4/4,5.0,1227312000,From little women to good wives,"Louisa May Alcott wrote many books, from her ""blood and thunder"" tales to heartwarming novels about teens growing up.But there's something special about ""Little Women,"" a fictionalized account of her own family's growing pins. Thewarmly realistic stories, sense of comedy and tragedy, and insights into human nature make the romance, humor and fun little anecdotes of ""Little Women"" come alive.The four March girls -- practical Meg, rambunctious Jo, sweet Beth and childish artist Amy -- live in genteel New England poverty with their Marmee, while their father is away in the Civil War. The girls don't let lack of money hamper their fun and happiness. But their world starts to expand when Jo befriends ""poor little rich boy"" Laurie, and soon he and his tutor are almost a part of their family.Along with him, the girls encounter many of the bumps of growing up -- the destruction of Jo's treasured writing, romps with wealthier pals, Amy's expulsion from school, and Meg's reluctant first romance. But their lives are turned upside-down when Beth contracts scarlet fever, and they receive news that their father has been seriously injured -- and these crises threaten to destroy the heart of their family.The second half of the book opens with Meg's wedding -- if not to her dream guy, then to her love. But while time has mellowed and matured the Little Women, it hasn't lessened the capacity for conflict and unintentional comedy -- particularly with the now-attractive Amy, whose attempts to pursue art, culture and the appearance of wealthy sophistication usually go horribly wrong.But the platonic friendship between Laurie and Jo is shattered when he admits his true feelings to her... and gets rejected. Distraught, he goes to Europe, as does Amy with crusty old Aunt March. And left in New England, Jo is faced with the question of what her life has in store, despite Beth's picturesquely poor health. Her new job as a governess leads her to put her treasured stories into print... leading her to love and her future.There's a clearly autobiographical tone to ""Little Women"" -- and since the March girls really are like the girls next door, this doesn't exactly come as a shock. How much of it is real? A passage late in the book portrays a post-""blood and thunder"" Alcott -- in the form of Jo -- ""scribbling"" down the book itself, and getting it published because it feels so real and true.And it does. Alcott's writing is a warm, smooth string of interconnected stories, some of them quiet and some peppered with silly jokes, moments of tragedy, poetry, and unintentional humiliation (""Salt instead of sugar. And the cream is sour""). Sometimes, especially in the beginning, Alcott is a bit too preachy and hamhanded. But her touch becomes defter as she writes on.The best part of this book is the March girls themselves -- they have flaws and strengths, ambitions and dreams that never quite turn out as they expect. And their misadventures -- like Amy's embarrassing problem with her huge lobster, or Meg's makeover at a rich friend's house -- have the feeling of authenticity.Lovable Jo is the quintessential tomboy -- rough, gawky, fun-loving, impulsive, with a love of literature and a mouth that is slightly too big. Meg's love of luxury adds a flaw to the ""perfect little homemaker"" image, and while Amy is an annoying little brat throughout much of the first half of the book, by her teens she's almost as likable as Jo.It must be admitted that Beth is not quite as endearing -- she's canonized with the 19th-century approach to the deceased, and so is continuously sweet, loving and understanding. But Laurie makes up for this: a wealthy, artistic, passionate young man who goes through all the growing pains, as he tries to be worthy of the girl he adores. Don't worry, things turn out all right for him.""Little Women"" is one of those rare classic novels that is still relevant, funny, fresh and heartbreaking today. The March family will come alive, and never quite leave." +1274,0736641238,Little Women,,AXINS03U94UEX,Beth Smith,0/0,5.0,1361923200,Wonderful read,Perfect literature to start your young female reader with. A true classic in every aspect. Heart warming and story that is sure to touch any heart. +1275,0736641238,Little Women,,A1P07ENUSOV9TI,LOL hats,0/0,5.0,1358121600,Little women,"Very good, wonderful book. Los go key boo all of dm no high such dm I do is arch login skin cool." +1276,0736641238,Little Women,,AEKMPXNFR9SWY,Ingrid,0/0,5.0,1295049600,Little Women,I loved this book but after reading it I didn't realize it had two parts ( Good Wives is the second) and bought the second book. So if you read it you will love it but be carefull! +1277,0736641238,Little Women,,AC8W8CB74R2FU,Katie Meyer,0/3,5.0,1006819200,The Wonderful World of Little Women,"Little Women, by Louisa May Alcott. This book would be classified as a young adult.Little Women is the strory of three sisters. It shows the trials a girl can face as she grows up into a women. The book is filled with romance, trouble, revenge and many other domestic problems.I have read many books that are similar to Little Women. The Old-fashioned Girl, is another delightful story with a similar genre. It is also by Louisa May Alcott.I really enjoyed the book. I love Alcott's style of writng. You are really able to connect with each of the charcters. I found the strongest connection between Jo and myself. She is an independent women. She and likes to be philosophical. We are very much alike in these ways. " Jo is our Literary fellow." This was said about Jo form her sister Meg. The whole March family thought Jo was the greatest authoress that ever did live. I to would love to get such praise for my writings.However good this book may be it does have its drawbacks. I feel there could have been several things omitted. I would recommend this book for those who enjoy stories about women who in their own little ways try to make their world better." +1278,0736641238,Little Women,,A2QYSO84E3QMYH,"Jeniffer L. Decker ""jendecker""",0/0,5.0,1355875200,Read!,One of my favorites since I was a child. I've read it many times and never get tired of it. +1279,0736641238,Little Women,,A2I89G8EPYMZ62,Nancy,0/0,5.0,1355961600,Summary,"Little Women is a classic written by Louisa May Alcott about four sisters and their mother during the Civil war. I have loved this book since I was in 4th grade and continue to love it now.....I won't say how many years later. It's a great read, great descriptions of the morals and manners of the area. I would highly recommend." +1280,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,5.0,912902400,Nobody in the world has an excuse for not reading this book.,"EVERYBODY has to read this book. It's like the best book in the world. I read it, than every girl in my class read it. That's good news. But the boys really didn't have an excuse not to read it. I thought the story was perfect. I can't believe all that happened to Lousia May Alcott. She is one of the best writers in the world." +1281,0736641238,Little Women,,A14MQWGQEJWIK6,CharlotteFierceGrace,0/2,1.0,1301184000,Didn't send the penguin classic. Different cover. SO lame!,I was expecting the book in the picture but what I received was a solid blue covered version. Would not go through this seller again. +1282,0736641238,Little Women,,,,1/1,5.0,1013644800,Little Women,"Do you have sisters? Whether you do or not,read Little Women by Louisa May Alcott. You'lllaugh and cry as you join the girls' journeys ingrowing up. I recommend this to people who havea love of mischief and a spirt for adventure.I learned as you grow up that there aredifficult and humorous times in life." +1283,0736641238,Little Women,,A134IQH0P819OA,Starrroberts1,0/0,5.0,1356912000,Wow,I have all her books I just got my kindle yesterday and I already read this book it was amazing I am not going to delete it +1284,0736641238,Little Women,,A24ROYJWZAJI6E,Danielle Rene Larson,0/0,5.0,1356825600,Little Women,At the beginning all the girls were very selfish. There mother and sister Beth teaches them to feel better and content. By the end they become good women. +1285,0736641238,Little Women,,A1PR03JOYB9F1Q,Losian,2/2,5.0,1108944000,A Wonderful Classic,"Alcott's 'Little Women' is delightful and heartwarming, ever since I started reading it at 10 years old. The novel never fails to show me how we all make mistakes, we all fail, and we all triumph. Some of my friends have told me the book is boring, slow-paced, and idealistic. Little Women is simply about a family facing trials during the Civil War, and every chapter presents a fresh situation with a good deal of humor too. Alcott's style allows you to feel you are one of the March family, and her development of all characters is fantastic. Her details and dialogue allow the story to flow smoothly, and I've learned a lot from this great piece of American literature. I never tire of reading Little Women. It's that wonderful." +1286,0736641238,Little Women,,ADEF9BPX0K6NH,astrid89,0/0,5.0,1356912000,Finally!,"After years of wanting to finish this book, I finally did and it was so good! Makes me appreciate life a little more too." +1287,0736641238,Little Women,,A3IMY6PGV4W08I,Geraldine,0/0,5.0,1362096000,Wonderful,I've seen three of the movies made of this classic. This was the first time I read it and thoroughly enjoyed it. You get to know the characters more and fine out what happens to the three sisters. +1288,0736641238,Little Women,,A22XB4HWOYYCX6,Wayne Hathaway,0/0,5.0,1361923200,Another great classic.,"This is a classic and will be enjoyed by all who like to read classic books. I have read it before, but it never gets old." +1289,0736641238,Little Women,,A1GO7HVBQSQ63P,Jen,1/1,5.0,1272499200,love it,"I read this for the first time about 2 years ago. And when the books' free....This book (and the books after it) were great. Lousia May Alcott made 4 girls, that seem real. 4 girls with problems that girls have now.I especially loved the bond that the March family had. How happy they were when their father came home....Wonderful book. 5 stars." +1290,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,4.0,919036800,My very favorite book of all time.,"I have read Little Women nearly every year since childhood. This book, as well as Anne of Green Gables, are in my opinion among the best literature about girlhood. As I pass through each stage in my life, I find that I understand one of the girls a little more and see more and more of the universality of its theme. Someone once said that Little Women shows how when you are young, all possibilities seem to stand open before you but as you make choices in life one by one other doors close to you. I plan to pass this book on to my daughters." +1291,0736641238,Little Women,,A1BKMYEQ6BP5B5,"Maria Beadnell ""gotlips""",2/8,2.0,1209600000,No longer relevant.,"Little Women is very like The Brady Bunch. In its time, everybody knew it was sugary-sweet and unrealistic. (Including, and especially, Alcott.) It still dared to tackle subjects previously taboo. (For Little Women, it was daring to show girls with personalities, for Brady Bunch, it was new to show blended families.)The world was never like this--even Alcott's own life was not. She idealized a miserable childhood into something that would sell: a noble, genteel poverty that conveniently appeals to today's nostalgiacs. If you enjoy that, great. Just keep some perspective.Belongs in classes studying how literature has changed." +1292,0736641238,Little Women,,AD9P4SW8403J4,Stephanie,0/0,5.0,1358208000,Amazing!!!!,First time I have read the whole version and it was wonderful. I want to read it again and again. +1293,0736641238,Little Women,,AVOGLWT9Z14X9,Cyber Mom,0/1,5.0,1265760000,Little Women,"I haven't had time to read this book yet, but I reviewed it and it is the version I wanted." +1294,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,5.0,899856000,"This was a really good book , and was very interesting !","This book was a wonderful story, which was very similar to real life. I liked the romance in the story, and how there was a little sadness in the book as well. This book was also definately worth reading even though it was long. The text in the story was extremely descriptive and the whole plot of the story is definately #1 for a lot of the books that I have read. It was a book that was hard to put down, with all the struggles and problems the characters overcame in it. I advise mostly everyone to read this book, because it is pretty easy to read, and you seem too be done not long after you have started! By, SLG & JDG" +1295,0736641238,Little Women,,A22DUZU3XVA8HA,Guillermo Maynez,1/2,3.0,975024000,A good classic for children,"I read this book when I was a young boy, as well as the other three books of the series. It looked to me then that it was a girlie book, but I still enjoyed it very much. I think I read it twice. Although the story is very sentimental and it has many morals, it is an extraordinary portrait of life in Northeast US during and after the Civil War. It was still very much a protestant, puritanical society, starting to modernize but still very provincial. The characters are well-rounded, alive and real, and the stories are amusing. It has no specific plot. It is the story of the March family, and it starts when the father is away, fighting on the North's side. The Marches are a respectable and educated family, but they're not wealthy, so the book depicts the troubles and efforts of the four girls, their little successes and disappointments. If you like the first part, you will also like the other three novels, although this is the best." +1296,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,5.0,940896000,This is a great book!,"I am a young reader, and this book was offered to me by my teacher years ago. At first I thought that it would be a girlish book, and I did not accept the offer. I will now mention that I LOVE to read. Several years later, one of my very good friends that had the same taste as I handed it to me and said, "Read it." I obeyed and it turned out to be one of the best books that I had ever read. This classic story about the March sisters and their joys, hardships, and growing up has proved to be a great lesson to me and my friends. My favorite character is Beth (although I am nothing like her) because she is exactly like the person tht everyone wants to be. She is so kind and thoughtful, but so humble about her generosity. If you have not read this book, I highly reccomend that you do!" +1297,0736641238,Little Women,,A2U6BWI4W9LIWB,Jeanette Binda,6/8,4.0,961372800,Little Women: A Big Treasure,"I read Little Women after having seen the movie. I enjoyed the book alot.Read about Meg, the pretty and mature one, Jo, the tomboy, Beth, frail and quiet, and Amy, the spoiled and confident one. You can relate the these "little women" as you read.But don't forget loving Marmee, fun and lovable Teddy, and mysterious but caring Mr. Lawrence.I devoured every page of the book. I read almost 100 pages each day! The only part I found somewhat boring were the chapters about Jo in New York. Well the letters were a bit boring.There are so many memorable moments in this book: Meg's vanity fair, Jo's haircut, Amy's punishment and humiliation at school, Beth's sickness, the birth of Daisy and Demi, and Jo's school. Read this book to be transported to the world of little women." +1298,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,5.0,919555200,This was a great book and I could read it a million times.,Little Women is a absolutely great book!! I just couldn't put it down. I also think if you like Little Women you should read Jo's Boys. I liked that book because Jo was my favorite character. Take my advice and read both Little Women and Jo's Boys. +1299,0736641238,Little Women,,A3JX3A21NTF0VN,Elizabeth,0/0,5.0,1315958400,Always one of my favorites,"This was my favorite book growing up, I recently re-read it and remembered why. Even as an adult, this is still a wonderful, touching story, and is a refreshing breath of fresh air in a world that's become increasingly jaded." +1300,0736641238,Little Women,,A24BSKCWXC4M6D,teagirl,0/0,5.0,1357257600,classic,great classic and great to have in e-reader form to take with me on trips or anywere i may go +1301,0736641238,Little Women,,A1P9059J6C4428,"P. Richardson ""pjrichard""",27/27,1.0,1263600000,NOT Unabridged!!!,"Please don't misunderstand me...I am NOT disparaging the original story of Little Women. The one star rating is for this particular edition of the book. I have loved this book all my life and having worn out my childhood copy, was hoping to get a new one. An UNABRIDGED copy!! This is not the original...words and whole phrases have been changed and added to this copy! If you, like I was, are looking for an original, untouched, UNABRIDGED copy of Little Women then bypass this edition!! I cannot even begin to tell you how disappointed I was!! I will be returning this copy and continue my search for a REAL copy of Little Women that hasn't had words changed, modernized, or ""dumbed down""!!" +1302,0736641238,Little Women,,AST5NMZTP36S0,mariegj,0/0,5.0,1337904000,Loved this 30+ years ago and still do!,"Great classic read. I enjoyed this book decades ago when I was in high school, but enjoyed it even more this time. I love, love, love my Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus - didn't think I would enjoy it as much as I do. I have always enjoyed reading, but having this has renewed my love of reading!" +1303,0736641238,Little Women,,A1E69ZFSHQGIDV,pete,4/19,1.0,1297900800,sucked redlands ca,This book was a bland romance book.I am twelve year old boy so dont get be wrong that i read love books.Theonly reason i had to read this book was because my mom made me read it for homeschooling.I would no recomend this book for boys.Girls may be wild about this book but i think the book was crappy.But i gave little men a very good read.You can read it if you type in little men.Go to second page and its the first book on the top.Please read it. +1304,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,5.0,1049587200,Heartwarming,"Louisa May Alcott's 'Little Women' is one of the most captivating and heartfelt stories I have ever read. This is the story of four sisters, living at an unstable time in American history, who learn to overcome poverty and selfish wants to become mature and accomplished women. Their triumphs will bring a smile to your face, while their trials will bring you tears. The March sisters will win their way into your mind and heart, and their story is one you will not soon forget." +1305,0736641238,Little Women,,A2O6K9JHAS5RO2,Gail,0/0,5.0,1360022400,Gshifflett,What a wonderful book! I loved the parts which we've enjoyed in the movie and enjoyed the additions in print which the movie doesn't contain. +1306,0736641238,Little Women,,A35NBLHLG068X9,fivefingersfivetoes,0/0,5.0,1302652800,The cover is by an amazing graphic artist,"Just to comment on the other reviews, this cover was designed by Julie Doucet, the feminist graphic artist from Montreal. If you don't know or understand her work, you might find it ugly or trite, but if you do know it, you know it's anything but!" +1307,0736641238,Little Women,,AOR4GK6YKDZEX,"Jennifer ""reader""",20/22,5.0,973382400,A heartwarming story!,"Little Women is one of my favorite books of all time! In this heartwarming story about four sisters growing up during the Civil War, I have learned so much about the world around me, and ironically, myself. It tells of how people can choose to live their lives and how happiness can be found even through hardships.The Marches are a picture of a happy home - with brave and moral Father, who has gone into the army to do what he can for the North's cause, and kind, caring Marmee, who watches over her girls with gentleness and love. Then, there's the little women: sixteen-year-old Meg, who's pretty and mature; rough-and-tumble Jo, determined to become a famous writer; timid Beth, always putting others before herself; and spoiled Amy with her artistic talents. There's also their amiable neighbor, Theodre Laurence (Laurie). Join in on the fun and read all about Amy's trouble at school, Jo's precious book being burned, Meg going to "Vanity Fair," Beth's tragedy, and so much more! I highly recommend this book for guys and girls of all ages! No one can resist this incredible story!" +1308,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,5.0,990144000,a teen reader from CHA,"MAY17,2001YES, I HAVE READ lITTLE WOMEN. I ENJOYED THE BOOK BECAUSE FOR ONE IT WAS DURING THE TIME OF THE CIVL WAR TIMES,AND BECAUSE IT WAS ALMOST LIKE READING ABOUT MY SISTERS." +1309,0736641238,Little Women,,AZSNQ9FYC5SQO,Karri,0/0,5.0,1360713600,classic,THis was a great book. It was very entertaining and has been just what I was looking for. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. +1310,0736641238,Little Women,,AOPK0SCOOUCA5,paytonbaker,0/0,5.0,1358812800,Life lesions,This book went straight to my heart and I will never forget these life long lessons from these little women. +1311,0736641238,Little Women,,A3SCXHDWVW6JD6,Arielle M. Dundas,1/1,5.0,945561600,Missong the point,"Many people think diferently from me about the point the author wanted to put across in her writing. I think that the author wanted us to see the struggle that everyday life can be for the rich and poor alike.I also thought that she potrayed the girls as wanting to be good, becuase she wanted us to realize that deep down inside of all of us there is a part that wants to do its best." +1312,0736641238,Little Women,,A3FCNB7IOUDZ4M,Teresa Barbian,0/0,5.0,1361923200,Classic!,I loved this story when I was a girl. That was quite a while back! I just re-read it; it's still one that touches my heart. +1313,0736641238,Little Women,,A164V2GXUKQYWJ,Blessing,0/0,1.0,1360713600,a little boring,i am yet to finish the book but is kind of boring to me. I am still reading it because when i start something i always want to finish it that is why i am still reading it otherwise i would have abandon it. +1314,0736641238,Little Women,,AQP2L67WQZVGG,Kayo Smada,14/17,5.0,1242864000,Should be required reading,"Although I finished this book several weeks ago, the characters and events in this book are still in my head. I feel like I really knew these four girls, and their plights always had a moral lesson to be learned. And by the way, the name "Beth" first became a popular girl's name only after this book came out." +1315,0736641238,Little Women,,AC53TMQV6J7GK,aleanna,1/3,5.0,954288000,Little Women Review,"A house full of little women;is a house full of fun.4 sisters that are always together having fun.little women is about life during the civil war.It showes how a poor family enjoy's life. It talkes about 4 loveing sistersand how they got through all their hardships, and still maneged to stay together. My opinion about this book is that it is very realistic and a good book for hisorical matter.I reccomen that you get this book because it's very good for you to learn about poor peoples lives." +1316,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,4.0,1237161600,Little Women by Louisa May Alcott,"Wouldn't it be fun to live in the early 1900's? Jo, Meg, Amy, and Beth show us all of the mountains a girl could encounter.Meg, the oldest is strong and beautiful. Beth, slowly washing away like a wave upon the sand. Amy, the youngest and fiercest, would marry for wealth. Jo, fits in her own category. These historical ""little women"" are an inspiration.In my eyes the girls should be read by all. The second I began reading this miraculous piece of work my fingers began to cramp for they were turning the pages of my book much quicker than I had predicted. The friendships and relationships this book has to offer are so much fun to read about, especially anybody who has been a 12 year old girl.Louisa May Alcott uses a wonderful narrative voice to tell the story. She also has very good character development in the beginning she shows you Meg, Amy, Beth, and Jo; you can practically feel the wind rushing through your hair as you gallantly stride in and out of the pages.The work of this incredible author, Louisa May Alcott, is truly inspiring, those of you who want to read a flawless book sprint to your local library or bookstore and pick up a copy of Little Women." +1317,0736641238,Little Women,,A3RIU0DXWOP0GW,lauren schiller,0/0,5.0,1358380800,Awesome book,Way better than the movie! Looking forward to reading the books in this set by her. It keeps u entertained for hours. +1318,0736641238,Little Women,,A2OH4D2DTU70H7,"MelianAra ""Melian""",2/2,1.0,1186963200,Warning! About this version,"This version of Little Women is only half the book, the cover says complete and unabridged but that is not true. It is not complete; it is only Part 1, which is very disappointing when you're expecting the whole book.I have nothing against the story, that is not why I rated this product low, I just thought people should know its not all of the story and have to be disappointed." +1319,0736641238,Little Women,,A2CNAP5O67C8ZD,ladybug Cindy,0/0,4.0,1358380800,Good book,Needed book for my daughter for school. I always thought it was a good book ! ! ! ! ! +1320,0736641238,Little Women,,A9QA5RNHZOZCV,Susan Budrys,0/0,5.0,1357689600,Wonderful book!,"I read this classic as a girl, but enjoyed it just as much as an adult. Great writing and a lovely story." +1321,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,5.0,970876800,A good book!,"I had to read this book for a high school English project. I thought the book was very informative. Im a very picky reader and I can not read a book with boring spots, but i can assure you this book was good. I found no boring spots. I didn't wanna put the book down, event after event, it kept on coming. I encourage you to read this book whether your 14 years old or 60 years old. It teaches good moral values." +1322,0736641238,Little Women,,A8RWR9R61FLKS,Mary-Beth Connerton,0/0,5.0,1359244800,Old Memories,Just as good as it was in my youth. A must read for the twelve year old girl.Give this to a tween you know. +1323,0736641238,Little Women,,A2HYXD8NSYUIO,"""bigsparklydiamond""",2/2,5.0,1080691200,Fantastic Edition!!,"This review refers specifically to the Penguin Classics edition of LittleWomen, as pictured, with the introduction by Elaine Showalter. If you area fan of this piece, or would like to read it for the first time, I wouldhighly reccommend this edition. I would not, however, read theintroduction until after the text itself has been read, since, as a rule,intorductions usually give something away (often times even quoting fromthe book itself) & this one is no exception. However, this edition offersa marvelous set of endnotes which help the reader to better understandsome unfamiliar terms.Most importantly, however, is the fact that Showalter has chosen topresent Alcott's novel, IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM. The chapters have beenrenumbered to maintain coherence, however, every word is true to theoriginal. It may not be known (as I did not know myself until I happenedupon this edition purely by accident) that there are two editions ofLittle Women currently in print. The second being altered slightly, asper a publisher's request (to remove certain slang and change somelanguage to what was considered more proper). This edition contains theORIGINAL text, as Alcott intended it, & the majority of versions I haveseen contain the altered version, making the original wording very hardto find, indeed.I would definitely reccommend that anyone interested in this bookpurchase this edition, you won't be disappointed!" +1324,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,5.0,895881600,Every aspiring woman writer's must read.,"This timeless novel appeals not only to the young, but to the seasoned reader as well. None have captured the hearts and minds of the feminine creature as has this famed American author. Whether the reader desires a realistic period piece or a touching story about life, love, death and the human condition, Alcott covers all the bases. Few women can come away from "Little Women" without having made a connection to the personalities which transcend the constraints of the time the novels reflects. Jo is every author's heroine. Beth, our picture of healthy mind, healthy soul, and healthy spirituality. Meg is the mother-to-be in us all, and Amy the ill-tempered blossom who grows to the beautiful woman (inside and out) that we all dream we are. Classic novels are more than artillery for our educational arsenal, they are explorations of ourselves. "Little Women" does not disappoint to be all that and much more." +1325,0736641238,Little Women,,A2I56BFKY677S0,"Happily Retired ""pandagram""",0/0,5.0,1287273600,Loved It Again!,"I had read ""Little Women"" many, many years ago, but thought I'd read it again on my Kindle. It is an excellent book and I think I liked it even better the second time around." +1326,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,5.0,899596800,"A beautiful story , you cant help but love it..............","I loved this book! Although I was only 8 years old when I read, and are ten now, I believe that I fully do understand what the book is about. I have always been fascxinated by this book and when I read this it just blew me away. When I read this I actually feel like Im in the attic with Jo, in the dressing room with Meg, sitting at the piano with beth, or trading lemons with Amy. I think this is my all time favorite book and that it will continue to be a beautiful example to all of us. ( But I still was upset and mad when Laurie married Amy instead of Jo!!!!!!!!!!!)" +1327,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,5.0,938131200,I love this book!,I loved this book so much! I love how Alcott discribes everything & everybody. She is the best author I think. My favorite character is tomboyish Jo. Her really name is ( Josphine ). I just really love this book! Buy it!! :) +1328,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,4.0,1253923200,Wonderful Book!!!!,"When their father goes off to war,the March sisters (Meg,Joe,Beth,and Amy)must work together to help their mother go through many hardships.As the girls grow up and fall in love,they remain the BEST of friends.This is a great book,that you will be excited to finish!" +1329,0736641238,Little Women,,APX5GHVMPMOUD,Valerie,2/2,3.0,950572800,Little Women,"Little Women was a classic,but it wasn't as good as I thought it would be. It was interesting, I'll give it that, but it didn't have the key things that a good piece of literature should have.It was set in New England and told the lives,sometimes dull lives, of the four March girls. Their hardships,sorrows, and happy times is what this book is all about. Desciption is really good in Little Women. When the girls' father goes to war, the girls and their mother wait for a lette, that would never come. Overall, 3 stars is all this book gets, nothing more nothing less. Remember there are always two sides to a loved classic book; it may be loved by some but disliked by others." +1330,0736641238,Little Women,,A27VJVE1SKAU8C,"""kaia_espina""",0/0,5.0,1002240000,My Favorite Archetypal Family,"The first part of "Little Women" is an innocent portrait of girlhood (at a time when 16-year-olds, could still be girls without any hurry to grow up). Each March girl has her own burden to carry, trial to overcome, and castle in the air to wish and work for. Meg has to keep her head from being turned by rich friends who dress her up in their finery at their "Vanity Fair" and make her feel ashamed for coming from a poor family. Beth has to overcome her fear of crotchety Mr. Laurence so that she may enter the "Palace Beautiful." Amy has to pass through the "Valley of Humiliation," and learn to humbly admit her wrong. Jo has to subdue "Apollyon" (the "Dark Angel" in abridged versions), swallow her pride and learn to forgive and forget the destruction of her most prized possession.Of course, every step of the way, Marmee gives counsel, comfort and encouragement; and their neighbor Laurie adds fun and mischief like only a boy--and an honorary brother--can.Louisa May Alcott constantly alludes to "The Pilgrim's Progress" by John Bunyan. She also has an entire chapter that sees the March girls impersonate characters in a Charles Dickens novel. Yet none of this is above the heads of young readers, who can take each episode in the March girls' play in stride. Children's fun is universally understood.I am never tired of rereading this part.The second half of the novel (which is actually "Good Wives", the sequel of the original "Little Women") is very different. More serious, it shows the girls growing up and getting married--or passing on to another world. If Book 1 told stories of the golden morning and afternoon of childhood, Book 2 has stories of the dark night of maturity. Despite its funny and light-hearted parts, the bittersweet thought that childhood is now far away lingers in the air. (After Book 2, "Little Men" was a relief--proof that the sun always rises on the next generation of children.)There are few classics I consider as timeless as Louisa May Alcott's novels about the March family." +1331,0736641238,Little Women,,A2BU8DV3T11ZPS,jelly fish bait,0/0,4.0,1342224000,engaging,This book really makes you think about what you would do in their place. I have not finished this book but it is a great book to read but unless you have a mind that can understand Shakespeare at least a little bit you might need to take it slow and reread a LOT. trust me i have to do it ALL THE TIME! it makes the reading slower but overall this is a magical book that will show you the truth of friendship. +1332,0736641238,Little Women,,AY3R4FXZWQ61X,karan morin,0/0,4.0,1347494400,little women,LITTLE WOMEN IS A GOOD BOOK. I COULD NOT WAIT FOR THE NEXT CHAPTER READ IT IN NO TIME AT ALL +1333,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,5.0,936835200,One of the best books ever written...,"Little Women is a timeless story of four sisters and their lives as they grow into adulthood. I read it first when I was quite young, but even now as I reread it, I never tire of it. Parents, you should buy this for your daughters. Every girl I know who has read it loves it and identifies themselves with one of the sisters. I would recommend this book even for adult women who have never read it. It is wonderful." +1334,0736641238,Little Women,,A1KH6XAYMBZWOE,divine somtochi nnawuba,0/0,5.0,1358208000,nice book,these book is also actually a nice book because from my own view i saw it to be a nice book and it is really nice and i love these book also as the rest +1335,0736641238,Little Women,,A2KPW9XYW8M908,Hayden Woods,0/0,5.0,1334534400,A must read for every girl,"This book had such an impact on me as a kid, it was fun to re-read it. I love the Jo character and really identify with her. I think it's interesting that even though it was set in the past, the concerns of the girls are very similar to those of people today. While each person wanted something different in life, they were all things I could identify with. It may be a classic, but the writing is still easy to read in current times. It moves quickly and I can see why it continues to be popular. If you haven't read this one, read it!!!!!!" +1336,0736641238,Little Women,,A2BH4E6BVWVP8L,brado,1/1,5.0,1347580800,Decor not Function,"This book serves better as a decoration piece than one you want to spend time passing around to friends. Not that the content of the book isn't worth reading, you just don't want to ruin the aesthetic quality of this book.If you are buying the book to simply read there are cheaper versions out there. But if you want to add quality and smart decor to your home this is a great purchase.The cover looks better in person than online. Quality product." +1337,0736641238,Little Women,,AF1T973VQAQKR,TCHILDERS1492,0/0,5.0,1357689600,CLASSIC,THIS STORY BROUGHT BACK FOND MEMORIES OF SITTING NEXT TO MY GRANDMOTHER WHILE SHE READ THIS BOOK TO ME AS A LITTLE GIRL. +1338,0736641238,Little Women,,A2W3H63VZH2HF9,Tanna,0/0,5.0,1355443200,The second best book ever! (After “Buffalo Bill's“ autobiography),The first version of this book (which is this one) is so much better than the other versions! This is another great book! +1339,0736641238,Little Women,,A1CUQT847I9NHB,Donna Hill,0/0,5.0,1317772800,Heartwarming Story of Four Sisters,"My mom encouraged me to read this story when I was 11. It was a bit too mature for me then, but I enjoyed it so much at 13. I identified with both Jo and Beth. I noticed Jo's literary bent and Beth's inherent shyness in myself.My British mom owned two volumes of Alcott's story--Little Women and Little Wives (sometimes known as Good Wives). Little Wives or Good Wives is simply Little Women, Part II in the U.S. As a young girl, I preferred the story of the girls before they married. As I grew older, I appreciated Part II or Little Wives so much more.I didn't often re-read the entire books. I had my favorite chapters. I just loved the chapter--Experiments--when Marmee permits the girls to enjoy the first week of their summer vacation with no household chores. It ends with them all thoroughly fed up with their life of leisure. Jo especially feels the need for work and gives a dinner party with disastrous results.Another favorite chapter of mine was when Meg goes to ""Vanity Fair,"" a weekend of frivolity at her wealthy friend's home ending in a ball where the rich girls lend her a gown to replace her old torn one. With the help of makeup and frills, they make her into someone quite different, taking away from some of the freshness and innocence she still possessed at 17. This is the night when she overhears a couple of old biddies talking about how good it would be for the March family if Meg could manage to marry the wealthy Laurence boy (Laurie). They were convinced that Mrs. March had her plans for the two.But Alcott made it very clear that Marmee was quite a different sort of mother--she wanted nothing but happiness and love for her daughters, and she didn't believe that a great deal of money was necessary in order to be happy.The moral lessons in this book abound. The sickness and death of Beth are looked upon as life experiences more than terrible tragedies, and death is seen as a beginning to a new life. Beth talks about how she'll miss Jo even in ""heaven,"" and Jo says after Beth's passing, ""We must thank God that Beth is well at last.""Meg thumbs her nose at cranky, wealthy Aunt March when the older woman says that should Meg marry her financially-strapped suitor, John Brooke, that she'll inherit none of her money. She lets her know in no uncertain terms that love means far more to her than money.Jo gives up writing her ""potboilers""--the violent, mawkish thrillers that her German professor friend hates and instead pens a touching story about her sister, Beth, and wins his approval and a marriage proposal. She has already turned down Laurie's proposal because she realizes that although she loves her ""boy"" as a friend that she needs something different in a husband.So there are many lessons, but I never felt as a child that I was reading a book of sermons. I felt as though I were reading about real people and I learned to care about them. I loved all of it--the fashion talk--the way Meg and Amy cared so much about style and how Jo would carry a lemonade-stained glove crumpled up in her hand and wear a gown that had fireplace burns on the back of the skirt and just laugh and enjoy herself.I read all the Alcott books to my daughter when she was ten. When I read the final words of Jo's Boys, ""Let the curtain fall forever on the March family,"" the tears rolled down her face. I remember just a while after I had given birth to my daughter thinking, ""Oh, wonderful, I'm going to share Little Women with her--what a joy!""" +1340,0736641238,Little Women,,A16H6R58P7WWL5,"""hahaha38""",1/2,5.0,1054512000,Googoogoo,"Wow. I thought that Little Women was going to be another boring old classic or literature book, but I was wrong. The adventures of the four girls (or little women, whose last name I've forgotten, which is typical of me, haha, but I think that it started with an 'M') are sweet and sincere, to me, haha, and I found this book sad, interesting, funny, and plain good. It touched me. Read this book, I say, everyone! And I know that this isn't a very thorough review, but reviews are for opinions, and that's my opinion..." +1341,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,5.0,934243200,a great book about sisters growing up together,"I have just finished little women, and I loved it. The story about four sisters Meg(the pretty one), Jo(the tomboy), Beth( the sensitve&quite), and Amy(the ladylike one.)and how they grow up during the Cival War and after. Even though tragedy strikes more than once these girls pull thruogh with the love they have for eachother, and in the end find happieness." +1342,0736641238,Little Women,,A18M68DE1Y6W51,Wendy Kaplan,3/3,5.0,1020384000,Time Stands Still,"Some books transcend the time in which they were written, because the truths they contain are simply timeless. Such is ""Little Women,"" a simple tale of four sisters in rural New England during the time of the Civil War.Yes, they wear long skirts, and yes, one is NOT seen at a ball without white gloves, and yes, there are horse-drawn carriages. But Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy March are as modern in their simple desire to be themselves as any teen living in today's techno world. The hurdles the girls face seem tougher than the hurdles of today, but are they really? Meg, the oldest, is not the saint she appears. She secretly misses the money her family once had, and desperately wants to ""fit in"" with the in-crowd, in this case, the high-society milieu that has rejected the Marches because they are poor. She also wants to find a nice man and get married. Not so very different...Jo (Louisa May Alcott's fictional persona)constantly flies in the face of convention, finding the restrictions of being a woman in her time almost unbearable. A feminist long before there was a hint of such a thing, Jo wants to dress like a boy, have the freedom that men do, and think for herself. She largely succeeds.Amy is the 19th-century version of ""Girls Just Wanna Have Fun."" She wears a clothespin on her nose each night so it will ""turn up"" and look pretty. She hoards her small pittance of an allowance so she can buy herself small trinkets. She is beautiful, selfish, but lovable deep inside.Beth, modeled after Alcott's real-life sister, truly IS a saint--and is martyred for it, having caught scarlet fever from a destitute family whose baby she tried to nurse back to health.All four girls struggle to live their lives while their father, a chaplain, is away at the War, and their mother is forced to do menial work to keep everybody fed. Family values are preached and preached again, but Alcott's ""marmee,"" the mother, is too human to be obnoxious. And the lessons of helping one another, living a good life, and making appropriate choices are not lost on the girls--or the reader.This is the perfect tale to read to your daughter, and I recommend the book before any movies (there are several wonderful film versions; my favorite remains the one that stars Katharine Hepburn as a simply fabulous Jo). To my way of thinking, ""Little Women"" is part of growing up. And deservedly so." +1343,0736641238,Little Women,,AG7KPETFR641W,Ash86,0/0,5.0,1289779200,Love this book,I had read this book several times growing up and loved it. Thought I would give it a try again now that I'm older and I still love it!! +1344,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,5.0,935366400,This is a wonderful book for people of all ages to read!,"In the book, "Little Women" written by author, Louisa May Alcott, you will be captured by the story of the four March girls and how they grew up during the time of the Civil War. I loved reading it and I'm sure anyone who takes the time to read it will be just as touched as I along as many others were. This is a great book to read and share with those who you love. If you have alreaddy read this book, than you will enjoy the others to fallow it. They are, "Little Men, and Jo's Boys."" +1345,0736641238,Little Women,,,,6/6,5.0,1112832000,"4 ""little"" helpers","This story takes place mostly at the March's house and the Laurence house which is important because it gives the reader an idea of how the each live and helps the reader understand them better.This book is mostly about four sisters named Margaret, Josephine, Elizabeth and Amy March,their mother Marmee March, Theodore Laurence, Mr. Laurence, they are always helping each other and others in need and are happy the way they are and will always be friends, are always thoughtful, truthful, and use manners even when talking to each other and others and even though they have very few money they still enjoy their lives and Mr.Laurence enjoys the company of them at his house, even though the Laurence's are wealthy the girls him and his grandson the same way they treat each other with respect and tells about their lives.In my opinion this is the best book I've Ever read ! I think this is an educational book because it teaches that money isn't everything that's better to be happy the way you are and you don't need money to be happy and you can be happy by helping people and that you should respect elders and others.I would recommend this book because it's educational and a good book to read when bored or just want to read a book or read an interesting book." +1346,0736641238,Little Women,,A2ABXCC6P2SFZK,Linley E. Hall,0/2,4.0,1081555200,Rereading Little Women as an adult was worthwhile,"I first read Little Women in elementary school, and enjoyed it so much that I read many of Louisa May Alcott's other works. Precisely why I decided to pick it up again at age 24 is unknown to me, but the reread was well worth it.Alcott tells the story of the four March sisters--Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy--as they grow into young women. Each girl has her faults, and they struggle to overcome them. They also must face the consequences of the family's poverty as well as separation from their father, who is serving with the Union Army during the Civil War. The book is told in episodic fashion, with many chapters acting almost as short stories complete with crisis and resolution. The sisters act appropriately for their time as well as display the sibling rivalries and affection present in most families.Reading Little Women as an adult, I realized just how moralizing it is. The March girls learn important lessons from nearly every event in the book. Beth is elevated to near-sainthood even before she becomes ill. But, other than the preaching, I found Little Women to be a thoroughly enjoyable read. I might just pick up Little Men again one of these days." +1347,0736641238,Little Women,,A3LCFSLDBCV7F9,Nicholas Costley,0/0,1.0,1360713600,To make it better,Please make it shorter and not to have so many confusing plots in it. But it was still a little bit good. +1348,0736641238,Little Women,,A2XBVPLJT8WH30,Book Worm,1/28,1.0,1139961600,Not Eye Catching Work!,"Maybe to the older person ""Little Women"" is an interesting book, but let's face it, the new genereation is just not interested in this kind of book. When I was in grade school, I had to read it for a project, and I hated it. The reason was probably beause it was not flashy or out of the ordinary. It just told the average story about the average family at that time. it may be interestign for some, but the young readers of today just don't like it all that much." +1349,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,5.0,935798400,feel good book,Little women is nice because Alcott wants to make the world a better place so she tells about a family that goes through hard times and good times. They learn a lot of lessons together about how to be happy and keep fighting when things don't go so well. +1350,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,5.0,1043452800,Alcott's ultimate best,"When i was nine years old i read little Women. Though it is long I read it pretty quickly and enjoyed it immensely. After reading this wonderful book I became inpired to finish the trilogy about Jo and her family/life, and to read more of Alcott's work. right now I am reading An Old-Fashioned Girl which I am enjoying, but isn;t as good as Little Women, Alcott's masterpiece. this book is perfectly balanced because there are joyous moments, though sad things occur. This fictionalized story about Louisa may Alcott as a teenager is written well. I would reccomend it to any girl between the ages of 9 and 12! I will defenitely read this book again, to rediscover the timeless tale of four wonderful sisters.-S.L.B." +1351,0736641238,Little Women,,A30KTP78LZ07KO,Bobby Newman,21/21,5.0,1132876800,excellent adaptation,"As an unabridged edition, all of Alcott's words are there. The narrator, Sandra Burr, takes us through the classic work in a style that takes the listener inside the story. Voices for the different characters are all created, but never in a melodramatic fashion. Listening to the story is like watching a fine and faithful production" +1352,0736641238,Little Women,,A3KD6K949VUGCX,Emily Keil,1/1,4.0,1070409600,The life of little women,"Little Women was a fantastic book. It's a story about the life of the four March sisters, Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy. The girls and their mother are very close. Mr. March is away in the Civil War. The book tells of the adventures of the girls as they grow up. It tells of their poverty and how they shouldn't take anything for granted. It shares stories of bad moments in their lives. A teacher hit Amy as a punishment therefore causing and uprising. The girls mother then pulls them out of school. It tells of their love lives and the conflicts between Laurie and the sisters. They also try to find a happy medium of good and bad. They want to be bad and do mischivous things, but need to be the proper ladies that they are expected to be. They spend their lives trying to balance the two ideas. They try to learn the difference between dreams and reality. They dream of a life of riches, where they get everything they want. But in reality, they are not even close. They try, throughout the whole story, to be good sisters to one another. They also try to be good to their mother, since she is struggling while her husband is away. At Christmas, the girls planned on buying eachother and themselves gifts. Later, that changed to buying presents for their mother to show her how much they appreciate her hard work and love. The author, Alcott, portrays they life and society during the civil war superbly. This book is good for boys and girls of all ages because everyone can learn something from it, wether its about love, lust, money, pride, education, or anything else. This book shows us the reality of life. It deserves all five stars, if not more." +1353,0736641238,Little Women,,A3NBPR02M2NU3,wordweaver,0/0,5.0,1356739200,Little Women,"A classic I have read before. I haven't read it this time as of yet, but I plan on reading this with a granddaughter." +1354,0736641238,Little Women,,A2B9I6R41O8UPD,Clara,0/0,4.0,1336348800,Little Women was pretty good...... It was just a little bit boring in some parts.,"I really liked Little Women... the only problem was that in some parts the book got a little boring and wordy. I read this book as a school assignment, and had to read it in one week. I'm eleven, so it wasn't too hard to finish it before the due date ,but it was really good, and some of the parts in the book made it worth it. I liked Jo the best because she was really tomboyish, which was nice and different from all the other characters. For all of the people who read Little Women I recommend reading The Diary of Anne Frank, because it.... well, actually it doesn't really have to do with Little Women at all. I guess it's just a really good book. The part I liked most in Little Women was when, at the end, everyone got married and was happy! Well, almost everyone. Beth didn't." +1355,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,4.0,942019200,tells life of four girls who live in the war days,I RECOMMEND THIS BOOK TO ANYBODY WHO LIKES TO READ BECAUSE IT IN A WAY KEEPS YOU IN SUSPENSE ABOUT THE FAMILY AND IF THE DAUGHTER THAT IS SICK IS GOING TO DIE. THE REASON FOR RECOMMENDING THIS BOOK IS BECAUSE I THINK THAT IT IS THE BEST BOOK I HAVE EVER READ. I ALSO RECOMMEND BECAUSE IT DESCRIBES WHAT LIFE IS LIKE IN THE WAR DAYS AND HOW HARD IT WAWS TO FIT IN IF YOU DID'T HAVE MONEY. +1356,0736641238,Little Women,,A36C3S1TNKJJ7A,E. Russell,3/3,3.0,1266019200,Great story - Not a great audio version,"I purchased this audio book to introduce my 10 year old daughter to Little Women. We began listening to it while driving on a seven hour trip. We found that while the story can still engage a modern reader, this version of the audio book was not well delivered. The recording is just a bit flat. The reader sounds like the schoolteacher from Little House on the Prairie. The production does not deliver on the emotional aspect that underlies the text. Maybe we've been spoiled by superb audio-book readers like Jim Dale. But I found this recording a bit disappointing. My daughter finished by book from a print copy rather than continue to listen." +1357,0736641238,Little Women,,AO4HSTLJ9UMHV,"""ajack308""",3/4,5.0,943488000,Wonderful read for adults and children,"Little women is a book for all ages. I have read this book numerous times and highly recommend it. It was the first book I bought my 8 year old daughter to read. That was two years ago, and she has read it twice. Its a great book to share with young girls. It has mystery and romance on a level that young girls can understand and women can relate to." +1358,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,4.0,1071014400,Liitle Women is a significant book.,"Little Women was a significantly written book with strong character relationships and character personalities. The book is about the life of a small American family that is facing hardships and trials during the Civil War. It deals with holding on when things around you are failing and time is so precious. I recommend this book, and its sequels, to any person that likes fun, adventurous, and love stories that have to deal with the love of your friends family.Jo, Amy, Meg, and Beth are four sisters that care for each other very much. They are all very optimistic, and that helps them to stand their teenage years without their father and through many other hardships. They have a mother that loves them, Laurie a good friend, and Mr. Laurence a kind old man, to take care of them. All of the characters are very well rounded and have strong family ties within the book. Jo is wild and outgoing; she wants freedom but also respect. Beth is shy and very musical. Amy is only interested in pretty things in the beginning but soon grows up. Meg is friendly and tries to be helpful.The girls are all very upset when their father goes to fight in the war. They do their tasks willfully, but they begin to dwadle. Days become long and hard for the girls until Jo gets up the courage to ask Laurie if he would like to play. They all soon become good friends. However, being in the time that are, things go to terribly wrong . . .Little Woman is a wonderful book. I believe that everone should take some time to read it." +1359,0736641238,Little Women,,A4U8F7FV3DHAJ,Renee Shields,184/195,5.0,1255824000,""Little Women," - The Original","Like the previous reviewer, I was surprised to find that he book I had been occasionally rereading for over 50 years was NOT the original novel. My own copy, much loved and well thumbed, has been with me since I was a ten year old. I bought the Kindle version just to have it in my portable library, since I thought I knew it almost by heart. To my surprise, when I started looking it over, I found that the book was not the same at all. My original copy must have been "modernized" at some point. All of the familiar passages were there, but there was a great deal that I didn't remember reading before. Some of that was a specifically Victorian kind of moralizing, but there was also some expansion of the story.. I'm not sure that I would have appreciated it all when I was younger, but I found it a delight to read now, as an example of a book of its times. Now I'm going to download the rest of the Alcott catalogue and see how it compares to the books I thought were the originals when I read them many years ago. This was still an exemplary book. It will always be one of the classics." +1360,0736641238,Little Women,,,,1/1,4.0,1054771200,Little Women,"The book Little Women, is about four sisters, Meg March,Jo March, Beth March, and Amy March, and their mom Marmee. The mother is rearing the four girls to be loving, responsible young women.They are living in the time of the Civil War. Marmee teaches them values that will result in happiness for each of them.The values would make them happy throughout their lives. The most important lesson Marmee teaches her daughters is love,and how to overcome their hardships.They achieved these things by through God, and the love of each other.Meg was the oldest at age sixteen. Meg was pretty and had soft hair. She worked because her dad lost his job and they needed money. Meg was a happy child. She sang with her sisters.Jo was the second oldest at age fifteen. She was tall and skinny. Jo sometimes acted like a tomboy. She had one beauty, her long, thick black hair.Beth was thirteen years old and very shy.Beth was timid and rarely left the house. Beth would spend hours playing the piano. Everytime she played the piano the whole family would gather aroung and sing.Amy was the youngest out of the family. Amy felt as if she was the most important person in the family. She had big blue eyes, and curly golden hair. Amy did not like her nose. She wished that it was thinner.Marshall Fundemental/Pasadena" +1361,0736641238,Little Women,,A21277L9IM8A72,Natalie Slater,0/0,5.0,1360713600,Little Women,This book is very well written and very intriguing. It is filled with romance and travel. You might want to have s dictionary near by to look up some of the definitions. +1362,0736641238,Little Women,,AZ5RNEWL0R7HZ,CR,0/0,5.0,1325980800,good condition,"The book arrived in perfect condition, which has not been the case recently with books ordered from Amazon. Hopefully this signals a change for the better in their packing." +1363,0736641238,Little Women,,A2NQRYOU9HYE6S,"L. Toll ""www.iblist.com""",0/0,4.0,1187740800,A Classic literary masterpiece,"This is a heartwarming tale of four sisters growing up in their mother's house in (I believe) New England. We follow the girls through their teens and into marriage and (in some cases) motherhood. Obviously intended mainly for young women, this is not a book to buy for your brother or boyfriend. It is, however, a fascinating look at life in another era, before everything got complicated. I was just as devastated as any of the characters were when tragedy struck. This novel is followed by Little Men, in which Jo and her new husband open a home for runaway boys, and Good Wives, in which the sisters are all grown up and married. You won't regret taking a trip back in time and watching the girls fall in love, lean on each other and learn what life is about" +1364,0736641238,Little Women,,,,3/3,5.0,1203638400,The Sticking Together Sisters,"Little Women is a story about four sisters who live with their mother. I thought it was a great story because it is really easy to figure out what they are doing in a jiff. The best part of this book is that it shows the characters have feelings and emotions that are throughtout the whole story. The story explains to me what it was like to live back in the older days. Yet to me this book seems new. If I could say who represents me most,it is Jo. Jo is a great reader and it comes in handy when she meets a boy named Laurie. Laurie is a rich kid who ends up being like family to these sisters. This story really reminds of how life is sometimes. Will you find out what happens to these sisters? Read Little Women and get into the story. I think the best rating for this book is four and a half stars. It needed a little more happiness towards the end. But still take the risk and read Little Women." +1365,0736641238,Little Women,,A1P7HXZGFOPKNA,Danielle,0/0,4.0,1309478400,Little Women,"This classic novel is a must read for everyone. I found it to be well written and most entertaining. Isn't it wonderful that we live in an age where books can be stored on a computer. Amazon.com is better than a bricks and morter bookstore, if you ask me." +1366,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,4.0,916876800,I like this book pretty much.,"I read it last summer. I like it. My favorite character is Jo, the tomboy. She dosen't like any thing about being a girl. They all miss their father. Jo miss's him. She think it's so dreadful to be poor." +1367,0736641238,Little Women,,ANMI25U2SPWGD,AJL,0/0,5.0,1357344000,Always a classic,This book was great as a teen but think I appreciate the writing more as an adult. If you have never read now is the time +1368,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,5.0,1022716800,timeless,whenever i go to bed little women is always at my side. to me it is not only a book but a friend because little women has heart that few books have nowadays. my favorite charatcer is amy though i'm more like jo.ithink this is a book that is worth reading over and over again.this is a timeless piece of work. +1369,0736641238,Little Women,,A2H89VAWISK5TQ,M. K. Houck,1/1,3.0,1287100800,Interesting look into day to day mid-1800's,"I can't say I regret reading this book, since I did enjoy the descriptions of day to day life during a period of time in the U.S. (Civil War era) in which most writings of or about the time, focused on the war. Also, it is a classic and it's always fun to finally read something you've heard about for years. I have not seen the Winona Ryder movie version, but I'd like to, just to see how it compares to the book.Alcott's writing is provincial and preachy, though, and I thought her characters were two dimensional at most. I can't help imagining Marmee as a statue of the virgin Mary, with a frozen little smile on her face as she peers down on her children scattered around her. And Dad (what was his name?)! An image doesn't even form in my head about him. Jo rejecting Laurie is an interesting twist, but disappointing, especially when she falls for an old stodgy absent minded professor. Laurie was the only character given human qualities, and I couldn't help liking his grandfather, too. Beth was just unreal, and Meg was annoyingly subservient (I know, that was how things were back then). And how many times did her characters blush? If there was anything the sisters had in common, it was the propensity to change colors at the slightest whim. Otherwise, their qualities seemed mutually exclusive which, as another reviewer pointed out, doesn't seem realistic for sisters.To be fair, I realize this was written for a younger crowd than me, so I should not have expected edginess or depth. So there are my 3 stars." +1370,0736641238,Little Women,,A79F3LTI4P7G1,Ed,0/0,5.0,1360972800,Book,"Great book. Says that I need more words for review, so here are some more. This is ridiculous Amazon! Ok" +1371,0736641238,Little Women,,AZZ1E6SG4RAT7,orolednac,0/5,5.0,1067299200,little women are small.,"Little women are the perfect compliment to little men. Large men can like them too, however, if they are careful." +1372,0736641238,Little Women,,A3M4IGM649JRUK,Haley,0/0,5.0,1357171200,Beautiful book!,Great book - I got this for my friend as part of a thank you gift for helping out with my wedding and she loved it! The book was in great shape and the seller's description was accurate. +1373,0736641238,Little Women,,A13SP29KUWLPBX,ANNETTE GARVER,0/0,3.0,1361836800,Kindle download,Haven't read it yet but wanted to have it available -- it was a favorite book from my childhood & I'd like to have it where I can easily access it. +1374,0736641238,Little Women,,,,8/8,5.0,956534400,I can only give it five stars!,""Little Women" is my favorite book of all time. I love all of Louisa May Alcott's books dearly, and I seem to keep coming back to this one. Who cannot laugh with the Alcott sisters when Jo burns Meg's hair off? Who cannot shed at least a few tears when sweet, gentle Beth dies? Whose heart cannot be ripped apart in agony when Jo rejects Laurie's declaration of love for her? This book is a masterpiece. It's a role model - an encourager. To the person who said that the Marches were the "perfect" family - I dearly hope to have a family as good as they when I grow up. I feel like the Marches are my family! Read the book. You won't regret it, I promise you." +1375,0736641238,Little Women,,A290905TMYJM1B,claire,0/0,4.0,1332979200,,"this is a good classic book that we've all heard of. i like it a lot.my only problem is that its a little too moralistic in some places.I would like to invite you to New Life Tabernacle in Arab Alabama. God is doing wonderful things! At NLT we believe in repentance, baptism in Jesus' name, and receiving the Holy Ghost[speaking in tongues Acts 2:38] If you would like to join our church family we are located behind Blacks Furniture Store. We have excellent child care,Sunday school, and youth group.Times:Adult class, Youth class, and Sunday school are at ten thirty AM. Praise and worship/church service are at eleven fifteen. For nighttime service schedule, Wednesday service schedule, and various other details, please contact New Life Tabernacle on facebook. See you there!" +1376,0736641238,Little Women,,A3R5YASQ6ZF4Y,Author Lori A. Moore,0/0,5.0,1324252800,Little Women is a Must-Read,"Why I waited until I was middle-aged to start reading the classics, I'll never know, but I'm glad that I did. When I received my new Kindle Fire a few weeks ago, I downloaded some free books to test it out and among them was Little Women. I enjoyed the eloquent language and writing used. I had heard about this book many times over the years as a must-read chick-lit, but had never taken the time to do it. I even remember them talking about this book on an episode of Friends. Now I'm really glad that I've read it.The four Little Women are sisters in the March family, who has gone from fortune to working-class when their father became a preacher and went off to the War. At first, they regret losing their wonderful rich things and beautiful clothing, but through time and with their mother's coaching, they learn that money isn't as important as helping others and loving others.There are wonderful parts of the story that highlight each daughter's quest for marriage and grows into her own. Watching each girl grow up into mature women was like seeing your niece grow up, mature, and turn into a new person." +1377,0736641238,Little Women,,AONG9GGM349OY,"T. L. Robinson ""lildoe""",0/0,5.0,1350691200,Good Book,I like it so far. Should have fine shed the book before I saw the movie. The movie has a very young Liz Taylor. I do recommend the book by L.M.A. +1378,0736641238,Little Women,,A1FIY5Y6LX2N37,Carrol Greenwood,0/0,5.0,1236902400,Little Women Revisited,A pleasure to have available to read again. First read over 60 years ago. +1379,0736641238,Little Women,,,,0/0,5.0,929750400,A wonderful legacy to pass on to my daughter!,This book was my favorite as a girl. I've read it more times than I can count. It's a joy to pass on my love of this book and this wonderful author to my 10 year old daughter. This is a book to inspire a love of classic literature in young women! +1380,0736641238,Little Women,,A1MBOTC01N0IY9,"K. Leask ""book queen""",0/0,4.0,1292371200,"""The"" American Classic","I regret having put off this book as long as I did, but I must say that I did not like it as much as I thought I would. I guess I was thinking too often the movie I so loved (the 1994 version) since there was so much that had not been in the movie, making it more drawn out and boring at times. However I still loved the characters and the tale. I was not as awed by the ending either, since it seemed more drawn out than in the movie. Though this is not my favorite classic I find it a very important one, and will surely read it again in the future." +1381,0736641238,Little Women,,A2J14SJJUO106Y,CA mom,0/0,5.0,1322179200,CA mom,"I loved this book. I found a lot of life lessons in it. I had such an easy time reading it on my Kindle, especially during my sleepless nights before having my baby." +1382,0736641238,Little Women,,A25CZCHLNH3OMO,Mrs Baldwin,4/4,5.0,1028505600,I think I am qualified to review this book,"I've only read it fifty or more times. At one time in my life I read it through and started right over again at the end. I could recite large portions of it, as well as the table of contents.I first read this when I was about eight. I didn't understand it at all. Re-read it when I was a few years older and couldn't live without it. My grandma sent me a copy which I later replaced with a better one (the old version of the Children's Classics series) and I passed my first copy on to another LW admirer.I've always enjoyed this book. I remember being thrilled when I was fifteen like Jo is at the beginning of the book. I always liked Jo best... because I felt I was very like her. I've always liked to write. But then the artist in Amy appealed to me as well. I always loved Beth also and her dolls and cats. Meg was the only one I never felt I could relate to... later on though I re-read the book after a long absence from it and Meg's character seemed much more interesting. There's a charming supporting cast in these pages too... Laurie, John, and the Bhaer... Hannah... Aunt March...I like the Pilgrim's Progress theme of the first half of the book. I think it's so nice that these were four girls who really wanted to do right... and went to the right place for help - the little Books Mother gave them under their pillows... There is humour and sadness here, much reality, and plenty of charm. I always appreciated the simple but profound style of Louisa May Alcott - it bears up under so many readings very well. It's been about a year since I last read it... I think it's time to pull it off the shelf again.I get a strange feeling that this review is a bit scattered. But if you've gotten the idea that I love and recommend this book, it serves its purpose." +1383,0736641238,Little Women,,A15AWAZEW1U4TA,Rebecca Montegna,0/0,5.0,1357257600,Love this story!,I read this when I was a young girl and reread it again recently. It is a good story of "Little Women" coming of age. It will hold the interest of young and old alike. +1384,0736641238,Little Women,,A15Q91V9T7TFWW,Wanda Mannebach,0/0,5.0,1357776000,Classic,Ive always enjoyed the movie and I finally read the book. It was a very good read and I really enjoyed the story and comparing it to the movie. As always the book was better than the movie. +1385,0736641238,Little Women,,AILGFUVMRX1ZQ,Danyel,0/0,5.0,1358208000,Classic,"This is a novel every woman should read at least once. It's a timeless classic. Perfect for all ages, even great as a bedtime read aloud." +1386,0736641238,Little Women,,A1OPQRBOLWEYGJ,ninamom,0/0,4.0,1359936000,Comforting,"Have read Little Women many times in my life...it is my "go to" book on my Kindle when I want something familiar, something that I find comfort in as I read the familiar tale with the characters I have come to know and love." +1387,0736641238,Little Women,,A34FX5KBPHZ2ZP,"Rebecca Mccombs ""cami ariel""",2/2,5.0,1148428800,A Child's Own Peerings,"I had the great pleasure of reading the book ""Little Women,"" written by Louisa May Alcott, a story of real experiences and new feelings one experiences through the miracles of family and letting life take it's course; to live it to it's fullest. The March family is a true loving family who is as tightly woven as an old pair of blue jeans. In fact, they have as many stories to tell as old jeans that have been worn by so many. The March family had some hard times, but even burning of each others manuscripts can't put holes in their pockets. I believe this story is worth reading, because Louisa May Alcott defines si wekk in words how a family like the Marches can use their abilities for good and to learn a little more about life's true meaning. When I read this book I can see their life like I was a curious on-looker peering from behind a bookcase. I have become friends with these characters, and feel as if I had been a part of their noveled life. I became so engrossed in ""Little Women,"" when it was time for the light to go off I just realized that in fact I was not touring Europe with the Carroll's, I was laying on my old lumpy mattress with sleep nipping expectantly at my eyelids. To be truthful, the books I had been reading, such as ""Babysitters Club"" or ""Vampires Don't Wear Polka Dots"" hadn't been keeping me up so late that my light bulb flickered off with a sputter.There are not any faults in this wonderful story that my peering from behind the shelf could notice. It was as if Alcott wrote about her own real life and saw it from all her family's point of view.This book may be sad in some parts, but the blue jeans threads held it together. This was so inspirational to me I decided I should be a Beth or Jo. Maybe even a Meg or Amy. This book isn't just entertainment for the young (or even old) person's mind, but it is a lesson written to fit 400 pages. It can teach you about life, I recommend it greatly.I will not give away the ending, but here is the summary: a dear family holds on to each other through thick and thin, and with their friend's help they still are a family. The family gets smaller then bigger, and the book ends with one sentence, ""Oh my girls, however long you may live, I never can wish you a greater happiness than this,"" and this is where I end." +1388,0736641238,Little Women,,A2F5W9MR6TD4ID,dkk,0/0,4.0,1338336000,"Good, Homey Book","I found this book very "comfortable". I enjoyed how the author managed to make the book readable to people of all ages even though it was about children. Also, I approved of the theme-- the satisfaction that simple virtues can bring, even if you must sacrifice greater ambition to acheive it. At least, that is the message I took from this book. Additionally, Beth's character and death were beautifully and compellingly written. The one problem I had with the book was the style of narration; it was written in first person with the author referring to herself. This made it hard for me to lose myself in the story, as I kept getting dragged back to reality by the author herself mentioning how the story was a story. This was annoying, to say the least. All in all, I recommend this book, as it becomes even more relevent in today's pleasure-loving mindset, as the characters do their duties wholeheartedly. A good, homelike, virtuous book." +1389,0736641238,Little Women,,,,2/6,5.0,942796800,An inspired work by Alcott,She is better then any other writer! Sakespeare is tied with her. Alcott saw her life and made it into a gorgeous book and then followed by her school life as a teacher. She is a role model for me since I am a wtirter trying to publish a book. She deserves the top star. +1390,0736641238,Little Women,,A12NL7W0O8QKZF,Amanda W.,0/0,5.0,1361318400,Classic,"Nothing like a classic novel to cozy up to on a winter day! I have always loved this story, especially the movie! I am so happy this is on my Kindle instead of lugging the book around!" +1391,0736641238,Little Women,,A2LK0XYOKQW0HV,Mary,0/0,4.0,1354924800,Heartwarming,"I never read many of the classics except the ones required in high school but I am enjoying reading ""New"" ones. and rereading ""Old"" ones." +1392,0736641238,Little Women,,A1FI5D69PJZPVK,Mary Bridgewater,0/0,5.0,1346889600,Little Women,Little Women is certainly a classic that I shall enjoy now reading to my great granddaughter. The book contains so many of life's lessons to share with our loved ones and these lessons do not change with the ongoing years. I will enjoy sharing this book many times with my grandchildren.I can still remember so many of the adventures of this family from the first time I read it at the age of 10 years.Little WomenMary Bridgewater +1393,0736641238,Little Women,,A37AB472T0HC90,Aaron D.,0/0,5.0,1293580800,Little Women - Excellent!,"""Little Women"" is so well written and accessible. I had only seen the movie before reading the book, and as with most all stories, the book is by far better. I felt as if I were a silent member of the March family. I laughed at Jo's antics, and cried at Beth's departure. I really think this book has encouraged me to be a genuinely better person. I feel challenged to hold my tongue and have patience and to show kindness. This is definitely a must read for everyone!" +1394,0736641238,Little Women,,A2STLY8T9JTR0,Pen Jen,3/13,2.0,1120176000,"Not bad, but not excellent.","I found Little Women okay, but a bit boring at times. There was absolutely no humor and I frankly didn't care what happened to the very unreal characters. The four sisters were too different to be actually related and Beth was too much of an angel. At the end of the novel, I did not find that I was attached to any of the characters.The book did not give me any emotional satisfaction and there were too many plots going at once.However, I will give some points to the quality of the plot. It was very realistic and surprising. Set during and after the Civil War, the March sisters(Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy)struggle to grow up and, if not conquer, at least suppress their worst faults.In short: This is an okay book, but I would never reread it.Recommended instead: Anne of Green Gables series(characters are much more satisfying)" +1395,0736641238,Little Women,,,,1/1,5.0,938217600,The greatest book ever written!,"I'm not usually the type of person who likes to read, but when I started reading "Little Women", I could not stop. I read for hours a day, often with a flashlight in the middle of the night. I cryed when they cryed, and laughed when they laughed. I felt as if the March sisters were my own, and Marmee was my second mother. As I read, I would loose myself into a world filled with love, warmth, tragedy, and hope. I have two sisters of my own, and as I read, I realized how special they are to me. The book inspired me to be a better person. I recomend this book to any woman, young or old, for the chronicles of the March family are not just a story, but a lesson in the true meaning of life;love." +1396,0736641238,Little Women,,A15Z8W108SJ1OW,BRINK!,1/1,5.0,1010361600,Life Lessons,"The novel, Little Women, By Louisa May Alcott is what people would consider to be a classic real life novel. It tells about the lives of young people and all the events they must go through. The girls in this novel have to go through a death of a sister, a person that they all love more than life itself, the girls must grow up with their father in the war, forcing them to try and earn money for their family, and there is many other problems these girls must face. Even with all the troubles they had, they never let it get to them because they still tried hard in whatever they came across and respected and loved one another until the end. This book inspires readers because of the commitment of one of the sisters, Jo, and how she never stopped believing in her dream to be a writer, and how she felt committed to the family more than anyone else why her father was away. This book teaches young and even older girls how to live their lives. The girls in this novel learn everything from their mother and she is confident in all of them. This story shows the true meaning of love between a family." +1397,0736641238,Little Women,,ACX1WW2IS0414,Tiffany,0/0,5.0,992822400,Little Women,"This is my favorites. This book is about four sisters, Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy. These sisters are very differnt. Meg, who dreams of having a husband and a family. Jo, who is a tomboy and who dreams of being a published writer. Beth, who is nice and sweet and loves to play the piano. Amy, who is vain and a good artist. Everytime I read this book, I cry. If you have or do read this book you know why. A very touching story." +1398,0736641238,Little Women,,AHPE2O7ACLVRR,pclee@uiuc.edu,1/1,5.0,947721600,THE CATCHER AND THE RYE,"Most people either hate or love Salinger's novel because they either relate to it or they don't; Little Women was a novel in the same way. If my 53 year old dad read this, he would not have appreciated it as much as 19 year old me, who loves Jo and Beth the most because they struck a chord in my heart. Alcott, more than any other author, invites you warmly to sit on the couch with the Marches as they laugh, cry, think, and charm you right into their home and their lives. I was a silent cousin while reading this novel, and I still think Jo and Laurie should be together. Feminists, put your guards down because this book is not about submission or female inferiority, it is about overcoming everything with love, both for males and females. Don't watch the movie EVER. You'd strip away all the justice of Alcott's classic by watching the Cliff Notes." +1399,0736641238,Little Women,,,,7/7,5.0,1047513600,The Book You Pick Up Once by Maddy Loftin,"The book Little Women is a heart-warming story. It is one I would read more than once. I dont see how anyone could not like it,exept maybe boys. I chose it because I had seen the movie and i heard that the book was one you can't go your life without reading,so I went to my school library and checked it out.This book is about four sisters growing up during the 1800's. They are faced with many challenges they must overcome. These things bring them closer and closer. During the war their father must leave for war as a chaplain. While he is there he gets injured and Marmee (the girls mother) has to go take care of him. The girls must help there mother out by taking care of themselves. The girls have to deal with many other things such as losing people they love, getting married,saying goodbye, and falling in love.My favorite character was Marmee I liked her because she was so loving and hardworking. Through the many difficult trials in life she remained strong. When I grow up I hope I can be like that,I don't want to tell you anymore i want to let you read the other things yourself. I hope you don't have anywhere to be because once you start reading this book you can't put it down. I recomend this book for girls of any age, young or old I am sure you will enjoy.WARNING:THIS BOOK CAN MAKE YOU LATE!!!!!" +1400,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A2XXRV1FLWB4MH,"Beatrice ""Bea Bea""",0/1,5.0,1017964800,Everyone Should Read this Novel,"This is one of those novels that everyone should read. Through isolation on a remotes island, we get to glimpse the life of these young boys and how chaos takes over their uncivilized new world. The refelection on human nature may be frightening but it is riveting and honest.Lord of the Flies is a short and easy read, and it should not be missed. I highly recommend this novel!" +1401,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A232HUAELH5J6V,Ohioan,1/1,5.0,1315267200,"Riveting, Suspenseful Story","I read this book when I was in my late teens, and once I started it I couldn't put it down. The action of the boys on the island is riveting and highly suspenseful. Alliances are formed, the group divides into two gangs, each trying to outdo the other. It's inevitable that something terrible is going to happen, caused by one group trying to wrest supreme leadership from the other. When that something terrible did happen, I was shocked . . . but I recognized that the entire book was leading toward what happened. I think this is an exceptionally well-imagined book, and an exceptionally well-plotted one. If your read this book, I suspect its story will stay with you forever. Highly recommended." +1402,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,3.0,919209600,It was a pretty good book.,"My favorite character was Piggy, a big kid who was really nice and a big heart and Ralph who was the leader but was having problems with some of the kids on the island. I didn't like Jack who was the leader of the chorus. He was cold, haunted and rude. He was the one who killed two of the other characters in the story. Then there was Simon. He was a hard worker but was too young to be leader, even though he would have made a better leader than any of the others. This story did not seem realistic to me because it's not likely that kids would actually survive on an island. I would recommend this story to kids who like action packed novels." +1403,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A11PTCZ2FM2547,"D. Mikels ""It's always Happy Hour here""",5/14,2.0,1177459200,Very Disappointing,"Look, I get it. I understand that William Golding's LORD OF THE FLIES is an allegorical examination of the inherent depravity of the human condition. I get Golding's depressing message that man is a nihilistic savage, when left to his own devices. I understand that Ralph represents civilization, order, and decency (the alleged ""grown-up world""); Piggy represents common sense and the rule of law; and Jack aggression, chaos. . .evil. I totally get the symbolism of a group of boys (innocence) on a remote island sans adult supervision completely devolving into anarchy.Yet I had several problems with this 20th Century ""classic."" The characters were one-dimensional paper cutouts; the dialogue confusing and hard to follow; the description of the island's terrain downright confusing (creepers?). Yet my biggest problem concerned the fundamental, bottom line question: How did the boys get on the island?Yes, I understand that in order for the story to be told we must have a group of boys dropped randomly on a deserted island. The story, of course, develops from there. We are given vague hints that the boys arrived via plane crash--but that presents even more questions that are never, ever, answered. If Golding is going to ask me, the reader, to suspend disbelief and follow his story, he's got to give me more information; otherwise, I'm already holding his tale at arm's length. (Pardon the pun.) Here are my problems--never addressed:If there was a plane crash, where is the wreckage? The fuselage?As the story progresses, the boys' clothing becomes tattered and torn until all of the children are virtually naked. Was there no luggage on the plane?Other than the pilot, were there no adults on the plane? Were none of the boys injured? Are we being asked to believe there was a plane crash whereby all the adults were killed and all of the boys walked away with nary a scratch?All the boys on the flight were schoolboys, but other than Jack and his choir members the rest of the children were total strangers to one another. How can this be?Alas, all of the above made reading this novel a most difficult and unrewarding experience. Golding's LORD OF THE FLIES examines a titanic issue, to be sure; yet to this reader the message was lost because the mechanics of the story were never developed.--D. Mikels, Author, THE RECKONING" +1404,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A1DLPKWHJPB1Q,"J. Davis ""Care Bear""",1/1,5.0,1210809600,Who needs Rowling when you've got Golding?,"LORD OF THE FLIES, by William Golding, is one of the best books to come along in literature since Chaucer and his CANTERBURY TALES. Mr. Golding writes beautifully and poetically of this tragic commentary on humans and our society, making the story of these young boys all the more poignant and thought-provoking.This book is not for the weak of mind, nor the faint of heart. Several high school peers of mine found it ""boring and stupid,"" simply because they felt there was not enough adventurous action and ""too many big words."" They did not understand that Golding wrote as many of the time did, with detailed description of the small things, so as to give the reader a better vision of events and enthrall them further with the story. Truly, this may be his greatest strength: his ability to completely captivate the reader by way of giving descriptions so thorough our mind cannot blur it.Many of my peers also would've liked ""more blood and guts."" It's a shame they did not realize that Golding did not write of gruesome things to revel in the macabre. He wrote of these to make stick in our hearts the tragedy that young boys, devoid of civilized society, had no ability to stop themselves from committing atrocities. For one to read this book looking to enjoy an unremarkable fairy tale, where things end as happily as they begin, I'm afraid one would be sorely disappointed.I, however, was not disappointed in the least. I expected great things from this story and I received them: an enthralling plot, sincere characters, vivid descriptions, beautifully tragic writing, a deeply affecting social commentary and an ending that keeps you on the edge of your seat.If anyone is bored with a simple movie, I'd suggest buying a copy of William Golding's LORD OF THE FLIES. This is one adventure that will never disappoint!" +1405,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,1/3,3.0,1168560000,The Lord of the Flies,"The book Lord of the Flies by William Golding is one of Golding's best books. It is about a group of British boys who get stranded on an island. At first the boys have good intentions, but as time passes those intentions change and they break up into 2 groups the fire-watchers which are led by Ralph and the hunters led by Jack. Ralph who becomes good friends with Piggy thinks more about being rescued and setting up sort of a community. Jack and the hunters on the other hand think more about getting meat and themselves. This book not only tells an exciting adventure story, though, it also describes on a deeper level, the thin line between civility and insanity, and how young children can become insane without some amount of authority and discipline." +1406,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A1447P2ED2W837,B. E Nickerson,0/3,5.0,1108771200,Lord of the Flies Original Novel Score,"I am a musical-composer from MA, and I have just completed a full-orchesta score for Lord of the Flies. However, it is not based on either of the movies, the music has been soley adapted and composed based on the original novel. So call it, if you will, a novel score. It sticks to much more of the primal and savage feelings that the book displays. It also dives much deeper into the emotions and behaviors or the characters than any film ever could. If anyone is interested in hearing some of the music or purchasing a copy of the CD please email me at SAVA1224@rock.comThank you" +1407,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A2NHD7LUXVGTD3,doc peterson,7/9,5.0,1130284800,What is humankind's TRUE nature?,"As a previous reviewer noted, _Lord of the Flies_ is a difficult book. There is a lot of symbolism, and the themes and ideas are abstract and become apparent only with deep thought. Yet the implications the author makes about human nature, about ideas we purport to hold so dearly - ""civilization,"" ""democracy,"" ""morals"" and ""decency"" - are worth the effort it takes to read and digest.The story line is simple enough - a plane of young boys crashes on a deserted island, and the kids must make the best of it. What ensues is a gradual, downward spiral into barbarism and authoritarianism.It is a brilliant book, making one wonder just how thin the line is between acting like an animal and giving in to our more atavistic side, or attempting to cooperate and behave in a ""civilized"" manner.Perhaps Freud (and Jung) got it right - inside each of us is the shadowy remnants of our more primitive ancestors, struggling to get out. We see it every day on the news: the violence in our communities and around the world. And as we sit in our comfortable homes, we have the audacity to wonder ""how can this happen?"" Perhaps Golding got it right when suggested that the Beast is within all of us. Highly recommended reading." +1408,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A113KA21MQG9W4,Debby Ng,0/0,5.0,1078012800,a visionary!,"cast away on a deserted island, a pack of children, unsculpted by civilisation, spurred to act only as they have learnt through observing "grown-ups", motivated by a will to survive as in their own prespective, the Lord of the Flies is a literary masterpiece that delves into the psyche of "civilisation" and its disposition. Golding is a visionary, as with several of his likes - Huxley and Orwell et al, creating a scenerio that might appear to most, so cliché, so meaningless, yet undeniably profound. children, indulge in the mundane - play mostly; or so it is thought. Golding uses children, the root and beginning of each human existence to express civil and social evolution, perhaps even communisim and democracy, leftist and rightist attitudes. justice and injustice. his presentation may be basic, but such are our origins. this is a throughly entertaining, thought provoking and undeniable classic of our time." +1409,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,3.0,919209600,A great book for a kid about survival and leadership,"If you want a book with diversity this is the one to choose. A plane crash leaves about 100 boys and no adult stranded on an island. A 12-year-old by the name of ralph is elected leader and together they must combat starvation, dehydration and disease." +1410,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,5.0,940896000,This book is wonderful!!,I just finished reading "Lord of the Flies" in my eighth grade accelerated literature class. My whole class enjoyed it. I think that one thing that helped us understand it was our teacher. she explained it all to us in detail and read some parts aloud. It was a great book that everyone should read. +1411,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A3AIBPJJ48Y1P9,Rick Renz,0/3,3.0,958953600,Good Book,"Golding's Lord Of The Flies begins with a plane crash on an island somewhere in the ocean. A group of boys ranging in age survived and have no adult supervision. The children learn to survive, yet one boy always disagrees with their choosen leader Ralph. Jack, the boy that sees a need to disagree, starts his own hunting tribe. These boys become savages and do what they want to at any given time. The message to human kind is hidden behind a story about boys surviving, but it is revealed by the use of symbolism and that is why this book is fun to read." +1412,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,AJIV77PKIZU15,Nick,3/3,5.0,1071619200,READ THIS Book,"William Golding's novel, Lord of the Flies, is a story of details, adventure, and conflict. William Golding uses his excellent skills of being able to switch looks that he creates on characters by using a hefty amount of details. The details provide readers with the feelings of other characters. When I read books, I enjoy books that have plenty of details that make your reading more vivid in your imagination and allow you to feel as if you are in the story too. I like how Golding creates different adventures inside one big adventure to make the novel have more excitement and more creativity. William Golding is known for his outstanding conflicts in his stories. His books always have more conflicts than others because his are more enjoyable. For instance William has a conflict between the setting and a conflict between the characters. Most authors just have conflict in the characters. I enjoyed this book more than most books and that is why I recommend you to read this. If you enjoy action and like plenty of details then this is the book for you." +1413,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,5.0,900460800,This book is deeper than you think,"I read this book two times- first of all, because i liked it very much, second- 'cause only this way you can see the most important details and symbols, and you begin to understand it. And, the third reason, i wanted to read it in other language, to compare it.This book is not a simple story of some boys trying to make it on a wild island. This is a very deep, psychological and symbolic book. It shows both the real nature of human, the process of " going back to rooths ", and the way the world is made. It has also very specific symbols, like the most obvious- the conch, or piggy's specs,but also more enigmathic, like the water spilled on piggy's hand, when passing the conch to ralph.If you start thinkink, how the British boys, proud of the fact being Brits , because " British are best at everything", turn into Hunters-or rather animals,how they personality is forgotten and covered by paintings, how civilised little boys-children !-start to escape fr! ! om humanity and responsibility into mindless tribal dance, and manslaughter in the name of the "community", you discover the truth about men. It is really scary, when at the final scene you realise, that Jack- the Main Hunter, the vicious Master-is a 11- old child !! This is a very, very good book. I loved the style - one day of reading-and the language, and some unknown elements. You really should change your poin of viev while reading this book." +1414,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A3E7NBN3RHBUBP,Gregory Moss,17/33,1.0,1159574400,SOMEBODY PLEASE RESCUE THIS BOOK FROM ITS AUTHOR,"This audio CD had me excited at first, at least until I actually played it. It's the most boring read of any story I've ever heard in my life. Golding's a great writer, but he ain't no reader. His own commentary in parts is distracting and irritating. His mouth noises unsettle me, and his slow, dull, expressionless rendering of this classaic grates on the spirit. Too bad an accomplished reader such as Roger Dressler or Garrick Hagon can't do this novel justice. It's just a damned shame is all." +1415,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A154R834WMV9ZV,"""marvin4186""",0/1,4.0,1009411200,A weird beginning with a weird ending,"I was forced to read this book in my 10th grade English class. I read the first chapter and knew I wasn't going to like the rest of the book. Lord of the Flies, by William Golding, has a very very deep side to it beyond just the story. I found it to be a very easy read once I got past the first few chapters. If you are struggling, please continue to read. It gets better as you go." +1416,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A1KLG8F5APLM2N,h,15/23,5.0,986342400,reminds me of the TV series "Survivor","I read this book in 9th grade. I am 26 years old now and still think about the morality and symbolism of human nature I discovered in "Lord of the Flies". I decided to write this review all these years later after watching the first installment of the TV show "Survivior". I saw a lot of similarities. In "Lord of the Flies" we are given a sort of scenario...what if a group of young adolescent boys were left abandoned on a deserted island. This is what happens...and as I describe some of the scenes from the book, compare them to that of a real life TV show a lot of us watch. Maybe like me, you'll see a more animal, evil side to these "real-life" strategy survival shows. On this deserted island a natural leader is born, Ralph. He is kind, and understanding of the fears his fellow students face. He accepts responsibility and delegates "chores" for the other boys to do. They must tend a rescue fire. They must hunt for food. They must tend to the wounded pilot. Ralph chooses the path a responsible adult might. Soon some of the boys become lazy. They do not follow Ralph's rules. These unruly boys are headed by another natural leader. The more "wild" and fun-seeking Jack. Jack and Ralph argue. To maintain control the boys find a large shell ....the conch....and whoever holds it has the right to speak. This attempt at order works for a little while but soon Jack dismisses the control the conch holds. He and his pig-hunting, lazy friends split from the original group and leave to another part of the island. They want to "do their own thing". They defy rules and organization which Ralph feels is the key to survival. Meanwhiile Ralph and his friend Piggy struggle to keep their small group in order. It becomes increasingly difficult to maintain adult responsibility. For the youngest who fear Jack and his clan, Ralph becomes almost their savior, their security on an island of unknown. Soon Ralph's pack decides they too are tired of rules, and one by one leave to join Jack's ideas of senseless fun. Jack represents abandonment of control, living purely through pleasures. This is where you can form a million metaphors between the two clans of boys. Jack and his bandits become so wild and animal-like near the "end" that they actually start hunting Ralph in the manner of a real pig-hunt. They have forgotten society, basic humanity, and most of all..they have forgotten they were once all friends. This kind of behavior echoed alot of the back-stabbing things I see on TV and in the government, religion, everywhere in real life. Read this book and never let yourself abandon what you truly beleive to be good in your heart...Let us compare this book of instinct and leaders and followers to our own lives....On a personal note....Jack always kind of reminded me of Adolph Hitler and his control over his followers during the war. I would love to hear some other thoughts via e-mail. If you are reading this book for school, like I did once, really try to think about some real-life comparisons you find between the pages of Golding's work of art." +1417,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,4.0,919555200,"A good, and very disturbing book","This was one of the few books I had to read for school, but that I really enjoyed. It's definitally not the kind of book you want to associate with and you don't wish to be any of the characters. I like the book because it is a good lesson about the nature of mankind -the gradual loss of "civilization" as the "highly-civilized English boys" degrade to become savages. The murders they commit and the chanting and "pig" scenes are very shocking, but definiatlly realistsc. One question that came up im my class discussion: Would a group of girls react the same way? Well, definitally a great book, that I can only recommend." +1418,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A2O3OYVJG2WZTS,Lindsay,3/6,2.0,1078272000,Lord of the Flies,"Lord of the Flies is a powerful story about a group of English schoolboys who have survived a plane crash and are stranded on a deserted island. In the beginning it seems like the boys will have quite an awesome adventure--they are completely on their own with no adult supervision. One of the oldest boys, Ralph, attempts to get the others organized so that they will have food, shelter, and a rescue signal fire.Ralph's logical approach to survival is soon challenged by Jack, the novel's antagonist, who is also in charge of the hunting. His desire for total power is quickly evident as he and his followers become increasingly wild, barbaric, and cruel. Their cruelty extends beyond simply hunting animals for food. Soon they are hunting and killing each other.While I did not particularly enjoy reading this book, I believe that the way the different characters are developed is interesting. Each of the main characters seems to represent an aspect of human nature and society. For example, Ralph represents the civilizing instinct in human beings compared to savagery represented by Jack. Simon, who is shy and more sensitive than the others, seems to represent the natural goodness found in people. Roger represents exactly the opposite--he is sadistic and very cruel. I think my favorite character is Piggy, because he is a very logical thinker and smart. Because I found this character appealing, his murder was very disturbing to me.Actually, the entire story was disturbing. It was hard to imagine that the boys waging this ""war"" against each other were so young--the oldest was only twelve years old. It was interesting to me that the more violent the story got, the older the boys seemed. I think what I didn't like was the implication that humans are innately evil. Goodness was portrayed as an aspect of civilization. As civilization deteriorated throughout the story, cruelty and violence increased. It seemed more natural to be evil than to be good. The severed pig's head (named the Lord of the Flies) mounted on the stake in the forest seemed to represent that innate evil. Since I don't believe that humans are naturally cruel and violent, I found this book difficult to read. It is not a book I would recommend." +1419,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,4.0,911779200,A prototype novel with the author's potential showing,"A hasty finish from a point from where the author could have done wonders with the story. Undoubtedly the best part of the book being when the Lord of the Flies makes his brief entry in the story, when lawlessness prevails .... "..funny thinking how you thought the beast was something you could hunt and kill, closer come closer....you are the beast we are all the beast... " The darker side of man is hence exposed in the latter part of the novel..." +1420,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,AYPCWCJCF5E25,PDITTY,0/0,5.0,985132800,LORD OF THE FLIES POWER STRUGGLE BETWEEN RESPECT AND FEAR,The Lord of The Flies was a suspensful story about a group of english schoolboys whose plane crashes on to a deserted island and they must struggle to stay alive and leave the island. There were a couple of different struggles. One was whether they follow Ralph's rules and stay civilized to get out of the island or do they follow Jack's orders and become pig hunting savages and eventually die there. The story kept me wondering about what happens next. This was one of the few books I've ever enjoyed. I recommend everyone that reads this to read Golding's Lord of The Flies. +1421,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A1LTNFTYVF2057,"""ggazlay""",0/1,4.0,1012262400,Burn it! (in a good way),"It has been years since I read this book but I remember that it is the book I hold the most emotional bond with. The characters touched the deepest recesses of my heart and held on. The strugles that Golding incorporates into this book are remarkable. They are realistic in the way that kids would possible go to such an extreme if a situation of isolation cropped up. I still want to burn the book, not out of hatred to the book, but out of anger toward Sam(or whoever it was I can't remember) who killed Piggy. I believe that it is a sign of a good book, when you WANT to destroy the book, not out of distaste with the writing or the idea, but out of distaste of the characters in the book, out of such a strong passion that you want to see the heroes enemies fail and not see the heroes fall. And Golding, with an excellent book does exactly that." +1422,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,AUCPDOEBOUCQN,"Retesh D. Shah ""retesh_shah""",0/1,4.0,1002326400,Good story on human nature but lacking in emotional drama,"I would recommend this book. Early on, I was hoping there was something more to the story than just lost boys on an island by themselves. Once I realized that the basic story was just boys fending for themselves, I enjoyed it more. It's not an easy book to get through because we can't get too close to the main characters Ralph and Jack. We know by the end, Jack and his "hunters" have gone too far, but somehow I never felt the panic or emotion that Ralph and Piggy probably did. But the story is fascinating just on the merits of human nature. Everyone should take that away after finishing this story - people can be broken down into basic personality elements." +1423,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,4.0,934934400,yo,I dont read much but this was a good book. It portraid the darkness of man's heart and how evil we can become when we lose hope. +1424,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A15BP411HNY9ZO,Anita,1/1,4.0,1323648000,Book Review,"In William Golding's novel The Lord of the Flies, a group of twelve year old boys are stranded on an island in the midst of a war. Golding has chosen the perfect setting and age group to illustrate his point. By using twelve year old boys instead of grown men, he is able to better explore the human tendency towards cruelty (as these twelve year olds do not have civilization fully ingrained into their natural instincts). The allegorical nature of the novel worked in Golding's favor; the reader clearly understands that Golding believes that humans are not born pure and moral -these traits are learned over a long period of time.Because Golding meant the novel to be allegorical, it is not very realistic. The characters Ralph, Piggy, and Jack seem to be rather flat, as we know next to nothing about them. Also, these children barely mention missing their families or their old lives. In fact, most of them readily abandon it without a second thought to explore their inner savage. The island the boys are stranded on also happens to have plenty of fruit; the boys' overwhelming desire for meat, especially at such a young age, seems out of place. The reader must employ some pretty serious suspension of belief while reading this novel. Ultimately however, these traits helped contribute to the novel's strong and incredibly complex symbolism which leaves the reader to ponder over the true nature of human behavior." +1425,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A1X4P6CN08U57A,Rheazblaze,0/0,5.0,1289865600,More Than Just Survival,"If you haven't read it, you've heard of it and that's because the book is brilliant. It was chosen quite a few years ago to be included in the literary canon of most secondary schools, pushing its influence even further. William Golding presents a spectacular, terrifying view of humanity in this novel. A group of young boys, the only survivors of a plane crash, end up on a deserted island that has very few resources, but enough to survive. They begin their struggle to survive by thinking about rescue and democracy and capability, but it soon degenerates to rival factions, abuse, violence, and tribalism.Piggy, one of the main characters of the story, and Ralph's right-hand man never has an official name other than ""Piggy"". Typical of young boys, they find the weakest of the group and exploit and make fun of the individual. Piggy wears glasses, has asthma, and is overweight. He can do little to help work, but he is quite smart. Though Ralph tends to make fun of him just as much as some of the other boys, he seems to recognize that Piggy has a pretty good grasp of reality, putting him one step above the virtually useless ""littluns"". So since Ralph has nerve and Piggy has brains they become leaders. Piggy is more so in the background, whispering advice, while Ralph speaks up and demands. Unfortunately for Piggy, he is too shy and too scared of authority to do much else than be used.Simon, perhaps the most interesting character in the book, is perceptive, creative, intelligent and helpful. He adheres to a place of peace and rest: a garden of Eden inside the wilderness of the jungle that has grown on the island. He understands that the beast the children live in fear of is themselves. When he suffers from heat stroke and watches a pig's head transform before his eyes (Hell enters his garden) we might also discover that he suffers from more. He has a good head on his shoulders and is capable of higher level thought, even if he can't articulate it. He is the silent voice of reason. He is a martyr, facing the beast of the air and letting it loose, but the beast is still within the children and he knows it. All martyrs suffer, and Simon must do just that.There is a wonderful sense of hubris in Golding's work. There is this overarching thought process, other than Piggy and Simon who are the general outsiders, in the beginning of the book that everything will be just fine and that they, since they are English, can tackle any task and work it to their advantage. Advantages are gained, but at the price of what else? Can we really call them advantages?He also presents a great psychological presentation of what fear can do to children. Though, after reading the book several times, it is quite clear that this is not a child's condition, it is a human condition. Fear can foster creativity. The children quickly adapt to their surroundings and begin the process of regimenting jobs, building shelters, etc. Unfortunately, they lose sight of these goals rather quickly because darkness and imagination produce abominations, making fear smolder. Most of the time our fears are unfounded and are simply tricks of the imagination, but there is something very real on the island that these children, or humans, can and should fear: each other.Through the process of losing humanity the children get lost to themselves, becoming more and more tribal. The conch, a shell used to call meetings and to designate who speaks, is the representation of democracy. It, of course, loses its power as humanity begins to wane and disappear. A combination of fun and serious games turns to play that doesn't last long and fear that lasts much longer. They soon forget what fire can stand for other than a destructive force, bringing them further and further into the recesses of the tribal mind.Jack is the main reason there is a degeneration of democracy, order, and rationality. He is a very strong character, but his tenacity and leadership go horribly awry. He becomes leader of the hunting party, and though they are initially unsuccessful, he celebrates such destructive things as a a red badge of courage after a hunt. A small cut shows that he is tough and he becomes capable of hunting the pigs efficiently, while also making him bloodthirsty and vicious. His mental distancing becomes physical. He breaks away from Ralph. They break into factions and Jack's group centers around a more chaotic riot mentality instead of the rational mentality needed to survive other than the next ten minutes. Survival and butchery overcome the need to be rescued.Jack is, frankly, blown out of proportion and perhaps that is why Golding chose children instead of men. Men might feel more rational, but children are imaginative and deadly. Games can soon escalate to fights in a backyard, so why not something worse on a deserted island with no adults to break up the violence? Jack's irrationality is exemplified by the fact that he purposefully chases after and kills female pigs. Hunters don't, usually, hunt females because females are the backbone for keeping a population of a creature alive. By killing females it demonstrates that he is reckless and only wants to suit personal needs in the immediate future and not the long term. Golding was also aware that the killing of a female by a bunch of male hunters becomes a rape: sexual and primal. Jack is, in essence, killing the tenderness of a mother to make himself tougher.Ralph is not exempt from this mentality. He eventually, also, degenerates to survive. Though he keeps some rationality as he does so. Not wanting to give too much away for those of you who have not read it is key here so I will not say more.This books is not just a novel about survival but an in depth look at humanity. Just because the characters are children does not make it any less real to adults. It can be applied across the entire spectrum. We, as humans, are divided into factions, into communities. Some are seen as weak and timid, others are seen as aggressive and domineering. Unfortunately, in the grand scheme of life, there is no rescue for us. What would we do if we were trapped in these situations? How would we fight oppression? How would we balance our lives and keep sane?" +1426,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A217MTXYGQ9Y9H,J. Terpstra,0/5,1.0,1308528000,Unusable book not as described,"This was described to be a ""good"" or ""like new"" condition (I don't remember which now) paperback of a classic book in a more recent edition. Instead it is actually an extremely ancient, yellowed & smelly paged, hard-covered, paperback-style school-copy dated 1954, that has no less that 8 student names written in it. Very Nasty! It is an older edition, stinks, and could not fairly be described as anything better than ""usable if very desperate!"" We threw it away and will be buying a new one from someone else. Allergies keep us from reading yellowed, smelly, 56 year old, heavily used, cheap books!!" +1427,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A36167S87RLKQI,Marlena Montalvo,0/0,3.0,985132800,Different from other books,In the book Lord of the Flies Golding is trying to show how evil comes out of people when they fear the unknown. I agree with the message he is trying to send out to the readers because people are scared of what they don;t know and sometimes handle it in a crazy behavior. I think he handled the characters very well because you can see how different they are from each other and how much evil they they have in themselves. I think this book was pretty good and i would encourage you to read this book if you like adventure and want to learn new things. +1428,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A3FKV9SZWO1E59,Marie,2/7,1.0,1072915200,"Great idea, awful book","Golding's idea was brilliant. He delved into the true, hidden nature of humans; our origin as an animal. In his book, a group of young boys are stranded on an island without any adults. They set up a society with rules, goals, and a leader. Of course, this society fails miserably. Rules are disregared, goals are forgotten, and the leader is overthrown. Their miniature civilization degrades into chaos. The implication is that civilization as a whole is just a thin mask that covers our more primal nature.The idea is well thought out and interesting. However, Golding focuses on the details of the boys' existance and the symbolism of the story to the point that the story itself is lost. The only remotely interesting part is the end, when he stops focusing on the symbolism as much and lets the story drive home the points that he tries to make throughout the book.If you want an examination of human nature, then read this book.If you want an adventure story, look elsewhere." +1429,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A9GETFKGDXIAM,Charles B. Cabrejos,0/0,4.0,1293148800,There is a reason...,"Why this book is mentioned so often. it is the type of book that strikes you during the read, but more importantly, it i a book yull think backto more often than you'll at first realize. it's an easy read, and a great one at that. definitely recommend." +1430,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,ADQFH36WXEI4O,Jason Weber,1/1,4.0,1271980800,Shows the true nature of man vs. survival,"I just finished this book for English, and I felt it nailed its message pretty well. The symbols and deeper meanings are really an early attempt at exploring the true nature of children vs. their morals under survival situations. It is sad seeing how young boys can do this to each other, but it is very realistic in its psychological views, and shows how anyone has the ability to give into power and impulses under the right circumstances. The ending just pieces everything together, and shows the true impact the actions have caused these boys emotionally, even though it is a little anti-climatic. In the end, the basic moral is to not give in to your natural impulses so quickly and not to be quick to judge other people. It also teaches you that anyone has the ability to turn evil when given power, but there will always be those with morals who continue to fight on." +1431,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A3TG32DCAUCTKX,Thanh,0/1,4.0,1132531200,Lord of the Flies,Lord of the Flies is a good book for young readers.In the book it explains how no political system by itself is strong enough to shape society. And how people would do anything if there were no one to inforce the law. +1432,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A2HM6H4LTVRP31,Reece Clay,0/0,4.0,1064448000,Reeces review of lord of the flies,"I felt that this book was really well thought of in the first place. The idea is to have a few boys from a far away military camp crash in the middle of no where. They would have to survive on there own. Even Ralph the one who has the toughest time out of all the boys trying to be the leader but some retaliating must have been hard to come up with. Piggy the less suited for the tragedy was in need for help with after all of the harassment. The name piggy explains it all. Even before the disaster. Jack, the biggest savage of them all, was the most unhelpful. Between all of the fights and Piggies tragic ending, he was the one who caused the most problems. Even when they went hunting for Ralph he was the one with the blood thirsty eyes. The littleuns had problems all of the time being scared and all. The twins samneric must have been very horrified when the saw the (BEAST) or the dead man in the parachute. All of the sightings of the beast made the suspense even more. The rummaging through the forest in search of the beast all turned out to be rubbish. The ending of the book in my opinion was a rushing finish so I had no chance to enjoy it. I would recommend this book to all because it was touching in away and to all the kids it would be fun to have a shelter on a deserted island with no parents." +1433,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,5.0,1062547200,"one of the few ""classics"" worth reading","this book was short and an easy read filled with symbolism..for those who dont really care about symbolism this is a great story about kids stuck on an island who start to kill each other. Unlike other classics like the scarlet letter which was a disgrace to literature.. lord of the flies is worth the read. It's near impossible to put down and does not go on endlessly for no reason, nor does it take forever to get to the point." +1434,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A2MALVPBMLPJHL,Chopsticks,1/2,5.0,1107734400,Lord of the Flies,"Stranded on a island with no food,water, or shelter, there's absolutley no chance of getting rescued, and to top it all off, fighting a neverending battle with the beast within. These are just a few thingd those boys had to deal with. Watching them struggle, seeing what they would do just to survive, just reading these words that William Golding wrote with such intentsity,taught me many things about life as well as myself that no one else could.The way the book Lord of the Flies was written is extremely amazing!!! Golding has so much talent, hardly anyone can compete. Out of all his good writting qualities, I believe that allusion and symbolism are the best. It's just how he finds ways to expressthe charectos anger and frustration, relating them to biblical allusions is truly amazing.you just never know what to expect. On page could be filled with life and happinessand the next could be up to the top with death and misery.I believe Golding wrote this novel to warn us that evolution is not what it seems to be. There is some one living in us all, in the deepest, darkest corner of our minds called anger. Otherwise known as the beast. He is trying to tell us that we never what to expect. We don't even know what lies ahead. He is trying to tell us expect to unexpected. The future is a dark and distant thing.In critiquing the book, first I would add a little more detail.Maybe adding a little more conflict between Jack and Ralph might interest the reader to continue,instead of tossing the book aside. Secondly I would change the ending around. Gosh! How could it end that way. Ssssshhhhh, I can't tell you anymore, okay?You will just have to read it to find out what happens.It is byfare the best book I have read in my life!! I give it five flies( flies are equivelent to stars).I would like to congradulate William Golding in writting this book that has touched us and has chnged my life and hopefully yours too forever." +1435,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,5.0,916876800,I recognized my whole life,"It is the fact that I loved this book very much. It must be my favourite novel, I've read it about 12 times, and I love it even more for each" +1436,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,ARF5OI5V9OI00,Max A. Lebow,1/3,5.0,1139184000,What Happens When There is No Adult Supervision?,"This is a classic work of art. It depicts, in chilling detail, how civilization breaks down when a group of school boys, none over 12 years of age, are marooned on an island, with no adult supervision.It can be read as an allegory for adult society in which there is no responsible supervision, for example, when the government appoints people to head agencies who have no experience, like Brownie, or appoints people to agencies that the government wants to destroy, or when the government appoints a person to represent us in the UN and the person has said the UN should not exist. Does this sound familiar?However, this book first appeared in 1954. It is a work of art. It may be just an artistic description of some school boys slowly descending into a violent abyss of their own making.Either way, it is a disturbing book. It shows, clearly, how thin the veneer of civilization is, and what ugliness lies beneath that veneer.I have read this book twice and was disturbed both times. I think it is still relevant. And that relevance makes the book even more disturbing." +1437,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A38DY9R36VTHF4,Amanda,0/0,4.0,1338422400,"Great classic novel to analyze, not so much for entertainment","As an avid reader and a lover of literature, I at last found enough time to pick up what is known as one of the greatest novels of all time. However, I found that it was a rather mundane read, even though it included somephenomenal uses of literary features.I had heard rumors about what themes the novel included before beginning - cannibalism, survival of the fittest, etc. I wasn't disappointed. Although there was no cannibalism, Golding truly exemplifies the deterioration of humankind when faced with anarchy at its finest. Through the medium of young boys, he was able to successfully portray how human nature slowly dissolves into unorganized chaos. Additionally, his use of literary features was clear and added to the plot, such as his choice of symbolism with the conch. With the destruction of the conch leading to the end of Ralph's power, it was clear that the conch represented order and freedom of speech.On the flip side, as someone who's more a fan of action-packed, drama-filled teen reads, Lord of the Flies was pretty low on the entertainment scale. Development was slow in this case, where the first death didn't occur until more than halfway into the book. And even then, I felt like my interest was only piqued in the last quarter of the book or so. Therefore, as a book I was reading for what I intended to be purely enjoyment, I can't exactly say I appreciated the time I spent reading it. However, I do acknowledge its literary merit and the reason as to why it's become one of the most widely read novels of all time.Sure, read it - maybe you'll enjoy it more than I did. But beware; if you're expecting something exciting and page-turning, this may not be the book for you (unless you really enjoy deciphering the meaning behind various symbols)." +1438,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,AH1NW7K3PFAQH,"Avid Reader ""I like books""",0/0,5.0,1331424000,One of my favorite books as a young boy,I read this book when I was ten and loved it. Somehow the idea of boys my age running amok on an island was appealing. Of course today it's a bit horrifying. +1439,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,AT88FTGIYA7I2,"randomerror128 ""randomerror128""",1/18,2.0,1141257600,its a school reading project,"At a time when the baby boomer's were yet to exist, WW2 was happening. A school of boys are stranded on an island due to a plane crash with no adult anywhere. The leader Ralph created 2 teams to survive each having a certain task. Jack becomes the hunter team, while Ralph was more of the society creation team. Ralph's second had man, Piggy, helps out in more than a few ways untill tradgity strikes. The teams divide as the socity clapes and roles are broken. WIlliam Golding has created another timeless piece, full of changes and plot twists in ""lord of the Flies""." +1440,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,ANXH3O07SDHBW,Sam,0/2,5.0,1023753600,Book Review: Lord of the Flies,"A group of English schoolboys, while being evacuated from England during World War II, fall out of a crashing airplane. They land on a tropical island devoid of adults and start their own society. So begins Lord of the Flies, by William Golding.There are three main characters in this book: Ralph, Piggy, and Jack. Ralph is strong and sensible. He is confident that they will be rescued and meanwhile works to make the island a better place. Piggy is obese and a social outcast. However, he is very wise and tries to advise Ralph, because Ralph is his only friend. Ralph�s archenemy, Jack, is bossy. He grows a love for hunting and violence.Right after the crash landing on the island, Ralph finds a conch shell and blows on it, gathering all the boys on the island. He decides there should be an election to determine a chief of the island. Ralph represents democracy. He gets elected chief, and does his best to make sure that everyone is equal. Ralph starts a fire on a mountain with Piggy�s eyeglasses, hoping that passing ships will see a smoke signal. Shelters are built on the shore and food is plentiful. The boys are enchanted by the idea of their own world that they control.But inevitably, disturbing events start to occur. A boy sees a �snake thing� in the woods and other see monsters. This gets everyone frightened. Soon a mission is started to find and kill the �beast.�Later, after Jack kills a pig, he develops a love for hunting. With an army of boys he starts hunting for pigs. They invent a game in which they form a circle. Another boy comes into the middle of the circle, and the boys on the outside beat him, chanting, �Kill the pig! Cut her throat! Spill her blood!� Several boys are injured as a result of this violent ritual.Jack also becomes very rebellious against Ralph and his leadership. For one, Jack is apathetic about the fire on the mountain. He doesn�t see that the fire is the only way to be rescued. Jack represents totalitarianism and dictator ship.Despite being very creative and original, the book has some weaknesses. For one, it paints a very pessimistic view of mankind. It implies that kids are not inherently innocent, but instead evil when deprived of law and order. Lord of the Flies can also get boring at times. Hunting for pigs, keeping the fire going, finding the beast: these themes reappear so many times it feels repetitive. Too much description also causes the book to be monotonous at times. However, the thrilling climax more than makes up for these minor weaknesses.Golding�s writing style is usually both interesting and engaging. It offers insight into what would happen to �innocent� children when in a world of their own, without parents and authority. In the end, everything turns out fine, but only after an exciting chase and battle. On the surface, Lord of the Flies is an adventure story about boys trapped on a tropical island. But if you look deeper, it is a parable about the true nature of people." +1441,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,AFPN9QF6YY5FU,Blaithin,0/0,4.0,1361318400,Good book,It was a good I really enjoyed nearly gave it five stars but it just had some boring bits but other than that great book +1442,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,2/7,1.0,938736000,This book sucked!,"This book was very disturbing, sick and wrong. Other than the fact that it was very boring and lost my attention, it also very much revolved around murder, cruelty, and other acts of meanness in the second half in the book. We see enough of this on the news every day, we don't need to read about 12-year-olds doing these horrible things. We do not recommend this book to any reader." +1443,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A125P4J1XPQNLL,Kim Scharf,1/2,5.0,1280361600,Loved this book!,"This book was awesome. I couldn't stop reading it. It was about surviving on an island and finding more people. So I'm going to write a review. Here is what the book is about.Two boys, Ralph and Piggy were alone on an island, so they thought. When they went to the beach, they found a conch. Since Piggy didn't want to blow it Ralph blew and more kids came. Since there were more kids, some people wanted the leader to be a kid named Jack and some people wanted Ralph to be leader. They took a vote and Ralph was leader.One day, they went to a rock and climbed it. Ralph and Jack and a kid named Roger came with them. Then, they went down. They then decide to split in to two groups but they would still stay in touch. They then walked back to their base.Another day, Jack's group stole Piggy's glasses and he got mad and told them to give them back. They said no. Then, they invaded (invaded what?). Later, a guy on a boat came to bring them back home. He asked if any were dead. Ralph said two. They took them and they never went back to the island.They got rescued. Most stories like this; at the end they get rescued. I always predict that and I'm always right. This book should be read by kids. It's a great book. The font is a little small but I still liked it." +1444,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A3R7ROEEIQO311,Kathy Schneider,0/1,3.0,1343260800,Realistic?,"I'm aware that this book is a classic and is very popular but it just didn't do it for me. Maybe I am too much of an optimist but I really can't see a group of boys turning into killing machines that quickly just because they are trapped on an island. Fighting, of course; stabbing and attacking, not so much. Like I said, maybe I just think to highly of people, but this book just seemed so unrealistic to me that it lost all of the chilling effect that it is supposed to evoke. However, it was a fun read and I really liked the ending." +1445,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A3LUVZ3685QMT4,Timothy_Froh,58/67,5.0,984787200,Human Nature through the eyes of William Golding,"With this his first novel, author William Golding wrote a novel that he could never surpass in greatness. Lord of the Flies is a novel about our human nature. Too often I think, people jump to quick conclusions about the book and Golding's stand on human nature. ""His stance is too pessimistic"" or ""That books really gross."" What these people fail to realize is that Golding tried to paint a picture of human nature as he saw it. He wasn't making things up, I don't think he was particularly angry, he wrote Lord of the Flies to expose people to the atrocities that he witnessed in World War II.One of the largest underlying principles in Lord of the Flies is of course, human nature. William Golding gives the reader three interesting characters to analyze: Jack, Piggy, and Ralph. It's quite apparent as you read the novel that Golding must have read a little Sigmund Freud before writing Lord of the Flies. Let's start with Jack. Jack is the definite Id on the island. He wants to survive but he also wants to eat meat and have fun. Jack is clearly unable to control these urges and in turn has a pretty large influence on the other boys on the island. Piggy is the definite Superego on the island. Piggy is always referring to ""well my auntie..."" and always finds an excuse not to do something. Piggy has no intentions of satisfying his id, and in turn influences only Ralph and Simon. Ralph on the other hand, takes the middle road. He is clearly trying to find a way to satisfy his id, but he can't seem to find one. Take what he said in chapter eight for instance: ""...Without the fire we can't be rescued. I'd like to put on war-paint and be a savage. But we must keep the fire burning..."" Ralph is definitely trying to satisfy his id, but those laws of culture still remain with him, telling him it's not the thing a proper English boy should do.Another interesting connection I made while reading, was one between Jack's status of leader and the ideology of Thomas Hobbes. Unlike Hobbes though, Jack's power was used for quite the opposite affect. Hobbes believed that in order for a perfect society to exist, a higher power had to be in charge, in order to keep the other citizens in check. Jack was that higher power on the island. He was in control of everything, however, his power had quite the opposite affect of ""keeping people in check."" Jack used the powerful persuasion of the id to persuade others. Jack could promise meat and fun, whereas Ralph could promise labor and fruit, something the other boys definitely didn't want.Lord of the Flies is also a novel filled with symbolism. Probably the most important of these symbols was the conch. The conchs represented several things, including freedom and order on the island, and possibly, even for a short time, unity between the boys. One of the most interesting aspects to the conch was the fact that Piggy couldn't use it. This shows a lack of leadership or strength on Piggy's part. The conch became a tool of free speech. Those who wanted to speak at the tribal council had to hold the conch in order to be heard. However, as the story progressed, this practice diminished more and more, until the island was a place of complete chaos and anarchy. In one of the last chapters of the novel, the conch gets completely destroyed. This symbolizes two things. First, it symbolizes the end of order on the island- no more meetings, no more assemblies, none of that, the island was a place of anarchy. Secondly, this destruction symbolizes the end of Ralph's leadership. The boys had become slaves to Jack and his power, their conscience gave in.Finally, about the novel itself. Golding is quite obviously a fan of Joseph Conrad. The writing style is almost identical, and the subject matter is very similar, with Golding opting to use children (young boys) instead of the men of Conrad's Heart of Darkness. The novel moves very quickly and it's rather short (202 pages in my copy.) You'll be immersed in the varying characters and degrees of humanity that they present. Keep in mind, that although Golding's view on humanity may seem very pessimistic, he's writing from his perspective on human nature, something that he witnessed first hand during WWII." +1446,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/5,5.0,1003968000,My Review for you,IT WAS A GOOD BOOK TO READ. I GUESS. I ONLY READ HALF BUT IT WAS PRETTY GOOD. CONSIDERING THAT I READ IT 3 YEARS AGO! +1447,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/1,5.0,1075939200,Dream-like sensations and ethereal experiences,"The dark, indistict and yet highly suggestive cover of the Riverhead edition (1997, introduced by E.M. Forster)peopled with its shady, human-like silhouettes and snaps of muted color, provides a better glimpse than any other edition of an important theme of the novel--illusion, and its power to become real in the minds of those possessed by fear. Chimera.I think this theme is as important now, as it has ever been, perhaps more so considering the recent fears in the most powerful nation on Earth. With fear and vulnerability gripping America, the world has turned from being an oyster to a threat. People are frightened by the stories churned out by their media. There is anger, feelings of extreme vulnerability in the face of the invisible. Leaders fan the breezes of these highly charged feelings to create monsters lurking on the fringes of stable, rational society, ready to tear it up. Democracy, in the face of such invisible, powerful threats, can seem altogether too inadequate and fragile. Another response--a more powerful one--is needed. Force, the erosion or elimination of democratic rights, the tightening of controls. And of course, hunting down the beast. To ensure that all this is accepted by the very people who have the most to lose, a leader maintains the illusion of dark, evil forces bent on the destruction of a nation. And so on....Think of Jack and his tribe...then think how it all came about.Simon is the first to see that there is nothing to fear on the island, but the children themselves , with all their fears of the dark. Think of the littl'uns, missing the comfort, security and reassurance of adults, their parents. They cry at night, they see snakes twisting about in the jungle-fire (in reality the burning vines waving about as they are being consumed by the flames)and mistake their nightmares for the real thing. Jack capitalizes on their fear, while at first being afraid himself. He is a young child after all, which is easy to forget.Right from the start Golding works in images of how the island paradise has the potential to be turned into something sinister and deadly. We hear the ""witch-like"" call of a bird, see the ""skull-like"" coconuts strewn under the trees. Is it all really there? It takes the active imagination of the human mind to turn trees, coconuts, birds and the jungle into something awful. Something that can kill. Our confidence that what we can apprehend ""reality"" directly through our senses is put into question, for it is always through an interpreting mind that our sense perceptions are filtered. Our terrified minds ""see"" snakes, moving shadows...""hear"" witches shrieking in the forest, our bodies ""feel"" the cold touch of a creature crawling over us...and we react according to how we understand our sensations.The lyrical prose of the novel helps us experience what the boys do through connotation, metaphor, simile. This is what literary language does best: offers us experience, rather than information. Golding, being the brilliantly suggestive writer that he is, does just that. He offers us images, illusions in the shape of lengthy, highly detailed and descriptive scenes, which make very real a dream-like, unreal experience. Simon's experience of the butterflies dancing is just one example of this. In the same chapter, a storm is moving up. Or is it a storm? Golding uses the image of a great battle brewing, with the added image of ""drums rolling"". Rather than being a natural occurrence, the storm is presented to us as a powerful army preparing to unleash itself on the small, isolated island. The army is put there by a human mind. And it becomes very real for both Simon and for the reader. By personalizing Nature,(which is how the children experience the island) we tend ascribe to it intentions and purpose. In this way, the storm becomes menacing and seems to focus on the children, forcing them to cower in their flimsy huts when it trummels the island.And that brings me to the next point about illusion and reality. Not only are the boys creating reality, so is the reader for him or herself, by recreating through the words on the page a surrogate experience. Some reviewers mistake the words on the page for referring to a reality that they never lived. This is not to say that they are naive enough to believe that the novel is based on real-life, but they write as if there is some truth-value to the details. This is the conduit metaphor that Bruce Pirie writes about in _Teaching High School English_, which powerfully drives the reading and interpretation of much literature. What is missed is that stories, whether spoken or written, are always constructed affairs. And that pertains to any story, including our own descriptions of ourselves. We are not giving ""reality"" of our true self when we tell someone about who we are: we are presenting a version that we believe to be accurate and true. What gets left out is the amount of selecting of perceived personal attributes that go into the description of our self (the unique, single ""self"" being another illusion of Western society...how many ""selves"", do you construct and present to the world every day?).Does Golding not wish us to consider how the use of language constructs the very reality that it is supposed to refer to? His very skill in getting readers to describe Jack, Ralph and the others on the island as though they were real and to live the children's experiences may attest to this to.... as well as a history of High Schools reading literature in a realist tradition.Anyway, enjoy the novel...or the illusion of directly living another's experiences. Plenty to enjoy there." +1448,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,5.0,919209600,That is the Reason,"The author wrote this book to show how stupid humans are. If you think about it, you can look at a school play ground. If there are no adults, you have children picking on one another. This book is about Human nature. And for those people who turn there heads and say that this book is horribly gruesome, well obviously. That is the point, so was the Civil War, what did it accomplish, freedom, and hatred, but that it accomplished something." +1449,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,AA3DVFQ8DY9TL,Mark Brethauer,1/2,5.0,1225152000,Great book :],"I was actually pretty anxious to read this book when my English teacher introduced it to our class. This book is filled with shock, excitement, adventure and... murder. There really wasn't anything I didn't like about the book, it was all pretty great. There is an eclectic amount of characters from the book that range in personalities. Just.. buy the book. You won't be able to put it down. :]" +1450,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A24031ID1CXMWN,Ezequiel Luna Jr.,0/4,4.0,944697600,Lord of The Flies,"Lord of the Flies is a story that revolves around a central theme, which is that without the rules of society human nature leads to savagery. The story begins when a group of British school boys crash on a tropical island. The only adult on the Island, the pilot, is dead. At the beginning of the book, a boy named Ralph finds a conch and blows it. Immediately the boys group into an assembly and choose Ralph as their leader. During the first part of the book, the boys strive for order and organization, but this soon starts to diminish. Ralph and his friends, Piggy and Simon, try to accomplish the task of building shelter on the island. They are alone doing this, for many of the boys are too young to help. Jack and his group go off hunting small pigs which populate the island. The disagreement about hunting causes great tension between Ralph and Jack during the book. As the book progresses, Jack's group forget their civilized ways, and there soon becomes a lack of order. Ralph and Piggy started a fire and it should be kept going at all times on a mountain on the island, so that they have a better chance of being rescued. They are unable to accomplish this task because many of the boys do not care about keeping the fire going and would rather go and play. Piggy's glasses are used for lighting fire and become an important symbol of power later in the book. Jack and his group, now known as "the hunters" become obsessed with hunting and killing pigs. To them, it is the most important task on the island. All the young children are preoccupied with the Beast, which they believe in as some kind of animal living on the island. During an assembly, Jack tries brings up the fact that Ralph isn't a good chief, because he can't hunt. Piggy and others are against the idea, but Jack is starting to become more and more savage and overpowering. Jack, Ralph and Simon attempt to kill the beast, in hopes of curing the little boys' worries. There is a violent storm on the island, in which Simon wanders down into a group of boys who are chanting and pretending to hunt. In all of the confusion and chaos, Simon is "accidentally" killed. In this part of the book, Jack decides that he is fed up with Ralph's leadership, and decides to start his own tribe. He invites any boys who wish to join him to come along. Jack's tribe becomes increasingly aggressive, and makes raid on the remaining boys' camp. By this time Sam, Eric, Ralph and Piggy are the only ones not in Jack's tribe. Sam and Eric are kidnapped by Jack's tribe, and Piggy is killed by Roger. Ralph hides in the forest nearby and Jack attempts to hunt him down. During the chaos the fire is neglected and eventually sets the whole island on fire. A naval cruiser sees the smoke from the raging island, and comes to the boys' rescue. Once the naval cruiser comes, and a officers comes out, the boys are ashamed of how they have become. I really enjoyed reading The Lord of the Flies and I would highly recommend it as a must read for anyone at any age. The story unfolds at a very good pace because it keeps the reader craving to know what will happen next. I feel that this story had a very strong introduction and conclusion, making it enjoyable to read. It almost felt like watching a thriller, when in reality they were just pages turning. Lastly, I give The Lord of the Flies four stars, because it is the type of book you can never get sick of." +1451,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,AQ2LY02CC2WXU,Daniel J. Elmore,1/1,5.0,959817600,"Tough going, but worth it","Two things make this book tough going: its slow start, and its use of flowery language. You just have to plow through the first few chapters to get to anything interesting, and there are times that you just dread the fact that the dialogue is dying down and you're about to be "treated" to one of Golding's run-on descriptive passages. Nevertheless, it is worth it. When things pick up in the middle of the book, it becomes easier to see how the flowery language is there to create mood, and to show us, not what the island is like, but what it is like to a group of lost, scared boys. Once you start to be able to follow the mood Golding is trying to create, that's when this story about the pulling away of the thin veneer of civilization that humans wrap themselves in and the revelation of the savage with-in really unfolds for you. And that's when you realize what makes this book so powerful and enduring." +1452,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,AX7BA9DZJF5NC,Brittany,0/8,1.0,1343088000,Lord of the Flies,"I hated this book!! It was boring and violent. I didn't want to read it at all, but I had to for school. I had two weeks to read it and I thought, 'oh no problem'. I could hardly sit and read this book for five minutes!! I will never read this book again." +1453,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,3.0,1070409600,'Lord of the Flies',"As I began to read "Lord of the Flies" by William Golding I immediatly thought that this book would not be able to keep my attention. As I read-on I became more and more interested in this book. There were times that I was not able to put it down because it was so intriguing to me. The thought of this group of young boys on an island all by themseleves without any parents just fascinated me. I didnt know what would happen and I beleive that's part of the reason this book kept my interest.I thought that the most interesting part of this book was when Jack turned against Ralph and decided to take charge of his own tribe. I really never saw it coming and when it did; I couldn't put the book down. This book revealed what I thought was "inner human" evil. I thought that it was very interesting reading about Jack and his crew members wanting to kill these other boys that they were friends with not so long ago.I would defiantly recomment this book to anyone. It was a great read for anyone that likes adventure. This book kept me on my toes the entire time; I was always wondering what was going to happen next. I did think that the beginning of the book started off sort-of slow, but I beleive it was just so that the needed information to understand the story was brought forward. After the first chapter though, it was a wonderful story." +1454,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A2PRZUM1WIYXMD,"""bridgenanem""",1/8,3.0,1071619200,An Overdone Book,""The Lord of the Flies" was not exactly a "feel good" book. If you like profound, dark, and symbolic literature, this is a great book for you. But if you can't sit through many pages of overly detailed description, I don't reccomend this book. I enjoyed the characters, their dialouge and thoughts, but the lengthy descriptions of the island were too much, and took away from the action of the story. I think the minds and personalities of the characters were protrayed realistically, but some of their actions were not. The violence that occured in the story most likely wouldn't have happened in real life. The sequences in which Jack tries to find Ralph towards the end of the book was very overdone. The changes that took place so quickly in some of the characters were exaggerated also.I did like the beginning of this book and enjoyed the characters, especially Simon, but I thought it was carried too far later on. It started out, it seemed, as a harmless adventure book but turned into a deep, thought-provoking tale. If you can handle the exaggerations and boring descriptions, this book wouldn't be that bad. But if you're looking for a book with a crisp story line and reasonably fast paced action, "The Lord of the Flies" wouldn't be it." +1455,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A2E0NKGI1MIBOH,John Steiger,0/0,4.0,1037059200,Way Better Than "Lord of the Dance","If you have ever read "Animal Farm" by George Orwell,then you will enjoy "Lord of the Flies". "Lord of the Flies" is a book that demonstrates how society deals with war, and also serves as a warning bell to society to show people what could happen if they don't react more civilized in a time of crisis. Golding symbolized this situation with children stranded on an island forced to live by themselves and under their own rules. This is a great book if like political/war novels or if like Goerge Orwell since both authors deal with the same topics." +1456,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A3NHZ8B2UJDMFS,"MrEducateOurYoung ""MEOY""",1/1,5.0,1309478400,This is a good one,"I read this book back in high school, over 20 years ago. I make my children read it, even if it's not required for their English class. Since it stood out in my mind for over 20 years and I remember details of it, it's impact was extraordinary! I think that it affects men and young boys differently,stronger than women and young girls. I think it's one of the best books ever written." +1457,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/2,4.0,1132617600,Lord Of The Flies,i enjoyed reading this novel. It makes you realize the factors of life. It also make you really think about how young boys think. One thing i liked about the story was the amazing narrating job Golding did. He describes every single detail so we get the full effect of the story. I didnt like how the story was so pessimistic. With all the killing that went on it made the vibe of the novel negative. I encourage anyone to read this book if you like a complicating story that really makes you think what you would do in that kind of situation. +1458,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,3.0,938736000,IT WAS OK.,I think that the Lord of the Flies was a pretty good book. It had a boring begining but the ending was full of action and conflict that kept you glued to the pages. The characters were pretty realistic and related to the people of today. +1459,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A2ZC7227XDDMTJ,Deanna (deanna@keylink.net),0/1,5.0,941932800,Excellent Book,"It's unbelievable that this book has only received a four-starrating on Amazon. It makes me wonder if people Really know that thebook is very deep and so full of symbolism. At first glance, it may appear that this book is about a group of boys on an island, but if one truly analyzes it, they will notice more about it; the theme, characters, and plot are completely symbolic. I highly recommend this book because it has helped me to relate to life better." +1460,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A2KITPDGGTRASP,Javier Pleitez,12/15,5.0,954806400,An important philosphy disguised in an island adventure,"I, unlike many students, was not required to read Lord of the Flies in high school. If I did, I probably would rate this book at a lower score. Anyway, I always had known the basic plot, so I while back I picked it from the library. I now know why many teachers make this book required reading. Golding puts his view of human civilization with Freudian philosophy in what first appears to be simple story of English boys on an uninhabited island. In the beginning, that is how the novel seems, and it has a cheerful mood. But Golding's main point is that civilization is fragile, and without government people are asking for chaos. He brings Freudian concepts into play, like id, ego, and superego(Jack, Ralph, Piggy). Adults here are represented like government figures, but no adults on the island mean no government. The boys do their best to work together at first, but soon after there is manipulation and mutiny. Symbolism packs this book, not only in inanimate objects, but the characters. Jack(agression), Ralph(order), Piggy(reason), and Simon(consolation that was never realized). All the while the island is presented as a paradise and a lonely piece of wilderness at the same time. Golding puts his message across clearly, and at the same time puts out a good adventure novel. I only had two main problems with Lord of the Flies. One is that overall, the island seemed to be very small and needed more decription of it's physical features, and two, Golding should have put the boys' average age a few years ahead. But those aside, this novel is a good one, being rightful to earn classic status. If you like to read something that makes your brain crank while being entertained, Lord of the Flies is a pretty damn good deal." +1461,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A1AIG23ZR3DZSE,"L. DeJesus-Andino ""chefita""",1/16,1.0,1126396800,Not wild about American literature.,"I'm not a fan on American lit! To be truthful, when I had to read it in college, I did the Cliff Notes, and even THAT was B-O-R-I-N-G!!!!. I have tried reading it twice and don't make it past the first two pages. The movie? NOT!!! Don't go by me, though. Some things have got to be read. My American Lit. professor loved it. To each his own." +1462,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A3HD31OF5O9D6L,David M. Koss,0/0,5.0,949017600,A Classic Novel Not To Be Missed.,"Lord of the Flies is as critically important today as when it was first published. A brilliant novel that deserves to be read as soon as a young adult can comprehend its prose (hopefully, by age 12), the novel commands the attention of readers of all ages. It should be on every student's reading list, and every adult's, as well." +1463,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A12UY12OFZNC5R,Eric Holm,2/2,5.0,954892800,Lord of the Flies,"Just as Conrad's work "Heart of Darkness" does, Golding's "Lord of the Flies" reveals to the reader the human soul's tendency to change to the primordial or primitive self. I think that Golding's use of children as the main characters in the novel is helpful in conveying this message. The children's refusal to follow Ralph stems from the nature of children, in that they found no excitement or satisfaction from following him and his rules. Ralph's maturity resembled that of grown-ups, which children revolt against. On the other hand, Jack's group offered as an incentive more childish excitement in paiting themselves, hunting and ceremonies. We, as the reader, can see the children's folly in following Jack, but they are unable to think rationally due to their immature natures and new-found freedoms. Using children, Golding tries to symbolize the essential qualities in every human's soul and reveal something to the reader about him or herself." +1464,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,AJJC8H854SKLR,LadyRed,0/0,5.0,1356480000,Superb,My brother ordered this for his English class and it literally came the week he needed it. He was a little worried but the delivery pulled through! Excellent condition +1465,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,5.0,924652800,Not for the immature,"I think Lord of the Flies has to be one of the best books I have ever read in my life (and i've read quite a few!) What's interesting to note about most of these reviews is that most of the one or two star ratings and negative comments are probably given by high school students who were made to read it. Well, I read this book in high school and also disliked it immensely. However, now that I've matured a bit (or so i like to think!) and re-read it, I simply cannot understand how anyone cannot be moved by this book! It's insights are extremely profound. But I could see why someone who is in high school and is being made to read this book would not enjoy it. All I have to say is give it another chance when you're older guys! It's worth it. :-)" +1466,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A1SD0WG2MMRB,"David """The Teacher"""",1/1,5.0,1242691200,A Classic- This is Why We Read Books,"William Golding's view of humanity is needed now more than ever. After watching two world wars in his own lifetime, Golding began to wonder whether man was really good or evil and this is what he explores in the novel. The story is very well paced and there's a lot of symbolism throughout the novel. This is one of those books that I would use sparknotes to find the connections if you're not reading this for a class. The connections are fascinating and really make you think about things that are going on right now in 2009. This is a classic that has stood the test of time and it deserves that distinction." +1467,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,ARWTUETFFGADL,Bryan Okoli,0/0,3.0,1081296000,M Opinion,"The lord of the flies is a book with a mixture violence, friendship, and magical realism. The friendship between Ralph and piggy isn't just any ordinary friendship but more like one between a teen and a pet he has owned since he was a small boy.The rivalry between Ralph and jack on the other hand is like that of two rampaging behemoths who despise each other.I like this book because of the small amount of magical realism that was added to this book because i dont't like realism. I don't like this book because of the descriptive senseless violence in it and also because I think that of kids that ages were stuck on an island the last thing they would think about would be hunting and killing. I think that other people might enjoy this book when they read it becuause of the violence and action." +1468,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,3.0,924220800,"Interesting, but could've been better","I thought this book was interesting enough to want to finish it, but it had some room for improvement. The ending was pretty good - if you could understand it. Everyone who said that it was a dumb ending just didn't understand what the author was trying to convey. It was a good way to portray a group of boys who are stranded on an island woth no adult supervision. I'd recommend this book to people in the age group of 12-16." +1469,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,AMUPPE0GN8DIK,dortdin,0/0,3.0,1359676800,A bummer of a story.,"I had to read it for school. The Author takes a long time to describe things and when he's through, you're not sure what he was describing. Very Frusterating." +1470,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,2/5,5.0,927331200,Great!,"This book was our last reading assingment in 10th grade English. After plodding throught Frankenstein, I was prepared for another book that English teachers love, but that I would hate. Well, I was very surprised, and would say this book is easily in my top 5. On the surface its a classic tale of adventure. But inside its words, is a very saddening yet uplifting view on humanity. As the boys on the island begin to lose their English schoolboy discipline and revert back to uncivilized savages its hard to see the upside. But when Ralph finally gets rescued by his British Navy Officer you can see how Ralph is changed and ready to contribute greatly to our civilazation. A leader who recognizes his own capacity for evil, but by seeing it can deal with it, and push his good to front. As I read the last few words of the book my final thought was "Can't we all just get along!" And what would we be capable of if we did? If this seems too profound, stay away, but if your looking for a great story, and more read it!" +1471,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A1SLVQKERJUS16,Mike Smith,1/2,5.0,1128384000,"Spooky, thrilling, deep, and cool","A plane full of schoolkids crashes on an island. At first they get along, but as they attempt to survive, they have to access some of the most primal parts of their soul in order to hunt and stay alive. Whatever fears and beasts they're forced to unleash within themselves soon overpower and posess them, and soon kids are dying left and right, kids are fighting and killing and running and hiding.What a cool book.What a cool book!American high schoolers should consider themselves lucky to be assigned to read a book this fast-paced, this dark, this twisted, and this original. It's certainly not ""Moby Dick."" This book is violent and sudden (and gorgeously written) and asks many deep questions you may not be able to answer.What would you do to survive?What's your breaking point?What are you really like?It's an amazing and terrifying novel about the loss of innocence, about growing up in insane and scary world, and about the darkest parts of all of us.Read it, scare yourself, squirm in fear.Taste the suspense, feel the terror, and try to ignore the author's occasional, almost loving descriptions of the buttocks and body parts of young boys. Some British authors just seem to like to throw those in once in a while. I'm not sure why; it's weird." +1472,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A1QRJNVCXCKOVO,Chris,0/0,4.0,1014163200,Lord of the Flies Book Review,"Book Review of Lord of the FliesThe thought of what you would do if you were stranded on a deserted has crossed almost every person's mind at one point or another. What if it was to happen to you? Would you know what to do to survive? Lord of the Flies by William Golding brings Golding's moral philosophy into an intriguing story of a group of boys crash landing on a deserted island. As the boys attempt to survive, new problems arise from the lack of society that force the boys back to the clutches of their natural instincts.A group of British schoolboys crash land on an uninhabited island somewhere in the ocean. With the only adult on the plane being killed in the crash, the two oldest of the boys, Ralph and Jack, begin a power struggle to be the leader of the boys. Ralph begins his life on the island by trying to incorporate a democracy within the group of boys. The boys then vote for a leader and they almost unanimously choose Ralph. The boys show their wish for society by making some rules to abide by. From the moment Ralph was voted leader, Jack was always his rival, whether he showed it or not. To show his strength, Jack starts a group of hunters that savagely kill the wild pigs on the island. The younger children of the island have their own problem, dealing with the fear of ""The Beastie"" supposedly a giant snake this imaginary beast develops into a creature that all of the boys' fear. Little do they know how the once imaginary beast would affect their lives. After Ralph confronts Jack about his hunters acting savagely Jack is enraged and orders a re-vote for leader. Once again, Ralph is voted leader again and Jack leaves the tribe to form his own group. To add to the conflict between them, the rest of the boys split off into two groups following either Ralph or Jack as their leader. To the reader this starts off as being a childish game, but when children start getting killed it evolves into a deadly struggle for power between the groups.This book is taught in almost every school system in the country giving a new perspective of human nature with its immense amount of symbolism throughout it. Depending on how you look at it the book can be broken down into different kinds of symbolism including human civilization, Freudian Psychology, and a religious allegory. As a reader, I personally saw the book as a vision of human civilization in which the island is a microcosm of the world. The main characters each represent an aspect of human society including human virtues, violence, civilization, intellect, and peace. Aside from the characters, key objects in the story also represent something on a higher term. In one reading it may not be possible to catch every symbol within the book, which may encourage you to read it more than once.Everyone who reads this book should be able to find a way to relate it to the world today. One of the best things about this book is that the way someone interprets the symbols is different from the next person. The general audience of this book is high school students who were forced to read it for an assignment, I being one of them. But I believe this book can be enjoyable to anyone of almost any age if they have an open mind. In my opinion, one of the main reasons why a student wouldn't like this book would be because they were forced to read it, and didn't really read deeply to discover all of the hidden meanings. But if you are open minded and enjoy a good book I suggest reading the adventurous eye-opening book, Lord of the Flies by William Golding.Golding, William. Lord of the Flies. New York: The Berkley Publishing Group, 1954." +1473,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A3KJI8YPE2JLLF,Alex Simmons,0/0,3.0,1070409600,Great Book,"Lord of the Flies, by William Golding, was an interesting book. I enjoyed the book because I like adventurous books, and I like the plot of the book. If you don't like stories with only children characters and an outdoor setting I don't recommend this book. The book is set on a deserted island. A plane crashed and stranded a whole bunch of kids on a small deserted island with no adults. The kids make an adventure out of the situation and form a tribe and pick a chief. The kids build huts on the beach and hunt for pigs, which are the best source of food on the island. I especially like the fact that Golding had added symbolism into the story and it was very interesting to me. Some of the symbolism that stood out to me was the conch as a symbol of authority and bought the whole group together. Piggy as a symbol of intelligence, Simon as a symbol of imagination. Throughout the book, there is one boy who is ridiculed at every chance, and only one boy tries to defend him. There is a constant battle for power between the boys named Ralph, who is sensible and only concerned with getting rescued, and the boy called Jack, who is a savage and only thinks of hunting pigs and having fun. After heated arguments that split the boys in two tribes. A hunting tribe and a tribe to try to get rescued. Ralph was clearly always the more rational of the two as he constantly focused on trying to have people build shelters, and a fire, which he hoped would eventually be what saved them. Jack had a strange desire for hunting and no care with what happens to them on the island. Piggy seems like a bright child with good ideas, but because of his silly appearance he receives no respect from the other kids. Again I enjoyed this book it kept my attention thought the whole time I was reading it. It was a great story to read and be apart of I would defiantly recommend this book to a friend." +1474,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,4.0,872553600,A great fable,"I read this novel a long time ago in its Russiantranslation (a reasonably good one), but it goeswithout saying that the original is vastly superior to any translation.The entire novel is symbolist - from the very firstsentence to the very last, and in this symbolism lie both its strength and its greatest weakness. The problem is: it is *too* neatly symbolic, all symbols fit too perfectly into the author's preconceptions. This book is definitely a fable (as opposed to fiction), but for a fable it is a very good one." +1475,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A20VXF9DYI0I6H,J. Norburn,3/4,4.0,1174780800,A fascinating social experiment and chilling morality tale,"The cold war era produced a lot of fiction that explored the corrupting influence of power and the rising threat of totalitarian governments, warning us that no society was immune. But while authors like George Orwell were more interested in the machinery of totalitarian governments, how they rise to power and how they maintain control, Golding was more interested in humanity, the flaws of human nature and how quickly we can revert to savagery.Golding wasn't the first author to explore the concept of mob mentality or the savage nature of man, but he was the first to illustrate it so chillingly with a group of British school boys.I have one small complaint about the novel. Golding never offers a satisfactory explanation about how these boys end up on the island. The novel provides only a vague explanation regarding a plane that was shot down. Golding never explains where the boys were going when the plane was attacked, why there were no adults with them except the pilots, why so few of them knew one another, why they were initially scattered all over the island, and so on. The reality is that in order for Golding to conduct his literary social experiment he needed the boys to be on the island with no apparent chance of rescue, and with no adult presence. It was also critical that the majority of boys not know each other, that they be of various ages, and that they initially be separated from one another so that they can come together and form a new society. Because there was no plausible back story to explain all this, I was never fully convinced that Lord of the Flies was something more than a contrived social experiment.That said it's a fascinating social experiment. While contrived, Lord of the Flies is a compelling novel, an exciting adventure story and a powerful morality tale. The novel is extraordinarily well written with descriptive prose that brings the sights, sounds, and smells of the island to life.Lord of the Flies is a disturbing tale that reminds us that civility is an artificial state and very fragile indeed (At least for humans with a Y chromosome). Had the island been inhabited by a group of school girls I don't suppose it would have been necessary for one of the girls to issue the cryptic, sinister warning that someone had ""sharpened a stick at both ends.""I highly recommed this novel. It's worth reading, even if Jr. High School is just a distant memory." +1476,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A1HHBDLSCHK4M7,Nicole,0/0,3.0,985132800,cool book,I think the author was trying to say that without rules there would be total chaos.Thats just like if there was no rules in school there would be total chaos. The characters were very symbolic.Each character had a meaning for there themselves and something deeper. I think the book was very realistic therefore it was a good book. I would probably change the part when simon was talking to the pigs head though.It could sound a little more realistic. +1477,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A2Q0JGLI7O7F0T,Audra Williams,0/0,5.0,982368000,My reaction from "Lord of the Flies'',"This was a very good book. We read it in class one day and I started to get sick. We were on Chapter 4 and then I went home. I was sick a whole week, so I know that I missed out on an immense amount of reading. So I got an idea one morning. I told my mom to go buy me the book. She went and purchased it and I begin to catch up on my reading. I really enjoyed this book. I encourage my friends to read this. It was very inspiring. My teacher said that scientists believe that it was based on a true story, but he said they do not have enough evidence to prove that it really happened. In my opinion, I think it couldn't have happened because everyone knew where the boys were traveling to and when the boys came up missing, they could have retraced their route and went back looking for them. This is my review of the book. I attend St. Andrews Middle School and I read this in an AAP Young Literature Class. Now at my age, this book would be considered to a little to old, but I understood it quite well.Audra Williams" +1478,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,ACYPSCBCH4T3B,Grant,2/2,5.0,1131235200,An extremely important book,Everyone simply should read this book. Even reading it isn't enough it is a book that really makes you think and understand human nature in new ways. It is a disturbing vision that could easily happen. This book flows very well and will really blow you away. It is not very long but just an incredibal novel. But as i said before just reading it will not be enough that is the great thing about LORD OF THE FLIES to understand it you must discuss it and think about a lot i know i have. +1479,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,5.0,923443200,This book was a great book to read.,"I really enjoyed reading this book. I was a little worried about what kind of book it was in the beginning, but I am really glad that I stuck with it till the very end. Golding did an excellent job of describing where the boys had landed and what the boys looked like. Golding used the simple technique called description that captivated my attention from the very first chapter. Golding really knows how to right a book to engulf readers who really don't like to read. I would recommend this book to those who like an interesting book that is filled with suspense, the fight between good and evil, and the change from adolescence to adulthood." +1480,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A1GJIUYNH5MUI9,DM635,2/2,5.0,1147392000,Riveting and Emotional,"Have you ever thought about what extent someone would go through just to stay alive? Well find out in William Golding's book Lord of The Flies. The Lord of The Flies is a gripping book that takes you through the lives of a group of young British school boys whose plane crashes and leaves them fighting with nature and each other to stay alive and make it off of the isolated island. The group of boys try to start their own low class government and constitution, but when one of the young boys can't face this new government he breaks away and starts his own government which throws the island into a form of civil war. One by one each of the boys begin to lose their sanity and began eliminating each other. It shows just how easy it is for a group of normal civilized human beings can drastically change into inhuman and insane human beings when the stress and the extreme possibility of death is near. This book is riveting and emotional that proves that even the most civilized and disciplined people can turn into insane psychopaths. I highly recommend this book." +1481,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,5.0,940982400,A perfect illustration of Freid's Theory of the Self.,This book is a very easy book to read on the surface. It has deeper characters and hidden meaning. William Golding does a fabulous job of applying Freid's Thoery of the Self and how it relates to humanity! An excellent weekend read. A must for any debater! +1482,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,ADHJ30PD2RPF4,"W. Dunham ""Really Philip""",2/2,3.0,1096675200,Too predictable for me,"Lord of the Flies was not one of the better books I have read. I felt that the book was a little too predictable. I was surprised that this was Golding's response to the evils he saw in WWII as a member of the Royal Navy, because I figured it would be more graphic or have been about the war, rather than the story of a group of English schoolboys whose plane is shot down on an island. At the beginning of the book when Ralph calls all the boys who survived the plane crash with the conch and they voted him leader over Jack, I could tell that the conflict of the story would be between these characters. I did not feel like Golding was able to get across his theme of the inner evil of mankind because of his character choice of a group of young boys. From personal experience I can tell you that almost all young boys are mischievous and have an evil side to them, but I don't feel that they are an accurate representation of all humans. However, I do feel that Golding used a lot of great symbolism in this novel with the use of Piggy's glasses as being able to see things for what they really are, and the use of the conch to represent power and order. Another interesting thing is Beelzebub, one of the fallen angels in Milton's Paradise Lost, translates to Lord of the Flies. For the theme of evil Golding was trying to use, this was a great title." +1483,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A1C6OFO0TXGSYS,"Keith B ""kbang""",0/0,4.0,1286668800,Good Story,"The book Lord of the Flies by William Golding was very good. The title is talking about boys who get stranded on an island and find a monster named the Lord of the Flies. The setting of the novel is on an island in 1954. The protagonist of the story, and my favorite character, was definitely Piggy. He was always trying to solve problems and be nice. The antagonist can be lot of different characters, but I think it was Jack. He was always trying to take control. I didn't like him. All of the characters were very believable and very interesting. This book is about boys who get trapped on an island. They try to work together and survive, but a beast roams the island they are on. The boys have to stop the beast, but even harder than that they have to try to work together. The rising action was when they found out the beast was real. The climax was when the boys started to fight.You found out about the boys in the story when they have their fist meeting. The writing described every little thing the boys did. The story is trying to be kind to one another is hard when also trying to run a town. The author is saying that you should not try to take control. You should let everyone have a say. I liked this book and would recommend it to lots of people. If you can get passed the blood you will love it." +1484,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A1EOCM51YO3ELD,Kat Williams,1/1,5.0,1137110400,A Story of An Utopian Society,"The book of Lord Of The Flies begins as a story of a bunch of innocent boys. These young boys are shown things that many of us have never seen and that we will never see. They escaped Europe because of a war and their plane crashed so they ended up on an island, no one knowing who or where they were. The boys are afraid of a ""monster"" but in the many reflections of symbolism in this book, they are the monster. They boys start out being civilized and end out becoming savages. The idea of an utopian society is seen throughout the book. The boys first believe that the world will be great, a world without parents, adults or teachers to scold. They thought that the world would be so much better on the island. It shows that the utopian society does not work and will eventually become corrupted.The end of the book takes an interesting turn and will suprise everyone who has ever read it. It is defidently a book to read for all ages." +1485,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A2E5N2829O7D7D,Karla,1/1,4.0,1132617600,Lord of the flies,This book is really good especially since at my age you can relate to some of the characters. Everyone knows a Ralph or Jack in their life. What I liked about his book is how Golding can make the island a symbol of how the world is. Also he makes symbols of all these important things so once you actually read it carefully you get the real meaning of the book which is how mankind is actually is. What I didnt like about the book was that it only had boys. It seems like if males can only survive or if they're more better than females. I would recommend this book to anyone in high school or older but mainly to high school age students since this is a book that makes you relate to all the characters in the book. +1486,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,AA06N0XX64S89,Erin McConaghy,0/3,2.0,1333670400,"Good story, poorly written...","I did not enjoy this book at all.In my opinion, this book tends to be a bit wordy and boring. The dialogue can be hard to follow at times, especially if you are unfamiliar with English slang of that time period. I had to force myself to read it, and the only reason I did so was because it's a classic. Although I get the point and I understand why the book has appeal, the writing didn't speak to me at all. Even if the story itself is good, and even though there is an underlying meaning that is worth conveying, to me, it's not worth dredging through the muck that is the writing in order to understand it.It's really quite unfortunate." +1487,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,5.0,921456000,Terrific,"Fantastic book, of a group of boys stranded on a pacific island. Here they are forced to survive on their own. The protaginist is Ralph, an eleven year old. The boys set up a government, which has some drastic effects. Read this, it will touch you emtional, and will keep you reading." +1488,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,4.0,927763200,A good book,This book is about a group English's boys that landed on an island. This book is very interesting and I recomnded it to you. +1489,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,5.0,920073600,Extremly true account of Human Nature,"I had to read this book for school and I fell in love with it. Yes, it's disgusting, parts of it make you want to close the book, almost too afraid to see what's going to happen, but to stop would be to lose track of all that humanity is. My teacher was funny. She said that the first time she read it she was disgusted, but now she teaches that it is one of the greatest books in all literature. It all depends on how you read it." +1490,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A2UXJ3XRNXM29C,"Christian E. Senftleben ""christian__s""",1/3,5.0,1051228800,Human Nature Without Pretense,"Hobbes was right. Apart from a ""Higher Power,"" humanity eats its own flesh -- our cancerous evil runs loose. It is in our nature to destroy ourselves, both personally and corporately. Speak all you want about higher inclinations and utopian humanism, Golding saw what we are in WWII, and we shouldn't be so quick to forget.Golding's book has stayed with me my entire life. He brings such poignant, rattling validity to the table, and we should not forget so soon those hard-won lessons." +1491,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,4.0,938822400,Absolutely great!,"This book was required reading for my advanced language arts class. I thought about giving up on it in the start, but then stuck with it until the end. I truely enjoyed it. If you are bored with it then you should stick with it because the ending is fantastic!" +1492,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A15BISBG16MJZ1,Eric,3/3,5.0,1064448000,yayers,"The Lord Of The Flies is a very dark and unpredictable book that portrays the dissolve of a society in a smaller, more confined way. The way Golding starts the story you can tell that you're going to be for quite a ride, as he places you right in the middle of the action, perhaps to give you the chance to understand the confusion the children faced.This book begins with the children being thrown on an island and having to figure out a way to survive. They eventually seem to get themselves pretty well organized except for a few lazy workers. Then we start to see more and more people neglecting their work and this eventually turns into a small rebellion that continues to grow throughout the book.Since coming to the island the only two people there who had the ability to lead the group was Jack and Ralph. Ralph was clearly always the more rational of the two as he constantly focused ontrying to have people build shelters, and a fire, which he hoped would eventually be what saved them.Jack had a strange desire for hunting that slowly grew into a sick obsession by the end of the book. Jack eventually becomes fed up with the way Ralph is running things and branches away from the group. Support for Jack's group slowly grows as the book goes on. Either a desire to hunt or an unwillingness to work eventually causes just about everyone to leave Ralph's group except for Piggy.Piggy seems like a bright boy with good ideas, but because of his silly appearance and the complete disrespect he recieves from the other kids no one ever pays attention to him. The ironic part about it is that the cause of all the chaos on the island was the absence of an adult, which except for his age, was basically Piggy.While the children in the hunters group feared only the beast as they went on their daily hunts, Piggy and Ralph had to contstantly live in fear of the other children, who had become scary and unpredictable. The children in the hunters group revolved their entire world around the beast, who they had all accepted as real at this point. In this world they forgot about ever trying to get back home and seemed out of touch with reality as they casually talked about killing their friends.Another friend of Ralph's on the island was Simon, who never had much to say , but you could tell had a lot on his mind.To emphasize the drastic downward spin the islands tiny society had taken he punished the only two children Ralph could trust and readers had come to know.When the children all finally come back into contact with an adult he acts as an escape back to reality from the strange imaginary world that they had created." +1493,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A328547P5BGZC,"BJ ""Brett Starr""",0/0,5.0,1231027200,"the original ""wild boys""....","great book, great storyi've seen the movie way too many times to be surprised by anything in the book, but i've always wanted read itto think the book is far fetched or impossible is stupidity, the book is right on the money, thats what makes it so scary, in todays world, a plane load of schoolboys stranded on a island would do much, much worse to each other for survival and control" +1494,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A3AWZIGPN22B1H,"Pankaj C. Patel ""Krunal Patel""",0/0,5.0,1206489600,Great Book!,"Lord of the Flies is a really terrific book. A group of school boys land on a isolated island because of a plane crash. The boys are happy because they have no adult supervision. The boys quickly generate some rules and group leaders. As the days go on the boys lose their minds and start killing eacher other. This book has a good message because it tell how without any adults supervision, things can get out of hand. I would recommend this books to anybody who is entering the 9th grade." +1495,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A14NBRS2Y9I10S,Sarah,2/3,4.0,1092700800,Hmmm...,"This isn't really a book you LOVE, but it's really interesting think about. I would read this with ""The Catcher in the Rye,"" since they were both written around the same time, and see who you agree with--Golding or Salinger. Both are short reads, too, which is always a bonus!" +1496,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A347ZIQX76IS4K,Eduardo Franca Cardoso,2/3,5.0,1270684800,Great classic - a must read!,"If you haven't already done, stop everything you're doing and read this book. I mean it!" +1497,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A2GPPVX8VHVTUB,D. Janulaitis,0/0,5.0,1068940800,Powerful & Thought Provoking,"I thought this book was great albeit a little slow in the beginning. This book has joined my list of all times favorites including 1984 and Animal Farm. This book had weaved political, pyschological and sociological themes intwined with the very plot of the book which add another dimesion to it. Great read I recommend it!!!" +1498,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A340ATI5WI1YPT,Blair,2/2,5.0,1084233600,Lord of The Flies by Blair Denney,"Lord of the Flies is one of the best books I have ever read and might be my favorite book of all time . This book consisted of everything , it had action , drama and it showed the lack of perfection in the human race . In the beginning of the book the plane is shot down during a war . The plane was evacuating a group of boys from Britian .The plane lands on a deserted island and the protagnist , Ralph , meets up with another boy named Piggy . The boys find a conch shell and Piggy suggests to use the conch shell to gather the rest of the boys . Ralph blows the conch and gathers the rest of the boys and they elect Ralph as their leader . At first the boys like the fact that there are no rules or adults . But you can't live without rules before chaos breaks out . This the boys will soon find out ." +1499,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,4.0,909446400,I liked the book so much I wrote a review for it.,"Cool! Exciting and interesting. It is a classic story about man verses man. The story is about a bunch of boys who gets stranded on an island. There are two main characters, Jack and Ralph. Jack represents the savage in all men, and Ralph repressents the civilized in us. The savages hunt all day and kill whoever does not agree with them. The thing I liked about the book is how they described their way of life on the island. The thing I did not like about the book is that the beginning of each chapter is so slow so it is hard to get into the book. All together the book was awesome and I recommend you reading it." +1500,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A3UW2MXV9SPKB5,"Nathaniel H. Biggs ""The History Guy""",0/0,5.0,1054166400,A Classic Novel,"William Golding's classic novel, "Lord of the Flies", presents us with eternal questions about human nature. Golding has a group of children, we are never told what school they attend or where their ship was headed, stranded on a deserted island. The boys must make important decisions about their own "society," such as who will be the leader, who will tend to their signal fire and who will be hunters. The boys start off well, Ralph is chosen as the leader because the has the conch shell, while Jack is chosen to be lead hunter. However, it is not long before the boys begin to give into their primitive instincts and conflicts develop between Jack and Ralph. Jack is not interested in Ralph's rules or the fire and eventually moves to the other side of the island and creates his own tribe. Things continue to spiral out of control from there, Jack steals fire from Ralph and then their are acts of violence against other boys in the group. The whole adventure comes to an end when the boys are rescued by a Britsh navy ship.Golding has created one of the classic books of modern literature. His characters are sharp and very well done. His descriptions of the boys and island are well done as well. His story-telling is tight and he never looses the thread of his story amongst all of his symbolism. Symbolism is what truly separates Golding's work from other novels. Every character represents part of human nature - Ralph is the ego, the organized part of society that has rules, while Jack is the Id, the part of our brain that wants to give into our base emotions. Piggy represents the superego and his glasses, or specs, intellectual thought. Golding's characters and their actions on the island force the reader to take a hard look at their own nature and how they might react in a similar situation.This book is absolutely one of the classics. I read this book several years ago in high school and enjoyed it. I just read it again and age has given me an entirely new perspective on the characters and what Golding is trying to say. If you have not read this book, I strongly suggest that you do. It is not one to be missed!" +1501,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,5.0,1112918400,Flippin Awesome Review,This book is flippin awesome!!! I loved Simon and everything he stood for. I thought he was one of the most important characters in the book. His death foreshadowed the death of Piggy and the smashing of the conch. And Ralph was awesome! He sounds hott!! The book had a lot of symbolism and that's fun to figure out. Golding didn't just come out and say what was happening. You had to figure out what he was talking about. I loved this book. Thank you and goodnight. +1502,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A1TLTIPDV9SB1Y,Joan E. Lizon,7/16,1.0,1196380800,"Uncovincing, Predictable, and Unnecessary","A horrid, terrible book. From everyone that I have ever chatted to about this novel, they all share the same responses, and that is that William Goldings Lord of the Flies is simply not a good book. Human nature is evil and corrupt is about all this book goes into, and it is all written from a childs perspective, dull and flat. This book delves into the loss of innocence, but these children as soon as they are introduced appear haughty and arrogant and self-absorbed. And then, throughout the book, they go on and fight with one another due to their level of immaturity, and end up murdering one another. This book is not about human nature, it is about the immaturity of children. These children do not think throughout the entire book, and it just seems stupid and a pointless read. This book also offers no resolutions to this ""problem"". People can be evil. Look at all the wars throughout time, and the terrible things people can do to one another. We don't need a book to point this out. It is common sense. Golding has accomplished nothing, and many, many people agree." +1503,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/1,3.0,1161648000,Kristen's Review on Lord of the Flies,"This book is an important book of what happens in a society when there are no rules or any guide lines to follow. Ever since the boys were placed on the island they were destined to fail at creating their own perfect environment. The setting they are in starts out as a good fun environment to them but by all of the boys hunger for power it turns them against eachother and turns this so called ""good"" island, into a ""bad"" island.Jack is a representation of evil by how he thirsts for blood and meat as a opposed to being rescued. He would let the fire go out which is their only chance for survival just to cut open a pig. Ralph represents good by trying to create order, shelter and a way to be rescued. Jacks group takes over the island creating the human motivation for evil and hunting. Ralph being the only one left his motivation is forced into surviving as opposed to creating order. The whole island turns to chaos when just one person takes control. This person represents the devil figure and he takes down everyone on the whole island except for Ralph. This book shows how important rules and order are in a society today. It also shows how human motivation can completely take over the whole human body and let barbaric things happen that would not happen in a normal oderly society today." +1504,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A2LX7IJZKOL1OO,Jarrod Wiser,1/2,5.0,1049846400,What A Great Book,"The Lord of the Flies was one of the best books I have ever read. Not only did it have one of the best story lines a book could have; it also delivered a very important message pertaining to rules and anarchy. The book was about a group of young boys who's plane crashed on an island. There are no adult survivors and the kids are left to fend for themselves. Some of the boys that are on the island are Ralph, Jack, Piggy, and Simon. Ralph is kind of the leader of the boys in the beginning. He is later left alone with piggy, a rotund boy whose glasses play a very important role in the book. Jack is one of the meanest boys on the island. He is the leader of the choirboys, which later become the hunters. He is the one who later takes control of the group and moves them to the other side of the island and attacks Jack and Piggy. Simon is the one who discovers the Lord of the Flies. He also represents pureness among the boys. The book is about how a world without rules would only result in chaos and anarchy. At first the boys still acted civilized and respectful, but when the boys slowly broke away from the rules, their world descended into a world of madness. There are a lot of twists and turns in this book. You will never know what will happen next. I would recommend this book to anybody that wants to dive into a world without rules. It is a good source to show all of us just how important rules can be to us and that in order to maintain civilization; we must uphold these rules. This is a definite must read for all ages." +1505,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A2Q2AB38VOA5KJ,"angela ""angela""",0/1,5.0,1132531200,Lord of the REVIEW,"I think that Lord of the Flies is a very good book it has a meaning and has very neat relations to our world .When you stop and think about it Lord of the Flies teaches you a good lesson about the way we live and it shows that when you stick people in dier situations their true character comes out. I mean it is crazy how the boys are fighting and what saves them is a killing machine, its almost like its a continuous circle.I really like this book it kept me on the edge of my seat. How mean some of the boys were made me mad. I thought it was really sad that ralph told everyone the fat boys name was Piggy and you never really find out his name through the story. If anything in this book bugged me it would be the fact that it doesn't continue on and tell you what happens to everyone. The part in the book that stuck out to me the most was the death of Simon because it was intense, I thought it had such meaning and depth, because it was the death of all reason. I loved that when simon died Golding said the trees and water drained color, becuase it was such a great personification. I would say all the similes, personifications, and metaphors as well as the main plot and what the story stood for really caught my attention. I wonder if this book would be re-written in about 20 years if anything would change? i wonder if the nature of people would change? This book is great and I would give anyone the advice to read it because you won't regret it." +1506,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A13LV18OLJY8AN,Sacarmiche,0/5,1.0,1220918400,desappointing,"although paid extra for expedite delivery, this school required book was delivered a month later!" +1507,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,5.0,888192000,"Vividly writen novel, symbolism goes as deep as you wish.","Reading this as a school book I origionally dismissed this novel. However the heat from the desert island on which the group of stranded school children were deposited stayed throughout. Their sun bleached hair and sunburn added to the effect.There was a story within a story.One of survival of the children, what to eat how to catch it, all pragmatic aspects. The other is an underlying issue of human destruction of their environment on an island that once was pardise. I believe that some aspects of the symbolism have been materialised out of nothing, make what you will but I enjoyed that "oh yeah thats linked with that" part that you only get with a good book." +1508,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A1KLD3BGXSG7XL,Cooper S,6/6,4.0,1271721600,How well would you take the news of being stranded....,"Book ReviewLord of the FliesBy: William GoldingNon-Illustrated 184 pagesAeonian Press $6.99(From ages 12- Death)By Matt Smetana4/19/2010In the novel, the Lord of the Flies, William Golding attempted to inform readers of the problems of a stressed civilization as well as the problems of being a full-out savage. While Ralph has good intentions with forming a civilization and have everyone working together, but not everyone wants that perfect life. The civilians feel that while they're there, why don't they have fun. On the other spectrum, savagery is outright terrible for numerous reasons. First, there are no rules and anything goes, which could end in many mistakes or injuries. In addition, you could kill people by being erratic, and not actually assessing the situation first. Golding wants to stress the different concepts and viewpoints that many children have.Golding was a teacher at Bishop Wordsworth's School until he got a few of his novels published. Such as Lord of the Flies, The Inheritors, Pincher Martin, and Free Fall. During World War II, Golding served in the Royal Navy, and played a key role in the take down of one of Germany's strongest ships.In my opinion, William Golding not only accomplished his goal, but also brought a more extensive look as to what could really happen while stranded on a deserted island. Complete isolation transformed preppy English students into savages solely concerned with their own self-preservation. The different aspects and comparisons between the false sense of civilization and the complete negativity of savagery are displayed prominently between the complete juxtaposition of Ralph and Jack. An example of Ralph's stressed mentality of civilization was shown when the kids were out trying to have fun, he barked at them to ""get back to work."" On the other hand, Jack's savagery was shown when he and his gang ended up killing Piggy and Simon.One of the book's strengths was that it demonstrated exactly how children act in real life. This is one of the book's greatest strengths because it brought all of the characters to life in a relatable way. The point of this book seemed to be the most personal to me, since I have seen those things in school. One of the book's biggest faults was that it fails to convey to the reader what repercussions Jack and his crew has to face for killing two innocent kids." +1509,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,2/2,5.0,974592000,Lord of the Flies- Big impact,"Lord of the Flies was an extreamly suspenseful book. It is about many boys between the ages of 5-13, who are stranded on an island. They lose control over themselves, and forget what it means to be proper. They don't care about others, and will harm them, severely, juts to become higher then them. It is a very, gripping, thrilling, book. William Golding uses a lot of description and created an incrredible book!" +1510,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A1796BFN7L774T,Christopher B. Jonnes,4/5,5.0,972259200,Required Reading.,"This classic tale has stood the test of time not only because it is beautifully written, but because it takes a revealing look at basic human nature, both good and bad. Golding uses the circumstance of teenage boys marooned on a tropical island by a plane crash to illustrate in exciting detail how some react to conflict and adversity. The flawed "society" the boys develop in their quest for survival is a microcosm of our modern civilized world. Lessons and questions abound in his masterful prose--without preaching or pretense.This book is much more than just a story; it is art. It's one those pieces of literature that add to culture and foment introspection in young readers. In a small way, the world is a better place because of Lord of the Flies. --Christopher Bonn Jonnes, author of Wake Up Dead." +1511,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A2EMXLYT01ZPBY,Bachman,0/0,5.0,1126051200,It's a classic!,"Lord of the Flies by William Golding was really a thought-provoking story. I had to read this book as a summer assignment, but I had read part of it a few years ago. Now that I am older, it has really helped me to understand all of the different aspects of the book. The way Golding used symbolism was amazing and kept you thinking. Normally, I wouldn't have chosen this book myself, but I enjoyed it. I would recommend this book to anyone, no matter what their taste. This is because I think it's significant for everyone to reflect about human nature and our society. Plus, it's a well written book. It's a classic." +1512,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,2.0,938736000,It was not the greatest book,We did not think that the book was very good because up unitl the last few chapters it was soooooooo boring. It took a while for the book to get interesting. It was very disturbing to see 11 and 12 year old boys wanting to kill each other and hurt each other. We liked how there was a lot of symbolism in the book and how it related to what was going on in the time period in which the book took place. +1513,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A3QXS913T2PMOG,f,0/3,3.0,1098489600,Gaby's & Nicola's review,"Lord of the Flies takes place on a small deserted island where a plane full of young boys has crashed. It is about the obstacles that the boys overcome on this island without adults, and how their different characters and ideas clash. The main characters are Ralph, Jack and Piggy. Ralph is the appointed leader who is constantly challenged by Jack who believes he is important because he was the choir leader at school. Piggy is unaccepted by everyone except Ralph who sees Piggy's intelligence. This book is about how a group of boys behave with no adults and no rules.A significant moment in this book is in the first chapter when Ralph blows the conch shell and all of the boys come to him. This moment shows the power of the conch shell and the power it gives to someone who blows it. This is important because power and power struggles are definitely apparent in this book.I would recommend Lord of the Flies to people who enjoy books about children trying to survive without any adults. Also people who like to read books which show some of the extremes humans can go when there is no one in control. I would suggest people who don't like graphic descriptions of violence not to read some scenes in this book. I personally found the book to be a bit of a slow read, and sometimes the descriptions got really long, thus making the book rather boring.I feel that the author, William Golding, of Lord of the Flies is a good author. Because he uses so much description of the boys, the island, and of the boys' actions it is very easy to visualize what is happening. Also he writes in such a way that it makes the book seem real, like this really happened. Lord of the Flies is a very well written book. For me the mark of a good writer is making it possible for me, the reader, to connect to the book, and characters. So I feel that Lord of the Flies is very well written." +1514,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,5.0,938822400,One of the Great Novels of the 20th Century,"This is a novel that could have only been written in the 20th century, the century of unparalleled horrors in which humanity can no longer delude itself with the optimistic ideas of progress that so entranced the 19th century. As to the young people who are forced to read this for classes I would say please read this book again in twenty years' time; trust me, your opinion will be different then. This is a book about children, but it is not a book for children and your teachers do not seem to grasp the difference." +1515,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A3FQ2NL742ULUW,"Christine Ricks ""buffgato""",2/6,2.0,1069027200,More disturbing than interesting,"After reading this book, I think William Golding is a sick, sick man. The book portrays small boys as savages trying to kill each other. Some might find it entertaining, but I find it downright disturbing. I only read it because it was required for school, but I wish I'd burned it instead." +1516,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,AQTQ2ZQWHI6QT,Alex,0/2,4.0,1020038400,Its good,"Lord Of the Flies is a good book, but graphic. I would recomend it, but it is a little disturbing and for me, confusing" +1517,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,5.0,901584000,Required reading!,"William Golding's notorious masterpiece calls into question everything we are conventionally led to believe - from the inherent goodness of children to the corrupting influence of society.A group of young boys, stranded on a desert island with no means of outside contact, serve as mirrors of the conditions of both human society and man's nature - at the beginning, democratic and virtuous, in the final pages living in anarchy and reduced to vicious savagery and violence.Never loses its sense of realism, the Lord of the Flies is a compelling portrait of the darkness of man's heart." +1518,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A72VWO4UGM9CR,Ricky,0/0,4.0,945648000,My Review for Lord of the Flies,"The author's message in this book was to open the eyes, and reveal how evil can appear in anyone. I agree with his message because it's true: evil can appear where ever it wants to. Just look at those school shootings, they unfortunately prove my point. I think he did the characters very descriptively. He is psychoanalyzing every main character in the entire book. It was very believable. I could imagine a news report saying about a couple of boys found on a burning island. About changing the book, I think it should stay the way it is. Some parts are very confusing, but it should stay the way it is. Some parts are important and confusing, but they need to stay because they are important and changing them could change the entire "lot."" +1519,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,ASQY822ZIO83L,Becky Fitton,0/0,4.0,1078272000,A good book,Recently I read lord of the Flies it was a very interesting and enjoyable book. The story has timelessness to it. The plots and characters are very entertaining. The first thing I noticed when I read the book was its reference to the atom bomb. This is the author's way of giving a time for when the story occurred. Also people were afraid of a nuclear war during those times so it sheds light on what life was like. The author did an excellent job of describing the atmosphere. He spent lots of time giving details on the characters and the island. I liked this because it helps readers get a better feel for what the author intended them to imagine. Another aspect I liked was how the boys developed into 2 societies showing the break that develops. It was nice to see how the two groups had a difficult time working together. It showed the stubbornness people could have when they feel they are right. Inside the society the characters where very enjoyable with their thoughts and dialogue giving a very realistic sense. Something I thought was unrealistic was the violence some of it seemed pointless. Often I thought that it was not realistic. Another part I hated was the dramatic character change as if the characters were always the same and the way they were. The story started off innocent despite the accident and turned into this is in many ways also comparable to frame story. It had little adventures in side the big story of survival. The thing I liked most in the book was the conflict. The boys who had split into tribes had to deal with and survive each other. But they also had to deal with the conflict between themselves and the environment-facing extreme whether and hunger. I would recommend this book to any one who likes action and lots of sometime over used detail. This is a book that is hard to sit down once you start it. +1520,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,5.0,888019200,Great book that you can read over and over again.,"This book is a classic. The topics that he covered in this book are amazing. I have read it two times now, and I have found even deeper meaning in it the second time around. It is great for any age, and the book grows with the reader. The moral of everyone having the devil in us all makes for a great discussion in comparisons with such books as Les Miserables. Even though there is some big refrence to Christianity, that doesn't have to be the main focus, so it won't make everyone feel uncomfortable. If you get the oppertunity, read it. Then after a couple of years, read it again." +1521,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,5/5,5.0,1149120000,Why I Thought Lord of the Flies was a great book,"Why I Thought Lord of the Flies was a great bookBy Gage McMullenWhat if all the rules were taken away,There were no adults,No guidelines.A plane crashes on the way to a fieldtripwith only 1st graders and older middle school kids,the pilots and teachers are dead it's just them.What would happen?At the beach, in my bed, at the café I could just not put down Lord of the Flies! I thoroughly enjoyed this book because the author was not afraid to write about dark, horrible, and gruesome things such as death and violence. For instance when he explains a baby pig getting chased down and stabbed with several spears then having his throat slit by the hunters, it made me want to yell out ""stop"" right there in the middle of my room. If you think that's dreadful, there is a part in the book when the opposing tribe takes a large rock and throws it at a boy named Piggy, he gets hit in the head and bleeds to death while falling to the water. It is so horrible and sad but without it the book just wouldn't be the same.My favorite part of the story was when the chief of one side of the island (Ralph) is being hunted like a pig by the other tribe. He tries to run and find a place to hide, when he finally finds a good bush to hide in they light the forest on fire forcing him to run out into the open! You think he's doomed but a ship sees the smoke and comes to rescue the kids. This book seriously sped up my heart and kept it going.But this book isn't just about kids on an island it truly is about what would happen if the rules were taken away, if we had to start from scratch, would we rebuild civilization or would we revert to our inner animal? Who would rise to the top the strongest and toughest, the smartest but shyest, or the handsomest and most outgoing? What would be your job in the tribe make fire, build forts, hunt? What would happen to you would you rise to the top or sink to the bottom? This book really got me thinking so I kept enjoying Lord of the Flies even after I was done. I really loved this book, Lord of he Flies by William Golding." +1522,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A75VUOJJJ921V,"Hye seon ""Hye""",0/1,3.0,1111017600,Lord of the Flies,"English 9In Lord of the Flies the Author William golding shows characters have astruggle for existence. He uses third-person omniscient. The narrator speaksin the third-person, primarily focusing on Rrallph's point of view but followingJack and Simon in certain episodes. The narrator is erudite and gives usaceess to the characters inside character's thoughts. Author's uses short,simple and grammatical sentence structure. He uses interesting vocabulary, butnot a large vocabulary.Golding express Civilization vs. Savagery, the instinct to live by rules, actpeacefully, follow moral commands, and value the good of the group againstthe instinct to gratify one's immediate desires, act violently to obtain supremacyover others, and enforce one's will. And Loss of Innocence As the boys on theisland progress from well-behaved, orderly children longing for rescue to cruel,bloodthirsty hunters. They lose the sense of innocence that they possessed atthe beginning of the novel. In the camping out or collective there are exactlyhave a leader. So under the government come into being governmentorganization of it self. I can recommend about students should read it. BecauseIt has complex title but easy to understand more than government education." +1523,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A2LEUNJRMFJCD2,Dan,1/1,4.0,1018569600,An act of survival or an act of insanity.,"The novel Lord of the Flies, by William Golding, is the suspenseful and graphic story of a group of English boys stranded on an island. The book starts out with the boys already on the island. The main character, Ralph, finds a conch shell, which plays a major roll in the book, take the conch and blows on to make a loud sound that calls everyone together. Once they are all there they decided that they needed a leader and since Ralph had the shell all the little kids voted for him. The other runner in that competition was Jack, the leader of an older set of boys and the only person on the island with a knife. Ralph gave Jack and his boys the job of hunting. Another person on the island is Piggy, a heavyset boy with asthma and glasses, a very essential part of their survival. Over time some of the little kid go crazy and run away to be savages. Eventually every one leaves Ralph and he is hunted like a dog.Here are some things that were good and bad about this book. The plot seems basic at first, boys stuck on island have to survive, but then it goes deeper with mysterious creatures, hallucinations and murders. Since it had a good plot it keeps you reading. The vocabulary is another superior factor of the book. The vocabulary gives you a thorough picture in your mind of the island and it inhibiters. Also the book was only 200 pages long so it's an easy read. A not so good feature about this book is it graphic images. At some points it got so disgusting I had to stop reading and go do something else. In additional the ending was predicting. I'm not going to tell about the ending. Over all I would give this book an eight out of ten for the reasons above. I would recommend this book to anyone that likes an alternative to the basic survival story. Also the reader should be in 7th to 10th grade." +1524,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,AG9A3ZL7ODL6X,"JR Felisilda ""jfelisilda""",1/1,5.0,1334448000,Thought Provoking Book...,"Long before ""Survivor"" or other reality shows that requires the elimination of its ""contestantants"", there was a masterful book written- ""Lord of the Flies"".More than an interesting book, it provokes thoughts and discussions on an elusive topic of human behavior or misbehavior. Evil usually occurs by its presence but it occurs when good is absent. How would you react in a desert island with other people? Would you do anything to survive even at the cost of other lives? How do you make the spirit of cooperation overcome the dispirit of competition?""Lord of the Flies"" has been required reading for many middle-schoolers and high-schoolers. More important than the story itself is the theme of how would humans behave to survive. It is well-written as a suspenseful thriller with dramatic overtones.Read the book and think and discuss.JR FelisildaAuthor of the book, ""Nanay: Lessons From a Mother""" +1525,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A11RXH2VG58W0G,Atif Ali,1/2,5.0,989884800,And the moral of the story is...,"I really liked Lord of the Flies(I liked even more when I found out that one of the Simpsons episodes were inspired from it). I read this book late last year...it is about an all-boys scout getting into an airplane crash and getting stranded on a deserted island--with no adults supervising them. First few days work out so-so but then it starts turning into cave-manism(if that's a word) and then later on canabalism(almost). This book really teaches a lesson, about people, how they really are. And it's about 3 kinds of people; the good, the bad, and the evil." +1526,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A3B4TGHT06VIV9,B. SMITH,0/0,5.0,1233187200,Survivor Explained,"I was fortunate to read this book in the 8th grade, it explained all the social interactions of Junior High School. Unfortunately many people never get past Junior High society. The popularity of Survivor has demonstrated this, the weak, the different, and the above average are rejected by the collective might of the average and mediocre. No dissent or thought is encouraged or permitted. An elite few determine what is correct and acceptable. Here is the social model of Liberalism, Socialism, and Communism, you are free to say whatever you want, as long as you agree with them. Personal attacks replace any debate on issues. It is no wonder this book is no longer used in public schools, it raises to many embarrassing issues." +1527,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A1XTWXIMUCDGQE,John,7/9,5.0,995414400,Brilliant 20th Century Classic,"It is impossible to encompass Lord of the Flies into a short review. Golding just says too much on too many different levels. The book is simply brilliant. First off, Lord of the Flies is an adventure story. A few British schoolboys are deserted on an island and must depend on themselves to survive to be rescued. The story is based on an earlier British classic, The Coral Island by R.M. Ballantyne. The simple adventure story is used to comment on humanity. Golding, much like Joseph Condrad, shows how civilation keeps humanity from lapsing into savagery. He presents the schoolboys' loss of innocence. Lord of the Flies is also a political treatise much like Animal Farm. Ralph represents a democracy, Jack is communism, and Piggy is the voice of wisdom which both tends to ignore. He traces political troubles back to individuals.Many people think of William Golding as too pessimistic about human nature. I do not think Golding was as pessimistic as many think. William Golding was unfortunate to see human at its worst during World War II, and I think he feared lapses. Lord of the Flies is his warning. His attempt to help man stay on the right course. Whether or not a person agrees to this and feels Golding was too cynical, it is impossible to not think of Lord of the Flies as one of the best-written books of the century. Golding encompasses so much into an simple, powerful narrative. The prose and images are beautiful even when grim. Lord of the Flies is certainly one of the great novels of literature." +1528,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/1,5.0,1022803200,Lord of the Flies,"There is only one reason that I chose this book it was because it is a non fiction book and also the cover of the book, the book cover has a face of a person, insects, and some plants. The cover is so interesting. It shows some real tips about surviving on an island.This story is about these boys going on a trip and there plane crashes on an island. When they are conscious again the boys find out that there parents died and only the kids were alive. They attempt to gather food and they learn how to survive. They show a lot of strength trying to survive almost without any modern technology. They called up a meeting and they learned skills how to survive.I liked this book because it is a very interesting book about the survival skills. To be honest I also liked it because it was very short. They book is adventurous, funny, and exciting. I would really like to read the other books that William Golding wrote." +1529,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,5.0,941068800,My beloved novel!,Very well written! This book makes me wanna read everything written by Mr.Golding! +1530,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A1OKNEPQX0SMS3,Deborah Clise,0/1,4.0,1052611200,Human Nature At Its Best,"This is one fabulous book full of great themes, motifs, and symbols. Golding, although it is apparent that he really hates humanity and is a bitter man, is such a wonderful writer and makes this story come to life in more than one way. This book's reference to Christian Iconography is so great that it gives this story so much more depth. His symbols are also one thing that show us what human nature is really about and how it actually is.This book is about a group of choir boys that get stranded on an island during a war. They try to establish rule and order but eventually find themselves trying very hard just to stay alive while their hope for being rescued is floating off on the horizon. With all the adventures that show us what humanity is really like, this is one read that everyone should enjoy." +1531,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,4.0,927072000,"Thought provoking, and a true look at society.","William Golding's Lord of the Flies is a true look at humankind and the level that society may one day reach. It is a tale of a group of English boys that are stranded on a deserted island. They realize that they must work together and cooperate to stay alive. This is much easier said than done. They are more worried about who's in charge, than they are anything else. There is a constant battle for control through the whole book. Because of this battle some boys lose their lives, and others just lose their friends. They slowly begin to turn savage and fighting becomes the most important thing. The book portrays what we all have to look forward to, if our society doesn't start making some changes." +1532,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A1NAF74NEB18YT,squaxin,0/0,5.0,1254873600,Lord of the Flies,"Have you ever wanted to go on an adventure to an island lost in time without even getting out of your seat? If so, this is the book for you. Lord of the Flies is not only an adventure but it is also a struggle of life and death at your fingertips. Each page weaves a magnificent story about a group of English school boys and their many struggles as they try to stay alive.The reason I love this book is the beautiful choice of words the author, William Golding, put into the book. The words paint a picture that makes you feel sad when the characters are sad or happy when the characters are happy. Golding's Lord of the Flies is truly a work of art.At the dawn of World War II, a small plane carrying a group of English school boys, all from the age of 6-12, crashes on an island somewhere in the South Pacific. The island is abundant with water, fruit, and wild pigs for meat. With all of these resources, they start to form a microcosm on the island.The character that stands out in the book is Piggy. In the book, Piggy represents common sense. He is a rather large boy, but his brains compensate for his physical appearance. Piggy is the first person Ralph meets on the island and they quickly become friends. Piggy is very supportive and defends Ralph whenever he needs defending. Towards the end of the book, Piggy finds himself in deep trouble with only Ralph as a friend.Lord of the Flies is filled with contrasting characters. For example, Jack is the leader of the gang. He has a posse of followers who will do whatever he says - good or bad. Jack is insecure and thinks that if he can't boss someone around that they are a threat. In the book, Jack is the opposite of Ralph. On the other hand, Ralph, the main character of the story, is a true leader who wants to get everyone's input before he makes a decision that affects everyone. Ralph's only goal is to maintain order on the island while Jack's goal is to do what he wants. Therefore throughout the book, there is a constant rivalry between Jack and Ralph.When civilization rapidly turns to chaos, someone will rise and someone will fall. Is it Jack or Ralph who will take command of the island and lead the boys to safety? If you want to find out what happens to Ralph and all the rest of the boys, read Lord of the Flies." +1533,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A39PQXXC6AFLMG,"radical serg ""LP""",0/4,2.0,1097971200,WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS ABOUT???,"In my readings of ""The Lord of the Flies"", I felt the element of the story was slow as a senior citizen. It's like watching flies breed. This book reminded me of an old ""Surivivor"" episode but without the male nudity. I could see how someone that is a visual learner would like this book. It, however, leaves little to the imagination. Nevertheless, I give it props for being a well-written book. Peace out!Chino High rocks, period!!" +1534,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,3.0,1135209600,Lord of the Flies Review by Adonios,"In the book Lord of the Flies, by William Golding, a plane crashes on a untouched island, and without adults, a group of boys will have to find a way to survive. The boys vary from the ages 10-15, this is important because the older boys control the group. The main character is basically the leader. His name is Ralph. Ralph is a very interesting character. He is smart, responsible, and he knows how to survive. Jack is one of the older boys too. Most of the conflict in the book is somehow is related to him. He is a great hunter and is very aggressive. Simon is the most responsible and is the smartest of the group. All of these characters play a big part in the book.The island plays a big part in there survival. It is filled with trees, fruits, and animals. The boys also speak of a beast. The island has a mountain where the boys create a flame that they hope will be spotted. In the book a place called Castle Rock is mentioned. It is an elevated place where a lot of important things happen. The island also has a lot of symbolic elements. It is where almost all of the symbolism is. Another important part is that the wild boar lives there, which is important for there survival.After reading the book, I thought it was thrilling and it had good elements that made it interesting. The elements of the story made it interesting which made me want to read on. The characters were twisted, and they always did something I didn't expect. Overall the book was good." +1535,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A31YZOZ8YBWRF5,"Tracey A. Troop ""-K""",0/8,3.0,1093996800,A highschool students review,Okay i had to read this book this summer and it sucked untill like chapter 9 or 10. I mean i think every1 should read it eventually but not in high school cuz its sooooo boooring!But the last parts were really good...i mean the writings good but the plot--eh... +1536,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,ANGNU3FC9941X,CURLYMAN,0/0,5.0,1344038400,A most wonderful book,"Lord of the Flies is perhaps my personal favorite book of all time. So much is symbolized within the novel that it is truly mindboggling (I did spell that wrong, dont judge). Now I do believe that this novel is not for persons under 15 (thats my age). On the surface this is an interesting novel that tells of several boys decent into madness and savagery. This is all a younger child will see. They will also see pointless violence and deaths. However, in this novel, everything is done for a purpose (how it hates me to say those words dont ask why). Each character symbolizes something or someone, each place, each scene has its own importance that truly adds too the novel. Another complaint is that the novel is boring. I do not really understand how it is boring. It is thoroughly intriguing and entertaining. Another complaint is that the novel is altogether too gory. I personally believe this is an overstatement, however i do read fantasy and sci-fi commonly so I do have some experience with gore and am not particularly bothered by it. For some reason i feel like those reviewers typically enjoy romances. The final overall complaint is that the novel is too dark. This i cannot really fault this argument, for the novel does border on mild horror at some points (psycologically). Yet it all is important in desplaying the darker side of human nature. Overall this is a great novel, that deserves acclaim even if read in English class. i recommend reading it alone before you read it with your teacher. Yet this is my opinion." +1537,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,ATHV5H7OH7HM,M. Saltus,0/0,5.0,1256860800,Excellent classic,"A classic that never goes out of style! Got it for class for my middle-schooler, who thoroughly enjoyed it." +1538,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,AK0E8X5K2W3Z4,"""darien5264""",1/1,4.0,944092800,A great work,"Lord of the Flies is one of the slowest-starting books in the history of man. It takes a few pages to get yourself acclimated to Golding's writing style, which mixes stream-of-consciousness elements with traditional narrative in order to better portray the young, impressionistic (and impressionable) psyches of the children. That being said, the book hardly qualifies as boring. The statement it makes for the inner savagery and essential evil of man is quite strong, and never before this book had any other novel or work explored the subject in quite so provocative a manner. Yes, there is violence, murder, all committed by young men. They have reverted to their "natural state," shucked off civilization and become what Golding argues to be the essence of man: selfish, violent, and covetous. For any who dislike the disturbing imagery - that does not negate the importance of the book. If anything, that should only prove how effective it is. It disgusts you because it makes you wonder if you are capable of it yourself. Four stars - a classic, but not a masterpiece." +1539,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A2QEEZWVIZJFYG,L. Loyd,1/4,2.0,1022716800,Ickkk,"I'll preface this by saying I was made to read this in the 10th grade, but I really did not like this book. And I graduated college with an English degree. Maybe it's just a boys book, I don't know, but it disturbed me to read and I was thinking the whole time ""this would never happen, this is the stupidest thing I have ever read."" Perhaps this is a classic, but would I tell people to buy it? No." +1540,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A39TX57NC172DS,FPGHZ@aol.com,0/0,4.0,899424000,A wonderful book on two levels,"This book is not only an exciting adventure story, but a chilling parable for the depths of human nature. I hope all school schildren get the chance to read annd discuss this graet novel as I did. Keep your eye out for great literary devices!" +1541,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,2/2,5.0,1133222400,Lord of the Flies,"Lord of the Flies is one of the most heart-touching books I have ever read. Ralph, Piggy,and Jack begin by working as a team to govern the other children while stranded on anisland. One day, when a little boy speaks of a beast, terrible chaos erupts. Author WilliamGolding quickly enchants the reader with his descriptive writing skills and crucial plottwists.I enjoyed reading this classic story about how humanity reacts to a situation with noprevious laid rules. I would recommend this book to anyone who enjoys bits ofcontroversy and does not mind some mild violence." +1542,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,2.0,926553600,I have mixed feelings about this book.,"In the book, I have mixed feelings. The first thing that I feel towards this book is that I don't like it. I thought it was more of a boy's type book that was really hard for me to understand. I thought it was very confusing and complicated. As I continued to read the book, it began to make more sense. As you read it, you learn what the main concept is of the book. The main concept is that if you live for awhile without someone watching over you, you begin to become a savage. This is especially bad for young boys. Then I began to like the book a little bit. I liked it because it taught a valuable lesson to the readers and to the boys that were on the island. It taught them that to survive you have to work together as a team. It also teaches the readers how cruel the world can be. This is an okay book once you look at the whole picture." +1543,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A2BLD9PPXZGFXK,"msapp01@aol.com,review by Brandon Sapp",0/0,4.0,924134400,A chillingly good read.,"Lord of the Flies is one of the most detailed and graphically depictive books,as it explores the extreme darkness of the human soul and asks the most common question:"How far will one go to survive?" One of the downsides of this book is that some of the dialogue is confusing and,someties,is annoying. Some of the events,such as the pig hunts,are very descriptive and thought provoking,it makes you feel as though you are there. This book is hard to judge as the quality over all is a little inconsistent,but the book is still enjoyable.And by the don't listen to that "Venezuelan reader"guy,he dosen't even speak correct english." +1544,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,5.0,960163200,insightful.,An insightful portrayal of our society. Those of you who enjoyed reading George Orwell will love this book! +1545,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A3BTL4FV6ODKAT,"fredtownward ""The Analytical Mind; Have Brain...",4/9,3.0,1136505600,They Never Had a Chance,"After more than half a century William Golding's first novel still has the power to chill the blood with its cautionary tale of the degeneration of a group of castaway schoolboys into the depths of animal savagery. However, as a criticism of more optimistic boys' adventure stories, as a critique of democracy, or as anything much beyond a warning of the obvious, that young children, especially young boys, must be carefully civilized (and continually re-civilized), it's a failure... because Mr. Golding cheats. Though Mr. Golding would no doubt claim (with justification) that boy's adventure authors tended to stack the deck in favor of their protagonists, Mr. Golding does the opposite. His characters never had a chance. A comparison specifically with R. M. Ballantyne'sThe Coral Island, referred to in the novel, and generally with other boys' own adventures should suffice to prove the point.AGE: It is no accident that boys' adventure stories tend to feature teenage protagonists (Ballantyne's were 18, 15, and 14) because a certain amount of maturity is necessary to make them even plausible. It is therefore no accident that Golding's oldest ""biguns"" are only 12 while the ""littluns"" are as young as 6.TRAINING: It's easy to forget that the concept of ""childhood"", the idea that those under the age of majority should be allowed to ""play"" and be sent to school rather than being put to work as soon as they're able is a relatively modern idea. Now, no one in his right mind would suggest going back to the old way of raising children, but it did have the singular advantage of better preparing children for being castaways. Ballantyne's protagonists are sailors in training; Golding's are a bunch of schoolboys.NUMBERS: Though the primary reason is probably ease of storytelling, the number of characters in a boys' adventure novel is usually kept to such a manageable number that there is no requirement to establish of any sort of ""government"" in order to get things done. Golding has so many characters that they never even manage to count themselves!PRIOR RELATIONSHIPS: Almost invariably boys' adventure story protagonists are close friends before the crisis hits; with the exception of Jack Merridew's choir (and the twins of course) none of Golding's protagonists even knew each other before the plane crash.RELIGION: Karl Marx had it partly right, religion IS the opiate of the masses, if by opiate you mean balm to and healer of the soul. Religion can give you courage and strength where there is none, and it helps you to do the ""right thing"" even when no one is looking. This makes it very useful in a crisis where group survival depends on something other than ""looking out for numero uno"" though it can lead to sacrificing oneself for others. Ballantyne's protagonists were surprisingly (at least looked at from today) devout Christians. This gave them the courage to face a horrible fate, though said horrible fate was the consequence of risking their lives for someone else. In contrast though all of Golding's protagonists are presumed to be at least nominal believers in SOMETHING, there is no evidence of religious belief in any of their actions, which hastens the death spiral of their little society.CHARACTER: This is the critical matter, as even Mr. Golding would admit, so it comes as no surprise that his protagonists only run the gamut from A to B, from evil to useless. Ralph, the ""bigun"" initially chosen chief is all but completely lacking in leadership skills, not to mention being something of a dolt. He is (just barely) capable of grasping what needs to be done, but utterly incapable of convincing anyone, not even himself, to do it. Piggy, the only one who can honestly be called ""intelligent"", is also fat, weak, asthmatic, socially inept, whiny, and blind as a bat without his glasses. (Gee, Mr. Golding, why didn't you make him wheelchair bound, too, so he'd have spent the entire novel crawling on his belly?) Samneric, the twins, are utterly incapable of functioning separately. Simon is kind and gentle and helpful, though a little bit balmy, but too young and too inarticulate to have any influence. Jack is a megalomaniac, and Roger is a sadist. The ""littluns"" are just barely capable of feeding themselves, which is fortunate because no one else is going to do it. The wonder is not that three boys died, the wonder is that any remained alive! If they'd crash-landed in a temperate climate, no one would have survived the first night below freezing.As a commentary on democracy, Lord of the Flies is of little use because there isn't any democracy in the novel! (Despite what the Colonial Office might claim, ""one man, one vote, one time"" is not a democracy!) Though Golding's depression is more understandable when you remember when this was written, the reason he turned out to be so wrong about democracy is that he failed to grasp its strengths: democracy, especially constitutionally limited democracy, is the ONLY Earthly form of government even capable of long term functioning with wicked, sinful citizens because no other form of government has solved the problem of succession. Democracy does not claim to always install the best leaders; it merely offers the only peaceful and practical method for removing the worst. If Jack Merridew had had any prospect of winning some future election for chief, he might not have found it necessary to resort to violence.Finally, in regards to the last page remark, ""I should have thought that a pack of British boys... would have been able to put up a better show than that..."", I'd argue that they did better than a similarly handicapped group of primitive tribes-children would have. Sure, the education received by the primitive tribes-children would have prevented many of the bone-headed mistakes committed by our young bulldogs, but the weaker taboo against violence, especially in the area of settling political disputes, would have made the crisis worse when it came and the death toll much higher, if only because primitive tribes-children would be expected to be a lot more competent at killing each other." +1546,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A2Y3OQNVBVYC71,Stephen Kinnas,1/1,5.0,1358726400,Clasic,"Every young man should read this book. I passed through high school I with out ever reading this classic novel, shame." +1547,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A1I1S99FXN4WU5,"Lorilyn Tenney ""Lorilyn Tenney""",0/0,5.0,1288137600,Always a classic!,"I didn't purchase this book for myself, but for my high school son. He'll be reading it in his English class this year & I wanted him to have the opportunity to read it any time he wanted, instead of only in class with copies that cannot be checked out. He thinks it's overkill, but I'm glad I did it because now I get to read it again too! I haven't read it since I was middle school age and it still doesn't fail to fascinate and entertain." +1548,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/1,4.0,942796800,This is an awesome book.,"This book by Golding is a wonderful.I think his purpose for writing this book is to show how horrible and out of control the kids would be on the island with out any adults. I also think he did an excellent job describing each character and giving them their own ways of doing things. This book beleivable because I know if you leave a bunch of children on an island alone, sooner or later they will show their true colors. There is one part that I did not like and that is when Jack kills the female pig, guts her and puts her head on a stick." +1549,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,3.0,889142400,Ok at best,"You could say it was a fabulous book because it demonstrated a point that humans are animals without society... yada yada yada. But a book should be more than that, it should be emotionally envolving. You should feel for the characters, but you just can't in Lord of the Flies. It's OK for illustrating a point, but not good enough to pass for a real novel." +1550,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A3M174IC0VXOS2,Gail Cooke,5/6,5.0,1039651200,THIS IS ONE TO HEAR OVER AND OVER AGAIN!,"It's often a distinct pleasure to listen to an audio book read by the author, as the writer of a story can bring an added depth, a richness that eludes voice performers. Such is certainly the case with this reading by the incomparable Cornwallian William Golding, the recipient of the 1983 Nobel Prize for Literature.""Lord of the Flies"" has become a contemporary classic since its publication in 1954. Who can forget this thrilling adventure of British school boys marooned on a tropical island? After their plane is wrecked on a deserted spot the boys must manage to survive.Initially, the boys use their only resources - themselves, as there is no adult supervision. They make their own rules and way of life. But camaraderie is short lived as some of the boys follow Jack who would rather swim and play, while others are drawn to Ralph as he attempts to bring about order and delegate responsibility.Throughout the years ""Lord of the Flies"" has been called a lesson in politics, a parable, and even a myth. Whatever the delineation it is timeless.William Golding recorded his tale in a London studio in 1976. We're fortunate it has been remastered and re-released for our listening pleasure today. It is not a recording to be played and tossed aside; it is one to hear over and over again.- Gail Cooke" +1551,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,AA2R6V1YT4L9Y,Chris,0/0,5.0,963792000,Lord of the Flies - Survival of the Fittest...really.,""Lord of the Flies" is a fantastically written tale of a group of English school boys whose plane is shot down during an atomic attack. They end up on an uninhabited desert island where they are faced with what seems like a perfect situation to them - NO ADULTS!At the beginning, the situation is paradise to them, until they realize that they might be there longer than they thought. They have to learn how to survive.Ralph, the story's protagonist, decides that they should be logical and set up shelters. Ralph is a smart boy in that he is thinking about the good of everyone. Sometimes though, even Ralph does give in to the primitive desires of man and joins the celebration after a successful pig hunt.Piggy, an overweight, nearsighted, asthmatic, serves as the well meaning reminder of what they "should" be doing. Ralph befriends him, even when no one else will listen to him or take him seriously. Piggy's glasses or "specs" prove to be very useful and are a very meaningful symbol of society: the maintenence and breakdown thereof, in the story.Then there's Jack, the leader of a choir of boys from his school. His character eventually serves as an antagonist for Ralph and a symbol of man's primal desires for survival. He provides meat for the group and uses it as a powerful luring agent to get some boys to join his "tribe".Simon is another character you should be familiar with. My personal favorite as he turns out to be the wisest and most spiritual (not necessarily "religious") of the entire lot of boys. Simon, prone to fainting spells brought on by epilepsy, is never taken seriously by any of the boys, including Ralph or Piggy. His spiritual nature leaves him far beyond the others' realm of understanding.There are two unfortunate, but dare I say - necessary, deaths in the book but I won't give that part away. I say "necessary" but only on a symbolic level. Once you discover what the characters meant symbolically to the story, you will know what I mean.The ending goes through two extremes. It gets you right into the action in a wonderfully descriptive chase scene which almost makes you feel like the one who is being chased and then takes you right out forcing you to become an objective observer of the scene.Terrific writing, fantastic symbolism and an overall great story. Not for the faint of heart though. I would recommend this one for grades 7 and up." +1552,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,AALQ8SQF5P1E1,"ParisKM ""tk_holder""",0/1,3.0,1066348800,Good but not great,"The main thing that people rave about this book is its SYMBOLISM. Well, I think that symbolism is based on your own opinion. We don't know that the author meant to have this particular thing represent this particular idea. When you get to the story itself, the first four chapters and the last four chapters are worth a read. However, everything in between I found to be very boring and you find yourself having to stop and re-read certain things because you forget what is happening; there is no action to help keep you up to speed.Just FYI, I didn't have to read this book for school. I read it in my spare time. From what I understand, those who must read it for school have a far lower opinion of this novel, but I don't know that for a fact." +1553,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,AM0WIQGYCUEII,Alaura Maharet,1/1,4.0,1110326400,Very dark and mysterious with an original plot,"The book The Lord of the Flies was an exceptional book though there were a few vacant areas where the plot needed to be moved along faster and more eventful. The book takes place on a deserted island out in the middle of nowhere after a plane carrying some young boys crashes into the sea and the survivors are forced to take refuge on the island. After many days of frightening events dealing with being alone on the island, one boy named Jack, turns into a savage and persuades the rest of the group to leave Ralph, who is the one in charge, to join his wild ways. Many horrible events take place that embed disturbing images in your head throughout the story. It is a unique way for teaching the readers exactly how brutal and harsh being stranded alone on an island with no special form of government or order of any kind could be. The story portrays many real-life aspects about the struggles for power and leadership that the boys go through on the island. It greatly outlines the conflicts between two boys, Ralph and Jack, who are constantly competing for total control over the group. With no grown-ups around, the boys are forced to deal with the harsh reality by themselves. This experience in itself will change the lives of the boys forever.This book is a great reading experience for aspiring readers who are into adventure novels. The Lord of the Flies gives off a dark and mysterious tale that is greatly expressed in detail. The emotions and actions of these boys were greatly presented in the writing in order to give full aspect of what is happening. Overall, we would recommend reading this novel because it is a wonderfully original story that takes your mind into a totally different world of thought. Also, if you are interested in dark, disturbing stories, this book would be an excellent choice because you never know what bizarre events are going to happen to them next." +1554,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A1DYMH30TSRONY,"J. Cameron-Smith ""Expect the Unexpected""",3/4,5.0,1198627200,How thin the veneer of civilization ..,"I first read this book as a young teenager and I've revisited it twice since then. There many messages in this novel for those who seek them but for me the key message was how a group of children organise themselves in order to survive.Resourceful, ruthless and inventive are some of the adjectives that first came to mind. The boys demonstrate the best and then, increasingly, the worst of human behaviour. Jack and Ralph each have strengths and weaknesses: there is no single leadership model which best addresses the situation the boys find themselves in.Whether you read this as an allegory or as a black and bleak adventure story, 'Lord of the Flies' invites you to think about what you might do in similar circumstances.Highly recommended.Jennifer Cameron-Smith" +1555,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,3.0,925430400,"Read the original, it's better","As Truman Capote once pointed out, Golding simply lifted the whole idea for this book out of ""A High Wind in Jamaica"" (aka ""The Innocent Voyage"") by Richard Hughes. Read the original -- it is much better." +1556,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A2UZAMODKY05KJ,kermit,0/0,4.0,1005177600,dramatic,"I read this book my junior year, and I couldn't believe how real it seemed. It's obvious Golding put alot of thought into it. The book was written to show the dark side of man (or the beast, as he calls it) and does its job well. Highly recomended!" +1557,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,ABFMOE8TAYAJC,benjamin molina,0/0,4.0,945648000,lord of the flies-book review,I think that Golding was trying to tell his readers that there is a need for rules and civilization.I agree with Golding because if there were no rules or guidelines to abide by then people would go crazy and we would end up in total chaos.I think Golding's best literary element in Lord of the Flies was his characters he created. Each person was very different from each other. I think it could be believable because without a set of rules or regulations people would act the way the boy's acted in the book.I think the book was fine.I just would've changed some of the beginning so it wouldn't drag as much as it did. +1558,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,4.0,896832000,it is an very interesting book.,Lord of The Flies is an very good anventure I personily got stuck in the story.Once you pick it up you cant put it down.Lord Of The Flies indroduced it characters very well and I did enjoy reading it.If you have not read it I recomend that you do. +1559,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/1,4.0,1112918400,Review for Lord of the Flies,Lord of the Flies is a pretty good book. I liked how Golding put all of it together. He did a good job with all of the symbols. I don't know how anybody could come up with all of it. I especially enjoyed the major symbolism of good vs. evil (Ralph vs. Jack). I do think it would have been better if Golding made some of them cannibals. +1560,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,4.0,924566400,lord of the flies was ok.,"This book was ok. I must admit that i was really bored at the beginning. It became more interesting towards the end of the book. When I finally finished reading this book I was disappointed because I thought it will be better, but after I understood the real meaning behind the book it became clear to me that it's a good book after all. This book has a lot of moral but it takes time to like it." +1561,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A1FCSE8U6GMEHR,"Jason K. Paul ""Kelly Paul""",0/0,5.0,1223510400,Golding reading,"Way cool! I am going to start teaching Lord of the Flies right after fall break. I have been previewing this audio version on may long drive to and from work (about 30 minutes each way.) I was so impressed with Golding reading his own book! I must say I cried at the end when Ralph breaks down---Golding made this book come to life! I also like Golding's commentary at the end regarding the meaning of the book. I would tell you, but you need to hear it for yourself!" +1562,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,2/4,4.0,979603200,"Very good, but very difficult","I read this book in my English class recntly, all I haver to say is that this is a very good book, but just as annoying to read. The first time I read it through I had a lot of trouble in some areas, it was just too confusing. I had thought that everyone went insane. If you have a lot of time to reread this book and to think about it all the time, then buy it. If you're a very busy person that doesnt have time to think things through I suggest go to the movies and watch a movie that has no brians invilved in it, for example Dude, Wheres My Car" +1563,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,5.0,861321600,An interesting fact about the title,"In Hebrew, Beelzebub(another word for the Devil) translates "Lord of the flies", thus the title" +1564,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A2PNJTZC1DVLLB,Saturnino Garcia,4/5,5.0,1023753600,Symbolism Abounds,"I have watched ""horror"" movies that scared me less than this book did. Equal parts ""Robinson Caruso"" and ""Children of the Corn,"" ""Lord of the Flies"" by William Golding explores our human nature in a way not seen before.Stranded on a uninhabited island, a group of young English boys are left to survive without the influence of an adult. Chaos slowly materializes as the boys gradually lose track of their main goal: to be rescued. Nighttime comes to sybmolize fear and death as a mysterious ""beast"" rears its ugly head. Ralph and Piggy struggle to remain ""civilized"" while Jack and others begin to be absorbed by their animalistic urges.One thing that stood out to me was Golding's use of imagery. From the tiniest details of the island to almost palpable tension that devolops on the island, Golding does a magnificent job of portraying it all.However, the aspect of this book that makes it outstanding is the psychology behind the story. As the children begin to fully realize that there are no adults to give them guidance, a darkness falls over them. Long term survival becomes secondary to the immediate need to have ""fun."" The children evolve from being hunted to being vicious hunters.I highly recommend this as both a good story and as a psychological study. I believe it could be an invaluable guide for high school students leaving home for the first time and experiencing a sense of freedom that can parallel that of the boys in this novel. Even if you are well past that stage, it's worth reading to get an understanding of what people might be experiencing." +1565,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A21W6PCDZWG15R,J C E Hitchcock,1/1,5.0,1354233600,The Descent of Man,"I was educated at Maidstone Grammar School, the school at which William Golding taught for a brief period in the late 1930s, and although I did not arrive at the school until many years after Golding had left, school legend still had it that the main characters of ""Lord of the Flies"" were based upon boys he had taught at Maidstone. A friend of my father even claimed to have been the model for Jack Merridew. (It is, in fact, more likely that Golding was inspired by the boys of Salisbury Cathedral School where he was teaching when he wrote the novel).I won't set out the plot in any detail, as it seems to be well-known to virtually everyone, especially in Britain where it is frequently studied at school. (Oddly enough, despite the school's Golding connection, it was not on the curriculum at MGS and I did not read until my days at university). It concerns a group of British schoolboys, refugees from a war raging in Europe, who gradually revert to barbarism after being marooned on an uninhabited island. Ever since at least the eighteenth century, the ""desert island"", the uninhabited tropical island with golden beaches fringed with palm trees, has frequently been depicted in Western culture as the nearest one can get to paradise on earth. This idea can be found in literature (""Coral Island""), the cinema (""The Blue Lagoon""), broadcasting (""Desert Island Discs"") and even in advertising campaigns; the makers of the ""Bounty"" chocolate bar have for decades centred their entire marketing strategy around this concept. Golding's novel, with its deliberately anti-Utopian theme, can be seen as a reaction against this received idea; the names of the two main characters, Ralph and Jack, were borrowed from Ballantyne's ""Coral Island"".The book can be read on a number of levels. On one level it is a political allegory about the relationship between dictatorship and democracy. At first the boys try to organise themselves on a democratic basis, electing Ralph as their chief and setting up a system of assemblies at which they can discuss their concerns. A conch shell, used for summoning assemblies, serves as a symbol of their fragile democracy, but it does not last. Jack, Ralph's only rival in the election for chief, forms a group of his friends into a gang of hunters, with the aim of hunting the wild pigs which inhabit the island. As the novel progresses, more and more boys are won over to Jack's gang, until Jack effectively replaces Ralph as chief without ever being elected to the position, and is able to use his hunters to hunt down Ralph and his few remaining supporters.To readers in 1954, less than a decade after the end of the war, the parallels with the rise of Nazism would have been obvious. A charismatic leader, unable to gain power democratically, does so through force, backed by a private army and leading a movement based upon a ""them-and-us"" mentality. The new leader holds the loyalty of his followers by satisfying their material needs, creates a sense of group identity through ritual and violence against a common enemy and uses his power to persecute those defined as falling outside his group. Some who initially oppose him are persuaded to conform to the group identity through fear of the consequences if they refuse.The novel's religious implications are perhaps less obvious, but are none the less present. Golding was brought up in a free-thinking, non-religious family, but appears to have given up his early scientific rationalism in favour of an idiosyncratic version of Christianity. Jack and his original hunters are all choirboys from a Cathedral school like the one at which Golding taught- an obvious irony, given that choirboys are often regarded in Britain as symbols of childish innocence. The scenes in which they kill the pigs and then feast on them are reminiscent of primitive religious rituals; they even place a pig's head on a stick and treat it both as an offering to the ""Beast"" which they believe inhabits the island and as a sort of idol, the ""lord of the flies"" from which the book takes its name. (The expression is a literal translation of the name Beelzebub, and ""the Beast"" can also be a euphemism for the Devil). The boys' descent from innocence into savagery can be seen as symbolic of the Fall of Man, although other, secular interpretations are also possible. One of the boys, the gentle, mystical Simon, has been seen as a Christ-figure. .If the book is read either as a political or as a religious allegory, then it is easy to see Ralph as its hero and Jack as the villain. Read on a psychological level, however, the issue is less clear-cut. Ralph and Jack symbolise two different attitudes to life, and two different styles of leadership. Ralph and his close friend Piggy represent the rational, the harmonious, the logical and the rule-based; in short, they represent the civilisation which the boys have left behind. Jack and his gang represent the irrational, the will to power, the instinctive and the atavistic. Under normal circumstances, it is the first set of principles which would seem preferable to most people, but of course the circumstances in which the boys find themselves are far from normal.Adult civilisation has broken down even more comprehensively than does the boys' attempt to replicate it on the island- we learn that nuclear weapons have been used in the war. The boys, attempting to fell from that breakdown of are confronted not only with their own physical needs but also with all the terrors which assailed their primitive ancestors- terror of the dark, of the unknown, of hunger, of solitude, of dangerous wild beasts. In, these circumstances the irrationality advocated by Jack may answer their emotional needs more adequately than the rationality advocated by Ralph and Piggy, which is why he succeeds and they fail. Seen in this light, the boys' reversion to the more primitive instincts of human nature can be seen as a response to the collapse of civilisation rather than the cause of that collapse, a valuable survival mechanism in extremis rather than pure villainy.There is not enough space in this review to discuss all the many levels of meaning, including Golding's complex and multi-layered use of symbolism and imagery, in the novel, so I will content myself with the three aspects set out above, the political, the religious and the psychological. This is one of those books in which you can find more with each reading- in my view one of the hallmarks of a great work of literature. I was surprised to learn that ""Lord of the Flies"" was actually the author's first novel- surely one of the best first novels ever published." +1566,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A340TXJI4P0VN5,K,0/1,3.0,968112000,"really depressing, but intelligent","I don't know how somebody could live with themselves if they believe the message of this book. Lord of the Flies is brilliantly written and chocked full of symbolism. Hell, its probably really worth reading too, but certianly not for entertainment. Goldings ultimate message at the end of the book is that the human race is hopeless and detructive and that civilazation means nothing and thats simply not true. mabye i'm a wimp but i like to read uplifting things that make you feel good. Dickens for example. Anyway, the books are depressing especially if you like to look for the good in people. I couldn't decide weather this deserved 1 or 5 stars so i gave it three." +1567,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A3O3YYUOCU23DU,"""squirrelene""",1/1,5.0,1071619200,short and sweet,"i loved this book in high school, and i love it even more today. what a wonderful commentary on the society's need for organization and routine overtly juxtaposed by the savage desire for a carefree, structureless lifestyle. i highly recommend this for lovers of politics, sociology, and/or fine (and concise) literature." +1568,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,AVCGOTPKXD2X8,scuba steve,0/0,4.0,1054684800,lord of the fleas,i thought this book was [bad]. at first but then I loved it. the plot starts off slow but then get very deep. this book is great it causes you to ask yourself what would I do. a quicker beginning would of helped the book a lot +1569,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A36167S87RLKQI,Marlena Montalvo,0/0,3.0,985132800,Different from other books,In the book Lord of the Flies Golding is trying to show how evil comes out of people when they fear the unknown. I agree with the message he is trying to send out to the readers because people are scared of what they don;t know and sometimes handle it in a crazy behavior. I think he handled the characters very well because you can see how different they are from each other and how much evil they they have in themselves. I think this book was pretty good and i would encourage you to read this book if you like adventure and want to learn new things. +1570,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,5.0,919728000,Great book for experienced readers!,"I liked this book because it was very suspenseful. The detail of the book was great, you could see what was happning as you read. My favorite part was when they were chanting the pig-killing song. I would recommend this book to an experienced reader." +1571,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A28ZOZJU5A30Z0,Sean K,4/8,5.0,1156982400,Law vs. Anarchy,"A compelling adventure tale, ""Lord of the Rings"" succeeds in telling a story of the dark instincts inherent in the human condition. Although we are conditioned for a civilized society, Golding makes the compelling argument that if left to our own devices, we will revert back to our primitive roots, one where survival and savagery triumph over order and rules.Golding's tale could be described as an allegory of law vs. anarchy, and civilization vs. savagery. After a harrowing escape and crash landing on a deserted Pacific isle, a group of English boys, escaping a cataclysmic atomic war with the Communists, quickly organize into a rudimentary society, with Ralph as their elected leader. Ralph symbolizes the leadership and good of society. Piggy, the corpulent advisor to Ralph, represents the intellect and common sense in society. Jack, Ralph's nemesis, represents the corrupt power-mongers who use fear to rule their minions. Simon, an enigmatic but sensible boy, represents the kind and charitable in society, and proves a martyr in the end. And finally, Roger, sadistic and inhuman, symbolizes the pure evil that plagues society.As the boys descend further into savagery, their desire to be rescued becomes non-existent. Instead, they are content in their animalistic rituals, and become enamored of violence and adrenalin-fueled hunting expeditions. Their concern for others collapses, as Jack becomes the tyrannical leader of a rival tribe, and eventually all succumb to him. Although they arrived on the island as innocent victims of a horrific war, they lose their innocence on the island as evil creeps up from the recesses of their soul. Even if they were to return to society, they will never regain their innocence.Although Golding tells a moral tale, there is no shortage of action. From the chaos of the initial plane crash, to the fear of a ""beast"", to the final heart-pounding hunt of Ralph, ""Lord of the Rings"" delivers a chilling and exciting tale. I honestly cannot find any downside to this book. This is a superb read and is highly enjoyable." +1572,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,1/1,5.0,953769600,Freud's Theory Made Exciting,"I read this novel in tenth grade english, and at first I didn't appreciate it. When I actually began to think about it, I realized how relevant Golding's work is to our species. We are driven by agression, or the id (represented by Jack), and without morals (ego and superego-Ralph, the rescue ship and Piggy) we would become like total monsters. Not only does the story convey this point, but it does so in a way which is actually interesting, which few of the writers of "classics" can do. Brilliant work, Mr. Golding." +1573,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A3966MZYFG74B8,"zoe zhang ""zoe""",3/4,5.0,1137196800,"captivating, and brutally real","The Lord of the Flies by William Golding is, simply put, amazingly depictive of the brutality and beauty of human nature. The book begins with British boys all of decent and educated backgrounds stranded on a island with no adults. In the book, the boys are initially led by a sensitive, smart, and logic driven Ralph and a competitive, ambitious, and instinct driven Jack. The group of boys initially all have meetings where their opinions are regulated by a conch found by Ralph and Piggy, Ralph's assistant. Gradually, the delicate friendship between Ralph and Jack breaks, and rivalry, savagery arise. The boys split up into two groups, each an enemy to the other, and conducts actions even to the most brutal degree, murder. As superstitions and fears arouse, the boys created a beast out of their own uneven emotions which became the centerpiece of the story and at the same time an excuse to all actions as more and more, the boys shift their blame to the imaginary beast.Everything in the book possesses great symbolic meaning. Piggy, who throughout the book was Ralph's assistant, represents society's intellituals, who despite their brilliant minds and common sense, are condemned for their lack of expression and appeal. Ralph represents leadership and justice, and the beauty to the human nature while Jack in contrast, shows the instinctive beast that dwells in all humans. The conch, which at first was in effect during meetings, represents democracy and the freedom of speech for only with the possession of it can a boy speak. The beast, the ultimate focus of the book, is a creation of mankind's own fears and insecurities. The book is brutally beautiful; it reveals to us a side of human nature that many thought was nearly impossible and also, the delicate exterior that we call civilization." +1574,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,ALSCPMYL89QHO,Erica Carty,1/3,4.0,953251200,looking into the meaning,"i just completed reading the novel, Lord of the Flies. I am a 12th grade student at North Penn High School. At first i was bothered with the fact that i had to read the novel because i had so many other things i'd rather do, however after i did finally complete the book i saw a very interesting point behind it. this novel is a very true story about human civilization. it makes you really think about how people change because of society and also how people fall into other peoples traps by manipulation, just like Jack manipulated the boys. the book has a lot of symbolizm in it which can sometimes be hard to understand, but once the point is seen, the book is actually a good one. overall i dont think that this novel is all that bad. it is actually kind of interesting and i'm not so upset that i was forced to read it!" +1575,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,3.0,938736000,"Expresses the realities of war, island is microcosm of war","This book shows people what happens when you face the realities of war. Fear,hope, and courage are all spliced into one which is something that you don't often see in one book. This book shows people how children's fears lead them to fighting. The more they fight the farther and farther they feel from home." +1576,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A29NUQ0EEUEN4D,Joanna Ortiz,0/0,5.0,1330300800,Lord of the Flies,"I was happy to receive the book in good condition as stated,and much sooner than the time frame provided. From a Wednesday, the book arrived within 3 days and perfectly in time for the Monday it was needed for my child's class. Amazing. Thank you. What I would have wanted to know before ordering was that I'd be receiving another book cover than the one I selected. I was looking forward to that particular one displayed, but received a different one (dark green with a jungle like scene). Importantly, the isbn no. on this book was what I ordered so all was fine. So far, I'm still pleased with the service and continue to use it." +1577,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A24ML4ZMR7JPPF,"L. Hagerbrant ""Book Nerd""",1/5,4.0,1118966400,Lord of the Flies-------interesting title!,"Although this books title had very little to do about the book it was a thriller!This book is about about 10 English boys who have a problem while being removed from their homeland- the plane that carried them over the Pacific Ocean suddenly crashed. This horrific event left them on a unhabited island with no rules. But, leaders do pop up and soon feuds occur, some resulting in death.I reccomend this book to adults or adventurous kids who are dazzled by a book with a good moral(humanity can be hostile) and a splendid bunch of characters that the author introduces very well.I give Lord of the Flies 4 stars for a few reasons. One reason is that the amount and age of the kids was never mentioned in the book- a tad confusing. Secondley, the ending seemed...runshed. Lord of the Flies......read it!" +1578,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,5.0,902275200,Masterpiece,"This is a must read book for all 5-9th graders. The story about a buncha kids trapped on a island teaches you about society in general. Its violence, brutality, etc. Makes you wanna be work together instead of fighting each other. Very entertaining and interesting" +1579,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,AG7C56UO16MYS,"Adis Nafarrate ""PeeWee's Gurl""",2/8,1.0,1132358400,lord of the flies bokk review,"""The lord of the flies"" By william Golding, is in my opinion one of the most boring book i have ever read in my whole life. but on the other hand it did have alot to say about our ""humanly nature"" most of it was true.This book was like a little summary of our violent nature throughout history. But overall it was terably boring!!!!!" +1580,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,7/8,5.0,960163200,"LORD OF THE" literary world,"William Golding's "Lord Of the Flies" is an absolute masterpiece. It is a fantastic story of a group of school boys stranded on an island. However, with close reading an allegorical underlying meaning surfaces. Golding masterfully creates a miniature society with the boys and proceeds to depict it as corrupt and depraved, using Jack as a violent and tyrannical politician-like figure. When my english teacher first informed my ninth grade class that we would be reading this potentially boring book, I groaned along with my peers. However, within a few pages, I was enthralled. I could not get enough of the lovable and heroic Ralph, the endearing complaints of Piggy, the epilictic visions of the ill-fated Simon, or the evil manipulations of the nefarious Jack and his hunting hooligans. By the end, I was in complete awe and forever raptured by Ralph. In this novel, I discovered my favorite book and my all time favorite character as well." +1581,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A331H6SHBIGO3E,cheerreader,1/6,1.0,1073260800,Dull,"Even though I had to read this for school, I though it was a very boring book. I managed to suffer through it. I suggest avioding it at all costs. I think the only worse story is Oliver Twist. While it's obvious the Golding is an excellent writer, he doesn't ensnare the reader as do the better books." +1582,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,5.0,922924800,Excellent Premise,"A reviewer wrote that the fact that most of the boys turned into savages was unrealistic. On the contrary, I thiunk it was the most ingenious and realistic part of the novel. The premise that makes them turn a bunch of stuck-up, snotty British prep school kids turn into savages is one that's also been preached by Freud, Darwin, and Anthony Burgess (the author of A Clockwork Orange, another great novel). It goes as follows: human beings are simply highly evolved animals. Although we may be much smarter than dogs, monkeys, or lions, we have the same animal instincts and tendencies that they have. Also, contrary to what religion may tell you, we're both with no sense of right or wrong. Some of us, such as Ralph and Piggy, as we grow older and develop free will, develop a sense of right and wrong. However, in the case of many others, such as Jack and Roger, who seemed harmless at the begining of the novel, no moral sense of right and wrong is ever developed, even though the given is usually unaware of this. The only reason that the such people are "kept in line" is because society trains them that way. Thus, when the barriers of society are gone, their amoral animal nature returns, as shown in Lord of the Flies. This book proved that Golding was both an excellent weriter and a brilliant thinker." +1583,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,3.0,938736000,I think The Lord of the Flies was mostly boring.,The most interesting parts in the book were when the boys saw the parachutist on top of the mountain and thought he was a monster. The other most interesting part was when Simon was 'talking' to the Lord of the Flies. I think the ending would have been more exciting if Jack or Ralph had been killed. +1584,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A3AOQU55O5J97J,Luke,2/2,3.0,1308528000,Unrealistic,"Although the story of the book was decent, and the symbolism very complex, I did not really agree with the message of the book, and found its theme unrealistic. I don't think that the situation would collapse into anarchy but instead primitive government, such as in the beginning of the book.The desires of the boys to ""just have fun"" were very unrealistic and counter-intuitive. For example, not one person outside of Ralph and Piggy truly care about getting off the island. No one misses their family, and it is not even mentioned. There is no discussion of the boys' background except for the fact that they are English, and nobody ever thinks about it. It is completely unrealistic to ignore the fact that in the real world, the first priority of the boys would be to try and escape and go back to the civilized world.Secondly, the overwhelming desire for meat, which is supposed to symbolize the savagery in humans, is highly exaggerated. The fruit on the island is plentiful and there are many resources. The boys never have any problem getting food and realistically would not engage in such frivolous hunting for meat.I also found the characterization extremely flat. The characters are just faceless names on the page outside of Raplh, Piggy, Jack, and Simon." +1585,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,5.0,885254400,I wish I had written my research paper on this baby!,"What a great book! Sure, it can be gory, somewhat odd, and even frightening, but the story is wonderful. If you think it's unrealistic, you either forgot what it was like to be a boy growing up or you are female. Young boys can be imaginative and insiteful, and they can be mean, cruel, and even a little sadistic. This book brims with themes and implications, almost EVERY LINE of the book displaying some theme or other. Here is a story of survival , of loyalty, of standing for what's right, of good vs. evil, and of the realities of a modern life. Yes, that's right. Not only does the boys' reversion to savagery hold implications of a world without law or order, but we also see that such a world is beyond so many of us. When they are rescued ---- boys once more, in just a mere glance." +1586,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A170PKJALG1J5,"Me ""Me""",0/2,4.0,1098489600,The plot of this book is......,"I had to read this book for English Class. Most people don't get the point of this book. Put simply... it's about what happens when there is no leadership. It's a great book. If you haven't read it, read it." +1587,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,4.0,1112918400,COOL BOOK!!,Lord of the Flies is mostly a good book. I like that Golding made you think about the book and not just tell you everything. It was a very interesting book. I liked Ralph the best because he didn't just give up and join Jack's tribe. I would recommend reading it. +1588,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,AUUUMK9XBDFS3,"K. Bernal ""Sci-Fi#1PotterFan""",1/2,4.0,1119830400,Strangly Understanding,"I actually read this book as a seventh grader and for some reason found it way beyond my comprehension skills lol. Techinally I read it as a class assignment but never actually finished reading the book if you can believe that! Well its been over 5 years since I last looked at it and decieded that it was time to finish it. And i've been happy with my decision ever since.The book is about 20 or so british children (mostly under the age of 13) who are stranded on an uncharted island with nothing but the clothes on there backs. There plane was damaged durring a storm and basicly crashed on the island. The oldest of the survivors is the main character ""Ralph"" who becomes the appointed leader. Ralph's main goal is to get of the island alive. A goal that was dire to the survivors at first but over time it becomes less and less important. Ralph becomes over thrown by ""Jack"" another boy his age who feels that meat is more important than a fire signal. Jack's charater is sort of wild and will go to any measure to gain power over the younger boys. Jack's test of power is measured when he finially kills a pig to prove that he could do it. And as time goes on, his power to kill spreads so that anyone who defies him will be delt with or killed.The only thing that I didnt like about the book was the ending. I would have liked to know more about what happened to the boys mentally after they were rescued. Like were they able to cope with what they had become which was almost like animals. But I did like the main point of the story. Which is, to me, that anyone would do anything to survive.I loved this book so much that I read it in 2 days and I strongly suggest that you do the same. Trust me you wont be dissapointed!" +1589,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,AFTHYNVRJKDC8,Casey H,0/2,5.0,983750400,Just a school book? I dont think so!,"I am 14 years old and loved this book. I have read many books and liked and hates some. But this book I loved!! When my friends and family told me about it it made me sick to think of KIDS killing each other. Once I read it I loved it. Golding really understood that kids will only want to have fun. I recomend this to anyone who likes to read and to anyone over 13 years old. Most teenagers thought it was stupied, but you got to remeber that, that is how life is, there is good and bad people, most peoples like the bad people because they make life seem easyer. If you put kids on a island they would do what happens in the book. Any thing to say to me you can e-mail me at angel73339@hotmail.com I love to hear what people have to say." +1590,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,3.0,872208000,"Good idea, bad development","When I fisrt heard of the story and of the ideabehind this book, I thought it could really be agreat novel. The main idea is to propose a metaphor of what our societies are like, but from the point of view of children lost on a desert island. They "build" their own little society, with a chief and people who have to do some tasks if they want to survive. Well, the setting sounds really cool, doesn't it?That's why I wanted to read this book, and I was not compelled to read it by one of my teachers. But when I finished it, I was very disappointed. The basic idea is great, but the way it is developed is flawed. You just have kids who go crzay and wild because there are no more adults above them to tell them what to do or not. And moreover, when trying to show us a bit of what is our history, and an insight into the development of our civilizations, Golding forget many very important things along the way.As a matter of fact, there are no women on the island (or, well, no little girl to fall in love with). And thus, no Queen to fight for. Another example : no power behind the throne. It's just a story about survival, fisrt against Nature, and then of course against humankind (here, other children).I think that's why on one hand I loved this book, because of the setting, the ideas, and also the story. But on the other hand, this work is only a draft, not really complete and definitive (ok, no work is definitive, if you see what I mean). Sometimes when I read a book, I feel that it is the _ultimate_ novel about a subject, and I felt that for _The old mand and the sea_ (Hemingway) or _The Plague_ (Camus). This book is a good one, worth reading, but I'm sure someone can write a far better novel on this topic, and that's why I think it only deserves a 6 rating." +1591,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,5.0,921801600,An unbelivable representation of society at any given time,William Golding is an absolute genious. This book is incredible and will appeal to anyone with a philisophical side. The in-depth symbolism is applicable towards any time period. Lord of the Flies is a a mind blowing experience and the reader will undoubtably gain from reading it. +1592,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A166TZ0CKJR56U,Lindsay Parker,1/2,4.0,1052784000,What I thought of Lord of the Flies,"In the book, Lord of the Flies, a group of pre-teen military boys become stranded on a deserted island. When they finally come together as a group, they choose a leader of the group which leads to a huge disagrement between two of the boys. During their time on the island, the boys are faced with, death, hunger, other creatures on the island, and whether they can get off the island without death being the only way out." +1593,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A2MDBK49UC4445,"""peachjollyrancher825""",1/1,4.0,1071792000,Everyone Hated It But Me...,"I read this book with a group of about 20 other people, and everyone hated it but me. The things that they disliked most were the graphic descriptions, the wordiness, and the often hard to understand symbolism. I however, liked it.I had read it before, so it was a little easier to understand. I believe that once you are able to get past the aforementioned details, it is a very interesting concept. The idea of the beast within us all and the fact that we are all essentially savages at heart is a somewhat frightening (albeit intriguing) concept.I highly recommend this book, although some readers (like many of my friends) may not be able to get over the duller aspects of it." +1594,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,AM43CXLICJ7KY,"Kat G ""kattty""",0/0,5.0,991353600,Classic Literature,"Lord of the Flies is a novel that is truly the basis for so many things in our society today. It repeatedly reoccurs throughout our pop culture, in television and film, etc. I am not sure if Darwinism came before or after this book, but the principal idea is what happens when several human beings have to survive on a remote island far removed from society. The book begins with a plane crash of school children, and the surviving children attempt to establish some form of order which quickly disintegrates. What happens from there is indicative of William Golding's impression of the true, primal nature of humanity. Definitely a classic, which everyone should read. If not, there is a really good b&w film which follows the book pretty accurately." +1595,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/1,5.0,1052265600,Lord of the Flies Review for Kelly English,"Lord of the Flies, lucidly written by William Golding, tells of the terror and adventure that befalls a misfortunate group of young boys. The story takes place in the future at the outbreak World War III, which the author predicts will occur. The first page of the novel describes two of the main characters, Ralph and Piggy, exploring a jungle on the island where they had just crash-landed, discussing their plane crash. Ralph, Piggy, and a plane full of other children are headed to an orphanage-like facility when their jet goes down on an uninhabited, tropical island. For the rest of the novel, the fate of the surviving boys will become the author�s main focus.Ralph and Piggy gather the boys on the island. Ralph, being a natural leader, creates basic rules for the children to follow and a strategy for survival and rescue. Immediately, one of the older boys, Jack, is highly confrontational with Ralph and his authority. Ralph�s main priority as chosen leader is to build a signal fire that will continuously produce smoke in order to get the attention of passing ships. Ralph and Piggy do their best to maintain order, law, and a functioning community. Jack and many others no longer wish to be part of Ralph�s tribe, with all of the rules, jobs, and responsibilities. Jack becomes chief of this own tribe and incessantly harasses Ralph. The two warring clans are forced to deal with one another and well as a mysterious beast that lives on top of the island�s mountain. Throughout the book, all of the characters face both external and internal conflicts.In the first chapter of Lord of the Flies the setting of the story is meticulously described. While reading Golding�s portrayal of the island�s climate, I almost felt sweaty and fearful of poisonous jungle creatures. Golding is an expert in the art of showing the idea he is expressing, not literally telling the reader.�[The boy with fair hair] had taken off his school sweater and trailed it now from one hand, his grey shirt stuck to him and his hair was plastered to his forehead. All round him�the jungle was a bath of heat. He was clambering heavily around the creepers and broken trunks� (page 7).I extremely enjoyed reading this novel. It is psychologically fascinating, providing a rarely discussed insight to the savagery of the human mind. This is not a light read; rather it is a book to seriously read two or more times in order to fully appreciate it.There is a clear connection between Lord of the Flies past and current tribal warfare, political factions, even the business world. Another similarity between this book and reality can be found in adolescent social situations. In many schools several group leaders emerge and compete for students to follow them. When this struggle occurs in schools, it is of course not as violent or blatantly aggressive. It also does not result in deaths, with the exception of a few rare occasions.William Golding�s Lord of the Flies is timeless and a tremendous read. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn more about the human mind, or is just looking for a book that stays with you long after you have put the novel down." +1596,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,,,0/0,3.0,905385600,This book is about boys trapped on an island,"This book is about a group of young British boys stranded on an island. No more, no less." +1597,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A1ROOFTZ1PQCYX,"""wintermute12""",0/0,5.0,974592000,Very Good,"When I read this in seventh grade, I thought that it was one of the most boring books I'd ever read. But then late one night, I saw "Great Books" on TLC and one of the novels that they were reviewing was _Lord_of_the_Flies_. Lo and behold, everyone on the show was rave about the book, and they were constantly talking about all of the symbolism. I caught some of it during my first read, but I decided that I was missing something. So I read it again, this time with Cliff's Notes.This really is a great book, if you're having trouble reading it, do what I did and grab a study guide, it'll pay off enormously." +1598,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A1YAWI0PYBBIZP,Ryan,1/1,4.0,1354838400,Favorite book I've read this year,"I had to read this book for my freshmen English class. After reading all the reviews,I noticed people kept calling the book 'evil'. They've missed the point. The book is about the raw evil of mankind. I love survival books as well and this was right up my alley. I would not reccomend abyone under 12 reading it. Ermm the reason I did not give it all five stars is simply because it ended so abrutly. I could go for some sort of explaining as to whhat happens next. Well thats it. thanks William Golding for giving me the opportunity to read this book" +1599,B0007GZPJI,Lord of the flies,,A36J8ARM67PVN0,"N. Miller ""Chicago chick""",0/3,4.0,1173398400,good book,This book is not what i thought it was. It was a very good take on how the world is. +1600,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3N7HABKBZFCAU,"Keith Lowe ""Keith Lowe""",6/8,5.0,1078617600,You'll want to read this over and over (I do),"This book was the "straw that broke the camel's back" and helped me become a Christian. I've read or listened to it many times, and it has brought me much closer to God. Lewis is an incredible genius with the ability to use terms that average people can understand. In my opinion, this is his masterwork. The main thing that I could say about this book is that as I read it I would think "you know, I never thought of that in that way." and it made me wonder what other things I've not thought of (i.e. have been wrong about or just not known about)." +1601,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3F8R96M0MOL1W,Mission Possible People,8/11,5.0,1142121600,Relevant 60 years later,"Having owned a Christian bookstore for 10 years and selling countless copies of Mere Christianity I decided to finally read it. I was quite surprised at how relevant Lewis' writing, examples and explanations are today, 60 years after they were first created. I just love his illustrations, they are so common and relatable. The simplicity with which Lewis' defines theological principles makes your eyes roll at their poetic relativeness. I would heartily recommend this book for believer and seeker alike. You will greatly benefit from the time spent." +1602,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,,,30/76,1.0,1041984000,An exercise in rationalization,"C.S. Lewis builds foundations of logic based on faulty black or white situations, and then expounds his theories upon the trembling base beneath. The further an objective human being gets, the less steady the footing becomes. It is inconceivable to me that such a book can occupy a revered position to otherwise objective people. Of course, objective individuals are not the target audience. If you are a Christian, then this book will most likely confirm that you are indeed the best, the smartest, and the only truly righteous in the only way such a thing can be confirmed: Through rationalization, circular logic, and outright self-delusion. The misogyny and blatant hatred imbued in this dogma-filled tripe is offensive. It is interesting to an objective person only as an examination of self-delusion." +1603,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A32LMLS8CVKHDZ,"Carrie Lynn Jones ""Jesus is more than a story!""",2/2,5.0,1206835200,*ALL* OF HIS MOST WELL-KNOWN MASTERPIECES IN *ONE* BOOK!!!,"C. S. Lewis held such a brilliant God-given imagination, that ALL his works tickle the mind in places that one didn't even know existed! His writings will have you laughing until you hurt one minute, and the next minute so full of spiritual sobriety that the on-going, unseen (yet very ""felt"") battle raging around us becomes crystal clear.It is far and few between when a book will call me back to it when I walk away. It is not often that I find such joy and delight when I can finally pick it up again--almost feeling a guilty pleasure when there are so many chores to do and work to be done!What a brilliant mind this author had. What a blessing he was to our planet! My children love his works.Carrie Lynn JonesAuthor of:It All Began... When Jesus Gave Me Sneakers" +1604,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A26GFMQ76P56R4,"Mr. Timothy C. Dana ""Tim""",2/2,5.0,1168732800,Lewis: The brilliant scholar and honest man,"C.S. Lewis is a gifted writer and noted scholar. His books are enjoyed by readers of all ages, and ""Mere Christianity"" is one of his most popular works.The argument he presents in ""Mere Christianity"" is not new. Throughout history, scholars have posited these same ideas, and Lewis is merely joining their ranks.What makes this book standout and the author loved by so many is the honesty and humility that Lewis wraps the apologetic. He lets readers know a little bit about his journey to becoming a Christian. He reveals some of his thoughts, concerns, and struggles: as a Christian and from his days as an atheist.Other authors do an excellent job defending the Christian faith, but ""Mere Christianity"" is a must read. It's something everyone should have his or her library." +1605,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A8HAI24HG1L1Z,"Carol A. Stanford ""Glenn""",0/0,5.0,1264809600,What Christianity Is Really About,"One of the best explanations of the Christian point-of-view ever written. C.S. Lewis, the author, is a true intellectual who was one of the most noted atheist in the United Kingdom who became a Christian apologist. This book is well written, clear and concise. A must read for anyone that wants to understand the Christian religion." +1606,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3QA5IQ2DAGTNW,"J. Henson ""smaftymac.com""",11/20,5.0,1014336000,C.S. Lewis is amazing,I find his works to be amazing even after my third or forth read through. I cannot not think of anybody else who is better in the field. +1607,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A27WPNEEHR2SUG,"Raymond G. Meyers ""joefaguda""",0/0,5.0,1354665600,Lewis at his best,"Who am I to judge the quality of Lewis' work? Though the language is dated and very Brit, Lewis' explanations of his ideas are crystal clear and compelling. He may not incent conversion but he gives a damn good rationale for doing so. Would that our many diverse churches were as forthright and compelling in telling the Christian message. Compare his treatise to the many excruciatingly hard reads one finds in the typical papal encyclical; the latter being doctrinal dissertations, the former being a well thought out and smoothly presented argument. Well worth the time." +1608,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3UHUV7N3GOTC7,goldie,0/0,5.0,1278892800,cs lewis,great condition. can't wait to read it. love the edges on the book. old timey feel. +1609,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A18ZDBQ8LUNVO6,Jessica McCormick,2/4,3.0,1265241600,Not the worst Christian material I've ever read...,"I read this book with a friend of mine; we were doing our own one-on-one Bible study. It is simple to understand, and offers a lot of decent information for those not of the Christian faith. The one issue I seriously had with this book is the enduring belief that women must submit to men (first their fathers, and then their husbands), period, without considering a few important facts.To begin, ""women"" were married off (at best) to men twice their age. Of course they should listen to their husbands, they're mere teenagers! Being married off at this age was only logical, since the average woman was broken and worn by the age of 30; men can reproduce at any age, as long as they still have some level of libido. Furthermore, if anyone has problems with these girls being married off to men twice their age, would anyone feel any better if she were married off to another teenager?I didn't think so.I am a Christian, and I prefer to look for logic behind the words of the gospel rather than follow it blindly. I very much feel C.S. Lewis is guilty of the latter." +1610,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,AUZH05LGINNW0,Brian J. Huffman,0/0,5.0,1197244800,"Conceptually Deep, but a Good Read","C.S. Lewis humbly tells the reader (again and again) that he isn't a professional theologian, but I can't imagine that a professional would have done any better at thinking things through and doing it in such an entertaining way. I understand that the book came from radio talks or lectures. The text may not be actual transcripts, but I don't think much rewriting was done as it reads like a lecture...very natural. I also think that I probably enjoyed this book even more because it was written by someone from another time. Although it is intended for a general audience it isn't exactly a light read. Just as the old TV commentaries by Edward R. Murrow were intended for the average TV viewer of his day (despite their sophistication) so too these thoughts (although intended for everyone) are a bit complex." +1611,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A11C8K6ISAP90K,Krista,3/3,5.0,1179532800,Challenge to Christians and Concise Rationale for Atheists,"C.S. Lewis is arguably the premier apologetic writer of the 20th century, his case for the Christian faith made even more powerful by his former atheism. ""Mere Christianity"" may be more important now for the modern audience than it was back in 1952. Lewis is one of my favorite writers and this book is a definitive classic, a masterpiece. It is a brilliant rationale: encouraging and challenging alike. Simply put, the book invites the reader to become a ""New Man."" In a warm, conversational tone, Lewis addresses the Big questions in four parts: morality as God's law; what Christians believe; Christian behavior, such as the cardinal virtues and problem of sin; and the theological doctrine of Christianity, all of which are concerns to living this ""new"" life, the life of a Christian. As stated in Matthew 16:25 of the NIV Bible, ""For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it."" Lewis takes this idea -- which looks abstract to a non-Christian -- and illustrates, in concrete terms, the rationale behind the Christian faith. Why must Christians give up their ""lives"" -- their ""selves"" -- to come closer to Christ? It is a choice at odds with the humanistic society we live in. Christians have been warned of this struggle and of the importance to adhere to the age-old truths in the Bible: ""Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world."" (Romans 12:2). The journey has been described as a daily walk: with each step one is either closer to Christ or further away. As Lewis puts it, ""Every time you make a choice you are turning the central part of you, the part of you that chooses, into something a little different than it was before."" For the Christian, that ""something different"" looks more like Christ and less like us. The importance of this idea cannot be overstated for a modern, cynical, self-sufficient and self-important -- and largely secular -- society. Particularly powerful is the writing on the dichotomy of good and evil--how morality (right and wrong) appears to be a subjective issue, or as atheists like to claim, ""common sense."" Not everyone appears to need Christ, at least not while things are going splendidly. As Lewis sadly surmises, ""If you have sound nerves and intelligence and health and popularity and a good upbringing, you are likely to be quite satisfied with your character as it is. ""Why drag God into it?"" you may ask."" Why indeed? This book may inspire you to find out." +1612,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1Q1NMBEFM87YZ,Gary Scott,176/354,1.0,1028678400,Mere Stupidity,"While this is often held up as a paragon of clear, concise, and convincing apologetics, Mere Christianity is logically weak, filled with antiquated views, and ignorant of some basic social science.To begin with, Lewis likes to raise objections to his arguments, imaging that these are the very things a non-believer might say in response to his claims. However, most of these objections are petty and insignificant, easily refuted and not anything a serious non-Christian would raise as an objection.For example, he likes to use the Lord/Lunatic/Liar argument for the divinity of Jesus (see Book 2 Chapter 3). It goes as follows: Jesus claimed to be God. Either he was indeed God, or he was a lunatic for claiming it, or he was an outright liar. This argument is a non-argument for at least two reasons. As Lewis argues, ""It seems obvious to me that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend"" (Book 2 Chapter 4). It seems obvious to Lewis, but not to me.To begin with, there are more than three possible explanations here. Perhaps he never did claim to be God. Or perhaps he was misquoted in the Gospels. On the other hand, we can't so easily dismiss the lunatic or liar possibility as Lewis likes to think. We have to remember that Jesus lied at least once. ""'Go to the festival yourselves. I am not going to this festival, for my time has not yet fully come.' After saying this, he remained in Galilee. But after his brothers had gone to the festival, then he also went, not publicly but as it were in private"" (John 7.8-10 RSV). In addition, the lunatic label, while somewhat un-PC, might indeed fit, for Jesus once cursed a fig tree because it wasn?t bearing fruit, though it wasn't in season.He also makes the bizarre argument in Book 2 Chapter 2 that Christianity is real because it's too bizarre to have been made up. In other words, it's true because it's weird. I guess that makes all science fiction stories true as well.In arguing for basic theism, Lewis makes a little linguistic switch and then makes something out of it. He begins by using the word ""law"" descriptively (i.e., gravity) and the switches to a prescriptive use of ""law (i.e., morality). He then makes much of this fact without acknowledging that that in fact is all he's done. It's a language trick, not in any way a proof of god.Not only is Lewis book illogical, it is steeped in antiquated ideas. He subscribes to the idea of constant societal, moral progress (i.e., we as a society are becoming more and more morally enlightened) a la Comte even though this claim has widely been disputed by both historians and sociologists. He also shows an ignorance of basic sociology, and seems never to have read a single work of Durkheim (who could easily explain whence comes this internal ?moral law? that Lewis basis so much of his argument on).A good example of his sociological ignorance comes when discussing the nature of Jesus? sacrifice in Book 2 Chapter 4. He makes the analogy that Jesus? sacrifice was not as much receiving punishment as paying a debt we all owe to God. That?s fine and good until we stop to think about what ?debt? is. In short, it is a societal construction. A debt is simply saying ?I owe you money.? What happens if we don?t pay it? According to nature, nothing. We won?t drop dead of a heart attack or break out in a rash. Instead, society allows the person owed to punish the debtor if the debt is not paid. One could easily imagine a society where there was no concept of debt. In this society, you can give money to your friend, but you cannot expect or even desire for the friend to pay it back.Another example of antiquated ideas is his sexism. Describing the Christian marriage, Lewis says, ?There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule? (Book 3 Chapter 6). Not only is that a sexist statement, but, like most such statements, it is a sweeping generalization that presumes to see into the heart of thousands of women whom Lewis might describe as ruling over their husbands.In short, Mere Christianity is a disappointment. It offers no new insight into Christianity and is in fact chock full of logical fallacies and ignorance. Any educated non-believer will remain unconvinced." +1613,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,,,2/4,5.0,935625600,Christianity in a Nutshell,"Lewis starts off sharing strong evidence that there is a God. However, I was amazed at how Prof. Lewis included only what is essential for being a Christian. He catered to all the Christian Denominations - an immense task. I also enjoyed his many alegories which explain the virtues of a Chritian, and how one should act. Forgive, Love, Give, Faith, etc. If you're interested in what Christianity is, I'd highly recomend this book." +1614,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1RJD10TTI568L,"Pieter Uys ""Toypom""",6/8,5.0,1104624000,Deeply moving and thought-provoking,"In the foreword it is explained that this book is not one of philosophical musings but a work of oral literature addressed to a people at war. It was originally broadcast by the BBC from 1942 to 1944, hence the gripping metaphors like the image of the earth as enemy-occupied territory. Mere Christianity is a book of plain but moving language.In Book One: Right and Wrong As a Clue To The Meaning Of The Universe, Lewis looks at the law of human nature (inherent knowledge of right and wrong), certain objections, the reality of the law and that which lies behind the law. Here he discusses the materialist, the life-force and the religious views of life.Book Two is a discussion on what Christians believe, in terms of the aforementioned occupied territory, a coming invasion, the penitent, and the practical conclusion. This section also deals with pantheism, dualism, free will, the divinity of Christ and God's intentions with the world.Book Three investigates Christian behaviour, in terms of the cardinal virtues, social and personal morality, morality and psychology, marriage, forgiveness, the great sin (narcissistic pride; in this regard, please also readPeople of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evilby M Scott Peck), and what charity, hope and faith really mean.Book 4 is a captivating explanation of the doctrine of the trinity. I found this part very interesting and sometimes deeply moving. Lewis speculates on the nature of time, the nature of man and the nature of God, as the Father the source, the Son an emanation of the source and the Holy Spirit as the spirit of love between Father and Son. Lewis explains what he thinks is the process whereby the individual receives a higher nature. This change in consciousness (infusion of the Holy Spirit) leads to a transcendence of the mortal nature by transforming the individual into a child of the divine.He argues convincingly for personalities in God and God as the ultimate personality. I found this very illuminating, also in light of having recently read the books byDeborah Whitehouseand Alan Anderson on Process New Thought, especially their view of the personhood of God and panentheism as it emerges from the work ofAlfred North Whitehead.Mere Christianity is a most memorable work that expresses ideas that are relevant to our times. It is a very refreshing expression of a personal Christian belief system that could serve as a strong antidote to the dictatorship of dogma or the staid boredom often associated with 20th century religion in the West. Deeply illuminating, Lewis' words I am sure make many people reconsider important ideas that they had taken for granted.I am not sure how close Lewis came to the truth in every respect, but much in his vision is inspiring, noble and infused with a sense of logic and common sense. Lewis' writing has an uplifting effect on the spirit. I recommend Mere Christianity to all people of faith and those in search of meaning. One might not ultimately agree with everything, but the thoughts expressed here certainly make you think." +1615,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A18PIHM4WCNNP5,Colin Moneymaker,3/6,5.0,1038960000,"A Review of C.S. Lewis's ""Mere Christianity""","From 1942 to 1944 C. S. Lewis did a series of radio broadcasts on Christian Faith. These broadcasts were then made into a book, Mere Christianity. A guideline to why and what Christian's believe, it gives an intellectual and philosophical understanding of Christianity. It is an excellent series of subjects starting with the ""Meaning of the Universe,"" where Lewis takes a systematic approach involving right and wrong as a key to understanding the Universe. As the book continues it follows a path in which Lewis gives insight towards more technical and precise variables of Christianity such as faith and forgiveness. He concludes the book with a large section on the ""Doctrines of the Trinity,"" plastered with metaphors and deep explanations concerning the world around us, rather than each of us as an individual personality. However, this book is a conquest for the truth, it does not have the final answer. If one finds a final answer for their spiritual beliefs in this book, they are contradicting what they have read. A final answer can only be found within one's self.Concerning the logical soundness of this book, C. S. Lewis demonstrates an almost uncanny ability to prove religious arguments with reason on a consistent basis. And to make it even better, he builds upon each subject that he proves. This is best noted in his explanations of the universe, where he concludes that there is a one God that created everything. However, there are obvious fallacies concerning the validity of Lewis's arguments. Although a great scholar and philosopher, he was once an atheist, which gives us the hint that he might not be such a great authority. And if he is a die-hard Christian, we must not overlook the fact that he is biased. There are very few instances where counter views, and arguments are presented. However, this book was written from a series of lectures during World War 2 where Lewis was given the task to explain the truth in Christianity, not prove it. Also, a large majority of the book relates to religious presumptions, which don't go with the flow of structural logic, but when dealing with religion improvable presumptions are inevitable. However, these are all minor technicalities that have little affect on the real meaning of the book. For Christians and non-Christians alike, truth prevails over faith. We must make sure we understand our beliefs before we completely conform to them. Faith and no margin for evidence results in blind ignorance.As a service to society, Lewis created a structural manual describing Christian values, and their affect on humanity. For the person looking for answers concerning their spirituality, this book is a gateway to finding them. It presents the reader with an opportunity to comprehend why Gods word is true. It also encourages questioning, and not only enlightens, but inspires reason. Summarizing the review is a quote that demonstrates the attitude of C.S. Lewis, ""In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth - only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair.""" +1616,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,ABXQOEOUJH2OJ,P. Keller,1/1,4.0,1301097600,Excellent Book,"This book is perfect for an C.S. Lewis fan. Great having the best of C.S. in one book, but I will say it is rather large so not so portable." +1617,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1TCAEIOFY7O1L,Nancy Connair,0/0,5.0,1358467200,The best!,It details his own journey to belief in God and Christianity. A must read for anyone with a questioning mind. +1618,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2VE83MZF98ITY,"FrKurt Messick ""FrKurt Messick""",37/37,5.0,1129852800,Superb collection,"C.S. Lewis was a rare individual. One of the few non-clerics to be recognised as a theologian by the Anglican church, he put forth the case for Christianity in general in ways that many Christians beyond the Anglican world can accept, and a clear description for non-Christians of what Christian faith and practice should be. Indeed, Lewis says in his introduction that this text (or indeed, hardly any other he produced) will help in deciding between Christian denominations. While he describes himself as a 'very ordinary layman' in the Church of England, he looks to the broader picture of Christianity, particularly for those who have little or no background. The discussion of division points rarely wins a convert, Lewis observed, and so he leaves the issues of ecclesiology and high theology differences to 'experts'. Lewis is of course selling himself short in this regard, but it helps to reinforce his point.This collection contains several of C.S. Lewis' classic works (although it is not in fact a complete collection of all his writings, not even of all his non-fiction writings). It contains the following works: 'Mere Christianity', 'The Screwtape Letters', 'The Great Divorce', 'The Problem of Pain', 'Miracles', 'A Grief Observed', plus 'The Abolition of Man'. It does provide an excellent survey of Lewis' theology, ethics, and general outlook on life. I will highlight two of the selections that show the different ways Lewis approaches things.For the first example, the book 'Mere Christianity' looks at beliefs, both from a 'natural' standpoint as well as a scripture/tradition/reason standpoint. Lewis looks both at belief and unbelief - for example, he states that Christians do not have to see other religions of the world as thoroughly wrong; on the other hand, to be an atheist requires (in Lewis' estimation) that one view religions, all religions, as founded on a mistake. Lewis probably surprised his listeners by starting a statement, 'When I was an atheist...' Lewis is a late-comer to Christianity (most Anglicans in England were cradle-Anglicans). Thus Lewis can speak with the authority of one having deliberately chosen and found Christianity, rather than one who by accident of birth never knew any other (although the case can be made that Lewis was certainly raised in a culture dominated by Christendom).Lewis also looks at practice - here we are not talking about liturgical niceties or even general church-y practices, but rather the broad strokes of Christian practice - issues of morality, forgiveness, charity, hope and faith. Faith actually has two chapters - one in the more common use of system of belief, but the other in a more subtle, spiritual way. Lewis states in the second chapter that should readers get lost, they should just skip the chapter - while many parts of Christianity will be accessible and intelligible to non-Christians, some things cannot be understood from the outside. This is the `leave it to God' sense of faith, that is in many ways more of a gift or grace from God than a skill to be developed.Finally, Lewis looks at personality, not just in the sense of our individual personality, but our status as persons and of God's own personality. Lewis' conclusion that there is no true personality apart from God's is somewhat disquieting; Lewis contrasts Christianity with itself in saying that it is both easy and hard at the same time. Lewis looks for the `new man' to be a creature in complete submission and abandonment to God. This is a turn both easy and difficult.'Mere Christianity' was originally a series of radio talks, published as three separate books - 'The Case for Christianity', 'Christian Behaviour', and 'Beyond Personality'. This book brings together all three texts. Lewis' style is witty and engaging, the kind of writing that indeed lives to be read aloud. Lewis debates whether or not it was a good idea to leave the oral-language aspects in the written text (given that the tools for emphasis in written language are different); I think the correct choice was made.On the other hand, Lewis can write in ways that are intensely personal and reflective. This is true of the book 'A Grief Observed'. This was drawn out of his personal experience with his wife, Joy. C.S. Lewis was a confirmed bachelor (not that he was a 'confirmed bachelor', mind you, just that he had become set enough in his ways over time that he no longer held out the prospect of marriage or relationships). Then, into his comfortable existence, a special woman, Joy Davidson, arrived. They fell in love quickly, and had a brief marriage of only a few years, when Joy died of cancer.This left Lewis inconsolable.For his mother had also died of cancer, when he was very young.Cancer, cancer, cancer!Lewis goes through a dramatic period of grief, from which he never truly recovers (according to the essayist Chad Walsh, who writes a postscript to Lewis' book). He died a few years later, the same day as the assassination of John F. Kennedy.However, Lewis takes the wonderful and dramatic step of writing down his grief to share with others. The fits and starts, the anger, the reconciliation, the pain--all is laid bare for the reader to experience. So high a cost for insight is what true spirituality requires. An awful, awe-ful cost and experience.'Did you know, dear, how much you took away with you when you left? You have stripped me even of my past...'All that was good paled in comparison to the loss. How can anything be good again? This is such an honest human feeling, that even the past is no longer what is was in relation to the new reality of being alone again.In the end, Lewis reaches a bit of a reconciliation with his feelings, and with God.'How wicked it would be, if we could, to call the dead back. She said not to me, but to the chaplain, ""I am at peace with God."" 'Lewis had a comfortable, routine life that was jolted by love, and then devasted by loss. Through all of this, he took pains to recount what he was going through, that it might not be lost, that it might benefit others, that there might be some small part of his love for Joy that would last forever.I hope it shall.This is a wonderful collection." +1619,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,ACZLIPOHQEG4G,Newton,1/2,5.0,1345161600,An Excellent Communicator,"A logical presentation with vivid illustrations! Easy to read and understand. The reader is being guided step by step to comprehend the essences of Christianity. As a lively adaptation of this serious series of radio talks during the second world war when enmity was the core mentality, Lewis has successfully touched the heart of his readers with love and humility. He is particularly keen on giving his readers freedom not to read a certain chapter if they think the topic is irrelevant to them, thus making them even more eager to find out what is irrelevant. He also admits that some of his ideas are just guesses and some of his illustrations are limited, thus making him even more sincere and likable. Both Christians and ""Christians-to-be"" (as perceived by Lewis) will enjoy reading this concise and cogent case for Christianity." +1620,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2DEX3BR4A6SDP,Teri L. Dufilho,5/8,5.0,1097020800,"A ""must read"" for any thinking person.....","This is one of those books that needs to be on every bookshelf in every home and re-read every 5 years! I would also include ""I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Athiest"" by Geisler and Turek....awesome..." +1621,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3FRR7PAGN546J,"sooner ""Sunny""",0/1,5.0,1295222400,gift,"I rate this a 5 stars because I have heard alot about C.S. Lewis. I decided to give this as a gift, knowing I will read them afterwards, in borrowing them. I can't wait." +1622,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A17A1KTVI3DG6U,Nathan A. Edwards,7/7,5.0,1209168000,The deal of a lifetime!,"While it seems that many of C.S. Lewis' works have been compiled into collections since their initial publications, this particular collection might be one of the best available at the moment. That is, this collection might offer a comparatively larger bang for one's buck. Each of the titles contained within this single volume are more than worth their weight in gold, making the collection as a whole priceless. One should realize, however, that if the collective work is approached as one large, continuous reading, it might be seen as a tremendous undertaking. As large as the actual book might be, one should not be intimidated by its size, and feel comfortable tackling each of the separate texts as if it were independent from the larger collection if not only to avoid rushing in an attempt to reach its end.To avoid an unnecessarily long review, one might be best served, if at all interested, to examine the reviews available for each of the individual titles contained within this compilation. Beyond this it should be mentioned that while these are appropriately dubbed Lewis' signature classics, much of his work is omitted from this collection. A few additional suggestions if one is interested in this author are The Four Loves, Surprised by Joy, Letters to Malcolm, and God in the Dock among many, many others. Again, this collection is a legitimate bargain considering the wealth of knowledge it contains and the comparative price of purchasing each separately...or never inquiring at all." +1623,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1HAREI9MW1UTH,Arno Arrak,32/78,1.0,1157241600,Moral Law Is Naturally Selected,"This book has its origins in a series of wartime lectures that the author gave over BBC in 1943 which were later collated into three booklets and finally rendered into the present volume. The author, who says he was once an atheist, fancies that he can convert others into Christianity with his pop talk about the ""Moral Law"" or ""The Law of Right and Wrong"" he pulls out of himself. God embedded a knowledge of it into human nature he says and to him it is as real as the laws of physics except that we can disobey it. The first five chapters are devoted to this Moral Law and then he goes on to some basic Christian ethics. Included are the four cardinal virtues -- Prudence, Temperance, Justice and Fortitude -- as well as the three theological virtues -- Faith, Hope and Charity. His defense of God for allowing much evil in the world is that God gave us free will and we ourselves messed up our lives. That is a real copout for a supposedly all-good, omnipotent being. If the Nazi and Communist mass murders leave him unmoved, what chance is there that he will interfere about the woes of an individual human being? Although not married Lewis lived with an older woman (mother of his fallen comrade) for more than a decade. In discussing Christian marriage, however, he speaks of ""the monstrosity of intercourse outside the marriage."" and goes on to suggest that ""divorce is something like cutting up a living body."" Also, in marriage, ""Christian wives promise to obey their husband"" and ""...the man is said to be the `head'."" For those already converted or on the verge of being converted all that sermonizing does have a morale-boosting quality, for it tells them just what they want to hear. And what does conversion do for you? ""Those who put themselves in His hands will become perfect, as He is perfect - perfect in love, wisdom, joy, beauty, and immortality.The change will not be completed in this life, for death is an important part of the treatment."" In plain language, you have to die first in order to collect your just rewards as a Christian. Or, like it says in ""The Preacher and the Slave,"" ""...you get pie in the sky when you die."" However, Francis Collins, the director of the Human Genome Project, read the book when a preacher whose advice he sought handed it to him and became a famous convert. You really have to want to believe badly and close your eyes to all that unreality which is part of the package to accept such delusions but Collins manages to do it. He in particular should know that modern science has found the physical basis for that moral instinct upon which Lewis builds his case. Quite simply, we are a social species and evolution has provided us with social instincts necessary to hold society together. In ""The Science of Good and Evil"" Michael Shermer has worked out some consequences of evolutionary ethics. Michael Gazzaniga, speaking of brain scans in ""The Ethical Brain,"" points out that whenever a person is willing to act on a moral belief the emotional part of his brain has become active while considering the moral question at hand. In ""Moral Minds"" Marc D. Hauser introduces the idea of an evolved moral grammar, analogous to that which we possess for language and of which we are not aware of but which is capable of rapid ethical decision making. Physical damage to some parts of the forebrain, as happened to Phineas Gage in 1848 and to others since, will destroy all moral inhibitions we have. The latter fact is proof that it is a properly functioning brain, not some spiritual essence that is responsible for moral behavior. Further proof comes from the observation that autists lack emotions, including any sort of moral sense as a result of their brain defects. All this of course is knowledge Lewis could not have had but which Collins should have been aware of. Atheism is quickly dismissed by Lewis as being ""too simple"" (which says nothing about its validity). And his treatment of evolution is equally cavalier: ""By one chance in a thousand something hit our sun and made it produce planets; and by another thousandth chance the chemicals necessary for life, and the right temperature, occurred on one of these planets, and so some of the matter on this earth came alive; and then, by a very long series of chances, the living creatures developed into things like us."" This materialist view is not for him for he prefers the religious view -- the view that behind the universe is something like a mind which is conscious and has purposes. And one of its purposes is to produce creatures like itself that have minds, which means us. He does not tell us how he came to know all this or why we should take his word for it and simply says that trying to disprove it by ""science in the ordinary sense"" (whatever that may mean) is impossible. Further reading reveals that not only is his science out of date but that he also makes a joke of it: ""Every scientific statement...in the long run really means something like, "" I pointed the telescope at such and such part of the sky at 2:20 A.M. on January 15th and saw so-and-so,"" or, ""I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so."" My mind simply boggles at the legions of faithful who lap up this nonsense and give him five stars. Lifelong indoctrintion easily overcomes the few weeks of studying evolution they get in high school and gives them no chance to consider the alternative. Lewis himself belongs to that ilk of British intellectuals ignorant of science who drove C. P. Snow into distraction over the two cultures he was to write about later." +1624,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A388BCLXV6H9YD,"Petit Oiseau ""farmer's wife""",0/5,4.0,1254096000,"Rough paper, but holds up well","Amended review: I originally rated this at 1 star because of the quality of the materials and binding. My initial reaction when I took it out of the box was ""Yuck. This feels and looks awful."" I have changed the rating on this to 4 stars based on the fact that, although I feel the overall look and feel of this edition is rough (The publisher's attempt to mimic a high-quality hardcover edition? If so, they needn't have bothered.), it has held up well over several months of almost daily reading and studying. The cover is still in good shape and the pages firmly intact, so it has proven to be good-quality binding. I prefer smoother pages, but pages that stay in the book are even more important! I still think the overall look is a little off-putting, but it hasn't impacted the book's utility or my study of its content. Thanks to those who commented and impelled me to take another look at my review and initial reaction." +1625,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,AST8AAKSJKAQ1,"thing two ""thing two""",1/1,5.0,1324684800,Basic Premises of common Christian doctrine,"Written in 1943 at the tail end of WWII, Mere Christianity was originally produced as a radio broadcast where the author presented the basic premises of common Christian doctrine. It became so popular Lewis produced a written form of his broadcast which became this book." +1626,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1TS9HPBWUS4ZM,MonBro,0/0,5.0,1350864000,Beyond this world....,"wonderful, thought provoking, massively intellectual (and way too much for me) - it's a constant re-read. Some of his thoughts go way over my head and I am not on his wave length intellectually or iq - but somethings I totally get - and he talks sense (when I get it). I take some, i leave what I don't get, but that is the beauty of the journey of christianity - not just questioning - but realising that it just IS. and knowing that is just AWESOME!" +1627,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,AI6BQRT7P0TQA,D. M. Fox,0/0,5.0,1232409600,Lewis is a genius!,"Every page of this substantial work is filled with incredible insight and beautiful writing. I feel this should be required reading for all Christians. After reading this I feel well prepared for defending my faith. If you are a non-believer, reading Lewis will force you to question your reasoning and examine your spiritual condition from an honest, intellectual viewpoint." +1628,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2BJA9Z00O09XB,Amy Fulton,0/0,5.0,1358294400,One of the best,"This book changed my life forever. This is a profound, intelligent book on his arrival to Christianity. Great book for anyone questioning their faith that want answers based on fact and not on emotion." +1629,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3BT7PRPVH8HBI,Reader From Aurora,4/7,5.0,1155427200,The Classic of Twentieth Century Christian Apologetics,"Mere Christianity by C.S Lewis was derived from three radio lectures given by the author during the Second World War. Lewis is a well-known mid-twentieth century writer with popular works in a variety of genres; religious fiction, children's fiction, science fiction as well as religion/philosophy.Mere Christianity remains, probably, the most significant twentieth century Christian apologetic text. Lewis employs what is known as the classic approach to apologetics - starting with a general argument for the existence of God then moving on to make the specific case Christianity. Contrary to an earlier reviewer - this is a general introduction aim at the lay reader. Although all readers can find it helpful, it is not aimed at ""intellectuals"". Readers seeking more significant philosophical argumentation on these types of issues may want to look at the likes of Plantinga, Craig, Moreland etc.One small criticism of the book is the last chapter - it has 1940's speculative science fiction feel. Lewis' interest in science fiction; coupled with the progressive view of evolution popular among thinkers at the time makes it feel dated and a bit out of place for an introductory text.Overall, Mere Christianity is a classic (The audio version is also tremendous). I highly recommend it as a starting point for anyone interested in Christian apologetics. Readers that enjoy this may also like The Screwtape Letters and the Great Divorce also from Lewis." +1630,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A19MCPV5GYHP7W,Wasco,2/5,5.0,1300752000,Amazed,"I recomend this to any one wether Christian, athiest, agnostic, deist, antitheist, and the like. a work like no other. truly amazing" +1631,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A9FFBJ4E43ZRM,Louis E Valbracht,0/0,5.0,1360454400,"What we, as Christians, believe (in a nutshell).",Read it for the second or third time and it is always amazingly new. I plan to go to a seminar this summer at the Kilns (Jack's home near Oxford) so I wanted to get back up to speed. Also recommend George Sayers' bio of Lewis. +1632,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,,,1/3,5.0,933292800,Very good,"C.S.Lewis has some very good arguments, and illustrates them very clearly with parables or images. He makes you think a lot, and you face what he says in everyday life." +1633,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1E2P346COXFSW,B. Stubblefield,278/300,5.0,1004572800,A Great Simplistic View of A Complex Subject,"After reading several books on a similar topic that did nothing but confuse me, I was glad that I came upon C.S. Lewis's work. All of the other books about the existence of God are way off in their own world, and discourage anyone who feels lost in their ideas about God. This book really explained the reasons that God must exist, and then moved on to easily describe the major beliefs of Christians, without leaving anyone out in the cold on what the key issues actually are. This book is perfect for the agnostic, the atheist, and even the Christian that wants to know the logical and simple reasons that C.S. Lewis came to be a Christian. Over and over, his words made me see even the simplest concepts of religion in a completely new light. I was greatly impressed and have already read this book multiple times." +1634,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,AMC8I0W24QI3J,"S. Stryker ""bargin hunter""",1/1,5.0,1286755200,Incredible!,One of the best books on Christianity I have ever read. This book was given to me by a former agnostic who is now a Christian and much of the conversion was from this book. C S Lewis somehow manages to give practical reasoning to a subject I thought could only be taken on faith. I highly recommend to anyone who wants answers to questions about Christianity that no one else can answer in such a practical way. +1635,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1P0ZB4YAA312R,Wesley L. Janssen,2/4,5.0,1018742400,A fascinating book.,"By any measure, this is a classic work of twentieth century apologetics. Lewis does an effective job of exploring the moral argument and then moves forward into presuppositional arguments. You may or may not agree with Lewis -- many fundamentalists struggle with his positions, as of course do atheists -- but anyone interested in questions of God's existence and nature will do himself a favor in reading this book.Discussing his own journey from atheism to Christianity, Lewis relates: ""... in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist -- in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless -- I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality -- namely my idea of justice -- was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.""" +1636,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1VA170GUYGTB,Paula L. Craig,24/47,2.0,1142121600,Christianity is great--if you ignore all the problems,"Lewis states that he wrote this book with the idea of convincing atheists. As an atheist myself, I had heard Lewis was the best Christian apologist there is. If these arguments are the best Christianity can come up with, atheism doesn't have much to worry about.Lewis takes the approach in this book of focusing on all the doctrines the largest branches of Christianity have in common, deliberately ignoring controversial issues. The problem with this is that the endless proliferation of Christian sects is one of the strongest arguments against Christianity. If Christians themselves can't agree on what Christ really taught or what God wants from us, what chance is there of convincing atheists--or for that matter Muslims or Hindus? Lewis says that as far as people who have never heard of Christ, we just don't know what God has arranged for them, so we should leave it up to God. This strikes me as an intellectual cop-out. Part of the reason atheism makes sense to me is that atheism has intellectual coherence. Atheism doesn't have to twist itself into knots over the problem of how God can love all his children but leave most of them without knowledge of him, or how God can be good when the world around us often seems filled with evil and injustice.Lewis claims that our ideas of goodness and justice, which are common to all cultures, mean there must be a God. I disagree. I don't see any reason why evolution could not produce human beings having a sense of right and wrong. To some extent, a sense of right and wrong is a necessity for social animals. Chimpanzees complain when something they have worked to get is stolen from them. Wolves reject another wolf from the pack if he doesn't behave as a wolf should. Why would human beings be different?Lewis also argues that the fact that humans hunger to find meaning in life means that there must be a God. I agree that humans have a tendency to be discontented and hunger for more. But what evidence is there such discontent could not evolve in human beings? A certain amount of discontent could have benefitted our ancestors by keeping them always trying to better their circumstances, instead of getting complacent. As a former Christian myself, I also know that Christianity doesn't necessarily bring contentedness. Some atheists are indeed miserable people, but many are happy. As far as my own life, I would call it generally pretty good. The Christians of my acquaintance don't seem to have more meaningful or happy lives on average than the atheists.Lewis has a reputation for being a logician. In my opinion, much of his ""logic"" is absurd. For example, Lewis spends a lot of time on the Trinity and how the three persons are connected. He talks about the Son streaming forth from the Father, and that this has always been so, etc. This just makes me laugh. And Lewis thinks that atheism makes no sense?If Christianity really worked to make bad people good and good people better, I would be the first to sign up. If Christianity was an effective way to relieve poverty and bring peace, I would definitely consider it. If Christianity were just a silly hobby that made people feel good and harmed no one, it wouldn't bother me. Unfortunately, that isn't what I see. Even when in power, Christianity has made little or no progress in solving the social problems that it deals with, such as poverty and violence. Christianity systematically ignores the most serious problems of our times: overpopulation, exhaustion of resources, and pollution, among others. Why does Christianity ignore these problems? Because they receive little or no attention in the Bible.As far as the book itself, Lewis is a fine writer who is never boring. For that reason I give the book two stars. If you're interested in basic Christianity, this is a good introduction. Before taking it too seriously, however, I would strongly recommend reading other points of view. As far as the major problems of our times, I would suggest Kunstler's ""The Long Emergency."" For a defense of atheism and the naturalistic worldview,I would suggest Carl Sagan's ""The Demon-Haunted World"" or Taner Edis' ""The Ghost in the Universe.""I read ""Mere Christianity"" because I feel as a scientist that it is important not to simply dismiss religion as silly, but to give Christians their chance to convince me. If you're a Christian, are you willing to do the same for the other side?" +1637,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,AV2JGJTENUWWG,"D. Myers ""Godlover""",0/0,5.0,1360540800,Great cover,"I figured with the price of this classic so good that the cover would be typical, not true! The cover is great with rough edge trim on the pages....love it!" +1638,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,AMXBUNR5830GM,Frankster,0/0,5.0,1353024000,"Great Collection, but book is very large","Awesome book, I would recommend it to anyone but take a look at the dimensions. It probably wont fit on your bookshelf, but get it anyway! Its awesome, looks great, has a ribbon bookmark! SOOOOO GOOOOD" +1639,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3JSLFASNRNXGH,Michael B. Bruneio,25/62,1.0,954979200,Preaching to the Converted,"C.S. Lewis is without doubt the finest Christian apologetic who ever lived. While reading "Mere Christianity," I could not help being impressed with his persuasive writing style and heart-felt conviction. Upon closer inspection, however, subtle ambiguities come to light. Though they are too numerous to mention here, suffice it to say that Lewis relies on emotion rather than logic and empiricism to reach his "logical" conclusions. On the positive side is his irreproachabe sincerity: C.S. Lewis is one of the few men who give Christians a GOOD name. Regardless of his faith, he was a lion of a man and scholar, and his kind is sorely missed. Too bad he, like so many others, preferred comfort to the Truth." +1640,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1275PU8CE6NGU,machelle,0/0,5.0,1348617600,great book.,this book is truly inspired.he speaks with such authority that could only come from the presence of God.this book was not based much on intellectual research but divine insight and experiential knowledge.i recommend this book to anyone who seeks more than just religion.this is true human philosophy; not the varied theories and opinions we have of humanity but the truth about humanity. +1641,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,,,14/44,2.0,956188800,Brimming with Hellfire,"I found myself fearful of the Christian religion. After I read this I felt like saying to myself, "Thanks Jesus, since I don't believe in you I suppose I am going to Hell - thanks for being such a great sport!"A Christian friend reccommended this book to me and at times the book was threatining and downright scary. I suppose if I were a fundamentalist I would be applauding his prose, but as a non-Christian I find it frightening that people believe this stuff" +1642,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1198KRIRGK0E9,"A. P. Garrett ""ubi_caritas""",18/19,5.0,1043971200,"Great Writings, Minor Publishing Problem","The Signature Classics appeal to the rational mind the way the Narnia Series appeals to the imagination. For many Christians who grew up in the faith, trying to converse with non-believers is like trying to describe colors to a blind person. C.S. Lewis helps both believers and non-believers understand the Rationality of Faith. Having these works collected in a single volume is quite a treasure and belongs on the bookself (or in the hands) of every Christian.So far the only two complaints I have with this edition are quite minor. The first is the size of the volume. I would have preferred the publishers had added more pages and decreased the highth and depth to make it more easily fit with other books when resting on the shelf between readings. The second is that they (very nicely) provided a ribbon book mark but THREE would have been even nicer. Many of these writings are very dense and need to be consumed (or re-consumed) in small increments. Switching from one to another allows the mind to digest the material before continuing, and having several bookmarks is almost a necessity.These problems are minor, however. I can not overstate how much I enjoy having this book in my home. Over and over again as I read through this book I find myself astounded with Lewis' insight and clarity. This is definitely a book to buy, to keep, and to read." +1643,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2GPON38WX2B51,"john j. jingleheimerschmidt ""jjj""",1/7,5.0,1226880000,'Oxford Retard' yet to receive a coherent rebuttal...,I agree with the 1 star reviewers. This was no scholarly work. It wasn't nearly enough pages long. He didn't even use long words. If he was really an intellectual don't you think he would have used longer words? +1644,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A300IBRCB2JUZ7,j-man,7/9,5.0,948844800,MERE CHRISTIANITY,"MOST COMPELLING BOOK ON THE SUBJECT I HAVE EVER READ. I HAVE GIVEN MANY COPIES TO AN ASSORTMENT OF FRIENDS AND I HAVE NEVER HAD ONE THAT DID NOT SAY, AFTER READING,........THIS IS A GREAT BOOK!" +1645,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A239046JRDU10O,Sam Hotcreek,0/0,5.0,1352764800,Loved it!,"I love books by CS Lewis. It was a long time ago when I read this book. Even though I am not Christian, I felt I understood the logic of the book. Quite refreshing!" +1646,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,AG8HPNPZE46BF,Salvo Parenti,9/19,2.0,1014076800,will not convince the non-believer,"I read this book thinking that it would be an argument for Christianity. Instead, the book assumes that you have already accepted Christianity and want to know where to go from there.Some of the arguments are VERY weak (ex. The universe must have meaning because we have a concept of meaning. It's like if we lived in a world of all darkness we would not have a concept of light) The light and dark part are true because we can only see things as light and dark. But we have a concept of meaning in almost everything that we do. Not just the universe.Also some of the thoughts are a bit dated (Couples should stay together because the woman must have sacrificed her career for raising children).For someone looking for a book that will ""prove"" or ""convince"" him or her that there is a god, this book is not for you. It presents too many theories as fact and uses them as a basis for all its arguments. The non-believer should look else where for a compelling argument of the other side." +1647,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3RVS3ZM572HZK,Rondall Reynoso,5/6,4.0,1123804800,Excellent to a point,"I was simultaneously impressed and disappointed in Mere Christianity. I am ashamed to say that I never read this book until recently. I should have since it is by many considered to be a halmark of Christian appologetic literature. Lewis' conversational style is appealing and make this small book a fairly easy read. I do have to admit that the first part of the book is brilliant. It is an extremely articulate arguement for the law of God being written on our hearts. No doubt it will not convince those who are philosophically opposed to the very idea but for those who are willing to read what God has written it should be very powerful. There are times that the arguements flowed to the point that I had to reread parts. I actually feel that while his conversational style makes for an easy read it at times convolutes the logic which is generally (though not always) sound once you go back and track it down.Book 2 (What Christians Believe) was fairly good but I have to admit that there were parts of Book 3 (Christian Behavior)that I found to be tedious. Book 4 (Beyond Presonality: Or First Steps in the Doctrine fo the Trinity) was pretty hit and miss parts were brilliant and others were lacking.What this book impressed uponme the most is that despite the accolades we need to read everything with a critial eye. As, I have stated parts of this book are brilliant and worthy of study. But, at the same time we need to recognize the deficiencies in Lewis' Theology. His discomfort with the exclusivity of Christ is hinted at in this book and expanded in others. But, also we need to be carely about the very idea of Mere Christianity. He makes a great effort to be theologically inclusive in this book and in the Preface Lewis even draws the analogy of Christianity being a large Hall and the different parts of Christianity being different doors leading out of the hall. He ackowledges that when we seek to open the door we need to seek which door is true but he says his purpose is only to lead us to the Hall. This way of thinking resonates strongly today. But, if one door is true then another door may not be true and that is deffinately something we need to consider. The discussions of Mere Christianity have their place but they must not replace the discussions of our Creeds. Souls often hang in the balance." +1648,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1Z0LLO7WEKMUW,"Randle Rector ""Randy""",6/10,5.0,1071792000,Scarecrows Are For The Birds,"Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis is a book I consider must reading for everyone. You've probably noticed that I have given it five stars, and from this you may conclude that I am a believer (and you would be right). However, I am not saying that you have to agree with this book. Just get it, read it, reread it, and ponder it. One reading is not enough. The reason I say this is that we all have a tendency to read what we expect a writer to say into what he actually does say.Many critics of Lewis often set up "straw man" arguments. They read some flawed logic into his words and then easily knock it down. For example, Lewis said, "Reality is something you could not have guessed. This is one of the reasons I believe in Christianity. It is a religion you could not have guessed." The context of these statements shows that Lewis meant that reality has a curious twist of "oddness" about it, and this is one of the reasons he is a believer; Christianity echoes that curious twist of oddness. Please note, he said "one of the reasons", by which he meant "in conjunction with other reasons" that he has given. Some say he meant that the world is complex, Christianity is complex, therefore it must be true. They then demolish this straw man by pointing out that all this really means is that a person is free to attend the most complicated religion of their choice. That is not what Lewis said. It is always a good idea to check the context when interpreting any statement."Circular reasoning" can also be a staw man argument. For example, Lewis is supposed to have said that one believes what the New Testament says because Jesus is the Son of God and one believes He is the Son of God because of the Bible's description of His life. If Lewis actually implied that, it would be circular reasoning and worthy of being discounted. But did he? I have read Mere Christianity several times and I never got that Lewis was saying one belives what the New Testament says "because Jesus is the Son of God." Lewis says the New Testament is reliable reporting, and gives other reasons for believing this, but Jesus being the Son of God is that which is to be demonstrated.These are just two examples of many straw man arguments based on not paying attention to what C.S. Lewis actually does say in Mere Christianity. Maybe if you get it, read it, reread it, and ponder it, you will find a really valid argument against it. Until then, don't jump to conclusions or assume you already know what this book is all about. I will try to do the same." +1649,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,,,1/2,5.0,922320000,"impressively logical, profound","I admire the way Lewis hits on all the basic aspects of the Christian life in a logical and mathematical way. Many atheists view Christianity as illogical and mindless...well here Lewis shows how much brainwork is actually involved in Christianity. What's nice about it is that he does it in a simple, easy to read manner. Highly recommended for all Christians, even non-Christians!" +1650,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A26W10N6HVB0ZY,"C. Catherwood ""writer""",5/9,5.0,1063411200,This is one of the greatest Christian books ever written,"This is one of the greatest Christian books ever written, and it is more than very exciting indeed to see that, years after it first came out, Christians are still reading from it and profiting from it. This is one of those life-changing books that every Christian ought to read - and one that they can easily give to their non-Christian friends, especially in the mushy post-modern age that we live in now. Buy it now! Christopher Catherwood, someone who corresponded with CS Lewis in the great man's lifetime and now the author of CHRISTIANS MUSLIMS AND ISLAMIC RAGE (Zondervan, 2003)" +1651,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1WDSXUNEL71OI,Gregory Eckhart,17/21,5.0,955238400,Definitely a classic,"C.S. Lewis gives the best explaination of morality I've ever read in the first few chapters. At the end of the book he also gives an awesome explaination of the Trinity. The chapter entitled "The Great Sin," which focuses on the vice of pride, is one of the best chapters in the history of Christian literature. I think this book is a great read for a Christian or for someone who just wants to know what Christianity is all about." +1652,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3J2BL4AQLS386,Wayne J. Rumsey,4/10,2.0,1247702400,"Well written, but not convincing.","Lewis is skilled with the language, so the book is a pleasure to read. But it is simplistic, relies on assumptions, and over-uses analogies." +1653,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3TD66SPAV40JC,"Soozare Zoomaroo ""mrwolley""",2/2,5.0,1198022400,"Very insightful and profound, but not a novel","bought this book initially being drawn to the author and references that were made to his work in other books that i have read, and i was not disappointed. The first book in the compilation, Mere Christianity, dealt with the topic from a perspective that i never considered before- at the end of which i think non can refute the ideas postulated by the author. And that is one thing that must be said of CS Lewis- the ideas that he puts forward are profoundly original, and he does so in a very very logical manner, with one thought connecting with the other effectually making the 'whole' very clear.Truth be told however, this is not a novel, or some book you can pick up and read in one night because you are intrigued by some catchy story line. If you dont have a taste for these sort of things, and an appreciation for what i view as a superior writing style, you may be daunted when you get to books like miracles. Nevertheless, i would give this book my personal recommendation, it is fresh (original), well written, logical etc. and well worth your money" +1654,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2OJFORF239A8Z,Shanice,0/0,5.0,1355788800,Opens up your mind,I read this book fuzzy headed and doubtful however it has completely cleared my mind and opened it up to the possibilities of the world. It explains and attempts to delve into concepts we as people struggle with every day in an honest and truthful manner. Great read! +1655,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,AGHIV0V0ON7MO,David Graham,23/25,5.0,898992000,Superb,"Mere Christianity is a revised and enlarged edition of the three books produced from C.S. Lewis's radio broadcasts in England during World War II: The Case for Christianity, Christian Behaviour, and Beyond Personality. Here is the outline for Mere Christianity:Book I. RIGHT AND WRONG AS A CLUE TO THE MEANING OF THE UNIVERSE. 1.) The Law of Human Nature (Where Lewis begins by saying, "Every one has heard people quarrelling," then goes on to talk about the moral law people appeal to when they argue.) 2.) Some Objections 3.)The Reality of the Law 4.) What Lies Behind the Law 5.) We Have Cause to Be UneasyBook II. WHAT CHRISTIANS BELIEVE 1.) The Rival Conceptions of God 2.) The Invasion 3.) The Shocking Alternative (where Lewis presents his claims that Jesus of Nazareth was either God incarnate, a liar, or a lunatic, but not merely a good moral teacher.) 4.) The Perfect Penitent 5.) The Practical ConclusionBook III. CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOUR 1.) The Three Parts of Morality 2.) The "Cardinal Virtues" (Lewis discusses Prudence, Temperance, Justice, and Fortitude) 3.) Social Morality 4.) Morality and Psychoanalysis 5.) Sexual Morality 6.) Christian Marriage 7.) Forgiveness 8.) The Great Sin (pride) 9.) Charity 10.) Hope 11.) Faith 12.) FaithBook IV. BEYOND PERSONALITY: OR FIRST STEPS IN THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 1.) Making and Begetting 2.) The Three-Personal God 3.) Time and Beyond Time 4.) Good Infection 5a.) The Obstinate Toy Soldiers 6.) Two Notes 7.) Let's Pretend 8.) Is Christianity Hard or Easy? 9.) Counting the Cost 10.) Nice People or New Men 11.) The New MenIn his preface, Lewis wrote, "The reader should be warned that I offer no help to anyone who is hesitating between two Christian "denominations." You will not learn from me whether you ought to become an Anglican, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, or a Roman Catholic. . . Ever since I became a Christian I have thought that the best, perhaps! the only, service I could do for my unbelieving neighbours was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times." This was Lewis's purpose in creating this book, to discuss what Baxter called "mere" Christianity, or the bare essentials that should be common to all Christians. In a book that is less than 200 pages long, it is amazing that Lewis was able to accomplish such a task. Regardless of whether you are already a Christian, or someone who is interested only in what it is that Christians believe, this concise book explains the basics in an engaging fashion." +1656,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,,,1/4,5.0,854409600,The warm hands that thaw the skeptic's frozen heart,"What can be said that hasn't already be said about this amazing book. This is the book that brought me to the heart of Christ and showed me what it truly means to be Christian. After reading this book the Bible came alive with meaning and now never ceases to speak to my heart. I shall never be the same again, nor do I want to be. If you are to read this book please lay aside your presuppostions about Christianity and Jesus, open your mind and open your heart or open not the book at all. If today you hear His voice harden not your heart" +1657,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,,,32/58,3.0,939513600,Second-rate even among Lewis's oeuvre,"C. S. Lewis has been compared to such robust Christian and literary personalities as Chesterton and Samuel Johnson, and like them it's impossible to sum him up in a single sentence. Well -- Lewis was a fascinating man. I doubt he would have had his virtues if he had not had his contradictions. But all personal opinions about the man aside, this book is not Lewis at his best. Conceded, he had an extraordinary gift for metaphor, wrote with disarming clarity and lucidity, and, as far as I can tell, really strove to live a life of spiritual regeneration. These elements are present in this book, but cannot redeem its gross failing to make Christian orthodoxy appear logical. [You can interpret that remark however you like.] As Hardy (I believe it was) said of Cardinal Newman's _Apologia_, the argument is admirable and would compel assent if only one could accept the initial premises. I give it three stars because it is better than a lot of stuff that gets published, it's become sort of a classic and deserves a point for that, and, finally, it does have its "moments"; but I can't give it any more because of the frankly elementary lapses in reasoning, and because its reputation (IMHO) far exceeds its worth. Here's a tear-out guide to your likely reaction depending on your faith or lack of it:1) Theologically conservative Christian, esp. evangelical Protestant: You'll love this book, if you haven't already read it.2) Other Christian: You'll find much of value and might even be swayed toward Lewis's orthodoxy.3) Lapsed Christian and/or "seeker": This could signal your reawakening, like the _Hortensius_ to St. Augustine -- depending on your previous reading and experience. But you're not likely to be *wholly* won over.3) Hardened atheist: You'll be confirmed in all your worst opinions about the intelligence of Christians.4) Agnostic: Your results will vary." +1658,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2Y47HN5IP85J,M. Richardson,6/7,3.0,1267660800,Articulate and Eminently Readable Classic of Christian Apologetics,"CS Lewis' apologetic classic, Mere Christianity, while dated in many ways (the basic content was formulated in a series of BBC radio broadcasts in the early 40s), is probably the best short and sweet introduction to the ideas of Christianity that you could ask for. Lewis was a fantastic author of both fiction and non-fiction, and his writing here is joy to read: lucid, humble, direct, and unpretentious, all at once. He communicates complex religious ideas to the common person gracefully, and somehow manages to avoid sounding like he is ever talking down to them. This is undoubtedly one of the primary reasons why this simple work has influenced so many people: it is approachable, but it isn't watered-down, either.Another reason this work is so remarkable is because of how unconventional it was, for its time: rather than engaging in the kind of circular argumentation that Christians are commonly (and rightly) mocked for, Lewis attempts to build a philosophical case for the truth of Christianity from the ground up. With nary a bible verse citation or argument from design/revelation in sight, he begins, first, with the basic universal moral code found, in one variation or another, in all societies around the world, throughout history, and from there works his way up to the existence of a God. Not the Christian God, mind you, but merely a purely theistic conception of God. From there, he analyzes further types of religious ideas, rejecting what he views as false ideas as he goes along, until he comes to the basic concept of the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, and from there begins to explore genuinely Christian religious concepts. The idea here was that one could arrive at a belief in the truth of Christianity through the process of reasoning alone. Needless to say, this remains hugely influential.Well, so far, it sounds like I really like this book. So why only three stars? It is because Lewis' reasoning is often fallacious. Other reviews have gotten into specifics (the fallaciousness of the argument from universal morality, the fallaciousness of the liar/lunatic/lord argument, etc.), so I'll spare the recap. Needless to say, however, because of the weaknesses in this work's central arguments, I remain an unconvinced atheist. Nevertheless, this book is profoundly well-written, historically significant, and some of its ideas have made for interesting discussions with Christian friends. So I'm rating this three stars. This isn't anywhere near the best Christian apologetic available on the market, but you can't beat it as an introduction to the field of Christian apologetics. If you're Christian, you've probably already read this and most likely adore it. If you're a non-Christian, it might give you some interesting ideas to chew on for awhile, even if it isn't enough to sway your belief at all." +1659,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1LY0XINEWNHVB,dmm,3/3,5.0,1168387200,Awesome but not really complete,"Other reviewers have explained well why this collection deserves 5 stars. I'd only like to add that the publisher makes (or at least did make) each of the included books available as a C.S. Lewis Signature Classic, as part of its Signature Classic line of books. So there are other works by Lewis that classify as Lewis classics, or even as classics, period. An example would be ""Till We Have Faces."" But this is quibbling. To include all of the classic Lewis works in one volume would require, not a coffee table book, but a book the size of a coffee table. This is a great collection, nicely bound, on good paper with clear type and a readable font size, at an unbeatable price. I wouldn't take it hiking, but it's no bigger than many textbooks, atlases, picture books, etc." +1660,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2H4C3G4I6V8ZU,Philip A. Rowlings,0/0,5.0,1356393600,Excellent apologetic,Amazing how this book goes on and on and on as an all time best seller. I thing moral psychology would now open up some new ways to think about some of the intent. +1661,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A335YAUB8CMNUF,The Actor,3/3,5.0,1185321600,Thoroughly deserves its status as a classic,"Although there are doubtless classics that don't deserve that status, this book is not one of them. This book is an absolute must-read that has stood the test of time very well and is still thoroughly relevant today. There are a few books I think every Christian should read; this one is near the top.Whether you're a new Christian trying to learn more about your faith, or you've been a Christian for awhile and want to learn how to defend your faith, or aren't a Christian at all and would like to know why Christians believe what they do, then this is the book for you. I wouldn't even think about going into apologetics without having read it, and I would wholeheartedly recommend it to non-Christians and ""seekers"" who want to learn more about Christianity. This is also a great book for Christians of any maturity level; in fact, it's one you'll probably want to read multiple times.In our postmodernist, relativistic age where people are becoming increasingly skeptical of Christianity, it is becoming more important than ever to be able to articulate and defend the truth clearly, and this book will help you do that as a Christian. Christianity is facing challenges on every side, from the rise of Islam to the popularity of the ""New Atheists"" to the dominance of secular humanism in the public school system, and Christians MUST be able to respond to these challenges; if we can't, then I fear for the future of Christianity in this culture.Not that the benefits of this book are exclusively for Christians. Even if you're a non-Christian, I think you will find this book informative and thought-provoking; it will show you that being a Christian does not require you to exercise blind faith, check reason at the door, or ignore the facts. I once heard someone define faith as believing something you know isn't true; C. S. Lewis shows that, at least in terms of Christianity, nothing could be further from the truth. Who knows - you may even be persuaded by this book, as many other people have, and become a Christian yourself. But even if you don't, I think you will still find this book challenging.I honestly can't recommend this book enough. I can't think of anyone who I wouldn't recommend this book to, and I would recommend it without reservation or qualification. If you've never read this book, I suggest you do so as soon as you can." +1662,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2GQDS8UMX8G3G,J. Lynn,1/1,5.0,1211587200,Timeless and Profound,C.S. Lewis provides a non-denominational view that penetrates the heart of the issues which make Christianity what it is. A must for anyone interested in understanding the tenets of Christianity. +1663,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A25W2GWQUAQK21,"""lshave""",5/7,4.0,1089936000,Mostly Good,"This book was not written in an attempt to convince the staunch non-believer. It was written for those who believe and those who doubt their non-belief. I felt that his opening chapters regarding the moral argument presented a strong point in a weak way.Lewis used very little scripture in this book, but I do not see that as a weakness. If Christ genuinely is the Word, then his message should make perfect sense even apart from the written word.One of the things Lewis demonstrated very well was the fact that if you look at man's dilemma as being fallen, and consider how he came to be in this dilemma, then the solution that Christianity offers makes perfect sense.The concept of the trinity is also covered very well.Finally, the chapter on God and Time sheds light on a few misconceptions about God's nature, and introduces a number of different ways of thinking about time that make it easier to see how God can hear everyone's prayers, or how the fact that God knows my future doesn't mean that I have no choice over the matter." +1664,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A4K0DNC1DXTIX,"Eva W. Mcbride ""eager beaver""",4/5,5.0,1160006400,The way back to God,First of all I have to say I'm very grateful to the author of this amazingly small but convincing book of Christianity.It has said something that I've always wanted to say but cannot find the words. It has taught me how to live a healthier spiritual life by avoiding the worst sin ofsins--Pride. This has cured almost all my girlish outburst and negativeemotions. +1665,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,AD9NQ659BBSE1,Edward Francis Jr.,0/0,5.0,1189382400,A must for EVERY Chritian or those considering Christianity,"Christianity is a journey of discovery and growth... Lewis, a one-time-atheist, has written incredible stories and teaching works that have inspired Christians and surprised everyone else for the better part of the last century. His way of bringing to light the answers to questions you have, and expounding on questions you might not have thought of yet will help anyone on their way to understanding powerful truths in life. Reading C S Lewis has shaped my understanding of my own faith in a way i could not have conceived. he does not present new and controversial ideas, or formulas... he merely helps to understand age old issues that affect us all.This book is a well put together collection of some of his greatest apologetic works that prove and illuminate the Christian Faith. If you don't have it, get it! Then, go out and get his other works, like The Cosmic Trilogy, or The Chronicle of Narnia. Lewis infuses his powerful ideas into these as well, and tells brilliantly woven stories that enthrall our imaginations and inspire our hearts. Please Enjoy..." +1666,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2U3M1UIO25EI5,Granibea,0/1,5.0,1355184000,Christianity read,"A book for every Christian who identifies himself by the title of their Denomination. Clarifies that once the traditions of man are taken away, we are all :Christians"" +1667,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2BYZMSRD19ZAX,Shannon Fairchild,0/0,4.0,1357257600,great gift for my sister and mom,This series is great and it includes alot of great theorys and gives a gide to those coming to faith and those already in it +1668,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2Q63CT42IDLH1,Burl Horniachek,14/30,2.0,1095811200,Dumbfounding gaps in logic,"I am a believer who loves the Lewis of the Narnia books, but his more argumentative books, including this one, Mere Christianity, are often rather lacking in basic coherence. The gaps in logic are often dumbfounding.My favorite example is Lewis's argument that you cannot accept Jesus as a wise man unless you accept that he is God, because anyone who claims to be God, and isn't God, is barking mad. Putting aside the issue of whether ""the hisorical Jesus"" actually made such a claim, alas, anyone who has ever taken a even a cursory look at the great writers and sages throughout history knows that one minute they can be the fount of wisdom and the next can be absolutely off their rocker. Dostoevsky springs most immediately to mind.And thats not the worst gap in logic in the book.So, those looking for a reasoned defense of Christianity are strongly advised to go straight to G.K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man and skip this one." +1669,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,,,28/100,1.0,1096934400,A Very Good Workout Book of Logic,"This is a great work out book if you are in to logic. Take this for example:""...Athiesm turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning...""It made me think for a while. At first, it made sense. As did the typical comparison Lewis made immediately afterward about if there was no light, ""dark"" would be meaningless.But then, I actually thought about it, and realized: if there was a or many gods, then the thought of a world without god/s would be meaningless, yet, it has meaning.In the same light, a world devoid of meaning could still contain the illusion of meaning, just as a world without divinity could still contain the illusion of one.So when one finds out that meaningfullnes is just an illusion, meaningless still retains a defintion since the experience of meaningfullness, even though it was never real, has been... experienced.To reiterate Lewis' argument, if the world was truely meaningless, then no one would realize the fact since meaning has never reached us. And that is true until you have taken the imaginative faculties of humanity. Meaning is purely perceptual, opinionated, biased. Sky diving can be extremely meaningful, but not to someone who hates it or does not care for the experience of falling. So taking the human mind out of the universe, it is entirely devoid of meaning.There are many other examples in the book I'm sure, I just flipped to a random page here and found an interesting sophism logic at work and thought I'd share it." +1670,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A116S3QU0J8BQX,"Matthias Martin ""Firebrnd13""",1/2,3.0,1223337600,"A Christian's Best Argument, An Athiest's Aggravation","This book is a figurehead in modern Christian Theology for the everyday Christian. It makes an attempt at explaining why Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior of humanity through a well thought out series of consecutive arguments. C.S. Lewis' background as a lawyer is clear in his writing style, and his never ending analogies are frustrating to a reader who has doubts and disagreements with the logical thinking, but overall he argues his points well. This is no ""Lion the Witch, and the Wardrobe"", -the delightful children's fantasy novel that brought Lewis much of his fame- do not expect to be entertained by this book, it is much closer to a pro-Christ lecture. If you are a Christian this book will lend you relatively sound support for your beliefs, if you are a non-Christian this book will give you insight into the Christian belief system and with a critical eye you may find some of its holes. Many parts can be read and respected without the acceptance of Christ as Savior, such as my favorite chapter discussing pride, ""The Great Sin.""" +1671,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1WGSPS58E8RFH,Thom M. Reed,6/6,5.0,1260230400,Outstanding,"Known as one of the greatest Christian writers of the 20th century, of all time for that matter, Lewis' title would perhaps be better titled Why Christianity? His arguements are strong yet simple with many real world examples to illustrate his points. The text is perfect for the new Christian, the layman, the clergy, and, in my case, the teacher/Seminary student working on a second masters.Rev. Thom Reed M.Th." +1672,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,ABNI7Z61A82R4,"R. Morris ""Rob & Matt Morris""",4/4,5.0,1177286400,Best Buy on the Market for C.S. Lewis's Works,"This book actually rates a 4.5 stars with me. Five stars for what is in the book, and four for the book's actual physical quality. My copy, at least, was poorly bound, though bought new from Amazon. The works in the book are superb. I'd all but given up finding a place to get all of Lewis's works in one place until this book came out. I only wish I'd put out the additional ten bucks or so and gotten the hardcover version.C.S. Lewis, had he been a Roman Catholic rather than an Anglican, would have been canonized a long time ago. As a Roman Catholic myself, I consider this Protestant bretheren to be the most important Christian apologist of the 20th century. There is no current Christian writer who can hold a candle to him, and he writes for believers and non-believers alike. When I have moments of depression or doubt, simply turning to this book lifts my spirit and sets me back on the true course. What a treasure C.S. Lewis was to all Christians, and what a treasure he continues to be.This book contains all his major long works of nonfiction. It is an outstanding compilation, well laid-out, easy to read. Again, my only fault is with the poor quality of the binding. For $25.00, a book should be bound well, not glued irregularly.Still, a treasure. Get the hardback." +1673,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1UJ1EZ5PJQ2P9,"Michele Bianchi ""Michelescott""",3/5,5.0,1140652800,Mere Christianity,Again a great work done by C.E. Lewis. Great for small group bible studies. +1674,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A109VTGM6ALZZ7,C. Neumann,0/1,5.0,1346889600,Excellent Book,"This was a Kindle download, amazingly fast. The book itself is a classic with many memorable and useful points for anyone searching for answers about Christianity." +1675,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1AC9S8U66SNMU,Quilmiense,14/16,5.0,1175040000,Why Christianity is the best option,"This is the most important book you can read after the Bible. If you are searching for the meaning of your life, if you think there's gotta be more than what we see and perceive in our earthly existence, if your heart tells you to honestly seek for the truth, look no further; no other book will help you discover it. Actually God is reachable to everyone. You only have to be willing to put aside those obstacles in your vision. C. S. Lewis is not out there to ""get you"", nor preach to you. He'll help you figure it out yourself better than any other philosopher or scientist.Some people will start looking for God by means of their intellectual curiosity, others will do it out of despair and sheer anguish, and others simply draw near Him out of love for His Son Jesus Christ. Whatever means to start your search is good as long as it is honest. (But remember that faith is a gift that God gives you, not that you give to yourself).The book deals in its first short chapters with Natural Law, and it explains the difference with the laws of nature, e.g. gravity, etc. The language is simple enough for anybody to understand (if I understand it anybody can). Natural Law is still one of the unrefutable evidences for the existence of God that nobody can deny, or explain. Human Genome Project founder Francis Collins explains this very clearly too in his book 'The Language of God'. By the way, Collins says that the other choice we, humans, have in order to understand our nature is accepting that life is the result of an infinite series of miraculous ""coincidences"" or chances, whose probability are, each one of them, infinitely small.I am reading this book for the second time, now in Spanish (Amazon doesn't let me publish my review to the Spanish edition). I am underlining almost every line. There is so much to think about here. But I'd like to quote the following lines:""In religion, as in war and in everything else, consolation is the only thing that cannot be obtained by searching for it. If you look for the truth, you may find consolation in the end. If you look for consolation you will not find neither consolation nor the truth... only empty talk and preestablished conceptions to start with, and in the end, despair.""And this reminds me so much of one of Peter Kreeft's funny stories: When you were a child and believed in Santa, it made you feel comfortable and happy. Then why, when you grew up, did you stop believing in him? Why care for the truth if you can be happy?Approach it honestly; and God bless us all who so seek Him, for we shall surely find Him." +1676,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1XTWXIMUCDGQE,John,2/7,5.0,1040428800,Leading Up to the Leap,"C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity is a wonderful book. Lewis was at one time an atheist who later came to Christianity, and Mere Christianity is a compilation of Lewis's thought that lead to the conversion. The book is not a difficult read; Lewis has taken complex ideas and broken them down to their most simple forms. His thought is always logical, and almost as far as one can go, he details the logical reasons for God. Of course, as Kierkegaard and Lewis both know, faith in God can't be found by simple reasoning; there is that "leap" involved. For this reason, Lewis goes on to explain many of his basic beliefs about Christianity.Really, Mere Christianity is a great book to detail the most basic foundations of Christianity. There are a few areas where my own interpretations and opinions differ slightly from Lewis, but that is definitely to be expected. Lewis was open-minded and acknowledged that differences in doctrinal thought are essential from Christian to Christian. I think that this is part of the real strength of the book; C.S. Lewis has explained the most basic principals of Christianity in general, and the individual Christian can build on them. Mere Christianity can be an essential tool to help the Christian better articulate his/her beliefs, and the book can also serve as a very basic introduction to a person considering or wanting to learn about Christianity." +1677,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1PQ76H0AFQ0CR,Jason A. Greer,0/0,5.0,1201478400,an apologetic vs. modernism,"Originally a series of radio broadcasts, Mere Christianity is the capstone of C S Lewis's work to address the skepticism of the modern age and an encouragement to individual believers battling an environment that is hostile to Christian thinking. By its very title, the book attempts to describe the cornerstones of the Christian faith against the backdrop of a skeptical age that has lost much of its understanding of the core of the Christian faith. Speaking passionately as a layman, with all the imprecision entailed therein, that that entails, Lewis attempts to precisely describe the basics of the core of Christianity, while being deliberately vague about the disagreeable matters that have divided various Christian groups and have led to misunderstandings about the core teachings of the faith.The addresses that make up Mere Christianity were delivered in an environment that could best be described as a deep crisis in Great Britain in particular and in the West in general. In the midst of the conflagration of World War II, rampant theological liberalism, philosophical naturalism and humanism and the pressures of the post - Industrial Revolution, Lewis's arguments in Mere Christianity achieved a long-lasting audience because they simply articulated answers of eternal issues within the context of a discordant world.Mere Christianity is organized deductively. Lewis begins by leading towards theism by starting with the argument of natural law. But he approaches this knowledge with the assumption that we see through a glass darkly. That we first know God, not usually by a direct encounter with Him, but by seeing how God works within the lives of individuals, and not necessarily by any sort of miraculous work.Mere Christianity, for the secular world, soundly refutes the thinking that says that men just need to behave, be well adjusted and live sanely. For Lewis, the problem is not that men are mal adjusted and unhappy, but that they are not moral. The actions that men try to change the most, external actions such as appearance and social etiquette, do not change what needs to be changed - the immoral actions that offend a moral God. Here the thought is put forth that it is much better to be a just man than to perform just actions. The speed of modern secular society demands nothing more than that we perform just, and polite, actions towards each another.For the Christian in the church who is attacked from within and without, Lewis presents a two-fold approach. First, one must know that the faith is much easier than expected from the world. Secondly, that within a church that at times decays from within, the faith is much harder than is expected. For the modern, secular world there are no answers, only platitudes. As Lewis said, ""What point is there in learning to steer a boat if all boats are old leaking tubs""? Christ invaded the world to make men adopted sons, and believers in Him are slowly being turned into grand ships that work as they were originally designed. For the church, Lewis offers hard encouragement. Temperance, for example, is more than avoidance of alcohol. It is the avoidance of all things that can be good, but are turned into idolatrous behavior. The ultimate encouragement of Mere Christianity is that men would not only know the core of the faith, but that they would be encouraged to have their very core changed by the dynamic One who invaded the earth." +1678,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A18FKWFTJXRPXV,Reviewer Rick,5/6,5.0,1130803200,"Thoughtful, Comprehensive Work","C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, is a publication that I re-read on a regular basis. I often have to re-read the pages also, since they are very thought provoking and in-depth, thus the need to re-read many of the complex issues.My book is filled with highlighted text and notes in the borders. It looks like my bible at times and this is a good thing for serious students of Christianity.Buy this book and pass it on to others, if they are serious about study and advanced thought.It is sometimes hard at first, to get into it, but it is well worth the effort." +1679,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2XBSLXSHJGFQ6,juden_sebts,0/1,4.0,1345420800,Mere Christianity Review,"I have just received this book in the mail today. I am glad to say it's not beaten up like any other packages I received through amazon so that was a plus. Also The book was in great condition, I bought it used and it looks brand new. being a student in college I will have to say this is one book that if required, this is the best way to get it. if you have a problem with getting it then I guess it's bad luck so I would highly recommend ordering this book." +1680,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A7CEP1AKDJXFO,"Old Guy ""Northern chef""",3/4,4.0,1333584000,In the British style,"I recently read C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity -- a diversion from my usual reading -- suggested by a doctor while she stitched my sliced hand. I found it an eloquent and accessible discussion, very much in the British style." +1681,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2JGNZYGEF10CH,beejayil,0/0,5.0,1282953600,Thoughtful Believer,"This book begins at the beginning, establishing the rationale for accepting that there is a Being which created and sustains the Universe, but deals with each of us on an individual basis. He then moves on to identify what kind of Being this is, eventually naming Him ""God"". The next step is to further identify this God as the Christian God, one Being composed of three Persons. Throughout the book, the author always returns to and emphasizes the individual's relationship to God as the primary reason he has written this book. It is fascinating, calling each of us to examine that relationship and its ultimate meaning." +1682,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2L3SQQ4D40KFE,Karen S. Pullins,0/1,5.0,1222732800,Recommend the writer to everyone,Book was in okay shape but the material inside is a must foranyone seeking truth. +1683,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A106RLZK9HQIFS,Aj B,0/0,5.0,1236038400,"A logical path to the ""illogical""","C.S. Lewis, hailed for his many great works, did not fall short with ""Mere Christianity."" In fact, the book is considered one of the most prominent and well made defenses of the Christian Faith of the 20th century.In this book Lewis reveals a basis for Christianity that is undeniably rational and reasonable. His arguments are very easy and quick to follow, and laced with analogies that only strengthen his points. He is able take the reader on a road that very rationally reveals the truths of Christianity by starting out with a skeptic's view then using logic to go beyond that view. He then builds on this with clear facts and observations in a smooth manner that is intellectual and well-structured.Unlike similar works, he focuses his attention on the evidence of Christianity and uses that to lead up to the practice of the faith. He smoothly gets from point a to b, rather than diving right in and using a fire and brimstone approach. It is the perfect approach for giving a non-believer a reasonable basis for Christianity.Lewis was able to give a very comprehensive and deep defense of Christianity in this book, and at the same time make it an easy to follow and fast read." +1684,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1SBOA0FZV06M3,Edward W. Habeck III,0/1,4.0,1200700800,An amazing work!,"I just finished this work, my first read from Lewis. I am amazed at his ability to conjure up such vivid analogies in relating Christ to our lives. He has made such everyday things such as 'salt' and 'going to the dentist' into magnificent portrayals of delivering Gods word. Confused by my previous statement? I suggest you read the book... I think I will find myself going back to it again and again to better my own understanding." +1685,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,ADG08XJQ7IB7B,Jay C. Hardin,3/3,5.0,1202428800,Christianity Explained,"C.S. Lewis has a wonderful talent for explaining Christianity in simple, clear terms. Example: ""You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body."" Here was a very intelligent man who was agnostic until late in life, so he struggled with all of the questions of faith in his own walk. Finally, like the Apostle Paul, he became one of Christianity's greatest proponents. This book relates the conclusions of his personal journey to faith. I highly recommend this book to all Christians and especially to all persons who have doubts about Jesus Christ and the role he should have in their lives." +1686,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,,,2/4,5.0,859593600,Greatest Religious book EVER!,"Undoubtedly one of the greatest books ever written, not to mention the absolute supreme of Christian Literature. This book's lessons will answer any and all doubts anyone may have on God or the Christian faith. Will make you believe and explain why. Explains thoroughly and with examples the basis of nearly every aspect of the Christian faith. When done with this book you can't help but wish to read another of his great works of art" +1687,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,ACKAP8O7E1QN3,Paul Doland,24/38,2.0,1029542400,"Good writing, but fails to make his case","I feel out of my league critiquing Mr. Lewis. I certainly recognize he is a gifted writer. All I am trying to do is say why, at least for me, he didn't prove his case.The book is divided into four books, and at this time I'm only intending on commenting on the first two. The reason being that the latter two books are for Christians. The first two are for those that are contemplating Christianity.Lewis starts out his argument for the existence of God by first attempting to prove the existence of what he calls ""The Moral Law"". It seems that a reader's perception of the strength of Lewis' argument for the existence of God completely stands or falls based on whether said reader is convinced by the argument of the existence of this purported Law. Lewis argues that it seems that everybody has some innate understanding of a proper, moral behavior. He says that if we didn't, it would make no sense to say that Nazi's behaved ""badly"". Saying they behaved ""badly"" only makes sense if you have a fundamental understanding of what it would mean to behave well.My first complaint is that I feel he trivializes the differences of morality amongst different cultures. He agrees that there are differences but says ""these have never amounted to anything of a total difference... Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you should not simply have any woman you liked."" Considering how much to do Christians (including Lewis himself) usually make of the properness of the biblical ""one man, one woman"" concept, it seems odd to have him say that isn't a real difference. Lewis neglects to mention that some cultures have found it acceptable for men to kill their wives if they find them displeasing. This isn't a real difference?However, I do agree that at least most cultures have had some form of ""The Golden Rule"". In fact, Lewis himself later refers to ""The Golden Rule of the New Testament (do as you would be done by)"". So, if I accept that at least most cultures have had some form of this, the question then becomes, where did it come from? Lewis discusses two naturalistic possibilities, instinct and learned behavior. Lewis dismisses these. To dismiss instinct, Lewis discusses the scenario where somebody sees someone in trouble. They may have the instinct to run away to protect themselves. And he says they may have the instinct to help the other person. Yet somehow the person must make a choice between the two instincts, and the means that one employs to make that choice must be The Moral Law. It seems to me that it is more likely to be learned behavior even though Lewis dismisses that possibility.I shouldn't say that Lewis completely dismisses that The Moral Law as being learned behavior. In fact, he agree that it is, much like the multiplication tables are something that you learn. But we couldn't have arbitrarily made up the multiplication tables. Nor, he argues, could we have arbitrarily decided The Moral Law. For evidence of this, he again reiterates his claim that all cultures have had similar morality; and if morality were arbitrary then that wouldn't be so. As I've said, I'm not convinced this is the case. But I have agreed that most cultures have had some form of The Golden Rule. So Lewis would say that I'm agreeing with him. Well, not really. Is there any other possible explanation for the universitality of The Golden Rule? I think there is. For my own self preservation, it seems obvious that I would want other people to not to decide to arbitrarily kill me. It also seems obvious that I would have no reason to have such expectation of other people, if I won't likewise arbitrarily go kill them. It doesn't seem to me that it requires a God to have told me this. Granted, in today's society, the concept of treating others as you would have them treat you sometimes seems to be in amazingly short supply. Yet I'd still say that it really shouldn't take a rocket scientist, let alone God, to figure this out.Lewis accepts some desire to help others is instinct. He calls it the ""herd instinct"". I'd prefer to call it ""empathy"". Many Christians ask why would this evolve? If we evolved, wouldn't we evolve primarily the instinct to save ourselves? However, Lewis doesn't ask this question and accepts that we do in fact have such an instinct. But he believes that the self-preservation is a stronger instinct and that therefore if someone chooses to help someone instead of saving themselves, it must be because of The Moral Law. However, he doesn't seem to offer any proof that the self-preservation instinct would be stronger than empathy. But even if he is correct and self-preservation is the stronger instinct, the combination of learned behavior plus the ""herd instinct"" seems to me to be quite capable of being stronger than the self-preservation instinct, at least in some individuals in some situations. Maybe I can't prove that my explanation is correct. But I assert that Lewis has not proven it to be wrong." +1688,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,AT6Z6G71SNMYM,Tron Honto,4/11,4.0,990316800,"A Decent, well-paced introduction to the Christian faith","Some statements: @ the time of writing this short review there are nearly 80 reviews, and rarely do I usually think that I have something to add when so many have already given their opinion. Still, I think I have some important statements for readers out there who have not yet encountered this book.The title, Mere Christiantiy, is really key. While many conservative evangelicals, who often lack a real encounter with the deeper Christian theological tradition present in works by such men as Niebuhr, Tillich & Barth, may present this book to you as THE definitive argument for Christianity, he/she would be in error. Indeed, this is not the author's intent whatsoever. Rather, this book is to serve as a mere cursory introduction to what he sees as Christian orthodoxy, or gestalt if you will ---being the elements present and preserved throughout the faith's history. In some way, he fails @ this task showing that he himself was not immmune to the prejudices of his time (e.g., passages that present the man as 'head of the household').Also, Lewis was neither too liberal nor too conservative, though he was certainly traditional. He certainly was NOT fundamentalist or evangelical (e.g., he did not adhere to the plenary, verbal inspiration of Scripture). Thus, to read him as being an adherent to this flavor of Christianity is to MISread him.Of course, this book has its apologetic elements, and of course, it is not exhaustive. Lewis is not trying to subjugate all of our doubts to the mastery of his arguments. He rarely was so arrogant. One must read this with his attention in mind--- to explain mere Christianity will simultaneously showing it to be reasonable. And, he attempts to soften some of what to outsiders may seem as rough edges and succeeds quite often with amazing fecundity.Despite the impression some may get from the strong recommendations given for this book (and it is indeed a classic), it is best not to assume that this will be the end all to searching. Mere Christianity serves best to introduce an ignorant person of the beliefs of Christianity when knowledge is lacking and to aid the believer in understanding his own faith. For those who would want to encounter more developed, firm arguments and/or have travelled further down the path of intellectual development, this book can't harm, but there is much more to be sought out. For a strong apologetic work, which is more contemporary yet still becoming dated itself, I recommend Hans Küng's ON BEING A CHRISTIAN. This work is rather large, so for a smaller volume, try Keith Ward's GOD, FAITH & THE NEW MILLENIUM." +1689,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3HJO6ZH4NCJ7V,T. Pratt,0/0,5.0,1279756800,Gorgeous!,"I will keep this for years to come, possibly my whole life - it is beautiful, very well made, and around about the best Father's day present I could get." +1690,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1QAN5EOPEZN0Z,"Charles E. Modica Jr. ""jawlz""",23/25,4.0,1116892800,Lewis writes with aplomb; deserves better editors,"There is very little to be written about Lewis' brilliance that has not already been said. He is truly a consumate writer - brilliant, understandable, witty, and humane. Even if you disagree with him, which he makes difficult to do, it is impossible to not respect his intelligence. Each of his works in this handsome volume make that very clear, and all are worth reading.My only quibble with this edition (and hence my 4 star rating of otherwise 5 star material) is the appearance of several small mistakes that should have been corrected by editors. A line of text is missing in ""Mere Christianity;"" there are a few other small mistypings or misspellings elsewhere as well that are not present in non-collected individual publications of Lewis' work.That said, the overall presentation is handsome, if large, and even with the failings of its editors, this is surely a volume that deserves to be owned and read." +1691,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2T057B9993D9H,Travis Odom,14/15,5.0,1025827200,An Eminently Logical Case for the Christian Faith,"Mere Christianity is one of the two best logical logical cases for the Christian faith I have read. Lewis first brilliantly lays a foundation, logically showing that the universe (external and internal) demands logically that some form of God exists. He then compares various theories of God with what we find in reality, and finds that only the Christian one honestly stands. At this point, he continues into details of the Christian faith. Any one honestly seeking to understand Christianity, and/or trying to decide if it is true, will find a powerful, rational case here for "yes." The other book I mentioned is Charles Colson's How Now Shall We Live, whose conlusions are based on real-life studies and experiences, rather the more pure logical base of Lewis' writing. They are two halves of a whole perspective, the theory and the application, and I would especially suggest both to any Christian reader." +1692,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,,,0/0,5.0,918172800,The theologian of the century.,"If we are open minded - that is, we do not dig in our heels and resist at every turn - we can see the beauty and truth of the scriptures. The same is true of Mere Christianity. C.S. Lewis uses direct and understandable language to illustrate complex theological doctrines. I would love to see Mere Christianity offered as one of the texts in college philosophy courses.believew" +1693,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A9TI3P5N1VR0Z,Mom of 4 Wife of 1,0/0,5.0,1355097600,very nice,its got the quality of a text book (but covered with the glossy paper cover as well). I bought it as a gift to my mom...I know she'll love it. +1694,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A38G2HL2DMKJ51,M. Marks,1/4,5.0,1123718400,This Book is Brilliant,"I owned this book for more than a year before I read it. Once I began though, I was stunned at how good it was. This book has become one that I keep in a treasured place on my bookshelf always ready to be read.I recommend this book to every Christian and to every non-believer that is curious about the faith. Lewis writes with such logic and clarity that it is a joy to read.This book is brilliant." +1695,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,ADKYTQTR0DOC4,"""nobody8448""",16/18,4.0,1014076800,"The Book (Ok, so I can't think of a good title)","First of all, let me say that I find the argument that ""it is appalling that C.S. Lewis is writing as if Christianity were the ttruth"" hilarious. The book ""Mere Christianity"" is written to explain what Christians believe, and, just like the Muslims and the Jews and the Hindus, we believe that our religion is true. Therefore I cannot fathom why someone would be surprised that the sentence ""Christianity is true"" would be in there. In fact, if I were reading a book about the beliefs of Islam from a devout Muslim and did NOT perceive that he believed ""Islam is true"" I would be a little worried about why that would not be stressed in the religion. Did that make any sense? I tend to babble.And many people have had complaints about the first part of his book, where he argues why there must be a deity, etc. As I discovered later, he is not giving an absolute, but simply letting the reader follow the path that he took in transitioning from an athiest to a Christian. First of all, let me just say it was incredibly more logical than anything I went through, but of course it is not pure logic. In any sort of decision anyone comes to (c'mon, I think even Spock admits to this on Star Trek), there is never nothing but pure logic. There is a bit of pure instinct involved, something beyond logic, which cannot be accounted for in words. So when there seem to be random jumps in his explanations or holes in his logic, I think that is the reason.Oookay. Anyway. I came into this book having my only other C.S. Lewis experience be ""The Chronicles of Narnia"" and naivly assumed that was simply how he wrote. So let me just say first off that I was knocked on the floor by the complexity and the thoughtfulness that went into his writing.There are, of course, flaws, like there are in any book; fiction, non-fiction, religious, secular, etc. As a rather modern teenage girl with a rather modern outlook on life and an innate hatred for the ""glass ceiling"" let me say that when I read his comments on the woman's place I had a distinct urge to go back in time, hurl feminist pamphlets at him, and burst into the song ""You Don't Own Me"" in the manner of the 3 women of ""The First Wives Club.""But in some other instances I found him remarkably insightful. My favorite parts of the book were the ones where I would basically see him saying the exact opposite as those TV evangelists and ultra-conservative fundamentalist Christians I (and, I belive most people) have begun to get seriously sick of. In places where I was extremely afraid he would fall into the old super conservative, narrow minded view like so many of his contemporaries, I found him incredibly refreshing and even a bit liberal and open minded in his opinions.For the athiest, agnostic, and people of other religions considering this book: While it isn't an evangelical book bent on getting you hooked on Christianity if it's the last thing he does, it IS written from a Christian pov and explains the basics of what Christians believe under the assumption that Christianity is true. Please do not be thrown off balance by this. If you were writing something about what you believed, I would hope you would consider it to be true first." +1696,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2G8J8R1RIC8T2,Cathy,6/29,1.0,1170028800,Truth and lies,"I have been surprised just how little CS Lewis bases his theology on the Bible. He has some interesting ideas, but often writes things that are confusing or just plain untrue. He writes as though evolution is a substantiated fact, but really it is just people's ideas and it contradicts the Bible. He bases a lot of his ideas about our behavior on what seems like a good idea, with no reference to the Bible. He doesn't give the impression that he was very familiar with the Bible. He appears to have been heavily influenced by human philosophies and tries to incorporate them into a religious framework." +1697,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3CDKCVXPKRTDW,A. Paxman,0/0,5.0,1280102400,Beautifully Written,"I have always enjoyed C.S. Lewis, and this book was no different. Lewis has a unique way of pouring his thoughts, and opinions into his books. I loved his stance on Christianity and his defense of it against critics, as well as the deterioration of social standards (and this was written in the early 1940's) I would love to hear what he would think of the world as it is today! Aside from a few differed opinions as far as his view of the trinity and such, I find this book a great view into Christianity!" +1698,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3SIZIQWFXZT71,Zachary Jones,0/2,5.0,1195689600,A Must Read for Everyone!,"This is a classic of Christian literature. And I recommend it to all Christians, young or old, mature or not. I even recommend it to non-Christians. C. S. Lewis was an atheist before he came to Christ, so he understands and has worked through many common intellectual barriers to Christianity.But more important than that, C. S. Lewis has an uncanny knack of being able to simplify some of the more difficult to grasp theological concepts of Christianity, breaking them down into more simple ideas which are more easily understood.My only caution is that one must understand that this was originally a radio broadcast, which Lewis then wrote out and published. In some sections he takes a little more time to explain/explore things which he couldn't quite go into so much detail about on the radio. This makes for, I think, a more conversational tone of writing, which is very easily read. But also, this was originally published in the early 1940s in England, which means that there are certain cultural (English) and sociological (note the World War II influences) references and metaphors/analogies which can take a post-2000 mind a couple of extra seconds to translate.That said, the issues C. S. Lewis tackles are timeless and his explanations still relevant. If you haven't read this, grab a copy and dive in - I think it's a book everyone should go through at least once in their life." +1699,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2J8X0YZ3HNV5P,"D. Anderson ""DA""",0/1,3.0,1229040000,C.S. Lewis book,The seller said this book was new and when I got the book it was obviously used with many creases in the pages and even on the cover. It was a great book though. Lovely read. I would recommend this book to anyone willing to read it. +1700,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,AZIVZ1IQ6G194,rany,0/0,4.0,1349222400,good product,"Book was what I wanted and came in good timing. However, the cover picture was different than what was shown on amazon. It's still good though." +1701,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,AKC0DYCVR5W76,zso,0/0,5.0,1361404800,A very inspiring and encouraging book on Christianity,"C. S. Lewis, with the help of the Holy Ghost and leading of our Lord Jesus Christ, managed to write a book that gives a deep understanding of Christianity not only to outsiders but also to Christians themselves. The former to seriously consider the radical change in their life, the latter to deepen their faith Christ and enhance spiritual growth. Soli Deo Gloria!" +1702,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A20VDLOBIGFDFR,Russ Mayes,15/18,4.0,978048000,An Intellectually Honest Attempt,"Lewis has good habits as a writer. He tells you his assumptions, his biases and the steps in his logic. It is up to you whether you find his arguments convincing. In this book, he tries to show logically not only that a god exists, but that it is the Christian God in particular which exists. As we would expect, some arguments are better than others.Of course, people who already believe in the Christian God are much more likely to be convinced, but his arguments on the existence of God--particularly in sections concerning morality--are often quite strong. As the divinity of Christ is a much harder fact for some people to swallow, his proofs there also tend to be less convincing. Overall though--and I am a beliver--I found this about as good a "proof" of Christianity as there is.The book has aged well, and apart from what looks now like a quaint view of women and marriage, one could hardly imagine it was written in the first half of the 20th century." +1703,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2YRU8F7UX6RKJ,Paul Sunde,3/7,5.0,1124409600,Excellent and to the point!,"Mere Christianity gives an auspicious and excellent introduction to the unifying and fundamental Christian beliefs, yet it is both interesting and scholarly in its argument. A great buy!" +1704,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A17YO1GFRGH6JN,jbutter71,1/1,4.0,1306454400,C SLewis,Mr. Lewis was a devout Christian. This passes along his views and philosophies from an adult perepective. Excellent reading +1705,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,,,16/80,1.0,1094169600,Illogic!,"It is better if one does not begin the argument if he cannot to the core. Mere Christianity gave me a feeling of a fast paced thriller. Was it because I read it (just two chapters) when my head was swinging? No doubt he is a master apologist, but how masterful! If you are not watchful, he can trick you to a dreadful thing. It is all fine if god wished to create a world full of freewill beings rather than automatas. He tells me that god created the world full of creatures and let it go wrong because he saw it was worth the risk, because in the end he will have a world of creatures that loves him out of its own choice, save the rebels that he had to destroy that he himself made. God is omniscient and could see through the future the burning furnace and the joyful creatures at two ends choosing to create the world, despite the burning furnace, for the joyful creatures at the cost of burning souls. If there is god, Mr. Lewis and his disciples, if he has given me freewill to think, he is doomed by his own weapon. It is like a nightmarish fairy tale in which fathers reproduce children to sacrifice when came to puberty. They do not sacrifice all the children, only those chosen many, and to voice against their bestiality is blasphemy-after all they do not slaughter themselves given a big share to Luciferens.Lets not believe in a superstitiously maniac religion just because it can give us peace and pride. Let there be logic even in the worst crime.I am 26 turning 27 morrow. I am reading the rest of the book if only some one answered as to why god had to create the world, being omniscient, when he could see through time the burning furnace." +1706,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,AP21AB9SA3AXD,"Valerie Donahoo ""vdonahoo""",1/27,3.0,1213574400,got the book/haven't read it,the seller got the book to me promptly - i have not had time to read it yet - it's in the to be read pile...it appears to be in good condition. +1707,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,ALD8FEBEKLXGA,Stephen K. Goode,0/0,5.0,1359849600,Mere Christianity by CS Lewis is a book everyone interested in theology of any kind should read.,"Excellent book. Highly recommended. C.S. Lewis discusses the meaning of the Universe, what Christians believe, Christian behavior and other topics and he does is with the wisdom he is noted for." +1708,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1FXEHWJN2TU3M,Allen W. Nyhuis,0/0,5.0,985132800,Wonderful,"This is, from what I've read from him, C.S. Lewis' best book. It's jam-packed with so much wit and wisdom; like the Bible, reading it more than once will prove rewarding. The first chapters deal a lot with "belief" in God, while the later ones simple talk about living a life of Christianity. Both sides are a great read, even if you feel like you're doing okay in both areas (Mere Christianity will defenitely reveal something that needs to be fixed in your life).It can be pretty confusing in spots, so only read this if you WANT to. And if you're here reading this review, you probably do, so go ahead and buy it. You won't be disappointed.This was written by a 17-year-old guy who likes to think about deep stuff." +1709,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,AT7CXVV43ZSRX,"Reading Fan ""Romans 8:1""",4/8,5.0,1133222400,Christianity 101,"How would you explain Christianity in broad strokes to someone who doesn't know anything about it or maybe just a little about it? How do you explain Christianity to people of other world views, such as dualists or pantheists or atheists? What would our common experiences tell us about the Creator, if there is a Creator? How do you know there is a Creator? What is the Creator like, and how personal is He, if He indeed exists?Mere Christianity provides some classic answers written by one of the great Christian philosophers of the 20th century, C S Lewis, who sold almost 100 million books on Christian philosophy, some even in fantasy form (like the Chronicles of Narnia). It is not about Catholicism or Protestantism of any particular stripe, but is about `mere' Christianity, that is, Christianity in its basic essence. It is not about proving Christian doctrine from Scripture, but from logic instead. In other words, it is about high-level apologetics (philosophy) as opposed to the low-level apologetics (Scriptures) we are much more familiar with and many of us hear every Sunday from the pulpit. It is about talking to non-church goers about our beliefs, in language and logic familiar to everybody. It's about taking a step back and seeing what we have in Christianity.Lewis does an excellent job of breaking his arguments into digestible bite-size pieces that were originally his radio broadcasts of the 1940's. The language and sentence and paragraph structures are simple and accessible. He does a good job of making plain what he is saying, and though written simply, his arguments are thought-provoking and challenging.The early chapters tackle other world views with very logical arguments for a meaningful universe. If it could be logically deduced that God created the universe, then it would be logical that the universe has meaning. On the other hand, if the evidence shows that the universe just happened, then the universe has no meaning. Lewis proceeds by giving arguments for the existence of God based on our innate knowledge of good and evil, and where that knowledge must have come from. I found this to be the most challenging part of the book.The middle chapters go over Christian moral qualities and what they really mean and why having Christian qualities does not necessarily mean you're a Christian, and not having these qualities in full does not mean that you're not a Christian (which every Christian can be thankful for, by the way).The later chapters deal with such things as understanding the Trinity, being born-again, God being outside of time, and the God-man makeup of Christ. These are highly spiritual subjects that, of course, can only be approached and not fully explained. Remember, he is not proving anything by use of the Scripture, but is only using reason against the basic ideas of Christianity. He gives it a very good shot making liberal use of clever analogies to give us some sense of what these abstract ideas mean.It is a good book about what 'mere'Christianity is, and well worth the time and effort to understand, both for Christians and non-Christians." +1710,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,,,1/4,5.0,898128000,the best defense of christianity that i have read,"CS Lewis makes the case for Christianity in this brilliant work. For those looking for an intellectual approach to the faith look no further. Lewis, a former atheist and Oxford man of letters, is a joy to read. Thank God for him." +1711,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,,,4/6,3.0,933638400,Painfully to the point,"c.s. lewis rationalizes and rerationalizes every aspect of chirstianity, almost to the point that it becomes overwhelming - it is a VERY thorough work with an endless number of metaphors for explaining all aspects of the christian faith." +1712,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2UMQT1HJTEQJF,"Tanja L. Walker ""Tanja L. Walker""",3/7,5.0,1049932800,Thorough introduction to what Christianity is about,"I enjoyed the logic of this book, the wonderful metaphors C.S. Lewis used to describe his points about the divinity of Christ, the relationship between Father and Son, of God to man, and people to each other. Pithy but not witty, this book includes several quotes that will forever be a part of my reperatoire: ""Really great moral teachers never do introduce new moarlities: it is quacks and cranks who do that"" (p. 82); ""A moderately bad man knows he is not very good: a thoroughly bad man thinks he is all right"" (p. 93); and ""The sense in which a Christian leaves it to God is that he puts all his trust in Christ: trusts that Christ will somehow share with him the perfect human obedience which he carried out from His birth to His crucifixion: that Christ will make the man more like Himself, and in a sense, make good his deficiencies"" (p. 147). This will definitely be a staple on my religious book shelf. I'm glad my friend bought it for me for Christmas, and I am sorry it took me this long to get around to it!" +1713,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3CFBDIKSJNYFE,"Dan Panetti ""Worldview Director""",2/2,4.0,1182816000,Foundational work for apologetics - the defense of the faith,"Where to begin with one of the great classics of the Christian faith? Well, from the beginning, it must be noted that Mere Christianity truly is a must-read for all Christians and that is exactly the intent of the author himself. Lewis set out to write or at least describe the fundamentals of the faith - actually to the truth - to which he himself had been called to almost against his own preferences. Christianity, to Lewis, isn't a mental asset to some sort of religious dogma or doctrine, rather it truly is a confrontation with the greatest truth known to man - that the person of Jesus Christ truly is the Son of the Living God, and only by the redeeming work of Christ can man be restored to a right relationship with our Creator. Mere Christianity is an attempt, and a very good one at that, to describe the concept of how God has woven this inextricable truth into the hearts and minds of mankind. Lewis argues this concept by stating two universal truths that he defends throughout the book:1. That human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot get rid of it.2. That they do not in fact behave in that they.Lewis is describing the concept of natural law, or the ""Law of Nature"" which puts forth the concept that God created man with eternity set in their hearts and that man's own sinfulness acts as a veil shrouding this truth, but now fully, so that man knows right from wrong, but is enslaved by sin nature to a life of unrighteousness. The chapters of Mere Christianity are arranged in various arguments that address this universal truth, and the final conclusion, once Lewis has demonstrated his premise, is that if true, this argument demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that man is indeed created by an Intelligent Designer who has revealed Himself to mankind through general and specific revelations.Lewis' concept of Christianity is really very simple - the problem really is that man complicates things, either by mistake or on purpose. But Lewis' concept of Christianity can be summarized by the Creation-Fall-Redemption model. Christianity is a simple, straight-forward explanation for the world not only as we know it and experience it, but also as it was intended to be and what when wrong with it. God's creation is perfect; man's corruption of that original nature is the problem with the world - and now, we live in what Lewis calls ""enemy-occupied territory"" where the ""rightful king has landed"" and is working through the church (individual Christians) to take back what is rightfully His. Amazingly, as you read through Mere Christianity, you can see so much of the creative imagery that Lewis brings to life in his wonderful Chronicles of Narnia series.Lewis also argues that to live the Christian life one must follow the example set by Christ - they must die. Living the Christian life is not a matter of daily ritual or routine, but rather daily sacrifice and surrender. To truly live out the ideals of Christianity one must surrender themselves to the greater authority of the Christian walk - Christ Himself. If we are created for His purposes and for His glory, then we must realize that our understanding of His ways are lower and pale in comparison - the Christian life is not about raising our standards of living, but rather about us dying to self and being made alive in Him. Of course, Lewis then writes about seven ""virtues"" by which one can measure their Christian life, not in an attempt to live more righteously on our own accord, but rather for the world to measure our surrender to our God - literally for others to see the nature of God transcribed on our lives as we live out who He is before a watching and listening world.Lewis' concept of Christianity is a very positive approach - it is not a set of rules and standards that a person compares themselves to - rather the Christian life is an appreciation for the ideal, and a pursuit of that ideal through the grace and work of Christ in and through the life of each and every believer. To Lewis the greatest sin is pride - a concept that man, by his own regard and on his own strength, could live a life worthy of God's calling. ""Pride,"" writes Lewis, ""is spiritual cancer; it eats up the very possibility of love, or contentment, or even common sense.""Christianity, while ""easy"" to explain for Lewis is not easy to live. Christianity takes work, hard work, and Lewis sets before each reader a pretty stout challenge at the end of Mere Christianity to truly live out this transformed life worthy of our calling as a follower of Christ. He contends that there is nothing ordinary about the Christian life - and, just as men have been great tyrants or great saints, to Lewis the concept of Christianity should force men into thoughts of greatness - not for themselves, but to represent the greatness of the One Whom they serve and represent.A great read for every Christian, Mere Christianity is simply a classic to be read and reread time and time again." +1714,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3E2BXTE80VK4J,"Kevin Birnbaum ""whollycatholic.blogspot.com""",0/0,5.0,1190937600,A Classic,"This book needs no introduction. Originally published more than 60 years ago during World War II, Mere Christianity remains relevant on every level today. C.S. Lewis provides not only a strong and well-reasoned defense of the Christian faith, but gives the reader plenty of wise advice on leading the Christian life. This is a book that should be read and re-read." +1715,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1FQPOYRBTTK1,"John H. Eagan ""Author: The Enlightenment, Wha...",0/2,5.0,1251763200,Something For Everyone!,"The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics by C. S. Lewis is a brilliant work of all Lewis' signature classics. The book is basically broken up into four parts, Right and wrong, what Christians believe, Christian behaviors, and Beyond personality. It also contains his seven most popular works - Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters, Miracles, The Great Divorce, The Problem of Pain, A Grief Observed, and The Abolition of Man. The author opinions are extremely humble as he focuses on Christ.********************************************************************Are you a spiritual retard, or are you on the path to ENLIGHTENMENT?" +1716,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3B6LFGPZ3DLZR,READER,3/9,5.0,1147564800,WITHSTOOD THE TEST OF TIME,"THIS IS A BOOK THAT WITHSTOOD THE TEST OF TIME.C. S. LEWIS IS A TRUE GOD SEND.I RECOMMEND ALL OF HIS BOOKS ANYONE AND EVERYONE. - ESPECIALLY MERE CHRISTIANITY.IN FACT, THE ONLY CONCERN OR WARNING THAT I WOULD OFFER IS THE FACT THAT IT IS AN OLDER TITLE. FOR THAT REASON IT WRITTEN IN AN OLDER, MORE FORMAL STYLE.THIS MAY TAKE A CHAPTER OR TWO TO GET FAMILIAR WITH. BUT ONCE YOU DO YOU WILL BE RICHLY REWARDED FOR DOING SO." +1717,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A235FV9DERL1II,J. D. Shaffer,2/2,5.0,1182643200,"Clear, Logical, and to the Point","This is another great book by C.S. Lewis. I actually read this book a few times before becoming a Christain and each time I got to the end I felt like, ""Yeah! I TOTALLY agree!"" But then I found I coulnd't explain the logical progressing from non-believer to beliver to anyone else and so I fell back to my fuzzy-state of semi-belief. However, it is a very good book for putting cracks of hope into non-believers hard protective shell. It certainly placed a few fractures into mine!" +1718,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A381W7K6FXXPVT,"Paul Joseph ""PmJ""",10/13,5.0,1141948800,Not willing to take the risk!,"What if in the end, the non believer is wrong? That there is a God, he came to earth as a man to offer salvation to his creation that had gone corrupt.Great book for someone who is caught up in the he said, she said of today's religion. Forget denominations... they confuse a person with pity details that loose sight of the fact that there is something much bigger than I. Read this book and I bet you will feel your soul connect with God, even if you don't believe!" +1719,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1T4YQ9AK0QCT1,BioLogos,0/0,5.0,1245024000,C.S. Lewis: not 'merely' another Christian apologist.,"In this book, C.S. Lewis gives his defense of Christianity as a religion, a philosophy, and a way of life. Primarily, Lewis argues from morality, citing basic morals that all humans share as virtues. But Lewis isn't like the hundreds of Christian apologists that author thousands of books on the market. Lewis doesn't rely on circular reasoning or emotion to prove his points. Instead, 'Mere Christianity' sets forth an argument that is logical, easy enough to understand, and in accordance with the beliefs that the vast majority of Christians share.I don't think I could describe the content of this book anymore for fear of reducing it to one argument or a handful of points. This is a broad, sweeping book that takes the reader from theism vs. atheism to the problem of duality to sexual immorality. It's at times philosophical, at times theological, and at times even political. Nevertheless, 'Mere Christianity' is not a difficult read.'Mere Christianity' is an important book for all Christians and an essential book for non-Christians. This book has converted many to Christianity, including Francis Collins, author of 'The Language of God' and a prominent scientific voice on the Christian front. It's influence on Christian apologetics is incalculable.Buy this book and you will not regret it. This has quickly grown to become one of my favorite books in my collection." +1720,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1PJHW4JXNB5QH,"Sherman E. Good ""S. Eugene""",0/0,5.0,1228089600,C.S.L. Sig Cla,"Excellent format, however a bit oversized for my library. Lewis has been a favorite for a long time. Good to have the entire Classics in one volume." +1721,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,,,2/5,5.0,866851200,Takes you to the very heart of Christianity.,"Outside of the Bible, Mere Christianity presents the most irrefutable of arguments for Christianity. Appealing for those of an "intellectual" bent, Lewis lays down a very rigid, but delightful, chain of logical morsels, eventually tying them all together to present the bigger picture that is Christ's divinity, His death and His resurrection. This book is very helpful to those who, like myself, sometimes get caught up in peripheral issues, ignoring the very elementals that make up the faith of Christianity. Don't just read this book, take notes and study it" +1722,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,ADZC130AO5GAI,"Patricia Peterson ""where eagles fly""",0/0,4.0,1217894400,absorbing more and more,enjoying c.s. lewis is a recent pasttime. i find these writings to be enlightening and full of life. +1723,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A24BI8AZOG91AV,Cheryl K,0/1,5.0,1313971200,Bes book ever (for smart people),My whole family is reading this now and they love it. It is thought provoking and C.S.Lewis was a very smart man. I think everyone should read this as part of their life journey! +1724,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2S166WSCFIFP5,"adead_poet@hotmail.com ""adead_poet@hotmail.com""",4/8,5.0,1124668800,brilliant,"C.S. Lewis, besides being a great fiction writer and a fair poet, is a briliant mind. His theology, well, his theology is the theology that you want to read. When you read this book you can really see one of the greatest minds at work. For the faithful as well as the unfaithful intellect, this is a book to read." +1725,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3N82S6HHC2Y7T,David T. Woody,2/2,5.0,1247529600,Best book about Christianity I have ever read,"Mere Christianity is the best explanation of the main points of Christianity that I have ever read. It cleared up some misconceptions I had about the three person God, becoming one with God, and what being a Christian was all about. I like its straight forward manner and accessible language, just deep enough to get to the meat of the idea, but not over the head of the average reader." +1726,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1DLQHQ0YIJJP2,Theo Logical,0/0,4.0,1126742400,"Great, but...","I find this book exceptional for the intellectual believer, but I can't help but wonder if it's possible to reason your way into faith (the very words sound oxymoronic). Often, I hear this book referenced as a prosyletory tool, but I wonder if conversion ought to start with something else--something more along the lines of Lewis's own mind-changing experience. I recommend this book without reservation for believers, but I'm not sure all the reasoning here is completely cogent for nonbelievers, or the best place for a nonbeliever to begin looking for God." +1727,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2QPGPDGOK1LX0,susie,0/0,5.0,1330992000,C.S. Lewis Signature Classics,amazing collection of writings that allow its readers to know how Lewis came to Christ....a motivational and factual read to help others understand +1728,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2P5N8UXYRE9O9,"The Hawk ""hawkman""",0/2,4.0,1076976000,Another of C.S. Lewis' Excellent Books,"This is a great book for those who want to take their belief in Christ to a higher level. This book is laid out in three parts: Right and Wrong, What Christians Believe, and Christian Behaviour. In the third part--Christian Behaviour--Mr. Lewis eloquently portrays what it means to accept Christ.Mr. Lewis understood very well the true principle: one of the things that will make heaven indeed heaven is the way people treat each other and deal with each other. Those who accept Christ will find themselves yearning to live as he lived, and do as he did. By doing so, they will ultimately build the kind of character it takes to be ""heavenly.""Mr. Lewis also points out some of the characteristics that prevent us from developing such character -- such as pride. ""Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man."" Mr. Lewis points out that pride is one of the many qualities, which (if unbridled) keeps so many people away from true discipleship in Christ. The competitive nature of pride compels us to squander away our limited time on earth in a competitive pursuit of worldly treasures and success, which (for most of us) is at the expense of more important things. And, if my life has been spent without performing the Christ like acts of service and love -- necessary to build ""heavenly character,"" can I actually expect heaven to be a place where I will comfortably fit in?I highly recommend this book and I find it a valuable addition to my library." +1729,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1A529E79GTUNQ,"A. Stevens ""Crazy Canuck""",0/0,4.0,1224806400,Awesome book.,"I have not finished reading the whole thing, but I have read three of the books included already. This man was a genius." +1730,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A35N4ZS6YBBVPM,"T. F. McGrath ""Tom in KY""",5/7,5.0,1140739200,The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics,Outstanding book. The content is a perfect grouping of modern- classic literature and the book is well made and very attractive. It even has a nice ribbon page marker. It will make a nice addition to any library. +1731,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2R3IFW5HJ1YJ9,Peter,7/9,5.0,1105920000,Intriguing and will challenge the non-believer and Christian,"In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis examines faith and Christianity without biasing any particular denomination. This book is divided into four sections. In the first two sections, Lewis writes as an apologetic. He takes a philisophical approach to describe that humans have a moral standard and this standard originates from God. Lewis also defends Jesus Christ's claim to be God and how we are redeemed through His death on the cross. I found this section to be very well written and intriguing.In the third section, Lewis examines Christian behavior. He discusses various topics including the four Cardinal virtues, the three theological virtues, sexual morality and the Christian marriage, and my favorite chapter - ""The Great Sin"" (pride). I would be surprised to find a reader that would be disappointed in this section. It is very intriguing and is an excellent reference looking at sin and appropriate behaviors for Christians.The last section discusses the trinity and Lewis's view of the life as a Christian. This is probably the most challenging section of the book. Lewis even warns readers that they may want to skip a chapter or two if they don't think it will help them. Nonetheless, I found this section to be interesting and it really gives the reader a glimpse into the mind of one of the great apologetics of the twentieth century.I recommend this book to both the non-believer and the strong Christian. It is an excellent reference and is guaranteed to challenge you." +1732,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1NYN3DNQEJCR7,"Ryan Terry ""Interactive Designer/Developer""",0/1,5.0,1316390400,Life-changing book,I'm new to CS Lewis and this was an excellent place to start reading his work. If you have any curiosity about Christianity this is worth your time. +1733,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1YGG5K96MEOMZ,TPOW6,2/3,5.0,1332115200,great perspective,This was my first C.S. Lewis book and I found it so interesting that he approaches the Christian faith from such a straight forward and practical perspective- especially him previously being an atheist! Very interesting. +1734,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,AJ4Z0WKLPTXHP,"Sarah D. Dameron ""S Dameron""",1/1,5.0,1358208000,Great gift for Christian friends,"I got this as a stocking stuffer for my mom and she really enjoys it. The version we got has a pretty cover, too, so she sometimes puts it in a tray as a coffee table book." +1735,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2DZY7TSJLZ3OP,D. Mowry,0/0,5.0,1354320000,C.S. Lewis Signature Classics rock!,The man is a genius and one of the greatest Christian authors of all time. I'm through several of the books in the Classic edition and can't wait to continue. +1736,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1OAN01CO11VIX,Chris Redford,18/34,2.0,1193097600,A Careful Review of Lewis's Assumptions,"I know many people adore this book and are very hostile to low-star reviews so I want to be very careful to explain my viewpoint in a way that is fair and reasonable.SECULAR HUMANISTI am a Secular Humanist. That means I believe in truth, testing beliefs, evidence, ethics, growth, enriching human life, and enriching the world for future generations. I tell you this to assure you that I believe in many positive things and generally have a lot of hope for humanity and a lot of appreciation for positive instruction. For this reason, I appreciate a lot of the positive instruction that Lewis gives in Books III and IV. I am glad he has a positive attitude and these two sections of the book may very well do some good.However, I also believe in the testing of beliefs. I do not accept anything without question and any of my beliefs is always open to question. That does not mean I believe in nothing strongly. I very much do. But you can always change my mind with a reasonable argument or evidence. I'll never cling to any belief with complete unmoving certainty. As limited human beings I am convinced that we could never have any such invincible beliefs.With this foundation, I read the first two sections (Books I and II) of Lewis's book. Here is what I found:INNATE MORALITYIn Chapter 1, Lewis makes the praiseworthy analysis that all human beings have an innate morals. He shows this with undeniable examples. Essentially he shows that we all wish to be moral. Whenever someone calls us immoral, we instantly try to set our reputations right again. We may do this by apologizing and admitting wrongness or we may do it by defending ourselves and showing rightness. But either way, we are concerned with being in the right again. Either way, we are all concerned with morals.However, at the end of this otherwise laudible chapter, Lewis makes a sudden, weighty, unjustified assumption: we largely do not meet the demands of our innate morals. We are inherently immoral. Examples he uses are ""you were unfair to your children when you were tired"" or ""you broke a promise because you were busy"".The first assumption that Lewis makes here is that these occurences are common. I really feel they are not. I think it is rare that one breaks a promise and that it is usually on accident.The second assumption that Lewis makes is that these occurences are altogether terrible and deserve the weighty sledgehammer of a label ""Immoral"". I disagree here also. These are just mistakes. Mistakes that are altogether largely not our fault. They are tied up in the limitations of the human body and mind as well as the sheer difficulty of dealing with the natural world.MORAL LAWBut suddenly we have bigger problems because Lewis is making even bigger assumptions. Not only is he saying that we have innate morals (as he so eloquently argues for in the first chapter). He is assuming that these innate morals arise from a crystal clear Moral Law that all humans know. So not only is he saying we have moral sense, he is saying that every human situation has an obvious moral choice that every participant in the situation should know. The reason we humans do not always choose the obviously right choice dictated by the Moral Law is because of our selfishness.Let me give you some examples which bring this assumption into question.A man holds a gun in each hand to the heads of two other men. He asks you which of them should be killed. He will spare the other. Which do you choose?A man is standing in front of an oncoming car. If you jump in and push him out of the way, you will be killed. Both of you have families of equal size. So whichever of you is killed, their family will suffer. Which do you choose?Here is a final one that is probably closer to reality. You find that your country is filled with people who *appear* to want to kill you at any time. For example, you are members of different hostile social groups. You don't know for sure whether they are going to kill you but they could at any moment. Do you respect their right to human life and risk the lives of your family by not attacking? Or do you act on an unverified suspicion and risk attacking potentially innocent people but protect your family?The ""obvious"" choice of the Moral Law is not so obvious in these examples. Because either choice will cost someone. All difficult moral choices are like this and they are much more common than people think, especially in our complex global society. They are difficult choices because we don't have enough information to clearly choose one side over the other.Typically when people make different moral choices they do so because they have different information. Not because one is following the ""Moral Law"" and the other is not. Both people would follow the same innate morality given the same information (this has been demonstrated in scientific studies). But due to the vast complexity of the world and the limitations of our perception, we simply do not always have the same information as other people when making our judgments.DETRIMENTAL TO MORAL PROGRESSPeople like Lewis, who try to oversimplify the inherently complex global situations facing our world do much more harm than good. The most moral person would actually first recognize that they do not have all the information to make the perfect moral choice and probably never will. This person would recognize that it is their moral duty to question their own first assumptions about the situation and gather evidence to hone their perspective.I think it is clear that belief in an immediately clear Moral Law is actually detrimental to moral progress. Because what it actually does is cause people to believe that their first assumptions are the correct ones and then fight for them uncompromisingly. We very rarely have enough information for our first assumptions to be correct, especially in complex global situations. These situations involve need-to-know history and psychology of the conflicting parties before one could even fathom making an accurate moral judgement.Even in our everyday lives, with conflicts between just two people, two separate human lives can be so complex that one could not possibly make a satisfactory moral judgement without carefully examining both sides of the story. But the way Lewis talks, he seems to think that everyone just instantly knows what is happening and what the correct moral choice is. Lewis seems completely ignorant of the necessity of dialogue and careful examination to resolve moral issues between peoples. He thinks everyone should just ""know"" the ""Moral Law"".THE ORIGIN OF INNATE MORALITYUnfortunately, we are hardly past the first chapter but I am running out of room for my address of Lewis's assumptions. I've not even gotten to the part on page 29 where Lewis makes the unjustified leaps from ""[there must be] Somebody or Something behind the Moral Law"" to ""[it is] Somebody"" to ""[it is] God"". I agree that there is somebody or something behind innate morality. But Lewis hardly did any evidence examination to determine that it was Somebody. He just assumed it with very little justification.His perfunctory ""herd instinct"" argument starting on page 9 is hardly adequate to refute the belief that morality emerged from evolution. He is going to have to do more work than that to convince anyone with an understanding of natural selection that morality isn't an obviously valuable selection trait for evolution. I think there is clearly more evidence that it is ""Something"" (natural selection) behind innate morality and not ""Somebody"". Evidence for this goes back as far as Darwin himself who convincingly argued for it. Just search ""Evolution of Morality"" on Google.CONCLUSIONSSo I think no one here would deny that the concept of a crystal clear Moral Law is at the heart of C.S. Lewis's philosophy. And I don't think any reasonable person would deny that I have cast serious doubt on the reality of that concept.Probably my biggest criticism of Lewis is that he styles is writing in a way to make it appear to be unbiased reasoning when he is actually making many biased assumptions about the superiority of Christianity. And what is worse: unlike an honest philosopher, Lewis never states these assumptions explicitely. He seems to just make them and hope you don't notice the philosophical slip. Or maybe I am being too hard on him and he is making these assumptions unknowingly.In any case, this book is misleading for Christians because it gives them the illusion that they have objectively considered alternatives to their faith when they actually haven't. Lewis presents straw man versions of the real alternatives to Christianity (there is no mention of Secular Humanism, for example; maybe he just didn't know about it).And finally, as a critically thinking person, it was very frustrating for me to read Lewis because of his relentless onslaught of untenable assumptions to support each successive idea. It was like watching someone try to build a skyscraper out of driftwood. And I hope that's not too harsh. But that was my honest experience." +1737,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,AX5GNV2HKU566,William Keeling,0/0,5.0,1274659200,Mere Christianity,One of the best books to read if you have no faith or want to deepen your faith. CS Lewis is one of the premier Christian writers of this century. +1738,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1U80YHM6X28CV,Tom Magill,0/0,5.0,1354665600,Best Book Ever,"Simply put, every chapter of this books rings true. A great gift for those around you who are questioning what it means to be a Christian." +1739,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1S5B32WYMEE44,"M. Swinney ""Marc My Words""",6/7,4.0,1022371200,A Reminder of God,"C.S. Lewis' ""Mere Christianity"" doesn't really break new ground in original Christian thought as much as simplifies some observations of Christian strictures. It's not a guide to prescriptive living as much of an insight to what a rationally minded Christian intellectual thinks about his religion. I suppose I approached this book with minor expectations of life altering thought. That's not what I got out of it, but instead was reminded and reaffirmed of some beliefs that lay dormant but still deeply entrenched. Lewis's observations are simplistic but deep. For that fact, Lewis earns quite a bit of admiration for turning the complex into easily digestible reading is a daunting task.I found the book getting interesting about mid-way through. The first half was almost too simplistic. Lewis has some perceptive observations of society's obsession with sex (without being prudish), forgiveness being difficult to put into practice, and the ability of God to change a person but sometimes not in ways that person would expect or be comfortable with. Of particular note is Lewis' observation of when a person is brought closer to God. It is not when everything is going right in life and church visits are consistent, but rather when one is brought to question and search on their own, when life is challenging and belief is challenging. There is a lot of truth to Lewis' writing but some of it rings through clearer than others.Life altering book...not so much. A Good reminder of God...yes." +1740,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3QQQI6CEKPWJV,"Anya Sherwood ""Mrs. Anya Sherwood""",2/4,5.0,1125360000,Excellent follow up to reading the Narnia books...,"This a very thought provoking book on Christianity. It seems timeless and makes one examine their feelings and beliefs on faith in God and Christ. And after having read ""The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe"", I can see where CS Lewis makes the Aslan creature a similar figure to Christ but in the world of Narnia. This is a life changing book to read..." +1741,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3R717N78USWD,John J. Gnizak,2/2,4.0,1272067200,The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics,"I like it that this book has all the classics of c s lewis ,however a warning should be given of how big and heavy it is and maby a sugestion of a book holder similar to a music stand to hold itcould be suggested.thank you" +1742,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1QR4PKVPQTM,edughman@netwalk.com,2/5,5.0,884476800,Intellectual but never Haughty,"A literate, well thought-out argument for the existence of God and the validity of Christianity. Yet the author is never condescending toward his reader. Don't be fooled by the small size of this book. There are a lot of ideas here. Is there a flaw in Mr. Lewis' logic? I couldn't find it." +1743,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1JH5J1KQAUBMP,David Bonesteel,37/56,3.0,1059782400,"Interesting, but not convincing to me","I'll be right up front with my own religious orientation and say that I'm an atheist. As such, I suppose I am the ideal audience for this book, since CS Lewis undertakes to explain the fundamental unifying beliefs of the various Christian denominations in simple language and analogy that should be clear to anyone. In this, he succeeds admirably, although his tone often comes off as condescending. In the end, however, I was not persuaded. I am put off by his views on homosexuals and the role of women as well as his acceptance of the Christian's permission (if not obligation) to kill in cases such as war or criminal punishment.I was also not convinced by his basic premise that God must exist because humans everywhere share a basic moral sense. It is easier for me to believe that we evolved certain behaviors because they allowed us to coexist relatively peacefully in communities; these behaviors had survival value for us because we are best able to thrive in communities. Being the intellectually complex beings that we are, we have developed sets of religious belief to explain these behaviors and tendencies to ourselves.These problems notwithstanding, ""Mere Christianity"" is a readable and illuminating introduction to Christian thought and merits reading." +1744,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1GOY83TX6Q11I,Idaho Reader,0/0,5.0,1233878400,The Completed C. S. Signature Classics,I have enjoyed this book very much so far. I am thrilled to now own Lewis' classic collection at a very affordable price. +1745,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3B1VHNCY7OLXW,Edgar Lipsey,2/2,5.0,1179273600,"Nothing ""mere"" about this work","What an astounding, impressive, fulfilling read. I am not normally a non-fiction reader unless it is a good historical piece or biography ... those I will lap up. But a book on religion? As a pretty dedicated church goer myself, I must candidly say that unless the book is actual scripture itself, it might as well be one of those desperately snobbish self-help books full of zippy motivation quotes and the same principles you find in all other books of the same genre, just worded slightly differently. Yet in Mere Christianity, I found none of the superficiality I've previously experienced with other books that delve into philosophic explorations of religion. This is a real study, a deep probe. There is nothing artificial about it. Thank goodness my wife is a huge C.S. Lewis fan or I might not have picked it up at all. But she recommended it to me, and I had it on a trip, and for hours and hours I read, mesmerized in a way that few thrillers can even achieve. What did I find? I found that in this work C.S. Lewis single-handedly legitimizes religion as a belief, lifestyle, and philosophy. And what makes Lewis most credible is that Mere Christianity is not designed to make any reader comfortable, from agnostic to new age believer to hard core Christian. His ideas and reasoning are solid and unavoidable. His ability to address concerns is acute and thorough. He is not pompous, but he is confident. Where he is unsure of something, he admits it, though I'd be careful to deviate from such a sound philosopher. Probably his greatest talent is his use of applicable examples and parallel images. Where a concept is vague, he has the ability to nail it down, to apply it to the known. C.S. Lewis rings of truth throughout. And probably the most important thing in his book, or in any book for that matter, is that when I put it down, I was determined to be a better person, to fix up deficiencies in my life. Mere Christianity is not ""merely"" another book on religion or Sunday School manual; it is a call to arms for every person who picks it up, regardless of their faith. Go to it with an open mind, and be prepared to act afterwards." +1746,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A16COWCIT69UFO,N. Eastman,0/0,5.0,1178496000,Get a feel for Lewis's style,"Reading this compilation of Lewis classics is a great way to introduce yourself to C. S. Lewis. Although it is not ""complete"" by any means, it does help to present his world view from several different angles. Each work is short and easy to read. Wrestling with the issues personally is the real challenge in Lewis' literature. He uses lots of concrete earthly examples of the spiritual concepts and themes presented. Delicious food for thought to anyone who enjoys exploring spiritual relms." +1747,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1QP6D8BUBKUEE,Cefinsa,0/0,5.0,1357344000,One of the very best!,"CS Lewis takes a methodological and systematic approach to hit the issues that most people see with or experience in the Christian life dead on. It would not matter if you have been a Christian your entire life or became a Christian yesterday, this book is a must.No doubt that people who wish to be rude and unchained by moral restraint will raise an objection to what they find in this book. The problem is that these people tend to prove what the book is talking about." +1748,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,AL3R4IKZ550GH,David,0/0,5.0,1283731200,Seeing the Truth in the Logic,"For those of us that are more logical and analytical in our thinking, CS Lewis illustrates logically the need to not only acknowledge but address the existence of God but make a choice in where we stand and what we consider Truth. Use this as a starting point in a lifelong journey to gain an accurate picture of who God is." +1749,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3G337T0PJ3WL7,Rebekah,11/15,4.0,1154304000,Too Big,"Whereas I LOVE C. S. Lewis, and you simply can't go wrong by getting anything written by him, I was a little dissapointed by the size of this book. I suppose it's really meant to be a coffee-table book, so it's not easy to handle, and is probably too tall for most book shelves. Check the dimensions before purchasing! But besides that, the content is GREAT, and I was delighted to find such a good price for seven books at once!" +1750,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A107PDRFIJ3QSP,"Philip B. Corriveau ""philphilphil""",0/0,5.0,1176076800,Beautiful book,"This book is beautiful. I would guess that most people reading this are allready familiar with the quality of C.S. Lewis' writings and are would like to know what the actual book looks like. It's nice. It's about the size of a textbook, with a cover that has some sort of fabric over it and a silver ribbon attached for marking your page." +1751,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3M5NHNTD6476W,Eric Boyer,1/1,4.0,1231891200,Excellent Discussion of Christianity,"This is a great book for people who are either half or fully convinced about Christianity. But, and I should mention this right away, this book is not meant to convince a non-Christian that Christianity is true. Many other books have been written for this purpose, and if you want to find one then just search for a Christian apologetics book.This book answers many questions that Christians might ask about their faith, and does so in an easy-to-read format, almost like a novel. The book is written in a very non-technical manner, so almost anyone should be able to understand what Lewis is talking about. Also, there are lots of analogies to help the reader better understand what is being explained.This book is comprised of four smaller books called ""Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe"", ""What Christians Believe"", ""Christian Behaviour"", and ""Beyond Personality, or First Steps in the Doctrine of the Trinity"".The first book explores the idea that the concepts of right and wrong are proof that a morally good God exists and loves us. Lewis does a good job of explaining this point, and, as usual, uses lots of analogies and examples. His explanation may not convince an atheist that God exists, but nevertheless it provides food for thought for all readers. Again, if you want to be shown proof of why God exists then you shouldn't be looking for it in this book. Read a book that is dedicated to Christian apologetics instead.The second book explores the Christian idea of who and what God is, and discusses some aspects of the Christian faith. Some ideas that are discussed are pantheism, dualism, and the nature of the devil.The third book continues exploring what Christians believe, but does so in a more detailed way. Some concepts that are discussed are morality, sex, marriage, forgiveness, charity, and faith. This is my favorite of the four books because it gives some good reasons for why Christians believe what they do, and it also gave me a better understanding of what the Christian faith is about.The fourth book is the most abstract of the four, which makes sense considering that it's about the Trinity. This book also talks about what God wants from us and how we can become true Christians. A lot of this book is comprised of Lewis' opinions (rather than commonly accepted facts), but nevertheless it is an excellent read because Lewis has some very interesting and convincing opinions. Lewis' analysis of how we become ""true"" Christians was particularly interesting.Overall I consider this to be a very good book. Lewis is a very intelligent man who has many convincing arguments. I also enjoyed it because Lewis seems to think in the same way as me; many of the ideas that he presented are similar to things I have thought of in the past. Nevertheless, there are a few things about the book that I didn't like. For one thing, it is written in a very old-fashioned way which many young people may not be used to (but, Lewis wrote these books in the 1940's, so that is to be expected). Also, it would have been nice if the first book (which is commonly called ""The Case for Christianity"") included other proofs of the Christian God, rather than just dwelling on the origin of morality. Many people are not convinced by this proof, so it would have been a good idea to present other proofs such as miracles, the historical accuracy of the Bible, the origin of the universe pointing towards the existence of a god, etc. The final problem that I have with this book is that some parts are not at all convincing. But, this only applies to about 5% of the book, and perhaps these arguments that I consider weak would be convincing for other people, so this is a pretty insignificant objection.One final note about this book (and religious books in general). When it comes to religion (or any other controversial topic), many people are extremely biased, emotionally-driven, or narrow-minded. Not all people are like this, but way too many are. If you plan to read this book, or any other book that is about a controversial subject, please do so in an objective, emotionally-neutral, open-minded manner. Doing so will help you figure out what you truly believe." +1752,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2YBRVZBRL8V0Q,MSASH,4/7,5.0,1140739200,Mere Christianity,This book speaks for itself and offers some indepth ideas for discussion on the Christian faith. An excellent resource for group study. +1753,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2OS58FACW65SM,P. Cornett,12/58,1.0,1140134400,C.S. Lewis keeps on playing those mind games forever...,Buy this book if you want to believe; skip it if you seek truth. +1754,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3CZB69FCPCW92,skeeter,0/11,1.0,1324339200,Dissatisfied,"I placed an order for a book that I could have picked up in any popular bookstore but wanted the convenience of online ordering. I placed my order online December 6th, 2011 and have discovered my order will probably not arrive until after Christmas. I would not recommend this site to anyone!!!!" +1755,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,,,2/9,5.0,1004140800,"Believe it or rejected, but keep an open mind.","The bad reviews seem to be by people who can not accept the impossiblity of Christianity. They say some pretty stupid things. First of all, Christianity isn't loosing converts, you must be thinking of rational materialism. Yes all societies have some concept of right and wrong. The few individuals who don't are usually institutionalized. Find a sane man who claims to a moral relatist than kick him in the stomach. See how relative that is." +1756,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2AA3MND6ED8TM,Robert Gardner,0/0,5.0,1178928000,complete c.s. lewis signature classics,"I'm a big fan of ""Jack"" not only for his writing but on a personal note. This signature edition is a great value and a nice coffee table book. It's a little big to carry on a plane or to read in bed." +1757,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,AWKQCAE8MMH4F,SWade,1/1,5.0,1304380800,what a thinker,It is rare to find a Religious writer who also uses their head in a self responsible way and to this extent.An enlightening & eye opening text: not just another book for the sake of having one's book out there. +1758,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,,,19/24,5.0,956275200,brain popping,"As a mature, lapsed Catholic with over 40 hours of philosophy and theology at a Catholic University, I found the intellectual explanation of Christ to be brain popping. I could not put the book down. I had for all of my life found religion in general and Christianity in particular to be so much fluff, mysticism and legend. Lewis makes it simple but demonstrates the rational and intelligent conclusion that Christ and the reality of the human individual soul must be true and that their lack would be nonsensical. The Great Sin of Pride is revealed for what it is. I found nothing scary about the prospect of Christianity." +1759,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,AB2SZOSODSQDL,P. Seltz,0/1,5.0,1232150400,wonderful basis for faith and understanding,"this is a great place to start reading about Christianity. Plain english, easy to understand, but still very thought provoking and not simplistic." +1760,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A31LV1KT09BI29,P. Strand,3/60,1.0,1238112000,Boring,"I'm sorry but Mr.Lewis' writing struck me as pedantic and boring. I was initially interested in his works because of my readings in grief literature. I couldn't get into any of his stories. They seemed dry to me. I like the idea behind his ""Screwtape Letters"" but it didnt hold my attention. I am glad he is well read but personally I am just not into his books." +1761,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3O4DXCLAB8PWA,Kryptonette,1/2,5.0,960940800,For the logical,"This is a fantastic, fantastic book--especially for those who are on the fence regarding Christianity or religion in general. Lewis writes from a unique point of view: an atheist who converted to Christianity. And as an Oxford professor, he has a seemingly innate ability to look at issues from every point of view and reach a logical conclusion. If you're not a Christian, don't worry about being offended by emotional rhetoric or bored by the same old, same old. If you're already a Christian, this book will spur you to think about why you believe what you believe and will help you explain it to others. Lewis is widely regarded as one of the best Christian writers in history." +1762,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1RTR66ZBY6T44,Justin W. Thole,10/30,3.0,1079395200,"SOME EXCELLENT INSIGHTS, DIDN'T AGREE WITH ALL OF IT","C.S. Lewis book Mere Christianity, offered some excellent insights into the Christian life, especially in the second half of the book, which I found more interesting than the first. However, I was surprised that he considered Roman Catholicism a "Denomination" of the Christian faith. I consider it to be another religion which misinterprets a fundamental teaching of true Christianity: Faith in Christ will produce works. Salvation is not earned by being a "good" person and going to mass. Salvation is a gift and a Christian will produce good works BECAUSE of his faith and the Holy Spirit that dwells within. Salvation cannot be earned.That being said, the book did offer some good insights into the christian faith. One thing I thought was interesting is a section in the last chapter where he describes striving to become a more sanctified christian as "Great fun." I never thought of it this way, but yes, it is great fun. Especially feeling myself growing closer to the Lord the more I pray, meditate, and ask God for wisdom.All in all, I would recommend any christian to read this book.God Bless!" +1763,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A16AVVB35YSXQP,Beth Vierra,0/2,5.0,1076976000,C.S. Lewis ROCKS!!!!!!,"I would recommend the whole wide world to read this awesome book!C.S. Lewis is incredible, and by far my favorite author. This book describes the seemingly obvious yet not so obvious problems of humanity. It perfectly explains those feelings and thoughts we all have but can't seem to find the words to place on them. If you know anyone who's intellect gets in the way of them accepting the idea of Christianity as a whole, give them this book. I adore C.S. Lewis. This is a book that should be read by anyone who loves God. It's brilliant." +1764,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1TF0ACJBAS0OT,Hai Gang,0/0,5.0,1239235200,Mere Christianity by C.S.Lewis,"The great classic by Dr. C.S. Lewis, who provides clear logic for faith.Also highly recommended for subsequent reading is ""Screwtape letters"".Mere Christianity" +1765,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A116C3LACJLO46,Joe,1/1,5.0,1328745600,Awesome!,Historically awesome book. Its been around for a while (as you can tell by the cover) but its still an amazing book by CS Lewis. Get this beast! +1766,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2AQU7NWDXS35J,C. Wahl,0/0,4.0,1197244800,an insightful perspective,"This book is a very intelligent and logical look at the basis of not only Christianity but at spirituality in the larger sense. As a former Atheist, he shares his own unique path to discovering a higher being and finally how that lead to his belief in Christianity. I thoroughly enjoyed this perspective as one who was raised in a very strict Christian home is now looking to define religion on a more personal level. He shares (and reminds some of us of)the most basic Christian doctrines which are often overshadowed these days by moral and social issues. Obviously a great read for non-believers who are seeking. Keep in mind while reading that this was written over 50 years ago and times have changed therefore so more modern ideals are not addressed." +1767,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A36R2CCU9CU8FX,Kimberly A. Piccione,10/14,5.0,1048377600,Something for Everyone,"I would recommend Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis to anyone, regardless of their beliefs. I believe every reader will find some part of the book that will prove to be useful. For those readers thinking or wandering about Christianity, Lewis provides them with the motivation and tools needed to get them headed in the right direction. Atheists reading the book may find Lewis's ideas and experiences interesting since he too was once an aheist, and he knows the doubts, questions and oppositions they may have. For Christians, Lewis prepares those who are faced with the need to explain and defend their beliefs while witnessing to others, which in turn builds their confidence to do so. Lewis's views are non-denominational and he does not attempt to define those boundaries, nor does he try to solicit their beliefs.In many ways, Lewis aids his readers through the reading process. The book is divided into four smaller books containing short chapters. Once a section is read, the reader is then allowed time to reflect and absorb the information provided before moving on. At the end of each chapter, Lewis attempts to summarize his purpose for that chapter and its intended message. Each new chapter brings up questions that may arise from reading the previous one, and provides more of an explanation to address those issues.Lewis is very careful not to prematurely turn a reader away or scare them off by forcing Christianity upon them. Lewis heightens the reader's awareness, and then slowly works in logical reasoning, so as not to overwhelm them. Instead of padding the book with teachings that will further confuse the reader, Lewis uses examples the reader can relate to, and then connects those examples to the point he is trying to make. Clearly, not every reader will find every chapter or section in the book helpful. Lewis advises the reader to take what they can from each chapter, and then move on to the next. He never claims to be an expert, but instead states his only authority is that of experience, as a layman, a Christian, and a former atheist. He even asks in his book for "instructed Christians" to advise him when he goes wrong.The opinions stated in Mere Christianity were originally voiced to people at war during World War II. Considering what is going on in our world today, this book might come at an appropriate time to offer hope, for those fighting for our country, and for those of us at home. It was meant to give comfort then, and it will give comfort to those who need it now. Lewis explains that God created a perfect world, not the bad things in it, and God's will is for those things that have gone wrong to be made right again.What I appreciate most is the wide range of an audience Lewis seeks to reach. For those who feel they don't understand Christianity, Lewis advises that they cannot begin to know how it works until they accept it. For those who have the fear of failing in their search, Lewis points out that failures are expected, and what matters most is the honest intent and the will to overcome.Lewis helps the reader to depend on God and strengthens their desires to turn things over to him. He offers some insight of Theology, aiding those searching to understand their faith, which in turn will allow their faith to grow. Lewis discusses hope and heightens Christian believers' desire for heaven. Readers will come away thankful for the earthly pleasures, but also knowingthe best is yet to come." +1768,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1YULPSMPKWNFF,Joseph C. Helton,1/1,5.0,1216944000,Mere Christianity,"I've been a Christian basically all my life, and had up to this point, never read anything by C. S. Lewis. Now having read ""Mere Christianity"", I'm completely baffled as to why I waited so long. C. S. Lewis' style is very conversational, intelligent, and spiritually moving. His argument for Christianity is convincing, and his passion and love for Christ come through in his words. I've read other Christian books, mostly through the Sunday school at church, and they all pale in comparison to the wit and passion of C. S. Lewis. Pick up this wonderful book, your life could very well be changed by it." +1769,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1U7Z823AHEW2P,MAFS,1/1,5.0,1287360000,Practical yet Inspiring,"There is nothing empty or shallow in CS Lewis' explanation of the truths of Christianity. While expressing idealogogical facts, he using allegorical and practical references throughout this masterpiece. Mr. Lewis is engaging and yet down to earth. He does not elaborate on one set of Christian precepts to the exclusion of others. He covers a wide range of beliefs without bias.It is clear from his explanations of Christian principles that he has struggled to attain the insight and knowledge to express Christianity with such clarity. I will listen to this CD over and over.....it never loses its originality." +1770,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,AVI8Z1QENMT0Z,The Professor,3/4,5.0,1178841600,A Mandatory reading for all Christians,"As a professor of apologetics and theology, I have made this book mandatory reading. It is my firm belief that EVERY Christian MUST read this book! I won't offer an apologia of Lewis' work here in this review; however, I do challenge you to read and find out for yourself what a wonderful work this is. If you are one of those who have always said to yourself, ""I need to read that book sometime"", then let today be the day that you start! Christians beware though! This book will knock you down and challenge you. It is the definitive work when it comes to apologetics and Christian philosophy. You will have to read this over and over many times BUT it will be worth it and God will be honored as a result by your strengthened faith.I also recommend: Intellectuals Don't Need God and Other Modern Mythsby Alister E. McGrath. This work is an excellent companion to Mere Christianity." +1771,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A82W7AA53WSIP,Jack Thompson,84/90,5.0,946425600,Mere Christianity Explains It All,"At the age of 25 I read this book in 1976. In the midst of its pages, I became a Christian. The conversion experience was real, it was exciting, and it was lasting. Now, 23 years later, I consider myself a child of God through the ministry of C.S. Lewis. Charles Colson, former "enforcer" of the Nixon Administration, also became a Christian reading Lewis's Mere Christianity. I recommend it to non-believers, believers, and to outright opponents of the idea that Jesus is Lord. Why? Because Lewis strips away all the silly religious accretions that obscure the true message of this historic person known as Jesus of Nazareth. All of these notions kept me away from the faith for years, and it was exhilirating to confront, via Lewis, the Jesus who actually walked the Earth and who, 25 years ago, changed my life radically and forever. I am a lawyer who knows what evidence will stand up in a court room. Lewis has it. I have been "convicted" by that evidence, by the grace of God." +1772,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2BWPZZPH55KU1,John M. Balouziyeh,0/0,5.0,1260230400,"Clear, lucid, persuasive","The following review is based on the 2001 HarperSanFrancisco edition copublished by Zondervan, with a foreword by Kathleen Norris:In this volume, C.S. Lewis, one of the most influential writers of the twentieth century, successfully lays out those basic tenets that nearly all Christians have held together at all times. He employs convincing arguments in plain language to point to a system of absolute truth and he then comes full circle by arguing that this system is fully realized in a Christian worldview.1. The Case for Absolute ValuesHe opens the book by arguing that people hold to common perceptions of right and wrong, as can be evidenced in everyday, mundane situations. The statements that are exchanged in arguments, such as ""That's my seat, I was there first"" or ""Come on, you promised,"" demonstrate this tendency (p. 3). People quarreling typically do not discard the standard against which their conduct is being measured; rather, they try to justify themselves according to the standard. This, says Lewis, points to a system of absolute values that people hold in common.2. The Case for ChristLewis then challenges the reader to concede that he (the reader) has at sometime or another violated the very standards of behavior that ""we expect from other people"" (p. 7). Thus, although people believe in transcendent standards, they have throughout history and throughout cultures typically not acted in accordance with these standards. This is the gateway through which Lewis sets up the argument that he will employ throughout the rest of the book: people need to be justified, and Christianity offers the answers in Christ.The reader is challenged to examine the claims of Christ and to determine for himself whether or not Christ was God, as he claimed to be. If he was not, then he ""would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell"" (p. 52). Lewis leaves no room for the view that Jesus was no more than a ""great moral teacher,"" since no great moral teacher would claim to be God if he was merely man.3. On Christian LivingAfter setting out the case for Christianity, Lewis discusses various aspects of Christian doctrine and behavior. The purpose and end of Christians is to become like ""little Christs"" while working out their salvation. Lewis discusses a series of relevant questions, including social morality, sexual morality, charity, hope, faith, and the difficulty of Christian living.Of the latter sections of the book, one of Lewis's strongest is chapter 6 of book 3, where he discusses the idea of Christian marriage. He makes the case for the leadership of the man in Christian marriage in a way that is strikingly relevant. He begins from the premise that there needs to be a leader in the relationship and, based on the natural differences between men and women, as well as some anecdotes and arguments based on intuition and some common sense, Lewis states why the leadership of the man, as taught in the Scriptures, is in keeping with human nature. My only criticism to this chapter is that Lewis starts on the premise that disagreement will naturally arise, and because there can be no democracy in a relationship of two, either the man or the wife needs to take the lead. The problem with this is that it ignores the place of leadership even in the absence of disagreement. For example, Adam was Eve's head in prelapsarian Eden, where there was neither sin nor conflict.Lewis also discusses the two aspects of love that married couples will experience, the first being the ""falling in love"" and the second being the ""staying in love"" that should last for the rest of their lives. He writes that ""What we call `being in love' is a glorious state, and, in several ways, good for us. It helps to make us generous and courageous, it opens our eyes not only to the beauty of the beloved but to all beauty, and it subordinates (especially at first) our merely animal sexuality; in that sense, love is the great conqueror of lust. No one in his senses would deny that being in love is far better than either common sensuality or cold self-centeredness. But, as I said before, `the most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of our own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs'. Being in love is a good thing, but it is not the best thing. There are many things below it, but there are also things above it. You cannot make it the basis of a whole life. It is a noble feeling, but it is still a felling. Now no feeling can be relied on to last in its full intensity, or even to last at all. Knowledge can last, principles can last, habits can last; but feelings come and go. And in fact, whatever people say, the sate called `being in love' usually does not last. If the old fairy-tale ending `They lived happily ever after' is taken to mean `They felt for the next fifty years exactly as they felt the day before they were married', then it says what probably never was nor ever would be true, and would be highly undesirable if it were. Who could bear to live in that excitement for even five years? What would become of your work, your appetite, your sleep, your friendships? But, of course, ceasing to be `in love' need not mean ceasing to love. Love in this second sense--love as distinct from `being in love'--is not merely a feeling. It is a deep unity, maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit; reinforced by (in Christian marriages) the grace which both partners ask, and receive, from God. They can have this love for each other even at those moments when they do not like each other; as you love yourself even when you do not like yourself. They can retain this love even when each would easily, if they allowed themselves, be `in love' with someone else. `Being in love' first moved them to promise fidelity: this quieter love enables them to keep the promise. It is on this love that the engine of marriage is run: being in love was the explosion that started it"" (p. 108-109). Lewis speaks with remarkable clarity and wisdom for a man who, at the time he wrote the passage, was unmarried." +1773,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1KUQAAHPEHJBW,Jen_B,0/0,5.0,1294704000,You can't go wrong with C.S. Lewis.,"I bought this set as a Christmas gift for my husband. He's read through about half of ""The Screwtape Letters"" to date, and he absolutely loves it. That's not surprising, you don't need me to tell you what a great writer C.S. Lewis is. Great buy." +1774,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A25EZD7KR4YQWE,Douglas C. Payne,0/0,4.0,1324339200,Good Will Fosters it with Good Merchandise & Prompt Shipping,Good Will Fosters it with Good Merchandise & Prompt ShippingMust be Mere Christianity.. Merry Christmas! This complete C.S. Lewis collection represents the perfect gift for holiday giving. +1775,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A328GLDSDNFYII,"Raul E. Fernandez ""-RFP""",0/0,5.0,1354665600,Such a great read,This book is very well written. It's a pleasure going through Lewis' faith-filled logic and reading his testimony. It's great both in book form and audio-book form. Highly recommended! +1776,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1HP1V4SQJKI51,Paul Burgin,3/6,5.0,964915200,Lucid and Thoughtful,"It works in three parts, putting forward an argument for the existence of God, then for Christianity, then for Christian doctrine. It deals with some complicated questions with ease and asks some in response. Even if you dislike the book from heresay or disagree with Christianity full stop, it is worth reading and weighing up" +1777,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,,,1/2,5.0,920505600,A Great Book - It changed my life,"Lewis was able to explain my faith to myself for the first time. Eye opening. If you are unsure who God is in your life or unsure what God's plan for you is, this book could be the clue book with the answers. It was for me." +1778,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2T6RWGHT3DIDH,"Suzanne E. Anderson ""Author""",9/14,5.0,959472000,Top Five.......,"On that proverbial island where we might be stuck someday with only a handful of books to sustain us....Mere Christianity would be in my bookbag. Although I have been a Christian since childhood books by Lewis and Madelaine L'Engle have deepened my personal walk with God immeasurably. Mere Christianity is a classic discourse on why we are Christians, written in a thoughtful and timeless language." +1779,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,,,1/2,5.0,928972800,"I'm reading it a third time, and still learning!","This book is truly fascinating in every aspect. It gives a firm foundation of logical proof that God in fact exists, and that Christ is the way to Him. All the logic goes step by step from page 1, building brick on top of brick to a proof that simply cannot be shattered. I have nine of Lewis' books, but this is the only one I've finished as of yet. I do, however, recommend The Problem of Pain, by Lewis. It's excellent so far." +1780,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2JUSZB1YGKECZ,SergioAndres,1/1,5.0,1349308800,Practically handy,"In times when the morality and the common human sense seems to be in decay due to the relativity subjected to these concepts, Lewis, in an understandable way and with a variety of examples, elucidate the reality of right and wrong hidden in the human being exposed as the Law of nature. With that, as a start point, the author give sense, in many ways, to the human behavior and clarify why the christian moral is the most proper way for a person to live." +1781,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2JYB2746D920C,"Lisa W. Elliott ""dietermom""",1/2,5.0,1162684800,Wonderful!,My husband and I have enjoyed listening to these tapes each week before our class. We feel as if C. S. Lewis himself is talking to us! Great addition to our personal resources! +1782,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,AD0J5KK4WQXNS,OverTheMoon,3/3,5.0,1185840000,Answering the big `What next?' question after Christian conversion. Nail on the head indispensable and vital.,"C.S. Lewis hits the bull's-eye in a way that no one else has done before. One could imagine how people devoted to reading the Bible all their lives, or going to mass every Sunday, could miss the salient points of Christianity. His vital argument is that Christianity is not about how much Bible you know, or how to spin a doctrine, or how much you praise your local Priest/Pastor, but how to actually set about doing what Christ asks Christians to do. Namely, how to become a little version of Jesus... a Christian!Instead of breaking down the Bible into a verse by verse tutorial or going through several stages of Catechism, C.S Lewis goes for the characteristics of the Saints and compares them to Jesus to produce a portrait of what God is asking human beings to be like. For all intents and purposes a human being who does not deserve God is called to try and be like God by walking in the footsteps of Jesus Christ. It is never surprising how this very basic of basic requirements of Christianity goes over most heads who are usually too busy hung-up on apologetics or doctrines to get the simplest of commandments which is the message of the Gospel...1. Love the Lord your God2. Love your neighbor as yourselfHow do you do this? By realizing that only Jesus can do it for you. Give up trying to do it yourself and submit to Jesus. That is how it is done.Mere Christianity was specifically designed between 1942 and 1944 to encourage and motivate the British people to fight the Nazi threat. It worked. They won.Book 1 of Mere Christianity discusses our inbuilt nature to know the difference between right and wrong. Lewis calls it the law of human nature. The argument is good because it becomes apparent that common sense should prevail in the world today... but doesn't. We simply know when we are up to no good, or when someone else is up to no good, not because we have been taught what is right and wrong but because of our inbuilt sense of knowing right from wrong that is active somewhere within us. There also seems to be an unseen force that discerns this difference for us, a sense which Lewis believes comes from a higher being. The thing here is that this higher being seems to desire good will. This means that the higher being is probably good and not bad. The onion is that people don't always do what they know to be right. This indicates to Lewis that man seems designed for a higher purpose but mostly achieves a lower standard of being because of doing wrong.Book 2 of Mere Christianity goes right for an explanation of the problems set up by Book 1. Lewis thinks Christianity holds the solution to this problem because things turn out never quite like we expect them to be. That point can not be underestimated. Maybe Jesus did create the world? Maybe there is a spiritual battle taking place in this realm? Lewis believes that a fallen angel called Satan is manipulating people to go against their true nature on planet Earth. Lewis proposes that God values free will over direct intervention and wants human beings to freely choose Jesus to thwart the devil's influence in their daily lives. That is basically it.Book 3 of Mere Christianity is where it is at. This is the big morals and ethics lesson about how to be a better person through Christ Jesus. Lewis talks about the cardinal virtues, prudence (discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it), justice (give due to God and neighbor), fortitude (firmness in difficulties and constancy in the pursuit of the good) and temperance (moderates the attraction of pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods). Lewis then talks about the theological virtues of faith, hope and love. Sexual morality and Christian marriage play a big part in getting good with God. His lesson is very motivating. Forgiveness is a fundamental. The greatest sin of pride gets a big lecture. Book 3 is the real reason to buy Mere Christianity.Book 4 discusses God in the sense that someone who goes through the practice laid out in Book 3 can look forward to what is the next projected step in human evolution which is to voluntarily become an eternal spiritual person through Christ. It contains the barest of doctrines and principles but the chapter called Let's Pretend about the teaching of putting on Christ in a sort of dressing up as Christ routine is a mind blowing concept. Here Lewis indicates that no one deserves to be play acting like Christ but that this is what Christ asks people to do by following the directions Christ laid out, such as praying the `Our Father...', yes calling God our dad! See how such an outrageous mockery this is considering how we do not deserve any of it. It is this orientation of one not deserving anything that gains one everything. It is Christ that leads the way to everlasting life not man leading man to nowhere else but the grave. Yes Christ will kill our old selves in the process but what remains is what we are and not what we have become as a result of reflecting what is bad about this world and not reflecting the goodness that is within it. This is eternal life in heaven being spoken about. The greatest quest a human being can undertake.Mere Christianity is most certainly a Christian essential that will be read more than once for its unlimited value in contributing to good will intensions. You would be hard pressed to find a book as rewarding as this for the little amount you have to read. You will probably do best to read the four Gospels after reading Mere Christianity to figure out more about the Christ who we are asked to put on. Remember to let Christ do the work. We cannot do it ourselves. God bless C.S Lewis!Some additional points however need to be made. This book was written during the 1950s and there has been much progress since then. Being yourself is important. Stop speculating about prophetical end times. Read the Gospels instead. Don't worry about Satan. Concentrate on Jesus instead. Reason before mystical feelings (feelings can be misleading). Check your reasoning with experts. Live life as best you can. God loves you. God is with you always. Pray for the better. Christ's love gets us into heaven. Mistakes are just mistakes. Be careful with legalism (trying to depend too much on the commandments or regulations to get you into heaven and not Jesus). Keep the commandments as best you can though. Christians do develop with the times as they have always done so try to stay in touch. Vatican II aligned Priests are recommended for Catholics. Protestants Christians and Brothers and Sisters in Christ would do best to have a Biblical exegesis that uses the historical critical method instead of just concentrating on direct literal interpretation alone. Also I would add that above all else is honesty and Christianity is not exempt from this because in fact it promotes it. Religion of all kinds should be allowed criticism (Christianity takes full advantage of this when it touches on other religions). A person should honestly evaluate the arguments rather than ignore them. That would be the Christian thing to do." +1783,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,,,1/1,5.0,909532800,A profound look at the logic behind Christianity.,"C.S. Lewis explores the common beliefs of all Christian denominations by appealing to his readers logic. Beginning with observations about human nature, he builds a case for the existance of a higher power, that higher power being like the Christian view of God, and how Christianity fulfils the expectations of such a god. He searches into many of the questions that humanity has grappled with for all of time: the existance of God and an explanation of sin and evil, and also discusses the mystery of the Trinity and human redemption through Christ. Any one who reads this book will walk away at least realizing how much time and energy must be devoted to religious questioning." +1784,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,AMKJYVZKLIYXL,Tyler Andrews,1/4,4.0,1052697600,"250 pages of text, 1000 pages of thought","Lewis�s Mere Christianity is an insightful and thought provoking classic work of Christian literature. This collection of World War II radio speeches retains the impact it had fifty years ago in Britain. Lewis, a layman of the Church of England, conveys issues debated by the greatest scholars and minds for centuries in a way simple enough to be understood by a young student. The quantity and quality of illustrations alone make the book worthwhile. The genius imagination of C.S. Lewis beautifully reduces difficult thoughts down to simple illustrations.Lewis begins with topics relating to all people everywhere such as morality, the conscience, and the ideas of evolution and creationism. Primarily using anecdotal evidence, Lewis logically progresses the reader from the belief in the existence of a god to belief in the God of the Bible. Christian topics like forgiveness, hope, faith, and the Trinity are addressed at the end of the book.The book�s goal is to present only the core and central Christian doctrines, what Lewis calls �mere� Christianity. As a result, issues relating to denominational division in the Christian church are intentionally omitted. In my opinion, however, many of the topics ignored in order to reach this mutual �mere Christianity� are far too important to be overlooked. I also believe Lewis should have used more quotations from the Bible to support his arguments.Lewis presents the Christian perspective in a book aimed at the skeptic, the atheist, and the fellow Christian. Mere Christianity caused me to re-evaluate the beliefs I hold and the way they are applied to my life." +1785,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,AB9QXH5URDLER,"R. Kirkham ""jrkirkham""",19/23,5.0,1071705600,Reviewer Beware!,"As with any art form, whether painting, sculpture, or literature, there are works that you review and there are works that review you. Whether reviewers realize it or not, their ability to recognize a masterpiece is reflected in their comments on this particular work.I am not saying that everyone must agree with everything in this book any more than everyone must agree with Christianity in general. I am only saying that if anyone wants to understand the basics of orthodox Christianity, that person must contend with this work. It is probably the broadest, simpliest, statement on Christian doctrine penned in the 20th century. It is probably responsible for more people converting to the Christian faith than any other 20th century book.If you are a Christian and have not wrestled with the concepts of this book, do not call yourself a scholar. If you are not a Christian and are interested in the faith, this book is a great starting place. If you think you are a Christian, but strongly disagree with the majority of this work, your theology is probably not within the bounds of historic, orthodox Christianity.I realize my comments are likely to offend some. I am not trying to make a judgement of whether this book is accurate or if any particular person is good or evil. I am merely stating that this book has one of the best grasps of historic Christian theology you will come across.If you want to study the Christian faith, get this book." +1786,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2TQX03YEHBBQF,Frederick Meekins,0/1,4.0,1251849600,A Review Of Mere Christianity,"C.S. Lewis is renowned as one of the foremost Christian thinkers of the twentieth century. Despite being an Anglican and exhibiting a number of tendencies making him a bit of an iconoclast among his fellow believers, C.S. Lewis has been fondly embraced by a broad swath of the church in part because of his efforts to promote a version of the Christian faith amicable towards all denominations by appealing to what all of these theological niches have in common, which could be referred to as mere Christianity.As such, one of Lewis' best known apologetic texts is titled none other than Mere Christianity. Originally presented as a series of broadcast talks, Lewis vetted much of his text past four members of the clergy --- an Anglican, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, and a Roman Catholic --- in order to keep denominational idiosyncrasies to a minimum. Because of such conscientious effort, the Christian finds in Mere Christianity a rational defense of the faith of considerable sophistication.Mere Christianity begins as a recitation of what is known as the moral argument for the existence of God. According to Lewis, the moral law consists of the fundamental rules by which the universe operates and to which all residing within are bound. And even though considerable intellectual resources have been expended to deny its existence, not even those making it their life's purpose to undermine these eternal principles can escape from them try as they might. Lewis observes, ""Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him, he will be complaining `It's not fair' before you can say `Jack Robinson' (5).""The very fact that human beings are able to argue that one set of moral claims is superior to another, Lewis observes, is itself proof that some kind of higher law exists. Lewis writes, ""Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer has committed a foul unless there was some kind of agreement about the rules of football (4).""Lewis notes, ""If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring...Christian morality to Nazi morality...If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something --- some real morality --- for them to be true about (11)."" Thus, the standard by which human moralities are judged stem from a source apart and above them.From establishing that natural law exists, Lewis moves on to examine where this eternal law originates from. Lewis postulates there are approximately two sources that this law could possibly originate from: the materialist view that the principles governing the universe arose through a process of chance and the religious view that the universe was established by a conscious mind. And since the law comes to us in the form of principles and instructions, this would seem to conclude that the promulgator of this law would have to be mind rather than inanimate matter.Despite the fact that the universe was meant to run according to moral law, it is obvious from a quick look around that the moral agents operating within it fail to live up to these noble ideals as we are regularly aware of even our own shortcomings. As such, the universe requires a divine intervention to set things right. Lewis writes, ""Enemy occupied territory --- that is what the world is. Christianity is the story of how the rightful king has landed...and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign of sabotage (36)."" This king is none other than Jesus, whom from his own claims, must be God or, as Lewis famously points out, is a lunatic ""on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg or a devilish liar (41)."" It was the primary purpose of Jesus to suffer and die so that our sins might be forgiven so that we might be made whole in Him.Fundamental as this message is to man's eternal salvation, Mere Christianity is also full of practical observations less cosmic and more down to earth. Lewis writes, ""Theology is practical. Consequently, if you do not listen to Theology...It will mean that you have a lot of...bad muddled, out of date ideas (120.)"" Many of theology's practical concerns manifest themselves in the form of morality.Lewis lists morality as being concerned with three matters: harmony between individuals, the inner life of the individual, and the general purpose of human life as a whole (57). Lewis observes that different beliefs about the universe will naturally result in different behaviors and those closest to the truth will produce the best results (58).Lewis demonstrates how this phenomena manifests itself in a number of ethical spheres, sex being one of interest to just about all people. It is this obsession with sex, Lewis point out, that shows just how out of whack contemporary morality has become. Lewis comically comments that the level to which this biological impulse has been elevated in our own society is akin to a land where the inhabitants have such a prurient interest in food beyond nourishment and wholesome pleasure that the inhabitants watch a plate containing a mutton chop that is uncovered just before the lights go out (75). Ironically, Lewis points out, such deviancy is not usually the result of starvation but rather overindulgence.Though Lewis is witty in regards to most issues he addresses, even in regards to this beloved Oxford professor, the Christian must remember to be a Berean and measure even his formidable intellect by the standard of Biblical truth. Unfortunately, there are at least two matters that must be approached with caution.Lewis likens the process of change we go through as Christians to the biological theory of recapitulation where it is believed an embryo passes through the various phases of evolution during development in the womb. Of the process, Lewis writes, ""We were once like vegetables, and once rather like fish; it was only at a later stage that we became like human babies (159).""One hopes that had Lewis lived until more technologically advanced times that he would have not retained this scientifically erroneous theory. For at its most innocent, it is used to justify Darwinisim and from Lewis' statement one could very well use it to justify abortion.From another passage, it would seem Lewis tottered dangerously close to a ""proto-universalism"" in his thought. Lewis writes, ""There are people in other religions who are being led by God's secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it (162).""John 14:6 says, ""I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."" And Acts 4:12 says, ""Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.""In writing Mere Christianity, Lewis does a commendable job overall of balancing the theoretical and practical concerns of the faith. As such, Mere Christianity will no doubt continue as a classic apologetics text for decades to come.by Frederick Meekins" +1787,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1MJ40Z67LGOI0,kylen1010,0/0,4.0,1227398400,Great All in one Book,"this book is great because it is all in one, and also has a nice clear font with a good size. The actual writings of CS Lewis are amazing." +1788,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A6C0B977TSHNN,Will Jerom,4/13,2.0,1221350400,A Disappointing Defense,"C.S. Lewis presents a disappointing defense of Christianity and Christian Ethics. The primary advantage of this work is that it is clearly written, and uses many analogies to help illustrate its points to the reader. The major disadvantage, however, is that these analogies and analysis are far too simplistic. By introducing an analogy Lewis merely assumes it as proof of the very thing he is trying to argue. Page after page is filled with analogy and reasoning which seems to rest on an undefended assumption. His argument that Christ was either ""Divine or a Madman"" for calling himself the Son of God, and that therefore we must believe the former is really ludicrous. Any number of persons have been false prophets and made false claims, but because the claims are outrageous doesn't mean we must accept them. If Christ is any different, he has not shown how Christ's ideas were different, which is where he should have gone. I write this from the perspective of one friendly to the Christian religion and its ethics, and simply don't think Lewis has done a very good job in arguing for the Christian religion. Too many of his arguments are really thinly veiled theological assumptions that are uncritically presented in two-dimensional depth." +1789,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A10WE8FBQXMY0U,Debra L.,1/1,5.0,1340668800,Amazing!,Enlightens the reader. Most enjoyable and informative Christian book. Makes you think of things in a whole new way. Lewis is the best. +1790,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1K2ADRM6S7ILR,Fabian J. Witmer,0/0,5.0,1192406400,"A very good book to get, if you are interested in theological issues and enjoy C.S. Lewis","This is a very good book to understand more about the Christian faith and various topics like pain, miracles, grief. I would say that parts of the book are very well written apologetics, but since there are various books in this one volume, there are also different styles and genres...The two works that are closest to fiction resemble different aspects of various prose, with ""The Screwtape Letters"" being written in a form of collected letters.I can only endorse this book: It has been very helpful in understanding my faith and the varieties in the different denominations, because it was written with much wisdom and insight that many people can prosper from." +1791,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A3FVAWZNKW9GX,"A.Trendl HungarianBookstore.com ""What should ...",3/7,5.0,1019433600,For Skeptics and Believers,""Mere Christianity" by C.S Lewis is an erudite, cogent view of Christianity. Skeptics will appreciate Lewis' willingness to look at the harder questions of the Christian God, while true believers will gain confidence as they see the logic of God presented sensibly and pursuaively.Not to be compared with Augustine, or any of the church fathers, Lewis does bring a modern, yet classical examination of what Christianity is and why it is reasonable to believe. He doesn't get caught up in anything but the core and substantive matters of the faith. Lewis is eloquent here in his clarity.For an entertaining and insightful expose of human sin, read his "Screwtape Letters."I fully recommend "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis.Anthony Trendl" +1792,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A35E34O8XD78YR,Matthew,6/8,5.0,1171238400,A pivotal work for anyone examining Christ and faith,"Despite its critics, who usually don't successfully supply reasons or specific citations as support for their accusations, ""Mere Christianity"" continues to reveal just how deep faith in Christ is and how well it holds up against nearly all examinations and critiques (after all, it is faith, not scientific process or theory...theory also requiring belief...I digress).Lewis is clear, concise (for the most part) and takes the reader on a ride that tickles the mind while strengthening the soul.In essence, this book opens up a discussion about the legitimacy that faith, specifically in Christ, has in the grand scope of human interaction, culture and ideas.With the more recently and the less, to be honest, inspiring, ""Simply Christian,"" by N.T. Wright, Lewis will always be relevant to the thinking follower of Christ who will not become complacent in thought or life." +1793,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2VE83MZF98ITY,"FrKurt Messick ""FrKurt Messick""",21/25,5.0,1076112000,Merely wonderful...,"C.S. Lewis was a rare individual. One of the few non-clerics to be recognised as a theologian by the Anglican church, he put forth the case for Christianity in general in ways that many Christians beyond the Anglican world can accept, and a clear description for non-Christians of what Christian faith and practice should be. Indeed, Lewis says in his introduction that this text (or indeed, hardly any other he produced) will help in deciding between Christian denominations. While he describes himself as a `very ordinary layman' in the Church of England, he looks to the broader picture of Christianity, particularly for those who have little or no background. The discussion of division points rarely wins a convert, Lewis observed, and so he leaves the issues of ecclesiology and high theology differences to `experts'. Lewis is of course selling himself short in this regard, but it helps to reinforce his point.The book looks at beliefs, both from a `natural' standpoint as well as a scripture/tradition/reason standpoint. Lewis looks both at belief and unbelief - for example, he states that Christians do not have to see other religions of the world as thoroughly wrong; on the other hand, to be an atheist requires (in Lewis' estimation) that one view religions, all religions, as founded on a mistake. Lewis probably surprised his listeners by starting a statement, `When I was an atheist...' Lewis is a late-comer to Christianity (most Anglicans in England were cradle-Anglicans). Thus Lewis can speak with the authority of one having deliberately chosen and found Christianity, rather than one who by accident of birth never knew any other (although the case can be made that Lewis was certainly raised in a culture dominated by Christendom).Lewis also looks at practice - here we are not talking about liturgical niceties or even general church-y practices, but rather the broad strokes of Christian practice - issues of morality, forgiveness, charity, hope and faith. Faith actually has two chapters - one in the more common use of system of belief, but the other in a more subtle, spiritual way. Lewis states in the second chapter that should readers get lost, they should just skip the chapter - while many parts of Christianity will be accessible and intelligible to non-Christians, some things cannot be understood from the outside. This is the `leave it to God' sense of faith, that is in many ways more of a gift or grace from God than a skill to be developed.Finally, Lewis looks at personality, not just in the sense of our individual personality, but our status as persons and of God's own personality. Lewis' conclusion that there is no true personality apart from God's is somewhat disquieting; Lewis contrasts Christianity with itself in saying that it is both easy and hard at the same time. Lewis looks for the `new man' to be a creature in complete submission and abandonment to God. This is a turn both easy and difficult.`Mere Christianity' was originally a series of radio talks, published as three separate books - `The Case for Christianity', `Christian Behaviour', and `Beyond Personality'. This book brings together all three texts. Lewis' style is witty and engaging, the kind of writing that indeed lives to be read aloud. Lewis debates whether or not it was a good idea to leave the oral-language aspects in the written text (given that the tools for emphasis in written language are different); I think the correct choice was made." +1794,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1W8VAQ2ZQ1UUQ,"Summer Bacon ""Summer Bacon""",25/32,1.0,1190246400,Quality works in poor quality packaging,"For the last week I have been like a little child waiting for a birthday present to come in the mail. I have joyfully anticipated receiving this boxed set of C.S. Lewis treasures. At last, it came today. What a disappointment! If the covers of these books last through more than one reading, I will be surprised. The covers are beautiful, but the quality is poor, and certainly not worth the $47.90 I paid for this set. I was looking forward to something that would last for years to come. Oh well, I won't be sending the set back, because I'm anxious to read these incredible works (the first books I will have read in several years). If this review was about C.S. Lewis, it would be five stars. But, this review is about the shoddy quality of this set, and hence the single star review. Buyer beware." +1795,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1SW0GJFQ5YFSA,Ronald L. Cioffi,4/8,5.0,1121558400,Christian insights,"I decided to reread ""Mere Christianity"" to see if I could rekindle insights into what is God, what has He done and what should we be doing.I had underlined several sentences and paragraphs from my previous reading of this book. I found that these underlined passages were still applicable. I recorded several new thoughts to aid my understanding of God.Lewis takes on the tough issues facing Christians. For example, we know what morality is but do not practice it completely. When we understand how much more we have to do to be a better person, we are progressing in the right direction.I was particularly interested in two thoughts from Lewis' book.1. Try to become a better person by taking one step at a time. Ask for God's help. This is really good advice. It works!!2. Religious leaders who politicize God's word are not working for God. Religion and political party platforms should remain separate and apart." +1796,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A1KPVJZGU7X35R,D Hamilton,0/0,5.0,1360713600,Real Belief,Who would have thought such wisdom from a convert more than a hundred years ago. Logical conclusions based on life. +1797,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2GHIZEPP3D4O3,Mark Twain,0/0,5.0,1352160000,A really beautiful edition,If you are looking for a Christmas gift for a Lewis fan you won't do better than this. It's gorgeous. A proper collectible edition +1798,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,AR9FNSPEE9B77,S. Pollock,7/9,5.0,1132531200,Has the power to change lives,"Probably one of the great books of the last century. Lewis approaches Christianity as late convert who previously held well-thought out philosophical objections to its teachings. In Mere Christianity, he outlines and refutes many such objections such as:(1) ""'Isn't what you call the Moral Law simply our herd instinct and hasn't it been devloped just like our other instincts?'""; and(2) ""'Isn't what you call the Moral Law just a social convention, something that is put into us by education?'""What is wonderful about Lewis' writing is that he draws delightful, imaginative analogies which he expresses in simple, unpretentious language, but which are nonetheless thoughtful and profound.As a university student, I frequently hear variations on these two objections made by students and professors to deny the existence of natural law. In his defence of natural law and critique of moral relativism, Lewis argues that while it (was, and remains) fasionable to argue that good and evil cannot be objectively defined because conception of morals have differed in space and time, this is not so. He asks us to imagine a country where people were admired for cowardice; where men felt proud for betraying their friends. In no society or age has selfishness or cowardice ever been admired, nor generosity and courage condemned. Lewis goes on to argue, persuasviely, that morals are NOT simply a matter of taste and opinion.In regards to objection (1) mentioned above, Lewis argues that while we do indeed possess a herd instinct (a natural desire to help another person), a DESIRE to help another is different in kind from feeling that you OUGHT to help whether you so desire or not. Lewis says you may feel two natural desires - the herd instinct to help another (and put yourself in harms way, and the instinct to self-preservation (to not risk harm). But human beings feel a third thing which tells us what instinct we OUGHT to follow. This thing which judges between the two cannot be one or the other. A sheet of music which tells you what note to play on the keyboard cannot be itself a note. Therefore: ""The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.""In regards to (2) Lewis argues that like our multiplication tables, morals are objective truths, not ""social conventions."" The fact that we learn morals from our parents does not prove otherwise. We also learn math from our parents but that doesn't make mathematics a social construct (and therefore subjective and relative). Moreover, Lewis points out that: ""If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilised morality to savage morality, Christian morality to Nazi morality . . . The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to the standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that Real right than others."" If we deny this transcendent, objective standard, we lose our ability to object to the actions of any other person or state.Lewis exposes the intellectual poverty of moral relativism, and in this modern age of cynicism and disbelief, his argument for the transcedent truth of Christ's teachings are needed more than ever. For those who find their faith faltering this book will help to sustain it. And for those who are not Christian but are curious and are open-minded enough to look beyond modern caricaturation, this book may surprise you." +1799,B000HKRIJO,Mere Christianity,,A2AW2V4GQ4PUQ0,"Myrtle Fickett ""M. Louise Fickett""",13/15,5.0,1141689600,The Problem with pain,"Before I comment on this book, I would first like to share what led me to this book, and all the others that I have ordered.I first read ""Jack"", which is the name C.S. Lewis chose to go by because he did not like his given name. Jack is a biography of C.S. Lewis, written by his step-son, Douglas Gresham. Mr. Gresham lived with Jack from the age of 9 until Jack's death 10 years later. They were very close and Jack shared a great deal with him.After reading this book I had to find some of his writings and get to know this man better. I would reccommend that every Christian, and non-Christian alike, to read this man's writings. I am presently reading ""The Problem with pain"", along with ""bits & pieces"" of all the others I ordered. I feel so blessed to have been able to purchase two hardbacks, which are collections of his Classics. I discovered in the back of one of them a year of devotions. That was a nice surprise!I thought my faith was strong before, but since I've started reading C.S. Lewis' books, my faith have taken on a whole new meaning..I am sorry if I made this longer than you wanted and I fail to read the guidelines.M. Louise Fickett, OKC" +1800,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AJYRVV9KUU1BU,SWHIBS,0/0,5.0,1347062400,Best Revenge Book Ever,"This is my favorite book: The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas (published in 1840).This 1200 page juggernaut is a story of one Edmond Dantès, a young sailor on the verge of being promoted to captain, and starting a life with his longtime love, Mercedes. Plotted against by jealous rivals, Dantès is implicated as a Bonapartist traitor and thrown in prison. Revenge ensues!Dumas writes revenge like no one I've ever read. Though at times the main character seems needlessly ruthless and not particularly likeable, I just could not put this book down - well, except when it got too heavy to hold (Whew ... 1200 pages is heavy!). This is a book that will remain on my bookshelf forever (though probably not one I'd read as a bed time story to a kid).Pick it up (if you're strong enough) and give it a go - I don't think you'll be disappointed." +1801,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A2Q89GLG5WWJ3N,Lauren,1/2,5.0,965865600,A story of a man's unjust imprisonment and intricate revenge,"Nineteen year old Edmond Dantes is falsely accused and incarcerated by three men; one sacrifices Dantes to his ambitions, one covets his fiancee, one is jealous of the young sailor's success. His unbearable captivity in the Chateau d'If lasts until his ingeniously conceived escape fourteen years later. When he returns to wreak his terrible vengeance on the men who imprisoned him, he is no longer the naive, idealistic Edmond Dantes; he is the cunning, cynical, and fabulously rich Count of Monte Cristo.The complex plot of this book makes it slightly challenging, but the suspense and intrigue more than compensate. I thoroughly enjoyed this fictional masterpiece!" +1802,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3BNZNEEGZ2MZT,The C**t of Monte Cristo,3/3,3.0,1304899200,This book is really small,"The book arrived a little sooner than I expected, but the book itself was not what I expected.It was the abridged version; maybe I just didn't notice when I placed the order, but I was expecting the full, unabridged version.The picture of the book is a little deceiving; basically a 5x4 inch, pocket hard back. Reading a 700 page book in size 8 font on tiny pages is a little daunting. This is going to sit on my bookshelf until I get a real sized book." +1803,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1RYJ9Y5D8Q7J1,"Jeff Tweedy Owns Me ""Emilee""",2/2,5.0,1155686400,A great book from the point of view of someone who hates to read!,"I am a student, and I was recently asked to read this book for an assignment. When I first began reading the book I was stumped by the first couple of pages. I had to go back and do a bit of re-analyzing, because sometimes they call the characters by their first name, at times by their last, and some gain a specific title throughout the book. That really threw me for a loop, and if you don't pay attention to that you'll be confused the whole way through. The first couple of chapters moved a little sluggishly for me, but after I got to a point of interest this was a quick read for me. The thing that makes this book so interesting is the underlying theme. The whole point is someone will double cross anyone if they think they'll benefit from it in the long run. It also shows just how much revenge can cloud a person's mind. This was one of the first books I've been given to read for an assignment that I actually found meaningful. Much better than the ""Oeidipus,"" or ""Alice in Wonderland"" by far. Although this book is a classic, there is a very modern feel to it because much of the things menchined in this book happen today in different ways. Overall it was a wonderful book. I don't regret reading it at all." +1804,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A2VAZCWAI6E8NN,K. Lang,0/0,5.0,1032220800,Outstanding example of fine writing.,"For those who don't know the plot of this story, it is a story of revenge for injustices. (I'll let you read the dozens of other reviews to get the plot in case you don't know it.) What this book brings to the table is dozens of intricately interwoven subplots that all come together and make for the most satisfying read I've ever had the pleasure to consume. If you're afraid of reading a classic or have been told you HAVE TO READ this book, take heart. You will find this intriguing, provocative and without a doubt the best written book I have ever had the pleasure to read. Dumas is a master of weaving many stories that all come together as a whole. I'm one of those people who believes most things that need to be graded/judged/rated are rarely at the end of the scales (superlative or horrible). This book is an unqualified 5 stars." +1805,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/0,5.0,934156800,A timeless classic for all readers,I would recommend this book to everyone. It is not often we come across a book this well written. This is one of the few books that keeps you in suspense and makes you keep reading. From the first sentence to the last few words Alexander Dumas is one of the best. +1806,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/0,5.0,933724800,Twisted plot and deep characters highlight this superb book,"I read this for a summer reading book, and although sometimes I had to reread some parts of it to fully grasp it, it is one of the best books I've ever read. The characters are incredibly realistic while the themes and inner stories are rich and touching. If you enjoy exhilerating adventure, tender romances, or cold blooded murder, this story is definitely for you." +1807,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A2BST8WUN0HHOX,Jaime Menendez (jmenende@yahoo.com),0/1,5.0,941673600,"Gripping, exciting, full of adventure!","The Count of Montecristo is truely a masterpiece. This is a story about a young french sailor named Edmond Dantes, whom is dennounced as being a conspirator to the exiled Napoleon Bonaparte. He is falsely acused, and then imprisioned in the dreaded Chateau d'if. Dantes later escapes and becomes the Count of Montecristo. This is truely one of my favorite books, I highly recommend it." +1808,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3RSJDCJHIJLLY,"classroom3502 ""classroom3502""",0/0,4.0,1229472000,A classic Novel!,"As human beings, we, for the most part believe in justice. When you strike me on one cheek, I should be allowed to strike you on the other, or at the very least sue you in court for the monetary damages your strike caused me. This sense of justice often transcends both culture and age. However, in many situations, justice does not occur. Evil men and women prosper at the expense of the good without consequence. Crimes and wrong doings go unpunished by the court of law. The question becomes should humans be allowed to take revenge for the crimes and evil committed against them when the legal system is too corrupt, lazy or ineffective to do anything about it. This question of vengeance is really the central question of Alexander Dumas classic novel, The Count of Monte Cristo, a thrilling tale of crime, escape and vengeance set in 19th century, post-Revolution France." +1809,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3M0VIUWXFMZ8C,D. Graeber,2/4,5.0,1113004800,One of two of my very favorite books. Perfect book.,"By all means read the long version. That way it doesn't end so fast, and you capture all that Dumas wrote. Believe me, this is one book you don't want to end. It is that good." +1810,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/0,5.0,882489600,THE BEST EVER,"Alexandre Dumas excells himself in this magnifcent book. The book has many exciting moments, and i recommend that you read it as soon as possible. It also concludes in a suprising way. To people who like books that are adventure and exciting i recommend only Alexandre Dumas and Sir Walter Scott." +1811,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A33RUPFVBI3KUA,"Yonathan Manullang ""-byt-""",0/0,4.0,1330732800,A Classic!,"It is one of a must have classic stories of all time. With the price, and the illustration, there was no second guessing on buying this book." +1812,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AJG3KVR9V1X0E,Pen Name,0/0,4.0,1351900800,Exceptional,"While the Three Musketeers is better known, Dumas treatment of The Count of Monte Cristo is exceptional. His character development is excellent and puts one into the scene. An excellent read. One classic to be revisited." +1813,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3VGTALKMIKGED,Potato Wedge,4/4,5.0,1091491200,For a person who hates reading... this was amazing,"I'm fifteen and i had to read this book over the summer period. Like i said before, i hate reading because it seems like i have ADD whenever i pick up a book... i just can't stay focus on the plot. But this was one of the few books that i actually got into and didn't mind spending my summer reading. It's filled with adventure, twists and turns, a little romance, and memorable characters. Yes, it is a little long, but once you read a page of this story, the time seems to fly as you seem to be transported into Paris w/ our protagonist. This is going to be one of my favorite books of all time." +1814,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1RSLH6NHJ56LV,Chris Adkins,0/2,5.0,963360000,The best book I have ever read no kidding!,"I haven't ever come across a book that has been this good. Itwas a joy to read. Dumas really outdid himself when he wrote thisone. If you are looking for action, mystery, adventure, romance, revenge, etc. this book has it all." +1815,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1MS8DXHX1YYQ6,A.A.,2/2,1.0,1339545600,repackaged Project Gutenberg text.,"This is a repackaged version of Project Gutenberg's Count of Monte Cristo text. You can download the book for free (even a kindle edition) if you visit Project Gutenberg. (Googling ""Gutenberg Monte Cristo"", for example, should bring you to the proper page.)" +1816,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A29H4CYU2A768N,12_Lictors,5/6,5.0,954288000,Excellent story/excellent book,"It would be a futile effort to try to express in words just how excellent this story is. Stories that have been called "classics" have been labeled as such for a very good reason. I think anybody who has read and liked Tolstoy, Renault, Shakespeare, Leroux, Homer and R.L. Stevenson will enjoy this outstanding tale.I highly recommend that the reader keep a couple of sticky notes and a pencil handy. Be sure to compile a list of names and a brief description for EVERY character introduced...you'll need this reference as events unfold.The book cover/binding itself is rugged and can take a serious beating. For any story that's this compelling and 1400+ pages, the quality of the book itself becomes important since you don't finish such a long story overnight. My book survived the London subways, streets of Paris, German autobahn and my luggage to/from Ukraine--all without any problems. The font is larger than any paperback (or hardcover for that matter) and is easy on the eyes. As with any Modern Library production, the quality of this book is exceptionally top notch." +1817,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A2U4Z4NU39Q950,Yvonne Thompson,0/0,5.0,1352419200,Perfect,Bought this for my dad to read. He loved how easy it was to order. Good book. He love it. +1818,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AMN1O9TPXA6G,"P. Craig ""scribhneornagle""",0/1,5.0,1157587200,It Is Alexander Dumas's Greatest Triumph.,It is wonderfull even though i'm just nine i'm 49 chapters out 71 through it and i have 23 chapters left it is a triumph for Alexander Dumas has captured the life of people in france at the time of Nepoleon Barneparté.He has given all his characters from the seafearing Edmond Dantés to M. De Villefort. +1819,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,3/3,5.0,1012608000,"""Count"" This Novel as a Classic","WARNING: May include ""spoilers"".""The Count of Monte Cristo"" is the most extraordinary book I have ever read.The first aspect that makes it so interesting is its variety. ""The Count of Monte Cristo"" is usually described as an action-adventure novel about revenge. It is that, but it is also much, much more. It is a fantasy novel, a romance novel, a mystery novel, a horror novel, a comedy, and a social satire. There is something in this novel that will please nearly every reader.The second aspect of the novel that causes it to be so wonderful is the characters. There is, of course, first and foremost, Edmond Dantes, the Count of Monte Cristo. Dantes is an amazingly charismatic character. He is also incredibly complex, being at once a philanthropist and a sadist, a man who is remarkably intuitive about what motivates his enemies but who at the same time is frequently oblivious to the feelings of the people who he cares about. For example, he thinks that Haydee, a beautiful Greek-princess-turned-slave, loves him like a father. He's right about the love part, but not the ""like a father"" part. In parts of the novel, he appears God-like, in others, he is compared, not entirely without justification, to the Devil. Edmond Dantes is fascinating.Then there are the secondary characters. The secondary characters in this novel are such that you can't help but wish that many of them had their own novel for which they could act as protagonist. There's Albert de Morcerf, Eugenie Danglars, and Haydee. Of the three, Haydee is my personal favourite. She is, initially, somewhat annoying due to her hyper-sensitive, cloying, and comedically melodramatic nature. Gradually, however, as the reader learns more about her tragic past, it becomes extremely easy to sympathize with her and care for her. She later demonstrates her inner strength when she aids in the ruination of Albert de Morcerf, one of the men who had betrayed Edmond. Both she and the Count have gone through similar experiences and are remarkably alike, which helps makes the novel's conclusion logical and rewarding.An additional aspect of the novel that makes it qualify as a classic are its themes and the way the novel presents those themes. Dumas pokes fun at the aristocracy, mocks the often contradictory social values of his day, and philosophizes about revenge, love, hate, and philosophy itself, among other things.Some readers have complained that the plot is too complex and confusing. I, for one, found that not being certain about what the Count's plans were made the novel all the more interesting. As well, some readers have said that too much of the plot relies on coincidence, luck, etc. True, some portions of the novel stretch believability, however, I did not find that this in any way damaged my enjoyment of the novel. The story is, in many ways, allegorical, as a result, the occasional implausible plot twist makes little difference in whether a reader enjoys the story or not.It's impossible to summerize what makes this novel so wonderful in a simple review. I strongly advise against reading the abridged version, because there's something worthwhile on every page of the full-length novel. ""The Count of Monte Cristo"" is that rare specimen of a book that manages to be intellectually and emotionally satisfying, and, at the same time, is extremely fun to read." +1820,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A2CYDCJKZ7F0IO,"MK ""MK""",2/3,5.0,1031616000,Probably the best book I've ever read!,"This is such an awesome book with quite an extraordinary plot. It's rare that I've read books this long--even for my classes in school. There's so much drama, so much suspense, so much awe, mystery and sophistication in detail that makes this book a true masterpiece, indeed! I couldn't put the book down and finished it all in a few days.I really don't want to ruin the plot for anyone, so i'm not going to go into any details. It's just amazing how a character can be at a new climax in life, fall to great depths, and then rise again.There will always be parts of the book where you might say or think things should have been different. But that's what happens when you watch almost any drama movie, for sometimes we don't want any sadness directed towards characters we grow to love. But sometimes that makes you appreciate the plot even more.Believe me, you really will love some of the characters in this book. Just give it a chance.I have to admit that I read the ... edition of this book, and I'm not sure if it is a different translator or if it is abridged to a different degree. I looked up the translator, but the book didn't say, and it's not for sale here on Amazon[.com], which is why I'm reviewing this book.Sometimes it's hard to pick out the right edition for a translated book. But I've asked so many people about this book, and all that I've known to read it have unanimously praised it. I don't think you can go wrong, but make sure you do the research before picking one specific book.And finally, I'd say don't pick a book with an ugly picture of the Count on the front. He's supposed to be a relatively good-looking guy, and an ugly picture on the cover can psychologically influence a partial opinion towards him contrary to the descriptions of the text. ;)" +1821,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A2WWC2332ZNMBK,fireflyx,2/3,5.0,1078876800,Fascinating,"1000+ pages is very intimidating. I know; someone suggested it to me, and the first thought I had was what!? me, read that!?!?I'm not really fond of literature/classic kinds of books, so the Count and I didn't get off to a good start. I WAS a bit curious though..All in all, I found it an amazing book. I especially love how Dumas protrays each character--true, they can get a bit mixed up at times, but it didn't deter me!--with deep thought for each of their personalities and proper actions (At least, I thought their actions were very appropriate in proportion to the descriptions of them).Also, the plot is interesting and intense enough to keep you immersed. Sometimes Dumas explains things a bit too much, but skimming through those parts hasn't damaged the story (for me, at least). I highly recommend The Count as a leisure book, or for anytime, really. If you've got time to read, and want to enjoy it, read this! (Plus, you can say you learned some French history--even if it's just a bit--to boot!):) hope YOU enjoy it" +1822,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A2AWAXKXJFI3VG,A Customer,0/0,5.0,1279238400,powerfull,"This is one of the best books i have ever read. there are great elements of intregue and revenge, however monte cristo's final revelations overshadow the rest." +1823,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A39BUO22NDTAAP,"Yeehing Lam ""nilsho""",6/6,4.0,1298073600,The Kindle Versio is NOT Translated by Robin Buss,"WARNING: For people who want to read a 1100 page The Count of Monte Cristo translated by Robin Buss on Kindle, it is NOT the one. Buss's version is not available on Kindle!! :(" +1824,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A2QQGMM8CBZR1J,luckyseven,9/11,5.0,1150675200,A Fantastic Book,"I read the Count of Monte Cristo after the movie had already come out. As a 14 year old I set high standards for it because the storyline in the movie really pulled me in. What I got was a book that completely shattered those high standards and raised the bar still higher! The Penguin Classics version has a great translation and you feel as though Alexandre Dumas' words and lines are living. You feel as though you are living in the Napoleon era and can witness all these heart stopping adventures in the process of exacting revenge. I would highly recommend this book to action, suspense, adventure, and even romance story lovers. This book is on my top 5 list. I'm even re-reading it! I started to read the abridged version but I don't recommend this because comparing it with the unabridged you find it hasty, vague and not as engrossing. Unless you are younger or want an ok book that reads faster then you should try the abridged version. So go out and buy this book but don't be intimidated by the size because by the end you will wish it was three times as thick!" +1825,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3P73BMRS3ESYJ,dannyh_10,0/0,3.0,1360108800,free for kindle. it's in my queue,It's on my kindle waiting to be read. I downloaded a ton of free books. I didn't have any issues getting it to my kindle. I have it as a reference book. +1826,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3C9WZSX2JF1BO,"Betsy Friedman ""Betsy Friedman""",0/0,5.0,1322265600,Take the time - great book,"The Count of Monte Cristo is one of my favorite books of all time. It is a long book - let's admit that right up front. I mean weight-lifting heavy and need a month to leisurely read long. It is totally worth it.Author Dumas starts with a young, thriving protagonist who is a little wide-eyed innocent for my personal taste. Stay with it, things change big time. The count is well drawn and full of cunning, driven by revenge, grounded in a sense of his place in justice and frankly someone I would love to be...well, I would want only the count part of his life. His fate was forged by the worst of betrayals and self-centered ambition of those who could have helped him.I'll never meet a woman named Mercedes without thinking of young Edmund Dante's love. I am looking forward to meeting someone named Haidee. Curious? Read the book and you'll understand why.Actually you should read the book because you will enjoy it immensely. It is a great way to spend some quality time with a count." +1827,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A37GDUTBL9PJT1,Irene,0/0,5.0,1359417600,One of My Favorite Books of All Time,"I love this book!I was inspired to re-read it after spending a month in Corsica, where, on a clear day, you can see the island of Monte Cristo from the east coast beaches. When setting eyes on the outline of this large rock, it's not hard to imagine something mysterious associated with it. In fact, these days, you can take a boat near the island to fish, but if you get too close, military boats come along to shoo you off.I won't provide a summary here - the Book Description on the product page does that quite well enough. What I will say is, as a story, ""The Count of Monte Cristo"" has everything - everything! Deception! Intrigue! Romance! Ambition! Honor and vengeance, redemption and forgiveness. More than one character sinks to the depths of utter despair. All that's missing is a bit of swashbuckling, which might have appeared, except that the story took a different turn...Towards the beginning, it would probably help to know just a little about French politics around the time of Napolean. You can get by on context, though I did find myself reading up on some Wikipedia entries.As the story progresses, it does get a bit soap opera-y, as all the characters eventually come together, and everyone happens to know everyone else. But, all the connections do make for a great story, so I'm not complaining. If this is your first time reading the book, it might help to write down the characters in order to keep track of them.Some people might call this book a tome, but don't let that discourage you! It's just more of the story to enjoy. I usually only have enough time to read a few pages a day, and it honestly made me happy just to have this book to look forward to, for whenever I might find a spare five minutes to indulge myself." +1828,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AGEPAZQOIALV6,Cheapster,0/0,5.0,1301702400,An epic novel,"Normally I shy away from really long books. But I remembered that some years ago my son read this in high school, and he thought it was great. I gave it a try, and found it to be fascinating. The language is not prosaic, but thought-provoking, and is best read when there's enough time to savor the author's choice of words." +1829,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1Y64VIOKZYBYN,"L. Avelar ""lindaskute""",2/2,5.0,1255219200,BEST Book You Will Ever Read!,"I rarely read books because I am more into TV but my cousin lent this book to me when I saw about 16 yrs old and I could not put it down, I stayed up all night for 2 nights just to finish it cause I was hooked, it has so much suspense and its very very clever. Like i said I rarely ever read books but this one I actually read twice, maybe like a year later, and if I can find it again I will definatley read it now cause its been about 10 years or so. Oh and I was so excited when the movie came out but it disappointed because it left so much out and it was not as action and suspensed-packed like the book, which is usually the case I guess but it really left huge chunks out. Anyways bottom line....READ IT!" +1830,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1U7L28N1N8E0L,Ilana Teitelbaum,2/2,5.0,953251200,THE classic,"Without exaggeration, 'The Count of Monte Cristo' is one of the greatest stories on earth. I`m not saying it`s the greatest book on earth--there are flaws sometimes in character development, and the overuse of coincidences--but the story itself is a gem unrivalled anywhere. When it comes to weaving a complex plot rife with fascinating characters, Dumas is a master; and each scene is instilled with just the necessary amount of dramatic tension and foreshadowing. Never once does the story slow its pace, yet without once detracting from its depth and power. The characters are often thrown into situations that are literally a matter of life and death, and suspense becomes the reader`s constant companion. But the most compelling element in the story is Edmond Dantes himself, aka the Count of Monte Cristo, looming like a spectral shadow over the bright spectacle of French wealth portrayed here--a shadow with a broken heart and needs of which he is hardly aware, so intent is he on becoming a pitiless agent of revenge. The book`s main flaw, I thought, was the abrupt resolution of his relationship with Haydee--she seemed more like a plot device than a real person. Other flaws consist of contrived plot scenarios which would be unacceptable today, but which to me at least, with their exuberant spontaneity, make this book even more of a joy to read." +1831,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A17DT320R8SOIL,Patrick Meehan,1/1,5.0,1036627200,Revenge and regret,"For the shear grandeur of the story, I don't think there's a better book to read than this one. And insofar as the Count is larger than life, he simply wants his life back. Does that give him a blank check on his actions and his morality? Perhaps the urge for revenge is as crippling as the pangs of injustice." +1832,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1ST0TUZNHYRF4,"Jennifer A. Johnson ""jabbl""",6/7,5.0,1014681600,There's a good reason this one is a classic!,"I admit, I was motivated to read the book because I saw the movie first. I don't know how I escaped both high school and college without reading this one, but I regret not having found it sooner. The movie, though enjoyable on its own, shares only one thing in common with the book: its title. Everything else has been inexplicably altered.There is sooo much more to the story. Here is a man, who, unfairly convicted and imprisoned for 14 years, has everything good in his life taken from him. He cunningly escapes prison, finds immense wealth, and spends the next 10 years plotting vengeance on those who took his former life away from him. He studies his enemies and, one by one, brings about their downfall and destruction by exploiting their vices. He also finds cause to reward those who did not betray him, and who lived irreproachable lives of unrewarded nobleness.The writing is enthralling and fast-paced. It is a fascinating story, well-told and impassioned. I wouldn't limit it to any specific audience, like juveniles or only those who know they like adventure stories ~ I would recommend it to anyone." +1833,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A22DD52OUHIP7Z,"""yupadhyaya""",0/2,5.0,997833600,A Most Excellent Book,This is a great book. The action is gripping and the ending satisfying. A book you cannot put down! +1834,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1JN0IL4NZV122,"Kim L. Arnett ""Audio Reader""",0/16,1.0,1200873600,Count of Monte Cristo,"Story has good twists, but there are too many French places and people which makes the audio confusing." +1835,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1IOSU0XNL6SNE,MalfoyMushyGusher,0/1,5.0,1322352000,Unabridged and under $15,"I bought this book for my mother and was very pleased to find that it was unabridged, I had read the description and with the page count I had surmised that it was unabridged, but to read that it actually was on the book's back cover made me very happy. I have always enjoyed the Oxford Classics series, they're all really well done, especially for paperbacks, they're the top of the line for softcover books, them and Barnes and Noble :Dhappy reading!" +1836,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3OIXQDPXB1KO0,Thomas Quinn,1/1,5.0,1340323200,"Awesome Book Made Better By This Painstaking, Highly-Readable Translation","I cannot add anything new to the adulations already written about the Robin Buss translation of my favorite all-time novel. It is the best translation of the best novel ever written. I've read four different versions so I feel qualified to make this claim. Remember, Dumas' plot was virtually ripped-off by General Lew Wallace as he formulated the plot for another great novel - Ben Hur.DO NOT BUY an unabridged version, it will ruin this veritable work of art for you. It would be like viewing the Sistine Chapel back wall and never seeing the ceiling.Now, there is a self-serving purpose to my review besides giving Buss props. When I visited Venice for the first time in 1999 I fell in love with the place. When I returned home, I looked, in vain, for a Monte Cristo-esque story set in Venice. It didn't exist. Sooooo . . . I wrote it. I have inserted the links to the two books in case you are interested in getting another Monte Cristo ""fix"" set in fifteenth-century Venice. I don't claim they are as good as ""The Count"" but I don't get any complaints from readers. Here are the links:The Lion of St. Mark (The Venetians, Book 1)The Sword of Venice: Book Two of The Venetians" +1837,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AK2JQVNE3NBYK,Walter Cohen,0/1,5.0,983750400,This is a top 5 book. No doubt about it!,"This is certainly one of the best books I have ever read. A brilliant tale of revenge, hope, love, cunning, generosity and mercy. The story takes place in different and masterfully described settings, I particularly liked the festival in Italy. If you like Dumas, try Arturo Perez Reverte, a Spanish writer who worships Dumas and has a beautiful writing style, spellbinding. Try for 'La tabla de Flandes' ('the Flemish Chessboard'?), 'The Dumas Club' and 'the Captain Alatriste' series. Enjoy." +1838,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AT04V4H3AO3T5,Jeremy W. Forstadt,4/5,5.0,1101168000,Revenge!!!,"THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO is a page-turner-no doubt about that. To those who may feel intimidated by reading ""classic"" literature (and especially as one as large and ominous as this unabridged version) I would say ""fear not!"" This novel is one of the most accessible and enjoyable reads you can find from any literary era.Like others who have already written here, I simply could not put this book down for several days until I had finished it. Dumas's style of writing cliffhanger endings consistently throughout the novel plays well to today's generations (myself included) who have been raised by television and movies. THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO reads like a compelling dramatic series (as it once was when published) that you simply never want to end. Woe to those who chose an abridged version of this book!I read all kinds of books for all kinds of reasons. Don't look here for realism, profound philosophy, or exercise for your intellect. One may choose to read ""the classics"" for a variety of reasons, but THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO, to me, is a purely guilty pleasure that I can engage in without thinking too much.Jeremy W. Forstadt" +1839,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A2G48VII0ZFEJW,Leiram,0/0,5.0,1355097600,great read!!!,"Loved this book, definitely one of the best I have read in a while. I have watched the movie and really liked it so I figured I would read the book as well. I liked the fact that it was not identical to the movie so it kept me guessing and wanting to keep reading." +1840,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A2H1W8V6R9TJ9E,J. Jacobs,1/1,5.0,1081641600,Hard to put down,"Occasionally departs from believability, but overall, an engaging, adventure packed story of a man (Edmond Dantes), his unjust imprisonment, and spectacular revenge." +1841,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A34VO4U8WO69UM,R. P. Barros,1/1,5.0,1349308800,Still worth today,"Written more than 160 years ago, this amazing book still retains a freshness typical of immortal books. A great adventure novel that inspired other books dealing with overcoming and revenge. ""Tiger, Tiger"" aka ""The Stars My Destination"", a SF novel by Alfred Bester has the same strucutre and plot. A ""must read"" book." +1842,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A2E3GFHUDNPYDH,"Julee Rudolf ""book snob""",5/10,4.0,1278288000,Concocting and implementing such exceedingly devious acts of revenge require a lot of pages.,"This extremely long (1082 pages) book, set mostly in France, spans nearly a quarter century starting from the year 1815. It's about a twenty-year old man named Edmond Dantes, whose early fame (as a young, newly assigned ship captain) is short lived. Jealous of his success, a few bad men take actions that, on his wedding day, lead to his arrest and long imprisonment for a crime he didn't commit. After leaving the prison, he again gains fame, as well as fortune, learns all that he can about the men whose actions led to his demise, uses the information to concoct acts of revenge, ingratiates himself with the bad guys and their family members, and strikes. Although I'm not a fan of spending the time required to read really long books, in this case, I'm glad I did. An amazingly easy read, The Count of Monte Cristo has a complicated, well-thought out plot (though that involving V near the end is hokey and the ultimate fate of H troublesome) and great characters. Plus, it's always nice to see the good guys gain and the bad guys get their due. Also good: The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway, The Woman in White by Wilkie Collins, and An American Tragedy by Theodore Dreiser." +1843,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1PK2OUOLEYAF1,Joshua White,0/0,5.0,1353715200,Best Written Book,"It is rare to find in modern writing the wonderful complexity that exists in this book. It is a classic for a reason, and i consider it one of the best written stories i have ever read." +1844,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3T8QJ4BG62G3W,damask16,0/0,5.0,1284163200,An extremely engaging story,"The Count of Monte Cristo is one of those stories that, once it gets rolling, you can't drag yourself away from. The first half of the novel sets up the base for the unreeling of a revenge that is as complete as it is deserved. It's amazing how much of a foundation the Count sets up for his revenge. A throughly engaging tale!" +1845,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AELXFPTLB6P2L,MG,0/1,4.0,1210636800,A classic story,"There are a handful of traits that make a book a ""classic"". They can stand the test of time from 10 years to 100 years beyond, due to their meaningful story lines which everyone can both relate to and have different interpretations of. The Count of Monte Cristo has all these characteristic of a classic story. It is a story of revenge, love, hatred and the second chances in life one may be lucky enough to receive. Even though this story is almost 200 years old it still appeals to people of all ages and walks of life.Edmond Dantes is wrongly accused and imprisoned for a crime he did not commit. After spending 14 years in a horrendous prison he miraculously escapes and uses his new fortune given to him by a prison mate to live out his new life of enormous wealth and his quest for revenge. This seeking of revenge captured me along the ride with Edmond Dates' use of wit and internal hatred towards others to seek revenge on those who destroyed his life. It came to my discovery through the Count of Monte Cristo's experiences and actions that people back in 1800's were just as devious, greedy, deceitful, manipulative and vengeful as people can be today in modern times.Alexandre Dumas builds a captivating and rich plot throughout his story which makes the reader wonder what will happen next and what the consequences may be. The theme of love, hatred, happiness, vengeance and forgiveness is something everyone can relate to since they are feelings we have all felt. My negative critique for this book is the fact that it was a struggle to keep all the 40+ characters in order. The French names I am not familiar with as an English speaker, were confusing at times.I found this book intriguing because this story portrays the evil nature of the human spirit while at the same time teaching a lesson in the possibility of Karma and how eventually people will end up paying for their wrongdoings. It was at times a struggle to get through, but I was glad I did." +1846,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1U0PRDNN3UA05,"Donna K. Ioppolo ""Donna""",0/0,5.0,1305417600,A Great Story,I can't believe with all the books I've read that I never read this one. It was wonderful. enjoyed every page right to the end. +1847,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A2Y7Y46HUU4ZZV,Benjamin G. Gardner,5/5,5.0,1035331200,Human Nature in a Compelling Narrative,"Compelling Description of Human Nature and MotiveThere is really no way to accurately review The Count of Monte Cristo. A simple review of its plot would be unfair to the genius of Dumas and to the profound insights into human nature and motivation that this book contains. Likewise, to approach this book merely for its psychological and anthropological value would be to ignore the imaginative flights of fancy and vistas for the mind's eye that this tome affords. Similarly, to approach The Count of Monte Cristo merely as a fable or a fairy tale is to forget that it is an accurate historical novel portraying the Franco-European mindset, as well as a crystal-clear exposition of the many social issues, conventions, and commonly-held fancies that characterized France throughout the post-Napoleonic era. However, for purely literary purposes, and due to constraints of space and time, a brief sketch of Dumas' masterpiece will have to suffice. Ideally, however, you will stop reading right here and get your hands on the book, thus skirting my woefully inadequate attempt to review this masterpiece fairly and coherently.Dumas' narrative follows the story of a virtuous young man struggling to come of age and find his place. However, in the classic battle of good versus evil, he is imprisoned unfairly and robbed of all that was dear to him. Eventually, he comes into great wealth and knowledge, escapes from captivity, and single-mindedly sets about to be the instrument of Divine vengeance on those who had previously denied him life and love. Along the way, he re-learns the value of friendship, and, having seen justice brought upon his enemies, finds unexpected love in an ending that is a triumphant, crescendoing testimony to the indomitable quality of the human spirit - and the mercy of God.Throughout this tale, Dumas teaches us of forgiveness, of love, of anger and hate, and reaches out to the reader with an intensity that can only come from a spirit that itself drank deeply of such emotions. Indeed, the story of Edmond Dantes - from the lowly but principled pauper to the rash, vengeful yet popular prince - smacks at times of Dumas' own rise from obscurity as an unknown mulatto to the powerful and respected literary force that he became.Granted, there are times when Dumas' heroes - like all heroes - take on superhuman qualities. However, they are not the indestructible supermen that mar much of today's literature. Instead, they are all too human - flawed sufficiently that their exploits are believable, and human enough that the reader often finds himself dialoguing with them, arguing for or against their intents and actions. In this way, it is the enduring human quality of the book - the ability for us to reach out across the better part of two centuries and dialogue freely and coherently with them, and to recognize the players and actors as fellow humans above all else - that makes it so compelling. Likewise, it is that essence of humanness that stands as the greatest tribute to Dumas.An insightful, powerful, fast-paced, and moving read, The Count of Monte Cristo is one of those books that does not end when the last page is turned and the book closed. Its imaginative power transcends the written page with timeless force, calling us to a greater, more vivid plane of existence and self-expression.Now get the book!- Benjamin Gene Gardner" +1848,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A6NLOGW2UFF45,Floristan,0/0,5.0,1331769600,Positively Stunning,"I just finished reading this book for school, and I absolutely loved it!! Dumas' captivating writing style combined with the intriguing tale of Edmond Dantes make this novel a must read for all lovers of classics and quality literature." +1849,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A151XCH6MEQC23,Dawn L Steadman,2/2,5.0,1007942400,The ultimate page-turner,"The author is one of the most imaginative writers I have ever come across. With one unpredictable plot twist after another, this was an addictive page-turner that had me reading for hours on end, days at a time. Despite its formidable length, you will not want this novel to end.The novel centers around Edward Dantes, who we first glimpse as a young innocent sailor about to be married. The treachery of three men results in his being sent to waste away in prison. He manages to escape after 14 years, and the remainder of the novel entails his painstaking and elaborate revenge on the villains.The author taps on every human emotion in weaving this tale - love, hate, greed, fear, empathy, pride. It reminds me of a Russian novel: it has a large cast of characters about whom the reader knows everything, an intricate soap-operaesque plot, and is impossible to put down.In my view, this is great escapist entertainment and very imaginative. I highly recommend it." +1850,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1PSK9HA6QDHJF,Reads Everything,0/0,5.0,1349827200,Loved it!,"This is beautiful writing. I absolutely love this book, and I love the story. I'm not sure which version I read, it had a lot of French in it, and it was not an easy read. But worth it. I might get an easier version and read it again.The writing style is like poetry.Edmond Dantes` is wrongly imprisoned from accusations made by people he trust. When he escapes, he seeks revenge, one of the best revenge stories ever written.I do have one complaint; I read this after seeing and loving the movie (2002, Jim Caviezel and Guy Pearce). The movie didn't quite follow the book. I hate to say this, because it does not happen often, I liked the movie better than the book. But definitely a must read. If you haven't seen the movie or read the book, I suggest you read the book first, and then see the movie. I wish I had gone in that order." +1851,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1KR76YD18XX8V,"Teri Centner ""aka Dory""",13/19,3.0,1225670400,Which Translation Is It?,"Bottom Line: Blackstone's audio version is the Lorenzo Carcaterra translation. The same as you would read if you were to purchase ""The Count of Monte Cristo"" (Modern Library Classics) (Paperback) from Amazon.comI actually haven't listened to this book yet, so I didn't want to rate it too high or too low. What I *did* want to do, however, was share some information with others who are interested in which translation they are reading. I learned from Wikipedia that a new translation was done for the 2006 Penguin Classics version of this book. Since this audio version was published in 2008, I wanted to know whether it followed the new translation. I looked here on Amazon, on BN.com, on BlackstoneAudio.com, and on Audible. None of them have the information. By combining ""Search Inside this Book"" with Audible.com's audio sample feature, I was able to listen to a portion while following along with the text on Amazon. This way I was able to confirm that it is the Lorenzo Carcaterra translation.I hope that helps at least one other person..." +1852,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/0,5.0,892598400,"In its category, evidently one of the top ten.","As most of Dumas'book, it is inspired of another story, and probably partly co-written, but who cares? the result is a book I'm still in love with, since I was ten... really gorgeous." +1853,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A2T7Q9SZ4ZSU8X,Bookworm Josh,0/0,5.0,1347753600,a novel at its best!!!!,"I read this novel a little over a year and just realized ai never reviewed it. The version I had was the free amazon. I read another review stating that this version is a repackaged version of the gutenberg version which would be the way to go since it is unabridged and free. You can save yourself the. 99 cents if that is the case.The book itself is by far one of the best I have ever had the pleasure to read. The story revolves around Edmond Dantes and his multiple personalities (the Count of Monte Cristo to say the least) and how he embarks on a personal vendetta against those who had him falsely accused and imprisoned for some 20-30 years of his life.Even the part when he is in imprisoned is crucial to the story as that is what really sets things in motion as he realizes the true reason behind why he is there.If you have never read any classics this is the one to start with. It is a lenghty book but one well worth the experience. If possible, get the book directly from project gutenberg as it is free. Amazon's free version is jo longer available." +1854,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,ARLX7TWNZSKYG,"L. Olson ""lo""",0/0,5.0,1245628800,Best book I have ever read,"This book is far and away the most entertaining I have ever read. It will not make you think in the same way that a book like 1984 might, but Dumas has an incredible skill when it comes to storytelling. If you think that you would enjoy a book that is packed with adventure and emotion, read this one." +1855,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A2UA65UOUNEIZP,Totoro,3/3,1.0,1263686400,"Terrible, terrible edition","A wonderful classic story butchered by a senseless editor who removed major portions of the story without letting the reader know. The description on the back cover misleads the consumer into thinking that one is getting so much more than the full text (the edition includes a brief introduction of the author, critical analysis and explanatory notes). I'd rather do without the side commentary and get the full original manuscript. The problem isn't that the editor decided to abridge the book, but that they chose to conceal this fact from the reader.The removed portions are integral to the storyline and I was left baffled by how disjointed the novel seemed, so uncharacteristic of Alexandre Dumas. Then I found out it's not the author's fault.Book is highly recommended, but I would also recommend that readers invest in more trustworthy versions out there." +1856,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A14W5BTADCDM9N,Michael White,0/0,5.0,1305936000,Incredible,"I have read this book 3 times and it is still my absolute favorite. The language, detail, and life of Edmond Dantes as depicted by Dumas is unlike any other book I have read. There is no filler or boring moments. Every line gives great insight into the characters. The idea Dumas presents is novel and paints revenge different than any way I thought about in the past. The movie is a disaster and distortion of the main points the book presents by the way. A must read." +1857,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3GFE5VLWYU8G4,starlet246@aol.com,0/0,5.0,896659200,Hollywood Take Notice!!! <again>,"Ok, Ok, ok. I will be honest. The only problem with this book is that I didn't find it on my own and had to rely on the public school system to help me discover it. I couldn't help but tink that it would make the best movie ever, and then I saw the version with Chamberlin...ew...a mistake...but should Hollywood ever decide to try again, they have a Mercedes wannabe in Virginia. I'd be the immortal Dantes himself, but gender restraints do exist....:( God bless you, Mr. Dumas!!!" +1858,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A250IJR2YRPFCI,Toyosi Ogunkua,3/5,5.0,979603200,The unraveling story of revenge,"The Count of Monte Cristo is one of the best books ever written, if not the best. It is a great piece of Literature written by the multitalented author, Alexandre Dumas. It is a thrilling and exciting adventure story of a young noble boy named Edmond Dantes. He was young honest sailor who had the privilege of directing the ship called the Pharaon after his captain died. He is then betrayed by two people he thought were his fiends, Monsieur Danglars and Fernand. Danglars was jealous of Edmond because he was the likely candidate to be the captain of the pharaon and Danglars wanted the job. Fernand was jealous that Mercedes was in love with Edmond. The public prosecutor M. de Villefort confiscated Edmond's only proof of innocence. The reason is that the evidence proved that de Villefort's father is a Bonapartist, which would put the prosecutor out of the favor of the court. Edmond was sentenced to life in the infamous dungeon, the Chateau d'If. There he makes friends with a priest. They develop a father, son friendship. He spends fourteen long, hard years in jail. He has a daring escape and finally leaves the oppressing dungeon. He then plans his revenge on his enemies. He joins a smuggler ship to protect his identity. He returns to his village, to find his father dead from hunger. He protects himself by changing his name to the Count of Monte Cristo, and travels to find his enemies with his new found fortune. He comes to find his lover Mercedes married to one of his enemies. The book is an action packed, never ending and very exciting. You will go on the greatest thrill ride of your life and it will not stop until you close the book. I enjoyed the book and I appreciated the author's hard work to write a fine piece of literature. It is an adventure story unlike any other, which involves a great deal of mystery. The use of one character in more than one role might be at first confusing, but it only adds to the drama of the story. The story is an intricate web of what the word vengeance really means. The plot is forever rolling and unraveling until the final resolution. You will be on your toes for most of the book and apprehensive to see what is yet to come. I greatly enjoyed the passion of the protagonist, to make his enemies feel the hurt and despair he went through. The plot is nicely developed to intrigue the minds of young adults and to make them think. The reader feels the joy of Edmond his sorrow is also felt.There are a few negative parts of the book. The length of the book may intimidate the reader at first and might deter them away from it. Edmond playing more than one character could also confuse you at first until you read more about the book. There was also the use of many different characters, which confused me as the story progressed. The positive aspect of the book was incalculable. The author's use of plot was very good and used wisely, this added to the quality of writing. I liked the book a lot and I would recommend it to anybody ages 13-up. This book makes you feel the magic of reading, so enjoy it." +1859,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/0,4.0,932774400,This book is great!,This book is an excellent novel for those who are looking for adventure. Dumas is a brilliant writer. +1860,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1IIZOFP8YKGPR,dcbooklover,2/2,5.0,1294358400,Best book EVER,"This is my all-time favorite book. I've read it at least 15 times. This book has something to offer to absolutely anyone that can read -- revenge, romance, betrayal, loyalty, friendship, political intrigue, history, etc. The cast of characters is unforgettable and well developed. The depth and breadth of the revenge plot in this book is unprecedented and unmatched. I wrote a paper on this book for my Revenge Literature class in college. Whenever I have been dissatisfied with recent books and need something really great to fall back on, I pick this book up again and love it just as much." +1861,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/0,5.0,925862400,"Intrigue, Betrayal, Despair, Revenge, and Redemption","When contemplating this novel, one scene is transcendent. Dantes, the figurative blood of his tormentors in his fists, is visited by his first, true love, Mercedes. At that moment, he realizes that vengeance, while sweet, just is not enough.I have found myself returning to this book every year since I first read it some twenty years ago. It is a wonderful, engrossing novel." +1862,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A319OJDZPHFGEC,Shari Hufford,0/0,5.0,1298937600,Loved it!,"I loved this book! I had seen the movie and enjoyed it, but it did not come close to the intricate plot twists of the book." +1863,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A366EDVUT043YO,"Doofus Roofus ""JJ""",0/0,5.0,934502400,A Book For REAL Men,"My favorite book of all time. Mastery. Sheer mastery. That's all I can say to praise Dumas' piece about revenge, retribution and redemption." +1864,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A157UIVPN0NYNN,April,2/2,5.0,1263427200,An All-Consuming Adventure,"Reading an abridged book is like eating cake without frosting. You don't really need the frosting, but the frosting is what gives a cake it's delicious flavor. The Count of Monte Cristo is a book which ought to be read unabridged, if only for the richness and flavor of the text. The evolution of Edmond Dantes from sailor to prisoner to Count of Monte Cristo is enthralling. Alexander Dumas's book is captivating. It is hard to set aside CoMC, as the characters are extremely interesting and well-developed. It's not like the antagonists are straight-up bad guys with no redeeming qualities, they are just people who make bad choices and act out of self-interest.Essentially, the moral provided in this HUGE tome is that revenge is a dish best served cold. In order to understand why I say this, I shall provide some backstory. Three men known to Edmond Dantes, all jealous of him in some way, one wants his job, the other wants his girlfriend, plot a way to put Edmond Dantes in prison. Their plan works and Dantes is arrested. He's thrown in prison without a trial. Dantes spends awhile in jail and thinks of nothing but his revenge. Eventually, Dantes escapes and becomes the Count of Monte Cristo. Luckily, for the reader we get to see the entire evolution of Dantes, we see him in his darkest moments as well as in his crowning glory. His revenge is most apt.I highly recommend this book for anyone who is looking to be transported into another time as well as for someone who is looking to fall in love with well-developed characters. There are many editions out there, I recommend the Robin Buss unabridged translation published by Penguin Classics. Buss's translation is fantastic and readable, the phrasing is not awkward at all, as in other translations. Also, Buss's translation includes all of the naughty bits - i.e. one sex scene, some drug use, and a dash of homosexuality." +1865,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3KD25QWG3VYK4,ddsharper,3/4,5.0,1196985600,"Great Author, Wonderful Book","I am so pleased to see that the Count of Monte Cristo has moved up to about 2880 in Amazon's rating out of over 6 million books. It was about 280,000 3 years ago when I checked. Imagine, a book over 150 years old has again, like it did when he was alive, captured the world. Penguin was perspicacious in providing the first complete English translation of this inspirational classic written around 1840! I have read it 3 times and never tire of it.It is difficult to add anything of value to the fantastic comments already made on the site, as the book has over 5 out of 5 stars and I agree with every one of the reviewers. I am thrilled that this generation is reading the author that I personally consider the best author that ever lived. It goes to show that true art is immortal. One member of royalty, on their deathbed in the 1800s, said they read Dumas because he gave life in his works. I agree.The book, as well as his over 1000 works, is riveting, enthralling and full of plot twists and great characters.Alexandre Dumas was the ultimate wordsmith and studied, and studied, on his own, to master his craft, never getting his dues until recently, by the French government. They dug him up from his hometown of Villers Cotterets, France, and moved his body to the Pantheon, finally calling him a national treasure. I read his biography and he wanted to be buried in Villers Cotterets. The move was disheartening in that the town lost revenue from tourists. Also, you can find pictures of the Chateau he built on the web. The man's personal life is as fascinating as this book, but beware, there are many lies circulating about his father, a brigadier general in Napoleon's army, being born out of wedlock, as well as Dumas himself. Neither is true, according to his 5 volume autobiography.Current reviewers also love to emphasize the illegitimacy of his son, an author in his own right, named Alexandre Dumas, fils (Jr.), the father being pere. No child is illegitimate and the two were close. People were admitedly jealous of Dumas then and, in my opinion, today. The writing academy only recently admitted him and that was a goal he held when he was alive. Great men, superior men, as Dumas points out in his narrative about some of his characters, including Dantes, are generally hated. Dumas was one of those hated men.If you loved this book, I'd suggest going to cadytech and checking out his other works. In the Count of Monte Cristo, Dumas's ability to capture the emotional spectrum of the human heart, to portray a wide array of human interactions, his mastery of dialog, demonstration of the conflicts of man versus man and man versus himself, his ability to paint descriptive pictures and completely draw readers into well defined and thought out plots, his expertise in interjecting philosophical truisms as food for thought, to make you feel the experiences of the protagonist and construct a perfect story of revenge, indeed one of the best ever stories of revenge, in my opinion, all make this my favorite book of all time.Dumas loved Shakespeare and many other authors and if you are as interested in the life of this fascinating man, as I am, please don't forget to go to cadytech. It is maintained by one of the most prominent translators of Dumas's works from french. Also, for another good read by this author, check out the complete 3 musketeers musketeers series, comprised of 5 books: The 3 Musketeers, 20 Years After, 10 Years Later, The Count de Bragelonne, and finally The Man in the Iron Mask. Dumas actually wrote 1 book but it was later divided into the 5 mentioned above. I could go on and on but will stop now." +1866,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/0,4.0,890265600,This is a book that has many insights into the nature of man,"This book is a great book. The way the plot is structured, the way Edmond Dantes slowly takes his revenge, to make it all the more painful on his enemies.The setup is ingenious--Dantes is in the best situation he could possibly be in. He is getting married, and is going to become the captain of the Pharaon, a ship that he is first mate on...and then, out of the blue, some police come in, and he is put away in the Chateau d' If, an island prison, to die.Dumas is a master of conveying emotion. At some parts of the book, one is forced to be depressed, and share the melancholy with the characters in the book. The arrow of anger that Dantes must feel toward his enemies is shot from the pages and into one's heart. And the happiness when Dantes is going to be married and at other joyous occations is almost an aroma in the air, rising from the pages of the book.Unfortunately, this book does, like every book ever written, has some aspects to be criticized. First and foremost, the length: 1074 pages is quite a bit for the average reader! Even the abridged version is 500-something pages. And there are also French sayings, anecdotes, and words that you must look at the footnotes to understand. Of course, in the abridged edition, it doesn't even have footnotes. But overall, this book is an enjoyable book, and unlike some other books written by amateurs, this book makes you think about the very nature of mankind." +1867,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,16/16,5.0,1137024000,The Count of Monte Christo,"The Conte of Monte ChristoThe Count of Monte Christo, written by Alexandre Dumas, is about a man named Edmond Dantes who experiences many twists and turns in his life. Edmond Dantes is a respected sailor who was going to marry a girl named Mercedes. Edmond was going to be the captain of his own ship and make a living. He lived in France in 1825 with his father. He is falsely accused of being a Bonapartist (a friend of Napoleon's) on the day of his wedding. Two men planned this accusation and they both benefited from his disappearance. Edmond was sent to a horrible prison and after a month an old man tunnels into his cell. The old man becomes Edmond's teacher in language, manners, and math. He also tells him the names of his two enemies, Danglars and Fernand. Edmond is filled with the power of vengeance and vows to avenge himself. Together, they plan their escape but the old man is hit by a disease. Before the old man dies, he gives Edmond a treasure map. Edmond uses quick thinking to devise a plan to escape and retrieve the treasure. Edmond gets out of jail and recovers the treasure making himself rich. He starts to do good deeds for others and changes his name to the Count of Monte Christo. The Count (Edmond) begins to slowly avenge himself while he helps out ""Edmond Dantes'"" loyal friends even though it is Edmond who is really helping them.My favorite quotes are ""I have instilled in your heart vengeance"" and ""For the last four nights I have been watching over you."" These quotes show the two main meanings of this book, which are Edmond getting vengeance and Edmond helping his friends. The Count of Monte Christo is a fiction/adventure book that tells Edmond Dantes life story and his adventures. Alexandre Dumas creates great pictures in my mind with his fabulous details. He made the characters consistently sound the same in their dialogue. He used wonderful language and added a little bit of humor in some parts. I was amazed how he mixed English and French together.I would recommend this book to fourteen or fifteen year olds because it is hard to comprehend and the language is old fashioned. I think that it would be hard for younger children to keep track of all the characters. The Count of Monte Christo is unlike any other book that I have read. It is the only book that has had me guessing all the way through. I would infer something and then I was completely wrong, which makes the book exciting. I would compare the Count of Monte Christo to the Lord of the Rings because they are both great adventures. They are extremely well written books and I like them both. Another book series that I compare The Count of Monte Christo to is the Clive Cussler, Dirk Pitt series because in both of the books there are great schemes. In the books, written by Clive Cussler, the people who make up the ingenious schemes are bad. In The Count of Monte Christo, the good guy is the schemer who plots his revenge. They both have good schemes but what separates them is that the good guy is outsmarting the bad guys, Fernand and Danglars. The Count of Monte Christo is the best genre it could be. Very few fantasy or mystery books that I have read matched up to it. The Harry Potter series and Eragon were also good books that I would compare to The Count of Monte Christo.This book was really addicting and I read the whole thing in three days. I was completely hooked by the twentieth page because of the author's detail. I could not put down the book; I even brought it in the car for a two minute drive. The book ended with a twist that I never saw coming." +1868,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A209SP39NOQ83U,read for life,1/1,5.0,1283126400,must read!,"This is my favorite book of all time. There is action, mystery, intrigue, suspense...it does take a while to get used to the language and it can be helpful to take notes on who`s who. This book is nothing like that horrible movie! A classic read." +1869,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A2L2IAUBQMQXQ4,"Savannah Brooks ""The girl with the most cake""",1/3,4.0,1184716800,"classic tale of vengence, plus one cube of sugar","i read this book because i saw the movie and thought it was awesome. the book is very good, too... it moves at a slightly slow pace but the elaborate plots people put into place against each other and the swordfighting and everything are still in place and thoroughly wonderful.the thing that keeps me from absolutely loving this book is the character of valentine de villfort, who singlehandedly sets the women's movement back about a year everytime someone reads this. mademoiselle valentine is so weak willed and insipid a character that she makes my teeth hurt everytime she speaks. she also somehow manages to have less spine than her quadrapalegic grandfather. excuse the pun, but he is actually able to have more direct impact on events through his actions than she is. mademoiselle sugar cube nearly ruined the ending of the book for me, and so i cannot give this a perfect rating. read it, but if you're a feminist, keep a look out for her and try not to let her ruin it for you." +1870,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A8Q1D1UUMNWEO,Kathleen Lee Miller,5/6,5.0,1264550400,The Kindle makes it so easy,I have read the Count of Monte Cristo about 4 times and have seen it on TV numerous times starting with Tyrone Powers as the leading man. I have never found it more exciting or more fun then I am with my Kindle. A great piece of literature made fun to read again and again. +1871,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3UEZG1AKVTT0U,Sophie Can,0/0,5.0,1270080000,The Count of Monte Cristo,I am thoroughly enjoying reading The Count of Monte Cristo. It's a classic with a good vs. evil plot. There is intrigue and suspense at every turn. I am reading this book for a book club and am excited about meeting to discuss it. I would highly recommend getting it. Don't let the 1462 pages dissuade you from a great read. +1872,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/0,5.0,928972800,"by far, hands down, irrevocably the best book ever written",i have read this book twice. first as a recent high school graduate. second to my beloved husband. he is not a reader and yet he begged me every minute we had free to read a little more. i respect this story so much that i will only recommend it to those a feel worthy. not everyone deserves to read this masterpiece. i do not exaggerate. i do read three or more books a month. i work in a library. i will read it again. +1873,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3ADSR6QZ4MR8X,Kewlman713,1/9,3.0,996451200,"A Classic Novel, BUT TO LONG","This book By Alexandre Dumas is brilliantly written, and keep u on the edge of ur seat, but it is WAY TO LONG (441 PG 73 Chapters) If u are in the mood for an action novel with a pleasing ending, then the Count of Monte Cristo is for you" +1874,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A30CXBWNJ83TUG,J. Whelan,4/6,3.0,1220400000,This Classic is Too Much,"I read this in an unabridged edition (117 chapters, circa 1400 pages), which I don't regret. However, having plowed my way to the end, I am tempted to classify this along with ""Dracula"" as a ""classic"" novel whose reputation rests more on its great beginning than on its middle and end. It was great up to about chapter 30 (describing the betrayal, imprisonment and escape of the hero, and the reward of his friends). However, once the story starts to sink in to the prolonged revenge, it starts to lose its way for me.After chapter 30, the hero becomes a sort of divinely inspired madman, who imagines himself to be, and apparently is, a mere tool and agent of God's justice. His behavior transcends moral laws, his plans transcend human intelligence, and he becomes impossible to identify with as a character. Fortunately, there are plenty of other characters, and the story, from this point on, is rarely told from the mysterious Count's point of view. If you are willing to settle in and be patient, you can have some fun watching the weaving, interacting sprawling plot threads. Even so, when it was all said and done, it was wrapped up in a way that left a bad taste in my mouth.I would not, however, recommend reading an abridged version. Too many threads intersect, and you cannot trust an abridger to like the same parts that you will like." +1875,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AH30WF3K981PR,Summerbookworm,2/2,5.0,1121040000,SO GOOD!,"I am a student who rarely reads ""classics"" in her spare time outside of school, but this one was totally worth my time! I took this book to the beach with me (i know, an unusual choice to bring to the beach) and i could not put it down - it is such a seamless story, clearly written and with so many twists and turns in the plot to keep you fully engaged in the novel. lucky you if this novel is on your summer required reading list for school but even if you are just looking for an intense and unforgettable beach read, this novel is for you." +1876,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A39AOF7UQL7KS1,T. Rock,4/4,5.0,1142726400,A real page turner,"I loved this booked. A 1000 plus pages had me a little worrried that my interest would wane before I got to the end, but that was not the case, I couldn't put the book down. The plot was well thought out and the characters came alive. If you like adventure, a good love story, a story of retribution and regret this is a must read." +1877,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A30G5HWFOLFTOI,Charlie Atan,1/3,4.0,1129680000,great story,i don't know if this is the best translation but i enjoyed it. it was very long which i never regretted. its one of those books that stays with you forever +1878,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/0,5.0,929318400,My FAVORITE BOOK OF ALL TIME!,I read this book after the reference to it in the autobiography Sleepers. Since then I have read it three times. This novel is extremely thought out and it's great how Dumas brings it all together. I'll never get sick of reading it. I recommend you go get this and read it now. You won't be able to put it down! +1879,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1IM23VVIS7CFL,Timothy R. Sullivan,0/0,5.0,1255046400,"This book is the reason they're called ""CLASSICS""","I just finished this book, the Modern Library Classic, and I must say it is the best book I've ever read in my life. What a thrilling tale of adventure, revenge, romance, spirituality, and morality. Dumas takes us through the European countryside, cities, and islands, setting the stage for the one of the best-crafted plots ever written.There's not much more I can say about this book that has already been written other than that one should get the long version. Yes, it took me awhile to get through the 1,462-page book, but I really don't see how the abridged versions could eliminate 900 pages of this masterpiece. This is truly a work of spendid prose and story telling. It's a must read for anyone who enjoyes adventure, drama, and history." +1880,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AMU3HHE72TC13,Sweeney,0/0,5.0,1288569600,A Must Read,"I was a little hesitant to get the unabridged version upon seeing the heft of it. But after reading it I could not imagine even considering the abridged version. It is an incredible story of betrayal and revenge. Buy it now!!.......""What a fool I was,"" said he, ""not to tear my heart out on the day when I resolved to avenge myself!""" +1881,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1U566Z1P5JA3I,Dzianott Group #217,1/6,3.0,1048032000,"The Count of Monte Cristo: Great plot, little lengthy","The Count of Monte Cristo is the kind of book that the author has a wonderful idea, but has the thought spread too thin over the novel to keep the reader's attention. Alexandre Dumas is an excellent writer but seems to accentuate too many subplots that are unimportant. He also focuses on numerous small and confusing characters.The basic plot, is about human nature, particularly revenge of a young man named Edmond Dantés. At the age of nineteen, Dantés has a series of important events happen to him. He is convicted of being a Bonapartist by two jealous rivals. He is unable to marry the lovely Mercedes and he is no longer capable become captain of the Pharaon, the merchant ship, on which he used to work on as a first mate. He is thrown into the notorious dungeon, Chateau d'if, for fourteen years. He escapes with a large secret: the map to the famed treasure of Spada. Naturally, he'll use it for his revenge. As they say, the rich can do anything.The book has so many intricate subplots and minor characters that the real plot seems to be lost in a hurricane of court intrigues, treasonous affairs, and numerous social gatherings. There are at least nine chapters concerning meals and balls, ranging from brunches to dinners, suppers to breakfasts, from a mere ball to a summer ball, and everything in-between. If you understand the difference between a baron and a count, then these things would obviously make sense, and may even be interesting to you. If you don't know the difference, prepare to be a little confused.Getting to the action takes a while, but when it comes, Dumas gives you a good read. From being captured by bandits, meeting Dantes's old fiancé (who is now married to his arch rival and has a child), to getting even with all those evil men who planned his imprisonment. Although, if you're not at the action yet, get ready for a long, not-so interesting read. Dumas, still manages to throw in some unimportant details and small talk in-between the action. You can't just go skipping around the book, because there are too many important details embedded in the small talk. If you don't read every word, I guarantee you'll get lost.This book is jam-packed with murderous action, so if that sounds good to you, you should consider reading this book. If you are looking for a challenge then this is a book for you. We recommend this book to older, more advanced readers." +1882,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/0,5.0,903830400,Excellent,"This is quite possibly the greatest novel of the Romantic era - if not all time. Some may find it slow going at first. Dumas has a way of bringing it all together, that is so clear and fascinating, it is the greatest achievement of his career." +1883,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3O001JLXPUJBU,creature,0/0,3.0,1354147200,Count of Monte Cristo,"Since I was a child, I've heard of ""The Count of Monte Cristo"" but as I grew into my teens and became an avid reader, I never gave a thought to reading it. For some reason (perhaps because the name was familiar to me from childhood), I saw it as a young readers book. Now, at the wise? old age of 69, my daughter, who is also an avid reader, suggested that I read it. She claimed it was one of the best books she's read. Normally, we have the same taste in literature. My daughter has read most of the ""classics"" and read the majority of them one after the other several years ago.After reading several pages, I gave up on it. While it is a fine work of literature for sure, I found a lot of the descriptive paragraphs to be repetitive and interrupted the flow of the story. Another issue for me personally was the amount of French content which I realize, is no fault of the author but a fault of my own for not knowing how to pronounce the French names, places, references etc.Another reason I gave it up was that while I found it to be a very cleverly written book, to me it was a childish/simplistic storyline.If it had been a smaller book (it's huge), I probably would have persevered." +1884,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/0,5.0,903830400,Thank you Dr.K for making me read this book!,"I read a review on the brilliant COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO from a person (Pensacola) and in the review were several spelling errors. Now, I think that if someone has that many errors in their review they are not intelligent enough to actually read THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO.Alexandre Dumas is a fantastic writer who lives up to, and surpasses all expectations. This novel is a breathtaking, in-your-face story that spans an entire continent in order to get the full picture accross to its readers.Dumas gave so much life to the characters he created, and though it is sometimes hard to figure out what is going on at that very moment, you are always helped out a few pages down--that is the gift that Dumas brings to his readers! It is a constant surprise!The COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO is simply BRILLIANT! A+" +1885,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3EP5GJZ6MAKOY,roger c.,1/1,5.0,1263427200,I can't believe I finished it.,"I am not a type of person who reads 'classics' because I want to understand and appreciate fine literature. I have no intention of broadening my literary, historical or philosophical knowledge to impress other people so here is a review from a guy who just happen to read it because this book was on sale for $1 at the local library clearance.I read a lot. Most of books I read are popular paperbacks I see on best seller list. One day I was at the library and saw this thick book for a $1 and I thought I would give it a try. Even if I don't like it, I am out of a $1 so no big deal. I won't bore you with the story or the translation because that's not why you are reading these reviews on Amazon website. You are looking for a reason to pick up this yellowpage thick book that you already know the plot so allow me to give you several.Story in this book is not what you expect as it is much more detailed and insightful to the movies and young adult versions. Story is darker than what you expect so that's a good thing. Also, finding a good book about revenge is difficult enough so stick with a proven winner. Certain lines in this book adhere to your brain like it's been spread liberally with crazy glue. I sometimes write "".. now the God of Vengeance yields to me his power to punish the wicked."" on my forearm whenever I have a business meeting with some jerk I cannot stand. Lines like this sticks to your head and it lingers like a noxious fart in public toilet.Let me leave you with this. After I finished this book, I bought Les Miserables, Brothers Karamazov and David Copperfield because I finally understood why people are so high on some of these so called 'classics'." +1886,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A37JGIDAXFHVHF,Brian,0/0,5.0,1289260800,Fantastic Book,"One of the best pieces of fiction that I have ever read. Maybe THE best. Involved, twisting, emotional plot with deeply entwined subplots. Exceptional character development and growth. I cannot believe how lucky I am to have received my Kindle as a gift. I never would have read this, or Dumas' other works, and would not have known what I was missing. Very long, and very worth every minute spent reading it." +1887,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/0,5.0,914457600,Unabridged is always better,"I've read this book four or five times, and now that I am re-reading the unabridged version, I realize exactly what I've been missing. It is especially significant after 4 years of History and English studies, the references make more sense and the Historical interludes are more significant. If you've never read the book, look into a version with decent foot notes..." +1888,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1JHQXKOSUG75T,"C. Stratton ""cstrat""",0/1,4.0,1203638400,"A ""Mount Everest"" type read","This is a classic for a reason. The story is easy to relate to. Love, betrayal, revenge, and a fanciful use of unlimited wealth. This is quite a monumental read for any bookworm. I have not read many ""classics"" but monte cristo was one I have wanted to read for quite some time. I'm glad I did. It took a while to finish because of its length and language, but it was well worth it." +1889,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A21DDFPH2BYU46,"K. J. Mendoza ""Voracious Reader""",0/0,5.0,1339113600,Very good translation of an exciting tale,"I looked at samples of quite of few of the translations of this classic novel before deciding on this particular translation. I am very happy with it and highly recommend it to anyone who wants to read this classic. I had caught the last part of a version of the movie with Richard Chamberlain and couldn't quite fathom why he was so bent on revenge, so I thought I would get the book and find out for myself. This is not a story of 'forgive and forget' by any means and does not teach Christian charity and forgiveness. It is, however, a well told tale and a fascinating look at that time in history when Napoleon was in exile and looking to find his way back to power in France." +1890,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3QWYTC06B9UQ3,J. Wheeler,4/4,5.0,1243382400,A Well Done Abridgment,"I can't tell you the number of times that I have read The Count of Monte Cristo. I have studied several translations and many abridgments. Although nothing is a truly adequate substitution for the unabridged version, this the by far the best that I have read. The story flows nicely, and unlike some abridgments, there is not the feeling of having missed something. The major details and plot lines are all present, and the characters are as genuine as in the unabridged versions. I would highly recommend this abridgment over the others on the market." +1891,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3IV61LGQAV58S,Sara Eldridge,0/0,5.0,1054080000,One of the greatest books ever,"The Count of Monte Cristo has to be one of my favorite novels. It's full of intricate plot twists, fascinating characters, romance, revenge, hope, despair, deception, betrayal, redemption and all the other emotions and experiences that make up life. All of the characters are multi-layered, no one, not even Edmund Dantes (aka the Count) acting out of easily-defined motives, and are intertwined in such beautifully complex ways with terrific backstories. Edmund takes revenge on these horrible people who ruined his life and took his fiance and future away from him, but one still feels a little sorry for them, because they're real characters. All in all, a fantastic book that really delves into the psyche of revenge. It's quite long, but it's worth it because it is so intricate and detailed and so beautiful." +1892,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A17E83LM9KPY88,J. Zwirn,0/0,5.0,1250035200,"Amazing book, don't watch the movie, read this book!!!!","This book is incredible! I watched the movie that came out in 2000 or 2001 and really enjoyed it but after reading this book, I think I would really HATE the movie. If you're looking for an incredibly intricate plot line then read the book and skip the movie. The movie takes pieces of the plot and twists it in such a way that leaves the viewer with little to know surprise or suspense. Alexandre Dumas writes in such a way as to put the reader right in the very scene that is being played out. As I read this book I felt like I was sitting in the conversations taking place amongst the characters. I don't know how he does it (I'm not a writer!) but he does it quite well.Believe it or not, I've not been much of a reader until recently (I'm 30, if that tells you anything). When I found this book and saw how long it was I thought I was jumping in over my head, however, I quickly found that this was a book that I could NOT put down and one that I did NOT want to end! One of the highlights in the book (at least for me) is how you'll be cruising along with the story and tracking pretty well with it when all of a sudden you take a hard left turn and can't figure out who is who and what is what. Just when you think Dumas has lost his mind and can't write to save his life, he pulls out this magic thread that pulls these mystery pieces together and out of nowhere you have a new and amazing concept introduced in a way you didn't expect. Understanding that these threads are intertwined into the story helps the reader get through chapters that may not make sense at the time but have a huge payoff in the end.One last thing, I have only read this version which is unabridged (nothing has been cut out). I've not read the abridged version (pieces of the story have been cut out to shorten it) but I can't imagine that it holds a candle to the unabridged, of course you'll have to determine that for yourself. I'm an all or nothing individual and so of course I wanted every aspect of the story included, I'm so glad I did! Buy this unabridged version, you will NOT be disappointed and please don't let the size of this book intimidate you. You'll be amazed (especially if you're not a fast reader like myself) at how quickly this book can read.Buy the book, you will love it!" +1893,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,ADA6J40Z9C6CN,montecristo7@juno.com,0/0,5.0,927158400,The greatest book ever!,"If you have not read this book, I encourage you to stop what you are doing right now and read it. It is simply the greatest book you will ever read. All too often the classics tend to be boring or a little too wordy. "The Count of Monte Cristo" is different. Even though it is over 1400 pages, the story never drags. Alexandre Dumas grabs your attention from the first chapter and never lets go. I read a childrens version when growing up which was my favorite book for years. Recently, I decided to read the unabridged version. Needless to say, I loved it. You will, too. So, do yourself a favor. Buy the unabridged version and just give it a try. I guarantee you will not be disappointed." +1894,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AYD7PNXPODBEI,Ashley Misako,2/2,5.0,1296000000,Have read this book over 20 times...,And I will keep reading it every year until I cannot see anymore and then I will listen to it. This will forever be my most favorite and loved novel. If for some strange reason you have not read The Count of Monte Cristo do yourself a favor and read it. +1895,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AKL10K39ZOZK4,"Rob Jacques ""Technical Writer""",0/0,5.0,1284854400,The Greatest Revenge Story Ever Told!,"Alexander Dumas was fascinated by the concept of revenge. It formed the core of two of his earlier novels, but nowhere else did he devote to it so much study and development as he did in his mid-19th Century gothic romance, ""The Count of Monte Cristo."" Readers who choose abridged versions of this unsurpassed tale of vengeance short-change themselves, because it's only in the many sub-plots, the painstakingly depicted details of French elite society of France's Second Republic, and the subtle twists and interweaving of the activities of the novel's many characters that we truly come to appreciate this masterpiece in its in-depth exploration of what constitutes revenge in all its hideous terror and in all its glorious satisfaction.Edmund Dantès suffers at the hands of brutal enemies, spends 14 years in one of the most awful prisons human perversity could devise, and through a series of suspense-filled circumstances gains his freedom - and a fortune - before spending an additional 10 years meticulously planning his revenge. He leaves nothing to chance. He watches. He waits. He is infinitely patient, and patience when wielded by skillful hands can be a weapon sharper than a sword. Edmund Dantès, through years of training and practice, becomes dispassionate, cold, supremely calculating, supremely confident and capable - and implacable. The Count of Monte Cristo is born, and slowly, inexorably, he brings down retribution on those who betrayed him or forgot him rotting in prison. Even his former fiancée, the lovely Mercédès (who certainly is no Homeric Penelope), does not escape unscathed.And in the end, for revenge to be complete, it must be cathartic. Dumas, after much carnage and financial destruction, leaves us with a few green shoots of love rising from the ashes, closing his magnificent saga with the line, "". . . all human wisdom [is] contained in these two words - `wait' and `hope.'''" +1896,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3C2FPHNY2UST9,David Marshall,0/0,4.0,1017360000,Worth a second read.,"I read and enjoyed this book as a youth. Later I read some of the Three Musketeers, was bored, and thought maybe Dumas had been a taste of adolescence. But the second time around, I found this story still a great read. Monte Cristo is not a study in psychology or culture: it is an amusement park ride before Disney, an Indiana Jones film in ink: a heck of a way to spend a rainy afternoon. (And make sure your plans for the evening are flexible.)The version I bought, Bantom, was too skinny, however. (Thus the missing star, also for typos.) Life is too short to read half of a masterpiece. Subvert the culture of instant gratification, and buy the unabridged version. Same goes for Hugo's Les Miserables, a similar bit of 19th Century French romanticism, even more rambling and magnificent in its un-cut version." +1897,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3LZB4A56KKHYH,Thursday Phantom,5/10,1.0,1207008000,"Excelent story, short version","The book is excelent reading but please get a different version.This version only has 580 or so pages where as other versions have over 1,300 pages. That means that this version is only half the story.So much gets lost in translation already don't cheat yourself even more." +1898,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AUM3YMZ0YRJE0,Robert J. Crawford,2/2,5.0,1177113600,"good addition to the classics, though I am not sure why B&N publishes these","This is a good edition in English of a wonderful reading experience, which I looked over in a store. Is there anything new in it? No. But it is inexpensive and fairly well translated, tho nothing compares to Dumas pere's astonishing detail and clarity in the original language. Alas, it is abridged, which is dumbing it down in my opinion.This massive book has all the hallmarks of what you would expect in a classic: intriguing characters with great psychological depth as they evolve over a long period of time, an extraordinarily intricate plot of adventure and transformation, and moral lessons along with rich ironies. So long as you embrace the complexity and can live in another world, the full version is utterly rivetting to read.Everyone knows the plot in outline. A gifted and yet simple sailor, Dantes, is the victim of a conspiracy involving thwarted love, greed, and unbridled ambition. By eliminating him, three men get what they want and move brilliantly into the rapidly changing and corrupt French society of the Restoration. They forget Dantes, who is isolated in despair in a notorious political dungeon, the Chateau d'If. While in prison, he meets an Italian savant who tunnels into his room and who teaches him the entire pantheon of classical knowledge, which he memorised as a tutor to princes; he also harbors a secret about an immense treasure on the island of Monte Cristo. Dantes escapes, finds the treasaure, and sets about creating an elaborate series of traps to wreak vengence on the three men who condemned him. This occurs in about the 1st 250 pages of the book (unabridged version). At this point, after doing some good for a family that had tried to help him, Dantes' interior dialogue - so vivid as he figures out who betrayed him and learns to hate them while learning the love the Italian savant as a 2nd father - becomes silent to the reader. What Dantes then does is insinuate himelf into French high society, creating relationships with the 3 men and their families with a cunning that can only be called genius. This takes place over about 700 pages and is an indictment of the society that Dumas despised. Though the Count is falling in love, his hatred is so implacable and cold as to render him an automaton of vengence. Then, in the last 3rd of the book as the train of destruction he created is set in motion, Dantes is again reborn as a man who can feel and reflect on what he has done. It is a moving apotheosis of redemption and regret.What is so amazing about the story is that, as outlandish as some of the plot twists and coincidences are, the reader is (or at least I was) swept into a fast-moving narrative that is irresistably readable. In doing so, Dumas helped to spawn an entirely new genre of novel: the psychological thriller, or adventure that provokes reflection and awe. Its depth and ambition are beyond the simple swashbuckler. Its world is complete in sumptuous and realistic detail while remaining too fantastic to believe. Its characters are so complex and yet such romantic ideals as they evolve. Moreover, there are also a number of symbols throughout the book, evoking Christian and pagan themes, so that the book can be interpreted on a number of levels if that isyour bag.This is one of the best novels I ever read and certainly Dumas' best. Though it took me an entire summer to get through it in the original, I will never forget it. For those of you who read French, Dumas' language is stunningly clear and graceful, while using a vocabulary that is easily accessible, so why domb it down?Highest recommendation." +1899,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/0,5.0,906768000,It gives me chills re-reading certain parts,"I have read the Count and it is undoubteldly my all-time favorite book. The count's vengeance is so vivd that I read over certain parts many times. Specificall, my favorite part is when the Count doubts if his vengeance was justified, after little Edourd dies. When he gets the manuscript of the Abbe Faria and his eyes fall on the epigraph, "Thou shall tear out the teeth of the dragon and trample the lions underfoot, thus saith the Lord". That part gives me chills all over, the COunt has vanquished his doubt, it was God's will that he does what he does. I own several copies of this book, and always have one around to read parts of. The count is my favorite literary character of all time. Sometimes, vengeance is not the lords, but you must act upon it according to your own situations." +1900,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AEO6U47U15LUT,"moinerzdad ""moinerzdad""",3/4,5.0,1043539200,Astonishingly Good!,"Sitting through the sad film remake inspired me to seek out the original. How glad I am! Even if you enjoyed the recent film, I have good news for you-- buy this book and read it, for you will find riches beyond your dreams here. Fantastic descriptions, delicious characters, exquisite ironies, and more! Five stars are too few." +1901,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3W0LKDP462P2D,V. Hansmann,2/6,1.0,1236729600,mauvais livre,"This a really crummy translation. No one is credited anywhere, though there's some worthy who contributed an introduction." +1902,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A2DOMO31UV029B,Lisa Wheeler,0/0,5.0,1276041600,Review for English Class,"The Count of Monte Cristo is about a young man Dantès who is very successful early in life. Set up to marry the lovely Mercédès, recently made the captain of his own ship, and well liked by many, he is the envy of three men who set out to destroy him. Dantès, ignorant of the political scene, has agreed to take a letter from Napoleon to some Bonapartists in Paris. Using this as fodder, Danglars, Mondego and Caderousse bring him to court to be tried for treason.Dantès is convicted, and once in prison meets a man named Abbé Faria. He is a priest who educated Dantes into a well-rounded, well-informed man. He leaved Dantes with the knowledge of many riches on the Isle of Monte Cristo, and how to get to the place. When Faria dies, Dantes uses his shroud as a means of escape, and is thrown into the sea.He reaches Monte Cristo and is astounded at all the riches. Disguising himself as a priest, he travells to Marseille. Upon arrival he learns that his father has died and that his fiancee Mercedes has married Mondego. He also is told about the plot to frame him.Ten years later, he reinstates himself into French society, giving himself the title Count of Monte Cristo. Nobody recognizes him with the exception of Mercedes. He uses his knowledge of his old aversaries to bring about their ruin in very public and humiliating ways.Not all of his motives are driven by vengance, however. He also sets out to reward everyone who helped him over the years, and does this through his extensive riches and influence.Overall the novcel is very intriguing and exciting. It is full of action filled escapes and duels which add to the excitement. There is an air of mystery around Dantes that gives it the air of a thriller novel. It is full of plot twists and intrigue that make it difficult to put down for a minute. Alexandre Dumas is an excellent storyteller who has crafted a masterpiece that rivals his well-loved Three Muskateers series.In addition to being an excellent storyteller, Dumas is an astounding writer. The plot line is gripping in and of itself, but Dumas' expert control of the English language grips the reader with the words themselves, not just what they represent.It would be wise to read the abridged version of this novel, because for the average person the excruciating detail in the long version detracts from the story a little bit. To keep it more exciting and gripping, the shorter version covers the most important parts without many of the very miniscule details in the original.The original is also an excellent read, and gives much more insight into the characters' lives, but it would be reccomended to read it second to the abridged version, and only by the most patient Dumas fans." +1903,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AGG570TS5T33K,D. Scott,0/0,5.0,1356998400,Excellent story,"Took a little while to grab my attention but once it did I was hooked. I usually only listen to audiobooks at work. I have a job in which I can listen while working but cannot read. Le Conte snagged me and on more than one occasion I had to listen on the way home in the car. Much different than the movie; better than the movie. If you have a large amount of time and want an adventure, then this book should be on your list. Predictable but also with lots of surprises." +1904,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,ASXLM96Q2OA5J,William Stacy Huff,42/44,3.0,1012694400,"Great book, but this ain't it","I first read this book in high school, and it is a great book. Unfortunately, this edition is, as far as I can tell, abridged, so it doesn't have the full story. I just finished reading this edition, and based on what I remember from my earlier reading, as well as conversations with another person who has read the work, this edition leaves things out. While I can find nothing indicating that this edition is abridged, I think it is, so I would suggest finding the full version if you are truly interested in the book." +1905,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3JW22TD761USB,"Jennifer ""oreiro123""",0/1,5.0,1223769600,Very good,"Very good quality, very good book. This is my favorite book, and it's the second time I read it,the best classic you can find." +1906,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/0,5.0,936662400,"I loved it, it was excellent!!!!!!!!","I give it 2 thumbs up LOL I am 15 years old and I am going to be a sophmore in highschool. Our school gives a a summer reading list and the required book was Count of Monte Cristo. I hate to read but this book got me hooked. I loved it,it was so realistic and interesting! I can't wait until next years reading list (Three Musketeers)" +1907,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A369SQ6E2IP3G5,Susan Shams,2/2,5.0,1089244800,A Must Read!,"This is honestly one of the greatest novels I have ever read. I absolutely loved this book. I could not put it down! This is a must read for anyone.When I first started into this novel, I had in my memory the 'movie' that was made for the big screen. So of course, I expected the book to be very similar to it. Well, I was very wrong! Other than Edmond Dantes being betrayed by his 'friends' and finding the treasure, this book takes on a different route.Believe me, the book is much more superb. The way the Count exacts his revenge is astonishing. I cannot fathom how Dumas came up with such a scheme. At times, one cringes for the those who wronged the Count.This book made me laugh and cry. There are many poignant moments throughout the book that make you feel good. Anyone who says that Dumas is not up there with the 'classic' writers, does not know what they are talking about. This book is rich in dialogue, mystery, suspense and storyline. All in all, this is an amazing classic, and I recommend it to anyone wanting a good read." +1908,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,9/9,5.0,1010275200,Dumas'Classic Tale Of Intrigue And Adventure,"Alexandre Dumas, author of "The Three Musketeers" and the "Man In the Iron Mask", has given the literary world the adventure novel, forever bringing it to the level of the classic. The Count of Monte Cristo is mainly a story of revenge. The Romanticism in which the novel is characterized and the Napoleonic France for the setting, sets the mood for this nearly psychologically thrilling story that only a great French master like Dumas could create. Edmund Dantes, wrongly accussed of a crime he did not commit, taken to a prison of which there is no escape by his enemies, his only love taken by his best friend, spends years of suffering and harboring hatred in a rotting prison cell. But he also plans his revenge, how he methodically desires to bring upon the fateful end to his enemies and win back his love. He successfully manages to escape from prison and discovers a vast fortune. Assuming the identity of the Count of Monte Cristo, he extracts his revenge. What moral theme does Dumas really want to convey ? In the end, we discover how unfulfilled and how miserable our hero is, even when he has had the satisfaction of punishing his enemies. Dumas should be credited for such a marvelous work. He writes in the highest French Romantic fashion, and should be hailed with as much praise as Gustav Flaubert. The Three Musketeers, the immortal adventure story that made him famous, has been made into numerous films, and even The Count of Monte Cristo has had a terrific film version starring Will Chamberlain. A new release of the novel is set for January 25th of this year. Dumas may have died penniless, and he may not have been considered an excellent voice of the romantic age, but it is 2001 and we are still enthralled with the tales of intrigue, suspense, romance and adventure that this wonderful French writer conceived. Viva Dumas! Five stars for his terrific revenge story the Count of Monte Cristo" +1909,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A5B5EI4FPX4JU,Johnathan,0/0,5.0,1237766400,books,"Wonderfull book i bought it for one of my english classes and i'm hooked. its a book i'll keep and re read in a year becouse the understanding of the book changes as the reader grows older or by readers of diffrent ages i bought this book new but now the spine has a big wrinkled line on it lolz worth reading at a good price + all the facts in the story like the napoleon, elba, 100 days are all fact." +1910,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1N1UN3KSXKPAE,"M. Harris ""Army Officer""",3/3,5.0,1301356800,Truly Deserving of Classic Status,"Although viewers of the various movie versions may think that they know the story, the novel takes numerous twists and turns which are far too complex to be told in a couple of hours. The subplots are as exciting as the main plot, and Dumas weaves them together into a seamless whole.The Kindle edition is one of the better transcriptions that I've seen, with consistently good editing, no typos, and the placement of the footnotes does not distract from the flow of the text." +1911,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1BZGIHDPXXKE0,Camuano,0/0,5.0,1345334400,A timeless classic,"This is one of my favorite books of all times. Definitely read the unabridged version if you have the time (I couldn't imagine what they would have taken out!). A classic filled with adventure, justice, and romance. The author's clarity really places you back in time with a front row seat. Many of the books lessons show that, despite technological advances, humanity's vices and virtues are timeless. Also it's very hard to beat the e-book prices!" +1912,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A2YTPSTFEQWHMM,terrri,0/0,5.0,1315526400,excellent service,I received a beautiful book to give my daughter for her birthday. The condition was just as it was described and the service was excellent. +1913,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A2QFQTMIR1LHJA,ashley rasys,0/0,5.0,1358553600,great,I am very happy with this seller. The book arrived quickly as well as the condition it was described as. +1914,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3MADEFLE1QN0,molly,12/12,5.0,1172275200,Just Awe-Inspiring,"In the same spirit of challenge that led me to read Pride and Prejudice and A Tale of Two Cities (and find that they have become irreplaceable parts of my bookshelf) and that will lead me to read others like Don Quixote, Ivanhoe, and The Three Musketeers, I have now officially read The Count of Monte Cristo, and I can say that it was the easiest and most thrilling of all the classics I have yet read.Oh, sure, A Tale of Two Cities was tearjerking and triumphantly sad, and Pride and Prejudice just made you want to squeal in happiness, but The Count of Monte Cristo makes you think, makes you tear up (not out of sadness, at the wonder of the dialogue and the love you have for the characters -- and this is a translation!) makes you wonder, and finally, makes you go to this page to write a glowing 5-star review for one of the greatest books ever written in any language.If you're not fluent in French you'll do fine with this book, though without a basic knowledge of just a few words you might have a little trouble with it, and without having heard of some of the places or having been to France, you might not know exactly what the Champs-Elysees or Chateau d'If is. It doesn't matter. Those aren't the focal points of the book. The story is Edmond Dantes, happy and fortunate young sailor, about to become captain of his own ship, marry his beloved Mercedes, and live happily ever after. Then success is snatched from his hand and he is unjustly thrown into the monstrous prison of Chateau d'If, where he spends fourteen years vowing to avenge himself.He gets out eventually, in one of the most dazzling and vivid scenes ever written, and makes his fortune finding buried treasure on the tiny island of Monte Cristo. Henceforth he is known as the Count of Monte Cristo: Enigmatic, a little surreal, and ready to exact perfect reward for those who did him well -- and perfect justice for those who did him evil.But there are complications that even the mighty count couldn't have foreseen: the son of his ex-fiancee and his bitter enemy befriends him, the son of his dead benefactor is in love with the daughter of the man who sentenced him to life in prison to protect his career, and the question comes up: When is revenge right, how far do you go, and do humans even have the right?It's a fantastic story, a memorable and fast-paced story, and, unlike a few books I could mention, truly deserves its label of classic. For those who like action: This book has prison, escape, treasure, poison, love, cruelty, redemption, revenge, forgiveness, ambiguity, sadness, triumph, and hope. Don't be daunted by the page count. It's a true work of art.Has anyone got a copy of the Three Musketeers?Rating: Masterpiece" +1915,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1A7WC4XGUTL3Z,"T. A. Currier ""dancer girl""",2/2,5.0,1178150400,Brilliant!,Alexandre Dumas's classic novel The Count of Monte Cristo is an absolutely brilliant book. Dumas's genius shows as he intertwines characters and twists and turns through out the entire book. Definetly the best book ever! +1916,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A28O32M9U2ZFUA,J. Foster,0/9,3.0,1262131200,Bad shipping for a good book.,"I bought this book new thinking I would get a book in perfect condition, wrong. I am in no way insulting the book the book is great. In no way was the book protected. No bubble wrap or anything. The book was shoved in a box and was not secured or covered and the box was not even taped shut. The box fell open on my porch because it was not secure. The book had minor scratches and rips on the cover, back, and pages due to shipping, and the box was way to big. So I guess that is ""priority shipping""." +1917,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1IHGMM5KNAW3P,JV,2/2,5.0,1135036800,Exciting,"This one of my all time favorites. Great drama, mystery, and suspense. Also a fascinating portrait of an era. The age of this book (amazingly) does not dampen the excitement and intrigue. Get the unabridged version, its worth it." +1918,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1OJYV4JOZTMA3,Pulpoloco,0/0,5.0,1286755200,The Count,"Our Christian book club read this book from the ""classics"" genre. Although I have enjoyed many classics, it's rare for me to read a book written in the 19th c. or prior that I would consider a ""page turner."" This is a suspenseful, can't put it down book comparable to those written by many of our best adventure novelists of today. Great book!!" +1919,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AJBACHX20Z7O7,"Orlando ""mcmachete""",7/8,5.0,1036454400,Adventure: a hypnotic tale of romance and revenge,"Unfortunately, I was never required to read ""The Count of Monte Cristo"" in high school, as seems to be common in the U.S.Fortunately, my little sister, when required by her senior-year teacher to read the book, enticed me to take on the Dumas classic.Immediately I was transported to the Napoleonic era with Europe trembling and turbulent - tense with an anxiety that gives the novel an additional underlying suspense.The story is that of Edmond Dantes, a man whose life was flipped on its head when streets of gold became hot coals and everything he held dear was stripped from him. Accused of treason, he is betrayed by those close. Vivid characters riddle the book with personality and it's suspense and language kept me up 'til my alarm clock rang for work the next morning - I didn't want to leave the world that was made such a comfortable home for me, the world of The Count of Monte Cristo.Truly this book proves that it is not the destination, but rather the journey that makes all worth while.It is pure adventure, a hypnotic and tantalizing tale of romance and revenge and the transformation of a man.Don't settle for the movie, as the book is worth every second spent reading. My only regret is having read the abridged version." +1920,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A250IJR2YRPFCI,Toyosi Ogunkua,4/5,5.0,979430400,The Count of Monte Cristo. By: Alexandre Dumas,"The Count of Monte Cristo is one of the best books ever written, if not the best. It is a great piece of Literature written by the multitalented author, Alexandre Dumas. It is a thrilling and exciting adventure story of a young noble boy named Edmond Dantes. He was young honest sailor who had the privilege of directing the ship called the Pharaon after his captain died. He is then betrayed by two people he thought were his fiends, Monsieur Danglars and Fernand. The public prosecutor confiscated Edmond's only proof of innocence. Edmond is sentenced to life in the infamous dungeon, the Chateau d'If. There he makes friends with a priest. They develop a father, son friendship. He spends fourteen long, hard years in jail. He has a daring escape and finally leaves the oppressing dungeon. He then plans his revenge on his enemies. He joins a smuggler ship to protect his identity. He returns to his village, to find his father dead from hunger. He protects himself by changing his name to the Count of Monte Cristo, and travels to find his enemies with his new found fortune. He comes to find his lover Mercedes married to one of his enemies. To figure out if he gets his revenge on his enemies, you will have to read the book. The book is an action packed, never ending and very exciting. You will go on the greatest thrill ride of your life and it will not stop until you close the book." +1921,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1C6BZ7R8L9ED9,Amey S. Kulkarni,3/3,5.0,1145750400,Truly Great story,"I have no words to describe this extremely well written book. After finishing this book, you will hopefully have the same feeling. That's how good this book is.It's not a brain teaser but none the less keeps the reader engrossed until the very end with it's well narrated story. If you are thinking about reading this book, go no further on reading anymore reviews. Simply pick up a copy of your own and start enjoying this great read. You will have difficult time putting it down....this much is guaranteed!!" +1922,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A32E6GRZ8IENT4,Daniel from Santa Monica High School,3/3,4.0,1039219200,One excitement after another,"I originally read this book for school but it turned out that I really enjoyed the book. This book allows you to take a look into the life of royalty and of peasants during the early eighteen hundreds. The action in this book took a while to start but when the action started it kept up throughout the novel. I saw the movie before I saw the book so I thought that the book would be the same as the movie. The book in fact is very different than the movie. There is fighting in the movie and the details of the story are different. This story filled with deception, but you know whom to trust. But Edmond does not seem to realize whom to trust. Edmond does horrible things to the people whom he has revenge for. Edmond only does this however to get back what he has lost and he still helps people along the way. Edmond plans out this revenge that he destroys the people he is out to get. He makes them into laughing stokes." +1923,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1G703DCNYV6UE,Florentius,1/1,5.0,1034640000,A classic adventure -- one of the greatest books of all time,"I must admit, I first picked up The Count of Monte Cristo about ten years ago because I liked the cover art (a different edition than this one). Within five minutes of reading it, I was hooked. The next 1,000 pages simply flew by and I literally could not put the book down. For someone who's never read it before, it's an enthralling tale of treachery, despair, hope, and ultimately a quest for vengeance. After finishing "The Count", I immediately sought out every book by Dumas I could get my hands on (The Three Musketeers, Ten Years After, and The Man in the Iron Mask). They were all exceptional reads, but none of them matched the brilliance of "The Count ."Any reader who enjoys tales of adventure and has a taste for historical novels will love this book. I thought the recent movie version was excellent too, but I highly recommend reading the book first." +1924,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AG15UL8YALO3N,sylvia l pelcz,1/1,5.0,1314576000,Classics are Classics for a Reason!,"I have read The Count of Monte Cristo a few times. The Unabridged Oxford Edition is the best. The explanatory notes are a great bonus as they deepen the experience of reading this Masterpiece. The introduction gives us very interesting supplementary information that allows for a greater appreciation of the story as well as for Alexander Dumas himself. This is a book everyone should read at least once in their lifetime, and I highly recommend reading the actual book, not Kindle. This is a book that you will develop a relationship to and it becomes your friend. There's something very nostalgic and comforting about holding a real book in your hands. I may be very old fashioned, but sometimes books don't feel right when electronics are involved. I love the cover of this edition as well (revised edition 2008) . I feel that it captures the essence of Edmund Dantes: A young, beautiful man with sadness and revenge in his eyes. The painting (Leon Cogniet's self portrait) evokes an ability to penetrate the Soul of Dantes, the greatest protagonist of all time. It may sound a bit silly, but reading this book makes me pause. And when I pause, I find myself studying this image while contemplating life. Life as I experience it through this incredibly complex adventure called The Count of Monte Cristo. The story is epic!! As the back page states: 'A novel of enormous tension and excitement'. I buy this particular copy in bulk and gift it to anyone I meet who is even just slightly interested in reading it. Most people, myself included, are absorbed within minutes of reading this book and we all finish it. As a good friend said to me while she was reading 'The Count': ""You know when you are reading a great piece of literature; Classics are Classics for a Reason." +1925,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1VDTQ8NQC9H0G,MoJo,3/4,5.0,1156550400,Page Turner,"We bought this book for my son's required reading in school, but my husband and I also read it on his recommendation. Our son is only 14 and he loved the book, and he is NOT a big reader. Even though the book is over 500 pages, he couldn't put the book down, nor could we." +1926,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A15YAI0LGDK8IJ,Charles Tolman,0/0,5.0,1360281600,Wonderful translation of a timeless classic,This is hands-down the best translation I've seen of this wonderful book. Please don't bother with any of the abridged versions. It is well worth your time to read the entire work in all its glory. +1927,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/0,5.0,1046908800,Count of Monte Cristo,"This book is stted in Paris, France and the main actor is Edmond Dantes. A inist sailor is sent to a exoctic island to send a message to Napolean. This was a secret message that was never mentioned again. When all of a sudden the word gets out Dates is sent to he worst of all jails and was there for a long period of time. He was sent to the jail for his entire life. He meets a priest who helps him escape searchng for the one who sent him there, his best friend. He also in love with Dante's women, Mercedes which may also be tied in some how." +1928,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3UY6K5PC1RO16,fbesch@wt.net,0/0,5.0,890006400,Incredible Read!!,I really enjoyed this book. It is spellbinding from beginning to end. +1929,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AGI9ULWDVQUPE,amnick,6/8,5.0,1108944000,Favorite Book,"The first time I read this book I was a sophmore in high school. Since then, I have reread it at least a dozen more times. This has to be the best book ever written. I would recommend this book to anyone." +1930,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1KB1MRIFB49VE,Miss Moose,0/0,5.0,1344988800,Best revenge book ever!,"The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexander Dumas is one of my favorite books. I had to read it for English class and it quickly became one of my favorites. The way that Edmund Dantes goes about taking his revenge on all of the people who had a hand in his imprisonment was enlightening. A well written, can't put this book down read! This is a book that I can, and have, read over and over." +1931,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/0,5.0,861408000,An inspirational and exciting book without a doubt!,"Being a college student, I have read a plethora of books in my many subjects, but none has captivated me as much as this one. The thread of Edmond Dante's life is undeniably intertwixed with the common everyday struggle we all share. What makes this book so captivating is the strength Dante draws within himself, and how much he achieves after being jailed unjustly. The intrigue of his revenge was one of the more exciting plot twists.A fantastic read for sure." +1932,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1APWNMJJRD84Q,"KDP "Perm" ""Perm""",2/2,5.0,1278460800,READ THIS BOOK....NOW!!!!!,"I have spent hundreds of dollars on this site and have never been provoked to write a review...until now. The Count of Monte Cristo has got to be one of the greatest books ever written. I'm telling you now, read this unabridged version, and it will change the way you look at fiction for the rest of your life. I promise. I'm an avid reader (I teach high school literature) and made it to my late 20's without ever reading this unabridged version. Man am I glad I decided to pick it up and read it. Don't be scared by the number of pages (1245). I absolutely promise you will finish it in no time. I mentioned to the person who suggested I read this version this comment, ""there is no soul on this earth who would not like this book"". Pretty intense I know, but do yourself a favor...buy the book, read it, get lost in it, tell other people about it, and love literature. You will not be disappointed. Have fun...I DID!!!!" +1933,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AYFQEK344Y4MW,pureghee@alphalink.com.au,0/0,5.0,892512000,A true classic in anyone's language,"Alexandre Dumas has been placed up there in my opinion as one of the greats of all time. His plotline is so deep and thought provoking that I must say, this is one of the best books that I have ever read. Those of us that dream of revenge will love this book. The character of Dantes is developed to perfection as are his enemies. You want him to get them all. You want Dumas to hurry up and finish them already, but he keeps you hanging in there right up until the great ending. Highly recommended in my opinion - read it you'll love it." +1934,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A33AW4ESN80ATR,Rachel E.,2/3,5.0,1022544000,Fast-Paced and Thrilling!,"Everything in Edmond Dantes' life is going right-he is about to become the captain of a ship, and about to marry his true love, Mercedes. All the good things in Dantes' life are wrenched from his grasp in an instant, due to the betrayal of men he once considered friends. Dantes is unjustly thrown into prison. In jail, the kind, friendly Dantes the reader is introduced to is transformed into a merciless conspirator, bent on extracting revenge from those who betrayed him.Dantes comes upon a fortune that he would never have even dreamed of, and with its aid, is able to hide behind the mask of the Count of Monte Cristo, a mysterious, brooding man with a huge amount of power. Dantes slowly and subtly begins to ruin the lives of the men who ruined his own life fourteen years ago.Alexandre Dumas' tale is thrilling, full of excitement and surprising twists and turns. His writing style is hardly ever slow. In the middle, it seemed like he was abandoning the main story line, but by the end the author cleverly ties all the loose ends together to weave a fantastic story. This book is sure to please anyone who enjoys reading about love, betrayal, revenge, adventure, action, romance, and most importantly, self-discovery and change. Dumas shows the reader, through Dantes, how pain and anguish can change a person so extremely.I highly recommend this book. Dumas' writing is so good; I was caught up in the story of Dantes instantly. I felt horrible when he was thrown in jail, and triumphant when he finally extracts revenge from his enemies. Though, in the middle of the book, is seems a little slow, the author soon picks up the main plot line again and all the subplots make sense again. The characters are well-developed, and the story, though not quite plausible, is full of exciting and delightful surprising." +1935,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/1,5.0,901238400,A gripping novel of harrowing adventure and suspense!,"This is clearly one of Dumas' masterpieces. In the first chapter the reader is immediately enthralled by the evocative prose and lush descriptions. I've always thought that being exposed to great literature would inevitably have a positive impact on the reader, enabling him/her to use language to better effect and perhaps even spell correctly. Sadly, in the case of other Amazon reviewers, this appears to be completely untrue." +1936,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/0,5.0,896140800,Of course this is a classic!,I'm 14 and I'm currently reading the unabridged version. I love this story and this book wont get off my bookshelf for a while. Diavolo! +1937,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A2W2KURHCPPHQC,Uncle Gonzo,1/1,5.0,1135814400,One of the best books ever,"I have read this book once a year for about ten years, and it never gets old. A great story of revenge." +1938,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1P959K7WNXNGF,Bob Hoskins,1/1,5.0,1342310400,If this were written today it would be half as long.,"Undoubtedly one of the classics, The Count of Monte Cristo, in this edition, spans some 600 pages and takes us on a tale involving, love, revenge, high-society, intrigue, evil, greed and a few other facets that make for a grand tale.Written in the 1850's, the language in the book is of the verbose form wherein, 10 words would be used where, today, 3 would do. At first the reader may have to read, then re-read many of the sentences in an effort to garner the true meaning as, for most of us, this wordy text can be a little confusing and somewhat overwhelming. Not to far into the book, it becomes easier to handle and, in all honesty, it's a delight to read. Personally, I would enjoy being able to use words the way Dumas portrayed in his characters.Edmond Dantes is the main character who is falsely imprisoned due to a mixture of jealousy and self-preservation by others. He spends some 14 years in a dungeon where he is befriended by another inmate who schools Dantes and informs him of a fortune in buried treasure. Dantes escapes and sets out to garner revenge. In a nutshell, that's the very basis of the story.It's fantastic stuff and a welcome change from most modern text." +1939,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1CQADXSDTF2LS,ariel,1/2,3.0,1343606400,Not sure why this didn't appeal to me,"I like reading older books, and I like reading longer books, but this older longer book just seemed to drag on and on. The section describing the ""drug trip"" was particularly tedious. I did some reading about the book and apparently this was a popular sort of scene in the time period in which Dumas was writing. I was yawning through it. While there was war, violence, and intrigue, I think a good editor ""trimming off the fat"" would have really helped Dumas's writing for most of the last 2/3 of the book." +1940,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AHT01E5T492MV,Tina Goberville,0/1,5.0,1355184000,Great book,My husband has been wanting this book for a long time and when I gave to him he was so excited! The book came in perfect condition and fast shipping! +1941,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/0,5.0,998524800,Sorry to have finished!,"This is easily one of the top 5 books I have ever read, and I have read a few. I have also read other works by Dumas (namely the Muskateer trilogy) and, while I thoroughly enjoyed those, this is by far a better novel. This is a brilliant work, one that must have taken vast amounts of time to arrange beforehand. If you appreciate an excellent story, with many themes, action and events that (seemingly) have no holes or contradictions to each other, you will love this book. Do not be daunted by the length!! The pages will fly by, once you have started. This was such a good book that I am almost sorry to have finished!!!" +1942,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AFTXZOOMPV1CT,T00lsmith,1/4,1.0,1330560000,Does a terrible description presage a terrible version?,""""" This is the best version of this book in kindle store! It contents a unique images plus a dinamic table of content. The book made up in original way. """"I don't think a book description this illiterate (referring to both language and technology) can be taken seriously. No spell check? No grammar check? Give me a break!Moving along to the next version..." +1943,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/0,5.0,901584000,As an avid reader - it is the greatest book I have ever read,"Whether you are looking for romance, drama or mystery this book covers so many exciting genres. It is an exciting and easy read - don't let the length hold you back from discovering this wonderful adventure filled with love, deceit, revenge and tragedy. I found a rare hardback a few years back and I read it every year, each time discovering some new plot I missed before or more insightful information on the characters. Once you read it - I feel pretty confident that you will recommend it and add it to your all time favorite reads." +1944,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1CEWHT9Q1HI5L,jesse hansen,1/1,5.0,957052800,edmond dantes is a source of inspiration,"There have been many heroes in the classics. None, however, equal Edmond Dantes. He is the most inspirational character in literature. Left for dead in a horrid French prison, he rises up and becomes a man of incredible means. Once a worthy ship captain, he comes to master such arts as chemistry, medicine, swordplay, gunplay, language, and disguise. Once an honorable young man, he now seeks vengeance from those who wronged him. Edmond is a calculating man in his ventures. However, he is not cruel. When he exacted his revenge on the lawyer who wronged him, he realized that he had gone to far in allowing the death of the lawyers child. His thoughts were " God is no longer with me. I have gone to far. We shall spare the last" (meaning Danglars, another man who wronged him). Noone can equal him in his prowess. His mastery of the duel is truly scary. He became a distinguished noble in French society, by using his charm. However, he always had a plan, and that plan was payback to those who ruined his young life. The Count of Monte Cristo describes his payback, in all his glory. The book shows that the world still has justice. A very thought provoking yet highly entertaining masterpiece!" +1945,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AIDR99MLKJYU4,Oliver,1/1,5.0,1248307200,There is a reason this book has been so popular for so long,"The Count of Monte Cristo is a simply wonderful story that will easily keep you engaged through the entire 1,000+ pages. The setting is Europe, mostly France, in the early 1800s, and in addition to everything else, the book provides a little window into that time and place. The characters, especially the Count, are fascinating, if not realistic. I'm no literary critic, but the mixture of reality and fantasy reminded me a bit of magical realism. Finally, the writing style is both engaging and easy to read. There is a reason why this book has pleased readers of all ages for so long." +1946,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,ATFXX7NGPHA7N,Bryant Phillips,1/5,4.0,945216000,Perhaps Too Dramatic...?,"A very well-paced novel of classic romantic literature, the Count of Monte Cristo is yet another masterpiece from Alexandre Dumas. I have only read the abridged, but it was enough to judge by. While beautifully written and expressed with vivid detail, it was too dramatic to be given 5 stars. Dumas makes the mistake of making Dantes a god, and giving him infinite intellect. He is not a real-life character in the least! Therefore, it is hard to believe all the 'once in a blue moon' events that occur around and through Dantes.However, Dantes' revenge is so fantastic, that it is hard to discredit the book. Reverting from the classic 'kill-all' revenge, Dantes stealthily discredits all his oppressors, involving the reader with the plot. But Dantes himself knows perhaps too much, can do things that are not humanly possible... and so, I rate this book 4 stars." +1947,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A2STK3VRMAXS4D,SocraT,17/17,5.0,1065657600,Tonic for Hurricaines and Interpersonal skills.,"My dad twisted my arm into getting this book over War and Peace. Headed to Mexico, I was certain that I would not come even close to finishing it. Twelve-hundred pages for seven days in Cabo?The second day we were there Mr. Marty the hurricane blew through. I had been up until two o'clock every night reading this - reading it while dad drank margaritas, over breakfast and in the back of the "Mexican Porche." During the night when the 'Caine raged at the windows, I was saving Morrell's life, sailing for Monte Cristo with Corsicans in tow, rescuing viscounts from the notorious Luigi Vampa, inducing Valentine to save her life through hallucination and speaking the same words four times to the enemies who locked my soul in a dungeon for fourteen years. "I am Edmond Dantes!"Dumas is an absolute MASTER crafter. Both my father and I found ourselves questioning the way we develop and uphold relationships and why bluntness seems useful to many in the place of eloquence and perception. The only reason that no one, excepting Mercedes, figures out who Edmond Dantes, the Count of Monte Cristo, Sinbad the Sailor, Abbe Busoni and Lord Wilmore are is because of the way the Count represents himself and 'others.'I think the real question that The Count of Monte Cristo is asking us today is why we have forgotten the things that were so key to the way people lived back then. Maybe we have gained in science and math, but we have lost so much! Thinking of the forgotten things is the real painfulness of this book. This one is at the very top of my list. Nothing holds a candle to this tale.I haven't stopped talking about it for weeks and I doubt I ever will. These guys are the stuff of Dreams! Believe me, this book will make you sing.SocraTDad's reading it right now! ;)" +1948,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1J1NRKY975WOL,PurpleKat,301/309,5.0,1077408000,A gripping tale of love and revenge,"Warning: Do NOT pick this book up and start it if you have something that you need to do in the next day or three. You won't be able to put the book down, or if you do, you'll move zombielike through your everyday tasks while your mind stays with the adventures of Edmund Dantes.The Count of Monte Cristo is a delicious book, full of intrigue, great fight scenes, love, passion, and witty social satire. Dumas has a wonderful grasp of human nature and a talent for rendering all the follies of man in delightful, snappy prose. I immediately recognized people that I know (yes, even myself) in his vivid characters, which made the book all the more engaging to me.Some people might be put off by the size of the book -- it's a pretty hefty volume -- an tempted to buy the abridged version. Don't! I've heard from people who've read both versions that the abridged version is a pathetic, washed out shadow of the full novel. At any rate, as thick and impossibly long as The Count of Monte Cristo may seem when you open it for the first time, you'll feel as though it's far too short by the time you get to the last page." +1949,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A11PTCZ2FM2547,"D. Mikels ""It's always Happy Hour here""",0/5,2.0,1334275200,What An Unpleasant Experience!,"Several years ago I bought THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO at a Borders (yeah, Borders) store. Not possessing the knowledge that the unabridged novel is over a thousand pages long, I assumed I had the entire book in my collection. Having finally cleared my schedule so that I could fully concentrate on Alexandre Dumas's classic about vengeance gone wild, I was horrified by what I was reading. Halfway into the book I took the trouble to look at the title page, and then the inherent weaknesses of the book were quickly explained; I was reading the Borders Classics Abridged Edition. Suddenly all the plot inconsistencies, timeline malfunctions, gaping holes in the story--along with all the mundane, trite, and nauseating melodramatic dialogue--made perfect sense. The Borders Abridged is awful, and, although I doubt I will ever try to tackle the unabridged edition, in my opinion does Dumas's classic not one iota of justice.I do hope the original tale is not as myopically presented--with each major character engaging in a monotonous pity party--as the abridged edition I suffered through. Protagonist Edmond Dantes comes across as cruel and reprehensible; the characters that conspired to send an innocent man to prison are demonstrably shallow and superficial. Hosts of other characters such as Haydee, Madame Danglars, Madame de Villefort, Debray, ad nauseum, are never fully vetted or explained. The only benefit from enduring this particular abridged edition is my determination, upon the purchase of another classic, to make darned sure I'm buying the unabridged version. Books, especially good books, are meant to be enjoyed as they originally were written--not hacked to nonsensical pieces for the sake of brevity. THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO deserves better.--D. Mikels, Esq." +1950,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AZXA3AZ2JYIFT,N. Jenkins,0/0,5.0,1223510400,It's All Good,The book arrived in excellent condition and it has been a delightful book to read. +1951,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A37XE43JR03AFN,"""mockingbird73""",1/1,5.0,1007769600,Revenge and Regret,"A few years ago I saw the movie Sleepers with Brad Pitt, Jason Patric and Kevin Bacon. It was about a gang of pre-teens who are abused in a reform school, read Count of Monte Cristo in school and vow to take revenge on their persecutors, even if it takes years and years to put their plan into action. This led me to believe that Count of Monte Cristo glorified the concept of revenge. Dumas did so much more than that. He portrayed a life that was completely consumed by the need for revenge and in the end the true message was of regret, not revenge. For me that message transformed this book from an entertaining thriller to a powerful classic. As I have said in other reviews, I have young children and this will be a must read when they are teens. I can tell my children that I believe in turning the other cheek, but this classic illustrates why forgiveness should beat revenge on any given day." +1952,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,ADFRH0Y4YWQJR,sam twain,2/3,5.0,1159228800,The Count of Monte Cristo,"I love this book. I saw the movie when it first came out in theaters and I just now finished the book. I really can't say that one is better than the other, I enjoyed both of them. This book definitely kept me engaged, I never wanted to put it down." +1953,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AAI501JDGRO90,"""chanspring""",7/7,5.0,945734400,Five stars aren't nearly enough,"This masterpiece is a story of triumph, love, jealousy, wisdom, mystery, revenge, suspence, travel, secrets, longing, all the things that make up life. What an amazing book! It has been my all time favirote for years, I recomend it to anyone! You won't regret it!" +1954,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A173M6JEB9N2T9,Minnesotan Hockey Man,0/0,5.0,1351123200,The only book I have enjoyed enough to read 8-9 times,"This book has it all. It is set in the early 1800s and involves ambition, humility, envy, love, power, poverty, education, travel, and many other subjects of life. It is a great read for travelers and adventuresome people. I have read a lot of books, but find that this is the only book, classic or otherwise, that I have read 5-6 times over the past 20 years. Highly recommended!" +1955,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AACZE87D3789B,"Cynthia Fletcher ""mom of son in prison""",0/0,5.0,1232323200,Good Reading,I purchased the book for a present for my son.He was very pleased with the book. +1956,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3UI216Y3DZQ2O,Matthew Buckett,0/0,5.0,1242345600,The Count Of Monte Cristo,This book is outstanding. I receved it without delay or any other problems. It is also in good condition. +1957,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A28ZZ6WNTCIQ1Z,Brian,1/1,5.0,1318464000,Favorite story of all time,"I was familiar with the Count of Monte Cristo from the movie by the same name starring Jim Caviezel, and it used to be one of my favorite movies.... that is until I read the book. Now, not to say that the movie is not entertaining, but the breath and scope of this amazing book cannot be contained in a 90 minute movie. As a result of enjoying this book so immensely, I no longer enjoy watching the movie that much, but it is well worth it.I don't think I've ever read a book with so many different faces. The story has action, romance, friendships, enemies, betrayal, vengeance, redemption, comedy... everything you can think of is masterfully done in this book. Do not be daunted by its length, and definitely do not buy an abridged copy. This is the kind of book that will have you hooked in no time and before you know it you're closing the back cover; it's just that damn good." +1958,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1CDNTB7377YH2,Michael A. Newman,0/1,5.0,1075420800,One of my all-time favorites!,"I read this book about 20 years ago and it left a big impression on me. Edmund Dantes, framed for a crime he didn't commit goes to an island prison to rot. There he meets an elderly man who quickly becomes his teacher. The man seems to know everything and his lessons transform Dantes into a sophisticated and wiley-intelligent individual.The two plan Dantes escape (I don't want to give away how but it has to do with the old man's death) and when Dantes, ultimately does escape he reinvents himself as a mysterious Count and starts taking revenge on those who framed him.This book made me appreciate the value of learning and how you can make yourself a better person, no matter your station in life, if you take advantage of books and other sources of information available." +1959,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/0,5.0,908323200,The Best Book Ever,The Count of Monte Cristo is wonderful. The nevel kept my attention throughtout the entirety of the book. I absolutely adored the book. I suggest strongly that you read this book. There's also a movie that is very entertaining. You'll love it! Enjoy. . .if you have questions about the book please e-mail me. I'll be glad to let you know any information in which I might have. +1960,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3NCKDPCAUOD4T,nto62,0/0,5.0,1219449600,As good as it gets...,"Having never read The Count of Monte Cristo and only faintly recalling a movie of some years ago, I was prepared for a swashbuckling epic of swordplay and derring-do. My expectations were entirely inadequate. The Count of Monte Cristo is rather a tale of revenge through the artifice of intrigue and cold calculation. Dumas creates a broken man, betrayed by a trio of duplicitous schemers, and devotes the bulk of the book to the complex machinations employed in retaliation.The phrase ""intricately detailed"" does not begin to describe the plots and sub-plots which carry this classic forward. Like all novels of its period, the author relies on what the modern-day reader would consider implausible convenience. This doesn't detract from its worth. To create such a tightly-laced weave, some liberties must be granted. The reader gladly forgives Messr. Dumas.On par with The Brothers Karamazov, Anna Karenina, and the works of James Fenimore Cooper, The Count of Monte Cristo is wonderfully thick and magisterially constructed. Set primarily among the preening social elite of post-Napoleanic Paris, yet ranging from Rome to Normandy, it is a 5-star reading experience." +1961,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AF01WQ27PB9TL,GG,1/1,5.0,1346803200,The Mother of all revenge books,"My favorite book of all time. Dumas was a master storyteller and knew how to create a cast of tremendous characters. He put together everything you need in one marvelous story. The setting is perfect, and though a little too detailed for today's writing, it was necessary at the time when people didn't travel and see the world.Conflict permeates the book, and Dumas dishes out the suspense like a master, tossing a dash in just when needed.Every character has depth, lots of depth, and the plot is not only intricate, but devious. The mother of all revenge books. And who doesn't love a good taste of vengeance?Edmond Dantes ranks high on my list of greatest characters in literature, and Alexandre Dumas as one of the best writers." +1962,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AO2SP6J8TVKTK,Mark Sutton,0/0,4.0,1240704000,Best Book I ever read.,"I can say, without a Doubt that this Book is the best that I have read. The story is gripping and extremely well written. The Theme hit very close to Home as I read whilst I was in Kirkuk Iraq back in 07. Honestly, it made brought this Soldier to Tears and I am not ashamed one bit. The ONLY Reason I didn't give 5 Stars is due to it being abridged and I just started the unabridged version." +1963,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AMB648K7UW4U7,Book lover,191/195,5.0,1274659200,Absolutely the best book ever,"This book is an example of perfect fiction writing. Its length is 5 times the average book and it still was not long enough! The story, the characters, the settings and the emotions enthralled me for days. I could not put it down. I was living the book as it took me to France, the mediterranean, Italy and every home, cave and mode of transportation detailed in exemplary fashion by Dumas. Without giving away the intrigue... This book is the story of a wronged young sailor and follows his life as he is imprisoned due to the actions of 3 jealous men. He lives in prison for an extended period of time, meeting a man who gives him hope and a life beyond his dreams. He escapes the horrid dungeon and seeks revenge on the 3 men who took away everything he ever hoped for. This book is amazing, it will not disappoint anyone. I cannot believe I did not read it before. Thank you Kindle for allowing me the pleasure of reading this book for free, however, it is worth paying for and sharing with anyone who loves to read." +1964,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/0,5.0,936316800,An interesting revenge story,I think Dumas did a great job on this book. I am 16 years old and was given it to read over the summer by my English teacher and I couldn't put it down. I read it all in a couple of days. The way Edmond was able to take down his four major enemies without revealing anything and how the coincidence factor played into this book is amazing. I highly recommend this book to anyone. +1965,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3D9OCZKZKH4GK,"Scott A. Reighard ""Scott A. Reighard, Author,...",1/1,5.0,1197504000,Add this to your reading list of classics,"Simply put, I love this book. What a great book to introduce to students interested in historical adventures, and this one is spot on. It's one of the great adventure novels, with lots of action, well-written characters, important issues, and can be read quickly because of its compelling storyline. Also, there is the deception factor, which makes for great storytelling, but in this case the deception is of good in the eternal struggle that is good versus evil. Scott A. Reighard, author:Jamestown: Journey Back in Time" +1966,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A9RTRKZM3IEOY,"M. Ross ""Bacchuskitty""",4/4,5.0,1281916800,A Wonderful Adventure - Reference Translation,"Let me say first that this is NOT the book I read when I was in school. For years I had a vague recollection of The Count of Monte Cristo as some required reading, a tale of a man wronged and his ensuing adventure as he attempted to take his revenge and right the wrongs done to him. As a child, I knew nothing of the foreign origins of some books and the process of translation to make them accessible to me nor of the concept of abridging a document from the original form as written to a presumably more digestible, shrunken version better suited to those with shorter spans of attention or time constraints.The story, to be painfully brief: This is the story of Edmund Dantes, a man of bright prospects and on the verge of wedding the beautiful Mercedes. Betrayed by envious friends, Edmund finds himself spirited away to a prison island. Despondent and having given up all hope of his release and of a reunion with the love of his life, he resigns himself. While in the depths of despair, he meets an eclectic and learned fellow inmate. They immediately bond and Edmund's newfound friend becomes as a father to him and proceeds to teach him all that he knows: languages, culture... and of a mind-boggling buried treasure. Edmund manages to escape the island prison years later and makes his way to the island of the buried treasure, not really expecting to find it. What he finds is treasure so vast as to make a king blush. Newly wealthy, learned, and free, Edmund assumes the identity of the mysterious Count of Monte Cristo and sets in motion the machinery of revenge...I returned to this book as an adult to satisfy my own curiosity and to add flesh to my memory of the adventures of Edmund Dantes that were admittedly skeletal. Because of my previous experience, I was expecting the same stilted, simple read I remembered, a children's book. Initially I was shocked, having done some research to lead me to this particular translation, to find over 1,200 pages of text. That rivals the intimidating girth of my copy of War and Peace. I took the plunge, though I also committed myself to dropping the project once it became apparent that I'd never make it to the end. I needn't have worried. To my amazement and pleasure, I found a tale of adventure of epic proportion replete with revenge, murder, love and loss, in the best tradition of operatic drama. For those of you who love to read and shy away from this because you think you've already read it or that it is only for children... trust me: you haven't, and it's not.This review is for the particular version translated by Robin Buss. This is an excellent and modern translation, executed with an academic's eye for accuracy but the flow and readability of a novelist. Anyone who has compared different translations of novels knows how vastly different the two readings can be. It is not just a matter of age, either, where modern readers can stumble over words or stylistic cues that one may consider archaic. It has more to do with the translator's understanding of the intent of the author, of the subtleties of style, of context, both historical and within the story itself. The Buss translation is, in my opinion, THE translation to read. The beauty of it is that the translation does not get in the way, it is invisible. It is the author Dumas one hears, not the translator Buss, and that is the brilliance of this translation. As a bonus, there are fully thirty pages of notes on the text at the back which I found illuminating and useful.But 1,200 pages, you say? Don't have time, you say? I was so thoroughly sucked into this tale of revenge and adventure I completely lost track of time. By the time I finished I felt only that it was far, far too short. I suppose it has to be so that, as a child, I was offered only the abridged version; I would never have put up with a book as long as this one. As an adult who loves to read and appreciate, however, I will be forever grateful to have been let back to this rich, amazing tale at full strength. I recall turning pages by the hundreds, fully engrossed; the lawn mowing would have to wait until next weekend...Make no mistake, while reading this unabridged version will evoke in you a child's excitement and sense of adventure, this is a book for adults to appreciate. Read it, enjoy it, get lost in it. Unequivocally recommended at five stars." +1967,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A129IZ4GSHYVL4,"D. Long ""Mother of 5""",63/64,5.0,1067731200,just perfect,"I agree with the reviewers that this is one of the best books ever written. I read this book as part of a book club and probably never would have read it on my own--having read many of the books of Hugo and Dickens and other writers of that approximate era. I love both of these writers but find them both at times cumbersome and stilted and really wasn't in the mood for another. However, I could not put the Count of Monte Cristo down. This book seems freshly modern in writing style compared to these superb writers. From the beginning it is a page turner--almost Harry Potter like in its ability to have action, adventure and drama on almost every page. If you read the unabridged version you will find some allusions to morality and the wrongness of revenge which I enjoyed. But what makes the book great is the grandeur of the writing, the tightness of a wonderful plot, filled with subplots, the development of the characters, and the constant magic of combining romance and adventure. It is the ultimate romance book. If you watched the most recent version of the movie, you might be disappointed at the lack of sword fights, but there is never a lack of adventure and suspense. It might be 1400 pages long, but it never disappoints." +1968,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/0,5.0,948153600,Wow!,"This is the only historical fiction-type novel I've ever read and loved. I was very involved in the story, and frequently yelled out comments such as, "How could she do that?" and "I know he did not just such-and-such!", much to the surprise of my family, who had to live through those times. I called my cousin, who suggested the book to me, every night, and we had detailed discussions of what was happening. I was highly disappointed when I discovered that it was not on my school reading list for this year. If you like dull, informative books with few characters and no suspense or mystery, DO NOT READ THIS BOOK! However, if you are normal, you should definitely read it." +1969,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3O8Z6IZ0VU3BB,"Laura M. Burgess ""Kindle Fan""",14/14,4.0,1201824000,"The Story is excellent, and this is the Unabridged edition","This is the only Unabridged edition of The Count of Monte Cristo I have been able to find for Kindle. It looks like a public domain copy that has been adapted, but it is formatted well. It doesn't say who the translator is. It has the whole 117 chapters. It is worth the 99 cents, if you want the unabridged version. I think if you read the abridged you are missing out on some great parts of a great story. I gave this 4 stars because it looks like the public domain and has no extas that a lot of the big publishers have, but still, a great buy and a great version." +1970,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AHHFO2LGH38RI,Heidi M. Rodgers,0/0,5.0,1282262400,great,This was purchased for my daughter's summer reading. It was in mint condition and was sent to us immediately. We are so appreciative for being able to purchase books online. +1971,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A30F09O64C3K51,"Elizabeth M. ""Web Marketing All in One Desk R...",3/4,5.0,1218067200,A Tale as Rich as the Sandwich,"Perhaps the only work in popularity to rival Alexandre Dumas' Three Musketeers is The Count of Monte Cristo. As with many of Dumas' works, the story has huge cast of characters and several underlying plot lines dealing with political upheaval and scandals in France during that era. I found that the The Man in the Iron Mask had so many side political story lines that it made the novel confusing and hard to follow. And then I got bored. However, The Count, has just the right amount and ties together very well at the end, which does not subscribe to the generic formulaic predictable plot. In fact, I would deem it the ultimate revenge story.There have been 11 films and 4 television series that have attempted to tell the tale of the wronged Edmund Dantes and his search for his fiance Mercedes and his pursuit of the man that wronged him. The most recent film was in 2002 starring Jim Caviezel and while casted well, paled in comparison to the novel in many ways and the liberal creative license taken with the story almost offending. The latter half of the film no longer resembled the masterpiece of the novel. Yes, most films pale to their written counterparts, but this one in particular deserved a Golden Razzie.The novel has a huge story to go with the cast of characters, but is pretty basic in that a man is wrongly accused and seeks to right the wrongs, along the way, losing those that he cared about, mounting his need for revenge even further. Edmund calculates and plans out the most exquisite plans and is not completely heartless or merciless. In fact, his compassion and loyalty are overriding themes throughout the novel. I guess you could say the richness of the Monte Cristo sandwich rivals that of it's namesake!The Count of Monte Cristo is not a novel to be missed.And if you really need the short version, The Simpsons did a 10min summary in the episode ""Revenge is a Dish Best Served Three Times.""" +1972,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3ISIN09Z0GDAQ,Jeffrey Folger,1/1,5.0,1083369600,A great book,"You see all these reviews on this site of highschool kids says 'SOO BOORING' but these are obviously immature lazy students, who cant appreciate a great book. Im a freshman in highschool and this book was great! I didn't read it for school, i did on my own accord and loved it. Don't bother with the movie, it left so much out, and it isnt a quarter as good." +1973,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3JH1D4JBOBSYE,N. Khan,1/1,4.0,1298851200,Beware those who hav seen the movie or animations,"The Count of Monte Cristo is riveting, thrilling, and fantastic! BUT for those of you who like me have seen movies and animation ""loosely"" based on the book. Two elements in adaptations: the union of Edmond & Mercedes, and Edmond's transformation from cold-hearted avenger to human being again, are limited to the adaptations!!*SPOILER ALERT*The original story (English version anyway) is a lot more complicated. Edmond or Monte cristo, as the story progresses, is cold, cruel, and blind with revenge as he drives one enemy to the madhouse and the other to commit suicide, and yet another he allows to be beated to death. By the time he realizes he has gone too far and starts to feel remorse, the horrifying damage is done. Edmond never truly forgives the men who framed him or his betrothed (Mercedes) for not waiting for him. However, he does realize he can't play God and is not the hand of providence. He knows he must atone.As for Edmond and Mercedes, they DONOT reconcile and reunite, instead he hangs her out to dry and sails off with some Greek princess, Haydee, who is at least 20 years his junior in the last chapter of the book. Haydee who is a supporting character at best is so ineffectual and child-like, its actually annoying. It's hard to feel sympathy for her sad story while she acts pompous and dim witted. Her main purpose in the story is as a plot device (the revenge on Fernand), she is otherwise a shadow character whose affection towards the count is parasitic, she herself appears so indulgent and kind of a moocher. The count's choice of her as a mate killed the ending for me. Granted, the count is pathetic and all alone in the world at this point, and will take whatever he can get.The orginal story destroyed my cherished idea/memory of ""The Count of Monte Cristo."" It was heart breaking! Daggers and thunderbolts :(" +1974,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,1/1,4.0,941932800,Great book,"The story is very captating, it taps into two of humanities' basic desires; revenge and power. Too many french words were left unexplained in the book, I assume that they were just copied from the original text. That is the only reason that the book was kept from attaining the ultimate goal of five stars. If you liked the Three Musketeers, you'll love this book" +1975,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A318XV56UYB6R6,Daniel Brockman,3/3,4.0,1018396800,"At less than 600 pages, this is an abridged version.","The real thing is about twice as long. I'd prefer that merchants and publishers would plainly label the abridged versions. As for the content, Dumas's "Count of Monte Cristo" is central to the development of modern western literature, a precursor to Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn" and a grand yarn in the league of Homer's "Odyssey". Your grandparents read this story. Your grandchildren will read this story." +1976,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3B95MNFCZ4IYJ,"D. Florack ""book addict""",1/1,5.0,1185148800,Glad I read it,"I'd never read it so I decided to tackle the unabridged version - all 1200+ pages. It was worth it. There was a lot going on in this book. I got tired of the revenge angle after awhile. While I could understand it, it seemed a shame that such a rich and talented character couldn't have done more with his life than getting back at those who'd hurt him. It was kind of sick after awhile." +1977,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1AH59DV8PEELS,Chris Li,1/1,5.0,1350432000,Great and thrilling read!,Alexandre Dumas does an amazing job in book with in depth descriptions of characters and settings. He takes you away from characters only to work them back in later in the novel. Easy to read for a classic book. I would definitely recommend this to any lover of books. +1978,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1OBLTXJJ5ZHMA,smcheril,4/5,5.0,1155513600,Great Storytelling at its best,"I chanced upon ""The Count of Monte Cristo"" when my daughter needed to read it as part of a summer reading program. I am not a big reader of fiction and the story line of the book didnt inspire a lot of confidence. A story of a man who is unjustly imprisoned who comes back and avenges his enemies -- doesn't sound too interesting.Anyway, I just started reading a few pages just for the heck of it and found that I couldn't put the book down. This was story-telling at its best. It took me a couple of days to finish the book -- I really did nothing else during that period. The book was so well written -- and well translated.There are a whole bunch of characters in the story and their stories weave in and out of each other sustaining the pace of the novel. In some ways, this book seemed to be like a collection of novels (or novellas) that somehow got intertwined into a coherent large novel. Some of the things in the story might seem remarkable and hard to believe -- but that doesnt detract from the craftsmanship of Dumas which is quite unlike anything I have read thus far.There are a lot of abridged editions floating around -- however, after reading the original unabridged translation, I think its not possible to abridge the story without taking away significantly from its greatness." +1979,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A4PKGNR8ODZQL,Michael Minroad,1/1,5.0,1315440000,A great work of Romantic fiction,"Le Comte de Monte-Cristo, or The Count of Monte Cristo, has often been refered to as the greates adventure novel of all time. The novel begins with a great betrayal of the lead--Edmond Dante, the count of Monte Cristo, etc -- by four associates--Fernand, Caderousse, Villefort and Danglars--which results in a lengthy imprisonment for Dante in the dreaded Castle d'If. During this imprisonment, Dante becomes highly educated under the tutelage of a fellow prisoner, Abbe Faria, and undergoes a spritual awaking; Dante henceforth wishes ""...to be Providence myself, for I feel that the most beautiful, noblest, most sublime thing in the world, is to recompense and punish.'""What follows is a daring escape, the discovery of great treasure and an elaborate plan, taking place over more than a decade, to bring all to justice. There are approximately 45 different characters (of which 5 or 6 are aliases of the lead), and a complex, interwoven relationship among them. (I suggest creating a 'character map' as you go along to keep things straight.) Additionally, and unlike 'modern' novels, there is purpose in each carefully crafted scene; each element serving to drive the plot forward to the unforgettable climax. This is undoubtly a classic that is as relevant and exciting today as it was 170 years ago. Highly recomended." +1980,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AK81WLVD5KGUX,"John S. Ryan ""Scott Ryan""",163/178,5.0,1041379200,Read the _full_ English translation,"I've reviewed this book before. I'm writing another review of it now so that it will appear on my list of reviews next to my review of the butchered 2002 screen adaptation of this epic work.Alexandre Dumas's _The Count of Monte Cristo_ is one of the greatest novels of all time and in fact stands at the fountainhead of the entire stream of popular adventure-fiction. Dumas himself was one of the founders of the genre; every other such writer -- H. Rider Haggard, C.S. Forrester, Zane Grey, Louis L'Amour, Mickey Spillane, Ian Fleming, Tom Clancy, John Grisham -- is deeply in his debt.The cold, brooding, vampiric Count (born Edmond Dantes; known also, among other aliases, as ""Sinbad the Sailor,"" Lord Wilmore, and a representative of the firm of Thomson and French) is the literary forebear of every dark hero from Sherlock Holmes and the Scarlet Pimpernel to Zorro, Batman, the Green Hornet, and Darkman. And the intricate plot provides everything any reader could want: adventure, intrigue, romance, and (of course) the elegant machinations of the Count himself as he exacts his terrible revenge on those who have wronged him -- thereby serving, or so he believes, as an agent of divine justice and retribution. Brrrrrrrr.The book is also a good deal _longer_ than many readers may be aware. Ever since the middle of the nineteenth century, the English translations have omitted everything in the novel that might offend the sensibilities of Victorian readers -- including, for example, all the sex and drugs.That's why I strongly recommend that anyone interested in this novel read Robin Buss's full-text translation. Unlike, say, Ayn Rand (whose cardboard hero ""John Galt"" also owes his few interesting aspects to Monsieur le Comte), Dumas was entirely capable of holding a reader's undivided attention for over a thousand pages; Buss's translation finally does his work justice, restoring all the bits omitted from the Bowdlerized versions.The heart of the plot, as most readers will already know, is that young sailor Edmond Dantes, just as his life starts to come together, is wrongfully imprisoned for fourteen years in the dungeons of the Chateau d'If as the victim of a monstrously evil plot to frame him as a Bonapartist. While in prison he makes the acquaintance of one Abbe Faria, who serves as his mentor and teaches him the ways of the world (science, philosophy, languages and literature, and so forth), and also makes him a gift of a fabulous treasure straight out of the _Thousand and One Nights_. How Dantes gets out of prison, and what he does after that -- well, that's the story, of course. So that's all I'm going to tell you.However, I'll also tell you that the 2002 screen adaptation doesn't even begin to do it justice. The plot is so far ""adapted"" as to be unrecognizable, except in its broad outlines and the names of (some of) the characters. Pretty much everything that makes Dumas's novel so darkly fascinating has been sucked out of it. It's not a bad movie on its own terms, but if you're expecting an adaptation of this novel, you'll be disappointed. And if you've already seen it, don't base your judgment of the novel on it." +1981,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1CH91XD586W71,"Siddhartha Guatama ""Buddha""",0/1,4.0,1251158400,Flawed masterpiece,"The Count of Monte Cristo is a great story make no doubt about it, but it is slightly sprawling and unfocused, not that i'm suggesting and abrigment, it's just that the book could do with a trim rather a complete gutting. Several of the parts are rather longer than the need be, the Rome section in particular drags tediously (it was originally meant to open the book, it was only after he had scetched out the plot that he decided to tell the story of Edmond Dantes incarceration and break-out instead of us meeting the enigmatic Count in the middle of the Roman Carnival and moving on to Paris shortly there after).As most people know the Count of Monte Cristo is the story of a wrongfully imprisoned man who breaks free, gets a massive fortune and then sets out to revenge himself on the people responsible. What most people don't know is that the prison section serves only as a small part of the story and that it is in the main taken up by the Count's prolonged revenge. What most people also don't know is the bits that are often left out of the movies and the abridgements yet so enliven the tale such as suicide, infanticide, lesbianism, transexualism, murder and drug taking. On the whole then Monte Cristo is a brilliant if flawed tale." +1982,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/0,5.0,926380800,The most exciting adventure ever told!,"Set against the flaming years of the Nepoleonic era, here is the celebrated story of Edmond Dantes, a man sentenced to life imprisonment for a crime he did not commit, who escaped from the notorious and impregnable fortress, the Chateau d'lf, to exact a terrible vengeance on his enemies. The story of Dantes' long, intolerable years of captivity, his miraculous escape, his carefully wrought revenge has truely made this book one of the best." +1983,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,ACIK4IKT8STUU,E. Rabinovich,0/0,1.0,1346976000,Don't buy and read abridged classics - go for the real thing,"It is not quite true that the publishers hide the fact that this is an abridged edition - it is printed under the title but is difficult to notice. After the 30 introductory pages you'll find a ""Translator's Note' that tells you that ""a distinct prejudice against length now exists"". Well, in my view it is a poor taste to shorten a classic book. The book is excellent but get the full version." +1984,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,ANVBALAY6KAQT,Robert M. Matthews,1/1,5.0,1283126400,First impressions,"I'm only about 225 pages into the book so far and have no regrets about buying it. The story is wonderful, not the kind of thing you'd want to rush through but just take your time and enjoy. My only surprise is that this edition was advertised as being ""Deckle Edge Paper"" whereas my copy is definitely not. You're paying more for this version so if that is important to you beware." +1985,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/0,5.0,966643200,Trully inspiring story!,"The Count of Monte Cristo, besides being a wonderfully entertaining story, is heart warming and inspiring. One follows not only the path of Edmond Dantes's life but also the path of hate and vengeance. The story blossoms at a comfortable speed so that the semi-complicated storylines don't leave you lost. I will recommend this book to all the people who are looking for an entertaining mind trip to "a dazzling, dueling, exuberant France"." +1986,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1H9RNS7WZP53U,N. Carvalho,0/0,5.0,1287878400,Amazing story - couldn't stop reading,"I loved this book and really can't believe I hadn't read it before. It's an old classic, and an excellent story. The version on the kindle is great - easy to read and definitely as addictive as reading the actual hardcopy book itself. Highly recommended! You won't be able to put it down." +1987,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3033Y0GF8QDC1,Mark Borchers,4/5,5.0,975283200,Intrigue in 19th Century France,"This Alexander Dumas classic vies with his "Three Musketeers" in the genre of French adventure novels set in the eventful 19th century. Whereas "Three Musketeers" featured a quartet of swashbuckling heroes, "Monte Cristo" centers around one mysterious, seemingly omnipotent individual.The book opens in Marseilles, where the reader is introduced to the central characters as young men. A plot is laid and carried out against one of these men by his rival for the love of a woman. After the passage of 14 years, the lives of these characters slowly begin to converge once again as the victim of the conspiracy seeks his vengeance.The setting for his revenge, however, is a far different venue than the Mediterranean fishing community of Marseilles. His old enemies have become wealthy and powerful, and move in the highest circles of Paris society. The skeletons in their closets would now be the ruin of lofty reputations. Their families will become unknowing actors in the drama of vengeance that begins to unfold when the Count of Monte Cristo takes up residence in Paris.The victim of the conspiracy of hotheads in Marseilles was an unsophisticated provincial at the time. Upon his return, he is wealthy, subtle, and implacable. He embarks upon his quest for revenge with a well-planned, methodical campaign, marshalling resources that he has devoted years to organize. He uses a dozen or so people as his allies, some unknowingly, others willingly, but none are aware of his ultimate objectives. Yet, as complex and detailed as his plans are, he encounters complications that force him to choose how far to pursue his revenge.I was captivated by the dark and light contrasts of this story. The glitter and elegance and courtliness of French society of that day are set against the darkness of scandalous family secrets and destructive, coldblooded scheming. It's a combination that can't miss, particularly at the hand of a master writer like Dumas. This is a long book to plow through, but the further one gets, the more the threads of the plot come together to the final triumphs and defeats. As you reach the closing chapters, you may be reminded of a line from the movie "An Ideal Husband" -- "no man is rich enough to buy back his past."" +1988,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,1/7,3.0,1011744000,Not always easy to get past parts of this book,"Although the book and the storyline itself is exciting....there are parts in it that are so difficult to get past. I thought too much time was spent describing certain people/situations. I felt some chapters where new characters were introduced did not hold my attention enough to keep me wanting to know more. It felt like a roller coaster ride. One minute I was riding high and excited about a particular scene and then the next I was falling asleep. I do plan on trying again, however and hope that I can get past this to finish the book. I do not like to leave a book unfinished, if I can help it." +1989,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A24ZICQ8IFP1Y8,Corn-Picker,1/3,4.0,1137024000,"A worthwhile read, but far from one of my favorites","I recommend reading this book -- simply because so many others have read it. At some point a book gains such a critical mass of readers that reading the book is necessary to maintain your level of cultural literacy.Considering only the text, I felt it was very good, but not one of the greatest. I agree with all of the positives cited in the other reviews. Dumas is a master story teller, the tale is coherent and easily visualized. There are however, two drawbacks that ruined the book for me. Firstly, the story is so contrived that it completely destroys any suspension of disbelief. Secondly, the story is so predictable that you can see what's going to happen several hundred pages in advance. Other than these two annoyances, The Count of Monte Cristo is about perfect." +1990,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AIKSUSO0OE656,Fady Gharbawy,0/0,5.0,1200268800,Greatest plot. Just enticing.,"The words ""bestest"" and ""awesomest"" should be added to the next edition of Webster's since nothing else can describe Dumas's ""The Count of Monte Cristo."" When it comes to plot suspense and valuable moral lessons, Dumas has it all. Imbuing it with a rich and captive plot, Dumas enriches his masterpiece with themes of love, hate, vengeance, and forgiveness--all part of our quotidian lives.Although the original version stretches over 1200 pages, the abridged version with its 600 pages is just as enticing but more complex at few scenes where some characters appear suddenly.A background of the author's era is essential in understanding the setting and beginnings of ""The Count of Monte Cristo."" It was during this era that French royalties exiled Napoleon Bonaparte, the hailed French hero, to the Mediterranean island of Elba, where Edmond Dantes, the protagonist, finds him. It is the letter containing Napoleon's secret plans of retaliating against the French nobility that partially causes Dantes's imprisonment. This political reason, however, is not the main reason.Though mostly direct and clear, Dumas's style varies to a more philosophical one when discussing human nature, which he does often towards the end. Edmond Dantes, as mentioned above, is the young and well-off protagonist, ready to become the captain of his ship and get married. With a big heart and somewhat ignorant soul, Dantes falls into the farce those closest to him had set up. In the beginning chapters, the ready already sees themes of love, hatred, and jealousy.Returning after a long time under the name of Count of Monte Cristo, Dantes begins executing his plans of revenge against those who destroyed him and recompense those who helped him. What truly makes this book such a remarkable one is the beauty and perfection with which the Golden Rule (""Do unto others what you with done unto you"") is applied throughout the development of the plot.With abundant characters that differ in personality and beliefs, every reader is sure to find his/her own reflection taking part of the story's advancement.Overall, this book is worthwhile to read. I assure you that you will not be disappointed but you will enjoy every chapter of it. It is no wonder that it is hailed as ""one of the greatest classics.""" +1991,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,AVU5IYT8JXA03,Jules,2/2,5.0,1349654400,Count of monte Christo,One of the best books I have ever read. His descriptive and engaging writing takes the reader to a visual wonderland. This book has everything if you want a great read. +1992,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1PSWZSJ90PMTL,daddyzee,4/4,5.0,1350777600,How can you go wrong?,"Beloved classic literature for $.99! I had already read the book at least 3 times over the last 55+ years, but I wanted it on my Kindle so that I could read a chapter or 2 between reading through other books in my library (Sort of a change of pace kind of thing). It's not like I don't know how it ends. I started reading it after knocking off 2 of Dean Koontz's ""Odd Thomas"" novels. Rather than starting the latest ""O. T."" thing, I started re-reading the ""Count"", and became too engrossed in it to go on to something else.What I like most about the Kindle edition is being able to get a dictionary definition of many of the archaic and out of use words that must have been commonly used in the 19th century.The use of the word ""Illustrated"" is a little misleading - I've read over hallf of the book and found only 1 small drawing of the publisher's logo at the top of the beginng page. However, this edition includes an excellent foreward with numerous links to Wikipedia, that gives the reader a sense of the times in which the story takes place. I suppose the foreward ""illustrates"" the history of France in those times." +1993,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1I5CATDG6B7T0,"T. Quijas ""Tam""",0/0,5.0,1247875200,Superb writing,"Dumas is the king of drama and the swashbuckling hero with a broken heart. The Count of Monte Cristo blends all the horrors suffered by a wronged man in a time of a country's turmoil, due to an unexpected betrayal. Still a good read, even after all this time." +1994,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A1PKJUAQFGNLSX,B. Morse,0/0,5.0,1034640000,Wait and Hope......,"For Edmond Dantes, these words kept him alive in the nearly 2 decades of imprisonment at the Chateau D'If. Unjustly placed there upon return to the port of Marseilles; made scapegoat for a Bonapartist action which he had no involvement with, Dantes is torn from his life as sailor, fiance, and son, and tossed into the darkness of solitary confinement, left to rot; untried, unexplained, and forgotten.Many years later, hope comes in the form of an ailing prisoner trying to tunnel his way out. He confides his greatest secret, the hiding place of an immense fortune, to Dantes before he dies. Seeing this as his only chance at freedom, Dantes assumes the place of the corpse, is removed from the prison for 'burial', and escapes.Thus begins his revenge. After collecting the very real wealth in the cavern on Monte Cristo, he assumes the title of Count, and exacts his vengeance on those who stole his life.The Count; benefactor, patron, and friend of the elite, insinuates himself into the lives of those who deprived him of all he loved, and authors their downfalls. All the while rewarding the good and just, he prepares punishment for those who are deserving.The book is entertaining from start to finish and was well worth the read. The Count's revenge is deserved, and well doled out, as he allows all to destroy themselves with their wrongdoing, simply supplying them the means. The ending is not so grand scale as to be Hollywood-esque in scope, but satisfying nonetheless. Dantes realizes that in following his path of revenge he has simply placed himself in another 'prison,' that of hatred, and he tempers his actions with deeds of generosity and gratitude, perhaps as a measure of atonement. But no matter what ills befall those who betrayed him, you constantly root for Dantes to emerge triumphant.The more classic literature I read, such as Count of Monte Cristo, the easier it is to see why good literature survives the test of time." +1995,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A2WO3C3F0ISTR8,love_ruby@hotmail.com,10/11,5.0,918432000,A Must-Read Work of Genius by Alexandre Dumas,"The Count of Monte Cristo is perhaps one of the best literary works of all time. Riveting, it is the story of a young man, Edmond Dantes, who is falsely accused of treason by three selfish villains who each desire something different from Dantes; The story is set in 19th Century France. Dantes is a young, strikingly handsome, 20-year old newly-apppointed ship captain with his whole life ahead of him. He is about to marry the woman of his dreams, a young, vivacious, awesomely beautiful Catalan girl from France named Mercedes. For reasons unbeknownst to him he is betrayed by three cruel, evil men, accused of treason, and secretly heralded away to the foreboding Chateau de If prison where he serves almost 14 years in solitary confinement. With the help of a wise old abbe, he successfully institutes an escape plan; After a daring, nerve frazzling escape, he sets about to claim a vast, hidden, enormous fortune that is hidden at the Isle of Monte Cristo. After locating riches beyond imagination, Edmond dons the title the Count of Monte Cristo, he is a man of immense wealth, stature, class, and a man of society. But with all the riches and fame bestowed upon the Count, he must complete some unfinished business. That is, he must enact revenge upon the evil men who robbed him of his youth, the love and life of his father, the loss of his betrothed, and his prominence as a ship captain. You will find yourself seated at the edge of your seat, perhaps stopping only to take care of life's necessities because when Monsieur Le Comte de Monte Cristo enacts his revenge, he takes no prisoners. The Count of Monte Cristo captures our very essence as we watch his plan unfold before our very eyes. He carefully and fastidiously orchestrates his plan of revenge to punish the men who acted so predictably and maliciously against him. This book gets five thumbs up because it demonstrates vulnerable life experiences that happen to many of us. That is, to say it is a story about true human courage, emotion, greed, jealousy, betrayal, and revenge. And, the count makes the punishment fit the crime for each man. This book is not for the squeamish or immature at heart. One of the best novels of all time." +1996,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,,,0/1,5.0,983923200,Superior Adventure,My favorite book of all time.... +1997,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A317CUPDD6NKJN,shel99,0/0,5.0,949708800,A sweeping tale of vengeance,"This is a fantastic book! It helps to have some background in French history (of the Napoleonic era, to be specific) to really understand what's going on. This is the tale of Edmond Dantes, a simple sailor, a good man, who is wrongfully accused of a crime he didn't commit on the day of his wedding, and ends up spending 14 years in jail for it. He finally escapes and through complicated planning and patience, manages to complete his vengeance against those who were responsible for his imprisonment. It's a very complicated book, not an easy read, but worth every minute. A true classic." +1998,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3B65N7M1C6LZY,JOE BRUNS,0/2,2.0,1361232000,too small,print is too smallbook is too smallexpected book to be biggernot happy at all wish i could return +1999,B0007K33F2,"Monte Cristo,",,A3FYMJOH62N4LA,Kyle B. Venart,0/0,5.0,1280534400,To Grant Forgiveness Or Take Revenge.,"The Count of Monte Cristo is an excellent novel, filled with a multitude of characters, rich locations, and smothered in history. It is a story of injustice and a quest for revenge that will hold your attention for hours.The story in this novel is darker and far more engrossing than any adaptation. If you have seen the film adaptations of this book then some of the character names and general outline of the story will be familiar to you.A young merchant sailor, Edmond Dantès is about to achieve prosperity in his life. Unbeknownst to him; his soon to be wife's cousin and a shipmate accuse Dantés of being a supporter of Napoléon I, because of a package and a letter Dantés must deliver. Villefort, the deputy crown prosecutor in Marseille, assumes the duty of investigating the matter. Upon discovering that the letter was to be delivered to his father, he covers up the matter and exiles Dantés to the Chteau d'If. It is here where Dantés learns an education and the whereabouts of a fortune, which will help him, exact his revenge once he escapes.I'll save the rest of the story for you to read.Trust me you will not be disappointed, maybe you'll even give a little smirk as Dantés confronts the robbers of his life." +2000,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,2/3,5.0,1160611200,"Of Mice and Men. Breaz*Plum, Student at Maces Lane Middle School.","The book, ""Of Mice And Men,"" is one of the best books I have ever read. It is about two men, Lennie and George. They ran away from thier old ranch, Weed because Lennie is mentally retarded and he grabbed a ladies dress because he likes soft things. He got accused of rape. Later, they found a ranch in Salinas, California. Many events occured at this ranch, Lennie got in a fight with curly. Curly is a little man unlike Lennie and he is jealous of big men. You will have to read the story to find out the best ending. If you like breathtaking, loving, but yet harmful books you should read this book." +2001,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1GU27RUVNLYWL,WHAT,3/5,4.0,1037577600,OF MICE AND MEN,"An outstanding book. This book is a decent look at humanity. It is a simple explanation of human nature. All of these are descriptions of a novel I recently read by the name, ""Of Mice and Men"" by a well-known author John Steinbeck. I would rate this book 8 on a scale of 10 because I learned so much about the way we treat others and their reactions, told through a man who has had much experience with the subject. Lennie, a big dumb, jock, was born slow, mentaly incapable of reacting to daily life. After George, a caring yet riggid man befriends him early in child hood, the two become traveling partners and best buddies. George becomes weary of Lennie's childish ways and misachievous antics, which continually causes the pair trouble and forces them to skip around the country.""That ranch we're goin' to is right down there about a quarter mile. We're gonna go in an' see the boss. Now, look-- I'll give him the work tickets, but you ain't gonna say a word. You jus' stand there and son't say nothing. If he finds out what a crazy ... you are, we won't get no job, but if he sees ya work before he hears ya talk we're set. Ya got that?""This story is special because all aspects of diction, from all characters are described in simple English. The story had no useless vocabulary or pointless explaining, just a plain dexcription of the people. The story also uses vivid imagery when George tells Lennie about how they were going to own a ranch and Lennie can raise rabbits. Steinbeck reveals the simle truth about racism, dgradation, and jelousy. People in the book are struggling to overcome an obstacle that holds them back. At their final stop, they meet all types of people, which teach them about diversity and how to deal with it. The story's resolution reveals how humans deal with the sorrow of our society. The outcome may shock us, yet it seems just in it's own irony. I sincerely suggest this book to those looking to explore humanity and to those who would like to know what friendship and loyalty is and if you liked ""To Kill a Mocking Bird"" or ""The Catcher in the Rye"", you will like this book because I, Jamil Faruque a student of Falls Church HS, have read both of these books which shows similarities with ""Of Mice and Men""" +2002,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,1/2,5.0,952905600,An incredible Book by Steinbeck.,Of Mice and Men is one of the greatest books I've read in my life.It shows a clear theme of loneliness throughout the story.Lenne and George show a close relationship throughout most of the story.Although Curly's wife was always understood as Curly's wife(because she never had a name in the story.)It was still a great book.Lennie and george always had a dream but obviously in the end george knew it ould never come true..... +2003,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,AAWDQNECQH273,Carmencita,1/2,5.0,1175644800,Excellent!!!,This book is one of the best books that I have ever read. It had plenty of humor and plenty of good lessons that one can use for the rest of their life. Steinbeck did an excellent job. I recommend this to anyone that wants to enjoy a good book. +2004,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A38VAF4S1DARTN,"Luxx Mishley ""Luxx""",0/2,2.0,1263081600,Of Mice and Men,"One of the first things I noticed while reading Of Mice and Men was a sense of comfort on the part of the narration; the descriptions and character development seemed so natural that the sense of realism was undeniable. Although there is much that Steinbeck keeps to himself in terms of his main characters, I found Lennie and George to be well-rounded and honest - simple men trying to keep their heads above their water as they pursue (to different degrees) what qualified as ""the good life"" for two migratory farm hands.Much to my surprise, I had no real emotional response to the novel. I tend to be a very emotive reader, and more often than not will respond passionately to what I read. However, Steinbeck has left me feeling completely neutral; I was not particularly invested in the characters or events of the book, and found the conclusion neither satisfying nor disappointing. In the end I'm willing to consider this neutrality a positive result of the trial - I didn't hate the book, so I'm more open to reading something along the lives of Travels with Charlie, but I also didn't love it, so I doubt I'll be tackling The Grapes of Wrath anytime soon." +2005,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2FV5YG52YL1VI,Helix Adult Student EA,0/0,5.0,1016582400,A great book to read !!,"This novel is about friendships and dreams shared by two men named George and Lennie. They dream about one day owning a farm. George acts as a father figure to Lennie, who is large and simpleminded, calming him and helping him to control his physical stength. After the death of Lennie's Aunt Clara, George took care of Lennie. As the author, John Steinbeck did an excellent job introducing each character. I really connected with all the characters. The theme of friendship, struggle, and following a dream was beautifully written. I thought that the book Of Mice and Men was great because it never got boring. I was not able to put the book down. This novel will leave you with a lot of diffrent emotions; it touched me deeply because it reflected true events in my life about hardship and friendships. I recommend this book to everyone." +2006,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A18NFR0MO17XRV,Douglas Bass,3/6,3.0,1190592000,"Speak up for those who can't speak for themselves, because someone is advocating for their death","You won't get any complaint from me that this book is skillfully written, in it's vivid descriptions of settings, detailed descriptions of characters, and realistic dialogue.However, I believe this book has a bad message, and the bad message is about how it's ok to put the weak, infirm and dependent to death. It started with the discussion of Candy's aged dog. The book gave the impression that the dog's age made him no good to even himself, the ""quality of life"" argument that has been advanced to support euthanizing the elderly, weak and infirm.After discussing Candy's dog, the argument proceded to Candy himself, where he longs to be euthanized when he can no longer work.Finally, we come to George's murder of the retarded Lennie, which is completely justified by Slim, the voice of the one sympathetic character in the book. I believe that George was looking for an opportunity to divest himself of Lennie, and that opportunity presented itself when Lennie killed Curley's wife. It was also mentioned that if Lennie was institutionalized, it would be worse than death. I realized there are conflicting opinions about the moral nature of George, but I don't believe he was a good character.As I was writing this review, I recalled Proverbs 31:8-9 ""Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."" Of Mice And Men describes a world where the advocates for euthanizing the weak and infirm prevail." +2007,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,AGIWOEGLZYWQ9,"S. Silverman ""ReaderGeode""",1/1,5.0,1126310400,A five-star meal,"Story reduction at its very best. If it's tough to write a phenomenal novel, this novel `reduction,' all the components reduced to their most basic and delicious levels, is surely a reading piece de resistance. The prose is effortlessly brilliant, the characters and their relationships works of art, particularly Lenny and George, the main characters. The descriptions of settings and the way they're used to set mood are mental beacons of clarity and brightness. The use of foreshadowing, SOMETHING bad is going to happen, causes a most compelling tension in the reader. In particular, the relationship of George and Lenny, which follows the unstated male rules about explaining or defining relationships between men, needs not an iota more from Steinbeck to be manifestly candid. Beauty, grace, pleasure, and awe in just over a hundred pages; I am grateful, indeed, to the young man who recommended it to me." +2008,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,4.0,918086400,Good read for any age,I read this book on vacation in Switzerland. My aunt bought it for me and I read it through that very same night. A hell of an involved book that makes demands of judgment on the reader. Interactive and engaging. Really questions your morals and "what you would have done." +2009,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,AD7AUOD1ETH34,mnsports,1/1,5.0,1341619200,Book - Of Mice and Men,Good book. Purchased for summer reading reguirement for high School. Will keep for next kids coming up through those classes. +2010,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,1104105600,Of Mice and Men,"This is a great book because it shows how a good friendship stars. This novel is about a friendship of two men. This novel has capture my attention and many young people because it shows how we ourselves destroy a friendship by doing bad things and not listen to others. John Steinbeck who is the author of this novel has wrote many novels like the ""Of mice and men"", If you like any other novel from his collection; I will definitely recommend you this novel. If You are a men and you have a friendship with another men who is physical disable, I will truly recommend you this novel.D. Maturana" +2011,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2KFDT3ENO7N21,kae,0/0,5.0,965779200,This is what I call a book!,"The book 'Of Mice & Men'is what people should read to understarnd the situation that the habitants of this small world is suffering: loneliness, violence, love that take people to the death. An authentic book,which many could predict to be bad, but that could be the best of it. Full of surprises, sadness that you will never experience with bounch of papers, the cruelity of love, and the unpredictable final. And questions, millions of questions coming out each seconds from your head, that would not stop even after you've finished the book: Why? What for? Was it the right decision? Didn't he have enough ways to advance? A book that could reach the top. And this, is what I call a book." +2012,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/1,5.0,1160524800,Great Book! C.L.M. Student at Mace's Lane Middle School,"The book ""Of Mice and Men"" by John Steinbeck, has a very good plot and good setting. The setting of the book is in Salinas,California. The two characters Lennie and George are two people who have travelled together ever since Lennie was on his own. They have gotten all of their jobs together, and they have gotten fired together. Then they finally get a job as ranch hands and they get paid fifty dollars at the end of each month. While the two are there they meet seven more people, but I will let you figure them out for yourself.During the time they are at the ranch, George and Lennie make a new friend out of the seven others and I will let you figure out the rest for yourself.I recomend this book to people around the age of 12 and up." +2013,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2FV5YG52YL1VI,Helix Adult Student EA,1/4,4.0,1023753600,book review,"The story is about two guys that are working together as ranch workers. They go around from job to job trying to build up a stake. One of the main characters is George. George is a small, strong man, with a keen eye, and a stolid expression. The other main character is Lennie. Lennie is a tall clumsy man, but at the same time he is strong as an ox. He has a sort of childish behavior and no sense of self-control. Everywhere they went, Lennie seemed to get into trouble with someone. It seemed that Lennie's lack of self-control would force both Lennie and George to quit their jobs early and try to find work elsewhere.I think that if I had to relate myself to one of the characters it would have to George. I think George and I have a lot in common, we both are always trying to solve other people's problems instead of our own. I usually do things that other people want first and what I want to do second. I also think the same way George does. We both have a dream of one day owning land and not having to pay rent on it. I too would one day like to like to not have to work for some one else. To be able to step outside and look as far as I could see and know that it is all mine.I really enjoyed the book. I think that the message of being loyal to your friends is a solid one that will never fade away. I enjoyed just being able to lay back and read about what trouble Lennie was going to get into next. My favorite part was the big fight between Lennie and Curley. I think that that fight had a lot of action and really made the book interesting to read, but at the same time kept it within reason so I wasn't disgusted by it. I really don't think there is any part that I didn't like in the book. I don't think that I would change any part of it if I had the chance to. The book was written so well that changing any part of it would alter the whole story.I would recommend this book to students in high school. It has some bad language and a little bit of adult content, but I think that students at that age can fully understand the story and really appreciate its message. I think that anybody with a small sense of humor and a good sense of adventure would really enjoy this book." +2014,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A14I2SU8QZR08M,Daniel Levin,0/0,5.0,916272000,A beautiful and compelling novel,"An unforgettable, highly moving story with much to say about love, yearning, and loss. So powerful and affecting, it is a crime that some schools keep the book from teenagers who would undoubtedly find the story hugely important and compelling. The book is a subtle, but very powerful indictment of predjudice and mistreatment of the weak. For that reason alone,the book should be celebrated and taught regularly in our schools. A great classic." +2015,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1OTNHW8TV121R,Luis Meiners and Guillermo Piva,1/3,2.0,965779200,A very disapointing Book!,"May I use this opportunity to express my strong dissatisfaction at Steinbeck's book "Of Mice and Men". As a story it could have been much more elaborated but, to my dissapointment it was not. Reading the first chapter I was mysled to believe that I was going to find a good and interesting book due to the excellent descriptions. Instead, i found that he used the same style of description during the entire book making it repetitive and boring. Secondly, the only scenes of the book that were, in my opinion, worthwhile ended up being violent "He slashed at Lennie with his left", "Blood run down Lennies face". Finally, the entire ending of the book was my mayor disappointment as, it ends in a way that leaves a great deal of issues unconcluded, such as George's future. I think that the ending is very poor and leaves much to be desired. In conclusion, I believe the story did not live up to standard and I would not recommend it as it gives us a fake idea of what the book will be but, tears it apart as you go deeper into the story." +2016,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1OXXKY027RZB2,Francine,0/0,4.0,1054080000,A Banned/Challenged Book Worth Reading,"Although many people view Of Mice and Men as a classic, there are some who disagree. The novel was banned and challenged in many schools throughout the country because of explicit language and profanity. After finishing the book myself, I strongly disagree. The language used in Of Mice and Men is nothing new, and most definitely not something that teenagers have not already heard before. One of the characters, Crooks, who happens to be an African American, is quite often referred to in the novel as inferior and is treated much differently than the other characters in the novel. That is perhaps another reason why people may have challenged the novel. Personally, I feel that Of Mice and Men positively contributes to the literary world because of its status. Many critics feel that it is a classic and I feel it should be treated as such. The idea of companionship is demonstrated throughout the book, and I feel that is a positive force. As shown in the novel, everyone needs someone to talk to, one cannot go throughout life without friends to confide in and have fun with. Overall, Of Mice and Men is a classic novel that everyone should read." +2017,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A7EIK9H98968E,Izzy Garcia,0/1,4.0,1134259200,Of mice and men - Izzy G,"Of mice and men was a great book. It told about how and little man named, George who was smart and a dumb man, Lennie who was really big and strong. This book explained how the one man helps out another guy that isnt smart at all and just needs taking caring of because his Aunt Clara died. Well while they both keep working on the fields Bucking Barley, they come up with an idea to own a house and a couple of acres. Well Lennie loves to rub soft things, so he wants to just get the house and tend the rabbits. The book is just a good book of how good of friends can work together and when something goes wrong a friend has to do the thing that is best for the other." +2018,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,AWE0R9MSS9988,"""mark_sigel""",1/1,5.0,992131200,Of Mice and Men,"This is a story about George and Lennie. George is a small man, he is smart, and underneath it all, he loves Lennie. Lennie is a huge man, but was born a slow man, and he sort of reminds you of the big guy in The Green Mile.Lennie always gets into trouble, not on purpose, but because he likes to pet things, like mice, and sometimes women's dresses if they look like they would feel nice. That's how they got thrown out of a few of there jobs, and is the basis of the book.There is some foul language in the book, but regular working folk don't really mind eachother's bad language, and the bad language brings you farther into the book, like you were actually working on the farm. For a short book, it packs a lot of surprises that I wasn't expecting at all. The end is truly sad, and it left questions, but that's what a good book does in my mind.John Steinbeck really brought you into the minds of both George and Lennie, and described each character very well. I am looking forward to reading Mr. Steinbeck's other novels.Mark_Sigel" +2019,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A279MGGD42K3G1,Kindlereader,1/1,5.0,1338076800,Wonderful book,I enjoyed reading this book. The author did a wonderful job of bringing the characters to life. I was able to feel a connection with the people in the book.I recommend this book. +2020,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A32TLSF5FUWFP0,Shannen,0/3,4.0,1084752000,Worth 4 stars because....,"This bookreview is about four stars for me. It was an unexpected story and Steinbeck works well in surprising the human mind. I ive it a four for "shockingly catching & daring."The characters Steinbeck created all had diffrent personalities. When the men shot Cany's dog, all they cared about was getting sleep. Candy, on the other hand, was very sad. I thought in the olden days, men don't get sad, I thought they were confident, showed off teir strength and angry. Having Candy in the story turns my point of view on the olden days.The message I think Steinbeck is trying to send out to us is that the world is not what you think it is. There is always the unexpected to keep the mind still in learning. As an author, I think Steinbeck is trying to say that you can write whatever comes to mind because your story can still be heard." +2021,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A17PF0YQQ9OEXP,MusicalDiva,0/0,3.0,975542400,"Well written, but very depressing material","If you love well written books and don't care if the ending is happy or sad then this is the book for you. However, if you are like me and enjoy well writen books, but must have a happy ending then you will want to avoid this book. Steinbeck has a wonderful writing style with excellant descriptions of nature. Of Mice and Men also very accurately depicts what life was like during The Depression. Unfortunately as it takes place during The Depression it is very depressing. Of Mice and Men tells the story of two best friends George and Lenny. George is the leader of the two, while Lenny who is mentally retarded is the willful and very sweet follower. Both are 30 years old, but neither acts his age. While George acts older and more mature, Lenny has the IQ of a four year old. This problem is the theme of the entire book. I hope you enjoy Of Mice and Men." +2022,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,4.0,902102400,Friendship Never Ends,What a touching story about everlasting friendship between two friends named George and Lenny! 'Of Mice and Men' is a true masterpiece! +2023,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/1,4.0,1160524800,"of mice and men,tweety,kmb,at maces lane middle school","of mice and men is a great book.my favorite character is lennie. lennie is my favorite character because he is so kind, he listens to george and he loves rabbits. lennie is always talking about livin off the fat of the land and tendin the rabbits. lennie is always getting himself and george into trouble and george always get them out. george has to take care of lennie because he has no one else. lennie has to be careful on the ranch because the bosses son curly sufers from little man sindrom and he hates leinne because he is so big. this book is filled with suspence so i would recommend you to read it" +2024,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1PV7M1W1XPLT1,A Story,1/2,3.0,1316390400,"Thanks for sending ""Of Mice and Men""...","The book was shipped very quickly, and I appreciate that so much. This was required reading for my daughter, who is a freshman in high school. I also appreciated the fact that it was much more economical, than purchasing a new copy. The book was a little rough, as far as appearance goes, but it is definitely usable! Thank you!" +2025,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,1/1,5.0,942192000,it is an epic tale of how one man works twords his goal,The book really mean something to me. it tells me that goal are set by many people. Geogre and Lennie had a magnificant goal. They strived to achive it. Lennie was my favorite character. he made me realize that we are all people and we need to have goals. +2026,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,AC70ME7DXQG9Z,"Movie Freak ""Eddy""",0/0,5.0,1116633600,Beautiful,Of Mice and men is a wonderfull book which i would reccomend to anyone who loves a book about two best friends with the same dreams. +2027,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A3DPJG95TGRLI1,Rob Perez,0/0,5.0,1053993600,Summary of novel and positive influences of book.,"Review of: Of Mice and MenOf Mice and Men is a novel about two men named George and Lennie who have the dream of owning their own farm one day. The problem however, is that George and Lennie do not have nearly enough money to pay for their own farm nonetheless pay for a decent living. George is a small dark man who is pretty smart, and his counterpart Lennie is a little different. Lennie has a slight mental disability because he nearly drowned in a river that he and George swam in a long time before the novel started. Because George felt that he did not to enough to save Lennie, he vowed to take care of Lennie for the rest of his life.The next day, Lennie and George apply for a job at a local farm. They get a job and are allowed to live in a bunker house on the farm. In the house, they meet Candy, who is a another ""hand' around the farm, and Curley, who is the boss' mean-spirited son. Lennie and George work on the farm for the next week or so, when Candy overhears George and Lennie discussing their plans for the farm they are going to buy. Candy vows to not tell anyone about the plans and says he will donate his life savings if he is allowed to live on the land. From that point on, whenever someone threatens Lennie or tries to make fun of him because of his disabilities, (example is Curley when he is jealous that his wife is hitting on everyone) Candy is there to back Lennie.During one of the following evenings, Lennie and Curley's wife get into a discussion about how they love to touch things that are soft. Curley's wife allows Lennie to feel her hair, and after a couple of minutes Lennie is yanking at Curley's wife's hair and ends up breaking her neck. Previously before this incident, Lennie had killed his baby puppy that had been given to him as a present. The next morning, George shoots Lennie in the back of the head as an act of mercy, to relieve him of a life, that he obviously never wanted to live.I thought that there were a couple of aspects in this novel that could have made it a banned book. An aspect may have been, who and who isn't allowed to work legally in the United States. I thought in the past, there may have been a law that said that no person with mental disabilities would be allowed to work manual labor. Because of this law, I thought they may ban this book because it is a prime example of how a retarded person got away with working on a farm and how the novel may show examples for other mentally-challenged people in the world to find jobs. Because this book, I thought promoted illegal policies, it would be banned. Also in a moral standpoint, I think this book may have been banned to relieve the public about a story of a retarded person who's life turned out so badly for him. I think this book may have disturbed many people in the past, therefore, the book was banned so when people saw mentally-challenged people, they would not relate the person to the story of Lennie in Of Mice and Men.I think this book positively aspects the literary world and its' themes should be shared by everyone that can read a book. I have many reasons why I believe this. First of all, I really liked how Of Mice and Men portrays the value of human existence. At one point in the book, we notice how Lennie has the need of a friend, yet he will cling to a stranger, such as Curley's wife, for self-comfort. In scenarios such as this one, we can see that tyranny does not come from those who are rich and powerful, and I believe that this is a very powerful concept to have the knowledge of because oppression does not come from ""the hands of the heavens,"" which is something everyone needs to know.Another aspect of this book that positively influences the outside world is how there is no possibility of everything happening perfectly, or ""The American Dream."" There are many examples of this throughout the book. For example, Curley's wife wishes to one day be a movie star, Crooks wishes to be the hardest worker on Lennie and George's farm, and Candy wishes that he will have a friend, (George) own a large piece of land. Obviously, none of these wishes came true. The moral to this is, what makes dreams is the desire to follow their own freedoms, and dreams, as shown by Of Mice and men, will never occur. And that is something that every American needs to know, is that dreams are meant to be dreams, and the sooner you know that, the better it is; which is why this book is a positive influence to the outside world.I would recommend this book to all advanced readers because it not only provides an interesting setting, climax, and plot, it provides a great understanding of the world, and what meanings of life the world has to offer. If you would like to have a story told to you that tells you the journeys of two young men who are looking for answers to life, but get them in symbolic form, read this novel, because you look at things a whole lot differently, once you look at life from a different standpoint." +2028,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,4.0,936576000,A must read,"This book is definatly one of my favorites. I read this book in one sitting, although its short the book tells a lot. Steinbeck is so good at describing a setting that the book draws you in from the begining." +2029,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2V9S3MCHCXJGF,"Travis C ""Travis C""",0/0,4.0,1129420800,Review: Of Mice and Men,"Of Mice and Men was written by John Steinbeck. It took place in the early 20th century. This story starts off with two characters near a stream. There names are Lennie and George. Lennie is slightly retarded and George is his long time care taker slash best friend. These two friends have a dream of owning there own farm one day. But first they had to make money, so they left on a small journey to find a job. They had a couple of jobs but Lennie couldn't control himself during the jobs so they got fired. They finally found a job at a farm. Lennie got into a fight. But they got to keep their jobs. Lennie messed up again, and accidentally killed Curley's Wife. Lennie ran back to the stream. The other farmers gathered and went to kill Lennie. George got a gun and killed Lennie before the farmers did. But Lennie was happy when he died because he was thinking of their dream farm.For the most part of this book I like it. It was a good story. I liked the conflicts. I felt bad for Lennie, because he's really a genital giant and it's not his fault that he freaks out when people scream. He also couldn't control himself and I felt bad for him because of that. Some thing I didn't like about this book was it said Jesus Christ a lot and that offends me. But other than that the book was easy to read and it was short...that's the way I like it. I liked the tone that the book was written in, old country slang. I like how the author wrote. I do recommend this book if you ever want to read a short and easy book. And overall it was a good book." +2030,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,AH9NAQPW1TTC4,Brittany Craul,0/0,4.0,1039219200,Of Mice and Men Book Review,"Of Mice and Men is a book that draws you into a world many people have yet to experience. This book takes place in the 1930's in southern California on a ranch where migrant workerstravel to in order to harvest wheat and then move on. George and Lennie are two of these workers and travel to ranches as a team. George takes care of Lennie and looks after him because Lennie suffers from mental disorders. They become best friends even though George believes life would be easier without Lennie. Tough choices have to be made in order to keep everyone safe and George has to decide what a true friend would do in circumstances no one would want to face. The story talks of unreachable dreams and aspirations, something we can all relate to. The ending of the story has a surprise twist to it that will make you think and cause you to reevaluate what atrue friend is." +2031,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,1/1,4.0,1080777600,My opinion,"The book, Of Mice and Men, was a very exciting book to read. George and Lennie were two nomad men that went from job to job trying to make a life's living. Lennie is a kid trapped in a man's body. Lennie is disabled and acts like a four year old kid. George is a "small and quick and dark of face".I liked this novel. It showed how life could be hard in many different ways. How they went from job to job trying to make a life's living. Also how George dealt with Lennies problems. Lennie's wouldn't think and get in trouble.I would recommend this book to kids that love adventure. This had plenty of it. Lennie and George went everywhere to work." +2032,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,890870400,A Touching Tale On Man's Tragic Fate.,"A story of two men contrasting in physical & mental conditions but united in a deep & trusting bond whose dreams are shattered by life's sinister twist;is handled very well by Steinbeck's gifted touch for the realistic.His lyrical catch-scapes prove daunting & impenetrable though,hindering the flow of the dialogues bet. the characters,where the strength of the novel lies.His style of prose fits more for a screenplay,& it's no wonder that the film of this work was done so well.The end is a dissapointment when one has seen the film;nevertheless,the work is a moving portrayal of human relationships in the inevitability of man's destiny & his helplesness in trying to avert it." +2033,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,AL8IDHJPCE00K,H,5/5,4.0,1180137600,"Simple, and amazing- true literary masterpiece","I first read this book at a young age, curled up on the couch. I found it on the shelf of my mother's bedroom. My mother was suprised to see I had taken it upon myself to read such a book at the age of 10. I wanted to read an adult book, and the slim package of this book seemed undaunting, and unintimidating. I think it opened me up to a world of literature at a young age that has made me love books for a lifetime.Steinbecks masterpiece is a book you could never forget. It will make you cry, and and laugh.As the two men in the book are faced with challenges, and the ultimate challenge you sympathize with each character, their struggles, and the consequences they each face.It's a good book for a young adult, but anyone who has never read this must." +2034,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,899596800,!!!!! Still thinking about the book a whole day later !!!!!,"I read this book yesterday and I am still reeling from the effect that the ending had on me.I have a friend who hates books that make her feel anything. She says she reads for entertainment and not to educate herself. If you are one of those people (those simple, scared people) then don't read this book. It'll break you. I don't think that I breathed once during the last chapter.But if you're a person that wants to broaden your horizons and learn something about the world from a book, I suggest you read this book right away.I will never be the same. And I'm glad of that." +2035,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,6/24,1.0,971827200,Really boring,"I know a lot of people are going to be mad at me for saying that I HATE this book, which is why I have decided to leave this anonymous. Anyway, it's probably just a personal thing. It was very boring. The fact that I had to read it for my english class and write an essay about it probably didn't help, but I NEVER would have read this on my own. The writing isn't even that great. And the only reason people like it is because it's a classic. And the only reason it's a classic is because you've been TOLD it's a classic! It's an old book, and it has some theme and deep symbolic meaning, blah blah blah. But if you actually want a good book, I don't suggest this one. If you have to read this for your english class, I feel sorry for you." +2036,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/1,5.0,1160524800,KW is a ninja mlms,"The book that my class read was ""Of Mice And Men"" by John Steinbeck. This story was about two of the main characters, Lennie and George. The main idea is that Lennie, who is short tempered, and very big, and George, who is small and in charge of things, go on an adventure to get money and ""Live off the fatta' the lan'."" Most of the setting takes place at a small ranch with many more characters, and in the woods. I thought this story was very appealing when it came to the settings.Although the story was very exciting and fun, there were a few sad and suprizing parts which you will love if you read it. My opinion on the book was that the beginning was kind of boring, but got better as you went along. Some of the language in the book is used from before I was born and there was cussing in it too. I guarentee that by the end of the book, you will remember the names Lennie and George. I hope you will read this book!" +2037,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A11YACGB0UGPNX,Amiad Nesher,0/4,5.0,1162425600,Good edition for a timeless clasic,As always Penguin dose justice by the (not that) old clasics.A pleasure. +2038,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/11,1.0,1226361600,too sad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,"I read this book and OMG it was soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo sad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I HATE IT WHEN GEORGE SHOOTS LENNIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DO NOT READ THIS BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!I would rate this book ages 12+.there are lots of cuss words like damn, hell and bitch!its too violent and inappropriate for you if you are young!(DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)(CAUTION If YOU DON'T LIKE SAD ENDINGS DO NOT READ THIS BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)" +2039,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,1168387200,ShaQuine S. Student of MLMS,"I never thought of Salinas California being so interesting but the author John Steinbeck made it seem like a place I would to go visit.In the book ""Of Mice and Men"" they describe the setting as a ranch in Salinas Valley that George and Lennie worked on.The time period that the story takes place is during ""The Great Depression"" which impacts the story and makes it very different such as in the way they talk and things they do.There were two main characters in the book.One was George,he was a normal size man,strong and smart.The other was Lennie,he was big,tall and muscular but he was retarded. So George was like the caretaker of Lennie because he did'nt know any better.Mainly this book is about two hobo,s who are trying to fufill their dream fo live of the ""fatta the land"" (Steinbeck pg.14).I would recommend this story to eighth grade and above because it is kind of a challenge to understand but it's a very good book.I like this book because it is very different from many books that i have read.But one thing about this book that i like is that it's very unique." +2040,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2HIQXV97A969V,sue,0/0,4.0,1019692800,Of Mice and Men,"George and Lennie are very good friends. They are always doing things together and travel together. Lennie is the one who always makes trouble and Veorge always helps him. But now, Lennie just causes a serious problem that Veorge even can't help. Lennie is a huge guy, has a ind of a young child, and George is small and quick. Two of them are totally the opposite, not only the way they look, and the way they act, but they have a same dream. I like this book and I will recommend you to read it, because it is great and it will always give you surprise. Also, you will learn their friendship." +2041,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,12/34,1.0,936316800,I didn't undertsand it!,"Although this book was very well written, I couldn't understand it very well. I probably would not have finished it if it hadn't been required reading for school. I would think that older kids might be able to undertsand it, but that most of it is too subtle for eighth graders." +2042,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A3I4F0I0XJ6VR8,"Jo ""Marine Wife & Teacher""",0/0,5.0,1149120000,No excuse not to read,"So I thought that I'd go back and read the classics. I say read not reread, because most of them I've never read. (My high school curriculum was lacking when it came to reading quality literature and children's books, military books, and teaching books make up practically all my reading.) This book was so good and so short there is no reason why anyone out there hasn't read it yet. I loved it so much that I am heading out to borrow some more of books written by Steinbeck. Go get it! Trust me. Don't waste your time reading another review. You could already be half way done with reading it by now. Any one has the time to read this one and everyone should!" +2043,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A33UM5TD8CPA4E,E5LMMQ,1/3,5.0,1042761600,"""Of Mice And Men""","The two main charaters are George and Lennie, they travel together to work, they don't have a home or anyplace that belongs to them but they are different from other migrant workers because they have eachother. They always have a dream that buy a farm that belongs to them and Lennie want to pet many different kind of rabbits.George is a small and quick man Lennie is a huge man, like a bear, but he had a small mind that cause him always get into troubles make George and him move around to escape. Later they work inside a farm in soladad and they meet many other migrant workers, these workers are different than George and Lennie that they always lonely don't have any friends with them and they just move around to work in many other farms then get their moneys and spend all their moneys in ""cat house"". Lennie is a trouble maker that he still gets some troubles in this farm. What troubles that Lennie get into? Will George and Lennie make their dream come true? read this book find out yourself then!I recommend this book because it makes me feel how the characters in this book feel, the migrant workers loneliness and the dream they wish for. It interests me make me want to know what will happen at the end of the story so i give it 5 stars!" +2044,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2RBF6380VMVK3,"blair Fowler ""Blair Fowler""",0/1,4.0,1127692800,Of Mice and Men,"Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck is a truly wonderful story about the companionship between two friends. Lennie and George were friends since they were both very young and shortly into the story the reader can feel this dependant state that Lennie is in since he obviously has some form of mental retardation. George is the one that has been keeping Lennie in line his entire life. However as the book continues the reader begins to realize that George really does care for Lennie and it he takes care of him out of love. The pair get a job working on a farm with other tenants. The obvious leader of the group is Slim, who starts a friendship with George at the very start. The reader is then introduced to Curley, who's father owns the farm, one immediately recognizes that Curley and his flirtatious wife are trouble. George and Lennie have plans to save enough money to buy a farm and live off the land. Another worker on the farm overhears them talking and asks if he can trade his life savings for a chance to stay with them on the farm. This shows how everyone else is envious of their rare friendship. The lives of the workers then spiral out of control when Lennie accidentally kills Curleys wife. Lennie immediately runs away but Curley knows who has killed her and they chase after him. George goes to the spot they picked as a place they are to go if they get separated. George finds Lennie crying and George comforts him while he slowly raises a pistol to the back of Lennies head and shoots him out of mercy." +2045,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1RKEL0DSCYY5O,ChristinaG,1/1,5.0,1347840000,Of Mice and Men Review,"John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men is both an enlightening and heartbreaking story of two friends going through a life of work together. George is a small man who is committed to taking care of Lennie, a large, strong, mentally disabled man, after his Aunt Clara's death. George always complains about how his life would be easier if he didn't have to take care of Lennie, but truly cares for him and tells him of their plans to have a farm of their own when they get enough money. Lennie loves the story of their future farm and always asks George to tell him about how someday he will get to take care of the rabbits. Lennie loves the soft touch of animals' hair which later gets him into trouble with the wife of a man who works on the farm of their new job.Lennie always seemed to be the outcast in the novel, even by George who told him not to speak when going for their new job, for fear that Lennie would not be allowed to work, or be seen as ""dumb."" Published in 1937, Of Mice and Men does not show signs of inclusion for those who are mentally disabled, nor any understanding of those who have disabilities. However, even though this novel does not show good examples of inclusion or understanding, it can still teach its readers positively about individuals with disabilities.Although this is a short novel, John Steinbeck allows this book to pull at its readers' hearts as well as teach lessons of life and love through the relationship of George and Lennie. Of Mice and Men would be a perfect book to teach at a high school level even though it is a seemingly easy read. There are themes throughout the book that would help students understand isolation, friendship, and strengths versus weaknesses. Even if there are no students with disabilities in the classroom or the school, students can learn from this novel the importance of inclusion even outside of the classroom. A class can even learn from this story about alienating students who don't have disabilities but still feel that they do not ""fit in."" I would recommend this book to anyone who loves a good read, no matter what age. I think that it teaches its readers a lot about life, no matter who comes into our lives and no matter how different they may be." +2046,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,AGO0RKLHPKNS5,M. Meza,0/0,3.0,1258070400,Of Mice and Men Audio CD,"Two things prevents this product from receiving 5 stars. One is the fact that the copy I received was scratched and skips in many different parts. The second reason is that the CD does not have any sort of guide to let one know where the audio starts and stops. If one is listening to it continuously, it is not a problem. Gary Sinise does a good job reading the different parts." +2047,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,1/1,4.0,1100649600,Emily and Erin -students at MLMS-,"The classic novel ""Of Mice and Men"" is a story about George and Lennie. George is short and takes care of his best friend Lennie who is mentally retarded. Lennie is a tall man and is very strong. In this book there is a lot of violence. For example, Lennie and the boss's son Curley get into a fight because Curley was looking for his tart of a wife and Lennie was smiling at the thought of owning a farm of his own. Also, there is violence when Lennie and Curley's wife are in the barn together. He was feeling her hair and she started to scream and Lennie ended up breaking her neck and killing her. Another theme is dreams. This is represented by Lennie and George's wish of one day owning their own farm and living off "" the fat of the land"". This book was okay but not the best book in the world." +2048,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,AVOCOXA4F8ZC8,"meg ""meg""",0/0,5.0,1228435200,meg's review,"If you want a great story written in a direct way without page after page of verbal dead space, as one so often finds, not overly long but absolutely complete in its telling I highly recommend ""Of Mice and Men"" by John Steinbeck." +2049,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,ATR4AKP93666T,Small Fry,1/1,5.0,1344643200,Of Mice and Men,"This is a great read, nicely written with an engaging story and characters. I would definitely recommend this book for intermediate readers. Paints a vivid picture of depression era people and life." +2050,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2TQTY66VVTTPT,brandon_m,0/0,3.0,1134000000,Of Mice and Men,"At only 107 pages ""Of Mice and Men"" is a short but to the point book. The story goes though the feelings about the ups and downs of relationships and how far they will go until someone breaks. Lennie and George are the main characters. Lennie is mentally Challenged, and really big and strong. George really wants to pursue ""The American Dream"" also he is kind of tells Lennie what to do, to keep out of trouble. I like George a lot; he is the smarter of the bunch. But I do not like Lennie at all; he does things that I don't really agree with. The story has much detail but yet is short enough to be a novel. The characters are not the smartest of all people. The book is okay in my opinion, not one of my favorites because I didn't feel it had a good pull on you, but the ending is what saved it, it has a totally unexpected twist of an ending.brandon_m" +2051,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,985478400,Touching and sad,"This book was heart-warming and sad. It is about a man named Lennie who was mentally disabled and always misjudged because of his looks. Ever since he lost his Aunt Clair, who took care of him for most of his life, George, who once told Lennie to jump off a bridge into a river and almost made Lennie drown, took sympathy in Lennie and looked after him to his dying day. Lennie always tried to make George happy and always tried to not disappoint him, but he always messed up and diappointed George. In the story George helps Lennie in his jobs and life. But Lennie never seems to help George to get ahead." +2052,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,2/2,4.0,1084320000,Of mice and men,"In "Of mice and men" there are two main characters .George , the small and smart one. And Lennie the big, strong and dumb one. These two lifelong friends travel around looking for work.They both just lost their jobs because of Lennie's bad behavior. Now, they have got new jobs and George are vigorously trying to keep Lenny out of trouble .Lennie does not get into trouble intentionally , but he is so retarded that he doesnt understand much , this leads to a number of incidents .The story of the book is good because it has many unexpected twists and turns.Especially @ the end when George does what he do . Recommended to people who like reading short novels and generally like good books ." +2053,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,AF4AYFSWV81T0,Joyce,0/0,5.0,950486400,A GREAT book of friends' triumphs in order to survive!,"I just finished reading ""Of Mice & Men"" for a paper for my 20thCentury Literature class and I thought it was so awesome. Steinbeckdoes a good job of writing this book as he describes people as if they were living their lives at the same level of existence as animals. But, unline the animals, these characters do have their dignity and face life without flinching. They have ideals that separate them from animals and they dream of their promised land, but it's too far away. Indeed, the theme in this book is companionship. The friendship between George & Lennie is close in that George takes it up for his feeble-minded friend and protects him above all, even his own interests. There is a deep sacred bond between these two as if they were brothers. There was great humor in the book as well as its equal share of sadness. I rate this book with 5 stars for it was adventurous, humorous, sad, and then the moral outcome in the end. I RECOMMEND FOR ANYONE WHO'S LOOKING FOR A GREAT BOOK!" +2054,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A3LHL5VYC9NZ4E,Cowgirl,1/1,5.0,983318400,Great Book,"I thought that this book was great. When I first opened the book and read the first page, I thought that I was in for a boring book. I being the type that hates adventures, thought that the book was well written. The book starts off with a discription of a place that is by a lake and is surrounded with bushes. As I continued to read I began to like the characters. One being smart and the other being incredibly stupid. As the story goes on many events happen that make you continue to read. John Steinbeck keeps you intersested throughout the entire story. You must read this book." +2055,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2WU2GH2HFC7D2,D. Wayne Dworsky,1/2,5.0,1238976000,Friends to the End,"The title comes from the fact that one of the two main characters, Lennie, is a little retarded, but is still a kind man who only wishes for goodness. The other character, George, has more sense and knows his goals. He has dreams of buying a piece of land and settling down. He makes a continuous effort to keep Lennie's erratic behavior in check and keep him out of trouble. However, in one incident, he held a mouse in his hand so tightly that he killed it, only desiring to caress it, but not knowing his own strength. He also has a rather awkward moment with a young farm girl in one of their migrant worker jobs, who terrifies him by screaming in Lennie's presence, driving the man to shake her until her life is gone.George always tries to rescue Lennie when he finds trouble, although he eventually realizes that he cannot watch him forever. Realizing that the girl's death is just too much to handle, he relinquishes his dreams of a ranch and a life for the two of them in order to find a more direct solution to Lennie's problems.This is a story of lessons in life that force you to reconsider what you invest in your friends. Of Mice and Men is a story of friendship, of devotion, disappointment and realization. John Steinbeck tries to show how flimsy our friendships can become even if they started off with the best of intentions and how loyal we must be to keep them intact. Yet, he filters out the hardships we endure just to survive and maintain a certain distance from those whose behavior effects us in detrimental ways. Again, Steinbeck is a genius, perfecting his storytelling by delving into the minds of these two men to see at what cost they remain devoted and loyal. I think Steinbeck has captured the spirit of hopes, dreams and wishes in a truly American episode of our great West." +2056,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1A58DW45TQZMX,Z. Blume,1/1,5.0,1093132800,Nothing Mousy About It,"One of Steinbeck's greatest stories, Of Mice and Men tells the tragic tale of two ranch hands--the small leader George and his large, retarded friend Lenny--struggling to survive in central California during the depression. While George looks out for the two, Lenny's innocent curiosity and brute strength prevents them from settling in one place or realizing their dream of owning their own farm. It is the type of heart warming story only Steinbeck can write and the realistic description and charged emotion throughout is unbeatable. This is one of my favorite Steinbeck stories because it can be enjoyed with a quick, cursory reading, but there are several other levels to explore within the novella if you choose to spend the time. It is a very short story--perfect for a junior high book report or a relaxing afternoon on the couch. I highly recommend this book." +2057,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2AYSFGUP5VTY3,J. Smallridge,1/2,5.0,1326758400,Excellent,"This is one of my all-time favorite books. It is seemingly a simple story, but with amazing depth marked by terrific prose. I'll never forget reading this as a younger man and its warmth has stayed with me." +2058,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,3.0,1100649600,CHRIS FOX AND COLLIN G MLMS,"This book wasn't bad. The only problem that we had with it was that the literature was hard to understand. The characters in the book however, were funny and entertaining. George and Lennie ane two best friends during the early 30's. George is a smart character who could live well on his own but decided to stay with his best friend Lennie. Lennie is a "" mentally challenged"" man who is very strong. In this story there are 2 mainb themes. These themes reflect loneliness and dreams. George and Lennie are very lonely and they dream of having a farm with lots of animals. The main conflicts of the story are Lennie's mistakes and trying to adapt to another character Curly. Neither one of these conflicts are resolved. george helps Lennie adapt to his life but during the story he still encounters conflict. Lennie eventually causes so much trouble that it may be too much for George to take. Overall, we liked the story line and the humor in this book." +2059,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,1/2,4.0,1160524800,"Of Mice and Men ,Britt B.S,Student at Mace's Lane Middle School","The book ""Of Mice and Men"" in my opinion is a very well writen book.John Steinbeck really thought the book out.When you read the book you will notice alot of foreshadowing.The foreshadowing makes the book very extravagant.The book takes place in Salinas,California which in the time of The Great Depression there weren't many rich or wealthy people;George and Lennie will show you the life of more on the lines of non-wealthy people during this time.The main characters in the book are George,Lennie,Curly,and Curly's wife,Slim,Candy,Carlson.The most ifluential character is George.George has to make alot of decisions through out the book that is why he is my favorite character.has to make alot of decisions.The story is about two men traveling around the states of the United States trying to find work so they can one day pursue their dream of one day owning their own land,and in their words,""livin' of the fatta the land.""" +2060,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1A3R3AF6I4KC9,"K. Carson ""Kelly""",0/0,4.0,1330041600,Emotional Classic,"Seeing as it is a classic with great summaries and reviews written many times before, I'll keep mine short. Of Mice and Men is one of the shorter classics that really captures the emotions of drifters during the early 20th century. I was actually surprised at how glued I became to the book as I was feeling sympathy, anger, and sadness for each of the characters." +2061,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A38K9NV0ZAO993,"A. Cruz ""AC""",0/0,4.0,1244332800,Book Review -- Of Mice and Men,"In the land of opportunity, everyone strives to achieve the ultimate goal: to live the American dream. Of Mice and Men's protagonists George Milton and Lennie Small are no different. John Steinbeck gives his readers the reality of the road to the American dream.George and Lennie dream of owning their own farm and being their own bosses, but they need to work for the money to buy land first. While working on a ranch, they encounter troubles with the boss' son, Curley, a hot-headed and aggressive man. These troubles climax with Lennie's accident and merciful end.One of the greatest elements of Steinbeck's novel is his character Lennie Small. Slightly mentally disabled, Lennie is a large but kind-hearted man with the mannerisms of a child. His unshakable, child-like faith in one day owning a farm is the drive of his and George's hard-work. Personally, he is one of the only characters who can provoke emotion from the reader, whether it is pity from Lennie being scolded by George and bullied by Curley, or utter sorrow from the final events of the novel.Steinbeck accomplishes to tell the ""other story"" of pursuing the American dream. Unlike many stories where there are happy endings, Of Mice and Men incorporates some harsh realities of making it big in the land of opportunity. The obstacles that George and Lennie face on the ranch and the heartbreaking ending definitely illustrate such realities.Despite the novel's ending, Of Mice and Men is a great book to read. I would personally recommend readers of high school age or above to read this great tale of two men and their struggles to success." +2062,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2RMLGTFDF9RJ5,Holly,5/5,4.0,1034467200,Of Mice and Men,"Companionship is a bond between two people who share the same interests and help each other through struggles. In the book Of Mice and Men, John Steinbeck talks about the friendship between two migrant workers, George and Lennie. George is a small, wiry man that cared a lot about Lennie. He is usually the one to make the decisions and plans for their future. In contrast, Lennie is large in size, lumbering, and he has a childlike mind. Lennie¡s mental disabilities allow him to completely depend upon George for guidance and protection.Both George and Lennie shared a common dream. Their dream is to earn money to buy a farm of their own where no one ever reaches. To make this a reality, they found a job at a ranch. At the ranch, George and Lennie encounter many challenges, and they also undergo many struggles to attain their idealistic dream. The author concludes this novel with a very shocking and unexpected ending.This is a great novel to read. It is a short and entertaining novel that captures the reader's interest. It moves in a fast pace with many excellent descriptions in every scene. The novel was so well written that I was immersed into it. The author explorers the brotherhood in humans, strengths and weaknesses, and the dream we all possess. Steinbeck clearly illustrated the impossibility to achieve happiness and freedom - the American Dream, and I definitely can relate the themes to my daily life. I strongly recommend this story because it brings laugher, excitement, and tears, and it is a classic you don't want to miss." +2063,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,1108425600,Best book about friendship,"This book is the best book to read if you want to know the responsiblities a friend has. The end is sad, but it's not that terrible once you realize George did it out of friendship." +2064,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,ALQGA409NWP39,Heather Lanham,0/1,5.0,1313971200,Great service,I bought this book for one of my daughter's school projects. It arrived in a timely manner and was in great condition. I am very satisfied with my purchase. +2065,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1G92RDC0CGDVL,"Dean Karakosta ""Stephen Karakosta""",0/0,4.0,1139443200,Of Mice and Men,"The book I read was Of Mice and Men. It was written by John Steinbeck. The main conflict of this book was for these two men George and Lennie to make their dream of farming their own farm and where they could raise rabbits come true. They would travel from farm to farm and do work on different farms to make their living.In this book there were many things I liked and a few things I didn't like. The book was very exciting to read. It was so exciting because I was always wondering what was going to happen next and I didn't want to put the book down. I really felt like I was actually in the book. I felt this way because Steinbeck described everything so well, and I could picture every scene that happened. The main conflict interested me a lot. It interested me because there were many obstacles that Lennie and George had to face throughout the book and I just wanted to see if they could make their dream come true. I thought that the characters felt very real. They seemed real because Steinbeck gave the right amount of descriptions about each of them. The ending was very satisfying. It was a bit sad and I think it could have been better but if it ended differently the book wouldn't have been as good.The author John Steinbeck's writing style is unusual. The author's voice is a narrative style and it's written in the way the characters actually spoke. The characters talk like poor, uneducated people. The author uses vocabulary in an interesting way. He uses poor grammar and slang words to speak like the characters. The author uses a lot of dialog in this book. The two main characters speak to each other a lot. I think that the author is a very good writer because I could actually hear the voice of the characters. He describes things but he doesn't go overboard to make it boring.Compared to other books that I have read I would rate this book an eight out of ten. I give it this rating because it was a very good book and held my attention but there were a few parts he could have changed, like the ending. I recommend this book to any guy or girl. It is a very fast and good read.Overall this was one of the best books I have ever read. I would put this book in my top twenty favorite books. I've read another book by Steinbeck called The Pearl that I didn't really enjoy. I hope other books by Steinbeck are this god. Some other things that happened in this book was that Lennie wasn't very educated and George would always have to look out for him. Lennie loved to pet soft things. He would catch a mouse put it in his pocket and pet the mouse and squeeze it so hard that the mouse accidentally died. This would upset George a lot." +2066,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,AIXELDV9R4VXV,Arlene Arias,0/0,5.0,1106870400,Of Mice and Men,"This book is really great. I really enjoyed reading it. It really showed true friendship between the main characters George and Lennie. Even thought they were different in many aspects. George being the ""normal"" one... as for Lennie being mentally handicapped. Lennie even thought being mentally handicaped obeyed George and had great respect for him. And even thought as George had short temper he still managed to control himself and see that Lennie really needs him. As for the case of when Lennie killed the girl, George helped him run away and end his suffering by shooting him behind the head. But George new Lennie was a great guy, not to be a killer. As he, George, said to Lennie on his last moments ""think about the rabbits""... so we now know Lennie died in peace, thinking about his farm full of rabbits.I really recommend this book to anyone who wishes to read about a great friendship. Even though these guys were poor and low classed and had nothing to live for, they still had hope. They still had dreams of one day having/owning a farm of their own. This book is really touching and its great to read. So if your thinking about reading a good book in the future... you should read Of Mice and Men." +2067,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,924825600,the book is very good and worth reading,ive read the book and listened to the cassette tape which was fab im telling you its worth reading +2068,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,909446400,It really makes you think........,"I had to read this book for english class, like many other people, and found it a very thought provoking and interesting book. Steinbeck gives us a very literell meaning of "friends till the end" All in all, an incredible book. There is so much meaning in it. I recommend it to anyone who likes thinking about friendship and the way the world works." +2069,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1IV94E399O2SS,Carla Henderson,0/0,5.0,975974400,Of Mice and Men,This book was a really great book about two men set off to a ranch to get a job. My advice is to go get this book and read it today. This was a good book because of the way it tells the things that happen and the wording is in a way that anyone can understand. Some advice for someone who loves to read go out and get this book today. +2070,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,1173052800,A Terrific Book !!!!,"Of Mice of Men was a fantastic book. Even though Lenny is mentally handicaped he is still just like you and I.George Lenny's caretaker has a bad temper but he sometimes looses his patience while caring for Lenny.Lenny love RABBITS but he kills them by petting them to hard.The book takes place in th Salinas Valley, there is deep river that runs troughout and the sun is shine through the whole day. But as the stroy goes on Lenny is on the run for something that he will regret for the rest of his life.Read this book to find out what Lenny had done and what while happen to him." +2071,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,AMG1OI5IC7BYR,Luke WOSwalker,0/0,3.0,1098057600,EPISODE 1: The Lennie Menace,"The book is about two guys, George and Lennie, traveling through California to get a job on a farm. Their plan is only prevented by Lennie's mentally retardation, which runs them into a lot of trouble.This book differs from other books, read in class, not only by the colloquial English, but also by the story in itself.Most of all I like the way Lennie is described in the book although there are certain passages in which the description becomes untrustworthy. Some of his statements don't fit to his behavior and the other way around. In my view the ending is not chosen very well. There must be other, better possibilities for them, except .... !All in all it is an interesting and entertaining book, which gives you the opportunity, among the entertainment, to gain more information about the social circumstances during the time of the depression in the United States." +2072,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,921628800,A good book of a strong friendship.,I think the book "Of Mice and Men" was a really good book. It is one of my favorites. I like it because it emphasizes the great friendship of these two guys that are trying to make a livng after the depression when money wasn't worth much. I thought it was interesting how John Steinbeck chose to have the setting of this story in Salinas and that's where he was born. I think George is a strong character and his good qualities are useful in my years to come. +2073,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/1,5.0,1017878400,of mice of men,"Of Mice of Men by John Steinbeck is about a tall dumb man named Lennyand the other short man named George.They both look for jobs ,butLenny always messes up on everything which eventually leads up to murder.This is the best story i've ever read before.I recommend everyone to read this facinating novel." +2074,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2013NGZN2L7RG,tjgeist,1/1,4.0,1343433600,Hard to put down,"I must admit that I had never read this masterpiece before. As I was searching for a short read, I thought this title would fit the description well. The story is set in California during the Great Depression. I think part of what made this novel good (the slang) was also what made it difficult to follow sometimes. However, it was definitely hard to put down! I was NOT prepared for the ending!" +2075,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,ANCOMAI0I7LVG,Andrew Ellington,2/2,5.0,1194998400,"Tale of depression, loneliness and pure desperation, a tragedy that rings true even today...","It took me a measly three hours to read John Steinbeck's classic tragedy `Of Mice and Men', a novel that, while written in 1937, still holds so true today. Steinbeck's accounting of sheer loneliness and desperation is so brilliantly captured that the reader is brought to tears (for me in a literal sense) to realize that this is all these people had to live for, a pipe dream that refused to die. The story focuses mainly on George Milton and Lennie Small, but as you read you'll notice that a few supporting characters play a big role in the heartbreak that this novel conveys.George is a small framed man, lean and dwarfed in comparison to his companion Lennie, the tall large strong man, but what Lennie has in strength and size he lacks in smarts. He is, for lack of another word, mentally retarded. But Lennie does possess a simple soul and a heart of gold, which alone makes this tale all the more tragic. George, in fulfillment of a promise he made to Lennie's Aunt Clare, takes care of Lennie, taking him with him to work in the fields bucking wheat and the like. When they make it to their next job they find that they aren't the only ones trying to find a better lot in life.First they meet Candy, an older man who's been injured on the job and thus kept around for sympathy's sake. He sweeps the living areas and lives his life one miserable day at a time. He's slipping into uselessness and the very thought of amounting to nothing digs deeper and deeper into his soul. Crooks is the negro stable hand, an outcast from the others not only because of his skin color but also because of his disability, being crippled due to a horse accident (he was kicked in the back) and thus he spends most of his time alone in his room. They also meet the boss's son Curly, a jerk of a man who is so insecure about his size and his marriage that he's willing to throw it down with anyone he sees, and he sets the blunt of his rage on poor Lennie because of his size and his demeanor.To me the most interesting and even heartbreaking character is that of Curly's wife. Ostracized by the working men because of her husbands temper and disregarded by her own husband because of his carelessness and blatant jealousy she's left all alone with no one to talk to and no real place to call home. She's regarded by the men as a tart, a floozy who wants all the wrong kinds of attention but in all actuality she just wants any kind of attention she can get for any kind is better than no kind. After the tragic circumstances involving Lennie and Curly's wife the author makes a statement that to me sums up this poor woman when he says that ""all the meanness and the planning's and the discontent and the ache for attention were all gone from her face."" She was alone and desperate just like everyone else.The one thing that kept these stock of characters going, Lennie in particular, was the prospect of getting out, of getting their own place where they could plant and cultivate and ""tend rabbits"" and be their own men. When this idea is shared between Candy and Crooks they too jump at the idea of getting away from it all and feeling whole again, feeling complete and being far away from the loneliness of it all. The worst kind of loneliness is the kind you feel even when you're around other people for its then that you know you're truly alone in every sense of the word.Most people are aware of the horrific ending, but in case you are not then I will say nothing further on the subject. Just know that this novel is one of the finest pieces of American Literature and is sure to bring tears to your eyes. While this is just barely over 100 pages it still magnificently captures every emotion and feeling that can possibly be provided here. The characters are brilliantly crafted and their innermost demons are bared all for us to see and to relate. I will never forget this masterpiece and will recommend this to anyone who enjoys good reading. It's a quick read, but it's not one to soon be forgotten." +2076,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,1/2,5.0,1104364800,Friendships by J.Melo,"Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck is an attractive book about two men named George and Lennie. It is also interesting to read because it talks about how George and Lennie develop a common friendship among each other. George is short and takes care of Lennie because Lennie has a mind of a child. They both use to work in a weed but they had to leave because of an incident that had occured. They went to a new weed in Solidad where there they had many dreams ahead. In the new weed they met new people which made George and Lennie Friendships grow even more. For example Lennie has been in a fight with curley; George told him to fight back and so he did which, led Lennie to breaking Curley's hand.Even though the ending is sad, George and Lennie friendship can insipires everyone because they look out for each other.Even though Lennie is a big and huge he is a kind person.This is an excellent book written by John Steinbeck with a sad ending. Through out the pages you can see how much George cares about Lennie. I enjoyed reading this book and it has inspired me to have stronger friendship with my friends. Therefore I would like to recommend this book to those whom are interested in reading books about friendships." +2077,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A3GY78BBCMN7UA,george 3,0/1,4.0,1331596800,Excellant Book,I had seen the movie and wanted to read the book. Both were excellent in my opinion.I had never read any of the great classics and this book started me on that. I havesince read the War of the Worlds and Journey to the Center of the Earth +2078,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A126G92HIOAEC1,Joel Peck,1/1,5.0,981072000,A tale of two men,Time after time steinbeck has been able to tell a story and capture my attention with great words which flow off the pages. Mice and men is a great story of two men and their lot in life. You'll laugh and cry as you read this tale. And it will challenge you to ask questions you never though were there to ask. +2079,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1TPGJFWRN9B9G,KKvancz,1/2,4.0,1297123200,Classic,I will admit that I had to read this book for school back during my high school days and it actually wasn't all that bad. I really enjoyed this book more than I thought that I was going too. It was such an interesting story about how George and Lennie worked together and fed off of each other's spirits to be able to get through each day that came at them. It is a book that I would recommend to any person who is looking to read a great book. It has the highs and lows of an old time story about two guys trying to work towards the American Dream at that point in time. Wonderful story. +2080,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,ASFTJ3UE9NFPT,renee linville,0/1,3.0,976060800,of mice and men,"The book Of mice and men was a really geat book, i read it befor in eighth grade but it meant more and i could understadn it better. The book was put together well , but i didn't like the was it ended Steinbeck could have went into a little more detail of the way George went on without Lennie.i like the was he showed the relationship between Lennie and Geoge, and how george took care of him and how Lenny took care of George. Steinbeck to me had to hve a creative imagination to write such a great creative book." +2081,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,900460800,Two men trying to make on the ranches of America.,"I thought John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" was a very good book. My ninth grade english class read this book together and I loved it. Steinbeck takes everything into account, even how they spoke and the language they used in the day the book is based in. And how they act towards one another and to those of different races is accurate, too. The story of two friends, one smart and the other not too bright, is very well done. This is an excellent book and I recommend it." +2082,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2ZEDT9YL4MBL8,G. R. Welsh,2/2,5.0,999648000,"George, Lennie and Gary Sinise","This audio production for "Of Mice and Men" by Gary Sinise is nothing short of brilliant. Over the years, Mr. Sinise has made John Steinbeck's work a part of his life, being involved with it in various mediums: live plays, a film, and this audio recording. As a result, he seems to have developed a deep connection to this story, and a lively and powerful rendering of the characters is what results. It is the perfect performance of a perfect book." +2083,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,ABGYWEGALMG30,"D. HARRIMAN ""Too many books""",1/1,5.0,1229385600,Steinbeck Masterpiece,"My 17 year old needed a book for an English report. I wanted to introduce him to one of my all-time favorite authors, but at the same time not overwhelm him the volumn of ""East of Eden"" or ""Grapes of Wrath"", etc. This is a kid who is going to be an engineer and doesn't ""believe reading is all that important"". After all, it is not Science!I, of course, re-read it still another time before handing it to him. He was delighted at the sight of such a thin book (""I can read this in two nights""). He had to admit after reading it, that his teacher and I were correct in our assessment of Steinbeck. His writings are timeless." +2084,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,4.0,935452800,IT'S A GOOD BOOK!,"IT IS A GOOD BOOK THAT TALKS ABOUT THE FRIENDSHIP , LONELINESS AND AUTHORITY." +2085,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A33SHXK3QL450W,kad1004,0/2,4.0,1296950400,Good shape,"I enjoyed reading this book. It was another great book writen by John Steinbeck. This book has hard to put down at the end because I kept wondering what would happen to Lennie, and if George would help him again." +2086,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2FV5YG52YL1VI,Helix Adult Student EA,1/3,5.0,1022544000,"CLASSIC","""Of Mice and Men"" was about two friends George and Lennie, who are the main characters. Both were traveling in southern California looking for work. While traveling they would have quite an adventure. One of the major problems between the two is that Lennie is simple-minded and touching things, like women, and their clothes. Lennie had no control over what he did sometimes. He would do things like tell other people about George and his future plans about buying their own house. Of the two I liked George.George is very short-tempered. He would yell at Lennie and hit him to make him remember and understand things he would tell Lennie. When they were at the river in the beginning George was scolding Lennie about not drinking water that wasn't running and when in trouble to come back by the river and hide in the bushes. Lennie was no smart man, but he tried to listen to George. I remember I would sometimes yell at my little brother because he would do things he had been told not to, but did anyway, like going outside without asking for permission. My little brother wasn't dumb but just wouldn't listen sometimes. I would yell at him not to be mean, but for his own good. Just like George is to Lennie.After reading this book I thought it was good. Good because of how the author started and ended George and Lennie at the same place, which was unique. The two friends were in a forest with different types of animals and a river and at the end they came back because Lennie got into big trouble and went to go a hide. The most interesting part was when Curley and Lennie were fighting. At first, Lennie was getting beattened pretty badly and then all of a sudden Lennie let out his anger. Having a child-like mind Lennie was unaware of his powerful strength. The only part I didn't like of the book was of how Lennie talks about rabbits too many times. That is what I would change about the book if I were the author.Since I like the book I would like others to read it as well. This kind of a book applies to all. It can also teach kids that they can be friends with anyone no matter what kind of a person they are." +2087,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,915235200,Steinbeck sucks you in a boy and spits you out a man.,"Of mice and Men is a grasping thriller that will bring you as close as family to a couple of hustlers working as barley buckers in the fields of Salinas, California to hopefully get enough money to get a ranch in which they can call their own. George, a down to earth guy with a rough outter impression and a sensitive inside traveling with Lennie, a huge man with the brain and heart of a child. You travel along with them as George tries to protect Lennie from reality and Lennie gets caught between his fantasy of tending rabbits and reality. As you will find though, George can not protect Lennie all the time and Lennie gets himself in trouble again, which will evenrually lead to a devestating ending in which George is forced to kill his dear partner who never meant bad to anyone." +2088,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2D9MEBCFHIP2F,Josue,0/0,5.0,1356739200,Great books for an even greater price.,"I would write a really long and detailed review of this amazing book but what for? I mean, If you really want to know what its about, look it up on Wikipedia... or better yet, buy it and read it yourself. Although this book is short, its simply amazing and deals with so many issues. Enough said." +2089,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2AYQZL41D4BYH,oscar,0/4,5.0,1117152000,Of Mice And Men,I thought that is book was very good. It was mostly about friendship between two friends name lennie and George. Lennie is the retarded one and George takes care of him. Cause lennie mom and dad die when he was a little boy. They both have a dream to own there own land. There dreams very come true because George shots lennie. If George didn't shot lennie then the police would kill him because he hurt a girl in the weeds. Weeds is the name of the town that they use to live. But they had to move because what lennie had done to the girl. Now they work on the ranch. Lennie can't talk that well but he is strong like a bull. George is the smart one he takes care of lennie. George gets mad lennie cause George buys lennie a puppy but lennie is so strong that when he pets the puppy they puppy dies. At the end of the book George shot lennie for lennie good. There dreams never came true. +2090,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,1168387200,Todd S. At MLMS,"In the book Of Mice and Men written by John Steinbeck was an amazing story about two men over coming they're struggles to try to live they're dream. John Steinbeck does such a wonderful job of describing the setting that you feel like you're on that same ranch in Salinas California during The Great Depression. The two men Lennie and Gorge are very different. George is small but very smart and quick while Lennie is huge very slow and dose not even know his own strength.The reason there are struggles is because every time they work Lennie always gets them in trouble in fact the reason they come to the ranch because they where run out of Weed. When Lennie and George get to the ranch they met the boss, Slim, Candy, Curly, and Crooks. Now Curly hates big people and has a wife that always is looking for him and the other half the time he's looking for her. Slim is like a hero of the ranch he is like the leader of the group. Crooks and Candy are two people you would have to feel sorry for. Crooks is the black stable buck that every time the boss is mad he takes it out on Crooks. Candy has an old dog that smells horrible and ends up killing him.This book is very good and I would only recommend this book to mature teenagers and up. The reason is because of the use of cussing and the N word. A great book no matter the slurs." +2091,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A18RXET88B7L2P,"S. Customer ""Colleen""",0/0,5.0,1024012800,A Story that Emphasizes the Importance of Companionship,"Last summer, this book was a required book for entering eigth grade English. It was short so I figured, ""I'll just read this first and get it over with. I mean like, it seems kinda boring."" It just didn't seem to make much sense from what i read from the descriptions. When I read it, the first chapter was so relaxing and the setting was described so perfectly. Automatically, I was whisked away back to the 1930's in a quiet farming area in the rural areas of CA. I absolutely loved reading this book. It was such a good book! There were many themes that could be easily picked up. And from those themes, it helped explain certain attributes about different characters and the kind of society Lennie and George entered. In the end of the book, George makes a very large sacrifice that effects himself and a lot of the people he works with. It may also bring you to tears. It definitely brought me to tears. I don't think I saw it coming. I guess it was sort of... ironic. Enjoy your read!" +2092,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,6/24,1.0,994291200,of mice and men,"this book may be easy to study for english literature, being short. However, this story is not interesting in the least, with a plot that builds up and then is thrown away totally at the end." +2093,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A222LQEPE7O7BV,John G. Hilliard,0/0,5.0,1018224000,Just an All Around Great Book,Another one of those books that has been talked about by every critic out there so I probably can not add that much more. I can say that I usually read more action or non fiction yet this book is and will be one of my favorites. It is one of the very few books that stirred emotions in me. It is a book that demands to read many times. +2094,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,AVOQ12GBXJ3F,"M. Pickering ""m1471""",0/0,5.0,1047686400,"A devastating, yet beautiful novel","Of Mice and Men is a great prototype for gritty realism. At the end there are no sunsets or glorious lifting of burdens that leave the protagonists free from worry for all time. However, it isn't an exercise in sorrow either. It is a portrait of a life and of two men trying to make one together. Yet, the one with the brains can only do so much, as the childlike giant is a danger to everyone around him, without meaning to be. This is one of Steinbeck's classics and for good reason. It is short yet it says everything it needs to say, which I think is one of the marks of a great writer: stop writing when the story is finished. This novel is deservedly a classic." +2095,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A356HRZZFCEGL1,John Panagopoulos,1/1,5.0,1336089600,"If Man Hopes and Plans, does God Laugh?","**This review may contain spoilers**Oh, boy, it's ""Hamlet Syndrome work"" time again. I define ""Hamlet Syndrome work"" as a work of literature that has been analyzed, dissected, and discussed so thoroughly that it's hard to say anything new or original about it. Steinbeck's enduring novella ""Of Mice and Men"" (hereafter OM&M;) certainly qualifies. OM&M; has permeated life and society's consciousness, at least American life and consciousness, probably because it unpretentiously depicts the main existential question of life: Is it worth living? Should we bother living? At first glance, OM&M;, from its title onward, seems to suggest NO.We have the classic split personality ""brains and brawn"" duo in George and Lennie. Despite their respective qualities, they could be considered life's hopeless losers. They are impoverished migrant workers and even fugitives because of an assault the mentally handicapped Lennie inadvertently committed upon a woman. Despite his vast strength, Lennie is a high-maintenance, perpetual man-baby who needs almost constant supervision. George profanely complains about the burden Lennie poses. Like just about all the other characters in OM&M;, they feel isolated and desperate, or at least they would if they didn't have each other. Nevertheless, defying the odds, George manages to wrangle himself and Lennie farm worker jobs.Things seems to settle down well. George and Lennie have saved money from previous jobs. The grizzled, dejected old custodian Candy has some money. Perhaps together they can buy a slice of earthly paradise: a rabbit farm where Lennie can live safe and secure and pet his animal friends. But the boss's ostracized, belligerent son Curley and his bored, ignored flirtatious wife eventually turn out to be serpents lying in the way. Lennie, again unintentionally, cripples one and kills the other. Earthly paradise goes up in smoke, but, some may argue, George mercifully gives Lennie a way to an otherworldly paradise.OM&M; portrays the apparently dead-end, humdrum, lonesome, hopeless rural world of Depression-era America. But like some great works of literature, it finds hope where there is no hope to be found. Despite their hard-luck lives, George and Lennie together function as an effective unit. They nurture a dream and keep going because of it. Candy helps bring their dream tantalizingly close. Slim, the manager, sympathizes with the duo and does what he can to protect them. George's mercy killing of Lennie after his manslaughter may be the kindest thing he ever did for Lennie. He keeps the dream alive for Lennie even as he shoots him in the back of the head. Slim arranges to have George's homicide appear to be self-defense and even be a shoulder to lean on as George glumly contemplates his ""freedom"" from Lennie.OM&M; seems to show life as an inevitable tragedy. However, it shows subtle suggestions that it need not have happened. Mainly, if George had supervised Lenny a bit more carefully, or had other characters like Crooks the shunned but dignified African-American stablehand (with whom Lenny had struck up a grudging friendship) watch out for him a little more, things may have turned out differently. OM&M;, I think, implies that life could be better and worth living if we WERE a little nicer to each other, cared a little more for each other, helped each other a little more. This solicitude, coupled with our capacity for hope in even the bleakest situations, is the key to bliss. Therefore, if God sees our hopes, our plans, our resolve, maybe He really isn't laughing. Maybe He is actually rooting for us." +2096,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A34R85KU8KQUBY,lyd,1/1,5.0,1349136000,Of Mice and Men,Excellent book. I applaud the teachers and school district administrators who choose good books as required reading for their students. +2097,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A3AZFKRMQXYG5A,The MacGuffin,0/0,5.0,1085961600,My favorite book of all time,"While I enjoy huge sprawling novels, the stories I like best are lean and short. Not allowing subplots or extraneous characters to bog down the main story. This is one of those stories.Set in the depression, the novel is the story of George and Lennie. Lennie is "slow" and depends on George to do the right thing. This dependence leads to the grievous, yet inevitable, ending.I don't enjoy this work as much as I could say it is one of the most moving stories I've read. I think this is superior to The Grapes of Wrath. This is a heartbreaking work of staggering genius." +2098,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,934675200,This is a superb book!!!!!!!!!,I really enjoyed Of Mice and Men. This book is a good example about how migrant workers were during the depression period in the 1930's. +2099,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/1,5.0,1036800000,Really Good Book,"This is truly a work of great caliber. The characters are portrayed and described diligently, with no wasted words. I recomment this fast reading book." +2100,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1P3REGKS9T0QR,TheHomesk1llet,0/0,4.0,1352160000,Coolio,"'Merica done right--in a righteous book. And now, because I need a few more words to finish the review, blah." +2101,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2QDL8KNXAWF5M,Jim,0/0,4.0,1138579200,Of Mice and Men,"Set in the 30's, right after the Great Depression, Of Mice and Men, takes place in Salinas, California, mainly circling around 2 field laborers, Lennie and George.They are the complete opposite. Lennie is gigantic, like a huge gorilla, but has the mind of a kid. While Lennie, is rather short, and 'dark of face', seemingly 'sculpted precisely.' The 2 may seem to make a very unlikely, and dysfunctional pair, but in fact, they are reasonably good friends, but at times, argue a lot. Maybe at the fact of Lennie being a bit retarded, for when he was only a young kid, he got his head banged real hard on something.But either way, they cling to each other, in the ugly face of alienation and loneliness. They get work when they can, for they have a grand plan. To own a few acres of their own land. The whole package. Have their own log cabin, a vegetable field, a cage for the rabbits, for Lennies loves those rabbits, generally their own land they can roam freely upon without hesitation or reluctance or fear.But when they start working around Salinas, for the boss of the son of a guy named 'Curley' whos only bent on giving George and Lennie, especially Lennie, a hard time, their dream, now really appearing to be merely a dream, begins crumbling before their eyes. It is within their posession; their grasp of harnessing and achieving. But when it is all said and done, not even George can prevent Lennie's unswerving obedience to the things he firmly taught him to follow, nor the seductive grace of a beautiful woman--Curley's wife.This was my first John Steinbeck book that I have read and finished, and for deciding to pick the book up and read it in the first place, I am very glad for that. After finishing it, I was granted with a heightened sense of admiration and respect toward the author, and I plan to read many more of his books. Read this book--not only for entertainment and insight into things, not to mention that A grade in your English class, if you ever happen to stumble on having to read this book or having a mandatory book report assigned on it--but also for the heightened sense of love for literature and admiration and respect towards the author, which this book gave me, and I gurantee, will also give you if you read it." +2102,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A28Q1LFB9NTZL6,M. Wenger,0/0,5.0,1236816000,Of Mice and Men,"I read this book with my 17 year old son for school. He was reluctant to get started and the dialect in the book was challenging for him. However, the author's word choice, symbolism, and snapshots created through the words provided excellent learning opportunities for my son. We journaled each chapter writing a summary, reaction and predictions. I enjoyed watching him grow throughout the book of friendship and the infectious power of dreams." +2103,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1RZ4VH27NLDGS,"Jeremy Morgan ""A good book on your shelf is a...",0/0,4.0,1153440000,Classic for a reason,"This book is a very brief but moving tale that will leave you thinking. Stienbeck's mastery here is in character development. He creates a cornicopia of characters in a genius way, quick and to the point. Somehow, in such a short amount of time, he creates characters you feel you've known your whole life.The scenery is well built as well, and the story itself is interesting and timeless. It could be set in 2006 just as easily, and still be relevant. It's a very relaxing read, and flows smoothly.You wont want to put this book down, and you'll only be busy about an hour reading it. This book is just as entertaining as I'm sure it was in 1937, and can be called a classic." +2104,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1O0K3PVNTML4Y,"L. Boada ""media hound""",0/0,5.0,1321833600,Very good,Professionally done and true to the original. A good movie too! Purchased for reluctant readers in a lower level English classroom. +2105,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2RMLGTFDF9RJ5,Holly,0/0,4.0,1034553600,Of Mice and Men,"Companionship is a bond between two people who share the same interests and help each other through struggles. In the book Of Mice and Men, John Steinbeck talks about the friendship between two migrant workers, George and Lennie. George is a small, wiry man that cared a lot about Lennie. He is usually the one to make the decisions and plans for their future. In contrast, Lennie is large in size, lumbering, and he has a childlike mind. Lennie¡s mental disabilities allow him to completely depend upon George for guidance and protection.Both George and Lennie shared a common dream. Their dream is to earn money to buy a farm of their own where no one ever reaches. To make this a reality, they found a job at a ranch. At the ranch, George and Lennie encounter many challenges, and they also undergo many struggles to attain their idealistic dream. The author concludes this novel with a very shocking and unexpected ending.This is a great novel to read. It is a short and entertaining novel that captures the reader's interest. It moves in a fast pace with many excellent descriptions in every scene. The novel was so well written that I was immersed into it. The author explorers the brotherhood in humans, strengths and weaknesses, and the dream we all possess. Steinbeck clearly illustrated the impossibility to achieve happiness and freedom - the American Dream, and I definitely can relate the themes to my daily life. I strongly recommend this story because it brings laugher, excitement, and tears, and it is a classic you don't want to miss." +2106,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1OMUEBJW5B5CL,Bryan Eubank,0/0,5.0,1361059200,A Classic Tale,"Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck, is a classic story written in the early 1900's. The story is based on two men and their struggle in life. One man, George, small in nature, looking over his large friend Lennie. This is a definite must read for anyone. This story is very popular and is frequently used as a beginner's read by many high schools across the nation.George and Lennie first set out to find new jobs after being forced to flee from their current jobs. At first you are not told why they were fleeing but you knew from the dialect that something bad had occurred and Lennie was to blame. Lennie was a friendly, child-like dimwitted man. What he lacked in brain power he made up tenfold in brawny. He had a large muscular build which enabled him to be a good worker. George on the other hand, was the complete opposite of Lennie. He was small but definitely smarter than his counterpart Lennie. George looked out for Lennie and tried to keep him out of trouble, albeit an impossible task.While reading the story you inevitably know the ending before you even get there. At every turn you are expecting the well intended Lennie to do something horrible. George tries to keep him in line and is successful for most of the story.The main idea is the search for happiness. George and Lennie are working to save enough money to buy their own land and work their own fields. George constantly reassures Lennie that they can achieve their goal and Lennie can have his rabbits to tend to. If Lennie ever slips up then George has to remind him of the future they intended.John Steinbeck has a tremendous ability to set up a visual representation of his story. In the beginning to every chapter, the landscapes and surroundings are vividly detailed making the reader actually believe he is there watching the events take place. Steinbeck follows his structure throughout the book. Each chapter sets up the scene and the conversations between characters tell the story for the remainder of the chapter.Each character in the story is well described. Always described upon first entering the story. Steinbeck also ensured that each person was flawed in some way. Each one had their good traits and their bad. George and Lennie seem to be the good guys in the story even though Lennie is a walking nightmare waiting to happen.You can tell George and Lennie develop a loving relationship. Lennie listens to George and George in return keeps an eye on Lennie. This is definitely a heavy burden placed on George. Finally, in the end Lennie slips up. He kills the boss' daughter-in-law. The event that was being set up all along. A lynch party is sent out to find Lennie. Ultimately it is George that find Lennie. George is forced to kill Lennie for his discretions. Lennie died at the hand of George whilst being promised that brighter future yet another time.Steinbeck makes it seem as though we're all searching for that brighter future that's just out of our grasp. This is one of those books that you can't put down. Although it is not a long read, it is extremely well written." +2107,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,4.0,955670400,A great book for all to read.,"The book is about two men that travel together. The only problem is they cannot stay in one place to long because, Lennie seems to have trouble fallow him. All they want is to get there own land. I liked that the two men always stuck together. I didn't like the wa that George didn't back Lennie at the end. I think the book is good for Seventh grade and up. I recommend that you read it, a good book for the whole family." +2108,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2F6UD68LO932T,Dallas Fawson,5/5,5.0,1298937600,Steinbeck's masterpiece,"Yeah, I said it; this book is better than The Grapes of Wrath. It's also better than East of Eden. In fact, it's the best thing Steinbeck ever wrote. The author's use of interesting, human characters, quick dialogue and fast moving scenes is breathtaking- This is the only novel I have ever reread immediately after finishing it.I will not discuss the plot because everyone else has always done that. I will only say that this is one of the four or five most important books of my life thus far. It opened my door to American literature, and really gave me an appreciation for reading.After reading this, I was excited to read Steinbeck's ""best"" books, but it turned out I had already read it. Grapes of Wrath and East of Eden, while both quite good, were both a little bit too long. Of Mice and Men, on the other hand, is not a word too long or too short. It's a beautiful, short character study, and you will be better for reading it." +2109,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,ALDRY40BPNY09,Scott Walker,0/0,4.0,1250467200,Authentic tragedy,"This is an authentic, somber tragedy, set in early 20th century California. We follow a dreamer, and his companion who is a child in a giant's body. They travel from place to place on foot to find work then to finally end up on a farm where dreams and life come to an end.Stienbeck depicts these pathetic, hard, and lost lives with an eye for detail. This is a simple story with a simple dialect. A good read.LORD BlessScott" +2110,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,AUX9KZUUB3YCE,R. Nicholson,1/1,5.0,1259280000,"'Of Mice and Men""...one of Steinbeck's finest works.","'Of Mice and Men' was written in 1937 by John Steinbeck. To me, one of his finest works.The setting is in the Gabilan mountain area of western California and although no specific dates are mentioned, probably around the time of the great depression. The two main protagonists are George and Lennie, two drifters that travel the area looking for seasonal work at harvest time. George is a small cunning man while Lennie is giant of a man, but with the mind of a child. Their wandering lifestyle is fueled by their dreaming about better days ahead and having their own place...as Lennie puts it, ""Can you imagine such a place, living off the fat of the lan'?"". However their future is about to drastically change in ways they can never suspect (or understand) and the dream is about to be shattered forever.Subjectively, I loved it all; the finest of writing, that not only features exquisite descriptive passages of barns, horses and of lazy, late summertime afternoons, but also the unique characters that go into making this depression era tale. And although the book is really just a longer, short story (just over 100 pages in length) it is the ever-so subtle increasing tension coupled with the real personalities, that makes this wonderful novel so hard to put down.If any complaint, it would be that the tale is so short; it's all over almost as soon as it's begun. However, it's quality over quantity. Easily, 5 Stars.Ray Nicholson" +2111,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1PI84M4P2OTON,Joyce Damron,0/11,1.0,1235174400,Of Mice and Men,"Three crucial pages were torn from the book: The ""Introduction by Susan Shillinglaw""(Director of the Steinbeck Research Center); ""Suggestions for Further Reading""; and ""A Note on the Text."" Since I was reading the book for a class discussion, these items would have aided me greatly during the discussion period." +2112,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A5ESR4PG6JC7T,sue,1/1,4.0,1303603200,of mice and men,very pleased with the service and a great book. i had to read it for english many years ago and I fell in love with the story. +2113,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,876614400,tip on the title,"An interesting thing about the title is that it was taken from a poem by Robert Burns: "To a Mouse". I would strongly recommend reading the poem since it sheds light on the novel. It is very much in keeping with the naturalistic philosophy behind OF MICE AND MEN. (If you are a teacher and are teaching the novel, you might find it interesting to make the students predict, on the basis of the poem, what the outcome of the novel will be.)By the way, some critics say that OF MICE AND MEN is not a naturalistic novel, since George exercises his free will in his final decision. An interesting point to discuss, isn't it?" +2114,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,922492800,Brilliant.,"The book had it all. It made you laugh, cry and feel for the two main characters." +2115,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2RYKK3S61KE2N,Meredith,1/2,5.0,947635200,A Reason to Like English Class!,"Like most of us, I had to read this book for school in eleventh grade. I have re-read it 6 times since then, and even saw the movie a couple of times. (Only movie that equals the book, by the way). This book is a classic. I fell in love with George and Lennie from the moment I met them. The characters in this book simply shine. Anyone who has a sensitive side will enjoy the book. A definite book to put on your to-do list!" +2116,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A31SB40U11A3HZ,Flyhorse,1/1,4.0,975888000,"A breif summary, some thoughts.","The two main characters in the story are Leonard Small, and George Milton. They have one dream: to own a peice of land they can call their own [with Lennie (who is Leonard) tending the rabbits]. To get land, you need to purchase it. To purchase, you need money. So Lennie and George have been going from town to town, mostly because they can't stay in one place too long before Lennie makes a mistake, forcing them to flee. They get jobs at a ranch. They make friends, such as Candy, the swamper, Slim, the skinner, and crooks, the negro stable boy. However, life isn't so peachy keen at this ranch. The flirtatious wife of Curley, the bosses son, is a threat to everyone who works there. For Curley is a very possessive man, who will beat anyone up, who is bigger than he is (maybe even Lennie). Will Curley's wife, who doesn't seem to have a name, cause trouble for George and Lennie, maybe evening ruining their dream? Will Lennie's ignorance to his own strength cause trouble at this town also? Well, you should read the book to find out. The reason I didn't give five stars to this book, is because I think the end was too sudden. It didn't seem right. Maybe you will think differently if you read the book." +2117,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,AILBDL6ATVDCJ,"Dan Blankenship ""Author of THE RUNNING GIRL""",2/2,5.0,1082419200,He Is The Master!,"While I can't stand it when writer's use the Lord's name in vain, I think John Steinbeck was without a doubt one of the greatest writers ever. He has the unique ability to say a LOT with a small amount of words in one paragraph, and in the very next paragragh say a little with a LOT of words. This novel should be read by anyone wanting to master the craft of writing. Steinbeck delivers every time. I can't think of any bad writing he has done...Can you?God Bless!www.therunninggirl.com" +2118,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,4.0,1173052800,Of Mice and Men is an interesting book,Of Mice and Men was a excellent book. The two main characters are Lenny and George. Lenny is mentally challenged and muscular. He has an obsession with rabbits and likes to pet things that are soft. The problem is that the animals that he pet usually die because he is very rough. Lenny gets him and George in trouble a lot and George always says that he would be better off with out Lenny. In the beggining of the book Lenny does something bad and him and George get chased out of the city. George gets angry at Lenny a lot and is very careful with him from then on. Read this book to see what kind of trouble Lenny gets into that costs him a lot. +2119,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1ZEOVGC3CDE0C,Raymond Mathiesen,0/0,5.0,1234051200,Harsh life and friendship,"George and Lennie are drifters, moving from rural property to rural property, they go wherever work takes them. They stay for as long as their luck lasts, doing whatever the current job demands, but come what may George and Lennie stick together. George is small, fast to loose his temper and smart. Lennie is big, always affable and dim-witted. Lennie needs George to look after him, and George sometimes wishes that he was able to live life free and easy, free to gamble and booze his money away. Lennie's slow wit often gets him into trouble in the rough and tumble, male world of the rural society. Now ""a few miles south of Soledad"" George and Lennie are about to start a new job. Before they enter the property the two camp out overnight so George can enjoy the scenery. This proves to be the calm before the storm as the two are about to experience life-changing events.This is a short book, being just under 100 pages, but it contains much to be thought about. Steinbeck describes in detail the harsh way men choose to live. He notes how, in this environment, some men rise to become leaders, being hero-worshiped in such a way that their word becomes almost gospel in the minds of other men. But Stienbeck, through the friendship of George and Lennie, also notes that there is another, more caring way for men to live. Of course even those who follow a philosophy of caring live in the real world of struggle in which circumstances are not easy to resolve, and Steinbeck is well aware of this. Steinbeck's beliefs are informed by his knowledge of Christianity, but one does not have to slavishly follow that religion to agree with what he is saying. This book was first published in 1937, but is contains ideas that have finally flourished in the New Age Men's movement of the late Twentieth Century.This book is stylistically interesting. Steinbeck deliberately wrote his prose in a way which imitates plays (drama). Events take place in a set 'scene' and characters enter, interact and leave. Dialogue, rather than action, is emphasized. The author, indeed, later wrote a theater version of this story. He did the same thing with the book _The Moon is Down_. Through Steinbecks skillfully woven dialogue we gain a good understanding of his main characters and Lennie is one of his most poignant creations. The climaxes of this tale, and there are more than one, are also memorable.John Steinbeck is of course a famous author and this is one of his most well known novels. I am glad to say I did not find it in the least disappointing and I am very happy to award it five stars." +2120,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,936057600,I found this book very interesting.,"I read this book as an obligation for school, and as most of the books I read in school I thought it was going to be boring. But it was not, I enjoyed this book very much. I think it is a very original book, with nice ideas and most of all very imaginative and cute characters. The one I most like was Lenny, because besides being mentally retarded, he was a very nice guy. I also like very much the way Steinbeck combined violence with authority and friendship. I didn't know Steinbeck before but I must confess that he is a really good writer, and I would like to read other of his books." +2121,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,4.0,1116374400,Review By: Bridget Willey,"I liked the book ""Of Mice and Men"". It was interesting because it was a story about two men that had no place to live and they move to work on a farm and I live near many farms. I would recommend this book to students that believe in following your dreams and try to reach for the stars." +2122,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,927504000,This is a good book for anyone old enough for the content,"I liked this book, Of Mice and Men, more than any book I've read in a while. This book was a fast paced easy to understand book that was great for a person like me who doesn't like books all that much. It was a great plot that didn't make me want to go to sleep and had a very unexpected ending that left you with plenty to think about after it was all said and done. I would reccomend this book to anyone who likes to read or hates to read, I don't think that it matters. Anyway fantastic book!" +2123,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,AN78P1ZOS83SN,the pundit,1/1,4.0,1191283200,A discussion of the ending *Spoilers below*,"*WARNING: Don't read this review if you haven't read the book and don't want to know the endingThe book has three surprise events in the ending. The first is Lennie's killing of Curley's wife. This is shocking because Curley's father owns the farm, so Lennie could get into serious trouble. The second is when Lennie is hiding in the brush waiting for George, and he sees and hears Aunt Clara's ghost talking and later a rabbit talking. The third is not when George shoots Lennie, but when George walks away with Slim, as if the two are best pals now. This makes it seem that George did not take his friendship with Lennie very seriously, because instead of mourning his death alone, he hangs on to Slim, as if Lennie is easily replaceable and that Slim has taken Lennie's place now. I thought the ending makes George seem like a shady character, not bad enough to be called the villain, but still not good enough to be called hero of the book." +2124,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,AQC1WVWRA1G6P,Kyle,1/1,4.0,951264000,Of Mice and Men,"The book Of mice and Men was a good book. It keeps you wanting to know more the whole way through. The characters are described very well, but the two main characters are opposite. One, named Lennie, is big tall and stupid, he acts like a five-year-old as they put it in the book. The other one, George, is short and kind of smart compared to Lennie. Unlike most of the other ranch hands the two are traveling together from ranch to ranch, and even more than others are because Lennie is always getting into trouble. Lennie loves soft things, which gets him into a lot of trouble. At this last ranch they think they will finally fulfill their dream and earn enough money to buy a piece of land, Lennie gets into the biggest mess of all." +2125,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,1/1,5.0,951264000,Of Mice and Men,"OF MICE AND MENOf Mice and Men is an interesting story. Many people think that it is boring just by looking at the title. But you can't judge a book by its cover. Of Mice and Men is a different book then any other book that I have read. It has many characters with different personalities that you have never seen. Of Mice and Men is about two guys, Lennie and George. Lennie is a big guy but he is not smart. George is a guy who travels with Lennie and takes care of him. When they go to a ranch to find work many twists take place. I would recommend this book. You won't put it down!" +2126,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2XAWBF5J47ECS,Screendoor,0/1,5.0,1019692800,An American Classic,"""Of Mice and Men"" is about two men who try to survive in the middle of the Great Depression. George is a pretty normal guy, but his friend Lenny is retarded. They go around California looking for work, but everywhere they go Lenny does something that makes them leave. This is a great story of two men that have a great friendship that cannot be broken.Steinbeck portrays the Depression vividly. He shows how people behaved and just treated other people. What people had to do to survive back then is crazy. Lenny is just an innocent bystander in this horrid time in our history. In that time there was no room for innocence. You fought to live or you died. I give this book five stars." +2127,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A3J8HQ8RKVI2KA,Allyson-Marie,0/0,5.0,947116800,PAGE TURNING EXCITEMENT!,"I have never not a big reader, but finding this book has changed my perspective on books like this. This book is full of realistic entertainment. i couldn't put this book down. it is an awesome book that i would recommend for anyone. The ending is a tearjerker, so have kleenex ready. READ IT, I PROMISE YOU WILL LOVE IT!" +2128,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2FM4GFV6NGV8R,"Anthony Pasram ""Anthony Pasram""",0/0,5.0,1104364800,Of Mice And Men,"This book was a good book because of the lessons it teaches. Of mice and men teaches a valuable lesson about friendships. Although Lennie is struck by a illness that makes him dumbfounded, George still takes care of Lennie. George is a awesome friend that cares deeply about Lennie even though he might show his emotions with him. It comes the time for George to make a important decision when Lennie messes up again. This is a great book that should be read by everyone. You will surely enjoy it and learn a very important lesson. This book will leave you ""heart struck""." +2129,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,926208000,WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,"like i said earlier, wow. i really enjoyed reading this book. unlike some peple, i am not the crying type, yet this book actually moved me to tears. i think it was the reality of the story and the fact that the characters are so real. they have their dreams, their hopes, and their faults. steinbeck doesn't view this world through rose colored glasses. no, instead he tells it like it is and that is what is so great about this book. a must read." +2130,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,938995200,fascinating,Of Mice of Men was a very good book. It gives you a good look back in the Great Depression. I had to read this book for English class and it was very good.There was very good characters in the book it is worth reading. +2131,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,1104278400,Identity,"The best-laid schemes o'mice and men often go awry, and leave us nought but grief and pain, for promised joy!"" John Steinbeck Author Of Mice and Men used this quote as an Allusion to his book where it foreshadows events that have yet to occur.According to the quote what it mean is you set yourself up to let yourself down. In the book Of Mice and Men two characters George and Lennie have a plan to own an acre of land and a shack they can call their own. Therefore both characters get a land job where their dreams just scrambles in a matter of weeks. Lennie actions led their dreams to be destroyed it was when they arrived to their new job and at the time one of the workers dog just had given birth to puppies. In which Lennie asked George permission to have one of the puppies and George said yes. Within a few weeks the dog died and was witness by the boss son's wife in which she was killed at the site. Seconds after the incident Lennie headed back to where George told him to go just in case he got into any trouble, which he did, at the end. As a result George headed to the site and killed Lennie before the men got a hold of him. In all both men are in screach of identity and in my point of view each character of this book are lonely in which they have trouble finding themselves. Overall this book shows great friendship amoung these two characters eventhough George gives Lennie a harsh treatment but it is the worst for the better. George shows how much he care for his other half and that he is willing to go all out for Lennie, he gudies him through for his own benefit. Incredible book as the Author uses great literary terms and expresses each and one of them. It profound me when Author John Steinbeck allusively used Robert Burns poem as an idea for his outcoming book. Lovely book and enjoyable reading it." +2132,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A5EJJE1R34QK,Sarah,0/0,4.0,1084752000,Of mice and men,"I liked it, but it was kind of sad in a good way though because no matter what George knew that Lennie was going to die so he killed him in a less painfull way.Steinbeck created really good characters because they were so believable that it could of most likely happend in real life, but for younger kids they probably won't get it because it's not in their level of reading, but it is good for young adults because they know it could happen in real life.The social issue that this relates to is definetly racism because everyone treats Lennie bad just because he is different." +2133,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/1,5.0,1043625600,'The best laid schemes of mice and men; go often wrong',"I'm not going to give you a summary of this story, as you'll find many on this page. I'll tell you this, though, buy this book in the store, they're overcharging for it here. And aside from that, this book *is* wonderful. I had to read the first chapter for school and read the rest on my own. The imagery is vivid and all of the characters, from the least important to the main two, Lennie and George, breathe a life of their own. Another good one by John Steinbeck is 'The Pearl.'" +2134,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A39RRDHDYI9PHV,Kathie Chavira,3/4,5.0,947548800,John Steinbeck,"I have been a Steinbeck fan since I think before I was born. That is how it seems anyway. The minute I pick up a Steinbeck book, I know that I will come back to the fold of the underdog and the mistreated. I love him for this, as he recognizes the value of the underpriveledged and the poor. He sees the evil in the world and calls it by name. Lenny and George are in a way comedic, but heart wrenching and sad. They are known by even those that are unaware that they know them. Ever watched a Bugs Bunny cartoon, when that giant oaf pets the little animal to a bloody pulp? Well, Lenny still lives within all of us. Hopefully we all have a George in our lives as well." +2135,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,3.0,951350400,Of Mice And Men,"OF MICE AND MENOf Mice And Men was a good book. The author does a good job describing the characters and the scenery at the beginning of each chapter. Lennie was a tall man and liked soft things. He liked them so much that it got him into trouble. I would recommend this book to older kids because of the language. John Steinbeck wrote a great book and it was very interesting. I liked how Lennie carried a dead mouse in his pocket and George yelled at him and threw the mouse away. My favorite part of the book was the fight between Lennie and Curley, the boss's son. Lennie and George have a dream of getting a ranch of their own with rabbits and a few pigs and they are going to live off the fat of the land. But first they have to raise a stake at a nearby ranch. That's when the problems start" +2136,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,1104364800,Great literary device,"This book titled Of mice and men is not only exciting but captivating as well. The author is a genius in the way he brings about the story of two very different men. The story of George and Lennie. George is a small but tough man who has an intense friendship with Lennie, a big but slow man.The context of this book is excellent although at the beginning of the book some people may say that it seems very boring, or that it has too many facts as in facts that are not needed. But that's only some people's opinion I believe that the beginning of the book is actually very important. It contains a lot of information that if not known you will not be able understand how George and Lennie end up together, and what was that caused them to end up looking for another job.Another brilliant thing that the author does is that he uses literary devices. The most important literary device that he uses is foreshadowing. In the book there is a incident in which one of the characters from the book named Candy has a dog that has been with him almost all his life and naturally like all animals age this dog became old and ill. The dog became so ill that two of the other characters believed that the best thing to do with the dog was to put him out of his misery by killing him. Candy could not believe what was said but after thinking about it he finally agreed that this would be the best thing .After all was said and done and one of the characters shot the dog in the back of the head Candy still believed that this was a good idea but he also believed that it would of been better if he would have done it himself, because after it was his dog. This incident foreshadows a major part of the book.This book is as good as a cold glass of water on a hot day." +2137,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,937094400,sweet,"I haven't read the book, but i've seen the film at school, and I found it very sweet. The worst thing about it was that we had to write a 4-page essay in English about it afterwards. I think the film was very interesting, and I feel sorry for Lenny." +2138,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/3,4.0,970358400,Eric's Great Book Review's,"Eric's Book Review for Steinbeck's ""Of Mice and Men""The book Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck has two very important main characters. One of which is George Milton, a farm hand who accepts the day labor and who has assumed the responsibility of taking care of his simple-minded friend Lenny. The other is Lennie Small, a large retarded man who has the mind of a child and who loves to pet soft and pretty things. Some other characters include Slim, a sympathetic a man who understands and comforts George when Lennie is killed, and Curley, a small, cocky, arrogant man who is the son of the boss. The setting of this book is in farm areas with few or little towns and vast areas of land surrounding the people that live there. I thought this book was quite interesting and a real page-turner. The book kept me on the edge of my seat waiting to see what Lennie would do next. I was in shocked to read some of the things Lennie did. Overall I suggest this book for anybody who likes a good book. George had heard of some harvesting jobs that are available on a nearby farm, so George and Lennie decided to walk there. They planned to camp out for the night and be at work the next morning. During the evening George was forced to take a dead mouse out of Lennie's hand because Lennie like to pet soft things. George then reminded Lennie of the trouble he had caused in the other town when Lennie tried to pet a little girl's dress. You must read on in the book to find out what happened during George and Lennie's journeys." +2139,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,APGKUH3ECVS61,Karen502,0/0,5.0,1354579200,great,I purchased this novel for my son for his english class. I could not see renting the books when I could purchase them and keep them for future use. +2140,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A3INVPO6I1RG09,Shawn Tabbert,0/0,3.0,951264000,Of Mice and Men,I like the story Of Mice and Men. The story starts out in a field of weed. They get kicked out of weed cause of Lennie (a big strong working man that is slow) he touched a girl with a red dress. George is a guy that is short and takes care of Lennie. Lennie is a guy that likes to pet dead rats. George gets Lennie out of trouble or else he would probably be dead. +2141,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A4JPGA48KHDFE,"""vicu_capa""",0/0,5.0,965779200,It's the best book of all times :),"This is a book that it really make me feel about several emotions To begin with I firstly thought about dreams I have. Usually, my dreams are connected to my future. So this book make me the next day you are going to be death or alive, so I learnt with this book, that you have to live your life as much as you can. It also make me feel about how alone we are in this word, although we have people who love us. We live in a society that don't take in to account the importance of having friends, and a family. We are only thinking about what we really care not in the others. Moreover, there's a lot of violence, like that there is now a day.Because of all this reasons, I can say this book will remain as a classical book because it's main themes are related to what we live." +2142,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1YLK2Q7TRUCPQ,"COSMIC ""STR8BALLIN""",1/2,4.0,1106784000,The Hero Of Mankind,"I think that the book Of Mice and Men is a really good book. I had fun reading of Mice and Men with the characters George and Lennie. I understand their personality by knowing their backgrounds. However, the fact that made the story better is that the characters had many ideas. Although, I really like this book because its very interesting. Some people think the book was overwhelming because they liked it so much. Besides, I learned many more things about the book while I was reading it. To conclude, I recommend that I should give the book a five stars because its really fun and understanding to read.I understand that Of Mice and Men was the author of John Steinbeck. He is the American author who writes differnt kind of books about good and evil. Somehow, he created the book himself by working hard successfully. He even won many awards because of his novel and creativeness. However, he makes lots of money to improve his skills of writing. Also, Steinbeck was born in Salinas Valley where he works hard even more. He is the legend author who writes books among others.I think that John Steinbeck is a great author because he works really hard every freakin day. But for me, Steinbeck is the man also because I like his books read them specially good and evil books." +2143,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,APDKH3EAR1BWR,JD,0/3,4.0,1313366400,very good,"Book is in very good shape. However, there is a lot of highlighting and comments in book but this may come in handy in the class." +2144,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,3/4,3.0,1040169600,Of Mice and Men,"Of Mice and Men published in l937, is the tenth book written by John Steinbeck. Even though the book only covers a three-day span, it portrays the full spectrum of human emotions including physical pain, tenderness, friendship, pity, and jealousy. Steinbeck's sensitivity for the common man is evident in this work and the others produced during the 1930's. It has been claimed by many that this period saw Steinbeck's greatest works. The social injustices of the 1930's are depicted in Of Mice and Men. His political concerns for equality and happiness for society is a major theme in this novel and his concern for the poor and below average is also evident.The protagonists, George Milton and Lennie Smalls, are laborers looking for work on a small farm in Salinas Valley, California. Lennie, the bigger of the two, is mentally slow and this seems to always get him in trouble. George stays with Lennie to take care of him after his Aunt Clara died. They both had big dreams of owning a ranch. This is another one of Steinbeck's major themes, the search for the American Dream. However, for Lennie and George the American Dream, to buy the ranch and "live off the fatta the land," is not achieved because of their limitations.Slim, Curley, Curley's wife, Candy, and Crooks, the antagonists, work at the farm along with George and Lennie. This is where many conflicts happen, such as the fight between Lennie and Curley. The final conflict between George and Lennie at the river brings to reality the importance of friendship and the desperation of loneliness.This novel is also famous because it depicts Steinbeck's well-known style of writing, which includes such literary devices as symbolism, irony, metaphors, parallelism, alliteration, and repetition. In the opening paragraph by repeating such words as, "with the..." the author easily moves from one repetition to another. Some of his descriptive sentences, like where he describes "The path through the willows," have a rhythmic quality that adds poetic meaning to this novel. Another device Steinbeck uses is the simile. His phrase "the rabbits sat as quietly as little gray sculptured stones" is a striking example.I really enjoyed reading Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck. Its down to earth humor shows compassion in a time where there was none. I really liked his characters and how they are developed in the story. They are believable and bring out the appropriate emotions in the reader. Steinbeck's use of simple plot, natural dialogue, and natural setting, makes this an easy and enjoyable book to read. This timeless classic is a book that I would recommend to anyone, for it is a story that withstands many readings by many generations." +2145,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,3.0,1133913600,Josh Welch,"All together the plot of this...interseting tale of two men(one slower than most) was alright. But there was a reocuring item,Lenny always getting into trouble with women but i guess this was an interesting and dependent part of the plot. The main focus of the book was how this very exploratory man with below average intelligence,Lenny, is being basically cared for and looked out for by his friend,George,who is just tryin to make money so someday he can have his farm with his dumb but sometimes helpfull friend. I myself thought the book as alright but not the best. The whole book is actually not very long and does not tell a whole lot about their past." +2146,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1RGM9SNWWMJS2,Chris Meichtry,1/1,5.0,959299200,I expected worse,"This book was way better than I expected. I especially loved reading about the childish things that Lennie did. Whenever you read about his actions, you'll probably let out a little laugh. This is a good read beginning to end."Which way did he go George? Which way did he go?"" +2147,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1ZDWD35AZL3S,Holff,0/0,5.0,1246406400,Classic work of literature,"Classic story of two nomadic laborers who's goal is to own their own farm. The book is set in Depression Era California where Steinbeck grew up. George is the brains while Lennie is the brawn. Each makes up for the other's weaknesses. Steinbeck shows the unselfishness of George as he takes it upon himself to care for Lennie, mainly to keep him out of trouble. Unfortunately, Lennie finds trouble which leads to the death of a young girl. It is at this point George must decide whether to protect Lennie as he always does or cut his losses. Excellent story, a well written classic." +2148,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1AHJBNUYFRRAT,Danny Castaneda,0/1,5.0,1305417600,4 STAR SERVICE,Awsome Book highly recomended for those intrested in reasing fine literature however those weak of heart it truly is a sad story and shows the cruelty of humanity for those in George's positon however I truly recomend the book for anyone +2149,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,908150400,It does not justify it to read the book only once!,"The first time I read this book I was in the sixth grade. Since I've read it five times and it grows in depth each time. Lennie and George are two of the most detailed and loved characters. It is one of the most controversial books of our time, for one reason it makes you think." +2150,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,950572800,i love this book more than any other book,this was the best book by far ive ever read. i cried and cried at the end but i didnt care. it was a magnificent novella! +2151,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1NBB48X77J3ZE,"April Denney ""Katie Denney""",0/0,4.0,1229126400,Of Mice and Men Review,"The book, Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, is about the adventures of two best friends that are meant to take care of each other. Their names are George and Lennie. George always has to take care of himself as well as Lennie. Lennie is a challenged individual, but he is the sweetest man. He really means well. The way he talks and acts reflects that he is a little boy stuck in a strong mans body. Lennie is by far my favorite character in this book. Lennie has an obsession with touching soft things. At the beginning of the book it starts with Lennie having a mouse in his pocket which he accidentally kills because he strokes the mouse to hard. He felt horrible. George, who is always taking care of Lennie, is more of a dad to Lennie than a friend. He was asked by Lennie's Aunt Clara to look after Lennie when she died. Throughout the story George continues to look after Lennie wherever they go.Both George and Lennie have a life goal of having a place of their own with land, a house, and animals. They have a place that they can buy from an older couple, but they need to get six-hundred and fifty dollars to buy it from them. They are working to get this money so they can run off and escape from the working world and ""live offa the fatta the lan' (Steinbeck 56)."" Throughout the book they travel to find a place to work so they can get the amount of money that they need in order to buy that piece of land. They find a farm that will take both of them as workers and that is where the majority of the story takes place. Most of the people that are working at the farm really like George and Lennie, except for the farm owners's son, Curly. Eventually Lennie and Curly get into a fight. Lennie accidentally crushes Curly's hand. Another incident between Lennie and Curly occurs toward the end of the book that angers Curly to the point that he is ready to kill Lennie.I really enjoyed this book for many reasons. One because it was easy to follow and always kept me wondering what was going to happen next. I could not put the book down. I sat down and read the entire book all at once. Another reason is because it was one of those books that are short enough that you can sit down and read the whole story in a few hours. The book also had an interesting story plot. There was one part of this book that I did not like. I was disappointed when Steinbeck made Lennie look like a bad guy for part of the story. An example is when Lennie kills the mouse at the beginning of the book. Lennie has good and honest intentions. I felt so bad for him that I almost started to cry. Lennie felt horrible every time he did something to hurt someone or something in the book because he did not understand his own strength. I really like how George is a father figure to Lennie and how Lennie really appreciates George. Lennie understands that George will always there for him. The two men give each other a reason to live. George and Lennie truly value each other's friendship. I recommend this book for all boys and girls, child or adult." +2152,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,910396800,Great book,"If you enjoyed this book and would like to see the movie, I recommend the 1939 version. It is very well done. Much better than the recent versions. Of Mice and Men is a classic in my eyes." +2153,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,AU1FH8CF5096M,Melissa Owens,0/0,4.0,954374400,"Sad, yet true outlook on life.",Expresses the life of a caretaker extremely well and highlights all forms of loneliness in a way that every reader can relate to. +2154,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,1071360000,A True American Classic,I found the book to be very good. Once you you get in to the book you cant stop. I felt as if the characters were real. I cryed at the end it was so touching. +2155,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1QSYRO5ARPML8,Michelle A.,1/2,5.0,1276819200,"""We're gonna do it. Gonna get a little place an' live on the fatta the lan'""","One of the most incredible things that I have found reading Steinbeck is his ability to manipulate my mind set and opinions of his characters. I found this most relevant in OF MICE AND MEN.Though I had nothing in common with either of the main characters, in no time I started to relate to them through their emotions of lonliness and that desperation to find an ideal to cling to and look forward to. Taking the journey with them to the farm and interacting with the other people helping, Steinbeck tells a beautifully written story through dialogue. This story has detailed, but limited descriptions of settings. I for one really enjoyed this aspect after reading GRAPES OF WRATH which has both vivid descriptions and dialogue.Through the book, the reader witnesses Lennie constantly being lectured for every action he makes but still stays loyal and warm to George. This story actually reminded me of an abusive relationship when I first started reading it. George, being the abuser, is extremely negative, and verbally abusive to Lennie. Yet, the reader can feel how much love he has for Lennie as well. At first I hated George. He reminded me of Mo from the Three Stooges. I hated seeing him be so controlling and unkind to Lennie. As the story unfolded though I warmed up to George until the last pages where I went through a stage of shock, and then anger, and then pity for George. To bring all those emotions out of someone within about fifteen pages I was fully impressed.I only wish I would've gotten the opportunity to read this in school instead of reading it on my own so I could compare perspectives and opinions on the book." +2156,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,4.0,920332800,This book will appeal to anyone who likes a little adventure,"I would definitely recommend this book to anyone , espeacialy people who love books with traveling and books with a little violence involved in it. It can be a little confusing at first but when you start getting into it, it is a fantastic book!" +2157,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/1,5.0,1160524800,"WOW! By C.M. LZ, Student at Mace's Lane Middle School","This book is a great book that will keep hold of you until the end. Steinbeck does a fabulous job describing the farm where the book takes place. Lennie is hillarious and keeps on asking Geogre""Can I still tend the rabbits?"". George and Lennie are wanted for rape and also need to find a place to get a job.This book has some memorable characters such as the swamper Candy and the boxer Curly. Lennie is a big, strong, retarded giant that always gets in trouble. George is small, weak, smart man that has to put up with Lennie.I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to find out how hard life was during the Great Depression." +2158,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A24NBSXVNHB37M,Ashley,0/1,4.0,1036454400,Transdescent!!!!!,"I am in 9th grade and I am 15 years old, but there is something you do not know about me. I was recently touched by means of words in merely a book. No more than three weeks ago I finished this book, and I must admit that while reading the book, it did not grasp me. Yes, it was able to keep me engaged in the novel and continue reading, but it was not my favorite. That is just the begining. The last chapter touched me in a way I could never imagine possible. Even though I did not rate this five stars, I am sure many of you would. I am sure many of you would rate this ten stars if given a chance. There is so much for one to explore and ponder within this novel, it is fraught with questions. I believe this book can not be missed and I do not usually say this, because I am one to believe that not all people have the same taste for books, as all people do not have the same taste for chocolate, and I recomend this to everyone. The themes are as thick as crunchy peanutbutter." +2159,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1RS0UIJ8MMES0,akelly,0/0,5.0,1352937600,a classic,"Of Mice and Men is an American classic that everyone should read! It tells a wonderful story of the American dream and how life does not always play out how you plan. Steinbeck paints a clear picture of all of the characters and settings making it a smooth read. Over all I think everyone should read this book, you will not regret it." +2160,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,AJEDVT3OSUZCF,Mick McKeown,0/0,5.0,1251331200,Of Mice and Men,"This classic novel tells the tragic tale of Lennie Small and George Milton. They are out of luck and out of work migrant workers roaming the highways of California during the 1920s. The depression is the backdrop for the story but that does not prevent Lennie and George from dreaming big. Steinbeck paints a masterful and brilliant portrait of a bygone era that still resonates today. Every time I read this book it reads differently. This is required reading for most high schools. Fifteen years after I originally read I still love it. However, the difference between reading it at 14 and 28 is amazing. Lennie and George are some of the best characters of 20th Century Literature. I highly reccommend picking this one up." +2161,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2ZW394IT09BNF,"A. gruber ""dog lover""",1/2,5.0,1321574400,Excellent,This is an excellent unabridged production - characters very strong- well done - a great classic.Saw the play after I read it - well worth the money +2162,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,1/1,4.0,1100649600,G Wizzle and C Bizzle students at Mace's Lane-izzle,"""Of Mice and Men"" is a lonely story of two hobos, Lennie and George. Lennie is a large man with a mental disability and a craving for soft things and George is a small man who's in charge of Lennie, making sure he isn't getting them in trouble. The men had to flee from Weed because Lennie was accused of raping a woman when he only wanted to feel her dress.They find a ranch outside of Weed and work there. There they meet a rambunctious man by the name of Curley who threatens to knock out any man's lights if they even consider looking at his jail-bait wife. Curley is the ranch owner's son so, he's never going to get into trouble. When Curley and Lennie cross paths, something terrible happens. ""Of Mice and Men"" was a very good book that we both enjoyed. Some of the hobo-dialect is a little hard to understand but pretend you're the characters (like we did) and you'll find out what a good book this is!" +2163,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,4.0,916272000,"a great depiction of human nature, love life and learning.",the message that the author relays in this novel is an excellent one. I read it only to find my self identifying to most of the characters.My only problem with the book is the fact that George feels he has no choice but to kill Lennie. I guess that that was the whole point of the book. Humanity is frail and lonley. This point is well expressed in the book. +2164,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,910483200,A Very Thought Provoking Book!,"This was the first book that I actually read from cover to cover in one sitting, and was the first book that really "gripped" me! A superb character study. I highly recommend it!" +2165,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,1168300800,Tyler N. student@MLMS,"In the book ""Of Mice and Men"" by John Steinbeck two older men, Lennie and George, living as a hobo during the Great Depression in the 1930's struggling in life and trying to find a job. Lennie and George are running away from their old town of Weed because a woman charged Lennie with rape. Lennie is a little bit retarded and likes to touch soft things. George is Lennie's Aunt Clara died so now he's the responsible guardian.There are two main settings in this great novel. First, in the brush where they stay one night. There were many trees and bushes. There was also a pond where the two of them drank from. This was important because if Lennie ever got in trouble George told him to come to this place. The other setting was the ranch where they got their money. The people on the ranch were the boss, Curly, Carlson, Curly's wife, Candy, Slim and Crooks. The two of them bucked barley and there was Crooks house, the bunk house, the main house.George and Lennie are hobo's so they travel together. George always tells Lennie that they're going to ""live off the fatta the lan"" (Steinbeck pg.105) which means they're going to have nuts and berries and Lennie can feed alfalfa to the rabbits. George isn't physically strong but he is mentally and Lennie is physically strong but not mentally so they help each other all the time.I would recommend this book for 8th-12th grade students and adults because it has some language that isn't appropriate for younger kids. I would also recommend the audio tape that goes with the book because Gary Sinise, the narrator, expresses the characters excellently. I loved this book because it shows how people dealt with conflicts and how they acted and worked in the 1930's." +2166,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,AX6XULG4TDT07,V. Moore,0/1,5.0,1268352000,Great service,Received the book very quickly. I ordered it for my son for school. So I haven't read it. But it is what he needed. Thank you +2167,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2RDXOT92XDEY8,E5LXZC,0/1,5.0,1042675200,Of Mice and Men,"George and Lennie are best friend. George is a small guy but he has a quick mind and is dark of face. Lennie is a huge man, and has the mind of a young child. They feel lonely. They need each other. they work togeter and begin their dream in the bunkhouse. Those days, some conflicts happen in this little house. And then, George and Lennie needto face these problems.I love this book. The book is great as welll. Because it completely decribes everybody. I can see the hardship of their lives. Sometimes you have no choice. I learned something from this book. What happens in the bunkhouse? How do george and lennie face their problem? You will only find out if You read it! I think you can learn something from this book too." +2168,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,ANVHVDLSASRUR,Katie,0/1,3.0,958953600,An okay read,"This is usually read by many high school students and that's how I came across it. Of Mice and Men shows the peculiar relationship between 2 men one being mentally "slow", they travel on farms together. This is a good read and it is entertaining. I only gave it 3 stars because I didn't finish the book with a strong feeling about it." +2169,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,939945600,This is a GREAT book!!,this is a really good book. i thought the ending was so shocking and everytime i read it i still don't believe what happened. +2170,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1G9UEWALDT9JI,J Martin Jellinek,0/0,5.0,1111968000,Lots of power in a little book,"I have read a few other Steinbeck novels over the years. Except for the Grapes of Wrath, I have found them too long for the point they are trying to make. Of Mice and Men is much more concise and yet provides a real punch. The punch is not so much in the ending as in the character development. In such a short piece, we have the priviledge of seeing the power of a true friendship that is based on caring and respect. The setting is vivid and intense - much like the country where it takes place. This is an excellent, quick read and I highly recommend it." +2171,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,907545600,Gripping.,This book made me realzie how lucky I am to be normal. The best book I've ever read made me laugh at Lennie's stupidity and cry at it too. +2172,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A29FCV7EZDM4N8,Sokhna85,0/2,2.0,1042675200,The Forgottens And Lonely People,"John Steinbeck who is the author of this book ""Of Mice And Man"",wrote about the forgotten people like the lonely migrant workers.Lennie and George are two migrant worker with different personalities. Lennie is a huge man with an ironic mind, he all the time gets in trouble accidently,George is a small man,but has a quick mind. These two left Weed to Soledad where they attemped to realize their dreams which is to get their own land and have a good life, not to spend their money at a cat house. Since they are not lonely like the other migrant workers. Lennie and George have each others.This book is wonderful and at the same time sad.I recommand this book because it exlains the value of friendship ,how the migrant workers are lonely,how they live and what their dreams are.In this book i love the innocent Lennie as well as George who did his best to protect his only and best friend." +2173,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A19FQFVLD58V4Z,Kirby M,0/0,4.0,941155200,what i thought about of mice and men by john steinbeck,i liked the book of mice and men.It is a great novel about two men sticking together. I liked how the two men took care of each other. I think everyone should read this book. +2174,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2C6O5E70KGCQU,Brandon DeWeese,1/1,5.0,1007596800,A classic tale of friendship and loyality.,Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck is a classic tale of loyalty and friendship. It is about two friends name George Milton and Lennie Small who are a couple of laborers going from job to job. Both share a common dream of owning some land and being treated fairly. It was well written and I enjoyed reading it very much. I recommend it to everyone. +2175,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,938563200,One of the best books ever written,This book is probably the best book that I have ever read and is the only book that has gotten me interested in writing for a english class Idependent Study Unit (I.S.U.) A must for every reader in the world +2176,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,938563200,Outstanding novel,"I thought this book to be one of the best novels that I've read. I also did a duo interpertation of this book for speech and my partner and I did very well we took sixth in state. Anyone who gave it less than at least five stars can't see the true meanings and feelings that the author intended for this book. It show's peoples differences with one another, but how they can still be connected. This book was awesome." +2177,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A3PLSAO4GAZ8SS,David Jiang,0/0,5.0,985564800,Of Mice and Men,"Of Mice and Men is a real interesting and triumphant book. The first few pages were really boring and I was on the verge of quiting the book, but after a chapter it started to get really interesting and exciting. This book really paints a picture in your head of loniness. I feel sorry for the fact that everybody can't experience the drama and effort that John Steinbeck had put in this wonderful/compelling book. This is one great book that everybody should experience!!" +2178,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/1,2.0,955584000,Of Mice and Men,"This book is about two hobos named George and Lennie. In the beginning of the story they are on their way to a ranch to earn a stake. When they get to the ranch they meet Candy, the one handed man, Slim the team leader, Curly the bosses son, and Curly's wife. Curly is always loosen his wife and can't find her. She tries to flurred with all the guy at the ranch. Lennie is in the barn petting his dead puppy when she comes to flurred and then something happens! You'll have to read the book to find out what happens." +2179,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,ADDB0Y73L2CHU,"Sean Nolan ""I love a good story""",1/2,5.0,1002585600,"Without a doubt, the best Seinbeck I've ever read","George and Lenny are laborers. And laborers, as a rule, don't have anybody, "But not us George, tell about how it is with us," Lenny pleads. Lenny is a simple man, not that good with his numbers, but he can do whatever you tell him. Slow of mind, but with a powerful build."Guys like us, they got no family, no root. But not us, because I got you, and you got me."An endearing story, of brotherly love." +2180,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1U8DHSI18EEJ1,Richard E. Noble,1/1,5.0,1198022400,The hobo Philosopher,"This book is another Steinbeck classic. I suppose to people who don't have experience with hard work and difficult times this book makes no sense. But it made a lot of sense to me. It is good dramatic history. I suppose some would consider Lenny a bit much - but I have personally met a million Lennys in my life, he presents no problem with me.A good story on many levels - friendship, compassion, the real world, selfishness and greed, making a living in a tough world and society. I'm sure it will ring a bell with all the poor and struggling - but not to the fat, always had it easy crowd. Good book - buy it.Richard Noble - The Hobo Philosopher - Author of:""Hobo-ing America: A Workingman's Tour of the U.S.A..""" +2181,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A8Q3M6FHASIJ7,Ms. 90,1/1,3.0,1276214400,Of Mice and Men,"Well written, easy to read and kept my interest from beginning to end - although I was disappointed by some of the language - I understand it was the language of the day." +2182,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A3684EUAEHIV67,Hilde Bygdevoll,1/1,5.0,987552000,Heart-warming and sad..,"From the first page I fell in love with John Steinbeck's way of writing - his humble and delicate language.In this sweet novel Steinbeck has created an interesting set of characters and he chose to set the novel a few miles south of Soledad (loneliness in Spanish) in the 1930's. It tells the story of the two friends, George (the smart one) and Lennie (the dumb one), whom have no family, and no place that they can call ""home"". To make a living Lennie and George work on the different farms around, trying to save up money. They have a dream of buying a place of their own. A piece of land where they can grow their own crop and where Lennie can have rabbits. It is this dream that keeps these two friends going.This short novel captures your attention easily. "Of Mice and Men" is a touching and sad story about friendship and the need for everyone to belong. Well written and highly recommended!" +2183,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,1/2,5.0,1168387200,Khie'Ehbra W. student at MLMS,"Of Mice and Men"" by novelist John Steinbeck is a realistic story of two grown men Lennie Small and George Milton and their journey to find work and some where to live. Even though I've never been to Salinas, California or lived in the 1930's, Steinbeck's way of telling the story makes me feel as if I've lived there all my life. Lennie, the most memorable character always talks about ""tending the rabbits""(steinbeck pg.)George and Lennie are hobos and travel together because they're all each othe has. The story takes place during the Great Depression in Salinas, California on a ranch.Lennie is big, forgetful,mentally challenged but over all thar's what makes him so loveable.George on the other hand is the complete opposite of Lennie; he's a small, smart, and speaks his mind so they kind of balance each other out. Lennie wants a ranch so they can live off the ""fatta the lan""(""(steinbeck pg.57)I would highly recommend this book to any one over the age of 11 because of the racial slurs and mature language. Of Mice and Men is a good read." +2184,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A13CLRLO9ZB9IA,"T. L. Walker ""mortal_belleza""",0/1,4.0,1062288000,Of Mice and Men review,"Of Mice and Men is the story of two men - George and Lennie. George is small and smart, and George is big and mentally challenged. George and Lennie are about to start working on a new farm; they had to leave a previous farm because Lennie got in ""some trouble"". Lennie has a preoccupation with things soft and pretty, which lands him in pretty big trouble.This book didn't immediately draw me in from the beginning. I thought the beginning was rather monotonous, but the pace quickly picks up when George and Lennie arrive on the farm. I found that this book is a beautiful portrayal of human compassion. George says that his life would be much better without Lennie, and perhaps it would be, but still you can tell that he cares very much for the gentle giant.George isn't the only example of ""human compassion"". You have Carlson who's probably on the extreme uncaring end. He's one of those people who feels that a life isn't valuable anymore once you're of no use. There's also Slim who's very kindhearted. He believes that you can tell if a person is good or not just from their manner of acting. Then, there's Crooks-the cynical stable hand-who likes to believe in the worse of men rather than the best.Also, Steinbeck did a very good job getting his point across using mostly dialogue. There is precious little description in this book, but that's okay because most of the emotion of the story is conveyed through dialogue." +2185,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A3GAY5VH2LDFWK,"Patrick A. Kellner ""PAK""",0/1,4.0,1278806400,A true classic!,"""Of Mice and Men"", by John Steinbeck.Depression era California; George and his mentally challenged friend Lennie are migrant workers who hope one day, like many in their position, to be in control of their life. If things go right they just might be able to put enough money together to buy that piece of property and live off of the fat of the land. Raise chickens and rabbits and live out a simple yet pleasant life which isn't an uncommon theme for the time. Just a few more jobs and their dream might be realized...The story told in ""Of Mice and Men"" is simple and straight forward enough however the richness within is delivered in Steinbeck's ability to quickly draw strong characters and set the tone not only in each scene but for the times in which the characters live as well.The good: As stated this story is all about Steinbeck's ability to present strong characters and give the reader a good feel and understanding of the time and place in which the story takes place.The Bad: Nothing memorable.Overall: ""Of Mice and Men"" is worthy of the moniker `Classic' and deserves your attention. Pick it up and give it a read." +2186,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2URNQAGJ4N1MV,Lucia Fernandez,1/2,5.0,1023408000,Unbelievably good!!!!,"The book Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck is about two guys named Lennie and George. Lennie and George are the best of friends and have been for years now. George and Lennie are looking for a job and have found one but they have to walk there because the bus driver dropped them off saying that where they want to go is only a couple of miles down the road. It ends up being ten miles that George and Lennie have to walk and so the end up having to spend the night outside because they need to rest. After walking all of this way the two men are starving but all they have to eat is beans because it is the great depression and not many people can afford much else.George and Lennie are the best of friends because they look out for one another. Well it's mostly George looking out for Lennie because Lennie is a little slower than most and doesn't always understand things the first time around. So George and Lennie go from one place to another looking for work because most people don't respond very positively to Lennie because of the way that he is. Lennie just likes to touch soft things and that is what makes him happy and feel warm inside. Since Lennie is so big and he doesn't know his strength and ends up killing the little animals that he loves to pet so dearly. So that is how George and Lennie ended up on the farm, and there is where everything came to an end.George and Lennie got there to work, and while there Lennie fell in love with some puppies that were barely born. Lennie couldn't stand to be away from those puppies when he didn't have to. While spending time with the puppies Curley's wife went into the barn to talk to Lennie and she found out that he liked to touch soft things and had him touch her hair. Lennie liked it's softness so much that he didn't want to let go and got scared and accidentally killed Curley's wife. This was a very bad thing and he knew it so he went to hide in the brush like George told him to do if he ever did a bad thing. When they found the body everyone knew that Lennie was the man responsible so they all went looking for him to kill him. George knew that the only way that Lennie would not be really punished for what he did was if George killed him himself. That is exactly what George did and it was the only thing that could have been done to really save Lennie. The book was very serious and stayed that way throughout the novel.This book talked about very serious subjects and didn't change throughout the book. George and Lennie just want their own farm and the ability to do whatever they please from the beginning and that doesn't change throughout the book. In the beginning of the book George expresses that he is tired of having to always worry about Lennie and that George would be much better off by himself. Throughout the novel George doesn't change and while he does take Lennie with him everywhere he goes he still feels the same, and he knows that even though at the end when he has to kill Lennie it is the best for everyone because if he wouldn't have done it Lennie never would have been able to live a truly happy life with no worries.During the end of the book when George knew that he had to kill Lennie and just let Lennie keep talking about his dreams of the rabbit farm and George killed him was the most moving seen for me because there is nothing worse than killing someone you love not because you want to but because you have to. I think that the author was trying to give everyone who read this book a feel for what it is that people who are like Lennie have to go through. The author I think was trying to make everyone realize that they are people too and they really don't know some of the things that they should and it isn't their fault. I learned that you should always give people chances no matter who they are or what battles they may be facing in their lives at that time. This novel didn't really remind me of anything it just showed me that everyone deserves a chance and the ability to express themselves in any way they chose and no one should judge them for that.I felt that this book was very well written and overall just a great book. It shows you how judgmental and naive some people can be and why you shouldn't be like that. This gives you a perspective of how people like Lennie feel and what obstacles they have to go through because people won't give them the chance to get to know them. I learned that know matter who you are you are no better than the people you think are, they in fact are better than you because they unlike you are willing to give you the chance that everyone deserves." +2187,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A23KSS6CDRQ5NU,Jon,1/2,5.0,971222400,A philosophical novel that's impossible to put down.,"This is the first Steinbeck I've read and I have to say, it was an absolute pleasure. I found the descriptive style curt, while still being beautifully evocative. There is a lovely sense of space and movement to his backdrops.The two characters Lennie and George make for an immediately adorable duo. Lennie's childlike glea and innocence makes you want to just stop and hug him from his very first line. You feel an overwhelming urge to want to protect him from the big bad world that George is all too aware of.The journey details their search for work as farm handlers and their ambition to fulfill their dream of one day owning their own land. Lennie must surely be one of the great literary characters of the 20th century. He's looked down upon as a weirdo by most of the people he meets, when in fact he's too good for them. He deserves better.A philosophical novel that's impossible to put down (I read it in 1 day), I found it a great introduction to Steinbeck. A classic to be recommended without reservation." +2188,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1E0M41G7CBZKL,steven,0/0,5.0,1015804800,A very emotional book,"I enjoyed this book and i think that most people would enjoy reading about the hardships, struggles, hopes and dreams of two men during the great depression. After reading this book I felt a greater appreciation for the people who lived during this time. The book was very inspirational tome. I loved how the book made you connect with the two characters, George and Lennie, and thier hopes for the future. This book was short in text but huhe in emotions and feelings of all the charchters. Although some times I will admit that the book exaggerated the sensitivity of the character Lennie the book was still good in the fact the plot made sense with a cast of realistic characters. The ending of the book is a real life ending that wasn't far fetched. They made the events believable which causedmany emotions to stir inside you anger, fear, suspense, sorrow, and happines just to name a few. You really connect with the book. That's why I highly recommend this book." +2189,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,AIOX6O092WR0J,Dortch,2/30,1.0,957052800,this book was bad,"hey dortch do i git do dend da wabbits dortch" +2190,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A3LHL5VYC9NZ4E,Cowgirl,0/0,5.0,983318400,Great Book,"I thought that this book was great. When I first opened the book and read the first page, I thought that I was in for a boring book. I being the type that hates adventures, thought that the book was well written. The book starts off with a discription of a place that is by a lake and is surrounded with bushes. As I continued to read I began to like the characters. One being smart and the other being incredibly stupid. As the story goes on many events happen that make you continue to read. John Steinbeck keeps you intersested throughout the entire story. You must read this book." +2191,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1STXK9QBMH4K3,LMF,1/3,5.0,1042156800,Of Mice and Men - Book Review,"A few miles south of soledad, the salinas River drops in close to the hillside bank and runs dep and green. There were two guys names George and Lennie who were walking on the path. They both were dressed in denim trousers and denim coats with brass buttons. Both were black, shapless hats. Lennie was a strong man and has a young child's mind, while George is small, and has a boney nose. They were going to soledad to work and live on the ranch. When they get enough money they will live-off-the-fatta the lan'.I like this book a lot, because it has a lot of adventures, and a lot of excitement in the book. I will recommend this book to the world, becuase I think they will like it a lot, and they will share it with everybody they know about it uniqueness of writing and emotion John Steinbeck put into this. I give the book 5 stars because this book is so good that I don't want to let it go." +2192,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,941068800,Enraging,"John Stienbeck, the author of Of Mice and Men, was a simple man who delt with not so simple issues. Most of his life he spent in isolation, like a hermit. And yet he delt with complex issues on how we treat other people. And the motives we use for treating people the way we do.Of Mice and Men takes one on a voyage of personal discovery and tradgy." +2193,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A21L5T2QRR8S3I,"Lela Vee-tek ""Avid Reader""",3/5,5.0,1186272000,Mighty writing,"There is not a wasted word in Of Mice and Men. An unforgettable and brillaint work by John Steinbeck. It is clear why this is a classic. Every emotion on the spectrum is represented somewhere in this concise and gripping story of the enduring and heartfelt friendship/guardianship between Lennie and George. I loved it, and to think this was first published in 1937, it feels like much more modern writing. Reflecting on novelists since, it is clear that Steinbeck was ahead of his time and an early pioneer of captivating American writing. Splendid and tragic." +2194,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2LXFBLUN0UVYE,Kristie Porter,0/0,5.0,1264896000,Love,I read this book in high school and i had to buy it. Its a really good book! +2195,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A2NK438ZN6DSAF,Dustin Woehl,1/1,5.0,948240000,Amazing,"Superbly written, powerful. I am still amazed at being moved so much by so few words." +2196,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A19P6JAQUCAL3Y,Maria and Vicky,0/0,3.0,965779200,Of Mice and Men Review,"In our opinion Of Mice and Men is a book that represents the life of itinerant workers. As we read the book, we started realising how hard life can be when youre living and working on a ranch. We also realised how important it is to have dreams and someone to share them with. 'Guys like us, that work on ranches, are the loneliest guys in the world ' this frase, is what we think what the whole book is based on. There are several characters in the book that feel recognised by this frase. Such as Candy and Crooks. Candy was an old man that had only one hand. Ever since his dog was killed he started feelling empty and lonely. After coming to an agreement with George and Leannie, he became part of their dream. Violence was a key point of this story. There were many scenes of violence and agression. for example: the last one when George finds Leannie in the bushes and then kills him because Carson and Curly were eventually going to kill Leannie since he had previously killed Curleys wife. In our opinion this book was very well written. You couldn't put it down for one second. We hope that we will read another book by John Steinbeck." +2197,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A1R9XSYJRKAIY1,Maureen Carey,0/0,4.0,1004227200,"a very good book, just some stuff I had problems with","I had to read Of Mice and Men as summer reading for my freshman year in high school. It's a very good book. Overrall, I enjoyed it. There were just some little things I couldn't handle. Because I'm very sensitive, I wasn't comfortable with certain scenes in the book. I had trouble reading those parts and I couldn't understand why it happened that way. John Steinbeck did a good job on this one, on the other hand. It's well-written and interesting, it just has some flaws. I still own the book and I still read it every now and then. But it will never be classified as one of my favorite books. I recommend it for anyone, but if you're like me, and you have trouble reading about violence and troubling scenes, you might want to hold off for awhile. I don't want anyone to miss out on a book like this, but I don't want anyone to become upset over it, either." +2198,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,,,0/0,5.0,1021420800,Of Mice And Men,I like it how john steinbeck picked the characters. George being the smaller individual who had the brains and was a nicer looking guy and Lennie being the very big strong guy with being mentally challenged. george could have went back on his word to lennies aunt and left him to be put in an asylum but he kept his word and took care of lennie and soon became best friends with lots of trusts in each other. Curley's wife now presomed to me as a kind of girl or woman that sleeps around alot a\or thats how she acts when she was first introduced but come time to the end she was just looking for somebody to talk to. Curley was a little different he always wanted to picked a fight with the new people that are bigger than him so he would be known as the head huancho.this story was well put together as a wrighter for john steinbeck having his life time thirty years or more years between our time life is pretty much the same beside the migratoty workers which there are still some around. +2199,0140860096,Of Mice and Men (Penguin Audiobooks),,A21ROPNTB2YHCG,tae kim,1/2,5.0,988243200,...,"hmmm... from reading everyone else's review... i guess im juz thinking different or misinterpreting the story. From my point of view, I believe that this book's not just written upon the subject of discrimination of our social society, but it is written to show the loneliness of people and the effects of being lonely.. For example, the wife of Curley, the son of the owner of the farm, acts of more flutterishly toward because of her isolated life from the people of the world, and her preference of attention from everyone caused from this loneliness..., and also the old man Candy kept his dog to escape from his own world loneliness. The main characters George and Lennie are also affected by being lonely. George has a habit of petting everything because from petting something you are sure of the fact that you are touching something that is alive, to enjoy the feeling of being next to someone escaping from the loneliness. George also tries to escape his loneliness by thinking of his dream house, where everyone will be happy and satisfied of their life. Of course I'm not saying that the idea of the book is not written upon the subject of prejudice but I'm just expressing my own opinion. So no hard feelings -_-;; lol" +2200,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2Z9TWPW6P8CJ9,R. Scanlon,0/15,3.0,1314144000,"Enchanting, but Unrewarding and Immoral","This is a fun read, but the end lets the story dissolve, interstingly, but pointlessly. The book is also full of incest--deeply immoral." +2201,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,0/0,5.0,926121600,Simply the greatest book I have ever read,This book was a true masterpiece. I would recomend this to anyone who would like to be able to take a step back fromt he world and watch it evolve +2202,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,1/1,5.0,850867200,A masterpiece,"My favorite Garcia-Marquez title, and one of my favorite booksever. What a treat this book was to read. I remembergetting to the ending, and about 10 pages from the finishstarting to cry uncontrollably, and not stopping until longafter the book was done. A true work of beauty." +2203,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,APBO538GYYITK,valentin83@hotmail.com,0/0,5.0,893116800,Perfection,"As close to literary perfection as any work of fiction I have ever read. What does one say? Reading it was like reading the revealed word of God. Upon completing the book, I just sat there knowing nothing else I could ever read would approach the perfection of this book." +2204,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,3/6,5.0,1086652800,BEST BOOK I'VE EVER READ,"It is Gabriel Garcia Marquez's best book until now. It made me laugh, it made me cry, it is full of surprises, and has beautiful imagery.I recommend it to everyone. Those who do not like it, do not because they have no culture whatsoever. This book depicts the wonderful world of Latin America through the eyes of the greatest writer I know." +2205,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3UE48FJ4CHIJF,Wyote,1/2,5.0,1009843200,"hard to understand, touching and beautiful","The many characters and the style of magic realism make this book a little difficult to understand. Also, it plays brilliantly with Latin American history, and many readers may not appreciate that. If you feel you don't really understand it, that may be natural, but I recommend reading the Cliffs Notes or something afterward, in order to fill in the gaps. The story is beautiful and emotional, a classic that deserves its status, although time has left it only a little less accessible. This is one of those books that may re-arrange your world, your sense of how to tell a story and what a story is, and how you think of yourself. If you're considering reading it, give it a try, and if it frustrates you, find something that will help you understand it. It's such a great book that there are lots of resources, new ones coming out all the time....Good luck! Enjoy this wonderful, beautiful story." +2206,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3C87DHWYHM7AT,Phil,7/57,1.0,1076630400,Nobel Prize?,So if the Nobel Prize is for the author's body of work then again it does not say much about his work because his most famous work (100 years of solitude) is CRAP (that's in capital letters). If this is his best work and most famous work and it is a labor to read then his other works must be capital punishment!!!Much like the best book of the century by James Joyce - Ulysses.Again another book to be placed in Solitary Confinement!!! +2207,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A19T8HSA2LUXW2,Elspeth,1/2,5.0,1241481600,Indescribably Perfect,"This book is like Achilles' dream of Patroklos: the yearning pain when the book ends is almost too hard to bear. I have read this dozens of times and never tire of it, nor am I ever any less moved. It is for those who know the torment of nostalgia. The language and depth are astonishingly beautiful; it is hilarious and searingly tragic. This is one of those books that makes you wonder how such brilliance can come from a single human being." +2208,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1K5S2R8M3S5Z5,Amy M. Rodriguez,10/14,5.0,1167782400,Excellent novel.,This is a great work of fiction that is somewhat difficult to follow in the beginning but worth reading. +2209,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3FEW47KXMWTX7,Sandra Trout,1/1,5.0,1356739200,Read one copy so many times it fell a part!,"This is a novel that takes you away from the world of today and the horrible problems you are saturated by on TV, newspapers, radios, etc. .... makes you know that a hard life is not without trials and problems but the horror seems less intense and families continue no matter what." +2210,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,1/1,5.0,964224000,Puzzling Perfection,"This book is a classic to be read over and over. When I got to the last page, I started the book over again just like I was turning the next page. Upon second reading, the storyline (which admittedly can be confusing) made more sense. The only complaint I have about the book is that characters first names are all so similar that the reader must continually consult the family tree at the beginning of the book. The book is an astonishing achievement of literature, and the reader must be willing to suspend belief and be challenged. For me, this book was a bit like water: fluid and moving, reflecting, rushing or still. It has so many qualities that are had to put words to. Also, the story has a very timeless quality to it in that the reader is forced to be completely present with the story; one can truly only be with this book one glorious sentence at a time." +2211,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2SCSH635PIP7X,"chicklit ""chicklit""",1/1,5.0,1359676800,Brilliant Book,"This may be my favorite book of all time! The title is almost ironic because the last hundred pages forced me into a delicious solitude as I was completely caught up in the characters' story. GGM's writing is fluid, artistic, mesmerizing and real. While the story, admittedly, took a while to get in to - there is a point in the last third when it picks up and grabs the reader unexpectedly into its clutches and you simply cannot stop reading. A gorgeous story, painted simply and majestically." +2212,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A28HRJ2X2PXH8T,U's mom,13/23,1.0,1201305600,The worst book ever,"When reading is a chore and makes absolutely no sense at all, what is the point? I could not have made it through this book at all without the family tree in the front since so many of the characters have the same or similar names. I read on and on thinking it was going to all start making some sense or there would be a big ending, but in the end I put it down and felt like it was a huge waste of my valuable reading time. I re-sold the book as fast as I could unload it. It is really interesting and amazing to me how so many people love this book....I'm a reader in general but this one I just don't quite grasp. It is a nightmare of a read." +2213,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2RBZTLZN9WOLF,"""mamakuba""",3/5,5.0,1076025600,Correcting the erroneous minds!!!,"I already wrote a review for this book; however, I would like to correct those that are criticizing this book with erroneous information. First of all, unlike the Pulitzer, the Nobel prize for literature is handed to an author on the merits of his or her entire body of work, so please stop complaining about how you can't believe this book won the Nobel because it didn't: the writer did for his body of work. Just remember that NO single book can win the Nobel prize for literature.As far as people complaining about this book, it's too bad but oh well, what can you do. This book isn't for everyone just like anything else. I loved it and many others have cherished it too. That's all folks." +2214,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2F6UD68LO932T,Dallas Fawson,1/1,5.0,1268179200,Nothing short of great.,"The novel opens with one of literature's greatest leads ""Many years later, as he faced the firing squad.."" and never lets up through the four hundred some odd pages that follow. People will often say about an author ""There's nobody like them.."" and that's especially true for Garcia Marquez. This isn't a traditional novel, and I can't guarantee you'll love it. Like a lot of great Latin America fiction, it just isn't for some people. However, if you love Latin American writers and for some reason haven't read Marquz's masterpiece, I recommend you do so as soon as possible. The novels plot, in so much as it has a plot, is documenting a family, the Buendia's, over a period of one hundred years. The family is imperfect and dysfunctional to say the least, but are also very powerfully described, and by the end you will know them so well you'll feel as if you know them personally.I would also recommend getting the Everyman's library version of this book. It is well bound, beautiful and will hold together. And I don't know if other versions have this or not, but it has a Buendia family tree at the beginning, which is helpful for telling apart characters, as their names are often nearly identical. As one review put it, it leaves you with a pleasant exhaustion that only very great novels provide. There are very few books I've enjoyed as much as this one, and I recommend you at least give it a shot. Even if you put it down for a while, I'm willing to bet you will be drawn back to it before long. It's interesting and well written, with all of the magic you'd expect from a Latin American great, and it's definitely worth a read." +2215,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,0/0,5.0,912124800,Breathtaking!!!! An incredible experience!,"This book made me fall in love with reading again. It is by far the most enjoyable and life altering work of art I have encountered. Deeply rooted in South American culture and history, it gives the reader insight into a mystical and somewhat magical history. It's a true masterpiece, a modern clasic. READ THIS BOOK NOW....and thank me later!!!!" +2216,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1TW416QD60PLD,Joe Snow,5/6,3.0,1226102400,Moving in small doses,"From what I've heard, this book is far more powerful in the original Spanish, and I can only lament that I don't speak Spanish. I felt that long stretches of the book, such as Colonel Buendia's various revolutions and the chapters dealing with the banana plantation, were great. The elements of magical realism were as touching as they were astonishing. But I never grew unaccustomed to the book's pace, which moves herky-jerky through the decades, sometimes focusing on a single event for pages, then leaping several weeks in a single sentence. In the end, I felt like I hadn't gotten to know a single character. All the people in the book mystified me. Their fears, hopes, and regrets, were lost on me." +2217,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,0/0,5.0,899769600,One of the best told stories I've ever read.,"Fantastic and yet so real at the same time. The rich descriptions and the easy flow of the stories makes you forget that you are reading, and instead feels like a reciting of (family) history that has been passed orally for many generations. Marquez is an excellent storyteller!The only difficulty was in keeping the names of the different characters straight if you're not familiary with hispanic names." +2218,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,5/7,5.0,1086393600,******It Has It All********,"Thank you Oprah for selecting this book. I absolutely loved it!I owned this novel for a few years before I actually sat down and read it. I often read the first page and felt it was dull - I was wrong. Solitude has become one of the best novels I've ever read. Garcia-Marquez not only includes vivid descriptions but also incorporates everything a novel should have from sibling rivalry, to war, loneliness, magic, humor, drama, incest, sex etc. Solitude is often mysterious and delves into all of our dark thoughts, while also showing our desires. I often found myself frustrated with the decisions the characters made yet understood why they made them.I cannot say enough about this wonderful novel, except I just regret waiting so long to enjoy it." +2219,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2TA59QW25CGXO,DBesim@excite.com,1/1,5.0,1355011200,"Fresh, thought-provoking, fluent","I finished reading the novel only about a week ago. Consequently, I was so inspired by the writing, that I sent Gabriel Garcia Marquez a message on his facebook page, and let him know how much I enjoyed the novel. My commentary got lost in the fan mail, but I got a chance to find out what new things the author is doing with his work. He aspires to get one or two plays into theatre, so that's something to wait for in anticipation." +2220,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2U541S0X7UUNW,"Rebecca A. Kemp ""Working Mom""",0/0,4.0,1094947200,Escape into another world,"This book was slow to grab me. I made the mistake of trying to read it an hour or so at a time. Because keeping track of characters is a bit challenging, due to the topic family's re-use of names generation after generation, it helps to sit down and read for good stretches of time to keep things straight in your head. When I did that.....I was transported into another place and time. What a moving and beautiful story! By the time you reach the end, you are dizzy in the tale, and the strange and fantastic ending makes perfect sense and ends the story perfectly. Not for the light reader, but for a curl up and read for a weekend reader, this is a good book to 'escape' with." +2221,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1SA79XGVXS2DK,Amy,4/5,4.0,1297036800,A Drawback of Magical Realism,"This book is great for all of the reasons people have already listed in their 5- and 4-star reviews. No need to re-hash.Instead a brief meditation on the book's magical realism and its effect the narrator-character-reader relationship.The chronology of the book and its unusual treatment of character create a distancing effect. There are plenty of characters here and plenty of insightful moments with them but the narrator fleets between characters, and glances between intimate stays and vast summaries. This is clearly not a book that is read for character development (compared to a book that catalogs the life of a single character), understandable, but there is also a distancing effect caused by a lack of genuine sentiment. Often (even when we have rested with Ursula for many pages, or when we see the young Aureliano looking up to his father) this book feels as though it takes place in an alternate universe where the inhabitants are almost human, but different in a hard-to-place way. Uncanny valley, without the disturbing factor. Unlike Kafka's or even Grass's treatment of the surreal/magical, where the character is very thoroughly human in thought and action, Marquez's characters think and act in manners as stylized as the events. There is a charming, fairy-tale effect to this, but there is also a divorce of emotion both from the narrator and the reader. This seems to be a mark of Marquez (excuse me there), where his characters are either too stoic or too emotive and they never quite act as ordinary people. Does this further establish the enchanted world of Macondo as a place where the reader goes to frolic, to be dismayed, overjoyed, to be transported through time? Or does it act as a barrier, a pane of glass through which everything becomes two-dimensional? It depends on the reader." +2222,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,AYXJE3YCQAWGZ,Brian P. Schaefer,2/4,5.0,1150761600,Masterpiece,"This is my favorite novel by some distance. The novel is simultaneously the story of several generations of an extended family and the story of the entire human race from the beginning of history. It is full of magic not only in the sense that magical things happen, but also in its glowing prose and deeply sympathetic portrayals of its characters. The repetition and near-repetitions of names over the generations invite the reader to conflate information about different characters, demonstrating the interconnectedness of the family members. Maybe it doesn't matter if we keep their identities straight, and maybe we're not even supposed to. Let the plot swirl and let Marquez work his magic. Then step outside and notice how the world shimmers and glows." +2223,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2259M05F281C3,"John E. Harrigan ""Professor""",0/0,5.0,1256169600,Marquez is Marvelous,One Hundred Years of Solitude is marvelous--extraordinary in its emotional depth. Marquez's breadth of understanding of human situations and human motivations is seldom seen in books. Some people can't see the difference in quality between a Rembrandt and a Coca Cola sign. Looking at some Amazon readers' negative comments suggests the same lack of appreciation. Marquez is right up there with the best. +2224,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3QAZVNK7290VN,tothboy,7/7,5.0,1042502400,I'm sure I'm not the only one,"Suffice it to say, there are surely enough glorifying reviews of this novel to choke a donkey. But one more can't hurt at this point. I first read this novel for a class, ripping out the family tree to use as a bookmark so I wouldn't lose track of which Aureliano or Jose Arcadio I was reading about. It is very interesting to read a book with such a broad scope with a group of people available for discussion throughout. It is safe to say that there are few themes this novel leaves out. Love, hate, religion, revenge, progress... life literally oozes out of this book at every page. There wake of the story drags you along behind it long after you finish the final page. And Garcia is one of those authors who inspires us to ask after each sentence, "How the heck did he come up with this?" Easily one of the best novels of the twentieth century that I have read, and one that, at the very least, inspires us to see the beauty and the magic that resides in the world, to seek it out and love it." +2225,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,AIFAYABSV211N,saleem Little,1/1,5.0,1351209600,Captivating,"A fascinating journey. An epic that covers so many facets of life in a wonderful narrative. From love to hate, peace to war, discovery to conquest. I was completely enthralled in not only the story itself but how it was uniquley told. The imaginative nature made my reality dreamlike in the days it took me to finish this work. The story inspired and the style captivated. Hard to put down." +2226,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3MMSD81KPPYU0,"Juan C. Echeverri ""Juan Camilo""",9/13,5.0,1126656000,"Simple: If you are patient enough to finish it, you will like it","But if you give up before, it will not make sense to you and excuses will start to appear. This book is hard work, but only hard work yields great rewards.Best book in Latin American history and one of the 5 best books in human history." +2227,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2R1G8K6MSNRSW,kerowyn,1/5,4.0,1152057600,Definitely Different,"I am an avid book reader, but I have never read anything like this book. It is definitely different. Reviews on Oprah's book club site stated how many people cried at the end. I didn't--I didn't really like any of the characters. I do not know if it was because of a cultural difference or what. Basically I think it was because I could not get over the way Marquez writes about women...and the incest. Let's just say I was totally amazed to find out the author was actually married. However, it is a real experience to read and discuss this book with just about anyone. And the ending is superb--one of the best I've ever read." +2228,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3MX1GCVSKIIH3,David Michaels,6/24,1.0,1221955200,Appalling. . .,"I checked this book out of the library after reading rave review after rave review.I wanted to like it, I really did, but I honestly cannot understand all the high marks. To me the book reads as if it were written by a 6th-grader. Characterization and storyline aside, the language itself is what turned me off. It seemed stilted, contrived, lacking in fluidity, and devoid of any real color; an amateurish effort at best.Perhaps this reads better in its native tongue, but the translation I read was atrocious. I promptly returned it to the library, shooting it soundly down the return bin with a force that it so richly deserved." +2229,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2GCG4NLKG6O7Z,Diane A. Falconer-fayez,1/1,5.0,1289260800,Beauty manifested as letters,"If you want an example of how to touch the human heart with words on a page, look no further than the work of the incredible Gabriel Garcia-Marquez. You could open this book to a page in which the making of a ham sandwhich is being described, but if it is being described by Garcia-Marquez...you may find yourself in tears...this is not an exaggeration. The plot is completely original, the characterization is some of the best with certain characters such as Colonel Aureliano Buendia and Remedios the Beauty, and if there was ever a book that provided an escape to another world...this is it. After putting it down, you may look at your surroundings and find everything to be painfully dull. Gabo is a master." +2230,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1A58DW45TQZMX,Z. Blume,5/6,4.0,1038700800,Great for Attentive Readers,"One Hundred Years of Solitude is a very interesting book and a brief synopsis of its plot would involve sex, violence, death, war, and adventure--all topics that usually hold a reader's attention. Unfortunately, it is also a very difficult book to read because of the confusion caused by repetitive names, the reality mixed with fable style of the narrative, and the pace of the novel which jumps around constantly. This poses a problem for someone like myself who often likes to read on the bus or just for a few minutes before I go to sleep--I could not get in a ryhthm and would forget important details so the book did not always make sense. When I had time to concentrate it was beautifully written, intense, and interesting, so I would highly recommend it for someone with the time to really delve into and read it in long stretches. For people who like to read great literature but don't have much time to devote to this book, I would recommend you come back to this one later when you can devote yourself to it." +2231,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,AM66MDMCMTQZ3,Megami,4/4,5.0,998438400,The story of the Buendias and Macondo,"Why write a review if there are already so many? Perhaps one more will tip you over the edge, and you will buy the bookThis fantastical tale is based around the life of the Buendia family and the village that they founded, Macondo. While epic in its scale (one hundred years) it does not read like an epic. Rather, it is like listening to an old relative recount past ancestors, with a decidedly magical-realism spin. This book is beautifully written (and translated, by Gregory Rabassa) with some of the most evocative and lyrical prose you are likely to come across. Yet it is still a very sturdy story - while you could read it for the craftsmanship of the words alone, you would miss a very good tale. Marquez has the interesting technique of referring to events in his stories before they happen, so you joyfully look out for events coming up.A word of warning - make sure that the edition that you buy/borrow/steal has a copy of the family tree in the beginning - with so many characters having the same name, and the branches of the family being so entwined, you will find yourself referring to it time and again. And don't be put off by the number of pages - even though it has over 400, it never bogs down. Once you have read this wonderful tale of a village and family gone full circle, from a beginning to an end, you will realise why it was awarded the Nobel Prize. Treat yourself." +2232,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2G1Z591G9QWQC,danielle,4/5,4.0,1118880000,Mind-boggling!,"In One Hundred Years of Solitude, Gabriel Garcia Marquez writes of a fictional, mystical town called Macondo. The world is still recent and young, but one must question how young the world is due to conflicting descriptions in the book. One of the village's main founding members is José Arcadio Buendia and his wife Ursula. With these two people start the beginning of six generations of the Buendia family in Macondo. José Arcadio Buendia seeks knowledge all the time, and an important traveling gypsy named Melquiades helps out José Arcadio Buendia in his quest. Melquiades actually records important prophecies of the village that are not decoded until the village's last days. Macondo starts off peacefully, and nobody dies for many years, but as time goes on, wars between the Liberals and the Conservatives rage with some members of the Buendia family executed, and capitalism takes its root with a banana company that leaves many massacred in a strike not recorded by the history books.José Arcadio Buendia actually becomes insane because he realizes that time is cyclical and always repeating itself. In the six generations that follow, characters have the same names or names with slight variations, hinting at a cyclical history. Many instances must refer to past events to determine the future. A surreal air in this book is the result of many events and bustling people. Some members of the family live for abnormally long periods of time; dead characters never really die because their ghosts stay in Macondo; a pure and beautiful Buendia girl rises to heaven; and passionate (and sometimes incestuous) relationships flourish all the time. While some of the Buendia men are very hedonistic, especially for women, many men in the Buendia family have an air of solitude around them and never form true relationships with others. At the end of the book, the solitude of one of the Buendias is what brings the demise of the mystical town.One Hundred Years of Solitude, a book on distorted reality and cyclical history, is one of the most mind-boggling books I have ever encountered, and even though the book was very difficult to grasp, I'd say the 400+ pages were worth the magical trip. Marquez is a master storyteller, and although there were parts that were agonizingly long, the book as a whole is to be commended as a magical classic." +2233,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2BALF3QKYNGT2,Tito Sasaki,6/16,1.0,1229990400,A Literary Caper of the Century?,"Reportedly the author himself did not understand the success of this book. He said, ""Most critics don't understand a novel like One Hundred Years of Solitude is a bit of joke.--they take on the responsibility of decoding the book and risk making terrible fools of themselves."" I'm glad to know that at least the author wasn't fooled by his mediocre work.Throughout the book there is no uplifting or cathartic passage; the supposedly comical elements don't make you laugh; the tragic episodes don't make you cry; the style is unpolished; ""magical realism"" is used indiscriminately; and so are the words ""solitude"" and ""solitary"" which appear in every few pages. In the book practically everyone and everything is solitary. It's a red-tag sale of Solitudes. Yet, their solitude is merely circumstantial. It is not the type of haunting or ennobling solitude you find in Kafka's or Camus' work. Even in ""Hijo de hombre"" (Buenos Aires, 1961) by the contemporary Paraguayan author Augusto Roa Bastos, different characters from an impoverished village carry their true cross of solitude silently and bravely without even being aware of it.The book is worth reading only for the purpose of pondering why it has gained such popularity and acclaim." +2234,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2DB720I9XRX7K,K. Draper,3/4,5.0,1240963200,"I loved the Novel, but not the ""book"" (edition)","Thumbs up to Gabriel Garcia Marquez' fantastical epic novel, ""100 years of Solitude""! It is the story of Macondo, a fictional South American town founded by the bold patriarch of the Buendia clan, Jose Arcadio Buendia. Twenty households of folks subsist in peace and relative isolation, minding their own business, until hosts of visitors and newcomers, bringing new ideas--scientific, political, and economic--descend upon the sleepy village. These developments, along with the growth and development of the Buendias through generations, lead to unexpected and often bizarre and tragic results.Marquez' imagination seems to know no bounds, as he recounts story after incredible story in ridiculous detail, which are bound together with certain common recurring themes. The style of the novel, ""magical realism"", means that the most freakish stories are told in the same matter-of-fact tone as the most prosaic ones. Marquez grew up in the home of his grandparents, natural story tellers, who related countless such tall-tales in such a way, blurring the boundaries of reality and unreality. My favorite of these tall tales is the part, toward the end of the book where it rains for ""four years, eleven months, and two days"". What they went through during that time was hilarious and outlandish!Another big theme is the recurring personalities of the male Buendias across five generations. The author does a good job of creating real and interesting characters, but I particularly enjoyed some of the female ones, as they were each quite different and extraordinary. Ursala, the matriarch, is a central central figure who lives over a hundred years, during which she works endlessly to care for the family throughout the generations. Fernanda, the wife whom Aureliano Segundo takes from a ruined aristocratic family in ""the Highlands"", never really fits in. The best Fernanda scene is during the rainy season, when she drones on complaining at Aureliano for an incredible three pages with just one sentence!One of the many themes in the book that interest me is the strong sense of irony which pervades the novel on many levels. The overriding irony which also underlies the whole story is the circular nature of time--the recurring personality types and their dysfunctional actions which they seem doomed to repeat. This is an irony of tragic futility. At times it seems tedious, but the author uses it to brilliant effect, and particularly at the end, where the story culminates with one surprising final ironic twist.These are just a few of my ideas and reflections about this monumental work. Lastly, I suggest that you buy one of the other editions of the book because this one is rather flimsy and cheaply made. The Oprah book club edition (which I have not seen) can be had for $7.00, including shipping, and the hardback for $11.12, if you click on the words ""32 new"". I hope this helps. Enjoy!" +2235,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1ZIUC524A33QA,Richard C.,18/43,1.0,951696000,"100 years to read, a bramble of impenetrable verbage...","It takes a long time to learn about over fifty characters and this novel's meandering prose and run-on sentences don't make it any quicker. This is gritty, offbeat stuff for the serious Garcia-Marquez enthusiast. The reward readers must feel at the end is that they've endured a tedious, difficult novel, but not an enjoyable one." +2236,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2T6RWGHT3DIDH,"Suzanne E. Anderson ""Author""",2/2,5.0,1221955200,Magical and All Encompassing,"A few writers in each generation are gifted with such writing talent that they create books that make you catch your breath. Gabriel Garcia Marquez is one of those writers. His gift with prose, the way he uses language, his storytelling ability is staggering. This is an engrossing read from the very first sentence. You will be captivated by the magical world that has been created and the all too human characters that populate the story.For reading pleasure, I would recommend the Harper Perennial Modern Classics edition of this book, which has those very convenient flaps on the front and back covers that make perfect bookmarks to save your page when you do manage to put the book down!" +2237,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2HA3DGGTU8QVG,Adam Douglass Burtch,0/0,5.0,1360800000,I keep returning to re-read this book,"This is the most LUSH book I have ever read. The content is heady like the humid air of the rainforest. It is dense with wise, human understanding, the style straddling poetry and prose. I'll often re-read a paragraph in breathless amazement of what I've just read. I must take it in small bites - as if it's simply too rich, like a steak with bernaise sauce. But each re-reading brings joy." +2238,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3FIMCQFZA6GAZ,"""a_sprinkle_of_pixiedust""",2/3,5.0,986774400,One Hundred Years of Solitude,"An amazingly beautiful lyrical book which carefully weaves magicical realism into the intricate account of 100 years of a family, each character unique, complex and endearing. Every sentence reads like poetry and soon you are entranced, finding yourself drifting dazily into the town of Macondo, and imagining hanging your cot with the rest of the Buendia family. I have read this book three times, and notice new glimpses of Marquez's genius each time. And if the lyrical passages and poetic descriptions aren't enough, there is lots of sex, war, jealousy, violence, passion and love. Only the brilliance of Marquez could combine all of this into one book. And most delightful of all, the images linger long after the last page has been read." +2239,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,AXD4BR4EB1SJF,chaeriny,3/5,5.0,1090108800,"One Hundred Years of Solitude, or Destination of man kind?","Far from being a novel yet a bible in the context of human history, this book tells much to all man kind. Once you finish the book, you would realize you're always alone even if you're living in a metropolis.The book is a story of a family who has lived in Macondo for about hundred years. The family started with mischief, which prevailed the fate of the family. But the family and Macondo vanished from the Earth when a baby was born with a pig tail.Bible tells about God's love towards human being; the book tells about the life of people who were deserted from God. Bible says about the Judgement of man kind; the book says about the suffering of deserted people. Bible is the promise of the uncertain salavation and Second Advent of Christ; the book is the story about the fate of deserted people who should suffer solitude even after dying.If you couldn't help but feel lonely, this book tells you why." +2240,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2ENIQZX6VJYUM,J. Robinson,4/5,5.0,1189123200,Like a Painting by Salvador Dali: Complex and Surreal,"This is not a conventional novel and readers will have to re-think how they look at a novel. I kept trying to understand exactly what was happening, until I got to page 135 and read the following passage and then it became clear.""A trickle of blood came out under the door, crossed the living room, went out into the street, continued on in a straight line across the uneven terraces, went down steps and climbed over curbs, passed along the Street of the Turks, turned a corner to the right and another to the left, made a right angle to the Burendia house, went under the closed door, crossed through the parlor, hugging the walls as to not stain the rug, went on to the other living room, made a wide curve to avoid the dining room table, went along the porch with the begonias, ""What does this all mean? It is clear that the novel is not based on reality but instead has a dream like quality to the story. It is an allegory or myth. Was it all a dream by the narrator?The other literary feature is the use of names which is repetitive and similar. There are so many similar names and new characters that it is almost impossible to keep everything clear so the plot always has a certain level of chaos. Mixed in with that, the novel has the numerous unions between family members, revolutions, exaggerations, and the use of profanity by the characters. What are we to make of all of this chaos? In fact what exactly does Marquez mean by the word ""solitude?"" He seems to use it to represent social isolation between characters in the novel.Finally, all of the names and the relations tend to mix up the concept of time. The time does not seem to be linear. There seems to be cross generational discussions, even though we have five or six generations of people all related.This is an unusual novel like almost no other. The read is slow and complicated or a slow read is required to extract all the details. In any case, it takes more than one read.Very unusual: 5 stars." +2241,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3CWR2XUP8C9X1,Ozzbucket88,6/7,5.0,1244505600,Cruel and with no redemptive value,"This is a hard book to read. It is equally despising and depressing, and somewhat boring in its literalness of the biblical-style apocalyptic approach to the whole fiasco that is the comedy of Latin America. But at its surface (and the novel is entirely a surface phenomenon because of its literalness) there are levels of cruelty unimagined by any other writer, and maybe for this the novel deserves its distinction. Jose Arcadio Buendia, a former god-believing man hoping to acquire science (because he doesn't want to ""live like donkeys"") then losing his faith (because the ""daguerreotype proves god's inexistence"") declares after extensive investigation that the earth is round (""like an orange"") and ends with him going crazy (in the deadest of dead languages, Latin). Garcia-Marquez saves the worst cruelty for the son, Colonel Aureliano Buendia, who hopes for military glory and meaning to his life, but who instead is thrown back into the dark pit of memory and regret, dragging around military failure and indecision like a paralyzed limb, despising everything, women, ideals, etc. And introducing vultures at his death just seemed to underscore the literalness and cruelty of the text as a whole. Every other Buendia after them is parodic of the modern man or woman. Choose the degeneracy, and Marquez embodies it in a later Buendia: the libertine, the glutton, the free spirit, philanderer, the rake, the reprobrate, isolationist. All of these are present to some extent in Jose Arcadio Buendia or Colonel Aureliano Buendia, but they are not definitive of and do not circumscribe their personalities as they do in the later Buendias. And of these later Buendias Marquez depicts their downfall like roaches being stamped out, in the blackest of black humor, which is why readers complain about the unheroic qualities, the hollowness and boredom of succeeding generations, which is the whole point. Marquez detests his world (not in the beginning which is idyllic, but its later manifestations) and weaves his story with the cruelty this form of detestation takes: Locked in fatalistic moments as inescapable as Homer's, whether living tediously (usually the women) or dying early (usually the men) for they-don't-know-what. The Buendia men utter stupid things before being executed and wholly misunderstand their existence. And there are no gods to lighten things up, like in the Iliad. War is farcical (Ursula reminds them that although they are soldiers, their ""mothers reserve the right to take down their pants and spank them""). Loyalty is literally a laughing matter (the illegal painting of ballot cards being the spur for Aureliano to choose political sides, because one side is ""trickier than the other""). There isn't even a redemptive figure, like in the Bible. There is a level of literalness here which is juvenile (e.g. names as determinants of behavior), almost nave for a modern novel, until you realize the meticulous stage-setting for destruction taking place. The novel doesn't suffer from too much fantasy, it's mired in too much depressive reality. The fantasy only leavens it a bit, but this doesn't distract from the cruelty being perpetrated. Sex is of course freely enjoyed (and that taboo, incestual sex) but this sensual mirage is only a distraction, for the characters and the reader, from what's happening right before their eyes. The book has no political, philosophical, or sociological agenda, moral or immoral. The only point, foretold in the beginning and coming at the end, is eventual extinction, which is hardly a point. Although it is better than the Bible and the Iliad, by being crueler, the reader should beware: this novel is like a Toltec or Aztec statue, one with snakes for heads and hearts and severed hands for necklaces, unimpressive at first sight until you do a complete 360 survey of it and realize it fits right into the cruel landscape their sculptors inhabited. And there is no way out. Everything is there on the surface. There is no redemptive value in this kind of fiction. It doesn't extend outside itself. Multiple readings do not yield multiple levels of meaning. It means everything it says." +2242,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,AXIWSILFUYH82,"D. Hahn ""dhwwolfe""",4/8,3.0,1144195200,"Great literature, not so good read","I recognize the importance of this book and it's achievement in literary history as well as for latin american literature, but the book is still very difficult to read only because I wanted to enjoy it so much, but often found myself lost. Maybe that's what is supposed to happen, but it gets frustrating. I found A Clockwork Orange, Trainspotting, Maribou Storke Nightmares and Slaughterhouse Five all easier to read than this and most of those took some work. It doesn't have anything to do with the words or dialog. I admire the simple prose and find a majority of the book thoughtful and beautiful, but the circular story structure and the multitude of character names being so similar (especially in the later generations) does start to wear on you. I recommend it, with a warning." +2243,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3M4JQAYBN38KJ,Maria Jeffrey,6/22,1.0,1256515200,Absolutely Awful,"I was very excited to read this book, and plunged right in when it arrived. As I continued to read, waiting for the plot to kick in, or for something to persuade me to keep reading, I realized the moment would never come. This book represents some of the worst writing I have ever encountered, and it seemed like Marquez was trying too hard to sound poetic. Oh, and after hanging on to witness the full plot, I discovered that there really isn't one. I would not recommend this book to anyone because it is a complete waste of time-- so don't be fooled by people who claim this book is beautiful, like I did. It's anything but." +2244,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2C1GJPAMJAA1N,"Nico1908 ""NTF""",5/24,1.0,1205366400,What a drag!,"I have to read this book for a Great Books meeting in two weeks, but I don't think I can finish it. It took me six weeks to get halfway through it because it is so incredibly boring that I have a hard time motivating myself to pick it back up after putting it down.The characters range from unengaging to infuriating, their multitude and the fact that most of them have very similar names is confusing (especially since the story jumps back and forth in time), and their actions are often revolting (what a bunch of spineless, brainless women, and let's not even think about the macho men!).I find the book thoroughly unentertaining and pointless. What is the author trying to say? Is there a message somewhere? What kind of story is this supposed to be? Since it contains surreal things like flying carpets and quasi-immortal people, I'm guessing it's some sort of fairytale. If it is, all I can say is that the Brothers Grimm wrote better fairytales than this guy!" +2245,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3VAXB8CDYY5BG,J. E. Barnes,11/12,5.0,1089072000,Human Frailty In An Infinite Universe,"Gabriel Garcia Marquez' groundbreaking masterpiece '100 Years of Solitude' (1967) is both a comic and a tragic meditation on numberless vagaries of human existence.As the book's title suggests, the novel details the history of three generations in the Buendia family, who found the small, isolated, and swamp-surrounded South American town of Macondo during the 19th century. As an authentic and frequently unprecedented work of literature, '100 Years of Solitude' stands as a robust and healthy challenge to the social, religious, and literary excesses of Protestantism, to which it offers a brilliantly colored, deeply felt, and sensual alternative. With its underpinnings in pagan Catholicism, '100 Years of Solitude' boils over with a psychologically profound, brash, visceral, and distinctly Latin vision of life.Flying freely in the face of Western scientific and philosophical rationalism, the novel offers its readers plagues of forgetfulness, sleeplessness, and clouds of yellow butterflies, ascensions by the living into the heavens, lifelong correspondences with ""invisible doctors,"" ""suspicions of elves,"" and rain storms and droughts that continue for years on end. One character senses that the Buendias are caught in a tight chronal frame of eternal reoccurrence, while another, perceiving a world without genuine boundaries of any kind, plucks knowledge from a collective unconscious floating in the air while claiming ""everything is known.""Though levitating priests, flying carpet-riding Arabs, fraternal twins who trade destinies, and miraculous inventions abound, the novel never strays very far from its genuine and sincerely felt focus on the vicissitudes of the perpetually vulnerable, desiring, and inherently daydreaming nature of man. Among other things, '100 Years of Solitude' is also a profound meditation on the absurdly barbaric nature of war and the greedy, egotistical, and shortsighted character of the political arena.The Buendia family produces--and keeps producing--two basic kinds of men: idealistic, solitary, single-minded, and creative introverts, represented by the family's patriarch, Jose Arcadio Buendia and his son, Colonel Aureliano Buendia, and the more virile, self-serving, and callous hedonists best represented by sexually potent near-giant Jose Arcadio.Only the perceptive, long-suffering, and ancient family matriarch, Ursula Iguaran, struggles to maintain an objective and ordered understanding of the generally Dionysian chaos that surrounds and eventually envelopes her extended brood. For Ursula, there is little if any relief ever, as the forces of nature and ungainly human passion continuously destroy and deface the fruits of the family's often admirable labors. In the extended, complex, and secretive tangle of Macondo interrelationships, it is Ursula who consciously struggles to prevent incestuous couplings; her continuous prophecy that unbridled lust and misguided emotional liaisons will eventually produce a monster, ""a child with the tail of a pig,"" resounds throughout the book.The theme of human solitude is underscored as the one constant and dependable fact of human existence. Every character, by the very nature of their individuality, as well as by the simple hard truths of procreation, is set apart from the others in some distinct but irrevocable manner, whether it be their otherworldly beauty, idiot nature, inherent reflexivity, or a traumatizing episode in their childhoods. Living together in the vast Buendia complex, which is continually collapsing and being rebuilt, the characters often spend months in silence or near silence, even during periods of prosperity and relative happiness.Some characters happily board themselves up in shuttered rooms and become unwashed hermit scholars, while others, quietly planning illusory acts of revenge in response to illusory wrongs, simply don't speak out of spite for the span of their lifetimes.Some lose their minds as a result of their shattered dreams and obsessive memories of youthful promise. Ghosts of the dead walk the rooms and corridors too, equally isolated in death as in life. One comparatively minor character, Santa Sofia de la Piedad, like Georgina Hogg in Muriel Spark's 'The Comforters' (1957), simply ceases to exist from time to time at the author's whim.Even the more blithe and extroverted characters express themselves predominantly through action rather than words, and for all except Ursula, the stifling burden of unconsciousness is easier to bare than the sustained effort that consciousness requires.Gabriel Garcia Marquez has said that '100 Years of Solitude' came to him in ""an illumination,"" a statement that the novel's warm, organic, and fluidly archetypal prose bears out completely.Unlike the later 'Love in the Time of Cholera' (1985), the author's discerning, discriminating, and intruding hand is never sensed. Although frequently funny, brilliantly sustained passages of imaginative and fantastic material (some reminiscent of the Washington Irving of ""Knickerbocker's History Of New York,"" ""Dolph Heyliger,"" and ""Wolfert Webber"") are often followed by short, terse sentences of extreme brutality, such as one concerning a child hacked to death with a machete for spilling a drink on an arrogant soldier's uniform.The novel's conclusion, which unhappily recalls several of Edgar Allen Poe's short stories, may seem inevitable to some readers, while others may find it something of a betrayal of the book's overall tone. Regardless, the glorious miracle that is human existence, and a sense of the inherent, if often hidden, possibilities in all things are sumptuously served up for the reader in passage after passage.Throughout, '100 Years of Solitude' offers a compassionate, beatific vision that, while free of hard-edged moralizing, also never swerves away from the unpleasant truths inherent in human nature and man's finite physical existence. Though the repetitious names of many of the characters can become disheartening (5 major and 17 minor characters, for instance, share the name ""Aureliano""), like Muriel Spark's 'The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie' (1963), it is a novel that can appreciated and understood by all people, regardless of nationality, social status, educational level, or background." +2246,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3075RVSKC27HU,"P. Nicholas Keppler ""rorscach12""",4/5,5.0,1027641600,Achingly beautiful,"One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez is the type of book that once you finish reading, you will want to buy a copy for everyone you know. This tremendous novel is so pressed with humanity that you will suspect that every person you know will be able to relate to some aspect of it. One Hundred Years of Solitude is the story of the Buendia family, a dynasty that inhabits the mythical village of Macondo for ten decades until the last of their line breathes his last breath. The cast of characters continually changes as new Buendias are born, grow up and die. Mr. Marquez invents a singular, mystical air for each of his characters, charging each of their tales with enchantment, wonderment and meaning. In the span of their existences, some of the family seek love, others solitude; some serenity, others uprising; some industry, others intimacy. Regardless of his or her life's pursuit, each member of this family is absolutely unforgettable and very easy to sympathize with. Some novels incorporate a tremendous range of the uniformly important aspects of life. This is certainly one of them." +2247,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3U36FS0SRBNKY,Charlie Brown.,2/6,5.0,1103500800,Not anyone can do what Garcia Marquez did with this book,"It is incredible what this book can do, considering myself quite ayoung reader I can say that it was this novel the one that forged my future as far as the reading. 4 years ago with only 13 years this book arrived in my hands, in my opinion i had already had enough youth novels already and i felt prepared to to move on and so i decided that this would be the book with which would begin my reading maturity. If this was the best or worse desicion of my life i don't know, by one side it was the best one because i found my favorite book and writer aswell, but on the other hand it can also be the worse because no longer can i be conformed to reading light novels that do not make me feel as much reality in fictitious facts as they words of Garcia Marquez made me feel. That is what moves me to continue looking for something that gives that back to me , feeling so entered in a history that also becomes part of my history. I have nothing more to say than,if you have the opportunity to read this masterpiece don't give it a second thought and do it." +2248,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3TUIMBRF1JYXP,Daniela spoto,6/9,2.0,1288915200,Too ADD for this book,"Ok, let me begin by saying this is my first Amazon review. I had to come on here and read some negative reviews of this book to make sure I wasn't totally crazy. After doing so, I feel a bit better, but still feel the need to add this:Yes, it annoyed me that all the characters have the same name, and unlike other reviewers, this was not something I was willing to either overlook, get used to, or appreciate for it's symbolism, (i.e. that the individual characters aren't supposed to matter, it's the family).Also, I couldn't stand how a paragraph would run an entire page without breaking, and if you skip a line or two, you miss A LOT. For example, in one paragraph, spanning one page, a character may have a child, but the focus of the section is more on the character's father than the new family member. Or a character may die, and you would entirely miss it. It's like trying to read someone's stream of consciousness and decipher a very intricate plot line from it: infuriating.Some other negative reviews mentioned issues with the morality of the story, which actually does not bother me in the slightest. I can appreciate a story that bares the ugly insides of the human soul with the best of them. The politics of the story were not a deal-breaker for me, it was the writing style.This all being said, I am perfectly comfortable with the fact that many (if not most) other people reading this review feel sorry for me for missing the point. I probably did miss the point, but I do feel better knowing that I wasn't the only one. I now feel like can stop torturing myself by forcing myself to read the last couple of chapters." +2249,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A70IC4MMG6R30,Susie Sharon,1/3,5.0,1081382400,Unbelievable,"There's been a huge amount of reviews about this book already so there is no point in resuming the story. This book, although not at all the kind I usually enjoy kept me in its grip from beginning to end. The events are far-fetched and unbelievable but it still holds you. The style of writing is very particular. There's almost no dialogue yet you know all that is said or done. I really loved the passage, toward the end of the book where Fernanda goes on and on and the actual sentence is actually pages long! It's a very passionate, very interesting book. I really loved. I think people will either hate or love it. There is no in-between. Happy Reading!" +2250,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,2/2,5.0,1034121600,One of the best books to read,I read this book In spanish for my AP Spanish class when I was a junior in high school and now that I am a college junior I still think it is one of the best books that I ever read. It is an incredible book filled with magic and Marquez is a genious indeed. I highly recommend for anyone to read Love in the times of Cholera because that is one of the best romantic and magical novels ever. +2251,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1583JU5WDH5CG,"C. Sullivan ""cateler""",0/0,4.0,1057104000,So many Buendias,"This book was everything it is billed to be. I picked it up as a "classic to read over the summer". This is one of the better choices I've made in this annual quest. Although I must admit to getting very lost at times trying to keep all of the Jose's, Ursula's and others straight. I often found myself re-reading chapters to figure out exactly who was involved! That said, the re-reading was not unpleasant, as it can often be when you get lost.This is a book that you should add to your "things to read to remain well-rounded" list (just make sure you have plenty of time - this is not a quick read.)" +2252,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1CRUT5746U4PC,"Mekhala Vasthare ""occasional insomniac""",6/6,5.0,1134172800,"Bewitchingly imaginative, yet hauntingly real","I was just reading the press release issued by the Nobel committee in '82 and I couldn't help remembering the sense of magical (yet tragic) surrealism that permeates through his writing.. the past, the present and the future all come together in an incredible, liquid mosaic that's simply mesmerizing. Both '100 years of solitude' and 'love in the time of cholera' are vivid and oh-so-alive. The historical feuds that have shaped the landscape of LatAm and the political, social turmoil of today all flow together as one surreal, mystic river and Marquez navigates the river like no one else." +2253,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A33WYXI3DVWFJ7,"Michael Hager ""Scribe""",3/4,5.0,984528000,A Masterpiece for our time.,"There has been so much written about this book. I've read it twice and it amazed me the second time more than the first. It is magical and marvelous, you won't believe what you are reading so you must go with the flow or the oncoming rain in this case. Sometimes it's best to suspend one's disbelief and skepticism and move where the maestro (Garcia-Marquez) takes you. To say anything more is pointless. Please stop staring at the computer and order this book! And enjoy!" +2254,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2NJFABALKZG3F,"Sarah J. Salas ""Sarah J Salas""",1/2,5.0,1235952000,A Classic Must-read,"In One Hundred Years of Solitude, Gabriel García Márquez introduces us to the mythical town of Macondo, and tells the story of the Buendía family who live, love and die there. It is a fascinating novel, full of dozens f plots that wind through a land where magic is part of daily life.We follow the Buendía family through the town's founding and the first Jose Arcadio Buendía, throughout several generations to the books conclusion. In the beginning, the town of Maconda is a peaceful town isolated from the rest of the world, save for gypsies who visit every year, bringing new amazing things with them. Eventually the town, and the Buendía family, lose their isolation as civil war, innovation and industry (in the form of the Banana company) sweep in.One Hundred Years of Solitude is hands down the best book I have read this year. It is not an easy read, but it is worth it. As much a philosophical study as an entertaining novel, you can read as much, or as little, into the story as you wish. There are complex themes blended with funny stories and exciting and surreal mini-plots. It is written in the style of ""Magical Realism,"" and there are several events throughout the book that are totally unexplained, and you are just forced to take them for what they are. Surprisingly, this is not as hard to do as you might think. The book has a great flow and you find yourself sucked into the lives of the Buendía family.Márquez does an amazing job of mixing fantasy with reality and weaving them into a moving novel. The loneliness and desperation of Colonel Aureliano Buendía is palpable throughout the war years, and the theme of desperation pervades the whole book. When a character finds its way out of the city, such as when Remedios the Beauty rises to heaven, one feels elation for that character that they found a way to escape. Despite the sense of apathy that surrounds the book, the short anecdotal story lines keep the book from becoming bogged down and boring.The hardest part of reading this book was keeping some of the names straight. Several of the male characters have the same two names (Aureliano or Jose Arcadio), and many of the lives are so intertwined that even those with names that are not similar are still easy to confuse. This was a detail I became accustomed to however, and there was a family tree included in the beginning of the book that helped to clarify thing.While One Hundred Years of Solitude, may not be light reading, it is a novel worth finishing (If for no other reason that to finally put all of the story-lines missing plot pieces together.) Like all good novels, there are questions in the book that are answered in the end and others that we can only answer ourselves. If you are looking for a book to challenge you and at the same time entertain you I highly recommend One Hundred Years of Solitude." +2255,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1BU5VQ2K5HF6W,William Brownville,3/8,2.0,1267920000,Maybe I just don't get it,"Not sure why this book has been so raved about. When I bought it, the book store clerk told me it was his ""favorite book ever"". That's quite an endorsement.I found it to be really uninteresting. It's almost all exposition, with little dialogue. The characters may be ""memorable"", but only because they're ""boring"". None of them have any personality (although one is well-endowed, which is nice) and is the author just *trying* to be difficult when he gives them all such similar names?This book felt like the authors parents told him lots of stories and fables when he was growing up, and he tried to cram them all into one long stream on consciousness tale. I abandoned it half-way through." +2256,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A22DUZU3XVA8HA,Guillermo Maynez,9/9,5.0,980985600,A world in itself,"Vargas LLosa, another great writer, said once that the novelist is a God-killer, who creates and manipulates his own world. Perhaps the finest example of this truth is this novel by Garcia Marquez. A metaphor of Colombia's history it may be, but that interpretation would be excessively narrow. Garcia Marquez creates a world with its own physical rules, its own gods and its own destiny. It traces the story of the Buendia family and Macondo, the town they founded and that will exist as long as the lineage exists. Of course, this is a thoroughly unpredictable novel, precisely because it does not follow the rules of the world we live in. The characters are complex but they are archetypical. Another revieweer correctly described the categories and personalities of women and men, and of the people sharing a particular name. This novel prompted the surge of "magical realism" and modern Latin American literature. Unfortunately although predictably, many bad imitations have followed, like the very bad "Like water for chocolate". Don't read imitations, come to the real thing where unbelievable events happen without ever becoming corky.The novel has biblical aspirations, and I could feel that throughout it all. It will rain for forty years; a man will stay enclosed in his room for years; a blood stain will wander the town. Extremely well written, it is a demandind text, not to be read while answering phone calls. Its beauty remains unsurpassed in its genre. It is perfectly woven and tightly knit, and it will stay with you for ever." +2257,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,ACZHLZLQWV0DI,Jenna Moore,12/13,5.0,1157414400,Creative Mastery,"I truly cannot remember the last time I have read something so imaginitive and insightful. While this book is sure to make you laugh, the wisdom imparted through hysterical and fantastic happenings is almost chilling at times. This book reminds me of Voltaire's ""Candide,"" in that it takes a satirical tone towards the human race. A piece of advice: Definitely read this book at a time when you won't have to take too much time away from it. The character list is long, and it can be difficult to become reoriented. A perfect vacation read!" +2258,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,AOATU8HTGEXYV,Varsha,3/5,3.0,1082592000,"Intermittent magic, but mainly real","If magic realism means magic in parts and mundanely real in other parts, then the book was faithful to that style. I must admit feeling cheated at the end to discover that what we had journeyed through was just Melquiade's script. On the whole, it was pretty laborious reading - even for a rapacious reader like me. The book is mainly a linear narrative punctuated only scantily by actual dialogue. This makes it rather tedious as you have to trudge through a lot of narration before you arrive at actual dialogue, something that deprives a lot of the characters of color. I think there is an optimum ratio of dialogue to narration that they preach in writing schools, but clearly Marquez is above those. Redundancy in the names of the characters greatly bottlenecks the fluidity of the texts. I kept wishing that he had named the characters uniquely because this style is not at all reader-friendly - and I don't care how illustrious and felicitated a writer you are supposed to be, it is just plain sadistic to foist that on unsuspecting readers. I guess I am not the first one to say that I had to keep reverting to the family tree to re-orient myself with the characters. It seems to be a signature of Marquez that his characters sexualities blossom pretty early. I read Love in the Time of Cholera some while back and this was the most disturbing of that book (okay aside from a senescent man's capering with a pre-pubescent child), until I realised it was a recurring feature in One Hundred Years too. I am still unsure if that's the magic or realism kicked in, or if I am just in a cultural warp. All that said, the reason I can't entirely trash the book is that Marquez's expressions and felicity with words in parts is exquisite. I am a sucker for masterstroke opening lines, and this book's opener will remain in my memory long after that of the characters has dissolved. So I do appreciate those vignettes of genius that emerge from what is otherwise an ordinary work that doesn't merit the rapture surrounding it." +2259,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3UX9YA66ABVX,SalveteAmici@Eldish.Net,1/2,5.0,870998400,Unraveling the trail of clues,"One of the most compelling scenes in "100 Years" is Arcadio stuck against the wall, shot within Rebeca's horrified glance. Aureliano escapes by the intervention of Jose Arcadio, who in turn is shot by Rebeca. The trickle of blood has trailed in its seventeen-verb course through town to be discovered by Ursula just as she is about to separate the thirty-six eggs for the baking bread. Then Ursula like Theseus follows the trail in reverse, discovering both victim and murderer. As readers we too pursue a trail of clues to unravel the family saga.Both firing squad scenes form a gruesome irony on a potent symbol of Hispanic culture, the ubiquitous crucifix. Somehow I had not expected to witness, as reader, either of those scenes. It is almost a "Ben Hur" effect, that the witnessing of an execution sets one to thinking and in his case believing. On the other hand, Aureliano appears to be the main protagonist, and thus his death is hard to believe in, despite all the foretellings. Several of those little warnings deviate to the effect of "years later, when he was an old man," so that his death by firing squad is incongruous. But other "facts" we accept have already been violated and therefore it is not impossible.There is something amusing about breaking oneself away from "100 Years," ending at Ursula's comment upon getting a letter from Aureliano in Cuba that he will spend Christmas at "the remote ends of the earth," to turn to Alexander Humboldt's real-life "Voyage to the Equatorial Regions" from the Canaries across the Atlantic to some of the very places (whichever they are) traversed by Aureliano. Indeed, "100 Year"'s insistence on anonymity of place (except for the obviously fictitious Macondo) implies its events can happen practically anywhere in South America. The not infrequent mention of the Caribbean, the seasonal rains and the tropical forests specifically suggest southern Venezuela or Brazil or anywhere within Garcia Marquez's Colombian homeland.Even so, we should not take geophysical signs too literally in this work. The very mixture of alleged facts allows us to conceive of a Pan American (or Pan South American) ethos, a world of chaos in which the whole world is one's own tiny village, in which one's life is but a process in an entire generation and an entire genealogy. In turn, the genealogy is played out in the entire lineage, each individual living out both the past and the future.Then, too, Garcia Marquez forces us to examine our own assumptions of reality and civilization, to examine microscopically every detail we consider normal and reassess it from every angle. What are familial relations? What is war? What is communication? What is love? What is peace? What is the development of a town? What is manly honor and womanly virtue? What is philosophy? What is a noble idea vs. a silly charlatanism?All these and more are facets of life that he turns upside down and inside out -- the priestly levitation is one of the more literal examples -- to reveal ever more intimacy of the individuals involved and ever more that makes us question our very selves. To read Garcia Marquez is to journey into the heart of oneself, even as Humboldt travels into the very geographical territory of Garcia Marquez. It is a fascinating quest, each author enriching the other and both enriching me. Garcia Marquez assembles such an oddball amalgam of verisimilitude in the details, while at the same time presenting such an outrageous sequence of events, that the whole notion of history and of fiction (as in Borges) is called into question.It is interesting to see how the people of Macondo hear war and rumors of war from all parts, how contradictory reports reach them, only to be reversed by even more mutually contradictory notices. All of that is so typical of a world without mass media, yet to turn on CNN and read a newspaper account or two creates the same chaos. The only difference is the quality of the presentation, the so-called reliability of the sources. It is just a game whose sophistication has been improved, not -- I think -- its essence.At the same time of the limited communication of Macondo, Humboldt reveals his marvel at the wonders of "modern progress and civilization" (c. 1800) that allow residents of the remotest pampas of Argentina to communicate via mail with their fellow espanoles in Mexico and Florida. Together, these two concepts of communication, occurring more or less simultaneously since the war in "100 Years" seems to happen just after the great south American revolutions, comprise a dramatic irony to the state of mail I find in today's Venezuela. To send a letter from Caracas to Punto Fijo (some 200 miles) sometimes takes thirty days, while in Humboldt's day a twice-monthly trip was made from Buenos Aires to Spain. In "100 Years" news often travels faster, but always with a question of reliability. The supreme irony is that all is already foretold, right back at home.This is a book I will read over and over again to savor the richness of its poetic tones and the multiple layers of ironic and dramatic richness. It is like an English trifle, to be visually admired as a whole then to be nibbled away at in bites, each time savoring a new flavor and an unexpected taste" +2260,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,AWX0QJYFS16KC,Vicky Chong,0/0,3.0,1208476800,Read it as a challange.,"This book was written in Spanish and was translated into English by Gregory Rabassa, and I felt he tried to stick as closely to the Spanish language as possible.The sleeve of this book summarises the story of ""the rise and fall, birth and death of the mythical town of Macondo through the history of the Buendia family"". True, the writing is sometimes amusing and witty that I burst out laughing while reading it, like the feasting dual between Camila, 'the Elephant', and Aureliano Seguando. I also like how the author describe Ursula, the Matriah of the family, goes about as lucid as ever, even after she became blind, as she discovered every member of her family repeated the same path, same action and the same words at the same hour. It's only when they deviated from the meticulous routine did they run the risk of losing something. Quote: ""The search for lost things is hindered by routine habits and that is why it is so difficult to find them."" How true!Some sub story on the different members of the 6 generation family is just so incredulous. Remedio the beauty not only captivated men and eventually killed them, but her secnt lingered on wherever she had been. Then there is the fluttering yellow butterflies to signal the appearence of Mauricio Babilonia, and Fernanda, whoes father sent her children gifts of saint statues every Christmas, and whoes last gift is of himself in a coffin.The book starts with the marriage of two cousins, Ursula and Jose Arcadio Buendia, who close boodline marriage was a constant source of worry, for it was believed that the offspring may be born with a pig's tail. Cleverly, it ended with the birth of a son with a pig's tail, the result of an affair between 2 cousins six generations later.The book was difficult to read because the names of the offspring were repeated as they were named after their fathers. So in the book, there were 19 Aurelianos and 3 Arcadios in 2 generations. Luckily there was a family tree diagramm for readers to constantly refer to in case they got lost. The use of pronouns 'he' and 'she' even after 2 subjects was discussed also lead to some confusion, as i had to figure out which subject the author was referrring to.It is a clever book and only a genius of a writer could clearly articulate the different characters that make up this 6 generation family and the detailed relationship between each one." +2261,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,4/4,5.0,942019200,Best book I`ve ever read,"I have read this book for a three times and I stil find here something, which can cheer me up. Marquez` magic realizm is very sensitive and vital. His novel will be probably always in my bookcase." +2262,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A26WDR12FVX9OV,"Lola Ross ""loross2""",7/10,5.0,1083715200,A Beautiful Translation,"This book was beautifully translated, there was nothing that was lost. Every generation blends together so well that it's amazing. I know others find it boring at times, but I found that there isn't a moment of boredom while reading it. I loved this book. It was so very well-written, and the characters truly shine and come alive. I think everyone should read this classic!" +2263,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A18ZOAL9AL33RZ,Juliana Ely,1/1,5.0,985132800,The best way to experience latin american fantastic realism,"If you are starting to read latin american, fantastic realism or both, you should start with this book. Since half the characters have the same name (actually, there are two names that repeat through the book), I would suggest to read it all in one or two weeks...it's easier to remember the names and small details - which are plenty, by the way. Its characters are well depicted, and show the difference between anglo-saxon and latin characters. Also, the sensuality of the latin novel is quite well represented in this book, though it main focus is far more broad than sensuality. Comparing the sensual passages with - say - those from Henry Miller, is quite enlightening...While the second is objective and raw, the former brings the reader a richer experience." +2264,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A36AMJHL1CULS1,JOHN,2/4,5.0,1099958400,My mother said it would blow me away...it did!,"My all-time favorite book (before this one): ""A Confederacy Of Dunces"" by John Kennedy Toole. As a resident of New Orleans, LA for 21 years, I have revered John Kennedy Toole's work as a signpost for the future of literary genius. Walker Percy helped bring 'Confederacy' to the marketplace because he saw Toole's magical view of the world.Most who revere '100 Years' will think me absurd, but there is a magical quality to 'Confederacy' which mirrors the yellow butterflies of '100 years'. Please consider these _so disparate works_ together. They are both ___GENIUS___. ""100 Years"" clearly out-writes ""Confederacy"", but they are DAMN CLOSE." +2265,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3R0KSCD8IZ2E1,bsg,0/0,4.0,1281484800,My first Marquez Encounter,I'd never read anything like this book before. Never even thought about almond trees until this book had me imagining it's smell. Although I was a bit biased at first this book opened me up to a whole new kind of prose. Needless to say this book had me reading every Marquez novel I could find. +2266,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2I16SKF3RHED6,B5Anteros,37/60,1.0,1182124800,Who's going to give me back my wasted time?,"If you're immortal and have time to waste on junk, then go ahead and read this book. I'm not immortal and I just wasted too many of my limited hours on this Earth on this steaming pile of dung.A friend of mine gushed over this book and lent it to me to read, insisting it was one of the best books she's ever read. It was for her only that I trudged through this thing. I'm glad I did not pay for it.The Emperor's New Clothes indeed. There is absolutely no redeeming value to this thing whatsoever; and before I'm accused of being a racist, dejame decirte que yo soy Hispano, nacido en Puerto Plata de la Republica Dominicana. I'm also an avid reader and this book was not dificult for me to read. I could even follow along with the various Buendias with same names, until I just didn't care anymore.It started out ok, when I thought it was going to be a normal story. Even the magical elements added to it did not disturb me. The gypsies with their fabulous inventions. I actually found them charming.Then the war started and along with it came all the insanity. The Incest, the Pedophilia, the Bestiality, the brothers who shared a woman, the little girl forced to have sex with sixty men a night for profit, the characters with no humanity, no brains and no common sense... and I'm talking about the major characters of the story. Halfway through the book I no longer cared about anyone in the story and I desperately wanted one woman in particular to die so I wouldn't have to read about her anymore.If I sound angry it's because I am. Genesis?!? Are you kidding me?!? This was precious hours of my life wasted on putrid drivel intended for no useful purpose whatsoever. It doesn't educate. It doesn't enlighten. It doesn't excite. It doesn't sadden. It doesn't give joy. It just makes you wonder when it's all going to end so you can get on with your life. I'm angry at the fools who have elevated this pile of trash to high status and foisted it upon the unsuspecting masses as ""literature.""If you enjoy a story with a moral or a purpose then stay away from this incredibly inane and insipid ""work.""If, however, you have time to burn and are a masochist then go for it.Flaming comments will not be answered so store it. I've had my say." +2267,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A28WJUJF6D2ULA,Notnadia,7/17,3.0,1127347200,"The Opening Line Is A ""Hooker"" But After That...","I wanted to love this book because I'd heard so much about it. I somehow managed to avoid having it assigned to me in high school and college and finally this past summer got around to reading it. I don't know what the fuss is about. The novel doesn't present a bad story but it also doesn't tell a great one to justify its status as a modern classic. The opening line is truly brilliant but after that the plot goes off into a meandering pan-generational story about a family in a backward region of South America that didn't stimulate my interest very much. Maybe it illustrates how little truly goes on in this novel when I point out that my favorite part of this book came early on when a centuries-old Spanish helm was discovered in a creekbed. To say that a minor moment like that was the best one of an entire 120,000-word novel isn't that strong of an endorsement.I also have to say here, I hate it when ""discussion questions"" are printed in the back of a novel. Just something intellectually-exclusive and arrogant about the practice that peeves me.An okay book but not among the greats." +2268,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1RQWDRTEU2AHW,Lena,0/1,5.0,1295740800,Best book I ever read,First I have read this book when I was 30. 20 years latter I am still like to read it over and over. Every time it is different. Every time there is something new and enlighten. +2269,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,ABCLVYMTA73GU,Jessica,2/3,5.0,1009152000,Absolutely perfect!,"This book is an absolutely perfect example of Marquez' talent. One of my favorite books, "One Hundred Years of Solitude" conatins the secrets of life and heaven and should be required reading for every person on the planet. I can't praise this book enough. If you can't buy it, borrow it from the library." +2270,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,0/0,5.0,931132800,Wow,This book changed my way of thinking about latin american history. The characters are so well developed the setting the different timelines managed by Gabo. Very good book. Read it. +2271,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,0/0,5.0,885340800,Unforgetable story,"This is one of those books that you can read as many times as you wish. The story is told in a poetic way, and it makes the reader's mind to float somewhere between reality and dream, and you wonder if this is a fairy tale or just a fiction. Anyway, I think this is Garcia's best work ever." +2272,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A8TK9HO0MKBWH,"BadBadCatMommy ""MyCatsEternalServant""",3/3,5.0,1258502400,"If you find this book difficult or confusing, you're trying too hard","""Most critics don't understand a novel like One Hundred Years of Solitude is a bit of joke.--they take on the responsibility of decoding the book and risk making terrible fools of themselves."" - Gabriel Garcia Marquez. This is far from a difficult book as many here seem to think. All of the similar character names, did not confuse me but rather lent themselves well to the jocular & whimsical fast pace of the book. (The naming kind of reminded me of an old joke about Sam Frank & Frank Sam. The similar naming is deliberately confusing as the telling of the joke moves at a fast clip so that right at the point you're starting to say ""what the hell?"", you get hit with a punch line that makes you spit your cookies in laughter - if you recall it at all, the punch line was ""I left my harp in Sam Frank's Disco"".) To ""get"" this book, you have to sit back, relax and let it sweep you away. If you can manage that, it moves at a quick pace, is quite amusing and never confusing. Don't worry that you can't keep up with the character names. That's actually not important like it is in most novels. Though I don't profess to know the author's point in writing the book, the point I took away from it is that life is pretty much a crap-shoot and in the end, nothing really matters. So chill out and enjoy the ride as much as possible. This is now my favorite work of fiction, unseating my previous long-held favorite, To Kill a Mockingbird." +2273,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2CQJMV4R4XI68,"Maxim St. Pierre ""ninjas, ninjas, ninjas""",5/7,5.0,1075161600,I am shocked at the number of negative reviews,"(...) This is a beautifully written book that manages, as successfully as any other book has, to capture the enormous wealth and breadth of the human experience -- from one family (and one town)'s point of view. No book could ever encompass the entire human experience; but this book does a hell of a job, beginning with the founding of Macondo to its eventual obliteration(guess how many years later). One reviewer states that reading the book feels like reading Genesis from the Bible, and I think that's about right.To those of you who dislike/have trouble with ""magical realism,"" just relax. Yes, you'll have problems if you think literally but what are books for? What is fiction for? Fiction is MADE UP. Good grief. Pretend you're at a movie, suspend your disbelief and get into the beautiful writing and wit and humor. It's a difficult book at times and the fact that everyone has similar names is very annoying, but what rewarding book isn't challenging?After you read the book, find Marquez's short stories, some of which are about Macondo and flesh out some things that the book leaves out (e.g. Big Mama's Funeral Carnival).I don't like or watch Oprah, and her choosing of this book is a little disturbing because now she's plowing into the territory of books I not only can't sneer at but absolutely love. Well, I suppose it had to happen sometime." +2274,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1I2U7FY33C0MS,Craig Hill,6/8,5.0,1108771200,Is It Fair To Strangle the Guy Who Called this 'Aimless'?,"Absolutely.This, in my mind, is one of the greatest accomplishments in South American literary history, and perhaps some of the greatest of the past century period.Nothing in this novel is in there just to be in there. I've read this book 3 times, every time more is unlocked and the seemingly random points of the book suddenly connect, and then they landslide into further amazing ideas and meanings, and I can honestly say that no book since the Bible has this many honest life lessons and profound meaning.No word is wasted, and every letter sets you one step closer to unlocking this treasure of a novel hidden at the center of a forest of imagery. I read this book for school, wrote an essay on it, discussed it with friends, and read it again, and then I was so fascinated with it that I read it again. The story is captivating, the cycles of life the handling of time are simply so profound I cannot believe that this all came from one man. I thank you, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, for writing quite possibly, my favorite novel of all time. I could only imagine it's brilliance in its native Spanish. Much like Naruda, each reading unlocks even more beautiful subtleties and spectacular connections to modern life.So, in conclusion, if you have any curiosity, entertain it and pick up this novel. Please ignore the dissenters about this book, read it for yourself and decide." +2275,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,0/0,5.0,862790400,He was. Garcia Marquez was...,"How anyone can do this to me?How anyone can disturb me so , so hard?The ghost are inside my head, and macondo is inside my mind.Garcia Marquez has done it, and right now i am still here, holding"100 years of solitude" in my hands, just waiting for them, waiting for their souls, waiting for the ice.." +2276,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,0/0,5.0,848620800,A masterpiece! Fun and culural,"Well, maybe it is not one of the easiest book to read, but if i did it, (i am an italian who likes to read in english) i am sure most of you will find it outstanding.The complicate part of this book is to keep track of the people appearing in the plot as usually they have the same name or very similar.I really think it is worth to be read, a really outstanding masterpiece and also with many funny spots!" +2277,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,AJHNO23A7YE96,Khoi Trieu,0/0,5.0,1333756800,A bit confusing unless you understand the author and the ideas of the book,"This book is broken down into pseudo-chapters which follows a family through several generations. It's fiction, but it's a bit more than that. I remember reading somewhere that there is no difference between poetry or prose, fiction or nonfiction, that all these are just tools for writers to explain a truth. This book explains the truth in humans and everything from our vices to our virtues.The story also falls into a certain realm of fantasy because it does involve some supernatural elements such as ghosts and alchemy. It shows great men who lost their humanity, poor men who sold their souls for greed, the corruption of governments, the madness within ourselves, and the fallacy of our belief that people who are different than us are beneath us. The book follows an omniscient narrator as he tells the story of various family members of the Buendia family. Spanning several generations, these characters fill every quirk and vice that dogs humanity. My favorite character is Remedios the Beauty, who out of either extreme ignorance or extreme clarity is thought of as an eccentric, dumb girl. Her character poses the question, ""Is she really dumb or is she just smarter than us all?""The best books, though, are impossible to summarize and break down into succinct little paragraphs for those that haven't read it to truly understand. I plead that you read a few chapters into this book just to truly understand. More likely than not, if you prefer stuff by Stephen King or Dan Brown, you may not like this book. The book does not explain things point blank for you. It confuses you with over 30 characters, half of which have the same name. It melds storylines together from father, to son, to brother. It doesn't hold your hand and create suspense to draw your attention and it surely does not answer every question you have like a nurturing parent. It requires pensive thought while reading and an intuitive grasp of things deeper than what the author writes to truly understand. When you finish the book, there will be a myriad of questions left unanswered and you may or may not feel a certain disdain for the author for creating such questions within you. Answer them yourselves, the answer is in humanity." +2278,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2EUVWBGAQMKWJ,Van morrison,7/10,5.0,1137542400,Rewarding.,"This book is written with a meticulos particularity that is hard to grasp. Following the bloodline requires a geneology chart that was provided in the front cover of my copy.Gabriel Garcia Marquez captivated me with his realistic characters and the mystical events that shaped this area. Noticing a parrallel between the expansion of human beings from the beginning of civilization and the progress of the town of Macondo is essential to understanding the book's promise.The book is difficult and causes many people to put it down. However, after reading this book I placed it on the top of my bookshelf and admired its brillance. It is rewarding." +2279,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,AYABUEJC2SEHQ,Patrick Julian Cassidy,1/3,5.0,1013817600,A linguistic masterpiece,"Marquez has such an eloquent way with words. He canalso spin an excellent tale as evidenced by this book.But, what I enjoyed most about the book was the strengthand depth of emotion which he was able to convey throughthe written word. This book pulls you into a magical andmorbid world and holds you hostage until the ending. It isan immense book, but well worth the committment. I wouldespecially recommend it to young developing writers. Thisbook will definitely increase your artistic perspectives." +2280,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,0/0,5.0,904521600,The greatest latin-american novel of all time.,"I first read "Cien Anos de Soledad" in 1976 when I was in jail in Saltillo, Mexico, in fact, I loved this book so much I learned spanish reading this book. Four hundred years from now as we read "Don Quijote" today - they will be reading this book. It is a novel for the ages." +2281,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1UHUWYN8IRJKD,imlisa@earthlink.net (imlisa@earthlink.net),1/1,5.0,941414400,My all time favorite,I absolutely love this book and have read it more than once. The magic realism is great!! It reads like a fairy tale and makes the unbelievable become almost believable to the reader. The book follows a family through the generations. History constantly repeats itself and each generation is affected by the choices the previous generation has made. +2282,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,ABJG6BAVOTJUG,Sancti Spiritus,0/0,5.0,1203033600,"Monumental, Mesmerizing!","Most likely the greatest epic I have ever read. The story grips you, pulls you in, and commands 100% of your concentration. Marquez deserves two Nobel Prizes for this tale." +2283,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1RP98T9A9D7N6,Carly Baratt,9/9,5.0,1019606400,A novel of profound worth and a must-read for everyone!,"Gabriel Garcia Marquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude is an enchanting and engaging read that chronicles the lives of the Buendia family. The lively and eccentric characters like Jose Arcadio Buendia, the patriarch of the family, whose pursuits include getting a daguerreotype of God will make you laugh and make you think. Humorous incidents abound, including a supposed insomnia plague which causes the town to label every item in their house including the cow. Marquez's style is intoxicating and with every word he challenges the limits of reality and unearths the magical aspects of daily life. When Marquez describes carpets laden down with passengers flying through the air you simply accept an obviously impossible act as truth. The novel's length is somewhat daunting but very accessible. I would recommend this novel for anyone who enjoys fantasy or has an interest in Latin American culture. As the title suggests each character has his/her own private battle regarding the amount of solitude which is necessary and beneficial and amount that is overwhelming and debilitating. Sometimes the character's actions, like Rebecca eating earth and whitewash, seem absurd but Marquez always keeps in mind the nature of humanity and its varying inclinations. This novel won both the Nobel Prize and my admiration." +2284,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3U47QQTWK499B,A Forest Roobit,4/8,4.0,1079568000,A great novel,"Most magnificent, incredible novel that flows by like a bizarre dream but like most dreams lacks coherent plot or discernable direction. It's good, compassionate, humane, complex and very long folk tale spiced with philosophy and politics. Unfortunately I don't speak Spanish well enough to read this masterpiece in the original but I read it both in English and Russian translation and I would recommend it to any mature reader. An English speaker should only attempt to read this book if he is comfortable with other large foreign novels. If you can handle large works of Dostoevski (Dostoevsky) or Balzac in period translation, - cover to cover, - then go ahead. Otherwise don't even try to because what you'd be up against is pure torture. An abridged version of the novel or the same work narrated by a professional actor on audio tape could be considered a lighter cuisine but I am not familiar with either abridged version or the tapes. I guess people from nations which have had long periods of civil unrest and war on recent their historic consciousness could better relate to this work, its atmosphere and its characters than those who lack such experience or for whom it would be an extremely distant historic memory. While it is certainly not an easy read, as a complete work of literary art the One Hundred Years of Solitude must be one of the best 20th century novels written in any language." +2285,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2DXVU5AESK2EF,"Kevin R. Mcgarvey ""KevinMcG""",1/1,5.0,881625600,My favorite book of all time,"I am an English professor, a serious reader, a lover of life, a happy person when I'm not miserably depressed, and I'm not one for overstating events, opinions or art. So I'll put it simply: As soon as 1999 comes around and we have to start reading everybody's top 5, top 10, top 100 lists, I'll sit down and make my own, but it will have to do only with books. Faulkner's "As I Lay Dying" will surely be on the list; Hemingway's "For Whom the Bell Tolls" and "The Sun Also Rises" will be there, too. Some living people might even make my list: Updike's first and last Rabbit books will get serious consideration, for example. You won't find Mailer or Bellow or Doctorow, but their dead comrade Malamud could sneak in. But at the top of the list--all alone, with no competition at all--will be this magnificent work by Garcia-Marquez. It is sweeping and powerful in a way that no other work of fiction even dares to be. I have probably sold twenty or thirty copies of this book in airport bookshops. Whenever I have seen anyone flip through the book, trying to decide whether or not it is worth the money, I have handed that person my business card and told him or her to buy the book--Just buy the book, I've said, and if you don't like it, write to me. I'll send your money back to you. Many have written, but no one has asked for a refund. Many send me Christmas cards each year. Just buy the book. My e-mail address is attached. Let me know what you think. The book is magical." +2286,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A16QODENBJVUI1,Robert Moore,23/23,5.0,1047427200,One of the landmark works of literature of the 20th century,"This remarkable novel had been on my ""Must Read Soon"" list for nearly twenty years, and with some shame I admit that I only recently got around to it. What a stunning masterpiece this is! I had read LOVE IN A TIME OF CHOLERA shortly after it appeared in English translation, and enjoyed it immensely, but as excellent as that was, it in no way prepared me for this amazing book. García Márquez's virtuosity is apparent on every page, assembling a vast array of improbable and unusual elements and blending them together to produce something utterly unique. He reminds me of those jugglers in a circus who spin plates on sticks, balancing them on every conceivable part of their body. García Márquez brings in such disparate elements that one can't imagine that he will manage to be able to keep all his plates up in the air. Remarkably, he does.ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SOLITUDE is the novel we most frequently associate with Magical Realism. It is impossible to think of this book without referring to ""magic,"" but the magic has as much to do with García Márquez's astonishing mastery of his material as it does with the extraordinary events that occur in the novel. In the hands of a lesser writer, this could have been a dreadful novel. Even a very good writer could be given a Cliff Notes summary of the book, and be asked to produce their own version, and produce a literary horror. The material is difficult, but García Márquez works it with a phenomenally deft touch, crafting it as superbly as Colonel Aureliano does his tiny gold fish. What is as unlikely is the way that he continuously introduces one supernatural element-a woman ascending to heaven while folding sheets, four years of rain followed by ten years of drought, a woman so sensual that her lovemaking causes livestock to reproduce at an usually fecund pace, a priest who levitates when drinking hot chocolate-after another without each new miracle seeming stale or losing its effect.The novel differs from most modern novels in that it does not contain in depth analyses of the characters. In fact, the characters aren't in general realistic characters at all. They function more like archetypes, and are sharply divided by gender. Men tend to act in the public arena, while women are guardians of the home and have it as their realm of influence. But not even the more fully drawn characters in the novel, such as Colonel Aureliano or his mother Ursula, emerge as full blown characters as in most serious novels in the 20th century. Nor is there a tightly constructed plot. Rather, the novel consists of a series of remarkable, fantastical collection of events and characters centered on a particular South American town. Some readers I know who want in depth, realistic characters have found the novel disappointing. But I have trouble accepting that a novel can take only one form.One could easily make the case that this is the most influential novel of the past forty years. It has had a profound influence not only in the Latin American world, but on writers in virtually every culture in the world. It has achieved a remarkable success in countries as disparate as Japan, Russia, the United States, and the various European nations. It is widely read in Africa and has been embraced in the Arab world as a modern day version of the Arabian Nights. The novel enjoys as close as one can find to universal appeal of any work of the past half century. My belief is that its success is merited and that it is one of the most remarkable novels that one can find." +2287,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1SVG1JUSI8DI1,Peggy Rizzo,4/11,2.0,1245628800,I tried really hard....,"I expected that this book would be wonderful. Many friends urged me to read it and so I did - up to page 168. I think I just don't get it. I began to get sea sick from being at times engaged in the story to next wondering what the point of reading it was. War after war, sex after sex, baby after baby.... it got old and so I gave up. Hooray for all who get the beauty of the story and enjoy it. I wish I had been able. Next....." +2288,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,0/0,5.0,935107200,absolutely the best novel ever written,"I have bought more copies of this book than any other. Every time I buy a new copy, I meet someone who has not read it and am COMPELLED to give my new copy away. It is absolutely the best novel ever written. I thought this when I first read it 15 years ago, and I still think it now, thousands of novels later." +2289,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3UE5BR5X1L4R8,DesertFox,2/7,4.0,1100563200,Profound. More to this than meets the eye,"I am not what you can call the quintessential Classics aficionado, a couple of the books of that ilk I ventured into having bored me to death with their dreary dull plots, where 200 pages into the book you are still awaiting the drama to begin, and not having a clue of why on earth the man (or woman) in question does the things he is doing. Mostly the books I have enjoyed reading are the ones which had characters one could classify as human, earthy and realistic, the drama arising from the extraordinary situations they find themselves in. As such, the blurb on ""One Hundred Years of Solitude"" (OHYS) should have ensured a quick rebuff on my part, what with its mythical town of Macondo, and a profusion of complex characters bearing confounding names living (and dying) in most surreal situations. OHYS is all that I have laboriously stayed away from - Gypsies and flying carpets, ghosts walking in and out at their own random free will, a torrential downpour which lasts more than 4 years, men and women locking themselves up for years together into the confines of their rooms - just to mention a few among the plethora of [...] things Marquez throws at you in wonderland Macondo. But once you sift through these seemingly inane and outlandish curios, what reveals is an intricate story of raw humans. OHYS lives up to its reputation of ""fecund, savage, irresistible ...characters rear up large and rippling with life.."" I don't yet make a claim to have discerned the more profound matters dwelled upon by the author, sufficient justice having been done to these by significantly more qualified people, but what I read is something I enjoyed tremendously. If not for anything else, this book is recommended just for Marquez's irreverent and comical treatment of all that we hold as fundamentals of life itself." +2290,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1C1A1AUMPYABC,wesley neal,8/8,5.0,1000339200,owner's manual for the human soul,"For years most of my life, until I read D. Foster Wallace's "Infinite Jest," One Hundred Years Of Solitude was the single greatest piece of prose I had ever encountered. Even now it surpasses the truly gigantic I.J. as the most profound of novels. If you are going to read this book don't read it once or even twice, read it over and over again. Garcia Marquez has crafted so many different levels of meaning into the story of one family as to explain the entirety of human history from creation on. This is nothing less than the meaning of life, revealed through the virtues and faults of the Buendia family. The town of Macondo is a experiences everything of importance that has happened in the Americas since they were discovered by europeans. The Buendias are perhaps the most human characters I have ever encountered in literature. The mistakes they are doomed to keep repeating show how where one comes from will always be his destiny. This novel is anything but a crass tear-jerker, but it triggered emotiong in me of increadible power. This is the one book I buy for all my family and friends when it's time to give gift. I could keep going on and on, but you know how strongly I recomend this. My high school spanish teacher, Barbara Brown, gave me one of the greatest gifts I've ever recieved when she turned me on to Garcia Marquez. READ THIS BOOK, then READ IT AGAIN." +2291,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2ILHKWR4L6SOW,Zak44,2/2,5.0,1234051200,One of the great ones,"""Magical realism"" doesn't begin to describe what Marquez does here. In a breathtaking feat of imagination, he creates a world that exists in a parallel universe--an alternate reality just out of our reach, but so close you feel that if you could just stretch our your fingers another fraction of an inch, you could actually touch it. I've read it twice, but not for the last time." +2292,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3QW09WANRS6BZ,Steven M. Anthony,1/2,3.0,1308182400,Not My Favorite Work By This Author,"I recently read the author's acclaimed work ""Love in the Time of Cholera"" and enjoyed it very much. It spurred me to seek out more work by Marquez, hence this and several others that I recently purchased.Marquez's writing is certainly unique in its earthiness. He deals with such subjects as sex, bodily functions and graphic illness as if they are parts of everyday life ... because they are. It is refreshing. Marquez is also known as one of the leading practitioners of the literary device of ""magical realism"" in which events are introduced into the story which are quite fantastic (for example, a character being swept away into the sky as though taken to heaven, a rain event that lasts over four years followed by an absolute drought of ten years).At its heart, this is the story of a remote South American village, from its founding, growth, prosperity, decline and ultimately through its destruction, as seen through the prism of a single extended family. In something of an annoyance, the numerous generations of the family all have the same or very similar names and usually inhabit the same time frame. So, you might have three or four actors with virtually the same name inhabiting the stage at once. This can be very confusing, especially when resuming the story after a night's sleep. Luckily, the author includes a family tree in the front of the book, a page I visited with regularity.The author's writing is indisputably beautiful and at times mesmerizing. However, I must say that I enjoyed LitToC quite a bit more, simply because it actually contained what I found to be a haunting and compelling story. I felt that the writing here dragged at times, but that's just me, a philistine. In my world, beautiful writing, in and of itself, can only take you so far before you need an end to the means (at least I do)." +2293,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3SRKB1XHTZG21,"Scott Humphreys ""The more you know the less y...",0/0,5.0,1090540800,Could be the best Novel ever written,This book blew my mind. I can be a bit slow and confusing (there are many characters with the same of very similar names) but the writing is of a caliber seldom seen. The story is intense and the people stick with you for years! +2294,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,0/0,5.0,900374400,Spellbinding narrative,Probably the best fiction I've ever read. This book is the perfect example of how a story should be told. +2295,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1PT90ZLQK1YHP,"Tiroui Melkonian ""Tiroui""",2/3,5.0,1255564800,One Hundred Years...,"Wonderful work, one of the rare works in 20th century literature... I learned that the author was greatly influence by the stories and tales he heard from his Colombian grandmother... and the fictional village Macondo...the fascinating world of Marquez's Magical Realism is a book that can be read over and over again!" +2296,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3FYO23XSFJ9H6,"W ""rzrz""",0/0,5.0,955670400,"Very creative, very imaginative","No wonder this book has become an instant classic. It is. This is probably the best translated book that I've ever read. Very confusing, at first, but very imaginative. More of a fantasy than anything else, really. Much better the second time through. I loved the characters and the setting!" +2297,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1GHOV104KRBTW,Kuser,0/3,4.0,1348012800,It Ain't Danielle Steele,"If you are looking for something simple that has no depth, this isn't it. Unless you enjoy Tolstoy or Faulkner, this book will be difficult for you to comprehend. Some people prefer light, easy reads with predictable characters, and that is ok. I was fairly absorbed in this book, it kept my interest and I enjoyed the journey. If you are into D. Steele, you probably won't like this book. That being said, I did give it only four stars. It wasn't perfect." +2298,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,0/0,5.0,941932800,Beautiful and stunning fiction,"This is the best book I've read since The Triumph and the Glory. The quality of the writing is just superb. The characters so unrelentingly vivid they become as familiar as family. A very good book, I highly recommend it and cam just about guarantee that you will like it. Five stars." +2299,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3SDELECGUYKHX,Cat,4/5,5.0,951868800,The eye of a genetic hurricane,"It's a spell. You can't love it, hate it, or ignore it. You can only read it with sometimes teary eyes. An infection that's been dormant in a deep memory. It doesn't look at life, but gravity itself radiates from an infinitessimal center to a pulse as big as all time and all space. It goes with ease through the evidence of reality without making a religion out of it, and all the religions that have been stuck to it peal away. Reasons, pride, taboos, all imposed order floats harmlessly in the stratosphere, with only humanity down here, as if there were only one person playing with memories that don't make sense. Or as if there were only the memories with nothing to make them into sense. It's an experience that lingers from original incest to the final dust." +2300,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A12AR756USVLA4,J. Randon,0/0,5.0,1274486400,Filled with Great Imagery,"This is probably one of the best books I've read in a very long time. It was my favorite several years ago, and I recently bought a new copy. I've read it several times; it never gets old. I have heard in the past that the storyline can be very confusing at times, but I didn't have a problem with following along. His style is very unique; it seems disjointed and jumbled at first glance, but as the reader continues everything falls into place.The imagery and metaphoric language throughout was especially fantastic. Gabriel Garcia Marquez has a way with words that makes you think. His use of magical realism is flawless. The book creates impossible situations throughout that for some reason seem plausible in relation to what is happening in the story. Some sentences are incredibly simple, and others may make you go back and reread. Magical realism can be very difficult to incorporate in a work of fiction properly, and I believe he has both produced a wonderful work of art and great instruction on how to do so in one sitting.If you've never read this book before, you owe it to yourself (if you're an avid reader) to check it out. Chances are very good you'll be glad you did." +2301,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,ASJ89T42CIUHU,V. Marshall,10/12,3.0,1087862400,It Takes Solitude To Read This Novel,"I have had this book on my bookshelf for years having picked it up simply because I loved the title and then finding out it is actually a classic literary epic.This novel is a heavy read, at times tedious and at times quirky, it is most definitely not a book to delve into while half asleep. Gabriel Garcia Marquez forces his readers to pay attention wrapping his fantasy tales around deep and abiding characters it is sometimes very difficult to interpret where the story ends and the fairy tale begins. I found Marquez's writing style very difficult to read without having a few notes scribbled about me to refer back to. He has so many characters in the book, some with the same name, and bounces back and forth between decades that if you are an unorganized reader by page 50 you will already be lost. I am amazed at Marquez's ability to sustain his own thoughts during the writing of this novel. I found the women to be far more interesting than the men, each woman a central figure in family life as well as the most entertaining fantasies. You will be confused, uplifted, humored, informed, saddened and satisfied when you reach the end of this unique novel.I enjoyed this novel but did not find it to be the life sustaining recommendation that so many others insist it to be. So many literary professionals and celebrities have pumped this novel up to such great expectation that I would almost dare to say I was disappointed that I missed the affect it was supposed to carry. I imagine if this novel was read several times and studied with a fine toothed comb it may produce such elation. But for the average person this classic novel is almost a chore although very much worth the effort." +2302,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A13EVDH5MMBNM9,"ChiJosh ""joshie78""",1/3,2.0,1210809600,Not a fun read,"I can see this is an unpopular but not unique opinion, but this is one of the very few books I've stopped reading halfway through. And I have no intention of ever finishing it. Despite the fact that I horde books, I gave this one away.While the prose was beautiful, the story tended toward the dull and was difficult to follow. The fact that there were only a handful of names reused by dozens of characters did not help much. Most of the characters were unlikable and hard to relate to. After awhile I decided I just didn't care anymore.Is this book a masterpiece? Perhaps it is, but that doesn't mean it's a good read." +2303,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1TOZ6PJ1GATOA,k2,0/0,5.0,1216684800,what a unique work of art,"I bought this book in a second-hand bookstore and read it a whole long summer day from morning to late night... what a ride. the book is written with great style and rich detail and is funny, extremely inspired. i didn't find it hard to read, even though the family tree of the Buendias became really too complex to bear in mind as a whole... the effortless colorful style and its great span of storytelling that includes a long line of characters all connected by some mysterious bond, repeating a cycle, learning to bear some form of their own solitude - i think it is a great book that brilliantly mirrors not just a few people but the whole changing of generations. it is refreshing to think of ourselves in terms of long lines of families that come and go, have their own ways and ups and downs. a great book with excellent style that really stands out." +2304,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1KE3JBO3KQX2O,Brian C.,3/4,5.0,1347494400,A beautiful novel that demystifies history...,"This is really an amazing novel, and I feel quite comfortable saying that Gabriel Garcia Marquez certainly deserved his Nobel prize, even though this is the only book of his I have actually read so far (I will be reading more soon hopefully). I must admit, however, that I was a bit mystified by the novel at first. The books I read tend to fall into three classes. The first class of books are books I feel like I ""get"" right away on a first read through without having to read anything about them. The second class of books are books that I ""get"" to some degree, but I often feel like there is a lot I am missing, and I usually try to find some good books and articles to read that will help me figure out what I am missing. The third class of books are books that I enjoy, but ultimately feel like I am missing the main point. One Hundred Years of Solitude fell into that last category for me (if anyone is wondering why there is no fourth category of books I do not enjoy at all, it is because I almost never continue reading a book if I am not enjoying it).One Hundred Years of Solitude is not a difficult book by any means. Anyone can read it and will be capable of understanding the story and appreciating Gabriel Garcia Marquez' narrative techniques (his magical realism, and foreshadowing, for example). Gabriel Marquez is a beautiful writer, which comes across even in translation, and he tells a very interesting story, in a very unique way. That much is evident right away. But I think a lot of people who read this book will have the sense that there is more to the work that they are not getting despite its outward accessibility. I know I did. So I decided to do some research and it turns out I was right. There is a lot in this book, and there has been a lot written about this book, and while I have only read a small sliver of the available English language scholarship on this novel (if one includes Spanish language scholarship on the book I am sure the hills of material turn into mountains), the little that I have read has increased my appreciation for the novel a hundred fold. I am now sure that this will be a novel I continue to re-read and study throughout my life. So before I provide my own short interpretation of the novel (which is heavily indebted to essays I have read about the novel) I would like to recommend the works I found most helpful in unpacking some of the riches in this novel (I am sure there are more I have yet to discover).First, there is a collection of essays:Gabriel García Márquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude: A Casebook (Casebooks in Criticism)edited by Gene H. Bell-Villada. The essay ""Gabriel Garcia Marquez: Cien anos de soledad"" by James Higgins serves as a particularly good general introduction to the novel. There is also another collection of essays I found helpful:Gabriel García Márquez: New Readings (Cambridge Iberian and Latin American Studies)edited by Bernard McGuirk and Richard Cardwell. There are two really excellent essays in that book on One Hundred Years of Solitude: ""Magical realism and the theme of incest in 'One Hundred Years of Solitude'"" by Edwin Williamson, and ""On 'magical' and social realism in Garcia Marquez"" by Gerald Martin. Those two essays totally transformed my interpretation of the novel. And finally there is a short book:Gabriel García Márquez: One Hundred Years of Solitude (Landmarks of World Literature)by Michael Wood. Michael Wood has a lot of interesting insights into the novel. I thought the sections where he discussed tone and narrative structure were particularly interesting, and those were aspects of the novel that did not get as much discussion in the other essays I recommended.Now, onto my synopsis and discussion of some of what I think are the most interesting themes of the novel. I should give my SPOILER ALERT at this point. I give away the ending of the novel, as well as a great deal of what happens in between, so if you have not read the novel yet, you probably should not read on. You have been warned!The novel, of course, tells the story of the Buendia family and the town of Macondo. The town is located in Colombia but as many interpreters of the novel point out, the setting ultimately serves as a universal representation of post-colonial Latin America. Macondo is, in other words, both specific and universal, at least universal within the context of Latin America. The novel encompasses roughly a hundred years, and I think six generations of the Buendia family, and within that time span the two major historical events are a Civil War, and the arrival, and eventual departure, of U.S. imperialism in the form of the Banana Company. These historical events provide the background for the events within the family (marriages, infidelities, feuds, suicides, murders, etc.).The story, of course, incorporates what has come to be known as 'magical realism'. Supernatural events are described in a very matter-of-fact manner, as if they were simply everyday occurrences (levitation, ascensions into heaven, magic carpets, raining flower petals, etc.). This technique certainly spices up the narrative, and has given rise to a number of conflicting interpretations in terms of its meaning (I will have more to say about this when I get to the themes of the novel). The novel also makes extensive use of foreshadowing, where events are described out of order. The narrative jumps ahead, and then moves back to catch up. It might seem like this would be a particularly ineffective narrative technique since the author is, in effect, giving away what is going to happen in advance, but it actually functions quite well, and ultimately produces some surprises by taking advantage of the readers' natural tendency to jump to conclusions. I will give one particular example from the first page of the novel (remember my SPOILER ALERT is in effect). The very first sentence of the novel is, ""Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendia was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice"" (11). The reader, of course, jumps to the conclusion that Colonel Aurelian Buendia is eventually killed by firing squad, and yet, we are told much later in the book that Colonel Aureliano Buendia died of old age (104). And it is only later in the book still that the firing squad incident is actually narrated ""in the present"", and, of course, much later we discover how, and when, Colonel Aureliano Buendia actually dies. So despite the foreshadowing Gabriel Garcia Marquez is still able to keep the reader guessing about what is going to happen.There are really two main themes of the novel that I want to highlight. There are, of course, more than two themes in the novel. The theme of solitude is, obviously, central to the book, as the title suggests, but I don't feel like I really have a firm grasp on what Gabriel Garcia Marquez is trying to say about solitude, so I will not be discussing that theme in any detail. The two themes I find most interesting are: the meaning of 'magical realism', and the theme of time (or the meaning of history).In regards to 'magical realism' there have been a number of interpretations put forward by different scholars (I owe this little summary largely to the essay I referenced above by Edwin Williamson). The first group of scholars tend to see 'magical realism' as a means for creating a fully autonomous fictional universe, similar to the fictional universes created by Jorge Luis Borges in his fiction. The second group of scholars tend to see 'magical realism' as a means for critiquing the Western/European obsession with ""objective"" material reality, and its tendency to deny any reality to the narrative mythologies that actually tend to make up our life-world. The third group of scholars, represented by both Edwin Williamson and Gerald Martin, see 'magical realism' as a means for examining the relationship between consciousness and ideology, on the one hand, and objective/material history on the other. I tend to side with this third group. I think 'magical realism' is a brilliant technique for highlighting the separation between consciousness and historical reality.The actual history of Macondo is largely driven by external forces. The Republican period where the central government attempts to assert control over the largely independent municipalities ultimately leads to the conflict between Conservatives and Liberals and the Civil War, which has a dramatic effect on Macondo. The arrival of the fruit company, and U.S. imperialism, dramatically changes the shape of Macondo, so much so that when the fruit company finally leaves, Macondo is little more than a ghost town, and is ripe for the eventual apocalypse that will sweep it off the face of the earth. But the characters in the novel, as Gerald Martin persuasively argues, remain mostly unaware of these objective forces shaping their fate, and live within their own narratives, their own mythical understanding of their history. This ultimately leaves them powerless to shape their fate, and this powerlessness is perhaps why there is such a deeply pessimistic strain in Gabriel Garcia Marquez' vision of history. But is this powerlessness the final word? The novel seems to me to be arguing that it will be the final word as long as people continue to live in their own fantastical narratives about history (ideology in the Marxian sense). If, however, people wake up (as Jose Arcado begins to wake up in his labor struggles) then there is a possibility that this historical determinism might be overcome. The novel does not present the solution, but simply presents the problem. Anton Chekov once wrote to a fellow writer ""you confuse two things: solving a problem and stating a problem correctly. It is only the second that is obligatory for the artist."" I believe that Gabriel Garcia Marquez has, in this novel, stated the problem correctly, and he has, to that degree, fulfilled his function as an artist. The solution to the problem, if one exists, must be found in life itself.The other theme I found the most interesting was time. There are, ultimately two visions of time presented in the novel. A circular vision, and a linear vision. These two views of time are summed up beautifully in a symbol that appears late in the novel when Pilar Ternera, a fortune teller and occasional lover to the Buendias, has a realization, ""a century of cards and experience had taught her that the history of the family was a machine with unavoidable repetitions, a turning wheel that would have gone on spinning into eternity were it not for the progressive and irremediable wearing of the axle"" (364). This image combines both the circular view of history (the turning of the wheel) and the linear view (the wearing of the axle).The most obvious evidence of the circular view of history in the novel is in the often frustrating repetition of names. I think that every male in the entire Buendia family (and there are a lot of them) is named either Jose Arcadio or Aureliano. This illustrates that history may be progressive if conceived within the span of a single life, but if one widens one's view it becomes apparent that each generation is a repetition of all previous generations, and is condemned to repeat the same struggles as the last generation. The circular view is somewhat pessimistic, though I think there is a lot of truth to it. The pessimism can be seen in Colonel Aureliano Buendia's realization of the meaninglessness of his political struggles, and his decision to spend the last years of his life making little gold fishes just so that he can melt them down and continue remaking them over and over. This view of time could also be called the ""archetypal"" view, since it views history as the repetition of a limited number of archetypes (all the Aurelianos share certain characteristics, or are expressions of the same archetype, just as all of the Jose Arcadios are expressions of a different archetype). This is essentially the same view of history that one sees presented inFinnegans Wakeby James Joyce, in which every character is a repetition of a particular archetype that has been repeated throughout history since the beginning of time, ultimately going all the way back to Adam. I find this view of history quite compelling.The wearing of the axle, however, presents a more linear notion of time, though it seems to be associated with degeneration, as opposed to progress (both of the notions of time presented in the novel seem to be opposed to the most common Western European view of time as continual progress). This second notion of time is expressed, in the novel, through the degeneration of Macondo and its eventual collapse. The axle has finally broken and the wheel has fallen off. The repetitions are finally over. It is safe to say that both of Marquez' notions of time are fairly pessimistic.It is instructive, I think, to compare the view of time and history presented in the novel to that of the philosopher G.W.F. Hegel. I just recently came across this interesting quote from Hegel'sIntroduction to the Lectures on the History of Philosophy, ""Even world-history is not like a romance; it is not a collection of accidental deeds and events; it is not accident which rules in it. The events in it are not the forays of knights-errant, not the deeds of heroes who knock about to no purpose, who toil and sacrifice themselves for some trivial thing"" (63). I think it is pretty safe to say that Hegel's view of history is, in many ways, the polar opposite of Gabriel Garcia Marquez' view, at least as presented in this book (I know very little about Marquez' personal opinions or philosophy). I think the view of history presented in this book is, precisely, a view where heroes ""knock about to no purpose"" and ""toil and sacrifice themselves for some trivial thing.""Colonel Aureliano Buendia, for example, while fighting his Civil War, is asked to compromise on some of the reforms the Liberals are demanding in order to gain wider popular support for the cause. The Colonel is told that this is a purely ""strategic decision"", but the Colonel rightly realizes that by going along with the compromises the war he is fighting essentially becomes a war over who is in power, and nothing else. In other words, it becomes a war between heroes who are fighting over some trivial thing. Anyone who thinks this is an unrealistic picture of history should check out the bookWinner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Classby Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson. There is a point in that book where the authors are describing the tactical decision made by the Democratic party to become more friendly towards business interests in response to the Republican parties superior ability to raise money. The thought occurred to me, as I was listening, ""If the Democratic party sacrifices its whole platform as a strategic decision to raise money, and ultimately win elections, then there is really no more difference between the two parties, and the candidates are not really fighting for anything other than power."" In other words, what is the point of winning a contest if one is forced to give up what one is fighting for in order to win? I had this thought before I read One Hundred Years of Solitude, and when I came across the passage where Colonel Aureliano Buendia came to his realization, it immediately reminded me of what I had read in Hacker and Pierson's book. This seems to me to be the way that history actually works, and Gabriel Garcia Marquez has diagnosed it brilliantly in this novel. Whether this pessimistic view is, or should be, the final word, I cannot say. But, like all good art, Marquez' novel provides not only entertainment, but genuine insight into the world we live in, as well as ourselves." +2305,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,ABB4W7IN43YO9,"T. L. Cooper ""T. L. Cooper""",1/2,4.0,1088380800,Engaging story about the complications of family life,"Once you get past Gabriel Garcia Marquez's use of the same two names for the male descendants of the family who make up the main characters, you're drawn into the family's dramas and peculiarities even when you don't want to be. When you realize the meaning of the use of the two names in the latter part of the book, it helps with your understanding of the characters and their actions. As you're drawn into the story of this family, you'll begin to care, almost against your will, about what happens to them and want to tell them the secrets you know and they don't so they won't make the mistake you see them clearly making. Marquez's writing in One Hundred Years of Solitude will have you shaking your head in disbelief, laughing aloud, and smacking the pages in frustration at the actions of his characters. Still, you'll want to know more about them all the way to the last page!" +2306,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,AMNT0VU131DAH,-B-,2/2,5.0,1278374400,"I loved it, but I can see why others don't","Just an interesting connection I found between my English and Spanish class:No hay mal que dure cien años. (Literal: No evil shall last 100 years; English: Nothing bad lasts forever.)1. Writing Style/ Readability: The writing style is what truly makes this a five star book to me. Not the plot or the characters or even the depth of it. Granted, the original was written in Spanish, but I don't think that too much was lost in translation. If I ever become fluent in Spanish (and I'm crazy about this beautiful language!), I'll happily read the original as well. Marquez's style (or the translator's, however you want to view it) is very smooth and enchanting, and appeals to my childlike fascination with anything magical. Oh, and there's actually a lot of humor in the book if you're paying attention.2. Plot - lots of interesting stuff going on, but there's not one ""true"" storyline to follow, as it seems like a never ending list of random happenings. Basically, you're following the lives of a family from generation to generation, getting to know each family member's personal story, some more than others. People die mysteriously or go insane every chapter or so, and it's tough to predict what's going to happen next. Marquez's foreshadowing at the beginning of the book is clever; he sneaks in lines about the far future to make you do a double take (""years later, when Aureliano faced the firing squad...""). The mystery of Melquiades is the common fragment that frames the entire story. I actually wasn't that impressed by the ending, but to each his own.3. Characters - let me just tell you right off that they're almost entirely unrelatable. They lack any real personality and I felt no emotional connection to them, especially since they tend to come and go in the story. (the exception of this being Ursula) However, I think this could also be viewed as an intentional exaggeration by the author...The only two ""real"" emotions that the Buendias have are lust and loneliness, which, in my opinion, are two of the strongest emotions that a human being can have. Lust is such a primal desire and it's obvious how much it still has hold of us even in this modern world. Loneliness is a more complex emotion, but I think that anyone can empathize with the conflicting feelings of wanting to be with someone so much, yet also being afraid of rejection.4. Overall Originality: Yes yes yes. That's all I'm going to say about that.5. Value (was it thought provoking): For me, personally? Not really. The ending, though, was a tad depressing in that it left me with the message of ""life is a cycle, we all die, everything you do is pointless"" which is why I tend to avoid books about philosophy because sometimes thinking too much about the universe makes me think as if there's nothing that truly matters because mattering is nothing after all. And now I've made myself depressed. Moving on.6. Enjoyment - this book was entertaining because of all its intricacies and twists and turns. It also really inspired me to write, which usually only happens when a book is fantastic or awful.The Bottom Line: read it because it's different from anything else you'll ever read" +2307,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3LZIY9KFPCOY8,Marquez fanatic,4/4,5.0,1043539200,This is the best book I have ever read,"Where to start? Gabriel Garcia Marquez is a genius. This is absolutely the finest novel I have EVER read. I keep rereading it because I like it so much. It must be known that I am usually an objective, discerning reader. I don't call many books "great," but in this case I have no proper words for the quality of this novel. Thank you, Mr. Marquez, for giving us such a beautiful piece of literature!" +2308,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1LXDBLPN8DTKH,Metin Bereketli,4/6,5.0,1074902400,A Magical Ride Through a Magical Time,"Gabriel Garcia Marquez takes the reader on a magical carpet ride through stories so intriguing and fantastic that you cannot leave the book until it is finished. Marquez proves that imagination of an artist is a more potent healing agent than a journalistic narration of ""facts."" A tour de force! If you read only one book this year let it be the 100 Years of Solitude." +2309,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2LRVU5ZTGDKDB,Dan Lesnick,33/38,4.0,1177632000,Great novel with a few distractions.,"This novel grabbed me almost immediately, and I was sure it would not let go until I had finished it. Unfortunately, however, it did let go for a while, and even pushed me out sometimes.It begins beautifully with the founding of Macondo, and the visits of the gypsies to that small village. The introductory chapters are bright and uplifting. Unfortunately, near the middle of the book, it slows down tremendously and becomes largely mundane. Particularly when Marquez writes about the wars of Colonel Aureliano Buendia. During these parts, he seems to shift the tone of his writing, which is likely appropriate considering the shift in subject matter, but it just felt flat and dry compared to the beginning of the book. Fortunately, the rest of the novel after the accounts of the wars regains its earlier pace and style.My other complaint is that Marquez used his character names over and over again, and other than a small reference to the cycle of the family curse, there seemed to be little reason to burden the reader with so many Aureliano's and Jose Arcadio's. There was Jose Arcadio Buendia, (2)Jose Arcadio(s), Jose Arcadio Segundo, and Arcadio. Colonel Aureliano Buendia, Aureliano Jose, Aurelianos, Aureliano (x2), Aureliano Segundo, and even a reference to 17 of Colonel Aureliano Buendia's offspring all with the first name Aureliano, four of which are introduced as secondary characters. There is even a small amount of repetition in the female character's names. Whether this name game would have been plausible within the lives of the characters or not doesn't matter to me. I never felt that there was a compelling reason for Marquez to burden his readers with the trick.With those complaints aside, it is a great novel. Marquez conveys very well the loneliness felt by his characters. His characters are sometimes unaware of how lonely they are, but Marquez makes their solitude apparent to the reader. Several of the characters aren't fleshed out very well, but the book isn't as much about the characters as it is about the recurring theme of solitude that they experience.Definitely a novel worth reading to gain a feel for Marquez' mastery of written emotion, but be warned that it is easy to become frustratingly lost in the quagmire of repetitive names. (Fortunately, there is a simple family tree before the first chapter which helps to clear up some of the seemingly unnecessary confusion with the names.)" +2310,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,2/2,5.0,866160000,One of the BEST BOOKS ever written!!,"In September 1992, I was still undecided for who I was going to vote in the Presidential race. Then, one evening I watched an interview with (at the time) presidential candidate Mr. Clinton. In the interview he mentioned this book as one of his favorite's books. That was the tie-braker for me. Anybody that appreciates the magical story of Macondo and Gabriel Garcia Marquez's work that much is allright by me!!This is my absolute favorite book ever!!. I grew up in a small fishermen village in Puerto Rico and reading this book taught me to appreciate the character of a town for its uniqueness and that no matter how obscure a life might seem, every life has a story to tell from where a lesson can be learn. I was overwhelmed by the incredible mix of magic and reality in the descriptions of the characters and of the town of Macondo. Recently, I read the book again, this time in English. I was mistified just the same!" +2311,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A27YHH2H5CVUD9,S. Carlisle,0/0,4.0,1149465600,Mind Boggle!,"This story really does take a geniune effort to read. With that it is a fantastic journey that will toy with your emotions in both positive and negative ways. A little confusing at times, but with steady reading it all comes together. Wonderful piece of literature!" +2312,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,2/2,5.0,893203200,"Great piece of literary work, exciting, and funny.","I recently read Marquez' book and found it to be one of the most thrilling and entertaining books I have ever read. I now see why he won the Nobel prize for literature in 1982. I got so involved with the characters that I was actually dreaming of them (maybe hallucinating). I wanted to know why they behaved the way they did. Marquez had a systematic way of reavealing everything at the end. However, it was a little difficult to read, but challenging. It was funny,but at the same time weird. I loved reading it. Garcia Marquez has an incredible knack with words. Even though I read the English version of the book, I don't imagine much was left out as a result of its translation. He was able to show how individuals in this fictitious town, Macondo, become lost in their own worlds, desires (solitude) and at the same time disregard any social mores or laws and consequences. He subsequently showed that there are consequences for one's actions. Granted, there were many things that cannot be easily explained, but that is all part of his style of writing called "Magical realism". I loved "100 years of solitude" so much that I intend to continue doing more research to understand the book. Great piece of literary work. This refers to the hardcover version of the book." +2313,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,8/10,5.0,868320000,Better Than Walt Disney World (Really!),"During the summer of 1986 I visited DisneyWorld with my parents and, by a strange conicidence, ran across one of my father's very good friends from Puerto Rico. At that instant, I was carrying a book recommended by a friend of mine: One Hundred Years of Solitude. I had barely started to read it, and my father's friend told me that I would never read any book better than Garcia Marquez' initimate history of the Buendia family.And by golly, he was right. I heeded his advice and read the book in a harried daze while waiting in line for the rides at DisneyWorld and Epcot. And when I finished it, I was so amazed. I never knew that writing could be so dazzling, that a novel could be so endearing and challenging. In fact, this book made me fall in love with the delicate microcosms of novels, with the passion and power of words.And to this day, One Hundred Years of Solitude has been a steady and well-worn companion. I took the book with me to college, to law school, and even on trips to the Carribbean, South America and Mexico. In times of stress or hardship, I would read about Macondo and its generations of inhabitants, and suddenly be touched. I doubt if I will ever read a book again that has inspired, affected, even changed me as much as this book. The book and I are good friends; and as I sit and write this review, it sits there, on my bookshelf, its tattered and weatherbeaten spine enticing me once again: "Read me, old friend. Read me once again." +2314,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A7SSCDSCM4PXF,booknblueslady,0/0,4.0,1306108800,"Lonely, lonely, lonely","One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez is a book of great lyrical magic which tells the story of Jose Arcadio Buendia, his wife Ursula and their descendants in the village of Macondo which they founded after leaving their home in the mountains and searching for the ocean. They failed to find the ocean but built the town on the edge of a great swamp. The town grows and changes as time is transformed by modern inventions. The first of these inventions are brought by the gypsies, one of which was a heavy man with ""an untamed beard and sparrow hands"" who introduced himself as Melquiades. He sold Jose Arcadio Buendia a magnet and later a telescope. These items transformed Jose Arcadio Buendia from an industrious man who helped build the village into a man obsessed.Obsessions, solitude, love and war are themes of One Hundred Years of Solitude. Character after character seems to fall into one strange obsession after another. There is a girl who eats dirt to manage her pain, a man who loses his mind and is tied to a chestnut tree for years, a man who spends years writing on parchments and another man who spends years trying to decipher them.As Maconda is at first an isolated village, we see also that many of those living there have isolated themselves in one way or another and live in solitude. Indeed, solitude is a word which Garcia Marquez using frequently in the book. Aside from those characters who have locked themselves away physically are those who have removed themselves in other ways by rejecting love for fear of the transformative hurt which love can cause or by allowing war to take the place of love and human feeling.Gabriel Garcia Marquez wanted to tell the story in the way in which his grandmother told stories, with a granite face and a rambling way in which both listener and storyteller became lost in the story. He certainly accomplished this. At any point of the book the language and story telling is beautiful, but also is a twisting path in which the reader wonders both where are we going and where have we been?Because of this manner of ""story telling"" One Hundred Years of Solitude is a challenge to read, but well worth the effort with its tale rich with strange and magic characters, and mystical events." +2315,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2GH0ME9D681IJ,Me Gustan Libros,1/2,5.0,1008115200,Read this book. You'll be a better person for it.,"I don't want to spend time explaining the plots or merits of this book. I couldn't do them justice anyway. I just want anyone out there who hasn't read this book to know that it would be an absolute travesty to die having never read it. I've read it three times in English and once in Spanish and I never once got tired of it. I have a bachelor's degree in Literature and will soon be atending grad school. I've read a fair amount of stuff, and this book is without comparison. I'm telling you people, READ THIS BOOK, love it, and then read it again." +2316,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2R5981XBX0R7U,Amanda Griffin,4/4,5.0,1101772800,"Epic tale akin only to the Old Testament,","It is simply breath-taking. Hunker down for the long haul. This is not an easy read, but it is magical. It is everything that we still wish existed in our cold, scientific, rational world and everything we are thankful does not. Beautifully written, it is a lesson for our times that all civilizations must have an end and that even the most technologically advanced and, dare I say, civil can only be repetitions of what has already been. We, as the citizens of Macondo, simply do not recognize it through the passing of years. It is a hard and yet stunning look at the reality of humanity." +2317,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A253FGZ4IDJMEC,Reverend_Maynard,4/4,5.0,1030579200,Fantastic.,"Appearing in 1967, 'One Hundred Years of Solitude' created an uprecedented stir in the world of literature, and opened the gateway for a host of Marquez' South American contemporaries to show their remarkable talents to the world.'One Hundred Years of Solitude' concerns the history of the town of Macondo, a town which is essentially a reflection of our world whilst not quite being a part of it, from inception to destruction. Parallel to this is the colourful and bizarre story of its founding and chief family the Buendias. The novel is filled with particularly peculiar literary techniques. Marquez introduces the concept of 'Magical Realism', a feature of Latin American writing and culture, into this novel especially, and into all of his novels to some extent. 'Magical Realism' concerns seemingly incredible and fantastical events being described as if they were a perfectly normal everyday occurrence. Marquez wished to write a novel as his own Grandmother would have told a story-hence magical and inherently impossible events are recounted with unshakeable faith. Yet these events are often reflections of reality: for instance, when the workers union of the banana company organise a protest, the army open fire and slaughter thousands of people. Bizarrely, the next day the survivors have forgotten this event entirely. While this is indeed strange, Marquez likens this to the fact that, governments of South American countries have committed slaughter, yet withheld any knowledge of this from the public via manipulation of the media. Hence Marquez deploys political and human comment throughout the fantastical events of his work, using magical realism. Largely due to this technique the novel is a particularly enjoyable read: the incredible events keep one captivated, while the frequent and flagrant sex in the novel adds a touch of excitement and humanity to the work. Also, there is a constant repetition of events which seem extremely similar. Whilst there is a definite sense of linear time in the novel, a sense of history being almost circular is also apparent. Thus, personalities constantly repeat the experiences of earlier generations, though never in precisely the same way. This repetition imbues the novel with a strong sense of fate. For instance, once a person has been named then the major events of his or her life have already been pre-determined.The novel is extremely dense and the repetition of names can at times make for confusing reading. Yet each action is so perfectly ordered thematically, each fantastical event so subtely allegorical, that the novel requires, indeed demands a second or third reading, upon which it will impart much of its meaning.A massively important and enjoyable book, which everyone should own." +2318,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,ASPV1JU7Y0G6B,Smriti Kataria,1/1,5.0,1149897600,You'll regret delaying to read the book till later,"I'm not really a classic reader..but after hearin a lot bout this modern classic..n finally layin my hands on it,i read a book that's very differently written.It was the first garcia i read,and it just leaves you amazed not only with the style and manner of writing but also with the ease with which the author implants each character in your head...even with the same repetitive names and similar shades,each character stands out.man's peculiar nature,his acts in love,war and solitude encapsulate your mind.You can imagine the village and the book play's like a movie in your mind..it's only at certain points in the read you realise that macando is a fictitious village.The narration is excellent and the retrospection done by the various characters of how their lives have passed gives the life to the book.You laugh n grieve at the same insatant.Towards the end,you have a mixture of feelings,but you still need to tell urself ""hey,this isnt real""" +2319,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,0/0,5.0,872035200,Spectacular,"One Hundred Years of Solitude is without question my favorite book of all time.The story is both engrossing and compelling in it's humanity and magic. Having read all Marquez's books & stories I always come back to this book and am surprised anew by it's richness.Character tie ins with other books & stories (Erendira for example) give one a larger perspective on Marquez's world.Like Catch-22, The Cider House Rules and John Le Carre's Smiley trilogy, One Hundred Years of Solitude is a book I've been reading once a year and will continue to do so.A must" +2320,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2RDX1MVJPARK,"""joepaterno""",7/29,3.0,1074556800,One hundred years of overrated,"I usually love anything that our girl Oprah says to love. But not this time. This book was good, but at some times it was hard to follow. This novel was difficult to keep straight. I probablly would have given it a extra star if everyone wasn't named Jose something or something Jose(sorry, I can't get the accent thing to work). This novel did run the gauntlet from comedy to tragedy and love to death to war and everything in between witch made it very emotional. This book was also a kind of history textbook witch is ok if history is in your blood (no pun intended) but it is not in mine. Irregardless it was emotionally satisfing. But it could have been improved if it could have been simplified." +2321,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A17A4ZKTTKYUG4,John Petralia,6/10,4.0,1123027200,Bible History,"Everything is known, says Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Like almost everything in his book, the statement should not be taken literally. Just as a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis is not required to appreciate the Hebrew bible, this alternative bible begins to make some sense only when you get the metaphor. Everything is known because human nature is what it is. Because we are human, we make the same mistakes over and over. History repeats. And, it repeats. And, it repeats.Marquez's man-made bible history tells you that you do not need his or anyone's written history book to know that pre-historic mothers cried for their future warriors even as they nursed them. Marquez wants you to know that you don't need a bible or a crystal ball to tell you that tomorrow's righteous dads will again be sending their brave sons into some bloody conflict somewhere. Everything is known. The past, the present and the future, it's all known. Marquez lays it out for you in this bible. It's not an easy read. Despite brilliant uses of ironic humor, despite a masterful use of language---really more poetry than prose---, despite the occasional hints of hopefulness, the message comes through loud and clear: Life's a bitch and then you die; after that there is nothing.Now, go have a nice day." +2322,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3I2JH8Y5PAV5L,J. Vicki,2/3,5.0,1074988800,A Fantastic Story,"100 Years of Solitude is an amazing story where reality and fantasy meet in the lives of the Buendias. Throughout the history of this one family, it is hard to tell what is fact and what is fiction. The best comparison would be to ""Big Fish"" in which the stories are tall-tales, but yet not without fact. All in all, I recommend this book to everyone." +2323,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3US6VLDVENMAA,b-fahrn,1/6,3.0,944265600,I Love this author's WAY of writing,"First I read "Love in the Time of Cholera". That book I keep always open ready for the moment. So I was curious to read an earlier book by Marquez. Maybe it is also a great book, but after "Love.." I found it disturbing mainly because of its fantacy and lack of clarity by comparison. If you go for mystery and underlying meanings and lots and lots of characters then this is for you. Marquez paints vivid word pictures. but I think he grew wonderfully after he wrote 100 years of Solitude. Maybe he emerged out of solitude to find "Love"!" +2324,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,ABBGFN5SPI4AK,"""raybla""",1/1,5.0,1033516800,No better snapshot of latin american history!!!,"This book really portrais the history of early 20th century latin american countries. The miths, costumes, belives that make a bunch of different countries, the same people. Wonderfully written, the flow of the stories that interact keep you inmersed in a whole microcosm that will make you feel part of the time and place." +2325,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A27ZH1AQORJ1L,"anybody else or ""amanuet""",38/38,5.0,1048032000,This is not here,"'One Hundred Years Of Solitude' is a fascinating book, full of symbols and allusions, a book that is easy to read and the strange and fragile surreality of which is truly outstanding.However, there is quite a huge number of people who dislike it - and after reading some negative reviews I think I might have understood why it's like that. First of all, many object to the immoral things described in the book (especially incest). I myself don't read exclusively books by authors whose morals I agree with, but I understand that can differ. That is not the case with the second possible reason for people disliking this novel, however - and the reason is: people try to find traditional characters and a traditional storyline in the book. That is, naturally, impossible, because Marquez is very much of a postmodernist - thus there are no characters you can 'care for' and no real plot to follow - because these things simply do not matter, they have little or nothing to do with the meaning, the essence of the book.The main character of modern novels is usually an individual who doesn't fit in with the world, and Marquez certainly stretches the concept of that - in this case, the individual is the whole family. It matters not what each of the characters says, feels or does, because all the events are not meant to illustrate the characters' life, but rather the whole family's life - that is emphasized by the fact the names in the family as well as whole scenes from the family history continuously repeat in the novel. Marquez destroys the barriers of time, no such thing exists for him, everything was meant to happen long before it happened and thus time has no meaning, he freely moves events and characters in time, it seems. In other words, the whole book is not a history of a family - it is a history of an individual, really (you can see the birth of the family, its childhood, youth etc. and then death) or - perhaps - even the whole civilization (many classical themes have been used - from the Bible, for example).Marquez's language is immensely interesting - it is lively and changes throughout the book. He is also extremely good at exploring seemingly insignificant details (they can usually be taken as symbols - for example, butterflies have long been considered the symbol of the short life of happiness). Another thing that cannot be left unmentioned is the truly mesmerizing way he merges the real with the unreal, thus rising a question - what IS real?I think 'One Hundred Years Of Solitude' is one of the most important novels in the history of literature. It is open to interpretations - and if you are willing to try, you will find very much in this book." +2326,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3ITNZJ32UG7Q7,"Emilia Palaveeva ""ema-in-seattle""",2/3,5.0,1006819200,One hundred years of solitude,"One Hundred Years of Solitude is a masterpiece. The novel tracks the life of a family and the village it founds since its creation to its death. With a passion for inventions and progress the first Jose Arcadio Buendia creates a village and family that thrives driven by friendliness, hospitality and genuine curiosity. As the family expands however, and the years pass, this original drive is replaced by less noble ambitions. Jose Arcadio's heirs are gradually caught up by their weaknesses and relive the lives and mistakes of their ancestors.The novel would not have been such a masterpiece if Marquez had not employed a style that fitted perfectly with his goal--through magical realism, somewhat dispassionate and cyclical storytelling he manages to convey to the reader his main idea--that the life of the Buendias and Macondo and pretty much every human being in this world is full of tragedy and drama, hope and hapiness. It is the flow of life that makes Marquez characters stand out--yes, unknowingly they repeat the mistakes of their fathers and sometimes they recognize it, even if it is on their deathbed. But the stregth with which they continue to live and love makes them stand out. Those that do not do not leave any memory or sign of their existence.(...)" +2327,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1MBAI5KMYS8WJ,"S. Beal ""Sbeal20""",0/3,5.0,1253750400,Great Service Provided!!,"This was a great, fast and simple transaction!! Very Impressed!! Thank you, will do business again!!" +2328,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,1/1,5.0,955152000,one of my favs.,"I had to read this book for school. I had bought the version in Spanish, but it was a little hard for me to tackle. Even though we had to read this book in a few days, maybe too fast. I loved it. Marquez uses magical realism in the neatest way. Please pick this book up and you won't be sorry!" +2329,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3NEXJARW5R8AJ,K. Terhark,1/1,5.0,1305072000,Worthy to be on the list of '100 best',"I""m going to reiterate my comments from 'love in the time of cholera'. You should never sit down with a Marquez book in hopes of a 'good story'. Marques is not a story teller. He is far above that.Instead, read a few pages at a time, even over the course of year. Pay attention to the scattering dialogue, 'why is it that it's always the stupid people who live the longest'? And, 'you can take your extra minute and shove it up your a$$' (said just before the 3,000 people were mowed down by the army).Pay attention to the surrealism, the oddities of the characters. This is where the gold is, not in the paragraph, but in each sentence. My book is so earmarked it's starting to fray. An amazing read." +2330,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2NCHYHGBDKKUU,"Hsu Chun Wei ""hsuab""",0/0,5.0,1082592000,A book is worth your time,"After reading Gabriel Garcia Marquez's masterpiece, One Hundred Years of Solitude, I am entertained and also feel sad by its comic style of tragedy. In the book reveal a history of Buendia family of Macondo, which is founded by Jose Arcodio and destructed by a predicted wind while Aureliano was deciphering the parchment written by a mysterious gipsy, Malquiades. This book did not inspire me the view of creation to destruction of the human race though many book reviews mentioned it before I began reading this novel. What I felt after reading it is human being destine to solitude. No matter young or old, no one can escape from the fate to be alone. Despite of the serious concept of this novel, it indeed a fun-read book, a page-tuner, a time killer, and also a book that you can devote great deal of time to decipher it as if we are members of Buendias who are trying to interpret Malquiades's parchment." +2331,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A57JIBFWM3L0H,JfromJersey,1/1,4.0,1215129600,Thank God for that Family Tree,"This is another book I admired more than enjoyed. The term ""magic realism"" has been coined to describe it, but what Garcia Marquez does, is akin to what Kafka and Joyce have done, but in a style less concise than the former, and less abstract than the latter. He tells the fantastic tale of Macondo and the Buendia family in the most sober of styles, offering up surrealism as part family portrait and part Latin American history.The repetition of names serves as a device to hermetically seal off the Buendias from the rest of society, thus ensuring their solitude. It can be overwhelming at times, and I frequently had to refer to the family tree to get my bearings. Each member of the clan has unique strengths or attributes, as well as fatal flaws, that isolate them from others. The Buendias seem to be in constant struggle, either with themselves, with the rules of society, or with the natural world in the form of ants, scorpions, and torrential rains that last for almost 5 years. The alchemic quest, the transmutation of the dross into the sublime, seems to be a running theme.Garcia Marquez is very adept at descriptive imagery, but it seems overused at points. I never felt empathy with any character. There is a lack of pathos in this novel. Outrageous humor is in my opinion, one of the chief qualities of this novel, and probably it's greatest strength, more so to me than the surrealism and obvious symbolism." +2332,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1KYXUAKOD99PK,"Anthony Fernandez ""1luv""",5/7,5.0,1116892800,Oprahs may be the devil...,"But dont let that stop you from reading this book. This is the a must read for everyone. As I finished the last page of this book, I flipped it over and started it again. Mr. Marquez takes literature to a new level. This book is seriously clowning on a lot of other recommended and required books throughout history. To not read this book, is to not ever truly experience a great story. Whatever sad excuse for a book you are reading put it down and pick this up. You will never forgive yourself if you dont." +2333,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3KR9Q99D1EGEB,"Odysseus ""A Traveller""",35/42,2.0,1134259200,"Repetitive, mechanical, and largely devoid of beauty","To write a negative review of a book widely regarded as a classic is a somewhat intimidating task. But let me try.A statement of personal taste first. The label of ""magic realism"" is, to me, a positive lure, and is one of the reasons that I picked up this book. I have a great love of other writers, like Borges, who blur the lines of realism and fantasy and fable and metaphor. My favorite contemporary writer of all, Steven Millhauser, I would consider to be a ""magic realist"" even though I have not heard others use the term.On an intellectual level, Garcia Marquez's book has an obvious cohesion. It appears to mimic the great religious texts of old, such as the Book of Genesis. The town of Macondo, as the world in Genesis, is provided with a founding myth. Various fantastical things take place, the realistic superficial world uneasily overlays a magic-based otherworld; boys are born with pigtails, others are born with unnatural large genitalia, gypsies roll into town bearing every manner of magical device.And, as in Genesis, events pile upon events; just as in Genesis the reader is subjected to a never-ending series of ""begats,"" in Marquez's book, one is treated to an indistinguishable and never-ending list of people named Aureliano (and several other similarly overused names.) This is intentional, to confuse the reader, to cause them to wonder which Aureliano is doing what, and to contemplate how this world is often stuck in repeating the same comedies and tragedies over and over.Some things are uniquely Latin American in the tale; you can see in the book a certain fatalistic attitude towards the region's political troubles, the suggestion that there is little higher meaning in them, rather a culture that is doomed to repeat the same old stories until that world eventually dissolves.But here's the problem: it's really boring reading, and it lacks the spark of other magic realism. Quite willfully, the author never brings any personalities to life; they exist as archetypes, one-dimensional figures, actors in an endlessly recurring play. So too with the ""magic"" events; there is really very little magic in them, at least insofar as they inspire any sense of same in the reader.I finished the book having reached the conclusion that it should have been a short story, not a full-length novel. You get the sense later on that the author is simply going through the motions, having decided on his superstructure for the book, he executes it with little feeling of inspiration or concern for the emotive or sensory power of literature that attracts readers.Which is to say, if you find reading Genesis boring, with its endless ""begats,"" you will probably find this boring as well. It is a flat, mechanically generated place, an intellectual comment on the world rather than a compelling, enjoyable piece of literature.Some of the other comments here suggest that most people will dislike the book, but few will love it, even as they give it high ratings. I believe that to be fair; I have friends who enjoy the book. I found it labored and the reading of it laborious." +2334,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2YRJ8CCWRM04B,Harry,0/2,5.0,1074902400,You will love this book!,"It's a great read into what seems like another planet and it stays with you for quite a while when you're done.I was not disappointed- it is worth the money.This is one of the books that belong in your library. It does what I've always wanted a book to do for me and I hope you read it too! Enjoy!Another book that I enjoyed was "he never called again", and also "The da vinci code". I highly recommend these books!" +2335,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A15260JM3IQXVD,"Melissa Hoffman ""senior in HS""",4/8,5.0,1087084800,Love it or Hate it,"I definitely agree with the reviewer below, who said people either love this book or hate it. This book was suggested to me by my junior HS English teacher, and it took me about 1 week and a half to finish. Normally, I can finish a book within a day or two. The reading took me longer, not because it's a big book (it's not), but because it is very intense. One Hundred Years is a marvelous story about the Buendía family, and their trials and tribulations. I remember this story so vividly because it's hard to forget. My favorite character was the family matriarch, Ursula. None of the other female characters, in my opinion, could hold a candle to her. Whether she was taking care of poor senile Jose, or dealing with the pain of losing sons and grandsons, or even dealing with (in her old age) the bugs and plants her great-great grandchildren piled on her, she was a rascally character I couldn't help but admire.The ending was very different from anything I could have predicted, but in hindsight, the ending looks inevitable. It's a twist, a very different ending, then what most people are used to, and Marquez tells the story so fluidly, I think many are disappointed or even frustrated by the end. All in all, I think One Hundred Years is a terrific book club book, because this book needs to be shared and discussed." +2336,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,ANWNC9YCFP8MI,"N. Morgen ""professionally adorable""",8/10,3.0,1094256000,"Complicated, entertaining, frustrating","I've heard a lot about this book recently, so I thought I'd give it a whirl when I saw it at the local library. The plot was extremely intruiging - the tale of the Buendia family, original settlers of the fictional town of Macondo in what seems to be South America. The characters were unique and colorful and I enjoyed traveling the generations of the family and sharing their experiences.However, someone in each generation (and sometimes more than one person) was named a variant of Aureliano or Jose. I was constantly confused at which character experienced what and feeling as if the plot was contradicting itself. I continually flipped back and forth with the family tree provided at the beginning of the book which caused me to feel disconnected from the story. I would lose track of the plot and ended up rereading many sections multiple times.Eventually, I felt like reading the book was a chore, and I'll admit, I was relieved when I finally finished it." +2337,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1DQZBHEU98PBT,Theresa W,7/21,3.0,1076284800,Three & a half stars,"Well, I have to say that Oprah's latest choice was a little disappointing for me. There were parts of this story that spaned 100 years of a families generations that I enjoyed. I loved how unique the stories were. And each person in the family had their own quirks & personalities. There were surprises along the way & some shocking moments. Overall, the story & characters were great.The part of the book that dragged it down for me was how the stories were woven together. I'm not sure if that is a part of this magic realism. I could accept that magic realism makes things that could never happen, happen. But it was the flow of the book that I had a hard time with.Some tips: You'll need to pay attention to every word on your page. If you zone out for one moment, you'll surely miss something. Make sure you read the book with the family tree in the front- I used it probably just about every chapter. It's hard when everyone's names are the same or similar. Also, stick with it. There are parts that are slow and parts that are very interesting. In the end, the read was worth it, even though along the way I was a bit frustrated. I wouldn't have given the author a nobel prize, but I agree that it's a memorable book." +2338,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A390LODQRUNJW,jgarza@reforma.com.mx,0/0,5.0,885340800,Ground-breaking,"100 years of solitude broke ground in Latin Amercian literature, by taking it out of its regional dimension into international recognition. Garcia Marquez masterfully told tale of the birth and death of a family revealed to the world the quality of Latin American writers, and consolidated the genre of magical realism. It is an essential book to anyone who wants to look at Latin American literature. At least I have read it about 15 times and find funnier and sadder every time" +2339,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A21I6K954RU6KH,Yvonne Schafer,1/1,5.0,924652800,Cien Ano era muy bien!!!,"This book was AWESOME!! I cannot describe how much fun this text was to read. The author really gets his point across and enjoyed writing this book as the reader can tell. Anyone could read this book and thoroughly enjoy it. This book is not beyond anyone's reach. I loved it. The characters were so symbolic of the times. The whole Jose Arcadio Buendia family just makes me laugh. It was like a soap opera or drama written/viewed today: there was love, sex, violence, incest-original sin, and of course political corrution. I hope others enjoy this book as much as I did!" +2340,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1M214WG28MIGD,Alex Parker,1/2,5.0,1207440000,"Quite simply, the best novel I have ever read","Garcia Marquez creates a masterpiece in which a family's legacy and a town's history are documented in such magestic detail that ultimately connect and sympathize with the way everything breaks down. Apparently, things are made by man don't last forever, but this story definitely should. This is the type of book that many authors would sell crack to babies to write. It's so wonderfully crafted that it's one of the few books I've ever read where I'm totally fine with wasting hours in a day reading it. And i could easily read every single word from cover to cover again and again. 100 Years should be the book that you first recommend to anyone looking for great fiction, it's on an entirely other level." +2341,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2HX7NO90TPSSY,"Harvey D. Scheller ""Idiot and Pretender""",2/2,5.0,1311292800,"A ""Ulysses"" for South America, an Odyssey for the New World","I first heard of this novel when I was doing research on the film adaption of ""Love in the Time of Cholera."" It was very mediocre film for a brilliant author, but I digress. This novel was a feat of genius to me. It is an immersing experience and it calls fro the reader to swim in it's oceans, to walk in the streets of Macondo, and to feel for the characters within. The only comparison this boo has is to the masterworks of Joyce, Kafka, Steinbeck, the Brothers Grimm, and the early parables of The Bible. I could not prescribe a book more. It is a feat only experienced, not told about." +2342,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1WA6YSL173HBQ,Kevin Farber,4/5,5.0,1076112000,Beyond Description,"In our reading group, the question was asked, "What's this book about?" That's the problem with a work so unique - it passes description. One of us tossed out "the life of a village" and maybe that's the best way to say it. By whatever description, this is a book of rare wisdom and deep pathos. Truly one of those books that you will be glad you read." +2343,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A11S3APVH0VI6,Seamus,6/7,2.0,1299888000,"I love Marquez and, yet, I find myself very disappointed.","I would like to take this moment to state that I am enamored with the way Gabriel Garcia Marquez writes. One Hundred Years of Solitude is the third book by Marquez that I have read. The first Marquez book I picked up was Love in the Time of Cholera and I was blown away by the story and the remarkable and beautiful prose. Next, I picked up a small novel of Marquez's, Memories of My Melancholy Whores, and once again walked away delighted. I found that Marquez had a very unique ability to create emotional ties to the characters in his stories. I also found that I was reveling in the joys of those characters, as well as suffering their grief. Unfortunately, in One Hundred Years of Solitude, I never made those emotional connections.One Hundred Years of Solitude is a novel that is ostensibly about a family, the Beundias, and the lot they drew which apparently leads to eternal suffering and misery for everyone in the family. As compelling as that theme should be, I found that deep down, the story was simply about a town, Macondo and the suffering is tangential and always on the periphery.Marquez does tell the reader that the characters are suffering, and he does so with vivid language:""The need to feel sad was becoming a vice as the years eroded her...""""He could not understand why he had needed so many words to explain what he felt in war because one was enough: fear...""""Rebeca, who had needed many years of suffering and misery in order to attain the privileges of solitude...""These are all beautiful descriptions of grief and torment; however, over the course of the novel, each set of characters is replaced about every thirty pages. No relationships or attachments are formed between the reader and the character. So, while I can see the pain and suffering, I can read the eloquent descriptions, I could not feel the emotion.The disconnect I felt while reading One Hundred Years of Solitude made finishing the novel a chore. The disconnect, along with frustration, grew with the passing of each set of characters. I found myself not really caring how Marquez wrapped up the end of the book, as long as the book ended. Therefore, I found the story had no climax, no central moment, no real theme other than ""suffering exists"".I was once told that if you have nothing nice to say, then don't say anything at all. Well, I may have broken that rule, but, I will stop here so that I avoid digressing and letting my frustration show anymore than I already have.For more reviews and suggestions, please visit: [...]" +2344,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3J508PGRZHBHV,"lisa shea ""the little reader""",0/1,5.0,1266796800,perfection between two covers,"as i began reading this, i was surprised by the writing style. it is written in heavy prose, with very little dialogue. it looks daunting then, when you open up the book to any page and you see full paragraphs, as if it were one massive essay. i suppose it makes sense, considering that roughly one hundred years is being covered in less than 500 pages. its as if everything is written as a story being told.it is in fact a story of recollection, one that unfolds magically through the words of marquez in the city of macondo and the buendia family. the writing is mystical and poetic, with some of the most beautiful language, particularly in the last 30 pages or so. i had a difficult time finding my way into the story, but now that i'm done, i'm so glad i read it.one of the quotes on the back of the book stuck with me throughout the reading: ""Mr. Garcia Marquez has done nothing less than to create in the reader a sense of all that is profound, meaningful, and meaningless in life."" ~William Kennedy, New York Timesi don't think it could be put any better.covering every facet of both the complexity and simplicity of love and solitude, i found myself reading and re-reading certain parts, finding the weight of the words in my own context. it was perfect." +2345,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A14I2UO0KK2BNO,Ryan,11/35,1.0,1100217600,ARRRRRRRGH,"I forced myself through this because someone told me it would be good. Every day I read this I expected to be blown away. Alas, I was disappointed. After several hundred pages of unoriginal dribble and disgusting incest, I finally came up for air. About every three lines in this book I felt like having an aneurism. The ""magical realism"" crap that everyone rants lovingly about in this book is a load of garbage. No, it's not creative. It's boring and annoying. The author randomly throws supernatural phenomena into the story at random points and doesn't have enough originality or creativity to explain it or make it interesting; he just moves on. No, sorry, I won't explain why this person is psychic. Oops, this person just snapped. Sorry. Hey, whaddya know! It's raining flowers. Oh why not I'll throw in some ghosts... maybe some magical gypsies... and we've got an inane bore-fest. Useless." +2346,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3VVJZH062BXNQ,Iolite,5/17,3.0,1127952000,Boring and confusing,"After 100 pages of reading, I cannot keep any of the characters straight and this is only part of the reason I've decided not to finish this book.It seems a waste to spend time on a book that up to this point has done literally nothing except try and leech as much interest out of a dull story by interweaving numerous eccentric characters into a really boring tale that most keeps me wondering WHY is it facinating that every other page Rebeca eats dirt (pica?)? Why should I find it romantic that an adult male virgin has fallen in love with a prepubescent child? Yuck!" +2347,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,AKA38A4QLQ3AX,KC,0/0,5.0,1337212800,Great Book,"Don't let the length of the book steer you away from reading. It is entertaining until the end with visuals and dialogue exceptionally written. ""Love in the Time of Cholera"" is another favorite of mine. If you enjoyed this book, do read it!" +2348,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2R6M6OZFR05CO,A. Scarlat,10/14,5.0,1170806400,The BEST book I have ever read,"If you are into magic realism, actually South American surrealism - this book will captivate you.The best book I have ever read, and I did read some.The only problem is that you are going to become a Marquez addict in no time. Otherwise - you will not be disappointed." +2349,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2YXRT2XIJIO57,John P. Jones III,1/1,5.0,1296777600,All in the family...,"I first read ""One Hundred Years of Solitude"" not long after it was first published in English, almost 40 years ago. It was a wonderful, and magically, if you will, introduction to Latin American literature. Subsequently, I've read several other works by Marquez, notably,Love in the Time of Cholera (Vintage International)some 20 years later, but none have quite cast the spell of my first ""love,"" this one, so I figured a re-read was in order. The ""magic"" of magic realism has lost none of its charm.The story involves six generations of one family, established by Jose Arcadio Buendia and Ursula Iguaran, who also helped found the town of Macondo, in the lowlands of Columbia, though the country is never specifically identified. The in-breeding (and also out-breeding) in this one family is simply astonishing. I can't remember if the original edition had a genealogical chart at the beginning, but this one does, and it provides an invaluable reference in keeping the philanderings, and the subsequent progeny, straight, particularly since numerous individuals over the generations have the same name. What is the ""Scarlet Letter"" that is prophesized for a family with such a high degree of consanguinity? That a child will be born with a pig's tail.Marquez dazzles the reader with the intensity of his writing; it's as though he had a 1600 page book in him, but is given a 400 page limit. It is the furious sketching of a street artist, making every line count in a portrait. The strengths, follies, and interactions of the men and women are depicted in memorable events. And there seems to be a realistic balance and development of his characters. Marquez is also the master of segue, from one event to the other, and from one generation to another, with his characters moving from swaddling clothes, on to adulthood, and then into their decrepitude.From my first reading, I had remembered Rebeca, with her ""shameful"" addiction to eating dirt. First time around, I chalked it up to Marquez's ""magical realism,"" since no one really ate dirt. Several years later I learned that it is a wide-spread medical problem, often driven by a mineral deficiency that the person is trying to remediate. The author also describes the disease of insomnia which was spread to Macondo, with an accompanying plague of forgetfulness. Magical realism, or the forgetfulness of the ""now"" generation that has lost the stories of the past?Establishing the time period comes slowly. Marquez mentions Sir Frances Drake, but he is in the unspecified past. It is only when a family portrait is taken, as a daguerreotype photo, that one realizes it must be in the 1840's-50's, with six generations to go. There are a multitude of themes: since this IS Latin America, Marquez has the obligatory gringos and their banana plantations (alas, all too true); there is endless, senseless war, with the two sides eventually unable to state what they are fighting for, except, of course, the war itself; there are the women who drive men crazy with their beauty, and there is the spitefulness of women to each other (alas, again, the ""sisterhood'); there is economic development, and a worker's revolt, and the use of other members of the same class, but in uniform, who repress it; there is the role of the Catholic Church in Latin America, and even a family member who would be Pope and there are unflinching portrayals of the aging process, alas, to the third power.On the re-read, I noticed a portion of the novel that was much further developed inInnocent Erendira: and Other Stories (Perennial Classics). Also nestled in the book was an important reference: ""Taken among them were Jose Arcadio Segundo and Lorenzo Gavilan, a colonel in the Mexican revolution, exiled in Macondo, who said that he had been witness to the heroism of his comrade Artemio Cruz."" Checking Marquez bio, he has been a long-time friend of Carlos Fuentes, slipped this reference in 100 years, which is an omen for me, since I was considering re-reading Fuentes marvelousThe Death of Artemio Cruz: A Novel (FSG Classics)And in terms of omens, redux even, do future travel plans include meeting another character in the book, the Queen of Madagascar?I recently had dinner with a woman who had been Ambassador to one of the Latin American countries. Spanish is her native language, and she still reads some of the Latin American writers in Spanish to ""keep her language skills up."" As for ""100 years,"" she had read it four times, each time in English. It's a record I am unlikely to repeat, but this novel, which honors the Nobel Prize with its name, could use a third read, if I am granted enough time. It ages well, sans decrepitude, and provided much more meaning the second time around. 6-stars." +2350,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,1/1,5.0,969148800,Must read for everyone,"It took me until I was 21 years old until I finally read this novel. It was well worth it, and I have read it again since then. It is a little hard to read, but it is a classic. I suggest that you use the family tree in the front of the book. It is nearly impossible to keep track of all the characters. It may take you a little while to become completely imersed in the story, it starts out a little slow. But, it will be well worth it to keep going." +2351,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A4ZIK6Q8BX0OE,"Funny girl ""Voracious reader!""",5/6,5.0,1160006400,Excellent!!!!!!,"I read this book over a year ago and after recommending it to everyone who cared to listen, realized that I had not written a review. This book is a riveting, entertaining, sometimes heart wrenching story of a family (several generations) set in the fictional Macondo. I don't want to give away anything but...I consider this an epic. If you like well written, complex, books this is for you. There are several characters in the book so if you like short simple reads, this is not the book for you. This was my first Garcia book and I am now hooked. I have read a few more but this one is by far my favorite! Highly recommended!" +2352,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,AHD4JDV5SR9LQ,C. Wright,5/6,5.0,1203552000,A Masterwork,"I'm not sure I would classify this book as one of my favorites, and yet it is entirely profound. Written in a beautiful style that is amazingly complex at the same time it is beautifully simple, One Hundred Years of Solitude reveals a true mastery of composition. The themes are as grotesque as they are beautiful, realistic and at the same time fantastical, bright and full of hope and at the same time cast in a hopeless darkness. Definitely worth reading." +2353,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A16CZRH9AZVKWW,Juan C Villamil,8/10,5.0,1066780800,"So, what's the big deal?","This is without a doubt one of the top 20th century novels, and as such, very much has been written about it.Some clasify it as an epic, while others try and find all the symbolism and deep meaning behind the story of Macondo and the Buendía family.Let me just say that more than a great novelist, García Marquez is a great observer. As a colombian, I can honestly say that the events depicted in this well written novel are not as far away from our reality as might seem at first. Things like the ones descibed here do happen in small "conteño" (from the coast) towns throughout Latinamerica in general.I am sure that for quite some time Gabo had a laugh at the expense of all who searched for the real and inner meaning of Cien Años de Soledad, and who wrote innumerable pages full of interpretations.This book is simply the story of a town as told by a grandmother to her grandson.You either love this book or you hate it, and if you hate it, it's because your world is too small and simple and you do not have the imagination it takes to understand this as an account of my "bananero" country's reality.Do not miss this book." +2354,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A21X0O7XY4DL1P,inasy,5/18,1.0,1311897600,one hundred years of futility,"This book is pernicious. LIfe is predetermined, plotless, circular and meaningless. Why bother to write a book at all, if in the end, this is the grand message. How sadistic." +2355,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1XIA7P3TTAHUG,"N. Werle ""nwerle""",1/29,3.0,1103760000,interesting wordsmith,"starts interesting but stream of consciousness gets oldand range of players is limited.yes unique literature but not that satisfying.ANd thats what I felt.If I dont skim a book so I do drink in all its flavors, then that is a good novel.Do we write jsut for the literati? or anyman?TO whom are we trying to convey some of life?Do I need to repeat the same atmospehre over and over?Should I marvel in how they show stupidity or comic relief?" +2356,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2GRIOSPNG7VWT,"""bobbyvail""",20/20,5.0,1070236800,Each alone in the sea of humanity,"In this century-long story of a rural Columbian town, Sr. Marquez tells of a family whose memorable members, amidst all the glory, prosperity and apparent happiness, in the end stand each alone in life. I think he tells us how our remorse, scars, pride, fear, resignation and forgetfulness lead us to live and die in solitude, even in the sea of humanity, and that such lives are, in the end, as if not having been lived at all, for they will not be remembered.For all of the numerous people who populate the story, the character development is deep and wholly convincing of each joy and suffering, of which the ups and downs are considerable as the tale unfolds. The story is told with a mixture of honesty toward the brutality of Columbian national life, rich fables and superstitions of the locality, and Sr. Marquez's own twists of imagination that immensely enrich the experience. The underlining profound themes and the overarching sadness of the story is sprinkled with laugh-out-loud humors and brilliant observations of subtleties of life that reminded me of Milan Kundera, though the context is obviously a world apart.This is one of those stories that, having read, one feels rather exhausted from the emotional upheavals, and needs some time to let it ferment a little. After a while it starts to emit an aroma that challenges one's conscience with the relevance of what was said. It's a story-telling at its best from a Columbian national treasure. And the English translation is superb in capturing the tone." +2357,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,0/0,5.0,905385600,Pure Magic!,"100 Years of Solitude was a requirement for a World Literarture requirement I had to fulfill in High School. I read it for the first time 3 years ago and have picked it up millions of times since then, even if only to read one sentence. Gabriel Garcia Marquez has written an epic immortal story, filled with pure poetry. I have a tendency to underline every sentence that moves me or touches me or gets to me. My first copy was so covered with notes and comments and underlinings that I had to buy a new one. Magic, definitely magic!" +2358,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3R2WQHF6RDVBC,Jeffrey L. Armbruster,0/3,2.0,1265673600,Yawn.,Characters aren't interesting. The story is not compelling. The plot is not engaging. No mystery of any kind. Just dull. Much ado ... why? +2359,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A16ZAUGTYFPPPE,"Ahmed A. Al Ajmi ""Caribbean Dream""",11/16,5.0,1170547200,My Koran and Bible !!,"The best book I have ever read in my 22 years in this life!!!Ahhhhh, What a book!! you can see the words smiling, crying, sighing, and floating up and down ....for weeks i slept with this book beside my head listening to the live and ardent echoeing of its fantasies, charms and memories..Marquez you ought to live and write forever to read for you forever!!" +2360,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1GCRD5SNP0QS3,C. Loera,1/1,5.0,1304294400,such a good book,Once i was finished reading this it was like Marquez himself had stepped into my room to punch me in the stomach. It reads like the most depressing book but even though it dips you really low it brings you back up +2361,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A36DSZZST9T1RQ,"Spyral ""Its All Just A Ride""",2/13,3.0,1040601600,"Good, but not great.","Honestly i cant really see why this book in particular is so great as to deserve a nobel prize, just this book at least. I havnt read any of the authors other works, which may be a little more deserving. Anyhow, the book is genuinely origional. The idea of a story that goes through a whole family's rise and fall was great, the repetiton of names, however much it was needed for the underlying ideology of the story, got to be a little too much for me to bear though, bordering on annoyance. The book itself never really drew me into it either, too many parts of it read like a history textbook, by the time the last few chapters rolled around I was just reading to finish it up, desperately hoping for something to save it, and the ending, however meaningful, was too little too late. The book did have its moments, dont get me wrong, but for me the cons too much outwieghed the pros." +2362,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,1/1,5.0,896745600,Opens up worlds,"Unfortunately for Marquez, this is the title that is most loved. He has expressed a preference for 'The Autumn of the Patriarch'. But for the rest of us '100 Years' opens up worlds, opens up minds and opens up literature. If you haven't read it you are missing a dazzling milestone in 20th Century literature." +2363,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,0/0,5.0,902275200,sencillamente fantástico,"la narrativa de garcía márquez es fascinantemente envolvente, la descripción del ambiente resulta un tanto místico." +2364,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,14/16,5.0,1075852800,Unfortunate Translation,"While I think that this book was competently translated from Spanish, I do think that the translation does change the style of the book considerably. I was surprised to read reviews where readers considered the book "difficult" or "dense" until I read parts of it in English. I've read this book several times in Spanish, which is my native language, starting from when I was 16. And I find that the prose is not dense at all. My criticism of this English translation is that it overemphasizes the "magical" and "exotic" aspect of the language, making it almost self conscious of its own "magical realism". I think that in Spanish, the magical realism is implied in the language, in the story. It feels like the English translation is intentionally dreamy, almost forced. Anyway, I think this is an excellent book in whatever language you choose to read it. Everyone should read this book at least once, don't worry about the hype, the analysis, etc. Just enjoy it, it will be worth your while." +2365,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1Y225LAJOZ32W,"""shunza_music""",7/12,5.0,1076889600,worth reading it!,"This book can be one of the most confusing and frustrating book that I have ever read. Even though I agree that Marques does earn the Nobel Prize, the structure of the book itself is still complicated. One of the pains during reading this book is to follow the history of the generations. Once you read the family tree in the front of the book, you¡ll realize that the entire Buendia family shares the same name, either Jose or Aureliano. Another Obstacle that I have to overcome with while reading this book is try to follow the generations. For example, the writer might be talking about the 2nd generation in the Buendia family, then suddenly jumps into the 1st family to talk about the history. By having the same names, it really did make me read this entire book two times to understand it.The book itself should be categorized into the magic realism category. When I first read this book, I couldn¡t understand how its magic realism is shown, but later on in the book, it still eventually made sense. The first part of the book is basically introducing the family of Buendia to the readers, then it goes on with how the Buendia family experiences events that they had never experienced. The ending of the book is quite miraculous through simple description. After reading this book, I would definitely encourage more people reading this award winning book." +2366,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,AM59SYOBS6CVR,Wilbert Kuang,7/7,5.0,1070928000,One of the best books i ever read,"this captivating book opened my eyes to Magical realism. it made the things that were unreal to reality to things that feel as though it really happened. This novel covers the birth and death of the citym, Macondo, through the eyes of Coloniel Buendia. It has been quite difficult for me to understand certain parts of the novel due to the continuous use of the same name for each generation. Certain events during the novel left me wondering what had happened. Overall, I would recommend this book to any individual who look forward to a eye-opening, magical journey." +2367,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1M2X8SGE3TCOM,JRasmus103@aol.com,0/0,5.0,893548800,The purest novel describing the human condition.,"This is not a happy book as many other readers have said in their reviews. It is a novel of depression and introspection showing both the saddest and brighest sides of solitude. But the characters' solitude is not like me locking myself up in my room to read this book. It is deeper, describing something existential, a way of life that is disciplined in the joyous festivities and in the deep mourning. My lasting impression of this book is not that of beauty or wonder, but shock in the speaker's accurate description of the human condition." +2368,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A22SCG3MU2L842,"B. Garwitz ""bridget428""",3/4,5.0,1105574400,Melquiades' Masterpiece,"This book chronicles the evolution of the Buendias, a Spanish family. As the book goes on, we're exposed to Marquez's own sense of magical realism as he describes both the significant and trivial events in the lives of the Buendias.At times, this book seems to be going in every direction at the same time. It is difficult to remember the different characters and their relationships to one another. However, the beauty of this book lies in its language and its explanations for human action. Marquez attempts to paint hundreds of little pictures that ultimately sum together to describe all humans to some extent.His characters unrealistically engage in a type of symbolism to show different aspects of their inner workings. For example, Amaranta Ursula keeps her husband, Gaston, on a leash. This is Marquez trying to show us a side of Amaranta's personality and soul without coming right out and telling us. The book is full of examples such as these. If you are enchanted by clever symbolism done up in a magical realism form, you will enjoy this book.Ultimately, the ending really ties everything together SO perfectly. My mind was desperate for clarity by the end, and Marquez more than impressed me. The theme of this book is the human relationship to time. Marquez sums this book up best when he concludes, ""Melquiades (who I believe is supposed to be Marquez) had not put events in the order of man's conventional time, but had concentrated a century of daily episodes in such a way that they coexisted in one instant."" - overall, an awesomely poignant work." +2369,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1REU29HDVWNGU,Kelli,3/12,2.0,1076025600,Middle of the Road,"My experience with 100 Years of Solitude has been that people either love it or they absolutely hate it, but I'm apathetic about it. I had to read it for a world cultures class in college and not even the teacher could tell us how it was relevant to what the class was about. The repetition of the men's names makes for a very confusing story line, and the son that was born with a tail? Weird, to say the least. But apparently this book inspires a lot of people judging by the previous reviews. I would suggest that you read it if for no other reason than to form your own opinion about it." +2370,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,0/0,5.0,833846400,"Fantastic - a wonderful blend of humor, surprise and emotion","A book well deserving of its critical acclaim.Marquez is the master of weaving plot, character and drama." +2371,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,ASLX039QMWZ55,My Interpretations,4/4,5.0,1302480000,Best reason to learn Spanish,"I have read this book many times, starting when I was fifteen years old.It was my first ""cannot put it down"" great literature book.I have become convinced that it is truly the best book ever written.I read it in Spanish (my first language) every time but once; it is an excellent translation but it is a translation. Read it in any language, but if you can read in Spanish I highly recommend you do.Cien Años de SoledadTeri Szucswww.myinterpretations.com" +2372,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,1/1,5.0,863395200,An incredibly poetic book,"This is one of my all time favorite books!. It is not common to see an author who can express very subtle feelings and sensations in such simple and creative images. You should read it in spanish, because there are some metaphors and images that deserve to be read in their original language.Prepare yourself to be guided by Melquiadez to an exciting trip through the timeless pueblo of Mancondo and to experience once more the often forgotten pleasure of reading ." +2373,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2MAB5Q4XA209W,"Patrick Shepherd ""hyperpat""",4/4,4.0,1227139200,A Looking Glass Trip Through History,"This is not your typical novel. It's difficult, confusing, strongly metaphorical, and far more concerned with history and message than any deep look at its characters. At the same time, it is sometimes lyrical, beautiful, inventive, and given to unexpected trips to the magical, just when it seems bogged down in a very harsh reality.It's the story of the town of Macondo and the family that help found the town, stretched over the hundred years of the title. It's clear, when you step back from the details of this work, that the entire work is a metaphor for what happened to Columbia, from its early run-in with the Spanish invaders through the exploitive actions of companies out to rip the riches from the country with no regard for the human cost of their endeavors, and on into to the modern day world of political corruption backed by barely sheathed threats of force.The family that the book follows is unique in many ways, peopled by characters both incredibly strong and driven by obsessions, and yet insular, separated from the real world by their own internal fantasies. Here we find the rebel hero and the dominating matron side by side with ghosts, the Wandering Jew, and highly mysterious gypsies. However, all of these characters are seen from a distance, even though we are privy to their internal thoughts and ideas, and it is difficult to get emotionally involved with any of them. Not helping in this regard is the extreme similarity of names through various generations of the family, and frequent references to the genealogical chart at the beginning of the book are necessary to try and keep everything straight.Stylistically, be prepared for page long sentences and sudden multi-page discourses not immediately connected to current happenings. Often this prose is quite beautiful, and at times very effective in painting pictures of some very horrible occurrences in ways that can sear into your brain. Also be fully prepared for the flights of magical realism, when you go from the mundane of everyday to things clearly impossible in ordinary life, items which often highlight by contrast the depth and trivialness of the ordinary.If you are looking for a straightforward story with normal people, this is not the place to look. If instead you are looking for something very much out of the ordinary, and willing to work to find the core of what's happening, this work can be quite rewarding. It's doubtful if a single reading of this work will expose all of its potential, there is too much buried meaning, symbolism, and metaphor here that needs careful inspection to yield its full treasure. Its themes are not uplifting; futility, the constant of man's inhumanity to others is stark, the repetitiveness of the actions and character types from one generation to the next leads one down the path of asking what purpose does anything have, and the pervasiveness of each individual's necessary isolation from others keeps a dark cloud over the entire work. This is a somber work, with its gold carefully buried, and the reader must be a diligent prospector.---Reviewed by Patrick Shepherd (hyperpat)" +2374,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,0/0,5.0,871603200,Novel award winning book...,"This book was the first of his kind: "magic realism". If you're a serious reader, you won't miss this one. I bet you'll love it. By the way, the author has writed a lot of excellent books also: "Del amor y otros demonios", "El amor en los tiempos del colera", "Doce cuentos peregrinos"" +2375,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1APH1D0P6Z8HG,"Graziella ""Nina""",2/8,5.0,1141776000,one hundred years of solitude,I loved this book. I highly recommend for every one to read it. +2376,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1NN8QC6KCCG3H,"L. Villa ""Edea""",1/1,5.0,1201910400,"A profound book, and one of the best I've read","Absolutely loved it. Vivid and full of creativity, if anyone wants to read a good book I definetly recommend it. Actually not a hard book to read, but it should not be read in a hurry either." +2377,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,0/0,5.0,891388800,Perfection,Having to read this for my 10th rgade english class was the best decision i ever made.This family shows true emotion and character.From the cock fight to the execution of the General. this book keeps you on the edge . Don't expect anything normal. +2378,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,AUHPI4BD3QCN0,Wiseone,3/23,1.0,1074729600,I was surprised!,"I was surprised that Oprah picked this book. Perhaps she chose it to challenge her readers, but it is definitely not the spiritually uplifting material that I would associate with Oprah. The book is memorable to me because of its difference in style and because it is depressing. After this one, Oprah's readers will be yearning for something much more ""light"" in both style and heart." +2379,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,0/0,5.0,866160000,The First Hundred Pages of "Solitude.","I have ony read the first 100 pages of this book and the adjective "engrossing" is but an understatement. From the moment the family patriarch becomes obsessed with the magnets and alchemy equipment of the gypsies to the marriage of Rebeca, this literary trip has so far been an odysseey which leaves most everybody's family trees for wanting.Aside from the title theme of desolation is the less obvious but equally salient theme of discovery and its relationship to the science/magic dichotomy (I guess that this is the essence of this so-called "magical realism" phenomenon). Rarely has this subject matter been tackled with such perceptiveness and aesthetic. Though I have only read the beginning, I find myself wishing that the book were even longer than it already is.Thank you, Gabriel Garcia Marquez!" +2380,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2THD7OIQF0V79,Ena O. Oru,1/3,5.0,1264032000,I think this is simply the best book I've read,"From the moment I picked it up, I was hooked. It takes you into this world of the Buendia family for a hundred years, a family that is so unpredictable and amusing, each and everyone with a somewhat different yet similar character. its confusing nature, the tragedies, the out of this world stories... I've read fiction books that are realistic and ones that intentionally aren't, I still dont know where this one lies. it truly is amusing.I think this is simply the best book I've read." +2381,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1Y7U2E64W4E3U,"Edward Cloos ""ecloos""",0/0,5.0,1358208000,Introduction to Marquez through this classic,"I first met Marquez through this classic in the home of a friend, but I had to leave before I finished (100 years is, after all, a long time). So I had to buy it. I have a Colombian daughter in law, but she surprisingly hadn't studied him in college. It's kind of a side issue in the novel, as well as in daily life in Colombia, but low-key internal "war" has been going on for more than 100 years. A fascinating place described by one of the world's great authors." +2382,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A3HBLG6CUF4VQL,"rickjames8 ""rickjames8""",7/24,1.0,1010361600,Not for everyone,"I will not critize this book too heavily, as apparently it is a classic and many people find it delightful. However, I found the book extremely hard to follow, and without any identifyable plot line. Yes, it is interesting to see how a city can develop over 100 years of time, but all the characters kept dying off, and I found myself not being bothered by it, as nothing made me connect with them through the book. I really just did not find the book enjoyable enough to continue past 2/3rds the way in to it ." +2383,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2NHD7LUXVGTD3,doc peterson,6/9,2.0,1249862400,Terribly frustrating,"Given the lavish praise for _100 Years of Solitude_, I am gravely disappointed and frustrated. At the risk of being burned in effigy (or in the very least pilloried as a philistine), wading through Marquez was a real test of my patience and literary fortitude.The story was a difficult read, which I don't mind, so long as there is a reward for my efforts. I found no such relief here. Stylisitically it was an abomination: paragraphs that run one, two, two and a half pages long?! This was worse than Faulkner, as at least with him there is conflict (and resolution) in his writing. In _100 Years of Solitude_, the initial investment of 100 pages is that the following 300 pages are more or less a rehash of the first quarter of the book. The characters have almost identical names, and make many of the same decisions and actions as their namesakes. Beyond being repetitive, I found it mindnumbingly dull. Adding to the sense of drugery I experienced, was the geologic pace of the book.To be fair to the legions of fans of Marquez, I ""get"" magical realism - in fact, I enjoyed elements of it here. I also understand his point that history is ""cyclical"" (although I don't happen to agree with him on this), and that this explains not only the similarities in name but also in behaviour by his characters. A strong case could be made for Jung's ""collective memory"" in the book, given the actions (and in several cases, literal ""hereditary memory"") of the many Arcadios and Aurielianos ; heck, I can even see how one could argue that Marquez is showing the existential crisis of the individual - that, in spite of our best efforts, we are all alone, daily wrestling with our solitude. And perhaps it is precisely because of these clues that this is so beloved by so many. All that aside, I didn't enjoy the book at all and had to force myself to return to it again and again in order to finish. With his book, at least, I am puzzled at the high regard with which it is held." +2384,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1XF80MH3ZEI94,erclark@princeton.edu,0/0,5.0,908323200,This book changed the way I look at literature and life,"One Hundred Years of Solitude is, essentially, the most important work of one of the 20th century's supreme masters of the written word. And it's also an incredible read. Garcia Marquez has somehow managed to balance an absolute clarity of symbolic thought with a kind of earthy pragmatism, the like of which I have not yet found. There's none of that stylish European existential angst in here; the kind which appears in, for example, Waiting for Godot (another work I adore, at least on an intellectual level). In this I think there's an important message to be found: when you get done reading this book, don't just sit on your butt and muse on the glories of the written word -- go out and DO something! Write a book of your own, compose some poetry, fall in love, what have you ... just alleviate that solitude, any way you can! In that alone, he already takes a more active role than most important authors in pushing for an active participation in society, as opposed to the kind of hermetic isolation from which so many of us suffer today.Additionally, for all the hullabaloo about Magic Realism, there's really nothing to fear; everything that happens within the book is completely consistent with what Garcia Marquez would have us believe about the world of Macondo and the Buendias (the main family of protagonists in the novel, if you haven't read it). And I believe that a mutual coherence between all the internal elements of a work of literature is far more important than its being consistent with what we're used to reading. And frankly, I found it hilarious. Cheesy justification aside, Garcia Marquez is a master of comic timing, and wit spills out of the sides of this magically realistic book as copiously as does significance.In any case, this book is just a perfect balance of everything that I wanted in literature but was never able to find -- clarity of thought without loss of depth, a philosophical bent without a loss of a sense of reality, and an absolute mastery of the use of symbolism. This last point is perhaps the most significant; not a single word in the book is wasted. While it is possible to enjoy the book without thinking about it too hard, almost every sentence contains some metaphorical double-entendre -- some easy to spot, some more difficult.Yada yada. Anyway, this book is absolutely wonderful, and there's no excuse (that I can think up) for avoiding this book besides an utter distaste for everything written in the 20th century. Or maybe a chronic lack of time in which to read. I hope this review bumps it back up to five stars on the rating meter; it was at four and a half, and that's just not fair. Well, now I will stop blathering." +2385,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A8BLLITYY23M5,Amanda M. Hayes,258/270,5.0,973814400,Mesmerizing and Marvelous,"There are relatively few books that I've had to read for my college classes and truly enjoyed. This was one of them.Now, be warned: this is not a clear-cut story; the prose can be confusing, and the repetition of names makes it more difficult by far to keep track of who is who. The novel does indeed cover one hundred years, so expect to see favorite characters die if they first appear early on. There is no one protagonist. The family is the protagonist--the family, and the town.Perhaps despite these potential confusions and perhaps because of them, Marquez has woven in this book a shroud of mysteriousness and magical realism that make reading it something like stepping into a dream; his Macondo is like nowhere else on Earth (or at least nowhere I have ever heard of), and things at once comic, tragic, and unreal can happen there. You will find dreamers and would-be scientists, layabouts and soldiers, matriarchs and wantons in this enchanted household. Enchantment of a murky sort hovers over the land like a haze, touching everything and separating the descendants of Jose Arcadio from the world as we know it.You may not want to read it in one sitting; you may find yourself putting it down for awhile, confused or exasperated by the latest turn of events, but it is quite likely that you will pick it up again in due course with curiosity drawing you back into the realm Marquez has created. As classics go, this is one worthy of the title, and it is a story to be savored." +2386,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,AGKRLJVBSMBY9,A. 1445,0/1,4.0,1093737600,Enchanting,"I'm still not done with reading the book, but I'm amazed at the portrayal of the many coming and going characters in this book. It's interetsing how the writer portrays each main character's state of solitude leading to his death. The style of writing is also very different, going back and forth yet when you think about the book when you're not reading it, you do have a complete recollection of everything that's happened despite they're not being in chronological order." +2387,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,0/0,5.0,921283200,Beautiful and Amazing,Marquez is a GOD with language. I loved this epic. Few books have held me as tightly as this one did. +2388,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,0/0,5.0,892684800,"lost in space, ideas, lost in our solitude","All I can think when I read this book is the human comedy(tragedy) that we are trying to play. The comedy of life, of our solitude that has its roots deeply inside our souls. This book is a mirror of the human soul and of our society. The image reflected is tragic, is the image of souls that fight to survive in this mix of love, hate, ignorance, geniality and pain that is commonly known as LIFE. Marquez is great and this book is the reason why Marquez is great. READ IT." +2389,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,0/0,4.0,931478400,A magical engaging story,"Now I know why critics have put this book on the must-read books of all time. One Hundred Years of Solitude is an engaging tale of mankind's ups and downs as seen in the lives of the Buendias. I am amazed and awed at how Gabriel Garcia Marquez came up with such a story. He must have been feverish writing this exquisite tale, caught up in the everyday lives of the Buendias." +2390,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1BTC43P7QREXT,P. DAmore,6/20,1.0,1081382400,One hundred spastic pages,"I tried really to follow the story...the names are all the same,I kept constantly referring to the family tree to figure out who was who...it's more science fiction than believable...insominia disease of the entire village?!, Just too difficult for me to enjoy. I hated it and only got as far as 158 pages before I gave up." +2391,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,1/1,5.0,934329600,Allegorical Fiction At Its Finest,"The book tells of the fascinating rise and fall of the Buendia family. It is not really all that long, never dull, and clearer than the most transparent crystal (although, taken at a deeper level, the book offers much more than what appears on the surface). In many respects, the book tells of the rise of, and predicts the fall of, humankind. In this sense, it is allegorical fiction at its finest. Along the way, it tells a cornucopia of stories about love, war, peace, remembrance, time, joy, pain, and many other emotions beyond description in this small amount of space." +2392,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A36G3WLT4Y7F2T,Edub,0/0,5.0,1339113600,One of my all time favorite books,"Gabriel Garcia Marquez is a master at his craft, and this is is one of his best books. He invented magical realism, a style that has influenced many Latin American authors. It's a classic and a wonderful read." +2393,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A12BM9BV8THPD0,"max ""n""",5/16,2.0,1124841600,pointless,"I enjoyed the first hundred pages or so. The symbolism was very intriguing, but after a while it was just confusing with too many characters and a meandering plot. I could not stay awake long enough to finish it." +2394,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,0/0,5.0,903830400,A world apart,"I was breathless while reading this absolute masterpiece. I was so involved that used to identify my friends, my family and myself with each of the Buendias. Never predictable, stunning in its end, this is definitely the best tale of all times. Thanks so ever Gabo." +2395,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A2KHSFZQ9IX2BW,M. E. Cruz,0/0,5.0,1145836800,Not for the impatient or inattentive,"I bought this book despite the few negative reviews I read about it and was glad that I read it!Sure, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and previous reviews were right about it not being a book everyone will necessarily like, but if you have patience and a good memory, you will enjoy this book!Yes, it gets confusing because the same names get used throughout the whole book for different generations in the family, but it all ties in to the overall story, which, I thought, only made the story better. You don't see many books like this one, so it's definitely worth a try =)." +2396,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,,,0/0,5.0,889401600,The BEST book ever written,"I enjoyed reading the other reviews written about this book because it made me realize that many other people have been as deeply moved as myself. I never realized that the written word could be so expressive. I was in my first year of law school, right in the middle of exams, when I finished reading the book around 2:00 a.m.. I immediately started reading it again. I have read it since then, and plan to reread it on a regular basis. Many times I have walked into a bookstore and read the last page, and everytime I get chills up my spine." +2397,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1I87YYHQ8TMM8,SnowKnitter,1/10,1.0,1317168000,I wanted to stab my eyes out...,"This novel was painful for me to finish. I'm sad that I devoted so many hours of my life to reading this book...hours I will never get back.It is a ""preferred book"" for my son's 10th grade AP Language class...I read it and told him to stay far, far away from it. I found it BEYOND tedious.What's wrong with me? Why does everyone love this novel and I found it so annoying?Sign me ~BEWILDERED" +2398,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,ARN2BKTO14BVE,"Michael ""troppo67""",1/1,5.0,951523200,A Sea of Latino Enchantment,"I have read this extraordinary book in Rabassa's excellent translation...and now wil read it in Spanish to compare....like many others, the book took several attempts on my part to make it through...but once I did, I was drawn into a world that seemed to breathe outside of town and yet not so far from our reality...here the world is seen with eyes outside of linear time. beholding things such as ice for the first time.. you will find even eferences to the Ascension with Remedios the Beauty rising upward lost beyond the reaches of the birds of memory...or the plague of insomnia, with forgetfulness and reality slipping away with the meaning of words...here you will find passions celebrated among butterflies and scorpions...it is epic, full of revolutions, passions, discoveries, magic, all flowing from the banana town whose solitude was to be wiped by the winds...." +2399,B000I3JBUO,One Hundred Years of Solitude,,A1DJZ6QHW2RZ94,"Liza ""picky reader""",4/6,3.0,1089417600,One Hundred Hours of Humid Reading,"This was not an easy read by any means. I forced myself to finish it. The writing is good to excellent, but the multi-generational Aurelianos are so convoluted and confusing. Luckily, Marquez reminds you of the characters', background so you aren't totally lost following all the threads. The imagery in many places is sublime, fascinating, dark, mystical, crazy. It almost reminds me of watching a Tim Burton movie ( I had just seen Big Fish) with much more detail and story weaving. Sometimes you don't know when reality starts and stops, but that is also the beauty of this story. So many characters were living in their minds and not in the present. The matriarchal strength in this story binds it all. You have to pay attention and not read this before going to bed. At the end, I had to brush off the cobwebs and scrape off the moss from myself. I was lucky the ants remained outside." +2400,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3KRW8PIP8CAI5,Jess,0/0,4.0,1360022400,The hobbit,I really enjoyed the book I had a hard time doing anything else I could hardly unglued myself from the screen haha I would recommend it to anyone who wants a good read +2401,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3KA88FPXBHN4Y,Michael Plooy,0/0,5.0,1355616000,Always worth the read.,Every six or ten years it just has to be read again. How they are making three movies out of it is a mystery. +2402,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,5.0,882748800,THIS WAS A GREAT BOOK!,I got the book the Hobbit at my school library for a book report and after the first chapter I loved it. I am 10 years old and now have read this book and the Lord of Rings and the Silmarillion. They were GREAT! +2403,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2K7UODF2NWTM9,"""acting4aliving""",1/1,5.0,969926400,THE Fantasy novel,"The Hobbit is the be all and end all of fantasy literature...and it is one of the few works of fantasy deserving of the title literary work, for it is indeed that: A work of beauty, meaning and purpose. That Tolkien could write a children's story with such depth and resonance that anyone from 3 to 300 can read and enjoy is beyond nearly any other writer's ability, at least in this genre. The Hobbit stands alone as a beautifully written tale, but that it left so many tiny cracks that Tolkien could create an epic sequel and a complete land (With amazing history!) is beyond me. The Hobbit deserves reading once for entertainment, twice for discovery, and unlimited re-readings to delve again and again into a world that, beneath the magic, isn't unlike our own." +2404,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,ADE0HCC2BFCA3,"John Aaron ""John""",8/8,5.0,1354060800,Great reading of a fantastic book!,"I first fell in love with The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings in 6th grade. That love hasn't faded over the ensuing 40 years. This audiobook - and the companion for LoTR - do the original full justice. Rob Inglis is a master of voice and characterization - and he brings the book fully to life.I do wish that this were available on MP3; transferring the disks to iTunes is a bit cumbersome. But if you're looking for a fantastic listening experience, this is more than worth that minimal effort." +2405,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2L95OJYH7UJPQ,Jason Bowles,0/0,5.0,1286928000,Best book I never read until now!,"Between 2001 and 2003 I became a fan of Peter Jackson's movie version of ""Lord of the Rings"". Since it was shot in New Zealand I got to see a lot of the country's scenery as well as enjoying a masterpiece of film. When reading a copy of Tolkien's original work sometime later I read ""Fellowship of the Ring"" all the way through but something about Tolkien's writing style caused me to lose interest after I started ""The Two Towers"". The fact I'd seen the movies was likely the reason, since I knew how the story went. After reading ""The Hobbit"" I might have to read ""Lord of the Rings"" in its entirety to see the differences between Tolkien's work and the Peter Jackson films (I'm sure both Tolkien's and Jackson's work are masterpieces of literature/film).While reading ""The Hobbit"" I could see/hear in my mind the faces/voices of Ian McKellan, Hugo Weaving, Ian Holm and Andy Serkis (who played Gandalf, Elrond, Bilbo, and Gollum, respectively, in the films). I heard these actors had agreed to reprice their roles from Lord of the Rings one more time for ""The Hobbit"" (not sure about Ian Holm). It's too bad about the rights to a ""Hobbit"" movie remaining in legal limbo, but Tolkien's work is a literary masterpiece and I'm so happy I finally read it." +2406,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,AZPJ4K5PU13TC,"Phillip Hadley ""TX Aggie""",1/1,5.0,1356480000,Understand how it all got started,Great book to read before the movie to understand how it all got started. Also explains some parts of the LOTR trilogy. +2407,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A8778DM9ZBH4V,"Mary Baumer ""darlin13""",0/1,5.0,1022112000,furry little feet,"i remember watching the cartoon of this with my dad on sunday afternoons when i was little, it thrilled me, just thrilled me. I think this is the best book Tolkien ever wrote. I was never a fan of the Trillogy, but i loved this book. You cant go wrong with this book." +2408,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2ZATPER188K3J,B. Wilfong,1/1,5.0,1356566400,Adventures!,"I recently read ""The Hobbit"" for only the second time in my life, and I have to argue with the people who say this is a children's book. I disagree wholeheartedly. Although there are elements of children's fantasy tales in the text, the themes and actions of ""The Hobbit"" are much more oriented to adults.I won't waste time rehashing plot points with this iconic text; instead I will focus on some features that stuck out to me.First off, if one is familiar with the ""Lord of the Rings"" trilogy, I think their reading of ""The Hobbit"" will yield some interesting insights and they will catch some details that people not familiar with LOTR would miss. One can read, and greatly enjoy, ""The Hobbit"" as a standalone text, but I think it is much better when considered within the framework of LOTR.Another observation that surprised me was just how unlikeable the dwarves are in this book. Tolkien frequently mentions in his other works that dwarves are foolish and selfish, and usually only do good works when prompted by circumstance, but on this reading of ""The Hobbit"" they greatly annoyed me. Perhaps because of how much they remind me of most of humanity. And maybe that was Tolkien's intent? An allegory for how humanity often only makes the right choice when goaded into it, as opposed to it being our first and natural instinct.Although there are moments in the text that are a little slow going, they are few and far between, and Tolkien focuses much less on the minutia of detail about Middle Earth in this book as opposed to some of his others. I had also forgotten how action packed the last 100 pages or so of ""The Hobbit"" are. I was recently arguing with a friend that the decision to make the films of ""The Hobbit"" a trilogy was just greed as the book could not support 3 films. I was wrong, if the movies are well done, there is more than enough in this text to justify three films.This rereading of ""The Hobbit"" has made me want to jump back into Middle Earth, and I sense that I will be picking up and rereading more of Tolkien in the very near future. As for ""The Hobbit"", I will gladly revisit Bilbo Baggins and his adventures again and again over the course of my lifetime. No greater praise can one give a book." +2409,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3GLT825P74HZP,ed,2/2,5.0,963360000,I great read if you are open-minded...,"When I heard that the trilogy that follows this novel, The Lord of the Rings, was being made into a movie and that Tolkien's books are some of the greatest literary works of all time, I bought LOTR and The Hobbit.Let me say this: The Hobbit (and Lord of the Rings for that matter) is not for everyone. One of The Hobbit's greatest aspects (or worst, depending on how you see it) are the vivid details of the scenery Tolkien provides the reader. This makes the reader feel as if he/she is in Middle-Earth as part of the party of 13 dwarves, one hobbit and a wizard. You experience everything the group does, and they do go through a lot. The downfall of this style is it may seem slow and boring to some, but not to me.Some say that there is not enough charcter development or that the plot is too thin. I beg to disagree. While there are many pages of wandering around Middle-Earth and descriptions of its locales, the plot moves at a fair pace with a main event present in every chapter. As for those who say that character development is non-existant in the novel must have skipped quite a few chapters. Do they not realise that the main character, Bilbo Baggins, goes through a tremendous change? At the very beginning of the book he has very little desire for adventure. He does not think of himself as brave or bold or resourceful. By the final pages of The Hobbit, he has become all the things he didn't believe he was.After reading this tale of travel and adventure, I now agree with those who say that this is the greatest literary works of the century. If you are open-minded and like fantasy in general or like the Star Wars saga, you should look into this book. And if you enjoyed reading this book you will also enjoy Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy. Finally, this is a great novel that is well worth your money, every cent of it." +2410,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3LZL2LHB9QD27,Angel Luis Sosa Diaz,0/0,5.0,1198972800,dont tell me you havent read this yet,for children and grow ups. the hobbit is a all time classic. even funny as it ressults in my last lectureI think this book is perfect for that people who get into adventure novel after reading harry potter and you are afraid to the lord of the ringsdont wait. read it and youll love it since page 1 +2411,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2JDE9YYDQ1JYI,Ryan,1/1,5.0,1356220800,How am I 23 and this is the first time reading Tolkien?,"I really enjoyed this book. I watched all of the Lord Of The Rings when I was 11-13 but never really thought of actually reading the series. I missed out for sure. For those who want to see The Hobbit in theaters, or perhaps are inspired to read it after seeing part 1, I highly recommend you do so. A few differences from the book and movie but overall it stayed pretty true to the book (thus far)." +2412,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,AJSQH4AZBOZN2,"Anatole ""playa30""",0/1,3.0,1022371200,Entertaining,"It is very exciting to follow up to half of the book, but eventually becomes kind of boring. Maybe I should have read it at 13. But it is amusing." +2413,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2SRT262WG2WH6,Dave,0/0,5.0,1240358400,Bilbo: A Study in Character Development,"The Hobbit is one of my favorite books of all time. Perhaps it is because I read it as a child, and it first introduced me to dwarves and elves in a way far different from their Disney counterparts. Perhaps it was the humanity of characters laid out for me to see. I am not sure exactly what it was, but after rereading it for the upteenth time, it still has not lost a smidgen of its charm.Sure, Lord of the Rings is the serious book, the more adultish, more classic quest fantasy to save the world from mortal peril sort of thing. The Hobbit is more of a quest to save Bilbo from living his life without a single thing happening that was unexpected. I think this central difference, combined with a younger target audience for this book, makes this book have a much more carefree attitude, and a generally much more merry tale.The pace of the Hobbit is pretty rapid, since really the journey of this story would have been of a similar length as Lord of the Rings, with a lot of detail simply missing from this book. The first leg of the journey was almost identical to Frodo's in route at least, yet it is over in a couple of chapters. Really, the lesser significance of this quest required a lot less development early on.What you really do see happen in the Hobbit, which is nearly absent in Lord of the Rings, is how a bit of a fussy homebody is changed into a daring and wise companion by means of the journey. Bilbo proved to be the lucky 'fourteenth' man on the quests of the dwarf Thorin to reclaim his homeland and treasure, and that was lucky for not only the dwarves, but for Bilbo himself. Even Gandalf discovered that there was more to Bilbo than meets the eye, as the hobbit proved himself useful in a lot of very different situations.It is a wonder to see a character develop like Bilbo during the course of a single novel. It is an exceedingly rare sight these days, to see something like this happen, and it is refreshing to see it again here.The songs in this book aren't the poet things from Lord of the Rings, but more like drinking songs with simple rhymes. This [songs] is not a favorite now a days, but I kinda like them. Trying to figure out a tune to go with each one is difficult at times, but it makes it that much better. You can always just skip them, like I did when I was a kid.Highly recommended." +2414,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1DVSBSLDQ35MA,"Julio A. Jimenez Rodarte ""Antharagorn""",1/1,5.0,1300147200,"There and back again, Collector's 50th anniversary edition","This is a very beautiful book, an even more beautiful story.First of all, Houghton & Mifflin have other Tolkien's books Collector's editions:The Lord of the Rings (Collector's Edition),The Lord of the Rings (50th Anniversary Edition)andThe Children of Hurin: Deluxe Edition, which are, all of them, flawless. Besides these, there is several hardcover editions and paperbacks, though not the same finish of the collector's.My point is, there is little you could complain about the collector's editions.About THIS edition: I already had theThe Hobbit (Illustrated/Collector Edition)[There and Back Again], and they are practically the same but for some extra pages telling some of the always interesting story of the editions and the gold for the green color. Nonetheless, I think the green is more close to what the book is made of and I think it looks better, too. Though, they both are very beautiful works.If you want the best edition and don't mind about anniversary ones, I'd say you get the green; it's easier to find and more hobbit like.But, before you decide, take a look at the pretty little 70 anniversary editionThe Hobbit: 70th Anniversary Edition; it's made just like the 1937 one.The road goes ever on and on..." +2415,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,AC8KQ9I10G3SP,"Coffeholic ""Coffeeholic""",1/1,4.0,1356652800,Entertaining,"This book was simply written, but the underlying story had heart and depth. The characters were interesting, and I found myself routing them on in their quest. Worth reading for both young and old." +2416,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,1/1,5.0,1056585600,The Hobbit or There and Back Again,"""The Hobbit or There and Back Again"" is a great fantasy book written by the author J.R.R. Tolkien. Being a prequel to the fantastic ""Lord of the Rings"" book trilogy ""The Hobbit"" is not a book to miss out on for reading. ""The Hobbit"" is filled with fantasy, adventure, and literature. If you think that this book is for children only then you are very wrong. ""The Hobbit"" is a great fantasy book for both children and adults. There are many fantasy characters in ""The Hobbit"" book. And they are: trolls, orcs, a dragon, a wizard, a hobbit (which is a halfling), elves, dwarves, and much more. This book is one of my most favorite books to read along side with the author J.R.R. Tolkiens ""Lord of the Rings"" book trilogy. If you are looking for a good fantasy/adventure book to read then ""The Hobbit or There and Back Again"" is the book for you." +2417,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1CAF866HYZTHA,"W. Wilkin ""Call me Ahab""",1/1,5.0,1264550400,Book Review - The Hobbit,"This book is the first book that J.R.R. Tolkien wrote in a series of related books about the history of the mythical world of ""Middle Earth"". It is the 2nd of the series viewed in chronological series:- The Silmarilion- The Hobbit- The Fellowship of the Ring- The Two Towers- The Return of the KingIt is the pivotal book in this series. The Silmarillion describes the ancient history of Middle Earth that provides the introduction.The last three books present the consequences of the finding of The Ring of Power.The Hobbit describes the events that led to the finding of this ring. It is tightly plotted and action flows smoothly and entertainingly. The book is full of wonderful poems and rhymes that everyone uses from the heroes to the villains. It is full of humor and, although reading like a children's tale at points, has more than enough serious content for any adult.This is an audio book. Rob Inglis, the narrator, has produced wonderful vocal characterization of all characters and sings, where required, passably well." +2418,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A165BISHHDMJ34,Gloria McCarthy,0/0,5.0,1359763200,The Hobbit,Re-read The Hobbit after many years. I enjoyed it just as much this time around as the last. Five stars for sure. +2419,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,5.0,936748800,IT'S AN INTOXICATING BOOK YOU CAN NOT PUT DOWN!!!!,I read the book in high school an was captivated by the story.so much so that i read all of the rest of J.R.R.TOLKIENS books now i read them to my children at bed time.Its lets your mind wander an lets you look at life at a childs point of veiw.some new creature or race appears in the book and lets your childs mind wander and think since my childern are so inquizative they want to know what they look like and where there from i tell them to think about it.but she loves the book from gandalf the wizard to the 13 dwarfs.and bilbos furry feet and the action of the orcs goblins wargs and spiders.theres action in almost every chapter a simple book for them to follow at a young age. But a complex story over the rest of the series of books. As bilbos fate is intertwined with gollums b-day present a simple golden ring to the looks of the avarage eye.A must read book for people with children who are captivated by the middle ages.Like a trip to the renaissance festival in there own mind in a way. +2420,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,1/2,4.0,1168473600,The Hobbit's favorite review,"Without the hobbit, once self-confined to his home, the lands around the Lonely Mountain may never have found the greater peace that they did. In the beginning of The Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins hated the idea of adventure, but he could only do so much to stop this one when thirteen dwarves and one wizard came to his little hobbit-hole in the hill.The lot of them needed his services as a burglar to gain their treasure back from he dragon, Smaug. He hesitantly agreed to go, and on the way, the group found Bilbo to be very handy, noble, and adventurous. Though the one to actually kill the dragon was a warrior from Dale, Bilbo played a large part in the entirety of the greater peace found after Smaug's death in the lands around. I strongly recommend this book to adventure-lovers and those in need of some inspiration.One reason that I liked this book was that it had many points of great suspense, such as when Bilbo woke up to find a giant spider's eyes and legs tying his legs together to eat him. Bilbo luckily woke up in time to kill the spider. Also, when Bilbo and his friends had to fight off the trolls, it seemed possible that Bilbo would get his toes singed, or they would all get eaten. It was a point of great suspense when Bilbo darted invisibly from tree to tree, away from the spiders who were trying ton eat him and his friends, who were hanging from a web some way off.Another good part of this book was the mystery that loomed in the background, though sometimes it was unnoticed until it was directly brought up. For example, when Thorin was lost from the group, it was quite unknown where he had gone, and it wasn't brought up for quite a while. Also, it was a mystery how Bilbo would get into his barrel, which he didn't get to, because he didn't think of it, but ended up floating down the river on top of it. It was quite a mystery how they would get out of the trees surrounded by wargs and goblins, but were eventually saved by eagles.My favorite part of this book was the way it often made it seem impossible for the dwarves and Bilbo to go any further, like when they were in the Goblin's passages, in front of the Great Goblin, about to be eaten, or when they got caught in the forest with no idea of how to get out. The best example was when they got stuck in the elven-palace, guarded by elves and a spell-ridden gate.The Hobbit was a very satisfactory reads, full of suspense, adventure, and friendship. I would recommend it to anyone looking for a good book that keeps you turning the pages through Bilbo's adventure.-K.Carson" +2421,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3TZ4AR9M3ZENC,Christine Carey,0/0,5.0,1358812800,Hobbit,I think this book is agreat read . I also think it should be bestseller. Brilliant fantastic fascinating mysterious bad adventurious.Executing exciting fab supreme super duper . +2422,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,AR017GKUJOKSR,D. Drennen,0/0,4.0,1293926400,Why did I read a book so long?,"The Hobbit is a really exciting tale of a little hobbit and the huge adventure he goes through. I read that one of the reasons J.R.R. Tolkien wrote the book was for his own children to enjoy, but the intended audience of this book could be anywhere from 13 up to adults, as I know a 30 year old who claims to have read it 5 times and as recently as last year. Because of how well the book was written and the great characters, this is a great book for someone of any age to read.The only background information you need to know about this book is that it is a prequel to the Lord of The Rings series. I do not have many criterions to judge this book as it is the first one I have ever read from cover to cover. To summarize the book, Bilbo is convinced to go with a large pack of Dwarves as a thief to help them get their mountain back from an evil dragon called Smaug. Along the way they run into trolls, elves, spiders, goblins, eagles, and participate in a huge battle.I really enjoyed all of the books key elements. The plot really worked well for someone my age, it had a great reward at the end of all their hard work, and it had some amazing characters like Bilbo, Gandalf, and Thorin. It had sad parts too at the end where a main character learned a good life lesson. Knowing that this book was wrote before the Lord of The Rings I think it sets up that book really well. It already lets you meet a few of the main characters and makes you interested to see what happens to Bilbo and his ring. I haven't read any other books like this so it makes it hard to compare to books like it, but I know that I would be interested in reading more books like it if there any.The great characters and the adventure in this book really have made it an enjoyment to read. From the very beginning of being introduced to Bilbo and all his adventures with trying to escape being eaten by trolls, trying to get out of a goblin cave, being chased by wolves and spiders, and helping the dwarves escape from an Elvish prison along with trying to defeat a dragon and survive a war I really had a great time reading it. While I expected this project to be no fun at all, the book was so great it has made this little project turn into its own huge adventure." +2423,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,5.0,895190400,I think this is one of the best books I have ever read!,"I thought Tolkein is a wonderful author, who in The Hobbit describes things so well that it is like you are on the adventure yourself." +2424,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,4.0,1012089600,Bilbo's Journey,"Bilbo Baggins the hobbit was just about to have his tea one Wednesday when suddenly his doorbell rang. He instantly remembered that Gandalf the wizard was going to have tea with him. To his great surprize, thirteen dwarves in addition to Gandalf ended up at his table that afternoon. Thorin and Co., as the dwarves called themselves, were in need of a fourteenth member of their group to assist them on their quest to get back gold and other riches the dragon Smaug had stolen from them. Bilbo obliged and accompanied the band of dwarves on their rescue mission. On many occasions during his journey, Bilbo wished that he were back home, but once his duty was complete, Bilbo never regretted going with the dwarves.With an unexpected ending and great descriptions, I would undoubtedly recommend this book. Despite a slow and boring beginning, I thoroughly enjoyed reading The Hobbit. I really liked how this plot was so unpredictable. Thorin and Co.'s journey took so many enexpected turnes that it kept me on my toes and really into the book." +2425,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A7DQPZZYB9QTA,J.Cody,0/0,5.0,1359763200,fun read,It was a great book with fun characters and I can't wait until the rest of the movies come out. +2426,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3Q8209WTPJPL0,PhotoGirl,0/0,5.0,1349654400,As good as ever,I loveThe Hobbit--ever since my mom read it to me as a girl. I wanted to read it again before seeing the movie and decided to buy a digital copy for my Kindle since my paper copy is falling apart. I'm thoroughly enjoying this latest addition along with the clickable footnotes. +2427,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1T2P3QJBLCCYI,debra dickinson,0/0,5.0,1360022400,The Hobbit,"I really enjoyed reading this book as I am an avid reader of J R R Tolkien Books, his wiritng style is very decriptive and watching the movie afterwards just brought all the characters alive. I highly recommend this book. The ease of downloading the book on my amazon reader was effortless and quick." +2428,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,5.0,859507200,The prolouge to the standard in Fantasy books,"This book vividly creates a magic world. It has good characters and plot that is always exciting. It avoids telling of the boring details of the journey and insteads concentrates on the most exciting events. Most important it describes a neccesary encounter between two characters that leads to the fantastic trilogy, The Lord of the Rings" +2429,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A4E8YDCITGQX3,Joseph Anthony Colon,0/0,5.0,1360022400,Great book,This book is one of the greatest booked I have ever read. It captivated my imagination and mad me angry when it was finished. +2430,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2H0P0A8I8GCFR,O. Mariko,1/1,5.0,1356480000,One of my favorite books,"It's been well over 10 years since I've read 'The Hobbit,' but it holds up remarkably well.But on the Kindle (iPad) version, there was a glitch that left the top paragraph smaller than the rest of the page text when I exited and came back to the app." +2431,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2HGR1TVQE2L9R,"""geddysciple""",2/2,5.0,954028800,A Fantasy Classic,"Tolkein was such a masterful writer. His outlandish characters, colorful imaging, original settings, and mesmerizing plotlines are among some of my favorite readings.The basic plot revolves around a young hobbit's journey with a company of thirteen dwarves and a wizard on a quest to regain the dwarven homeland. Amongst the many enemies they must face along the way are the Wargs, a vicious group of wolves; the orcs; and a fearsome and monstrous dragon named Smaug.If you like fantasy literature in the least, you should love this book. It got me hooked on the genre, and hopefully you'll enjoy it too." +2432,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1GJ2N000N86H1,mariskahime,1/1,5.0,1347148800,A short fan's review on the ISBN: 978-0-618-96863-3 edition.,"The Hobbit is indeed a great book and there's no need to write a review of the author's work. However, you may find useful short (subjective) list of information on the edition with ISBN: 978-0-618-96863-3.- The paper wrapping looks perfect to me, the wrapping designed by the author is definitely something a fan must have. The picture is printed in color and a short history of its previous appearances is included in the book. What makes me little anxious is relatively fragile paper - if you want it to stay so nice, you should handle it very carefully.- Book contains two maps printed in black+blue, their paper is semi-glossy and looks resistant.- The paper of the book is appropriate, neither too thick nor too thin, it has smooth surface so it is a pleasure to read and turn the pages. The color of the paper is yellowish.- The book contains all author's illustrations that ever belonged to the title (according to the book's preface). Some of them are printed in black and white on the regular paper, some of them are included in color on the glossy white paper.I find this book to exactly match the expectations of a Tolkien fan - all in all, The Hobbit was meant to be children's book and that is how it looks and feels like." +2433,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,AGNFAR3RZP1Z4,Pen Name,0/0,5.0,1361404800,Great book,This is a great book. I love the illustrations and sound bites which are included in the electronic version here +2434,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,AEU5AWGXHSP6J,"Fire Walker ""ADK46r""",0/0,5.0,1351036800,A True Classic,"Over a period of 30 years, l've read this book 3 or 4 times. At different stages of my life it has always been satisfying. lt is a charming tale with a good moral. l recommend it to any person wanting a good read." +2435,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,5.0,921283200,"If you read one book in you life, this should be it.",The Hobbit is the greatest storie ever written. J. R. R. Tolkien does a excellent job of creating the perfect fantacy realm. If you love adventure and great reading make sure you do not miss this great book. Also read the Silmarilian and the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. All of them deserve a five star rating. +2436,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2YTQ7X8SEFO3Q,"AcidFree ""bookie""",2/7,2.0,1055462400,Little people versus a huge dragon,"The little people win, of course, but boy does it take awhile for THAT to happen." +2437,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,5.0,928886400,The best fantasy book by the best fantasy author ever!,"The main character in the book The Hobbit is a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins. A Hobbit is a short dwarf-like creature that really is not very capable of action. Bilbo was one of these exceptions, since he was born from a very famous family of Hobbit who were always getting into trouble. Bilbo's personality changes throughout the story. It starts like a regular Hobbit who doesn't want a adventure, but he eventually becomes sort of a leader and slays a huge dragon. The story The Hobbit didn't have any real defined point in history, but it did take place around fantasy times around spring. In the beginning of the story, Bilbo was in his little Hobbit hole when a group of travelers stop by to rest. It turns out they were on a voyage with a great wizard named, Gandalf. Through some means, Bilbo comes with them and meets their first challenge with a bunch of giants. The giants desperately needed food, and were happy to see these travelers until they all got away. The travelers faced a few more problems like goblins, until they were separated in a cave. Bilbo went downwards where he found this strange ring and met a strange monster. Bilbo discovered his ring made him invisible, and decided to make a deal with the creature. The creature was hungry, so Bilbo said that if he lost at a competition, the creature could eat him. If Bilbo won though, the creature would show him the way out. They decided to tell riddles, and by slightly cheating, Bilbo won and escaped. After Bilbo was reunited with his team, they voyages on, fighting more goblins and giant spiders until the final showdown with Smog the dragon. Everyone was too scared to face him except Bilbo. The dragon was so large he couldn't beat it alone, but he didn't have too. The dragon flew out of the cave and attacked a small town nearby. One townsman shot the dragon and killed it, ending the tragedy and the adventure. The real reason on how the dragon was killed was because of Bilbo. When he was in the cave, he saw a small place where the dragon armor didn't cover the flesh. It was conveniently located near the heart. It was a tough shot, but a young archer in the town had a good arrow. One shot and the dragon plunged into the ocean, killing it forever." +2438,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3M6P12EHUSKVX,Bajadreamers,0/0,5.0,1360454400,The Best,"As with Lord Of The RingsI alread had in paperback, hardbound, and leather,Needed a digital copy nice to always have everywhere." +2439,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1FXFWLRRU5ZEK,Fernando,0/0,3.0,1357084800,The story is fine. It’s a one-time fast read.,"This is a simple story with a bunch of elaborated mythology, it doesn't have a big plot or a big un-expected conclusion. Some characters could have been used to give more action but they were just there and that’s all.It’s very easy to read but at the middle of the book I still felt like the story hadn't started at all. If you are a LOTR fan you might like it, because of the places it describes and the creatures but not for the main story." +2440,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,AN5NESAAL45K6,Fraser,0/1,5.0,1353715200,the Hobbit- a classic,i love this book. verry well written. eventhough there was some grammical errors it kept me interested through the hole book. it was hard to put down. cant wait till the movie comes out. +2441,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,5.0,946598400,A fabulous adventurous book like Harry Potter,"It's quite attractive to scientific fiction fan, really popular and well known book it is . suitable for older kids who likes Harry Potter, just look at those positive feedback and consider this book." +2442,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,AW5G6GYGI7FON,Eroc,1/1,5.0,1357689600,Classic,"As everyone knows, this is an absolute classic and a good place to start for beginners and veteran readers alike. It is especially nice to see the forward where Tolkin kindly reminds the teachers to boy try and read anything into the book - it is for enjoyment only, not dissection." +2443,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1D2A5A8DMG7SJ,Cynthia,0/0,5.0,1356998400,A great book,"This was a great book, the narration was incredible. I will reread this over and over! On to the Lord of the rings!" +2444,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A13RK031BQ37MY,Duncan Johnstone,0/0,5.0,1356480000,A classic and a joy to read every time,"A classic and wonderfully fun. The Hobbit is an easy read, with fun narrative and a great introduction for anyone looking to get into the fantasy genre. I first read this book when I was 8 and have reread it several times. A great book to read as a family!" +2445,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3AC91COTR8FPP,Conner Skiles,1/1,5.0,1356652800,Awesome,I really enjoyed the novel. Couldn't put it down once I started. Enjoyed the style with which it was written as well. +2446,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2FRIMVXVXP9BD,Jose Montero Venegas,1/1,5.0,1208044800,Great book!,"We all know this is a great book; this edition makes it look fantastic, excellent drawings, great quality." +2447,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3B6T967XLZJYR,zeratul,0/0,5.0,1358467200,The best fantasy book ever,"A classic without age. The hobbit is, in my opinion, the best Tolkien book. It is more a fair tale than LOTR, so it is higly recommended to children and adults." +2448,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,5.0,919123200,To Hard to understand,"This book is 100% 5 star if it is hard to follow. I am in Ms. Bartletts 8th grade Lang. Arts calss and as a class, we have to read it. It is hard to follow." +2449,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2F2EU6DG70QWT,Lauren Gunther,0/0,5.0,1357084800,Great copy!,"I love this book. It's a classic and the kindle version is excellent. Everything is exactly where it's supposed to be, unlike a lot of Kindle re-prints" +2450,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/3,4.0,1101772800,Just Imagine!(by KH at OLSOS in 8th gr.),"Imagine this! You are sitting at home on a nice summer day when you hear a knock on the door. Innocent enough, right? Wrong! You answer to find a troop of wayward dwarves on your doorstep! So, without so much as a warning you are dragged off to an unwelcome whirlwind of an adventure!This is exactly what happened to Mr. Bilbo Baggins of Bag-End, Under-Hill, The Shire. Especially chosen for this dangerous quest across Middle-earth, Bilbo goes with the dwarves. The mission is to regain their mountain from the evil dragon, Smaug.Challenging many creatures on the way (such as trolls, goblins, giant spiders, and of course the strange beast, Gollum) they finally come to the mountain. Now the company must face thier greatest challenge, Smaug.This extraordinary novel is about a country bumpkin's transformation to a travel-hardened hobbit of the world. A credit to the fantasy genre, The Hobbit, is a page-turner. Anyone interested in The Lord of the Rings series is guaranteed to love this book." +2451,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3KABX52IKPJRF,Angela Reeb,1/1,5.0,1357257600,Wonderful reading for all ages,Reread this wonderful book in time to see the movie. Loved it years ago and still love it now. Recommend to all ages! +2452,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,AHPAK8I27I6P5,Shane Baarts,0/0,5.0,1358294400,Loved it,"All around good book, couldn't seem to put it downVery interesting with twists and turns that keep you on your toes" +2453,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2SU8NNA5SSUSY,"Love Boat ""Leenzer""",0/0,5.0,1175040000,excellent book,"This is a great book, that everyone should read. Tolkien grabs your attention from the first page and then leads you through an amazing journey with twists here and there." +2454,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A32VCGCYYRP8M4,"P. Skinner ""Patchance""",0/0,5.0,1357084800,5 Stars,Great book and now ready for the movie.. Easy reading and exciting.. Loved it. I have to read a book first before seeing the movie otherwise it spoils the book.. really enjoyed it. +2455,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3R7JIHXCY4N61,"""mfshermantank""",5/6,5.0,1001030400,In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit,"Our family book club read The Hobbit for our August selection; we didn't have our meeting until early September. Afterward, our son wrote the following essay:Since The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien was offered as an option for our family book club, I've been asking for it each month. In August, my pleas were granted, and we started the book well before The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring arrives in theaters.A quick summary of ""the enchanting prelude to The Lord of the Rings"": The comfortable hobbit Bilbo Baggins smokes his pipe, relaxes in his easy chair, watches the stars. He leads a peaceful life until Gandalf, an old white wizard, comes along and changes it forever. In spite of his Tookish ancestors, Mr. Baggins is a ""lazy"" hobbit who doesn't want adventures: ""Nasty disturbing uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner! I can't think what anybody sees in them."" (p. 4) Of course, then, he is quite suprised when he is called to serve as a professional burglar for a band of thirteen dwarves. Later, he's even called upon to kill Smaug, a dragon with a diabolical appearance and a mammoth appetite. Of the thirteen dwarves, Thorin is the most eager to see Smaug die, for a few of the villages Smaug has destroyed were part of the kingdom of Thorin's fathers and forefathers, making Thorin the King Under the Mountain - not Smuag! With no choice but to join them, the hobbit has no idea of the dangers he must face to reach his goal, no idea how to kill a dragon (let alone a dragon who has been the glorious victor of who knows how many battles).My favorite part of their adventure takes place in the Elvenking's palace, when Bilbo is devising a plan to save the dwarves. He decides to put them all in barrels to be rafted off with the other empty barrels sent to ""the Long Lake... a town of Men still throve there."" This plan gets them out of the castle without being seen. But, as Tolkien points out, ""It was just at this moment that Bilbo suddenly discovered the weak point in his plan. Most likely you saw it some time ago and have been laughing at him; but I don't suppose you would have done half as well as him yourselves in his place. Of course he was not in a barrel himself, nor was there any one to pack him in, even if there had been a chance!"" (p.182)The mastermind of this journey, J.R.R. Tolkien, and C.S. Lewis (Chronicles of Narnia) were friends, colleagues, and masters of fantasy. We can see the influence of the Chronicles on the many series written for younger readers today. Tolkien's influence can be seen in series that appeal to more advanced readers; The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are the ""granddaddy"" of the sci-fi/fantasy genre.In The Hobbit, Tolkien relies on the power of the mythological ""hero's journey."" Bilbo has a lot in common with Odysseus of Homer's Odyssey (perhaps the original hero) and Luke Skywalker of the Star Wars epic, a hero whose story was told four decades after Bilbo's. Hero stories teach us about our own potential. Heroes are called to journey and adventure for their heart's desire (Bilbo and Odysseus both want to return home, for example), but they must fight evil and learn about themselves before they can achieve their goals. Each of the heroes I mentioned are guided by mentors or wise guides: Odysseus by Athene, Luke by Obi-Won, and Bilbo by Gandalf. They each benefit from a magical talisman or sacred object: Odysseus has his magical bow and quiver of arrows and assorted amulets Athene and others provide during his twenty-year journey home; Luke Skywalker wields his father's lightsaber; and Bilbo has Sting, a short sword made by Elves, and the invisibility ring. In each of their stories, the hero must enter the ""underworld,"" a classic mythological detail. They are also encounter ugly, horrible beasts on land and in water, adding chilling action and, in some cases, humor to the stories. The heroes also, I might add, eventually achieve their goals.The Fellowship of the Rings is our next book club selection. I look forward to more of the same exciting and enchanting elements that made The Hobbit so memorable." +2456,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1VW5MGI427BUL,Rob Yates,1/2,5.0,1356220800,Best ever,One of my all time fav's. it should be a must read for everyone. For sure this ought to be mandatory prior to reading or watching The Lord of the Rings. +2457,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,AQJL5K610IIC7,"W. Baranowski ""Political Junky""",0/9,1.0,1355616000,A Review Of Amazon's Willingness To Bilk Kindle Users,"Can someone tell me why Kindle ""books"" are so expensive?!Software is always famously more profitable than hardware and is where companies make their money.But come on!The cost to produce the file is minimal.Server space: minimal.Cost of delivery: minimal.I often see the cost of a Kindle book outstrip an actual (superior/preferable) BOOK.With Kindle 'books':There are no printing or binding costs.No Warehousing costs.No employment costs for storage, creation, and shipping.No shipping costs.No overhead of a brick and mortar shop to factor in.No shelf space consideration for a retailer.So WHY are Kindle 'books' SO expensive?!Because sales of the reader made it the best selling item on Amazon.Ever.So as a reward to us all:They decided to rip us all off.Maximize, profits, (already a healthy scenario at the original intro prices/come on), at the expense of the average person.What I'd spent on my Kindle could have easily bout 20 used books at a store.Far more than I've bought for my Kindle.Why spend the same, or MORE, on a convenience version when 90% of us, or more,will agree that NOTHING matches holding an actual book and turning the pages.A boycott would be a nice thing to read about." +2458,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2J7SR78NARE6F,Lisa Byrne,0/0,4.0,1361491200,Classic,"An enduring, timeless classic. The writing creates beautiful word pictures of a fantastic world, and the story never gets stale, no matter how many times it is read." +2459,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,5.0,877046400,GREAT!!!!!!!!!,"At 15 if i want to earn some extra cash i read a book (my pearents idea), but in the end i did this one for free. The Hobbit is one of the best books i've ever read, and its a world of magic and adventure." +2460,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2LQFLEQCWS4J3,bernerd j. southam,0/0,5.0,1358208000,I just love the flow of the story,"It's all been said before. Great book, Great simple little story. I love the way this book flows when you read it. The only complaint I have is the songs they sing in the book. They are really awful and I always just skip them. That said I've read this book multiple times and Read it out loud to my kids when they were younger." +2461,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A30XPKLV1JB0FP,Matt Sperry,0/0,5.0,1358553600,Great read,Very nice read. Classic tale that will live forever. Can't wait to see the film's. Should be very interesting movies. +2462,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A205RMB7CK709R,Templar,0/0,5.0,1361577600,"Beautiful, simply beautiful","This is a gorgeous book. The bindings and illustrations are top notch. The book itself is the same old Hobbit you know and love, but this copy is certainly meant for show on a bookshelf." +2463,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1IR1R91HOO6JZ,A 12-year old reader,1/1,5.0,1011052800,The Hobbit: A Masterpiece,"J.R.R. Tolkien really captures the imagination that a young child has. The Hobbit shows you a whole new side of the world. Whether you're sitting on your couch or flying in the claws of an eagle, you can't help but love the adventure that Bilbo Baggins is experiancing. You begin to have a real fear of the goblins, and to admire Gandolf for his wisdom. The Hobbit truly brings out the inner child in any adult." +2464,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3EIO439ZBSS3L,"Cheryl Abraham ""C.A.""",0/0,5.0,1361491200,Of course I loved it.,Who couldn't love it? I think I appreciated it much more as an adult than when I read it as a child. +2465,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,5.0,858124800,Greatest adventure story ever told!,"Tolkien at his best! Master story teller J.R.R. Tolkien (John Ronald Reuel Tolkien) has created a compelling tale with a fast-page turning efffect. The Hobbit tells a story of long forgotten races of beings in an imaginary time and place. Particularly of a lonely hobbit named Bilbo Baggins, who dicurages an adventure of any kind, but ends up finding himself on an endless journey fighting giant spiders, man-eating goblins, and fire-breathing dragons. I highly recomend this book to fantasy readers of all ages. A must read" +2466,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3ROD1U0LK15OS,Nathan I,1/1,4.0,1356912000,Classic,Great story and a very easy read. I would recommend The Hobbit to anyone with a sense of adventure an love of an underdog success story. +2467,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3JHB0A4GYFJKZ,topdawg119,0/0,5.0,1350950400,The Hobbit,"It's the Hobbit for god's sake. Buy it, Read it. THEN see the movie(s)...This book is best read before the Lord of the Rings." +2468,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A153A0J2SVDSIK,Phoebe,0/0,5.0,1360540800,Amazing!!!,Really good story!!! I recommend it . I don't want to give to much away but it is basically a journey to get to a castle. At some points it is confusing but still you really need to read this book. +2469,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,ANGSNI20XHETM,Scot Stewart,0/0,5.0,1353801600,Still great,"I have loved this since I was young, and it still stands up. My daughter is reading it to me this time." +2470,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,ADQNCVRK0Q3ZU,Kathleen M. Lucey,0/0,4.0,1357344000,Middle Earth,"Read in December, 2012formatPaperback (edit)my copyedit | removereviewThe Hobbit- J.R.R. TolkienThis was a rather difficult book to read at first in the beginning. I often found myself referring back and forth to the map at the end of the book to get a grasp of where Bilbo and his companions were traveling.If you are a fan of The Lord of the Rings books then you will enjoy The Hobbit!!" +2471,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1BHU6K4G80U3U,"Jeffrey M. Kuhlman ""future educator""",0/0,5.0,1358294400,One of the all-time great stories.,"What more is there to say about the hobbit. For those brought here by the movie, the book is a little different. At least for part one. The book is also better, as they always are." +2472,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2721O2J5Q6W67,A Customer,0/0,5.0,1298764800,ADVNTUROUS READ,I read this book and couldn't put it down. This story is about a hobbits adventurous life. It's really well written and makes you feel like your there. I would recommend this book to any one +2473,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A340VRUH2KL2L9,NEZAR ALI AL ABBAS,4/4,5.0,952819200,Absoulutely Fabulouse Recommended For Everyone,"I first read this book last year when I was 12 and since then I've read it over 5 time's, This book takes you every where imaginible, from huge mountains filled with evil Goblins to huge woods filled with giant spiders to A battle with a Dragon, all the time following the story of a hobbit swept into an adventure he was not ready for with a wizard and 13 dwarfs. Beautifly done. Highly recommended for everybody. A Beautifull work of Litreature." +2474,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A5RYJ7C65Z2BF,"pfavro ""pfavro""",0/0,5.0,1099440000,Adventrous,"the book The Hobbit was vary well writen and was discriptive in the charters and the places in Middle Earth. the imagination that Tolkien put into the book was amizing. the way Tolkien described the charters made it like they were real people and it seemed that the story was history, but only for a moment." +2475,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2M5W973S7VJT7,"PepsiJedi ""PepsiJedi""",1/1,5.0,1356480000,"An awesome book, not just for kids.","Alot of people think that the Hobbit is the 'childs' version of the Lord of the Rings, the gentle prequel. I think that it's so much more. The Hobbit really gives you your foundation and footing in Middle Earth that makes the Lord of the Rings, "Worth it".Great book. If you don't have it, you should get it instantly. I've multiple versions and now the electronic kindle one." +2476,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A34A9O56HTFXTQ,Susan J. Miller,0/0,4.0,1360454400,Must read in every young person life as a prelude to Lord of the Ring Trilogy..,Reading it at 35 years later and after the LOT movies is just not as intense. Don't think Hobbit should be made into 3 movies. LOT trilogy is my favorite of all time. HOBBIT is more mundane. +2477,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2W2ADOOV5BMBL,June Asisi,0/0,4.0,1361318400,The Hobbit,I love this book and have reread it for the third time. It is a classic which always reveals something new. +2478,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2BRIE8ONVGH2P,Hope Gulley,0/0,5.0,1347235200,The Hobbit Review,I bought this book because I wanted something to read.I like the Lord of The Rings Triology and thought I should read the book of the triology.I liked this book sooo much that I read it in one day!I liked this book alot!!!!! +2479,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3NM5PULXS4VQZ,C. Haden,0/0,5.0,1023840000,One of John R R Tolkien's best!,"This book would help people who have watched Lord of the Rings, or read it, understand Middle Earth a bit more. The _ONLY_ flaw, which isn't really a flaw, is that he makes Mirkwood a gloomy and spooky place, and he makes the wood elves complete idiots (I LIKE ELVES!). Well, if you want to know exactly how, and who, brought the ring out of Smeagol (Also known as Gollum)'s hand, you will find out in this book. The main character in this book is Bilbo Baggins, who is also half Took; he gets confused, and two sides of him speak about adventure, since the Took side was born for adventure, and the Baggins side just wants to drink hot tea in front of a fire-place. None of the fellowship is mentioned EVER in the Hobbit, though I would say this book is better than the Lord of the Rings series (in my opp.), so I would suggest you read all four books. Me? I'm obsessed with trying to figure out Elvish, so if you find out about a book that explains Middle Earth Elvish (or anything!) PLZ PLZ PLZ E-MAIL ME!!!!! THX!" +2480,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3K1RVYM3JQZZS,Ricky Hunter,2/5,4.0,1026950400,An Expected Party,"What a joy to read, again, J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit. It was read aloud to me in school when I was in Grade Five and it still has the same power to entrance now that I older. In fact, there is a new appreciation for this book as it takes me away from my stuffy adult self, much like Mr. Baggins at the beginning, content in my little hole with my daily routine. I completely forgot that dragons are real, dwarves are surly, goblins are not to be trusted, magic is common, and a ring can begin an adventure. This volume does not have the scope of the trilogy (except in the last chapters) and can fell ever so slightly twee at times but it has enough charm to take one to a magical place. And that, after all, is the joy of reading." +2481,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,5.0,893376000,Easily the best book I've ever read.,"What else is there to say? The title explains it all. I don't think I've ever read a better book. It starts off a little slow, but once you get going, you can't stop! It's an amazing book! Read it!" +2482,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1MFW8TRCWVXPE,Vlad,12/17,5.0,1164153600,Three Stars?,"Giving The Hobbit less than 5 stars is absurd. When one talks about Tolkien ""dilly-dallying and such"" one is referring to his complex style of writing. Quite frankly, Tokien is not ""less,"" he is ""more."" He demands that one pay more attention, he gives one more information. If one wishes to say that more isn't always better, then fine. The rest of us don't expect them to understand. Let me put it this way: It is like Champagne. People don't dislike Champagne, they merely don't understand it. These idiot reviewers ""Larry"", ""Curly"" and ""Moe"" don't prefer the taste of Champagne to 7UP, they simply can't taste it. Is it their limited capacity for intelligence? Is it upbringing? It doesn't really matter what it is, all that matters is that they can't ""taste"" The Hobbit. But those of us who can, can- and we love the taste. After all, we have no choice. These are people who would rather eat Aunt Jemima pancakes with fake syrup than have hot crepes rolled with fine preserves. Really, do the opinions of these people actually count? It is understood by many that an opinion is only an opinion- how untrue this is! In the legal world an opinion is something that is ruled and weighed to be best, to be most true. There _is_ such a thing as a good opinion, even the best opinion. And opinion can be right and an opinion can be wrong. I daresay that giving The Hobbit 3 stars is wrong. And why do I dare? Because if someone told us that cow manure tasted better than ice cream they would be wrong. The bottom line is this: Mozart is better than The Beetles; Ferraris are better than raced out Subarus and Ice Cream does, in fact, taste better than manure. If, like this idiot, you are a simpleton who can can neither hear, taste nor see then don't bother to post your opinions to the rest of us. Instead, take my advice and cozy yourself up with something you can understand like Harry Potter and let yourself float away to the world of un-imagination. You will be much happier and won't have to deal with the headaches of trying to figure out what Tolkien is trying to say, nor will you have to deal with the frustrations of not being able to see in full color and dimensions the Dwarves and Elves and Wizards they way that the rest of us can. I almost pity you, but then, you wasted 60 seconds of my life with degenerate reviews so on second thought, get out of my gene pool and stop breathing my air. It's people like you that make the rest of our lives so two-dimensional by preventing more work like The Hobbit from ever being created with your lack of understanding and abundance of stupidity.P.S. The Hobbit is a great book, arguably the greatest, certainly the greatest in its own league. It was written by an adult and is absolutely suitable for adults. The fact that it may also be enjoyed and understood by children is only a further credit to Tolkien's genius. Don't let the altogether too commonly found ramblings that this is a book for children discourage you from reading it if you haven't already. While not everyone is capable of enjoying it, it is criminal not to at least expose everyone to this book for anyone who is capable of enjoying it who is denied the oppurtunity has been cheated of one of the finest intellectual pleasures of this past century. My advice to you is to read it slowly and thoroughly. It is an experience like nothing else that will never be quite as magical the second time around.P.P.S. If you don't know what The Hobbit is about, in short, it is about Adventure. A great Adventure full of Swords and Magic; of Dwarves and of Elves and of Wizards and Hobbits; Good, Evil; Trolls and Goblins; Suspense, Excitement, Comedy and Tragedy; Music, Riddles and Poetry. All of this presented in one of the most unique styles of writing ever encountered; a style of writing that paints every detail of Tolkien's fantastic world in your mind as if you were there. Not a single word is wasted and every element of the story is to be enjoyed. If any of these things sound even remotely fascinating then read this book- you won't be disappointed.P.P.P.S. Comments about the illustrated versions for those trying to decide between the two illustrated versions of The Hobbit done by Alan Lee and Michael Hague: I recommend the Michael Hague edition hands down. The illustrations seem to fit the book much more than Lee's. Lee's anything but poor, but Mague's are more merry, bright and rich. The characters appear heartier and the colors set a better mood. More simply put, when I look at Lee's illustrations I feel like I'm standing in the dining room of somebody's grandmother- wallpaper, china dolls, lace and all- they just seem old and dry. Hague's characters, the dragon especially, seem more believable- when I turn the page I don't get a feeling like what I'm looking at is out of place. Another difference with Hague is that I am confident that anybody would enjoy his illustrations, but with Lee I merely see why some people 'might prefer it.' Hague really does have that illustration feeling I expect to see in a book; Lee's look like they belong on a museum wall. Also, I feel that Hague took a more direct interpretation of the book while Lee seemed to illustrate as he liked to fit his own style without much less regard to the book. Still, before buying I suggest you sample the art on the internet just to be sure of your tastes. However, if you're uncertain then I am confident that you and especially your children will enjoy Hague." +2483,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3BDMS6QQPV04C,Gabriel Strickland,0/0,5.0,1359849600,Epic book,"The Hobbit is an action-packed book that starts out a little slow but has a adventurous middle and has a happy ,peaceful ending." +2484,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,5.0,1008633600,The Hobbit,"The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien is a book meant for those who have an imagination, or those who whish to enter the world of dragons, magic, treasure, goblins, gloomy figures, but most of all adventure.I thought a big reason that the book is great is that it's so great, is that its so vivid it feels like you are in the book, that you are seeing the characters right there, facing danger. The whole story of going to take back what is theirs even though they must face impossible odds, they themselves spoke that they wouldn't make it, the book is also written in some old English to make the characters seem older and mature. Though the book does a good job in letting one know what the characters are thinking and feeling, one cannot get a good grasp of what the characters are like. I believe the book lacks in this, because the characters are in such extreme emotional and physical conditions. I liked the message of I got from the book which was the underdog taking a stand, and not going out without a fight no matter the odds.This book makes you feel what the characters are because like I said it feels like you are right there in the middle of it all. It also does a good job of guessing you do not know whether something is going to pop out or where the must go next. It left me impressed with the way it was written; the vividness of the book is something one must read." +2485,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,AEPSM9P5W9FBB,Philip E Boyer,0/0,5.0,1356307200,Excellent,"Great story, great illustrations and great author, what more can you ask for! I can read this over and over again." +2486,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A357UAY6PG2RPC,Thorik,3/4,5.0,1122076800,I dont usually give 5 stars but this book is great!!!,"I know i am a little late reviewing or even reading this book. Im 22 years old, and i felt that the movies, while good, just didn't fill in the blanks. I love The Hobbit. It is great for kids as well as adults. I just couldn't put it down. From the moment Gandalf leaves a dent in Bilbo's door to the moment Bilbo hands him the jar, I was rivetted. I took me 6 hours tops to read this book and I knew I was a Tolkien fan for life. I know i will read and reread this book for many years to come, and it is definitely something i will read to my kids! PEACE!!!" +2487,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3SGB48U5KCF9C,"Thomas Wagner ""thomaswagner-hh""",2/4,5.0,1178928000,Want to read the original,"Hi,I'm Thomas Wagner from Hamburg, Germany.I know Tolkiens books in German and love them.I wanted to read them now in their native language and although it's sometimes a little bit different for me to understand everything (then it goes with the help of a dictionary, but fortunately, this doesn't happen too often).I enjoy the book very much in English.Unfortunately, I must read another version of the book (paperback) because this version has been lost on shipment but amazon.com is so noble to send me replacements [...] and therefor I'm very grateful." +2488,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,4/5,4.0,1162684800,Something Neccesary for Language Arts,"After seeing the epic motion picture trilogy, ""The Lord of the Rings"" saga can be difficult to picture individually for readers. This happens all to often when the adaption between a book to a movie or play takes place. Luckily for readers of ""The Hobbit,"" the story of Bilbo and his adventures haven't yet had that transformation, and leave us to create a new picture of our own within Middle Earth.""The Hobbit"" is the prelude to the widely known ""The Lord of the Rings"" series. It is one of few preludes, in my mind, that is actually effective. In the book the reader finds out much about J.R.R. Tolkien's ""Middle Earth,"" and has insight into its following books. This story faintly foreshadows many things that are to take place in the upcoming trilogy. However, for those of you who have read the book amd trilogy, you will have noticed the difference in Tolkiens voice and personality in ""The Hobbit.""In my opinion ""The Hobbit"" is much lighter and not as dramatic as ""The Lord of the RIngs."" It has serious parts no doubt, but the prelude seems to be more of a pleasing and joyful story, where as the trilogy focuses more on a moral and getting a message across to the reader. I enjoy both reads, but when you are in need of something that will brighten you up and excite your imagination as well, ""The Hobbit"" is definetely the better way to goI guess you could also say that's why i enjoyed ""The Hobbit"" more than most books out at the moment. Lately all authors have been focused on is creating something,"" brutally honest!"" or ,""heart-wrenching!"" and ,""so sad i wanted to cry!"" Sure, those things are good in some parts of a book, but if all the book your reading does is make you even more sad than you already were... what's the point in reading it? And as for it being ""brutally honest,""... well lets just say somethings are better left unsaid,and definetely better left unknown.As I said earlier, that's what is different about this book though. It seems that Tolkien was simply recording his fantasies about the most appealing and envied life-style we can imagine, then creating a story based around that dream. Then he took it further and created this entrancing tale into a epic saga getting an important and major point across to the readers of the book. The whole collection of stories is simply amazing, and it's hard to believe that one man can come up with all these details and individual tales of fiction.Enough about the series though, I'd like to talk more about the book at hand. ""The Hobbit"" starts with an explanation of our good friend Bilbo Baggins and his dwelling within the earth. It takes a moment to explain to us just a little bit about the life-style of a hobbit, and the Shire that they dwell in. The first chapter waists no time introducing the true story however, and after the brief explanation of a hobbit it jumps into the tale. In the next two chapters we have already left the Shire, and surprisingly Bilbo has been accompinied by 13 dwarves and an old wise wizard name Gandalf. In no time at all the reader has entered the Misty Mountains to the West and read as the company of travelers encounter orcs within the mountains.In the mountains, perhaps the most major part of the book takes place; Bilbo discovers the Ring. With the discovery of the ring, he also comes across an odd creature that later turns out to be known by the name of Gollum. Both of these discoveries are key points with in the entire prelude and trilogy.Once out of the mountains, the company meets a giant of a man named Beorn, and with his warnings proceeds into the Mirkwood Forrest.The story then goes on to tell of the expeditions capture by the elves of Mirkwood, and their encounter with Dragon, Orc, Goblins, Wolves, and more. To end the book the group of hobbit, wizard, and dwarf ends up with a vast amount of jewls and riches(which was their original goal to start out with) and has Bilbo return to his home in the shire safe, yet not untouched.Altogether i think the story of Bilbo was successful in being a book new and different for its time. It proved to be a happier and more enjoyable read than almost anything i can think of at this point in the world. And it surely opened up a new world to readers and introduced the magical world of Middle Earth." +2489,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,AZQ4MKXV62RYB,A Customer,0/0,5.0,1285718400,One of the greates books of all time,If you love adventure or just a fantastic story I highly recomend that you read this book. I have read it three times in about five years and will porbably read it a bunch more. It is captivating and a fantastic read. +2490,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A38F5XEGUWZ2GD,Wyatt,0/0,5.0,1357776000,totally awesome,"It was a great book, full of action,Read this book if you want something to Rememberit was totally awesome altogether." +2491,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1HOMOJZPVT9EV,Pamelia Stephens,4/5,5.0,1163462400,Beautiful Illustration!,I loved the illustration by Alan Lee in this version. He is so gifted. Just beautiful. +2492,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,5.0,924566400,"Wonderful, brilliantly written book","Excellent book, wonderful fantas" +2493,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2YXNZ72CF0PY2,Pharm Wife,1/1,5.0,959817600,Bilbo Baggins's Adventure,"This book is great! It, and "The Lord Of The Rings," are so fantastic! There is no other book about Middle Earth better then these four. READ IT! YOU WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED!" +2494,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,2/5,4.0,1168128000,The Hobbit is for fantasy people,"""In fact I will go so far as to send you on this adventure. Very amusing for me, and very good for you- and profitable too, very likely, if you ever get over it,"" Gandalf said. This is how the great adventure of Bilbo Baggins, Thorin Oakshield, Dwalin, Balin, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, Fili, Kili, Dori, Ori, Nori, Oin and Gloin began. The thirteen dwarves, one hobbit, and the wizard Gandalf set off to use `their' burglar (Bilbo) to steal back the treasure of the dwarves of Dale, stolen in the first place by Smaug the dragon. Gandalf leaves the group after they encountered three trolls, stayed at the home of Elrond, got lost in the goblins' lair, rested at the huge house of the man/bear Beorn, and reached the edge of Mirkwood. From there, the dwarves traveled alone and fought giant spiders, were captured by wood-elves, escaped by hiding in barrels, and were greeted and treated very nicely in Lake-town. Then the group traveled to the Lonely Mountain where the treasure was being watched carefully by Smaug. For a long time the dwarves and Bilbo waited until Smaug left and was killed by a Lake-town man. Then the treasure was fought over by dwarves, men, elves, goblins, eagles, and wolves. Finally the dwarf/elf/man/eagle side won the Battle of Five Armies and peace was restored. Bilbo was at last able to return home safely. I disliked the way this book was written, but I loved the story behind it all and I would recommend it to fantasy-lovers.One reason that I disliked this novel is that often the author would complicate simple things. For example, he would write ""You will get there in a few days now, if we're lucky, and find out all about it."" Really all he needed, though, was- You will find out about it in a few days. The author definitely over used commas in The Hobbit. Sometimes the amount of detail was good, but a lot of instances the detail and description was confusing. One of the possible explanations for my confusion is the length of the author's sentences. For example, take the sentence, ""The men of the lake-town Esgaroth were mostly indoors, for the breeze was from the black East and chill, but a few were walking on the quays, and watching, as they were fond of doing, the stars shine out from the smooth patches of the lake as they opened in the sky."" I had to read this sentence a few times before fully grasping the meaning of it. This is just one of the many paragraph long sentences.One thing I did like about this book, though, was the story line and the characters. Once I finished the book I was able to look at the ""big picture"" of the story rather than the specific details. I especially enjoyed the part in the book where Bilbo (with his invisibility ring on) talks to Smaug. I also really liked when Bilbo was playing riddles with Gollum because I could guess them, too. I also liked the character of Bilbo. Even though it seems as though there are many characters, Bilbo is the main character so you come to like his clever, kind, curious, and brave ways.Lastly, I really didn't like the amount of violence in this book, especially in the end. The ways the battles are described are frankly quite gross. For example, during the fight between Bilbo and the dwarves against the spiders, one spider is described, ""Then it went mad and leaped and danced and flung out its legs in horrible jerks..."" Also, during The Battle of Five Armies, the valley was described as ""the goblins were piled in heaps till Dale was dark and hideous with their corpses."" These sentences were very disturbing to read.In conclusion, I didn't really like the way this book was written, but I loved the over all story and characters. The novel was violent and sometimes it was very confusing, but I did enjoy some parts of the book a lot. I recommend this book to fantasy loving readers who have a lot of time to read this novel and who don't mind reading about war.-C. Chaudhury" +2495,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,2/2,5.0,1055030400,The Hobbit,Have you ever thought of slaying a dragon? That is what Bilbo Baggins does in this book. Bilbo is an innocent hobbit who does not know anything about the wide world. Suddenly he finds himself in a great adventure to slay a dragon. Bilbo leaves the Shire and goes to the city of Dale. He goes though seven obstacles. On the way he finds a ring that makes him invisible. This story will lead into the series Lord of the Rings. J.R.R Tolkien makes a whole new world in your imagination. People ages 6 to 60 would love this book. This book is much like Brian Jacques. I think you should read this adventurous and magical book. +2496,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1YTK2KVM0TQ4F,SnapDragon,1/1,5.0,961372800,This book is AWSOME!,"The Hobbit (in my opinion) is the best book that was ever written! It is an extrodinary adventure for people of all ages. All of the characters are very well developed. The Hobbit is adventurous, humorous, and touching story about our dear Mr. Bilbo Baggins (the hobbit) who leaves his beautiful hobbit hole one fine morning to find adventure. Acompanying Thorin, King Under the Mountain, his 12 dwarves, and Gandolf the Gray as the "expert treasure-hunter", Bilbo undergoes many new experiences and meets a lot of people (not all of them friendly). The Hobbit made me a fantasy fan. It opened a Whole new world to me." +2497,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A18KSVOGRJI9D,Jake,1/1,5.0,1356825600,Amazing,Slow in beginning but gets better as story progresses all in all I loved it. Can't wait to read next book +2498,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2CYT7ZLWB4WXA,Doug Mefford,0/0,5.0,1361491200,The Hobbit,"This was a great book that had plenty of action, adventure, and sadness to make me want to read it again. I would recommend this book to anyone of any age." +2499,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,AFMF4F9QW2JDS,"Oscar ""DaRK KNighT""",1/2,5.0,1152230400,a children's story that spawned a classic [no spoilers],"Although ""The Hobbit"" exists alone in the Middle-earth realm, it preludes (and is fairly crucial) as the foundation to the masterpiece story ""The Lord of the Rings"". The novel follows the comfortable hobbit Bilbo Baggins as he reluctantly leaves his secure home in the company of numerous dwarves and Gandalf, a wizard of good character. The author expertly combines delightful riddles, the singing of well-versed songs, and adolescent banter amid charming creatures, spooky monsters, and minor magic to craft the ideal tale for young readers.The continuous adventure may start with many characters, but Bilbo composes the storyline from a third person view and interjects his own pleasant personality. Other than one affair relating to Gandalf and a Necromancer, all events are resolved in a thorough yet amusing manner. ""The Hobbit"" helped define expectations for a reader and laid the groundwork for future fantasy novels with the introduction of different races including Dwarves, Elves, Goblins, Hobbits, and their relationships between each other and with Humankind.The collection I own has ""The Hobbit"" along with all books of ""The Lord of the Rings"" and contains inside the final novel a comprehensive appendices and index, the ultimate standard for any author wishing to compile a comprehensive series. Original artwork by the author highlights storyline events and sufficiently illustrates the path traveled by the adventurers. As with about every film-based novel, I would suggest at least not watching the movie prior to reading the book if not forgoing the movie thereby leaving the story entirely to the imagination.I highly recommend the book collection to any fan of the fantasy genre.Thank you." +2500,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,1/16,1.0,879033600,How do you keep an idiot busy for hours?,"If you have some extra time on your and feel like pissing it away, then read this book. I love literature;however, I cannot believe I wasted valuable hours of my life on reading this so called book. I've read technical manuals that are more interesting. If there is someone you really don't like, suggest that they read this book." +2501,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3OIHHHSUGHIOM,Melody & Words,2/2,5.0,1286150400,Can't believe I didn't read it sooner!,"SummaryBilbo Baggins is comfortable in his snug, happy hobbit-hole in the side of a hill where he has lived all his life. One morning after a hearty breakfast, the wizard Gandalf arrives, and that's when the trouble begins. Gandalf ends up inviting a flummoxing total of twelve dwarves over for tea the next day. The dwarves are on a mission to reclaim the glory and riches once held by their forefathers, but they need a ""burglar"" to help, and hobbits are small, stealthy creatures.Bilbo joins their party on a whim after being teased by the dwarves and praised by Gandalf for his yet-unknown abilities. He soon regrets his decision when the rolling fields past his home turn into a dark, foreign country, and he doubts that he has what it takes to carry out an adventure of this magnitude.As Bilbo meets (and is captured by) trolls, goblins, wolves, spiders, and wood-elves, he begins to use his practicality to his advantage; when engaged in riddles with Gollum under the mountain, for instance, his wit saves him from a very unfortunate end. And he puts his riddling skill to use with Smaug the Dragon as well, using their conversation as a chance to scope out the dragon's weakness.Happy scenes are interspersed throughout the tale to keep Bilbo from despairing entirely; they rest at the Last Homely House as the guest of a friendly elf, the noble eagles of the mountain come to their rescue more than once; they find a faithful friend in Beorn, who is usually gruff and wary of visitors; and the men of Lake-town herald their arrival to oust Smaug the Dragon from the dwarves' ancestral mountain.But more often than not--and certainly more than he would like!--it is small, hearth-loving Bilbo who ends up saving the day, when he and his friends are faced with seemingly insurmountable challenges. Bilbo grows from a homebody to a hero with ""a little wisdom and a little courage and considerable good luck.""AnalysisThe Hobbit is one of the best books I've read all year.I know. I know! People have told me all my life that I need to read The Hobbit. But I always protested, claiming that I didn't like fantasy because there wasn't enough reality in it to ""connect"" to. Where I got this idea, I don't know--possibly from my brothers' fantastical explanations of Tolkien's books, which sounded far too removed from me to be interesting.As it turns out, The Hobbit is so widely regarded by readers of all stripes because of its humanity, its down-to-earth humor, and its realism. Who would've thought? (Everyone but me, I suppose.)As Michael D.C. Drout explains in The Modern Scholar: Rings, Swords, and Monsters: Exploring Fantasy Literature, applying Marxist theory to the story helps to understand its appeal: Bilbo represents the bourgeoisie, the trolls are members of the Cockney-accented working class, and Smaug the Dragon is the ruling class, literally rolling in riches. Tolkien himself was certainly no stranger to literature and theory, with a history of Anglo-Saxon epic poem translation under his belt. He incorporates themes common to Middle Age conquests while also sprinkling the book with a healthy dose of modern-day humor.Bilbo is an unexpected hero, the everyman who saves the day more than once. Though often he seems primarily occupied with eating breakfast, maintaining a tidy appearance, and yearning for his soft bed far from these dangerous adventures, he keeps a cool head when he and the dwarves seemed faced with certain doom. In fact, Bilbo's practical considerations are often what save them; while the dwarves stubbornly refuse to tell the Elf-King the purpose of their quest, which leads to their imprisonment, Bilbo cleverly rescues them, though his unorthodox methods produce more than a few grumbles among the dwarves.Bilbo is an incredibly likeable character with whom I can closely identify; who doesn't love a second breakfast? On a deeper level, Bilbo's moral ambiguity makes him a realistic hero; when he is bargaining with the men and the elves that are preparing to battle against the dwarves, who have become offensively greedy, he begins by complaining that the entire matter has made him uncomfortable and cranky, and he offers goods stolen from the dwarves to appease the other side.The Hobbit originated as a story Tolkien told his children, and the excellent narrative style and the thrilling twists and turns took me back to the days when my parents would read me bedtime stories. I felt like running from the hulking, humped figures of the goblins, and I shivered at the enormous hairy spiders of Milkwood Forest.Because of its intensely imaginative plot and Tolkien's masterful literary execution, The Hobbit is one of those few books that are equally attractive to kids and adults alike. But you probably already knew that!For more reviews like this one, please visit [...]" +2502,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,5.0,849052800,This book is great!,This is absolutely one of the best books I've ever read.The power of imagination in Tolkien is suberb. He is most original.I would love to read every word he wrote. +2503,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1AY7I6N2PO1ZF,Danielle Cook,1/1,5.0,1356652800,Great gift!,I gave this as a gift to someone who already owns a copy of The Hobbit and he loved it. He really enjoyed the drawings and pictures that were included in this edition as well as the information provided in the annotations. He said it breathed new life into one of his favorite novels! +2504,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1QVM3PTQZ26MN,carly hitchcock,0/0,5.0,1355356800,"Beautiful, adventurous story","Such a classic, an epic novel for all ages.The Hobbit tends to skip over a lot of details, but this makes it easier to read and easier to focus on the overall story. I like the inclusion of songs (adds more atmosphere), and the playful tone of this story." +2505,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,5.0,1078358400,The Ultimate Hobbit Review Ever,The Hobbit is a story about a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins who gets pulled into an adventure by a jolly wizard named Gandalf. Bilbo and a band of dwarves along with Gandalf set out to steal gold from a dragon named Smaug.Later in the story Bilbo finds a ring in the minds of a mountain then later discovers he can turn invisible. What is this mysterious ring and will they beat their goal? Read the story to find out. This is a great story with a lot of action and adventure and it is the prelude to the Lord of the Rings series. +2506,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2MZK3FIXJ28RS,Jessa,1/1,4.0,1357344000,Great book,This book was fascinating and charming. I was surprised how easy (and more interesting) it was to read compared to Lord of the rings. I would recommend this book to everyone. +2507,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,AEDOJA1UNMXN,A Customer,0/0,5.0,880848000,The Hobbit is a masterpiece,"Tolkien's books have been with me ever since the second grade, when I was first introduced to his world of Middle-Earth through The Hobbit. The Lord of the Rings came next with me through junior high and high school (I've read the trilogy 3 times) and now I'm a few pages away from finishing The Silmarillion. Tolkien's imagination and attention to detail cannot be outdone, and those who slapped Tolkiens first literary triumph with a "1" or "2" rating had really take another look. The Hobbit intruduced us to a world as real as our own, therefore it stands to me as a real masterpiece. It gives you a taste of Middle-Earth, an exiting and thrilling touch of what his other books have to offer. If you want to begin to lose yourself in enjoyment and/or want a whole new world to explore, start with this book. You won't be sorry." +2508,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,AVD6H5RBKV1SW,marg,0/0,5.0,1348790400,Awesome book!! Again and back again,Read this first when I was 9 and fell in love with the genre from this point on... Reading it to my own child now... And he's spell bound and I'm thoroughly enjoying the wonderful tale Tolkien spins once again. +2509,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,AQCQ5F0OJXMG9,Crystal Starr Light,0/0,4.0,1280880000,"""In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit""","""In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit""Bilbo Baggins was a respectable hobbit living in his hobbit-hole at Bag End. But things change when Gandalf the Wizard drops by--along with thirteen dwarves, led by Thorin Oakenshield. Suddenly, Bilbo finds himself on a pony heading away from the Shire and into the great unknown, to defeat a dragon and score treasure.I Liked:WOW! This was such a beautiful, enjoyable book!The Hobbit has never been my favorite Tolkien novel, mostly because it seems so childish (of course, it was written for kids). But the audiobook (and listening to Eldest prior to this) gave me a new appreciation for this joy.Firstly, there are the characters, primarily Bilbo. Bilbo really strikes me as a relatable guy. He's comfortable, content to live at home, and uninterested in adventures. He has to be pushed out of his home by Gandalf in order to get in on the fun. It reminds me so much of how I can be: content to go along, not trying new things until my sister forces me on a new path.My favorite character, though, is Gandalf. I like how quirky he is, how smart and even caring he is to Bilbo. Gandalf knew that Bilbo was perfect for the job and wouldn't let Bilbo back out no matter what. Plus, it's awesome to see recurring characters from the Lord of the Rings.The story itself is so wonderful! Tolkien writes in a third person omniscient, which allows him to employ a great sense of humor. I love how he often directs comments to the audience (explaining hobbits, trolls, and the like) and how light-hearted the tone is. As for the story proper: a pleasure! There is so much adventure, excitement, intrigue...I've read this before, but I still learned new things or was wowed all over again. I loved the tale of how Bilbo and the dwarves evaded the trolls (so simple, yet showcases how brilliant Gandalf was), how Bilbo got the ring from Gollum, and the trek through the Forest (so scary!).And I love how this story fits into Tolkien's vision for Middle Earth. Elrond, Wood Elves, Mirkwood (Thranduil!), Gollum, the White Council...all these and more make appearances.And lastly, the narrator...ah, he was such a pleasure to listen to! I loved his voice, and I adored how he sung the songs and poems in the book! Not many could pull it off so convincingly!I Didn't Like:I don't have a lot of complaints, but there are a few. Firstly, there are thirteen dwarves, and most of them have little to no character. Fili and Kili were young, Bombur fat, Balin I believe had the best eyesight. Only Thorin had any development.One thing I've never liked about the Lord of the Rings or much of Tolkien's works was all the poetry. The Hobbit was no different; a few poems were great, but after a while, I grew tired of the lapsing into a poem.Dialogue/Sexual Situations/Violence:None.None.While not graphic, there are some intense battles between goblins and the troop in the Misty Mountains and in the final battle.Overall:I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed this book. I've never been a Hobbit fan, but this time around, I might be converted. It's fun, it's enjoyable, it's a piece of your childhood in novel form. Highly recommended for those who want to be kids again.Brought to you by:*C.S. Light*" +2510,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A32XZMBGVEDWVZ,David Guzman,1/1,5.0,1357257600,This was the book that cause me to fall in love with reading,I first read the Hobbit when I was a teenager. Throughout the years I've reread it again and again. It is a wonderfull story. I just read it again before going to see the movie. The movie is very good but many things were changed (slightly). +2511,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A13BSPFEWGVVIZ,Jrgen Ingerd Steen,1/1,5.0,1356566400,Expectedly fantastic,"There is nothing unexpected about the way Tolkien wrote this adventure. I read it after reading LOTR, and it does not disappoint.The dwarves are my favorite species in Middle-Earth and this book is just amazing from start to finish.I really think that this is a good family book, and I'm kind of sad that my father is not an avid reader. I would really have loved to share this adventure with someone who would be able to enjoy it as much as myself.Read this, the Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion and you will just hunger for more stories from Middle-Earth." +2512,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,5.0,927158400,A great book! One of few excellent books I've read.,The only other equal books I've read are The Lord of the Rings series.Tolkien was a genius when it came to books. He really knew how to write.Tolkien will always be the best author (in my eyes that is).Well that's all. +2513,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,5.0,1003190400,the best book ever,"Imagine if a wizard as old as time came by your house one day and asked you to go on a jouney with a band of dwarves. Would you go? You might as the main chareter, bilbo,thinks that "i have not the time to go on an adventure, nasty little things that make you late for supper" and you have no idea you'll have a second chance.J.R.R Tolkien's The Hobbit or "there and back again" is a wonderfully written book of adventures, treasures, tragedies, battels and dragons. He must have visited middle-earth because he wrote the as if he did. The characters are a mixed group of serious leaders and drunken followers. Tolkien also wrote The Silmarillion, which in comparison to The Hobbit, is mediocre.I recommend this book to anyone who enjoys fantasy. I mean, it's a classic and it is written by J.R.R Tolkien." +2514,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3MY0BZMCLTKU6,Thomas Coffey,1/1,5.0,1357603200,Great Classic and Illustrations Make it Better,"The Kindle Illustrated Hobbit edition was a quick decision to refresh the memory of Tolkien's work and compare it to the recent motion picture release. Tolkien's Hobbit and Lord of the Rings trilogy are classic fantasy adventures that are thoroughly enjoyable, and the e-book Kindle experience makes that very convenient whether using a Reader, Smartphone, Tablet, or Computer, or any number of them in concert. (Tolkien's Silmarillion "pre-quel", however, is a much harder read). This Illustrated Edition of The Hobbit adds to the overall experience, especially if reading to children." +2515,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1508HTOD66GB7,"C. Defnall ""book junkie""",1/1,5.0,1325980800,Riveting Classic!!!,"I have read this book so many times I could almost recite it and it gets better every time. Love it, love Tolkien, what more can I say. Talkien paint a magic fantasical picture of middle earth that only he could create. It is a masterpiece that draws you in so completely into the lives of hobbits, dwarves, elves and humans that you almost feel lonely once the book is finished. You journey with Bilbo and dwarves through all their adventures and mishaps with the occasion visit from Gandalf to take back the stolen treasure from the dragon Smaug. I highly recommend this book!" +2516,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1QPYS29I93TB0,"""dougzilla85""",0/0,5.0,1058140800,Amazing book!!!,"�The Hobbit� is the best book I can think of. It has to be something about the descriptive writing he uses in the book, and the way he describes the creatures. His writing is just so powerful that you just sit there for hours reading away. I�ve noticed that the �Lord of the Rings� trilogy is very popular, and most people are J.R.R. Tolkien fans. But what a lot of people don�t know is that ""The Hobbit"" has a very deep connection with the plot of �the Lord of the Rings�. It is not actually part of the series, but I guess you could call it a prologue. Read this book if you want to know how the trilogy began. Or, like I did, just read it cause it�s an awesomely good book!" +2517,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2P6YAD8014KQO,"Zachariah Joel Chamberlin ""Zach""",0/0,5.0,1191888000,Tolkien at his best!,"As the prelude to the Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit or There and Back Again, is a magnificent tale of magic, fantasy, and adventure. I found that I could not set this book down. With each page, I was that much more drawn into the realm of Middle Earth, and I made myself put the book down for a little bit in order to enjoy it.The characterization in this book is phenomenal. Both the protagonists and antagonists throughout the novel help creat the landscape of the book, as well as set the foundation for Middle Earth. Bilbo Baggins, the hobbit, displays the ideal character in that he is forced into a world of adventure of magic. As an innocent creature unaware of the outside world, Bilbo matures throughout the book, and is a classic example of a character who, by the end of the book, has developed into a great intellectual character. Bilbo continues to display this intellect throughout the Lord of the Rings.I have experienced many a conflict with other readers who did not enjoy the Hobbit, and I'm not saying that this book is in everyone's favor, but any reader of fantasy, magic, and adventure will love this book. I recommend the Hobbit to every person no matter what age. As a timeless tale of Tolkien, I give this book five stars (although, it probably deserves more)." +2518,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3R0TEXV15IF5N,salka,1/1,5.0,1356566400,Simply the best!,Tolkien took the world with him to Middle Earth with this beautiful story when it was first published and some of us have not been able to fully leave it since we first arrived. So I can not give it anything less than 5 stars.The way he paints you the landscape with his words and how he makes the strangest things sound perfectly normal breathes life to characters that invaded our hearts. +2519,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,AY8M7J4SHFQJF,Anne,0/1,2.0,1355875200,Didn't translate well onto my Kindle,"Nice to have a digital copy,.. But don't spend money on the digital special anniversary edition. Maybe I jsut need to upgrade on to a fire or something...." +2520,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3GY6GEC8T0T77,"Tatia Tudbaugh ""Tea Fancier""",0/0,4.0,1357084800,Revisiting "The Hobbit",I read "The Hobbit" a long time ago and loved it. Not it is available on Kindle - that makes it even more lovable! J. R. R. Tolkien has a way with words and a story that never grows old. Read it and enjoy it as much as I do! +2521,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A214GTWEEITE1L,Gabby H.,0/0,5.0,1358553600,Great book,Thought I'd read it before I saw the movie.... so much better than the movie could ever be. Can't wait to read the Lord of the rings trilogy. +2522,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/1,4.0,1078876800,"Evelyn [reviews] ""The Hobbit""","Bilbo Baggins of The Shire is a hobbit. Hobbit are very small people that look very similar to us except they have large feet. Bilbo considers himself a treasure seeker and this is how he got hooked up with Gandalf the Gray and a group of 13 dwarves. The dwarves needed a fourteenth person for their journey and Gandalf recommended Bilbo. Gandalf the Gray is a very old traveling wizard that is known by many people. Gandalf was friends with several of Bilbo's ancestors and Bilbo was very familiar with him. The dwarves work endlessly underground looking for treasures in the Misty Mountains. The dwarves needed to get rid of a dragon and Bilbo and Gandalf were going to help. The book describes the events before The Fellowship of the Ring,so, the most exciting part to me was the capturing or the Ring from Gollum. The story concluds with Bilbo being rich in gold and being admired by other hobbits for his great adventure." +2523,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,AM5V01FH7M7GG,Gavin & Rachel Lynn,0/0,5.0,1357084800,The Hobbit,The Hobbit is a very exciting and interesting story if you like fantasy or adventures this book is for you. Once you start reading it you cannot stop. I have nothing negative to say. +2524,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A285RIC11KX01P,"""hertzlerfamily""",0/6,3.0,1052870400,A Hobbits Tale,"I thought this book was an okay book. I was reading it for quite a while because I never really ""wanted"" to read it. Then when I got to chapter 6, it got a little better. I give this book a ""C"" rating." +2525,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1TG9Y19M7AXHX,T. Larsen,0/0,5.0,1358035200,Awesome sauce tastic!!!,"This book is awesome! Pure, straight, untainted epicness. The ending was great. I recommend this book to everyone. It was awesome!!!" +2526,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2RXI72RWP63V6,"Kevin Anderson, Deborah Popolizio",0/0,5.0,1358812800,Amazing,"A wonderful story told in precise language and told in magnificent detail. Bilbo, a hobbit, is greeted by the wizard Gandalf. They go on a long exciting adventure with many challenges and surprises. A truly beautiful book." +2527,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2QPXFWWPDLVK4,Dorothy Marks,0/0,5.0,1358035200,I like the Hobbit.,The audio adds interest to the book and brings the author's voice to the listener. He is very dramatic in his reading. +2528,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A16RBUZI2UER3C,Mick,0/1,5.0,1348099200,Still Awesome,"I haven't read this book in years, but I'm sure glad I decided too do so. The character development is great, the story flows, and it really is the perfect setup to the Trilogy.If you've never read this, or you haven't read it in a while, I suggest you sit right down and get on it." +2529,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,1/4,5.0,975888000,My Review of The Hobbit,"Movie Proposal-The HobbitDate: 12/01/00To: Mr. Steven SpielbergFrom: Mr. Alan WilcoxSubject: Pertaining to the proposal that the story The Hobbit, by J.R.R. Tolkien, should be made into a movie and in the hopes that you would be willing to direct it.Mr. Spielberg, it came to my attention some time ago that the story The Hobbit should be remade into a feature film and although I know that you probably have an extremely busy schedule it would be a great honor if you would see about directing my movie. As you may already know, The Hobbit has already been made into a movie and that the movie The Lord of the Rings is already in the makings, I still wish to have a remade and revamped version of the story, preferably using live action rather than animation. I feel that the adventurous story of a hobbit as he and his friends make their way to a dragon's lair, in order to slay him, would make for a wonderful movie. There are many fantasy adventure fans out there just waiting for another movie based on this popular book. This story has all the makings for a great movie: a likable and funny main character, a old and wise father figure, a multitude of helpful friends, and the freedom of creativity that only a fantasy story can give. The basic structure of a good lesson, namely the advancement from complacency and boredom to adventure and mystery, and the combination of action packed adventure could possibly even make The Hobbit a better seller even than E.T.The wonderful tale of an adventurous hobbit, of the new friends he makes and their struggle to take back their home should make for a superb movie. Along with the possibility of several sequels if this first movie works out there are the endless possibilities for creativity and ingenuity on the part of the director. Thanks to the advancements in visual arts and computer graphics it is now possible to create the vivid and vibrant universe that was originally created by J.R.R. Tolkien in his wonderful story. My only hope is that you will accept my proposal for a movie based on The Hobbit and that you might be able to direct it yourself or at least pass it on to someone with as much vision as yourself. I thank you for taking the time to read my request and I hope you consider the opportunities available for success." +2530,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1PBLW17UO2DXO,Michael E Brittan,1/1,5.0,1360454400,Just as good the second time,"I read the Hobbit many years ago and re-read after see the first part of the movie. The book was much better than I recalled, the movie, not so much." +2531,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3GWF66J5GD5SE,Andrew T Wall,2/3,5.0,1356393600,Completely satisfied,"This was my first Kindle purchase and I was pleasantly surprised at how easy, quick and user-friendly the experience was. I read this on my Android smartphone using the free Kindle app. Quite a pleasant experience which I would be glad to repeat, and will!Regarding the book itself, if you haven't already read The Hobbit, I highly recommend it. Read and re-read it and even read it to your children as applicable and when they are ready." +2532,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3DIFEUD4ELY1C,Cherie Miller,0/0,5.0,1359331200,Best book ever,I enjoyed reading it and learned some new vocabulary. I enjoyed all the details of the creatures and characters. A classic must read. +2533,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,5.0,901584000,The Hobbit is a GREAT book for both old and younger readers.,"The Hobbit, a fantastic fantasy tale, is great for both older and younger readers. The author really knows what keeps the pace as well as the interest. I was recommended the book by a friend, who has also read the Lord of the Rings. Since I have now entered Tokein's realm, I have enjoyed it ever so much, I fully plan to read the Lord of the Rings as well. The Hobbit would make a great bedtime story reading (not all at once, of course) as well as a good high school or even college literature class assignment. The Hobbit is definately a must-read for all Fantasy readers - chocked full of elves, dwarves, trolls, spiders, eagles, goblins, and shape changers. Five stars and bursting near six." +2534,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1XYJRPTNXQMR5,"Matthew Everhard ""Matthew Everhard""",1/1,5.0,1344816000,Tolkien's Dragon Slaying Adventure,"I must preface this review by saying that I do not usually like fiction. I am primarily a theologian. But I loved The Hobbit.With the announcement that Tolkien's great prequel to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy will soon be made into a movie trilogy of its own right, I thought it was time to delve into this classic adventure myself. I am so glad that I did.Let's start with character development. Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf the Wizard are two of the best characters Tolkien has ever created. (And he has created hundreds!) In The Hobbit, we learn to trust each of them. Bilbo emerges as a reluctant yet heroic protagonist. He is hesitant, traditional, mannered, quick-witted, and yet shockingly courageous. This despite his diminutive stature! Drawn into an adventure larger than life--to recapture dwarvish treasure held captive by a murderous dragon--Biblo shows himself over and over again to be the most reliable compatriot of the band.Gandalf on the other hand is Biblo's perfect compliment. He is strong, indomitable, larger than life, and yet flighty and preoccupied. He swoops in at just the right moments to rescue the would-be treasure hunters. In chapter five (revised in later editions) we also meet the grotesque Gollum, bent helplessly inward by the ring's debilitating powers. The repartee between Bilbo and Gollum while the ring's fate stands on the line is deeply memorable. We only learn later that all of Middle Earth hangs also in the balance of this test of wits between the deformed Gollum and the sharp-tongued hobbit.In terms of visual drama and setting, Tolkien in unmatched. He is able to create vast worlds that seem both familiar and impossible to the reader. Throughout his works, the Shire, the Misty Mountains, the Mines of Moria, Esgaroth, and Mirwood are described with vivid imagery. Tolkien creates a world that can both enrapture and repulse his readers. Few fictional writers can create and balance such elaborate settings as Tolkien does. (Thankfully, the movies have not let us down in portraying these stunning worlds).Most readers will be not surprised to note that The Hobbit (like The Lord of the Rings series) contains a substantial amount of poetry. In Tolkien, this functions to create a timeless quality, blending Middle Earth's mythic age into current bends in the plot. The poetry often emerges in the form of dwarvish songs, assuring the reader that the characters themselves are captivated by myths and legends of their own. These poetic songs and tales are sometimes warning, and sometimes consoling the heroes along their path of destiny.The plot itself, primarily a dragon-slaying tale, never lags. In each successive chapter, Bilbo finds himself entrapped in another web (once literally!) that seems at first inescapable. Once Biblo and the dwarves--led by the overly confident Thorin Oakenshield--actually meet the dragon Smaug, the reader stands convinced that their gold-snatching feat will at last be impossible. Only the heroic resolve of a certain halfling will prove otherwise! But I won't spoil the tale for you here.The Hobbit ends exactly where the reader hopes it will all along: with a cataclysmic battle scene featuring all the forces of Middle Earth present. Men, elves, dwarves, wargs, gobblins, eagles, and one particularly irrepressible wizard all arm themselves for battle to the death for fame and fortune.No wonder this work is timeless!Matthew Everhard is the Senior Pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville, Florida." +2535,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1JJHKO8VGLWEK,crazysw007,0/0,5.0,1358640000,Excellent,"This is the first Tolkien book that I have read and I love it. His writing style is amazing and this version, with its illustrations, is easy to use." +2536,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2DBRS0ML1EEH3,Marge,0/0,5.0,1359504000,excellent read,"I read the book years ago, then saw the movie with my grandson recenly. I and decided to read the book at the same time and I really enjoyed reading it again." +2537,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,AHIXNG4EIK5QV,Anne H.,0/0,5.0,1346025600,An all-time favorite,"One of my favorite fantasy books of all time. Personally, I enjoyed The Hobbit much more than Lord of the Rings. If you haven't read this lovely little book yet, you owe it to yourself to do so. A real treat to be enjoyed by kids and adults alike." +2538,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A22PHKGDUFE3GA,Unanimous,0/0,4.0,1356480000,Great read!!,Very smashing read!!! Slightly hard to read however I have not read much yet but it looks like a mad adventure!!!! +2539,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2TASWIAKMPAE9,Paper Man,1/2,5.0,1014249600,"A fun prequel to ""The Lord of the Rings""","THE HOBBIT is a fun book full of daring adventures, a reluctant hero and plenty of evil beasts. As a stand alone it is ideal for children and adults have certain aspects to the story that only an adult could appreciate, but plenty of things children will absolutely love. It is also a fun introduction into Middle Earth, and is a prequel that will get people started into the world of hobbits and magic.Highly reccommended." +2540,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1RV2R1HV1L36J,Heather F Wagner,1/1,5.0,1357344000,Great book,Absolutely a great read. Was not one of the lucky ones to have this on the list of books in school but very glad I got to read it before seeing the new movies. +2541,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1PDK2U8GFHZ5P,Katy Hannah,0/0,5.0,1360368000,Gets better with time.,It's a really great time to revisit this book-- or to visit it for the first time. The recent Peter Jackson film is a great representation doesn't completely do justice to the feeling behind this novel. It's an adventure book for children with a profoundly adult longing about it for the fantasy and imagination of youth. +2542,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,5.0,1053993600,A Very enjoyable quest.,"I was never in to Lord of the Rings Or J.R.R. Tolkien until I saw the movie. I didn't like the movie very much until my friend brought it over and let me hold it. I instantly fell in love with it. And felt that I was almost forced to Buy Tolkien's Literary works. After much and much hesitition, I knew that I was bound to like the book so I said why not go all out and buy this GREEN LEATHERETTE HOBBIT, AND THE LORD LORD OF THE RINGS RED LEATHERETTE.editions of the book.I read the Hobbit in 6 days. The book starts off very entertaing but later on becomes rather dry. However not dry enough to make it unbearable.The Green Leatherette edition is 317 pages, and about 4 full color glossy drawings, and as well as about 10 or more other drawings. The Drawings are not bad, especailly since they were drawn by Tolkien himself who is known for his writing skills not his drawing skills. The book becomes dry when they leave the wood elf spot, and they have to go through mirkwood, where there are many spiders and other creatures. The book then picks up later when they arrive at Loneley mountain, the end of the book, where they have to steal the treasures from the Dragon Smaug who guards the treasures. Which is about 60 pages of the book, completely on the part with Smaug and before Smaug dies.The book I would reccommend to people between the ages of 5-?? the book is very good, and should be read by all readers of all ages.The book has illustrations but does not need them to help the story progress, I could litterally sit there and draw out the things described with out being bored, as other books do.The book has nearly no violence and is a very light hearted adventure of a ""hobbit"" Bilbo Baggins who never went on any adventures or unexpected events, but with his meeting up with the Wizard ""Gandalf The Grey"" he tells Bilbo about going on a quest that will make him rich. The next day, Gandalf comes back with the Dwarves who Bilbo will spend his adventure with and tells him everything(or not so much as everything).The quest starts simple enough and seems like a typical fantasy( which J.R.R. Tolkien is the author who spawned the genre as a whole) Bilbo is hired as a burglar to accompany a group of thirteen Dwarves to the Loneley mountain. Once at the Loneley mountain Bilbo will have to pilfer the Dragon Smaug of all his un needed treasures. The book starts simple but ends with many hardships and is very enjoyable, readers 5-12 highly reccomended,but other age groups don't expect much violence." +2543,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2JGC68FIRIEBS,Jennifer Madere,0/0,5.0,1360281600,Better than the movie.,Loved this book. This was my first time reading it but it won't be my last I will be reading this again very soon. +2544,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,ATSO7AOHFHUMB,Geetha Krishnan,0/0,5.0,1198886400,Three Cheers For Bilbo!!!!!,"The book is often considered as just a prequel to Lord of the Rings, but it is no such thing. It is an extremely good book from a great author. If you are reading it after you've read the Lord of the Rings, you are going to be quite pleasantly surprised." +2545,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2SM6D2MR893F,NonnyT,1/1,5.0,1357084800,Timeless!!,I plan on reading this book more than once. A fantastic read that will be enjoyed by future generations!Timeless +2546,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A32N6TGIUSO7A4,chapmanbe7,0/0,5.0,1357776000,Great story.,Overall just a good book with creative and interesting characters and an intriguing plot. Marvelous story for anyone and everyone. +2547,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1L42O6OKUADNM,Beverly A. Farrell,0/0,5.0,1360022400,Nice!!!,This book is a great way better than a great lot of books! You're sure to like it read it yourself! +2548,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,5.0,902188800,The Gateway to another World in literature,"This book was the one that introduced me to a whole new genre of literature. It was the gateway to the likes of Donaldson, Eddings, Kerr, Feist and many others the sort of stuff which I specifically look for when I want to read something relaxing. Tolkien has managed to transport the reader to a completely different world populated with absolutely delightful characters. I have read it countless times in countless situations, in an airliner crossing the Atlantic, in the centre of Picadilly Square, on a bus, on the underground, in bed, by the campfire, during examination time, wether I'm exhausted or bristling with energy... this is stuff that anyone can enjoy at any time and in any surroundings or situation. This sort of literature is a good lesson for all of us to stop taking ourselves and our petty concerns too seriously. It teaches us to be children once again and to experience joy at simple things. Everyone should read it at least once, especially adults !" +2549,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1WTJYDEGSXPXG,Michael W. Wilbanks,0/1,5.0,1279929600,Trail Blazer,Arrived on time and just as described. A Great Product at a Great Price! +2550,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1IANEBSMVGHS9,"Manny Hernandez ""@askmanny""",3/4,5.0,1003104000,A fantasy that shows the greatness of good spirits...,"Originally written in 1937 by J.R.R. Tolkien, "The Hobbit" is the first of a series of books that constitute Tolkien's legacy, one which, like many other literary masterpieces, has stood the test of time. The hobbit of the story, Bilbo Baggins, is forced to face his destiny by the wizard Gandalf; one that gradually gains him the respect of his companions (thirteen dwarves, along with the wizard) and many other characters in a year-long adventure through the dangers of facing the meanest creatures and walking through the most adverse places.Ultimately, the tapestry of events which Tolkien brilliantly weaves around Bilbo and his friends confront him with Smaug, the terrible dragon who has long seized the dwarves' treasure. Only the combination of luck, intelligence and a courage which he never thought he had, help Bilbo to sort through all he's faced with to come out as a better being, one that can see beyond the blindness that greed brings into smaller spirits (not necessarily because it affects dwarves more than it affects others in the story). It is there where the true greatness and universal character of the story lies.The best thing about Tolkien's fantasy books is that you can relate to them in so many ways that they no longer seem so distant from what could actually occur to you." +2551,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A37MQ4DA0RPLWM,physicshiker,0/0,5.0,1360713600,"The Hobbit, Kindle Edition","This book is the the prelude to "Lord of the Rings" which many believe to be a classic in its genre. Although lighter in tone than LOTR, it sets the stage for Tolkien's Middle Earth and is a classic in its own right. Read the book as a young adult and wanted to have it in my Kindle collection. A good read again." +2552,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3ULJE7UMUGSXR,Rebekah Sue Harris,2/2,5.0,983059200,For children of ALL ages!,"If I were a musician, I'd write opuses about this story. If I were an artist, I would try to recapture the magic on canvas. Alas, I am a writer, and a mediocre one at that. Therefore, I can only try to tell you how delightful this tale is. As an adult who loves fantasy and science fiction, I was shocked when I realized that I had not yet read this tale. When I learned that a dear friend was reading it at bedtime to her first grader, I realized that I was long overdue. This is an amazingly delightful story. Aside from its tale, it looks at beings of different backgrounds and their conflicts. Not everything works out perfectly, and the ends don't always justify the means. However, the characters' characters grow, even when their stature does not. This story was written in the 1930s. Other than the lack of female characters, it is absolutely timeless and will still be popular a hundred or five hundred years from now." +2553,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A35AQP63B9C4BZ,TD,0/0,5.0,1349049600,Revisit the hobbit,"While the Hobbit is written in a very different style than the Lord of the Ring, Tolkien timeless classic, it is still a fun read. Written in a style and tone suited best to juvenile readers, it still has a great charm to it for the older reader. This was my first reread since the 70s but none of magic of the tale has diminished." +2554,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,4.0,941068800,"The classic book, The Hobbit.","J.R.R. Tolkien writes of an adventurous tale of a little hobbit and some friends. It is set in a fantasy world where good is always at battle with evil. It is the book that starts up the series of stories told by J.R.R Tolkien calles, THE LORD OF THE RINGS. It is a story of one very small creature taking on the greatest challange of his life. The main character is a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins. Hobbits are well mannered, small and fat creatures. This story is about a jorney which dragged Bilbo out of his hobbit-hole(a place where he is secluded from danger and anything that might harm him. Bilbo;s adventure brought out courage he didn't even know existed. None of his companions believed in him at first because he seemed so small and useless. After Bilbo saved all of their lives, they began to respect him. Throughout the book, Bilbo hets many chances to prove his courage. In one part of the book, Bilbo's companions get in serious trogble with a group of giant spiders. It was Bilbo;s chance to prove he was courages. Bilbo did all he could to help his friends and in the end became a hero. This book shows that everyone has courage somwhere inside of them and they sould try to fingd it. Anyyone that is enterested in fantasy, wizards, magic, or adventure will be in love with this book." +2555,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3IZ1VXZRWVTAR,Doug Williams,0/0,5.0,1361059200,Reading it for the first time,"Great read, great visuals, extremely entertaining. Even the movie in IMAX 3D was no match for the original. Time well spent." +2556,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A348XPKM94VWKO,elrey,3/4,5.0,1328659200,This is the The Hobbit to get.,Who wouldn't get the annotated version? The notes are so helpful in answering all those little questions that come up along the way. +2557,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A27DQGKVKLDKJ5,Owen Salzgeber,0/0,5.0,1360022400,The hobbit,AMAZINGBEST PART OF THIS BOOK IS WHEN SMAUG IS KILLED AND PEACE IS RETURNED TO THE VALLEY I WAS DISAPIONTED WHEN THORIN DIED THOGH :( +2558,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,AYXG6VKSXMCT7,"L. Williams ""teacher""",0/0,5.0,1357948800,Great read!,Loved the book when I was a kid. So I bought it for my 10 year old. She loved it too. The movie? Not so much. +2559,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,1/2,5.0,1100822400,The Hobbit by J.R.R Tolkien,The is a wonderful bookand I suggest everyone to read it. In the hobbit Bilbo Bagins goes on an adventure and finds the one ring.The Hobbit blazes the trail for the Lord of the Rings.If you plan on reading the Lord of the Rings the hobbit is a must. +2560,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/1,5.0,915062400,cool-kick ass book,"This book is the greatest, and a must have to introduce you into the world of Middle Earth." +2561,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2ZSJLN3VDC8DY,"P. Morgenroth ""High Voltage""",0/1,5.0,1307923200,Kindle Edition,"Got this for my Xoom. I love being able to read one of my favorite childhood books again. All the old pictures are there and the sync feature is cool. I can read some on my Xoom, then pick up where I left of on my Atrix while on the bus to work, then back to the Xoom again when I get home." +2562,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A30RDRLCZ17KBE,Ter,0/0,5.0,1357862400,Love the book,Way better than the movie!! Hopefully the sequels will be better!! 9 more words left. What to say? Shall just........ +2563,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A256JN5EXZZZ4G,Marcus E. Goormastic,1/2,5.0,1325289600,Great Book!,"I read The Hobbit when I was 11 but I had a 12th grade reading level so this book was no problem for me. Anyway, this is my second favorite book. The Hobbit has lots of suspense that makes you want to hit yourself if you have to go to sleep and not read the next chapter, it scares you so much you're so scared you don't want to read tha next chapter and finally, it brings you to fight with yourself. A little bit like this, is the character making the right decision, what will the consequences be, and how will the problem be solved. So through the whole you're racking your brain while you're reading. The Hobbit is a must read!" +2564,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A298F54JZQACR6,G,0/0,4.0,1358294400,Great childrens book,"Quick, movie's out, read the book again! Since Peter Jackson chose to stretch one small children's book into 3 long movies it turns out you can easily read the book chapters covered by the movie faster than you can watch the movie, and reading the whole book only takes a few hours.As a children's book I think it is pretty damn good. You can see Tolkien building up ideas for Lord of the Rings: the easily-killed but numerous spiders are the building blocks for the much more sinister and powerful Shelob, the swords taken from the trolls were very reminiscent of the swords acquired from the Barrow-wight and used to kill the Nazgul, and the Battle of Five Armies is a smaller scale template for the epic battle of Helm's Deep.On a less positive note, I found the foreshadowing fairly annoying, and I'm not sure why it is there. Maybe Tolkien thought kids needed to be reassured that everything was going to work out in the end, or needed all the dots explicitly connected?"...which shows he was a wise elf and wiser than the men of the town, though not quite right, as we shall see in the end....And the knotted ropes are too slender for my weight. Luckily for him that was not true, as you will see."Great children's book, and I'm going to score it as such, I certainly loved it as a kid.4 stars. Read more of my reviews at g-readinglist.blogspot.com" +2565,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3OSEPZ40AHA4U,Ian Nevins,0/0,5.0,1361318400,The Best,"This is, obviously, a truly great book. Filled with warmth, adventure, fun and beauty, reading this book never disappoints. And I have read it many times over the years." +2566,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3M7X55B0U6036,fernanda,0/0,5.0,1360972800,Perfect Gift,"The perfect gift for my boyfriend, he loved it!The original text, pocket size, so much better than in theater." +2567,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1FKHR31IN9BJI,Daniel Gregg,0/0,5.0,1360281600,Don't wait to buy this book!,This book is amazing. Why did I wait so long to buy this book?! See the movie and read the book and you'll be pleasantly surprised at the closeness of the two. Enjoy! +2568,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A17883EO5PI842,"K. Butler ""allyourbase""",0/0,5.0,1358726400,Fantastic,I absolutely love this book. It's a terrific adventure of a hobbit getting to know the world. It's kind of a coming of age story in a way. +2569,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A87HT87F382CK,Landon,1/1,4.0,1357257600,Great read,I liked this book when I was younger and it still is a good read this late in life. This is a good fictional story for a young reader to start with. +2570,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,3/3,5.0,942796800,Simply Amazing!,"The Hobbit is an excellent book. Everyone should read it. Even I, a 12 year old has read the book. You just can't put it down. There's is one adventure after the other. J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit is a true master piece that will not be forgotten. But the adventures don't just end in this book. This is only the beginning. Next is the Lord of the Rings. Named BOOK OF THE CENTURY. READ ALL OF THEM, including all the Middle Earth Series" +2571,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2VZL8R5Y4JLI0,BookWorm29,1/1,5.0,1301097600,A beautiful book now with beautiful illustrations,"Myth throughout the ages has been a powerful tool for mankind, providing wonderful stories, presenting beautiful archetypes, and teaching lessons. Tolkien was a lover of the Norse myths, the Germanic, and his work shows it. The man, far from being just a professor, was a genius, creating his own mythology from myths that already came before hand. The Hobbit is a wonderful way to get started on his work. The Hobbit is very much a myth for our time, with the wise old counselor who helps the reluctant hero to realize his full potential.The story starts out with Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit, living a quiet life, only to have his life interrupted by a the wizard Gandalf and a group of dwarves. It appears a rather nasty dragon has stolen the dwarves' treasures and is now making his home in their lair. It's up to poor, little Bilbo to muster the strength that he never knew he had, so that he can help reclaim what is rightfully the dwarves, all the while dealing with goblins, trolls, and other uncomfortable situations.This is the perfect book for those new to Tolkien to start with. It's not as dark, dreary, and violent as Tolkien's ""Lord of the Rings"" series or ""The Children of Hurin,"" (all of which are wonderful must read books: ""The Lord of the Rings"" being my favorite) or as complex as ""The Similarion"" (also a must read), but an excellent starting place for most ages. This is one of the most incredible books ever written, one of the most amazing stories ever told, and I've read it numerous times. This version, with illustrations by Alan Lee, helps accentuate the mythical world Tolkien created even more, breathing life and magic into the story. ""The Hobbit,"" is a book I look forward to having the joy of reading to my future children, sparking their imagination, awaking the magic within them, in the process. To those that like Norse/Germanic myths, there are plenty of things you'll recognize in names and tales. In fact, there is a little nod to ""Beowulf,"" in it. To those that just want their imaginations to soar, to be taken to another world, then this is the right book, as it has helped inspire today's fantasy books and video games. Read this treasure and enjoy." +2572,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,ANEDLXQSCJT3O,JC,1/3,5.0,1121990400,Excellent way to get the complete set,"Paperback set in an illustrated hard box, includes the original versions of: The Hobbit, The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, The Return of the King." +2573,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3P04372FZUKM3,"Datanya Mcgee ""PCJedi""",0/0,5.0,1359936000,It's a Classic,I'm a fan of the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings and decided to re-read the book. It was as exciting as I remembered and even better the second time around. +2574,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3ANTPGVGOHYFZ,gbbannister,1/1,5.0,1334966400,What Can I Say?,"Possibly one of the greatest works of fiction ever written, it's only rivals are were authored by the same man." +2575,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2RTOCWLKELVGU,Oliver129756,0/0,5.0,1361318400,Great book!,"I like this book a lot. It's a great tale, and I recommend it to pre teens who like good books." +2576,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3VHH9ORYVH9LP,mknight,1/1,5.0,1359676800,My Precious,Yea I enjoyed the Hobbit. However it's not as good as the Lord of The Rings. The most important thing you have to remember is don't mess with Gandalf +2577,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/1,5.0,914889600,I'm annoyed because this audio taped version is abridged!,"The book is great, but I really don't like the abridgement" +2578,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A259F4J3QOBIUH,"Frater V ""The Truth is Absolutely Not Absolut...",0/0,5.0,970272000,Tolkien is The Master Story-Teller....he created the genre,"The writings of Professor Tolkien are absolutely Timeless. These books are the gauge by-which all Fantasy books are measured. The Hobbit and The Trilogy have been the Inspiration for decades of works by other authors, yet I have not ever seen these works surpassed by anyone. Terry Brooks is the only author I have read who even compares to J.R.R. Tolkien and his epic style. I became fascinated with The Hobbit and Trilogy when I was in the seventh grade. I borrowed them from a friend and snuck them home. I was completely enthralled with the world Tolkien created. I was not allowed to read anything that was even remotely related to Wizards, Witches, Astrology, D&D, etc., so these books were like nothing I had ever seen, before. I was captivated and felt the call to become a Writer. Previously, the poetry and such that we were studying in school BORED me to tears. I found my schooling to be mind-numbingly BORING and Tolkien became my Inspiration to Learn, create Poetry, Write stories, Study, become an Anthropologist, delve into Masonic Lore and so much more.... Throughout High-School, I had pictures of Prof. Tolkien on my wall and I desired to be like him. Not-only was he the Greatest Fantasy Writer the world has known, but he was "Professor of Anglo-Saxon, at Oxford University, from 1925 to 1945....and professor of English Language and Literature....and a Fellow of Merton College from '45 to his retirement in '59." Check out his translations of (book title:)"Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Pearl, and Sir Orfeo" (J.R.R. Tolkien) Also, Prof. Tolkien wrote wonderful stories like "Smith of Wooten Major (&) Farmer Giles of Ham" for children. Pop those titles into the search box! I can honestly say that reading Tolkien changed my life...for the Better! Tolkien created the highest standards of writing for generations of authors....I am quite sure he would be deeply disappointed with the majority of books published today, with numerous spelling errors and pathetic grammar. I believe Tolkien is a god-send to English teachers. Perhaps, he can still inspire young people to elevate their Writing and English skills, from beyond. I would fight to keep his works on the shelves. I was not allowed to do my Senior Thesis about this author, despite the fact that he is such an amazing author and advocate of Literature. I lost interest in doing my thesis and threw something together at the last minute. Perhaps teachers should Recognize the potential for inspiring youth, via the works of J.R.R. Tolkien." +2579,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2DCWWELU7IEYX,ncpoppie,0/0,4.0,1347408000,Better than when I was a kid!,"With the upcoming release of the first installment of the Hobbit movie, I decded to read the book again. What a fun read! But I knocked off one star as the audio content would not play on my Kindle Fire." +2580,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2THBAJNRGL90N,Kristen,0/0,4.0,1358208000,Classic Adventure,"The Hobbit is a great adventure story, full of action, and interesting characters. Tolkien is master storyteller who drawls you into the story. While people of any age will be engaged by Bilbo's and his companions, it is a great book for younger teens who are look for a more substantial book.It was not mean to be as dark and suspenseful; as Lord of the Rings, so enjoy it for what it is a great adventure." +2581,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1NY2S2JZ5HNGF,Natalie Sinsheimer,0/0,5.0,1357776000,Fantasy-static book,"This book is a tale of magic, wisdom and triumphant joy. It is a well written book by J. R. R. Tolkien and was brought together nicely. It is highly suspenseful and enjoyable to read." +2582,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,5.0,897436800,To all the Hobbit-Haters...,"As I'm reading these reviews, I notice that all of the people who gave "The Hobbit" a poor rating are students who flunked their tests. In thirty years, you'll be homeless on the street without a job. I'm a student too, I was required to read this, but would've read it anyway and have now enjoyed the series as well." +2583,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2VFYBQBERTIL,Irina Lvovskaya,3/3,5.0,999129600,Awesome Edition,"The Hobbit is a great book all by itself, but this nice edition makes it even better. It has a nice leather cover, good paper, and drawings by Tolkien himself! When I look at it, I want to read it again and again! I really advise you to buy this edition." +2584,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,3/11,3.0,956102400,An okay book,"In The Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins is a normal, lazy Hobbit - until Gandalf the Wizard comes along with his band of adventurous Dwarves and ask him to help them on their quest. He, of course refuses, but after some thought about the possibility of the good outcome, he finally (but still somewhat reluctantly) agrees. The great dragon Smaug has been terrorizing the country and must be destroyed before his work of death can go any farther. Bilbo and the Dwarves go off to destroy this abomination. They are soon swept up in a quest filled with evil orcs, giant spiders, and much worse hidden dangers. Although Tolkien does well in describing the settings and characters, he doesn't really do too well with his action. Some authors, such as C.S. Lewis or J.K. Rowling, have the ability to create the sweeping kind of action that seems to just bring you along and keep you reading whether you like the story or not. J.R.R. Tolkien doesn't, no matter what you say. At the beginnning of the story, he seems to just drone on and on until by the time he's gotten to the point, you forget what he's really trying to say. Of course he does well in his description, but there is too much. And he does great while writing about the action areas, but afterwards it returns to that bleak nothingness of words that never catches your interest. J.R.R. Tolkien has created a work of art writing this book, but he fails at keeping the reader glued to the pages like some authors can." +2585,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A208SIIN4CUIMT,juan mera,0/0,5.0,1353974400,nice book,"super cool book, very interesting and enjoyable to read, I strongly recommended it for people from all ages groups.I am sure kids and adults will enjoy this amazing piece of literature." +2586,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,5.0,893808000,"One of the BEST, most CREATIVE books I've EVER read.","Words can't describe the excitment, joy, and appreciation I feel every time I pick this book up. I've read The Lord of the Rings also. Poor Bilbo! You can help but chuckle as he runs out of his house without a hanky. Worse things await him and his heir. I have read this whole series, The Hobbit plus The Lord of the Rings, at least 10 times. Tolkien's refreshing writing blends innocence and a view that sees the world in a pure, unadulterated fashion. It makes for a thoroughly enjoyable book." +2587,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A26PCOZR7M6JEK,David,1/1,5.0,1357516800,Hobbit,"Amazing, timeless classic. Cannot complain. I did not find any typos in this electronic version. The pictures where also a great addition to this amazing story." +2588,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,4.0,909360000,Reading The Hobbit after The Fellowship of the Ring,"I read The Fellowship of The Ring about a month and a half ago, when I finished I decided to go back and read The Hobbit. After reading The Hobbit I understood the Fellowship better. I highly recomend reading The Hobbit fisrt if you are interested in the series, however reading the books individually is almost as interesting. I like how the series is set up, so that each book is an adventure of it's own and reading the other books only helps one better understand the books as a whole." +2589,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,AT3ESUWYNLKUK,J. Resnick,1/2,4.0,999734400,The beginings of a masterpiece!!,"In anticipation of The Fellowship of the Ring movie due out this December, I've decided to re-read Tolkien's classics, starting with The Hobbit. This is a great and classic story about a quest. It was great to see Bilbo's character evolve from beginning to end, as well as get introduced to all the great characters that populate Tolkien's world. I loved Beorn and wished he was more integral to the whole story, but maybe he's in The Lord of the Rings (I've forgotten!). My only gripe is Gandalf - I thought he was extremely underdeveloped and there was so much more we could have learned about him. As a stand alone story, The Hobbit is a classic, but it just felt like Tolkien was going through the motions and saving his best work for his later novels..." +2590,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,AUKUWQAJLVKXC,Thomas E. Rastrelli,1/1,5.0,1354320000,Can't wait to see movie,I've seen all 3 Lord of the Rings so I'm really looking forward to seeing the beginning. East read BTW. +2591,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3QO0Y1QS9JBNW,Grandma9,0/0,4.0,1358035200,Thoughts on the Hobbitt,Loved this book but could have done with a little less detail and digression from the main story line. This was the second time I've read it and found it more interesting the first time. I would recommend it for any Tolkien fan prior to reading the fellowship of the ring. +2592,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A127AE7360VGP6,Paige,1/4,2.0,1349913600,Movie Tie-In Edition,"I ordered this edition because it is advertised as a movie tie-in edition, thinking it would have pictures from the movie in it. The only tie-in it has to the movie is the cover, everything else is the standard publication. I love this story and was quite disappointed to be misled." +2593,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2TIUYI73U036T,Roseanna Deacon,0/0,5.0,1359072000,A journey,"A great story that keeps your interest. A must read for all ages, and it is fun to see how Bilbo gets in and out of trouble." +2594,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,5.0,937699200,For those who thought it was horrible-,"Okay, first off, the Hobbit is the FIRST fantasy book ever written. It was a rage at the time, so many many many people thought it was a good book.Its a general rule that everyone has to read the Hobbit at least once in their lifetime. They have to. And for those who thought it was horrible-Youre comparing the first book of the genre to other books, such as the Wheel of Time, The Magic of Recluce, Wizards First Rule, etc etc.Keep in mind, everyone who loves fantasy owes a huge debt of gratitude to Tolkien. Without him, there would be no other books of fantasy that everyone has come to know and love." +2595,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A1NB20UYG7VWDE,AJF,0/0,5.0,1357776000,Great Story,Excellent story and adventure that really draws you in and takes you along for the epic ride. Highly recommend this book! +2596,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,,,0/0,5.0,857779200,A book to grow up with,"I first read the Hobbit as a young boy. This book more so than any other that I read as a child opened my mind to the vastness of humanities imagination. The purity of J.R.R. Tolkiens fantasy allows the reader to become totally immersed in the fantasy and adventures of Mr. Bilbo Baggins, Esquire. From Dragons to Wizards the reader develops a sense of comraderie with the characters as the overcome foes and their own fears and failings.Now as a father of four children I have taken each one of my kids into this wonderful world. As each of my childred reached the age of five I would carefully tuck them in and then together we would imbark upon this most amazing adventure. Re-reading this book every five years or so has only brought closer to the characters and the story itself. But perhaps the greatest joy is seeing the excited look on the face of my child as Bilbo first tricks theTrolls or when he first steals the ring of Gollum in the caves of the Goblins and certainly the climatic event of the burglary into the den of the sleeping Smaug, the dragon who awaits all of them under the mountain. This is a book rich with adventure and fantastic episodes like no other. Truly this is a book to grow up with and I would venture to say -- to stay young with through the eyes of a child." +2597,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A2XCWE2SOWS7XY,Connor Shivers,2/2,5.0,966902400,This Book is Excellent!,"This is a must-read. This book appeals to a wide range of readers, whether they like a good cultural work, a story with lots of poetry, an action-packed novel, or even a novel that pays exclusive attention to details and character personalities! "The Hobbit" is all of those things, and much, much more. Whatever you pay for this book, it will still be a good buy!" +2598,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A3LBVHQD4CNORE,Daniel Barr,0/0,5.0,1360800000,Oldie but a goodie,Always a good time. I highly recommend for individuals of all ages. Read before the rest of the movies come out! +2599,B000NWU3I4,"The Hobbitt, or there and back again; illustrated by the author.",,A12T10E2VKFGY2,Donald Reynolds,0/0,5.0,1361318400,Awesome story,Never get tired of reading it. You learn more each time it is read. I recommend it to everyone I know' +2600,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1RJGXB3L2DQ3W,03jme,0/0,5.0,1323216000,Great service,They sent the book exceptionally fast for coming over from the UK. Brand new never opened just like the discription said. Very pleased. +2601,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2IQ40SVMHLANZ,Jill Grun,2/2,3.0,1316563200,Trashy Historical Fiction At Its Finest,"I'm a bit of an amateur Tudor historian and have been for about five years, so I'm going to come at this review from a different place than someone who doesn't know the true story behind this book and these real-life people.Don't get me wrong -- I love this book. I've read it many, many times and will continue to read it over and over again. But, to be honest, I don't really view it as anything more than a highbrow bodice ripper, hence my title calling it ""trashy."" It's fancy beach reading, but I mean that in the nicest way possible. It's written in a very compelling way and will keep you entertained. Despite it's length, it's a book I can -- and do -- finish rather quickly whenever I read it. It's a pageturner, there's no doubt about it.lMy real issue with this book is, naturally, the historical inaccuracies and great liberties that author Gregory takes with the story of the Tudors. Inaccuracies that she tries to pass off as historical fact. But I am still able to enjoy and appreciate it while also appreciating non-fiction books on the same subject. I sort of view this as an adaptation of history: Movie adaptations rarely follow the book exactly and always take liberties, but a person can still love both the book and the movie. That's kind of how I approach The Other Boleyn Girl." +2602,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A14HC0KECRL4W9,R. R. Costas Jr.,1/2,4.0,1101686400,"Not history, but you'll learn a lot anyway","I am a big history buff (American mostly) and am often skeptical of historical novels. This was an exception for me. I don't know all that much of England's long royal history. I do know enough to be aware of the high-level intrigue that used to go on in those days to achieve power, but it was really interesting to see it so well-developed and told in this book. A gander through the internet will give you a more accurate picture of what is today accepted as truth and what is in fact the author's imagination. In the back of the paperback edition, the author also tells some of what she invented and what happened to some of the characters after Anne's death. If you realize all this, this is one immensely enjoyable read. The almost 700 pages are turned very quickly and I think you will learn some very valuable things about life in the English courts and England/Europe in general during the 16th century. I think the author's intentions are to pique our interest in either the period or the personalities enough that we might be interested in seeking more historical information. That's what it did for me. I would not mind reading the book that followed this one, watch the movie ""Elizabeth"" again or even read an actual history of this episode in British history. Although the main protagonist (Anne's sister, Mary) is historically obscure and without a lot of documentation, many of the other characters are significant enough in history that it should have been easy for the author to do enough research to present portraits as accurate as any historian could. What I came away with regarding Henry VIII, Wolsey and other royals, is not much different than what I came in with. For those sticklers for absolute fact, there are history books. This is a fine introduction for the more casual reader that, to me, gives an accurate enough picture of those days and a plausible description of Anne's life and reign." +2603,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1VP9TBSMVLMB8,Carrie Elizabeth,0/0,5.0,1048636800,It's the kind of book that stays with you forever.,""The Other Boleyn Girl" by Philippa Gregory is amazing. It's over six hundred pages long, but not one page of it was dull (like most long books turn out to be). I felt like I was right there experiencing everything with Mary and her siblings. It's hard to describe such a beautiful book in less than a thousand words. Just buy it. You won't regret it, I promise." +2604,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A43XHU8V84CI4,"Gerri Detweiler ""host, Talk Credit Radio""",3/4,5.0,1134604800,I bought 8 copies for friends,"I don't usually read historical fiction, but a friend gave me a copy of this book and I couldn't put it down! In fact, I find a lot of fiction mediocre at best. I am tired of murder mysteries, don't like most of Oprah's bookclub picks (a few exceptions but...) and above all, love a good story. The last fiction book I enjoyed this much was probably Memoirs of a Geisha.I bought 8 copies today for friends and colleagues as holiday gifts. Obviously, I recommend it." +2605,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,ANNG9J7F67YTS,a reader,2/3,5.0,1113782400,Get a grip people,"It is my understanding that this is a work of fiction, based on historical events. As such, it is a wonderful book that left me thinking about the characters and the era for days.It also left me with questions about the historical record such as 'How did the Church of England really form?' and 'Is Mary a historical figure and if so, were two of her children Henry's?' 'What happened to them?' 'How did Elizabeth become Queen?'I will grant you that I am completely ignorant of the subject. However, it is my opinion that this genre should leave you wondering what the truth really is so that you can investigate the history in a non-fiction environment. I fully intend to follow up to learn the facts as they are currently known." +2606,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3M2YTVJ1LU6KF,"Terri Mohn ""tmohn""",0/2,5.0,1227484800,Great Book,The book was great. I watched the movie first and realize it did'nt give the book justice. I love the way the author told the entire story and how she used Mary's point of view. I have since purchased several more of Philippa Gregory's novels and enjoy every one of them. +2607,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3AVFB2JWJL7Q3,Tudor fan,0/0,5.0,1192838400,Fascinating,I Loved this I will read it again. I never wanted to read anything twice.I of course continue to tout her books. Never have I purchased a series before and I hope Phillipa selects other historical periods to write about. +2608,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,,,84/99,1.0,1178409600,"Inept, Unintelligent, and Historically Innacurate.","Let me start off by saying I am a huge fan of Tudor England. I am also a fan of reading, particularly historical fiction. My favorite subject would be, of course, Anne Boleyn, the Boleyn family, and her friends. I heard that The Other Boleyn Girl was chronicling Mary Boleyn, the relatively unknown sister of Anne, and I was undoubtedly excited. I've always thought of Mary as the less succesful sister, the foolish one, who enjoyed the bodily pleasures and failed in her ambitions(there being overwhelming evidence to support this), as opposed to the witty, intelligent, wordly and ambitious Anne who was spirtually adept and not neccisarily a physical being. I, of course have read books where Anne was not all of these and still enjoyed them so don't think my intense admiration for Anne is coloring my review.Let me start off with the basics; Characterization. Gregory apparently skipped this class-or at least was asleep for the majority of it. All of her characters are two-deminsional-at best. Let's start with the protagonist-Mary. For no reason whatsoever Mary has grown up superior to her family...despite the fact that she had no outside influence to change this. She never mentions a mentor who taught her her values and moral superiority,she is not particularly religious,she merely is better-something that goes intensly against human nature. Mary's intentions are soley good all the time, she just wants to be with her beautiful children and escape her evil family. I suppose her good nature was supposed to leave me on pins and needles just hoping she gets that beautiful happily ever after-in fact, it had the exact opposite effect. I found Mary's troubles superficial in comparision to those around her, the majority of whom where sincerely better people with causes they were dedicated to. Mary was simply self involved to the point of making me nauseous. When her sister gives birth to a girl who is apparently-and innacuratly- unloved whom is apparently her sisters downfall(again, innacurately)-and what is Mary's thought process? She is not concerned for her sister who is now treading down the road to execution, not for the King she once loved who is bitterly dissapointed in the woman he love not being what he expected, and not even for the poor baby girl-but for herself. She tells her husband that she can't believe she's going to have to wait for another pregnancy to ""escape"". When Jane Seymour is slowly taking Anne's place as Queen at court, and Anne is understandbly saying how much she wishes she was dead, Mary returns with a ""Anne that is so horrible"". What? What is Anne supposed to feel? Jane certainly wanted Anne dead. No one around her is good enough for Mary, and her morality seemed to grate on my nerves. At one point she threatens suicide to her sister-and I was half hoping she would actually go through with it to end this narcissisticly schreeching, whiny narration.Anne, I am supposed to gather, was the exact opposite of her wonderful sister. This wonderful, intelligent, witty and albiet ambitious woman is reduced to a pure evil caraciture. There are no limits to her evil, everything about her is cruel, she doesn't hesitate in way before committing the most henious acts, with none of the basic human emotion of regret. Turn to any given page and there is an example of her evilness. There is not one nice thing said about Anne in this book. Even on the eve of her execution she doesn't seem to want to repent anything. Why would Henry literally turn church and state on its head for this woman, one might ask? Good question, and I'm still trying to figure it out. Anne had many, many, many admirers because she was a very attractive, intelligent and generally pleasing being. She may have had moments of cruelty, though so has everyone, but that does not mean they are a one-deminsional harpy with little thought above how she can advance herself. Even though Gregory, I'm gathering, wanted me to hate her, I really only loved her simply becuase she was different than that whiny protagonist.The other characters are equally unbelievable. Thomas and Elizabeth Boleyn were certainly ambitious, but I doubt they were this careless when it came to their children. Ambition does not equal recklessly evil, though I got the feeling that this is what the moral of this story was supposed to be. Henry had no depth whatsoever, and was constantly WHINING! He was King of England, he really need not whine so much. William Stafford is supposed to be the ideal, supportive man who is deeply commited to Mary-for God knows why- and he is basically a characticature. George Boleyn is either doing two things-hanging around his sister's bedchamber or cavorting with his male lover. Katherine of Aragon was-historically speaking-certainly a wronged woman, but I have trouble believing she was so unhumanly saintly. This really isn't the only book that does this-authors who are sympathetic to Katherine tend to make her out-of-this-world Godly. Katherine was a human being, with flaws just like the rest of us-I'd love to see some of them sometime.Now the laundry list of historical errors:Mary Boleyn spent many years at the French Court, where she had quite the reputation of being permiscuous(the King of France called her ""my English mare"" becuase he ""rides her so often""), and sent home in disgrace because of it. She was probably the older sister(and five or so years older than this), but if she was not, Anne would probably be three or four years older, becuase Mary would hardly be sleeping around at 11. Mary was Henry's mistress for perhaps two years, and her children were not his. Anne and Henry Percy did not connsummate their engagement-it would have been impossible to break. The Boleyn ""family meetings"" probably did not happen-Anne and Mary probably both made their way to the King's bed on their own, seeing as how Mary had done it before and Anne staunchly resisted his advances for a year before becoming emotionally-though not physically-involved. Mary probably didn't even consider Katherine of Aragon's feelings-mistresses in Kings were considered common, and if a King did not have one he was considered weak. Mary was hardly cast aside with nothing, she was given all the favors of a royal mistress. Anne's cruelty to Mary Tudor and Katherine has been overexaggerated for hundreds of years-she was indifferent at worst to them both. Fisher and More were executed in that order, how could that not get past an editor? Anne loved Elizabeth fiercly and intensly, and did not neglect her in the wet nurses' chamber, but insisted on breast feeding. Anne's miscarraige of a deformed baby and George's homosexuality were taken directly from Retha Warnicke's biography, which is perfectly fine, but Warnicke's main theory is the discounting of Chapuys as an accurate source, who has been the major source to prove to people that she was evil. She uses undeniable evidence to prove this, and yet Gregory did clearly did not use this, so she either only read the parts that sounded cool to her, or simply skimmed the back. Mary Boleyn was banished from court and then begged for years to be allowed back, she did not make a stealthy escape, and she never comes back, not even when her siblings are rotting in the Tower. Anne was a surpisingly liberal Queen,and saved hundreds upon hundreds from the Inquosition, something Gregory conviently forgets-she also donated thousands of pounds to charity-which is equivalant to millions nowadays. Not one heretic was burned while Anne was Queen, although hunreds were burned before and hundreds after. Anne saved both Catholics and Protestants from the burning post. And for GOD'S SAKE; Anne did not commit incest!!!! She swore ""upon the damnation of mine own mortal soul"" that she did not, evenwhen she didn't neccisarily have to. No one seriously believes Anne commited adultery, or was a witch, and absolutely no one believes she had sex with her brother. Why does Gregory feel the need to include this? I'm willing to bet the vast majority were hating Anne at this point anyways, so including charges she was certianly innocent of was just plain disrepectful. And there were so many, many more.After reading all of this, I was naturally inflamed, but after reading the interview in the back I was half ready to hunt Gregory down and accuse her of incest with her brother. She says things like ""historians are divided as to whether the charges actually took place"" Um...no they are not. I think Gregory is the first person to insist that they could be true in a hundred years. ""Anne was not a woman who let morals get in her way"" This is a strange sentence, and also patenly false. All of the sources listed in Gregory's ""bibliography"" have varying degrees of respect for Anne, and Alison Weir clearly does not like her, but even the ones who do not think she was a Godly creature insist that she did have morals and virtues. Gregory also insists ""Anne was clearly guilty of one murder"" What?! I have no idea what she is talking about here, genuinely no idea. She insists that there is evidence that she tried to poison Fisher. This evidence is a rumour that started contemporarily, in which Anne sent a messanger to him to tell him to avoid Parliment should he become sick. This is a rumor, and Weir is perhaps the only historian who believes it. Gregory says the broad facts of Mary's life are true in the novel-of which they are not. She discounts every other type of fiction and constantly toots her own horn. She says it's perfectly reasonable that Anne would have commited incest with her brother to getting pregnant and that George would be the ""obvious choice"". It's an odd world when your brother is the obvious choice for getting pregnant. Anne had many admirers who would die for her (Thomas Wyatt ""Whoso List to Hunt"" for example), and if she were to take a lover(which she didn't) I would say that she had many to chose from. Also, the common knowledge of that time was that women were responsible for miscarraiges and the sex of babies. If she was miscarrying, she would have certainly thought it was her fault, and taking a lover would not help.I would give it zero stars if I could. Please pass this one up. But if you simply cannot refrain, I suggest buying either Warnicke, Bruce's, or Ive's biography and read it first, just to laugh at how ridiculous Gregory is." +2609,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A7U6195VNHJWY,"Rita C. ""twentyyears""",0/0,5.0,1079136000,THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL,"The story is set in the court of Henry VIII and deals with the time between his first marriage, and his third. The atmopshere created is devine, and we feel for each of the women in the novel, as each is manipulated and controlled throughout.As well as learning a lot about the history of England, the author also weaves a love story with many twists and turns. We follow the family relationships, the control over the family by the King, life at the royal court, the maturing the central character, Mary.It's an intense novel that you won't be able to put down. I almost cried when I finished it because I could've read on and on." +2610,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2J7SGZKXBE40E,Kamila,0/0,5.0,1321228800,my favorite book,"I was very happy with the purchase. I love any story of King Henry VIII of England, and find the book very interesting. I decided to buy a used one since I prefer to save environment and this book is pretty fat. The quality of the second hand book satisfied me." +2611,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,,,8/9,3.0,1085443200,Bad sentence structure spoils it,"I am a Tudor history buff, and was somewhat bothered by the distortion of historical fact in the novel. My biggest complaint, however, is that I found it very poorly written. Within the first fifty pages I found a large number of problems in sentence structure, such as run-on sentences (two phrases, with different thoughts, separated by a comma instead of a semi colon or period); phrases, rather than whole sentences, as one "sentence;" long sentences that were hard to follow; and errors in punctuation. It seems to have skipped the editing process. I found my annoyance at the bad writing, together with the bad history, detracted from my enjoyment of the book" +2612,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1NQXBQTTKD31A,Heidi,0/1,5.0,1210204800,This one will stay in my collection!,I love this book.I have passed it on to all my friends and family (I made sure they new I wanted it back after)They loved it as much as I did. If you have seen the movie I have to say it doesn't even scratch the surface of the characters in this book.This is actually the second copy I bought I like to have a back up of my favorite books.You will not be disapointed.The only problem I found with it is once you pick it up you won't be able to put it down..and you will want to buy her other books. +2613,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AB5WHQ93ETMH7,LSB,0/1,5.0,1038182400,Great Read,"Very good story telling. The characters were very well drawn, and I found I was staying up until the wee hours to finish this one. It is the mark of a great story that makes me curse out loud at one of the characters. But Anne was so deliciously evil in this book, that I just couldn't help it. Excellent!" +2614,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AB6S9X8QFXAIM,"Mel ""Mel""",0/3,5.0,1233446400,Loved it!,"This book single-handedly got me interested in historical fiction. I loved it! I loved how it was historically accurate, yet turned into a really good story. I could identify with the characters - the struggles and powerlessness of women, the greed of the crown and noblemen and the fear of King Henry VIII. I didn't want it to end." +2615,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A10Y3OZWENAQ6W,"M. Griffin ""viviankosiba""",1/1,3.0,1227744000,Good But Too Long,"I read some but, mostly listened to this novel on CD.The narrator was excellent. The problem with listening to a CD is that you can't skim and skip parts . The story went on and on. Despite this, the story is interesting and the characters are well drawn. Th only person I liked was Catherine of Aragon. Both Boleyn girls were treated by their family like whores however; I still didn't like them .Henry the VIIIcame across as a philandererer. I liked the story and learned a great deal about the Boleyn family .Phippa Gregory reminded me of Jean Plaidy who wrote historical novels thirty years ago." +2616,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2EL8QDYV6ZGIJ,Christina B. Erickson,1/3,5.0,1109635200,History comes to life,"I was intimidated by the size of this novel, but was very quickly drawn into this tale of Mary, the lesser known of the Boleyn girls. The author does a fabulous job of making these historical sisters come to life and presents a compelling tale beginning at Anne Boleyn's introduction to the English court, always showing them as three-dimensional people with real desires, needs, and inner conflicts due to their outer circumstances.I found it so intriguing to learn more about this time period and the relationship of Anne to Mary, and to their family, and to the royal family. As with many of Gregory's books, I feel like I know these people who lived long ago and want to learn more." +2617,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AJMU8VVFKMZI4,nodice,2/3,4.0,1179100800,Altering history,"Going against Tudor historians, Gregory developed her own Da Vinci Code by writing a story that embraces the charges levelled at Queen Anne Boleyn. What if the charges were true? Anything is plausible. Gregory scores major points in just being able to write such a tomb of a novel, however, there are some choices made that are hard to swallow. Mary being the youngest of the Boleyn sisters is one, their ages for another. What happened to the part of the story where Mary was KICKED OUT of French Court for her promiscuity with King Francis I? She was closer to 18 than 12 at the time this story began. A small thing, but it's Anne Boleyn behavior in this book that was very hard for this reader to believe. Screaming at the King in front of his court. Are you kidding me? The last act is also a hard one to swallow. All historian agree that once Mary was banished from court, she never returned (and she went on to have a total of 14 children). Which is more feasible than Gregory's suggestion that the whole court would forget about Mary and not involve her in the intense interrogation scenes. At bare minium George's wife would have brought up her name. Still, this is an engaging read and do offer some ligit possibilities and this novel is definitely worth your time and money, but do not learn your history through fiction novels." +2618,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1OAB1FRBOZVWR,"R. G. W. Brown ""Physicist & Flutist""",2/3,3.0,1184112000,"OK for a flight or a beach, but....",there's a child-like innocence or simplicity in the writing-style that really irritated me more and more as I read this. +2619,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A25V0JNF6YOWWL,Hansen,1/1,4.0,1325980800,Entertaining,"Phillippa Gregory is one of my favourite authors when it comes to historical fiction, and she lived up to my expectations in this book too, I didnt know much about Henry VIII and the tudor period before I read this book, and I feel like I got a bigger knowledge now about that time. I like when books can make me feel something like happiness, anger, sadness etc. and this book managed to do that." +2620,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A32AD0V7IJZZ0A,Syke27,0/1,4.0,1182816000,Fact or Fiction - Perhaps Fill in the Blanks?,"A Historical Fiction novel can be expected to draw a certain critic, almost immediately, which is the person that tells you the book is not historical and is not fact, but merely a well-dressed Harlequin Romance novel. Here's the situation:Very little is actually known about what happened during Henry VIII's reign; it was then treason to speak against the King and also the world had not quite developed it's achival talents in 1536. What Ms. Gregory's novel does is study a wealth of research by other authors and spins a possible story from what little we know of this point in history. There is fiction sprinkled in to fill the gaps of course - otherwise you have non-fiction. That's the ""fiction"" part of Historical Fiction.We don't even know for sure if Mary was the elder or younger sister to Anne. Historians disagree on that fact and put her birth anywhere from 1500-1507. This book chooses a position that she is a year younger than Anne.What has been documented in history is followed closely here. Dates and times, locations, etc. The rest is a enjoyable, plausable story.The book was a great read and was easy to follow. I prefered ""The Queen's Fool"" to this one however, perhaps because it was my first of Phillipa Gregory's." +2621,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1MERMKDKSRQ22,"Susan ""susan3000""",12/17,1.0,1203984000,Fantasy,"This book may be fine as a fantasy, but I feel it is ridiculous to rewrite actual people's lives and rewrite history just for a buck. Much of this book is a complete fabrication, and I am afraid many will take this book as factual. Now it's a movie so even more people can be misguided." +2622,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1380LGP2F5BAP,A. Crafton,5/5,1.0,1215043200,Utterly sleep inducing.,I just don't see what the big deal is. I received this book as a gift and sat down to read it one night. It nearly put me to sleep so I set it aside and decided to come back to it the next day. Same thing happened. The story is slow moving and I found myself skipping ahead to see if it got better. It didn't. I would not suggest this book to anyone. +2623,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2D0RXY3YCD9Y,"Elizabeth Hershey ""Ruler of The World""",0/1,5.0,1238630400,Didn't expect to love it...but I did!,"I'll admit it right now...I'm not big into historial books..romance or not...fiction or non-fiction...I just don't get into it. I was given this book as a gift (thank you a million times over!), and I was interested as I had remembered seeing the previews for the movies. It took me a while to really commit to reading it, but I once I did I was completely fascinated! I could hardly put it down! I expected to get hungup on the language, but the story and the writing really moves...it just flows nicely. The story and the characters pulled me in, and I found myself devouring every detail!If you enjoy historial novels, you'll love this one! If you think you don't enjoy historical novels, give this one a try! You'll be glad you did!" +2624,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AVVLK426BH1H8,Pacwoman,4/6,4.0,1130284800,The Other Boleyn Girl,"Although the author uses overused descriptions of sexual desire and at times the novel is suggestive of a tabloid romance, this is a fascinating fictionalized history. It graphically portrays the repressed role of women during the reign of Henry VIII, and brings that entire era into colorful 3-D. I read all 660 pages in one week and could barely put it down to go to work. This was my first book by this author and it has spurred me on to read others." +2625,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1NC63E4243UOB,R. Waymire,0/0,5.0,1317686400,Great historical novel!,I love to read about the Tudor era and this was full of information I had never heard before. The fact that Mary had two of King Henry's children fails to make it into most biography's or movies. I have a sister and can't imagine having to compete against her for the kings affection. Incredible novel and great fast read. +2626,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AMS8ARLSLY0TS,"""aliciafosterishere""",2/2,5.0,1087689600,A Masterful Epic!!,"I bought this book out of interest in the Tudor times. I've read quite a few disappointing historicals in my time. What with the pages and pages of tedious description to tread through in some of the stories. This is most certainly not the case in The Other Boleyn Girl! It captures the essence of the period in the most effective way. I felt literally as if I was there in this time and space. The author pays attention to details, such as food, apparrel, and community.Anne Boleyn was drawn as a villain, which shatters the empathy a lot of folks felt for her. I too felt sorry for her at one time, but that's done with, though no one really knows if she is deserving of symapthy or resentment. The long and short of it is that I couldn't put this book down. It is most highly recommended." +2627,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A38EUIXORYSC6D,Frances G. Sonne,0/0,5.0,1187136000,Loved it!,"While everyone knows the story of Anne Boleyn and how she was beheaded by Henry VIII after he divorced his long-time wife, Katharine of Aragon, this book tells the story from her sister's point of view - very different from other books on this subject. Other reviews have included more details concerning the story so I will not include them here. This was a very entertaining portrait of a tumultuous time in England's history (certainly certain portions were fictionalized) but I found it a fascinating story that I did not want to put down until I finished it. And I promptly ordered other books by this author on this same era." +2628,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2041TEI3R3UFF,M. Larsen,0/0,3.0,1325980800,Like the little details of court life,"Gregory brings the Tudor Court alive in The Other Boleyn Girl. Very well researched, she sprinkles the text with little details about fashion, buildings and even flowers that take you back to the 16th century." +2629,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,,,1/1,4.0,1035504000,A wonderful work of historical fiction,"I have always loved Tuder England and this book was a wonderful surprise. It has always been obvious that there was more to Anne Boleyn than met the eye and this fictional account seen through the eyes of her younger sister, Mary, was imaginative and provacative. Ms. Gregory has a splendid way of taking the rumors of Henry VIII's court and breathing life into them. However, it is obvious that the Boleyn siblings were pawns in their families' desire for power. It was a fast, easy and enjoyable book to read and I was sorry to have it end." +2630,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AIPJX3VDH1LTA,Donna M. Mclain,0/1,5.0,1229817600,The Other Boleyn Girl (Boleyn) book,"This was purchased as a gift for a family member. It was easy to shop online and the item was a good value, which came quickly, and was well packaged." +2631,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2GJQ12A74YLAU,L. Becker,0/1,5.0,1229126400,Superbly Complex,"This book has truly been one of the best books I've ever read. It is fast paced with a well-woven suspenseful plot with twists and turns. The complexity of the character's emotions, especially Mary Boleyn as the 1st person narrator, is extraordinary. Mary pulls you into her life and into the inner workings of her family and life in Henry VIII's court. While the story may be fictional, many details are historically accurate. After finishing this book, I went on to read a biography of Anne Boleyn and one on Henry VIII. I can't say enough good things about The Other Boleyn Girl, though. I breezed through all 600 pages in a matter of days because it was just that good!" +2632,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3AS6V6OR0ORM1,"Neul ""laidir""",0/0,5.0,1056153600,Tis a wonderful read,"If you like Tudor history, you are in for a treat with The Other Boleyn Girl.It is obvious that Philippa Gregory did her homework, as with all of her novels.As a British history buff, it was a delight to see a story about a woman who is rarely mentioned in popular history, but who had a major impact on the court of Henry the VIII.As Mary, sister to Anne tells her story, The Other Boylen Girl gives us a taste of the extreme difficulties, pressures and hardships even the most privileged encounterd in the Tudorian age.The story is enchanting, haunting and addictive. This is a very memorable read. Enjoy!" +2633,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A9JAYHZOARJX8,Patty Philbrook,0/3,5.0,1172880000,Become a Philippa fan,This is the one Philippa Gregory book to begin a rewarding journey of becoming a fan. She writes about this time period as an expert. She knows it so well you become engrossed in the story. Mary Boleyn's story comes to life in these pages. This is historical fiction at its finest. And the best part is that there are more books to enjoy after this one! +2634,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,ABMX8XUNPR3LP,Jennifer Sicurella,0/1,5.0,1288828800,Reading with Tequila,"I don't read a lot of historical fiction. To me, the past usually equals boring. The Other Boleyn Girl was far from boring. In fact, it was amazing. The story contained so much sex, scandal, deception, and rivalry, it was shocking and deeply entertaining.I saw the movie adaption years ago, and after reading the book, it's obvious the movie was perfectly cast. Obviously, the book went much deeper into the story. The book was long (over 600 pages) and I loved every single page of it. I could not put it down and spent a few mornings bone tired due to ""just a few more pages"" that found me awake and reading hours after I meant to go to sleep.So much happens in The Other Boleyn Girl. The story really only spans about fifteen years, but it has a epic feel. The rivalry between Anne and Mary goes well beyond the average sibling rivalry. King Henry is a tool. I believe it's historically documented that he was the epitome of an spoiled, overgrown child, but seeing him in action, so to speak, makes me wonder how he survived so long without being poisoned.The queen fights for her man in a peculiar way, leaving the reader to wonder why she ever thought that would work. George, brother to Mary and Anne, brings about a very interesting and surprising look at court. And the rest of the Boleyn family, and their involvement in younger generations lives - especially sex lives - reeks of sleaze and conniving. Actions and events so shocking, yet thoroughly realistic, make The Other Boleyn Girl very memorable.There are multiple romances in The Other Boleyn Girl, each markedly different from the next. These relationship do well to show how love, and lust, can vary greatly between couples. More than anything else, The Other Boleyn Girl is about the lengths a woman would go to to become and remain queen. No line remained uncrossed in The Other Boleyn Girl and I found it to be juicer than any modern tabloid." +2635,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,,,2/2,5.0,1034812800,It Gave me Back my Love of Reading,"When I was younger I loved reading fantasy, as I grew older I lost interest in it. My friend recommended me this book, and I instantly fell in love with it. It's so easy not to want to put the book down. Gregory brings you into a world and into the lives of the characters she creates. She seems to know what a good novel is about; telling a story, and an engrossing one at that. It is not a boring story about re-evaluating one self or coming of age. It is a wonderful tale that Gregory weaves superbly. I finished the book today, and now I don't know what to do with myself. Actually, I think I'll read it again." +2636,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AMCAID3LTHKEC,"Tara Walker Gross ""Avid Reader""",0/0,3.0,1196121600,3.5 stars is more like it...,"I am actually a bit torn between a 3 star and 4 star rating on this one. I enjoyed the book and thought it was at least an interesting picture of sibling rivalry. I loved that it took a different sort of look at this time in Henry VIII's court. But I felt that the characters were a bit vapid--especially Mary, who seemed to change her mind depending on which way the wind was blowing. Still, the novel as a whole was fairly historically accurate and did keep me interested, even though of course I knew how it would end--at least for Anne." +2637,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2SMU9HSZ73FZW,chihuahua_star,0/2,5.0,1248480000,"Very good, I couldn't put it down!!","First off, I see no reason why anyone would be upset at the predictability. The history of Anne Boleyn is no secret! I feel that Philippa Gregory does an excellent job here. I love that the story is from Mary's point of view. Halfway through the book, I felt like I knew what it was like to be at court! This book really opened my eyes to the conniving ways of families at court. I knew enough before, but this really transports you there. Women really had no choices but to bed whomever their family told them to for the sake of social climbing. It also makes me wonder how history might be different if Katherine of Aragon had birthed a son! That seems to be the start of the trouble between her and Henry. Anne Boleyn was very skilled in her ""work."" This book makes you hate her, yet care for her and feel sorry for her. Well done! I absolutely recommend it!" +2638,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1V99U8BITPL1M,Lost in a Book,0/3,5.0,1217894400,Seductive,"While the characters seduce Henry and his court, so too does this book seduce readers as each page is turned. Readers may find it easy to follow the life of Anne Boleyn, who is both sassy and sultry; yet, we are forced to follow the emotions of her more subdued sister, Mary Carey. However, as the story progresses, we grow to love Mary's even-tempered perspective, while we shrink from Anne's ever-increasing power--and temper. As the story progresses, Mary emerges not as ""the other Boleyn girl"" but as the one who is stronger and, in the end, more seductive, for we have trusted only her to reveal the truth." +2639,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AQCQ5F0OJXMG9,Crystal Starr Light,1/1,3.0,1338595200,"""You just keep on being sweetly stupid, Mary. You do it beautifully.""","""You just keep on being sweetly stupid, Mary. You do it beautifully.""Mary Boleyn is one of Queen Katherine's many ladies-in-waiting. But things change when she catches King Henry VIII's eye. Her family, led by Uncle Thomas Howard, quickly push her into becoming the King's mistress, but Anne, Mary's sister, is never satisfied. Set amidst the turmoil of King Henry's early rule, we follow Mary through her affair with the King, the strife between King Henry and Queen Katherine, and the marriage of King Henry to Queen Anne.The best way I can describe this book is ""guilty pleasure"". There is so much to dislike about the book, and yet I was entertained for the entire part. Not to mention, this book made me research Tudor England and the whole drama with King Henry VIII and his many wives, and any book that makes me interested in looking up history or researching the backstory gets a bit of a boost in my book.PLEASE NOTE: I am no historian, nor am I particularly well-versed in this era. Therefore, I am not going to get into much detail about whether or not this book is historically accurate. There are other reviews that go into FAR better detail about whether this is accurate to history; I will defer to them. But I do caution: if you are expecting 100% accuracy, I would encourage you to pass this book up. Just the itsy bitsy bit of research I have done doesn't seem to quite match up to what PG presents here.With that out of the way, let's get on to the good stuff!First off, I really didn't like our ""protagonist"", Mary Boleyn. In Gregory's story, Mary Boleyn, the sometimes ""other Boleyn girl"" (though the term was applied occasionally to Anne), is the younger sister of Anne (this is one of those areas where historians will tell you that most likely, Mary was the eldest--and in this book, I really felt that Mary acted more like the eldest than the youngest). She is married to William Carrey and quickly attracts the eye of the King. Her family then tells her to seduce him and bed him, which she does. But after the birth of her second child, Anne whisks the King's attention, and Mary is left in the background.I'll admit, I like it when characters aren't perfect, aren't the best or smartest in a field, aren't able to make the right decision each and every time, have actual flaws. But Mary really tries the patience. According to history, Mary was the beauty but not so bright (it was Anne who was the brains), but Mary in TOBG seems unable to put the simplest conclusions together.For instance, when William Stafford leaves to secure a farm for a ""court lady"" he's been interested in, Mary IMMEDIATELY assumes he has been seeing someone BESIDES her and snubs him. OF COURSE, we know that William, who knows Mary's desire to be a simple farmer's wife, was actually purchasing the farm for HER. (In Gregory's defense, this Misunderstanding did not last very long.)Another count against Mary is her passivity. I know women in this period do not have the freedoms that modern women do, but Mary was a complete doormat. She rarely even tried to defy her family. Most of her actions are either A) forced upon her or B) reactions to other people's actions. She doesn't initially WANT to seduce the King, but her family forces her. She balks at helping Anne, but her family tells her to. She wants to see her kids, but her family won't let her; therefore, she doesn't see her kids.What is almost worse is when Mary complains about how she can't do anything, how if she had her own free will, she wouldn't have done X. She could have put up a little more defense, tried a little harder, pushed a little more. Or she could have just been kicked out of her family. But personally, I like Queen Katherine's response to Mary's BS best:""If you had not been tempted, you would not have fallen. If it was not in your interest to betray me, then you would have been loyal. Go away, Lady Carrey. You are no better than your sister, who pursues her own ends like a weasel and never glances to one side or the other.""And that leads to my other complaint. Mary likes to think she is way better than her sister, Anne...but most of what Anne does, Mary has done before. Or she gloats (and I mean GLOATS) about what she didn't do. Such as:+ When Anne was sent to Hever, Mary writes Anne every week and gushes about her pregnancy and how the King lurves her so much.+ Enjoying how Anne has to wait on her, then being p!ssy when the tables are turned.+ Being upset when Anne gets married to the King, but legitimizes her affair with the King (in fact, I never felt that Mary was at all guilty for sleeping with the married King or committing adultery against her own husband).+ Being upset when Anne is pregnant with the King's baby, but when she was pregnant, she rubbed her sister's nose in it.And then we have how she has an affair and can't BELIEVE how her husband William Carey is upset at her (uh, duh?) or her claim to be loyal to the Queen even though she is sleeping with the King. For the latter, she even names the child she bore through Henry after Queen Katherine! (How tacky!)But it seems that Mary is supposed to be the perfect, sweet sister. She is loyal to the Queen, even turning against her sister. At one point, Mary becomes a confidant of sorts to the Queen, and the two giggle about how awful Anne is--sure, that's believable! We also know Mary is ""good"" because she wants to abandon court life for country life after a mere 3 month stay at Hever! And then, when she becomes a farmer's wife, she ADORES making cheese and cooking and has NO PROBLEMS with all the work she suddenly has to do. And while Anne meets a terrible end, Mary gets a happily ever after--her children, a loving husband, a little farm, and all the things she ever wanted.Instead of being the perfect, sweet, innocent, beleaguered sister, Mary came across as a dense, two-faced, passive hypocrite, unable to do anything for herself, who somehow got everything she wanted but didn't deserve.But as much as I despised Mary, I adored Anne and Queen Katherine. Sure, Anne is personified as a bawdy devil, a woman desperate for power and the Queen's throne instead of an intelligent, highly religious woman who really did love the King, but I felt that a lot of what she did was understandable. She was smart and cunning; when her family didn't support her (and for a good portion of the book, it seemed they did EVERYTHING to make her life miserable), she made her own way using her own wits and skill. Mary needed guiding throughout her entire time of her affair; Anne was more than capable of handling herself. Her struggles to give birth to a son were heart-rending; her desperation understandable (not that I really believe she slept with her brother or was a witch). As for Queen Katherine, she was a respectable woman, a good wife. I felt bad for how King Henry put her away in favor of Anne.As for the rest of the characters, they are pretty one-dimensional. King Henry is ALMOST ALWAYS called a ""boy"" by Mary, which was irritating and disturbing. King Henry, I always got the impression, was a pretty strong, charismatic guy. I'm sure he had some childlike aspects, but I felt nearly every other time Mary saw him, she was comparing him to a child. If Mary found him so childlike, how could she have a years-long affair? Ew! Jane Parker is so snoopy and awful; Jane Seymour is so virtuous and sickeningly pure; Uncle Thomas was pure evil; George honestly felt campy gay (I'm surprised more people didn't find out about his orientation); William Stafford is so ""wonderful"" and ""manly"", I wanted to be sick. None of them really stood out; none of them felt like people whom I could interact with and meet on a daily basis.A key component of this story, the whole reason I believe it was written, was to show the competition between the two sisters, to compare and contrast. But while The Cranes Dance did an EXCELLENT job of showing two sisters who love each other but feel threatened by each other as well, this book flopped. I felt like both girls hated each other viscerally, until one of them would do something unexpectedly nice to the other or say how fond they were of their sister (and mean it).Another thing that I felt really hurt the story was one key historical component. I know I said I wouldn't nitpick history, but I felt this component REALLY affected the story. There is NO WAY Mary's son would have ever been considered an heir apparent to the King, even if he were to marry her after the fact. The King already had an illegitimate son through Bessie Blount; he would have been the first in line if illegitimate children were in line for the throne. So all of the family's crazy talk and effort to get Mary married to King Henry and how their illegitimate son would be heir is silly and ultimately pointless. Sure, if the King married Mary, she MIGHT have another son, but that is the only way for an heir to come.After Mary's affair with the King, the story really stops being about her and is instead about Anne. I guess it makes sense, but when the story tries to return to being about Mary, it is boring and so drowned in sugary, sweet sappiness, I thought I was going to go into a coma. Mary and William are a boring couple. They meet, they fall in love, life goes perfectly for them (with a few mild speedbumps that are IN NO WAY Mary's fault). William is not at all frustrated with Mary for being unable to do simple household tasks; Mary loves being a housewife and getting her hands rough and dirty. William is A-OK with Mary's earlier affair; Mary has no problem giving up court life to live in the country. Oh, and they have AMAZING MIND-BLOWING SEX. The relationship COULD have been interesting; these two characters come from wildly different worlds. But because Mary has to have everything turn out perfect for her, there was no drama.I must commend PG (or her editors, future books will tell which of those is true) on the brisk pace. Very rarely does the book just sit around and do nothing; for the most part, the story moves and is pretty engaging. I might not have liked some of the characters, but I WAS interested in seeing how they would turn out. And I listened to this book to the very end with little regret for the time I put into it (and I've regretted many a book I've sat listening to through to the end).One more thing: Susan Lyons, you are an amazing narrator! Pat yourself on the back!I do not recommend this book for history buffs or hard-core Tudor enthusiasts, but for those that don't mind some mindless, deliciously catty entertainment, this is a decent read. At the very least, it will make you head to the library or the ebook store or to Wiki to do some research of the time; at the best, you will have spent a few hours (depending on whether you are reading or listening, of course) immersed in a time left behind long ago. I certainly don't regret the time I spent listening to it or the new knowledge I have of the Tudors.Brought to you by:*C.S. Light*" +2640,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2M03HQZL3F7FV,Carmen A. Domenech,8/10,5.0,1099094400,Amazing!!!,"This book was impossible to put down. I lived the story; I became a Boleyn, a Howard, a Queen. This is a phenomenal story! Loved it!" +2641,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1E3YD90JMIROH,Witchdoge89,1/2,4.0,1101340800,C'est excellent,"I picked this book up at random and immediately it appealed to me, cosidering I like reading about the wives of kings in Europe, and Henry VIII's wives are no exceptions. I have read many novels dealing with his wives, and this one, The Other Boleyn Girl is one of the best. It was, for me, a quick read and intriguing. I find it well-written for the most part. Though primarily fiction, much of it is truth and conincides with the facts that I know.I highly reccomend this to anyone who is a fan of the author, Philippa Gregory, with this being one of her better novels and of historical fiction as well. Highly reccomended to anyone else who has an intrest in the wives of the kings of Europe and Henry VIII especially." +2642,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A38708F9XKPE0A,"Paula ""Avid reader and listener, of both fict...",0/0,5.0,1359936000,Part of a compelling and intriguing series,"As I said in my review of "The Boleyn Inheritance," this series is quite addictive, meaning it is quite hard to put down--literally. Whenever I think I will go to bed at the end of the chapter, I find myself sneaking a peek at the first few paragraphs of the next one, then suddenly it's 2:00 a.m., and I am still reading. The characters here display all their ambition, love, confusion, terror, disgust, and machinations that will stun you. Gregory has quite a talent for making history exciting by conveying it in novel form. You must read this series!" +2643,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1Y14C7A1MK30B,"Jessica Hekman ""SaxyJess""",2/4,5.0,1167609600,Fascinating and enjoyable,What a fascinating and enjoyable book. I could not put it down. I loved the perspective that it was written from. I would highly recommend this book. +2644,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1YE72P9ZNTPHE,"Emily ""bookcrazy05""",5/5,5.0,1139356800,Wow....,"As a history major and an avid reader of historical non fiction, I was extremely hesitate to read a piece of historial fiction. However, I was pleasantly surprised. I wish that more professors in college would have required us to read books like this for our history classes...it would have made class so much more exciting.The Other Boleyn Girl tells the story of Mary Boleyn, the often forgotten sister of the much talked about Queen Anne Boleyn, Henry the VIII's second wife (just one of six!!). The story begins with Mary's family pushing her into the King's bed, even though she is a married woman. While many so that Mary was a whore and she gladly went after the King, Gregory instead portrays a woman dealing with a constant inner struggle between what she feels for her husband and for herself and what she feels for the King. In the end, family pressures get the best of her and she finds herself in an intense and oddly satisfying affair with the King.However, soon Mary's sister, Anne returns to the court and catches the eye of the King. The second half of the book centers around Anne's relationship with the King and with Mary. Mary is suddenly pushed aside as her sister quickly climbs the social Tudor ladder faster and faster eventually being crowned Queen.Upon finishing this novel, I immediately started investigating King Henry and Anne Boleyn myself. This piece of literature made a time period that I had often thought to be dull and boring, exciting and interesting to me. I recommend that anyone interested in history pick up this book and give it a try. I promise you won't be disappointed!!" +2645,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A10KYAZ7TVNP28,"Bobbie Crawford McCoy ""Nurture Your BOOKS""",0/3,5.0,1240185600,"A vibrant, spell-binding tale of love, loyalties and betrayal in King Henry's Court; you don't want to miss this one!","The Other Boleyn Girl is absolutely fantastic! The full account as told by this novel, transcends the on-screen film adaptation by leaps and bounds; if you haven't read this book you are missing out on 3/4 of the story. As with many film adaptations, this book outshines the on-screen performances and the story it tells. This novel is full of manipulations, political manoeuvring, deceit and heart-wrenching treachery; as the Boleyn's rise in power so to does their risk of safety and death by treason. Torn loyalties and familial affection become twisted into a grotesque mask of hatred, jealousy and spite. The flowing narrative is uninterrupted by any sluggishness and keeps the reader absorbed from start to finish. As the plot progresses a sense of impending doom grows; it gets diverted from time to time but it keeps building until the very end. With breathtaking prose, the Author creates a world and its various English settings with a poignancy that flows over you like cool waters in a brook; the picturesque beauty of the outdoor scenes nearly had me in tears. When a family is willing to throw away their morals, values and sell there very souls for a chance at the wealth, status and the throne of England, who knows what can happen. I 100% enjoyed this novel. I can't recommend it highly enough!If you enjoy Historical Fiction, romance, intrigue or any of the above I implore you to pick up a copy as soon as possible.I very highly recommend this book!!!(10 out of 10 Diamonds) - Absolutely LOVED it!!2008-2009 Bobbie Crawford-McCoy (Book Reviews By Bobbie).All rights reserved." +2646,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3AXN8QO3M0JTE,Kirstin G. Larson,1/1,5.0,1074038400,Fascinating Period Fiction,"Everyone knows the story of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, but this book brings these characters to life & puts a whole new perspective on this age old tale. Mary Boleyn, like her sister Anne and brother George, has spent virtually her entire life in the Royal Court, and the siblings are well educated on how to mask their inner emotions and desires with a courtiere's smile. Dominated by an ambitious uncle, they are each directed to play roles that will advance the family's status. After Mary's relatively brief affair with King Henry VIII, she is supplanted by her sister Anne, and Mary is reunited with the husband she had been married to, but separated from, since she was 12 years old. After his sudden death from disease, she meets and falls in love with a man of whom her family would never approve. Eventually, as things slowly start to disintegrate for her sister Anne, Mary finally finds the courage to separate herself from her family and leave the royal court behind to join the man she has married for love. I love reading a good historical novel, and this book was no exception. Philippa Gregory does a fantastic job of developing characters, setting, and plot to keep the reader engaged from beginning to end." +2647,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1IFDCF5MEX901,Andrene,0/1,5.0,1284163200,Like a Dirty Little Secret,"Like a Dirty Little Secret I loved this book but found myself having several ""OMG moments"" while reading some of the devious details of life at Court." +2648,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1IEN6YWZP9VAJ,J. Koscher,3/4,5.0,1026259200,Spend the summer at "Court" with the Boleyn sisters.,"Even if you are familiar with the Anne Boleyn and Henery VIII saga you will find new intrigue with this captivating book. Written in first person from the prospective of Mary Boleyn who was intimate with the King years before her sister. This book tells Mary's story with is completely imeshed with her sister Anne's. The Boleyn family is portrayed in a less then golden light as the family attempts to weave themselves into court life and gain the advantage over the Seymours (ultimately failing). Anne and Mary are simply pawns in a sick and twisted game. Anne is very unlikable in this novel however, it's not clear as to rather she is more tragically a causality of her family and the times. Mary's hostility and love for her sister is as confusing and complex as any sibling relationship. I celebrate when Mary is able to find true love and break free of the family cycle... if we could all be as strong as Mary perhaps we too will live happily ever after. Enjoy!" +2649,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A27JL2M79FWXE3,K. Regester,0/0,5.0,1176249600,"Suspense, tension, love, deception, royalty","An absolutely fabulous book about Henry VIII and the Boelyn family. Gregory is historically accurate in this story. If you have no frame of reference for this period in history, don't worry. She will fill you in with all the relevant facts. Most interesting was the place of women in society during this period - their limitations and expectations by all family members of origin and their husbands." +2650,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AJ668QPKJ2EEQ,Robina,0/0,5.0,1319587200,Wonderful,"I found this book to be a very fantastic read and really enjoyed the story, the characters, and the excitement of it all. This book added to the story line and helps peak the interest of the reader. All of Philippa Gregory books are well written. I find it very interesting to learn about the history of England's king and queens. I have read all of her books in the series except The Other Queen which I did find to be written poorly which is a disappointment that I had to pay for something written this bad. But Other then that book all the others are worth the price. A Must Read" +2651,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A24N4L0OB5GWWF,"ds ""ds""",68/80,1.0,1112572800,Inaccurate at best,"The author lost my interest right off the bat when she proclaimed Mary to be the younger Boleyn girl. All historical sources agree that she was the elder daughter. That doesn't really matter to the story, so why not get it right? I was also annoyed by the portrayal of Mary as an innocent young girl when she first met Henry VIII...in fact, she had previously been the mistress of Francois I of France and had been kicked out of the French court for prostitution, which is why she returned to England while Anne remained in France. When Mary arrived at the English Court, an innocent she was NOT. I found the author's portraits of all 3 Boleyn children to be biased in the direction she wanted them to go, as opposed to being realistic based on the historical data available. The author was prone to conveniently leaving out facts that were relevant to the story but did not support her simplistic view of each character. Anyone who has read historical accounts of these characters and times will be severely disappointed in this book. I only hope that the general public does not mistake this book for history." +2652,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1PRK7A0B2ENIE,C. Flaherty,0/2,5.0,1206489600,I loved it!!!!!!!,I read this book on a recommendation from a friend. I can say I absolutely loved this book. It held my interest all the way through. I love how the author weaves historical fact with fiction. This book has insprired me to learn more about that period and about the wives of Henry VIII. I have recommended it to my Book Club. +2653,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2KBIHFJAQ9KXA,Jamie L. Morrison,1/4,5.0,1213833600,Great!,"This is one of the best books I have ever read. I got addicted to reading it and would stay up so late at night. It has AMAZing characters, plot and twists, and the writing is incredible. My favorite part of this book is the story is not wholly non fiction, and it makes these historical characters come alive." +2654,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2NHV8RL8M1K2J,"Lady Anne ""Lady - In -Waiting To His Royal Hi...",0/0,5.0,1045008000,Great book to curl up with,"An interesting take on the Boleyn family, narrated by Anne's lesser know sister, Mary. In this telling of the story, Mary is depicted as the younger sister, which I found interesting as most historical accounts list her as being the older. A quick and enjoyable read!" +2655,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1LB2HO1KGOWHW,"Bodiebear ""BB""",0/0,5.0,1194393600,A story that hooks the reader from the first page.,"It was as if I could project myself into this time period and see, feel, smell and touch everything. I will read it again." +2656,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A37GKUXVB5C9RO,"Toni Hartig ""historical nut""",0/1,5.0,1188950400,Fantastic,One of the best historical novels I every read. Once I picked up the book I could not put it down. Finished it in less then three days. +2657,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1GCGOK9GQJGXY,Asteroid,0/0,5.0,1303948800,Absolutely enchanting,"Recommend to all who loves history & romance - not too much of history, not too much of romance, but really an emotional page-turner! I was totally obsessed with it and bought all other books of this series. My biggest surprise was to see the film with the same title - nothing to do with the book and everything totally rotten, cause and reason interchanged etc." +2658,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1QVQ7UJY4VASG,"M. Ellis ""magnoliamansions""",6/6,5.0,1091491200,What a story!,"What a story, what a writer, what a well written tale. From page one of this long book, the reader knows how this epic will end. In spite of this, Gregory paints a marvelous story with excellent writing and brilliant imagination. Is it true? Yes and no. We all know the story of Henry VIII and his collection of wives. We have studied the history of the Tutor period, but to weave facts into fascinating fiction takes a writer who can turn a phrase and this lady does. I don't even like "historic tales" but this one kept me reading into the night. Brava. Good job, highly recommended, best book I've read in months." +2659,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1O6MX7PEGWHAY,Dr. L,0/1,4.0,1180051200,Get entrapped by the Boleyns,"Fast-paced, dramatic, and with an entriguing look into the culture of the court of King Henry VIII, this book is a great read. The apparent factual inaccuracies noted by other readers takes something away from it, as I think it shows a lack of respect for the history. However the story is fascinating and most of the characters wonderfully textured (I don't agree with some that they were one-dimensional: Henry was a powerful goof, George lovably ambitious & loyal and Anne was my favourite of all; so powerful and sarcastic! She was more of a heroine than Mary for me. I wanted to be her lady in waiting!). You won't want to put this novel down. Like Henry, the Boleyns snared me too! 4 stars." +2660,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AZM1TPRRD7W62,Reverie,0/0,5.0,1326067200,One the best books I've ever read.,"I can't say much except that this is one of the best books I've ever read, hands down. I can read it over again and again and feel like I'm actually living during this time period and understand the author trying to captivate my emotions. It's a truly brilliant novel. I highly recommend this to anyone and everyone!" +2661,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1DT1X5SLS69JX,RC,3/3,4.0,1276041600,"Entertaining, certainly","I found this book entertaining despite the romance novel devices. Anne Boleyn fans beware - this is not a multi-dimensional portrayal of the historical figure. This Anne is more Scarlett O'Hara or Becky Sharp - willing to use anybody and suffer anything to achieve her ambitions. She does have a few vulnerable moments that make her sympathetic occasionally, but mainly she is a foil to Mary's blondness and relative niceness (the historical Mary Boleyn's alleged sexual escapades are toned down or omitted in this novel). This Anne is far more bitchy than spiritual or charitable - but of course that's why the book is so popular. After all, several enduring novels use this classic device of one nice girl and one nasty one and the sibling rivalry makes this story all the more emotional.Mary narrates the story, so that could excuse some of the negative portrayal of Anne. They are both rivals for the king's attention and rivals for their parents' affections. The coldness of the parents and Uncle Norfolk make the closeness between the three siblings George, Anne and Mary all the more poignant. George is charming and witty in this novel, Anne is self-centered and witty, and Mary is the romantic heroine, but she is not totally likeable. Before she defies her family to marry for love, she repeatedly betrays Queen Katharine by spying on her and seducing the king right in front of her - then she grovels before Katherine and declares how much she enjoys serving her. She knows she's a little hypocrite - she repeatedly uses snake imagery to describe herself and her relatives. My favorite line is: ""George and I smiled encouragingly, the Boleyn smile: a pair of pleasant snakes.""The author used many of the more controversial theories from Retha Warnicke's biography of Anne Boleyn as historical background, rather than a more well rounded and historically accurate sampling - but it made an entertaining story. The relationship between the 3 siblings is what kept me reading: perhaps closer than is healthy, but understandable considering their awful parents. This novel should have made a great movie due to the lurid story and historical characters - it is just a shame that neither of the movies made picked up on any of George's, Anne's or even Mary's charm - that is what really makes me want to read the book again.Now for the bad. First, Some of the dialogue is incredibly annoying unless you like romance novels. The siblings repeatedly call each other ""silly whore"" and stuff like that to excess, more like modern reality show trash than young Tudor aristocrats. Second, most of the other characters are one dimensional: The family elders are all self-serving, ambitious and cold with no redeeming traits whatsoever. The king is a spoiled brat, and the queen is pious and regal, but you don't find out much about her inner mind - she is developed in another book by the author. Mary's second husband is just too good to be true: he never loses his temper, super lover, super stepfather, helps deliver his own child, etc. etc. Oh, her kids are perfect little angels too. Third, I do have a respect for history and I would have preferred a more factual story, although that didn't stop me from enjoying this book. The queen committing incest with her brother - come on, most people understand that the incest charge was always used against top ranking females when they wanted to ensure a death verdict (witness Marie Antoinette) and historians have proven to most people's satisfaction that the incest charge against Anne was trumped up. I think the story would have been just fine without that prurient scene, since not very believable in fact.All in all, a very enjoyable story if read purely as entertainment." +2662,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A31N23S8O6Q1M5,Tori,0/0,5.0,1048896000,A Great Read,"Usually I am not into historical reads but this book was passed on to me. For those of us who dislike being bogged down with history this is a must read. It was a very contemporary read and the characters seemed very real to me.It did take me a chapter or two to get me hooked but once I got going I was unable to put it down.Thanks to Philippa Gregory who has taught me a bit more about history, she is a fantastic author!" +2663,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,,,0/0,4.0,1044230400,Wonderfully written narrative,This book is a wonderful piece of historical fiction. The author's use of actual events and timetables make the story even better. Such a fascinating character and a beautifully written book. +2664,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2GTA08281G6P9,"S. L. White ""Medical Librarian""",3/3,3.0,1225065600,Worth reading once,"You've got to find this book appealing because of the time period it covers - the early Reformation. It was a time of great upheaval in the Church, and many Europeans were forced to re-examine their core beliefs about papal supremacy, the authority of God's word, and the sanctity of marriage. In such a vital, dangerous, and exciting time, two sisters from the Howard family, Anne Boleyn and her sister Mary Boleyn, emerged to become rivals for the affections of King Henry VIII.As we all know, Anne Boleyn fought her way to the throne, eventually becoming queen of England and the mother of Elizabeth I.The first thing I noticed about the book was its length of over 600 pages. Normally, I'd be wary of such a contemporary novel, as they nearly all seem to go 400 pages (frequently for no good reason); however, in this instance, I think it is necessary for Gregory to drag her story out. Even though I knew what was in store for the Boleyn sisters, I began to wonder if Anne would ever get to the throne of England in this book, and perhaps there was a sequel to the book that I just hadn't noticed. By taking the steps slowly, Gregory makes us feel all of the impatience and frustration that Anne felt, if not the desperation. So, for pacing the novel, I give the author high marks.Some readers have criticized Gregory's portrayals of the Howard family and of Anne specifically. Some call the portrayals overly negative, judgemental, harsh, and one-sided. Obviously, Gregory feels comfortable painting a heartless picture of many characters in the book, whether deserved or not (and I suspect, though I don't know, that some of her characters in her other novels suffer a similar rendering). It's Gregory's story to tell, and if she wants to pit greed and selfishness against sweetness and light (as in her characterization of Mary), then have at it, I say. As a reader, ask yourself if you would have kept turning the pages of this book given a more nuanced, historically accurate portrayal. Clearly, Gregory is very familiar with the concept of oppositional elements, and these elements combine to tell a romping good tale, one that, as the evidence shows, met a highly successful reception in Gregory's chosen market.TOBG has some rather glaring grammatical errors. For that reason, it doesn't get my highest rating. If you're not annoyed by such things, read the book. It is a work of escapism and a perfect distraction from the stress of modern life." +2665,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AB1EP2IDU7LB8,"bktray ""bktray""",1/3,5.0,1211155200,GREAT READ!!,"I love historical fiction and this book is wonderful. I fell in love with the characters and couldn't wait to finish one page so that I could read the next to find out what would happen. Even though I knew what would happen to Anne Boleyn, I was fascinated by ""the other Boleyn girl"" and her story and the story of Anne Boleyn through her eyes as well. There is so much drama, emotion, intrigue, sex, and just life in general in this book. Phillipa Gregory really made their world come to life for me in the pages of this book. If you want a good read then read this book. I am now going to read the other books by this author and see if they are just as good." +2666,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1O1546GQBNHLE,Sofia L Garcia,0/0,5.0,1050537600,EXCELLENT,"The best book I have read in a long, long time. It was interesting from beginning to end. A must for historical novel lovers!" +2667,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A33QM8HDPHPFQ0,Ilianexy Morales,0/2,5.0,1189900800,The movie about this book is coming in December!,The movie is coming in December staring Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson. Can't wait to see it. +2668,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,,,1/1,5.0,1053734400,The Tudor soap opera,I enjoyed this book tremendously and had a hard time putting it down! I didn't want it to end! I got a wonderful and informative history lesson as well as a delightfully narrated story. I can't wait to read more about the Tudor time period and Anne Boleyn. And I especially can't wait to read more books by Philippa Gregory! I definitely recommend this book: easy reading (the 600+ pages flew by) and a wonderful story! +2669,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1VF3FV23C97NH,Meredith Poppele,4/5,1.0,1255651200,Not worth the time,"First let me say that the purchasing end of this exchange was excellent. The book reached me promptly and was in fine condition physically. If only the writing were at least half as fine. The conversations sounded 20th century, not remotely 16th century. Nor did they sound like genuine exchanges among the Boleyn siblings but instead like devices to let the reader know explicitly what was going on in the palaces and historically. The author's choice of starting with a wholly naive narrator (Mary in her early teens) and increasing her knowledge and perceptiveness was not unwise in itself, but was clulmsy in execution. She seems altogether too dense for too long, and even after she's much more worldly still frequently demonstrates her ""cotton head"". There's no denying that the Tudor era was racy and dangerous. If this is the only book at hand on that subject, grab it and skim." +2670,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1LALF52UHB6TW,J. A. Hill,10/11,3.0,1104710400,"If Anne Boleyn were alive, she'd be suing this author!","This book was a very good read for historical fiction. We got heaving bosoms, secret homosexual affairs, and power-grabbing men and women all over the place. But I truly felt like the author slapped down any far-fetched sordid rumor about Anne Bolyen because it made good reading.I toured the Tower of London last month, and the Beefeater who gave the tour said the charges against Anne Boleyn were made up so Henry could marry Jane Seymour. (He did say, however, that the charges against Kathryn Howard were accurate.)Anyway, if you read this book, just take the ""facts"" with a grain of salt." +2671,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2U0F5K4EXKIUL,"Kate Mack ""Kate Mack""",0/0,5.0,1049760000,One of the best books I have ever read,"I will tell you what everyone who read this book told me...I am not a history buff, I have never been into historical fiction and especially history about the European kings, queens and thier courts. But, I loved this book and had the most difficult time putting it down. It is excellently written, the characters are amazing, and the book is by far one of the best books I have ever read. Don't miss out on this book. I am researching to see what books I can read that are like this one! I just can't think of anyone who would not enjoy this book. Because I loved it, and I hated learning about that genre, then anyone would love it!" +2672,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AY9W7535G1F4I,"""andrea_n_tim""",1/1,5.0,1030147200,Fascinating!,"This is one of the best books I've read in a long time!I put my life on hold so that I could finish it. I've discovered a great author and plan to read all the other books she's written. I was never interested in reading English historical novels, but now I'm hooked! Do not pass this book up!" +2673,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A38Y46R4OWBKMS,Nadia,0/0,4.0,1348185600,Great!,I really enjoyed this book. From start to finish I was on the edge of my seat and found it really hard to put down. +2674,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A37ERJ0HMDWBLB,"Deborah Chen ""Princess D""",1/1,5.0,1173484800,The Other Boleyn Girl,"This was a really good book, the first couple pages were a little hard to read but then you get the hang of it. You also have to look up some people because there's so many Thomas', Henry's, Elizabeth's, etc. But I couldn't put the book down after I started reading it and I took the book everywhere with me. And I've bought all the other books Phillipa Gregory wrote about that time period. They are also making a movie based on the book which comes out in 2007 I think and Scarlett Johanson is Mary Boleyn and Natalie Portman is Anne." +2675,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3OIQ3T0OIKY66,L. J. Schrader,2/3,4.0,1229817600,The OTHER side of BOLEYN history...,"Ms. Gregory's interpretation of what it might have been like in the 1500's, living as the Boleyn girls in the court of Henry VIII is interesting reading, historically acurate or not.We can't possibly know what sort of conversations were had and exactly how lives were played out at that time, but it seems that Ms. Gregory took the history books and all the facts well-known, and set to creating her own story-behind-the-story. It is a work of FICTION built upon known information and expanded to fill in what MIGHT have been going on while history was in the making.This story is based upon real people in real situations and the story line that Ms. Gregory developed is what makes the historical facts come to life. Between those facts were situations of REAL LIFE and though I am not sure that each of the characters were represented accurately (as, again, we cannot know their true personalities) they would most likely be similar to how they have been portrayed based on the results we know to be true.In any case, I learned a great deal about the lifestyles, difficulties and ambitions of the people of that time period and I think I got a true sense of what the BOLELYN'S lives were probably like...and the lives of ALL those living in the 1500's.The book did seem a bit long-winded, but in that way it did give a sense of how long and tedious a journey it was through time.In the end, the story left me more interested in the rest of English history...wondering what became of the children, how Henry moved on after Anne's beheading, etc. I realized I knew little about the line to the throne and Ms. Gregory stimulated that interest, as she probably will for any reader of this book.Find out about the little known REST OF THE STORY, the Other Boleyn Girl and their brother, as well as other assorted other historical doings and get a taste of history that may lead you to wanting to know more." +2676,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2OIQJVTIMVBZS,A Customer,0/2,5.0,1254873600,An amazing piece of history,"Having only recently delved into the historical fiction genre, but having been fascinated by England's monarchy for years, I couldn't put this book down! The historical accuracy of P. Gregory is astounding and, coupled with her fictionalized character traits, this book has become my favorite of the genre. Other authors have much to live up to after reading this Philippa Gregory novel. I can't wait to read more of her work!" +2677,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2I5HGFRL5GVQJ,Megan Kruljac,2/4,4.0,1221264000,An enjoyable read,"Last week I finished reading The Other Boleyn Girl by Philippa Gregory. I really enjoyed it. Historical fiction is not a genre I often read, and I picked up this novel for my Kindle on a whim. I'm very glad I did - the characters are well-rounded and realistic (especially Mary, who we watch progress from a naive child to mature woman of the court), the volatile tempers of Henry and Anne are beautifully described, and I found myself drawn in to the entire court setting and all of its various players.As for length, I'd have to say it could have lost maybe 100 or so pages without hurting the story. I thought the middle chapters paled in comparison to the first and last third. Still, I would definitely recommend this to anyone who enjoys courtly intrigues and politics." +2678,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AS4APMCGC5NRS,"Mary ""love reading""",0/3,5.0,1177632000,why do people write these things??,And why did the person before me need to write how the book ends???I'm in the middle of reading the book and enjoying it very much.I thought I would take a quick look at the reviews and the first one I read tells how the book begins and ends! I did not want to know that! Thanks for spoiling the ending for me and others! +2679,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1R05PF39HHYAB,Cynthia MacLeod,3/4,5.0,1134777600,The Best!,I never read historical fiction but the book was recommended by a valued friend who is a voracious reader so I reluctantly decided to give it a try. It was probably the best book I had read in several years. Outstanding! +2680,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2CR3HUXTYK79Y,"Elizabeth Dunn ""redsbury""",2/3,5.0,1087430400,Excellent,"Truthfully, I can't say anything that hasn't been said before. Initially I got this book from the library because I wasn't sure if I would like it, but it has turned out to be the best historical novel I have ever read (and that's saying something). Gregory is a master at writing; take her character of Anne Boleyn for example: sometimes she was so horrible that I looked forward to her death, but at other times you can't help but feel sorry for her. I think that telling the story from the view of Mary, the "other Boleyn girl" and Anne's rival, was an excellent choice, as it offered great insight into a woman's life at court during the reign of Henry VIII. Yes, this story does have a lot of romance in it, but I really feel that it's tastefully done and certainly doesn't subtract from the quality. All in all, an excellent book. Highly recommended." +2681,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3KYE4WET031KB,Brandi Jones,1/1,5.0,1150502400,EXCELLENT!!!!!!,"I loved this book!!!! I could not put it down. I cannot wait to get my hands on more of MS. Gregory's work. I loved how the book was sset in the time of Henry the VIII, but they spoke in modern language, so it was easily understood. And, to top it all off, I even learned a few things from the book.A must read!!!!!" +2682,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AC9DM86AWZZR6,J. Stacey,0/1,4.0,1206576000,Really good read,"I have never read historical fiction, but when I saw this coming out as a movie I decided to read the book first. It was a really good book and made me want more. I am now reading more Philippa Gregory novels." +2683,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2GEA7A2EPQ8DT,A. Pomilla,1/1,5.0,1197504000,Intriguing Novel,"I must admit, even though I get mad at the differences between movies that are based off of books, I still go see them. Since I was ""informed"" by my friend that we would be seeing ""The Other Boleyn Girl"" when the movie comes out, I was determined to work the book into my reading rotation first (because for me the book is ALWAYS better). So, I eventually got it on my reading list, and WOW! I love the book, I was compelled to buy all of the others in the series, and I have absolutely no regrets. I couldn't put this one down, and I thrived on all the drama that Gregory has created. Hey, better in a book than in real life. Oh wait, much of this was real life... :)" +2684,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A25F53TXHRHEVK,lovehitzalot,1/1,5.0,1268784000,A great fictional adaptation of a fascinating story,"I've read quite a few books that I've really enjoyed recently, but this was one of my favorites! I don't have any issue separating and appreciating the difference between the real story (like the wonderful, ""The Six Wives of Henry VIII"" by Alison Weir) and the fictional adaptations like this and the movie (which are very different stories). I think it's really great when you're fascinated with an era to take on a real event that happened and try to discover what might have happened if the characters were a little different than they really were. 'What if we made it seem more possible that this happened (even if it didn't really)?' 'How would the characters react if we threw this into the mix?' 'How about if we exaggerate this character or make them more like this, just to serve this fictional story a little better?' I thought it was a great read! I particularly liked this version of Mary and her interactions with the other characters. It was terrific!" +2685,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2G8HWW72XKY4X,Yoga and Yorkies,0/1,4.0,1224374400,Simply Fiction,I really enjoyed this book although you need to read some of the great biographies of Anne Boleyn to appreciate fact versus fiction in this fun read. +2686,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3T8JRXZ2B5LPL,Skennedy,0/0,4.0,1360800000,Bought as gift,"Purchased this as a gift for my daughter at her request. Don't know anything about the book, sorry I can't help there." +2687,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AZIOOQHR59R4Z,Cathrine C Stone,0/0,4.0,1072828800,Read this one it is great!!,"I read a lot and was looking for something a little different when I picked this up at the bookstore. I do not usually read historical fiction. But I thought I should try something different and I am so glad I did. This book is well written and the characters are developed very well. I began to identify with the Characters and became very involved in the story. It is true that historically it may not be the most acurate but to those who are so critical of that let me remind you this is FICTION. YOu may want to try something nonficiton or biographical if you are looking for straight history.This book is a big book and may seem intimidating but it is not, I found it to be an easy read and I found myself up late at night trying to finish it. When I did finish it I was sorry it was over but so glad I had read it. I am now a huge Philippa Gregory fan and have already started another Of her books "Wildacre"." +2688,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A149BDLE50TOH6,L. A. Harmon,0/4,4.0,1215993600,Very good,"This book is a very creative way of viewing the story of Anne Boleyn through the eyes of her lesser known sibling, Mary." +2689,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A26LU4XR9PSL74,Angela,0/0,5.0,1334448000,So sad when it ended......,"I loved this book. I like most of Philippa Gregory's books but this is, by far, my favorite. You really feel like you know every character. She does a good job of making you feel for each of them and see their side of things. A lot of people critizing for historical inaccuracies but this is a historical FICTION book, not everything in it is said to be true. It is loosely based on a true historical event. I definitely recommend this book." +2690,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1SN733ZX4YCMJ,HopeP,4/5,2.0,1057104000,Finally finished it,"I liked how it started, with the beheading of a relative. And details of court life were interesting, at the beginning, but became tedious with the repetitiveness. This book really could have been half or one-third the size, it drug on and on and on. Getting to the end was a relief, I doubt I'll read another book by this author." +2691,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AOU9JK8LSWYVF,C. Hahn,3/4,4.0,1122940800,Who knew?,"I found this book to be wildly entertaining. I read it for my book club and while not a huge fan of historical fiction, I found that I could not put it down. I may actually buy the next two books..." +2692,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,,,9/12,4.0,1025568000,Don't let the size of the book intimidate you! GO BUY IT!,"This story was an above all thrill! It captivates your imagination and takes you back to the days at the Englishg courts where King Henry the VIII rules and the Boleyn girls play a game of ambition,love, and desire for the throne.The narrator of the novel is the young Boleyn girl, named Mary, whom immediately catches the wandering eyes of a king, desperate for an heir, as soon as she arrives to court.With its twists and sudden turns the plot thickens ever so deep as soon as Mary is bumped out of the Kings vision and is replaced with Mary's older sister, Anne.Now that each sister clearly is envious of the other and that the desperate Boleyn family desires at least one of their daughters to assume the throne as soon as Queen Katherine, Henry's wife, croaks, the powerful Uncle of Mary and Anne blatantly decides Mary and Anne's fate for them.Mary, becoming quite lonely, for her family's attention is set upon Anne's happiness, falls in love with a man, named William, who is a mere servant for her Uncle, but she follows her heart for the first time in her life and marries whom she really loves despite the consequences and the wrath of her sister, Anne.It is quite clearly the story about Anne's rise and her sad and unexpected fall through the eyes of her sister Mary. And it shows the importance of family, for even though they grow terse and cruel towards each other, they are always there for one another when in need.With all this stories strong points the only reason I didn't give it five stars is because it gets a bit frustrating while reading it. Not because it's a hard read, far from it, but because poor Mary never stands up for herself and lets herself get beat up, verbally, by her Uncle, Mother, Father, Sister, Bother, and King. You just want to reach into the book and slap some sense into her! I EXTREMELY suggest that you go out and get yourself a copy, it is truely a wonderful tale." +2693,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1QTTHN1C54MB3,KAM,1/2,5.0,1076025600,Great read,I have not read much historical fiction and never would have come across this novel but for the recommendations of some acquaintances. I LOVED it! Fascinating subject and engrossing fictionalized account. +2694,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1I9I5W1YD8DV0,"Anne Beaufort ""Tudor history buff""",0/2,5.0,1224806400,Good Historical Novel,"Am looking forward to reading another of Ms. Gregory's good historical novels. She does in-depth research on the history of the times and gives exciting details on the characters, real and fictitional." +2695,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2WH81M96J1END,Tamaris Ann Williams,2/2,5.0,1145923200,Great Book!,"I loved this book. Very well written. It describes the inner working of the King's court, the jealousies, rivalries, and ambitions to stay in the King's favor. Romance, secrecy, affairs, pregnancies, sibling rivalry, power hungry...it has it all." +2696,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AENVX9USTTYXQ,Karen R. Creveston,0/2,5.0,1201564800,Better than I thought it would be,"Wow--this book was really enjoyable! I mean, we all know how this ends, but the inbetween stuff was really good. I grew to love most of the characters and then I grew to hate them too, especially Anne and Henry, they both turned out to be quite selfish and horrible. Mary and George were portrayed as quite human--flawed, but trying hard to be good all the same. If George was anything like the character that Philippa Gregory portrays, then I am very sorry for the way he died. I usually start a story, get bored, and read the last chapter to see if I want to read the whole thing, but not with this book--I read it cover to cover. Then I got on the internet to read everything I could find on the Boleyn family. I cannot wait for the movie to come out, and I can only hope that it is at least half as good as the book." +2697,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1RSDJO0VQTOXX,"J. Maclin ""Jennifer""",0/0,5.0,1077667200,A "Can't Put This Book Down" Read,"From beginning to end this book was spectacular. The way Philippa Gregory twists fact with fiction is amazing. She makes it so believable, you feel as if you were there. I could not put this book down and can not give it enough praise. I am now reading her next book The Queen's Fool and I am sure it will be excellent as well. This is a must read for anyone who loves this time period." +2698,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,ATTEYIISU453R,"Mom of 2 ""flutterby18""",0/0,5.0,1062460800,READ THIS BOOK!!!,"This book was great, I could not put it down and did not want it to end. I am so intriqued by Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII after reading this book that I have bought 4 more books about this period of time, hopefully they are all as good as this book! I recommend this book to anyone, it is great!!" +2699,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3OR0JIBPMZ2HS,Joe Consumer,0/0,4.0,1194307200,Instant fan of Gregory,"I bought this book as an airplane read, but found myself enthralled with the characters so much I couldn't put it down until I read every last word. Despite knowing how it would end, I read every page in suspense and hope for the Boleyn family. The story is still lingering in my mind while I wait for the next historical fiction novel to be delivered.The Other Boleyn Girl is narrated by Anne Boleyn's sister, Mary Boleyn, the most notorious adulteress of the time. When Queen Katherine becomes barren after not producing a male heir for Henry VIII, political families jockey for the king's favor, and the queen's crown, by manipulating the young neices and daughters of the family. As soon as she hits puberty, Mary is trapped into a life of serving the Howard and Boleyn families' ambitions for wealth and power. Intent on getting a legitimate heir for his throne and fulfilling his every desire, Henry VIII uses his supreme power to manipulate even the laws the church to get exactly what he wants. Mary, Anne, and their brother, George Boleyn are in the middle of the mayhem. Gregory's book draws you into the seasonal consequences and rewards, merriment and distress, of being a member of Henry VIII's court and what it takes to stay there." +2700,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,,,1/1,5.0,1050796800,had to change my review!,"I have previously written a review on this book and have decided to include more information. This book was wonderful. It really made you think about how cruelly women were used in the past. Mary was treated like an animal, a person without feelings, like an object. She was used as something to further her family's importance. The king's mistress at 13! And Mary really had no one's shoulder to cry on. Her sister Anne was jealous of her, her brother was nice but would have told their father or uncle. I was happy at the end where she married someone she loved, I was angry when her sister banished her from court, I felt happy when Anne finally got what she deserved. Mary didn't want much. All she wanted was to be with her children and husband..." +2701,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A29PID3J2CRSWL,Karen Bierman Hirsh,14/17,5.0,1024531200,Perfect for a vacation or a book club read,"I could not put this book down. I found myself making excuses at work to steal off somewhere and read this book - even if I only had a chance to read one page. Based on the real life of Anne, Mary and George Boleyn as well as the court of King Henry the VIII - The Other Boleyn Girl is a MUST read.Mary, Anne's younger sister, is the main character in this novel and Philippa Gregory does an incredible job of bringing her to life and transporting the reader back to England in the 1500's. This fictional book is based on the true fact of Mary's affair with King Henry and the subsequent marriage of Henry and Anne as well as the beheadings of both Anne, George and half of Henry's court - The Other Boleyn girl is well written and fast paced and gives a credible and interesting back story to one of the most celebrated and notorious marriages England's history as well as bringing to light several individuals who have been relegated to the back pages of history - if they are mentioned at all.From life at the court to life in the fields, The Other Boleyn girl has it all, love, adventure and intrigue. This is by far, one of the best books I have read in ages." +2702,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AMFFT6V9GQW,murry,1/9,5.0,1129420800,Thanks for the great service!,"The book came exactly as described, fast service!! thank you" +2703,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2Q98M3724E710,E.L,5/5,1.0,1274832000,"One-dimensional, Cardboard Characters","I was excited to read 'The Other Boleyn Girl' after hearing about it so much, especially during the promotion of the movie. As a lover of historical novels, I was curious on how the author would portray the famous Anne Boleyn. To my disappointment, she was one-dimensional and flat - like all the other characters in this book.I understand that there are historical inaccuracies or distortions in such a book in order to make the plot flow or more interesting to readers. Fine, I accept them because this is a historical FICTION, not a history textbook.However, to make the characters in the story either vicious and evil or virtuous and kind, made the plot tiring to read and to accept. Anne Boleyn is portrayed as a selfish and manipulative woman, at times so psychotically unhinged and unreasonable that I found her character to be laughable. On the other hand, we have her sister Mary Boleyn - that poor, innocent girl used by her scheming relatives to attain wealth and status. The author wants readers to love her, to sympathize with her - but I am sorry to say that I could not. She narrates this entire story from the age of 13 to her twenties and sadly, her character's voice does not mature or grow up. She was still the naive and wanton teenager at the age of twenty, with just the addition of various proclamations of love to her kids. Also, I found her thought process fragmented and just plain weird because at one point, she hates her sister to the extent where she wishes her death and then at the next moment, she's all best friends with her. I mean, what? Other characters are also this poorly constructed and unbelievable - from the almost saintly Queen Katherine to the lurker-like, nosy-to-the-point-of-wanting-to-harm-her-own-husband's reputation Jane Parker.The prose and style this book is written in is also not particularly special. Rather, her sentences are very simply constructed and at times, repetitive. I felt no emotional response at any point while reading this book because how can one feel anything when the author merely uses a sentence to describe the death of so-and-so. She 'tells' us too many things rather than showing us. Without the sexual themes, this book could be easily read by a middle school student.I can not understand why people are giving such high ratings for this book. To me, it was like reading one of those romance novels you can get at the convenience store. All I wanted to do was to chuck it out the window in between readings. This novel lacks well-developed characters (at times, I felt offended at the portrayal) and the prose is not particularly beautiful or inspiring. I suggest borrowing it from the library if you really want to read it." +2704,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,,,0/1,5.0,1063152000,wow,This book kept me up all night that i ended up reading it in two days. Loved it!!! +2705,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A14RYRR7ETV3UY,Sherry Barr,0/1,5.0,1229990400,"Power, Politics, and Corruption: Intense","The Other Boleyn Girl is the best piece of historical fiction that I've ever read; there were several nights when I couldn't put down the book and read until the early morning hours.Historical fiction is not generally my preferred reading choice, but I thoroughly enjoyed Phillipa Gregory's portrayal of Henry VIII's court, the ambition of the Boleyn family, and the tragic demise of Anne Boleyn, the oldest of two sisters in the Boleyn family. The story is told by Anne's younger sister, Mary Boleyn, who was married off at the age of 13, became the king's mistress until he lost interest in her, and then after many years of being a pawn in her family's ambitious plan to rise to power, whatever the cost, began to make her own decisions.Anne and Mary were both beautiful young women who were members of a powerful family that felt it could never have too much power or too much wealth. It was fascinating to read about the choices each of these women made along the way, and where their choices led them. It was also eye opening to read about what life was like for women in the 1500s.The English court during Henry VIII's reign is a poignant reminder of what can happen when corruption and abuse of power dominate, no one is safe.Even if you're not someone who typically reads historical fiction, read The Other Boleyn Girl. It will not disappoint!" +2706,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,,,0/0,5.0,1067644800,The ultimate page turner,"I read an obscene amount of books and rarely do I find one that leaves me wanting more. Since I read this book I have had trouble getting into other books because they seem so much less. From the first page I was hooked and drawn into the story. The characters were stongly developed and I found myself sharing their emotions and thoughts. I could not put the book down, I finished it in two days and was sad to come to the end. I cheered for Mary, wished ill to Anne and sympathized with Mary's first husband who was cast aside. It was a side to Tudor history that I have never faced for little is mentioned about Mary in other books, except to make her seem like a trashy plaything for the King. I passed this book on to a non-reader and she was unable to put it down also." +2707,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A5EPDQ0WQIA17,FierceRach,0/2,5.0,1168819200,Amazing book!,This is one of my favorites! What made it really intersting for me is that it is the first Historical Fiction book I have read. I was pulled in from the first page and felt like I was in the story. Philippa Gregory is a wonderful writer and I plan on reading many more of her wonderful books! I stayed up many late nights reading this book and I highly recommend it! +2708,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A18KSISCEJGAWG,T & K Mom,0/1,5.0,1207353600,An entertaining story,"I really enjoyed this book! An entertaining, have-to-keep-reading story! I will definitely read this book again (and again when I am in the mood for a good read!)" +2709,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,ATRNC3NZ0JTY1,BookBuff9293,8/8,1.0,1249689600,"Meet Phillipa Gregory, self-proclaimed historian and writer","I would not recommend Phillipa Gregory's much-hyped The Other Boleyn Girl. I'm the sort of person who keeps reading a book that doesn't make a good first impression, hoping it'll improve. Some six-hundred pages later, I realized The Other Boleyn Girl never got good. Please don't waste your time!Gregory summed up executions of significant characters with lines such as ""He was executed the next day."" Nothing triggers any emotional response in the reader! It's extraordinary. It seems as though Gregory went out of her way to make this possible.Of course, it's a matter of opinion. I simply found it to be void of anything of substance. I wasn't made to care about the characters or how the events played out. And only sex carried the plot along!Also, I think a good amount of the book was from Gregory's imagination, not historical facts. I'm not trying to suggest Anne was never executed or she didn't have a sister or anything of the sort. And I know in this genre much is left to the author's imagination and interpretation; it has to be. It's not as though there's a record of everything that was said and done by everyone surrounding any given event in history. But Gregory herself, when asked how she researches for her books, said she first goes to secondary sources. She never mentioned using primary sources. Yes, they can be biased (if they're from someone's perspective they're going to be), but they're first-hand accounts. Who better knows how something played out than a person who was in the middle of it, witnessing it?In addition, her dialogue is inconsistent. It's ridiculously modern at some points, then flowery at others. I know it can't be written Shakespeare-style; it has to be readable and understandable. But I think we could be a little more sophisticated! No one said ""stuff"" back then, for example, as in, ""All this stuff is making me mad."" She couldn't work a little harder than that??If you want the stereotypical historical fiction whose foundation is built on fancy dresses, sex, and scandal, this soap-opera mimic is perfect. If you're like me and want to learn something in the process, however...As I've made obvious, I was sorely disappointed. Just thought I'd pass my warning along. I don't want anyone else wasting his time!" +2710,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A28NKHXEDZKWT8,Juanita,0/0,5.0,1326499200,The Other Boelyn Girl,I really enjoyed this audio. I had first come across the book and was having trouble reading it because of time constraints. It was my first history reading of King Henry the VII. I really loved the authors style and the person reading it made the story come to life. I was most enjoyable. +2711,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A34HKARDTPGP4H,Zermain Breidenbaugh,0/2,5.0,1227225600,wonderfully written.,by the time i got past ch 1 i felt like i was in the kings court. Im now beginning my next book by Phillippa about the Bolynes and the English court. +2712,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3HYNMXQUEL11N,"C. Westling ""Mrs. Potatohead""",0/0,5.0,1357516800,Love it!!!,"I read this book years ago, my first experience with the author. I love everything that Philippa Gregory writes. I bought this copy because it's a signed copy. Woo Hoo!!" +2713,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A4L4U0NEMAD10,Lisa,1/2,5.0,1047427200,Great Read,"The Other Boylen Girl was in my pile of books waiting to be read ~ I don't know what took me so long to finally read it. I loved this book!! I loved Mary reading her story I wanted her to find true happiness and true love. Her sister Anne was something else, I was getting so mad!! I hated the way she treated Mary, Anne thought she was all high and mighty. Like when they send Mary away she didn't have any contact with her parents or brother and sister. Then When Anne is send away she gets a taste of what it felt like so I was happy about that. Mary just wants her two children and live in peace but her parents want great things from her they want her to marry the King even though he is already married but since the Queen can't have any children she can't give him a boy, but Mary doesn't want that life style and Anne does. As you keep reading along you are hoping everything will turn out good for Mary. This book deserves 5 stars great read!!Happy Reading Lisa" +2714,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3QBA545LQY0V0,Allodoxophobia,1/2,5.0,1032393600,Awesome!,"I have never been one interested in historical fiction, but I bought this book after the blurb on the back peaked my interest. They don't teach you about Anne's sister, Mary, in high school history class. Immediately I was hooked on this novel. Though obviously fictional, Gregory does a great job of getting most of the background about the time period correct. She is a master story-teller and her prose just draws you in. I found myself rushing home from work so I could get back to my book! I thought all of the characters were quite believable, except maybe Jane Parker, and I sympathized with Mary and Queen Katherine. Some of the other reviewers seemed to be put off by a few inaccuracies, but I think if the reader looks at this as a work of fiction influenced by the time period, they will not be bothered, and probably won't even notice. I know I didn't. Also, to address the issue of George's homosexuality, Gregory DOES speak to this in the back of the novel in the interview section. She says that there is a school of thought that believes this theory and that is the one she chose to base that storyline on. I felt she explained herself rather well. Anyways, buy the book, it will keep you up at night wanting to know what will become of poor Mary and her corrupted family." +2715,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1ITVW3CRL8VOE,T. Holmes,0/0,5.0,1184284800,Review of THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL,"I really appreciate a book, especially historical fiction, in which an author painstakingly researches the material. You could tell by the writing of Philippa Gregory that she is an expert when it comes to the matters of King Henry VIII and his court. This expertise of the author makes the story much more enjoyable and believable. Her writing and descriptions in this book are incredible. She definitely has a grasp of the English language. You will understand what I mean when you read this book.This is definitely a ""chick book"" but I read it anyway because I enjoy history and stories of the kings and queens of Europe. I have to admit that I was never once bored with this book throughout the entire 661 pages. The story moved fast and the events took place one right after the other. The cool thing was that I really had feelings for the characters which is always important to me when I read a book. In this book I felt for the characters, some I loved and some I despised. And I found them believable as well.There are plenty of other great reviews on here that can tell you what this book is specifically about, but in one sentence it is simply a book about two sisters competing for the love of the king. I am very surprised to have liked it as much as I did.A quick warning to parents who may be deciding if there kids or young teenagers can read this book: there are some very graphic sexual depictions in this book. I would read it prior to them to decide." +2716,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2W0WRA702RPU8,"J. luna ""evejluna""",1/1,5.0,1190592000,Takes you back to the times during Henry VIII's reign,Your forced to enter the former age during the most scandalous periods in English history. Each page keeps you captivated till the end. After the bittersweet epilogue you will crave more of the sixteenth century and Philippa Gregory. +2717,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3U2B5SFMOTJYZ,"Annie Arbenz ""anniebee""",4/5,4.0,1180137600,"Entertaining, but a slow start.","Disclaimer: I love historical fiction; so I don't know if this would be a great read for anyone, but...I loved it as a historical fiction fan. I have stuck with mostly Italian in the past, but this was a very exciting ""jump"" into British historical fiction--specifically the CRAZY world of the Tudors and Henry's 6 wives.I was totally enthralled with this book--but not until around page 200. So the first bit I was having a hard time buying into it because I thought Mary was kind of annoying and weak. But as the book progresses, she ages (obviously) and her relationship with Anne, the Boleyn family, the King, and pretty much everyone around her is really fascinating. She finally grows some ""balls"" and you're rooting for her to escape the treachery of the Boleyn family and FIND LOVE. It sounds cheesy here but there is seriously nothing cheesy about this book.I know that I love a book when I'm constantly looking up the history in encyclopedias and finding other books in this area. I was a little disappointed to hear that there really isn't much documented history pertaining to Mary in real life, but from what I have read (very VERY preliminary), Gregory is right on and has solid backing for what she has written. Also, I am very impressed with historical fiction writers who use the actual historical character as the center of the story versus using a fictional character and having things happen around them. It seems much harder to do it the way Gregory has done and it truly is a masterpiece--entertaining and historically accurate!READ IT!" +2718,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1H2231CATTPWG,buggal,7/7,2.0,1072742400,What more can I say?,"Everything I feel about this book has already been said. It is slow moving and riddled with historical inaccuracies. I can forgive the boring writing style, because it is not my type of book. The incorrect facts, however, are harder to ignore. There are very few facts known about Mary Bolyen it shouldn't be too hard to keep them straight. That being said, if the story interests you, read it merely as a work of fiction. Then, get some Alison Weir for the history." +2719,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,,,1/1,5.0,1081036800,Don't like this book? Off with your head!,"In the same vein as "Girl With The Pearl Earring", this novel tells a woman's story, a woman whose family was on the losing side of history, at that. And since most all history is written by men -- the men who are the victors -- I found it fresh, gripping and entertaining to imagine Mary Boleyn's life.As often the best cinema does not distract the viewer with special effects or other cinematic devices, so it is with Ms. Gregory's seamless writing. Her words are so well woven I almost forgot that I was reading fiction. I almost forgot that I was reading altogether, I was so transported. A reader cannot do much better!" +2720,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2G1Z591G9QWQC,danielle,3/5,5.0,1116633600,The Other Boleyn Girl: riveting historical fiction!,"The Other Boleyn Girl, set in the years 1521 to 1536, focuses on the Boleyn/Howard families and their endless quest to climb the social ladder in King Henry VIII's court. In particular, this book deals with Mary and Anne Boleyn, two sisters who could not be more different in looks and personalities. They are Boleyns due to their father's side and Howards due to their mother's. Anne is the dark-haired, seductive beauty who marries the king and is later executed for witchcraft and adultery. Mary, the younger, fairer Boleyn sister, is actually the girl who starts the Boleyn chapter in English history. Mary, married at a young age, catches Henry's eye with her pretty fair looks and charm, and her relatives, the Howard family, seize the opportunity to make Mary Henry's mistress and to glorify the Howard/Boleyn names. Even after conceiving two beautiful children, Mary does not achieve a higher status other than the king's mistress, so Anne takes her place. Anne, with her deadly ambition, is determined to outshadow her fortunate sister and leave her mark in history. The king divorces his faithful but barren Spanish wife of many years and breaks from the Roman Catholic Church so he can marry Anne, and she will do anything, even go to the gates of Hell, to bring a son for the sake of the English throne.Meanwhile, Mary, no longer the Howard favorite, discovers the simple pleasures of life on a farm, and she decides to follow her heart for once and marry her true love. However, she is forced to watch the poignant rise and fall of her best friend and rival, Anne, in the whimsical English court. Anne is constantly kept on her toes, both literally and figuratively, to please the king. Henry acts like a spoiled child who will stop at nothing when he wants something, especially that something being a legitimate son to the throne, and one wrong dance move means certain death.This book wonderfully illustrates the deadly ambition that seizes many families like the Howards and turns the daughters and sons into mere pawns of an intricate game. Some of them escape alive, like Mary and her children (and her new husband), but others like Anne end up greeting the scaffold and not leaving it alive. The Other Boleyn Girl shows the whims of love and lust; Mary eventually discovers true love (to my joy), and she is the only fortunate member in the Boleyn/Howard families, as her brother bitterly notes. I love the magic and the suspense of the book. It is one of the few books I have stayed up many nights in a row, sacrificing precious hours of sleep, just so I could finish reading it. Philippa Gregory blends historical fact and fiction so well; she truly makes Mary, an obscure character in English history, come alive. Although this book is about 700 pages long, it is a true page-turner that keeps the reader wanting more." +2721,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2OAD5Y7MXUOFZ,Laurie A. Brown,0/2,5.0,1287964800,The lesser known Boleyn was the nicer one,"Most people know that Anne Boleyn was the second wife of England's King Henry VIII, but few have heard of Mary Boleyn- the other Boleyn girl. Anne's sister (historians disagree as to whether she was older or younger) played on the stage of the Tudor court, yet has been mostly forgotten as she was never queen and died of natural causes.As a female member of the Boleyn and Howard families, Mary was a pawn to be used for gain, her own feelings and wants to be ignored. Married at 12 to William Carey, at 14 Mary caught the eye of the philandering king- then wed to Katherine of Aragon- and was his mistress for several years, bearing two children in the process. While laying in to have her second child, her sister Anne seduced the king, reserving only her (questionable) virginity, which she withheld for a promise of marriage and queenship. As we all know, that marriage and queenship was short and unhappy and ended with Anne's head removed from her body.This novel, told from the point of view of Mary Boleyn Carey, is a story that blends the false glitter of the court with strong family ties- ties of both obedience and of love. Mary loves her sister Anne but is also jealous of her- they are constant rivals at everything. Anne is her beloved sister but Anne is a user, someone who never looks at a situation without wondering how she can turn it to her advantage and humans-including family- are disposable. She learned this from her parents, who taught their children- including brother George- well. Their parents care not what happens to their children, as long as they are advanced at court and made wealthy.In this telling, Mary is less driven than Anne or George and more in touch with her moral side. She sleeps with the king because her parents tell her to, while questioning the propriety of betraying both Queen Katherine and her own husband. She asks for presents for her family at their behest. She gives up her place as mistress and aids her sister's ascension despite having come to love the king. She teaches her sister sexual tricks to hold the king and helps her hide miscarriages. She hides the secrets of the family, secrets that are punishable by death.But she finally rebels and makes a life for herself, marrying for love. Not long after, the Boleyn web of secrets falls apart and we all know how that story ends. Mary alone lives on, and historical record seems to point to a happy, if short, life after that.This book takes some liberties with history but I'm willing to forgive it. Gregory brings the era and the court to brilliant, vivid life. Somehow she manages to get the reader to care about these people, not just Mary (although she comes off best) but the avaricious Anne and George, and even the petty, selfish, childish king Henry. These characters are fleshed out, with the contradictions of spirit that we all have. I loved this book." +2722,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1KLZ9NTF72OYE,"T. Wright ""A Modern Bibliophile""",1/1,5.0,1242432000,Fascinating!,"The Other Boleyn Girl tells the notorious story of Henry VIII and his second wife, Queen Anne Boleyn, from the perspective of his mistress, Anne's sister Mary Boleyn. The novel begins with the execution of the Duke of Buckingham in 1521 and ends with the execution of Anne Boleyn in 1536. The story itself is rather well known to even casual history readers, but Philippa Gregory makes the story intriguing by telling us what went on behind the scenes.I found this book to be enchanting, enthralling and difficult to put down. As it is put forth as historical fiction, and not a text book, I did not read it with an encyclopedia on hand to detect historical inaccuracies. I don't think that we should negatively critique fiction because of liberties taken with the story. Yes, Gregory puts a decidedly sensationalist construction on the famous story, and her choice to use the lesser known Mary Boleyn as the narrator means that a lot of the story can't be verified. But I didn't care about any of this when I was reading. Instead, I found myself swept away into another time and place - Tudor England was truly brought alive in Gregory's thorough description of the places and atmosphere of England under Henry VIII's rule. It is a riveting story of love, scandal, ambition and sibling rivalry at its worst. I devoured it in a few days and I've already moved on to The Boleyn Inheritance.The best part of the book for me was the fascinating development of Mary Boleyn as a character. At the beginning of the novel she is a slightly idealistic 13 year old girl forced into a marriage and later into an affair with the King of England. Through heartbreak, loss and betrayal, she develops into a courageous woman who makes the choice to rebuff her powerful family and marry a man of her choosing. The scenes between Mary and William Stafford are breathtakingly romantic and beautiful.This is one of the best pieces of historical fiction that I have read in a long while. I enjoyed it from beginning to end and recommend it to all historical fiction lovers. Enjoy!!" +2723,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3F1RVG75JH4A9,"W. Eisenberg ""delennwen""",0/1,5.0,1145577600,A wonderful portrait,"Gregory has a true gift for historical fiction. This thoroughly enjoyable novel makes you feel as if you were there, in that place, in that time, with those people. Rich characterization of the members of the Boleyn family and King Henry VIII's court, rich descriptions of the life of the courtiers (full of pettiness, social climbing, gossip, scheming and intrigue) , and vivid explorations of the circumstances of Anne Boleyn's scheming rise and abrupt, precipitous fall, seen through the eyes of her sister Mary, all combine to make an absorbing and entertaining read. When finished reading, I felt, ""It definitely really could have happened exactly that way."" Well researched and well written; you won't want to put this one down because you will be engrossed in this slice of history." +2724,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3TFLGXAKQYU8F,"""royaldiaryfan2000""",4/5,5.0,1048377600,"Not Anne, But Mary","I don't know why this book had such bad reviews. From the first page of this book to the very last this book kept me interested, awake, and well-immersed in the Tudor courts. I may only be in middle schoolbut I have read many adult books, mostly historical fiction, and this is one of the best I have ever read. Sure, this may be historically inaccurate at some parts (like the age difference in this book goes Anne is the oldest, then their brother, then Mary when in real life it went Mary, Anne, and their brother) but it is still a good read, a very interesting read, and a very needed record of the forgotten Boleyn girl who bore Henry two children and was his first mistress who established the Boleyns at court. Anne is shown in the light she should be told in this book: power hungry, beautiful, a devoted girl to her closest of friends, and simply someone who wanted to make it in the world but went too high and was brought down. Mary will be sympathized in the book and may seem a little whiny at times but you will be scared, happy, upset, and carefree along with her through all the chapters. I recommend this book to all people from 9th Grade+ because of the adult references and I am sure you will enjoy it no matter how inaccurate it may be and how girly it can be. Can't wait to read Phillipa Gregory's next novel, historical hopefully!" +2725,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A254A6HH0Z4CW0,Geneva,0/1,5.0,1212624000,I am now obsessed with tudor england,"I must say, before reading this book, I was never interested in reading historical fiction of any sort (the only historical time period I was ever really fascinated with was Ancient Egypt) but after having failed to see the movie version of ""the other boleyn girl"" while it was in theatres, I decided to give the novel a chance, and I was glad I did. I thoroughly enjoyed it, from minute to end. In fact, I couldn't put it down. Despite the novel being pretty lengthy, I finished it in two days.It gives a very detailed, fascinating glimpse of life at one of the most famous courts in history. Although yes, ill say it is very dramatic (pretty much an old-fashioned soap opera). Nonetheless, its beautifully written, so much so that you can feel yourself going back in time, and imagine yourself at the court, amongst the characters.Since reading this book, I have read several other novels having to do with this time period, a majority of them having to do with Anne Boleyn (one of the main characters in ths book). To me she is the most interesting of all the wives of King Henry VIII. Which leads me to the one thing I must say that I didn't like about this book....the way that Anne Boleyn was potrayed. But anyhow, I will let you decide your opinion of her yourself,and I recommend that everyone reads this book, regardless of whether or not your a fan of historical fiction.I also recomend that you read Philippa Gregorys other novels, especially ""the boleyn inheritance"" and ""the queens fool""" +2726,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3EMU6O5R1RTBK,Amy Hard,1/1,5.0,1075766400,Eloquently Informative,"One of the best books I have ever read. Once I opened the first page, my life started to revolve around this book. I stopped watching TV altogether because it was so riveting. I have read very few historical fiction pieces, but after this, I will read many more. Beautifully written and wonderfully informative about the era and the way people lived at the King's Court. Incredible inside look into the lives of these prominent people." +2727,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2PZXO5Y1SLOUW,"Jenni ""Mrs. Piskura""",2/3,5.0,1163721600,Raw and Intriguing,"This is an incredible combination of historical truths and fictional character dispositions. Like with any book I had to adjust to the author's style of writing and the lingo of the story's time period but I was almost immediately enraptured by it's unbelievable content! I quickly fell in love with the characters, especially narrator Mary Boleyn who is so identifiable and amiable. This is a great buy if you love period works that involve love, sex, and scandal without betraying good taste and some modesty. I also felt that I had gained quite a bit of knowledge upon finishing the book since I had known very little about King Henry VIII prior to it. Overall I feel that this could become a favorite among many or at least memorable." +2728,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2WOI2G2S10N1K,Natalie Michalik,0/0,5.0,1198886400,An enthralling guilty pleasure,"While not a piece of literary genius, this is an entralling read that I could barely put down from beginning to end. Any fan of historical fiction should pick this one up." +2729,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3P5JECDI6FDR7,michele miljanic,1/2,5.0,1209340800,I'm HOOKED!,"Not since The DaVinci Code have I read such a fantastic book! I couldn't put it down. After the DaVinci Code, I got really interested in symbols and the freemasons. Well, I am totally obsessed with anything Phillipa Gregory and British Royal History. Now, granted, I am an Eastern European History student, so I have a fondness for the basic subject, but hadn't really gotten to interested in Western Europe. I first read Sex With Queens by Eleanor Herman which is a non-fictional account of all the dirty girls who have sat on the thrown. She also has a King edition as well, I just haven't gotten around to that one yet. But back to The Other Boleyn Girl, I like that Ms. Gregory wrote the book in the voice of Mary Boleyn, whom you never hear about. The absolute determination of Anne and her family contrasted by Mary's desire for a simple quiet life is what makes the story so fantastic. I have just started the second Boleyn book, The Boleyn Inheritance, which looks into how the women after Anne where effected by the damage that was done by the Boleyn family, so far, so good." +2730,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A4NZOHJM67H9H,M. Hamilton,0/1,5.0,1162512000,The Other Boleyn Girl,I couldn't put it down! She makes history worth re-thinking! +2731,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AO4312E04R875,CC,0/1,5.0,1199577600,Amazing book!,Couldn't put this book down from the first entrancing page! I stayed with it from start to finish..about 24 hours from the time I first picked it up. Amazing book! I can't wait to read more of her work! +2732,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1KJ9RXXFERD83,"Rose Lee ""Art lover""",0/1,5.0,1250035200,historical fiction,It is a very good historical fiction. Almost all based on true events.Very easy reading.Much better than the movie. +2733,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AMBHM2DX5DI5O,"Conor Byrne ""Conor""",0/1,1.0,1358035200,A betrayal of the Boleyns,"TOBG is an appalling portrayal of Anne Boleyn and the real woman that she was. I think Anne would be horrified, disgusted and offended if she knew how modern novelists, such as Gregory, portray her. What irritates me is exactly what Alison Weir has pointed out - history in the Tudor period was so fascinating, you couldn't make it up, so why do people invent things when surely Anne's story is fascinating enough anyway?This book is also a monstrous betrayal of Mary Boleyn, and George. Mary would probably be mortified to see that she is portrayed as nothing more than a naive whore, when Weir's research disputes that and suggests that she was in reality unlucky, whereas there is no evidence that George was homosexual. Philippa Gregory has disgraced the name of the Boleyns. Let us also not forget her horrible depiction of Jane Boleyn in ""The Boleyn Inheritance"". And I'm quite sure Katherine Howard would not appreciate being presented as a sex-mad bimbo when she was more probably naive than anything else. Disgraceful." +2734,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A22HWAQFO0OFXE,L. Loh,1/2,5.0,1098748800,Wonderful!,"This was an awesome book. A friend refered it to me - we were at the library, she picked it off the shelf and thrust it in my hands. I read the back, and I was thinking.. ehhh. But she convinced me to try it, and that's exactly what I did.I cracked it open on Wednesday and read the first few chapters and then fell asleep. It was torture, because usually I'm the kind of reader that will read through a good book in one setting (yes, that includes the Harry Potter series). Anyway, I had a huge exam on Saturday, and instead of studying, I spent Friday finishing up the book.Simply put, the book is AMAZING. I had never known ANYTHING about King Henry VI and his life and once I finished reading, I remembered that it was HISTORICAL fiction. Of course I promptly went online and googled it and learned much more than I would ever have had.Love, betrayal, trust, and not too much sex, this book is a conglomeration of everything a chick book holds - and definitely more. Try it, I guarentee it'll draw you in." +2735,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1Q8DWBUNSVFJC,"Mary Ennis ""Mary""",0/3,5.0,1239753600,Couldn't put it down!,This is one of my favorite books! I couldn't put it down. I find the history weaved into it wonderful! A great read. +2736,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1V5B0JGFSOXD4,Jonathan Payne,0/2,5.0,1139961600,engrossing,"I happened to be reading this on the plane over to London for my first visit. While touring the Tower of London I found out the ending of the book by accident! There's something about reading a history (even if it's historical fiction) and then being there at the same time.Now I have to find more books about that period of time. I hope they will be as well done as this one was. One of my favorite reads ever.BTW, Mary Boleyn is the YOUNGER sister, not the older sister as mentioned in the synopsis and in some of the reviews." +2737,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A81L6IYZQET0O,A. Luangrath,3/4,2.0,1205884800,Trashfest!,"I decided to read this book because I was really interested in seeing the movie. I did not know much about the history of the Tudors nor Anne Boleyn. But I could tell right away by reading this book that the author, Philippa Gregory is extremely biased towards Anne Boleyn. She's turned her book into a critique of how women, such as Anne, who are struck by ambition into some kind of incestuous monster who is ready to push anyone out of her way. To me, there are two types of books: page turners and books that move very slowly but have a lot of substance. The Other Boleyn Girl is the latter. I kept reading this book because I have this unwavering commitment to finish a book, hoping that the end will somehow redeem this craptastic fest of trash. This book really teeters on the border of a trashy romance novel. I will never read anything by Gregory again." +2738,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,,,0/0,5.0,1088121600,You cannot put it down!,This book is simply amazing. You will want to stay up until you can barely see to finish reading this incredible novel. +2739,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AUKHEBWDCODPF,"R. Towles ""Nostalgia Fan""",1/2,4.0,1205193600,The Book is better than Movie,"I typically don't read these kinds of novels, but this one kept my attention. Gregory's writing style is excellent. She gives what is an ordinary history lesson a fascinating look into a world of intrigue and deception. I'm now hooked on her style of story telling and have started reading the first book of her trilogy, ""Wideacre"", and again, I'm not dissappointed. BTW - I saw the movie (the Other Bolyen Girl).... read the book, it's better." +2740,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AK7CAW3N1XZV6,"Beth Cholette ""doctor_beth""",4/5,4.0,1077062400,Enjoyable historical fiction from the Tudor era,"Most people have heard of Anne Boleyn, the second wife of King Henry VIII who was infamously beheaded when she failed to bear him a son (and whose daughter, Elizabeth, went on to become a great monarch). But few are aware that prior to Anne's rise, her sister, Mary, was the King's mistress and allegedly bore him two children. This novel seamlessly blends fact and fiction to tell the story of the Boleyn family, whose ambitions and aspirations caused them to put two daughters in harm's way. However, the story centers around the rivalry between the two sisters as well as their relationship with their brother, George Boleyn, who was executed just prior to his sister. A captivating tale about this fascinating period of history." +2741,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,APA46Q1FEEVJU,"Kelley M. Frankovitch ""kfrankovitch""",2/2,5.0,1066694400,Juicy and Fun,"I highly recommend this book to anyone with even a passing interest in the Tudor Court.Gregory does a fantastic job of developing an engrossing story with the soap-opera of Henry VIII's court at its center. I've heard differing opinions on just how historically accurate this novel is, but in the end I think it matters little. Gregory stays close enough to the facts to be believable and ultimately it is a work of fiction.My only critique is that she works so hard at sanctifying Mary Boleyn while villifying Anne. She asserts on several occasions that Mary is as preoccupied with family and personal advancement as Anne, but the story she tells seems to indicate that Mary is an unwitting participant in all the intrigue.In the end, that one flaw vanishes in the sheer beauty and scope of the novel. It is not an undertaking for the faint of heart, at over 600 pages, but it is well worth it. I found it to be a quick read despite its length.Here's to, as Eddie Izzard would say, ""sex, death and religion in an interesting night-time telly kind of way""!" +2742,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AXJXB89NPQA6E,"S. Fackler ""littlebootz""",19/25,3.0,1080345600,Suffers from lack of author's note,"Many other reviewers have mentioned the historical innacuracies found in _The Other Boleyn Girl_. I noticed them as well. The changes in the Boleyn girls' birth order did not trouble me as much as the disputed parentage of Mary Boleyn's children (why would Henry, whose first illegitimate son he made a Duke, ignore his son by Mary Boleyn?) I also found it odd that the author seemed to give creedence not only to the charges of witchcraft against Ann Boleyn, but to the charge of incest between Ann and her brother George. These charges, which were ostensibly the reasons why Ann was beheaded, have been generally dismissed by every historian since they occurred.So why, then, did Phillipa Gregory treat them as, if not fact, then at least possibilities?This would not have bothered me at all had she included an author's note that explained her reasoning. I understand that the hints of Dark Doings and intrasibling sex make for a much more intriguing read, and if that was Ms. Gregory's intention, good for her.But why, then, would you not include something to tell your readers what liberties you've taken with the facts, and why?The fact that she did not do so is why I gave this book such a low rating.As a story, it's pretty good. A bit heavy on the purple prose, but that didn't bother me too much. The detail about life at Henry's court was quite good and the portrayal of Katherine of Aragon and Mary's guilty affection for her was touching.Is the book a tad too long? I think so. I didn't need page after page to remind me that Mary Boleyn loved farming and her children very, very much. Got it the first time. But it was an enjoyable story, and the characters were well-crafted and for the most part believable (though they veered towards charicature near the end).All in all, it wasn't bad, and I would read another book by this author. I'm merely disappointed that she took such liberties with the facts (Mary's daughter in the Tower with Ann? Huh?) and did not explain to her readers why she did so or what the truth was." +2743,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1PZEVWSYJ2XQ4,triplets-mom,5/5,5.0,1152489600,"RCE ""Serious Reader""","I am very offended by RCE ""Serious Reader's"" comments about housewives not being ""serious readers"" and loving this book. I am a stay at home mom and I am also a very serious reader. I have two masters: one in Education and one in English Literature. Housewives are not ill educated and ""non serious readers"". It is only that many people have different opinions and likes. It is unfair to lump people together and insult them for enjoying a book. RCE remember this is historical FICTION. Not a totally accurate account of the people and times described in the novel. One must understand what FICTION means before insulting the autor for embelishing on a story. Maybe you should take some Eglish Literature classes to understand the genre of FICTION." +2744,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1XMWNVMZ6HDTB,"Ms. S. H. Cecere ""portrait artist""",0/0,5.0,1300838400,The Other Boleyn Girl,Another great novel by Philippa Gregory. She tells the story of Ann Boleyn with a different perspective and includes english history with knowledge and interest. I had just recently purchased one of her books at the bookstore and was hooked. I now have ordered 9 of her books from Amazon.com. Great stuff if you like historical novels. +2745,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1DW27OQ3QWGG3,"S. Dillicar ""susan""",0/0,5.0,1304380800,a fast favourite,"On reading, this rose immediately to the top of my favourite books. The intrigue, the heartbreak, the family dynamics combined with the sense of helplessness that comes from knowing how its going to turn out, makes this book a fascinating read. Gregory's portrayal of Henry as he evolves from a passionate lover to a coldhearted killer is beautifully done while the romance of the main character, Boleyn's sister and Henry's early lover, Mary, is touching and provides the uplifting ending such a dramatic - and ultimately, tragic - story needs." +2746,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AXRJVUJZJX284,Future Writer,0/3,5.0,1210204800,great writing,very well researched and presented. It is hard to put it down once you get started. It really takes you to Henry's court and what life must have been like in those years. It also shows how women try to survive in a society where they are treated like commodity. The book is probably appealing only to women readers. I guess it should not be a problem because most men would not be interested once they see the title anyway... +2747,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1ZHFD8JZXJXNM,Amy Leemon,6/7,5.0,1022198400,An Amazing Book!,"Not much has been written about Mary Boleyn. She was very young and married when Henry cast his eyes on her. She was then sent to court to be a lady-in-waiting to Queen Katherine. She was very fond of the Queen but had no choice when Henry wanted her to be his mistress.She had 2 children by him - first a girl and then a boy. While she was recovering from childbirth, Henry turned from her to her sister, Anne.In one of the unforgettable scenes in the book, the Boleyn family calmly discusses which sister should be the one for Henry. And when it is decided it should be Anne, Mary asks, ""What shall I be?"" and the answer from Anne: ""You'll be my lady in waiting. You'll be the other Boleyn girl.""Mary always did as she was told but her real longing was to live a peaceful life in the country - far away from court - with her children. But once Anne became Henry's favorite, she controlled Mary and her children like pieces on a chessboard.Anne became very cruel. The Boleyn family was ruled by blind ambition and anything and everything they did was done to gain access to the throne. Mary was kept from her children and from the man she then fell in love with to serve Anne.One of the amazing things about Mary is she was the only one of her family who just wanted to be common. She managed to stay friends with Queen Katherine even when she had Henry's children. And when Anne and her family had completely lost favor with the King, Mary survived.An absolutely riveting book. Don't miss it." +2748,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2X4UYP21W1036,J. Nellis,0/2,5.0,1199577600,Love this book!,"I could not put this book down! Since I read this book, I have purchased several other of Philippa Gregory's Tudor books, The Constant Princess, The Boleyn Inheritance and now The Queen's Fool. I strongly recommend this book to anyone who enjoys history with a twist. Read it before the movie comes out in Feb.!" +2749,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A236N1TURISZAF,"Trisha Morriston ""Nero Wolfe and Journey Fan""",0/0,5.0,1351123200,Great book,"Ms Gregory did it again. Beautifully written Historical Fiction about the court of King Henry 8th. A lot of back stabing, and a lot of court ""espinanosih"" A definatel must read. This book follows The Boley Girls twhom try to win the affections of King Henry. A must have for those who like Historical Fiction writting." +2750,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AT2QGKRINCLYU,Candace,0/1,5.0,1213056000,Amazing!,This a wonderful book writen to bring out the woman's version of the events of history! Henry's and Anne's court was truly filled with drama!It is so great to have woman write about strong women in history. +2751,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3OA55ID9FEU89,Tudorphile,11/14,2.0,1159228800,The good and the bad of it,"I was reading this book again the other day and after initially being sucked in, I was vividly reminded of how much I disliked it.The history is accurate, the writing style is both gripping and crisp. What is it, then? I suppose the characterization really bothers me.Whether it is Mary Boleyn, Hannah the Fool, Amy Dudley, or the main character (can't remember his name) from Earthly joys, in several different Gregory books I have read, the central character is the Exact. Same. Person. Give them a different name, a different background, but the exact same personality/values/relation to the world and characters around them.The person is unusually honest, kind-hearted, and guileless amidst a sea of corrupt people who admire him/her. The main character is generous to a fault, cares deeply about either Mary Tudor or Katherine of Aragon (depending upon which of the two is in the book), and looks down upon the antics of Anne Boleyn or Elizabeth Tudor (depending upon which one is in the book). The main character is always recognized by the historical figures as uniquely honest and wonderful in that way only Gregory's protagonists are. The main character does something self-sacrificing and generous and Katherine/Mary (or in Earthly Joys, Cecil) stands in awe or admiration of that other person's nave and unique generosity.That characterization is TIRED. And I think she is capable of more; I wouldn't be so sick of it if she wasn't a good enough writer that I've read four of her books.For God's sake, Ms. Gregory, you have amazing talent-- take on a new protagonist! Stop inserting the exact same character in every single one of your novels!In this novel, she wants to have it all ways with Mary Boleyn. Gregory wants her to be a guileless and innocent sweetheart amidst all these corrupt people (guileless to the point of utter stupidity for a Tudor courtier-- questioning why her family would want her to cheat on her husband with the king? Come on! Short of a mental impairment, she would understand at least the basics of the ambitious world she inhabits!) Yet Gregory also wants Mary to be a calculating and clever courtier like all the rest... She just makes Mary clever/wily whenever it suits the plot, and innocent whenever she wants to prove to us how wonderful Mary is. You can't have it both ways.She wants readers to get an ""insight into the psychology"" of these people, yet she makes Anne Boleyn a cookie-cutter villain (to the point where her book presents as the truth anti-Anne Boleyn propaganda invented by Boleyn's CONTEMPORARY enemies in the 1500s) and she makes Katherine of Aragon a cookie-cutter saint. If you want psychological realism, give them -depth- or give up the pretense that your own personal likes/dislikes are not coloring your characterization of them.My complaints aside, I will tell you that I was pretty sucked into it even a second time around... She's a good writer. I plowed through the first half of the book before the characterizations really started to irritate me.I'd still take this novel any day over the abomination that is ""The Virgin's Lover""... Good God, but that one makes me cringe. However, I'd recommend both Gregory's novel ""The Queen's Fool"" (same protagonist, as always, but a better novel) and the wonderful ""Earthly Joys"" before this (same protagonist, again, but so many unique things in that book to make up for it!)So, get ""The Other Boleyn Girl"" for a quick read, great historical accuracy, a blatant smear job on Anne Boleyn, glorification of Catherine of Aragon, and an annoying glance into the plot-shifting psychology of the exact same character who narrates every other Gregory novel (at least the ones I have read).But if you want a sublime Tudor era novel, go for Susan Kay's ""Legacy""." +2752,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3MDET0VC7UKZU,Bk Queen_21,1/1,4.0,1138579200,Wonderful Historical Fiction,"Philippa Greggory is an extremely talented writer. This book is amazing how it portrays life in Tudor England from a less known woman, the infamous Anne Boleyn's sister Mary Boleyn. The fact that it is written from her sister's point of view is hat makes this book even more special. I think she described Anne better then if Anne had narrated the book. I literally could not put this book down! It was too good. She made an extremely creative and wonderful story." +2753,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A22CN6T98WY8ZZ,"L. S. Jaszczak ""servant of the secret fire""",0/0,4.0,1140307200,Intelligent and engrossing historical fiction,"The title of The Other Boleyn Girl pretty much says it all; it's the story of Anne Boleyn's sister Mary, who was Henry VIII's mistress before he became infatuated with Anne. The historical Mary seems to have been very different from the rest of her ambitious family, receiving virtually nothing of value from Henry herself and eventually marrying, after her first husband's death, a comparatively humble man and becoming the only one of the three Boleyn children to die in bed. In this novel, however, although she is the pawn of her family, pushed into the path of the king in her mid-teens, she is far more.In Gregory's portrayal, Mary is an extremely sympathetic character but also a flawed one. She admires Queen Katherine but betrays her not only with Henry, a situation in which she has little choice, but also in more reprehensible ways. She allows her first marriage to become all but meaningless, but eventually, after Henry leaves her for Anne, begins to feel a growing closeness to her husband and, after his death, finds the strength to defy her sister and father to marry a man she loves. Despite her sometimes bitter rivalry with Anne, Mary and her daughter are the only members of the family who defend her upon her arrest. By the end of the book, Mary has truly become her own woman and can leave the court, as well as the world stage, for a real, fulfilling life.The politics of Henry's court are also portrayed in all their sordid detail: family gatherings centering on which sister should be pushed into the king's bed and how to keep her there; the bribery of maids to find out whether the queen has had her period and the secret disposal of miscarried babies; the pimping of his own sisters by their brother George, who has his own shameful secret; the intrigues of councilors and churchmen to achieve the king's desires and their own ambitions. Yet for the most part, these people are portrayed as living human beings, not angels or monsters.My main quibble with this book, and the reason it doesn't rate five stars with me, is its portrayal of Anne Boleyn. Gregory gives a realistic picture of her charm, drive, and relentless ambition to become queen, but other aspects of her character are not delineated as well. When she falls in love with Henry Percy (son of the Earl of Northumberland, not the Duke), I find it hard to believe, although Gregory obviously means for it to be a real passion that affects the course of Anne's life. Also, even though Mary mentions her (Anne) reading theology with the king as well as her wit, I never get a sense of her real intelligence or of a personality behind the obsessive ambition.On the whole, however, I recommend this book very highly; despite its almost 700 pages it only took me a few days to get through it and I enjoyed it immensely." +2754,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3NJJZ5NB9LMR3,Holly Fuhrmann,2/3,5.0,1028073600,A fascinating glimpse of history,"...but an even better story of a girl's journey to womanhood. Philipa Gregory's Mary Boleyn was a three dimensional character who sprang to life in the pages of the book. Mary Boleyn was her family's pawn, married off at an early age and tossed in the king's bed shortly thereafter. But as the story unfolds, Mary finds herself and finally has the strength to marry for love.Gregory's ability to weave a fictional story into a historical work was breathtaking." +2755,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AU3C35LYPTA9F,R. Sayre,0/1,4.0,1204761600,Satisfying Page-Turner,"I usually avoid any novel that isn't properly considered literature, however every once in awhile I crave an escape that lingers without requiring much additional thought or 'unpacking' and The Other Boleyn Girl certainly hit the spot. The writing is simple and straight forward - nothing special - but the story is great (you can't make [most of] that stuff up!) and Gregory makes the characters truly compelling. I love how she shows the change in Henry VIII as he gets older and after his crippling leg injury. The Tudor period has always been fascinating to me, but her book actually renewed my interest and I have ordered books off of the bibliography Gregory included. Overall, I would highly recommend this book to anyone wanting a satisfying page-turner." +2756,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AG4LF6PA59F3U,"A. F. OBA ""Just a reader""",2/3,5.0,1186358400,"GREAT PROSE, GREAT STORY.","Of course, we all know the Boleyn sisters' fate and yet, Philippa Gregory keeps us on tenterhooks all along this wonderfully written story. Mary, the ""other Boleyn girl"", voices her worries, fears, wishes and dreams in such a way that we can feel and see everything she feels and sees in a very vivid way. It is like being transported to Henry VIII's court.Of the many books I read and buy, only a few I keep for my personal library. The rest I give away or trade amongst friends and relatives. This one is for keeps!" +2757,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2CTPZUNWAAM7T,"Justine Kelly ""Justine""",12/13,1.0,1231372800,"Horribly inaccurate, disgusting and disrespectful novel","As a history buff and huge fan of Anne Boleyn, this novel made me sick. There is a limit as to how far a novelist can stretch the truth while writing historical fiction, and Gregory went too far. It is clear that Gregory did hardly any research on Anne Boleyn's character (as is evidence by the fact that she did not even consult THE biography on Anne, Eric Ives's book) and instead was too concerned with making Mary Boleyn out to be more important than she actually was to English history. Gregory unfortunately just reiterated the slanders that Anne Boleyn's character incurred after her execution by her Catholic enemies. It is sad that an author today could do so much disrespect to a historical figure in one novel. Furthermore, she cites Retha Warnicke's research as being her primary basis for the novel, yet after Warnicke heard this, she publicly distanced herself from the novel--mainly because Gregory misinterpreted Warnicke's theories completely. In my opinion, Gregory may as well have made up characters and kept the story she wrote, because she completely changes the personalities of these figures as we know them from the years of reasearch done by actual historians. I am all for using creative license to ""fill in the gaps"", but Gregory uses far too much license in this book, and instead changes the facts for her own interest--in order to make Anne appear as the horrible, manipulative sister, while Mary is an innocent victim of Anne's wrath. It is proposterous. For example, Gregory completely ignores Mary's behavior in France before she joined the Tudor court. Historians are pretty certain that she slept with the King of France, as well as others, during her time there. Gregory chooses to believe that Mary is a virgin when she comes to Henry, just to make her appear more innocent. Another example is Anne making Henry Carey her ward. She did this because Mary did not have enough money to give Henry a proper education, so Anne was helping her, and actually did an extremely nice thing by giving him such a good education. Gregory spins this to make it seem like Anne is stealing Henry from Mary--a ridiculous notion and quite the opposite of what actually happened.Besides the switching around of facts, the book isn't even very well written. The characters are very black and white, as is true in most of Gregory's novels (one woman=good, other woman=bad). I would not recommend this book to anyone.. if I could give it a 0 star review, I would have." +2758,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1YIYOAUTKQE6,Rachel,15/17,1.0,1219881600,"Atrocious, unpleasant hatchet-job","Historical fiction is a favourite guilty pleasure of mine, and I came to this book with no pre-conceptions; in fact, I actually expected to like it. Unfortunately, and many reviewers have said it more eloquently than I, TOBG is poorly-written, vulgar and offensive on a number of levels. It is reminiscent of self-indulgent internet fanfic, where the only constructive criticism received must have been along the lines of ""Soooo need more!!1!!!"" I am still mystified as to how it even got published in its current form.I get that this is historical _fiction_, and that that means an author is free to make up details as he or she sees fit. Of course, one can never expect complete accuracy; I am pretty tolerant of historical errors and literary licence, provided that these are acknowledged and disclosed to the reader. I've enjoyed numerous historical novels, most of which could never be regarded as classic literature or accurate, but which bring to life the era and the personalities vividly. I did not expect the definitive biography of Anne and Mary Boleyn by any stretch of the imagination. What I did expect though was at least an attempt at treating the characters with a modicum of respect and remaining true as far as possible to what we know about them, as well as a gripping and enjoyable story. TOBG provided neither.This author claims to be a ""feminist historian."" However there is nothing ""feminist"" about the portrayal of the women here, in fact like a previous reviewer, I think it's bordering on misogynist: Mary and Anne are reduced to one-dimensional representatives of the ""Madonna/whore"" stereotype, with Mary being the ultimate Mary Sue, embodiment of all that is pure and virtuous (complete with some 21st century attitudes about marrying for love), and Anne a vicious, megalomaniacal, amoral troll with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Mary's reputation - which comes to us from contemporary accounts - as a good-time girl of the French court is completely whitewashed over; in this universe, she is a sweet, innocent teenager when she becomes Henry VIII's mistress. There's no sign of Anne Boleyn, the cultured, very well-educated, multilingual Renaissance lady and Queen, who produced the great Elizabeth I and during her lifetime, patronised the arts, generously dispensed charity and was deeply interested in religious reform, to name just a few things.This novel does both of these women, as well as the other characters, a disservice with this flat, caricatured portrayal. There is no light and shade, no complexity; in fact, some of the characterisations are completely implausible. The dialogue is frequently anachronistic, the prose is often turgid and heavy-handed - Gregory tells, rather than shows - and I found myself skim-reading a lot of it just to finish it. The language evokes little sense of the period, with characters being attributed with modern attitudes and opinions. It takes some doing, but TOBG manages to turn interesting, dramatic and complex events into a dreary, tedious family soap opera, with a substantial dose of gratuitous and disturbing sleaze.Fiction dealing with people who really existed is tough to write, as I believe there is a responsibility to remain as close to the facts as we know them as possible; one must have very good reason to diverge from the accepted historical record. This means researching the era and the personalities almost as thoroughly as one would a biography. As other reviewers have pointed out, Gregory's research - if the listed bibliography is all that was consulted - appears shoddy at best: she ignores the definitive biography of Anne Boleyn by Eric Ives, for example. Some of the plot elements are so removed from the historical record (let alone basic human psychology) and thus so implausible that it is hard to take the novel seriously. Mary becoming Henry's mistress at 13 - why make her so young? Anne marrying Henry Percy? Being sent to France as ""punishment""? Henry VIII fathering both of Mary Boleyn's children? The Boleyn parents effectively being pimps for their daughters? Anne seducing Henry away from her sister? ""Stealing"" or ""abducting"" Mary's son to establish him as a ""potential Tudor-Boleyn heir""? George Boleyn sleeping with Francis Weston (this element did nothing to advance the story whatsoever, and seemed to be included for the sake of it) but also happens to be sexually attracted to his sister ... and acts on it? Mark Smeaton being _ Weston_'s musician? Deformed incest babies? The list goes on. Sorry, just no.Again, an author is entitled to take liberties and deviate from the historical record for dramatic purposes, but here, there is no disclosure that this has occurred; in fact, there has been repeated insistence to the contrary. Further, it is difficult to see how the plot and the central themes of the novel would have suffered had some of the above elements been accurate.This would have been a far better novel had it focused on purely imaginary characters, set in Tudor times. The same themes could have been explored just as effectively had the protagonists been say, two fictional noblewomen vying for the attention of the Duke of Whatevershire, and there is no restriction on how the personalities are portrayed or the course of events.I respect the fact that many readers have enjoyed this novel for what it is, but I sincerely hope those whose interest in the period has been sparked by TOBG will go beyond this frankly bizarre alternate universe and sketchy bibliography, and discover the fascinating story of the _real_ Anne Boleyn. Excellent non-fiction sources include Ives' ""The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn""; and Antonia Fraser and David Starkey's works on the six wives. As for novels about Anne Boleyn - although dated, the best I've found are probably those by Margaret Campbell Barnes (""Brief Gaudy Hour"") and Jean Plaidy (""Murder Most Royal"")." +2759,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AEY9UWRQ92SW6,"L. White ""WhiteLG""",2/3,5.0,1040947200,WOW!!!!!,"I purchased the hardcover when I visited London in January 2002, I was so facinated by Philippa Gregory manner of emblishing her stories with human passion and historical facts. I tried to purchase the book soon after in the states and it was not out yet. In fact, I found only two hardcovers. Now that the paperback is out, I have given each of my friends a copy. After reading this book, I ask myself why we don't incorporate European History in our schools. It is far more interesting, to me anyways." +2760,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AA9JHHATBE1DD,"E. Randall ""What Would Audrey Hepburn Do?""",0/3,5.0,1199318400,EXCELLENT READ,It is said perfectly in one of the critiques on the book - If you want a page-turner without giving up your reputation for reading literature - read this book! +2761,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A39CTS8WWPP3SF,"Sharon Naylor ""Author of over 35 wedding book...",1/2,5.0,1178841600,The perfect book club selection,"I absolutely LOVED this book! It was my first experience with Philippa Gregory's work, and now I'm reading *all* of her novels. This is a fantastic transporting in time to an amazing period in history with all the intrigue of the Tudor court, and unforgettable characters. It takes an amazing level of talent to dive into the past, research real historical figures, then bring them to life on the page. Best of all, Gregory's plot twists and turns create real intrigue. It's an effort to *stop* reading on some nights when my tired eyes just won't stay open long enough to enjoy more of it." +2762,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AH30WF3K981PR,Summerbookworm,0/1,5.0,1121040000,more than your normal historical fiction,"This novel is so JUICY! It was reccommended to me by one of my best friends who is a history buff, so i had my reservations about reading it at first, thinking that it would be a bunch of facts thrown together with a simple plot - But as soon as i picked up this monster of a novel, i could not put it down!the relationships are intricate and the characters are fascinating... overall a really great read." +2763,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3UJJGY799F76I,I ain't no porn writer,0/0,5.0,1087776000,absolute power corrupts absolutely,"Based on a true story, this is perhaps the best historical novel I've read this year. Although long, this is a good sexy read, a real page-turner. Fine characterizations.Sisters are supposed to be best friends. But what happens when a man they both want gets between them and has them both? This is a convincing fictional re-telling of the story of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, told from the point-of-view of her sister Mary. It's a tale of power-seeking, ambitious scheming, seduction and love, and heads being put on the chopping block. This story of rivalry and intrigue makes history fun!David Rehakauthor of ""Love and Madness""" +2764,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3TYRN82S2P7K7,saabataj,0/0,5.0,1063411200,Engrossing,"The Other Boleyn Girl...I wanted to see BBC's version of the book so bad because I thought I would love it, I couldn't find the video and started the book instead.At first I din't like it at all. Everyone is so selfish, immature, evil-minded and all they care about is money, titles and [physical activity], the women are mere [physical activity] objects but even that only until they can make baby boy heirs, they have no voice, no power, no money of their own, no control of their lives, there's too much adultery and while the men are justified, it's the women that face the hurt, and I hate hate hate books with sisters that are each other's rivals and knife each other's back. But I told myself, I'll read just a little bit more to see where it's going and will definitely not continue if this is how it's going to be.And I found myself unable to put it down.- Maybe it's my current classics and historical books obssession- maybe it took a while to settle into the period in which it is set and at last come to terms that this was 1530s after all...I think this was a bit difficult to sink in because the language has a modern feel to it- maybe it's Mary's narrative voice, especially during the middle of the book, where one can feel sympathy for her.- maybe it's Queen Katherine, the Spanish princess of Aragon and her quiet dignity and strength- maybe it's Mary's love of Queen K, inspite of all Mary's betrayals of herbecause of her family- maybe it's because I want to see Mary do something for herself and stand up to her Boleyn and Howard family's evil machinations- maybe it's because I want to see Anne, quite probably the most ambitious woman of her times, succeed because she is so ambitious, willing to work for it, and independently competant; but I am torn because I also want her to redeem herself through some failure, because she is so selfish, and stomped everyone in her way to get there including her sister who means her no harm, I want her to realize it's not all worth it.- maybe it's George- maybe I'm still waiting for the sisters to love each other as sistersI don't know which of the above but I'm still curious about it and reading it." +2765,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2V3Y48ZEVQ9HQ,J. Watson,1/3,5.0,1203379200,"Loved it, sad it had to end!","I am such a huge fan of Phillippa Gregory -- and this book started it all. This historical fiction is exceptionally well-researched, and keeps you caught up in the sexy drama of the relationships between Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn & her sister Mary Boleyn, while offering some insight to the powerful family leaders trying to influence the king. Offers a beautiful feel for the period. Even though you know what's going to happen to Anne, it's a joy to read, and I hated for this book to end!" +2766,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3DOFEBQQQ6H4S,"M. Anderson -. Peters ""Marley""",2/3,4.0,1206748800,The Other Boleyn Girl,"Read the book in one seating. Fiction, non fiction and history all thrown together; how great." +2767,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,,,0/0,5.0,1077148800,AN ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC READ.,This is such a fantastic book. Once you start reading it you just won't be able to put it down. It makes history come to life in a way that you would never have thought possible. I would recommend this without hesitation to anybody with a love of books. +2768,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AVGDORH5DZYB0,"Unoduck ""Busy mommy""",1/2,5.0,1152144000,To Each His Own!,"I am amazed that there are people out there that did not like this book, because I could NOT put it down!It was one of the best reads I have had in a while. It was fascinating to get a look inside the English court of the times. No, it is not a textbook of history, but the author has done her research of the times and it shows.Reading it, I alternated between fury, sadness, delight, and all things in bewtween - which is what a truly good book should do to your senses!" +2769,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1OTBZAFIWABYN,mamaz2mikie,0/0,5.0,1303689600,love it,i am going to keep it simple..... beautiful book.. worth the read... i would totaly lose track of time when i was reading... i became so into the story +2770,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,ASDJDW1X004XJ,Claire Woolfolk,9/9,1.0,1212710400,Disappointing is an Understatement,"If you're looking for well developed characters, thoughtful dialogue, or intellectual stimulation, don't pick up this book. The Tudor period is fascinating and offers all you need for a gripping plot. The story itself is quite intriguing when written about by others. Despite hearing rave reviews, I found Philippa Gregory's prose to be poorly constructed and incredibly irritating. I wasn't bothered by the historical inaccuracies; after all, it is a ""novel"" and many of the facts are debatable.If you want a long read on par with a Harlequin Romance (actually, those are better), then this would be a perfect fit. I would have given ""0"" stars if I could have." +2771,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,,,3/3,3.0,1047081600,An Intresting Approach,"For the most part I liked this book. It was an interesting approach to have Mary, Anne's sister, narrate the story. It's a twist, and I admire the author for trying it. However, I do believed the story dragged on in some parts. At times I felt as if it would never end. I don't blame the author so much as I do the editor who could have fixed this problem. I enjoyed Mary's evolution, but I was annoyed by her constant whining about her kids. Overall, I would have to say I liked this book. But if you are a die hard history freak, who wants every detail correct, you may not like this book. The author does take some liberties." +2772,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1OAZZLHNJ0GR3,Liza Knight,1/2,5.0,1261872000,"Mary Boleyn, the Favored Boleyn Girl","Literary critics will point out that Gregory's style is not based upon her literary prowess and descriptions. Gregory is able to engage the reader with a solid voice with the main character Mary Boleyn to the infamous Anne Boleyn. The heroine, Mary has her faults and her positive traits that allows her to be a well rounded character.She is thrust into the bed of King Henry the VIII after it is learned that the Queen and him fear they will never bear a male heir. You will notice that Gregory excels at displaying the status of women as pawns during this time period through Mary's explanation of events. She was recently married to a courtier, but it hardly mattered as the Boleyn and Howard family (Mary's mother belonged to the powerful Howard family) cared first and foremost about their advancement in the court and their female daughters were merely pawns in this game.Mary falls in love with the King, but everything goes awry. She gives him two children, but King Henry is fickle and starts to lose interest when the family throws Anne into the mix ensuring that he keeps himself interested in a Boleyn girl, any Boleyn really.What happens after the failed extra marital affair is where the story truly begins. Mary at one point attempts to rekindle her relationship with her husband, but the fates have other plans in store for her. When she finally finds love, it becomes one of the best moments in the novel. He is simple, stoic, neither flashy nor grand and offers Mary the one thing she desires most and that is independence and an identity, which she wasn't afforded being a Boleyn sister.It's difficult to see how Mary wants to be loyal to the Queen, but is forced to betray her due to the hold that her family has on her. Even her depiction of Anne's ascension to the throne is enough to make one shudder. The historical theories that are inserted are believable and the historical setting is seen as a backdrop, a detail, not something to become fixated and lecture the reader on. Any event of significance or social custom is slyly introduced so that the flow of the story is not broken.This book is a must read for historical readers, readers who seek a strong female voice (with flaws mind you), and those who mistakenly saw the movie, before reading the book. You will not be disappointed." +2773,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3T2JX1MWYOCSE,"Emma de Soleil ""I moved to the UK for another...",18/22,1.0,1186876800,An insult to history,"Now, I do not mind some artistic freedom, I.E. condensing the time frame, adding new characters and events as long as the truth remains intact. Not so here and as a modern woman it SICKENS me to see a nobody like Mary Boleyn who, during her time, was known as a slut and stupid, easy tramp, being elevated to be innocent heroine while a a fascinating, brilliant woman like Anne Boleyn is turned into a tasteless, swearing, slutty bitch. Where is Anne's wit, her elegance, her charm and her lively humor? Hasn't poor Anne been maligned enough? And this author even believes that she committed incest and adultery, something that NO historian worth his money would agree with? Warnicke, the historian Gregory based some of her theories on, frigging distanced herself from this drivel, what does that tell you?Another thing that BUGGED me senseless: The portrayal of Henry as a pedophile, screwing 13 year old Mary Boleyn. YUCK.Badly researched, distorted, perverted and sickening drivel posing a literature. And of course this pile of rotten garbage will be a huge movie next year, trash always secures profit while the truth may not be ""interesting"" enough. It took centuries to clear at least most of Anne's reputation from all the filth thrown at her by ignorant fools. Now all that work will be rendered useless by this awful book and the upcoming film. BRAVO, Miss Gregory, I hope you're happy! Absolutely revolting and disgusting!" +2774,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3PRPMC3N4GCVF,"S. Becker ""sminismoni""",3/4,4.0,1127260800,Fact and fiction blend seemlessly,"Most fans of historical fiction are probably familiar with the story of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. His divorce from Catherine of Aragon, and the events leading to Anne's execution have been dramatised many times. But not much is known about Anne's younger sister Mary, who is known to have interested Henry well before these events.""The Other Boleyn GIrl"" is told from Mary's point of view, and highlights the cut-throat atmosphere of the Tudor court. Once her family realise that Mary has caught the King's eye, they instruct her on every move, hoping that the king's affection will translate into positions, titles and power. And when Anne eventually fascinates Henry even more, they plainly discard Mary to back her more ambitious sister.But the book deals with Mary's feelings as well. We watch her grow from a girl who is married off at 13 to someone she barely knows, to a teenager smitten with the attentions of a powerful sovereign. Eventually she becomes a mother and finds love with a simple country man. But even so, her personal life is forever at the mercy of the changeable court, and so often she must drop her personal concerns to aid her family retain power, a job she doesn't relish.Since there is little historical fact known about Mary Boleyn (it isn't even sure when she was born), Philippa Gregory has chosen a protagonist who is involved with interesting actual events, but can be conveniently moulded to fit the form of fiction. So beware, not all you read about Mary and Anne may be strictly true. But the story is constructed so well, and the writing so entertaining, that I wasn't even concerned by the parts I knew weren't correct.This is good quality historical fiction which I recommend to any lover of the genre. Enough of the book is based on fact, so the educated reader doesn't feel duped, and the fictional parts blend seemlessly. Not to mention, they make this book a dramatic and entertaining read which I had trouble putting down." +2775,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1U6LHXGPIJ4OJ,Avid Reader,2/2,4.0,1161043200,Compelling story for a non-historical fiction reader,"I do not typically enjoy historical fiction especially if the book focuses too much on the historical facts than on creating a story. However, this book changed my thinking. The story was extremely compelling in its description of life in the Royal Court as well as family ambitions and gender roles during that period. I forgot that I was actually learning about history because I became so involved in the story. Also, the book included many surprises which I did not imagine. Just an incredible read overall." +2776,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A817GS5Y8Q6SK,"Devon R. Degarmo ""Reading Teacher""",1/2,5.0,1171843200,Outstanding reading!,This was the first of Ms. Gregory's books that I've read and I can't wait to read more! She tells a great story. Some of the best historical fiction I've ever read! +2777,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1RNGMC9YD71QA,Trista Morrison,1/1,5.0,1238803200,Other Boleyn Girl - classic court intrigue and drama,"I think I could read this book again and again and never get tired of it. I've enjoyed every Philippa Gregory book, but this is my favorite. It's a tale of two sisters born into one of the most ambitious families in the court of King Henry VIII. Rivals since birth, best friends and worst enemies, their scheming uncle positions them to catch the eye of the king, a calling that leads them in vastly different directions. Full of suspense, sensuality, emotion and delicious detail that recreates a court in which a smile could change your fortune and a whisper could send you to the scaffold." +2778,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2IAWMDW6G60AN,"Lubna Sayed ""Lubi Lafdewali""",1/2,5.0,1170979200,Par Excellence!,"It's so Magical, the way P.Gregory tells this story. I lived with each character as the story progressed...I could relate to their fears, their heart-breaks, their passion, their thrills!This book is definitely my first brilliant read of the year, so far! :)" +2779,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A38XASLNXCETWS,history buff,1/1,5.0,1190937600,Terrific book,I started reading this book and couldnt put it down. I am hooked on Phillipa Gregory novels now! I agree with those that say she really brings the historical figures to life in a very plausible way. I bought the Boleyn Inheritance and another of her older novels because I was so happy with this book! I am usually a true crime and history reader but I enjoyed this fiction and recommend it to all. +2780,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A29GHWEF0G59MJ,"""marciann""",8/8,5.0,1036627200,A New View of Controversial Tudor England,"As an enthusiast of this period in English history and of Henry VIII, I found this book thoroughly enjoyable. It's very readable, accessible style allows the reader to easily dive into early 16th century England. But, what is truly special about this book which is obviously fiction, is that it encompasses a great amount of accurate historical fact, and that it offers a rare glimpse of what it was probably like for the Boleyn women in Kings Henry's life. It's rich in luscious detail that evokes the spirit, controversiality and excesses of life in the Court of Henry VIII. I thoroughly enjoyed this book and highly recommend it to anyone who loves historical fiction and is fascinated with Henry and his reign." +2781,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3192IPOV4ZCL1,"""eliza14""",39/46,5.0,1058918400,A quality read -- and solidly researched,"I'm glad so many readers appreciate this book's terrific pacing and riveting narrative. Anne Boleyn's rise and fall is one of the great, intriguing stories of English history, and Philippa Gregory does it ample justice. An extra spin and spice is gained by viewing events through the eyes of Mary, Anne's sister and predecessor in sexual intrigue with Henry VIII.Gregory's portrayal of life in an ambitious, rapacious family is vivid and chilling. Mary Boleyn is ambivalent about the costs of her family's high ambition but absolutely vulnerable to its every demand. It says much about Gregory's persuasiveness as a storyteller that Mary remains a sympathetic figure even as she participates in schemes that run counter to her own conscience.Regarding the assertions that Gregory gets her historical facts wrong, it should be noted that recent scholarship does indeed place Anne as the elder sister and Mary the younger (the birth order used by Gregory).There is no contemporary record as to when either Boleyn girl was born. However, the family's decision to send Anne -- not Mary -- to be educated abroad at the court of Margaret, regent of the Netherlands, is cited by recent biographers as important evidence that Anne must have been the elder sister: ""By contemporary custom, the younger child would not have been favored with such a splendid opportunity to the detriment of her older sister..."" (Anne later spent additional time abroad at the court of France.)Mary Boleyn was the first sister married, something that would normally indicate she was the elder sister. But Anne was still abroad at the time, and her family may have been hoping for a more splendid match for her with a European nobleman. There is also evidence that the Boleyns were trying (ultimately without success) to betroth Anne to the heir of the earl of Ormond. Both circumstances would explain why they were willing to defer the marriage of an elder daughter and go ahead with an advantageous, though not as splendid, union for their younger girl. These observations come from Retha Warnicke's scholarly study of Anne's life, which Gregory cites as one of her major sources.Sorry if I made eyes glaze over with all this, but it really is unfair to assert that Gregory (whose books are in general distinguished by careful craftmanship) fouled up her facts or distorted them for the sake of a better story. She definitely makes artful conjectures -- impossible to avoid with subjects of whom very few hard facts are known. But her conjectures fall within a solid historical framework.If you enjoyed Gregory's fluid, page-turning touch in this book, take a look at some of her other historical fiction, such as her ""Wideacre"" trilogy." +2782,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A103GBQKT09043,R. J. Bilicki,1/2,5.0,1140307200,History I Didn't Learn In School,"Another great book by Philppa Gregory. An Intense story about king, court and passionate rivals set in the time of Henery VIII. This is one book you wont want to put down...even if you think know the end of the story" +2783,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AOI3NT6DI8N6A,"S. DeMoss ""Sally DeMoss""",2/6,4.0,1127606400,The Other Boleyn Girl,Very interesting history of the famous era of Henry VIII. Great to read and entirely entertaining. The characters are vivid. +2784,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1M15DWFPABCC3,"Alyssa ""alyssac8""",0/1,5.0,1038960000,I truly enjoyed this book and grieved when I was finished.,This book had the perfect combination of true facts and fiction to keep me interested and excited with every page. It is a TERRIFIC book for a book club. Everyone I know who read it LOVED it. I even gave up napping while my son was sleeping to read!! ENJOY! +2785,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A3MXSTB93HA76R,berry,0/1,4.0,1352764800,a bit of history!,"I thoroughly enjoyed this book . It has all the elements of a good romantic and historic novel .Excellent story telling , you just want to keep turning the pages for more drama and excitement.It was so nice to immerse yourself in another time in history." +2786,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2LBEJWWYGIX10,Aoifsie,0/0,4.0,1360195200,An easy and enjoyable read,"I had seen these books in shops many times but never thought to read one until now, and now I'm mourning all of that wasted time!! I really enjoyed this book. It didn't require excessive concentration so it was easy to relax while reading. It was fascinating to learn about these historical figures through the eyes of the overlooked younger sister of Anne Boleyn, and the author succeeded in bringing the characters to life in a highly masterful way." +2787,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A39NS429FYXAD1,"Nelson Aspen ""Author/Journalist""",3/6,5.0,1056326400,Curl up with a box of chocolates...,"...and enjoy this engaging historical soap opera! A novel approach to the Henry VIII/Anne Boleyn love affair, told from the point of view of Anne's sister, Mary...largely ignored and unknown by history. The author paints a deliciously shrewish Anne...it's a medieval Melrose Place, rich with vivid detail!" +2788,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,ANJ1POQ7LKFME,Marge,2/2,3.0,1120176000,"Mirror, Mirror on the wall...","I decided to read this book because it was recommended to me by a friend. The plot mirrors the title of ""the Other Boleyn Girl"" by telling the fictional account of Anne Boleyn's sister, Mary.I found that the plot developed quite slowly. The book was good, however I feel that it could have been cut quite a bit shorter than it was. I did like the different perspective from which it was written, but overall, the plot was very circular, and lacked any suspense. I felt as if I knew exactly what was going to happen throughout the whole novel, and for the most part, I did. This novel does a good job at aligning the fiction with the fact, but I think it could have been done better. I am kind of indifferent towards this book. I do however, recommend that if you start it, you finish it." +2789,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,,,0/0,4.0,1100822400,The best novel of 2004 (in my opinion),"This book was very good. It told you all about the passion and rivalry between Mary and Anne Boleyn as they fought to bed the king and become queen. This book doesn't have a lot of grusome events described in it, considering its subject. If you like history, you'll want to read this book.But,it has lots of English Lituature, which can take a while to read. It has a lot of passionate and sexy scenes, so it might confuse young readers. I give it 4 out of 5 stars." +2790,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1Z2EREQ699CWM,C. Lefkowitch,3/4,5.0,1106092800,truly fabulous work of historical fiction,"I just finished The Other Boleyn Girl and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I don't usually go for historical fiction since history is usally dry and fiction is not meant to be taken as more than creative license. But Phillip Gregory has blended both mediums masterfully. I found using Mary as the narrator, the infamous Anne Boleyn's sister very clever since so much is historiclly documented about Anne and very little is actually known about Mary. We are told that Anne is older and was sent to be trained in the French court and that Mary is the younger sister being married at aged 12 and placed as Queen Katherine's lady in waiting. I have always found Anne Boleyn's tale fascinating.Gregory is not a historian, so if she erred somewhat on the order and dates of some of the demises of the famous clergy or wars, so be it. At times I forgot I was reading fiction I got so caught up in the political intrigue and the Howard family's lust for power at the expense of their own kin. Her portrayal of George Boleyn was very colorful though there is no way to know if the allegations of him being homosexual or whether he actually did engage in incest to help his sister Anne beget a son to save her posisiton are true. The sibling rivalry between Anne and mary plays true. Anne uses her sister so meanly in her asirations to become queen, yet Mary is still supportive of her sister to the very end as Anne falls from grace and is executed.We see Mary, who truly cares for the king being pushed by her family to keep the interest of the king for their selfish rise in power and then callously pushed aside by both the king and her family when neither have further use for her. While Anne is ruthless, and self serving, Mary matures and eventually develops the courage to take control of her life by marrying the man she loves and defying her overbearing family. I recommend this book this anyone who is drawn to this famous period of history and wants to see it ""come alive"" in print." +2791,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1V863B58VQEQ0,Grottis,1/2,5.0,1208476800,Not possible to give less than 5 stars!,This is a book that is impossible to put down! It capture you from page one til the last page. Just very well written and exciting! Buy it today! +2792,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2HL7TRPMKAL8B,Romashka,2/2,2.0,1310169600,"Mildly interesting, somewhat redundant book","The book prompted me to do some research into the historic facts and figures, and for that alone, I am grateful. As for the book itself, I was glad to be done with it. The characters had no development and seemed very one-dimensional. There were too many scenes that seemed redundant and too many conversations that kept reiterating the same points over and over. As a reader, I wished the author had respected me enough to allow me to make my own conclusions instead of beating me over the head with hers. How many times do you need to read about the treatment of the Boleyn girls by their family to grasp that they were a commodity rather than human beings? I got it the first time. All the other references to the same point felt slightly insulting.I liked the details of life in court: dresses, fashion, political events and developments in the background. I did not like that each main character represented ONE personality trait: Anne is an embodiment of blind ambition, Mary is the obedient female, George is a calculating, spineless brother, uncle and father (interchangeable, by the way) together represent the dominating, heartless male, and mom is a cold witch whose character is so underdeveloped it's hard to picture her altogether.In the end, the book felt like a dessert you eat because it's there, not because it's irresistible or worth the calories." +2793,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,ATPNRNZ10DGQQ,"Elizabeth A. Lane ""Puppylove""",2/4,5.0,1244073600,Amazing Read!,"i just recently took up reading, and i have a problem staying interested in a book. when i saw how thick this story was, i got discouraged, but began to read anyways. as soon as i started, i couldn't put it down! i LOVED this book! it was amazing! the author really takes you into the book, and makes you feel like your right there in 1535 with the characters! i definitely recommend this book!" +2794,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1TSCM52CVFMRG,S. Beauman,0/0,5.0,1357603200,Gregory does it again!,"As usual, I enjoyed this novel by Philippa Gregory. I like the way she writes this series in the first person. I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys early British Monarchy history. It is well researched." +2795,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A2YSGL7WVLBUV1,"Karen O' Meara ""Karen O' Meara""",0/1,4.0,1225670400,The Other Boleyn Girl,"Having Studied History in College and recently watched the film of ""The Other Boleyn Girl"", i was very impressed with the book and found it hard to put it down, it had very vivid images and one could almost imagine themselves in each scene looking on as the story unfolded. Very enjoyable read and gave a great insight into the the Boleyn's as a family." +2796,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A1NTCBYG873YMB,K. Preston,1/2,5.0,1106697600,Captivatingly fabulous!!!,"This was one of the most captivating novels I have read in a very long time. The historical perspectives were intriguing, the plot lines were riveting. I finished this at midnight last night and began the sequel, The Queen's Fool, at 6am this morning. What a talented writer Gregory is to have captured the tenor of the royal court while engaging the reader in this fast-paced narrative." +2797,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AJN51FYZRF9EY,Ketchup,0/1,2.0,1274572800,Kindle eBook more expensive than print copy,"I couldn't put this book down. It's a real page turner and kept me up til 3 am trying to finish it before I had to go to sleep. Full love/drama which is what I love about this one.While I found this book to be an excellent read, I am disappointed in the pricing. The Kindle eBook edition is $12.99 while the print version is only $10.88. eBooks cost essentially nothing to distribute, so why the eBook version costs more baffles me. This price difference made me so angry I refused to purchase this eBook or the print version and give the publishers money for ripping me off. I borrowed the print version of this book from a friend instead." +2798,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,A31CDB9RZ1HOJC,"V .V. E ""avid reader""",1/1,5.0,1139184000,Absolutely Brilliant,"This is an absolutely brilliant read. What a page turner, I could not put this book down till it was finished and even then I drove everyone I spoke to crazy because all I did was talk about it. Philippa Gregory did such a wonderful job of telling this story from a non-conventional point of view so that it appeals to both fictional and non-fictional readers. I totally recommend it." +2799,0753113880,The Other Boleyn Girl,,AX3DVJW6PROA3,"Noreen Marshall ""honora14""",1/2,5.0,1243382400,Another View of History,"The point of view of Mary Boleyn is unique. The viperous political backstabbing within her own family, and the protituting of daughters by their own father is something the modern generation finds unthinkable. The clear, blind ambition of Anne, and the cowardice of George are in direct opposition to Mary's quiet nature. Uncle Howard (The Duke of Norfolk) is comparable to Rasputin in his manipulations. A great read, and leaves you with a yen for more." +2800,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2062FPGYJ6IQM,"jimnypivo ""Jim Hisson""",24/24,1.0,1186617600,768 pages where almost nothing happens.,"I just finished reading *Shelters of Stone* after it sat on my bookcase for almost four years. I enjoyed all four of the preceding novels. Therefore, I forsook my '39 page rule' (if the author hasn't hooked me by the 39th page, I give the book away.) I expected that in almost 800-pages, Ms. Jean would get around to introducing new concepts, new cultures, new `happenings', or new stuff. But *SoS* turned into a repetitious travelogue of *Plains of Passage*. It is long, ponderous, dull, and boring!I was astounded when I noticed that this is review #756, and the average rating is 2.5 stars. Look at the bell-shaped curve of 1 and 2 star reviews predominating, tapering to the least amount of 5 and 4 star reviews.The story dies after page 200, the author seemingly tired of writing the book and proceeded to pad it with 570 more pages of repetitive recollections from past novels instead of finishing it off in 400 pages. Perhaps Ms. Auel was paid by the word!But I kept plugging away, getting more and more upset at Ms. Auel for explaining almost everything repeatedly--the long-winded name introductions; the stories of finding and domesticating her animals; the customs of the Clan, how much an angry Brukenval looked like her old tormenter Broud. Even the `sharing Pleasures' parts were repetitious. And when the `The Mother's Song' was repeated for the 17th time, I almost gagged.What's also bad about this mammoth effort is that nothing happens. No new inventions and no new places (other than some under-described caves and cave paintings). She introduces new characters, but most are one-dimensional and uninteresting. The ones who do show some promise--like Brukenval, or Larimar the brewer, Echozar of the mixed spirits, or even the ponderous Zenandoni are neglected, under-described, or under-utilized. Auel prefers her repetition to fleshing out these characters, creating interest, and advancing the story line.In the previous novels Ayla and Jondalar were responsible for most of the technological and philosophical advancements of humankind to that point: the spear thrower, use of flint and steel in starting fires, the sewing needle, domestication of the wolf and horse, the horse halter, the travois, human genetics theory (Ayla's theory of mixed spirits), and where babies really do come from. In *SoS*, Ayla and Jondalar invent nothing, go almost nowhere, and do little except share Pleasures, get mated and have a baby. Oh yeah, I forgot. Jondalar's Mom does invent weaving.There are no major threats from nature, animals or people; no clash of cultures. Just flares of Cro-Magnon temper and different opinions on the nature of `flatheads'.For almost 800 pages I kept waiting for something to happen, for Durc to show up at the head of The Clan. For a blizzard, a flood, a plague or earthquake. Another adventure or trip somewhere would have been nice. There wasn't even the trademark Auel anthropological monograph on how to make a flint axe head, basket or garment.I'll probably get suckered into the next/last book in the series if she ever completes it. But first I'll read the Amazon reviewers opinions and if it is recommended by you, I will rigorously apply my 39-page rule." +2801,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1H08CMM6MRT3Z,Linda S Parker,3/7,4.0,1024012800,Reliving Ayla's story.........,"I've read so many negative reviews.......gee it seems that everyone just wants action and suspense. I for one was so relieved to continue the imaginative story of Ayla's life and it not just be tragedy after tragedy.I loved all the books (sure, some more than others) but; no one's life can be filled with only tragedy. Ayla deserved peace and serenity. Yet, I know there is more to come... (I would love to see a book about the clan and Durc after Ayla left and what becomes of him -- these books could go on forever!)I just enjoyed reading of her finally enjoying life, happiness and love.My advice, just enjoy the serenity and imagine having your own Jondalar!" +2802,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A28BTD28NDLK2B,Gail,4/4,2.0,1021852800,Hoping for More DETAILS,"I just finished reading Shelters of Stone and I have to say that I expected more in the PLOT department. I enjoyed the new adventures of Ayla and Jondalar in the land of the Zelandonii. I appreciated that they have finally reached their destination and can rest... I wanted to learn so much more about ""what happens next"". I think that there are really only 5 or 6 major events in the story and they are, for the most part, left in limbo for the next book. I understand the concept of leave them wanting more... but I would have liked to get a few of the book' issues resolved in the 700+ pages. By the time I was at the end of the book, I felt that there was still so much story to tell...As I was preparing for the release of book 5 I did refresh my memory regarding the storylines of the other 4 books. I am sure any other fans did the same. Most of the repetition was not necessary. I got tired of reading the repetitive sections of the story and found that I was skimming the text until I got to something new... although I think that I too may have memorized the song of the Mother. How many meetings must be chaired for there to be any action on the part of the Zelandonii regarding Ayla's ""new information"" regarding flatheads.I was very interested with the storyline between Ayla and ""The First"", I suppose it could have been resolved sooner... not much of a surprise there, especially considering her history in the previous books has been sort of leading up to this. I got rather frustrated that I was the one with the realization before Ayla. Usually she is so perceptive... maybe with others and not herself???This being said, I am still looking forward to book 6 and I hope that it will answer my questions and tie up all the loose ends in Ayla's Journey. I just hope that Ms. Auel gives me a lot more plot and a lot more credit." +2803,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2D0MQPZY994JG,Tereasa Petrovich,4/4,2.0,1020384000,Nothing new here.....700+ pages of rerun,What a bitter disapointment/a repeat of all books up to now/she meets the zelandoni they are scared of her/ they grow to accept her she has Jondalars child book ends with her agreeing that she is a Zelondona their name for mog-ur or mamuti. Some of the pages seemed word for word from her other books. It was clear this book was written for profit not because she had nanyrthing new or interesting to add........ +2804,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A3BDETQDGNGR2P,"""paralegal2222""",3/3,1.0,1030838400,A Big Let-Down; Hugely Disappointed.,"Disappointed is just the tip of the glacier; I also felt betrayed by Jean Auel. If she could not be more imaginative, she shouldn't have written another book. There is absolutely no tenuous story line. There is no intrigue and tension. Come on, do you think having to wear boy's underwear in public is high stakes? Even the birth of Ayla's child is an anticlimax, and the baby's name is atrocious. Every possibility of danger alluded to is dropped by the wayside. Nothing pans out. After reading adnauseam about the strange rock formation, and previous books' reference to them, nothing huge is revealed. Much repetition and nothing new, other than being a lengthy author's forward to her next sequel.My daughter bought me this book for Mother's Day, and I had looked forward to reading it for 10 years. I absolutely love all of the other books in the series and still continue to re-read them yearly. It pains me to have to give such a negative review for Shelters of Stone. I'll definitely read the next installment; however, I'll borrow it from the library first before I decide to purchase." +2805,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2MVZUXG72843I,"Edwin J. Staples ""Ed Staples""",0/0,3.0,1317340800,"Amazing detail, above average fiction","I don't know what the haters out there were expecting. Yes, the first book was amazing, and yes, every other book since then has failed to replicate the magic of Clan of the Cave Bear, but the time to be surprised by the change of tone was the second book, when Auel committed fully to a romantic/naturalist plot. Looking over the reviews, people seem to be shocked with each book following the same narrative thread, and exhaustive detail of its predecessors.Each of the first 5 books has kept my attention all the way through (and I don't read a lot of 700-page books). Each one has had amazing detail about the period. The worst I can say is that the authors goes into exhaustive detail about things we already heard, and introduces us to dozens of characters we can't always keep straight.Compared to most new fiction, this is a terrific book. Unfortunately, compared to what we knew Auel can do, it's only above average." +2806,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A25KT28499FVPJ,Patricia,21/26,4.0,1092700800,These reviews are better than the book!,"I've spent the past week reading nearly 700 Amazon reviews of this book. The reviews are more entertaining than the novel! Most are hysterically funny, witty and sarcastic. They are also hard-hitting and get right to the point. I wonder if Jean Auel has read them?Incidently, I just saw an online photo of Jean supposedly taken in 2002 and she looks NOTHING like she does on the back cover flap of ""Shelters of Stone."" No resemblance whatsoever.The biggest problem with Ayla is--she's too perfect. And Jondular has turned into a dumb hunk with nothing to say. I laughed at Ayla's intuitive understanding of alcoholism--I almost expected her to start a 12-step AA program for her white trash neighbor!But then again, Ayla is a super-woman who knows everything.If ""The Shelters of Stone"" is made into a movie, Britney Spears should play Ayla! Daryl Hannah is too old now. This book definitely marks the ""dumbing down"" of the Earth's Children series.Reviewers have ridiculed Ayla for inventing modern civilization, but hey....someone had to create herbal tea, birth control, mouthwash and tampons!Jean Auel is no longer pretending to be a serious novelist. Ayla has become a gorgeous New Age prehistoric goddess.Regarding the sex scenes--we already knew that Jondular has a big...umm...""manhood."" Mrs. Auel describes their sexual antics in gynecological terms and that's a turn-off. Actually, their sex life has become boring and routine.And Marthona--Jondular's perfect mother--keeps her dishes and herbs on SHELVES in her stone-age kitchen. Imagine that! Her ""condo"" is as well-decorated and luxurious as any modern townhouse. And Jondular's sister is a cool teenager who likes cute guys and beautiful clothes.The book is escapist entertainment---but that's okay." +2807,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,11/11,1.0,1021334400,First time readers welcome,"You do not need to have read the previous books to be bored by this one. The SoS is all four books combined plus 4 days of intense details as Ayla meet the uptight Zelandonii followed by a quick skip to the Summer Meeting and then a leap to the birth with a step to the birth of Whinney's foal.The rest of the book is filled with Ms Auel's last 10 years of research of the cave system in France. In the acknowledgments at the beginning of the book she says thank you to Dr Rigaud because he proof read everything she had written about the area which was presented first and then it sounds like she filled in the rest of her Geological and Anthropological thesis with a couple of cardboard characters to take up another 100 pages. If she isn't already, then I am sure that some august body in a museam or university will bestow a fellowship on my once favourite author for her work in this field.I am deeply disappointed in this ""story"" and think that Ayla should hightail it back to the Mamutoi as fast as Whinney can carry her. At least there she had a life worth getting up in the morning for. The brief encounter we had with the Ramudoi in The Plains of Passage was more exciting than over 700 pages with the Zelandonii. Come back Ranec, all is forgiven! Now we know why Jondalar has always been so painful. Growing up with people so set in their ways they make The Clan look advanced must have been a handicap for him.I highly recommend this book if you are studying anthropology or geology or anything to do with the Ice Age and the Dawn of Man. (Hey that would have been a better title for this book) You will not be sidetracked by a plot as there isn't one. Please Ms Auel, less research and more character please!" +2808,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1GBU479WXR7UG,"Lloyd W. Hayes ""Lloyd""",4/5,2.0,1090195200,Prelude to Book 6,"I got interested in this series by accident. I rented 'The Mammoth Hunters' from an audio book rental place a few years ago. I listened to the book and I was hooked. I have purchased the entire series that Jean Auel has written so far. It is a 6 book series, but only 5 books have been written so far. This is the 5th.This book does not come up to the level of story telling that the previous books did.* It is important to read the previous 4 books to understand some of the things mentioned in this book.* The author has included more of the recent discoveries about cave society in her book at the expense of the story itself.* Unlike previous books in this series, the author raises many questions in this book which she leaves unanswered.* I feel that this book is not complete. It is only a prelude to the final book in this series.I fell that this book is worth buying. But only if you are a fan who has read the previous 4 books and are intending on buying the final book when it comes out." +2809,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1WRPELEV909L,Ida Briggs,8/8,3.0,1021248000,Perfection Not As Entertaining,"Okay, I bought it, I read it, and sometimes I loved it. Unfortunately, while it starts out powerful, it then gets into this absolutely huge DRAG of a ""nothing really happens"" for SEVERAL HUNDRED pages.I remember reading ""Clan of the Cave Bear"" for the first time; I couldn't put it down, and didn't sleep for two days while I buried myself in Ayla's world and life experiences. ""Valley of Horses"" was much the same, and completely frustrating as the author flipped back and forth between characters in true cliffhanger fashion. (I loved it.) ""Mammoth Hunters"" was filled with wonderful people who lived, breathed, and had complex relationships with each other (and the idea that Ayla might choose to stay with the Mamuti was completely believable, based on the fact her son was only a mention since the end of Book One). ""Plains of Passage"" was kind of a letdown as it concentrated on being a pre-historic travelogue, but still interesting. ""Shelters of Stone,"" however, is a disappointment.Ayla is officially perfect. Jondalar is perfect. Everyone is perfect except for a few token bad guys who are never really a threat. There are some stressful moments, but the following things aren't a problem: a) food; b) clothes; c) relationships; d) animal companions; e) careers; f) authority figures; g) sex; and h) (my personal favorite) housecleaning. I should have a life this good! :)Yup, everything is now perfect, and I must confess its kind of boring. I love Ayla and Jondalar because of going through the stresses in their lives with them. Most of what happens in this book could have been summed up in a couple of lines on a Christmas card:<P..." +2810,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,15/16,3.0,1038182400,The Shelters of Stone,"This most recent offering in the Earth's Children Series is a decent read if you are looking for a book written by an average author. If you are looking for the brilliance and creativity you found in the first four books you will be disappointed. Reading this book leaves you wondering why you had to wait so many years. It ties up what happens to Ayla and Jondalar and would have made a nice ending to the fourth book but it just is not able to stand on its own. There is a strong feeling that Jean Auel was tired and having made a nice short story suitable for lunch hour reading she reworked it using repetitive wording and other filler suitable for a high school science report to stretch the story in an effort to make it a book. There is just no meat to the story, no strong conflict, no heart wrenching decisions, just nothing to make you care about the characters. Fans will be disappointed in this story but at least it gives a feeling of closure, unlike the first four books this one does not leave you hungry and desperate for more. Like oatmeal when you want steak...it will fill the void but never satisfy the craving for red meat. The best I can say is that after reading this I feel indifferent when I think about the possibility of a sixth book. The addiction has been cured. Buy it and let the memories of past triumph temper your criticism for a brilliant author who has lost her way." +2811,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A3DGL72O7VLNOW,"AnthroMom ""AnthroMom""",2/5,1.0,1141776000,The Shelters of Stone,My teenage daughter and I both enjoyed reading this series. This book in particular was full of interesting insight as to how people may have lived and communicated pre-ice age. Very well written and enjoyable to read. Caution -- not for younger readers due to sexual content. +2812,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,ASPMBLAKQGNGK,"""dayscafe""",6/6,1.0,1043366400,Boooring!!!,"Ugh...how much can one read about the landscape...the rocks...the rivers??? and Ayla & Jondalar having sex?? I skipped through most of the book and was still bored. What a disappointment, after waiting so many years!I do not recommend this book to anyone.I won't be reading any other sequals of the Earth's Children after this one!!" +2813,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,ALOOL7FH5KYXW,Christine Mustapich,0/0,1.0,1028678400,The long road to no where,"Like so many other fans of the Earth's Children series, I was disappointed in this installment. In my opinion, the book was about 500 pages too long. Too many words!! Get to the point Jean Auell. Where was the character development? Where was the story of the people? The dialog was totally unbelievable. In short it was an effort to finish the book, I only did so because I am an optimist, I kept hoping it would get better. Will I read the next book? If it takes another 10 yrs. to get out I probably won't." +2814,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2M5JBCV3QASUY,Karen,1/1,5.0,1299542400,"Shelters of Stone (Earth's Children, Book 5)","Stellar,I would and sit and read for literally three to four hours at a time. I enjoyed this book as much as The Clan of the Bear. Valley of the Horses was also interesting.Mammoth Hunters good, Plains of Passage I found to be tedious. The author made me feel as if I were a fly on the wall and taking in the whole scene, event, or conversation. I felt Ayala's joy and her trying times with Jondalar's people her people.I am waiting with bated breath for The Land of Painted Caves." +2815,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A3Q2MICNOZSHVQ,M. Cartwright,10/11,2.0,1175817600,Rather disappointing,"In ""The Shelters of Stone,"" Auel continues a disappointing trend that initially surfaced in her second book, ""The Valley of Horses."" Rather than playing to the strengths that we saw in ""The Clan of the Cave Bear,"" i.e. an original idea couched in some impressive research, she is now resting her entire series on her weakest points: black-and-white characterization, wooden dialogue (everyone - EVERYONE - uses long, multi-clause, perfect sentences with impressive, SAT-worthy vocabulary), and pages upon pages of exposition about the tundra. I have the impression that Auel's boxed herself into a corner by her previous books, which established the precedent that Ayla is absolutely brilliant, beautiful, and perfect in every way, to say nothing of Vivid Blue Eyes. That being said, I still read the entire blasted thing, although I started skimming and skipping over large chunks about halfway through. It's worth a library checkout if you're an opportunistic glutton for a series that should have ended several books ago.If you are in the mood for some long AND excellent historical fiction, I would recommend reading Gary Jennings' ""Aztec"" or ""Raptor."" The characters are massively flawed, the setting is brutal, the pace is incredible, and the research is impeccable." +2816,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,0/1,3.0,1020729600,The shelters of stones,After waiting so long this book in the series was slightly dissapointing mainly because of the referance so frequently to the previous books.It also felt that nothing important really happens and that the action will start in the next book.However it was readable and a must if you have read the rest in the series. +2817,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1DFHIH3U92T7X,Jessica,0/2,4.0,1023667200,"Kind of good, kind of bad","I liked the book, but little things in it were annoying. I swear it probably talked about how different people noticed Ayla's accent a million times! There were simaler repitions that bugged me too; I could probably even write a 700 page book about them. Overall, I still liked the storyline and characters. I also thought it was an improvement over the last book which I found boring and tedious. (I didn't read all of it, I just skipped over the boring stuff.) Anyway, I hope Auel didn't spend the entire 12 years on the book because from the other reviews I read it looks like people didn't think much of it." +2818,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,0/0,3.0,1021248000,Shelters of Stone......,"I too was a little dissapointed in the repeativness (is that a word?) throughout the book. It seems that the first half just repeats all of the other four books over and over again, but then when the new stuff comes, it gets interesting again. It is a must read or there will be unfinished circumstances that should get told and they finally do in this last? book. Let's start a new Project Ms. Auel, and I will be first in line. You are an amazing writer." +2819,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A284ZRCL9F6F5E,suzanne,0/0,3.0,1022025600,DEJA VU'!!,"I absolutly LOVED the prior Jean Auel books but-holy cow-what happened here?? The descriptions are way too descript-they ramble on and on and its all remnisicient of books gone by. Im truly sorry to have to write this review about a beloved Author, but she definately needed to give us more content and less of the repetitous drone provided here. Even the Jondular/Ayla sex scenes-puhleese! Read one-read 'em all! I found myself skipping a great deal of this book just to try to move on to bigger and better things and found I had almost literally skipped the entire book. Im seriously suffering readers let-down and plan to throw myself into meatier books like her first-Clan of the Cave Bear & Valley of Horses-really A++++ books." +2820,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2E25XBL46185L,Doris Sotter,2/2,2.0,1024617600,Shelters of Stone,This book is boring - the previous were exciting.This one reminds me of Stephen King and his repetitive writing(all in the same book).Could have been only half as many pages and more interesting. +2821,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2HFQGOZL6Z6VQ,Homebird,0/0,4.0,1358812800,A "must read" book,This book goes with the others books in this series and is a great read. Well worth the money and very gripping. +2822,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,1/1,2.0,1025568000,Where's the beef?,"Somewhere along the way, Jean Auel forgot that a novel is supposed to have a story. The latest installment in the Earth's Children's Series drags along on ""Ayla and Jondalar get married and have a baby,"" surrounded by hundreds of pages of obviously well-researched but often tedious details more suited to a taped narration in a natural history museum.Characterization is often reduced to caricature. Ayla, the prehistoric superwoman, is the first human being to domesticate animals and to discover the fire-starting properties of iron pyrite. Ludicrously, she also becomes the first to realize that pregnancy results from sexual intercourse.In short, this is not a novel; it's a National Geographic special." +2823,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2YM6BZ7GG0X38,M. Read,3/3,1.0,1022457600,SO DISAPPOINTED!,"I could not wait for the new book! I was at the store when they opened on April 30 so I could get it right away after all the years I have been waiting.I really did think the next page would get better, but I suddenly realized the book was 3/4 over and I was just getting to the good stuff, if you could call it that.I have learned to skim pages very quickly when Jean Auel is going over, for the 4th time, the landscape etc... of their surroundings. Where is the tension, suspense, confrontation and all the other wonderful attributes of the other novels?SOS only seems to flaunt the wonderful things Ayla does. She can do no wrong, and she is just too perfect in this one. BORING! I think Jondalar has lost alot of his sexiness in this one. He seems to be like a lost puppy dog following Ayla around all the time. This is not the way I feel his character should be. He is a very sensitive and strong man. Where did he go? I think Jean Auel should release the 6th book very soon if it is better than this one. She owes her readers who have waited so long for SOS and were so very disappointed. I think after all this time, we deserve a true Earth Children novel." +2824,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,0/0,3.0,1022198400,disappointed,"Auel continues to fascinate with her research and speculations about the life of pre-historic man, however, she missed her opportunity with this book. Amazingly, Ayla is only 19 at the END of this book?! She should have aged Ayla, which would have had its own interesting possibilities, and made this book about her children. Fans of this series waited a long time and there is little progression in the story to show for it." +2825,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,0/0,4.0,1027987200,"A bit tedious, but not hideous","The whole book reminded me of Valley of the Horses. It is building up to an encounter/clash with the Clan, just like VoH was for most of the book a buildup to Ayla and Jondalar's introduction to each other. However, unlike VoH, SoS leaves us hanging... in spite of a book that left me with sore muscles from holding it up!Now to be totally fair, the tediousness comes from getting to know yet another people - the Zelandoni. Their society is not terribly different from the Mamutoi, Sharamadoi, and all the other peoples we get to know in previous books. But they are different, and the timing of the introduction of them should have been done in VoH, or even an earlier book of Jondalar's childhood. Auel chose this way and it obviously was a difficult choice.So I guess I rate it this high because as a stabd alone book, it is not that bad. It is just kind of clunky if you are reading the series concurrently.This book is like eating your Brussell Sprouts so you can have dessert. The next one could be the best of the series based on all the buildup." +2826,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A186697K4XKXQL,Matthieu Hausig,0/0,1.0,1118102400,Way too much ctrl-V,"I picked this up on a whim, having read the previous books many years ago and enjoying them. Unfortunately, I can't say the same thing for this one. Almost the entire book consisted of Ayla retelling events from the last four books to everyone she encountered. Some sections even seemed to be cut and pasted from earlier in the book word for word. The new plot elements were also very weak when they weren't overwhelmed by repetition. For the amount of time between this book and the previous one I expected better." +2827,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,0/0,3.0,1035763200,From storyteller to school teacher,"Maybe it's just me, but I was really disappointed by this book. I've read all of the previous books, and this one seemed to be relatively boring. It seemed to drag, and too much time was spent describing the landscape, the animals, the people and the way they lived, over and over again. The story itself was good, but not fulfilling, and left a lot hanging. I realize there's probably another one in the works, hopefully it will be better written." +2828,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A26DEGIWTO3QVS,Toni Gauen,6/7,2.0,1027468800,A Decade for Disappointment,"I started reading the Earth's Children Series when I was in sixth grade. I am now twenty-five years old and I had given up on completely reading the series. In this span of time I have read and reread through the series. I love her books previous to Shelters Of Stone. She has always provided excellent plot, character development, excitement, and the tantalizing ""just wait for the next book"" endings. This, mixed with her amazing ability to convey the setting in a factual well-researched manner, has made me a devoted Auel fan.Over a decade I had spent reliving Ayla and Jondalar, in a limbo that I had thought would never end. Now it seems that I will continue to exist in this limbo. Jean Auel has forgotten her characters in exchange for more intimate detail of scenery, climate, and anthropology. I feel like I know these characters better than Auel does. This is not conceit, just plain commonsense. Ayla is a shadow of who she used to be. The animals are no longer character. Jondalar is just an ordinary man. I would like to ask Ms. Auel, ""Where is Ayla? Does she exist in your mind anymore, or is there only rock?"" Perhaps this seems harsh. Perhaps this could be a problem with the Publisher and Editors hounding Ms. Auel for her new book. It is easier to write a book about things than about people, especial the fictional. However, the book is not up to Auel's par. Regardless of the reason, or the quality of the settings, which are in full detail, the heart of The Earth's Children is not there." +2829,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,ALO6LEYWHJS1E,Barbara B. Milller,1/1,2.0,1020816000,Shlteres of Stone,"I have read the first four books so many times my friends tease me that I can recite long passages. I say this to give some means of valuation of my opinion. OK here goes. I was disappointed in the book. I cannot uderstand why it took so long to write. The book uses pages and pages of quotes (word for word) from previous books, renames charactrers that appeared in other books and presents them as new--they are not--and uses scenes and situations from previous books that are hardly reworked just name changes (the young man who is attacked and Ayla rushes to the rescue and sets the bones. Sound familiar? check Valley of Horses). Just one more example: The child that is shunned in the Mamouth Hunters is presented again in this book under a different name with a different handicap but the situation is the same. Much material in the book is repeated needlessly. The book needs a good editing. There are contridictions within this book and constridictions of material in the previous books. I thought it was poorly organized and that there was no real plot just aimless wandering with little or no connection. After so many years of waiting it was quite a let down." +2830,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,2/2,2.0,1022716800,Mostly a Review of Previous Books,"Jean Auel needs to break out of her mold of trying to make the latest book a stand alone book for new readers. With the latest book this technique has gotten unmanagable. She spent at least a third of the book going over material covered in previous books. She needs to understand that this is a series and she should assume that her readers have read the previous books. If she wanted to include the old material in a short prologue to bring those who haven't read the other books up to date, this would work, since those who have read the previous books could just skip it. As it was, I found this book boring. It was a big disappointment!!" +2831,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,ANQ0WJ13U9TXD,Cindi Browning,0/0,2.0,1020729600,She should have taken LESS time to write this one.,"IMHO, this book should have been about 150 pages, not 750.Auel's 5th book in the Earth Children series is more of a historical recount of an era then a novel of a people. She spent more time describing the vegetation and rock formations then she did her characters. When she finally did get around to some dialogue, more often then not, it was passages taken from her earlier books, or to recount the same stories over and over again. Gee, was that how Whinney came to be with her, oh, ok, tell it again, please, again, again, oiy!!!The characters did not mature at all, and by the end, I was hoping for an earthquake to put my out of my misery. This book had so much potential, new antagonists, past acquaintances reemerging, not to mention the dynamic duo, however, she just dropped them all in lieu of yet another verbose description of the era. If I wanted a history book, I would have purchased one.This book was truly a disappointment. However, if you're a fan of Auel's characters, as I am, it's still a must read." +2832,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A3FAJ8O5KKQ1DW,C. J.,4/4,2.0,1063584000,"Waited too long, and not worth while","I hurried through the 4th book, to recall the story, since the last time I had read it was a couple of years ago. It wasn't necessary. Auel goes over what happened in the previous books SO MANY TIMES, it barely is necessary to have read them. And for those who want to know what comes next, this book seems to add nothing to the story. We know that Ayla will have to retell what happened to her many times, but it bored me to read it all over again and so many times. There is too much detail to things that happened in the other books, and no detail to what is happening now. And a lot goes unexplained, like why Laramar's son was injured, why was he in a fight. There is no depth to the the present story, too much ""remembering"" what happened to Ayla and Jondalar before. I really want to read the next book, since this one went knowwhere, but I hope there is more story to it." +2833,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,5/5,1.0,1026604800,Completely Overwritten; Read Only If You're A Fan,"For me, this series began phenomenally (Clan) and has slowly but steadily gotten worse. Auel seems to have run low on ideas and resorts instead to recycling material from the previous books. This 5th book is particularly bad about repeating what happened in the previous 4; I got sick of Ayla re-telling some facet of her life's story to every new person she meets. Even if Auel wants to remind us of some of the other books' details, she could have done so much more succintly. Also, she is more repetitive of story ideas than ever -- Ayla heals someone to prove she's a great medicine woman, Ayla goes on a hunt, Ayla proves the value of the horses to everyone, Ayla is ostracized by some people for her Clan background, Ayla forms a special bond with someone who is crippled, blah blah... I understand a lot wasn't going on in the Stone Age, but if you have to repeat some elements of previous stories or some ideas, they certainly don't warrant the same elaboration as in previous books. It says a lot, to me, that I could read the first sentence of every paragraph and occasionally a smidge more and not feel lost in the slightest as to what was going on. Over 700 pages? Please! Less is more, Jean.With that said, I couldn't stop skimming the story. As much as I hated having to filter through this vastly over-long book (even the sex scenes were overwritten, as someone else pointed out, and how many more ridiculous euphesism can we take, really?), I became so interested in Ayla's life in the first three books that I forced myself through this 5th one as I did through the slow parts of 4 and will through 6, and I think fans will find it fun to play in the Stone Age again even if ultimately not much happens.As literature goes -- a really terribly book; as quick reads go, not the worst you could pick." +2834,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A3A0SAGG8O2CS7,"Doctor Feelgood ""LEP""",1/2,3.0,1024272000,Mainly A Review ! Updates A 10 Year Hiatus. 2 More Please!,"This novel reviews much of the previous four novels. By itself it is not a great novel and not up to standard with the previous four. I believe ""The Shelter of Stone"" fills the hiatus from Novel four to hopefully Novels 5 & 6 yet to come. Mrs. Auel can write a better sequence now that she has caught us up to date. This, again, is hopefully a preview for two more good ones please! GOOD REVIEW WITH A BUILD UP FOR THE NEXT ONE BUT NOT AS GOOD AS THE FIRST FOUR!!!" +2835,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2BLZHX020MYD5,Jean M. Lutey,0/1,5.0,1229040000,More fantastic reading from Jean Auel,"if you have read the others in this series, clan of the cave bear, valley of horses, mammoth hunters, and plains of passage; then you just have to get this one too. Jean's writing is like non other. her depth of research of the period she writes of is phenomenol, and it draws you in from the first page and makes you want to call in sick until you finish. extremely thoughtful, intelligent,and detailed style of writing. if you havent read any of her books, please start with book one and relish your way through. it is so very worth it." +2836,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1Z6Z7UW8SOPRI,MARQUISE BEAUCHEMIN,0/0,4.0,1355961600,Ayla in her journeys in pre-historic France,"I loved her first novel, this one definitely pleases, in her typical style of amazing descriptions Jean Auel is right on the money describing the enviornment, plants and animals available at the time in pre-historic ice age Europe. Enjoy!" +2837,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2WX2SOOIFQYVV,Jeremy Taylor,5/12,5.0,1091577600,"Excellent, just like the rest!","I just finished reading the book, and I wanted to say that I thought it was excellent, and I really enjoyed it. The entire series has been wonderful, and I am really looking forward to the next book. For the reviewers who said they were disappointed, bored, skipped pages/sections, etc., I am wondering if you read the same book I did? Yes, there was some repetition in the book, but I did not find it unnecessary or distracting. I have read the entire series over the last 1 1/2 years, so it was all fresh in my mind, and I did not find it to be a problem at all. With the amount of time between the 4th and 5th books, I would think it would have been helpful for someone who had not read the other books as recently. My first thoughts when reading a lot of the other reviews were that many of the reviewers were looking for things to find wrong with the book. (Short attention spans came to mind as well, but that's a whole different story by itself!) Could any of them honestly have written the book better? NO! I think it was very well done, and just as enjoyable as the previous 4. Of course the lives of the main characters have settled down a bit- their journey is over, they have a family now- isn't that to be expected? If I had been travelling as long and far as they had I would think my life would be more settled too! And I think if I had just arrived in a new place living with new people as Ayla had, I would probably be telling the same things over and over again just like she did in the book. I for one think the book was excellent, and I would highly recommend it." +2838,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,1/1,2.0,1021852800,Just awful,"This really is a dreadful book. It's all setting, no plot. To save you the time, here's what happens: Ayla and hubby arrive at his hometown; Ayla demonstrates all her inventions; Ayla has baby. Yes, sportsfans, that's 750 pages worth! The book is hideously repetitive. If Ayla had shown off her Thread-Puller one more time, or if she enjoyed Pleasures with Jondalar again, I think I would have tossed my cookies. I wish Auel had written instead an anthropological treatise on early human life in southern France; that's what she's really interested in anyway. Definitely pass on this one." +2839,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A33EKMBDGQB7AT,Grandma Scrotum,13/13,2.0,1021334400,"Too much research, not enough story","It is with a heavy heart that I declare my disappointment with this book. There was so much promise, and instead it is mostly boring, befuddled and bare of plot.It is apparent that Jean M. Auel's interest in the research behind the book overcame any desire to tell a decent story. The majority of the book merely exists to take us on a tour around the Dordogne region, and to look at the major artefacts found. Jondalar and Ayla are simply there as ""guides"". This is why we don't even get to the important aspects of the story - the matrimonial and birth - until the last quarter, and even then it seems rushed. I think it's fair to say that most readers really only care about ""what happens next"", and there's precious little of that to be had.And it's been mentioned in other reviews - the book is horrendously edited, with too much repetition and unnecessary characters. It also frustrates with the number of suggested plot lines that simply fade away with no follow up. There's a great small novel lurking amongst these 750 + pages, but unfortunately it is smothered in banality.It's a vast opportunity wasted. So many things could have happened. I waited 12 years, and I'm just so sad that this is the result. I only hope the 6th book is better." +2840,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1JV4QKTEB7QBL,"Diana F. Von Behren ""reneofc""",3/4,4.0,1314230400,Ayla Acclimates Jondalar's People,"No matter what anyone says about the Earth's Children's series--""The Clan of the Cave Bear (Earth's Children, Book One)is best,"" ""the romantic sequences are overdone,"" ""repetitious,"" ""too many anthropological and geophysical facts,""--the author, Jean M. Auel is a good storyteller. She recounts the saga of her heroine, the Cro-Magnon girl, Ayla with all the monkey-mindedness of an authentic human. In each sequence, we hear Ayla's thoughts, we understand how her brain is connecting with the current situation as it relates to other happenings in the past and because of this, sometimes redundant, style of narration, we are privy to Ayla's world in a way that few storytellers can duplicate.That is not to say that much of the criticism directed at Auel, most notably with regard to her last book of the series, ""The Land of Painted Caves: A Novel (Earth's Children),"" does not ring true. Many descriptive passages abound in all the books of the series which belie Auel's love of anthropology, however Auel's fascination with the subject might be best explored in a coffee table volume, complete with photos, that retrace the steps she took in researching the backdrop to her glacier dwelling society. For this reviewer, Auel's reliance on engaging her two lead characters, Ayla and her soon-to-be mate, Jondalar, in two-to-three page ""leg A over leg B"" sexual gymnastics every time there is a lull in the action seems almost sacrilegious and detracting to the otherwise beauty and ingeniousness of Auel's narrative. In this case, in particular, less would have been more.Auel plays with some interesting themes in ""Shelters of Stone."" However, I believe her main consideration is not a literary one. Primarily, she tells the story of Ayla from the perspective of an outsider wanting to belong to a large community of people to which she was originally born. As a character, Ayla remains steadfast to her own truth. She believes the Neanderthals or ""flatheads"" as the Zelandoni Cro Magnons call them, to be different humans, not animals. After observing wildlife during her forced isolation (The Valley of Horses (Earth's Children, Book Two)), she has come to the conclusion that it is man and not a spirit who begins life in a woman. Puzzled over her frequent fugue states where she encounters Creb, the Neanderthal who raised her, she must come to terms with what her dallying in the Spirit World tells her about herself.""Shelters of Stone,"" then, acts as an awakening of sorts for Ayla. Not only does she finally meet Jondalar's people and wow them with her animal friends, her healing abilities and her innate commonsense, she must realize that perhaps, life has something more in store for her than just a husband and babies. The moment when Ayla comes to terms with her ""calling"" and announces her decision to Jondalar brings this book of the series to its conclusion. Nonetheless, Auel wants to relate Ayla's timeline and strut her well-researched stuff rather than constructing an intricate metaphor comparing prehistoric lifestyles, sensibilities and politics to that of the present day. She does, however, underline her thinking regarding issues of ecology, discrimination and human nature all under the guise of Ayla's Zelandoni acclimation.I enjoyed this book in audio format; the reader did a fantastic job of distinguishing Ayla's ""unusual"" accent while still giving nuance to all the other characters in the story--she sounds like a Russian spy during the Cold War! Listening to the book rather than reading it meant I had to plough through the detailed lovemaking scenes that I would have ordinarily skipped. However, it also forced me to take a full accounting of all of Auel's information regarding flora, fauna and geography which greatly enhanced my understanding and appreciation for her accomplishment.Bottom line? In ""Shelters of Stone,"" Jean M. Auel furthers her telling of Ayla's history as she finally meets and joins Jondalar's family in the Ninth Cave of the Zelandoni. Auel provides her fans with more memorable moments while frequently reminding them of past experiences from the first four books and paves the way for Ayla to become something special in the eyes of those she once considered ""the Others."" Be prepared for some repetition as Auel insists on a drum roll of names and affiliations each and every time Ayla meets another member of the tribe, but don't let this detract from the human drama, of which Auel conveys very well and with no need for sophistication. As the beauteous and talented Ayla cannot help make envious enemies who attempt to foil her in whatever way possible, ""Shelters of Stone"" provides a kaleidoscope of human emotions that prove that nothing much except technology has changed since the Ice Age. This reviewer would like Auel to continue this series past ""The Land of the Painted Caves"" to catch up with the couple again when Jonayla has reached a head strong maturity and locks horns with her savvy mom. Recommended for all lovers of Ayla.Diana Faillace Von Behren""reneofc""" +2841,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,0/0,1.0,1027209600,Ayla is like a prehistoric McGyver,"This book is tiresome! Took real effort to read it all the way to the end. I was very much looking forward to this book which turned out to be a real snore. By the end of the first hundred pages I felt like Ayla was a prehistoric McGyver. Good grief, the needle, bow and arrow, etc., I wondering how it was she didn't invent electricity (wait, no, that was Ben Franklin). The effort to get to the end of definitely not worth it." +2842,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1BJV7JYUNSZ2X,"""suebecrazy1""",6/6,1.0,1028592000,"I want to read a novel, not chants and song lyrics","I mean honestly, who here actually read word per word the numerous pages filled with chants/prayers and song lyrics? I'd turn the page to skip ahead and lo and behold - - more lyrics! eeks! I'd turn the page again and goodgollymissmolly! More lyrics! Over six pages of funeral song lyrics. Gee, how captivating. And what's with that long poem at the end of the book? What? Is Miss Auel trying to be hip? Hoping to score an MTV spot? Is she going to change her name to MC Auel? I've followed the entire series all these years. The endless sea of boring and needless details from this book has now confirmed this is the last book I'll read by Auel and whoever else attempted to help her write this snore of a story." +2843,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,2/5,5.0,1043798400,Great Book!,"Other people may say that this book was boring or had no plot. I strongly disagree. I read the other books and was waiting a long time for this one. It definitely met my expectations. I thought it was great that Auel included a BRIEF history of each character, which was very useful, because sometimes they can get mixed up. My friend also thought it was a great book. I strongly recommend this book to anyone who is considering buying it. I know the other reviews mostly say that it was terrible, but I think that it was a great book. It wasn't JUST about skinning deer, and it was definitely not STALE." +2844,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A3H3CPDZ8TH1XY,"Conn Ostland ""Conn""",8/10,1.0,1126742400,The Shelters of Stone,"Remembering way back when this series started with The Clan of the Cave Bear, how well and entertaining that and the following books were....till many years later when this book came out, and then the entertainment just stopped and it became a boring read, I lost all interest in the characters.I truly did try to read it through, but I just couldn't do it. I had to stop half-way through. Maybe it was just too long between books, or maybe I've just outgrown the writing." +2845,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A27D06EA2CS7Z5,Schwaja,2/2,1.0,1023926400,Hated It!,"I've read all of Ms. Auel's novels, and have loved every one...until now. I kept waiting for this to get better, and I kept paging through, and it never got better. The story was boring, and insulting in it's simplicity (I felt as if I was reading an archeological textbook for 4th graders), there was no excitement as was the case in other books, and the ending was ridiculous. I actually paged through past the last paragraph, thinking that I was missing part of the book. Talk about dropping off in the middle of nowhere. The only saving grace about the ending was just that - it was the ending! DON'T BUY THIS BOOK. It's a waste of [money]." +2846,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,1/1,4.0,1020729600,Hoping for a great ending,"I absolutely agree with the other reviewers - this book was too repetitious and did not have the rich plot development I had hoped to find. I don't know about the other readers, but I sure did not need a full recap of the other books. She even italicized up to a page at a time with copy/paste passages from previous books. There were also repeated passages from THIS book throughout the book. I think I can remember what happened 20 pages ago! The introductions were getting very annoying. I was disappointed with the attention she paid to all these things and just skimmed over Thonolan's spirit search, Ayla's adoption ceremony into the Zelandonii, the matrimonial ceremony, the birth of hers and Winney's babies. I would have liked to see more attention paid to these things rather than having to re-read the Mother's song for the umpteenth time! I'm really hoping for a better book (6) to end the series." +2847,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A338VER6NJB731,"Marissa Engel ""marissa_e""",2/2,3.0,1055116800,Moderatly disappointed,"As with many others I was anxiously awaiting the release of the new book. For years I had been hearing rumors that Auel had cancer and died, or other crazyness that another book was not being released. Now that I have read the book, and again re-read the series and Shelter's of Stone, I am begining to find the wordiness and repetitivenous tedious. I started to feel that she was cutting and pasting paragraphs from one book to the other. This final book was an OK read, but not the page turner that the other books were. I sincerly hope the next book is a step up." +2848,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A25NY0MF7WDIJH,Marlene,1/5,5.0,1040515200,Shelter's of Stone,another wonderful book in the Earth's Children series....a must for the collector of this brillant author's work....I did wish it had been in paperback though.... +2849,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,6/9,5.0,1020211200,Great continuation,"Very long book, but worth the read. If you liked the others in the series, you must read this to find out what happens with Jondalar and Ayla and the baby. I love the information about pre-man in this series. Educational as well as interesting. For readers of every interest. Give them a try. I did by accident and loved them." +2850,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A3EYFDFAY6Z40B,Wendy,3/3,4.0,1029196800,Long awaited and worth it overall,"It seems like we had to wait forever for this installment of the Earths Children series and I believe it was worth it overall. I found The Shelters of Stone a wonderful continuation of the story of Jondular and Ayla but the constant referring back to previous books a little to much to bear. I found myself skipping pages at a time because the same scenes were being brought up from books past.That is my only criticism. I do have to say that I will purchase and read the last book in the series the day its released but I hope it will not flashback as often. Will it answer all the questions provoked by the previous 5 books? Will it end with the 6th installment or grow further? What will happen to Ayla, Jondolar and their child? I also hope it doesn't take 10 years for it to arrive. I do recommend this book to all who enjoy stories of prehistoric culture. Those of my friends who gave this series a chance were not dissappointed. Neither was I." +2851,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1BHIHIAZHZ2PZ,Jennifer H. Boucher,1/1,3.0,1058832000,Cut and paste?,"I am typically more understanding and sympathetic towards authors and new books; however, I must say that this book was a disappointment. I felt as if I was reading the same chapter over and over. I even checked once to make sure I was on the right page, but Auel was just describing the Mother's Song once again. There are many very interesting, well-written, and well-researched parts of the book, but it is mostly a review of the past books and LONG descriptions of the same thing. Everyone knows how to cut and paste paragraphs, including Auel." +2852,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,1/4,5.0,1021420800,good next step for the series,"I just started the series, at ""The Clan of the Cave Bear"" lvl on May 1. 13 days later I completed the last book ""Shelters of Stone"". The book flows well with the others and is a good next step for the series that leaves you grasping for more. I feel sorry for those who have had to wait 12 yrs for this book, and don't think I could make it that long till the next. It's easy to become intimately involved with the characters, and althought the extreme detail of scenery can get alittle tough, the main focus is still deliciously interesting. This book has alittle less of the ""intense events"" than the others, and is more involved in the day to day life stuff, it still holds it value in the series. Over all, I really liked it and breezed through in 2 days." +2853,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,0/0,3.0,1029196800,"Unfortunately, I agree","I have to agree whole heartedly with the first three reviews especially. I find the ""explicit romance"" is similar to reading a romance novel - an entirely different type of book. I was 1/2 way through the book and ""still waiting"" for the ""new"" book to begin, not just a running narrative of her previous ones. I read this book simply because I have read them all and her first book was extraordinary. I read fast and it still took me a week to get through this, it was like watching paint dry it was so boring in places. I really hope 6 and yes, I'll buy that one too, is better than this one. I don't think it could get much worse." +2854,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1CY6Q1EMZCPQC,"Refrain Jenny ""Jennifer""",5/5,2.0,1068854400,Yawn,"I LOVED this series, until I got to this book. To tell you how bored I was with this book, it took me almost a year to read it, and I normally can read a book that size in about 3 days. Needless to say, I found the storyline extrememly dry, and the conflicts she had to deal with never amounted to anything. Granted, some of this may come to a head in the next and last book, but for this book, there just wasn't anything to keep my interest. Towards the end of the book I became slightly more intrigued as to what would be happening to the characters, but in a book of this length it shouldn't take that long to get interesting. All in all, I am highly disappointed in this book. I have hopes that the next book will be more stimulating." +2855,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A50A8EEDZ7QR2,ERLevinJD,2/2,1.0,1021420800,Depressed and Disappointed,"Like every other fan of Jean Auel's Earth's Children series, I have been waiting years to find out what happened to Ayla and Jondalar. I'm sorry to report that Shelters of Stone was anticlimactic and a disappointment.The main characters that I have come to know and love have been reduced to mere cardboard cutouts. The endless descriptions of the Zelondoni locale are mind-numbing and the constant repetition of introductions and past history are boring in the extreme. I began skipping most of this unnecessary narrative before I was even half through reading the book.I had the book on backorder with Amazon for months and couldn't wait to find about about Ayla's and Jondalar's matrimonial and the birth of their child. These two significant events were treated by the author in a casual and offhand manner as compared to the endless descriptions of the Zelandoni landscape. It was very depressing.If you are a real fan, you will want to read this book. Don't invest in the hardcover...wait until it comes out in paperback. That way you won't feel as disappointed by your investment." +2856,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A36Z1Q5710MA25,Patti,0/0,2.0,1030838400,I waited 6 years for this!!??,"I would like to begin by saying I have read and thoroughly enjoyed the entire "Clan" series. That was up until "Shelters of Stone". I was almost entirely let down by this book due to the fact that I waited almost 6 years to read the next saga in Ayla's life. The book seemed to lacked the heart and soul of the other books, especially "Valley of Horses". I felt like she almost didn't know what to write about and all the characters and description, including Jondalar,Wolf, the horses, and even the food that had been such a big part of the previous 3 books, were forgotten about and she was trying to build and/or change Ayla into almost another character. I did enjoy the ending and I was starting to get into it. Maybe the next book will be better; here's to hoping for the next 6 years!!" +2857,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2GARYJ5DWWB20,The Alchemist,1/1,3.0,1323475200,Again. Half as long.,"Like the esteemed Rev Maclean, I'm tempted to say ""Again. Half as long.""I found the audiobook more tedious than reading her work as a tree-based book.I simply can't suspend my disbelief enough to imagine that nearly every invention or discovery made by the neanderthals and/or cro magnon was made by one of a very small group of individuals.Still, there's reasonably well informed depictions of shamanic journey work and medicinal uses of herbs. So that's nice." +2858,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1IIX764GG3WNZ,"J. Kirkman ""book jen""",3/4,2.0,1076371200,"Okay, a little too much of this!","This book was a disappointment to me in that it became very repetitious, much more than it needed to be. Ayla and Jondalar made their way to his people, and people there don't know what to make of her. The book goes on this way for awhile, and gets monotonous.A lot of scenery is described here as well.This is okay, but then, it just goes on a little too much. It has parts where some of the scenes get exciting, but not too often.When you read this, be prepared to yawn a little." +2859,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A3UTMVS9CZ62NV,"""christinej923""",0/1,4.0,1062979200,A worthwhile reading,"I have been waiting patiently for this book to come out in paperback, and finally it did. I have enjoyed all of the books in this series - I have read the first four twice. I found the Shelters of Stone to be less exciting than any of the others, mainly because there seemed to be less drama than I expected. But in the end, I was satisfied. It did not leave me broken-hearted at the end like Clan of the Cave Bear. I won't give anything away, but for those of you who have read the first four, it is worth picking this up and reading. Now I wonder how long until the next book gets published???" +2860,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A6NI46VX8LVEX,"C Luttrell ""Chipper 13""",2/5,5.0,1240272000,Shelters of Stone,"Shes done went and done it again. I have read and enjoyed the entire (up to now)series by Jean Auel and look forward to the next book in the series. The best and in my opinion only way to read and enjoy the (earth children) is to start with the first ""Clan of the Cave Bear""." +2861,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,3/6,5.0,1043452800,A Different Perspective,"OK, the other reviewers are correct. The book has no plot in 750 pages and the poem is really bad. So how can I give the book 5 stars?I love Auel's characters. I love the world she creates. I love reading about how people lived 25,000 years ago. I am fascinated by the teas they made, the animals they hunted, how they erected a tent, their hierarchy, their relationship with the environment. I enjoy it all.So, even though the plot was absent, the author does an amazing job of transporting me into the world that she creates. And even if that world simply contains the boring activity of day to day life, I read it with pleasure because of the colorful fantastic nature.In fairness to the other reviewers, let me say that I started reading the series only a year ago and just finished the final page of the final book last night. So I didn't have to wait 13 years as other readers did.Therefore, if you love the world that Auel creates, you may hate the fact that she forgot a plot, but I think you will love the book." +2862,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A3F83O1T8Q719Z,Beth Brownell,13/22,4.0,1020211200,Ayla finally meets Jondalar's family.,"The year long journey from the lands of the Mammoth Hunters in her last book; Plains of Passage is over.Ayla meets Jondalar's mother and sister and his spurned girlfriend who he left behind. Marona despises Ayla and tries her best to embaress her but infact it strengthens her instead.But when they discuss the Clan members with Marthona, Ayla's ties to them is revealed but they do not mind her ties to them except for a few members of the Zeladonii who don't like the Clan.I have read this book within 24 hours after I got it last Sunday morning. My mom is right now reading it, so far I give it four stars. It is a little off from Plains of Passage and Mammoth Hunters but it is good." +2863,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A27SC4VWIQVMCK,"Brad ""Darth Gunner""",1/1,1.0,1326931200,Very bad writing,1 Part minimal story advancement + 9 parts rehashing previous novels and/or actually redoing things done in the previous novels...I think I will skip the 6th one when (if) it ever comes out... +2864,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,AX1511T2A1TRK,Katie A. Norcross,0/0,4.0,1020124800,It's about time!,"After over a decade I'd anticipated this book and the news of its release with joy. I wasn't disappointed.I knew that Alya would have some trouble being accepted by all of Jondalar's people, I also knew that eventually she would be accepted because of her skills as a healer and spiritual leader.I am now anticipating the 6th and final book in the series and wonder how long that one will take." +2865,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A3Q2KRK56WRXJI,M. O.,1/2,1.0,1277510400,If I have to read Wolf's introduction ONE MORE TIME....,"This is the culmination of the degeneration of a great idea and a great character (Ayla). I read the entire Earth's Children series last year, one after the other, and I didn't even make it halfway through this last one. It was utterly useless plot and boring self introductions. She should have just ended the series with them making it back to Jondalar's home... what a pity.I also didn't care for the last half of the series (starting with the last part of Valley of the Horses after Ayla met Jondalar) because it became disgustingly obvious that Auel was living out her sex fantasies through Ayla with Jondalar as her ideal man. This happens way too much, and makes me ashamed of women authors who otherwise have great epic historical fiction plots and ideas.Yes, sex a part of people's lives in all times and places, but when it starts to absorb the plot and characters it just isn't fun to read anymore." +2866,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,0/2,4.0,1021334400,If you have read the other four....,"then you will apreciate this book. But it did tend to ramble. For those of us who are used to Auel's style, it was not a huge surprise. At times I felt as though I was re-reading all the books over again. I felt however that it was really satisfying to read overall, and I recomend it to all who have enjoyed the series." +2867,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A3SHAOQ7FI3JLN,"mattgb1 ""mattgb1""",9/11,2.0,1022112000,One more thing I want to add...,"...Egads, what a let-down.I won't repeat the criticisms so eloquently conveyed in the other reviews on this page (99 percent of which I agree with, especially the ones that point out that Auel smuggles in a geography lesson and calls it a story because she couldn't come up with one), but I would like to add one point of my own about why I'm so disappointed:After 4 books of being told how Jondalar's people won't accept a woman who had borne the child of a ""flathead"" and dreading the struggles she would face when she finally arrived, we find these Zelandonocrats to be a California-style culture who receive the news with a shrug and a ""whatever"" attitude, and now it's time for Lamaze class. They'll probably invent the analyst's couch and liposuction before they get around to inventing the wheel.And I waited 12 years for this? Come on, Jean, I know you can do better. Can't you???" +2868,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1E9F01Q9GWMT0,Book Buff,1/1,1.0,1020729600,Would give it ZERO stars if Amazon gave me the choice,"As epic and as captivating as the previous books in the ""Earth Children's Series"" were, it's hard to believe that Jean Auel could so utterly miss the mark in this long, boring, and painfully uninspired installment. When most of your time is spent referencing an appendix at the back of the book to keep the 80+ characters straight in your head, when you close the book thinking it could've been a good 400 pages shorter without editing out any of the genuinely good writing, and when you ultimately walk away thinking to yourself, ""I waited 12 years for THIS?"" you're bound to be disappointed.If well-written epic women's fiction is what interests you most, then do yourself a favor and DON'T BUY THIS BOOK. Before you're brainwashed into thinking THE SHELTERS OF STONE is anything beyond a colordul doorstop, pick up some backlist Jean Auel, the Diana Gabaldon ""Outlander"" books, or anything by Dorothy Dunnett to remind yourself what good writing really is." +2869,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2HUT8MPT5U7RX,Lena,1/1,4.0,1036972800,Ummm...I liked it.....,"Wow, it wasn't a bad a read as the others would have you think. It is very descriptive on life and customs and exsistance more than the Ayla/Jondalar story line. Her research of the time is amazing. Very admirable.Anyway, it's fantasy, it's fiction! So what if Ayla is ""perfect"" and discovers everything and Jondalar is a sex object. Get lost in another time, away from real life for a while! Isn't that what a book is supposed to do?" +2870,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A3SCQDFXNZZ7QO,"S. Wood ""booklover""",1/5,5.0,1171497600,The Shelters of Stone,This was a great book. I can't wait for the next one to come out. +2871,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,1/6,4.0,1020124800,Worth the wait,I thought the book was very good. It does get a little boring to me because of so much explicit detail written in on everything. The book is around 750 pages but well worth the read. Can't wait for the final book. +2872,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2KKMFDWY81XNZ,Linda G Allgood,0/0,5.0,1356048000,The Shelters of Stone,Wonderful reading. I have really enjoyed this series of book. Jean Auel is a great writer and has put a lot of study into her writing in this series. +2873,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,2/3,3.0,1051488000,Not the best in the series,"I did not enjoy this book as much as I liked the others in the series. It seemed to be a bit choppy, and did not have a definitive ending point, like the others did. There were loose threads and unresolved conflicts that needed answers, obviously leading into the next book, but it seems a cheap ploy to entice readers to continue the series. The other books all ended in ways that made you want to find out more, but were still satisfactory endings, not unresolved situations.I agree with one reviewer who said something about Jondalar's worries about the acceptance of Ayla by his people because of her clan past was unfounded. It seemed not to be that big of a deal to anyone, and wasn't there someone who was supposed to be part Clan who was J's cousin or distant relation or something? (Can't remember the name, it has been awhile since I read it.) He was obviously around before J. left on his long journey, so what was the big deal with Ayla? Did J's people change that much in the 5 years he was gone?Not a bad read, overall, but a bit choppy, probably overly long and drawn out as one reviewer mentioned, and as one of my friends who read it said, it's a bit like prehistoric soap opera." +2874,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A5GFLUMZ52ES7,Danielle Lesperance,7/7,1.0,1028073600,And to think I used to like Ayla,"Okay, there's very little I can add here. Please believe everyone who hated this book. What did they, glue all the previous books together? Really, the original content could maybe fill a page. The thing is, aside from the repetition and ridiculous amount of boring dialog, is that there just isn't a story here. I didn't think much of The Plains of Passage, but it least it had the man-hating tyrant and Ayla's rescue of Jondalar. There is nothing exciting in the book. Ayla's enemies sort of fade off into nothing. Like maybe something will happen in the 6th book, but really it won't be worth the paper it's printed on.Buy it (in paperback) and read it because you love Ayla (though she is less humble in this one). Just don't expect to see her do anything new. And for pete's sake, don't read the other four books for about 12 years before you pick this one up." +2875,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A276DMO7BGVZCM,MIRIAM,2/2,2.0,1025136000,A Must Not Read,"This was the worst book Auel has ever written. The characters where ill defined, and nothing really much happened. Ayla had her baby! Big whoop. The whole story was basically about how Great and beautiful Ayla was and how handsome Jondalar was. Even the sex scenes were beginning to be all the same. As i mentioned before, Auel did a terrible job on defining her characters. I never once felt like i knew any of the other characters in her book. She didn't tell enough about Brukeval and his problems, and that could have been great.She didn't get enough time to make any friends with the other women either. She made it seem also that Ayla and Jondalar were the perfect man and woman. Ayla had so many great inventions, she could talk to animals, she was the prettiest woman ever! Oh come on! there is only so much one woman could be, and there is no woman that is so beautiful that everyone is just besotted with her. And they made it seem like she had special powers or something. She didn't! Auel also repeated herself in this book. It was like; we know who Ayla is, we don't need her to recite all her titles again. Auel probably spent have the book introducing people. It was absolutely ridicoulous. No one is that gorgeous, no one is that smart, and no one is that lucky. If Jean M. Auel already hadn't been a world famous aurthor, this book would have never hit the shelves. This was definetly not a book to wait six years on. And the people who did waste six years waiting were badly disappointed. From the way this book was written, i'd say Auel spent a hurried month on it, and not the six years traviling to Europe for ""research"" like she said." +2876,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2IPDHUTBFEDO8,S. Cholasinski,2/2,1.0,1021939200,drivel,"I cannot believe I waited so long with high expectations for this book. I wished for it to tie up so many loose ends and instead it only created more. As far as I am concerned the last three books have been a total loss. It has taken three books and many years for us to get from Ayla being, what 17, to the 19 she is now. Puleeze!!!Also as another reviewer mentioned, the sex is out of this world and that is not the point of the story. The introductions are ridiculous for people living in the time frame they are in. And the flowery language they use and some of their descriptions do not seem to ring true.Please, enought sex, enough on the spear thrower and the fire stones, etc. etc. If someone has not read the previous books they can go out and buy them. Please don't put us thru the endless drivel of describing this again and again, each chapter in each book. We know the food they ate, and we know Ayla is beautiful.I also have a problem with the babys name, Jondayla?? Did Jean M. Auel lose her imagination?? Even IZA would have been better.Where is she going with a girl baby? I assumed that Durc would one day meet his half-brother. The story leaves us hanging about the secret cave that Wolf finds, yet it is the Earth Mothers cave? This book has taken us only nine months further along in the series. There are a lot of loose ends that need tying up.I also will wait for the paperback issue of the next book, if there ever is another one." +2877,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,7/9,1.0,1063756800,Good Material for Starting a Fire with a Firestone,"Got this book as a Christmas gift at my request because I, like a great many other people, waited a long, long, long time for the fifth book to appear. How do I tell my son what a horrendous waste of his money this book was! I have read the other reviews so I won't go into great detail. The one-star reviews said it all for me. Don't want to risk being as REPETITIVE as the author. However, quoting P.T. Barnum, ""There's a sucker born every minute"". How true...I'm one of them. Terrible book. If you feel you must read it, get it at the library." +2878,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2RUHA7KISHL66,Rosemary M. Simpson,10/12,4.0,1107820800,Reading Auel in context,"While I certainly agree that Jean Auel's writing is repetitious and badly in need of a good editor, and don't understand how her publishers failed her so badly, reviewers who see only that aspect miss the point of the series, as do those who complain about Ayla's mythic status. This *is* a myth, carefully developed through the series starting with ""Clan of the Cave Bear"" to show how circumstances, time, and distance combine to evolve a mythic figure out of a talented but still very human person.The great, and enduring value of the series is (1) its portrayal of the 35, 000 year-old world when Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal overlapped, the great art of the cave painting and ivory carvings was created, and human ingenuity was starting to make itself felt, and (2) the psychological and cultural interactions of very different mind-sets. Auel condenses the historic record of human invention into one short period for good reason: it helps to convey the difficulties and importance of such creative and flexible approaches in a world where humans were few and weak.To read these works as you would a realistic novel about today's world is to deprive yourself of a rich - and enriching - imaginative experience. If you need realism/naturalism then don't real Auel. Perhaps it is best to classify her work as historic fantasy, or magical realism, or even surrealism." +2879,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,0/1,3.0,1029888000,Shelters of Stone,"I have to say that I did enjoy the book. As usual Jean Auel gives us things to think about. If it is true that we knew so much about healing at that time, then the dark ages really took a lot of that away didn't it? I like reading what she thinks happened during that time and deciding if If I see a different scenario.As for the storyline. Yes, the sex was a long and I skipped a lot of that. And I was disappointed that the storyline didn't go any further along than it did. My first reaction was, ""I have to wait ten or more years to get the rest of the story?"" ""I don't know if I will care by that time"".I think you have to enjoy science to enjoy Jean Auel and she can even get a little long winded in that area. But I can feel her exitement at what she learns during the research for her books." +2880,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A3SPZF89T77KIX,Timothy Hanke,1/4,4.0,1087862400,Well worth reading,"I can appreciate fine literary writing, but there is also a place in literature for books driven by strong plots and stuffed with interesting information. It seems to me that Jean Auel's books belong to the latter category. Many people are fascinated by the shadowy origins of humanity; Auel has created a richly textured world that presents a plausible picture of those origins. I could hardly put down the earlier books in her series. This one was not quite as much of a page-turner--I read it over several days rather than over a couple of long, intense sessions--but still an absorbing reading experience. Anyone who has followed Ayla this far on her journey will be thirsty for more information about this character and her vividly imagined world. I must say I disagree with another reviewer who said you don't need to read the earlier books because of the flashbacks in this book. The earlier books are a must, and they set up the reader to appreciate the more leisurely pace here. I do think the numerous sex scenes are superfluous, even if they make the picture of ancient life more rounded and complete. I sort of skim or skip over them, because they don't tend to advance the plot or convey any new information about this fascinating world." +2881,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,0/0,2.0,1028678400,Why did she bother?,"I was a great fan of the Authors previous books. I found all of them imaginative and the detail very interesting. I have to admit that The Plains of Passage became a little tedious at times, but the story line made it worth the while.In this installment however, the detail was tediously boring. I found myself skipping pages to try and get back to the story. But the story was merely a recounting of the previously explained history of Ayla and her skills. The characters are even so similar to previous books characters that the encounters are repetetive. The story that this book tells is almost non- existent. The characters are one dimensional. It could have been told better in two hundred pages.In other words, it was a big disappointment, a well written yawn." +2882,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,4/4,2.0,1026777600,A disappointment in a wonderful series,"I too eagerly awaited Shelters of the Stone, as I had so enjoyed the first books in the series. I too am very let down by the lack of spirit and repetitious passages of this book. I was recently disappointed by Diana Gabaldon's latest novel The Fiery Cross, after rating her series one of my all time favorites. Maybe I expected too much of these last novels since they were so long in coming, but I am not waiting with eager anticipation for any follow up books. However, I will probably read them only because of my long-time loyalty to the series." +2883,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A11DV2QA0GRW30,"LB ""LB""",0/0,4.0,1349913600,Good,"I enjoyed the book. I wanted more action like the previous four, but the book was good. The author could have kept the description of how the people reacted to Ayla's animals to a minimum. She encountered a lot of new people and each were surprised and fearful of domesticated animals." +2884,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,AVFTNK426CK6H,Veronica Choice,0/0,1.0,1026000000,I expected too much?,"Just as many other readers, I had almost given up on this series after the last book, but considering Ms. Auel spent so many years on this one, I thought she might offer her readers a fresh and intriguing sequel in The Shelters of Stone.NOT SO....reading 800 pages of bland jibberish is what makes me disappointed. She didn't even have a plot to the story! I appreciated her descriptions of the land and the crafts of the people in the other books as it was a part of the story. This time around, the scenery WAS the story. Did Ms. Auel write this book right after Plains of Passage and simply decide to publish it several years later to build a craving for this release? I thought Plains of passage was weak. I could have written a better sequel.Bottom line: The book was boring..." +2885,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2ISVMITXHT072,"""dotives""",3/4,2.0,1022803200,SHELTERS OF STONE - A Disappointment,"I have read the other books in the series and waited anxiously for this one. This latest is so repetitive that I don't really believe Jean Auel wrote it. An example is that the Mother's Song is about three pages long and is repeated three times. When Ayla is introduced to members of Jondalar's family, the lengthy formal introduction is repeated each time she meets a new member, and there are about two hundred members. It is not until about the last three chapters that the book picks up the pace and we begin to get a story line. Maybe this is where Jean began to write. The novel could be considerably condensed by tightening up the prose and eliminating the redundancy. Where was the editor? I felt embarrassed for the author. I probably will read the final book, but I certainly hope it is an improvement." +2886,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2Q0ZFAEHLXD9P,fred davis,0/0,1.0,1028073600,the shelters of stone,"I have read the first 4 books in this series. I thought the Valley of the Horses was the best one. I bought the unabridges version of the Sherters of stone in cassette form. Jean Auel, in my opinion, wrote a very long book of descriptions of Ayla's talents with healing, medicine and food. Al of which were explained in the other books.THERE WAS VERY LITTLE ACTION EVENTS IN THE WHOLE BOOK. It dragged on and on. The next time I buy a tape version I will get the abridged version. Maybe that will cut out all the stufff Jean told us in the first 5 books. Based on the other books, especially the first three books, I was extremely disappointed in this last book. I can honestly say I would not reccomend this book for others to waste their time on reading it.Fred Davis" +2887,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,6/6,1.0,1026864000,Why did I wait 12 years again?,"I remember reading the Plains of Passage on the bus during a school field trip we had in high school. I was so excited when the Plains of Passage came out, because I had waited a whole 2 YEARS for it to come out. I started reading the books when I was in junior high school and completely loved them. After I read that book (skipping a lot of the exposition about grass) I remember feeling slightly disappointed, but also thinking that the next book would be really great.There would be a lot of conflict with the Zelandonii considering the reaction Jondalar had to Ayla when he first found out she was raised by the Clan. Also, maybe we would see the first couple of years of life of her child. Maybe the whole Clan/Human conflict would come to a head. Heck, we could even see the return of Derc. I was satisfied that we would get the answers. ..Well, I've been out of high school for 11 years now and finally the next book of the series came out. What. A. Waste. Of. Time.That was the biggest snoozefest I have ever read. I suffer from insomnia, and reading a couple of pages of that book was a sure-fire way for me to catch some zzz's. How did her editor get away with allowing Auel to turn in that garbage? I think Auel has the mistaken dillusion that she's an arthopologist and not a writer. Fine, write an anthropology book. But the next time you want to disguise it as a novel, count me out." +2888,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,AME0PO9Q19YJZ,the missing page man,0/1,1.0,1332720000,book was missing appx 50 pages,I recieved the book and appx half way through reading it I found that around 50 pages were missing! evidently a factory mistake so evidently a factory second someone got on the cheap then passed it on to me! +2889,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A13HZ0QGKHWUMH,Maril Bice,0/0,5.0,1307145600,The Shelters of Stone,"Contrary to what many others have said in their reviews, I found this book to be just magnificent reading, and very interesting. Love the prehistoric background and the people that Jean M. Auel has contrived. Just like modern days!!! I look at my wonderful appliances that wash the dishes, the clothes, and cook the dinners with a flick of a switch somewhere -- and marvel at how the prehistoric people managed. Such hard work!! But who knew? Anyway, I highly recommend this very long and descriptive book about Ayla and Jondular and their family life among many different tribes. I hope the author will continue the series with Ayla's daughter growing up. Ms. Auel does fabulous research and makes you want to go visit the area that these books in her series take place. She definitely can write beautiful descriptions. I recommend this book for great reading and historical significance, 'cause this all really did take place numero thousands of years ago. The paperback book is heavy and hard to hold if you have any arthritis in your hands, though. Don't know how that could be helped, as it is a very long book. Buy it!" +2890,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1DTJAKGCIJCDY,Phil Ogden,1/1,3.0,1033344000,Not as bad as all that,"I have read alot of reviews that trashed the book, but I read it anyways because I was a big fan of the the previous four books. Auel wrote this book, for people who didn't read the other 4 and that is unfortunate. I don't need constant recaps of what happened before and I skimmed over those sections. I also got tired of the very detailed descriptions of the landscape and skim over those too. I was more interested in the story of Ayla and Jondalar than the landscape. It was a good read, (with skimming of the dull parts) and I read it in one weekend. I will buy the 6th book to finish the story, but I do wish Auel will write book six knowing that the reader has made it through the other 5. STOP RETELLING THINGS WE ALREADY KNOW! Having said that, I still enjoyed the book... but it could have been better." +2891,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A35HQAN77LMCU6,Daniel Schmoranz,5/5,1.0,1057104000,Utterly Disappointing,"Please don't get me wrong: I am a big fan of the Earth's Children series and was looking forward to reading the latest novel - especially after having waited 12 YEARS!But this one really was an insult especially to the fan but also to any other reader.This is the most audacious attempt at using your devoted audience as a cash-cow ... that I've ever come across.The argument, that the book had to be released to a completely different audience is not true!! I mean, if something is even trade-marked as ""Earth Childrens series"" ... I don't know a different definition of a ""series"" but that every sequel is a follow up and that a little bit of pre-knowledge is simply expected!! In that case you can't fill 3/4 of a sequel with neverending repetiton!It's too bad the marketing department of her publisher had the biggest influence on this book:- ideas that would have been just right for a gripping sequel to the other 4 books obviously had to be spread out in order to allow for a 6th (which is surely) to follow up ...- thus there appeared to be no major plot developed in this book- the repition just drives one crazy!- of the 870 some pages approximately 1/3 to 1/4 is worth ones while the rest is absoutely boring and in stark contrast to the previous novelsWell, I hope we won't have to wait too long for the 6th book and I also hope that as a compensation it'll live up to the 4 other books!" +2892,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,ARXU3FESTWMJJ,"Mary Jo Sminkey ""15 years of Amazon Reviews!""",2/4,2.0,1026518400,I waited all those years for this?!,"Just to reiterate what others have written. This book is a big disappointment when you a big fan of the series and have waited so long for it to come. Don't get me wrong, if you ARE a fan, I would still buy it. If you can wait for paperback though, you won't feel like you wasted so much money though.The repetition is bad, yes. But more, I was frustrated how things we have been anticipating and waiting for never happened, or were just so different than we had been led to expect. For instance, all the times we've been told how the Zelandonii hate the Clan and when the time of confrontation comes, there's nothing to it!! I felt so cheated.I don't want to give too much away, but suffice to say that this story leaves too much undone. I suppose this is a lead-in for book 6, but it should have been more self-contained. I kept waiting for issues to be resolved, and they just fizzled out at the end.I wouldn't say this is the worst book I have read, but it certainly is not what I've come to expect from Ms. Auel." +2893,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,8/11,1.0,1090022400,Cave people soap opera,"I have never seen so much padding in a book, ever. It is worse than General Hospital that my mother watched for so many years. My feeling is that chapters were given to hired writers while Jean Auel was on vacation and the writers weren't very good. I think Jean's readers deserve something much better.Carol" +2894,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A11V02E1CR6P11,"Charlene Dewbre ""avid reader""",24/24,2.0,1160092800,A series on a downhill slide...,"Other reviews here are pretty blunt about the weaknesses of not only the 5th book in the Earth's Children series, but of the growing problem since The Mammoth Hunters.I am a great fan of the series. I enjoyed learning about the theoretical and practical landscape of the time period. I would think about a description of a plant and try to relate it to something I might find in my backyard, or imagine gouging out a slab of wood to make a bowl, or picture the handworking of a hide.Ayla is meant to be ""every woman"", so it's through her we're introduced to insights and inventions and deep observation. I am sorry that Ms. Auel didn't think to hand more of these to other characters, and have the main characters carry them along on their Journey. The Plains of Passage alone would have been much improved, as well as truer to the nature of discovery and invention.I have always been disappointed in Jondalar's dimensionless character. He's not a match for Ayla. As it stands, he's barely there. He was a one-dimensional, homesick worrier on his brother's Journey in The Valley of Horses. A self-pitying mess in The Mammoth Hunters (I actively disliked him and couldn't understand why Ayla would love him at all by the end of that book) and a selfish, annoying worrier in The Plains of Passage. By Shelters of Stone, he lives up to his potential. With nothing left to worry about he's barely present except to agree with everything Ayla says or thinks.There was so much that could have been made of him, especially in this book. Ayla is a stranger and he is home. That theme was reduced to a one-liner in Plains of Passage. Imagine how that might feel; what tensions it SHOULD have created between them. He's welcome, she's excluded. Her fondness for flatheads and the (completely forgotten and unlived upto) hatred of them by the Zelandoni people. Jondalar suffered (interminably) through self-doubt in Mammoth Hunters, yet didn't flinch a moment once he was home. (Where, in the face of his friends and family and witnesses to his childhood indescretions, one could reasonably assume he'd have at least an uncomfortable moment.)Ms. Auel was at great pains to explain the kinship debts and value-exchanges between peoples. Yet, Ayla's foreign origins are glossed over and made trivial except as tension from a single misbegotten Zelandonii drunkard. This alone should have been explored and shown to be deeply difficult. Status was, and is, a hotly contested reality even today. Anyone who's worked in an office and had to settle for the broken stapler and a small cubicle would understand it.How would they handle a woman without status, and no visible wealth, without knowable ties mating into a well-placed family? Why wasn't there more dissention and why wasn't Ayla involved? Why wouldn't Jondalar lose status? In my opinion, he should have. His family should object, not everyone should automatically love her. It would set up some good tension and give Ayla something to overcome.I appreciated a great deal about The Shelters of Stone. As another reviewer pointed out, not all conflict is overt. Ayla makes enemies here. (although I note, she is never 'responsible' for it.) Peer pressure and conflict is introduced. Inability to overcome prejudice and fear. I liked the author's poem-song, very much. I was rather sorry she beat it to death.Ms. Auel explores more deeply the concepts and ideas that might have surrounded death, mating, and conception. I truly liked reading the reactions of some people, like Denanna, (who weren't demonized first, that is) to new ideas. We don't fall in love with new ideas immediately, and human nature hasn't changed that much in 35,000 years! I also liked reading about reasons that a large populace might break itself into smaller settlements, and even hints about the origins of all the settlements throughout the books. I liked the exploration of the Zelandonii homelands, the cave painting descriptions, and the spiritual side of the people brought to life.However, I have to agree that the Ayla character has suffered in the last books, as well. Though independent, smart, and willful she wasn't perfect. She made mistakes. Now she's become cardboard; she never does. If someone dislikes her, there's always an underlying indirect cause. She's always happy, content, and able to relate. She only gets angry on behalf of someone else. She's lost her humanity.I'm with other reviewers on this score. Not everyone has to think she's nice and beautiful. More people should be envious because she's given status they will never see, some should hate her because she brings uncomfortable change, some because she is rather arrogant, or because she has no compunction about challenging their long-held beliefs.Agents of change cause conflict. Where is that in the portrayal of Ayla and the society she's trying join? We've been promised it through thousands of pages. Here we are! And what happens? Nothing.The only conflict we're given is weak; caused by spite and mental problems. That's not only insulting to the established storyline, it's weak storytelling. People aren't that polar. There are any number of shades of feeling. Ms. Auel did the same with Frebec in The Mammoth Hunters and it was every bit as disappointing then. Why couldn't Frebec keep right on hating her? He valued normal and she was anything but.I also have to take exception with a tone change in The Plains of Passage and The Shelters of Stone. In these last two books there are polemic passages. Using supposition and fiction to draw parallels with modern views and comparing those views disfavorably. I'm a feminist, and I abhor vilification and intolerance, but I don't think that living 35,000 years ago made mankind perfect or astoundingly open-minded.Finally, I have to agree with the repetition problem. I firmly believe that the allowance of chunks of repetitious and tedious material is due to the length of time between books; to give us something hefty to read in exchange for the increasingly long waits.If I had the ear of the editors, I'd recommend not doing so. I'll be honest, if I wasn't hooked on Ayla's story, I'd have stopped with Plains of Passage. I just want to find out what the denouement of the story will be at this point. I skip-read a lot of Plains of Passage and The Shelters of Stone. You could be winning whole new fans of the series with a solid, 350-page engaging story rather than frustrating series fans with a 750-page tedious one.Charlene Dewbre" +2895,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,AO1D5LNT2ZI53,Samantha Whitfield,7/12,5.0,1043971200,Shelters Of Stone - My Review,"I did not know what to expect from this the fifth book from Jean Auel. I waited, along with uncountable numbers of people across the World, for the ""next one"" and hoped the wait would not be much longer.I was not disappointed! ""The Shelters Of Stone"" is, by far, the best of the series. I have watched as Ayla has grown from a frightened lost child into a woman of presence, power and great beauty. Jean Auel describes all of Ayla and Jondalars ""discoveries"" and achievements in such a plausible way. From ""firestones"" to riding horses and taming ""wolf"" to the more in depth ideas on reproduction, Jean explains the events so ""matter of factly"" than one begins to be drawn in and believes that they are reading an account of one who was actually present.The Shelters Of Stone is not a book to be overlooked and believe me when I say you wont be able to put it down!I am left now having to wait for the next and final installment, feeling rather flat after such a high. If the sixth book is only half as good as The Shelters Of Stone, I will not be disappointed." +2896,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,ATVKLGKBKCBDC,J Davis,1/1,3.0,1199232000,My least favorite of the series,"I'm glad that Auel continued the series, but this is my least favorite of the five. It is a huge book! But some of the magic that made the others so interesting is missing from this one. And the sex scenes are too overdone; like poorly written romance novels." +2897,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A3TYYQJJ94WW75,Chelsea G. Humphrey,4/8,5.0,1079481600,I can't wait for the final book ....,"Jean's Clan of the Cave Bear began my obsession with reading and I was not at all disappointed with this one. I have read the reviews of others on this book and in a way I agree with them. This book is repitive but I think that it was necessary to repeat certain facts. I think a lot of her loyal readers forgot that not everyone has read the previous books that began Ayla's journey. I also think that they also forgot that in real life many of your own characteristics and decisions are based on your own past events. Hence, even though it is unhealthy to linger in your past it is important to remember it. I also agree with the fact that in this book at the end I felt left hanging. I did read her comments and she said she was researching for the sixth one so I'm assuming that the reason the ending was left that way was because of the sixth to come. In fact, I think most of the events in this book are to set up the next one. I think that in the final book everything in this book will make sense. Although I think this book played out a little longer than it needed but overall it was a great book. Again her descriptions and details and research continues to amaze me." +2898,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,8/8,1.0,1068422400,Where was her editor?????,"I was excited to get this book, but quickly became disappointed in it. I almost started counting how many times someone remarked on what a beautiful couple Ayla and Jondalar make. There is no focus. The point of view is so spread around I started expecting to see points of view from various animals who happened to see the couple. In her earlier books, she had that tight focus of one or two points of view, which made for more tension and drew the reader into the characters. Not in this one.And the constant repititions of observations and various processes for making things made up at least a third of the book.So I ask - where was her editor? Was Ms. Auel padding for word count? She dragged a simple story into a huge, boring tome. As much as I want to see what happens next, if her next book looks as large, I won't waste my money on the hardcover..." +2899,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A3N2BI6PZWIGI7,"""lindaroses""",0/0,1.0,1021766400,Nothing ever happens in this book,"While I really liked the earlier books in this series, this latest installment is a big disappointment. I kept waiting for SOMETHING to happen, and it really never did. I think there were huge opportunities in the plot line, but it's almost like Auel lost steam because she never pursued them. For instance, the whole book could have circulated around a dramatic meeting or conflict between the Others and the Clan, followed by understanding or resolution. Also, Ayla's character did not ""ring true"" at the end; she was uncharacteristically weak and fearful. Sorry to say, but we should skip this one, and keep the good memories from Clan of the Cave Bear." +2900,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,4/8,5.0,1028505600,The Best One Yet,"I read Auel's other books years ago, and was surprised when I was told a new one was available. I truly enjoyed this one more then the others, as it ties together the past with the present, and overall is an excellent story. (However, I also recommend reading the stories in order, for this draws on the knowledge of the past books in the series.)I really enjoyed the other books in the ""Clan of the Cave Bear"" Series, as I love the main characters, Ayla and Jondalar. In Auel's past books, though I enjoyed the story, I found myself at times felt bogged down by too much description of scenery, and in a few books, too much time spent on intimate moments--over and over. But I kept reading because the main character is captivating and I desired to know what happened.I felt this book was the best yet! The author did not bore me once with too long descriptions and the story was interesting all the way through. There was less repetition and more exciting and wonderful new experiences for the characters. This book was an awesome conclusion to the past books as well as a real new beginning for Ayla. With many challenges to be seen ahead. Her life is never easy, but the way she faces life's challenges in this story are incredible.It was extremely hard to put down. I am really looking forward to another book about these characters, as I feel their lives have really just begun! I am hoping the author will finish another book very quickly, and keep the quality as high as in this one.If you like or can relate to the main character, Ayla, in this series, I am certain you will appreciate her choices and the direction her life is taking. I don't want to ruin the story for anyone, so I am not going into details, But this is definitely the best one yet!" +2901,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A23Q8BJHRRLE4L,Warren Thompson,0/0,5.0,1360972800,Best Buy,"The saga continues and Auel is at her best. The historical tale continues. The Clan of the Cave Bear etc, etc was enjoyable and Auel’s ability to create intrigue is undiminished.The cave dwellings in France are detailed so that those who have never been there understand them as if you were a park ranger there. Excellent narrative descriptions of the caves, how they lay, and the directions they face and how they were used. This part is as good as can be written and a first class job was done on this material.I was hoping that Ayla would finally catch a break and be able to enjoy life but petty back scratching women interfered again. The intrigue seems to be less skillfully done than in the other novels but this is an enjoyable read. If this is Auel’s worst novel it would still be world class by other authors. I highly recommend this book to everybody." +2902,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2WW9T8EEI8NU4,Anne Wingate,1/1,2.0,1288224000,"Jean, where is the plot?","http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00466HQ1A/ref=cm_cr_rev_prod_imgThis book reads as if it were a pastiche of parts of previous books. I came away with the feeling that there was no real plot to this book. My brother, who is a great Auel fan, called me (because I am a writer and have a doctorate in creative writing, and he is an engineer) to ask me what I thought of the book. When I told him that it seemed to lack a plot, he said in a very relieved tone, ""Well, I couldn't find one, but I thought maybe it was just me.""I hope the next book, which I gather is the last and which is already somewhat overdue, is better than this." +2903,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,1/1,3.0,1025222400,only OK,"As the other reviewers note, this installment was a let-down. After a 10-year wait for it, I'd imagined great things from an author I'd previously enjoyed. However, my guess is that some of the snippets of character development and interaction will be key to the denoument of the story. So even though the writing is not as compelling as it had been, I still felt compelled to read the whole thing." +2904,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A3KOY5MQ0JO1JL,E. Lanier,6/6,1.0,1024704000,"Same old, same old...but worse","Read the first couple of pages and then skip the next 250. It is all review. Auel should assume that people who are reading this book have read the others and should not spend 250 pages re-hashing what we already know. We already know people will be ""amazed"" and ""disbelieving"" of Ayla's and Jondalar's previous adventures. We do not need to sit with them while they tell the story to each of Jondalar's relatives.We also already know Ayla and Jondalar ""share pleasures"" more and better than any earthly couple ever did or could. I am not reading this story to get a ""thrill"". In the last book, it got to the point that whenever Auel wrote about pleasures, I just skipped it, because it disturbed the flow of the story. This book was no exception.I want more depth, more story and less review. I haven't given up on the series yet, but if I have to wait another 10 years for the next - I won't be buying it." +2905,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,0/3,1.0,1021248000,Rehash,"I waited for 7 years for this book, and am sorely disappointed!I can only hope that this is an introduction to the next in the series." +2906,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A3V2OECWVBKPL2,Eddy J. Simmons,1/1,2.0,1024012800,A Long Awaited Disappointment.,"Having read her other books and waited so long for this one, I found it a disappointment. I purchased the hard cover and the unabridged tape version. For such a large book, it only covered approximately nine months of their lives. It has too much review, not enough action and way too much description. The review should mainly entice readers who have not read the previous book to do so. I grew tired of all the formal introductions! At least, the problem with the young renegades group of Others men abusing Flat Head women should have been dealt with in this book. The description of the intimate moments ... between Ayla and Jondalar is good but becoming quite predictable. Too many loose ends were left for the next edition. Like finding additional fire stones; Ayla catching fish wither hands; Ayla's acceptance of her calling and induction into the Zelandonii as a healer and ""One who serves the Mother""; Jondalars cousins child birth problems; and how Ayla deals with the few enemies she has made in the 9th Cave. Can Ayla prevent the confrontation between the others and the Flat Heads? How will Ayla deal with her fear of the next great earth quake? I hope the next book will not be so long in coming and will cover several years in the lives of Ayla and Jondalar with a lot more action!" +2907,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A3O81NK0EAL052,Irene Schloss,20/33,5.0,1020384000,Excellent read :),"I finished the book last night and it is excellent. It does help if you know the other four books before it, but Jean does explain the background of alot of situations throughout the book. Welcoming Jondular home and getting to know his family is excellent.....Ayla fits in quite well despite her differences. The book brings you through her pregnancy, their mating, the birth, and also the birth of the new baby for Whinney. Even wolf makes a friend fo his own kind too. Lots of new chartacters to get to know...... makes me look forward to a more careful second reading. And yes there is sharing of Pleasures for Ayla and Jondular, not as many as I thought there would be for such a big book.... but the ones there are excellent and well done ;) Even the characters that do not get along with Ayla and her background get you into the book and wanting more. Ayla and Jondular are back and enjoy it!!!" +2908,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2MGSHOHDEEQ95,anscot,1/1,1.0,1332374400,Sorry I spent my money!,"I read the Clan of the Cave Bear and the next couple of books Ms. Auel wrote when they first came out. I remember really enjoying the first couple books, can't quite remember the next one,however this is the first ones I've bought since those first books.I found The Plains of Passage and The shelters of Stone extremely tedious, with long drawn out geographical descriptions where fewer words would have given the picture just fine. The repetition was tiresome on so many fronts! And I have to say the very long drawn out, descriptive sexual encounters with Jondalar were offensive to say the least! I don't remember that sort of writing in the first books. I never have gotten a kick out of reading about other peoples sexual exploits! It's porn in writing and just wasn't necessary to the overall idea of the story. I found myself skipping over many, many pages throughout the books because of all these reasons.There were so many little mistakes in herbal uses and many of their little inventions that would never have worked the way she described them. And I could not believe the ""soup bowls"" being lifted and carried on horses!! Many far fetched things going on there! Maybe she's not a rider but the way she described the making of the ""water proof bowls"" (with hot soup no less), hefting them up on the horse, with the amount it would have taken to feed the amount of people she described was nothing short of nonsense and very funny!I hope I can get Amazon to refund me for the one I haven't read yet! My own fault, should have ordered one at a time!Very disappointing......" +2909,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,AY6Z7UOZX5E7,"""au_miner68""",1/1,1.0,1021852800,741 pages of nothing,"I would have thought it impossible to write a 741 page book and manage to say absolutely nothing. Disappointed doesn't even begin to cover how I feel about having spent good money on this book. I should've waited for the paperback edition, because then, at least, I could've traded it in at my book club. Repetition from the previous books in the series, coupled with reiterating passages from this worthless volume, made me skip several pages in disgust. In short, skip this one... you won't miss anything." +2910,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A3AHJVKUE77U2O,"B. Smith ""bumblebee""",4/4,2.0,1025568000,What Happened?? (nothing much),"Maybe I had to wait too long for this book. Maybe Auel was pressured into writing it & her heart wasn't in it. Maybe she didn't even write it. Some one of these has to explain the vast difference in enjoyment I experienced between the first 4 books and this one.The more I think about it, the more I wonder how this book even made it out the publisher's door. There was too much repetition & rehash (after 12 years I think readers had too much time to read & re-read the other books and know the past backwards & forwards). Not enough interesting plot development occurred - everything that I expected to have happen in maybe the first 1/4th of the book took the entire 700 pages, and little new or unexpected things happened to spice up the expected events. I suspect 90% of her readers could have fashioned a more exciting plot than this book had, especially after having over a decade to let their imaginations go at it. There were too many characters and sidelines to the story partially developed & then dropped. With all the wait between #4 & #5 I assumed extensive research was involved, but the background development resulting from any research was far inferior to the depth of the 4th book.This book is, at best, an uneventful bridge to book #6, IF Auel's readers are not too annoyed at having rushed out to pay hardback prices for this one to even bother to buy the next one. The things of importance I took away from this book could have been conveyed in a few chapters of the next one. Surely the editors could have seen how inferior this book was to the first four. The publishers can only have been concerned with reaping hardback revenues, not maintaining the author's reputation, to have allowed this book to go out their doors the way it is. I cannot imagine the paperback doing well at all, and if there is to be a 6th book, she has a major redemption task in front of her." +2911,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2SY7FHMQOQS9H,Ronald L.Kines,0/0,1.0,1023753600,Shelters of Stone,"After waiting 11 years I was really disappointed. It seemed that everytime someone new was introduced, it took three paragraphs to tell who they were. Maybe Jean Auel will have another book out in about 20 years and by then I won't be around to read it. A very drawn out tale, not what I had expected." +2912,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,4/4,3.0,1028505600,A Poet She's Not,"OK, first off, I enjoyed Shelters of Stone. I waited 12 years for it and was not disappointed. While it was NOT one of her best works, Ms. Auel wrote a very entertaining book that answered many questions and tied up a few loose ends left by her previous novels. I understand the need to repeat much of the content from the previous novels - as she has a new audience, some of whom had never read any of the prtevious books - so this one had to be able to stand alone while at the same time be able to entertain those of us who had been left for 12 years without answers to what would happen to Ayla when she came to her new ""family"".On the negative side - the Mother's Song - while the poem loosly fit iambic pentameter in meter and style, it was so poorly composed that I found that it distracted from the actual meaning of the poem itself. Additionally, it could have easily been reduced to 4 stanzas and still have just as meaningful. Additionally, to repeat the poem in its entirity 3 times throughout the novel was extremely irksome. Beyond that she felt the need to explain the meaning of the minute details of the poem to the point that I felt insulted. The poem was in English. I speak and understand English. The relevence of the poem was totally clear to me the first time I read it. Auel did not have to explain it to me.I am most definitely looking forward to the next book in the series in which Ayla ""comes into her own"". Hopefulls , Ms. Auel won't bore or insult us again with her poor excuse for poetry." +2913,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2JPAG0GQPCYZ8,Becky P Curtis,0/0,5.0,1355011200,Love it,I love this continuation of the series. I am not a reader at all.....but I havent been able to put any of them down. +2914,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1OZB2GQTETNQC,old bald guy,4/5,5.0,1300060800,The Shelters of Stone Wonderful I loved it!!,"The Shelters of Stone: Earth's ChildrenTo say that I was appalled by the bad reviews of this book would be an understatement. I read several of the ""bad"" reviews after reading the book a couple of times AND listened to it on audio. Perhaps I read a different book than did some of the reviewers. I read ""The Shelters of Stone"" by Jean Auel and loved it. It carried the same flavor and style of the first four books of the series and I am anxiously waiting for the next book.Perhaps what some whiney people didn't figure out was that Ayla and Jondular have finished their year long journey and are now settling in to his home and her new home. They get married and start a family. They deal with ignorance and bigotry. They teach new ideas. They become constructive members of their community. (unlike some of the reviewers)One reviewer claimed to have skipped parts and skimmed other parts ... actually admitting to not having read the entire book ... and still had the nerve to say it was bad. Another reviewer said Auel wasn't good at writing... and another said Auel didn't even write the book... and on and on and on...To the people who spent paragraphs complaining and whining about how bad they thought the book was, listen up... Where I come from, we have a saying .... ""put up or shut up"". In other words, do it better (if you think you can) or quit complaining.People, give it a rest! The book was fun. I laughed at times. I cried at times. I was entertained. Jean Auel did her job. I am patiently waiting (with more manners than some reviewers) for book 6." +2915,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,315/353,1.0,1020384000,Disappointing doesn't begin to cover it.,"...The Shelters of Stone is not a good book, and it is not a bad book that is fun. It's such an incredible departure from Auel's other books that I question whether she actually wrote it herself. Let me tell you why.In the previous Earth's Children books, she tended to get somewhat flowery and overblown with descriptions of, say, prehistoric tundra landscapes or intricate cultural customs. But the overblown descriptions were at least engaging. She's never been a master of character development -- the characters have always been very one-sided, with the good people being superhumanly good and the bad people being very, very bad -- but at least she made you care about the characters to some extent. And she's never been particularly excellent at writing dialogue, but at least every once in awhile she'd hit upon something poignant, or funny, or interesting.None of these things happen in the Shelters of Stone.The book is a cold, stilted, haphazard, frankly [weak] attempt at continuing the story of Ayla, who loyal readers have known and loved and been following for over 20 years now. The characters are cut from cardboard and stuck in at random intervals where it seems convenient, not to move the story along. Not that there's much of a story -- frankly, about 3/4 of the book is exposition from the previous 4 books. Very little actually happens in Shelters of Stone that you haven't seen happen in the previous books. Ayla and Jondalar meet the Zelandonii, and then every time they meet someone new there's the endless round of introductions, they have to explain Ayla's background, how she got the animals, the spear-throwers, the firestones, etc. etc. ad nauseum.There is thankfully much less explicit sex in this book than in the former books, but Auel more than makes up for the tedious sex scenes with the tedious exposition of covered territory over and over and over. Events that should be touching -- weddings, deaths, births -- are glossed over or ham-handedly dealt with, but then followed by pages and pages of Ayla and Jondalar explaining Ayla's background, which we've known the most intimate details of for four books now. I found myself skipping large portions of chapters just so I could get to the next part that actually had something to do with the story.The dialogue between the characters is so awkward it's painful at times -- it sounds like an 8th-grader's first effort at writing a skit for the school play. The narrative, dialogue and plot careen from point to point, emotion to emotion with seemingly no direction or finesse. Some of the details that have been consistent through the last four books are now different in this book, like the spelling of a major character's name. There were some great opportunities to tell parts of the story we hadn't heard before, about Jondalar's background, but none of those were explored in favor of having Ayla explain for the umpteenth time to some person how she trained Wolf. Also, whoever edited this book needs to be fired, because on top of the numerous problems discussed above, there are comma splices, sentence fragments and other grammatical problems throughout the book. Maybe Ms. Auel was given final edit; if so, that was a really, really bad idea.If Ms. Auel was a new writer and not an established author with several bestsellers backing her up, there's no way this book would have seen the light of day. There are too many literary problems with this novel to even enumerate here. Frankly, the book stunk. It was painful for me to read it, and I was actually sorry afterwards that I had spent money on a hardback.I wanted so much to love this book. I had a bad feeling when I read the first two advance chapters in my bookstore late last year -- the writing just didn't seem up to par with her previous efforts. I honestly believe that Auel only wrote maybe 25 percent of the book, and the editors hastily cobbled together the other 75 percent out of the last four books. I understand there's a sixth book in the works. I'll be waiting for the (used) paperback on that one. It kills me to say this, but if this is the best Auel can do, maybe she should think about retirement." +2916,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,ALDNAWMNBQPKH,"Bookworm ""Jerry""",4/4,3.0,1057968000,"Well, It Took Long Enough!","""THE SHELTERS OF STONE"" took long enough to come out. Okay, okay, Ms Auel, we understand you are both a mother and a grandmother, but loyal readers waiting for the end of the story are not carrying children or grandchildren. . .While we are more than happy for your personal life, readers are left hanging. . .and twenty years, you must admit is a long cliff-hanger. . .I do understand that personal things happen.But the Fifth book comes out at last. And it's mostly a review of the the previous four books. Ayla has her baby. Good on her. Jondalar is a father. Good on him. . .but the bulk of the book is what happened before <i.e., what happened in the four previous books; I mean every other page is a flash-back to what happened in books 1, 2, 3, or 4: and now book 5 is out and we're reminded again and again what happened in books 1-4>Ms. Auel, you write well, but some of us readers remember. We KNOW where you left off. We're with you. . .Yes it's been twenty years, but we've been waiting all that time, at the same spot in the story. . .What WE'RE waiting for is the climax. We're waiting for the finish. For myself, I'm over fifty years old. Will I get the end of the story before I join Iza and Creb?I don't mean this over critically. I just want to know if this story will be like the construction of I-285 in Atlanta: Will this be completed in my lifetime?" +2917,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,6/8,3.0,1123804800,The Shelters of Stone Review,"I was pretty young when this book came out, so when I was older I started out with the first three and came to this one. [I read the fourth book later.]Sometimes I think this book is great, sometimes I'm just irritated by the amount of repetition in it. For instance, having an insight into everyone's thoughts might have been a brilliant idea-but all you get is yet another person thinking, ""She has an unusual accent, but it's not unpleasant. I wonder where it came from."" BORING!Also, when Ayla was given some strange clothes so people would laugh at her, all she did was decide to wear them for a hunting trip. She was hardly embarrassed at all, which makes you wonder if she's either got her priorities misplaced or if she's a robot. [With the number of things she's invented already, I wouldn't be surprised.]I read in another review that everyone either loves or hates Ayla and Jondalar, and I have to agree. Someone who slightly disapproved of all their showing off would actually be refreshing. Even Zelandoni, who is supposedly a great healer and critical of many people, loves Ayla immediately and tells her she 'belongs in the zelandonia'.Ayla's 'look-out-for-the-little-people attitude is rather annoying as well. Granted, it was nice that she helped Lanoga and Lanidar, but she shouldn't have made such a big deal about it.On the plus side, the book is fairly well written with fewer grammatical errors than there have been. Also, it was interesting to see how Ayla convinced the Zelandonii about 'flatheads'." +2918,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,3/3,1.0,1023580800,"oh, sad, sad day","Blah.I don't really know what to say.As someone who has a degree in anthropology, I actually love the detail that has always been heavily present in these books. I *like* the ""boring"" bits. But this was far, far worse than I could ever imagine. Repetition. No, none, zero conflict. Cardboard characters. No plot. The last 40-odd pages sounded more like the Auel we all know and love, but those cannot possibly justify the 700 pages of junk. The only element in that huge section that got me truly excited was Ayla's (inevitable) discovery of the cave that we know today as Lascaux.I was 14 when I finished the series that gave me an inkling about what I wanted to study in college...I'm now 25. And I'm horribly disappointed and heartsick. Jean Auel, what were you thinking??" +2919,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,AHRVFXXZTZEMH,Kokopelli fan,3/5,1.0,1158192000,"Agree with ""Just A Reader""","The author is obsessed with her exploration of the historic sights and forces descriptions of minutiae on us that add nothing to the story; in fact, they take the place of character development and divert the story line.As much as I liked the first three in the series, I put this one down for good just over half through. I would give NO stars if the rating system allowed that." +2920,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1CYNOAMSC2X8M,Suzette Truesdell,8/11,2.0,1095552000,Ayla is Tina Turner?,"Wow, may I just say this: This series has been hard enough to get through (I got the audiobooks free from a friend), but now it's intolerable. Remember how in the early 90's Tina Turner all of a sudden had this weird brit/european accent? For no apparent reason? Well, the same reader has done books 2-5, and now- in book 5, Ayla has this weird accent. She rolls her r sounds and has this broken language deal going on. Whatever. Like the storylines aren't lame enough, now it sounds awful, too.I'm so tired of their sex life by now, Ayla certainly must be, too. Of course, she is the queen of the instant orgasm, so maybe not. Lucky girl, I guess. Anyway, that's my review- no need to review the story because it's the same as all the others. But to change the entire speech and cadence of the main character's voice is just ridiculous. What crap." +2921,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,1/1,3.0,1022544000,Intro to book 6,"...I feel that the story is very slow in developing in this book. The book doesn't get much into the spirit world, travel, or details of landscape. My hopeful interpretation is that book five is an introduction to book six, and that book six will bring the adventure back. Let's hope we won't have to wait more than a year for book six." +2922,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,11/11,3.0,1020384000,Extremely disappointing,"I've been a huge fan of the Earth's Children series since I first read Clan of the Cave Bear. I thought that Plains of Passage was a little too detailed at time about the flora and funa that the characters were traveling through but overall it was a great story. I'd be happy if Shelters of Stone were in line with that. I just could not get into the story, if in fact there was one. Seriously, the first 300 pages are pretty much nothing but introductions to one-line characters that do nothing for the plot. Pretty much ""this is so and so from this cave"". Then they're never mentioned again. There's a couple of minor conflicts such as when Ayla meets the woman that Jondular was promised to before he left but the conflicts are easily solved. I was also expecting a lot more from the search for Jondular's brother in the spirit world. It was mentioned so many times in the previous novels that I was really looking forward to it. Again, the actual scene fell flat. The characters drink the special tea, go into the spirit world, find the brother, and send him on his way. No muss, no fuss, no bother. The whole part only took a couple of pages. There was more description of the cave that they were in than the event itself. Plus the event is told from Ayla's point of view but only Jondular sees his brother (if he does, they never really discuss it at the time) so she only gets impressions of what's happening. What kind of story-telling device is that? Overall I think that Ms. Auel did a great job researching to give the story local flavor but the plot left me feeling empty." +2923,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,1/2,1.0,1022112000,Nothing new.,"Clan of the Cave Bear is on my top 10 list of favorite books. I have read it and others in the series many times over the years, both in book form and on tape. Though the other 3 books were not as tightly written, they were entertaining and interesting. But not The Shelter of Stones. It is 700+ pages of nothing. It is a rehash of what happened in the past with no depth or creativity. Nothing new happened and even the old stories was told in a very shallow way.All the talk in the earlier books about how Jondalar's kin felt flatheads were so abhorent - the supposed reason for Jondalar's strong reaction in book 2, and embarassment in book 3. They get to his home cave and his kin just say, ""huh - there're human? Gee, that's interesting. Thanks for telling us. We'll have to think about it. ""I suppose the next book could actually have some plot to it. But I'm not going to hold my breath. 700+ pages and we didn't even meet anyone from the Clan.I agree with the readers that disappointment does not even describe my feelings. If you are a fan of the series, you may want to skim through it just for continuity. There is always hope that the last book will be better. But I wouldn't put it high on my list of things to read. Re-reading the other books (which did over the last year) is much more enjoyable." +2924,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,1/1,2.0,1041033600,Should be called The Descriptions of Stones,"This MIGHT have been an OK book if it had been half the length! Way way way too many descriptions of the rivers, the shores, the stones, the caves etc etc etc. It reads like a **very boring** geological textbook half the time! Hardly what you would call page-turning fiction! We all know that Ms. Auel has done extensive research for these novels, but I really don't want to be reminded of that on every page. Fiction is about plot, character development; not tedious drivel describing the physical landscape.Also, the book is very badly edited. There are so many repetitious parts--how many times does Joharran have to ask Jondalar if he'll teach them how to use and make the spear-throwers!??! Come on!Once again, an author got lazy and is riding on the coattails of her previous success. I won't bother reading any more of Jean Auel." +2925,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1N1YEMTI9DJ86,"S. Schwartz ""romonko""",5/6,4.0,1040169600,I Think a good reentry into the world of Ayla and Jondalar,"I have a tendency to agree with the editorial comments about this book rather than the readers' comments. I didn't think that this was a bad book at all. On the contrary, I think it was a good reintroduction to this world of Ms. Auel's. The only negative comment that I have is that there was a lot of repetition about previous books in the series, but I think that can be attributed to the fact that it's been twelve years since the Plains of Passage was published. Ms. Auel, I'm sure, felt that she had to bring everyone up to date since it had been so long. I found the book a wonderful representation of what life would have been like for these people in a normal year(without wars, trials and tribulations). Plus we got a real good picture of the way things were made and just what these people had to do to survive in what could be considered a cruel and hostile environment. I also found that at the end of the book, there is a lot of ground work laid for what is supposed to be the last book in the series. Now Ayla and Jondalar are mated, they have a new daughter and Whinney has a new foal. Bring on the rest of the saga. Thanks Ms. Auel for wonderful escapism." +2926,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,0/0,2.0,1022803200,The Muse is Gone,Now we know why it took Jean 12 years to finish this book. Her muse is gone and with it everything that made the earlier books compelling and interesting. We can only hope she'll find it again for the final book. +2927,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,0/3,1.0,1037059200,Bad graphic design.,"The first four books, as they originally came out, followed a consistent and attractive design pattern, thus they look like a series on your shelf and are artistically pleasing. The new binding looks completely different -- simplistic, boring -- and the text in no way lines up with that of the previous books. I don't believe they're going to get people to re-buy the earlier books in the new design. And the new design is not a correction to the original design. The decision makers at Crown Publishers have once again shown a lacking in sense of aesthetics and a lack of concern for their customers." +2928,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1XCH1HJ8TY3X5,Ashley,1/3,2.0,1040083200,The Shelters of Boredom...,"Not long ago I was introduced to Jean Auel's "Clan of the Cave Bear" as required high school reading and I have been thirsting for her work ever since. Her implementation of archeological description is amazing, and the society she has created for these ancient peoples is ingenious. But the fact that I put off college study time for 700+ pages of trite, regurgitated information from the previous four novels is incredibly disappointing.I felt as if I was forcing myself to paste my eyes to the pages and endure the dull plot, which lacked much needed character development and REAL attention grabbing conflict. There were simply too many superfluous characters who had no real impact on the novel at all. I was hanging on every page, not because of what was happening on it, but because of the hope that the next one might hold something interesting.I pray that this is just setting the stage for a phenomenal fifth installment, because this one could have been cut to a quarter of its size and still provide the same monotonous information. Granted, the last 200 pages picks up significantly, but not enough to redeem the overwhelmingly bland plot of the previous 500." +2929,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A3RNST1XO7PYWS,"April Steele ""Writer/Marketing Manager""",0/0,3.0,1021593600,Waited forever for this book...and not much happened.,"I've only got a precious 60 more pages or so to go to finish this book...but I must admit...I'm rather disappointed.Most of Ms. Auel's books span the course of several years...and much happens to the characters. I looked forward to this book for about a dozen years...and it only spans the course of about a year... For a lengthy book...it doesn't cover much ground in the lives of Ayla and Jondalar. And she hasn't invented one solitary thing throughout the whole book! Not at all like her!I sure hope the next book is waiting in the wings. I'm still a big fan and all...I just expected to get more caught up with my all-time favorite characters after all this time waiting. A lot of the book was just a recapitulation of the previous books...Ayla's unusual background...and the things she and Jondalar learned on their journey...I just expected a lot more. The book is very detailed and well written as always...but not much happens... And I feel that Ms. Auel missed the opportunity to utilize the character of Marona effectively... Maybe something will happen in the next 60 pages to change my mind.I'm really glad to have the book...and nothing would keep me from reading it...but I've been re-reading all the other Earth Series books for years and years and years and years...so I did not need the recapitulation.... I'm ""up"" with the storyline!" +2930,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,AZ2AD7TNQ7D1P,Celia Swender,6/7,1.0,1057795200,Like a Seinfeld Episode....,"...this is a book about nothing. Ms. Auel really phoned this one in, and I couldn't be more disappointed. My advice, if you haven't started the series, is to read the first three, skip four and five, and hope six lives up to the first half of the series. Unless you want a slightly less boring version of a research paper on the topography of Europe 30,000 years ago, stay away. I think it took her twelve years because she kept dozing off.... I NEVER have written a comment on a book before. The only reason I felt compelled to do so now is, after all the anticipation, I feel cheated and let down. Of course, who cares, because of course I'll buy the sixth one too, just to see if things look up. Still, I think I'll wait till it gets to the 2nd-hand store next time." +2931,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A21CO0W0AN55JS,Becky Shinn,0/1,2.0,1023321600,Where was the story?????,Really a reminder and a rehash of her books. Did not have a story line. Really disappointed. +2932,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1FIB9ABQDF1L4,Maxine Lund,2/5,5.0,1024704000,It was worth the wait.,"I thought this book was fabulous. As a matter of fact, I love the entire series. I thought she did a wonderful job picking up where she left off and not leaving any details out from the previous books. I eagerly look forward to the next book in the Earth's Children Series." +2933,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A394RSV3IGIYK2,"Angela D. Lenski ""codehead78""",0/0,4.0,1032825600,More description than action-- Still a great book,"All of the books in the series (except the first) repeat scenes from earlier books. It is more noticeable because there are more books from which to repeat and there is less action to detract from the repetition.The action is slow because SoS is an in-depth description of Alya's acceptance into a new culture. Alya has been accepted into many different cultures; her acceptance follows the same repetitive pattern: People frightened, Alya Help, People Accept, Alya Receive high status.Conflict is missing- no war, insane leaders, travel or new animals. Readers looking for that need to look elsewhere. The book gives a study of the sociology of the time and how the culture operated as a whole. Society's response to the challenge to the belief that the Clan are animals is reminiscent of the challenging of racial stereotypes in modern time.The book is not too focused on details; it is trying to show how the society operates on a daily basis. A great read for immersion into Zelandonii life." +2934,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,7/7,2.0,1041465600,Tedious -- Auel can do better,"Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... Snort! Oh, excuse me, I must have fallen asleep over my copy of Shelters of Stone again.I felt almost obligated to read this book in spite of the bad press it's received because I read each of the four previous novels in this series. I didn't like Plains of Passage very much, but had high hopes that Shelters of Stone would recapture something of the feel of the first three books. Alas, Auel has presented us with a tedious doorstop of a book that in the end left me wondering why I bothered to work my way through the whole thing. The plot goes nowhere, there is little character development, and there is so much repetition of material that I found myself skimming pages more and more frequently as I progressed through the book. The whole thing is so badly edited and the conclusion is so abrupt that I was left with the impression that Auel walked away from her computer to get a cup of coffee and while she was gone someone transmitted the unpolished novel to the publisher without her knowledge.And the Mother's Song... Oh, the Mother's Song. What can I say that other reviewers haven't already said? It's one of the most outstanding terrible poems I've ever read, rivaling some of the stuff in ""Very Bad Poetry"" (edited by Ross and Kathryn Petras). Never mind the fact that it's repeated several times. One reading was more than enough to convince me that this is one of the worst poems ever written in the English language. It should be awarded prizes based on its sheer awfulness and the way it makes your hair stand on end when you read it.To be fair, I have to say that Shelters of Stone isn't ALL bad. I enjoy books that focus on social history, fiction or otherwise, so the descriptive passages about housing, hunting, and ritual that annoyed so many other reviewers were often interesting to me.In addition, I was delighted to discover that Ayla and/or Jondalar didn't invent the wheel, at least not yet. I've almost been expecting this to happen and was happy to be disappointed in this respect. I suppose there's not much time for inventing in a society where you spend two-thirds of your waking hours naming your ties to everyone you meet.In short, there is very little new information in this book. Auel takes 700+ pages to tell us that Ayla and Jondalar are mated, that their daughter is born, and that Ayla has decided to become One Who Serves. Sorry, Amazon.com, but I can't recommend that people purchase this one. If you're devoted to the series and feel that you must read it, check it out at your friendly neighborhood library and save yourself the purchase price." +2935,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1E6ICKE8XPN1O,Beth Hanson,13/21,5.0,1068336000,Jean Auel's 5th book: Worth waiting for,"I've been a fan of this series for many years. I don't really think the problems in this book are that bothersome. The repetition of certain things is kind of annoying, but the repetition has been done throughout the series. I believe that so much of it was allowed in this book because of the likelihood that people may have picked up book 5 without reading the others. I also don't think that Jean Auel tries to portray Ayla as a superwoman. All of Ayla's discoveries are due to her unusual upbringing and the necessity of figuring things out for the sake of her survival. Even her powers in the spirit world may be mostly due to the root experiance that she had. This book may have seemed to move at a slower pace because Ayla and Jondalar have finally reached the Zelandoni and are trying to get settled down. Ayla has to learn the intricate details of the beliefs and customs of this new society, since the 9th cave will be her home." +2936,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1EMQ8U96DOAG4,kzturtlegirl,8/9,2.0,1178150400,I really wanted this to be better,"I've been reading the Earth's Children series since it came out, and have enjoyed the story of Ayla for the most part. Yes, the endless passages about flint napping techniques and steppe topography would get tedious, but there was a story around it all that was impelling enough to get through all of that. Ayla is an interesting character in that despite all the tragedy and hardships she goes through, she still manages to be brilliant and perfect. Ok, so that's an unrealistic character trait, but, c'mon, the whole concept of one cro-magnon woman advancing civilization by huge leaps and bounds demands a suspension in belief anyways. Back when the books would come out more frequently, my family and I would often joke about when in the series Ayla would invent the wheel, sailing ships, and agriculture.Which may be part of the reason for my disappointment in this book. Nothing extraordinary happens in over 600 pages of ad nauseum repetition. I unexpectedly found Shelters of Stone in my local library shortly after the death of Kurt Vonnegut Jr. As his quotes were fresh on my mind, I was constantly reminded of his rules of writing that include every sentence must somehow advance the story. I was aghast at how often the same thing was said over and over again in this book. The inane repetition over how the animals were domesticated, or how the fire stones were discovered, or, my God, the third time the Mother's Song was included in the story, I had to start skipping forward just to see if anything happens in this book. Which, aside from some births and deaths, does not.I will read the next book in the series, for the same reasons I read the painful later books in the Dune series - I can't just abandon my earlier investment of time and interest. I can only hope that Shelters of Stone is setting up something wonderful to come." +2937,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A24TUXMHC6IPUQ,"MarleneO ""MarleneO""",0/0,1.0,1028332800,How Disappointing,"I waited twelve years for this book, and I would have been less disappointed if it had not been written at all. It is entirely too lengthy and uses too many words to say too little. The description of how the ""spear thrower"" works is one example. What took half an hour to read could have been summed up in one page. The use of contemporary English does not fit the characters at all. I think I'll pass on the next book in the series where Ayla visits the Pacific. What a disappointment." +2938,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A3Q1OY77MG6SPZ,Maritas,1/5,4.0,1024444800,A good story but very repetitive,"I have read all the books and was very much looking forward to this new one. It's a good read if you love descriptions of *everything* and I mean everything. It's great to see Ayla home with the man she loves and becoming part of his family/tribe but it's lacking something. The space that is used by the repetition of formal names and ideas gets really old after a while and I too found myself skipping over entire paragraphs.As a whole, the book is still a good read and I would recommend it to any Jean Auel/Ayla fan." +2939,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,6/6,3.0,1072569600,"good ending, bad beginning","I would like to give this book three and a half stars: three is not quite enough, four is a bit too much.The book is badly in need of editing. There are extraneous and redundant sentences thoughout. The first 200 pages or so are both repetitive and badly written. 100 pages could have easily been cut out of the beginning, and it would have been a vastly better book.Nonetheless, the second half of the book partially redeems the very poor beginning. Auel returns to the highly descriptive, beautifully imagined, and evocative prose of her previous books. The repetitions are both fewer and more relevant to the story line. Although not as exciting as her other books, I think that this is in the nature of a book describing Ayla's more domesticated life with Jondalar's people.The ambiguity of the ending retains the suspense of the series going into book 6, but perhaps is a bit too cute by half. Nonetheless, this is not what impinges on the overall quality of this book. Alas, the editing process (or more accurately, lack therof), particularly at the beginning, was such that this book is not at a par with Auel's other novels." +2940,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,1/1,2.0,1032220800,A Good Introduction to Book 6?,"The repetition of the earlier books is justified for those who haven't read them, or don't remember what they read 12 years ago. The repetition within the book is not; nor are the ad nauseum descriptions of rocks, plants, hills, valleys, etc. Are the number of words in the book used in calculating what Jean Auel was paid? probably, and she knew it. The story line, while stretched out and left hanging, was good. The presentation of the social lives, and struggles of the people Ayla is to live with is interesting, if not exciting. But, the whole thing could have been comfortably compressed into a couple hundred pages as the first few chapters of something a lot better...like what we all hope book 6 will give us." +2941,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A23TAQ843TUOCI,"""grayrider""",2/2,2.0,1021766400,DON'T READ AND PRETEND YOUR STILL WAITING!,"I had to give it two stars because the years of waiting and hype gave me much more entertainment than the book did. I have yet to read a more dissapointing book. After years of waiting... years of Jean explaing she's taking her time to get it right... and this is the result? You meet Jondalar's people, one by one, and hear again and again (and again) the ""formal introductions"", the explanation of wolf, the horses and spear throwers. Most of the ""new"" dialogue makes me think it's set in the 1980's. One can overlook the grammatical errors (there are numerous), but they should be an embarrassment to everyone that OK'd the book. I hate to say it, but this is not a good novel. I found myself skipping whole pages just so I could read something that interested me. You can throw out half of this book, and still get bored.I just cannot believe anyone actually read this and said, ""Jean, this is a wonderful book.""WAIT FOR IT IN PAPER BACK... I wish I had." +2942,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2M0GNZWOZCSZA,"T. Smith ""charlottesomex""",3/3,3.0,1020729600,Shades of Meaning within Shades of Meaning,"No joy compared to mine when I saw that this book was coming out at the end of April 2002. I've been waiting over 11 years for this book! In preparation, I reread the first four before reading Shelters of Stone. Very bad idea; you'll notice right away that the pace of this book is quite different and there is a superficial depth to the characters. It seemed to read at a lower level and had the feel of a cheap romance novel, in a sense ""dumbed down"" or simplified. If you've read The Clan of the Cave Bear or The Valley of Horses, I hope you'll agree there wasn't a simple, cheap feel to them. I've read many series and this problem appears to happen a lot in the later books. Even the last few chapters of the Plains of Passage seem rushed, especially Ayla's meeting of Dalanar and the Lazandonii.I am disappointed that there wasn't more tension regarding Ayla being raised by the Clan. Jondalar's disgust and revulsion were so complete in the Valley of the Horses that it surprised me that his close kin discussed it so calmly and took the news so well in this book. But, of course, Jondalar has overreacted to a lot of things considering his society and traditions.The storyline regarding Ayla's acceptance by Earth's Children she is surrounded by (whether it be the Mamutoi, Zelandonii or Clan) is basically the same and, I agree, repetitive: Will they accept her? How can she prove she's acceptable? Will they let her stay or even belong? It's always Ayla's sure sense of self, pride, confidence, and her exceptional Gifts that allow her to stay, along with the support of the ones who love her most. Still, this time there was no open hostility or tension and Ayla's acceptance speech was moving.I think that I'm surprised most in Ayla's change of character. It's a subtle irony. She is still strong, capable, intelligent, quick to grasp meanings, a healer, a caretaker, etc, but she seems to exhibit a lot of the qualities she doesn't approve of in others. For example, she's quick to judge people ""bad"" before she knows them, is sometimes way too honest, and gets angry quickly and defensive even quicker. Of course, this is explained through her sense of righteousness and her strong will to help those in need showing through.The search for Thonolon's spirit was quite possibly the most interesting part of the book, especially considering it was a `burden' to Jondalar's spirit since the second book. And I'm glad that Whinney and Ayla finally had their babies.I am looking forward to the next and last book of this series. I had a thought that maybe we're supposed to just meet and greet the new characters to the story in this novel. Get used to their names, their basic qualities and the lay of the land. Plus, tie up the loose ends of the previous books. It appears that the next book will deal more with the spiritual aspects I've enjoyed most in this series. I felt that this was missing in Shelters of Stone. In the previous books, I enjoyed the serendipity that allowed Ayla to discover the things that made her Ice Age life easier, especially since there was no people to tell her something could not be done just because no one had done it before. It's still the best lesson in Jean M. Auel's books." +2943,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,0/4,5.0,1021248000,"Great book, a MUST READ!!!","I if you've read the other four in the Earths children series this is a follow up. find out what happens with Ayala and Johnular when they reach his people. if you haven't read the other four books I STRONGLY recamend that you read then first in order to know what some of the referances mean and who the pepole are. The Clan Of the Cave Bear., The Valley Of the Horses,The Mamouth Hunters, the Plains of Passage in that order." +2944,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2EMP366TTS6E1,Judith Miller,4/7,4.0,1043020800,--Ayla meets her Zelandonii in-laws--,"I think it's been something like ten years since I read the last book in this series and reading this story was like meeting old friends whom you haven't seen for a long time.This is the story of Ayla, a Cro-Magnon woman who has now traveled through five of the Earth's Children series. Along the way she met Jondalar another traveler, and fell in love. Together they have had many adventures in the previous books. In this most recent story, Shelters of Stone, Jondalar takes her to meet his family, the Zelandonii tribe.Jean Auel has again completed a lot of research and written a very thoughtful story of what Cro-Magnon men and women might have been like. Some of the actions of the prehistoric people rang true to me and others seemed a little too sophisticated for that time in our evolution. The pace of this book is a little slower than the previous stories and it seemed to me to be too heavy with descriptive passages. All things considered, it is an interesting story and I applaud the author for her fortitude and diligence in continuing Ayla's saga.Even though I've read the all of the books about Ayla, the first story, The Clan of the Cave Bear continues to be my favorite." +2945,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,1/2,4.0,1059436800,Ayla's Back,"I took the liberty of reading the other reviews and agree with most of them. Yes, the book is overly long and repetitious. I'm not sure if Ms. Auel was trying to re-aquaint us or herself with characters who've been missing for far too long. Yet, this series remains on of my favorites. The people, places, and customs remain descriptive and rich in her writing style. As always, there is an element of intrigue boiling just beneath the surface. If indeed Book 6 will be the final installment,then The Shelters of Stone has left many questions that will need to be answered." +2946,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A303WKFXP54MPO,"""elyseb""",0/0,2.0,1022976000,Fresh Voices Needed!,"After a decade, both Jean Auel and Robert Waller produced follow-ups to previous hits. I read both and wished I had not wasted my time nor money." +2947,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2DTOF2ZLB115F,"""jennthebooklady""",9/15,5.0,1022371200,I Loved It!!,"Sandra Burr has done a wonderful job in reading this series and I very highly recommend the CD version of the entire series the remake are wonderful!!Wish it didn't take so long in coming but I loved it!!! I best liked the detail she gave in the everydaylives of the Zelandonii, there reaction to the animals and the progress in the knowlege of how theanaimals could be usful. I think Auel did an excellent job in developing the storyline - how Aylaintergrating with the Zelandonii and also how the Zelandonii are coming to appreciate Ayla uniquequalities. I so much look forward to the next book and hope it doesn't take too long. I hope Auelwrites several more books to this series - going through Ayla entire lifespan and that of her children's- she give such great insight to what life would be like in the Pleistocene - the attention to detail andaccuracy is the series greatest strenght - perhaps one day the series will be turned into a movie(theather or for tv) with accuracy this time to what Auel has written." +2948,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,6/6,1.0,1057708800,WHERE WAS THE EDITOR?,"I plodded through this excessively repetitive tome, reading over and over about the same things, and wondered how the editor(s)and publisher of this book could have let the author get away with such undisciplined text. Or was it the long-awaited windfall profits from anticipated sales to fans that motivated them. Of course, the author is primarily responsible for this endlessly pedantic prehistory, which does not even do justice to the cave paintings or their artists. This is a sad way to reintroduce oneself after 12 years, practically a generation having passed in the meanwhile. If another twelve years pass before the final book is available, I doubt if anyone will stick around to read it. I read some fan literature that extrapolated this book's plot and found it much more entertaining and was sad to find that the author-fans stopped in mid story. I think they could have written the whole book and it would have been grand. If these authors are still around, I would encourage them to post the rest of their work. We can all enjoy their creation, in the same way that other fans have rewritten Star Wars Episode One to edit out the drivel Lucas put in. Maybe it will also give Auel some inspiration, which she sorely must need to have taken so long to produce so little. Remember, Jean: Bigger is not necessarily better." +2949,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,6/6,1.0,1021248000,Dreadful,"This 5th book in the ""Earth's Children"" series has been eagerly awaited for a remarkably long time. Given the amount of time Auel has been working on this novel, it is almost mind-blowingly bad. I have a hard time, in fact, believing it is even written by the same person as the other books in the series. The writing is poor, there is very little plot, the pace is excruciatingly slow, and above all it is unbearably repetitious. Not only does Auel remind us over and over again of things that have occurred in other books, which alone would probably be forgivable. She also repeats herself within the book over and over, both by literally repeating what the characters are thinking a few paragraphs after first revealing the information (sometime she tells us three or four times as if assuming the reader to be too dense to get it after being hit over the head with it twice) and also by repeating the same plot point endlessly (for example, Ayla and Jondalar reveal the ""firestones"" to each other character in the book individually, so that the reader has to suffer through the identical scene at least five times; same with the ""spear-thrower"" and the animals and the ""pole drag"" etc. etc. etc.).If she couldn't think of a story, she shouldn't have written the book at all, much less subjected us to 800 pages. It is shameful that she will make any money from this piece of dreck, much less the huge amount she will undoubtedly pull in from it." +2950,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,2/2,2.0,1025049600,This book was a bit too redundant.,"I think Jean Auel is an awesome writer. However, I think this book focused way too much on ""how amazing"" Ayla was in the eyes of all the other characters. I adored Ayla in ""Clan of the Cave Bear,"" and ""Valley of Horses."" (I have read those two books over and over again.) In this book, Ayla seems too subdued, or not really shining through, as in her previous books. I agreed with one reviewer which stated that Ayla spent too much time explaining and retelling what all of Auel's readers had already read in her previous books. I probably will never re-read this book. I still love Jean Auel and Ayla!" +2951,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,AHDJ6Q2QGL9DM,Marifrances,32/48,5.0,1022025600,Ignore the Naysayers: This Book is Good!,"I don't know why people are complaining about this book. Did the time lapse bewteen Ms. Auel's last book and this one cause some people to forget that prehistoric times were different from today's world?Yes, personal character introductions are repeated in this book. That's because in the prehistoric world there was no television, radio, or Internet to spread information about unknown individuals. Introductions were also used to show honor and respect. Ms. Auel, as an excellent writer, understands that she needs to realistically represent the patterns people followed when they introduced new people to one another. It's called storytelling.Certainly, the dialogue Ms. Auel writes may not be the snappy, clever or minimalistic Hemingway-type dialogue that is used in modern pop literature, but that's because she is not writing a Tom Wolfe or a James Patterson novel. She is writing to communicate the human-ness and ordinary-ness of prehistoric humans. That is her aim and her casual, refreshing character dialogue is the tool.Ms. Auel includes some flashbacks and rehashes of past events in her book. People are saying they don't like this. Why? The segues fit into the narrative perfectly, and help to add to the drama and power of the story. In real life, people think back over past events all the time. As a writer, Ms. Auel is once again reflecting reality. I suspect the complainers must be people who usually read minimalistic detective dramas or modern realistic fiction where not much internal work happens.People are griping about the fact that Ayla is ""larger-than-life"". Ummmm ... and the point is? Ayla is SUPPOSED to be larger-than-life! Much like a lead character in a graphic or epic novel, she is astounding to both the reader and the characters within the book. She is an archetype. She has always been an archetype. She is not one of those mundane, self-consciously ""normal"" characters people in MFA creative writing classes create. Ayla is the product of a REAL writer who knows how to create unusual characters that people literally love. Do you think people would have named their daughters Ayla had Ayla been one of those modern American Janet Evanovich characters? No, of course not.In addition, Ayla is one of those history-changing people that pop into existence now and then. People are whining because Ayla makes all sorts of new discoveries, like how to use rocks to make sparks, where babies come from, how to make a pole drag, etc. Well, people like that DO and HAVE existed. Look at Leonardo da Vinchi and Einstein for examples.I also don't understand why people are objecting to how Ms. Auel makes Ayla very beautiful and grants her a very charismatic personality in the book. Again, extremely beautiful women have existed in the past: ever heard the phrase, ""The face that launched a thousand ships""? Charismatic women have existed as well: Joan of Arc, for one. And sometimes women have existed who were both supernaturally beautiful AND charismatic: consider Cleopatra as an example.Finally, people are saying they are unhappy with Ms. Auel's long descriptions in the book. The long descriptions are there because it is an EPIC tale and an EPIC book. Tolkien did the same thing and no one complains about him. Besides, Ms. Auel wants to impart some knowledge of prehistoric times to the reader and enhance the artistic level of the narrative in doing so. As Ms. Auel has said; ""The magic is in the details.""This book is a worthy accomplishment of a top-notch writer and should be bought, savored, and reread. If you are brave enough to have an open mind, buy this book. If you just follow the pack and base your book purchases on what the masses are saying, well then, you will only be cheating yourself when you miss out on this wonderful, fascinating work by one of the world's greatest living authors." +2952,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,10/11,2.0,1029888000,"Ayla, what happened to you?","Oh, Ayla, Ayla! Wherefore art thou Ayla...?In the first book we rooted for her. The young girl, without a family, who thinks differently, rebels, but most of all survives. We believed in her world...it was harsh and demanding. It was easy to suspend your disbelief. We believed in her. In the second book, still surviving, she found love and the ugly duckling turned into a swan. We were pleased to see that. After all she's been through, the girl deserved some happiness. In the third book, we wanted her accepted by her own (at least in between all the sex sessions). By the fourth book, Ayla was starting to get predictable and annoying. And then we waited.Time passed, some of us finished high school, college, got a job, got married...from time to time hoping that we'll get to visit Ayla's world again. And finally there she was,perfect to the point of nusea, singing the longest and most annoying song. Every time Ayla looked at something, she turned into a heroine like no other. Her society, more politically correct than ours, never suffers. None of the caves fight with each other, in fact I don't think these people knew what war was. The herbal remedies that are more efficient than anything you can find in 21st century. And boy, does the traveler get treated better among the Zelandoni than today. (No one will ever steal from you in Ayla's world that's for sure.)Honestly, sometimes I felt like I was watching a child's play made up with Barbie dolls: ""Let's play house...this will be the home...people will eat here...oh, I know, let's have a little cup there so if someone wants a drink, they can use it!"" The dialogue certainly didn't help.Having said all that...and more, which was mentioned by other readers already (unlike the book, I will not be repetitious) I am waiting for the sixth part. Like a fool, I hope Ayla will become human again. And now, I think I will have a cup of tea, look to the right and notice cure for cancer sitting right in front of me." +2953,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A55MRYPUAX4QU,Avid Reader,11/12,1.0,1041206400,The Unpardonable Sin,"I have read all the novels in this series and though I thought the previous one was tedious, it was still acceptable. I must part company with this one, though. It commits the unpardonable sin for literature: It bores. Despite several provocative sub-plots and themes (racial prejudice, child-bearing questions, gender equality, religion) not one is developed fully. The book seems written in starts and fits; a promising idea is introduced and expounded, when suddenly we leave the narrative for yet another walk through the countryside with animals or observers as Ayla imparts her womanly wisdom of the ages.The meandering New Age chanting is repetitive at best and infuriating at worst. Considering what we now know about the development of religious ceremony (including chorus)in ancient Greece, it is highly improbable that this level of thought (which sounds suspiciously modern) was reached. For one thing, abstraction in language is a rather recent development. Although primitive man invoked ceremony when burying the dead, it is doubtful that a deep level of theological sophistication was reached.The relationship between the two main characters does not grow nor really change. He is still in awe of Ayla and her powers and she is still panting for his manly, uh, accessories. Mom, dad and all the relatives added little to the story. In fact, the half-breeds, which held the most promise, simply faded away. I suppose the chief complaint is that I was expecting something bold or new or different on the order of Clan of the Cave Bears. Despite intense research and quirky, original ideas on how primitive folks lived, the story reminds me of that saying: Nothing ventured, nothing gained." +2954,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,8/8,2.0,1020902400,"Captive audience, but major letdown...","I've been waiting for the release of this book for almost 10 years. I started the series in high school, and books 1-3 quickly became some of my favorite books. The 4th book started to get repetitive and dragged a lot, and I was hoping that wouldn't be the case with this one. Unfortunately, that is the case. I was hoping for something along the lines of The Mammoth Hunters, but what I got was a stream of forgettable characters that were never very well-developed. Too many characters were introduced, for no good reason. I kept mixing up the two women whose names started with ""P"", and the two men whose names started with ""B"". And too many different caves to keep track of.It's the same old story...Ayla is perfect. People don't trust or like her at first, she must prove herself by showing them her inventions and skills, then they love her and practically make a goddess out of her. Puhlease!!! I used to like Ayla, I really did, but I've lost interest in her because she is no longer realistic at all. I mean, does she have any faults? The only one I can think of is her inability to sing (which I find completely ridiculous, since she is able to mimic every animal known to man - why can't she mimic a good singing voice too?). Ayla is just TOO perfect. She is no longer human but a mockery, sort of like a child's superhero. She needs to wind up on the losing side sometimes, needs to reveal SOME human foible! The chick is starting to really annoy me. I've actually started rooting for her antagonists. The story would be richer and more intersting if just for once, Ayla didn't become allied with the most powerful people in the tribe, the most skilled, the ones with the highest status. Why can't Wolf really kill someone? (then she'd have to suffer through guilt and be truly ostracized) Why can't she get truly ANGRY once in a while? Like a real person?I was hoping this novel would answer a lot of lingering questions put forth in the first 4 books. I was sadly disappointed. There didn't seem to be much of a plot, other than Ayla meeting new people, the endless recitations of relationships and titles, Ayla showing everyone her inventions, etc. Of course Ayla is going to be challenged, and of course she is going to overcome it fabulously. One thing I was surprised at, was the lack of Jondalar's character in much of the story. His relationship with Ayla seemed to lose its steam.I admit that I used to like Auel's descriptions of Pleistocene Europe, but endless descriptions of this valley, that stream and this rock outcrop got very tedious. I skipped over many paragraphs, and at time many pages, just to get to some action. I think Auel did a disservice to her longtime fans by bogging them down with too much description of the landscape, and too much repetition of Ayla's exploits, of which we are already familiar! (I mean, come on! Hardly anyone is going to pick up this book, 5th in a series, without having read the other books!).I think this series has definitely run out of steam. I must admit that I'm only halfway done with the book, but it's all I can do to finish it, and this is coming from a person who has read and reread the first 3 books at least 4 times each!! It is a CHORE to finish this book. I keep hoping something interesting will happen, some questions about Ayla will be answered, but I am let down. The points in the story that are supposed to be important leave me feeling really ho-hum. Of course I'll finish it, just because I'm such a long-time fan of the series, but I almost wish that Ayla and Jondalar would've settled down with the Sharamudoi and the series ended there. I can't imagine how the last book will be any better than this one. This book put me to sleep. It's sad. It truly seems that Ms. Auel's heart was not in this book." +2955,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A21ZZG2DE9ZH6W,Mom_poet_love,2/2,3.0,1319328000,Got bored,"I loved the first 4 books and was just waiting to be able to read this book, I am not more than 3 chapters in and I am struggling to get through, boring boring boring, and I repeat boring boring boring and just when a little of the actual story comes in to play boring , introduction, boring, acknowledge alya accent, boring, boring and repeat from beginning. I cannot give a full review and from I read from other reviews there are small tidbits of worth but they are thread pullers in a hay stack. I honestly get the feeling she wrote this book for another check, as much as it pains me to say that." +2956,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A35R1WS1JL5R9Y,S. C. Maxwell,0/0,4.0,1026172800,Okay - so the dramati tension is somewhat lacking---,"I would have to agree that there is less tension in ""The Shelters of Stone"" than in the first four books- and there is a certain amount of repetition of plot in order to catch up non-series readers - and you can definitely ""smell"" a lot of ""setting up"" for the next book... I was so grateful to have the next book in the series that none of this mattered. My biggest disappointment was that it seemed to end too soon - kind of wrapped up an awful lot of plot in a very small percentage of the book. However, I would probably have been disappointed if the book had been twice as long - I just didn't want it to end.I have read it three times, bought two CD copies and one audiotape copy for myself, a copy for my sister, and two of my daughters. I guess you would have to say that I am more than fond of the characters. I think Auel has set herself quite a task for the next book because she has set up so many scenarios which will need resolution. I hope that she had the next book planned when she released this one - otherwise I'm not sure I'll live long enough to read it.My thanks to Auel for many, many hours of entertainment, and for fostering an interest in the world of the Neanderthals and Cromagnons. Prehistory has become an avocation for me since I read the first of the series in 1990." +2957,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,AQCQ5F0OJXMG9,Crystal Starr Light,5/5,1.0,1334016000,Earth's Children: A Prehistoric Clip Show,"Summary: Ayla and Jondalar return to his home. Everyone loves Ayla; Ayla and Jondalar tie the knot; Ayla gives birth to the hellspawn and while her name is incredibly stupid, it still ends up sounding better than Twilight's Renesmee.I don't know whether I should be upset that I spent all this time listening to the book equivalent of a 90's clip show or I should be laughing at the ridiculous joke of this being published. Or cry thinking about how many trees this destroyed on its route to the bookstore. Or rage about the number of books that were rejected to make room on the bookseller list for THIS.I've done my raging about this series; it's been a ridiculous, over the top Mary Sue-ridden barely concealed fanfiction-y ride. But I almost want to go back to all the previous books and bump up the ratings by a star or two (YES, a star or TWO). With ALL the complaints I've had for the last three books (and if you've read my reviews, you know THAT is a laundry list), those books look like literary GOLD next to this piece of Mammoth defecation.Gone are any attempts at making Ayla a realistic character. Gone are any attempts to take this story to the next level, to have ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING that has come before. Gone are any attempts to treat the reader with intelligence.Ayla is the biggest Mary Sue I've ever read. She is such a flagrant Mary Sue, I had to check to make sure that this wasn't fanfiction; I wouldn't be surprised to see this characterization from a thirteen year old girl on the internet, but from a 60+ woman? You coulda fooled me! Ayla is the sexiest, most attractive, most intelligent, most competent woman that the world has ever seen. She could heal cancer with willow bark tea; she can wear boy's underwear and a top with her boobs hanging out and no one will mutter a peep about her indiscretion--in fact, women will imitate her and every man will get a huge boner for her (and yes, this does happen). Everyone gasps in admiration about her ability to tame animal, everything she says is as if from the Mother's lips. She rushes into the town drunk's home to rescue his starving family, and the crowds cheer. She heals a stupid boy that was hunting rhino, and the audience roars. Ayla could blaspheme the Mother, destroy their religion, and burn the entire shelter to the ground, and STILL the ENTIRE Zelandani race would cheer her on.In fact, I took the Mary Sue test for Ayla. Wanna know what she got? 161. Know what that corresponds to? """"50+ Kill it dead.""Jondalar is still a whining baby. All he wants is for Ayla to remain flat on her back so he could pound into her all day with his massive dong. The only reason he turns down performing First Rites is because his massive dong would scare off the young virgins and NO ONE could take him all. WOW HOW FRAKKIN' ROMANTIC!! I wished so many times that he would fall off a cliff or chop off his hand or break his dong on Ayla's ""petals of perfection"".It is an insult to call the other characters ""characters"". The only ones who act even REMOTELY human are Marona, who is understandably upset because her fiance, Jondalar, ran off and she was left with NO COMPENSATION (and Jondalar is back, thrusting Ayla, the Woman Who Can Do No Wrong in her face), Brukaval, who wants Ayla to mind her own business for once, and the dude that Jondalar punched in the face and TOTALLY ruined his livelihood. Marthona, Jondalar's mother, accepts Ayla with barely a second thought. Same with Joharran, the leader of the 9th clan. Zelandani aka Zolena, the Dani woman that Jondalar loved SO MUCH and couldn't be with, is morbidly obese, conveniently ""unattractive"" to the vapid Jondalar. Everyone else that would have made a shred of conflict is painted so painfully villainous, it would have been more subtle to have them dress in black, twirl their mustaches, and cackle maniacally.And all the stupid poor widdle kids that Ayla has to rescue! GAH! For once, I would like this woman to do something selfish, for her own personal gain, instead of rushing over to the town drunk (who hates her) to rescue his POOR FAMILY, to shame all the rest of the clan women into giving the baby their birth milk because, ""Even the Clan would do that, and you think they are animals!"" In fact, I think Auel ""wrote"" half the book by just tossing in a new character that Ayla has to fix whenever she got tired of pasting in stories from previous books.There is so much repetition in this book, it's borderline plagiarism. We are reminded TWENTY-TWO TIMES that Ayla has an unusual, exotic accent. I am not stupid; I think I got it after the first time!! (I was going to post each one of the 22 quotes where it is mentioned, but I didn't want to get repetitive!) Other conversations that Auel has had in the past--every story from the last four books, where babies come from, how Iza told Ayla to wash up after having sex, how many times Ayla goes to""pass water"" (and how much more often she is going to ""pass water"" now that she is pregnant)--is repeated over and over and over and over again. And then the introductions! GAH! Here is just ONE introduction:""I am Folara of the 9th cave of the Zelandani, blessed of Dani, daughter of Marthona, former leader of the 9th cave of the Zelandani, daughter of the hearth of Willamar, master trader of the Zelandani, sister of Joharran, leader of the 9th cave of the Zelandani, sister of Jondalar of the 9th cave of the Zelandani, master flintknapper and returned traveler who is soon to be mated to Ayla of the 9th cave of the Zelandani. She has a bunch of names and ties of her own, but the one I like best is ""friend of horses and Wolf"".""Imagine this for nearly EVERY ""character"" and multiply that by infinity. That is how many times I had to read this. If I didn't know better, I would have thought that twenty different writers wrote this book, threw together their portions in one big pot and sent it directly to publish.And if you thought the previous books were in any way misogynist, you haven't even SEEN this book. Here are some WONDERFUL quotes from this supposedly equal-rights culture:""She had become Ayla of the Zelandani and Jondalar's mate, and that came first.""""Though a stigma of shame was placed on those who did not wait until they had their First Rites, some girls inevitably did succumb to the persistent blandishments. But no matter how relentless the pressure, by yielding to it, the girls became ultimately less desirable as mates because it indicated a lack of sufficient self-control.""""It is true that your mate will not be as tempted to look with pleasure upon other women if you satisfy his desires.""""Maybe [Jondalar] should have asked [Ayla] before he started all this [so Ayla could become Zelandani]""Wow, HOW FAIR! Girls who have sex before First Rites are looked down upon because they can't wait. But boys? NOTHING. If your man leaves, it is YOUR FAULT because you didn't have sex enough with him. Sounds great, doesn't it?Oddly enough, there are only 3 sex scenes in this book. Not surprisingly, they are pretty much the EXACT SAME sex scene we've read since ""Valley of the Horses"":Jondalar goes for Ayla's boobs.Jondalar moves to Ayla's ""petals"".Ayla moans and can't believe how ""ready she is"".Jondalar wants to take her ""right now"" and can barely hold back.Insert Tab J into Slot A. Fireworks, explosions, flowers fall from the sky and angels sing.And then we have the Mother's Song. I have a great aunt that used to write poetry about what happened to the family in the past year (and force rhyme to death out of it) and put it into her Christmas cards. The poetry would be something like this:And Johnny did run to the store one dayTo say hello to his Aunt MayAnd what do you think should happen there?He found a cute, adorable, cuddly bear!THAT is better poetry that this horrible mess. And the absolute LAST THING I wanted was Ayla commenting on how moving and wonderful this poem was.I am SHOCKED that this book took 12 years to write. I would have given it 12 days: that would be PLENTY to pick through the last four books, copy all the stories from there and paste them into this waste of paper, sprinkling a bunch of senseless research, bad sex, and Ayla Sue prancing around, telling someone off for their ""bad behavior"" or saving the day for some poor, precious, downtrodded person.I just have one question: HOW THE FRAK DID THIS GET PUBLISHED?!?!!!?!? This is, without a doubt, the WORST book of the series so far. It is pointless, it totally negates all the tension of that the last four books have been building up to, wondering and worrying if Ayla would be accepted into the Zelandani. I've read fan fiction better written than this.So my advice? AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE!!Brought to you by:*C.S. Light*" +2958,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,0/0,3.0,1027036800,Dissapointing...,"I suppose after twelve years of waiting for the next installment of my favorite series, my expectations grew to where I was bound to be dissapointed, I just didn't think I would end ""Shelters of Stone"" so disatisfied. I felt like Auel spent 750 pages setting up for the 6th book. There wasn't anything in ""Shelters"" to keep the reader engrossed. The last 4 books I couldn't put down, there was plot, conflict, interesting characters, etc. In ""Shelters,"" where was the central plot? Auel gives us the setup for some intersting things to happen (Marona, Laramar, Brukevel, Madroman, Ayla's training to become Zelandonni, trading and/or conflict with the Clan, etc.), but she never delivers the action, only hints at possibilities that we can only hope will be revealed in the 6th book. All I can say is that there better be a 7th book or the 6th book better be really long, because I don't see how she can cover and conclude everything in any other way. I love Auel, and I loved seeing my old friends again, I just miss that Earth's Children's feeling..." +2959,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2BLM0HWFK5SVE,Nicole,2/6,5.0,1038873600,Long awaited,Carrying on the story. Great book just like the others. Can't wait for the next one. +2960,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,0/0,1.0,1021593600,Disappointed Fan,"This is the book to read when you need to fall asleep. The excruciating detail will wear any reader down. I loved the series but felt the characters in this book had no personality. Ayla has become such a goody-goody with none of her previous fiery personality and Jondalar has none of the character he had in the previous books. The new characters introduced in the book are sadly lacking in development. Rather than buy Shelters of Stone, read Clan of the Cave Bear." +2961,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,AUL7CEQA4UE0J,SERGIO CIGUELA,1/2,1.0,1030406400,Stretched too thin,"I enjoyed the saga up to the Valley of the Horses, and was a little disppointed by The Plains of Passage. But this last book is nothing but a tedious account of the day-to-day life of some stone age tribe. It is slow, repetitive and boring. In fact it is about the only book I haven't finished in the last ten years.Just a book about the properties of plants." +2962,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,1/1,2.0,1021248000,Slow moving,"I don't understand why it took Ms. Auel so long to write this book. Almost half of it is either a rehashing of what took place in earlier books or the same thing happening over and over again in this book. The plot also does not advance much. She spends many pages describing the imaginary scenery, which seems beautiful but not necessary to the story. She does introduce many characters, but the character development is limited to only a select few. Indeed, a character introduced early on who appears to be a main protagonist, is then summarily dropped except for a couple of casual mentions 400 pages later. Finally, large spans of time are allowed to proceed without any text. All of a sudden a whole season goes by with only 50 or so pages of text. The book did progress the story, but the same amount of progression could have been done in 100 pages. It feels as if this book was just filler till the next one." +2963,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,3/4,2.0,1024531200,I waited 13 years for this?,"I have been an avid fan of the Earth's Children series since the beginning. After waiting 13 long years for the sequel to Plains of Passage, (which, in my opinion, started Auel's lack of wonderful story telling that the three previous books had had)you can imagine my disappointment when yet again we have an incredibly long boring stale story. Most people who would read Shelters of Stone are familiar with the Earth's Children series; therefore, we do not need an entire book of rehashing the past 4 books. There were barely any new story lines and each page was racked with long drawn out personal histories of people that didn't really matter to the story as a whole. Auel could have gone soooo many places with this new book, when instead it's just another narrative on how to skin a deer. Believe me, it pains me to not like this book because I really wanted to...but Auel made it so hard to really get into and enjoy. I can only hope that the next installment of the series goes back to the beauty of the first 3 books. Although I probably won't be able to read it as well because I'll be about 80 when it finally comes out." +2964,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A37F972DKGH24H,NNBD,3/5,1.0,1152576000,It was awful!!!,"I'm sorry to say, and sorry to use this language, but it sucked. Pretty much what other reivewers said is true. What a terrible disappointement. I read the first one over 20 years ago, and wanted and waited for this one. What a let down. What a ripoff!" +2965,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,3/3,2.0,1024617600,Disappointed,"I looked forward to another ""Clan of the Cave Bear,"" or ""The Mammoth Hunters."" Boy, was I disappointed. Not much story or action here. This book is mostly a lesson in archeology and anthropology. Not entertaining. Boring. Boring. Boring. I think the author has lost her muse and gone over to teaching.Bored Reader" +2966,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,1/2,1.0,1029628800,Sorely Disappointed too.,"I felt quite let down by this book that we waited so long for. I found it confusing, repetitous, wordy, and lacking in follow-through. .The numbering of all of the Zelandoni caves, as well as each having a descriptive name , often confused me. Especially when Jean Auel would use the different names/numbers interchangably throughout. As with her previous books, we again find out how spear throwers came about, how to use firestones, the lay of the land, (which is good if you are an archeologist studying the Danube river region and parts of France), and what it was like for man and beast to live in that era. I admit I skimmed and skipped many paragraphs when it became nothing but textbook material. Ayla did seem to have ""grown up"" in this book, having gained a backbone and level of maturity. But the hype of the Zelandoni's negative attitude of the Clan was a washout. If you are wanting to read it, rent it at your local library first, before purchasing it. I'm now glad I didn't buy it." +2967,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,ALDCSM5V7Q2YW,"Elizabeth Will ""readnonstop""",2/2,3.0,1309305600,Mediocre at best,"I am a die-hard Jean Auel fan, so I felt like I had to read this book. It was really interesting reading about Jondalar's people, but the problem was there was a lot of repitition from the previous books. I felt like I had to read about it all over again: the introduction of the spear thrower, the contraception tea, the flint stone for making fire, the horses, and the wolf. And of course how PERFECT Ayla is, I swear that girl never makes a mistake, whereas Jondalar is a little more believable. There was a lot less sex in this book, than in Plains of Passage, probably because the two main characters weren't alone as much this time around. Jean Auel has definately lost her edge a bit since The Clan of the Cave Bear. The only reason I gave it three stars instead of two, was because of how much I like this book series as a whole." +2968,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A252M9DVL6BIX8,fstuheart,2/4,4.0,1022457600,Totally worth the wait!!!,"Granted, I didn't have to wait 12 years like most fans, cause I only discovered the books 2 weeks before the new one came out. And I'm glad! Cause after finishing the 4th book I was so caught up in Ayla's world that with the 5th book, it was just a continuation. The only downside to ""The Shelters of Stone"" is that there's so much geographical descriptions, but that's Jean Auel's signature and it's just my impatience speaking here. The book is absolutely awesome, and I can't wait for the next one and I hope it doesn't take 12 years! Ayla is such a strong woman.." +2969,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A3T0OTH5072YRE,"M. Reynard ""kairosdreaming""",1/1,3.0,1296864000,The Shelters of Stone,"This fifth book in the Earth's Children series lacks the wonderfulness of the first four. While Auel's bad is definitely better than some author's good, it may prove to be a disappointment to some readers, and I definitely recommend that anyone whose never read the series before start at the beginning with Clan of the Cave Bear. This book does not suit well as a stand-alone.For those not familiar with the series (and a possible spoiler) Ayla was a little girl when she was adopted into a clan of Neanderthals. She was raised by them but eventually had to leave, and in doing so leave her son behind, to try to find others like herself. She didn't find them right away and instead spent time in a valley where she makes unlikely friends with a horse and lion. Eventually though, a handsome ""other"" named Jondalar ends up in her valley and they fall in love. The travel for awhile and stay with a tribe of people called the Mamutoi for a bit until finally making a perilous journey far to the west where Jondalar's people dwell.This book starts when they first reach the Ninth Cave of the Zelandonii, Jondalar's home. People are excited and anxious for awhile as Jondalar and Ayla have brought their two horses and wolf pup with them, which before now, had never been heard of. They meet several people and have to convince them of Ayla's worthiness to join the Zelandoni. Some people are taking far too much of an interest in her however, and the First of the Zelandoni (spiritual leaders, healers, etc.) wants her to become a Zelandoni herself as she is believed to be too dangerous left to her own devices. But all Ayla wants is to have her matrimonial with Jondalar and raise the baby that she is currently pregnant with.The characters are not as well written in this book. Ayla and Jondalar are once again too perfect. All of Jondalar's immediate family is too perfect as well and it would have been nice to even see some average people that were close to him instead of exceptional ones. It would have made the story much more believable. Those that aren't the nicest of people are usually far away from his family. The Zelandoni kind of creep me out too and I'm sure Auel wanted to make them sound important, but to me they just sound like a cult wanting to bring people ""into the fold.""The writing is very descriptive but it doesn't work well for Auel in this novel. It gets boring at parts and often times, I really didn't care what a certain cave that is only mentioned once in the entire novel looked like up and down and inside and out. I was also disappointed with how she chose to incorporate her research. There were new things she must have learned and wanted to add but made it seem awkward if you were familiar with the other books. For example, she goes to great lengths to describe an Elan (spirit of a person) and uses it quite heavily in this book, however, Jondalar never mentions it in any of the other books. Auel explains this by having Jondalar trying to keep it simple for Ayla, but one would think that something so important to his culture would be the first thing he share with her. I can understand wanting to include research, but sometimes it just hurts the book instead. Another thing people should note about the writing of this book is that it has a lot of sex scenes that are very descriptive.I like the series and as said before Auel's bad is still pretty good. I look forward to reading the finale and seeing what resolutions are made for Jondalar and Ayla's adventures.Book 1: The Clan of the Cave BearBook 2: The Valley of HorsesBook 3: The Mammoth HuntersBook 4: The Plains of PassageThe Shelters of StoneCopyright 2002749 pages + Character ListingReview by M. Reynard 2011" +2970,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A18X5ULE1PWJNO,Michael H. Jones,9/9,1.0,1025568000,"Oh, please..........",Pre-historic drivel......I forced myself to read almost every word....the alternative entertainment would be drilling holes in my head with a slow drill. Even the sex scenes were cut and pasted from earlier work......And how many dramatic inventions and cultural innovations can one gorgeous 19 year old come up with? Please.......And we had a contest at our house: who could aloud read from 'The Mother's Song' the longest without dissolving in laughter. Is this a humorous book? +2971,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,3/3,2.0,1058745600,Very disappointing,"If ""Clan of the Cave Bear"" was as mediocre as this book, its likely that the series would have ended right there. ""Clan"" was an excellent book -- and the others in the series were also very good -- but this book is very lacking in drama and repetitious to the point of boredom. The detailed research, which was skillfully woven into the story in earlier books and gave life and dimension to the characters and events, appeared in this book as lengthy descriptions which interrupted the story. As an Auel fan, I've eagerly read all of the previous books in this series, and was hoping that the negative reviews on ""Shelters"" were exaggerated. Sad to say, they're not. The only positive thing about this book is that Auel fans will have a chance to re-enter Ayla's world again after a long wait. I'm hoping that the next book will be better..." +2972,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,3/11,5.0,1022112000,Shelters of Stone,"I didn't know if I would live to read the next enstallment of Jean Auels mighty series. I have read all of the Earth Series Books, except the last, four times through, and love it. I love the way Jean starts the book with the next obvious breath from the last exhaliation of the previous book. Always with the curious and fearful people wondering just who Alya and Jondalar are. I love the way she jumps right in with the action of the story of the main characters greeting then finding something to do. Had it been my journey, I think that I would have wanted to sleep for a week.The characters blended very well, and I see that she has left herself open for a sixth in the series. I just hope we do not have to wait fifteen years. I was totally blown away as Jean Auel explained the number of trips to and from Europe. My feelings of gratitude have grown in such leaps and bounds, because I know, now, how much work goes into these kinds of series. Jean Auel, if you get to read this, please know my great thanks for the book you just finished, and for them all, as I have been so antsy to read it. Like a child waiting for a holiday, for when I read your books, I see myself in the situations you write of. Truly and totally enjoy, do I, your ability to tell such wonderful stories. I thank you for doing it to entertain us readers that know the good stuff and don't waste time on those that are not. I also love the series by Kathleen Gear and her husband, Michael. Sue Harrison is not to be left out, nor in a different setting, I love Tony Hillerman for his modern day mysteries of the Four Corners area of the US.I apologize for and am sorry that I was so anxious that I became greedy with your time. I just felt 'the book wasn't here fast enough.' But when I finally saw that your new book was out, my heart was singing a new song. I ordered my book from my book club, and within 5 days, I had finished another great book of the life and love of Alya of the Mind of Jean Auel. Thank you, thank you, thank you for being this kind of human, to share the results of your very talented mind and thought processes with us. You truly do make your fans wait with such anticipation of excitment, like waiting for a great and precious present.I am glad Wolf was not killed. Nearly thought he might be when I got to that part, but breathed easier at the next chapter.I find myself from a range of feelings all throughout this book - tears of joy, guard-like watchfulness of the ones who would be envious of Alya and Johdalar, barely controlling the sexual arousal that come with the couplings of Alya and Johdalar. I have no husband and, whew, they really love each other. Glad you wrote them this way. It seems like we are peeking through a key hole to spy on them when these parts are read. Whew! Anyway, takes me back to when I had a love to share pleasures with.Thanks again. Hope to live long enough to read your next one, when Alya joins the Zelondia for she is truly a great and good character, she deserves to honor the mother earth.Well, I have gone on, haven't I.Sincerely and with great gratitude, I sign,Penny Haulman" +2973,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2W9I80LE8GQOE,"Richard Olson ""Book worm""",3/15,5.0,1108771200,Love has no time.,"The series written by Jean M. AUEL ""Earth's Children"" I beleve is one of the most inspiring series of books out there. Yes it a series based in prehistoric ice age and the accention of man as the dominant species, but many over look that it is an moving love story. Its sory line has significance even to this day. Ayla cromagnon woman raised by neaderthals has to cope with being a minority in a male dominant society. It deals with racial inequalities, mix marriages ,standing up for what you believe in, and the power of women. It teaches that flexability,family, and tolerence is what make us human. It teaches perserverence, fortitude, and resilience when faced with survival. If your life depended on grouping with others for survival, it would you give a life altering experience that few have known. I believe todays society would benifit from this. Often I have wondered if I lived in prehistoric times would I have the courage of AYLA and all she faced. These books offer that experience to readers and also teaches early birth of moral values. The love between AYLA and JONDALAR is very real, and they faced many things that young and old alike face today.It also ponders the question when face with over welming odds that humans create, adapt, perserveer. I have recommend this series to all that can read. The sex scenes are just that, sex in the raw form, not shameful, or imoral just a very natural wonderful showing of love. Many only know the movie with Darrl Hanna as AYLA in clan of the cave bear, which I beleve she did a wonderful job, but that only scatches the surface of the wonder of ALYA full story. These books are self contained so each are a story in of them selves. Very easy reading and imformative. One you can not put down and will have you waiting for more." +2974,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1SAKJJ8JGMFLW,Jennifer Taylor,2/3,2.0,1024963200,I'm disappointed,"I wasn't far into this book when I found myself thinking this wasn't Jean Auel writing it. I was very disappointed, I kept thinking SOMETHING was going to bloom into excitement but every scene fell flat. I really think someone besides Auel wrote this." +2975,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,6/6,1.0,1026432000,one too many,"Having read all previous Auel books, mostly with great enjoyment, I looked forward to this latest. It feels like Auel's heart was not in this one, and frankly I could not even finish it, abandoning it half-way through.The interest in a book about ice-age people would be in the author's insight into a different way of life, different social patterns, even different thought patterns. Enlivened by Auel's curiosity and research, earlier episodes were both believable and interesting, most especially the first ""Clan of the Cave Bear,"" a gripping, realistic portrait of how the world may have appeared to Neanderthal man.Granted that Ayla is now with people who are recognizably human, nonetheless, shouldn't there social and thought patterns by different from ours. Is it inevitable that Cro-Magnon man arrayed himself into little family units, with parents and children living together like families in suburban houses. Is it believable that ice-age humans had liberal sensibilities like ours. And even if so, is this an interesting book?There are too many anomalies here. The people depicted clearly had no sense of agriculture, no crops, no livestock. They lived off of what food they could kill or gather each day. Surely they were frequenly near starvation, and must have had to move about frequently. While we would like to believe that our ancestors lived harmonious social lives, it is too much for me to believe that this was not a world of great and irrational violence. Auel's people never seem to suffer from disease, just the occasional accident. They seem to value cleanliness in exactly the same way we do, and this also seems quite far-fetched. If nothing else, wouldn't they have continual toothaches, not to mention numerous other diseases related to a seasonally deprived diet. Surely communities in this age were always on the brink of extinction, but you get no sense of that in this book.What is nice is Auel's depiction of their appreciation of handicraft and fine art.She peppers the book with detailed, but largely irrelevant sex scenes. And there are numerous very silly episodes." +2976,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2MC0FGRTPAZ0H,Jenifer,7/9,5.0,1026172800,Don't want it to end,"I was fortunate to start the whole serious back in February, and by the time I finshed Plains of Passage, Shelter's of Stone was out the next week. I am facinated with the entire serious, and this one was just as great as the last. I am a huge history buff, facinated with pre-historic times and anthropology, and this entire serious had taught me so much. Ayla is such a beautiful character, and Jondalar is a man that the reader falls in love with right along with Ayla. The book inspires so much in the imagination, thinking about what life looked like back then, the people, the landscape, the wildlife. Its facinating, the research that must have gone into a project like this series. I'm not one for really giving a review on english standards, I just know that I loved this book for the creativeness of the characters, the imagination it inspires, and the research of history that went into the book(s). I eagerly look forward to the sixth and final book, but I don't think I can stand to wait another few years for it to come out. And once it does, I don't think that I'll want it to be the end." +2977,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,AVGY2WBM5MLKZ,gloria rodas,1/1,3.0,1022457600,If I had not bought it I might not have...,"I should have read the book first. I never listen to critics or book reviewers, and I should have. The book was O.K. That is a very mild term for a book that, having taken 12 years to write, should have been a WOW. I have been a faithful reader of the Series, and I honestly expected The Shelters of Stone to have just as much ""punch"" as the prior books...it looks like Jean Auel got bored with this series and, realizing she has one more to do, repeated herself ad nauseum. I will read her final book in the series, but I won't buy it unless it is at least fifty times better than Shelters of Stone." +2978,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A3R84OI2NO18R3,T. S. Flanery,6/6,3.0,1107302400,Could have been better,"As soon as I heard this book was coming out, I placed the date on my calendar so that I could buy it immediately upon release. I had read the other four books, and was hooked after reading Clan of the Cave Bears. By far, the first book was the best, and I really was rooting for the character, Ayla. I read the other three books, and my interest waned a bit with each, but in general I was still enamored with the series. However, Shelters of Stone was not the book I was expecting. I must agree with many of the other reviewers who were tired of the repetition that Auel used, and I found myself skipping over large repetitive sections of the book. In addition, as usual from books 2-4, I continued skipping over the romance novel love scenes of Ayla and Jondalar. Enough about his large ""manhood."" I feel that these romance novel interludes were added to books 2-5 to attract a larger reading audience, which is a real shame because the first book, Clan of the Cave Bear, did not have these scenes and is by far the best. However, I digress. The main thing I did not like about Shelters of Stone was that throughout the series we have followed almost every single day of Ayla's life, starting at age 5, or so it seems. However, when it comes to her pregnancy, which was built up to the be the climax of the storyline about her use of contraception/Jondalar's desire to have a child of his hearth, Ms. Auel almost skips it entirely. Instead, it was like a fast forwarded version of a pregnancy. I must say though, that although I was disappointed by the book, it was readable and I have read it once again since my initial read. Also, I will tune in for the sixth installment, just to see how it ends. I guess after you invest that much time into something, reading 5 books, you just need to know the ending, even if it appears it may be anticlimatic. My suggestion is to read this book if you have read the other four, and really need to know what happens to the characters. However, if you are not emotionally invested in the characters it will probably not be worth your time." +2979,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,2/3,4.0,1039996800,Another enjoyable tale from Jean Auel,"Once again I learned a lot about the housing conditions of people in that era, and how people probably accomplished many of the tasks required for survival. I referred many, many times to the maps in the flyleaf to get a feel for the layout and to help visualize the geography that is well described. The notes in the book about the various people that helped with the research and the research that was done added a lot, for me, to the overall appreciation of what a fine job the author has done. I'm looking forward to the final book in the series." +2980,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,ABBGA4RO3KW3C,R. A. Williams,7/7,1.0,1265673600,In desperate need of an editor,"There were originally supposed to be five books in the series; this is maybe half a book's worth of content expanded and fluffed out to serve as setup for the final book in the series. I will not be reading the final book because I'm too disappointed in this one.Ms. Auel is a fine writer and she does good research. Yet this book lacks the character development and structure that characterized her earlier work. It comes across as having been written on an ad hoc basis here and there. Unlike a Tolkien tale that ""grew in the telling"", this just kind of rambles. Auel's using a loose episodic structure instead of the plot-driven and character-driven style from ""Clan of the Cave Bear"". It isn't working. The repetition is getting old. A good editor would not have allowed this much repetition, particularly of that mediocre poem. Editing would have condensed the ""story"" and plot into about a hundred, maybe a hundred and fifty pages of potentially good reading. But that wouldn't have allowed for a sixth book.The character development in this book is particularly sloppy. Auel was starting to lose it as early as ""The Plains of Passage"" because of the repetitive nature of what had to happen: Ayla and Jondalar meet people, people meet horses and Wolf, people freak out, etc., etc. By now she's in the very familiar series-writer problem: how does she bring a new reader into the story without reiterating what people who have been following the series already know? She's accordingly cut corners in the development not only of her main characters, but in the development of new characters. Even the love scenes are repetitive and lack variety. Large amounts of terrain and anthropological information is repeated from previous books.Earlier in the series, even the antagonists were not presented in a uniformly negative way. Broud, Frebec, Attaroa, and other antagonists were presented as products of their environments. None were completely evil. Each had some redeeming qualities. Each one had a plausible reason for hating Ayla, and the resolution wasn't always complete. Ayla definitely didn't always win and the conclusion was not always foregone. But after ""The Mammoth Hunters"" where Ayla did successfully bring a community around to support her, detractors and all, every other community she and Jondalar encountered has followed more or less the same shock/revulsion/acceptance pattern. What started in ""Plains"" has continued in ""Shelters"". The characters have become very black and white in a way that worked in ""Plains"" because Ayla and Jondalar were just passing through. It doesn't work in the community they've made their home. These newer characters either adore and nearly worship Ayla, or they are severely defective and their objections to her are based solely on their own inadequacy and bigotry. When Frebec and Broud disliked Ayla, their dislike had a reasonable basis in fact. In ""Shelters"", the only people who dislike Ayla are those who are completely immature or who are threatened by her superiority.Meanwhile, Ayla and Jondalar have stopped making mistakes and being human. In ""Clan"", Ayla was impulsive and sometimes immature. As recently as ""Mammoth"" she made a serious error in judgement and got engaged to the wrong guy. But somewhere during ""Plains"", she gradually morphed into this omniscient, infallible person. There's nowhere to take this character. She's been overbuilt. The only way she comes into conflict with other characters or with societal rules is if those characters and rules themselves are wrong. But, unlike in ""Clan"", where the rules triumphed over Ayla, in ""Shelters"" when the rules are wrong, it's the rules and the society themselves that have to change instead of Ayla. Suspension of disbelief aside, it's impossible to keep this Mary Jane state of affairs and still build plot tension.Now, if Ayla made a medical mistake and someone got badly hurt as a result, or if she had a fight with Jondalar, or lost her temper, or went on an ego trip and told off Zolena or somebody powerful for no good reason, it might be different. Similarly, if Wolf developed rabies, if one of the horses broke a leg, or if Baby showed up and started eating people, that would provoke some legitimate conflict. As it is, Ayla's become a force of nature. Forces of nature are... not... interesting... to read about.Jondalar's character has mostly flattened out. His development was best in ""The Valley of Horses"". As recently as ""Mammoth"" he was inventing stuff and generally acting like an individual and not just a foil for Ayla. He started his decline in ""Plains"" and is now simply an object to be fought over by women.Essentially, this is half a book, and less than half a character if you add up everybody." +2981,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2SKKGN9G8BOKV,"Mary J. Schaudt ""maryjill""",5/5,2.0,1021507200,Down hill slide,"The Clan of the Cave Bear was a remarkable beginning to Auel's series. The Valley of Horses continued with Ayla's struggle to survive, ending with finally meeting one of the Others. The Mammoth Hunters starts turning into prehistoric soap opera, introducing another man to compete for Ayla's affection, while Jondular mopes around. The slide started there. The Plains of Passage was nothing more than traveling and sex scenes. Now we have the Shelters of Stone. I guess I thought that after the Plains, Auel took 12 years to bring back some drama and plot, and improve the series. Turns out she must have had writer's block, and the publisher obviously forced her to get something, anything, worked into a manuscript. The editor did a terrible job. This book should have been 400 pages instead of 750. I had anticipated this book, but now I think it's only worth reading out of curiosity and as a bridge to the next and final story, which I will probably be too old and decrepit to read." +2982,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1YZN6740J26ZE,"PDXTan ""PDXTan""",20/25,1.0,1128988800,I won't wait like that again.,"I read this when it first came out in '02. And only today did I come to Amazon and skim the abundance of nasty reviews that this dud has inspired.So I know that everybody gets it, and there's no need to say more.But I gotta.Ayla meets and greets and greets and greets...and greets and greets and greets.... an incredible abundance of the most shallow characters you've read about so far.When she's not inventing everything, or humping, or drowning in tea, she finds time within these monotonous pages to have a mating ceremony, and a baby with Jondalar, the Wonder-Wimp. Oh, and she does decide to join Those that Serve the Mother.The end.That's it.And, yeah- those are the spoilers. I wish that I were here to tell you that a character named Brukeval threw in some incredible plot twists, or that an encounter happened between the Clan and Others, or something. ANYTHING. But except for repetition ad nauseam, nothing happens in this dud.I'm not coming back to the book stores in 12 years to learn that Ayla becomes first of Those That Serve; that Jondalar does nothing... ever- except smile with his ""impossibly blue eyes""; that the poor kid with the unfortunate name of Jonayla spits up, drinks tea, and worships mom; and that they hump a lot.I'm done. I'm so turned off. Ayla, the Clan, and their remarkable human spirit will always live in that first book for me." +2983,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1HIMJ9CENKXS4,Kathleen Cobcroft,0/0,3.0,1020124800,Satisfying read ... until the last 1/4,"Despite the long wait for Auel's new book, the beginning of Shelters of Stone meshes perfectly with Plains of Passage and the rest of the series. Sadly, the ""voice"" slips towards the end of the book, and the last portion is just a setup for the next book.I wouldn't recommend this to someone who hasn't read the rest of the series, but you won't need to re-read the whole story before tackling this enormous book (maybe just look over the last chapter of Plains to remember where it ended). Auel peppers the novel with reminders of what went on in the previous books (helpful, but a little annoying if you've just read the others in a marathon session, which I had...), and (thank goodness) she included a list of names at the end - I think it's the most characters she's had yet!On the whole, fans will want to have a look at this new chapter in Ayla's life, repetition and all, but try to get it from a public library first." +2984,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1B9F8RI3XNWH1,"debeehr ""debeehr""",23/26,2.0,1133049600,"Repetitive, and getting tired of Ayla Sue","First the good news: Auel has always had her strengths as a writer, and these include an *excellent* ear for dialogue, better-than-average characterization skills, deep research, and an ability to take customs and technology that seem exotic and outlandish to modern-day eyes and make them seem familiar. (This probably is related to her aforementioned good skills with characterization--nothing can make the unfamiliar seem familiar faster than seeing ordinary and believable people interacting with it.)Second, the bad news: Auel's drawbacks as a writer are present here as well. Drawbacks include pacing, bad story structure, and clumsiness at integrating her voluminous research with her narrative. She tends to work her research in by doing ""info dumps,"" long paragraphs or pages where she explains every little bit about the natural location and technology level of her people, and these are often long, boring and tedious. She also is not good at understanding what needs to be told, what can be shown, and what should be omitted. What feels like the entire first half of the book is taken up with introducing and re-introducing Ayla to everyone in Jondalar's cave, and often these introductions are spelled out in mind-numbing detail. We needed to see this scene perhaps *once;* future instances could have been rapidly skipped over with ""Ayla and Jondalar made the necessary introductions."" Something similar obtained with showing everyone's reactions to Whinney, Racer and Wolf. Again, one scene of surprise was enough; the rest should have been quickly glossed over.Ayla's ""Mary Sue""-ness is also becoming more and more evident as the book series continues. Over and over (see previous point about repetition) we're told how beautiful Ayla is, how she is the only person who has the knowledge to solve various problems, how she's the most innovative of the group, etc. About the only thing she *can't* do is sing, and I quote from the original ""Mary Sue Litmus Test"": ""Being unable to sing is not a flaw."" After a while, it gets boring and annoying both.But I think the central problem (and this goes back to the repetition thing) is that we've been basically seeing the same scenes for four books now. Ayla comes to a modern human encampment. Wow, gasp, she rides horses and can heal! But oh wait--she has Clan background! By this time, Auel needs to move on and find some new ground to cover with her character, and Ayla's final acceptance of her (Mary Sueish) calling to the ranks of Those Who Serve is a baby-step in the right direction, although more could have been done with this instead of the endless introduction scenes.One of the reasons Clan of the Cave Bear was so good was that it dealt with Ayla in a fundamentally different culture than that of anatomically modern humans, so that we had her as a set of eyes through which to view the culture of Neanderthals. While not all of the research Auel drew on to craft her Clan has stood the test of time, and while some of the stuff she invented was rather unrealistic, at least it was interesting. Her modern human cultures are all so similar to each other that it's difficult to tell them apart; they all share a reverence for the Great Earth Mother, do not know the concept of paternity, and have a relaxed attitude toward sex. So in a way, it feels like I've been reading the same book for the last four of her books. I didn't actually buy this book, and I think I will wait and pick up Earths Children 6 from the library. I'd recommend anyone else reading this series to do the same." +2985,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1H291NJ0EISMC,"""bgrasses""",3/4,1.0,1023062400,Boring - a HUGE disappointment,"I really loved the first 3 books in the series and liked the next 3 in the series, but felt the books were becoming too much formula plot lines. This book was such a disappointment! She has so much to work with to create great drama and has seemed to instead repeat herself endlessly about the animals, the crafts, the history, geology, etc... Not to mention the laughable descriptions of the sexual eposides.This is a definate must miss." +2986,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A23QO0QGFZ0FRL,"Kitty Murray ""blakes_mom""",3/3,3.0,1020556800,"Too slow, and too tedious","This fifth book in a seris of six was slow to start and got so bogged down in details about life during the Stone Age that I was forced to skip over pages just to keep interested. If Jean Auel wanted us to know how much she researched this book, she should publish a book based solely on her research. It was intriguing to hear her description of the Cave of Lascaux; however, I felt myself grow bored, especially with Ayla's seeming perfection. Even the description of the Matrimonial Ceremony was too long. Her first three books were far better and were more action packed. In addition, she kept repeating over and over again how Ayla tamed the animals, ect. I am hoping that the sixth book will be like the first three and that the author is finished with her need to describe in minute detail the flora, fauna, geography, and cultural characteristics of Jondalar's Zelandoni world. The ending left a little too much hanging as well. After waiting nearly 12 years, I am disappointed with the result." +2987,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1ESJJXE86T45X,"William E. Waldeck ""Ghost Reader""",2/3,2.0,1221782400,600 unnecessary pages.,"While I am a BIG fan of the 'Earth's Children series and bought every volume, I was extremely disappointed in the final book 'Shelters of Stone'. Remove all the flowery scene descriptions and constant recapping of the previous 4 volumes and the book would have been no more than 100 pages. What a let down after such an incredible journey. I doubt a 6th volume would fill the void left by this blunder." +2988,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,1/1,3.0,1025308800,milking the earlier novels,"why do we read this novel? presumably because we've grown so fond of jondalar and ayla and their unique companions. valley of the horses was a wonderful story about a young woman's ability to survive through her imagination, creativity, determination, and a myriad of skills and values that she gained from the neanderthals who adopted her as a child. yes, the interwoven chapters about jondalar lead inexorably to their meeting. and the superficial tension surrounding her approaching marriage to another man in the mammoth hunters pretty much fills out that novel. but beginning in mammoth hunters and in passage of the plains, we spend so much time repititiously watching every new group of people react to ayla and her animals -- gadzooks, that woolf makes me uncomfortable; how strange to see her riding my dinner; and, wow and wow again, what a powerful woman she must be! yes, of course we enjoy this! we love ayla! we don't care if she and jondalar are conveniently responsible for three or four of the greatest innovations of the paleolithic era. irrelevant. well, this same obsession pervades shelters of stone. a saving grace is auel's having ayla fiercely defend the neandrathal-flatheads. this is admirable and an early moral equivalent of attacking racism. but goodness, here jondalar and ayla go again in this next chapter, meeting new people and going thru the whole reaction to the animals and wow that woman's powerful syndrome. so much of the last two novels has been horribly repetitive in this regard. shelters of stone's plot seems to barely get beyond this repetition. yes, our concern is with ayla's increasingly being accepted and respected by everyone. and yes, given her experiences with the cave bear clan, psychologically this makes super sense and we cheer her on every step of the way. that's what keeps us reading this stuff. she's a fantastic and most lovable human being who has made it on her own and done it the hard way! we just have to put up with so much repetitive blather to get there. but wait! there may be hope with the next novel: it's clear ayla's about to become, not just a zelandoni but the zelandoni of all zelandoniiiisss. shaman of all shamans, lover of all lovers, mother of all mothers. and as such, she's bound to deal with the flathead issue once and for all! oh.... i wonder how people's fascination, fear, awe of her relationship with the animals will play then?" +2989,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,2/4,1.0,1024358400,Boring,"Unfortunately I received this book for Mother's Day and feel obligated to read it from cover to cover. Under normal circumstances I'd chuck a book this boring into the can and pick up something more stimulating. I'm on page 310 (it's taken me 4 weeks to get this far) and wish I was on page 749 so I could put this thing on the shelf to gather dust. When my family asks if I'm enjoying my book I cross my fingers and repy, oh yes, thank you very much." +2990,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,,,17/21,4.0,1066262400,I enjoyed this book thoroughly.,"A few thoughts on some of the criticisms others have noted:1) Repetitiousness. Yes, Shelters of Stone hearks back to the other books many times, and even repeats some events (introduction of Wolf, etc.) within this book. That doesn't really bother me. I like touches that make the events of the book minute-by-minute and realistic, including repetition. To me, the interest is in the small differences in what happens each time.2) Ayla's apparent goddesslike status. I disagree. Auel emphasizes at many different places how most of Ayla's insights and inventions are due to her unusual ""niche"" as a solo Cro-Magnon brought up by Clan Neanderthals who must adapt to 1) Clan ways that were adapted for Neanderthal bodies and psyches, 2) Life alone, 3) Life among the Mamutoi and now, 4) Life among the Zelandonii. It isn't that Ayla has some inborn goddesslike quality; Auel even portrays her weird trips into the Spirit World as a result of that root she ate back in the Clan days. It isn't that other people are dumb - they just have generally not been in positions of such extreme necessity to adapt, and have the ways of their tribes to fall back on and their tribes' taboos to forbid thoughts that are too ""outside the box."" Ayla is lucky in that she's perceived as good-looking by the Cro-Magnon peoples-always a bonus, and because she seems to have an inner positive attitude that has helped her adapt to many difficulties. She has also had the luck of having good people around at critial moments, starting with Iza. Anyone remember Aratroa from Plains of Passage? Her twisted life is an example of how a person can come out very differently from Ayla when placed in a cruible without the luck of having loving people around when it counts. Ayla's own discomfort with people's awe of her at many points in the series stems from the fact that she knows she has the abilities she does mostly because of her circumstances. The irony that keeps visiting her is that although she'd love to just fit in, have Jondalar's kids and be happy, her life story has molded her into someone who, like it or not, brings change in her wake, that is, a person of power. Marthona and especially Zelandoni pick up on this and become concerned that Ayla's power be harnessed for the good of the people.3) Lack of plot or character development. Again, I disagree, though there is something to the comments about this being ""buildup"" to the events of the next book. This book is where the events of the next book will have their seeds, I'm sure...and to me, that's plot enough. You have to have an eye for detail to appreciate it. Similarly, given the short amount of time covered in Shelters of Stone, it would be unrealistic to have momentous character shifts. Ayla's main move, aside from gradually becoming used to living with larger numbers of people, is to become more accepting of the disciplined specialness the Zelandonii are pushing on her." +2991,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1W2GF4IMDZ2NB,obsessed_with_books,5/7,5.0,1053820800,brilliant,"i found this book very interesting and exciting, as i actually read this fisrt, due to my mum thinking it was the first in the series. i think other people might have found it slightly boring because it focuses totally on jondalars people and how Ayla interacts, yet this is in a way the same as the first book of the series (which i've now read), as that focused on how she interacted with the Clan. i would reccomend this to anyone who has read the other books." +2992,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2WQRE632YO56S,"Fred Coulter ""Fredrik V. Coulter""",0/1,1.0,1293840000,Lots of typos in Kindle version,"If you like trying to decipher a book with lots of typos, feel free to start with this one. On the other hand, if you want a proof read book, I would avoid the Kindle version of this book until Amazon gets around to creating an updated version. (An if that happens, I'll try to remember to delete this review.)I attempted to report the errors to Amazon's customer service, but the response dialog didn't work, twice. Since I can't tell Amazon where the errors are, I'm listing the errors I highlighted in the book. Maybe someone at Amazon will read this review.The Shelters of Stone: with Bonus Content (Jean M. Auel)- Highlight Loc. 10578 | Added on Thursday, December 30, 2010, 08:13 AMFU==========The Shelters of Stone: with Bonus Content (Jean M. Auel)- Highlight Loc. 10631 | Added on Thursday, December 30, 2010, 08:13 AMUt==========The Shelters of Stone: with Bonus Content (Jean M. Auel)- Highlight Loc. 10878 | Added on Thursday, December 30, 2010, 11:38 AMmet rum.""==========The Shelters of Stone: with Bonus Content (Jean M. Auel)- Highlight Loc. 11116 | Added on Thursday, December 30, 2010, 11:57 AM""Thank you, Dalanar,"" Marthona said."" Willamar==========The Shelters of Stone: with Bonus Content (Jean M. Auel)- Highlight Loc. 11297 | Added on Thursday, December 30, 2010, 12:37 PMriot==========The Shelters of Stone: with Bonus Content (Jean M. Auel)- Highlight Loc. 11353 | Added on Thursday, December 30, 2010, 04:53 PMthe as it is,==========The Shelters of Stone: with Bonus Content (Jean M. Auel)- Highlight Loc. 12099 | Added on Friday, December 31, 2010, 12:39 AMI'v==========The Shelters of Stone: with Bonus Content (Jean M. Auel)- Highlight Loc. 13409 | Added on Friday, December 31, 2010, 12:56 PMAve==========The Shelters of Stone: with Bonus Content (Jean M. Auel)- Highlight Loc. 14118 | Added on Friday, December 31, 2010, 04:20 PMrimes==========The Shelters of Stone: with Bonus Content (Jean M. Auel)- Highlight Loc. 14292 | Added on Friday, December 31, 2010, 05:12 PMcalfflatheads,==========The Shelters of Stone: with Bonus Content (Jean M. Auel)- Highlight Loc. 14368 | Added on Friday, December 31, 2010, 05:20 PMdes,==========The Shelters of Stone: with Bonus Content (Jean M. Auel)- Highlight Loc. 14467 | Added on Friday, December 31, 2010, 05:29 PMmien==========The Shelters of Stone: with Bonus Content (Jean M. Auel)- Highlight Loc. 14552 | Added on Friday, December 31, 2010, 05:48 PMabri==========The Shelters of Stone: with Bonus Content (Jean M. Auel)- Highlight Loc. 14577 | Added on Friday, December 31, 2010, 05:52 PMOr maybe the three of us,""==========The Shelters of Stone: with Bonus Content (Jean M. Auel)- Highlight Loc. 14677 | Added on Friday, December 31, 2010, 06:10 PMsiali.==========The Shelters of Stone: with Bonus Content (Jean M. Auel)- Highlight Loc. 14802 | Added on Friday, December 31, 2010, 06:19 PMlolled.==========The Shelters of Stone: with Bonus Content (Jean M. Auel)- Highlight Loc. 14841 | Added on Friday, December 31, 2010, 06:22 PMme.' ""==========The Shelters of Stone: with Bonus Content (Jean M. Auel)- Highlight Loc. 14987 | Added on Friday, December 31, 2010, 06:39 PMcheels==========The Shelters of Stone: with Bonus Content (Jean M. Auel)- Highlight Loc. 15415-16 | Added on Friday, December 31, 2010, 09:54 PMready to the with her baby==========The Shelters of Stone: with Bonus Content (Jean M. Auel)- Highlight Loc. 15636 | Added on Friday, December 31, 2010, 10:15 PMagarl.==========" +2993,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1IG261CVKO0Z9,Martha Holznagel,0/0,5.0,1354492800,The Shelters of Stone,I have enjoyed this series of books. This purchase helped me complete my set. I would recomend this series to anyone that likes to loose themselves in a good book. +2994,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A27126XKCLTLS2,"""ccs-org""",5/7,1.0,1023148800,I waited so long....,"I bought the whole series (The Clan of the Cave Bear, Valley of Horses, The Mammoth Hunters, Plains of Passage, The Shelters of Stone) so I could relive the excitement I felt when I first read them years ago. By the time I finished the Plains of Passage, I was getting bored with the repetition. Then I started Shelters and was so disappointed I wanted to scream, it was worse! Much worse! How many times do we have to hear the Iza taught Ayla to wash after sex? This book was a disappointment. I hope Ms. Auel doesn't rely on previous material in the final book of the series to fill in the space between the covers!" +2995,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1898U6W2QMOLS,Nikki Douglas,58/71,1.0,1059264000,The Shelters of SNORE,"I have read some duds in my day (basically everything Terry Goodkind has ever written) books that made me practically give up all hope that there is a single author/editor/publisher on earth dedicated to anything but mediocrity - but this..this...catalog of repetitive, slogging, meandering, sixth grade writing level piece of mammoth dung is one of the absolutely WORST books I have ever not finished.I couldn't finish it, honestly - I just couldn't - not after five hundred some odd pages of wanting to go directly to FRANCE and spray paint graffiti all over the cave walls that were Ms. Auel's inspiration for this mess.Ayla - who will always be played by the great (NOT) actress Darryl Hannah in my mind is not actually just a Caucasian ancestor but Albert freaking Einstein, Super woman and a mythical god-dess of all that is holy and beautiful. I have never loathed a character so much. She is beautiful, has enormous breasts, is the greatest lay ever but is also the single most brilliant person of the era. Everyone is awed by her. She never makes a single mistake. She invents everything, tames animals, makes tea, heals, performs surgery, educates everyone, hunts like a man, is a perfect warrior and can make a hell of a meal out of SPAM. All while pregnant. Everyone else in the book is pathetically stupid and her boyfriend is a complete himbo - he might as well be in an ad for Calvin Klein underwear. All he does is grin knowingly.There are endless descriptions of the geology and plant-life of the era (like reading an Earth Science book) and this supposed genius research that Ms. Auel accomplished is stuff anyone with half a brain could figure out with no research at all. Plus she basically tells everyone at the beginning of the book that some of it is accurate but MOST is made up - so there! Like it's my book and I'll make pre-history anything I want it to be.Yeah ok. The Earth's Children geniuses have so much more going for them than people did in as recently as the 19th century. So what happened? Everyone was all new-agey and women were equal to men in complete positions of power and then what - 25,000 years later women didn't even have the freaking vote. Ok, sure, makes sense to me.Anyway the rate at which these folks were creating art and items would have had them in computers and Lear jets in record time. So what the hell happened? Everyone got really stupid?The characters are shallow, there is no plot, the book is filled with repetitive introductions, snippets from the other books and feats of amazing wonder that make Ayla out to be the freaking messiah and all of it is written like a guidebook for writers on HOW NOT TO WRITE.You could lose your sanity stumbling over paragraphs with sentences like:That sounded familiar to Ayla. She wasn't sure why. She decided to make some tea. She dug around in her travel pack for some mint. She liked to bring tea to Jondalar in the morning.As well as conversations like the following that go on for entire CHAPTERS:""I know what you are thinking."" she teased Jondalar.""What I am thinking is that with this new spear-thrower that I invented, only after you inspired me, we will be able to hunt much more efficiently and therefore be in less danger from charging bison."" Jondalar grinned.""That is right. Charging bison can be very frightening. Remember what the Mog-ur said?"" Ayla reminded Jondalar.""Yes I remember, but tell me again.""""The Mog-ur said that we should invent a weapon to not be trampled by bison because of his great fear of bison. He was a smart holy man, though I am not sure I know what that word smart or holy actually means,"" Ayla decided to make some tea while they continued to talk.""Then we shall have to invent words for holy and smart Ayla, words like kamakakapoopoo and blerdge.""""I don't like those words Jondalar,"" though she winked at him knowingly, ""Let's just use smart and holy instead, you himbo.""If anyone actually does read this kind of drivel and enjoy it please email me so I can say that I have at least been emailed by the most boring person alive.The fact that this woman has sold millions of books is a sad commentary on how uneducated most people are. I had never read any of the middle books after Clan of the Cave Bear (which I thought was at least mildly entertaining) and I picked this one up because I wanted a good thick beach read.Apparently the woman (Ms. Auel) is utterly senile (thus the repetitions) and can't even remember why she wrote this in the first place. Of course her agent and publisher I am sure gently reminded her - FOR THE FREAKING MONEY.Read this book ONLY if you want to have fantasies of throttling an old senile woman (the author) or if you have no wish to contribute anything useful to the universe on any level." +2996,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2HTWI0BLVN2PV,Bobby W. Edwards,4/13,5.0,1021939200,An excellent book,"I looked at all of the reviews and find that quite a few people were dissappointed in this book. While not as gripping as the previous 4 books in the series, it is in the style that Ms Auel writes. There were several sections that grabbed me emotionally. I liked the book very much. I came accross the Earth's Children series of books about 4 months ago. The whole series thrills me very much. Ms. Auel joins a very limited panthyon of authors whose books I would buy on sight. They include Robert Henlein, Isaac Asimov, Gordon R. Dickson, J. K. Rawlings, Bruce Moen, and Robert Monroe. So, I'm a traditional science fiction fan among other things." +2997,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A2KDJJC7Z0OZBK,Scott Guzewich,0/0,2.0,1020902400,Slow and Repetitive,"I was eagerly awaiting the 5th book in the Earth's Childern series, but it left me somewhat disappointed. In all of the previous books, there were numerous scenes of action, suspense, and intrigue. Even though they all would have the chapters of long descriptions of Pleiostcene life and ecology, they flowed better. The previous books also cover a much longer period of time. I estimated 80%-90% of the book takes place within the first few weeks Jondalar and Ayla return to the Zelandonii! Around a 1/3 of it is the first day back! It then seems Auel realizing how long the book has gotten, quickly moves ahead until its time for Ayla to have her baby. Many scenes were repetitive, Ayla and Jondalar seem to be constantly reminiscing in great detail. Even the expected controversy over her being raised by the Clan seems less dramatic. All but the dregs of Zelandonii society are quick to accept it and believe the Clan is at least worth an acknowledgement of their humanity. But, it was good enough for me to look forward to the next book. Maybe Ayla will invent agriculture or the bow and arrow?? Or make contact with the local Clans?" +2998,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A1TS421GITNJHD,Terri,0/0,5.0,1293667200,Great Read!,I have read this series about 8 or 9 times now and just re-reading it to get into the moment when the next book comes out in March! I love being whisked away into Ayla's world and Jean is so thorough with every detail that not only do you have a great read and get caught up in the story telling you learn so much reading these books. +2999,B000KIT9U4,"The Shelters Of Stone - The Earth's Children Series, Book 5",,A3HSPD33Z4HG7B,"HerOdyssey ""HerOdyssey""",2/2,2.0,1053216000,Close to 10 years waiting -- for this??????,"I first read Valley of the Horses when I was 11. Then I discovered it was a sequel, and found Clan of the Cave Bear a couple of years later. From that moment on, I was a dedicated adorer of the Earth's Children series. Yes, I admit the Mammoth Hunters was more in the style of Barbara Cartland... and I was sad about that, but the rest of that book was so good, the whole jealousy story faded into the background.Jean Auel redeemed herself in Plains of Passage and with glee, I devoured it. Ten years later, after uncounted queries at booksellers as to when the new book was going to be released, Shelters of Stone appeared on the shelves. You can imagine my joy. I purchased the hardback, and sat down after making many special preparations as if it would be a religious experience...I have never been so disappointed in a book in my life. Shelters of Stone was slow, dry, and provided me no incentive or motivation to keep me reading on except for a vain hope of it getting better (and perhaps my undying loyalty to one of my all time favourite authors). I am so sad to say it! But when the last page was turned, and the trudging storyline came abruptly to an end, I was left feeling like I worked very, very hard for nothing. I could pick up the next book in the series (yet to be released) without ever having read Shelters of Stone, and would have missed nothing. I am sorry to say it, but I feel as if after ten years of chomping at the bit for the next installment of my favourite series of books, I was sorely let down by a story that felt as if it must been a struggle for the author to write. I love you Jean, but I'm sorry... this book was not at all to your standard. I hope the next one will be better... I'm counting on it, and I'll be first in line to buy it." diff --git a/data/imdb.csv b/data/imdb.csv new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7248398 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/imdb.csv @@ -0,0 +1,3001 @@ +,review_id,reviewer,movie,rating,review_summary,review_date,spoiler_tag,review_detail,helpful +0,rw1198574,DR-A,A History of Violence (2005),9.0,An allegory of violence,21 October 2005,0,"David Cronenberg creates a powerful cinematic statement on violence in America. To me, it is the best of this genre since ""Natural Born Killers,"" and even more disturbing. Not only does Cronenberg examine the violence of today's culture but he cleverly lures the audience into accepting violence, stretches our tolerance of it, even gets us to hope for it, to take pleasure in violence. And once he has us there, Cronenberg shows us just where we have arrived... in crimson.The film is an allegory. Everything Cronenberg presents is baldly over-depicted. His villains are too evil; his heroes as straightforward and sympathetic as a sheriff in an old TV western; his picture of family life is too wholesome, his married sex too raw and contrived. All for allegorical impact. We understand that the Stall family is too good to be true, live in a town too simple and neighborly to be real, akin to the way the 50's are sometimes portrayed. We also see unfathomable Evil. Watch it prey upon Innocence - as our eyes squint and our stomachs turn. By such consistent overstatement, ""A History of Violence"" breaks free of particular characters in a particular story, and assumes an allegorical orbit around the concept of violence itself - violence in its destructive transformative essence. We watch it waft through town, change the flow of passion in a marriage, infiltrate family dynamics, uproot a past, seep into the future.Cronenberg captures the all-encompassing, irreparable damage of violence, the relentless pandemic of violence. Violence infecting all it touches; not just in blood, bruises and bullets, but violence choking out spirit - stomping away trust - violence lurking in downcast eyes bereft of hope - violence crusting up in dried tears - violence poisoning the atmosphere with fear and silence - violence reproducing and taking root in the next generation - violence thriving where once lived virtue and humanity.A film to see and discuss.Ray","['1', '3']" +1,rw1188520,Letswrite,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,Not Well Written,7 October 2005,0,"I'm not sure if the last commenter and I saw the same film. This film began bad and ended worse. The opening scene was not needed and lent no use to the story as a whole. It went on too long and it's pay off was so quick, it was anti-climatic. Character development was terrible. Without ""spoiling"" the film, I'd like to say the characters behaviors were inconsistent throughout the film. The wife would fluctuate. The son grew this super strength late in ACT II. The writer relied mostly on pulses of climatic moments to carry the film out, not story development. What I mean by pulses of climactic moments are gun fights and death of characters that we construed as major characters. Speculatory sex is used, that is sex scenes not written to advance the story wherein after the act the characters reach another plateau of growth or story progression. Sex in this film was just constructed for ""gazing"" as what Laura Mulvey would call it. The things they did. Shame on the writer and director! And I'm not a prude. But, here's why this film made it to the big screen. It relied heavily on known conventions of it's genre. Like a jigsaw puzzle with all the pieces laid out on the table but not put together. We know the nose goes here, the mouth here and the eyes here but all the stuff in between just doesn't fit or is in the wrong place or belongs to another puzzle. But the audience can make a face out of the fog if they look hard enough, and say, ""oh, I saw it. But..."". Also, some dialog could elicit a laugh here or there. It's the sort of humor that captures the male audience 18-49 (hmm, maybe the reason for the speculatory sex scenes). The humor in a sticky situation. But again, it wasn't consistent, just the mark of bad writing. If I could only spoil the movie (this doesn't constitute being called a film), I would provide a very in-depth analysis. But, all in all, BAD WRITING.","['5', '16']" +2,rw1198293,greenlady1,A History of Violence (2005),2.0,so bad it was funny,21 October 2005,1,"A History of Violence is one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life. The only reason I'm giving it 2 stars and not 1 is because it was so bad that it was funny and did provide me with some amusement. For example: the rough sex on the stairs after he lunged at her throat and pinned her to the wall was hysterical! My fiancé, everyone else in the auditorium and I were laughing. And that really was not supposed to be funny. At all. Also the ""let me run home on my injured foot and actually beat the bad guys who are driving"" scene was ridiculous. And laughable. And the ""gee gosh golly sis are you OK after having a bad dream"" 15 year old son who sits outside of a building by a fairly busy intersection with his friend, the stereotypical crazy-haired, sneer-faced teenage girl with ridiculous clothes, smoking pot... who sits on main street smoking pot? The only quasi-good thing about the movie was the random violence. And there wasn't enough of it to make me like the movie.Overall, it was slow. The (almost nonexistent) plot was slow, the characters walked slow, talked slow, thought slow. The script was horrible. The acting was terrible. I really do not understand what the fuss is all about.","['3', '8']" +3,rw1184193,civictv,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,A History of Boredom,30 September 2005,1,"This film is the perfect example of why people don't trust critics. Critics have raved on and on about this film. This is maybe the most pedestrian film of it's kind, and I'm a huge Cronenberg fan. I'm supposed to warn you if I'm going to include a spoiler, but guess what? There's nothing to spoil! EVERYTHING in the movie. EVERYTHING. Is in the trailer. No surprises. No creepiness. The only thing creepy about this film is that there are people in the world who still believe that women enjoy being raped.The critics have said that this is more about characters than plot. About an ordinary man in extraordinary circumstances. They've called it darkly humorous.Here's a hint. You want a film about an ordinary man in extraordinary circumstances, rent In the Bedroom and Normal. You want a movie that is darkly witty, rent Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs.If you want to see a truly creepy David Cronenberg film, rent Dead Ringers.If you just want to see a shot of Maria Bello in full frontal nudity for no good reason (not that I'm objecting), wait about a month and someone will be circulating a screen capture on the Internet. Or even better yet, rent The Cooler.","['9', '25']" +4,rw1187263,Robert_duder,A History of Violence (2005),7.0,"Perhaps too serious, intense, and intelligent",5 October 2005,1,"I don't think it's any secret that David Cronenberg is twisted. I might even say the man has a hint of psychosis going on...I mean his films are blood soaked, orgies and usually quite peculiar. Despite the fact that his films are gory and shocking, I really think that's just his style and he's not going for shock value...this really is HIM!! I think he's over rated. However, A History of Violence will most certainly be an Oscar contender for it's artistic quality, deep moral message and powerful performances by it's lead characters. I would even go so far as to say that History of Violence will be considered classic cinema for it's horrific violence and story.Viggo Mortenson is a powerful presence in the lead character as Tom Stall. He gives a perfect performance as the passive family man Tom Stall but then also gives a believable and terrifying performance as his alter ego Joey Cusack. He's believable as both the family man and the deadly killer. Also turning in an amazing performance is actress Maria Bello as Tom's wife. She has had some memorable decent roles in the past but nothing as emotional and powerful as this. I think this really showed her range and was well done. Although Cronenberg used her as an object of sex, her character was strong enough to be more than that. Ed Harris was in a unfortunately small role. The man is an incredible actor but even in this small role, he's downright disturbing as the evil mobster. His look and voice and mannerisms are perfect for the film. A real break out role in the film is the actor who plays Jack Stall, Mortenson's son. His strong and emotional performance is great and deserves all the notice in the world.The film is a little draggy...it's far from mainstream. It's a very artistic film and aims for intelligence. The story is well done and very in depth and simple enough but even still most will find it too slow for their tastes. It's also quite twisted, not only for it's violence but it's depravity when it comes to sex. It's Cronenberg's disturbing style. It's an acquired taste. I think History of Violence is a prime candidate for the Oscars...not necessarily because it's astounding but because of it's artistic merit. The film is brutally violent. The death scenes are horrifying and gory...unlike anything I've ever seen so people will likely flock to it to see that. It's certainly not the best thing in the theater unless you're into the extreme artsy film making in which case you must see this one!! 7/10","['1', '4']" +5,rw1199348,theoscillator,A History of Violence (2005),10.0,Absolutely brilliant...Cronenberg's best!,22 October 2005,1,"*minor minor spoiler at end* I don't know what to say about this film to really express what it made me feel. Before seeing the movie , I had gotten mixed reviews from people. Some people hated it and even told me they wanted to walk out on it. Some people liked it but nobody really raved about it, not even my roommate who is a hardcore Cronenberg fan. I don't remember the last movie that I saw that affected me so much. I really haven't been able to stop thinking about it since I saw it. I go as far as to say it was the best Cronenberg movie I have ever seen, even toping Dead Ringers which I never thought was possible.At the core this is just a perfect examination of the human psyche. What makes us who we are and can we ever change our primal instincts? Mortensen and Harris were incredible but the 10 or so minutes of screen time by William Hurt at the end of the movie really stole the film for me as far as acting performances go.This is a rare film that can both be slow, methodical and thoughtfull and be ultra violent, gory and brutal at the same time. And the bottom line is that this is not your average Hollywood movie. Where Hollywood wants to give you something easy to digest, Cronenberg wants to give something that is difficult to look at and makes you want to vomit it back up.The last scene says it all. Cronenberg's take on the happy ending. Tom returns, nobody says a word but they welcome him back to his spot at the family dinner table as if nothing has changed but it will never be the same.","['2', '3']" +6,rw1204569,nowonmai42,A History of Violence (2005),8.0,Viggodrome!,30 October 2005,0,"In the first fifteen minutes of ""A History of Violence,"" we get a small town diner, a baseball game, and a sneering, varsity letter-wearing high school bully. Throw in an apple pie on a window sill and some kids saying bedtime prayers, and you've got the Saturday Evening Post. But this is the work of David Cronenberg, whose films so often explore the blurry – and icky – lines between biology and technology. So it's not surprising when this film, too, heads for the gray areas, this time between the sensibilities of Rockwell and Tarantino.Small town diner owner Tom Stalls (Viggo Mortenson) runs the kind of place where you can eat at the counter, and ""see you in church"" is a standard goodbye. When he single-handedly foils a robbery and saves a few lives, then, the townsfolk are impressed and grateful, but not all that surprised. Tom is a Man, after all, and that's what Men do. But as David Lynch has taught us, pastoral postcard America often conceals deep weirdness and violence. The diner incident is of course big news in Anytown, USA, and Tom finds himself attracting not only local reporters who want to know ""how it felt,"" but also the Reservoir Dog-type Mr. Foggerty (Ed Harris), who isn't surprised that Tom knows his way around a gun, and waxes nostalgic about good times in Philadelphia involving barbed wire and a guy named Joey Cusack. Foggerty seems to think Tom knows exactly what he's talking about.Tom as ""local hero"" his family can handle, but after the Foggerty matter comes to a head, they do begin to wonder where these moves that would make Jeff Speakman proud are coming from. Perhaps more unsettling is the fact that they unconsciously sort of get off on their new image of dad. Junior soon finds in himself the will to flatten his jock tormentor, and wife Edie (Maria Bello) with some gusto acts out a rough rape fantasy with her hubby. Tom Stalls, indeed, but can't prevent the inevitable truth from coming to light nor catching up with him. That's shocking enough to his family, though maybe less so than the ways that knowledge affects them.""A History of Violence"" is fond of feinting toward familiar territory, only to veer away. Just when we think we've seen if before, in ""Natural Born Killers,"" ""Cape Fear,"" and the ""just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in"" tropes of countless mob flicks, it shifts its focus. For all its brutality, it comes across as a quiet movie. There is indeed more to Tom than he lets on, but less than his detractors might believe. He may be a liar in the strictest sense, but his protestations to his family and persecutors are sincere. The contemplation of violence, both pre and post-facto, rather than the acts themselves, drive the film. Whether the capability for, and indeed commission of, such acts permanently defines a person is left for us to decide. The film ends ensconced once again in small town tranquility, though this time seething with unspoken fear, accusations, and uncertainty. ""A History of Violence"" doesn't force itself with preaching or moralizing, but simply unfolds. It's another solid offering from the strong career of David Cronenberg.","['11', '16']" +7,rw1185562,FilmFan777,A History of Violence (2005),4.0,"Extremely Disappointing, Much out of Place",1 October 2005,1,"Yes, these comments will contain some spoilers...I just have to vent. Since you know what the story is about, I wont waste that time yet I have to vent about a few things.I'm 'amazed' at the positive reviews this film is getting. I appreciate all kinds of films and can come away liking something for one reason or another 'HOWEVER' there was far more about this film that 'irritated' and agitated than pleased.Violence: Yes there is some violence in here and I thought it was some what believable. However the gore of it (though I liked the difference of it), seemed out of place with this film. As if someone from a horror film splashed some Freddy over a drama.Gratuitous is the one word that keeps coming up. I don't mind sex scenes in the least HOWEVER, it has to fit the glove and the sex in this film didn't do that. The first sex scene in the bedroom was so uncomfortably shot, corny at best and simply out of place. Almost like they were shooting a cheap porn instead of building part of the story.The scene on the stairs... there was something interesting in the content of it however it screamed again, corny and out of place and over the top.Speaking again of gratuitous, what was the purpose of having Bello walk out of the bathroom with her robe open? Not only did it not match the mood of what was going on, it totally takes you away from the issue at hand. It detracts from the story, not supports it. If they'd put it in one of the sex scenes, maybe they'd get away with it however here, they just dummified it. Threw it out there to show this actor doesn't shave, I mean come on. A story is something to build on. In many parts of this film they seemed to take away from building and throw something in that just took you away from it all. Simply not the point.Photography: You shouldn't be distracted by the photography. It should embellish. Here, I noticed times where it seemed they used an odd lens that just didn't seem to make sense. Enough that it 'actually' makes you notice. And this was done several times. Almost like they were experimenting or simply again, throwing something different on the wall to see if it stuck. And this is not the kind of thing you guess with.Casting: The school bully? He irritated me from the moment he showed on film. He was sooo typical! I mean come on. The casting and director and writer couldn't make him a 'lil' more original? Pretty boy tough guy acts like a jerk and pushes the tough dad's wimpy boy around til wimpy boy turns to superman like his dad Jacki Chan-ning two or more guys at once. Plleeeeaaase.Casting: The son of Viggo's character seemed like he was also plucked from a completely different film or teen wanna be TV show and slopped into this film as was Ed Harris and others.Another out of place moment: When Viggo meets his brother at his house, whats with the elongated seemingly homosexual greeting there? I mean, it could lead you to believe his brother used to molest him, that his brother is gay, that the two brothers used to be lovers and one went to the straight life.... Hey I'm Italian and our family is very affectionate yet if uncle Joey greeted me like that, it's Twilight Zone and shower time. Just another example of something being sooo out of place with this film.The Writing: There was some real corn popped into this script. Yet with the director doing all he could to disrupt your viewing pleasure, it almost seems a waste to go into it.Director Croneberg did some cool work with The Fly, Dead Zone and Scanners however that was loooong early 80's past and I've noticed nothing of him till now. And not something I'd be proud of.Overall... I cant believe all the positive reviews for this film. Viggo, Harris, Bello, Hurt all actors I enjoy. The idea of the film I like, some of the violence, certain aspects of which I liked and others turned off by. Yet I was not Thrilled by this predictable film in any capacity. What a waste at a good chance of a film.","['7', '13']" +8,rw1188436,rich81280,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,worst movie ever,7 October 2005,0,"I went to this movie expecting to see an excellent movie, what i got was a really big disappointment. The acting was horrible and the script was horrible. I use to be able to trust IMDb.com ratings but after seeing this one get a 8.3 I don't know if trust is ever possible again. Come on Viggo what are you thinking your above movies like this, you where doing so good since G.I Jane, now you went down the toilet. The whole scenario with the bully could have been done completely different. The way they did it made me and everyone else in the audience laugh. In fact everyone in the movie theater was laughing at most of the movie, and somehow I don't think this was suppose to be a comedy.","['5', '16']" +9,rw1183833,nscoggins,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,"The term ""wretched"" doesn't really sum this film up.",30 September 2005,0,"Neither does the term ""god-awful."" Nor the terms ""pretentious, overweening, overlong, plodding."" Seriously, if Cronenberg wants us to see the tragedy of the violence we inflict on one another, he should start by making us care about the characters he's going to foist on us, instead of shooting them blown-out, grainy, poorly-lit, and directing them to give performances where even WE don't care about what happens to them.Seriously, this film is not just a failure -- it is a monumental failure. The audience I saw this with demanded their money back. Hollywood -- here's a tip. Make films with people we care about. Give it a shot. Maybe you'll be surprised at what you find.And until you do, give your poor actresses a break, and carpet the stairs.","['7', '20']" +10,rw1179519,mohamed_alkhal,A History of Violence (2005),4.0,just another movie,24 September 2005,1,"the movie doest explain the beginning so it would be mystery, but not in this movies it is obvious. it doesn't have that much of a story, it feels that there is no content, if feels like you have memorized it, can picture it back and watch it as a whole movie again. the ending is quite pointless. at one point in the movie the main character is an expert criminal, and after he kills a couple of people he leaves a lot of evidence behind him. its not that he doesn't care, because he just got rid of the gun and left all the other evidence lying there (e.g fingerprints, and using his own car to travel to his destination). what expert criminal would be that stupid? they should have had some better advisers. and its better left a novel.","['1', '7']" +11,rw1184833,PipAndSqueak,A History of Violence (2005),8.0,In the long shadow of 'Unforgiven',2 October 2005,0,"Cronenberg has much to learn about technique so that his 'clever' shots and angles don't interfere with the tale he his telling. In this sense he has much to learn from Eastwood whose Unforgiven is a clear predecessor. Occasional wooden acting and unnecessarily craned camera work nevertheless fails to spoil this immensely watchable story. There is blood and gore - just be amazed by the make-up artist's skill! It's a believable story, in the main well cast. William Hurt however does come across like a Mark Gatiss clone (League of Gentlemen) and doesn't quite convince as the malevolent brother. Here we have a history of one of humanity's flaws - no answers, and raising many questions. A definite must see for our times.","['2', '5']" +12,rw1194979,hldempsey,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,This movie makes me want to give up on cinema altogether!,16 October 2005,0,"I have never before been moved to tell as many people as I possibly can not to go see a movie. I have looked forward to seeing ""A History of Violence"" since I began reading all the good reviews this film has received in the press. Apparently these people were paid well by David Cronenberg.Look up the word gratuitous in the dictionary and you will see the movie poster for this film. There is gratuitous sex, gore, and horrible dialogue. The first 10 minutes of this film are the worst written, acted, and directed 10 minutes ever committed to film, and added absolutely nothing to this movie. What little they were supposed to add could've been addressed in a more appropriate place in a fraction of the time.The usually stunning Maria Bello delivered her lines like a bored production assistant helping a real actor learn her lines, and they could not have made her look worse. The 30-year-old ""kid"" playing her and Viggo Mortensen's son wore more make-up than she did. Morgensen looked confused most of the time, like he was sounding out the words in the script. The two sex scenes between Bello and Morgensen were the most painful things to watch since Extreme Makeover.They looked like two people trying hard to film an amateur soft-core porn film, while having never actually done any of the acts themselves.They looked ridiculous and I was embarrassed for both of them.I am not squeamish in the least (Fight Club is one of my favorite films), but the shock that Cronenberg must have wanted us to feel when he gave us an extreme close-up of the gaping holes in people's heads was only shock at how badly these scenes did not belong in this film. Maybe he thought we would buy into this nonsense if he showed he meant business.The skimpy story outline that tries to pass as a plot is ridiculously transparent. Did the screenwriter get this idea from ""Joe Dirt?"" Needless to say, I won't be adding ""A History of Violence"" to my DVD collection. Although it would be worth the $20 just to be able to run this movie over with my car","['4', '13']" +13,rw1186468,hesketh27,A History of Violence (2005),2.0,Taken in by the reviews!,4 October 2005,0,"I saw the trailer for this film a while ago and thought it looked promising. When it was released here last week, the reviews in all the papers I have read have been overwhelmingly positive and I looked forward to going along to see it. Well - I went last night and I must say that I was mightily disappointed! The film started off well and the entry of Ed Harris and pals kept it moving along nicely. I felt there was potential for much further development of their role but after they are no longer in it, the film starts to go down hill fast. I am afraid that I found the sex scenes totally gratuitous and that they had no real place in the film. The full frontal of Maria Bello - what the hell was that for? The handling of the school bullies by Stall's son was just laughable and there are more holes in the plot than Swiss cheese! To top it all, a fine actor like William Hurt manages to turn in a ludicrous performance as a pantomime villain. I suppose its best not to analyze films too much because it can spoil your enjoyment, but the more I think about this one, the worse it seems. This really is a turkey I'm afraid and if Steven Seagal or Jean Claude Vandamme had played Tom Stall (and it is that kind of film), I'm sure it would have gone straight to video!","['2', '6']" +14,rw1190774,sushiandrice,A History of Violence (2005),9.0,Excels in a way you wouldn't expect,10 October 2005,0,"David Cronenberg is not known for underplaying things. His long and varied career includes gynaecology, human/fly hybrids, car wash rape and exploding heads to name a handful. Through all the mental divergence and ""What the f*ck just happened?"" moments, they all delight in one thing: watching you squirm. His latest -A History of Violence- is no exception to the rule (though not as you'd expect) as Cronenberg channels his creative skills into a vehicle that's more socially-acceptable. Revenge.Tom Stall is a decent guy. He's got everything Joe Public would want. Two bouncing children, his own business, and a wife who'll get kinky with him when he wants it. He's making lemonade everyday until two low-time crooks show up at his diner looking for quick cash, and he has to put them in line. Suddenly he's hailed as the town's hero, the saviour of suburbia, but all the media exposure pricks the ears of one Carl Fogarty: a mob boss from Philadelphia singling Tom out as something he's not. The rest is gravy.Let's get one thing off my chest; A History of Violence is a superb movie. Cronenberg is at a stage in his career where he doesn't have to over-expose (and ultimately alienate) his audience to still shock them. Of course it's beautifully shot from the opening, the camera staying pallid and voyeuristic, only to mechanically pan across when the action does in a Conversation-esquire fashion. I love the way he really takes his time setting up a feel-good slice of Americana -riddled with self-knowing clichés- only to have it be torn down by its own inevitable culture of violence. Each thread is explored and fleshed out, then slowly but surely reeled in, catching us with our pants down in the process.Obviously Cronenberg has his notorious reputation for a reason and rest assured both gore and rough sex are present here. But he's far more interested in the people. So sure there are moments to creep you out, make you uncomfortable, except this time the sheer gravitas of the tale and genuine characters involved will stop you running screaming from the cinema. This is a mature, smooth, and slick tale of human drama in place of graphic experimentation that usually misses rather than hits. The on-screen bravura is supplied by a top-notch ensemble. Viggo Mortensen commands an instant respect and sensibility as the unlikely hero. As the character's journey is so bizarre you'd forgive Aragorn for stumbling slightly. Not is the case. He displays all-round family man, hardened killer, and everything in-between, never once pausing to try and smash you over the head with his performance. Maria Bello also is refreshingly different as the wife. Her beautiful portrayal of innocence clutching to an image of self-assurance never falters. William Hurt -when he finally shows up- had me in fits. But the jewel in the crown is Ed Harris, given a role he can really go to town with and maybe finally win the Oscar that keeps escaping his grasp.A History of Violence is the thinking man's thriller, taken from visceral source material and just disgusting enough to keep you entertained. When I finished watching Crash (another film by Cronenberg) I was horrified. But after a couple days you begin to appreciate its power. On the surface it's sleazy trash, but through all the sex, you see the characters have become zombified by the world they live in; the only way to arouse any kind of passion is by crashing a car. The same can be said of Violence, the abrupt ending only contributing to this, when it should only be a glorified Western or a toned down version of The Long Kiss Goodnight. A bitter picture that should stick with you for weeks after. And drinks are on me if you guess the ending.","['1', '3']" +15,rw1206199,mcoldmoon,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,No thrills whatsoever - dead boring!,31 October 2005,0,"First of all, this film had no tension or character development. The plot hung on flimsy, 2-dimensional ""secrets"" and ""mysteries"" (which one could figure out about 10 minutes into the movie, not to mention that every review in the paper gave it away - one went hoping for more, but found that what the review had given away was all that the film concealed). Not to mention cheap, pseudo-symbolic stuff and primitive, two-dimensional ""characters."" ""Thriller?"" Only the brain-dead might get a few chills.I must add that it is particularly regrettable to see such excellent actors as Ed Harris and William Hurt involved (that's what got me in the door in the first place), although it probably entailed just one or two shooting days for them (I guess it's better than doing a commercial, because it's still a ""film""). Where have the directors gone? Mr. Cronenberg should see some Hitchcock films before he attempts another ""thriller.""","['3', '11']" +16,rw1253134,tarliebear,A History of Violence (2005),3.0,It was like a gourmet meal - undercooked.,2 January 2006,0,"I went to see this movie based on reading a USA Today recommendation ""Mike Clark's top 10 films of 2005"" and looking over a plot summary that described it as a great over-looked thriller.I must admit I enjoyed watching the movie until the end and it felt like the last 30 minutes of the movie was just whacked off. That made the movie a waste of time for me as it felt incomplete. Like I was eating a great undercooked gourmet meal. I guess this is what was supposed to make it ""artful"" and good. I like a movie that has a great beginning (which it did), interesting characters (which it did) and a great plot (which it was appearing to have, and a conclusion preferably great; but, at least having one (which it didn't.) I left the theater shaking my head in disbelief that it was praised so highly. I agree that the characters were interesting and the plot was absorbing and then all of a sudden, the movie was over - Like the last 30 minutes of the movie was just whacked off.I felt kind of tricked or duped that I went to see this movie.When will I ever learn. When a movie is ""critically acclaimed"", it's going to suck as a good movie experience. The last descent movie thrillers I've seen were Ben Affleck in Paycheck (2003)and the one before that was Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer in What Lies Beneath (2000).","['0', '3']" +17,rw1172538,trez1,A History of Violence (2005),10.0,A gripping experience with complex themes,14 September 2005,0,"I saw this film at a special screening in NYC on Tuesday. It is superb both in direction and acting. Both the sex and violent scenes are quick and direct. While the violence is quite graphic, as to be expected with Cronenberg, the camera does not linger on it at all. The real story is told through the emotional dynamics in the family as the plot unfolds. Mortensen's performance as Tom Stall is brilliant and wonderfully nuanced and the entire cast is first rate. Maria Bello as the wife and Ashton Holmes as the son and Ed Harris as the ""heavy"" are spot on. William Hurt's scene is a standout. There are moments in the film where you laugh and then are horrified within seconds. DC doesn't dumb down to the audience but enjoys the complexities of human reactions to issues of identity, violence and society's view of ""good"" versus ""bad"" violence. I still can't get this film out of my mind. I'm definitely planning on seeing it again when it opens widely. Highly recommended.","['222', '389']" +18,rw1195778,BluesBro715,A History of Violence (2005),2.0,Someone actually sat down and wrote this?,17 October 2005,1,"This is honestly one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. I'm usually very forgiving of movie's faults, especially if I'm shelling out 9 bucks to see it. But this movie was shockingly awful; there is no way around it. Let's examine the overall theme: If you kill a lot of people in the past... (now wait for the genius) you're going to have to kill MORE people to get away from killing people. Wow, what a fantastic dilemma. The fight scenes are needlessly violent (and I'm a product of the nineties so I'll be the last person to say violence doesn't belong in movies) and held nothing more than a quick cheap thrill and some shock value. The sex scenes are unnecessarily graphic; if this was an erotic thriller that was studying the elements of passion or how sexuality can exist in a small town too then it'd be fine. It wasn't really a problem until the sex on the stairs which established nothing more that angry sex is good and that the stairs is a bad place to do it. How deep. Oh, and the wife is a whore. But the overall problem of this is that there is no plot structure. It has no exposition, Stall's past is mentioned only in vague conversation. The plot thread of the son was an absolute joke. A caught ball in gym class? Are you serious? The son inherited his father's ""history of violence""...wow, didn't see that coming. Compare the whole ""killing your way to solution"" motif that this movie uses to similar cases. Man on Fire-fanfrickintastic (remember that beginning half hour where they bond? Yea, it's called setup, I recommend it strongly.) I'd rather watch Arnold mindlessly kill his way around the screen for three hours. At least it's fitting.","['2', '8']" +19,rw1202571,DouglasGlendower,A History of Violence (2005),8.0,Slow but steady...,27 October 2005,0,"A good piece of character driven drama, History Of Violence is shot in a dark and simple style that draws the viewer in and allows the best impact from the excellent and small cast. Viggo Mortensen gives an understated performance in the lead role, moving quite well through the slowish pace of the movie. Ed Harris is... Ed Harris, coming off quite enigmatic and believable in his role as the heavy. The movie reminds me quite a bit of the slower film noir that I've seen, and works quite well for a mature audience. Teens looking for ""violence"" in Violence should stay away, 'cause the background scenes will put them off. Adults who don't like graphic violence should also pass. But if you want to see a gritty drama, Viggo and Ed have one for you.Rating on the ""Money I'd Pay To See It"" scale: $8.50 (Primetime, baby!)","['1', '3']" +20,rw1238704,carped,A History of Violence (2005),6.0,"So, where's the beef?",7 December 2005,1,"SPOILERS ALERT! Based on an enormous praise from the critics and IMDb comments, I had very high expectations before I came to the cinema. Critics were ranting about a deep message on the inherent violent nature that lies under the surface of a common man in America, about a subversive method of violence exploitation in that film. Unfortunately, I did not find in the film anything like that.The movie is based on a century old formula of a seemingly simple family man, who is forced to meet face to face with his dark violent past. Cronenberg managed to pull some weird laughs out of combination of gory violence and humor. This comes off like something really funny if you forget that Tarantino and many of his followers pulled this kind of tricks a little while ago.Granted, the story is told very well. Short outbursts of violence and sex are interlaced with spare moments of small-town ordinary life. The actors are all excellent. Viggo Mortensen is very good as coffee-shop keeper and a family man with a dark past, as well as all supporting characters. Ed Harris and William Hurt give outstanding performances as ruthless bad guys. But all this doesn't add up to a truly great picture. Just a fairly good modern film-noir, done with competent hands. One must have a whole different movie in his head to come up with the conclusions and generalizations that many critics came up with.Ultimately, the movie leaves you empty-handed, or empty-minded as a middle-of-the road thriller, high on promise and low on delivery.My rating: 6 out of 10.","['4', '9']" +21,rw1238813,grepsy,A History of Violence (2005),4.0,"A decent movie, but a horrible movie based on a book",15 December 2005,1,"As a movie, A History of Violence is a decent movie with good acting on the behalf of both Viggo Mortensen and Ed Harris that holds the viewer's interest until the end. However, as a movie ""based"" on a book it is horrible. Now, before anyone fusses about the fact that it is hard to make a 1 1/2 hour movie out of a 286 page graphic novel I agree. Now, I have no qualms with the embellishment of the story line, and the adding of additional material, such as the addition of Tom's sons life. But what does bother me is when an adaptation completely change not only the middle and end to a book, but also change a characters attitude and how his family treats him is absurd. Also, the movie's gratuitous sex scenes seem oddly tacked on, and add absolutely nothing to the work. Now, as you have read, this review does contain spoilers. There are several reviews on this site that talk about the plot of the story, and review it as just a movie, feel free to read their review and take mine with a grain of salt. However, I want to point out the major changes in the plot, and you can decide for yourself if this movie should even share it's name with the book.Just as a note, Tony and Joey are the same people. Joey is Tony's name, before he left New York.Joey has no brother, and Richie was his friend. Joey really only committed two acts of real violence when he helped Richie rob some mobsters, and when he tore out Fogarty's eye with the barbed wire in self-defense. Joey is taken to New York to tell his story about the robbery (he was from New York not Pennsylvania) and there he was contacted by the mob and said they would kill Richie if he didn't come and see them. Joey then ""escapes"" from the mob guys he meets only to be captured by the bosses son who tortures him. Joey ends up killing the bosses son. At the end of the book, Richie has been tortured for 20 some odd years and nothing but a torso and a head. Throughout the book, Joey is a kind man and only fights when he has too. After telling his wife and son the truth about his past, they don't hate him or feel like they've been betrayed, they still love him and support him. Joey's wife even goes to New York with him. The idea that Cronenberg tries to implant that Joey is a natural born killer, and that he is crazy isn't what the original character is at all. Also, the movie makes it sound like Joey spent his entire life with crime, when in reality he spent no more than 5 minutes as a violent criminal.The only things that are the same about the book and the movie are the character names, the scenes in the coffee shop, and the idea behind the front yard fight with Fogarty. With almost 3/4 of the book missing from the movie, and it changing how Joey is and how his family treats him I don't think this movie should even share the same name as this great book. They should have put in small letters somewhere on the poster, ""Inspired by a great book, screwed up by a bad writer.""","['1', '2']" +22,rw1183517,KyleFurr2,A History of Violence (2005),7.0,good movie,30 September 2005,0,"This movie was directed by David Cronenberg who happens to be one of my favorite directors but this movie wasn't as good as some of his other movies like The Dead Zone, Videodrome and Spider but it is better than Crash. The movie starts out with Viggo Mortensen living in a small made up town in Indiana with his wife and two kids. His wife is a lawyer and he runs a small restaurant and both his kids are in school. Then one day two men walk in looking to rob the place and Mortensen kills both of them and everyone thinks he's a hero. Then Ed Harris shows up in a black car and a black suit saying that Mortensen isn't who is says he is and that he used to live in Philadelphia and was involved in the mob. This is a pretty good movie but even though this isn't Cronenberg's best it's better than most movies out there.","['2', '7']" +23,rw1183536,judywalker2,A History of Violence (2005),7.0,"I'm undecided whether I liked this film, maybe that's the point",30 September 2005,0,"First let me say that I wanted to see this movie because I like its cast, Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello and Ed Harris. I don't much care for violence but I thought maybe the movie would use the violence to make some deeper statement. I'm not sure that it accomplished that. I really am not sure what Cronenberg was trying to say and I have to admit that if this movie had been cast with different actors it would have been panned by the critics and dismissed as predictable and raunchy garbage. But with this great cast the movie is elevated maybe more than it should be. Don't get me wrong I think the story has merit but the conclusion was incomplete for incompleteness sake. It should have gone on because it was important to see what happened to these people. We know that the couple(Tom and Eddie) will never be the same. But what about the towns people and the children. It's important to see violence's total effect and that wasn't done. So that's why I'm undecided and maybe that's the point. Just as another note I'm glad that Cronenberg decided that not all of the shooting victims needed to be seen- good sense he drew the line somewhere.","['1', '4']" +24,rw1188646,kennyli,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,Biggest let down I have ever seen in a long time,7 October 2005,0,"I went to see this having read the reviews and seen the votes on here. Having just come back from the film, I am totally surprised by how bad it was.The story was not believable, the characters were under-developed, the acting unconvincing, and all in all, it was unbelievably bad! Every scene in the film felt as if it was there to prepare for a big scene or message at the end of the film which never happened. There could have been a plethora of themes this film could have explored but it barely touched on them - there was no complexity in the film whatsoever.Sorry, but a HUGE disappointment.","['17', '36']" +25,rw1221016,sradu,A History of Violence (2005),6.0,disappointing for a cronenberg aficionado,21 November 2005,0,"You can tell the plot of this movie in two phrases. It didn't convince me at all. I know Cronenberg wanted to make a commercial movie, but that doesn't mean it had to be so predictable. I could see the end and everything from the first minutes of the movie.. It was clear like a half-empty glass of water.. and mr. Cronenberg was usually treating us with a huge pint of a dark strong beer..:) Let's see what is good: - Eddie Harris is very good - The suspense and tension is very well built (Cronenberg is a good filmmaker, he couldn't totally mess out his movie) - The atmosphere is very nice at the end, in the brother's houseBut where is the substance.. Where is the twist, where is the combustion. Compare this to Crash and to Dead Ringers.. to Spider and M. Butterfly. It doesn't go where those were going.","['4', '7']" +26,rw1219589,MCEdwards13,A History of Violence (2005),5.0,"Excellent idea, good for a TV movie.",19 November 2005,0,"As a ""straight to DVD"" or television movie, this would have been acceptable, but for all the hype this movie got, I was disappointed. The acting was cardboard, the direction was poor but the story was excellent (not the ingredients for a great film). Worth waiting to watch on DVD, but I regret paying to see it at the cinema. A bit too long and drawn out for my liking, but the majority, it would seem disagrees. I guess it's a matter of taste, but to me, the film got quite tedious and a little boring in parts. As I say, the story was excellent, and the intro scene was priceless, but the acting and direction was more suited for a TV movie.","['3', '7']" +27,rw1201818,BoSoxMick,A History of Violence (2005),2.0,Thoughts,25 October 2005,1,"spoilers, don't read anymore...I was looking forward to a movie which had some emotion to it, some acting that had some chemistry to it, and maybe an ending which concluded with something profound. After the movie ended, I thought maybe there was a glitch, and the movie theater missed the '...3 months later' addition. Unfortunately, there was none. This movie had too many open ends. What did Joey do? What did he do for 3 years in the desert? How did he kill Joey? How did he not have violent acts that resulted in death prior to the two thugs coming to town? Is that town that free of punks? The high school had a punk, so there must've been adult punks, especially at a diner. In his 15 years or so at the diner, he never once had an unruly customer? Who may have had a gun? He never hit his kid before the killings? He only relapsed mentally then? Wasn't it weird that Tom & His wife re-enacted a cheerleader sex scene? Maybe she likes it rough? I wasn't looking for a Steven segal movie, I was looking for a movie which presented an idea, and it didn't. If deep messages are not caught by the general public, you have failed. The Matrix series apparently had deep messages, and lots of people missed it. In my opinion, if you think most people missed the point, the average viewer, I think you might just be upset that you put so much hype into it and it failed miserably. I enjoy Viggo and Ed Harris and love Maria Bello. I think the husband/wife chemistry was just never there. Maybe that was the point? I doubt it. 'YOU'RE NOT EVEN FROM PORTLAND!' probably put that 'relationship' in perspective. I think the problem was this movie lacked any depth whatsoever. The bully decided he hated the son because he caught a shallow fly ball during gym class? There was nothing else to suggest otherwise. Seemed like a fun side story, however I think people picked up on it as soon as the son caught the ball and saw the other kids reaction. 'oh jeez, he's the punk'. Was the daughter a mute? Deep thoughts: small town comforts? Sheriff implies they're safe with him at the end. Religion? I caught the 'see you in church' bit. Love? Conquers all, even if you lied about killing people and returned after wiping out your brother and his henchmen at his palace? Why didn't he just move in, would've capped it off nicely.Don't bash me, please, i've read enough of the movie loving messages. I understand and respect your opinions on the movie. I'm merely giving mine. Thanks. Peace and love among movies.","['5', '11']" +28,rw1187185,Clothahump,A History of Violence (2005),7.0,"Way, way overboard",5 October 2005,1,"I'm not sure if my comments will constitute a spoiler or not, so to be on the safe side, I'm giving a spoiler warning.This movie is a 10 in terms of storyline, plot development and excellent acting. I knocked off 3 points on my vote because they went way too far with the sex and violence. I'm 56 and SWMBO is 48; at one point, SWMBO whispered to me, ""This is R-rated? I don't even think *we're* old enough to see this!"". And frankly, I'm tired of the blood-and-gore-all-over-the-floor (and the walls and the ceiling and the people) school of movie-making. One can show extreme violence without being gross about it.Having said that, I will give big credit in one aspect: the fight scenes are very realistic. This is the way martial arts is supposed to be used in self-defense. No flashy jump kicks to the head, no reaching down the throat and ripping the heart out, just very precise, powerful techniques that disable an opponent quickly and thoroughly. SWMBO and I are both Taekwondo instructors and it was a pleasure to see a movie that got it right.","['2', '5']" +29,rw1192888,JumeirahSun,A History of Violence (2005),4.0,"Weird, but not thought-provoking",13 October 2005,1,"This movie quickly became painful to watch. Not because of graphic shots of bloody corpses or sex scenes, but because it is 1. Not a very engaging story and 2. Filled with terrible acting. Mortensen and Harris are okay, but Harris's role is not that of the main antagonist. He drops out of the movie before long, and the plot drags without him. Most of the supporting cast just plain stinks. The little girl, in particular, is awful. I am willing to be generous where child ""actors"" are concerned but every time she came on screen I just cringed. The role of the son is one of the more interesting ones and I am afraid it came out rather muddled. I believe the director was going for a poignant image of the forming of a young man's character, as shaped by school bullies and the actions of his main role model, his father. Unfortunately, the son utters lines that perhaps needed to be said to move the story along but did nothing for the development of his character. He just doesn't seem genuine--nothing in this story really does. Maria Bello has received some bad press for this but I don't think she is that bad. If one's part is written and directed middlingly well, then it stands to reason that the character will come across as very average and forgettable. The storytelling is heavy-handed and gratuitous: we have the scene that demonstrates that Stall is a loving, caring father; the scene that demonstrates that he and his wife adore each other; the scene that tells us the townspeople like and respect Stall, etc. I found these scenes to be just a series of clichés, strung together but not adding up to anything. Overall, I found this film hard to get a grip on, and not interesting enough to motivate me.","['3', '6']" +30,rw1194849,Jonny_Numb,A History of Violence (2005),8.0,"Cronenberg's evolution of ""Violence""",16 October 2005,0,"Going out to the movies these days is something of a gamble--sure, we have the Cingulair-sponsored ""Silence Cell Phones"" message before the feature begins, but we are defenseless against vocal patrons who believe their narration or editorial comments actually carry a bit of entertainment value (during a poor film, such an action can be refreshing; to those who cannot handle a deliberately-paced, serious film, it's downright irritating). If the writings of Plato had been taken seriously and enforced to this day, a Philosophical Elite would be the only audience for ""A History of Violence,"" David Cronenberg's stunning study of identity.But perhaps I'm being a bit harsh and fascistic. After all, we pay the same absurd matinée price to get in, and it is at our own risk that we get stuck two rows in front of vocal adults with Attention Deficit Disorder. Yet at the same time, whenever a loud laugh is uttered at a bully calling a defenseless boy ""faggot"" or declaring a man with half his face blown off ""yummy,"" ""A History of Violence"" is not only revealing toward the potential for brutality of its characters, but also the dormant appetites of its audience, exhibited for all to see. In this regard, Cronenberg's film probes deeper than the ""mob-procedurals"" of Scorsese and Tarantino, maturely addressing issues of identity, heroism, and denial, while holding up a mirror to how his audience reacts. In my eyes, ""History"" is a film--like Larry Clark's ""Bully""--awash in unpleasant violence that shows just how instinctual, savage, and ugly violence really is.Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) plays a small-town diner owner married to Edie (Maria Bello), a successful lawyer; they have two ideal children, and life, as they say, ""is good."" All that changes when two thugs hold up the diner and are murdered with shocking efficiency by Tom; this inspires a media whirlwind and the arrival of the menacing, understated Carl Fogarty (a brilliant Ed Harris), who insists Tom is really Joey Cusack, a gangster who once operated out of Philadelphia. As Tom's demeanor begins to shift and his identity is called into question, the behavior of his family becomes just as inclined toward surprising acts of brutality, to the point where we wonder if violence is trait that can be so easily spread from father to son to wife to daughter. Watching the subtle changes in character that occur during ""History"" make the experience that much more deeply felt.Cronenberg is a director who has long been known for his wild ventures into the body's capacity for mutation (the sex maniacs of ""Shivers""; a decaying Jeff Goldblum in ""The Fly""; vaginal stomach-slits in ""Videodrome""), but since 1997's ""Crash,"" his films have developed into more controlled, psychologically adventurous pieces (""Spider"" being his most divergent effort); ""A History of Violence"" is no exception. In a film that juxtaposes the intimate ""family dynamic"" of both small-town life and the criminal underworld, it is hard to not be affected by the way in which the dominoes ultimately fall. The director also shows a knack for adapting to a very streamlined story while maintaining the flair for the unexpected that he's built his career on.Wrought with grace and skill and filled with superb performances, ""A History of Violence"" demonstrates not only David Cronenberg's thrilling evolution as a filmmaker, but also creates a portrait of physical and psychological brutality that will only leave the most ignorant of viewers unscathed. One of the year's best films.","['3', '6']" +31,rw1183043,davyegould,A History of Violence (2005),10.0,A perfect film,29 September 2005,0,"Blown away by this beautiful film, I was moved, at the same time intrigued and involved and amused. Mostly in awe of the amazing film making---the lack of hype, of the typical Hollywood ""blockbuster"" top seller, of special effects and clichés. The acting was impeccable, the script intelligent, the editing clean, with great pacing---not too fast, not too slow, and not too long, a fault of so many films today. A beautifully clear, complex, yet simple movie, with great cinematography---wonderful creative shots, nothing boring, nothing excessive. A deeply intelligent film which takes courage to make in today's market. I can understand why it was such a top contender at Cannes this year.","['4', '9']" +32,rw1211891,scratch1419,A History of Violence (2005),10.0,Top notch Cronenberg,8 November 2005,0,"I saw this film tonight - a brilliant interpretation of the graphic novel. Cronenberg is definitely one of the finest film-makers around. His cast is superb, particularly the leads. William Hurt delivers an Oscar-worthy performance, as does the always-great Ed Harris. Viggo and Maria prove, once again, why they are so highly regarded in the film industry, and deservedly so. The photography and editing are both brilliantly done, as is the case always with a Cronenberg production. The ending was extremely moving and effective - no talking, just a family hopefully getting back together. Ashton Holmes also deserves some recognition for his touching portrayal of the son - a major discovery. All in all - a terrific night at the movies. Yet another terrific Canadian movie! Bravo to Cronenberg and all involved in this film. Bring on the Genies!!","['1', '2']" +33,rw1184456,rachaelrama,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,Worst Movie...I want my money back.,1 October 2005,0,"This is the worst movie I have seen all year. I want my money back. There is no way the critics could have given this movie good reviews without being handed a fat brown envelope under table first. Don't waste your time or money, here's why:1. The first fifteen minutes (and introduction to the first two characters who quickly die) are unnecessary. Time would have been better spent developing relationships between the main characters...or better yet, giving us a REAL ending. 2. Poignant scenes, such as the meeting of the brothers, should have been intense, serious scenes; however, the audience was laughing because the dialog and acting were terrible. In fact, this theme continued throughout the entire movie...should we laugh or cry?3. Because my time is better spent doing something else, like watching my grass grow, I will not dwell on all of the many the bad parts of this movie, but I will say this final remark...sex scenes between middle-aged adults are fine if they are done in good taste, but when they are not it repulses the majority of the audience. The general consensus of the audience I watched this movie with, in Austin, was laughter and confusion. Please, save your time and money.","['6', '18']" +34,rw1171385,shahid_fc,A History of Violence (2005),6.0,Great acting; shallow script.,12 September 2005,0,"I saw this film at the Toronto Film Festival, expecting a deep exploration of the roots of violence supported by Cronenberg's typically brilliant & gruesome visuals (Crash, The Fly, ExiStenz). Well, the scenes were graphic, rivaling Tarentino's plays in both Kill Bills. Viggo's character ended up being more comic-book than anything else, with the uber-ability to take out 5 armed guys without (initally) packing heat. Think Bourne Identity meets Mel Gibson's character in Payback - yes, he's THAT good! But each story traces the shallow cause of violence. Cronenberg does not go into the shadows (History?) of violence. The history of the violence here is taken literally. Somebody is violent and incites more violence as retribution. Somebody had a violent past and goes back to it. Any one of the stories would have been great material to go deeper into, (especially the son's) but the movie wraps up before anything of substance can be explored. 6 outta 10.An enjoyable flick nonetheless.----REVISION----One of the most often heard pieces of advice given to a first time viewer of art/music/film is to go in without any preconceived ideas. If you do that, there is a slim chance you'll get what you expected. I think that's what happened to me with this film. My preconceived idea was that the script should explore, then question (in a critical way) the fundamental motivations behind violence. Because of this, I appreciated the acting and the characters, but was disappointed by the script, which lessened my appreciation for the film. What brought on this confession? David Cronenberg himself in an EYE Weekly review by Jason Anderson:-----While critics have already tried to read the film as a critique of movie violence or even of violence's role in American society, Cronenberg resists such interpretations, saying he was only interested in how it would be used by his characters. ""I asked myself, 'What was violence to these guys? Was it a sadistically pleasurable thing? No, it was business. It's very functional and therefore you get it over with as fast as you can and you get on with everything else""Cronenberg says that another title for A history of Violence might've been 'Scenes from a Marriage'. ""We joked about it on the set,"" he says. ""There was this sense that this was a portrait of a marriage in all kinds of ways, especially under duress.""-----As a character driven movie, maybe even a dark comedy, this film is a success, and I can understand the immense praise that most reviews have given it. Ratings are a personal thing, so I still feel my enjoyment of it was a 6, but I understand and appreciate where the 8 and aboves are coming from. Still an enjoyable flick....","['8', '20']" +35,rw1192686,colin-macintosh,A History of Violence (2005),2.0,this movie lacks credibility,13 October 2005,0,"I can't believe anyone took this movie seriously. Please explain to me why their were reporters all over this guy when he kills two ""bad guys"" in his diner and then a week later kills three ""well known mobsters"" on his front lawn and their are no reporters for that? Where were the FBI, they'd be involved, don't you think? Some dim-witted, country Sheriff(old, played stereotype) is afraid to bring up the issue that 3 mobsters have been shot dead in his town and does not even question him? Come on, thats NOT happening. The movie lost all credibility at that point and became a complete joke. The fight scene with his son, also a joke. Is their some super natural gene in this family? The frontal nude shot of his wife and the sex scenes were cheap ways to retain interest. This movie stunk!","['3', '8']" +36,rw1198979,way_homer,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,I would have walked out....,22 October 2005,0,"The only reason I didn't walk out on this flick was that I was with a bunch of people and it was a long walk home. I almost never walk out of movies. First of all, I think I'm pretty tolerant and open-minded, and secondly, when I spend almost 10 bucks, I expect to be entertained for at least two hours. But their comes a point when you realize the time you are wasting is more valuable than the money you spent. I'll tell you this much: by the middle of the movie, most of the people in the theater were laughing uncomfortably as stuff that was not meant to be funny.I wanted to like this movie. In fact, I was enjoying the beginning of the movie, thinking it had promise and that it was doing a good job of building suspense.However, there are far too many times when the movie does things that are over-the-top and flat out gratuitous. I know, I know, lots of movies do that and get raves for it. But this movie is not trying to be Kill Bill or The Big Lebowski--it takes itself FAR too seriously for that. And yet, most of the movie makes it impossible to take it seriously. I generally don't like when people pick apart movies for being unrealistic...isn't that what suspension of disbelief is about? But I think a movie sets the tone in its beginning as to the level of disbelief that is appropriate, so when a movie, like this one, starts introducing increasing stereotypical or outlandish characters and situations, its hard to take the movie seriously.I found out after seeing the movie that lots of people think its great. This is lost on me, but if you are considering going to see it, you have probably read many good reviews. Well, here are two succinct reasons why you should reconsider: --The violence is graphic and gratuitous: Granted, I know the word ""Violence"" is in the title, and its not like this movie is non-stop gore. But when it is violent, it is disgusting.--There is a sex scene that I guess is technically consensual sex, but it feels a lot like a rape scene to me.","['2', '11']" +37,rw1188462,jill-miller,A History of Violence (2005),8.0,History of Violence,7 October 2005,0,"I will only say about this film that it is very personal. It's a very cerebral film and is not what it necessarily appears on the screen. I suggest that when one sees this film, to watch it, think about it for a few days and then see it again.It is a very simple film but Cronenberg makes you think.Viggo's performance is understated, as usual, but profound. William Hurt steals several scenes.I can tell you that this is a film that should probably be seen on disc after initially in the theater so that you can appreciate it without the childish giggles, popcorn crunching and outside din.","['1', '4']" +38,rw1185081,mn8335,A History of Violence (2005),2.0,Save your $9.00,2 October 2005,0,"This movie was easily one of the worst of the year, not to mention on my Top 10 List of all time. The pacing is slow, the plot thin in most places. Mortensen and Harris are capable of so much more. The opening scene is oddly filmed, contains a disturbing element, and adds little, except as a set-up for the main plot point. Without much character development, this point could have been made quicker and easier, allowing for more backstory with Mortensen's and Harris' characters.From beginning to end, the movie is nothing but a vehicle for raunchy sex scenes and graphic violence. (This is one ""R"" movie which you should spare the kiddos.) I wouldn't mind those elements if they added something to the plot, but they don't. The suspense falls flat, leaving the viewer waiting for an interesting twist or satisfying conclusion which never happens. I, for one, was very disappointed. Most of the audience around me seemed to feel the same, as there were jeers and inappropriate laughter throughout the show. 2/10 stars.","['2', '8']" +39,rw1188294,j-lindie,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,A History of atrocious film making,7 October 2005,1,"I cannot believe that people who have actually gone to watch this movie and are leaving positive reviews are actually leading their lives without the aid of a white stick and Labrador! It is easily one of the worst films I have ever seen and an example of actors taking an easy pay cheque.I'm all for scenes of nudity within movies (hell I'll pay extra), but the completely inappropriate use of such scenes in this movie left me squirming. In one particular scene, the wife of Tom Stalls, after finding out he was actually a gangster in a previous life, tries to push him away. This results in the ""real"" Tom Stalls/Joey Cusack emerging, who violently pins her down before she consents to having ""rough"" sex with him. What the hell was this movie trying to say at this stage? That women really harbour after bad boys??? Others may argue that the movie was showing deep psychological tensions between the couple. Boll**ks!!! In fact it couldn't be more boll**ks if it was wrapped in hairy skin and hanging from the back of a bull! It was just a crass attempt to inject some sexual interest into a horribly stale script.If this was all that was wrong with the movie you may partially overlook it, but sadly no, it manages to sink to even worse depths. The climactic scene where Tom Stalls faces off to his brother defies the laws of crap, by producing new levels of crap reference points. How we are supposed to suspend our disbelief (trademark Basic Instinct - possibly the last time I felt this angry about a movie!) to believe that a professional gangster can miss shooting someone five times from 4 foot is beyond me.The best gauge I can give you of how poor this movie was is that of a fairly full audience at my particular screening, there were howls of laughter at the poor acting in seemingly dramatic and gripping moments of the film. At first this annoyed me as i really wanted to give the film a chance, but as the film progressed I couldn't help but join in. As the film faded to black at the end and the credits began to roll, there was a deep intake of breath by the whole audience before universal laughter and derision. People were re-acting their favourite poor scenes in the lobby after as a homage to the level of crap it reached! I have never actually left a comment on a movie before, as I'm a strong believer in making your own mind up, but I'm strongly considering leaving my job and mounting a one man campaign to dissuade people from spending their hard earned cash on this pile of poo! Vive la revolution! Down with crap Hollywood movies!","['103', '200']" +40,rw1191313,rchadwi@hotmail.com,A History of Violence (2005),6.0,Has it's Moments but Precious Few - CONTAINS SPOILERS!,11 October 2005,1,"My wife hated this movie coming out of the theatre, but I rather liked it. However, hours later I was convinced that I, too, rather disliked this film. The premise of the movie is simple - a small-town diner employee (Tom Stall) thwarts a robbery/rape attempt by two armed bandits. His ability to disarm and kill both bandits is rather ""too good to be"" for someone not specifically trained in the art of killing. Of course, the news coverage reaches some dangerous characters from the Philly syndicate who call him ""Joey"" and insist he was a high-level syndicate member, brother of crime-boss Ritchie (played by John Hurt). The mob guys keep visiting, insisting that he is ""Joey"" (which he vehemently denies) and menacing the family until a final confrontation in his front yard where he again disarms and kills said mob members. Now his own wife is somehow convinced (seeing him in action) that he IS ""Joey"" which he readily (and mysteriously) confesses, all of a sudden. Now she feels she lived a lie, hates him for it, etc. All of a sudden, ANOTHER set of mob dudes (his brother, Ritchie's, crew) says he needs to come to Philly to see his bro. Well, the two bros aren't exactly ""brotherly"" and in fact Ritchie means to kill the person we now know was, in fact, Joey. Another confrontation ensues and let's just say Joey is VERY good at killing people. He returns home from Philly to a very shocked but still-together family. And here the movie ends.Well...what to say? This movie is supposed to be big on character development/study (read: SLOW). Slow it is, with plenty-o-sappy moments establishing the stereotypical small town and Tom/Joey's small-town family life. However, said ""development"" is very, as I said, stereotypical - no deeper or more real than any other of the movies that attempt such a feat. In fact, everything about this movie is pretty run of the mill - the mob guys come, menace the family in the same way mob guys have done in many other films (e.g. showing up at the mall where mom/daughter are shopping...daughter goes out of sight, mom panics and finds her with mob guy...he's being all nice but still gives the old ""veiled threat"" speech). The character of the family is hard to develop due to seriously bad acting by BOTH the children (teenage boy and kindergarten-age girl). The wife begins to actually believe Tom IS ""Joey"" based on...nothing, really - the word of a mobster menacing your family?! Then there's Tom/Joey's ""confession"" to his wife that indeed he did have a secret past. Why confess??? There are so many other ways he could have gone to explain his deftness at warfare (he was in the military, for example...other ""stories"" at which someone hiding their identity would have well developed). Then, finally, the scenes where he is forced to dispatch his attackers are virtually undeveloped, short, and non-suspenseful.So while I was kind of enjoying the movie, the payoff never came. The acting was sub-par by many of the characters (excluding Vigo M. and John Hurt), the characters themselves acted unrealistically (which is not good for a movie whose main claim to fame is character development) and the whole secret-identity/mob menacing aspect was nothing new. Thus, I too was disappointed by the film, while my wife simply hated it.","['2', '5']" +41,rw1186811,Jwintz2000,A History of Violence (2005),4.0,The only good thing about the 9 30 to 11 30 showing of History of Violence was how good my farts happened to smell,4 October 2005,0,"I Just saw a history of Violence and I'm not sure if i didn't understand it or i didn't look in to it enough, but one way or another it was terrible. If Viggo Mortenson wasn't in it they coulda sold that to Maximum channel as a soft core porno and replaced Viggo for like Billy Baldwin. Every ones talking about Oscar buzz, but Hurts performance was comedic, Harris was just a neutron, Mortenson was just ehh , and Bello was hot. Anyone can say what they want but this movie was so cracked out and the most random and pointless thing ever. i mean after wards i had to go home n wash my mind out with a good movie. Dan Demola","['0', '5']" +42,rw1242792,barry-mahon,A History of Violence (2005),7.0,"Excellent, some scenes could be better/left out",20 December 2005,0,"A good film, a good theme, a good cast, a good treatment. The erotic elements well dealt with, the sub-plot characters well developed (cook and client in the diner for example).One or two niggles. The cleansing scene was a bit obvious, could have been done better. The girl child was a little too ""good"" almost schmaltz...The part played by the son was terrific.I felt the way his face changed through the film was well done, followed the stress he was under very well. The general 'darkness' of the images was also well developed as was the cosiness of the town. Of course the details could be quibbled with, his escape from his brother was a little far-fetched, but then again the whole story is far-fetched.Nonetheless well worth the trip.Bye, Barry","['1', '2']" +43,rw1184681,talkingtoclarry,A History of Violence (2005),3.0,Dull,2 October 2005,0,"This was a movie i was looking forward to seeing due to all the reviews. unfortunately it turned out to be so dull and extremely slow. very quiet too; u could hear everyone crunching on popcorn. maria bello wasn't even that great either; all she seemed to do was cry, and not very well might i add. no tears. i walked out of there truly disappointed and was reminded of 2 other ""violent"" films that got awesome reviews which i found dull. mystic river and in the bedroom. made me realise i definitely cannot always agree with the critics. to all the ones who liked it, i am not bashing any of u. just my own personal opinion i wanted to share. i am a huge movie fan and see every movie out there but this was probably one of the biggest disappointments this year ( and Red Eye too, another one where the critics couldn't have been more wrong, the fakest acting ever!)","['1', '6']" +44,rw1189124,sbrizzi,A History of Violence (2005),7.0,Lovely but lacking,8 October 2005,0,"Beautifully acted and staged, but I think it falls a bit short in terms of what it's trying to express. The opening scene is a classic, masterfully paced, with a Spaghetti Western feel. The first act of the film seems to be setting up some complex and fascinating questions about our relationship to violence and the nature of identity. But these themes are then largely abandoned, as the film becomes an extremely well-crafted and entertaining, but not particularly thought-provoking, gangsters and guns thriller. William Hurt I would go so far as to say was delightful, and I've honestly never liked him in anything before. Ed Harris is outstanding too. Garish product placement though: a certain box of Honey Bunches of Oats appears so often that it really should have been given some lines. Also poor Maria Bello displays her naughty bits in one of the more gratuitous nudie shots in the history of the cinema. Mr. Mortensen (good throughout, though not as outstanding as Jeremy Irons in Dead Ringers) shows his bottom more appropriately...","['1', '3']" +45,rw1188657,cmzapffe,A History of Violence (2005),9.0,"Don't Miss ""A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE,"" Cronenberg's New Masterpiece",7 October 2005,0,"""A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE""(2005) Director David Cronenberg has created a near masterpiece with this movie, which is certain to be on my list of the ""10 Best Movies of 2005.""While the title may be off-putting to some and invoke questions from others, I would hasten to assure you that this movie is not as violent as you might think. The scenes of violence, while graphic, are short and then passed over. What this movie does dwell on is the long term effects of that violence, especially its devastatingly corrosive effects on family relationships.Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) is a family man and a solid, respectable citizen of a small farming town in northeastern Indiana. He has an idyllic life with a loving wife, two healthy kids, and a pleasant career as the owner of Stall's Cafe on Main Street.One day two mindless toughs attempt to rob his diner and rape an employee. Tom unexpectedly leaps into action and dispatches both men with lethal force. The media circus following this event creates a very unpleasant aftereffect for Tom when two mobsters show up from Philadelphia and claim him to be one of their own. They demand that he return back to Philly with them.Their subsequent visits create further problems for Tom's wife and children, not to mention the local sheriff who happens to be a family friend. Is this devoted family man really who he says he is, or does he have a dark secret in his past that no one in town knows about?This excellent movie is not about violence but rather a thoughtful study about why some people find it so difficult to escape their violent past in an effort to change the course of their lives. Be forewarned that there are also several scenes of intense sexuality in this film. Grade: A, Recommended? Highly! One of the best movies of the year! Carl Zapffe, The Cat's Meow Movie Critichttp://www.catsmeowmoviecritic.com","['6', '14']" +46,rw1162339,okami_ito,A History of Violence (2005),8.0,"Great Cast, great timing.",31 August 2005,0,"I really liked this one. The story is told straight almost skinned to the bone. The characters are all over the top but believable and most of all the mis-en-scene of the violence featured here is brilliant. Though there are some funny lines here and there and some characters seem to be borrowed from the early Coen-Brothers oeuvre the killings are pretty realistic and grim and nothing to cheer at. A lot of dead bodies are shown in a very banal way so that the movies sometimes looks like a documentary about murder. Another great thing about AHOV is, that it's narrative is 90% about the life of average people and the rest is some kind of a perverted action-flick in every gory detail.","['29', '60']" +47,rw1179864,CuriosityKilledShawn,A History of Violence (2005),8.0,Don't make me angry,25 September 2005,0,"Fate and destiny intertwine and connect in ways you can't imagine. What can two mass-murderers travelling across country possibly have to do with old crime syndicate grudge from almost 20 years ago? The answer is a man called Tom Stall. An average family man living a quiet life in a peaceful country town. Had these two murderers simply passed on through his town instead of stopping at his café then hell would not break loose. It's a million to one coincidence, but life is like that.Tom responds with sudden, unexpected lethal force when the men try to hold up his café. And before you can say 'wowzer' both men are dead with their guts and skull fragments all over the floor. Tom is hailed as local hero and his picture and story is soon all over the news.But gangsters watch the news too. And hideously scarred Carl Fogaty (the very cool indeed Ed Harris) recognises the pictures on TV not as Tom Stall, but as Joey Cusack. A man to whom he owes a serious ass-kicking. Carl and his goons promptly show up in town and quiz Tom over his new identity. Obviously he thinks they are crazy.All could have been okay if they just left, but their constant watching and hounding slowly brings back to life a side of Tom that died a long time ago. Without continuing to give away the whole plot, a major bloodbath follows.The violence is short, sharp, to the point and jaw-droppingly brutal. Just the way I like it. This is not some PG-13 kiddie's movie. A film condemning violence only to not show it in it's full, bloody gory glory would only be hypocritical. Tom does not like what he is doing. But when his life and the lives of his family are threatened, the only way to successfully respond is to put them bad guys down as quick as possible. There is no gun pornography or ballet-dancing here.The lesson of the movie is that a man can change. Violence will only lead to more violence and ultimately, when you really think about it, it doesn't solve anything. Yes, I know it's an old cliché but there are not many movies out there that make an attempt to prove it true. Cronenberg, in a change of pace from his usual body-horror and mind-games movies, directs with perfect timing and encourages flawless performances from the whole cast.It would be too much to call it Cronenberg's best work as all of his films have a lot of class to them, but it's definitely one of his most important.","['7', '16']" +48,rw1195418,Grkmagas85,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,WHat's going on with viewers today? MAJOR SPOILERS!,17 October 2005,1,"I can't believe this movie is getting such good reviews, I finally saw it today. *** SPOILERS********** Alright, so the movie starts off with a shot of a chair, then the director spends ten minutes extra trying to get us to understand that this is a loving family, done. Tom Stall, played horribly by Viggo Mortensen is a former criminal from the east, Philadelphia to be more specific. He has successfully relocated to a small town in Indiana and all is well - until his diner gets robbed. Tom reverts to his instincts and kills the two men and now he's a hero. Took long enough to get to this part, now we see Tom Stall's son getting bullied in school and playing baseball, very useless if you ask me, doesn't do anything for the story. Ed Harris shows up at Tom's diner claiming he's ""JOE CUSACK"". We know the bad guys want TOm, why is not yet known. After some pointless sex scenes, yeah married couple performing 69, the bad guys finally reach Tom at his house. Tom goes psycho and kills all the men after we FIND OUT Tom's brother, Richie, wants to see him. This is mind you 50 minutes into the script, NOW we find out Richie wants to see Tom or Joe, whichever. Tom has some make up sex with his wife on the steps which is so out-of-place it's not even funny. Very unnatural dialogue also detracts from this film. Tom's son suspects of his past, and tells his father, who mind you has been good to him all these years: ""WHat are you gonna do, WACK ME? Like those two guys in the diner"". LOL! What's that? A son saying that to his father after he killed two men in self defense, trust me, the dialogue is horrible, and so is the acting. We're now well into the third act, we still don't know why these ppl want Tom for, finally Tom visits his brother Richie. Turns out, all Richie needed to do was call his brother up, yep that's right - A PHONE CALL. No need to send five guys to get killed when you can just call your brother up. Alright, he calls him up and Tom meets RIchie at his HUGE MANSion. We now finally figure out the reason for all this VIOLENCE> Tom was crazy back in phili and he killed a bunch of dudes, now RICHIE can't move up in the criminal world because of his brothers actions. EVEN Though he has a huge mansion and lives well, his brother being alive is messing everything up! SO, instead of leaving his brother alone in Indina, he decides it would be better to kill him. Yeah, he's as good as gone in Indiana, but NO! He wants to kill him. SO Richie attempts to have Tom killed and Tom of course kills everyone in the mansion. He goes back home and lives happily ever after. Very bad dialogue, very bad direction, very bad acting. 4/10 stars NEXT!!!!!!!","['6', '18']" +49,rw1178774,screenwriter-14,A History of Violence (2005),8.0,Violence Begets Violence...,23 September 2005,0,"From the first frame of THE HISTORY OF VIOLENCE as the credits roll, David Cronenberg sets up the audience for the violence that follows, and masterfully moves the film forward as the young daughter wakes up to a bad dream with loud screams. Brilliant! Then he introduces us to the characters all in one scene and the story moves forward with what we think is just a happy American family. What a surprise is in store...Viggo Mortenson is tremendous as Tom Stall, and gives a subtle and powerful performance, as does Maria Bello. Their chemistry on the screen and their sex scenes play into the theme of violence as the film progresses. And the final scene of the family at the dinner table with no words said, is one to remember.THE HISTORY OF VIOLENCE is well written, with tremendous character development and direction from Cronenberg, and a superb cast. William Hurt reminds me of the 'Godfather' in his scenes with Viggo Mortenson, and like 'The Godfather', delivers a performance that is chilling and of course, violent, in its end. This film captures the violence and the undercurrent of anger which takes place today in American society, and the blood and gore which is shown visually on the screen only enhances the statement of violence in the film and within American culture.THE HISTORY OF VIOLENCE presents tremendous performances from a cast that really delivers, and is a must see film in 2005.","['6', '12']" +50,rw1188486,supcuzz,A History of Violence (2005),9.0,A chilling masterpiece,7 October 2005,1,"First a personal gripe: It's about DAMN time that a distribution company had the guts to release a movie like this to over a thousand theaters so people like me don't have to drive to New York every time they want to pay their hard earned money to see something other than Vin Diesel and The Rock. Thank you for that, BUT, shame on you for basically revealing every plot point in the stinking trailers. It's like I need to be sequestered for two weeks before any good movie comes out because you people ALWAYS REVEAL WAY TOO MUCH IN THE TRAILERS!!!! Ever hear of LESS IS MORE??!! Why do we need to know about the act of violence in the diner, and that the main character's true identity is shrouded in mystery?? Why not just say it's a frigging R rated movie about VIOLENCE starring the guy from LORD OF THE RINGS?? Nuff said, I'm already forking over my ten bucks. This way the audience may actually be SURPRISED when some of these things happen. Imagine that. Wouldn't that be nice? Idiots.Now to the movie: I loved this movie. From the opening sequence A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE lets you know that 'it's not messing around'. This is a challenging, adult movie that could seemingly care less about appealing to the greater masses (14 year old fans of THE RING should sneak into another R rated movie). Croneberg and company threw caution to the wind and made a creepy, balls-out, little gem of a thriller that delves deep into questions that aren't easily answered. The story, as we already know from the trailers, more or less examines the destruction that violence has on one man and his family. This may sound like it's been done before but I can assure you there has never been anything quite like this. The scenes of violence, although chilling and expertly executed, are not what most disturbed me the most about this movie. It was witnessing the aftermath of these acts and seeing the characters try to regain some semblance of normalcy that was truly horrifying. This small premise was more than enough to keep me riveted and unnerved until the final fade to black. Which brings me to the ending. No eleventh hour twists here, no miraculous epiphanies, and no selling out for a happy ending. What a frigging' concept, a movie that ends when and how it should. Halellujah! SLIGHT SPOILER AHEAD I will never be able to shake the last few minutes of this movie; the fact that it was done with no words and very little on-screen action testifies to Cronenberg's talents and the strength of the script. Absolutely amazing, and in my mind it could not have been done any other way. I'm sure plenty of people walked out of this one feeling cheated and let down, expecting issues to be resolved and everything to be black and white. I for one thank the filmmakers for seeing their vision through to it's unsettling and quiet resolve, as any attempt to do otherwise would have undoubtedly cheapened the whole affair.SPOILER OVER All in all A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE is a great film, albeit packing less impact as a result of the plot-ruining trailers. The only reason I didn't give it a 10 was because of William Hurt's somewhat baffling performance (miscast), and some slight improbableness right before the aforementioned brilliant ending. A NOTE TO ALL FILMMAKERS, STUDIOS, AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY'S: PLEASE MAKE MORE MOVIES LIKE THIS, AND DON'T REVEAL THE WHOLE PLOT IN THE TRAILERS!!","['5', '11']" +51,rw1184575,paxatron,A History of Violence (2005),,Can I go back in time and not see this movie?,2 October 2005,1,"Possible spoilers herein! It won't matter, since you shouldn't see the movie anyway.I've read most of the reviews and positive comments of this film, was intrigued by the premise, and was rather excited to see it the first night it opened here in Phoenix. The beginning was kind of slow, the middle was a little lagging, and the end was, well, slow. That's kind of the running theme for this film - extremely slow pacing, which is a bad thing, seeing as how the movie is a little over an hour and a half. According to the reviews, A History of Violence is a somehow satirical look at violence-obsessed media, but it falls prey to exactly the same sensibility it pretends to deplore, using violence to solve its plot holes and for little more than shock value. Extreme closeups of dying people's graphic injuries do little more than cause the audience to shift uncomfortably, and the two sex scenes elicited laughter from the packed house of thirty-somethings. The first one drags on too long, the second one doesn't make any sense.Veering away from the violence and sex, the acting is downright lousy, from the mopey Viggo Mortensen to the horribly cast little blonde girl playing his daughter. Ed Harris is in the film entirely too briefly, and the usually great William Hurt is saddled with a ridiculous goatee and a goofy mobster accent. I can't recall a single scene of memorable dialogue, and the director seemed lost in a myriad of potential plots, abandoning each new moment of intrigue for more shots of broken bones, gunshot wounds, child abuse, and unnecessary sex.When the credits finally began to roll after the six minutes of dead silence that constituted the film's ending and the lights came up, a huge collective sigh came from the audience and the theater was empty within about thirty seconds. If the point of the movie was to exploit violence for cheap gut-wrenching and to make people as uncomfortable as possible, David Cronenberg and crew succeeded admirably. If the point was to make a film that had something intelligent to say about American society, a plot, good acting, quality writing, and was overall worthwhile, they failed miserably. I don't want my money back; I want my memory erased.","['4', '9']" +52,rw1185691,footzie,A History of Violence (2005),6.0,Wrong plot line,3 October 2005,1,"I was anxious to see this film because the reviews had generally been good.It could have been an examination of the disruption that can come to someone's life when sudden fame is thrust upon them. But, this would hardly be fodder for Cronenberg. Instead, after a very fine opening part, the film degenerates into a virtual comic strip. Mortensen is the ""man of steel"" without the cape. He certainly establishes that he can act out of the ""Ring"" cycle. Mara Bello is the much deceived wife. She is wonderful to look at and strikes all the right notes. She fascinates in the same way as does Diane Lane. Ed Harris does a sort of cameo role as a nasty piece of work and plays it very broadly. The same is the case with William Hurt, who can and has done better. He is totally over the top in a role that Christopher Walken would have waltzed through with quiet menace.Back to the exploding tomato heads, David.","['1', '4']" +53,rw1203063,ihrke13,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,Piece of Crap,28 October 2005,0,"I've seen a lot of worthless movies in my years, and even liked plenty of them but not this one. This movie was a piece of crap. The plot was predictable and went nowhere. The characters lacked any sort of depth and the acting itself was something you expected to see at a community theater. If I could've thought of anything else to do on a weeknight I would've walked out. I honestly can not think of enough bad things to say about this movie or one bright spot to try and point out. I'm a 25 year old heterosexual male and even I was a little disturbed by the oddness that made up these sex scenes. But for some of you pediphiles out there you may enjoy yourselfs or be even more turned off than I was.","['3', '11']" +54,rw1184781,sethifeldman,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,"bad script, bad acting, bad ending",2 October 2005,1,"If you like canned lines, unnecessary nudity, and nowhere near believable gangsters...this is the movie for you. A great premise and a great beginning, this movie takes a horrible turn for the worse and becomes nothing but pointless, sadistic, and poorly acted. Viggo, normally a phenomenal actor with incredible range, makes his character go from father of the year to cold-blooded killer with very little transition and none of the mystery implied from the trailer. Ed Harris, yet another waste of talent in this movie, portrays an aging gangster with a vendetta, but all intrigue is lost when the writer gives up on him after only 4 scenes. And another thing, who ever decided that William Hurt would be the perfect Mob Boss, has clearly never seen any of Mr. Hurt's work. A Mob Boss should at the very least appear somewhat...oh what's the right word?...tough, manly, sophisticated, cold-blooded. These are all words that never have and never will describe William Hurt. Save your $10 and stay away from this waste of a movie.","['9', '20']" +55,rw1187704,gsygsy,A History of Violence (2005),10.0,"excellent, but not for the kiddies",6 October 2005,0,"This is, like all Cronenberg's work, a mythic movie. It occupies the world of ""monsters"" that Tom Stall's daughter dreams about at the start. It's as if we get to see the little girl's nightmare as the film unfolds. It's because of this poetic, super-real quality that criticisms from the ""this isn't real life"" brigade have no relevance. The screenplay is exceptionally tight and well-woven - no image is wasted. The subplot of the son's troubles with a school bully parallels the main plot. The very existence of the son is there to show the inheritance - the history - of violence. The sex scenes are there to show the proximity of lust and violence. The end can be nothing other than what it is: as someone else on IMDb has commented, the genie is out of the bottle. This is true for the family in the film, the society we see surrounding the family, and it's true for our families and our society. It's about the inexhaustible rage of humans. It couldn't be more relevant, it couldn't be more timeless. It is well acted and beautifully photographed. I have some minor reservations - did we really need so much of Howard Shore's music? - but on the whole I think this is a superb film. Not for the kiddies, however.","['301', '463']" +56,rw1186317,Biggyworth,A History of Violence (2005),10.0,Truth or dare?,4 October 2005,0,"A movie that has some originality to it and has long been overdue. It just goes to show you that no matter how much one tries to overcome his or her past, there will always be someone there trying to take you back for their own purposes. The movie illustrated the anguish a person has to go through in order to make the issue of truth known once the process of lying begins. It not only impacts on the actual person, but has a rippling effect on those that he or she may truly love and care about the most. To know the truth is not the easiest task in the world to deal with and this movie in a crazy way justifies the reason people go through great lengths to disassociate themselves from it. Even one's own family can cause the greatest amount of grief and suffering by not letting things go. I hope that people viewing this film can truly identify with the main focus point that while it may not be easy to start over, some things will eventually have to stay the same. If Tom did not have his instincts about him, the beginning of the film would have truly been tragic. But to be able to react to dealing with deadly consequences in a moment's notice has its benefits. But I also think that his wife played the revelation of learning about Joey with too much drama. The scene on the stairway showed that she was still in love with the man she learned to hate. How is that for irony? Excellent film, nonetheless.","['2', '5']" +57,rw1178476,george.schmidt,A History of Violence (2005),9.0,"Cronenberg's best film since ""THE FLY""; Mortensen proves to be an implosive/explosive talent",23 September 2005,1,"A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE (2005) *** 1/2 Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello, Ed Harris, William Hurt, Ashton Holmes, Heidi Hayes, Stephen McHattie, Greg Bryk, Peter MacNeill, Kyle Schmid. (DIR: David Cronenberg)Mortensen proves to be an implosive/explosive talent.""There's no such thing as monsters,"" Tom Stall explains as he comforts his young daughter Sarah after she's had a bad dream. Monsters, no; demons, you bet. The nightmare is just beginning for the Stall family.Set in the fictitious Rockwellian town of Millbrook, Indiana, an atypical Midwest idyllic community that probably has a welcoming border stating, ""A Nice Place To Visit"" and surely offers fine home cooking with ""friendly service"" in the form of devoted, loving family man Tom Stall (Mortensen in a finely hewed turn) a nice enough guy who adores his children and is deeply in love with his wife, Edie (the always yummy Bello who also does a competent job here and is also underrated as a fine actress); what more could he ask for. Except one not so atypical day.As the diner is closing down one uneventful evening two strangers (McHattie and Bryk) enter for a quick spot of Joe and some meringue pie in spite of Tom's soft-spoken welcome of ""Sorry gentlemen, but we're closed."" What Tom does not know, but the audience has been alerted in the slowly paced, but deeply dreadening opening sequence is that Leland and Billy are very dangerous petty criminals who've run out of money on their road trip of murderous plans and have deigned to wreak havoc at Tom's place. When the two nasty men display their true colors, Tom moves like quicksilver into action unarming Leland and ultimately defending himself and his patrons/co-workers by making a hasty dispatch of the would-be murderers. Tom, injured in the melee, about to be released from the hospital and declared by all as a local hero, is also unaware that his troubles are just beginning.Enter mysteriously creepy Carl Fogaty (Harris in a spooky, menacing performance), a stranger to Tom (or so it would seem), whose disfigured face is as unsettling as his declaration of calling Tom, ""Joey"" as in Joey Cusack of Philadelphia, who apparently is Tom. Tom denounces this mistaken identity until things escalate and call into question just who (and more exactly 'what') Tom is.Filmmaker Cronenberg's skillfully unnerving adaptation of the graphic novel by John Wagner and Vince Locke (with a shrewd screenplay by Josh Olson) slices down the middle of what America is all about: who we are and who we perceive ourselves to be in this at times stunningly violent and unwary story that turns serpentine moves on our protagonist with oily resolve. Cronenberg, no stranger to graphic carnage with his visceral horror fables like ""Videodrome"", ""The Fly"" and the best Stephen King adaptation to screen, ""The Dead Zone"", incorporates his sinister malice with aplomb as we discover Tom's descent into a hellish return to his troubled past. The violence is not necessarily shocking (the title is an apt metaphor) yet it packs a wallop that jolts the reality into sharp focus in the several sequences of swift vengeance and no second-guessing timing. Kudos to make-up artists Patrick Baxter and Sean Sansom for their queasily realistic and seamless work that should be a serious candidate for an Oscar nod.The film works for the most part despite a few scenes' dialogue that feel a bit under whelming and one or two moments of disbelief (the speed Tom makes back to his home from work on foot despite his injuries to protect his threatened brood seems too lickety-split). However Cronenberg continues to layer the suspense until the final act, which comes a bit too quickly, yet seems appropro to the proceedings at hand.Bello is a unique choice as well for her character is also a mystery (apparently the town's attorney but never shown applying her wares except in passing remarks)which makes the pair an interesting (and decidedly heated) couple (their two sex scenes are surely the most intense I've seen in some time on screen).Mortensen is a canny choice for his quiet spoken Tom yet the implosion (and inevitable explosion) is stacked in his favor with deft displays of emotion. He is torn up for the lies he's believed in and by the final frame it may cause one to wonder if he'll ever be who he thought he was again.","['14', '31']" +58,rw1217734,TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews,A History of Violence (2005),8.0,Interesting...,16 November 2005,0,"Cronenberg is an interesting director; for most of his career, he made biological horror, dealing with viruses, mutations and the likes. In these last few years, he's moved away from that, focusing on more down-to-earth conflicts. His films still have the gratuitous violence and perverted sex that we've come to expect from his films... and a few things in this film seem to suggest that all of those years of violence and sex and extreme films have taken their toll on him. He's lost touch, which hurts this film, since it's supposed to present us with a regular American family, in a small, regular town... and Cronenberg's perspective on this is clearly skewed. The cast is too 'pretty'. Everyone looks like they could be a supermodel. Hardly ""regular people"". This vision of regular, everyday things being ever-so-slightly off, really hurts the film... it feels like what we're watching is pure imagination, a 'pretty' vision of typical America. Directly opposite of the point. Now that I've got that out of the way, let me say that this film was at least as good as I had expected from the trailer, and that says a lot. The violence is incredible; I don't mean what we see of it(though it is quite well-done), I mean the way it's used. The whole film is an excellent commentary on violence in our society, in our everyday lives, in our lives in general... violence and the consequences of it. The plot is intriguing and intelligently told. The pacing is grand. The way Cronenberg underplays important scenes, especially the way he hints at violent scenes to come is incredibly effective. The acting is mostly top-notch, with a few(yet quite important) exceptions. Mortensen, Bello and Harris are incredible. Hurt has an infinitely small but impactive role, and his acting surpasses just about everyone else's. The characters are well-written and credible. The writing is mostly good, though there are a few scenes and lines of dialog that don't seem to fit, that instead stick out and hurt the final product. The action is incredibly well-done, even though there isn't much of it, but it clearly isn't the point of the film. Very intelligent and well-crafted film, but hurt by Cronenberg's marred perspective of 'regular'. Definitely one to catch, though. I recommend this to anyone who can take it, and especially fans of Cronenberg. An enthralling and exciting experience. 8/10","['2', '3']" +59,rw1188726,jinglepig78,A History of Violence (2005),10.0,I have never seen Viggo kick so much butt before,7 October 2005,0,"Of all the movies that I've seen Viggo Mortensen in, this one scared me to death. Overall, the best I've seen him do. It did start off kind of slow, but when it started picking up speed, watch out!! The plots were twisted in a way that keeps you guessing every minute. I do have plans of seeing this again. Bravo, Viggo, keep the good work.When you have a hard choice to make, how do you do it? Do you just stand there and do nothing, or do you make a stand? This is the choice that Tom must make. I believe that he makes the right one. You can't let people push you around, you have to do something. Even if it costs you your life. And it nearly does.","['1', '3']" +60,rw1252951,northern-cali-doc,A History of Violence (2005),4.0,Let's be honest: this movie is winning points for cool violence and sex,2 January 2006,1,"I've read many a movie review on this website, but after watching this movie, I decided to register and post a review.I'm no idiot: My interpretations of Mulholland Drive and Donnie Darko were pretty close to the Salon.com explanations.Having said that, this movie is no metaphor nor an exploration of any deep philosophical issues. Those who think so are likely marvelling at the naked emperor's clothes.To be fair, some might consider the gratuitous sex and violence artistic, in the way of Clockwork Orange. Or they might point out that the son's sudden and proficient outburst of violence suggests that a propensity for violence is genetic. May be. whoopty do.This movie is enjoyable and gets good ratings because it has the things that an American audience likes: a good guy that is humble but can kick ass, mean-looking evil guys that get their asses kicked, and a beautiful woman that has graphic sex with the main character.""Payback"" with Mel Gibson. ""Get Carter"" with Sylvester Stallone. I consider these movies similar to ""A History of Violence,"" because they appeal to the same appetites.I take issue with the graphic sex, but that's my personal opinion. I enjoyed the ass-kicking violence. I enjoyed the initial plot, which was very interesting. Mortenson plays the protagonist well; Ed Harris does a decent job as well. I don't know what to make of Maria Bello, asides from being eye candy for the male audience.But please: don't pretend this movie is deep, or even well done. The first two action scenes were exciting, sure. The action scene at the end is not only unrealistic, it's comical. The theater audience was laughing, myself included. Most of the characters were superficial cut-outs from a million other movies: the people who work at the diner; the kids sharing a milkshake in the diner; the small town sheriff; the high school bully; the mafia goons. The ending is abrupt and unredeeming.Conclusion: If you're looking for some good action like ""Payback"" and ""Get Carter"", than watch this movie. But if you're looking for something with a satisfying plot, something thought-provoking, or something that's well-crafted, you'll be disappointed.","['3', '7']" +61,rw1202998,Big Huge Doug,A History of Violence (2005),4.0,Not what the reviewers promised,27 October 2005,1,"My wife and I were severely disappointed in this movie. It's workmanlike enough, but not a particularly fine piece of film-making. Mostly, though, our disappointment stems from the fact that the hype was very different from the reality. It's a fine movie until about two thirds of the way through; then things take a slightly unexpected turn and the entire promise of the first part seems to vanish. All the plot threads involving the son, for instance, vanish completely, never to return. In the final third, the movie devolves into something very mundane. It doesn't have anything profound to say, nor does it say tried-and-true things in a particularly entertaining way (though William Hurt is always fun to watch). The reviews had me believing that this movie had some really interesting insights into our culture of heroism and violence, but that's not what the movie is about at all. Save this one for your rental list.","['0', '2']" +62,rw1194211,mf532358,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,"compared to the book, this movie is utter garbage",15 October 2005,0,"Walking into the movie theater, after reading the graphic novel, I expected to see a brilliantly told story, several amazingly gruesome scenes and a plot and dialog nearly identical to the book. (similar to the way Sin City was done). However I was horribly disappointed. The plot is only loosely related to the book and actual lines of dialog from the book are rarely used, probably because so many scenes were added that were never in the book. Names are different, ages, and even the number of kids in the main characters' family differ between the book and the movie. Also, roles that people play and major pieces of the plot are completely twisted around. The book also explains much more than the movie ever did. The movie barely explains anything and thus barely ends up resolving anything. On the same note, the ending is horrible in the movie, I was appalled to say the least. Another inconsistency that was particularly disturbing were the number of sex scenes in the movie, whereas nothing in the book is even romantic, much less a sex scene. My favorite scenes from the book were never even mentioned in the movie and the level of violence was toned down a ridiculous amount in the movie. It's called A History of Violence for a reason! - it's supposed to be incredibly violent!! When it all comes down to it, A History of Violence(the book) was undoubtedly one of the best books I have read. It is your average story of a man with a dark past that comes back to haunt him, however it is pulled off so perfectly it is brilliant. I was hoping the movie would leave me with at least somewhat the same impression. Anyone interested in seeing the movie I suggest you buy the graphic novel instead, it's about the same price, shouldn't take you much longer to read than to watch the movie, and above all it's a million times better.","['39', '79']" +63,rw1243278,fincherfan22,A History of Violence (2005),,The most overrated film of the year!,20 December 2005,0,"Yeah that's right, I said it! I'm sorry, but were we watching the same film? Because the one I saw started off promising and then got absolutely ridiculous in the third act. Viggo Mortensen , Maria Bello, and Ed Harris all give great performances, but this disaster cannot be saved. The sex is unnecessary, over the top and superfluous. The violence is supposed to realistic, powerful, and poignant, but it ends up coming across gratuitous and over the top (what do you expect from the director of Scanners and The Fly). Yes I get it: men are drawn to violence, violent behaviors are instilled, a man can forget, but can he change? The truth is these are brilliant themes, and this could have been a brilliant film, but unfortunately David Chronenberg is tremendously out of his league. His passion for gore, and his disconnect from reality are too overwhelming, and ultimately the film fails to connect.","['2', '6']" +64,rw1188754,PyroBurns,A History of Violence (2005),3.0,A total disappointment...,7 October 2005,0,"I don't know where to begin. This was just a complete waste of time, and a useless adaption from the graphic novel. Nothing was interesting, exciting, stylishly done, or put together at all. What a total flop. The son was lame, his situation was lame, the dad was stupid, the enemies were stupid and were not memorable, the wife sucked, the cop sucked, even that one dog sucked ass, not to mention the sex scenes. This is exactly the formulaic shoot them up, sex packed flick that people seem to be running from. David Cronenberg didn't show an inch of talent through the whole thing. I don't recommend this movie to anybody. This movie has a future in the Lifetime line-up.","['2', '6']" +65,rw1189436,thestooges303,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,.......I can't get those 93 minutes of my life back.,8 October 2005,0,"Come on Vigo. Come on Ed. This movie was horrible and focused on parts like awkward sex scenes for about 10 minutes and was probably the worst acting I have ever come across. I'd rather watch a guy take a crap on a toilet than watch this movie. Hell, actually I rather watch a Keanu Reeves and Pauly Shore marathon than watch this piece of mindless garbage.....down right horrible. The hack that played the son in this movie is quite possibly the worst actor ever. You would get more entertainment out of watching a blank wall than watching that kid try to act. Another thing about this movie is the uncalled for sex scenes. And the director focused on them for seriously about 10 minutes each. I hated myself for waisting 8 dollars on this no talent piece of junk.","['4', '14']" +66,rw1209192,moutonbear25,A History of Violence (2005),9.0,History Repeating,5 November 2005,1,"A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE Written by Josh Olson Directed by David CronenbergTo decipher and comprehend the nature of anything in the present, one must have a solid understanding of the past history leading up to the present moment. With ""A History of Violence,"" Canadian filmmaker, David Cronenberg explores whether one man can escape a violent past to maintain a simple yet meaningful present while ultimately avoiding history repeating itself through future family generations.Viggo Mortensen plays Tom Stall, the owner of a local diner in a small town. His life is simple and fulfilling. He starts each day around the dinner table with his beautiful wife, Edie (Maria Bello), infant daughter (Heidi Hayes) and mild-mannered teenage son, Jack (Ashton Holmes). The stall family is functional, happy, balanced. It is both comforting and reassuring to see such a pleasant family where everything isn't perfect but the effort is being made and the commitment is strong. Everyone does their part, from Jack feeding the dog to Tom sitting up with his daughter after a nightmare to Edie dressing up like a cheerleader to roleplay with her husband. This family seems aware of how fortunate they are to have each other and to live in the town of Millbrook, where people stop to say hello on the street as they walk past, where people aren't faceless. Cronenberg takes his time with this setup, allowing us to become drawn in to this comfortable place. Of course, we have the knowledge that something bad is on its way from before the film started which builds tension as we wait. It also makes the fall so much further as there is much at stake for the Stall's. On one insignificant day, Tom fights back with precision and intensity against two men that hold up his diner and threaten his patrons. Tom's act of extreme bravery garners him national media attention and subsequently leads some gentlemen, of the disturbing and frightening nature, to the town of Millbrook and his diner counter. Led by Carl Fogerty (Ed Harris), these men accuse Tom of being someone he claims not to be which in turn forces him to face who he used to be, who he has become and how to integrate both of these sides of himself.Tom's use of violence is shown as a means to defend one's self as well as to intimidate at times. This dichotomy debates whether violence is the only solution to violence. In the case of the diner incident, there is a threat of pain and death, forcing desperation and preservation to become the controlling factor. There is no question that Tom did the right thing by protecting himself and his patrons but the nature and reality of the violence is still difficult to stomach for those who witnessed it. To further show a pattern of history and legacy being passed on, Jack takes from his father's example, consequently blurring the lines when he fights back against a bully in school who accuses him of weakness. Violent tendencies in youth are more primal as they supposedly don't know any better or don't have a complete understanding of their emotions forcing them to act out instinctively. To have violence as a natural reaction, as in the case of the unsubstantiated bullying, confirms it as a means to mask a greater fear. To have Jack fight back asserts his power and self-worth but could easily lead to an unhealthy reliance. Like his father, Jack could end up having to walk away from a life where violence is a normal part of that life. But like his father, will he ever truly be able to leave it? Violence can show up anywhere and creep back in at any time.""A History of Violence"" is haunting and disturbing. It is a quiet film that moves at the pace one would expect in a town like Millbrook and when the violence unravels itself on screen, it is quick and sudden. It is cold, senseless and gory and it will both shock and jar you. The unsettling carnage lingers in silence and so will you.","['1', '2']" +67,rw1189713,k-kisin,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,"badly made, shallow and simply awful",9 October 2005,1,"This is possibly the worst film I have ever seen. Couple gratuitous sex and violence with a weak and illogical plot, unrealistic characters and poor directing and you start to get the idea.First of all the film is SLOOOOOOOOOOOOW. The first (totally irrelevant) scene takes 10 minutes. At that point you're starting to believe that the characters being developed in this scene are very important only to see them for a whole 2 more minutes during the whole film.The movie then spends a good half an hour showing us the Stall family in all it's averageness. OK, they're normal people...we get the idea. I could even see the reason for the first sex scene although it was bordering on uncomfortable.At this stage you're thinking ""OK, it's slow but something is going to happen now and the movie will take off"" and you're not disappointed by the diner scene although I didn't particularly want to see inside the bad guy's head. So, right, NOW the movie is going to start! Unfortunately, the only suspense you get from this point on is in waiting for something worthwhile to happen. As much as I love Ed Harris his character was unbelievably unrealistic (I mean, if someone nearly took your eye out with some barbed wire, surely you wouldn't go round to their diner for a chat - you'd hit them on the head with something hard and then take them to your boss instead of politely asking them to come after stalking their wife). After this the film goes downhill at increasing speed with completely pointless characters (like Stall's son, the local sheriff etc) being involved when they are quite irrelevant. The shockingly gratuitous sex scene on the stairs (I'd like to see the director actually try having sex like that in real life) which has no meaning sums it up quite well.The scene in Phily is linear beyond belief leaving a huge number of things unexplored seemingly substituting information with a pile of corpses while the ending itself is inconclusive at best.What have I learned from the film? Umm, just 2 things - don't believe reviews and don't see Cronenberg's films.","['5', '16']" +68,rw1198406,bca42,A History of Violence (2005),8.0,"I liked it, could have been more",21 October 2005,0,"Interesting movie..slow and deliberate at times, transitioning to 5 or 6 explosive scenes then back to slow and deliberate.Some may find this movie stupid and awful and I understand that, but I liked it, though it did have potential to be a 10, it seemed mixed up at times during the screening in terms of what kind of movie it wanted to be..Somewhat odd ending, William Hurt isn't exactly the material his character had to be made of..but one of few weak areas..GREAT action/violent sequences, very real and emotional. Loved the scene at high school hallway.","['0', '1']" +69,rw1204760,Tomrad,A History of Violence (2005),4.0,Terrible!,30 October 2005,0,"I am frankly baffled when I read some of the reviews of this film. One said ""nice to see something so original in a genre full of clichés."" I'm sorry? This is the most clichéd, laboured, badly written, laughable thriller I have possibly had the misfortune to see. The four stars I have given it were purely for comedy value, because this film drowns in its own pretensions. It desperately wants to be an art film: unfortunately the director is under the impression than all you need are some meaningful pauses. Consequently, they dominate the film, especially in the hilarious final scene. The script is atrocious, with unintentional comedy everywhere, especially in the cartoon mobsters accompanying Ed Harris. To be honest, I enjoyed this film mainly because of the unintentional comedy (although a lot of it involved waiting a long time for actors to speak). I don't wish to say that there was no artistic merit, either, as it had some interesting things to say about American society, was well shot and the actors did their best with the material; it's just a shame that the dialogue was so terrible and the direction so flawed. I realise it's hard to believe me in the wave of rave reviews this film has garnered, but I feel I had to make my voice heard in the mass of adoration for this rubbish.Catch it on TV if you want a laugh.","['2', '4']" +70,rw1191655,ringmn,A History of Violence (2005),10.0,"Raving about ""Violence""",11 October 2005,0,"Not since ""Taxi Driver"" has a film analyzed the human mentality on violence. What triggers us from rational beings to blood-thirsty animals? When is violence truly necessary? Are we BORN violent? With a terrific script, flawless acting, and expert direction from David Cronenberg, this remarkable film presents them. On the surface, it seems like a generic action/vengeance film. It has evil villains and a straight-forward good guy. Underneath is were the true genius of the film is. How violence and carnage can change everything in a second. Even what it can do to a all-American family. The last scene in the film is memorable because it asks us these questions. Today though, there isn't any easy answers for violence.Viggo Mortensen gives a amazing duel role. At first he is quietly restrained, then is merciless. He is definitely Oscar-worthy. Maria Bello is beautiful and lovingly-convincing. She makes it seem like these two were meant for each other. Ed Harris and William Hurt almost steal the movie with the few scenes they have on film. But, this is really Cronenberg's show.A lot of people will not get this film, and that is a shame. I just hope they don't criticize the ones who did LOVE this film. That's all I have to say about them.Please keep an open mind when watching this piece of pure film-making. This is now (in my opinion) the best film of 2005.","['2', '4']" +71,rw1185064,ferguson-6,A History of Violence (2005),9.0,"Nobody's Perfect, Tom",2 October 2005,0,"Greetings again from the darkness. Director David Cronenberg has long been the master of creepy films. You already know this if you are familiar with: ""Spider"", the 1996 ""Crash"", ""Dead Ringers"", and ""The Fly"". Cronenberg always puts the viewer in a position that challenges our comfort zone, forces us to experience the uncomfortable situation that his characters experience. I for one, love this! ""A History of Violence"" may be his most commercially accessible film, but trust me when I tell you, it is not for everyone. More than a couple walked out. Maybe it was the realism of the violence (this is no cartoon), maybe it was the sexuality, or maybe it was that uncomfortable feeling of seeing a story that is a bit outside the Hollywood box. All of these work together to form a film that forced me to climb onboard and look around inside.Viggo Mortensen (""LTR"", ""Hidalgo"", ""G.I. Jane"") is remarkable as Tom Stall, a seemingly mild-mannered husband, father, small town café owner who with one reactionary moment, turns into a real life hero. The following publicity creates a situation where Tom's entire world is challenged. Is he a former mobster who has run away to a new life? Ed Harris is flat out scary as the rival mobster who the ""old Tom, AKA Joey"" maimed in a violent moment years ago. Harris is sure, but Viggo and his lovely wife, Maria Bello vehemently deny the allegations. Bello seems to have mastered the real life woman who has just a touch of sleaze to her (see ""The Cooler"" and ""Coyote Ugly""). She is a remarkable actress with a smile that lights the screen. You want to believe everything she says. Watching her as a cheerleader, on the stairs with Tom/Joey and being interviewed by the sheriff will make anyone appreciate what a talent she is.The film really takes off when Viggo visits William Hurt, who plays the mobster who is Joey's brother. This is Hurt's best work since ""Body Heat"". I almost believe he must be off-center to create this character. How marvelous to watch his few scenes with Viggo. This has Best Supporting Actor written all over it.Although the story is great and the acting is superb, the real star is Cronenberg's touch. We find ourselves laughing at moments that we normally would turn in disgust. These are real people in a real small town. This is masterful film-making. The only weakness I saw was Viggo's son played by Ashton Holmes. This is the film's only miscast role which is a relatively minor complaint. Overall, it will make you question the role violence plays in all of our lives and personalities. How would you change if put in this situation. I bet it will make you uncomfortable!!! Enjoy.","['5', '11']" +72,rw1199322,nicoheiberg,A History of Violence (2005),9.0,A tale of modern conflicts of morality,22 October 2005,0,"Cronenbergs ""History of Violence"" should not be regarded as a ""Kick-Flick"". Rather, it is a chronicle of morality in modern-day US (dare I say western society?). Heroes are villains and villains are heroes! This flick raises important socio-political and moral questions about the nature of humanity, and every persons ability to control his/her life. Personally, I would not get too caught up in the plots superficial dealings, as they are a ""high-level"" tease. If, however, the conclusion of the movie entices the philosophical part of your brain, you have come a long way in understanding Cronenburgs intention with this movie. Enjoy it, as it has a lot to give!","['0', '1']" +73,rw1196092,notriley,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,"Wow, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills...",17 October 2005,0,"I am not sure what to think of this movie. Every critic/review site that I have visited has praised this film so. Personally, I left the movie theater a bit puzzled and upset. Puzzled due to the abrupt ending and upset because I was unable to secure a refund after sitting through this thing. It really sucked. I mean, the only enjoyment was being able to see the ever HOT Maria Bello on the silver screen. Especially, after the skin show she put on in The Cooler (a good movie by the way). The acting was okay just that I feel that we sorta got to see the extended version of the film (ya know, the version of the film that they added all the scenes that they felt would not fit in and just seem awkward...). In the end, if it was not for the nudity, violence and a few standout performances (Ed Harris and Maria Bello for example) than I would not feel like I have been shoved into a complete state of melancholy. Thanks but no thanks. :o)","['1', '10']" +74,rw1195905,robhargadon-1,A History of Violence (2005),,Not nearly as good as I expected!,17 October 2005,1,"Think of the excellent movies that have questioned our relationship to violence (e.g.""Taxi Driver"") or explored the character of violent individuals (e.g. ""Unforgiven""). If you're expecting A History of Violence to be in the same league, you're in for a let down. A History of Violence--despite the rave reviews--strikes me as a very familiar movie. You know the script: Tom Stall is a nice guy, but when you push him too far, he has no choice but to react with extreme violence. Suddenly he becomes super-human. He is able to take on any number of opponents single handed. In other words, despite the ""serious movie"" pretension, Viggo Mortensen turns into Steven Seagal. Of course what makes this an ""important movie"" is the examination of the impact tough guy Tom's behavior--past and present-- has on his family relationships. Well, his wife is angry but also turned on. His son beats up on the school bully. And Tom kills everybody who threatens his family. But they're not happy about it! So it must be art. I predict A History of Violence Part II in which the Stall family will change their name to ""Badass"", become bounty hunters and have their own reality TV show. As for myself, I think I'll skip the sequel and rent ""Unforgiven"" or maybe ""Downfall"" if I want a powerful movie that explores the dark side of human nature and the lasting impact of violence.","['0', '0']" +75,rw1195005,Barky44,A History of Violence (2005),7.0,"Interesting, but not outstanding",16 October 2005,1,"A History of Violence has an interesting premise. A peaceful, ordinary man in a small Midwest town has an encounter with some very unsavory characters. When the life of a fellow towns person is jeopardized, the ordinary man shows extraordinary prowess ... in killing the attackers. Then there are questions from his family, friends, and neighbors, and then the Mafia shows up. Is he a regular guy, or a trained killer in hiding? I really like the concept, and in the beginning the film shows real promise. Everyone questions: is he or isn't he? It starts to affect his family as well, as it naturally should.Well, eventually we learn the truth about his past. Yes, he was unsavory. But here the film takes a wrong turn. They continue on with the hero/anti-hero traveling to Philly to settle old scores from his violent, criminal past. Big mistake.The interest in this film isn't in the crime story, it's in the story of the man and how he copes. But the filmmakers turn it into a typical crime saga. It goes down the path less interesting, something worthy of Van Damme or Vin Diesel rather than Viggo Mortensen.I'm also not thrilled with one completely pointless sex/rape scene. I know the director was trying to give us insight into the true nature of this man, but the scene was so out of place and distracting it really seemed like the director was simply getting his rocks off rather than making something of import.The film does have some decent performances. Mortensen, Maria Bello as his wife, and Ed Harris all give strong performances. Ashton Holmes as the son does well, too, but William Hurt is horribly miscast and completely unbelievable as one of the villains.7 out of 10. Most points are lost due to the wrong turn in the second act.Barky","['0', '1']" +76,rw1184069,shneike,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,A History of Crap,1 October 2005,0,"This is quite possibly one of the worst films I've ever seen. I can't believe people on the message boards are talking Oscar nominations! It sucked so hard that I actually signed up here to say how much it sucked! The acting is wooden and this movie is so filled with tired clichés it's kind of sad. People in the theatre were laughing all through the cheesiness of the second half of the film. There was no character development, we never get to know why the lead character dramatically changed his ways. Bello's acting was pathetic! I don't understand the reviews at all. And no, I don't think I ""missed the message"" on any level. McLuhan says the medium is the message. Well, the message here is that the medium is craptacular.","['3', '9']" +77,rw1188441,CineVeritas,A History of Violence (2005),9.0,I would've paid more to see this film.,7 October 2005,1,"David Cronenberg's 'A History of Violence' is definitely worth the trip to the theater no matter what the ticket prices are. Viggo Mortenson plays Tom Stall, a rural Indiana diner owner who sky rockets to local heroism when he saves the life of one of his employees by cold-bloodedly killing two potential robbers/murderers. A press storm results in his face being broadcast via local newspapers and national news drawing the attention of Philadelphia mob boss Carl Fogarty, masterfully played by Ed Harris, who believes that Tom is in fact Joey Cusack an ex-mobster in the witness protection program. During the screen time shared with Harris, Mortenson's ability to play a character with a deep internal struggle truly shines. After several encounters, the two have a stand-off involving Tom's son Jack, played by Ashton Holmes. Ultimately, Tom must go to Philadelphia to confront Richie Cusack (William Hurt) and somehow put an end to the harassment of his family. One sub-plot worth mention include; the tension that builds in the relationship between Tom and his wife Edie (Maria Bello) which culminates in a raw, violent sex act on a wooden staircase. Finally, the violent moments in the film are extraordinarily raw and powerful. The brutality, while shocking, really makes tom Stall's character all the more intriguing. Is he Joey Cusack or is it all just a mistake?","['3', '7']" +78,rw1210030,aaandre,A History of Violence (2005),10.0,Mr Cronengberg is getting better and better,6 November 2005,0,"Thank you, David, for making this the way you did.Thank you for making it believable - no need to invent a fantasy dreamworld to show the madness inside people.Thank you for choosing actors capable of creating living, breathing characters who have lives and make me care about them - not because they are likable but because they are alive.Thank you for pacing it so impeccably, for making it scary not through cheap tricks but by using your genius for the rhythm of tension.Thank you for depicting violence the way you did - no glamor, no beauty but a transforming force which lies in each and every one of us, a part of the human condition.And most of all, thank you for the believable action - these are very effective fighting techniques taught both to special forces and in (good) self-defense classes, and it is so rare to see realistic fighting in a movie and not pumped up never ending Hollywood crap.Thank you., gripping, scary, violent.","['1', '2']" +79,rw1184030,TheMovieMark,A History of Violence (2005),5.0,One of 2005's Biggest Disappointments,30 September 2005,1,"Are you in the mood for a fast-paced, action-packed thriller? Well, so was I. Unfortunately, you won't find it here. However, if you were extremely interested in A History of Violence after watching the trailer and you're in the mood to be disappointed, then by all means, knock yourself out with this one! I simply don't understand why everybody is praising this one to the high heavens. I was looking forward to it, and I hate to say that it's simply the biggest disappointment of the year. It starts off on a promising note when Viggo takes care of the bad guys who enter his diner. For a few brief moments it looks like it's trying to be a well-crafted mystery/thriller. But once it starts inducing unintentional laughter thanks to scenes that look like they came out of a bad after school special or a soft core made-for-late-night-Cinemax film we realize that this is just a complete mess.The sex scenes? Gratuitous and completely out of place. I have to believe that Cronenberg's desired reaction from the audience was NOT chuckling and shouts of, ""Someone fast forward please!"" And the acting of the secondary characters? Laughable. What was up with the high school bully? This Randy Travis/Patrick Swayze hybrid sashays onto the screen sportin' a nice 80s mullet and a flipped up jacket collar looking like he just tried out for a rejected pilot called Son of Fonzi.Viggo's son isn't much better, spitting out completely ridiculous lines like, ""Hey dad, they want to interview you because of what you just did!"" Thank you, Captain Obvious. The lion's share of the bad dialogue goes to this cue card reader, and I sure wish I could expose more of it to you. Unfortunately, doing so would reveal too many spoilers, and I refuse to do that no matter how much of a letdown the movie is.I dare you to try to avoid erupting into laughter when William Hurt's mob character appears and plays the cliché card so close to the vest that you're left waiting for him to say something like, ""Youse wants I should trows youse a beatin'?"" Were these supposed to be caricatures? The movie takes itself way too seriously for me to believe that's the case.I started to lose all hope once the mystery that was crafted at the beginning produced an unfortunately predictable payoff, but I thought there was a chance we'd be served a nice big slice of knockout ending. Thought wrong. Viggo's fighting at the end is pretty cool, but it only occupied maybe 5 minutes of screen time. So what do we get rather than a slam dunk finale? Well, the closing scene of the movie might as well be called ""The History of Silence"" because the audience is forced to sit there and watch Viggo Mortensen and Maria Bello just stare at each other for what feels like about half an hour. I'm sure plenty of turtleneck-wearing movie critics will find some sort of hidden meaning in their glares, but had I been at home I would've been trying to find the remote so I could make use of the friendly fast forward button.","['123', '229']" +80,rw1184191,apolk,A History of Violence (2005),2.0,A contrived attempt at a character study which fatally delves into a myriad of art-film clichés...,30 September 2005,1,"... While in films such as In the Bedroom, or Broken Flowers a slow pace is warranted respectiveley by insurmountable tension and suddle hilarity, within the context of A History of Violence it is clear within the first 20 minuted that the slow pace will have as much payoff as running 45 minutes on a treadmill. That is to say when you walk out of the theatre, all that remains is some slight aggravation at the directors self serving attempt at drama and intense sense of loss at the recollection of a once possessed 20 spot. There is no ironic twist, there is no hilarious happenstance. All the movigoer receives is a sound, heavy handed, Million Dollar Baby except worse- like bludgeoning with the directors clichéd attempt at a character study. The last scene is like Chinese water torture with the little girl of all people slowly and emotionally bringing Tom's plate to the table symbolizing a hesitant welcome. What is worse, the moviegoer is subjected to Mortensons horrible attempt at a Phillidelphia accent. His stiff, stoney characterization of Tom/Joey couldn't have been more dull. However the quality of the actors playing his children if possible was worse. This movie represents everything that is wrong with having an Oscar ""season"". The director constantly seems to be playing to critics, from Bello and Mortensons ironic sexual role playing transparently foreshadowing Mortensons eventual revelation to the , stated, painful, last scene's silent progression into the now vast collection of art film atrocities. This film somehow has a decent rating. Perhaps any time a director portrays gratuitous violence and something that appears ""deep"" the impulse is to simply praise. This will remain one of the worst films I have ever seen. I give it 2 stars because Maria Bello looks great in that cheerleading outfit.","['3', '9']" +81,rw1188812,jae_the_fiend,A History of Violence (2005),8.0,Viggo Shines,7 October 2005,0,"Before I begin, let me state that I have not been the hugest fan of Viggo Mortensen. I believe his acting was decent in the LOTR trilogy, but other than that, I haven't seen much of his work, and therefore haven't been subjected to his acting skills. Today I drove forty minutes to go see this movie with a friend, because, simply put, it looked like it would be a good way to spend a free Friday afternoon, and the nearest theater playing it was in Orlando. I wasn't actually thinking about how good it was going to be until the first five minutes of the movie began, which might I add, was exceptionally shocking. The entire movie blew my mind, and the violence was top notch and done very tastefully, in my opinion. The drama, the acting, the action, and just about everything was done so well. I must say now that I've seen Viggo in this film that I look forward to seeing more of his films. He shone as the average American hero who did what he had to when lives are in danger. Ashton Holmes, who plays Tom Stall's son Jack, did well to capture an adolescent who only wants to be like his dad, who seems to be the perfect husband and father. Maria Bello, who plays as Tom's wife Edie, performs wonderfully as the wife who would do anything to protect her family, but begins to doubt when new light is shed on her husband. Let's not forget Ed Harris, either; his creepy demeanor and sour attitude only add to the frightening effect he has on the screen in this film. Overall, the film carries an essence that allows us to delve not just into the life of violence, but what comes after. I'm definitely going to buy this film when it comes out on DVD to show to all my friends.I give it an 8 out of 10.","['4', '8']" +82,rw1194961,CheeryToes,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,This movie has everything you could want:...,16 October 2005,1,"Gratuitous sex – I can understand from character development how much a couple loves each other without seeing Viggo Mortensen's head between Maria Bello's legs. I can understand a woman struggling with confusion about who she is, who her husband is, what all this means without seeing a physical fight turn into sex on the stairs. No woman, of the strength of character we are supposed to believe Maria Bello's character has is going to have found out that her husband is no one she knows, has spent half his life horribly killing people for fun and money, have a fist fight with him during which he holds her up against the wall by her neck and then dissolve into sex with him on the stairs.Completely ridiculous violence – I am to believe that the mob guys believe he is Joey Cusack, an incredibly dangerous man who has just threatened them, and yet the one guy will still step in close enough to him to be disarmed? I am to believe that while he is punching that same guy's nose up through his brain – say hitting him 10 times or so – that the other large ARMED man does not just shoot him, but instead waits for him to punch the guy and take his gun and shoot him first….sure. And I saw the son killing Ed Harris a MILE off – so how come Ed Harris couldn't? (and side note, I don't care if you did just shoot a guy, you wouldn't hug your dad with large chunks of said guy all over the front of him) Oh and let's not forget that Tom/Joey has been living in rural Indiana for 16+ years (based on Jack's age) being a dad, husband and diner owner and suddenly he's got cat like speed and reflexes, never misses a step.Dark dreary filming – Filming is supposed to set mood, not overpower it. If I'm noticing the texture and the lighting over the content of the film, something's not working. It's splendidly beautiful fall weather in Indiana and that could have been used as a wonderful contrast to heighten the mood of the movie, but even that was dampened under the heavy-handed ""mood."" (except for one incredibly brilliant fiery red maple that could not be quenched) The whole movie plodded along, plod plod. Mortensen was wooden. I thought the best acting in the movie was the kid, Jack. I just wanted the movie to end and then when it did, I was completely surprised, I said out loud ""Is that the end of the movie?"" and someone behind me said "" Thank God"" …everyone walking out of the movie was commenting on what an awful movie it was. So, I'm not sure just how this movie got a 7.7 in the ratings, but in my humble opinion, it didn't deserve it.","['5', '15']" +83,rw1184451,jules32,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,Unbelievably bad film,1 October 2005,1,"I cannot believe the good reviews I am reading about this film - I thought the plot was full of holes, and the ending was laughable. In the beginning, I thought that there might be an interesting plot developing, but it was literally shot full of holes. Viggo Mortensen coming to terms with his past? Oh, just for a couple of minutes while everyone is killed. Then Viggo wants to ""make peace"" with his brother, William Hurt (who, by the way, got huge laughs...oops! I don't think we were supposed to be laughing, were we? Oh, well!), and everyone else is killed who wasn't killed in the first half of the movie. The subplots trailed off into nothingness, and the ending literally made me laugh, because it trailed off, too! If you want a good commentary on violence in society, try ""A Clockwork Orange"" or ""Goodfellas"" or ANY OTHER MOVIE (sorry, I'm a little excited!). Don't spend your money on this; it was a waste of many good actors' talents.","['7', '20']" +84,rw1193682,Vulcan91,A History of Violence (2005),9.0,A Punch to the Stomach,14 October 2005,0,"A History of Violence Most of the people in the Raleigh theater that I was at were looking for a good way to have some fun on a Friday night. ""Ah, that one has 'violence' in the title, it should be entertaining."" Or maybe they just saw that it had ""that nice young man with the long hair from the hobbit movie"", and might be worth seeing.They never knew what hit them.I, however, had a secret weapon; a trick up my sleeve. I had seen a little film titled ""Naked Lunch"". I know David Cronenberg's game; you are searching for two hours of escapism, but what you get is a punch to the stomach, and in the end you leave the cinema scarred for live, yet for some reason wanting to go back and buy another ticket.Cronenberg brings his A-game with ""A History of Violence"", and the unsuspecting viewer will be shocked beyond belief at what they see. As the film unfolds, we find ourselves in the ultimate clichéd rural small town; a ""Pleasantville"" style place where everyone knows each other and most people will spend their entire lifetime living in peace in the same house. But as anyone who has seen the trailer, read a synopsis, or probably even read the title of the film knows, one of the residents of the town has a background unlike any of the others. Viggo Mortensen's 'Tom' is that character, and through the duration of the film, we see the transformation that violence sparks in him, and others connected to him.And as you might expect, Cronenberg is not afraid to show that violence, front and center. The violence in the film was extremely realistic, and the shock that the audience experiences is equal to that of the characters in the film. When a character is killed, it happens fast. In the blink of an eye, it is over, but the characters that remain standing are stunned. They stand frozen on the spot, unable to turn away from the horrifying sight, and the audience's reaction is similar, as the theater falls deadly silent (no pun intended).While the violence is terrible, and immediately abhorred by both the characters in the film and the audience, some of the characters display an innate attraction to violence. Maria Bello plays Tom's wife Edie, and there are a couple of somewhat disturbing scenes involving her that highlight this. More than once during the film, a violent encounter sparked a sudden burst of laughter throughout the audience, followed immediately by silence, as the effects of the actions seen on screen sank in. The film seems to be making a commentary on violence in the world, and the reactions of the audience confirm the authenticity of the reactions of the characters on screen.David Cronenberg has managed to direct a film that serves as both a well-paced, immensely entertaining thriller, and a thought provoking character study. Every shot is crafted to perfection, and amazing performances are pulled from most of the actors. Viggo Mortensen has said this is the best film he has ever been in, and I would certainly affirm that it is his best performance. Ed Harris is phenomenal, and puts on one of the best supporting performances of the year. ""A History of Violence"" is shocking, disturbing, eye-opening, humorous, and engaging, and I certainly will not be surprised if it receives a best picture nod this winter.4 stars (out of 4)","['5', '11']" +85,rw1186683,dr_gio,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,How Deep????,4 October 2005,0,"Another movie which pretends to be artistic but is nothing more than two hours of tedium and atrocious acting.Yes, we get that people are supposed to be animals, you don't need two hours of looking at a guy scratching himself to show us that.The sex scenes and graphic violence was a poor attempt by the director to add some shock value to the film. It failed...miserably.Final word, rubbish. Don't watch this unless you just like to pretend that you are smarter than everybody else by seeing gold where there is none. Knowing when a movie is bad is just as important as knowing when it is good.","['20', '45']" +86,rw1184573,janet-55,A History of Violence (2005),9.0,That thin line,2 October 2005,0,"Cronenberg's film inhabits the same space, that of Smalltown USA, as ""The Dead Zone""; where 'heroes' are reluctant, are not Adonises, don't live in G-Plan Frank LLoyd Wright style of dwellings but in good old-fashioned homes with creased rather dingy wallpaper and flaky paint on the exterior, and are content to celebrate their apparent ordinariness. And it is precisely these touches of normality that Cronenberg utilises in order to manipulate both his characters and his audience. Cronenberg uses Seasons to punctuate and accompany the unfolding of his story as in the aforesaid ""Dead Zone"" where the changes of the year are brought to bear subtly on the proceedings. ""A History of Violence"" starts with two men very leisurely packing up and leaving a rather run-down motel on an already very hot morning. Hot, bleached out sunlight changes for the lush trees of Indiana where the body of the film is set. As the story plays itself out verdant greenery turns ominous flame red, then skies become grey and trees shed the leaves as the eventual truth of the story dawns. This is an often very brutal film, even in the second of the two love-making scenes.The whole film treads that thin line between acceptable and seriously unacceptable behaviour that we all know lurks only skin deep within us all. I believe that Cronenberg is asking questions of human nature in general rather than just that exhibited in the US in particular. This film must be a certainty for Oscar nominations and awards, not least for Cronenberg himself and definitely for the amazingly understated playing by Viggo Mortensen in the role of Tom Stall. This is a film not to be missed.","['31', '58']" +87,rw1201152,damn_lady,A History of Violence (2005),2.0,I was this - - - close to walking about.,24 October 2005,1,"Ugh, jeez. I have never been so terribly let down a movie that I was actually expecting to be good! I came to read these reviews after seeing Violence, and I am left to wonder if the world is insane, or just me. Sometimes, I can see how a movie can be good even if I personally don't enjoy it. In this case, it's just a bunch of clichés, poor acting, and weird, out of place scenes, topped off with a weak ending and odd morals.The first few minutes of the movie heralded disaster. About 4 lines in I leaned over and asked my partner ""do you think it'll be this cheesy the whole way through?"" - we shared a whispered laugh, expecting the movie to improve. Sadly, it didn't.Anyone who has seen the commercials for Violence already knows Stall used to be a criminal. So, what else is left? Weird family interactions? There wasn't much in this movie that indicated that Stall was the father of those children - in fact for much of the movie I though that they were Edie's children and Tom's step-children. Enter the clichéd little blond girl: this little girl, she is a terrible actress. Her lines were horrible anyway. Nothing she said or did is what a normal child would say or do in a similar situation. Enter the clichéd, smarter-than-bullies-and-tougher-too, big-city-dreams small-town pot-smoking boy: the teen-aged boy, Jack, was a good character. His bully conflict was cute, but seemed oddly out of place. The acting was quite good, but his lines were clichéd and often out of place (what's with him verbally attacking Tom Stall?). Enter the annoying, bony, emotionally unstable clichéd lawyer/power-wife: bleh, Maria, I am sorry, but you were just terribly irritating in this role. One moment she's sweet and kind and quiet, the next she's whiny and having a tantrum. One moment she's storming up to her room, the next she's having sex with her husband who she does, or doesn't, trust (I couldn't tell which). All through the movie she's answering other people's questions for them. And yeahhh, the cheerleader thing, how quaint. But really, if I wanted to see silly girls with dark tans hopping around and giggling, I'd go to a peep show. I went to see Violence because I was expecting quality, not just filler that is a poor attempt at shock value and nothing more. Enter the clichéd kind, soft, quiet husband with a mysterious past: ooh, booga booga. This plot has just been run into the ground! We knew coming into to the movie that he would was a former criminal. So why was the coffee shop scene (oops, Enter the clichéd teen-aged couple sharing a milkshake!) the only half-decent one of the movie? Enter the only GOOD character, Ed Harris: yes, when Harris was on the screen, this movie was watchable. Why, then, was he on for maybe 10 minutes in total? tsk tsk, David, I expected better. His lines, at times, were poor: ""How come your husband is so good at killing people?"" (at this point in the movie Tom had just killed the two clumsy cliché robbers) Anyway, you get my point. And what is up with the violence and sex? Show me a movie like Kill Bill, or Shallow Grave, or A Clockwork Orange... The sex and the violence belongs! It's good, yes, it adds to the WOWness of the movie. In Violence, there are these out-of-place, too-long or too-short scenes that make your pause, get out of your ""movie-watching zone"", turn to your partner and mouth ""huh?"".The end was odd, though admittedly by this time I was really close from walking out. The movie has the air of a feel-good, be-a-better-person type of movie, no? So why is the moral of the story: violence is good and cool, if you have a problem, violence will solve it! And if the problem returns, MORE violence will solve it! The more people you kill, the better your life will be!..Yeah... poor movie. Aside from all of that, I just couldn't get into it. I kept wondering what was going on, why it was going on, and where it was going. It didn't help that there were little goof-ups in the film - for instance, when the Sheriff (oh! Enter the cliché, small-time but good-hearted, get-to-the-bottom-of-things-but-too-trusting small-town sheriff) pulls over Ed Harris and his cronies (Enter the moronic, cliché, goons/cronies) and takes the license, and then doesn't give the license back; in fact is seems to disappear! I know now that this is a goof, but at the time I wondered what was going on.Aaaanyway, this was just a crappy movie. David, next time you want to make a movie this awful, please, spare me. Or put up some sort of disclaimed ""warning: this movie may kill brain cells and cause extreme boredom and frustration and is intended only for those who still think that shock value is shocking""","['17', '34']" +88,rw1220260,tshc,A History of Violence (2005),10.0,One of the bets movies in 2005,20 November 2005,0,"I was blown away by ""violence""... Wont go into details.... The plot is super tight, like Man on fire... I'm not a big Cronenberg fan, so my expectations was moderate. I loved every minute of that flick. Tom Stall/Joey Cusack makes Aragon look like a freakin boy scout. Ed Harris delivers a Philly gangster, that is creepy and funny. Maria Bello is damn solid as ever.(loved her in THE GAME). William Hurt has never been my cup o'tea, but I loved him in this one... Great flick, great plot, great violence, great sex scenes..... JUST SEE IT, GOD DAMN, WHAT A RUSH....""We know, what you're up too"" DEL TORO, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.","['2', '3']" +89,rw1205252,wfieger,A History of Violence (2005),10.0,A piece of history in film making,27 October 2005,0,"Wow. This is definitely more than one could expect from 62 year old David Cronenberg! I sat in the theater and soon got involved into a kind of Tarantino-like action - only sort of different, more serious. The movie went on and soon the Tarantino quotations merged with manieric eye-catchers like Luc Besson likes to involve: Remarkable Persons and faces, crazy couture and accessories, things that catch your mind and eyes at the side of the action. Things of quietness you wouldn't expect from a Hollywood mainstream production. But this is only the show, the story itself is a classic tragedy form, pushed further in means of movie art. There has been Claude Chabrol and film noir, Tarantinos and Rodriguez' satiric latino action, Luc Bessons melancholic action dramas and now there is a new step: ""A history of violence"" marks the beginning of another refinement in expression. What you will see is good and bad, a man thrown in between who's at the mercy of fatality. Great and unique.","['1', '3']" +90,rw1207437,ffdcntyguy,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,Absolutely Awful,2 November 2005,0,"What started out as a supposed great plot line ends like some cheap Steven Seagall thriller. Very disappointed with this one, didn't leave with much to chew on except for asking yourself what did the writers do with a great story...answer cheapen it with weak inner stories and bad Steven Seagall type action scenes. This could have turned out to be a great action movie/thriller but as it all unraveled it left me utterly disappointed. A plot that exposed itself within the first 25 minutes. And an ending that was just fill in the blank once you had the plot all figured out. I'm pretty sure all the fight and shootout scenes were from the Segall greatest hits DVD.","['5', '16']" +91,rw1231956,georgevader,A History of Violence (2005),9.0,The view according to www.georgevader.co.uk,6 December 2005,0,"History of Violence director Davis Cronenberg created in the 70's and 80's some of cinemas great, great movies.'The Brood', 'Videodrome', 'Shivers', 'The Fly', 'Dead Zone', 'Scanners', Rabid', films any director would be proud to have just one of those films on his c.v, but to have produced all of them is the sign of a cinematic virtuoso though the past decade has seen a slip in standards, 'Crash', 'Naked Lunch' and 'EXistenZ' just didn't cut the mustard so it is with great pleasure to report that the master is back.Viggo Mortenson plays Tom Stall, a small town family man who runs a local diner, he becomes a national hero when he kills two low lives who ride into town preparing to kill for kicks and the bonus of a little cash.Soon though a mysterious 'mobster' (Ed Harris) turns up in town claiming that Tom isn't who he claims he is and that he has a dark, dangerous past...Mortenson and Harris are superb, Harris especially as he oozes pure evil with his smart suits, sunglasses and scarred face.The violence is graphic, shocking,and as you would expect from Cronenberg visceral, people get shot and lose parts of their faces, this aren't popcorn crowd shoot outs.One of the years best releases.","['2', '3']" +92,rw1213550,movieboy247,A History of Violence (2005),10.0,One of the Five Best Films of the Year,11 November 2005,0,"This movie blew me away. I couldn't wait for its release, the trailer was intriguing without giving away too many details, and when I finally saw it I'm sure that my mouth was sitting wide open. From the moment the movie opened it was spectacular. I have seen a few other Cronenberg films and this may be his masterpiece. He steps out of his usual self to create what is simply put a masterpiece of the cinema. This film will easily be up for Best Picture, receiving almost unbelievable critical appraise for it. I strongly recommend everyone see this film for the sheer performances of the all the cast members. They are amazing and a true revelation, showing that there will always be hope for the cinema during a time when audiences rush to disasters like ""Waiting"". Like I said, rush to your local theater and see this movie on the big screen, you won't be disappointed!Note: To those easily offended by sexuality, there is some in the film that stands a purpose but may go a little farther than you would think. There is also some graphic violence, but don't let these two things stop you.","['2', '3']" +93,rw1194421,kyle-213,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,A History of WHAT!?,16 October 2005,0,"Don't buy into the hype. Anyone who explains this movie in esoteric terms does not understand the movie but wants to, and attempting to do so is just proving their own lack of comprehension in that their is nothing to comprehend. The movie goes nowhere and says nothing. I totally agree with one critic who wrote of director Cronenberg being unfamiliar with normalcy. Although part of this lies on writer Josh Olson but what else would you expect from someone whose last project dealt with killer insects? The truth of the matter is there have been no movies worthy of praise this year and critics and moviegoers alike are scurrying to find a winner...but this is not it. The most appalling aspect of wasting $8.25 on this movie was the main character stood for nothing. I was so outraged by the review on IMDb by someone saying that ""A History of Violence,"" is a great character study that I felt compelled to write this critique. It is anything but a character study. The main character Tom Stall never revealed anything about himself. With no development it is hard to have any feelings towards Stall or any respect for the movie. Also worthy of mentioning is the director's lack of self control. At times he could not help himself from being an a$$. For no apparent reason he pushes cheese down America's throats as if he's employed by the state of Wisconsin. I didn't appreciate the cheese incidents whatsoever as I felt them to be undermining of the audience's intelligence. Instead of building a story to a crescendo deserving of such over-dramatic instances (ex: Stall finding peace in falling to his knees and dipping his head in a lake; remember totally irrelevant) he forces them because he's always wanted to do them as a filmmaker but has never found the opportunities. This movie is nothing short of sh*t. If you watch this and are of any enlightened bit of intelligence you will surely snicker at people praising this picture. It is embarrassingly bad and will hopefully stifle Cronenberg's career here in the states. But for some reason I don't think it will because 8 out of 10 moviegoers are morons. In the end ""A History of Violence"" offers nothing. For a movie to have access to Ed Harris' talents and let them go to waste you know you're in for something bad. The lack of depth in this picture has not been witnessed by mass audiences since the release of ""Just Like Heaven,"" a week earlier. So what is ""A History of Violence,"" who knows and who gives two sh*ts. Much love, an angry filmmaker","['5', '15']" +94,rw1214288,Was_Here,A History of Violence (2005),6.0,Boooooring!,12 November 2005,0,"I thought this would be one of those movies, where in the end you're left with a sense of divine excitement. But no... The movie had scored some great reviews in the newspapers In the about 90 minutes the movie lasts, there is only two scenes where you feel fine, and that is the two semi-nude scenes. There's not really any story, a man gets haunted by his past and therefor he must kill some bad blokes. Although the story it self sucks, Viggo Mortensen does his best to make the movie worth watching. His facial expression always matches the given situation of the film. I don't know if it could earn him an Oscar-statue, but definitely a nomination for it. So if you're a fan of Aragorn, sorry... Viggo Mortensen it's a film you cant afford to miss.","['1', '4']" +95,rw1250397,furex,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,The King is Naked,29 December 2005,0,"When I headed for the cinema to go watch this movie, I was perfectly convinced that I was going to see a perfectly decent movie. I also checked the IMDb and found it has a 7.5, which usually means ""good movie."" Well, to put it simply: it's not the case. The script and dialogues are about at the level of a bad TV-movie: it's dull, boring, completely uninteresting. I am not going for an in-depth analysis, you can easily find good ones in the board.There was a weird mood in the cinema: many people kept waiting for a twist that turned the movie into something actually worth watching, but that moment never came, and many sensed this quite early thus couldn't avoid bursting out laughing because of the sheer naivety and clumsiness of the script and dialogues.I'm quite surprised to see so many gave enthusiastic reviews: it's so completely laughable... just take a look at the memorable quotes to see what I mean. The king is naked, but the faithful are trying hard to find subtleties in the holes of the plot.Don't let them fool you, scream loud ""the king is naked!""","['9', '25']" +96,rw1186567,moviemofo-2,A History of Violence (2005),8.0,A very relevant thriller,4 October 2005,0,"I saw A History of Violence on its opening day and I still haven't stopped thinking about it.It represents a realistic view on how violence is used today and how it affects the ones we love.Only two things bothered me since the screening, and neither has to do with the movie...First, the audience in the theater I was in - Were you so uncomfortable with the sex scenes that you had to snicker and comment like a bunch of high-schoolers? History portrayed a happy couple with a very healthy sex life - but all you could do was behave like Beavis & Butthead - grow up! Second, one of my favorite things to read are the ""Hates It"" reviews of movies I enjoy - mainly to see if my admiration for movies were truly unfounded. Many thought the movie didn't adhere to strict reality - that the actions of Tom Stall near the end weren't documentary-realistic.A History of Violence is a tale - and a dark one at that. It gives us a compartmentalized scenario and plays it out in a very brutal and heartfelt way.Along with Lord of War and Constant Gardener - A History of Violence forces us to look at our world in microcosm.More movies like this should be made.","['5', '11']" +97,rw1188615,Tacoloft,A History of Violence (2005),2.0,Expect the longest 2 hours watching this movie,7 October 2005,1,"I was stoked to see this movie, in fact I was convincing myself I was going to like it. I sit down, the movie begins, and I wait forever for it to start! Unfourtunatly it NEVER starts. This movie is not unlike a long date with a hot girl that never gives you any action until you drop her off and she gives you a kiss. You end up with the worst case of blue balls with this movie because the flirt session the actors have with the camera NEVER ENDS... you end up finally getting a bit of action at the end and then the action is over. I wanted an action film and all I got was some stupid friggin Oscar wannabes eating up the film that could have been used to move the plot along. Movie pacing was like watching paint dry. Big competitor for the longest ending ever. And I thought Return of the king would never end... This was a big let down but deserves a 2 for the hairy taco and the 69 action and still only getting an ""R"" rating. Now pulling that off was entertaining...","['3', '9']" +98,rw1213797,reventropy2003-1,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,I'd rather have the Pinto,11 November 2005,0,"The general public doesn't go to see a film because of its individual qualities (directing, dialogue, etc.), we go to see a finished product. Films are a lot like machines in the sense that if one part is broken, the machine doesn't work. This is why a history of violence doesn't cut it. The directing could be described as good when compared to everything else I've seen. Nearly every other aspect of this film was a vacuum taking away from the directing (which in itself was not very original). If you went to see this film because of the directing, than that's swell, but at least state that as your reason for having enjoyed an otherwise bad film. If you gave this film rave reviews you love Cronenberg, that is a terrible reason. I didn't know who Cronenberg was until after the movie. The fly was good. Maybe I'd put it in my top 150 list. I had seen spider. What a tragedy. A lot of the reviews I've read sound like a present tense Cronenberg eulogy. Praise Cronenberg! I get the sense that these were written by film student groupies. Cronenberg is a director that is still getting high production budgets to produce college level projects. In this sense he reminds me of David Lynch. And. well, I hate David Lynch. I didn't buy this movie for the same reason I won't buy a 1978 Pinto station wagon. It may run strong, but when it comes down to it, its a piece of garbage.","['1', '10']" +99,rw1178188,jt1999,A History of Violence (2005),4.0,Ultimately pointless,22 September 2005,0,"This film is proof positive that classic filmmakers are in short supply -- and that David Cronenberg is a competent -- but not great -- director. In the hands of a Kubrick, Lynch or Hitchcock, this could have been an okay film. But the cliché-ridden script (""I want the truth!"") finally reveals itself not as a profound meditation on violence and human behavior, but a familiar story about a man returning to his violent past, done much better many times before by Fuller, Leone, Scorsese and Eastwood (""Unforgiven"" might be the best point of reference). A slow start, obvious happy-family setup so we can see the contrast later, flat performance by Viggo Mortenson and embarrassing, unnecessary sex scenes between Mortenson and Maria Bello don't help matters. Ed Harris steals the show as a frightening, scarred criminal, while William Hurt almost saves it as a strange, funny-scary east coast mobster. But the open ending and ""Sin City""-style over-the-top comic book third act turn what began as a realistic story into a pulpy, ""graphic novel"" (as comic books are now being referred to). Finally, ""A History of Violence"" is more a collection of potentially good ideas than a cohesive story -- yet critics will no doubt lavish heaps of praise on director Cronenberg. Why? Not for making a great film -- but for surprising everyone by making a film with neither flesh-eating viruses or exploding heads (everything seems better when you expect less). Meanwhile, a fantastic film (""King of the Ants"") by a director who actually seems to understand violence (Stuart Gordon) can't even get a theatrical release.C+","['9', '30']" +100,rw1183967,benihana83,A History of Violence (2005),6.0,Flawed but somewhat effective,1 October 2005,0,"In ""A History of Violence,"" Viggo Mortensen plays Tom Stall, an average guy in a small rural city. He and his wife, Edie (Maria Bello), share a healthy and loving marriage with two children (Ashton Holmes and Heidi Hayes). Tom owns a diner in the center of town, frequented by the locals. The townsfolk eat, drink and carry on inconsequential conversations about the simple life.It all seems like a story lifted right out of ""Leave it to Beaver,"" but things take a sharp turn for the worst when two thugs hold up Tom's diner one evening. In one swift move, Tom is forced to shoot and kill the men, saving his life and the lives of his employees. He becomes a town hero, attracting national attention and fame.Tom's newfound celebrity brings a horde of new patrons to his diner, but it also brings some unwelcome guests. In walks the mysterious Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris), who seems to be mistaking Tom for someone else. Their encounter sets the stage for a poignant, albeit flawed look at violence and its influence on those it touches.""Violence"" is based on a graphic novel by the same name, but it strays from that version drastically after the initial premise has been laid out. Cronenberg himself has even said he had no idea Josh Olson's screenplay was based on a graphic novel until they had completed several drafts of the script.Despite its ingenious premise, this is far from a perfect movie. Among many, two particular faults stood out. First, the initial half hour is an uncomfortable mess, as Cronenberg tries to establish the character of Tom Stall and his relationships with those around him. It isn't until Tom's encounter with Fogarty that the film finally begins to take shape.The score is also way too overpowering for this type film. With all the huge, sweeping horns and strings blaring over every scene, you'd think you were in the middle of a superhero movie if you had your eyes closed. In a movie like ""Violence,"" less would have certainly been more.Despite a multitude of nitpicks, ""Violence"" rebounds mainly on the shoulders of its cast. Each actor should be recognized for raising the level of Olson's mediocre screenplay. Mortensen really shines here, giving a nuanced performance as Tom. He plays the character sheepishly at first, but drastically changes his approach as the story unfolds.Then there's Ed Harris, who gives what may be his best performance since 1999's ""The Truman Show."" In ""Violence,"" he gets a great change to show his terrific range as an actor, although I would have liked to see his character developed a little bit more.The real gem, though, is Bello, whose character has to watch this story unfold for the first time along with the audience. Edie Stall doesn't know what to think, let alone what to do about the situation, and the subtle emotion in Bello's eyes works better than words ever could. She received a Golden Globe nomination for her work in 2004's grossly underrated ""The Cooler,"" and turns in another fantastic performance here.Cronenberg has earned quite a cult following over the years for his offbeat work. He is best known for directing bizarre and grotesque scenes in movies like ""The Fly,"" ""Shivers,"" and ""Scanners."" So, in a film about violence directed by one of the masters of violence – along with Quentin Tarantino – you would expect some scenes to be particularly sadistic; but while the bloodshed in ""Violence"" is gritty and certainly gruesome, it is also incredibly real. In this film, Cronenberg has chosen not to glorify the brutality. Instead he has painted a stark portrait illustrating how a seemingly idyllic society and its inhabitants can be affected when violence is inserted to the equation. While it is reasonably flawed, ""A History of Violence"" still manages to serve its purpose adequately.","['2', '4']" +101,rw1199982,1640abt,A History of Violence (2005),2.0,Dismal thriller,23 October 2005,1,"A dismal little thriller masquerading as art. Incompetently plotted and crudely executed it's the kind of piece that seems designed to make people who can't think believe themselves to be intellectuals. Also, it is astonishingly right-wing; a fable of red-state, 'family-values' America invaded by baddies from the wicked blue states. Yet another example of Hollywood acting, unwittingly or not, as propagandist for the most repulsive aspects of the contemporary USA. A couple of specifics: Clearly no-one involved in making this film has ever actually been to a small town. Leaving aside the way the actors look - as if they spend their lives on a stairmaster - it would seem that the only contact any of them has actually had with Indiana is to fly over it. And second; the ages! If the hero's son is 16 or 17 and he had been 'in the desert' for four years before he met his future wife then he has to be at least 50. They can't even get that right. As for the sex scenes, all they prove is that sexism is alive and well and living in Cronenberg movies. The woman loses her knickers but the man retains his boxers.Save the ticket money and rent 'Funny Games' instead. Superior in every way imaginable.","['0', '5']" +102,rw1178512,imdb-9671,A History of Violence (2005),3.0,I just...just...wow...it's like...cripes...just...ugh.,23 September 2005,0,"A History of Violence is either (a) the worst 'thriller' ever made or (b) the greatest comedy ever conceived. I still haven't quite decided which.After a promising start you are assaulted with cliché after cliché. They found the absolute worst child actors on the planet. The movie has the feeling that it was intended to be a lot longer, but got mangled in editing. Characters that seem like they are supposed to be major supporting characters are often just forgotten. Whole plot-lines that seemed promising were either cut off prematurely or abandoned entirely. There are also scenes that appear to have been part of something bigger, but as it is now makes absolutely no sense in the context of the rest of the film. Imagine if a tennis player ran out on to the field during a professional football game, served a ball, then ran off the field with no explanation as to who or why. Now imagine that the coaches, players and referees just continued on playing the game like nothing had ever happened. Like nobody seemed to notice that tennis player. Thats the feeling you get frequently while watching this movie.The movie does however have value as a comedy. It's one of the films that are so stunningly bad that you can't help but laugh at it. You will laugh at the children. You will laugh at the sex scenes. You will laugh at the violent scenes. You will laugh at the credits. I honestly haven't seen a movie this bad in a long time, but I also don't think I have ever had as enriching a movie 'experience' in years. The entire theater was howling. Nobody could hold it in. It was that bad. Total strangers were slapping each other on the arm and high-fiving. We were in tears with laughter. And any work that can engender that kind of camaraderie with your fellow movie-goers...that's worth seeing. This alone saves the move from the worst possible rating.","['7', '20']" +103,rw1193999,BrigitteD,A History of Violence (2005),7.0,An effective history lesson.,15 October 2005,1,"In the continuing tradition of director David Cronenberg's previous films, ""A History Of Violence"" takes an in-depth look at the gradual metamorphosis and primal urges of normal human beings. It is a slightly more subdued exercise, yet, it still carries its reliable traces of visceral sexuality and brutality.Viggo Mortensen, stepping away from his ""Lord Of The Rings"" fame, portrays Tom Stall. Tom is living the American dream in an old-fashioned Indiana town where everyone knows each other, and in which any kind of aggressive act is seemingly non-existent. He is the owner of a diner and is both husband and father to beautiful lawyer Edie (Maria Bello), teenage son Jack (Ashton Holmes), and cherubic little daughter Sarah (Heidi Hayes).Before closing time one night, Tom's diner is infiltrated by two dangerous perpetrators who begin harassing the employees and customers. Instinctively, Tom takes it upon himself to pull out a gun and kill the two men in a rapid and perfectly-skilled execution.Soon, Tom is hailed as the community's hero through extensive media coverage, a title which Tom remains modest and reluctant about. The public exposure also brings along unwanted attention for Tom in the guise of a facially-scarred outsider by the name of Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris), and his pair of dark suits.Carl claims to have associations and unfinished business with Tom, who in reality, is a man known as Joey Cusack from Philadelphia. Tom seems confused about Carl's allegations, and must convince his family that he is not the person he is believed to be.Is Tom really the average man he claims to be or will he be forced to resort to a discarded identity he has until now succeeded in concealing? Mortensen really shines in his role as an outwardly soft-spoken and timid individual whose inner layers threaten to speak so much louder. Bello is quite solid as the supportive wife who finds herself both intrigued and repulsed by her husband's revealed persona. And young performer Holmes really holds his own opposite his adult costars, as the adoring yet doubtful son who must confront his father.As the villains, Harris is highly menacing, as is William Hurt, who appears briefly in one of the movie's final sequences which begins with black comedy and ends in crimson carnage.""A History Of Violence"" is a title which promises and ultimately delivers what it implies, not only through its graphic depictions, but also through the questions it raises about human nature within different relationships and circumstances, asking us if it's possible for a person to find complete redemption.It also examines the ripple effect of its subject and how far it extends onto others, an example which is shown in how Tom's son deals with a school bully.With so many films which seem to glorify and condone violence these days, it's refreshing to see one that takes the time to demonstrate the repercussions that are so often ignored.","['1', '2']" +104,rw1192487,fisherjrenzulli,A History of Violence (2005),4.0,Possibly one of the worst endings Ever!!!,12 October 2005,0,"Don't get me wrong this movie had it's moments. And it was filled with situations and symbolism in which the director tried to make the family appear to be a Good ol'American Family and then shatter it in the end. The violence was the highlight of the film and was graphically brilliant and the sex scenes were vividly great yet meaningless to the plot. Yet, the ending was utterly ridiculous. If it weren't for the ending this movie would of instantly become a classic. The ending was sooo bad that when it ended the whole theater broke out in laughter. On the walk out I heard nothing but laughter and negative remarks. Obviously some people agree with my opinion. So in conclusion, only see this movie if you love violence, random pointless sex, and and ending to blow your brain out to.","['3', '7']" +105,rw1187753,ianhowellevans,A History of Violence (2005),10.0,Deeply brilliant,6 October 2005,0,"Given the nature of Cronenberg's latest movie, I'll have to be quite vague in order to give any kind of commentary on the film's themes and ideas, but please bear with it. I'd rather deliver the kind of nebulous enthusiasm for this fantastic film that makes everyone want to see it, rather than a spoiler-heavy dissection that no-one reads.So. Yeah. Basically, it's brilliant. On one level, it's a terrifically exciting, emotional and original thriller. It follows genre conventions, and tears them apart from within. ON another, its an analysis of the way one act of violence infects a man's life like cancer, spreading through it and destroying everything that was good about it.The title itself refers not to the main character's history of violence, so much as the fact that the film is a history of violence (most likely in American cinema, I'm not sure you could map it on to America's history), charting it from its morally black and white origins, to more ambiguous situations, to voyeurism, complicity and the way that that role model debases the people that follow it.Like cinema audiences, characters are turned on by violence, but it's a hollow, degrading experience, the damage it inflicts represented physically. Other characters, who previously dealt with their issues with wit and intelligence resort to aggression and it's impossible not to realise the tragedy of this, the way they lose a part of themselves in the process.It's all extremely well delivered by a cast doing justice to substantial material. Viggo Mortensen does a marvellous job - one image of him stalking towards the camera with his face set in an unreadable leer is among the most terrifying images Cronenberg has ever given us.All told it's a marvellous critique of a history of violence in cinema and the hordes of people that pay good money to get off on it. Also, there's this great bit where this guy gets his face mashed off with a coffee pot and then his brains blown at and there's this close up of him face down choking in a puddle of his own blood and his jaw's all hanging out the side of his cheek. That was totally cool.","['2', '5']" +106,rw1183687,pwbryan52,A History of Violence (2005),10.0,"""A History of Violence"", is an excellent film with great performances. There is a menacing tone set in the beginning...",30 September 2005,0,"""A History of Violence"", is an excellent film with great performances. There is a menacing tone set in the beginning which is only relieved at the end. It was a similar experience to seeing Sam Peckinpah's, ""Straw Dogs"" in the theater. An unnerving threat begins and continues. However this was somehow quieter and more elegant. The camera work subtly makes you claustrophobic and keeps you on edge. The philosophical questions raised are varied and rich. I highly recommend this film as a theater rather than a DVD experience. The direction by Mr. Cronenberg was unrelenting and seamless.Viggo Mortensen and Maria Bello may well be nominated for Best Actor and Actress for the Academy Awards.As well as William Hurt for Supporting Actor.As well as David Cronenberg.As well as Best Adapted Screenplay.As well as Best Editing.As well as Best Cinematography.As well as Best Picture.Well...you get the picture I'm sure.","['2', '7']" +107,rw1195642,dlmiley,A History of Violence (2005),6.0,"Not that good, certainly not a 10, but not a 1",17 October 2005,1,"It wasn't that good; certainly not a 10 but certainly not a 1, like some people rated it. I would give it a 5. It had an intriguing premise and pretty good cast (Viggo, Ed Harris, Maria Bello), but the plot leaves a lot to be desired. Without giving too much away here is it what made me the angriest:1. Vague reasons for Viggo being where and who he is. 2. People are killed in a major shoot out with no investigation by the state police or FBI – the only police presence is the town's moronic sheriff (who wears a STRAW hat!) 3. Bad guys that can't shot straight. 4. Stupid sub-plot with Viggo's son that borders on the ridiculous. I am sure that the OC or One Tree Hill (or whatever the current teen TV show is) has had a better plot than is allotted to this character's sub-plot. Come on; was it really necessary to waste time on the ""silent, sensitive"" type taking on the school bully? And they get into a fight at a softball game! 5. The girl that plays Viggo's daughter appears to have ridden the ""little"" bus to school before making this movie! 6. One strange scene that borders on justifying marital rape.Things that I like:1. Ed Harris is terrific, as usual. 2. The café shoot out is fairly well done. 3. That's about all good I can say about this one. Maybe I should lower my grade to a 3!","['1', '2']" +108,rw1192427,seaview1,A History of Violence (2005),9.0,A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE Disturbs the Senses,12 October 2005,0,"This is not a pleasant film. It is about the nature of violence and how humans are forced into violence and its consequences. Master of visceral angst, David Cronenberg, tackles the subject of the present haunted by the past in small town America in A History of Violence. Although its subject matter is disturbing and the visuals are unnerving, it boasts some of the best acting in any film this year and is the most accomplished of Cronenberg's cinematic canon.Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) is a family man who runs a quiet diner in a small town and has the idyllic life of husband to a beautiful, loving wife, Edie (Maria Bello), and father to an adolescent son, Jack (Ashton Holmes), and younger daughter, Sarah (Heidi Hayes). One fateful day a pair of serial criminals barges into the diner looking for trouble in the worst way, and Tom must protect his patrons and staff. What transpires is a remarkable display of self defense and marksmanship as Tom becomes a local hero for his bravery. Soon after, a mysterious, black car begins to stalk Tom and his family at his diner and home. A hardened looking man named Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris) approaches Tom. It seems Tom's notoriety in the media has attracted Fogarty's attention leading him to believe Tom is not who he appears to be but rather a man named Joey with a very dark, violent past. Years ago, this Joey had run from the mob after causing a lot of trouble and mutilating one of Fogarty's eyes. The uneasy tension bubbles over when Fogarty and his men confront Tom at his home as his family watches in terror. What happens then and afterwards leads to traumatic discovery and the reevaluation of relationships that culminates full circle at a mobster's mansion in Philadelphia.Adapted by Josh Olson from the graphic novel by John Wagner and Vince Locke, director Cronenberg displays a sure hand in his scenes of conflict whether they are emotional or violent. How ironic that the Canadian born director comments on the violence in the U.S. He does a nice job of setting up the scenes and characters methodically as we first see a loving family amid an innocent town. Subsequently, an ominous atmosphere of foreboding hangs over the rest of the film. There are some terrific set pieces that culminate in startling violence, and the confrontation at Tom's house is quite memorable and results in a moment of truth. Let it be said that the violence is organic. It grows out of necessity and is carried out brutally and swiftly. The scenes have a lingering trauma on the characters and the audience. The visuals are stark and powerful by cinematographer Peter Suschitzky with a brooding score by Howard Shore (ironically a veteran scorer of previous Cronenberg films and Mortensen's Lord of the Rings trilogy). In fact the film, with its small, peaceful town contrasted with an evil menace, feels like a David Lynch film, and is thematically very much akin to Blue Velvet or Twin Peaks.Ed Harris makes a grand entrance early on and he grabs this juicy role and never lets go. It is certainly one of his finest performances. William Hurt makes you realize just how talented an actor he is in the relatively short but brilliant turn as a mobster from the past with an agenda. But it is lead actor Viggo Mortensen who shines as the reluctant hero. He balances just the right amount of paradoxical innocence and cunning. He is a man about to peer over the precipice and lose everything he has. His brooding, quiet but strong avenger is constantly riveting. Maria Bello is quite touching as the affected wife and mother who is confronted by fear and uncertainty. Even Stephen McHattie registers strongly as one of the baddies (very reminiscent of the scum in Natural Born Killers) at the beginning.Some directors are accused of making movies of interminable length. Not so with Cronenberg as he may be accused of being too economic and concise. While the pacing is tightly edited for maximum impact, some relationships needed to be fleshed out more. During the course of the story, there are two graphic displays of sex between Tom and Edie (one playful and the other angry) which serve as emotional counterpoints to their relationship. We need to understand what is going on in Edie's mind and how she faces the future with her family. While there is a promising development of the early bonding between Tom and his introverted son Jack, we want more exposition of Jack as he goes from harassed school kid to a coming of age. We just needed a bit more character development, but what we do have is pretty thought provoking and unforgettable. The final scene is memorable.A far cry from his notorious horror films, this film delves into the true nature of self and identity. This is Cronenberg's most accessible film since The Fly and The Dead Zone. While his early horror films like Scanners and Videodrome dealt with physical transformation, this film deals with metaphysical transformation. He comes dangerously close to his earlier, notorious cult film, Crash (not to be confused with Paul Haggis' current film), another film about human behavior dealing with psychological change. His films often deal with ugly, sordid truths and secrets that lie beneath what is perceived superficially. A fascinating study and exploration of human behavior under the most extreme duress, A History of Violence is an intelligent, brutal gem of a film not for all tastes, but for those willing to peer on the other side of sanity and complacency, it's a dark slice of unsavory life.","['4', '9']" +109,rw1185693,daneellaw,A History of Violence (2005),3.0,"Potentially good film horribly directed, weak dialog",3 October 2005,0,"This could have been a tremendous film as the story is solid with strong performances by Mortensen and Harris. However, the dialog was so absurd the audience was laughing through half the film - laughing in embarrassment and not from joy. Performances by wife and son were unconvincing and poorly directed. William Hurt's performance also unconvincing and a tremendous disappointment. Cronenberg seemed to be attempting to create drama out of camera angles and musical score, but failed miserably due to the dialog and weak supporting performances. A better director would have strengthened the dialog and brought great improvement to the many poorly acted scenes, including both sex scenes, which were a complete joke. Apparently, there was supposed to be a moral to this film about the pervasiveness of violence and how it should not be glorified. If so, it was completely lost in the poor direction. A very unfortunate disappointment.","['4', '10']" +110,rw1185882,jtbrat3,A History of Violence (2005),5.0,"A decent flick, with a flash of inspiration",3 October 2005,1,"""Tom Stall"" seems, at first, a thoroughly nice, if somewhat dull fellow whose life mirrors the virtues of the small Indiana town where he lives with his wife and two kids. He is mild and self-deprecating to a fault, plainly a stranger to the anger, brutality and criminality of the big city.We are surprised - and so is Tom, from all appearances - when he deftly kills a pair of murderers who invade his cafe one day at closing time. Against his will, he becomes a ""hero"" and his exploits are celebrated in the media.Unfortunately, the publicity brings three gangsters to town, who claim to know ""Tom"" as ""Joey"" and to have some scores to settle with him. He says he has no idea who they are and his wife and kids, along with his neighbors and most of the audience, believe him. However, after some suspenseful moments, we learn that he is, or at least ""was"", ""Joey Cusack"", the brother of bigtime Philadelphia mobster, ""Richie Cusack"", and a person with a well-deserved reputation for violence. It seems that after a falling out with his brother several years earlier, he left Philadelphia and assumed a different identity. The revelation that ""Tom"" has a ""history of violence"", raises questions about who he actually is. Is he still ""Joey"", or has he really become a different person, ""Tom""? Tom/Joey is summoned to Philadelphia to meet Richie. As it turns out, Richie plans to have him strangled, but Tom/Joey is simply too strong and too quick. He turns the tables on his attackers and leaves them all - including Richie - dead on the floor of his brother's mansion. Then he returns home.By now, of course, his wife and children are thoroughly disillusioned. They no longer know who he really is, gentle, unassuming ""Tom"", or savage, ruthless ""Joey"". It is obvious that their trust has been shattered and will take time to rebuild, if indeed that is possible at all. The movie ends with Tom and his family silently eating dinner together, amid tensions you could cut with a knife. This is not a great movie, even if you are convinced, as I am not, that people can suddenly and radically change who they are by an act of will. A lot of the scenes are hokey and unreal. Some are laughable. There are also a lot of dull moments, so few will complain about the scene where Maria Bello flashes her sex at the camera, however gratuitously. For me it was the high point of the film.","['1', '2']" +111,rw1200024,Sy-4,A History of Violence (2005),6.0,Welcome to Cliché-ville,23 October 2005,0,"Reading through the long list of glowing reviews on this website, I can only conclude that there are currently two movies called ""A History of Violence"" doing the rounds. One of these is a deep, moving, and well-acted thriller; while the other is the pile of crap that I've just seen.Well, OK, the film wasn't completely awful, but you have to feel a movie isn't hitting the mark when intense meaningful looks from the lead actor merely provoke peals of laughter from the audience. The basic ideas weren't bad, but everything was treated in the most simplistic way possible, from the clichéd mobsters to the boringly predictable reactions of the wife to Tom's shadowy past. And the sex scenes! While this movie does probably represent your only chance this year to see Viggo Mortensen performing oral sex on a woman in a cheerleader's outfit, it was all just so obviously tacked on to add interest and (gasp!) shock value to an otherwise plodding movie. It just didn't fit in. The few brief moments of action were fine, I suppose, but nothing out of the ordinary.Anyway, this is more than enough words wasted on a fairly mediocre movie already, so I'll stop there. 6/10","['3', '7']" +112,rw1192942,richard-satterwhite,A History of Violence (2005),2.0,This Film Stinks,13 October 2005,0,"I am by no means a prude or member of the Christian right, but I found this movie to be offensive and of no meaningful significance. To show the number of different ways that a person's head can be blown off, or how a husband may rape his wife, without it having any meaning to the plot of the movie is disgraceful. What was the point in adding these scenes? To shock us? I saw the movie in Chicago, and when the closing credits were being shown and everyone was leaving, there were boos. This was my sentiment in a nutshell.This movie reminded me quite a bit of Straw Dogs. There are now two movies that are at the bottom of my list. Shame on anyone who gives this movie a good review.","['2', '8']" +113,rw1179155,JacksonR22,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,This was a big disappointment,24 September 2005,0,"I was excited to see this movie and I (as well as pretty much everyone else in the theatre) left the movie laughing because it was so bad. It felt like it still needed to be edited, in some scenes the acting was very over done, I felt like it couldn't decide if it wanted to be a spoof of a serious movie. DO NOT waste your money on this movie. I am a movie lover it takes a lot for me not to like a movie but this may have been the worst movie I have ever seen. Some people might try to sell this movie saying it has ""deep characters"" and ""great directing"" but that is a joke. The basic plot is very interesting but the over the top acting and bad directing decisions ruined any chance of this being a good movie.","['8', '27']" +114,rw1203876,jkpublicaddress,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,One of the worst films I've ever seen,29 October 2005,0,"This film was so ploddingly slow and so heavy-handed I'm almost insulted. What stinks is that the idea is such a great one, but the plot, writing, and acting are so flimsy and weak that you can see ever twist coming a half hour before it happens. The writing was dreadful. It was so stilted and expository. But the real big flaw is the acting. I thought Maria Bello was, as usual, very good. And there were many moments I liked Viggo Mortensen. But over all, it seemed like a graduate student film. All of the kids in the movie were atrocious. They were all ""acting"", you know? Pretending to feel the emotions that the script said they were supposed to feel, rather than really feeling them and being in the moment.And William Hurt and Ed Harris should be ashamed of themselves. They were cartoons. Laughable.I'm shocked that Cronenberg is still allowed to make films. I'm even more shocked that people actually reviewed this movie positively.","['5', '16']" +115,rw1230409,nhutchind,A History of Violence (2005),4.0,Potentially good story... dies out before going anywhere,3 December 2005,1,"As far as I could tell, ""A History of Violence"" was made just to test the limits of how far a movie can go in regards to gore and sexuality. The story had great potential to be a very rewarding, interesting story, but it got swallowed up by the attempts to shock the audience with its content.1. Cheerleader Sex. Don't get me wrong... the cheerleader outfit was nice, but was it necessary for Edie (Maria) to show her panties, through which you could obviously see her pubic hair? Then, was it really necessary for the sex scene to be as graphic as it was? Tom (Viggo) having his face buried between her thighs and them writhing around on the bed as she wiggled around for the 69... not really necessary for the movie (to be that graphic, I mean). I realize that the director was trying to show how much in love they are with each other, but I don't think I needed to see Tom doing a face plant in Edie's netherworld.2. Graphic Violence. I love violence (in movies). I love the action and suspense and thrill of it all. I am used to seeing gore (don't ask). When I saw some of the shots in this movie, such as the scene in the diner when Tom shoots the guy on the floor in the back of the head and you see the guy's ""face"" quivering and spasming because the guy isn't quite dead, even though his lower face looks like hamburger... I laughed. Not because it was funny... not because the effects weren't good looking (they were), but because I couldn't believe that they were showing this in a movie. You've got to realize that a lot of the movies out there with violence in them either don't look real or you at least know in your head that the premise is so ""out there"" that you can't believe it. A History of Violence looks real and seems real. Besides that, the other deaths in this movie are obviously done for shock value because of the severity of the kill, and the way the camera zooms in to let you see the twitching spasms of death. Why else zoom in on a quivering mass of bloodiness?3. Rough Sex. Step aerobics takes on a different meaning within this film. Tom pretty much almost rapes Edie on the stairs. How else do you get from her slapping him, him choking her, them throwing her down on the stairs for a quickie (and it is quick… Tom must be descended from a rabbit). I was uncomfortable during this scene, and from what I hear, so were the actors. They had to use stunt pads to film it. Stunt pads! The next scene shows Edie with a bruise on her back… because they wanted to show it… but they actually had to put makeup on all the other ones that were there from shooting the scene. 4. Full frontal nudity. I'm not sure about this one. I know there's the whole ""Basic Instinct"" thing, though I've never seen it and I've heard it's hard to see. In this movie there was no hiding it. Edie walks out of the bathroom with her robe undone and stops for a few seconds. All you see is face, boobies, and bush and then she walks out of the scene without saying a word. Was this necessary? Could she have not walked through the room with her bathrobe cinched? What did it add to the story?5. Craptacular ending. This is the last thing to rant about. The ending simply sucked. There was an overall unsatisfying climax with Tom/Joey killing his brother and then going home for some meat loaf (fade to black). What happens next? Don't give me that crap about making up my own ending. If I wanted to think I'd have watched Jeopardy. I watch movies for the same reason I read books… and, yes, I get upset when an author takes the easy way out and says ""Joan didn't know what lay ahead of her, but whatever it was, she would be ready for it."" What the hell? Overall, my main complaint about this movie would have to be the ending. I can deal with the sex and violence, but I prefer that there be a reason for it. The main problem with the violence and sex was that some of it seemed ridiculously unnecessary and that other films with the 'R' rating don't have the same level of content that this movie does, leading to movie goers not being warned of what lies ahead of them.","['2', '6']" +116,rw1183862,brillpro,A History of Violence (2005),5.0,History of Violences leaves lots of questions such as WHY?,30 September 2005,1,"""History of Violence, if you believe the trailers, is a really hot film. Hot enough after seeing it to believe Viggo Mortensen should burn it from his resume. I almost walked out but being the kinda guy I am, hoping for some redeeming features or plot twists, I stuck it out. Not such a good move.Viggo wasn't bad. He's usually so good in everything even if he's become a little stilted lately. Not like his earlier work in Ruby Cairo, or the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Maria Bello was terrific everywhere along the way showing a very strong sense of emotion to her ever confused character. Even Ashton Holmes who plays their teen-aged son was good. Daughter Heide Hayes didn't have much to do so it's hard to judge.The script was lackluster, the editing purely was atrocious and there was so little emotion to the writing it just left you flat and wondering why? The premise was strong. A small town and well liked family man who runs a diner goes Stallone on two murdering thugs who threaten to kill everyone in the place. He kills them both and becomes an American hero.The television crews show up. Well sort of. His story is on local TV, the networks and CNN (you see this as he flips channels from his hospital room) but there are no crews waiting for him at the hospital. WRONG! One TV crew is waiting at his house. WRONG! And they never come back again. WRONG! C'mon a common guy does this and the networks are seen covering the story on television but no news crews show up? Where was this director? The guys who do show up are Ed Harris (typically cool) and his mobster buddies. Turns out our perfect local is a long lost hit-man for the mob in Philadelphia. Of course he denies it and the rest of the locals are not really involved except the town sheriff. He asks ""Are you in a witness protection program?"" Viggo ends up killing these killers too. In all, he kills 11 people in the film in between two not so bad sex scenes with wife Bello. Both are pretty gratuitous as is the violence but the first one is pretty well done. If you play the numbers game 69 sex in an R rated movie is pushing the envelope. It was nicely done though. In the second the women get a treat by seeing a lengthy shot of Viggo's naked butt and afterward the guys are treated to a full frontal nude shot of Bello. If any of that is offensive to you, I must remind you they were probably the best shot scenes in the film.The movie drags, and while the director may play it off as people being confused and going through a wide range of emotions the viewer sees it as, ""will somebody please get to the point in this clunker?."" The tell tale sign is when the audience gets up and leaves at the beginning of the credits not half way through.William Hurt pulls off a role as an aging gangster very well. Viggo continues to play Stallone though as this kid from the streets of Philadelphia who has been living in small town Indiana for 20 years uses Jackie Chan-like quickness in disposing of the 11 guys he kills. This is the same guy who races home limping as he goes because in the first scene one of the guys he kills stabs him in the foot. He's out of the hospital in a few hours and the next day is running a couple miles to his house to save his family. The cold hearted killer didn't even think about grabbing a vehicle? The film ending leaves you with lots of questions the director wants you to think about. Well here are some questions I want answers to. First, if Viggo owns a diner and wife Bello is a local hot shot lawyer, why do they live in a dumpy house and have only a pick-up truck. Why does Viggo walk a mile or so into town along a country road to work carrying his soft brief case? Second, why after Viggo and son kill Harris and his two thugs in the family front yard is there no crime scene wrap up or more TV crews, and why is the local sheriff talking to him about these Philadelphia gangsters as if he doesn't know they are dead.Did Viggo and son dispose of the bodies and act like nothing happened or did they leave out the police coming and taking care of the bodies, and the investigation afterward.And finally and most importantly, why did I spend $9.50 to see this piece of junk? Oh yea, I like Viggo. I like Bello even more but I doubt I'll ever see another David Cronenberg film again.","['1', '7']" +117,rw1183764,ehalperin,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,this movie is a waste of time,30 September 2005,0,"Do not see this worthless garbage movie. no plot, no sense, no good violence. crap crap crap.i think this movie was a fetal attempt at making money. it was a scam wrapped in a riddle wrapped in another piece of crap. I have never wanted my money back so badly before. i wasted several hours of my life that I would like back. This is not worth your time or anything for that matter. i would have walked out, but my limo was not arriving yet. If I were to meet the director, i would tell him that he should go to hell for directing this worthless hunk of steaming crap. Finally, and most importantly, see a good movie and don't give them the satisfaction of making money from this movie. People who voted 10, should be locked up for their insane behavior. This movie sucked, This movie sucked, This movie sucked, This movie sucked , This movie sucked","['4', '15']" +118,rw1187570,FilmSnobby,A History of Violence (2005),3.0,Seed money for the next project that Cronenberg REALLY wants to do.,5 October 2005,0,"While watching *A History of Violence*, I couldn't shake the feeling that I was watching little more than a violent revenge-fantasy, of the type usually promulgated by nerds. The chatty denizens of IMDb confirmed my suspicion: it turns out that the movie is based on a COMIC-BOOK. Oops, sorry -- ""graphic novel"". I suppose the title should have been the giveaway, for ""graphic novels"" tend to have pretentious titles. Pretentious, sub-literate text and pretentious drawings, too, but that's neither here nor there. The larger point is that whoever wrote this tawdry tale -- and I'm sure he -- and I'm sure it's a ""he"" -- is revered as a genius in Comic-Con Land -- is clearly re-working the Hulk story from Marvel Comics: mild-mannered David Banner-type goes berserk, dispatching two bloodthirsty nut-cases who hold up his Small Town, Indiana, diner. ""You won't LIKE me when I'm angry,"" as Bill Bixby pointed out more than once.So Viggo Mortensen turns out to be amazingly, and unbelievably, competent in hand-to-hand combat and with firearms, firing a Glock 9 like a ten-year veteran of Special Forces, U.S. Army. Otherwise, he's utterly normal, a family man with a pretty wife and two kids. He is, in other words, the perfect ""graphic novel"" hero: a man whose ""superpowers"" or ""dark side"" or what-have-you stretch far beyond the point of credibility. Which wouldn't be so bad if ""graphic novels"" weren't otherwise drearily realistic. ""The Hulk"" comics series never pretended to be anything more than fantasy. But we're actually supposed to buy the characters and situations of this ""realistic"", ""graphic novel"". The viewer, meanwhile, will roll his eyes in exasperation when it's revealed that Mortensen might have once been a hit-man for a Philadelphia crime-syndicate who ran away from ""the life"" some twenty years prior. An Irish-mob enforcer? Please. Have you ever seen hit-men? Remember Sammy ""The Bull"" Gravano or whatever his name was? Or what about those fat, out-of-shape creeps we all saw standing around on the sidewalk with Gotti, courtesy of those FBI surveillance tapes? A mobster's only muscle is his gun. But in *A History of Violence*, Mortensen is still in Strider Mode, in perfect physical condition, still combat-ready after twenty freaking years. I don't buy it, guys.Maybe I'm getting hung up on the plot, when I should be praising Cronenberg's ""daring commentary"" on Violence In America, for that's what the majority of the professional film critics seem to be talking about. Which is disheartening, incidentally. Now I've read some of the reviews at IMDb, and some of the smart folks here -- amateur critics, and the more honorable for it -- have already pointed out that Cronenberg's presumed thesis about the inevitability of violence is rendered hypocritical by his absolute GLORYING, his unabashed WALLOWING in the violence he throws up on the screen. Yes, the blood is more copious than in the usual action picture; the effect of bullets tearing into flesh and bone SEEMS to look realistic (though who knows or wants to know?); when someone gets his nose smashed deep into his own skull, it looks genuinely ugly and the camera lingers on the view in a tough-minded fashion. So what? Does Cronenberg really think he's above the fray? If his plan is to pander to the lowest common denominator of an audience which KNOWS it's being pandered to, well, he's still pandering. Clever, self-reflective ""knowingness"" doesn't absolve him -- or us. This movie belongs in that special group of films like *A Clockwork Orange*, *Irreversible*, and a few others, in which the director and the audience make a cynical pact to exploit each other's festering desire to take a holiday from civility, allowing one and all to indulge the baseness of our common natures even as we rationalize this immature behavior by sprinkling high-minded phrases like ""violence in our modern culture"" like so much intellectual sugar over the whole bloody mess.Presumably, Cronenberg signed on to do this lazy hack-work in order to get his next *Spider* or whatever made. Fine, but we have to live with this one in the meantime. I'm giving it 3 stars, instead of 1, out of 10 because, though inherently contemptible, it's also competently done, in terms of narrative brevity, camera placement (especially during the action scenes), and the startling pair of husband-and-wife sex scenes: Cronenberg makes us ponder a rowdy, lustful 69 scene early in the film when Mortensen and Bello are happily married, and a ""hate-f--k"" scene on hard wood stairs when they're not so happily married later in the film. Been a while since we've seen such married carnality. We might, in fact, have to go all the way back to Roeg's *Don't Look Now* to find it. Perhaps Cronenberg's next picture -- the arty one I'm sure he really wants to make -- will be a remake of *Eyes Wide Shut*. The two scenes here are more shocking than Kubrick's final opus in its entirety.","['8', '15']" +119,rw1189548,jeff-coatney,A History of Violence (2005),8.0,Brilliantly Sub-Textural,9 October 2005,1,"I felt as if I was watching a documentary about how higher primates relate to each other. Most people are going to judge this film at face value. Look past the plot points and the characterizations and the brilliantly graphic violence and sexuality and you get to see the real History of Violence. This film explores how humans relate to each other using violence. We build intimacies, define how we love each other, create the social fabric we live within, all by using violence at every stage of life as a central and according to the point of view of the film, an essential tool to assert our power and dominance, protect what we value and connect to our sexuality. This film shows us the history of violence through the situations the characters face from adolescence all the way to a showdown for utter survival. Along the way, we see how violence emanates from all humans naturally and freely and may even be as essential to our survival as a species. There are many very eloquent moments in the film when we are surprised intellectually by how the characters react, yet those moments ring true instinctively. Maria Bello's character is tormented and repelled by the revelations from Viggo Mortensen's character, yet in the middle of their fight, she becomes aroused sexually. It's clear that in her character's mind, the primate part of herself betrayed the intellectual side of her being and that both satisfies and disgusts her. The complexities layer one upon the other in such a way that when the very realistic violence occurs, it heightens the effect in the most unglamorous way. Essential viewing for anyone interested in human behavior.","['1', '4']" +120,rw1183762,jaythomp,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,horrible,30 September 2005,0,"This honestly was one of the worst movies that I have ever seen. So corny, cheesy, and easily predictable. Come on Stryder, you can do better than this. Nice job on the blonde though. Also this is making me type ten lines and there is nothing else I really have to say so here it is again.This honestly was one of the worst movies that I have ever seen. So corny, cheesy, and easily predictable. Come on Stryder, you can do better than this. Nice job on the blonde though. Also this is making me type ten lines and there is nothing else I really have to say so here it is again.","['3', '16']" +121,rw1184512,LordAndrew,A History of Violence (2005),,Elegant yet Flawed,1 October 2005,1,"As much as I liked the movie as the story unfolded, I have to admit it left me feeling very much under whelmed.The issue, I think, is that the movie is essentially a character study with crucial pieces of a main character's background missing. At the end of the story we know that the character was a much different person early in life, that a dramatic transformation occurred. To my mind it seems there should be some explanation about why the change occurred in the first place, but that is not provided. Some may say this is irrelevant, but how could the reasons he turned away from his violent life be irrelevant when all the movie seems to be saying is that the capacity to act violently is a necessary and valuable part of humanity? Why would he turn away from it? As for the violence in the movie I would have to say that there isn't a director today that handles violence and gore better than Chronenberg. Every violent act in the film is very much justified and each spurt of blood plays like vindication. He has found a certain beauty in splattered guts, the result of a good man being pushed too far.","['3', '7']" +122,rw1193680,skiffx,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,Idiotic crap with awful acting.,14 October 2005,0,"WARNING: Watching this ""piece of cinematography"" can cause severe brain damage.I don't know what kind of simple-minded retard one has to be to actually not be able to see through the toilet quality acting where none of the actors have any chemistry and nothing in general connects, to actually rate this movie at 10 (as apparently 1600 people already did). Movie has awful acting, awful script, and now that I think of it, everything else is awful as well. The director is to blame for most of the problems with this disconnected movie and it's lack of artistic quality. Please spare yourself from this nonsensical torture of the brain.","['5', '15']" +123,rw1184132,iamsam103,A History of Violence (2005),8.0,Absolutely Thrilling!,1 October 2005,0,"I only saw this film about three hours ago, and immediately came on here to write a review about it....so here I go.The story goes as a local café shop owner named Tom Stall is thrown into the headlines as a hero when he kills off two dangerous robbers. However, this way he has drawn the attention to a gangster (chillingly portrayed by Ed Harris) who believes he is another character called ""Joey."" What follows are some pretty intense and violent action sequences, great acting and a brilliantly evolving storyline.The acting is superb on many levels and every actor / actress gets top marks from me. The action is short, violent and unsettling, which to me really defines the entire film...a bit short but very special. This was the only problem I found with the film, it was a tad too short and ended a bit abruptly. However, I totally forgive this....Cronenburg has done it again...like when I watched ""eXistenZ"", I was thoroughly gripped from start to finish.This is a superb thriller with welcoming changes to the genre...i give it 9/10...definately recommended!","['4', '8']" +124,rw1221530,Hellmao,A History of Violence (2005),4.0,A history of boredom,21 November 2005,1,"Considering the very good ratings that A History Of Violence receives from many professional reviewers and movie fans alike, I am astounded. Some people find it a thrilling masterpiece. Well I don't.After a brief opening sequence with psycho killers on the road, Cronenberg introduces the family of Tom Stall. Parents and teenager son gather around little daughter's bed to comfort her in the wake of bad dreams. Sweet. The next morning they have coffee and cereal food, get dressed, prepare for the day and talk everyday family talk. Yes, it is a happy family and after making love the parents tell each other how much they love each other. All nice and well. Of course, it does not stay that way. The thugs from the opening scene enter town and head for Tom's restaurant with thirst for coffee and evil. To avoid a bloodbath, Tom is forced to use skills from a dark past that make him the local hero, but also draw the attention of some big city mobsters from the same dark past. Tom has to change his identity again to fix the problem, leaving his innocence and a lot of corpses.There are many disappointments in A History Of Violence. First of all, it is full of clichés. The high school bad kid and his sidekick, the local sheriff and the female TV reporter all look exactly how you expect them to look. All supporting roles keep pale and Ed Harris and William Hurt have little to say. Their motives and lives keep unfolded. Tom's wife character is not interesting, neither. When Tom is about to give up and confide in the local police officer, she prevents him from confession. She may have been upset because of being framed for many years, but now she thinks of her family. Stand by your man. The father – son on violence could have been very interesting, but is abandoned when it began to unfold. Cronenberg does not work out any side plot and stays very close to his leading role. Anything around is left in insignificance.Viggo Mortensen is very good as a low profile family man with a quite and deliberate mentality, but it is very hard to imagine the psychopath killer that Tom once was. When he is forced to give up his cover identity, there is no schizo frenzy, no Mr. Hyde touch and no visible struggle. He just goes on. Maria Bello does not look like a happy mid western family mom, but like a anorectic city woman that gets bored to death in a smalltown place. The only thing we get to know about Edie Stall is her faible for kinky sex. Ed Harris has an excellent suit and some good lines, but nothing to say. Later, William Hurt's character is left dead and meaningless the same way, both accompanied by stupid bodyguards. No, this movie is not exciting, not well made, and does not add anything interesting to the reflection of violence. When Tom, amazingly recovered from various shot wounds, returns to his forever distorted family, it does not really matter how they live on. I already looked forward to leaving and did not even read the credits, my ultimate expression of disapproval.","['0', '5']" +125,rw1183576,kevin-477,A History of Violence (2005),10.0,Superb in just about every respect,30 September 2005,0,"I'm usually up with the movies, but this one completely escaped my attention until I saw a poster advertising it at a bus stop. So, knowing nothing about it at all (except that it starred the excellent Viggo Mortensen - surely the best thing to have come out of the entire bloated Lord of the Rings farrago), I went to my local cinema on opening night to see it. It seems I wasn't alone in lack of foreknowledge, either: there were only 4 other people present. By this time, I was almost convinced it would be awful - but what a surprise.I give this film a vote of 10 because it scored on all fronts for me - least of all for surprise value. Excellently acted by the entire cast (perhaps a special mention for William Hurt, as he wasn't in it for very long, but he certainly made his mark); also tightly plotted, scripted and directed. The violence foreshadowed in the title, though visceral and graphic (be careful if you have a weak stomach), isn't gratuitous and is excellently choreographed. There's also some wonderful wish-fulfilment scenes for anyone who, like me, was bullied at school. Perhaps the only dull point in the entire film was the 'establishing' stuff at the beginning, centring around Tom Stall's blissfully happy family life. But there was a good purpose to it: it set up a particular set of expectations which, had they been fulfilled, would have made the film very formulaic and clichéd indeed. But I was wrong-footed there. The film went on to defy formula, and to play very deftly with the viewers' sympathies. Anyway, the dull points were easily made up for by the action scenes.I won't say any more because it's easy to give too much away. It's probably best to go in blind, like I did - and, hopefully, to be rewarded for doing so.","['2', '5']" +126,rw1200095,kayins,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,One of the Worst Movies of the Year,21 October 2005,1,"For the life of me I can't understand what people see in this film. I saw it at the Toronto Film Festival. The movie is plagued with bad acting, bad dialogue, miscasting, and a cliché plot. I've read comments that the movie is introspective. But I failed to see an introspective moment on screen.****SPOILERS***** The sex scene between Viggo and Maria on the stairs was realistic, but the sixty-nine sex scene, supposedly to show how into each other they were, didn't work. While it's a great position between partners, it looks ridiculous when trying to show intimacy. Especially when they acted like they were snacking on each other.Maria Bello- Cast as a small town attorney. Miscast maybe. Her look speaks to big city lawyer but not small town.Viggo- At least Maria tried to act. Viggo looked like someone was feeding him his lines from behind the camera. I really love his wooden acting when he tries to tell Maria that he thought he buried Joey a long time ago. It looked like he was going to laugh at one point. Plus it's hard to take a middle-aged man named ""Joey"" seriously.Direction-Viggo's limping scene as he tries to race home to save his family. Crazy. Viggo snapping a flunkie's neck on his way out of his criminal brother's office. HI-larious. Or even the choice to have all the mob guys wear black like a vampire convention.I could maybe forgive those scenes (or not) but I couldn't stand the obvious metaphor with the weak bully who preyed on Viggo's son. The bully was really a wimp at heart and Viggo's son was just waiting for his burst of motivation to take on the bully and his flunkie in the spirit of his father's heroism. Haven't seen that before.But the worst was, no not Ed Harris hamming it up as Mr. Fogarty, but Viggo's daughter. She had to be one of the most grating child actors ever cast. She was horrible.In summary, from the moment Viggo's family crowded around the little girl because she had a nightmare and all were there to console her (in Cronenberg's hackneyed attempt to show Tom Stall's initially perfect existence) to the end when Tom/Joey/Michael Myers comes home to find his family tensely sitting at the dinner table and little girl Sarah pulls out a plate to show daddy Tom/Joey/Jason X is still part of the family, the movie was a complete package of one terribly directed cliché after another.","['78', '152']" +127,rw1184977,noralee,A History of Violence (2005),10.0,A Frank and Sophisticated Examination of the American Human,2 October 2005,0,"""A History of Violence"" is a fascinating and sophisticated examination of human nature (men and women), families, society and of how the movies have treated them. But the film is first and foremost a riveting story of full-bodied characters inhabited by enthralling actors enveloped by the sure hand of a sly director.The gliding camera is an ironic voyeur from the opening shots as director David Cronenberg gradually reveals his hand by widening our point of view, as the characters always know more than we do. So our emotional reactions will not just be to what we finally do see, but to how they have already reacted. Early on in the film when parents Viggo Mortensen and Maria Bello assure their awakened young daughter that there are no monsters in the light, we already know there are and they can even attack little girls. There are before and after twinned scenes throughout the film to show the impact of violence on their lives.It is also clear that this is much more than hidden ""The Bourne Identity"" glib entertainment situation as we see the explicit consequence of violence, but the trademark Cronenberg gore- oozing and splattered blood and sticky brain matter on faces, hands and clothes -- is in service to the story. (Several teen age boys in the audience were disappointed that there wasn't more though the grueling climax seemed to satisfy their blood lust.) Washing it off is a recurring re-purification. All these characters live in a very particular All-American context where violence lurks in our consciousness and a shotgun is in the closet. When the teen son tries to talk down bullies at high school (a bit too Seth Cohen-ish from ""The O.C."") we are already thinking of the roots of Columbine when two parallel sets of bullies briefly collide. A frequent admonishment about using barbed wire as a weapon has many contextual resonances.Appearances matter and role-playing is treated seductively at first in the parents' passionate relationship. He gratefully recalls how she's looked at him and ironically teases ""Who are you and what have you done with my wife?"" when she recreates high school. But it's shortly her turn to query her husband ""Who are you?"" Key to the film's believability is Mortensen's richly and complexly masculine performance. He had kept us guessing, but in a key scene he converts right on the screen, with his eyes changing from kindly to piercing, to his increasingly confident, lanky body language, then he breathes a recall of being born again in the desert, like John the Baptist. though only temporarily into a ""Stall"" because that's what was available. He looked so at home in rural Indiana, but as he heads to a confrontation in the cradle of liberty, Philadelphia, where the second amendment protecting the right to bear arms was drafted, he suddenly looks like an out-of-place farmer and we realize this struggle is as primal as Cain vs. Abel, even as the banter references the ambitions of the American Dream. This is mythic stuff, but still unpredictable. (I haven't read the graphic novel that the film is based on to know if anything has been changed.)When his inner emotions explode, almost like Jet Li in ""Unleashed,"" he reaches for his wife's Achilles heel and brings her down in a chilling take on the romantic scene from the coming-of-age ""Risky Business"" to leave open issues of links between sex and violence. When the family is torn by confusion, the son is perplexed about expectations that draw on gangster movies as a vocabulary.Mario Bello tries to downplay her beauty and is very intense as she literally has to bare all. Her character is no June Cleaver stereotype but a tough lawyer. An indication of how good Cronenberg is with the actors is Kyle Schmid who has a tiny role as the high school bully but is very effective here compared to how he had nothing to work with in the recent dreadful teen TV soap ""Beautiful People.""Like other films based on graphic novels, such as ""Road to Perdition"" and ""Sin City,"" the nemeses and the production design are very strong. Ed Harris and William Hurt clearly enjoy chewing the scenery as villains that are atypical for them. The conclusion seems like a Voltarian coda of cultivating one's garden in the primacy of defense of the family unit but they will surely have to live with the consequences of what they have learned about themselves. While this has some feel in common with a ""Twilight Zone"" episode, it trumps Lars von Trier's didactic screeds against America and Gus van Sant's dreamy meditations on death by achieving its revelations through the power of cathartic storytelling. I look forward to seeing it again.","['7', '17']" +128,rw1185607,jreinhardt-1,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,Did critics see the same film I did?,3 October 2005,0,"Is this a joke? This movie was rated in many newspapers, magazines & television shows as possibly being an Oscar contender. Did I miss something? Did the critics really see the same film I did? You know the movie is bad when 1/2 the audience breaks out in laughter at the most dramatic moments. When I first sat down with my husband, I saw that the theater was crowded. You saw your usual late comers craning their necks for a seat. The movie begins & starts out very entertaining. This film had no plot & the acting was very forced. The sex scenes were a complete joke, hence the laughing from the audience. Maria Bello is too good an actress to be in this film. William Hurt has to be embarrassed. Please don't go see this film. You will waste your money. Message to Hollywood: Stop paying off your critics, make a good film.","['6', '18']" +129,rw1190644,wakeboarder141,A History of Violence (2005),2.0,Not what I expected,10 October 2005,0,"This was the first of Cronenberg's films that I have seen, and I definitely did not expect this. I'm sure there are people more educated in the arts than I am that would categorize this movie as ground-breaking and unique. To me it seemed like long periods of extreme boredom punctuated by extreme violence and gore. Now, don't get me wrong, the action sequences were outstanding. The problem was they were too few and far between. I have heard it said that the movie was intended to be more realistic, which is fine, but it was not as entertaining to me that way. In my opinion there was entirely too much just panning the camera around the room and looking at people's faces who were doing nothing. There were plenty of places in the movie where I found myself waiting for the explosion or action sequence that would never come.","['2', '7']" +130,rw1188885,kristin_pettit,A History of Violence (2005),3.0,Awkward,8 October 2005,1,"I have been reading other comments about this movie that describe it as ""stunning"".. ""striking"".. ""brilliant"", even..The only thing stunning about this movie is how incredibly bad it is. I normally trust IMDb's ratings. How this movie managed an 8.1 I'll never know. It certainly isn't due to the direction, acting, music, or script.I won't waste my time on the plot. Everyone knows what it is about. The important thing to know here is why you SHOULDN'T go see it. Reason number one, the sex scenes.. The first sex scene can only be described as ""awkward"".I have never watched anything in my life where I felt so bad for the people acting out a scene as I did in the first sex scene (which occurs in the daughters bedroom while the wife dresses up in her daughter's cheerleading uniform.. tell me there isn't something wrong with that?!). I think at one point he actually says ""woowee"" or ""oh boy"" or something like that. But the part where she is standing in the doorway hiking up her skirt is not remotely seductive, sexy, cute.. it is painful. Painful, unnecessary, off-topic, and intensely awkward.From then on, the movie is full of silence, grimacing expressions, and scenes that made you lose all respect for the director (or desires to see their future movies). The movie has great actors, but if it was your first time to see any one of them in a movie, you'd think they were no-names.. the acting is literally that bad.Or how about the part in the hospital when he tells her about Joey?? There was nothing strange about that.. and the ending! They couldn't even give you a decent ending or some sort of closure. Your left with a ""what the.."" thought.. not so much because it is a thought provoking film, but because there is no closure. You sit through a painful ten minute silent dinner to find out that nothing happens.This movie is literally one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Given the potential that it had in script and in casting, I can't imagine giving this more than a 3, and that is a stretch. I can only say that this movie was incredibly awkward, tasteless, and very difficult to watch. Do yourself a favor.. see another movie.. ANY other movie.","['2', '6']" +131,rw1187427,jimpaperclips,A History of Violence (2005),3.0,Let down,5 October 2005,0,"I went to A History of Violence expecting something special, considering the good comments I had heard about it. However it was a big disappointment and I find it really hard to see why so many people have loved it. Most of the film was unnecessarily slow, I kept waiting for something exciting to happen, something different, but it never came.The lead actor was incredibly boring (throughout the film i found it very hard to believe that he had any history of violence whatsoever!) and Ed Harris's character was like some cheesy villain from a poor batman movie! Granted, the fight scenes were okay but they must have made up less than 5 minutes of the film! You could say the film is trying to focus a bit more on the family situation, however even that aspect was far from satisfied.This film had too many clichés (to the point of being funny), wasn't in the least bit credible and many parts just didn't make any sense.Entirely forgettable if it wasn't for the fact that it was so bad.","['2', '7']" +132,rw1199296,njbono-1,A History of Violence (2005),4.0,Wow just awful,22 October 2005,0,"OK for the guy who said people didn't like this movie for the nudity and/or the gore - wrong! We didn't like this movie cause it has no story.The problem with this movie is 1. Bad writing2. Terrible Directing3. Horrible actingWe were laughing at the serious parts in this film.OK so I'm not going to spoil anything here, makes no sense to do that. The film's first 10mins are painfully slow. Viggo is actually very good in this, I like how he handled this role and seemed very convincing at times.As for the violence and nudity - they didn't offend me at all. I found the gore to be very different from a lot of other films. I do have to admit though, the background music and the color of the blood reminded me a lot of some of the older Friday the 13th movies.Now, I like William Hurt but his role is joke, sometimes painful to watch. Thank god he has some really good films in the works!One other thing, nothing against anyone else in the world.. but only Italians and Spanish folks should be making any kind of film involving the mob. See the mob is not supposed to be funny in this movie, but they make em out to be stupid and it really disrupts and tension that is trying to build! I suggest DO NOT SEE THIS FILM. If anything wait for video.thanks.. Jim","['1', '4']" +133,rw1184968,MrLuthor89,A History of Violence (2005),10.0,One of this year's Best...,2 October 2005,0,"David Cronenberg is one of those directors who likes to mix it up...and truly give the audience something different. In this day in age of film, different...is something that we really need. YES it was extremely violent (Well with a title like A History of Violence...what do u expect?)....but lets face it, in America, violence is almost as common as breathing. Especially in American film. But Cronenberg doesn't waste time trying to sugar coat violence as a beautiful martial art that is always done in the name of justice or choreograph it with a baley teacher, instead he shows it for what it is. The violence is rough, hard-hitting, fast, gruesome, and most of all...real. Cronenberg shows us a man who tries to deny his natural born, violent behavior and ability to kill on response. With this...I give you A History of Violence...The film begins with a couple of psychotic, kill-and-rob for no reason maniacs who, just after murdering everyone who ran the motel they stayed in, decide to rob the wrong place at the wrong time. The place is Stall's diner. The man who runs this place is named Tom, he's a quiet, courteous, caring father and husband. We see how Tom lives before his run in with these psychopaths. He has a great marriage (whos sex life is obviously in great shape) and two kids who love and respect him...so how could this man be ""so good at killing people"" as Ed Harris's character says. Tom is faced with a dilemma in watching these men take hostage of people he knows and cares for...so he violently takes the two men out. From there, it's all a downward spiral from his family's peril caused by an old enemy named Fogarty (Ed Harris), his marriage falling apart with his wife (Maria Bello), his son's (Ashton Holmes) sudden behavioral change, his turn into his old self, and his final confrontation with his brother (William Hurt). This movie doesn't glorify violence as countless other films have...it merely shows how violence can be necessary to defend the ones you love.This film gives way to a myriad of brilliant performances. First credits go to Viggo Mortensen, who could have done what Ben Affleck did, after a couple of successes become a Hollywood dimwit, and do a bunch of mindless, brainless, pointless, and totally and completely unnecessary films. Instead Mortensen turns in an amazing performance that could go along the lines of a Jimmy Stewart type of character. You look in his eyes when he is the loving and caring father, and you see innocence and compassion, but as he begins to change, you can see the intensity of anger and violent rage in his eyes, even when he is not fighting. Maria Bello has always been an overlooked talent, for a long time now. She plays the victimized wife role differently than most. She obviously loves this man through anything, but her confusion is evident during she and Mortensen's fight/sex scene. Ed Harris gets high points for playing a chillingly, venomous character. His mobster is played out brilliantly. I am convinced that even without the frightening eye he could have pulled off a convincingly evil performance. I'm hoping for Harris to receive yet another Nomination for this film. Speaking of nominations I also hope the Oscars pay close attention to William Hurt. Hurt has had a long and respectable career, but he has never hit the notes that he has hit in this film. While only having one scene with Mortensen in the finale, Hurt displays a brilliant, villainous, and somewhat comical performance as Mortensen's vile, mafia don brother. The fight scenes are gruesome, especially the battle between Mortensen, Harris, and Harris's men. The finale with Hurt and Mortensen goes from an intense interaction with the two great actors into yet another violent fight sequence. But there are some comical points in the finale, including William Hurt reaching for his keys (When you see the film you will understand).Ashton Holmes is also a new talent to watch out for as Mortensen's slowly changing son. Brilliant film all around.9/10","['1', '3']" +134,rw1186048,TheZapRowsdower,A History of Violence (2005),6.0,"...this isn't great on an objective level, but it is definitely good",3 October 2005,0,"It's that time of year again. Studios are releasing movies they believe are worthy of being voted best picture. That's right, forget about Cinderella Man (a film that should have been released around this time but was instead lost in the summer shuffle), because these are the movies the Academy is going to be looking at. Keep an eye out for Brokeback Mountain, Memoirs of a Geisha, and A History of Violence -- these seem to be the major players this year. But enough about what the critics and analysts say. What do I think?Personally, I found the movie to be very overrated. Notice, I didn't say it was a bad movie. Because it wasn't. What we're looking at is a really good story with really good acting, but a poorly written screenplay.So much of a film's quality depends on the screenwriter's ability to write believable, realistic dialog, which is an ability Josh Olson did not have. Before he began writing the script, he should have spent some time in high school, listening to how some of the students talked. I found any scene involving Tom Stall's son laughable and downright insulting (I graduated high school two years ago, high school is NOT like that). Most of the screenplay just seemed like a run-down vehicle to drive the fantastic story around in.Still, what director David Cronenberg managed to build on that weak foundation was no mean feat. Silence of the Lambs this movie ain't, but damned if Cronenberg isn't good at using subtlety. Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello and Ed Harris are surely Oscar contenders (although I seriously doubt any one of them will win), and I gotta give William Hurt some credit for actually having a personality in this movie, as opposed to his usual monotonous performances. Ashton Holmes, however, was a terrible casting choice. If a character's scenes are poorly written, the least they could do is cast someone who can deliver it they way it was intended to be delivered.The story was intriguing, too. It was a very good psychological study... I can't really go too far into that without spoiling the movie, so I'll have to ask you to take my word for it. But if you can get past the lackluster screenplay (and we all loved Revenge of the Sith - that shouldn't be a problem) and pay attention to the story, you'll see that it is actually a work of genius.I'll be reading the graphic novel as soon as I can get a hold of a copy.I've learned to watch films from several perspectives, and I gotta say this isn't great on an objective level, but it is definitely good. Mortensen, Bello and Harris will definitely get the Academy's attention, and Cronenberg fans will love it. Still, I can assure you this isn't the best Oscar season has to offer, and I will not be surprised (or even disappointed, really) if this film gets lost in the shuffle.It does, however, earn my seal of approval.Premise: 10/10Acting: 7/10Screenplay: 4/10Direction: 10/10Oscar predictions:Nominations - Best Actor in a Leading Role (Viggo Mortensen), Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Ed Harris), Best Actress in a Supporting Role (Maria Bello), Best Director (David Cronenberg)No wins.77.5% (C+)","['2', '5']" +135,rw1187798,mezmaghost,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,Boring *yawn* of a movie...,6 October 2005,0,"OK, if you want to be bored out of your skull then watch this film. It's just as bad as Mystic River! When it had action/violence in it it was good, I woke up for about a minute maybe, but it just didn't have enough drive. Not much happened and I found myself wriggling about in my chair.Yes it was violent, but not enough, Yes it was interesting, but not enough and too slow to find out information. Why is everyone saying how good this film is? It ISN'T that good! Did it entertain you? did it? or were you bored like me? come on now, be honest.Only see this if you have time to waste... and i mean wasteIf you liked this film as I understand that everyone has different tastes then I recommend watching Mystic River, but its boring and useless. You have been warned!","['11', '25']" +136,rw1184773,LadyLiberty,A History of Violence (2005),5.0,A History of Violence less than the sum of its pieces,2 October 2005,0,"I went to see A History of Violence after reading a stellar review of the film and the level of acting in it in People magazine. Given that People's critic hates far more movies than she, I figured it was worth a look. A History of Violence, however, turned into a sort of mixed movie bag, at least for me.The film opens with a pair of men bizarrely lackadaisical men checking out of a small town motel. What they leave behind them when they go, however, serves in the strongest possible terms to prove that the pair aren't so much calm as they are sociopathic. As the pair wend their way through the Midwest, the scene changes to that of a small town diner in Indiana where owner Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) serves up a great cup of coffee and typical small town conversation and camaraderie.Tom and his lawyer wife, Edie (Maria Bello) live just outside of town in an old farm house with their two children, Jack (Ashton Holmes) and Sarah (Heidi Hayes). Their marriage is a good one; their teenaged son has some trouble in school with a bully, but it's nothing beyond what you'd see in countless small town high schools across the country. In short, the family is entirely ordinary in just about every way. But then the traveling men show up in Tom's diner and threaten him and his patrons. Seeing a momentary opening in the tense situation, Tom takes action and suddenly finds himself a local hero with his praises sung and his face broadcast in newscasts across the area.Tom modestly shrugs off all of the attention and says he just wants to go back to his quiet life; his wife, though proud of him, agrees. But as the reporters finally leave, three men in a shiny black car show up, complete with a menacing aura and unbelievable claims. Carl Fogerty (Ed Harris) is one of those men. Horribly scarred and with only one good eye, the soft-spoken Fogerty approaches Tom as if he knows him. Calling him ""Joey,"" Fogerty tells Tom that he just wants to talk about Philadelphia and something that happened there in the past.Tom tries not to offend the man even as he just wants him to go away. But even his wife begins to wonder what's going on when she reflects on just how handily her husband disarmed the men who tried to rob his diner, and her fears of the men who seem to follow her and her family everywhere only make her doubts all the greater. While Tom struggles to preserve his quiet life and to protect his family, more and more secrets come to be revealed and even he begins to wonder just how all he knows and loves will survive.His personal politics aside, I love Viggo Mortensen. I can't imagine another man in his role in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and I thought his portrayal of Frank Hopkins in Hidalgo was spot on. As Tom Stall, Mortensen is also very good. Despite a restrained demeanor, he somehow conveys a panicked struggle just below the surface of his character that gives reality and dimension to the performance. Maria Bello is all right though she has little to do but be angry or afraid. Ed Harris is, as always, just brilliant; William Hurt, though limited by a small role, is terrific. Ashton Holmes, who is making his movie debut in A History of Violence, does himself proud as a boy who must face his demons even as his father is facing some of his own.The story told by A History of Violence is compelling to say the least (it's based on the graphic novel by John Wagner and Vince Locke) The real shortcomings of A History of Violence lie in the script that conveys that story. The movie moves very slowly at times as it works to establish the very ordinariness of characters who are about to have their mostly uninteresting (except to them, of course) lives turned upside down. While I appreciate that the writer is drawing some contrast between now and later for us by doing so, the time spent was just too long and as a result there were substantial stretches of time when the movie dragged. It also appeared that, while the graphic violence in the film was shown with real purpose, one of two relatively graphic sex scenes was entirely gratuitous and as such was more an interruption than anything else.A History of Violence is a relatively short movie clocking in at just over 90 minutes. It seemed much longer than that. When a movie is billed as a psychological thriller (and it could have been), it should have been over before we knew it. It wasn't. I saw the film with a friend and her kids. When the lights came up at the end of the show, her 19 year-old said, ""That is the worst movie I have ever seen."" No, it's not the worst. But it certainly could have been better and, in fact, deserved to be.FAMILY SUITABILITY: A History of Violence is rated R for ""strong brutal violence, graphic sexuality, nudity, language, and some drug use."" This is not a movie for children or for adults who are upset by blood and gore. Some death scenes are very graphic; the sex, too, is well beyond what younger viewers should see. A couple of the performances are well worth seeing for those who appreciate such things; if you're willing to endure the slow scenes (and there are too many), there is a substantial pay-off waiting for you as the movie progresses. The question, however, is whether or not you're willing to wait for it. I was; my friend and her kids were unequivocally not.","['10', '20']" +137,rw1178899,pierrefaubert,A History of Violence (2005),9.0,A history of violence not forgotten but forgiven ?,23 September 2005,0,"A thought provoking film. The Director knew how to get the actors to integrate their own HISTORIES in this experience. I had the feeling Viggo Mortensen wasn't acting but maybe ""acting out"" his own contained violence. The story shows us that our history or past can never really disappear. It may be suppressed or repressed with a ""new"" identity made available to overlap the former, but it's only skin deep. Like father like son is also made evident and one wonders how much of our violence is learned or innate. Is it genetically passed on to our children? The name, Tom Stall, whether consciously or unconsciously chosen was appropriate because our ""hero"" 's life was put on hold until an unexpected catalyst brought back instinct; not rationality. Could someone have reasoned with Foggarty or Ritchie? This movie is also about instincts and morality. Could Tom or Joey's behavior be defended in court? Is he guilty of a crime, conditioning, acting in self-defense, living catharsis? Was he a liar? As Jungian psychologist and very much interested in the individuation process and one's search for Self identity, I wonder who was this man: Cussak or Stall? Regardless of who he thought he was, he showed us how we need to love and be loved; to be invested with an identity within a community and a family: to be someone for somebody. It shows us that with and in love, a history of violence can be relegated to the past: not to be forgotten but to be forgiven. I think that's why the children, starting with the youngest reinvested or reinstated him at the table where sharing bread can help create communion...with others and within self. This divided character was striving to be an individual; that is an undivided person...Great movie we'll be talking about for a long time. I just hope that it will contribute to the reduction of violence, and increase our awareness of developing identity through love and community.Pierre E. Faubert, psychologist","['24', '48']" +138,rw1178313,gclong,A History of Violence (2005),2.0,Awful,22 September 2005,0,"Slow. Dull. Little more than formalistic posing of live actors in clichéd images from ""graphic novels"" and pulp comics. There is more plot-hole than plot. A massive rewrite might bring it up to the level of filler in a Tales From the Crypt anthology but only if a story of some mild interest was added. The violence is graphic yet unrealistic. South Park and Team America had better characters and acting. The best acting is the mucus flowing out of Maria Bello's nostril in the rape-love scene. The near showing of human genitalia might be appealing to the sophomoric moron that is the target audience. The only people that would enjoy this film are Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Scooby Livingston, and the like.","['6', '26']" +139,rw1193469,meni-1,A History of Violence (2005),2.0,What an awful waste of time!,14 October 2005,0,"What an awful waste of time!After surviving this film I have a few things I am compelled to share with everyone. First of all, I would like to tell anyone who is interested in listening – DO NOT GO TO THIS FILM. You will regret it. BAD acting, NO plot line whatsoever! Pointless sexual scenes and nudity in ALL the wrong places and the 2-3 action scenes look more like they were taken out of some reality show because they weren't accompanied by the regular ""PAW"" sound that goes with every ""Hollywood punch"" but rather accompanied by splattered blood all over the screen. The only credible character was played by Ed Harris, and the poor guy got to say about 2 sentences throughout the WHOLE film. The editing work is BAD, and the film as a whole is really boring… Throughout the film there were several outbursts of laughter from varying viewers and I couldn't help but notice the deep disappointed look on everyone's faces when we were crawling out of the movie theater.I am truly sorry to say this, but I have nothing good to say about this film.","['1', '7']" +140,rw1188374,D_la,A History of Violence (2005),7.0,"Strange, and slow, but good",7 October 2005,1,"This is a strange film. I suppose I should have expected that from the director though shouldn't I? We open with two criminal-types, drifting across America, leaving a trail of casual violence behind them. And, if I hadn't seen the trailers, I might have thought that these two were the main ""baddies"" of the film. But although their dead-eyed gaze might be enough to stare down the school's bully, they pick the wrong diner to rob when they head into Stall's late one night. This is where the story takes off, although the pace is still quite measured.Tom Stall, married with children, turns into a hero as he deals, quite effectively, with the two gun men. He himself ends up in hospital, but neither of the robbers will have any cause to see a doctor again. Tom, as a hero, gets his face plastered all over the news, and so results in strange mobsters from the East coast turning up.We never really doubt that Tom has a past, but the film takes its time to get to the truth. And it does so through graphic violence, and sex. I can see why it got its 18's cert here.I suppose you could argue that this film raises questions about violence, and change, and well, a lot of things. In a way it is an old western film, where a good man has to take up arms and fight for his life. But then again, is Tom a good man?","['1', '3']" +141,rw1185072,legadillo,A History of Violence (2005),6.0,neatly made,2 October 2005,0,"but kind of empty. It doesn't say anything new. It asks 1) can a man redeem himself of capitally heinous crimes; 2) even redeemed, should he escape the punishment of the state; and 3) would you want to live with him? The family's descent into violence is pretty improbable: the father can still assassinate whole groups of menacing people after 15 years without practice (maybe he did tai chi behind the garage all those years just before dinner); and his deadly facility is genetic: his milquetoast son proves surprisingly adept when pushed too far by a couple of school bullies. And those after-office workouts have paid off for the wife. She lands a few direct hits on her husband's head after more than a decade of perfect peace and marital harmony.I dunno, it was just OK. You want a really good movie about the intrusion of extreme violence into a previously idyllic life? See Straw Dogs.","['1', '2']" +142,rw1229010,DICK STEEL,A History of Violence (2005),7.0,A Nutshell Review: A History of Violence,1 December 2005,0,"Finally, a movie based on a source material that I've read! Based on the graphic novel of the same name by writer John Wagner and artist Vince Locke, A History of Violence is David Cronenberg's latest film starring Viggo Mortensen (don't know why, but I'm always seeing Elessar in his new character...) I'm usually OK with film adaptations not sticking closely to the material it's based on, basically because they're on different mediums, and it's a bore to have the movie follow the book word for word, scene for scene. Although this review will be working on the premise that it is a stand alone film, I can't help to notice that, unfortunately, the book told the better story, in terms of characterization (ok, so the movie is relatively short, clocking in about 90mins) and the back story on Tom's (Viggo) history.If you'd bear with me, I'd highlight some of the major departures from the book - Tom's son now has a beefed up role, Ed Harris's wounded eye is on the wrong side (as shown in the trailers and movie, it's on his left, but it should be the right) and Tom's last name from McKenna has been changed to Stall. The story and ending of Richie has been totally changed. The book has 3 chapters, but it's only the first that the movie dwells upon, and completely changing and summarizing the last 2 chapters.The introduction is one incredibly long, and slow scene which showcases the 2 killers that Tom dispatches in his diner thereafter. I like this scene which is superior to the book, but somehow it sets the pace of the entire movie - slow and measured.The story tells of an everyday all American Family, the Stalls, who live in a small town of Millbrook, Indiana, being brought to the limelight when head of the household Tom, guns down 2 violent thugs who robbed his diner and threatening his customers. Tom, a soft-spoken man, becomes the town's hero, and soon after, more thugs from the East Coast come and stalk him and his family.But is Tom the man he claims he is, or has his past finally caught up with him? Playing Tom, Viggo Mortensen puts up a credible performance as the unassuming Tom Stall, and does an about turn as a violent character of his past. While the theme talks about violence and the debate on the necessity of it, it gets brushed away pretty quick towards the last act, which degenerates this movie into a short actioner.Needless to say, the psyche of the Family plays an important role between contrasting the relationship between Tom and his wife and kids, which changes as the movie progresses, and that between Tom and Ritchie (completely re-written for the movie), which I thought was a pity.The R21 rating is for violence (gruesome shots of heads blown off etc), but if they'd stuck to the book, there'll be more scenes like the one with the drill-in-the-leg torture scene, etc. But Cronenberg decided to include sex scenes between Tom and his wife, which figured some cheerleading role play, a 69, and a totally out of character rowdy staircase romp. Hello, this is not a History of Sex. (I know it's Cronenberg, but still) While I liked this film for its slow pace (no frantic MTV styled quick cuts, or scenes which appear and disappear at the bat of an eyelid), I can't shake off the feeling that this film had the potential to be way, way better. Excellent I do not think so, but it still is an enjoyable movie to catch on a weekday.","['0', '1']" +143,rw1186841,margolin-3,A History of Violence (2005),9.0,Strong film with the theme that we are all violent in the right circumstances,4 October 2005,0,"Cronenberg's best film since ""The Fly"" and ""Dead Ringers,"" ""Violence"" inexorable draws u s into violent feelings and still makes us uncomfortable with violent behavior--makes us feel ambivalent. Small town guy, Tom Stall, becomes a hero when he guns down mobsters in his café. Yet, one is suspicious about him, as are the goons who come looking for him and ask is wife to consider ""Why is your husband so good at killing people. It has some of the same resonance as Sam Peckinpaw's ""Straw Dogs."" Excellent performances from all cast members, especially Ashton Holmes and William Hurt. One caveat: Try to see it where the audience will be respectful and not see the violence as ""good"" and worth cheering. You could take a mature teen and talk about the themes afterward.","['3', '5']" +144,rw1191338,FairiShadows,A History of Violence (2005),8.0,"Good movie, but not quite worth the hype",11 October 2005,1,"Let's get some stuff out of the way...It's not as violent or bloody as everyone would have you to believe. Are you someone who watches real crime shows on TV without a second thought? Heck, have you seen some Law and Order episodes? It's really not THAT much worse than that. And the scenes do not last too long. If you can handle that, then you have nothing to worry about.The sex scenes are... um graphic. Not as in porno-graphic but as in well maybe soft-porn. They however, are plot driven, well directed, well acted essential pieces to the film. If you can't accept them for those reasons, then you shouldn't bother. You'll be distracted when that's not the point at all. And why should you see a film if you're not completely open to what it can give you? Now, those two seemingly craw catching tidbits are gone, let's get down to my personal views.I absolutely enjoyed the film. I think, that if I had my druthers, I would have gone in a completely different direction both in writing and directing. I however, don't get paid to do either of those things, so we'll just leave that alone. What was done, was done pretty well and what wasn't done all that well in my opinion, could be for story reasons that I do not understand.Overall I thought it was good. I'll start with the acting though. I keep reading about how wonderful the acting was. OK, it wasn't bad, but really? I was only blown away by Viggo Mortensen, annoyed by Maria Bello, wished there was more of Ed Harris who was great in his part, mildly amused by the children (Ashton Holmes and Heidi Hayes) who I thought had glimmers of hope that were too soon dashed and sickened by William Hurt who I think is a fine actor but this part made me rethink that.Like I said, I enjoyed both Mortensen and Harris. They seemed to get this film and then become the film. Bello didn't seem to realize where she was at any point. It was like she was on hyper-load the whole time. She gave an overwhelmingly underdeveloped performance and by the end I was screaming for some of that violence to spill over onto her. Hurt was just comical. I can't explain it, he was just amazingly funny in a part that I don't think should have been quite that funny. If you could have gotten rid of both Bello and Hurt's performances this could have been a really great film.Aestetically, this film totally rocks. Forget the blood and gore, everything else worked wonderfully. You don't get a beauty sense from the movie stills. In watching the film, you can't help but marvel at the brilliant cinematography. You know how they say it's about location, location, location? Well, they may be right and this film understood that.Having never seen a Cronenberg movie in my life, I can't compare it to any of his other works. I can say, that if this is just a glimpse of what he is capable of, then I'll have to look for his other projects. I'm guessing this is the most commercial of his products and it is quite commercial in an indie/artsy kind of way. I say it that way because it's a little too real and gritty to really be called commercial. The guy knows what he's doing though. He made a film, that if I was just looking at the nuts and bolts of it, I'd laugh that it ever got made and turned it into a chilling work of art. I often watch a lot of good movies or good stories, I hardly ever see a good film though.The music does what I think most film music should do, it enhanced the story but it didn't power the story. Often, I watch a movie and I hear it more than I see it, which for my overactive imagination does well, but in a film that's telling the story, the music shouldn't take over the job and it doesn't here.Well, if I obviously like it, then why isn't worth all the hype? Well, it's a good film, absolutely, but it's being dubbed one of the best of the year. It doesn't quite live up to that bill. The development of the story is a little lopsided, like I said, the acting wasn't complete, the dialogue left a lot to be desired considering the other wonderful aspects of the film and by doing that, it glared harshly rather than melt with the overall feel of the film and retouching the development of the film, for what it did show, the film was too short. It's great to leave us with questions and open to debate, but I don't think leaving us feeling like we don't know who the heck these characters (other than Tom Stall who I completely credit Mortensen with conveying who this guy is superbly)are nor do we even care as part of one the best films of the year. Personally, I like all of the characters to be rounded enough for me to feel their importance to the story. If I can't see that, all I ask is why did you waste the time to bring this character in anyway? And those are a few of the reasons I don't think it's worth the hype that it's received. It's great, yup. But it ain't that great! Overall, I like this movie. Is it for everyone? No, but then again? The LOTR trilogy, Star Wars, Jaws and Titanic aren't for everyone either. I'm sure there are those of you who'd argue with me on that one, but trust me on this.","['1', '4']" +145,rw1202799,KarinaGW,A History of Violence (2005),8.0,I still haven't decided if I like it or not,27 October 2005,0,"It is a well-done film with very strong performances by the entire cast. It is very pretty cinematographically. At various junctures of my life I have had the hots for each of William Hurt, Ed Harris, and Viggo Mortensen...so it was fabulous seeing them all together in one film. But, I still haven't decided whether it was brilliant or horrible as a whole....it's very odd. I wasn't surprised to feel that way right after, but 24 hours later, I still can't decide.One bit of warning, there is probably 5-8 minutes of reasonably explicit sex (in my opinion, the scenes went on just a little bit past when they should have to convey what they needed). This is not really mentioned in any of the advertising. It made for an interesting time because I saw it with my 17-year-old son (we are both huge action movie buffs). Fortunately a) we get along really well and were not hideously embarrassed about it and b) we were the only ones in the theatre, so we could comment out loud about it.","['1', '3']" +146,rw1178815,mockturtle,A History of Violence (2005),9.0,The Master Returns,23 September 2005,0,"A true craftsman, David Cronenberg is in grave danger of becoming the greatest living filmmaker. His consistency, economy and mastery of tone, theme and pacing have made his last two features (""A History of Violence"" and ""Spider"") among the most adept, intimate and terse statements to come from any one director during that time (at least until we see how David Lynch's next film ""Inland Empire"" fares). This film works on many levels as a simple story and as a grand parable. All the actors serve the story, even in the flashiest roles (William Hurt is in fine form). The casting is remarkable: Stephen McHattie? Somebody cast this guy as Lance Henriksen's brother, quick! Some of the things that seem out of place at first fall into place as the different layers of the film are peeled away. For example: the son is improbably ripped for a dweeb, and has been provided with an improbably attractive fellow outcast. At first this seems like Cronenberg is doing the ""O.C."" thing, but it fits so well into the overall Hollywoodization of the small town that it makes sense as a chosen unreality, complete with blonde girl child-actor moppet. This will hopefully go a little of the way towards explaining why some of the characters are caricatures and why some of the situations seem like they are recycled from other movies: they are intentionally. Watch ""Out of the Past"" or ""The Killers."" That is not to lessen this film by comparison, because Cronenberg has accomplished the equivalent of how in ""Spider"" he brought us inside Spider's mind without any special camera tricks. In this film we watch a Hollywoodized fiction drained of its ketchup-fake blood until it runs dry and the family, through their trial by fire, pass through the lookingglass into the real world, the same way a real person does when the violence enjoyed by them on the big screen enters their real lives. Audience members gasped repeatedly at the results shots following the violence: they had their cake and Dave made them eat it too. The shots of the recently dead echo the scenes in Werewolf or Vampire movies when you see the monster turn back into a human after its death.Film can also be seen as a ghost story: imagine that when Ed Harris first calls him Joey Cusack...what if when he says he isn't Joey Cusack he is telling the truth? That Joey is almost an evil spirit that repossesses him. And that's why he doesn't change back into Joey's clothes when he goes back to Philly, because he's being possessed. Just an idea. My favorite thing about this movie is when people think they're the only one to come up with the idea that it has multiple layers, and you can hear them patting themselves on the back: ""it's almost like a metaphor for the country..."" no, really?The other knuckle sandwich is for people that think it is just a graphic novel adaptation. Cronenberg never read the graphic novel and didn't even know it was one at first.Viggo Mortensen. Without anyone really noticing it, Viggo Mortensen has created himself a theme; a theme that culminates with this film, a film that he probably would have landed even without ""Lord of the Rings"" in his back catalogue. Look at his filmography: Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III; Young Guns II; The Reflecting Skin; The Indian Runner; Boiling Point; Carlito's Way; Albino Alligator; the two Hitchcock remakes. All of these movies (even the bad ones) have to do with the mythologizing of violence in America and/or its consequences. His Quebecois secret agent in ""Albino Alligator"" capable of unforeseen violence, in ""Reflecting Skin"" there are mysterious 1950's youths in a black car that pick people up and drop them off dead. Mortensen really is becoming our Charles Bronson, whose son he memorably played in ""The Indian Runner,"" another film where he is a violent younger brother (despite William Hurt's excellent turn, and interesting facial hair configuration, I still wish David Morse were brought in to solidify that parallel). ""A History of Violence"" could be seen as his thesis film. If you check his trivia on IMDb you'll see that ""Viggo"" basically means ""warrior,"" appropriate.As for the rest of the principal cast: Ed Harris underplays!!! And he's an underling, he didn't insist on playing the big boss guy! He lets Hurt bring the ham, and for that I salute him.Maria Bello is all of the adjectives repeatedly used to describe her: earthy, sexy, realistic, and thoroughly convincing.The spine of this film is the love between the man and his wife; that is what lifts it above parable, fable, exercise, it is what gives it an emotional core and makes it ultimately affecting.Not that I'd complain if he made another venereal horror movie.And to Cronenberg: thanks for the shout-out to Genny Cream Ale in the bottle, if you think it's tough to find it that way try to get it on tap, there are only 3 bars I know of that have it that way.","['6', '14']" +147,rw1195560,mdewup,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,bad movie,17 October 2005,0,"This movie was one of the worst I've seen. The story had potential but they screwed it up. It didn't flow and the sex scenes either made you laugh or sit there wondering if the movie had changed. The acting was bad, except for Ed Harris who did a good job. Everyone else looked like they'd never acted before. Its not that the violence and sex scene were dumb, its that they did't go with the rest of the movie. One minute you're watching an action film, the next a porn film and then some kind of romantic movie. I had expected a better storyline, better acting and a way better ending. recommend people wait to rent it and not spend money on this. also recommend if anyone wants a good laugh.","['3', '11']" +148,rw1182741,turismo949,A History of Violence (2005),5.0,Not as good as the reviews show!,29 September 2005,0,"I have to admit I'm largely dependent on IMDb's ratings for years now! This movie shows 8's which in practice is remarkably good! To my dismay as a big film buff, this movie proved a huge disappointment. I have nothing against Viggo Mortenson or Ed Harris but the acting in this movie was pretty bad from the rest of the cast. The only reason I kept my rating neutral was how much I loved the plot and the concept behind the entire film. Unfortunately, I couldn't stop laughing every time someone was killed or hurt. A soft-porn gratuitous in every sense: from extended perfect family life scenes to I get it - he's dead. David Cronenburg did nothing to enhance the writing/screenplay of this film and after all these years for only being known for The Fly, he's built little if no credit with my confidence in any talent he carries. I do admit, there were some nice twists, but the over-extended scenes, bad acting, lame/weird intro, and interesting but disappointing ending killed this movie for me.","['6', '12']" +149,rw1217887,haydenmunch,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,Probably the worst film i've seen in the past 3 years,16 November 2005,0,"It was to put it bluntly, shocking. The acting was bad, the story was awful- there was no conclusion whatsoever. It wasn't gritty and real, it wasn't fantaisical or interesting it just-was. And what it was, I don't even care to remember. I was so grossly disappointed as the trailer appeared quite different but I was grossly disappointed to find yet another appalling Viggo Mortensen film, and yet another shocking gangster-eqsue film-that-tries-to-be-something-it's-not (ie Revolver). For anyone who tells me I'm shallow for not seeing some deeply hidden, and meaningful aspect to History of Violence- I have to ask, what on earth this hidden meaning would be, and why it has to be quite so hidden, as if it wasn't for every single second of it being dreadful, the film had the potential to be really good.","['73', '150']" +150,rw1181147,abisio,A History of Violence (2005),9.0,The other best movie of the year,26 September 2005,0,"Up to last month, I thought that Crash was by far, the best movie of 2005. After seeing A History of Violence in the Toronto Film Festival, I believe the race became tougher.Viggo Mortensen is Tom, a quiet (an almost shy) family man in Any Town USA (or the world) with two kids one of them in High School hell. Tom owns a small dinner in town while his wife Eddie is the town lawyer. They are a somehow normal family with some sex dates (between husband and wife) probably to break the monotony. One day, unexpected two vicious robbers arrive to the city and try violently to steal from the dinner. Tom, as natural as serving coffee, kill both men and become to his disgust the local hero and suddenly his picture is everywhere in the country.In less time than you can say, ""shoot"" a group of organized crime criminals arrive to the city, accosting the family, claiming that Tom is not who everybody thinks, but a very vicious Chicago killer. A there the movie becomes a masterpiece.The director, David Cronenberg is not interested in the action part of the history (which by the way is handed with shocking violence), but on the relations and the cascade effect of the revelation on the family and the environment. Tom's son Jack (an excellent Ashton Holmes); a normal (obviously repressed) student, release his inner angry in a quite violent way almost killing a bully at school and later will confront his father. Eddie become upset and rejects his husband and everything becomes hell; however, Tom negates everything.Cronenberg has made an analogy between violence and drugs or any other vice around. Once you are involved, getting out is not that easy; but WHY? Do people have the right to forgiveness? That is the question the movie asks but never answers. Our world has become such a violent place.Hate is everywhere and human life has not any value. When we think about thousand of people are dieing everyday in Iraq for a nonsense war (with the Catholic Church not even praying to stop it) and even in USA for ""economic reasons"" like no budget for New Orleans; what the movie proposes becomes very realistic. You are not safe, even within your family.The comparisons with CRASH are obvious. Both deal with violence in our society. CRASH middle and lower class minorities ""History of Violence"" on our family universe.","['6', '13']" +151,rw1187522,almonetts,A History of Violence (2005),10.0,"A fiercely intense, thought-provoking, drama which questions the notion of violence",5 October 2005,1,"Directed by David Cronenberg and starring Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello, Ed Harris, William Hurt and Ashton Holmes. Based on the graphic novel by Jack Wagner and Vince Locke.First up, I am a Cronenberg fan. His films, as well as those of David Lynch, have always held a unique distinction in my mind due to a combination of resulting reactions (on my part) after viewing them. These reactions are usually rooted in perplexity, inspiration and outright distress. For each of his films I have disliked (""Existenz"", ""Camera""), I have loved at least two others (""Spider"", ""Crash"", ""The Fly"", ""Scanners"", ""The Dead Zone""), which is not a bad ratio, come to think of it. ""A History of Violence"" centers on the Stall family who live in Middlebrook, Indiana. They are a picture perfect family in an equally idyllic town, where everyone looks out for one another. This serenity is shattered by a seemingly random act of violence, which turns Mortensen's character into a local celebrity. He is a reluctant hero, shying away from all the publicity, seeking the solace and retreat of his family. A series of events, each with tremendous subtext, unfold with ferocity. The relative composure afforded by calm of the town and the peacefulness of the perfect family becomes undone as Mortensen questions a startling revelation. The reactions (of himself, his family and community) serve as compelling parables for modern times. It is here that the film truly shines, posing several pervasive questions: Does violence breed violence? How easy has it become for us to accept violence? Do we as a society have a predisposition to violence as a means to reach a solution? Cronenberg is sensational in the way he presents the above theses. Blending gruesome imagery with a pointed matter-of-fact sensibility, witty dialogue and slow purposeful camera work, grounds each actor with the material and creates a high-caliber uniformity in performance. Each scene holds a tremendous sense of foreboding, but not a single frame is unplaced or wasted. There are a few alarming moments (which I will not share), but the compelling narrative and the consistently overwhelming performances throughout are riveting yet excruciating to behold. Mortensen is nuanced, commanding, conflicted and terrifying. Bello is sexy, strong and a beautiful mess. Their scenes together are touching, powerful, emotionally raw and intense. The transition in the relationship of Mortensen and Holmes (his son) is exceptional and Holmes has a bright future ahead of him. Ed Harris is scary, vicious and cynical. He should find company in the Best Supporting Actor category come Oscar time, as William Hurt's performance elevates the film even further. While I would love to say more, I will leave it at that. His character is callous, ruthless and his performance reverberates on screen. As the film drew to a close I was not yet fully aware of its impact, until the brilliantly masterminded and constructed final scene, which juxtaposed the central themes against your own closely held ideals/morals. Thus far, I believe it to be the Best Picture of 2005. Oscar nominations for Best Actor, Actress, Supporting Actors (Harris and Hurt), Cinematography, Adapted Screenplay, Director and Picture are expected.","['13', '24']" +152,rw1189710,pememorrow,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,It sucks it sucks it sucks badly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,9 October 2005,1,"Goddamn this movie was a piece of trash!! We fell asleep it was that boring.. the only good scenes in it were the cheerleader scene, the sex scene on the stairs and when Maria Bello came out of the wash with her bathrobe open! DAMN those are nice boobs ;-) However she needs a weed whacker taken to that growth down below.. Don't waste your precious money on this garbage! Buying gas is way more fun.. pouring salt on snails is even better. Why do I need to post 10 lines of text? I think I effectively can say is so little space how much this movie sucked. Yet I have to continue typing and I have to keep saying it sucked.. how many times do I have to say this thing sucked? It was like my eyelids were forced open and I was being forced to watch Roseanne (ugh). So just in case I am not at 10 lines yet I am going to say it sucked some more.. although there were some cool killings! But the main scenes I liked best were the sex scenes!! Is this enough text now?","['4', '14']" +153,rw1178297,missafer10,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,Awful,22 September 2005,0,"I just saw this tonight at a Sneak Peak showing, and I'm really glad that I didn't pay for it. The movie moves so slowly at the beginning that my friend said it made her teeth hurt. I'm not sure what that means, but it can't be good. The violence and sex were gratuitous, but thankfully they didn't dwell too long on the gory scenes. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the sex scenes. Our audience laughed a lot in this movie, and though some scenes were supposed to be funny, I'm quite sure many of them weren't meant to be. Though Viggo, Maria and Ashton do the best with what they're given to work with (especially Ashton); it's not enough to redeem this movie.","['7', '46']" +154,rw1221275,fragbait,A History of Violence (2005),3.0,"Pathetic, useless and - well - violent.",21 November 2005,0,"I will make this my shortest comment so far.I saw this movie two days ago. We had a vivid discussion about it afterwards, but I will only mention why this film did not work for me:The story of the movie is so blunt and banal as it comes: ex-hit-man starts an extermination trip when his past catches up on him. Of course this also effects his family life, since his wife and children did not know any of his crimes long gone. Don't worry, I did not spoil something for you. There's no doubt, not for a second, that he had learned to kill in the past as he disposes of the two killers that try to rob his coffee shop.Now, as the title suggests, this movie is full of violence. To guess that it is a history or analysis of it is utterly wrong, though. It only depicts some violent deeds in one persons life. Often, the brutality doesn't contribute anything to the story, and is anything but essential. The film includes a quite disconcerting rape / sex scene, and tries to morph into a Kill Bill for the pauper towards the end. Of course, it miserably fails. The extent to which this film enjoys to splash blood, shoot people in the head or the like is unsettling at the least.So why don't I give only 1 out of 10? The reaction of the family, almost braking apart by the incidents and discoveries, is worth seeing.Ashton Holmes, playing the hit-man's son Jack Stall, in particular displays some impressive acting. Also, I can't really blame the film for its violence with such a title. But be warned - this is no film for families, nor for thin-skinned persons. It isn't pretty, nor is it entertaining or suspenseful. I don't suggest going into it. Watch the DVD if you must, and see for yourselves.3 out of 10.","['1', '5']" +155,rw1190070,feirerj001,A History of Violence (2005),,The History of Violence (one possible spoiler included),6 October 2005,0,"I have just seen this film and am very disappointed. I know I will be in the minority, as the majority of professional and amateur critics rate this as Cronenberg's best. However, in Mr. Cronenberg's attempt to go ""mainstream,"" i.e., eschewing his usual surreal imagery and often horrifyingly nightmarish subtexts, he has made a film of stupefying unoriginality. Other reviewers have already described the plot and beat the so-called ""symbolism"" to death, but all I saw here was an uninspired, ""will the real Tom Stalls please stand up?"" poorly executed grade Z gangster plot and even worse ""from father to son"" subplot of school bully vs. wimp, and of course we know who prevails. It's too bad because you have excellent A-list actors here, Mortensen, Bello, and especially Ed Harris and William Hurt. The only good thing about the film was the escalating tension Cronenberg created, both violent and sexual, but I could see the end coming. And the last scene...ridiculous! This movie is not as gory or violent as other reviewers have indicated, it's Cronenberg's most restrained film. Unfortunately, it's also his worst.","['1', '2']" +156,rw1181013,larry.launders,A History of Violence (2005),4.0,A History of Boredom,26 September 2005,1,"This movie can join the growing list of those that had a lot of potential, but I have to imagine that the cutting room floor contained sequences that would have helped the movie out considerably, and didn't contain parts that were left in the movie that didn't help it at all. Good cast and production qualities, though. ******* SPOILERS AHEAD ********* The opening sequence is going to set the pace for this movie. In other words, it is going to be very slow, almost boring in places, with the ever present possibility that it will turn the corner and become something interesting. By the time any action scenes, or things of real interest come along, the impact of them has already been robbed by being bored by the overly long setup.For all the time spent on establishing the two hombres in the beginning, only to have them be gone from the movie about a quarter of the way through in a scene that barely eats up two minutes of screen time seems a waste. The two are only established as 'bad', and that's about it...other than boring.Once the big event happens, our everyman character behaves exactly like we'd like to see him behave. He's not thrilled with having killed two guys, even though they were up to no good, but it happened, had to happen, and he prevailed. Time to move on.However, the news gets him some notoriety he doesn't want. Namely what turns out to be a big mob wheel coming to visit. The small town sheriff makes a comment a bit later in the movie that nails it - these guys don't expose themselves on a hunch, so why is he here? Which then brings us to a pivotal point in the movie: Is our hero part of some kind of Witness Protection program? Is he really the guy this mobster thinks he is? Is it just a case of mistaken identity? And not only is the sheriff asking this question (even if a bit rhetorically) but big bad mob guy shows up again where the wife and littlest kid are shopping, and plants the seed of suspicion in the wife who now asks the same questions.Now if you're smart enough to think about asking those questions, one presumes you're smart enough to consider what answers you would get. If he really IS the guy the mob thinks is he, would he say so? IF he IS in some kind of Witness Protection program, would he be ABLE to say so? And IF it is some kind of mistaken identity, wouldn't he stand on the same story he has been for the last however many scenes? Just what kind of an answer can you expect? It is at about this point in the movie, perhaps halfway through, that everything else that has been started to help flesh out some of our characters (sub-plot lines and such) completely disappear from the movie. Fortunately for the viewers those big questions do get put to rest thanks to a face-off with the big bad mob guys. Our hero wins again, but with the help of his son, who happens to have overheard an exchange of dialogue that condemns our hero to having had the past the mob guys thought he did.So the son freaks out. The wife freaks out later when she finds out. Then they have some weird gratuitous sex on the stairs. I'm all for gratuitous sex scenes, but this one just felt completely out of context.Oh and for those who really like Viggo, you'll get a healthy butt shot out of it.For those that like Maria Bello, she provides a few shots of eye candy. One of them even makes sense.Then of course, and there have been plenty of tips to this coming point, our hero gets a phone call from his big brother. Whom of course is still in the mob, but he could only rise 'so far' in the ranks because of what little brother did. And talk about telegraphing your moves...if William Hurt's mob guy, who is at some kind of boss level, is that bad at setting up one dangerous person to be done away with, it is amazing how he got where he was, unless he's up the ranks inside a really stupid mob, anyway.Another exchange of dialogue that doesn't help the suspension of disbelief is ""For crying out loud, you've been Tom Stall about as long as you were my little brother."" OK, from the looks of things, that means by about the time Joey Cusak is 20 (or so), he was infamous and needing a way out so he goes to Arizona and establishes a new life.WTF? And even if he pulls it off, how does our small town sheriff manage to get so much history on the mob guys that came to town, but can't find ANYTHING about Joey Cusak, the guy they think Tom Stall is? So yes, our hero returns to his brother, settles the old dispute by going back to being the guy he is accused of having been (which he was) and kills everybody.The ending scene was no doubt supposed to be a bit of a tearjerker, and could have been. But it doesn't come out that way, it just falls flat.This is an unenjoyable movie that has a few enjoyable moments in it. I give it as much as a 4 because of the good cast and good production quality. I give it as little as a 4 because of the direction and editing.","['6', '15']" +157,rw1211231,JeterRach286,A History of Violence (2005),4.0,very disappointing,7 November 2005,1,i don't know much about exact movie and film rules about angle and directing but i can tell you personally that this movie sucked. The acting was embarrassing and awkward to watch and you leave this movie with so much left open. after you watch a movie there shouldn't be 10-15 things that you have to explain to yourself. why did he leave philly? why didn't he tell his new wife the truth? what was with the desert? what actually happened to him in his transformation? what was with the sex scene on the stairs? As a movie lover i watch movies for entertainment and sometimes to think about more abstract ideas but this movie had neither. Too much was left unsaid and was terribly unrealistic. i was hoping that there would be an awesome ending but was terribly disappointed. it was too short and just not a good film. Not recommended,"['1', '2']" +158,rw1198724,foofourfun,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,Absolutely Horrible,22 October 2005,0,"This movie had one good scened. The opening scene. It was a beautifully long, slightly humorous shot. The rest of the movie was pure misery to sit through. Here's the problem (or the many):1. Terrible Editing. Painfully long scenes. Editing makes or breaks the movie. In this case, it broke in half.2. Terrible Acting. Viggo did fine, but the rest was very contrived, and borderline B-movie3. Organized Mob? Since when the the Philly mob cease to have Italian Americans? Ed Harris? He looked like he was from a comics movie, like Batman, with his over-the-top fake eye.4. Very disjointed. Long boring parts, with sudden and extreme violence. The violence just didn't seem to fit.5. No chemistry between Mr. & Mrs. Ex-Mob-Killer. Even the sex scenes were awkward, and just plain unbelievable. The first one was weird. They portray the couple as SO loving, and then all of a sudden it's kinky sex with a 69 scene. Where did that come from? 69? Just bizarre.6. I think Daimler-Chrystler funded this movie, with all the blatant 300C commercials throughout.7. It's a happy family, seemingly. Everything is perfect. But then the kid seems to be always angry at his dad, and throws little contrived fits. Yawn.8. Lots and Lots and Lots more. I could go on. This movie is an absolute disaster.My recommendation: Avoid this. It stinks. Total waste of my Friday night.","['3', '13']" +159,rw1187877,heriot,A History of Violence (2005),10.0,A very complete portrayal of a violent change of identity,6 October 2005,1,"I have seen this film twice in one week. Having read a lot about the film before, I was first almost disappointed by the relative unoriginality of the plot line - man denies ever having worked as a mob hit-man, later on it turns out that he was a hit-man, but actively worked on obliterating all traces of this past. I enjoyed the second viewing a lot more, because I was then able to concentrate more on the questions whether you can change character so completely and how you would have to go about this. I gave the film an excellent rating after the second viewing, because I felt that the completeness of the portrayal was stunning. Scenes that seemed boring or banal on first viewing gained a significance in hindsight, all the almost embarrassing shyness and self-effacing qualities of the main character become more relevant when we see them as a conscious effort rather than as a natural tendency. This then ties in with the final conversation between Joey and his brother, where we feel that Joey does not really fully revert to type, he holds back, he is cool and detached, as Tom might be from this earlier life, which, paradoxically, might give him the strength and the coolness to overcome an almighty force of thugs. We see a conscious split personality at work, we see what happens to the wife and son once they find out and how they will have to feel that they now live with an actor rather than with a person. While there truly is nothing very original about the story, man denies being a spy/thug - turns out he is a spy/thug, etc., the film really deals with the consequences and ramifications in wonderful detail, very different from, e.g., A perfect murder or Dial M for Murder where the mere fact that this young woman has just killed someone seems not to affect her much, because she was justified in the act. In A History of Violence, the very fact that the act of violence committed does not affect Tom at all shows us that he has become so attuned to slipping into his mild mannered personality that it does not affect him as it would affect a person confronted with violence for the first time. The pleasure of having observed a real slice of life rather than any sweeping conclusions can be taken from this film.","['23', '41']" +160,rw1187346,dvdguy2005,A History of Violence (2005),8.0,Mr. Black's Grade: A-,5 October 2005,0,"A History of Violence Mr. Black's Grade: A- Directed by David Cronenberg , and starring: Ed Harris, Maria Bello, Viggo Mortensen, and William Hurt.Before anything I have to explain... there is some serious crush action at my end for the lovely and talented Maria Bello. There is just something about the lady that I find terribly attractive. This movie is no disappointment there, lets just say: Maria in a cheerleader outfit! Enough ink on my infatuations, time for the film itself.A History of Violence certainly lives up to its name. It is no Scanners, or anything along those lines, but there are short bursts of intense violence. Viggo Mortensen's character begins the film living an idyllic life in small town USA (maybe a little too tranquil for me). I do not want to go into the plot very much, but let's just say that this peaceful life goes through some serious changes. Maria Bello is great (naturally), Ed Harris is quite menacing and William Hurt has a scene that is quite brilliant. The crowd was clapping and laughing the whole time he was on the screen! It is a 'clean', exceptionally well crafted piece of work. Please remember that this is a David Cronenberg production, so there are a few moments that will certainly shock you. That is OK, go along for the ride - this is a very, very good film.","['1', '2']" +161,rw1211217,Lawyerdude1989,A History of Violence (2005),6.0,I enjoyed this movie!,7 November 2005,1,"I enjoyed this movie! There was a good emotional payoff throughout the movie. The bad guys were very well cast! The only bad casting was the lead/ husband, the wife, and the son. I hated those three. The little girl was cute. There is really no mystery as to whether Tom is Joey. There are several lines that give you this information, as if the story would be better otherwise. This is a well told story without flashbacks. The downside is that the story is so shallow. Also, the plot is very contrived. 1 No woman lawyer would marry a man without knowing his past. 2 This small town diner would not be that crowded. 3 If the gangsters wanted this guy they simply would have got him without the cat and mouse. This story could have been written by a 10th grader. This is not a great movie. It is not even as satisfying as a good episode of Law and Order. However, it was good enough to satisfy my taste for a movie. Now that I think of it, this was really a dumb movie!","['0', '1']" +162,rw1213281,johnnsb,A History of Violence (2005),5.0,"Great acting, but missing something in writing and in characters",10 November 2005,0,"I love Viggo Mortenson, Ed Harris, and watching movies that have violence in them...no doubt. However, there was something missing in this movie. Probably the fact that it started soooooooooo slow, had real problems with pace and lack of action at times (people looking at each other with sorrow in their eyes and not SAYING anything...nothing to carry the story forward).I don't like the choice made with Joey/Tom's past (why couldn't it have been a guy just trying to hide from his past (that would be very human and we could empathize) or some schizo thing a la Fight Club...either would've been more interesting than a ""quasi-multiple personality"" thing.But basically, the movie moves too slow...has way too much Act I, not much Act II, and a real ambiguous Act III which for me overshadow the fine acting.","['2', '4']" +163,rw1176799,agentmrp,A History of Violence (2005),8.0,Gripping well acted thriller,20 September 2005,1,"Saw a preview last night, and quite frankly I wasn't sure how much I enjoyed this movie, until I realized that my husband and I talked about it last night, and then again this morning. It is a movie that stays with you, both for the acting and the storyline. Whose history of violence is it? Is it the horribly graphically disturbing killers at the beginning of the movie, who unsettle you at first sight? Is it the Mobsters who come after him, who have a long history of violent behavior, or is it Tom himself? The over-the-top portrayals are fitting, and after so much disturbing violence, a welcome reprieve. William Hurt is better than his normal monotone form, and Viggo Mortensen (sp?) is a study in transformation once the plot line is truly revealed. Maria Bello is a bit anorexic, but credible as the confused, yet supportive wife. Good Show, I'm glad it was free, but I would see it again with friends. Better than that, is that it's a manageable 1hr 40.....","['4', '8']" +164,rw1210453,raiden_g_m,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,Is that a comedy or what?,4 November 2005,0,"Is that a comedy or what?It is ,propably, the worst movie i've ever seen.Too bad one of my favorite actors ,Ed Harris ,was acting in it..Tooo much blood toooooooooo... much pointless and extreme sex and a storyline full of 'holes'. Of course the worst about this movie is that i actually went to watch it because of its rating in this site!!7,6????Give me a breakkk!!You can do better than that!! At least it was funny.The movie starts with some really boooring scenes in the small town and what ,me and my friends, least expecting were 15 minutes of sexx.And i mean SSEEEXXXX!!!Well it was quite a documentary about human 'relationships' ;).Sorry about my English..","['1', '9']" +165,rw1209687,ClaytonDavis,A History of Violence (2005),,Bello and Hurt are AMAZING,6 November 2005,0,"A History of Violence This is definitely one of those films that you have to think about 64 seconds after it's over to decide whether or not you like it. Where should I start? I guess the negatives since there isn't too many. The movie gets really interesting than kind of goes nowhere and then goes into more interesting then just makes an abrupt stop. The worst part of the movie is probably the flow. The way the pieces come together to make a puzzle is a bit unsettling.Now that we got that out the way, let's go to Mr. David Cronenberg, the true light of the film. His direction is by far one of the best this year. Maybe even better than Paul Haggis' direction in Crash. He brings each performer to the true center of their character. His vision of the film and which way it should go was magnificent even if it did have a not-so great flow.Viggo Mortensen gives the finest performance of his career but still isn't Oscar worthy. He can get a nomination for his reserved yet good performance but will definitely not conquer the win. His performance his compared to that of Jude Law's performance in ""Cold Mountain."" All response but all of the acting is in his expressions and mannerisms. Law got his nod so Mortensen can see his way into the shortlist.We'll continue on with Ed Harris who gave a decent performance but most likely will be sitting out this year because the next time he's nominated he should be winning and the performance isn't win material. I guess Oscar missed their chance for his gut-wrenching performance in The Hours. His character is very reserved just like Mortensen's but the difference is his character is meant to be that way. All the anger or frustration of Harris' character is seen through every look at Mortensen. That is taking the chance.Maria Bello will have the favor of going into the race with the title of ""supportive wife."" Bello's performance his so heart breaking and outstanding that I would call her nearly a lock for nomination. Her performance is Diane Lane ""Unfaithful"" meets Marisa Tomei ""In the Bedroom."" She encapsulates her character in every kiss or every word or every tear that she shows. The performance is brilliant and needs to be recognized for the season. She is also a threat for the win cause' we all know how Oscar loves the wife.Standout has to be Mr. William Hurt. Everyone is talking about how short the performance but how brilliant it is and they are 100% right. Hurt is scene stealing and practically single handedly saves the picture. His eyes are thought provoking and bring sheer chills down your spine. His eight minutes could definitely get him a nomination. They gave Judi Dench an Oscar for her 8 minute debauchery of a performance in ""Shakespeare in Love"" so they better at least acknowledge this man. He is the standout of the cast along with Bello who I see gaining critical attention and fighting spots and wins amongst this very crowded and splendor year. The Oscar race is getting hot and it's starting off with some violence. No pun intended! Grade: ***/****","['1', '2']" +166,rw1179274,Gary-161,A History of Violence (2005),,Strictly rental,24 September 2005,1,"Based on a graphic novel. Whatever happened to literature? Did everyone's pens run out of ink after Catcher in the Rye was written? This portentous stinker is graced with the usual crass direction from David Cronenberg. An opening scene in which a violent act cuts to a domestic scene will have your eyeballs rolling early. There's even the dreaded hubcap shot, stalwart of second rate directors the world over. And the world is getting smaller every day.Not one scene rings true. My favourite is the son who through the wonders of DNA suddenly becomes the junior karate champion of America and later suffers not a jot of post traumatic stress syndrome after a bout of participatory violenomics with his old man. In fact, he's swiftly forgotten about and placed into the cupboard helpfully marked 'plot device'. However, those who like to polish their behinds on staircases will not be disappointed by the depiction of violence throughout, no matter how preposterous.A rather wonderful performance from Viggo Mortensen deserves a better screenplay.","['4', '17']" +167,rw1181662,jfurioli_2000,A History of Violence (2005),8.0,A History of Violent Movies...,27 September 2005,1,"So we know the story: an average Joe, loving husband, caring father, model citizen in middle America is attacked by thugs but he saves the day by defending himself and his diner when it was obvious he had no other choice and ends up killing the aggressors. He should go back to his family a hero. We have seen so many films like this one.Yet it is more complex here. When someone dies, people have to live with it. When the hero kills a bad guy, is it because he is standing his ground like anyone would or because he is a killer, unlike anyone else? Can a normal man be a hero? Can we glorify him? Or does he have to be something different, hidden beneath the surface? The movie answers this question without a hesitation and it is not the answer we are used to. Some people will love it, some will hate it. I think a lot will miss the point. It is a movie about movies parading as an action flick.The fights scene are flawless, some nervous comic relief sequences perfectly timed, the acting is brilliant especially with Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello and Ed Harris. An Academy Award of the Weird and Questionable to William Hurt who makes a pretty good impersonation of Will Ferrell (why? that is the mystery of the movie).Otherwise, a good, solid movie delivered with precision in the execution y Cronemberg.","['2', '5']" +168,rw1209673,belialprod,A History of Violence (2005),,What this suddenly reminded me of,5 November 2005,0,"I had a hard time with this movie because I knew I'd seen it somewhere else, just done a lot better. This is an action movie without the action sequences. This is 'The Long Kiss Goodnight'. A popcorn picture without the pretensions to greatness this one has. Cronenberg is turning into a out of touch old man who throws in snatches of tit and gore to amuse himself, and sets the villains up (the robbers in the first scene) to be just plain evil incarnate. Then has a sex scene on a stairwell because...why? He likes violence? She likes it too? The whole family is violent What? Why? Huh? Renny Harlin did it better. That's the first time in history anyone has ever said that about anything.","['1', '3']" +169,rw1187326,Brewski-2,A History of Violence (2005),10.0,You won't see another film exactly like this one anytime soon,5 October 2005,1,"Others, in fact many others, have commented on the perfect casting, great acting, rural scenery and hometown sets and the appropriate use of violence and brief nudity. They are all right but here are some other things to look for.***** Spoilers Follow***** This is a Second Amendment movie - perhaps unintentionally - but the private ownership of firearms (and not handguns) allow a family to defend itself and allow a son to save his father's life. Also it shows that a familiarity with firearms allows Tom to defend the diner and his family and himself and an unfamiliarity with firearms almost keeps the wife from defending the home - she never cocks the hammers and can barely get it loaded.There have been several movies about ""cop gets family killed and goes on rampage"" from Mad Max, The Punisher and, sort of, Man on Fire. We are supposed to cheer or at least sympathize with the Vigilante bent on honest and well founded revenge. But this one of the first that leaves the vulnerable family as an additional worry for the vigilante/revenge guy to factor in.Ivan Reitman speaks about ""casual nudity"" in the 1980's when Stripes was filmed (watch DVD commentary) and questions appear about the need for the full frontal. I see this as the wife's way of showing Tom what he will be missing as she goes to another bedroom and shuts the door. The director teases more than shows in earlier scenes and that is all appropriate.Others comment on the closing scene and this is an ""A implies B"" scene where the daughter accepts daddy's return, then the son accepts daddy's return and the next logical step is mommy accepting daddy's return. You do not need to hit the audience over the head with it - except of course for those that demand to be spoon fed.There are the timeless values of Love conquers all, violence must be used to meet violence, good wins over evil, a person can repent their sins and be born again, family is the most important thing in your life, Like father - like son (as to be pushed over the edge), etc.I did not like the gratuitous drug use (joint smoked on main street) and there was a couple that brought a 2 year old to the theater which should almost require a call to DCF.However, it was great to see cinematography as art with scenes that just fill the senses. Once again Canada poses as rural America (Superman, Marlow - the HBO series, etc.) See it without your children.","['1', '3']" +170,rw1189325,bunnystyck,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,I'm getting real sick of bad movies,8 October 2005,0,"i did indeed have high hopes for this movie but, aside from Alexander, it was the worst movie i've seen so far. it was boring, predictable, and painful.the violence is probably the best part of it all, very graphic. but with the huge gaps of uncomfortable silences, worse then below average acting, laughable sex scenes, and forceful foreshadowing, it's a movie that won't be out in the theaters for long.what is a huge disappointment, especially, is the antagonists. William Hurt must have been drunk when he did this movie. it seemed like with every cut scene his got more and more inebriated.every time the actress playing the wife came in the room, covered in overacting like the stink of garbage, she ruined every scene. as if the scenes couldn't get any more boring, dragging on, with no music to hold your interest.i warn those who read this, don't waste your money on this movie like i did. and when it comes out on rental, don't rent it. let's pretend this never ever came out.","['11', '23']" +171,rw1184245,thetwacorbies,A History of Violence (2005),9.0,Deeper than the average thriller,1 October 2005,1,"I just saw 'A History of Violence ' and I thought it was fantastic. When I first heard about it, I figured, ""It looks like it will be a damn good thriller,"" and I liked the concept. I didn't realize (or maybe I forgot–I don't like to read too much about a movie before I see it) until I walked into the theatre that it was directed by David Cronenberg. Then came the opening scene, and I knew that it was going to be more than just a good thriller: it was going to be interesting. (CONTAINS SPOILERS)A conventional thriller would have begun with the idyllic family scenes. But Cronenberg gives us this odd little vignette of two cold, sadistic killers. Who are they? Giving them a story before they appeared in the 'main' story was a lovely touch. Every character in the film was fleshed out. Even the small town cop seemed to have a real life, and a past, without one having to know anything about him. Then there's the scene in 'Tom Stall's' front yard, when he confronts the gangsters. I've seen Viggo Mortenson perform this bit of magic before, but it's very impressive. His back is to the wall, he has no way out, and in a close-up, his face changes. It's not overacted at all, but it's very clear that this is a different person. Even his voice and accent change. I felt very happy watching that scene. I love the way that David Cronenberg played with audience expectations. Regarding the same scene, in which 'Tom' faces 'Fogerty' (played by Ed Harris) and his henchmen. The way it is resolved is the kind of scene you'd see at the end of a mainstream thriller. Bad guys dead, family group-hugs, happily ever after. But this scene was placed in the middle of the movie, and it changed everything and everybody, and not for the better. We never see, or think about, what happens to these threatened family members after the credits roll. This movie does. So yes, I definitely think that this is a movie worth watching. Unlike many thrillers, the ideas and the implications will stay in your mind for a long time.","['3', '5']" +172,rw1219833,trinnisia,A History of Violence (2005),8.0,Great,19 November 2005,0,"I watched it yesterday and I thing this is a great movie. The film is rather short, but during this 1,5 hour we can see what influence has the violence on Tom's family. This is the film I will remember for a long time because it's different than other movies. In ""History of violence"" we can't expect what happen next. Even the end of the movie was surprising. Ed Harris, Maria Bello and of especially Viggo Mortensen done the excellent job. This movie is not only about Tom. His whole family has to face the violence in different ways. It also proves that we can't eliminate the violence even in such a small town like this. After ""History of violence"" I started to wonder if we can be absolutely sure that we know other person. This movie contents a lot of violence and I think this is the reason why it is so real. I can recommend this movie to all.","['3', '5']" +173,rw1187593,pookey56,A History of Violence (2005),10.0,reinvention,5 October 2005,1,"when i first started watching David Cronenberg's films, it was hard to miss his gift as a director, but i thought he was somewhat, well, psycho, twisted. somehow he made arm-pit vampires sexy, had babies killing with big ball-bearings (divorce therapy), made ground-breaking films with exploding heads and guns fused on to people's hands, groups of people getting off on car crashes, twisted twins, cockroach typewriters, science gone so terribly wrong (bzzz);i mean, Cronenberg is out there. i have a lot of respect for Mr Cronenberg as a director, largely because he is a risk taker. A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE could be his best film to date. it forced me to go for coffee and cheese cake after watching it, because this is a film that needed discussing. it stays with you. for me it asked two very compelling questions: is there such a thing as redemption? i sure hope so or we are all damned. and if there is, what price do we pay? the other question it provoked was, can we ever escape our past? can we truly re-invent ourselves, and if we do, at what cost? i noticed a few shots of the rear-view mirror in the cars reflecting what was behind them, as if to say that what is behind us is still there following us. i particularly liked the short but impressive scene with Ashton Holmes and a jealous classmate. unpredictably, it showed how words could win over violence. basically a pacifist, as we are led to believe he was raised, he becomes drawn in to a violent world. he is an all American boy, who killed someone as a direct result of his father's past. But he also lost his temper and beat up a class mate, showing us that sometimes the nut doesn't fall far from the tree. there is hypocrisy in this film, tied to honesty, a measure of redemption, sacrifice, and yeah, violence. a remarkable film that avoided so many clichés and formulaic plot, it reminded me of the short story by Aldous Huxley called UTOPIA; great performance by William Hurt; it was so satisfying watching him as the actor who won the academy award so long ago. he provided the most satisfying, blackly humorous, brief yet memorable scene since Beatrice Straight in Network; and Ed Harris, an almost charming ghoul in contrast to that sociopathic mercenary we saw in UNDER FIRE, Viggo Mortenson, who never disappoints, and Maria Bello reflecting all those conflicting emotions. there was humor in it too, dispensed in a way that is all Cronenberg.i enjoyed that scene with the two teens wondering what people their age did for fun on a Saturday night one hundred years ago. and no neat ending. his young daughter sets a plate for her ""daddy"", but as young as she was she wasn't as innocent as we might expect. she couldn't help but feel the tension in the room; that everything had changed. but he was still her loving father, the dad who chased the ghosts away in the dead of night. having said all of this, i admit that my favorite scene was that shot of Aragorn's ass. sweet. a truly terrific film. and ya; i saw his ""tail"".","['8', '17']" +174,rw1187490,lord2480,A History of Violence (2005),8.0,"Great performances, but plot a bit thin.",5 October 2005,0,"History of Violence has some great performances. I love Mortenson, Harris and Hurt, but the plot seemed a little too thin in the end. Reason why it seemed a bit thin was because it's hard too tell if Mortenson was Joey or Tom. It seemed like he was a witness protection program for awhile. I kept thinking which guy is the villain. The performances are great. I love Foggerty's bruised eye and Mortenson saying ""Jesus Ritchie"". The violence is flawless and understandable. Go Viggo Mortenson for an Oscar Nomination Overall, i give this flick an 8/10Joe Calahan","['1', '2']" +175,rw1184501,tcraigc,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,Don't even rent it,1 October 2005,0,"Absolutely terrible film. Dialogue was canned, the devices were contrived and the characters were simply not all that compelling. Viggo Mortensen as the otherwise simple mid-western family man, Tom Stall, does a descent job with the script he was handed. Unfortunately, his contribution was all too often overshadowed by the atrocity that was Maria Bello's overly dramatic performance as his wife. Truly disappointing, as I really liked her simmering sex appeal in 1999's""Payback"" while Mortenesen conjures up a little of the psycho boy he expressed in ""A Perfect Murder"". Interestingly enough, the only scene that I found to be somewhat rewarding involved Stall's son, played by Ashton Holmes -the kid's pretty good for his age. Every other scene was either painfully predictable, doggedly slow or just plain violent. With that said, I have no problem with the use of violence in a film of this genre (the title obviously suggest its relative importance), but what I found truly offensive was that it was overly employed by director David Cronenberg to mask what appeared to be his lack of cinematic vision. If you do see it, and I'm sorry if you do, ponder this; would a cat named ""Cusack"" ever be in line to be the head of an Italian mob family like Richie claimed to have been? Fortunately, the least of this piece of trash's worries are its continuity errors.","['5', '16']" +176,rw1182340,kinetickaty,A History of Violence (2005),2.0,Porno with no plot,28 September 2005,0,"I used to be a Viggo Mortensen fan, but not after his latest choice of film. I had the misfortune of seeing a sneak preview of ""A History of Violence,"" starring Mortensen, Ed Harris, William Hurt and Maria Bello, which was hosted by the Nashville Film Club in Nashville, Tennessee. I looked forward to seeing what looked to be a thriller about a mid-western man's dirty past coming back to haunt him. What I saw was something far more sexually explicit than any R-rated movie I've seen to date. It was just one camera angle away from pornographic. And what's worse, none of the drawn-out ""love scenes"" had anything to do with the plot! That's not unusual for a typical movie these days, but I'm more concerned with how lax the R-rating seems to be getting. This movie is X-rated. No question. Please be warned that your eye will catch more of the actors' bodies than your mind will plot. If for no other reason, don't waste your money on this movie because of the unimaginative, slow-moving, downright boring storyline. My husband and I walked out of the theater half-way through the movie out of disgust and boredom. I'm not trying to start a boycott, I just know how I always appreciate reading honest reviews from other viewers. Apparently, one cannot trust the system to rate movies correctly anymore.","['4', '18']" +177,rw1184574,christinacowell,A History of Violence (2005),,Did I see this in the cinema?,2 October 2005,0,"Or on Lifetime, Television for Women? How do we really know Cronenberg actually directed this? Ed Harris and William Hurt as organized crime bosses? Was I hallucinating? The fact that this film is being discussed as Oscar-worthy only cements the theory that 2005 is worst year ever for cinema.This movie (based on a ""graphic novel"") belongs on cable.I mean, come on. Plot threads that go nowhere. One-dimensional characters abound.What was the purpose of the son's girl friend? A throw-away role. A cop who has enough sense to figure out Viggo's past - and yet shows up to confront him about it ALONE? Nonsense.","['1', '5']" +178,rw1186131,edmund141,A History of Violence (2005),,very good movie,2 October 2005,0,"a history of violence indeed. i saw this movie on Friday, 30 September, 2005 and i have to say to any movie goer out there go and seek the movie and watch it. the film is about this man middle age man by name named tom played by viggo mortensen. he had a family of three, a wife and two children and a small café in this small town where he worked as a manager or boss. two killers came to his café to steal as it was closed. tom stood up to the this killers and killed them to protect his staff and people who had come into the café to have some dinner. this incident by tom earned him the respect of the people in this peaceful town.after the incident three men on seeing what had occurred in the town came to the town and went to the café to see tom - who they claim to know - by calling him joey. to this name tom claims was not his name did not know who this person was. but these three people continued to follow tom as they claim they knew him from Philadelphia, to which tom says he has never been there before.this maybe a low budget film but the performance of mario bello, the wife of tom and viggo mortensen are great and i have to say the little cameo also by ed harris is also great. the story seem simple but the suspense just will not disappear and i was really trying to figure what was going to happen but it never did. i have to say it was great directing from David cronenberg and the story is very different from the one we are accustomed to in Hollywood. a brilliant film which is way above most of the movies released this year.the only criticism i have for the film is the way it ended, it ended without much and it did not sound out anything to the audience as it did not really say much and it just dwindled down without much about what tom and his family and where they were going.i will say to people out there that there will not be many films coming into the cinema this year and i will give this movie an 8 out of ten and you will never regret going to see such a nice story.","['2', '4']" +179,rw1190720,realyslow,A History of Violence (2005),10.0,It's the best film I've seen in a very long time,10 October 2005,0,"Well i had the opportunity to watch this movie among a couple of good friends, and i didn't have any expectations, cause i use to be so disappointed, but this movie kicked me in the teeth. i must agree to what another viewer said every camera angle was excellent, good work and loads of love to Mr Cronenberg. As i understand this was written from a book, well very very good work, the cast was very very good. I think this will be the movie of the year, and for me it is that, cant think of a better one to have the 1:st place in my movie listIt's truly the best film I've seen in a very long timeIt's the best film I've seen in a very long time","['5', '11']" +180,rw1208495,roland-104,A History of Violence (2005),5.0,Cronenberg trips over tired clichés on violence in the U.S. - disappointing,4 November 2005,1,"David Cronenberg, surprisingly, delivers damaged goods in this dull, crudely constructed story of a former mob hit-man turned solid citizen turned killer once again because of circumstances. Small town coffee shop owner Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) has lived nearly half his life peaceably with his wife Edie (Maria Bello), an attorney. They have a teen son and young daughter.But Tom is not who he appears to be. When he adroitly overcomes and kills two itinerant crooks, this brings Tom his 15 minutes of national fame on TV, and also brings some serious mobsters to town to visit him. Seems they have recognized Stall as Joey Cusack, a nasty hit-man in his day, who disappeared from Philly years ago. Tom must once again kill or be killed by these heavies, and it doesn't stop there.The problem here is not the premise. People by the tens of thousands change their identities every year. Rather it is the regrettable mix of a ho-hum screenplay, adapted from a graphic novel, and the tepid acting of the central characters. Mortensen (Aragron in the ""Lord of the Rings"" series, among his 40+ film roles) is all but lifeless here and is unable to carry the film. Bello's character provides some dash in rough sex scenes with Tom but otherwise offers little to the proceedings. The screenplay does her no favors when it requires her to withdraw loyalty from Tom too quickly in favor of pouts and profanity. The son's sudden turn from milquetoast to dangerous fighter is not credible.The kindest thing to be said for Cronenberg here is that this was not his project: he was a hired gun, i.e., brought in by the producers to direct. Perhaps he was tempted by the multimillion dollar budget, the largest chunk of change he has ever had to work with for a movie. The only reasons to see this film are Ed Harris and William Hurt as mob chieftains: they seem to be thoroughly enjoying themselves. The moral lesson hamhandedly meted out here is, well, what? Once a crook, always a crook? Hmmmm. Perhaps it's that old staple film saw: that you can't shake off your wayward past. Mercifully, you can shake off this disappointing movie. It only takes a few minutes. My rating: 5/10 (C) (Seen on 10/16/05). If you'd like to read more of my reviews, send me a message for directions to my websites.","['0', '0']" +181,rw1197191,gary-615,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,Hilarious. Laughable. Embarrassing,19 October 2005,0,"This film is poor. Very poor. By god, the first 30 minuends are the most drawn out hackneyed, clichéd i have ever had the misfortune to witness..... but i still gave it the benefit of the doubt....But then, i couldn't take it any more. Acting(minus Hurt and Harris) was appalling! The scenes were either unintentionally hilarious or completely pointless/dull. Not one piece of it made any sense. It was billed as a return to form from Cronenberg but it completely reeked. So very poor. Hurt must have been playing the brother with his tongue in his cheek because he was funny as hell..... but i don't think he was supposed to be. The sex scene on the stairs was truly hilarious.And the ending?? A comedy classic!!! Give at body swerve, mickeys!","['7', '20']" +182,rw1190225,wolftoons,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,"Spend the money on the graphic novel instead **spoilers from movie, not comic**",9 October 2005,0,"Last night, I went to see David Cronenberg's new film ""A History of Violence"", and all I have to say is that is one of the WORST films i have EVER seen. The day before i saw the movie, i picked up a copy of the graphic novel by John Wagner and Vincent Locke, and read it. It was EXCELLENT. I was excited to see the film, even more so after hearing that Cronenberg was directing. I was sure that he would do the comic justice, but boy did he f@#k it up. There were a few scenes that were out of the comic, but for the most part, all of the story material was new. The dialogue was like a barrage of rapid-fire clichés, and crappy delivery. The sex scenes were just plain creepy. The story didn't make much sense, and the ending was ridiculous (again, nothing like the book.) After seeing this film, I think it is time for Hollywood to STOP making movies based on comics. With the exception of Sin City, Ghost World, and American Splendor, every one of them has been pretty much crap. (League of Extraordinary Gentlemen anyone?) We will have to see how V for Vendetta turns out. I really don't think that film can express the same feelings and emotions that sequential art can. So i think they need to stop before they screw up another great piece of art. Don't waste your money on this movie. Instead I recommend stopping by your local book store and buying a copy of the graphic novel. It is a quick read, a fast paced, gritty, and intelligent story that you will finish in an hour, and at only $9.95, it is cheaper than going to the movies. (and you can skip the creepy *ss sex scenes between Maria Bello and Viggo Mortensen) Also be sure to check out the illustration of the twin towers near the end of the book. The comic came out in 1987... pretty freaky huh? look here: www.wolftoons.com/wtc1.jpg","['4', '14']" +183,rw1185216,ElfLover,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,Could have been good...,2 October 2005,0,"Have you ever seen a movie that led you to almost completely lose respect for the actors in it? Well, this was one of those films. It was appalling. Between the stilted dialogue, the unstructured script, the looong drawn out scenes (instead of showing us 1 whole minute of someone walking, cut it short - we get the idea, he's walking...), and the awkward and graphic sex, this was probably one of the most terrible movies I have ever seen. I found myself checking my watch every five minutes. But it was similar to a car accident... I couldn't turn my head away... mostly because I was shocked into a stupor. After Lord of the Rings, I thought that Viggo Mortensen could do no wrong... he's a single card actor with one of the biggest movies ever under his belt... and then he goes and chooses this, well, garbage. Watching the sporadic sex scenes was like watching a soft-core pornography... the ""violence"" in the movie was cool, the 3 times it happened. I don't believe this was supposed to be a comedy, but the theatre was filled with laughter.All in all, I believe that this was probably a good book (and I intend on reading it to find out), but the people responsible for making this into a movie (particularly the writer), should be flogged.","['11', '25']" +184,rw1210752,meeza,A History of Violence (2005),10.0,A History of Highness for this film,4 November 2005,0,"""A History of Violence"" is a cinematic historical accomplishment in the film noir of divergent crime narratives. Viggo Mortensen gives a dynamic performance as Tom Stall, a small-town coffee shop owner who becomes a local hero when he salvages a few lives by demolishing two hardcore killers who tried to murder Tom and his ""Tom Tom Club"" employees & patrons at his café. Maria Bello executes another bellisima performance as Edie, Tom's wife who starts doubting his identity. Talk about your family identity crisis! Ashton Holmes work as Tom's son Jack is one of the best acting freshman efforts of the year. ""Tommy's Boy"" was P.H.A.T. (Pretty Honorable Acting Talent). Let's not forget Mr. Ed! Ed Harris was wonderfully haunting as Fogarty, the mysterious gangster who is convinced that Tom is really a former assassin from Philly named Joey. It also does not hurt for a veteran respected actor in William Hurt to make a scene-stealing cameo during the climatic portions of ""A History of Violence"". Writer Josh Olson's meticulous adaptation of ""A History of Violence"" will be volatile to other competing screenplay efforts during awards season. Director David Cronenberg, who has a history of orchestrating unconventional films, does masterful work in his most mainstream effort in ""A History of Violence"". I foresee a history of Oscar nominations for the aforementioned actors and filmmakers. I will not continue my analytical history of ""A History of Violence"" because that would be a spoiler violent act. Just be an eyewitness to ""A History of Violence"" and as Depeche Mode says ""Enjoy the Silence (I mean Violence)"". ***** Excellent","['1', '3']" +185,rw1186069,BladerSara,A History of Violence (2005),2.0,Did Not Like,4 October 2005,1,"I did not like this movie at all. It was very slow moving. It seemed to take forever for the scenes to end. The plot wasn't very strong and the movie could have ended after an hour. It contained two very revealing sex scenes and a full frontal shot that was not needed. I did not need to see Viggo's butt, or him in her crotch area. It went on for way too long. This movie was sex and fighting. Someone referred to it as ""an old man's porno."" The effects with the blood were realistic and the fight scenes were good, but besides that I would not recommend anyone to spend any amount of money on it. This is coming from a younger person's perspective. I'm sure the older crowd thought it was brilliant.","['3', '9']" +186,rw1190502,skymovies,A History of Violence (2005),8.0,Apple pie with a rotten core,10 October 2005,0,"The latest examination of conflicted identity from the man who gave us The Fly, Dead Ringers and eXistenZ twists slightly but is essentially a straightforward character study in two acts. Naturally, this being Cronenberg, there's also some uncomfortable-looking sex and enough splattery gunplay to counter the cerebral stuff.A pair of lowlifes get proceedings off to a nasty start before we are introduced to Tom Stall and his nice-as-pie family in a couple of scenes that veer dangerously close to The Waltons territory. Thankfully, the the schmaltz is ground under foot when the aforementioned lowlifes come to town.Viggo Mortensen is well cast as the not-quite-ordinary Joe, and Maria Bello offers typically doughty support as his wife, but it's a shame that Ed Harris' one-eyed mobster isn't around for longer. He's terrific.As a drama-thriller, this is better than average and packs a satisfying punch, but it's not as remarkable as some critics might have you believe.","['3', '7']" +187,rw1188376,pj_v,A History of Violence (2005),3.0,DVD Rental or Matinée only,7 October 2005,1,"This was a very strange movie that I would wait to rent, or at the very least pay a matinée price to see. The ""love"" scenes went a little too far for my taste, but the fight sequences were pretty good. Many parts of the movie did not make sense because they were overdone, overacted, or just plain unreasonable. Some example scenes include the hospital barf scene (which made me and my wife laugh), high school bully hallway confrontation (of Revenge of the Nerds grandeur), in person conversation with brother, and post fight cleanup at the lake. I'm trying to be as vague as possible, but you'll know what I'm referring to if you see the movie. I did like the fast\slow pace changes throughout the movie, but overall I did not enjoy the movie as much as I hoped I would.","['3', '8']" +188,rw1185084,macdaddy0421,A History of Violence (2005),6.0,it was OK,2 October 2005,0,"good idea for a movie gone wrong with a flat story line. if you'd like to see a few bad ass fighting scenes and a couple ridiculous, but somewhat funny, sex scenes, this is definitely your movie. But if you'd like to see something worth while with some depth and a good story line, go see Sister Act (clearly a joke) but some other movie then a history of violence. The very last scene will most likely upset you as it did me because i have no idea what cronenburg (the director) was trying to accomplish. To make this movie better, a better history of tom stall's life would have been appreciated, not a briefly mentioned, maybe schizophrenic solution to his violence.","['1', '2']" +189,rw1184430,The-Internet,A History of Violence (2005),5.0,Bit off my thumbs.,1 October 2005,1,"The violence in this movie is the kind that makes one want to watch an all violence brainlessly entertaining movie, because, as it was well done from all angles, it was just so far and few between, that anything in the way of violence would have been good to see, once brought to such a point of anticipation, in my opinion. The upside of the plot is that it seems to thankfully resist a few painful norms, our hero, never truly takes joy in killing, he never really ""returns to his lifestyle, never having truly turned from his past"" as one might dread in such a movie, and there were no delays, or teasers or setbacks in the process of getting to see a sex scene, but both of them were tasteless in that they existed, while tastefully done. It would seem, in a sentence that all the most talented filmmakers and actors got together and made the best of this terrible excuse for a screenplay.","['2', '7']" +190,rw1237507,Ornithopter,A History of Violence (2005),5.0,Fails to deliver both as a philosophical inquiry and as an action flick,13 December 2005,0,"According to its director and to many reviewers there is a philosophical depth behind this film. I agree that interesting questions can be asked about the necessity of violence for survival, its use in evolution and whether a person can change his violent nature. The problem with the film, however, is that it fails to seriously address these questions. What we see is rather a basic story of your average American small town guy, being confronted with his past that may or may not be filled with violent acts.When considered as just a film, without looking for a deep philosophical meaning, A History of Violence turns out to be a kind of action-drama that does not have much to offer. The plot develops slowly, does not show any real surprises and the actors offer a decent, but in no way above average performance. The only merit of this work is that it manages to portray violence for what it usually is: shocking, unexpected and uncontrollable. The sudden violent outbursts in the film are over before you realise it, with dramatic consequences to ponder over.Being too simple for a philosophical inquiry and too uninteresting for a decent flick, there is really no reason to buy or rent A History of Violence. If it happens to be on the air, you may consider watching it, but do not expect any grandstands.","['2', '4']" +191,rw1191042,ihinds,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,"Great actors, bad movie.",10 October 2005,0,"I've seen Viggo Mortenson and Ed Harris playing stellar movie roles so their talent isn't a matter of question. The storyline was sluggish and had all the vigor and movement of a pool of sludge. I won't discuss the plot, because it was nonexistent. To sum it up the failure of this movie to engage and entertain can be blamed on the writing. It was unfortunate that the considerable talent of Mr. Mortenson and Mr. Harris still weren't enough to make this lame duck fly. The sex scenes themselves added nothing to the content of the movie, and tended to add confusion to the issues. I can say though that while the sex scenes where unnecessary it was a pleasant change to actually have those engaged in the act be married. The violence in and of itself can't be new and startling to those who watch any movies at all. If it was the change, from milk bland Tom to Ex-Mobster, that was supposed to be a revealing turning point in the film it too failed to expose any real content in the character or storyline. And the ending... I'm sure it was supposed to be one of those poignant silences that are supposed to highlight the torn battle victims of the human conflict, but all it managed to do is make you waste another 30 seconds or so that would be better served preparing microwave popcorn. The absolute best this movie has to offer is the talents Viggo Mortenson and Ed Harris, but even that too gets lost in the urge to get up and walk away.","['3', '13']" +192,rw1190117,tyoder,A History of Violence (2005),,"Striking, both overtly and covertly",7 October 2005,0,"Clearly this is a polarizing film. And clearly there are plenty on both end of the opinion spectrum who are guilty of being obnoxious and needlessly inflammatory.I definitely feel that this is a subtly brilliant work. Cronenberg is an eccentric, intellectual talent who likes to challenge his audience. Many moviegoers resent being challenged, finding it non-entertaining, even anti-entertainment. Call it elitism if you like, but savvier viewers are more likely to understand and enjoy this picture. I'm not one of those snobs who feels that if people only understood a smart film then they'd naturally enjoy it. However, one cannot help but note that those more likely to understand it are more likely to enjoy it, and that those who hate it make it abundantly clear in voicing their opinions that they didn't get the film at all. (And their atrocious spelling and egregious grammar don't help either.) Perhaps if the film's detractors would drop their defenses and do a little reading on it, they'd open their minds enough to at least appreciate if not outright enjoy this film more. Rotten Tomatoes is a great link (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/history_of_violence/), and the Chicago Reader's response seems most salient to me, to wit: ""Cronenberg isn't engaging in parody or irony. Nor is he nihilistically pandering to our worst impulses: the film-making is too measured and too intelligent. He implicitly respects us and our responses, even when those responses are silly or disturbing."" Hear, hear! Cronenberg is masterful enough to embrace ambiguity and make us feel conflicting emotions simultaneously. He's entered Fellini territory in that regard (though, of course, he's stylistically worlds away from the Maestro). I'm sorry, but those who charge him with amateurism are indeed ""not getting it"". This entire film is in line with the third act of Spike Jonze's ADAPTATION--ostensibly straightforward storytelling thoroughly bolstered by sardonic self-examination. Committed text and subversive subtext working with each other by counterintuitively working against each other to synergistically create a dimensional portrait of America's attitude toward violence.His composition, lighting, lensing, pacing and editing are evidence of a truly self-trusting filmmaker at work: each uneasy--almost queasy--image (especially closeups) of quotidian bucolicism is positively pregnant with dreadful possibility, such that it forces the audience along with the characters to question fundamental assumptions about day-to-day living. What is real? What can one rely on? These queries suffuse Cronenberg's signaturist style.Some middle-brows mistakenly think that such filmmakers as he are snidely asking, ""Can you keep up?"" when in fact he (and they) are enthusiastically proclaiming, ""You can keep up! Come along! Try!""","['1', '3']" +193,rw1184777,vermont23,A History of Violence (2005),10.0,the perfect thriller,2 October 2005,0,"Cronenberg has done the perfect thriller: totally faithful to the letter and the tone of the genre, he succeeds, within a seemingly ""straight story"", to infuse his particular genius and angst in his last movie. The actors are fantastic and the rhythm really amazing. It is of course a philosophical thriller, but anyone with a spectator's curiosity can go and see it. Mortensen gives a striking performance of a Dr Jeckyl/Mr Hyde character. Violence is really ""gory"" and very convincing and, of course, the film deals with the crisis of our times: are we ""innocent"" in front of violence? Is violence universal and unavoidable? The movie is perfectly embedded in the 9/11 era. It is frightening.","['2', '6']" +194,rw1183854,MichaelMargetis,A History of Violence (2005),9.0,"""You should ask Tom... Why is he so good at killing people? "" - Carl Fogarty",30 September 2005,0,"I've heard nothing but positive things from film critics about off-the-wall indie filmmaker David Croenenberg's new film 'A History of Violence'. Going into the theater showing this I expected it to be an excellent movie. Coming out of the film, I have to say I wasn't let down in the slightest. 'A History of Violence' is a work of masterful crafting that has deep and very intelligent elements to it. Croenenberg is a talented filmmaker who makes very good films, and 'A History of Violence' is his very best thus far. Expect this not to be forgotten when it comes time to be Oscar season.The story takes place in a small-town in the Midwest, Indiana to be exact. It follows the local diner owner, Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen - Lord of the Rings) who has the seemingly perfect family; a beautiful but spunky wife, Edie (Maria Bello - Assault on Precinct 13), a bright and passive 16-year-old son, Jack (Ashton Holmes) and a sweet little seven or eight-year-old daughter Sarah (Heidi Hayes). Tom's life is pretty average, until one night he has unexpected customers in his diners -- a duo of malicious and ruthless serial killers who attempt to rob and murder Tom and his employees. In an act of desperation, Tom fends off the eager villains murdering them both and the media and town hails him as a hero. Tom's life is turned upside down by this, but it really starts to get sour when a band of Irish mobsters from Philly led by the creepy dead-eyed Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris - Pollock) start to harass Tom and his family claiming that Tom is really a run-away mobster by the name of Joey Cusack. Fogarty and his gang keep harassing Tom and his loved ones, and Tom's family as well as the audience is left to decide if Fogarty has the wrong man by some unbelievably unlucky turn of events or if Tom is really this brutal ex-con Fogarty claims him to be. I will not tell you what it ends up being, but I can tell you the film gets incredibly tense and suspenseful after this point. William Hurt co-stars in a ten-minute role as the head mobster that is after Tom.'A History of Violence' isn't an extravagant motion picture and it doesn't break ground, but it is very carefully put together and the performances from every actor involved are nothing short of bone-chilling. Viggo Mortensen, in his finest role so far, gives an undeniably powerful and multi-layered performance as Tom Stall or Joey Cusack (which ever you believe), while Maria Bello (also in her finest performance) is utterly sublime as Tom's caring yet wild wife. Ashton Holmes gives an electrifying performance as Tom's troubled son, but the two best performances of the film come from the two veteran actors Ed Harris and William Hurt. Harris is so repugnant and terrifyingly convincing in his role as the cold-blooded Fogarty that his screen presence will give you goose-bumps, while Hurt is so superlative and unmatched in his part he proves that even a ten-minute role in a ninety-minute film can be the stand-out element of the entire motion picture. Croenenberg does a pitch-perfect job directing, while the film editing and cinematography is top of the line. Josh Olson screenplay is powerful but has some pacing problems in the first twenty minutes (not including the stunning five-minute opener). All in all, I'd have to highly recommend 'A History of Violence'. Those who enjoy well-made films should appreciate this, but if you are weary of sex or violence you might want to sit this one out. While there is only about four scenes of violence in the film, those four scenes are all very brutal, disturbing and realistic and might upset weak-stomached movie-goers. There is a rather graphic mutual rape scene between Tom and his wife when she suspects him of really being the stone-cold gangster Joey Cusack, that will upset more uptight or older viewers. I recommend this film only if you can handle the disconcerting realism and emotional power the film forces down your throat. One of the Best Films of the Year so far. Grade: A- (screened at AMC Desert Ridge 18, Scottsdale, Arizona, 9/30/05)my ratings guide - A+ (absolutley flawless); A (a masterpiece, near-perfect); A- (excellent); B+ (great); B (very good); B- (good); C+ (a mixed bag); C (average); C- (disappointing); D+ (bad); D (very bad); D- (absolutley horrendous); F (not one redeeming quality in this hunk of Hollywood feces).","['3', '7']" +195,rw1187338,SeriousCarl,A History of Violence (2005),7.0,"Gratuitous violence and full frontal nudity, what more could you ask for?",5 October 2005,0,"If you go to this movie expecting a really great flick, you will be disappointed, but if you want see some gratuitous violence and a little bit of full frontal nudity, this is the movie for you.Although the plot is a little unbelievable, the movie isn't bad, and the flaws in the plot certainly aren't a show stopper.The action scenes are pretty cool and gory. This guy is like is pretty hard core, and it is great to see that one hit just isn't enough in some situations.The acting is believable, but a little unnatural from time to time. The dialogue could use a little work, but it does progress the script and so it fill its requirement.It is a graphic, dirty flick with no stings attached, and overall, I would recommend it.","['5', '9']" +196,rw1183893,terrors89,A History of Violence (2005),6.0,It's not bad.,1 October 2005,0,"***Contains Spoilers*** Sometimes movies can have a hot actress who gets naked, a good actor who is quite studly, and a bad guy who is cool in that mean sort of way, and still be crappy because of bad writing and/or story. This movie fits this description to a T.Viggo Mortensen (Lord of the Rings Trilogy) stars as every bodies All-American next door neighbor Tom Stall, who has a beautiful wife Edie, played by Maria Bello (Assault on Precinct 13,) and two great kids. He runs the neighborhood diner and everything is great until two hoodlums show up and try to kill Tom and the rest of the staff. However, with some quick thinking and brutal violence, Tom kills both of the men. Tom becomes a national hero with his name in the paper and face on TV, which happens to bring 3 men from Philadelphia, one of which is Carl Fogarty, played by Ed Harris (Apollo 13,) who claim to know Tom by another name, Joey, and what to take him back to Philadelphia, to settle some unfinished business.The cast was very strong. I enjoyed Viggo's portrayal of the anti-hero that his character became. He also did a good job in the beginning of the movie showing glimpses of Joey, while being Tom, and at the end of the movie when the rolls were reversed. Maria Bello was also quite nice as the small town wife who was an angel during the day and a sex puppet at night. She has created one of the top ten sexiest scenes in movie history by coming out of the bathroom in a cheerleader outfit, portraying a ""sweet, innocent"" girl who is very naughty as she rubs her skirt and revealing her very white, pure panties. Very Sexy! She also did a nice job acting, a role that reminded me of her performance in the movie Payback.Ed Harris was quite intriguing as the mob boss Carl Fogarty. His performance was just menacing enough to provide some real thrilling moments, particularly the scene at the mall that could have been over the top but Harris kept it right on. Giving his character a physical deformity was a nice touch that was one of the few decisions the writer or director made.Earlier, I mentioned how Maria Bello's performance was similar to the one in Payback, which also starred Mel Gibson. The entire movie actually reminded me of the same movie, mostly because of the good guy image each leading actor had, and turning it around to play the bad guy. However, the stark difference between the two movies is that in Payback there was a rise in tension from beginning until the climatic final scene. In A History of Violence, the tension is jump started in the beginning scene when we are introduced to the two hoodlums, then we are allowed a reprieve while we get to no the Tom Stall character, and the tension is re-introduced with reappearance of the hoodlums. However, from this point on the tension never rises or falls, which is both good and bad. Screenwriter Josh Olson adapted the story from the graphic novel written by Josh Wagner and Vince Locke. The story is the week point and I don't know who to blame. My biggest problem is that, to me, there was no climatic scene. At no point did I feel the tension rise as Tom/Joey confronted his nemesis. The tension was steady, which was nice because there were scenes that involved Tom's son in a fight at school that really had nothing to do with the main story. But when Tom/Joey final confronts the men, instead of a long shootout or some decent action, it was a quick, bang, bang, bang, bad guys dead. Which is probably what would happens in real life, at least the quickness of the fight, but totally not exhilarating nor something I want to see at the movies, If I want reality, I will watch the news. I wanted to be on the edge of my seat and I wasn't.The there is the ending. After Tom confronts the bad guy and tells Edie who he really is, he gets a call from his brother and is forced to go back to Philadelphia and confront him. His brother, Richie, played horribly by William Hurt (The Village,) is a mobster who was screwed over by his younger brother when Joey was still with the mob, I think. It is never really explained. Anyway, the tension is still maintained because I was expecting a huge shoot out or something, of course this was before I new who was his brother. Once Hurt stumbled onto the screen, you could have phoned the movie in. More bang, bang, bang, bad guys dead.I will say that the final scene redeemed itself if I read into the expression Maria Bello gave him when he came back from this rampage. If, the look meant the opposite of what they talked about in the first part of the movie, then it was a perfect ending, if it meant the same, then I am even more upset. It is hard to talk about without completely giving it away, which I have already done so much I don't want to do anymore.I also have to say the sex scene in the hallway doesn't make sense to me and if someone will explain it to me I will appreciate it.Overall, I like this movie, but for the actors and not for the story. It will find its way into my video collection but probably at a discounted price, if for nothing else to have a Maria Bello full frontal nudity shot in the collection. ***This review and others can be read at www.bbmc.dockratent.com***","['1', '4']" +197,rw1186170,stellagraham50,A History of Violence (2005),1.0,Very disappointing,4 October 2005,0,"I have always trusted IMDb with ratings and when I saw this film managed 8.0/10, I expected it to be brilliant. It isn't, it's very slow and I was embarrassed when all my friends asked why on earth I'd made them sit through it. It's a complete let down. There's some pointless and graphic love scenes, far too many long pauses and not enough action. I was fighting to stay awake towards the end. Nothing really interesting happens, it's predictable and not entertaining. Wish I'd opted for Four Brothers instead last night, that scored 6.9/10. I think it had the potential to be good, but it really does drag. They could have explored more into the character's past, or added a few other characters from the past for interest, but they didn't. This film could have been over in half an hour. The long pauses drag it out.","['9', '20']" +198,rw1186810,stratowing,A History of Violence (2005),5.0,shocking sex = LESS $$,4 October 2005,1,"OK film but sex scene was needless, negative, and bizarre actually. Acting was great, but poor decisions on the tasteless sex. I don't have anything more to say about this film but I have to continue to type because for some bizarre reason, I'm not allowed to make a simple 2 or 3 line comment. IMDb demands at least 10 lines, so now I'm trying to fill space so my comment will be accepted. So I think I'm getting close to line 10 now -- therefore after this sentence I'll stop typing. Oops...still didn't take, so I'll now type 1 more line of ridiculous text to meet the all-important 10-line minimum. Please change your policy, IMDb.","['3', '7']" +199,rw1184117,LThomas72,A History of Violence (2005),8.0,"Man, Viggo Mortensen is hot...",1 October 2005,1,"So it's a Cronenburg film that feels like De Palma and, in the same way that Mr Lynch shucked off his trademark noir-weirdness and made his best movie ever, with 'A History of Violence' Cronenburg may well have made his own 'The Straight Story'. It's a poignant, thoughtful, honest portrayal of a family going through hell, made all the more emotive because - with just a few carefully drawn scenes - Cronenburg actually makes you care for them. At times the relationship between Tom (Mortensen) and wife Evie (Bello) is even close to cliché; that they're still so passionately in love even after 16 years or so of marriage is well...kind of implausible, but the dialogue between them is so emotive and simply written that you buy it. You buy it all. They have a delicious little girl, a sensitive, smart teenage son (Ashton Holmes) who's being bullied by the school jerk because of it, they have friends, a community who give a toss about each other, they even pick up litter on the streets of their own town. They're living the dream. Then one day, two guys try to hold up Tom's Diner, and the dream falls apart.Without even breaking a sweat, Tom kills the two guys in cold blood, quickly, ruthlessly and - it seems - without a moment's pause for thought. He's an American hero, his picture on every newscast on every channel and suddenly it all starts to unravel. Men arrive in town who say that he's someone else - a legendarily psychotic young mobster called Joey Cusack - and, when he denies it, only seem to become more determined to prove they're right. Suddenly Tom's idyllic small-town existence is shattered and, with only the elderly sheriff as protection from real-life mobsters, his family's lives are suddenly under threat. Which would be terrifying, if everything they believed about him wasn't true.This is a great film, because it's simple and because Cronenburg - better than most directors I think - understands what scares us. I can't go to a gynaecologist since I saw 'Dead Ringers' and I still can't look at oxygen masks in the same way since 'Blue Velvet', and I know that, when I have a family of my own, I will be terrified of anything that will threaten them. That Tom (Joey) is able to defend his family and protect his home from his ugly past is made all the more poignant because, in the closing moments of the movie, you understand that he hasn't. He's lost his family and his perfect life forever because of who he was and who - it seems - he still is. If there's a hidden tag-line to this movie, I'm guessing it's 'you can run from your past, but you can't hide', but maybe that's simplifying it a little. It may be a visceral film, but it has all Cronenburg's trademark complex subtext. It's both brutal and subtle in the same way as Mortensen's acting - the way he flips between the lovable, aw-shucks Tom Stall and the razor-edged Joey is really astounding. A great thriller with a fantastic climax.","['3', '6']" +200,rw1234924,kongknald,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Oh yes...finally,10 December 2005,0,"Having always loved the batman comics, but found the newer Batman films close to ridiculous, I started watching ""Batman Begins"" at 1 o'clock the night before I had to get up 5:30 to help a friend move. I thought I could always just break it off when I have had enough. BIG MISTAKE! 241 exhilarating minutes flew by, and I thought ""VOUW...damn that was a good movie"". All characters are perfectly casted, and the movie succeeds in exactly the same way as ""Lord of the rings"" or ""Harry Potter"" do. It makes you forget that it's all fantasy. It sucks you into the world of Batman and Gotham city, leaving the real world behind for 241 minutes straight! I read a comment where a bright-head stated that if all water was evaporated, then the fluids of the human body would be as well! I can only say ""geee....you really got brains....we really didn't know that....but stay away from movies like this then"". The point of Batman is not create a real world scenario, actually the complete opposite. You should rather start picking on something like Lord of War, which tries to give the impression of delivering facts from the ""real"" world. Well back to Batman Begins....I also really fancy the darkness of this movie, which have been missing in all the earlier Batman movies. The movie brings about the complete story of Batman from childhood to the becoming of Batman in a very well balanced manner and leaves with...Batman. It is done to perfection....the DC Comics guys must be proud!","['1', '1']" +201,rw1132463,wakko-14,Batman Begins (2005),5.0,Could have been better,22 July 2005,0,"The movie was kinda interesting. How Bruce Wayne became Batman and how the costume, car, and cave come together. Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, and Morgan Freeman were all great. The darker feel to Batman seems to work much better than the previous comedic ones.What I didn't like was the rest of the movie. I think Christian Bale talks kinda funny. Somehow he doesn't look like Bruce Wayne to me. But then again I actually like Michael Keaton as Batman. Snd they can't pick a better actress than Katie Holmes to play Rachel? And what's the deal with ""The Tumbler?"" Why the hell does he have to slide into the car to shoot missiles? You are telling me Lucius Fox created all these cool stuff but he couldn't figure out how to shoot missiles sitting up right in the car? Scarecrow was just silly. They should just make him a regular character and not have to put on that stupid hood. Oh and I also didn't like how they kinda change some of the background info that the first Batman laid down. Like how the Joker was the one that killed Bruce Wayne's parents.That's all I have to say about this Batman. Overall I think the first Batman with Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson was the best.","['1', '4']" +202,rw1133360,thelaborguy,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,A superhero movie with chutzpa!,23 July 2005,0,"I try to avoid superhero movies because they are usually formulaic garbage, but not this one. The casting was superb, the story was superb, the sets were spectacular as were the special effects. Christian Bale as Batman was charismatic and realistic for a fictional character. Dare I say Oscar? The Movie is necessarily violent but not overdone. This is dark adult fun. It is also about overcoming fear and knowing the difference between revenge and justice. This is a smart movie with a man in a superhero costume. You know a movie is good when you leave the theater and you want to become the protagonist! Quick to the batcave!","['1', '2']" +203,rw1223991,lil_acting_guy,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Batman Begins,24 November 2005,0,"Batman Begins. An incredible movie that I enjoyed very much. In this movie we see everything that has previously been ignored. Such as, his training to become Batman (although indirect), we get another look at his death, and we get to see what his first major conflict was. One thing that highly impressed me, were the villains in this movie. They were characters that could actually happen. In this sense I mean everything in this movie, thought highly Hollywood, were very real things. The events in this movie could occur in an everyday situation. Well, almost everyday. One thing I didn't like thought was the way Batman was kind of a monster in this movie. I mean yeah he saved the day, and got the girl, but still he was almost terrifying at some points. Also, when you watch this movie you have to pay very close attention or you'll miss things. Overall I give this movie a 9 out of 10.","['0', '0']" +204,rw1143172,EijnarAmadeus,Batman Begins (2005),7.0,The best Batman movie of them all,5 August 2005,1,"Tim Burton made Batman look a bit childish in Michael Keaton's figure, and were always beaten by his great villains in both Batman (1989) and the fabulous sequel. But then suddenly Joel Schumacher decided to trash and destroy everything that was cool, stylish and fascinating about the knight of night. So he made Val Kilmer do Batman and topped it all in 1997 by making the horrifyingly bad Batman & Robin that included a terrible Arnie as the main bad-guy.Christopher Nolan, the man behind MEMENTO and INSOMNIA decided making a whole new start to the famous story of one of the most beloved superheroes of all time. BATMAN BEGINS offers a totally new and inspiring gem into the whole Gotham setting. And Nolan ends of his trilogy of psychological settings here; were MEMENTO were lead by memory loss, INSOMNIA followed up with a sleepless Pacino and here he tops it with phobia and fear. And casting Christian Bale as Batman was surely a good move, the former Patrick Bateman looks as his on the edge of breaking all the time, making him intense and pretty scary in his look and atmosphere.We meet down-and-out billionaire Bruce Wayne that's being held in a prison in China. Being a pretty aggressive person he joins the League Of Shadows up in a Himalaya monastery were he's thought totally new skills, but he refuses their methods and returns to his home town Gotham. After his troubled childhood he still suffers from phobia, returning to get rid of the criminality that killed his parents, he dresses in black as Batman and teams up with the only fair people in the city...And Gotham looks better than ever. Not being that peculiar and interesting as Burton's Germanish inspired dark-goth, and not as pathetic and cyber as Schumacher's new wave punk - it looks fashionable but under the surface it suffers from crime and gangsters, violence and cheating. The underworld AND over-world worth remarking, is lead by corrupt cops and laws, mafia bosses that doesn't press charges but shoots you (Tom Wilkinson) and a creepy Scarecrow doing the dirty jobs as a pleasure. In here Batman takes his loop as the dark knight he is and gets allied with off course his best friend, butler Alfred ( played wonderfully by old-English Michael Caine), the policeman (Gary Oldman), Wayne Enterprises R&D man (Morgan Freeman, perfect choice!) and uses his childhood sweetheart (Katie Holmes) just as much as an informant on the law-side as a love interest.And Batman looks better than ever; his dark voice and aggressive attacks leaves old man Keaton and Schumacher's choices as pathetic baby bats. So, flying like a bat and stinging like a bee, Batman's back for business. Filled with great actor performances, amazing action, great CGI, fine dialog and absolutely great settings; Batman Begins is the best Batman movie so far. And one more thing; the Batmobile rocks! Or is it a car or a tanks?","['4', '5']" +205,rw1206621,michael-strife,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Batman back with A Vengeance,1 November 2005,0,"I got a chance to see 'Batman Begins' just this past Friday evening. I must say that before seeing the film, I felt in my heart this is the 'Batman' film we've been waiting for. Within ten minutes into the movie, I turned to my date and said to her, ""This is it! This is the movie!"" I just can't believe that after all these years, Warner Bros. finally got it right. For me the most intriguing part of the film, apart from the great script, and great acting, was Christopher Nolan's decision to base the film in reality. Deciding that Batman could really exist in our universe and our world was a stroke of genius. Another aspect of the film that's so refreshing is that instead of the focus being on the villain, Batman is the film's star. And rightly so. It's amazing what can happen when a studio leaves a respected director, and the creative team alone, and allow them to make the best movie possible. The only two negatives that I can think of is Katie Holmes and the fight sequences. Holmes does indeed look like a teenager playing grown-up. Her performance isn't bad per SE, it's just that you really don't buy her as an Assistant D.A. As for the fight sequences, I felt the cameras angles were too tight on the action, edited too quickly, and lit too dark so that you really couldn't tell what was going on and determine who was hitting who. Maybe we can attribute this to the fact that Nolan is not an action director. Hopefully the next film will open up the fight sequences so we can actually see Batman use the martial arts skills he developed during his exile. But apart from those relatively minor quibbles, the film is excellent, and I'm definitely going back on opening day June 15th, and seeing it a second time. A third and fourth viewing is definitely not out of the question.","['0', '0']" +206,rw1139619,GreySphinx,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Our prayers have been answered!,31 July 2005,0,"THANK YOU, thank you, thank you! This is the Batman I've been waiting over a decade for. Batman is back to being dark, but most importantly, Batman is back to being PLAUSIBLE! What made Batman a unique superhero to begin with was that there was no need for aliens, super powers, magic potions, cosmic radiation, whatever. Batman as a concept is easily the easiest to swallow out of all the major superheroes. Here was a guy who could actually live in our world and needed only great wealth and a dedication to his cause to make the hero a reality.It was that plausibility that I felt was the most precious thing that a Batman film had to maintain. And especially since Batman Forever, the films have been pissing all over it, culminating in that crap fiesta Batman & Robin.I for one didn't care if some of the Batman mythology details had to be changed, as long as it seemed believable. Nolan seemed to agree. We can finally swallow the Batsuit, Batmobile, Batcave, Batman's martial arts, Batgadgets, and Gotham City. The previous films shamelessly used Alfred to explain every unlikely thing, much in the same way religious people use God.""Batman has a brand-new Batmobile! How? Alfred's a damn good mechanic! Batgirl wants to fight alongside Batman right this second but she has no form-fitting suit! That's OK, Alfred took the liberty! Alfred makes all the suits, cars, gadgets, and singlehandedly built the Batcave."" Bull%$#@. Schumacher ran Batman into the ground, hopelessly mucking up the story. Nolan refused to pay for Schmucker's mistake and started with a blank slate. Good choice. Though truth be told, it was the only choice.So now we FINALLY get the story on how Batman and his world came to be. And not only does that bring in the credibility, but it also puts the focus back on Batman!! Batman's been upstaged by the villain in all 4 previous films... and it's not that the bad guys this time around are somehow lamer, it's just that every previous movie has dealt with how and why THEY came to be instead of how BATMAN came to be. THEY were the ones undergoing the character arc while Batman was pretty much the good boy scout and the same character throughout all the movies.Anyway, I could go on and on. But stop reading this, go watch the movie. Kudos, kudos, kudos.","['0', '0']" +207,rw1148360,meger_7,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,A beginning like no other,12 August 2005,0,"It's been 16 years since the world was introduced to BATMAN on the big screen and oh, how we cherished that film and the sequel that came after it. I say sequel, because the ""other"" two films that came after BATMAN RETURNS were a disgrace to the comic book franchise. The truth is, it's been almost 9 years since George Clooney graced us as the caped hero and that was just about long enough for me to forget about how stupid and cheesy it and it's predecessor really were. Luckily for us though, time heals, so by the time the idea for BATMAN BEGINS was released to the public, I think we were all ready for something new and exciting. And I must say we got what we wanted, plus 100 times more in what many critics, including myself, are dubbing the best BATMAN flick yet.With a cast like the one in BATMAN BEGINS, it's hard to single out just one actor. Even before seeing this film, I felt like no other actor would match Michael Keaton's performances in the first two BATMAN flicks, but Christian Bale did, plus some. And Bale (AMERICAN PSYCHO, EQUILIBRIUM, THE MACHINIST) wasn't just good, he was convincing, yet raw, which played nicely to the story going on. Bale brought all the anger into the role that was needed and just ran with it. But, that wasn't all. He was great without the cape too, cracking jokes and pulling off that playboy charm we all love in the Bruce Wayne character.Playing opposite Bale was such screen legends as Michael Caine, playing Alfred Pennyworth, Morgan Freeman, playing the tech-savy Lucius Fox and of course Liam Neeson, who was excellent as Ducard. But, at no point did any of these screen legends overpower Bale, which was needed to keep the focus on his character. Not even Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow, who was brilliant, overpowered Bale's Batman. And in reality, there probably could have been more Scarecrow/Batman exchanges, but who knows, maybe there will be in the next film. Filling out the rest of the powerful cast was Katie Holmes, who was good in her small role as assistant D.A. Rachel Dawes and Gary Oldman, who played a very convincing Jim Gordon, the last good cop left in Gotham.The one thing that is almost undeniable in BATMAN BEGINS is the amount of detail that was put into it. I can't think of anything that was missed or didn't flow with the rest of the story. That says something about director Christopher Nolan's (MEMENTO) work ethic, who is really a rookie director. It's clear he worked hard with screenwriter David S. Goyer (BLADE trilogy) on making sure he gathered all the right information on the cast of characters included in his film. Detail like that and the detail surrounding Batman himself was enough to ignite this film into something bigger than itself.I think the one aspect that defined this film was how well the story was molded into the action and special effects, something George Lucas obviously forgot to do with STAR WARS: EPISODE III – REVENGE OF THE SITH. Nolan did wonders with Goyer's story and made sure the effects around the story were not overdone, a key to films like this. The one aspect of the action that caught me by surprise though was Nolan's camera work with the fight sequences of Batman. Instead of just having a big open fight sequence, Nolan chose to use Batman's undeniable scare tactics on his victims as the biggest weapon, almost like an element of surprise. And you know, some critics say this film could have been better visually, but I disagree. I think the balance between the story and the special effects was perfect, right down to some of what I call the ""money shots"" of Batman flying or standing atop a building.With two films to go, BATMAN BEGINS was the ideal start to refuel this once famed franchise. With a script that couldn't have been better, director Christopher Nolan earned his worth in Hollywood by producing one of the best adaptations of a graphic novel in recent memory. If you didn't know who Christian Bale was before this film, you certainly will after it, in a movie that almost makes you forget about any previous BATMAN flicks, which is a feat like no other if you ask me.A+","['0', '1']" +208,rw1226379,dals-2,Batman Begins (2005),6.0,"Good, but just not good enough",24 November 2005,1,"Christopher Nolan. A good, ex-indie director. Christian Bale. Besides Johnny Depp (and maybe Leo DiCaprio), possibly one of the best actors of the newer generation (The Machinist, USA Psycho anyone!?!). Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Rade Serbedzija( plays the bum, I'm a local patriotist, what can I say), Liam Neeson. A whole lot of outstanding actors. Katie Holmes. Hmmmm... Don't know whose idea THAT was... I have only seen the film once, in a lousy, sub-standard cinema so my opinion might not do much justice to BB, but...The overall directing and photography is way above average, Bale and Caine are more than adequate to their roles, the Scarecrow has definite potential...So, what's wrong with this movie? Screenplay. I mean,either Goyer had a frontal lobotomy prior to writing this awful scenario, or he just isn't the man for the job. Austin Powers is a Shakespearian playwright in comparison. Furthermore,Lian Neeson is reduced to a ""No Mr Bond, I expect you to die"" kind of villain, and looks like he and Goyer went on a group lobotomy course. Guess there was a discount or sth. Katie Holmes? I stand before you, speechless. This is NOT to be taken in a good way.And last, but not least, what happened to the Batman theme intro? I understand Nolan's tendency to completely re-invent the series on celluloid, but leaving out Danny Elfman was a grave mistake. I hope they'll rectify it in the next Dark Knight. And put the Joker in it (as hinted in the end), and make lil' Katie die a most gruesome death, and evolve Scarecrow (know I'm boooring, but he has potential),and get Goyer a fresh brain (the one he has is,well, used, chewed and spat up). Rushing into things, aren't I? What to say at the end?All in all, I found BB to be a refreshment to the series. Sure, it's full of flaws (Nolan is not to blame, Warner is), but which Hollywood film of recent production isn't? Sure, the screenplay is a half-witted ""look daddy,I know all 20 letters of the alphabet"" piece of brain-bleach ( I'm referring to the dialogues, not the whole thing), but it's still better than the Billy? Rachel? crescendo in The Ring 2.Nonetheless, when you watch and perceive Batman Begins as a whole, you just might take a sincere liking to it. At the end, it's Batman! *No latex nipples included","['0', '0']" +209,rw1147247,J_Charles,Batman Begins (2005),,not as good or bad as people rave/rant,10 August 2005,1,"This movie has been commented on over 1600 times. I'll try to add something different to this. Good: darker theme, more realistic superhero intriguing and deep philosophical struggle of revenge against evil and at what cost to extract that revenge. BatMobile becomes Humvee mobile. Michael Caine as the butler, great performance Gary Oldman as Constable Gordon, even better performance. Almost unrecognizable. ice fight sceneBad: all the other fight scenes are so close up that you get a feel that you're in the action which is kinda neat. But to do that for every single fight except for the ice scene is a bit repetitive. With all that action choreography we'd like to step back to see who's getting hit, by whom, and how. Not just a flurry of fists. The first time was neat but please, don't repeat the same tricks over and over and over again. Katie Holmes. Ugh. Tacked on romance felt really out of place here. And her acting is obviously weak here.Liam Neeson. Not much emoting here, even when his back story should have allowed him to show more bitterness or rage or anger. He makes it come off as aloof and even bored. with such a serious and dark tone, it's actually hard to empathize with the main character and I didn't find myself rooting for Batman as much as I was rooting for Peter Parker in Spiderman or rooting for Wolverine in X-Men. Batman is portrayed as a real human being here, but he is so sterile and bland that it makes it hard to identify with him.overall, maybe 7 out of 10 definitely does not belong in the top 250 of all time but it IS a good movie nonetheless and definitely worth seeing on the big screen. Don't wait till the DVD comes out. You'll never make heads or tails of the fights on the small screen.","['0', '1']" +210,rw1207234,georgevader,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,The view according to www.georgevader.co.uk,2 November 2005,0,"Fantastic Four and Batman Begins are both movies about super-hero's and were both released this year, that is were the similarities end.For me, Batman Begins is even better than Spiderman, that's how far the bar has been raised by Director Philip Nolan (Mamento). Christian Bale is Batman/Bruce Wayne the tortured billionaire, Michael Caine IS Alfred,then you add a stellar 'supporting' cast of Gary Oldman, Katie Holmes, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, Ritger Hauer and Cilllian Murphy, an adsorbing intelligent story, wonderful sets, and a few crash bang moments and you have a bona-fide classic super-hero flick for the noughties.If this is to be the first of a Nolan directed franchise then his locking horns with The Joker will be one hell of a ride.9/10","['1', '1']" +211,rw1131091,gudeshis,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,The best movie of the year,20 July 2005,0,"This is probably the best movie of the year without any doubts. It is a complete movie and keeps you engrossed throughout the movie. It has a very good story line, very good special effects, good editing. The only thing this movie lacked was a good sound, as sometimes the sound was very feeble when the actors are talking.Unlike War of the Worlds which had all the hype and no substance, this movie has all the substance. Wish they built the hype like War of the Worlds, then they would have got much better audience turnaround for the movie which it fully deserved. The acting is very good. The portrayal of the character 'Scarecrow' is very good, I just hope there was more of his character in the movie. But overall: A marvellous movie....Movie of the year !!!","['1', '3']" +212,rw1169945,another_fan,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Amazing! Batman!,11 September 2005,0,"The first time I saw a trailer for this movie I though it will be a big hit. The critics said it is a big hit. And after watching the movie, I guess I was right. You take a good story, amazing director, mix it with the great and talented actors and what you get is the movie people will be talking about for a while. Christian Bale shines as he changes the traditional Batman character into something completely new. Let's not forget Morgan Freeman who is interesting as always. This movie leaves us guessing and wanting more. I have to say the audience, including myself, will be looking forward the next chapter of Batman movies. (That is if there will be another Batman movie made.) This movie is definitely Oscar-worthy.","['0', '1']" +213,rw1142795,sol-,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,My brief review of the film,4 August 2005,0,"A well made action film, especially of its sort, it constantly tackles below surface ideas, such as justice, fighting crime, fears and corruption, while at the same time the film offers exciting action on the surface. The visual effects are very effective, and the overall visual style suits the project very well. Cillian Murphy is worth noting for an intriguing performance, even if the rest of the cast members only act adequately. The film is somewhat slow to build up, focusing on some of the story elements for too long, but once the film gets going, it is superb. There are certain imperfections that one generally accepts in these types of movie blockbusters. Yes, the on screen romance is dull, but at least here it is not a useless subplot. Yes, some of the characters are inserted just for laughs, and not to add anything to the story. Yes, even some of the necessary characters have pointless moments of comic relief. Yes, the special effects tend to go over-the-top here and there. However, do all these points really matter? If you are expecting a flawless masterpiece then they do, and you will not find such a film here. But, if you just want to see an action film that is a cut above the rest, this is a great example: a film that is engaging both below as well as above the surface.","['5', '7']" +214,rw1169365,gavin6942,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Batman Begins Again - This Time With a Vengeance,10 September 2005,0,"Anything I say about this film will sell it short. I was originally skeptical when I saw the Urban Assault Vehicle in the trailer, but my fears were calmed when I saw it in context. Everything about this film is perfect - the acting, the directing, the mood, the plot, and all else. It is rare to see such intricate storytelling mixed with bone-shattering intensity in the action department. And fans of the comic will not be disappointed with this apt translation.I hope Chris Nolan directs all future Bat-movies, because his lighting and architectural canvasing was so perfect, it outdid Tim Burton's interpretation (which I previously thought impossible). As of this review, IMDb has rated the movie #117 of all time, and I agree completely. This film has universal appeal. Christian Bale is perfect as Bruce Wayne, Katie Holmes actually acts for once in her career, Liam Neeson is the quintessential villain. Other stars shine brightly. I can only hope that Crispin Glover becomes the Joker in the sequel. Highest possible recommendation...","['1', '2']" +215,rw1218322,jimakros,Batman Begins (2005),,too few good scenes,17 November 2005,0,"Well, contrary to popular opinion i didn't like this movie.There are some good scenes in it,like the car chase but its too little and most of the movie doesn't even look like a Batman movie.All 45 min that we follow Bruce Wayne in the Far East looks more like a ninja movie.Its just too much.I didn't care about it at all.When Bruce becomes Batman things get a little better but the action scenes are so badly directed that you can barely see whats happening.I cant remember a single fight. Supposedly Batman hits so fast that you don't even see him.But this is not entertaining.The bad guys are terrible.All of them.Neeson is not made for such parts.He just looked like Neeson and not anything like a Batman villain.The other two guys cant be any competition for Batman.The only thing i liked was Michael Caine who gave some class to his role and makes it believable that this guy brings up the future Batman.","['1', '9']" +216,rw1134024,mjb5406,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Fantastiic Prequel...,24 July 2005,0,"Well, maybe not so much a prequel as it is ""the way things should have been"". While most fans of the ""Bat-Man"" (as the original comic was titled) know about how his parents were killed, this film finally shows how Bruce Wayne evolved into the Caped Crusader, complete with his own version of ""Q"" (I always wondered if he created his gadgets himself; now we know that they came from Lucius Fox). Casting was excellent; Michael Caine as Alfred was inspired, and he plays the part both with charismatic charm and with a deep empathy for Bruce Wayne and his demons. I didn't check out the cast list fully before seeing the movie, and I kept telling myself that the actor playing the young James Gordon looked really familiar... has Gary Oldman ever played a good guy before this? Hopefully they will continue to use him in the sequels (of course there will be those!) so we can see his eventual rise to police commissioner.It was great to see how human the man behind the mask is... that is something that Val Kilmer and George Clooney could not come across with (Michael Keaton did a better job of portraying Bruce Wayne as a tortured soul, but not was well as Bale did).And while I'm not a Bat addict, wasn't one of the villains named ""Scarecrow"" in the comic? Wonder if using that in this movie is an indication of things to come.","['2', '3']" +217,rw1207065,aquintano1979,Batman Begins (2005),5.0,Why did the story change???,1 November 2005,0,"I have been a Batman fan my whole life. I was shocked and utterly appalled at the fact that they totally changed the story of his parents' death. Why would they do that??? I don't know why, but sure would like to know. For me, it somewhat ruined the film along with the too tight fighting scenes that I couldn't even see what was going on.Another thing that was totally unbelievable was the Assistant D.A.. she looked like she was ten years old and I think they could have found someone a little older to portray such a character.I looked forward to this film and was rather disappointed. Frankly, I do not recommend this film to someone that has any clue about the history of Batman. To someone that does not know him, the movie should be fine.","['0', '3']" +218,rw1233097,klingic-1,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,The Beginning of Greatness,7 December 2005,0,"Up until now, the Batman series has attempted to translate the campiness of the pulp comic to the big screen. Although these films succeeded in enveloping us in the dark world of Gotham (with the exception of the abominable 'Batman and Robin'), we were always aware that what we were watching was fantasy. 'Batman Begins' manages to removes this awareness while at the same time preserving the relentless gloom of its predecessors. Gone are the days of chuckling at the Caped Crusader's adversaries for their exaggerated malice. We are now given villains that are genuinely wicked and devoid of humor. They are no longer caricatures that perpetrate evil for its own sake. Rather, they are motivated by an agenda that, while condemnable, is selfless and not entirely unjustifiable. This is not to say that the plot itself is realistic. As Roger Ebert pointed out, there is no possible way that it could be. But its characters ARE real and interact with their world in a very human way. If this is the shape of Batman to come, we have much to look forward to.","['1', '1']" +219,rw1136367,SevenStitches,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,Suprsingly Un-Comic Book Movie,27 July 2005,0,"After many years, the Dark Knight finally gets a descent movie to his name. This film is unlike any comic book movie i have ever seen, which in a way is why it's not as great as it should be. It's just too realistic. The classic Batman comic book feel of the past is gone, and what's left is just too familiar in terms of the way the world of the comic book is presented. I loved the fictitious look of the previous batman films, with looming skyscrapers full of quirky and ancient Greek like architecture, and the exaggerated cinematography that made this fantastical world stand out. Now the various locales like Gotham city and the Bat cave seem like places that you'd see every day, which you would, since Gotham is based on Chicago, and the bat cave is based on a real cave. Because of this, the film might have been about Batman, but it wasn't really a Batman like movie for me.Having said that however, this was a great film none the less and brings batman into the 21st century, and into the new range of more gritty and tasteful comic book films. Like i said, not like any other comic based movie i've ever seen, as it bases everything in reality, including Bruce Wayne's transition into the legendary vigilante. It tells the story of Bruce's past, his training to be able to combat crime and assert fear into those who prey on the fearful, and why he wants to do all of this in the first place. It even covers the reason for his bat identity, plus the origin of the gadgets, the car and why he needs them. Yep, for 2h:30min, you get a full tutorial into how to become a Batman, providing you have a fear in bats and have a traumatising childhood. This is the most thorough exploration into a comic book character ever, and you'll believe and understand all of it. Just as well, as Batman is the only super hero without super human powers, making the need for a realistic and down to earth tone more urgent. While other super hero films immediately settled into a familiar comic book tone due to the endowment of powers, Batman needs a lot more work to become something just as reasonable in terms of a man dressed up in a bat suit fighting crime, coz otherwise it just seems silly, the mistake the previous films fell subject to. Now we actually have a believable, functional and emotionally viable Batman that is easy to sympathise with and easy not to laugh at.On top of all that, ""Batman Begins"" still manages to fit a slew of villains to give Bruce a good warm up. There are three main ones, who all work together in the same dastardly plot and all of which are not given as much exposition as Batman, but are still believable in their actions and motivations. A good place to be in an origin story i think, since there will be plenty of time to juice up these guys in the sequels.And sequels i hope there will be. Above all else, this film's success is setting up the new batman franchise beautifully, spending this films exclusively explaining how ""Batman Begins"" essentially, and leaving the rest for later. Sure this film didn't have the familiar batman/comic book feel we expect, nor a single fully developed villain, but it sets up the foundations for all of that to appear in the proceeding films outstandingly, setting up the origins of such a crime ridden Gotham, so many psycho's prepared to take up an occupation in raving crime lord and more importantly, a bat suited vigilante. Ladies and Gentlemen, the Dark Knight is on his way back to the top, and this film knows it.","['0', '0']" +220,rw1132981,rickfairey13,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Batman is REAL!!!,23 July 2005,0,"Where is Gotham City? I only ask because this movie makes you feel as if you could actually go there, as if it actually exists somewhere. I liked Tim Burton's Batman, but Christopher Nolan's vision is so well paced and so real, that it is, in my humble opinion, the first REAL Batman movie. Christian Bale brings Batman to life with all of the emotion of a real person, I guess it takes a real actor to do so. The supporting cast is a group of actors with so much character that they could have had there own movies. Alfred is awesome. So many great movies stumble some during their running time, but this one did not miss a step. 10 out of 10. I wonder if Bruce Wayne would give me a loan?","['8', '11']" +221,rw1174124,cowboybe_bop,Batman Begins (2005),6.0,"Best Batman, Halfgood Bale",17 September 2005,1,"In my humble opinion, this is indeed the best Batman-movie so far. Its nice to watch, has a darker story than the others, and Christian Bale plays Batman. But the fact that he does is both good and bad, good because he is a very good actor, bad because i get the feeling he's not really interested in his character. I don't mean to say that the acting is bad, it's quite the opposite, but i still has this feeling that Chistian is better than this, i for one is more accustomed to him playing more emotional characters... Like in American Psycho, which is better than the book it's based on by the way...To make it short, the Batman-movies without Christian is b-flicks, and whit him, it's a decent piece of action, my favorite part is when he fights with a couple of prisoners in the beginning, but enoughs enough...","['0', '2']" +222,rw1140782,viveger350,Batman Begins (2005),6.0,"Good, but not even near ""Batman"" from 1989",2 August 2005,0,"This is good, but a little bit to slow. I prefer Batman in front of this. Sure Christian Bale is good, and it is amazing that he pulled it of to go up several pounds for the Batman - role. Chris Nolan has find the right mode for the film, and this is the best comic - book-film since Spiderman 2 and Hellboy. The city is not too dark, but not too bright either. Gary Oldman is perfect as Gordon, and Morgan Freeman is solid (as always) as Lucius Fox. In fact non of the actors are bad. They are almost as solid as in the first Batman. But still this one feels a little bit 2005 to be as much of a cult - classic that Batman 1989 is.","['0', '3']" +223,rw1205710,Nightshade0020,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Excellent,29 October 2005,1,"The movie was absolutely perfect. The actors were incredible. I had never heard of Christian Bale before this movie. But his performance was incredible. He is by far the ultimate Batman. But my highest commendment actorwise would go to Liam Neeson. Liam was absolutely perfect. When he played Ra's al Ghul, he was so different from playing Henri Ducard. He did not alter anything about himself, but one thing: His personality. Liam knows how to become the character he's playing. His performance was absolutely enthralling. The other performers were extraordinary as well. Katie Holmes, Morgan Freeman, and Gary Oldman. The best commendment of all would go to Christopher Nolan and David Goyer. Excellent plot formation. Now that I've bored you by having you read all of this; I think I'll end it by saying: Batman Begins has an extraordinary cast. I think Bob Kane would be proud. If you want to see a movie that lives up to the legend...well...look no further.","['0', '0']" +224,rw1202561,tricee1012000,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,"so will there be another batman movie, huh?",27 October 2005,0,"i saw the movie and i loved it. it kind of threw me off in the beginning, cause i wasn't expecting the jail and ninja training scene. when the guy killed Bruce's parents was another through off too, because i was waiting for him to say that phrase that he said in the batman movie starring Micheal Keaton : ""ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight"" (the man that played the joker was the one who killed his parents in that movie). i don't know why but i was kind of comparing both movies (the murder of parents scene) and saw a slight difference in the script. now my question is will there be another batman movie even though they played the joker card way sooner than i would expect them too even though (comparing to the other movie) the joker wasn't created until he fell in the acid which made his face funny like the way it was. i mean that is just my view of it. it may not mean much but that's what i was thinking when i saw the ending of the movie. i was hoping watch the commentary but there wasn't one. if there will be another batman movie what would it be called ?","['0', '0']" +225,rw1160008,feelinglistless,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,managed keep the spirit of everything which has gone before,28 August 2005,1,"Since the only comic book I've read in years is Whedon's X-Men I suppose I came to the film as a piece of cinema rather than an adaptation. There are probably hundreds of smaller references in here which I'd never understand and I've no idea what fans of the comics make of this (which perhaps puts me on the other side of the Hitchhiker's-style debate). What I saw though was an extra-ordinary piece of film making which managed keep the spirit of everything which has gone before, whilst keeping its own coherence.It's exciting that the studio would sanction another origin adventure so close to the Tim Burton film. I was never a fan of that -- too stylised for its own good lacking clear characterisation. What's surprising here is that rather than giving what the audience wants, two horns and a cape, we hardly see the dark knight until into the second hour. There is quite a complex flashback structure creating an underpinning of the psychological reasons why Bruce Wayne would want to hang around in caves with bats as friends, while at the same time subtly setting up some important plot information later in the film. If there's a slight problem with the train sequences they reminded me a bit too much of Highlander -- especially all the sword play. Also I defy anyone not to be waiting for Neeson to tell Bale to 'be mindful of the living force'.The development of the iconography of the bat are also handled incredibly well. In this explanation for the wonderful toys, its Bruce using largely existing hardware rather than items he's developed himself -- and also granted some of them are a bit fantastical -- it takes the point of view that its not about the tools, its how they're used, which is a step up from a magical utility belt which can do everything. Over and again, we are reminded that this is just a man -- a highly skilled, well trained man -- but flesh and blood nonetheless. He gets hurt, we see bruises. This adds an extra vulnerability. Unlike previous incarnations Batman isn't somehow a separate character apart from the billionaire playboy, its the conduit through which the playboy saves the world.It is a cameo-fest, a dream for any player of Six Degrees. There is a moment about half an hour into the film as all of the major characters are introduced and they're all played by names actors. It's real kitchen sink casting, an Ocean's Eleven for actors of a certain age, but there are some brilliant choices and it's great in particular to see Gary Oldman not playing the lunatic for a change. Michael Caine's Alfred is also a great creation. Katie Holmes just feels like a better more exciting love interest not just around to be saved but integral to the story. There was also something for the Nu-Who fan, with The Long Game's Christine 'Cathica' Adams playing a secretary. One day to go.What this proves is if you get a Chris Nolan to make a superhero film, you'll get the best example of the genre money can by. He'll take the character seriously, do experimental yet crowd pleasing things with him and make the audience want to see more. Up until now, I thought the cartoon series was the best imagining of the character I'd ever see. This is just as good if not better. Of all the comics adaptations this year I'd be very surprised if any of them are better than this.","['4', '6']" +226,rw1207933,Fordzilla,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Ace!,3 November 2005,0,"When I first heard a about this new batman movie I wasn't too sure about, I'm not really a batman fan but I have seen the past movies and I enjoyed all of them (apart from the 1997 batman film). A friend of mine saw this movie and said it was that good and before I watched this movie I played the game, the game was alright but could have been much much better and little clips I saw of the movie seemed to look good so when I heard it was coming out on DVD I wanted to see for myself what it was like. I waited a week to go to the video store rent and it was worth the wait. I thought the movie was fantastic, I enjoyed every part of this film and thought Christian Bale did a brilliant job of playing the dark knight. Brilliant film.","['3', '3']" +227,rw1198566,mrcoolbreeze,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Best Batman EVER!!! Great movie as a whole,21 October 2005,0,"This movie rocks. I always hated the comical, goofy approach that the previous Batman's had taken. The silliness belittled the character of Batman to a point of embarrassment. I am not a comic nerd or anything, but the character of Batman is and always has been best served ""black"". The darker the better, the more serious the better! This is done well is this rendition. I think the thing I like about it the most, the realism. Yeah it has unrealistic stunt scenes, but from the development of Bruce Wayne's character, to the wonderful toys...they make it seem believable that a Batman could exist. Isn't that the point of good theater, to make something so fantastic seem tangible? Even what they did with Bale is amazing. I must admit that Bale, would not have been my first pick, but I would have been wrong.He does the character and the story complete justice. Even if your not a comic fan, you shouldn't miss this treat!","['0', '1']" +228,rw1198334,thinker1691,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,The legend of the Dark Knight,21 October 2005,0,"When the brilliant writer Bob Kane first created the Dark Knight of Gothom City in the 1930s, I'm sure one of his after thoughts was to picture his Dark Avenger in a live action movie. The dream has become fact in ""Batman, the beginning."" After viewing it, my first impression is, WOW! The film is a great combination of humanistic philosophy, explosive action, menacing criminals, and an excellent script with talented actors. Crafted in the mind of originator Bob Kane, his Capped Crusader rises from the panels of DC Comics and explodes onto the big screen with all the force of a true classic. As Par for the course, director Christopher Nolan has conscripted the superb performing talents of Christian Bale, Liam Neeson, and Michael Caine as Alfred. All in all, I encourage all viewers to prepare themselves for a action crammed film of legendary characters,explosive scenes and cinematic history. ****","['1', '2']" +229,rw1252019,jts0405,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,The Best Batman Movie Ever,31 December 2005,0,"Christian Bale plays the best Batman in any of the movies yet. Bruce Wayne a man feared and afraid of bats. His final true resolution is to fight crime in a black suit and as that he gets a name from his victims, The Batman. This movie is action packed and loaded with drama and comedy Batman's character is shown more in this movie than in the others. In the other movies they show the story of the villain but in this they show more of Batman's story. This isn't taking from the other movies. I don't care what most of you say about how bad this is and what a terrible movie and could have been better. This movie is the best true Batman movie and this is a movie for the animal the bats","['3', '3']" +230,rw1132152,vanhalen1,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,It's a very good movie!!!,22 July 2005,1,"I liked the movie. They gave Bruce/Batman a lot more personality and story than the other Batman movies did. For once Batman was the main focus of the film, the other Batman movies seemed to be more about the villains than Batman.I loved the training of Bruce at the beginning of the film, and the way Batman talked with an angry voice different from Bruce. Alfred and Jim Gordon were awesome too, they acted like they do just like in the comics. They had a lot more personality in this, than they did in the other Batman movies.I liked how they showed what the people were seeing when they breathed in the Scarecrow's fear gas. Especially when they saw Batman. The way Batman glided through the air with his cape was great, and when he summoned all the bats.My complaints were I didn't like the fight scenes that much, you can't see what is going on most of the time! The Batmobile in the 1989 movie looks much cooler to me.I think there has been too many Batman movies in recent years for me to really get excited about a Batman movie again. Batman (1989) Blew me away more than this. I guess it is because it was the first movie that took Batman seriously. But Batman Begins is close to it.This movie made me forget about Batman and Robin.","['0', '1']" +231,rw1151618,Surecure,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Epic and Beautiful,16 August 2005,0,"Fans of comic books have been fortunate as of late to have realistic interpretations of their beloved medium put forth by Hollywood. Starting with the successes of Blade and X-Men, it was apparent to Hollywood that comic book movies did not have to be campy or child-like. This has helped to create some fantastic adaptations, including the massive success of the Spider-Man films. After last year, I was of the mind that things could not get better than Spider-Man 2. I felt that it was as perfect a comic-book adaptation as we were going to get.However, when it was announced that Christopher Nolan -- whose film Memento is easily one of my favorite films of the past decade -- had signed on to direct the next Batman film, I was intrigued. This intrigue was cemented into awe when David Goyer's script was accepted, Christian Bale was cast and a slew of impressive talent joined on, from Gary Oldman and Michael Caine to Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, Cillian Murphy, Tom Wilkinson, Ken Watanabe and Rutger Hauer. And as a film score fanatic, I was absolutely blown away that Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard chose to collaborate on the music.Upon seeing this film, I have to say that Spider-Man 2 does not even come close to the perfection that Batman Begins achieves. Batman Begins is an epic film on its own right, aside from its comic book origins. It is an action adventure that takes itself seriously from the first frame of film and does not fall into the realm of cliché and childish humor that so many others do.Furthermore, this is the first movie of the dark knight that actually featured suspense and fear. I had questioned the choice of Scarecrow as a villain. However, Nolan's direction and the fantastic performance by Cillian Murphy propel this villain to the forefront of all the Batman villains to date.Needless to say, any fan of comic books, action films and epic adventure will find nothing but the best of entertainment in this film. From a well crafted script, wonderful cinematography, fantastic set designs and excellent pacing, to refreshing performances and a unique approach to the subject matter, this is a film that will easily stand the test of time.","['1', '2']" +232,rw1131217,naberry44,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Bravo Batman,20 July 2005,0,"George Lucas no longer has the corner on movie prequels. As a matter of fact, he has some serious competition in Batman Begins. The nature of the prequel is unique in the movie world. Paramount to its success, the prequel must make sure that there are questions answered and none left unresolved. This Batman succeeds in these two areas where Lucas' Star Wars films fell short. Where Star Wars shies away from true character development and internal real ""relationships"", Batman Begins literally thrives on them. Where the Star Wars prequels ignore some very conspicuous paradoxes between the pre-produced sequels and the post-produced prequel, Batman Begins meticulously ensures that all loose ends make sense. Christopher Nolan crafts a darkish tale that thrives on rich, fertile, characters. Nolan may be the master of the ""brooding"" leading man, artfully utilizing Guy Pearce (Momento, 2000), Al Pacino (Insomnia, 2002) and now Christian Bale in roles that require the lead actor to project internal angst and personal battlegrounds to the very limits of their considerable acting abilities. It is evident that Nolan is a director who is ""tuned into"" the actor. This makes for top notch film-making and transforms an otherwise car chase/blow-me-up flick into an intelligent, moving, and often thought provoking film.When one surrounds an already gifted actor like Bale with the likes of movie veterans Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, and Liam Neeson, anyone with an appreciation of great movie acting absolutely has to be in a state of nirvana. Nolan effectively orchestrates relationships between his leading character and those surrounding him, and creates a satisfying mix of emotion and pure unadulterated human interaction that keeps the moviegoer wanting desperately to be a part of what ever comes next. In the center of the maelstrom, Bale makes us become a part of his dilemma. His ability to project his innermost thoughts and feelings give us the capacity to not only watch his transformation but to ""become"" a part of it. Bale takes the notion of ""becoming"" to an entire new level as we ""feel"" along with him all his wants, needs, and desires. The catalyst for his need to ""find"" himself is when he has every intention of murdering the murderer of his parents. His plan is thwarted by mobsters who accomplish the deed for him, but the fact that he could have been so close to being a cold blooded killer out for revenge and the added pressure of his deceased father's altruistic existence send him into a free fall that eventually leads to his resurrection as a super hero. When finished with his Far East ninja training, his decision as to whether to kill or grant mercy is the harbinger of his inner determination to protect the downtrodden in a way that transforms society rather than destroying it by the ostensible ""savior"" becoming a part of the problem.As his ninja mentor, Liam Neeson, as usual, is thoughtful and insightful, and is actually part of a plot twist that may surprise even the most stalwart of who-dun-it connoisseurs. Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, and Rutger Hauer also turn in solid performances in supporting roles. However, as usual, Michael Caine is incredibly good as the ever faithful mentor and family manservant Alfred. In another understated, but deeply moving performance, Caine provides an amazing characterization that within its own complexity lays the necessary foundation of why an orphaned and child-traumatized ""rich boy"" has the strength of character to become the defender of the lost. Caine just may be the greatest movie actor ever. Katie Holmes has a good turn as Bruce Ward's love interest and childhood sweetheart. It is a relatively undemanding role but she turns in an adequate performance that is definitely of the caliber of the well seasoned men in the cast. Along the lines of keeping up with the considerable talents of the others in the cast, mention must be made of Cillian Murphy's role as Psychologist Dr. Johnathan Crane alias ""Scarecrow"". This is a young actor that has a barrel of talent. He is creepy and goofy all at once in a portrayal of a villain in the vein of classic performances ala Lon Chaney, or Frederick March.All said, Batman Begins is a must see. Albeit burdened with some over long car/commuter train chases (the Batmobile is innovative and awesome), some campy dialog that even the most die hard of fans must chortle at (after all it is a comic book movie), and an overabundance of plot, this movie succeeds in the crucial area that many prequels haven't. By making the audience care deeply about the leading character and utilizing an incredibly talented cast to surround him with the intricacies of himself, Nolan has created a great movie that hopefully will effectively resurrect the previously destroyed Batman movie franchise.","['1', '2']" +233,rw1239158,joppecb,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,I've never had a thing for Batman films. I can't wait until the next one!,15 December 2005,0,"I've never had a thing for Batman films. I watched the cartoons when I was about 8. That was alright. Nothing special though. And not to forget...I was only 8. I always thought batman is just not one of those things for me.This film however has changed my mind. I can't wait until the next one! Christopher Nolan presented an almost believable story in this 2:20 hour blockbuster movie. I especially liked the way Nolan described the fear of bats Wayne develops in his youth and the way his father was a big influence in his life. Casting was very good... Normally I would have given an 8 for this film, but because it was able to totally change my mind about the batman theme i think it really deserves a bit higher. That's why 9/10!!","['4', '4']" +234,rw1215015,strezise,Batman Begins (2005),6.0,"cold, disappointing movie",13 November 2005,0,"Now here's the problem for me. I'd looked forward to this film after some very good reviews and a terrific score at IMDb, but after a while I seriously began to wonder where the emotional heart of the movie was. To be frank, I don't like this man batman one little tiny bit. Of course, we can see how his world was turned upside down as a boy, and the murder of his parents haunts him. But what a cold fish he is. Without a sense of where his emotions are concealed I simply couldn't empathise with him as a passionate advocate of the poor people against the corrupt and the cruel. Indeed, when he is knocking the baddies around I couldn't find much difference between him and them. I'd also heard there was a sense of fun in this film alongside the dark, Gothic sets. So where was it? Humour, passion, dramatic development. All missing. A big disappointment.","['2', '4']" +235,rw1148812,sanguina,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,They did it RIGHT!,12 August 2005,0,"I am completely impressed with this film, being a total Batman and DC comics book geek from birth practically. Ra's Al Ghul and Dr. Crane are two of my favorite story lines and characters as far as villains go. This movie is done properly. No matter how much I LOVE Tim Burton, I think this one outdoes the first Batman film by far. No connection to the Joker and Wayne's parents, Ra's was perfect, the history is fantastic...Michael Caine is wonderful...I just absolutely loved it. For any SERIOUS Batman comic fan, you won't be disappointed with this. If you are looking for 10,000 villains with no background (all the Batman villains have a film's worth of background themselves), all of them thrown into the same film and a lot of glitz, glamour and butt shots this is NOT the film for you. If you love the comic and know the story lines I recommend this film, do not miss it. I only hope any future Batman films can be this good and get it all done right. Christian Bale is a fantastic Bruce Wayne/Batman. SEE IT.","['0', '1']" +236,rw1141829,SocialBarbarian,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,This Movie Raises the Bar for this Genre,3 August 2005,0,"Batman Begins is by far the best comic based movie I've ever seen. I know that is a bold statement but there are a couple of reasons I say this. The depth of character is terrific. The motivation of the nemisis is far more complex than usual. It's not just, ""I'm evil and wanna rule Middle Earth."" Bruce Wayne struggles to become great. His insecurity induces him to strive. He grows as a person and as a hero as the movie develops.Lucas, who's wisest of all characters, Yoda tells Luke, ""Do or do not. There is no try."", a truly silly line as we all know we grow through our failures so long as we don't quit. Bruce's father, by contrast, asks, ""Why do we fall?"" With perfect pause and delivery he continues, ""We fall, so we can learn to pick ourselves up."" This is but one scene where Nolan sets the tone and timing perfectly.The filming, dialog, action, characters, plot and oh yes, the acting are all superb. I rarely leave a movie completely satisfied and almost always have something I'd change. This movie is my first 10. I only wish I possessed the skill to better articulate my appreciation. Flat out, this movie not only raises the bar for comic-to-film efforts but for action dramas in general.","['6', '8']" +237,rw1131604,jeev7882,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Batman Begins is quite simply the greatest comic book movie ever made,21 July 2005,0,"Batman Begins is quite simply the greatest comic book movie ever made, and one of the greatest films ever made. With the trilogy now completed, it's appropriate and easy to look back and realize the full brilliance of the film. The introduction of Ra's Al Ghul and The League of Shadows as the villains allowed the final chapter to feature Bane in a plot that came full circle. To know Bruce, Alfred, and Gordon at the beginning of their careers allowed us to appreciate Bruce transforming into Batman, Alfred's growing father figure role, and Gordon's climb to commissioner.The plot is complex. When Bruce witnesses his parents' death, he travels to Asia to learn about the criminal underworld. Along the way he meets Ducard and The League of Shadows who train him in the ways of ninja. Bruce escapes The League after learning of their plans to destroy Gotham. He returns to Gotham and takes on the alter ego of Batman to fight crime and return Gotham from the cesspool of criminals that rule the city.The hero origin story has been seriously overplayed over the past 10 years. They're a dime a dozen and follow the same arc. What makes Batman more compelling than the others is that he's just a human that actively acquires his powers. He wasn't bitten by a radioactive spider, or shipped off from Krypton, or born as the God of Thunder. He's a tortured soul who finds relief in this alter ego he creates. The story of Batman isn't about Bruce Wayne, it's about Batman.Batman Begins does the best job of showcasing the central character whereas TDK focused heavily on The Joker and TDKR on Bane and Lieutenant Blake. Christopher Nolan's touch is on every element of every frame. There's a scene after Bruce returns to Gotham where he has to act like he's having fun running around town in his sports car with European Supermodels. Leaving a party at a hotel, he runs into his oldest friend, Rachel Dawes. He tries to convince her that what she sees isn't him, but it's all for naught as the women in the background yell ""We have some more hotels for you to buy."" Nolan decides to drown out the sound, choreographed perfectly with the visuals as the sharp focus is on Bruce's tortured face, with the car and women heavily blurred in the background. It's one of the greatest shots ever captured.Director of Photography Wally Pfister deserves much of the accolades. He frames Gotham in an almost sepia hue without the Instagram cheesiness. It works to showcase this the poverty and depression of the city yet give it a very comic book feel. This may be a realistic version of Batman, but it is still Batman. Much has been made of the action sequences being the largest weakness of the film. I agree that the hand- to-hand combat scenes are disappointingly weak. They're shot too close and edited too choppy. The rest of the action, mainly the Batmobile chase sequence, is skillfully handled. The fear in Bruce's voice channels to the audience as Rachel fades further and further from reality after being blasted with Scarecrow's fear toxin.For the aforementioned chase, Nolan relied on no visual effects, even as the Batmobile flew across rooftops and through narrow underground roads. Nolan found a sort of empty playground in Chicago's upper and lower Wacker Drive that allowed for the chase to come to life as realistically as possible.Much of the realism is thanks to the incredible cast. There's no over the top scene stealing actors here. There is terrifying amounts of talent. Christian Bale is the perfect choice to play the dark, brooding Batman and emotionally detached playboy billionaire Bruce Wayne. One of my favorite actors, Michael Caine, plays his butler/confidant/father figure, Alfred. Caine is so detailed that he gives Alfred just a slightly different tinge of his cockney British accent so as to be more appropriate for a butler. The cast is filled out with pitiful lesser actors like God, a.k.a. Morgan Freeman, perennial bad ass Liam Neeson, accent chameleon Gary Oldman, and ol' blue eyes Cillian Murphy.Aside from the action scenes the biggest complaint has been the casting of Katie Holmes. After seeing TDK, I'm sure a lot of people wanted Mrs. Holmes back. The truth is that much of her negative press was centered around the Tom Cruise Scientology scandal. The character of Rachel Dawes was one of the weaker points of the first two films. Holmes isn't to blame. If anything she held her own against some of the greatest names in the industry.Begins plays much like a great gangster film with all the right hints of comic book fantasy. Even if TDK and TDKR were never made, Batman Begins exists fully in its own skin. There is the Joker cliffhanger at the end, but you don't feel like the rest of the movie was setting you up just for the cliffhanger like every other big blockbuster these days. It's these subtle differences and detailed touches that make each frame of this movie such an absolute wonder to behold.For more reviews like this one as well as other movie musings, go to http://thethreeacts.wordpress.com/","['1', '2']" +238,rw1154887,spank_da_monkey89-1,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Its not who I am underneath but what i DO that defines me,21 August 2005,0,"Batman Begins Does what Both Burtons and Schumachers Failed on Tim Burton Delivered a dark Batman But there was no Motivation or belief to the character, I have to admit I enjoyed batman Forever it had great potential But the Villains were too comical and not bad enough and what a mess the whole Claw island thing turned out to be. Batman And Robin was Just The Campy 60s show set in Modern day.But Nolan Finally Pulled it off His Story wasn't set around the Villain But Batman Himself and his Journey From Bruce Wayne Billionaire Playboy to the Dark Night It explained everything from How he learned the skills that makes batman to why and where he gets his Suit, It even Shows you why he wears a capeBale is the Perfect Batman/Bruce Wayne You can Feel his Pain and understand his Motivation for ridding Gotham of Corruption and Crime. I wasn't the Biggest Fan of Michael Cains performance He was a likable Alfred But His accent was Too cockney, Katie Holmes is great here too as Bruce's childhood best friend(she is so sexy)Liam Neeson is one of my favourite Actors of all time and pulled of a great job as Ducard Morgan freeman is top notch too one of the most underrated actors in this Film is Cillian Murphy he is an excellent scarecrow hes always edgy but at the same time calmWhen I heard Gary Oldman was James Gordon I was surprised and couldn't see it working as all I could see was Dracula and Sirius Black but I was pleasantly surprised with how he was as Sgt GordonFinal Words Mr Nolan Please Make us a Sequel","['1', '1']" +239,rw1176186,echozdog,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,I'm Batman man!,19 September 2005,0,"When I first heard the title of this movie I went ""Oh brother! They are going to try and resurrect this dead corpse of a franchise!"". I was right and wrong. It was a dead franchise, but it has been not just reborn. That would imply the past has something to do with this. This is completely new. It's funny really. This is what the comic book ""The Dark Knight"" is like. All anyone had to do was read the comic book. This movie was made by a comic reader. Not some person who grew up on Adam West. This person laughed at that stuff. He groaned at Tim Burtons noble try (which quickly sunk from cute to lame). This is way better than I could have hoped for.We see what makes Batman a bat man. We see how a billionaire Bruce Wayne would take this path. Not just for justice, not to fight bad guys, but to fight fear. We see how is trained. We see how builds his weapons. We see all and believe. Which is the best part about this movie. You actually can believe this could happen. This is one major flaw with having Michael Keaton play Batman. Christian Bale pulls this off wonderfully.I gave it a 9/10 only because the humor added was not needed.","['0', '1']" +240,rw1203422,Matt_Layden,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,"""Batman Makes His Dark and True Return, Without Schumacher.""",28 October 2005,0,"As a young boy, Bruce Wayne watched in horror as his parents were killed right in front of him, which leads him to become obsessed with revenge. Leaving Gotham, Bruce Wayne seeks counsel with the dangerous but honorable ninja cult leader Ra's Al-Ghul, Bruce returns to his now decaying Gotham City, which is overrun by organized crime. The discovery of a cave under his mansion, along with a prototype armored suit, leads him to assume a new persona, one which will strike fear into the hearts of men who do wrong; he becomes Batman.What the makers of Batman Begins wanted to do was to make the audience forget about those Bat Nipples, those bright neon streets and horrible puns made by horribly casted villains. Nolan and co have not only brought the franchise back to life by obliterating Schumachers version, but to some have out-done Burtons classic Gothic original.Written by David. S. Goyer and under the direction of Nolan, who has done no wrong in the directing chair, Batman becomes what he originally was in the comic books. With this new fresh start we see how Bruce Wayne becomes Batman, and in doing so, we get a more human and round character of Batman, unlike in the former series. More true to the comic books then Burtons and more entertaining then Schumachers, this Batman is able to regain the fans it once lost...and gain some new ones.Nolan doesn't throw action at us from the start like the latter films do, it takes it's time to build up emotion and the character of Bruce Wayne. For those who actually did enjoy Schumachers mess, will find this movie a tad slow and boring, because Bale doesn't become Batman till half way through the picture. It's safe to say that the best Bruce Wayne is Bale hands down, he is able to bring both characteristics from Keaton's and Kilmer's style, to make this Bruce Wayne perfect. While some may not be digging the whole Batman voice, it's actually more true to the comics then the others have done. Batman is suppose to have a dark harsh voice.Some of the fight sequences were hard to follow are not all that entertaining, the two that pop into my mind would be the first fight in the prison, the editing is so fast and the camera is too close up for people to actually see what's going on. The second fight sequence is when Batman goes into the city and fights the ""henchmen"" ninjas, it seemed to slow paced and not hard hitting enough. Other then that, the action sequences were very entertaining and for the most part, better then the other Batman films. The Batmobile chase scene is a sensation for the eyes to watch.This Batman film has the best performances of any other, Bale is the new Bruce Wayne/Batman and he knows what works and what doesn't. Murphy is delightfully evil and eccentric in his performance of The Scarecrow, this is the best performance in the film. Murphy is an underrated actor, who will eventually get more and more recognition. Oldman is one of the best bad guy actors, so seeing him in a new refreshing role really shows his diversity. Neeson is able to show his experience through this role, he acts as a teacher to the others in his performance. He knows what to do and gets to the point. Wilkinson, with his little screen time, is able to stand out as a high point. Good performances all around from Freeman, Cain and Hauer.Now, I was a huge fan of the old Alfred and the new one seems a little to energetic to me, Cain was good, but I just got the sense of miscasting here. I can see the role being played by an unknown actor and it would have worked better. Katie Holmes of course was a weak point, her character seemed to have no emotional attachment/chemistry with Bruce Wayne, and Holmes to Bale for that matter. She is so out of place in this style of film, and Wantanabe basically stands there and says a couple lines, nothing more.The film is a great restart for a new franchise, which is undoubtedly going to get better and better with such villains as The Joker and The Riddler, hopefully done right this time. With the great cast and director in the same positions, I see BATMAN on a scale higher then that of Spiderman and X-men.","['1', '2']" +241,rw1210532,andydudey2k4-1,Batman Begins (2005),1.0,"To quote Colin Mochrie ""Crap...crap...Cuh-rap!!!""",6 November 2005,0,"This batman movie is one of the worst ever. When I say worst, I mean even worse than Batman and Robin. That's how bad this movie is. Normally, I like Batman. I have been a fan for a long time, but no amount of being a fanboy can bring me to like this film. This is another case of a crappy movie using flash, ""attitude"" and good-looking people to sell itself, rather than plot, good casting choices for the title character, and whatnot. I can't believe critics gave this good reviews.I won't try to reveal too much of the plot to you (not like it matters. If you are smart, you'll avoid this movie like the plague), but basically, the powers that be threw canon to the wind and created a craptactular crap-fest that basically was all about action, and moving pictures. I'm serious. They messed up Catwoman's plot and look what happened to that flick. They try to say that Ra's Al Ghul, an assassin, and one of Batsy's main adversaries in the comic, trained Batman. NO! Fearing losing the audience's attention, they gave Batman a tank and tried to make him Triple-X action hero guy. It was as if ""they"" tried to make Batman more extreme to appeal to a younger audience. Extreme just sucks period.The plot was just wrong, as was Batman's origins and Christian Bale absolutely sucks as Batman. Oh yeah, lowering your voice to make yourself a bad@$$ mofo really make you a good Batman. Wrong. It doesn't work with him. Michael Keaton, a crappy actor and annoying person extraordinarily actually make a good Batman, and did a good scary guy voice. You don't, Bale.And here's the bad news, they're going to make a sequel. What an the hell are they thinking?","['9', '22']" +242,rw1132281,joliet-jake,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,you never learned to mind your surroundings,22 July 2005,0,"This movie is fantastic. If you are a fan of Batman in any sense you will love it. Christian Bale is amazing as Batman. His acting is dead on, as is everyone else who is in it. The Scarecrow is awesome. The story is great. It goes into the past of Bruce Wayne and his training to become the Bat. It transitions greatly into a sequel which we will hopefully see soon. Hans Zimmers' score is fantastic for the film. I didn't think anyone could match Danny Elfman but he did. All of the scenery is great and is very well blended together. If in any sense you like superheroes especially Batman, I guarantee you will love this movie.","['3', '4']" +243,rw1193461,Peats,Batman Begins (2005),7.0,A fine production.,14 October 2005,0,"Well, after being stupid enough to have listened to several critics comments about this film, how dark and great it was, I went to see it... and all in all I had to high expectations. It's a good movie with good actors, great cinematography and all that, but the action (and I am for sure NOT an action-buff at all) never gets into that higher gear that this film needs.And no matter how fun it is to get all the entire ""mythology"" of Batman explained and broken down to it's bare bones, I go home after-wards feeling a bit stupefied, like some things are not obvious enough? Thus my vote becomes sort of low. This IS the second best Batman-flick, the first with Keaton-Nicholson - of course - being number one still. A comic-book-movie should have some black comedy to it - and also some of the self-sacks Burtons original Batman had. Nolan is a great director, but he should stick to mellow thrillers.","['3', '5']" +244,rw1151635,William-Denniston,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Kicking Schumacher's Batman In the Nuts,16 August 2005,0,"Finally, a big screen Batman that is free of the emasculating forces of Joel Schumacher. From disastrous nippled costumes to ridiculous villains, the Batman movies of the past ten years have been depressingly absurd. This film however, goes back to the very darkest aspects of the Dark Knight's comic book roots, with a leading man who can finally fill the cape of this disturbed hero. Christian Bale, (of ""American Psycho"" and ""The Machinist"") is no stranger to the role of the disturbed leading man, and he manages to bring just enough insanity to the role of a man who spends his nights dressed as a giant bat. The film opens with a drawn-out history of Bruce Wayne, which details the death of his parents, the dawn of his lifelong fear of bats, and the beginning of his relationship with childhood friend and eventual love interest Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes). The audience is then sent through an extended foray into Wayne's tutelage in the Far East at the hands of Raas Al Guul (Ken Watanabe) and his associate Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson) among a clan of ninjas. Despite the interesting depth this sequence gives the character of Wayne, and his quest to fight evil, this portion of the film did feel a bit drawn out. As soon as Wayne returns to Gotham, however, the film moves into overdrive. From his interactions with Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), an employee of Bruce's father's company, to the acquisition of his costume, car, various toys, and headquarters, one can not help but be excited by the manner in which this previously unexplored aspect of Batman's history is related to the audience. The series of action packed scenes that follow and lead to the climax of the film are dark and disturbing as well as exciting. To any fan of such comic book adaptations as ""Sin City,"" this film will not disappoint. The only glaring weakness was Katie Holmes. Though her character did not have much depth, Holmes was not up to the task of keeping pace with Bale and Neeson. She came across as Joey from Dawson's Creek, a little older, and a District Attorney, but still the same character that she has played in every role she has been given. Her ineptitude does not ruin the film, but is a definite limiting factor.","['1', '2']" +245,rw1146980,wildror-1,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Batman Begins,10 August 2005,1,"Not only that it is the best Batman film, but is probably the greatest superhero film ever. This tells the origin of how Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) became the Dark Knight. The story is absolutely incredible. After the death of his parents, Bruce Wayne decides to leave Gotham City and travel through out the world to try to find a way of overcoming his fears (including bats). While he was in this Asian prison, he meets Ducard (Liam Neeson) who becomes Bruce's mentor. He was then later release and decides to find the League of Shadows, led by Ra's Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe). When he nearly finish his training, Bruce finds out that the League are attempting to destroy Gotham. He manages to escape, and returns to Gotham to become Batman. Directed by Christopher Nolan, he has a damn good job at doing it. With a brilliant supporting cast such as Michael Caine as Alfred, Gary Oldman as Lt. Gordon, Cilian Murphy as the Scarecrow and Morgan Freeman who plays the inventor of Batman's gadgets. The film also starring Katie Holmes as Batman's love interest and Tom Wilkinson as a hardcore gangster. The new Batmobile is unstoppable. But especially, Christian Bale is by far the best actor to play Batman. I can't wait for the sequels to come, and who will play the Joker and Two-Face.","['1', '1']" +246,rw1137239,saugox,Batman Begins (2005),7.0,"Over expectations, too many jokes and punchlines",28 July 2005,0,"Great to finally see Batmans history, I mean, why and how he became the batman. I liked that. Overall, the film was over my expectations, I like the way it was shot and edited, however, what brought it down to me was this: Too many phony punchlines, bad jokes squeezed into the plot at bad timing, it kinda killed the mood for me. That was the major thing that brought this down for me. Some action scenes were long, almost become too long, but it was alright. OK I'm picky but I didn't like the planting at the end hinting at a sequel, with the joker, and he shouldn't have been kissed by the girl in the end. It was well worth getting a theatre ticket for though, I enjoyed it. I give it a strong seven.","['0', '0']" +247,rw1142846,CELTIC_19,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Wow!,5 August 2005,0,"The trailers and the build up to this movie were fantastic so I was hoping that all the hype would prove to be worthwhile and Batman would be a classic! Although I wouldn't call it one of the best films I've ever seen, it certainly was an enjoyable film throughout! Christian Bale is a fantastic actor and its brilliant to see a Batman with a few more layers than George Clooney managed. Bale creates an edgy Batman who you can't help but emphasise with but also makes him seem almost dangerous in how unpredictable and reckless he is.The supporting parts in this film are so well cast its amazing! Sir Michael Caine as Alfred was something I couldn't see working before the film but him and Bale played off each other well and created the best character interaction.Katie Holmes was also surprisingly good but unfortunately the chemistry between her and Bale seemed non-existent really which is a bit of a shame.The major injustice in this film is that Cillian Murphy as Scarecrow has such a small part as the villain. This guy plays the creep to perfection in such a way, it seems creepily real. I hope he returns for the sequel as there is great potential there!","['5', '6']" +248,rw1135019,jobakken,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Batman Begins- A new era for the Batman,25 July 2005,0,"I recently saw the movie and I was very satisfied with the result of Mr. Nolans work. Batman is one of the superheros which many people have a relationship to, and the expectations was(and still is) quite high. I think the producers and the directors have suceeded with the creation of a Batman who is up to date but at the same time the Batman we all know(dark minded and lonely). Further I will pay a huge tribute to the performance of Christian Bale. I have been fortunate to see this great actor in the past and my conclusion, after seeing Batman Begins, is that he is one of the best around. His ability to express different emotions is just great acting and with the costarring of Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman and Katie Holmes this has become one of the best superhero movies of all time. We can just hope for more.....","['4', '5']" +249,rw1131441,Darth_Stat,Batman Begins (2005),,Hattrick.,20 July 2005,0,"You could take that to mean the original two Batman flicks and Begins but I'm certainly talking about the 3 comic book-film sagas that have actually made it above water. 'Catwoman's, 'Punisher's, controversial 'Hulk's, etc give comic book movies a bad name justly or unjustly. 'Blade's, 'Hellboy's and 'Sin City's can subsist for costing less but the big, trans-labelled three are X-Men, Spider-man and Batman. If Superman Returns and The Flash make it next year then it'll be good to have DC back in the light for the Marvel era. RIP the Superman-Batman DC age, 1978 to 1997.I've changed my position on the original 4 Batmans since seeing Begins. Batman has to be dark, not an MTV merchandising hub. Keaton getting battered and tossed by villains is frustrating, there's the height question to irritate, but I like the darkness, laughs, noir, score, sadistic edge and tragic overtones of Burton that polarize it from otherwise rainbow superheroes. Batman Forever; interesting story, the best Batman portrayer, though unfortunate that Kilmer didn't put on enough muscle for the role, good score, animated performances. It holds up unto itself, but not alongside the others and especially Begins. Where is the credibility in two athletic young bachelor billionaires each scarred by an early family-loss co-existing in the tabloids with two gadget-rife, turbo-powered, militarily-vehicle, thug-slugging city avengers, one barely even under a mask, bearing remarkable resemblance? Robin out. Skip to Drake and Nightwing if totally necessary. Begins is realism.So Batman Begins didn't exactly wow with its gross, but that was completely predictable. Already the most enduring and arguably biggest comic book movie series, a lot of territory was covered and much of the Batman urgency was spent. Any fallout from the protested part 4, an agreeable renter but no challenge to its predecessors. The appropriate seriousness, subdued tones and discretion of the Begins trailer, not a kiddie puller and heeding to pre-suppositions. Probably above all, there was no popular villains. Scarecrow, though one of the originals, was a lurch from obscurity for the masses – those popularised in the 60s TV show that gave Batman such an edge with modern audiences were Burton or Schumackered. Lastly, there was the shot of that Bat-mask. People were never going to flock to see a mortal in blocky rubber as they had before Spider-man, Xavier's troop and all the rest of the super-powered lot had swung. At first. Initially, it was going to feel like a step back on some level.But that is the transcendental beauty of Batman Begins and Batman: the superhero that isn't super. He wasn't bitten by a radioactive spider, he was never hit by gamma or radiation, he never left the earth's surface. What he did was don the guise of the bat and struggle manfully against organised crime and equally scarred maniacs for love of a city that had plagued the world's nightmares since metropolises first began springing up. Every thud, every leap, every drop of blood was that of a man no more super than any of us. The mask was what was truly fantastical, an overpass to power, mystery and unrelenting justice. On one side of it was a dark and fearful legend, unnatural in the word of folk. On the other was a face from high society. The cave, the car, the hook, the belt, the batarang, were Batman's super powers; what made him a one-man army where the masses that a dark metropolis could throw at his lone cause might have overwhelmed. Bruce's journey to the point of that transformation is the excitement in precisely the same way his troubles retaining his sanity and humanity beneath the mantle are afterward.Begins signals his Detective Comics age, where a bit more sunlight is allowable with his movement in the real world. At the height of population there was the entire team of Batman, Robin, Alfred, Gordon, Nightwing, Oracle, Catwoman, Batman understudy Jean Paul/Azrael and others all fighting a global cause. After such a dense and exciting first chapter establishing Batman the hard work is done and we haven't even got to the real fun yet. Do I hear a green-haired maniac's demonic cackle? Bane awaits. It may not have 'Spider-man'-ed or even 'X-Men'-ed at the box office but they'd be idiots not to think they're sitting on a Matrix Reloaded opening with part two (and no more of that legacy). Shame about Holmes, her presence was welcome, the performance was solid, and I don't want this to be the beginning of yet another infuriating Bond tradition of changing women every movie. Fisher taking up the same role is one of the first things we'll forget about once we're watching a solid sequel, but otherwise, coming up with a satisfactory way to write Dawes out is the first hurdle. And in case they're wondering, yes, a certain brain-damaged horse rider does return in part II.NO TEAMUPS! The biggest fun is ahead. What we're dealing with is the clash of a psychotic shrink with the city's deadliest nutter. I don't want, and I suspect many second the motion, another wussy villain team-up in part 2, or a sidedish baddie. Joker is the villain intent on pushing Batman as close to the edge as possible, and he'll do anything to stop someone killing Batman because that would ruin his fun and his whole cause for being. The movie that it can be at best with yet another dark alliance isn't half what a three-way powerplay can be. Dynamite. NO TEAMUPS! Like the X-Mens and the superb Spider-man 2 they have left a number of threads to take up in the sequel. In Begins they don't get to explore the duality of Bruce Wayne and Batman, where one ends and the other begins. Joker is the tool invented for that very purpose. Great work.","['3', '4']" +250,rw1228829,carpecibus888,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,a very well directed and acted film,1 December 2005,0,"i thought that batman begins was a very well acted and directed film. i had always believed that batman was a childish comic book series that had no point whatsoever like so many of the comic book heroes. but this film was intriguing, entertaining and very well scripted. alfred the butler is a very nice comic relief and bruce is a very well acted part. the background information is not over-emphasized and is not like so many of the comic book heroes' pasts. it is shown without the usual explanation, which is a good thing because people should be able to figure it out without explanation. over all i think it was very interesting and i know it took a lot of work to learn all of the moves that are displayed in the beginning of the film. it is very smart and cunning even though batman's outfit does look a little bit dorky.","['0', '0']" +251,rw1159119,eldergod-1,Batman Begins (2005),6.0,"Well, not as good as the Burton's vision, but better than the last two.",27 August 2005,0,"""Batman Begins"" is yet another movie about the dark night, but, fortunately, it is not a sequel to the much-maligned ""Batman & Robin"", it is the old story, told again. Which is not too great either, because Tim Burton's movie was very good and this one isn't better. But still it is very good. Christian Bale is a very good Batman, Liam Neeson is truly great and the plot is interesting and original. There are few things which were not really good however - the movie is more about Bruce and less about Batman and the battles aren't really well made. Still, the movie is cool and has a great vision, unlike ""Batman & Robin"".","['1', '3']" +252,rw1213886,iden-1,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,Best Batman cast,11 November 2005,0,"A redeemed and refashioned Batman. My congrats to Warner,Nolan and Goyer for a job well done.Christian Bale as Bruce and Batman is the best of the lot. Never I liked Tim Burton's Batman or any of Joel Schumacher and that disgraced Catwoman movie. So good to see the Batman persona so human and likable. Its a decent story and cool to witness the Batmobile as the love child of the Abrams tank and ferrari. The villain didn't eclipsed Batman and the creepiness by Cillian Murphy all in his eyes. Great job on his creepy Scarecrow mode.I'm still warming up to Batman's voice but its a minor flaw along with Nolan needing more experience in the action sequences. Christian Bale was good but even better thanks to his supporting cast like Michael Caine,Morgan Freeman,Liam Neeson,Gary Oldman,Tom Wilkinson and Cillian Murphy were all riveting. The only female in the cast who is Batman's lady love by Kate Holmes she's also very very good. Rachel and Bruce still needs more exploring because its also intriguing and both are so fitting as a couple. They great romantic timing together. I really hope Nolan and Bale's teamship remains intact and characters Alfred,Gordon,Fox,Rachel all return and some Scarecrow resolution will be satisfying.","['2', '2']" +253,rw1195731,Lovechild_77,Batman Begins (2005),,Good movie but slightly overrated!,17 October 2005,0,"Batman Begins is definitely a better movie than the earlier efforts but I was disappointed by the fast camera cuts, almost like a music video. Christian Bale is always good and also Michael Caine of course. But I'm getting really tired of Leam Nelson in his roles. He is annoying to look at and listen to. The action scenes was also way too dark and fast to be really satisfying, they looked cheap. I think the reason why so many people on IMDb has rated this movie so high is because they have been waiting so long for a new Batman movie.Worth a look but don't expect to be blown away.My rating: 6/10","['2', '4']" +254,rw1203820,Jeice,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Any one who gave this movie less than nine is crazy.,29 October 2005,1,"This was by far the best comic book movie I have ever seen. It may be the best movie I can currently remember. Now, I am not a die-hard fan, but I still know more than most about this movie compared to the comic.The only thing that bugs me are the people who think this movie was bad. I have read and heard many bad things about this movie but most of it comes from inadequate knowledge and not paying attention. First off some people want to know why a company that built a train and hospital has military weapons from nowhere. Well if you watched the scene right before Bruce arrives at Wayne Enterprises, the board is talking about moving the company to military applications. And the fact that Bruce Wayne is in a Chinese prison, is because he left to understand the criminal mind and it's weaknesses, got caught ""stealing"" and was placed in prison. Explained entirely if you payed attention!Next is the League of Shadows. The ninjas aren't there to make this another stereotypical movie. I know that before becoming Batman, Bruce Wayne trained all over the world in various martial arts, one of which was the art of being a ninja. This is what allows him in the comics most of his silent entrances and exits. Next are the supposedly clichéd ""fear"" lines. Went back and watched a lot of movies; Never heard much close to these lines. Another thing people don't like is the purpose of the League of Shadows. They wonder why is an organization that is trying to save the world is also trying to end the lives of millions. If most people payed attention to Henri Ducard, then they would know that he believed in helping people as a whole and not individually. Think about a wildfire in a forest. If you burn off another part of the forest the fire will cease. And I don't see why people are angry that the League sees Gothom as a modern Sodom and Gomorrah (about five reviews hated that).Batman is supposed to be this dark, get over it.Scarecrow and Carmine Falcone are ""supposedly"" worthless characters and are only there to add more confrontation. No. Carmine helped to smuggle in the ""fear toxin"" through his near complete control of the city and Scarecrow put plenty of crazed convicts in the asylum he ran, to be released when the toxin would be spread. Not to mention he increased the power of the hallucinations.I know there might be a few things not right with the movie but it is perfect to me.If you still think there is something big wrong with the movie, feel free to email me.","['0', '2']" +255,rw1243549,MidnightWarrior,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,"Different, but not bad.",20 December 2005,1,"This film has an entirely different taste to it. When I heard Christain Bale had been cast as Batman, I had my doubts (that's why I never saw this film on the big screen).Well, I rented the DVD out of curiosity, and I'm glad I did. While I think Christian Bale did an okay job as Batman (a little too puny), he was adequately cast as a young Bruce Wayne though.In the comics and cartoon, Batman hardly ever shows facial expression or emotion; in the film, Bale's performance as Batman was too emotional and ridden with facial expressions. On the other hand, Bruce Wayne always shows emotion and facial expressions (which Bale did), so he pulled off Bruce Wayne nicely.The real stars of this film are Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman. Wow! They are both very fantastic actors and it's wonderful to see them shine on the screen. Katie Holmes was okay, but you can tell she's too preoccupied with something else.The whole feel of this film is very dark; the film is closer in feel to those Batman Beyond cartoon series episodes that used to run on the WB rather than any of the previous Batman films (even the batman symbol is different!).The ""martial arts"" scenes were choppy and looked like they belonged at Six flags. So other than that, the film was pretty good. Overall, I rate it eight out of ten stars.","['0', '1']" +256,rw1135450,igiana,Batman Begins (2005),4.0,Batman disappoints,26 July 2005,1,"This film seems to get a lot of very good reviews due to the dark nature of the films appearance and its seemingly grown up approach to a comic book adaptation. For me these are the very reasons that i don't like this movie. How can you take such a dark serious approach to a movie that is essentially about a grown man dressing as a bat. For god's sake, there is nothing dark or adult about it, its a COMIC BOOK. Why try to make the film so serious, you have got to be some kind of super nerd to treat this film in this way. Other comic book films have benefited from the addition of a little humour and the fact that they don't take themselves to seriously. Hellboy is a good example of this. Plenty of funny lines keep the script flowing along nicely. If that film had taken itself deadly serious surely it would have flopped. Not that i think all comic book adaptations should be comedy films, but i think it is a little much to ask grown people to take daft films like this too serious.The spiderman films that have been so successful of late have made a great effort in making the action sequences as exciting as possible. The same thing goes for the X men, Hellboy and fantastic four. Unfortunately i found the action, especially the fight scenes, in batman begins terrible. They suffer from the same muddled editing that a lot of cheap martial arts films do. This is done in martial arts films, Steven Seagal in particular, to cover up the fact that the star is aging, over weight and no longer able to do his usual stuff. The result is fight scenes where you see a leg here an arm there a guy flying through a window, etc.. But you never get a real sense that this is really happening. You never get to see any real moves being pulled off. They got around this in the Spiderman movies by using a lot of computer graphics. During the action sequences the camera is a good distance from the action and you can see exactly what is happening. Obviously Christian Bale is no Bruce Lee so you can't expect him to pull of the most amazing moves during the fights but i feel the director and fight choreographer are responsible for getting around this problem. The result is a film full of action scenes that just don't excite. The romance side of the film is pretty lame as well. Its all a little rushed and leaves the viewer feeling unmoved. Maybe batman is waiting for his ""friend"" or should i say gimp Robin to make an appearance.The supposedly adult nature of the movie also manages to deprive the viewer of a decent bad guy. Rather than the usual flying, walking through walls type bad guy we are used to in this kind of film we get a shrink with a sack on his head. This is an obvious attempt to get away from the unbelievable feel most these type of films have and make the plot more convincing. But seeing batman struggling to beat this enemy only makes the lead character seem like a regular guy in a stupid costume. It does not give the film a feeling of reality more a feeling of anti climax.All in all this movie just didn't work for me and is without doubt one of the weaker adaptations of late. The fact that the end of the movie suggested a follow up movie with the joker as the villain only added to the disappointment. Only 16 years have past since this movie was originally made and there can be no justification in a remake this soon.Although i am sure the nerds will love it.","['0', '2']" +257,rw1134831,rickyhatton,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,never was a big batman fan but........THIS BLEW ME AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!,25 July 2005,1,"yet again we have been treated to a true tour-De-force powerhouse movie that stands very tall with its head held high!!!!!! the only movies that have really got hold of me and given me a real sense of enjoyment (comic strip adaptations this is) is this and the x-men movies.BATMAN BEGINS the movie....the film starts with a young and innocent Bruce Wayne and its not long until you see why he ended up fearing bats they way he did and as the film progresses you get to see the reason why his parents are murdered and what affect this has on Bruce as he grows up full of hate and unforgivingness, as a result Bruce travels the globe in the hope that he will learn to understand the common criminal and therefore know how to combat them, and this is where he bumps into Liam Neeson who teaches him the ways of the ninja and other ways also in combating ""evil"" and you can guess the rest. the trick to this film is that you don't get to see batman at all for about an hour and the wait is really worth it, you get the lot in this movie... humour, sharp serious dialogue, great action, great actors and acting... but again the only down side to this movie is that pesky camera work in the fight scenes and it really annoyed me and made me feel a little dizzy at times, but when you look at the film as a whole you do tend to forgive this one and only discrepancy!!! he he..................9/10 for the film and would have been 10 but for the camera work.BATMAN/BRUCE WAYNE...where has this man been hiding he he, been a fan of bales for a wee while now and i was looking forward to him playing this, but i didn't realise how effective he would be, as the educated and mega rich teenager/business man he pulls this off with such a grizzly swagger and realistic charm you just have to love the guy...i am so glad that Christian bale was aloud to play the character as dark as he did, with so much conviction and because of this you really feel the hate/confusion that runs very deep through him........awesome! 10/10 for me!ALFRED the butler..... has Michael Caine ever been more suited to a character than Alfred??? i find it very hard to find any that come close, the only other one is probably peachy from ""the man who would be king) with Sean Connery, the humour is bang on and really delivers the dialogue with real exuberance and is a delight to watch, witty, sentimental, and has the look of a real butler you could believe to be......10/10 again.COMISSIONER GORDON.....it is very rare when you get a Gary Oldman performance so perfectly played down as this, if you are a regular at the cinema then you will have no problems identifying him but if you're not you could very easily miss him altogether. Gary plays Gordon as the typical family orientated policeman who is just trying to survive in what is a real crap hole of a city in ""Gotham city"" where most of the cops are corrupt and the quality of people living there a quite unnerving to say the least.....you don't get the usual Gary Oldman here and just occasionally i would like to have seen just a little bit more of the actor i know and though i didn't get it i loved his character all the same......9/10 HENRI DUCARD/RHA'S AL GHUL.......Liam Neeson is consistently showing some REAL heavyweight performances in Hollywood at the moment and this is just another feather in that bow, for the first hour of the movie nearly all the best scenes had him in them, and was by far a better villain than any of the other batman villains in previous movies put together....this was a man with real issues and real hatred for corruption and lawlessness and his conviction in this movie made me go WOW on more than 1 occasion he he.....what a towering impression he gives when he is being forceful especially during the sword fighting scenes....awesome....apart from sounding a bit like Qui-Gon Jinn in some spots ( still sounded cool just too familiar if thats the right way of putting it) he was cock-on!! 9/10 MORGAN FREEMAN... though this guy is always Mr reliable he was never allowed to shine as much as you hope for in this, purely because his character isn't that big but what you do get you just know you like... he he.CHRIS NOLAN/ director....well, well ,well! this is excellent directing, the pace of the movie is spot on, the feel he gives you with both the scenery and the dark harsh Gotham city is quite exquisite. you do get lots of shots at like side profile and the use of these angles with shadows over the faces and body positions give you the sense of that you are watching a very dark and gritty movie and right from the get go you know that this is never gonna be like the originals as we know them! the only gripe i have is the use of extreme close up camera work when you get the fights on the go, i know they want you to feel like you're in e the fight but by doing this you lose the beauty of the the action scene and choreography between the actors. because of this i will go 9/10 i hope this is useful to some people and i URGE YOU ALL TO SEE THIS FILM BECAUSE ITS NOT WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT......its much better!!","['5', '6']" +258,rw1245318,jigrig-1,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Why couldn't The Hulk be half as good as this Flick?,22 December 2005,0,"I have never been a fan of Batman or any other DC comics character, as a matter of fact I have ""ALWAYS"" been a die hard Incredible Hulk Fan so having seen both movies I can only say that if The Hulk was half as good as this flick I""d have been ""ELATED""! Batman Fans listen up, I just finished watching this movie, i rented it, Tomorrow I will buy it! I own at least 2 copies of every comic book The Hulk has appeared in & after seeing The Movie was not very pleased, now I'm downright disgusted. If there is a sequel I hope those making it understand The Hulk The way these folks understood Batman. If You have'nt seen Batman Begins, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU WAITING FOR? Ang Lee? Gimme a break!","['0', '0']" +259,rw1139767,sankaran5,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,"Batman Begins. With it begins a new era of film-making. A film for children with a loved character, pathos, drama and edge-of-your-seat thrills.",1 August 2005,0,"Batman Begins. With it begins a new era of film-making. A film for children with a loved character, pathos, drama and edge-of-your-seat thrills. And yet beyond all this a far deeper message. The message for every human of all ages on the psychology of that common human emotion ,FEAR. What fear does to you, how to over come it and how to use it yourself. A must watch, slickly made movie, especially for children with their parents.Cleverly masked as a batman movie,Batman Begins has Oscar potential.So what do you get when you add a madman, a grief stricken millionaire,a lady lawyer,a trusty butler and a scientist? BATMAN BEGINS!","['1', '1']" +260,rw1162082,thelastonehere,Batman Begins (2005),,batman doesn't even know it yet,31 August 2005,0,During most of the film Bruce Wayne just has no idea that he is Batman--- This was great--- you felt like you could take that journey with him in 'becoming' --- I found that the story was captivating (even though Scarecrow seems to be added in)--- the dark and demonic flavor that the Scarecrow brought made Batman dangerous and exciting again--- like an old toy out of the toy box being played again with some new story (instead of the the ol' Batty swishing around and takin' care of business) ---you get into having a contempt for Bruce Wayne and you start to buy the story of how he pulls off his double life--- as a playboy and a weirdo---- in fact after its said and done you wonder how he couldn't become Batman--- Alfred provided nice charm and comic relief to some of the heavier scenes--- (although--- only so heavy) I also liked the Ninja background of Batman's training--- it helps to see where he got so good--- without having any special powers--- Batman just has his money and gadgets--- at least he spent some loot training to be such a bad-a$$.I nominate this a close finish between the first (keaton) batman--- and in fact there was one scene where Bruce Wayne jumps off a building and kind thumps ungracefully on a fire escape where i saw a flash of the old Adam West Batman--- what great mix---,"['0', '1']" +261,rw1225415,BirdmanT7,Batman Begins (2005),,Batman finally Begins,27 November 2005,0,"It took Warner Brothers 16 years to finally get it right; yes this is the film I have long waited for, where Batman finally begins!. I remember when the first Batman film came out in 1989, who can forget the hype and the marketing that went into that film; it was famous and popular long time before it even came out. I went to see it the first week it was released and I was very disappointed in fact I hated it and thought it was so badly made and Burton was the wrong director and I am sorry as much I like Keaton but he would be the last person I thought of as Batman; how can you take a super hero and make him smaller than what he was written? if anyone has ever read the original comic books of Batman and could see that Keaton is a far cry from what Bob Cane had in mind, and as I said earlier there was such a hype about ""Batman"" that no matter who played him it would have still have been accepted; but if you rent it today you can see what a joke it is.Above all what the movie lacked was the origins of Batman; like Superman in 1978, where we saw superman as a little boy and how he came to earth; but Mr. Burton decided to skip all that in Batman; Batman was just given to us with out any background and he remained an enigma all through the sequels. Although Schumacher tried to bring some depth into it in the third one with Kilmer and an interesting cast but it still had a very campy and cartoonish look and feel to it.""Batman Begins"" is truly a masterpiece; it is probably among the best written script I have ever seen for a super hero genre; this film delves into theme of fear and keeps a consistent paste as how it plays in the life of Bruce Wayne who becomes Batman who has his own demons i.e. Bats and how he turns that to form of terror. Bale who is among my favorite actors and was perfect for this role, he made Batman human; there was so many scenes of Wayne feeling he has failed and not sure and it was due to Bale's acting that make this character so believable and the same goes for the rest of the cast like Michael Cane, and Liam Neeson as Batman's teacher and later Nemesis.One of the most interesting aspect of this film was its score by Han Zimmer and James Newton Howard which complements the title of the film; it has a feel of something is about to begin; its like a first act of a symphony and it never goes beyond a certain point. Those scenes where Batman escapes the police jumping off the roof tops with his car are so well put together and so well scored; the music is a huge factor of those scenes and again its the really the high point of the film where we see Batman in some real action and its also ends on the same theme song.Christopher Nolan and David Goyer deserve to get an Oscar for this film; this Batman is a work of art and labor of love. I have seen it 3 times now and each time I even like it more for its lack of special effects and it focus on characters. This was a film I have long waited and argued to so many people that Batman genre was never depicted correctly in the big screen until now with this masterpiece. This film has such a classic Batman look of the original Batman and how it was drawn and I am so glad that finally someone at Warner Brothers believed that there has to be a beginning and maybe they can start over; because this is really where Batman Begins and I can only thank the film makers of this film and wish the best for the sequel in 2008.","['0', '0']" +262,rw1137585,mindyourtool,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Good Film,29 July 2005,0,"I love Nolan's work. Ever since Memento, I have become a huge fan of his. The idea of bringing the past to relate to the future is brilliant. I love the way he likes to be one step ahead of his audience and it really keeps you at the edge of your chair wanting to know more and more. I was kind of caught off guard with Bale being batman, but overall, I think he did a terrific job. I guess it was weird for me because the last movie I saw him in was Swing Kids and that goes back to when he was 17 or 18. Anyway, I hated the fact that Katie Holmes was in this film. I suppose she did a good job, but I was never a big fan of hers and I always thought that she acted in some really bad movies. This movie though was a re-invented batman. The whole production and idea behind batman was re-invented. The previous four Batman's were all connected somehow, but when this one came out, it gave a new story. I highly suggest you get this film on DVD/VHS to see for yourself. Watch closely, because Nolan does like to go back and forth constantly as the movie keeps going.","['0', '0']" +263,rw1131510,kiiazaken,Batman Begins (2005),1.0,The first good comic book movie in a long time.,21 July 2005,0,"Quite possibly the last good comic film was probably Batman Returns or so. Since then, we've had a few more DC movies, and an over abundance of Marvel movies, as well as a few other flicks(League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Sin City, etc.), but they've all had one thing in common: They've been terrible. It doesn't matter what, whether it was the acting, the script, the FX, the music, or everything together.So here comes Batman Begins, a new imaging of the Batman series that ignores everything of the previous four films, although considering Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, that's a definite good thing, and gives the Bat-films a fresh start. And guess what? The story actually works this time around, as it tells a tale of Bruce's origins, which eventually form him into the vigilante he will be known for, and after setting him up into the guise of Batman has him investigating a strange drug that may drive all of Gotham City insane. The visuals are topnotch, and the music fits. The scenery fits the dark, moody atmosphere of Gotham dead on. And the acting is for once top notch. Bale gives a believable performance as Bruce Wayne/The Batman, leaving you actually feeling that Bruce is just a ""mask,"" so to speak, and Batman is the true persona. Neeson and Murphy are great in the villain roles, with Murphy actually giving off a truly creepy vibe. Gary Oldman, Katie Holmes, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and the others are also fantastic. I have a feeling that Bob Kane would be proud.This may not be the best movie of the summer, but it's a great action film(and surprisingly intelligent) that I suggest most people should see. One can wonder if Bryan Singer's Superman Reborn will be able to have this same magic this did next year, but considering his work on the X-men films I for one am not holding my breath. Still, even if that, and any possible Batman sequels, wind up being a bust, we'll still at least have this gem to remember.","['5', '17']" +264,rw1191618,socold2008,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,This is maybe better than the original batman movies,11 October 2005,0,"If you are looking for action and some truth to the whole Batman franchise, then this movie is perfect for you. The movie contains well-choreographed fight scenes and some above average acting on Christain Bale and Cillian Murphy's parts. Christian Bale brings a new style to Batman, but this is not a bad new style. He definitely brings out the true darkness of Bruce Wayne much better than Micheal Keaton has done. Cillian Murphy did a fantastic job as Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow, even though he was only in a few scenes of the movie. The only drawback in the movie are the villains. The only good villain was Scarecrow, but maybe it would have been nice to see some more people that come later on in the series during 'Begins.' But, I will say that I liked the choice of putting Micheal Kaine in as Alfred. Also, this movie didn't have Robin, which to me is a very good thing. Since this movie is no longer in the theaters, check it out right when it hits the shelves. It is an amazing movie, and it moves pretty quickly, which means that it is very enjoyable.","['0', '1']" +265,rw1140820,Film-Fanatic2005,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Superb,2 August 2005,0,"I was never really a fan off the batman movies, i did enjoy Batan and Batman returns and felt Forver was starting to get shaky, until the total disappointment surrounding Batman And Robin. Although the creators of this film Batman Begins have showed just how well a comic can be made into a film. The Film is about fear and how people must turn to face it in order to scare their opponents into submission, and Batman, the man crawling in the shadows and lurking in dark corners begins to put the fear into his opponents. The film shows a man fighting for his home town and fighting for which everything his parents build up, although to protect the town of Gotham and the people in it Bruce Wayne/Batman has to go to extreme lengths and risk his life to save the town that he loves and which his parents built.The actors in this film such as Chrisphother Nolan give of a brilliant performance. He catches the essence of Batman better than any Batman i have ever watched on a film before and also creates a whole new story to Bruce Waynes life. With help from fellow actors Micheal Caine, Katie Holmes and Cillian Murphy they create a film with action and flare with an unbelievable story. A must see! Lets just hope there more careful this time is they continue to re-make the older version... and Robin maybe he should be left in his nest!","['3', '3']" +266,rw1208665,divaclv,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Batman Reborn,4 November 2005,0,"It seems odd that a character who has been brought to the screen so many times in so many different manners as Batman has never had a proper ""origin story"" until now. True, several earlier film versions sketched in the basics--little Bruce Wayne witnesses his parents' murder, inspiring a one-man crusade against evil--but none of them struck at the heart of the matter, namely: how and why exactly does a wealthy child of privilege decide to not only devote his life fighting crime, but to do so dressed as a flying rodent? Christopher Nolan's ""Batman Begins"" answers that question along with a few others, but even more remarkably, it renews a franchise that had been driven into the ground by its own excesses.And make no mistake, it is a rebirth, not a continuation--Nolan wisely rebuilds Batman from the ground up, rather than pick up where others had left off. This is a Gotham City far removed from the Gothic grandeur of Tim Burton's vision, and even farther removed from the gaudy camp of Joel Schumacher's. Nolan's Gotham is a sprawling urban nightmare of a city, with cold industrial towers looming against the sky while beneath the poor struggle for survival in the Narrows, a decaying skid row where even the police fear to tread. Most of the city officials are in the pockets of crime lords or are in fear of them. The few who aren't, such as honest cop Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman, radiating weary nobility) and idealistic young attorney Rachael Dawes (Katie Hudson) lack the clout to fight back. With such an example, it's easy to see why Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) would become disillusioned with society's normal method of justice, and embark on a personal quest to understand and combat crime.The early part of ""Batman Begins"" establishes this background, intercut with Bruce's training with the ancient and mysterious League of Shadows. His mentor (Liam Neeson) describes the society as being devoted to restoring justice, but Bruce soon comes to disagree with their methods. The League thinks society is past repair and wants to eradicate it; Bruce would rather help those trying to fix the problem. Perhaps if he acted as a source of inspiration, a figurehead in the battle against evil… ""Batman Begins"" follows the recent trend in comic-book films, creating a story that is as much driven by characters—specifically the central character—as it is by action. Bale is an ideal choice for the title role: handsome enough to be convincing as a millionaire playboy, and talented enough to convey the shadows in Bruce Wayne's soul. He also does something with Batman that has been seen all too infrequently: he makes him genuinely frightening. With the possible exception of Michael Keaton, no Batman has ever credibly established himself as someone who could strike terror in the heart of even the most hardened and cynical criminal. Bale, speaking in a harsh growl and moving with almost inhuman speed and silence, is naturally intimidating—no wonder both the police and the thugs hesitate to confront him. Nolan has surrounded Bale with brilliant supporting players—in addition to Oldman and Neeson, we have Michael Caine exuding quiet loyalty and dry British wit as faithful butler Alfred, and Morgan Freeman making the most of the scientist who supplies the fledgling Batman with most of his toys. The bad guys' side is rounded out by Tom Wilkinson as Gotham's reigning crime boss, and Cillian Murphy as twisted psychiatrist Dr. Crane. Crane, whose disturbingly serene manner carries echoes of Norman Bates, experiments on his patients with a panic-inducing drug that proves central in tying the various story lines together. In the thankless role of the love interest, Hudson adds a personal dimension to Bruce's crusade but never induces much romantic tension—we know Wayne's bachelor status is never in any real jeopardy. But if that's as bad as it gets, then ""Batman Begins"" is very good indeed. Would that all major ""event"" movies turned out so well.","['2', '3']" +267,rw1234878,Dhawley-2,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,"A serious Batman, a great film.",10 December 2005,0,"Without rehashing the many good reviews posted about this film, I'll just comment on how it was perceived by an aging baby boomer who, like many, grew up reading Batman comics (among others) during the late 1950s and early 1960s. While they were termed 'comic books', many kids took the character seriously. His portrayal in those early comics was done in a serious manner, with barely a hint of humor. That was the indelible image I maintained about the character thereafter. I recall how disappointed, indeed angry, over how Batman was portrayed in the (to me) idiotic television series of the 60s. I was livid that he had been turned into a buffoon. Wild horses couldn't get me to watch that wretched program, even to this day. When Tim Burton's first film version was announced, I was excited. I had enjoyed Burton's other films, and expected great things. I was, once again, disappointed. In spite of the big budget, great costumes and nifty special effects, it just didn't deliver what I had hoped it would. I didn't care for the garish color, the 'villians' were a joke and frankly, Michael Keaton was a curious choice for the role. Subsequent films in that series were even worse (I presume, since I stopped watching them after the second Burton film). Batman Begins, however, hit the mark! Christian Bale was a superb Batman, the development of Bruce Wayne/Batman was thorough and logical (for a comic character, anyway), the sets impressive and the action exhilarating. As others note, finally it was done correctly. I found this version to be as definitive as one could get, and feel that off all the efforts to bring comic book characters to the screen, this was the most successful. Granted, some others have faired well, such as the first two Superman films with Christopher Reeve and the two X-Men movies. Even Spiderman was reasonably good, although the special effects drug the first one down a bit. To those Batman fans that, like me, have waited decades to see the character done as he should be, this is the one. A couple of minor criticisms would be the casting of Cillian Murphy as The Scarecrow. While he did a good job in '28 Days Later', he seemed too juvenile to be believed as a psychiatrist. And, while Katie Holmes was okay in the role, I had a hard time looking at her without thinking of she and Tom Cruise and all of the Scientology controversy, since I did not see the film upon it's release, but on DVD later. Which brings up the final point: those who intend to purchase this film on DVD would be advised to seek out the widescreen DTS surround version. It provides much better surround separation (as DTS generally does) compared to the Dolby Digital version, and the full-frame edition leaves out too much picture information, which negatively affects the enjoyment. A truly excellent film, with a sequel now in production (which will apparently feature The Joker, based upon this film's ending). Highly recommended.","['2', '2']" +268,rw1197509,KSprowl,Batman Begins (2005),1.0,Major disappointment due to extreme miscasting..,19 October 2005,1,"While outstanding performances are given by Christian Bale as Batman, Michael Caine as Alfred, and Liam Neeson as the guru/bad guy, they are nullified with the poor and unbelievable casting of the rest of the characters.Katies Holmes (Rachel Dawes) is not believable in the role she has been cast in as Assistant D.A. and comes off more as a little girl playing dress up, especially with the contrast of the powerful charisma of Christian Bale. There was no on screen chemistry and I just was just not buyable that Bruce Wayne would pine for Cillian Murphy is another major miscast in this movie; he is neither old enough or a good enough of an actor to bring across the sinister deception that this character needed to be believable. Incidentally, Gary Oldman, who was cast in the move as the ""good cop"" would have been perfect for the role.This movie is not even worth at the $2.50 rental that was paid, even if you are a die hard Batman fan, wait 6 months and rent it from the 50c ent movie section as it really isn't worth more than that.","['9', '22']" +269,rw1138225,TVandMovies-Man,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,"First Star Wars Gets Better, Now Batman. It's About Time",30 July 2005,0,"I went into seeing it knowing it got great reviews from critics and everyone else. I, myself expected it to be good, but when I actually saw it, it was even better than I expected it to be. At the end of the movie, when the credits came down, I thought I can't remember who directed it, I'm sure it will come to me. Then before I could remember, Chris Nolan's name came up and I suddenly understood why it was so good; Memento, of course. I like his style better than Tim Burton. This summer both Star Wars: Revenge Of The Sith and now Batman Begins breathed life into ailing franchises that many of us love. If it were up to me I would have Chris Nolan back to direct the next Batman Movie.","['0', '1']" +270,rw1135522,punk_never_a_kev,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,probably the best comic book movie that will ever be made,26 July 2005,1,OK where to begin with this movie thinking of DC's previous release catwoman the future of DC film was looking slim but then was saved by the dark knight or rather Christopher Nolan and his vision of one of the best comic book characters to ever be created BATMAN. A version that is more superior to Tim Burton's version and definitely more superior to Joel Schumacher's version one of the things that stands out in this movie for me is when Christian bale is in the bat suit he becomes a different person his voice the way how he moves it all changes and after the ending how could i not be excited Gordon unveiling the bat light to the bat and then giving him the calling card of another criminal which happens to be a jokers card. It will also be interesting to see what happens in two years time as there is the batman sequel and spidey 3 scheduled for the same year what a great time it is turning out to be for us comic book nuts ROLL ON 2007,"['6', '9']" +271,rw1198780,musicman_ace-1,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,"Good movie, but the writers/directors should have watched the original",22 October 2005,0,"Why does Bruce Wayne become Batman, because the Joker killed his parents. Not some loser off the street name Joe Chill. The joker's name is Jack Napier. Also missing from the scene where the parents die was the quote that Jack Napier made to the boy Bruce Wayne which Batman repeats to the Joker just before he lets Joker fall from the bell tower in the original Batman movie. I'm all for making prequels to a movie, but if your going to do any type of sequel or prequel you might want to watch the originals first. They do allude to the Joker at the end of the movie which begs the question of 'how do you bridge these movies together so they make sense'. Unless they resurrect Joe Chill and rename him Jack Napier in the sequel to Batman Begins, I fail to see the continuity between this move and the other Batman movies.","['0', '3']" +272,rw1223469,tom666,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Makes me wanna go and buy cape and mask!,23 November 2005,0,"Finally! I've seen a lot of movies. I mean a lot. But never really something like this! This is a ""beautiful"" movie. All the special-effects, acting and costumes are in it's highest level! And I must say that the more they make Batman movies the more beautiful they get. Can't wait the sequel!! By the way Batmans costume is just getting better and better. ""got to get me one of those.."" Christian Bale is great in Wayne's role. This time the man behind the mask is truly scary and mysterious. We just have to be happy that he's on our side! =) While you're watching this movie you can see how you almost can touch the excitement. Thank you Christopher Nolan for this masterpiece!","['1', '1']" +273,rw1211490,spinova,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Nolan's New Franchise Rules,8 November 2005,0,"It's not a secret: Nolan kicks Shumacher ass and shows him how to make and direct a Batman movie. The reinvented franchise of the best dark superhero of Gotham is simply AMAZING. I enjoy it from the beginning to the end... all cast fits exactly in the characters. The only ""BUT"" is for Cillian Murphy as Crane. He looks such a baby face, he is too young for play Scarecrow... He's only saved by the mask and the cgi effects for his toxin. By the way, everybody's expecting the new Joker... Replacing Jack Nicholson is a hard challenge. I'd like to see someone younger. How about Johnny Knoxville? Think about it, Mr. Nolan and Mr. Goyer.","['3', '4']" +274,rw1228963,atomicpunk523,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Nolan Created the Ultimate Batman!,1 December 2005,0,"My review on Batman Begins: Director: Christopher Nolan (Greatly known for ""Following"" and ""Memento"") Cast: Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne/Batman), Katie Holmes (Rachel Dawes), Michael Caine (Alfred), Liam Neeson (Ducard). Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox), Ken Watanbe (Ra' Al Ghul), Gary Oldman (Jeff Gordon) Review: Three words folks- better than Burton!!! I thought Tim Burton's ""Batman"" (1989) will reign supreme as Michael Keaton being the ultimate Batman, boy I was dead wrong... Chris Nolan did an astonishing accomplishment with Batman Begins in terms of the comic book and realism. He masterfully created the surreal world of Gotham City with his combination to perfection. The character development for Bruce Wayne was unbelievable and most impressive. Wayne's alter-ego ""Batman"" was truly revived to a substantial level compared to any Batman ever created, dark and dreary as ever! Forget the eye-candy, the script and cast were just superb!!! Chirstian Bale just proved to be the ultimate Batman. Michael Caine's portrayal as Alfred was amazing. Although I must admit I did not find Katie Holmes to be that much of an appealing character, nevertheless that is my opinion. Freeman and Neeson were also brilliant. As for Ken Watanbe, I wish he had more words to say... I love his acting and totally enjoyed his character as Katsumoto in ""The Last Samurai"". By the way Gary Oldman is the perfect Jeff Gordon! In terms of other elements, you will notice how things are very well connected and relevant to the plot, especially clichés linking Wayne with Batman. Everything is slowly revealed and put together like completing a copious jigsaw puzzle one by one. Visual Effects were dazzling along with sound effects. The Batman action sequences were just the way they should be, quick and deadly. Some may complain that it was a bit choppy but Nolan, as being a great director, knows what he is exactly doing. He is simply portraying the legendary masked crusader. The Batmobile was transformed into a more realistic version which is a great example how Nolan mixed realism into the movie. Digital Gotham was artistically incredible.I must confess I was literally in awe after watching this masterpiece. If you're looking for the summer blockbuster of 2005, this is it. Enjoy! ~puNk","['3', '3']" +275,rw1182110,Batboy_789,Batman Begins (2005),,Best film ever,28 September 2005,0,"Batman Begins is the best comic book movie of 2005 nothing beats this movie not even X-Men movies or Spider-Man movies. Warner Bros got it right after the last two movies specially Joel Schumacher's camp-nipples Batman And Robin (1997) 8 years later Christhoper Nolan takes director's chair and a script by David S. Goyer bought Batman back to big screen. Christian Bale is the best Batman/Bruce Wayne here he has the height, physical body and of course ability to act. Again anther great actor Michael Caine plays royal butler Alfred he's not just butler here Caine plays him solid and he has more screen time then Michael Gough. (Gough played Alfred in the four previous movies) Great acts just adding this film and Gary Oldman plays Lt Jim Gordon soon to be commissioner of Gotham City, Gordon looks like just like in Batman: Year One by Frank Miller. Bruce (Bale) travels the world but captured and he is in prisoned he is saved by Henri Ducard (Liam Nesson) says he works for Ra's Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe) called League of Shadows Wayne visits Ducard and Ra's Wayne is stopped by Ducard asked questions by Ra'S he is beaten by Ducard in a fight Wayne trains with League of Shadows when Ra's Al Ghul tells Bruce that Gotham has to be destroyed and he has ex cute a man too but Bruce rejects and sets everything on fire fire saves Ducard falling of a cliff. Bruce returns to Gotham met by Alfred, Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) Katie plays DA Assisant and sees Wayne Enterprises taken by Richard Earle (Rutger Hauer) and meets Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) in the science department of Wayne Enterprises that's he gets Tumbler (Batmaobile) and other gadgets from. Batman stops Gotham mob boss Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson) and Cillian Murphy plays Doctor Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow. 9/10 I can't for a sequel.","['1', '1']" +276,rw1139332,spdaughtry2002,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,The origins of Batman are explored and his life of fighting crime begins.,31 July 2005,0,"I've seen this movie twice now (a second time to get a few details I missed the first go 'round) and have liked it very much. The three-tiered structure of villainy is innovative and the dark vision for an understandably troubled man who becomes a crime fighter is thought-out and well-done. However, because the film moves at such a fast clip, both visually (the action scenes are quite something, if not a bit dizzying whilst I was sometimes trying to figure out exactly what was going on) and story-wise, the movie is a bit hard to follow in places. Still, this is the best screen adaptation about the Dark Knight I've seen yet, and I've seen 'em all. Christian Bale makes the best Batman, though Adam West from the 1960's TV series, with his tongue-and-cheek, overly serious manner, is still a close second. Michael Cain, great British thespian that he is, makes a perfect Alfred. Katie Holmes as the leading lady and Bruce Wayne's love interest is the only weak link in this movie. Otherwise, the cast, including Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, and Cillian Murphy is stellar.","['0', '0']" +277,rw1138343,dbentley4,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,Batman Begins--Most Interesting Movie Made After 9/11,30 July 2005,0,"Christopher Nolan's BATMAN BEGINS is that rare thing: an ideologically subtle film from Hollywood. Unlike Spielberg's childish and incoherent War of the Worlds, which gave us images of towers toppling but did not give us any clue or any compelling reason as to why those towers should topple in THAT way in THAT film, Batman Begins avoids explicit reminders of 9/11, but compensates by putting together a coherent analysis of America's problems, and by offering a familiar but always reliable recipe for dealing with them.The villains, it needs to be remembered, are not your run-of-the-mill criminals (Tom Wilkinson is there to remind us about THEM). They are trained assassins, dedicated to a cause, determined to bring decadent civilizations to an end. They are concerned with renewal and purification. In a word, they are fanatics.Their training camp is located in some part of the world that is distant from the US, perhaps Tibet. In any case, the terrain is rugged and menacing, fit home for deadly assassins.Their methods of operation are also ominous and familiar. They will vaporize the water supply and use the fumes to spread a hallucinogenic drug. This, of course, taps into very well documented American fears about terrorist attacks, fears which regularly involve contamination of the water supply.The leader of the fanatics appears to be Turkish , but, interestingly, the really dangerous man is a Frenchman, Henri Ducard, played with brio and conviction by Liam Neeson. Why French? Well, they weren't too nice during the Iraq business, were they? Most interesting of all, Bruce Wayne's father is represented as a sort of welfare liberal, who thinks he can solve the city's problems by improving public transport. Not only does this not help, he is actually killed by (the movie suggests) one of the products of the welfare state, a man who is then let off after serving part of his sentence. At a crucial part of the film, Ducard suggests to Batman that his father let him down, that his father was to blame for what happened to Batman's parents. This suggestion is allowed to stand uncontradicted. In fact, it is only when Bruce Wayne realizes that crime must be met with stern, uncompromising justice, and not with soppy liberal mercy, that he becomes Batman. The message is clear. Soft liberalism has landed Gotham in deep danger. It has become decadent. If Gotham's best citizens don't clean up, the League of Shadows will.Then there are Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman, doing versions of their patented acts as crusty but loyal servitors. Caine makes a good Tony Blair figure, one who is efficient, loyal, somewhat ingratiating towards the boss, and knows his place.Freeman, of course, shows the black man his precise place in American society, which is pointedly NOT that of the fast-talking,power-seeking, but ultimately useless and ridiculous (black) mayor. Rutger Hauer, his cold Teutonic features now only indicating commercial ruthlessness, is a dim reminder of older enemies, from the World Wars.The combination of fanatical assassins and a dangerously motivated Frenchman may indicate that the real danger is not terrorism per se, but a Europe that does not know that it's true destiny lies in First World solidarity.All in all, a brilliant film, far more subtly compelling than anything I've seen on this theme in recent years. If Nolan and the scriptwriters remain true to form, who will the Joker be? Perhaps the United Nations, gaily bedecked with the flags of the countries that prefer peace to posturing.While on the topic, it is worth considering that superheroes of ambiguous origin, associated with bats and spiders (normally arousing the reaction Yeccchhh!) have left the open, ingenuous, SuperGood, SuperClean Superman behind. Why? What was wrong with him? He wore his heart upon his sleeve, and he wasn't masked. Now, with the world itself becoming more menacing, less easy to read, superheroes like Spiderman and Batman have come into their own. They have embraced the darkness of the world, the better to deal with it. Batman appeals to beleaguered Americans as nothing else does. Brooding aloft his pillar, watching over Gotham City as it is menaced by thugs and grotesque lowlifes, he promises to hit back hard, in a way America's enemies will understand, and fear.","['0', '1']" +278,rw1237773,esteemedleader,Batman Begins (2005),1.0,It makes me hate life...,13 December 2005,0,"I'm a huge Batman fan, I love the comic books, and the earlier movies are among my fave movies of all time. I had great expectations for this movie, but unfortunately...It was awful. For many reasons. First, how can you make a movie that preaches to be 'the origin story of Batman', and then re-write that origin? And why was everything brown? The choice for actors looked good, with Bale as a young Batman and Neeson as Ras al Ghul. However the movie is poorly written and very poorly directed. Batman acts very little like the true Dark Knight, and Bale did not translate his persona well at all. The villains were, in one word, pathetic shells of their former selves.The plot was garbage, and confusing garbage at that. And do I even have to mention the fight scenes? As far as I'm concerned, this movie should never have come into existence.","['5', '19']" +279,rw1133562,SamuelWhite,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,The way Batman was meant to be!,24 July 2005,0,"This is the Batman I have been waiting for! Tim Burton's Batman (Batman, Batman Returns) movies were good Tim Burton movies, but not great Batman movies. Joel Schumucher's (Batman Forever, Batman and Robin) I'm convinced were made to mock the Dark knight and destroy his good name. But this new one is everything Batman should be and needs to be. And the villains are all played to perfection! Christopher Nolan is my favorite director and this (along with Memento) is his best work. If you see no other movie this year, see Batman Begins.Note: This is not a prequel to Tim Burton's Batman. This is a completely new Batman movie series.","['11', '13']" +280,rw1139989,hokeybutt,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,"Best Batman Ever? Yep, I'd Have To Agree...",1 August 2005,0,"BATMAN BEGINS (4 outta 5 stars) When I first heard about this movie... and saw some of the preliminary designs (big rubber mask, fancy Bat-gear, tank-like Batmobile) I expected the worst... some brainless action movie with lots of noise and explosions and not much else. I thought the world needed another ""Batman"" movie like it needed another ""Rocky"". Well, I was wrong. This is definitely the best ""Batman"" movie ever filmed. Much as I enjoyed the first Tim Burton movie, I have to admit that it's Jack Nicholson's performance that made it memorable. The script had some fun scenes and some good one-liners but it didn't really have a satisfying story. This time around they have a decent script to build their action scenes on. The story and screenplay by David Goyer and director Christopher (""Memento"") Nolan deals with the entirety of the Batman legend... telling us in great detail just how he evolved from rich playboy to obsessed crime-fighter. I found it amazing how the movie could pack in so much story and background and not make it all seem rushed and crammed together. They even toss in a completely unnecessary love interest for Bruce Wayne... a childhood sweetheart played by Katie Holmes... but it still works! The movie's elements all come together and even though there are several name actors in small roles (Rutger Hauer, Liam Neeson, Ken Watanabe, Tom Wilkinson, Morgan Freeman... not to mention Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon and Michael Caine as Alfred the butler) none of them seem short-changed on screen time... or good lines. Michael Caine almost walks off with the movie... as probably the definitive Alfred... but Morgan Freeman gives him some fierce competition as the Wayne Foundation science tech who is able to provide Batman with some of his fancy crime-fighting equipment. Christian Bale is probably the best actor who has taken on the role so far. In previous movies the Bat-suit was the star... it didn't really matter much WHO they put in it. This time, Bruce Wayne takes center stage and Bale makes us see him as a man... and not just a secret identity. There are minor flaws (Ken Watanabe could have been used more, the Scarecrow character seemed a bit superfluous) but this still ranks as one of the best superhero movies ever done.","['3', '4']" +281,rw1215695,Mithrandir-Olorin1,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Finally Batman Done Right!!!!!!!!,11 November 2005,1,"After dealing with OK Burton films and nightmare Induceing Shumacker films, Finally a Movie that does the Dark Knight the Justice he deserves.This does take Liberties yes that's unavoidable but it doesn't completely ignore the comics like others had done.Origin: Everyone may know Superman Origin, but Batman's is typacly Simplafied to ""Parents he lost his head"" this movie finally shows how it was A lot! more complicated then just that.Villains: this time the Focus is on Bruce Wayne/Batman not the Villains but the Villains are done justice none the Less much more faithfully then in the older Movies which where pretty much name only.Also Finally Gordon is done the Justice he deserves rather then being delegated to an Extra with Lines.Only Flaws: Katie Holmes and the Lack of Harvey Dent, hopefully these won't be problems in the sequels.","['2', '2']" +282,rw1135102,mouse1989,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,A New Generation of Batman Movies,25 July 2005,0,Batman Begins is starting a new generation of Batman movies. This one if the best and it gave such a great beginning story to what happened to Bruce.Christian Bale gave a very good performance. He is a good Batman and I hope to see him continue with other Batman movies because he has proved himself to be one of the next leading Hollywood men in this time.The supporting cast was excellent too. Michael Caine gave a great performance as always as the Butler. He really brings energy to a movie.Morgan Freeman too is good as always but his part needed to be bigger. He is one of my favorite actors and I thought he was good in this movie too.Kate Holmes. She is another cute and sweet actress that I personally love to see in films. The not so good reviews First Daughter I thought was a good movie. She really has a potential too.Batman Begins is not to be missed. It is a good film and I am waiting for the next one! :),"['4', '5']" +283,rw1150679,RipRapRob,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,Best Batman ever,15 August 2005,0,"This is the best Batman film ever, and even better than I hoped, and much better than the last batman films. I would even consider buying this one, when it comes out on DVD.But unfortunately it is not without faults: Katie Holmes simply doesn't work as Rachel Dawes: She looks too young – almost like a teenager – and is simply unconvincing as an assistant D.A.But even worse is the fight scenes: For some obscure reason, all fight scenes is filmed so close and edited in such short sequences, you never get a feeling that a fight even takes place: Just an insane number of clips of SOMETHING moving, with sounds added. I'm sorry, is just not convincing in any way.I can live with Katie Holmes (minus one star) but I would have preferred a more mature babe with brains, but the fight scenes (minus two stars) being filmed 'to close' simply doesn't work for me; it's just annoying.","['1', '2']" +284,rw1147380,cwfultz,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,My New Favorite Comic Book Movie,10 August 2005,0,"To me, Batman is the most mysterious superhero there is. We know about Superman's past. It has a TV show. I was very pleased to see how Batman became what he is. I am not a reader of comics so I wasn't making comparisons. This guy that my friend is dating is a comic book freak and he wouldn't shut up about how this movie strayed away from the comics. At least five people told him to shut up in unison.I did expect this to be good because there was so much speculation and buzz on it. I was excited to see if it was really good as it turned out. It now ranks with the Spider-Mans and Elektra as my favorite adapted movies.The direction of this film was spectacular as was the screen writing. I'm hoping that different people aren't brought in for the possible sequel/remake that is suggested at the end of the movie. The acting is also good. The Batman that was chosen was a great choice. I couldn't imagine him being played by anyone else.I highly recommend this to fans of the old Batmans and any other comic movie. Maybe not so much to extreme comic book fans, though.","['2', '2']" +285,rw1235852,Complier,Batman Begins (2005),3.0,Forgettable.,11 December 2005,0,"When I first heard about this movie, I cringed. Maybe because of the horrible taste of ""Batman & Robin"" , or maybe because I expected it to be a mediocre movie. I was right.I've seen both. Let me say, ""Begins"" is not what it's made out to be. As many others have stated before, ""Batman Begins"" should be called Bruce Wayne Begins. There is no Batman until late in the movie, and the Batman that does show up is very disappointing.I have no problem with Christian Bale, at all. I think he is a excellent actor, especially in ""Equilibrium"" and ""Reign of Fire"". He tried his hardest to be a good Batman, and I give him kudos for that.Everything else about this movie, I groaned. Too well-lit, no back-story, Gotham City looks like New York for Christ sake's. The Batmobile is a tank, and the villains, please.If I put on Batman '89, I would remember it for a few weeks on end. Huming the beautiful theme, remembering great scenes, and more. But with ""Begins"", no way. I've seen this 3 times now, and I still can't remember anything about this film.Let's hope the sequel is better. -3/10","['1', '4']" +286,rw1220386,stormruston,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,Best of the lot.,20 November 2005,0,"This Batman is the best of the batman series and the most non-comic like, in that vain it is the least like the comics and therefore in many ways not true to the DC comics, but it made for a great movie.Loved the fact that they gave up so much time to character development, without sacrificing any action.We really get to know Bruce Wayne and what made him the man (batman) he is today.All the actors are very good, and the action sequences are generally very good to out right excellent.Great production values and watchable for anyone over 10 years of age.This one is so different from the rest of the batman series that it might not only be considered separate from the other four, but even a new series.","['0', '0']" +287,rw1200287,spits32,Batman Begins (2005),7.0,Dare to brave an honest review of this?,21 October 2005,0,"I tried to like this movie, I really did. Some parts just really drove me up the wall. Like how Bruce Wayne was unable to kill a worthless thieving hobo, but only seconds later able to whomp all the ninja's asses who he had befriended and trained with for months and months, then obliterate their dojo (possibly incinerating most of them in the process). This was I agree pretty minor but still irritating. Then the movie went along well until the cop car/bat-mobile (can I call that a bat-mobile?) chase scene. If Batman is such a defender of the public why would he needlessly take out half a dozen cop cars? This part just seemed like a lame excuse to put in some Nascar-esquire explosions. Then the movie continued alright until the climax. The ""twist"" plot seemed nicely forced, and Gotham City felt ridiculously smokey and fake, like I was on a Disney park theme ride. The whole train sequence was also extremely over the top.Katie Holmes was of course abysmal as expected. I liked Bale as Bruce Wayne but his Batman voice and style got old real fast. This was a decent movie, but it's getting an crud load of praise. I think people are just gaga over it because compared to the last two batman sequels, this is a masterpiece. But seriously people try to look at this movies in a vacuum if at all possible. I give it a 6.5","['1', '2']" +288,rw1163606,whilem_6,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,The MOST dark Batman you 've ever seen,2 September 2005,0,"OK guys,listen up.I 've grown up with batman but trust me,this will not affect my judging. Christopher Nolan Made an excellent work with his camera games.Besides we couldn't expect less from the director of memento right? The script,is excellent.It showed us cleverly Bruce's childhood (through nightmares,or memories and stuff),yet the dialogs are awesome,full of emotions and pretty smart if u ask me. Acting was superb,especially Bale deifies his role as batman.You see thats the true face of batman.Scary and rough mostly. Also i must say that i am very satisfied from the effects of the film.It has few 3d effects,and i can say that the way that this batman is made,is everlasting Guys u must see this movie...","['7', '10']" +289,rw1151775,Jussi_Hullu,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,Good movie with some weak points,16 August 2005,1,"I enjoyed the movie, and I thinks it is worth of the good rating in IMDb. The plot was good enough and I even liked the first half of the movie. But here and there there were things that just felt wrong, here is a short list from the top of my mind (and from the worst to the least):1. Close combat scenes. It was very hard to understand what was going on, wobbly camera, darkness and fast multi angle cuts adding to the confusion. Almost as bad as in Resident Evil: Apocalypse. Only reason I can think is that Christian Bale didn't wan't to learn to act hand to hand combat. But in most of the battles he is wearing the bat-mask (and fighting masked enemies) so they could have used a stunt double to do the dirty work. Go figure, maybe it's just a close-combat directing fad.2. Microwave-machine that can vaporise water many yards away... ... but vaporises nothing water based (blood, anyone?).3. Undestructible Bat-tank Running through 20 inch concrete wall that is designed to stop vehicles from running through it (being in between of the lanes...). No way something that flimsy could do that, no matter how high-tech it is. Can't say for sure but I think it even went wheels-first to the walls. Some wheels there. And it wasn't even made to break walls, but to jump over rivers.4. Tricycle-Bat-tank There is a reason wheels are usually located in the sides and near the corners of a vehicle, it's called stability. And if it was meant for for rough terrain bridge building, no wonder army was not interested. That thing would topple over at the first sight of a slope.5. Gun in a courthouse Bruce was able to smuggle a gun in to a courthouse in a crime-infested town? I can understand the assassin (bribing and all) but Bruce? Maybe he did some heavy bribing off-screen.6. Grapple-gun Okay, just a minor rant here, it is one of his trademark toys so no way to exclude it from movie no matter how ridiculous it is. Rest of the Bat-suit and accessory was well portrayed (maybe excluding the bat-throwing-stars), even the armor was told not to be bullet proof.","['5', '7']" +290,rw1227829,RadioactiveRat,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Excellent Reinvention of the Batman Series,29 November 2005,0,"Filed 10:00 P.M CSTPhony News It is believed by some that Batman Begins is an extraordinary movie and probably the best of the Batman series. It begins with our young and well off hero Bruce losing his parents to a random act of violence in the highly dysfunctional and wild city of Gotham. In an act that will likely be regarded by leading talk show hosts as very cool, Bruce embarks on a quest for vengeance. This brings him into the company of some very bright if misguided characters some years later, the ""League of Shadows"". They educate him on the errors of his ways and the wildly successful hobby of the Ninja. After which he embarks on an ambitious mission to liberate Gotham city from its corruption. The movie is unique in that it is considerably more plausible than its predecessors. The criminal's motives are very clear-cut, being mainly greed. The crime boss is also a believable crime boss, and isn't dressed as a circus freak. Batman also incorporates a number of advanced but feasible technologies to accomplish his tasks. The tricks aren't just smoke and mirrors. The film is worth 9 out of 10 stars.","['0', '0']" +291,rw1141475,Lostoyannaya,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,~~Beautiful Movie and Best of the Year~~,3 August 2005,1,"This movie is just so Gothic and wonderful. Some critics complain that it's special-effects driven, but I argue that the beautiful scenery is the thing that adds to the effectiveness of the film more than the CGI, especially the parts shot in Iceland at the beginning.The second thing that's really excellent about this film is the soundtrack, produced by Zimmer and Howard, which is just something else entirely. It's beautiful, dark and Gothic all at the same time, and really, really emotional. It was one of the first things I first noticed about the film when I saw it in the cinema.And the third thing is the acting, which was wonderfully executed, especially the differences in beliefs by Bruce Wayne and Henri Ducard whilst Wayne Mannor is burning to the ground -_- That was a truly awesome scene.~~Lostoyannaya","['0', '0']" +292,rw1167396,jal_lomba,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Batman really returns,7 September 2005,0,"I was quite impressed with this Batman. At first, i was not even going to consider watching it on the cinemas, but i started to unveil the list of actors. Cristian Bale?? The main actor of the superb movie equilibrium and the Machinist, started to surprise me and than i decided to go and watch the movie.I was really impressed. This is actually the image from Batman i have from the B.D books i used to read when i was younger.The conflicts, the machines, the FIGHTS. This was impressive. Liam is a superb actor, i think, Batman returns 2 should be started, so we can erase the old Batman movies, that where so unreal.This movie , has achieved a super-hero image, so close to the designed on the 90's Comics, that X-man, and the fantastic four are light -years away from this amazing movie. A must see. I already did it 2times.....","['1', '1']" +293,rw1219907,patrick_dunne,Batman Begins (2005),5.0,"Okay, but far from perfect",19 November 2005,0,"Batman has had a history of movies, both good and bad. I believe most of them were the usual ""kill the villain, protect the innocent civilians and save the day"" sort of films, but this was different.Batman Begins is most likely different from the originals. Why? It has a much darker environment, and takes a much more serious tone. The dark environment is nice. The color black invades the screen, and everything on it- from the costume to the sky. It does have it's moments, but, the entire film lacks action or thrills. You may think that the night sky was only put in there to help you fall asleep easier. It seems to be more of a horror film than an action film. The entire film is good, but far from entertaining. It aims for a darker tone more than anything else, and that sort of tone is best for dramas, such as Falling Down and Mystic River. The hallucination/fear thing was a bit odd too. Hopefully, the sequel will be an improvement, just like X-2 and Spider-man 2.6.5/10","['0', '1']" +294,rw1192287,claudio_carvalho,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Excellent Batman,12 October 2005,0,"""Batman Begins"" is certainly the best among the five movies of this great hero released in the theaters. After 1776 reviews in IMDb, I do not know what I can write that have not been written before. In my opinion, this film begins wonderful with the director, Christopher Nolan, of the fantastic ""Memento"", one of my favorite movies. The cast is a constellation, composed of excellent actors and actress: Christian Bale is awesome in the role of the troubled and confused Bruce Wayne; Michael Caine, as Alfred, elegant, gentle and tough, is also perfect; Cillian Murphy, Liam Neeson, Tom Wilkinson, Hutger Hauer are very evil bad guys; Katie Holmes, Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman complete this lovely cast. The special effects are very good, and the cinematography recalls ""Blade Runner"", with rainy and dark locations. The story explains the origins of Batman since his childhood in Gotham City. The soundtrack fits perfectly to the scenes. It is amazing to see that there are bad reviews of this movie, which is a very above average entertainment. My vote is nine.Title (Brazil): ""Batman Begins""","['13', '29']" +295,rw1207997,Boba_Fett1138,Batman Begins (2005),7.0,Batman re-imagined.,3 November 2005,0,"It's interesting to see a whole new different take on the Batman franchise. All of the previous Batman movies are ignored and this movie completely re-imaginings the story and the character of Bruce Wayne/Batman. I'm sure that the fans will like this new different approach towards the franchise. The character of Bruce Wayne/Batman is even darker and more sinister than in any of the previous movies. This is also the first time that the character of Bruce Wayne is much more interesting than that of Batman himself. It explores what it is that drives Bruce Wayne to fight crime in his batsuit. The movie unfortunately tries to cover a bit too much of his story. The story covers too much and a lot is happening in this movie. The movie tells how Bruce lost his parent, how he was trained, how he returned to Gotham and reclaimed all his property and in the mean time he fights many criminals such as Carmine Falcone, the Scarecrow and in the end another villain but who that is, I'm not going to spoil for you. It simply is all too much to just tell in one movie. There isn't one main villain which makes this movie a bit too hard to understand at times. I'm sure this is all that the fans wanted but from a storytelling point of view the movie is flawed. Because it covers so much, not everything always flows well or feels connected to each other. The story lacked a main plot line and only towards the ending the movie gets a more steady and clear story-line. There also are too many characters introduced in to movie. The movie could had also used some more humor. The movie takes itself too serious most of the time. There is some humor in the movie but that humor feels rather forced and childish/lame.There are two different kinds of darkness in movies; atmospheric dark, like in the '89 version was the case and just normal dark, which in this movie is present. I prefer the atmospheric dark personally. I think they took 'dark knight' perhaps a little bit too literally. The movie was simply too plain dark at times, without doing much good to the atmosphere. Strangely enough Gotham City itself wasn't dark enough looking. The Gothic Tim Burton look that made Gotham City such a memorable and imaginatively place is surely missed in this movie.The movie is superbly and impressively cast. Christian Bale is good as Bruce Wayne but not always as Batman. Michael Caine is a great Alfred. There was much hate towards Katie Holmes towards her role but that had more to do with her strange Tom Cruise affair than her acting abilities. I thought she did great in this movie and she portrayed a strong but sensitive female character. Other wonderful actors in the movie are Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, Tom Wilkinson, Morgan Freeman and Ken Watanabe. Cillian Murphy truly surprised and impressed me in his villainous role. Like many others I thought, before seeing this movie, that he wasn't the right actor for a role like this one but he simply was more than great in his role. Another great surprise was Rutger Hauer. I already knew he was a great actor and it was wonderful to see him in a big production again. He plays a kind of character that suits him perfectly, a hard businessman, that also can be seen as a small villain part.There is some good action in the movie and some great fights but nothing really memorable though. I'm sure it was all very impressive to see this on the big screen but at home it all just doesn't look that impressive.I'm beginning to sound awfully negative about this movie but that's just because I simply didn't enjoyed this movie as much as everyone else seemed to had done. I feel that the movie is seriously flawed at times, mainly with its story but still I rate this movie a 7 out of 10 which by no means is a weak rating of course. It means that I still enjoyed most parts of the movie and am still anxious to see this new Batman franchise continued in the near future.7/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/","['0', '3']" +296,rw1160277,denharmailenarunik,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Batman Begins,28 August 2005,0,"Well, first off, I must say; Bale, as mentioned before, is perfect as Batman. His acting performance in the movie is just outstanding, therefore my high rating. The movie itself, plot, dialogs and so on, its nothing out of the ordinary, but then you start to think about those 90's Batman movies. This just seem more realistic, more ""Bruce"" than ""Batman"" and with the perfect acting from Bale, it makes all other Batman movies look really dull and daft. They managed to put in a few funny lines as well, Michael Cane and Morgan Freeman gave the movie that extra ""casual"" yet serious, although funny touch to it all. I am impressed, more Bale, more Batman! Continue in style.danrozen,swe","['5', '6']" +297,rw1133610,stew8dean,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,Dark and well made.,24 July 2005,1,"The best batman movie with some minor flaws but overly enjoyable. One point that didn't make sense was the water vapourising machines - how come it only vaporised water in the pipes and not in the people? Thankfully I could suspend my disbelief on that point to enjoy there rest of the film. The Batmobile, for example, was a classic big of film hardware design and the acting was consistently enjoyable all the way through (altough drafting in Morgan Freeman and Micheal Cane was cheating).Well worth the money to watch - well worthy of a Batman continues, or what ever it's called and makes the Fantastic Four look like a ikea flat pack compared to this towering Gothic construction.Good plot, excellent build up and ending that doesn't fall totally flat (increasingly rare these days).","['1', '2']" +298,rw1203098,loki_77,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Back to the roots,28 October 2005,1,"I never was a fan of Batman... but this changed, for 'Batman begins' is the latest cinematic work following a promising course. The last few Batman movies were kind of ridiculous, not in terms of handiwork, but certainly regarding storytelling. Special effects seemed to have much more weight, exotic things like a well told story appeared secondary at best.As I see it Special effects are there to support the narrative, not vice versa. And so it really was a pleasure to watch Mr. Nolans excellent work, who luckily seems to have had similar thoughts. Of course the Special effects are superb. Gotham City, the gadgets, the tumbler. Introducing keysi, a fairly new fighting style. The characters are perfectly casted, a lot of time was spent introducing them properly, and the story was taken seriously.All of this heightens credibility, making it an enjoyable, fascinating experience. Now I can't hardly await the sequel.","['1', '1']" +299,rw1131992,franklakers,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Micheal Who????,21 July 2005,0,"I finally got a chance to see this movie and my GOD, it's easily the best comic book movie to date! Christian Bale nails the roles of Batman and Bruce Wayne, bringing depth that has not been seen in any of the previous films. Keaton was a good Batman, but a horrible Bruce Wayne, Kilmer was an OK Bruce Wayne, but a terrible Batman, and Clooney was just bad at it all.The rest of the cast was awesome as well, Micheal Caine's Alfred had the humor and sensitivity that just worked for this movie and Liam Neeson was interesting as Ducard, but the scene stealer for me was Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow. I really hope he comes back in the sequelMy hat off to Christopher Nolan for making a dark,gritty,and very realistic Batman, and David Goyer for penning a great script. The story had me in my seat the whole movie. I can't leave out the ending because it was a perfect set up for a sequel and I can't wait!!!!!This is what happens when you get a great director with passion for the material and a great cast, you get a great movie and Batman Begins is the movie all other comic book movies should take notes from.","['0', '1']" +300,rw1199314,myrkeyjones,Batman Begins (2005),7.0,"Works at its best, when it isn't a batman film.",22 October 2005,0,"In my opinion the very fact that this film was a batman film is the element that weakened it. It seem to work so much better when it was character building, in the first 40 minutes. I found as soon as our hero put on the black cape the film didn't work, it lost its attention to detail, sloppily slipping in and out of sentiment. I think Christian Bale is a great performer, his performance in American Psyco and his butt kicking gun carter from the cult hit Equilibrium, have proved his presence. His performance as Bruce Wayne is deep and rooted, but as soon as he plays batman, it becomes a rather cheesy affair. The same can be said for Cillian Murphy, who is suitably sinister as a corrupted Phycologist, but his character nose dives with the cheesy lines of the Scarcrow character. I have to say this now that Katie Holmes is a promising performer yet her performance is rather poor here, not terrible though. Another problem with this film is the music, not denying the prowess of such grand performers as Hans Zimmer(Gladiator) and James Newton Howard (The sixth sense). Unforortunately these two creative forces collide like two power sources canceling each other out. The composers music worked much better when it was separated. Howards sweeping emotional score, with Zimmers synthesized epic quality. Yet personally i would have just gone with Howard, for a strong emotion suspense score. forget Zimmer as he didn't suit this film. Yet not all is lost, this is a great film, and its nice to see major studio's such as Warner issuing such, investment and creative control to a too often ridged and commercial industry. Christopher Noland, director of the masterful 'Momento' brings this film a dark edge. This film isn't perfect, but its miles ahead of most of the crap American studio's are pumping out these days. i can only hope that this is the start of an assent ion from this slump wave been having with originality and quality. 14/11/07: after viewing the film again it's clear this film is a bit of a mildstone. looking forward to the dark knight.","['4', '5']" +301,rw1219260,rexhableur,Batman Begins (2005),2.0,Yet another Hollywood Let-down,18 November 2005,0,"Having just watched the DVD release of this summer blockbuster, I have little to report in regards to Batman Begins, other than these few words: exceedingly disappointing. After an enthralling and intelligent 40 minute preamble, the story slides into a cookie-cutter WAL-MART stocking-stuffer. What a shame - great cast, interesting setup, beautiful sets, intelligent director - but lousy bloody script! What a shame Hollywood shows only an interest in producing lunch-pail products. The film ends in one's mind before you switch off your television; you know he gets the girl, saves the city and punishes the bad guys . . . and yet, this film is so obvious and predictable, I had to watch it to the end, just to ensure it WAS predictable. Ah well, I've lost all my faith in comic-book to film adaptations. At least Sin City pushed the limits (of good and bad taste). All Batman Begins pushes are a suggested sequel, a Mac Ronald's promo and some Chinese action figures.","['2', '8']" +302,rw1236763,justin-486,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,WOW!! This puts a shame on Keaton and all who followed.Thanks Nolan!!,12 December 2005,0,"Ever since I was a child I have loved Batman.I have seen all of the Batman movies.I was sceptical of seeing this one because of being afraid it would be as generic and fake as the last ones made.I didn't go and see it in the theatre,and now I am regretting it.I just rented it on pay-preview,and WOW.Good thing I have a big screen TV,I was able to enjoy the affects.I am going to buy this one on DVD.I think all of us Batman fans need to take our hats off to Nolan for doing such a FINE FINE job.Thank You Christopher Nolan,You made it feel real.I will be thinking about Batman for the next 6 months or so.Please make more,I will definitely see the next ones in the theatre. Thanks Again, Justin","['0', '1']" +303,rw1200873,edwin27,Batman Begins (2005),6.0,Not the big deal,24 October 2005,0,"Okay, i don't know how this movie got such good reviews i don't get it. First the fighting scenes are annoying because the camera moves too much and you can barely see what they' re doing. Second for GOD SAKE this tow words "" FEAR "" and "" AFRAID "" are almost half of the script , no kidding they say those words more than 50 times on the movie it is really annoying !!!! Oh and do not forget those movement of batman, he basically have the same powers than superman, there are some scenes where he is flying , you don't see him using his stuffs. Katie Holmes had a good acting , even if in half of the time you see her she is like crying or about to. Besides those things the movie has a good story , and the guy that did Batman did good , even if i don't see him as a batman his acting was good. Oh and one more thing God! did you noticed how his voiced changed when he was batman and when he was Bruce when he is batman he has a deep scaring voice and when he is Bruce he has a normal kinda of gay voice. That doesn't really fit","['2', '3']" +304,rw1160147,sandler-2,Batman Begins (2005),,Who Should play who in the Sequel?,28 August 2005,0,"Not knowing who officially is/are the villains in the sequel, let's play the casting game....Who do you think should play who in the sequel?Here's mine....Harvey Dent....Peter Sarsgard *I also think Adrian Brody would be good, imagine have his face jacked up!The Joker........Adrian Brody or Guy Pierce *Mark Hamil won't happen, let's be honest. It has to be a big name. *Crispin Glover would be creepy, but I think it'll be too big of risk. *Rumors of Pitt and Penn have been brought up, those could good. 12 MONKEYS PITT would be amazing. *Paul Bettany could get the role, I think he'd be good.Catwoman.....Selma Blair or Maggie GyllenhaalWho do YOU think should play these characters?","['0', '2']" +305,rw1252184,dndcullens,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,A surprisingly good movie,1 January 2006,0,"Having got Batman Begins for Christmas, I was wary of its content considering the lame efforts after the first one. However, having watched it I found myself engrossed in it. It was a highly entertaining movie and possibly the best Batman yet. The DVD just contained the movie and the trailer which was something of a surprise but sometimes this is a good thing. Having watched several DVD's which show in dept backgrounds to scenes and the highly irritating stories of what a struggled it was to bring the movie to the screen, the lack of extra's was somewhat of a bonus! The movie itself is brilliant and for once the blurb on the front was justified.","['1', '1']" +306,rw1207639,Jalea,Batman Begins (2005),,Batman Begins (2005) is to Batman (1989),2 November 2005,0,"What Deep Impact (1998) was to Armageddon (1998). Although both movies were entertaining Deep Impact's storyline and character's were more well developed. In the end, you actually cared about and for the main characters. Batman (2005)is almost two different movies in one with the visual narrative of Bruce Wayne's history and why he became Batman. Also explained is how he became Batman, and the explanation borders plausibility (as much as a DC Comic movie can). The atmosphere was just right as was the casting, and story development excellent with surprises, plot twists and turns that keep you wondering what will happen next, this is a movie definitely worth checking out.","['0', '1']" +307,rw1251675,ghostface-1,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,The best of the Batman franchise,31 December 2005,1,"I think this is the best Batman movie to the date yet, it was great but at the same time risky the idea of reinvent the franchise because 4 movies were made after this with success except the fourth one that didn't surpass the expectactions.BATMAN BEGINS tells how it really began, starts in the very beginning of Bruce Wayne (played by Christian Bale, the best Batman in my POV) and shows how his parents' deaths changes his life and his fears of the ferocious bats. With the time he even changes more that all his close friends gives him the back and Gothan City becomes an corrupt city without no justice, so he decides to disappear and is stuck on a prison, so he is released by Henri Ducard (Liam Neesom), a recruit of Ra's Al Ghul with the condition for receive the necessary training for fight against crime, but he does not becomes Batman until he comes back to Gotham City and sees how changed the city since he left it and that makes him decides to become something for the population of the city claiming for justice over the corruption that is plagued now. Then he enters the cave that has the ferocious bats that attacked him when he was only a child and now he calls them for fight his fears and become finally in Batman, the man that the thieves -or bad people, whatever how we call it-.I gives this 9 stars out of 10 stars.","['1', '1']" +308,rw1209892,DUMOLT,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,They got it right,6 November 2005,0,"This movie has removed all of the destruction Tim Burton has wreaked on the Batman fable. It does for Bob Kane what Lord of the Rings did for J.R.R. Tolkien. This is without a doubt Hollywood's best re-creation of a comic book concept. Yes, it's true that you must immerse yourself in another universe - (although Gotham is a little closer to our own than Middle Earth)- but you can almost believe it exists. Add the fact that of all the superheros only ""The Batman"" lacks supernatural powers and you will delight in the film's cleverness. It is escapism in it's finest form. The only disappointment is that you are left wishing, no yearning, that a sequel is on your coffee table and ready to be inserted into the DVD player. If you are only going to view one fanciful movie this year, by all means see this.","['0', '1']" +309,rw1233045,gr3hughes,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,THAT's Batman,7 December 2005,0,"This is the Batman that I've wanted to see. Michael Keeton gave a good feeling on the darkness that Bruce Wayne had in him, but you never knew why. I mean did Alfred teach him how to fight. It's answers to questions comic readers have pondered for years. And you finally find out ""where he gets all of those wonderful toys..."" The reason why he is a bat is also quite interesting, why not just dark suit guy? Batman never was about just getting the bad guys for fun or to punish them like another similar Marvel Character. He actually has a greater plan to make Gotham City a better place. It really separates Batmans from the vigilantes that are so often portrayed in the comics. Great movie, I'll watch it again and again.","['2', '2']" +310,rw1200103,Sisiutil,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,"The Batman we've always wanted, even with its flaws",21 October 2005,0,"This is, in many respects, the Batman movie fans have been waiting for.Christopher Nolan et al have crafted a film that is, finally, respectful. It shows respect for a pop culture institution that has been around for about 80 years, respect for the source material, and respect for the fans as well. Finally, we have a Batman movie that takes itself just serious enough while still retaining a sly sense of fun.The stellar cast certainly helps. Veterans Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, and Rutger Hauer all perform admirably, as you would expect. Relative newcomer Cillian Murphy also gives a compelling performance as Dr. Jonathan Crane/The Scarecrow.As for the lead, Christian Bale is appropriately intense as Bruce Wayne/Batman. The Dark Knight's psychology and motivation are a more important part of who he is than almost any other superhero, with the possible exception of Spider-Man. Bale is the first actor in the role to give the character the psychological depth his mythos deserves. And his rapport with the actors playing his mentors--Neeson, Caine, Freeman--is a genuine pleasure to watch.The storyline is compelling, and we're kept on the edge of our seats by being kept one step ahead of our heroes. No spoilers, but I will say it is immensely satisfying how all the threads Nolan and Goyer weave are tied up just before the big climax. The action sequences are thrilling, with Batman being wonderfully creepy and frightening as he closes in on his prey, exactly as he should be.I do have, however, a couple of complaints.First, regarding how the murder of Bruce's parents was shown. It's very mundane and matter-of-fact, which may be what Nolan wanted. But that approach is entirely inappropriate for Batman. This is THE seminal event in Bruce Wayne's life, changing it forever--it made him become a legend; it should be legendary, epic. Plus he was only 8 years old; it should have been shot from his point of view, with everyone appearing larger than him (larger than life), the gun sounding like a cannon, and a little slow-mo to draw out the moment and emphasize its importance would not have hurt. This scene is the key to the character's motivation, and Nolan seemed to toss it away.Second, regarding Katie Holmes. Don't get me wrong, she's a very good actress in the right role. And the character she plays, while non-canon, is vital to the plot and to the development of Wayne's character--she's not just Wayne's love interest, she's his conscience.But Holmes' appearance, voice, and manner are all very girlish; I could accept her as Bruce Wayne's childhood sweetheart, but not as an Assistant D.A. with integrity to spare in a corrupt, gritty city like Gotham. Holmes did not show herself capable of conveying the steel a woman like that would have to have; the city would have eaten a girl like that alive years before. I can't help thinking that an actress like Michelle Rodriguez would have been a much better choice in this role, and I was surprised to learn Nolan never considered another actress for the part. No one's perfect, I guess.I also didn't sense a lot of sparks between Holmes and Bale. Wayne's relationships with the men around him were much more interesting--but then again, that's appropriate for a solitary character like the Batman.Overall, as a long-time fan of Batman, I was very pleased. If the rumours are true and Holmes has been ruled out of appearing in any sequels, so much the better.","['0', '1']" +311,rw1179138,lawdog5150,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,The perfect Batman movie,24 September 2005,0,"First of all forget all the other Batman movies that have been done. This is not a sequel. Lots of people I've talked to haven't figured that out. The first Batman was very good but was not true to the comic book. I know I'm a nerd for caring but that was my only complaint about the first movie.This version is a lot darker than previous Batman films (face it the last couple Batmans were campy and horrible). In this version we see Bruce Wayne as a child and how he becomes the caped crusader. The villain in this film is the Scarecrow who is a weak villain but it doesn't seem to take away from the film at all.The fight scenes and action sequences are done very well. I love the fact that it shows how Batman gained his fighting skills. The training scenes were awesome.Overall this movie was as good as a Batman movie can be. It sets up the sequel nicely. If you didn't see this in the theater don't bother renting this one, it's a keeper.","['0', '1']" +312,rw1198790,rootleafdinner,Batman Begins (2005),,Way above expectations,22 October 2005,0,"I'm literally blown away right now. Just saw it on DVD. Wish I had seen it in the theater now. The commercials while in the theater didn't start to represent how much this movie was about. I'm from the Tim Burton era of Batman movies and enjoyed the first and second ones. Now this movie is a different world, different style.. almost so much its nonsense to compare the two directors Batman movies here. This was a very powerful movie well directed and really wraps you in. Really was a perfect balance of action and drama. The characters were great, the acting on spot and the dialogue and script couldn't have been better. Now I am at a point where I wonder if another should be made or not. The ending eludes to another. But this was so good I hate to see a crummy sequel franchise ruin the name of this one really good one.","['0', '1']" +313,rw1133803,rosscinema,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,Batman finally done the right way,24 July 2005,1,"As much as I enjoyed Tim Burton's first two film's I think this new effort will leave audiences rethinking just how good they actually are and will look at Batman Begins as arguably the best of all of them in the genre. The film begins with Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) who's somewhere in the mountains of Asia in a prison camp until he meets Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson) who takes him under his wing and introduces him to the League of Shadows.*****SPOILER ALERT***** The League of Shadows is run by Ra's Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe) and they teach Bruce sword play and other things pertaining to overcoming one's fears but things go too far when he's asked to kill another person. Bruce is forced into a fight and Ra's is killed but he saves Ducard and then heads back to Gotham City where Alfred (Michael Caine) helps him to continue the family name with Wayne Enterprises. Gotham City has become a hotbed for crime and a syndicate run by Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson) has taken over things which prompts Bruce to try and clean things up but it's not until he meets Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) that he gets an idea of how to go about it.Lucius has many things that he's invented over the years (but never used) and it's these items where Bruce constructs the batsuit, finds a prototype of the batmobile, and finds other uses for a cape that he wears. Also adding to Gotham's troubles is Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy) who's alias is The Scarecrow and his forte is to spray others with a hallucinogenic that causes insanity and he works for an unknown crime boss who wants to destroy Gotham's water supply. With all that Bruce comes face to face with Ducard once again and it's he who's behind everything and wants to destroy Gotham City and even with the help from an honest cop named Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) and his childhood sweetheart Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) Bruce may not be able to defeat him.Filmmaker Christopher Nolan (Memento, Insomnia) not only has crafted probably the best Batman film yet but he's re-energized a franchise that was considered dead due to the overly commercial treatment of the material. Nolan has gone to great lengths with the script and story to insure that audiences understand not only how Batman was created by Bruce Wayne but the ramifications of why. This is easily the darkest of the films and Nolan was inspired by ""Blade Runner"" in terms of how he wanted this to look from the scenes of poverty to the cascading rain that frequents some of the shots. The script allows viewers to see that Wayne not only became Batman to combat crime but to also combat his own personal demons which were the result of a childhood accident and that his parents were not killed by The Joker (that Burton's film showed) but the result of a mugger. The script also shows how Batman's relationship started with future Commissioner Gordon and that Gotham City was infested with crime and mass poverty which was the real reason for the fate of his parents. I also liked the way Nolan didn't try and throw everything into the story and concentrated on just how the caped crusader originated and that the batmobile we see here isn't the real batmobile, instead the vehicle used in this film is just something that he's come across and for now it serves his purpose. My only gripes towards this film come from two things and the first has to do with why Ducard has chosen Gotham for his evil plan which in my estimation was never really made clear (unless something very simple went over my head) and the second thing has to do with the casting of Holmes. The jury's still out on just how good of an actress Holmes is but here she's bland and totally unconvincing as an assistant district attorney and her so-called romance with Wayne seems ridiculously forced. These are minor annoyances and they shouldn't stop anyone from viewing this latest chapter in the Batman films because director Nolan has gotten it right with his sharp and introspective approach and he's restarted this entertaining franchise.","['5', '7']" +314,rw1239636,ComicBookGuy7,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Batman Bites Back,16 December 2005,1,"After a break from the big screen (8 years, because of Batman & Robin), Batman returns to the big screen, with a brilliant cast, and a brilliant script from David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan.I have always been a fan of Batman, and this film finally does the comic books justice, including characters from comic book story lines, such as: The Scarecrow, Ra's Al Ghul, Ducard (who trained Bruce Wayne in the comics, but didn't go bad), and Falcone. Not to mention the dozens of cameos from famous Batman villains, which most people probably missed.With the psychological edge the film gives courtesy of Nolan and Goyer's screenplay (not to mention the stunning performances by actors such as Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Cillian Murphy and Gary Oldman), the Batman series is brilliantly catapulted into the 21st century.With the promise of a Joker-related sequel, I think I am right in saying that the Bat is definitely back!","['2', '2']" +315,rw1137869,AShinji,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,What a film!,29 July 2005,0,"This film, in my opinion, is absolutely amazing. It captures the realism of the Batman DC comics and accurately brings the essence of the true character of Bruce Wayne and Batman to the screen. The film is an absolute gem with its intelligence, realism, gritty action and is blessed with a stellar cast of top flight actors from Bale, Caine, Freeman, Hauer, Neeson, to Oldman etc etc. Batman was good, Batman Returns okay, Batman Forever very poor and Batman & Robin should never be discussed! Batman Begins for me, tops them all including the Michael Keaton & Jack Nicholson film. And the Batmobile/Bat-tank (AKA The Tumbler) is a beast of a machine!","['1', '1']" +316,rw1181563,Seven_Thunders,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,A Fresh Start and the Best Ever,27 September 2005,0,"The creative powerhouse team of Director Christopher Nolan and Screenwriter David S. Goyer bears some wonderful fruit with their achievement on the franchise restart, Batman Begins. We have been given back one of our seminal icons of American culture, pulled from the miry pit of self-parody and chiseled into a rock-solid story that lets us see the transformation of Bruce Wayne into his true identity.The movie doesn't waste time getting started. After a short and well-crafted title sequence that does away with Burton's drawn-out opening credits, the story brings in early the people and places familiar to the Batman mythos with Nolan's instinctive sense of foreshadowing. Everything that is intriguingly set up gets wonderfully paid off, always contributing to the furthering of the story with zero fluff.The filmmakers pull back the curtains of Bruce's past, the defining moments of his life and the hardcore acquisition of his skills with a seamless and naturalized transition into the Dark Knight, making it seem as though it were truly possible for such an endeavor.The role is perfectly filled with Bale in the lead, going no further than he needs to put the scene over. He is supported by an expertly cast Michael Caine as the loyal Alfred Pennyworth, who proves to be an invaluable conscience to Bruce in his ""formative"" years. No better actor could have filled a supporting role as Gary Oldman does as Sgt. Jim Gordon looking, acting, and sounding like we'd expect Jim Gordon to in the comics. The villains have to be seen to be believed.The musical score is superb, never imposing on the film by blending completely into the atmosphere of the film and taking. Costume design is also top-notch.From start to finish, it is a pleasure to finally see and hear Batman's story told in full, and I look forward to seeing the next installment. 9/10.","['0', '0']" +317,rw1133638,roegasu,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,"I Expected Too Much, And It Came Out Better Than Expected",24 July 2005,0,"I am a fantasy fan, first and foremost. While I've read my share of comic books, I'm certainly not a big fan. So you can believe me when I say it came as a surprise that Batman Begins went right up there into the top 3-5 list of the best movies I've seen in my life. Something even LoTR couldn't do, even if they too are near-perfect.Everything about the movie is top-notch. Acting is superb. Although I was sceptical of Katie ""the ever-teen"" Holmes, she actually performed perfectly. She didn't even look like a teen to my eyes. Christian Bale wasn't really a surprise, as I've seen several of his movies before. He was perfect, and I mean perfect in a way that obviously there's not a person alive who could've done a better job. All the familiar actors from Michael Caine to Liam Neeson to Gary Oldman (and obviously Morgan Freeman) did their roles well enough for me to see no room for improvements. I was actually pleasantly surprised by the good IL' action star Rutger Hauer's very peaceful and civil role. Seeing him actually made me think that he might take the place of these other older legendary actors about to leave the movie business for good, he has the sort of calm authority and presence I'd not really noticed before. Cillian Murphy was the one guy I had never heard of before, and considering he looked every bit as much a teen as Katie Holmes normally does, he performed perfectly as Dr. Crane. Too bad I can't draw a comparison to his other roles from before.Hans Zimmer's music goes beyond its usual supreme quality. Last time I enjoyed music of his this good was in The Rock, and this was actually better. It's a good thing, considering many of the modern movies have actually disappointed with their soundtracks, which is something I despise. Music is a *HUGE* factor in creating the right kind of feeling and immersion for a movie, and I'm glad it was well understood and appreciated with Batman Begins.Most noticeable of all the things in this movie however, is the constant realism. And it goes deeper than what you would normally expect of a movie. The sound-effects, you see, are better here than in any other movie I remember. As someone who's been in the army, I feel I can definitely say that the gunshots and explosions here are extremely realistic. Not the usual soft bass sounds you have in Hollywood films, but the real strikingly hard ones. This same trend applies to everything. I actually felt a chill go down my spine just from the sound the tyres of the bat-car were making... something different from your usual ""screeeeeeech!"". When places and cars start breaking apart, it won't be the usual dumb explosions where there should be none. This world is like it really should be, in ways you can't imagine before you see it. And on an unconscious level, it adds immensely to the immersion.The way Batman moves using his equipment is done in a manner that's not only supposed to look ""cool"", it's actually supposed to show the audience how it all works. Batman Begins gives its spectator two purposes: First, it constantly gives you information on what Batman does, how he does it and why, to make the world believable. Second, it uses all that information it's given you to draw you in and understand how frightening, how real Batman really is. It makes you see the world as if you were watching it from within the movie. And this works amazingly well.But I must give a word of warning. If you're unable to immerse yourself with movies in general, you might have trouble with this. The difference with Batman Begins and your typical movie is that everything here serves a purpose. From the somewhat confusing battles to the overly dramatic ""acting"" played by Bruce Wayne as Batman, it's all intended. And if you are immersed as you should be, you'll understand their purpose and why it is indeed realistic for these things to be as they are in the movie. If you are immersed, your enjoyment will only increase with these features. Some however have found them disturbing. But then, I could never understand why someone should go see a superman movie only to then start complaining over how they didn't like the fact that the hero was actually flying.My short conclusion is this: I went to Batman Begins, waiting for something big. As Memento seemed a tad bit too simple (read: not to inspiring or challenging mentally) considering the type and style of the movie, I didn't know what to expect of Christopher Nolan. I was however happily surprised. I don't cry in movies, ever. But when I left the theater after watching through the ending texts, I found my eyes moist. This is definitely one of the best movies ever made, and *the* best superhero movie ever made. The only reason I gave it a 9 instead of a 10, is because nothing is perfect (main plot), even if this was the closest of everything I've seen thus far.","['3', '4']" +318,rw1199098,richardc020,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Best Batman Film in History,22 October 2005,0,"I won't replicate the rave reviews of the 1000s before me here, but I will add testimony about the film's ability to raise excitement and that one man *can* make a remarkable difference. The music, motive, the history, the man himself. The strong application of a just justice, especially against Gotham's worst, is awe-inspiring and takes viewers away from the world's sobering daily news. The not-so-far-fetched technology combined with disciplined athleticism makes everyman a potential Batman. The goodness of many men around Batman, from a warm Lucius Fox to a reliable Alfred to a heart-melting Rachel Dawes, their talents combine in Bruce to give society a new hope in new justice. Even Henri Ducard has an important part in giving Gotham a man whose hopes are theirs, too. From the darkness, you will see the light which Batman sees and shines. This film's ability to impress this spiritual experience upon the viewer is beyond words.The music's ability to queue the assigned emotions is also impossibly effective. The light touch of piano keys and swooping strings give instant visual image of a young Bruce Wayne. The heroic march and urgency of the lead-up to action scenes and Batman's preparation and mental battles gives one hope, thrill, and a sense of something bigger in life. The unrelenting action scene music grips and holds you, and willingly, for its full duration. The music as the movie ends is keen to give viewers a quick review and reminder of the film's soaring moments: the loss, the hope, the possibilities, the future at hand. Batmans' ethos are yours for the taking.Truly a spiritual experience. Dare I say it, the very best Batman film to date. The very best.","['0', '1']" +319,rw1152399,aaoppe,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,A big cinematic experience,17 August 2005,0,"I can only say what several critics have said before me; at last they capture the essence of the Batman legend on film! What makes this movie so great is how it takes its material so seriously. There is also a main theme that ties the movie together: Fear. It's relentless in its quest to explain why and how a man of Bruce Wayne's wealth and public persona would dress up like a bat and battle crime. This is the core of the movie, and it treats this with confidence and conviction. When a movie believes this much in the story it's telling, it's much easier for the audiences to believe in it as well. This is a big cinematic experience, and it shouldn't be missed. One of the year's best films, and quite possibly the best comic book-hero-movie of all time. If you have seen this movie once, then it gets even better by the second time you see it. And if you haven't seen it yet... well, what the hell took you so long?!","['11', '13']" +320,rw1215802,blgunter,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Batman Begins is amazing,14 November 2005,0,"This is definitely the best batman film ever. Forget the former neon lights, silly lines, and wildly dressed bad guys. This is the Batman movie that we've all been waiting for! The other Batman films are indeed fun, but Batman Begins is above them all. This one is dark, intriguing, exciting, and simply amazing. In other words, it is everything that the original Batman (comic book) was originally made out to be. In other words, if you were disappointed with the former Batman movies or even if you liked them, you should definitely see Batman Begins. Your views will change forever. This is who Batman was, should've been, and who he will be from now on. Batman Begins is the only batman film who finally gets it right.","['2', '3']" +321,rw1147771,Jazzituptodabeat,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Great can't wait for the next one,11 August 2005,0,"i liked the film i do think they could have added more action but, still i liked the main idea. i would like the next one to start with a more interesting beginning though. the batman car was the bit of the movie what got me on the edge of the seat it was brilliant the fact of the matter is the car is a mixture of sports car and a 4 x 4 which i think is the best combo for a bad ass tank!I am curious about the famous sidekick Robin coming in, will the Chris (the director) allow it to take the spot light off Batman or will we see cat woman coming and going.I like many others out there, don't want one more movie about staring at batman.There has been many sequels to the famous Batman comic but this one takes the cake.i only hope for everyone's sake that the movie isn't going to be s**t but with Chris directing how bad can it be after all he did do the hit Memento. Wth Katie Homels as batman's love i am sure they will use her in the next movie for a bad guy is sure enough to kidnap her for batman to save but still the movie will be a hit in the U.K and in the U.S","['1', '1']" +322,rw1243367,Jonny_Numb,Batman Begins (2005),7.0,"probably doesn't need another comment, but...",20 December 2005,0,"""Batman Begins"" is a satisfying trip overall. Christopher Nolan--who directed the inventive reverse-order thriller ""Memento"" and the tepid remake of ""Insomnia"" applies his distinctive visual style (lots of wide-angle shots employed, plus sprawling sets) to the comic-book hero and film-franchise icon. Granted, Batman's last two cinematic outings all but dragged the Dark Knight's name into the ground, thanks to Joel Schumacher's hollow neon approach to spectacle; Nolan--with the assistance of screenwriter David S. Goyer--brings a richness of character and an emotional maturity to the proceedings; the film itself is rather serious, but also has some nicely tucked-away comedic bits (courtesy of Gary Oldman's Commissioner Gordon). The story, as before, seems rather peripheral to the overwhelming demands of action-movie thrills, but has something to do with a mad doctor (""Red Eye""'s Cillian Murphy) poisoning Gotham City's water supply with a hallucinogenic toxin that will literally rip the population apart with fear (an overarching theme whose exploration adds to the film's richness). But nothing is as it seems (of course). With the exception of Katie Holmes, who still looks and sounds like a 16-year old fresh off the set of ""Dawson's Creek,"" the cast turns in excellent performances. Christian Bale, one of the more exciting younger actors of the past few years, fills the Caped Crusader's shoes with grace and dignity; Michael Caine brings his affable, fatherly charm to Alfred; Cillian Murphy brings a casual malevolence to his demented doctor; and Gary Oldman does well in the unfortunately limited role of Commissioner Gordon. ""Batman Begins"" also exhibits a sense of visual wonder that's more assured and authentic than in previous outings; the vast Gotham is less an obvious computer-generated landscape and more of a negative Utopian dreamworld, both haunting and inviting. A job well done, breathing life into a faltering series...may the next ""Batman"" films continue in a similar direction.","['0', '1']" +323,rw1132342,nextkedlubna,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,"Finally, someone set the right way for Batman",22 July 2005,0,"Actually, I've quite liked the two Burton's movies about Batman (what I think about Schumacher's movies, you don't want to hear), but I was still feeling that they were missing that something, something that makes you want to see it second time. I thought that X2 was the best comic book adaptation ever, but it can't compete with Batman Begins. Everything is just perfect, the movie looks great, Gotham City finally looks like city and not like scene of a theater and cast, that's just another chapter. A spectrum of various characters, Morgan Freeman as Batman's ""Q"" just rocks, Liam Neeson shows that no character is a problem for him and hey, what all you people have against Katie Holmes? She couldn't play Joey forever, she isn't that bad as everybody says. The only thing I miss was a villain that makes you wanna scream: ""Batman, go kick his ass!"" I just hope that everything that Chris Nolan proved with this movie teaches people from WB to treat comics characters with respect.","['3', '4']" +324,rw1130791,sTaRViLLaNuEvA,Batman Begins (2005),,Batman Begins after 1 hour,20 July 2005,1,"-Possible Spoiler-""Batman"" is all about a man who battles his enemies and inner demons. It's about fear, acceptance, morality and reality: Batman is not a superhero, Contrary to popular belief. He doesn't have extraordinary powers. He's human, Physically and emotionally.I admire the technical skill of this production. The fight scenes are fast and Blurred – I usually hate this, but it works well in ""Batman Begins,"" because we're Meant to fear the unknown. Sounds are used to great effect. Cinematic ally, Batman becomes a movie monster on occasion – the scene where a group of Smugglers are picked off one-by-one in the darkness, with scattering sounds Screams and gunshots piercing the silence, Batman questions Crane while he is On drugs, which results in some truly terrifying images that will shock children Who are familiar with Batman as a flawless hero? Batman Begins is a well told Story of the origin of Bruce Wayne/Batman (Christian Bale).At first I was excited to watch this movie, I have nothing against the Production and effects, it was really good but I don't like much the story, it was Not fast paced. Personally speaking, I hope this movie wasn't titled ""Batman Begins"" it should be titled ""Batman Begins after one Hour!!!"" I was also got Irritated by Katie Holmes character, she wasn't appropriate with her role, Character was thoroughly useless to the story. The movie would have Gone without her. There are lots of actresses better than her like Nicole Kidman and Natalie Portman.One of the only scene I like in this movie are when Batman and Rachel Flying in every roof, it was suspenseful, but overall, I didn't like the movie, Good Effects and production have nothing to do with my personal taste.","['3', '5']" +325,rw1165522,ChrisTreborn,Batman Begins (2005),1.0,"I expected the Crape, But not that much !!!!!",29 August 2005,1,"First of all am of age 23, outside from the Hi-Tech Western world. I usually comment on movies which I liked or hated the most. But for this particular movie I had to wait around two months, not for judging its moral/creative content, but for forgiving myself for not using any harsh words.I have seen all Batman adaptations up to 90's Batman Beyond cartoon series. I liked Tim Burton's Batman movie but don't fully agree with it, I liked it only because it paved the way to 'Batman Animated Series' the only artistic work that revised Bob Kane's original concept. I rather consider it as the only Bible for Bob Kane's great character Batman. But for commenting this movie, I am stepping out from the die-hard fan point of view and speaking from a normal viewer's mind.Batman Begins (Spoilers******) After ""Batman and Robin"" Warner Bros. was in a confused state whether to continue the vitiate franchise further or not. With new executives they tried to negotiate with the franchise with edged spin-offs, nothing went production wise. So they choose another path, restarting the whole franchise and now the problem is, the director. Warner Bros. early approached Clint Eastwood, Wolfgang Petersen, Darren Aronofsky and then to my favorite David Fincher. They even approached Wachowski Brothers, the hot Warner products at that time but nothing happened.Finally after every noted Hollywood directors walked away from the picture Warner Bros. were forced to give the franchise to a foreign hand. It was the British art film director Christopher Nolan; who done his debut Hollywood movie few years back. The moment he touched the project, every thing went up side down. To make things even worse, writer David S. Goyer who worked as generator operator on Nolan's ""Insomnia"" teamed up with him to make a new milestone.The movie begins with a young Bruce Wayne who discovers the fear of Bats for the first time. This fear made him to loose his beloved parents; and the guilty in him leads the adult Bruce (Christian Bale) to leave the country. In the path to salvation Bruce travels across the world as an ordinary man until he was jailed by the Himalayan guards. It was then he meets Ducard (Liam Neeson) who make him to be a member of 'League of Shadows', a secret dark organization owned by Ra's al Ghul (Ken Watanabe). But things went wrong when Bruce violated the rules of the Shadows and was forced to end his quest, making a decision to go back to his home town Gotham.Only one problem arise; Will the new Bruce finally identify with the Gotham city he once left off, or can the Gotham city recognize the new Bruce Wayne.Written by David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan tells the reinventing story of Batman as well as the young Bruce Wayne. I can't believe it was written from the sucking David Goyer who done the Wesley Snipes' Blade franchise. But dialogue wise it sucks because of corny, misused, one sided character placement lines. The treatment was set to be well paced but the director's interpretation made it a dreadful one.Nolan is the director, so I don't want to speak about the visualization of this movie, it's an art film, sucking camera works of Wally Pfister and inimical editing of Lee Smith was really from Nolan's idea. Nolan changed everything; Batman's appearance were changed, his Batmobile beefs up, Gotham city got elevated trains and above all, the new Batman is Bisexual. Who cast Christian Bale as Batman; He looked like a born Gay person, with his thin blade lips, vulgar smiles, all made Bruce Wayne, as well as Batman to a chicken level man. He remembered me of the first sucking Batman Adam West. He didn't succeed even in representing the two separate aspects of the same person, at least in the vocals (which was done brilliantly by the voice-over actor Kevin Conroy in Animated Series).The rest of the cast sucked, anything good was from Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon; also Mark Boone Junior done a great performance as the frustrated officer Flass, when considering with original characters. Ken Watanabe failed to create a good impression because of his little screen time and ridicules makeup appearance which doesn't resembles to Ra's Al Ghul in the original titles.O.K if these all things went wrong, there was one probability that would have saved this movie and that was its soul, the music. I was spellbound when I heard Hans Zimmer was going to score for the new franchise and also teaming for the first time, with versatile composer James Newton Howard. I really wanted to see how his version going to clash with classical Elfman's theme. All my expectation shattered when I heard the musical score from the movie, it really sucked, a terribly frustrating failure. Till now I can't figure it out, what was Batman's new theme score? Nolan would have stick with his usual collaborator David Julyan, at least for bringing a taint look in Wayne's duality.All in all it's truly a dreadful experience to watch the entire movie. We can clearly see the failed attempt from an art film maker to bring an action film, with his own twisted visions. With the shades of Chinese Ninja movies blundered with classical James Bond movies, Nolan failed to deliver what the non/true-fans really waited for; Warner Bros would have given this movie at least to some kid from MTV for directing the most anticipated franchise. ""I gave this movie 0 out of 100!""Batman Begins = Batman Sucking","['6', '21']" +326,rw1188499,KUAlum26,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Feeling better about the franchise,7 October 2005,0,"While MY choice to direct the next batch of Dark Knight movies would've been David Fincher(""Seven"",""FIght Club"" in case you were not aware),Christopher Nolan does a striking job as the helmsman for this return to the genre abandoned after the ostentatious Joel Schumacher offerings from the mid to late 1990s.The story of BAtman is pretty understood by now. Here is mostly details. Orphaned Bruce Wayne(still youthful actor Christian Bale,excellent par usual) recalls his boyhood love and adulation of his family,particularly his philanthropic doctor of a father(Linus Roache,who seems to show up everywhere these days),his subsequent trauma and powerlessness of witnessing there murders and his inability to either defend or avenge them. The details of his transformation into the dual Wayne?Batman character are explored in more depth here. From a self-destructive journey of self-destruction through maximum security prisons to his being mentored by the ""League of Shadows"" to his reclamation of Wayne enterprises and careful crafting of a crime-fighter who ""would make evildoers as afraid of him as he was of them""(I'm paraphrasing).Superb performances by Morgan Freeman,as a gizmo expert who Wayne chums with on the sly,Michael Caine as Alfred,who has to assume monumental parental qualities of MAster Bruce and BAle himself,who did some extreme beefing from his turn in ""The MAchinist"". I enjoyed this movie immensely,and while it may've lacked the fun or style of the Tim Burton's first ""Batman"" this still satisfies greatly.","['0', '1']" +327,rw1179835,srfm79,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Excellent new take on the superhero formula,25 September 2005,1,"Chris Nolan has brought some strikingly cool and different visuals to the film. Especially the bits where people are hallucinating on the drugs of the villains is some of the most creepy and stunning film-making I have seen in a while. Christian Bale is great as Bruce Wayne, bringing not just youth (obviously) to the role, but also an eccentricity and rebelliousness that - for the first time in Batman history - makes him ever as interesting as his criminal opponents. But the best about this film is that it completely ignores the plot lines of the previous Batman movies and creates a whole new mythology around its character: Batman is no longer driven by revenge, since the movie lets the murderer of his parents die before Wayne becomes Batman. This also makes sequel-making easier in contrast to Tim Burton's ""Batman"" that was sort of a ""closed system"" (Wayne seeks revenge, becomes Batman, kills the Joker who has turned out to be the killer of Wayne's parents, the end).","['0', '1']" +328,rw1209898,milareppa,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Excellent film - an amazingly mature and adult handling of a comic franchise,6 November 2005,1,"I've grown up on the 60s comic series (and liked it while a young child at least) and all four previous Batman films. To say I was leery of another Batman film was an understatement, especially given the farce that Batman Forever and Batman and Robin became. I didn't even like Batman Returns.Then I saw trailers that suggested the whole thing was jumping on the ""eastern zen is k2wl"" bandwagon so many modern Hollywood films do to death, and I got even more jaded.The film, however, is stunning. From the flashbacks to young Bruce's life and the loss of his parents (what a great kid they found to play young Bruce Wayne), to the entire search for a way to fit into a world that seemed to have rejected him because he had rejected it. They handled the eastern teachings sensibly - with less emphasis on mystical idealism and much more on learning how to define your enemy to gain power over him, so he cannot have power over you. Everywhere through the film, you have the little gems of wisdom from even the bad guys that gradually weave together to create the final ""Eureka"" moment when Bruce realises why his ""symbol"" should be a bat. And I really do like how much of the wisdom he ends up drawing on for his final metamorphosis actually does come from his enemies, and not from his friends. With hind-sight you can see how his youthful confrontation with Falcone is a major determination in the path he takes to creating the Batman persona.In the end, the film shows that it's not so much the death of his parents that makes Bruce create Batman - it's the consequences that happen when you stand up to your enemies that makes Bruce create Batman. You see how the idea that making yourself a mystery to your enemy to defeat him, needs to be taken to the extremity of creating a theatrical persona in order to affect the masses as a whole, in order to work at all. This film therefore takes an act that is so often treated as comic and insane (dressing up in a mask and a cape) and turns it into an act of rational desperation. Everything from the need for a vigilante to fight back, to the need for any vigilante to hide his identity, to the importance of ""slogans"" (using an ideal to fight an ingrained fear), to the technology used in the film (restricted, state-of-the-art military-spec equipment), is done as intelligently, thoughtfully and sensibly as possible. Even the humour is adult and gentle, instead of comic.And the relationship that builds up between Gordon and Batman - from the first appearance as Gordon as he offers a moment of kindness to the newly orphaned young Bruce Wayne, to their initially wary, mistrustful alliance to fight back against Falcone and a sense (from Gordon especially) that this endeavour might not work at all, to the end of the film where there's a very real sense of respect and hope between them, is one of the most gently compelling adult relationships I've ever seen in any film - one you'd expect from a carefully developed drama than a film that is, in essence, based on a comic strip series.This film is dark, it's sensible and it's mature. But what really makes it work is a very subtle - and very, very tiny - hint of hope for a better future that is gently threaded through even the darkest moments of the film. This film works because it's subtle, and it never goes overboard in any aspect - from humour, to technology, to romance, to fighting the good fight and dressing up in a mask - everything has the touch of understated intelligence instead of melodramatic comedy. It's an excellent film.Only 9 out of 10 for the coverage of the Water Board drama - the only unsubtle handling of suspense in the entire film. And Christian Bale is slightly weird as Bruce Wayne - but this is instantly forgivable when you see the way he shines through as Batman.","['0', '1']" +329,rw1160123,kybo25,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,excellent,28 August 2005,0,"this was one of my favorite movies of the year. and i don't say that lightly. i saw this movie with my friend as a backup to lords of dogtown which was sold out and boy am i glad i did. Christian Bale did an amazing job with the tough role of being batman. i then saw this with my cousin who loved it as well. this is probably the best superhero movie I've ever seen. superman, horrible. batman, OK. spider-man the first one, OK. spider-man 2, boring. and so on. but this, this was amazing. it was well worth the 10 dollars to see it and i cant wait until it comes out on DVD. one of the best movies of the year and it deserves to be in the top 10.","['12', '15']" +330,rw1230397,tfc,Batman Begins (2005),6.0,Little slow at first But gets good at the end,3 December 2005,1,"Batman Begins shows a different view of how Bruce Wayne becomes Batman via the low road while earlier films use the high road. The plot was interesting, the actors are good, but the movie seemed too long winded in the first hour (ZZZ) and was overall too dark (as in lighting). I have noticed that many current Sci-fi movies (Hulk, Underworld, and Van Helsing ) seem overly dark and grey. There is probably some deep ""dark"" meaning to this homage to film noir, but I personally believe it is really used to save on production and on FX costs. I also believe this dependence on darkness, actually hurt Batman Begins because little could be seen during the exciting parts (being night is no excuse). The part where all of batman's new toys are shown and talked about reminds me of ""Star Trek: The Motion Picture"" when too much time was spent showing every feature on the star ship. The radical ideas of the secret order were a good touch that should have been totally moved from the last hour of the film to the first hour to fill the training scene. If the first part of the film was tightened up and the rest lightened up, I would give this movie an ""8"" because there is a good movie hidden in the darkness.","['0', '2']" +331,rw1177415,krillelille,Batman Begins (2005),3.0,A Batman movie for the hardcore fans...,21 September 2005,1,"I've never been a reader of the Batman comics. I have just seen those first batman movies that was made and that funny 60s show. With the Pow and the Wham. In my opinion, the show from the 60s was one hundred times better than this! Now we find out Batman is really a former Thief and a ninja. The part where his parents got killed are just wrong to me since i have been brain washed with the version where the man who became the joker shot them. I'm sure this version in Batman Begins are more comic book accurate, but it's just wrong to me.The fight scenes are incredibly bad. With closeups on arms, feet and faces in a hectic tempo. I just can't make out what is happening and who is winning (well batty always wins but still) The dialog is just as horrid as the fights, if not even worse.The Batmobile is by far the ugliest ever. It is no longer a slim sports car with a jet engine and a ton of gadgets and weapons. Now we have a big tank that has no Batman wings or nothing on it. Its just massive and black. *sigh* And last but not least, the voice when Bruce is Batman is so macho it's silly. Sounding like he has been chain smoking for one hundred years combined with a terrible cold.","['3', '9']" +332,rw1141327,retibar,Batman Begins (2005),4.0,Not as good as Tim Burton's,3 August 2005,0,"First of all, I'm not against this movie. I found it entertaining, it wasn't boring (and that's rare nowadays), but... I can't understand why critics celebrate this so much. It's not gonna be cinema history as Tim Burton's first film, it's not as dark as the first film, and even the plot is not as good as the first films. There are lots of events in this movie copying Batman 1989's scenes. The escape of Rachel, Batman and Rachel in the Batmobile, then in the Batcave, the dialog is almost the same as the first Batman's. Remember Batman and Vicki Vale in those scenes. The music is not so characteristic, like Danny Elfman's was, and the image of Gotham City is not what a fan imagines. Even the actors: Bale is OK, Caine is good, Liam Neeson is the same as the jedi master, but KAtie Holmes is less than a Batman-girl... first of all, blond looks better in dark Gotham, and after beauties like Kim, Michelle or Nicole she looks more like a mouse. I don't like rewriting the story (The Joker is gonna show up again) and summarizing: it's not what we except from a Batman movie. There are no great stars with charisma like Nicholson, Basinger, de Vito, Pfeiffer or good characters like Christopher Walken was, there's no comic feeling, not dark enough, no cool Gotham or Arkham sets, no Cool Bat-music, no blonde beauties, no good villains... Next time, make the movie more BATMANISH!!!","['3', '5']" +333,rw1149693,Neoromeo,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,Satisfying resurrection of a dead series,14 August 2005,0,"Christopher Nolan must have felt a weight on his shoulders greater than Atlas when he signed up to revive the Batman franchise. After three films which successively spiraled downhill in overall quality since Tim Burton's 1989 original, Nolan, along with comic-book friendly screenwriter David S. Goyer (""Blade,"" ""The Crow"") and a younger, stronger, more intense Bruce Wayne in Christian Bale, had nowhere to go but upwards following the bottoming out of ""Batman and Robin"" in 1997. He has wisely gone back to the beginning of the series and sought out the dark knight's darker roots in an effort that, though it plays out its story safely, succeeds in raising the series from the bowels of Gotham City.In a build-up edited to the speed of light, we are introduced to Bruce Wayne as a young boy, the son of a millionaire Thomas Wayne (Linus Roache), who lives at an enormous manor outside Gotham City. The young boy faces his first confrontation with fear when, playing with childhood friend Rachel, he falls down a well and faces a traumatic experience that haunts him into adulthood.Cut to Mongolia. Bruce Wayne (now played by Bale) is now an aimless wanderer, seeking respite from Gotham City following the murder of his parents and the city's subsequent fall into the hands of criminals and corruption. Recovering in prison, he is taken under the wing of Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson, who has now officially been typecast in the role of father-figure and trainer to younger heroes), a member of the secret brotherhood the ""League of Shadows"", and trained to combat fear under the watchful eye of the menacing Ra's Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe). Ducard gives him the lesson that ""in order to overcome fear you must become fear"" and is placed through a series of rigorous exercises, including some spectacular sequences which include a sword fight on ice as well as a breathtaking fight scene above a bed of ashes. Through his training with the shadowy brotherhood, he slowly restores his confidence in order to return to Gotham City.His spirit restored, Bruce Wayne returns home and rekindles his relationship with family butler Alfred (Michael Caine) and Rachel, who has grown into the gorgeous, yet bland guise of Katie Holmes. He has returned to a city which suffers still under the corrupt rule of crime lord Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson), who has made some dangerous dealings with Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy), a scientist at Arkham Asylum who as the ""scarecrow"" plans to unleash upon Gotham a chemical that induces fear in the minds of his patients. Wayne, meanwhile, has confronted fear face-to-face in the furthest corner of the world, and is not primed and ready to fight crime in the guise of the most fearsome creature to stalk the streets of Gotham City - the ""Batman"".An epic narrative that crams itself with some trouble into 2.5 hours, ""Batman Begins"" is one of those rare cram-jobs that works. And how! Nolan wisely returns to Batman's darker origins, giving us the tortured, haunted Frank Miller hero rather than the Barnum and Bailey version of the latter sequels. Perhaps the wisest decision was the casting of Bale, one of the most intense actors in Hollywood who previously terrified audiences with his assaulting performance in ""American Psycho"" and his self-destructive preparation for his role as an insomniac in ""The Machinist"". He brings to Bruce Wayne a haunted countenance that explodes into fits of brutality and violence as his fearsome alter-ego. Bale puts forth a character who scares the audience more with his relentless crime-fighting tactics than any one of the film's numerous villains.Likewise, Nolan was an appropriate choice at the film's helm, moving the action along at a swift pace, sometimes too briskly for the audience to fully comprehend. The film's early moments are so eager to complete Bruce Wayne's transformation into Batman that the audience barely has a chance to breathe. So, too, is the case with the editing, which appears to suffer from the ""Gladiator"" syndrome, sometimes disallowing the viewer from understanding at all what is happening.Nevertheless, despite too much quick-cut editing and a Hans Zimmer score that refuses to shut up, Nolan hits his target. Perhaps a little off-center, but he successfully resuscitates a series which just 8 years ago seemed it would never recover. 3.5 stars on a 5 star scale.","['0', '1']" +334,rw1157741,alecita,Batman Begins (2005),,My all time favorite hero,24 August 2005,0,"It was about time somebody made batman as the dark character as he is in the comic book, all the movies and shows before were really to color full for me. I love the move, it got me exited just like the little girl that i was waiting for the new issue to come out every 15 days. Didn't like the Batmovile or Katie Holmes, (guess i rather to have more like the original version) Loved Alfred and a Bruce thats more tormented, and not at all goofy (like Clooney made it) I don't care if they already made it i want to see all my classic villains in this kind of movie-making, i want the joker, Katwomen, poison ivy, and everybody else, but above all i would like to see the psychiatry's that was Bruce only and true love and went crazy. I now my English it's not that good, sorry =) This is the only hero that i can think about that doesn't have any superpower, its just a human like you and me, but well trained and really angry, isn't that makes him the ultimated hero???","['1', '1']" +335,rw1135044,AEBarschall,Batman Begins (2005),5.0,A lot of racing around,25 July 2005,0,"I mostly wanted to see this movie because I wanted to see Katie Holmes, since I've never seen her before. She was very beautiful and pretty convincing in her role, though not enormously so. I don't think she's one of our top actresses, but she isn't terrible either.I thought the guy who played Batman wasn't very good looking. He has this peculiar, overly narrow nose & flattish face. Why him? His acting was pretty good, though.There was an awful lot of racing around in the movie, particularly in the bat-mobile. I found watching this a bit fatiguing.There were some positive parts of the movie. I particularly liked the guy who played the only executive at Wayne's company who is actually loyal to him. I also liked the Ninja training scenes.Overall it wasn't abysmal, but I don't know if it was the best way to spend a couple of hours of my time.","['0', '4']" +336,rw1200131,hyrum_tanner,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,only one important thing to improve on,23 October 2005,0,"There are a lot of good things you can say about Batman Begins. I suspect they've already been said. Though I loved the movie, I'll be honest enough to say there were also somethings that weren't so great. (e.g. Katie Holmes) But in my opinion, the only place where the movie failed was in the lack of consistency for how the Scarecrow's drug affected people and the general pointlessness of the drug as the movie progressed. Our first introduction to the drug makes the drug appear to be unsettlingly powerful. The victim (whom I won't mention to avoid spoilers) essentially goes nuts, instantly whacked out of his gourd. Anyone who wasn't taken back a little bit by this excellently and frighteningly well done scene, our first view of the scary Scarecrow, must be somewhat numb. The next victim, who isn't affected nearly as strongly because he's already experienced it in a more mild form (and because he's less susceptible to fear in general), is also handled quite well. But after that, the drug hardly seems to do anything to anyone except make them see other people's eyes glow red. We have a victim who is able to see what's happening outside her vehicle clearly enough to warn the driver to be careful (don't forget that she supposedly got a concentrated dosage). A kid who gets hit by it seems largely immune, only about as scared as he ought to be considering the encroaching mob, and is clear headed enough to tell the lady with him to not worry because ""Batman will come."" Why do people who are affected with the drug approach and attack the scary things they see? They should be running away screaming unless they've already fallen down and are frozen with fear. Not once did I see any affected person in the Narrows do anything meaningful enough to be cause for concern. The maniacs and criminals roaming the streets, yes, that's scary, but the drug, it does nothing. It seems, ironically, that some characters are aware of this. The main bad guy doesn't bother to put on his gas mask until after the drug has already been released into the air. Pretty much, after all the build up about the drug, even including its origins in Batman's back story, the only real danger once all the badness is released is the water mains blowing up (that's not a spoiler, it was in the trailer). And Batman isn't even directly involved in preventing that. In summary, well done lads (Nolan,Goyer,Bale,Murphy), but next time don't forget to keep the scary things scary all the time.","['0', '1']" +337,rw1201853,amol_gh,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,'The' best superhero movie of all time.,26 October 2005,0,"The 'Dark Knight', the big black bat has returned and returned with a blast. Believe me, when I say,... nothing gets better than this.This movie truly justifies the great spirit of The Batman, whether it his his human nature, his will power, his physical & mental strengths or whether it is his unbelievable abilities to deliver.This movie explains the strengths & weaknesses of Batman like no other previous movie was able to. In fact the previous movie versions were only the comic book versions of the Dark Knight where Batman played only a second fiddle to the campy villains. But 'Batman Begins' takes the legend of Batman to an altogether higher realistic mature level.Of course, the fact that the Batman himself is a lot more realistic and yet extraordinary than all the other so-called 'Magical Superheroes' also helps to the success of the movie. This movie is worth the long wait we had to bear from 1997 to 2005. Christopher Nolan (Insomnia(2002),Memento(2000)) has done the greatest justice to the concept of this legend. Christian Bale's overall appearance and performance in the movie makes him look like he was born for this role. The one aspect astounding enough about 'Begins' is its unbelievable heavyweight star cast. All the Who's Who right from Morgan Freeman ,Gary Oldman, Liam Neeson, Michael Caine, Tom Wilkinson are present right here in the movie delivering great believable performances in a superhero movie. The great Oscar-winner Morgan Freeman, one the most lovable actors of all times has been truthful to his role and so was the veteran Michael Caine. Cillian Murphy as the 'Scarecrow/Dr. Jonathan Crane' was real scary stuff and that is what a Batman movie should contain because Batman is a hero for a real grown man and not only for a child. Even though this is a Batman movie, thankfully this is not a child's or a childish movie like the previous versions which were only degrading Batman. The visual and sound effects, the cinematography are at there stunning best. May be there is a little lack of action considering this is a Batman movie but still the error can be rectified in the next installment. And last but not the least ... Chris Carbould and Andy Smith, the British automobile engineers have really created the strongest believable Machine of all time - The Batmobile. A Hell lot of efforts must have been put to create that Beast. This Batman is dark, ruthless and serious and that is what a Batman should be. I am hoping Nolan makes at least five more well-planned Batman movies in the future because he is a great/well- respected director which has been proved previously by 'Memento' and 'Insomnia' and now by 'Batman Begins'. Now one thing's for sure ... there's no stopping this Big Black Bat. The Batman has only just begun ...","['1', '3']" +338,rw1133107,max27-3,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,Tim Burton has nothing on this,23 July 2005,0,This Batman has a strong script and is very well directed while still dark it is also not as dark as the original by Tim Burton don't get me wrong Tim Burton has good moments even the new Willy Wonka is good but personally I like Christopher Nolan's version much more. While the stars Chritian Bale and Katie Holmes were one-sided even Liam Neeson was not as good as usual but the co-stars Michael Cane and Morgan Freeman were very good. But when Christian Bale put on the mask he looked like Batman but when it was off he was one-sided. The reason I give it an 8 is because of the acting besides that it was very well made. I hope this helpful or fun for you to read.I really enjoyed the movie I hope you like it. God Bless You p.s. if you do see it you should see it on the big screen.,"['2', '4']" +339,rw1205905,firestarchaotix,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,What it should be.,31 October 2005,0,"So finally here, Batman Begins, and what a beginning! This chronicles Bruce Waynes journey and allows you to see just how Batman comes about. With the story so focused on him you may be forgiven to assume that the other characters would be sacrificed for this purpose. Not a bit of it, characters such as Ra's Al Ghul is given plenty of screen time and others such as The Scarecrow are shown enough to get the interest in the viewer and tee them up for the sequel. Casting is nigh on perfect and Christian Bale almost looks like he was born to play Batman! Michael Caine as Alfred raises a few eyebrows at first but again a class act. The story without giving too much away, is a great one which tells all it needs to with a twist towards the end which may surprise several and indeed sets things up for the sequel. All in all, the film is nigh on perfection, if the sequel maintains the same high standards then i'm camping outside my local cinema!","['2', '2']" +340,rw1152342,slick_2xk,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,best movie and best batman movie ever,17 August 2005,0,"This movie is great. A batman film with great actors and script. I enjoy this movie so much, is so great because is different from other movies(superhero movies) because batman is more scary type of hero because hes batman and wants to bring fear to criminals. It is more scary to kids because of the scarecrow and more action and less romance. This movies is awesome so i give it a 10 out a 10. i hope people would like it. I'm a fan of batman since a kid and i seen all the movies,cartoon shows, and news about it. This movie is better than spider-man. (Spider-Man) is a kids movie, too much talking and romance and the fights are boring. Batman is funny,pack with great action and the new bat-mobile is just to hot that is burn the streets of Gotham","['2', '2']" +341,rw1138155,lycan_gamer,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,"Batman Begins, What A Film",30 July 2005,0,"What a film, i mean comparing that to the other Batman Films this one blows them away, i mean bale out does himself, its just great how he changes his voice form Bruce to the more macho Batman and pulls it of so well and Liam has always been one of my fave actors and in this film he does not disappoint, great film, great baddie (scarecrow owns) and all in all an amazing film, one of the best comic films of them all. Katie Holmes wasn't that good, I've never enjoyed watching her she always seems to act to hard or put to much into a scene, where as Bale pulled his role of perfectly showing up Holmes. Then there's Michael Caine, hes so good, hes not even good hes amazing, hes genuine British accent which goes so well with his role as a Butler plus he just is one of the most awesome actors out there at the minute. And yet another favourite of mine, Mr Freeman, he pulls his role of perfectly, not White as high profile as other films, he plays a more sub dued role but even so he adds that touch of perfection to the film which really does finish it off. will i see it again, well i already have","['1', '1']" +342,rw1188065,MrX101,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,A great movie!!!!!,6 October 2005,0,"Like all the Batman movies, the character who plays Batman does a good job. But Christian Bale did an EXCELLENT job in this movie. He played his role perfectly to make it seem as realistic as possible. This Batman movie had the best story by far. This was probably the best Batman yet. The villains in this movie did a pretty good job and FINALLY weren't just villains that started by being thrown into a chemical bowl thing or getting some kind of hot liquid poured on their face. What makes Batman movies so good is that Batman isn't like superhuman or have superpowers. It makes it so much more realistic. I liked this movie better than the rest of the Batman movies also because there were many villains instead of just a couple. I really hope they make another sequel to this Batman, because they'll sure have my money!","['0', '1']" +343,rw1201426,travis_d_collins,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Bring It On Again,25 October 2005,0,Not To Ruin have to see for yourself Christian Bale Yeah batman is the dark Character and this is the best batman of all the ones I have seen I love Batman...Bring it on... I didn't go to the theater and watch this movie A because I had a great time getting to see the DVD and I had the Sterio Cranked Up and man the Bats wow ...Saying the least if ya watch this watch it again and Michael Cain is a good as ya get Alfred Wow Just a great movie great showcase of good actors like commissioner Gordon that guy is a good actor can't seem to remember his name,"['1', '2']" +344,rw1192305,TheTerminatorsky,Batman Begins (2005),5.0,Batman begins... is this a comedy?,12 October 2005,1,"So Bruce Wayne's father takes his family on the subway to the theater. When have you seen a billionaire take the subway? Cant he afford a limo like all the other billionaires? Then, they walk out the back door of the theater, and go off somewhere in a dark alley. Thus Bruce's mom and dad get killed.So Bruce decides to give it all up and become a criminal and ends up in jail in some Asian country. There he is met by a white man dressed in a suit who takes him to a monastery where he becomes a ninja. The ninjas' sole purpose it seems is to destroy major cities once they become decadent. Bruce has beef with the wise idea, refuses to execute a prisoner, burns down the monastery, and escapes. Once back home, he gets himself a suit and a car, and goes after the mob boss (which is what every billionaire would do). Meanwhile, a machine which turns water to vapor is stolen. Hilarity ensues when the ninjas show up at the Wayne mansion. Then, some guy who wears a scarecrow mask goes around spraying people with pixie dust which makes 'em go coco for coco-puffs. Aha! It turns out the ninjas have a plan (it must've been borrowed from John Kerrey as he had plenty of them). The ninjas want to destroy Gotham as it's decadent as well. Needless to say our hero saves the day. THE END. Was the script written by a 10 year old? If not for the car, and a few nice FX, I would've given it a 3.","['2', '12']" +345,rw1210399,moniker_jones,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,The Dark Knight Returns,6 November 2005,0,"In 1966 Burt Ward and Adam West took to the screen in the cinematic adaptation of the cheesy Batman TV series. Twenty-three years later a twisted film geek named Tim Burton revived the mysterious superhero for modern audiences. His two films, Batman and Batman Returns, delivered a darkly comic vision of Bruce Wayne's alter ego. The first film was a massive success, both critically and financially. Batmania was in full swing, despite many casual moviegoers mumblings that the film was ""too weird and bleak."" Burton's vision didn't wane the slightest bit as he offered up an equally chilling sequel three years later. Batman Returns was successful, but failed to generate the hysteria that surrounded its predecessor. The powers-that-be must have felt the only way to revitalize the franchise was to water it down for mass consumption. This led to the appointment of Joel Schumacher as director for the third and fourth installments (Batman Forever and Batman & Robin). Fresh blood could not save these features from their ludicrous dialogue and cartoonish tone. Even the most die-hard fans were wishing for the Bat to be put to sleep. After all, if Hollywood wasn't going to tell these stories right, why tell them at all? Flash forward to the year 2005, which Batman enthusiasts will henceforth refer to as ""Year One."" Christopher Nolan, the gifted filmmaker responsible for the mind-bending Memento, has finally given this series the honest, respectable makeover it has sorely needed. Modeled after the Batman graphic novels penned by Sin City creator Frank Miller, Nolan's feature gets back to the crusader's roots. Christian Bale (American Psycho) assumes the role of Bruce Wayne this time around, and it's a brave choice that pays off nicely. The film itself focuses on the events that molded the young billionaire into the masked vigilante we all know and love. After failing to avenge his parent's death, Wayne disappears into the criminal underworld, eventually finding himself in a distant prison. Angry and sorrowful, he is under the tough tutelage of Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson). Ducard instructs Wayne in the ways of martial arts, while also helping him to confront his deepest fears. As Wayne nears the end of his training, he realizes that Ducard and his master, Ra's Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe), intend on destroying Gotham. They feel it is little more than a breeding ground for impoverished criminals, and while there is some truth in this, Wayne disagrees with their ideology and genocidal methods. He soon returns home after a seven-year hiatus, and begins creating the mythic figure we call Batman. It is as this point that the film finds it groove and will likely win over most of its observers. The first act of the film has all been backstory that is unfamiliar to most casual fans of the character. However, director Nolan was wise to stay true to his vision. By taking Wayne out of Gotham and briefly disorienting viewers, he has injected a much-needed jolt of reality to the story. We look on quizzically as exotic locales, ninja warriors, snow-capped mountains, and Asian mystics wash over us. Are we in the right theater? But those who remain patient through the first half of the film will be greatly rewarded. It took a lot of guts for Nolan and the studio to make this film. It is not the merchandiser's Batman, and it is most definitely not a children's movie. This should be evident by the stellar cast that surrounds the still relatively unknown Bale. Morgan Freeman, Michael Cain, Gary Oldman, and Katie Holmes are just a few of the talented actors who deliver wonderfully reserved performances in this truly unique picture. As last year's Harry Potter installment proved, great things can be done with popular material when entrusted to the right filmmaker. This movie isn't likely to smash box office records or send kids running screaming to toy stores, but it has done something remarkable just the same. It has taught an old bat some new tricks and given the rest of us a complex, believable superhero. That's more than just fine with me.Rating: A-","['1', '1']" +346,rw1243717,missbettybetty,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Excellent film,21 December 2005,0,"Batman Begins is a stylish and slick action film. It has everything you could want in a film, emotion, action, love. I was worried that this film would be another George Clooney disaster but it was brilliant. I didn't believe you could beat the Michael Keaton batman films but I was very much mistaken. Christian Bale is an excellent choice and I am thoroughly looking forward to the next instalment of Batman films. Not only was Christian Bale an excellent choice but the supporting cast was also perfect with brilliant performances from Cillian Murphy, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine (obviously) and Liam Neeson. Overall I enjoyed the film immensely.","['1', '1']" +347,rw1221176,Critical Eye UK,Batman Begins (2005),3.0,Deja vu,21 November 2005,1,"Here we go again: mean streets, concrete thickets, the huddled poor, oil drums burning in the cold dark night. Around any corner, Kurt Russell escaping or Harrison Ford running or Bruce Willis monkeying.Say hello to the Gotham City of 'Batman Begins', where nothing works except the retread business and old scenes, old plots, old ideas and old ham are swapped for new with an alacrity so unblushing that the director should more properly have been a Mr Al Addin. Unfortunately though, there's no lamp for anyone to rub. So no chance of fulfilment of the not unreasonable wish that this silly movie come to an early end.The good thing though is that the seemingly endless length of 'Batman Begins' leaves plenty of time to wonder. Or even, wander.Michael Caine, for example, and this fondness he has for orphans. He may have swapped the cider house for the bat cave, but when he parts from young Bruce, he's just got to be thinking, 'Good night you Prince of Wayne, You New King of Gotham'.And Peter Jackson. Although uncredited, you can really see the desperation when he comes chasing after one of the LOTR Nazguls that has galloped into Gotham to terrify the hobbits – correction, the Gotham City District Attorney (though played so convincingly here by Katie Holmes you just know she has hairy feet and enjoys smoking a clay pipe.)David Carradine's absence is regrettable if only because Liam Neeson's presence is even more regrettable, but then, Carradine's character in the 1970s TV show was Kwai Chang Caine, and though 'Batman Begins' plunders as much as it can from earlier, more original, and infinitely better work, including 'Kung Fu', it's quite understandable that you can't have two Caines in one movie when one Caine has always been more than enough.And then there's Christian Bale. Just how bad for his health is that Batman chest protector? Out of it, his larynx is fine. In it, and his voice drops way down to the Darth Vader register. (Katie Holmes's character doesn't notice this, but then, the actress herself doesn't notice that she's in a movie anyway).Apparently, this 'new' (the word is used advisedly) Batman is so good, the franchise is to be extended. Plenty of time, then, to Marvel at the Comic intellectual pretensions of those who make / applaud stuff like this, and to watch every jaded visual cliché in the book being regurgitated.In fact, by the time of 'Batman Ends' it's likely that audiences will be so into recycling that not a single Styrofoam cup will be left behind in any theatre, anywhere.Hopefully, that which gets recycled won't, as in 'Batman Begins', emerge as junk.Rating: 3/10 (for Bale's efforts).","['1', '5']" +348,rw1157429,nickek-1,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Oh wow,24 August 2005,0,"They got a bit wild with all of the Batman movies. There'd be a villain, villain tries to do something bad, Batman stops villain. It was the same thing over and over again. The only thing different was the villain, and possibly adding Robin or some girl or something. That's when I started to get sick of Batman movies. Oh, I still liked the whole villain and Batman saving the day stuff, it just was kinda predictable.So, naturally, before I went to see this movie, I was expecting to see something that I've seen before. Was I ever wrong. It was thrilling, dark, and the characters were extremely well developed. I also liked the special effects, and it was funny during some parts of the movie.This movie was awesome. I can't wait for future Batman movies.","['1', '1']" +349,rw1199358,Nightchild7,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,The greatest superhero movie of the year!!!,22 October 2005,0,"Batman Begins is simply marvelous in many ways; even surpassing the Tim Burton masterpiece released in the late eighties. Starring Christian Bale, Katie Holmes, Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman, the film is a roller-coaster ride of a movie with realistic production values, a deep and engrossing storyline with twists and turns, thrills and chills, and much more!! This story, unlike the previous Batman films, is more of an origin tale rather then a straight-up superhero/action movie. It tells the story of how Bruce Wayne became destined to become his alter ego, the Dark Knight. A vigilante bent on ridding Gotham City of crime and corruption. But underneath the mask is a man tortured by a tragic loss in his childhood and filled with anguish, and revenge.I m not one to spoil anymore plot points like most reviewers, so I going to leave it at that and end that I have described.When watching a film or reading about a character like Batman, you sympathize with him and his feelings towards those who are evil and also in his daily life dealing with business, justice, and love. No film like this is without romance. Batman Begins is also a mentor/father figure, detective and self-discovery tale as well. Michael Cain as Alfred, Bruce s most trustworthy butler is simply impressive in this role. No actor in the business can portray the charm, wisdom, and cleverness as well as Cain. Michael Gough was great in Tim Burton s two installments and also in the third (with the exception of the downright god awful Batman and Robin ) but Cain pulls it off with such spectacular flair that you can t help but be intrigued by his character. And it really shows due to the top-notch performances of the supporting roles by Morgan Freeman, Katie Holmes, and Gary Oldman (a surprisingly different role for an actor known for playing bad guys).Nolan s casting makes this film shine even brighter and generally makes it more fun and exciting. I honestly didn't think he or any other director aside from Burton could pull it off. I admit that after the fourth Batman film, I had very low expectations regarding news on this new installment. I saw the dreadful fourth film in the late 90s with the notion that I was going to be on the edge of my seat. After the film ended and having just seen it on TV. a few years ago, I personally state that this is the worst film in the franchise. Joel Schumacher has ruined the franchise as whole and not only infuriated fans of the comic book series and film buffs alike, but he also destroyed my interest in Batman . This film, or should I say travesty, is the kind where you instruct your DVD or videocassette player to eject the drivel from the unit and either trade it in or in a more suitable and grand course of action, throw it into the garbage, landfill, or many other favorable sites where a film like Batman and Robin deserves to be.However, after seeing the film, I have to say that in a streak of hope, Nolan has masterfully resurrected the franchise into a new, pleasant light! How wrong I was about this film; it is simply the best ever!! Nolan has truly outdone himself and this is a film that I can proudly call my favorite alongside Revenge of the Sith , which George Lucas has so wonderfully redeemed.Batman fans can finally rejoice and hail this box-office gem as the definitive film of the year!! I urge all of you to come out and see Nolan s grand vision of the Dark Knight and be immersed in all of its splendid, spectacular glory!! Finally, the specter of Batman and Robin can be lifted from our minds and our hearts as well as our souls!!! Batman s triumphant return to the silver screen was well worth the time, money, and effort on the part of not just Christopher Nolan, but also on the actors themselves!! Great job and congratulations!! Overall, Batman Begins is the greatest and the best revision of the Caped Crusader!!! Let us welcome a sequel with open arms.","['1', '2']" +350,rw1135346,philip_vanderveken,Batman Begins (2005),7.0,The best Batman movie and one of the best 'comic' films ever,26 July 2005,0,"I've never been a fan of movies based on comic books and I'm pretty sure that I never will be. We are flooded by movies like X-men, Spider-man, Hellboy, Daredevil, Batman,... because the makers of this kind of movies know that the majority of the (teenage American) audience loves movies about the eternal battle between good and evil and seem to have an enormous need for new heroes. That most of those movies don't have a decent story or some good acting to offer, doesn't seem to bother them at all. As long as everything looks as spectacular and flashy as possible, they are happy with it. But I'm not that kind of person. I prefer movies with a believable, touching story and interesting characters over all that computer animated eye candy. So why did I give this movie a try than? The reason is quite simple, I read a lot of good reviews about it and because it still had a rating of 8.3/10 after 45,831, I was very curious about it.The title ""Batman Begins"" already says enough about where you should place this movie in the line of other Batman movies. It's a prequel and starts telling the story where Bruce Wayne is still a child. He witnesses the murder of his parents and is convinced that it was his fault. He seeks revenge, but when the murderer is shot in front of his eyes, he flees to Asia where he seeks counsel from Ra's al Ghul, a dangerous ninja cult leader. Here he learns all the things a perfect fighter should know off, but it doesn't take long before he realizes that Ra's al Ghul's way of live isn't the correct one either. He decides to go back to Gotham City, which has become overrun with crime and corruption. He also finds out that the company which he inherited is slowly being taken over from him. That's when he decides that he will be the new crime-fighter in town who will strike fear into the hearts of the criminals. He becomes Batman and, with the help of some other people, he starts saving the city from the apocalypse...What surprised me the most about this movie was that it took its time to develop the story and the character behind Batman. We get to know him from his childhood on and gradually see him evolve from Bruce Wayne into Batman. But not only Batman feels more realistic as usual, so do the bad guys. OK, it's still a comic book movie, but for once you don't get bad guys who believe they are penguins or something like that. The fact that all the characters in the movie looked more realistic was new to me and I admit that I liked that new approach. What I also liked was the way the city was created. The computer animators have done a very fine job creating Gotham city and the many action scenes looked even more spectacular thanks to their work.I liked the acting and the computer graphics, the story was OK and this is by far the best Batman movie that I've ever seen. Does this also mean that this is one of the best movies in general that I've seen this year, like so many people claim? No, not really, but I admit that it is a lot better than all those other comic book movies. This one definitely stands above all those other movies, almost making them feel like some cheap rip-offs. Still, it's not exactly my kind of movie and that's why I believe that the 8.3/10 is overrated. I know that not many people will share my opinion on this, but I believe that a rating of 7/10 for this movie is a lot more realistic.","['0', '0']" +351,rw1140215,Wint_her,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Batman Begins Was Great,1 August 2005,1,"Batman Begins has flown onto screens with a whirlwind force impossible for movie goers to avoid. A handful of ripe star characters, eye catching scenes, and a beautifully developed plot, sure beat a carrot on a string. As if the long awaited unveiling of the origins of the beloved Batman wasn't enough. Actor Christian Bale stunningly portrays the tormented masked avenger, skillfully enhancing Batman's dual nature. No doubt the talented Bale draws from his past quality roles from such films as ""American Psycho."" The transformation of Bruce Wayne into Batman and the start of the film begins at a prison camp where Wayne appears to have been living for a while. Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson) mysteriously appears and convinces Wayne to become his apprentice, teaching him how to fight and have self control. Wayne reveals to Ducard all the secrets of his past and why he was running from it. With a new take on his fears, Wayne returns to save Gotham City from the corrupt Carmine Fabone (Tim Wilkinson), and Dr. Crane (Cillian Murphy) the key players in the city's drug ring. Batman is helped by his childhood sweetheart Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) the D.A., Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) the only morally upstanding cop in the area, and Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) a long time Wayne Enterprise employee who supplies Batman with all his little tech savvy gadgets. And as always by his side is Alfred his loyal butler played by Michael Caine.Batman Begins is so satisfying to die hard fans because rather than loading it with elaborate computerized fight scenes, time was spent on expanding the back story and making the Wayne- Batman evolution a believable one; from the bat cave to the bat mobile and weapons, to the hit and miss process of Batman inventing himself.","['6', '9']" +352,rw1228949,snaptoit,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Stunning,1 December 2005,0,"Forget everything you know about the other Batman films; Batman Begins is in a class of its own. An amazingly powerful dramatic film that also features eye-popping action sequences, Batman Begins transcends the superhero film clichés to become one of the best films of 2005, and the first Batman film that is truly Oscar-worthy across the board. It would be hard for the incredible cast involved to miss, even with a mediocre director, but Christopher Nolan is brilliant in his treatment of the material, and the resulting film is absolutely sublime. Making the previous two Batman movies seem almost amateur by comparison, Batman Begins is The Caped Crusader finally captured properly on film. Absolutely amazing.","['1', '1']" +353,rw1135581,jrkity2002,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,amazing movie!,26 July 2005,0,"this was the best batman movie ever and Christian Bale was the best batman ever!!! i expected very little going into the movie. i'd seen the trailer & it looked great but i couldn't help but remember the other batman movies that were.....well, let's face it.....awful!! i was blown away by the end of the movie. Bale was magnificent, the special effects were great, scenery awesome, and the supporting actors, i mean come on, what can you say, AMAZING!!! Caine, Neeson, Freeman, Murphy, Oldman, all amazing!!! just the right amount of comic relief as well. times when the entire theater laughed out loud!!! i can't wait for the next batman.","['1', '1']" +354,rw1158837,DMoviebuff4778,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,"Best ""Batman"" Movie Ever!",26 August 2005,0,"I'm a big Batman fan, and I got to say that this movie was the best Batman movie ever. Even better than the 1989 original w/ Michael Keaton. I thought Christian Bale did an excellent job, the suit and the new Batmobile looked more realistic, can't wait for the next one. I really want to try the new video game. They even filmed it in IMAX and I heard it;s now the highest grossing IMAX movie. If you love Batman, I strongly recommend to own it when it comes out on DVD. I know I'm definitely going to own this one. I even have a tradition of when every house I moved into the first movie I put on is the '89 version, but when this comes out the new one is gonna take over. If I were to rank the top 3 Actors that portrayed Batman: 1. Christian Bale 2. Michael Keaton 3. Kevin Conroy (Animated Series)","['6', '8']" +355,rw1217473,keithlivingstone,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,The bat is back***************,15 November 2005,0,"All i can say is thank you Chris Nolan,,,I still think you will have to be a magician to beat Tim Burton's Batman film's but Nolan has is well on his way to becoming Houdini. This is a film that describe's Batman as he was in the comics and i think as Bob Kane imagined...So how has Nolan done it..Simple..i've seen the xtras on the Region 2 DVD and it appears that he didn't rush anything and really worked hard on this and recruited the best of the best in the movie making business,it's an extremely hard character to portray and a risky franchise as a director to do a good job as Joel Schumacher found out. He has had some good films like The Lost Boys etc but his take on the Batman was purely a joke and i think he had potentially ruined a huge money making franchise...But however it has been saved with Nolan's amazing take on Gotham and Christian Bale's Dark Knight which truly is an amazing likeness to the comics,,,This film has everything that we wanted and more because it has a beginning a middle and an amazing end which makes batfan's itching for more and a sequel which promises just that,,,it has an all star cast too,Morgan Freeman and doing an amazing job in succeeding the great Michael Gough's Alfred we have Michael Caine..The villain is the Scarecrow but in true Gotham Style there are more corrupt going's on in Gotham than good and who are they gonna call to clean it up..Simple.....THE BATMAN...This film has more gadget's and lifelike special effects than any other Batman Film so it's definitely one to watch..Thanks and i hope you enjoy it as much as i did..","['15', '18']" +356,rw1135715,amorm003,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,one of Nolan's best,26 July 2005,0,"batman begins redeems all batman movies. Burton shared us with his great ideas of batman, but after that it was all down hill. Nolan creates the perfect idea of batman. to be able to understand why batman became batman is a perfect idea. Nolan is a genius in this movie. he casted almost perfectly (holmes, Natalie Portman would have been better). batman was perfect, from the car to how he acted (he showed the idealistic batman). bale was beautiful. i have never read the comics, but i still have faith to batman. the movie was made in an unprecedented form. i could have never imagined a batman to be as good as this one. if you have doubts about batman movies, see this one and it will change your mind","['1', '1']" +357,rw1222745,guiggey,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,"The best, most intelligent super-hero movie ever made...",22 November 2005,0,"I had considerable doubts when I heard that Warner Bros intended to bring the Batman film series staggering back to life. At the height of the super-hero box office swell, and fresh off the big disappointment that was The Hulk (my favorite comic book character), I was wary about the idea of seeing yet another director take a shot at a franchise that was believed by many to be dead. I couldn't help but remember my first trip to the movie theater, age 9, when my grandfather officially became the coolest person in the history of the world by sneaking me into a PG-13 film. That film: Batman. It's funny, I can't remember anything of what I did that year in elementary school, nor what I got for Christmas. But the experience of watching the Dark Knight come to life right in front of me lives in my memory to this day.But hey, that was 1989, and a lot had happened to the Caped Crusader since then, Joel Schumacher and a nipple-suit, most notably. Worse yet, as the release date for Batman Begins approached, the local cineplex was already steeped in super-hero films. Even when I heard that Christian Bale, who I'd loved in Equilibrium and Reign of Fire, was signed to play the man beneath the cowl, and that Christopher Nolan, director of one of my all-time faves, Memento, was going to give his take of Batman's story, something about me was still hesitant. I couldn't allow myself to get excited, almost like a jilted lover not allowing themselves to set the bar too high. That said, Batman Begins shattered my expectations, and cemented itself as the obvious choice for the best, and the smartest super-hero movie of all time. The way Nolan and company made this film should serve as a guide for anyone trying to write or film good fiction. Make no mistake: The premise of Batman is about as far-fetched as they come. A billionaire spends his nights jumping around on rooftops in a costume with unbelievably high-tech gadgetry, protecting a city against a cavalcade of colorful villains. In the hands of other directors, a premise like this is handled as-is: The Tim Burtons or Joel Schumachers of the business see a hyper-real, romanticized story and exploit the imagery of the comic book world for good cinema thrills. There's plenty of explosions and cool cars, because it's a comic book movie and it's going to be watched by comic book fans, right?Batman Begins takes a fantastic premise, and treats it with INTELLIGENCE. Christopher Nolan, in deciding to go back to Batman's origins, leaves no stone unturned, and outlines, in a real-world way, the inspirations behind Bruce Wayne's transformation into his brooding alter-ego. It manages to stay true to the comic book fanbase, sating them with plenty of eye candy, but manages to establish a compelling STORY about PEOPLE. By the time Bruce Wayne commits to his life as the Dark Knight, we're so invested in him, we're no longer looking at the Bruce Wayne scenes as ""killing time"" between slam-bang action sequences. We're actually interested in what happens when Batman TAKES OFF THE MASK.This movie enthralled me, it told me an in-depth story of justice, vengeance, and consequence. It was upfront, mature, and honest with me from the beginning. It didn't treat me like a fanboy who was only there to see the new Batmobile, but still appeased to the 9-year-old who never left that movie theater in 1989. This stands as proof that if you have a good story about PEOPLE that's treated in an intelligent way, the action (which is second-to-none) is just a bonus addition to an already powerful and well-rounded film.","['0', '0']" +358,rw1140019,steeped,Batman Begins (2005),6.0,Batman Begins- The Bad Bat,1 August 2005,0,"Batman Begins was a good yet bad movie.First, Bruce doesn't become batman until more than half the movie. The beginning just told all about Batman's past, (that's why it's called Batman Begins.) The action scenes don't show any fighting. Either the picture is in the dark, or you just hear the people screaming.Bruce Wayne fell into a whole in the ground at a young age, and bats flu into his face. This gave Bruce a fear of bats. When he got older, he wanted to overcome his fear, so he became Batman. I mean, that makes no sense! Well, I would give this move 6 out of 10 because the direction and filmography was good, but the writing was bad.","['0', '3']" +359,rw1131696,december18,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,A Masterpiece: The Batman Saga Starts Over,21 July 2005,0,"I was going to begin my review by commenting that this film, a shockingly masterful superhero epic directed by Christopher Nolan, should not even be considered as being part of the same series constructed by Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher during the 1990's.After looking at the ""Movie Connections"" section of the IMDb entry for this film, I am pleased to see that it isn't. Batman Begins, apparently, is an entry into a completely new series, separate from the one created by Tim Burton and decidedly more faithful to the comic books in its approach.And aren't we the better for it. Nolan's vision of Batman, while similarly Gothic in nature (an indelible stamp that Burton has left on the series,) is a far more realistic, gritty take on the iconic series. It is a world of psychological doubts, political intrigue, and decidedly unheroic vengeance. As one film critic so aptly put it, ""at last, a Batman movie that's actually about Batman."" Batman Begins has, indeed, become the poster of a new era in superhero movies, one that has been completely redesigned and transformed by the attacks on September 11th and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. On 9/11, America learned that massive explosions, toppling buildings, and merciless villains weren't just creations by the movie industry. They were things that were waiting for us on our doorstep.Thus, the superhero movies of late have been ones that are increasingly set in the world of reality. Sam Raimi's Spider-Man saga emphasizes that the hero is, at the end of the day, nothing more than a kind-hearted New York kid trying to pay the bills. The Incredibles are nothing more than a dysfunctional family trying to get by in a decidedly un-incredible world. And Bruce Wayne is still a billionaire playboy, but, in Nolan's version, has a couple more mental hangups about his childhood.These anti-heroes have become the new superheros of our era, people who are not made of plastic, steel, and witty one-liners, but exist in our world, where we ourselves cope on a daily basis with the news of merciless villains attacking our way of life.Nolan's entry into this new era of anti-superhero movies (which I suspect will become the defining masterpiece of the new genre) is so patient in its storytelling, yet so expansive and awe-inspiring in its ambition, that it crafts a superhero movie that audiences have never been treated to before.This is an action movie where the first major action set-piece, complete with explosions, occurs approximately an hour and forty minutes into the film. How's that for daring? But Nolan doesn't stop there. This director seems to delight in the idea of probing every fascinating facet of Bruce Wayne's world, giving us a tour as no other director (including Burton) could have. While Burton and Schumacher were busy blowing up pieces of plastic, Nolan busied himself constructing real human beings for us to meet.We meet a decidedly more emotional, nostalgic Alfred, played to perfection by Michael Caine. We meet the sparkling, witty Lucius Fox, played with typical brilliance by Morgan Freeman. We meet the colorful underworld king, Carmine Falcone, played with considerable menace by the talented Tom Wilkinson. And we meet the idealistic, driven Rachel, the original love of Bruce Wayne's life, who, to my surprise, was one of the highlights of the film, as portrayed by Katie Holmes.The combination is enough to enrapture any fan of the comic books, enough to make any Tim Burton fan doubt their allegiance, and enough to get anyone unfamiliar with the Batman saga hooked on Mr. Nolan's intoxicating, colorful, realistic world that has emerged, like other contemporary superhero movies, from the ashes of America's recent foray into the terrible world of explosions and super-villains.","['1', '2']" +360,rw1131000,email123-1,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,A rare film that really transcends genre,20 July 2005,0,"BATMAN BEGINS is a rare film that really transcends genre. It's not just a great comic book film, or a great action film, or a great adventure film, or a great gangster film, or a great noir film. It's just a great film. Chris Nolan can do anything, it seems, and I look forward with great pleasure to see what he's up to. I'm told that this comment does not contain enough lines, but that's all I have to say, so I'm adding these with a bit of displeasure. I'm told that this comment does not contain enough lines, so I'm adding these with a bit of displeasure. I'm told that this comment does not contain enough lines, so I'm adding these with a bit of displeasure. You can stop reading now if you like.","['1', '4']" +361,rw1159073,Selim84,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,Coulda been even better,27 August 2005,0,"Cool and better than the previous Batman films (although I think the Joker was incredible in the first and the atmosphere and style were amazing in the 2nd). It was great that they focused on Batmans upcoming in this one, although I think the story after that was a bit of a letdown. And I know the film was like 2 and a half hours long but still I think they could have focused a bit more on the Scarecrow and tell a little bit of his story. Also, I think Katie Holmes was corny as Rachel. They should have gone with someone like Jennifer Connelly or Naomi Watts. Still though, a really well done Bat movie! Question: Which actor is gonna play the villain in the next one?","['0', '0']" +362,rw1146724,graham-167,Batman Begins (2005),,"My my, they actually pulled it off!",10 August 2005,1,"I really enjoyed this one. Although I loved Tim Burton's movie, it always felt a little overdone; Gotham didn't feel like a real city, not a place you could imagine people living, and the characters felt a bit too overwrought to be real people.This movie feels much more grounded and realistic. Gotham feels like a real city - let's be honest, it feels like New York. And the characters both good and bad feel like real people.I liked Bruce's development. We never really got an origin story for Batman before in the movies - we knew what happened to make him Batman, but mostly they told us about it and showed flashbacks, we never saw it in any real detail like we do here. Seeing the lasting impact of his parent's death gave you more connection with Bruce, and seeing him develop the Batman concept as a carefully calculated ploy designed to achieve a specific effect made it much more believable than the ""I'm depressed, I saw a bat - hey, I'll dress as a bat and fight crime!"" of previous movies.More kudos for the development of the toys. Introducing them as prototype weapons which Bruce appropriated was an inspired touch, and showing him actually developing his gear over his first few times out was another touch that made it more grounded and believable. These scenes also introduced some much needed and well played humour from Morgan Freeman (and Michael Caine is also excellent in this regard.) Things started to go a bit over the top with the grand evil scheme to destroy Gotham. The whole plot to spread fear gas around made no sense whatsoever and is riddled with scientific nonsense : why pour the stuff into the water supply for weeks before? Water doesn't sit in pipes in a city for weeks on end, it gets constantly flushed through - most of their chemical would be flushed away! Indeed, since the poisoning of the water stopped a good day or two before the final stage than little if any of it would be left in the pipes at all. Additionally, the microwave ""vapourise all the water"" weapon made no sense - it boils all the water in the pipes over hundreds if not thousands of yards, but has no effect on people and machinery standing right next to it! I'd rather they had just focused on having Batman fighting a conventional crime boss, as this would have continued the whole ""keeping it real"" thing.But while annoying, it doesn't come close to wrecking the movie. Batman Begins is by far the best of the Batman movies, and one of the better superhero movies ever made.","['4', '5']" +363,rw1140011,asbjornsson,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Batman is better than ever,1 August 2005,1,"Best. Batman. Ever. At last we get a realistic superhero-movie. Gritty, real and believable. I'm loving it. Batman Begins is menacing and dark. The action and pace is beautiful. It never drags. It grabs hold of the audience and doesn't let go before the end. That's what good movies are all about.Batman Begins takes on a whole different tone than the other Batman-movies. Instead of going with the far-fetched cartoony style of Schumaker or the gloomy, dark (and sometimes weird) Burton style, this one is a much more down-to-earth and dramatic movie. It takes Batman and Gotham down to our level. The audience understands what's going on, because they can relate to it.Also, the impressive ensemble of actors is one of the reasons I went to see this movie. The grand old men: Liam Neeson, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman all come to their right here. Especially Neeson.The Batman franchise has been reborn. I can't wait for the sequel.","['0', '0']" +364,rw1180586,verbalkcy,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Outstanding,26 September 2005,0,"The first time I saw Tim Burton's take on Batman, I was stunned. I fell in love with everything the movie had. I was anxious to see the sequel when it came out, and it certainly didn't disappoint. The dark, Gothic settings, fascinating characters, cool gadgets... they had it all.When I heard about the third one being in the makes, I was dying to see it. I was pretty young back at the time, and watched the Batman Forever trailer over and over again. Granted, I was very, very disappointed to see Michael Keaton (and Burton) step down, but I was still hopeful for the movie. I hadn't heard much about Joel Schumacher or Val Kilmer at the time, but as I got over the shock of the new guys taking over the franchise, I went into the theater open minded... and came out utterly disappointed. I felt betrayed, like they'd turned one of my favorite movies into some sort of a joke. I lost all hope. I didn't see the following one (Batman & Robin) until early last year, and it was even worse.When I heard about a fifth one -at this time they still hadn't revealed a director or the leading man- I wasn't interested at all. I saw the whole franchise as this old, limping dog, taking its last few breaths before disappearing for good. Then one day, I watched a little movie called ""Memento"". Still one of my favorite films, I decided to check this Christopher Nolan guy out. It turned out he was a fantastic director, very talented, but not really the comic-book-action kinda fellow. So when I found out he was going to make ""the new Batman"" I was quite puzzled. At the time, at least, I was sure it was bound to be better than the two previous movies.I followed every single bit of news they had on the movie, and was mostly positively surprised. Christian Bale, an actor I've liked for a long time now, was going to be Batman. A sigh of relief, it was. When I learned about the rest of the cast, I was nearly knocked off my chair. Michael Caine as Alfred? What? Amazing.I still remember refreshing the Apple.com trailer page repeatedly, waiting for the trailer. I was ready to pop after that. I HAD to see this film.Well, I just watched it (LATE, I know, I know), and I have absolutely no doubt that this film saved the franchise. I thought it was impossible. The cast is superb. The story follows the comics almost religiously, and by god, it works. I was saying ""wow"" out loud every five minutes while watching this movie. It tells you everything you ever wanted to know about Bruce Wayne becoming Batman, yet has time to give you all the Bat-action you were missing out on for the last 13 years. Twists and turns, fantastic action, stunning acting and even a wonderful hint about the next film in the end.This is THE Batman movie as far as I'm concerned. See it.10/10","['0', '1']" +365,rw1243048,rebeljenn,Batman Begins (2005),3.0,"At the beginning, I wanted it to end",20 December 2005,0,"'Batman Begins' feels like the type of film produced for the audience who enjoyed the superhero films which are ever-popuar at the moment with the release of Spiderman and some of the other films. I think the project was taken on to revive Batman and to earn a little bit of extra money. The result was a poor film.'Batman Begins' is a slow film with several pacing mistakes and a generally uninteresting story about revenge and morals. The first half of the film is very slow and unengaging. At the end, it is packed with action, but the action is not as memorable as it is a cheap adrenaline thrill. Not to mention the poor acting and dialogue and generally uninteresting cast of characters in the typical superhero underdog story. Not for one second could I believe that Batman would admit to 'being frightened of bats' when asked why he choose to dress up like a giant bat. Being frightened of something does humanize the superhero, but it also makes him seem less of a superhero. (He could have just admitted to not liking bats.) The love story between Batman and Rachel was also poor. I think the film failed completely. Yes, it did have some decent action at the end, but that's all I will give it.","['2', '7']" +366,rw1211836,JilliefromChile,Batman Begins (2005),2.0,"If it were meant to be satire, it would be quite good.",8 November 2005,1,"Batman begins is the beginning of an era of all around bad movies. Bad acting, bad directing and bad writing. Did anyone else notice batman had only one expression, the blank gaze. Except when he was really angry, that warranted a shaking jaw. His low, ""I am Batman"" voice got increasingly gruff throughout the movie, to no benefit whatsoever. His interrogation routine was severely flawed, what with the administration of insanity gas prior to shouting clichéd questions, to a now incoherent being. His defense mechanism was to jump off buildings at any sign of danger, and he couldn't even manage to lift a log of himself, despite the adrenaline that should be coursing through his veins, without the encouragement of Alfred. To top it all off, Batman was just a tool in general, wiping out hordes of innocent people for the sake of petty revenge. I miss the good old days, when superheroes weren't required to let angst affect their every move, driving included. Bring back the Batmobile, that hunk of machinery was a pathetic replacement for some long lost masculinity. All in all, the highlight of the film, and some of the best acting, was the hobo.End rant.","['2', '7']" +367,rw1176992,Lei_012,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Nice!,21 September 2005,0,"This is exactly what I hoped for and expected from this movie! It's Batman at it's best on the big screen. The previous movies are nowhere near. The casting was almost perfect for me but it only took one young lady with an old boyfriend to ruin it all! I love the acting by Christian Bale... I knew he'd make a cool superhero when I first saw him on Reign of Fire. He's the perfect Bruce for me. He fits the char very well. I mean Keaton's a funny guy but since when did Batman got curly hair? Liam Neeson's another favorite actor of mine.. such a great, great actor. The movie's kinda long but it's all worth it.. the plot's easy to understand and follow plus I like how they included the League of Shadows. It was in the comics too. I'm a huge fan of Hans Zimmer so I was excited when I heard he'll score the movie along with another great composer, James Howard. I love the soundtrack! This movie made my summer really.. been waiting for another batman movie for a long time... and a good one really.. and on Oct we can finally buy a batman movie worth watching over and over. So yeah.. LOVE IT!","['0', '1']" +368,rw1147120,xdstrbdx,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Filmgasm,10 August 2005,0,"I hope my title doesn't offend anyone, but I have to say that that term just about encompasses the feelings one will have after watching this film. I cant imagine anyone having anything horrible to say about this, the latest incarnation of the Batman Story. Fans of the comics as well and comers to the Dark Knight alike can enjoy the tale told here.A wonderful adaptation of the origin story of one of the most well known superheroes, Batman Begins simply has it all. Excellent acting, amazing cast, tremendous writing, and insightful directing. There is no aspect of this film that will leave you unsatisfied. My only wish after watching th is film is that it were a TV serial instead, that way I could tune into it every week. Nolan and Bale got it right.There's enough action to keep the burliest of men interested, and enough passion and intrigue to get the girlfriend hooked (Pardon the sexiest stereotypes). There are no lags in the film as the story flows from moment to moment with great ease.If pressed to find criticisms, I would say Cillian Murphy as Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow was not given enough to work with. I would have liked to have seen him more involved and not a secondary status character as he was used.I eagerly await all the sequels they intend on making, and hope this train doesn't stop.","['1', '1']" +369,rw1157176,pra321321,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,One of the Best of Batman series so far produced !,24 August 2005,0,"The movie viewed in Imax screen gives one an unforgettable feeling. The visuals are excellently prepared, locations are out of this world and overall an excellent cinematic experience.The movie surpasses all the previous Batman movies so far produced.The movie has a very faithful story line, may be a little deviation from the comic but nevertheless a very good take off on the original. The screen play has been excellently written and picturised very near to natural surroundings of the magnificent Gotham city.The technological excellence & technical effects are something to be seen to be believed. The Batman suit designed, the way he glides using parachute techs and other gadgets , ammunition and the Batmobile used are all very well brought out convincingly.This Batman movie is really an outstanding piece of cenema, leaving one & all in a great feeling of watching one of the magnificent work, ever produced so far.","['5', '6']" +370,rw1197722,kc5oua-ham,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Best one so far,20 October 2005,0,"The effects were good and the action excellent. This is the best BATMAN movie so far. I hope they keep the same people for the next movie in this series. They did leave it open for a sequel. The action seemed to flow well from one scene to the next. I did enjoy the martial arts part of the scenes also! At first I thought Michael Caine could not be Alfred, all I can say is He did an excellent job. Cristian Bale as Bruce/Batman good choice. Morgan Freeman had a great part, He knew all the time who and what Bruce was. Never was said but the tension of the moment was there. In all I think that this was an excellent movie with a good plot and good story line.","['0', '1']" +371,rw1138648,alfiefamily,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Christopher Nolan shows us what a Batman movie should be!!!,30 July 2005,1,"""Batman Begins"" is an absolute triumph!! Christopher Nolan has done what Tim Burton and Joel Schlockmacher could not. Give us a caped crusader with a totally believable human side to him. Where the earlier films seemed to be mainly about casting gimmicks, ""Batman Begins"" is purely about the story. And what a terrific story.Through flashbacks we learn how Bruce Wayne's fears centered around bats. We see his parents, and learn how they were loved by many, and we see the circumstances around their murder. We even find that it was a friendly Officer Gordon who befriended Bruce at his hour of need.The story also goes into great detail as to how he wanted to do more than just fight crime, we wanted to literally save the city of Gotham from destruction. The detail on how he became ""The Batman"" was one of the elements that was sorely missed from the earlier series.The acting on all levels is wonderful. Christian Bale is perfectly suited to play the difficult role of Batman/Bruce Wayne. It is a delicate balance that he must walk so as to not overplay or favor one over the other. When he has the cape on, you still feel a sense of the man Bruce Wayne, and the troubles he carries with him.Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are ""the names"" behind this film. Both are excellent, and they make you believe that they care, and support Bruce Wayne. Gary Oldman is a treat as Officer/Sergeant Gordon. It's nice to see him in a role cast as someone who's fairly normal. He is particularly good in his scene in the Batmobile. Liam Neeson is excellent as Bruce Wayne's teacher/nemesis. Katie Holmes is attractive and very good as Wayne's childhood friend.But this picture is a celebration of Bale and Nolan. Together they have molded a truly wonderful character, who is at all times charming, fearful, intelligent and human.This was a real treat. I hope that there will be more of them.","['3', '4']" +372,rw1223681,sexandthesun,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,Not bad at all...,24 November 2005,0,"After so many years waiting and watching failing remakes of the original , Batman Begins truly shows us the way we want to see Bruce Wayne , as a true lone wolf ( or should I say bat?) . Great acting , brilliant fighting sequences (except the final one) , and we get to see the true corrupted side of Gotham City . The title isn't very original but who cares about it after seeing a mind blowing film ? Katie Holmes wasn't who we were waiting for to see act the part of Rachel Dawes , nor was Gus Lewis as young Bruce Wayne , but the movie adds up to a well managed and directed total . I sure hope to see the next Batman of this version which might come up in 2007 ( I've heard ) .","['0', '0']" +373,rw1187931,Giovanni_flrs,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Just one word........badass!!!!!,6 October 2005,0,"this movie is the best damn superhero I have seen since Superman the first movie. This movie is just amazing. We don't have to see nipples on his costume anymore that's for sure! This movie had everything- action, sadness, a badass batmobile and a beautiful girl! Man i can't wait to see the movie again when it comes out on DVD! I would like to see if the new superman movie coming can top this one! To tell you the truth, i'm looking forward to that. Batman Begins honestly made my summer! I wish that his parents didn't have to die like that though. It was pretty sad. Well thats how the story goes as he grew up and trained to become the legend!","['0', '1']" +374,rw1228999,russem31,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Finally a film that gets into Bruce Wayne's psyche,1 December 2005,0,"Even though I consider Tim Burton's original Batman as the classic that no other Batman sequel can beat, Batman Begins finally gets into the psyche of Bruce Wayne, why he became Batman. While the original had much going for it, including a great score by Danny Elfman and superior production design, that film was really about Joker, not Batman. Batman was a one-dimensional character in that film. In this one though, we finally understand who Bruce Wayne is. In fact much of the film is about Bruce Wayne not Batman (he only dons the suit an hour into the film). Although I miss Tim Burton's version, this one really does hold up especially after the dismal Batman and Robin. Highly recommended 9 out of 10.","['0', '0']" +375,rw1174658,rebecca1369,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,The best one yet,18 September 2005,0,"Batman Begins (2005): I finally got around to seeing it and I have to take back part of my rantings about movies that follow superheroes at their beginnings. This one was actually done WELL. I agree with pretty much everyone I've spoken with about this movie -- it's definitely the best Batman flick to date (but would've been even better if they put the Riddler in THIS one...). Cillian Murphy is pretty creepy (yet hot) as the Scarecrow and director Christopher Nolan (Memento, 2000; Insomnia, 2002} fixes a lot of mistakes that Tim Burton made as far as the comic book storyline. Although I don't really find Christian Bale attractive, he was the most believable Batman I've seen -- cause I mean really, Michael Keaton? Even I could beat him up. Val Kilmer is just ugly and annoying and poor George Clooney should start reading scripts before he accepts roles.","['0', '1']" +376,rw1216825,jeromeerome,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,"Finally Another ""Dark"" Batman Movie",15 November 2005,0,"Forget all that colorful, candy coated, over-the-top, comic book style trash that poisoned the last two Batman movies. Joel Schumacher should be embarrassed for creating Batman Forever and Batman & Robin which became the ultimate low for the character since his creation in 1939. This new film thankfully has nothing in common with those embarrassments. Batman Begins is a prequel to everything we have seen before. It takes us back to young Bruce Wayne as a boy. The film has a very dark, gritty feel to it. In fact, I found it hearkening back to Tim Burton's unique style found in the original Batman movie with The Joker and Batman Returns with The Penguin and Catwoman. If you liked those then you will love this new one. I think it is even better.Without ruining it for those who haven't seen it the new Batman Begins shows the transformation that took place from young Bruce Wayne to Batman. It truly recaptures what the original story about Batman was meant to be. You witness the initial training, the beginning of the bat-cave, the early gadgets, and of course crime fighting at its finest. All of this is carefully executed to keep your attention and entertain you without overloading you with special effects and other Hollywood tricks. I dare say it may be the best Batman film ever made. Sequels are on the way of course.","['4', '5']" +377,rw1253234,jpm610,Batman Begins (2005),7.0,Great entertainment. Thoughtful and respectful to the original comic.,2 January 2006,0,"HIGHS--The cast for one. Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman and Liam Neeson. These are all power hitters and all in perfect place. Fantastic script. Very well thought-out which is rare in ""popcorn""-type flicks. Hans Zimmer's pulsating score adds a new dimension of fun to the mix.LOWS--Katie Holmes, stay with Dawson. With those chops you don't belong in cinema, you belong in a magazine ad.PARTING IMPRESSION--A very fun film whether you're a dedicated or sometimes comic fan. Keep in mind it is a fantasy romp. But sit back and enjoy. Seven out of ten.","['0', '1']" +378,rw1201100,FilmSchoolWriter,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,"A good flick. MUCH better than the last 2 Batman movies, but not quite up to the bar set by Tim Burton's films",24 October 2005,1,"I was super, super excited when this finally came out on DVD and watched it the first chance I got. I am very glad I saw it as it is much, MUCH better than the last two films. But is it really up to what fans have been waiting for? Yes it is. Although not quite as good as the two films starring Michael Keaton and directed by Tim Burton (I'll get to why in a little bit), it's still pretty good.The acting in this movie is exquisite. Christian Bale is, to say the least, FABULOUS. We FINALLY have an actor who is up to the bar set by Michael Keaton in the first 2 batman movies. I for one am really excited about the fact that he has signed on to make a sequel to this movie. Cillian Murphy is really, really good as the Scarecrow. He's a different villain than the ones we are used to seeing - but in a good way. Gary Oldman is so cool. (I mean, it's Gary Oldman) and he is so great as Jim Gordon before Gordon became fat. The only acting flaw is that of Liam Neeson who plays bad guy Henri Ducard. Not only is this character slightly confusing, but Neeson acts just as you would expect an evil Qui-Gon Jinn (Star Wars: Phantom Menace) to act. There are even a few lines that you just want to add ""use the force"" to the end of.The one REALLY, REALLY big problem I had with this movie is the horrible, HORRIBLE continuity errors. Seriously, have Christopher Nolan or David Goyer even SEEN the original Batman? If not, allow me to point out the fateful and really obnoxious flaw. (*NOTE: THIS IS WHERE THE SPOILER IS, FEEL FREE TO SKIP OVER IT IF YOU HAVE YET TO SEE BATMAN BEGINS OR BATMAN) In the original Batman from 1989, we clearly see how Bruce Wayne's parents are murdered. There are 2 men who rob them. Then, one pulls a pistol and shoots both of Bruce's parents. He then turns the gun on Bruce and says, ""Hey kid, you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?"" The man who kills Bruce's parents is Jack Napier, aka The Joker. He's about to shoot Bruce when his partner stops him and they run away. In Batman Begins, ONE man robs Bruce's parents and than shoots them. He never turns the gun on Bruce and he never says that classic line. Also, they catch the man who kills Bruce's parents, and it is the right guy, and he is tried and than shot by a female reporter. Sooooooo not what happens in Batman. (*NOTE: THE SPOILER IS NOW FINISHED SO YOU CAN CONTINUE READING :))So there you have it. What I think of Batman Begins. See it, but don't expect it to be completely flawless. All the same, ENJOY!","['4', '7']" +379,rw1212973,JoshtheGiant,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Perfect,10 November 2005,0,"There have been many tries to make a great Batman film, but they have failed every single time before this. The original Batman was the worst, it was horrible, Batman Returns sucked, as did Batman and Robin, and than they made Batman Forever which was at least good, and the first watchable Batman film. Batman Begins changes this majorly. The story is great, it is much darker and grittier than anything else before about Batman, and it works very well. The screenplay is amazing, all the characters are well developed, and the dialogue is great. The direction is amazing, but well it's from the Guy who made Insomnia. The visual effects are also great, will probably get Oscar nominations. Flawless action film, one of the best.","['1', '1']" +380,rw1201016,fizzog92,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Wow!,24 October 2005,0,"Just when I thought the franchise was lost, it was saved by everything a batman movie should have - a great director, amazing writers, superb (and extremely realistic) effects, a great cast and a phenomenal storyline. ""Batman Begins"" has all of these thing and then some. While they could so easily have recycled the joker or the Penguin to be the villain, the writers did something far cleverer and drew from Batman comics featuring the not so well known villains, and (well, at least as they are played in the film) the more realistic villains, for in this reinvention, Gotham needed to be a real place in our minds, and bright purple coats or bright green spandex hardly help us to buy into the world. Despite the fact there is a man dressed like a bat roaming the streets, the world around him and his set-up is so real, it doesn't matter. This also allows for more, 'eccentric' villains for the obvious sequels, as this world is so well created. 10/10 - extraordinary!","['2', '5']" +381,rw1145634,da_herbman,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,Could this be the best comic movie ever?,8 August 2005,0,"The origin of Batman, heck in my opinion even better than Frank Miller's Batman: Year One. This movie tells the story of Bruce Wayne and how he became Batman. There really isn't much to say about this movie, it's just that good. The acting,the plot, nearly everything was top notch and really true to the comics, Ra's Al Ghul was displayed almost exactly as he is in the comics. I was skeptical with Katie Holmes being the ""bat broad"", but she really nailed her part (although I still think switching her character with Harvey Dent would make a lot more sense continuity wise) I only have 3 minor complaints:1. The action scenes were chaotic, they wanted to try a new thing and I give the crew kudos for that but it just didn't work 2.Scarecrow should have been...a little bit more mishaped, he's supposed to be weird, he really wasn't that weird as Jonathan Crane. 3. the thing in the end...it doesn't fit in with continuity when you think about the ending of the original Batman movie directed by Tim Burton, but that's just me nitpicking :pI really wanted to give this movie a 9, but I'm not that sold yet, maybe if I went and saw it again...this really is a great movie, I'd give it at least 8.5/10aaahh F it, I'm gonna give this a 9 anyway","['0', '0']" +382,rw1131046,toxiccity,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,Batman Returns,20 July 2005,0,"Finally Batman has been returned back to the original brilliance of the first film. This whole film was a success. What made this film so brilliant compared to the other disaster films from Returns to Robin is that it brought back the dark eerie content. But the main thing that amazed me was the story, by far for me the best story in a superhero film. It wasn't just about getting the bad guy, it focused more on Bruce Wayne, on Batman. The acting was outstanding from everyone, which you would expect from the great talent on show. Also the first time I've actually watched a superhero change his voice as he becomes his alter ego, something as straight forward as that is so brilliant.The story is so astonishing of how Bruce Wayne turns into Batman. The many different thoughts you wondered as you watched Batman for the first time, why did he become this hero? Many twists and turns are unfolded in the story that keeps you mesmerised until the end. I recommend all to see this film as it will appeal to most of how Bruce Wayne became Batman! If you like this then I also recommend Batman, Blade and Sin City","['2', '4']" +383,rw1133162,derek-276,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,The BlockBuster Of The Year,23 July 2005,0,"This is one of the best movies of the year because there wasn't any corny action like in all the other Batman movies. The characters were more real than in the other movies, except for the Scarecrow. The other Batman movies had make-believe characters like the Penguin, Bane, Harvey Two-Face and all of those characters. This movie had a lot of action and it was the first movie with Batman flying. I thought the movie was exciting and also funny and it really deserves an Oscar for something since it was a decent movie. I think it will at least get nominated. This is the best movie of the year because it had good acting, directing, writing, and visual effects. I hope they make a Batman Continues with Harley Ouinn as the Joker.","['4', '5']" +384,rw1205199,ledzeppgrl,Batman Begins (2005),4.0,disappointed,25 October 2005,0,"am i the only one that was disappointed in this movie? it wouldn't be that bad if it wasn't the origin to the other batman movies.. it didn't follow the right path by any means. it implied that the others didn't really happen the way we thought. in the 89' batman, the joker kills the parents, not some off the wall character. and the setting, so completely different. i hated the new york look, that is not Gotham city. if the director wanted to change everything, he should've just made a different movie and left batman alone. and what was the deal with it being so 'emotional'? maybe i just missed out on that,but i didn't see too much heart in the movie.. maybe I'm just too much of a burton fanatic....","['1', '4']" +385,rw1184644,come2whereimfrom,Batman Begins (2005),7.0,batman begins here...,2 October 2005,0,"Batman begins: slowly but it does pick up. There is so much batman out there from the comics to the cartoons and from Burton to where we are now, Christopher Nolan (of memento fame). We are promised a much darker batman far removed from the silly campness of the last few films that have graced our screens and yes this is a darker film but not that dark. It still has the unfunny one-liners like the kind we used to get in old Arnie films from the eighties (Remember 'stick around') and it still has the sickly sweet love interest in the form of Katie 'am I only getting work because I'm seeing tom cruise' Holmes. Aside from her terrible performance and Christian bales need to suddenly put on a pantomime baddie voice every time he dons the bat costume, there is some good acting here. Michael Cane especially as Alfred the smart English butler and Morgan freeman as the weapons expert both take to the roles like ducks to water. Gary Oldman regardless of dodgy tash also adds to the ambiance. The enemies are also quite weak but lets wait until batman 2 with the joker to comment on them. But I have to say the cars the star. The new half tank, half all terrain vehicle that is the new bat mobile is brilliant and steals the show in some awesome jumps and chases that feature as some of the better set pieces in the film. Nolan is no action director and this shows slightly towards the end where as Rami in Spiderman 2 kept the action fast but clear, here it becomes muddled and sloppy. Don't get me wrong this is a far better film than say star wars (got my dig in) but not as stylish as Sin City. If you like super hero action films that you don't really have to think about and you can't wait for Spiderman or x-men 3 then this is the film for you.","['0', '0']" +386,rw1225951,landscape-2,Batman Begins (2005),1.0,This movie really sucked,27 November 2005,0,"this movie really sucked. it was so boring and bad. i hated it. i want to kill this movie. and i hate how everyone thinks its so great. its not, so just get over it. Spider Man 1 and 2 were so much better. They were funny and entertaining. that is what a movie should be. this movie completely missed the point of the Batman stories. I've talked to both adults and teenagers and only the teenagers like it. It is just a movie for bored teens who have nothing else to do. i cant believe that this movie is on the Top 250 list. this film the same old action movie we have seen a 100 times before. it is nothing new. the action scenes were very predictable and the acting was bad also. the only good thing about the movie was that it was filmed in Iceland. i want to shot this movie in the face.","['11', '25']" +387,rw1150163,wizard42,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,They got it right,14 August 2005,1,"Finally a Batman movie that gets it all right. Christian Bale is the first actor who can play both roles, Batman and Bruce Wayne, perfectly, and is truly believable as both. Michael Caine is the best Alfred since the Television series. Liam Neeson, while not a traditional Ra's Al Ghul, is great. Gary Olman's Gordon, a cop who still believes in justice, is also a brilliant portrayal. The only weak link is Katie Holmes, who I generally like, but who never gets a handle on her character. With great special effects, and solid directing this is the movie that true fans have been waiting for. Morgan Freeman's Lucius Fox, a later addition to the cannon, is a wonderful character. At last we have a full explanation of where Batman gets all of those wonderful gadgets. If you are not a Batman fan, or a fan of movies derived from comic books, you may not enjoy this film as much. The viewer is required to suspend disbelief, when confronted with an insane asylum placed on an island in the middle of the city, and when dealing with the abilities of the Batman, as well as of some of his opponents. But, it is all great fun, and the action is fast-paced, with plenty of character development. This is probably the must see movie of the year.","['1', '2']" +388,rw1174007,globefocus05,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,ONE of the greatest movies of all time,17 September 2005,1,This is perhaps one of the top 10 greatest movies of all time. I'm usually very picky with what movies i go to but i have always been a huge batman fan and had to go see this and it was the best money i spent going to a movie in a long while. It had an excellent story line and had more then enough action in it to keep me awake. I also enjoyed the romance in the movie something i thought brought it all together. i was extremely pleased with the plot twist as well. This was just a well done movie and defiantly made up for the other uber sequels which had their short fallings. The only disappointment that i had was that robin the boy wonder wasn't in it. perhaps in the sequels??? Cant wait!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,"['0', '1']" +389,rw1204978,magratk,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,"Pretty good. The best of the Batman films, absolutely.",30 October 2005,0,"Batman is dark. They accepted that darkness, and didn't protect us with camp. It is the tale of a man who decides that it's his business who's good and who's bad. That makes him a superman in the Nietzschean sense. We haven't had a good history with that. A man who was ""to the manor born,"" our age old natural betters. Nolan and company tackled that head on in this origin story, and I'm glad. This Batman knows that there is no morally pure choice. He spends considerable time naval starring. They also accepted just how Freudian the whole Batman story is. This is a man who is stuck, unable to move beyond a tragic, bloody, defining event; a moment when his parents, powerful in their own realm, were shown as absolutely impotent in the shadow side. His rage at that moment fuels him; his inability to move beyond it freezes him. The very weapon the bad guys plan to use to accomplish their nefarious ends harks back to that. Not a perfect film. The big reveal at the end was a little too pat, and I could have done without the supermodels. But a loving retelling of the irreducible core of the most human of superheroes.","['1', '2']" +390,rw1207137,MrBiddle,Batman Begins (2005),,It's what I do that defines me.,31 October 2005,1,"I like the sociological commentary it has the same goals that the protag and the antagonist have but have different moral standards and methods of getting there. The movie opens with it's first Act having temporal displacement, to hold our interest and at times to delay exposition, answers to questions like why did Wayne end up in prison. What are the things that have kept his disturbed. From here, we also learn of the philanthropy and good will of his parents and his childhood fear of bats. When the movie clocks 45 minutes, after an immersion of rigid training with the League of Shadows, Wayne manages not to flinch and remain steely calm amongst a cyclone of bats inside a cave.Cillian Murphy - you wouldn't know he was the hapless and the hunted in 28 DAYS LATER when you see his effective villaneous performance in here. The theme of FEAR, is very well played-out. How Bruce Wayne uses his own weakness to make him stronger and to make his enemies share his dread. And you can see the symmetry between scenes, what Rachel tells Bruce in the hotel and what Batman throws back at her when she asks for his name. The compound in the blue flower, the hyperbole of it's effects displayed by the Scarecrowe and the ecoterrorism that stems from the mad doctor's medicine. Or how the TRAIN also becomes a character in the film at one point.Nolan is also a master at creating surrealistic nightmarish sequences, juxtapousition and quick flashes, we've seen him do this in Memento and even more in Insomnia where we become as restless as Al Pacino's character. From the side-effects of the blue flower to what happens when the good guys get poisoned by psychotropic hallucinogen.Batman Begins explores moral standards as well, from philanthropy to how our hero applies what he has learned in a monastery of Ninja Warriors to shake people out of apathy. There is no obvious contrivance of plot devices as the narrative is decisive and taut. The twist behind who or what group of people were really responsible for the depression in Gotham city that has caused many to hunger and turn into a criminal. One thing that Wayne tries to turn into at the beginning of the film and how he reveals how he lost many assumptions of what is ""right and wrong"".You will also see excellent location photography (like Nolan has given us in INSOMNIA), dark and eery sequences with a touch of film noir (we know Nolan is a master of this genre) in them especially with Jonathan Crane, the fear mongrelling Scarecrow who manages to bring down our hero and his District Attorney Lady friend for a time. And eventually, drives the mind of Gotham's toughest most feared criminal boss in for a reversal after the Batman puts him behind bars.Bale brings much duality to the character. Compared to Keaton who was also very good, Keaton was all about subtleties, but Bale brings an arrogance and caustic wit to the character of Bruce Wayne who immediately dons the persona of a beast when he wears the ""costume"". Many might NOT easily grow into appreciating how Bale approaches the role, but his skill because of previous experience in heavy drama as a child actor is put to good use here. Michael Caine, unlike Gough in the quad franchise is more than just a senior citizen lackey but also much like a guide and sort of a father-figure for Bruce. Alfred in here constantly reminds Wayne of his NAME and what might have been left of his father's legacy.And it boasts an all-star cast who all do very good. Morgan Freeman is entertaining as he is a much, older, wiser aid to Bruce Wayne and Batman. ""Didn't you get the memo?"" The contentiousness of Rutger Hauer. And Neeson the movie's master antagonist is imposing as Ducard, Bruce Wayne's trainer in his techniques of subterfuge and warrior arts. Refershing to see Gary Oldman do an EXCELLENT job as the honest and noble Sgt. James Gordon amongst a crooked police department (someone who might be eventually Commisoner in the sequels).The score isn't the like the stylized Gothic timbre and melody that the duo of Tim Burton films had, but the collaboration of James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer coudln't have been a better marriage. From propulsive motifs to hints of histrionic texture as we mostly get from Newton Howard who scored ""Prince of Tides"" and the last 4 M. Night Shyamalan movies. Zimmer has his signature in the score and the propellant energy of his music further accentuates the action scenes.Begins has finally vindicated the name of the Dark Knight after the failures of the last two in the earlier ""Batman quad"". And it is something (not just for fanatics of the DC comic) for those who love to watch an action or thriller movie with a good plot and some things that might be worth thinking about. While a rude awakening for some, the film stresses practicality and contains a verisimilitude not-so expected in movies of this genre. A very good character drama, disguised as an action-thriller. Kudos to Goyer, Nolan and his cast and crew.10/10","['0', '1']" +391,rw1147492,AishFan,Batman Begins (2005),6.0,Great movie but Spiderman was better,10 August 2005,0,"It's raining superheroes with Spiderman, Batman, and now Superman! As different as bat-phobia and web-oozing may be, the comparisons are inevitable. Batman is an awesome movie power-packed with the best action, stunts, and special effects that Hollywood has to offer. The main actor gives a great performance and is the perfect choice for this role. Batman's romantic interest also gives a good performance and has an interesting role. All in all, Batman is an awesome film. However, my main gripe about the film is that like over half of it is spent in designing Batman's costume, obtaining the Batmobile, and getting all the superhero accessories. I'm here to watch an action film, not a fashion show. Too much time is spent in showing Batman's background and childhood, explaining Gotham, etc. and the actual saving-the-day comes in much later. Personally, I think Spiderman is better in pretty much all the departments. It's a much more wholesome entertainer; it has more emotions. There are many more (and I think better) action sequences. Batman is a much darker and grimmer film. The only thing about Batman that I like more is that the actress has much more input into the movie and doesn't have a dumb role like that of Kirsten Dunst. Now that Batman's all ready to save Gotham, it looks like the sequel with Joker is going to be really awesome and much better!","['0', '1']" +392,rw1228282,jukierubixcube,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,An Oscar worthy welcome back to Gotham,30 November 2005,0,"I loved Batman Begins. I was reluctant to see it at first, but I'm glad I did. This movie saved the series from the downfall it was doomed for thanks to Batman & Robin. It brought back the darkness of the story, and there was a lot of drama and twists this time around that kept me on the edge of my seat.Unlike George Clooney in the last movie, who simply PLAYED Bruce Wayne/Batman, Christian Bale WAS Bruce Wayne/Batman from the faces he made from scene-to-scene to the dark sultry sound of his voice. He was plagued by his parents' death, and you could feel his anger and determination towards Gotham's shaky situation. I won't name everyone from the main cast, but Cillian Murphy does an excellent eccentric. This was a good role to remember him for. This cast was the best of the five movies.Good job, Mr. Nolan! And DEFINITELY, thank you!!","['2', '2']" +393,rw1240463,pmccarty-1,Batman Begins (2005),9.0,About a man who over comes his fear of bats.,17 December 2005,1,"I would recommend Batman Begins because it has a lot of action and because it had good movie flow.My experience with the film was good. I would watch it again because it was packed with action and exciting things happening all the time during the movie. I would also watch it again because the way that they went from scene to scene. It had good transitions between scenes. There was a lot of action in this movie. Some good examples of this was when the person that killed Bruce's parents was coming out of the court house after being convicted of murder. Bruce shows up at the courthouse to kill this person, but somebody else shot and killed him instead. Or when they are on the train and it is going to crash because the tracks have been blown out ahead. Batman puts his last touch on the bad guy and exits the ripped in half train through the big opening in the back using his cape. One other scene that was funny and full of action was when Bruce was trying to get the medicine to his girl friend. He was speeding through the highway and on the rooftops is his car that looked like a tank, but could go really fast and could jump great distances.Because it had good movie flow, the movie never left you questioning what was happening at any certain point in the movie. When they went from scene to scene between Batman fighting and the trial for Bruce's parents it was a good transition. It made you feel like you were not missing anything in the movie. The movie also had good ways to end the scenes like fading out and then a new picture arising on the screen it was cool how they had the timing down just right. It was also interesting how they could go back and fourth and not lose you when they are going back and fourth.On the other hand of you don't like bats and action this probably isn't the movie for you.Even though this was a very good film this could never happen like this anywhere in the world, the hero would die or they would find out where he lives. So, even though this movie was totally fiction, it was fun to see how Batman began starting at the beginning.","['0', '1']" +394,rw1201698,pookey56,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,"is that really you, Gary???",25 October 2005,1,"so do i think this is the best batman yet? well, this film provided me with some surprises:1) some of the best shots of the ""city"" i've seen, rivaling BLADE RUNNER, which for me is saying a lot.2) Bruce Wayne actually smiled once or twice. after the first hour or so, i didn't think he was going to (great smile, Mr. Bale!). 3) an area 51-ish explanation of batman's technology! 4) another Liam mentor role but with questionable ethics! Has he Ever played a villain before?and the biggest surprise of all: 5) a normal Gary Oldman!to blame ms Holmes' relationship with Tom Cruise as having a negative impact on this film is ludicrous. Leave her alone. now, her character as a taser-wielding district attorney of Gotham is something else altogether. how does she find the time DA'-ing between cheer-leading practice? what this film lacked that the original one with Keaton didn't was a strong villain. but then few can do it like Jack can. Tom Wilkinson, arguably an actor with the greatest range of all working actors today, left the film all too early. i loved his performance and missed him when his character exited the film. the ever great Michael Caine was also good to see and i think his character picked up steam as it went along. and the screen play? this is the person who gave us Memento? At least he was true to the original comic books. sorry if Scorsese beat you to the punch with a Howard Hughes biopic. this film did a good job of demonstrating why Bruce Wayne became the ""bat"" he was. but humour of any sort (intentional) was largely missing here. i didn't expect a comedy, don't get me wrong. but the Bruce Wayne character was so serious! have a little fun flying around why don't you... i didn't enjoy this version as much as the first one, although i think this latest one was better constructed. the filming and art direction were simply great, and Christian Bale makes a Great bat, arguably the best one so far. will i miss Katie Holmes in the next one? ah, NO. her credibility as a DA was non-existent. it was good to see Ken Watanabe again too. funny how there's a link here with Tom Cruise. will i watch this film again? absolutely! it was good in many respects, but if someone asked me what it was about, i don't think i could tell them much other than the obvious. i suspect that this film will resurrect the Batman franchise, which is a good thing. a great thing, actually. now that this superbly produced film has set the grounds for cave-dwellers who were unfamiliar with Bruce Wayne's background, the next one has everything going for it.","['4', '6']" +395,rw1233593,skrald-2,Batman Begins (2005),3.0,"hmmmmm.....Please do better, next time around!",8 December 2005,0,"This movie has potential but never delivers. If they make a sequel...please do it right this time around!! Mortal combat was a better movie; when you look at the money spend. When you fill a movie with that many superstars you would think it was possible to deliver some sort of quality. But again Hollywood spends all of there money on superstars and special effects and forgets the story. Tom Cruise's teen wife should have stayed on 'Dawson's creek'! She does not belong on the big screen. Morgan Freeman....I loved all of his movies, except this one..but this one he MUST have done for the pay check. Sorry to see him falling into the Hollywood money trap. Michael Caine...I know his getting old, but his like fine wine, he gets better with time. To act in this movie, is like serving fine wine to homeless people. Again, done for the pay check.","['1', '4']" +396,rw1163876,Golgo-13,Batman Begins (2005),6.0,Not as cool as Burton's Batman.,2 September 2005,0,"Bam! Pow! Kazam! Batman Begins (currently at 117 on the IMDb 250!?). OK, there were several elements I really liked. Bruce Wayne's training in the first 45 minutes was pretty cool, as were the deeper than usual themes of justice and revenge. The way Wayne acquired Batman's wonderful toys was explained nicely too, such as having the two ears manufactured at a different place than the actual mask to avoid suspicion. The movie was suitably dark and Christian Bale was more than acceptable as the lead. That all said, the movie seemed overlong at two plus hours, perhaps being the cause of the frenzied-to-a-fault climax. The last half hour was a mix of rushed details and plot points, resulting in a nearly awful watch. The fighting and action itself was nothing great either, often consisting of quick edits and the camera being so close as to lose focus of what is actually going on. All in all, a decent movie but Burton's version still reigns supreme in my book. Oh yeah, the suped-up, armored dune buggy didn't really work for me as a Batmobile either, nor did the ""look"" of Gotham.","['0', '2']" +397,rw1190202,zenmonki,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,Batman Begins does more to define the character than any other batman film.,8 October 2005,1,"I was 18 when I saw the first Batman movie. I won free tickets to the sneak-preview showing late on a weeknight. The theater was packed to the walls and everyone must have been as big a fan as me because we all ooo'd and aaah'd, cursed, laughed and whooped at all the same places. The experience was so unique to me that I felt a little of it every time I wore one of my batman t-shirts or hats for years afterwards.At the time, I was sure that was the best comic-book hero movie that could ever be made. This feeling was reinforced after the other Batman movies were released. Sure, they were OK and it was cool to watch a character you love go through new adventures, but the movies were not as good overall.I have to say that Batman Begins certainly has given me a new perspective. I still have a high opinion of the 1989 flick, but this movie rocks. It made Bruce much more human, and in my opinion, much more likable. I was surprised how much I liked Bale as Batman.The focus of this movie is, obviously, how Bruce got started in the role of thug-busting. Turns out he spent some time in an Asian prison, hooked up with a bunch of ninjas that were led by a tag-team of ol' Rob Roy / Qui-Gon Jinn and the next-to-last-Samurai. This film had an awesome and very impressive list of cast members.Morgan Freeman shows up as a Wayne Inc version of ""Q"" -- let's call him ""W"" -- who really knows how to hook a fella up. Full body armor, magneto-cable-guns, electro-memory cloth (used to turn Batman's cape into a glider -- how cool is that!?) and (the best for last) the Tumbler, aka Batmobile.This was, beyond any doubt, the most kick-ass vehicle I've ever seen in a movie. These pictures really don't do it justice and you have to watch this movie if for no other reason than just to see it in action. One of my favorite quotes from the film came from a cop in a cruiser calling out a description of the Batmobile over the radio, ""It's a black.... TANK!"" One of my favorite scenes from the film was when the Gotham SWAT team were about to storm Arkam-asylum to capture Batman. How Batman handled this situation was such a creative and visual-delight that I don't want to ruin it for you or even try to describe it. Words would only cheapen it anyway.http://outpost1.blogspot.com (much more of my boring drivel)","['0', '1']" +398,rw1159987,IMDbigONE,Batman Begins (2005),10.0,The Dark Knight Returns,28 August 2005,0,"""Batman Begins"" finally has captured the true spirit of the character of Bruce/Batman from the comics. This live-action adaptation has been smartly directed, scripted, and cast to produce the more realistic dark nature of a human hero out to avenge his parent's murder with every criminal that threatens his Gotham City. It's the best of all the Batman movies, and stands tall next to the godfather/blueprint of all superhero movies, 1978's ""Superman"". Where ""Superman"" left off with a more campy telling of it's superhero, 'Begins' ushers in a more adult, serious take on it's mythic hero, dispensing with any camp and treating Batman seriously, grounding him in a more realistic environment that is more accessible for the audience without dumbing down the story.","['5', '6']" +399,rw1168870,Cmontgomery822,Batman Begins (2005),8.0,Great Re-Start,9 September 2005,0,"This is a great restart to a franchise that should never have had to die to the likes of Joel Schumacher. Movie starts out with the over used over tired Hollywood antic why people are messed up because they were when they were kids. The only difference is for once it works. It works because 30+ years ago that was not a common tool and that is why Bruce Wyane is who he is. The good stuff is all good, the tricks are good, the mood is dark and the toys are great. The bads are few and far between. Since when in any set up has Bruce Wayne had a team? He has always had Alfred and since the first movie came out in 1989 he has had this incredible need to tell every women he is in love with that he is indeed Batman. But now we have the girlfriend, the butler, and the Morgan Freeman. Plus we have the other favorite took since the first film came out that if the bad guy lives, he knows who Batman is, but is too crazy to tell you. Too many people in on the secret. The only other bad is that Christian Bale is just not yet dark enough. Bruce Wayne is a dual character. He is part light and billionaire play boy and part dark moody guy. He is too much playboy right now. I am hoping that in the next he can be darker and closer to the classic Bruce Wayne. These are minor problems. The Batmobile total departure from the classic look and it works. Toys and tools of Batman work and do not need someone running around saying ""where does he get all those wonderful toys"" you can say it yourself and see where he does. It goes back to classic film making of showing you and you need to know and not telling you what you were just shown.","['0', '1']" +400,rw1226825,fashionista78,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),1.0,Scary..,28 November 2005,1,"I thought the movie was quite weird. I at first I did laugh at the oddness of it but after a while it simply got annoying. I thought Willy Wonka was made out to be much meaner and disliking of others in general. I think the first movie was better, the plot line and actors. I realize that sometimes you can have a movie be a little different and odd, but to me in this movie it goes way to overboard. I also thought that the part where they blow up the dolls at the beginning was not cool. Although this is a miner part of the movie, what is up with the pink sheep?? I thought that was pointless and confusing. And no it is not cotton candy - cotton is grown on a plant, Wool comes from sheep!!","['2', '5']" +401,rw1137930,sfgadviper,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,Loads of Fun,29 July 2005,0,"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory 9/10When I first started hearing about this remake about 6 months ago I was very skeptical. The Johnny Depp image just didn't seem to fit the Willy Wonka character. Now I still agree somewhat with my original thought but instead Depp and Burton created a whole new level of Willy Wanka and made what is about as perfect of a ""remake"" as possible. Beside Highnmore and Depp the cast was forgettable. They were not terrible but I found them more obnoxios than the original characters in the 70's.Since everyone knows the story I ill ay I liked the more emotional Wonka in the elevator at the end of the original but I liked the Oompah's even more in this movie. It was just so darn fun.Go see it!","['1', '1']" +402,rw1137796,Duzniak38,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Hits the Sweet Tooth.,29 July 2005,0,"I just got back to the first viewing of this at my local cinema, and I was blown away by this sickly-sweet treat! I was so eager to see this, as I love the Gene Wilder original, however after watching the remake I fell in love with it even more than I had fell in love with the original. It certainly stayed more faithful to the book than the original did, for example this film keeps the squirrel scene, where Veruca is proved to be a bad nut, and is then thrown down the garbage chute, and there are also extra scenes which we never see in the original, such as Oompa-Loopma-Land, however it added a dark and eerie story about Willy Wonka's childhood, which was certainly an interesting addition. I had to say in my opinion too, that I enjoyed the Oopma-Loompa songs in this remake far more than I enjoyed the ones from the original, and the fact that only one actor played every single Oompa-Loompa was a good chuckle too. I thought Freddie Highmore and Johnny Depp stole every scene with their quality acting, and Depp was excellent, as a dark, twisted, witty Willy Wonka. The film is certainly more twisted than the 1971 version, but it is still eye-pleasingly colourful and fun, both for children and adults alike. I highly recommend this sweet trip to Willy Wonka's factory. Dare to venture into his wonders, and indulge in the sweet, sweet hilarity and madness. You won't be unsatisfied.","['1', '3']" +403,rw1164259,UltraJoe,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Depp beats Wilder!,3 September 2005,1,"I must admit, I've never read Dahl's book. I only have Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, starring Gene Wilder, to compare this movie against. I have to say, though, that this version is superb! Johnny Depp is an amazing character actor ... one could never imagine his Willy Wonka having anything whatsoever to do with Captain Jack Sparrow or Edward Scissorhands.The story is wonderful, showing, as always, how the impossible can somehow be possible. While it's obvious who wins the contest, the actual tension over Charlie finding a golden ticket was credible. The back-story of Willy's relationship with his father, and his having to deal with Charlie's close-knit family, was an added treat.","['3', '7']" +404,rw1131928,pwise-3,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),2.0,Very Poor Remake,21 July 2005,0,"I was very disappointed in the movie. Johnny Depp was more like a demented robot than a real character. The children's characters were not complete and poor imitations of their 1971 predecessors'. This is one of the times when less would have been more, even for Tim Burton it was too flamboyant. The oompa-loom-pa had very little character and seemed mean and nasty. The squirrel thing seemed more like a rip off of the ice-age popularity. Thankfully the original film is on DVD as I am sure this will be soon. I did like the Grandpa Joe character. All the characters were played from an evil point of view and where was Slugworth?","['14', '25']" +405,rw1157395,Schaeuffelchen,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,I was smiling all the way through it,24 August 2005,0,"It's just what you'd expect from Tim Burton and Roald Dahl. The combination of director and author is perfect - and so is the film. It's not Tim Burton's best but it's absolutely worth the way to the movie theatre. If you like Big Fish or Nightmare Before Christmas, you'll love this one. It's colourful, weird enough to love it, and at the same time very carefully composed. The sweetness of the chocolate seems to ""infect"" the whole movie. All gestures and words seem to be carefully chosen without trying to make it annoyingly perfect. All the ideas, the author's as well as the director's, make you smile and wonder how someone can actually create such a wonderful yet strange atmosphere. Despite all the sweetness, there is some bitterness and some melancholy in this picture which is marvelously acted out by Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka. Charlie is that perfect kid without being in whatsoever way annoying. It's a lovely film and it would be a ten if it wasn't for Sleepy Hollow or Edward.","['3', '6']" +406,rw1139781,russellelly,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),1.0,A poor show all-round,1 August 2005,1,"I'm genuinely not sure where to start on this, it was so awful. Being a big fan of the original, one of the best movies ever made I didn't really want to see a different version, but was coaxed into it, and boy, I wish I wasn't.I have to disagree with the majority who had a liking for Grandpa Jo. He's meant to be an unassuming character, he doesn't choose to go with Charlie - Charlie chooses him! And he doesn't do daft Irish dancing either. It's not flipping Riverdance. This Grandpa Jo, like all the characters, could not be easily connected to. Seeing the original get up from his bed brought a smile to my face. Watching Riverdance did not.The children were below average, certainly not a patch on the class of '71. Veruca Salts in particular seemed incapable of portraying the 'daddy's little girl' image which was a great touch to the original. Charlie Bucket managed to portray the poor boy at the beginning, but after meeting Wonka this seemed to diminish. The others did the job, nothing more, nothing less, but they had little to work with.The parents were worse than the kids. Veruca Salts' father was perhaps the least convincing character I've seen in my life. Did he have a second tone to his voice - a distressed one perhaps? No. Nothing. And as the kids were whisked away one by one the parents seemed to show absolutely no emotion - absolutely senseless.Everything I can say about the songs and the Oompa-Loompas has been said before, but lets say I wasn't impressed. The original songs were timeless. These seemed dated already (it's passed the 1990s!).The flashbacks were charming and pointless in equal measure. The little Willy Wonka at Hallowe'en I could sympathise with, but the mystery of Wonka was then gone. They did little but to detract from the plot.And Depp. What can I say? Random would be an understatement, and the viewer felt no attachment to him whatsoever. The Jackson similarities were uncanny at times. He seemed disturbed, whilst Wilder was eccentric, yet warm. The latter was far more appealing.Somehow the plot lines, like the film as a whole, seemed forced and very unnatural. The lines from the original seemed out of place, yet changing them seemed like it was just for the sake of it. Why were there squirrels and not geese? Why was it chocolate television and not Wonkavision? Why Mike's father, not his mother? And why, oh why, was there no flaw by Charlie? Getting in the Wonkavator (sorry, elevator) before Charlie had won, and Wonka refusing to let Charlie's folks in the factory when he had won? Inexcusble.As the credits rolled I was shaking my head. Literally. Watch the original version, read the book, but whatever you do, don't waste good money on this film.","['5', '11']" +407,rw1131334,Xizor159,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Spectacular Movie,20 July 2005,1,"I was absolutely stunned when I saw this movie. I expected it to be a silly, childish movie, but (though it was silly and childish), I thought it was very well done. The music was awesome, I loved the way the factory was laid out, and it really just kept me laughing. I highly suggest that you go and see this movie.Another funny little thing that made me laugh was that the oompa loompas were all played by one man. It must have been hard, especially, to do the scene in the nut room around the garbage chute. It was still very funny. When they were winding in the tunnels though (on the boat), I wish they had made it a little more like the original, cause that was funny. But this was still really good. There was no Mr. Slugworth in this one either, and the everlasting gobstoppers really weren't all that important. Whether or not this was what went on in the book, I don't know, but still, it was better that way. Wonka also had a lot of ""flashbacks"" in this movie to explain why he's a reclusive Chocolateer. Wasn't in the book, but still added a very nice touch to the movie. Quite a bit of the humor was found there, in the flashbacks. Anyhow, I really hope you guys go and see this movie cause it was really spectacular!","['1', '4']" +408,rw1136246,motegiracing213,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),1.0,Terrible remake of a classic,27 July 2005,0,"To be quite honest, the first make of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory wasn't that much to sneeze at. With Gene Wilder playing Willy Wonka, for that time period you knew that it would be a enjoyable movie at that. But the second remake was amusing, literally. Johnny Depp's white-faced, denture wearing, womanly haircutted Willy is embarrassing to look at it in itself compared to the goofy but likable 70's Wonka. With stupid sub plots and scenes that look like hallucinations, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is a terrible and embarrassing mistake of a classic musical. Gene Wilder himself told press: ""Why remake a classic?"". I agree 100%. Good to see in the dollar movie or rent but definitely not worth $8.95 of my hard earned money.","['26', '46']" +409,rw1138490,y2jdarro,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),7.0,1971 v 2005? 1971 Wins!,30 July 2005,1,"After watching the 1971 version of the book last Sunday and the 2005 version today, I have come to the conclusion that I preferred the original version. Now I know the author Roald Dahl hated it and this one is more associated with the book. I did enjoy the film and laughed a couple of times especially with the Wonka tune at the front of the factory had me and my brother in stitches, I still enjoyed the original better.Johnny Depp's performance of Wonka was good at times but disturbing at others. I haven't read the book in a very long time but I am damn sure that the whole father back story was not apart of it and although it was a nice little touch, I feel it ruined the ending a bit when he couldn't Charlie to bring his family but eventually does when he ties his knots with his father. Furthermore, the film to me seemed a bit rushed especially the golden tickets ordeal. The original panned it out a little but it seemed to me the whole thing was done in 5 minutes. The kid's characters were convincing but just did not like the fact they weren't given more time on screen or more things to say because it seemed that Wonka was hogging all the limelight for himself.Some people have criticised the songs the Oompa Loompas sing after what happens with each child but I thought they were quite catchy and was nice that they were the songs from the book and is a thing the 1971 version could have had even though I love the songs in that film.Again referring to Wonka, some people say he was like Michael Jackson and some people did not recognise that at all, in my eyes he sounded like MJ and had the creepy little laugh as well but was not entirely creepy. Again I am another supporter for the Gene Wilder Wonka and liked some of the little quips he came out with and wasn't entirely rude to the children or parents like Depp's portrayal. Freddie Highmore had a good role and liked him but again he played second fiddle to Wonka and even though he is probably the main character of the book and film, the whole thing couldn't focus on him.I am not a huge Tim Burton fan but like some of the films he has done like Edward Scissorhands and Nightmare Before Christmas, he has done a good job of a great book and again it is more in lines with the book. The sets are well done although some of it is CGI, it is wacky and zany. Overall, I will give this movie a 7 out of 10 as I did enjoy the show, had some laughs and it was more in connection with the book. However I love the original better with the great songs and the people there act their parts better as they are given time on screen to do so (the kids in this version did not do a bad job though but could have got more time). I will get the DVD once it comes out as I have the original version also.","['0', '2']" +410,rw1138227,axonsworld,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),1.0,Tim Burton desecrates an all-time classic with this soulless mass-market dumbed down rip-off.,30 July 2005,1,"Wooden acting, inane dialog, dull simplification, an ugly cloned Umpa-Lumpa, awful songs, and the use of boring sets instead of a lovely German village combine with a nastily freaky(as opposed to Wilder's Wonderfully Freaky) Willy Wonka, fake Grandpa Joe, stage-like Ma propel this thankfully rushed and short lifeless sham version toward it's dumb ending. This movie's only purpose was to line pocket-books with bloodstained silver pieces. I felt dirty leaving the theater. Shame on anyone involved in the making of this travesty. I really believe any film made in Hollywood costing over a certain amount will purposely lack intelligence and elegance and certainly charm. I am very disappointed and saddened.","['5', '11']" +411,rw1165647,jboothmillard,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),6.0,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,5 September 2005,1,"The was the second adaptation of the great children's book by Roald Dahl to be made, to rival or replace the musical Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory starring Gene Wilder. Director Tim Burton (Beetlejuice, Batman, Edward Scissorhands, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street) sticks directly to the source material, e.g. no golden egg laying turkeys, they have squirrels like they should, and the correct Oompa Loompa songs, music and and vocals Danny Elfman. Anyway, basically, a chocolate factory in the town Charlie Bucket (Freddie Highmore) lives is sending out millions of chocolate bars worldwide, five of them contain golden tickets. One by one the tickets are found, and eventually, Charlie gets his. This ticket takes him, Grandpa Joe (David Kelly) and the other finders into the magical world of Willy Wonka (in his fourth Tim Burton film, Golden Globe nominated Johnny Depp) and his chocolate factory. Obviously all the nasty kids go one by one. Fat and greedy German Augustus Gloop (Philip Wiegratz) up the chocolate tube, gum chewing Violet Beauregard (AnnaSophia Robb) turns into a blueberry, spoilt rich bitch Verruca Salt (Julia Winter) chucked down the garbage shoot by creepy squirrels, and telly loving Mike Teevee (Jordan Fry) is shrunk by the TV laser. Also starring Helena Bonham Carter (Burton's fiancée), Noah Taylor as Mr. Bucket, Missi Pyle as Mrs. Beauregarde, James Fox as Mr. Salt, Deep Roy as Oompa Loompas, and narrated by Live and Let Die's Geoffrey Holder. Three things I will say are different, but do kind of help the story, the flashbacks of a prince getting a chocolate palace and the Oompa Loompas, and the story of why Willy Wonka is kooky, and interested in candy making. It was nominated for the Oscar for Best Costume Design, it was nominated the BAFTAs for Best Special Visual Effects, Best Costume Design, Best Make Up/Hair and Best Production Design. Good!","['5', '10']" +412,rw1155854,gredders_girl,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,An excellent film,22 August 2005,0,"This is one of the few films I have recently seen, that I have genuinely enjoyed all the way through. It clearly has Tim Burtons mark on it, but is a slight improvement on the slighty disappointing (but still very good) Big Fish. I have always admired Tim Burtons work and particularly enjoyed this film. Johnny Depp played a very charismatic Willy Wonka, and bought out a whole new side to his character. Despite being a PG this film has rather dark undertones, but a lot of humour. I felt that Charlie Bucket was slightly disappointing - a bit pious possibly - but this did not ruin the wonderfulness of the film. I felt its ending slightly let it down, but I was particularly pleased with how closely it followed the book for most of it.A brilliant film I would love to go see again!","['0', '2']" +413,rw1132108,lkdg32,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),4.0,VERY underwhelming,21 July 2005,1,"I hated this movie and the only thing I liked about it was that Depp and the fat kid were funny. The fat kid was over the top and did the most with his character except going more over the top eating all the candy when they were at the main candy area before he fell in the river. The actress who played Veruca Salt was awful (unlike in the first movie), the parents were very uninteresting for the most part unlike the somewhat memorable parents from the first movie. Violet was more entertaining when her gimmick was just being a obsessed gum chewer (in the first movie). The fat kid's mom was fine for just looking the part and Violet's mom personality was good but she didn't do a very good job in the movie. Grandpa Joe's and Charlie's relationship just wasn't there, except somewhat in the start of the movie (the 71 version did a better job with their relationship).Charlie was more noticeable in the 71 version than in this version where Charlie looks the part, and only memorable thing was the predictable ""I won't leave my family"" statement at the end. The old version seemed to put much more emphasis on Charlie and Wonka. We see more of Charlie in a shorter film it seems. For instance the fizzy lifting drink scene. Wonka was very memorable in the first movie and sang a great song (Pure Imagination). In the newer version he brings nothing to the table except being funny to watch (like him getting really happy and moving along to the Oompa Loompa songs).There are much better quotes in the old version, and a better ending. In fact they built up his home AND his school for instance so when you see Charlie pointing down and mentioning his home and school in the elevator, it means something because we experienced both of them in the movie. The old version had an excellent song by the owner of the candy store, whereas in the new version the songs are entertaining to listen to but none of them are very memorable except maybe for Augustus's one. It was funny though at first when Mike Teevee mentioned that after the Augustus song was finished he thought that what just happened was fixed.The old version had the entertaining teacher of Charlie. The newer version had the somewhat funny grandma. There have been much more characters like the out of touch grandma in movies than of Charlie's teacher in the old version, so I prefer Charlie's teacher. The old version had a more straight forward story and it moved better. The story about Wonka's father in the new version wasn't very entertaining. The old version had the memorable menacing character of Slugworth, the new version does not. The candy area where the chocolate river is in the candy factory in the old version looked much better, and bigger than in the newer version.The Oompa Loompa songs were much more interesting and subtle in the first version than in this one, like they were expecting the bad things to happen to the bad children and giving their thoughts on children in general (the Oompa Loompas in the old movie that is). In the new version most of the parents were horrible like Veruca's dad who just stood there when Veruca was about to fall in the hole. Mike Teeve's dad was incredibly boring, unlike his mom in the old version where she didn't have any interesting personality, but at least she interacted in the movie. In the old version the dad and Veruca interacted much more and much better. Gene Wilder was so much better as Wonka and much more interesting than Depp. I watched the new version and I thought of Wonka as a crazy moron and never did I care to know about his backhistory.The time in and before the factory seemed much longer in this version. For instance in the new version they took more than 5 seconds or so (unlike in the old version) to explain the story of the guy with the fake golden ticket. There was also the computer that tries to know where the golden tickets are storyline that was amusing. In the new version the time in the factory seemed quick and the experience was underwhelming. The old version it seems a fairly long while they are in the factory. There wasn't any interesting interaction in the inventing room unlike in the prior version. In the new version they skip the everlasting gopstopper (or whatever its call) part for the most part and go right away to the 5 course meal gum part. There was also the great ""I've got a golden ticket"" song in the first movie.The Oompa Loompas weren't very memorable in this movie, they stood out much more in the old version with their hair and makeup. I think if the new version is more like the book than the old version, than the old version of the movie is better than the book. I definitely felt better for Charlie, Grandpa Joe, and their family when Wonka told Charlie he won the factory and can take his family than in the newer version when I didn't care at all. I watched the old version of the movie as a kid in awe the first time I saw it, when I saw the new version all I can say is I was somewhat amused, bored, and underwhelmed.","['3', '6']" +414,rw1136457,tjkungfu,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),7.0,A fun filled journey with enjoyable twists and turns.,27 July 2005,0,"When I first saw Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory some unknown years ago, I was convinced that no other movie would ever take me into the world of fantasy and magic the way that movie did. Of course, as I grew older and saw more movies, I would be convinced several times more, by movies such as The Princess Bride, The Lord of the Rings, and Big Fish just to name a few. Nevertheless, Willy Wonka always held a special place in my movie memories. That being said, I went into the theaters last week to see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with great anticipation, if not trepidation.I found myself pleasantly surprised as the ending credits rolled. Though I never read the book or any literature concerning this story, I understand that it was suppose to be more true to the book. Regardless, this movie explored many aspects of the characters, including Willy Wonka himself, in ways that the first movie never did. That said, many questions that I (as well as many others) had concerning the first movie was answered in Tim Burton's version. There are also several interesting twists toward the end of the movie, all leading up to a rather satisfying conclusion.My few criticisms about this movie concern more about the acting than the story. First, despite a strong performance by Freddie Highmore (Charlie), he was never as convincing as Peter Ostrum (the original Charlie). Ostrum was able to portray himself as a genuinely good kid, but at the same time depict realistic childhood behaviors, such as when he stole some of the fizzy pop. I felt that Highmore's Charlie was a bit too forced at points in the movie. Gene Wilder's performance was also better in my opinion, maybe because he showed a bit more humanity and love for his work, his oompa loompas, and Charlie himself. I know this may be different than what the original author intended, and Depp may have played the role the way it was suppose to be played, but nonetheless, he came off alien and disconnected at various times in the movie.Despite all that, this is a must see for everyone who was a fan of the original, and a must see for those with an imagination as big as their appetites for chocolate.","['0', '1']" +415,rw1162355,pernille-9,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Amazing,31 August 2005,0,Well there is not much to say. If Johnny Depp does not get an Oscar now they don't need to keep giving them. He is amazing. The movie was really funny and it matters not that it is made for children. I loved it. Willy Wonker is played perfectly by Johnny Depp and he alone would be worth watching the move for. But there are many other brilliant people joining him. We saw him as the little serious Peter in Finding Neverland but here as Charlie he is truly great. I hope we get to see more of the two of them together. But not in a Charlie and the chocolate factory 2. That would ruin the gem the movie is on its own. Grandpa is also a gem. One time I did find myself thinking: OK that is not funny. But I guess there has to be times where kids laugh as well as times where adults do.,"['4', '6']" +416,rw1148801,gabidog2468,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Johnny Depp as great in that movie. I heard a bunch of people saying that he was trying to be a Micheal Jackson.,12 August 2005,0,I love Johnny Depp and when I went to see that movie it was great but everyone was saying how creepy he was in that movie. I think that they did a great job of redoing the movie and all of the characters were great. To tell you the truth I liked the Johnny one better than the Gene one. I thought every thing was a lot funnier and cooler than Gene Wilders. I mean I liked that one when i was little. My Aunt and my Uncle liked it. My favorite part was when he had those dolls singing at the very beginning of the entrance!! that was funny but a lot of other things were to!! I mean just the whole thing with Johnny Depp was amazing. I live overseas so i cant really see it right now but it will be coming out in 1 month or so!! i cant wait to see it again!! i hope that if you get to see it then you will like it. I would see it again because of all of the characters and all of the people who played there roles good... Because if they did not play there roles good then they did not do there part!,"['4', '6']" +417,rw1207402,ldshome5,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,I saw the original when I was 10 on the big screen,2 November 2005,0,"I was there when Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory came out. Yes, that was back when all movies were on a big screen! It has been my very favorite movie ever since. I watched it at least 3 times a month since it came out on video years ago. I did not think there could ever be a remake that I would like of this wonderful story. My husband and I went to see Charlie and the Chocolate Facotory at the local IMAX theater. We loved it! It is enough the same and enough different. Johnny Depp was fantastic! I still love the old one but it is a toss up of which one is my favorite. I will have to get the DVD and view it many more times to determine. As for those that feel it is too scary for young children...NOT! They said the same thing about the first one when I was a kid. It is great for kids to watch! It teaches that parents that don't do their job...end up with spoiled brats! And spoiled brats get nothing but pain and agony and nice little children (with Character)win. This tone is in the original and in the remake. I also love that Charlie has a mother and a father alive in the new version. The original and the new movie should be part of every families movie collection!","['3', '4']" +418,rw1131886,demon_poet,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,"Magic, Mayhem, and Madness",21 July 2005,1,"There are very few truly delicious films in the world. I could only name perhaps one or two off of the top of my head. After watching this film, however, I added another title to my mental list. Maybe I'm biased, being a Depp/Burton/Elfman fan through and through (if they remade Piglet's BIG Adventure I'd watch it), but I adored the whole of it.As we must, at some point, address the ever-present issue of 1971 version vs. modern, I'll get this over with as quickly as possible. Gene Wilder is a great actor. He's practically as much a magician with film as Wonka is with chocolate, and I adored his performance. His version is the one the whole family sits around to watch now and then, smiling happily at their antics. Then came Depp. One cannot compare Wilder to Depp-- apples and oranges, my friends. Where Gene's Wonka fills you with a sort of cotton candy feeling, Johnny reaches a little deeper into your gut to tickle some darker, less frequently-amused beast. He manages to convey childish glee one moment and, with a twirl of his cane and quirk of his lips, make some dark, sick part of you grin wickedly.In this new version of the classic children's tale, we open with a sequence so purely Burton in its beauty that ""Edward Scissorhands"" flashbacks flow in unbidden. The golden tickets are placed delicately on the bars, accompanied (of course) by the haunting chords of Danny Elfman's musical genius. The vastness of the factory's strangeness is placed just below our noses. We know something odd is happening, but as yet we do not know what.It is quickly established that Charlie Bucket is the character we will be following, and that you couldn't ask for a kinder, more pure-hearted boy. The child is a babysitter's dream: well-behaved, polite, loving, charming, and surrounded by a feeling of deep-down goodness. Poor, but hopeful; clever, but innocent.We're taken on a quick recap of Grandpa Joe's years working under the legendary Willy Wonka, which contains a well-placed ""Scissorhands"" reference. Throughout this, not once do you see his face entirely unveiled, but his genius is evident. The factory opens, then closes.""I am closing the factory forever. I'm sorry."" But, as Mrs. Bucket explains, forever can sometimes simply mean ""a very long time"". The factory reopens, the candy is pumped out by the pound, shops everywhere are filled once more with delectable sweets made by the now-legendary Willy Wonka himself. Despite this, no one has seen him in years. No one ever goes into the factory, and no one ever comes out.When five golden tickets, each allowing the holder a tour of the chocolate factory, are announced to be hidden beneath the wrappers of five Wonka bars, madness breaks loose. Everyone wants one. During the pandemonium, our questionable quartet of horrendous children are introduced. We are quickly made to understand that whatever horrors await them, they're well-deserved.Charlie finds the fifth golden ticket, and finally, the fun is ready to begin.As the five lucky children and their chosen adult companions step through the gate, tension begins to build. They move slowly toward the doors, the doors open, there is an intake of breath in the seats around you, and... we begin to twitch convulsively at the unstoppable flow of It's a Small World memories.The show quickly explodes before the five guests, breaking down rapidly into a mess of melting plastic eyeballs. You may want to cover the eyes of small children at this point. And then, finally, Wonka himself appears.Within thirty seconds, we have the distinct impression he desperately wants to cut out the children's tongues. From there on in, there is a wild romp of crime and punishment. Wonka keeps up a quirky commentary throughout, even going so far as to give small, sadistic smiles whenever one of the nasty little beasts is swallowed by the factory. The new Oompa Loompas (there's been much talk about them, I know) are charming and witty, with rather somber faces (all the same one, actually).In ""Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory"", it was Charlie who learned a valuable life-lesson at the hands of Willy Wonka. In this newer rendition, Charlie must guide the eccentric man to realize the value of family.I, for one, left the theater feeling fulfilled and warm, with the strangest craving for truffles.","['1', '4']" +419,rw1134549,captkjaneway,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),6.0,Dreadfully Dull,25 July 2005,1,"Sorry Johnny but that was awful....Boring, shallow and Depp's Wonka was very, very weird to coin a phrase.From the burning dolls at the start of the tour right through to the strange inability to say 'parents' this film has lost all the charm, wit and guile of Dahl's book.The Oompa Loompa's did not work at all, the songs were dreadful and as others have said very hard to understand lyrically. The boat ride was poor and could have been done much better - even the special effects over 30 years ago did a better job. Should have cut out the Wonka family moments and spent more time developing the characters in my opinion. I know the '71 Wilder Willy Wonka was not true to the book, however, at least he had 'character' unlike Depp's two dimensional portrayal.Please save your dosh, buy the book and the '71 version instead.","['12', '23']" +420,rw1147573,Davyd420,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,A remake that is worthy.,11 August 2005,0,"The Wizard of Oz, Charolette's Web, Mary Poppins, and of course Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory were my favorites as a kid. I remember popping popcorn and spreading my sleeping bag out on the floor directly in front of the television to be sure I had a front row seat for the very rare occurrence of a network special presentation for one of these films. Gene Wilder will always be The Candyman that made the world taste good, and I still hear his voice to this day singing those exact words. Mr. Wilder, you've brought joy and laughter to millions throughout your career, and as far as Hollywood Legends go, you truly are the Everlasting Gobstopper.Now about this time last year when word of the remake started to circulate the headlines I thought what is happening to Hollywood. You can't just simply remake such a beloved classic. Then word reached my ears that Tim Burton was set to direct and Johnny Depp to star as Mr. Wonka. I then saw hope, for they had chosen an actor I believe could pull off anything, and Johnny Depp delivers a fantastic performance. The story, with slight alterations at the end, remains practically unchanged. Even the sets and wardrobe hadn't appeared to have strayed too far, however there seemed to be a darker feel or perhaps a sinister undertone to the overall film and specifically the character of Wonka. I'm guessing Director Tim Burton may have put some personal touches on the film that are unique to his dark, but intriguing style. And with the help of such a talented actor, that he obliviously favors, it's really no surprise the end result would dazzle the audience. Depp delivers us a more eccentric and sarcastic Candyman, where Wilder was more enthusiastic, humorous, and witty. Either way, all the pieces fit and a new generation will get to enjoy a wonderfully surreal Chocolate Factory.","['6', '11']" +421,rw1131737,AJeffrey-1,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),1.0,Skip the chocolate,21 July 2005,0,"This was an appalling movie. I think it would be terrifying and disturbing for children, not to mention the fact it is just plain creepy most of the time. I love dark movies, and couldn't believe how bad it was. I loved the book, and the original movie, but this one just plain stinks. To go from Captain Jack Sparrow to this Chester Molester character makes me not like Johnny Depp so much any more. The Oompa Loompa is just horrible - computer generated and gross. Only 4 or 5 chuckles for both myself and my boyfriend. (We're both in our 30's.) Don't waste your time, in my opinion. And if your children are easily spooked, this is definitely not the movie for them. I was most disappointed.","['19', '33']" +422,rw1208488,jennamarie-1,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Fantastic,4 November 2005,0,"Johnny Depp absolutely stepped up into this role. What a fantastic actor. He truly has become one - if not the - best actors of our time. With that said, Deep Roy went above and beyond anything I would ever expect out of an actor. The training he must have went through would have been murderous, and what did it leave us with? A mystical and truly magical Oompa Loompa! Hat's off to you Mr. Roy, words can't describe what a great job you did! Kudo's to the crew behinds the scenes. Way to go guys! Tim Burton has great vision and the subtle (and some not so subtle) changes that he made from the original bring todays version easily into our homes.","['0', '2']" +423,rw1131576,george.schmidt,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),7.0,"Not your father's ""Chocolate Factory""",21 July 2005,0,"CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY (2005) *** Johnny Depp, Freddie Highmore, David Kelly, Helena Bonham Carter, Noah Taylor, Missi Pyle, James Fox, Deep Roy, Christopher Lee, Annasophia Robb, Julia Winter, Jordan Fry, Philip Wiegratz, Adam Godley, Franziska Troegner. Filmmaker Tim Burton's dark comic twist to the children's classic novel and the cult film ""Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory"" and Depp's gleefully misanthropic channeling of Mr. Rogers, Carol Channing and Michael Jackson make a Dynamic Duo again for the most part with Depp as a mad-as-a-hatter Wonka inviting 5 guests to his globally famous chocolate factory and Highmore (his co-star from ""Finding Neverland"" and proving to be a real talented find) as the titular tyke attempting to compete against four other spoiled brats. The true star is the amazing production design concocted by Alex McDowell that overwhelms the visuals and Danny Elfman's hit-and-miss re-interpretations of Roald Dahl's novel's lyrics to the fate of the guests. What is misbegotten is the additions of a familial flashback by adapter John August in 'explaining' Wonka and the hyper extended exponentialism of the creepy little Roy as the Oompa Loompas.","['1', '6']" +424,rw1183022,fertilecelluloid,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),1.0,"Flat, plodding, awful adaptation",29 September 2005,0,"Flat, plodding, awful adaptation of Roald Dahl's extraordinary novel. Once again, Tim Burton demonstrates that he is not a storyteller; he is, in fact, a man lucky enough to be able to surround himself with very talented cinematographers, production designers and publicists. Unfortunately, he has no educated friends who are script editors.His only brilliant film, ED WOOD, is light years away from this putrid mess and was good because of the script and despite Burton.One thing Burton is incapable of doing is giving a narrative momentum. In this outing, Wonka takes his children and their guardians on a tour of his factory. We follow the group from room to room and are forced to endure cataclysmically puerile songs from cloned Oompa-Loompahs, all played by the same irritating midget.The film does not have the darker subplot of the original film and the wheelchair-like pacing drove me close to igniting the screen with the nearest blowtorch.Johnny Depp is just wrong as Wonka. He's boring, too, because he's a ""weirdo"" who knows he's a weirdo and wants everybody else to know it, too. He's like the annoying guy at a social gathering who tells everybody how crazy he is. No, Mr. Depp, your weirdo is a bore.The production design is what you'd expect for the fortune spent on this abortion and the cinematography is adequate.Only the gloriously overrated Tim Burton, who has managed to pull the wool over many people's eyes for over a decade now, could make a rich concept such as this a forgettable bore and a candidate for PND (Permanent Negative Destruction).As for screenwriter John August (scribe of the rancid BIG FISH), please throw your computer away and retire with Burton.","['27', '49']" +425,rw1170894,ggnocat,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,A nice brand new point of view of Dahl's book.,12 September 2005,1,"The problem with anything new it is the expectation anyone has. If a movie is a Burton's one, you should know you are about to face something strange, dark and somehow scary. This movie is quite another thing compared to the previous one, and it may appear as it is something completely different from the book it is based on. I've read all what Mr. Dahl has written, included his adults novels, and I can say that this movie, even if it is not reflecting the book, well presents some points of the book on which the reader may not focus on. Willy Wonka is a madman. No doubt about it. It is also a genius, since the two qualities often are found in the same person. This you can tell by reading the book but you clearly see it on the movie. I personally found the concept of Wonka's father interesting and well structured. In fact, the book did not tell anything about Mr. Wonka before the factory opening, and this ante-fact is acceptable as wheel. I found Kubrick quotations well fitting at that stage of the movie... It is another way to read Dahl's book, and I find it really interesting.","['2', '3']" +426,rw1139742,MistressoftheEmpire,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),5.0,Bearable...,1 August 2005,1,"When I went to the cinema, I was really looking forward to this movie - having acted in a school production as Charlie meant it held good memories for me. I was really disappointed. It is nothing like the book - yes, I know, not all movies based on books are the same, and are often very good anyway, but I feel the film would have been better if it had stuck more closely to the original source material. For me, there were several problems with it: 1) Casting - all the children are cast well, especially Freddie Highmore who gives a good performance as Charlie. I also quite enjoyed Philip Weigratz's performance as Augustus Gloop - I was suitably revolted. However, I feel that Johnny Depp's performance as Willy Wonka was disappointing. Depp is a superb actor, but it didn't come through in this feature. I didn't enjoy him (Wonka) like I do in the book. In the movie, he came across as a social misfit with serious issues in need of psychiatric help. Everyone apart from the kids gave completely mediocre performances. 2) The scenes with the Oompa-Loompa songs and dances were far too choreographed and, well, fake. The music was too modern for people who don't seem to 'get out', and watching each scene just reminded me of Bollywood dance scenes, e.g. the kind that can be found in 'Bride and Prejudice' (which I know is not Bollywood, but contains many of its elements). 3) Part of the concept - from other comments, I assume the movie allegedly took place in England, yet everything is so 'americanised' - accents, the giving of the dollar, etc. These ruined it for me.However, it had to have a saving grace, and that is the factory itself - wonderful - this pushed up the rating I would have originally given because it's exactly like a child's fantasy. Overall, bearable.","['0', '1']" +427,rw1137103,ghettopokey,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,A wonderful family movie,28 July 2005,1,"No, ""Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"" does not have the ""magical touch"" as did the first version ""Willy Wonka"" did, and doesn't have the classical songs that everyone still hums along to today. The oompa loompas are quite scary looking and Willy Wonka has an eerie smile. But that's the only bad part of this movie. ""CATCF"" is still a very great movie... Much more modern and still amazing, and definitely worth watching. Willy Wonka's plot of an unselfish child to inherit the chocolate factory is much more known and makes more sense than in the original... This ""reimagining"" makes more sense than the original all together. The chocolate, all the better and more delicious looking, also (of course I had to say that, everyone only wants to see this movie because of the chocolate). Tim Burton did a wonderful job in creating this movie and Johnny Depp was great in acting it. It has humor, mystery, an interesting soundtrack, attractive dialogue and beautiful scenery. You can never tire of this movie-- adults and kids alike. Children will enjoy the sarcastic attitudes of the 5 chosen children and the humor of Willy Wonka, and adults will love the lines you can recognize from the older movie. And everyone will love all the chocolate.","['1', '1']" +428,rw1178564,wee_scottish_lassie,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),1.0,"speechless (well, not quite)",23 September 2005,1,"Ahem, where do I start? When seeing this movie the first thing that struck me was the ""exciting"" music at the beginning which reminded me a bit of Harry Potter. The opening scene was absolutely riveting, showing the wrapping of bars of chocolate. I almost fell off my sit because I was so intrigued. The beginning of the film surpassed itself in making us realize by about 2 minutes of it that it was going to be absolutely dreadful. The real fun began when we met Willy Wonka. I won't say who he reminded me of.. anyone who's seen the film would know and I don't want to spoil the pleasant surprise for those of you who haven't yet had the honour. The oompaloompa dances were possibly the worst things I have ever seen. Who choreographed them?! I want to meet this insane idiot! It literally made me want to puke. They had an eerie kind of synchronization which was so unnatural that it was scary. I admit to finding the first dance slightly amusing but by the time I'd got to the 4th I was just staring at the screen in disgust.Words of warning: Don't go and see this sad excuse for entertainment. See the original!!","['73', '119']" +429,rw1133208,willdecker,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,The Importance of Family / Friends,23 July 2005,1,"Charlie would not take ownership of ""The Chocolate Factory"" without his family. I can imagine if he had been a boy without family he would have declined to take ownership without his friends. Pretty important huh?Could it be that friends or family are the most important source of our knowledge, not books or intellectuals or the media? Maybe Johnny Depp as a Penguin is the new leader of the world. He will be if we vote for him by our support and care. What a beautiful set with Danny Elfman's score to match, perfect. The awful children came out just perfect too; justice was served getting the well-deserved smile of response from me.This film is important in deep ways.","['1', '4']" +430,rw1137702,weishomer,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,A Great Summer Hit!,29 July 2005,0,I was presently surprised with this film as I had told it was too dark for kids. My 7 yr old and I loved this movie! Johnny Depp at his best! I recommend this flick to all at least 7 and above. A great story about selfishness and about family. Charlie is committed to helping his family no matter what the sacrifice to his own wishes. His parents and grandparents are also willing to sacrifice their comfort so that Charlie will have the opportunity to live out his dream. Charlie is the only kid to survive the culling process because of his innocence and lack of vice. This movie is better than the original. The special effects are phenomenal. The ommpa loompas are great!,"['4', '9']" +431,rw1131584,gimmeDV,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),4.0,Hollywood-isation at work...,21 July 2005,0,"I went into this movie ready to enjoy a really good movie going experience, as I know the director Tim Burton could put so much into this film and make more than just an ""Entertaining"" film. But, I walked out of the theater thinking that Burton's voice may have been stifled by the producers of the movie. There were parts of the movie where we started to get some character development but, I felt that all the characters, including Willy Wonka & Charlie Bucket, came out very flat. The story seemed very formulatic and a little TOO simplistic for my tastes, knowing that a big director like Tim Burton was involved. ANYONE could have done this movie the way that Burton did.Yes, Yes, Yes... I know that at it's core, this film is supposed to be a children's movie but, it dangles somewhere in-between light & fun, & mysterious and dark... and finding it's tone was very difficult to do. If anything, I at least enjoyed the title sequence along with Danny Elfman's inventive opening theme.... however, after that... I found that the songs win which the Oompa-Loompa's were showcased were inaudible, distasteful, & just embarrassing to watch.To sum it all up... this was a prime example of today's Hollywood. Another movie which could have been so much more, and I think ultimately wanted to be so much more... but ultimately missed it's mark.","['1', '4']" +432,rw1143468,sleeter-1,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,Excellent,6 August 2005,1,"I thought the film was excellent. Jonny Depp's performance as Willy Wonka was fabulous, creepy yet lovable. I can see why so many people were drawing parallels between Depp's Wonka and Michael Jackson.Charlie Bucket, played by Freddie Highmore, was almost too virtuous to live, but within the reality built by the film he worked.The bad children were all excellent also, each one detestable in their own special way, each one a nice anti-Charlie, making Charlie seem even nicer in comparison.Although I liked the Oompa Loompa's, I didn't think they were as good as the original film's. They would have been better if they were orange, with green wigs. But you can't have everything, I guess.There were dozens of points in the film where I had to stop myself from laughing too hard (so I didn't miss the next bit), which in my opinion is a fabulous sign! The special effects were a little obvious, but they don't spoil the enjoyment of the film, and the sets are fantastical in the extreme which works very well for the film.The only criticism I could really level at it was that I didn't think the addition of Wonka's dad into the story did anything beneficial at all. You could feel where the film slid from ""book content"" to ""new stuff."" It felt very much like two separate stories which they'd tried very hard to hammer together.","['0', '3']" +433,rw1137982,theclash_classicrock,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,A good surprise!,29 July 2005,0,"When I first saw the trailer for this movie I had no interest in seeing it. However, I am very glad that I was finally convinced to see it. It was hilarious! I enjoyed it even more than the Wilder's version. I'm not a big fan of the story, but I think the special effects really added to it and made it a fun ride. Johnny Depp was absolutely wonderful as Willy Wonka. True, the character was a bit...strange...but I think he did a good job in making it his own. He had me laughing throughout the entire thing. All the children and their parents did a wonderful job as well. I think Burton really nailed this story. Overall, definitely worth seeing, you will be pleasantly surprised.","['2', '3']" +434,rw1195531,morrisand,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,A work of art,17 October 2005,1,"When I first went to the theater to see this film, i was expecting something fun but not very good. I was blown away! I read them book many times as a young child ( I'm twelve now, but considered gifted so don't think I'm just a kid) and really liked it, but was disappointed when we rented the 70's version. The only things I really liked were Gene Wilder, a genius I new from Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstien, and also some of the great one-liners. This one rocked my socks. Charlie was perfect, the other kids were absolutely despicable, and the visuals were amazing. The oompa loompas were much more faithful to the book and their songs were hilarious if hard to understand. But I listen to Tom Waits (probably the only twelve-year-old girl to do so), so I'm used to that.Wonka deserves special mentions. Johnny Depp made him a socially awkward, crazy, hilarious freak with deep emotional wounds and some really brilliant dialog. This film added a back story on Willy, which I love. As a child, Willy was held from his dreams by his overprotective dentist father, played by Christopher Lee, an amazingly cool and creepy actor. During the first flashback we see, I was pressed back in my chair in terror.Willy misunderstands his father's behavior, believing that he hated his son rather than loved him. He therefor assumes that this is the case with all parents. And when he tells Charlie he can't bring his parents to the factory, thinking he's doing the kid a favour, Charlie's well-acted rage shocks and wounds him. This rejection, and his father's memory, continue to haunt him over the next while. He briefly loses all candy skill, and requires therapy to figure out why( it's because he feels guilty).He eventually seeks out Charlie for help, and the boy explains what Willy has got wrong and gives him he emotional support necessary to confront his father and learn the truth. I can't help but wonder what would have happened if when Charlie found out he was serving Wonka and asked him, ""Why are you here?"" in steely tones, Willy had answered, ""Getting a shine. Duh.""Incidentally, I've done my best to figure it out, and I'd say Willy is about 47. After all, in the flashback from the point of view of grandpa Joe, it's 20 years ago and Willy is at least 25. Definitely see this film. It's a real treat!","['1', '3']" +435,rw1140750,angelichobbit,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,Interpretation not remake,2 August 2005,1,"Like most people, I was sceptical about what to expect from this film, but I have to say I was impressed. The film was in no way a remake due to the considerable change in some plot areas (i.e the addition of Wonka's back story and the lack of Charlie and the everlasting gobstoppers) and if it is viewed as such it is a fantastic film in its own right. However, I do have to admit that I question the sanity of Tim Burton in some areas. The oompah loompahs were just plain weird. Like some kind of messed up dream or hardcore drug trip! But they were never meant to be the little orange and green people of the original so who cares! There are some genius parts to this film, I won't go into too many spoilers, but there is one line which for me proves the films worth: ""Everything in this room is *eat*able. In fact, I'm *eat*able. But that is called cannibalism which is frowned upon in many countries.""Enjoy the film as a reinterpretation, not a remake, and you'll see its genius for yourself.","['2', '3']" +436,rw1130661,bwolper,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),4.0,You Have Got To Be Kidding!,19 July 2005,0,"The kids were great! The scenery was wonderful. Johnny Depp?? Are you kidding? Depp's interpretation of Willie Wonka is off-kilter at best. This presentation of a psychologically unbalanced pitiful man that had lost his childhood left a real cynical taste in the mouth of the viewer. This man is no Pide Piper. It makes you wonder why any child would want to meet him and tour his factory.Roy Deep was a super choice to portray the Oompa-Loompahs. His facial expressions conveyed more than any dialog could.All in all, instead of being any kind of a feel-good movie, this one left a negative feeling.","['1', '4']" +437,rw1140748,alexhornbye3,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),4.0,"Johnny Depp sounds like Michael Jackson, looks like Geena Davis",2 August 2005,1,"The first film to be based on the book Charlie and the Chocolate Factory lives so strong in peoples minds that comparisons are unavoidable. The book isn't actually very long, and the setting (ie The Factory) is so static that scenarios are replayed identically, but not as well.The film is badly constructed and badly edited throughout - the whole opening sequence is cliché and uninspired. The section where the visitors first enter the factory and wander up the shrinking hallway is poorly handled. One minute they're at one end, the next by a tiny door. No middle ground. No ""is this hallway getting smaller?"" moment. And no-one bats an eyelid when they get there. There's a problem with people's reactions to events throughout the entire film. As the dreadful dullards get knobbled off during the factory visits, their parents appear not to care less. 'Oh dear, Augustus has just gone up a shoot, where do I fetch him?'. And zooming about in the Great Glass Elevator didn't faze the characters one bit.The film does very little to improve on the originals visuals. I was expecting great things from Burton's factory setting, but I gasped when we eventually got there - it looked exactly the same as it did in 1971! Slightly more colourful, perhaps - but no imagination had gone into the design whatsoever. Same with the chocolate river boat ride. 5 minutes of swooshing about hither and thither will never replace the truly disturbing visuals the original enforced upon the boat occupants; especially the chicken decapitation.Helen BC's teeth - what's that all about? The acting is uniformly bad. The kids are dreadful. There must be thousands of pretentious pre-teen moppets who could play pretentious pre-teen moppets, but the girl cast as Veruca Salt is flat and lifeless.I liked the Oompas, and thought there songs sounded great (Dahl wrote the lyrics as part of the story, so there's really no getting away from musical numbers) except, I couldn't hear the lyrics. If you're gonna have songs, let's hear them! I couldn't believe that David Kelly (Grandpa Joe) was still alive, and I though he might peg out on screen. Thankfully (?) he wasn't given very much to do.Can someone with a better memory for the book confirm for me that there is a soppy side story involving Willy Wonkas estranged dentist father uprooting his terraced house to the Yorkshire moors, with Charlie acting as the catalyst for their emotional (read: vomit-inducing) reunion? I just don't remember it - or else I blocked its insipidness out of my mind.Where is the film supposed to be set? It looked like England, but there was a lot of talk of dollars, and candy and band-aids.... the generic-euro setting of the first film is much better handled.All in all a wasted opportunity.","['1', '3']" +438,rw1140780,Prophet1-2,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,"Well done! Entertaining, and stays true to the book!",2 August 2005,0,"I was kinda on the fence about this movie. I respect Johnny Depp and Tim Burton quite a bit, and was a HUGE Roald Dahl fan as a child (James and the Giant Peach and Fantastic Mr. Fox were my personal favs), but I wasn't a big fan of the Gene Wilder movie. Oh I liked it, but it was too...whimsical. I never felt Willy Wonka was a happy, jolly man who sings songs. I thought he was a bit creepy, and more than a little nuts.So, imagine my surprise when someone crawls into my head and makes the Charlie movie I always wanted.There are so many times I laughed in this movie, I can't count them. And for a children's movie, this one was blessedly free of fart jokes, and toilet humor - thank god, or I would have revoked my Johnny Depp Fan Club membership for making that movie.This isn't a movie everyone is going to enjoy - there are some disturbing parts (not sick-disturbing, or overly scary-disturbing, but he IS a creepy man), and its not the way a lot of people apparently imagined Wonka to be. But the children are all PERFECTLY cast, and the best scenes from the book are all here, in very grim and very excellent detail.The movie adds a few scenes, but these are well done and in keeping with the story they were trying to tell. Its not a ""purist's"" favorite thing, but they work.Well worth seeing in the theater. This was the first Hollywood movie I saw in Imax, and I don't regret that one bit - this movie was GREAT on Imax, and gave the whole thing a ""larger than life"" feel that wound perfectly with the theme of the movie.See it. Even if you don't like it, you should still feel it was worth your time. Its a lot of fun!","['1', '3']" +439,rw1144723,wrathchild712,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,What a surprise!!!,7 August 2005,0,"Last night, for the second time this summer, I walked into a movie that I was extremely worried about. With Batman Begins and now Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I had a really deep fear that the films would be terrible, yet that the hype was so good that I'd end up saying I liked them. With both movies, I did end up liking them, but because they were genuinely GREAT movies.With Charlie, there were so many questions. Will it be better than the original? Will it stick to the story since it is, in fact, named after the Roald Dahl book, unlike the original movie? Will Johnny Depp make us all forget about Gene Wilder? As soon as it started, I knew it would be great. Danny Elfman did the soundtrack, and brilliantly so. Whatever the scene called for, be it the orchestral arrangements in the opening few minutes, or the clever new Oompa- Loompa songs, everything fit musically.All of the members of the Bucket family were enjoyable and well played. Freddie Highmore was perfectly cast as Charlie and had that charisma that made it impossible to root against him. David Kelly was great as Grandpa Joe, and I really enjoyed Grandma Georgina's oddball irrelevance. Noah Taylor and Helena Bonham Carter were well cast as Mr. and Mrs. Bucket. On that note I would like to say I was glad there was actually a Mr. Bucket in this movie. In the original they played with the story a bit and said he had died. They even had his toothpaste- cap-screwer job exactly as it was in the book in this movie. Well done, guys!The other children gave me mixed reactions. Augustus Gloop was not a hard act to fill. Just a fat boy who eats and eats...and eats. Nevertheless, he was entertaining. I liked the little girl that played Veruca, though I think in retrospect the girl who played her in the original was better. Anna Sophia Robb, as Violet, was my favorite of the brat kids. I did NOT like Mike Teavee at all. For the way the script was written, I guess the kid played the role well. But the problem was with the script. Mike was WAY too intense. (Though I did quite like how Johnny Depp constantly made fun of his 'mumbling')Ah yes, Johnny Depp and Deep Roy...aka Willy Wonka and the Oompa Loompas. At first I thought Depp was forcing his role a little, but I grew to like how he was so much quirkier than Gene Wilder had been in the original. For me, part of Willy was how he acted when placed around other people, when he'd alienated himself completely from the outside world. There would be a bit of weirdness in this situation, and Depp pulled it off nicely. Deep Roy was good as the Oompa Loompas. I loved their new songs, but the costumes weren't doing it for me. Plain old orange and white like in the original would have been better if you ask me. The movie LOOKED spectacular too. That's one of my favorite Tim Burton trademarks - his ability to create totally magical worlds. From the dark, odd environments of Nightmare Before Christmas to Big Fish and now Charlie, scenery is where his true talent lies. The Chocolate Room exemplifies this perfectly. When that door opens and the kids walk in, how can you not think to yourself 'Tim, you da man!'? They stayed true to the story, Johnny Depp was outstanding, and this movie was way better than the original. What more do you need?","['3', '6']" +440,rw1142636,futurestevenspielberg,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,4 August 2005,0,"A Adventure/Comedy/Family/Fantasy about a young boy Charlie Bucket(Freddie Highmore,Finding Neverland)who finds one of the five golden tickets that.Pirates of the Caribbean Willy Wonka (Johnny Depp,Pirates of the Caribbean) sent out all over the world hidden in his candy bars.The golden tickets are a invitation to come to Willy Wonkas famous chocolate factory that know body has been in since Willy fired all of the personal because his competition was stealing his ideas by sending in spies.Johnny Depp(Willy Wonka)gave a absolutely perfect performance I cant think of one other person who could have made a better Willy Wonka.Usually children actors either hurt the film or just don't add anything to it but that is not the case in this movie all of the kids in the cast were pretty good actors they all added to this movie.Tim Burton what a director!! he took everything good about the old movie and put it in to this movie and he took everything bad out of the old movie and made it perfect and then put it into this movie and then he added a few other things that made the movie a little more crisp.The screenplay was very entertaining there was a couple lines that were a little off but most of the time it was pretty good.The storyline is far better then the original unlike the first this one has a detailed past to it.Best actor/actress-Johnny Depp A vast improvement compared to the original-Jake Hyden I gave this movie a 8 out of 10 Rated-(PG) for quirky situations, action and mild language.8/10","['1', '3']" +441,rw1136583,PirateGrl05,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Wonderfully fantastic!,27 July 2005,0,"I had the joy of seeing the movie the day it came out. It was a wonderfully hilarious film. I suggest it for families. It's heart warming and funny. Johnny Depp does a wonderful job of depicting everyone's favorite candy maker. Personally, I thought the film to be uplifting, and rather interesting. I would suggest it for people of all ages. You'll love all of the characters, I guarantee it. Fans of the ever so famous Oompa Loompas will rejoice in watching the movie as well. I absolutely adored the casting for the movie. It's Peter and James all over again! The script is wonderful, the settings, delightful, and the actors, magnificent, in this recreation of one of the worlds most beloved films.","['0', '2']" +442,rw1237663,fjhuerta-2,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),7.0,"I haven't seen the original. As it is, though... this movie is *awesome*",13 December 2005,0,"Just like ""Big Fish"" before it... ""Charlie"" is so warm, sweet, and enjoyable, I do believe Tim Burton is my favorite movie director ever.The lessons to be learned in this charming story are many, and the story is simply fun. Johnny Depp is creepier than Michael Jackson at times (his acting is fantastic). Luckily, he can be left alone with kids without lawsuits flying all over the place. The kids are perfect stereotypes for the Oompa-Loompas to trick. The scenery and stages are perfect - full of colour everywhere, yet as dark as any Tim Burton movie out there. The whole movie is a bit dark, although in a cheery kind of way. It seems as if the main characters have a ray of sunshine guiding their actions all the time, so even if you sense the desperation in Charlie's parents, and the sadness of Willy Wonka, somehow you know everything will turn out all right.Even if it's a bit slow during the first part, this has to be one of my favourite movies of the year.","['1', '5']" +443,rw1132017,pkhanna,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),6.0,"Frankly- I was disappointed. It was, how you say, without ÈSugarÈ",21 July 2005,0,"After reading postings here, I grabbed my 5 and 7 year old to the Theater to catch this flick. But throughout the whole movie - I'm like - this is a weird movie. Don't get me wrong - I like weird movies and frequent the theaters a lot so have a wide spectrum of film under my belt. But this one must have been awkward for kids as well. As I was watching the faces of many children in the theater, they all had that perplexed/confused stare about them. I actually saw a few wince at some of the scary parts and sat motionless at the funny/nice parts. It just doesn't capture it. I can't put my finger on it - but I left the theater wondering what that was about. They spend a lot of time showing how awful the other children are and no time spelling out the lesson - just disposing of the character. Wondering really if any of them learned their lesson. Depp as Wonka was hard to swallow - he was just plain creepy and reminded me of what Jacko would be like in Neverland. Eep. I always respected the IMDb community, but you guys are too easy on this film. Must be the lack of good movies out there and we are showing our desperation. I'd pass on this film.","['0', '1']" +444,rw1155725,sadie-darling,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,Let's Boogie!,22 August 2005,0,"Tim Burton does it again, a stellar movie! Don't compare it with the Gene Wilder version, or you will probably be disappointed. GW as Willy Wonka was appropriate for the era it was produced in.It follows that Dahl would have been deliriously happy with this version as it is more darker, more adult in its treatment of Willy Wonka and the world in which Charlie inhabits.Fans of Burton will not be disappointed! And I'm sure that the die-hard fans of Dahl and Burton alike will look forward expectantly to the deleted scenes that are bound to make the DVD edition.Enjoy!","['0', '1']" +445,rw1134041,elcopy,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),3.0,Why bother?,24 July 2005,0,"Unnecessary, redundant, pointless. I don't know what's the deal with Hollywood, but remakes aren't cutting it. Burton already has the equally mediocre and equally pointless ""Planet of the Apes"" remake on his resume. This movie premieres in a summer where other 70s movies like ""The Bad News Bear"" ""The Amityville Horror"" and ""The Longest Yard"" are being brought back for no reason other than Hollywood seems to have run out of ideas.Doesn't mean ""Charlie"" is a total disaster. It has many things that are possibly better than ""Willie"". But, if you have seen both, you can imagine anyone asking this question: ""Why bother?"". Honestly, I was bored in the middle of the movie. I didn't leave the theater because I try to watch a complete film no matter what, but nothing could fix the feeling.I can tell Hollywood that I read, and there are plenty of good stories out there yet to be told. If they have the courage to go for the next original hit, instead of giving people the same old stuff because it is already proved successful, they'll see the audiences erode. I am one who has bowed not to see remakes anymore after the release of the (second!) remake of ""King Kong"".","['1', '4']" +446,rw1221606,suimr,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Best Movie Of The Decade,21 November 2005,0,"In the distant future this movie will be known as the best movie of the decade, hands down. The movie has everything a good movie needs, depth, humor, uncanny casting, impeccable directing- just everything. I don't care if it's a ""kids' movie"" or not- a movie simply cannot get better than this. Tim Burton is a genius and is an American treasure the likes of which we haven't seen since Mark Twain. Congratulations on everyone who worked on the film- you have been part of a work that God Himself would have created Himself if He wasn't so busy- and I'm not even religious. There's not much more to say, this movie takes the already great original film, and adds heartfelt warmth and genius to it. Go see it now!","['0', '2']" +447,rw1157683,ry33guy-1,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,The summer's biggest hit...and rightfully so.,24 August 2005,0,"Wow. As Danny Elfman's so-sweet-sounding-it's-sinister theme says: ""Willy Wonka HERE HE IS!"" And here he is, for sure. This is Willy Wonka with a new and thrilling twist, and it's Tim Burton and Johnny Depp in all their celebrated creative glory.Tim Burton, of course, does not have a perfect track record. A self-proclaimed Burton fan myself, I admit that previous efforts such as Mars Attacks, Batman/Batman Returns, and Planet of the Apes were all lacking in fundamental areas (particularly the abysmal Apes). But when Burton is on, he's on. His triumphs (Edward Scissorhands, The Nightmare Before Christmas, Sleepy Hollow, and the grossly underrated Big Fish) all showcase a special blend of whimsy, carefully crafted visual atmosphere, humor, and dramatic tension that is distinctly Burtonesque. Add Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to the list.Burton's vision is, I believe, faithful to Dahl's. This doesn't mean, of course, that it matches every Dahl fan's visualization of the novel. What it does mean is that if Burton read the book, this is what he would see. How great it is to see his imagination building off of Dahl's. They're a great match.Johnny Depp plays Wonka in a way that no one could have expected, but his risky portrayal does NOT come across as a pretentious actor trying to impress everyone with his versatility in a role that does not call for it. Here Depp displays real brilliance, because he does something completely unexpected and not only pulls it off, but makes the film. This is even more impressive considering that, prior to his introduction, the film is so enjoyable he almost seems unnecessary.As usual, Elfman's soundtrack is the perfect complement to Burton's visuals. He even succeeds in making something as benign as chocolate bars appear menacing in the opening credit sequence. The Oompa Loompa songs are also very enjoyable, because both Burton and Elfman know how to present them in a tongue-and-cheek manner that keeps them from being corny.Not to mention that the simple message of the story is an important one for both young and old. This is a morality play without any subtlety, and that's OK. The kids get what's coming to them, and Charlie gets what's coming to him. Still, it's not preachy or sickeningly sweet. As Wonka would demand, it mixes the ingredients just right to create something truly delicious.This is Burton, Depp, and Elfman at the top of their game. I'm glad it has been recognized as the summer's biggest hit, an honor it truly deserves. With ""The Corpse Bride"" less than a month away, 2005 really looks to be an outstanding year for Burton. 10/10!","['3', '6']" +448,rw1155648,movielens,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),7.0,What happens to Tim Burton?,22 August 2005,1,"Well, the story is definitely made for Tim Burton: fairy-tale, sweetie-sweet, mystery-fantasy-strange... A few years ago he made movies like this one - but they were sweet ironic biting ones.The conservative moral attitude in ""Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"" is perhaps a work of the bad Bush age but also may be a part of the original story (or both). Four of the five kids are representing four of the seven mortal sins; the last one of the kids - well, the protagonist - is a boy who knows when to have to shut up, loves his wimpy parents and moronic grandparents, lives in a ramshackle hut,... here we have a really loser - but he will win the game. Yeah - thats America...""Well Mr. Burton - we will give you as much money as you need for your 'Corpse Bride'. But only, if you also directs our new 'Charlie'."" Perhaps this is the answer to my questions. But there are some mysteries for me. As example: What did Willy Wonka mean with ""Good morning, starshine... the earth says hello""? And what about the pink sheep?? Hidden messages, little jokes on the producers, the last remains of subtle irony... I unfortunately do not understand.Well this movie is a part of the conservative zeitgeist. But aside from this I enjoyed the movie much. So it earns a few stars.p.s.: Don't forget to kick and punch the losers - it's a part of the game. Without pain no win can be made in the end :-)","['0', '1']" +449,rw1162058,Liedzeit,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),4.0,Weird and wonderful and boring,31 August 2005,0,"What are the chances of me going to see a film called ""Charlie and the Chocolate factory""? I would say maybe 0.5%. I do not care for chocolate and I do not need children's films or fantasies. But the fact that it is a Burton adds 10% and the presence of Depp another 20% and so I ended up watching it. It is a weird film to use Depps favorite word. Which is fine. It is daringly different. Which is fine. I have been a Burton fan since Batman. But unfortunately visual genius does not make a film. The actors were good, the music effective but in the end and I hate to say it, I did not like it. I give the whole creative team any credit but they failed to entertain me. It is a chocolate fantasy with the message that family is even more important. Very nice but also very boring.","['1', '3']" +450,rw1236413,imdb-9506,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),2.0,"Tim, what was the point of remaking this film?",12 December 2005,0,"I'm sorry, but I totally missed the point of this film.. It seemed just like a slightly more sinister, CGI'ed rehash of the 1971 version... but all the charm taken out. There are very few deviations from the Mel Stuart script and what there is (Wonka's troubled childhood) doesn't hold much value.. Tim Burton seems to be holding back and not pursuing a clear vision with this film. Someone commented that thankfully the psychedelic boat ride had been taken out..? What?? That scene blew my mind as a kid.. way scarier than anything Tim Burton has managed to pull off.. The Umpa-Lumpas are CGI banality personified.. they are copy and paste versions of the same person scaled down to a 3rd normal height in Photoshop.. no character or humour, just stupid. Their songs were a rubbishy trip-hop flavour without any of the original's quirkiness ..and within the context of Tim Burton's otherwise song-less film, just pointless. Like the entire movie really.","['28', '50']" +451,rw1132404,pschwebe,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),3.0,Heavy chocolate.,22 July 2005,0,"A lot of press has been made of this version ""Charlie And The Chocolate Factory"" being more faithful to Roald Dahl's story than the 1971 ""Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory"". After having seen both, and having read the novel to my kids for years, I have to say that this movie has given me a greater appreciation for Gene Wilder's nuanced performance in the earlier movie, as well as director Mel Stuart's shrewd choices.It's true, the new picture's director, Tim Burton, had the budget to make a more accurate film. It is more accurate in it's details. And it's clear that Burton has a real affection for the story. But, the details do not make for a whole that has the impact of either the book or the earlier movie. The reasons involve Mr. Burtons bewildering deviations from this ""more faithful"" rendering. For one, Mr. Burton feels compelled to add back-story explaining why Willy Wonka is the way he is, and so he and/or the scriptwriter, John August, have added a pointless subplot involving Wonka's father. Secondly, his take, or maybe Johnny Depp's take, on the character of Willy Wonka is just plain bad. Willy Wonka, as originally written by Dahl was a spritely little man, an eccentric driven by humor, and a love of chocolate and children. He was light. He had to be light to balance out the mean-spirited nastiness of the children. Not this Willy Wonka. This guy is heavy. He doesn't care about the kids, and he doesn't seem to care about chocolate as much as be obsessed by it. His eccentricity is driven by a self-absorbed humorless desire to escape his dysfunctional relationship with his father. (Like Spielberg in ""Hook"", Burton has bent a classic story to deal with his ""Father"" issues. Is this a Hollywood thing?)Even the Oompa Loompas are heavy. In the book, they are characterized by their humor, by their joy. They laugh a lot, and their songs come from their joy. Well, there's no joy here. These guys are serious. Serious when they work, serious when they dance, serious when they sing. Serious when they psychoanalyze Mr. Wonka.Yes, the details here are more loyal, more faithful to the original story. But if you want to see a Willy Wonka more as Roald Dahl intended, and a story whose details may be less perfect, but whose broad strokes are, unlike this movie, right on target, go down to you local video store and rent the 1971 film.","['3', '6']" +452,rw1190083,funky_fairy555,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,it was great!!,7 October 2005,0,I thought this movie was so good! i love johnny depp! he was so funny how he was so mean to everyone! the story was great with the flash backs it really gave us a sense of the background of the movie that the first one didn't. Of course you cant beat the original but this came very close to it! the computer animation was great and the only faults it was had was the oompa loompas..they were funny..but eerr i dunno. and also they didn't really back it up about the outsiders trying to get the recipes which was a main part of the end in the original. anyways it was still great! and all the kids and especially johnny did and excellent job! i enjoyed it heaps,"['0', '1']" +453,rw1135630,harry_tk_yung,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),,A visual feast,26 July 2005,1,"(watched in Richmond, B.C.)Those who have seen ""Willy Wonker's Chocolate Factory"" will likely remember the hauntingly creepy tune that the Oompa Loompas chant repeatedly as the bad kids got their undoubtedly well-deserved punishments. No argument that this is after all a simple children's story but there are certain things, maybe just abstract feeling, that suggest a dark side.The updated version (kid hooked on video games instead of TV, for example) replaces the name Willy Wonker with Charlie and in the process, as suggested by some critics, rightly changes the emphasis from the mysterious, or perhaps even sinister Willy Wonker, to the true focus of the story, poor and family loving Charlie. These critics then also suggest that while overall, the chocolate factory has been made to look and feel less ominous, the character of Willy Wonker has been deliberately designed to remind you of one Michael Jackson. Bringing the five kids into the factory would then take on another dimension, even if only subliminally. You be the judge.The simple story line remains unchanged. Five lucky kids find in their Wonker chocolate bar golden tickets for a tour in Willie Wonker's Chocolate Factory which was closed to all visitors suddenly overnight some years ago. Charlie is the hero while the other four kids are living specimens of how rotten a kid can be brought up to be, thanks to their misguided and misguiding parents. In the end the bad kids get what they deserve, and so does Charlie.For the same old story in the hands of Tim Burton, with today's technology, you would have certain expectations. Those expectations I would say are generally met. This very story gives Burton the best ever opportunity to indulge in his passion for colours and shapes, as the factory provides perfect legitimacy for the most extravagant and outrageous visual scheme he has in mind. If you remember, some of his play with colour and shape looks somewhat unnatural in ""Edward Cissorhand"". But inside the chocolate factory, you won't even dream for a second of questioning the validity of any visual display you see, however strange it may look. Come to think of it, it is almost as if the chocolate factory story is written for the very purpose of a Tim Burton film.For casting, Burton brings together again Johnny Depp (as Willy), his favourite lead, and Freddie Highmore (as Charlie) who played so well against Depp in Finding Neverland. And, as in many of his movies, Burton has a role for his fiancée Helena Bonham Carter, this time as Charlie's mother. We also have Christopher Lee playing a just-a-little-more-than-cameo role of Willy's father.The movie is first and foremost a visual feast. One great moment for me is hearing a suggestive hint of Richard Strauss ""Also sprach Zarathustra"" and then finding indeed the familiar scene from Stanley Subrick's ""Space Odyssey: 2001"", but with a Wonker chocolate bar impersonating the mysterious slab!","['6', '12']" +454,rw1133189,SeminolePhenom,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,"Different movie from Original, Don't't expect Gene Wilder movie!",23 July 2005,0,"The idea of the story is still the same. Charlie (Freddie Highmore) is a poor boy, who lives with mother (Helena Bonham Carter), father (Noah Taylor), Grandfather (David Kelly), and 3 others grandparents in a very small shack. They live in a town where Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory is the most major mystery. Willy Wonka (Johnny Depp) puts a golden ticket in five of his ""Wonka Bars"" and sends word that whoever finds a golden ticket gets a tour through his massive factory.In contrast to the version of 1971, Willy Wonka already lets the people know that the winner of the kids gets the grand prize(whereas in the 1971 version, it was said that it was a life supply of Wonka Chocolate for all of the kids). The kids are now symbolized much more as some of the 7 deadly sins in this version and the parents genders changed in two places. The scary boat scene has been changed and Charlie is also portrayed as much more innocent because Burton did away with the soda pop scene. The songs are totally different and the ending was much more different.These changes should have been easily predicted when the job was given to Tim Burton(who does everything his own way). I can't compare which movie was better due to the fact that the movies are so different. They are both good in their own ways. Don't expect the original from 1971, expect a totally new movie and you will enjoy it. Tim Burton did an amazing job and this movie will go right there with the classics (Edward Scissorhands,Batman, Sleepy Hollow) Johnny Depp was a much different Willy Wonka (more humanized) but only he and Burton could pull it off. Depp and Burton did it again! Freddie Highmore's acting was also as fantastic as it was in Finding Neverland.I highly recommend this movie.","['3', '6']" +455,rw1136314,FordPrefect-42,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Amazing movie!,27 July 2005,0,"I saw this last weekend because ""The Island"" wasn't playing at four. I was blown away! I was looking forward to seeing ""Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"" but did not think that it would be this good! I have seen the original and have never really enjoyed it very much, ""Charlie"" held my attention from beginning to end. Tim Burton creates a wonderful world of imagination, color, and magic.I've heard a lot of people say that they didn't like it because Johnny Depp ""Act's like Michal Jackson"" Well, if you have read ANYTHING Johnny Depp has said about this you will know that he did NOT base Willi Wonka's Character on Jackson. I personally thought he was funny (as did everyone else in the theater I was in) and the back story that Tim Burton and John August have added to his character explain why he acts so... different.This is a wonderful movie, and one of my personal favorites.10 stars outta 10!","['7', '13']" +456,rw1141382,ledow,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),7.0,"5% goodness, 80% darkness, 15% new.",3 August 2005,1,"As an old fan of the ""original"" adaptation I was looking forward to this more modern ""Dahl-friendly"" version (apparently Roald Dahl never really approved of the Gene Wilder version).Firstly, the special effects were obviously better, the original always had the hint of bits of wood and swathes of cloth to build the sets. Unfortunately, some of the effects were very noticeable as being false, the motion of CG characters too stiff or routine, the split between real and CG parts of the set too defined.The storyline is more complete and true to the books and, as such, Willy Wonka is much darker than in the previous version. However, I would be very concerned about a young child watching this version as opposed to the child-friendly Wilder Wonka. The melting dolls, the attacking squirrels, the scary Wonka and the horrible dentistry would be enough to scare many younger kids.Although the script may be closer to the book, at times you long for the witty comments and expression of the Wilder Wonka of old. The funny lines are not as funny, delivered so strangely, the Wonka is not nearly as identifiable. You get the feeling that you would want to wash yourself off after being with Depp Wonka for any length of time.That may be the reaction Dahl was going for but, having now seen both, the Mel Stuart version had changes for obvious reasons. Wonka was much more acceptable and identifiable, the little ditties were more enjoyable and relatable, the inserted quotes fitted, the strangeness of Wonka did not make him so scary, the special effects budget didn't exist so some parts they had to make do (I am assuming that is why squirrels and geese were interchanged) and the flashbacks only detract from the story.Put Wilder into the newer CG world, take either set of child actors (although the old Veruca would always be better, the rest are on level ground), use the witty comments, quotes and songs from the old along with the best of the new, use some of the extended parts of the plot from the 2005 version and transplant them into the 1970 version and only then it would be the definitive Wonka.Oh, and Helena Bonham Carter was completely mis-cast and isn't even close to believable as being a struggling housewife.","['0', '2']" +457,rw1135701,moovcrazy,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,A Work of Genius!!!,26 July 2005,0,"I have to say, the Burton-Depp combination has proved to be quite enjoyable! Ed Wood, Sleepy Hollow. Big Fish and now Charlie and the Chocolate Factory! You all know how the story goes: Willy Wonka(Depp)invites 5 kids (including Charlie( Freddie Highmore) into his factory after remaining closed for a number of years. What happens inside the factory is beyond your imagination! The scenery and graphics were magnificent as well as every kids individual song composed by the great Danny Elfman, who has accompanied Burton through a number of movies. (Big Fish,Sleepy Hollow) From what i have deduced, this movie, in comparison to the 1970's version, is closer to the book, but still has some extra ""fluff"".I don't think Burton could have done a better job on having Depp as Wonka. His kookiness and eccentricity made him a very funny character! And his costume! Very detailed!! ( Work of Burton, no doubt!) All in all, there are a few loopholes to be filled, but it deserves a high 9 out of 10!!!!","['1', '1']" +458,rw1133713,ReviewsAtHome,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Best adaptation of a children's book to movie!,24 July 2005,0,"Anyone who doesn't like this movie, and claims the original is true to form obviously never read the books. While the original movie was a fine production, ""Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"" was a great improvement. The first such improvement lay in the title: ""Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"" -- NOT ""Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory"". This movie is about Charlie first and foremost, not about a comedian from SNL. The rest lay in the scripting of the book to movie format. While all translations will undergo some changes (Lord of the Rings), this movie kept true to not only the attitude of each character (Violet and Mike make perfect sense), but presence of the gadgets (opening scene), the Oompa Loompa description (Deep Roy was amazing as opposed to candy colored midgets of the first movie), the songs (all written by Roald Dahl), down to Willy Wonka's view of the degradation of society. Roald Dahl's second wife has a producing credit on the film, forming a close tie between the family and this production (which, according to her in a recent newsweek interview, was lacking in the first film). I believe this made all the difference. The only major change in this book dealt with Willy Wonka, however, considering the character description in the book compared with last years ""Series of Unfortunate Events"", it would likely frighten any kid if Willy Wonka were put in makeup to resemble the book description. Having said that, Johnny Depp is Willy Wonka, as opposed to Gene Wilder being Gene Wilder. Charlie is always an innocent, without a single mean streak, rather than the first movie. The rest of the kids you absolutely hate -- like you should. I have seen it twice and wish to see it again.","['3', '6']" +459,rw1137938,starinthejawsoftheclouds,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,"Brilliant, if a couple of shortcomings",29 July 2005,1,"I loved this film. I was beaming nearly all the way through. I thought Johnny Depp gave an absolutely fantastic performance as Willy Wonka, and I also thought that the way his character had been written was brilliant. Roald Dahl's Wonka IS eccentric, he DOES make fun of the children, he DOES take pleasure from seeing the ""bad nuts"" come to their various sticky ends. Although Gene Wilder's version is cute and heartwarming, Johnny Depp's has much more character, depth and, in my mind, excitement. While Gene Wilder's Wonka seems to be presenting the factory to the children in a paternal, slightly patronising, children's-storyteller type way, Johnny Depp's hadn't quite left childhood (e.g. ""You're really weird!"" *nasal giggle*) and for this reason seemed to be experiencing the factory all over again through the children. It might be said that his ""That's called cannibalism"" remark could be seen as patronising, but I don't think so - it just shows that he's going off into his own little world. The only thing I prefer from the Gene Wilder movie is the Oompa-Loompa songs; techno Oompa-Loompas? They might fit with Tim Burton's fantasy but they sure as hell don't fit with mine.I also thought the look of it was beautiful. The chocolate landscape was exquisite, the machines exciting, the use of colour sensational (although the greys and browns that were used in the scenes with Charlie's poor family were a little bit clichéd).Having said all that, I did have a couple of major problems with it. For example, Freddie Highmore is English. So are all the actors playing his family. So was the man at the sweet counter, and the people offering to buy Charlie's golden ticket. Yet: Charlie didn't stop talking about ""candy bars"". Neither did his family. And they paid their money in DOLLARS. I don't have any problem with setting the film in America, if that's what they were trying to do. But in that case, I'm sure there are plenty of other competent American actors that could have played their parts. If that wasn't the case, and it was set in England, then WHY were they talking about candy and paying in dollars? And if I'm wrong and it wasn't set in either place, then they shouldn't have put in place-specific things like dollars without making the film place-specific.The other (main) problem I had with the film was Willy Wonka's background. Willy Wonka stands alone. He is an enigma. That is part of his charm and intrigue. By making him a seemingly troubled soul with hangups about his parents, you make him much more human than he is supposed to be, and add a dimension to him that is totally unnecessary and doesn't fit with either what Roald Dahl wrote or what Willy Wonka is supposed to be like. It also adds to the problem of the reconciliation scene, which is utterly pathetic and even more unnecessary than the back-story.That said, I thought the film was brilliant, I thoroughly enjoyed it and would recommend it to anyone. And if anyone knows whether the film is place-specific, I'd like it if someone told me! 8/10","['1', '1']" +460,rw1132028,vivianne-3,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,I thought this movie was fabulous,21 July 2005,0,"Now first I'll have to say I was pretty loyal to the first movie so I wasn't really looking forward to seeing this new rendition. I loved the book as well and I just got used to the differences between the Gene Wilder version and the book, I guess. Anyway, as the movie started I was cringing and at first I thought Willy Wonka was retarded! LOL However, it only took about 10 minutes before I Depp's Willy Wonka really grew on me. After that I couldn't stop smiling and laughing throughout the whole movie. It does keep to the book (almost faithfully) and the addition of a side plot didn't take anything away from the movie for me. However, I wouldn't say that really added anything to the movie either...it was just sort of there. I was really afraid that Depp was going to be ""over the top"" like Jim Carrey (sp) and thankfully he wasn't. I thought he was just silly enough to be funny and he was serious enough to get the message across. Where Gene Wilder used a lot of words to get his message across in the old movie, Depp does the same thing with facial expressions that I found just hilarious. The children in the theater didn't seem to find it very funny. Strangely enough, only 3 of us adults laughed a lot too. I thought it was a perfect balance and I can't wait to see it again!","['1', '3']" +461,rw1140945,Media_guru,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),,Another Burton gem,2 August 2005,1,"Tim Burton fans are not to be disappointed with his latest unique tale. Charlie Bucket is a happy, polite boy despite the fact his family is poor. When Willy Wonka announces he will be giving away tours to his legendary chocolate factory, Charlie dreams of how nice it would be on actually win. The golden tickets are found speedily by children around the world evaporating Charlie's hope, but in a luck only found the the movies Charile find money in a snow bank and rushes to by one more chocolate bar-of course he wins-if this wasn't intended for children I would have been a horrible ""convenice"" but since the script is kid friendly, it was just cute. Enter Willy Wonka (the freakishly talented Johnny Depp)who's clever one-liners make the film He gives the winners the promised tour where all except Charlie fall victim to fun ploys suited to their chief sin.Like all Burton films, Charlie is an artistic masterpiece and the script is anything but a corny children's film.(although I see no problem in bringing a child) The kids are just nasty enough for a comedic effect with out getting annoying and Charlie is the ultimate protagonist and makes me want to have an impoverished Engiish boy-Highly recommended","['3', '4']" +462,rw1130456,TopSpecial,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),6.0,"Not Bad, But Definitely Overrated By Critics",19 July 2005,1,"Well, I can say with great certainty that Burton's ""Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"" won't be making my Top 3 (Tim Burton) list. MILDLY SPOILERISH...A familiarity has set in, and I don't just mean in relation to this being a new take on the original novel, first made into a film with Gene Wilder in 1971. No, I'm speaking of Tim Burton's work, which has become so predictable, in style and technique, as to be borderline rote...the same might be said of Danny Elfman's work here. There are no surprises in construction or execution of the film, and though Depp conveys a degree of spontaneity, his character is so (to quote my friend who saw the film with me) ""socially retarded"" that it ends up making almost the entire enterprise feel awkward and stilted as well. My friend was looking forward to a ""bizarre"" performance from Depp, but she got a different kind of bizarre than she was looking for. If he'd scaled his body language and line deliveries back a tad, it would've made a huge difference. Consider how he played the eccentric, cross-dressing Ed Wood relatively straight, and you'll get where I'm coming from.This is not a bad film, merely an OK one. It doesn't generate a bunch of unintentional humour (like ""Fantastic Four""), but a surprising number of tag-lines fall flat. Willy Wonka relates to pretty much all the kids in a one-note fashion, shutting them down instantly the moment they begin to question his methods...it's pretty tough to sustain a film by having what is ostensibly the lead character perpetually avoiding everyone around him, socially. Visually, the film feels strangely sterile at times, due in no small part to the overabundance of rather flat CGI backgrounds...that's right, one of the few ways that this film differs from most other Burton efforts proves to be a negative as well. Also, the kids don't interact with the ""real"" backgrounds nearly enough, further heightening this feeling.The scenes with the Buckets work just fine, and David Kelly is very good as Charlie's grandfather. Freddy Highmore is solid in playing what is essentially a blandly moralistic character. The set design on their house redefines dilapidated, but is really too much of a (again, predictable) wink to the audience to prove effective in conveying just how dirt poor this family is (apparently, in the book, you really feel it).The introductions of the other kids are fitfully amusing (esp. Augustus Goop), but Burton certainly went out of his way in establishing the broadest caricatures imaginable. By the time they meet their imminent fates, you might be secretly wishing they'd just get it over with (particularly in regards to the annoying -- and not much else -- Mike TeaVee (sp?)). It should be noted, though, that the Squirrel Room in this version is a definite improvement over the Egg Room of the Wilder version...appropriately twisted, though way too drawn out from a logistical standpoint (Veruca's father has oodles of time to come to her rescue, if he'd only hop over a five-foot barrier).The film focuses much less time than the Gene Wilder version on the pre-Chocolate Factory section, essentially meaning there's less in the way of cultural satire. It does seem to have a little more momentum than the latter, which, in retrospect, felt a little static at times. The Oompa Loompa songs are (mostly) lyrically derived from the book, and each of the four main ones draws from a different musical era...the choreography and editing is decent, the songs instantly forgettable (and may prove intolerable for some folks). Deep Roy (who plays all the Oompa Loompas) has a certain physical presence which plays off Depp's Wonka reasonably well.You begin to think that the film is approaching its end too quickly, only to realize that an unneeded (though mildly amusing) sub-plot is being served, setting up a rather pat ending.Anyways, I went into the film expecting a B, and came away with something in between a C+ and B-...so I'll say (just barely) 2 1/2 Stars-out-of-4. If you're ""on the fence"" about seeing this one, wait for the DVD.","['0', '3']" +463,rw1170345,Rogue-32,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),4.0,Charlie and the Kookoonut Factory,11 September 2005,0,"I'm a huge Tim Burton fan, I think he's visually brilliant, and I generally tip my hat to Johhny Depp for sheer audacity alone, but I have to regretfully acknowledge that watching this film was not what I would call a pleasant experience by any stretch (no pun intended).It was OK during the set-up, when we meet Charlie (the perfectly cast Freddie Highmore) and his maniacally eccentric family - the film actually works while we're all waiting to see how Charlie's going to become one of the five supposedly lucky souls who finds the all-important Golden Ticket and gets to visit - moment of reverential silence - The Factory. But soon as Depp shows up, looking like a deranged cross between Jane Fonda, Billy Crystal and Faye Dunaway, it's downhill all the way, unfortunately. I never thought I would agree with the people who had said there were parallels between this version of Wonka and Michael Jackson, but these people were sadly on the money: here we have an emotionally crippled character, damaged from childhood, who becomes the antithesis of everything his father stood for, the ultimate act of neurotic rebellion in full force. To his credit, by the third act, Wonka realizes he's monumentally dysfunctional, which is cemented in a retardedly demented Oompa Loompa therapy session.And let's talk about these Oompa Loompas - they're undeniably creepy by any standards, let's face it, and the musical numbers become more psychotic as the scenario goes on. I was thinking about three fourths of the way through that I needed some serious drugs to properly appreciate this movie, I mean the endorphins released by mere chocolate unfortunately were hardly enough to cut the proverbial mustard.","['0', '1']" +464,rw1213762,chazview,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),1.0,They Ruined It...,11 November 2005,0,"Such a waste of good talent -- Tim Burton directing, Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka -- how could it be better? It should be great, but they ruined it. Having read and loved the book as a kid, and very much enjoying the first film version, this one doesn't cut it. It's a timeless story and didn't require ""modernizing"" -- keeping with the original story and merely updating the special effects would've been great. Willy Wonka was turned into a Michael Jackson-like character and the Oompa Loompa's were all one actor, digitally duplicated to appear as many identical characters -- the musical numbers with the Oompas were 'updated' with electronic music and Oompas attempting to disco-dance.This movie is what happens when a bunch of college kids get jobs at studios, do drugs, and dig into the movie-rights vault. Fortunately, there's always the book -- and the first film version -- if anyone could've matched Gene Wilder's performance as Willy Wonka, Johnny Depp could've, but he didn't...","['29', '54']" +465,rw1137198,demi_momus,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),1.0,Terrible,28 July 2005,1,"I saw this movie with much reluctance after my friends gave me a hard time about saying how it looked awful and judging it before I saw it. Let me start by saying this movie IS awful, and much of that is because of the highly overrated sir Johnny Depp. Not only does Depp spoil Wonka as a character, but he tarnishes the entire movie by ""acting"" in it.Normally I would have nothing against Tim Burton (although I can't say the same about Depp) but for some reason, he doesn't really attach the viewer to the movie. Yes, it does have its moments, but it is overthrown by jokes that fall flat and are usually even unnecessary and crude. Also the movie is nothing like the book. Most viewers would expect at least similar plot lines as the original, but no, there is barely anything the same about this and the book, which could considered either a good thing or a bad thing, but in my opinion, a bad thing. Burton even manages to leave out the unforgettable scene with Charlie and his grandfather nearly being killed as they float with bubbles, the scene is a must have for any remake. The characters don't fit at all. All the kids are annoying, which they may have been meant to be, but it is so unpleasant for the viewer. Don't get me started on the adults, geez... all I will say is way worse then all the kids. Not to mention that all the characters clash throughout. Even without the tremendous plot holes, this movie would still blow. Save your time and your money and spend it doing something more useful then seeing this trash. You could even go buy and 2x4 and repeatedly bash your head with it and it would be more fulfilling. Cheers.","['4', '10']" +466,rw1151655,Madhatter346,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,WOW! This movie is a real treat to one's eyes and it has the books dark spirit in it.,16 August 2005,0,"Well, all I can say bravo Burton. You have pulled of one spectacular movie. This movie has a rich, deep story and it doesn't leave with a hollow feeling like ""Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory"" did. Well this movie pleased me so much because of its Characters, Music, Environment and for the dark feeling you get from it. -CHARACTERS- Augustus Gloop: Perfect acting. Greedy, messy and a little rude. Wonderful, identical to the book (If you notice in the first movie Augustus is merely chubby, while here he fat, obese just like in the book) Veruca Salt: Although Julia Winter didn't scream as much as Julie Dawn Cole, she was a hypocrite (when she gets her ticket she smiles for like 3 seconds and then she asks her daddy for another pony) and her ""friendship"" with Violet=amusing, though it was short and useless it was funny. Violet Beauregarde: Just perfect, simply wonderful. Self centered, rude and stuck up, these are the ingredients used to make a perfect Violet. (and she got huge, and her face got fat when she turned into a blueberry, while in the first one she just got fat and blue and grew 3 centimeters) Mike Teavee: What can I say, he wasn't exactly like in the book, but hey they had to make him different because nobody carries around 18 guns, but people do spend lots of time in front of a TV or a Gaming System and they know a lot about hacking or computers. So Mike Teavee=average boy who is a little extra obsessed with TVs, Games and computers. Besides he even had a key ingredient, which was in the book, and this ingredient is the fact that he was trying to show how intelligent he was and he was a little more because he thought Wonka was an idiot and that everything in the factory was pointless and stupid. Charlie Bucket: Freddie Highmore did a spectacular job because he gave Charlie that sense of innocence and sweetness. He acted as if he really almost never ate chocolate (he took small bites of everything so he could enjoy it more) and he was always polite and he proved that a bond with your family is unbreakable. He was always trying to help and was always willing to share and give up something for others. Charlie also showed how much he loved Wonka's candy with the wrappers hanging in his room and with the toothpaste chocolate factory. Willy Wonka: Johnny Depp has done it again he has portrayed a perfect character, Johnny Depp is Willy Wonka. He showed Wonka as a lonely, sad, eccentric, freaky man, and yet he still proves Wonka is a genius. He really shows Wonka has some problems and once he solves them you feel like you have learned more of Wonka and that gap you had before is filled, even if that little subplot wasn't in the book it made a nice addition. The Grandparents were wonderful and so were the children's parents. The Oompa Loompas: Good job Deep Roy, he played all the Oompa Loompas (of course he was multiplied) and he did a great job. The dances in the songs were great and, well Deep Roy is just such a good actor that he is the living image of what the Oompa Loompas were suppose to be from the beginning. Also there is the fact that they look so human that they really fit in the jungle as the were. -MUSIC- Danny Elfman you are the KING! He has done such a good job creating this eerie music for every environment and for every scene. I loved the whole ""every child has a different type of music for their respective song"" idea because it was just great. You never knew what would come next. The different voice tones as they changed randomly made a perfect addition to the songs. -ENVIRONMENT AND FEELINGS- Well the environment was clearly dark and twisted. The chocolate was always dark and the giant candy cane was twisted and the boat ride was because the music and the light effects. Now as for the feelings I got a sense of cruelty from the Oompa Loompas because they sang nasty songs about nasty, naughty children in front of their parents(a wee bit cruel!) and the candy garden it was a little cruel of Burton and Elfman to switch the music to evil every time Augustus appeared, and they did that in quite a few other scenes with the other children. I was a little shocked at how loud the music was and how crude it was, but that's what made it cool (after every song the parent of the child who the song was about always looked at Wonka with hatred in their face. -OVERALL- A superb movie worth every penny and second, worth seeing more than once and definitely buying the DVD.","['3', '6']" +467,rw1190114,dug-s,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Chocolate fun!! (Contains spoilers),7 October 2005,0,"Absolutely brilliant! From beginning to end i loved it! Especially Johnny as Willy wonka but this part contains spoilers. If you are a fan of the original book then you'll know what happens but for those who don't it is about a poor boy Charlie Bucket who lives in a small house with his parents and grandparents. He loves Wonka's sweets and when he announces that he is reopening the factory to five lucky kids, Charlie doesn't stand a chance of winning. First is a fat German boy named Augustus Gloop and then it's a spoilt rich brat named Veruca Salt from England and then Violet and Mike who are both from America win one. And then Charlie finds money in the street and gets a golden ticket. WHen the big day arrives things happen to the children first of all in the chocolate room Augustus Gloop is sucked up the pipe and he gets a song by Oompa Loompas and then Violet turns into a blueberry and then Veruca gets attacked by squirrels. Mike then gets shrunk by television and is stretched. Wnka says they'll come out fine and they did(I think) and Charlie won the chocolate factory. But this one Willy has flashbacks to childhood.It changes a few bits but its great!!","['0', '2']" +468,rw1142497,pinkjungle,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,"Magical, hilarious and unmissable",4 August 2005,1,"When I heard that they were making another Charlie and the chocolate factory movie, my fist thoughts were that it was just another idea to make more easy money, and would probably turn out awful. Yet these views were blasted straight out of my head when I heard that it would be another product of the dream-team (Depp and Burton). I loved all three of their previous movies together, and the thought of another was so exciting - it became my most anticipated movie for ages - I was not disappointed. As soon as it started, that trademark Burtonness that is impossible to explain hit me and I was gripped. The whole film was visually stunning, and every actor and actress was perfectly cast, especially Johnny Depp. He delivered one of the best performances, truly taking Wonka to another level. Although Gene Wilder played Wonka well in the 1971 movie, Depp was much more disturbing and funny, yet oddly more lovable - and revealed himself towards the end as being quite vulnerable. Deep Roy was perfect as the Oompa Loompas - freaky, disturbing and funny, and sending creepy shivers down your spine when the children meet their sticky ends and they start singing excitedly, this is then all topped off with Wonka's obvious delight at their suffering (you MUST NOT miss the squirrel scene when Veruca meets her end, its, well, of want of a better word, FABULOUS.) The whole film was pure art from beginning to end, beautiful, colourful and surprisingly Gothic, and manages to keep perfectly to the spirit of the book, which the 1971 version sadly missed. It was dark with a heartwarming centre, then coated with sugar - a perfect, faultless movie and a rare gem - you would rather die than miss this, and it would be a crime for it not to be a classic. Roald Dahl must be grinning his head off.","['1', '3']" +469,rw1139323,spdaughtry2002,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,Charlie Bucket wins one of five golden tickets to tour Willy Wonka's amazing chocolate factory.,31 July 2005,0,"Enjoyed this film immensely, largely because of Johnny Depp's amazing performance as Willy Wonka and the wonderful visuals, true eye candy, that Tim Burton offered up. Actor Deep Roy CGI duplicated dozens or hundreds of times as all of the Oompa Loompas was such an example that comes to mind. An added little bonus of great casting was the wonderful elderly, talented actor Christopher Lee (now 83 and still going strong from what I can tell), playing a stern dentist. Some of the musical numbers were fun and imaginative, while a few weren't anything to write home about. The movie is a bit disturbing in places for young children, but well-done overall.","['1', '3']" +470,rw1131806,TheMovieMark,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),6.0,Worth at least one look,21 July 2005,0,"First off, let me just point out the following: 1. I have never read the book. 2. I have never watched Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory in its entirety.If you're finished picking your bottom lip up off the ground then we can continue. Why does everybody act so shocked when I reveal I have never watched the original Willy Wonka from start to finish? People act like I've deliberately sinned in the literal presence of God when I tell them this, as if I've back-handed Him and boasted, ""There's more where that came from, old man."" Come on, people, don't look so shocked. The movie wasn't THAT big of a hit ($4 million at the box office). Granted, it's a popular kid's movie, but still. The good news is that I can offer you a completely unbiased opinion.I have to admit that I wasn't exactly peeing my pants to see this movie. And if I *had* been peeing my pants just to see a movie then it would've probably been in my best interest to seek medical help. But the trailer gave me no desire to see it. The main problem in my mind was Willy Wonka just looked too goofy. The fact that he made me think of Michael Jackson didn't help. Despite the ruling of twelve jurors, I still wouldn't trust the guy to own a chocolate factory and invite kids to it. So admittedly, I went into the movie with the expectations of Tom Cruise at an amusement park with height restrictions - hope for the best but expect the worst.""All right, Johnny, if you're done being cute can you please tell us if the movie far exceeded your expectations?"" Well, it's a'ight, but I'd say ""far exceeded"" is a bit much. Visually the movie looks great, the storytelling is smooth and presents an interesting morality tale, Freddie Highmore is quite good as Charlie Bucket (the only non-annoying kid in the movie), and the chocolate world looks realistic enough that I was seriously craving candy while watching it.But on the flip side, the movie ran a little slow in parts, Willy Wonka had a tendency to be too weird for what seemed like the sake of just being weird, and I didn't care for the Oompa Loompas. After being told that the Oompa Loompas were creepy, I was quite disappointed. They're about as scary as being attacked by a bat-wielding midget in a gunfight. I know that probably doesn't make much sense to you, and I'm sure that may sound freaky, but if you've ever been in the situation then you'd really know. Oh you'd know.It's a mildly entertaining flick, but I really have no need to see it again. It neither captivated me nor enraged me to such a degree that I feel compelled to convince you one way or another on whether you should see it.I will point out that Stephanie and my cousin Nicholas are both fans of the original, and they both agree that it's better than this remake. Stephanie's main complaint was that all of the Oompa Loompa songs are different and nowhere near as good as the originals. They definitely tried to jazz things up a bit, but I found it annoying that some of the lyrics are hard to understand. When you're singing lyrics about why each of the kids is bad then that's part of the storytelling, and I shouldn't be forced to strain my ears to hear.But what I really want to know is why people think Johnny Depp running into glass and falling down is so funny? It happens twice and the audience howled with laughter each time while I sat there stone-faced. I can only imagine how hard everybody would've laughed if Willy Wonka had farted and fell down at the same time.THE GIST: Go with your instinct. Are you dying to see it? Well, if you're actually dying to see this movie then you should probably go see a doctor. No movie should bring near death upon anybody. But once you find some treatment then it's probably worth it to you to check out. I know the people at the screening I attended loved it. So be it. But if the trailer does nothing to intrigue you, and if you didn't even like the original, then save your money. This is one of those movies I'd personally wait to make a rental or catch on TV.","['1', '4']" +471,rw1173541,stamper,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,Charlie versus Willy,16 September 2005,0,"As of last week I've seen both versions of the famous Roald Dahl book and I must conclude in saying that they both have good bits and bad bits. Let me begin with this film. While I liked the overall cheerful tone of the film, I thought that Willy Wonka (Johnny Depp) who explicitly lacked that cheerfulness was not a very likable character. Johnny Depp's acting was good, but the character he portrayed just didn't fit the bill. Whilst the 1971 version depicted Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder) was a funny and cheerful village idiot, Tim Burton reduced the character to an odd, eccentric and cold individual that I just could not connect with. Regarding the cheerful tone of the story, I liked the approach taken to Willy Wonka in 1971 better.This film also introduced a back story, not shown in the 1971 version, which is told in flashbacks and which does not add anything of importance to the story. It only takes away some of the mystery surrounding that village idiot who seems to be obsessed with making innovative sweets. Also I do not quite like the way in which Tim Burton introduces those flashbacks and at most times they are more annoying than they are helpful to enjoying the film.Another annoyance in this film are the Oompa Loompa's. While they were sweet and funny in the original, the amount of songs and on-screen time they have in Tim Burton's film is irritating. It is not because of the acting as such, but the songs they play are very annoying and they take you right out of the enjoyable film experience. You just want them to stop and get back to the story, instead of enjoying what they have to tell you.What I liked about this film though was the nut-peeling sequence and anything I did not get annoyed by (excluding the massive amount of CGI, which I felt could have been toned down). Nonetheless, I think that despite the (big) flaws, Tim Burton delivers a good film with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, which makes the fact that there were flaws present bearable on one end of the spectrum and pitiful on the other. Bearable because the rest was so good you kept enjoying it and pitiful because had there been NO flaws, this film could have been one of the best movies ever made. As it is, the film is good, cheerful and enjoyable. Heck, it even left me smiling for minutes after leaving the theater. Still I was not completely satisfied.7,75 out of 10 (with an 8 given upon voting)","['0', '0']" +472,rw1133806,lilcharmer,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),3.0,Skip it and rent the 1971 original,24 July 2005,1,"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was my favorite childhood book and I loved the '71 version with Gene Wilder, so when I heard that they were remaking it with Johnny Depp, I thought it'll probably be very different and weird, but it was actually worse than I thought.(sigh) Where do I begin? First I have to admit that this version is more true to the book, that however doesn't make it any better than the '71 version. First Johnny Depp as Wonka. Nothing like the eccentric, witty and clever Wonka Gene Wilder played. Instead they made him pale as a ghost, timid, frail and emotionally wounded. I don't know whose idea it was to dig into his sad childhood past, but it didn't make the plot more interesting, just well...sad. In the process Depp's Wonka wasn't funny, charming are even warm. He seemed to be afraid of the kids.Gone are the one-liners, the philosophical quotes and the great original songs. Remember Pure Imagination? the Candyman? Veruca's song I Want it Now? All gone and replaced by the awful modernized tunes by the Oompa Loompas.Now the Oompa Loompas. Where the '71 version had a cast of little people with green hair and orange faces singing catchy songs that tell the moral tales of the children, they have been replaced by a single person (Deep Roy) singing horrible songs that you can barely hear the lyrics to. Unlike the 'oompa, loompa, doopity do' chorus, I can't remember any of the songs because you'll want to forget them.Other changes include Charlie having a father, which he did in the book, the effects were pretty good and the acting from the children good, but it lacks warmth and feeling. I felt that the actor who played Grandpa Joe was a bit too old and what about the whole 'I've got a golden ticket'? We don't get a sense of how badly Charlie wanted this because there was no anticipation for it. Also, they didn't get into the big worldwide search for the tickets, as in the '71 version'.Overall, this was a big mess and not a good remake at all. I don't know why they felt the need to mess with a classic anyway.Skip it and rent the original.","['1', '4']" +473,rw1166744,evanston_dad,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),6.0,Depp Nearly Ruins It,6 September 2005,0,"I usually like Johnny Depp's quirky approach to characters and credit him for making many films much better than they had any right being, but for once his instincts are off. In Tim Burton's new take on the classic children's story, he nearly derails the film with his weird, creepy interpretation of candy empresario Willy Wonka.It's not that I was comparing this to the Gene Wilder original; I didn't much like that version either (though I liked Wilder's performance more) and thought Roald Dahl's book was due for a retry. And in the first 20 minutes, leading up to the day actually spent in the chocolate factory, Burton nails Dahl's story just right. In many ways it's a perfect matching of artist and source material, and the cordial relationship shows for a while. But once Depp enters the picture, Burton gives him free reign to walk away with it, but I didn't like where he took it.People have said Depp reminds them of both Carol Burnett and Michael Jackson. Throw Carol Channing and Frances McDormand from ""Fargo"" into the mix and you get a pretty good idea of how he plays the character. The thing is, the writers screwed up big time in giving Wonka so much back story and making him a character that begs for redemption. The great thing about Wonka in the book was that he wasn't explained; he was a candy genius, his life was devoted to making great candy, end of story. The point Dahl was making was about proper ways for children to behave, not about reconnecting with your family, father/son relationships, blah, blah, blah. Dahl's book was perfection, so why mess with it? Other than the awful additions, however, this film stays much truer to the book than the 1971 version. There are some great songs by Danny Elfman for the Oompah-Loompahs to perform, the bad kids are deliciously bratty, and Freddie Highmore is really winning as Charlie. Maybe in another 30 years they'll try to adapt this book again and get it right. Or people could just stop trying to make movies of the book and (gasp!) actually read it instead.Grade: B-","['0', '3']" +474,rw1136390,WildVector,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),3.0,The Gene Wilder version was much better,27 July 2005,1,"They took most of the fun and wit out of this movie compared to the 1971 version with Gene Wilder. In this one, Willy Wonka is a depressing weird loser instead of a wise prankster. He had none of the charm or appeal of Gene Wilder's Willy. All the characters were better in the 1971 movie except maybe Violet who had a little more going on this time. However her transformation into a blueberry is overdone and just looks like the computer FX it is. The oompa-loompa's are without personality and their songs are mostly unintelligible. The choreography was okay, but I couldn't help thinking, ""Those CGI guys sure did a lot of work on that."" Stick with the '71 version. The songs alone make it far superior to this corporate computerized makeover. The 2005 version definitely won't be remembered in 30 years.","['59', '85']" +475,rw1133472,nycrules,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),1.0,Enough of a disappointment to make Slugworth proud,24 July 2005,0,This doesn't hold a candle to the 1971 original classic. Period. Yes the special effects are superior but beyond that it is instantly forgettable. Gene Wilder had a point that this movie had none other than a much needed cash cow for this summer's weaker box office. Johnny Depp is a good actor but this role was completely wrong for him. His choices of playing Wonka as clutzy and spaced out conflicts with the fact Willy Wonka is supposed to be a mastermind of the candy business. Then of course there is the fact Depp's Wonka looks like something out of a Marilyn Manson video no parent with even half of a brain would bring their kids near. Burton's added back story of Wonka's childhood was his standard fare of misunderstood artist who just wants to feel like he fits in the universe. The brilliance of Wilder's performance was the fact he played someone who came across as a nutcase but was in fact a misunderstood genius always a step ahead of everyone else. Then there's the Oompas and their musical numbers. Oy! Half the time it's almost impossible to understand their vocals and what they're singing. I think this movie proves the general movie going public has become as catatonic in the brain as Depp's portrayal in this film. The children and their parents in this film were equally as practically lifeless. No wonder Hollywood is having trouble right now. This is so much of an insult to the 1971 classic that it leaves you wondering what classic they'll ruin next to get an all age audience back into the theatres.,"['25', '44']" +476,rw1140849,invaderzim10686,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Read on and you'll find out,1 August 2005,0,"Ah (breathes in as if he began a new life) where to begin with this movie...? This is a fantastic movie, yes i am telling the truth, nope there is no abrupt punchline or derogatory statement to come; in fact there is no derogatory statement at all about this movie i loved it to bits, seriously! Well to get into the nitty gritty (trying not to spoil as well) the story is better; a young idealistic boy dreams of better things - all surrounding a giant chocolate factory (well he is a young boy) that sits a top the (presumably) mountain he lives on; at the top of the street. His name is Charlie and he is not a very well off creature, and in life he isn't really well of either; not very fast and indeed not that smart, apparently. An only child he lives in a small rickety and slanted house(whats with Tim Burton and casting Helena Bonham Carter in slanted houses...{BIG FISH})he lives with his mother, the kindly Helena Bonham Carter and father Noah Taylor who works in a dismal job and brings home little money, if any. As in the book and the books' previous 1971 incarnation the grandparents all still live (although they just look like corpses)in the bed in the centre of the house; although its more of a biggish room than house. To get on with the story quickly; Willy Wonka a once world-wide famed chocolateer, now a recluse is opening his factory to five lucky children; i do suppose you have heard and know this story, obviously. Anyway now to the story' presentation. Obviously this movie is going to be of Gothic twist because Tim Burton the master of Gothic slapstick (almost) is directing, with his favoured pet Johnny Depp who brings with him his favoured child star Freddie Highmore. This is a beautiful movie, the set pieces (esp. the actual chocolate-factory, where the chocolate is smoothed down to a frothy and foamy taste by waterfall) are brilliant and have that sharp Burton-esquire feel to them. The children are cast excellently. The story is far more in depth and just better than the previous 1971 release (although i am not comparing the two; because they are completely different takes of Roal Dahl's classic. Depp's version of Wonka is firstly superior to Gene Wilder's in the 1971 classic. Secondly, you really get a feel for Depp's Wonka. In the 1971 one Wilder is basically preying upon his own odd personality. Depp has created an entirely new (and better) Wonka in the form of a broken man, never truly a child but never truly and adult either. In summary casting; excellent - overall cosmetic presentation; excellent - acting; excellent - everything; excellent. And now to the best bit…Deep Roy as the Oompa Loopmas, yes all of them. The computer generated munchkins of Wonka-land were a highlight for me in this movie from their quirky, funky yet so damm good and catchy tunes to their freaky, cool uniforms. I really enjoyed this movie and I know other people will. Hopefully people that aren't very cynical, because if you are you probably won't like this movie (what I mean is that the story can seem like pulp I suppose although I got carried away with the story and movie and so didn't mind at all, but try not to be too cynical because you mightn't like it if so – although I am kinda cynical and I thoroughly enjoyed this movie! I so have one bad thing to point out, Christopher Lee's character, I'll try not to ruin the movie whilst saying this, but I love Christopher Lee so much (in a purely plutonic way of course) but he is great in movie's and he plays…well …something that I dislike a lot, but still he was great in the role. That's the only fault. Everything is better, more vibrant and just brilliant. Another excellent notch on Tim Burton's movie-belt.","['1', '3']" +477,rw1141720,gnoxyz,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,An awesome adaptation,3 August 2005,1,"I am a huge fan of Roald Dahl's work and I think that this was an awesome adaptation; yes, there are some major things that weren't on the book (as well as a lot of minor details, like the fact that in the book, both of the parents of every child, except Charlie visit the factory as well); but in general (I think) it's better than the 1971 film.The performance of Johny Depp as Willy Wonka is way much better than the one that Gene Wilder did once. This new Willy Wonka is more interesting while the one Gene did was very cold. Also, the performance of the children is less cheesy now. The background they gave to Wonka wasn't really necessary but it gave a new spin to the story, when in the end, Wonka won't allow Charlie's family into the factory.Another thing that shows how well adapted is this new version, is the fact that they respected Dahl's lyrics and gave them incredible music (well, I couldn't expect less form Danny Elfman).One thing that worried me was the Oompa-Loompas, because everybody had the image of the 1971 film; but the performance of Deep Roy is simply amazing and it was such a bright idea to put him as every Oompa-Loompa.So, it is a marvelous movie, I would say flawless. I dare to say that it is as good as the book.","['1', '3']" +478,rw1134164,et29b182ffdl489,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,Wonderful.,24 July 2005,0,"I am not a huge fan of Depp, but when I saw that Freddie Highmore was in it, I decided it might as well be worth a try. Highmore performed magnificently in this film, as I knew he would due to his performance in ""Finding Neverland."" I thought that there was no way that Depp could beat Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka, but boy did he come close. The one disappointment I had was the oompa loompas. Deep Roy is creepy, and the oompa loompas look nothing like the original! The music they sung was awful compared to the first movie. The surreal make up and sets were like a dream. I loved the airbrush look of Willy Wonka and a few of the children. This movie has almost exceeded its successor.","['0', '3']" +479,rw1148390,grahamcornin,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),4.0,The New Oompa Loompa Ruined It!,12 August 2005,0,"It is difficult to compare the new version with the original but I think the new one is not in the same league. The new oompa loompa ruined the film, the songs weren't funny and neither was he. It looked animated which it was and it really spoiled the film.The new version also lacked any real emotion with regards to the poverty of the Bucket family. In the original you really felt sorry for Charlie and his family but this film didn't convey the situation very well.The acting in the film was good but it really lacked the magic that the original had. I don't understand why they decided to use one oompa loompa and make the sets look fake. If they hadn't done this the film would have been much better. To be fair the new film had a lot to live up to but it simply is not as good as the original.","['3', '5']" +480,rw1167233,ezykah,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),3.0,Not as good as Willy Wonka- Yet Johnny Depp rocked!,6 September 2005,1,"At first, it was thought that the re-make of the renowned film ""Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"" would be focusing on the highs and lows of the first adaptation of the book by Roald Dahl made in 1971, named ""Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory"" directed by Mel Stuart.It was said to be a lot darker than the original film, which highlighted that the director was Tim Burton (director of ""Nightmare before Christmas""). This showed that Burton had focused more on the book than Stuart. All the songs were focused on the children and the greed that they had. I found them surprisingly awful, and was expecting more from the film; and then to find out that the lyrics were written by Roald Dahl shocked me! Throughout the first few scenes the narrator tells a dark and deep story about where Charlie lives. The way the story unfolds grabs the audiences' attention, because they want to know what Burton has ""up his sleeve"". It then steams through the main plot; a bunch of repellent and greedy children who are horribly undone by their own character faults, throughout the adventures of the chocolate factory.The iconography was surprisingly deep. Wonka was portrayed as a dark mysterious man, Johnny Depp played the character of Wonka extremely well; his characteristics and mannerisms were extremely original. Depp's performance was mad and outrageous; what stood out most of all about Depp were his glowing eyes and perfect teeth. Wonka' manic appearance suggests he has been in the factory for many years, with the strange um-pa lumpa men and the haunting memories of his father. Many audiences have come out of the cinema describing Depp by saying how much he is like Michael Jackson; or Jack Nicholson in The Shining.The camera-work in this film used mainly mid-shots, and often used long distance/wide shots to capture the whole surrounding of the chocolate factory; then long shots were used to watch the characters moving. There were a few High angle shots from the direction of Wonka looking down at the children. Then occasionally throughout the shots of characters moving there were panning movements; or stills.The editing was fantastic; until it got to the songs; and the digitalised mise-en-scène of the chocolate factory. It didn't seem realistic for the viewer; and this could have been brought across in a better way visually. There wasn't many ""fancy"" editing, but mainly cuts and fades, fade-ins and fade-outs were used for Wonka's childhood memories, and around the screen was a foggy mist surrounding the centered image.The soundtrack was mainly diegetic. When the filming of the songs were shown; it was obvious the sound was non-diegetic because the dubbing wasn't clear. There was a voice-over at the beginning of the film, with a deep and dark voice, and it was unclear to what the narrator was saying; at the end of the film; we discover that the narrator was one of the um-pa lumpas.The special effects were hilarious at the end; when the audience finds out what has happened to each greedy little child. The computer-generated images make a great end to the film as the audience laugh harder and harder after they've seen each child.This film was similar to the storybook, and its suited mode of address aims itself at young children and teenagers aged 8-15. However Depp's performance brings the age category up a level and aims more towards an adult approach, perhaps an audience of 16-30 year olds. So there is a variety of young and old viewers; all different age gaps; and can be enjoyed by all.Overall the film may have been more like the book, and Roald Dahl may have preferred this version; but I don't think that remaking the film made any justice for the audience.","['2', '5']" +481,rw1225110,foreverachildofgod,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,Johnny Depp,26 November 2005,0,"Having seen the original movie with Gene Wilder, who was by far the better Willy Wonka, it was going to be a hard act to follow, but Johnny Depp made an excellent attempt at playing Mr. Wonka.At first, Johnny Depp seemed a bit too Gothic to play Willy, but nevertheless he did it, in complete contrast to the more colourful and crazy Gene Wilder.On watching the movie unfold, the Oompa Loompas appeared, and seemed to be the same chap multiplied, funny, but not the Oompa Loompas I was expecting to see.I have to admit that I missed the 'little green men' that we had in the original movie, preferring to see green hair and orange faces, but the special effects were very good, and should be considering the advances since 1971. The array of sweets and other chocolates seemed as edible as ever.I was happy and entertained to watch the entire movie, but the original will always be the best.","['2', '3']" +482,rw1162496,Pro_Surfer_14,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),,Rather poor effort,31 August 2005,0,"I must admit i had high expectations of this film seeing as though i believe Johnny Depp is a most extravagant actor and directed once again by the same director i had a feeling that it would top the list of his best performances. I strongly recommend not seeing this if you are within the ages of 1-99 for reasons i would not like to explain in detail here. since i am meant to type a minimum of ten lines i would have to keep on typing just so this website can be happy with me. Movies are good, i like signs and the sixth sense yes signs and the sixth sense are rather good compared to this movie. i like them...i like them a lot - May the force be with you.... Paul Jerry =)","['0', '1']" +483,rw1138973,nerdzco,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Best Family Film of the Summer,29 July 2005,0,"Tim Burton and Johnny Depp have done it once again in this amazing adaptation of the Dahl classic book 'Charlie and the Chocolate factory'. From the snowy streets of Britain, to the crazy jungles of Loompa-Land, all the way to India, to the dentist's office, and inside the factory with witty and eccentric Mr. Willy Wonka (Johnny Depp) and Oompa Loompas (Deep Roy, Deep Roy, Deep Roy (X about 500)!)) So this summer join four nasty kids, one good kid, an amazing chocolateer (young and old) and his dentist dad, oompa-loompas, squirrels, and a Prince for the wild ride of the summer which will have you saying ""SWEET!""","['1', '3']" +484,rw1235203,gly1,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),1.0,One Bad Trip,10 December 2005,0,Would I allow my children to see this movie. No. Do I wish I had not wasted the 4 bucks to rent this movie? Yes. Virginia this is not your mother's Wonka movie. Burton must have been severely beaten as child because his view of the world is horror filled. The music is off key and just plain bad. The visuals are mostly CGI and like the latest Star Wars trilogy lacking in human emotion and reality. Johnny D's version of Wonka is Wonka as Howard Hughs. Creepy and perverse. He reminded me of some weird child molester. Don't waste your money or your time with this remake. Instead rent the original and enjoy the wonderment and beauty of true film making. The music is great and every kid that grew up seeing this favorite can hum the tunes to this day. There's a reason it's a considered a classic like the Wizard of Oz. Tim Burton and Johnny D are two very twisted men and this load of garbage is a bad egg. The original did not need to be remade. It was never broken.,"['29', '52']" +485,rw1139968,solanki17,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),7.0,More like Johnny Depp's Chocolate Factory,1 August 2005,1,"Having grown up reading the original book by Roald Dahl, and seeing the 1970's film version many times, I was looking for that little bit of child nostalgia when I entered the screening for this. Tim Burton directs and he is no stranger to remakes, re-imaginations or re-works what ever you want to call them (Planet of The Apes anyone?). Luckily for us, whenever Burton gets together with his favourite leading man, Johnny Depp its usually a recipe for success. Chocolate factory you'll be relieved to learn is no different, living up to the expectations, exceeding in some quarters but falling short in others. I'm sure you all know of the story, down on his luck, poverty stricken young boy, Charlie Bucket dreams of winning one of 5 golden tickets Willi Wonka places in his candy bars, thus allowing the lucky recipient a full days tour of his factory. No one has been in or out of the factory for many years. The adventure on screen takes us through the very pages of the book but also add's some backs story to Wonka's slightly weird outlook on life, it gives him a history and that little bit of depth that maybe had been missing in the Gene Wilder version. A few crucial things are missed out though like Charlie being so sometime sickly sweet, by the fact he follows the rules and doesn't do anything but what Mr Wonka tells him, there is also a slightly more extended glass elevator bit towards the end. All in all these minor alterations blend in well with the already so familiar storyline. The demise of each child within the chocolate factory tour is built up to a great climax each time, the only slightly alarming thing is the rather chipmunk style songs the extremely small Oompa Loompa's sing, I preferred the 1970's version songs here. The Oompa Loompa's themselves are magically played by Deep Roy in double role, they are made extra small with computer wizardry and this just add's to this wacky race of little people. Many reviews will rave about the child actors, Veruca Salt & Violet are both played really nastily by their respective child actresses, and Charlie will get plaudits too, played by Freddie Highmore (Finding Neverland). But personally I don't think he has as much meaty material as he could have had and he does a basic job of acting the sweet little kid, which I'm sure anyone could of. The real acting masterclass in this film is by miles Johnny Depp's magnificent performance of Willi Wonka, he plays the choclotier as if he was b to do so. The chocolate man's zany persona and troubled childhood becomes apparent through Depp's acting and the humour is magnified with his execution of the script. Depp has proved many times he can play off the wall characters (Blow, Jack Sparrow in Pirates of Caribbean), and this time he's done it again. Watch out for the constant banter between Depp and one of the kids Mike Teevee, Classic comedy moments! All in all the movie could have been a massive disappointment, and comparisons with the 70's version are going to happen regardless even though they are two different films of different era's and each stands alone on its own merits (one has better songs then the other, one has a better Willi Wonka then the other etc). But just enjoy this film for the great colourful grandeur scale sets, classic storyline and hilarious Depp performance of Wonka.","['7', '14']" +486,rw1132163,robin_lakin,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),2.0,"The new ""Willy Wonka Movie""",22 July 2005,0,"When the new ""Willy Wonka"" movie was over in the theater I felt like screaming. If you are a big fan of the original movie, I suggest you do not go see this travesty of a movie. The children were horribly cast (and all brats - Veruca was tame in comparison), the story's horrible addition of Wonka's father and the overall lack of wit made me want to vomit.The only saving grace and why I rated this a 2 instead of a 1,was Johnny Depp's performance. He was excellent and a little scary. The oompa loompa was interesting too - he was also worth seeing. If you are going to endure the torture, rent do not pay full price!","['4', '9']" +487,rw1159966,spoons_9,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,v.good,28 August 2005,0,"i really enjoyed this film. It has a dark Gothic style to it while at the same time it is funny and uses amazing effects. At first i was worried that it would disappoint the high expectations and that Tim Burton could be losing his touch but it turned out to be very refreshing and very fun to watch. i was told by many people that they would not watch it because they didn't think it could top the original, however i found that it was not anything like the original and that it stuck to the story much more. i had a very enjoyable afternoon watching this and will most probably buy the DVD of it to add to my Tim Burton collection","['3', '4']" +488,rw1145169,rparham,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,"Enjoy this tour of the ""Factory""",7 August 2005,1,"Director Tim Burton has interest only in those you would consider outsiders. Normal people hold no appeal to him, so Burton is at his best when the film he makes focuses it's attention on those we would consider to be outside the norm. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, based on the novel by Roald Dahl, is a film right up Burton's alley, featuring the eccentric character of Willy Wonka and his amazing candy factory. Dahl's point of view, to attempt to teach morals featuring rather reprehensible ""normal"" people, puts all his attention toward the oddities. I don't think Burton would want it any other way.For the few that don't know, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was previously adapted for the big screen by directory Mel Stuart in the early-1970s film Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory that starred Gene Wilder in the title role. Willy Wonka has become recognized as a classic, famous among other things for it's funny morality songs belted out by the diminutive Oompa Loompas. Burton was not among the fans of the original film, which was reportedly not enjoyed by Dahl himself. Burton's take on the material is similar in many respects, but very different in others.Charlie and the Chocolate Factory focuses on Charlie Bucket (Freddie Highmore), a poor boy who lives in a slightly off-kilter house with his mother (Helena Bonham-Carter), father (Noah Taylor) and two sets of grandparents. Soon, eccentric chocolatier Willy Wonka (Johnny Depp), has announced that he has placed five golden tickets in five random Wonka chocolate bars. He has kept his candy factory closed off to outsiders for years, and now will allow the five children who find the golden tickets in the candy to have access to his factory, along with one guardian each. Four of the five tickets are discovered by some rather unsavory characters: Augustus Gloop (Phillip Wiegratz), a fat overeater, Violet Beauregarde (Annasophia Robb), a gum-chewing overachiever, Veruca Salt (Julia Winter), a spoiled brat, and Mike Teaveee (Jordan Fry), a genius who is infatuated with video games. Charlie makes the fifth, and is accompanied by his Grandpa Joe (David Kelley), who used to work at the factory. They are greeted by Willy Wonka at the entrance at the factory and are escorted throughout by Willy as they visit the various exotic sections of the factory and the surprises contained within.The center of the film is the performance of Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka. With a long velvet coat, white face, perfect teeth, and bob haircut, Depp creates a rather naïve but at the same time strangely twisted character. Wonka is a shut-in who has lost all contact and sense of the real world, who is repulsed by the children he has invited and cannot bring himself to say the word ""parents"", because of his damaged relationship with his own father, a dentist who forbade him candy, portrayed by Christopher Lee. Unlike Wilder's interpretation which was a little more warm, Depp is off-putting and distant, but enormously fun to watch. Depp is nothing if not entertaining, and he makes Wonka his own.The majority of the film unfolds in Wonka's factory, which has been realized by production designer Alex McDowell as a rather unique environment, full of curves and elliptical environments, appearing very much as if designed in the 1960's. The factory is once again populated by the Oompa Loompas, here realized by a single performer, Deep Roy, replicated digitally to create an entire population of small workers. And, once again, the Oompa Loompas belt out a number of funny musical numbers, realized in a variety of styles and dance numbers that are very amusing. It's obvious that Dahl was trying to teach some values to children about selfishness and excess, and most of those sequences as each of the children are treated to their fate are appropriately over-the-top to get the point across but not so much that it turns the audience off. As with almost all of Burton's films, the production design and cinematography go hand in hand to create a visually arresting picture. The factory interiors, an Indian temple created out of chocolate, the Bucket household that is latterly listing to one side, all of it is rendered in Burton's usual unique style that is arresting to look at.If Charlie and the Chocolate Factory has one weakness, it is that once again, Burton has chosen to focus the attention on Wonka, and Charlie and his family feels a little short- changed by the script. They are not completely underused, but you don't quite feel to attachment to them that you should. Again, Burton's lack of interest in the ""normal"" world comes back to haunt him.Aside from that minor complaint, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is an entertaining and enjoyable romp that is worth checking out.","['4', '6']" +489,rw1210366,Maeric,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),4.0,Almost as bad as Lemony Snicket,6 November 2005,0,"Luckily this movie focuses on the family and on mostly positive things in the end, whereas Lemony Snicket was pretty much drab and negative throughout. Depp's voice is irritating and it's very strange to me that they chose to use only one person to play all of the Ompa Loompas. If you've watched Lemony Snicket then you've pretty much watched this movie. Both my wife and I said to ourselves that this movie was a complete waste of about 1h 40m. If you compare it to the original Chocolate Factory you just scratch your head and wonder what they hoped to accomplish in this movie. I look at the average rating for this movie at the time I'm writing this and see 7.5/10 and wonder what everyone else is thinking of. Maybe I'm just old fashioned but I really don't understand what is so good about this movie that it would deserve even an average rating.","['0', '1']" +490,rw1130652,caam52,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Wonderful treatment of a favourite old story,19 July 2005,0,"The adults and children alike in the theatre responded happily and vocally to this movie at the showing I attended with my daughter. The film is bright, well paced and the acting is excellent. Johnny Depp is a PERFECT Willie Wonka...another acting coup for him for sure. His outfit, hair style, wide smile,voice and gestures create a very sympathetic and likable character. He is really a great actor. The other adults and the children also seemed to relish their roles. The costumes were extremely appealing. The set at the chocolate factory colourful, bright and delightful. The musical tunes catchy and fun. The dancing was a treat. Even the hovel/little house where Charlie lives with his loving family ... parents and grandparents, is intriguing with all the tiny, interesting details. Tim Burton is a master of the usual yet appealing films. Good see this movie! You'll be happy you did!","['3', '7']" +491,rw1144102,loyal_lette_janna,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,A Lovely Burton Rendition!,7 August 2005,0,"At first I was skeptical of the new ""Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,"" with all of its changes and adaptations. I thought the movie wasn't going to be as great as Gene Wilder's performance, but having it been a Tim Burton rendition, I decided to see it. I loved it! This Version of the movie gives a deeper meaning, as well as an explanation to why Willy Wonka is the way he is. ""Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"" contains the little details mentioned in the book by Roald Dohl. In a comparison between the original and the new, I would recommend this version. Johnny Depp's performance proved to defy my expectations!","['1', '3']" +492,rw1133551,marky1212,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Best Remake I've EVER Seen,24 July 2005,0,"I've already seen this movie twice in the theaters and I'm amazed at how faithful it is to one of my favorite books. Charlie and The Chocolate Factory. Freddie Highmore, David Kelly, Johnny Depp and many more of the acting was just spectacular! The older 70s film was no where near as good as this film. Johnny DEpp and Deep Roy mad me bust a gut! The ending was great with the stories of Willie and his father the strict candy-hating dentist. I could go on and on and bore all the IMDb users about how much I like this film but I'm going to stop and leave you with these four words.GO SEE THIS MOVIE!!! P.S. See it twice like me!","['1', '3']" +493,rw1176546,Benedict_Cumberbatch,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),,How Bizarre (Even for a Tim Burton Movie!),20 September 2005,0,"I usually enjoy the partnership Tim Burton + Johnny Depp (""Edward Scissorhands"" is one of my favourite films). This remake of the lovely ""Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory"" (directed by Mel Stuart in 1971, based on Roald Dahl's delightful book), however, was disappointing.Burton's dark style and adult jokes don't work here. The cynicism he put in almost every scene let the movie with a bitter taste: it's too twisted for children, and too childish for adults.Freddie Highmore did a fine job as Charlie Bucket (he also worked with Johnny Depp in ""Finding Neverland""). Depp, on the other hand, was extremely mannered as Willy Wonka, light-years away from Gene Wilder's terrific performance in the original (Depp is too much alike Michael Jackson for us to bear - the comparison is inevitable, though Burton says the similarity between them was unintentional). As a friend of mine said, Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka had a golden heart behind all the eccentricity, but Depp's Wonka is just mean and weird. I agree. The new Oompa-Loompas (all of them played by Deep Roy) are boring (their songs suck!) and obnoxious, by the way.Remakes are definitely not for Burton. ""Planet of the Apes"" and this one are his worst movies that I've seen so far. Skip this: if you want to watch a good Tim Burton movie with your kids, rent ""Big Fish"", ""Beetlejuice"" or ""The Nightmare Before Christmas"" (Henry Selick directed it, by it IS a Tim Burton movie! One of the best examples of ""Producer's movie"" - just like David O. Selznick and ""Gone With The Wind"").My vote: 6 out of 10.","['1', '3']" +494,rw1148962,muraderdem,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),4.0,Big disappointment,13 August 2005,1,"I went to see this movie as soon is at came out in Turkey. I was more excited about this movie then any other because I had grown up watching the original and wanted to see what the great director Tim Burton and awesome actor Johnny Depp would add to this classic. To tell you the truth this duo in my opinion took all the things that made the movie amazing and turned it into a movie where its bizarre but lacking the amazement factor the original had.First of all Johnny Depp turned out to be the most horrible Willy Wanka I could think of. The lovable, friendly and funny Willy Wanka had been substituted with a man which is just messed up and scared. I read that Burton had been inspired by Marilyn Manson while figuring out how his Wanka should be and it turned out to be a fiasco. The Umpa Lumpa were just weird all looking the same and ugly, with no cuteness or anything. The musics were very disappointing as well and I believe is a low point in one of the greatest soundtrack composers in the movie business, Danny Elfman.The list could go on and on, the great scenes that were taken out turned the trip in the factory in a trap of eliminating children, and taking Slugworth out of the movie with his offer to all the kids killed the movies main message. Charlie ended up winning the prize because he did NOTHING. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. Charlie should have brought the EverlastingGobbStopper back to Wanka rather then turning it in to Slugworth for the money which was a virtue causing him to win the factory. The flashbacks even though gave some insight to Wanka's life, took us away from the factory and the magic of the place, if there was any left.All and all except for the visual effects today's technology offers Tim Burton was not able to add anything to this movie and took out so much that made this movie the high point of my childhood. If you are a fan of the original movie be prepared to disappointed as I have been.","['0', '3']" +495,rw1131588,bryan220,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,"So weird, yet so awesome!!!",21 July 2005,0,"I know a lot of people were upset when they heard that there was going to be another remake of the Willy Wonka movie. Well, i was excited and couldn't wait! And besides, it's NOT a remake! It's based off the book by Roald Dahl. And Tim Burton didn't even like the other Willy Wonka movie! This new Charlie is great. He did an exceptional job at portraying the ""Charlie Bucket"". But Johnny Depp was great too! I thought that was one of his best acting performances ever! Even though he was really creepy, he was good at being the psycho Willy Wonka. All the kids did a great job too! I thought that each had it's own type of greediness and nastiness. And most importantly, Tim Burton did a really good job at creating the atmosphere of the factory! OK, i loved this movie, and so did all my friends. If you have NOT seen it, see it right now! it's that good! (i saw it twice in two days)","['3', '7']" +496,rw1252715,rattdpp,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),1.0,Awful,1 January 2006,0,"This movie missed the mark in almost every respect. It was dull and uninspired. The worst job I have ever seen Depp do with a character. It was not consistent at all - it was rather a mish-mash of different inspirations and lacked any sense of continuity. This entire project lacked the spark that the original had in any way, shape, or form. waste of time, film and effort. Even Elfman fell flat this time with the musical score - miles of bad road all around for everyone. There is nearly nothing good to say about this film - interesting to see some of the background of the Charlie character although that was rather twisted in the hands of Burton as well.","['4', '8']" +497,rw1138305,michael-1189,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),4.0,Choc-Factory remake is a non-success for me!,30 July 2005,0,"Recently watched the remake of Charlie And The Chocolate factory with eager anticipation. As a Child I loved Roald Dahl books and also the 1970's version was magical to me. So in retrospect the new one had a lot to live up to! Unfortunately in my eyes it failed to deliver the goods. Johnny Depp is a fantastic actor, no one can deny that, his portray of Capt Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Carribbean was nothing short of pure genius. Depp's Wonka, however, is wrong. Gone is the magical and mysterious Wonka portrayed by the charismatic Gene Wilder, here is some-kind of camp, feminine version more Michael Jackson than anything. Depp's Wonka has an great deal less presence and stature in the movie, far far far to cheerleader-like - this would surely have had old Dahl turning in his grave! To sum up, the new movie is far less entertaining and colourful than the 70's original - as a boy it was more so believable and amazing - it still is, but unfortunately this version is too dark and uncomfortable for me. There are some funny moments - particularly when the ooompa loompa's (played by one actor - very clever trick photography) are involved - but the changing of certain key story lines and Depp's portrayal of Wonka was the negative aspects. He could have done it so much better!","['1', '3']" +498,rw1218614,deliberate_menace,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,A fun spin on an already great classic,17 November 2005,0,"If there is a God, his name is Tim Burton.When I heard of a remake on one of my favorite films growing up, I wasn't so sure, even with Tim's name attached. When he unveiled Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka, it scared the hell outta me.Now, I see it for what it is; a great remake faithful to the source material and expanding on it for some fun irony or just fun. My mom loved it.I don't know about anyone else, but I kind of thought of Willy Wonka as the fantasy version of Dr. Gregory House; the way he deals with the privileged winners is often times hilarious and very much original.As for the kids, they're like their predecessors but with some clever twists to make them seem new and interesting while adding depth to the children's persona's.Kudos to Tim Burton. The man has a talent with the unusual, and I can't wait to see his future projects.","['0', '2']" +499,rw1144017,hborden,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,A spectacle of sight and sound.,6 August 2005,0,"This movie brought the mastery that Tim Burton is famous for and the talent that is the cast to life. Not only with amazing leading actors, like Johnny Depp and Freddie Highmore, but also a spectacular supporting cast including David Kelly, Helen Bonham Carter, and Noah Taylor. With wacky scenery and costumes with provide as much delicious eye candy as a Wonka Bar ever could. I also believe that this movie had to be a success due to its similarity to the book, using the original lyrics and following more closely than the Gene Wilder version. Johnny Depp shows that he will never take a normal role, and I hope he never doesn't, bringing hilarity to the big screen. A visual masterpiece, a work of art for all ages. This movie will make you laugh, and believe in the goodness of an innocent heart. Not just for kids. Great for everyone anytime.","['1', '3']" +500,rw1140539,mrbmum33,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Better then the original,2 August 2005,0,"I've read a lot of negative reviews on Depp's performance. I think he nailed it! Willy Wonka is NOT the child loving candy maker as seen in the earlier version. He is a complicated and somewhat sadistic character who longs to teach children and their parents a lesson. Who could Wonka be other then a psycho, or as wealthy people say...eccentric? If people think Wonka invited those five children into his factory for just childish fun and games then they are seriously mistaken. Mr. Depp showed the true intent of Willy Wonka in that people fall by their own selfishness! People should compare each movie to the original book and not one movie to another. Walking in, I thought this movie would win on special effects alone.... I was wrong. It wins on message and character development, as special effects come in second. I will buy this movie on DVD and that says A lot considering I own two DVD's.Brian Mumm","['1', '4']" +501,rw1130621,pmccombs,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,The only thing missing is that wonderful smell of chocolate!,19 July 2005,1,"Tim Burton has made Roald Dahl's story truly come to life. The only thing missing is that wonderful smell of chocolate. I advise taking a Wonka bar into the movie, because when you see the chocolate water fall your mouth will water. Johnny Depp does a superb job of portraying the weird and bizarre Willie Wonka who just appears as the puppets catch fire and begin to melt. He is clapping and cheering as if he had been standing there all the time. At first the children and parents are not sure who he is but slowly realize as he begins to instruct them how to enter the factory. The Bucket's ram-shackled leaning house is definitely a Tim Burton creation, and the first view we have is a classic 'mise-en-scene'. The actors portraying Augustus, Veruca, Violet, and Mike fit the parts to a tee. Freddy Highmore does another superb job as Charlie, just as he did in Finding Neverland as Peter. The digitalized Oompa-Loompas singing the catchy verses with the 'Pop Choreography' dance moves of the 'swim', the 'mashed potatoes' and the 'jerk' were nostalgic as well as entertaining. I enjoyed this version just as much as the Gene Wilder version in the 70's. I was fascinated with the squirrels cracking the nuts and throwing the bad ones away. Although it is one of the scenes that borders on the scary side, when they hold and push Veruca done the garbage tube. The glass elevator is high tech, and I loved Depp running into it every time he went to get in. It was great fun! And don't forget your Wonka bar!","['17', '30']" +502,rw1133001,Carriejade,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),4.0,OK at best.,23 July 2005,1,"I really didn't enjoy this film. I am the kind of person who believes that if something was done well the first time, leave it alone. I was not all that impressed by Johnny Depp's performance, but then again, I don't think he is really all that great of an actor. He likes to hide behind very wacky characters and then say hes ""acting"". Its a choice, but...it's very obvious. Anyway, I thought he was annoying and couldn't really pick one path or another to take with the character. Was he a child? A genius? Was he just there to annoy us and make us not like him? I decided on that in the end. I actually found the film rather boring and although its obvious that Deep Roy is an extremely talented actor (kudos to him), all the Ompa Looma songs were, I'm sorry, but painful to watch. I actually thought some of the best performances actually came from the children (specifically Veruca and Charlie), and maybe Helena Bonham Carter (who was only in it for a few minutes). All in all, I wasn't impressed. If I had to do it again I would wait for the DVD.","['3', '6']" +503,rw1130911,dconklin721,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),7.0,I laughed a lot!,20 July 2005,0,"I found Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to be a very enjoyable movie. I attended it with my wife, daughter and son-in-law and we all laughed a lot. I rated it 7 out of 10. A 10 out of 10 would be a movie that I would go back to the theater and see again. I will wait for the DVD to see it again. I really enjoyed the music and Johnny Depp's take on Willie. I think that the sound that Johnny Depp makes throughout the movie with his lips and tongue will be the next middle school fad for a while. It was kind of interesting to delve into Wonka's character with the flashbacks. Tim Burton's somewhat demented touch to the remake was wonderful, especially when the kids are first let in to the chocolate factory. I laughed the hardest at that scene just because it was so unexpected.","['1', '3']" +504,rw1131356,Scarlet-22,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),4.0,"Pointless. Utterly, Painfully Pointless.",20 July 2005,1,"As a kid, I worshiped the '71 version of WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY. I read Dahl's book CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY in one sitting as a pre-teen and shrugged, ""Eh, the movie's better."" When I heard Tim Burton was planning to make a ""more faithful"" version of CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY, I vacillated between ""hey, this could be great"" and ""oh, man, is this going to blow chunks"", with each tantalizing picture and story from the set tipping me one way or the other with distressing regularity. So, on the opening Saturday, I bundled the family up and headed out to the theatres to see which diametrically opposed opinion would win out in my head.I'm sorry to say, the ""blow chunks"" side won by a mile.The first 40-or-so minutes of this movie is really amazing, with some of Tim Burton's best ""real world"" visuals ever. It captures quite well the heartbreaking, soul-sucking poverty of Charlie Bucket and his barely-functional family, far better than the '71 movie version does. Grandpa Joe is given a decent backstory (he used to work for Wonka when Wonka had human employees), Charlie has a father in this version who loses his job capping toothpaste tubes (Wonka's contest has created such a demand for candy that the demand for toothpaste rises faster than humans can produce), and they all (Mom, Dad, Charlie, and four bedridden grandparents who share the same bed) live in a ramshackle house that looks as if it would fall over with one really strong breeze. The highlight of this part of the movie is Freddie Highmore as Charlie, whose big eyes and beaming smile conveys Charlie's innate inner goodness to near perfection, and when he is heartbroken over losing his chance to get a golden ticket, you feel your own heart ache...and then you cheer when he finally DOES get one of his own. This young actor's got quite a future ahead of him.And then, it's time for our five lucky winners to enter the factory. And that's when the film goes to Hades in a handbasket and never recovers.The blame for this goes around more or less equally between Burton, Elfman (whose score, with the exception of the great ""Willy Wonka The Amazing Chocolatier"" song, is the worst he's ever done), and the writers...but at least some of the blame has to rest on Johnny Depp's hideous portrayal of Wonka, which completely overwhelms the rest of the movie. Garish costumes, bad hair, freaky makeup, strange voice, and weird mannerisms do not a great performance make, and one can't help but compare Depp's version of the character with Gene Wilder's sly, silky, menacing-yet-hilarious portrayal 24 years earlier. Wilder comes out on the winning end of that race by more lengths than Funny Cide at the Preakness a couple of years ago. Wilder's Wonka is a mysterious sort, offering tantalizing glimpses of what's under the surface, a worldly and wise man who has a child's sense of wonder and fun mixed with an extremely liberal dose of adult cynicism. Depp's Wonka is insane, maladjusted, and just plain weird, and the result is off-putting to say the least.The writing from the chocolate factory onward is HORRIBLE. It's as if the writers abandoned all pretense of their promised ""faithful"" adaptation and instead just threw a bunch of scenes from the '71 version, pages from the book, and bad plots from a random story generator together in a hat and compiled whatever came out the other end. Want a sample of the bad plotting these monkeys with word processors came up with? Wonka's love of candy comes from...get ready...childhood trauma and daddy issues. Really. I'm not kidding. I'll wait while you grab your barf bags before going on.Elfman's terrible music...well, the less said, the better. I don't care if his lyrics come straight out of the book, that doesn't make them GOOD. What happened to the supercomposer whose grandiose superhero themes made him THE go-to guy for summer blockbusters? Yuck.But the worst blame has to go to Tim Burton. Once the movie hits the chocolate factory, Charlie--you remember him, the kid whose name is in the title?--completely disappears. It's as if he's just there to fill a frame. If he has a dozen lines inside the factory, I'll be shocked. The rest of the kids are no better (except for Mike Teavee, who is very well played here). Several visuals are stolen color-for-color and prop-for-prop from the '71 movie, except they're not done as well. The ability to use CGI to render things in the factory (165 Oompa Loompas, all played by Deep Roy; blueberry Violet; the candy boat ride) does NOT improve on the '71 version at all. And what a waste of Christopher Lee as Dr. Wonka (Wonka's dentist father, who forbade his son candy because he proclaimed it would rot his son's braces-encased teeth). Like the writers, Burton completely abandons his ""faithful"" adaptation in favor of a ""re-imagining"" ala his dreadful PLANET OF THE APES. The film meanders another 20 minutes beyond its logical ending just so Burton can work some more on his father issues ala the plot of BIG FISH.By the time the movie does end (it's a REALLY long-feeling 2:20), all I could think of was running home and putting in my DVD of the '71 version to cleanse my brain's pallet. Don't be surprised if you're tempted to do the same. Better yet, save yourself the $10 and rent the '71 version instead. It may be sticky sweet, but it's far better than the nasty, bitter pill that's in theatres now.","['6', '14']" +505,rw1139131,mikeac12,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),,"Not bad, but nothing compared to the original",31 July 2005,0,"I recently watched Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and this film alone is not bad. Tim Burton's creative cinematography is a delight to watch and is very captivating. However, overall this film does not compare at all to the original. Yes of course the effects are going to be better because this film was done on a $200 million dollar budget oppose to the first film which was done on a very low budget. But looking beyond the effects the original film's humor was much more funny. It was very dark and satirical and I found the humor in this film to be much more childish and for younger audiences. I also think that Gene Wilder played a much better Willy Wonka than Johnny Depp. Now, I am a huge Johnny Depp fan, and a Tim Burton fan. But I don't think this role was for him. Gene Wilder's Willa Wonka was so much more funny and natural. Overall, this is not a bad movie and most kids and people that are unfamiliar with the first film will probably fall in love with it. But for real movie fans I think they will notice the flaws and realize that the original was much better.","['0', '2']" +506,rw1158145,Fiona-39,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,Some thoughts on the references,25 August 2005,0,"I enjoyed this a lot: it seems people who didn't had in mind the 1971 Gene Wilder version, and this is v different. It's been years since I read the book, so couldn't get too annoyed on the whole changing the book thing. What I really wanted to add my ha'penneth about was the sheer cinematic intelligence on display: from the moment the young Wonka steps out of the 'hall of flags', we have some v witty visual jokes about cinematic cliché. My favourite reference has to be to 2001: a Wonka chocolate bar as the mysterious glowing objects among the apes (after we've just heard the famous soundtrack). It could be simple a homage, but it's a thought-provoking reference too, with Wonka's amazing elevator able to take to the skies as well and also him seeming to be virtually ageless. There's a creepiness about his factory that mirrors some of the creepiness of outers-pace in 2001 and Solaris. Just a thought. (ooh, there's a funny Psycho reference too).","['2', '3']" +507,rw1132120,johnmallard0,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),6.0,Too bad.... Way too bad...,21 July 2005,0,"What an utter disappointment. Great idea to remake this classic but after that they seemed to have ran out of good ideas. I really like Johnny Depp but his performance was disturbing at best. I never read the book but the musical seemed to understand the elements needed to carry a story. Gene Wilder knew how to portray this character as a bit of an eccentric and a lovable dreamer without you getting the creepy feeling. Depp seemed mentally disturbed and ready for a psychotic break (Michael Jackson influence can't be denied). Wilder's Wonka was disappointed in the character flaws in the children, Depp's Wonka seems to relish in their failures. The whole storyline with Dr. Wanka was a worthless endeavor. Too bad this movie will make millions before people realize how bad it is. The original (if I remember correctly) was not a box office success and has become a classic that has lasted and is beloved by new generations. This movie will be a box-office hit and will be forgotten six months after the DVD comes out. Sorry Johnny but you and Tim Burton blew this one big time.","['2', '5']" +508,rw1166897,katbarnes51,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),1.0,Charlie visits a chocolate factory.,6 September 2005,0,"What a disappointment! I love the original film with Gene Wilder and had been looking forward to watching this version. I had heard that this was a darker take on the film that was closer to Roald Dahls vision of how it should be. There were many changes to the original - there were many things left out and other bits added / changed which did not enhance the film in any way - and in fact if you had seen the original left you feeling slightly confused If you have not seen the original, or were not a big fan of it, then I guess this may seem like a good film - however if it is a magical fairy story you are after steer clear.","['3', '8']" +509,rw1142867,comet2409,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,Playing Devils Advocate,5 August 2005,1,"I personally thought that this film was amazing. Although i could see the points of criticism that some people make of it. I loved the original film but this is spectacular in its own right and from the directing to the acting i was enticed every minute.But The portrayal of Wonka could be seen as a little distant and a little more freaky than that of Gene Wilder. I think that Jonny Depp played it well and with a deeper dimension than some people have seen. But i think a lot of people were expecting a remake rather than a new film, so have judged it too much on its predecessor.The factory itself is amazing and with the enhancement of graphics it looks wonderful beyond your wildest dreams (which it is supposed to be). Though you could comment that on occasion it is a little too graphically produced and the om-pa lumpas(cant spell sorry!) were a little frustrating. Their songs were funny but they all looked the same which for me was one of the only disappointing bits, and made them nearly as bad as the bright orange ones!!!! Just to add the only other annoying part is that Charlie doesn't steal and show the element of a bad little boy in this film which i thought was an important dimension that was missed.Overall though i think that it is a good film for all ages and maybe even more so for younger children who haven't seen the first adaptation. I took my brothers and the older ones thought it was rubbish and the younger ones though that it was magical. And for me that is the aim of the book so it achieved its purpose.","['1', '3']" +510,rw1132022,ferguson-6,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),7.0,Stop your Mumbling,21 July 2005,0,"Greetings again from the darkness. With Tim Burton (""Edward Scissorhands"" ""Big Fish"", the underrated ""Beetlejuice"" and the underviewed ""Frankenweenie"") at the helm, there was little doubt that this version would follow the novel much closer than the original kiddie film with Gene Wilder and the torturous Sammy Davis, Jr song.What was not anticipated was the eeriness Johnny Depp would bring to his portrayal of Wily Wonka. He is downright freaky and creepy!! It is amazing and captivating to watch Burton and Depp craft the story of the isolated man-child and his disgust with all things impure. Depp's performance drives the film to depths it would have otherwise not reached.The sets are great, although the CGI are mediocre at best. Deep Roy as ALL of the Oompa Loompas is excellent although the difficulty in catching all lines of ""their"" musical numbers was disappointing. What we could hear was very funny. The great Danny Elfman produced another terrific score and also recaptured his Oingo Boingo days by writing and performing the Loompa numbers.Overall, this is not an actor's film. However, in addition to Depp, young Freddie Highmore (captivating as Peter in ""Finding Neverland"") delivers a nice, hug-able performance as Charlie. Fine in supporting roles are David Kelly (""Waking Ned Devine""), Helena Bonham Carter, Noah Taylor (frighteningly real as Hitler in ""Max"") and the great Christopher Lee (veteran of over 200 films). The biggest disappointment was in the casting of the ""other"" kids and their parents. Surprised Burton couldn't do better.This film is funny, touching and often surreal. As with the novel, it carries a message and is not meant for young children. Some of the dialog is difficult to hear (especially the songs) but there are plenty of laughs and WOW's!!","['1', '3']" +511,rw1174259,jackush,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,a dream with chocolate taste,17 September 2005,0,"Wonderful!Wonderful!What a surprise!!I didn't know neither the original film nor Dahl's book,I have to confess.Also,well,ugh,I am 34 y.o.but I really enjoyed the movie.Its didactic message is so clear and nice presented and the overall quotations makes the movie a feast for adults.I find strange that no one remarked,as I did,some quotations the director makes in the movie:Wonka is a Michael Jackson-like person,but also has elements from ""The Clockwork orange"".We can feel Kubrick also in other moments,with some real quotes-the TV program is in fact ""2001"" by Kubrick as the music is.Apart Kubrick,some Orson Wells and Alfred Hitchkok are present.It might be a creepy mix but the result is wonderful equilibrated, aesthetically awesome,glorious played.The Dickens-Beckett atmosphere that you find in Charlie's house is not,paradoxically,gripping,haunting and depressing-it has something nice,happy,full of light. This is really a nice family movie,and makes you forget the kitschy,nightmare movies for children that invaded the cinemas in last five years. Not to be missed.10/10","['0', '2']" +512,rw1131899,ladybugs811,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,A Pleasant...and Slightly Freakish Surprise,21 July 2005,0,"I was ready to hate this movie. I am a loyal fan of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and opposed a ""remake."" However, I found this to be a completely new experience that I thoroughly enjoyed. Very true to the book, one of my childhood favorites, the film made me laugh, cry and squirm a little. Johnny Depp was brilliant, Freddie Highmore is absolutely charming and the rest of the cast was a little over the top at times, but good performance nonetheless. I am sure I follow many others who have seen the film when I say the Deep Roy, who played the Oompa Loompas, was incredible. No lines, just some funky dance routines and cameos here and there. When I read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory as a child, I loved the book. I had never seen Willy Wonka (which was made the year I was born) before reading it. So when I finally saw the film, I thought it was great, but then again, I was only 8. I think when I saw the first film, I forgot about the story told in the book because I was so mesmerized with the psychedelic (did I spell that right?) world I saw on screen. When I saw Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I remembered how great the book was, because the movie is so true to the book. The first is a classic, but the second is definitely a winner!","['1', '3']" +513,rw1155902,dark_lamb22,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,The best movie ever!!!!,22 August 2005,0,"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was the best movie ever! It has everything to bring out your inner child! It has singing, a super-hot candy maker, midgets, and best of all, burning puppets!!!! It also has a fat kid to make fun of, a loser who later on becomes cool, and what my inner child has always wanted to see! A little girl being poked to death by squirrels! And to all you creepy losers that think this movie's bad, or that Johnny Depp resembled Michael Jackson, well, screw you because know buddy cares what you think, and it ain't cool, man!!And to all those people who did like it, welcome back! If you haven't seen this movie, go see it while you still can! I've seen it 17 times! Record! and I ain't stopping' for nothing'! I'm gonna go see it 'til they kick me outta the theater!!yaaay!!!!!","['1', '3']" +514,rw1138963,isoundlikecheese,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),,Good morning starshine...the earth says hello,29 July 2005,0,"Holy crap! this movie just proves that Johnny Depp is the greatest. His roles vary so much that you can only stare in awe. Seriously, if he can go from playing Edward Scissorhands, to Don Juan (or whatever), to Captain Jack Sparrow, to James Barry (spelling?) to Willy Wonka and play every role to perfection...wow. He is king and i bow down to him.I honestly thought this movie was insanely great. Yea parts of it were confusing but its willy wonka we're talking about. if it wasn't crazy it wouldn't be right.AW! and charlie was so cute! I love the eccentricness of Tim Burton and how he can make the one movie i hated (the original) into one of my favorites just proves that he is a man of genius...also...the oompa loompas' songs were way cooler in this movie...and the squirrels were about 100000000000000000000 times better than any duck/goose as for me i am off to make muffins.","['2', '3']" +515,rw1139525,mcshortfilm,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),4.0,"'eye candy"" and nothing but....",31 July 2005,0,"There is something confusing about Tim Burton's films. When a filmmaker has a weakness, shouldn't he take it upon himself to fix and improve that weakness in their following projects? This is after all, what critics are for: to offer criticism about films and explain what works and what doesn't. Sometimes the director will be ignorant and shrug off the review with a ""screw you"" attitude and other times it may be a misunderstanding of the critics. ""No mister critic, I don't care so much about plot or characters and it's really about the visuals."" Is that Tim Burton's excuse? And if so, what's the point? Tim Burton's adaptation of Roald Dahl's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a visually spectacular film but it's not enough to make a good film. The story is about Charlie Bucket but then its about Willy Wonka and we forget about Charlie. There's not one cut away of Charlie's reaction while being in the factory tour. The other child characters are obnoxious as Dahl intended them to be but they have no depth. They overreact on cue when it is time for them to fall into a trap and leave the others behind. There is no build up to their selfish frustrations. Its as if they see the moment where they wish to escape and die. The last twenty minutes of the film feel rushed and we have to think fast as to how Willy Wonka was so quickly welcomed by the Bucket family.Critics can see why Tim Burton chose to film this story. It centers on ""eye candy."" But eye candy is not interesting for a feature if there is not much else to care about. Its like having sex without love. We get dazzling images of chocolate dripping waterfalls and strange looking Oompa Loompa figures and irritating breaks of songs and dance. I especially did'nt care for the background imagery of Oprah Winfrey and Stanley Kubrick's film, 2001. These kinds of visual details ruin the imagination by reminding you what the real world is all about. There has only been one film where Tim Burton's use of storytelling and character development received critical success. That film was ""Ed Wood"". Ed Wood is the movie about the late B-movie director from the 50's who made his films from the heart without conforming to traditional narrative styles. The critics did not catch on with him and coincidentally critics have not caught on with Tim Burton' style. The film""Ed Wood"" is the only exception. One cannot help but see the irony in this.","['8', '12']" +516,rw1131343,j7w39,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,Good twist,20 July 2005,0,"Thie is a very good movie because there are many things that have been changed from the original. The original was made to not conform with the times, so to make the remake the same would just not be right. Tim Burton has done a great job of putting a twist on this movie that adds to the old story while still keeping many thing fresh and new. Johnny Depp is no Gene Wilder, but he is the closest that there is and he does a great job. And one last kudos goes to Deep Roy, who is plainly hilarious. This is definitely a movie to go see, I think that it will, in coming years, be a classic. Just like its predecessor. Go see this movie, I'm sure you love it.","['1', '4']" +517,rw1131655,migoyette,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),5.0,"a ""bitter, tasteless confection""",21 July 2005,1,"Saturday afternoon I went to see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, a movie I'd been anticipating for about 2 years, since I first heard that Tim Burton was doing the remake. The first half an hour of the film wasn't bad, especially the opening credits scene, with the operation of the efficient machine arms stressing the factory's icy impersonality. I've always found automated factory machines working perfectly in sync to possess a kind cruel, sublime beauty--cruel and sublime because of the ugliness and soullessness inherent in the lack of human involvement, but spectacular and impressive nonetheless. At any rate, after those few initial scenes, I feel that the movie went quickly downhill, beginning at about the appearance of Wonka. This was no coincidence, as the portrayal of the character pretty much ruined the film for me. I have tons of respect and admiration for Johnny Depp, but I think he missed the mark here. His awkwardness felt forced or poorly conceived at many points. I just didn't buy this Willy Wonka; it didn't work for me. He seemed soulless, lacking true vitality. Maybe Depp wasn't the right choice to play him-- I don't know. Perhaps a Jim Carrey somewhat in the vein of Ace Ventura or The Mask would have been more convincing. I don't know. Marilyn Manson definitely would have been interesting, though I know nothing about his ability to act. But I don't place total blame on Depp, I think there were a lot of questionable directorial decisions behind the character that really doomed the movie from the outset. The ""p-p-parents"" phobia was an invention of this film, and one that I just didn't buy or understand the need for.The ending of the film also annoyed me. Too cheesy and warm for a Tim Burton movie, a movie that spent most of its running time basking in the ""darkness"" of its take on the Chocolate Factory story. Also, the moral of Burton's story was way too spelled out, way too obvious. Come on, give the movie-goer some credit. But the real problem here was that Wonka's embracing of his father and conversion to ""family values"" was far too abrupt. There wasn't really any believable impetus for Wonka to suddenly change his stubborn, long-reclusive ways. I was also waiting for the elevator scene, with Charlie and his grandfather burping their way from annihilation, but it was most notably absent. I also thought it was a questionable decision to show the kids exiting the factory, especially Veruca Salt, who got off way too easy, shown with just a bunch of garbage on her. In this way the original film was much darker, leaving the kids' fate to the imagination of the audience.The most poorly executed aspect of the film was the Oompa Loompas. Or the Oompa Loompa, rather, as they were all played by one guy whose height varied throughout the film. If you want to make the Oompa Loompa one foot tall, that's fine, if you want to make it three feet tall, that's fine too, but don't be inconsistent about it. At times, these glaring inconsistencies were apparent from one shot to the next. As a result, I found the Ooompa Loompas disorienting, distracting, and most of all, not believable. I'd also call it unprofessional. I can't believe that after years of production and round after round of editing, this was found acceptable and allowed to pass, especially for a film so clearly taken with its own aesthetics (if you watch carefully, you will also notice that when they are rowing the seahorse boat, the amount of Oompa Loompas in the boat varies during different shots--at times the boat is about 2/3 full with Oompa Loompas, at other points it is completely filled with them except for the portion of the boat where Willy, the kids, and their guests are sitting. A trivial error, but again, I don't understand how it gets past rounds of editing when I, a lowly movie patron, notice in on first watch). At any rate, I figure it's better to have weirdly painted, freaky little midgets like the original film than this movie's identical but shape-shifting rendition. I think the decision to have only one Oompa Loompa was a mistake, also; I didn't get the impression that there was an entire tribe working for Wonka. Oh yeah, I almost forgot to mention how much the Oompa Loompas' song and dance sucked. Annoying, distracting, non-catchy songs, and stupid movements that I could have choreographed myself. The one aspect of the Oompa Loompas that I did like was the entertaining back story the film gave them. Other such aspects of the film that I did enjoy (but were not nearly crucial enough to save it for me) include the 2001 references and subtle Edward Scissorhands shots.Those are only a few of my many objections to this movie. I could go on and on...but enough of being a critic for now. Obviously, I feel rather strongly about this movie, and that is because I love both the original book and movie, and still felt that this remake had great potential with Tim Burton, Johnny Depp, and, of course, a can't miss storyline. However, I will take Roald Dahl's book or Gene Wilder's performance over this botched mess any day.","['1', '3']" +518,rw1183370,Tazmanhomie,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),7.0,A tough one to rate,30 September 2005,1,"Overall, it was very difficult to discern exactly what I thought about Burton's adaption of Dahl's novel. At times, I felt that the biggest disappointment about the film was that the storytelling was at times garbled and at times confusing, given the impression perhaps of relying more upon readers' existing knowledge of the story of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to fully appreciate the interpretation of the film; admittedly, a good knowledge of the story was fairly certain from most viewers, however this sacrifice in storytelling left the film lacking full integrity. Particularly laboured was the portion of the film before the children entered the factory - as a true case in point, Burton reprised the 'fake golden ticket' storyline from Stuart's movie, but dealt with it so rapidly in passing that its real value in the movie is questionable.In analysing Depp's interpretation of Wonka, it is impossible to avoid comparisons with Wilder's, but as the characters were so vastly different, comparisons become difficult. At times, Depp felt unsettling: while the darker aspects of his Wonka were a refreshing body added to empty shell which was Dahl's original Wonka without compromising the allure of the eccentric, the childish insecurities he displayed were more difficult to accept. Wilder's Wonka, while darker than Dahl's, never lost his likability nor his powerful standing in the factory, but Depp's Wonka in his more childish moments seemed to lose charisma; a charismatic Wonka surely should be considered the key to a good portrayal of this story. As a case in point, it is difficult to be drawn to Depp as he insecurely jokes about cannibalism.Emphasis of the other characters shifted in Burton's Charlie and the Chocalate Factory when compared with Stuart's Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. In Stuart's movie, the parents of the children were given the starring support roles, in particular Roy Kinnear's Mr Salt and Leonard Stone's Mr Beauregarde. Enjoyable as these characters were, it detracted from the fact that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is supposed to revolve around the characters of the children and revealing why Charlie is indeed the moral superior to the others. As such, Burton deals with these side characters better than Stuart, and with the exception of Augustus Gloop, whose character has no real scope for embellishment, the four other children are the supporting characters who shine, in particular Jordan Fry's Mike Teavee and Annasophia Robb's Violet Beauregarde, whose characters were altered significantly from Dahl's hollow beginnings. Of the parents, it is only Missi Pyle's Mrs Beauregarde who displays any substance of character, working beautifully in tandem with Robb to present the stereotypical corn-fed American mother-daughter team. In this respect, Burton hit the mark much more closely than did Stuart, but given that the original book offered no substance to any of the parents or children, both have dealt with the problem in appropriate manners.Charlie's devotion to the wellbeing of his family was well written and believable by convincing performances by Highmore, Carter, and Taylor. However, it was included as an antithesis to Wonka's own family traumas, and these segments of the film, in which Wonka lapsed into flashback and then the conclusion towards the end, felt laboured, especially given the uneasiness of Depp's Wonka. Highmore's Charlie, and the little yet obvious moments in which he puts his family first, are endearing.The key drawcard of this film was Elfman's score, particularly the instrumental score. The rousing instrumental number over which the opening credits ran was simply brilliant. The oompa-loompa songs, each performed in a different style - each performed in a different style, as compared with the well-known oompa-loompa songs from Stuart's film - added some light-hearted diversity.The visuals were disappointing. Much of the interior of the factory was excessively cartoonish, particularly the room with the waterfall, or the nut sorting room. Furthermore, the exterior of the factory and some of the corridors were very sterile and uninviting. The enhanced realism of the sets in Stuart's film made that factory more engaging.As negative as this summary is, a lot of it is made in comparison with Stuart's Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, which would receive a rating of 9/10. Burton portrayed the same classic story with better supporting characters, but in a confusing manner. Furthermore, it is still difficult to discern whether or not Depp's portrayal of Wonka should be hailed a success or so-so. Even so, it cannot be suggested for a moment that Burton has done Dahl's classic anything but justice, and for that it receives 7/10.","['0', '1']" +519,rw1140659,annaconda626,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),2.0,This movie was weird and boring.,2 August 2005,0,"My mom and I walked out on this movie. I love comedies like There's Something about Mary, the Mask, etc. I liked Pirates of the Caribbean, too. I generally like Johnny Depp. Though this movie was occasionally slightly humorous, it mostly just dragged and was creepy. It pales in comparison to the original. A young kid behind us was crying because one part was so freaky. I wouldn't recommend taking young children to this movie. Besides, most of the few funny parts were adult humor (not sexual or anything bad, but just too mature for children). I rate this movie a 2 out of 10. It tried to be really clever, but I wasn't impressed.","['19', '35']" +520,rw1153419,AdrielFisher,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),6.0,Good but not great,18 August 2005,1,"Well, what can I say. As a fan of the three-headed Burton/Depp/Elfman monster, AND Roald Dahl, this seems a match made in heaven.Burton has a trademark look to his movies that takes reality and twists it slightly (grey locations in snow? yep, that's a Burton). Roald Dahl has a similar style in his writing, where the seemingly familiar become fantastical and slightly sinister - although never really dangerous. The design, casting, acting, score, direction are all pretty much perfect... the story however... well...Without spoiling anything, this project seems at first to have been an attempt to faithfully recreate the book on screen, and for the first 90% of the film they achieved it, aside from some glaring pandering to those people who don't watch anything that isn't 'Hollywood'. There's a reasonably unobtrusive back story added for Wonka, told in flashbacks, which is forgivable as it doesn't alter the story in any major way. There's also the obligatory script faux pas to make it more palatable to that small yet powerful lobby of movie-going Americans who find it confusing and disturbing to hear unfamiliar English terms for things; you find me an old English man who refers to trousers as pants and sweets/chocolate as candy - it can't be done (oh and we don't use dollars either).Both of these however are understandable in today's culture, where America's box office dollars mean more than film integrity (maybe I'm the only person left who shudders slightly when watching Harry Potter and the 'Sorcerer's' Stone, probably so).What is a step too far however is the jarringly 'Hollywood' ending, which is a shock after the lush dark fantasy and relative accuracy of the rest of the movie. Remember how bad A.I's ending was? Yes, this is just as bad. I wonder if some idiotic test audiences played a hand in this slushy Disney-fied mess of an ending, or if the script writer felt it would never sell in Hollywood unless it has some moralistic rubbish thrown in for good measure.Whatever the reason, it's like someone handing you the greatest Wonka bar in the world, then telling you it was sneezed on after you've already eaten it. You enjoyed it at first, but now that bad taste in your mouth will be all you remember. What's even more stupid, is the original ending has an easy sequel hook, which is now discarded in favour of Willy Walton's All American Christmas Special - g'nite Willy, g'nite Charlie boy...","['1', '3']" +521,rw1191185,Luluhalabaloo,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,It's a Small Small World catches fire - we can only hope,10 October 2005,1,"This film translates so well to IMAX, where I saw it with with my 12-year-old son. There is no question that a film adapted for IMAX just adds so much! Besides the classic Tim Burton look, it takes you right into the film as opposed to simply watching the film. But the real scene stealer, the man of the show, of course was Johnny Depp.There is not one movie in which he plays a part that doesn't cave to his on-screen charisma. It is so obvious that Johnny loves to act and loves to act in fun, character-driven roles. Every look, swing of the hand, and grimace has intelligent nuance and meaning behind it. This brings such a robust, well-rounded attitude to the character of Willy Wonka, and frankly, one that only a parent could love.His dismissal of the kids, not so much the words other than the ""what would it matter"" or the ""stop mumbling"" lines, but the looks he gives, the ""smiles"" or grimaces, the wave of his hand when he first starts the tour, all reminiscent of a parent who has, well, had enough for awhile and really doesn't like kids all that much anyway.But how about his lascivious look at Violet's mother? Johnny Depp can look at me anytime like that - so sexy - he becomes an adult right there...or,the crazy loon look when they were going ""up and out""? Only Johnny Depp can channel his other characters, like Hunter S. Thompson (Raoul Duke from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas) in the jungle scene especially peeking out from beneath his hat, walking in that unique Raoul Duke - wait a minute Raould Dahl/Raoul Duke - whoa - way (yes, he does the swagger in the jungle) or trying the green bug slime (andrenachrome anyone?), or Edward Scissorhands (papa? sniff sniff) and get away with it as only Johnny Depp can. It's almost like a separate Johnny Depp sub-culture that permeates all his films now - and I like it! There were lots of adult jokes (""don't touch the squirrel's nuts, that makes him crazy""), or ""try some of my grass"". There were drug references like the repeating of the same thing (hmmm, grass?) and the phasing out (hmmm, grass again? or just tired of the kids...). And if you are a parent sandwiched between kids and older parents, you will get the old people jokes. (My son couldn't stop laughing at his look when visiting his father - he says I get the same look on my face when visiting my mom or dad). I also loved the ""white hair"" look - there were absolutely no adults over 21 in the crowd but me, so I was the only one laughing when he held his new white hair up and looked at it with that look that only those of us who have lived through the first white hair go through. Which brings me to the Good morning, star shine line - immediately Hair - which just cemented for me the idea that this movie is geared to 40-somethings.My son saw a lot of me in Johnny Depp's performance which meant to me that the performance itself was recognizable as a disgusted parent speaking with that ""I'm going to kill you but we are in public now"" teeth talk which is so familiar to many, especially those around grandparents and kids too much and are starting to be not overly fond of either.Interestingly, the elevators were hilarious - I used to have nightmares about elevators going in all directions and I was speechless when I saw it in this movie. That, along with the boat ride - heck you can almost see the Disney ride! There were obvious references to that stoner of a movie, 2001 A Space Odyssey,and in my opinion, when the puppets are singing a la ""It's a Small Small World"" Disney ride which bursts in flames (we can only hope), and I even thought ""The Fly"" with the teleporter, along with, or course, ""Hair"". The ""relatively new"" puppet hospital and burn centre, the pink sheep, can't see them as kiddie jokes, and his braces/headgear - oh yeah, so reminiscent of my 70's teenage years (although I too have oddly perfect teeth as do my all my 40 something cousins). And the platform boots/""Prince"" get up...so 40 something. I'll tell you, at the beginning I half expected Vincent Price to pop out during the chocolate making scene - wow, how Edward Scissorhands. And frankly, the hut and the snow - Fiddler on the Roof meets Beetlejuice. Actually, the TV scene set reminded me of ""The Prisoner (the 60's show). I bet there is a ton of stuff I am missing but I only saw the movie once so once I see it again, maybe I will post some more if I see anything else! And maybe have a glass of wine before...A kid's movie? I don't know, really. My son caught the adult jokes because he would look sidelong at me each time they happened (like the squirrel's nuts joke) which he has been doing lately now that the jokes aren't flying over his head like they used to when he was younger. Johnny Depp is not a child's actor per se, but a smart kid can appreciate some of the things he says and does, as most adults can. This movie seems to be riddled with inside, 40-something culture knocks - no one in the theatre laughed until someone laughed at us because they were all too young to relate. Definitely one of the smartest movies around - and much as I love chocolate, I wish to never get fat and stuck in a tube or be rolled around for de-juicing. New nightmares to add on to my collection of sideways elevator rides.","['0', '1']" +522,rw1222042,Boba_Fett1138,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),7.0,Visually a wonderful movie but lacks substance.,22 November 2005,0,"No doubt that kids will love this movie. The imaginary world inside the factory is stunning and looks delicious. It's too bad that the visuals most of the time are more present as the story, even though the story has a good message and moral in it, but because of the overly present visual style, this doesn't really reach the audience as much and as good as the story intended it to. Style over substance you could say.Still ""Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"" is a wonderfully entertaining movie to watch. Not only the visuals impress but also the actors. Johnny Depp is perfectly eccentric as candy maker Willy Wonka. He lovely goes over-the-top at times without becoming ridicules. There really are some laugh out loud moments with him. Also more than great was the young Freddie Highmore as Charlie Bucket. Perfectly cast were also Helena Bonham Carter and Noah Taylor as Charlie's parents. Christopher Lee also shows up in a small but good and fun role, as Willy Wonka's father, who is obsessed with keeping his sons teeth in good and clean shape. The movie certainly has some fun characters in it! All of the kids and parents who visits Willy Wonka's chocolate factory are stereotypical and over-the-top but because of that at the same time work perfectly for the movie its entertainment value. But at the same time all of the characters in the movie lack real depth because they aren't exactly realistic. The movie is mostly entertaining and because of this the movie its message and moral simply don't work out in the sequences toward the ending.Some of the highlights of the movie were the Oompa Loompa song and dance numbers. All of the Oompa Loompa's are played by Deep Roy who has already received a bit of a cult-status. The musical numbers are perfectly eccentrically scored by composer Danny Elfman, who also did all of the singing voices for the Oompa Loompa's himself.The sets in- and outside the factory are really impressive and so are the costumes. It all visually really is eye candy to look at. Fans of Tim Burton will not be disappointed by this!Not the must see I expected and hoped it to be but still a perfectly entertaining movie, that's worth seeing.7/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/","['1', '2']" +523,rw1131417,TheDuke-2,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),5.0,Not as good as original...,20 July 2005,0,"Let me say first that I'm spoiled to have had the pleasure of watching the original with Gene Wilder (who was hands down better then Depp...sorry Burton fans) This movie is indeed a good children's movie and one I would recommend you take your kids to. However for the fans of the original, you will be very disappointed, unless of course you are one of the ""Burton Coolaid drinkers"" The visuals are wonderful in the movie as is the musical score by the always great Danny Elfman, but the two things that made the original fun and a classic was Gene Wilder and the Ompa Loopas with their respective musical numbers. The songs are what made the magic happen for me and that was very much missing from this version. Depp's performance as Wonka was cold and off track the entire movie which for me ruined the picture.Gene Wilder's charming and eccentric performance could have only been equaled today by the likes of Robin Williams, Steve Martin, or Jim Carrey. Depp is by all accounts a great actor and I enjoy him in almost everything he does, except here.","['1', '4']" +524,rw1201145,stumpmee77,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),2.0,"Not impressed, folks, not impressed!",24 October 2005,0,"Too many add-ons to the Wonka background and distortions of the Wonka character. Yep, the 1971 version of Willy Wonka was the book's Wonka. Just like in the book, nothing was known about the great candy man's background other than his being betrayed by his fellow candy makers and his finding the oompa loompas. Where, why did Burton cook up these pace slowing flashbacks with the warped daddy, drawn out decision making of Charlie and that ludicrous ending? Why did Burton once again put Depp as the star? Not only I'm getting tired of seeing this happening but there doesn't look like there was any credence to them as professionals for doing so. I can think of at least three other stars who could have made the character come off funny with the lines given--Not Depp it just doesn't work. It's the worse case of miscasting I've seen this year.As others have said neither does the acting of the parents of these other kids work. There's no hysteria when these bratty children are harmed. The change in what happened to Veruca is not fit for sensitive children and seeing them at the end--well besides the garbage looking fake to me, it didn't appear they had learned from the ordeal. I learned something; not to recommend this claptrap to anyone.The only reason to see this film is the boy who plays ""way too saintly"" Charlie.","['1', '2']" +525,rw1139226,CyberJackhammer,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,A Great Film With A False Title,31 July 2005,0,"A great production, Charlie and The Chocolate Factory provides entertainment throughout its running time.The vibrancy, production assets, script and for some humour all combine to make a cast-iron blockbuster lacking any major faults. Burton's art direction benefits the film greatly as he creates a sense of disbelief in the audience as they examine the other-worldly design of the scenery that looks like it emanates from delirium. His artistic approach is seen none more clearly in the contrast between the ebony dusky dwelling of the Bucket household and the Wonka factory which looks like as if was previously used to make paint until it exploded. Depp's portrayal of Wonka is impressive as it demonstrates his ability to completely adapt to any kind of production whether it be drama or comedy and it also suggests the lengths he's willing to go to transform himself and make his role more tangible to his audience. Burton and Depp are the film's two biggest assets.As aforementioned the film is devoid of any major faults but there are a few annoyances that need to be addressed. Most prominent is Burton's decision to focus upon Wonka and the vile parent and child couples rather then Charlie and the rest of the Bucket's. A common problem among Burton's movies (think Batman) in that he spends more time focusing on the oddities rather then characters with a hint of normality such as The Joker or in this instance, Wonka. However, the script demonstrates Charlie as a plain child (to the extent his averageness is even commented within the introductory 10 minutes.) As such, this film would be more suited with the title of it's 30 year old counterpart. The second gripe is the casting of Freddy Highmore who seems to be too sickly sweet to be the eponymous lead. Putting his family first, the role of Charlie does call for the desire to be morally upstanding but Highmore seems too honest and too much of a champion to be considered an 'average' child.A film that offers much to a variety of different audiences, Charlie is easily the second most quality summer movie of 2005 behind Batman Begins.","['0', '1']" +526,rw1177528,baktakor,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Terrific fairy tale with excellent acting and a touch of horror,22 September 2005,1,"I know that most people think that Johnny Depp's best movie was Pirates of the Caribbean. Of course, Pirates was an excellent movie, I think Johnny Depp has outdone all of his previous movies with Charlie and the chocolate factory.I have to admit that I am European and here, at least here in Austria, the book is not well known and even the older movie is quite rare. So this movie was my first time with the Willy-Wonka-Universe. So I'm not reviewing how well the movie is based on the book or how good it is compared to the older one. The only thing I can review is the movie itself and I need to say that better movies appear very seldom.From the visual part, there are stunning colors throughout Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. All situations are filled with emotions not only by wonderful actors but by visionary filming too. This is - certainly - a Tim Burton - movie in best tradition of Sleepy Hollow or Nightmare before Christmas. The scene where they first enter the factory and find themselves in this wonderful wonderland with the chocolate-fall is absolutely fantastic. Wonka's cynicism is great. His naive enjoyment of the kids when they run into trouble - always after not following his advice - is unbelievable. An his comforting sentences to the anxious parents are one of the highlights of the movie.The storyline is quite tense and consists of three major parts with the middle part being the longest. The first part plays with the hopes of the audience and it's main character Charlie, the third part leaves an annoying unsatisfied feeling in the audience that is replaced by laughs and easement in the end. But the middle part is the genius one.Looking like a colorful fairy-tale, trying to spread good emotions it is a horror flick in its heart. The scene at the beginning with the burning puppets initiates a typical 'group goes in - one by one is lost - one comes out'-theme. How the group is depleted is fantastically weird, so the movie is never horrifying but it is clear that something evil is going on and the songs of the oompa-loompas affirm it.This movie is absolutely amazing, visually, acoustically and even by the amazing actors. If you don't know it - go watch it!","['1', '3']" +527,rw1156513,D_la,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,Chocolate-inspired fun,23 August 2005,0,"With this film you constantly hear people comparing it to the previous film version starring Gene Wilder. Well not here, because although I think I've seen it at some stage, I don't really remember it all that well. So obviously it didn't make a great impression on me.For the few who don't know this is based on the book of the same title by Roald Dahl. The plot is centered on the chocolate factory of the title, its owner (Willy Wonka) and Charlie Bucket. Charlie, played by Freddie Highmore from Finding Neverland, comes from a family so poor that all they seem to eat is cabbage soup. His four grandparents share the one bed, and never leave it. Every year for his birthday Charlie gets a bar of chocolate, the only one he'll have all year. He always gets a bar of Wonka's chocolate and loves the stories his grandpa Joe tells about the factory, and its mysterious owner Willy Wonka.When a competition to allow five children to enter the factory is announced the chances are slim that Charlie will get a golden ticket…Now my memory might be faulty here, but wasn't Charlie supposed to be English? So why did he find a dollar bill? Why does he use the term candy? But those are just minor quibbles. All in all I really enjoyed this film. Depp's Wonka is wonderfully weird and, well, just plain wacky. His disdain for the children is perfect for the film, as are the Oompa Loompa's crazy routines. Certain reviews have compared Depp's Wonka to Michael Jackson, but I have to say I don't see the similarities. Yes both are unnaturally white, but Wonka is not interested in the children at all, he doesn't care about them, all he cares about is chocolate and sweets and inventing.From the outset it is obvious that this is a Burton film, there are all those weird but great visuals, not to mention Depp's take on Willy Wonka. Although I did think that the music wasn't especially Burtonesque, and in most places didn't really stand out. Having said that I did enjoy the Oompa Loompa's songs.The children are all well-cast, Highmore especially is perfect as the scrawny underfed Charlie. But my favourite was the spoiled-rotten ""Veruca Salt, the little brute, Has just gone down the garbage chute"".","['4', '6']" +528,rw1137071,skylar667,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),2.0,Not what I expected...,28 July 2005,0,"Was it just me or did Johnny Depp sound exactly like Michael Jackson? Even the billboard I saw after viewing the movie reminded me of the MJ look. I've always been a Johnny Depp fan, but I can't give him high marks for this one. The film had highlights of added humor and far more flashbacks than the life of Charlie. Wonka is depicted as a lunatic and the film lacks a good moral story. The humor in some scenes revolves around immoral acts such as Charlie's father stealing caps from the toothpaste factory.Slugworth didn't lurk around each golden ticket winner, so there wasn't any temptation for the children to be deceptive. Instead the film revealed that all of the children were ""rotten"". This area of the film perturbed me. There was no character building, learning from mistakes, or any scruples to to this wonka story except, ""you won Charlie because you were the least rotten kid"" The classic songs were replaced with either flashbacks or humorous antics such as the grampa dancing like the Six Flags Commercials.As the children enter the factory there was this somewhat amusing set up with singing toy dolls, yet it self-destructs and the toys catch on fire. You could literally see the dolls melt and eyeballs sliding off! Once that happened, it was not amusing but sick. Willy wonka was right there behind them, ready to pull out his cue cards to begin the explanation of his factory, you would think he would know what to say, but for some reason his role in this film was to be the look alike MJ insane guy, with a horrible father who would not allow him to eat chocolate. As far as I could tell that was the only reason he ran away from home.Gene Wilder from the original was not insane, but funny, goofy, playful, and serious when it came to someone stealing his ingredients. On the other hand Depp just didn't like kids and really expressed that with Mike TV when he kept pretending that he didn't even hear him.Other than Mike bringing his wimpy dad and Violet bringing her baton twirling mom, the others brought the same gender of parent as the original. The differences were in acting abilities. Other than Mike TV and Charlie, the kids did not act with as much intensity as the original and the parents did not show a great sense of loss or love as their children were stretched or juiced. It seemed as if they went along with Wonka and knew their kids were rotten. For example, Augustus's mom didn't scream out like she did in the first one as he is being sucked up through a pipe. Veruca's father had to be pushed into the ""bad nut"" shoot by a squirrel. Yes I said squirrel. They changed the 'golden egg' to nuts and a bunch of nut crackers - squirrels. The motif of insanity is played on in that scene. Mike TV did not say anything once he was removed from the TV by his father as a little person. His father didn't reflect much facial emotion when they announced he would need to go through the taffy puller machine. The Granpa was OK, but not as 'into' it as the first one. Veruca didn't put her whole heart into being the spoiled brat, she was a little better when she was trying to get a squirrel, but once they carried her to the shoot, her acting abilities were lessened.The Oompa Loompas were all the same guy - just duplicated and were not midgets, but little men. Their music was different and included many wardrobe changes and even swimming formation acts. They sang after each child disobeyed and made up a song including their name. They left out the Oompa Loompa song - one of my favorites. The oompa loompa also posed as Wonka's psychologist, another indication that Wonka was a little off.The improvements were the special effects of the elevator and utilizing it during several scenes instead of just the last one. Also, showing the characters leave the factory at the end, was an added plus.The bubble scene where Charlie and Grandpa fly up was not on this film, and most likely because that was a character building part of the original, where Charlie learned from his mistake and did the good deed giving back the gobstopper. He showed honesty, bravery, and selflessness Burton's film did not show that heart, softer side. It was all about colors.The added storyline was the relationship between Wonka and his father, which was less than entertaining. Every time there was a flashback, Wonka would black out, thus indicating his further entrapment to insanity. He was reunited with his father at the end of the movie and found enough forgiveness to accept Charlie's family into his factory, but they still kept their little crooked house and moved it into the factory. That was strange - you would think they would have given that up! The other added story was how Wonka found the Oompa Loompas and saved them, yet made them his slaves for chocolate.Overall I did not see a real moral strength to this film, but merely colors, lights, and sounds... but even the sounds weren't as good as the classic music featured in the original. The children were made out to be brats, with Charlie being the ""less rotten"" of the bunch thus winning the prize. So it would seem it is a typical Hollywood film reflecting what our society, or is it a reflection of what our future holds... uncaring parents, rotten children, and no emphasis on morals.","['13', '22']" +529,rw1189283,evelelf,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Review,8 October 2005,0,"Charlie and the Chocolate factory was an excellent feel good film. It gave great insight into the master chocaltier and explained a lot of un-answered questions left from the original Gene Wilder flick. Johnny Depp portrayed Willy Wonka expertly and i feel it was a great role for him, he and Tim Burton are one of the best actor/director duos of the 21st Century. Freddie Highmore gave Charlie Bucket a realistic feel and gave him a more developed character. The ending was the most climatic where Charlie was torn between the factory and his family, but it also helped to develop Depp's character further because he finally realized that a family is everything to a little boy, just because he didn't have a good childhood it didn't mean that he had to frown upon others. Christopher Lee portrayed his father excellently, giving the character a cold hard repressive state. He loved his son but he just didn't know how to express that love, until the end. The final scene being the most heart warming. It was a great movie and it is one when it comes to DVD in Australia i will buy and watch over and over again, Tim Burton is an excellent director.","['3', '4']" +530,rw1153265,charmkat,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),,We enjoyed it!,18 August 2005,0,"The trouble with ""remakes"" is that it inevitably brings comparisons with the previous version rather than the film being allowed to stand on its own merits. However, I took two 11yr old boys to see Charlie & The Chocolate Factory today, and they both came out saying they thought it was great, and definitely wanted to see it again… and want it when it comes out on DVD. From them, that's top praise. For me, a film is entertainment and escapism, and I think both are achieved in this movie as far as that goes.I thought Depp played the role of Wonka really well, and seemed to capture far more of the weirder essence present in Dahl's character, than his predecessor (Gene Wilder). The kids were as I expected, irritating… just as they are in the books. Great copy of characterisation from the book! And young Freddie Highmore also seemed to produce the wholesome good boy, beloved of his family, as characterised in the Dahl novel, although what the movie didn't manage to reproduce, was the closeness of Charlie's relationship with ""Grandpa Joe"", which was a shame because it is such an essential ingredient of the original story.My only real criticism was where the makers chose to take a divert from the book with the invention of Wonka's past. I felt it was totally unnecessary, and feel that they could have used that time more wisely, to develop Charlie and Grandpa Joe's relationship, and given them a bit more talk time as they toured the factory, rather than have them, more observers, at times, than central participants. And by the way, great to see David Kelly (Grandpa Joe) on the big screen, I remember him as ""Alfred"" all those years ago in Robin's Nest!!! Overall, I'd say Tim Burton did a great job and my young critics tell me they think it deserves an 8/10 rating… well kids can't be wrong, can they?!!!","['3', '4']" +531,rw1133127,tim-schutter,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),6.0,"Not what I expected, but not too bad",23 July 2005,1,I've seen the movie together with a friend of mine and together we make a short comment about the movie. The acting was (especcially Depp) quite poor. There was very little chemistry between Depp and the children. He didn't clearly say that the children had to touching the dangerous things which caused falling out children. Gene Wilder was MUCH better. I think Micheal Jackson was EVEN more natural than Depp in the story. Willy was even paler than Uncle Fester.What we DID like about the movie was the flashbacks to the childhood of Wonka. That gives a reason why he started the factory. The history of the factory was also mentioned and that was really meaningful.The family of Charlie has get a bigger role in this movie. What gives the picture more depth.The most disappointing thing was the absence of the sin (floating liquid) of Charly and his granddad and also the element of the fake spy which Wonka used to test the children of their honesty.Our final conclusion is that the movie has some meaningful extra's in comparison to the Wilder-flick and also some big disappointments also in story-elements and acting. Overall an entertaining film with some great special effects (but the last was not always very original).,"['0', '1']" +532,rw1137243,veggiemuncher88,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,Awesome flick!,28 July 2005,1,"This was an awesome film! Although the overall feel was sorta ""fake"" and creepy, it was still a family film. Maybe the little ones might not like it so much (under 5 years old) but it's still very whimsical. As can be seen, there ARE errors in the film, but so minor that it does not affect the viewing at all.In comparison to the original film, this version is a lot funnier. Because of Tim Burton's influence, the aura of this film is just plain strange. There are minor differences from the original, such as how Charlie ends up finding the ticket, all of Willy Wonka's flashbacks, and seeing all the other children leave the factory in the end. These all add other dimensions to the characters, and I enjoyed them.9 out of 10, cuz it was a little creepy ;)","['1', '1']" +533,rw1137327,DIAMONDindahRuf7,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,A Deliciously Good Movie,28 July 2005,1,"I must say that when I first saw the preview for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory I was QUITE skeptical. As one of my friends mentioned ""It looked like it was being weird for the sake of being weird."" However, I saw the movie last night and BOY was I wrong! It was nothing short of INCREDIBLE!!! Fans of the book will NOT be disappointed with Tim Burton's delightfully unique adaptation and fans of the original movie will not feel as though they've already sat through it before. To my surprise it was a completely different feel from the Gene Wilder version. It was, as are many Tim Burton films, like you were in a completely different world. The sets were superb and there was definitely a note of magic in the movie. The acting was nothing short of amazing. Johnny Depp is truly one of the most versatile and talented actors I have ever seen. He never reuses a persona but gives each one their own flare. He is positively eccentric (and hysterical) as Willy Wonka. Freddie Highmore is as cute as can be and easily lovable (as well as pitied) as the lucky Charlie Bucket. The other children are marvelous! I loved the little girl who played Violet! I also loved how they brought Mike TeeVee up to date (an obvious change due to advancements in technology!) Also, the chemistry between the whole of the Bucket family is astounding! All in all a deliciously good movie with tons of laughs and fun!!! Adults and children alike can enjoy it, beginning to end! So, if you want a night out with your friends, or family, don't hesitate to go straight to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory!","['4', '9']" +534,rw1140243,potterface,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,An amazingly humorous and cute film!,1 August 2005,0,"A couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure of watching Charlie and the chocolate factory, and let me tell you I loved it! I thought it was soo cute, when I first thought of seeing it, I was all ""Great. I am going to see a kids movie!"" But it turned out to be so much more, Johnny Depp is a FANTASTIC actor. He did an amazing job.:) I was watching and at first I didn't think he really was good enough for the legendary role of Willy Wonka, but now I think he is the best! He was such an amazing character. I loved him, and I am so in love with this movie that next Sunday I am going to see it again. I think that it shouldn't have been called Charlie & the chocolate factory just because of the ending, because through the whole movie I was like its not really focused on charlie to much, its mostly about the wonders of Willy Wonka's chocolate factory. Thank you very much for reading, Krista","['1', '3']" +535,rw1136683,ghetarr2001,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),4.0,VERY disappointing to say the least compared to Mel Stuart's version,27 July 2005,0,"I, like many others loved the original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. I felt connected with Charlie, and I felt as if I was the one inheriting the Factory. It was a classic, but by today's standards it looks very outdated. The main problem with Burtons ""adaptation"" of the book, was I felt he went for style over substance. Sure, this one looks better, the factory and elevator are superb, but this just ISN'T a good movie AT ALL. The oompa loopas in this one are all the same lame person(Deep Roy), and I was very upset over that, seeing as I loved the ""Oompa Loopa Doo Ba Dee Doo, I've got a Brand new puzzle for you"" songs, NOT the dreadful ""songs"" in this one. I just couldn't get into the children at all, Veruca was poorly done, same with Mike Teevee, Violet. I didn't buy Deep for 1 second as Wonka, not 1. He was just annoying, humorless, and creepy. Grandpa Joe sucked in this one for sure. There wasn't one scene where I thought that there was a reason for remaking it except for money. Then there's this pointless sub-plot with Wonka and his father. The point is, even though Mel Stuart's version steered away from the book, it made for a MUCH BETTER movie. DO NOT see this one expecting a well done movie at all, in fact it is quite the contrary.","['22', '39']" +536,rw1147948,jalapenoman,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),1.0,I gave it a 1 because there was no negative numbers allowed.,11 August 2005,0,"This movie only got a ""1"" because I was unable to give it a ""0."" It is the worst piece of garbage that I have had the mis-pleasure of viewing. I only went because my son loved the book and the original and whined about seeing the new version. Though it has been said before, Depp gave ""the performance of his life"" playing Michael Jackson. This sick, psychotic piece of drivel should never be released on DVD or video and should be banned from this country. Though they say it is not a remake of the original film be a different interpretation of the book, it is neither. It is Tim Burton once again attempting to entertain us with his sick and demented views of life. He ruined Batman and now had taken to destroying another classic. How much blather will he be allowed to make? How soon will the worst filmmaker of his time make a movie with the worst actor and actress (Madonna and Keanu Reeves), scripted by the worst film writer (Stephen King)? Don't waste your time.","['5', '13']" +537,rw1216293,u_s_videos,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),5.0,Could they have done this any cheaper????,11 November 2005,0,"It seemed that they were trying to cut corners with every scene. I remember Willy Wonka as being a great epic full oompa loompas and great acting. This movie takes one oompa loompa and pays him a days wage to play all the oompa loompas. Doesn't impress me, it just looks cheap. Many of the scenes were cut off looking as if it were filmed in the same undersized sound stage for each scene.And as for a good story line. could you maybe have given us something to care about before offing each child. And I seem to remember a great build up to Charlie finding a ticket. This one was so matter of fact. Booooooooring. Better to have just released the original on a special DVD with a picture of Johnny Depp on the cover.","['8', '14']" +538,rw1136197,crowrobot,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,A cinematic treat...,27 July 2005,1,"Tim Burton is back in town with 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory', a delightful new adaptation of the classic Road Dahl book. It's got everything you'd expect from a Tim Burton movie: Danny Elfman score, bizarre humor, wonderful production design, and another weird performance from Burton favorite Johnny Depp. Depp is Willy Wonka in one of the most original performances of the year.Everyone knows the plot: Little Charlie Bucket (Freddie Highmore) is one of five kids who get to visit Willy Wonka's amazing chocolate factory. Charlie is a good boy, but the other four children are selfish and greedy. At the end of the day, four children have been punished, and Charlie is rewarded.Johnny Depp is one of the best actors working today, and his strange performance as Willy Wonka proves it. His Wonka is germophobic, utters 60's catchphrases, and doesn't like parents. Truth be told, it's a better performance than Gene Wilder. The added subplot about Wonka's childhood and his stern dentist father (Christopher Lee) adds some interest, and it doesn't slow things down. Freddie Highmore, who was last seen with Depp in 'Finding Neverland', is great as Charlie, and I can't think of anyone else in the role. Special mention must also go to David Kelly, who infuses Charlie's Grandpa Joe with charm and enthusiasm.The production is a beautiful one, and it showcases Burton's affinity for the bizarre. The special effects are impressive, too, and they're not bogged down with too much CGI. Danny Elfman's score is his best in years, and I found myself more than once humming along to the theme.It is said that Roald Dahl hated the original 'Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory'. However, were he alive today, I think he would have liked this wonderful adaptation. It got the seal of approval from his family, after all. 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' is a terrific film.","['6', '11']" +539,rw1153107,cassie-champ,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Great film far succeeds the first...,18 August 2005,0,"For those of you who have written bad comments about this movie, i'm not going to have a go at you, but i suggest you go back and watch it again, because you obviously fell asleep after the adverts at the beginning, because it's absolutely FAB!!!!! I have read the book and seen the original since watching the movie and have compared the two, (I'm sad like that). The second movie sticks more to the book than the 1917 version. But also adding in it's own bit here and there just to give the movie a bit of a lift and to make it more their own...I've always admired Tim Burton's work and i love 'Nightmare Before Christmas.' But Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is by far his best film yet. And having Johnny Depp play Willy Wonker is fantastic, they've done so much work on Johnny Depp that he looks nothing like he's usual self.I found it a bit rude that people have started calling it 'Willy Wonker and the Chocolate Factory,' but by the way the movie is done it dose seem that thats the idea. They've added flash backs and everything to enhance Willy Wonkers roll, and less about Charlie and his life etc... Also another down side was when the children and parents first meet Willy Wonker. In the book he comes out and dose cart-weeks and stuff, which sound really amazing for an old man to be doing. But Tim Burtons added his own little warped bit and made a little scene where something catches on fire, (like in most of his movies). But it still looks cool.My favourite part of the film is where Willy Wonker tells Mike off for 'muttering,' it's soooo funny! I've got a big poster of Willy Wonker on my wall. This film wont be forgotten for a long while.(Producers, If and when are you going to make a film of 'The Great Glass Elevator,' The sequel to 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?'","['4', '6']" +540,rw1136669,CrowBat2005,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,A Sweet Treat!,27 July 2005,1,"A Tim Burton movie. Hm... a line like that may automatically make movie-goers stray from ever seeing the movie. It did for me. The trailer and the fact that he was doing a new take on one of my childhood's classics made me very skeptical. However, I went to see it anyway for the wonderful Johnny Depp. I expected him to basically be the only enjoyable part of the movie.I was completely wrong. Burton did an AMAZING job. The movie is not a remake of the splendid musical as many may expect. It had another take on some elements which added more to the movie. You see young Willy and how his childhood affected him.The element of family importance is the main theme, I feel. Charlie is not flawed like the old version had which makes the movie slightly saccharine. But if you consider how a child can be severely grounded because of his or her poverty, it seems more real. Johnny did a superb job and I hope he gets an Oscar for his performance. :-)Overall, it touched me as ""Edward Scissorhands"" and ""Big Fish"" did. So if you've got a sweet tooth, see ""Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"" for a sweet treat!","['0', '2']" +541,rw1135710,kzhere,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,"A Response, an Opinion. From a 15 Year old. ;D",26 July 2005,1,"Non-spoiler part of the Comment: First of all, the movie was a great thing. At first I believe everyone thought that this would be a remake of the 1971 version. Instead, it gave me an impression that this movie was made on it's own, like the 1971 version never existed and they adapted it straight from the book. Of course, Tim Burton had probably had to look at the first movie a few times for hints on how he was going to do this. Still, it looks like the movie was adapted straight from the book, though the characters are all a little more insane than they should be.Johnny Depp's part in the movie was HUGE. With the fact that he is a very well known actor and the shock of his makeup on screen, (Creepy, constantly reminding you that this is a Tim Burton film.) he seems to overshadow all the other characters, and make everything else seem almost normal compared to him. If you haven't already watched this film, brace yourself for totally new Willy Wonka. No comparison to the first movie at all.****Spoilers part of the comment, be warned.**** If you are going through all these reviews, good and bad, do you notice something? Most of the 'bad' commenter's do not refrain from using profanity to express their feelings towards the movie. Nor do they speak of Depp's character with common sense.Indeed, Depp's character is bizarre. Don't you think that the fact that this is a Tim Burton film, and Depp's makeup kind of foreshadows that...? Willy Wonka's character was meant to be strange. Those of you who just realized it, the Oompa Loompas were ALWAYs Wonka's 'slaves', as you put it. In the book, in the first movie, and in this movie. The fact that Wonka refers to them as 'imported' doesn't make a difference. That's what they were in the beginning, to put it bluntly. I believe the majority of the world is against slavery in this era, and I think there have been complaints about Oompa Loompas since before this film. I, being so young and 'ignorant', am not sure though.Charlie Bucket's character was just so perfect. The young and innocent boy just doesn't seem to have any flaws. He willingly shares his birthday present with his family, and sadly he doesn't live in a very prosperous home. After receiving his golden ticket, Charlie doesn't have many cameos until the end of the film. The movie focuses on Willy Wonka and the elimination of the other four children first.The way the parents and Wonka doesn't seem to care about the 'rotten', 'spoiled' children is probably not an acting mistake. Notice how each parent treats their child in a similar way. They either spoil them, overpraise them, or just submit to their children without complaint. The reason those parents just stand there as their children are in danger is a showing of bad parenting and cowardice. None of the parents have much control over their children, and the rich father didn't seem to care much as his daughter was attacked by squirrels. He even hesitated to jump down that chute after her, when in fact it looks like he didn't mean to jump at all-he was pushed. In reality, any caring parent would risk their lives to save their children, or at least I would like to believe.Those of you who complained about Johnny Depp's acting, he was meant to be a psycho. He shows obvious psychological problems. He can't pronounce 'parents' without sputtering and making funny faces with his mouth. He doesn't believe in family, and he seems to have planned the chocolate factory tour from the beginning.","['1', '1']" +542,rw1136398,GEM-20,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),7.0,Enjoyable work of an old story,27 July 2005,0,"When I first heard that they were making a new ""Chocolate Factory,"" I couldn't see any reason. The original is a classic, and was the first movie I went to as a kid.A refreshing take on the new film is that it is not simply a remake of the 1971 movie. This one tells you much more about Willy Wonka and the operation of the factory. There are a few updates to the story: Mike Teevee is a video game nut! There are some very hilarious moments in the movie. I won't spoil them and tell you what to look for, but be prepared to laugh. Also, this film shows more of Johnny Depp's talent. His Willy Wonka is completely different from the great Jack Sparrow he played in ""Pirates Of The Caribbean."" Everyone in my family had a good time with it, so it comes with our recommendation. I did not feel compelled to compare it to the 1971 movie. That one will always have a special place in my heart, but this new version of the story is wonderful!Since it is made my Tim Burton, you will see his style everywhere. One small aspect of it that I did not care for was that it takes place in the winter. Everything seemed so cold and dark at first. In the 1971 film, it is a beautifully sunny day when the children arrive at Wonka's factory, giving the feeling that everyone is about to enter a fantasy land.Still, this new one will not disappoint. Fun and funny stuff!","['2', '2']" +543,rw1149424,Chris_Docker,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,"Perfectly created, perfectly realised fairytale",13 August 2005,0,"I don't usually go big on kids movies. Animation, for instance, makes me grit my teeth. The Harry Potter movies left me exceptionally unimpressed. I went into Charlie and the Chocolate Factory half expecting to be bored after the first half an hour.OK, it's got quite a bit going for it - Tim Burton is not exactly a beginner, although his films have been a bit uneven. Johnny Depp's forte has long been fantasy, and the combination has yielded some of Burton's directorial best (Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Sleepy Hollow). Finally though the team have come up with their most polished and flawless work yet. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory sweeps you away with a magic and poetry whilst keeping you on the edge of your seat for the next development. Roald Dahl's incredible, eccentric brand of children's' storytelling is a joy to experience, for young and old alike.","['5', '8']" +544,rw1225444,claudio_carvalho,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,Delicious Adventure,27 November 2005,0,"The eccentric manufacturer of chocolates and candies Willy Wonka (Johnny Depp) promotes a tour through his chocolate factory, the greatest in the world, through five golden tickets hidden in the bars of chocolate. The poor and sweet boy Charlie Bucket (Freddie Highmore) finds one, for the pride and joy of his very supportive family, and he spends the day in a mysterious competition for an unknown award with other four nasty boys and girls.""Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"" is a delightful and delicious adventure through the world of the fantasy. Tim Burton changes his usual morbid scenarios to very bright ones, and keeps the usual very weird character, magnificently performed by the awesome Johnny Depp. This movie is highly indicated for the whole family and it is an excellent entertainment. Unfortunately I have not had the chance to watch the original 1971 ""Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory"" to make a comparison, but this remake is really a great movie. My vote is eight.Title (Brazil): ""A Fantástica Fábrica de Chocolates"" (""The Fantastic Factory of Chocolates"")","['6', '12']" +545,rw1209628,Jaymay,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),1.0,An absolute abomination,5 November 2005,0,"This is not the only awful film to be made from a children's book in the last few years: Lemony Snicket and Cat in the Hat spring to mind, and certainly, the Harry Potter movies are never much better than mediocre.But Charlie and the Chocolate Factory suffers from the fact that it must be compared to the Gene Wilder version, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, which is not only superior to it in every way, but is truly a classic film.One might well ask why anyone would dare to remake a film that was written by Roald Dahl himself. A film that had beautiful, classic songs, biting humor, and a hilarious cast.The answer, of course, is money.This film was made for one reason -- to wring more money out of a Warner Brothers property. Why else remake a nearly perfect film? It's an insult to moviegoers and an affront to the many children who may never bother to watch the original now that they've seen this trash.The thing is, the Gene Wilder version is very, very funny. Its comedy still seems edgy today. And somehow, they've managed to turn it into a movie with almost no laughs. The timing is sometimes, it seems, deliberately thrown off.Johnny Depp's performance is, I think, his worst ever. It's just stupendously bad. Then again, he has basically nothing to work with, caught between plain, unfunny new dialogue, and struggling to go in the opposite direction from Gene Wilder's brilliance. I don't envy the task. But don't worry, Johnny got lots and lots of money for his troubles.The new Charlie, Freddie Highmore, was decent enough in the tearjerker Finding Neverland. But here, he's just all wrong. His one acting choice seems to be ""Smile Every Time You Say Something,"" which I last saw used by Denise Richards in Starship Troopers.On one hand, I wondered as I was watching it whether the movie would fare better with someone who'd never seen the original. But on the other, this film is so disjointed and strange, I'm not sure how anyone could follow it if they hadn't seen the first film. The Oompa Loompa ""songs,"" if you can call them that, consist of CG clones singing the same rhyming lines over and over again. There is no narrative or melodic progression to the songs -- they are as two dimensional as cardboard cutouts.Add to this bland, unimaginative mix a few ghastly changes from the earlier movie: Charlie has a father now, his family magically gets ""unpoor"" at the end by the dint of their own optimism, and Willy Wonka learns -- get ready for this one -- that families are not a bad thing.It's beyond awful. Watch the original again instead, I beg of you.","['27', '47']" +546,rw1148006,AMCook2008,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),,"I heard the movie was bad, but it's just the opposite.",11 August 2005,0,"I went to see Willy Wonka with my cousin about a week ago. Since I saw it, I couldn't stop talking about it. People had told me that movie was going to be a bad remake but it was not at all. The best part was that they gave background on Willy Wonka. They should have done that on the first one too. Also, the ending is completely different than the first one but much better. If I had to rate the movie on a scale of 10, 10 being the highest, I would give it a 9, and I don't even like Johnny Depp. My favorite movie is also by Tim Burton. He has surpassed any expectations I had for the movie. There were many memorable scenes from the movie and I will be talking about it for a while. I cannot wait until it comes out on DVD so I can watch it with my friends. However, there were a few things in the movie that I didn't like, but there will always be parts in a movie that people don't like. The oompa loompas were a bit different and some of the children's' parents were a little different from the first one. It's not different in a bad way. I wouldn't want it to be exactly like the first one though, because that would be like watching the same movie twice. Tim Burton did a good job of keeping the idea of the first one and making it completely his own.","['6', '10']" +547,rw1164683,tredwater13,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,Burton has done it again,4 September 2005,0,"Well, again Tim Burton has proved what a wonderful imagination he has, with his remake of the Roald Dahl classic; Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The movie has everything, a great story, wonderful dialogue, and most importantly, great characters! On some factors, it differs in ways from the book, but Tim Burton definitely knows what audiences want, and these added in subplots are amazing, with the extra depth they bring to the film.Freddie Highmore does an incredible job of portraying the young Charlie Bucket, immediately pulling strings with the audience, adults and children alike. Johnny Depp, as always, is magnificent in his role as the eccentric Willy Wonka. His character development throughout the film provides the audience with a character not so much whom they can relate to, but rather, one who they cannot bear to wait for the next piece of his dialogue. Everything that comes out of Depp's mouth in the film has been written to entrance and entertain, without any over-the-top rude or shocking remarks, a great challenge in todays world of 'shock comedy' as I once heard it referred to. The film's other characters are equally well written, and serve their purpose well, that is, to be disliked by the audience through the entire length of the movie. The Oompa Loompas deserve a critique of their own. The actors amazing ability to be funny and solemn at the same time is great! And the songs, well, as with everything else in the movie, they have been well written. The only criticism of this movie that i have is the ending, Burton did not follow Dahl's original idea for the movie, and instead finishes it, whereas, i believe this movie would have had great interest in a potential sequel, with Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. It is possible for anyone, any age to see this movie and enjoy it, and if you cant smile at least once, all i can say is where is your sense of humour?","['3', '6']" +548,rw1157044,mg55412,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),4.0,really disappointing,23 August 2005,0,"i am a longtime fan of the ORIGINAL WILLY WONKA and this movie is not even close. the music stunk, the kids were 1 dimensional, and what is the deal with only one OOOMPA-LOOMPA? what a cop-out! more midgets and less CGI! johnny depp was lackluster as willy wonka and where was the SLUGWORTH/EVERLASTING GOBSTOPPER conflict? that was key to the first movie! save your $$$ and buy the original.i won't even go into the downward spiral tim burton has been in for the last 15 years. his movies have become more and more disappointing since beetle juice. okay, ed wood might have been his last good film, but that was 10 years ago. SEE IT AT YOUR OWN RISK!","['0', '1']" +549,rw1150386,Victor Field,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,"This movie melts in your mouth, not in your hand.",14 August 2005,0,"I like chocolate. I like Tim Burton movies. I like the original Roald Dahl book (and its sequel). I even liked ""Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,"" but not as much as a lot of others - though still more than Dahl did (he loathed it as much as he liked chocolate). And I like Danny Elfman. ""Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,"" therefore, is a treat for fans of all of the above.Burton and screenwriter John August improve not only on their own ""Big Fish"" but also on the previous movie in a number of ways, and not only in terms of effects (with a gap of 34 years it stands to reason that Violet Beauregarde's transformation into a blueberry would beat the original, helped by Annasophia Robb's excellent turn as a superhumanly self-confident little gum-chewer). The movie's addition of a backstory for chocolatier par excellence Willy Wonka (Johnny Depp, turning into another marvellous turn for the master) - like ""Sleepy Hollow,"" he's given a less than happy young life, though at least his dentist dad Christopher Lee doesn't kill his mum with an iron maiden - can seem like an unnecessary addition which weighs the story down and serves as an excuse for a happy family ending (which is a bit strange, given that Dahl's book had one anyway), but it doesn't really harm the finished result, and in fairness you can understand the desire to give Wonka something to do. Something apart from be the unquestioned star of the movie, that is.Wonka's edge is less prominent here than in Gene ""I was the best Wonka, dammit"" Wilder's performance, but it's here all the same; and if the movie does stack the odds in favour of Charlie Bucket (and that's putting it mildly), so did the book. In any case, Freddie Highmore is so appealing as Charlie that you're rooting for him anyway, and the other child actors are fine as well for the most (oddly, the girls do better than the boys overall - I believe this is called ""Friends Stars In Movies Syndrome"").The movie is as much a treat for the eyes as the heart, with the chocolate factory seeming like the greatest theme park there ever was and some of the best effects work in a Burton movie (kudos to Cinesite and the Magic Camera Company); Elfman contributes one of his tenderest works for Burton to date, and his songs for the Oompa-Loompas (with Dahl's lyrics from the book) are all without exception highlights.At the risk of sounding like one of those film critics whose quotes have ""A+"" and exclamation marks a go-go, I can't really deliver a measured examination of this movie - just go and see it. In spite of its pro-chocolate agenda, it's better for kids than ""Madagascar"" and its ilk. And it won't make you feel sick afterwards if you're diabetic. (Believe me, I know.)","['4', '6']" +550,rw1130569,michaelRokeefe,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,More than just a trip to the corner candy store.,19 July 2005,1,"Kudos to director Tim Burton. This is an absolute treat to enjoy. Willy Wonka(Johnny Deep)decides to close his chocolate factory due to workers selling his trade secrets. Wonka decides to award five children a guided tour of his factory for finding five golden tickets inside candy bars distributed all over the world. A socially and financially deprived young man named Charlie Bucket(Freddie Highmore)is the last to find one of the sought after tickets. Beautifully photographed with great scenes; some busier than others...but this movie is well paced and the soundtrack by Danny Elfman is top notch. This movie can be enjoyed by children of all ages...5 to 85. Enough chocolate to onset diabetes. Rounding out the cast: Helen Bonham Carter, Noah Taylor, David Kelly, Missi Pile and Deep Roy.","['4', '9']" +551,rw1130818,Clownbird,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),1.0,Wonkatrastrophe,20 July 2005,1,"Tim Burton kept saying he wanted to make a version much more faithful to the source material, which leaves me wondering why he didn't. There's the awful (and unnecessary, and counterproductive) back story showing Wonka's childhood, which is nothing more than an excuse for Burton to bring in one of his horror movie heroes from childhood (Christopher Lee) while completely killing any sense of mystery Wonka might otherwise possess.I like Johnny Depp, but his Wonka had zero warmth...and was just plain creepy and random - one minute he's snippy and/or oblivious to the kids, the next he's paternal, offering Charlie some nourishing hot chocolate because he ""looks like he could use it"" (and because it's a line from the book).Wonka in the book is a spritely little gent...neither Gene Wilder nor Johnny Depp are really much like him (much less so Depp), but Wilder's interpretation always has that twinkle in his eye - you know he's a little eccentric but he's always in control. The kids in this version are all pretty good. But Wonka himself? Yikes. Give me Gene Wilder's version over creepy Johnny Depp's Michael Jackson take any day.The Oompa-Loompa musical numbers blew. The first one, in the chocolate room, was okay. But overall, I had a hard time understanding most of the lyrics. It was all just raucous noise. Come on, Elfman, you can do better than that.Wonka telling Charlie he can't bring his family to live with him in the factory was insane. First of all, it makes Wonka look even more like a freaky pedophile; second of all - how on earth is that faithful to the book?!This is the second time in recent memory I've heard of a producer/director wooing the widow of a beloved children's book author and then she deciding that her dead husband would love this new big-screen version of his source material. Somewhere, Dr. Seuss is consoling Roald Dahl.","['299', '457']" +552,rw1144550,tia613,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,A great surprise!,7 August 2005,1,"I was a little skeptical when I heard a new version of this story was coming out (especially since I absolutely love the first movie). I must say I was more than pleasantly surprised. This version is so much more true to the book, except for the whole bad childhood of Willy Wonka thing and the ending (which was a little bit of a let down for me). I believe that Depp's Wonka is definitely more of the way Dahl intended him to be. Critics say he is freaky and weird, but to me that is the way he is portrayed in the book. Gene Wilder made him into more of a real person...which he is not. He lives in a fantasy world with hundreds of little men for heavens sake. The one thing that stood out the most to me was how well Burton portrayed four of the seven deadly sins that I believe Dahl wanted us to recognize from the book: greed (Veruca), gluttony (Agustus), pride (Violet) and sloth (Mike). I thought this film was amazing.","['3', '4']" +553,rw1137410,Shadow_Fish,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),5.0,Good from an objective point of view; poor when compared with possibilities,28 July 2005,0,"I would have enjoyed this movie much more had I not become a huge fan of the 1971 version of Charlie a long time ago. However, when I went to see Burton's take on it, I spent the whole movie comparing the two. As many other people said, it doesn't do either justice to try and decide which one is ""better"". Neither is genuinely true to the book, so die-hard book fans will probably still be left unhappy (although I must admit that Burton stayed much closer to Dahl's original, despite the sub-plots that the movie threw in). This is a good movie to see if you come in unprejudiced or if you didn't like the other version, but otherwise, it will seem like a mediocre shade of the '71 movie/book.My first problem with this film is Johnny Depp. I, personally, found him extremely annoying, but perhaps not so much because of his acting as because of the script. Having grown up with Gene Wilder's version, I never saw Willy Wonka as aloof and rude. Sure, Depp had his funny moments, but when he wasn't being funny, I wanted to strangle him. I saw no connections, no opinions from him about the kids except dislike. It just didn't seem right to me. I thought Wonka was childish, not petulant. Even if his performance wasn't based off of Michael Jackson, it sure came off that way.The children were a mixed bag. Augustus was good, given the limited time he had. Veruca and Charlie were fine, not too overdone. But every time Violet or Mike came on screen, I wished for the movie to suddenly skip until they were gone. Violet has been updated to be an snobby overachiever instead of just a gum chewer (which I never found anything too bad about, personally; her only problem was that she was greedy and obstinate and just took Wonka's gum without asking). People like that are bad enough in real life, and I really don't want to go to movie-fantasy-world just to see more of them. Mike Teevee became an arrogant hacker-type who didn't really start to really get on my nerves until later on. Personally, I hate to pay in order to watch a movie that annoys me, although it does have some redeeming humorous moments.I could go on for a while, but most of the other problems are minor and fade into the background. One addition, though, that many people have griped about, was Wonka's background, not present in the book. I found that to be one of the few good qualities of the movie. At least it wasn't changing something that had already been done; it just filled up a black hole that was never there. And while Depp is butchering Wonka anyways, why not go the whole way? I found it quite funny, actually. It also helped me deal with Depp's unsympathetic Wonka more. While the book version and Wilder's take didn't really need sympathy, Depp did. He really, really did.Final Take: Go to this movie if you are in a good mood and you don't expect to be easily annoyed; avoid if you're a die-hard fan of Dahl or Wilder, unless you want to go to vindicate your belief that this will be a horrible mess. It's fun for a while, better than doing nothing and definitely better than most kids' movies. 6/10","['1', '3']" +554,rw1134332,love-movies,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),1.0,Did anyone NOT like this movie? (please comment only if you aren't a fan p.s. Spoilers),23 July 2005,1,"I was actually excited to see this movie, I wasn't expecting anything, I was just intrigued to see another Tim Burton film. The pictures in the film and the factory were spectacular and mesmerizing. Without even paying attention to the story line it was clear this was a Tim Burton film, truly fantastic. But Like watching a model trying to ponder physics, the beauty is only skin deep. Where was the heart in this movie? The acting, the dialog, the people all fell short of human behavior. Small example: A child spoiled all her life only taunts her father with the resounding demand: ""I want it Daddy."" Where's the yelling, the screams, has no one EVER SEEN a tantrum?? Additional Example: The parents seemed hardly upset with their children's misfortune. As a parent would you not run out and help your daughter if she were attacked by ANYTHING much less squirrels?!The Ompa Loompa problem: I loved them actually. Tiny, creepy, and what a great story on how they were found. They were great until they broke into a bad Britney spears song and dance. What the #*!$*#& was that?!Flashback problem: I loved johnny's character, quirky and fun. Nevertheless, the flashbacks didn't add much at all to anything. And they were executed in the WORST WAYS i've ever seen. ""sorry I was having a flashback."" They are far better ways to have had those worked honestly.The T.V. kid: was he really so horrible? I mean yes, he was obnoxious, but it doesn't take t.v. to do that. In fact, didn't t.v. just make him smart? Is it so awful that he figured out how to find the bar with the ticket? T.V. didn't turn his mind to mush, it made him the smartest kid who was just annoying and stubborn.The ending: Horrible, horrible, horrible. I don't even want to talk about it.","['122', '203']" +555,rw1139778,Coventry,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),7.0,Another magical Tim Burton trip!,1 August 2005,1,"Roald Dahl's exhilarating children's novella is brought back to life by the best possible team imaginable! If there's anyone out there in cinema land capable of re-telling Dahl's colorful – yet macabre – story, it has got to be director Tim Burton (with his unique ability to create dark, fairy-tale like atmospheres), class actor Johnny Depp (not one character is too eccentric for him…not even Willy Wonka) and music-maestro Danny Elfman (whose typical style gives an extra magical touch to every film). With these three icons of nowadays cinema involved, the new adaptation of ""Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"" was bound to be an enormous success and definitely one of the greatest movies of the year 2005. Well, the movie didn't turn out as amazing as I hoped, but still it's a very beautiful and occasionally heart-warming experience with excellent set pieces and another highly memorable role for Depp. It's very likely that you've read the best-selling book or saw the earlier film version (starring Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka) but in case you're from another planet: Charlie Bucket, the titular character, is one of five lucky children who wins a grand tour in Willy Wonka's world famous chocolate factory. Wonka is a bit of a loner who normally never grants anyone access to his factory because there were too many competitors in the past who were out to steal his recipes. Charlie and the others enter a magical world where chocolate and other types of candy are made in the most bizarre ways…and by the most bizarre kind of factory workers. The always-amazing Johnny Depp is very aware of the fact he's the star and tout of this production and he clearly is in a great shape again. His performance of Willy Wonka is very cheerful and, just as it was the case in Pirates of the Caribbean, you gladly allow him to go over the top. The young Freddie Highmore is really good as well in portraying Charlie, a boy with a limited imagination but a heart of pure gold. The screenplay contains some terrific dialogues and the (blackly tinted) humor is well spread over the whole film.And yet…Tim Burton and C° slightly disappointed me during some moments in the film. The many flashback (for example revolving on Wonka's supposedly traumatizing childhood) are too extended and actually quite redundant. Also, some of the character drawings are definitely underdeveloped, like Grandpa Joe for example, whom we only get to know superficially. Biggest letdown of all was the ""Oompa Loompas""-tribe. These little people fail to convince and especially their morality-songs are overlong and pointless. Compared to the first cinematic version of the book, released in 1971, I personally find Burton's film slightly weaker. Sure the older film had those very annoying songs and Johnny Depp simply crushes the memory of Gene Wilder but yet the wholesome was more captivating and the pivot sequences in the 1971 version (like the boat-ride and Oompa-Loompa life-lessons) were a lot more sinister. And if there's one term that fully describes Roald Dahl's oeuvre, it is ""sinister"".","['15', '26']" +556,rw1175296,kjaney,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),1.0,A great big turn off,19 September 2005,0,"I went to see this film as I am a big Johnny Depp fan, but I was completely turned off by the whole thing. The pace was so slow I was almost asleep, and I kept waiting for the magical moments to happen. Alas, they never did. The opening went on for ever and a day - remember the wonderful entrance Gene Wilder makes in the original? Well, Willy Wonka's entrance here, with the stupid ""song"" of the puppets, was just dire. He actually looked embarrassed to be there. The parents of the ""lucky winners"" were one-dimensional to say the least, and although the child actors were OK they were nothing to write home about. My 11 year old son went with me to see this film, and as we came out of the theatre I was wondering what he would have to say about it (and whether I would have to pretend that I had liked it!) but the first thing he said was, ""Well, that's not the best film I've ever see. Bit of a disappointment really."" I just felt that the director had wasted so many opportunities, not to try to emulate the first film, but to bring some fresh magic to the wonderful story. Instead, all we got was long-drawn out scenes, bad dialogue and a faintly embarrassed Johnny Depp.","['54', '101']" +557,rw1167032,captainmarvel1331,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),5.0,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory barely reaches average.,6 September 2005,1,"Johnny Depp, Freddie Highmore, and David Kelly star in Tim Burton's remake of the classic book by Roald Dahl. Seven lucky children and one guardian are allowed into Willy Wonka's candy factory where all his great chocolate creations are made. Blah, blah, blah as if we haven't heard it before. Might I say that for a movie to attempt to reach the level of success the first movie made is alone, insane. Then to fail to do such adds a certain level of disappointment. But for this all to come from the brilliant director Tim Brton who brought us the classic, A Nightmare Before Christmas, is really a sad sight. But aside from the negatives of this over-all let-down, any movie that stars Johnny Depp as the lead and dresses him up and makes him talk funny is going to be at least an average movie. And Burton's twist on Dahl's ending is pretty good.","['0', '2']" +558,rw1233372,Sparki,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,A sweet delight for young and old,7 December 2005,0,"OK, I liked the 71 spin on Dahl's cautionary, confectionery tale, but compared to this cinematic feast for the eyes and ears, the Wilder vehicle pales in comparison. Wilder's Mr. Rogers-like manner and the nursery rhyme-like Oompa-Loompa chants about guzzling sweets the way an elephant eats, that film is more for the single digit age groups, in my opinion, while this sweet dark fantasy helmed by Tim Burton is for the kid in everyone, and the brilliant visuals and infectious music will bring out the tousle-haired, freckle-nosed, chocolate-smeared Tommy, Dickie, or Carlito residing in the heart of every Tom, Dick, and Carlos.I liked Johnny Depp's sadistic, sarcastic, child-loathing portrayal of Roald Dahl's literary bombonero (""candymaker"" in Spanish) far better than Wilder's interpretation of the character as a confectionery Captain Kangaroo, and the whole part about Wonka's boyhood and his unpaternal dentist father was a nice touch.And don't get me started on the MUSIC. Brilliant compositions by the extremely talented Mister Daniel Elfman, and the Oompa-Loompa songs, sung by the man himself, harkened back to my 80s teenhood with their sound reminiscent of Elfman's new-wave band Oingo Boingo.Definitely a must-see for young, old, and everyone in between.","['0', '4']" +559,rw1212028,yourbigpalal83,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),,An abomination of the classic,4 November 2005,0,"I hate to say this, especially to a well reviewed film, but i simply didn't like this film and i felt almost insulted by the way it came off. Don't get me wrong, The kid who played Charlie was'nt bad at all, but compared to the classic i grew up watching, it just was horrible.Granted i know how the author of the book hated the movie, and the 1971 film didn't exactly follow the book to a T, but this film, even though it follows the book, just came off as weird, disturbing and overall poor compared to the classic Gene Wilder film. Also the Umpa Loopas were weird, Not the fault of actor, but how they were presented. I mean, if they were from a weird tribe, why would they look all EXACTLEY ALIKE? if they were a clone work force, that be different, but they were from a tribe, and idk about u but to me I've never seen a tribe on National Geographic or Discovery Channel in which each member looked exactly the same.Now, i am noting that it is the ""Tim Burton version"" which means it comes with its own visual style and flair which to me is aether hit or miss, but, compared to the toung and cheek 1971 version, it just couldn't compare. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for Computer animation and special effects, hell I'm even studying them in college with the goals of being an animator, but this film just didn't need to be made.in closing, on its own, i guess its an OK film. But compared to the classic, its an abomination.","['3', '6']" +560,rw1135720,DJAkin,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,Movie for the entire family!!,26 July 2005,0,"I went to see this alone. Melissa was out of town and I really felt like getting out of the Phoenix heat (no Jake, I didn't have a taco). Anyway, on to the MOVIE.This movie is not as good as the first one. It is BETTER. Yes, it is good and better in SO many ways. I loved the Johnny Depp Character based on a series of celebrities including Barbara Bush. I just hope that President Bush loves this movie as much as I did. Deep Roy was great as the ONE and ONLY Oompa Loompa. Also, that gum chewer? She was, uh. Shall we say, ODD? And what about the braces that Wonka had to eat? Of course, the high light was the OLD GRANDPA and how he danced around.","['0', '2']" +561,rw1136629,collinboy11,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,Excellent Adaptation!,27 July 2005,0,"Tim Burton has wonderfully captured the spirit of Dahl's book. I especially love the visuals. Tim Burton has always been a master of a unique look and feel to all of his movies. I am a huge Tim Burton fan, and a huge Johnny Depp fan. Depp is amazing, as usual. His Willy Wonka is far different than that of Gene Wilder, witch is good. I'm still a fan of the original, although I do have to say the original did stray from the book in many ways. The pacing of the film is quick, as it should be. Although, there is a small portion of the film where it lags a bit, but other than that, the pacing is wonderful. The performances are wonderful, especially that of Freddie Highmore, and David Kelly as Charlie and Grandpa Joe. One other small little complaint was once they enter the factory, the center of attention tends to lead toward Willy Wonka instead of Charlie. The Oompa Loompas are great. I really enjoyed the fact that they were all voiced by Danny Elfman. Johnny Depp really does do a wonderful job as Willy Wonka. I'm kind of bugged that some people are comparing his performance to Micheal Jackson. First of all, Depp himself said he didn't portray Willy Wonka as Jackson, and was surprised when heard people were comparing the two. Second of all, Jackson loves kids, Willy Wonka hates them. And third, the book was written when Jackson was just a kid. And honestly, when I watched the movie, Micheal Jackson never even crossed my mine. This is a wonderful adaptation from the book, and is a film that the whole family can enjoy. Although, Depp can be a bit creepy sometimes (which is great!!!) Now, I can't compare the two movies. Because honestly, they are completely different from each other. I am a fan of both movies, but if I had to choose one movie over the other. I'd probably go with Tim Burton's film. Great film. Nine stars out of Ten........Although, it is hard to top the tunnel scene in the Gene Wilder film.","['0', '2']" +562,rw1143709,Quentintarantado,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,"Apples and Oranges, and this is a very fine orange",6 August 2005,0,"There will be inevitable comparisons to this and the Gene Wilder version. I would say, Gene Wilder's version has two virtues, the two songs and Gene Wilder.This version has Tim Burton's quirky, unmistakable stamp on it. Fantastic sets, beautiful imagery, and a central character that has trouble relating to the world.Gene Wilder's Wonka was warmer, but Johnny Depp's characterization had reasons he's more standoffish. I understand the direction he took the character (also it's consistent with Tim Burton's worldview). I like both takes of the same character but unfortunately if forced to pick, I'd pick Wilder. Only IF I'm forced to pick. I'd rather have both and fortunately, I do now.Freddie Highmore, he's a competent actor, like Dakota Fanning is a competent actress. Yet I didn't warm up to him. I do love the original Charlie, who had expressive eyes. He wasn't that competent but he didn't have to be, in that role.I think it's interesting this version is entitled ""CHARLIE and the Chocolate Factory"" when we have more about Willie Wonka here, while in ""WILLIE WONKA and the Chocolate Factory"" the focus seems clearly on Charlie.","['0', '2']" +563,rw1136427,cnol12000,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),3.0,Tim and Johnny Disappoint,27 July 2005,1,"If the only justification for this being a great movie is that it is true to the book, then it shouldn't have been made at all. Tim Burton has successfully digitized and sterilized the Chocolate Factory universe, and in so doing has destroyed a wonderful piece of pop culture. No longer will orange-faced, green-haired Oompa Loompas populate my imagination (and nightmares). No longer will I wonder just what in the world an American boy was doing living in a ramshackle house in a nondescript Bavarian town. And no longer will I wonder what drove Gene Wilder's Wonka to be such a lovable sadist, or just exactly what drugs he popped before taking that insane boat ride. In short, the imagination of the original film is gone, replaced with a shallow, bloated, big-budget disappointment. When the film was first announced, I was ecstatic that Johnny Depp and Tim Burton would be taking it on. I thought only Johnny would have the skills to successfully reinvent the enigmatic Wonka, and only Burton (or maybe David Lynch) would be able to make the disturbing Oompa Loompa's even more disturbing. The film fails in both respects. Visually, Depp does a fantastic job of capturing the essence of Wonka. His buggy sunglasses, velvet coat and top hat were faithful both to Wilder's Wonka and the whimsical nature of the character himself. But Depp's acting and/or the material he was working with fell flat. In the few lines of dialogue that actually fit into the context of the scene, Depp's delivery was synthetic and provided no insight into the character. Perhaps this was intended, but for me it backfired. If they wanted me to loathe the character, it worked. By contrast, Gene Wilder's take left no doubt about his distaste for children - Think of his wonderful eyerolling while saying, ""No, please, stop.."" - or his true reversal when he finally finds a child of virtue - ""You did it Charlie! I knew you would!"" His performance is nuanced and genuine. Depp's is taut and plastic. Where is the playful and inventive dialogue like ""Oh, you should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about."" and ""So much time and so little to do. Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it.""?Now to the Oompa Loompa's. Those little orange buggers have been scaring the hell out of me ever since I saw the original as a child. I couldn't wait to see Burton's twisted take when the movie was announced. Then I heard that the Loompas would be played by one actor, Deep Roy, and digitally reproduced. I began to worry. My worries were well justified when I saw the film and the Oompas had become a cloned and shrunken version of Roy, with only latex jumpsuits to lend any suggestion of the bizarre. The musical numbers were equally disappointing. Glitzy, fast-paced and well choreographed, they nevertheless pale in comparison to the catchy and unforgettable originals with their ""doompa-dee-doos"" -- on a par with the ""Ohh-ee-ohhs"" of the Wizard of Oz for great movie choruses sung by guys with brightly-colored faces. In fact, I don't think there was one line in any of the new movie's songs that I actually could understand. And since the musical numbers added so much to the story in the original, I definitely felt something was missing this time. Burton has always been a master at creating otherworldly environments that incorporate just enough anachronisms and bizarre elements to keep you guessing whether the story is supposed to be set in our universe or not. He does another admirable job of it here. From the opening credits, with their depiction of a Rube Goldbergesque chocolate machine, to the imaginative nut sorting room, Burton uses his talents well to create a rich landscape. However, I think he fell short in a few spots. His take on the Augustus Gloop and Violet Beauregarde incidents is identical to the original, but with less dialogue. And the only new element in the Mike Teevee scene is the cute homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey and other cinema classics. I think a director like Burton could have gone to town, so to speak, with this material and still stayed faithful to the book. Another element of the film that I found irritating were the flashbacks to Wonka's youth and other departures from the main story, such as the origin of the Oompa Loompa's. The biographical material on Wonka not only eliminated some of the mystery surrounding the character, but it was tired and predictable to suggest that his eccentricities were the result of his troubled relationship with his father. (Gee - Their subsequent reconciliation at the end of the movie was a real shocker once this was revealed.) And how, how, how, Mr. Burton, could you tackle the subject of the vicious indigenous creatures of Loompaland without talking about those rotten Vernicious Knits!Bad remakes and needless sequels are not only poor cinema, they detract from their predecessors. Unfortunately, I think Burton's film will have just that impact on Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Perhaps I need to read the book again, something I haven't done since my childhood, to appreciate this movie for its faithfulness to Dahl's vision. Somehow, I don't think that will make me like it any better, though. After all, when we now see Homer in Simpsons episode DABF03 ask to see the Oompa Loompa because he's ""freaky"", will it strike the same chord? I think not.","['74', '114']" +564,rw1133702,supermanx2mz,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),,what i thought about the movie,24 July 2005,0,This movie i thought ..was not very good . What i think they should have done was made a sequel not a remake. I mean it is called CHARLIE and the chocolate factory. they should have made Charlie running the factory not Willy wonka...again. Johnny Depp is a great actor but i just think this was not one of his good roles. The hair style the factory and the oompaloompas were just not ...good. I would not recommend this movie to any one except for little kids. any one else i think would not think much of this movie. So overall this movie was not very good the acting was good but they still should have made a sequel not a remake.,"['0', '1']" +565,rw1133685,StanleyStrangelove,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),,A sweet confection,24 July 2005,0,"Johnny Depp plays Willy Wonka the owner of the world's largest chocolate factory. He places 5 golden tickets in his chocolate bars, each one is good for a one day tour through the factory.Of the five kids who find the tickets only one of them, Charlie Bucket, is a good kid. The others are rotten, little brats named Veruca Salt (a spoiled rich kid always demanding a new possession), Violet Beauregarde (a gum-chewing, over-achieving clone of her ex-cheerleader mother -- these two always elicited laughter from the audience), Augustus Gloop (a tub-o-lard chocolate addict) and Mike Teavee (a mean nasty violent video game addict.) These four kids are entirely unlikable and this is a dead-on send-up of materialistic parents whose kids control them.The stars of this movie are Tim Burton's visuals. Charlie Bucket's ramshackle house, where he lives with his parents and grandparents is straight out of a Hansel and Gretel fairy tale. Most of the movie takes place inside the chocolate factory. Each set inside the factory looks better than the last but the two that really stand out are the magic elevator and the squirrel scene which is marvelous.Depp's Willy Wonka is weird and inscrutable, very much like Michael Jackson, although Depp said he did not base it on the gloved one. The supporting cast is solid with Christopher Lee, Helena Bonham Carter, Missi Pyle and James Fox. Charlie Bucket's grandfather, who accompanies him to the factory, is particularly good. Let's not forget the factory workers, all played by Deep Roy, called Oompa Loompas, which are about the farthest you could get from the Keebler elves.Parents who take their kids will get the references to Kubrick's 2001, Hitchcock's Psycho, the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper and the Busby Berkley musical numbers.The great film composer Danny Elfman wrote the score. The musical numbers alone are worth the price of admission with dancing Oompa Loompas in hysterical send-ups of MTV music videos.For Tim Burton fans, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is not quite on a par with Beetlejuice and Batman.","['1', '1']" +566,rw1131953,diand_,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),6.0,Road to creativity,21 July 2005,0,"Tim Burton usually creates wonderful fantasy movies but this time he adds an extra layer that lifts it above his previous work. Part of this comes from the story by Roald Dahl, but here he squeezes everything out of it and then some.Chocolate making serves here in the story and movie as a metaphor for creative thinking. Four children represent a characteristic that hinders creative thinking: greed, excessive competitiveness, money and science. Each is eliminated in the road to creativity except for a heart (family values). These are incorporated in the end to give sense to the creative process. One level higher we have Johnny Depp as the creative actor and Tim Burton as the creative moviemaker. Both face the same obstacles as Willy Wonka; Tim Burton is Willy Wonka to be more precise.The movie resembles and refers to The Wizard of Oz in its sets and music. And there is a nice reference to 2001 when Mike Teavee is made shorter, 2001 being one of the most creative movies ever made. The criticism of TV is still up to date nowadays.This succeeds also thanks to the wonderful work of the production and art departments but it is the cinematography of Philippe Rousselot that gives the movie something extras in shaping the worlds. Once he did Diva, a movie that redefined existing art direction. The enormous color contrast between the gray cities and the colorful sets enhance the experience here.Anyone who thinks this is about Jackson hasn't got the message. Besides that Burton has clearly dismissed all references. There is however a short dance by one of the children that resembles Jackson's and the interpretation of his role by Depp makes all the gossip somewhat understandable.The songs are not the most creative parts and somewhat repetitious. They could have edited this to a shorter movie. Why do most movie makers still think that more is more?","['0', '1']" +567,rw1229913,dreba,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),1.0,Sucked!!!!,3 December 2005,0,"I don't even know where to begin with how disappointed I was with this movie. Having grown up with the incredibly talented Gene Wilder as ""Willy Wonka,"" I expected my view to be tainted, but I tried to watch this film with an open mind. Nice try. Johnny Depp, who has made some wonderful movies in his own right, cannot hold a candle to Gene Wilder in this role. Whereas Wilder played Wonka as mysterious, a bit mischievous, but good-hearted, Depp played him like he had just done a serious amount of cocaine. His dislike for the children was overplayed and I was waiting for him to beat the crap out of them at any moment. Wilder's performance was more subtle and sarcastic. Depp's June Allyson hairstyle did nothing for me either. Whereas ""Willy Wonka..."" was made years before all this computer graphics crap, it seemed more real. ""Charlie..."" seemed like a film student's graduate project. Bottom line: ""Willy Wonka..."" is for adults. ""Charlie..."" is for children with a low I.Q. Some movies just don't need to be remade; in fact most don't. Look at ""Cheaper by the Dozen"" and ""Yours, Mine, and Ours."" The people who made these movies took classic comedy and turned them into fart jokes and basic toilet humor. Doesn't anyone in Hollywood have an original idea? Or has America lost its integrity when it comes to movies? The best movies being made these days are independent films. What does that tell you?","['19', '35']" +568,rw1215249,shralper@hotmail.com,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),1.0,Don't bother,13 November 2005,0,"While some may say this terrible film is more like the original book that the 1971 movie, but overall, it really isn't. My kids actually have the book and I read through it right after watching the DVD.This film may be more true to the book with some of the finer details (the original lyrics to the Oompah Loopah songs, Charlie having a living father who worked at a toothpaste factory), none of these details add anything to the story.On the other hand, the creepy, gray-skinned, androgynous Wonka is nothing like the original character in the book. He hates children (so why does he want to give the factory to one?). He can't even say the word ""parents."" He even hates old people. There is absolutely nothing funny, amusing, or likable about him (BTW, the dialogue in the movie is purely awful). By the time there's a feeble attempt to redeem Wonka's character at the end, it's too late. And where were the childhood flashbacks of Wonka in the book? So much for ""more true to the book.""I saw the 1971 movie as a kid, and enjoyed it. But I watched it many years later as an adult, and LOVED it. There's so many great lines in it that I missed as a six-year-old. If you read a little about the history of the making of the movie (look online), you'll find that the script at one point was originally developed more for adults than children. It's no wonder, because much of the humor is more geared for adults.Wilder plays the role of ""Wonka"" like it was made for him. Also, I believe the 1971 film story additions made for a much better story than the original book, and allowed you to see much further into the characters. Maybe I feel this way because I saw the movie before reading the book, but who can ever forget the scene near the end where Charlie shuns the opportunity for ill-gotten gains, even with his own Grandpa encouraging him to do the opposite. Wow. After seeing that, the book's ending seems kinda dull.","['83', '147']" +569,rw1131844,stephanmj,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),1.0,Absolute Garbage,21 July 2005,0,"This movie was the poorest movie I have seen in a very long time. I know some people say ""it was more like the book than the other film"". That may be true. However books are books, and movies are movies. They are too different media and what works well on one does not necessarily work well on the other. I could care less how faithful to the book a movie is. I do not go to see movies for factual correctness. I go to be entertained. This movie was definitely not entertaining. I found myself looking around at the ceiling a great deal. Also, the grossness of people eating massive amounts of candy was overdone. Everyone knows fat people are gross - I don't have to pay $8.50 to understand that. I don't even need the over the top dramatic music either. Johnny Depp just acted like a freak for entire film, but I think its a role he feels most comfortable in. The worst parts of the movie were the Umpalumpa songs. They were embarrassingly bad, and I felt bad for the little Indian man doing them. He must be really hard up for work. This is a horrible flick, and the original is about 85 billion times better.","['4', '11']" +570,rw1134560,joaniekilbride,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),,"'Charlie and Cholocate Factory' a lusciously imagined, feast for the imagination",23 July 2005,0,"Director Tim Burton brings his vividly imaginative style to the beloved Roald Dahl classic Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, about eccentric chocolatier Willy Wonka (JOHNNY DEPP) and Charlie Bucket (FREDDIE HIGHMORE), a good-hearted boy from a poor family who lives in the shadow of Wonka's extraordinary factory.Most nights in the Bucket home, dinner is a watered-down bowl of cabbage soup, which young Charlie gladly shares with his mother and father and both pairs of grandparents. Theirs is a tiny, tumbledown, drafty old house but it is filled with love. Every night, the last thing Charlie sees from his window is the great factory, and he drifts off to sleep dreaming about what might be inside.For nearly fifteen years, no one has seen a single worker going in or coming out of the factory, or caught a glimpse of Willy Wonka himself, yet, mysteriously, great quantities of chocolate are still being made and shipped to shops all over the world.One day Willy Wonka makes an announcement. He will open his famous factory and reveal ""all of its secrets and magic"" to five lucky children who find golden tickets hidden inside five randomly selected Wonka chocolate bars. Of course, Charlie finds one of the tickets, and the surprises awaiting him within the factory give Charlie a certain glow inside.Tim Burton has done it again.This 'Charlie' is a considerable improvement on the film it remakes, 'Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory'. Tim Burton's imagination gives the film a splashy look to it anf filling it with remarkable sights. Actor Johnny Depp is fantastic as offbeat and eccentric kid-at-heart Willy Wonka. Freddie Highmore gives a magical performance as the generous, curious Charlie, the poor boy eager to win a trip into Willy Wonka's factory.The remarkable thing about this 'Factory' is how visually stunning it is. Tim Burton lusciously imagined the film, and it's a feast for the eyes... and the imagination. Screenwriter John August fills the film with a subverse sense of humor and wit, and creates a number of hilarious characters. Overall: A Fantastic Effort.4 from 4 PG: quirky situations, brief language and some mild action.","['1', '1']" +571,rw1158204,mbrucoli,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),1.0,A truly painful experience,25 August 2005,0,"Don't go see it! This is a bad movie. Johnny Depp should be embarrassed. Simply should never have been made. I will never see another Tim Burton movie again. Dialogue is terrible. The kids are boring. The flashbacks scenes are uninspiring and pointless. The effects were better from the 70's. Maybe it's just that the original is Sooo phenomenal, but I don't think that that's the case. This movie stands on its own in its crumminess. Mere words cannot convey how bad it was. I almost want to watch it again to see if I'm missing something or if it was really as bad as I thought it was. I mean, come on, the oompaloompahs are just ridiculous.","['3', '9']" +572,rw1188349,umi_sekaiichi,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Growing a little bit to become a child,7 October 2005,0,"What can i say? I have no words for Mr. Tim, i've never seen someone who actually gets better and better with every movie,admirable, incredible, wow! Charley is an excellent movie, full of magic, colors, darkness and that juicy humor Tim can only handle like that... Tell me, weren't you watching the movie and felt like going in and eating all that chocolate? I must confess my friends, i don't like chocolate at all, but Willy Wonka's?... well that's an exception i gotta say. It's funny all the way, look at the dialogs, they are brilliant, so concise...that's perfect (print ha-ha) A real MUST SEE in capitals... It is one of the best movies i've ever seen, and the magic is i don't have to feel this or that way to watch it, i just seat back buy some pop-corn grab my glasses and look at a film which photography is amazing, which performances are outstanding, which music is as funny as all the gags... a pearl...i guess Jack Sparrow meant this when he lost his ""ship"" ha-ha","['3', '4']" +573,rw1152371,JCBar,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),6.0,"Overall, it was entertaining",17 August 2005,0,"This is an odd movie – Tim Burton of course, so that will be normal – but I'm not sure quite how to rate it. I loved the original movie with Wilder, didn't read the book so I can't comment there; but my daughter did and says this new version is closer to the book, so we'll rest that angle. It really doesn't matter to me if it is or not, but to some it does. And I can honestly say that I was entertained throughout the film. However, some parts are jarring. For a children's movie, or at least one in which a lot of children will be taken to, there are some decidedly adult type comments and situations. The music is not as good as the original, and maybe it was just my theater, but it jumped several decibels whenever it started up. The supporting cast is quite ordinary, and the scenes with Highmore and Depp don't begin to approach the chemistry between the characters in the original film. Moreover, Wonka's back story with Christopher Lee isn't necessary, nor did I find it the least believable due to the ancient look of Lee in all his scenes.Regardless, I read the mediocre reviews, got dragged to the movies, and generally enjoyed watching it – for the most part. The cute quips from Depp, the best ending with a punctuated and rising '...little girl', still sound humorous. He is of course the best part of the film (leading actors usually are), despite the many comments heard about his Michael Jackson-like appearance and moves, many of which I didn't see or notice. All in all it could have been worse – at least I didn't sit in front of one small toddler who screamed each time the music began, and then just as promptly shut up when it stopped","['0', '0']" +574,rw1216190,abahb1,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,Not the 70's version........and that is a good thing,14 November 2005,0,"I grew up with the 70's version of this famous book. I loved and still love watching the movie to this day. Though I own it on DVD, any time it is on TV, I stop and watch it.When I learned Burton was teaming with Depp to make a new one, I knew that it would be a ""new"" version. I was not disappointed.I have seen many make references to Depp's characterization of Wonka as being a spin on Michael Jackson. I say that comparison is grossly inaccurate. I felt Depp presented a Wonka who was a lonely, tortured soul, out of touch with the real world. Perhaps it is this that many are drawn to in their connection of Depp's Wonka being a send up of Jackson, but I disagree whole heartedly and say Depp gave us the Wonka that was intended in the book. This man is not going to be the fatherly type. He is going to be eccentric and goofy as well as creepy and dark. All of these are on display in Depp's performance.Excellent work. I still love the 70's version and it remains a classic story from my youth. But this version has staked it's own unique place.","['0', '2']" +575,rw1137821,jstdawnee,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Loved it!,29 July 2005,0,"I've just sat and read through the posts concerning both movies, that in itself has been highly entertaining! :) I loved the book as a kid... was thrilled as a kid when they came out with the movie. I hated the original movie. I remember feeling so let down after watching it. Watching Burton's version last night was an evening of complete fun! My husband and son and I laughed throughout, I thought Depp was brilliant. The theater was 3/4 full... and the laughter and enjoyment rang throughout place. There are going to people who won't like it (""weird"" as Depp/Wonka would say), people who are going to nitpick (""mumblers! I can't hear you!"") and people who feel the need to compare. Okay... sorry for your luck.I, however, would like to walk up to Burton and Depp and give them a big hug and a thank you for the laughter and the fun they gave us last night. Brilliant as always, boys!","['4', '10']" +576,rw1160624,NoArrow,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),7.0,A Burton film,29 August 2005,0,"Tim Burton's ""Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"" is, like all of Burton's films, so visually delightful that the plot almost doesn't matter. This can make and break a film; sometimes Burton can undermine the importance of his story with the quirkiness of how it looks, like with ""Edward Scissorhands"". But his best films (""Sleepy Hollow"" and ""Big Fish"") marry the visuals and the plot, so that the two work together to create an even flow for the movie.I'd say ""Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"" almost succeeds at that, but there are times when it feels like we're looking at post cards from the infamous factory. The film, like the original ""Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory"", is about a poor boy (Freddie Highmore) who wins a contest and travels with four other kids into the mysterious Wonka Chocolate Factory, run by the even-more-mysterious Willy Wonka (Johnny Depp). From there on in, it's an adventure through the many bizarre - and sometimes surreal - departments of the factory.In the original, Willy Wonka was played by Gene Wilder in a mostly straight performance that channeled the witty, cane-twirling comedians of the thirties. Here Depp does carry a cane, but he does no twirling, and the performance is far from straight. His Willy Wonka is a mix of Michael Jackson and a Barbie doll, and grows more unnecessarily confusing as the movie goes on. It's not exactly a bad performance, but it does feel like Depp's parading his versatility. I think he should have toned it down a little, and gone for the innocence of his Sam character from ""Benny & Joon"".The movie is not a misfire, as it has many good aspects. Freddie Highmore is excellent as Charlie, he is believably earnest. In fact, all of the child actors are pretty good. Most of the adult ones seem a little understated, impressive that they let the children take the foreground. David Kelly shines as Charlie's Grandpa Joe, giving probably the best and funniest performance in the movie - why hasn't this guy been a star for the past few decades? The Oompa Loompas are all played by Deep Roy, who manages to be creepier than those in the seventies version, who were orange with green hair. When you think about it, Roy's performance is tremendously complicated, as he had to move in synchronization with himself thousands of times.Occasionally the movie gets lost in itself, raising questions that are never answered. Near the beginning Grandpa Joe tells an anecdote about Wonka's building a chocolate castle for an Indian prince. I was interested in seeing how this fitted into the story later on, but that's just it: it didn't. It seems to be just a comment on the film's own special effects. What Burton needs to learn is that it's mostly dangerous to remind his viewer's that they're watching a movie.The plot is also a little too similar to the first's, it never really throws any new curves at us, we know exactly what to expect (though, curiously, the magical floating bubbles scene from the original is missing).In short, it relies a little too much on Depp's performance and the set design - it seems Charlie and Grandpa Joe are almost forgotten when they enter the factory. But it's not boring, if predictable, and it's interesting to look at, and Depp's performance is intriguing, if not fitting.Come on, it's a Burton film.7.5/10","['0', '1']" +577,rw1141545,CadetBinky,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Johnny at his Top,2 August 2005,0,"I have seen many movie's containing Johnny Depp and I have to say this is one of his best. Since he teamed up with Tim Burton, they both have caught my eye as creating masterpiece's. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory shows that Johnny can go beyond his expectations as an actor and give a performance that is memorable and suitable for all ages. This comment will consist of two things. A congrates to both Johnny Depp, and Tim Burton. (And the rest of the cast, and crew of the film.) and to the creation itself, I have seen it twice and am awaiting the third. People say I am crazy about the movie but I find this masterpiece, this work of art to be both entertaining and educational. I want to be a director someday, and seeing how Tim Burton works and how the actors/ess find him able to work with, makes my dream a lot easier because I have seen a master creature and am able to work off his leads and brilliant creations to find my path and my mark. I will never say this enough: CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY IS THE BEST MOVIE I EVER SAW! Energetic, thrilling and always can make me smile. Thanks for a great form of entertainment.","['1', '3']" +578,rw1212122,isamuelson,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,Excellent adaption of Roald Dahl's classic book,9 November 2005,1,"First off, I am NOT a Johnny Depp fan at all. When he bites the dust in Nightmare on Elm Street, I cheer! (just kidding) Also, I'm not sure if what I say about the movie could be considered a spoiler, but I've gone ahead and marked the message as such just to be safe since I do discuss some of the differences between the Gene Wilder version and this one. So, you've been forewarned! In all seriousness, I loved Gene Wilder's version in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. But, have you ever wondered WHY the title was changed? It was because Roald Dahl was absolutely against that version of the movie, so they had to change the title. He was angry with how they had changed the story.I think if Mr. Dahl were alive today, he would have approved of this version, and so do I (and I still like the first one, but not as much as this).Wonka is shown as aloof in this movie, and he was in the book as well. Charlie does nothing to anger Mr. Wonka as he did in the first movie. I never really liked that since in the book, Charlie always did what was right and NEVER thought about breaking the rules, so that always kind of bothered me in the first movie. Also, Wonka NEVER got angry in the book, but Gene Wilder's character gets SO angry at Charlie and Grandpa, it even scared ME as a child and I thought it was actually pretty mean.Tim Burton, as dark as his movies usually are, surprised me with the amount of color in this movie. In no way did I feel cheated and all the kids did great. They played their parts to perfection. Violet was just as obnoxious as she was in the book. Veruca was spoiled as ever and Mike and Augustus were just as disgusting as they were in the book.I think what made the book so wonderful was imagining all those wonderful sites the children saw as well as the Oompa Loompas. Tim Burton has brought those visions to life. Deep Roy playing all of the Oompa Loompas did an excellent job and he probably had the hardest job of anyone in the cast. Where you see multiple versions of him, he had to film EACH one of those parts separately! If you notice, they each move differently and have subtle differences. Kudos to the Deep Roys! I introduced my 9-year-old daughter to the Gene Wilder version about 3 years ago and she absolutely fell in love with it. Any time it was on TV, she HAD to watch it. Then, she went to see Burton's version and she loves that one better than the Gene Wilder version, and she hasn't even read the book yet (I have to dig my copy out for her to read because I KNOW she'll love it!) You're going to have people defend either the Wilder or Depp version, or there will be those like me that like both. However, I feel this is the version that really hones in on Dahl's vision and for that, I think he would have been proud of Burton's attempt. I know I appreciate it.","['2', '3']" +579,rw1215578,Oyster-6,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),5.0,Why was this remake made?,14 November 2005,0,"The original flick from 1971 is exactly the same, except for maybe 2 points: Willy Wonka's flashback to his childhood and the intermissions where the Umpa-Lumpa('s?) demonstrate a more modern style of singing.For the rest both movies are interchangeable. So it's not bad, but lacks originality compared to the first one, doesn't add any new dimension to Mel Stuart's version with Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka and therefor makes you wonder why someone thought that people were waiting for this remake....For the rest, the atmosphere of the Charlie's poor family, the characters of the other winners to amy visit the Chocolate Factory, the colourfull fantasy-interior of the factory: it's great, captured perfectly from Roald Dahl's novel. But also as already seen before....","['0', '1']" +580,rw1132125,ilinx,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),5.0,50% Fail 50% Nail,21 July 2005,0,"I give this movie a 5 because I'm pretty split in my reaction. I think it nails the spirit of the book in just about half it's elements and fails in the other half. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was one of my very favorite books growing up, so no movie could ever do the story justice in my mind, but it is the kind of story that begs to become a film. I own the earlier film version, and think it's cute, but was never satisfied by it, not even close. I think this film comes closer to the character of the book, and visually it can be quite stunning. The greatest thing going for this film is the actor that plays Charlie. He is perfect! Actually, most of the actors are perfectly cast...but I was surprised by Depp's performance...it was by far the worst thing of the entire film! Gene Wilder's Wonka was much better. Where did Depp get this ridiculous interpretation?? If I completely forget that it's supposed to be Wonka, I could consider it amusing at times, but on the whole it is ridiculous and completely un-Dahlesque. I had actually thought the movie was going to suck EXCEPT for him--I love Depp's portrayals, usually. Not this time--this Wonka is petty and hateful. (""Da...daddy??""--ugh) Reminded me more of an Austin Powers Wonka than anything. I think Depp tried a little too hard to make this Wonka ""different."" I also could have done without the musical numbers, but I suppose they were too hard to pass up. As a side-comment, this film really brings the capitalist and colonialist subtexts of the book to the surface in a much more explicit way than the first version.","['0', '2']" +581,rw1146589,thumpergirl03,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),1.0,total DISAPPOINTMENT,8 August 2005,1,"And yes I meant for it all to be capitalized. It's really annoying that there are so many good reviews about this film. I agree with all you who gave it nothing but a 1. I saw this movie a few weeks ago and I must say I didn't walk out with smile on my face. For starters, the special fx were overdone and hardly any of the movie looked real. The fact that the oompa loompas were all played by Deep Roy is just plain creepy, and their songs...yuck! The music was so loud it was hard to hear the lyrics. And now for Depp.. He should never of even thought of taking this role. I know this has been said before, but he was too much Micheal Jacksonesque. It just didn't have the magic of the 1971 Gene Wilder original. The thing I missed most was the classic oompa loompa song which was cute and childlike. But no Danny Elfman had to come in and completely mess it up. The humor of Charlie's dad stealing the toothpaste cap (or whatever it was) wasn't right. None of the kids seemed to have learned from their mistakes, and their parents didn't show any emotion about whatever was happening to the kid ( Augusta's mom didn't scream when he was being sucked up the pipe) like she did in the original, And Veruka's dad instead of being thrown in the ""bad egg"" shoot with her, was carried along by the squirrels following her.Overall Freddie Highmore as Charlie was OK but that's it. If you enjoyed the original I would suggest don't bother seeing this piece of garbage.","['4', '10']" +582,rw1229544,MovieAddict2016,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),5.0,Huge disappointment,2 December 2005,0,"In 2004 I nearly got the chance to visit the set of ""Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"" at Pinewood Studios (outside of London). Two people I knew worked there (one with access to all sets) and I had planned on sitting in the trailer where the stars go to eat. I was pretty excited at the idea of meeting Johnny Depp, Tim Burton and others but alas my friend's position on the film ended up being switched around and I couldn't get in.Then again later that year in Black Forest next to Pinewood I saw them filming the movie (outside of Charlie's house in the film) with many odd sets. The film looked fabulous in terms of production design and knowing Burton was directing I thought there was good potential for a Gothic, revisionist Charlie.Unfortunately I've just bought the DVD and found myself utterly disappointed. Worst of all was Depp's performance. One of my favorite actors, I looked forward to him playing Wonka - and he's just not that good. Impersonating Michael Jackson or Not, Wonka just comes across as unmemorable. It's like he isn't developed to the point where you leave the theater remembering all his best lines and character traits.I also felt somewhat cheated by the ending. The Oompah-Loompa segment(s) of the film aren't as inspired as the original and in fact I didn't like the Oompah-Loompah look in this film - a bit too...Mexican? Maybe that was the point, though.The film is okay but I think a lot more could have been done with it. Even Burton's familiar visual styling is lacking as he uses a good amount of CGI which just makes it appear to be another average CGI-crammed blockbuster.I hate to say this, but ""Charlie"" is a disappointment. At least for me.","['4', '9']" +583,rw1215063,DanZ28,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),,Astonishing,13 November 2005,0,Tim Burton and Johnny Depp both do a wonderful job in this movie. Johnny Depps performance as Willy Wonka was outstanding and very inventive. I thought that his take on the Wonka character was much better than Wilders. Tim Burton really did a good job in this film. He created such an amazing atmosphere. Freddie Highmore was very good as Charlie. I thought that he and Depp made a closer connection with their two characters. The oompa loompas were very funny in this film. I felt that this movie was better than the older version (although i love the older version). Johnny Depp and Tim Burton should definitely continue to make movies together.It is a wonderful and imaginative film. It truly is astonishing.,"['3', '6']" +584,rw1132038,armygal2889,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,WHAT AN Awesome MOVIE!!!! Possible Spoilers... I'm not really sure....,21 July 2005,1,"When I first heard about the movie, with Johnny Depp connected to it, I knew I would have to see it. I love Johnny Depp he is so awesome! But then I saw him... he looked really creepy... but after watching the movie I felt like giving him a hug. I think that's all he really needed! I really liked this movie and recommend everyone see it. Even if you have doubt's about it. I also have to say that as Tim Burton film's go, this one was a pretty light film, not as dark as some of his others! It was so much better than the original. I heard everyone complaining about it, but it was more closer to the book, as a movie based on a book should be. GO SEE IT!","['0', '2']" +585,rw1132996,blackhair86,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,This isn't a remake of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,23 July 2005,0,"First of all, i'd like to say that i'm really irritated by people who are not willing to give this movie a chance because it is a ""remake"" of another film. It is NOT a remake of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. In order to consider it a remake, the people who made it would have to be making some effort to remake that movie. It is a movie based on a book.That being said, i really enjoyed the way Tim Burton made this film. He kept all the darkness and humor of the book, and still kept the little moral at the end. The four other children were just as wretched and rotten as in the book, and Charlie was just as lovable. I also sort of liked the twist with Willy's crazy dentist father.I would recommend this movie to anyone who has read the book. I'd also advise people not to immediately write it off just because it isn't exactly like the old movie based on the same book.","['1', '4']" +586,rw1139777,mattgstreet,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),,A psychedelic roller coaster. Burton delivers. As usual.,1 August 2005,0,"Given that Tim Burton's previous remake ""Planet of the Apes"" is seen by many as his worst film and also, given that both Dahl's novel and the 1971 adaptation are seen as classics, he was really touching sacred territory when he started work on this project. So initially, I was a little sceptical about this film. But never the less, I put my faith in Burton's skill as a director and bought a ticket.The combination of Dahl's uniquely dark writing style and Burton's equally unique dark visual style is a match made in heaven. Dahl always had the knack of being to communicate rather adult and mature ideas to a child audience without having to talk down to them and in a similar sense, Burton's view of the world often communicates to the child with in all of us. Be it the fear of the Headless Horseman in Sleepy Hollow, the child like innocence of Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood's almost child like desire to please his audience or Bruce Wayne's pent up anger and sadness at witnessing the murder of his parents when he was a child in Batman.First of all, do not compare this to the 1971 film. Any ideas of comparison between the two are totally pointless; this film really is a different kettle of fish entirely. Where as the earlier version put it's own spin on the bulk of the novel, this film owes itself purely to Dahl's vision, Burton's vision and Depp's masterful interpretation of Wonka's character. In this film we see a Wonka who, not only does not like children, but has some sort of phobia or mental condition where the idea of the family unit and parental love sends him into convulsions of sickness and nausea, stemming from his rather dysfunctional upbringing by a fascist father (brilliantly played by Christopher Lee). Does this adequately explain Depp's child like, performance? Absolutely. Does this make his character a little unsettling? Definitely. But this only adds to the mystique of his character, who in order to do the things he has done must be more than a little insane! That is the only aspect of the film where Burton hasn't remained true to the source material; every where else he has remained true to Dahl's story. Other characters have been changed slightly (Mike TV is obsessed with the video games instead of TV), but are still totally recognisable as the characters in the book. The film definitely benefits from the inclusion of Charlie's father (something the '71 version failed to do), giving the sense of a family who, although extremely poor have a strong family bond which makes them richer than all the other spoilt and rude children in the film. Charlie's character perfectly epitomises childlike innocence with Freddie Highmore giving an impressive performance for such a young actor. And you will believe that Grandpa Jo's (superbly portrayed by David Kelly) bedside tales of the miracles of Wonka's chocolate are what captivates Charlie's imagination.You really do get the sense with this film that it was a labour of love for Burton. He has created a cinematic world that perfectly complements Dahl's literary world with every frame dripping with colour and magic. Put simply: fans of Tim Burton and Roald Dahl will love this film","['3', '4']" +587,rw1152034,trypanophobic34,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),3.0,Not absolutely dreadful but quite unfortunate...,16 August 2005,1,"I don't know why Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is receiving so much praise, apart from the fact that it brings Tim Burton, Danny Elfman, and Johnny Depp together again, as well as being based on the long-loved story by Roald Dahl and preceded by Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Because of this latter reason, it was guaranteed a certain amount of success and bound to draw fans of either the old movie or book, or both. Because of the former reason, it was also guaranteed a healthy measure of success and fans of either Tim Burton, Danny Elfman, Johnny Depp, or all three. I'll tell you why it doesn't deserve praise: Most of the time, it's just plain boring. It started off well, with sweet little Charlie and his family in their quaint, lopsided hut; they obviously suffer from indigence and Sickeningly Sweet Syndrome. Everyone is kind and loving and selfless and supportive of each other, etc. etc., and it's all quite corn-fed, but that's all fine and well; it can only be expected. Grandma Bucket with her ""I love grapes"" line was even funny and endearing. The movie begins to go downhill after the discoverer of the first Golden Ticket, that rotund German boy, is shown.The plot is all too predictable. You knew from the start that Willy Wonka hated all the children and their parents except Charlie and Grandpa Bucket, and that the rest of the movie would consist in him knocking them off one by one, until only Charlie & Co. were left. That's all it was really about; the process of elimination. While we're on the subject of elimination, what the hell did Willy Wonka get rid of that angry video game child for, being smart and making comments to which Wonka had no reply? Indeed, he made the only solid point of the movie in saying, ""Why is everything here so pointless?"" I know that it's a children's movie, but they could at least mix things up a bit so you don't find yourself reminded of preschool shows on TV, such as Dora the Explorer or Blues Clues, which feature cyclical journeys.Speaking of young audiences, the movie was childish. Yes, yes, it's a children's movie, but it was childish even for a children's movie. I know that I found even Edward Scissorhands a bit childish, but I liked it anyway for its charms. And I like Tim Burton, don't get me wrong, but does he think everything a happy dark fairy tale? Nothing's ever that complex in his films; he relies more on visuals and a sort of magical atmosphere.Speaking of visuals, I wasn't all that impressed by those in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I thought the seahorse-shaped boat they rode in down the chocolate river looked particularly fake; like cheap plastic, really. None of the scenery was spectacular. I didn't like how near the beginning, when they were introducing the four other children who found a Golden Ticket, their skin and features were so obviously computer-""enhanced"" that they looked cartoonish. Not to nitpick.A more major thing is that I didn't like the character of Willy Wonka himself, which is like a fatal stroke in the world of film. You have to like the main characters, or at least approve of them to some degree, to appreciate a movie, and Willy Wonka was just rude, hypocritically judgmental, lacking in depth and complexity (the whole ""I have flashbacks of being traumatized by my father"" thing didn't cut it), and - forgive me - dorky. Not quirky in a good way. I didn't even like the way he looked or that exceedingly silly haircut he had. He said nothing very interesting or that would make me take more kindly to him throughout the movie. None of the other characters were great/engaging or very well-played, either, including Charlie and Grandpa Bucket.The Oompa Loompas' several songs celebrating the riddance of each child were annoying, seemed to be added simply to kill time, and only drew your notice more sharply to the cyclical, repetitive nature of the plot. I wanted them to shut their minuscule, identical noise tubes.Last of all but not least, it didn't leave me with a ""warm, fuzzy feeling inside"" as might be expected. There didn't seem to be any moral to it, except perhaps, ""Candy doesn't need to have a point, and neither does this movie, apparently,"" or, ""If you're a poor, goody-goody child, all your dreams will come true because you'll get to inherit a chocolate factory full of magical goodies, not because of any talent or ambition but simply because you're the least spoiled of five randomly selected children who all like to eat chocolate."" There was no real bond between Wonka and Charlie, as might also be expected, and, like I said, there's nothing special or particularly warming about Willy Wonka. There's no ""magic"" to the movie as there is to other Burton films. It leaves you only dissatisfied and feeling very much like you have just seen it exactly for what it is, nothing more: nothing memorable. It has no heart or vivacity in it, and that is probably why, above all else, it falls flat.That being said, I'm sure you'll have a lovely time at the theater with your kid(s)/spouse/friend(s)/yourself, enjoying the pointlessness and vapidity that is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.It's okay to watch. Really. Just don't expect anything special or heart-warming or graphically fabulous. I'm sure little kids won't even notice the difference. I felt impelled to write this heavily negative comment only because: 1) it's my actual opinion, and 2) I was seeing all positive comments about how delightful this little movie is.3) And yes, I am a cynical bitch. It's not touching, heart-warming, or sincere, yet still very corny, and I demand to have my cold heart thawed and de-barbed by happy children's movies, I say!","['0', '2']" +588,rw1169745,annie-186,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),8.0,Sweet without being sickly,11 September 2005,0,"As a huge fan of Roald Dahl, I loved this movie. I was moved to tears on a couple of occasions.I had re-read the book a few days before seeing the movie and was pleased to see that for the most part, this movie was faithful to the book. A few additional creative touches were added, which I felt did not detract from the overall story, but gave fans of the book something additional to enjoy.The acting was excellent, especially from the kids, who lived up to their characters superbly. The sets and colour were fantastic and a good Dahl interpretation from Tim Burton. Johnny Depp was suitably eccentric as Willy Wonka, altogether different from what I had imagined, but nonetheless enjoyable.I did not like the original Gene Wilder movie as I felt it too far removed from the story and too Americanised.One aspect that I found disappointing was the Oompa Loompa songs. The music drowned out Dahl's lyrics, so the lessons we were supposed to be learning from the obnoxious kids were somewhat lost in a mumble.Possibly slightly long for the under 6's but perfect in my book. 8/10","['3', '4']" +589,rw1151780,dublin202,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,A first rate family film,16 August 2005,0,"I think that this version of Willie Wonker is superb and Johnny Deppe's performance is second to none. he bought a new way of portraying Willie as opposed to that of Gene Wilder in the original film. I did miss however the importance of finding the golden ticket, I think that this film did not make as much of as it should have. The new songs from the om pa loom pa's were great and I would think more attractive to the kids of today. Johnny Depp is a marvellous actor and portrays all his roles with gusto especially pirates of the Caribbean and I think he has made this version of Willie Wonker his own The whole film was an overall success and it gave me and my grandchildren a marvellous day at the cinema watching it.","['3', '6']" +590,rw1139365,crazy_girl2001uk,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Fantastic stuff,31 July 2005,1,"I have seen this film twice, and have loved it both times, and I am going back for more. This movie is as true to the book as you could probably get, and the stuff referring to Wonka's dad brings you closer to him, to know what he went through.I've read some negative comments about this movie, and I don't understand why ? This film was brilliant, Depp as Wonka couldn't have been better, all eccentric and crazy. Excellent. And then Freddy as Charlie. What a kid, he is such a great actor for his age, and really made me feel for him. The Oompa Loompa's were also great, with just the right amount of songs throughout the movie, and the right ones, straight from the book. Danny Elfman is a great composer, and he put the right music in the right places to make the audience feel like they should, sympathetic, happy, sad and many others.The fact that there was only one part with Slugworth mentioned, pleased me a lot. There was too much of him in the original and it just spoiled it to have such a bad character in the original.All those Burton and Depp fans out there, go and see this. In fact, everyone go and see it. You will love this just as much I do. Hopefully.","['1', '3']" +591,rw1138582,eightballoons,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),3.0,This Film should have been excellent...,30 July 2005,1,"Tim Burton is quite honestly the best visual storyteller of our day. His films not only capture the full attention of the audience, but also touch the kid in them as well. It is that reason why this film was such a disappointment.I will admit right from the beginning that I have not read the book and I am also a big fan of the original 1971 film. That being said, I went into this film with knowing full well that I was seeing a retelling of a great story, but more importantly though the eyes of Mr. Burton. But what I saw was nothing more than a D grade commercial blunder.The film has a strong beginning, and I liked the story behind Charlie and his family, especially his Grandfather. But this is where my interest ends with the characters. The film never draws me in to make me care if anyone gets a golden ticket, especially Charlie. He is just so sickeningly happy throughout the film that when he does find the ticket you aren't even happy for him. The chocolate factory is even worse, this is when Burton should have shined and at best he was a dirty penny. Each room was uneventful and it was obvious that very little imagination was put into the set design. The fact that CGI played such a heavy role only made it worse, it seemed the rule on set was, make it look like a video game. I saved the worst for last, and while the theater's sound system may not have helped, the Uoompa Loompa songs were abysmal. At best I understood a word or two throughout each song, which as far as I am concerted is the most important part of the film. It is here where the lessons of the story are laid out to teach how wrong it is to be like these nasty children. Instead all that is learned is how silly modern music styles will translate into a children's movie.I will say one thing, while Gene Wilder will always be Willy Wonka to me; Johny Depp did a magnificent job getting into character. But as you might have guessed, I didn't like this Wonka either.I really wanted to write a good review of this film, I just couldn't. It's just not good film, which is as honest as I can get. Tim Burton has proved his talent with his past films; Batman, Edward Scissor Hands and Big fish. In this film he has proved that if given enough money he will be happy to make a bad film as well...sad.","['2', '6']" +592,rw1137744,raypdaley182,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),7.0,Typically Burton!,29 July 2005,0,"take a pinch of chocolate powder, mix in 2 spoonfuls of Mr J Depp and his unique madness, coat thoroughly with lashings of creativity by Roald Dahl and you have this movie. look and think, remember all the madness that Tim Burton - Edward Scissorhands, The Nightmare Before Christmas, Beetlejuice - has brought to us over the years.This retelling of the story of Charlie Bucket sticks more close to the original book than the Gene Wilder version which was so Hated by Roald Dahl.The film still bumps off the various horrible children one by one in methods that reflect their vile personalities and character flaws. The Oompa Loompa's still sing stupid songs in almost Busby Berkley type dance numbers.One man plays all the small dancing freaks (Deep Roy), although I think there must be more midget extras who are unseen to carry the huge bar of chocolate in the homage to 2001: A Space Odessey.There is no Mr. Slugworth appearing to tempt the kids to steal Mr Wonka's secret's, although he is mentioned by name in another section of the movie. Charlie has a father and mother, differing from the Gene Wilder version.The ending of this actually does tally with the end of the book, leaving open the option of finally making Charlie and The Great Glass Elevator.Money, lawyers and Roald Dahl prevented the making of the second film when Wilders first version was created. Perhaps the madness of Tim Burton can tempt the Dahl estate into allowing this to finally appear on the screen.","['1', '1']" +593,rw1131454,disneychick10891-1,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is much better than Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory IMO,20 July 2005,0,"I think that this version is a lot better than the old one. ( That's just my opinion) Tim Burton is one of my favorite directors and definitely did an awesome job on this film!! I think the other film is sort of dark and creepy, but this one is only a tad dark. This one doesn't have any crummy songs like ""Pure Imagination"" or ""I got a golden ticket"" or that depressing song ""Cheer up Charlie"" And I absolutely love the oompa loompas and their songs!! If you've seen this... YEAY!! If you haven't seen it... GO AND SEE IT!! ( you don't have to if you don't want to)Remember- all of this is my opinion. You can disagree or agree, I don't care lol.","['1', '4']" +594,rw1138285,MinionWench,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,Let's bring in the view of an Englander NOT obsessed with Michael Jackson....,30 July 2005,1,"Reading through some other reviews here I felt a dire need to write one of my own.I went into an afternoon showing of this film with a group of friends whose ages ranged from 16 to 10, we were in a cinema packed to bursting with small children (think 5 or 6 years old) who had dragged along their parents. And the whole way through we were all laughing.This wasn't a children's film that the parents had to suffer through, and it wasn't so childish that teenagers wanted to vomit. It was the classic tale we all know and love, only slightly modernised to reflect todays children.I'll tackle the children first, while some remained completely faithful to their book roots (August Gloop, particularly) it was good to see that some had changed slightly to reflect how children are today (such as Mike Teevee who is obsessed with TV and violence, and Violet whose mother is constantly encouraging her to be competitive and a 'winner') These kinds of children are commonplace these days, we've all met at least one, and it helps the viewer to slide into the film with ease.Johnny Depps' acting was inspired. It angers me to see so many people instantly seeing his performance as based on Michael Jackson when it quite plainly isn't. Perhaps the American medias obsession with Jackson in recent months is to blame for this. But what I saw when i first saw Depps' Wonka was a recluse, scared and uncertain of how to be around people. He needs prompt cards to introduce himself.His detachment from the world makes him seem weird, quirky even, but it's good because the space he keeps between himself and others is the exact opposite of what Charlie teaches us, that we need our families, we need others in our lives, which is an important lesson for todays children who have become increasingly 'memememe'.Burton has done another stunning job, visually. The colours of the chocolate factory are stunning, and you can feel that you've entered a world of imagination and left the, literally, grey outside world far behind.As always Elfmans music is a joy, and reflects the quirkiness of Burtons' vision. The 'Welcome' song is hysterical and instantly you find that while you may know the story, you have no idea as to what's about to hit you. The Oompa-Loompas songs are, unfortunately, very hard to hear over the roar of the music which is a damn shame, but the dance moves alone will have you in hysterics.It was refreshing to find things added into this film that we didn't see in Wilders' version or in the book. I particularly loved seeing how Wonka found the Oompa-Loompas.While i was a little surprised to be shown flashbacks of Wonkas childhood throughout, i quickly accepted it, and found it interesting as it lead to another important message that todays' children should always remember, that sometimes parents stop you from doing things because they actually love you, not because they hate you, and that they just want what's best for you.This film was a joy to sit through, i hung on every word, silently urging the characters on so i could see what was going to happen next, hear what was going to be said. I had to know, even though i already knew the ending.This is the kind of film children should be watching today. This is what a summer movie should be. This is what happens when Burton/Depp/Elfman deliver.Roll on Corpse Bride...","['10', '19']" +595,rw1139410,Jack_Acid,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),7.0,Burton and Depp strike again,31 July 2005,1,"***MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD*** Well, for those of us who consider themselves Tim Burton fans, this film doesn't disappoint. Burton is yet again able to connect to a wider audience, while still interjecting his darker style and presence. Johnny Depp as Wonka is somewhat of a Jekyll & Hyde character....removed from human contact long before the Gold Ticket winning children arrive; all the while he struggles with his own inner demons when it comes to children, human empathy in general and a closeness to those he loves (in this case, his father.) As expected from Burton, the film's environment and world is greatly exaggerated, which is as the story calls for. Freddie Highmore and David Kelly add a more believable and human side to the film, while Wonka provides the mad hatter elements and quirky dialog. Sometimes his mannerisms and demeanor work and sometimes they don't.As with most films these days, they could have shaved 20 minutes off of it to keep its pace. For me, that would have included cutting the relatively worthless musical numbers that we're subjected to as each child is dramatically sucked into the factory's inner workings.However, the message is what we're left with, which is ultimately to be grateful for what you have and good things will come to you. We finally connect more with Wonka as he accepts the concept of family and allowing people to be close to him.Definitely worth a viewing for visuals alone and memorable performances from Depp and company to boot.","['3', '4']" +596,rw1155863,xXsocialiteXx,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,Absolute Eye Candy,22 August 2005,0,"First of all I should say that I saw the movie 3 times. That's how much I loved it. Now I don't want my opinion to be biased because of my love for Tim Burton, Johnny Depp, and chocolate, so I will be quite honest with you.Movie Flow: The beginning starts out slow...until we are introduced to the children who win the golden tickets. Augustus Gloop has a very funny accent, Violet Beauregarde's mother is a hysterically typical soccer mom, Mike Teavee bring familiarity to parents because he never leaves the video game screen, and Veruca Salt's spoiling father and martini-downing mother are great too. When the children get to the factory gates is when the movie's pace picks up and keeps going at a good speed. Movie flow gets an A-Acting: Johnny Depp's eccentric portrayal of Willy Wonka blew me away. His tone, facial expressions, and body language are all perfectly combined. Unlike the old Willy Wonka, (played by Gene Wilder) Johnny Depp's version is a bit more childish and even feminine, and his voice is much different. Johnny gives Willy a smallish voice, and throws a bunch of ""ew""'s and ""teehee""'s in his dialog to play up his childishness. Most people couldn't pull this kind of dialect off without sounding whiny and annoying, but Johnny does it in a way that's charming, a bit eerie, and very funny. The acting of the children impressed me too. Especially Freddie Highmore's take on Charlie. He had just the right homeliness and kindness to make his character warm and fuzzy, but did not give an annoyingly cutesy vibe. Acting gets an AVisuals: The first thing to say about these visuals is that they make the original version look like it was made on a ten dollar budget. I mean these visuals were AWESOME. Especially the Great Glass Elevator ride. When we got to see the factory rooms from the Elevator, it was just stunning. And in the boat ride scene I felt like I was on a ride at Disney World! A+ hands down.Oompa Loompas: I was never a fan of the Oompa Loompas in the original, but I do prefer them to the new ones. No doubt about it the new ones were hilarious when doing their songs for each child's demise, but I didn't think they fit well with the movie. They were 30 inch Middle-Eastern men with swirly black hair. I was expecting more imaginable things that didn't look so much like real people who were simply shrunken down with a computer. These Oompas get a B-, but their funny songs get an A.Overall: This is a great movie overall despite some scenes stuck in that I think were not needed. Although it wasn't as dark and twisted as I would have hoped, (being a Tim Burton film) this new version definitely is more funnier and visually rewarding than the first one, and Johnny Depp as Wonka is the icing on a very sweet movie.","['0', '1']" +597,rw1140844,BookFreakEllie,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Awesome!,1 August 2005,0,"I have heard numerous negative comments about this movie before it came out but when I saw the trailer, I couldn't wait until it came out. The first time I saw it I was amazed. Depp plays the part of Willy Wonka better than Wilder in the phsycedelic 1971 movie. What many people don't understand is that Willy Wonka is SUPPOSED to be crazy, odd, weird, or whatever you prefer.While Wilder went for sweet and kind he was completely unfaithful to the book. Now, the oompa loompa's aren't SUPPOSED to be green and orange either, like they were in the other movie.I think Deep Roy did a good job as the oompa loompas, though the digital superimposing of him to make the effect of many loompas was a bit dodgy in parts.The songs were very funny indeed. Danny Elfman did a great job, for in some scenes, the powerful music gave me chills. All in all this is the best movie I've seen. By the way, I've seen it 6 times. I'm going for ten this weekend. ^_^","['1', '3']" +598,rw1134418,girsevilmonkey,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),10.0,Way better then the original Highly recommended,24 July 2005,1,"Well.I've heard so many bad remarks about this movie.so I'm gunna say what i think. I've had the pleasure of reading the book and the displeasure of seeing the original. In my opinion this version totally out does the crappy Gene wilder version. the oompalompas actually all look alike,their not any freakish colors,there's no creepy tunnel scene.and not nearly as much singing *thank god* singing is OK but to much is a bad thing.and the songs they do have in this version are much much better.This movie also tells things that the original doesn't.i mean jeez. It explains why willy is such a recluse,why he has no family.explains what happens after they get into the elevator.the original...it was like all that happens is they get in the elevator and thats that. I find this movie one of Burtons Best films yet. also compared to the last movie...this one is way more heartfelt.in my opinion anyways.... and plus johnny depp is a much better actor then gene wilder.","['4', '9']" +599,rw1139703,spydermann_2099,Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005),9.0,Tim Burton Is The Candy Man!,1 August 2005,1,"Living in Germany, I had to wait a couple weeks to see the movie . I had to know if it lived up to the hype. The answer... Yes! I was blown away at how good this film was. I am a huge fan of the original musical with Gene Wilder and I never thought a better movie could be made. I was wrong. Wonka was far more eccentric and mysterious, Charlie was a far better character, and the songs were freaking hilarious. The Oompa Loompas stole the movie.The flashbacks were cleverly done through he eyes of Wonka. The audience really got to see how Willie Wonka saw the world. I saw no Michael Jackson comparisons. More like Captain Kangaro, as Johnny Depp said he based the character from as stated in interviews. He was funny, over the top, and cruel in all the right ways.The two places where the movie wained was with the character Veruca Salt. She wasn't as good as the girl in the original. Hr father, however, was spot on. Veruca did get hers in the end when she messed with the wrong squirrel.The other oddity in the film was Grandpa Joe. I like the guy all through the movie until he started dancing for no reason. This happened twice and it was very awkward. It did not take away from the movie too much.A few cool additions was seeing the naughty children leave the factory after they had violated the Wonka's wishes and the trek of Wonka in Loompa Land. Abosolutly phenomenal.I recommend this movie to everyone. The humor is spot on. I especially enjoyed the story of Wonka in India building a chocolate palace for a Prince, only to discover it would soon melt in the hot sun. Awesome!Hats off to Tim Burton for making a beautiful movie with a beautiful story. He has got to be one of the best directors ever!","['1', '4']" +600,rw1187699,luyendao,Crash (I) (2004),8.0,Enjoyed the movie...but felt it lacked finish,6 October 2005,1,"I thought overall this was a very good movie, it tackled some very deep and thoughtful stereotypes, something that definitely exists, but sometimes doesn't get addressed on, shall we say more subtler levels.It certainly makes you think twice about how you perceive things, and puts people into the right perspective, a larger, more humanitarian context.*possible spoiler* I think however, this movie really lacked finish - the ending, was too neat almost, a little too forced, try to reach some sort of conclusion, not quite a happy ending, but something like it. It's not so much a criticism of the ending itself maybe, but rather the way the ending took place, scene after scene...just seemed a bit too rushed.But overall, a very enjoyable movie, everyone should see it, it's like looking into a mirror with lots of people in it.","['0', '3']" +601,rw1152322,azeemak,Crash (I) (2004),1.0,"Reader, I walked out",17 August 2005,1,"Well, I seem to be out of step with the majority view here, but I have to say that I HATED this film, despite the good things there were in it (some good dialogue amidst the schematic, mouthpiece-for-the-writer stuff and some good acting, especially from Don Cheadle and Thandie Newton). Although I accept that the film was trying to say important things, for me it simply didn't work at any level, because of the writer/director's shouty, showy style; ""I'm saying something REALLY significant here; and look, all the people are prejudiced, not just whites, isn't that edgy; and oh, did you see what I did there with that snazzy editing?"" I don't like being preached at, and that's what I felt with Crash.*SPOILERS IN THIS PARAGRAPH* Like one or two other reviewers on this site, I was also bothered by the relentless contrivances Haggis uses to get characters into the same space, many of which simply make no sense; and the ludicrous things some of them do once there: what was the director doing driving through that dodgy neighbourhood? How did the irate Iranian man find the locksmith's address (yes, Haggis thoughtfully showed a shot of a circled address in a phone book, but come on, how many people called 'D Ruiz' are there in LA??)? And I didn't believe for one moment that he would have fired the gun once he saw the girl. AND another thing: blanks at that range would still have caused injury or even death.My biggest objection to this film is that nearly every character is a cipher. Don Cheadle's mother is straight out of Central Casting, with one incredibly clichéd line (""I was doin' real good""); Sandrea Bullock's uptight WASP was even more annoying than she was meant to be; you just KNEW that Matt Dillon's racist LAPD officer would turn out to be a Great Cop.Crash (not to be confused with the David Cronenberg film, despite an opening speech which gives a none-too-subtle nod to it) has been compared to Magnolia, for an obvious reason: the multi-stranded plot. I think it also shares Magnolia's overweening self-importance and lack of humility; with its constant attempts to wrong-foot the viewer's expectations, it paradoxically becomes tiresomely predictable.*MORE SPOILERS* By the time of Ryan Philippe's confrontation with Larenz Tate, which, again, I did not find remotely credible - surely Tate's character would have realised how spooked the other was, and *explained* why he was laughing, rather than reach into his pocket, thereby signing his own death warrant - I'd had enough. I didn't care what happened, as these people did not come alive.","['3', '8']" +602,rw1144474,harry_tk_yung,Crash (I) (2004),,Snap shots,7 August 2005,1,"(watched in Toronto)Paul Haggie's (writer of ""Million Dollar Baby"") directing debut, ""Crash"" is an attempt to be a thought-provoking film about racism. Despite a good cast and good efforts, it succeeds only in showing what racism looks like, but has no in-depth probing into what it really is, not even to the level of the legendary Archie Bunker TV series in the 70s, ""All in the family"", let alone the all time classic ""Guess who is coming to dinner"". (1967)Quite a few critics condemn the plot for its total lack of common sense credulity – in a city of multi-million population, L.A., the two dozen characters keep bumping into one another as if this were a small rural town. Personally, I do not mind the coincidence, serendipity and all that, looking from the angle of these contrivances being necessary theatrical manipulations to get the ensemble story constructed.Really lacking is the superficial treatment of the characters, as well as inconsistencies. Haggie wants to show two sides of every human being and there's nothing wrong with that. But take an example in Matt Dillion's character, a racist cop who thinks that Blacks are the cause of everything bad. So far so good. But if you look at his upbringing and if what he says about his father is true, it is totally inconceivable that he would turn out to be the way he is.The movie is well intentioned, well acted and has some positive messages. Beyond that, however, it does not have much more to offer and is generally overrated.Finally, just a quick summary of the various interwoven plot lines, using the names of the actors, rather than the characters, for expediency.1. District attorney Brendan Fraser and wife Sandra Bullock got their car taken form them at gunpoint by two Blacks Ludicrous and Larenz Tate. Bullock's innate prejudice and distrust of minorities is later softened when after slipping and falling down the stairs, she finds that the only help comes from the Latina maid.2. In danger of being compromised, Fraser forces police officer Don Cheadle to shield him, using as a threat the latter's delinquent brother Ludicrous. Jennifer Esposito is Cheadle's partner at work as well as lover but he never bother to understand her origin, considering ""Mexican"" (which really has nothing to do with her) to be sufficient.3. Locksmith Michael Pena, after fixing the locks for Bullock's house and earning suspicious glances from her, goes on to work on Iranian Shaun Toub's store. When the store is broken into, not because of the lock be because of the door itself, Toub wants blood and would have killed Rena's 5-year-old daughter had it not been for a lucky mistake in buying the wrong ammunition.4. Affluent Black couple Terrance Dashon Howard and Thandie Newton encounters racist cop Matt Dillon who molests Newton in a body search at a routine drink-driving check. The couple's relationship stands a severe test as a result of this ordeal. Later, by sheer coincidence, Dillon courageously rescues Newton in an accident when she is trapped in her car that is about to explode.5. Young cop Ryan Phillippe, Dillon's partner at the same search, cannot stand his bigotry and asks for a new partner. Later, Phillippe courageously diffuses a situation in which innocent Howard is in danger of being shot by police officers. But ironically, Phillippe later picks up hitchhiking Ludicrous and shoots him dead in a misunderstanding.6. A Korean couple is placed at various junctures, more as Asian tokenism.That covers most, but not all, of the interwoven plot and characters.","['8', '16']" +603,rw1224403,atticus900,Crash (I) (2004),,Complexity of racism,25 November 2005,0,"Crash was the best film I have seen in a long while. Like ""Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"", this film is a movie which has Hollywood actors, but still manages to have a great deal of depth. Instead of the black and white, two dimensional nature of most attempts at tackling racism, Haggis does a beautiful job of showing how complex racism and discrimination is, and how misunderstanding causes terrible hurt and waste. The link between fear and racism is explored well. And all this without any tinge of ""documentary""ness. Unlike one-sided displays of racism towards one group of people, which usually provoke righteous but shallow indignation, Crash provokes an almost helpless anger at how messed up the world is.","['0', '2']" +604,rw1162070,klyannacci,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Everyone should watch this one!,31 August 2005,0,"This film talks about a very touchy subject. It shows that racism is not just a ""black and white"" issue. We can see through this film how we form opinions based on the color of a person's skin or the way they talk etc. This film also shows us how stupid these racist issues really are. It shows us how politicians try to manipulate their image to bring in the minority vote. If you can bring one thing out of this film, it should be that everyone is an individual and should be judged as such. I don't want to spoil the movie for everyone, but this is a very touching movie. I think everyone who doesn't go see this one will be seriously missing out. GO SEE IT NOW!","['6', '16']" +605,rw1174549,stensson,Crash (I) (2004),8.0,Touching at any cost,18 September 2005,0,"The main theme is in the beginning. Someone says something about that in L A you are so desperate to get touched, that you're prepared to get destructive about it.The problem here is race. That's what prevents you from touching. The question is put through many everyday scenes, that turn out to be destructive. You try to come near people, but it ends in catastrophe. But there are also angels, who prevent the evil.It's a hopeful movie, because it doesn't just put the difficult questions; it answers some of them too. And you can carry these answers with you.","['2', '8']" +606,rw1171203,dynamit06,Crash (I) (2004),7.0,Good but not perfect.,12 September 2005,0,"I must say that I'm a bit surprised by so many people and critics giving this movie such rave reviews. Although it's a good movie it has some major flaws in the script and in it's characters. First of all it's hard to believe that so many coincidental events and meetings ever could occur in such a big city as LA. It's as if the message of the movie (Everyone is a racist and a jerk, but even racists and jerks have good sides and people who seem to be good and who are not prejudice can do terrible things and so on..) was more important than making the movie and it's characters believable. Then I find it a bit annoying with all the comments about race in the movie. Some of the dialog about the race-issue is for me as a swede hard to find believable.The good thing with the movie is that it's a good story. I did care about the people and wanted to know what would happen with them. The direction is very good and so is the acting.Not a major disappointment but a small one.","['2', '6']" +607,rw1167773,movieheather,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Best Movie I Have Seen In A Long Time,7 September 2005,0,"This movie was painfully honest, intense, emotional, and thought provoking. I didn't see much advertisement for it when it was in theaters, but I saw it listed at my theater and watched the trailer online. I think it is a shame that more people didn't see it, because it honestly points out how trivial some of our thought processes are and how poignant our reactions can be when we're in a certain mindset. I will tell my friends and family that this is one they'll want to see! I think just about everyone can relate to someone in this movie. The raw emotions are ones we've mirrored in every day life. The actors did a superb job and there were definitely some twists. The music was hauntingly perfect. Reminds me of how I felt after seeing American History X, only Crash has more diversity.","['5', '14']" +608,rw1179978,ResonantHawk,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,Interesting study of races and the common misconceptions that rule our lives,24 September 2005,0,"To start with, ""Crash"" is not your average movie with an amazing storyline. It's more than a movie; it's an intelligent study of our perceptions, more in particular with respect to our understanding of races.To make matters even better, the movie has a distinctive cast known for their versatility and unique acting styles. In addition to that, you've got one of the innovative screenwriters in Hollywood at the moment as the director- Paul Haggis (Academy Award Nominated Screenwriter of Million Dollar Baby), which ensures that the stuff is worth your time and money.""Crash"" studies a set of random events over a time period of two days and its impact on the multicultural residents in a close knit suburb community in L.A. The characters and their roles in the subsequent events are best left unsaid since in a way it can act as a spoiler for anyone who hasn't seen the movie yet.Every aspect of this movie is cleverly thought and executed smartly. The soundtrack is intriguing enough to match the intensity of the characters and portray their honest emotions.Be sure to check out this movie.9/10","['3', '9']" +609,rw1168346,chron,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Wonderfully Nuanced Treatise on Racism,8 September 2005,0,"This is an exceptional film on all levels. Technically it is masterful. The filming is exceptional. The acting is top notch all the way through. There is a lot of very deep, but suppressed emotion, in the acting. There were no weak performances throughout this film. There was one scene that perhaps could have been edited a little more tightly, but that is a genuinely trivial complaint. This film really hit the mark with me.Structurally, this film is very close to ""Short Cuts"" by Robert Altman, which is also a favorite of mine. This tells the interwoven stories of an ensemble cast of characters as they face the frustrations of daily living. Racism isn't black and white. Interspersed throughout the film are the multiple nuanced facets of racism in all of their ugly shades of grey. There is no overt KKK-style racism here. It's all about the subtle assumptions that we make of people based on their appearance. Sometimes those assumptions are correct, but wrong. Sometimes they are wrong, but correct.This is a brilliant screenplay. Sure there are some coincidences that are quite unlikely, but they are there to contribute to the point of the stories, so that level of poetic license is quite alright with me. It didn't detract from the message.There are so many wonderful actors and performances in this movie that it is unfair to pick out one out. However, I thought Don Cheadle - whose acting I am always admired - had the best performance of his career. His ability to convey emotion through expression was just plain exceptional.It takes a truly exceptional movie to impress me enough to earn a 10 of 10. This is just such a movie.","['5', '13']" +610,rw1242442,mrs1,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,This movie makes you examine your prejudices and your fears.,19 December 2005,0,"Not for kids, this movie takes a hard look at our prejudices and how our experiences influence us in our next encounters. A bad experience with a person of a certain ethnic group tends to make us treat (or want to treat) that ethnic group badly. But not always; sometimes our training, our duty makes us reach out to help even someone who is difficult to help.Based in Los Angeles this movie takes a look at a policeman, a lawyer, a locksmith and a storekeeper and how their preconceptions make them treat others badly sometimes, and at other times rise to being a hero.This movie will keep you guessing - A Must See!","['0', '4']" +611,rw1151873,peterbecker,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,both sides of the medal,16 August 2005,0,"The movie is mainly about racism and tolerance. It contains stories of different people who all have to do with this theme. Some of them are the hunters, some the prey. Further in the movie the story lines get mixed up and every character comes to a point which changes his life. The movie shows in an amazing way how people get along with racism and how it can change their lives. Some of the destiny's are showing a happy end, some not. In the end you will get out of the cinema and just can't decide if you should be happy or sad. The film shows both sides of the medal and so it will become an experience you won't forget so fast.","['0', '4']" +612,rw1224514,faincut,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,Racism In America,25 November 2005,1,"Los Angeles. A racist WHITE cop (Matt Dillon) saves in a heroic attempt a BLACK woman (Nona Gaye) trapped in her flipped-over burning car. On the previous night, that same cop had almost arrested her, not before he molested her. His partner, A WHITE rookie police officer (Ryan Phillippe) is disturbed by his partners actions, he can't stand his racist partner cop. He saves the BLACK woman's husband (Terrence Howard) from being shot, by treating him differently than usual treatment of a BLACK man with a gun. There is a Miracle in the film, a man shots a little girl by accident - she doesn't get hurt. But what seems as a miracle is actually a series of events and actions that a person did not follow. It never snows in LA. But miracles can happen.","['0', '2']" +613,rw1162052,russell100uk,Crash (I) (2004),8.0,One to make you think,31 August 2005,0,"Crash is a powerful movie about the perception of minorities in modern society, a riff on racism that challenges stereotypes and the way in which we, as human beings, are prone to make assumptions based on the appearance of an individual, often playing off of pre-conceived idea's that have been embedded into us from an early age.Opening with a car crash, we then backtrack to yesterday, as an ensemble cast's lives intertwine in the diverse density of the L.A. metropolis. But, unlike Magnolia, Crash is less interested in the ways in which fate and chance dictate everyday events, and more with how bigotry and racial tension exists in every corner of this multi-cultural melting pot. Where Crash is most successful is in how it challenges certain racial stereotypes and how it subsequently portrays the effects racism has on everyone's lives. It's not just a simple case of white vs. black. It goes much deeper, as we realise that intolerance is widespread and isn't confined to the white middle classes, that it exists between all colours, all races, all cultures. The finger of blame is easiest to point at somebody who doesn't look like you, who doesn't have your upbringing. Because of this, they must be in the wrong, right? Matt Dillon's veteran cop has this outlook. His father lost everything because of minority rules and he holds a deep grudge against all blacks, regardless of age, sex or profession. Yet this bigotry is awkwardly juxtaposed between his genuine care for his sick father and his honour and duty as an officer of the law, something he later demonstrates during a life or death situation. Director and writer Paul Haggis twists the stereotypical views further with the characters of Terrence Howard, a young, black film-maker and Michael Pena, who gives an outstanding & extremely subtle performance as Daniel, a young Hispanic locksmith with a wife and young daughter, with whom he shares one of the films most touching moments. In fact all of the cast do a fine job with their roles, even Chris ""Ludacris"" Bridges, in an attempt to branch out, providing some of the funnier moments of the movie with his musings on black oppression. And lets not forget Don Cheadle, as a cop who finds his integrity challenged after investigating a messy bout of cop on cop action.Ultimately though, the thing that will stay with you the longest is the simple message that shines throughout the film. ""Don't judge a book by its cover."" Every character displays the devil inside of them but it's only one part, there is good in everyone, it just needs an outlet, an opportunity to break through. As the film reaches its climax we are forced to consider how we look at people in everyday life. How we label and pigeonhole certain cultures, certain races, into one group, with no distinction between the good and the bad. In an increasingly paranoid world, where we are being schooled in how to be suspicious of unfamiliar practices and alien customs, Crash serves as a hard reminder that while we must be careful in our own daily lives, we must be equally cautious not to discriminate and adversely affect the lives of many hard working, decent citizens just because of the actions of a few.If there are any gripes with the film (and these will be minor) it's that what your watching is a collection of vignettes, snippets of these characters lives beamed direct to your brain for your benefit, and not a cohesive story that links seamlessly between strands, in the vein of the excellent Magnolia. At the end of the film characters have reached resolutions, but these aren't earth shattering, life changing epiphanies, rather smaller, more personal realisations that will, you assume, change their way of future thinking. Like much of the movie, it uses a lo-fi approach to the drama, making the final payoff that much more powerful and ultimately, delivering the emotional kick necessary to immerse the audience within this world.","['2', '4']" +614,rw1165675,monolith94,Crash (I) (2004),1.0,A tale told by an idiot.,2 September 2005,1,"The film's tagline is ""You think you know who you are. You have no idea."" I reject both the suggested idea that I have no idea who I am and the inferred suggestion that this film tells me who people truly are. If people in real life are really like this, then man, we're screwed.A bilious film that I walked into late and left prematurely. A film which is so wrapped up in its goal of becoming The Race Film of All Time that it loses sight of the very tools a film must use.The rules of Hollywood are such: if you show something in the first half, it must be used in the second half. Thus the gun that the daughter worries about her father buying will somehow find its way into the story in the second half. The rules of Hollywood are to make dialog 'real' - a concept which changes with every decade. Is this 'real dialog' somehow less ludicrous than the 'real dialog' of Kevin Smith ten years ago? The rules of Hollywood state that we set the scene, and as action rises, the camera moves in closer to the faces - in this film primarily so we can see the supposed shame, humiliation and transcendental realism of the characters. The strings increase, the frame-rate slows down, and our heart is meant to break.This film is as crassly manipulative as it is vapid. I have my own prejudices against L.A., which I freely admit, so to combat this prejudice I will not say that this is a natural situation stemming from the location, but rather probably from the author and director. The writer, Paul Haggis, already showed a taste for polemics over humanity in his Million Dollar Baby, which at least had a director who understood how to make the vision of the film bring out the best of a script's ideas. Now that Paul Haggis has his own hands on the camera it becomes obvious that not only does he not know how to write true, natural human drama, he does not know how to photograph or direct it as well. Paul Haggis comes from the land of TV, let us not forget: the land of diminished expectations.Everything is as obvious as a TV-movie, simply presented for simple minds - Haggis drills into us, over and over again, that while on the surface people may seem to be awful, they have secret pains hidden. This is a nice idea, but so hamfistedly presented that the whole juxtaposition of bad/good has an amateurish feel. Structurally the film is broken up, in the tradition of Magnolia and other earlier films. The editing is as typical and conventionally ""cinematic"" as could be - if there is a dramatic movement, such as a door opening or a car driving past between the subject and camera, the editors use that extreme movement to give the cut that occurs there a more kinetic quality. The problem is that other than the drive to keep things moving, there is very little intelligence and thought behind the cuts - everything is kept by the books. Not only are the puppets of this hideous racial punch and judy show ineptly handled, but even the curtains are lowered and raised with incompetence.The film tries desperately to present reality, but there's just no talent whatsoever. Some of the actors are good, some of the actors are bad, and all of the performance get muddied together, brought down by the low, low aesthetics of the film. We have cinematography which is technically clear: we can see the scene, we have a clear understanding of what is happening. However, not only is the cinematography unremarkable, but it is thoughtless camera-work and framing which believes that it actually is inspired. The result is little stylistic flourishes which one recognizes but do not actually add anything to the drama or pathos. For example - and this is a spoiler - as a father holds his dying child (the father might be shot too, I didn't stick around to find out) the camera sees his face and gives us the famous Vertigo track/zoom. The Vertigo shot!!! It was at this point that the film became hysterical and I just had to leave. I had to leave because it was so bad. I left because I was in the middle of a crowded theater, and I wanted to express to the audience that I was sick of emptyheaded Hollywood 'art' which is full of sound and fury, yet signifying nothing (in the Bard's own words). I hate to waste such good Shakespearian references on something this remarkably bad.","['411', '728']" +615,rw1209194,abishek_007,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,A movie that'll change the way you think,5 November 2005,0,"There are a lot of good movies around that are cleverly made. But, very few that actually make you think and analyze yourself, on your views on society, people and right and wrong. This is one movie that is not just masterfully made but the message it carries is amazing. Racism is a topic that's been touched before, but its mostly about blacks and whites. Crash envelopes both races, plus all the in betweens. This is movie about the stereotypes in society, and how we see others different from us. No one is shown to be perfect, everyone has flaws, but everyone is human and that is what makes the experience so real. I myself am coloured and have seen white people trying to judge me on it, and i have done the same with them and the Chinese, blacks, Arabs. Everyone will associate with this movie.Paul Haggis could be called a genius for his splendid direction, which is intensely emotional at times but strangely hilarious the next. The story (or stories rather) connects so wonderfully and you would be hating a character at one point and cheering for him the next. But what will strike you the most is how much you will care for these people on seeing their side of things. The performances are all excellent and I have developed immense respect for Matt Dillon after seeing this movie. I will never forget his performance and would say he truly deserves recognition. Thandie Newton, Ryan Phillipe and Don Cheadle are also very good. But, I would also like to say that Ludicrous's role is also one that you won't forget so easily and by the end of the movie you'll love him. All in all, an awesome movie and everyone should give it a try and watch it with an open mind.","['0', '5']" +616,rw1134333,s33a2d17,Crash (I) (2004),8.0,don't miss it - it's a Hollywood movie that's actually worth watching!,23 July 2005,1,"The summary should do, really. But let's elaborate a little. Before I say anything else, I'll tell you I'm a critical movie watcher. I'm European, prefer European movies as they have far more depth and diversity and I have little respect for the rubbish shoveled out of Hollywood. But I still keep an eye on it. Even among the trash you can find things worth keeping, and this movie definitely qualifies.The story is sobering, at least at first. It doesn't hold it's punches when the human condition (at least in L.A.) is described, and it shows us racism is rampant everywhere. Yes, even in the USA. The quality of this movie lies is the complexity of the emotion that is shown - events and characters are not black and white, if you pardon the pun. Characters are far more rounded that we are used to seeing in Hollywood movies. Still, Crash doesn't manage to keep it's strong points going for the entire duration of the movie. Sentimentalism creeps in, some events you can see from a mile away and the obligatory 'happy' ending cannot be avoided (I don't think you'd consider it a spoiler if I tell you most characters in the movie have received a lesson in life by the end). But what we see in between opening and closing credits is strong enough to make not want to dwell on that too much - it's also strong enough for me not to be naive and think the lessons learned will stick, not with most of them anyway.All in all, it's a rare thing to see a movie of this quality, with this cast, come out of the Hollywood studio's. You wouldn't want to miss that, would you?","['1', '6']" +617,rw1201143,krice,Crash (I) (2004),1.0,"HATE MONGERING, HURTFUL Depressing Movie...",24 October 2005,0,"Absolutely a bad idea to watch this movie; it will leave you depressed, emotionally and spiritually violated and hurt, Fearful of everyone, and hateful of anyone you don't already know.What time you spend watching this will be torn from you and you will regret having the images in your brain. This is one of the most depressing, sad-ass build-up to hate-throwing movies I've seen in a long, long time. I can't think of another movie that has insulted me as much as this one did.Warning. There is a scene of a rape in this movie. Violent sexual assault does NOT make a good movie. I disagree with the premise of this as 'enlightening' or Hollywood's idea of 'insightful' (what a load of hooey). A white police officer violently sexually assaults a black lady in front of her husband, and we all know that death follows any resistance of the cop's act. This is NOT A SPOILER, it's the scene's setup. There's more.Anyone saying this movie is ""good"" has decided that any art that proposes to depict subtle racism as common in some people's lives. That's fine for them. Not Me. I strongly believe that movies with racism like this should NOT promoted as artistic. They are the same as a slasher film, just put into a different wrapper. Hate mongering, fear-mongering trash.I feel dirty and angry having watched it. When the film's creators and actors decided to thrust these (depicted) profoundly evil injustices on my psyche, I myself changed for the worse. I cannot go out and regard a person of color in a more fair lite after seeing movies where evil injustices are depicted - THEY PLAY ON MY PREJUDICES, and if I didn't have any before the movie THEY GIVE ME SOME then CRITICIZE ME FOR HAVING THEM. This is profoundly bad movie-making. It pushes prejudice on everyone, puts us in corners, and makes us feel guilty for being the same color as the actors who are portraying the evil it invents.THIS MOVIE MAKES PEOPLE FEEL MORE HATE NOT LESS. This movie sucks in such a big way that I hope anyone who wants to see it will think twice about what the shape of their soul will be when they turn it off. I hope for a better world. I reject racism where I see it, and I know that every time someone even sees racism, they are converted to its cause, one way or another. This is because racism is built on HATE. Hate is built on FEAR. FEAR MONGERING HATE-FILLED FILMS LIKE THIS deserve no attention from kind people. Continue being a kind person. Reject racism and hate. Reject this freaking movie.","['10', '19']" +618,rw1252916,Roger_Sterling,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,The best movie of the year.,1 January 2006,0,"As a Star Wars fan, I feel obliged to say Revenge Of The Sith was the best movie of the year. But in my unbiased and honest opinion, Crash is hands down the best movie of 2005. The performances blew me away. Before seeing this movie, I didn't think Sandra Bullock was a great actress, but didn't think she was a terrible one either. This movie changed that. In the scene when Sandra confronts Rick about being carjacked, she proved she can really light up the screen. But one performance that took me by surprise was the one by Ludicrous. He delivered a good performance. The racism that each character expresses and experiences is really a wake up call. And one of the most famous (infamous?) scenes in the movie-with the Persian store owner and the little girl-is some of the best movie making I've seen. I tell you, when what people thought was a loaded gun went off on the little girl, there were quite a few teary eyes in the theater I was in. Thank god those were blanks huh? Anyway, if this movie is not nominated for at least 1 Oscar that is absolutely ridiculous. But hey, if Shakespeare In Love can beat Saving Private Ryan for best picture, who knows what might happen at this year's Oscars.A perfect 10/10, as you have seen above. Highly recommended.","['1', '6']" +619,rw1168961,junkie46664,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,"Racism is real, and so is this movie.",9 September 2005,0,"Crash may be a Hollywood glamorized version of racism in America, but it still leaves you evaluating yourself once you watch it. The scenes leave you scathed with thought and self-criticism. If you think you aren't racist at all, and you think it doesn't affect anyone when you act out in a racist way, then watch this movie and prove yourself wrong. Crash is a movie to see for its morals, ethics, and sheer thought invocation. The only reason I can see as to why I didn't like parts of the movie, the extreme drama and glamour of racism. Racism may not be prominent in society today but it still exists and on some occasions it comes out vividly. Do yourself a favour, see Crash.","['2', '7']" +620,rw1130459,ma_ge,Crash (I) (2004),6.0,"Fresh and captivating, but contrived and goes nowhere with its theme",19 July 2005,0,"I went into the movie with high expectations given its IMDb rating. However, the movie seemed to be satisfied skipping along the surface of its theme of racism without ever exploring it. It simply demonstrated a sequence of contrived events putting racist characters face to face with other racist characters. It did that masterfully, but there was no coherent message in it all. Some characters undergo VERY cheesy epiphanies, the rest though stay pretty much exactly the same. Sandra Bullock's role in the movie was so pathetically one-dimensional it's a wonder it wasn't cut. Don Cheadle's role was pretty much entirely irrelevant...he contributed nothing to the movie except a sad-looking, pensive face the entire time.","['0', '2']" +621,rw1176781,tigrant,Crash (I) (2004),2.0,"Primitive , Primitive, Primitive, Primitive, Primitive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!",20 September 2005,0,"I thought this was a pretty primitive film.The movie did absolutely nothing for me, it might work on high school students and it seems as though that was the target audience.The movie is not going to change people; we all know who we are already. We do good and bad things occasionally, but who is going to judge what's right and what's wrong when we have no idea about who the people are that live around us. People don't function on the same psychology; this film tries to classify people under one roof. All ethnicities come with a different set of laws and ideas, and when you have all these different people living in one city there is going to be a clash between cultures no matter what. Racism is not going to stop, you can change one racist but can you change all? That's somewhat of a pessimistic view... but hey don't blame me, that's reality. We're all animals. You can tame Dogs and cats to get along, but for how long? There is eventually going to be some conflict.Yes some of the events in the film do happen in real life and especially in Los Angeles, but the greater point that we're forgetting is: Why do these events happen? First of all because our government does not give a crap, second because people have no intellect, third because we're always pressured into doing what's ""right"" in the publics eye, and finally because films like this are made that make life seem so simple and brainwash people when in reality racism is not the biggest problem we face globally. But of course the audience won't be interested in these important details because they're all busy eating popcorn and wiping the tears from their eyes. Ahhhh stop crying and start realizing that you're human and accepting the fact that you're nothing in a universe of nothing.I should also mention that the music in the film sucked! It was way too exaggerated. The acting was not bad however, it was no Gary Oldman quality but it was not half bad. Want to watch a good film? Watch THE BIG LEBOWSKI!!!!","['7', '16']" +622,rw1154544,drella666,Crash (I) (2004),7.0,"Good, but not as good as it thinks",20 August 2005,0,"Crash is a well-made, extremely well-acted (Dillon, Cheadle, Pena, Ludicrous especially) ensemble movie that inevitably brings to mind such multi-stranded efforts as Magnolia, Traffic and the best of Robert Altman. However, it has been over-hyped as a movie that tears down taboos and doublethink, exposing the prejudice and inhumanity of modern L.A. Well, perhaps if the audience lived on the moon. The general message seems to be that most people, of all races are prejudiced or self-serving or both, but most of them have redeeming features as well. Duh. So a bored, rich housewife gets annoyed with the Hispanic maid. So a young, criminal black man gets tied up with conspiracy theories. So an Iranian guy who loses his shop goes a bit crazy. Nothing wrong with these, but to define Crash as brave or shocking is really overstating the case.There are shocking moments (the stand-off involving the shopkeeper, the locksmith and his daughter); the young, upright cop's moment of panic; but they don't really tell us anything we don't already know. People are flawed. Well, who knew?","['1', '4']" +623,rw1190831,thesurfingpasta,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,best,10 October 2005,0,"If not the best written and storyboarded movie - it is in the top 5 easy. Any one who has not seen it - should - Although it did not get the recognition it should have it still one of the best movies - for everyone - go see it - you will not be disappointed. The movie is a roller coaster, you laugh when you know don't know why.....and you cry at something you have grown up around - The movie alone is nothing new - the idea's are from new as well - but realism is what makes the movie un-catagorzable - no genre can explain it.Also go see Million Dollar Baby - same thing as Crash - but without racism.","['5', '13']" +624,rw1191585,Boggman,Crash (I) (2004),5.0,Crashes then burns....,11 October 2005,0,"""Crash"" is not that great of a movie. In fact, by the time it is said and done, it is hardly a complete movie at all. I'm still not sure what the theme of this movie is?? Racism? What you have with ""Crash"" is a few interlocking stories with various people that happen to cross each others paths. ""Crash"" has a fantastic ensemble of actors and actresses, but each persons character and storyline isn't completely developed. I guess that's the problem when your trying to tell 5 or more stories at once.All in all this is just an O.K. picture. You won't feel any better or worse having watched it by the time the credits roll. If anything you may wish you'd passed on this one. That is how this reviewer felt. Kind of a droll movie that attempts to make an impact- but doesn't really.It delivers a promising premise... but it could have been much more with a better script and some more character development fleshed out. The acting is definitely solid- but the rest of the film is severely flawed.""Crash"" is just one hell of an average movie.","['4', '9']" +625,rw1188041,Cassie_june1990,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,great movie well thought out,6 October 2005,0,If you want a movie that will shock you you have to see this movie if you don't you are crazy because this is an awesome movie and you must go see it. It has a lot of truth to it which I know happens in real life that you don't wnat to or cant see in people who are actually racial against other racists.Its shows how some people can act very racial toothers. How they can be afraid of a black man or some other race and the other person will take it personal I thought the whole outcome was awesome. I think the writer did an awesome job as well as all those actors that played in that film.They played their characters very well.If you have not seen this people you better run to rent it or buy it or else ou are missing an awesome movie that will keep you thinking as well as hoping through the movie. If you see a person who is walking right towards you and they have tattoos or is black or some other race don't cross the street because that could be just a nice and gentle person people are scared of because of some tattos or race Cassandra Cassandra,"['6', '14']" +626,rw1182352,kelko,Crash (I) (2004),3.0,Don't Believe The Hype!,28 September 2005,0,"I rented Crash from my local video store because a friend recommended it. I admit I was slightly skeptical about a tag line that suggests that you don't know yourself until you finish watching this particular movie. After this supposed eye opening movie finished I, unfortunately experienced no such revelation. I was left mostly with disappointment and anger. Disappointment because I wasted both time and money on this movie, and anger because so many viewers believe in such a contrived, unrealistic portrayal of characters and racism. This film is designed to manipulate viewers into believing that it's a brave and thought provoking story about racism, but it's far from the truth. Crash is Trash and nothing more than a poorly written/directed script with big budget waste of time and subject.","['27', '43']" +627,rw1216170,Mikefp517,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,excilent movie,14 November 2005,0,"This movie was excellently acted and had one of the deepest cast's I've ever seen, Matt Dillon really showed some acting chops in this movie much like he did in a Little known movie he did called Employee of the month which is also a great film to catch if you have a night free. In addition to the acting the scrip was great and the way the plot tied every character in to the story was brilliant. The way the film dealt with race in today's society was very refreshing, it decided to charge right into it rather than dance around the topic like so many films of today do. I recommend this fill to any one who likes to watch movies for any reason you're not going to find a much better film than this one.","['0', '5']" +628,rw1237835,tuscanimpressions,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Superb ensemble in a film that has to be the sleeper of 2004,13 December 2005,0,"Give the setup 15 minutes and you won't regret the investment. A gritty story of life as many people live it without ever recognizing it. Set in LA but could be any big city. An honest and well-written script that deals with many social issues but never gives in to the temptation to simplify or overstate them. Twists and turns, deeply human and personal; emotionally draining in some tense scenes; wonderful story-telling; laughs that suddenly hook you into high drama. Difficult -- and unfair -- to mention specific actors in such an shining ensemble, but Ludicrous showed more acting ability than I thought he had. Don't watch the writer's remarks until afterward.","['1', '6']" +629,rw1252514,fete_accompli,Crash (I) (2004),,Push the little daisies (and make them come up),1 January 2006,0,"I thought I'd add some lyrics by the band Ween to the review as I've never been to America, let alone L.A.The film is all about mistakes. Mistakes that someone living in a British community reading newspapers and watching television news know will not burden their lives through laws which they are not governed by, most directly, gun control. Or dreams of living as large as America, and making errors of judgement from thinking on such grandiose scales which is where the racial tension inherent in this movie could well be derived from.What the movie does is show a big city interacting on a very small scale from the police department to television producers and petty criminals on the wrong side of the fence and pick their lives apart only to fake a reformation of the jigsaw puzzle at the end.In many ways the Stella cast reminds me of a group of conniving union delegates who know they have done wrong and commissioned somebody to write a movie that doesn't hide this fact, and quite the opposite, implores you to join them. Bums on seats? No, more go out and buy a Matt Dillon shaped dildo and sit on it the night before your first period starts.What the film can't hide from the back of my mind is the tragic occurrences witnessed recently in the US, not the ones that happen daily; things for which someone is to blame and no matter how hard I try, watching this movie brings to mind but one answer: blame America. There, a happy ending, after all.","['1', '6']" +630,rw1138578,gryveken,Crash (I) (2004),8.0,A beautiful movie....,30 July 2005,0,"When watching this movie you will get to see how a few peoples life come together in both sad and happy occasions. The script is very clever and solid so this movie will keep you watching until the end. At least I did.This is one of those movies that reaches out to you and tries to give a message, and it does. It isn't a movie filled with meaningless violence and witty action remarks. Every little thing that you will see in ""Crash"" has a reason.Excellent actors and beautiful camera angels work together in this movie that should be seen at least once. Just remember one thing, this isn't a action or a comedy. It is a very tragic movie.","['1', '6']" +631,rw1169508,gastonschettino,Crash (I) (2004),3.0,"boring, very boring",10 September 2005,0,"Once I heard the great Colombian writer, Gabriel García Márquez, explaining how hard he worked in order to gain the attention of the reader every minute.This surely was not the goal of the authors of this movie. A lot of boring stories. One hour and a half without any connection between any of them and then, finally the stupid, weak, uninteresting ""see, this is how we wanted to amaze you"" linking.Try ""Amores Perros"" and you'll have great stories, great connection between them and, most of all, a lot of fun. Is fun a forbidden word for all these pretentious directors??","['5', '13']" +632,rw1150043,matigill,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,Anyone think it was a little bit like Magnolia?!,14 August 2005,1,"First of all, let me say that I liked the movie. A lot. I think that it was a great character study which also touched home on interesting issues such as family, race, the American so-called melting pot and relationships. The best theme of the movie I believe was showing that sometimes bad people do great deeds, and good people do horrible ones. However, the similarities with Magnolia were so obvious. If they hadn't been I'd rate it a 10. PT Anderson must be angry somewhere. The many characters all coming together as their stories are revealed bit by bit, the horrible deeds done by thw ""wholesome"" characters (Ryan Phillipes cover-up in crash and The gameshow hosts molesting of his daughter in Maghnolia). The redemption of the sinners - Ludicrous in crash and Tom Cruise & William H Macy in Magnolia. And last but not least - the last scene, with the theme song going and the frogs.. em... sorry... snow falling. But like I said, I liked it. A lot.","['1', '6']" +633,rw1236693,nvonstein,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Finally,12 December 2005,1,"A film that exposes a lot of America to its core. A brilliant film, a incredible cast, all delivering superb acting abilities, even Ludicrous excels as his character.Paul Higgins is to be commended for this inspiring work of art. One idea i got from the film is the hypocrysy of many people.We see the multi-layering of the characters, many of the ""bad"" characters(Mat Dillion) turn out ""good"" after we see their/his situation.Many of the ""good"" character (Ryan Phillipe) turn out ""Bad"", again due to circumstances.From this, one can synthesise the idea of not judging. Along with that theme, the viewer sees the real American soul, where political, social, economical euphamism are ripped away by the raw truth.What a disturbing revelation.A TRULY amazing film that deserves to win a heap of awards. Either CRASH or BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN should win the Oscar next year for BEST PICTURE.Hope the summary and ideas help. Nic.","['0', '4']" +634,rw1188047,raedeleon321,Crash (I) (2004),,Blah.,6 October 2005,0,"I just couldn't follow this movie with all the jumping around from this racial event to that. I am an avid movie watcher and stick it out to the end credits once I sit down to watch a movie. The acting was fine and the actors chosen for the roles were fine as well. I just didn't understand how one character related to another, how any of the events related to each other and how they were relevant to the movie, and I surely didn't get the purpose of this movie itself. It required more analyzing and thinking than I like to do when I watch a movie as a leisure activity. I'm sure if I watch it again, I might be able to deduce what the purpose was; however, I feel extremely cheated for investing 2 hours of my life into the first viewing, I really don't think I want to go double or nothing!","['3', '7']" +635,rw1169876,rosaishere,Crash (I) (2004),8.0,Some people in Hollywood still care about making a superb film,11 September 2005,1,"This is probably the best film I have seen in a cinema for a good number of years. The script is what I would call close to perfect, with the different story lines all developing in meaning and concluding together into one large important message. Some moments of this film made me laugh, with the two car thieves delivering some fantastic lines. Some moments made me cry, with Don Cheadle's character painfully losing his long lost little brother. And some moments kept me on the edge of my seat, the intense scene with Matt Dillon saving the woman from the burning car wreckage is just unforgettable. The wide diversity of characters is what makes this film so enjoyable to watch.The underlining message echoing through the film is the effects of racism on the American public, and the attitudes people hold against each other. The film delivers the message in an effective manner, with the ending beautifully rounding off each character's developments and their self realisation. The films basically shows how despite people realising the problem of racism, it is one problem they just won't learn from. The Stereophonics song, Maybe Tomorrow, is strangely ironic in painting the film's final point.Out of the whole superb cast Don Cheadle and Matt Dillon stand out clearly. Don Cheadle playing the restless cop with a heavy heart for his mother; constantly trying to look out for his brother. And Matt Dillon as the racist cop; who after cowardly abusing a coloured women sexually, seems to learn the most about himself through the events of the film. The resistance and guilt he finds, helps him to finally learn the error of his ways. The sheer complexity and diversity of the storyline and acting will definitely keep you watching until the end and illustrate to you why this film will be remembered.","['5', '13']" +636,rw1159861,madzad25,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Possibly the best movie of the year?,28 August 2005,1,"This movie is excellent and as the tag line on UK adverts says, the must see movie of the year. This normally puts me off, but we had a toss up to see, Crash or Charlie and the chocolate factory, I was so glad fate got us to see Crash.The opening lines of Don Cheedle about crashing into each others lives is so true. I kinda compared it with Pulp Fiction, but this was more true to life. Racism can be confused with ignorance, ignorance can be confused for anger, anger can be confused with frustration and so on. Its deep and on the way home, my missus, who is also my carer, and I got into a debate into what the movie was really about. I think you could watch this movie ten times and come up with ten different conclusions! In short, go see this movie... again. I have never been to see the same movie at the cinema twice, but I may to see Crash again. Simply superb! I read a lot of people saying on this forum that Brendan fraser was poor, he was excellent. He is type cast as a funny hunk actor, in this movie he was mis-cast on purpose, or was he? For my money, he was excellent as an ill at ease DA, walking a tightrope. Sandra Bullock was a little under par but her outrage and pain was brilliantly acted. I think just about everyone who saw this movie and understood its underlying plot, could at least try to compare themselves to at least one of the characters and what emotion they were portraying. Mine was Sandra Bullock, angry for no reason and frustrated because of such. Myself, being disabled its so easy to get mad at the world, though ignorance, I felt this in Sandra's acting with the way she showed her interpretation of the script, as if life imitating art. I personally felt the same for all the main actors involved, my bet here this movie is good for at least 4 Oscars.For my money, The must see movie of the year, is worth at least one look.. cant wait for the DVD release.","['5', '14']" +637,rw1140949,hprice-jr,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,Emotionally and entertainingly involving,2 August 2005,0,"It's been quite interesting to view all the diverse opinions of the film and felt I had to add my voice to the discussion.The world of film is a rather tricky medium to tackle the subject of racism and no one film can encompass all the diverse complexities that prejudice entails. Let's not forget that a movies's first job is to entertain and enlighten an audience. Crash succeeds at this exceptionally well.Paul Haggis has constructed a wonderfully involving movie that allows the viewer a glimpse into various lives that are touched by both economic and race issues. True, some of the characters may be stereotypical, but the core premise seems to be one of examining racism and the hope of redemption. The interweaving nature of the story and the surprises the characters face within themselves makes for a very entertaining ride. That's why we go to movies and a film like Crash is a good example of Hollywood doing it's job right for a change. Crash would have been even better had the characters been fleshed out more with a running time that was longer. This reviewer would have been more than happy to sit through another hour of material.So if you want to see something that is both emotionally and entertainingly involving check out this great movie.","['1', '7']" +638,rw1239227,kevz,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Let The Snubbing Begin...,15 December 2005,0,"Well I for one am a bit offended by this year's Golden Globe nominations. I mean we all knew that BrokeBack Mountain would lead the pack but the films it is up against are probably the worst competition it could possibly have. I mean The Constant Gardner and THe History of Violence over Crash? Come on. Why don't they just hand BBM the award? I mean at least put BBM up against something that could give it some competition and Crash the respect it deserves. I'm so tired of every year movies that should be nominated aren't only because they were released earlier in the year(Passion of The Christ 2004). Though I'd want to see Crash beat BBM if it were nominated, even I can't argue that BBM deserves this over the movies it's up against. And then Terrence Howard gets nominated for the completely wrong movie. Matt Dillon at least pulled out a nomination but I would be very surprised if he won because I don't think the Golden Globes want the Oscars to even consider Crash. Even Munich didn't get nominated! Could the Golden Globe's fear of not wanting BrokeBack Mountain to lose be anymore obvious? The Golden Globes need to stick to television. I always preferred the Oscars over the GGs for various reasons (The Aviator beating Million Dollar Baby) but now they have completely showed their blatant disregard of great films by putting THEIR favorite film of the year up against films we all know will not beat it. Now is that cowardice or what?","['0', '4']" +639,rw1244674,jonasdijkstra,Crash (I) (2004),8.0,The critics prove the movies point,22 December 2005,0,"I absolutely loved this film, but I cannot believe the huge amount of criticism it's been receiving lately. When I look at the recent reviews here on IMDb a lot of the negative ones state that in this movies the dialogues are contrived, the events are unbelievable and even that the people are offensive in their racism.Off course the dialogue is contrived, as well as that the situations have to be ""out of the ordinary."" It's the only way to provoke a reaction, thus in the end enabling the characters to redeem themselves. If Haggis would've sticked to realism and every day dialogue, how would he have been able to make a thought provoking movie about, not people being racists, but human nature and how it's influenced by our surroundings. Which brings me to the topic of racism. It's not a movie about racism IMO, racism is just a necessary emotional conduit to make it possible for such a wide variety of characters in a diverse place as L.A. to react to one another. The alternative would have been 2 or 3 people displaying a variety of emotions, he chose this way because it's such a powerful one and, although people here apparently disagree, still a really common one.The funny thing is that by showing your criticism in the way that you are, by reacting emotionally to this movie, (almost every critic gave this movie 1 or 2 *s, which is preposterous,) you are in fact doing the exact same thing that the characters in the movie are doing, not acting logical and contriving things to make a point. I think the director has it spot on when it comes to character development and the human reactionIn my opinion this was a brilliant movie, though in the beginning the personal views were pretty forced, but I expect great things to come if Haggis keeps making films.","['2', '9']" +640,rw1192992,amhorton-2,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,Crash,13 October 2005,0,"The beginning was slightly slow. As if understanding the content of the movie. Then it picked up. All the characters play their parts fantastic. In the beginning the movie made me feel that people were very prejudice and Opininated. I have always been taught to be kind to others regardless or race,color or greed. The movie showed how an action has reaction. You should not judge one for their actions in a situation. You may have to make a decision that in normal conditions you would do things differently.Some of my families saying are ""what goes around comes around"" or ""You reap what you sow"". So in Life you should alway try to do good by others, because one day you may need them.Great Movie!!","['2', '8']" +641,rw1239064,jaredsundberg,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Overcoming Adversity,15 December 2005,1,"Overcoming Adversity Crash displays characters that are able to overcome society's stereotypes because all of the characters in the movie are affected by their race and because some of them are able to overcome what society has labeled them as. In addition to this, some of the characters prove that we can't all overcome society and continue to follow their societies stereotypes.My previous experience with the film was watching the film on 11/15/05 in the upstairs of my house.Race is the overwhelming issue on the table throughout Crash. Several characters stories are shown in the film, some of which correlate with each other. For example, at one point in the film, a bigot cop pulls over a black couple. After asking the couple to step out of the car, the wife begins to talk back to the officer and the officer then puts them both against the car and pats the wife down in a completely inappropriate way. Later in the film the woman gets into an accident and the same bigot cop goes to help her. She at first refuses to allow him to help her get out of the car, as gas begins to engulf the car though she accepts it, and both barely get out alive. The point remains, that characters in the film overcome what society has stereotyped them as (in this case, the officer breaks his bigot label by saving the black woman).Some of the characters are labeled by others in the movie Crash. Fro example, the character that Sandra Bullock played in the film was walking on the sidewalk with her husband and upon seeing two black men walking down the street (one of whom was acted by Ludicrous) tensed up. She had always been cautious of black and was somewhat of a bigot. After the two men car jacked her just minutes later, this only supported the feelings she already had of black people in general. Later in the movie though, Ludicrous freed illegal aliens that he found in the back of a truck. He had the chance to sell these aliens but instead freed them and this seems to be a start for his conquering the labels that other put on him without even knowing him.Not all of the characters of the film Crash are able to overcome what others think of them. For example the young cop in the film is told by his partner that he will soon also be a corrupt officer after their explicit traffic stop. The young cop denies this, but it turns out later in the film that his once strong morals do give way, and he commits murder and ditches the body. Not everyone can be a hero, some are able to conquer, while other fall, and this once head strong cop proves it by sinking down to a murder.Crash is a film in which many characters are able to conquer societies hurdles of stereotypes and find who they really are.","['0', '4']" +642,rw1154319,writers_reign,Crash (I) (2004),7.0,The Kingfish Syndrome,20 August 2005,1,"Nothing in the several episodes of 'Due South' or the Oscar-Winning 'Million Dollar Baby', just two of his writing credits, prepared me for Crash. At a very basic level it echoes Robert Penn Warren's terrific novel All The King's Men, a thinly disguised portrait of Huey 'Kingfish' Long, whose complex character could be boiled down to 'there's a little bit of good in the worst of us and a little bit of bad in the best'. There are further nods in the direction of Robert Altman who also likes to people a canvas with several diverse characters and slowly allow them to meld so that the good become blurred with the bad and the bad ... well, you get the point. Although I can't exactly toss my hat into the ring with the majority of previous posters I did keep watching to the end and I was unable to fault the performers but there's a nagging feeling deep down that keeps murmuring that somehow we need a little more than this.","['2', '6']" +643,rw1211020,adambjornholm-1,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Very surprising,7 November 2005,0,"I just saw this movie yesterday and I'd have to say it really surprised me. I was expecting a good movie which tried to deal with racism in a semi-intelligent manner. It was a lot more than that. Much like Traffic did with the topic of drugs, Crash takes an in-depth look into the topic of race in the United States. It looks at many sides of the issue without getting too preachy or feeling contrived. The ensemble cast is outstanding, especially Don Cheadle, who is one of the most underrated actors of the past few years. Lately he's been able to pick great characters in great movies and always does an amazing job of acting. This is a must see movie, one of the best of the year.","['0', '5']" +644,rw1169656,glance_left,Crash (I) (2004),4.0,somebody give me some air!,11 September 2005,0,"Good grief!! You wanna know what I think? I think that Paul Haggis, Paul Thomas Anderson (Magnolia), and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (21 Grams) should all get together and direct a movie so bloated with irony, portent, ominous interplay and emotional critical mass that, on opening night, the theater, the screen, the reels, the audience...hell, the surrounding city block, would actually implode on itself creating a massive celestial event like a black hole.The scene that did me in was the scene of Matt Dillon's character sobbing and leaning over his father suffering on the potty with a Karen Carpenter-style track crooning mournfully in the background. This one actually brought tears to my eyes....for all the WRONG reasons! Gotta get off the computer before my wife finds what I wrote, though....she LOVED it!","['2', '9']" +645,rw1193962,boggle_eyed_spaghetti,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,"Brilliant, really gets you thinking",15 October 2005,1,"When I first heard about the film, I thought it would really would not be all that great. But when I started watching it, I couldn't take my eyes off it. It got me thinking about all the mistreatment (if thats a word) that happens around the world. I also thought it was clever how all the stories that happened in this story also intertwined and all became as one. This film is a pure stroke of genius. Given that I don't really like movies like this, I thought that movie was brilliant and I would certainly watch it plenty more times. Ludicrous in this film was absolutely hilarious with his part in this story of entanglement. I recommend this film with priority!","['1', '6']" +646,rw1170057,IrmoBrina07@aol.com,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,A must-see!,11 September 2005,0,Are you the kind of person who loves to sit down and get completely involved in a movie that will change your life? Do you appreciate really really good actors? Are you tired of the same dime a dozen crappy films that come out? Well then this is your kind of movie. This movie demonstrates every wonderful quality a movie should! The actors are fantastic. The dialogue is so captivating its a wonder more writers don't take pride in their work and write scripts like this. This is the kind of movie that keeps me going to the theaters. Movies like this don't come around very often so take advantage! Treat yourself to this wonderful film!!!,"['6', '15']" +647,rw1162063,jim.adamson,Crash (I) (2004),7.0,"Some excellent scenes and performances, but ultimately flawed",31 August 2005,0,"I expected to enjoy Crash very much, as it had a terrific cast and is a film built around a group of interconnected characters and stories, which draws its strength from characters and feelings instead of being a lazy, shallow blockbuster. I did enjoy it, but I was slightly disappointed that it wasn't as good as it could have been, and didn't completely hang together as a film.There are a lot of fascinating characters and situations here. A couple of cops, one male one female, who have a tense relationship, struggle with themselves and each other as they try and unravel a complicated and political case. A pair of seemingly articulate and reasonable, albeit contrary and frustrated, young black men turn out to be professional car-jackers. They rob a high-profile white couple and we see the impact on their lives, and on the black professional couple who are stopped by the police thinking the similar car they are driving is the stolen one. We also see a hard-working Latino family man and a hard-pressed Iranian working family who are the victims in various ways of prejudice and bad luck. These stories and more are wound together in a series of memorable scenes that pack a lot of emotional punch. There is a strong element of racial tension in the air, and the atmosphere is really well-captured by writer-director Paul Haggis.The problem is that having set up this fascinating collection of characters and stories, the makers unfortunately make some pretty wrong moves in deciding where to take them. A lot of really ridiculous coincidences are required to resolve a lot of the stories which are simply not believable, and some are quite badly conceived. It becomes melodramatic, which really jars with the very real and strong stories and people they began with and made the viewer care about. At least the characters are true to themselves in the way they act throughout, but a lot of the emotional impact is lost, and that compares badly to the strength of feeling Paul Haggis captured with his previous script, Clint's Million Dollar Baby.The film reminded me - and suffered in comparison to - two films I really loved, Magnolia and Short Cuts. And those films show where Crash went wrong. To make this kind of film work you either need to build up believable characters and situations so carefully that the viewer is totally on board and believes everything from there on in, like Altman the master did with Short Cuts. The other way is like PT Anderson's Magnolia, reminiscent of South American magical realism, to set up characters that you really care about and want to follow on their journeys, then say to the audience, ""OK, what happens next is kind of unreal, but let's pretend that there is something strange in the air tonight that makes this happen, and we'll see what it does with our characters."" The audience doesn't really believe it but cares enough to go with the film and believe in the emotional truth of the stories even if they are unrealistic. Crash falls between these two choices by creating enough reality to make us believe it, but not building up that magical atmosphere that would make us go with it. Also both Short Cuts and Magnolia were nearer three hours while this is just less than two, and perhaps that rush led the filmmakers stumbling down the path of melodrama to resolve these interwoven stories in record time.That said, there is a lot to enjoy and admire here, some terrific film-making and excellent performances throughout, especially Don Cheadle as a repressed cop, Sandra Bullock's best performance yet as a snippy, frustrated woman who hates the person she is becoming, Chris ""Ludacris"" Bridges as one of the car-jackers and (the pick of the bunch) Michael Pena, who is simply superb as the Latino family man who finds himself caught up in a lot of other people's problems while doing his best to deal with his own. I'm glad I went to see it, and it's better than most things that have been released this year, and anyone who likes this kind of movie will enjoy it. But it could have been much better - on the plus side, it's made me realize I should go and buy Short Cuts and Magnolia on DVD!","['3', '7']" +648,rw1133777,gradyharp,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,"'In LA, people don't touch. They're separated by glass and steel..'",24 July 2005,0,"and the only time they come into contact is by crash'. And with these words Paul Haggis tears open the box of CRASH, one of the most searingly vital and important films of the year. This is a film that explores prejudice, racism, fear, hate, bigotry, random violence and all of those barriers we people of the cities have erected to isolate ourselves from the miscegenated world in which we live. In Haggis' hands every possible form of miscommunication based on ignorance and transference of self-loathing is woven together in a story that mixes Caucasian, African American, Asia, Persian, Hispanic conflicts and lifestyles and the concurrent disruption of world views gone wrong into a pungent story of tragedy and collision.Every character in this well-crafted script eventually confronts every other character in ways that are at times coincidental, at times, tangential, and at other times the direct result of prior confrontations. African Americans bully each other over their own prejudices, Caucasians belittle their Hispanic workers and are the first to point the finger at the 'tattooed gangsters' who in reality are innocent tradesmen, Persians terrorized on their property immediately aim their hate at other minority suspects, redneck racist policemen thrash out at African Americans in response to their own personal family demons that have eroded their outlook and extend that venom to the most innocent of the rookie cops who metamorphose into like habits. Every form of prejudice and hate is encountered and none of the characters is free from being both the perpetrator and the victim. It is as though the Golden Rule of 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you' has been hideously transformed into a reason for violence.Each member of this extraordinary ensemble acting team is outstanding form those with the largest parts to those whose presence is fleetingly meaningful. And some of the actors heretofore know as B actors rise to the level of brilliance under Haggis' knowing direction. Matt Dillon, Ryan Phillippe, Don Cheadle, Terrence Howard (here is a star!), Thandie Newton, Chris 'Ludacris' Bridges, Larenz Tate, Loretta Devine (extraordinary!), Beverly Todd, Jennifer Esposito, Michael Pena (who delivers the most affecting scene in the film), Shaun Toub, Yomi Perry, Brendan Frasier, Sandra Bullock, Tony Danza, William Fichtner - indeed, the list of the entire cast should be included in the kudos.People leave the theater stunned, tearful, informed, and incredulous, so great is the impact of this film. Much or that impact is aided by the brilliantly creative cinematography of James Muro and Dana Gonzales and by the powerful musical score by Mark Isham. This is quite simply one of the finest films of the year by anyone's standards. For those critics who descry Haggis' lack of providing 'Redemption' for the characters, this viewer would take offense: every character is altered either tangentially, directly, or referentially by the tightly woven tapestry that is CRASH. Recommended for everyone to see, internalize, and begin to make changes on our planet. Grady Harp","['0', '5']" +649,rw1148509,daniel-cashin,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,Emotional Roller-coaster - Film Of The Year,12 August 2005,0,"I can't Believe it, this is film shook me like no other has for a very long time. Gripping and Compelling, A must see for all.Following A day in the life of about ten people from different backgrounds in LA, The film Portrays society in a poetic, yet strikingly real light. The tactfully crafted dialogue of humour and feeling, makes a bold statement; unrivalled by any film of the last year.I often struggle to get into films that have no single leading characters but instead nine or ten, parts making up the film. This seems to Pull it off very well, down partly to the fine acting, but mainly owing to the hugely talented directing and script writing - If you ever want to see character development in such a short time, this film is awesome.Crash is a cross between The Deer Hunter and American History X, with a little bit of Forrest Gump thrown in as well. A Possible Classic in Years to come?","['3', '8']" +650,rw1195667,ghostlife17,Crash (I) (2004),1.0,witness for the prosecution,15 October 2005,0,"i rarely pan anything but i just have to say that if one truly wants to study the dumbing-down of America, look no further than this piece of tripe. ""crash"" pretends to be some searing indictment of race in this country and just fails horribly at it. to begin with, it is a none too subtle rip-off of ""magnolia"", ""traffic"", and several other better-made films and it doesn't even steal from them all that well. there are at least four too many characters here, none of which are developed enough for you to care deeply about any of them, including the better-known players. shoddy b-list acting from b-list actors here, let's be honest. don cheadle probably should have known better, but i'm sure he was well compensated for his work. but perhaps the worst thing about this train wreck of a film is that the overwrought and all too convenient plot simply goes nowhere and does nothing. the entire point of using this type of storytellling is to take the magic realism that you have created in order to make some grand statement about your chosen subject and it fails to do even that. what's the point here? that racism is alive and well? that there is a class system? that America is essentially unjust? ummm....no duh? most people figure that out somewhere around the seventh grade. it's called capitalism. i mean, what is going on here? but perhaps the most depressing thing about ""crash"" is how a film like this can now be hailed as visionary in today's society. FINGERS will be pointed! EARNEST DIALOGUES will be opened! GREAT DEBATES will rage! i mean, wtf? have we become so blinded and desensitized and beaten over the head with the constant idiocy in this country (particularly in our arts and letters) that a film like ""crash"" is now considered high art? wake up people. it's nothing more than pop psychology. it's dramedy. it's dr. phil. it's tight easy answers dressed up in sugary hallmark sentiment. most of all, it's crap. i know it and deep down so do you. what happened to artistic conscience? to those of you that should know better but are still falling all over yourself about this picture (and you know who you are), i would just like to ask you what happened to standing by the courage of your convictions or even having any kind of conviction at all about ANYTHING? i mean, #55 ALL-TIME????????? are you kidding me with this? ""crash"" is the very worst kind of film making, simply because it's pretending to be something it's not. ""crash"" telegraphed its intentions right from the get go. underneath all of the gloss and artifice and putting on of airs, ""crash"" is actually much closer to a film like ""training day"", another movie that could have been said so much more than it did. but at least ""training day"" wasn't screwing with its audience, selling them something other than what they paid for. to be fair, ""crash"" is pretty to look at, but not much more. it's a gauzy pig wrapped in velvet and gussied up with all the bells and whistles that you would expect, but it's a pig nonetheless. it's ""urban realism"" for the Saturday night date set. i could have just stayed home and watched music videos, so shallow and surface-y do i find the artistic statement presented here. and before you call foul, please know that i am of a minority background and that i do indeed live in a major urban center. i hate feeling that i have to provide a DISCLAIMER when stating my opinion on a film, but it feels like this is EXACTLY the case, so openly and irresponsibly does ""crash"" play the race card. how ironic. and rarely does a movie provoke such a visceral response from me either and usually when it does, it's because it's GOOD and i just haven't realized it yet. i can't tell you just how much that's not the case here. sorry.","['6', '16']" +651,rw1238725,greened_out_,Crash (I) (2004),8.0,I expected there to be a crash!,7 December 2005,1,"Basically I expected there to be a crash but there were 2 minor incidents. It's a good film regardless, but I was left with an open wound after the closing scene (just a minor bumper to bumper - not a spoiler). It gets a bit heavy in places and it's good to see Sandra Bullock in the background for a change (she can be a bit OTT). It was funny to see her fall down the stairs though (also not a spoiler). In fact I'd say the film is worth watching just for that. 20 minutes into the film the characters were very well developed, the choice of casting was excellent and I felt involved with each characters issues. I think the film really could have done with a crash though to bring it all together. If you're looking for a good crash don't watch this film. Other than that it's something i'll be watching again.","['1', '3']" +652,rw1218388,Matt_Layden,Crash (I) (2004),8.0,"""A Great Ensemble Cast Delivers""",17 November 2005,0,"Several stories interweave during two days in Los Angeles involving a collection of inter-related characters. A black police detective with a drugged out mother and a thieving younger brother, two car thieves who are constantly theorizing on society and race, the distracted district attorney and his irritated and pampered wife, a racist veteran cop (caring for a sick father at home) who disgusts his more idealistic younger partner, a successful black Hollywood director and his wife who must deal with racist cop, a Persian-immigrant father who buys a gun to protect his shop, a Hispanic locksmith and his young daughter who is afraid of bullets, and more.Paul Haggis won an Oscar for his work on the Best Picture winner ""Million Dollar Baby"". While ""Baby"" itself doesn't deserve the praise that it is given, the writing did. Here Haggis gives us another piece of work that will have some in tears and others filled with rage at the morals of society.Crash's core theme is that of racism and how it is destroying today's society. Crash tries to get the point across that this prejudice is destroying our ways of communication with each other. The film uses L.A. as it's setting to show us that virtually anyone and everyone can be racist. Which is where Crash faults. Although the film does deal with this theme, about 95% of the characters are racist and uses almost every stereotype to showcase the problems in society.With those two missteps aside, Crash is a film that delivers everything that is promises to. Brilliant writing, good directing and a cast ensemble that gives us great performances. Paul Haggis wrote characters that had problems and he knew exactly how to present them to us and how to deal with them. Many directors who write the material have a hard time trying to abstract the material to screen. David S. Goyer failed at this with Blade Trinity, but here Haggis has enough experience to know what he wants from his actors and in what direction he wants to take them.Out of all the performances in this picture the select few that would stand out would be the racist cop, played by Matt Dillion. The successful black director, played by Terrance Howard and the racist wife of the district attorney played by Sandra Bullock. Dillion shows that his character is an egotistical selfish prick, but in the end, we end of not hating him, but feeling sorrow for him. He has the trouble of taking care of a sick father and finally puts the life of an individual before the colour of their skin. Terrance Howard gives a performance that is just as good as his portrayal of a pimp in Hustle and Flow. Howard is able to convey so much emotion through his eyes. Finally Bullock plays a character that is radically different from anything that she has done before and is able to convince us of her fear and hate towards those that are of a different race.Crash delivers lots of moments of tension and fear for the lives of the characters. I was glued to the screen when the little girl put her ""invisbile cape"" to the test. All the characters effect the lives of each other whether they know it or not and it all fits together perfectly well. Crash is one of the few movies this year to give us a powerful message.With a talent writer behind the pen and knowing what he wants in this film, he is able to give us a great film. Along with one of the best cast ensembles to grace the screen since the likes of True Romance. Crash gives us a movie that will make us cry, laugh and feel anger towards. Not many movies these days are able to do this, but Crash makes it work beautifully.","['1', '5']" +653,rw1204530,cuyaya,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,"A lot like Magnolia, but still helluva movie",30 October 2005,1,"I would say it's probably in the top 3 movies released this year. There were a couple of scenes I just cried, so that about explains it (and I cry with movies, but only about once a year, so it had to be good).There are obvious similarities with Magnolia, the worst of all being the fantastic precipitation at the end, luckily not from frogs. In any case, the movie was extremely well directed, and except for Brendan Fraser and Sandra Bullock, the cast was great (I don't feel these two actors have the profile for such a dramatic movie).I feel that the scenes between Christine and Cameron are some of the most powerful in the whole film, specially the one where they get home after they get pulled over and the one where she has an accident.Finally, the scene that made my cry was the one when the Chicano locksmith thought his little daughter was shot. Man, the tension and despair...","['1', '5']" +654,rw1173738,pj2000pj,Crash (I) (2004),1.0,Emperor's new clothes syndrome,16 September 2005,0,"On the back of all the good reviews I was looking forward to seeing this movie. What a disappointment! It starts promisingly, with Matt Dillon taking the acting honours, but the movie relentlessly sets up a number of short stories that are all contrived to the point of ridiculousness, with each having a twist at the end. Even worse, the characters criss-cross each other's paths over the course of a day until the whole movie becomes a pretentious bore. I learnt nothing about the nature of racism from this movie other than the fact that the screenwriter(s) and director manipulated the theme to set up a trite and insubstantial vehicle to make money out of the subject. Every character was shown to have a 'dark' and a 'light' side, like the world is black and white. Wouldn't it be great if racism were that simple? I think that anyone leaving a comment about this movie should state what their ethnic origin is (I'm white European) so that readers can gauge the balance of reaction to this movie. I suspect that the majority of comments so far have come from shallow white folk who want to believe they understand the racism issue. They understand it as much as I do, but at least I can recognise my own failings and don't pretend that a cheap movie like Crash has any worth outside the world of entertainment.","['96', '184']" +655,rw1241937,potatoes69,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Ammazza ammazza è tutta 'na razza!,15 December 2005,0,"I think this movie should be seen by everyone who's living in a multicultural country or environment, in general. My opinion is that the direction of the movie should be praised for the great rhythm it added to the twisting frantic plot and for the clever underlining of the characters various appearances. A tale of prejudice and cultural restraints that can be useful to everyone of us but most of all to those who think that hate and racial prejudice can be a rule of living.I believe in the healing power of movies and I think this movie could mark a new beginning in the way a lot of people think. The Italian Dubbing was excellent.","['0', '4']" +656,rw1170361,ricodog,Crash (I) (2004),1.0,Boring,11 September 2005,0,"This movie is as bad as ""Punch Drunk Love"". I have again turned a movie off after 15 minutes and wish I could beat the crap out of the director. This is another movie that they pump up in advertising to get you to buy. I didn't watch the entire movie nor will I ever. I believe I am incapable of writing a spoiler after such a short viewing. It is a very racially charged ""Poor Me"" movie. Please do not watch or that will be two more hours that the A-holes in Hollywood will have stolen from you. It sucks please do not let the stupid critics in Hollywood win, they only like black and white foreign films with subtitles, or whatever they are told to like in my opinion.","['8', '15']" +657,rw1133021,joker-4,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,GRAND CANYON of the 21st Century,23 July 2005,0,"In 1991, filmmaker Lawrence Kasdan created GRAND CANYON, a follow up to his hit THE BIG CHILL, focusing on the lives of individuals from different classes in the great melting pot known as Los Angeles. Fourteen years later, Academy Award-winning writer Paul Haggis boosts the tempo on Kasdan's formula with CRASH. Instead of looking at classes, Haggis focuses on race relations and proves that not only does everyone in LA hate everyone else, they downright despise each other.No one is safe in Haggis' hands, which beautifully amplifies the awareness all Los Angelinos must feel, as his cast of characters include questioning Anglos, surviving African-Americans, angry Persians, working Latinos and the downright criminal Korean. Much like in a Robert Altman film, this cast all interacts with each other in unsuspecting cyclical ways. The two misunderstood African-Americans who hate to be profiled end up car-jacking the very- whitebread DA and his wife. The white rookie cop has to deal with his racist partner and his callous captain. A Mexican locksmith becomes a scapegoat for a Persian shopkeeper. An African-American detective is in love with his South American partner. All these roles are admirable played by an exceptional ensemble cast, many of whom are not known for serious – or good - drama work.The story focuses on events that try the souls of mankind: carjacking, fender-benders, break-ins, shootings, racial profiling; events that make citizens feel hurt, afraid and, most of all, angry. It is anger that Haggis shows so well and the emotion is cast from the screen like a betrayed friend. Haggis also substantiates that no one in the overpopulated metropolis of his film interacts or understands their neighbor, and that this lack of touch is a direct result of their own anger and fear – and it doesn't take Yoda to point that aspect out. Don Cheadle's character, Det. Waters, so eloquently points out in the scene-setting opening moments, ""In LA, nobody touches you. I think we miss that touch so much, that we crash into each other, just so we can feel something."" Haggis takes the next hundred odd minutes proving his thesis statement on anger and fear in a dramatically beautiful way. He then surprisingly does something else: he shows that love still exists in the City of Angels.","['1', '7']" +658,rw1252046,GODisaRefuge,Crash (I) (2004),1.0,How can so many people be so wrong?!,31 December 2005,0,"I rented this movie for New Year's Eve. It was awful. It was disjointed, meaningless, and it never went anywhere. I should have ended it after the first 30 minutes, but I kept waiting for it to get better (and for it to go somewhere). It's very racial, and you'll find racial slurs throughout...disgusting. Don't wait for this movie to get better. Just remove it from the DVD player. Put it back in the case. Go back to the rental store. And ask for your money back. There is nothing original about this movie. There is nothing unique. There is nothing worth watching. Rent something else. There are better movies to rent. What a waste of time and money.","['11', '22']" +659,rw1171215,OriginalMovieBuff21,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,A top- notch 2005 drama- Haggis is successful in every inch of the way,12 September 2005,0,"I rented this movie a couple nights ago because I've always wanted to see it and with seeing Million Dollar Baby, I knew what Paul Haggis was capable of doing. Crash is a about strangers in Los Angelas who all intertwine within thirty six hours. The movie is very powerful and you cannot stop hearing about racism issues. The actors are all superb especially Michael Pena, who I never even heard of that came out with an excellent performance. The script and directing by Paul Haggis is terrific and this man will sure make tons more of success in the future. He has been successful in every inch of the way so far. The music, story, and cinematography are excellent in this top- notch drama, which I consider to be in my top 3 for 2005's films. I highly recommend Crash.Hedeen's Outlook: 10/10 **** A+","['6', '16']" +660,rw1194264,terryl2,Crash (I) (2004),4.0,neat but not good.,15 October 2005,0,okay this movie is a good movie. its well made and has a perfectly selected cast that acts well withing their range of talent. where this movie fails is in the writing. its a grossly over- simplified look at racism and it only shows the worst of circumstances. i don't want to give anything away so i will just say that in every instance of conflict there is a clash or race. many of these conflicts are not racial however. the same situation would play out if it had been between two people of the same creed the only difference would be that they would most likely not use racial slurs or at least not the same ones they do use. all in all i guess i would recommend this but at the same time i feel that it does more to spread the flames of racism and blow them out of proportion in order to make a moving story. THIS IS NOT some great film to show the plight of the minority in modern day America. Steinbeck this is not its just Hollywood.,"['21', '36']" +661,rw1251070,seanmac84,Crash (I) (2004),6.0,"Not bad, not great",30 December 2005,0,"Didn't like the sound of this movie when I first heard about it, but after 2 recommendations from 2 highly respected friends and after the glowing reviews from critics I decided to give this movie a shot. It turned out to be exactly what I thought it would be, a sentimental, crying, emotionally driven kinda movie, exactly the kind I don't like. For most of the movie I was thinking 5 out of 10, but it picked up in the end and almost got to 7. Something that doesn't usually bother me was the soundtrack. It was the same bleak tune throughout the whole film, reminded me of 21grams, really annoyed me. I don't like a film full of coincidences, again 21grams, comes to mind, but they weren't as bad as I thought they'd turn out to be. Overall OK, but don't watch it if you want cheering up.","['2', '5']" +662,rw1171307,pc95,Crash (I) (2004),3.0,Awful brainless script in attempt at provocation; schmaltz,12 September 2005,1,"I had high hopes for this movie, but it quickly degenerates into a mess. First off, filmmakers if you're reading, STOP WITH THE SINGLE FEMALE (or male) SOLO SINGING SOUNDTRACKS MASQUERADING AS Provocative; its cheap, fake, and obviously placed! It knocked down Lord of the Rings, and Man on Fire. It is a disgrace to cinema. There's no provocation or emotion just a pure cop-out....""Let's make this image spiritual by stamping it with solo singing."" The effect distracts and detracts from the images!! Trying to create some sort of emotional connection is pathetically contrived. Its complete pretentiousness and lack of creativity. Most of these stories are contrived with un-intelligence to the nth degree.......About 90% of the script depicts some sort of racial friction, as if that's all the characters ever think about....do you want to continually get bombarded with preoccupation with racial lines of all characters contrived as 100% confused ethnocentric and then each character with near religious experiences showing how ignorant each is? This movie is awful in how the characters are so contrived as puppets for the writers. Totally unbelievable and shallow. The best cast in the world could not save this picture which is to say the cast did a pretty good job despite the garbage they had to spew out.","['5', '12']" +663,rw1148756,Chris_Docker,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,Oscar bait with broad appeal - yet a remarkably thought-provoking film and one of the most interesting portraits of L.A. to date,12 August 2005,0,"Writing, directing and producing Crash, even through a heart attack, suggests that Paul Haggis is perhaps a remarkable individual, though not necessarily remarkable at any or all three. The result, however, suggests that he is. Crash is remarkable and noteworthy for a number of reasons, and could repeat some of the success of Million Dollar Baby (which he wrote and produced although, perhaps unfortunately in the opinion of this reviewer, allowed Eastwood to direct).The start of the movie shows the scene immediately after a car crash. A number of people start arguing, racist remarks are made. It is set in L.A. - a challenging city in many ways, not least for its complex racial mix.Crash goes on to look beneath the surface of such destructive attitudes by examining a number of incidents the day before the crash in question. In doing so it achieves not only challenging self-reflection but maintains the dramatic pace in a way that many such movies fail to accomplish.In many ways, American society (ie US society) has got itself into problems that are nigh impossible to fix (and often not for want of trying). With race relations, Haggis looks at deeply embedded attitudes and failings that are not only common to many ethnic groups (including white American) but where people are in a ""damned if you do, damned if you don't,"" situation.Sandra Bullock (in a relatively small part but one of the best she has tackled) has relatively few pressures in her life. She is married to a D.A., has a housekeeper and a gardener, but finds she is waking up angry every day. An intelligent individual, she goes as far as seeing it is something within herself rather than just blaming everyone else. Her questioning goes further when she has a small accident (that lands her in hospital) and her 'best friend' is having a massage and hence too busy to help.Earlier in the film, Bullock asks herself: if she sees a black man in a white neighbourhood and (instinctively) knows that he means to harm her, she will be dubbed 'racist' if she takes steps to protect herself yet come to harm if she ignores her well-seated gut feeling. (Her gut feelings are not always right, but how often do you want to gamble when it's your life at stake?)We see similar dilemmas (also often over-exaggerated, misconstrued, or interpreted with tragic lack of streetwise, from the point of view of Blacks, Hispanics, Chinese and Iraqis).The subplots of various characters keep us glued to the screen; any simple value-judgements are confounded. We see the love and (sometimes counter-stereotypical) bravery of the most 'unlovable, 'racist' characters. We see the real people behind what others (ie others of different ethnic origins) see. We question the obvious 'answers'.The USA is imbued with ideologies that, whilst survivalist, are not self-healing (transferring the government of, say, New Zealand for 25 years might help). Traditional Christian virtues alone are insufficient to deal with such problems (the 'Good Samaritan cop not only gets himself in deep water but ends up doing more harm than good.) But so is populist psycho-savvy: "" . . . if we can't duck this thing, we're gonna have to neutralize it."" (D.A. faced with a politically problematic prosecution of a black man who's given him problems.) ""What we need is a picture of me pinning a medal on a black man. The fire-fighter - the one that saved the camp or something - Northridge... what's his name?"" It didn't matter that the hero was an Iraqi - but it mattered that he happened to have the common first name of 'Saddam' - no good for P.R. that one . . .The principled approach of Don Cheadle's character has similarly little effect. He tries to be an upright Detective in a politically corrupt system and so gets caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. There are very few winners in Crash.Yet the overall formula is a winner. It lacks answers, just as America probably lacks the ability to use applied philosophy to solve problems in its own back yard - at least in the foreseeable future on this issue. But it's integrity as art, its ability to move us - to laughter, to tears, to compassion, to shock - to enable us to look within ourselves, that integrity and independence of thought is quite strong and all the more remarkable for an American movie these days. It even lacks the self-congratulatory tone of Million Dollar Baby (which may be invisible to many Americans, especially those not extensively exposed to European and other cinema that is more art-based than big-business based). If you've had six pints of lager and want lots of explosions, Crash may not rock your boat but, for mainstream quality cinema-lovers, it is a breath of fresh air.","['2', '9']" +664,rw1203399,Nozze-Musica,Crash (I) (2004),,Took me completely by surprise.,28 October 2005,0,"When I saw Sandra bullock was in a movie I figured it would be something pretty light weight like Hope Floats. But Sandra Bullock has a relatively small part in this interwoven and complex character study, Crash. The movie, which has a number of very big stars and familiar character actors come together brilliantly to give us a showcase of the American identity, in race, and in our acceptance of others. So many stories come together to create a brilliantly subtle and awesome movie about who we are.The plot is too complicated to go into in a forum like this, but there are a number of different small stories, such as the cop who is a bigot, and who is trying to get decent health care for his ailing pops. then there is the black TV producer who sees bigotry in more ways than one even in his wealthy lifestyle. So many other small stories but those are some of the plot lines of note.The characters are quite incredible, and are generally much more real and substantive than a lot of characters in Hollywood films, but here the characters seem so real, they seem so multi-dimensional, the good guys turn out sometimes to be bad guys, and the bad guys turn out to be good guys. A lot of times in this movies characters no matter if they are good or bad turn out to be completely unexpected.There have been so many movies that have examined their perspective times and mores many years ago, some movies were so good at showing who we were as a society, and examining ourselves. there really hasn't been a movie in recent years that has examined our generation in such a way. As we speak society is becoming more isolated and distant, even from our own neighbor. In this culture of distance and isolation Crash comes up and examines the culture, and is set in a city that might be the epitome of modern day isolation, distance, and decadence: Los Angeles.The movie also examines the increasing multi-cultural society that is becoming America and how everybody, rich, poor, powerful, working-class, fits into it. Kudos to all of these actors who make this really good script come to life in such a way. I am sad that there are so few movies like this. There was a time movies like this could not have been made, with this kind of intensity, with this kind of social commentary, there should be a lot more movies like this. A lot of movies, even independent movies do talk about social situations like this, but the characters sometimes seem fake, and the story lines contrived. But this movie has rich people, poor people, every kind of person from every kind of background you can think of, nobody in vogue, not too many people that are extremely popular, the movie is just real, one of the most real I have seen in recent memory, this movie is a must see, and hopefully an Oscar Contender.","['1', '3']" +665,rw1154919,MOscarbradley,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,A remarkable debut,21 August 2005,0,"Like Paul Thomas Anderson's ""Magnolia"" and Robert Altman's ""Short Cuts"", Paul Haggis' remarkable film, (his first as director), tells several stories over a two day period in Los Angeles around Christmas time. Naturally all these stories turn out to have common threads running through them and all these people are in some way intrinsically linked. This is, perhaps, a little bit too schematic, (coincidence piles on coincidence in a fairly predictable fashion), yet Haggis still manages to hold our attention in an iron-clad grip; a couple of these coincidences providing some heart-stopping moments. This speaks volumes of Haggis' abilities as a good dramatist and for a first time director, juggling so many characters and story-lines is both ambitious and commendable, especially when he can pull it off with such aplomb.The obvious theme of the film is racism and had it been made, say, even five years ago may have concentrated solely on the relationships between blacks and whites and with it's LA setting, may have had a few token Mexicans thrown in. (There is a good joke in the film when Don Cheadle's character automatically assumes the white woman he is having sex with must be Mexican because she is from LA and not totally Causcasian). But post 9/11 Haggis throws in the Iraquai equation, too, not too mention some Chinese characters, (who are, perhaps, used too predictably for comic effect). And if the first half of the film is made up of one racist slur after another, the effect is not wasted. No matter how often we have encountered racism in the cinema in the past we still squirm uncomfortably when Matt Dillon's racist cop sexually assaults Thandie Newton during a search.But what distinguishes the film is not so much the cumulative, vitriolic effect of the hatred most of the characters seem to display for each other but Haggis' deep affection for these people and his belief in redemption. This is a film of happy endings for all but three of the characters. This may be wishful thinking on Haggis' part but it can also make dramatic sense when handled with the kind of authority that the writer/director shows here. (Though the fact that it's the three nicest characters who suffer the film's unhappy ending is a bit problematic. I wasn't quite sure what Haggis' point was in doing this).He also displays a remarkable way with actors. The performances are uniformly excellent, particularly from those cast members who are not 'stars' or that well-known. Sandra Bullock is excellent cast against type as something of a bitch, but her part is small while Brendan Fraser's part as her DA husband is smaller still. The really outstanding performances in the film come from Matt Dillon, displaying both an edge and a depth hitherto unhinted at, as the racist cop who saves the life of a black woman he had earlier assaulted, and from Terrence Howard and Thandie Newton as the rich black couple whose falling foul of Dillon's racism early in the film changes both their lives. (Howard has an extraordinary scene late in the film when, falling victim to a carjacker, he finally cracks, leading to one of the film's many moments of almost unbearable tension).These set-pieces, for that is what they are, may over-egg the film at times but Haggis handles them superbly and the overall effect is deeply moving. The film never achieves the dizzy heights of ""Magnolia"" but then Haggis is still finding his feet. Personally, I feel he has already joined that small group of directors whose next film I await with great anticipation.","['2', '8']" +666,rw1197391,explodingcat,Crash (I) (2004),2.0,Overdone,19 October 2005,0,"Racial problems exist everywhere, and why they do and what troubles they manifest has been done before and done better. This movie has the subtlety of a sledgehammer, every character ( of which there are way too many to flesh out completely, leaving them as 2D cut - outs) acts illogically and be in the middle of a monologue about race relations when we meet them. Subtlety is sorely lacking in this self righteous piece. The movie also falls into the trap of fitting most of the characters into racial stereotypes, stereotypes which made me cringe. This is race relations complete with car chases, explosions and ridiculous unlikely coincidences. Heavyhanded and overdone, this movie ends up taking an issue which is pretty critical and making it near laughable.","['6', '14']" +667,rw1168270,Mushaka2003,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Crash is an amazing movie!!!! I love it!,8 September 2005,0,"Crash is a very hard movie to explain as it has many stories within stories. Although I can't explain this movie very well, this is still one of the best films that I have ever seen. It stars so many amazing actors and actresses. Along with Sandra Bullock, it also stars Ludicrous and many others.In Crash, there are many people who somehow have a circle and they all come together in that circle. Each different chapter, you see a different character or family.I might not be the person that you will want to see this movie just because I say that it is good. I can't explain this movie at all and my explanation of it isn't good at all, but I can tell you this, I love this movie and I am like Ebert, I am pretty strict about some of the movies I see, and there are only a few that make me want to cheer and go out and just buy the movie!!!! I love Crash!! 10-10","['4', '13']" +668,rw1185628,JCBar,Crash (I) (2004),7.0,"I'm not entirely buying into it, but...",3 October 2005,0,"Thirty minutes into 'Crash', I was slightly put off and irritated. And at the time Don Cheadle's character insulted his girlfriend/partner's culture, I was about ready to stop viewing. The film's premise seemed to me outdated, outlandish, and just a bit naïve.But I stayed. And I stayed primarily by accepting this film not as an indictment of America, nor as a primer on race relations in California, but as a movie about jerks – plain and simple. White, black, yellow, and brown jerks (well, maybe not brown - I can't remember any egregiously bad behaviour from that group) – all of them flawed, and all of them human. And by staying, I was able to actually say I found the film entertaining to watch, with several well thought out points to make. Moreover, I thought all the actors were realistic, and the story never dragged.While several of the vignettes are pretty coincidental (you might say contrived) – the Matt Dillon/Thandie Newton one in particular – by and large the randomness of the characters' relationships works well. Paul Haggis, the writer and director of the film, does an excellent job of keeping the dialogue realistic, and the scene setup logical. And the music not only complements each scene well, but is evocatively apropos as well.While I don't find its overall argument (which I think is 'you have no idea who you are, but you are racist') truthful, the movie did make you think. Also, unlike most movies today, this film is not forgotten two hrs after you leave the theater (or return the DVD in this case).","['0', '3']" +669,rw1171624,quinacridone,Crash (I) (2004),8.0,You meet everyone twice in life.,13 September 2005,1,"Crash doesn't present the viewer with an over-reaching story-arc, but is a collection of stories, each a chapter of one person's life. They seem unrelated at first, but over time you realize that an innocuous detail such as a wrong word or a mistaken purchase can have a dramatic outcome. We meet everyone twice in life. We each weave in and out of the lives of strangers, leaving imprints on their souls.When the eight main characters of Crash meet, the circumstances are always a source of stress: a car crash, a break-in, a hospital visit. The preferred mode of interaction is confrontation and, as high-lighted in this film, the first instinct is to flare up in anger. As the rich, spoiled house-wife (excellently played by Sandra Bullock) exclaims: ""Every morning I wake up and I'm angry. I don't know why."" What I found surprising about this movie is how frankly it illustrates how most of the time this anger is directed at people of another race. Most movies about race relations are bi-polar: whites against blacks, Hispanics against whites, blacks against Hispanics... However, in this movie all ethnic groups are shown to have some prejudice. ""Speak American!"", exclaims the black woman when she is addressed by an Asian. ""I'm not selling a gun to you, Osama,"" grunts the white store-keeper to the Persian customer. Hipanics utter racial slurs just as much as Asians, Blacks, Whites or Persians. It has become a gut-reaction.Crash doesn't moralize about racism and interpersonal relations, though, and few of the story-lines come to a Hollywood-style resolution. Rather, the movie holds up a mirror. It is a document, not a morality tale. This is what makes it work - you'll have to come to your own conclusions.","['2', '7']" +670,rw1170654,pornacct2,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Best movie of 2004,12 September 2005,0,"I haven't been as affected by a movie since 1994's Shawshank redemption. This film should be in the top 10. Absolutely superb writing; incredible soundtrack; perfect casting; impeccable direction and photography.The tagline ""You think you know who you are, you have no idea"" is right on target. This is a film that will make you think. About the daily struggle we all go through, and of course the strained race relations we all encounter. The writing is as real as it gets - in a car accident when all our best intentions, niceties etc are put aside, the real person comes out. This is where this film begins and ends - with the real person.If you haven't seen it yet, I impore you to. Enjoy!","['6', '16']" +671,rw1189815,MingusWU10,Crash (I) (2004),5.0,Black and white in black and white,9 October 2005,0,"Rarely have I seen such a three dimensional problem handled so one-dimensionally. Previous reviewers have praised the film for its nuanced investigation of racism in the big city, its unwillingness to bend to stereotypes, and its (and I groan as I'm writing this) avoidance of ""easy answers to tough questions.""I'm here to tell you that if you're looking for probing, nuanced film, you're going to have fast forward through a lot of CRASH: all of the beginning, the middle, most of the end. Stop at the credits to pay respect to some genuinely phenomenal actors, and then take the movie back to Blockbuster (or send it back to Netflix, if that's your thing) and try your luck at another movie, because at no point is this film get within striking distance of probing OR nuanced.With CRASH, Paul Haggis attempts to show us the repercussions of racism in America. In an attempt to be brutally honest with his subject matter, Haggis has written a script completely devoid of stereotypes. Check out this dramatis personae:A racist cop - An African-American made good who is still pulled down in his culture's oppression - A bitchy upper class white woman - A young, attractive DA with political aspirations - Two inner city car thieves, one of whom likes nothing more than to wax poetic about the oppression which he sees absolutely everywhere - A Persian *convenience store owner* targeted for a hate crime because he looks Arab - An Asian woman whose only character trait is that she speaks broken EnglishOkay, so... honestly. How deep could be we be delving into this problem with this cast of characters. EVERYONE is a stereotype, and just because at some point each of them transcends their stereotype does not mean that they are not still stereotypical characters. I've seen enough ""serious films"" in my life to know that no one is unequivocally good or bad. Everyone has nuance, and demonstrating that does not make a movie nuanced.Which might be beside the point anyway, as I would contest that the world where this movie operates is not reality. It's some weird, pseudo reality where EVERYONE is racist ALL THE TIME. Can we take, for example, the scene where the white lawyer essentially says to the black cop ""What is the deal with you black people?"" Honestly, there is not one character in this entire movie who is not overtly racist. This is simply not like reality. I absolutely agree that everyone has their racial prejudices and preconceptions, but people (especially people who function in civilized society, as almost everyone in this movie does) learn to conceal those prejudices. This apparently not the case in whatever parallel universe in which CRASH takes place. The movie becomes less about excavating racism in America and more about excavating this apparently pandemic problem of people broadcasting their racism with a bullhorn and a sandwich board.The idea of the film is fundamentally flawed. But, I'm giving it a five out of ten, because the cast is more or less strong and brings some level of depth to their otherwise flat and (even with that oh so original sprig of redemption) unlikeable characters. The dialogue is tight, even if it goes nowhere. The ending is too long and provides almost no closure (which often creates the illusion of ""not offering easy answers""). And I want to go on record as agreeing with previous commentators that Soderbergh should keep a better eye on his directing notebook, because I think Haggis has been stealing pages from it. All in all, an entertaining enough film to watch provided that you are not looking for any sort of probing commentary on American society at all.Anyone who felt they learned something about racism from watching this movie has clearly never thought too hard about the subject. Yes, we're all a little racist. No, racists (even the overt ones) are not irrevocable demons. Yes, racism is endemic and self-replicating. No, racists aren't always white people. And if any of that comes as news to you, I strongly recommend that you buy a newspaper or, you know, turn on your TV or maybe open your eyes and take your fingers out of your ears.","['2', '5']" +672,rw1223913,Adrenalinepump30,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,"""Real Life""",24 November 2005,0,"I think Crash is a perfect example of what goes on in the real world. People from different back-rounds and races have there own discriminations. To tell you the truth, my opinion, hate, jealousy, love, fear, sadness, those are all life long guidelines for us that we need to consider. Were not perfect, but in retrospect we all have our differences. Whether we take our emotions out on different people in the world that we don't even know, is something for your inner-you to decide. Just as it says in the movie about ""feeling each other"" and sooner or later ""crashing into each other, just to feel something."" It can't be any clearer than that. Brett, 13, FL","['0', '4']" +673,rw1184853,louisekolff,Crash (I) (2004),3.0,stereotyping while trying not to,2 October 2005,1,"The problem with this film is that it wants too much. It's basic goal is to show that all Americans have good and bad in them regardless of race / ethnicity, and that circumstances lead to certain actions. It wants to show that we are all prejudice. However, by trying to do the impossible of picking representatives of each group, it ends up doing the opposite of it's goal. We are supposed to leave the cinema having some sympathy and understanding for them all: The racist cop (who also risked his life and loves his dad), the rich housewife (who is lonely and loves her maid), the car-jacker (who is funny, and saves the slaves). But what about the Chinese? In the end they were portrayed as only bad. She was a bitch, and he was a slave- trader. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like the film if I was Asian. And where was the Muslim representation? It was unjustified that the Persians were treated badly because they were mistaken for being Arab. So would it have been okay if they were Muslim? And if everyone was supposed to be portrayed as good and bad, then why were the Hispanic only good? Don't get me wrong, I liked the locksmith and his family, I am just trying to say that inevitably everyone is not shown equally good and bad, and thereby the film creates it's own prejudice.I admire what the director tries to do and find it an important topic, but I found the film quite predictable, very sentimental and American, and not at all experimental or new in it's cinematic approach. The film can never be compared to the likes of Magnolia, because it is just not clever or surprising or shocking. Maybe only to people who don't have a clue that racism exists and who are surprised that we are fundamentally all the same despite our cultural differences.","['4', '11']" +674,rw1241230,jdowling,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Good discussion material,18 December 2005,0,"There are many twists and turns and all the details are important. I've seen this movie 3 times now and I notice some additional details each time. Pay close attention. It moves fast and goes back and forth between scenarios, so be prepared for that, but it wouldn't be the same if it was edited any differently.I thought the editing, directing, acting,... everything was perfect, especially the writing. I don't have the DVD to see the features, but I think it would be worth it. There are few movies I think deserve a 10.There are many lines that are especially noteworthy. The characters and scenarios would also make good discussion material. The topic could be ""stereotypes"", ""racism"", ""diversity"", or other possible topics. It's definitely seems to be a U.S. phenomena, though, but I'm sure people in other countries could learn from it, too. I don't live in L.A. and I'm not a person of color, so I'm sure there are many perspectives to this movie that I can't see. I'm not an angry white woman, but I've seen it a lot - misplaced anger against people of color. I thought all the scenarios seemed somewhat possible to me, though I know it was fiction; it was realistic.Try renting the movie and using it for a discussion with your club, neighbors, friends, or religious organization. Check the quotes available online to help with the discussion. Could these characters have made better choices or were they victims of their culture? Who do you know who needs to crash just to feel something?","['0', '4']" +675,rw1187186,mjherr1,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,"A must-see film that tells the truth, even if you don't want to hear it",5 October 2005,0,"This film, which is the equivalent of a Masters Level multicultural class taught in 113 minutes...AND not boring...is a mirror that accurately reflects the reality of current society. Paul Haggis' brilliant writing, and the ensemble cast's amazing characterizations, subtly weave a story of cultural (mis)perceptions, stereotypes and the resulting interactions of virtually every nationality currently living in the LA area that reaches out, puts it's hands on either side of your face, and all but forces you look at the truth. Touching and tragic, this is an absolute must-see for anyone who even remotely wonders just what the hell is happening to our society as we move into the 21st century. If this film is not a significant contender at every major awards ceremony in the coming year, I would love to hear the explanation as to why.","['6', '14']" +676,rw1171094,brooks-mattd,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,Excellent Movie,12 September 2005,0,"If you haven't seen this film, you should. If you already have then I'm sure you were emotionally ROCKED the same way I was during the ""Really good cloak"" scene. I responded to Michael Peña's anguish in this scene. It spoke to me. It's the naive sweetness of a child. It is instant horrible anguish that any man with a small daughter can understand.It's absolutely the most staggering moment that I've experienced from any film.Overall the movie is outstanding. It evoked strong emotional responses from me such as anger, anguish, bewilderment, elation, happiness, and relief. This isn't mindless entertainment that the majority of movies tend to be. This one is thought provoking, revealing. I liked it so much I added it to my ""favorite movies"" on my profile.From my blog at http://812many.blogspot.com","['2', '7']" +677,rw1172015,eve_a1,Crash (I) (2004),1.0,obviously written by white male,13 September 2005,0,"because the white male was so redeemed and generously forgiven. i couldn't stand this movie. I think in the future no one is going to like this movie. for two reasons: it was racist and poorly written. It focused quite a bit on black/white relations, painting it from an utterly white clueless privileged perspective... i didn't know who the director/writer was while i was watching it, but i counted on 98% chance it wasn't a person of color or a woman.the situations were unlikely and awkward. the duologue sounded like bad TV - rushing to the desired result too quickly. If you explain situations naturally as they might occur in reality it makes the end result much more meaningful.","['23', '37']" +678,rw1237034,EUyeshima,Crash (I) (2004),6.0,Truthful Anger Expressed Through Stellar Acting But Thwarted by Contrivance,12 December 2005,0,"This omnibus fable is as provocative as its daring concept - thirty-six successive hours of hostile, racially charged activity intertwining diverse characters in contemporary Los Angeles - and contains some powerful acting. But at the end of it all, I was left rather hollow by the experience. Steeped in allegory with scenes that start with a key assumption (either on the character's part or ours) and end with some unexpected redemption, the novelty of first-time director Paul Haggis' 2005 film is initially powerful but gets wearing over its running time.Haggis ambitiously presents a multi-ethnic city full of unremorseful anger - where the inhabitants without exception eye each other with suspicion and ignorance to the point where the familiar epithets fly. Much of the early dialogue is uncomfortable to hear at first, but Haggis and co-screenwriter Bobby Moresco derive the shock value from the innate familiarity one has with the pent-up feelings expressed in such an unfettered and sometimes blackly humorous manner. The intense honesty of the dialogue is the film's chief virtue, as it is rare for Hollywood to acknowledge any race problem in its backyard. More often, filmmakers pontificate about it from an antiseptic soapbox (consider ""Guess Who's Coming to Dinner"" as a prime example).A labyrinth plot has been constructed entirely out of the fabric of humanity torn mercilessly by racism, and the travails of over a dozen interconnecting characters make for quite a chess game. An ambitious young and white DA and his ice-cold wife are the victims of a carjacking at gunpoint that leads the wife into a state of hostile paranoia. She has the locks changed at their house by a Latino whom she myopically suspects is a gang member. In truth, the locksmith is a devoted family man who must face daily prejudices in his customer-oriented job. The carjackers are two young, seemingly educated black men who commit the crime out of an uncontrollable rage.A black TV director faces the humiliation of seeing his wife groped by a racist white cop, while his young, naïve partner watches with equal helplessness. A Persian store owner, constantly labeled an Arab, has his daughter help him buy a gun for protection. A black detective, saddled with his drug-addicted mother and criminal brother, is partnered professionally and personally with a Latina, as they to solve the mystery of a dead body in the road. They all collide in ways that are alternately compelling and manipulative.Most of the acting is stellar, but accommodating the complex plot with an expansive cast does not allow much screen time on an individual basis. Cast against type are two actors more famous for their light comedy roles - Brendan Fraser and an especially unsympathetic Sandra Bullock as the DA and his wife. With this brief role, actually with one confrontation scene, Bullock may just have overcome the hurdle that constantly befalls Meg Ryan - her perky likability has convincingly been subverted by a sharper, nastier edge of anger. I hope she does more such adventurous work in the future. Michael Peña plays the locksmith with dignity and provides one of the film's most primal moments when an angry customer blindly seeks restitution from him. Larenz Tate and a particularly impressive Ludicrous play the carjackers with intelligence and fury.Terrence Howard and Thandie Newton sharply delineate a marriage where they straddle precariously between their black identities and the white power base that keeps them living in style. Matt Dillon does some of his best work in the challenging role of the racist cop, while a surprisingly effective Ryan Phillippe embodies the moral ambiguity of Dillon's partner with élan. As the detective, Don Cheadle - who also served as producer - provides the authority to bring it all together. Even an out-of-character Tony Danza shows up in a cameo as a racist actor complaining that another actor is not sounding ""black"" enough.But there is an evolving contrivance to the story, especially toward the end when plot threads are sewn up in an almost too circular fashion. For example, there is no denying the power of scenes such as the second encounter between Dillon's and Newton's characters or the revelation of the dead body's identity, but there is also a sense of parable that undercuts the credibility of the situations. The fates of key characters seem to follow a similarly moralizing pattern as previously deplorable bigots show their courage and compassion under emotional duress or dyed-in-the-wool liberals tap almost too easily into their inner misogynist. Everything just seems too neatly thought out to make the movie truly transcendent.The DVD is surprisingly skimpy on extras - a throwaway introduction by Haggis, a by-the-numbers making-of featurette that focuses more on how the actors desperately wanted to be part of the film, a music video and several trailers that I fast-forwarded through. Haggis, Moresco and Cheadle provide concise though informative commentary on an alternate audio track.","['2', '5']" +679,rw1142517,scratch76,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,Pleasant Surprise,4 August 2005,0,"I was rather surprised about the plots of this movie. All I knew about it was what I have seen watching the trailer. Nevertheless we went to see it since the alternatives were rather weak. I was a bit disappointed in the beginning when everything seemed to be about racism and characters whos actions I could not understand. I thought heh whats the big point? So that dude is black and that chick is white.. Come on guys, get along. Don't be such clichés.But as the movie went on and I stopped wondering how it is possible that a bunch of people keeps on meeting each other again and again in such a big city as Los Angeles and realized that the movie is something like an oversubscribed analogy and that it really doesn't matter if the happenings are plausible, I started to compare that film to ""American Beauty"" in my mind. I guess it was necessary to show development in characters that in reality probably would take years. After that I was very happy we went to see that movie. The message(s) of this film should be pretty obvious, so nothing to say about that.Personally I really liked Matt Dillon's acting and finally I saw Sandra Bullock in a role that I liked. But the rest of the actors performed very well also. Don Cheadle rules.Altogether, a film very worth watching. I'm not from America, but maybe it is even more worth watching if you are. Who knows.","['0', '6']" +680,rw1157577,prohibited-name-2869,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Amazing movie,24 August 2005,1,"At first, i thought maybe this movie is as the previous Crash.. but nothing alike. Go see this movie. It's a masterpiece. It has many stories, that all eventually get together, while some may think its a bit kitschy, for my opinion, it's perfect. This movie came to say something, and it did it flawlessly. 11 out of 10***contain spoilers***I especially liked the scenes where the racial cop saves the black woman , and where his partner risking his life without knowing to save her husband from going ballistic, after they both made the above two situations. While after, the same second cop is killing from misunderstanding & pressure, another man.","['1', '6']" +681,rw1202770,ktappe,Crash (I) (2004),5.0,Puppet show,27 October 2005,0,"I normally don't comment on films, but this one really disappointed me enough that I have to say something in response to all the 10-star reviews on here. Way too often in ""Crash"" we see characters doing or saying things for one and only one reason--because the director needs them to get themselves into situations that he desires later in the film. You can very easily see it--characters are inconsistent throughout. One minute they're complete jerks and the next they're sweet or heroic. One minute they're funny, the next they're philosophical. First they're meek, the next they're aggressive. Yes, real people have multiple sides to their personalities, but they don't swing nearly as far or as fast as the characters in ""Crash"". You can just see the writer pulling their strings like marionettes. Another well-known screenwriter (JMS) once contemplated how his characters often surprised him by doing things he didn't expect. That is good writing. What we have here are characters with no minds of their own; they are mere extensions of the writer's fingers, manipulating the story (and the viewer) for his whims. Problem is, I don't happen to like being manipulated. In a good film, characters stay consistent, react realistically, speak using real English, and actually have a sense of self- preservation (trying not to get shot, for example.) A truly good film would have been less heavy-handed, less forced, less didactic, and way less coincidental.","['1', '3']" +682,rw1132345,tonywilmz68,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Racial Biggotry gets taught a lesson!!!,22 July 2005,0,"There are so many important issues surrounding this movie, but for one is the importance of social well being and understanding. Never before has a movie so greatly pointed out the reasons for racial discrimination, not just White people being small minded, but ALL aspects of racism.The movie follows several different stories/characters, who all meet up at some point. Their stories however, all surround their discontent for other races, whether it be Asian, white, black or South American. Cop, D.A., housewife, car jacker, liquor store owner. It seems that all aspects have been covered. Not to forget the unmissable drama that unfolds as a consequence of each others actions.Make of this what you will, but I implore you.........do everything you can to watch this movie. My personal opinion is that is should be shown in every single classroom around the world. ******OUTSTANDING PIECE OF CINEMATIC REFERENCE**********","['0', '5']" +683,rw1169868,dirtymaggiemae,Crash (I) (2004),3.0,Just as bad as Amores Perros,11 September 2005,0,"This movie was the same as Amores Perros. The director only substituted racism for love as the central plot key. He still maintained the audacity to use a car accident in the same way, forfeiting all originality he may have hoped to have. With its glaring overuse of racial and psychological stereotypes it was obvious and trite. You can even see the plot ""twists"" coming a mile away, destroying any little bit of tension the movie could have had. I absolutely hated it. Most of the performances were good, but did not redeem the movie in anyway. Don't waste your time, unless of course you happened to see and like Amores Perros, you can rent Crash to see it again.","['2', '9']" +684,rw1167522,Rich B,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,"Well written and some truly great performances. Hard and uncompromising, real life indeed.",7 September 2005,0,"Mixed reviews on the Internet, big cast, multi-angled story, to me it sounded like a few other movies that have treaded the same ground but still very interesting. The talents of Paul Haggis and the exciting casting of Don Cheadle, Sandra Bullock, Matt Dillon, et al, attracted me to this movie and I am thankful that I ignored what the critics have said.The movie is a group of stories of different people that all connect through each other and all relate in some way. It's a strong story, and quite a controversial one. Large in both it's concept and it's cast. I can guess some of their negative reaction has been due to the uncomfortable feeling the movie has throughout and the very strong nature of its content. It's a difficult journey, but well worth going to see.From the opening scene you're pretty much guaranteed to be shocked and uncomfortable, I know we were and we weren't expecting the tirade of abuse, one of the more uncomfortable aspects of this scene is that it's from a white man to a Persian, whom he thinks is actually an Iraqi. A very disturbing scene, and something that the movie is all about. The abuse doesn't just stop at the white American on Persian, it moves to Latino against Chinese, Chinese against black, black against black, black against white, white against Chinese, and so on.It covers how hard it is for people in L.A. (and indeed any city) to actually get close to someone else and understand them. It seems to be much easier to blame problems on others than to actually face up to them, and if this movie is anything to go by, racism is a very common aspect of this culture.The movie is telling us that if we take some time to get to know the people around us, perhaps make conversation and don't stereotype them, we may just get along a little better. Lives might even be saved. Don't make the mistake that it's all happy though, it isn't. Even those who think they have made the connections already, haven't done so on anything more than a superficial level.Couple these aspects together and you have one serious movie. Although it is hard to watch and it does make you feel very uncomfortable, it makes you feel something, and that is what cinema is about for me. I left in debate about the movie, both of us, and that's a great thing.Acting wise I was very surprised. Both Bullock and Brendan Fraser play characters well out of their normal sphere of acting, specifically Bullock and she absolutely excels as the D.A.'s wife who is very much on her own. If you ever thought she was a light actress you should see her performance here, strong with a well written and performed fear and growing racist anger, I can't be vocal about her performance enough. The only sad thing is that it is all too short.Fraser also acts out of normal character, he plays the D.A. and there's not a hint of comedy in the script, unfortunately there is in his face and actions to camera.Thandie Newton actually provides a good performance, although yet again she plays a woman with a chip on her shoulder and huge attitude, just like many of her previous characters. Yet she has more range here I felt, and she shows it well. Her frustration, anger and almost all consuming fear is so obvious on screen, and she really does give the performance a great deal.For me Newton and Dillon gave two great performances, and the interaction between them on the two different scenes give a very powerful message. Not only about the Police force, but also about race relations in general, and shows a common understanding between both characters. This is one of the most powerful relationships in the movie.However, the strongest pairing and the best acting in this movie for me goes to two non-lead actors. Michael Pena and Bahar Soomekh as the Hispanic locksmith and the Persian local store owner respectively, give the most heartfelt and strong performances in this movie. They, without a doubt, steal the show from the big names and quite rightly so.There are some poorer aspects to the movie though, I felt a couple of the scenes were presented in quite a contrived manner, and instead of events leading to them being quite explainable or understandable, they felt strained and stretched. A perfect example of how this could be avoided was with the second Newton-Dillon scene, no explanation, no lead up, the event had just happened and the important thing was the story that unfolded before you and the aftermath. That's real life, often things happen and there's not a need to overly explain the lead up.The ending, although not all good by a long way, reminded me a lot of Magnolia. Not because of anything more than a moment of plot device, but coupled with the same style of storytelling it was enough to knock me out of the movie and make the connection.Overall the messages are strong, uncompromising and often quite bleak. Do not make a mistake, this is real life and not a nice fluffy bunny tale. Despite some moments that are a little contrived, there are a surprising amount of exceptional performances to be seen and the story gives you a real kick in the head about how we really should be as people. Thoroughly recommended.","['2', '8']" +685,rw1229552,keme,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,The best roller-coaster flick I've ever seen,2 December 2005,0,"How can I describe this movie? I've seen it three times, and I still can't find the words. If you're anything like me at all you'll end up loathing the characters you love and loving the characters you loathe, you'll be upset, you'll laugh and you will go from shedding manly, yet shameful, tears of sadness, agony and grief, to going ""YES! HAH! YES! THANK YOU! YES!"" in a manner of seconds.It's an emotional roller-coaster that takes you from the top to the bottom and all the way back up to the top again without ever coming off as cheesy or sloppy. Personally, I think it's a great movie, and I really do hope you'll like it. I sure know I do.","['0', '4']" +686,rw1228307,nightsparkle,Crash (I) (2004),1.0,"fake, forced",30 November 2005,0,"i started watching this film with a friend, but after like half an hour we stopped, amazed of how unrealistic this movie was. OK, it's Hollywood, but still, some Hollywood films can be good, like say 'american beauty'. but this movie starts off being possibly the worst you can get out of Hollywood. everything feels staged. all the characters are overreacting. they're all some sort of stereotypes, although you'll never see any such person walking around in real life. it's all so fake. in trying to bring a moral, the things the characters do aren't done because the characters emotionally think they should, but because the filmmakers need to put in another twist in the story or some kind of shocking scene, or they wanna make it super-obvious to the mentally challenged audience what the character feels... that being said, don't expect to see a quality film.The next day i thought i'd finish the movie, because i was very tired and just wanted to relax on the couch. on top of that, i was still interested in the topic of culture clashes. and surprisingly, i was mildly entertained. when the movie stops trying to pretend it's a serious drama, it's a movie that does have it's moments. it's very much like 'the butterfly effect', extremely laim, but not a TOTAL waste of your time.","['4', '11']" +687,rw1191053,karolmel_2000,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Conversation Starter,10 October 2005,0,"This movie was completely unbelievable. We were unable to determine the outcome or the path to it. Undeniably, my husband and I live in a bi-racial world, not being completely accepted nor discarded. Yup, it feels a lot like that.This movie lets us talk to each other openly and continues the guarded conversation with our friends and family.Our friends and family only talk about it if it affects us, and not in front of anyone else, therefore keeping the status quo. It's absolutely tiring. This movie gave us a look at what we think about all of the time alone, in private and told us that others are thinking the same.Race, discrimination it's always there, it's the elephant in the room.","['5', '13']" +688,rw1209591,djmustard,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,Crash - dead on depiction of Los Angeles,5 November 2005,0,"I just saw this film for the first time and was completely blown away by it. I was born and raised in Los Angeles and have witnessed first hand almost every situation depicted there in. I've never seen or heard or read anything that demonstrates more clearly the difficulties of Los Angelean living. It is a profoundly diverse melting pot completed segregated by it's geography, religious and racial differences and as Don Cheadle's character points out; steel and glass. The performances are just about flawless particularly Matt Dillon, Michael Peña, Thandie Newton, Terrence Howard, Sandra Bullock and begrudgingly I have to give props to Ryan Phillipie who usually I prefer to make fun of.Director Paul Haggis weaves the lives of some 25 different characters through two tumultuous days in L.A. As each life comes into contact with the next we watch as so many of their actions are fueled by their fear and ignorance of each other. At the same time we see how similar each character truly is regardless of race, religion, creed or color. Fear and ignorance, fear and ignorance, if only we could see how truly similar we all are. It's an emotionally charged and deeply moving depiction of a city and people that I love and highly recommend it to anyone interested in good thought provoking enthralling movie making.DjM","['1', '7']" +689,rw1169682,Thunderbuck,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Magnificent and inevitable,11 September 2005,0,"Watching Paul Haggis' CRASH brings to mind Robert Altman's SHORT CUTS, and Lawrence Kasdan's GRAND CANYON. Haggis manages to do them both one better.With only a little contrivance, Haggis manages to convey the interconnectedness that Altman's film vainly tried to portray, and at the same time he manages to cut Kasdan's film to pieces as naive fantasy.CRASH is a marvellously ironic, shades-of-gray masterpiece. Nobody gets through unscathed, and yet all are sympathetic to some degree. This is an unusually intelligent Hollywood movie, and definitely worth a watch.","['7', '16']" +690,rw1231262,howard.schumann,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,A thread of common humanity,5 December 2005,0,"There is a process in a consciousness training I took many years ago in which people pretend that they are scared to death of the person sitting beside them. When they discover that that person is scared to death of them, the only thing to do is laugh. Urban society breeds fear, intolerance and lack of trust, especially of strangers of different ethnic backgrounds whom we see as potential threats rather than as people with problems similar to our own. In Crash, Paul Haggis has the vision to see the thread of common humanity that connects us beyond the socially conditioned fear. He has assembled an outstanding ensemble cast that includes Brendan Fraser, Sandra Bullock, Don Cheadle, Matt Dillon, Ryan Phillipe and all are first rate.The film is divided into several episodes and, as it unfolds, seemingly unrelated threads intersect to form a connection. In the opening segment, as a young black man brazenly complains that white people automatically assume that all blacks are criminals, he and his partner incongruously hijack the SUV of a District Attorney Peter (Brendan Fraser) and his young wife Jean (Sandra Bullock). The carjacking by the two African Americans (Ludacris, Larenz Tate) leaves Jean in a racist outrage, demeaning her housekeeper Maria (Yomi Perry) and venting her anger on a locksmith Daniel (Michael Pena), a Mexican-American working in the house. Typical of many, she tells a friend on the phone, ""I'm angry all the time and I don't know why."" In one of the film's most touching episodes, Daniel returns home to provide his frightened young daughter with an invisible vest to protect her from harm. When Daniel tells an Iranian shopkeeper Farhad (Shaun Taub) that his door needs replacing, the shopkeeper becomes visibly upset and directs his anger toward Daniel who is only trying to provide security. When his store is vandalized, he buys a gun and threatens Daniel and his little girl in a heart-pounding scene that leads to a true epiphany. In another thread, TV director Cameron (Terrence Howard) and his wife Christine (Thandie Newton) are pulled over by a racist cop Ryan (Matt Dillon) who suspects some wrongdoing. His sexual touching of Cameron's wife, however, is humiliating for Christine and she becomes furious with her husband for standing by and letting it happen, irrationally ignoring the potential danger if he resisted.Taken aback by the ugly incident is Ryan's partner Hansen (Ryan Phillipe) who requests reassignment but soon has to confront his own demons when he gives a ride to a black hitchhiker. Meanwhile, a different side of Ryan is shown as he lovingly takes care of his sick father and rescues a black woman from certain death in a car accident. The final thread has Graham (Don Cheadle), a police detective, dealing with his estranged relationship with his wife Ria (Jennifer Esposito) and his mother who is a drug addict. Though the film is gritty and confrontational, the soothing music by Kathleen ""Bird"" York alleviates some of the shock and nastiness and reminds us that there is a divine melody always playing in the background of our lives. Though flawed by some contrived coincidences, Haggis has given us a crash course in confronting stereotypes and looking beyond outward appearances to see the humanity that people are capable of.","['10', '24']" +691,rw1161324,joebloggscity,Crash (I) (2004),7.0,"Strong, but not overbearing look at the racial tinderbox that is L.A.",30 August 2005,0,"Crash follows a recent pattern of movies that combine various strands of stories across the social stratus combined by an incident or some loose strand, in this case some car crashes. Each section of L.A.'s vast community is examined from the rich politician and his wife, the Iranian shopkeeper, the Latin family trying to escape labelling of being gangster and down to the oriental white van man.Interesting as it is, the stories aren't overbearing but as ever due to the many strands in the film they never seem to be able to fully examine the stories enough. Nevertheless, the general stories take twists and turns to keep your interest going and in this very difficult time of increased racial awareness it is a very relevant movie which is worth viewing. Likely will be positively noted in the Oscars, although i don't think that it is as good as that, but Matt Dillon will likely be given a positive nod for his portrayal of a bitter policeman for whom to there is more than meets the eye.Good intelligent cinema in a year of daft US nonsense, but nothing incredible although worth a visit to the cinema for.","['0', '3']" +692,rw1178746,elitt,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Doesn't Get Much Better Than This,23 September 2005,0,"A snooty lawyer and his angry wife are carjacked by two black men. A light skinned black director and his wife are mis-treated by a racist white cop after getting pulled over for a traffic violation. A Russian store owner who doesn't speak much English, gets broken into and blames a poor Latino locksmith for his trouble. A black cop is worried that his relationship with his Mexican female partner will upset his colleagues and mother, who he has an estranged relationship with. All these stories are intertwined to form an arc and all come together at the end to state a message about our society and how it deals with race.In the tradition of Robert Altman's fine films like ""The Player"", and ""Short Cuts"", as well as Lawrence Kasdan's ""Grand Canyon"", ""Crash"" does a wonderful job at mixing and matching a number of characters and stories and having them all come together. This film has amazing writing and performances. The characters are all real and they seem like people you've probably met before. Director Paul Haggis, who just won an Oscar for ""Million Dollar Baby"" really does a great job at balancing everyone and giving each story equal screen time.This is an intense film at times and each character's story packs some emotional punch. The writing is dynamite and I highly recommend ""Crash"" (****)","['6', '15']" +693,rw1206055,jameskinsman,Crash (I) (2004),1.0,"""Trash"" (2005)",31 October 2005,0,"Crash is a movie that deals with the structure of society and the racial intolerance that exists within it. I have to say that contrary to popular opinion, I was extremely disappointed with this film and afterwards felt quite frustrated by it.I found its attempt to provide a commentary on the racial intolerance present in society very fabricated and unnatural. Directors such as Bresson, Dreyer and Tarkovsky have proved that you can achieve accurate emotional responses, without relying solely on melodramatics or manipulative music. Haggis has sold us short and presents deeply complex issues with a series of trite observations that short change the themes of the film. Slow music is played throughout most of the film, providing a symphony for the suffering or pain we see the characters endure on screen. This can be effective in films if used subtly, however in Crash, Haggis has succumbed to the melodrama and pseudo humanist approaches characteristic of soap operas and dramas. A typical example in Crash would be the scene where Matt Dillon rescues Nona Gaye from her burning car. As the action intensifies the music builds and the camera zooms in on the struggling characters within the overturned (and burning) car, and our heart is meant to break. Scenes such as this one frequent the film, but instead of being well portrayed, I found that they were empty and forced. This is because Haggis does not let us form our own emotional responses, and manipulates our feelings and plays to the emotions of its audience.Crash is as crassly manipulative as it is topically exhausted. The film does not single anyone out and comes to the conclusion that we are all inherently limited in our tolerance of other races, and that we all make rash judgements about people as we try to go about our daily lives. I do not need a whole film to explain this to me - for centuries conflict and oppression has occurred because of political/racial/religious intolerance's, and humans constantly seek to resolve these conflicts wherever possible. Using this principle as the driving theme of the film is pointless and tyring to wring water out of a dry cloth. In an enlightened 21st century where political correctness plagues society, it is insulting to realise that Haggis thinks hes shedding new light on these problems. He does not and indeed he offers no solutions either. I completely reject the idea that this film teaches us about who people truly are – as the films tag line suggests. I struggle to see how anyone closely resembling the characters on screen exists (perhaps with the exception of Sandra Bullocks character). Many of the films characters seem to continually voice their philosophies and conveniently memorised statistics on race relations as though they're recalling extracts from a research essay they've just written. Crash manages to perpetuate the very stereotypes it claims we brand people with.","['82', '155']" +694,rw1167079,phil_727,Crash (I) (2004),7.0,"""Crash"" AKA ""Hate Actually""",6 September 2005,0,"Hate actually is all around. For those that have seen ""Love Actually"", you get where I'm going. The movie ""Love Actually"" took huge cast of different characters and portrayed how love effects each of them. This movie does the same and the opposite, it takes a huge cast of characters and shows how hate effects them. Hate manifests itself in this movie most often as racism. Everyone, to a degree, is racist, and this movie will help you to see that in yourself, and possibly do something about it, or at least for a little bit. By that I mean that the events in the movie slap you in the face, and the fingerprints don't go away too quickly. The casting and the way the stories mingle together were composed wonderfully. Aside from the jarring social realizations, the movie is very easy to watch and follow. My only critique is that the barrage of hate you witness early on in the film turns you off more than it does draw you quickly into the lives of the characters you come to know better.","['1', '4']" +695,rw1198554,daya199,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,movie depicting real life emotions,21 October 2005,0,"Crash is a movie about me,you and all the people living in the world. Its about people and their feelings, their preconceived notions and prejudices. Although the theme may seem racist at first glance it has a deeper and more valuable message for us. It is about how weak and vulnerable we all are. How often we let the past experiences, stories etc. affect our future behavior. How we all have this so called notions about people: be it color of skin or religion or geography etc. But what this beautiful director unfolds in the movie is that this very concept of prejudging people is the cause that bad people still remain bad. The director has masterfully portrayed how the prejudices can be wrong and how people whom we fear/hate/ try to stay away from, can go out of their ways to help us. This movie talks about the heart of a person which is pure and the pureness resides in each and every person. All we need is to give the person a chance.I salute the director. True he has sugarcoated each character a bit, but we all love nice endings.Don't we?Anyone who wants to see a real movie and who respects life watch the movie. you will never regret it. Its clearly 10/10 in my book any day.","['1', '6']" +696,rw1166223,jmbwithcats,Crash (I) (2004),7.0,A chronicle of events when it all goes wrong.,5 September 2005,0,"Everything about CRASH is woven masterfully with a beautiful cast crafted together with sublime chemistry, which often fails in movies where a lot of A-list actors are put together in one film, helped together with the right camera-work, music, and pacing.The movie entertained. It moved. It did what any good movie does. It makes one look within.Pretty honest look at how humans fail and falter, stumble and crawl just trying to get home. Maybe God should have given us some kind of instruction book and I don't mean the Bible. Maybe a wristwatch two-way radio to an angel. The thing is there is no easy answer.","['3', '7']" +697,rw1143199,studleymoore2027,Crash (I) (2004),7.0,Rather too blatant,5 August 2005,0,"Yes this is a good film but at the same time paints a rather basic picture, it contains just about every race that would live in Los Angeles, black, white, Chinese, Hispanic and Arabic(portrayed as Persian in this film) and states basically that they all hate each other. The redemption of the film is that it is saved by a few great scenes involving Matt Dillon an Thandie Newton and the Persian guy and the Hispanic Guy(if you've seen the film you'll know who i mean), these scenes alone drag this film up above ordinary and make it worth seeing.The one thing that does slightly annoy me with this is that it so obviously owes a lot to magnolia whi9ch is a much better ensemble piece than this is and yet receives a lot less recognition, if you enjoy this then you'll be blown away by the sheer power of magnolia, which by the way Tom Cruise deserved some kind of award for!To summarise, while this is undoubtedly a good film, it is inferior to other ensemble pieces (Magnolia,Boogie Nights and Pulp Fiction to name a few) this is still a worthy watch, but having seen Magnolia can only leave a sour taste in your mouth for the under appreciation that film received compared to this.7/10","['0', '3']" +698,rw1180867,GordonGekko_,Crash (I) (2004),4.0,"You think you know who you are? No, who am I Hollywood?",26 September 2005,1,"What do you get when you have a superb cast, great acting, enchanting score, and no story? A racist propaganda film directly aimed at America.I can see the decision room now.Producers: ""Paul we still don't have a story. We loved what you did with Million Dollar Baby as did the rest of California and New York, but we are knee deep in this and we don't have a script."" Paul Haggis: ""I got it! We are going to make a movie targeting America."" Producers: ""What do you mean?"" Paul Haggis: ""We can show America just how racist they really are. We will have the whites as the bad guys and everyone else as the good guys. The tagline will be: 'You think you know who you are. You have no idea.' And then we will tell them who they are in 1 hour and 53 minutes. And their eyes shall be open."" Producers: ""But Paul, hasn't that been played enough? I mean, I think American viewers are tired of Canadians telling them what they are."" Paul Haggis: ""But don't you see? This doesn't matter. All that matters is what the Academy will say."" Isn't it true though? Another Hollywood ""inspiring"" film that has no connection with American's? Again we are to settle with a film that misses on so many levels.Within the first half-hour it is obvious that every single white character in this movie is a bigot. This movie is one sided on so many levels I couldn't even keep track. The stereotypes used in this film are so exaggerated I lost all accountability with whatever the message the director was trying to portray.Exactly what is this film trying to show? Is it that after 40 years of civil rights we are worse off now that when we were when we started? Is it that every white person has some degree of prejudice whether they know it or not? In this film I couldn't help to notice how the white racial innuendos aimed at blacks are serious and ignorant, but the black racial comments aimed at whites are jokes and punch lines. Example: Matt Dillon entire dialog vs. the conversation between the two black car jackers.Unfortunately this movie enraged me more than enlightened me. Seeing that ""Hollywierd"" shows my race as a bunch of brainless, Klan, bullies couldn't help but turn me off to any more garbage this director has to dish.If you must, watch. When you watch look for the subtle attacks on white America. I know who I am, if you need a movie to tell you who you are...I'm sorry.","['4', '10']" +699,rw1139715,slidersedge,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Beautyfully Made movie,1 August 2005,0,"I have watched a lot of movies over the year's and came to the conclusion that there is movie's that can make u feel Happy or Sad and bring you through a range of emotions,And this is one,from the very start to the very end i was caught up in the stories of the movie,Its not all about race,but it dose play a big part of it,its a story about changing your view on things that matter and things you think you don't care about, and during the movie you are up for the bad guy and you are up for good guy,what dose this all mean,just sit back relax ,Take the phone off the hook ,snuggle up and enjoy a really great movie worth an Oscar.10-10","['0', '6']" +700,rw1188418,Pavel-8,Crash (I) (2004),8.0,Crash: Be ready to ponder.,7 October 2005,0,"From Oscar-nominated screenwriter Paul Haggis (""Million Dollar Baby"") comes his directorial debut, the adult drama ""Crash"", a project that is nothing if not ambitious,commenting on many of the powerful and controversial themes that drive America and the world.""Crash"" tells its complex story in fractured vignettes, as the non-traditional narrative tracks over a dozen main characters through a day in their Los Angeles-based lives, all of which are intertwined one way or another. Most of these parts are played well by recognizable faces, if not names, a wise decision that makes tracking the various participants very easy. These characters are a mix of blue collar workers like cops, locksmiths, and store owners, in addition to upper class people like a district attorney and a television producer. The impressive part of this massive character list is that although harsh and gritty, few if any of the portrayals are full stereotypes. Portions of many might be considered trite, but even those characteristics are addressed within the context of the film.With fathers, mothers, brothers, daughters, these characters collectively provide something for everyone to latch onto as they create some of the frankest discussion you will ever see on film. In doing so, the words avoid being gratuitously explosive, instead casually fitting into the ongoing events, as though the sometimes shocking statements are just normal conversation. In fact, I don't think it uncommon for many of the words to be spoken or pondered in private daily interaction. However seeing and hearing them emanate from the big screen is an entirely different beast, as the movie elucidates many of the thoughts and words nobody will publicly claim.Addressing touchy issues is a dangerous venture, but one that ultimately rewards more than restraint would have. Race and racism are the explicit themes that have garnered headlines, but beneath it all lies anger. One character poignantly comments on waking up angry for no apparent reason, and that is the root problem that lingers both within the film and within the viewer. Leaving the issue at racism (etc.) would have made for a decent film in itself, but pushing one step further thematically does likewise with the film, making it that much deeper, like the conversations you can have with a close friend as opposed to a casual acquaintance. Mix in the always potent themes of family, life, and death, and you have a film that at some point strikes to the very core of anyone.The power of ""Crash"" stems from that introspection it triggers, encouraging the viewer to examine his own thoughts, motives, and reactions. This brings ""Traffic"" to mind, even though ""Crash"" lacks the powerful dramatic story arcs of Steven Soderburgh's work. The narrative here occasionally overwhelms emotionally, but does so inconsistently, perhaps because the constant moving between numerous tales slightly retards the emotion. From the intertwining story arcs to a song playing over the final act resolution to a strange something falling from the sky, the film most reminds of ""Magnolia"", but without any sort of emotional upswing at the end. ""Crash"" won't leave you feeling as optimistic, although it will make you think more.Accentuating the penetrating narrative is the tight cinematography. Gone are most of the usual scene-setting wide shots, smartly and cleverly replaced by cuts that switch locations by using congruent shots, such as tight images of two separate people opening a door. Close-ups of faces and hands permeate the picture, subtly but greatly adding to intimate nature of movie, emphasizing the personal level at which the story best connects. Also enhancing the mood is the soft bluish color palette, similar to the also L.A.-based ""Collateral"". But instead of the slick high definition video dominant in Michael Mann's picture, James Muro's frequently hand-held shots are grittier, reflecting the coarse lives and thoughts of the characters.Typical cinematic story lines need the questions raised within the film to be answered (ahem...""War of the Worlds""...ahem). Films like ""Crash"" excel precisely because they leave the viewer to ponder the posited questions. Equal parts social commentary and observation, this is one of the more daring films of the last few years, Bottom Line: If you take the chance to see it, properly prepared mentally, you won't be disappointed; you will be pleasantly surprised on numerous levels. 8 of 10.","['0', '4']" +701,rw1231046,marcosaguado,Crash (I) (2004),7.0,Clashing Crash In Devil's City,4 December 2005,0,"Lives, ordinary lives, vital part of a city where, I'm sure, the devil has him home. Contradictory, awful, enlightened, confused. There are so many good moments in ""Crash"" that I felt the need to see it again less than 24 hours later. Matt Dillon lead us through his own contradiction with the humanity of someone who knows he carries something rotten inside. The explosive dissatisfaction that permeates Sandra Bullock's life is ferociously real and the frustration of Thandie Newton's character is a first on the screen. We've never seen it quite like that and her performance will stay with me. Larenz Tate personifies both sides of the equation, the one who understands but goes against his instincts, and still there are chilling flashes of innocence in his eyes -- his performance reminded me of the wonderful ""Seeds Of Tragedy"" were his innocence was intact. The problem with ""Crash"" and it is problem is that remains a rather shallow affair. Cleverly put together but epidermic at best.","['61', '110']" +702,rw1253325,colette-york,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,however this owes a lot to the film Grand Canyon,2 January 2006,0,"Excellent film and cast but derivative of the film Grand Canyon (1991?) by Laurence Kasdan- or am I getting to the age were all film plots are repeated with subtle differences?,as is most of the current music scene! Very moving , although some of the ""set pieces"" were flagged up well in advance! I find this a feature of most USA films and TV,( exceptions being the superb output of HBO) as if we can not work out the connections for ourselves, whether it be comedy or drama. I did like the way each of the characters had the potential for good and bad in them, making them more believable as real people, the soundtrack also complemented the scenes well.","['1', '6']" +703,rw1213161,Adam Fillenz,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,One of the best films on the world.,10 November 2005,0,"In Hungary cinemas just started to show this film today... all right yesterday. I have seen it a few hours ago, and I must say I haven't seen a film what I could enjoy as much as this film a very long time ago. I can not tell you how much it moved me. This film is just amazingly excellent and a wonderful piece of art. There are no words to describe how good it actually is. And to describe how important it is. For every people. For humanity. I will take this experience with me till the end of my life. Maybe these are too big words to adore a film but forgive me... I'm amazed now.Thank you (creators) for this!P.S.: sorry for my English.","['0', '5']" +704,rw1166069,brittooms,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Wow,5 September 2005,0,"Whoa, what an amazing movie. I have just finished watching it and I am utterly moved. The movie itself revolves around racism and by the end of the film there is an inexplicable unity between every race. During the movie there is sheer misunderstanding and bigotry. And in the end everyone seems to come to terms with some clichés with some rude awakenings. There is undeniable truth in ""Crash"", people in general do have stereotypes towards other races and whether we like it or not, racism is everywhere. It's simply ignorance, people are inconsiderate peckers. I would absolultely recommend ""Crash"" to anyone who wants to finally see some truth in a movie.","['3', '9']" +705,rw1178907,crazikat89,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,We all crash into each other just to feel something.,23 September 2005,0,"We do. This is the most poignant, realistic, wonderful movie that I have ever seen. Its says everything that we feel and everything we are to afraid to say. Everything that we know someone is feeling, but would never have the courage to act on. Because its racist, sexist and everything else that we wouldn't want to think or say. The directors, producers and actors perform wonderfully, and light up your eyes. Each story will leave you with a feeling that you don't expect. All the characters, CRASH into each other, in a way that you would never expect. without even knowing each other, like we all do every day. This is a must see. And will leave you without words.","['7', '17']" +706,rw1194966,cwhyel,Crash (I) (2004),8.0,Best Move I wish I hadn't saw,16 October 2005,0,"I know that the world is a horrible place where people regularly do all sorts of horrible things.Crash is likely one of the best assembled films I've seen in a long time full of high levels of human fallibility in the characters.Still, I think the film might have set a world record for use of the word ""racist"" and its variations.The ensemble cast and the writing are well above-board.I would have liked to felt a sense of hope after watching the movie but in going from being sickened to having tears in my eyes, the film just was a little too intense for me.Let my error be a lesson to the over-sensitive or easily offended. This is tough, gritty stuff, and there are enough different characters and stories to follow where I found a bit of myself in it and cause for self-examination.I tip my proverbial hat to the powers that be for having the guts to put this great work together and let it exist for our perusal. Perhaps that is the saving grace for me in watching this film, is knowing that regardless of what I think of the world, there are people out there who will tell stories like this and stray from the usual trifling fare that we are inundated with.","['0', '4']" +707,rw1252258,jasonchatfield,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Truly magic. The best way film has been used as a medium for a long time.,1 January 2006,0,"I have seen hundreds among hundreds of films, but never before has my heart beaten against my chest so hard, nor my hands shaken so nervously as when I was privileged enough to view this film. Never before has film been used so effectively to communicate to an audience, a point that is globally understood, but seldom discussed, and rarely debated due to taboo and political correctness.Crash addresses such an important part of human society in 21st century. Post 9/11, long since multiculturalism has been accepted into the mesh of our societies, it speaks a thousand languages with one clear message; humans are racially intolerant. It doesn't say 'they are intolerant by default' or 'humans have always been and will always be intolerant', but it attempts to ask why we have gotten this way. We are falling apart, but above all; there is hope. People have the ability to change, and to embrace cultures contrary to their own.A poetically filmed piece of cinema complemented by a magical soundtrack by Mark Isham, this film should be viewed by everyone and anyone. If you live and breathe in any kind of modern society, this film is relevant to you.All of the actors in this film perform a solid and well-executed performance. The only gripe I would have is that Brendan Fraser has been miscast in this film. Someone like Denis Quaid or Dylan McDermott would have fit the role much more convincingly in my opinion.Easily in my top 3.","['1', '7']" +708,rw1184642,come2whereimfrom,Crash (I) (2004),7.0,car crash commentary.,2 October 2005,0,"Crash is the clever kid in your class. It rises above the usual Hollywood drivel by dealing with some tricky subjects in an intelligent way. It looks good, has a good strong cast and has beautiful music for 99% of the film. On the other hand it is slightly contrived and the plots twists are easily recognisable, there is a terrible bit at a murder scene and the film plays out with the stereophonics (wtf?) But these are not good enough reasons to not see this film they just let it down slightly. Overall the piece deals with racism in a way no mainstream movie has in our new climate of the terror of skin colour (be it terrorist or carjackers) it has a strong script that is brilliantly played out by actors such as Cheadle, Dillon, Bullock and Newton. Some of the scenes involving race issues are cringe worthy but ultimately rewarding. Crash plays out a little bit like magnolia but without the quirkiness and singing. It is a one of those films that critics hail as absolutely brilliant like last years sideways. Both films are good but not brilliant. I think what happens is when so many films arrive that are average and then one comes along that is slightly above that people get carried away. Don't let me put you off please go and see crash it is one of the better films you will see this year. A mainstream movie with a conscience and a heart.","['2', '4']" +709,rw1227480,everettjason2004,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,open your eyes to see what the world is really like,29 November 2005,0,"Crash is about ordinary people in America from different ethnicity and how all their lives are connect. It's about the hidden and open racism that different ethnic backgrounds people have, it's about the little things we do that can actually be a disaster for others, it's about change and to see the world through open eyes and not with our eyes closed. Crash is an in-depth exploration on the themes of racism and prejudice,cause and effect, chance and coincidence, and tragedy,""CRASH"" is a metaphor for the collisions between strangers in the course of a day-to-day existence. Set over a twenty four (24) hour period in contemporary L.A. Crash features terrific casts which include: Sandra Bullock, Don Cheadle, Matt Dillon, Jennifer Esposito, Brendon Fraser, Chris Bridges, Loretta Devine, Thandie Newton, Ryan Phillipe and Lorenza Tate. The movie is approximately 113 minutes in length. Crash follows a couple of characters with different backgrounds. We see how these people react to one another, most of the time out of prejudice. We see how a white woman grabs the arm of her husband when two young black men are walking up to them, how one of those black men thinks every white person is a racist, how a white cop pulls a car over only because the people in it are not white, how a couple of people think a young Hispanic man belongs to a gang. We then see that some of the prejudice, although it is wrong to have it, turns out to be true, how the same white cop helps a black woman out of a burning car, just days after violating her on a traffic stop. How she doesn't want him to help rescue her because of the incident, how the same police officer is angry because of the health of his father and that the lady that is responsible for his insurance papers is black, that could explain his behavior. Not justify it, only explain. How a restaurant owner doesn't understand the Hispanic locksmith when he tell him he needs to fix his door not the lock. When the restaurant owner comes back the next morning finds his place destroyed and the insurance adjuster tells him that his insurance doesn't cover it. Because the lock smith told him to fix the door. The restaurant owner then takes his revolver that they had just purchase and goes to the locksmith's home and waits for him. He shoots but nothing happened because they had purchased blanks for the gun. How two gang members want to car jack cars and when they pull over a SUV with a black man in it .The black man retaliates because he tries to explain that is why the black man has it so hard because of people like them. The police are in pursuit of this vehicle and when they pull it over the same white police officer that pulled him and his wife over the day before responds to the other officer to let him go. Towards the end of the movie an Asian guy that got run over by the two Black people had a van full of Asians that would have been sold as sex slaves. You feel sorry for the Asian guy, until you find out he is in the market of selling slaves, and then you feel good he got hit real good with the stolen SUV, since that is what he did with the lives of the people in the van. Shows you can't feel sorry for people all the time when bad things happen. The same black man then was offered money for each of them but in the end he has a change of heart and takes the van back and releases them and even gives them money for food. This movie really makes you examine the way you view and judge others around you. I suggest everyone go see this, no matter what background you come from this movie will truly open your eyes to the real world and what actually goes on. It will amaze you.","['0', '4']" +710,rw1202024,asfm218,Crash (I) (2004),4.0,Not bad,26 October 2005,0,"This movie did portray a good deal of miscommunication, stereotyped beliefs, etc. The modernized racism is shown, rather than the usual one-sided tales. However, the one thing that made me cringe (more than a few times) were the roles of the Asians. Of course being that I'm Asian-American, I cared to notice. There is no denial of illegal immigration and how our older generations tend to speak quite loudly and rudely for that matter. But we're seen as weak, easy to pick on, and unable to speak English without the heavy accent. First, it's the unreasonable Asian woman, then it's the poor guy who gets run over (and saving his life is only based upon not being want for murder,) and later, ""Ludacris"" becomes the hero in saving and releasing the immigrants? Illegal immigration happens in ALL countries. When I'm taking public transportation: ALL nationalities speak louder than they should and disturb the peace in other means (blasting the eardrums with music) etc. Lol, OK. Well, my apologies if I'm getting off-track. But it's frustrating when so many African-Americans in the US at least, and Spanish-Americans claim how they're being treated w/o equality when do the same to Asians. We're thought of as the ""geeks,"" people intimidated easily, rich (oh, that's a good one. I know too many Asians who live in our own ""projects"" not funded by the government, but no, we're known to have money,) timid, etc, etc, etc. Oh, and a coworker once said to me ""You listen to R&B? You know who Tupac is? Omg. You listen to Hip-Hop? You dance to reggae?"" Another one says ""You wouldn't understand my hardship. I'm from Harlem."" What can I say? That I grew up with roaches as my best friends? Third one says ""You know about drugs? You ""people"" actually have murders go on? How come I never see it on the news? But I know everyone in your family must own a Chinese-take out.""","['2', '9']" +711,rw1195114,zeroSignal,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,"An excellent piece of work, that will make you think about yourself.",17 October 2005,0,"You don't have to live in America to appreciate this movie. You can be from anywhere in the world, and you would have met some sort of racism, or nationalism.. or any ism. Everywhere across the world, people will have a different opinion about this movie - because it's not always the color of one's skin that separates him from the rest. Sometimes it's where we're from, how we talk, how we dress, how we walk that makes us stand out. Sometimes people are just prejudiced for no apparent reason. This is something everyone should see. It will make you think about yourself, about how you treat people on the street, and how other people treat you.Yes, it relies heavily on coincidence. Yes, it does seem overly scripted. But it is a movie after all, and it carries it's point across very well. Unmissable.","['1', '6']" +712,rw1178854,jusjules,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,very moving,23 September 2005,0,"I found this movie to be a very moving social comment on todays society. The inherent feelings of bias and bigotry and racism were so true and they underlined that all of us to some extent or other hold the undercurrents of racism in our beings. I watched this with my 16 year old daughter and when I cried because I thought that the little girl had been shot she said "" don't cry mommy its only a movie"" but thats how real it felt! I must give kudos to the film makers for such an excellent portrait of society. sad, moving but true. I wish we could all learn and change because of movies like this. I was surprised that this movie did not get more press, it is very unbiased to the way that it includes all races in its lens. It shows the raw side of LA. and yet is not particularly violent, you feel the desolation yet it is more through implication than actual visuals, i came away from watching this movie feeling wrecked yet when I looked back on it there was little bloodshed or violence. doesn't it just show that you don't need blood and guts to get your story across.","['1', '6']" +713,rw1141476,playground_swing,Crash (I) (2004),4.0,Overrated,3 August 2005,0,"Clunky, predictable, but politically correct. Matt Dillion saved it from really stinking.The multistory line flavor of current film (Go! and Pulp Fiction) makes the movie-making so tangibly present that getting into the movie is difficult. Only Pulp Fiction has succeeded in the form because it was meant to be like a comic book. It is very difficult to get lost in a film that keeps reminding you that it is a film with slow-mo digital and constant cute cuts.Dillion's character was well played. One could understand his multidimensional character. The others characters seemed contrived in revealing their many sides. I found the movie to be one where it's fun to talk about how you enjoyed it, but actually enjoying it? That's another question entirely.","['5', '13']" +714,rw1163427,donut_whistle_blower,Crash (I) (2004),5.0,"Shock, horror its about race in the US - lets give it a 10 out of 10.",2 September 2005,0,"What is it about US movies that deal with race that American's deem them to be so fantastic ? The same thing happened with Spike Lee's jungle fever. The US got over-excited about this ""controversial movie"". Spike Lee shows up in Cannes expecting to receive the Palm D'Or. The reaction in Europe ? Yawn. So it's about race. Black man, white woman, so what ? Don't get me wrong, this is a reasonably good movie. But 8.6 out of 10 ? Please. High art this is not. It's not at the level of The Godfather. It's the Pulp Fiction of race relations. I was most disappointed as I have previously relied on IMDb ratings before watching a movie. I shall have to qualify that now to exclude any US movie about race as clearly US ratings are completely skewed in that regard. What next, it'll probably get 8 Oscars or something. This overhyping makes a mockery of the States.","['1', '4']" +715,rw1171412,jhansman,Crash (I) (2004),7.0,"Worth seeing, but..... (SPOILERS!!!)",12 September 2005,1,"...know that you will be manipulated severely as a viewer. Normally, I don't mind being jerked around emotionally by a film if a) I know beforehand I'm in for it, and b) the manipulation is based on believable plot points. That's where most of this films adherents and I depart company; I felt only about half of the director's attempts to pull me up short actually worked, for me, anyway. I need to say right here, though, that this film should be seen, if for no other reason, than its clear message on how subtle racism creeps into all our live, and the toxic effect it has. That, for me, was the movie's redeeming virtue. On the downside, I ended up saying ""I don't think so"" once too often for my comfort level. For instance, when the Iranian shopkeeper fails to have his door fixed and instead yells at the Hispanic locksmith about being ripped off, and then (after having his shop vandalized) gets zilch from the insurance company because he didn't follow the locksmith's advice? Please. This guy struggles to leave Iran and scrapes together a business in L.A. and we're supposed to believe he won't walk to the back of his shop to see what the locksmith is telling him is wrong with the door? I hate it when directors do that, ask us to accept a completely unreal situation so he can then move us on to the resulting crises, which is supposed to evoke sympathy for the characters involved. This film, unfortunately, has more of these moments than is good for it, and by the end it pulls what could have been an excellent film down to being just a good one. The acting all around is first rate, especially that of Matt Dillon. Bottom line: see it, but the more slack you can cut the director, the better you'll like it. I just couldn't cut him that much.","['0', '2']" +716,rw1195340,phnxdown,Crash (I) (2004),5.0,Half of a good movie,13 October 2005,0,"At first, this movie is intriguing. It's forward about race issues in a way that few films in America (that aren't by Spike Lee) are. It gives the illusion of being cleverly written, luring you in with the opening sequence and its haunted musing on why the people in L.A. crash into each other.*spoiler(s)*There are several scenes that stand out in a positive light as they stretch towards the climax of the film. Ludicrous playing a carjacker that sees rap as the ""oppressor's music"" is amusing as an out-of-context irony. I like the scene with the attorney's wife (Sandra Bullock) ranting about the Mexican locksmith (Michael Pena) because it showcases more than one kind of prejudice. Not only is race an issue at this point, because of Ludicrous' carjacking, but any race that isn't white has become a threat. What if a white person had jacked her car? In addition, the personal/cultural choice of tattoos has affected her impression of the locksmith. What if a white person with tattoos was her locksmith?The storyline focusing on Michael Pena's Daniel character remains the best throughout the film. The scenes concerning the ""impenetrable cloak"" are priceless. Daniel's daughter, Lara - played by Ashlyn Sanchez, is the ultimate reminder that our decisions about race/culture issues don't merely affect our individual selves, they also inevitably affect our children. The relief I felt at realizing the gun was filled with blanks remains my strongest emotion attached to the film. Additionally, the race and culture conflicts between a Hispanic American and a Persian American work well because they aren't over-analyzed as, say, the issues between black and white.I also appreciated Matt Dillon's character and his interactions with just about everyone, but most obviously and especially Christine (Thandie Newton) and Shaniqua (Loretta Devine).Unfortunately, Haggis' obsession with coincidence forces the film to eat itself throughout the denouement, abandoning whatever promise the first half held for us. Officer Hanson's (Ryan Phillipe) scene with Peter (Larenz Tate) is completely contrived and forced. It's just a convenient mish-mash of all the conversations Peter had with Anthony (Ludacris) earlier in the film, from country music to the mini-statue of the saint. The feeling that things were being brought ""full-circle"" in terms of character connection ended up being a huge letdown. It's icing on the crap-cake that Phillipe is completely unbelievable as a fan of country music. Finally, Anthony freeing all of the illegal immigrants in the middle of the city is just laughable. Not only is it unlikely from the perspective of character motivation, but the sheer thoughtlessness it would take to set them loose in the street like that is inconsistent with the kindness at the base of the gesture. It almost would have been better to see some of them get caught. Better still would have been avoiding this scene altogether, and at all costs.In addition, as of March 8th, I feel the need to add that this film never ever should have won the Oscar for Best Picture... especially not in a field considering Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Good Night and Good Luck, and Munich.","['4', '9']" +717,rw1143252,deacon_blues-1,Crash (I) (2004),8.0,"A great film, relatively small flaws",5 August 2005,1,"First of all, if this is an accurate depiction of life in LA, the movie compellingly makes me glad I don't live there! Fantastic directing, acting, writing, film editing, and storytelling! Don Cheadle is really becoming an acting juggernaut! One of Bullock's better jobs of acting too. The tension in quite a few scenes is nearly unbearable. A few flaws detracted from the over all experience for me, however. The opening premise does not seem to ring true. Although LA is different from some other big cities, in that direct contact between people is much more limited, the net effect in terms of hostility and crime is not all that different than New York or Chicago. The problem is more with big cities in general than with LA air conditioning and cars in particular. The other problem was with the Persian storeowner's irrational treatment of the Latino locksmith. He seems to speak English well enough in all the other scenes to be able to understand what the locksmith is telling him, but he acts as if he doesn't know the difference between a broken lock and a broken door. He showed no appreciation for the work the locksmith did at no charge. I also don't know what he expected to get from holding up the locksmith later, unless he though he was responsible for the robbery of his store. None of this was made very clear, although this storyline's crucial scene itself was an absolute corker, no doubt! A must see for 2005!","['0', '6']" +718,rw1200153,LoneWolfAndCub,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,One Of The Greatest Movies Of Our Time,24 October 2005,0,"Crash, directed by Million Dollar Baby writer Paul Haggis, is one of the greatest movies of our time and is in my Top 20 list. Crash really makes you think of how different cultures/races are treated by by everyone. Constant wars are plaguing us today and this movie really helps me see why these wars have started and it really makes me think about how we NEED tolerance in society if were going to live in peace. This movie sends the message of, it doesn't matter what colour you are or where you come from or who you worship. We are all humans and we need to tolerate each other.Crash has one of the best casts I have ever seen. Actors like Sandra Bullock, Brendan Fraser, Don Cheadle, Matt Dillon, Ryan Phillipe, Thandie Newton and Ludicrous all lend their talents to make this movie an unforgettable experience.The plot follows the lives of a group of people including a cop, a movie producer, a politician and two street crims, in Los Angelas in the 24 hours that leads up to a car crash that will link them all...This movie is really an unforgettable experience. The performances are flawless. Bullock and Fraser are great as the rich married couple, Newton is great as the sexually abused wife of a scared movie director and Dillon is very good as the cop struggling with life. I'm not surprised if any of these gets nominated for an Oscar, they all deserve it.The movies main moral/message is tolerance of other cultures. This may seem clichéd and boring but Paul Haggis has done a great job at making this a great, original piece of cinematic brilliance that needs to win a lot of Oscars. Some scenes in this will literally make you breathless.5/5 from me. I urge anyone who hasn't seen it to see it soon.","['5', '13']" +719,rw1169145,suspiria10,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,S10 Reviews: Crash (2004),10 September 2005,0,"'Crash' is the wonderfully told story of an unrelated group of Los Angelinos who are all quite literally crashing into each others lives. The many stories are finely interwoven with so many fine layers and textures. A black detective is working a case involving a cop shooting who also deals with his drug-addled mother and crook brother. A pair of philosopher car-jackers whose hypocritical musings perpetuate the very things they supposedly abhor, a District Attorney and his spoiled and pampered wife, a Persian shop owner and his family and a locksmith providing for his family. 'Crash' grabs you right from the beginning with Mark Isham's emotional deep and haunting music score. Paul Haggis (whose recent accolades include writing the equally emotional 'Million Dollar Baby') directs and produces his emotional and racially motivated script with amazing skill. Some films with this many stories can lose or alienate the viewer but 'Crash' is written like a page-turning novel, you couldn't stop it if you tried. The ensemble cast (Don Cheadle, Sandra Bullock, Matt Dillon, Brendan Fraiser and dozens of others give amazing, high-caliber performances. Perfectly cast and wonderfully acted all the way around. 'Crash' is densely emotional and I dare you not to come away moved.","['6', '16']" +720,rw1218141,thullman,Crash (I) (2004),5.0,socialist propaganda,17 November 2005,1,"I watched this movie yesterday. It's quite worthless. The storyline is absurd, besides being a rip-off from Magnolia, the dialog is crappy, the behavior of the characters is unrealistic. Acting was fine, though. The only character that I was a little interested in, was the racist policeman. He's the only one with enough screen time to actually create a non-flat person.What annoyed me most was the message of this film. Haggis assumes: -I think that I know who I am but I am wrong. -- What is that supposed to mean. I know perfectly well who I am. Haggis doesn't know me. -Every little issue is related to race.-- Not in The Netherlands it isn't! And, though I've never been to LA, I don't think that's the case anywhere. -Everyone is somewhat of a racist. -- Big deal. I never treat an individual different because of the color of his skin. Few people do. -We should all feel guilty for what a few white people do to a few colored people. -- Well I don't feel like it. Let everyone take their own responsibility.Of course there's nothing wrong with a message that I don't agree with. But the same point is made over and over again every 5 minutes. Combined with the terrible string music and the commonplaces and the final ""love and peace because it is snowing""-crap it made me want to leave the theater. But hey, I'm a Dutchman and I payed for it, so I endured it. Everyone who likes to be annoyed should see this movie.I'm tending towards giving this movie a 1/10, just to compensate for all those who give it 10/10 and call it ""the best movie ever!"". What is wrong with you people, didn't you ever see another movie? Were you on drugs while watching this? But to be honest I'll give it a 4/10, because of the strong acting and nice cinematographics.","['2', '8']" +721,rw1167663,don-180,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,People behaving HONESTLY and how they change from experience,7 September 2005,0,"This movie cannot have been made in Hollywood because it is too good. It is saddening to know that such great movies are capable of being produced, but that Hollowwoodians are too stupid to realize that there are adults who also like good movies that appeal to mature minds, instead of the child's PAP that Hollowwood is putting out. All of the people in this movie have done a fine job of portraying life as it actually is in big-city America and in our society which is more diverse than any other nation's. To try to single out any one of the fine cast for special honors is hard because they all ""lived their roles to the fullest"". It is the same America that I grew up with in the 1930's and despite The Political Correct Police, has remained the same and will live under the cover of our P.C. facade. It is SO true to life that The Academy will ignore it. Sandra Bullock didn't. It illustrates how a person's actions can affect the lives of others they don't even know.","['5', '13']" +722,rw1154349,Mr-Noir,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,A brilliant script transfered into a brilliant movie!,20 August 2005,0,"Crash is a brilliant script: A great story, with nicely shaped characters whom, one way or another, got me thinking ""Sometimes, life is a question of the eyes you look through"" - What's righteous in the eyes of a human being, can be dead-wrong in the eyes of the fellow human, who's walking by. Obviously, it doesn't matter how strong the script is, if it's transformation to the big screen is sloppy, but with Crash, one of those rare things has happened: One of those rare things some call Oscar material. The multi lined story has been excellently transferred to the screen and the final product is like a perfectly tuned symphony: No note is false, and as the band plays, you get swept away by their music. One of the reasons for this, is a great cast, of whom I think, no one deserves more credit than others...and then again: The little girl with her cape will always shine brightly in my mind. A definitely must see movie!","['6', '15']" +723,rw1151001,ultradude47,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,One of the best films in the past 50 years,15 August 2005,1,"Crash, well what can I say? Crash is one of those films, that after you have seen, you think to yourself, thats one of the reasons cinema was invented, for the sole purpose, of throwing ones feelings around, for giving us a new perspective, of something we otherwise would never have encountered.At times, it annoyed me, it made me laugh, it made me sick. This is something you don't see everyday. I felt angry, but not at the film. At myself. For some reason, it struck me in the moment, the right moment. If the moment is right, and the delivery, in the right moment is right, then it makes great film.Crash is definitely a great film. I wish people wouldn't vote 1 on this just for pranking and bringing it down, because it doesn't deserve it. If you didn't like it, fine, vote 1, but please people, don't prank vote and bring it down.","['1', '5']" +724,rw1215176,jayphilippe626,Crash (I) (2004),7.0,It deals with the unspoken turmoil of various racial groups that still goes on today in society but which is unsaid,13 November 2005,0,"Crash done by the same director of Magnolia involves the same mangling of sub plots that tie them all together at the end. It is not as artistic as Magnolia, but teaches an imperative moral story. Crash is almost like American Beauty as well. Although it pertains to racism. The characters deal with different scenarios between someone of another ethnic decree, and sheds a light on their stereotypical biasness that come out and feed into the racist perception, which has plagued our nation for the last 100 years. At the end of the movie the characters realize that their unspoken/spoken racist perceptions consequently, negatively effected them physically and mental as well as others. The characters soon do a u-turn such as Matt Dillion's character in the movie, where he risks his own life to save the Aftrican American woman stuck in a car, which earlier in the movie he sexually violates in front of her boyfriend, who was of the same ethnicity to show his racist views. This definitely moves the audience and makes you rethink of our own racist views and how deep they go and affect others.","['1', '3']" +725,rw1174467,sslatten3,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,A Religious Experience,17 September 2005,1,"This is one hell of a surprising film. In just under two hours, director Paul Haggis managed to explore the human condition on a deeper level than any pastor I've heard in years. The movie shows that we all have good and evil in us. We all have pettiness and depth. We all have anger and love.""Crash"" analyzes the cynicism we Americans tend to feel for one another on a daily basis while showing that even the cynicism itself is sometimes justified. When Sandra Bullock says, ""I'm angry all the time and I don't know why,"" she encapsulates what has become the modern American experience. We are all shown and told by the media why we should hate or distrust others. O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. make money off of fostering anger and resentment and a lot of it sticks. ""Crash"" shows us that once we wipe away that first layer of defense, however, we are all capable of warmth and compassion. The scene where Matt Dillon's character (who hates black people) helps the black woman in the burning car is something that would surely happen. I'm sure, for instance, that many black and white Katrina victims were pulled from their homes by ""racists,"" both black and white.What the film shows is that we're all human and we all know it, regardless of the crap we hurl at each other from the anonymous safety of our cars or in front of our televisions. Somehow, during this film, I was reminded of the way I've always looked at Heaven: To me, it's a place where we value each person and don't have to think of them defensively. There's no anger, no prejudice, no fear. Only love. ""Crash"" shows us that resentment and suspicion are unique commodities of Earth -- and sometimes necessary commodities at that. Many times in the film, a person's suspicion or resentment of another is justified. But what a glimpse of how life could be without it. I give it an A+","['5', '13']" +726,rw1229352,gruvydru,Crash (I) (2004),1.0,Crash is about trash!,2 December 2005,0,"If you are interested in seeing the usual stereotypes peddled to the extreme then this may be a good film for you. Otherwise it leaves a lot to be desired in terms of resolving the issues of all the characters - maybe I'm old-fashioned but I like to see characters at least find some resonance in their moral fibre by the end of the film, i.e. character arc. Was it me or did this film become 'jammed' full of bitter, angry, uncompromising,stubborn, narrowly-focused rugged individuals who only know that revenge and saving your own hide is the best solution of the times. Its very difficult to feel any compassion for these one-dimensional characters. I refuse to agree with this film's attempt to universally sell this idea that it's cathartic to scream, bitch, steal and generally hate the world when a stronger message could have been sent with this premise and with characters with bigger minds and fewer things to just 'say'.I found it universally verbose and stuck on the non-transcending solution of violence and remaining at the status-quo. The characters and the story did not 'move' me. I guess it did not meet my expectations and I find it quite surprising that it was rated so high. People who like this film probably aren't in touch with the real world - its not all that depressing, deprived and chaotic. This film felt like a grainy little piece of gum stuck to the bottom of my shoe.Overrated and completely uninspiring. Powerfully annoying.","['23', '37']" +727,rw1211163,JeromeFreeman,Crash (I) (2004),8.0,"WIll Touch Everyone Differently, but it WILL Touch You.",7 November 2005,0,"Crash is a terrific film, and a genius screenplay. Ironically, I felt both disturbed and inspired after watching it, and I'll bet that many people will feel the same way. The film is so dynamic, and personal that I surmise that everyone's relationship with it will be unique. There is so much going on within all of the characters emotionally, that I immediately wanted to watch it again. I wanted to learn more from it. And this is the real beauty of the film. It appeals so much to basic human emotions; and to the very American ideals of justice and liberty for all. It's important that everyone watch this film because everyone is a part of its message. Everyone has discriminated and everyone has felt anger and fear. Everyone has played a part in maintaining stereotypes. And, as a result, everyone is a part of this Film. Great art need not be instructive, great arts speaks to the heart, the greatest enactor of change.The acting is top-notch. Everyone is feeding off of one another. It's a great thing to witness.JeromeFreeman.com","['3', '8']" +728,rw1180109,michaelRokeefe,Crash (I) (2004),8.0,Does it take a 'crash' to strip bare your soul?,25 September 2005,1,"CRASH is provocative, disturbing, controversial and touches the anger, fear, hatred and prejudice inside us all. Intelligently written expose on the interlocking lives of a dozen people brought together by a car crash in Los Angeles. Stereotyping by ethnic backgrounds and sexual persuasion. Matt Dillon is a racist cop. Don Cheadle is a black detective with a Latina partner and lover(Jennifer Esposito). Terrence Howard is a rich TV director and his wife(Thandie Newton)would love to pass for white or resent other than African American. A district attorney(Brendan Fraser)and his highly pretentious wife(Sandra Bullock)are victims of a car-jacking by two young, differently opinionated black men(""Ludicrous"" Bridges and Larenz Tate). Also in this diverse ensemble: Tony Danza, Ryan Phillipe, Michael Pena, Loretta Devine and Art Chudabala. CRASH is a disparate tale of interaction, reaction, confrontation and racial tolerance. Can't a man do a little bit wrong? Kudos to Paul Haggis for the direction of his own story and screenplay.","['3', '10']" +729,rw1175410,mjlevine,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,Chaos theory in the real world,19 September 2005,0,"Crash is one of those films that you will have to watch more than once. Not because it is complicated in the way that the Usual Suspects or LA Confidential are but because you will miss the minutae.The film deals with racial prejudice in LA. I cannot believe, from a UK perspective, that it is quite as overt in real life as is portrayed in the film. It blows away the wide held view amongst the liberal-left that racism is only one way: white on black. In the film everyone is racist and abusive to anyone from a different race or skin colour.Racism is a basic human reaction. Its the dog hates the cat, cat hates the mouse of the human world. You are different from me. Maybe you are a threat to me. You have been given more advantages than I have because of your racial background. Result is I dislike/hate you.This is the basis of the film which moves quickly although in reality nothing much happens. I was worried that as the film was approaching the climax that the director would give the film a sacharrine ending and everyone would realise the futility of racial prejudice. Thankfully he didn't.There are no nice guys in this film.","['2', '8']" +730,rw1175750,deanbesaw,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Displays the ugliness and ignorance of society,19 September 2005,0,"This movie really makes you examine the way you view and judge others around you. Many people are of a different ethnicity from you or are of a different religious persuasion. Sadly, this often influences our attitudes and behaviors towards them. The movie is well-written and the cinematography really adds to the ambiance and feel of the movie. The characters all experience their own situations where stereotypes and biases influence the way they handle these situations. All the characters come to a revelation in their own experiences and are challenged to correct their way of thinking or otherwise confront their own character flaws. While it seems the movie is a collection of unrelated events at first, it soon becomes clear that they are all interconnected somehow. This is much the same case in real life, where our actions have a ripple effect in our society. I highly recommend this movie. It is a ""must view"" for those prone to racism, class discrimination, or intolerance in general.","['4', '11']" +731,rw1161218,ceidt,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Crash Review,29 August 2005,0,"This film, I'd say, was along the lines of the movie ""Traffic,"" and Jake said it was related to ""21 Grams"" and ""Magnolia"" with how it was edited and directed. Now, firstly, I gotta say that it was a million times better than ""Traffic."" I'd even go as far to say that it was along the lines of ""Pulp Fiction."" Maybe better, but ""Pulp Fiction"" had the comic strength to it. This movie was funny, really funny, but had a super dramatic feel to it.""Unexpectedly funny,"" Entertainment Weekly says. They gave it an A.~~ Don Cheadle plays a cop whose mother doesn't like very much. She likes her other son, who Don Cheadle is having to look for. That's his part. His partner, Jennifer Esposito plays someone he calls Mexican, which she corrects him on.Thandie Newton plays a television producer's wife. They are pulled over by a cop played by Matt Dillon and his partner, Ryan Phillippe. Matt Dillon pulls them over for the husband, the driver, who is receiving fellatio from the wife. Matt Dillon pushes them against their car and frisks them for weapons. He does this to Thandie Newton and practically molests her, feeling her up. Her acting was really good, even though I don't like her crying face.Ryan Phillippe starts out as this innocent kid. Turns into bold cop. Ends…not so innocent. He asks to be reassigned from a cop who gives interesting opinions on why he thinks Ryan wants to be reassigned. Matt Dillon is a racist cop with a father who has a urinary infection.Sandra Bullock is a mean lady who doesn't know why she's mean. She sees some guy who looks like a gang banger changing the locks on her home. She asks for the locks to be changed again in the morning. This, of course, is after her car is stolen by Ludicrous. That's Ludicrous' part in the movie, and he tries stealing the television producer's car later in the film. Sandra Bullock, although we don't like her, ends up having one of the emotional scenes with her maid later in the movie.My favorite story and character was about the guy who was changing the locks. He goes home and walks in his daughter's room, looking around. She's under the bed. They talk about how they moved out of a dangerous neighborhood and then the daughter admits to being afraid of the bullet that came through her window once. The father is such an awesome and nice guy. His conversation with his daughter made me want to cry throughout the whole scene. It was amazingly awesome and that scene alone made me love this movie. The father tells her a story about a fairy. Of course, the daughter doesn't believe in fairies. ""See, I told you you wouldn't believe me."" She tells him to go on with the story. The fairy brought him an invisible cloak that was impenetrable to bullets. Then, he passes the cloak onto her.I think the last story in the movie was about a store owner who isn't very fluent in the English language. The character is introduced in a gun shop and he needs to buy a gun in case his store is broken into again. His daughter buys the bullets for him and chooses a red box. His locks (to his store) are changed by my favorite character, but his door is still too old. When told this, he doesn't believe it. That night, his store is broken into. He blames the guy who changed his locks. And he takes his gun and his bullets over to the lock guy's house.My favorite scene: SPOILERS: Do NOT READ: (This is a must-see film): The lock dude comes home and then has a gun pointed in his face. ""I want my money back (from the locks I paid for)."" SKIP: ""I have $50, I don't have all of what you paid for…take my wallet."" SKIP: Inside his house, the daughter says to the mommy, ""He doesn't have it!"" The mom asks ""He doesn't have what?"" And the daughter runs out. Of course, it took Jake and me a while to realize that she was talking about the invisible cloak. She jumps to her daddy, and the store owner fires a shot. Such an emotional scene, seeing this nice guy hold his daughter and hearing the BANG! I wanted to cry so badly. Then the daughter says ""You're okay, daddy."" He checks her…and she's fine. No bullet holes.""Crash"" is, by far, the best film of the year 2005. It's about racism and stereotypes, yes. It is extremely entertaining and even thrilling. There are plenty of moments that get your heart rate going. And it's emotional. You care about each one of the characters, and they all play their characters very well. Tony Danza appears in a cameo, and he's good! Grade: A. Re-watch value: B (some may think it is too dramatic). This is currently my favorite movie ever. Currently. The music, though similar to ""Traffic,"" grew on me, and I decided that it was good and went with the movie perfectly.","['0', '5']" +732,rw1169709,toivomartikainen,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,The most powerful movie of 2005,11 September 2005,0,"Paul Haggis' story of human destinies and cultures colliding in the present-day L.A. is without a doubt the best American drama this year. The way Haggis deals with the most flammable issue, racism, is to be highly respected. Haggis is able to show us that no person is entirely evil, but not completely good, either. The characters develop vastly throughout the movie, and we find out that none of them are really happy with their lives. What makes this movie so great is the intense screenplay. I had to watch this film twice to understand all the small things that eventually make a big difference. Truth be told, Crash would breath much more freely being 15-30 minutes longer, now the audience has too much to deal with in such a small period of time. Should Paul Haggis not receive the Oscar for best screenplay in next February's Academy Awards, I will be completely confused.Ten out of ten.","['7', '16']" +733,rw1165052,elementz52,Crash (I) (2004),1.0,"OVERRATED, contrived, cliché film",4 September 2005,0,"i had gone to the movies expecting to see a great film based on all the word of mouth and terrific reviews. the minute the opening sequence started i knew i was in trouble. the music and credits were trying so hard to evoke emotion i wanted to puke. all i got from this film was clichéd characters, contrived dialog and an unemotional script. director/writer Paul haggis' has managed to get great reviews with his manipulative, self righteous writing, but it doesn't fool me. some performance were good. don Cheadle is always good. i think Terrance Howard is slightly over rated but he was decent. ludicrous was way too on the nose. he should stick to rapping. Brendan Fraser was fine. Jennifer Esposito left no impression what so ever. i find nothing interesting about her. Sandra bullock is always the same in every movie, she's just okay. Matt Dillon was very good and i enjoyed watching him work. Ryan Philippe was good as well. but as far as the script and the lousy directing- this is actually one of those movies that is so annoyingly bad i actually took the time to write about it. i would not recommend this film to anyone, what a waste of time.","['32', '55']" +734,rw1131752,kit savage,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,The city of 'Lost' Angeles at its worst- and best.,21 July 2005,0,"I saw this film over two months ago and it's still going through my mind. The main character is the Los Angeles I live in- most of us isolated in our cars as we travel though our daily lives on congested freeways and streets, inching slowly towards our destinations. Only when forced by the usual violent circumstances do we rub up against our varied ethnic communities only to realize how different we all are- and yet, as this film reveals, how similar our humanity is.Crash is a great ensemble film, drawing together actors that give both subtle and dramatic life to their characters. Sandra Bullock for once reveals a dramatic edge to her acting ability, and Don Cheadle as always, shows his talent a hundred percent. The rest of the cast stands out in their ability to give this film not only the different contrasts between the characters, but also the thin gray lines that blur stereotypes. Paul Haggis shows us how fear keeps us isolated, and yet how once in a while when it is called for our humanity brings us together to show how much we all share in common.This film is helped out by outstanding camera work and a soundtrack that adds greatly to the emotions revealed in it. Although I have mixed feelings about recommending any movie (everybody has their own different opinions when it comes to watching a film) this is one film I feel moved to talking about to friends. When award time comes around I feel this one should be on the list for consideration.","['0', '5']" +735,rw1234797,thomas998,Crash (I) (2004),5.0,Left-wing Pulp fiction,10 December 2005,0,"Pulp fiction was entertaining when it came out. There was something fresh about having multiple stories dancing around into one quirky film. Yes it wasn't a novel idea, but it was well made and didn't pretend to be anything other than an entertaining movie. That however can't be said for Crash. It doesn't just try to entertain it is more or less preaching diversity and stereotypes throughout. Watching the film you get the sense that your in A Clockwork Orange and you are being treated for saying something racist... here watch this movie... let us bang you over the head about the evils of being a racist... no.... let us bang it into your head again.I have to admit that the movie is well done and generally has decent performances but give me a break. The whole thing has the feel of an old after school special that was redone for adults.","['1', '7']" +736,rw1190963,PatMan99,Crash (I) (2004),,Edge of My Seat Film,10 October 2005,1,"ANYONE WHO NEVER SEEN, DO NOT READ STOP NOW ! I FINALLY got around to seeing this Increbile film, after nothing but great talk about it. Boy am I glad I seen it.This movie was Excellent, One of the best movies i'v seen this year. I mean I liked everything about, and the fact that ludicrous was in it, never made me that mad, He seems to have a little potential after staring in a few movies. But thats not the point!! This movie was suspenseful, interesting, And just one of those movies that put me on the edge of my seat. Excepecially the scene where The store clerk went to kill the father, and when the girl jumped in front of the gun right before he fired, and how she never got hurt because at the start of the movie, the clerks daughter bought dummy bullets. I just worked out perfectly, I mean I really thought the daughter was dead, so did her father, and her mother, and the clerk!. Excellent writing there.I also Like the fact that how at the end everyone seems to start getting over there racism , Casue I mean I seemed that the whole movie was some what based on it. Everyone in the movie was somewhat racist, but at the end, they all see past that , and see's the real person. I also really liked how the scene where the female, that was earlier abused by the cop was in a accident, and how the cop that got into save her was the white cop that abused her ( felt her up and what not in front of her husband ). At first she wouldn't let him help her get out of the car, but he refused and helped her anyways, and he managed to get her out of the car RIGHT before it exploded, very suspenseful and nail biting say the least. In Conclusion, An excellent Film.","['2', '6']" +737,rw1130548,exeter-10,Crash (I) (2004),5.0,"Great ingredients, but nobody mixed the batter.",19 July 2005,0,"When you bake a cake, you put all the ingredients into a mixing bowl, mix them all together, and then bake it. If you just have the ingredients and never actually mix them together before baking though, you're not getting a cake. 'Crash', to me, feels like just that; great ingredients, but nobody mixed the batter.'Crash' has all the elements of a great movie. Great cast, great acting, great dialogue, believable characters and motivations, impressive cinematography, and a good director. But it just didn't quite 'gel' with me. It seemed like it was just a series of vignettes with barely developed characters and story lines, with a bunch of racist overtones to speak a message that's never quite clear.Most of the characters were stereotypes themselves, nobody *really* redeemed themselves even though the stories made it seem like many of them did, there was never any closure in the majority of the stories, and everything was just a bit too coincidental to seem as realistic as the movie was supposed to be. All of the characters would show up again to affect another character in the story, which would then affect another character. For a movie that's supposed to portray gritty realism, I certainly found myself thinking ""What an unlikely coincidence"" very often whenever a character would show up again later on for a dramatic third-act plot twist.I think a TV series with maybe one character's back story focused on per episode (for example, the same format as ABC's ""Lost"") would've worked better. But there really was never a full, coherent story in this movie, nor was there ever a clear message. It just seemed like they wanted to pack way too much into two hours, and for me, it fell a little flat.Definitely worth seeing for the fantastic performances (I never knew 'Ludacris' could act, Don Cheadle is excellent, and even Ryan Phillipe surprised me). But to me, it's a movie with a near-perfect body, but no real soul.","['0', '2']" +738,rw1175021,EvLauster,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,"""American Graffiti"" meets ""Reservior Dogs"". Just one academy award performance after another.",18 September 2005,0,"**** Matt Dillon, Ryan Phillipe, Brendan Fraser, Sandra Bullock, Don Cheadle, Chris ""Ludacris"" Bridges, Larenz Tate, Thandie Newton, Keith David, Jack McGee, Jennifer Esposito, Terrence Howard, William Fincher and Michael Pena. Written and Directed by Paul Haggis.Paul Haggis again writing another spell bounding script the other being Million Dollar Baby which he passed off to Clint Eastwood winning four academy awards yet this one he co-writes with Bobby Moresco and directs. I wouldn't be surprised if the movie won even more than four academy awards. The story about different people on a cold Los Angeles night and how their equally tragic stories all collide to make the years best film. Containing such rememberal characters like a racist cop (Dillon), a good partner (Phillipe), a black detective (Cheadle), a business man (Fraser), his beautiful wife (Bullock), two car jackers (Bridges) and (Tate) a director (Howard), his wife (Newton), and a lock salesman (Pena). Haggis takes a compelling look at racism and makes one of the most dramatic movies of the year. Quite possibly better than Million Dollar Baby. My final rating 10/10.","['7', '18']" +739,rw1169027,ariadne_23-1,Crash (I) (2004),8.0,"not the worst film of the century at all, in fact very interesting",10 September 2005,0,"I was prepared not to like this film, since I usually dislike films that have received a lot of acclaim, finding them overrated. However, I found this film surprisingly interesting, if not flawless. Ludicrus put in one of the best performances I felt, presenting a fascinating character. Somewhere on this board a user suggests that his actions in the film are not supported by character development, whereas I would argue that the timescale of the narrative (which presents snapshots of interlinking lives over a controlled timespan, i think just a couple of days) precluded any real character development anyway; rather characters were shown to be multi-faceted at any given time. The character played by Matt Dillon was also well constructed and interesting. I didn't feel the film to be Hollywoodish, and was rather well put together. It was commendably open-ended, too, although I would balk at those who draw the simplistic conclusion that 'racism goes two ways' - racism has, in fact, a distinct and persistently meaningful cultural history that cannot be reduced to such a formula (racism has been used to exploit, enslave and murder on a grand scale and spanning centuries, and is not equable to xenophobia). However, if those who would draw comfort from said simplistic analysis spend time with this film, they could do far worse. All in all, an evening well spent at the cinema.","['0', '3']" +740,rw1171573,bdekeyser,Crash (I) (2004),5.0,The Stereotype Triumphant,13 September 2005,0,"I found this film to be very disturbing. For all the glitzy acting, excellent cinematography, and elaborate plot twists; this film does nothing but sustain racial and gender stereotyping. To my great disappointment it is nothing more than just another Hollywood production where everything is simple, there is no gray and the good cowboy will come to the rescue at the end of the film. I think films like these are frivolous and even dangerous, they may leave you with the idea that you've seen something 'that really makes you think' while in fact the stereotypes have just been reinforced. Shame on you Mr Haggis!","['1', '6']" +741,rw1174316,nemo183,Crash (I) (2004),8.0,Watching on DVD? - don't cop out after 20 mins...............,17 September 2005,0,"Your view of this movie may well depend on if you watch it at your local cinema, or just rent it for the night on DVD.If you choose the latter option, and you're just not in the mood for the opening 20 minutes - which could be viewed as both bleak and depressing - you might just give up before the true story gets going, and miss out big time.The film soon becomes a closely woven and complex morality tale of our times. The casting and acting are both superb.Despite the storyline at times becoming slightly contrived, at no time are we, the audience, allowed to drop our ""willing suspension of belief"", and hence the film works perfectly.","['1', '5']" +742,rw1184522,pkatzzz,Crash (I) (2004),4.0,Diversity is great?,1 October 2005,0,"Actually, I got something Completely different out of this movie than any of these reviewers did, and I'm not sure it was the intention of the writer/director either.Every reviewer (here and the ""professional"" ones) seems to think this movie is an expose on racism in America, and how we shouldn't judge each other on skin color alone. But the truth is that the clash (or crash, if you will) between races is NOT based merely on differences in skin color, but in our different CULTURES, which are merely represented by people with different skin colors, eye shapes, hair textures, etc. The topic of multi culture clashes is never addressed anywhere because we're all expected to love the idea of multiculturalism.However, this movie, probably unintended, presents a much more realistic view of the results of vastly races, and subsequently cultures and cultural values, living among each other...Racism, or the belief that one race is inherently genetically superior to another, is not the real problem facing the people in this film, or in life. Problems don't happen between races because they have different skin colors- problems happen when different races have different and conflicting cultural values, as those ingrained values affect each race or ethnic group's perspective on life, work, family, leisure, how they raise their kids, how they view money, self-discipline, sexuality, morality, work ethic, etc. The skin color of a white person isn't the major factor which differentiates him from a black person - the value system that he is raised with does. Why is it that when a black person succeeds in a so-called traditional white man's world, is he then ostracized by those blacks who intentionally segregate themselves from whites? It isn't because his skin has turned white, but because he is now seen as embracing the VALUES of white society, and therefore not really ""black"" anymore. So, it's not really about being ""black"" or ""white"" skinned, it's about ""black culture and identity"" vs ""white culture and identity."" The same applies to other races and ethnic groups - each one has it's own identity and cultural values - which again, we're supposed to embrace. But, let's face it people: many of those values CLASH harshly with each other, and soon, you have a balkanized society -especially when each culture - and consequently, each value system - is supposed to be valued and tolerated equally. Well, that's nice and dandy in theory, but in reality, it doesn't work. I think this film illustrates that: we can all sing ""We are the world"" all we want, but in day-to-day life, it's unrealistic to expect that I'm gonna be OK with your values that I think stink, and that you're gonna embrace mine. And by suppressing our resentment that we aren't SUPPOSED embrace or value our cultural values over others (especially if you're white) or even recogognize they exist (!)Largely due to such artificial and suppressing devices as political correctness and diversity training, the anger is growing and growing and will be exploding in more situations in our ever increasingly diverse society. At some point, it will become more and more common for people to stand up and scream out: ""Goddammit! I'm sick of being told to tolerate and embrace your Third World cultural values when my values are what made this country great! Your people are bringing us all down, and I'm not gonna take it anymore!"" It's complicated folks, and the more we have varying cultures living together - and the more we ignore the harsh implications those differences bring to the table - the more our varying cultures - and races - will clash.","['0', '7']" +743,rw1174484,abacussk,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Important movie,17 September 2005,0,"This is an important movie, especially at this time in the United States. Race, class, ethnicity, age, sex...its all here in fascinating twists of fate. The tag line above nails it. None of us knows how we will react in certain situations until we are there, even if we think we do. Your real character will come through though and it may surprise you as some characters will surprise you in this movie.Characters are easy to get involved with, from their personalities to their problems. Excellent performances from several cast members. There is a building tension throughout the movie and a satisfying resolution. The many shifts in scenes heightens the anxiety and hopefully will heighten your awareness of the oneness of us all.Recommend this movie to everyone, young and old in America today.","['6', '16']" +744,rw1198232,darkteilani,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,"Fantastic, shocking, disturbing",21 October 2005,1,"Nothing is as it seems. And nothing stays the way it was from the start. The movie shows that racism is not limited to certain colours, races, people but that it's in everybody regardless who you are and where you came from.The protagonists and there beliefs seemed to be clear from the start. But everything changes with the tide of life, different situations and influences.There is no time or room for preconceived opinions. The character you just hated from the depth of you heart suddenly exceeds every expectation and develops heroism even if it's just for a short period of time.The character which embodied everything you yourself stand for finds himself in an awkward situation in which he just overreacts and causes the worst possible outcome.I regarded myself as mostly unprejudiced and open for other beliefs and people but I was forced to rethink and ask myself how I would react in certain situations. Would I always choose the right way?I'm not so sure anymore and that's most disturbing. But I'm sure that this is actually a good thing for I will be more cautious next time before I act and talk.I do hope this movie brings lots of discussions and maybe gets something good going.It gives no solutions for there is none which could be chiseled into stone for all eternity and which is right in every possible situation. One always has to decide for oneself what's right or wrong.10 of 10 Go and watch it!!","['1', '6']" +745,rw1191481,Rat-4,Crash (I) (2004),1.0,Simply overrated,11 October 2005,0,"When I heard about this movie I was genuinely excited to see it. The cast seemed solid and the plot outline gripped my attention. The lesson I learned: You can't judge a film by it's cast. I almost didn't get through watching this entire movie. By the time I hit the 1 hour mark, I almost shut it off. It's that bad. I'm stunned at how graciously people have received this movie, labeling it ""electrifying"", ""brilliant"", or some other tired adjective. The characters were all one-dimensional and wooden. I've never seen Fraser deliver dialog with such a constipated effort. I kept looking for the string in his back. And he's just one example of what you'll find throughout this travesty of modern cinema. Bullock's character should have just been cut from the movie entirely as she adds absolutely nothing to this film.The pace of the movie is also distracting. It jumps around far too much and the dialog is ridiculous and labored. You never get a chance to get involved or to really relate to any of the characters. And in a way, they are all so miserable and arrogantly tragic, that you don't even want to.People are praising this movie for the message it sends about racism. The only message I got out of this movie was; avoid miserable, violent people. Racism hardly seems the focus of this movie when you break it down. All of these characters are simply assholes. There is nothing of value to learn from watching this. If you want a true lesson in racism from film, watch American History X. They got it right. This movie gets it completely wrong.","['70', '131']" +746,rw1174714,furrydad,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,What Dickens would have written and directed today,18 September 2005,0,"I am a passionate student of Dickens, preferring his more somber works such as Bleak House to his sillier fare. But even that sillier fare (Great Expectations, Oliver Twist ...)somehow managed to find the human truth of each character, and explore the important social themes of his day, among the improbable and unexpected plot twists. Crash, written and directed by Paul Haggis, is a film that Dickens would have made if he were alive today.The negative reviews I have read on this clearly have missed the point - ""Crash"" was overtly trying to be Dickenesque while taking-on a major social issue of today - internal and external racism among black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Persians and various other Americans. Yes, at times it's improbable, but never illogical or impossible. And isn't that like the after effect of a real crash? You never know where the pieces are going to end up, sometimes in the most unlikely of place, but that they got to their destination is a simple and undeniable fact of physics.Just like Dickens, but in less than 2 hours, you come to intimately know 8 major characters and 10 minor characters. But more importantly, each of these characters give you an insight into your own thoughts, prejudices and self-delusions. The bottom line here is that racism exists because we are sure we know exactly who and what the ""other"" is; however, that ""other"" is always far more complex than our racism will let us admit. The secret truth to this movie is that we may think we know who we are as well, yet our own racism is far more complex and affecting than we will ever admit.Haggis gets the best from his actors. Matt Dillon gives the performance he's been wanting to do for 20 years, as does Sandra Bullock and Brandon Frasier. And Crash answers the question which no one would ever have dared to ask ... Tony Danza actually can act, and act well. Who would have thought? Don Cheadle proves that Hotel Rwanda was not just a one-shot acting triumph. Even better, Haggis gets sterling performances out of a number of actors, many of whom you'll recognize from phoned-in performances from other lesser films and TV experiences who suddenly flower and deliver under this director's attention.The pace and editing of the film is amazing.This is probably the best film I have seen yet this millennium. It's worth seeing at least twice.","['7', '18']" +747,rw1188531,hall895,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,A brilliant ensemble cast in a brilliant film,7 October 2005,0,"A riveting and explosive drama, Crash is a simply terrific film. Exploring issues of race in a brilliant manner the film manages to be thought-provoking and eye-opening and yet still entertaining and thoroughly engrossing. Crash follows a widely disparate cast of characters in Los Angeles where people's prejudices and assumptions color the way they see others and ultimately impact their own destiny. We follow over a dozen central characters and explore the ways in which the fates of these people, seemingly with no connection to one another, all become intertwined. It's a tangled web and a fascinating one to explore.If one actor had to be singled out as the star of the picture it would be Don Cheadle as a black cop being pulled in many different directions. His family, his superiors and his Latina female partner, who he also happens to be sleeping with, all want something different from him and the plot can be said to revolve around him. Cheadle gives a terrific performance but there are many other actors doing excellent work portraying varied characters, each of whom have their own unique and well-developed story. Particularly noteworthy are Matt Dillon as a racist cop, Terrence Howard as a successful black television director, Michael Pena as a Hispanic locksmith who is also a loving father and Chris 'Ludacris' Bridges as a young man who has chosen a rather interesting career path. In somewhat lesser roles the likes of Sandra Bullock, Jennifer Esposito, Thandie Newton, Ryan Philippe and Larenz Tate all do fine work. There are other less-familiar faces who also turn in very good performances. Perhaps the only casting misstep is Brendan Fraser as the Los Angeles district attorney. Fraser really isn't plausible in the role, not having the appropriate sense of seriousness and experience required. But his screen time is mercifully short, not nearly enough to detract from all the terrific performances around him.Cross-cutting between characters, following so many different stories that all tie in to one another somehow, Crash is a thrilling ride. It is full of suspense, has many, many moments of great drama and sheer terror, and all along is filled with raw, genuine, honest, in-your-face emotion. It is certainly a movie with a message yet you do not feel as if you are being preached to. The story is simply laid out there for you to see for yourself the consequences which prejudices and false assumptions can have. It is a brilliantly conceived story which is performed wonderfully by a superb cast. One cannot ask for much more than that.","['1', '6']" +748,rw1170300,pookey56,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,LA Confidential 2,10 September 2005,1,"let's see; corrupt, racist cops, a protagonist who has no idea who he is; a great, ensemble cast; actors playing against type (mostly), the fact that things haven't changed much; Crash is very much like a better movie called LA Confidential, but without the complex story-line and subtlety of the latter. but, having said that, Crash is one of the best films i've ever seen. more than many other films, CRASH changed me in more than just theory but in a tangible way. it showed the good and not so good in all of us; how complex human beings are, how shiny happy people on the surface can be the most lonely and isolated amongst us. i found it to be a poignant, subtle, intricate montage filled with heart-breaking nuances and circumstances and yet held a positive view for our species. desperation, bigotry, anger, helplessness, personal power, luck, courage and cowardice were all there. Paul Haggis' film is a ""million dollar baby"" in a world filled with such complexity and contradiction, and CRASH let our compassion, kindness, and ability to change shine through despite the ugliness in our world, and demonstrated how compassion and beauty can escalate as quickly as violence. this movie is going straight in my collection of favorite films to watch. it was also nice to see how good Thandie Newton and Ryan Philippe can be as actors while solidifying the performance standards of Matt Dillon and Don Cheadle. and how refreshing to see Sandra Bullock play a B**ch! everyone was superb. the cast deserves awards for ensemble cast, and the score was memorable. the screen play was both understated and powerful, a perfect blend. we are imperfect beings, but we are remarkable. as is this film. after reading some of the anti-Canadian commentaries about this film, for you Canadian critics out there, particularly the one who claims we should stick to what we know (hockey); i cant be the only one who sees the irony of these anti-Canadian comments. Haggis being Canadian has nothing to do with this film. the irony made me laugh. they only serve to validate this film even more. Atom Egoyan, Anne Wheeler, Lorne Michaels, Sylvan Chauvet, James Cameron, Denys Arcand, Norman Jewison, David Cronenberg, Arthur Hiller, Claude Jutra, Louis b Mayer and Ivan Reitman, to name a few, have being Canadian in common. although i'm willing to bet most of them have laced up a few pairs of skates, the last time i checked, they weren't on any hockey teams. film as an art form, can be masterpieces. we live in a global community, where bigotry and stereotyped views exist all over the planet. but as Sam-Wise says, there's good in this world too. that's the message i received from this great film. i didn't see it as an indictment on ""americans"" by an outsider. for me it was a comment on the complexity of man, that we're not just labels, and that good and not-so-good exists in All of us, that we are a flawed species and need to continually re-evaluate ourselves. i'm sorry if you felt this was an attack on America. if you think that bigotry of all kinds doesn't exist in Canada, nor anywhere else for that matter, come on up and visit sometime. and don't forget your skates. an American icon named Clint Eastwood chose Haggis to write the screenplay for one of his growing list of consistently amazing films. his work as a director is nothing short of astonishing. that alone says a LOT about both of them. footnote*** i had a chance to ask Terrence Howard two questions:1) ""why do you think people are so divided about Crash?"" Terrence: ""i think it's because it forces people to look at questions about themselves that they haven't answered"" 2)""would you work with Paul Haggis again?"" Terrence:"" are you kidding? i'd mow the man's lawn"". Terrence, i'd watch any film you're in in a new york minute...i've been doing some ""asking around"" after the best picture win at the Oscars. my preference was BBM, and strongly; but i wasn't surprised that Crash took home the big prize. people say, that Crash was ""too in your face"", too ""preachy"", and too ""obvious"". yeah, it was in your face; yeah, it was obvious. racism, and racial profiling is obvious. but we're not suppose to talk about it. we're expected to know it's all around us, so we don't need to hear about it nor think about it, nor see it. we have to be ""subtle"". Too damn bad that this film may compel you to confront these things. too damn bad it's so in your face....","['7', '16']" +749,rw1156508,davideo-2,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,The best film of the year so far!!!,23 August 2005,0,"STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits Los Angeles. A place of massive cultural diversity, that doesn't always go hand in hand together.A man has been found murdered on the side of a lay-by. There's the black detective with the hispanic wife who's leading the case. His brother is a tear-away who couldn't have chosen a different life. There's the district attorney, obsessed with public appearance and his constantly angry, fussy wife. Their car is robbed by two young black men who've only become what they are because the society they live in has inadvertently allowed them to. The couple's door-lock is being fixed by a dodgy looking gang-member type who's in fact only trying to make ends-meet for his daughter. He gets into a dispute with his employer, an immigrant salesman who everybody mistakes him and his family for Iraqis. There's the reserved music producer and his wife who chastises him for not being manly enough, stopped by a cop with a dying dad and a racist grudge. There's his rookie partner, nervous about making a stand against it.Cleverly combining the twin threats of a city already on the edge with a lot of post 9/11 angst still running rife, Crash is an intelligent, powerful, thoughtful, compelling and absorbing study of how prejudice and unjust phobia can tear not only a community apart but a city apart. It's an inspired and clever idea, high-lighting a lot of the potential ways in which the strife is caused. It shows not only the effect on the society, but on the soul as well, with the powerful score and the silent parts.As for the cast, it's really a mix of those who's careers are already on a high and those who'll be lucky to be offered something as deep and meaningful again in years. Having seen Hotel Rwanda just last week, Don Cheadle continues to shine here in one of the lead roles. The film has a similar feel to Traffic, another film he was in, and it looks like he'll have a career appearing in these kind of arty, high-brow flicks and good for him that he's appearing in roles that are worthy of his talents. There's good work too from Sandra Bullock and, continuing to distance himself from his goofy earlier work, Brendan Fraser. Speaking of which, rap star Ludicrous is really one of the main stars of the show here, creating a great contrast with his clever, insightful presence here with his role in the slightly less provocative 2 Fast 2 Furious. Matt Dillon and Ryan Phillipe, two actors who've always left a bit to be desired, surprise and shine here and create a great double act as the harder, more influential older cop and the vulnerable, more naive rookie. And as for Thandie Newton, well, all I'll say is if I'd judged her on the basis of The Chronicles of Riddick (the only film I remember seeing her in!) I'd have been missing out on a lot. The remainder of the supporting cast are all very good as well.The film is directed by Canadian Paul Haggis, who's only other theatrical release has been the little heard-of 1993 movie Red Hot. He handles it all well right until the end with the cloying use of the okay but woodenly over-used Stereophonics hit Maybe Tomorrow over the closing credits. But other than that, this is the best film of the year so far and one Crash that really makes an impact. *****","['6', '16']" +750,rw1191377,Nardicles,Crash (I) (2004),1.0,how is this a top rated film????,11 October 2005,1,"i am amazed anyone likes this film. i never walk out of movies, but my friend had to physically stop me from leaving the theater during this insulting disaster. the white characters are saints and the Asian characters are practically nonexistent and worthless to the story. they exist only as objects, surprise. characters of other races fare much better. the twists and turns were laughable and predictable. but if you're reading this, you know that already. Paul Haggis is a hack. Hollywood can't even do multicultural movies right. do yourself a favor and watch a much more honest take on race relations, Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle!","['154', '271']" +751,rw1170893,JasenG,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,One of the Best movies ever made!,12 September 2005,0,"I just saw the movie ""Crash"" last night and it is one of the top 10 movies that I have ever seen. Let me remind you that my top movies are titles such as: American Beauty, American History X, Boodock Saints and other gritty, eye opening suspense-action-drama genre busters. The first 20 minutes or so seems to drag, but please bear with the slow, seemingly boring, occasionally offensive intralude to a really emotional movie. I rarely watch a movie now-a-days that holds your attention and makes you think. I was on the edge of my seat on at least 3-4 occasions and was surprised by the unexpect results ever time. This is a MUST SEE!","['6', '15']" +752,rw1164324,sharissis-1,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,A must-see!,3 September 2005,0,"This movie was thought-provoking and deep, but also very entertaining and quite funny at times. It gives an honest look at racism in America that will (hopefully) make you stop and think. It also keeps you on the edge of your seat with all its twists and turns. The plot is unlike most--you can't really pin-point a main character. The movie really focuses on several peoples' lives, first separately and then showing how they all come together, or ""crash"". I think it was excellently written, directed, produced, and acted. And best of all, it is more than pure entertainment. It is a social commentary that we would all be wise to listen to. I haven't seen a movie this good in a long time.","['6', '16']" +753,rw1199704,lastliberal,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Should be mandatory viewing in every school,23 October 2005,0,"I finally got my copy of Crash and was thrilled with the story. I have to admit that I wanted to see this movie because I had not see Jennifer Esposito or Thandie Newton in a long time and wonted to see if they were as good as I remembered - they were. But it was the story that really got me. This movie was all about prejudice and how it affected the lives of every single character. Every single character gave an outstanding performance displaying prejudice and it colors our thoughts, actions, and feelings and interferes in our lives. This movie should be shown and discussed in every school in the country - it is that good, and I, for one, Plan to watch it again in a day or two.","['5', '14']" +754,rw1168730,jmn112112,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,True Vision,9 September 2005,1,"The movie was amazing. I'm 29 years old, born and raised in Portland, Oregon. I've seen more of that movie in my lifetime than I would like to admit. Personally I thought the movie painted a perfect picture. Every scene in that movie played a part in our lives that are lived from day-to-day. It wasn't only about race it was also about obstacles people are faced with. In some ways it shows that race can be a scapegoat for dealing with the obstacles in ones life. I've read a number of user comments and they are all different. One person didn't understand the Bullock stair scene or another didn't understand the hitchhiking scene and so on but the only real way someone could understand it is if they do there best to be in the same position. Not as them self though but as the person in the movie. Yes maybe during the hitchhiking scene you may have made a best friend or you may have done things differently but the person in the movie didn't and that is who's being displayed. Try and understand the characters for who they are not for how a movie should display them.In today's world there are still race battles occurring all over the USA but Crash is a great example of where we are today. Of course it's not going to show all angles because who would want to go see at movie that never ends. I almost guarantee that you will find something in the movie you can relate to. Great movie!","['7', '16']" +755,rw1211075,borntooshop,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Characters lives are intertwined causing them to reflect on their attitudes about diversity.,7 November 2005,0,"This is one of the best movies I've seen in years. It's a character study of diversity, relationships, stereotypes, emotions, class, innocence, guilt and a multitude of adjectives in between. A laugh or two is quickly and quietly slipped in to break up otherwise very tense moments. While watching this movie, the viewer can identify not only with characters of their ethnic background, but also with situations and circumstances. It leaves you wanting to analyze each and every character as well as their circumstances and how it relates to you on a personal level. While all of the actors/actresses gave excellent performances, standouts include Terrance Howard, Matt Dillon and Larenz Tate. This film will undoubtedly create dialogue in classrooms for worthwhile discussions about America, race relations, marriage, family, the whole gamut. Higher than 10 stars.","['1', '6']" +756,rw1155941,uncleraoul,Crash (I) (2004),5.0,It could be worse.,22 August 2005,0,"OK, we're all racist and evil, and we can be heroic too. Did I get it right? The thing is, none of us all really seem to like mixing with other different people, as far as I can observe. Pretties will always hang around with pretties, fats with fats, and so and so. I see this every day. Managers don't sit at the table with eployees, and these don't sit with the domestic staff. Everybody seems to be OK with it. Then all these people go and watch ""Crash"" and find it terribly moving, only to come back to work and keep happily ignoring the lad from Sri Lanka who's emptying the bins. This kind of violence I would like to see more in movies like this. Five-year-olds wearing magic clocks are fine to make grandmas cry, but, well, aren't lunchtime TV films filled with similar stuff? Can we ask for a little bit of subtlety, folks? If this is the closest to political incorrectness that 2005 USA can deliver, then we should be worried. Who will save us from ""brave"" and ""honest"" films when Clint Eastwood dies?! Not a completely repellent film, however. It's entertaining and well performed.","['0', '3']" +757,rw1139567,pottz1,Crash (I) (2004),1.0,Elementary On All Levels,31 July 2005,0,"Rarely is Hollywood elitism so effective in its manipulation of the dull-normal movie going audience. I expect it from obtuse moviegoers but for the critics to unabashedly praise this patronizing, often childish approach to racism is profoundly disappointing. Sadly, racism is an incredibly complex behavior in today's society - and deserves far more than this stupid movie delivers. This movie is bad on all levels. From the simplistic plot, to the never-ending coincidences, this has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen. If you want to be spoken down to by elitists in Hollywood, go see ""Crash"". If you want to delve into the darkness of racism, rent ""American History X"".","['135', '265']" +758,rw1151291,rebusangel,Crash (I) (2004),8.0,mawkish background singing,15 August 2005,0,"A couple of action scenes were spoiled by a mawkish lady singing to some sort of religious background music. car scene was very well done with plenty of tension & would have been better in complete silence, apart from the actors voices.The portrayal of the way white Anglo Saxon Americans act towards ethnic groups was very direct no punches pulled. but the black on black conversations were the best I have heard could never have been so direct in a European made film without offending somebody! If things in the USA are as portrayed really exist at the present time I certainly would not want to be a member of an ethic minority living there! in all a very good movie which I think will become a classic in the future.","['0', '2']" +759,rw1164852,Robert_duder,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,Vitally important and disturbing film!!,4 September 2005,1,"Crash is not the most entertaining piece of work I've seen. It's not a great theater film or a have a good time kinda film or the kind of film that you'd rant about how ""cool"" it was. BUT Crash is one of the most important and disturbing pieces of film making I have ever seen. It's almost of a documentary quality but with an incredible cast of Hollywood stars that do such an incredible job at portraying everything the way it was meant to be. Crash is, at the core, all about racism, stereotypes, the human condition and redemption. It's an art film there is no doubt about it but with a clear and concise and often scary message.The plot is very multi-storied. You have several different stories, occasionally overlapping about different people in different circumstances of different races. They all have different reasons for the feelings that they share about life and about these other races. White, Black, Chinese, East Indian, Mexican, many different races are presented in the film and I don't believe (despite what anyone says on here) that any one race is presented in any different of a light. I believe Paul Haggis who directed and wrote the film did an amazing job of portraying all these people and races in the same sort of distinction which is a seemingly impossible job. He walks such an incredibly thin line that could have turned this film into an insult to so many but he perfects it!! Let's talk about this cast...a run down of the stars...Don Cheadle, Jennifer Esposito, Matt Dillon, Sandra Bullock, Brendan Fraser, Thandie Newton, Ryan Phillippe, Ludicrous, Shaun Toub, Loretta Devine, Tony Danza, Bahar Soomekh and so many more. The brilliant thing about this cast is that they reflect what the film is about. This is a racial mix of Hollywood stars. They all represent a different portion of humanity. To talk about any one of their performances would be pointless. They all share nearly the same amount of screen time as there is so much going on in the film. They all do an incredible job. Watching their stories is just as interesting as real life and just as scary. They all have their reasons for their particular bigotry and for some of them they find redemption and for others they never do. Crash was not made for entertainment but for a message, a sad, harsh, well meant message about humanity and racial equality and living together. And how sad and lonely we all are to the point where we would crash into another human being just have contact. Check this one out for something different and important in film making!!","['1', '6']" +760,rw1168188,bob the moo,Crash (I) (2004),,"A flawed narrative cannot put a dent in the strength of the characters, themes, acting and all round writing",8 September 2005,0,"A minor car accident is the end of the story. It is here where a group of strangers of all races and classes connect, whether they know it or not.It is a simple premise that sets up a Short Cuts style story of multiple characters and stories that only have brief narrative connections but yet, in this film, have significant thematic links. In this case it is race and this is what the film is about – not a car crash but a personal picture of a city that is split along lines of race, class, wealth and, simply put, the fact that people are people (bad and good) no matter where they fall in these categories. For this reason some people may find the story itself to occasionally be contrived, it goes to extremes, it pushes the action beyond what can easily be swallowed and every link in the chain is about colour. However to me this was not a problem because I understood that this is what the film was about and the focus was not this story, not other aspects of the characters lives (eg not a political thriller about a cover up) but about their views on race and the impacts they have.As such it is relentlessly interesting and thoughtful and Haggis has crafted a screenplay that works on so many levels. It tackles many issues and it doesn't pander to any one ethnic group – doesn't allow poverty to be an excuse or privilege a let-off. The film is in the characters and again it is impressive how well Haggis has, with so little time on each, avoiding clichés and created characters we care about and are able to easily understand. Haggis doesn't give answers – everyone gets their space to be complex, everyone gets their chance to struggle. If I did have to take a message it would be that ""people are good or bad no matter what colour they are"" but writing this sounds so corny and I assure you that if the film does deliver a message, it certainly doesn't force it down your throat. Yes the coincidences are all very tidy and unlikely at times, while the action does go to extremes to set things up, but if you are focusing on this aspect of the film to the point where it bothers you, then you are probably not allowing yourself to think around the theme – which is what Haggis is focusing on after all.The cast are impressive on paper but few scream out as superb leading actors, so I was surprised by how many were actually very strong, and kept the script from creating clichés (even covering the extremes of the narrative well). To pick one for praise is hard but Dillon works well with a complex character that you hear on the radio phone-ins all the time, that forgotten, oppressed minority group, the poor white man. Dillon doesn't force his point, he is honest to the character and he is excellent – you hate his views while also agreeing with them. A slimmed Bullock is also very impressive, she is fully in touch with her frightened, angry character and the script trusts her to do a lot herself – which she is more than able to. I have never knowingly liked Howard but here he is very good, bringing the conflicts within his character to the surface without being so crude as to use words to spell it all out (a compliment that applies to most of the cast actually). He is supported well by Newton, who has a smaller role than I expected but was still impressive. Fraser is solid and reliable, which is all the film asks for; he won't win awards but with such talent around him, it is no surprise not to have him shine. Cheadle is as good as he is proving he can be of late – his character is flawed regardless of colour and he is the key to a lot of the point (he is also blessed with the funniest line in the film). One of the biggest surprises to me was Ludicrous, a man whose music is so unashamedly unpolitical and booty-worshiping that I expected very little of him. However he avoids cliché really well and turns in a performance that deserves to be noted in the face of so many of his peers churning out offensive and demeaning ""ethnic"" comedies. Phillippe is another guy I just don't rate but even he is good here – his character is the ""good guy who sees no colour"" but assumes the very worst when pushed and is left with nothing to cling to; it was a challenge and I was very impressed by how well he pulled it off. Tate is more relaxed but he is natural and that is what was required. Support from David, Esposito, Finchtner and others is all good and helps give the feel of a film deep in quality, which it is. I know I have missed some of the cast out – but I have a word limit and I can't do them all justice within that.Overall this is not the film to come to looking for a simple, acceptable narrative because it is here that it is weakest. All the stories play race issues as their central theme and the events are often extreme and unconvincing. However this is not the focus – the themes of race, empathy, flawed people (not races) and other issues are what we are there for and the script does well to address those without forcing them down our throats while also avoiding cliché and making good characters with very little time. In this area he is helped by a great cast all hitting the target producing a flawed film that is also very strong indeed.","['5', '17']" +761,rw1155815,jpyoung,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,Best movie of 2005,22 August 2005,0,"This movie totally blew me away. It's a complex analysis of race and culture with real, fully developed characters. ""Crash"" seeks to explain the inner thoughts of racism and explore why it is such an intractable problem and why everyone can't just get along. Every thread is connected, every motivation examined, every persona is shown to have inner strength conflicting with terrible weakness. This is an emotional movie, but one that earns its emotion, not a cheap tearjerker. The writing, direction, and acting is all top-notch. Very highly recommended. Since it's an ensemble cast with no one character getting large amounts of screen time, it'll be tough to wrangle out acting Oscars for this pic, but I hope the direction and screenplay won't go unnoticed by the Academy.","['6', '15']" +762,rw1176166,giomanombre,Crash (I) (2004),7.0,"Touching moments, but felt contrived.",19 September 2005,1,"As a dramatic movie it certainly has done its job. There is a wide range of highly emotional themes throughout the movie.For example: 1) The Matt Dillon officer who sexually assaults a black man's wife in front of her husband and threatening to charge and arrest the couple with driving offenses on a traffic stop arising from his own personal frustrations, and is then subsequently forced to rescue her when she is upside down on a car in another scene.2) The little girl jumping in to rescue his father by a mad Persian store owner that was going to kill him, and the shot firing, and nothing happening.3) The supposedly 'good' morally upright cop that end up killing the black hitchhiker out of his own paranoia.4) The Asian guy that got run over by the two Black people had a van full of girls or children that would have been sold as sex slaves. You feel sorry for the Asian guy, until you find out he is a woman-stealer, then you feel good he got hit real good with the stolen van, since that is what he did with the lives of the people in the van. Shows you cant feel sorry for people all the time when bad things happen.The 'heightened' tense scenes were emotionally involving and rather convincing.However, there is a sense of phoniness about the movie - that is for the most part contrived and not real (but then again it is not meant to be a documentary so what do you expect - it's a drama). Again, the actors are all well paid to represent problems that happen in poorer and violent communities they would not live in themselves, the director/writer is in their Ivory tower making money out of real problems they probably did not experience themselves, except the car crash.","['2', '5']" +763,rw1215461,dfranzen70,Crash (I) (2004),1.0,Avoid it - it's an insult to anyone's intelligence,7 November 2005,0,"Crash is about thirty-six hours in the lives of various, disparate people in Los Angeles, told as a series of interconnecting vignettes. Some of the people are good, hardworking souls just trying to scrape by, and others are bad people bent on destruction and menacing. By the end, though, some of the good people have done bad things, and some of the bad people have done good things. And they all grew as people as a result.This wasn't an easy movie to get through. To begin with, nearly every character is despicable in his or her own way. Not so much that one can easily classify them as Bad, no - it's more as if each was being presented as a Good person with Flaws. The downside to that, though, is that it makes rooting for any of the characters is nearly impossible.Another problem is the writing. Everything is film with such a heavy, hamfisted attitude! Person A has something happen to them, so of COURSE they're going to emerge as a better person as a result. I mean, I'm glad that things don't always turn out like rainbows and unicorns and happy crap like that for our brave characters, but does their redemption (or fall from grace) have to happen so obviously? It's as if the viewer has been hit over the head with a frying pan - BAM! THIS PERSON DID A BAD THING. THEY ARE NOW NOT AS GOOD AS YOU THOUGHT. And then BAM! you get hit again, because the same knucklehead did something else.I didn't like anybody, and I had a strong sense that if I ran into any of them, anywhere, they sure as heck wouldn't like me, either. What a bunch of miserable, whiny, self-obsessed, self-absorbed twits these people are. Convinced they are right, they haphazardly stomp about the movie, glaring menacingly at people who are different from them, which naturally is supposed to teach us, the unwashed audience, that Different Is Good, and these people Just Don't Get It (Yet).Paul Haggis wrote, directed, coproduced, and wrote some of the music for the movie. Interestingly enough, the Scottish dish haggis smells just as bad as this movie. What should have been melodramatic was instead uproariously funny; it helps when you've actively decided to dislike the characters. I wished for their deaths, and I bet some of you will, too.Don Cheadle continues to prove he's a great actor, and Ludicrous was surprisingly convincing, walking away with most of his scenes. But the rest of the gang was dull and trite, doing little with the admittedly awful material with which they had to work. But don't feel too bad for them, folks, because at least they didn't have to listen to the soundtrack, which seemed to consist of one long Enya-like tribute. I suspect it was actually several songs, but it seemed like a continuous stream of overemoting - and inappropriately, at that. You know how in horror films there's this music that'll play that lets the audience know Something Bad Is Gonna Happen? That's what the music here was, only it never stopped.","['50', '90']" +764,rw1216077,thentheresme13,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Excellence with lack of exposure,14 November 2005,0,"A stunning movie, this film resides with the likes of American Beauty, Mystic River, Magnolia, and American History X. However, none of those films have quite the endearing quality to them in which all Americans of all demographics can find themselves being mirrored within the film. Everyone's inner ugliness and prejudice is brought to the forefront rather than being lightly sidestepped, resulting in the most accurate representation of reality possible. My only criticism is that it didn't generate enough hype or publicity. With an all star cast, it would be assumed that more money could have been pumped into this quasi-low budget film (watch the audio commentary, the quips referring to the sets and movie expenses are too funny), saving it from being relegated to the bottom shelf at Blockbuster. I only found out about this film by chance, rather than by being curious at long lines at the movie theater. This movie is just too good for such lack of exposure.","['0', '4']" +765,rw1239036,jeroenwitte,Crash (I) (2004),5.0,crash,15 December 2005,0,"After reading several comments, I do need to react. I had high expectations after hearing a lot of fuzz about this film but it was quite a disappointment.... The theme of the film is great: showing modern metropolitan life in present situation, filled with frustration and prejudice against anything that is different, unknown or mostly: foreign. But it is done in such a blatant way, that it irritates me more than that it grabs me. Every character being introduced shouts out something racist at least before their third sentence is finished, so we all know how their character is and that most likely, at the end of the film this will change. And of course, the one being shout at, turns out to be a perfect citizen, while the presumed perfect citizens turn out to have their dark sides as well..... This continues throughout the whole film and every situation: you can really predict (almost) every situation and development, which was very disappointing and annoying as well. In some cases (e.g. without spoiling it: Sandra Bullock and the maid..) you see it coming miles ahead and at first expect something different to happen, cause otherwise it would be too easy, but damn, the most obvious happens! So despite the great acting, beautiful filming etc, this was a very unsatisfying movie to me....","['6', '12']" +766,rw1168340,Buford_Lurch,Crash (I) (2004),4.0,How can it lose...,8 September 2005,0,"...with Sandra Bullock, Don Cheadle, Brendan Fraser, Matt Dillon, and Ryan Philippe headlining a director's dream of a cast ? Well, it just does. What seemed at first like an interesting story lacks any real direction or message and left me flat and wanting something worthwhile to watch. This story about people of different cultures and how they interact is cynical and caustic and the bitterness it portrays only breeds more bitterness, with no redeeming message. Bullock and Cheadle both seemed to sleepwalk through their performances and this film simply never delivered. I did enjoy the performance of rapper Chris ""Ludacris"" Bridges who amazingly managed to be the only character in the film not to come across as a caricature and a cheap stereotype. All this film accomplished for this viewer was prove that a cadre of big name stars cannot turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.","['4', '11']" +767,rw1162812,cal_culus3,Crash (I) (2004),8.0,Excellent Movie!!,1 September 2005,1,"I had no idea, this movie had so much buzz around it. Of course not in a big commercial way. More like, this is one darn good movie. The main reason I watched this movie was because of the cast. So many good actors. But the clincher was the subject of the movie. This movie is based on RACISM!! I don't know or remember if many movies have addressed this issue. But, this movie will always remain with me. Not just because of its content, but also because of the way it was handled.The tag line, 'you think you know who you are, you have no idea' says it all. I mean, how many of us who think we are not racists (or homophobes, this applies to many general issues) really aren't??? Deep down, we will always have a stigma. We may not know it or notice it. But my guess is, we will always have a nagging corner in the mind about a certain controversial issue. In this case racism.This movie tries to deal with that aspect. HATS OFF to all the people who made this movie. Just to throw something at our faces like that!! I believe in the 'live and let live' policy. BUT, the question is, does that mean I'm not a racist?? I never got the whites and black dilemma. Maybe, that's 'cos I don't have so many colors to deal wit where I come from.The movie has its clichés or bad moments. But the excellence of the entirety of the movie more than compensates for it. It deals with a random number of people in LA who deal with racism in their own way.A white cop who looks like an outright racist, partnered with a rookie cop who thinks the other guy is being mean to blacks.The DA, who looks like an all round good guy, but uses any angle he can get for good publicity. His wife, thinks she has to justify her fear of other races, or is she just afraid of her perfect life getting messed up??? A possible Ex-con with a family, trying to make his way in an untrusting world. A Persian family, who has to deal with what every other Muslim in the world has to?? Being labeled Osama!! The rich and famous black couple whose lives are not so easy just because they are rich and famous.Then there's the cop, who's trying to make peace with his mother and try and bring her other wayward son back.The wayward brother has no qualms about racism and hangs about with an extremely racist guy (gangbanger).All in all, a perfect ensemble cast. With great acting. I could go on forever. This is by far the best movie of 2005!! Many think that its copying from Magnolia (anothe fantastic movie). Even if it does, who cares, this is one of the best movies ever. Every story involved has a twist.On a side note, you get to see Jennifer Esposito's Boobs.Do you really need any other reason to watch the movie?","['2', '5']" +768,rw1221771,mdesantis,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Show This in High School,21 November 2005,0,"This is a movie that should be shown in a civics or social studies class in high school. This film does a tremendous job conveying how far this ""melting pot"" of a nation has come and how far we need to travel to move beyond the shallow ugliness of racism. The performances of Matt Dillon, Don Cheadle and so many others brought the silent undercurrents of racial prejudice into the spotlight in a very powerful and anecdotal way.This story may be a morality play, but it is a story that is played out every day in America and other parts of the world. ""Racism"" and ""Sexism"" are subjects that current and future generations will need to deal with if we are to survive as a civilization rather than succumb to our fears and ignorance. The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is fresh in the psyche of America as we continue to remain divided by class and race despite political rhetoric to the contrary.""Crash"", ""American History X"", and ""Schindler's List"" are a few films I believe could be valuable teaching aids that our educators can use if we seriously want to engage our children in the discussion of our failures, victories and challenges in how we relate to one another in the short time we have on this planet.","['0', '4']" +769,rw1172130,doors88jim2,Crash (I) (2004),1.0,blatant ripoff of magnolia,14 September 2005,1,"While I definitely think the movie was better than the 1 out of 10 I gave it, it is simply rated way too high on the best all-time movie list. People... if you liked this movie learn to expand your horizons in film watching. I could probably find you a million better films all around the world that will bring out the emotions of this film, and with much more depth and beauty.Also,there was so much in the movie that was taken directly from magnolia... it was reminiscent of Imaginary Heroes in comparison to American Beauty.. and by the way Imaginary Heroes is much better than Crash (it can make you laugh as well as cry), but of course you regular movie goers will probably never see it because it doesn't have the Hollywood names of Crash. Anyways, back to ways in which it resembles Magnolia aside from the obvious interconnectedness of such seemingly separate characters:1) sick father in both films2) long music sequence w/out dialogue3) snow falling instead of frogs4) portrayal of heroic cop ... I'm sure I can think of more, but this was all just on my first watching of Crash.And... finally the character Sandra Bullock (the biggest actor/actress in the film)plays is entirely way too underdeveloped, and the scene in which she slips down the stairs is one of the cheesiest in movie history.","['6', '15']" +770,rw1237741,blondchk34,Crash (I) (2004),8.0,Crash,13 December 2005,1,"Emmy Winner Paul Haggis delivered another outstanding production in "" Crash"" like he bestowed upon us before in ""Million Dollar Baby."" The movie ""Crash"" starts off in Los Angeles with a car accident and leaves the audience wondering what the cause of the accident was. Twenty-four hours earlier flashes across the screen, and we are then introduced to multiple different groups of characters who are complete strangers to one another. The different groups of characters consist of Latinos, African Americans, Caucasians, Asians, and Persians, whose lives all intersect in unpredictable ways. The audience doesn't know how the characters relate to each other until it is revealed near the end of the movie. I found this movie to be brilliant, and after watching it, I became a huge Paul Haggis fan. If you enjoy movies that leave you guessing up until the very last minute, I would recommend this film to you.There are a number of different plots and sequences, and they all link together in surprising and unique ways. The movie goes back and fourth between each character's different cultural conflicts and the differences they experience due to their different cultural backgrounds. The audience is shown a number of story lines such as: A car accident, a car jacking, vandalism in a marketplace, a suspicious death, and L.A. Policeman being untrustworthy. All the stories circle around one thing, RACISM! All the characters act on certain situations that they are placed in , and we learn that there is good and bad in everyone.""Crash"" is an extremely powerful film and delivers a strong message. Paul Haggis speaks out about how racism still exists in our society, no matter how much we deny being racist or prejudiced. He shows us how we place segment on strangers by their cultural backgrounds. Haggis includes scenarios throughout the film which makes the audience feel uncomfortable. It is shocking to hear a character say, ""Why do these guys have to be black?"" This movie is disturbing, but depicts reality.""Crash"" features a Hollywood cast playing unusual roles. A major reason of why this is an excellent movie is because of this amazing cast. It includes: Matt Dillon as a racist police officer, Ryan Phillippe as his nervous partner, Thandie Newton and Terrence Howard as an African- American couple, Larenz Tate and ""Ludacris"" as African-American carjackers, Brendan Fraser as a Caucacian district attorney, Sandra Bullock as his wife who is also Caucasian and a racist, Michael Pena as a polite and caring locksmith who is Latino, and Don Cheadle as an African-American detective. All of the cast deliver magical performances in the roles they play, which makes the movie that much more interesting and enjoyable to watch.""Crash"" is a film that speaks out about a subject that is very offensive ,and stirs up a lot of controversy in our society today. This movie leads to discussion after seeing it and makes you wonder when we are going to put racism behind us. Or will we ever? This film is made for mature audiences with a R rating for language, sexual content, and some violence. It keeps the audience guessing, and there is never a dull moment. I would suggest you rent this brilliant film, if you haven't already, because it is a subject that needs to be thought about and shouldn't be ignored any longer.","['0', '3']" +771,rw1172280,seventhunit,Crash (I) (2004),1.0,Overrated!,14 September 2005,0,"I literally love every one of the actors featured in this film and desperately wanted to love this movie however:From start to finish this film was heavy handed, forced, leading, pretentious, self important, overly sentimental and at times downright corny.There was too much dialog (show me don't tell me please), and the lines were way to preachy. Each scene was full of forced speeches (instead of natural interchanges and situations) where all the actors screamed and shouted and practically beat you over the head trying to make the directors point (I could almost hear the keys of the his trusty typewriter as I watched this film). It was ridiculous.Scenes ran on way too long.I did not care about or connect with any of the characters as none of them were developed. These fine actors were instead used as puppets. Pawns moved around a board at the directors whim to fit into a fake story which relies way too heavily on coincidence to even pass as one.There were loose ends, and when there was an attempt to bring one of the situations to a conclusion the scenario was so off-the-wall and out of the clear blue it bordered on absurdity. This director just needed too many things to happen in order to piece this poor excuse for a story together, (and by-god he was going to make those things happen if it killed him), so instead of a nice natural feel and flow (which it paramount to ANY great film) it just felt desperate, overwrought, forced and fake. I mean this guy really whittled those square pegs and there were lots of them.I submit that if that if a story has to rely that heavily on coincidence, big speeches and over the top situations it's not a story at all but a soapbox for the director to tap dance on top of and that's not what I pay good money to see in a theater. This is what happens when a director gets caught up trying to make a big-time social statement instead of using the silver screen for the purpose intended: To tell a magnificent story (no matter what the genre) with wonderfully multi-dimensional characters that the audience, good or bad, will connect with. To weave the moral, if you will, invisibly, flawlessly into the story and leave the weight of said moral for each audience member to determine for themselves. This film is a ruse and a cheat and I'm amazed that so many liked it.I'll stop now. This comment has taken enough time from my life I can never get back and I already lost two hours on the film itself.","['11', '20']" +772,rw1224392,antoniotierno,Crash (I) (2004),,somewhat raw but heart breaking,25 November 2005,0,"An unflinching portrait of racial complexity in United States, a look at the complexity of Los Angeles. These people living in the troubled metropolis don't know each other but they will all sooner or later collide. The multi ethnic cast is very powerful and it would be quite difficult to say who's the best among Don Cheadle, Sandra Bullock and Matt Dillon. None of them is immune to the rage and to the prejudices raised by this original story. Xenophobia, fear, racism and bigotry are examined by different perspectives of violence and drama sparkling in every zone and every social class. Excellent performance by Sandra Bullock in the role as a pampered and rich Brentwood wife","['0', '1']" +773,rw1173489,sjrsauce,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,A bold and brilliant modern masterpiece,16 September 2005,0,"From the opening monologue by Don Cheadle, to the finale, this movie is a masterpiece. The acting is very well done by most, however, there were a few exceptional performances, such as Terrence Howard and (suprisingly) Ludicrous. The story is overall well written, there wasn't a moment when i wasn't enthralled by the whatever was going on. Paul Haggis is a visionary who stepped into where most big-budget directors dare not tread. His dedication to this film is amazing, i mean, the man had a heart attack, but still refused to let someone else direct. Overall, this film is well worth the watch. I recommend it to any avid cinema fan. 10 out of 10","['6', '16']" +774,rw1199701,cira22,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,The Best I've seen in a while,23 October 2005,0,"I was blown away by this movie!! I am not a seasoned film critic by any means, but I wanted to express just how much, and what I loved about this film. I loved it on so many levels. My husband and I watched it last night, and it prompted so much discussion on how people from all cultures form stereotypes of other cultures. The movie made us laugh at times, it made us cringe, cry, and wipe sweat off our brows. I was very pleased with the cast chosen, and even more pleased with the superb job they did in acting the parts I loved the no-frills raw look of the film. I really enjoyed the emotional soundtrack/score as well .Best of all...the movie made us REALLY think, and that folks is very rare these days for a motion picture to do that.","['6', '16']" +775,rw1174013,mikeirvine371,Crash (I) (2004),5.0,crash; way overrated!,17 September 2005,0,"I don't get what is so good about this film; I found it to be unrelentingly unpleasant, to a degree approaching the obtuse. I feel that it is heavy-handed and preachy; the director has something of a holier-than-thou attitude going on! It's not particularly clever or original, and I suspect that, just because it deals with racism so overtly, people are willing to shower it with praise - which it doesn't actually deserve - because it is not PC to trash insightful, provocative (ahem) social commentaries. In addition the characterisation is virtually non-existent; given that there are so many characters, they each do not get very much screen time. The ""irony"" involving Ryan Phillipe's and Matt Dillon's characters is rather obvious, as well as unrealistically convenient. My final thought on leaving the cinema was ""And...your point is what?""","['4', '8']" +776,rw1228250,italodutra,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,Wow,30 November 2005,0,"Great! Great movie. I've seen it twice and I'm sure it will remain in my thoughts for a long, long time. This film was released only a few weeks ago here in my town (Porto Alegre, Brazil). Everybody has already said the great things that made this a top #250. But, otherwise, I would like to make some remarks. Don Cheadle made a so intense and vivid performance that make me want to see whole new movie with his character. Sandra Bullock should work more with directors like Paul Haggis. Jennifer Sposito shines on every scene she appears. But, most of all, the experience of watching this Crash is quite philosophical or existentialist. Are we able to change the course of our lives? Are we all puppets of fade? These are good questions that the movie made me think of. So, this great masterpiece discusses tolerance, racism and pain like Altman dis in his great years.","['0', '4']" +777,rw1183867,mingusau3,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,very deep movie,30 September 2005,0,"I just recently rented this movie, and would just like to be another person to tell everyone how awesome it is. It's one of those movies that really makes you think and question intentions. I'm ""white"" and it pretty much explained our fear of being labeled a racist at any given moment based on how you move, or look. However even though I can't truly relate to other races, I can certainly sympathize, and have gained a better understanding of the reasons for the tension between different social classes. Also, unless you get really angry if someone looks at you funny, you shouldn't find this movie offending. Overall, I think its one of those movies you have to see, whether you like it or not, kind of like Citizen Kane, or A Clockwork Orange.","['1', '6']" +778,rw1208793,meeza,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Crash is head on to greatness!,4 November 2005,0,"Director Paul Haggis' ""Crash"" is a big cinematic hit! It is no accident that moviegoers and critics alike are voicing their positive opinions of ""Crash"". The film centers on several subplots of Los Angeleans during a 48-hour time span. The story lines eventually merge and collide with issues of jealousy, morality, benevolence, conflict, libel, corruption, and on the forefront: race. The characters that drive ""Crash"" include: a district attorney & his domineering wife, a noble police officer & his Latin hottie partner/lover, a racist cop & his ethical rookie partner, a Puerto Rican locksmith & his devoted family, a successful African-American television director & his outspoken wife, a Hindu shop owner & his concerned family, and a couple of garrulous thugs. The performances by the actors which portray the aforementioned multicultural characters were bravura. This stellar ""crash unit"" includes Don Cheadle, Matt Dillon, Ryan Phillipe, Sandra Bullock, Thandie Newton, Terrence Dashon Howard, Brandon Fraser, and Jennifer Esposito. Dillon, Howard, and Newton should crash their way to supporting acting Oscar nominations. In fact, The Oscar red carpet should already be designed with a welcome ""Matt"" for Dillon. It is the best performance of his restless and underrated acting career. Writer-Director Paul Haggis, who also scribed ""Million Dollar Baby"", developed a powerful cerebral film in ""Crash"". His efforts should be commended during awards season for both direction & screen writing. Or better stated, I doubt that Haggis will have to crash most of the upcoming movie awards ceremonies. So get your ""rear-end"" up and ""head-on"" to collide with the cinematic brilliance of ""Crash"". ***** Excellent","['6', '14']" +779,rw1168649,hackband,Crash (I) (2004),1.0,Who wrote this crappy movie - a three year old?,9 September 2005,0,"""DEUS EX COINCIDENCEA""Forced dialogue, TOTALLY unbelievable coincidences. Whoever said these are ""real people - not characters"" must live in a fictional world created by a three year old, inhabited by actors (bad ones, in Brendan Fraser's case) who are like robots programmed to say nothing, unless they can somehow relate it to race. Like, ""Hey , want a doughnut?"" ""Okay - I'll take a glazed."" ""What - you can't have a CHOCOLATE glazed because it's BLACK?"" ""It's brown, actually - and no, I'm just allergic to chocolate."" ""YEAH RIGHT! CAN'T FOOL ME, SUCKA - EVERY DECISION IN EVERYONE'S LIFE IS BASED SOLELY ON RACE!"" ""Oh, wait, on second thought, you're right: my doughnut choice was subconsciously based on race. I learned something about myself - my body's allergic reaction to chocolate is manifested by my inner fear of all things black. I shall have a chocolate doughnut, after all, and suffer the consequences. Thank you for helping me explore my issues, mister Chinaman."" But at least the movie has a point...... oh, wait, I was thinking of some other movie - THIS MOVIE IS POINTLESS!I felt embarrassed watching it. I am ashamed of this movie.Kudos to Brendan Fraser for his brilliant recreation of his role in ""Encino Man.""","['117', '227']" +780,rw1151499,themistryman,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Sublime,16 August 2005,0,"The finest screenplay ever seen. Must be one of the best movies in history, I hope that it is appreciated for what it is.The movie focuses on the interaction of different characters that are the victims of innate behaviour, combined with external environment. In a short period of time the message of good and evil within each individual is pushed through variable in each script. The directing melted with what was an already an excellent screenplay, producing a polished diamond. The acting ranged from good to the very best. Different cultures were placed together in a very interesting storyline. One can only reflect and look into the World affairs, the real meaning of what goes on around us. There is no individual who is purely evil, which is often depicted in most movies and in many media formats. Comparisons can be made to misunderstandings between various groups of people e.g. Arab-Israelis, Cold War USSR-USA and the highlighting dominating nations demonize the victimsWhat is interesting to note is how we misunderstand situations and those who walk away feeling better off tend to think thunder across what they believe to be true. We the poor spectators are then brainwashed to believe whatever they think is the right situation. These points were presented in a very balanced format.","['0', '5']" +781,rw1131072,goverjkg-1,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Every American should see it...,20 July 2005,0,"Not only is it well done with great acting performances and great directing, but it's just an amazing ""put it all out there"" type film. An incredible movie that is just so important in today's society. Not only should every American see it, but I'm of the persuasion that it should be shown in high school ""decision making,"" ""critical thinking"" or some sort of HS level psychology classes.When I told him that it will change how you look at society forever, a friend of mine asked me ""What could a movie teach me that I don't already know?"" I realized then that while there was so many answers, I couldn't just tell him one. I realized he needed to see it for himself.Simply put, it is THE most important movie for our American culture of the past decade.","['1', '7']" +782,rw1192905,csmithjr,Crash (I) (2004),1.0,Overrated,13 October 2005,1,"I can not believe the positive reaction to this movie. I had great expectations for it and was disappointed. First of all, they used every cheesy racism cliché in the book. It was so predictable. For instance, from the second the young Latino guy showed up you just knew that he would be a really nice guy because he looked like a gangbanger. Matt Dillon's character has been played a million times, a cop who had been hardened over the years and would see the light to some degree by the end of the movie. The predictability hardly ended with those characters. A phenomenal cast was wasted on a weak script. The morals of the story were PC to the max. There were a few clever twists but not nearly enough. The dialouge was embarrassing at times. It wasn't all bad.I just can't believe this movies high score so far. It was somewhat entertaining, just a little insulting to ones intelligence. I admire what this movie was trying to achieve but it fell well short.","['225', '394']" +783,rw1187940,c-h-graham-1,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,Great dialogue.....great movie....,6 October 2005,0,"I am always relieved when a filmmaker (Paul Haggis) dares to trust his audience to understand the nuance and brilliance of what he is creating. With fantastic dialogue and tremendous characters, ""Crash"" is one of the best films of the year. Playing mightily upon our deepest fears and even deeper convictions about what it is to be human, ""Crash"" effortlessly hands the baton off to the multitude of characters again and again....In a 36 hours period, every character created by Haggis is affected by the world around him or her. And while we all like to think that nothing bothers us or affects us unless we want it to, we are quickly shown that is simply not the case. Everyone exists in this unfair world falling prey to the venom spewed forth by the human race.Genius...","['3', '9']" +784,rw1169788,punkin_flats,Crash (I) (2004),1.0,Horrible upsetting movie NOT a date movie by any means,11 September 2005,0,"Horrible, upsetting movie. I wish my husband had never brought home this rental piece of junk. It was full of racism, violence, carjackings, and death. No thank you. All it did was fill my head with ugliness and scenes of violence. I would tell any woman not to rent this movie or ever watch it - - it is very very upsetting. This was not entertainment, it was like being on jury duty (which I had 2 summers ago). It was more like a police report for a week's activity in Los Angeles. All it did was show the dirty side of life. If you like gritty, upsetting movies, by all means, watch this. If you want light hearted entertainment, watch something else. All this will do is give you nightmares.","['6', '16']" +785,rw1174246,sthapns247,Crash (I) (2004),5.0,Overrated...,17 September 2005,0,"... Like most of Hollywood's blockbuster attempts at emotion and a ""message."" A message has to be presented to a viewer without patronizing them. Crash patronizes it's audience by focusing far too heavily on the racist and stupid and not enough on the other side. We are presented with a number of different stories and people. All these people are with 100% racist, 100% ignorant, or 100% none of the above. By the end, we are supposed to be believe that all the characters are 100% none of the above, but it is done in an unbelievable way that is too dry and shallow to make a solid point. Of course, if you are naive and easily won over then you will say you love this movie to feel as though you saw ""The art side of a real movie,"" but what you really saw was a pathetic attempt at art that neither distinguished its self nor set any type of standard for future films aside from lowering the bar slightly.Let me start with the good things, first. The acting was great, for the most part. Most notable Matt Dillon's character; this is by far the best performance I have seen him give. None of the other characters put forth a really note-worthy performance, but of course Don Cheadle's was great. That goes without saying. The direction is well done, with some nice shots, again nothing ""new,"" but very ever little is. The acting is good because of the direction, and movie never looks ""boring."" That said, lets get into the problems.The movie is too racist for its own good. It plays on pure stereotypes and nothing more. There isn't a single ""good and bad"" character in the bunch, they are either extreme one way or the other and this is not real, at all. The First hour is pure stereotypical garbage. I'm a believer that stereotypes are based in fact, but not so much as that I hate almost everyone who is that type of person. The character played by Ludicrous the one of the most racist characters I have ever seen in a movie and because of that I hated his character. Even when he ""redeems"" himself at the end, I can't say I was glad for him because he didn't do nearly enough to counter his image. I'm not racist at all, so I didn't even see Don Cheadle's character as anything but a person, but I saw Ludicrous as a black thief only because he made such a big deal out of it himself and for this I personally hate the movie. The other stereotypes were spot-on as stereotypes, however, way off in terms as reality. Bullock's sheltered, spoiled, rich wife was too over the top, and then the sudden change at the end was equally exaggerated. The only fairly accurate stereotypes were the Latino and Persian examples, but even those were a little too much. There are many Persian families that come to America to start businesses and know almost nothing about what they are getting into, but the extreme turn he takes seemed a little much. I also know, from experience, that there are many struggling Latino families all over America, so this was probably the only stereotyped character that wasn't massively exaggerated. All Asians, except for a 30 second scene with an insurance agent, were depicted as ignorant, submissive, and could only speak broken English, as well as being bad drivers. These are all stereotypes that not every Asian person falls under nor does one fall under all of them, but this movie makes you think they do. These are oversights that not only ruin a movie, but also lie to a possibly very naive audience and this is not entertainment.The movie would have been a lot better if it had focused only on the cop stories. Good cop, bad cop. Bad cop ends up saving the day and good cop figures out why bad cop could be as angry as he is. But even then it would have been slightly believable at best. At least I wouldn't have gotten annoyed at the other stereotypes.The other major problem I have with this movie is the Magnolia rip-off with the snow falling in Los Angeles, just like the frogs at the end of that movie and the cliché ending. The movie almost laughs in your face and makes everything it stood for seem like a joke when the fender bender at the end happens. It is either saying that this type of thing happens all the time and what you saw wasn't profound or great or it's saying that everyone is like the characters in the movie, which is a laughable idea.Average, misguided movie that's overrated at best and racist garbage at worst.","['4', '9']" +786,rw1194708,irisdragon,Crash (I) (2004),7.0,Benchmark,16 October 2005,1,"This is a great movie, in my book. Interesting, scary, funny, emotional. It is a defined slice of culture but could have been taken from many other metro/melting pot urban centers. LA was the choice and was somewhat reflected in the superficial characters; they seemed to be presented at the depth that network TV shows present characters.I think this was an effective way to make the material likable to the broadest audience, playing to the mean. However, I found it presented the good side/bad side too rigorously. The movie gave away it's formula too early. I already figured the ammo was blanks, long before we got a view of the red box.The use of sequencing vignettes was neatly done, tying the beginning to the end in a mobius strip. I could have watched it unfold again. I was distracted by the playback. The sound track was too intrusive. It could be that a grittier, harsher, less polished product might be unwatchable. But I would surely like to see it redone.","['0', '4']" +787,rw1196538,Chewbacca_42,Crash (I) (2004),6.0,"A Good Set of Brakes, Please",18 October 2005,0,"Mainstream film is certainly awash in remakes and formulae and Crash is an earnest attempt at topical gravitas. ""Crash's"" ambition merits some recognition. Its over-ambition leads it astray. One can attempt to defend impossible irony and coincidence by presenting it all as fantastical allegory. Yet, ""Crash's"" downfall is that is seems to initially aspire to verisimilitude and it never transcends into obvious metaphor. The unlikely occurrences on screen then ring falsely. And I'll take my Sandra Bullock ""perky,"" thank-you-very-much. Just kidding, Sandy, kudos to you and the ""Crash"" crew. Please note: if you have failed to find Ms. Bullock anywhere on screen, please check you have not in error Net-Flixed David Cronenberg's ""Crash,"" the ultimate car- and flesh-melding metaphor from James Ballard's pornographic novel, which they assigned me in Contemporary British Literature class.","['1', '3']" +788,rw1167610,maurice1970,Crash (I) (2004),3.0,Canadian made trash!,7 September 2005,0,"Do not rent or buy this film. When I rented this film, I thought that this will be a well made film about California social problems, instead it is sparsely puzzle of unintelligent and unrounded characters molded into some melodrama about our problems here in America. Like we don't already know that. Instead of filming a fine piece of film work, the young director focused his attention on irrelevant stats about incarceration rates and middle eastern Persians and Muslims. It's his own opinions on the matter and they offer no perspective on American urban life. What we don't need is some Canadian director making a film on it. As an African-American-I felt the director was trying to preach to me on what it means to be black, like he or any other white American would really know. That's like telling white people what it is to be white. The film is an insult to any intellectual viewer who likes independent films. We don't go to that scummy overpriced and overtaxed nation in Canada. Perhaps Canadians should stick to what they know best, hockey.","['4', '12']" +789,rw1243974,berryx,Crash (I) (2004),5.0,"Guns, explosions, clichéd irony",21 December 2005,0,"Edgy and poignant for 1985, but we've seen this kind of thing too many times now. Pulp Fiction-y dialog and plot thread tie-ins--intentionally too clever and astute, but now with no effect. Crash's fatal flaw is its lack of imagination, relying on the usual genre gimmicks. Guns = drama. Explosions = high drama. Muted action sequences = breathless drama. Sex = gritty. Racial dialog = tension. Imagination would be not including these elements and still engaging the viewer sensually and emotionally.This is watchable on the basis of its production and acting qualities, but just barely.","['2', '6']" +790,rw1236488,pokropski-chris,Crash (I) (2004),7.0,Too many flaws,7 December 2005,0,"This movie is a very interesting story about how people's lives intertwine with each other at some point, and how these collisions with each other affect one another's point of views or morals. There is a good amount of foreshadowing and symbolism throughout the film, but the editing is so far gone that there is so much left to want. There are no transitions between scenes with dialogue to cue a response from someone else, or fade-in/fade-outs to show dramatic reactions. There are even some scenes that feel like they were just thrown in so that they could seem like they wanted to ""make people think."" If you watch closely, the close-ups and overheads are very jagged and feel forced, and it makes the viewing experience that much less enjoyable.The storyline is top notch, but it felt like there were too many characters. If there were maybe 4 less characters, or combined the characters somehow, it would have been better. In the end, I didn't remember anyone's name at all. The creation of main characters is usually done skillfully so that their names are repeated over and over so that the viewers don't forget them. This story had very impactful scenes, but when discussing this with peers or others, it was very hard having a conversation saying ""the woman who was molested by the cop"" or ""the black receptionist lady."" The amount of symbolism and foreshadowing is commendable for this story. If this had been more skillfully displayed for everyone, I would have thought much higher of this movie.I gave it a 7 out of 10 because I enjoyed the story very much, even to the point where I did think about it for a few days after the movie, but the editing was far too rough and amateur to deserve higher.","['0', '2']" +791,rw1218674,itamarscomix,Crash (I) (2004),6.0,"A good, dark drama",18 November 2005,0,"Crash is basically a film that pretends to be more important than it really is, and that's the one big flaw that hindered my enjoyment of it. It really is a very well made drama, and an impressive directorial debut from Haggis, who obviously learned a lot from his collaborative work with Clint Eastwood – Crash is nearly as dark and gritty as anything the master had done. A cast of second rate Hollywood stars and B-list character actors – which includes Matt Dillon (who hadn't had a truly impressive dramatic role in more than a decade), Don Cheadle (who made his breakthrough the very same year with Hotel Rwanda), Brandon Frasier and Sandra Bullock among many others works surprisingly well together, and the film is a strong and professionally made drama with some very good dialog and excellent atmospheric cinematography.Crash is good, but it doesn't have what it takes to be truly great, and I wouldn't take anyone calling it one of the most important films of the year very seriously. The Altman-ish mish-mash of characters whose separate stories interact in surprising ways has become overtly fashionable in Hollywood in recent years, and sometimes it seems to me like the main objective is to avoid the nuisance of developing interesting individual characters; in fact, not one character in Crash – including Cheadle's and Dillon's, both of whom give undeniably remarkable performances – is interesting enough to be considered a main character, and I found myself completely detached from all of them. The film tries to get across a message about the racial tension in America – and some of the images and stories are definitely shocking, moving and effective, but the message is ultimately vague, and it often seems like a pale and weak imitation of Spike Lee. At any rate it never at any moment manages to be half as powerful and potent as anything Spike had made.Crash is definitely a good drama that's worth your time, but it's not one of the best or most interesting films of the year. At its best it's as good as the weakest of Clint Eastwood's films – and if you've watched his films then you know that's high praise. Don't believe the hype; Crash is a very good film but it's no news. If you hated Magnolia, 21 Grams or anything of that genre then you're not likely to get that much out of Crash either.","['1', '5']" +792,rw1244395,dylan-cross,Crash (I) (2004),8.0,An intense collage of stories set in Los Angeles suburbia.,21 December 2005,1,"For the past five years or so, Hollywood has been producing quite a few movies that deal with ""character clashes"", usually within the backdrop of a large city. In these types of films characters from a variety of backgrounds ""clash"" together during key points in the film as the result of sporadic, short term conflicts. ""Crash"" presents a diverse set of characters ranging from street detectives to doctors in a pivotal film that gives us a glimpse of racial tensions and their complexities. The biggest aspect I loved about this movie is that it presented the biases and stereotypes harbored by everyone in Los Angeles without attempting to get at a moral solution to the problem. I think the story specifically attempted to show what people do in unpredictable situations and how they deal with those situations accordingly. By watching this film, the viewer is not subjected to a detailed morality lesson, but instead gets the perspective of all of the characters and how those perspectives conflict with other people in the story.Among the backdrop of racial tensions, we're also presented with other problems the characters face, and within that context, we seem to understand their motivations a lot better. Some of the main problems presented in the film are of a housewife unhappy with her marriage and herself, a detective that has no idea how to console his mother, and an Iranian family living in the shadow of fear and paranoia.I'm really glad I got a chance to finally see this because the characters are very impressive in their performances. Also, we see a lot of unexpected twists of fate that turn up at the most inopportune times, thus further fueling the film's effect on the audience. Unfortunately, at the end there were a few obligatory ""tear jerker"" scenes in the story which I thought were unnecessary and this ultimately identified the film as resembling other Hollywood spawns. However, my final vote is that this movie was gripping, visually impressive, and an awesome work. 8 of 10.","['0', '4']" +793,rw1176197,spammerhole,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,A movie about racism that doesn't point an accusing finger at anyone.,19 September 2005,0,"Top notch storytelling, direction and acting make this a movie that will leave you wanting more movies like this in the future. The movie is set against the vibrant yet sinister backdrop of Los Angeles where people of every possible race pit their lives against each other in the pursuit of a living. The film deals with the complex and completely believable relationships between a host of credible and finely crafted characters and manages to paint a canvas larger than the sum of its parts. In the end the film leaves you to make your own conclusions and makes you realise that racism is just one facet of the complex lives of its characters. There is simply no simple answer to a problem that is mindbogglingly difficult to understand. Bravo!","['4', '11']" +794,rw1181890,inferno0020,Crash (I) (2004),5.0,Overrating-This movie doesn't even scratch the surface,27 September 2005,0,"I believe that Mr. Haggis tries to make a movie about racism with multi-storyline. It is a successful directing because those story lines are clear. Unfortunateluy, the theme of this movie cannot even hold a candle to this controversial issue in the United States.Maybe many audiences think this movie discuss every ethnics in LA, including Asians, Middle Easterns,Latinos, African Americans and Caucasian American. However, the whole story focuses on white/black slur, which are old stories without any new purpose and point of view. Compared to American History X which every event is shocking and powerful, the prejudice between white/black is too shallow and childish in Crash.The plot in story lines of Asians, Middle Easterners and Latinos are awful. This movie only provides us stereotyping characters in those ethnics. Being an Asian American, and knowing many Iran and Latino students, I know that there are a lot of problems about those ethnics. However, Haggis use a illogical way to describe those unrealistic problems. In the ending, I even think he is a racist because he makes Latino as passive characters, Iranians as violent murderers, and Asians as a group of slaves which have no voice. I don't know whether the storyline of Iranians/Latino is based on true event, but the whole story is about those ethnics are distort. I give it 5 out of 10 for Haggis directing, However the plot itself is bad because I don't think anyone will start accepting other ethnics after watching this movie which shows prejudice against different ethnics. Furthermore, if you are an Asian or a Middle Easterner, I don't advise you to watch this film because this film does not even care about those ethnics.","['4', '9']" +795,rw1192302,toddwo,Crash (I) (2004),6.0,i've seen better,12 October 2005,1,"first of all, allow me to say that i liked this movie. it was pretty good. i do not see how people are freaking out about how great it was. i was out of the country when it came out and all i heard from anyone who saw it was that it was awesome. it was good, but not worthy of all the praise it's getting. i just did not like the constant assertions that everyone is really racist. sure, people think different things about different races, but not everyone is a hard-core racist. i live in new york city, where all kinds of people live together, work together, and exchange dirty looks on the subway. my opinion is that the racism in this movie was forced, and most people's 'racist' tendencies exist in their minds, but when confronted with an actual person, most people are pretty good about just evaluating that particular person. i also think that ryan philippe is a horrible actor.","['2', '5']" +796,rw1178393,thegeegees-1,Crash (I) (2004),9.0,What a brilliant movie,23 September 2005,0,"I have just watched Crash, and I have to say I thought it was a brilliant movie. The acting is excellent, and I was pleasantly surprised by Matt Damon's performance, very strong. The viewer has to pay special attention to virtually every character in the film; they will all become important links in the chain later on.I would have to agree with other reviewers on the subject of the race card, it is played a lot throughout the film, but not to the point of dominating the whole thing. In fact, although the main characters are black, and the ""bad guys"" seem to be all white, it is more about fear and ignorance of class, as it is of colour.Crash has a cast that will not be household names in the UK, but many will have been spotted in minor roles in other movies. In much the same way as Hill Street Blues did when it first aired in the UK, the quality of the acting and the script, makes you care about these people, as the series Lost is doing here right now.I would advise first time watchers to take note of all that is happening around the characters, however small a role it appears they are playing. The movie is really split into two halves, in many ways a case of crime and redemption. In the first half we are introduced to the characters, many of which would seem to have little or no chance of ever crossing each others paths. We will love some and hate others, only to go through a complete sea change of emotions later on.The movie in its second phase, then develops characters that played seemingly insignificant roles, they now become a very different and more important ingredient in the climax to the film. To avoid spoiling the film for Crash ""virgins"" I will not comment too much on the plots. It is better to let the movie unravel for you and allow you to make your own judgement about the justification for their behaviour.In closing, I would recommend this film to just about everyone. Get a pizza in, a few beers and take the phone off the hook. Then, with an open mind, sit back and be entertained.","['3', '10']" +797,rw1188125,Jonny_Numb,Crash (I) (2004),6.0,"well-done, but beats you into a corner with its ""message""",6 October 2005,0,"Bearing no relation to the David Cronenberg film of the same name, Paul Haggis's ""Crash"" is a button-pushing film that shoves race discrimination in the viewer's face in a way that is both admirable and off-putting. When dealing with such issues, filmmakers tend to shroud themselves in a protective cloak that makes them invincible from negative criticism, as those who criticize, without careful justification, can be painted as being as racist as the characters in the movie. My central objection comes in the form of the sledgehammer subtlety with which the issue is presented–not that it doesn't deserve addressing in such a way–that causes the film to reek of ""Oscar consideration,"" and thus removing some of its authenticity. Thematically, the extensive ensemble cast linked by scenes of racism that change their perceptions (a DA and his wife are carjacked at gunpoint; an Iraqi store owner is robbed; a black director releases his pent-up fury after witnessing his wife being molested by a corrupt cop; a detective investigates the murder of a young black man; a rookie policeman is hardened by two notable racial encounters), and the stories and the resulting fatal ironies that occur are well-done, with spectacular performances all around (Matt Dillon as a racist cop; Ludicrous as a paranoid petty criminal; Sandra Bullock as the DA's wife). Unlike 2003's ""21 Grams,"" which also presented moral and emotional quandaries with the intent of telling a story from three equally-explored viewpoints, ""Crash"" is more prone to contrivance (that cop's demeanor really shifted drastically), especially when put against the gimmicky framework of a single ""day in the life,"" which leads to plot developments that seem forced and inauthentic. Still, almost in spite of its overwhelming good intentions, ""Crash"" is compelling, unpredictable, and well-performed. It will provoke discussion and linger in your mind, which is an achievement in and of itself.","['0', '3']" +798,rw1242493,bj15220,Crash (I) (2004),10.0,Most Powerful Movie I Have Ever Seen!,19 December 2005,0,"I am not usually a person who is easily emotionally moved. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, I have never been truly ""emotionally moved"" by a film. For a long time, I thought I never would be. But then I watched Crash. This film has so much to say about Racism, Hate, and many other things, and it says everything which it intends to. The plot, which I believe is truly one of the most powerful and effective ever, is so tightly strung and complex that it keeps you thinking for the entire film. When I say this, I don't mean as a cheap thriller does by confusing you, I mean that this movie definitely made me question the way I ""think"" and altogether ""live"". Movies just don't get much more thought-provoking than this. Now, I loved Walk the Line, but I feel that I have to support Crash for Best Picture.Note: I do want Joaquin Phoenix to win Best Actor.","['0', '4']" +799,rw1132919,sweeneyle-internet,Crash (I) (2004),1.0,Disturbing,23 July 2005,1,"I agree with what so many others have said about the shallow and offensive nature of this film's examination of racism. It is baffling to me that so many people seem to have been fooled by its pretentiousness. I want to comment on the Matt Dillon character as an example of what's most infuriating about this movie. Here we have a man who -- contrasted with the film's underlying message that ""we're all a LITTLE racist"" -- effectively rapes a woman in public, cruelly humiliating her husband and deliberately goading him to make a move that, as he well knows, will lead to his arrest or even death. He does all this after pulling the couple over without any legal cause but because, as we come to understand, they are black and wealthy and he is a hurt little boy who is now the police and can therefore do as he pleases. This behavior is not a LITTLE racist. This behavior is evil. It is disturbing to me that this extreme of racism is held up next to another character's behavior -- spouting her paranoid stereotypes about gang violence -- to illustrate that everybody's a LITTLE racist. Later, we're spoon-fed some tripe about Dillon's poor old dad and how black folks drove him into the poor house. Is this supposed to explain, or worse, excuse this behavior? And is Dillon's character meant to redeem himself by committing the utterly unmotivated and unbelievable, laughably coincidental act of saving the woman he sexually assaulted the very night before? Please. The fact that so many people seem to feel some kind of self-congratulatory admiration for this film makes me feel sad about the shallowness of our understanding of racism, and our apparent lack of commitment to condemning and ending it.","['280', '477']" +800,rw1196990,jurmanji,Doom (2005),8.0,Good Movie,18 October 2005,0,"I really loved the game and the movie was great at bringing it to life. If you like the game you have to see the movie. Much better than tomb raider or resident evil as an adaptation.good things: great effects, great camera work, the Rock and Urban were both very good,Bad things: Writing could have been better but still okay for a game adaption The girl seemed superfluous, but very hot.All-in-all a really great effort, it's hard to adapt a game into a movie, I felt they did the best job to date.FYI It starts a little rough but the final half-hour is just great.","['27', '61']" +801,rw1218612,lafferj,Doom (2005),1.0,I want my money back,17 November 2005,0,"I thought it was as good as Starship Troopers 2. Yes, that is taking the mickey. I thought the cast was awful. I love the Rock in everything else so far but even for him, this was a wooden performance. I too have been an avid fan of the game since early 90's. I was so looking forward to this. When I heard that Dwayne was going to be in it, I thought cool. My wife wanted to walk out in the middle and she is an avid fan also. I also have to agree with comments by others here, ID software sold out. They are trying to squeeze every last cent out of what was once the greatest computer game ever. Any half wit could have written a better storyline / screenplay. How very, very sad.","['7', '14']" +802,rw1199956,lovin_my_guitar,Doom (2005),5.0,not even good for what it is,23 October 2005,1,"I wasn't expecting any sort of plot from this movie. I knew exactly what I was getting into and going to get. I was right in that I didn't get a sensible plot, and I got marines blasting at baddies. However I also got humorously bad acting, poor dialogue, unconvincing sets, weapons that look like toys, stupid decisions by the characters (ie. when the rock refuses to call for reinforcements - not to mention the various ""you'll be OK alone right?"" moments), clichés up the ass as mentioned by another poster on this bored (ie. the dark brooding character who's inner torment keeps him alive). This movie was just bad, even for what it was. It has two cool parts in my opinion. The opening scene, and the part where the monster gets stuck in the nano door. That's all I remember. Go rent Aliens.","['5', '10']" +803,rw1199260,thedarkrage,Doom (2005),10.0,"Doom, definitely a gamer's movie",22 October 2005,0,"Honestly I had my doubts when I first entered the theater, but that quickly changed fairly quickly. I found Doom to be refreshing, too many movie makers have tried to recreate video games onto the big screen but in many ways fail mainly due to their own visions. A great example would be resident evil, although the movies are good they aren't exactly staying true to the game. Doom will not appeal to everyone and that isn't because it steps too far outside of the boundaries of the game. It is a gore fest much like the game, the language is very adult and appropriate for the style of game doom is. I loved the first-person effect that was added in briefly during a scene. House of the dead tried similar tactics in that movie with the flashing of clips from the original game which of course made it cheesy and lame. I at first figured that the first-person camera portion of the movie was going to be a joke, but it actually surprised me making me feel for a short time that I was actually sitting behind my computer playing doom. I gave this movie a 10 not just for it being a good solid sci-fi/horror movie but the fact it did what many movies couldn't and that was stay true to the game. There of course are some things that aren't exactly accurate to the games but I would say the overall majority did. So if you haven't played the game but are a fan of sci-fi/horror movies then I think you'll enjoy this and if you are a gamer like me then I think you'll add this one to your favorite movie lists. I hope we see more first-person camera effects added into movies, it really gives you the in your face feel and I think works well in horror orientated situations. If you wouldn't allow your kids to play the games then I don't recommend allowing them to watch the movie either. Unlike most of the other game-to-movie examples out there this one is not a watered down version to make the critics happy and give it a PG-13 rating. This is a solid R and made for adults and true fans of doom. With all the weak excuses for horror, sci-fi, and game based movies out there I think you'll appreciate Doom and just in time for Halloween. Definitely a must see and one I'd personally like to see a sequel to.","['1', '4']" +804,rw1253542,Wulfus,Doom (2005),10.0,"Best Movie of the Year, and that's the truth.",2 January 2006,1,"Every single movie i went to go see last year was a disappointment except this one. I only saw five movies in 2005, but that's enough to say this was the best darned movie I saw.Before I review, let's review the movies I went to go see.The Amityville Horror. Saw it with my dad at the Regal. Sucked as far as the story is concerned. Micheal Bay should be shipped to Ethiopia and fed to starving children for what he did to the story of the Lutzes.Land of the Dead. Okay, it's not a horror classic but still George Romero can do better than THIS! If he was gonna make a real zombie movie he would have released it UNRATED, balls to the walls and a whole lot gorier than this.War of the Worlds. No comment. No comment at all.DOOM. (See Review) Aeon Flux. I never watched the anime, I had no intention of seeing this crappy movie. I hate this movie, it sucked and it deserves to have all copies of itself destroyed and melted down into nothing. AEON FLUX, ha, what a joke.Now, onto the review.THE STORY The story essentially that of (here it comes 0/1 people found this review helpful) contrary to popular belief, based on Doom 1 & 2, not Doom 3. There were no devils in the first two games, and I'm a veteran of all of them. There were no devils in this movie, that's fine, would have been cool to see some, but hey, we live in a culturally sensitive world. Anyway, there's a chemical that turns people into zombies, what more do you need for story? I don't want to give anything away! THE ACTING The acting is superb, this is by far, The Rock's best film. But the guy who really steals the show is Karl Urban, the Doom Marine, and he looks the part too, (If you ever played the first two games there's a little HUD at the bottom with a picture of yourself, Karl Urban looks like him.) acts the part out with passion and does his very best. This movie is the reason I go to the movies, people, to get scared, have fun, see zombies and laugh my arse off afterwords. The Rock on the other hand is a little different, he plays (SPOILER ALERT) the most evil character I have ever seen in any film in my life. Before I saw this movie i thought Rhodes (Day of the Dead 1985) was the most evil character but boy, does Sarge blow him out of the water. (END SPOILER.) I love this movie, I recommend it to all of you, and I think all of the 'haters' out there should reconsider they're hasty opinions. Peace out.~ Wulfus","['10', '18']" +805,rw1215380,chrishn,Doom (2005),7.0,A tribute to FPS,14 November 2005,0,"This is a great action movie and nothing more. The plot is sufficient to set the frame for all the action and suspense. The characters are portrayed with all their semi-psychopathic traits, which is enough to be entertaining. The action is really great. The weapons are ridiculously huge, which is GREAT. The fights are full of gore, action and suspense. Actually the movie has some creepy moments. It's not a horror movie, but it has the same eeriness like most first person shooters today. By the way, if the word FPS (first person shooter) doesn't ring a bell, don't see this movie. If you haven't played these games AND ENJOYED IT, most aspects of the movie will be lost on you. To those of you who claim it isn't based on Doom there is one thing to say: THANK GOD. A movie based directly on Doom would be something like this: ""One man running around dark corridors carrying a zillions tonnes of weapons and ammo. Finding keys etc. The entire plot and story would be told in the introduction. There would be no dialog, no other characters, no plot twists (the movie has a twist, albeit a small one) etc.This movie is not only dedicated to Doom. It's dedicated to all FPS's, and it's meant to all of us players, who have always dreamed of being in the middle of the action. Why doesn't it get 10/10. First of all there are too few monster types. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of monsters, but it's the same all the time. I would have liked a regular Boss-monster at the end, like a hell knight or cyberdemon. Not all the weapons are there. However, the weapons are still cool, and you get to see both the chainsaw in action, and the BFG. If you like FPS, the movie is a must. Especially since it has a great first-person passage, where you get all the action and gore right up your face.","['3', '5']" +806,rw1199038,bankscheesecake,Doom (2005),8.0,Don't listen to these negative tear downs by idiots,22 October 2005,0,"I hate it when idiots come on here and say ""THIS MOVIE IS TRASH, ITS GARBAGE, ""HOLLYWOOD"" KEEPS THROWING OUT TRASH HOPEFULLY THEY WILL WAKE UP AND START MAKING GOOD BLAH BLAHB BLAHBALBABLHABLHABLHALBHAL"" Shut your face. This movie was made to entertain, and it did so very well. I saw it on the monster screen and despite the few hollering clowns in the audience I was zoned into this movie. It was scary, had some good comic relief, great acting (and don't even say the rock can't act, if so then you don't know what acting is) especially by Karl Urban who seems to give himself to the role in every action movie I see him in. He's great. Great entertainment. To all those who think it sucked, you clearly let your un-credible movie reviewing expertise get in the way of letting yourself get into a movie and ENJOY IT FOR WHAT IT IS AND NOT WHAT ""YOU"" THINK IT SHOULD BE. Not every movie is supposed to be ""The Godfather""","['2', '13']" +807,rw1233619,dillon09,Doom (2005),2.0,When I grow up I want to be Alien,8 December 2005,0,"Where to start, this is a film with no beginning, no middle and thank the lord there is an end. Following the trend to make films of computer games, this one is the latest. The cast are OK, and do what they are meant to ie get shot, maimed, but the film is pointless, the flimsy story stumbles along and at the end the production team seemingly get bored and decide to finish the film. I'm not sure what it is about this film I dislike so much, in comparison it's not that different from Resident Evil, but i found that vastly superior. The dialogue isn't exactly Shakespeare but then again you don't expect that in a film like this, the set designs are a rip of from the game, although the guys who built the sets certainly did a great job and the subjective camera angles I found bloody annoying. The best thing about a first person video game is being able to destroy something and shoot aliens, in this you can't even enjoy that pleasure. God help us if there is another because this one should be renamed Doomed. The only saving grace is the thumping soundtrack, and if you're not into that sort of music this will annoy you even more.","['1', '3']" +808,rw1203111,Braxus,Doom (2005),7.0,Hell on Mars,28 October 2005,0,"When in 1993 the first part of the doom computer game series was released, it immediately became a cult classic. A very simple gameplay with stunning graphics and a good mixture of horror and action totally accounted for the complete lack of a story. In 2004 id software published the third part of the series which was more or less a technical update of its predecessors. After there have been rumors about a conversion of the game into a movie throughout the nineties obviously now with the commercial success of the third part the time was right to make the movie.From a serious critics point of view this film seems to fail for obvious reasons. So I think it is appropriate to turn the intellect one level down and to consider this movie from a video-game-made-to-movie perspective. Actually last year hasn't been such a bad year for video-game-based movies. Resident Evil: Apocalypse and Alien vs. Predator were more than half-decent adaptations. They transported the atmosphere of the original game and were action-packed, that's what I am expecting from this kind of movies. So filmmakers have learned a lot since the days of Mortal Kombat (well, maybe except Uwe Boll).Now what about doom? When after some minutes of the movie I was looking at the naked back of the Rock with a ""Semper Fi"" tattoo written on it I was thinking that this movie might be a trash fest. I was fantasizing about portals that would open where hordes of monsters would be leaking out, and about the Marine Squad shooting the them into pieces with blood and gore flying around just like in the first two parts of the game series. Well, it wasn't quite like that. The movie sticks very close to the atmosphere of the third game. The design of the research facility was taken nearly one by one out of the game. The story unfolds rather slowly, this might also be because there is not so much story to unfold at all. It is just your average mad-scientist scenario with a number of plot holes. The acting is mediocre at best with the social conflicts between the characters as stereotypical as they can be. So where does doom score? The movie creates a very claustrophobic atmosphere with many scenes shot in dark tunnels where the only light source is the flash light attached to the Marines guns. This atmosphere is supported by the nearly complete lack of any hostile encounter within the first 45 minutes. The action keeps pace with the story, firefights getting more intense as the movie proceeds. The final fight is in opposition to the ""the longer the movie runs, the bigger the monsters have to be"" rule, which was congenial to me. Altogether the action was neat not at least because it was well dosed and wasn't megalomaniac. Another essential feature of the game series was the violence and gore appearing in it. The movie is one of the goriest high-budget productions I have seen in years. People sometimes seem to forget that taking out the violence of an action or horror movie also takes out a lot of atmosphere. When used in the right place it can make a movie much more thrilling. And this is what Doom does very satisfactorily in opposition to Alien vs. Predator and Resident Evil: Apocalypse.Altogether I was pleasantly surprised, Doom continues the line of better recent video game conversions and even considered as a stand-alone B-movie it was far above average.","['2', '4']" +809,rw1207808,noodle4u,Doom (2005),3.0,Got what I paid for...I guess,3 November 2005,0,"I went into the theater knowing that this wasn't going to win any prizes, the acting is pretty much what I expected it to be. The story wasn't that great. I did think that the action would cancel both of those out, but in the end, it was just another bad action flick. It was almost predictable, in fact, just when I thought I'd seen every cliché' move, and every possible style of action, I began to think, where's the hand to hand stuff. Sure enough, about two minutes later, there it was. The ""Game View"" was choppy and confusing, and for the time you saw it in the pre-views, was only slightly longer. The game looked better than what they did.Like I said I didn't expect much, but when it was all said and done, I figured I could look at it as 90 minutes I'll never get back, or 90 minutes I'll never get back, that I paid $8.50 for. Rent it if you must.","['2', '5']" +810,rw1198578,Mud_dib,Doom (2005),2.0,Doom: Skip it,21 October 2005,0,"While droves of fans have been awaiting this movie and they will most likely make it a box office success, this is a terrible terrible film.This film promised little more than some cool special effects, gruesome violence, and true to its word that is all it delivers.This script is so bad I wouldn't wipe my ass with it. The dialog and characters are ridiculously unbelievable the story is inconsistent nearly to the point of incompressible. It would also seem that having The Rock in this film was an excuse to have a super powered version of his days in the Ring.Ultimately Doom is a prime example of why video game shouldn't be made into movies.","['7', '18']" +811,rw1201050,pgruendler-1,Doom (2005),7.0,Stan Winston Rules!!!!,24 October 2005,0,"Seven Stars for Monsters! Stan Winston is the reason I went to see this potboiler. The producers hired the BEST and it shows. Stan Winston Studios website is awesome. If you haven't gone to his website lately, do so now, please, and finish this review LATER!! . . . . WHY did y'all go see ""DOOM"" (''Du-umb'') for any other reason than to see big gooey scary monsters eat and be eaten (by the BFG and the other assorted weaponry)? Did you expect PLOT from a scary computer/video game? NOT . . . Did you expect CHARACTER from adolescent fantasy- spinners? really? Did you expect DRAMA from a guy who's only done ONE other movie? Fageddabouditt!! Did you enjoy the DIALOG? Not a memorable line or even any creative profanity in the expletive-ridden, foul-mouthed screenplay! So go see the MONSTERS where they belong: on the BIG SCREEN! Thank you for your kind attention to these matters.","['1', '4']" +812,rw1223426,IluvNubCakes,Doom (2005),10.0,"See it, people who h8 it have played the game",23 November 2005,0,"I am an actual Quake fan, (which is next to doom series both made by the same company ID software) I have played doom3 and stopped after a while because the plot didn't really get me actually into playing the game all it was is killing zombies. I liked the movie even though it was nothing like Doom3. I am not quite sure why everyone is like ""this sucks"" if the movie had any other name it would have a better rating. The only thing they would have to change it to be unlike doom, is rename the rock sarge and take the BFG and finally rename the UAC company.Now, to get on the plus side of the movie would be the way everything fits together. The music, the characters, and a few other things. It was nice to see that the movie didn't over do anything. I was thrilled at how they redid the story line to actually make sense instead of how Doom3 did things. I will say the movie only gets a little dull when they have to explain out the story line (which is like 5min) The first person felt like a thrill ride @ Six Flags. I will say I was kinda angry that non of those zombies are smart. MY best advice is go see Doom if its still out. And Buy Quake 4 if your computer can run it. (Doom3 gets out real fast)","['2', '3']" +813,rw1204167,SeanSmith,Doom (2005),,Not Bad,29 October 2005,1,"I was, in a way, forced to this movie. I went having absolutely no idea what it was going to be about. Thinking that it was going to be another waste of time, I was pleasantly surprised. It actually had a decent plot for a zombie movie. The actors were believable in their characters. I am not a huge fan of The Rock, but he portrayed his role exceptionally well. I loved seeing Karl Urban as a good guy again. I also, thought that the freaky guy, Portman (Richard Blake, the guy who shot Bruce Wayne's parents in Batman Begins) did a fantastic job with his character. The movie is action packed and makes you jump, even though you know it is coming. I have been told that the video game ""Doom"" was the first one to use the first person shooter mode that is used in popular games such as Halo 2. In the movie, the camera does this and it feels like you are on a ride at Universal Studios. Of coarse, it was not the best it could have been, but I have to give the visual effects team props for what they pulled off. The story was great for being based off of a video game. (Much better than Super Mario Bros. (1993)Even though I love that movie) The characters are well developed, they had a past and acted the way they did for a reason. All in all, if you are just looking for a great sci-fi/ action movie this is the one to see.","['0', '1']" +814,rw1219224,aqifali,Doom (2005),4.0,"Agree with observation that it was actually ""Resident Evit In Mars""",18 November 2005,0,"I completely agree with one of the comment about feeling that you are watching another part of Resident evil. I felt the same thing. Apart from few action shots and FPS clipping, the whole movie was a disappointing one. I thing I never understood that how come only John was the one who became super human after doom viral infection (or whatever) and all the other people were turned in to zombies.The performance of Rock was also so so and do was the Bond Girl who looked very stiff and strict in the movie. But again it was a good effort to finally put one of the most played FPS game on the big screen. If you happen to see it on a half-ticket day then its not so bad and can be quite fun to watch.","['0', '1']" +815,rw1241344,mrfurious83,Doom (2005),3.0,"good game, pish movie",18 December 2005,0,"I, like many of the other people who have posted, movie was a big fan of Doom the computer game. But let's be reasonable here . This is a MOTION PICTURE. Y'know a talkie? If you only wanted to relive then go play the game.Now this film sucks, don't get me wrong. I can only assume that those involved in its production didn't even like the computer game as there is absolutely none of the source's qualities present here. This was a movie with an abysmal story, poor script, bad characters and worse performances. But the flaws with this film (and they are numerous) are not to do with inaccuracies or deviation from the game.So if you're gonna slag off this movie (and you should, it's really easy) then say something about the film itself not just what you were expecting based on the game.And just to undermine my argument...I quite liked Resident Evil!!!!","['1', '3']" +816,rw1205872,gandharvasus,Doom (2005),1.0,It's not Doom without Hell,31 October 2005,1,"I've been a huge fan of the game since its release and have spent many hours blowing away demons back to the ""Hell"" they ""came from"". I'm also a huge fan of the newest release, ""Doom 3"". Now....I'm going to say, on behalf of most Doom fans, that we've been waiting for this moment for at least a decade. Failure! Absolute failure. This film is nothing, but Resident Evil 3 and I'm not sorry to say that it stunk as an example of what Doom really is. ""An invasion from Hell!!"" The only mention of Hell was their ridiculous vision of the ""24th"" chromosome. ""If your a person with a good soul, then you turn into a super human. If your a person with an evil should, then you turn into a monster. I give this movie a vote of 1 (awful) because Hollywood thought they knew what we ""really"" wanted and they were wrong. Very wrong. If ID ever decides to release Quake for the big screen, then I wont even waste my time or money. Obviously this guy was not a Doom fan and that's who his aim should have been for.","['1', '3']" +817,rw1250295,ExpendableMan,Doom (2005),6.0,"Stupid, but entertaining action romp",29 December 2005,0,"If you're a fan of the popular Doom 3 video game, chances are you will be disappointed with this movie. The notion of demons being sent to Mars after scientists inadvertently open a portal to hell has been jettisoned and the monsters are now a result of genetic tampering gone awry. Plus, the number of monsters from the game to actually make an appearance on screen is quite small, so it isn't that much of a surprise fans of the franchise have had rather negative reactions to it.However, if you've got a crate of beer in the fridge, a Domino's pizza delivery van heading your way and a small group of mates round, this movie is a great choice for delivering a solid hour and forty minutes entertainment. Focusing on a squad of marines sent to a research facility on Mars to look for some missing scientists who find themselves mixed up in a chaotic battle for survival against several bloodthirsty creatures hiding in the shadows, it tackles the subject matter with about as much subtlety as a twenty ton concrete gorilla being thrown out of a Chinook helicopter onto a Nitro-glycerin plant. The marines are by and large muscle-bound knuckle heads equipped with a ridiculous amount of heavy firepower and the script is filled with lines like ""You know you could of spent your life looking through a microscope rather than a sniper scope."" But when you're making a video game adaptation, intelligence is not going to be that high on the agenda.Sure, there are plot holes a plenty (Sarge's reasoning for not sending a request for reinforcements is pathetically flimsy), but when you've got a film this fun, you'd have to be a po-faced Conservative voter not to enjoy yourself. And after some surprisingly tense and atmospheric scenes of the idiots, sorry, soldiers searching the deserted labs, we get treated to a non-stop barrel of carnage with gore-a-plenty (check out the scene where one luckless character is dragged through a metal grille near the end) which climaxes in spectacular fashion with the most obvious homage to the game; the ten minute first person sequence. Zooming into the eyes of Karl Urban, we see a highly stylised and very, very violent passage of total mayhem as our hero blows away anything and everything in his path. It's not high art by any stretch of the imagination, but as far as video game adaptations go, Doom isn't a bad one. Given the celluloid abominations that are Resident Evil, Wing Commander, Super Mario Bros et al, the fact that Doom is merely an entertaining but empty slice of entertainment rather than a complete disaster is an achievement in itself. Plus, in this era of pretty boy action heroes, it's almost refreshing to see the over-bloated sense of machismo returning to the genre in the hulking forms of Karl Urban and The Rock, two guys who could certainly have given Arnie and Carl Weathers a run for their money back before politics and obscurity took them from us.","['3', '7']" +818,rw1200750,4mula1fan,Doom (2005),2.0,Please help the Rock...,24 October 2005,0,I wanted desperately to like this movie but with the exception of the overly graphic blood splatters I thought it was poop. Storywise it had nothing to do with the game except the fact that they were on Mars and the weapons were the same as in the game. The Rock was trying too hard to be the cool action hero by overemphasizing the F word whenever it spewed from his constantly slimming body. There were some cheesy one liners that I hate(I found myself laughing aloud at the stupidity while the rest of the theater was quiet) and in general the cinematography was garbage. It doesn't take a pro to point the camera at someones face and only their face and record some cheesy dialog.The music was terrible and .... whatever.If you loved Resident Evil: Apocalypse you'll enjoy this molded turd of a movie.Someone please help the Rock pick a good script.,"['3', '7']" +819,rw1233797,dicorp,Doom (2005),2.0,"Very Bad, Avoid At All Costs",8 December 2005,1,"This is easily the worst movie I've seen this past year. In a year filled with awful remakes(Guess Who?, War of the Worlds), more boring autobiographical films (Get Rich or Die Trying') and just awful movies this pretty much no fail action flick managed to suck. Doom was one of the most original, creepy and violent games ever. This film is the most unoriginal, sloppy and boring sci-fi/horror flicks I can think of.Every possible cliché(super healing potion or something) was used. Even scenes in the film that contributed nothing to story were ripped off from other movies like the helicopter flight(Predator) or the weapons specific to the character (Predator). As for the so called action, there was hardly any of it. Most of the shooting was done at nothing because by the time the so called special team realized they saw something, it was already gone or pouncing on them from another side. Ditto for gore, hardly any,a pretty gross autopsy scene though but done better and looked cooler elsewhere(Blade 2). Finally, there was 3 monsters, and maybe we saw only one instance of each. The wheelchair demon was the dumbest thing I ever seen. To sum up, this is a lazy attempt to make a buck off a popular franchise, nothing more. Not like the director wasn't capable of a decent action movie. I far as i know he directed Exit Wounds, Cradle 2 the Grave and Romeo Must Die which were all good popcorn action flicks. Better luck next time Andrzej.","['3', '7']" +820,rw1198644,n8brehm,Doom (2005),3.0,DooMed from the start...,21 October 2005,1,"After the cool opening with the ""Mars-Universal"" logo, there's a not so interesting beginning with the scientists being slaughtered. Then we end up on earth. Earth is not Mars, and Mars is where Doom is supposed to take place. When they finally DO get to Mars there is a rehash of The Predator for about 45 minutes, we find out that the ""demons"" aren't demons from hell but are genetically engineered people turned zombies and we have Resident Evil for the remaining bulk of the film. No demons, no Hell, and no one man against an army of evil. Just the Rock and bad one liners.I must say this though; towards the end of the film, the 5 minute first-person action sequence was a little slice of heaven hidden among all that garbage. That's the only thing that saved it from being a total waste. Not even the BFG scored any points with me. Sorry Dwayne...","['1', '11']" +821,rw1251793,angelaros,Doom (2005),9.0,"It could be better? Well yes, but a lot of fun for fans here!",31 December 2005,1,"I have to admit that I was not very optimistic about this movie. There were some notorious failures in the attempt to put on the big screen some worlds of famous VG's, (I remember that rubbish of that Wing Commander VG didn't deserve at all).Well, fortunately, this movie is closer to the VG than I expected. They even included a scene were the camera takes a first person perspective (that of Karl Urban), just as the shoot'em up VG. Wow, the crowds in the theater exploded with pleasure when he began to smash vicious creatures and we saw it through his perspective.The actors perform well, also. For those who have seen and loved Predator and Aliens, you'll enjoy also the different characters of The Rock's Team and their dialogs. An special note on the big black man with the chain gun, he's great as a nice re-edition of the unforgettable Mack in Predator!The plot has no great surprises, they were not wanted nor needed, anyway. It only lacks a big monster as final enemy, I think that The Seargent could have been transformed into this. A pity.So Doom is just action, but very good action. A must be seen for fans of the VG and/or action movies.","['1', '2']" +822,rw1209199,zero-hour-ii,Doom (2005),6.0,"Ooh, a scary monster! Ooh, The Rock! Ooh, another scary monster!",5 November 2005,0,"Doom was just average Hollywood rearing its ugly head. Taking a pot of potential and only using half of it. The plot was stupid, The Rock was terrible, and there was hardly and blood or gore! On the good side, the movie is a PERFECT popcorn movie (only reason it's getting a 6/10 from me) and the first-person sequence at the end of the film is pretty cool. And the few scenes with actual monster attacks instead aimless running around in the dark were pretty darn cool.There's a lot of untapped potential in the Doom franchise as far as movies go, and I hope someday another director realizes that potential and makes a great sequel to this movie.6/10 from zero-hour-ii","['6', '12']" +823,rw1198311,blackstar601,Doom (2005),1.0,Waste of Celluloid,21 October 2005,0,"Beyond crap. Beyond trash. Beyond the stupidest thing you can imagine... there is 'Doom'. Lowest common denominator film-making. Presented as if the entire script was written on a piece of toilet paper. On your death bed you will cry out in pain wishing not only you had those 100 minutes back, but you had your $7.50 back as well. The tag-line for the film should have been ""If feces was an art-form.""Lets all hope that ""Halo"" in the hands of Peter Jackson and the super talented WETA special effects team bring a stunning piece of cinema that finally breaks the pattern of awful video game movies once and for all. Let us hope Halo's future success will send a message to Hollywood to stop wasting its time, energy, effort and money making garbage like Doom.Go see ""Serenity"" again. You'll feel better about yourself instead of feeling like you need a 30 minute shower after seeing Doom.","['9', '26']" +824,rw1204805,Mister_Kick,Doom (2005),1.0,What?! This isn't Doom!,30 October 2005,0,"This movie is an absolute travesty against all fans of the game. Anyone else may advise that I look at the movie more objectively, but I see it as this: when you make a movie based off of a popular game, you aren't making it for the people who haven't played the game, you're making it to pay homage to the game and give fans a different way of enjoying it. This movie fails at this goal, absolutely.To put it more bluntly, this movie is trash. The acting in this movie is laughably bad. The camera shots hardly ever work. The lighting is crap for the greater part of this movie. The special effects aren't especially well-done or unique. Even the gore is sub-par. Not to mention, the story has very little to actually do with Doom.What should this movie have been? This movie should have been an action-adventure with one hero venturing into hell to fight hordes of demons and eventually save mankind. How can you go wrong with a foundation like that? Cliché, yes, but more satisfying than this garbage.Bottom line: if you're a fan of Doom, go see this movie if you want to burn your eyes out with a hot iron afterward. If you don't know what Doom is, don't go see this movie. Go play the game, that's a far more satisfying experience than watching any of Andrzej Bartowiak's films.","['9', '19']" +825,rw1207600,cujo2,Doom (2005),8.0,Not as fun as resident evil,2 November 2005,1,"It is always hard to make a decent movie based on a game. When it translates to screen one realizes how pointless and plot less the games are we spent so many hours on.. perhaps the best reason to go outside more before our lives are over.Ahhh well before I get really philosophical.. lets go on to Doom which comes with the Rock and some monsters and guns. Let me start by saying that I like the resident evil franchise a lot and even house of the dead was watchable for me. Just to prove that I have a dim idea what I am viewing. Doom gives you exactly what the trailer and the nostalgia lets you feel. However the question is if that is enough for you. This movie has the fun stuff like the very big guns , that give you in the last part of the movie a ""guncam""..only thing missing is the heads up display of the game. It gives you the monsters you know and the dark corridors and a lot of running.... and that is it.It sure tries with 1 or 2 smart ish ideas but very quickly goes back to ..well what the trailer shows you. And it is hard to believe but the first 30 mins nothing actually happens.. it is like a longer version from the intro of Aliens where the marines enter the compound and start looking for survivors.Normally I would bash the film for not offering more but with movies like this one knows what to expect and this film delivers with some mindless extra fun to throw in ..so mildly recommended with a large coke and popcorn.","['0', '1']" +826,rw1196989,Guga3D,Doom (2005),10.0,You are DOOMed if you don't see this movie.,18 October 2005,1,"I was expecting Doom for quite long time, not because I really love the Doom series, but because I hoped for a decent movie based on a video game. I was quite worried that this movie would fail miserably on all fronts, since the first trailer released seemed quite lame, the duologue's also seemed rather unrealistic and quite badly played over by the actors. The second trailer - which contained the FPS scene - made me anticipate this movie again and it raised my expectations on the overall quality of the film. However, I still had some thoughts that Doom would be a mediocre movie - somewhere around 6.5 from 10 - but once I got the chance to view the film, I understood - it's great. It's wasn't what I expected, it was something more greater, something more admirable. I was surprised by the overall action flicks in the film, the FPS scene was fantastic, even though it was short, it still was gratifying. Everything else also seemed admirable, the sounds were perfect and scary, the plot was intriguing. Only thing that kept me giving it a sharp 9 would be rather flimsy duologue's in some scenes, but it wasn't poor enough to spoil the fun ride Doom delivers. Finishing off the review, I can say that this movie is must see for all Doom fans, and also to some people that know enjoy action blockbusters filled with superb amusement. 8/10","['9', '25']" +827,rw1198750,cuelos-1,Doom (2005),3.0,You have probably seen this movie 3 times already if not more..,22 October 2005,1,"First time you have seen this movie it was called Aliens. A group of workers is exposed to something and the marines are sent in to investigate. You will note that a great deal of the set is the same close quartered Closter phobic darkness that had you leaning in your seat to try and see a bit more around the corners. Some of the scenes are roughly the same: Look for the Duke and Hudson similarities. The majority the monsters come from the people the marines were sent there to save. I think you will agree that Aliens is the better of the films, and much more original.The second time you saw this movie was in Resident Evil I and II, but mostly I. Hey some scientists in a huge underground lab have just contaminated themselves with something deadly that turns them into horrible monsters. ""Hey, send in a team of Marine-like guys to investigate!"" ""Okay."" Some of the Umbrella's people came back as zombie like creatures and others mutated to a bit of spice. Doom with a twist on the same idea brought back people as semi demons but mostly just zombies, and a few people who really mutated into something cool. But you have seen it before, and Mila is much nicer on the eyes than the Rock.The 3rd time was probably Dawn of the Dead, Land of the Dead. Need I say more? I would not recommend this film as a full admission flick. I would say it is a worthy renter and maybe a Dollar theater ticket.Some things I did like about the movie. The First Person segment did rock the socks; they should have used it more in the film. If you are a fan of the Rock, and how could you not be, I thought he did a good job as the Sarge. The best part about the film is the Female lead, and thank god she did not have to be a love interest but just a character in the story. She is amazing to look at.One last disappointment of the film: there was no Peoples Eyebrow. SHAME!","['3', '12']" +828,rw1208829,N/\S/\,Doom (2005),8.0,Not bad at all,4 November 2005,1,"I have played all version of Doom and I guess making a move from this game must be a trade-off on many levels. The original ingame story is not something most players really care about - you just want to blow stuff up. Only in Doom3 the story element became a little more interesting, but still you basically only want to blow more stuff up. The first games had graphics so old by todays standards it would not be possible to make movie bases on images from them. Doom3 on the other hand looks great. And the Doom movie is obviously based on Doom3 which takes place in corridors and other tight spaces, mostly.Something all Doom games have in common is a really thick, ominous, dark and scary atmosphere. Very much because of the game soundtrack.The Doom movie soundtrack is also effective, but its not used as much as I hoped, but it works when its there. Its not the heavy rock theme I'm talking about - its the repetitive background theme. I hoped it would have been used more since anyone who played Doom2 knows how it almost drilled a hole through the the head - without being annoying, just hypnotizing.The locations are good but too few, I would have liked more locations to provide a larger feel of the station. And the sewers were felt very much out of place, they didn't seem to lead anywhere and should have been replaced by some other location.The Rock works very well as Sarge but judging by the end its fairly unlikely he will be in a sequel. He never turns into a cartoon with one-liners.They avoided all the usual errors that torpedoes and finally sinks these types of movies: no annoying kid(who's always too smart or too helpless), no screaming babe without the will to live, no contrived love story, no übercool heroes. Lets hope there will be a Doom 2 movie made by the same team, with a larger budget.","['0', '3']" +829,rw1196986,jaako-haavisto,Doom (2005),2.0,A bad way to spend 70 million dollars,18 October 2005,1,"So my friend won two tickets from some contest/raffle -thingie and he asks me if I want to come with him. I have played the games, so I thought that it might be fun to see what they have been able to put together. I've read that making this movie cost about 70 million and the fact that The Rock was going to be in it also made me think that the movie might be very good. I wasn't. Really. The Rock can't act, so that's a huge problem, but when you think that might be bad, it gets even worse. I know that a big part of Doom 3 was that it spooked you almost all the time and yes it's nice to freak out a few times, but if that's all the movie is, it's a no-go. I mean really; I go to the movie with a very open mind, naturally hoping that it would be good, but what do I get? 1h 45 mins of pain is what you get. As I mentioned, The Rock can't act. All he does is shout all the time and makes his idiotic looks, monsters/demons/monkeys?!? jumping around spooking ppl and the crappiest attempt on the first person look you could possibly ever imagine. Usually when you think of Doom, you think of endless action; shooting everything up most of the time without having to think about anything. Well the movie is nothing like that, I promise. You just don't know whether you're supposed to laugh or cry. It was truly sad.","['7', '23']" +830,rw1203257,Esty-1,Doom (2005),9.0,I liked it,28 October 2005,0,"Personally, I really liked the movie. My family are die hard movie fans and my brother is a Game Programmer so he was interested in seeing if this movie somewhat resembled the video game and he truly liked it.I, personally, have never played the game (or any game for that matter...I don't play), so I couldn't tell you if its close to it or not, but I really liked all the actors and the plot.People are definitely going to have their own opinions, but out of 13 of my friends/family members who went to go see this movie 13/13 liked it very much.If you like Sci-Fi things, then I think you'll like this movie. My family grew up on Sci-Fi and Horror movies so we were all for it and we'll be buying it when it comes out on DVD. I say, go watch it and decide yourself.","['0', '1']" +831,rw1200117,Richies50435,Doom (2005),7.0,An above par Aliens clone.,22 October 2005,1,"Weaknesses: Varies from the game storyline in as much that there are no teleportals leading to hell and no demons as enemies but ""mutants"" which reduces this film to a generic sci-fi/action/horror movie.Strengths: Despite being by the book, the movie is executed well, there are no scenes that make the viewer cringe at being so corny. The atmosphere is excellent and Doom has enough action to keep the casual action movie fan and die hard Doom fans happy, that is if the Doom fan boys can get over the ""no hell"" premise. Also an excellent hand-to-hand scene between a burly marine and a Baron of Hell (Doom 3 version)is fantastic and in all probability the best scene in the movie. Other highlights include scenes with the BFG 9000 including a tribute to the gun's name. The movie includes an interesting role-reversal between the two main characters at the end. Furthermore the FPS perspective at the climax is actually very innovative. The inclusion of the Rock in the cast keeps a ""wire-fu"" fight scene from descending into mediocrity.Final thought: definitely not Shakespeare, but again it is executed well and is much better than it's fellow Aliens clones like Resident Evil, Underworld or Ghosts of Mars, etc. Definitely worth the $5.50 ticket.6.5/10 aka thumbs up.","['54', '103']" +832,rw1213403,razlanmanjaji,Doom (2005),4.0,Not For Non-Gamers Like Me,11 November 2005,1,"It was sometime after work. I was tired, lugging around my laptop and eager to go home. The train ride home was unusually bumpy and jerky. The guys were pretty enthusiastic. Reluctant to go home but not sure what to do.Eventually decided to watch a movie at Bishan. And because of the timing that we had, Doom was the only choice. Ryan told me it is a movie based on an electronic game, somewhat like Resident Evil.I know what is in store. I must be insane to have actually watch it! Doom is a typical story of a corporate science project went wrong. An archaeological dig at an unknown civilization site on Mars have revealed man with the 23rd chromosome - making them unnaturally powerful and fast. The scientists working on the project were on the brink of something something big when disaster strike. The head honcho called Earth for help.Reinforcement was sent in the form of soldiers, headed by Sarge (played by The Rock) with a few key soldiers, notably John Grimm, played by Karl Urban (of Lord of the Rings, the captain of Rohan horse riders). Somehow there is something spreading the (how predictable) underground research facility, making monsters out of some human and killing others.Many scenes of zombies, dark metallic tunnels, gory scenes and pretty lady in white lab coat later, it was a face off between Sarge and John. How come? Well, I better not give away the story here - it was a pretty interesting twist in an otherwise cookie-cutter plot.The movie effects was pretty alright, though I am not in a position to judge since I had my face covered with my fingers for half the movie. The plot was too predictable for someone with the balls to sit back and stare devil in the face like Ryan or Zor to actually enjoy the movie. The monsters (CGI, no doubt) were suspiciously similar to some other movies I have seen. Even the ""undead"" make up was oh-so-familiar.The only saving grace was the remarkable portrayal of Karl Urban as John Grimm. I always thought Karl Urban has the emotion range of a teaspoon like in LOTR, but in this movie he plays a tormented elder brother with a terrible family history, a righteous soldier standing up against his superior for better judgment.The movie also invoke my resentment towards military ""chain of command"". It was all so.... irritating, when someone has to listen to orders just because he is of some big shot of sorts above his soldiers etc. But that is for another post.Overall, worth a shot if you are Doom game player and have nothing better to do with S$7.50 on a weekday night. Don't bother on weekends though, or if you are a scared-cat like me.","['2', '5']" +833,rw1229833,pamheath,Doom (2005),8.0,DOOM - forget everything else - THE ROCK!,3 December 2005,1,"All the girls in the house say -- HEY!!!!!! Okay, so I'm not someone who has played DOOM, but I've seen it played. I play Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo, Ultima Online, Everquest and World of Warcraft. I've even played Resident Evil. I think that for the genre that this was and what it was out to create, this film delivers and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Give up your pre-conceived notions of what SHOULD be going on if you were the filmmaker. You didn't make this film. That's like going to Thanksgiving dinner and critguing the turkey. Eat it, enjoy it and thank the host. Next year, you make the dressing.First, stop talking about ripping off men turned zombies ala Resident Evil. If they had done the hell demons running amok you would have complained it was a rip off of Event Horizon. Alright already. There's nothing new under the sun. I enjoyed the suspense of who was gonna bite it and the DOOM like first person shooter scene was excellent.And never mind anything else, I'm a hot blooded female and The Rock could have come out in a pink tutu reciting Shakespeare and I would have given this movie a thumbs up the man is hot! The only reason I gave it a 8 is because the plot was confusing.SPOILERS HERE OK, the biggest upset was the guy in the toilet calling for backup. What the heck was that about? I didn't understand what he was trying to do? Get more people to come and help? The placed was locked down under quarantine. Nobody was gonna come in there.Things got real complicated regarding the quarantine. People were evacuated but what was that stuff at the end? Things were happening too fast to understand what exactly was happening. Where did Sam go when Reaper passed out? Who hurt her? Was she infected? What was going on? Who cares, I'm in love with The Rock!!!!!!","['8', '13']" +834,rw1208419,netzwelter,Doom (2005),8.0,"Entertaining, but not really DOOM",4 November 2005,0,"This film is really entertaining. There is less action than to be expected from adaption of 3D shooter game, but the film is never boring. Amazingly it has more story than most of its genre competitors. A good SF action film all in all.BUT: IT'S NOT REALLY DOOM !!!I have played the 3 Doom PC games and I miss so much of it in the film. The biggest difference to the game is that there is a team now to fight the monsters, whereas the games were single hero based. OK, it might be difficult to make film with one here to fight them all, but I'd still prefer that. Also, there is no hell-gate/ spawning like in the games in the Doom movie. The reason for the monster mutations is genetical enhancement now. Why don't they stick to the good original reason? Finally I must say that I missed the Doom monsters in the film very much. They just have the zombies and Imps (without their fireballs !) and a (great) pinky demon. None of the other enemies from the game are in the film, which is really a shame in my eyes.","['0', '2']" +835,rw1211696,blueavenger,Doom (2005),3.0,This film should not have been called DooM,8 November 2005,1,"Echoing what others have said, this film should not have been called DooM. It had nothing to do with the original game in tone or spirit. I can't comment on it's similarities to Doom 3 as I have not played it, but Doom was a classic filled with stunning imagery: skin stretched across walls, rivers of blood, Greek columns and temples, amazing technology... None of it featured in the film. This was basically a sub-standard retread of Aliens (which WAS a great film) with some poorly defined characters, predictable deaths, under-developed sets (when in doubt, just turn the lights down), few thrills or shocks and a boring final conflict. Only Karl Urban came away with merit points for a reasonably affecting performance (The Rock started off okay, and I like the guy, but his descent into psychosis was unconvincing and unexplained). To have done DooM justice would have needed a far, far larger budget ($ 100+ Million?), with a better script, better actors, an actual story (intead of an out-of-date and tired man-messes-with-science parable), and a talented, visionary director who could capture the dark, arcane vision of hell. Very, very disappointing. ID sold out. This should have been called 'Demons of Mars' or something and then people like me who loved the computer game wouldn't have wasted their money in the hope that there was something worth watching here!","['3', '6']" +836,rw1204364,x_Drizzt_x,Doom (2005),4.0,What did this movie have to do with Doom?,29 October 2005,0,"This movie is, hands down, the worst movie experience I've ever had. They didn't even use any piece of the plot the Doom 3 game had, despite it being the same time and place as the game. They also destroyed the one untouchable thing in all things Doom; Sarge. The Sarge character was more mangled than a cheeseburger coming out the other end. I can't go into detail unfortunately, you'll see if you have 8 dollars in your pocket that happen to be covered with Anthrax powder and you are forced to give it to the movie ticket salesman to stop him from shipping teenage girls to other countries forcing them to work in brothels and Doom is the only movie showing in the entire theater.Everything else aside, the movie was quite entertaining. If I hadn't played doom 3, or any other doom movie ever made, I would have loved it. I, however, have far too much loyalty to Doom than to harbor anything but hatred of this movie.","['1', '3']" +837,rw1199323,AbideDude,Doom (2005),8.0,surprisingly good,22 October 2005,0,"When I first heard that Doom was going to be made into a movie, I was very skeptical. Since, most video-game based movies really sucked, I thought doom was going to follow the same path. However, I must say that I actually really enjoyed this film. A lot of the scenes were very suspenseful, the acting was pretty good, and although at first I thought the FPS camera scene was going to be stupid, I think now that it was very entertaining to watch. Although it's not 100% like the video games it is still a movie worth checking out. In conclusion, I thought the movie was really fun to watch, the effects were cool, the creatures were pretty neat, but most importantly of all it entertained me.","['12', '25']" +838,rw1198179,darthlordnaes,Doom (2005),6.0,not the game,21 October 2005,0,"The action was minimal, should have spent more time on the dialog and could've used more monsters. Don't get me wrong i liked this film. I was just expecting more. I would've liked to have seen more aspects of the game. The game made such an impression on me. The movie barely tickled my lust for violence. The first person perspective rocked the house. But I felt like i was watching a new Resident Evil. The characters were undeveloped and generic. Elements of the story are left out or go nowhere. The ""BFG"" was awesome but hardly put to good use. I think the makers relied on the title but dropped the ball on the game fans. Non-gamers will enjoy it. Gamers might be disappointed.","['5', '19']" +839,rw1198685,okamishamps,Doom (2005),9.0,"I enjoyed it, definition of entertaining and good!",21 October 2005,0,"Amazingly, the movie escaped the game-to-movie curse and managed to honestly entertain me for the entire 97 mins of airtime. It stayed true to the Doom game universe for the most part, barely strayed from the plot as it thickened, but there wasn't to much thinking that had to be done....this is Doom we are talking about here, one of the first pure shooters to come about and wreck havoc amongst teens lives across the globe.The well known FPS scene, was done beautifully...he moved like YOU would move in a First-Person Shooter( FPS ) game, he looked where you would look. It genuinely felt like I was watching someone else play a video game, and that was the feeling I was hoping for going into the movie.The marines, acted like marines should...human. Mistakes were made, and only a select few were of the ""only-in-a-movie-never-would-happen-in-real-life"" type mistakes. The few others felt and looked natural.I recommend going to see this if you are a fan of the FPS genre of video gaming, or just want to see a decently acted sci-fi action movie!!","['0', '9']" +840,rw1198173,technopops,Doom (2005),7.0,Bucking the video game movie track record by being a decent flick,21 October 2005,0,"With all the amazingly bad films that have been adapted from video games over the years (to name a few: Street Fighter, Wing Commander, and the penultimate, Super Mario Bros.), it's easy to look at the commercials and trailers for Doom and think, ""Boy, that thing's going to suck."" That's the thought I had going into the theater, expecting to groan and laugh at the ridiculous events that would unfold. But the funny thing is, I didn't. If you're a video game fan, the quality of the movie might actually surprise you. Is it a good movie? No. Is it a great movie? Definitely not. But is it surprisingly decent? Yes.For the non-gaming audience, the basic plot of the movie goes like this: It's the not-too-distant future, and corporation scientists have discovered ""something"" on Mars, and through researching it, have done experiments they really shouldn't have been doing. Now some kind of monstrous threat is making its way through the research facility, and it has to be stopped. So, a team of Marines, led by Sarge (The Rock), are sent in to neutralize the threat, and, as expected, discover that the threat is not exactly what they think it is.So, you could fit Doom into three basic genres--action, horror, and sci-fi--and they all work together well enough. None of them ever steals away any focus, and between the action/horror segments, there are some sci-fi explanations that do a pretty good job of breaking things up and moving the plot along (which is good, because the plot itself is pretty thin). Nothing ever seems tired, over-the-top, or out of left field, either (though there is one explanation near the end about the human genome that is a little bit silly). However, none of the genres ever seem to be used to their potential. There's a good amount of guns fired, but none of the encounters ever feel that tense. The horror sequences have your requisite monsters and zombies and gore, but nothing that really creeps you out or makes you jump out of your seat. As far as sci-fi is concerned, it's there just for what I described above--to explain things and move along the plot. And aside from there being an inter-spatial portal called ""the Ark,"" the action takes place almost entirely indoors, with fairly normal-looking labs, corridors, and sewers. So, there's no real futuristic, ""we're on another planet"" feel. Maybe if Doom had a few more firefights, scares, and something more sci-fi than just explaining why this and that is happening, it could have been a good popcorn flick.But then there's also the creativity aspect of it. By looking at the basic plot, the general feel you get is just, ""Been there, done that,"" and the content tends to go along with it. Shadowy figures sometimes scurry by quickly, dogs rattle angrily in their cages, and you have the occasional zombie that rushes at somebody or monster that lops someone's head off. There are no original scares, just eyeballs in the dark and the old shoots-something-out-of-its-mouth. No complicated firefights or combat sequences either, and no special effects that will wow you. And even if you come into this movie without knowing anything about the games or seeing any of the ads, odds are you'll figure out what caused the mayhem on Mars before the characters do.So, Doom's pretty much standard fare, but that's not to say it's a horrible movie. There are a few aspects of the flick that actually raise it a bit over mediocre status. For one thing, it's an action/horror/sci-fi mish-mash movie, which are few and far between. And as discussed, the mish-mash works, with each genre weighed out enough so nothing feels tired. The dialogue and acting also do the job, with no one standing out as flat-out terrible. The script/editing is fairly tight, and aside from one or two things, none of the plot points ever seem that needless. The plot itself, although thin, also has some tendencies of depth now and again, with an estranged brother-sister dynamic, and the old ""a soldier's duty"" topic that creeps in near the end. Almost all the jokes and one-liners work, too. None of them are really original, but they also never fall completely flat or feel uncalled for, so they'll guarantee at least a few chuckles. And then there is a ""first-person perspective"" sequence near the end of the flick that actually is kind of cool (more on that below).For the gaming fans, there are also a few things that make the movie a little bit special. There's the occasional name drop (one of which, when you find out the character's name, will make you go, ""Oh, sh*t, I know what's going to happen to him!"") the appearance of the BFG and the chainsaw, both of which are pretty awesome (but sorely underused), and a couple baddies that you'll easily recognize. But maybe what you're really wondering about is the fabled ""first-person perspective"" sequence, which is an attempt to recreate the feel of the games. Well, if you saw it by itself or if the sequence were cut up and interspersed throughout the movie, it probably would be questionable. But thankfully, the sequence is only used once, it's not very long (runs about four minutes), is near the end of the movie, and it actually has a point. What that point is, though, I'll leave up to you to see.So, Doom is a decent movie overall, that doesn't fail on anything it does, but still could have delivered a bit more. So, at least we can add another mark for the ""good"" side. Though, like Mortal Kombat and Tomb Raider, I'm sure it will be debated. But you know what? At least it's not another Super Mario Bros.","['24', '54']" +841,rw1221418,uzudamatheslaver,Doom (2005),10.0,Doom-it that's a good movie,21 November 2005,1,"Dude. See this movie. This one rocks. And has the Rock. It's a win-win situation.If you like big guns, funny stuff, stuff that gets shot, creative use of technology, gore, and stuff, with lots of stuff like animals and cells (both kind), you should see this movie. It's the stuff.IMDb has given me the opportunity to vote for this movie and write a comment. For this I am grateful. I have read many comments saying this movie wasn't good enough for the fans. I loved all three Doom games (but didn't play the expansion for the third installment, and for this I am sorry) and I must say, this is the best movie from a game since Mortal Kombat.This movie did a couple of new things on stuff you thought you knew. Your gamer's instinct or movie-person's instincts are often misguided by a new and innovative twist on simple things, this is what is refreshing and stimulating about this movie.You got the good old' things, and no more old' bad stuff. The old' bad stuff has been replaced with some new good stuff. Well, the 'Doorway To Hell' is gone, but 'Hell' has been given a whole new meaning. This isn't a shooter-movie, it's a shooter-movie with an excellent script.Don't believe me or call me a liar, I don't care. I just think this movie rocked both worlds.So they made some changes. Big Deal. It's a movie, not a remake of the third game.I would've changed one thing, and that was a longer ending battle, having the bad guy come back one more time, but bigger and stronger, but apart from this Doom blew away all my expectations for a game-movie.The Music rocked. The Visuals shocked me in the good kind of way. The plot and coming together of the little puzzle pieces towards the end just had me by the throat and wouldn't let go.Believe what you want. I'm not gonna tell you what to think.I'll tell you what I think, though. I'm thinking ""Perfect Score"".","['11', '18']" +842,rw1201429,challwor,Doom (2005),9.0,Doom movie was a tribute to fans of the game,25 October 2005,0,"The best video game to movie transition. This movie managed to be creative, suspenseful and stick true to the game in most aspects. I was expecting a movie quickly put together, sharing little with the game or what made the games fun. In my opinion the opposite was true. I don't think any movie can ever compare to great sci-fi / horror movies like Aliens, and Predator, which a lot of people are comparing to DOOM. I think people are developing such high standards for movies that movies that are fun, not perfect, or 120 million dollar blockbusters, just wont due anymore and don't get the credit they deserve. If you have played DOOM this movie will be a lot more fun for you, it was for me.","['1', '3']" +843,rw1200185,mockturtle,Doom (2005),7.0,Romero-ized B-movie,22 October 2005,1,"Call me crazy, but this movie made me think. Yes, it is a B-movie, but as George Romero has shown us there are some subjects that can only be addressed by B-movies. These films are usually…believe it or not…allegories. Yes, ""Doom"" is a layman's allegory. In the abstract it is considering collective unconscious questions about the young men our country is sending out to kill for us right now under the banner of ""Good"" and, further, about the killings committed by our entire race. Can psychotics do ""Good""? Can good men murder and remain essentially good? Is it a moot point whether humans are responsible for being individually psychotic or not? Believe it or friggin' not, Dwayne ""The Rock"" Johnson appears in a film that not only addresses these questions, but addresses them in the abstract. Not to rag on the Rock, who I like. He isn't, however, in top form presence-wise (in playing his first real not-animated villain he glowers and barks when it would be more creepy and effective if he were just reasonable). Nobody really is. Despite the above paragraph ""Doom"" still wasn't a good movie, or even as fun as another similar vid-game movie ""Resident Evil"" (the first one, the second was excrement). The question then is: Where does this stuff come from? I believe the answer is co-screenwriter Wesley Strick. Strick has written other movies that approach high-concept, such as ""Wolf"" (a B-movie in A-movie clothing…of course then it would have been called ""Manimal"") and…tellingly…""True Believer."" Also the recent, wretched ""The Glass House"" which, obviously, has somewhat to do with privacy issues. If it be thought this should merit flagellation, at least he co-wrote the Scorcese ""Cape Fear"" too. Far be it from me to suggest the auteur theory for Andrej Bartkowiak, whose ""Romeo Must Die"" and ""Cradle 2 the Grave"" did technically deal with issues of race and class. He is really best known as a cinematographer and for his multicamera shooting technique. In ""Cradle 2 the Grave"" he would have 3-5 cameras running at once. Of course, that makes it so that is looks like the dancing in Chicago: cut up legs and arms so it looks like you are hiding that they can't really do it, which is just as ridiculous in the case of Jet Li as it was in the case of Catherine Zeta-Jones; if they can do the stuff, show them doing it!David Callaham?Note that these movies are all fair to middling or worse. ""Doom"" doesn't transcend anything at all, but the point is that all of the cut-out characters don't merely serve a purpose functionally, they all eventually are revealed to serve a purpose thematically. It is not for nothing that Mars and Olduvai (named for the alleged place of origin of humanity in Africa) are often referred to as ""hell"" or that one of the soldiers carves crosses into his skin when he takes the lord's name in vain, but not when he kills. The plot is eventually revealed to be a cross between ""Resident Evil"" and the recent ""Serenity"": trapped in underground compound with genetic mutations based on predisposition to psychosis. This is when you realize that the different traits we've seen in the different characters have been leading up to this, what better sample than soldiers to have about a 50% psychosis rate? The psychosis in a few of the soldiers is obvious, very obvious, as is the lack of psychosis in…well…one of the soldiers, The Kid. There is an interesting split with two of the soldiers: ""Destroyer"" is a killing machine (ah, video game talk) but as you observe from his behavior he is not psychotic, whereas ""Duke,"" while not being so violent, is still psychotic as you can glean by his inappropriate behavior concerning women. Another character's psychosis is revealed by his selfish cowardice, he's willing to let hundreds of people get torn apart to save himself. Resting exactly on the divide, intentionally, is Karl Urban as ""Reaper"", he's sort of the video-game-movie version of Harvey Keitel in ""Fingers"" or Joe in ""Golden Boy."" We eventually arrive at the old ""kill those Vietnamese villagers, soldier!/No Sarge!"" moment, where the dialogue seems to have been chosen carefully. Not that I can remember it (remember, it's not actually a good movie). It has something to do with Sarge (Rock) ordering the soldiers not to think (explicitly) and telling them that all he wants are soldiers, just soldiers. Well, ""JUST SOLDIERS!!!!!!!"" anyway. That's when you might start to think about what the powers that be (in this case again a military/industrial complex that basically runs the government with its influence) want in their police force and populace: they want (to draft the Matrix) ordinary average Joe Smith to be able to turn into an Agent Smith murdering machine in a second that will do anything they say, then wash his hands with GSK Antibacterial soap and return to shopping, he can deal with his PTSD on his own time. Of course, the Kid should have thought about how when you join the army you are forfeiting your autonomy and if your commanding officer tells you to kill prisoners, civilians or, say, Jews, you can't say no. Well, you can, but watch what happens. It gives the lie to the Army's ""Soldier. Citizen."" recruiting campaign. Let's not forget, getting that out of a movie like ""Doom"" is like finding out ""Twinkies"" prevent heart-disease. It was a good thing I had the rest of that to think about, because the movie itself was…undistinguished. I once had an English teacher who said that reading too much into something makes it like petting a dissected cat. Meow. In the end, ""Good"" saves the planet, but ""Evil"" owns the planet.","['0', '1']" +844,rw1202500,Yukle,Doom (2005),3.0,Don't judge the story because there isn't one,27 October 2005,0,"I went to see Doom for the same reason I saw S.W.A.T. which is just as a mindless waste of time with my mates. I knew that I wasn't going to be impressed about any plot twists, but who cares? This is not a movie that was made to do that so I won't judge it so. However, there is little left to compliment the film. I must admit, it was very clever to use the first person view borrowed from the game but this was actually a little disappointing. The camera was jerky, which is understandable but for a soldier, there was very little looking at the enemy. Throughout the whole movie, the camera angles were terrible; rarely focusing on the exciting parts and showing only split-second images of the action coupled by several minutes of a panicking woman who seemed totally incapable of thinking for a scientist. A little sexist, but The Rock is the real worry. He played his character perfectly, don't get me wrong, but his character was incredibly annoying. Given the characters were made super intelligent, it is a little strange how stupid they are. Given I went to see the action, there should have been more of it, rather than snippets followed by the survivors walking through the scene saying, ""Dear me, whatever happened here?""","['0', '1']" +845,rw1208604,jpmota,Doom (2005),,Duh!-M,4 November 2005,0,"Simply put: it is an entertaining movie. Full of references to the game (Dr. Carmack, the elevators, the armors, the BFG, the monsters), but then someone had this dumb idea to abandon the main theme of the game (Hell and a plethora of monsters...) and make some zombie-genetic-martian-whatever story that just does not hold... When it ended, I was glad it ender that way: fast! Rather play the original DOOM (from the 90's, which I still have installed on my PC) than watching this movie again. Not even on DVD! But it is entertaining. For geeks like me. Who played Beyond Belief (a pack for Quake few even heard about) and all Mission Packs for Quake's 1 and 2, and used bots on Quake to play Deathmatches, and connected to the net to play online... but the movie lacked one important thing: a mouse and a keyboard!","['0', '1']" +846,rw1199112,metalhead7321,Doom (2005),10.0,Bottom line - This film's point is ass kicking action and fun!,22 October 2005,1,"The Doom movie is by far the best video game movie ever made. The feel and the attitude of this movie gives off right away that your in for some serious scares and action. The movie has some cheesy one liners and while the plot is weak and not fully flushed out when the action is set in you don't care. Also the first person view scenes where Karl Urban is seen killing the monsters with a machine gun and a chainsaw, yes a chainsaw will make any fans of pointless action and the games cheer for more. So do yourself a favor and see Doom, turn off your brain, and forget all those serious drama romantic teenage flicks and enjoy some good ol'fashion kicking monster ass action!","['1', '4']" +847,rw1210568,alcator,Doom (2005),5.0,"Would be good as generic ""space-action-horror"" movie, but is definitely not good for DooM trademark",7 November 2005,1,"When you ask players that played Doom 1, Doom 2 or Doom 3 games what makes Doom ""DOOM"", they'll reply with ""Armies of hell that invade because UAC's teleportation experiments went wrong. Brave Space Marines have to stop this invasion, which ultimately leads to the final confrontation against some Boss Demon (Mastermind in Doom 1, Spawning Wall in Doom 2 and CyberDemon in Doom 3).The Doom movie is not bad. It contains humor (although mainly in the beginning), it contains fresh new ideas (demon half-stuck in wall), it contains cool action sequences (be it the containment cell fight or the final death-match), it has that ""clock-is-ticking-hurry-up"" stimulant...But it's more like another Resident Evil: Scientists are experimenting with human genome, cross-species genetic implants etc., and all of a sudden they have monsters breathing down their necks.Doom is about something else, and this movie seems to be willingly ignoring it. Where's the Hell? Where are DEMONS that actually spit fire, cast fireballs and plasma balls, where are Cacodemons or Lost Souls? Producers may be satisfied - this will make a lot of money for them. But unfortunately, it at the same time confirms the public knowledge that action games are ""un-film-able"". What a waste...","['1', '2']" +848,rw1207308,moviewatcher417,Doom (2005),5.0,Doom.,2 November 2005,0,"Poor Karl Urban. His first staring role, and he gets upstaged by the rock. Urban's name is listed first in the credits and he is playing the top character. But pretty much every promo or major review calls this movie ""Doom, starring the Rock"" or ""The Rock's next movie."" However, if you consider the reception this movie has been getting, it might actually be better for Karl if he isn't singled out. Now, the movie itself isn't that bad for a project based on a video game. It's better than Resident Evil (which isn't saying a lot). Karl and the Rock play their roles as well as they can as members of an elite force of Marines, sent to deal with a ""situation"" on Mars that gets way out of hand. The rest of the squad's characters are pretty much one-dimensional and, like any good lambs to the slaughter, they stay that way until their time comes. For example, the jerk is a jerk, and so on. If you are looking for an action-horror flick with lots of blood and big guns, this is it. The problem as I see it is that a lot of fans of the game went in expecting more from the game (""get in the game"" the ads promised)and the movie failed to deliver on a lot of those expectations.","['1', '2']" +849,rw1200713,smiles_black_tooth_grin,Doom (2005),7.0,"I hate the Rock, but I like Doom.",24 October 2005,0,"Doom isn't really a great movie, but it is a good one. It followed the games story decently and it had good action in it. In violence, it was moderate. I liked the story, it moved very quickly. Actually too quickly. I was in and out of the movie quickly but got a good experience. I personally can't stand slow moving movies. They are too long and they get boring very easily. I really can't see why anyone thought it was bad. I thought the Rock did an bad job. I hated his role and I hate his acting. I'm glad he was only the star of the movie, not the main character. He used the ""F word"" too much and it got old quick. He was getting to predictable. Deystroyer, the battle where he died was a good part. Also, the first person view part was the absolute coolest part I have seen in any action movie. I believe this movie deserves more credit than it actually gets.","['0', '1']" +850,rw1199007,quanta137,Doom (2005),10.0,The best video game to film adaptation ever.,22 October 2005,1,"I just got back from seeing doom, I saw it with my mom and a friend neither of who have ever played Doom 3, and they even loved it. This movie really captured everything that was great about the game, I was worried that them not being hell-spawns would detract from the experience but it did not at all. The set designers did a wonderful job of recreating the UAC facility from the game. After this movie I am going to want to see the first person view in every movie that I see, it was just so perfectly implemented that it alone is worth the price of admission. If you are thinking about seeing this movie I cannot recommend it enough. The people who are down on this movie are the same people who would have turned down Cindy Crawford back in the day because she has a mole.","['2', '11']" +851,rw1199263,betii,Doom (2005),1.0,Boooooooooooo,22 October 2005,0,"Horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible! Did I already say horrible? Pretty much on par to watching Mortal Kombat on the big screen...just terrible. Don't waste your money! If you absolutely, positively have to go see it, then at the very least, buy a ticket to a different movie, enjoy it, and when it gets done, sneak into a showing of Doom...that's about the only way you'll get your money's worth. In fact, they should be paying you to go see this movie. Shame on The Rock...he should have known from the script that it wasn't going to be any good.Ah man...look at that...I can't even post my comment right now because it doesn't contain enough lines (the minimum length for comments is 10 lines of text).Hmmm...what else can say about this movies? Not much. It was really just horrible. The Rock looked to be in good shape...I guess the ladies can look forward to that. What ever happened to that big ol tribal tattoo he had going down the side of his arm? I certainly didn't see it in the movie. Did he get it removed? Was it fake? Maybe it was just covered with makeup. If that's the case, kudos to the makeup department. Really, I just can't think of anything good to say about this movie. The plot was weak...the sub-plots were even weaker. There wasn't much action...don't get me wrong...there was action...but not the type of action you would expect if you've ever played the game. To sum it all up...it was like Return of the Living Dead meets Aliens meets Total Recall meets Walking Tall. Just a bad combination.","['2', '6']" +852,rw1198712,actionmoviestar,Doom (2005),7.0,"""Doom"" is living proof that most action films need to be rated ""R""",21 October 2005,0,"Before I begin to give my review, I know that my one sentence summary my sound kind of strange. I do in fact know that ""Doom"" is all ready Rated ""R""(for strong violence/gore and language). What I'm trying to say is action movies of this caliber(that deals with heavy subject matter) need to continue receiving ""R"" ratings, which in my opinion brings a sense of realism to the things being presented on screen. Well enough about that.""Doom"" based of the video game of the same name, is finally here. Though it has taken a long time, it has finally made it to the big screen. If I must say, this is a very good movie. As with what most individuals already said, the action really doesn't pick up until the second half of the movie. The action sequences were pretty good and was above average for a video game-based movie. The acting was a little hokey but I hate to admit that the Rock stole every scene he was in. This movie was indeed a good part for him. Though I've probably wanted to see more character development out of most of the characters, they did good with the material they were given.I know many people are going to be comparing this to the video game but I, for one, cannot since I've never played it. I can only critique it from an Action Movie Guru's standpoint. I felt like it suceeded on all levels as an action movie and did a good job by keeping the viewers entertained throughout the movie. As one individual already said on another comment, ""Doom"" is one of the best video game movies as of right now, well next to ""Mortal Kombat"" in my opinion. One thing I very much like about ""Doom"" is what I already said before, which is, that it is Rated ""R"" so that means their not trying to censor out everything so they can cater to the little kiddies. It is definitely an ""Unapologetic R"" as The Rock said in many magazines.Whether if you're a fan or not of the video game, this movie is sure to entertain you for it's 100 min. runtime.","['3', '15']" +853,rw1223385,patrickbrett66,Doom (2005),8.0,Not a bad 1st attempt,23 November 2005,0,Not a bad 1st attempt!I have seen many films made from games and I have to say this isn't as bad as some of the reviews make out...I really enjoyed the FPS section of the film (wish it had more) and the mutants were in keeping with the original doom game! I fully expect a better Doom 2 to hit the big screens very soon as this is a franchise that is begging for attention!The Rock was wasted addition to the film as he detracted from the genre however he makes for an interesting good guy turned bad guy in an action movie (lets face it this is an action movie after all).All in all not a bad attempt!,"['0', '1']" +854,rw1236794,fralada10,Doom (2005),3.0,crappy movie,12 December 2005,0,"i mean, i know you must change a little a story in order to make it a movie, but hey, why the hell is this movie called doom!?!?, and if you think that i am only giving this rating because the movie doesn't relate at all to the game, you'd be wrong, i do not recommend this movie to anyone, player or not player, if you're a player you will be very disappointed with it, and if you are not you will be bored to death. but you would say: maybe at least the effects are good..., hmmm you may want to think again, what about the history? disappointing, just disappointing, is it even a good movie to scare your girlfriend to get her to hug you???, i wish!, but no, so... putting it all together: a crappy movie.","['0', '0']" +855,rw1206483,khasenoehrl,Doom (2005),8.0,space marines kill things,31 October 2005,1,"Personally I liked the movie for the most part. For an action movie I think it did a pretty good job but with a basis for the game it did an amazingly poor job. The first person view that got all the hype was comical in my opinion, the end fight disappointed me. But if you liked aliens I think you'll probably like Doom. In my opinion The Rock did a very good job of playing the commanding officer with only the mission in mind, he also did a good job of being a bloodthirsty dude which was pretty cool. Some people I have spoken with said they liked the movie for its more violent elements, but I think on the whole the story did a better job of it and had they stuck to the game's version of the story it would have been way better. Sorry if thats a spoiler for you.","['0', '1']" +856,rw1230539,justmatt_84,Doom (2005),8.0,Review,4 December 2005,1,"When Video games are made into films, in all honesty we only like them because we like the games. I mean Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Street FIghter, Mortal Kombat, Final Fantasy and Doom are all pretty dire films compared to the main stream Hollywood cinema. But then again, that's what they are, main stream Hollywood.Now Doom is different from the normal 'game to film' movies. For a start, it has a clear definition of what genre it wants to be. The beginning sequences are a little hazy and if you loose interest here you'll never take to the film. It seems very far fetched and a little cheesy. However as soon as the narrative picks up it becomes obvious what the film wishes to do.OK first thing, narrative structure. The film throws you into the deep end by immediately needing the audience to have played the games and know where they are or generally have a strong sci-fi movie knowledge. Once the marines are on Mars and the story starts to develop the pace calms down and the film begins to take its time with the audience. Again if you got lost in the beginning it will be very hard to pick it up again. However, watch it a second time if u got lost the first and take your time with the film.The film might actually flow better if you start watching it as soon as the marines reach Mars. However, the film is an action horror and once the introduction is over it keeps tight within the codes and conventions of the genre. It takes its time and draws the audience into the scenes building, not much but enough, suspense to generate shock value and keep you on the edge of your seat.The movie has a strong story, no matter what anyone says. The script is a little poor as the one liners, especially from the Rock, are cheesy however the structure of the script is solid. The films has two narratives, or plots as they are called. The main plot is the Research centre being overrun by alien creatures, or mutations as they are in the film and everyone fending for their lives, fairly straight forward movie plot. The Sub plots are first the relationship between John Reaper and Dr Grimm in which brother and sister are reunited after 10 years and the planet is also where they lost their parents. The other Sub plot is the Sarge and his agenda to follow orders to the brink of his demise. Its structure works well and the only faults i could give it is the cheesy lines that the characters give out and the uncertain beginning sequence.This movie has been made by people who know the genre of the game. This is made apparent through the film by the use of music matched the feel of the game series, feeling a lot like Quake. In the high point of the film there is a segment of the game being in first person. If a little badly edited the scene gives a lot back to the gamers as its detailed enough to do what gamers do. If any first person gamer has not shot at their reflection before then they have never been involved enough in the game. John Grimm does this in the movie and we just get the feeling that 'yea, they know their stuff, well done'.Finally another problem with the script is the cheesy fight scene at the end. Although not a bad scene it just seems a pointless part to the film. The audience already get their adrenaline from the first person part of the movie and the end fight scene seems to have just been added for the part of the audience that have never played the game.Despite the beginning and ending the film knows how it wants to play out. It keeps well to the genres conventions and adds little but welcoming other aspects to the movie. There is some humour and strong character bonding parts. However the film is let down by the Rock, not that he's a bad actor in other things however it always seems that he does not take to the character very well. Thankfully as an audience we sympathise with John Grimm and ultimately root for this character.The movie is not a disappointment if you are not expecting an amazing 5 star Oscar winner. You have to take the film as what it is and to its credit, it is pretty damn good. Even if you take the other films from games as what they are they still leave you feeling a little sour and robbed of 2 hours but you love them anyway. Doom gives you satisfaction as long as you don't follow all the hype and think 'it'll be freaking awesome!' because you always go to the cinema, watch it and think 'wasn't as good as i thought it would be' and so you end up hating it. If you have seen the film once and hated it, watch it again and sit with an open mind and let the film play out, don't fight against it just brush off anything that annoys you because all the annoyance is in the beginning, the film plays very well after that.Its not the best action horror but it is a pretty good one and in my professional opinion its a league above all the other 'game to film' movies.Matt Taylor Nat Dip (BA) Hons","['2', '3']" +857,rw1200179,Eye_of_Chaos,Doom (2005),5.0,There's NO HELL,21 October 2005,1,"First off, I loved the game, and loved the story, but the thing I hated about the move was that....There's NO HELL. In the game you fight your way to Hell and back. And thats what I thought this movie was going to be, a portal opens up releasing demons....but no. just mutants. And there was only 2 creatures, the Pinky, who was a mutant man, and imps who were mutant people, no demons, no Hell knight, no Archiviles, Wraths, Machubus, Charibum, Trite, Lost souls, etc. If they would have followed the storyline of Doom 3, the movie would have made A lot more sense. I mean I didn't even get the story, cause I was waiting for a ""Hell"" scene. I loved the Doom3 story, and they did make the ancient civilization exist, but it had no relevance. All I'm saying is that when you think of Doom, you think of Hell breaking loose, the only thing that even hinted evil was something about a virus attacking evil souls.....but it made no reference to demons, hell, anything. and no Hellknight..waaaaa. The script was lousy, but I expected that, and none of the weapons except the BFG, was there. No doubled barreled shotgun???Thats what made Doom famous. The game scared me, due to the evil spirits and voices, none of that here. And wheres Dr. Betrugerand the Gateway to Hell? The best part was the FPS, which was awesome, but only lasted for like 5 min. The ending was dumb, and was a Resident Evil fight scene. And the characters mutating if injected with some virus thing...R.E. The movie would have been more original and made better sense, if they would have followed the game...but why didn't they? And where's all the demons? I mean the shooting and gore was OK, but nothing scary. So if you are expecting this to be like the game...No its not, I'm like the biggest Doom freak out there, and was so disappointed in the plot. SO to make it clear...no Hell, no demons, no evil voices. Just bad scripts and one small pinky.","['0', '1']" +858,rw1198666,Simon_Says_Movies,Doom (2005),6.0,this movie not doomed,21 October 2005,0,"While it is not saying much, this movie is awesome at what it does. It is an action horror movie that is as campy as it is deliciously entertaining.This film lives by the philiosphy of ""If you don't like this type of movie Don't SEE IT."" but for those who do, this a moderatly unique and, and often jump inducing video game adaptation. You may think you're ready for the obvious. ""Oh something is so going to jump out here"" But it makes you shudder anyway.The plot has enough 'intelligence' to make it involving; but never tries to be anything more then hokey entertainment. Along with some much needed humor from the charismatic Dwanye the Rock to break the stiff mood, and an twist ending that met with my approval, Doom is a winner if you want it to be.","['15', '31']" +859,rw1198714,perfectblackcascade,Doom (2005),6.0,Needs more action,21 October 2005,0,"Personally, I liked the movie. Not saying it was good, but yes, for an action packed movie based on a video game, I liked it a lot. Veeeeery slow getting going (considering it's an action movie), and jam packed with cliché's, the last 20 minutes make up for the bad start. I believe that it could have had more violence/blood/gore/death/guns/demons (like 3x more) and not lost any audience appeal. I can understand some of the plot development, but much of it was redundant. Leave us something to wonder about! Also, what the heck was with the 'tiny' amount of demons? DooM was crazy-chalk-full with demons, and that IS what people wanted to see. But as for the FIRST DooM movie, it at least should prevent this stupid character building in the second one. Right? Second one? Please? You can't leave that as the epitome' of DooM!!!","['1', '11']" +860,rw1208617,Hamiel,Doom (2005),3.0,To Doom or not to DooM?,4 November 2005,0,"Being a vivid DooM gamer from as early as circa 1993 and knowing that ID software was involved in this movie, I had high expectations.But then the bad news started to appear... Rumours began emerging saying there would be no hell, no Mars and no teleports; all essential parts of the original games. ""Ok, these are just rumours"", I thought to myself, putting my faith in the games' development team, ID Software, which I thought would keep an eye on the production and keep it true to the games. Fortunately, later on it was confirmed that it would indeed be set on Mars and that kept my hopes up, even though they decided to go with B-rate actors.After seeing the movie I felt disappointed, realizing ID Software had completely sold out itself. Nothing in this movie is worth the title ""DooM"", except for the props, the monsters and the weapons. The movie to me felt like a Resident Evil clone set on Mars and if you ask me this movie should have been titled ""Resident Evil: In Mars... with Bigger Guns... and Bigger Monsters"".A major disappointment for me was that the producers decided to remove hell from the movie. The idea of the monsters originating from hell was an important aspect in the games. I'm guessing the producers decided to remove the hell part from the movie because of the large population of Christians in USA, thinking it would scare them away from the box office. Doing so, they completely betrayed the gamers, so their plan backfired badly.Viruses, cheesy one-liners, untalented actors, and not staying true to the original games' themes compel me to give this movie 3 stars. One for the creative FPS scene, one for the monsters and one for the props.If you ask me, this movie doesn't deserve to be called DooM!","['233', '440']" +861,rw1200669,debenhoh,Doom (2005),4.0,"All in all, an unsatisfying endeavor",24 October 2005,0,"Although I spent many hours in the past playing the computer game, I would not call myself a ""Doom"" fanatic. I really enjoyed the game for quite awhile, but seriously had no concerns whether or not the movie was going to try and match the game at all, so I entered the theater impartial and just hoping forward to a good movie. Sadly, things don't always go the way you plan.The movie started off OK, the opening scene was engaging enough to make me say ""oh s***, some people are DOOMed"" I was honestly just hoping for a strong action packed, gory war with monsters with some scares in it. So, for a few good points about the movie: The soundtrack was perfect for the genre, heck it was techno and metal and got the blood pumpin. The BFG was cool, to bad they hardly used it.and there was ONE good fight scene that was awesome to watch. The 'first person' view at the end was probably the high light of the movie, but definitely doesn't even come close to redeeming the movie...now..for the bad...The casting was overall bad, save a few people who pulled off good ""grunts"" for the military. I have enjoyed nearly every movie the Rock has been in, but in this one, he pulls off the ""military grunt"" and ""dedicated soldier, DO WHATEVER is necessary"" roll WAY over the top. But thats not his fault, so obviously the director was a fool. Monsters were really pathetic, no monster variety, and the pathetic reasons for why the monsters were what they were was horrible. The movie did not flow, the first half was suspense that was way to drawn out and the military tactics of this special ops team was "" OK, if we keep splitting up, they cant kill us all!!!!"" No character development, random cheesy one liners, and honestly, so many little things added up to unhappiness. Half way through the movie I was ready to walk out. I was upset.Even avid gamers will have trouble appreciating this, so I advise everyone to save their money on this one...it just is not worth it. Wait for it in 5 years when it is aired on ABC movie prime time just so you can finally see why this movie just doesn't make the cut.4/10 Stars","['2', '7']" +862,rw1203389,kismit,Doom (2005),5.0,"Weak, even for a video game adaptation",28 October 2005,0,"The creature affects were the low point of this one which is a bad omen for a movie about killing monsters. A couple of reviews mentioned Predator and Alien in comparison. This film is not in the same ballpark unfortunately. The sets and effects, outside of some of the lame monsters were pretty good and this was a pretty good cast for the type of film. The problem was the monsters, in addition to, being kind of funny looking, just weren't that scary. Both the Alien and the Predator were hardly shown in their films, yet the monster's pursuit of the humans built the excitement. In Alien and Predator over half the films were the monster stalking the characters. The results were intense, and the revealing of the creatures in the end was climactic. A simple formula that would have fit in well here, but alas, too complex for the director to figure out. A bit of editing and maybe ten minutes of new footage and this one could have been a surprise hit. As it is DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY SEEING THIS ON IN THE THEATRE! Rental only!","['2', '6']" +863,rw1200946,majinjekku,Doom (2005),3.0,Great Movie Until,24 October 2005,1,"I went to see this movie... thinking it looked kind of good from seeing the trailer. But, I also kept in mind that this was just another video game turned into a movie. So, I went in sort expecting it to be bad but I had some hope for it.During the movie, there are some great and intense sequences. The movie really pulled me in. But, there were scenes in the movie that started off really intense but then judging by the music... you would think it was going to turn into some sort of music video. They sort of took the that intense feeling the movie was initially giving to you.The special effects were well done and you really believed that the monsters were there... The acting was great for the type of movie it was. It wasn't great but it wasn't bad. The characters were cliché and that was to be expected.However, the movie took a nose dive and crashed and burned. It happens as soon as the hero is injected with C24 and he becomes super human. And, he wakes up after being ""dead"" for awhile because of the C24 drug and the audience is seeing through his eyes, creating that first person shooter (FPS) feel. But, he looks at himself in the mirror and this cheesy guitar riff plays because he's ready to slaughter some mutants now.And, I really lost interest in the movie. Then this FPS sequence starts... with a gun and he starts slaughtering all these monsters with the gun that hardly took care of them earlier in the movie. I don't know what the writers or whoever were thinking. But, I was throughly disgusted with the movie when this happened. They pulled me in and just shoved me out and made it really corny and really just... not believable anymore.And, the ending of the movie is pretty lame. I dunno. It first reminded me of ""Aliens"" but then it just became terrible and corny and it just went from one type of movie that was good to a terrible-terrible movie.You are better off watching the movie until he gets injected with C24. Then, get up and leave and assume he died and make up your own ending with the remaining characters. You'll like the movie a lot more. I promise.","['0', '1']" +864,rw1200462,Stay_away_from_the_Metropol,Doom (2005),2.0,Don't DOOM yourself to sitting through this,24 October 2005,0,"First of all, I don't know WHY this movie is called DOOM. It has absolutely ZERO of the elements that make the game great, and that make the game DOOM. The elements of HELL are not existent. None of the signature creature appear in the film. And the movie does not even pull of a DARK or SERIOUS vibe, unlike the game.Now talking about it as a film... Well, let's see. All the characters are completely unappealing, uninteresting, and have nothing to offer to the audience. No reason to care what happens to them, etc etc etc. The acting is just as bad as the script. Which is absolutely HORRIBLE. These are those kind of one-liners where you don't laugh, you just want to hunt down the screenwriter and throw a noose around his neck and let him hang every time one of those one-liners gets spit out.The sets are cheap, boring, and cliché. You feel like you are watching a bunch of dudes at a laser tag place the whole time. Nothing REALLY happens throughout the entire movie. You will feel like men in spacesuits are just walking around this laser tag base with guns for 2 hours...for no reason. None of the big events occurring matter, and you won't care. The plot is so bad it feels like there isn't a plot at all.I didn't even like Resident Evil when that came out. It was a huge disappointment. Well...this movie feels like a cheap take on THAT film... Except lowered THREE grades.The special FX are for the most part...bullcrap. Some terrible terrible CGI. There is some decent gore throughout but not enough to make the viewing worthwhile whatsoever. It doesn't come close to making up for the attempts at ""acting"" and ""entertaining"" you will be witnessing on the screen.Most of the creatures in the movie...which don't appear till well after half way through... Aren't interesting, aren't that intimidating, aren't that creative, and don't compare whatsoever to the original game creatures, which were more like something that a genius like Clive Barker would think up.Basically i could pull a better movie out of my behind. Most TROMA films are better then this... I mean c'mon...that MEANS something. Take a hint, you guys.I say go out and get HELLRAISER...and SIN CITY or some other action movie like it. Mix the two together and you get what DOOM should have been.Instead, it's a just a TITLE used to make some money by a film crew who obviously have no real passion, care, or creativity whatsoever.This film is a complete waste of time. One of the worst movies i've ever seen in the theatres. No overexaggeration folks.","['13', '26']" +865,rw1199913,KevinTurner,Doom (2005),10.0,All Hell Breaks Lose,23 October 2005,1,"When the remake of Doom was announced every one wanted to get the game and the anticipation was high. The story line of the game changed a bit so it would be more ""Movie"" like, there for a movie was probably already in the works. The movie was similar to the game in that anticipation is what drove me(and my car) to the theater. I expected a crappy movie. What I got was Awesome. The action was great and it reminded me of ALiens in fact I think they took some stuff from Aliens, but I don't care it was sweet. The movie got your Adrenaline going and gets you all excited. The acting was decent, the sets and SFX were great.Dislikes: Some of the scenes were too fast, in a couple scenes they used too much shadow and darkness. (Spoiler) One of the Marines seemed too strong vs the Death Knight.Strong Likes: Even though the movie Seemed mindless, they were leading some place with explanation of what was going on, Unfortunalty the movie hit on the action more then the story which is being strongly developed through subtle clues.(spoiler) Through these little clues of what is happen and the Ending sequence the movie is wide open at the end. A sequel is coming and if anything like Aliens they will basically tell the audience what indeed did happened. I cant wait. This is a must see movie 10/10","['2', '6']" +866,rw1197929,lsdima,Doom (2005),3.0,the set looks like the game but similarities end there,20 October 2005,0,"Don't expect much from this movie. It has the feel of the video game, but the plot concepts are different and too much time is spent on exploration. It feels slow and broken up, like a sitcom. Often during character interactions I had the feeling of 'get on with it already, i don't care, go shoot something'. Usually its either a lot of firepower and action with less suspense/exploration (aliens,predator,deep rising) or less firepower and action and a lot of suspense/exploration (alien,relic,leviathan). This movie tries to have it both ways and fails miserably. The most annoying aspect of the movie was the characters. The rapid response team was more like a bunch of office workers on a paint ball outing and not like a team of trained marines at all. The movie picks up in the last 20 minutes, but the events that take place in those 20 minutes are completely inconstant with all that has happened before. Almost as if the producers just gave up and decided to take a completely different approach at the end. The 1st person view piece was like a trailer for a video game. Blah.But I must add that its definitely better then AVP.","['10', '28']" +867,rw1202201,siderite,Doom (2005),6.0,"Oh come on, you haven't played the game, have you?",26 October 2005,0,"This is a major disappointment to me. I like ""The Rock"", even if he is getting stuck into the whole action/comedy hero cast. I wonder why he chose to play in this movie.I've played the Doom series. I've only had a glimpse at Doom 3, but I've played Doom like games from Captain Keen and Wolfenstein to Quake. This movie is a cliché, alright, I never expected different, but compared to the game it sucks big time. The only cool action scene is at the end, where we see everything from a first person perspective like in the game, but it lacks any real connection to the character. We see a kid playing Doom rather than a person in the middle of all action.Except this particular scene you have all the regular things: monsters that can turn you into one of them, dark confined spaces with power outages (even if computers always seem to be running), big bad weapons that can't perform any better than a regular M16, screaming people after being caught by slimy growling monsters that you only see glimpses of, etc.The BFG was a complete failure, too. In the game it was a weapon that killed everything in its radius, leaving structures intact. That's why it's called Bio Force Gun (among others :) ). Here it is only good for making holes in the walls. The monsters are really zombies, with a few CGI enhanced exceptions.Come on! I know it was probably impossible to put a double barreled shotgun in a futuristic movie where all the action happens on Mars (in martian sewers. What's wrong with this picture?) but what about the plasma gun? We certainly have a chainsaw in the first person shooter scene, where did it come from on a research station? What about the rocket launcher?Conclusion: the movie is failing even as a cliché. Playing the game is way better.","['3', '7']" +868,rw1201903,abayes2,Doom (2005),8.0,Australian Preview - just got home!,26 October 2005,1,"Having just got home from the Melbourne preview (thanks Triple M!) I just had to put down a line or two about this movie. The most important thing to remember is that it is A MOVIE. This is not the game but a thoroughly separate entity and as such needs to be treated as such. The plot is sound, the usual send-in-the-tough-hombres to sort out the bad guys which in this case are genetically modified humans who turn into monsters suggestive of game based creatures. The actors really seem to be having a ball - especially the underrated twosome of Karl Urban and The Rock.The support did exactly that-which was to support the main characters and combined with a kick ass sound track,great cgi effects and a good dose of menace and thrills meant that the film,for me was a treat. The audience laughed out loud more than once to the cheesy one-liners which is always a good sign and no-one left early! Sadly some pretty juvenile 'game geeks' rated the movie as a game and gave it just 1 or 2 stars which is a shame for had they rated this just as a movie then it should have scored much higher than it is. Doom is a great way to spend an evening and is highly recommended!","['0', '1']" +869,rw1198453,HardCharger,Doom (2005),5.0,It is what it is.... I also checked spoiler but its mostly opinion related.,21 October 2005,1,"I enjoyed the movie for what it was. I gave this a 5 rating. I played the original game of Doom for HOURS and HOURS with my Dad.. lol. If the name of the movie wasn't Doom, I might not have even made the connection.The movie to me seemed like the normal bug hunt movie we all know and love. It's basically the same thing over and over and we all keep going back for more. This one had it's own little back-story and plot, but it all melts down to the same thing.I thought the special effects were pretty good and the story was good enough to support the reason for the assault team to be involved there. The thing that mostly bothered me was never really getting a good look at any of the monsters. The movie was Dark for most of the chase scenes and the not getting a good look at the monsters part didn't really leave you hoping to get a better glance.As far as it being a gamer film.. I don't think they overdid it. Like I say, I probably would not have even connected it to Doom from my experience with it anyway.The small part where they did the camera like a first person shooter though.. now that was cool. Gamer or not, you will most likely like it and if you are a gamer you will for sure. I especially liked how going round a corner had that flat effect it always has on me in game and how I tried to turn my head to make Reaper look around the corner faster, just like I do in the game. lol 5 though. Not great, but certainly an entertaining couple of hours for me.","['1', '12']" +870,rw1199109,riflemanm16a2,Doom (2005),1.0,Shouldn't be called DOOM,22 October 2005,0,"This movie has absolutely nothing to do with DOOM. The only similarities are that it takes place on mars in the UAC complex (the game actually takes place on Mars's moons, Phobos and Deimos) and that there is a gun called the BFG; that's where the similarities end (unless you count the name of the movie as a similarity). It's not really that the movie is bad; it's that the title, ""DOOM,"" is misleading. I went to the movie hyped about seeing a movie version of a great game but was very disappointed when there were only a couple hints at the game. I would recommend that fans of the game NOT see this movie because it is a waste of time; although, I know any fan of the game will still see it for himself despite my warning.","['3', '8']" +871,rw1197123,Movieguy_blogs_com,Doom (2005),4.0,"I would compare it to 'Resident Evil' meets 'Universal Soldier', not necessarily in a good way.",19 October 2005,0,"In 'Doom' the Rock is code named Sarge, commander of an elite Special Forces unit. His task is to take his team to Mars and contain the situation. The situation is more extreme than he realizes.This movie is loosely based on the computer game of the same name. I had low expectations and got what I expected. It was for the most part, a plot less shoot-em-up movie. Being a player of the original game, I noticed that they deviated considerably from its storyline. Instead of fighting fire-breathing demons, they are fighting genetically altered humans (I could go on...). The sets looked really small and like they were filmed in someone's basement. I think they could have done a much better job. I would compare it to 'Resident Evil' meets 'Universal Soldier', not necessarily in a good way.In its defense, I think fans of the Rock will like his character a lot. His role is a little bit of a departure from what he usually plays.","['5', '30']" +872,rw1200063,zerothegreat,Doom (2005),1.0,A Cliché'd Butchering of the Licence,24 October 2005,1,"I am a very big Doom fan, and with this script, the world's greatest acting could not have saved this movie. Just about the only thing this movie has in common with the amazing Doom series is the name. They make it into some stupid story involving chromosomes instead of a portal being open to hell. The ""Hell Knights"" are not actually from Hell, but are rather just genetic mutations, and the only other monster in the game is an odd interpretation of the pinky demon. The BFG looks and fires nothing like either incarnations of the weapon. Instead of a single marine, it's a whole team. They even include a martial arts fighting seen. Yep, you heard me.Aside from having nothing to do with Doom, this movie is sub-par anyway. The acting is over-dramatic and stupid, they try to get you to like or dislike certain characters but you don't care more than ""oh, that stinks."" They throw in a sappy brother sister thing. The plot as purely stand alone hardly makes sense and even for uneducated people would seem a little crazy. Aside from the ridiculous attempt at a plot and a 4 minute scene of first person action, I have scene everything in this movie before.If you're not a fan of Doom, you will leave feeling indifferent and not really entertained. If you are a fan of Doom, you will leave the theatre so upset I would advise not using any heavy machinery for at least 2 hours.","['6', '12']" +873,rw1207327,mmenne08,Doom (2005),10.0,I loved this movie,2 November 2005,1,"I am a big movie buff and a big action move fan, and I have to say I loved this movie, apart from the abrupt ending. I still feel they could have utilized at least a couple of minutes after the final scene to at least leave the door open for a sequel or leave some questions unanswered. I thought all the main guys meshed well together, and The Rick was very good in his role as Sarge. I also was very impressed with Urban's acting in the movie, he is a very talented actor and fit into the John Grimm role pretty well. All in all, I would definitely give this movie at least 9 out of 10, but as so many people have come on here and given it bad reviews and bad ratings, I thought I would give it a 10. I have seen A LOT worse, especially what some people consider good film, but when you look at this movie it was never meant to be a Hollywood Masterpiece - it was based on a violent video game about mutants and monsters, some people just don't see that. If you are a fan of the game, or action movies, then you will probably love this movie. Enjoy guys :)","['1', '3']" +874,rw1228751,rawstar,Doom (2005),6.0,Could have been great!,1 December 2005,1,"This had the potential of being a great movie, but as you see a lot when a game turns into a movie, it get's messed up in the Hollywood machine. Acting was good, I like these guys, they did a fine job, with the directing they had available, but some of the things in this movie really bugged me. For example, when he wakes up from the injection and goes into FPS model, I still don't know whether to hate that because it is way too corny, or love it because it's something that fits the whole theme. The monsters were way too poorly done, they're just giant flappy dolls. The fight scene at the end of the movie between our hero and foe, what is with that? Fight is somewhat decent, but it ends way too quickly. I never sat at the edge of my chair through this movie and I always knew what was coming, because this movie is so unbelievable predictable it hurts.To summarize: decent action flick, but nothing more, not even a decent sci-fi horror.","['4', '6']" +875,rw1197003,sunny_kshitij,Doom (2005),8.0,A movie worth to watch!!,19 October 2005,0,"hi buddiesDoom is the movie i have been waiting for for a very long time. It is really a nice sci-fi movie. The movie is only for guys who really like sci-fi special effect. The story itself; replete with sub-plot after sub-plot, rich in dialog and detail, was beyond anyone's greatest expectations. Everyone, including Andrzej Bartkowiak, expected this movie to fail. It is a timeless classic, which I will not repeat here. There are too many movie reviews giving full details of the plot, and I won't be redundant beyond what I have already said. And then there are the effects. The effects are so awesome; so creative; so ahead of their time, as to ensure this movie's vast success for the next forty years. Andrzej Bartkowiak enjoys an almost god-like status among sci-fi/fantasy fans worldwide.therefore i would seriously recommend that the movie is worth watching.i would rather give it 8/10 points overall.","['18', '44']" +876,rw1207656,vission-enterprises,Doom (2005),1.0,I'm glad I got my money back.,2 November 2005,1,"OK, this is my first review for a movie on IMDb.com, not that I dislike reviewing movies. I just don't ever have the time to write one but in the case of this movie, I felt compelled.First off, I consider myself a pretty big fan of the Doom PC series. I've played them all from the original, to II, to the Ultimate Doom and so forth, up to the recent Doom III, which was somewhat of a letdown in ways but nowhere near that of Doom: The Movie. I'm sad to say that because I was in high hopes of the movie, regardless of post discussion and people criticizing that The Rock was in it and not to mention previous video game to movie disasters, *Cough Tomb Raider, Resident Evil Cough*.My review from what I can remember (It's been a week or so & I've tried to forget).I went with a friend, 10:30PM (weekday). My friend already had low expectations but I tried to lift his spirits with encouragement that the movie would be good. The movie began, outer planet shots, then some scientists, something crazy happens, they all start screaming and running. Out of nowhere Rock music begins to play, not in unison with the scenes or anything. Guy locks the door before some other scientist can get in and her hand gets plopped off. Then off to title or whatever. I felt like after that scene, it was going to be some people filming a movie about the game, inside the movie. If you understand what I mean. I say this because the opening felt cheesy. At any rate, my friend wanted to leave but I encouraged him to stay more. We're only like 15mins into the movie at this point.Movie continues, Rock is introduced (YAY! No, not really) His performance is nothing special in this movie. I recall him blabbing about how his character would be so tough, tough as cotton candy. His acting was just bland and not believable. Maybe it was the script he had to work with but for some reason I doubt it. Supporting cast was about as good as the The Rock. Most of the movie is them walking around these endless hallways of what appears to be a labyrinth. I found only 2 monsters to my recollection in the entire movie and I didn't see the second one because I walked out 15mins before the movie ended (literally, 15min). Which I'll bet all the money I spent and got back that the best parts of the movie were in that last 15mins but I simply didn't want to pay to see them.The worst points I can recall of the movie were, one scene the marine's tac-light on his weapon just happens to go out ... similar to horror flicks when the person's flashlight goes out but the way it went in this movie was just dumb, no-one else had a problem with their tac-light(s), just him and some may say, oh it was the evil forces messing up his tac-light but whatever, seems like the rest of the marines used Energizer batteries and homeboy used the great value brand. Another scene, the marine falls into some pit, they said it was a holding cell or something, and then the 1 of 2 monsters goes after him, and he attempts to fire his gun at the monster and it what appears to JAM. His gun jams?!?!?! The marine has fired 0 shots since the beginning of when they appeared, so it isn't as though he ran out of ammo. So his gun JAMS and he is forced to then attempt to shoot it with his pistol before he is thrown, as I recall, then gets up and uses this 15ft or so cable that is connected to your average looking computer monitor, and continues to swing and beat this monster with it before of course getting killed. RIDICULOUS. WE HAVE FIREARMS THAT DON'T JAM. He is a marine, in the future with SPACESHIPS and his rifle JAMS. Whatever. They also cock their guns and say they are going in hot and loaded or whatever like 10x. I guess they felt the need to announce that each time to get the full effect. The FPS scenes I saw were so-so, nothing special, I did get the feeling at a point I was in the video-game, but then other times with all the first person turning around corners, I got a bit dizzy (might just be me). I more than likely missed the real FPS scenes that were in the last 15mins, probably. I missed the storyline, if there was one BESIDES the fact there was no communication to the scientists and blah blah blah. I never really saw real characteristics of the game besides the BFG, which appeared to be a footprint in the movie. Oh, I forgot to mention, cheesy rock music did begin to play out of nowhere in action sequences, etc.In the end, Doom was crap. I'm glad I got my money back for the hour+ I wasted. Rent it if you really feel the need to. I hope this review was helpful, I tried to cover everything I could remember and wanted to. My apologies for any bad grammar, spellings, etc. In bit of a rush.","['32', '64']" +877,rw1198359,shermstix,Doom (2005),10.0,"I loved it, but could see how those not familiar with the game would not.",21 October 2005,0,"This movie is fantastic. I was very skeptical when I had seen the previews and read the sneak preview reviews. So I went in expecting the worst and was pleasantly surprised. The basis for the game was that scientists working for the UAC in a facility on mars have found and opened a portal to hell. The movie is more of a genetic experiment gone wrong, but with a nice twist on the whole evil thing that gets explained in the film. A side from the minor difference in story, the movie holds very true to the game. I felt like the sets were very detailed, many of which could have been pulled directly from Doom3 (the Pinky Demon's legs were a little off though...). The acting is very well done and there are many scenes in the movie that you will jump out of your seat during. I felt myself get very absorbed into the film. The majority of the film is standard third person perspective with about a 10 minute segment toward the end that is in first person. I read that some felt sick afterward, but the scene was so short that I am unsure of how. If you liked the original ""Resident Evil"" film, then you will love this movie. I would not recommend it to the squeamish though, because it is very gruesome as Doom is obviously known for. This film is well made, well directed and revolutionary with its first person perspective. I say thumbs up!","['8', '20']" +878,rw1198657,uthlan113,Doom (2005),1.0,Don't waste your money,21 October 2005,0,"Worse than Manos the Hands of Fate. I would rate it lower than a 1 if that was possible. I'll never have those 2 hours of my life back. It is so clichéd and poorly executed that it was unenjoyable. None of the characters were likable or had sympathetic qualities. Even the ""clever"" references to the games were so heavy handed and blatant that it made me cringe. I would urge anyone who was thinking of seeing this movie to pick any other movie at the theater and see that instead. I've never had this much problem watching any of the Rock's other movies, but after this experience, I think I'll wait for showings on basic cable to see anything starring any of the actors involved in this movie.","['4', '15']" +879,rw1201961,McNellis21,Doom (2005),6.0,Doom was Doomed...,26 October 2005,0,"I liked the movie. Though I must admit, I walked out of Doom with a sour taste in my mouth, and it wasn't from the popcorn my friends. Doom was Doomed due to the lack of story. To any who may read this, if you are looking for a movie with story, don't watch Doom. Go dust off your copy of Homeward Bound (you'd probably be better off). However if you are looking for a movie with killer effects, then my friend you have come to the right place. The effects in this movie were awesome. I must say I have seen better action movies. Nothing really special about the action in this movie, and the suspense is mild.I give The Rock props. I thought he did an awesome job in this movie. The Rock carries this movie. It's just a shame that his performance is overshadowed by the story & script. Furthermore, it's just too bad the guys who wrote the script felt as though they could use the ""F word"" every five seconds and produce a killer script. Sadly, if you want to make an action movie it doesn't take much more than that.Foul Language + Explosions + Tough guy with attitude = Action The man in Hollywood who came up with that formula forgot one minor detail, and that is ""STORY"". You can have all the action you want, but without story to tie it all together. Who really cares? In Doom you don't really connect to the characters, and it's halfway through before you start to grasp what is going on. Had the writers invested a little more time in the story, there is a chance that the audience could have connected to at least Gimm and his sister before the last seven minutes of this flick.Perhaps I left this movie with a sour taste in my mouth due to the fact that I wasted a good six bucks on this movie. I would recommend to my friends to wait till the movie hits the dollar theater, and I'll make the same recommendation to all of you who read this.","['0', '2']" +880,rw1234669,abes33,Doom (2005),5.0,Good Directional Talents/Rubbish Script,10 December 2005,0,"Bartkowiak knows what he's doing, there's no doubt about that. The camera-work is good in the film, even the infamous ""FPS sequence"" must've taken some degree of skill to execute. Alas, the film has been cursed by the usual cheesy script that we've come to know and hate. It's those unneeded one-liners - which you'd think might fit a movie about the DOOM video-game (because the game itself is full of them) - that are just so frequent and repetitive they really top the awful bits off in this movie.I was surprised to see Dexter Fletcher of all people, and I'm still not sure whether his accent in the film was American or English, if it was an attempt at the former it was so bad it just confused me.Anyway, I see Bartkowiak directing some superior films in his future career, he's not bad at all. I wasn't won-over by this video-game adaptation, but at least he's not another Uwe Boll!!! A worthy attempt, but wandering away from the Doom ethos like the script-writer has done was not a smart move.","['0', '0']" +881,rw1202160,dee.reid,Doom (2005),6.0,"""Doom"" isn't doomed quite yet",26 October 2005,0,"First of all, I'd like to start this out by stating I have played ""Doom."" I own ""Doom,"" and I like playing it, a lot. And if my day was not so busy, I'd probably play it after I was done writing this review, but business must come before pleasure, I'm afraid.Unlike others, however, I wasn't introduced to the sci-fi shoot'-em-up hyper-violence of ""Doom"" through the PC. No, my introduction to it was through the Sony Playstation (not that I think it really matters). That's probably the only difference between me and legions of other hardcore players. Differences abound in this latest video game adaptation, which is titled ""Doom.""In ""Doom,"" the movie, much of the action is set on Mars in the future, and after the opening credits, you can read the subtitle that says where on Mars, and that's the last mention of it anywhere in the film. There is one glorious visual effects shot of the Universal logo spinning in space, as the Red Planet, and the camera zooms its way to the rocky, dead, red, and dusty surface.At this point, it's wise to not expect anything more that is as crafty from ""Doom,"" since, logically, it's about as deep as it gets. It's a movie based on a video game; how ""deep"" can it get? Just consider the plot, which is not really anywhere close to that of the games: sometime in the next century, scientists on Earth discover a portal, called the ""Ark,"" which opens a gateway that leads to a similar device on Mars.As the film opens, a bunch of men and women in lab coats are running away from an unseen, malevolent presence that chases them all down, leaving one scientist (and part of a woman's arm that got cut off by the door) to send a distress call to Earth before he is attacked by that Unseen Force. On Earth, the distress call is picked up and RRF (Radical Response Team, or something similar - I'm not sure) is ordered to journey to Mars and figure out what's going on.Led by Sarge (The Rock, who somehow has yet to join the ranks of other big-muscle archetypes), once they arrive on the Red Planet they are met by others who have managed to quarantine certain portions of the facility, and down they go into its labyrinth of tunnels and laboratories, with blonde archaeologist Samantha (Rosamund Pike) in tow. Her brother, the appropriately named Grimm (Karl Urban), is also one of the members on Sarge's team, who include the obligatory macho veterans and at least one unseasoned young guy. But they discover that the labs are in shambles, and there is blood everywhere. Something is very wrong, yet they continue because they're soldiers, and they have a job to do. They walk in and out of dark corridors and wind up waist-high in sludge at certain points, and they soon start getting offed by hideous genetic mutations, zombies and other sci-fi/horror nasties.""Doom,"" as directed by Andrzej Bartkowiak (whose previous credits include the Jet Li action flicks ""Romeo Must Die"" and ""Cradle 2 the Crave""), gets a lot mileage from the buildup, which unfortunately never amounts to a big payoff. The opening scenes on Mars are quite tension-filled but somehow never gets around to full ""Doom""-mode. Gore is plentiful, so the hounds should be pleased, though core audience members will be understandably disappointed.As I stated earlier, I am a huge player of the video games and I try to adopt a fair approach when judging an adaptation by sticking with its merits and not making redundant comparisons to the source material. It's eventually revealed the monsters (completely discarding the titanic Cyber-demon, arrgh) are mutations and not otherworldly beasts from Hell, which would have allowed the story to make a lot more sense and be more believable. I'm not keen on genetics so I'm not getting into specifics about scientific accuracy.Also, core fans may be disappointed by the lack of actual ""Doom""-style shoot-'em-up. It's best they don't go in expecting ghouls and other Hell beings to be popping out from every corner and surprising you, and the use of firepower (especially Sarge's BFG - ""big f**king gun"") is a little light for some tastes. The dialogue is also quite ludicrous at points and highly questionable, and it often consists largely of four-letter expletives beginning with ""F."" But there is one plus: There is a genius sequence where the action shifts to FPS (first-person shooter, the style of gaming the original 1993 ""Doom"" is famous for pioneering), and the character takes on the vicious nasties, unloading clip after clip until he eventually goes toe-to-toe with one beast and even resorts to the use of that beloved chainsaw (yeah, baby). But that's about as creative as it gets, unfortunately.Is ""Doom"" a failure? That depends, mostly on who watches it - fans, or those who have no idea what the hell it is; the latter folks are the ones most likely to enjoy it a lot a more. Did I like it? Despite its deviations from the source material, yes, though quite grudgingly. If you were able to sit through the ""mild entertainment"" of ""Mortal Kombat"" (1995), which happens to be a personal favorite of mine and not its sequel, and both of the ""Resident Evil"" films, then you should have no problem watching ""Doom.""6/10","['1', '7']" +882,rw1197495,pharaohkalb,Doom (2005),7.0,the best game to movie translation to date,19 October 2005,1,"Which isn't saying to much. However this movie did accomplish a number of things that other game to movie translations failed horribly at. Resident Evil ended up being just like every other zombie flick. They even had zombies popping out of the ground on the second one (which didn't make any sense at all, i mean decayed bodies busting through a coffin and 6 feet of dirt, come on). Tomb Raider was just boring...period, i really didn't care about a single character in the film and almost fell asleep by the end. I'm not even going to talk about AvP because lets face it, anything is better then that abysmal film. This film however does a very good job at capturing the feeling of Doom and actually keeps me interested in whats happening.First of all, some people are complaining about the changes in the plot from DOOM 3. First of all, this film never promised to be a Doom 3 movie so i wasn't expecting it to be. However the reasons for changing a portal to hell into a genetic experiment is difficult to fathom. It would have been just as easy to do a film with hell involved. However this problem aside i think that the reasons for having a squad instead of a single soldier is obvious. A movie needs discussions, drama and breaks in the action. A single soldier with non stop action would have put the entire audience to sleep with its repetition. Also people have said that it ripped off Aliens, but then again, the original Doom even said that it was largely based on Aliens so whatever.All and all it was an alright movie, the PoV scene was pretty tight but the film could have used demons, and more then just Imps.","['2', '13']" +883,rw1199882,spyder1529,Doom (2005),3.0,A Doom Fan Extremely Disappointed....,23 October 2005,0,"OK....seeing as its David Callaham's first screenplay and story, I was willing to walk into the theater with a sort of ""open mindedness"". Although this movie is supposed to be entirely based off a game. There is definitely a large fan base that was brought up with this game, myself included. Therefore when the plot was dramatically changed from the game it was a huge disappointment and let down to me. One thing that really bugs me about ""scary"" movies these days is that there is no build up to the action. In this movie in particular there is hardly any in depth explanation to anything that is going on, its all sort of mentioned on the fly to patch the many holes in the plot. It sucks, and makes the characters/situations a whole lot less identifiable.If you are looking to go see a movie based on the classic doom plot, this movie is way off and a waste of money. First off this movie primarily looked like DOOM 3, and honestly it did look great. Although I mainly didn't like the movie because the plot of DOOM 3 includes Hell. It seems that Callaham has absolutely no guts, rather than being slightly controversial and including this concept he decided to skirt around it by adding a ridiculous virus to the plot.Another thing that bothered me about this film was the fact that it looked a ton like Resident Evil (the movie). They both kind of started off the same (people getting extremities caught in doors), and ended the same (elevator/tram out of the complex). There was also a lot of zombie shooting...I don't know...Doom really just went for cheap thrills. Oh I almost forgot the Marines that were supposed to be an elite fighting force seem like a bunch of random dudes with guns. This cast really does not make me believe at all that these characters are Marines.Well, the novelty of this film died when the first zombie did...It's kind of tragic though because this movie had a ton of potential, next time let any random DOOM fan write the script, most likely it will turn out better.If you still want to see it, please SAVE MONEY and RENT IT...you'll see what I'm talking about.","['15', '31']" +884,rw1201380,pyro-22,Doom (2005),2.0,Worst then expected,25 October 2005,1,"I gave this movie 2 because of two reasons: first - BFG effect was created very good (same goes to some other doom3 elements). second - at least they tried.Acting is bad, dialog's are even worse.For gods sake it's not an comedy - it's supposed to be at least as good as good was doom3.Did I tell that this movie didn't include gate to hell? Well - it doesn't. What about genetic mutations? I didn't notice them in game.This movie was cheap remake of resident evil (like deep evil).If they asked some doom fan to write the script, then it wouldn't include some really stupid bugs about doom. like the one about some weird space travel after which you must throw up, or one about stupid/too smart space marines, or one about genetic mutations, or the most funny one - nano-hi-tech-whatever-wall - wtf is that?","['5', '11']" +885,rw1234933,knuckles_and_sonic,Doom (2005),7.0,Quite Enjoyable,10 December 2005,0,"I saw this movie a little while ago and it actually wasn't that bad,there was gore,action,guns and monsters which made it rather enjoyable. The Rock was perfectly cast in this movie as the sarge.I did feel the jokes were a bit lame but that wasn't anything really important.The action sequences were done quite well although they could have made those scenes last a bit more. If your looking for a movie with a great plot then don't watch this but if you just want to see an enjoyable action movie then watch this. The acting was done well.The monsters looked like they do in the game but there was only a limited amount of monsters,we usually get to see the same ones so for the next movie (if there will be one) I believe they should add some variation to the monsters. Overall an enjoyable movie. If your looking for an action movie with monsters,guns,blood,gore then watch this.","['1', '1']" +886,rw1237227,quake53,Doom (2005),7.0,Good enough to see twice!,13 December 2005,0,"There have been some good adaptations of games into films, Mario Bros was good, Mortal Kombat is watchable and Resident Evil is just *GREAT*, but this is DooM and currently, film-wise, there is this evil trend of some really good ideas in films and having them dumbed down into the dreaded PG-13 certificate to enable a greater audience.So, now, DooM was in production and I was half and half about seeing it. The DooM fan in me wanted to but the film part, having seen other dumbed down travesties, like Street Fighter, was a little dubious. The idea of seeing many of DooMs bestiary being bludgeoned by weapons like the shotgun or sawed in half with the chainsaw or even having the impression of being chased down a darkened corridor by a beastly (and bloody huge) Hell Knight - thanks to the new, and updated, monsters from the DooM 3 game being brought into the film - was just overly exciting.The monsters in the film are VERY nice, since they were done in Stan Winston's Creature Shop and enough CGI has been used, but not overly like most films who seem to go CGI crazy and ruin the feel of the film. There is also the complaint, in current film making, that not enough blood is used in certain films that deserve it, which isn't lacking in the film, thankfully! The films storyline is well written and executed, despite that it isn't the same as the game, which is slightly disappointing but with the way films are nowadays and the constant worry of the executives you really shouldn't complain. There aren't enough shots of Mars itself and the film DID take that away but please remember that this is the films first outing and first trial. There is a sequel planned if the film is successful and thats what sequels are there for. Think about it...more monsters, more FPS style shots and more shots of Mars (like unexplored complexes in Mars).","['2', '2']" +887,rw1201458,CIMC,Doom (2005),4.0,Dumb,25 October 2005,1,"In theory one could make a film this year about what Martians are like. It could be a well- shot and directed, finely acted story. It would still feel out of place though because we known that Martians do not exist. It's kind of like when a Doom character, and a scientist no less, states that, ""the final ten percent of the human genome"" has yet to be mapped. That's simply not true and hasn't been since April 14, 2003. ""Some say it's the soul."" Really? Who? Anachronisms can be cute sometimes but here, and in sci-fi generally, they're just stupid.Something terrible has happened in the Union Aerospace Corporation's research facility on Mars. Now Sarge (The Rock) has received orders to prepare his team of mercenaries, known as the Rapid Response Tactical Squad, to go through ""the Ark"" and retrieve data and any remaining members of the research team. The last message received was from Dr. Carmack who called for a total quarantine. It seems that something was hunting his team. Something that alternately came out of the Aliens prop library or George Romero's stash of zombies.Instead of having any personality each of the characters has a quirk or two. Goat (Ben Daniels) for example is a guy who prays and mutters religious verses. Unsurprisingly, he does not look highly upon Portman (Richard Brake) who is a porn or sex addict of some sort and has bad teeth. Duke (Razaaq Adoti) is a playful fun guy while The Kid's (Al Weaver) defining characteristic is that he is youngish looking. John Grimm (Karl Urban) comes along too despite having an unpleasant personal history of sorts with the place they are going to. Unbeknownst to him, his sister Dr. Samantha Grimm (Rosamund Pike) is going to be a guide for the group. This is the ""drama"" of the film. Will they reconcile their differences? Will they come to terms with their parents' deaths? Will their accents remain the same throughout the film? Is the audience likely to care? 'No' to the last two questions and the others aren't worth the time to investigate.For those readers who thought the first paragraph contained an analogy, sorry to say that it doesn't. Martians do figure prominently in Doom. They apparently are the source of human life on Earth as well, an origin story only slightly more plausible than creationism. With all the nonsense going in the film it's hard to notice the dialogue, which is probably for the best. Any film that says stuff like, ""Semper fi motherf*****!"" is likely to seem a little off. It would have been humorous at least if Sarge had instead used all English words, ""Always faithful motherf*****!"" Alas comedy is largely beyond the collective abilities of the filmmakers. Doom does have it's moments, as when Destroyer (Deobia Oparei) uses a computer monitor as a flail, but it needs a lot more of them.","['0', '2']" +888,rw1201197,dr_foreman,Doom (2005),3.0,Send it back...it needs more creatures!,24 October 2005,0,"I'll give you two reasons to see Doom: 1. The Rock is cool. 2. Rosamund Pike is foxy.Wow...I'm done! There's nothing else to recommend about this dreary little movie. It's not exciting, it's not scary, the SFX aren't impressive and the screenplay is entirely derivative of Aliens and Resident Evil. But is it a good adaptation of the classic ""first-person shooter"" game, you ask? Well...yes and no. Like the game Doom, the movie Doom is dark and claustrophobic and deeply disturbing. Like the game, the movie is crass and gross and perhaps on the wrong side of good taste. But, you know, I enjoyed playing the game, excessive as it was. I didn't really enjoy the movie.What went wrong? I'll tell you what. There's not enough creatures in the movie. The game is packed, wall-to-wall, with cool demons - pig demons, minotaur demons, flaming skull demons. The movie basically features only one creature, a lumbering thing barely glimpsed in the shadows.Where's the fireball-lobbing Imps? The floating, one-eyed Cacodemons? Hollywood wimped out completely with this one. All we get in this lame-o adaptation are the same boring zombies that've been cluttering up the silver screen for about five years now. It's the creatures, stupid! I wanted more creatures.The movie also should take place partially in Hell...y'know, like the game does. Turning the villains into genetic mutations is a pointless dulling of the original Doom concept.All that aside, I did enjoy a few key scenes - diamonds in the gloomy rough. The interplay between Pike and Karl Urban is genuinely warm and believable. It's an interesting twist that the hero and heroine are brother and sister instead of - ho-hom - a romantic item. I also appreciate the Rock's slow descent into ruthlessness. His moral debates with the other soldiers are decent drama.But for every good scene, there's at least three scenes of a pointless, lousy character like Portman taking drugs or going to the bathroom. Tacky stuff, man.Did I expect a masterpiece? Nah. But I expected to be more entertained than I was. Ultimately, all I got outta Doom was a headache, and a desire to see its charismatic leads in another movie.","['2', '9']" +889,rw1206381,tobias-ljungstrom,Doom (2005),8.0,The best video game movie so far.,31 October 2005,0,"When you think Doom you don't think plot. You don't think touching story lines and clever scripting. You don't think about dialog. You think about monsters, blood, adrenaline, action, shooting, explosions, cyberdemons and the Big F***ing Gun. And in this movie, it's all delivered to you.Encountering evil on mars is as good as ever. Though to make the movie watchable there is now a team of soldiers instead of a single marine, which gives a different feel of course. This is not necessarily negative, but you wonder how a film would be if there was almost only one guy in it. Along with the monsters of course. The movie doesn't get involved in too much feelings and relations, other than rather basic and simple situations, which helps enforce the ""mindless action"" since you don't really have to think that much.There are also many lovely special effects in this movie. The classic ""window-teleporters"" from quake, here called nano walls, work nice, as does the BFG and the gory monsters. But the best part is when the whole movie turns into an actual First Person Shooter, only looking so much more realistic.","['0', '1']" +890,rw1226782,raginfanz,Doom (2005),7.0,First person fun.,28 November 2005,0,"What I find hilarious is that the biggest majority of people voted for 10/10 19.8% maybe loyalists to the game but also some people vote 1/10 this means they are mad at the film because if they believe this to be less than 4/10 i can recommend some shocking films that you'd apparently prefer to watch. It didn't deserve less than 6 for sure the first person aspect was damn good, even if some other areas lacked.What was disappointing was that its not nearly anywhere near as scary as the game, indeed not really that scary at all, Doom fans will either appreciate or feel let down by this and go home and create their own better movie , but those new to the whole prospect should feel fairly satisfied.(Females under 18 voted it the best.)","['0', '1']" +891,rw1202255,bfg9001,Doom (2005),8.0,Quite Good,26 October 2005,0,"I really enjoyed this movie; it was a fun action flick. Sure, there was no hell, but I thought it faithful enough. The sets looked awesome, the monsters looked like the ones in the game (Doom 3,) and they had the BFG, but it could've been used more often. Another great thing about it was the action was constant and never let down. Plus, the blood and violence was just fantastic! The end also has a really cool twist. The acting, on the other hand, was just par; nothing spectacular, nothing overly-crappy; it was just average. Also, if you think about it, hell is in there metaphorically... Anyone one wishing to hear more about this, just drop me a message!","['0', '2']" +892,rw1200456,yellowbrute,Doom (2005),1.0,What did they do?,23 October 2005,0,"For a movie it was OK but for anyone who played the game this movie sucked, only imps and one pinky demon in it cmon. what happened to the cyberdemon, hell nights and arch viles. Doom is about demons coming for an opening to hell not just mutations. there are supposed to b floating demons and teleporting ones but were they in the movie of course not. for Doom video game fans this movie was a waste of time. OK now if your a fan of just sci fi movies this would be OK to see maybe when it comes out on video to rent it. but even for a movie it wasn't that great. and i wont tell you what it was but the ending of the movie was one of the worst endings i've ever seen. All i could think when it was over was ""wow are you serious i've been waiting 10 years for a Doom movie and when i finally get one i get that?"" Oh of course the rock is the man just like he is in walking tall and the rundown it wasn't his fault the movie stunk. all i've got to say is ID software must be crying about the way that movie came out.","['6', '12']" +893,rw1227723,The_Void,Doom (2005),6.0,"It's not saying much, but this may be the best video game adaptation so far",29 November 2005,0,"I'll start off this review by saying that I've never been a big fan of the video game 'Doom'. In truth, I only ever played it a couple of times, years and years ago, and never really got into it because I'm not all that keen on first person shooters (with the exception of Unreal Tournament) and besides; Doom's competitor, Quake, was better. Anyway, all this basically means that I cant compare the film to the game because I can't remember enough of the latter - but as a stand alone movie, Doom massively exceeded the low expectations I had for it, and turned out to be quite a good movie! As you will probably expect going into this film; there's a lack of logic, substance and general intelligence - but Doom makes up for this with big guns, cheesy one liners and some rather nifty special effects, which all contribute to making this the action packed Sci-Fi that a film called 'Doom' and starring ex-wrestler The Rock should be. The plot, or rather excuse for lots of monster blasting, is that a research facility on Mars has run into a few problems after something murders all the scientists working there. Hence, The Rock and his team of soldiers must save the day! The Rock certainly isn't a great actor, but he has the physique and style for a movie like this, and although much of his 'acting' is cringe-worthy, seeing the big guy fire big guns into big monsters makes up for that nicely. Karl Urban stars opposite The Rock in his first starring role, and like his co-star; delivers the action well. Of course, this is an action film - and the real stars of the show are the special effects and action set pieces. The effects are really rather good, and while we never really get a good look at the monsters before the MTv-style camera gets bored and moves on to something else (usually about 0.2 seconds after every shot), what we do see is quite convincing. The props and sets look nice, and this is made even better by the dark style. The only thing wrong with the atmosphere of the film is that it's a little TOO claustrophobic, and I had a hard time buying the idea of the film being set on a different planet, in the future. The action is largely exciting, with the innovative, and really rather good, first person shooting sequence being the movie's flagship segment. My main gripe with this film is that after a pretty good first eighty minutes, it just sort of fizzles out in a familiar macho action affair, and it kinds of undoes what went before it. However, you can't expect much from video game movies; but this one blows the likes of Resident Evil and Mortal Kombat completely out of the water. Doom is perhaps the closest a video game adaptation 'genre' has got to a masterpiece.","['2', '6']" +894,rw1217946,Dr. Gore,Doom (2005),,Should have tried harder,16 November 2005,1,"*SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT*I had high hopes that ""Doom"" would be a little better than the usual B-movie I find myself watching. I thought it would show a little more imagination. Nope. It is as run of the mill as it gets. I have seen this type of movie many, many times before. ""Doom"" is yet another entry in a long line of cheap creature features. You know, the ones that have soldiers walking through government labs with flashlights on the end of their guns as monsters pop out of the darkness and kill them one by one. ""Doom"" has the look and feel of a cheesy B-movie that should have gone straight to video. There should have been a little more effort made to keep ""Doom"" from falling headfirst into B-movie oblivion. What a shame. So The Rock and some other soldiers head to a government outpost and run into some monsters. The rest of the movie writes itself. Monsters, soldiers with big guns, bang, splat, AAAAGGHH! The only thing remotely interesting in this one is a five minute stretch where the movie emulates the first person shooter feel of the game. This amused me for a little bit. The rest of ""Doom"" has a sprinkling of gore but doesn't even remotely capture the nonstop horror carnage of the game. Needless to say, I was disappointed in this one. B-movie all the way, ""Doom"" has some gore effects and a few nasty scenes but it's not enough to save it. It can be skipped.","['4', '12']" +895,rw1224747,danixdefcon5,Doom (2005),9.0,"Hey, its DooM with an E(vil)-Virus!",25 November 2005,1,"Well, I have to begin with saying that the movie by itself was good. Despite going in a very different tangent than the Videogames (no hell, and well at least as far as I remember the teleport device was only in Phobos and Deimos, maybe Mars in Doom3 which I haven't played), the movie itself had a decent plot line.Hell, this is the FIRST damn science-experiment-gone-wrong movie where the quarantine procedures actually WORK! Olduvai Station is fully operational when the RRTS guys go in, it isn't overrun except well, the sector where all hell broke loose (no pun intended). Plus, when they find out there is something inhuman in the area, they do not hesitate. They evacuate the whole complex. Quick thinking! No shitty ""they got killed b/c some jackass didn't tell them to run in time"". (Though what happens later is independent from these decisions, ya know?) However, they could've kept most of the original storyline w/o having to totally keep the ""from hell"" explanation. The Doom Novelization books were 100% sci-fi, and used an interesting gimmick to explain this as ""genetically produced demons"", based on what the aliens knew humans were afraid of.But oh well, it was OK, even if there was no hell. Still would've liked the original Doom1 setting ... the Phobos and Deimos moons. Cause Phobos means FEAR and Deimos, TERROR. Now that is some setting!!!","['0', '1']" +896,rw1196985,kinslr,Doom (2005),8.0,New try in a game based movie -genre!,18 October 2005,0,"Well we all know that this is a computer game based movie. I didn't have any prejudices for the movie so I expected some average or OK and entertaining movie. I wasn't totally wrong but I liked it. It was very faithful to the Doom III the PC game. The story was almost same and the environment was very similar. If you liked the game then you like the style of the movie. Story was not so surprising but as an old PC gamer I personally liked the story. I was wondering if The Rock could handle his role but he did it pretty good. A little evil The Sarge. Cold and vicious team leader, The Sarge, that's him! The story though had pretty good turn up after a while. I didn't expect that and it was totally surprise. Finally the one and only First-Person scene was the dot above I was perfect. Players of old Doom's might like it ;) I loved it. Only scene I waited for and it was worth it! I suggest this movie to all those who wants to enjoy very faithful game-based a bit over average science fiction-action movie with some kick-ass firepower! (BFG) Semper Fi Motherf****r! (Sorry about my typos. I'm not perfect!)","['26', '60']" +897,rw1208956,DarkSkyX,Doom (2005),5.0,Resident Evil with a different cast,4 November 2005,0,"To sum up shortly: If you've seen Resident Evil (another movie based on a video game) you've seen this. Not to say it isn't worth watching (renting, as I'd advise against paying theaters prices to see it). Same plot - a biotech firm has something go bad, nobody knows what's going on, insert trigger happy soldiers, fight the mutated monsters and try to escape. ""The Rock"" 's character was a bit underdeveloped. It was hinted towards his take-orders-blindly attitude at the beginning, but this is taken the absolute extreme at the end, which I found was a bit too out of character. The effects were good, the acting of the 2 main characters (Urban and Pike) was as good as it could be given the genre of the movie. Towards the end you got about 5mins of video-game-style (1st person shooter) camera work. Don't expect much plot, which is basically ""Don't let any bad guys leave the research facility. Period."" Simply put, if you're the type of person that liked the video games ""Doom"" you'll like the movie. If you just watched Resident Evil, you'll suffer from severe deja vu.","['1', '2']" +898,rw1229528,iamsam103,Doom (2005),4.0,"Better than the Resident Evil films, which ain't saying much!",2 December 2005,0,"I'll start off with the positive things first, as this film does have themThe Special effects were nicely done, not groundbreaking in anyway, but I feel were used well, the creatures were kept mysteriously in the dark and the film didn't dwell on the SFX, therefore making the creatures more believable. - The concept of the FPS scene was good, even though it became quite boring (imagine watching a friend playing doom...and you get the idea). - The gore and violence was up to scratch, unlike in the Resi films. This film, although could have done more, knew the audience was expecting violence, and so they delivered. - Rosamund Pike :)OK now the negative bits...The ending turned into a Mortal Kombat rip-off, 2 people, super powers = crappy fight sequence. - The story pretty much taking the setting of Doom and the enemies, but changing round the reasons. Instead of hell being unleashes, it is now an extra chromosome reacting negatively to test subjects, and then those subjects infecting others. - The film, although had some suspense, can't really qualify as a horror anymore than Resident Evil can classify as a classic alongside the original Night Of The Living Dead. It would have been nice if the suspense was taken a step further instead of the film seeming almost rushed to kill off its characters. - It has a very abrupt ending, it would have been nice if the ending would have been extended and fleshed out so it left the audience thinking ""ok its finished"" instead of ""is it over?""Overall, I was disappointed. I'll admit I am not a fan of the game, but I am a huge film and game fan..although it was better than the Resident Evil films, that still isn't saying much and I am just hoping there isn't going to be a sequel in the pipe-line.","['0', '1']" +899,rw1198649,ryuliong,Doom (2005),8.0,Worth watching,21 October 2005,0,"I think a lot of comments here reflect what I feel about the movie. It's entertaining and definitely one of the better game-to-movie adaptations out there. The movie takes elements from the game and uses it to create a tight plot and fast paced action. It doesn't give you all the explanations immediately, to keep you interested, and it doesn't leave you with too many unanswered questions in the end either.Just some responses to a few things a lot of gamers were complaining about.Complaint: It's not set in Mars Response: IT ISComplaint: There are no space marines Response: There are marines, and they're in space. Does it really matter?Complaint: There aren't any demonsResponse: Well, it depends on what you'd consider demons. If a portal opened up with creatures from the unknown spewing out... how could you tell if that was some alien planet or hell itself? Besides, the movie gives a nice (though simplified) differentiation between the creatures in Doom from, say, the zombies in Resident Evil.","['4', '17']" +900,rw1197796,dplunkie,Doom (2005),7.0,Better than I expected,20 October 2005,1,"Several previous movies from games, and games from movies, have been major dogs in the past. With my expectations reduced I went to see this with my son who has played Doom 3 more than I have.I was pleasantly surprised at both the story arc, the action, the direction and the cinematography. The dark mood on screen was reminiscent of the game and invoked the same suspense. Bartkowiak does a good job of bringing that in-game feeling to the big screen, without filming the whole movie in the First Person role - though if you've seen the trailers... What an excellent homage to the game.The special effects are good as they don't detract from the action - you aren't constantly picking out what is an effect and how it was done. Though there is a lot of violence and gore (hey, look at the game though!) they are done, er, tastefully - not too over the top, just what is needed for each scene.The Rock, though not the greatest acting talent of this century, does a good job of portraying Sarge - a character right up his alley from his WWE performances. Karl Urban does a good job as well in fighting his own demons as his character. The rest of the rag-tag group, along with Rosamond Pike, flesh out the story of this video game into something almost believable in the sci-fi frontiers. It helps to know the game, and see some of the in-game characters, locales, events and monsters come to life, but this movie can stand alone - hey, maybe it will even sell more games!","['5', '18']" +901,rw1205163,DLH_interface,Doom (2005),5.0,Sad...,25 October 2005,1,"Well, where should I start. Chronologically sounds great...The beginning was decent - quick to the beginning and the story behind Grimm and co. However, their suits reminded me more of S.W.A.T., and not a Space marine from the game. No one did too bad with their character, but it was more 'over the top' so to speak - they were trying too hard with the 'crazy' look, and how in the hell would someone like ""The Kid"" end up as a friggin space marine??? The Rock was better in The Rundown in terms of an action movie, but for playing a villain, he didn't do too bad.Genetics - how much more Resident Evil can you get?? Aside from the 3 demons they used from the game, and how cute it was they kept 'Pinky' in the script, its not much more than a rip off of Resident Evil and your money. I had more fun getting the Gamboy DS from a vending machine than watching the action. The Hellknight fight scene was a great scene - I give them that, but where's the green balls those things hover at you?? Oh I forgot, the movie is not about going to Hell. I guess Universal didn't want a NC-MORAL MAJORITY rating. Hence, they lost their fan base.I did like the encorporations of 'God Mode' and 'Deathmatch'. 'God Mode' in which he's injected with the C24, fights Pinky, gets his ass whooped, and lives. 'Deathmatch' as in Grimm VS Sarge, and how Sarge kept his human form until the end of the fight - nice touch. What would have been better? A little bit more delicacy to the 1st Person Perspective, and maybe a little longer - MASH did a great job with 'Point Of View' (Season 7). Maybe the production staff should have watched how great actors and directors did it. And they should have went back to 1st Person during the death-match - that would have gotten me all tingly from what was left of my boredom. One thing I did catch on, and loved, was the cover of the theme from the very first level of the very first Doom game - coming from a musician, that was sweet. And The Rock - not bad for his first villain role. ""SEMPER FI, MOTHER F...ER!!"" - ha ha, he made a funny.I also appreciate the fact that they used less Computer-Graphically-Enhanced features than most movies these days. It would have been impossible to do without it for Pinky, but I appreciate it. I think all directors and producers should start going old-skool with their production. Compare 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' and 'Terminator 3', and you tell me whats a better movie. Cowabunga, bitch.The movie, as bad as they butchered the true story, not bad. But as a hardcore fan, it can 'go to hell'. Semper Fi that, mo fo.","['0', '1']" +902,rw1198560,kothoga212,Doom (2005),3.0,Mish-Mash of crap,21 October 2005,0,"I went in to this movie not expecting much from it. I just hoped that it was somewhat entertaining. Instead, I feel as if I've lost 2 hours of my life, this is one of the few times I really want my time back. The movie takes a LONG time to get going. Mostly it's just a bunch of guys trying to figure out why what's going on is going on. Ms. Pike and Mr. Urban really should've let their accents out, they sound bad. Especially Ms. Pike. None of the characters are particularly likable. The script is filled with clichés. Most of the time it just feels like someone crossed Aliens and Resident Evil and somehow came up with this crapper. Please don't go see it. I'm usually fairly easily scared, all I did here was stare at the screen in unbelief. The scares fizzle, the one-liners flop, it all feels so very tired.","['5', '16']" +903,rw1198663,snair28,Doom (2005),7.0,"Short movie, some good scenes, and great FPS mode",21 October 2005,1,"The movie is too short for the gamer fans. I guess I was expecting more action out of it. The best part of the movie is indeed the FPS mode for approx 5 to 10 minutes. Could have used that mode in many parts of the movie. They should have included more imps, fat zombie, zombie commandos, or even the trites or lost souls...One of the best monsters was Pinky..and they didn't give much highlight to the Hell Knight...Of course the movie is a lot different than the game, but all in all the movie sequences were great.Sarge and Reaper has done a good job. The rest of the characters are OK. There were a few scenes when most people in the theater including myself jumped from their seats..","['1', '9']" +904,rw1212269,azohaib88,Doom (2005),6.0,Movie made in a rush..,9 November 2005,0,"Doom movie was not properly thought out well, well reasons could many. But I think so 'Id' Software (makers of DOOM game series) rushed on selling the license. Well its understandable after all they wanted a movie to increase awareness and also they wanted the movie to made quickly so that it is released before the next game sequel (doom 4), I'm sure if the producers and director Andrzej Bartkowiak had more time frame they could made a much more satisfying film. As far I know Id were still looking to sell the license after Doom 3 release (2004, august) and then they finally sold the license and the movie was under planning by December 2004. Then around February 2005 doom movie script was shown to public, and fans were against it and protested. According to what Dave callaham told about the movie was that the movie was not to made exactly like a game because there is a difference between a mindless action shooter game and a movie. He also said, if I'm not mistaken that Doom movie is not going to made to satisfy mindless shooting action but to increase awareness and increase the Doom universe.After all I would like to ask the people who criticize the plot that its not like the game, there is no hell concept. I have played all doom games and trust me hell concept of doom sounded completely unrealistic nonsense, only what was great about the game was gore and action. One must understand a movie cannot be made a GAME and shooter game it may try to provide some nice action but then what would be the purpose of action if the plot is completely unrealistic and senseless. The story of doom was not bad only it lacked proper explanation and depth, again another signs of the movie made in a rush, inclusion of very limited action and monsters also suggest that the movie was made in a rush. If you look at the time given to producers which was less than a year, you will agree that doom needed more time to become a good sci fi action film, either let is be time or let it be the finance to act as a catalyst in production.In the end i would rate the film 6/10, it certainly is not bad when you consider is as a movie and the fact the movie was made in a rush.Forgive any inaccuracies in grammar or in my comments.","['1', '2']" +905,rw1230803,julian_neal,Doom (2005),8.0,Doom fans- yes! Not Doom fans- maybe. Hate The Rock- no.,4 December 2005,0,"I went to see Doom a few days after it came out in the UK. By all the reviews it was getting (particularly by the great Jonathon Ross) I thought it wouldn't live up to what its supposed to, but being quite the Doom fan that i am, I decided not to abandon my fanatical ways and went to see it. And I will say now, though its been getting a lot of criticism, it really wasn't that bad. Sure The Rock is, well, The Rock, but the film had all the ingredients of what Doom should be; the screeching imps, the pinkys, dark corridors with flashing lights and, of course, actual FPS viewing. Of course some parts of it were a bit neglected, such as the rare mention of Hell and the abrupt ending, but the rest managed to keep me entertained very well.I give it a solid 8 out of 10.","['0', '1']" +906,rw1232334,paulcoulter980,Doom (2005),8.0,how would YOU have made doom?,6 December 2005,0,"So this movie wasn't faithful to doom the video game? Okay maybe the element of ""HELL"" being the cause of all the nasty goings on wasn't there but was else was missing? What other doom goodies were missed out? Not many because what you all seem to be getting confused by is the fact that doom the game was about as two dimensional as they come. Walk down corridor, kill monster. Thats it!!!! What Oscar nominated master piece were you all exactly expecting? Doom was designed as a fun escapist game, nothing deep and meaningful. All i seem to read on here is how doom was a bad movie and it was nothing like the game and BLAH BLAH BLAH! So doom wasn't a carbon copy of the original game, but it was based on doom 3. Although I haven't actually played doom 3 in depth I can see where the film makers got there inspirations. I played the original Dooms for hours at a time and loved em to death, still do. If Doom the movie was just as all the haters would of wanted it, it would of really SUCKED! So you wanted giant orange blobs with eyes that shoot fire balls and bulldog looking demons all from hell while a single man wearing green spandex fights them all off all alone without an ounce of dialogue? Good idea! Not everyone who goes to see doom will be fans of the game so it needs to be accessible to all. I hear complaints that the zombies in the movie were just lame attempts to jump on the ""dawn of the dead"" band waggon. In the first doom who shoots at you with the shotguns? ZOMBIE SOLDIERS! I stand by my vote that doom was a fun, exciting movie. It did exactly what it set out to do. ENTERTAIN! the reason cinema was first invented. If you hate doom, fine, each to their own. But if you want to be entertained DOOM is worth a try. Doom may have its moments of cheese, but it's fun! Go and see doom and judge for yourselves. YOU'LL LOVE IT!","['0', '1']" +907,rw1205583,greyslayer,Doom (2005),,For the record Doom 3 (The game) sucked..,26 October 2005,0,"Sure, it scared your little sister or kids or whatever, but it was baaaad. Total snoozer after the first 5 minutes. The entire game is pitch black, almost no real physics, minimal ragdolls, but nice textures! Such a repetitive game, after 5 minutes of monsters jumping out you already know where the next will come from. IDSoft, realizing they needed to spice up the game, decides to start spawning in monsters which ultimately kills the rest of the game's scariness in one of the many boorish rehashed ""Labs"" you trudge through. The weapons? All the same crap you've seen from Doom 1, 2, and Quake games. I even heard a sound file that was a direct port from Quake 2.When compared to real FPS like Far Cry, which brought the best AI seen for it's time, and incredible physics or especially Half-Life 2 with it's mind blowing story with varied scenarios and killer graphics Doom 3 is rather pathetic. As for it being a success, not even close. It brought nothing new to the table save some nice textures you can't even see due to perpetual darkness. The most fun I had with the game was making my younger sister play it briefly.They made a movie? Amazing. I expect when I see it soon it'll be Resident Evil 1 with The Rock and probably some fight scenes similar to The Rundown. Where is the GTA SA with Hot Coffee movie? What about a World of Warcraft movie? Bleh.","['0', '2']" +908,rw1202471,gonracin,Doom (2005),8.0,Very good movie overall,27 October 2005,0,"Very good movie overall. The Rock and Karl Urban played very good roles, and the first-person view scene after Reaper re-awakens was a very awesome effect, one I have never seen in a movie before. It made you feel like you were actually in the movie, or playing Doom. Sure, it wasn't closely based on the game, but as I stated earlier, overall it was a very good movie, with some edge of the seat moments. The action was intense at times, the plot was pretty good, especially for a game-based movie, and there sure were a lot of twists and turns. You'll most likely leave the theater wanting to play doom, especially if you haven't before. 8 out of 10!","['0', '2']" +909,rw1213114,kergillian,Doom (2005),2.0,Worst film of the year!!,10 November 2005,0,"I thought Alone in the Dark was awful. Well, it was, but this just surpassed it in terms of ultra-horribility. I know that's not a word but it's all I can summon up to describe the experience that it Doom.Watching Doom is like watching someone play the video game, but without being able to crack jokes or talk to the player about the game. It's filled with characters who are completely unrealistic as marines - and there are references to it being a game from the beginning of the film - from the Rock telling the to get ready to enter the game right down to each of them picking up their guns and gaining a 'handle'The effects were somewhat impressive - I liked the sealing door that shut right onto the attacking monster. BUt that's all it was - a CGI-plated quagmire. The scene where it turns into 1st-person shooter POV was completely contrived - it made no sense and was just there for the sake of being there. As well, there was pretty much zero story - they were thrust into it from the very beginning with no back story or explanation as to what was going on and when they kinda sorta filled us in the details were few and ridiculously dim.Finally, the ending drags on endlessly - just when you think the penultimate fight scene is over, it picks up again until it seemingly ends only to pick up again. And when it DOES end, if you're still awake, it's horridly anti-climactic.My advice: STAY AWAY! Don't even bother renting. Just play the damn game and rent something worth watching. I'd give it a bomb if they'd let me but I'm stuck with the one star. 2/10 (with a 4/10 for effects, if you're still in the theater to see 'em...).","['2', '5']" +910,rw1238703,googles49_,Doom (2005),7.0,it's just like the 80's...almost,7 December 2005,1,"Hmmm, a film featuring Dwayne ""The Rock"" Johnson...now thats scary!No matter what people say about its cheesy one liners, laughable marines and plot line which is just an excuse for brainless violence, so was Rambo and the terminator and almost every action film written in the 80's. Cheer up a little we need a good no thinking save the world by using really big guns. ITS FUN!!! Some people have taken this way too seriously, I mean...really what kind of a plot did the game have?All this film needed was a lot of terrible monsters, a bunch of tough badly trained Marines who shout ""ITS GAME TIME"" whenever it gets tough and a plot only just thick enough to carry it...how can you go wrong? OK my initial fear was the lack of plot in the game this is based on...human genome, hell, do you care? answer = NO just throw me some monsters to test this big F*****G Gun I'm holding!!!And for what it's worth the rock wasn't bad either, we need a new action hero like Arnie and Sly and Rocky could be the one we are after. He looks like the BFG was made for him and one of my favourite bits of the film is *spoiler-ish* when he is confronted by someone with a normal sized gun asking how much ammo he has left and he just looks at this Gun thats 1/2 the size of him and smiles. And he's what?..6ft5 or something, its pure 80s cheese and guts and your either going to like it or hate it.","['1', '1']" +911,rw1211466,singidunum,Doom (2005),5.0,Piece of Advice,8 November 2005,1,"First of all, I'd like to give you a piece of advice, if you'd like to see and enjoy this movie: Turn off your brain, take a beer and send your girlfriend to the motion picture about the cute penguins shown in the room next-door. Then you might really enjoy it.Personally I really liked only about five minutes of this movie, the scene, where you are in doom - first person with the gun in front... But the rest - average. Like in almost every ""thriller""-like movie, the filmmakers tried to include some funny parts, which has only as result the fact that the whole ""doom"" atmosphere is spoiled. At least there's no love-story anywhere. That's a plus. Anyway, turn off your brain and enjoy, that's all I can advice you.","['0', '1']" +912,rw1197291,tnt_tar,Doom (2005),7.0,Doom was disappointing but better than any other video game to movie adaptations,19 October 2005,1,"The reason why doom is getting so many negative reviews is because critics do not like video game to movie adaptations because they repeatedly have cheesy dialogues and poor script writing.The other reason why it is so negatively reviewed because of the fans of the doom games.The movie is not the game we hoped to be.But that doesn't mean it isn't exactly as the game.The facility is named UAC and it is set on a dead planet.The other similarity is the BFG,the chainsaw and the minigun weapons.Sure,they don't hardly use them but it still is a similarity to the game.I know the game was a non-stop violent masterpiece and the movie is supposed to deliver what the game have.It didn't meet it's expectations but the movie still had gut busting action scenes that has blood and gore with scary monsters.In my opinion,it is way better than Super Mario Bros,Resident evil,Mortal Kombat and even way better than Uwe Boll's horrible game to movie films like House Of The dead or Bloodrayne.The director Andrez Bartkowiak is a poor director but tries to deliver what the game had.The flaw was that the screenwriters were horrible.The movie itself has dilaogue errors like when goat said that we are a million years away from breakfast or the scientific facts of the 24th chromosome.The other error was the cheesy acting of The Rock.When he said to his men that everybody watch your god damn footing or if it breathes kill it.Those aren't even real words or even proper dialogue.But not all the actors were horribly cheesy like Sarge or Portman.There was Reaper(Karl Urban) who in my opinion did the best job and I think that most people agree.I also think that Duke or Goat did a good job but was killed off.Goat shouldn't have been killed off first.He was cool even though he said a dumb line but he had a shotgun and he looked like a tough guy military hero.They should have killed off Portman first.That guy was so stupid like when he said in the movie""I have to take a dump"".That's just so retarted and a dumb cheesy character who deserves to die first.I also thought destroyer should have lived longer because he was a soldier and had a kick ass mini gun but didn't use it hardly.Even though the movie has flaws and some disapointments but had action and gore and a lot better acting than most video game movies.I think this one was the best of them all but I hope later in the future that they will make a perfect video game movie or I hope there will be a Doom 2 movie that has way more action and based in hell where it was supposed to be.Oh and another thing,the creatures did came from hell but in another hell.In the movie there was a civilization of creatures who carried the 24th chromosome and scientists of the UAC found the bones and the DNA of the creatures in the dig.When they used it on a human being that was obviously a psycho because if the fact that Sam Grimm(Rosumand Pike) who is John's sister(Reaper) said that it makes psycho's monsters and good guys superhuman,mutated the scientists.When Reaper said that this place was always hell,it was true.It was always hell.So it does have kinda the same plot from the games.The one thing that made the movie sort of the game was the FPS scene which was awesome and the best part of the in the movie. PS: There is supposed to be an unrated extended version of the film which is 14 minutes longer and it's supposed to have an extended FPS scene and contains more action,monsters and gore that the theatrical version.","['3', '16']" +913,rw1196991,kylegraper,Doom (2005),3.0,A Part of Me Just Died,18 October 2005,1,"I just came back from a sneak preview showing an hour ago, so what I just witnessed is still fresh in my mind. If, like me, you are a fan of the series, esp. Doom 3, and think this movie may be a fun way to blow to hours, go back to your computer and put the game in. This movie manages to ruin everything I liked about that game. First and most offensive, was the plot. Doom 3 follows a single Marine trapped in a Mars research facility as Hell literally breaks lose around him. During the testing of new teleportation equipment, scientist opened a portal to Hell. Not the greatest in the world, but it makes for a Hell of a game, pun unintended. The writers of the movie took a dump on this story. Instead is some genome bull that either turns good people into supermen, or bad people into hideous monsters. So The Rock, John Urban, and a few other highly stereotyped marines (including ""the asshole, the Jesus freak, the newbie, and of course the ""tough black guys"" go to kill everything that movies. Oh, yeah and some bull about Urban's sister, a cold set, and dead parents, woohoo! If you like action, don't see this. If you like adventure, don't see this. If you like movies, don't see this. And, above all, if you value your appreciation of Doom, an excellent game series, do not see this movie. Thank me later.","['8', '24']" +914,rw1215077,swollen_vain,Doom (2005),5.0,Doom or Doomed?,13 November 2005,1,"I asked a five word question after I sat through Doom. ""How do you F**k that up?"" The premise of the entire Doom game franchise is based on a simple idea: The bad guys are from Hell. We are talking about one the top five video game franchises... EVER! How do you f**k that up? Simple.If you can get passed the ""no hell breaking loose at all"" bit you will find that Doom really is just a simple zombie movie with bad supporting characters surrounding leads who are trying their best to prevent the ship from sinking.Speaking of the leads; Karl Urban gives us a decent performance. Even though he is playing a character who is 3D in the game, on the page and the screen the character is in fact 2D. Now i'm a big fan of The Rock, right back into his days with WWE. Even The Rock had a tough time convincing me that this was going to stand up to any standard the game had set. With that said he does do a good job playing the 2D ""Sarge"" spitting lines like ""I didn't see s**t, and I don't get paid to see s**t"" Trying to make the most of dialog like that you can tell why this films Box Office receipts dropped off after the first two weeks.Overall by taking away the ""Hell"" element from the story you have taken away a major selling point and fan boys will never forgive you. As a film it may as well be an off-shoot of the Resident Evil franchise.","['0', '1']" +915,rw1199881,pinkfloydfan_2005,Doom (2005),5.0,Doom? Not close.,23 October 2005,0,"This movie was somewhat disappointing. ""Finally,"" I said, ""A movie made after a video game!"" My interest was immediately grabbed during the opening scene of the movie when the scientists were all being chased and killed by an unknown creature....then they talked about the ""ark""...I was like WTF?! Plus they set the movie about 40 some years in the future instead of about 100. Then, they jumped right into the movie and didn't do any in-depth explanations about the UAC. And I was extremely disappointed when the monsters weren't demons from Hell, but were like the zombies from Resident Evil. Plus, the movie could have lasted longer. It would've been awesome as a 2-3 hour movie because they could expand the plot instead of shooting it right along. Another bad thing about the movie: it had too many one-liners like ""...Kill 'em all"" and ""Semper Fi, Mother******"". They also could've used the intro from the game where the text is on the screen that talks about the UAC's ""unlimited funds"" etc. After feeling as if I needed to dose off, the movie became 'cool' again when it went into first person and the remixed version of the original DOOM's music played. This was really the only highlight of the movie. I just hope the Splinter Cell and Halo movies will be better..............","['2', '4']" +916,rw1227532,metalshredder,Doom (2005),8.0,2 Thumbs Up,29 November 2005,0,"I have been with Doom since the beginning, all the way through Doom3, and granted, the movie did not follow the story exactly for the old games, I still thought it was awesome. It does coincide better with Doom3 than the classic games. There were tid-bits of the (old) video game all throughout the movie, you just have to be paying attention, and you'll definitely notice. If they were to follow the entire story exactly, you'd have another LOTR Trilogy on your hands. I would not be a bit surprised if they made more. I give it 2 thumbs up, and anyone who is a fan of the game rather than a movie critic will love it. I definitely plan on buying the DVD.","['0', '1']" +917,rw1203206,Derek237,Doom (2005),4.0,"A bad movie that, admittedly, had a pretty good ending",28 October 2005,0,"I couldn't believe that while watching Doom I actually found myself thinking, ""well, it's no Resident Evil."" Never a good sign. This is a bad movie! It's boring for one thing, and is generally uninteresting. Okay, we have some research facility...something goes wrong...there's a virus...there's monsters...soldiers come in...pointless action ensues. I really defy anyone to explain just what the hell is going on in Doom. It's one of those ""explain-as-you-go"" movies, where in between the action and gore, a scientist tells the characters (and the audience, of course) what is happening. It was in one ear and out the other for me. We've all seen umpteen movies like this. It didn't really remind me of the game at all (though I've only played 1 and 2) but I really think the game had a good look and feel and had potential. It would have been decent if they would have dropped the virus shtick and made the creatures demons from hell. And while they're at it, why not just skip the dull introduction of the soldiers getting the mission brief, which fills up 20 minutes, with another 20 minutes of walking around until something actually happens? Why not jump right into it, like the game does? That would be interesting, I think. I at least would never expect something like that. But, whatever, the movie is what it is. Which isn't good.I have to say though, it isn't completely hopeless. I thought the last 20 minutes or so was pretty good. We get that neat First Person Shooter sequence (that was one thing I'm glad the movie did), and a good fight scene, that even gets a tense build-up. I'll confess, when I saw that BFG (if you know the games or saw the movie you know what it stands for) I did get excited.Doom was not horrible, but it was just boring and by-the-numbers. I would probably even buy it one day on DVD if it finds its way to a bargain bin for $6.99. My rating: 4.5/10","['7', '15']" +918,rw1207325,dilbertsuperman,Doom (2005),1.0,Utter and total CRAP (and I like some Rock movies normally),2 November 2005,0,"This movie is junk. If you get extremely wasted on multiple drugs and watch it on widescreen at a party it should be OK to watch, but if you actually pay attention to this movie you will be in awe at the retarded movie you are watching. DOOM the game(this movie is based on that) is a rich environment with a lot of wildly different and awe inspiring fearsome monsters. In this movie I think I counted a total of FOUR monsters, which is a RIPOFF. This movie wasted it's money in paying for The Rock. What it should have done instead is hire a no name dude and take the money they saved on that and put the money into some killer CGI to accurately re-create the monsters in the incredible world of Doom. This movie was skimpy, lame and retarded. Some of the action is watchable but there is nothing that incredible going on. The final fight is kind of fun, but still- the movie is just DUMB and bland.","['11', '21']" +919,rw1198656,shinobi00i,Doom (2005),4.0,This is the reason I don't trust directors anymore,21 October 2005,0,"Now, when I heard about a Doom movie I knew what to expect. A bad horror/action film with little drama, if any. And Doom not only went above and beyond that, it totally nose dived into the floor and came out in China. There was almost no note worthy scenes in the entire movie. Sarge had some crazy mood swing, there was only one good character in the whole movie who unfortunately died way to early, most areas of the film were not explained (and some that made no sense), and parts that felt out of place or just not right.The first person scene was perhaps the single worst moment in movie history. It was so pointless that sometimes you would have this urge to hunt down the director and ask him what the hell went through his head when filming that scene. It was maybe 10-15 minutes of non-stop shooting gallery action, and not in a good way. This consisted of the character standing up, looking around a corner, watching a zombie run at him, and then shooting it in the head and moving on. Nothing scary or creepy at all. You could play House Of The Dead for 15 minutes instead and get the same feeling and probably have more fun. This continued throughout most of the FP section. All with some rock track playing in the background. This could have been a great part of the movie and it was ruined because it was just there to trick all the Doom fans into seeing the movie, and it worked.The parts where something other than shooting some random zombie were either so stupid, like when a zombie ran away from the guy instead of attacking and him just following it and blasting the thing in the head, or the camera was being whipped around so much you had almost no idea what was happening. I thought they tied the camera to a bungee cord and just let it bounce around for a bit then threw in come CG. The story also had some major flaws. During a scene in the movie, an attempt was made to add a little back story to one of the characters by having his memories heard, but they failed to follow up on what actually happened. And thats not the only thing that went wrong. The explanation for why the creatures were showing up in the first place was so far out there that you just didn't want to believe what they were saying. It's like the writer just wanted to throw in a whole new storyline so he could throw off all the Doom fans. Also, there were some very random parts just added for good measure. Scenes that felt were just added so that every type of action fan had something to walk away with. The most notable was when 2 of the characters began to have a fist fight that lasted for about 6 minutes. But this was no ordinary fist fight, this was a hardcore, balls-to-the-wall, Matrix-copying fight. People being thrown into walls, punched 10 feet back, getting stabbed in the hand and not even caring, all lead up to a very cheesy climatic final showdown. Not only is straying away from the leap-out-and-scare-you formula a bad idea, even more so when it started to work about half way through, it makes it an even more bad idea when thats what the game was about. They should have stuck with it. The director almost had it, you could feel that he was starting to go somewhere with it, then he just rolled it up into a ball and throws it at you and laughs. The only part about the movie I liked was the actors. A few of them were very good. The actor who played Goat was by far the best in the whole movie with Reapers actor following in on a close second.All in all, this is a very bad movie. If you're a Doom fan, you most likely already went out and saw it and I feel sorry for you. If you're just someone looking for a good action film, go somewhere else.","['4', '16']" +920,rw1204079,suak-1,Doom (2005),6.0,Must see for Doom fans!,29 October 2005,0,"This movie is a must see for all who played and liked DOOM but may be a disappointment to all others. I rated the movie a 6, which I consider a fair trade-off between 8 from my standpoint as a DOOM fan and 4 from my standpoint as a movie fan in general.I played and enjoyed all parts of DOOM and as many may be aware the first part revolutionized first person shooter gaming in the early 90s. I remember all the hours of excitement and tension I felt when playing the game. It was a totally immersive experience.There are two things that I liked very much about the movie, which made me think that it was a good adoption of the game: 1.) The first person view part is an excellent reference to the game and at the same time a great experience on the big screen. The way the scene starts couldn't have been conceived any better. Real credits to the producers here! 2.) The movie doesn't stay too close to the storyline of the game but also doesn't loose the connection to it. For example the explanation of the monsters origin and the main characters super human abilities is much more plausible in the movies than in the video game.Hope my opinion helps","['0', '1']" +921,rw1198681,tig_jas,Doom (2005),10.0,Excellent,21 October 2005,1,"Just saw it and wow, it was far better then what i thought it would be. The Rock did an excellent job in this movie and for all you people who thinks it ^*#$s because hes in it, you have no idea what you are missing. I've been a DOOM fan since the first one came out in '93. Though it has some story line it doesn't have much for the game. But the story line that they created for the movie is pretty good and it gets an A from me. While people say oh, it only had this many monsters and so and so, OK and? It had them and thats what counts, its an action movie not some game where infinite numbers spawn out of the air, and in the main game you see mostly imps anyway. A true fan of the games would know that this movie was pretty frigging sweet. The sound, graphics etc rocked and the first person was something new and cool.While it didn't have ""hell"" per say, once you see the movie it really doesn't matter because the story line is so gripping. Overall i would give it a 93% rating. The suspense and surprises were just like in the game, never knew what was going to happen next, though you may have thought you knew.I recommend you see it and decide for yourself, though with all the DOOM fans out there and all the other people who like these kinds of movies, I'm sure there will be a sequel like they said if its a hit, which in my opinion it is.For all you people who say it sucked and was crap, get a clue. Its in the future so duh they wont look like the ""marines"" now and the Rock can and did act well, so shove it. At least voice a intelligent opinion of the movie and not some ""oh rock sucks"" or ""Resident Evil (whichw as crap) is better cause of the zombies"". Try playing the game, cause the monsters sure as hell looked like they did from the game. Sick of people who review stuff and have no clue about its history or past and are just posting to make a good movie look bad.","['1', '10']" +922,rw1206019,Ken7i,Doom (2005),8.0,"""We're marines, not poets""",31 October 2005,0,"mentioned during the conversation between the Grimm siblings (I don't know what else to call them). It pretty much summarizes the film. Don't expect poetry in this movie. It is action, a bit of thriller and horror, and a lot of blood.Characters are in black and white, which goes well with a film that explores good and evil in the most simplistic of manners - by personifying the good into angels and the bad into terrible monsters. We have the typical conflicted hero (John), religious fanatic (Goat), protocol-addicted soldier (Sarge), the unprincipled rogue (Portman, I think – the guy who likes she-males), the flirt (Duke), the strongman (Destroyer) and the kid (the kid). I'm being a bit slack with character descriptions, but I think that really describes them all. All are black and white, as I said.And beautiful because of that.It is beautiful in the way a hot, saucy playboy cover is; in its simplicity. It's not the kind of beauty that requires loads of thinking; its not 'abstract art'. The script-writer conveys his ideas, or I should say judgment, through the fates met by each character. Goat for example, a religious maniac, dies and turns into one of those demon zombies. The message conveyed is clear. Religion is not to be equated with good. It is simply a path to good. Goat uses religion to fight the devil within himself when he wakes up after apparent death and crashes himself against the glass walls. Similar arguments apply for all the characters. I'm going to stop here before I get too preachy.The weakest part of the film is when 'the Rock' turns bad; the audience is not prepared for that sufficiently in my opinion. I say he turns 'bad' because he kills the kid. It's difficult to deny his 'evil' after that act, otherwise, one could simply attribute his fate to his enthusiasm to 'follow orders'.I enjoyed the movie. I loved the fact that the director focused more on action than on horror. There were a few sudden and shocking parts, but all quickly balanced by the humor (… I still laugh over the 'big, fat gun'… I'm easily amused), and intense fight scenes (my favorite is the Destroyer's – very raw action. Really sets the adrenaline to pumping). I recommend that any who watch it, watch for what it is. A video game adaptation.","['2', '5']" +923,rw1230343,nethlyn,Doom (2005),6.0,Friday/Saturday night plot less garbage - I loved it!,3 December 2005,1,"***Extra Warning - there isn't much plot to actually spoil*** Whoever went to see this film for the plot after knowing for the past 13 years that none of the four Doom games really have one, was setting themselves up for disappointment. This film was frankly less dull to watch than Doom 3 was to play - although not quite as good looking in spite of a cinematographer by trade in the director's chair.Good job of ripping off Aliens for its base (20 years old next year and still the best SF/horror/action hybrid) which lent the film a more solid buildup than I would have expected. I also didn't expect to see further steals from The Thing with the multiple references to infection and the fact that there was human conflict mixed in with the Alien invasions, Alien (for many attacks were one on one until the end), AVP and in the mass rush attack scenes, elements of Dawn Of The Dead 2004. The final battle was more like Universal Soldier meets Event Horizon after giving us a few minutes to be reminded of the game the film was based on.Leaving the Firstperson-shooter-on-film scene until very near the end was a good idea, since it was as corny a gimmick as Freddy 6 or any film with a 3D glasses scene. Thankfully it didn't go on for long enough to get annoying. The very end just screamed ""we ran out of cash"" but it was quite 1970s to just end a film on the big finish and leave any other subplots or sequel strands in the air (In other words, any creatures you didn't see getting killed, will probably form the basis for the sequel).You need not have played or even heard of the games to treat this as a good lads' night out or when it hits DVD, the ideal drunken rental. So, Friday/Saturday night brain-off action is exactly what I wanted (especially after watching The Constant Gardener) and exactly what I got. When the DVD is released they may not bother with extras, I'm sure they'll just say go and buy the game like fans of Passion of the Christ were directed to The Bible...I'll say one thing though, it's rare to watch a modern day film where the product placement is for something that's already been around for 18 months and there's none in the film that I noticed - that made suspension of disbelief, even for this enjoyable hokum, a lot easier.Otherwise, if you must have a good storyline to go with your action, pull out Aliens from the collection before returning to the PC to play Quake 4 instead.","['0', '1']" +924,rw1204959,dhegge,Doom (2005),7.0,Well...,30 October 2005,1,"I gave this a 7 just out of the unbelievable concept of having the movie made. Totally agree with the previous poster about the purpose of this movie, pretty sick of the bad reviews regarding shallow plot. Those folks are welcome to sit on the middle spindle of a merry-go-round while others give it a spin if they're stupid enough to expect ""Good Will Hunting"" from a first-person-shooter based film.There are faults. I have been sold on Doom since swiping Doom II from the computer lab at the U in '94, (where else could you come in drunk after bar-close and play head-to-head in those days) compressed to floppy-disks (I did buy it eventually).I am really upset that they based it on a genetic engineering project, rather than demon invasion. There was only one slight reference to Hell, Mars being equated to it, rather than Hell being the source of the invasion. The only reason possible for that is the pathetic state of our mindless country, we have to avoid offending worthless morons. If they're concerned about pissing off fairy-tale believers, I'd be glad to give them a tour of the real thing (courtesy of my BFG).Other flaws. We don't see much of the fun game weapons. Only Sarge gets the BFG, no rocket launcher or plasma gun. Most of the monster types are missing. I suppose being they wimped out on hell, they thought only so much was believable with genetic engineering.OK, final line. Did give it a 7 because they made the movie against any expectation I had, and they did preserve a lot of the elements. It does have a lot of fun nods to the fan base. Maybe in 20 years they'll make it truer to the original, as was done with Herbert's ""Dune."" If you loved the game, you'll probably enjoy the movie. If you didn't like the game, wait for it on HBO or something.","['1', '3']" +925,rw1201140,guardian_earthhow,Doom (2005),8.0,"For a video game movie, pretty good...",24 October 2005,0,"As far as most video game movies, this one is by far the best. It is entertaining for movie lovers, but I doubt that fans of the game will not be disappointed by some aspects of the movie.SPOILER WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS PLENTY OF SPOILERS!!! Basically the beginning starts off with a brief prologue where the scientists are running, then getting picked off one by one. The last one to survive sends a distress call, and then the big creature bursts through the door.The team that goes to Mars is then talking about going on vacation, but the Rock gets an order, and they're off to Mars. Pretty straightforward.Now, here's the first game to movie difference. The portal is supposed to lead from Mars to hell. Not Earth to Mars.Now in the beginning, Reaper expresses fear of the place for some reason, and Sarge/the Rock is the only one who knows. Anyhow, once up there, the team is sent into the darker depths of the facility to neutralize the enemy, and keep them from harming the civilians. During most of the search and destroy scenes, it is mostly moving very slowly, peering around a corner, suspecting something to attack you, only to have it happen unexpectedly.The movie features spectacular special effects, not-so-corny and sometimes funny dialogue, awesome fight scenes, and great acting… aside from the Rock saying, ""I'm not supposed to die"", before disappearing with the dead people.Now, here is another problem. A large bit of the movie is talking about how people get ""infected"" by what changes people into these creatures. This leads to boring but interesting lectures, and confusing moments. For example, the monsters in Doom, demons from hell, but in the movie, mutated humans. Also, when people are killed by the monsters, they come back to life, making it your average everyday zombie scene. Others become freaky mutants.However, this is mostly made up by the action and drama of the movie. So, really, as a movie, there are no really stupendous flaws.The FPS perspective scene is very innovative for movies, and very, very entertaining. There was not a moment where I was not on the edge of my seat, begging for the next action packed kill.The ending hand to hand fight scene kills the concept of shooting the enemy, but keeps the film from becoming boring and repetitive.Over all, this film, being the best film adaptation of all time, definitely kicking Resident Evil in the ass, and throttling Super Mario Bros.Basically, this film makes up for every of the few things it lacks, so if you love movies, or Doom, or both, do yourself a movie, and grab a few friends, and watch this movie at your local theatre.","['0', '1']" +926,rw1200616,hodson_2008,Doom (2005),4.0,"I LOVE the game, but the movie was thoroughly disappointing...",24 October 2005,1,"DOESN'T GIVE AWAY TOO MUCH, DON'T WORRY!!!! I've been playing DOOM and DOOM II since I was 4 years old. A friend got DOOM 3 about 6 months ago. I love the original two. The third was okay. I've read the books at least four times (execpt the third...let someone borrow it, never got it back.)I was PSYCHED when I heard the movie was coming out. But, then I read the previews. I mean, does anyone see how The Rock can fit as Flynn Taggart??? If anything, I think that Karl Urban (who plays John ""Reaper"" Grimm) would be a MUCH better Taggart. He even looks kinda like him! And where are our other characters? Arlene? Albert? Jill? What about the monsters? Where are our favorite bad guys? I only saw a few game-movie connections, and only ONE book-game-movie connection. I don't know about you guys, but I want my old monsters. This movie reminded me more of Resident Evil (the zombies in R.E. just moaned and walked around...in Doom, they have guns) and Half-Life (scientists being attacked by aliens and slowly turning...). I think John Carmack needs his head examined. He creates a game that changes the way First Players are played, and, yet, he approves a movie that kills the true DOOM feeling.","['3', '6']" +927,rw1228964,jrbdms,Doom (2005),1.0,Awful Movie,1 December 2005,0,"I have just spent approx 1hr 40 Min's of my life watching this abysmal movie. I am an avid movie fan and expect at the very least to be entertained in the slightest by a movie. However after watching this movie I may have to lower my expectations! There are not many movies I can relate to ""Doom"", for the excruciating pain, I endured whilst watching this dire piece of dribble. How many times can Hollywood producers expect to churn out absolute crap like this. No plot! No enjoyment! No clue? Hopefully moviegoers will not continue to pay well-earned cash to wash complete trash like this! I for one, certainly will not!","['2', '6']" +928,rw1201146,tjewu,Doom (2005),1.0,Wow!!! why do they let Hollywood touch video games.,24 October 2005,0,"I just watched DOOM over the weekend and I must say, it pretty much sucked. I had low expectations going into the movie...I mean look at the history of video game to movie adaptations: Resident evil 1 and 2, Alone in the dark, super mario bros., street fighter, and lets not forget house of the dead. But I did try and stay positive before I went to the movie with hopes that someone in Hollywood would surprise me and make a good adaptation.***SPOILERS*** Well the movie started pretty good and did a good job of getting involved right away and stuck pretty good to the source material for the most part. They talked about the genetic research they were doing and about the dig that they were doing down into mars. Unfortunately after the quick part about the dig into mars they never talk about it again, it was kind of weird. Then it goes into how they did genetic research on human subjects changing their DNA. Apparently this is where the monsters were coming from because only a certain percentage of the population was capable of turning into monsters because they held some evil gene (makes no freaking sense). And to everyones surprise they got out some how. I immediately was taken into a resident evil movie and no one told me. By the end of the movie it was just a freaking zombie movie...which is bullsh*t. To top it all off, the last fight was retarded with ""the rock"" and ""Reaper"" doing a WWE fight while they are both super human soldiers...completely lame.The problem I have with this movie is that it didn't even come close to following the source material except for at the beginning when it was trying to setup the story. If anyone has ever played DOOM 3 and finished it, they will tell that the research they are doing and the dig on mars is true, but while doing that they unleash a gateway to hell and that is where the monsters come from. Those monsters and hell are then trying to reach earth through a distress signal that is sent out to earth to bring as many reinforcements as possible. They were going to kill everyone and then take the ships back to earth. Not this freaking DNA change crap. Now I know they never showed the marines going down to the dig or showed it up close so theoretically it could still be there for the sequel, but that is stupid. The major plot of the game just gets dropped for some other stupid story about zombies. I could have stayed home and watched a good zombie movie ""Dawn of the dead."" So, basically if you want to watch a zombie movie, watch one that you already own or can go rent some where else. Avoid this dogpile.","['18', '36']" +929,rw1244485,SdwOne,Doom (2005),6.0,A Bit Of A Wasted Opportunity,15 December 2005,1,"I've been a Doom fan since the early 90's and having played and enjoyed the latest incarnation of Doom on the PC, Doom 3, which was released last year, I was very excited when I heard this film was coming out.Doom the film is based on the Doom 3 PC game, where you get to play a tough nameless marine, who battles for his life against extra-dimensional entities (demons to you and me) as an experiment in 'matter teleportation' on Mars goes awry.To be honest, this film as a game cross-over doesn't quite fit the scenario of the original game, which I believe, had an excellent plot. I understand that films don't necessarily have to correspond 100% with the book or game it's based upon, but the way I see it, if you have a great book or game, then why change its format when it comes to the film? Sure, perhaps film budgets are a factor, but when you get excellent cross-over films like Lord Of The Rings, then as far as I'm concerned, cross-over films should try and mimic the original art as much as possible.This is my main, focal gripe with Doom the film. The PC game, on which it's based, had an excellent plot. With interesting characters, lots and LOTS of intense tension and action, coupled with a constant fear of dread as one battled demonic entities…. Only to be faced with even more terrifying ones. As for the film, sure, you got your typical wacky characters, so no problem there. There were some tense moments too (only at the beginning) but as for the rest of it, (SPOILER ALERT!!!) the so called demons….??? There weren't any!!! As a player of the game, the demons were the REAL stars of the show. They scared the living s**t out of you. So, naturally, as someone who knows quite a bit about the game, I was tense in the first hour or so, simply because I thought the demons were coming. However, as time passes, and the true nature of the threat on Mars is revealed, that tension dissipates, the excitement wanes and you're left with nothing but a mindless action film.I think this is a real shame. Doom the film has no real sense of depth despite the excellent game series, whose sole purpose was the scare the heck out of you. However, on a positive note, the action sequences are good, the CGI (which could have been a LOT better in places) is adequate, the characters are passable and the tension level at the beginning was intense… But I'm guessing it was only intense because of the anticipation of facing some truly terrifying CGI demons later on in the film.However, thanks to that failing Hollywood machine, that always seems to put dollars way above art, Doom failed on those expectations. I'm pretty sure a lot of game enthusiasts will also be disappointed with the films much deviated plot and those who are unfamiliar with the game, will probably see this film as merely an exercise in mindless CGI driven action.A real shame really. But perhaps given the current and disturbing evangelical movement in America, as well as Hollywood's obsession with money and indifference to art, a dark, truly terrifying film about battling demons on Mars, really had NO chance of being brought to our screens, hence this much dumbed down version.","['0', '0']" +930,rw1199562,GOWBTW,Doom (2005),9.0,Just like being in the game itself!,23 October 2005,0,"This based on the video game is the top of its prime. If you thought Resident Evil was a challenge, DOOM really proves its point! You bring an elite group of Marines who are trying to find the missing scientists. Unfortunately, they stumble into something deeper. The group is lead by Sarge(Dwanyne ""The Rock"" Johnson) who is more of an mad mercenary than a leader of the squadron. Anybody who has played DOOM, would get the picture. I've seen the weapons in the game. The shotguns, the chain-guns, the chainsaws, and most of all, the BFG. I remembered the BFG in the game, I didn't have a clue what it meant back then. Now I know what it means. BFG:Bio Feed Gun. When the Sarge went to get the gun he uses is own words to that weapon. When he saw how much that gun kicks, he knows he was going to love it. When John Grimm's sister Sam realized that she was working for shady people, she would do anything to help his brother and defy his insane Sarge at the same time. When all the freaks came out, it was Grimm(Karl Urban) who took out these demons. Those scenes were like being in the game, exactly. Unlike RE, MK, and other video game based movies this one has lots more intensities in every direction. I've enjoyed this movie every second. All I can say is to be armed to the teeth, it's a fight where there's hell in every way. As for the Sarge, he just got an Dishonorable Discharge! Rating 3 out of 5 stars!","['4', '17']" +931,rw1238625,michigansucks,Doom (2005),7.0,Doom... Exatcly what you would expect!,14 December 2005,0,"OK, This movie was great! I'm a pretty heavy PC gamer and really don't give a flying crap as to whether or not the movie portrays the PC game. DOOM was the first PC game I ever played. Now if I was a true nerd, I'd probably say something like, ""I was so upset that they took Hell out of the movie. I mean that is the most important part of DOOM. And... and.... the BFG... it actually had 6 chambers on the cannon not 4 like the movie showed... I mean.. golly.. what were the directors thinking?"" This was a great action movie and your typical movie for guys who like movies. Thumbs up! It was filled with action and funny. Funny? DOOM the PC game is not funny? YES IT IS YOU DORKS! Games are funny, action movies are funny, and people who watch movies based on video games expecting anything more... are really really funny.","['2', '2']" +932,rw1205666,JimD73,Doom (2005),4.0,Doomed until the last 20 minutes,27 October 2005,1,"Video game movies. As much as I hate them, I still can't help watching them. I don't care how bad movies like Alone in the Dark and Resident Evil were (the latter of which wasted incredible material), I still have hope that eventually, someone is going to get it right. Doom itself was a game I remembered very little of, one of many FPS games I played the first level of and then went on to something else. Too bad I did, as apparently it was one of the best FPS games ever made. Even if it was, movies have a tendency to ruin good plots in video games. Doom didn't look like an exception, but it looked like it would at least get a lot of things blown up. The sad fact is that, until the last half hour, Doom just blows.Apparently, the plot for Doom (if you want to call it that) is based somewhat off of the video game Doom 3. Basically, a portal to Mars has been found, and the red planet is now a used for laboratory testing and apparently nothing else. Some lab experiments have gotten loose and have attacked the scientists. The Rapid Response Tactical Squad (which might be the worst name since The Mighty Morphing Power Rangers), led by a no-nonsense Sergeant named (you guessed it) Sarge (The Rock), is sent in to quarantine the area and take care of the monsters, as well as retrieve the property of the corporation.Eventually, as we all know, the squad is slowly picked off by these creatures. The key word here is eventually. While I do appreciate when a movie builds up to something, this one gets to a point where when someone finally gets killed, I had been playing with my eyelids for twenty minutes. It tries to do something similar to Predator in this sense but fails as the first part has little to no important events, just shadows teasing you someone might get killed in the near future.Once it gets past the first death, it's blatantly obvious who's going to die and when. This is about forty minutes in, so odds are you've been considering this for a while. How exactly they are going to die would be more interesting if there was more variety. All that's left to figure out is how much gore is going to be shown.The RRTS itself is a little bit odd. For starters, just about every character is part of a cliché. There's a religious masochist (Daniels), a drug-addict date rapist (Brake), a ghetto womanizer (Adoti), a first-time rookie (Weaver), a silent bald guy (Operai), one guy who can't speak English (Chin) and the balls-over-brains Sarge. Sound familiar? All that leaves is John ""Reaper"" Grimm (Urban), possibly the only one besides the bald guy and Sarge who actually fits into the picture. Let's just face it, any real elite squadron wouldn't contain a kid who would be better suited to a clerk's job or a 40 year old with a passion for transvestites. Hardly seems like the alpha and the omega.The only thing really worse than the unqualified space marines is the incredibly dumb science behind their mission. Some movies are annoying for using way too many scientific terms. This one is extremely annoying for using none. This is the kind of terminology a six year old could understand. We're talking lots of ""super"", ""hyper"" and ""very"". Let's not forget the cause of mutation: an extra chromosome. Of course, this would normally result in something closer to Down's Syndrome than something with six eyes, but for the sake of the movie, let's forget everything that we really know about science.Forgetting everything you know is pretty much what you need to do for any part of this movie. This movie starts many different subplots that never really go anywhere. The best example would be that between Reaper and his scientist sister, Samantha (Pike). They start something about them having issues, but it's never really explored at all. Then there's the tranny-loving hophead broadcasting their mission and a couple other little sidesteps from the plot that never go anywhere, but are either left in the open or ended way too quickly. It's annoying, to say the least.After suffering through all that, it seems that nothing could save Doom from, well, doom. Lo and behold, the last 20 minutes are pure adrenaline. While I would never want to have the whole movie in first-person, the ten-minute sequence at the end of the movie is the highlight as we see the action from the shooter's perspective. If you hold your hands just right, it's almost like actually playing the game. The final part of this involving a chainsaw and that weird demon thing is just amazing. It is somewhat dizzying, but it ends at just the right time before it becomes sickening.The final fight returns to the normal movie perspective, and while it is in normal video game movie physics, it is still very entertaining. It can be said without a doubt that this movie is saved from being a complete trainwreck solely by the last twenty minutes.The wait for these twenty minutes is pretty much hell on earth, even more so than the movie. A single good action scene is seen in the first hour of the film, and that's not nearly enough to make this recommendable. If you really are an action junkie, be prepared to get your fill, but you're better off going in an hour after the start time. Just get to the good stuff, or else you'll be yelling that same phrase at the screen for a solid block of time.Overall Rating – 38%","['10', '20']" +933,rw1220016,KaspersEternal,Doom (2005),10.0,Truly one of the best video game movies to date,19 November 2005,0,"Cant and wont say too much except that this is probably one of the best video game movies ever released, besides for the fact the story is completely different from the games; I didn't mind at all. Mainly because i never really played the games but i am a gamer :).The Good- Great Action, Mindless Killing, Good acting, Good atmosphere and Good Execution of events-The Bad- Illogical Story, Story upsets Fanboys because its not related to the games, Everything else in between?- Its good to see a good movie with the adaptation of a video game, It gives hope to the Halo movie..... Action wise.","['2', '3']" +934,rw1213383,jamyskis,Doom (2005),7.0,A surprising amount of depth - but that still ain't much,11 November 2005,1,"I went into this film a bit closed minded, to be honest. I'd been looking forward to this film being released ever since it had been announced (almost a decade ago). Back then, I was not so picky about the sophistication about what films had to offer, and video game adaptations were still untested waters. Time has taught us since that by and large, video game adaptations haven't been particularly successful. Some blame it on the subject matter, but I would be inclined to blame it on inexperienced, or worse, incompetent directors.Bearing this in mind, Andrzej Bartkowiak, someone with considerably more experience in the field of action movies, was put to work on bringing Doom to the big screen. Having seen many negative reviews beforehand, I wasn't too hopeful. Having seen it however, it offers a surprising amount of depth and interest considering the subject at hand.At heart, Doom is a no-brainer action film. Those looking for deep emotions, complex story lines or even good acting may be better served elsewhere. The Rock's odd facial contortions (recognisable from his time in wrestling) don't do the credibility of the film any good.Fans of the games may also complain about the accuracy to the original source material. The game bears indeed little relation to any of the original games, especially not the first two, but then any attempt to replicate the almost non-existent storyline of the games would have been doomed to failure. I applaud the makers' decision to play a little more fast and loose with the storyline while keeping the general feel of Doom in tact.Throughout the first half of the film, you can't help but wonder if anything interesting is going to happen. In the second half, it does, and does so very well.The characters motivations and concerns are developed more fully to make them more interesting, even those *gasp* of Sarge, played by the Rock. While Dwayne Johnson's acting abilities are seriously doubtful, you never feel like he is being pushed beyond what he is capable of - playing a cold, mindless, killer - so he doesn't make himself look overly ridiculous. Goat, played by Ben Daniels, has some interesting quirks. The Kid, played by Al Weaver, shows that he may be a little too green for the mission, including letting his conscience get the better of him and putting him on a collision course with Sarge - with explosive results. Karl Urban and Rosamund Pike turn in solid performances, but their sibling relationship never seems particularly convincing - a fault more of the script than of the actors.Finally, the film seems to play classic horror clichés deliberately to comic effect. Pinky's fate, in particular, is highly amusing. The whole parodying of these clichés might seem like a cheap trick, but it works.It's no masterpiece, but Doom offers just enough beyond loud noises and cheap shocks to make this film worth paying out for.","['7', '11']" +935,rw1204767,blackwaterparkx14,Doom (2005),8.0,"I entered with low expectations, and was pleasantly surprised...",30 October 2005,1,"I enjoyed ""Doom."" Yeah, I said it. After reading about a trillion negative reviews of the movie, I had decided it was going to be absolutely terrible. Then my friend asked me to go see it with him. I figured it would suck, but I decided to go along as I was excited to see the movie, and gather my own opinion.The movies intro was the standard sci-fi/horror beginning. Some frightened people, some gore, and a black-out at the end. The plot was obviously not going to be concurrent to the 1st game, as it takes place on Mars, but I shrugged it off.The movie moved on, introducing the quirky team of soldiers sent up to kill whatever is causing mayhem up on Mars (watching Duke cut himself made me cringe).Surprisingly, the acting is pretty good, excepting Rosamund Pike's performance as Sam Grimm (she acts like she's reading off her lines from a teleprompter), with The Rock's Sarge and Karl Urban's John Grimm being the main characters.Like many have said, you won't really get a lot more from this movie then you have from many others of the same genre, but I found it to be an enjoyable experience.One last note, this movie got an 8 rating due to the first-person shooter recreation. It is the love-it-or-hate-it marketing draw in of the movie, but I personally think it a faithful (not to mention awesome) recreation of the gaming experience. It made the movie far cooler. My only complaint was that it was rather short. I was expecting a longer sequence.The ending was by far the most disappointing part of the movie. It just... well, ends.Pros: -FPS Sequence -Surprisingly good acting by most the actors. -Special Effects. -The BFG!Cons: -Not sticking to the plot (kind of a pro/con) -Rosamund Pike, period. -FPS Sequence too short.Overall: 8/10","['0', '1']" +936,rw1241396,ruidobranco,Doom (2005),9.0,"Well, it's strong enough to walk with its own feet",18 December 2005,1,"Well, just watched DooM, and, i liked.It has superb moments, those that really put you in the edge of your seat, and, it is so for the most parts of the movie.The movie goes, always, in a fast pace, with lots of action, and, being so, it does not give time to develop the characters more. They are briefly presented, and then, tossed into action.The high points are: Even compared with Aliens(which i think, was the inspiration for the original video game) this movie stands up, on its own feet, and has enough creativity and punch to deliver the story until the end.It has its flaws too... And the one Flaw, that doesn't go away, is(and here go spoilers) Why they don't have a night vision? You see, everything is so hi tech, and the space marines don't have a green vision(like the Paris Hilton Video - hehehehehehe) All in all, it's a worth movie, and, a very well crafted piece of film, paving the way from video games to movies in a very good sense.","['1', '2']" +937,rw1210533,skjamog,Doom (2005),3.0,Amazing... simply amazing.,6 November 2005,0,"One day long ago i picked up a copy of a game called 'Doom', i was just a young boy blasting away at hellish things with all the classic weaponry. when that evolved into what doom 3 was a few years back i was delighted, recognizing all the 'imps' and 'gorrilas' that i could mow down at my fancy in real time 3d *flash and so on*. after reading the rather unknown book series following a character, the one from the game ( i think he held a name like ?'Fly' Taggart? ), i was again pleasantly delighted, it felt as if the doom series, the doom legacy was being treated quite well.i want to know who screwed up...its not like directing a big time golden screen motion picture could really be that hard, especially when you have a story already written up for you, i think the writer may have been the over achieving type as the story i was stuck staring at for 100 agonizing minutes was as far off as you could get... not far off in the theatrical sense, I'm sure plenty of people could understand the cliché plot containing the 'quick fix' of any sci-fi horror action flick, its called a virus... ahem... Doom; A... err. okay,There was a.... GENOME (sounds smart Right??) error? there are, and then... i mean... not... no... zombies... hmmm.and then there was the rock, this didn't up the dialog one bit, okay, a little bit, he was cool in movies like walking tall where situation overturned dialog. so he got some kudo points, and for taking the roll on doom, well, thats pretty cool of him to do but it didn't give the movie any more direction, the first person thing kinda took a lot of the acting material and tossed it aside anyway.one thing i noticed, as an added flaw to the first person perspective thing, the camera seemed to float at times, now i know from experience that its pretty damn near impossible to gracefully glide into combat, nor would it be practical for a marine to glide around corridors and glide into combat, if i was that marine, i would probably request a rugged third person camera, bu I'm just that cool, back down Rocky...Have you ever watched someone play a video game? DOOM the movie, it was like impersonal gaming, not only that, I actually got scared while playing doom 3, Every corner was heavily laden with horrific Zombies and Demons... compared to Doom 3, Even the movies Audio & Visuals are a tad weak.In the end i must say. watch the movie if you want to watch the movie, play the game if you watch the movie, see how much you can get out of the franchise If you want to, personally, i wish i could lett out all the false DOOMatry, but i think i caught the virus, oh golly.Peace out peeps, ~Skjamog","['1', '3']" +938,rw1198864,brad-mick-artist,Doom (2005),1.0,Awful...,22 October 2005,1,"Well, I went out and saw the film last night, and I'm really wishing I could have gotten a refund. As per the usual, the folks who decided to make a film based off the game took out all the things that made the game great. The main thing, the fact that a gate to hell is literally opened and demons come forth. At its core, its another 'virus/plague' movie. Not the wickedly cool lone soldier fighting off the hordes of hell we've all come to know and love. I expected to see all the crazy evil elements of the original series, and the retelling from Doom 3. There was none of that. I don't recommend this movie at all. It was like watching Alone in the Dark all over again. Man, it was awful.With all that said, I do however have to give the movie credit for 2 things. The FPS section was pretty neat, and the Grimm guy made up to look like the original dooms face when all bloodied up was great. Other than that....awful.","['8', '19']" +939,rw1204427,nobbytatoes,Doom (2005),5.0,whoa.....was it meant to laugh?,30 October 2005,1,"When a research facility is compromised and the scientist's are killed, a group of marines are sent in to control the situation. We find out that the scientists were doing experiments on chromo-mutation, giving subjects and extra chromosome. They have found that people with an extra chromosome become super humanoid; they become stronger, faster, super healing rate and are super intelligent; buts that only if the subject excepts this extra chromosome. Rejecting it results in genetic mutation, creating a race of monsters.What ever happened to the original idea of the doom game. The idea of opening a portal to hell and letting in all these demons and monsters was a much better concept than this genetic mutation. Instead the writers have taken their cue from Resident Evil, but have twisted abit so its not a complete rip off. The monsters presented here though are all alike. The first time you see the monster its quite a sight to see, but seeing that all the monsters are basically the same, it gets very boring real fast.The acting here is so bad. The actors are either wooden or limber. But they are all culprits of over acting. But how can they take the script seriously. The dialog is cheesy and the plotting is so thin. The jokes aren't funny and they fall flat on their faces. You cringe more than you do laugh. But thats not to say you don't laugh at all. I was laughing so much more when someone died with the over the top violence. Also when The Rock was trying to act serious; even more when he was swearing, you cant take a profanity from him seriously. At least you are entertained in this respect.But the upside of this tripe. The atmosphere is very dark and claustrophobic; it does have that real suffocating feel, which does help the scares, even if they are minimal. The first person perspective; though it does seem there for the fans, works quite well and it serves it purpose. For the few minutes we're in this mode, its constant and relentless action. The fight with the white monster was very fast paced and your right in it. One of the high points of the film. Also we are treated to a man-o-man fight. It comes out of nowhere, but who really cares, it was a great fight. We are also given a name to the BFG; Bio Force Gun. Whatever, its still the Big F***in' Gun to me.This is not great, its so far away from being great, but i had so much fun laughing myself silly. Just see it and have some of the best fun at the stupidity they serve you.","['0', '1']" +940,rw1211860,acamoling,Doom (2005),9.0,way too many idiots complain for no reason!,8 November 2005,0,"This movie was fun. Yes they could have gone in a completely different direction and included the whole bizz on hell, when in fact the first game actually mentions experimentation. The way that they did incorporate references to heaven and hell i think was a much more intelligent idea, even though this movie isn't a very intelligent one. The first hour and a half is like watching Aliens.. but guess what.. thats whats good about it. It may be contrived but it was still fun.. at least they didn't follow the style of a really bad movie. Also this movie captures the feel of the game.. what it was like going through all those corridors not knowing what to expect. They didn't include hell.. so what.. stop whining, at least they tried to give the fans a film. This movie has been in production hell, so probably the only way they could get the movie financed was by changing the hell factor so it was for a more general audience.(i don't know really why and i don't care) The movie is fun.. i was glad they made it.. i plan on buying it when it comes out. And, hey, i am a fan of the games too, but it doesn't mean i complain like a friggin idiot. I hope they make another one!","['0', '1']" +941,rw1203120,fred_brown,Doom (2005),2.0,Big waste of a movie license,28 October 2005,0,"Briefly .... saw it today. The movie was scary but what a waste of potential. Missing was one of the great weapons from the game, the over-hyped BFG was a complete waste of time and used to little effect (so too the chainsaw), the game like Point of View shots that featured in the trailer only last around 10 minutes, if that and the ending was pretty weak ! The variety of monsters was severely lacking and the role they had The Rock play in the end was pretty dumb too. Yes, it IS possible to make the movie a lot more like the game and write a good story line at the same time but I guess that was just too hard for the writers and the budget. They should have consulted ID on this and hired JMS or Joss Whedon .... speaking of which, go see Serenity, its far more entertaining and a lot better value for money.","['4', '9']" +942,rw1203005,alpha128,Doom (2005),7.0,U.A.C. - Unoriginal Although Clever,27 October 2005,0,"I have played the DOOM, DOOM II, DOOM 3, and DOOM 3: Resurrection of Evil games. So I simply *had* to see the DOOM film, despite the bad reviews.For me, the last critically assailed, but still must-see, film was Alien vs. Predator (AVP). Like AVP, DOOM the film is unoriginal, but enthusiastic. And in my opinion, like AVP, DOOM the movie succeeds at what it sets out to accomplish.Sure enough, the DOOM movie, like the games, shamelessly rips off Alien and Aliens. Certainly, DOOM the movie is not in the same league as those two classics. But that doesn't make it a bad film. Frankly, I'd rather see a new story that recycles some familiar elements than another pointless remake.Furthermore, considering its video game source material, DOOM is surprisingly well-written and well-acted. The marines aren't as memorable as those in Aliens, but Karl Urban, Rosamund Pike, and even The Rock give performances that are quite good.The movie isn't completely faithful to the plot of the game, but in my opinion, the plot changes work. Furthermore, IMHO, the brief, but much discussed, First Person Shooter sequence works - both as cinema and as a homage to the games.As well versed in DOOM lore as I am, I can't predict how a viewer who has never played the games will react to the movie. However, I predict that all but the most demanding fans of the games will enjoy the film.7/10","['5', '10']" +943,rw1203026,Willowseve77,Doom (2005),7.0,Fun movie from a great game.,27 October 2005,0,"I didn't expect anything from this movie. I love the video game and I think they did pretty good. I had fun watching it with my three nephews. I am not saying that it is a kids movie but if you are a fan of the video game then go see this movie. At first I was kind of searching for some likeness of the game and it definitely had some key features from it, but I also had to remember that many movies from video games stray from the original idea, which isn't always a good thing. An example is x-men. but in all fairness they did what they could with what they had. If you have played the game you knew which monsters were which and who sarge was. I really like the twist to the movie and a few other aspects toward the end was really cool. I recommend seeing this movie if you want something fun and scary at the sometime. Not majorly scary though , just enough to make you open your mouth in awe a few times.:)","['0', '1']" +944,rw1199423,BroadswordCallinDannyBoy,Doom (2005),6.0,Hollywood is a mad scientist,22 October 2005,0,"One of the most controversial and most popular video games finally its shake at the big screen with mixed results.The story starts with an emergency on a research facility located on Mars. Some nasty demons are making lunch of the people there and a team of super tough marines led by The Rock are called to investigate problem. Soon some secrets that the researchers hid are uncovered and carnage ensues.Director Andzrej Bartkowiak throws in many clichés and the film overall feels uninspired. In the trailer there was a quick glimpse of the use of first person point of view, a great ode to the game, but that was tragically underused and only in one sequence. Since this movie is essentially aimed at fans of the game why only include one scene with what they remember most from the game? If the use of first person was in more than just that one scene, such as when the marines explore dark caverns and open doors, it would have made the movie: a) more exciting to watch and given it a more inspired look, b) would have been more like the game. How many times since ""Aliens"" have we seen marines exploring dark hallways? I mean seriously, start counting. Then the one movie which could have shown it in a very different way omits the idea.The other glaring point of annoyance is genetic experimentation. In the game there were mutations, but they were formed differently and the game's story cleverly omitted the mad scientist cliché which the movie somehow thought to embrace. It seems that Hollywood take all sorts of material (most notably hit foreign films) and transforms it into its own conservative creation. Maybe Hollywood is the real mad scientist, except one that is afraid to experiment with something new and just tries clockwork formulas on most material it works with.On the flip side the gore effects and production design were cool and will undoubtedly please the intended audience. Even the infamous BFG 9000 makes an appearance. Throw in bits of humor here and there, a decent climatic fight scene between two super-humans and you've got a decent action/horror film that strays just a little too far from its source. 6/10Rated R: strong violence/gore and profanity","['6', '12']" +945,rw1207345,bendrik79,Doom (2005),3.0,Doom Movie: Let Down; Wasted Opportunity,2 November 2005,1,"How come every time I say ""The Doom movie is a piece of crap,"" someone says, ""Yeah, but it's okay for what it is"" - ? Isn't this just like saying that a piece of crap is okay for what it is? I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, a piece of crap is a piece of crap.I find it interesting that the one thing that critics and defenders of this movie seem to agree on is that it was ""mindless"". The defenders keep saying that it was only ""meant"" to be mindless shoot-em-up. How does that justify it? You mean the writers actually intended to make a piece of crap? Well golly, I guess that makes it great then, since they succeeded.And as for all you people who are saying that the ones who didn't like it must have been expecting an artistic, emotional movie and should go watch a romantic comedy - do you honestly believe that anyone who went to see Doom actually expected to get an artistic, emotional movie? All I personally expected (or at least hoped for) was a half decent movie that would expand upon the Doom experience, and possibly enhance it. The Doom movie could have been a great opportunity to expand on some of the thematic, atmospheric, sci-fi and psychological elements that were not fully explored in the games. Instead, Universal decided to make a crappy version of Resident Evil, and tried to pass it off as Doom by setting it on Mars and throwing in a BFG.Apart from the absence of Hell, which was the most obvious, and, in my opinion, unforgivable blunder that the screenwriters made, the movie completely failed to capture the pervading sense of isolation, hopelessness and torment that made the games (particularly Doom 3) so grueling and compelling. How did you feel when you played Doom, creeping along on 10 percent health, wondering how you were ever going to get through? How did you feel when you picked up a Berserk and became a psychotic maniac, surrounded by pentagrams, skulls and lava? How did you feel, in Doom 3, the first time you looked in to that bathroom mirror and saw yourself turning... into one of ""them""?Doom is not about a squad of special ops that get called in to an underground research facility to contain an outbreak of genetically engineered parasites. Doom is about demons trying to invade the world, and the lone marine who gets stranded on Mars - the only thing standing between Hell and Earth who has no choice but to somehow fight his way through and out the other side. It's the quintessential computer game plot.I had the impression that the writers just missed the point. It was as if they looked at the game and figured that it's just about shooting monsters with big guns. Sure, to some extent, that is what Doom is about. But it's also what a million games are about, so what is it that makes Doom so loved by so many? Perhaps the writers should have thought more about that before churning out this superficial, formulaic, and of course, ""mindless"" piece of crap that has precious little to do with the awesome game that it's supposed to be based on.The decision to use monster costumes rather than CGI sucked, because they weren't very good, and so to hide it, they hid the monsters in the dark and didn't let you see them much. I don't know about you, but I remember seeing a crap-load of monsters pretty damn clearly in the games. Doom has always occupied a computer generated universe, and personally, I think that that is where it belongs. If it were up to me, the entire film would be CGI, a la Final Fantasy or Flight Of The Osiris (Animatrix), and filled with hordes of gruesome beasts.Some argue that this movie could never have been anything other than a ""mindless"" shoot-em-up because Doom is so plot-thin, but I disagree. With a bit of imagination and a better understanding of and appreciation for the elements that made Doom so cool, I think the movie could have had just as much imagination-capturing appeal as the games did. I can't think of any reason for Doom fans to justify and defend this film when it so clearly let the fans down.","['12', '25']" +946,rw1211913,AlecWingerd,Doom (2005),4.0,The 24th Chromosome,5 November 2005,1,"I am sorry to report that the Doom movie, after finally having come out, was a pretty large disappointment. They have taken a terrible amount of freedom with this conversion to the big screen and most of them bestow the movie with an even more negative charge. The first thing I should therefore say is that this movie's problem isn't the acting. The acting was above average, especially from Karl Urban and Rosamund Pike. Al Weaver's few moments deserve a positive connotation as well. Even the Rock himself seems to suddenly develop some talent.I enjoy playing FPS games. I adored DOOM, rarely played DOOM2, but loved DOOM³, although the quintessential unmountable flashlight 'annoyed the hell out of me'. Now, what these guys did is an insult to the games. The story about having found the 'genetic blueprint for the soul' is utter tosh, so is the selective pathogen attached thereto. My other major beefs with this film is the available technology, the lack of suspense, the failed attempt at character building and the scenery, which despite many positive comments is quite dreadful.As far as the technology is concerned, the 'Arcing device' and the opacity walls are rubbish and I hated them. They are an insult to the Doom games and as far as the Arc could be considered a teleportation device, I wonder where Hell is to be found. There is no Hell, there is no Doom, there is only the 24th Chromosome Pair and all the nonsense it spawned, which is why I substituted the title 'Doom' and called this comment 'the 24th Chromosome' instead. Because that is what it is about. Everything that made Doom 3 a worthwhile gaming experience was destroyed by this movie. You want to see the slow decay of the mind, the escalation as the Mars facility slowly changes into a Hell on Mars. And I bet I speak for every Doom fanatic out there that we wanted to see what Hell looked like in this movie.Part of this brings me to the lack of suspense, which was created by two major mitigating factors. Part of the kick from Doom 3 was the desolation you felt from being a hundred million clicks from Earth. The Arc took that away by inducing a mean of instantaneous travel back Home. Like this, one could have simply thrown a small tactical nuke through that gravity defying globule in the first place and get things over with. Secondly, making Reaper superhuman robbed the movie of whatever suspense it had left, as suspense is built around the fear that something terrible might happen to a vulnerable person. This could be partially solved by having miss Grimm NOT disappear and tag along as that ridiculously long and superfluous FPS scene ensues (I rather play the real thing).Then there is the one chance for the two main characters of the movie to develop, but that goes even more awry than the genetic experiments. The two always refer to some kind of incident, which is accompanied by a musical tune, but never is actually elaborated on what this plot point is really about. That already tells it. There's no plot point. It's all about these genetic misfits and slaughtering them. A good thing I can say about this movie though is how it doesn't try and integrate some love interest here or there. Maybe the filmmakers tried - and God knows Hollywood's famous for killing movies with these things - but couldn't find any live, non-related marine to hook up with miss Grimm. If not, bless the movie, if so, bless the circumstances.Now about the scenery; the corridors were Doomy, I won't argue about that, but the set pieces could've been better and more detailed. Now maybe I should thank the quality of the screener for it, but I could make it out fine enough to make the observation. The electric parameter holding pen was stupid, be honest, but the Sewers on the mars facility made me laugh. Who would ever build a research facility on Mars and let so much space go to waste for the soul purpose of putting in a medieval system of catacombs as a poor excuse for plumbing?! I have done my say. To conclude things: I found the movie quite bad. I found it almost horrid. Horrid from a cinematographic standard, horrid in the choices made for the plot, the scenery and the characters. But, I rather have a bad movie that's exciting and enjoyable....... than a good movie that isn't. And Doom wás at least mildly exciting and enjoyable enough for me to bare. And it had a couple of charms; I loved the BFG (although they should have made the effects green).4 out of 10","['0', '1']" +947,rw1200676,bcarson60,Doom (2005),2.0,Not quite what I expected,24 October 2005,0,"How tough can it be to turn the simple, mindless first-person shooter into a simple, mindless movie? Too easy, apparently.The screenwriters feel they have to throw in a bunch of biotechnobabble that is so moronic it would have been stricken from the first season of Star Trek (the original series). They feel they have to confront issues like drug abuse and military responsibility for civilian deaths. They should have saved the moralizing for Jarhead.What did I expect? I expected cheesy and got crappy. I expected bad but got boring. I kept thinking, ""What could make this movie better?"" and considered improvements like, ""produced by Roger Corman"", or, ""starring Vin Diesel"", or, ""directed by Uwe Boll."" Honestly, it's even worse than Alien Versus Predator.","['8', '17']" +948,rw1198513,movieman1124,Doom (2005),4.0,Decent flick. Definitely best Video game movie,21 October 2005,0,"First thing that i did enjoy about this movie before it ever came out was that i did NOT see directors Paul W.S. Anderson or Uwe Boll. Right then I knew I wouldn't be seeing CRAP. What I do not get is how Hollywood keeps giving them movies to direct. But different story.so i just got out of this film about an hour ago. I have been looking forward to it for little over a month now. I worked at a theater and there were posters and cardboard standees showing off the first person view shooter mode. Well get to that a little later.At first I was thinking that it was starting a little bit slow. Which was OK because of course they need to tell some story to those who have never played the game. However, once they do start showing some of the monsters when arriving on Mars the suspense starts to rise. Just know they show slight images and shadows of the creatures at first.Acting in this movie was not that bad. Not that much cheesiness. Just of course all the references they would make about hell and demons. Rock wasn't to bad in it. I was actually happy on how his character turned out.Now on to the first shooter view. Hey it was pretty good. The only problem was it was one long duration shot of one character, yes I know like the game, but the problem was the monsters weren't fast enough. And some of them would just stand there and not attack. I liked the first person view I just feel they should have done it for all the soldiers and cutting back from first person to third person views.Now after that happened the movie died. I loved the beginning and the middle but then ending fight scene was a little lame. But hey this is only my opinion.","['1', '11']" +949,rw1214301,luciannertan,Doom (2005),5.0,Well...,12 November 2005,0,"I liked the story in Doom 3 , it was fantastic ,even i wasn't good implemented. And when i saw that it will be a movie on it i thought it will be a very good one.The first part was good, spooky , well made in doom atmosphere but then after they teleported back on earth it became a crap, like a low budget movie. Where the hell is Hell? where are that super monsters ? where are the ocult signs ,whipsers, things that made a super horror atmosphere. They remembered about the thing that a segment of DNA is the segment of soul but only remembered. Where that super weapon Soul Cube and Teleportation thing? The story is stupid, how could the martians,a far developed civilization, died because of monsters they created when humanity didn't? Not even in Doom 3 they were all were exterminated.Anyway is a good action movie, nice effects.But is not really DOOM we all know...And Star Ship Troopers was a better movie, in my opinion. Hope there will be Doom 2 with a better plot.","['2', '4']" +950,rw1200487,Shalom_Aloni,Doom (2005),3.0,Amazing game to film adaption !,24 October 2005,1,"The movie is just amazing !I went with low expectations because the trend was that every game to film adaption just sucked. Man, i was so happy that i was proved wrong. I loved DOOM-DOOM3 , and i played it non-stop and it wasn't accepted for me to corrupt this amazing brand. I wished they have make the film's story precisely as the games was, but i think it really would not work in the cinema. I just wanted more action and more monsters from the game but i think DOOM2 will do that :)If you forgive the film about these two little things you are going for a great ride filled with blood and gore. The story was in fact very clear and interesting for me. The rock and karl urban did a great job in the acting. The pacing of the movie was just like the game had -loved it. The visual-FX were also great and loved them.The First Person Shooter from Reapers P.O.V was the most amazing thing i saw in a film lately. (after the comics look in sin-city). i can't understand how it wasn't done before !!! I don't want to give everything away but i wish it was more then mere five minute sequence. The fight with the pinky demon with the chain saw and the fear from him being so close on you brings all the terror from the DOOM game to life. AMAZING. This is a must see.Even if you don't like ci-fi, go see it for it's action. by itself it's an amazing action film.BEST GAME TO FILM ADEPTION EVER - WAITING FOR DOOM 2 !Go see it now. My score : 10 .","['1', '3']" +951,rw1205218,kurisu-4,Doom (2005),2.0,"Pretty poor showing, even for a game movie",27 October 2005,0,"When I first saw the preview, I had pretty low expectations. I'm a big fan of the game, but I'm a bigger fan of great action movies. This one doesn't stack up. It's sad when you have low expectations of a film and it doesn't even live up to them.The film begins with the Rock leading his crew of Marines into a research facility (with everything from archeology to heavy artillery) to contain a situation. Right off the bat you see a troop of the most un-Marine like Marines I've ever seen. They're undisciplined, nonthreatening, have no instinct and even look ratty. Aliens (1986) had perhaps the best crew of Marines for a film like this; Doom didn't put any thought into this at all.There's also a lot less action in this film than expected. When there are action scenes, they're relatively short and unsuspenseful. There's a few ""gotcha"" moments where things jump out at you, but the scenes involving the aliens and zombies are pretty routine. The game packs a lot more action in its download-able demo than there is in the entire film.It's clear that once Aliens and Predator (1987) came out this genre has been spent. Since those two films, there hasn't been a noteworthy film of the soldiers-versus-aliens type worth mentioning. Doom clearly comes up way short.","['10', '20']" +952,rw1198593,tj19,Doom (2005),8.0,It was pretty good,21 October 2005,0,"I really liked Doom, but it could've been better. It wasn't completely different from the game (Doom 3). It was actually pretty close. Doom had a first person view for a little while, which was one of the best parts of the movie. Doom 3 the game, and Doom the movie rock. Speaking of rock, The Rock did very good as Sarge, he is a pretty good actor. Karl Urban was good, too, and so was his twin sister, Rosamund Pike. This movie was a little scary, and very gory. Doom even had some jaw-droppers, one was in the first 5 minutes! I know why the critics did not like this movie because this was actually a movie you watch for fun, not those boring movies that have a real deep meaning. Doom is recommended for people who like movies for what they are, and that is to entertain. And Doom definitely did. I give this movie 8.0 out of 10.","['6', '20']" +953,rw1253464,killer_instin29,Doom (2005),1.0,Doom - Doomed,2 January 2006,0,"I have always waited for the doom movie to be made! but i was utterly disgusted to see what it had to offer! What the heck was the people involved in the script thinking?! This is an ""outkast"" to what Doom should be about! There isn't even a lot of guts, which may not be important but i think it is! The storyline is also abit out of place. Overall the film is nothing what i expected it to be and i doubt anyone who is a real doom fan will find this to be a true reflection of the game! I'm sure you must know there is Rock in the movie? The twist that he comes with him being in the movie is appaulling! I'm sure you know what i mean if you have seen it.","['1', '4']" +954,rw1208935,Godlyguitarist1,Doom (2005),5.0,What the hell...Literally,4 November 2005,1,"For people not familiar with the game, this is not a bad movie. Not great, but not bad. Karl Urban and the Rock were great in their roles, and I don't care what anyone thinks, I loved the first-person shooter view. But for fans of the game, the lack of Hell is a REAL let-down. The game is great for that very reason: your a Marine fighting Hell. The movie took out one of the most important aspects of Doom. And would it have killed them to add an imp or hell knight throwing a fireball. Or if they couldn't have the cyberdemon in this one, maybe have the revenent, or a couple of lost souls, or that big, fat, fire-throwing blob dude that always pisses me off in the game. Anyway, thanks for letting me vent my inner-nerd. I'll shut up now.","['1', '2']" +955,rw1197001,Cube_TX,Doom (2005),4.0,Exactly what I expected,18 October 2005,1,"I just saw an advance screening of this movie promoted by the radio station I work for. While this wasn't a total waste of a movie I was glad I didn't have to pay for it. While the Rock looks the part of a real action hero he has a long way to go as an actor. During scenes in which they tried to feature some frail attempt at a plot I found the Rock to be the 2nd least believable character behind only the laughably blank female doctor. The special effects were the star and they should have stuck to that. This was a mindless shoot-'em-up and that's fine, but don't try to turn it into anything more.The space marines were your typical characters in any sci-fi or action movie featuring a group. We had the handsome rogue, the jerk, the preacher, the psycho leader and the interchangeable deadmeat characters who are only there to die in a loud and grotesque manner. The makers of this movie watched Aliens and the remake of Night of the Living Dead then made their movie out of a mixture of the two. I was waiting for Sigourney Weaver to make a cameo. The plot was a total ripoff! I wondered if this was done on purpose after awhile. There was a character named Patricia Tallman, who was the lead actress in the Night of the Living Dead remake. Perhaps this was done on purpose.The most interesting character aside from the leads was Goat, the preacher -- unfortunately he was killed off about 30 minutes into the movie. They left the deadmeat cannon-fodder guys for last which led to some blank scenes.Again, I wasn't expecting the next Gone With the Wind. This movie will entertain you if you don't put any thought into the plot whatsoever -- since the writers obviously didn't either. I was very surprised to see so many parents bringing their small children to this flick. This is NOT a movie for kids AT ALL. The R rating is rightfully earned and parents should take heed. The advance screening I went to actually had parents walk out due to their children being scared or even nauseated by all of the gore. The radio station even received calls of complaint about the violence. Parents should research what they let their kids watch.If you're looking for a good movie, go see something else. If you like braindead bulletfests then this is the movie for you. Good sound and special effects make this at least worth watching on DVD.","['5', '22']" +956,rw1200749,EvLauster,Doom (2005),3.0,"Doom(ed from the start). ""Resident Evil"" meets ""Ghost of Mars"" by way of ""Alone in the Dark""",24 October 2005,0,"The Rock, Karl Urban, Rosamund Pike, Deobia Oparei, Ben Daniels, Al Weaver, Yao Chin, Ian Hughes. Directed by Andrzej Bartkowiak. Yet another teenage video game turned Hollywood as did the other failure's House of the Dead and Resident Evil. And just like Resident Evil a problem with a mysterious corporation leads to a special tactics and rescue squad being sent in to save the day. Led by Sarge (The Rock, in a less than rock solid performance) the team goes in and per-usual things and awry and numerous problems cause injuries and fatalities. of course what true Sci-Fi movie would be complete without the cliché' lines and actions such as the flash light not working, guns out of ammo and the over used line ""Oh my god!"". Although the movie does new things by bringing the fans into the movie through a different point of view. Still the film falls flat. Same story line and actions but a different title. Perhaps the movie was doomed from the start. My final rating 3/10.","['0', '3']" +957,rw1199487,SnakeEclipse,Doom (2005),5.0,"good enough to be a fun movie, but not enough justice to the game.",23 October 2005,0,"OK, where must I begin. I might as well point out the bad things first in respect to the game. Now, what the hell was with the whole 24th chromosome thing? Makes sense to me, yes. However, what the hell happened to, well, HELL? These monsters in the movie were respectable enough to relate to the imps and hell knights in the game, but WHERE THE HELL ARE THE FIRE AND PLAMSA BALLS?! Where are the flying lost souls? Where are the CACODEMONS? where's the F**kin demon lord and spider demon for crying out loud. Maybe I'm being a little vain and asking for too much, but the monsters in the game were different breeds, and all came from hell, not mutated. The whole plot was actually somewhat too similar to Resident Evil. It p*s*e* me off. They completely abandoned all that the game was based on plot wise.Now, as for the characters, I'm glad that they made it a team effort in this, and the characters were funny at times, but they seemed so underdone, except for of course, Reaper and Sarge, even Rosamund Pike couldn't add to anything in the film. I know I'm being picky, but blood and guts game? One man fighting to stop hell (or team effort)? Hello?The good things were that they stayed on Mars, they had the BFG in it, but it was so underused. I think the highlight of it was the first person thing, which I feel quite gypped on because of the short amount of time that we see it. I feel like they just put it in there for the game fans so they'd have their glory, and I am a die hard doom fan, but i feel somewhat insulted by it. They have had plenty of technology available to them to make this so much better, but they didn't use what they could've had available to them. Maybe if ID worked with them on it, it wouldn't have been such a disappointment, but this was just insulting to us gamers once again. however, a SMALL improvement when it comes to other VG movies. The action was however enjoyable, and the fight at the end made it fun, but I almost felt like Rock had to do it to show off that he still has his smack-down glory. Oh well, lets see if they don't butcher Halo. (God Forbid)5/10","['44', '90']" +958,rw1201287,briggsjazzgroup,Doom (2005),1.0,Doom represents just that of cinema,25 October 2005,0,"A screenplay that feels incomplete at best, bad acting, bad (or no) direction is what sums up cinema's latest slap-in-the-face. The film has no patience, no intelligence, no subtlety and no respect for the audience. The attempt at a theme feels forced and is embarrassing. The POV sequence toward the end feels as though the rest of the film were put together (in a single day) just to present it. Though it has proved very effective in video games (ie Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein, etc.) here it only adds to the absurdity of the film. The major lesson of Doom is this; ignore all elements of storytelling and character development and you can retire. If you thought Resident Evil was bad, get ready to be enchanted.","['3', '9']" +959,rw1200951,Truecrusader12,Doom (2005),1.0,very bad F-,24 October 2005,1,"OK guys this is a spoiler!OK when i went to see this i said ""Not expecting much but if it has fighting I'll be content."".... I am not content! They only kill about 5 beings in the first hour and thirty minutes! and then in the last four minutes john grim A.K.A (Karl urban) kills about 15 (Includes zombies) but that happens if about 30 seconds! this movie had so much potential and they screwed it up! and then Hollywood had to make the one military commander into a crazy military nut who kills the kid! ""Do not"" See this movie even if i saw this on the TV i would demand my time back! they messed with the plot and destroyed a good movie! don't see it there's no fighting there's no plot there's no characters don't waste your money! Summary F-","['12', '23']" +960,rw1203843,DICK STEEL,Doom (2005),6.0,A Nutshell Review: Doom,29 October 2005,0,"You are in the wrong movie if you ask for a plot in Doom. If there's any, it stays true to the game - shoot anything that breathes, which is uttered many times in the latest movie adapted from computer games, off the heels of Resident Evil and Tomb Raider.I might try - a group of RRTS troops (read: Universal Soldier type, it even plays out that way) gets sent to Mars to uncover some weird occurrences in some high tech lab dealing with genetics. Soon, the victims become mutations of various kinds and all hell breaks loose as we follow the crew into the labyrinth of an underground lab full of dark skanky corridors right off the set of Aliens.It's nothing fancy, but it works. The filmmakers try to up both the intelligence and babe factor by introducing Bond Girl Rosamund Pike (she's a distraction alright) to the plot, but her *ahem* assets fail to maximise the thin plot. With mercenary soldiers, we see the typical stereotyped characters like the rookie, the maverick, the questionable orders, and the hero with a buried past.One major gripe I had with this movie, is the language. If the scripts says to swear, then please swear using as much colourful and vulgar words. Don't have it filmed, then decide during post production to tone it down, which means to re-record the audio and dub it over. So The Rock might mouth an ""F-word"", doesn't take a genius to realize that the word finally heard - ""idiot"" is two-syllable, and makes the movie like one of the old Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns. Plenty of moments like this. Worse, while Rosamund Pike was uttering a slew of scientific mumbo-jumbo, her mouth doesn't even move!!! The editors need to be shot up the rear by the BFG.Speaking of BFG, it's disappointing. For fans, this is THE weapon to use as you blast away anything that moves. In the film, the buildup, fanfare and respect given to the Big Fat Gun (as The Rock calls it. I know you fans have a more impolite name for it) doesn't justify its short life-span on screen. Worse, there's only ONE BFG used in the entire movie, for a total of like, 2 shots? The much touted first-person shooter (FPS) view, adapted straight from the game, turned out to be no longer than 5 minutes. So for all you viewers who are worrying that the FPS view will get you all nauseous, you might want to reconsider. I thought it could be longer, and earlier, but it wasn't. Pity.However, the special effects, for what it's worth, is pretty nifty. Well, this area isn't much of a challenge, having source material come from a computer game, you couldn't and shouldn't do much wrong here.Strictly for fans of the game to see how it's played out on screen, and for those who like a dose of some mindless action, led by The Rock. Hmm... did I just see him raise his eyebrow?","['1', '4']" +961,rw1238970,peter_hacking,Doom (2005),7.0,Doom goof,15 December 2005,1,"There are several spoilers ahead. You've been warned.When I saw this film yesterday, I saw a problem.When the marines got back through the ARC portal they found there was only 58 min left before the lock-down ended, they went looking for survivors and found Pinky, who was promptly taken by the critter.After Reaper was infected with C-24 he went through the base killing everything he saw including the 'Pinky Demon', but when he got to the exit he found there were 2 min left on the clock.According to the video they saw earlier, the mutation took 46 min to start having an visible effect on the human body, yet Pinky could only have been infected for about 50 min.This meant there was no possible way for the virus to have enough time to mutate his body into what he had become.I found this film enjoyable, with a good soundtrack. I do agree that the plot is not even close to the games but if you can look past that flaw, it's a good use of 100 min of downtime.","['2', '2']" +962,rw1208400,halldaniel,Doom (2005),1.0,One of the worst films ever made,4 November 2005,0,"So the movie outing for the video game ""Doom"" finally arrives, with guns blazing and chain saws chugging away. And the verdict?Well, bad. Not just a bit bad, but incredibly woeful. Although it has passed into legend how video game adaptations simply don't transfer successfully onto the big screen (Streetfighter anyone), this film has found new depths in its unspeakable failings.An inexcusable, incoherent mess of a movie, this is loud, brainless nonsense aimed at undemanding cinema fodder. Everything is to blame here, not least the shoddy, hole-ridden, cliché-heavy plot, which will no doubt incense the puritan followers of the video game franchise. At fault too is the wooden acting, with the cast seemingly drifting through every scene as though the final pay check is their sole purpose for featuring in such irrelevant pap. What is significantly bad, however, is how boring the film is. The first half of the movie is seemingly spent lurking around dark corridors, with a shadow seen here, a noise heard there. Not terribly exciting, and the following half managing to be even worse, culminating in a first-person Doom-esquire scene that is so embarrassing to watch it hurts, and clearly marks a new found low in modern cinema as we know it. What is worse, however, is that it's one of the movie's few 'exciting' moments.An inconceivable failure that should be avoided at all costs. This film should only be watched as an example of how terribly bad Hollywood productions can be.","['2', '6']" +963,rw1209147,darkangel_7,Doom (2005),2.0,Quite Disappointing,5 November 2005,0,"I have to say I've been a Doom fan since day 1, and I'll admit I was half excited about this movie coming out. Then I saw it! It had to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The acting was terrible, the story had nothing to do with the game in any way, and the 1st person scene, though a good idea, was cheesier than all of France. The only reason I never gave this a 1 was because the CG on the monsters was really well done.I can understand some fans of the game trying to defend it simply because it's Doom, but please, use the film critic in you and not the game critic and put this movie in it's place next to some other famed game to movie conversions, ie. Super Mario Bros., Street Fighter, and Mortal Kombat Annihilation.In conclusion, garbage.","['2', '5']" +964,rw1203718,empty2005,Doom (2005),1.0,Boom,29 October 2005,1,Doom is set in a research facility on Mars where an outbreak occurs. When a group of army corps are sent to retrieve vital information about the research on the Human Genome Project all hell breaks loose. The plot is very weak and is closely related to Resident Evil (eg. viral outbreak in a research facility). The acting is horrible with really poor dialogue and action scenes (eg. game related scenes). The sfx are nothing special (eg. the monsters) This story in my opinion is a major knock-off of Aliens but has not got the qualities of Resident Evil or Mortal Kombat. With a disapoinintg ending and major plot holes 1/5* stars from me!,"['1', '4']" +965,rw1205120,WheelerClown,Doom (2005),8.0,Doom it's not (but it could have been much worse),30 October 2005,1,"If you want to see a Night of the Living Dead Clone, this movie is for you. If you came to see a movie resembling the video game Doom, skip all but the first half of the last 30 minutes of the film. If you came to see the Rock play a stereotypical egomaniac military leader with no ability to put morality above orders (in short to see him play an almost totally UNLIKEABLE character), again this movie is for you.Harry Potter being the exception, movies based on other mediums (in the case a popular video game) rarely if ever even remotely resemble that which they are supposed to be based on. That said, there are a few good Doom images in the film, although the storyline does not resemble the game at all. I was pleasantly surprised to see several images in the first part of the film that I, as a Doom enthusiast, recognized. Rising platforms, elevators, the circular stairways going down, etc. And like I said the first fifteen minutes of the films last half hour or so definitely fit, the scene being seen from the same prospective as the game, namely with the viewer looking over a massive gun as if the person behind the gun. The final ""monster"" (of the non-human variety) resembled a creature found in the game as well. Other than that, this was not a movie based on Doom but, as I said, on the old zombie eating people who then turn into zombies themselves scenario. And the only acting job worth remembering is that of Karl Urban, playing John Grimm. I loved Urbn as one of the best villains in the old Xena series (as Julius Caesar), and he was great here as a tortured soldier of mayhem with a tortured past, an estranged sister, and a conscience. When he becomes super soldier is when the movie really gets good. Unfortunately, that happens too late in what is otherwise a slasher/alien/zombie film. This is not to say I didn't enjoy it as a movie on its own merits rather than as a Doom remake...I did, mostly. There was way too much gore and vomiting for my tastes, but the gore wasn't much worse than that in the actual game. But as a low budget action monster flick, it ain't bad. Go to it to see good sets. Go to it to see a fine acting performance turned in by Karl Urban. Don't go to it to see a fine acting performance by anyone else (including the Rock) because you'll be disappointed. And come to see a movie based on its own merits rather than on how closely it resembles what it claims to be based on. If you don't, again you'll be disappointed. If you do, you'll see a fairly entertaining gore film.","['1', '3']" +966,rw1201554,joebob-19,Doom (2005),1.0,Give me a break.,25 October 2005,0,"OK. I went to see this, thinking it wouldn't be what I thought it was.Oh, no, it was everything I thought it would be, and more.This movie can be summed up in three words: *worst* *movie* *ever* There's an hour and a half of my life I'll never get back. Complete waste of time.I first saw the billboards whilst sitting in LA county traffic one Sunday morning (yes, LA has traffic all the time, day or night, but I digress). I thought to myself, ""Hmm, so a movie about Doom. This could be either really good, or really bad."" After having played the game ten or so years ago, I considered the possibility of someone making a movie in the game-wise first-person-shooter format. Yeah, you heard me right, portions of this movie show people hacking through the (obviously CGI) daemons with a chainsaw -- just like it would be shown in the video game.Really, don't waste your money. If you insist on seeing the movie, it'll be on DVD before Christmas. *I* should have waited for the dollar theater -- it'll be there in a week.","['2', '6']" +967,rw1208570,rlindemann,Doom (2005),5.0,"Dark, loud, meaningless",4 November 2005,0,"My 2 cents? Here they are. I've seen this yesterday, and having read quite a number of comments before helped to minimize my expectations. And I got more or less what I expected: not much. What I found lacking, mostly, were action and gore (there's some of both, but mostly people are running around in near-darkness, background noises promising, but rarely delivering those monster attacks you expect). And I've been wondering since yesterday: why did they even attempt to give this thing a plot? Not that a plot is bad for a movie, mind you, but... not this half-baked, pseudo-scientific sci-fi stuff, please! It feels like the alibi exercise it probably was. On the other hand, I have to admit that I really enjoyed the first-person perspective scene towards the end. And, for once, the change in perspective is justified by the plot development.All in all: entertaining, yes. Innovative, a little (the FPS scenes). But no match for the Resident Evil series.","['2', '4']" +968,rw1197864,ftlbunkie,Doom (2005),1.0,don't waste your money,20 October 2005,0,"I wasn't expecting not too much from the movie, but more then I saw. The movie was so predictable, the acting was horrible (which I was expecting but didn't mind) and the special effects where ""done before"" and LAME. And as a visual effects artist myself, I can say they paid either paid too much or too little for their effects.You know something is wrong with a movie when you keep staring at your watch and hoping that someone will call you on your cell so you have a reason to leave the theatre.And of all those people who said it was great, either needs to get there head examined or didn't see the movie.To sum up, DON'T waste your money.","['8', '33']" +969,rw1205820,Philip-12,Doom (2005),7.0,The Best VG to Film Yet,31 October 2005,0,"This film was a pleasant surprise. It is the best VG to film effort yet. It was well written and well executed. That is not to say there couldn't have been improvement, but it was well done. The Rock showed great perception in taking on the role of Sarge instead of the John Grimm character. In a film like this, he is a great supporting character, albeit a major one, and probably the major draw, but for him it worked nicely. The name tie-ins were inventive as was the transport method. The movie could have easily been longer (if the content quality were maintained). Specifically the beginning sequences and a more thorough background. Usually (and in this case) that is a compliment in that the film seemed to go by quickly. Very enjoyable. I understand why this movie must be R rated but I think it restricted the audience since many of the players under 18 may not have been able to see it (unless their parents took them).","['0', '2']" +970,rw1208647,sarastro7,Doom (2005),7.0,Pretty good - all things considered,4 November 2005,1,"I'd heard that those who've played the game would like this movie, while those who hadn't, wouldn't. I'm not a game player, and my reaction to the movie seems to go against the grain. I think there were some good things in here.Most B-movies start out pretty good, then deteriorate terribly as they progress. Doom was different. It started out with a lot of unexciting skulking around in dark corridors (yawn), with only a tiny hint of a cool sci-fi plot about some long-dead super-people on Mars with 24 chromosomes. I hoped they would go into that plot, but for the longest time it didn't seem as if they were.But the last 20 minutes or so are GREAT! The plot unravels, the monsters are explained as the ones that turned bad from experimental exposure to the 24th chromosome, AND we even get a guy that ""turns good"" by being injected with it! And so, this hero being super-strong, super-fast, and super-smart, he can go perfectly through ""the game"", taking out all the threats! That is totally cool. And we also get a climactic fisticuff blow-out with the formidable The Rock in the end! I was extremely satisfied with this ending, and elated to finally see a movie with a GOOD ending, when endings is usually what Hollywood sucks the most at.This is totally Karl Urban's movie. I now have the respect for him that Chronicles of Riddick failed to impart.I'm not saying this movie is an immortal classic. Far from it. And it does leave several plot holes unfilled. And has long stretches of boring corridors. But, all things considered, it wasn't bad at all. I'd definitely see it again sometime.6 stars out of 10.","['1', '3']" +971,rw1204862,thorr97,Doom (2005),8.0,Another great action flic that's solid entertainment for all.,30 October 2005,0,"Damn! This flick rocks! Very entertaining! I've spent many an hour playing the video game so there was some interest in this one for me right from the start. That and some trepidation as the history of movies adapted from video games is rife with failure. Not so in this case. Oh, they made some changes to the premise. In this case it's not a gateway to Hell which causes the problems but is, instead, some bio-genetics experiment which goes awry. Still though, they kept everything else pretty much the same. The effort the creators of this film went to in order to keep the ""look and feel"" of the game has paid off handsomely. This is especially true of their ""first person shooter's perspective"" sequence which was an excellent recreation of what we've gone through in playing the original game.Yet this film's attraction is hardly limited to those folks who are fans of the video game. The movie holds up on its own and you don't have to be a Doom aficionado to enjoy the picture. The action is intense and well paced. The actors are well cast and deliver sold, believable performances. The premise of the plot is good and holds together quite well. Other folks have dismissively compared this flick to the ""Resident Evil"" films of a couple of years back. This simply isn't the case. Doom is a far better flick, is far better acted, and far more enjoyable than those films. The Rock, Dwayne Johnson, delivers another one of his standout performances and was a real treat to watch go through his paces on screen. The rest of the cast well played their parts and the ensemble worked together quite well. One thing which I liked about this film was that it had none of the typical monster / alien threat movie stupidness on the part of its characters. The squad of Marines sent to the Mars base were depicted as being smart, experienced, well trained and well armed. Their actions on the screen lived up that. This made the movie all that more realistic to watch as their numbers kept getting whittled down despite all their hard fighting.I enjoyed this film and am glad to see such an adaptation finally get done so right and be so successful. We can only hope future game to screen works work so well.","['0', '1']" +972,rw1231193,rickkemp,Doom (2005),10.0,Doomtastic Mindlessness,5 December 2005,0,"Good grief. Does what it says on the tin. A no-nonsense, straightforward blood and gore fest with some nice scares and good pacing. Acting & script a bit on the cheesy side - which actually fits nicely with the overall premise of the flick, y'know: adapted from a video game, Mars, marines, unfeasibly extreme weaponry, motherf*****g monsters etc. The first-person stuff is a complete blast and a great homage to the source material - I tittered my way through the entire sequence, much to the annoyance of an OAP sat next to me.If you want thoughtful story, highbrow script & characters to really care about try Uwe Boll's 'Alone in the Dark'. Otherwise unchain your brain, grab the nachos and prepare to make like a drooling idiot for an hour and forty. Then leave cinema, proceed to internet and place pre-order for the unrated extended DVD (with 12 extra minutes of playtime!!), due out Februrary 2006. I did and I feel great.","['12', '18']" +973,rw1208668,handanodaman,Doom (2005),10.0,Genetics can be a Doomy thing!,4 November 2005,0,"It was quite a good movie. Although there were lots of projects which had been made on the topic that how genetics can be a very dangerous area to study on, this movie puts emphasis on another issue: Are some of us born to be evil, genetically? May be you are known to be a good man by others but at the same time you are suppressing something evil inside you, which you don't even think that it exists in your soul. With the clever usage of cameras, and a dynamic soundtrack you will be able to find the answer and i think you will enjoy the 2 hours you spend for watching this movie. I know that Doom was actually a computer game and adapted to cinema later, like Resident Evil. So in the second part of the movie there are scenes that makes you think you are somehow playing a computer game. That is nice of the director and i appreciated that. To sum up, if you like action- horror type movies, take your time to watch it!!","['1', '4']" +974,rw1216967,LennyNero,Doom (2005),3.0,Back to Hell,15 November 2005,0,"Although many reviews have been written about this movie I must have my say. The reason for this is quite simple: I feel an urge to write comments on movies if they belong to a special category. Let us label this category ""garbage"". Sounds pretty tough, but Doom really deserves this label. Don't be fooled ant think I did not know what to expect. Having read a lot of negative reviews, my expectations were quite low. However, one should make up one's mind and judge it by oneself (at least when you don't have to pay for the tickets which holds true in this case!) The main reason is that Doom violates the most important rule concerning movies: A movie should never be boring. Movies can be stupid, dull, shallow or mindless but at least they should entertain because that is what they were made for (apart from the fact that the studios want to earn a lot of money). The problem in this case is that there is no tension at all. I can not believe that there are people out there who were kept at the edge of their seats while watching this flick. Instead I believe that 99 % of the people who have seen more than one movie from the sci/fi-horror genre in the last 20 years were yawning since they anticipated what would happen on the screen. Andrzej Bartkowiak should have watched Aliens (yes, I belong to the James Cameron-is-one-of-the-greatest-directors-of-all-time-fan club) a bit more often then he would have known what tension means. Apart from the fact that Doom is boring, it also is not atmospheric at all. Personally I think that a movie –especially a sci/fi, horror or fantasy movie- which lacks this feature has a problem in getting the audience involved in what is taking place on the screen. One is just sitting on the seat but is not really ""participating"". The final fault of the movie which somehow connects to the aforementioned point is its cheap look. I am astonished about the estimated budget of about 70.000.000 Dollars. Where did they spend the money on? Most of the sets and creatures look so cheap. Anything else? Yes! The funny thing is that from time my yawning was interrupted by laughter because some of the one-liners are so dumb that I had to laugh pretty loud. Eventually Doom is the product of a very mediocre director who additionally was plagued with a poor screenplay. Back to hell with Doom (oh, I forget: No hell available)","['2', '5']" +975,rw1197849,kenjithemilkman,Doom (2005),6.0,not for everyone; Rock=good,20 October 2005,0,"lets just say that I'm a big fan of the doom franchise.the movie start fasts, and there is hardly any introductory stage for the characters, unless you count the ""briefing"" for the mission. as a result the characters aren't as fleshed out as i would like them to be, but this can be expected for a movie based on a game.the first half is pretty boring, there isn't really suspense factor and the action is bland. and whenever anything exciting happens heavy metal+techno kicks in and it really kills it.it started to catch on in the 2nd half when the story got pretty interesting (albeit way different from the game itself) and there is a little fan service as well. if you have heard of the 5-minute-or-so 1st person view scene, its really good and the movie picks up from there. if only they do these in the first half.id say its a good effort for a Doom movie, and i really hope for a sequel with much better improvements.meanwhile if you're looking for a good Doom experience, get Doom 3 for the PC, turn the sound loud and off the lights (but make sure your PC is rigged :-D ) BTW the Rock was awesome in it","['2', '13']" +976,rw1198670,horror_inf3ction,Doom (2005),5.0,DOOM Review!,21 October 2005,0,"Something has gone terribly wrong at the science research facility on Mars. Sarge(The Rock) and his Rapid Response Tactical Squad are sent in to clear the place out. They go in searching for the missing scientists first, but that mission is soon stopped, when they come to realize that there is something more that human in the facility and the scientists are part of it. After awhile the team starts getting taken out by these creatures in a matter of ways. Some blood.....and guts are both shed as they try to keep everything under control.The special effects are pretty good, but you can tell that a lot of CGI went into the making of this film. None the less you get some pretty nice kills. You ever wanted to see a guy rip his own ear off, then you can surely see it in DOOM. All in all I would say that the gore level are around average, so don't get you hopes up for a huge blood bath.Acting is OK in the film. None of it is really bad, but none it is really good either. You can't expect great acting either when one of the main characters is former wrestler The Rock. Anyways, the acting lies somewhere in the middle.I would say DOOM is definitely a movie worth looking at. The best part is when is goes into first-person mode like the game.....I think I was waiting for that part the whole time. If your thinking about seeing it this weekend or next I would have to recommend holding onto your cash, because Saw II is hitting theaters next Friday on the 28th.Synopsis: Something has gone wrong at a remote scientific research station on Mars. All research has ceased. Communication has failed. And the messages that do get through are less than comforting. It's a level 5 quarantine and the only souls allowed in or out are the Rapid Response Tactical Squad - hardened Space Marines armed to the teeth with enough firepower to neutralize the enemy... or so they think.The Good: The first-person part of the film was very fun to watch, but unfortunately you have to wait tell almost the end of the movie to catch that part. I would have to say most of the special effects were pretty good also.The Bad: The Rock....sorry....I just don't like this guys acting. There was also a bit to much CGi for my taste. The movie definitely caters more towards the ""Resident Evil"" fans.DOOM GETS A 5.5/10! The movie is worth checking out, but if your limited on cash I would recommend seeing Saw II in theaters first. I have not seen Saw II yet, but come on it's the sequel to Saw! ;) Check out my forum www.horrorinf3ction.proboards45.com to talk horror, read reviews, or submit your own.","['1', '12']" +977,rw1198940,Zeiramrei,Doom (2005),1.0,Watching someone play the game would be more entertaining.,22 October 2005,1,"After having the royalty of viewing this movie on opening night, I have lost all faith in the entertainment industry. I knew this movie was going to be bad from the previews, but I didn't expect to be bored out of my mind in the process.During this film I was reminded of Resident Evil nearly the entire time. An elite task force is called to ""Secure"" a secret science facility. They find zombies and monsters. They get picked off one by one, until two are left which become enemies at the end, in a show down thats so cheesy, you'd wish you had milk to wash it all down. The film was far too short, didn't explore much of the lab (and none of Mars for that matter) and didn't really build much of an atmosphere. Most of the movie was shot in a lab to be honest.A couple things weren't that bad in this movie. These were two of the science labs that were modeled correctly after the game, and the First Person Shooter scene for a grand total of two minutes of pleasure. Other than that, there was no suspense, all the marines died in the same fashion that the teens from Scream did, and there were a grand total of 4 unique monsters in the entire film. The typical zombie, the imp, the hell knight and the mutated dog from Doom 3. None of the monsters worked together, or were every on the scene at the same time, minus the zombies at the end.The special effects were something out of sci-fi films that you'd see on TV, and most of the monsters were shot in suits, not CGI, giving them unrealistic movement and in particular scenes, laughable. The weapons started out unique, but you didn't get to see much of them in action. Only the BFG really had a time to shine, as the other marines didn't get to use their guns much at all.In summarize, I believe this film is on par with Anaconda. It was more of a teen slasher movie than it was a horror film, and I thought it was poorly coordinated. The movie didn't pick up until the very end, and when it did it ended so abruptly, it was like driving your car into a concrete wall.","['6', '17']" +978,rw1204947,mortenw-1,Doom (2005),1.0,Worst film ever.,30 October 2005,0,"This is the worst movie I have ever seen!!!!I went in with very low expectations and this film didn't even meet that.There was no plot, awful acting and the story line not only did not flow but made no sense.How can you stuff up a story line of: - Techology goes bad - Gate to hell opens - Marine blows stuff up, kills a lot of demons and evil things - Marine saves earth.I do not like to be too harsh, as I have never made a movie myself. In this instance I will, because a 3 year old with a hand-cam could do better.Don't go to see this, do not rent this, change the channel if it screens on TV. It is really that bad.And the people that voted this as anything other than a 1, hope the studio paid you well for selling out.Should have a warning on the cover: ""Watching this will cause the loss of your will to live""Would write more, but even the thought of this film is making me gag.","['6', '12']" +979,rw1205769,MxSChizo,Doom (2005),4.0,Rename the movie!,31 October 2005,1,"Oh. My. God.There are good reasons I voted for a one, mind you the graphics may be nice and flashy and there may be lots of guns involved, but that doesn't even come close to redeeming this movie's fatal error - The raping of Doom.Doom was about an aerospace agency experimenting with dimensional gateways and thus opening a portal to Hell, spilling demons out that soon started warring with mankind.This movie, is just another genetic experiment sprinter zombie movie, as if we didn't have enough, and the classical zombie wasn't defiled plenty. Still that isn't nearly as much of an atrocity as completely discarding everything that's Doom, or well, they have retained some resemblances with Doom as they said. Resemblances like them having guns, and them having to shoot bad guys. It's nothing but another shite movie about a bunch of roughnecks with big boomsticks fighting with more sprinter zombies, hence I vote to rename this movie to ""Resident Evil 2: RE on Mars"" and stop this good for nothing possé of ""actors and scriptwriters"" from dragging along with Doom's fame because they can't produce anything good of their own.","['239', '432']" +980,rw1197828,PeteRoy,Doom (2005),1.0,What a bad movie!,20 October 2005,0,"I read the early comments about Doom and I thought the movie will be good, I now believe these comments were planted by the studio that made this game, err I mean movie.The movie is horrible, it doesn't follow the story of Doom 3, instead it made up some other story about portal from earth to mars.The original Doom 3 story was that there's a portal in Mars that leads to hell and that the people who once lived on Mars sacrificed themselves into the soul cube in order to fight hell, unfortunately this story was not in the movie.I loved the soul cube weapon in Doom 3 and I really wanted to see the same elements of Doom 3 being used in this movie.Other than that, the movie had bad action, less than interesting story and average acting. Oh yeah, and a lot of blood.","['7', '26']" +981,rw1202613,rparham,Doom (2005),4.0,Quality is Doomed,27 October 2005,0,"Ah, the video game movie. Not the most successful genre of film introduced, but it seemed really only a matter of time before a version of Doom was brought to the screen. Doom is one of the original ""first-person shooter"" games, where the game unfolds almost entirely from the perspective of the player, not a ""God's eye"" view as in most other games. Doom was a phenomenon for the most part, and Hollywood never lets a successful franchise property remain in it's original form if there is a film to be made, so we are offered Doom, a mediocre at best, abysmal at worst, adaptation of the game that is far less entertaining than several hours burned off at the computer monitor.Doom unfolds mostly at a research facility located on Mars. Humans have discovered an ancient device that allows travel between Earth and Mars in the Nevada desert and have used this device, dubbed ""The Ark"", to travel back and forth at will. Various types of scientific research is being carried out on Mars at the facilities, but something has gone wrong in the genetic research division, leading to a lock-down. A group of Marines have been called in, led by Sarge (The Rock), to contain the problem. Among the Marines is a man named John Grimm (Karl Urban), whose parents died on Mars during the construction of the research facilities, and his sister Sam (Rosamund Pike) is a research scientist there. Once the Marines arrive, they discover the genetics lab overrun by rather unpleasant creatures which leads to questions about the nature of the research at the facility and the need to contain the problem.To call Doom uninspired would be understatement. There is little here that hasn't been ripped-off from countless other science fiction movies, especially Aliens. The characters are mostly one-dimensional ciphers, with the standard types of the hard-ass, the pervert, the borderline religious fanatic, the rookie, etc. None of them are really characters, we don't care what happens to any of them for the most part, they are just fodder for the monsters. The film attempts to be suspenseful, but for the most part fails miserably. There is little in Doom to raise your adrenaline, and for a film filled with advanced weaponry, little action to speak of. Oh, there is a gunfight or two, but nothing that can really get you excited. This film is just going through the motions.To call the film low-budget would be generous. Almost the entire running time of Doom unfolds in repetitive, generic hallways and rooms with little visual flair whatsoever. We are watching a bunch of guys running around in the dark with nothing interesting heaping. Good times for all. Acting wise, Doom is a mixed bag. The Rock is more than up to the limited task presented him by the role of Sarge. He acquits himself fairly well, not really tainting his reputation at all. Karl Urban gets the job done, but he is hardly supremely memorable. Rosamund Pike turns in a rather terrible performance as Sam Grimm. She is stilted and wooden, not really showing much emotion at all. The rest of the cast is just there to fill the screen, nobody is worth mentioning.The big marketing blitz about this film was surrounded by a five-minute sequence where we are treated to a first-person perspective of one of the characters, a la the original video game. It's and interesting experiment, but nothing much to write home about. Hardly a reason to see this movie alone.So, in the pantheon of video game movies, chalk Doom up as one more failure in a long string of them. The only thing Doomed from watching this movie is the money and time wasted.","['0', '2']" +982,rw1201030,cyberia_20,Doom (2005),10.0,I never get excited about movies but this movie blew me away,24 October 2005,0,"OK, I enjoy a movie now and then. Even the good ones usually just get a smile and nod from me....until I watched Doom. Now I am by no means a big fan of the game I think I can count on one hand the times I've played it. So when I went to watch it I was just going to watch just another action movie. But it was the best damn movie I've ever seen. Seriously it was so cool, and funny as hell and the action was so intense. And not to mention it was nice to see a movie where people getting attacked actually put up a fight and don't just die easy. I can't think of anything I would change about this movie so I am giving it a 10. Oh and there's a certain scene at the end with a certain camera view that made me cry inside cuz it was so incredible.","['5', '10']" +983,rw1214466,filmfreak-5,Doom (2005),7.0,Expected a lot worse!,12 November 2005,0,"I must say I expected a lot worse, given all the very indecent films being made inspired by computer games, and especially this one, cause it is a game I played to death - pardon the pun - 10 years ago.I was entertained, and I didn't crumble my toes as much as I usually do.I usually dislike The Rock, cause I usually see him as a boneheaded wrestler with no acting potential what-so-ever, but in this film I must say he works out fantastically. Granted, it doesn't take a DeNiro to play the part, but he does it well and very convincingly. Cudos for that, I am even thinking about checking some of his new films out as well not.Of course, I have to find something that annoyed me, and it was called ""Rosamund Pike""....my god, how can an actress this boring and express less ever get a part in a film? I grabbed myself several times wondering this question. He seriously stinks.But - to be honest, I think she was the only downer in this film. I didn't expect Oscar material and obviously that's not what I got either, but I got a lot of action and enjoyed all of it, especially the game-inspired shoot'em down/up scene, quite awesome carried out.Cudos to everything...apart from Rosamund Pike 7/10","['106', '187']" +984,rw1209639,Keatep,Doom (2005),4.0,Brief Assessment,5 November 2005,0,"This movie was a disappointment, even with not expecting a great deal from it in the first place. The movie had decent, though nearly amateur style acting (Of course with the exception of some of the actors giving a comparatively believable performance), weak plot line, terrible lines, and it's only faint redeemer was it's fairly decent special effects. While not a great movie, it wasn't terribly difficult to sit through, and it does snag and maintain your interest. I wouldn't denounce going to see it in theaters, since the special effects are often much more impressive, but those of you who can possibly resist, it may be a good choice to wait and rent.","['1', '3']" +985,rw1244171,CrazyBomber,Doom (2005),3.0,What's up with the high grades? Is this the GAME they're reviewing?...,21 December 2005,1,"Alright, I get it. No-one who played Doom can rate this ""film"" more than 5, at best. Then again, why the hell would anyone rate it more than that anyway?Seriously, my girlfriend laughed all the way through the film. How scary is that?So, let's start with the bad points: The story sucked, sucks, and will always suck as long as there's a RESIDENT EVIL, EVIL DEAD, and countless other zombie pictures around.The characters were... forgettable, at best. Ridiculous is a praise to what that cast showed on screen.Pinky was a daemon in the game. It was called pinkie daemon because it was a pink daemon. It wasn't pretty, and had a huge mouth. In Doom3, the new version, they decided to make the pinkie daemon without pink, uglier, scarier, and with cyborg legs. Seemed pretty cool, I have to admit. But why on earth would anyone think of calling a GUY... PINKY! just to have him transformed into the ""pinkie"" daemon... he didn't wear pink! there was NO REASON for him to be called pinkie! What the hell is wrong with the script writers these days? Even if there was a reason, it still plain sucks. It was never meant to be that way.So, we have a movie based on Doom (whose major points are HELL, DEAMONS, TELEPORTERS) which has NOTHING based on the game? What, the monsters looked alike? Yep, that's pretty much all the similarities, if we forget about UAC.Oh, the UAC itself. UAC stands for Union Aerospace Corporation. That name compels you to think the UAC is either a military corporation or a scientific research corporation. Actually, it's both. In the game, they were researching teleporters. Here they're researching a... what?... virus?? Should have changed the name to Union Biologic Corporation or something.OK, OK, that's all the bashing for today. Now, the good parts:OK, that settles it. On to the conclusion. In short, this movie sucks. The only interesting part comes 5 minutes before the end. And that's kinda ridiculous too. It makes no justice to the games.Unlike what many people say, Doom does have a good, interesting story which could be exploited to make a very good and scary movie. Of course, why spend more braincells doing something GOOD when you can do a movie like this and still get the money? Oh... they didn't get the money... suits them right!3/10 is more than it deserves, honest. And it's only because of the monsters.PLEASE DON'T RUIN THE GAME AGAIN, WITH A SEQUEL! that's all I ask.","['0', '1']" +986,rw1205999,albinoblackdog2761,Doom (2005),7.0,Best video game to movie translation yet.,31 October 2005,1,"Doom is based loosely of the video game with the same title. The movie is about a problem on a research facility on Mars. And a group of marines are sent in and contain the problem. Easier said than done.The movie starts off slow and builds itself up. You get to know the names of the marines and what they are about and thats about it. This is no Godfather and don't go and expect that either. This movie is not suppose to be ""deep"" its about blowing some **** up, which it does. Very good performances from everybody, especially Karl Urban (Reaper) and The Rock (Sarge).Now with a name called DOOM you would expect guns, F-Bombs, blood and gore. Well you got that in this movie. Lost of action and blood and gore, heads are gone, arms are decapitated and more! The atmosphere of the game is in the movie and looks just like it. There has been people complaining about how it looks nothing like what it should, but it does. Don't listen to those people.The problem is that its just like what happen to Timeline. The book was awesome and had a lot of science to explain whats going on. Well when they did the movie, they gave it to Richard Donner, and he doesn't do ""science."" Same thing happens here, they try to write science but its just there for plot purposes, and if your really big on that sort of thing, you might get mad about it. Which lead to the second problem that people had, is that there is no hell, like in the game. Its genetic mutation, and for me that all right, cause with the new story it works with the film. Leave your brain at the door and just watch this movie for fun, because thats what it is fun.The FPS scene is just pure greatness and work really well with the film. The BFG is also here and just look cool, could have used it more but I'm not complaining.So if you want to watch a movie thats better than the other games to movies that have been out (AvP, Resident Evil, Laura Croft, Super Mario Bros.) then go watch doom. And I'm hoping for a unrated director cut on DVD. HAVE FUN!!!","['0', '2']" +987,rw1205091,MocoCoco,Doom (2005),4.0,Game Fan Recognition,30 October 2005,0,"Okay I gotta say this movie was pretty bad. Storyline: NULL. Suspense: Non-existent. This film seemed to have been rushed into production. Makes me sick to think that people don't take more consideration into making a movie based on a video game. Next you'll see someone ruin Super Mario Bros. ....oh wait...they DID.On the upside there is that two minute sequence in the film that looks just like the game, and to me, that ALMOST made up for the rest of the movie....almost. And also I enjoyed seeing Karl Urban, maybe someday he'll make a movie where he smiles once or twice. The Rock, what can I say? Sometimes even the big hitters strike out.By the way. Did anyone else notice the the logo for that company AUC had a striking resemblance to the America Online logo? Makes you wonder what AOL is up to eh?","['0', '1']" +988,rw1201550,webreaper-1,Doom (2005),1.0,What does this movie have to do with the game DooM??,25 October 2005,0,"I loved this movie the first time I seen it, when it was called 'Resident Evil'. I wonder who the genius was that decided to take the plot from 1 video game & movie (genetic human mutant zombies from Resident Evil), then use it for a different video game based movie that game-wise has a completely different plot. DooM is about demonic aliens invading mars through portals found on an archaeological dig. This movie could have been so much more, & so much better. I even read the DooM novels & was expecting the storyline from that, but was bitterly disappointed by an obvious rip off. Hopefully, those bigwig Hollywood producers will find whoever wrote this script & hang him. I cannot fathom why someone would take a great story from a classic game with an excellent plot, then change it completely to something that was already done to death & sucked the first time around. When I seen this, I threw my cola at the screen & walked out during that terribly corny FPS sequence, went to the ticket counter & demanded my $18 back.","['2', '6']" +989,rw1207975,larry.launders,Doom (2005),7.0,What'd you expect?,3 November 2005,0,"I don't get it. How much can you expect of a movie made from a computer game that is a FPS (First Person Shooter) which deals primarily in poking around the inside of a building and blasting anything that moves? With a realistic expectation of what one could get from a movie made from such a game, popular as it was, this movie does just fine.We can lay a lot of that blame on the fact that Uve Boll had nothing to do with this movie whatsoever. The actors were good at giving their characters distinction and some depth, there was a story and a couple of subplots put on top, and that's it. Uncomplicated, stuck to the basic principle of the game, and a slick production. The pacing moves it along fairly well, the soundtrack reminds you it is inspired by a shoot'em up video game, and the primary plot lines are too big to miss.Don't be afraid to see this movie, particularly if you enjoyed Doom (or almost any other FPS) even a little bit.","['1', '3']" +990,rw1235749,weskerian,Doom (2005),8.0,A Diamond in the Rough,11 December 2005,1,"Since this movie has vastly more pros than cons, I'm going to discuss those cons first. There were really only two that I could find, the main reasons that kept me from scoring the movie with a perfect 10.The first is rather obvious: for a movie that was intended to come from Doom, there was not a lot of storyline staples apparent. There was no Hell, and having played Doom 3, I am now well aware that is what the whole game revolved around. Still, I think this is a minor point. I know some will disagree, but think about it: the violation of canon is nowhere near that of the Resident Evil or Mortal Kombat movies, since Doom doesn't have a rigid plot, AND, the movie's plot as it stands is excellent anyway, completely unlike the RE and MK movies.The second was a little more subtle, and that was the cliché. I'm sure everyone knows the old ""soldiers are called in, learn a disturbing truth and are soon slaughtered"" story; it happened in both Aliens and Resident Evil. This particular version is closer to Aliens, in that its half-way decent and entertaining rather than coma-inducing. Some of the characters were slightly underdeveloped and were really only used as meat like in so many other horror/action movies. However, there was a pleasing amount of breaking from the norm, which more than made up for these points.Now for the parts that warrant an 8/10 mark. The plot, while not Doom as already mentioned, is very good. Rather than a boring, wordy story that didn't match the action movie medium, or a standard, mindless action plot that did, they reached middle ground by presenting a plot that was worth a thought if you were that way inclined, and easily ignored if you weren't. Rather than having the demons materialising and killing people because they were from Hell, they built up a motive in the ""genetic blueprint for the soul"" angle. Personally, it brought quite a few moral dilemmas to my mind at the time, but I'm guessing some people just completely failed to catch on, either because they were more interested in the gore, or because they were too busy lamenting the lack of Hell. The plot is not about Hell at all, and I think that is why its wasted on Doom purists.The characters, as already mentioned, were sometimes cliché, but they also delivered some superb turns. Reaper, the main character, remained sombre and quiet throughout the entire movie, and only came into his own towards the end, when it was revealed he was in fact the Hero of the piece. At first it appeared that Sarge was the Hero, but it turned out in the end that he's only the hero when his mission dictates he can be. He offered a fresh perspective on the standard ""I'm not paid to think"" mercenary, and I think he was wonderfully realised by both the script writer and the Rock, who is a much better actor than people realise or give him credit for. On top of that, I really enjoyed seeing a rookie with the guts to defy a commanding officer when he found an order morally objectionable, and a guy willing to fist fight with an Imp despite being scared absolutely out of his wits.Another refreshing break from the well-worn movie clichés is the lack of romantic interest. A romantic interlude in this movie would have broken up the flow and ruined the characters, and I am glad that they decided to break the mould. The lack of any so-called ""tough women"" is also a nice change of pace, considering how much of a rash they are all over Hollywood now. Its nice that the fighting is done by people who actually look like they can do it, i.e. soldiers, and not by toothpicks in small red dresses (thank you Alice, that will be all).The main reason for this score, the bulk of it, comes from the overall feel of the movie. It and Doom 3 have a VERY similar atmosphere, from the lighting to the instrumentals, from the weapons to the monsters. It was this that made the movie, not the plot, which is unimportant, but the soul. The Resident Evil movies didn't capture the soul of the games. Not only did they completely disregard the rather rigid canon, but also the ""survival horror"" atmosphere. The places weren't remotely familiar, and the sense of terror and claustrophobia was replaced with a sequence of cheap action scenes. The atmosphere of Doom 3, however, runs deep in the movie, and if you play it you can see what inspired this.Another atmospheric issue was the first-person segment. I am aware that some people thought this was lame, but not me. It was the perfect compliment to a great movie, and the movie itself was already so much like the game in every way bar plot that adapting the camera format seemed like the next logical step. That segment even included the chainsaw, the Holy Grail of Doom armaments, and the ""Prod"" manoeuvre from the original Doom, which had me sniggering into my popcorn. I really enjoyed it.I can't believe that anyone can fault this thing on anything but the plot, and only because it was not Doom 3 canon. No movie has pleased me this much in many, many years. I mean, I signed up for IMDb just to review it. I think its a travesty that this movie is doing as badly as it is.Watch it, and if you are a Doom fan, at least TRY to keep an open mind about the plot.","['1', '1']" +991,rw1222376,simplysoda_19f,Doom (2005),6.0,If You Love the Game....You'll Love the Movie!,22 November 2005,0,"This movie is strictly action, and it does have it's suspenseful moments that scare the bejezzus out of you, just like the game. I did like this movie, but it wasn't the best movie that i've seen. There's a part in the movie, near the middle, where it switches to first-person shooter (like the game) and it's awesome. It was probably the best part in the movie. A lot of people were commenting on The Rock's acting performance in the movie, and well, it's not the greatest, but he did okay! I personally would've liked to see action-superstar Vin Diesel in the role, but hey, I had to put up with The Rock. Don't get me wrong Rock is a great action-superstar/wrestler, but I think Vin would've been a little bit better. The stunts in this movie are amazing, and yes like the game has awesome special effects. I have played the game, and yes it did scare the bejezzus out of me, but I did like it, and therefore I liked the movie. I'm going to give it a 6 out of 10, because it was a pretty good movie, I just think it's for die-hard fans of the game only, really. Don't get me wrong though, I did like the movie, but it's not one of my favorites.","['0', '1']" +992,rw1233745,Thepresident13,Doom (2005),7.0,"Best video game-to-film adaptation since ""Resident Evil""",8 December 2005,0,"I've didn't see the movie yet, but when I read some of the review I was surprise, that had the same rating of (Resident Evil 1 & 2). Some people may love or hate the film, you be entertained by the movie. (STAN WINSTON studio) made an fine job from the effect.Plus the actors Karl Urban (Lord of the Ring) as John Grimm or Reaper and The Rock as Sarge, the same character from the video game,the director of (ROMEO MUST DIE & CRADLE 2 THE GRAVE), and the location were wicked.Fans will be thilled to see it when it comes out on DVD and PSP with the UNRATED version, its also known the best special effect film since ""Deep Rising"".9/10","['0', '1']" +993,rw1201192,kkslider66,Doom (2005),,this movie was amazing,24 October 2005,0,"this movie was amazing i loved this movie. this movie was great. there was a lot of action in this movie. when i watched the movie i enjoyed the action. it was also great because almost everyone died in it and that is pretty awesome and the rock is cool because he has the bfg but he doesn't kill anything with it. it would be cooler if he killed like the other guy with it. this movie has great special effects because there are monsters in it. doom is an excellent video game because you can kill stuff in it and it has a rock n' roll soundtrack. this movie has a good soundtrack featuring rock n' roll music which makes it entertaining to watch. this movie would have been better if there were more babes and more guns and maybe a babe who like has a gun and she kills stuff with it. the first person mode was awesome because it was like you were playing the movie it would have been better if it was longer though. in conclusion, doom is an excellent movie and you should take all your friends to go see it on halloween or thanksgiving or if you are Jewish you could go on Christmas because i hear that Jewish people like to go to the movies on Christmas and when it comes out on DVD you should buy it for your friends on their respective birthdays.","['2', '5']" +994,rw1216338,kabiriqbal,Doom (2005),6.0,Wat did u expect.. It was starring The Rock after all,14 November 2005,0,"Don't get me wrong I loved the game (it made me wet my pants occasionally) but the movie was a typical ""rock type flick"" and u end up getting exactly what u expect - a lot of action, a lot of blood and gore etc with a weak storyline. I liked the bits where the movie would switch to a ""first person view"" like in the doom game; but the ending was LAME.. i mean come on they coulda done so much bettr than that! All in all this was a ""timepass"" movie and don't make the same mistake as I did and take your girlfriend 2 watch it with u cos unless she loves videogames and scifi stuff, she would by no means be able to relate 2 it.","['0', '1']" +995,rw1211995,enigmatic_evil,Doom (2005),6.0,A Solid Movie,9 November 2005,0,"Doom was a solid movie if you're not anal retentive about movies. It's a simple plot that stays relatively true with the movie. A good solid cast, The Rock as lead, would deter many people but as usual he give a very solid performance. People should be more accepting to him as an actor. Karl Urban, Richard Brake and the rest of the main cast all give solid shows, so the movie is very good in that aspect. It also doesn't do anything stupid, it sticks to its guns. It doesn't go off in some wonkey directions. If you want a solid action flick that wont let you down. Doom delivers in spades. Give the movie a chance, don't expect anything that will blow you away, but it definitely wasn't crap. And you will not be disappointed. Just leave your movie viewing high horse at the door, and let a genuinely solid movie give you quality enjoyment.","['0', '1']" +996,rw1202633,ericfmatos,Doom (2005),8.0,DOOM...Yes,27 October 2005,1,OK i think that this movie was very good....some people put down the first person shooter part...any true fan would have loved it...it was almost exactly like the game...it was awesome...and the fact that all the guns weren't in the movie....how can you do that....it would be pretty stupid if they were changing guns every other min...and the story...think about it...yeah they changed it to genetics but think...they found the skeletons and said they weren't born with the powers they had right? so it came from somewhere....hell?...maybe...also when goat turned...it looked as if he had two horns growing out of his head...it never explains how they got the 24th chromosome...i think there will be a sequel and i think they will got to hell...,"['0', '1']" +997,rw1200436,violenceobscene,Doom (2005),8.0,Hardcore Doomers might hate it -- super hardcore doomers might LOVE it.,21 October 2005,0,"Needless to say, I was scared to death of this movie. The original Doom, being my absolute favorite game of all time, finally being turned into a film! Video game movies are awful. This one was just FUN.Did you want hardcore super-duper plot? Go see Crash. Did you want bad-ass kung-fu? Go see Kill Bill. Did you want mindless fanboy shooting? Go see Doom.For avid fans of Doom 3, you might be a little disappointed in this movie, because even though it draws upon aspects from the plot, it's not exactly based off of it. But if you, like me, were one of those freaks who devoured the first game in all of its bloody gory, even to the point of researching the game's beginnings at computer shows and the 'original plot concept' that they had before it was released, there's NO REASON AT ALL THAT YOU SHOULD HATE THIS MOVIE.Funny. This movie's plot could actually be an interesting precursor to the plot of the very first Doom.Although the lack of Hell was a bit disappointing, the addition of the research into Chromosome 24 (the soul), I thought was great. Someone earlier said they were confused on why some people got infected and others were passed by. THe way I saw it was that the infection triggered bestial changes in those who had bad, evil tendencies (every character in the movie who gets turned has done something bad, unkindly, or cowardly), and triggered amazing strength in those who were good of heart. An interesting, symbolic twist on the concept of hell on earth! Why summon demons to it when you can just turn bad humans into them instead? I've begun constructing my required checklist. If you're looking for these references and things in the movie as a game-player, you won't be disappointed.1) From the original README of Doom: ""You put your Commanding Officer into a full-body cast for commanding you and your men to fire on innocent bystanders."" 2) Before the original Doom was released, the tentative concept being thrown around computer shows was that the former humans and former human sergeants were actually possessed by the Imps, and when the body disassembled, the imps were revealed in their true form. Who can know if this is what id truly intended when the game was released, though? They never expounded, and who cares if they did or didn't? 3) Before the original Doom was released, there were rumors that the main character was a cloned, genetically engineered recreation of BJ Blazkowitcz, the main character from Wolfenstein 3d. Okay, so they don't mention BJ's name, but it sure made me giggle when it got to 'that point of the movie'! 4) Remember reading those awful Doom novels by Brad Linaweaver and Dafyd Ab Hugh? Remember when Flynn Taggart injected himself with the adrenaline shot? What does Karl Urban do when he gets the sweet-awesome-cool shot in his arm? HE FREAKS OUT! Someone hit it right on the heard when they said that this movie, just like the game, was meant to be a shoot-em-up good excuse to have some fun and give a crap less about plot.I'm glad people still remember the basics of movies and games -- to have FUN! Though the plot wasn't exactly ripped from Doom or Doom 3, it was pieced together by it, and all of the obscure DooM references should have fanboys giggling for hours! SEE IT!","['0', '1']" +998,rw1216540,craid,Doom (2005),9.0,From a pure old school l33t gamer,14 November 2005,1,"OK ... at around 1984 i got my first ""PC"" ... (if you can call a CMB that) and since then i have had my hands on almost every game that have emerge for the PC platform. One of my first altime favorites was definitely Wolfenstein 3D... time went and the new ""Doom"" game from ID soft came out. At first i didn't like it, but it quickly grew on me - especially when i got a new comp and i could run it full screen sized :-PNOW from my p.o.v. this movie does just that... grows on you. In the beginning it seems very ""Alien 2 (Aliens)"" like... and i do believe a few things have been ""borrowed"" from that :-P But since Aliens rox, it ain't no problem IMO. The scenery is actually very accurate if you compare it to Doom 3. look at the textures in your game and compare it to the movie - it looks almost identical - though optimized for the big screen of cause - a BIG plus IMO. - The whole thing takes off in a pretty slow but non-boring pace. It slowly builds up to the encounter with the first alien. - After that all hell breaks loose with cool new elements to movies like a ""nanowall"" and a cage that will be used in a cage fight (UFC??? :-P). Now all in all the previous comparison to Aliens seem once again appropriate - battles/hunts in sewers, hallways and tunnels, brute monster force vs the somewhat fragile human body and the goBUHinthedark effect.Now ... for all of you guys who are disappointed about this movie because it lags some certain elements - don't be... because :This movie ain't about the Doom 1 game ... this is prior to that ... the BIRTH of our Reaper hero char. This will make it possible to exclude all ""this is unrealistic"" ""*whine* how can he take so much *whine*!"" statements made in the future movies about our hero ... now there are a few of our wellknown enemies in this game but ... those are only to satisfy us Doom 1 gamers with SOME form of monsters.Now stop complaining about this movie and just enjoy that you actually get the history behind Reaper, the BFG and the reason why the ports to hell is opened on Mars!BTW - don't comment about my grammar and spelling since I'm a dane ... aka i normally speak danish. så goddag med jer danskere :-P","['0', '1']" +999,rw1209862,dbborroughs,Doom (2005),4.0,"Should be called ""Dull"" instead",6 November 2005,0,"The film version of the video game where a bunch of space marines try to find survivors in a science lab where some experiment has gone horribly wrong, producing nasty monsters that have to be killed before they kill everyone else. The game was a first person shoot 'em up that was fun to play. This is a ""story"" we have to watch and is sleep inducing.I know I shouldn't have expected anything going in, but I thought, perhaps, maybe,if the planets were in alignment I would have a guilty pleasure popcorn film. Instead I got exactly what I hoped I wouldn't, the cinematic equivalent of watching some one play a video game I couldn't take part in.Its well made on a technical level, and the actors are okay, in a TV movie sort of way, but there are no characters and there is nothing in the way of plot beyond the look for monsters and shoot them before being eaten. Granted this is an exact replication of the game, but at least in the game you controlled the action, in the game you had a stake if people lived or died. Here there is nothing but passive viewing. Sure you can ooo and ahh at the visuals, but you can't control the action so you are forced to watch the actors do things which you know are stupid. Frankly I'd rather be playing the game than watching this movie.This is a movie thats all form over substance. If you like that sort of thing, try it. But be aware its nothing more than the live action version of video game visuals.","['2', '9']" +1000,rw1236086,supertom-3,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Brilliance!,6 December 2005,1,"Have movie audiences been spoilt this year? We sure have! Continuing a long line of immensely enjoyable films at the big screen, the fourth instalment of the series is far and away the best, and considering the class of the last one, that is some achievement. This time around the director is for the first time a Brit, Mike Newell. Newell's appointment raised questions about whether the film would have the visual impact to impress movie fans, in the wake of the previous movie and of course recent fantasy epics like Star Wars and LOTR. All worries though were not needed because Newell knocks this one out of the park. This year marks the tri-wizard tournament, hosted by Hogwarts. The tournament sees three schools competing against each other by sending out a single champion from each school. The selections are made using the Goblet Of Fire. Names are put into it and drawn out. The three champions are drawn but in a bizarre twist the Goblet fires out a fourth name, Harry Potter, despite the fact he's too young to enter. The whole school, including Harry's best mate Ron, think Harry has cheated somehow. However despite being too young the Goblet is a magically binding contract and so Harry has to compete in the three deadly tasks. All the while we have the re-emergence of Voldemort casting an eerie presence over the film. Also the Hogwarts prom night is on the horizon leading to the first awkward adolescent crushes of the series thus far. Yes Harry and his mates are indeed growing up and Newell doesn't want to pull any punches. When the film has to be nasty it is nasty, and when it has to have hormonally charged teenagers acting smitten it does so realistically. These guys are 14 years old in the film and like me and others when that age, are horny little buggas. Suddenly the guys are becoming gawky and awkward around the girls and Hermoine is sprouting into a young woman, and catching the eye of Ron and rival school competitor and quidditch God Victor Krum. The film actually has sexual tension and a fair old dose of innuendo in it so is quite daring. Not to mention Harry himself gets sexually assaulted by a ghost!The film really captures the essence of being that age, whilst also keeping the adventure side suitably dark. This film really is dark and some people may find it too dark for a kids movie. However I now think along the lines that the Harry Potter movies are turning into more adult movies. Certainly the last one was dark and didn't appeal to kids of 12 and under as much as the candy coated first two films, but Potter 4 will probably alienate the kiddies. This film was pretty scary I have to tell you. I nearly crapped my pants several times and I urge you never to watch this film in a theatre or room with too many young children in because the smell would be unbearable. Newell is clearly making a film he'd like to see and being an adult he needs to be challenged viscerally and this makes for a great movie. This really is a top class fantasy film and Peter Jackson would be proud. Visually as I mentioned this looks stunning, the cinematography is superb, the film looks Gothic at times, while we are given more focus on the actors. The camera gets right into them and stays for longer than previous instalments. This now means there is immense pressure on the kids to deliver acceptable performances and they duly delivered. Emma Watson, although a more peripheral figure this time is excellent, really coming along as an actress and will certainly have a bright future, while Rupert Grint as Ron is the same and really delivers a great turn. However up until now the one actually always considered the weakest of the three, Daniel Radcliffe, really steps forward and delivers a superb performance of maturity, that really goes hand in hand with the character of Potter, who has to learn to grow up fast. Newell clearly has spent time with these kids, and it shows, especially with Radcliffe who is given a testing role and doesn't put a foot wrong. Of course as with previous Potter movies we are blessed with an outstanding ensemble cast. Returnees Michael Gambon, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman and Robbie Coltrane are all top class. Then we have the always reliable and entertaining Miranda Richardson as Rita Skeeter. Current Dr Who David Tennant makes a creepy appearance to but the two standouts are firstly Ralph Fiennes who appears towards the end of the film as Lord Voldemort. He is cack your underpants scary. Fiennes is taking this really seriously, he wants Voldemort scary, he wants him nasty, he doesn't want any hint of the pantomime villain. When Harry comes face to face with him we know the boy will have to do something special to avoid dying. Fiennes though is eclipsed by Brendon Gleeson as Mad Eye Moody. Gleeson is superb as the dark arts teacher, who is clearly one sandwich short of a picnic. It's a great role and certainly a performance of both menace and quirk that could see him recognised by the Oscars.Someone who'll definitely be getting a nomination is John Williams who continues this years fine form from Star Wars 3 and War Of The Worlds, to deliver his best score yet with this film. It's atmospheric, creepy, majestic and very rarely falls back to the memorable Potter themes. This is not a movie for repeating theme tunes the music has to creep in and out to match each scene, bringing in the recognisable Potter jingle with choice and subtlety. It goes without saying Williams could have three nominations this year! Outstanding film and the most exciting of the year. *****","['1', '1']" +1001,rw1219017,rockthexarts,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,"Best Movie Ever!! Extremely Dark and mysterious, but has very funny moments too!",18 November 2005,0,"I, being the insanely psychotic Harry Potter fanatic that I am, went out to see ""Goblet of Fire"" at midnight the day it came out. I was not disappointed. In fact, I LOVED it! I'm not just saying this because I love harry Potter, this is really a sincere statement.Finally the Potter films have taken a much darker turn (and don't get me wrong, I loved the other movies, but still). The 4th book is fantabulous and was very dark, and the movie captures that. But of course, there are VERY funny moments too! This time, Ron was not overshadowed by Hermione, and they didn't have him make his totally freaked out face (excpet for one time, but it was a spider scene), which pleased me to the extreme. I love Ron (I even had a shirt with him on it that I wore to the premiere), and he is very brave, but is sometimes misrepresented in the films. All the Tri-Wizard Tournament scenes and a certain other fight one are very intense and incredibly awesome (At one part I wanted to cry because a scene was so sad and very well done.).I had only wished that the had kept the S.P.E.W subplot. But I guess you can't include everything. Trust me, fifty bagillion people can't all be wrong when they give this film 10 stars. Go see it and you will love it with every fiber of your being just as I do! I can't wait to see it again! 10/10","['0', '2']" +1002,rw1220777,egotyst,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),4.0,does anyone watching these movies understand continuity?,20 November 2005,1,"the direction of this movie was horrible. let me preface the rest of this comment with the fact that i am an avid harry potter fan. this movie was the worst of the three so far. if you think i am wrong, bring someone to see it who hasn't read the book first...and then enjoy explaining the entire movie to them. granted, the special effects were amazing, and a lot of the scenes were great, but that is all they were: a bunch of scenes. there was no link from scene to scene. there was nothing explaining what was happening. bad direction.the story was obviously wrong. there was not a single mention of a house elf (the main driving point of the original plot), Veela (a fun new species...and half of the lineage to one of the new main characters), and there was no ludo Bagman, a fun character which would have made for a very good time. however, i can concede that you cannot fit everything in that massive book into this movie, and one (the director) must pick and choose the most necessary parts.but, somethings were just off. one can argue that the following things are nit-picky and not worth mentioning. however, if you're going to make a movie from a series of novels with such ravenous fans, you must be consistent. these mistakes just show that the cast and crew were not fans of the series, but rather just looking to put out a movie. and after the last movie, which was done so well, its a big let down. 1.Cornelius fudge never was wearing his obligatory green bowler 2. Pavra and lavender Patil are in...DIFFERENT HOUSES 3. harry, after fighting the horn-tail, was sitting at the table with an arm in a sling, and stitches...so where was madam Pomfrey? and, anyone who read book 5 realizes how wrong it is to give harry stitches in book 4 4. Fleur was not the hottest of the hot, all other Beaubaton girls looked better 5. where were the creatures in the maze? no Skrewts, no sphinx, no spider.(and we know they had the budget) 6. who is this new Flitwic? 7. the Wizengamot...that is not what it looks like. how do you send harry back there, in that situation, for the next movie? 8. magic eyes don't need to make mechanical noises 9. Dumbledore now likes to yell at people. he developed a temper, rather than a calm, collected amused powerhouse of Wizarding. thanks for the new, hotheaded character, its a great improvement.there are more, but i cant write forever. JK, please don't let us down again.there were some pros, however. the special effects were great, but that doesn't even matter anymore. Rita skeeter was perfect, even though we got no hints of her being an Animagus in this movie (thell just thrust it on us with no explanation in the next one). Barty crouch senior was great. the twins were great. other than that though...this movie is a harry potter movie only on the surface, and should be a let down to anyone who is thinking about the movie.","['4', '7']" +1003,rw1219620,JohnsonLuke,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),5.0,"Good, but then again........ not",19 November 2005,0,"Why, oh why are people giving this film 10 out of 10????? I am confused, did they watch a different film? Surely anyone who is a fan of the book could not give it 10, purely because of the amount left out. I concede that the content that was there did the book justice, but so many of the sub-plots that made the book interesting were non-existent.If this film was done in two parts, i would no doubt have given it a 9 or 10. But, the films pace was so fast i was left trying to figure out what has been cut at the end of each scene.All in all a good film, but the special effects cannot make up for the loss of plot, and the way dumbledore is portrayed!","['2', '4']" +1004,rw1241484,cyrenevjacob,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,Harry Potter rocks!,18 December 2005,0,"This was an awesome movie! I took my wife, who is not a Harry Potter fan (Neither was I for that matter!), to see this movie. The theater was jam packed with kids and adults alike, and especially one annoying girl who kept screaming and calling out the names of all the characters!!! My daughter(who is only 3) loved all the scenes (Yes, she was wide awake throughout the movie!!!)! I'd say this movie is definitely for kids (and the kid in all of us!). Harry and the gang growing up to be adults and their love interests were well rendered. Radcliffe as Harry was charming and so was Ms Watson, who is blossoming into a charming lady. Ron did n't seem to have too much to say in this movie I think. Lot of puns on him though!! Poor Ron!!! The visual effects were fantastic as usual and the return of Lord Voldemort pretty ghastly. My wife thought he looked ghastly! The only haunting experience was the death of a fellow Hogwarter, which I believe kids don't like. Also, maybe the 'competition' did look rather too heavy and gruesome for kids.The Potter mania continues!!! We wait impatiently for the next Harry Potter film, and my advice to Ms Rowling...please don't kill Harry Potter!!! It ain't worth it!!","['2', '3']" +1005,rw1242678,ame-the-insane,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),2.0,Worst so Far.,19 December 2005,0,"The latest installment of the Harry Potter story is, by far, the worst to date. After sitting through a butt-numbing movie, my only comment was 'what the hell ?' It barely stayed true to the book and cut out so much from the original storyline that it was barely recognisable as Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. I would have rather paid more and seen the entire book in 2 or three movies then the shameful excuse that they put up on our screens. Most of the movie, my friend and i were whispering to each other, trying to figure out which part of the story we were watching. all in all, the worst Harry Potter to date, and i seriously hope that the directors/studio or whoever decides to make Order of the Phoenix and Half Blood Prince into several movies and not one terrible piece of motion pictionary.This movie only escapes getting a one because of the excellent graphics and the time that the people in computers must have spent touching up the pubescent actors skin.","['0', '0']" +1006,rw1224451,storysplicer,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),6.0,The same-old same-old,25 November 2005,1,"I guess it's too late to replace Daniel Radcliffe, but from the beginning he was never a compelling on screen presence, and that's a shame. The owlish Harry Potter deserves an edge Ratcliffe simply does not possess. So, every Potter movie including this one seems to have involved spinning some very expensive plates to distract us from this fact. Here are the best special effects money can buy (the Quidditch match is the set piece and is the most satisfying), some rather disconcerting sexual innuendo about Harry's belongings in a bath house, Ralph Fiennes as the evil version of the English Patient (wow, that must have hurt his nose), and the dawning realization that purely through an accident of birth, Harry Potter will prevail over every evil that befalls him. For some reason I find this depressing rather than inspiring. It must go back to my proud American notion that you are not born into greatness, you much create it. Whereas in England, you're stuck for life.","['0', '0']" +1007,rw1220566,Tiglathpileezar,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),2.0,So freaking boring!!!,20 November 2005,0,"Never saw a Harry Potter movie, but considered I could follow along fairly easy. It's stinking Harry Potter?!?! The effects are great, the plot weak, the villains weak and what the heck is the deal with the Jr High/High School love drama nonsense? I know there is a huge cult following for Harry Potter, and I just don't see why. I could care less about any of the problems these nerds had. I wanted to smack that red-headed kid in the face so much for his wining and his latent homosexual tension our hero Mr Potter. Jeez, what a rip. I'm not even so concerned about my 5.50 I spent, but I want my 2/12 hours back so I could spend them much better, like taking a nice long relaxing dump.","['2', '3']" +1008,rw1222522,elizgraz,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),3.0,Harry Takes the Cake with 1-3...and then flushes it down the toilet in 4,22 November 2005,1,"Are you kidding me???? I liked when Alfonso and Chris directed this series, but Mike took the script and used it as toilet paper. Although the beginning was SOMEWHAT interesting, if he directs this series AGAIN, I will never see another Potter film again... Harry is once again at Hogwarts, as if you've never heard that one. Harry spends his days screwing around, while Ron and Hermione feud. (what a good friend he is; he cares so much about his friends that he don't give a crap!) Harry saves the day, as if only the put-on-a-pedastal hero could. They put so much emphasis on Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and Voldemort, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint are just Robin, Bat-man's sidekick. They should've really given Ron and Little Miss Know-It-All some spotlight, like in 1-3. Save your money and order it on-demand. (I don't think that you should waste $9.95... No offense, I'm an avid Harry Potter fan, and I absolutely LOVE Daniel, Emma (cutie!!!!!), and Rupert, but I hate Mike's work on this series and I am going to begin a protest to get him out of the director's chair, and into McDonald's at 5.00 an hour..","['1', '2']" +1009,rw1221560,yamiseirei-1,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,Just a few thoughts i have about the movie,21 November 2005,1,"Well overall the movie was good with a good mix of teenage problems, scary stuff and humour (Hagrid's love life springs to mind!!) But on the other hand i won't be taking my 8 year old to see the movie firstly because i think the scenes with Voldemort are too scary and there's too much swearing for my liking. I know Ron swears in all the movies but there was more in this and i know it's a 12A but all the same she's pretty grown up for her age.Anyway i digress, i was disappointed with the music i thought it was a mere shadow of previous movies when i have dashed out and bought the soundtrack as soon as it appeared, there was nothing memorable about the music in this movie. Also i was very disappointed in the fact that the Quidditch world cup seemed to be cut largely i would have loved to have seen more of that - there was precious little Quidditch in Goblet of Fire as it was without no world cup as such either! There was also no big deal on Rita Skeeter's character and she was a huge part of book 4. She was found to be an animagus and revealed about Hagrid being a giant as well as other stuff so i think that could have been expanded. Also there was nothing about what happened to Barty Crouch after he was caught out in the end, In the book he was killed which meant Sirius Black was still to blame and lots of other things like that which as a Harry Potter fan i would consider big deals.However the good points of this movie are, Hagrid's love life which was hilarious, Ron's dress robes, the Yule Ball which i thought was excellent and the humour but i won't be going to see it again (and this is from someone who went 9 times to the cinema to see Chamber of Secrets!) Yami Seirei","['2', '3']" +1010,rw1227661,onebadbear,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),9.0,HP and the Goblet of Fire Comments,29 November 2005,1,"Very well done altogether but as one previous reviewer did point out the following important omissions: *) No Hermione catching Rita skeeter in a jar this is very important as she is indebted to Hermione to do Harry an interview in the 5th movie.*) No introduction of Charlie and he will also be very important to Movie 6 when the time comes, of course there is time in Movie 5 to correct this one.Also would like to see more interaction between Draco Malfoy and Pansy Parkinson just for entertainment sake.However spectacular effects and kudos for the scenes with Neville. Hard enough to wait for Book 7 let alone movie 5 but cheers!","['0', '0']" +1011,rw1218953,mad_beckage,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,"Solid, entertaining movie",18 November 2005,0,"I think that this Harry Potter installment was a solid movie. It built off of number 3 by integrating the previous architecture and design. In this Harry Potter, the landscape plays less of a role and the director turns the viewer's attention back to the magic and fantasy of the wizarding world. The music was also well done and didn't detract from any aspects of the movie.The director is playing on the fact that most viewers will have read the book. There are some elements that have not been explained as in-depth as in the books, but that is to be expected-- there is a lot to cover. He did a really good job of the climactic scenes and in juxtaposing a lot of different elements.The only problem that I could see with this Harry Potter was the depiction of Dumbledore. The actor interpreted Dumbledore as a more aggressive and high-strung character than in the books and previous movies. I don't feel that this interpretation does justice to the core character and this interpretation needs to change for the following movies.All in all, I loved it!","['1', '2']" +1012,rw1225684,rohitj84,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),4.0,Too much on the platter to digest,27 November 2005,1,"Direction of the movie is quite pathetic. It looks as if we are watching a compilation of trailers. The focus of the movie is completely missing. The sets in the movie were spectacular and the build up to the each of the three tasks was alright but the tasks themselves looked pretty ordinary. It seems that they had big plans for each of the tasks but then had to cut them short because either of the money constraint or time constraint. One of major disappointment for me was the entry of Voldemort. One would expect that such a great moment in the story should have been made to stand out and have an impact on the audience but for me it looked ordinary just as any other scene in the movie, there wasn't enough thrill in that scene. At the end of movie, i was thinking of what have i seen in last two and half hours. I can just sum it up in 4-5 sentences. I have already read the book so i knew what is happening, but i doubt if somebody who hasn't read this book would have had any clue of what's happening in the movie. It looks as if they have tried to put in little too much within a short span of time. Underwater task is the only one which has done justice to the book. The acting of the child actors has improved considerably. But the charismatic Dumbledore was missing. He looked vulnerable. He should have looked calm and composed as he is always. I would like to ask the director to take an inspiration from ""Lord of the Rings"" and make the movie with the same sense of grandeur without compromising on time and money.","['3', '5']" +1013,rw1215717,maybe_ed_should_drive,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),9.0,"Great Film, best yet!",12 November 2005,1,"Well I must say I was really impressed. I'm really loving the fact that the movies all but two, were done by different directors. It makes everything feel so fresh because every director has a different way of looking and seeing things.the port key to the tournament was really well done, everyone grabbed the boot and was warped up and it looked awesome Quwitdich cup was good, but not enough qwitdich at all! The death eaters were creepy, and had really tall pointy hats on which was cool the ""dark Mark"" was kind of lame, it was like a skull with this snake growing out of it and a big cloud.. and they changed it and made Barty Crouch Jr. let off the dark mark instead of Luscious Malfoy... they totally left the other house elf out... because she was supposed to have stolen harry potters wand to let off the mark so they thought harry had let it off... but that didn't happen Fred and George played a much bigger part then usual in the movie and I LOVED it... the script really let their characters show through more, and had them selling their tricks at all the tri-wizard tournament games. They were hilarious and it was awesome.another interesting part of ""upping"" a character was Neville, the movie totally expanded on the fact that he was really great at Herbology. And instead of DOBBY giving Harry the Gillyweed for the 2nd challenge it was Neville who found it out and gave it to him. But I liked that to because I know it's building up towards other things that are going to happen in the book and....****Book 6 spoiler if you haven't read it don't read*** I guess J. K Rowling and the director wanted to show the importance of Neville more NOW so that when they reach that movie the fact that Neville and Harry are connected and that either one of them could have become the 'chosen one' in the prophesy won't be as weird...******************************* there was no kiss!!! and I thought there would be, but some really cute tension between Ron and Herminone.... who by the way looked stunning at the Yue ball! Cho Chang.... randomly IRISH?!?! what!! I mean still Chinese, but with a harsh Irish Accent No Oliver Wood makes me Sad.. :( Fleur, and Krum hardly spoke in the movie at all, i think Krum had like 3 lines, and so did Fleur, I would have liked them to talk more.The CGI was actually GOOD in this movie, which made me happy... cuz god the CGI has been pretty terrible in the series (see back to the first harry potter and the mountain troll) the final challenge was kind of disappointing. No riddles or anything, just the forest attacking, and krum going crazy.OK resurrection of Voldermort... it was creepy and when Cedric Died it was really sad.... Voldermort looked really funny... he really reminded me of a monk or something. He didn't seem scary enough. When Harry and Voldermort battle and their wands clash it is AMAZING, when all the ghosts come out and Harry sees his parents and they talk to him it made me cry, it was a really nice scene...Harry coming back with Cedric after escaping was also really good, you can see how Danille Radcliffe has improved his acting GREATLY since the first film... he was crying over Cedric's body and then Cedrir's dad came over, and it was pretty emotional....ummm.......... Fluer wasn't hot enough in my opinion, and they never mentioned she was half-harpy.... maybe that's why.OH and RITA SKEETER!!.. OK REALLY good casting, she did an AWESOME job.. but they only really mentioned that she was writing annoying stories twice, and they never said she was an Anitmagus, or that she was really THAT sneaky and got information by turning into a bug... which was sad... but she was pretty sleazy and there is a hilarious scene with her and Harry in a broom cupboard....I can't think of much else that was changed right now but all in all it was really good! Again... so everyone should go see it next week!!","['1', '4']" +1014,rw1224380,Squeaky-Voiced-Teen,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,You know what?....NOT the best potter movie yet....!,25 November 2005,0,"Title referring to the endless amount of user comments starting with : ""best potter movie yet""Anyway, I have been a huge fan of harry potter since the beginning of it all. I have anticipated every movie and book before their release date and have never been as disappointed as in this case. Don't get me wrong Harry potter and the Goblet of fire is a great movie, but not the best potter movie yet. This because of several reasons: - All the ""raving and rating"" here at IMDb, with reviews like that i expected a lot out of it, that's the first reason. - The previous potter movies, the philosopher's stone was as magical as anyone could ever make it, couldn't have been better. The second one also was very good, done in about the same beautiful Columbus style as the first. Azkaban however, caught me off guard, so totally different from the first two, it was kind of amazing, the darkness captured beautifully and great cinematography, i have learned to appreciate Cuarón's way of shooting even more by watching the DVD over and over again, awesome movie. So having these three movies as your predecessors bears a lot of pressure and in my case didn't fulfill my potter needs, so to speak (that sounded kind of perverted) - And the biggest reason, too much Mike Newell, almost 45 minutes was dedicated to the dating/girls part of the movie, i am very well aware that the book also had a lot of this going on but when you're going to cram a 400 page book (about a wizard) into 2 and a half hours, make sure there's plenty of magic. what i'm trying to say is that, this would have been a great comedy if it didn't play in hogwarts, you know. Not enough magic, great, now i sound like a 5-y.o. Anyway it's obvious Mike Newell's area is romantic comedy and he tried to put that in as much as he could, too much of it, and then the climax with the final showdown was in complete contrast with the rest of the movie and kind of rushed as well.All in all, a fantastic movie (special effects were great but ever big-budget flicks'are nowadays) but kind of disappointing, sadly. Everyone has to see this movie cause obviously a lot of people's opinions differ. I hate that i didn't like this movie though, tough luck...","['0', '0']" +1015,rw1220508,hen3d45,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),3.0,"By Far, The WORST Movie If You Really Like The Books:",20 November 2005,1,"I can't help, but to compare the Harry Potter movie to the books. If you want to re-write the books don't call them ""Harry Potter"" anymore.Whoever put the last two Potter movies together, has kicked the books right in the butt. I know there is an extreme amount of material to cover in a movie like this, but if Peter Jackson can do such a wonderful job on the ""Lord of The Rings"" series, they could do a better job on these as well. Not everything in the movie sucked. For instance... I thought the portrayal of Lord Valdemort was very good. Probably the best acting of the whole movie. Followed by Mad Eye Moody. I wasn't too pleased with the look of Moody, but I still feel he was one of the stronger characters. There were several critical areas of the book that weren't covered. Especially the character of Rita Skeeter. HORRIBLE casting for her, and they completely skipped the whole point with her. There is more involving Rita in the following books, and it won't make any sense because they left that stuff out. The worst character by far was Dumbledore. Dumbledore has an extreme confidence that oozed from his charisma and knowledge in the books, but in this movie, he is a short tempered angry confused old man. Not the character everyone describes in the book as ""The only wizard that Valdemort ever feared."" I have to say the movie really went south for me in the heavy metal goth scene at the Dance. Complete with crowd surfing midgets!! WTF? Where in the heck did they come up with that? I am thinking someone in the board room was saying ""we need something with Moxy for the soundtrack... whadda ya got for me? Nine Inch Nails impersonators? I Like it! Make sure you put some magical Harry Potter looking stuff on the drums and guitars. Bits of cloth and such... LAME!!!Then there was the complete disappearance of the blast ended Scroots, No mention of the Dursleys AT ALL. The hedge maze scene was completely revised, No follow through on Hagrid's interaction with Madame Maxime and their link to the giants. The list goes on and on.I also want to say, they couldn't stick with trimming out stuff from the book, they had also to add items that could have been easily left out that had no importance whatsoever. The nearly boob popping Mermaid on the wall in the bath chamber for one. WAAAY too much attention was put on that lame unimportant item. Another was the entrance of the girls from Beaubaton. I know it is hard to portray girls that are supposed to be so beautiful, but the way they handled it in the movie was terrible. Okay, I will get off of my soap box now. I just felt the need to voice my disappointment with the movie, and more so, my disappointment with all of the Rave reviews by people saying how great it was.. Are we really that out of touch, or do people not care about good character development and a good story, over scads of special effects? I want to say I noticed. Not everyone bought into the Potter Hype, and it does a disservice to such amazingly good books. Thank you for listening to my rant. If this makes sense to you, we should probably become movie critics together. I'd love to lay it on the line without buying into the corporate spoon-fed formulaic garbage they try to force down the gullet of the American movie goer. Peace.","['11', '20']" +1016,rw1219763,departed07,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,"Like a fine wine, the series is aging gracefully.",19 November 2005,0,"Oh, God, where do I begin? Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is the fourth installment from the J.K. Rowling series and this one is the payoff. Not only does each of the series keep getting better by installments, but they also get darker as well. As I mention in my review of Prisoner of Azkaban, the first two installments were ways of getting gawky eyed teenage girls to the big screen; with Azkaban, it was a movie where EVERYBODY, fans and non fans, to see this flick. With Goblet of Fire, the results are more promising than ever.Daniel Radcliffe returns to his role as Harry Potter, a little older this time, and having nightmares about Lord Voldermort A.K.A. ""You Know Who"", as the scar on his forehead is getting worse as he can see what his happening around Voldermort and his cronies.Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are also back as Harry's friends, Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger, in which time the three characters are hitting the stages of puberty where the guys don't have a clue on how to pick up girls, while a student from another school asks Hermione to the ball on Christmas Eve. Not only does puberty hit them, but also at the same time the relationships start to hit a conflict where Harry can't count on neither one anymore.The premise of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is that every year there is a tournament called ""The Tri-Wizard Tournament"" where a student from Hogwarts and two other students from different schools (Beauxbatons Academy and Durmstrang Institute) compete for the Tri-Wizard Cup, which will lead the winner eternal glory. The contestants have to be over seventeen to compete in the tournament, which involves retrieving a golden egg from a dragon, saving a loved one from the black lake, and the last part of the competition is going to an endless maze where somebody gets the Tri-Wizard Cup. The way the student is chosen is if somebody writes the name of the contestant on a piece of paper and sends it to the Goblet of Fire where the names will be drawn. Three have already been chosen, even a student from Hogwarts; but now a fourth contestant is revealed…Harry Potter. Part of the clause on the contract reveals that no matter what, if the name is drawn, the player must go through all the levels, even if they die.As far from directing, Mike Newell of ""Four Weddings and a Funeral"" and ""Mona Lisa Smile"" is the first British director in the movie series where as a Britain, he understands everything about a boarding school, even a scene where Prof. Snape (Alan Rickman) starts to hit Harry and Ron upside the head for not doing their work. Yet, so funny and realistic that he does an outstanding job making this film.Goblet of Fire also draws strong supporting roles; there's Michael Gambon reprising his role as Dumbledor; Maggie Smith as McGonagall (more of an extended role than Azkaban), Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid, Miranda Richardson as the slimy Rita Skeeter and Brendan Gleason as ""Mad-Eyed"" Moody, who is the fourth teacher in the dark arts after the three other teachers left (Prof. Quarrel was Voldermort's apprentice in the 1st movie; the fop Gilderoy Lockhart in the second movie; and the eccentric Prof. Lupin in the 3rd installment).Harry does meet his match with Lord Voldermort (Ralph Finnees) before the end of the movie which is quite a surprise, because after the first three films, the first two were apprentices in the body of Voldermort; in the third film, it was revealed that another apprentice ""Worm-Tail"" Peter Pettigrew (Timothy Spall) was responsible for the death of James and Lily Potter; and now the monster is met, incomplete, with the face of the mechanical droid from the movie ""I, Robot"" where Voldermort's eyes are small, his nose small and his body very alive.This is the first Harry Potter movie to be Rated PG-13, because of dark elements and scary violence. It does a job of staying true to what it means. Not to mention coming along with a storyline that people can follow. Overall, this is one hell of a movie, and as Hermione says to Ron and Harry, ""Everything is going to change."" Indeed, for the better.Acting: A+ Plot:A+ Directing:A+This is a must see for every wizard and muggle.","['2', '7']" +1017,rw1228030,yehuda72,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),3.0,good script - bad direction - worst music,30 November 2005,0,"It is amazing how producers can destroy people's illusions to save some money. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban was the summit, the best direction and music, they knew the next one was suppose to be a success, so why spend more money! lets make a cheap movie, it will make us rich!!! The script was OK but it was unnecessary to show the first scenes with the tournament, it could have been better to focus on the goblet of fire itself, more interesting scenes there. Brendan Gleeson was superb, the only that was really good one, really. It was shocking the change in music, I was used to John Williams good instrumentation. The direction was some time to oriented to show British education, too irrelevant to show here.","['1', '1']" +1018,rw1224407,OddlyStrange,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),4.0,Took to much out (may contain spoilers),25 November 2005,1,"This movie left so much of the back story out and it failed to live up to the hype the other movies created, I wish I would have waited to see this movie when it came to the Dollar Movies (.75 a person for the first showing). The movie opens with Harry's reoccurring dream, scar burning he wakes to Hermione's Voice. They Take the port key, To the world cup, where they left out the entire match if you didn't read the book you would not know who had won. This movie just got more and more disappointing as it went on. My advice to harry potter fans is wait to see the movie when you can rent it or if there is a dollar movie in your town, seeing this movie then would be a great way to spend an afternoon.","['0', '0']" +1019,rw1220729,teelbee,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,"Stripped to the bone! And, Casting... hello? hello?",20 November 2005,1,"Firstly, I don't think it's a horrible movie. It's just that I've come to expect so much more from the Harry Potter movies.I read that the movie makers considered making it into 2 movies, as the book is so long. Instead, they stripped it to the bone and made it into one long movie. They tried to cram too much into the 2.5 hour movie so there was not enough exposition or build-up to support the story. I couldn't see how this movie would make sense to people who had not read the book. I asked my companion (not a fiction reader) if he ""got it""; and he admitted he was pretty clueless during much of the movie. It should have been so much better with more detailed story elements. I was surprised they completely cut the characters Ludo Bagman and Winky, even though they had pretty significant roles in the book. I was looking forward to seeing them portrayed. If doing the story justice meant 2 movies, clearly that's what they should have done.Casting in the first 2 movies was so spot-on! I could quibble, but really all the actors accurately reflected the characters in the books (the quibble, Hermione was a too pretty). Casting of ~new~ characters is the 3rd and 4th movies, on the other hand, ranges from ""not deft"" to ""completely daft"". The new Dumbledore doesn't do the character justice - he's too tense and and lacks authority. He doesn't have the air of calm self-possession that's so essential to the role. I find it jarring that the new Dumbledore lacks the confidence and wise-yet-humble presence of the novel's character. Similarly, I thought the depiction of Sirius Black was off balance in movie 3 (vs the book)- anger replacing the pathos of the novel's Sirius. But, I digress as he was not a part of this movie. I'm not comfortable with the movie version of Maxine. The Beauxbaton's head mistress was portrayed as a simpering romantic. In the book she is a woman with great strength of character with a bit of a chip on her shoulder when it comes to a romantic attachment with Hagrid. The worst character deviation was Mad-Eye Moody, who was shown as a clumsy oaf - a clown - on screen. In the book, he's talented and flinty, and his eccentricities were fully explained.Speaking of Beauxbatons! What was with that entrance into the Great Hall? ... trooping in like little bluebirds, breathy gesturing Ahhhhh.... ahhhh...."" as they flitted up the Grand Hall? They looked like something out of ~Madeline in London~! So weird. Another miscasting was the Fleur DeLacour character. The movie Fleur was shown as a regular sporty girl-next door type; whereas she is supposed to be part Veela, and thus more exotic, more beautiful, and slightly other worldly. Victor Krum was better cast as a steely Eastern European, but what happened to the slump-shouldered, toe-in footed grouch from the book? In the book, he was a bit of an anti-hero, on screen he was movie star beautiful.The tone of the movie is dark and gloomy throughout The few attempts at a bit of comedy relief didn't do much to lighten things. For example, instead of being comical, Ron's angst at having to wear a frumpy set of dress robes related all to well the pain of self-consciousness suffered by teens. Actually, it was a quite a good bit of acting, but it didn't serve the purpose of providing a lighter episode as it did in the book.It's just not ""magical"" like the prior movies. Still, I think many people may like it better than the previous movies as it is more like a typical, action-oriented film. But, I don't go to Harry Potter movies to see ""typical"".","['0', '1']" +1020,rw1221866,Nevermore1001,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,The Golden Goblet,21 November 2005,1,"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was without a doubt my favorite movie so far. The emotions, the story, the music, everything about it was magnificent.I don't know if this will contain spoilers, but be warned, I may let something slip without noticing. Where to begin?I'll start with Voldemort. Ralph Fiennes was the perfect person to play the evil menace of the series. Even without a nose, and the cg for that was flawless, he did probably the best performance I've ever seen. The way he casually said lines like (SPOILER) ""I'm going to kill you, Harry Potter"" so casually, and the pure evil that he caused you to feel were perfect. I clearly could tell that this was the ultimate evil standing in front of Harry.Next we come to the music. Patrick Doyle follows John Williams with a spectacular score. The music for (SPOILER) Cedric's death nearly pulled tears from my eyes, mixed with the screams of Amos Diggory. Voldemort's theme made you see the evil of the man, and the use of ""Hedwig's Theme"" was bone-chilling.The actors were quite good as well. Harry got the emotion thing down perfectly this time (I don't know if you recall his lack of tears when he was crying in PoA). Fred and George finally lived up to the characters that J.K. Rowling created, and the tasks were quite thrilling. While a lot of the book had to be cut from the movie, they did a fantastic job cutting the right stuff to make it work, even throwing in the backstory behind Neville Longbottom. The beginning, however, was somewhat rushed, even (SPOILER) cutting the actual Quidditch game from the movie.(MAJOR SPOILER) Now on to the saddest scene of the movie. When Harry returned to Hogwarts with Cedric's body, the band starts playing the upbeat ""Hogwarts March"", which I believe adds to the effect that they have no clue what is going on. It is perfect when they show the faces of Dumbledore, Mr. Weasly and Amos, and Hagrid as they realize that Cedric is dead. The music suddenly changes to the heartbreaking ""Death of Cedric"", intensifying the pain throughout Hogwarts. Amos's scream of sadness could bring a tear to anyone's eyes, showing the first really strong emotion in the Harry Potter movies.Altogether, this was by far the best movie in the series (in my opinion). This one finally seemed to catch the feel of the loved books by J.K. Rowling, and the dark themes blended perfectly in this one with the somewhat craziness of Hogwarts and the Wizarding World. I give everyone who worked on this a standing ovation, and two for the person who made it all possible, Mrs. Rowling herself.The major problem now is that we have to wait until 2007 for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.","['2', '3']" +1021,rw1223162,wtmorrison,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),4.0,"Well, it wasn't what I had expected.",23 November 2005,0,"I don't want to give anything away, for those of you that want to know if it is worth seeing. Well, I have been an avid fan, and all this did was close a chapter. There were so many things missing in this movie, I can't even begin to list them. If I hadn't read the book several time, I would have been asking a lot of questions.This is also the first movie where you really get to see Dumbledore put his wand to good use. He was supposed to be the most powerful wizard ever, and I got chills while reading the book. I was really disappointed when he came across as weak. The overall acting in the movie was slightly overzealous, probably due to the new director. It really just didn't live up to the reputation that the previous movies had established for it. At least the next one will have a different director.","['1', '1']" +1022,rw1219911,ZanarkandBlitz7,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),5.0,Did any one else find this boring?,19 November 2005,0,"I don't know... I liked the other films a lot, I just thought this was kinda.. dull. I also didn't like how they didn't develop the characters of the other tri-wizard champions. Fleur and Krum had virtually no lines, and they just stood there half the time. Sirrius was almost completely absent too that was up with that? And did anyone find that little interaction between Rita Skeeter and Harry in the ""broom closet"" to be very VERY weird, especially on Skeeter's part? I really like Ralph Finnes though.. brilliant casting choice. And Cho...Wow.... just freakin' WOW! SO HOT!!! ^_- Overall, I found myself dosing at some moments which never happens to me when I go to the movies.Anyone agree?","['1', '2']" +1023,rw1220140,fullofcrackuk,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,"Kids will love it, however it could have been so much better",20 November 2005,0,"Harry Potter is back, looking slightly more grown up and with an even more dodgy haircut. I must be one of the only people who think this but for me the film was a let down, the reason for this was for me the film did not do the book justice there were bits of the film that were just skimmed over and seemed irrelevant, the bits with Rita Skeeter for a start, which are much more important in the book. The biggest problem is that the writers have tried to cram as much as they could from the book into the film as possible. There is also the problem that in the book Harry starts to deal with teenage emotions, this is important for the character development but isn't dealt with very well at all in the film, maybe this is because the prime audience for the film is around 8 years old. Which brings me to my final point. You gotta remember who this film is for, ultimately it is for the kids and they will love it, it will indeed keep them occupied for a good two hours or so. They don't care about emotions or exact references from the books and this will be just as good as reading the book if not better. For me though even though the films main market is children it could have been so much better. I mean look at what they managed to do to the Lord of The Rings.","['0', '1']" +1024,rw1219782,charlene-cantwell,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Fabulous!!!,19 November 2005,0,"First of all I have to admit that i am a huge fan of the books and the film, and was really looking forward to see the 4th instalment.I have to say that the acting of Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and especially Rupert Grint and the guy that plays Neville Longbottom (Temporary memory loss, sorry)was excellent, there was no cringe worthy moments, which i found in the previous films. They have all grown up a lot.The whole film seemed like it had been plucked from my imagination, whilst reading the book, especially the second task, third task, the graveyard and the pen sieve.I was in hysterics through the first 3/4 of the film and tearful in the last 1/4 film.I think a non-harry potter fan (bizarre as it may sound that there are people that don't like harry potter)would even enjoy the film.Cnat wait to see the film again. Well worth watching!!!!!","['2', '5']" +1025,rw1224487,Lucasio_Morthill,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),4.0,Not for the fans,25 November 2005,1,"I was seriously disappointed in the third Harry Potter (HP) movie. Ik lacked a good plot, the book was ruined and the acting wasn't much better. On the other hand, if unlike me, you don't consider the books to be sacred you could have a lot of fun watching it.The same goes in an even bigger way for this fourth movie. Personally I hate it, I think it's the worst book movie in all of history, and it's the worst movie I've seen in years. It annoyed me, the movie completely ruined a great book, the plot was gone, it was going way to fast, ah well, I could go on for hours. Suffice it to say that if you're like me a die hard fan of the books you probably won't like this movie because it isn't the book.On the other hand, if you're not a die hard fan and you just like HP you probably will have a wonderful time with the movie. It has comedy, drama, action and romance. It has a fast plot to keep you on the edge of your seat and nice visual effects.The problem with the movie is not in the acting or anything, the problem is that some great events from the book are not in the movie. Sorry to say this, but for everyone hoping for a spectacular finale of the Quidditch World Championships, forget it, you never get to see the match. This was the first disappointment and at that time I knew I was not going to like the movie and I didn't. I laughed at times of course, but I couldn't fully enjoy the movie because so much was twisted in a bad way in comparison to the book and even major characters left out and major events changed. And that really saddened me.In short, if you loved the books, read them till the cover came off don't go watch it in the cinema. If you've only seen the movies or weren't such a fan of the books you'll have a wonderful time with this movie.","['0', '0']" +1026,rw1229782,Baldrick44,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,"Good, but not quite Azkaban quality",2 December 2005,0,"I must admit that if I was going to do a Harry Potter film, I would think that the ones that would be the most exhausting would be numbers four and five. Why? Because of the mass of characters that need to be fed into the machine in order for it to be a coherent storyline. Fortunately for HP fans, Mike Newell does a pretty good job, with only the occasional slip up.The great thing about Goblet of Fire is that it is the book that truly turns the series on its head; with the idea of a dark foreboding evil becoming fully realised and Harry's destiny becoming more than just magic and wands. The script is handled well, with the story continuing to adhere closely to the books, with the cutting out of a couple of peripheral characters, allows the story to move quickly and efficiently from scene to scene.The new actors are all very good, particularly Brendan Gleeson as Moody and David Tennant as Barty Crouch Jr. A special mention should also go to Ralph Fiennes who played Voldemort with a very reptilian sort of menace ( he didn't so much move as swooped ) that gave the Dark Lord a quality that is totally unique. His performance helped to really move the film along in the closing stages. All the other actors performed their parts with the usual aplomb, and Michael Gambon has moved beyond Richard Harris to become a new Dumbledore, one that although may seem a little gritty for this film ( though he was still very good ), will suit Dumbledore perfectly in films to come.There were however a couple of things that seemed to irritate me in the movie. For starters, the Yule Ball scene went for too long. It was an event that was important in the scope of the moment, but it really had no consequence on the rest of the film. Secondly Gary Oldman as Sirius Black should have been used more to flesh out the characters of Karakroff, Moody and Barty Crouch instead merely appearing for ten seconds in a fire. Perhaps the scene on top of the mountain in Hogsmeade would have been better to see than the one in the fire, despite the absence of special effects. Thirdly some characters seemed to merely peter out instead of finding out what happened to them; Rita Skeeter disappeared off the face of the Earth, Draco seemed to have nothing to say about the return of the Dark Lord and the relationship between Fudge and Dumbledore if one had not read the book at the end was anyone's guess.But I may be being overly critical as the book is incredibly difficult to do, and for every irritant, there are 4 cool things to make up for it. The Potter series rolls on in good stead, with Harry's destiny before him.","['0', '0']" +1027,rw1224266,agneska,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),4.0,What were they thinking?,25 November 2005,0,"The plot is as good as in the other movies, since it is based on the book. However, I wonder what was the director thinking? Several important facts of the book are missing, while other scened that are only briefly or not mentioned at all in the book are played. The movies seems to be made of several short scenes, that for someone that never read the book do not make any sense at all. It is understandable that lots of cuts had to be made to fit such a large book in only one movie... but they could at least have tried to create a movie in which there was a clear connection between the scenes and accessible for everyone(not only to those that read the book). In conclusion: very disappointing and illogical!","['1', '2']" +1028,rw1218698,Sparrow_in_flight,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),9.0,Well worth it,18 November 2005,0,"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire has finally emerged...and didn't disappoint. Though some scenes seemed rushed (I would have liked to have seen more of the Quidditch World Cup, really) and the subplots were gone (No SPEW...poor Hermione), the overall tone of the book is still present.Though we can't forget the danger presented at the beginning of the film (in fact, if the music alone won't let you forget, the nonstop action and some of the characters' conversations will make sure you remember), there are still plenty of laughs (in fact, Moaning Myrtle's scene in the book has been expanded a bit in the film...providing plenty of amusement though poor Harry would probably say otherwise).Some things, I think, could have been done better (Sirius' head in the fire just looked goofy and Voldemort's ""I can touch him now"" line...well, it can be misconstrued quite easily by fanfic authors writing slash), other bits that I had worried about surprised me by being well done. The dragon, for instance, was great - and the scenes involving Cedric Diggory's death were handled well.Overall, 9 out of 10.","['4', '9']" +1029,rw1220521,vw_hk89,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,"Seen it, loved it, however...",20 November 2005,1,"I'm am a Harry Potter fanatic and book 4 is my favourite book at the moment, I was so excited when this film came out!!!!!!!!!! I literally had goosebumps from the beginning till the end of the film. The 12a rating evidently implies that the trio are kids no longer and they have grown-up. It was good to see the film done by a British director for once as it is a British novel. The visual effects (especially the dragon and underwater scene), were realistic. However, I felt that the dummies used in the underwater scene looked unrealistic and nothing like the actors. I also felt that the maze scene could have been improved (i.e. in the novel, there were several magical creatures in the maze, unfortunately in the film there wasn't). The quidditch world cup proved disappointing also as it was only on for 5 minutes. I also was disappointed about the fact that some characters were either not included or had little time on the screen (i.e. Mrs Weasley, Winky and Dobby, Ludo Bagman and Sirius Black).Performancewise, Ralph Fiennes' Lord Voldermort exceeded my expectations and portrayed the dark lord very well. I would have liked to see some of the newcomers more on screen such as Stan Ivanevski(?)(Viktor Krum), Katie Leung (Cho Chang) and the Patil sisters.The music was impressive, though I would have preferred Williams to have composed the score.Like most British films, plenty of comedy was provided. But this film also provided a lot of unsuitable material for younger children. In the cinema I went to, there were a lot of young children and Voldermort appeared, there seemed to be a large number of young children heading towards the toilet. It is an incredibly dark film, all we have to do know is wait for a Harry Potter film with a 15-rating!","['0', '1']" +1030,rw1226400,sidekick3881,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,basic math 101,28 November 2005,1,"Just a small goof or two. Rita Skeeter insists on depicting Harry as a mere boy of twelve in her articles, but the headlines of the articles read ""teenage tragedy"". Perhaps alliteration is more important than basic math? Also, Harry makes the statement, ""Here we are, four years later."" If they are presently in their fourth year, then here they are indeed, but actually only THREE years ""later"". These and other ""goofs"" as pointed out by the esteemed members of IMDb, however, do not in my opinion take away from the general entertainment value of the movie. My six year old has seen it three times and keeps begging to go back again. It has been a wonderful fun ride each time. Apologies to all of the book fans who feel ""cheated"" and that certain key elements were left out. If you want an exact replay of the book, then I suggest reading the book again. Good luck, however keeping your children attentive for seven hundred pages. On the other hand, if you want great cinematography, engaging characters, stunning visuals, and good clean family entertainment packed into a three hour family outing, then go see this movie. Thanks for reading!","['0', '1']" +1031,rw1219652,r3-1,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,All Hail the Darkest of Harry Potter Films ... yet,19 November 2005,0,"Which really can't come a surprise to anyone who has read the books, given that they becomes darker and darker as well. And that this time it does get a bit more serious ... but I won't give the ending to the 2 people who has not read them.This movie is one of those you have to see more than once, to completely take in all of the many impressions you are given throughout the film. It is quite clear, that they must have had a hard time cutting the film down to 2½ hours. if you ask me, sticking to the original idea of making 2 films out of the book would not have been a bad idea. But that does not mean the movie does not work. As a matter of fact I dare say that is is the best Harry Potter film so far. But as a warning to the 2 people I mentioned earlier, it is a good idea to discuss the start of the book with someone who has read it, as I imagine it could be rather difficult to understand everything with scenes shifting so fast without much explanations of the characters action. To everyone who has read the often mentioned book, should know that they have changed the story in a few places, but nothing of much significance.Proceeding to the new actors, I am happy to say an over-all ""bravo"". Brian Gleeson as Alastor Mad-Eye Moody, Miranda Richardson as Rita Skeeter, Pedja Bjelac as Igor Karkaroff and of course Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort all give outstanding performances. Yet again BRAVO! I could speak of them for hours. But I am not going to. Because if I don't try to limit myself this is going to be so long that no one will want to read it ... ever. On the bad side, I must say that David Tennant had a tendency to overplay his role. (what is that tongue thing!??) and Roger Lloyd-Pack had too small a role to really give his character the depth he had in the book, (though I am not sure whether or not the actor could give it) and neither is there to time to get under the skin of the other newcomers as f.ex. Fleur Delacour and Viktor Krum.As a final point I must say that even though the movie is dark it has a lot of comic relief (more than the 3rd movie) given to us sometimes by the famous twins Fred and George Weasley. And notice the growth of the role of Neville Longbottom(!!!). Now I must go. Watch the movie.","['0', '1']" +1032,rw1219001,mseal,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),4.0,Corniest so far,18 November 2005,0,I saw the movie yesterday at 6:20. The books get progressively darker. The movies do not. Too much was cut. The plot was all but missing. If I hadn't read the book I know I would not have followed the story. It's not a complete waste of time but it could have been done so much better. Basically a let down. The new Dumbledore comes off as more crazy than an eccentric genius. He is supposed to be the only person who Voldemort ever feared you're left wondering why? The plot was also not really resolved it just ended. I think one of the problems was that the people who are making the movies are still trying to target the younger audience but their audience is first off getting older and second these are not children's books. Rowling has said repeatedly that these are not children's books. The movies should reflect this. With more content the problems with the movie could have been fixed.,"['12', '34']" +1033,rw1224518,crepness,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,Did anyone find this film hilarious?,25 November 2005,1,"So what can I say. I found this film to be one of the funniest films of the year. I haven't laughed like I did while watching the Harry Potter film for a long time. I started laughing right from the start and didn't stop till the end.First of all, the acting of Daniel Radcliffe is appalling, I just couldn't help but laugh. The delivery of his lines was so wooden it makes Keanu Reeves look worthy of an Oscar.Then there was that scene where Cho smiled at Harry and Harry tried to smile back. However he had just drank something beforehand and it just all came back out. That scene made me laugh my ass off just for the sheer stupidity of it.Then there was that exclamation from Neville that he'd just killed Harry. He had such a stupid expression on his face and it just a funny clip.Even when this film is trying to be serious, it was still unintentionally hilarious. The characters in this film just had some of the most stupid and funny expressions I've ever seen.Overall, I gave this film 8 out of 10 cos it made me laugh and not because I thought it was that good. The previous film was much better.","['0', '0']" +1034,rw1233876,zoraamethyst,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,True Glory Unleashed!!!,8 December 2005,0,"I went to catch the Malaysian Premiere a few weeks ago and I have to say it was more than just FANTASTIC!!! The special effects was definitely the best effects the Harry Potter Saga had ever shown.I have been a die hard fan before this and to tell the truth I was expecting it to be quite low since tons of parts had been cut.Clearly,I was wrong.Mike Newell did a fine job.The actors had definitely grown into very very good actors.Daniel Radcliffe did a superb job with his emotions and action.Emma Watson is now a beautiful young lady and Rupert Grint did amazing face expressions.The jokes were very funny there was definitely chemistry between Watson and Grint.The new casts like Stanislav Ianevski,Clemence Poesy,Robert Pattinson and Katie Leung are also applaudable.Ianevski is perfect for Viktor Krum with his accent and body while Poesy and Pattinson were good actors and exceptionally good looking.Poesy carried Fleur Delacour like a true veela,perfection and poised.Leung,although a small part,played Cho Chang very nicely.Stunts were all amazing and the sets was Magnificent.Look forward to Yule Ball sets and 1St TASKS's stunts.Definite Glory!!!!!","['0', '0']" +1035,rw1218715,anu-ramaswamy,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,This one was one of the best movies i have seen!!,18 November 2005,0,"I just saw the harry potter and the goblet of fire, on the first day, thats today and first show for that matter:-). All i can say is that it was one of the most brilliant experiences of my life. The cast & crew have done an amazing job of creating the magic of the harry potter series. Everyone in the cast have done an amazing job of portraying their characters. The screenplay was excellent, considering there is a lot of magic involved with the triwizard tournament involved. I would not mind watching it a number of times continuously.The movie was just perfect. I am sure every one of you will enjoy it as much as i did. After seeing this awesome movie, i am already waiting for the next one to come out. Finally, I would like to applaud all involved in the making of this awesome magical movie.","['1', '2']" +1036,rw1214698,ledorky,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,Action-packed,13 November 2005,1,"Saw this at an advanced screener today. Good points: acting is much improved (save for a few characters like Cho), good veteran cast (Rita Skeeter esp stole the scenes she was in), lots of scenes from the book were crammed in so lots for Harry Potter fans to cheer for, great CGI work and good soundtrack.Not so good points: humor is mostly accidental and absent, character development within the film do not progress smoothly and everything feels rushed, Dumbledore is also a weak point (he has almost no gentleness and has no redeeming features). Bottomline: as a Potterhead, I enjoyed the film but it just feels too rushed. I read they were thinking of doing a ""Kill Bill"" with this movie and splitting it into two. I think that would've been a much better experience and I hope they pack the DVD with LOTR-style enhanced length versions.","['7', '12']" +1037,rw1219296,rlastolt,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),6.0,I FELT EXTREMELY Disappointed,18 November 2005,1,"I was EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED IN THIS ADAPTATION OF THE 4TH HARRY POTTER BOOK, THE GOBLET OF FIRE. This book was a favorite of mine of the whole Harry Potter series. I walked in hoping to see what I envisioned while reading the book. Where the book allows the reader to become emotionally connected with the characters and what happens to them. THE MOVIE DOES NO SUCH THING. IT IS APPALLING HOW THE MOVIE REMAINS SO DISTANT WITH HOW THE CHARACTERS INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER. The relationship that forms between Harry and Cedric in the book is no where to be seen in this new movie. Fortunately for me I read the book and knew what was supposed to be happening. For the non reader they would not be able to feel for the character when something happened to them fully whether it was good or bad, because the movie did not form the attachment for them. This was not the only disappointment in the movie. Too many things were cut out along with characters that were not even in the movie. A COUPLE OF IMPORTANT ONES WERE THE FACT THAT WINKY WAS NO WHERE TO BE FOUND, HERMIONE'S REVENGE ON RITA SKEETER DID NOT TAKE PLACE, THE PRIZE MONEY THAT HARRY WON AND EVENTUALLY GAVE TO THE WEASLEY TWINS FOR THEIR JOKE SHOP, WHICH IS CONTINUED IN FUTURE BOOKS, AND MANY OTHER IMPORTANT DETAILS WERE NOT EVEN SUGGESTED OR THEY WERE COMPLETELY CHANGED. This left a deflated feeling for this viewer. who was looking forward to seeing one of her favorite books take place on the movie screen. I realize it is very difficult to take such a long book and make a movie from it, but if you are going to do it justice, less time should be spent on adding things that did not happen as well as changing things that did happen in the book. Creative art is honest , true to itself , not adding something just to show off the special effects and to forget about characters that are already endeared to the audience. I would have enjoyed it better if the movie was more true to the book and used the important descriptive and funny details that would have given meaning to the story for the viewer. Now it will be more difficult to truly continue with the accurate story in the future movies. It is a pity that the director and writer for this script went in the direction that they did. Overall, the movie was fairly good but it left this viewer with a feeling that something was not right.","['1', '2']" +1038,rw1230541,bethrealistic,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,The Best Yet!,4 December 2005,1,"This installment of the Harry Potter series combines brilliant visual effects with an excellent script. The humour helps balance the overall darkness of the film, but it would be nicer to see some brighter colours. I would have liked to see some more of Cho, and possibly find out a bit more back story. For anyone who hasn't read the books, she will seem like a blow-in, which I suppose she sort of is. Moaning Myrtle's advances on Harry in the bathtub seem quite a bit out of character (isn't she supposed to be a shy little thing?), but I can certainly relate!The dragon scene from the first task is too drawn out. They don't really need to stray from the stadium, as I am sure they would have been able to incorporate plenty of near blows inside the small arena. There could also have been some danger to the audience, which could have helped with the total feeling of the scene. I was disappointed to not have any so-called obstacles in the maze, such as the sphinx and the Skrewts. I can understand how the normal maze worked though, testing their endurance and not just testing their skill. The second task was basically good, but I thought they could have played more of Harry's insistence on rescuing the others as well as Ron.Overall, an excellent adaptation of the movie, although the absence of Quidditch was a bit disappointing. If they make the trip to go to the World Cup, we should at least be allowed to see some of the match.Everyone will see it anyway, but I think this time it's worth the time and money, and not just for Harry Potter obsessives.","['0', '0']" +1039,rw1236079,Rich B,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),6.0,"Too fast paced, some poor moments, but darker and scarier than the others to date.",5 December 2005,0,"Straight up though I have to say, I wasn't as impressed at this movie as I was by Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, for me that movie is still the best of the Harry Potter series, but now not by much. For this movie is a very close second.It is, as everyone seems to agree, much darker than the other movies and I really do like this aspect. It's a well written story, and seems to lead things well to the next instalment. The tension and suspense are built well throughout, towards a strong and fitting climax. Some have said that the ending is confusing if you haven't read the books, I do disagree although you'll obviously have had to have seen the movies.The effects are superb, and the best of the series to date. You just have to watch the Dragons in action to understand what I mean, they are stunning creations and totally believable too. As are the effects in the underwater sequence, a sequence that is well edited and provides one of the most powerful and scariest moments of the film. This is surely where its rating comes from. Yet it's a perfect scene to provide the more adult issues facing Potter and his friends, and shows that his life is becoming more serious and more involved with events outside of his school world.However, there are issues I have with this movie and some with the whole series itself. For instance, Potter is a wizard and he's in a wizard school, and yet you hardly ever see him casting spells and he openly says that his strong point is flying. I don't get this, and I realise there are differences in the books, but I'm talking about the movies, and in these he appears as a bottom of the class wizard. Indeed this is the first time I remember him casting successful spells. Then, with all that, he goes on to fight one of the most powerful creatures in the universe, or so we're led to believe. For me that's quite a leap in the story.This last battle also comes to a very contrived ending which seems far too convenient, appearing as it does out of absolute nowhere. It's a ""get out clause"" that appears just in time and is explained later on. For me this reeks of the characters being written into a corner and a quick backdoor being created for them. I really didn't like this moment.The entire movie seems harshly and overly edited, there was barely time to keep up as we leapt from pivotal scene to pivotal scene with rarely a breather for character development or backstory. You could tell this has been seriously cut down. Scenes seemed to begin late and end early, with characters just appearing ready to go. For me this didn't have the affect of keeping up the pace but actually harming it and racing on too fast with the story.The acting is interesting among the younger cast in this movie, Daniel Radcliffe seems to have an awkwardness about him, and perhaps that's him playing the character, but it's apparent in most scenes where emotions are called for.Emma Watson will have to mature some and learn to tone down her acting, for she was guilty of overacting at times. Yet I can see her becoming a big star in the future. She has the looks and you can see great performances in her.Surprisingly it was Rupert Grint that provided the best performance from the young cast for me. He just seemed so natural in every scene, and so believable.Overall I was impressed by the effects and the darkness of the story, yet the editing and the too pacey story meant that I didn't have time to follow the pace of the movie rather I had to race to keep up. I suspect this may take another viewing to appreciate it, or perhaps even a fuller DVD version, but for me this falls in as the second best Potter movie to date.","['0', '0']" +1040,rw1221629,dtylice-1,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),6.0,Favorite Book...Least Favorite Film,21 November 2005,0,"Having read all six in the series and owing the first three films on DVD, I can say that this film depends on the audience familiarity with Rowling's world. It is visually beautiful, and we are able to witness the development of each character in a way that is true to the actor..I would guess that the first 200 pages are represented in the first 10 minutes of the film. These minutes were an abbreviated nod to the book's content similar to a story board.Deviating from the original story line was a necessity. By eliminating the house elves and the Dursleys, valuable minutes were reclaimed for the TriWizard Tournament..Given the brevity of dedicated film time, all reference to the Quidditch World Cup and Rita Skeeter could have been eliminated, as could Haggrid's romance and the unexplained friction between Ron and Harry. I had to explain a number of issues to my husband who has not read anything of the series.There is always a danger in seeing the film of a favorite book. The vision is always better in our heads.Too little of too many subplots exist to be truly satisfying, but we are forgiving. After all, it is Harry Potter.","['1', '2']" +1041,rw1232331,Nikhil-3,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,One book-One movie. Good idea?,6 December 2005,0,"Don't get me wrong. I liked the movie. But there is just too much in Book 4 to cover. On the contrary, there isn't much in book 5, or it is possible to cut out more from Book 5. Book 4 has more commercial movie making material. I remember the plot had not gone *anywhere* for the first 150 pages or so in Book 5.Frankly, I would have preferred Book 4 spilling into the next movie for about a 3rd of the movie. Movie4 could end at Task 1 with Harry's Dragon fight as the finale. In spite of some comments here, I liked that part. You need not follow the book to every last sentence. You can take some creative freedom.They could have released the movies within 7-8 months of each other, that would have kept people interested. Frankly, I am not sure how good movie-5 would be given the content in the book.","['1', '3']" +1042,rw1235873,Sane88,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,Is it a good movie? Yes.....Is it too rushed? Yes.,11 December 2005,0,"I saw this film the night it was released, and I had been waiting a very long time for this one, and what I expected to see was a masterpiece. What I got in return was a choppy and rushed film. The scenes were too rushed, a lot of major plot points were missing that should have been there, and the scenes that needed to be cut were there instead. The Tri-Wizard tournament was good, but there were things in those tasks that were importantly missing, and parts added that were never there in the first place. Now, nevertheless, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire stands as the best book turned movie in the Potter franchise. Some reasons: The new director, Mike Newell, is the first Brit to direct a Potter film, and he brings some good humor and visuals to 'Goblet.' His ability to create a world of happiness and darkness at the same time was remarkable.He also brought some good performances out of the child actors as well as the adults. Daniel Radcliffe has grown into his Harry Potter role quite nicely; Emma Watson makes a very pretty and still always on top of things, Hermione Granger; and Rupert Grint was hilarious as the clumsy, red headed Ron Weasley. As for the adults, they handles their scenes professionally and charismatically, except for Michael Gambon, whose Dumbledore doesn't do it for me. The grandfather figure that we would expect from Dumbledore is no where to be found, and the replacement over the great Richard Harris still stands as a bad choice in my opinion.The two stand outs, however, are Michael Glesson as Mad Eye Moody and Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort.Glesson brings a strong presence to his role, and he brought Alaster Moody out just the way I had pictured him, even if he is a tad bit zany. As for Fiennes, his Voldemort was right on target. Not over the top, with a cold, perfect subtleness that is chillingly scary, Fiennes gives Voldemort an evilness we rarely see in a lot of movies these days. Plus, his lack of nose made it even cool.So, finally, Harry Potter 4 is a good book turned movie for entertainment, and it stands at number 1. For story telling and plot, and ranks at the bottom. I'm sorry, Mike Newell and the Potter team, it was a good effort. Just next time, I would suggest reading other chapters besides the chapters on the Tri-Wizard Tournament.","['0', '0']" +1043,rw1218666,kdskicat,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),1.0,come back Cuaron,18 November 2005,0,"After a pleasant, enjoyable romp with Chris Columbus, and a true suspenseful masterpiece by Cuaron to venture into the dark world of Harry Potter, Newell falls completely flat attempting a poor mix of the two genres.The movie exposed the acting talents of the child stars previously deftly covered up in the earlier movies. I know this comment will fall on deaf ears for all the blind love that goes along with Harry Potter, but this installment was a true disappointment.does anyone else share this opinion? I have faith in the IMDb users that at least some out there will agree with me.","['9', '18']" +1044,rw1220324,karan_zard,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Harry Potter GoF is the best Harry Potter movie,20 November 2005,0,"This movie is one of THE best HP movies ever. It was really thrilling and exciting movie.Graphics/Animation: 10/10 Comedy: 8.5/10 Scaring features:9/10 Sound(theatrical):9.5/10 Overall: 10/10Though few scenes are snappy, all in all this movie ROCKS and plus romance is in the air. Great Movie Mike Newell has outdone himself. Really no. 1 This movie contains really cool and scary scenes.Especially the Hungarian Horntail Scene and Death Eater scenes. I just loved this movie and I am going to watch it again.Hope this helps you.Overall: 10/10","['1', '3']" +1045,rw1253123,getthegold1,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,Good movie!,2 January 2006,0,"Even though a lot of the good parts where skipped this movie still held up a seven from me meaning that the parts that where in the movie where done really well.A lot of action, a ton of adventure add a pinch of comedy and you've got: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire!One of the best scenes is the first challenge but if you haven't read the book you will have to see the movie to find out what that is! (hee hee). So overall this movie is vary good and slightly scary near the end! I highly recommend this movie for ages 13-18 and beyond!","['0', '0']" +1046,rw1222585,gravity3,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,The Best Potter To Date,22 November 2005,0,"HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE is the fourth film in the franchise, and the better of the four. I believe it's better on almost every level, except perhaps if you think the stories needed to stay light. GOBLET OF FIRE is the one that finally gets serious. Mentioning the serious tone, I must comment upfront that there is good reason for a PG-13 rating. Younger viewers could have some trouble (nightmares?) with some of the villains and creatures we meet here. The subject matter does grow quite dark at times, and there are moments bordering on horror. I rarely agree with the MPAA on their ratings, but this time I think it's justified; you've been warned.The darker, more serious nature of the film makes perfect sense, however. Potter and his school mates are older, and the tone of the film rings with it. More serious issues are brought to the surface, and some more adult themes, as Harry approaches adulthood. More than that, the film is the first to take itself more seriously, and I think it's just the change the series needed. The Harry Potter series overall is really not so original. It borrows from so many fantasy stories and films that I can hardly count the references any longer. It's been one of the more annoying points about the franchise overall (and why I have trouble giving higher marks to this or any of the films). There are some tangents the story takes that linger a bit long, but I've felt that was true for all the POTTER films. It's the old problem of what to leave in from the book, and what to cut. I certainly would have shorted scenes to bring down that 2 1/2 hour run time. But with GOBLET OF FIRE, we do begin to move past most of the clichés and dive deeper into the characters and some of the more creative story arc ideas, and that's certainly progress.That is not to say that the humor and fun is gone. While the laughs are tempered to fit the story, they are frequent enough without seeming forced. The acting by the young stars is better, showing that they've grown into their roles. The older actors are great as always, and new to the series is the wonderful Brendan Gleeson, and another fine actor - who I won't mention for fear of giving away a plot point. The special effects are I think standard for movies of this type - I saw nothing that really wowed me, but then again everything was strongly designed and rendered, with few if any seams showing. The music is new as well: John Williams' themes are still present, but the baton has been passed on to highly capable Patrick Doyle. He sheds new light on old motifs and generally breaths life into the musical storytelling once again. It seemed as if Williams was bored by the last film, and it's nice to hear something new even as director Mike Newell took us in a different, darker, more grown-up direction. He even found a way out of the standard Harry Potter opening scenes - I'm sure you know what I mean.For GOBLET OF FIRE to be the 4th in the series - where sequels usually sag and creak and we run out of the theater wondering what possessed us to go in the first place - it is a milestone from that perspective. I can think of few fourth outings worthy of anything but direct-to-video or late, late night TV. Moreover, it made me actually look forward to - instead of dread - the next in the series.","['1', '2']" +1047,rw1215714,bryandeth316,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Definitely the strongest!,12 November 2005,1,"I won tickets to the pre screening last week, and I went to see it today and...I have to say that Goblet of Fire is without a doubt the strongest Harry Potter movie to date. It had all of the emotion from the book from the fear, to the anger, to the sadness....the acting was brilliant.Daniel Radcliffe I think did an amazing job once again as Harry. During the Yuleball, you believe how much he's yearning for Cho Chang and basically ignoring his date like crazy. Also at the end when Cedric dies and he uses the portkey to get back to Hogwarts, you totally believe that he's been through hell, and is almost out of his mind with grief trying to protect Cedric. I think he also plays off well being angry at your best friend, being afraid of being forced into a situation you don't WANT to be in, but doing what you can to survive it. Great job.Rupert Gint once again in my opinion almost steals the show as Ron Weasley. From his awkward dance lessons with Professor McGonaggal, to his anger towards Hermione and Harry, he's just amazing. This guy is Definitely going to have a bright future in the film industry.Emma Watson...I can't say enough about how great she was in this movie. Showing her care for Harry, and her budding feelings for Ron, while still being bossy old Hermione. It's just outstanding how well all three of them have grown as actors, and they bring their characters alive not just...being there if you know what I mean.Gary Oldman for the few moments he was in the movie definitely set the tone for Goblet of Fire with his chilling warning to Harry about the Tri-Wizard tournament and whomever put his name in the Goblet of fire.The guy who played Cedric Diggory (sorry can't remember his name) was outstanding. He did an amazing job, and he pulled off the part so well that when he does die, you have to shed tears for him, because he's such a likable character.Draco Malfoy, although with less screen time is just as hateable as ever...you just want to take this kid by the ears and bash your head into his nose...but that's what comes from playing a great villain.It is also VERY touching hearing Harry have his first and only conversation (although brief because of his duel with Voldemort) with his parents. It really makes you see just how much he's had to put up, and how much he's had to handle in his only 13 years of life.And Ralph Finnese (sp?) was just amazing as Voldemort...I swear...this guy is just a phenom! He'd Definitely better continue playing The Dark Lord up until the final movie! I could go on and on and on picking out individual performances and I would be sitting here putting out a post longer than the pages of Goblet of Fire. The performances were great....however....There were some things that got left out that was upsetting. The Dursley's for one (can't have Harry Potter without them), Molly Weasley (you can't cut out Harry's only true Mother figure), Dobby (it's not Neville that gives Harry the weed that allows him to breath underwater, it's the house elf. Dobby shows up helping Harry in the book, why not in the movie?), and finally....why don't they show Harry giving Fred and George his earnings for winning the tournament? They don't even MENTION the money reward, which is kind of upsetting. How are they going to explain where Fred and George get their money for their shop? Big plot hole right there, they'd better fix that! All in all, I gave the movie on IMDb.com a 9/10 because of those few problems. They were minor, and only a geek for the books like myself would notice such things. So...enjoy it when it comes out.","['3', '7']" +1048,rw1218966,rosorio,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),9.0,Easily the best movie so far,18 November 2005,0,"I am a huge fan of the books, so I have high standards about the movie adaptations. I was disappointed with the first three because the director dwelled on special effects and dull moments that didn't advance the plot. The Goblet of Fire did neither.Mike Newell clearly understood that a good movie needs more than flashy special effects. While the Goblet of Fire did incorporate all the amazing fantastical elements of the book, such as the Goblet and the dragons, the film didn't depend on them to further the plot. Even though the effects were marvelous and magical, the focus of this movie was the characters.Each scene was well paced. Unlike the first three, there was no dull, lagging scenes. The movie wonderfully displayed how the characters are developing in the book and dealing with becoming young adults. The evolving relationships between Harry, Ron, and Hermoine was explored by the director, who understood the complexity of their friendships.The Goblet of Fire was definitely not purely a children's movie. Newell balanced the light with the dark, sticking true to the book. The movie simultaneously dealt with coming of age and the intense darkness of evil. Harry is tested in his friendships, his strength, and his loyalty during the movie, and Newell didn't hold back.Daniel Radcliffe is truly growing into his character of Harry Potter. He handled the varied emotions like a pro, never creating any doubt that he is the perfect Harry Potter. Brendan Gleeson's performance as MadEye Moody was absolutely delicious. The jerky movements, quirky behaviors, and eccentricity was handled perfectly to create one of the most bizarre but fun characters from the books.People have complained that a lot of cut from the book, but Newell did an expert job of pruning what was unnecessary and focusing on the central plot and character development. The book has plenty of side plots that Newell could have chased, but he focused on the most important elements of the book: the character development, the tournament, and how a 14 year old can face pure evil. Newell was able to create an emotional intensity that is necessary for the increasingly dark plot.My favorite thing about the movie was it was funny. Unlike the first three, which had a few moments of silliness that made the audience laugh, this entire movie was full of humor centered around the awkwardness of growing up. The quirky and witty lines said by all the characters is true to the book, and reminds the viewer that while these characters are wizards and witches faced with a grave responsibility, they are still human and want to smile.Overall, a very enjoyable experience. I am looking forward to watching it again!","['0', '1']" +1049,rw1218987,ThePickleMan2,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),6.0,Lackluster,18 November 2005,1,"Not a bad movie, but not a great one either. I realize going into this I shouldn't expect brilliant acting from the kids, Daniel Radcliffe in particular, so the moments of below par acting aren't what turned me off to this movie. The main problem was that the characters were changed. Dumbledore lost control, something I would never have pictured him doing in the 4th book. Cedric was made out to be more of an ass than he is in the book. The storyline about Weasley's Wizard Wheezes was CUT! Now it's possible to have this line come back in the next movies, but much harder because there were never any mention of Triwizar winnings, so Harry never gave the 1000 Galleons to the Weasley twins. I realize there are time constraints for a movie and they can't show everything in the book, but they wasted time by adding new and unimportant things. Instead of Harry simply facing the dragon like he does in the book, there's about five minutes of him struggling without his wand. When he finally gets his broomstick, the dragon breaks free, and they go racing around the rest of the castle. It shows off the new technology we have for making special effects, but it doesn't further the story. Also, there was no point to show the students have a dance lesson, except for the sole purpose of getting an audience laugh when Ron has to dance with McGonagall.","['3', '6']" +1050,rw1222236,alison-topping,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,so good,22 November 2005,0,i thought that the film was really good well worth my money i thought they did really well with all the things going off it was excellent. i also thought the actors and actresses were very well chosen and worked well with each other. I thought voldermort was very very good because nobody ever seen him before it must have been very hard to for-fill every ones expectations. I thought it was funny and it kept you wanting more. my favourite part was when they went into the maze and ' mad eye moody 'pointed the way he should go. Like i said before it is a lot a peoples favourite book and there was a lot a expectations for the cast and crew to fill and they did it beautiful. When it said you have to fill 10 lines i thought it would be really hard but it was very easy finding good things to say about the film i also enjoyed the bathtub sense. Joanne Topiing ***** 10/10,"['7', '10']" +1051,rw1219000,sallular,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Wow,18 November 2005,1,"I love harry potter. I have read every book to date, and was extremely excited to see my favorite book on the big screen. ""Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire"" was amazingly well done. After what I considered a bad choice of direction in the third movie, HP4 bounced back with amazing graphics, sound, acting talent. Though some scenes moved faster than they probably should have, this movie stuck to the books, which as a Harry Potter buff, was exciting to me. The shot in every scene were extremely well done and I won't lie; I nearly cried in the end when Wormtail killed Cedric. The movie somehow managed to keep me on the edge of my seat even though I read the book and knew who lived and who died. The movie was absolutely amazing, and I never want this series to end.","['1', '5']" +1052,rw1226004,goldfish_211,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),9.0,Best out yet,27 November 2005,0,"I think this was the best Harry Potter movie they've put out yet. There is only one thing that I didn't like about this movie. That was the scene where Harry's name is shot from the Goblet of Fire. In that scene, Albus Dumbledore catches the piece of paper and says Harry's name, but then he yells it as if he is angry with Harry. And, though he might be, I feel this scene contradicts the personality that J.K. Rowling has created for Dumbledore. Not once in any of the books released so far has Dumbledore ever raised his voice to anyone. Even in the fifth book when Harry is rampaging his office after Sirius's death, Dumbldore does not yell. I found it a bit disturbing when the character I had come to know through reading the books took such a drastic change in the movie. Dumbledore has always been described has having patience, and even Harry gets upset with how calm he can be.","['0', '0']" +1053,rw1225644,embrace-audio,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,HP Goblet Of fire,27 November 2005,0,"The fourth installment of the harry Potter series was by far the best out of the four! Never fails to impress me more and more, every time a new HP movie comes out its better than the last. If your not a fan and you don't know what the movie is about, I wont inform you on anything go see it, you wont regret it.I went to see the Goblet of Fire opening night, as soon as the doors of the theater opened, the massive line of people waiting outside ran like they've never ran before. I have never seen such mania, except for maybe the Harry Potter books. Just goes to show it must be good right? if so many people go crazy.Go see it, you'll love it.","['1', '1']" +1054,rw1222507,MovieAddict2016,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,"The darkest, deepest and most emotionally involving film of the series so far.",22 November 2005,0,"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is not only the most technologically advanced of the Potter films thus far, but also the most entertaining. Director Mike Newell (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Donnie Brasco) is careful with the structure of his film, and keeps the pace moving steadily along. He balances CGI animation (such as a breathtaking underwater sequence) with tender emotional moments involving broken friendships and broken hearts. I did not like the first three Harry Potter films, yet I found this one to be a rather pleasant surprise.Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) returns once again to Hogwarts' School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, under the care of Dumbledore (Michael Gambon), Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) and Minerva (Maggie Smith), teachers and advisers. His friends Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermoine Granger (Emma Watson) are soon in his company and all appears to be well and fine for him.However, dark times lie ahead for Harry Potter. His name is mysteriously entered into the Triwizard Tournament – a test of strength and perseverance open only to those seventeen years of age and older. Harry is selected to compete despite being a minor by three years, much to the confusion and fury of fellow classmates and school faculty.Reluctant, his first battle is with a dragon in an arena, and it only gets worse from there onwards. Soon it is made clear that there is a dark conspiracy centering on Harry's involvement in the competition and it may be linked to the dreaded Lord Voldemort, who killed Harry's parents years prior and caused the lightning bolt scar on his forehead.What I was most startled by with Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was its emotional complexity. Despite a few flaws (particularly in length, clocking in at 157 minutes), Newell concentrates on what the earlier films lacked – depth. Sure, they might have been fairly whimsical and unique, but the characters were given little to do. Here, a good amount of the time is actually spent focusing on the characters rather than the action – friendship tensions between Ron and Harry, for example, as well as Harry's confrontation with his parents' murderer, Lord Voldemort (taking form in the hideous guise of a disfigured Ralph Fiennes).The scary moments are effective. I still think Chamber of Secrets was the darkest from a technical standpoint (there are brighter colors used here and less blue filters) but when it's dark, it's DARK. The maze sequence towards the end of the picture would be enough to give the kiddies nightmares for weeks - this segment alone probably contributed heavily to the movie's PG-13 rating. (The first film of the series to be rated higher than PG.) Is this the best Harry Potter movie? Simply put, yes. It is the most entertaining, the darkest and the most emotionally intriguing film of the series. If they continue at this pace of improvement, the next entry – The Order of the Phoenix – could be a very good film.","['4', '15']" +1055,rw1229429,LewBob1022,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Great Movie!,2 December 2005,1,"This was a great movie. Not only was this a great Harry Potter film, but it was just a great one all around. I think if I knew nothing of Harry Potter I would still love it. It think it was the best so far. Most definitely. The others were good, but this one stayed the truest to the book. It wasn't as rushed either. The others seemed almost slapped together just trying to fit as much in as possible. This one flowed so beautifully and gracefully. Not to mention the fact that the trio are really growing as actors. I am especially impressed with Daniel Radcliffe. Ever since the movies began he as improved with each succeeding movie. Rupert Grint is no exception either. He has really seemed to discover Ron in this movie, what makes him tick and what makes him who he is. Emma Watson who began as my favorite has seemed to not improve as much as the others. She is still plagued with the misfortune of overacting. That is not to say, however, that I did not enjoy her performance. It was such a beautiful film and I cannot wait to see where Ralph Fiennes goes with his character of Voldemort. The scene in the graveyard was downright frightening and it will only become more so as the films progress. So, all in all, it was a fine piece of cinema that everyone must go see right away. I thoroughly enjoyed it.","['0', '0']" +1056,rw1225941,jewish_cookie,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,The Darkest Harry Potter Film,27 November 2005,1,"The minute I began watching ""Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire"" I was immediately drawn to it. When I saw the snake beginning to slither towards the mansion, I knew right away that the movie was going to be dark, yet entertaining. The change in direction was different and refreshing. The movie was excellent, yet it was not completely flawless.ACTING Negative: First of all, I don't think that Micheal Gambon makes a very good Dumbledore. When I saw him grab Harry's shoulders and violently shake him after Harry's name came out of the Goblet, I immediately knew that Gambon was going the wrong way in trying to become a good Dumbledore. Albus Dumbledore is supposed to be calm and collected. His personality should have wizards and witches look up to him for reassurance and guidance. Yet, Gambon took a different approach to the role. He looked as if he was lost most of the time. However, I do not doubt his acting abilities; I believe he is an excellent actor, but his acting in this movie is just not right. Second of all, I believe that they could have found a better Fluer, she seemed too week and frail in this movie. Even though Clemence Poesy (Fluer) is very attractive looking, she didn't exude that complete beauty and grace that Fluer does in the book. She didn't look like a veela.Positive: The Trio has matured quite well in the acting department. Daniel Radcliffe played Harry Potter perfectly, yet was still slightly dry in the deeply emotional scenes. Emma Watson was excellent and lovely , if a little melodramatic. Rupert Grint was hilarious as Ron Weasley, just hearing him say 'bloody hell' makes me laugh. The Phelp twins were also quite hilarious (and cute) in their roles of the Weasley twins. I was tremendously glad that they were included in more scenes.I also have to give a thumbs-up to Fiennes in his role of Voldemort. He was truly frightening and eerily handsome at the same time.Direction Negative: No matter how wonderful the movie is, their are many gaping holes in it. The movie just left out WAY too many things from the book. It is understandable that they didn't want to cram the entire book into the movie (Since the book is HUGE), but many of the things that were left out were actually quite valuable.Positive: I love the new director. Here is a director that finally understood that silence is as frightening as noise. Firstly, when Harry went into the maze, all you could see on screen were large hedges, mist, and completely silence that were filled with tension and excitement. This movie just gave me the shivers. Plus, the music score gave the movie more of an edge. I'm glad that the music wasn't entirely explosive in the action sequences as the first three movies.All in all, the movie definitely meets our expectations. I'll give it a 7 out of 10. The movie is most definitely recommended.","['0', '0']" +1057,rw1227724,nmatest,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),3.0,a horrible movie with some nice parts,29 November 2005,1,"The first half hour of the movie was paced like a video clip, in which many parts had the only purpose to cite small excerpts of the first hundred-some pages of the book. The clips themselves had no connection, no harmony and, worst, they failed their sole purpose in deviating A LOT from the novel, interpreting some scenes in a, IMHO, doubtful way.Later the movie improved because the pacing got better. However, the girls of Beaubaton are nothing short of awkward. The interplay between the three main characters (Harry, Hermione, Ron) was reduced to small scenes which lacked credibility (not blaming the actors but the script instead), there was almost no hint that the story takes place at a school, Fleur had no charisma, Krum was depicted a dumb sports-hero (which is wrong), etc.Most of the special effects were just there for the effects not for the plot. Actually, they interrupted the plot several times instead of supporting it.Prof. Dumbledore is completely misinterpreted. He lacks an aura of authority, he loses his temper, he seems even desperate in the scene in his office. I cannot get the slightest idea why this person should be the greatest wizard of his time.Voldemort was quite OK, as was the scene at the cemetery, though even there the ""great director"" had to put in some artistic (mis)interpretations.The movie had some strengths, however. There was some humor, the special effects were almost flawless (despite being used without sense), some acting was great (Radcliffe, Grint, Rickman, D. Smith), certain stretches had its harmony and made sense (even without knowing the novel).All in all, I cannot see that the movie lives up to its hype, and if there was not the GREAT novel by J.K.Rowling, I guess it would not earn its production costs. However, they could produce anything remotely resembling the book and the people would still crowd the cinemas.Conclusio: Script 1/10 stars, Directing 0/10 stars (please get rid of the director for the 5th movie).","['1', '3']" +1058,rw1219165,pressboard,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),4.0,Perfect for 12 year old girls - and they loved it!!!,18 November 2005,1,"The first thing I noticed were the abundant number of early teen girls in the theater - and they loved the movie. I am afraid the rest of us, not meeting that criteria, are left hanging out to dry. This was another example of lots of CGI, but little emotional connection with the characters. There was also a noticeable lack of action, at least, compared to the previous movies. I am not a slavering Potter fan, but I did find all of the other movies entertaining. Since Rowling has absolute control over the movies, I can only assume that she intended this one to be realized in the way that it was. The CGI is stunning, but the story, pacing and emphasis leave much to be desired. There is no excitement when he fights the dragon - none when he is running in the maze - and not much more when he faces Valdemort. What happened Harry - have you been snorting fairy dust? I think this movie goes wrong for a general audience, but does very well targeting young girls. Goblet may fair better on a second viewing or on cable or DVD. It was interesting to see everyone older, but nothing was ever done with those possibilities. I think someone may have dropped the screenplay and all the words fell off and were never quite the same afterward. The first 10 reviews seem to indicate that some people were impressed, so I may be way off.","['0', '1']" +1059,rw1220749,chrisfaithalin,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,Not the best!,20 November 2005,0,"I now this is going against the grain but this is definitely not the best movie in the series. Prisoner of Azkaban had this one beat in many ways.Don't get me wrong, this movie was fantastic from a reader of the books. However, I think the movie was very choppy and even got a little confusing to me who has been reading these books for 7 years. I can only imagine what it would be like for someone coming in on these movies without reading the books.The movie would jump randomly and not explain events. For instance the Quidditch World Cup was never really explained what it was, and then they made this big climax to the beginning of the game and then it just jumped to the end. I know that they had to cut things out, but it doesn't change the fact that the movie did not flow.Acting did improve greatly with this movie, although Emma Watson's acting was all over the place and I could not get her character straight.Fred and George were amazing and even if this movie bombed it would be worth seeing it hundreds of times just for them. Their timing was amazing and the writing for them was awesome.And I give the people credit for the ending sequences.The whole movie was the most emotional experience, where I was laughing so hard I had tears going down my eyes, or I was literally crying in the theatre. I think some acting could have been better along with the movie could have flowed better.","['0', '1']" +1060,rw1222340,pixiechic-2,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,"Harry Potter 4 ""could"" have been better",22 November 2005,1,"Well, I was pleased and let down by this movie. Yes, I know some of you thought it was great, and some terrible, but we must all realize that, this movie would have never covered the whole book unless it was about 36 hours long. I really wish they would have explained Harry's connections with Lord V. and Cho more. They completely left out Rita's secret, and what was that part with the Horn Tail chasing Harry about? AND!! when i found out they were leaving out Dudely's scene I almost didn't want to watch it.They also left out Winky, how can you leave out someone who connects the plot, without Winky there is no Barty Crouch Jr. mystery. But these are just my own probs. with this movie. I was pleased to see that this movie made me laugh, somethings within the movie really will have you rolling. I loved Ron's attitude, and Hagrid's scenes too. I really don't think I could ever be mad at anyone's attempt to create a Harry Potter movie, at least the director tried and I can see how hard it must have been, ...I guess. I really wish they would have just made the movie 10 hours long, then none of the true Harry Potter fans would be upset. Oh well what's done is done, we just have to hope the director for Harry Potter 5 will read these comments and make the next movie better. I hope they do start making the movies 10 hours long, I think it would really be cool to see if someone could really sit that long. (I think I am up for the challenge)Maybe I am just too wrapped up in Harry Potter...........HA!yeah right, I think anyone who doesn't admit they like Harry Potter and the whole wizarding world should not be allowed to read at all. Overall I really did enjoy the movie and I really thought that it was very intense towards the end. I CAN'T WAIT FOR THE NEXT ONE!","['2', '3']" +1061,rw1223919,lastdomino,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),6.0,"Harry Potter, the Photo Album",24 November 2005,1,"I love the books, but I still recognize that a book this large cannot be placed into a 2 1/2 hour movie without some revision. That was not the problem. In fact, I only see two problems with it: the director and Michael Gambon as Dumbledore.The director chose to edit his screen play to work only for people who have read the book. If you have not read the book, this film would be moving too fast for any sense to be made of it. The best description I would place on the movie is that it feels like a magic world photo album montage of the events in the book. One of the things I have found interesting in the previous movies were the segways - very smoothly showing the passage of time. This film did not seem to flow at all. There was no recognition of the passage of time.As for Michael Gambon, I am still a fan of his for the film genres that he does best. I do not consider Albus Dumbledore to be best played by him. Dumbledore is tall, thin, and with a strong sense of humor and whimsy - not traits Michael Gambon portrays very well. I love his past films where he plays the darker side of humanity with its levels of duplicity. Dumbledore is being played too dark, too over-reactionary, and not much of the presence Albus Dumbledore has in the books. I know that he will not be replaced but if I had my preferences it would have been Peter O'Toole who better fits the description in the book. Sir Ian McKellan would also be ideal but I suspect he had been playing wizards longer than he preferred.On the positive, the twins were well prepared for the next film in which they do have starring roles. Ralph Fiennes was wonderful as Voldemort - exactly what I imagined. And, of course; Daniel, Rupert, and Emma have shown their growth as actors.","['1', '2']" +1062,rw1218763,McEnroefan,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,"Intense action, intriguing plot",18 November 2005,0,"After driving an hour to see this film, and getting only one half of an hour of sleep before a ruck march, I was questioning whether or not all the effort was worth it. In short, it certainly was. In this film, the characters progress from somewhat shallow early teens in the first movies, to young adults faced with life changing decisions. This movie, as it is much more serious in subject matter than the first few, is darker and in my opinion suspends disbelief very well. The visual effects, especially in the tri-wizard tourney, are superb. I would highly recommend this film to Potter fans, and just plain movie buffs alike.","['0', '2']" +1063,rw1222289,monstermayhem32,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,"good movie , but too much missing material?",22 November 2005,0,"i'm glad that goblet of fire finally got the PG-13 rating that is deserve since the film is darker than the last three films, but what i didn't like is that Sirius black only got one scene in the film since Gary Oldman plays the part well. the film should have been three hours long but i wanted to see an extended version of the Qudditch world cup scene, but Daniel Radcliffe is excellent as harry and should continue the last three films ,same thing goes for Emma Watson and Rupert Grint. i hope that the 5th movie is just as good, keep up the good work. i hope that the dursleys return in the fifth movie since they play more of an important role in the storyline. the dursleys didn't really need to be in the film, but seeing molly wesley would have been nice, and i like that mcgongall, Fred, George, Neville,Seamus, and dean were given more on screen time since their characters were underused and given a chance to shine.","['0', '1']" +1064,rw1229546,Lanraso,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),9.0,uber British and on the way for one of the spots on the top20 of all time!,2 December 2005,1,"As I saw the poster I read the names Daniel Radcliffe, Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman and of course Ralph Fiennes. This was just the movie I've been waiting for, but three months prior to this day I read the novel, heard that the film force behind the movie had cut loads of subplot and so forth...was I still excited???Hell yea...its Harry potter Ladies and gentleman.It would seem as if each movie since ""Azkaban"" have been reinvented and rewritten for the silver screen. Is it the case with this one? yes it is. Did I like this movie? Certainly. Mike Newell directed his version of HArry potter in a way that only a Brit can...in a uber British way, with a dark murky atmosphere and a uncanny dosage of British anarchy.Unlike the first two movies, that was a straight forward artificial pieces, driven by a quasi sense of magic and acceptable special effects, this film, is more like the third that raised the bar for quality of content.Unlike the first two that was utterly claustrophobic concerning the school and castle, Newell shows us that Hogwards is gigantic,enormous and a colossal school that is much more than a castle. In this movie,everything goes, anyone goes and the once goody-two-shoes atmosphere of the other movies seems faded. Enough of that. Brendan Gleeson was superb as Alastor Moody, Albus Dumbledore seemed more human in this volume, more tense and exactly like an actual headmaster. The main three were amazing and it was certainly great to see our silver screen heroes at it again. Ron were superb as the sidekick-like friend trying to find a voice of his own.Hermione- dazzling as the swan who is (at a fast pace) becoming a lady, that is caught in the midst of a love triangle. Harry- the everyman person, was well acted by Daniel Radcliffe and he carried the film well.The main attraction was however Ralph Fiennes, without the benefit of a nose and in thick make-up and robes. He was mesmerizing as Lord Voldemort, a guy so evil and arrogant you love to hate the hell out of him. Yes movie fans, I loved this movie...saw it twice on opening day, and I am going to see it again tomorrow.It entertains like only Harry potter movies can and David Heyman produced something amazing and most of all entertaining, for us. Although scraps of subplots and unresolved themes were almost littered through the movie, it did not break the film. And although many people reckon that Radcliffe cant act, they forget that Elijah Wood cant even spell the word not in one movie and not in any of the LOTR movies.I think Daniel Radcliffe was brilliant, and though I believe this movie to be better than the mediocre pieces of slime that is the first two, I cant truly say that it is better than ""Azkaban""...for Cuaron managed his piece loads better than Newell managed this utterly difficult piece. But still its worth every show you can lay eyes on...so go out there, see the movie and write your review.","['0', '0']" +1065,rw1219918,jaydensonbx,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),1.0,"If you read the book you'll hate it, If you just see the movies you'll like it",19 November 2005,0,"You know I really have to blame my ex girlfriend, co-worker, and friends for getting me into the whole Harry Potter thing. I'm really giving you guys a review from 2 perspectives. One: being if you *lighty* or never read the book and just see the movies when they come out. Two: Being the hard core Harry Potter fan who reads the books extensively and anticipates the movies to come out. I fortunately have had the pleasure of being on both sides of the barrel. Not being familiar with the series at all 5 yrs ago. I saw the first 2 movies and enjoyed them. Then went back and read all the books up to Half Blood Prince. I must say up until Goblet Of Fire...on the motion picture side the studios have done a great job staying true to the book. This one however strayed away from J.K. Rowlings classic so much it wasn't even enjoyable. Although I am aware of studio budgets and having to complete a film in under 3 hrs, key elements of the film were left out. Hagrids back story, Harry giving his winnings to Fred & George to set up the joke shop, No Doby leaving a scratch the surface plot on Barty Crouch story, and cameo's from Riter Skeeter...Sirius Black...and Draco Malfoy who played key characters in the book. The movies did have it's bright moments though. I enjoyed the humorous Professor Moody, Fred and George were equally comical, and the dark graveyard scene with the battle versus Lord Voltimort was the climax of the movie. However overall this movie was the worst rendition of the book. Which leads me to say: *If you read the book you'll hate it, If you just see the movies you'll like it*","['2', '4']" +1066,rw1236933,goldmember25,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),3.0,"Not only does it butcher the book, but it's a bad movie as well",12 December 2005,0,"This movie is extremely fast-paced and if you haven't read the book, odds are, you'll be confused out of your mind. If you have read the book, you'll be disappointed beyond belief not only because how much is left out, but what the movie's main focus is on: comedy and romance. The most built up scene in the entire movie is the Yule Ball sadly. The acting is far too over-dramatic and it does not have the same ""feel"" of Harry Potter as the other movies had. The plot and main storyline of the story is left to be in the background as unnecessary comedy, drama, and romance scenes are added in and extended whereas parts such as the Quidditch World Cup, Ludo Bagman, the Dursleys, several classes, and House Elves (just being a few) are left out entirely. I haven't looked through too many comments on this movie though I don't doubt that there are a few people on here commenting about how much the movie had ruined the book. That is to say the least, but the movie needs to be looked at as a movie itself and though it is packed with action and humor, it's main mysterious and dark plot line are thrown to the side for special effects and drama. I found this movie very disappointing because when I was watching the previews I finally had a feeling that they had finally got an HP movie right, but only found it to be the worst of all. My personal favorites in order: 1,3,2,4. That's only the movies of course. Hope you found this review helpful, please don't waste your money!","['1', '2']" +1067,rw1219647,dancouls,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),9.0,The best one of the series,19 November 2005,0,"This is the best film in the series. It is the darkest yet because of the return of Lord Voldemort and therefore it is unsuitable for really young kids to see. However there is an all-star cast such as David Tennent, the new Doctor Who, and Miranda Richardson for the adults to enjoy.I do feel though that that there are some portions in the book that could have been put into the film. These could include the Dursleys' house and the Quidditch World Cup.The films are getting better each time they are made and the story flows along very well, despite the missing scenes and I recommend it to any fans of the books.","['0', '1']" +1068,rw1219621,Cocacolaguy912-2,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,Wonderful,19 November 2005,1,"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.I have waited over a year and a half for this film, and I got what I wanted.A great film.The film is pretty accurate to the book, and there wasn't a load of content changed.The acting...the trio are best in this film, and Mad-Eye Moody (who happens to be my favorite character) is GREAT. Brandon Gleason nailed it.The cinematography is great, the action scenes themselves are great...The added humor made the film even more enjoyable...The Yule Ball is great...Everything is great...If I had to point out one thing I didn't like, it would be the Quidditch World Cup...the scene was very short...The absence of the Dursleys, Julie Walters Mrs. Weasley, and the house elves was no fun, but that was do to timing...Goblet of Fire...while some stuff was left out...the humor, brilliant acting, the action scenes, the smooth flow of the movie made the film wonderful.Oh...please excuse my somewhat rushed and unprofessional writing...I am just a fan who enjoyed the show.","['0', '1']" +1069,rw1220681,Facehugger2K8,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (censored).,20 November 2005,1,"so last night, me, my bf and a couple of old friends from Murrow, Hunter and Cooper went together to see Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. From the time the Warner Bros. sign came up on the screen, people were already screaming, hooting and clapping, including me since we've waited for so f***ing long!!! Some people were even taking pictures of the screen when the ""Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire"" title came up on the screen. So what is with worth the wait? I must say, yes, it was definitely worth the wait. I'm not going to say F*** YEAH!!!!, because it could've been a better movie if they didn't omit some parts, and underplayed others.A prime example would have to be the Quidditch World Cup, which was merely introduced fantastically, but the actual match was completely left out so that was disappointing. I mean, quidditch is always part of Harry Potter, the excitement, the thrill of those matches that J.K. Rowling brings us into was completely shattered in this movie. Another example would have to be Rita Skeeter. She was underplayed in this movie. We didn't see her enough and all the fans were looking forward to seeing her in a face-off with Hermione. Other parts that were omitted were Winky the House-Elf, Molly Weasley and his interactions with Harry after the graveyard episode, the Dursleys who weren't even mentioned in this movie and a few insignificant others that I'm not really bitching about.At the same time, some scenes really get to your inner core and can truly bring out your sensitive side. When Harry and Cedric come back from the graveyard, I felt that that scene was truly powerful as many people will agree with me. The actor playing Amos Diggory was able to truly portray a father's sorrow to the loss of his son and seeing Diggory like that on the ground, lifeless, without that inviting smile is truly traumatizing.The young actors have gotten better and are still improving with every movie. Daniel Radcliffe is showing acting skills by truly showing Potter's sorrow, his grief, his uneasiness growing up, the troubles he must face every day being Harry Potter. Rupert Grint was much better since he wasn't really acting in the previous movies, just being really stupid. In this movie, he was able to show us Ron's dark side towards Harry and his overprotective side towards Hermione. Now, Emma Watson is a problem, The girl is too melodramatic. She emphasizes on every line where sometimes, it was unnecessary and come on, do you really need that many hand gestures to make your point across? An addition though which I think would make for Watson's ""diva""-esque personality, would be none other than Matthew Lewis who flawlessly portrayed Neville Longbottom's character showing that he is not only the nerdy boy where nothing ever works out for him, but also his sensitive and knowledgeable side, without losing that adorable, geeky charm.As for the Professors and the adult actors, they were as always flawless even the ones that had only a few scenes. Alan Rickman, who is my favorite actor, had a few lines in this movie, but still made us feel his presence on many instances throughout the movie. Professor McGonaggal, a.k.a. Maggie Smith played the heartfelt mother figure to Harry, capturing the essence of the character. Brendan Gleeson, was by far one of the best of this movie, truly portraying Mad-Eye Moody's strange character and enjoying it himself as you could tell from his acting. My problem is still with Michael Gambon. I love Richard Harris and I still believe he is the best Dumbledore out there and no one can ever top that. Gambom does a good job but he doesn't give off that grandfather figure, that protective, loving character.Overall, I give this movie an 8 out of 10 stars, because, again, it could've been better, but was still good. Now, can't wait, for ""The Order of the Phoenix"" and the next Harry Potter book, which is, sadly the last one (sniffs).","['0', '1']" +1070,rw1237780,gluttony14,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,"A good movie, but a few bumps are pulling it down",13 December 2005,1,"This was a great movie. It managed to turn a 650 pages long book into a 2 and a half hour long movie, and it does so spectacularly. It manages to avoid feeling quite as rushed as the previous movies, despite having far more content. Even viewers who haven't read the book will enjoy themselves and be able to follow, although they may feel a bit lost at some points.Now, we'll begin with the good parts in the movie: first of all, the special effects were breathtaking. The Hungarian Horntail dragon looked fearsome and realistic and made the first task a truly breathtaking spectacle and one of my favorite scenes in the movie. The acting was also a strong point: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson improved greatly, and Brendon Gleeson gave an excellent performance as Mad-eye Moody, as he managed to be as insane and scary as the book portrayed him to be. Alan Rickman stole the show, despite having an extremely short scene. But even then, his Snape is so cynical and menacing he has no competition on the screen. And finally, I have to mention this, Emma Watson looks absolutely stunning in the Yule Ball.However, the movie has its share of problems. The first and foremost is the damage done to three major characters: Dumbledore, Crouch and Voldemort. Dumbledore has turned from a wise and calm, if somewhat aloof, wizard who can display his tremendous power into an old person who is quick to anger and has trouble figuring out what's going on around him. This was definitely the most unpleasant change, because Dumbledore's character is one that should give the feeling of a fatherly figure in Harry's life, but in this movie he is merely a headmaster. Crouch was supposed to be a strict, tough man, with an entirely by-the-rules approach. In this movie, he is naught but a weird old man who seems to abide by the rules not because he believes in order above all else, but because he has no other choice. As for Voldemort, while Ralph Fiennes delivers a great performance as He Who Must Not Be Named, it is also entirely over-the-top. Voldemort is far too melodramatic - he is a ruthless, bold-blooded murderer and yet he gets so worked up over capturing his enemy? It doesn't make much sense. While this was the major problem in the movie, there were a few others: Fleur and Krum, who were Triwizard Champions, were given extremely small roles. They barely had 3 lines each, and Fleur was especially left out (Krum at least had a relationship with Hermione). Also, it would have been nice to actually see Gary Oldman. He did have a role and several lines, but all we saw was a CGI version of his face made out of ash and burning firewood. I'd have preferred to actually see him in person. Another problem was that there was a feeling of somewhat of a mess in the movie - at times it seemed as if they tried to cram in as much as they could in the 2 and a half hours and it just fell apart. A good example is Rita Skeeter who gives a magnificent performance in the first half of the movie then disappears without her plot line ever being closed. The time spent on her would have been better used to actually show the Quidditch World Cup. The final problem was the ""Do the Hippogriff"" song in the Yule Ball. It was entirely unnecessary: it was a silly song that only damaged the movie, in my opinion.In short, this is a good movie. Definitely worth a watch, whether you're a hardcore Potter fan or not. It does have some issues though, that I hope will be taken care of in the next movie.","['1', '2']" +1071,rw1226761,lune-2,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),9.0,Best one yet,28 November 2005,0,"Now, I have never been a huge fan of the movies because the books have always been vastly superior. That, combined with the disappointment of the first two movies did not give me much hope for this one, but I was blown away by the director's style and the wonderful screenplay. They did a good job cutting scenes to scale down the time of the movie and included somethings that really made this one stand out as the best. Mostly, you come to care about the characters so by the time Cedric died and Harry was tortured, the majority of the theatre was in tears! Also there were many hilarious parts that were either accentuated (or in some cases completely made up) that really added to the entertainment value and balanced out some of the darker scenes. The action sequences were also very good for those of you who like that kind of thing. I think this movie has something for anyone with an imagination, but it may be a little scary to all of the youngsters under 10 out there. Happy viewings!","['0', '0']" +1072,rw1218768,CuriosityKilledShawn,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),3.0,One of the most boring films I have seen this year!,18 November 2005,0,"I know I'm going to make loads of enemies by saying this but I just don't see why everyone is going nuts over this film. There are billions of biased Harry Potter lunatics out there who would give this film 10/10 before even seeing it, even if the director did nothing but wipe his ass on the celluloid. That isn't the case, but it's still one of the most boring films I've had to sit through in a long time.The books do not translate well to film. I know it's an old cliché that people always say about books into movies but it really does appropriately describe the world of Harry Potter. The books may be money-spinners but JK Rowling's universe is so dense and involving one can become immersed rather easily, which is one of the franchises major selling points. The films were put into pre-production before Warner fully understood how long or drawn-out Rowling stories would be. As a result they are forced to increasingly cut down on what they put up on screen. I found Prisoner of Azkaban to be anorexic compared to it's literary counterpart. Goblet of Fire goes even further and strips it right down to the bone.Director Mike Newell had the option of releasing the film in 2 separate volumes (ala Kill Bill) but his overconfidence got the better of him and he reckoned he could do a 500+ page book in a 157-minute film (with 12 of those minutes being credits). It doesn't work, I don't care what anyone says, the story is badly damaged by being whittled down to almost nothing. I'm not complaining at the lack of the Dursley's, I know they don't make or break the film. But important sub-plots and important characters are barely even featured.Harry's co-competitors in the Tri-Wizard Tournament, Viktor Krum and Fleur Delacour, are interesting and developed in the book. In this movie they are so absent you'd think they'd been completely cut out. I think I heard Krum speak once. And the British Tabloid press made a huge fuss (as they do with everything) over a girl from Fife being cast as Harry's would-be girlfriend Cho Chang. But she's in it for an absolute maximum of 2 minutes and has about 3 lines of dialogue! And what of this nonsense that Ron and Hermione are in love with each other? They have a single conversation in 157 minutes with no longing glances or butterflies in stomach or anything! Being jealous at each other dancing partners simply isn't enough. Also, many important plot developments that the film doesn't have time to linger on are given a single line of explanation and quickly forgotten as things move from A to B to C. For anyone who hasn't read the book this could be very disorientating and you'll probably get lost at some point.Keen to distract us from this Warner have chucked in a massive SFX budget in hope that lots of CGI will make us think the film really is amazing when it just plain ain't. How superficial can you get? I really don't think the kids will mind though. And the zombie parents dragged along with them won't care either. Those of us who are serious about films (people who go nuts over Harry Potter not included) will notice how plebeian the franchise has become.Mike Newell does chuck in a couple (only a couple) of nice shots but has this amateur theory that the darker the film looks the more sinister it will become. What nonsense! Much of this film is so poorly lit you'll struggle to see what is happening on screen. And the daytime scenes are all shot with an ugly green haze to make things look enchanting or spooky or something. It makes the film look stupid.Order of the Pheonix is up next. And that book was very, very long. How on earth they will fit that in a movie I don't know. Warner have seriously bitten off more than they can chew with this franchise. In the hands of a skilled director who is familiar with action, fantasy and even a touch of horror this could have been better. The director of Mona Lisa Smile and Four Weddings and Funeral is a totally inappropriate choice. For some reason John Williams has jumped ship and left scoring to duties to Patrick Doyle. But you'll hardly notice the difference. Doyle retains the Harry Potter theme and sticks to the loud, bombastic sound Williams used for action scenes in the previous films. I'm not a Harry Potter hater, no matter how negative my opinion sounds. But trying to talk sense into someone who loves these films no matter what is like trying to convince a Christian Fundamentalist that God doesn't exist. A rather extreme simile, but alarmingly appropriate.","['30', '65']" +1073,rw1216964,I-nc,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Absolutely Amazing!,15 November 2005,0,Everyone was perfect for the parts they played and so many times it's exactly like how I imagined it in the book! It is also way more action and the digital effects are fantastic! Ralph Finnes is perfect for the Role of Voldemort. The movie is also much more grown up than the other 3 Movies. This is my favorite Harry Potter movie Yet. Some fans may be disappointed for how fast it rushes through the story-line but the redeeming qualities are the amount of work they put in to the entire film. This film also is more comical and has more joke than the other movies. Prepare to be sitting for a long time because of the length of the movie. Other than that I highly recommend going to see this movie!,"['1', '5']" +1074,rw1225885,Mosheva,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,"Good, but leaves out majority of book",27 November 2005,0,"We all know that movies are not as good as the book, but this movie decided on first 30 minutes on the stuff in the book and the rest of the time it was hurtling you through the Tri-wizard tourney. I know the book is long, and it would be impractical to do all the stuff in the book, but come on, at least use some of the stuff. Also people who did not read the book might have had trouble with character recognition. One last thought, bath scene with harry and moaning Myrtle was kinda weird. This movie is more orientated towards the older kids and teenagers. The graveyard scene did, in fact freak my little cousin out. Also, the comedy scene at the ball with the Prof. Flitwick getting passed along above the crowd was out of taste with the flow of the movie.","['0', '0']" +1075,rw1251672,darketernal,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),9.0,Best Potter movie yet,31 December 2005,0,"Every Harry Potter movie gets a little better than the last, and this one is no different. This is the best Potter film of them all; it takes the book's darker storyline and translates it well to the big screen. No, it doesn't do a perfect job, to do the book justice the movie would have to be 16 hours long, but it does a pretty good job in hitting all of the major events so that I didn't feel disappointed.One of the advantages of cramming the whole book into 157 minutes is that it becomes action-packed. One big scene ends only to the open of another right on it's tail. It does seem a little rushed and cut, but the mistake is a forgivable one. The special effects are the best, especially the World Cup and all three tasks. The only actor of note is Brendan Gleeson as Mad Eye Moody. Totally amazing and completely dynamic. All things said, it is very short and won't please the hardcore fans of the books, but it is still a very good film that deserves attention.","['0', '0']" +1076,rw1221121,balletmecanique,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,don't miss the only great chance!,20 November 2005,0,"if you still haven't seen this movie, rush out and see it now because harry potter and the goblet of fire is a chance you wont wanna miss. In harry's fourth year, he begins to learn more than just a few simple spells. he begins to learn about love,friendship, and death, the hard way. in this year there will be 2 dangerous tasks that will come on the triwizard tournament and 2 different schools will be joining them this year. harry unwillingly must compete in these tournaments as a mysterious being in the school has put harry's name in the goblet. and of course the growing dread of lord valdemort rising again as i can't forget to mention.all in all, go see this movie.it has wonderful special effects that are better than its predecessors and even better that lord of the rings.even if you haven't read the book, and for those who have, well lets just say be prepared to be slightly disappointed. just go see it and have a fun experience! 9/10","['0', '1']" +1077,rw1232718,pegi,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,howler,7 December 2005,0,"I beg you to replace Michael Gambon or to modify his character because his acting is ridiculous and it humiliates the figure of Dumbledore at the same time. He has NOTHING in common with the character of the book and I don't understand why it was needed to change his features. It does not influence the length of the movie and I don't think it would require more money to be faithful and consequent to the original character. Why was it necessary then? Please, explain, why did they turn Dumbledore into a clown!!! As opposed to the first actor I mentioned in my opinion Ralph ….. was the perfect choice to represent the unique character of The Dark Lord. His acting abilities made him absolutely appropriate to provide the audience with the characteristic features of the original figure of the book. In the question of authenticity I would highlight the performance of Alan Rickman ,Emma Watson, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane and Ralph Fiennes. I believe they personalized the characters of the book in the most ""loyal"" manner","['1', '3']" +1078,rw1221631,MissTy98,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),9.0,Wow!,21 November 2005,0,"You may never quite see a movie quite like this one. The constant worrying of how well Mike Newell will do on this movie is now over. Mike Newell took his own route on this movie, though still building off what Cauron and Columbus did, yet improving it. All book readers will still be surprised by what this movie has in store for them since it separates the books from the movies.The movie starts with the necessary Voldemort/Wormtail scene and quickly changes to the amazing and breath taking look at the Quidditch World Cup. It quickly shifts to the main story of Hogwarts and the Triwizard tournament.All aspects of the teenage life are shown throughout the movie from love, quarreling, and schoolwork. This gives the movie a more realistic feeling and shows that these wizards are normal people, but with magical powers.Characters such as Mad-Eye Moody, Fleur Delacour, and Rita Skeeter were cast perfectly to the parts.All the action scenes were amazing and actually thrilling with top rate special effects. All three magical tasks are exciting and believable. The graveyard scene was all that it should be and quite frightening which made this movie earn it's PG 13 rating.My only words of criticism is this. More time should have been spent on the Quidditch World Cup and the three tasks instead of having all the unnecessary time spent on all the Yule Ball. It made the middle of the movie move really slowly while the beginning and end went fast. The Yule Ball does not add near as much to the plot as the Quidditch World Cup or the the three tasks.","['1', '2']" +1079,rw1218731,abecipriano,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,An excellent and entertaining movie,18 November 2005,0,"The fourth installment of the Harry Potter books / movies proves to be the darkest yet. With a growing cast of characters (this time, Ralph Feinnes joins as the rejuvenated Lord Voldemort), the HP series continues its momentum and in a big way! With the 3rd director of the movie series, Mike Newell (after Christopher Columbus for the first two and Alfonso Cuaron for the third), putting more serious tones at the appropriate times and injecting humor in the unique (though sometimes unnecessary ways, like HP's scene with Moaning Myrtle), he stays true to the spirit of the Goblet of Fire book.With only 2+ hours, one cannot expect that it will capture in rich detail the other subplots and exciting scenes like the Quidditch World Cup. However, it shouldn't disappoint those who expect many cuts from the original book, as well as those who don't plan on reading the books.The development of the main characters (Harry, Hermione and Ron) continues to grow in this picture, although other characters like Snape, McGonagall and Sirius Black take a backseat in this one. Truly a great movie and a perfect year ender (unless there's a blockbuster in the mold of this movie or Batman Begins in the late fall) to enjoy with friends and family.","['0', '1']" +1080,rw1222198,flickhead,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),5.0,"Harry Plot Holes! Shouldn't have to read a book to ""get"" a movie!",22 November 2005,0,"This one had its moments, but almost nothing was explained, and I'm of the opinion that shearing unnecessary plot points entirely is a much better idea than leaving in just enough to satisfy the readers, because by splitting the middle you please no one. I haven't read the books, (before it is suggested I should tell you that I have absolutely no inclination of ever doing so) and it seemed to me that the filmmakers took it for granted that everyone in the audience had read them. Film and literature are different mediums and books and movies must each stand on their own, so in this respect particularly the film was a failure. The movie was overly long and yet there were a ton of plot holes, which are almost mutually exclusive problems in general; it felt both rushed and run down at the same time. This is a shame following on the heels of the last entry in the series which was an excellent piece of juvenile fantasy, no doubt owed to director Alfonso Cuaron, who directed A Little Princess, which is one of the single greatest children's films ever. He was a natural choice for the material. Mike Newell's only asset seems to be that he is British. While he did direct Four Weddings and a Funeral, everybody seems to forget that he also directed Pushing Tin and Mona Lisa Smile and a half dozen other real duds. Spielberg had expressed interest in directing this entry, and his offer was declined. Say what you will about Spielberg, but the guy knows how direct juvenile fantasy films better than just about anyone on the planet. I think they bungled it on this one. I didn't hate the film, but I was severely disappointed as the subject matter could have touched on a myriad of important life lessons, but came off like a soap opera for kids, composed of hackneyed ideas, snail paced and missing footage. I'm sure most will disagree, as this is a series of films that lures sycophants like pollen does bees. I say the emperor wears no clothes. I'll go see the next one probably, but I hope that they get the right director for the material, and they hire a continuity person who has not read the book, and allow that person to sit with the editor thus allowing for a truly objective eye to uphold the integrity of the piece.","['1', '2']" +1081,rw1218882,rotcmaverick,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,The best so far,18 November 2005,1,"Well, courtesy of Bayer I got to see the latest adaptation of the incredibly popular (and dare I say trendy) series by J.K. Rowling a few hours before its official release. Screenwriter Steve Kloves as well as director Mike Newell and producer David Heyman certainly had their work cut out for them condensing this 700-plus page book into 150 minutes, and they delivered marvelously.**WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD** From the opening moments, it is easy to tell that this film is indeed, as the lovely and talented Emma Watson put it, ""Bang, bang, bang, adventure to next adventure."" From the time know-it-all Hermione Granger (Watson) wakes up her best mates Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) to the time the Quidditch World Cup campsite is burned down, about 5 minutes has passed. We then follow, in rapid succession, the announcement of the Tri-Wizard Tournament (of which Harry gets his name mysteriously submitted), the fall-out between him and Ron, a lesson with Mad-Eye Moody, the first task (which has a twist not seen in the book), the make-up scene, and before you know it, Hermione is coming down looking stunningly beautiful for the Yule Ball. We then shoot into a rather suggestive scene where we see a topless Harry being hit on by Moaning Myrtle, the second task, Harry and Snape loathing each other, and finally into the third task and the Graveyard scene.This is where Dan truly shines as an actor. His emotional performance with being tortured and watching a classmate murdered, and seeing his arch-nemesis being re-born, is a drastic improvement from the dismal ""HE WAS THEIR FRIEND!!"" in the third movie. As for the big V... well, the special effects on him are rather noticeable, cheapening the evil that he represents. However, Ralph Fiennes more than compensates for this by his outstanding talent. Him torturing Harry at a single touch makes you shiver in terror, and it is this scene that gives the movie it's PG-13 rating.As for the others, Grint puts up a convincing performance (his murderous look when Harry is selected is very scary indeed), and Watson herself makes a real effort, however due to the quirkiness of the script her character is very forced. This movie also shows how well the three (especially Dan and Emma) get along with each other. Michael Gambon leaves much to be desired, however, and Alan Rickman's performance does not fit the unkindly Professor Snape very well at all. David Tennant will have you thinking he is a mad-man, and Brendan Gleeson hints that he is a little too evil for a dark-wizard catcher. Miranda Richardson is your quintessential tabloid reporter, although her character is not well-defined as it is in the books.Overall, this movie is worth your money, however those not familiar with the books might consider reading at least the 700-some-odd pages that is Goblet of Fire, otherwise you will be very confused at times. Consider it a companion piece.Overall: 8/10","['1', '4']" +1082,rw1221289,scifi_luv,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),9.0,Better than the Book!,21 November 2005,0,"Wow, I loved the movie! It was so exciting and a real feat in terms of condensing things but making it still understandable to the audience. And I was thinking, yes! that was how Rowling should have done the book. The book contained a lot of flab-- it takes them how many pages to get to Hogwarts? As happens when a writer (director or anyone else) gets so successful they feel they don't have to listen to an editor. The Harry Potter and Cho thing was actually done much more believably in the movie. Lots of people told me the movie was really dark and scary but I actually think the last one was more disturbing with the Dementors. I actually found the filmed scene of the graveyard part not as disturbing as it was in the book. In the book Voldemort comes off as this gross bloody fetus thing and Wormtail hacking his arm off...I liked how it was down in a fairly non-freaky way in the movie. I still think Rowling kind of has trouble making the love stuff not come off cliché in the Potter books. I think Mike Newell did an excellent job with the actors. I've been keeping my eye on him since his early BBC stuff and he seems to strike the perfect balance in tone with the movie that I think works really well. Alan Rickman was absolute perfection as always of course! Loved the bathtub scene...heheh something for the girls at last and all the inuendo and humor. Definitely captured the humor of the books. (Too bad that element has been getting a little lost of late). The dark mark thing-- I always thought it would look more like a brand than a tattoo. The maze could have been cooler as well.","['2', '4']" +1083,rw1219412,sp0ngeb0bx0x,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),4.0,Disappointing,19 November 2005,0,"I've recently seen Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and I came out feeling extremely disappointed. While the graphic effects were amazing, the story that was the Goblet of Fire seems to be totally different. Whilst non-readers of the books sat in amazement at the sight of dragons and mer people I sat furious that characters such as Ludo Bagman and Winky had been cut. Acting for most part was awful, with Daniel Radcliffe's cringe worthy attempts, Ralph Fiennes seemed more comical rather than horrific and Michael Gambon plays Dumbledore with a portrayal that makes him appear to be Lord Voldemort himself. If I was JK Rowling, I'd be furious at the pathetic attempt to bring Goblet of Fire to life.","['10', '22']" +1084,rw1220756,sc_nightcrawler,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,The Best Harry Potter So Far,20 November 2005,1,"I give it 10 not because it's one of the greatest movies of all time but more cause it's the best out of four. I really didn't imagine before that this fourth movie will be this dark. The maze and the graveyard scenes are amazing. It's dark, thrilled, and stunning. It's not the same as I imagined but it's way better. I love it. It's true that it doesn't show the wondrous wizard world. It's more to the main story, the Triwizard Tournament. But it doesn't disappoint me cause I'm afraid it will be boring instead. But maybe if Mike Newell could just show the Quidditch Cup a little more and Harry-Sirius interactions (which is very important cause we all know what will happen on the fifth). It's two and a half hours. I don't mind if it's three. Lots said that Daniel Radcliffe has improved much, and I agree. It's very comfortable seeing his acting. Rupert Grint shows the same old Ron. Emma Watson is the problem. Both Dan and Rupert act in a comfort way, but Emma seems so tense. And that makes their acting looks imbalance and uncomforted, especially when they appear at the same scene. I think Emma gives too much energy. While the other casts, well.. I must say that no wonder Ralph Fiennes is one of my favorite actors. He's so great. He's a perfect Voldemort. Both his movement and voice stunned me, though he appears only a few minutes. Brian Gleeson is also great. But I'm a little disappoint 'bout Madame Maxime. I imagined she has the appearance sort of Hagrid. Cause I believe in the book it said she's big not tall. And Michael Gambon as Dumbledore.. I'm sorry but I still love Richard Harris. The cold war between Harry and Ron is shown different than the book. Rather than showing Ron's sad and jealousy, it's more to comedy (in a good way). To me, Harry and Ron look like a couple who had a fight. It's very hilarious. The other exciting thing is Fred and George. They didn't appear much on the last three movies. But here, they did a big contribution making audiences laugh. Despite my great enjoyment of this film, I have one question. How did Barty Crouch Junior escaped from Azkaban? Is it dementor who help him? The film doesn't explain it, probably they forgot. Well anyway, I still love it and I hope the fifth movie can fill the missing holes.","['0', '1']" +1085,rw1218990,LaGuerreDesEtoiles,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,"Good Graphics, Bad Content",18 November 2005,0,"Last night I went to go and see the midnight showing of the latest installment of the Harry Potter film series. I must say the graphics and special effects were most impressive, and the details were magnificent. But this movie does NOT do the book justice, anyone who is a true fan of the books could tell you that. The sheer volume of information that was left out of this movie almost made me sick. They cut out several highly important characters from the book, such as Winky the house-elf, Ludo Bagman, The Dursleys, and Molly and Percy Weasly, but yet they had time to add in nonsense scenes that never occurred in the book. One of the greatest blows was that they did not even show the quidditch world cup being played! The merely introduced it and then switched the next scene. The rapid switching of the scenes was to become commonplace throughout the movie, and I feel that if I was not already overly familiar with he books that I would not be able to understand it. If the studio would have made it into two movies and not tried to cram the 600+ page book, it would have been one of the most stunning movies of this year. but as it stands, it is a disappointment to the book, and to Harry Potter fans everywhere.","['29', '60']" +1086,rw1220300,chiragkapadia2004,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,too hurried,20 November 2005,1,"The movie faces the inevitable drawback of trying to fit in what actually was worth 2 movies into one.The book was huge , full of action and events.And so when they tried to fit all that in around 2 and a half hours , the movie , especially the 2nd challenge and the final duel with Voldemort had a hurried feeling to it ,as if it was originally scheduled to be long , but some heavy editing was done on those counts.So , before u know it , we have Voldemort arising ,calls the Death Eaters, chats up with them (just to register the fact that Lucius Malfoy was one of them), turns to Harry , slithers and challenges him to a duel , and then we have the wand connecting thing, the ghosts appear , and wham! before u know it, he's escaped. we get a feeling that this turned out to be too easy for Harry. on the positive side , the whole movie has a good dark feel to it, just as it should be.also , the first challenge with the dragons is simply superb. of course , if u r a Harry Potter fan , u wud anyways go and see it.if u r not , well... mebbe u can give this a miss.","['0', '1']" +1087,rw1228095,rbverhoef,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,"Terrific, more mature, although a little rushed",30 November 2005,0,"The fourth installment of the 'Harry Potter'-series is probably the most entertaining of them all for it's wall to wall action and comedy. For some this can also be a problem. The story is a little rushed. It is like a road trip where you only do the attractions on the way, but never travel from one attraction to another. Of course that is an entertaining way to do a road trip but it can be good to catch your breath from time to time, enjoy the world around you.This counts especially for a world as beautifully visualized as Harry Potter's. Art direction, set decoration, costumes and visual effects are once again terrific, creating a feast for the eye. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron Weasly (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) inhabit this world as if they have lived there their entire lives; not only the movie but also the actors are more mature. The story has grown darker with every new film and here it deserves its PG-13 rating. Death and destruction are pretty present in 'Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire'.I could go into the story, which deals with a deadly tri-wizard tournament that Harry enters even though he is too young and the first real appearance of Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), but it does not really matter. The story is a nice framework to show us everything in the movie, also including brilliant performances by Brendan Gleeson as Alastor Moody, Miranda Richardson as journalist Rita Skeeter and returning actors like Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane and a great Alan Rickman as Severus Snape.'The Sorcerer's Stone' and 'The Chamber of Secrets' gave the series its magical touch, it was a little lost in 'The Prisoner of Azkaban', for me still the best, but director Alfonso Cuarón made up for that with especially the cinematography. Now we have 'The Goblet of Fire' where magical touches have changed mostly into darkness, maturity and some great action and comedy scenes. It seems to me this is the right approach to the series.","['1', '8']" +1088,rw1219814,lastliberal,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),9.0,The Goblet of Fire burns bright,19 November 2005,0,"There was an old Mel Brooks film that I remember called The History of the World: Part I. The tag line suggested that ""from the dawn of man to the distant future, mankind's evolution (or lack thereof) is traced."" Of course, mankind's history cannot be touched in 92 minutes, and do not expect J.K. Rowling's work, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire to be given just weight in 2 hours and 37 minutes - it cannot be done. Forget the book and just sit back and enjoy what Mike Newell has prepared for your enjoyment.My anticipation was palpable: a Mike Newell film from a J.K. Rowling book. There is no film on the planet that is funnier or more touching than Four Weddings and a Funeral. Newell directed his greatest achievement there. With Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, he has taken a great leap forward and given us a movie that is enjoyable to lovers of the books and anyone else who just wants to see a great movie.I totally agree with reviewer Desson Thomson who states: Director Mike Newell and screenwriter Steve Kloves (who has written all the Potter films) know their primary responsibility: to create three-ring spectacles like the whiz-bang, airborne game of Quidditch, or Harry's mighty tussles with otherworldly creatures. But they also allow time for the characters to breathe. (WP) This film was the best of the bunch, I would not be surprised in the least to see this film exceed $100 million in it's first weekend. I was at the first showing at my local theater yesterday and it was full. I do not know what all those kids were doing out of school on Friday!If nothing else, you have to see Brendan Gleeson as the latest addition to the Hogwarts staff, Mad-Eye Moody. As Manohla Dargis of the Times describes him: a man of garrulous temperament and removable parts, including a googly eye that he wears like a pirate's patch, Mad-Eye is a pip.A pip he was and the film was stupendous.","['1', '2']" +1089,rw1218933,CanYouHearUs56,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Mark Hammel Syndrome,18 November 2005,0,"First, I'd like to say how excellent this movie was; by far my favorite out of the series so far.But who thinks Dan is going to catch the Mark Hammel Syndrome? I mean, now he'll be forever branded as harry potter, and just as what happened when Macaulay caulkin tried to make other movies (party monsters!), no one could take him seriously, he was just the kid from home alone. I think after this series, a couple of the supporting actors (emma probably) will go on to be super famous, while Dan will be left in the dust of theatre and b-movies.It's not that he doesn't have the talent, he just got stuck in a super famous role that everyone will forever remember him as.Now all of his future directors will tell him ""Dark times lie ahead Daniel, you're acting career is kaputz""","['0', '1']" +1090,rw1227308,Cvesterby,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),5.0,Just not good enough,29 November 2005,0,"Disappointing, that is the first word that come to my mind when I think of this movie...After watching the ""Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban"" I got a feeling of a movie having to much to tell in to little time, leaving no time to for the actors to act or me getting to know them.In the case of ""Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire"", this happens to be even more evident. The movie rushes forward from first till last, jumping between conversations and scenes in a tempo making it all seem somewhat chaotic and confusing. Also loads of new characters are dragged into the plot, without getting a proper introduction. But in my opinion the biggest problem in this movie, is the extremely bad acting. All of the 3 maincharacters (Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson), are some of the worst actors I have ever seen. I can not stop to think of Mark Hamill from Start Wars. Another bad actor in a big movie. I do not feel with the characters. I do not know why they do what they do. I do not know what they think. Everything seems very superficial and the plot in this movie is also not as good as ""Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone"", which, without a doubt, is the best Harry Potter movie. The reason Why we do not get to know the characters, may not only be because of bad acting, maybe the screenplay simply leaves no room for getting to know them, making it bad as well. I can't help to think, if not only the first book actually should have hit the screen? And what happened to Dumbledore??? I know the actor was replaced, but should that change his personality?? Last I must admit, that I have not yet read the books, but I will for sure.","['0', '0']" +1091,rw1228140,peter_mcphillips,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Harry Potter and the Goblet Of Fire,30 November 2005,1,"Harry Potter - Goblet Of fire is the best movie yet! The special effects and CGI were brilliant. In this fourth adaption of JK Rowlings famous book series, Harry Potter's fourth year at Hogwarts is darker than ever as Lord Voldemort is about to rise again but as well as facing Voldemort, he will compete is the most dangerous competition yet, the Triwizard Tournament. He must also put on his dancing shoes for the Yule Ball awaits. Dark and difficult times lie ahead soon Harry must choose between what is right and what is easy.The Film is good but does move very fast. Mike Newell has done his best to fit a 700 page book into a 2 1/2 hour movie.So grab the popcorn and get some coke and let the magic begin!","['0', '0']" +1092,rw1236402,cjboog,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,A step in the right direction,12 December 2005,0,"The last two Harry Potter movies were very forgettable. They seemed to be too much of an impossible adventure as opposed to a story. They didn't follow the book very closely and left me with a bad taste in my mouth. The Goblet of Fire, with a new director, seems to be a cut above the rest. Yes, the terribly awkward dialog is still there. They try to suck as many cheap laughs out of Ron Weasley and the Weasley brothers as possible, and it gets old. Harry is a terrible actor, Ron is even worse, Hermoine is way too dramatic to be considered realistic. Yes, those last second miracles are still here. Harry finds himself about to meet his certain doom and then WOOSH! Someone comes dashing in to save him at the last second. That situation seems to be reoccuring over and over in the series, but we are used to it now and have to grudgingly accept it. Despite the gaping holes, they are not as big holes as the first three movies. I really enjoyed the direction, the film came off much darker. There was more attention given to little details, and some excellent shots of scenery, etc. The graphics seemed to be much improved, although still very cheesy at times. If you didn't like the first three movies don't worry. This one still has some of the basic mistakes, but is better at the same time. You should enjoy it.","['0', '0']" +1093,rw1223854,niculamariusgheorghe,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,This is the best Harry Potter movie yet.,24 November 2005,0,"It's a very good movie in which the special effects are great and the actors seem really in touch whit their characters.Although the ending was a bit unusual because i thought that Harry will remain with Cho, Ron will remain with Hermoine and Lord Voldemort will be stopped but even so this is the best Harry Potter movie out of all the other three movies.I think that in comparison with Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone,Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Askaban this is a lot better and without a doubt a very larger success than it's other three predecessors.Now I can't wait to see what Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix will bring because i wanna see what happens with Harry and Cho,Ron and Hermoine and what happens to Lord Voldemort.","['1', '2']" +1094,rw1240126,fluffyclown,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),9.0,The best of the series so far,16 December 2005,1,"The fourth installment in the Harry Potter series sent me on a thrill ride of emotions. The director did a wonderful job of balancing the humor amidst the horror of the events that took place in the film. It left me anxiously awaiting the next film too come.Overall, I thought the movie held fast to the most important story lines in the book. The first 15 minutes were a bit choppy, but it's hard to compress eleven chapters of material into that short amount of time, so I'll forgive the loss of bits and pieces of storyline that were left out in the beginning. Once the film got into the tournament, most of the major story elements were left in place, and the film progressed fairly smoothly. The end was a bit choppy again, and I felt some points that were left out and/or glossed over should have been left in, so those who have not read the books would understand why the Ministry of Magic would choose to hide the fact that Lord Voldemort had returned. The entire premise of the next book in the series is based upon this disbelief, and how Harry is made to suffer for telling the truth. It will be interesting to see how this problem is addressed in the next film.As far as the characters go, I was pleased to see Fred and George, and their antics, take a seat front and center. They were by far my favorites. All the actors seem to be more and more comfortable with their roles, and the acting is improving with each film. Again, it will be interesting too see how much they have grown and matured when the next film installment is made. I just hope we don't loose any of the major cast members before the series is completed. (I still picture Richard Harris as Dumbledore, even though Michael Gambon is doing an excellent job in the last two films) All in all, I would say this is the best of the four films thus far. I am eagerly awaiting Order of the Phoenix.","['0', '0']" +1095,rw1222261,raptor20,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,One of the best films I've seen in years!,22 November 2005,0,"Unlike it's predecessors this film starts off running and doesn't stop. I love the others but I must admit I was amazed how good this one really was. Although the fourth book is my favourite I was worried that it would lack something in the transfer to film. I was wrong! The new kids are great as are Emma and Rupert. Daniel Radcliffe is good but very similar to the last film. He's a good actor but I don't think he is strong enough to lead the franchise. Ironically the real leads are the outstanding supporting characters, such as Alan Rickman's Snape and especially Maggie Smith's McGonagall. Michael Gambon is good but I'm still thinking of Richard Harris when I read the books. Brendan Gleeson as Mad-Eye Moody is amazing as is Ralph Fiennes as V.... He Who Must Not Be Named! I haven't given a film 10/10 since 1997 so if you see one film this year see this one!","['13', '22']" +1096,rw1210891,tjcclarke,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,Rowling's Roller-coaster Gathers Pace,7 November 2005,0,"First, a confession: I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a Potter fan, so I felt something of a fraud as I sneaked into a media screening of Goblet of Fire while many bona fide devotees have had to wait it out.My interest in the franchise has thus far consisted of sitting through the first film in a freezing cinema wondering what all the fuss was about, and skim-reading the second book on an aeroplane to appease my curiosity as to the young wizard's appeal. I have long been astonished at the sheer scale of Rowling's achievement, and while I may treat many of my fellow commuters - the regressive thirty-somethings who are buried in her CHILDREN'S novels on the tube – with something approaching contempt, I realise her success is very much deserved. It's a bit excessive though, and frankly enough to reduce any impoverished wannabe writer to a jealous whimper.Being an outsider who will undoubtedly get all the names wrong, I won't spend long here on the plot, save to say it revolves around the ""tri-wizard tournament"" – an epic and dangerous event that threatens to split Hogwarts loyalties asunder.Instead, I'll concentrate on the performances, and, first up, I fear I must say I have reservations over the casting of Harry. Daniel Radcliffe looked an inspired choice after the first film – floppy hair and specs and an earnest charm - but I'm afraid to say, he is an ordinary actor. The trouble with hiring an eleven year old for a film project as massive as this, is you are rather in the lap of the gods when it comes to puberty. It's a bit like doting on a baby puppy and then being terribly upset a year or so later when a bloody great Alsatian smashes up your living room and defecates on your carpet.Much better are his faithful chums. Rubber-faced Ron (Rupert Grint) handles the adolescent grunting with considerably more aplomb than Radcliffe, and he also says ""bloody hell"" a lot which elicited gasps of delight from some of the younger viewers around me. There is some nice chemistry between him and the hitherto gawky and posh Hermione who has blossomed into a snooty English rose, and the theme of teenage angst runs deep throughout the excellent supporting cast.""Dark and difficult times lie ahead"" is the smartly worded tagline, and one gets the impression Harry is far more comfortable dodging fire-breathing dragons, than he is tiptoeing around the opposite sex. The growing pains are neatly handled by director Mike Newell, himself no stranger to the awkward whimsy of love's young dream after sterling work on Four Weddings and a Funeral – Indeed, many of the light-hearted interludes around the school dance scenes betray Newell's penchant for bittersweet comedy and romantic pratfalls.And, of course, the adults in the cast zoom around with a zest inspired by their youthful co-stars. Robbie Coltrane's Hagrid fashions an unlikely romance with a giantess played by Frances De La Tour; Michael Gambon is a sprightly Dumbledore; and Gary Oldman's screen time is restricted to one scene where he thrusts his head through the burning coals of a roaring fire to offer Harry some sage advice. Perhaps they should have simply hired a stunt double and saved on his fee.Most impressive of all is Ralph Fiennes who is genuinely terrifying as the evil Lord Voldemort. Fiennes is ably assisted in his wickedness by a suitably conniving Timothy Spall and also the most fearsome set of nostrils to grace the silver screen since Hannibal Lector flexed his snout at Agent Starling in The Silence of the Lambs.It is pretty stirring stuff – visually extraordinary in places – and nicely paced. Potterfiles will love it and detractors may just find their criticisms stuck in their throats. However, my disdain for adults who proudly devour the novels on public transport without any sense of shame remains absolute.7/10","['239', '456']" +1097,rw1219218,petit_coeur_018,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,oh man,18 November 2005,0,"this movie was way better than all of the other ones. and for those of you loyal enough to know that the third movie was the next thing up from rubbish will be happy to know that this one knows how to be loyal to the book and still be different. it's just right, I knew Mike Newell would do it!! there wasn't anything that I could say ""they should have done this"" to. I love the content of the film, the acting in the film and the directing of the film. I would go back and see it a thousand times. people were cheering with joy after the movie was finished. this movie touched every emotion, as it should have. I left the movie theater and started screaming because it left me feeling so satisfied. there are parts that are a bit scary, but overall I give this movie the highest rating and my props to Mike Newell.","['2', '4']" +1098,rw1223121,TheMovieMark,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),6.0,"Great for fans, but will it convert the nonbelievers?",23 November 2005,0,"""Come on Potter, what are your strengths?"" When Alastor ""Mad-Eye"" Moody, the eccentric new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, poses this question to young Harry, the young wizard's silence tells the viewer all he needs to know. ""Neither acting nor an ability to display depth or emotion,"" would have been the honest answer, but Harry's an uncommunicative type. He's scared and more than a little vulnerable. Fans spanning the universe love this about J.K. Rowling's hero.Given the fact that despite reaching the ripe old age of 14, Harry Potter's onslaught of puberty fails to help him resemble anything other than Rachel Dratch's lesbian sister, it makes sense not to portray Harry as a tough guy who instinctively knows how to take care of business. However, my movie tastes are tailored in such a way that I find it hard to root for the little dork. Give me a hero carved in the Han Solo and Clint Eastwood mold.It may have been easier to accept Potter as a non-traditional hero had he not removed his shirt. Sure, a gaggle of teenage girls in the audience ""ooh-ed,"" but the fact that Radcliffe's pasty white chest is sculpted with the musculature of a hummingbird only strengthened my opinion that he's not the type of ""hero"" I love to cheer.Now don't get me wrong; I'm not claiming this is a bad movie. It accomplishes exactly what it sets out to accomplish. The Harry Potter series just doesn't do it for me. My friends tell me that if I read the books and watch all the movies in context then I might appreciate everything more, but I don't really buy into that line of thinking. I have neither the time nor the inclination to start reading the books, so I'm more than happy to step aside and let the fans enjoy these movies to the fullest.I will admit that there are moments that I enjoyed. ""Mad-Eye"" Moody (whose eye is indeed mad and funny to boot) and his irreverent brand of tough love causes a healthy chuckle when he transfigures a bratty student into a ferret. And the scene where Harry must fight a Hungarian Horntail dragon in an arena carved into the rocky Scottish landscape is a visual treat.However, none of these was enough to keep me from rolling my eyes as we watch Harry and his friends stumble awkwardly into puberty. If you've been dying to watch the ever-annoying and always dumb-founded Ron and Hermione acknowledge a change in their feelings for each other, and if your idea of ""cute"" is watching Harry Potter dance badly then you will enjoy this much more than I did. Just try not to be creeped out when Hermione's date to the Yule Ball is the 30-year-old Viktor Krum. What in the world? Another scene I enjoyed was Voldemort's return to human form. The screen oozes atmosphere, but alas, it ends way too soon. It has been 13 years since Voldemort killed Potter's parents and he's been working very hard to regain his power. Couldn't he have had a few more minutes of screen time? However, if he knew he'd return in the form of Michael Jackson then he probably would've opted out. Look at his nose. You'll see what I mean.So what are Potter's strengths? He knows how to please his target audience. He won't win many new converts, but this 4th installment in the series will make an insane amount of money, it will send the majority of its fanbase home smiling, and J.K. Rowling will continue to wipe sweat from her brow with $100 bills (or whatever the British equivalent is) while not losing a single wink of sleep because of Johnny Betts and his little jokes.","['0', '1']" +1099,rw1219317,geebeegb1,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),6.0,I think I should have read the book.,18 November 2005,0,"I have been eagerly awaiting this movie as I was so enthralled by the first three movies. I have to say I came away a bit disappointed.The movie was full of all the wonderful Harry Potter special effects, the bantering between the students, and even introduced some teenage angst scenes expected due to the aging of the characters. However, I found myself lost when it came to the storyline.Unlike the first 3 movies, I came away from this one believing that I should have read the book first. Either that or the director was just inept at his art. The scenes seemed disjointed as if there were chunks missing. There were references to people and events I could not follow. I also found that, unlike the other movies, any accomplishments one might attribute to Harry's actions, were really due to the intervention of others.There were a number of notable performances. Hermione has grown into a lovely young lady and Ms. Watson very adequately portrayed the confusion of 14 year-old girl. Ron showed a bit of a darker side initially but eventually became the slightly quirky lad we all love. I did not enjoy Harry all that much in this movie but I am not sure if it was the story or Radcliffe's acting. Michael Gambon continues his great portrayal of Dumbledore and all the other students and teachers performed as expected.I am happy I saw the movie but it left me wanting. Perhaps I will go out and buy the book, read it, and then return to the movie. Maybe it will make more sense or convince me that the movie just doesn't live up to my expectations of the series.","['0', '1']" +1100,rw1230356,bratzdo11,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was BLOODY BRILLIANT!!!,3 December 2005,0,"OK, besides the fact that: 1. They didn't show the Veela at the World Cup. 2. The Death Eaters didn't torture the Muggle family. 3. Harry wasn't supposed to get knocked out. 4. No one fled to the woods when the Death Eaters attacked. 5. Beuxbaton was suppose to have girls and boys. 6. Fleur never talked like in the book. 7. They didn't show Hagrid talking to Madame Maxime in the rose garden, or Harry and Ron listening, or Fleur and Rodger getting it on in the bushes. 8. Hermione wasn't suppose to cry about Ron, but walk silently up to the girls' dorm. 9. Dobby was suppose to give Harry the Gilly Weed, not Neville. 10. They didn't show Winky, or any of the house elves, and they didn't mention S.P.E.W. 11. They didn't show any of the creature's in the maze.And that's all I have to complain about. Other wise, IT WAS BLOODY BRILLIANT!!!! WICKED!!! Absolutely AMAZING!!!!! Good points: 1. They put in humor and seriousness. 2. Fred and George were hilarious. 3. They chose great actors and actresses for the parts. 4. Wicked special effects. 5. The movie followed the book.OK. That's all I've got to say. BLOODY BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!","['0', '0']" +1101,rw1220638,tictactoe93,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),9.0,"Hilarious, one of the best",20 November 2005,0,"This movie is my favorite out of the series. It's hilarious and a must-see. They did leave quite a few things out that were in the book, but it was a great adaption considering the Goblet of Fire is the longest book so far. Even if you didn't read the book, the plot is pretty easy to follow and the acting is good. The trio did a great job and so did all of the new additions to the cast. (Katie Leung, Clemence Poesy, Robert Pattinson, Stanislav Ianevski) The special effects in this movie are amazing and I'd say that they were the best out of the four movies. In other words, this movie is one that you can't miss, and one you might want to go see again.","['0', '1']" +1102,rw1223586,jon.h.ochiai,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Hero Emerges,24 November 2005,0,"In ""Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire"" Harry (now older Daniel Radcliffe) arises as a hero. Though not a literary reference, Harry Potter's emergence is reminiscent of another dark hero in ""Batman Begins"". In that movie, Bruce Wayne's mentor Ducard tells his charge, ""The training is nothing! Will is everything! The will to act."" Granted aside from both movies being Warner Brothers productions, the analogy is not that far fetched. Director Mike Newell's fourth installment of the Harry Potter saga is the series' darkest and perhaps best. Harry (wonderfully played by Radcliffe) acknowledges and reclaims his greatness albeit reluctantly. He battles great evil and his own fear and insecurities through sheer will—the will to act. The evolving Radcliffe embodies his Harry with the right balance of vulnerability and courage as his character believes the best in others while acknowledging his own demons. Mike Newell masterfully crafts his hero's journey reflecting the great storytelling of author J.K. Rowling and screenwriter Steven Kloves. Hogwarts Headmaster Dumbledore advises young Harry, ""Soon we must face the choice between what is right… and what is easy."" ""Harry Potter"" under the guidance of Newell does right. It's about character.""Goblet of Fire"" opens with Harry, Hermione (Emma Watson), and Ron (Rupert Grint) attending the Quidditch World Cup. However, things go horribly wrong. The arrival of the Death Eaters and the Dark Mark in the skies foretell of the return of Lord Voldermort (malevolent Ralph Fiennes).Representatives of two other rival schools arrive at Hogwarts to participate in the Triwizard Tournament. The names of the school champions are selected from the Goblet of Fire. The competition is restricted to 17 year-olds. The three champions selected are Viktor (Stanislev Ianevski), Fleur (Clemence Poesy), and Cedric (Robert Pattison) from Hogwarts. Surprisingly The Goblet of Fire makes a fourth selection: 14 year-old Harry. All contestants must endure three challenges where they could possibly forfeit their lives. Harry has the least training of the four. Also Harry knows he must eventually face Lord Voldermort, the man who killed his parents and failed to kill Harry himself.This dark story of redemption is a compelling hero's tale. At it's emotional center is a powerful and compassionate performance by Daniel Radcliffe as Harry. He has great support from Emma Watson and Rupert Grint. Michael Gambon is perfect as the brave and wise Dumbledore. An almost unrecognizable Ralph Fiennes is a powerful force as the evil Voldermort. In ""Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire"" Radcliffe's Harry arises from the ashes like the Phoenix reclaiming and embracing his inherent greatness, and inspiring greatness in others. It is not the training or wizard's talent, rather the power he distinguishes deep inside himself that saves Harry. Harry finds the will to act, and fights great evil while reconciling his own fear.Mike Newell's ""Goblet of Fire"" establishes Harry Potter as hero. Daniel Radcliffe as Harry has emerged as a gifted and powerful young actor. May the evolving story of the wizard Harry Potter in the movies continue to transform and compel as this movie does.","['1', '1']" +1103,rw1219741,llhrnc,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),2.0,Not true to the book,19 November 2005,1,"Good acting on the part of the original cast. Rupert Grint has mastered the part of Ron. However, I don't feel that the director and screenwriter were true to the book. There are details in the movie which are much different from the book. The scene where the dark mark appears is much different from the book. Too many scenes from the book are left out of the movie. Transition from scene to scene was not smooth. Too many scenes take place without adequate information leading up to them. Those who have not read the book will be confused. Having read the book and listened to the audio-book read by Jim Dale, the movie was a tremendous disappointment.","['2', '4']" +1104,rw1219824,Sweetspiceygal,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,"Truly fantastic plot, excellent special effects, characters seem more real...bravo!!!",19 November 2005,0,"From the time I sat down at the theater until the time the lights came back on and I was exiting the theater, I was riveted to the screen. And so were both of my children, ages 4 and 7. We are huge Harry Potter fans, and this was quite an engaging movie for us. I loved the addition of characters, and the wonderful action. This movie seemed more real, with more down to earth characters. I would recommend this movie to anyone, no matter the age. It was an all around excellent way to spend a Saturday. Exceptional quality, and it was very nice to see a movie where children actually paid attention, and you did not hear anyone talking. Everyone was riveted to the screen. We are looking forward to the next installment of this wonderful series!!!","['1', '2']" +1105,rw1216040,eichelbergersports,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,"Goblet: Easily the best of the series, so far.",14 November 2005,0,"They're a little older; the direction is a little tighter; and the stories are a little darker, but the three kids remain fast friends, no matter what happens – or who comes between them.Of course, we're talking about Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and his buds, Hermoine Granger (Emma Watson) and Ron Weasley (Rupert Gint), who are now in their fourth year at the Hogwart School of Wizadry. And though not much of a Harry Potter fan myself, the action in this one was spectacular and the vision even darker as directed by Mike Newell (""Four Weddings and a Funeral,"" ""Donnie Brasco"") than part three, ""The Prisoner of Azkaban."" As per usual, sinister beings and evil magicians are pursuing Mr. Potter as he tries to complete his fourth year of school. To protect him, the academy's headmaster, Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon, ""Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow"") assigns ""Mad Eye"" Moody (Brendan Gleeson, ""Braveheart"") to protect him.Meanwhile Hogwart's has been named the host venue for the annual Tri-Wizard competition, in which the best spellbinder from each school is chosen to represent their classmates. The competition is only for those 17 years of age and over, but, somehow, the magic Goblet of Fire spews fourth 14-year-old Harry's name, as well.Forced to battle dragons, evil mermaids and a horrible, claustrophobic hedge maze, Harry discovers he is fighting much more than just his Tri-Wizard opponents. This is made quite clear when his old nemesis Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes, ""Quiz Show,"" ""Schindler's List"") re-appears to face his young conquerer.The title character is hard-pressed as usual, but finds he can get just as far by using his heart and head rather than brute force or warlock powers.While dark and atmospheric for the most part, ""Goblet"" has some fun moments, as well. The opening Quiddich World Cup – between Ireland and Bulgaria – brief as it is, is still a wonder; also the Yule Ball – in which we get a hint of who is attracted to whom – is very well done, sweetly realistic and even a bit sad.Speaking of love, the hefty Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) falls head over heels for the 7-foot-plus French school headmistress, Madame Olympe Maime, in the film's best comedic moments.The most outstanding feature of the movie, however, is the terrific cinematography (by Roger Pratt, ""Troy,"" ""Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets""). His lush landscapes, snow-covered mountain peaks, towering spires and rich, barren forests are absolute wonders to behold. Look for an Oscar nod to come Pratt's way in January.And although a bit older than the 14-year-olds portrayed in the film (Gint is two years ahead of Watson in real life), the trio seems as young and fresh-faced as the author, J.K. Rowling envisioned them in this particular episode. For actors who have really only known one part in their careers, these three make the most of the opportunity and do a fine job.Overall, though a tad slow in a few spots, the picture is a triumph of good storytelling, sincere acting, amazing cinematography and seamless special effects, making it easily the best of the four in the series, so far.","['7', '15']" +1106,rw1219797,terihu,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,David Tennant/Griffin Dunne,19 November 2005,1,"I don't know what all the complainers expected. You take a 800 page book, cram it into 154 minutes, did you really think they'd be able to get all of it in there?My kids asked me why they didn't just make a couple of movies, or a mini-series, instead of trying to get it all into one feature length movie...all I could say was it's all about the money. It would've been most likely too expensive to do it right, so they did the best they could. Yeah, it's far from perfect, but if you honestly expected perfection, you haven't seen a lot of movies lately.I have one burning question for all of you obsessive HP fans, though...I'm amazed no one else has mentioned it so far:Barty Crouch Jr. is played by Griffin Dunne in the Pensieve courtroom scene when he is arrested and brought before his father.David Tennant plays him in every other scene, including the one where he tries to sneak out of the courtroom before Karkaroff gives him up, but for some reason, they used a totally different actor in that one short sequence.Anyone know why? Did anyone else even noticed the change?It's driving me nuts, I can't find ANY information on it on the web, and I can't imagine it's something that some trivia site hasn't picked up on already.","['1', '3']" +1107,rw1222666,LokiWasAnAmateur,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),5.0,Major Disappointment,22 November 2005,0,"I wanted so badly to enjoy this. However, I cannot let my Potter fandom cloud the fact that this movie is NOWHERE near a ""10."" Now, I will admit to having held high standards walking into this movie. But that standard was set by the quality of the previous films in the Potter series. The previous three installments have been mind-blowers, so I unwittingly assumed that this would top them all.I was wrong.While visually stunning and well-directed, it simply tried to do too much, and wound up doing very little.I imagine a screenwriter's mad scramble to appease book-loving audiences, while not losing the casual viewer.The result was, quite frankly, an unfocused hodge-podge of book fragments.A short list of what didn't work for me and why: 1. The budding romance between Cho Chang and Harry was forced, at best, into awkward moments of little chemistry. This subplot needed much more development in order to be effective, because as it is, they speak to each other maybe three or four times within a three and a half hour movie. Nowhere near the screen time to warrant the attention it attempts. So essentially, this whole subplot felt like filler.2. At no point had I felt that anyone was going to ""lose themselves,"" in the final challenge. Krum, the only example that comes close to this mock threat, was under Voldemort's influence (an ambiguous leap at best, by the way). Despite Cedric's courtship of Cho Chang, I had no reason whatsoever to suspect that Harry would ""lose himself,"" as Dumbledore forewarned.3. I did not feel that there was really any threat, even from Voldemort. He seemed to be an afterthought, and the big confrontation at the end felt like a teaser to yet another sequel.Another example of missed opportunity is in the supposed threat of the tournament. Simply saying that ""wizards have died,"" in the tournament previously does not do justice to what even a single visual example can. And let's not forget that the tournament didn't even kill Cedric; Voldemort did.4. I felt that the entire opening, up until the point where the tri-wizard tournament began, was arbitrary and only served to set a mood. I feel that the set design (a major strength, in my view) and basic story did the job well enough. Not that it was badly done, but that the opening half-hour could have been used for better development of other subplots. By the end of the movie, and apparently Harry's fourth year, the audience is left scratching their heads, as no tangible chronology is provided for ANY PART of this movie.I could continue, but my point is clear: an eight-hundred page book adapted into one three and a half hour film either cuts prominent sections of the original text out of the finished product, or tries to make a mad scramble to stay relatively close to the original work.The result here, unfortunately, is a film with a lot of potential, and little else. The script is simply too unfocused, and the result is the ambiguous and underdeveloped mess this film slowly became.Maybe Mike Newell would have been wise to listen to the studio's wishes. It could well have saved this film from what it became.All in all, it was a feast for the eyes, but still only a well-directed train wreck.","['8', '14']" +1108,rw1221666,AetherTheory,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),9.0,Shortest 2.5 hour movie,21 November 2005,0,"Mike Newell is forgiven for cutting out so much detail from the book, and JK Rowling is forgiven for writing wonderfully rich books. However, fans of the book cannot help but feel like riding a roller coaster that is so fast there is no time to enjoy the ride. I predict the huge void between book and movie will spur remakes in about 10 to 20 years. Even if the movies must be 5 hours long, Harry Potter fans are willing to sit through them. This movie doesn't get a 10 because it leaves me feeling like something is missing, but it does deserve a 9 for being the best possible portrayal of the book given a 2.5 hour limitation. All said and done, this is the shortest 2.5 hour movie I have ever watched.","['59', '82']" +1109,rw1226052,majic-5,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),6.0,"Action, action, action!",27 November 2005,1,"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is the longest book in the Harry Potter series: 734 pages. When the movie adaptation was first discussed, the plan was to make two movies out of the book, to give room for all the sub-plots and emotional development of the characters. The filmmakers should have stuck with plan A. Although the movie is visually spectacular and action-packed, the film suffers from the editing required to squeeze the massive book into a single movie.The special effects and CGI of the film are seamlessly integrated with the live action, making for stunning visual magic (and for a production budget of $150 million, you should expect nothing less). I couldn't help but hold my breath during the sequence where Harry battled a Hungarian horn-tailed dragon. I jumped a bit when the mer-people attacked Harry while he was underwater, rescuing his friends. And the scene of the evil Lord Voldemort's reincarnation made my skin crawl.But good visuals are only part of the movie. In the previous three installments of the HP saga, the emotional bond and development of the intrepid trio of Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, and Hermione Granger made for sympathetic characters. The compaction of the Goblet of Fire book squeezed most of the life out of the characters, despite the film's focus on issues of teenage romantic angst. Harry, in particular, came off as bland. Although this may be partly due to condensing the book, I wonder if Dan Radcliffe, who plays Harry, simply doesn't have the skills to both make Harry a wizardly action hero and a flesh-and-blood person with so much action demanded of him. Ron Weasley comes off the best, seeming the most like a real, male teenager: filled with conflicting emotions about his friends, fear and ignorance about girls, and grunting as a substitute for talking. Plus, Rupert Grint, who portrays Ron, shows a deft comic touch.Brendon Gleeson, who plays Alastor ""Mad-Eye"" Moody, the Professor of Defense Against the Dark Arts, is also a hoot. Gleeson walks the tightrope between wanting to protect his students and coming completely unhinged from the accumulated trauma of fighting dark magic all his life. He can go from entertaining his students to scaring the living daylights out of them and back before they can catch their breaths. In his best scene, he is fiercely protective of Harry, inappropriate, and scandalously funny, all at the same time.The portrayal of Dumbledore, however, is completely inconsistent with the prior films. He's devolved from Richard Harris' calm, wise, benevolent, and subtle 2000-yr-old headmaster to Michael Gambon's moody, uncertain, and twitchy bundle of nerves -- like a robed Al Pacino on a bad day. In the first three Potter films, I could easily believe that Voldemort would fear Dumbledore's skill and cunning. Now, I'm equally certain that Voldemort could dispense with Dumbledore by paralyzing him with his own indecision.As a piece of teenage entertainment, the movie is several cuts about the pack of typical action flicks aimed as this age group. In addition to the great production values, I think teens will relate to the awkwardness in dating protocols and rituals. The loyalty that the three friends display despite their growing pains and Harry's moral fortitude under duress provide good role modeling. But as an adult, I wanted more meat on the bones of this part of the saga.","['0', '0']" +1110,rw1222312,JAZZyie,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,Great but not Amazing,22 November 2005,1,"I saw the film on the day of release. i was so excited and couldn't wait much longer so i was glad to get tickets (the last 2). But i was disappointed with the fact that there was no Mrs Weasly or Ludo Bagman although the way the film is panned out he isn't needed. but it is very rushed in the beginning the rest of the film is a bit mixed speed, slow in places but rushed in the next. I know that they had to fit a long book in to a watchable film but there are some things that they cut they shouldn't of like how Barty JR became Prof Moody it was never explained clearly why he was Moody and not really Barty JR. and they didn't need to do all the flying around the roof tops with the dragon (but it was good) i'm also upset that there was actual swearing not just the normal ""Bloody Hell"" i did enjoy it but it wasn't to the book totally like they promised so if u want it to the book you may be disappointed","['1', '1']" +1111,rw1221589,The_Rogue_Phoenix,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),1.0,"It was all a let down, save for Neville",21 November 2005,0,"Despite the fact that the third Harry Potter movie was deeply disappointing, I was going to give this one a chance. There was a new director, so I was not going to judge without seeing the movie. One look at the trailers and I figured, this movie ought to be pretty good. I was proved more than wrong. Based on the choppy scenes with no genuine transitions and lack of continuity, the movie itself seemed like one big trailer that would be promoting the ""real film."" I find it hard to believe that anyone who had not read the books could follow along in the beginning at all. I was very let down within the first ten minutes of the movie. At least the last one was able to keep me happy for half an hour. The only reason I continued watching was because I paid 6.50 for my ticket and I figured they could not butcher it more than they already had.I knew from the first scene that they had gone and rewritten it again when I saw the ""third"" man in the room with Voldemort and Wormtail. I knew straight away what they had done and that by placing Barty Crouch Junior in the room they would be able to magically write out the house elves. That is the moment that I knew they ruined what makes the Harry Potter series so great, the mystery. In the first ten minutes they managed to write out all of the mystery, which is what makes the books worth reading. Harry was never supposed to prematurely know that Crouch Junior was alive, that is half of the shock at the end of the book. The movies without that mystery turn into cheap fantasy thrillers with a bit of teenage drama.The beginning is probably one of the main reasons I intensely dislike this movie. Then what angered me further was the unnecessary scenes that were lengthened or inserted into the movie for ""action."" For example, the chase scene with the dragon which lasted a good seven or eight minutes long could have been taken out for its useless (intended to be) climax of action. In the book, Harry never left the arena and that scene in the movie was completely ridiculous with them climbing on the roof of the castle. Then there was the scene when the other schools arrived and there was like a five minute show they put on that was completely meaningless. It was like a circus performance and had nothing to do with the plot whatsoever. They could have kept the dragon scene like it is in the book and took out the little performances by the other schools and then done a little more work on the beginning and end. The end more so because they left out parts integral to the next book. They failed to have Dumbledore explain what exactly Prior Incantatem was and why Voldemort and Harry's wands failed to work against one another. It was also never stated that the ministry refuses to believe that Voldemort is back, and that is the most important information because the entire fifth book is based around the fact that almost no one believes Harry that Voldemort is back. Although not as major as the last bit of ""forgotten"" information, they also left out how Dumbledore was rallying old friends to start fighting against Voldemort, the triwizard winnings and how Harry gave them to Fred and George, and they even left loose ends. They began the Rita Skeeter story line but they never concluded it, they just stopped mentioning or showing her halfway through the movie. I'm sure they did such a cut for time, but Rita skeeter plays a roll in the next book when Harry tries to convince the wizarding world of the truth. Now all of that is only most of the reasons I hated it. If anyone wishes to discuss further or ask more detailed questions you can e-mail me at padfoot_3@yahoo.com.There was one thing I DID enjoy in the movie and that was Neville. Everything else was absolutely dreadful whether it was the acting, the writing, or the cuts, but Neville I loved. In fact I like his character more than I used to due to this movie. Ron was my favorite character (in the books) but now he is tied for first with poor Neville. I am also saddened that most of the real Harry Potter comedy is written out of the movies and they insert corny movie comedy. All the comedy the story needs is in Fred and George and they always leave any of their scenes on the cutting room floor. Or maybe they don't even consider including them. As a Harry Potter fan and a moviegoer, this movie was atrocious and I will never recommend watching this movie. It was a waste of time that could have been put to better use. If anyone does feel compelled to watch it I suggest not paying to see it, borrow it from the library and fast forward over all parts except any scene in which Neville plays a part (which is only about five scenes). I will reiterate how tragic Neville always seems and this makes him more likable.I would just like to say that as a person who never watches football and has never liked it, I would have spent my time better had I watched the Ohio State vs. Michigan game instead. To anyone who e-mails me, I will gladly reply. If you read this entire comment, then kudos to you.","['27', '49']" +1112,rw1223351,gandalf_79,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),5.0,"Good Movie, but I am not happy",23 November 2005,0,"I had really high hopes when it came to seeing HP4, but I wasn't happy with the end result. Now I am not saying that it's a bad movie, I will probably go and see it again. But I LOVED the book SO much and wish there was some more of it in the movie. The story went by incredibly fast, first task, ball, second task, third task.Here are a few of the things I wish had made it:The first half of the book!!!!!!!!! The letter from the Weasley's, the floo powder fascia, and the World Cup!!!!Molly Weasley, there is a great part there at the end where she comforts Harry and he feels like it is the first time someone has held him like a mother.More Rita Skeeter.Well I have had my rant, go and watch the movie and enjoy it, I did and will again just frustrated about a few things.","['2', '3']" +1113,rw1219243,Aberlass,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,"Hackneyed Pantomime and The Graceless, ostentatious Foray!",18 November 2005,1,"'The Goblet of Fire' is the most traditionally exciting (a maze, dragons, mermaids, flying horses) of all the Harry Potter books, so expectations for this film are greater than for the other films. I expected to see Screen magic. Once Mike Newell had decided which plots to omit completely he should have made up for loss of comedy (Dursleys, House Elves), proved to be a success in the other films, but he didn't. The result is reminiscent of Director Chris Columbus's handling of the 1st film, 'The Philosopher's Stone', which was almost impossible to follow unless having read the book first. Of the three Directors to make the Harry Potter films, it was the Director whose first language was not English, who made the most complete and professional film - what does this mean?The Worst Bits: Newell has not understood the heart/pulse of 'The Goblet of Fire' and treats it as a Pantomime of Goodies and Baddies! What? It is a Theme that is utterly annoying and destroys credibility: the constant, unrelenting flicking of tongues (like a snake), which signify the Baddies. This is too immature a device for a film of this calibre and it's shocking the actors did not know better, nor the Editor! But it's the music that kills the audience's relationship with the film. Patrick Doyle's replacement music for the much over-used John Williams is irritating, intrusive and antiquated; all wrong for the images it is meant to support. The combination of annoying music, bits of stories, lacklustre makeup, boring costumes and minimal comedy is an odd mess. Moreover, there are Veela (alluring Beauxbatton Sirens) in this film and only once was this utilised, mainly there are lots of provocative images of boys (poor Harry in the bath)! You'd never guess that Newell went to an all-boys school (sarcasm)! It's like a bad 'Tom Brown's School Days' Opera Video! It is time a female Director took charge of the franchise to stop the films becoming a Tim Burton issues retrospective; after all, a woman created Harry Potter! Is Nora Ephron available?The Best Bits: The special effects were better than in previous films, but isolated, unexplained (my audience laughed when the Durmstrang boat submerged ""Look, it's sunk!"" someone shouted). The Quiddich World Cup and the Yule Ball looked wonderful, so it was sad that nothing was shown, not even the outfits (apart from Hermione's)! The only redeeming aspect of this film (which makes it worth watching) is the acting; in particular: - Emma Watson, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Frances de la Tour and Oliver & James Phelps. These six actors carry the whole film in a way that they never have in the previous Potter films, because this time they under-acted, using emotion as a tool of radiance. Plus, Rickman gives the impression of knowing what will happen to Snape in book seven (he didn't flick his tongue)! Newell will go down in history as The One who spoiled the Final Book for everyone!My Rating: Film/Movie 7/10, Special Effects 9/10, Acting 9/10, Makeup & Costume 4/10, Music 2/10, Directing 5/10, Editing 3/10, Screenplay 7/10, Cinematography 6/10.Certification: UK Law states that scenes of children being stabbed, with blood evident must make this a 12A. Everything else in the film children will probably have seen before. This film is nowhere near as horrific as 12A 'The Brothers Grimm' (parents removed their little children when they saw how sick this film is). The main reason that 'Goblet of Fire' is unsuitable for under 12yrs old is because they will be bored (in my Cinema, little ones running about playing, not watching film)! Why See This Film: Because you love Harry Potter or always watch fantasy films or because you like to see Special Effects on the Big Screen. Preferably read the book, so you can follow the story (bits in film not explained by end, but are in the book), and then don't compare the film to the book! If you want a rewarding Harry Potter film, then see 'Prisoner of Azkaban'.","['2', '4']" +1114,rw1224433,midea156,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),5.0,"Good as a movie, terrible as a book-movie adaptation",25 November 2005,1,"For starters, as a movie, this is easily the best of the Harry Potter movies so far. The acting has obviously improved from the first three and the scenery, breathtaking in it's own right, stayed consistent with prior movies (unlike the scenery from Chamber of Secrets to Prisoner of Azkaban). The special effects made the movie seem otherworldly yet believable and the characters had a depth that was somewhat missing in previous installments.That being said, as a movie adaptation of a book, this was easily the worst of the Harry Potter movies.Barty Crouch Jr was unrecognizable as the same character from the book. In the book, we were supposed to pity him, when he was dragged into court kicking and begging, pleading, screaming for mercy. We were supposed to feel angry at his father for exclaiming that Junior was ""no son of mine."" Not so in the movie. Junior is too obviously evil to give us any feeling of pity.Besides that, nothing of how he escaped from Azkaban was mentioned. It was the biggest question on everyone's lips in the previous book and movie: How did Sirius Black escape from Azkaban? But here, it's a throwaway question, nothing of importance.The Quiddich World cup, one of the most fun parts of the book, was introduced then dropped, and S.P.E.W. (the Society for the Protection of Elfish Welfare) was completely cut, along with the House-elves in general. Ludo Bagman and his piece of the story (which added depth) was dropped, along with the 1,000 Galleon prize that Harry gets for winning the Triwizard Tournament, which will create problems for the next director when he tries to explain how the twins will finance their joke shop.Voldemort, while looking and sounding much like he came off as in the book, was far too insane, not nearly as calm and collected as he was in the story. It was how calmly Voldemort discussed the punishment of his Death Eaters for not finding him, how calmly he planned to kill Harry, how calmly he acted and spoke, that made him so frightening and unnerving. I found it difficult to imagine him killing so many people; he was just too crazy.Overall, a good movie, yes. It was fun to watch and interesting to see. But it left a mess for the next director and made a mess of the book, which definitely lowered my opinion of it. If you're going to watch it as a book to movie adaptation, I'd recommend that you watch something else. If you're looking for a good movie and don't mind if it doesn't fit the book, then go ahead and watch it.","['0', '0']" +1115,rw1235233,candydevil666,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),6.0,Disappointing and Unexpected,10 December 2005,1,"Some find it fantastic, others not so fantastic. I am not the only person to find this film quite disappointing. Many fans of J.K. Rowling would consider it rushed and not true to the book. The first two films were great. Hogwarts looked the same and so did the uniforms. Suddenly Hogwarts looked different in the third film. The courtyard changed, a bridge appeared, The Whomping Willow changed positions (and size), the Fat Lady changed actresses, Hagrid's hut changed position and the uniforms appeared in a different design. In the first film, Hermione's hair was true to the book - big and bushy. In the second film, it was still long, but no longer bushy and instead in crimps. By the third film, her hair had been cut short and was in messy curls. But by The Goblet of Fire, the films have changed completely. The Quidditch pitch is on a rocky cliff, and Hogwarts is built on the side of a mountain. Some major characters and elements were cut from the film. What happened to Dobby and Hermione's SPEW obsession? What happened to Ludo Bagman? The whole film was rushed to a halt at the graveyard in the third task. The dreadful screenplay hides the good acting, of Emma Watson in particular. If a book such as Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is to be made into a film, it should be done to its best. If making two films was necessary in order to end up with a good result, it should have been done. People expect so much work to go into the Harry Potter films. Staying true to the book is so important. I hope the fifth film can live up to fans' expectations.","['1', '3']" +1116,rw1223147,novinson,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),6.0,"Way too dark, cast remains great but Newell must go",23 November 2005,1,"Everyone I know that has seen this (7 so far)has been disappointed. Not all have read the book but all share the same disappointment. One of those that saw it with us commented that it seemed like a rush from plot point to plot point like someone was checking off a list.There was no comparison between this film's composer and John Williams.It needs another half hour and another director. Everything is too rushed but most of all it needs the balance that was in the book. Cutting out Hermoine's crusade was a big mistake. It would have been a much better film with it. Were they trying to save a few bucks in the CGI? The cast does a great job and the special effects are excellent for the most part. It is a low point in what has been a great series.The loss of Richard Harris was offset by Alphonso Cuaron's great job of directing Azkeban. Michael Gambon is not the same Dumbledore and that is really evident with this director.We can only hope that the next one will be a little more magical. They could start by buying some lights, paying John Williams anything he wants to come back and getting rid of Newell. They could also spring for more than one outfit for Gambon. He looks like he got into make-up and shot everything in one day.","['1', '1']" +1117,rw1220596,simultaneous_release,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),1.0,Do Not See This Movie!,20 November 2005,0,"Personally I think this is the weakest of the Harry Potter Films released, But one of the best books so far, How on Earth could the Director get the Picture so wrong???? I felt permanently detached from everything, I even started to count the Carpet tiles on the Celing. So much was wrong with this film!!! A real let down!! For anyone not acquainted with the Harry Potter Book series may find this film very disorientating and jumpy, those book fans out there will realise that they have chopped and changed the story around, and, as you will all be glad to hear, left all the good parts out. So if you wish to go see this movie I beg of you not to get those hopes up, As for the high rating on IMDb I have no idea!","['18', '36']" +1118,rw1218989,maatmouse,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,Dark Times ahead indeed,18 November 2005,1,"Easily the best and the funniest in the Harry Potter series, this film really is brilliant! What makes it as well is its intensity. The danger factor has been enhanced from the book considerably, as evident in Harry's battle with his dragon during the first task of the Triwizard Tournament. The book merely has Harry riding around a bit to avoid the dragon but the film has the dragon breaking it's restraints and following Harry around the school's turrets in an attempt to roast him alive. The action is definitely better with the special effects used in the telling of the story rather than overused.One bug bear about this movie: I'm not sure that Daniel Radcliffe and some of his actor friends are going to last the distance on this series. They are all definitely older and its far more noticeable, particularly in the case of Rupert and Daniel. Both seem to have grown up at an alarming rate (particularly in Ron's use of language). The challenge for the next films (should Daniel and Rupert continue with them) is going to continue to retain the age and experience perspective relevant to the character (Harry is supposed to be 14 in this film, but he appears to be a bit older both in appearance and attitude but thankfully, no facial hair yet). That said, the teenage raging hormone factor is extremely funny, particularly in their sparring with Hermione and her decision to go to the Yule Ball with a rival to Harry in the Tournament. This annoys Ron very much and leaves him to wonder why he never viewed Hermione in this way before. Other funny moments include Harry's visit to the Prefects' bathroom to find out the secret inside his golden egg (a close encounter with Moaning Myrtle ensures). This sequence particularly highlights the actor and the character's age although Daniel does cut quite a figure underneath the school uniform (he must have been working out).That said, all the signs are that this series will continue in a very successful vein and I hope it does. I also hope all of the cast continue with it, as to cast anyone else in their parts would have a detrimental effect and I don't think any other actors can play Harry, Ron and Hermione quite as well. Their character dynamic together is both hilarious and quite charming. Other characters have also matured considerably, especially the Neville Longbottom character who has grown out of being the constant fall guy.","['6', '11']" +1119,rw1218972,AntigoneReborn,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),5.0,Eeehhhh.....,18 November 2005,1,"Okay, I have to admit, I didn't start out as a Harry Potter fan. It wasn't until the first movie came out, and my friend tricked me into going, that I became a devotee. I remember sitting in the theater, enthralled as i watched this magical story unfold. Quidditch, dragons, and the Magical feel of Hogwards had me racing to the store for the books. It was then I entered the Wizarding world. I loved it. As the books progressed, getting darker and more adult, my love of the series grew. My love of the movies however... have not. I'm picky i guess. I think that overall the movies were okay, but none of them to date have given me that magical feeling the first one did. Goblet of Fire came close though. I was disappointed at first, there was no beginning confrontation with the Dursley's, which i admit i had been looking forward to. Bagman was done away with. The World Cup was reduced to nearly 20 seconds. Since Bagman had been done away with, there was no set up for Weasley's Wizarding Wheezes. So very much was left out that I felt was needed to make the future story complete. Once i tried to forget that I had indeed read the book though, i started to enjoy it a bit more. I was really upset though over the status of Hogwarts. It's gone from looking like a magical castle, to looking like a dingy, dank and depressing place. Ah well. Here's to hoping Phoenix will make up for it.","['1', '2']" +1120,rw1251456,yildizbolat,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),,The weakest Harry Potter movie until now.,31 December 2005,0,"I saw the movie and I think it is the weakest HP movie until now. Mike Newell really made a mock of the book and characters. And there are differences between the book and the movie which can't be explained in the future movies. What is Barty Crouch Jr doing in the beginning of the movie? Where is Dobby and the other house-elf? And so many inaccurate things that I can't remember all. I read the book many times and hoped that the movie will be great too, but it's not even good. I would like to see Peter Jackson directing one of the future HP movies. He proved he's capable with LOTR, I am curious what he would do with HP.","['0', '0']" +1121,rw1219051,gnorbury,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,Don't expect the whole book just a fun & exciting movie.,18 November 2005,1,"Although I'm not sure if realistic is the correct word, this is definitely the most realistic rendition of Hogwarts we've seen on film. The cgi work is a little subdued and blends in with this film in a much cleaner way than one might be used to. In fact Goblet almost makes the first movie (and almost any recent movie that's heavy on sfx) look like Who Framed Roger Rabbit. In fact, I'd say these movies are starting to look as good as Lord of the Rings, but just starting. It really is a beautiful picture to behold. The establishing shots are truly majestic and the tighter settings are well detailed. This is the Harry Potter film that has come the closest to matching what my minds eye pictures when I read the books.The cast is excellent as usual. Emma will remind you of the Hermione from the book more than ever. Although her previous interpretations worked quite well in the other movies, real Potterheads will appreciate the subtle differences in this performance. You'll get a couple of overacting alerts from Radcliffe and Fiennes but it does fit with the enormity of what the characters are feeling. Unfortunately, fans of Alan Rickman and Maggie Smith will only catch brief glimpses of their great skills with Snape and Minerva.Of course it wasn't perfect, how can it be without being the length of a mini-series. Even at a running time of 2 &1/2 hours all they were able to fit was the core story of the Triwizard tournament and the return of the nemesis. There are no elves, no Durstleys, no Bagman, no Charlie & Bill, no blast ended skrewts, no trips to Hogsmede, and I'm sure there's plenty more I don't recall right now. On top of that, you only get a brief glimpse of a couple of classes, a short conversation with Sirius, and Rita Skeeter (who's story arc they never really finish) is downgraded to a minor aggravation to the heroes. You do get more of the Twins (the character's I most identify my high school disposition with), more Neville (although they do leave out a couple of major details about him), more Myrtle (maybe a little more than you need but it's very funny), more romance (though mostly teen lust), and more action.It is a movie that fans (especially fans of the books) will have to relax into. After the first scene (another moment that matched my own vision perfectly) which seems to be rendered directly from the book, you get the feeling that they're rushing you through the story. Although the fast pace of events doesn't stop, the feeling that you're being rushed does subside when the setting changes to Hogwarts. When the tournament starts, your only thoughts are on the action and the seamless visual effects. Overall it's damn entertaining and well worth the price of admission. -G","['1', '2']" +1122,rw1223803,rkoffer-1,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire- the best one yet!,24 November 2005,0,"It was more ""to the book"" than the third movie, and was very funny- mainly because of Rupert Grint, James Phelps, and Oliver Phelps. Although the Ron-Hermione relationship was not highlighted as much in this movie, the movie was still great. Each member of the trio has become a better actor. There were only a few unnecessary moments that were inappropriate for younger children. Although the movie is about two hours and forty- five minutes, the length is not noticeable, especially to a true Harry Potter fan. The movie consists of constant entertainment- there was never a dull moment. At all times, the movie was either action packed or laugh-out-loud funny. I highly recommend it to all.","['1', '2']" +1123,rw1221282,arcxer,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,Enjoyment level lower then expected,21 November 2005,1,"Well, it looks like WB decided to save some money on production of this one. They probably thought: ""Hey, the fans are addicted already, they'll go see it anyway."" So, they cut some corners. What a shame! It is understandable that the book is too big to fit into one movie, but cutting plot lines and abbreviating should still produce logically complete picture. But this one -- looks like they overdid it with the cutting. It looked like they made it a set of visual illustrations for the book. Spectacular, but incomplete and quite incomprehensible without reading it.For example, what that with Barty Crouch Sr.? So, HP found him in the woods, either dead or unconscious, and then what? Did he say to anybody about it or just left him there? The next scene Harry walks into Dumbledore's office like nothing happened.Overall, I'm little disappointed. It felt like it was too short, just sort of extended teaser. Where's the real movie then?","['3', '5']" +1124,rw1228057,top_notch181,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,readers beware,30 November 2005,1,"First thing i have to say is that Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is the best Harry Potter film by far, and the choice of Mike Newell as director has paid off, giving the movie a darker and more well knit and composed feel than the movies by Chris Columbus and Alfonso Cuaron. But if you're a fan who's read all six books then prepare to be disappointed as the book has many elements and characters that are left out in the movie that might leave some shocked and annoyed, but is sometimes necessary in a movie adaption that was already stretched for nearly three hours. As a reader myself, i enjoyed the interesting interpretation the movie gave for the characters and some of the scenes that i had awaited eagerly to see on film, but was disappointed at the lack of involvement of some important characters in the fourth book, and the slight sensation that everything was being rushed through, the most obvious example being Barty Crouch's death left unexplained, as well as the manner in which Harry escaped from Voldemort being left unexplained too. Overall, i recommend it for both fans and interested cinema goers, and i can't wait for the next movie.","['0', '0']" +1125,rw1223527,zodraz,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,short film from a long book,23 November 2005,0,"Concise edited highlights, although what was kept in was done very well. Although the film is two and a half hours, there are some very abrupt cuts from one scene to another, and a lot is out of sequence. That said, there are some scenes which are directly from the book, while others are similar but missing a key point - when the boys are oggling the Beauxbaton girls, Hermione has a good retort - ""if you too would like to put yours eyes back in"" instead we just get a shot of her looking annoyed. One or two changes which I liked were the dance lessons, and the rebirth of Voldemort. Some of the things I disliked were very obvious mistakes, like Voldemort having normal eyes, the cup being made of crystal instead of silver, Amos having no beard, a lot of missing characters, wormtail cutting off his hand with no reaction, he should be writhing on the ground in pain and so on. I dislike changes being made to the story for no apparent reason. There is very little in the books that would not work on screen, and having read Steve Kloves scripts for the first three films I think he did a very good job. Pity we did not see his script on screen. I still think each book should be done as a mini series to cover all the details and bring to life jo's wonderful dialogue.","['6', '10']" +1126,rw1223062,mindcrime79,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),9.0,Best of the four so far!,23 November 2005,0,"I am a huge fan of the Harry Potter novels and was somewhat disappointed with the Azkaban film since I felt a lot of the necessary content was cut. Although quite a bit of the story had to be cut for Goblet of Fire as well, I believe this script was better. The movie concentrated on the important aspects of the story such as the changing relationships and Harry's growth into a teenager. The special effects were absolutely wonderful and I think they make great casting choices. Daniel, Rupert and Emma are becoming quite good actors and I hope that they remain for the remaining films. Goblet of Fire is full of action and humor and is well worth the money. My only complaint is that it is somewhat hard to follow if you haven't read the books. My mother had a hard time keeping track of some of the new characters since they don't get a lot of screen time. The role of Barty Crouch was cut a little too much and you don't get much of a sense of who he is. Overall, it is an excellent movie and I think it is the best Harry Potter movie yet!!","['0', '0']" +1127,rw1244464,lil_m1ss_un1ver5e,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Harry's Back and Better Than Ever!,22 December 2005,1,"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is by far the best of the series so far, With superb special effects and an even better story line than the others it proves to be an excellent family favorite! Although this movie is a lot darker than the others featuring the return of Lord Voldemort and then death of one of harry's friends, But it was overall a great movie! I thought that this movie wouldn't be any good because lately the director of each movie has varied...but all directors stuck to the books, well most of it anyway, As a big fan of the book i was slightly disappointed by all the stuff that was missing although all the vital stuff seemed to be there, if you only want to watch an exact interpretation of the wondrous books then this isn't it, it tells the story just a well as J.K Rowling wrote it but in less detail.All The Favourite Characters are in the movie including some new ones, Draco Malfoy who is one of the favorite bad boys in the film has a limited part but does make appearances! And....Harry finally asks out a girl! It has finally happened even though it turns out to be a doomed relationship we all have to start somewhere! Overall i give this movie an 8, it was done really well and the teenage actors have grown up and are finally ready to play more advanced roles, it is a great movie and i recommend it for all Harry Potter fans!!!","['0', '0']" +1128,rw1220719,elleemmdubya,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Harry must compete in a deathly dangerous tournament when a mysterious someone puts his name into the Goblet of Fire.,20 November 2005,0,"The best movie I've ever seen! It had some parts missing, but it had excellent animation, and everything that had to be there was. As the kids get older and more attractive, they also get better at acting. It had the best effects I had possibly ever seen, and it was great. They were all SO lifelike! There are so many themes in this movie that it can be great for anyone. The PG13 rating was a tad obsessive, but I don't know, I suppose it could scare a few kids. The ever popular bath scene was one that might worry a few parents too, but hey, he didn't look too bad either. You don't see anything, just his chest, so don't worry. So go see this movie. Right now. It will rock your socks off to no end.","['0', '1']" +1129,rw1220122,jgarrick,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,Best Potter Yet,20 November 2005,0,"I'd hate to face the task of condensing a 700 page book into a movie - even a two and a half hour movie, but they've managed pretty well with this installment of the adventures of Harry Potter.For fans of the movies, you'll find this installment a little darker, a little grittier, and a little more involving. The characters are growing up and are now facing more adult situations with more adult outlooks.For fans of the books, you should find this adaptation a commendable reflection of Rowling's tale. Naturally, some parts had to be modified or cut entirely - there's no way to avoid that without making it a 10 hour movie - but the parts that were cut were either not critical to the story line, or will be easy to account for in the films to come. Unless you're an obsessive nitpicker about every last detail, you should find this a satisfactory film version of Goblet of Fire.Goblet of Fire works well as a stand-alone film, as a film version of Rowling's book, and is in my opinion quite easily the best Potter movie yet.","['285', '491']" +1130,rw1219570,Merenbootygirl,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,Let's be reasonable,19 November 2005,1,"I watched the 12 a.m. showing of this movie as well. Unlike many other fans, I thoroughly enjoyed it. I have read all Harry Potter books more than once, so am very familiar with the series. Yes, I do feel, like others, that the beginning of the movie moved pretty quickly in comparison to the novel. However, what can we really expect? I felt the director did a good job in displaying integral parts. The emphasis of the movie was placed on the most important themes: the maturing of the characters, and the full emergence of Voldermort. The director did an excellent job in capturing the awkward feelings of teenagers in that age, and the end seen was played out exactly how I imagined it. He achieved the task of leaving that eerie feeling looming for the audience to wonder ""what will happen next"". As Hermione says, ""Everything is going to change now, isn't it"". (This not being a spoiler as the line is in the trailer) Only thing: I believe too much emphasis was directed to a certain character that should not have been suspected at all in the movie. Yes, there were many enjoyable details left out that us readers may have liked to see play out. Fortunately, Rowling has a talent of writing incredibly intricate books. There is no way they would have been able to create a movie that would do the novel justice in 2 1/2 hours time. I believe the director made good choices in the cutting of the novel. If you enjoy the movies and have not read the books...I can definitely say: YOU'RE MISSING OUT! However, for the audience members who are simply looking for good magical fun..they will definitely get that from watching any of the Harry Potter movies. The basic themes are displayed..and the movies are cohesive enough for non-readers to understand the main plot. The graphics are amazing, the cinematography incredible, and the whole movie completely entertaining and enjoyable from the beginning to the end. I definitely recommend this movie...but it may not be for the small ones due to some dark themes. Enjoy!","['0', '1']" +1131,rw1222638,ciderjam,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),,Underwhelmed,22 November 2005,1,"After viewing the fourth installment of the Harry Potter series, I've found myself in the minority. For the first time in the series, I did NOT read reviews of the film before seeing it myself. Whether that is the reason for my disappointment with the newest ""Potter"" adaptation or not, I must say it was my least favorite of the four.The first three had a fluidity of storytelling that ""Goblet"" did not. I can assure you that I had as much anticipation about the film as the next fan, but throughout the film I found myself emotionally unengaged, wondering when ""a cool part"" would happen. It's difficult to elaborate on what I mean without giving spoilers, but suffice it to say there are a number of subplots which are left underdeveloped, an annoying amount of screen time is dedicated to silly, pre-pubescent melodrama, and the climactic scene in which Voldemort (I've probably misspelled it) is seen in full form is weak. I honestly find it perplexing that so many of the reviews now are praising Ralph Fiennes for portraying ""he-who-should-not-be-named"" so well. One review I read of a 16-year-old fan said, ""I thought Voldemort would be faceless..."" I share the 16-year-old's disappointment. Oh well...Of course I will be in line on opening day when ""Phoenix"" arrives in theaters, but until then, I can definitely say I'll be indulging Chapters 1-3 of the saga and not so much chapter 4.","['0', '0']" +1132,rw1219850,nitaant,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),6.0,Thoughts on the Goblet of Fire Movie,19 November 2005,0,"The direction was decent, they spent some dough on the special FX you can see as the FX are quite well done.Gets an 8Screenplay is good, the angles are well played.Gets an 8The overall quality of acting, was decent. But by the standards of what a harry potter movie, and that said one with a large budget, the acting on whole was below standard. Emma Watson did a good job, above average actually. Daniel Radcliffe was terrible. All he showed was nervousness and sweatiness throughout the movie, almost never changing. His laughter was visibly faked. IMO they should have chosen better,this guy cant act.Ron Weasly was decent, and the rest were decent as well. However,you would expect much better of a movie based on a book of such calibre.4/10 for the acting.The editing was terrible.Avid Harry Potter book readers would curse when they saw the material that was cut out.The Quidditch world cup was reduced to a 5 minute scene, with no Quidditch shown at ALL, and the death eater/dark mark scene was cut very short and small important information such as Crouch's house elf were left out.The commencing of the school was reduced to almost 15 seconds, with 2 other competing schools entering what looked like the first day of school. Very rushed beginning. Editing 4/10Costumes. On the whole, i was impressed with the costumes. Hagrid, Madam Maxime, filch, harry,the Weasley brothers, all wore suitable and interesting attire. Dumbledore however, did not fit his ""grand"" description from the books. HE looked shabbily dressed. The death eater masks were pitiable. They looked evil creatures right out of an infant's book. The hats were atrocious. Costumes - 7/10Voldemort - For lack of any possible knowledge/idea on how else he could have been shown, ill give Voldemorte's costume/face a 9/10. He did look evil in certain scenes. However, his nostrils looked more comic than scary. Voldemort-8/10Voldemorte's acting and self-carriage was unfitting,however. Certain scenes he was seen to, after for example mending Wormtails hand, to move back and look at worm tail almost looking for Wormtail's word on whether it was OK or not or if he should change it. His air was unsuitable for a dark lord. He was not confident and grand/dark enough.Madeye moody's eye was atrocious. It looked like the plastic eye stuck onto my teddy's face. A red or green eye that was fixated within the eye socket would have made a tremendous difference.Decent movie for a medium budget movie,but rather disappointing since it was high budget, wont watch it again any time soon6/10","['0', '2']" +1133,rw1232012,spoiledbrat-2,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,THis movie is great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,4 December 2005,0,"This movie was great!!!!!!!! My sister and I saw it together! Shes in love with Harry Potter as much as me! I think everyone would really like it. If your into the magic and you love sometimes a little bit scary but a beautiful movie. The scenes are just so pretty and most of the time so colorful. If you haven't seen the movie yet you have to hit the movie theater and see it as soon as possible! If you've seen the other Harry Potter movies and now see this one, the characters have grown up so much. The music is so soft and then gets loud sometimes when magic occurs. PLease if you didn't see it yet go and see this wonderful movie that you will love forever!!!!!!","['0', '0']" +1134,rw1236201,MotorbikeMaintainanceGuy,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),3.0,Severely lacking in detail!,8 December 2005,0,"I was extremely surprised at how well-liked this movie is amongst IMDb users - who are some of the harshest critics I know.I thought this movie was appalling. Not because of the acting, all cast members did wonderfully - particularly Daniel Radcliffe as Potter, Emma Watson as Hermione, Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and Robert Pattinson as Diggory. The special effects were a huge improvement on the sadly pathetic dementors of the third movie, and although there were some minor issues I had with appearances - Ron's hair was ... not well received, neither was Moody's eye, and for me, Michael Gambon cannot do Dumbledore well because Richard Harris did such an OUTSTANDING job, but he gets points for effort.My issue with the film was the lack of detail. Rita Skeeter and the trouble she causes was completely ommitted, except for one scene, vital clues about Longbottom's family aren't connected, and where the hell was Dobby? And Winky? And important stuff about Crouch? I understood the movie only because I had read the book, my friend who had not read it (and yes, not everybody slogs through Harry Potter) did not understand Crouch well. The subplots - of which there were many - were focused on quickly - snapshots of each subplot, which is, frankly, not good enough. The directors and screenplay writers NEED to decide what they are ommitting, and what they are keeping, and not show the audience pieces of everything. Yes, the fourth book was a big book, but the fifth was bigger. The fifth movie will now have to recap the fourth in addition to its huge plots and subplots.The actors did marvellously, and I commend them on a good performance despite a terrible screenplay.","['1', '2']" +1135,rw1216433,alexandros-7,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),6.0,very well made but the adaptation inaccurate are a little disappointing,11 November 2005,0,"The fourth offering in the Harry Potter franchise sees The Boy Who Lived and his chums trying to get through another year at the increasingly dangerous Hogwarts School Of Witchcraft And Wizardry. This means, as ever, secrets and treachery within, hostilities with classmates and life-threatening magical sports days. New to the mix is the embarrassing reality of tortured adolescence, with sexual awakenings and brooding mood-swings exacerbated by the added distraction of glamorous foreign exchange students. Making quite the grand entrance are the chic girls of Beauxbatons Academy and the hunky boys of Durmstrang Institute. Welcome to Harry Potter And The Rampaging Hormones.This is certainly not a movie for young children, however engaging its characters and comic touches. Teen angst and relationship problems are pretty boring if you're six. But it's not the burgeoning sexuality that's landed the picture its 12A certificate, rather its genuinely darker vein of fantasy horror. For the maturing Potter core audience this is well-developed, with teasing terrors and skin-crawling set-pieces as the dark Lord Voldemort rises again — as all dark lords must, it seems, DLs notoriously being even harder to kill totally dead than the nut-job in Halloween. (Quite why Lord V. is so preoccupied with plotting against the promising pipsqueak Harry is presumably something to be clarified for cinema audiences in the fullness of time.)Mike Newell, as the first British director entrusted with a series entry, oversees plenty of spiffing special-effects action — the Quidditch World Cup final, a dragon fight, an underwater sequence and Gary Oldman's (all-too-brief) fiery apparition — but as one would expect, he does a good job with the more personal, realistic emotional content, bringing on the young leads' performances noticeably in the process. So it's a shame that he's less successful in handling the necessary novel-to-screen compression.Even though Newell's adaptation runs to more than two-and-a-half hours, the book is such a doorstopper that screenwriter Steve Kloves had to ditch more material this time around. Harry's annual confinement with his ghastly Dursley relations and Hermione's house-elf-liberation campaign is gone. While he was at it, it's a pity he didn't also delete tabloid hackette Rita Skeeter — however much one likes Miranda Richardson — since she obviously functions as author J. K. Rowling's dig at celebrity-stalking gossips, adding nothing more than running-time the story doesn't need.As it is, there's too much contrasting material with which to contend: the life-or-death challenges of the Triwizard competition are interspersed with a host of new characters and their sinister or serio-comic sub-plots, school lessons, the agenda of yet another eccentric new Defence Against The Dark Arts professor in Brendan Gleeson's fierce Mad-Eye Moody, Potter sidekick Ron's sulks, swotty Hermione's makeover and Harry's blushing attempts to ask a girl to a dance…Consequently, the story editing goes through some distinctly choppy patches. It looks as if several scenes were filmed at greater length, surviving in quick snippets that are frequently unnecessary. The movie Newell set out to make — eccentric comedy-cum-Hitchcockian conspiracy — can only be glimpsed briefly, before that beast of a plot charges back into shot, demanding attention.Thankfully, most of it is pulled together towards the end. It's no secret that Ralph Fiennes handles the long-awaited appearance of evil Voldemort himself, and thankfully his big scene is sensationally creepy, ensuring strong anticipation for frights to come. (8.7-10 stars) and i am a big Harry Potter fan.","['2', '6']" +1136,rw1219932,pgray2,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),1.0,"Garbage -- Newell, stay away from the bigtime bud, you're far from ready!",19 November 2005,0,"I have liked all the movies so far, but this one you could tell they left a lot out and/or changed the story because they were too lazy to tell it right. I am a strong supporter of making a movie as long as it needs to be to tell the story right. Setting a certain length and trying to squeeze material in is just downright sloppy. Mike Newell has only proved one thing to the world with this movie -- he is not ready to play with the big boys. Stick to your sloppy B movies Mike. Stay away from making movies that have the potential to be masterpieces. If the next movie, which thankfully is being directed by someone other than Newell, veers away from the storyline in the manner Goblet of Fire has I would say the Harry Potter series is essentially doomed at least for those of us who have read the books and see what a mess Newell made of it so far. Tell the story the way Rowling has told it, tell it in the same order, and don't change things to make your job easier. Sloppy sloppy sloppy!!!On a side note however that has nothing to do with Newell or the storyline -- Ralph Fiennes's acting was incredible and I think that needs to be mentioned in his role as Lord Voldemort.I hope this is the only movie that gets half-as*ed in the franchise or the series will be ruined. If the movie needs to be 3-4 hours, then make it 3-4 hours or two parts even! Reference Lord of the Rings Extended Editions if need be to understand why!!! People will be more than happy to sit down for four hours to watch a movie if it's told right and feels complete. It's movies like that (again reference Lord of the Rings which is 10-12 hours running in extended form) that people sit down and watch again and again and again.I hope the next director reads these reviews to make a better movie off of Mike Newell's mistakes. Thanks very much for the opportunity to write this.","['4', '7']" +1137,rw1219372,SoCoolMakeIceJealous,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Astounding!,19 November 2005,1,Hi. Just forget anything you've read that say bad about the film. Its great. There's something for everyone. Even the people i went with are not harry potter fans but they all enjoyed it. The tri wizard tournament tasks are really well put together and action packed. Its incredibly entertaining. The movie is also the funniest and balances the very dark from the hilarious. However it can seem a bit drawn out at times but the amazing feel of the film makes you not even notice it. The Voldemort scene at the end is one of the greatest cinema scenes i have ever seen . It will blow you away. Emma Watson Rupert Grint and Dan Radcliffe all have grown exceptionnaly well in their acting skill. ALso Fred George Neville and Ginny finally have some decent screen time. The new additions to the cast are also great. Madame Maxime Fleur Krum and Cedric are great. However Crouch seemed out of character. I was also disappointed with the lack of playtime at the Quidditch match. The dragon task was probably the best but the lake is close behind it. I wish there were some monsters in the maze but there wasn't. Its an amazing movie that Will make you laugh cry gasp scream and cheer. Th best one yet.,"['0', '1']" +1138,rw1216938,Tinuvielas,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,"Darker, funnier, reveling in spectacular CGI, teenage angst and Brit-humor",15 November 2005,1,"the fourth Harry-Potter-film (and the first to be directed by an Englishman) is a fun ride. Not for the youngest fans, perhaps, because like Rowling's novel it marks the point where Harry's story transforms from a children's tale into darker, maturer fantasy. In this sequel, Harry's arch-enemy Voldemort rises again and, as the movie's tag-line has it, ""dark and dangerous times lie ahead."" More immediately, Harry finds himself an unwilling participant in the dangerous Triwizard tournament – a doubtful Honor that alienates him from his schoolmates and even turns his friend Ron against him. And the teenagers' trouble doesn't end here. They also have to face the three unforgivable curses – mind-washing, torture and murder – as well as the pangs of disappointed love. Harry and Ron are pathetic when it comes to girls, and director Mike Newell (""Four weddings and a funeral"") makes the most of his actor's efforts when they try to secure a female companion for the Christmas ball. Ron's dismay when faced with his fancy, decades-out-of-date-dress-robe alone is worth seeing the film. In fact, it's the teenage angst topic rather than the magical plot that distinguishes this film. I was asked about the best spell in the film after the press screening, and I couldn't come up with a single one. OK, there's several ""expelliarmus'"" and ""accio's"", as well as spectacular Special Effects, but ""magic""? Less than in the previous Potter-adaptations, I should say. At least it's less central. Mike Newell – who earned one Million Dollar directing ""Goblet"", one tenth of the sum pocketed by Chris ""Home alone"" Columbus – certainly achieved his aim to shoot ""a classical thriller with lots of action, something along the lines of 'North by Northwest', without disregarding the often funny teenage angst"".Thus the pacing in the first half of ""Goblet"" is impeccable, whereas towards the end it gets a bit rushed. Still, ""Goblet"" manages to tell the complex story and capture most important moments of the book – even if it means that certain subplots are only hinted at. One would love to see more of Rita Skeeter (Miranda Richardson), for instance, or of the death-eaters at the Quidditch Championship: a dark initial sequence, which, together with the repeated dream-sequence, sets the tone for what is to come. On the other hand, there are enough shots involving secondary characters to offer emotional or even comic relief, such as Neville dancing or Filch loping wheezily across the Great Hall. The Yule ball alone is a visual and musical feast: Hogwarts decorated with icicles and frozen seafood, the couples dancing formally to Patrick Doyle's romantic soundtrack before the whole thing evolves into a wild party featuring stage-musicians from Pulp and Radiohead.A few words about the performances. The young protagonists (especially Rupert Grint as Ron) were inspiring to watch, writhing in the grip of puberty. Daniel Radcliffe impressed me by managing to look very young, fearful and confused in some scenes and handsomely mature in others, especially when fighting Voldemort. In these scenes, one can almost see the grown man in him. Equally impressive is the fact that Radcliffe did some stunt-work himself; in the scene where he falls off the roof fighting the dragon, for instance, he bungee-dived 13 meters down. He took diving lessons for the underwater sequence and spent 41 hours acting in a deep pool, in murky darkness, with only the assistant's voice in his specially devised earphones giving him directions. In the short takes underwater he had to hold his breath, remember not to let out bubbles, react to non-existent monsters, then swim back to the divers to receive air – not a mean feat.Of the secondary characters, I liked Miranda Richardson as flamboyant, sensation-creating journalist, although she didn't turn out as nastily insinuating as the book-character. I was less happy with Brandon Gleeson who wasn't sinister enough as Mad-Eye Moody, giving the character a comic edge it shouldn't have. The Triwizard champions, too, were mediocre: Clémence Poésy's Fleur Delacour is pale and nondescript, not the fascinating, haughty part-Vaala of the book. Worse, she's apparently hardly equal to the Triwizard tasks simply because she's female. While Stanislav Ianevski made a passable if too handsome Viktor Krum, Robert Pattinson as Cedric Diggory hardly got the chance to develop his character, which should have had a charisma equaling Harry's. The only thing that redeemed him is the scene of his death, which is appropriately chilling.Last but not least, the two great wizards, Dumbledore and Voldemort. Sir Michael Gambon simply can't make up for Richard Harris' loss – and it doesn't help that he's playing Dumbledore as an old man afraid and out of control. Whoever came up with this interpretation, it does not suit ""the only one Voldemort ever feared"". Dumbledore shouldn't be hasty, or perplexed, or making pompous speeches, nor should he shake Harry's shoulders in panic after Harry's been chosen as champion. Ralph Fiennes, on the other hand, is genial casting. He embodies the Dark Lord with uncanny charisma, evilly human, undergoing sudden changes of mood: not a serial killer, but a scary madman. With minimum makeup – a thin layer of latex applied onto Fiennes shaved head, arms and breast, giving the impression of pale, translucent, veined skin – and digitally created nostril-slits, Fiennes makes a truly frightening, eerily handsome Voldemort. Dressed in a billowing black silk robe, a ""floating reptile"", as Fiennes describes him, barefoot, long-nailed and displaying a weird, suggestive body-language, he reminds one of a dark version of Cate Blanchett's Elven-sorceress Galadriel in ""Lord of the Rings"". A final comment on the CGI: I loved the dragons, great and small. Absolutely adored the scene when the horntail climbed over those rooftops to get at Harry. And I was happy to read, in the final credits, that ""No dragons were harmed in the making of this movie.""","['37', '59']" +1139,rw1222629,jdana-2,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),6.0,Too much missing-,22 November 2005,0,"I just spent an hour or so looking at these reviews. I have to agree with the bulk of them who said the movie did no justice to the book. I was very disappointed to not see so many of the characters that were in the book. I can't believe that they actually had a harry potter movie that didn't start with the Dersley's, and a harry Potter movie without Mrs Weasley?? I love her the best! The part in the fireplace at the beginning would have played great.. what humor! The house elves were completely ignored and Rita never got what she needed in the end.What was there was great but sadly, because it was so great it made me really miss all the stuff that was left out that would have also been great. It's almost like they took several key points of the book, elaborated on them, moved characters to try to cover up what was cut then missed the mark. People know these books too well to leave so much of the story on the cutting room floor and get away with it. Everyone I talk to said the same thing, it could have been a half hour longer and covered a lot more of the wonderful detail and incredible characters that we were looking forward to seeing again. The next movie NEEDS to be three hours or they may as well not bother. If JK Rowling doesn't put out abridged books, she shouldn't allow abridged movies either.Harry Potter in all it's glory can give Tolkien a run for his money. Don't cut it short!","['1', '2']" +1140,rw1220812,rooney_34,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Amazing movie. Brilliantly done.,20 November 2005,0,"This movie was brilliantly done and displays an extreme amount of realize and characters that anyone should be able to relate to in some way. Wonderful special effects and the dragon especially is really wonderful on the big screen.The acting (especially of the trio) progresses even more, and by now is just...amazing. They bring out their characters, rather than, as it used to be, as a boy playing the part of Harry Potter, but as Harry Potter himself, a window into his 14 year old life (personally, I think he's lucky to be alive at 14.) See this movie on the big screen if you can, it'll be better there than anywhere else.Double thumbs up.","['1', '3']" +1141,rw1224211,Proscriptus,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),3.0,The filmmakers should be ashamed.,25 November 2005,0,"I suppose making a film strictly for the 12-14 crowd is fine, but then how can you justify including such disturbing imagery? An adult certainly won't enjoy it; there's no plot as such, and anyone with an attention span of more than a few minutes will be dreadfully disappointed.My neighbor's eight-year-old was tremendously anticipating it, but I had to recommend in the strongest possible terms that, if they didn't want her to have nightmares for a month, that they keep her away from it. And here's the rub: A lot of parents won't think twice, and they really should. If you have a child who can take this sort of thing in their stride, you should be spending your money on child psychologists, not film tickets. You'd have to be as desensitized as an Eritrean child soldier not to freak out. The filmmakers should be ashamed. Go see March of the Penguins again, instead.","['1', '3']" +1142,rw1225591,xerstz,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),3.0,It was the worst Harry Potter movie to date,27 November 2005,0,"The other three Harry Potter movies were made for large demographics. Mainly, kids love the books, but there are many adults as well. The movies were originally made for all types of people, age and preference wise. There was fantasy, adventure, romance, horror, etc. This movie was based on adventure. And for anyone who has ever read the books, this movie was NOTHING compared to the book. They left out so much from the book, that they are going to have to do some re-editing somewhere, because information that they left out, some of it was vital to the next book/movie. As just a movie, I would give it a low rating as well. For someone who had never read the book, it was very confusing. My best friend had never read the book, and the first ten minutes of the movie, she was leaning against my arm and asking me what the heck was going on. All in all, it was a major disappointment and I hope that the next one will be made closer to what the original three were.","['2', '3']" +1143,rw1225775,ajbru,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,"Slightly disappointing, but still good",27 November 2005,0,"I will not write a long winded review here, since everyone should know the book's plot by now. But of all the Harry Potter movies to come out so far, this is definitely not the best. The only problem with it is the sheer volume of information that is cut from the book. But yes, I do understand that a 750+/- would make a very long movie, I still thank that even another half hour of screen time would have made it better. You cannot imagine my sheer disappointment with the Quidditch World Cup. A lot of subplot/trivial info was cut as well, like Fleur Delacour being part Veela, the Dursleys, or Rita Skeeter pestering Harry, Ron and Hermione terribly, and Skeeter being an unlicensed Animagus. There was even extremely important stuff cut out, too. Like Professor Trelawney not prophesying that Voldemort would come again.As for the acting, I will still say that these kids are extremely impressive. The very embodiment of the series' heroes. But you already know that. The other actors in the movie are also great, with a great performance from Ralph Fiennes playing the newly resurrected Lord Voldemort. It's also unfortunate that Robert Pattinson won't be appearing any more, because his acting as Cedric Diggory was also quite strong. And I will also say that I am exceedingly happy that Cho Chang has finally entered into the Potter movie world, since she was nowhere to be seen in ""The Prisoner of Azkaban"". A lot of the movie's humor would have been lost without her.The movie has an accurate portrayal the main plot of J.K. Rowling's 4th novel. But unfortunately, the movie suffers because it doesn't really stray beyond that. But it is still a good movie, and definitely worth the ticket. (Which isn't always the case these days...) Hopefully, though, the mass-cutting of subplot does not occur in the 5th movie, being that the novel is as important as it is to the wizarding world. But again. Read it. Then see it.P.S. Hermione's hot! ^_^","['0', '0']" +1144,rw1222228,dbgeorge,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Better read the book first...,22 November 2005,0,"I am a little disappointed by this installation of the Harry Potter series. I have not read any of the Harry Potter books, but I completely enjoyed the first three movies. With ""Goblet of Fire"", I found myself confused, especially towards the end of the movie, because I did not know the significance of everything that was going on. I have had to seek out my nephew who knows all the books by heart to explain why something happened. I still enjoyed the movie, and I liked the darker tone of the film compared to the other 3 movies. I will have to either read the book or wait for the next movie to fill in some of the gaps. Maybe the fact that the book had a lot of subplots that needed to be cut out to fit into one movie took away from the cohesiveness of the film. So as a non-reader of the books (that is my loss), I give the movie a lower score.","['1', '2']" +1145,rw1219497,gsems726,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,I would recommend this movie,19 November 2005,0,"Even if you haven't read any of the books or even seen any of the movies I would watch it just for the effects. I went to a 10:00 showing last night and it was fantastic. The special effects are exceptional and the Tri-Wizard Tournament is cool. It is a very dark movie however, but if you like fantasy with a little joke now and then I would go see it. When Lord Voldemort appears he is pretty ghastly but I don't think the movie portrayed him as bad as what the book did. I expected him to be a little more evil. Hermoine is very beautiful especially at the ball. The dancing ladies that come from Beaxbatons are a marvel and their beauty is exceptional. I thought that they could have done a better job with the World Qudditch match as well. All in all this Harry Potter movie is superb and will be a delight for your senses.","['0', '1']" +1146,rw1230749,ellen-137,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Fantastic Fantasy!!!,4 December 2005,0,This movie is a must see film!! It is very exciting and humorous as well as frightening in some parts. The special effects are amazing and very realistic. Daniel Radcliff is great in this movie he shows deep emotion and determination in his role as Harry Potter. I would recommend this to anyone over the age of 10 as there are some scary scenes that would give younger children night mares. This movie had me on the edge of my seat the whole time as it was a very gripping movie. However the movie is a quick and not as spread out as the book. Even though it is 2 and a half hours long. That is the only fault in this brilliant movie I would go and see this movie time and time again! One of the best movies of 2005!!!,"['0', '1']" +1147,rw1222885,jmuhm,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),5.0,"Very good movie, but Not really based on the book.",23 November 2005,0,"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was a great book but it seems that this movie was based off of a cliff notes of a cliff notes of the book. Many important characters and scenes found in the book are missing and more importantly never mentioned.I understand that the producers can not have every part of the book but they left out several key bits of information vital to the next installment to the series.If you go into this movie with an open mind or if you have not ready the Goblet of Fire you will probably enjoy it quite a bit. The special effects in many scenes are outstanding. I think the director managed to convey the feelings of the characters well, and their interactions and chemistry are very good.I am giving this movie five out of ten because I am a real fan of the books and I was disappointed in the way the movie followed the book.Overall a good movie taken individually but not really for fans of J.K. Rowling","['2', '3']" +1148,rw1219674,highlyevolved87,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,The forth movie was amazing!!!!!,19 November 2005,1,"I'm a huge fan of the Harry Potter books so whenever a movie comes out based on one of the 6 novels there's definitely pressure on the director to make the movies live up to the books. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire definitely did that. This movie was amazing! It's over 2 and a half hours but trust me the time flies by! I loved how the new director really captured the fact that the characters are growing up and dealing with regular teenage problems like dating and friendship almost exactly as it was written. I also loved the fact that even though certain characters, like Ludo Bagman, had to be cut out, and originals like Malfoy and Snape had no more then a cameo, the movie flowed so perfectly that you didn't even notice they weren't there. The movie is visually stunning and the scenes outside during the winter and at the Quidditch World Cup and Triwisard tournament are gorgeous! The stadium scene at the Quidditch World Cup was very cool to watch and I was impressed. This movie is definitely the saddest and the scariest of the 4. The scene where Lord voldemort rises to life in graveyard was really creepy, and when Cedric diggory is killed and his body is brought back to his crying and screaming father made me and most of the theater cry. I think the actors were really good in this film and really funny. The director, being English, added in a lot of British humour which helped pep the mostly creepy and sad movie up. The scene where Harry is in the bathtub and moaning mettle starts hitting on him was hilarious!So all in all this movie rocked! It was funny, sad, creepy and entertaining all at the same time rounded off with a few cute teenager scenes. The original cast was great as usual and the newest members Mad-eye Moody, Rita Skeeter, Diggory, Krum and Fleur Delacour were all great. So if you're a Potter fan this movie will not disappoint you. It was the best so far and the next one will be hard to top! I definitely recommend this movie to anyone and everyone!","['0', '1']" +1149,rw1232169,jawsnnn,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,Pros and cons,1 December 2005,1,"A review for harry potterMike Newell is a talented director. I have seen Donnie Brasco and I just loved the way he handled characterizations of all the characters irrespective of their length of roles. So when I heard he was to direct the fourth movie I was delighted at the prospect. The only thing which worried me was - would he be able to capture the essence of the novels? Because as the series progresses, it becomes more and more difficult for each director to get all the background knowledge about the characters and the plot. I mean, how many 40 year olds would take the pain to read Sorcerer's stone - which is essentially a children's book? So when I saw this movie I was pleasantly surprised with a heartfelt rendition of the novel which was anything but amateurish. But again, as I watched the movie I couldn't shrug aside the nagging feeling that the movie was leaving out a lot of things to explain. For example, those who haven't read the books will be very confused by the arrival of the ship and the flying carriage as it is not mentioned until ten minutes later that two new schools have arrived in the hogwarts castle. And even then it is not mentioned which school arrived in which vehicle. Also I was all geared up for the quidditch world cup when all of a sudden it was over. I think a decent quidditch match is long overdue since the third movie cut it out too. The movie feels as if it is rushing along to its end, which really can't be helped given the book's size. The key scenes though, including the last one could have been elongated to give a better effect. Voldemort was not given enough time to scare, neither enough lines. But Ralph Fiennes does a good job portraying a difficult character in his own way which is bound to attract some brickbats. The movie's plus points are its characterizations, which are far more intimate than in any of the other movies. So Ron gets to be funny but not not foolish, Hermione gets to be smart but not powerful and Harry gets to be everything he is in the book - brave, flustered, angry, scared and finally broken. Dumbledore was a bit too flashy. Another actor might have carried it off but Gambon simply doesn't look or move like Dumbledore. Its the right time to replace him as Order of Phoenix demands much more attention on Dumbledore's character. The comic scenes were simply delightful, I really laughed. The CGI were brilliant and the movies sets were exactly the way they should have been, a nice combination of colours and darkness. Another word of caution. It is time for the directors to start putting in little tidbits of important information that is to be used later on in the series. Snape should be given wider berth. The conflict between Snape and Sirius should have been shown. But most importantly, the film skipped out the 'parting of the ways', where Harry's claim that Voldemort has returned is pooh-poohed by Fudge and the ministry. This was too big a plotpoint to miss, since the fifth book is based on it. I think the filmmakers should take a cue from the matrix trilogy where putting maximum story into a few dialogues is concerned. And lastly I hated it when Ron said that thing about the end of 'another eventful year' at hogwarts. It sounded like some cheesy comic book end line. But all these are the flaws which you'll notice only when you see it twice. I had a blast watching this film and I may add it is the best one of the lot.","['0', '0']" +1150,rw1220594,Mworth1019,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),6.0,Harry Potter 4,20 November 2005,1,"The movie was not what I expected, so I was very disappointed. It felt that it was very choppy, there was no continuity from movie/book 3. A lot of the emotions that I wanted to see in Harry and Ron were missing, you can barely tell that they are not talking in the beginning of the movie. The Quittich world cup scene was way to short and there was nothing of Dobby and Winky, Rita Skeeter, and Victor versus Harry/Ron over Hermione. Dumbledore was more of a joke than a strong wizard. No Sirius, Mrs. Weasley, no Mrs. Diggory. I feel that while it was visually wonderful, it lacked the emotional feel of the other three movies. The new director made a movie about the Triwizard tournament and unfortunately, nothing else.","['1', '2']" +1151,rw1218909,Jim-480,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,"Good, but flawed",18 November 2005,0,"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire may be the most truncated 2hr, 45 minute movie ever made. To say that the pace is brisk may well be an understatement. It moves with the ferocity of a tornado, catching you up in its excitement then tossing you to the ground wishing you had better warning. This is purely a movie for fans that have read the book - while others will probably enjoy it, they will probably get lost because of a lack of proper explanations of everything.That's not to say that it's a bad movie, either. While I was watching the movie I was enjoying every minute of it. I was caught up in the joy of the Harry Potter experience, yet keenly aware that this could have been more with just a few minor changes.You've probably already read plot details and dissertations on the fidelity of the movie to the experiences of a hormonally-charged adolescent. I'll skip that. As far as a summary of my opinions on parts of the movie: The acting was fair-to-good, cinematography was great, but the writing was bad. There were many top-notch performances in limited screen time from Maggie Smith (Prof. McGonagall), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Ralph Fiennes (Voldemort), Miranda Richardson (Rita Skeeter), and Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid). Harry, Hermione, and Ron hold their own, but are not given great dialog to work with, and I think they tend to overact a touch - nothing to pull anyone out of the movie, but I've seen better from all of them. The source material was quite good (best of the series, IMHO), but the adaptation was lacking at several points. The dialog was average and served little more than to move the story along, which was disappointing, considering that the look of the movie was so great. It's mostly seeped in neutral tones to lend an ominous feel to the film, and thankfully, the special effects are finally used as a supplementary device, rather than the showpiece; you feel like the creators are exploring the world rather than building it, and it helps to more thoroughly envelop the viewer in the story.This movie needed about a half-hour more of padding. Those that have not read the book will have to work very hard to pick up every little clue and detail about what's going on in order to put together this labyrinthine plot. The Tri-Wizards tournament, a legendary sporting event with mystical significance was explained by a short speech by Dumbledore, a speech that was jam-packed with expository information that, unless the viewer was ready to absorb, could easily be missed and not digested.Everything in this movie just sort of happens without regard for previous events or future events - this is called a pacing problem. The Tri-Wizards tournament features three events, but all three events are scenes with almost no build, nothing to give them the weight they could have had. There's no sense of the Tri-Wizards tournament having any impact on the participants' lives, which is ironic seeing that the Goblet of Fire is first and foremost about the events surrounding that tournament. Each trial comes suddenly, gets fifteen minutes of screen time, then disappears. The characters go about their business for another while and then all of the sudden the next trial happens, with little warning. I was so stunned by the appearance of the third trial that as the band played and the participants entered the stadium, I doubted whether or not the scene to come was about the tournament. Like I said, there was no build to lend gravitas to the final scene, almost like going on a roller coaster where you're immediately dropped 100 feet and then coast the rest of the way. The climax comes too quickly, which is stunning considering the running time.The other issue that I had, a more minor one, is that everything in this film happens with minimal regard for the outside world. This is a shame because one of the charms of the book was about how much it fleshed out the Wizarding universe that Harry lived in. I know the movie should be treated on its own terms, but some of these events, detailed in the book, are left hanging. How did this guy escape from Azkaban? What happened to the reporter? Who exactly are these other kids that show up at Hogwarts? Why is the guy that played Krum such a bad actor? In the end, I give the movie a 7, because, as I say, I throughly enjoyed watching it and will probably see it again. This is due more to the source material than it is to the adaptation, though; unlike Prisoner of Azkaban, this movie doesn't really stand on its own, but is more of a visual representation of certain scenes from the book. It's extremely entertaining, but maddening because of how great it COULD have been.","['1', '2']" +1152,rw1220268,bstarter29,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),6.0,Yet Another Disappointing Potter Film,20 November 2005,0,"What is it now 4 bad Potter movies? Man, they just can't seem to get it right. I mean the first one they left out too much. Second one was boring, and didn't go in to detail enough. The third one could just be a different film not even based on the book they forgot so much. Now the fourth one could've been good but everything is just rushed. Well, what do you expect from a 734 page novel in to a 156 minute movie. They did leave out a bit of stuff but for the most part left a lot in. All the good parts take about 4 minutes to explain and then they jump to next scene. I'm a Potter fan so I will see all movies no matter how bad they be but I am starting to get a little tired of these mediocre films based on magnificent books.","['0', '1']" +1153,rw1215948,back-in-revenge,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Best Potter movie,14 November 2005,0,"As far as i can remember the first harry potter movie, i had this ""wannabee"" feeling of Harry Potter. I always wanted to live in a magical world full of mysteries. The first movie was great, the second was even better(although usually the second movie s*cks big time). The third movie did not had a lot of plot, but there was more action, it was better than the second movie.For what i have seen of the forth movie, i can say that it has action, plot, mixxed up (teenage)feelings, special effects and humor. I think this movie will be one of the best for 2005.The story itself is about Harry Potters 4th year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardy, this year they will have a dangerous TriWizard Tournament where other young wizards compete against each other. Harry Potter(Daniel Radcliffe),Viktor Krum(Stanislav Ianevski),Fleur Delacour(Clémence Poésy)are the only one which survive the contest( although there are only 4 competitors)For what i can say is ""Watch it, even if you are not a Harry Potter fan!(ps: for the ppl who said that it was "" rushed"" it has to be, a hole year in just one movie is not easy, exspecialy not when you have such a big book with good stuff.)","['2', '10']" +1154,rw1226559,ruth811-1,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Best Harry Potter Movie Yet! - but not for young children.,28 November 2005,0,"I've seen all 4 Harry Potter movies and read all 6 Harry Potter books. By far, this is my favorite of the Harry Potter movies so far. Yes, some things from the book were cut from the screenplay, but in my opinion, nothing essential was left out. The ""additions"" in the movie that weren't in the book helped to clarify the plot and fill in what was ""cut"" without ruining the flavor of the story. I don't think this was accomplished as well in ""Prizoner of Askaban.""This movie definitely deserved the ""PG-13"" rating. I took my 9 and 11 year old daughters to see this movie, but only because both had read the book several times and knew what to expect, as well as when to cover their eyes! I wouldn't bring a child younger than 12 or 13 if he or she was not familiar with the story.","['0', '1']" +1155,rw1224984,robergray,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,Better than the first two but not as good as the third...,26 November 2005,0,"Darker and more scary than ever... Potter is back in his fourth year at Hogwart's!I wasn't bored a moment throughout this movie, The acting was adequate and the music was good. The thing i didn't like was how things seemed to happen so fast. No quiet parts. That's what i liked about the third one, it had a good balance of action and quiet parts and had more character development, it felt much more personal.There where some good moments like the dancing but I would have enjoyed some scenes in the dorm or in hogsmeade ( how do you spell it?) One thing i did appreciate was that it followed the book very closely.7 out of 10 from me.","['0', '0']" +1156,rw1230922,MrSharma,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,Decent but severely flawed,4 December 2005,0,"""Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire"" presents the fourth installment of the Harry Potter franchise, illustrating a significantly darker take on the characters we've come to love and allowing us to see the dark Lord Voldemort resurrected to his full power. Easily one of the better books of the entire series by JK Rowling (including books 5 and 6), the darker and scarier take on the story was welcomed by fans of the films and the books everywhere as Director Mike Newell (Donnie Brasco) attempts to attach his name to an ever-growing franchise. But, rest assured, this film has many flaws.For one, the acting remains a substantial problem that is bound to plague the fans for the remainder of the franchise, including the next few films that are already signed up. The big budget and the excellent special effects can't alleviate the responsibility that the three young actors have to presenting decent performances. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), despite improving immensely since the previous installment, remains stiff and uncharismatic on screen whereas Emma Watson's melodramatic take on the character of Hermione had the entire audience frustrated. She seems to be throwing herself into her role with too much gusto and enthusiasm, resulting in a pretentious and unsatisfying performance that remains a plague on the rest of the film's merits. Dumbledore is pathetic in his role, completely misunderstanding the direction of his character and ultimately illustrating Newell's lack of grasp of what Harry Potter is really all about. The only actor that seems to stand out in a positive light is indeed Rupert Grint (Ron) who takes his performance easily. From his flawless comic timing to his understanding of the more serious scenes as well, here is an actor we will no doubt see after the Harry Potter film franchise has concluded. He stands out as the more talented of the three teenagers.Newell's direction is furthermore extremely flawed, surprising after the brilliant and entertaining ""Donnie Brasco"". Not only does he fail to understand the needs and wants of the actors in their respective performances, but he seems to also clutch no grasp of what made this book so amazing. Gone now is the magic of Chris Columbus in the first and second installments of the franchise, and supposedly Newell was to present a darker take on our heroes. He does so, but at what expense? Whereas the book by all means illustrated a darker take, it did so through a compromise with the more magical and ""Christmassy"" elements of the first few Harry Potter books as well as the scarier elements. Newell completely abandons the magic of the first few films and goes for an all out ""noir"", losing one of the best bits about a Harry Potter film: magic.The script remains tarred, leaving out some of the best and most entertaining elements of the novel such as the opening Quidditch World Cup - an exhilarating read and surely an excellent addition to the film? Once again, the elements that made the book so magical are completely left out in the script and are failed to be remedied by Newell's poor direction. The script's inability to identify emotions and character is further exemplified through the completely underdeveloped problem of Ron's jealousy of Harry, as well as the seemingly over-developed problem of Ron and Hermione's increasingly changing relationship. Where the book merely hints at such a concept, the script-writer deems it at the forefront and shows a half-assed attempt at a romantic comedy within a few weak scenes. It doesn't help when Emma Watson takes it seriously, either.That being said, the special effects are relatively good throughout the three tasks that our Tri-Wizard champions must face - ranging from the amazing sequence of Harry dodging left and right to avoid the Hungarian Horntail Dragon hot on his heels, to the murky depths of the school lake as Harry explores the underworld of the blue. The cinematography of the film is fairly decent also, but by no means a notch above the previous three films. Other technical aspects such as the score and the editing are relatively impressive but again pose no substantial superiority over the previous three films.To sum up the film ... Different; yes. Better; not necessarily. A darker take definitely, Newell forgets to show the real magic behind the Harry Potter franchise. Poor acting for major characters, a patchy and inconsistent script that seemingly misinterprets the brilliance of Rowling's fourth novel, and Newell's inability to direct both the action and the actors on screen result in a film that is mediocre at best and completely undeserving of the recent hype that has accompanied its theatrical release. All we can hope for is that the next film brings back the magic.","['5', '7']" +1157,rw1222072,buseoana,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),9.0,Huge disappointment!!!!!!!!!!!!!,22 November 2005,1,"I am a very big harry potter fan and i must admit I'm not much into the movies, although I really enjoyed the 3rd one. I was really hoping to see something fantastic in this movie, because it had the story of the fourth book, which is in my opinion the ultimate one from the series. but I was disappointed to the maximum!!!! why?? because it's nothing like the 4th book!!!!!!!! for god's sake, even Hermione's dress was pink when it was blue in the book! they just took the major and general lines of the story, like harry, Hogwarts, the Triwizard Tournament, Durmastrang & Beauxbatons, 3 challenges, Cedric dead and Voldy comes back! and that's about it!!it goes much too quickly from one action, one bump in the road to another and for those who haven't read the books, it will be awfully hard to understand something! I didn't even notice when i was standing in front of the first task! it all happened too fast!things are totally different and they didn't follow the book AT ALL!!!! after stating so many times that they tried to be loyal to the book, i thought they really had been....well...i was wrong! i have 2 major discontents that bugged me through the movie!!1. Ludo Bagman doesn't appear at all....and he was a rather charming and important character in the book. 2. Michael Gambon does a poor, a very poor job....he didn't understand Dumbledore's character at all! Dumbledore is supposed to be calm, rational, not impulsive and yelling at students that Cedric is dead or to harry whether he put his name in the goblet of fire! and Dumbledore is surely not supposed to be this wacko genius who sits on the floor and talks to harry about very important stuff! god...if that was indeed Dumbledore in the book, i would've been happy when he died in the 6th one!!! But it's not!!!! Dumbledore is the guardian, the best wizard alive, the only one who can protect harry against Voldy and he shouldn't be yelling or spitting life theories on the floor!! i hate Michael Gambon for transforming the character into such a loser, literally, i wish they had a chosen another actor! so, as a conclusion, you should go to the cinema and see it, but don't have high expectations, like i did! it will only get you down ever worse!","['1', '1']" +1158,rw1228281,gambits_cheri,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),9.0,Where Book and Film Divorce,30 November 2005,1,"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was an excellent film, and not just because of the vast amount of eye-candy to be had on-screen. At last the Potter-Empire has found a director that is not obsessed with his own self-image. The film is dark, given its content, but without the over-dramatic, poorly-lit, and cinematic-Xanax affect of PoA. I appreciated Kloves attempt to keep in several key-aspects of the film, even if some parts were lacking--like the entire Quidditch game from the world Cup and the Weasley twins being privy to Harry's Cup winnings. The film also skims over Rita Skeeter's role and does not, at any point, allude to her ability to spy on people in beetle form.However, Kleeves is sheer genius at alluding to the Golden Trio's trials and mishaps of puberty, without turning into an ABC family special or a Lifetime fiasco. The cinematography is brilliant, retaining the sets' confounding beauty (unlike PoA when a black coverlet was thrown over everything) while accepting the fact that in this fourth movie, Harry is at last coming to the realization that he is locked in bitter combat with a true fiend.The film is brilliant, and exceptionally accurate, although I feel it's safe to assume that here is where book and film divorce; there most likely will not be a ""Lord of the Rings""-style epic for the kids.","['0', '0']" +1159,rw1229814,ddbanddtt,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,Darker than previous. Stories of adolescents and adolescence.,3 December 2005,1,"The kids have begun to discover sexuality. The boys sitting next to the adorable Hermione, wondering which female to invite to a dance, then Ron sees Hermione and says ""Your a girl,"" but lacks the correct presence to elicit a delighted 'Yes!' Rowling gives a story which creates believable characters with dark secrets. Why does that curse make Longbottom quiver? {Yes, I read my writing, but that last might scan unnoticed}The school kids told me that this movie seemed rushed. It certainly is quickly paced with little room for sentimental reflection. Cheers of triumph turn to despair. Harry is constantly looking for betrayal from those he loves and who love him.Some side stories are pared to focus the movie on the essential story. As usual, the photography is beautiful and detailed. My heart is full.Tightly edited and crisp. The only people who will be disappointed will be those who want to be.","['0', '0']" +1160,rw1219777,futurestar25,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Best One Yet,19 November 2005,0,"The newest harry potter came out yesterday. I saw it at a 4:30 showing. All I can say is Wow! I didn't read the book, but I don't think it makes a big difference whether you read it or not. I was funny, scary, jaw dropping and action packed.The special effects were very good. Although my friends mom had said they left a part out, though I will not specify which part :).Harry has matured more, as did Hermoine and Ron, which makes a big impact on the story line itself. New characters come and go. I was also surprised to see Ron's brothers in the movie a little more.I think whether you are a HP fan or not, you are bound to like this movie, I already started reading the fifth book, hope to finish before it comes out. :P","['1', '3']" +1161,rw1252032,shecrab,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),6.0,"Reliably Potter, but flawed all the same",31 December 2005,0,"Of all the Harry Potter films so far, this is the one with the worst problem: it is truly /the/ most poorly edited film I've ever seen. Usually, one pays little attention to editing in a good film. In a film where the plot is not well-known, the editing isn't as noticeable; this is never going to be the case with most well-known adaptations of fantasy stories like the Potter series. Familiarity with the plot points make the scene transitions seem more, not less, important. That's where this film loses me.The bad editing makes these transitions choppy and unrealistic; this becomes really obvious toward the end of the film, and almost unbearable during the climactic emotional ""ball"" scene. I could have cried as the film jumped from scene to scene, and completely lost continuity in some places. What a shame. The acting is, from the vignettes I /was/ able to enjoy, superb--especially that of Emma Watson (Hermione Granger) and Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) who gave such an emotional wallop to the romantic tension that it really hurt to watch.The length of this book probably had a lot to do with the jumpy transitions. There was an awful lot of material to cover, to be certain; however, rather than handling the excess as the first two books did, by alluding to it, this film attempts to *include* it, albeit in a really grossly truncated form, and ends up with a whole lot of bits and pieces that don't hang together! I was appalled at the opening--the horribly shortened and completely unexplainable World Quidditch Cup scenes. They teased the viewer with incredible special effects, then abruptly abandoned them in less than 10 minutes of film--and didn't look back! I was left wondering who pulled the rug out from under me. And that was only the beginning. The rest of the film followed suit, ruining what might have been a wonderful viewing experience. Even the actors looked confused. I wonder when this film is released on DVD how long the ""deleted scenes"" section will be--it /ought/ to be at least 45 minutes! Aside from this major (and truly ruinous) flaw, the film is reliably a Harry Potter film. The characters act as they ought, the special effects are fantastic (and why shouldn't they be?) and the way is paved for the next film, and the next. **sigh** Where is Alphonse Cuaron when you need him?","['0', '0']" +1162,rw1225530,musiksiden,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,the best movie ever,27 November 2005,1,This movie has it all: love drama death friendship and terror... This is a movie everybody should see... So what are you waiting for... Get a move on to your cinema... Ooh Radcliffe and Grint are hot in this movie. We are at the fourth year of school and things gets more exiting than ever when Harry is chosen to be the fourth person in the triwizard competition. This means that harry has to face more danger than he has ever before. And he has too do it alone. Hermione gets her first meeting with love when she is taken to the yule ball by Krum.. Ron and Harry gets in a figth but in the end nothing can ruin their friendship. so all in all this is the best of the potter movies yet.,"['0', '0']" +1163,rw1233863,lt_nb531,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),3.0,Let Down,8 December 2005,0,"I have read all of the books of Harry Potter, but this is the first movie I have seen. Quite frankly, it was a major let down.To many story elements were either changed or completely left out. I do understand they had to chop up a big book for a movie, but they could have made it a little longer, the story just kinda rushed through and just made sure it got the ""main"" story. No other connections to anything else. No other character development besides the main few.Also,the characters were not convincing at all. (Voldemort wasn't scary the least bit with his stupid accent and his baby blue eyes (could have sworn they were red); Dumbledore wasn't convayed as being very caring as he is in the books...or maybe it was just the actor) If they can't get more of the story in it than that... then why try to make a movie. Unless of course for just a quick buck? Put Harry Potter in the title...","['0', '0']" +1164,rw1226464,dominicleecr,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),2.0,What is wrong with the film,25 November 2005,1,The film was a complete disappointment. Below i have listed just some of the problems with it.1.The first task. Why did they have to have harry and the Hungarian Horntail fly around the school. At one point they even forgot that the dragon could fly when it was trying to climb across the roof. 2.Voldemort. Where were those red eyeslits and where was his snakelike voice? why did his wand look nothing like Harrys? 3.The maze. Why were the only things they came up against were roots and wind. Where was the shpinx? overall a very disappointing film - did the filmmakers actually read the book.,"['5', '9']" +1165,rw1232037,tedg,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),,Unmagical,3 December 2005,0,"The bottom line is that the first two films engaged us on the sheer visual invention of the magical world. The third film was a good film as a film, architectural, Sculpted rhythm that matched the physical spaces shown.This one fails on both accounts. Oh, you will read that it attempts too much, coming of age meets thriller and so on. But I think it was simply a matter of not having a creative team in place that cared to make a good movie.There was only one cool effect: the seven Pegasii. And there was only one interesting character, Moaning Myrtle. Just one. So on the superficial level, the comment is that the basic film-making skills were absent.But wait! This is the guy behind ""Pushing Tin"" and ""Enchanted April,"" both supremely well done.So it must have been the producers that made this bloodless, a walk through the required scenes.So very strange, because the last one was all about rich film-making, It had a center, following the Orson Welles tradition that anchored the thing in the buildings. Why goof with expertise?Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.","['10', '22']" +1166,rw1230555,vanilla_sparkle,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),9.0,Fantastic Film a definite to go and see!,4 December 2005,1,"This film was amazing! I went to see it the first night it came out, as I'd been waiting to see it for a long, long time. The special effects were incredible definitely the best so far and all completely believable. Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson (Harry and Hermonie) have improved immensely from the last film and Rupert Grint (Ron) was still as convincing as ever. The tournaments were excellently done apart from I would say the third was not long enough and missed a lot out from the book, but it had to be because of small space they had to fit it in. It was definitely the scariest and most moving film so far. However the reason I only gave this a 9 rather than full marks is because it was lacking in all the traditional Harry Potter things that we all love to see, for example there was no sorting hat, no trip to hogsmeade and hardly any actual classes nor any Dursley's or Diagon Alley visits. Another downside was the music in all the other films John Williams (perhaps the greatest film composer of all time) has composed the music yet they got someone different who I feel was pretty awful, on sad bits there was happy music which ruined it, and hardly any music in it at all, and what music there was, was rubbish which was a real shame. Although all of this the screenplay was incredible and the trio were much more believable as teenagers than ever before and some scenes were outstanding like the bath one with Moaning Murtle. I definitely think that you should go to see this film if you have not already and try and see past the bits they just had to miss, and enjoy all the action and funny parts.","['0', '0']" +1167,rw1228940,morph_ball,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),6.0,Yeah...but...No,1 December 2005,0,"As much as I liked the film, i hated it. The first thing that got me was, NO QUIDDITCH WORLD CUP MATCH!!! Whats with that? The bits that they got right in the film, they really did well, the bits that they did bad, they did really awfully. They changed way to much of the storyline and events around, when they didn't really have to, obviously i'm a big fan of the book! But so much was missing, the house elves, the blast ended screwts, so much other stuff which i can't think of right this second. But stuff that could have easily been done right, was done wrong. I'm extremely disappointed, and yet, i did like the film. As weird as this may sound, it was the least faithful to the book, but definitely the best movie out of the four, hopefully they do the next one right!!!!!! So I give it 6 stars from a disappointed fan.","['0', '0']" +1168,rw1238724,harbeau,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),5.0,Harry at his very worst...,7 December 2005,0,"I was, surprisingly, disappointed at the latest installment of this series.We all want to see Harry as the hero. But in this latest, he does...very little that is heroic. In fact, he seems more like a bumbling fool that gets by mostly on luck than any real talent on his part. He is slipped most of his 'insights' from someone else. He mostly runs away from any hostile encounters. His only act that seems 'Harryish' was during an underwater scene. (I'll refrain from details to avoid spoilers). By the end of the movie, I had much more affinity and appreciation towards Hermione than Harry.On the positive side, I'm sure that this was the way the writer wrote it, or at the very least the way the director portrayed it. I hope it leads somewhere. The cinematography was good, the characters were well-portrayed. The acting was what we have come to expect from this series.A good flick to take your kids to on a Sunday matinée, but that's about it.","['0', '0']" +1169,rw1253265,myr613657,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Absolutely Brilliant!!!,2 January 2006,0,"I totally enjoyed everything about this film!!! The only disappointment was that it wasn't long enough! Being a fan first of the Harry Potter films, and then becoming just recently a fan of the books I would be totally willing to pay extra at the box office just to see the original director's cut (4 hour) version! It is my hope that they consider this for the future HP films in order to capture more of Ms. J.K. Rowlings brilliant literary talent! Once again the Cast and Crew of the film did a brilliant job! There was nothing amiss with this film and it was everything I expected and more... I walked out of the theater only wanting to immediately see it again and again! I am now eagerly anticipating the next HP film in 2007!","['0', '0']" +1170,rw1236169,kei__33,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),4.0,the disappointments,8 December 2005,0,"I only give the movie a 4, and its only a 4 because if the graphics and the art of the film, nothing to do with the plot or story line. I was very disappointed with this film. Being a HP fan, I read the book only a week ago so I knew what was meant to happen before seeing the movie...and the result..disappointment. The movie was rushed. they went from one scene to the next within a matter of seconds. one second we're at the Quiditch game, the next we're at school being told about the tri wizard. The next Cedric's dead and voldermort is back. I felt like i was in the cinema for merely half an hour. It did not feel like 2 and a half hours. They missed SO much important information out. And this is only important for those ppl who have read the books (which I would say is 70% of the population of the world). I can list everything they missed out, but I would be hear for ever! Winky, Crousch going mad, the story of crouch's son and wife, the REAL story behind the fight between harry and Ron, how Hermione and krum met, the truth about Neville's parents (i believe it was mentioned but not enough for it to stick in your mind, Ludo Bagman..oh i could go on.The only thing I found interesting about the movie is the graphics, the dragons were great, the scenery were great, everything was great, just the story line was rushed and missing. My advice, ppl who haven't read the book go see it, ppl who have, give up on the movies.Question- what about the next movie? they are going to have to miss out a HEAP of things just to cover this movie and then the next movie is going to have the plot missing and so forth.","['0', '0']" +1171,rw1220708,grg_info,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),9.0,Good Movie but should have been lengthier,20 November 2005,0,"Hey guys!! As a Harry Potter fan I have no way to say that the movie is not good. It is an excellent movie. After all the story line behind it is very good. The only problem I found with the movie was the lack of time to take it in a well organized fashion. The duration of 2 hours and 30 mins. is not enough to include all the critical scenes which were originally written by J.K.Rowling. But I still think that the director did a very good job in keeping the audience interest alive through out the movie. The sequences of Triwizard tournament should have been a little more clear. When it comes to the Return of the King: LOTR series, the movie was well over 3 hrs.. The Warner Bros. should have done the same thing. By taking a little more time and trying to explain things in a better fashion could have been even better. The people who did not read the books but are interested in movies were a little confused at some points. The people who read the books very well like me...were disappointed a little when some important scenes were missing. But over all the movie was good. The teen element was shown in a good way. The ability to make the people laugh is appreciated.","['0', '1']" +1172,rw1221283,journeyprowler,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,The best so far...,21 November 2005,0,"I am happy to say that the Goblet of Fire truly made up for the disastrous Prizoner of Azkaban. Mike Newell brilliantly guided the cast into a realm that no other Potter movie has been. There was a new level of chemistry among the acting group, which made me love them all the more. I will say that the limited involvement of Dumbledore was a wise move. Michael Gambon did a horrible job as Dumbledore. His acting was very contradictory to the typical demeanor of the Dumbledore we have all gotten to know and love. What I saw was not the temperate and amiable wizard Rowling created. Rather he was a bellowing man who normally would make Harry apprehensive to approach or trust with his concerns.Overall, though, the movie was the best so far and I can only hope that the next will be even better.","['2', '4']" +1173,rw1222414,SLR-3,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),4.0,The worst HP film by far.,22 November 2005,0,"What was Mike Newell thinking when he turned down the original idea of having two long films for this book? This one, despite its wonderful performances by Gleeson and Fiennes and yes, at last, even Radcliffe, is a dismal failure. And it's all at the feet of the director who chose to leave out many scenes which were important to the next book, and a few that were important even to this one.Further, for the first half of the film, Newell either allowed or directed Gambon to read his lines as a harsh Dumbledore - which is totally out of character.Mike Newell - shame on you. We could have had something magnificent. You chose to do the easy thing, instead of the right one.","['1', '2']" +1174,rw1243464,blackburnj-1,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,The series is beginning to pick up,20 December 2005,0,"It seems to me that each new Harry Potter film is greeted with the same enthusiasm and expectation. Will the films become better? Will the three central performances improve? However, the films seem to produce disappointment. But with the third instalment, things began to pick up under the charming direction of Alfonso Cuaron and now in the fourth instalment things are continuing down the same route.This instalment shows a wonderful improvement in the performances of Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson. Much of the credit for this must go to the script which provides the threesomes characters with events and themes which they will be experiencing at the moment, therefore making it easier for them to act. Furthermore, the supporting cast has strengthened. Michael Gambon is excellent in what is a pivotal performance for Dumbledore. Brendan Gleeson delivers a brilliant character performance as ""Mad-Eye"" Moody whilst Ralph Fiennes is fantastic and memorable as Voldemort.Technically the film is dazzling. The visual effects are outstanding and fit in the beautifully shot world of Hogwarts. The music, which lost the care of the experienced and versatile John Williams for the most part, was brilliant even though it lost some of the continuity that was gained by this film.Mike Newell has made a superb effort at taking the helm of such a mammoth series. His British touch in the direction has actually given the film an air of the British public school that helps to inject a bizarre and obscure form of humour, which adds to genuinely witty script, provided by Steve Kloves who will not be adapting the next film but will be back for the Half-Blood Prince. It is a little too long, but it can be excused for this as there is so much material in the books to be squeezed in to the short time space provided.A very enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours and a film that shows much promise for the future, Goblet of Fire is entertaining, well-made and emotive.","['0', '0']" +1175,rw1220190,dianawannabe1129,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,The best of the Potter films,20 November 2005,1,"I have seen all 4 of the Harry Potter movies, and they keep getting better and better. By far, this one is the best. You may already know the story, but for those who don't here it goes: Harry has been entered in the Triwizard Tournament. He doesn't know who entered him, so he just faces the tasks at hand. I won't go any further. The special effects were dazzling, and the story was just perfect. Potter fans everywhere will enjoy this film. I can't wait for the next movie in 2007. It may be a long wait, but it will be totally worth it. This is the first Potter movie that has gotten a PG-13 rating, and I can see why. Kids younger than 10 may find some scenes too scary. So parents, take your older children to see this new film, and enjoy it!","['1', '2']" +1176,rw1231645,allisean-1,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),3.0,How much can we cram into two and half hours?!!!,5 December 2005,0,"I found this movie to be a big disappointment. It was very abrupt and staccato in the storyline which made it very hard to follow. The general feel of the movie was not right. In fact, it felt like I was watching a play rather than a movie. None of the characters were developed in this movie. It was WAY too much crammed into 2 hours. This movie should have been two movies. Perhaps they should have released them a month apart or something. Bummer because I was really looking forward to this movie.Another problem was that the characters were wrong. Dumbledore seemed to be ""out of control"" or loosing control. In the books, Dumbledore is always in control or at least up to the last book.","['2', '3']" +1177,rw1225241,dstern1,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,Too much not well explained,26 November 2005,0,"I have seen each of the Harry Potter films so far. I have gone to each film with my little girl who has read each of the books. I have not read any of the books.For much of this film, I was left wondering what was happening. That was not the case in the first 3 installments. My girl had to explain all that I missed in this film, after it was over. I had lots of questions for her.What will I do in 2007 when the next chapter is released and she is too old to want to take her old man to the movies?I still enjoyed the picture but I suspect that it would have been far better with more information for those of us who have not read the books. I heard that it had been planned as 2 films with more subplots; that would have made it a great set of films.","['0', '0']" +1178,rw1250518,xluvmonax,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,"Fast, Fun, Dark",29 December 2005,1,"It's fast going, exciting,and fun! The movie won't ever be as great as the books, but it gets close to it and isn't disappointing. Got to the main things and gives you a fun ride. The dark scenes were the best! The darker the better for Harry Potter --well it will be exciting part of it. It's really whoa! Then again isn't Harry Potter like that? The character's have grown and not just physically. The nasty side to friendship between Ron and Harry was great to see and as always Hermione trying to smooth things out. Harry is once again a victim to someone who wouldn't kill him but definitely bother him. Rita really goes out after Harry and how she tries to make it look like Harry's with Hermione is cute. Hermione's crying was actually great! I thought that was her best scene when she's crying on the steps at the Yule Ball. It's wonderful seeing the different schools and how they are represented. The music, the action, and the characters were all great!","['0', '0']" +1179,rw1218725,PoolOfTears,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,Worth it ?,18 November 2005,1,"Did anyone else think the movie was a bit off ? I mean, I know they can't put everything in the movie that was in the book, but come on, they missed so much. For instance, the lack of Weasleys, no Percy, Bill, Charlie or Mrs. Weasly. We barely see Sirius, no Dobby, no Winky, no S.P.E.W. They do explain the thing with Barty Crouch Jr. but they change the story so that he escaped from Azkaban but they said nothing about his Mother or being under the Imperius curse from his Father. Also, me and my friend were really looking forward to seeing them play at the Quidditch world cup, yes, they did go to the world cup, but you didn't even get to see the teams play. All in all the movie went by to fast for me, everything up to when the champions arrive was about what ten minutes? I found myself constantly saying, we are to that part already? What happened to this part or that part? I was also a little disappointed that Sirius barely made an appearance in the movie, was looking forward to the scene where he reveals himself to Mrs. Weasly and a whole lot of other scenes. However, the movie does have extremely funny parts and extremely sad parts. As a series kind of separate from the books it was a great movie (though, I was a tad disappointed in it all) though,compared to the books, it doesn't even hold a candle. Explanations about why things are done the way they are done, well, lets just say the movie just skims the explanations of it all, not really explaining anything at all. However, the end was very memorable, I just prefer the books over the movie.","['1', '2']" +1180,rw1218682,pntpstlprncss05,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Wow!,18 November 2005,0,"I just got back (literally just walked in the door) from the midnight showing of this movie and all I have to say is ""Wow!"" This movie exceeded all of my expectations. After the third movie left out so many vital plot points and confused the timeline, I was concerned that the movie version of a book twice the size of the 3rd would leave out and confuse even more important information. Needless to say, I left the theater after the third one slightly disappointed and believed that I would have the same reaction to this film. Not so.This film, on the whole, stayed very true to the book. Small things were left out or changed but it did not have a tremendous effect on the plot. I did feel that some parts were rushed, but given that Kloves was given a 2.5 hour time limit, I understand the reasoning behind the parts he rushed and feel that he made good calls with what to leave in and what to throw out. All of the main characters, especially Daniel Radcliffe, have improved their acting tremendously in this film. The parts were cast so well. All emotions (by all characters)were expressed so well both in dialogue and facial expressions. I believed every character. Such was never the case in previous Potter films. There was, in my opinion, a perfect balance of comedy, drama, suspense, and action. Very, very few ""cheesy"" moments that I wish had been done differently, and no aspect of the film was overdone. I personally loved the sly comments by ""Mad-Eye"" Moody which the view does not understand the significance of until after the film is complete (unless, of course, they have previously read the books).This is, in my opinion, by far the best Harry Potter film released to date. I will definitely see it again.","['0', '1']" +1181,rw1221489,Penny_Pringles,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,The Potter films just keep getting better!,21 November 2005,0,"After hearing that the massive Harry Potter and the Goblet Of Fire book was only going to be made into one film, i did not have high expectations of it.However when i went to the midnight showing of the film on the 18th of Novemeber i was completely amazed at not only the film but the acting quality that shined through. Daniel Radcliffe gives his best and most convincing performance yet and i was deeply moved at his emotional scene when he returned Cedric's body back to Hogwarts. Rupert Grint was fantastic as a moody teenager dealing with jealousy and Emma Watson deserves ten out of ten for her performance of Hermione.This film is definitely not one to miss! Ralph Finnes gives such a brilliantly dark entrance to Lord Voldemort returning to power and played the character as sinisterly as J.K. Rowling describes him in the book. And of course we can not forget the forever building romantic chemistry between Ron and Hermione. This is captured perfectly by Rupert and Emma who manages to give a humorous and somewhat emotional hormonal heated argument at the Yule Ball.I promise you that this film does the book absolute justice!!! If you watch it, you won't regret it trust me!","['2', '4']" +1182,rw1222707,c-blauvelt,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,"As teenage angst sets in, Harry Potter must face once again his greatest enemy.",23 November 2005,1,"If people aren't hooked by the very first shot in this movie, then there is really no hope for them. I knew from the very first instant of this film that it would be outstanding in every way. As opposed to the kid-friendly, John Williams tinker-bell score that sounds so similar to ""Somewhere in My Memory"" the movie begins with a much darker variation on the Harry Potter theme. The opening shot follows a snake to the crypt of the Riddle family and a statue that looks ominously like a Death Eater. I adore this first shot so much because it lets the viewer know that right away this film is going to be a lean, mean thriller. And thankfully, the opening scene of Voldemort, Peter Pettigrew, from here on known as Wormtail, and Barty Crouch Junior, immediately immerses you in the ""magical world"" as opposed to the ""real world"" of Harry's dreadful relatives, the Dursleys. Thankfully, the Dursleys are absent from the beginning of this film, and the story begins with Harry, Hermione, and the Weasleys journeying to the Quidditch World Cup. Right away we realize that that opening scene was just a dream, a dream sequence that would become a dramatic motif throughout the rest of the film that often unifies disparate elements into a thriller format.From the very beginning the cinematography in Goblet of Fire is so much more epic than in the other films with its vast sweeping crane and helicopter shots of breathtaking vistas. The mise-en-scene is infinitely darker than the other films even from the first few moments. I love the extremes in the production values here. I adore how so many of the shots throughout feature the darkest gray lighting and yet are of such sweeping expanses.The film is expertly paced from the very beginning, instantly immersing the viewer in this magical world without the often awkward transition of Harry enduring the Dursleys for a while and then entering his world of magic. The dream sequence at the beginning casts a specter over the entire rest of the film, setting the overall mood. This chilling opening is continued with the brilliant attack on the Quidditch World Cup by Voldemort's followers, the Death Eaters. The shots of the playing field after the attack are stunningly bleak, and the appearance of David Tennant as Barty Crouch Junior, who conjures the Dark Mark, is chilling. Barty Crouch Junior seems almost like some sadistic member of the Black and Tans with his leather boots and jacket.So much plot is crammed in this movie that it is almost overwhelming to consider all that happened. I think that in terms of action scenes, the segment beginning the Tri-Wizard Tournament where Harry battles a dragon is one of the most exhilarating, edge-of-your-seat thrill rides I've ever seen.I really have mixed feelings about the teenage romance aspects of this film. Although I think that there might be more there than just a copycat of a 1980s teen comedy, I can't ignore that this whole segment really does slow down the overall plot, especially since it was charging ahead with such glorious speed earlier. And I don't think the film gains back that same momentum until the very end. I think the underwater challenge is not nearly compelling enough for the amount of time allotted to it, but this is nearly forgotten by the brilliance of the final challenge in which Harry must enter a maze of doom. In this maze he and Cedric Diggory are transported to the graveyard of the Riddles seen at the beginning of the film, and there Harry confronts his old nemesis Lord Voldemort, after being forced to give him life by Wormtail. The Dark Lord is played brilliantly by Ralph Fiennes, who turns in a performance of such over-the-top glee perfectly fitting the mountains of set-up in the first four movies leading up to this moment. Voldemort is half-serpent, half-Hamlet, a character really unlike any other I've ever seen. His genius is evident, but also his insecurity as he feels it necessary to duel Potter in order to prove his powers. The final moment of their duel when Harry's parents arrive to help him is the best surprise I could've imagined in that moment.What more can I say about this film? It is a wildly entertaining roller coaster-ride, certainly not without its flaws, but an exhilarating experience nonetheless. Despite the crawl of the middle-section of the film the beginning and end are so perfectly paced it's hard afterwards to even remember that there was a time when it dragged. More than anything I just love how this movie franchise has now grown up with Harry. Gone is the predictable whimsy of a John Williams score. Absent is the kid-friendly, cartoonish sensibility that made the first movie, and even to some degree the second, rather formulaic. Mike Newell knows when it is important to have frenetic visual, loud sound effects, and a bombastic score and never overplays any of these elements like Chris Columbus was wont to do. In Chris Columbus's films never would there have been the quiet chill of Harry's exploration of the foggy maze or the eerie silence of the ruined Quidditch World Cup venue. Patrick Doyle's score is understated for the most part and only supplements the action occurring on screen. Mike Newell has learned from the previous installments that less can be more, not every moment has to be another peril, not every shot has to be filled with frenetic action or deafening sound effects. But when he does include these elements they have so much greater emotional intensity because they punctuate moments of relative quiet simplicity.","['10', '15']" +1183,rw1220206,gingernut_13,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),6.0,poor as per usual,20 November 2005,0,"harry potter once again failed to live up to the books! the world cup match should have been an amazing thrill ride and was let down by the fact that it was more or less cut out. sections were cut that shouldn't have been and bits extended that shouldn't have been. also if you hadn't read the books you could quite easily have been confused by this film...once again it was a Hollywood blockbuster filled with crap and really poor acting. Ralph Vines Valdamort was terrible he was not even scary. I'm sorry to say but four the forth time i have been let down by people making the same mistakes. I'm sorry but even J.K.Rowling will be let down by something that could have been brilliant, also where were half the characters this time, just because you got the three mains doesn't mean the rest go out the window! DID you even read the books! i have to say i am upset that there was no ludo bagman no winky no dobby no bill or Charlie no durslys no Mrs weasly very little serious no buck beak, what about Rita skitters ending? i pretty sure she was a bigger character, dumbeldore was really poor...there was no hogmede trips does ginny ever speak? and I'm sorry but get someone who can act to play harry and hermione, ill say this though Ron wasn't bad and the best bit was when Ron told harry to ""p*** off"" i can no believe you let me down again! who ever wrote this film adaptation should not work in films again!","['1', '2']" +1184,rw1225322,amyobwan,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,worth the wait,26 November 2005,0,"Maybe I am just a fan.. but I was on the edge of my seat... The acting was excellent; the adaptation held it's own; the emotion was high and appropriate to the plot. Sure there were holes I think for those who are not fans of reading the books... but I loved it! Very scary at parts.. wonderful changes in the characters.. like Dumbledore for the first time losing control.. well played.. very well played.. what a performance. The only thing that I can say that would be remotely negative is that Bartimus Crouch Sr. comes off like a child molester.. I read the books of course to I knew the implication was not that in anyway.. but for someone unfamiliar, they might wonder at his motives and why Moody says.. Trying to lure him to an apprenticeship.. It funny to me as a reader.. but unclear to someone who is not.. BUT WOW,.. fantastic.. different... wonderful.","['0', '0']" +1185,rw1223375,theclash12189,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),1.0,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire,23 November 2005,1,"This movie is without a shadow of a doubt one of the biggest pieces of trash to come out in a long while. Daniel Radcliffe is a horrible excuse for an actor, and I give much more credit to his accomplices, as it must have been a challenge to work with what many consider to be the equivalent of a brick wall. The movie did provide some comic relief, which was just about every time Harry had to do some sort of strenuous acting, and the looks on his face were quite jestful indeed. The troop of students from the school ""Durmstrang"" looked like a reenactment of a corrupted Nazi Youth movement, with their yelling in a Germanic tongue and marching in very stiffly. Anyone that would seriously enjoy this movie has either a mental defect, or is under the age of 3.","['0', '2']" +1186,rw1221938,izuko,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),1.0,what's so good?,22 November 2005,0,"I just shelled out my eight dollars or so to see this film. A friend wanted to see it and now I know why she wanted me to pay. I wish someone had payed me instead. I found this film simply boring. So much so that I almost fell asleep. It is too long and uses the Hollywood standard of using special effects to cover the fact that there is no story. It is about teenagers who do not look like teens and magic. I guess I can see why kids or kid-like adults would like this film. Sorry to be negative, but there just is not anything there. For Harry Potter fans this film may hit the mark; otherwise find something else. Even an old Hammer film is better.","['0', '2']" +1187,rw1219467,naotoblood,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,GoF is OMFG,18 November 2005,0,"I saw Goblet of Fire at midnight last night/this morning dressed in full slytherin garb, and between all of my firends there at the theater, we waited a collective 9 hours, from 3 in the afternoon until the movie showed. and believe me, it was worth the wait! if i'd known even 1/8 of what was to occur during the movie, i would have waited more. Goblet of Fire has been the BEST adaptation of the Harry Potter series so far. Ralph Fiennes played a perfect Voldemort (and who better to cast than the Nazi, Amon Goeth, from Schindler's List?). all the new actors portrayed their characters wonderfully, and all the old faces, as well. it seemed in this film that many of the characters were given far more personality than in the past three, and the three main actors, dan radcliffe, rupert grint, and emma watson, have truly come into their own in this film. this time i cannot say ""oh, they could have played that scene SO much better,"" because this time around they really nailed it. then there is the actual portrayal of the story itself. this new crew did an incredible job. yes, a lot of things were left out. yes, a lot of things were changed. yes, a lot of things were added. but how much does that really matter? last night, whilst watching the movie, i was on the edge of my seat. for the ENTIRE last 1/2 an hour of the movie i and my best friend beside me were gasping and clinging to each other, entirely wrapped up and in tears over the movie.i am a huge advocate for the books, and have read them many, many times through, and i can say that when it comes down to it, although much of the events in the book were removed, the basic point of the story, the most important emotions and events, were present, and they were REALLY present. Goblet of Fire the movie got across in 2 1/2 what Goblet of Fire the book took 734 pages to describe.this is a DEFINITE MUST SEE. my friends and i have already made plans to see it together at least 2 more times (at least once on Imax because it really is a wonderful Imax movie), and you should plan to see it at least once.","['0', '1']" +1188,rw1220992,lifeizblack101,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),5.0,Choppy and hard to follow ***Possible Spoilers***,19 November 2005,1,"Now, although I may not have rated this film very high, believe me, I am a BIG Harry Potter fan and did truly enjoy the movie. My only problem was that if I hadn't read the books, I wouldn't have known what was going on.I liked how they got rid of the Dursleys, and when they showed the Portkey to the Quidditch World Cup. But when they completely skipped over the Quidditch match, I knew that this would be disappointing. One of the most exhilarating and loved things about these movies are Quidditch, and here they go, getting rid of every last shred of it, not to mention making the movie chopping and hard to follow.And then when Harry gets to Hogwarts, you can see that Professor Flitwick is much younger, with short, dark, brown hair (instead of long, white hair.) Hard to follow...uh, yeah! And then with the whole crowd-surfing at the yule ball...umm, no.Speaking of the Yule ball, Hermione comes out screaming that Ron ruined everything, but it never says what he did! And later, when a character dies, Harry goes to tell Dumbeldore, but instead looks into a pensieve, and never tells Dumbeldore; this character is never mentioned again.I also think that they butchered the maze scene; instead of spiders, sphinxes, and other scary creatures, we get man-eating vines. The ending was also a let-down, as Hermione says ""Everything is going to change now,"" the last lines of the movie, and again, no one knows what she is talking about! I must admit, though, that the acting was done very well, and I did like them getting rid of useless characters such as the Dursleys and Winkie. But besides that, this movie was a let down compared to the third one, which completely blew my mind.If you are a Harry Potter fan and have read the books, I suggest you go see it, because it is still extraordinarily entertaining. But if you have not read the books, I suggest you read it first, for even I, a reader of the book, was confused at times.","['0', '1']" +1189,rw1212698,unnamedanger06,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Best potter movie to date and the best movie of the year so far.,5 November 2005,1,"I just recently saw the Goblet of Fire at a screening,and all i have to say is WOW! It is so awesome to see the trio finally growing up. They have managed to keep the story alive and the action going. The new actors did great as their roles. The best scene in the movie is the sequence in the graveyard scene. I loved it and i cant wait till the 5th movie. This has to be the best movie I've seen this year. It has story, action, humor, and drama. I loved this movie and this surpasses the past 3 in almost every way. This has got to be one of the best series ever to be captured no just on books but in movies as well. I'm going to go see it again on the 18th. Go see it you'll love it. 10/10","['89', '177']" +1190,rw1242728,barefaced_chic,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,"A few wrinkles, but still the best Potter yet",15 December 2005,0,"I'll throw up my hands and confess I HAVE NEVER, EVER READ A HARRY POTTER. This placed me at an immediate disadvantage when watching this movie (though I have watched all the previous instalments with a cool, but interested eye). Nevertheless, along I went, and found myself thrilled, chilled and, er, spilled for the duration. Although the oddly speeded-up pace of the opening (the Quidditch World Cup hardly gets five minutes more than sufficient to impress an audience with awe-inspiring CG) jarred me a little, once the film had settled down and found its pace I was spellbound. The darkness is really closing in at Hogwarts, and finally a Potter movie has stopped patronising and started actually trying to be a film for adults as well as tots (who will be snivelling at the sight of the hideous, evil Voldemort, made even more sinister by Ralph Fiennes' superb turn).Twee child-friendly magic-for-laughs such as inflating a bothersome relative has been largely dispensed with, and a strong element of horror and fear crept needlingly into the formerly cosy warmth of Hogwarts. Now the youngsters are growing up, finding love, finding out why life can be cruel, and having to confront the darker side of witchcraft and wizardry. The direction is generally strong and assertive, and the spirit of the previous films lingers with the addition of a lot more spice and excitement.Not that this film is perfect by any means. Aside from continuity errors and a choppy edit for the first 20 minutes, many wonderful characters have been swept aside by the need to cram so much into such a short space of time. Snape has faded, Draco Malfoy all but disappeared and even Hagrid doesn't get much of a look in. I am reliably informed by my Potter mad friends that much key plot has been axed for the sake of time. So what does get the focus? Unfortunately as this saga unfurls, more and more time is being spent following Harry in his struggles with the past and present. This is the most emotionally charged chapter in the Potter movies thus far, and Harry's journey would be difficult for any young actor to pull off. A stronger actor than Radcliffe would, however, be better able to handle the challenge of acting with CG and SFX, and would be unfazed by the (sometimes Oscar-winning) pros around him (particularly after three movies playing the same character). Radcliffe, however, shows here more starkly than in any previous Potter, that his range is disappointingly limited. Emma Watson and Rupert Grint are trying hard, and often succeeding, at convincingly playing the confused teenage friends, but Daniel Radcliffe's characterisation of the teen wizard is still painfully self-conscious. Potter is growing up, and Radcliffe is in serious danger of being outgrown by his own character.Radcliffe aside (and he's young, and has much potential), the cast is wonderful, stellar and delivering buckets of charisma on every level, and finally a British helmer has risen to take the reins of what is, after all, a quintessentially British tale. I hope that the Potters will continue to gather momentum, and this has certainly been the best so far.","['0', '0']" +1191,rw1219308,silby1867,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,A job well done,18 November 2005,0,I was interested to see how on earth any writer & director was going to manage to condense such a large novel into 2 1/2 hours of film. I think they did a sterling job. They did the only thing possible and eliminated almost all of the sub plots paring the story down to its bare bones. I disagree that any who had not read the book would be left adrift. My son hasn't read it and found no fault with the continuity and enjoyed the film very much. As the story gets 'darker' in content with each new book I was not surprised at the 12a (UK) rating and wondered if the last one will have to be an 18! :) I have no complaints to make as there is no way that you can ever do a completely faithful version of a book. How can you when you are dealing with a completely different medium? Well done to all the cast and crew for a thoroughly enjoyable experience. Can't wait for the next one!,"['1', '2']" +1192,rw1220313,matthewtooke63,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),1.0,Terrible,20 November 2005,1,"TO be honest, this was my favourite book of all of them so far and frankly i was shocked at how terrible it really was. For gods sake will you choose a SUITBALE Dumbledore?? Its really depressing to see a wannabee actor playing the great wizard. All the good parts were missing from the book!! We didn't see David Tennant have his soul sucked which was rubbish, for goodness sake, get it together with amateur acting man!! I wasted my money and I certainly won't be buying this twaddle on DVD. I hope they pick it up for the next one as I immensely enjoyed ""The Order Of The Phoneix"" and its structure. I advise anyone with a likeness to the book, PLEASE Don't SEE IT!!!!","['35', '55']" +1193,rw1211870,sabes900_13,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),10.0,Different Potter movie...,8 November 2005,0,"I was lucky to have the opportunity to see this movie. I know that people are tired of hearing this, but is THE BEST POTTER FILM I've ever seen. OK, I'm a fan of Harry Potter, but not so much of their movies. I think that the three previous movies were OK, but it has a different style of the last one (the previous hadn't so much mysterious, well at least the first and the third). The music was OK (although Patrick Doyle used a lot of violins) and the Mcbeth sisters were excellent! Of my part I think that this is the best of Newell (Mona Lisa smile was boring!!!)and I hope him to direct another Potter movie. My rate is 10/10, i'm glad to say that it deserved it :).","['63', '127']" +1194,rw1231564,whoaitsholly,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),6.0,Just read my comment yo!,5 December 2005,0,"First of all, I thought Mike Newell totally f**ck-ed up a great story like Harry Potter. Of course, if you aren't someone original like me who read the book before the movie was released, of course you're going to think, ""WOW! That was great!"" Wel f*ck that.. This movie wasn't great this time at all! Mike Newell excluded plenty of big parts from this movie that were written by JK Rowling herself. A part such as where in the end, they were supposed to be shown leaving for the summer and at the train station, where Hermione was supposed to kiss Harry on the cheek and such. Well, thanks Mike Newell for screwing up Harry Potter's true story. But other than that, thanks, because for those who hadn't read the book before, it still was a great movie overall!","['1', '3']" +1195,rw1243619,ab-2,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,"Goblet is good, but just too long to sustain its Fire",20 December 2005,1,"The time is upon us. No, not the holiday season.. It's the fourth film in the highly anticipated Harry Potter series. For those who are interested, the first was simple children's fare, the second was better, and the third was the best. The fourth is quite enjoyable in many respects, but feels too long to be thoroughly entertaining.Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is in his fourth year at Hogwarts. It is also time for the TriWizard Tournament, in which a select trio of young wizards and witches perform deadly feats to be the winner for their magic school. Even though Harry Potter is too young to enter the tournament, his name somehow ends up in the Goblet of Fire, and he is chosen to be a competitor. There is more to this mystery, and he will soon learn that a lot is at stake.The Harry Potter films are definitely different from most run of the mill fantasies. For one thing, in most fantasy films, the acting is atrocious. With the Harry Potter series, the acting, especially by the three main protagonists, gets better and better. It seems as they get older, the three actors greatly exhibit their teenage angst with the characters. The returning cast is great of course. Michael Gambon (Dumbledore), Maggie Smith (Minerva McGonagall), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Gary Oldman (Sirius Black) and Jason Isaacs (Lucius Malfoy), all play their roles with entertaining fervor. Even though they all played much better parts in the past, they seem to be enjoying their roles, and overall are great to watch. Brendan Gleeson is the most impressive, as Professor ""Mad Eye"" Moody, who specializes in teaching the dark arts. His performance is so full of energy and passion that it is just absolute fun watching him perform as this nutty character. Ralph Fiennes, despite his short role as Lord Voldemort, is quite terrifying. His voice eerily fits this villainous character. He's bound to scare the children.This film is a great example of visual cinema at its best. The beautiful Gothic sets evoke a dark, mystical feeling that helps add to this fairy tale story. The cinematography by Roger Pratt captures a very ominous and creepy settings gives the viewer the feeling that they are a part of this world of mystery and magic. The special effects are also well done. They seem are when necessary and come off well.Unfortunately, this movie's strong parts are hampered by an editing job that seems to have gone unnoticed. The movie feels too long. Had it been cut down by a mere twenty to thirty minutes, it may have turned out a lot better. Some scenes just go on for longer than they should. There is no need for Harry Potter's dream to be repeated as much as it is. There are also scenes that seemed unnecessary to the story.One example is when McGonagall is teaching the boys of Hogwarts how to dance. She chooses Ron as her partner, much to his embarrassment. This is an unnecessary scene that could've been put on the cutting room floor to help keep the story moving along. Another such scene is when Professor Moody turns Draco Malfoy into a ferret after he attempts to perform a spell on Harry Potter while Harry's back is turned. It is a funny scene, but in the end, does it further the story at all? Barely. The most it shows is how powerful Professor Moody is, but we all already know that by the middle of the movie. The film is two hours and thirty minutes long, yet feels like four hours and fifty minutes.This movie is very enjoyable, despite its shortcomings. It's got action and thrills that will please parents as well as children. While the story is not as intriguing as the third, it's still enjoyable.Final Grade: B","['0', '0']" +1196,rw1226468,spam-539,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),8.0,Great Harry Potter,25 November 2005,1,"Great Harry Potter movie. For those (who are most of us) who have read the books, this movie cuts out about 40%, where part 3 cut out 20% and 1 and 2 cut out less than 2%. This is because the books have gotten bigger, and the directors have changed.The negatives are the same as part 3. Dumbledore. The actor they got to play him is horrible. I understand no one can play the part like Richard Harris, but they could of at least tried to find someone that could at least try to play the role. After part 3 the internet was in an uproar at the awful behavior of Dumbledore and the way he was portryed. The ""new"" dumbledore said in an interview that he had never read the books, and that he didn't even watch part 1 on and 2. He simply read the screenplay and decided he would play the character how he felt it was. Of course his performance was horrible. If you go in to this movie hoping he will do a better job, or at least have taken some acting lessons, read a book, or tried to get into the role of Dumbledore, you will be disappointed. He's every bit as horrible, and whats worse, he has more screen time. The word Veela was never used in the film :( and the women who were supposed to have Veela blood did not. Nor were they attractive. The entire plot was stripped from the movie as I suppose it would of cost them too much extra money to put Dooby or Winky in the movie. What does this mean? It means most of the key points of the story through the 7th movie will have to be rewritten to pay for this oversight. Some good things however. The twins have a lot more involvement, lines, and screen time, and most of their scenes were not cut from the movie :) Thats a huge redeeming value right there :) Also Luscious makes an appearance! Sirius Black actually talked to Harry in the fire, but since again I guess it would of cost too much to put his face above the fire, they rewrote how flu communication works, and had the logs talk to Harry instead.The movie was excellent even with the lack of a dumbledore. Mad Eye Moody was a great cast for this film. Voldemort was a great cast and looked fantastic. Diggory and Cho were excellent. I loved the film as it is Goblet of Fire. But I can't get over the biggest disapointments that not only hurt the quality of the movie, but also forshadow ruining movies in the future.","['0', '0']" +1197,rw1220337,deo1954,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),9.0,Longer may have been better,20 November 2005,0,"First, imagine the task of trying to fit this book into a 157 minute movie. People were chosen to condense this book into a movie with a time frame in mind. That is where I believe they were wrong. This was a great movie, however to do the book justice and give credit to the actors abilities to bring life to the story... another 30 minutes or so I believe would have given this movie the depth and strength that it needed. Leaving characters out completely and not giving more intense interactions between Ron and Harry may have just made this movie not be one of the great ones. Don't get me wrong, what there was, WAS GREAT, yet I as a fan wanted more. I am a huge fan and love the books and I truly hope that the last several movies will give this wonderful series justice.","['1', '3']" +1198,rw1219527,stacielynnbaker,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),7.0,"Disappointed is my general feeling, but there are some real charms in the movie!",19 November 2005,1,"First, I will say that I am indeed a fan of the books (almost to obsession) and of course, that will taint anyone's view of a movie. Stories written for books just don't translate to the screen in the same way, but that doesn't make the movie bad, just different.It would have been a challenge to anyone to get everything in the book onto the screen. There is just A WHOLE LOT going on in this story (and I'm sure we will have the same problem with the remaining films).My biggest complaint is that the movie seemed to just jump from one thing to another without any explanation as to why it was there. I would guess that if you haven't read the book, you might be thinking ""what on earth is going on?"" However, if you haven't read the book, you might also be blessed with not knowing what is missing.The scenery in the movie was beautiful! And the ""randy"" Moaning Myrtle was hysterical. The effect of Fleur on Ron, was also fantastic! The dragons were amazing and I was VERY impressed with Harry's gilleyweed transformation.Then there is Voldemort. Ralph Fiennes was fantastic! The make-up was perfect. He looked snake-like, he was grandiose, and scary. The entire scene in the graveyard was wonderful. Almost exactly as I had pictured it from reading the book. It was spooky and true to J.K. Rowling's version! I felt like the Director did a great job with being true to the book in this movie, he just had so much to work with that he couldn't put it all in. He did a bad job with transitioning between the things that he decided to include (a really bad job).All in all, I was disappointed. However, I was worried how it would all go into the movie, so I'm not surprised that it didn't go well. I can complain, but I have no idea how to ""fix"" it. Visually, the movie was beautiful. Still worth seeing, just go in with a reduced expectation and you won't be disappointed!","['0', '1']" +1199,rw1219389,m_imdb-325,Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005),9.0,best Potter so far,19 November 2005,0,"I went to the cinema with great expectations. I was so happy that finally the long waiting was over, I sat down in that big, cuddly cinema chair and was curious about to start it. After I had to bore 45 min of advertisement the movie started. The first impression was really good - the snake, which sidles through the graveyard, Harry's dream of the old man, who dies in the Riddel's house by the curse of Voldemort. But than Harry wakes up at the Weasleys burrow, one minute later he is at the Quidditch tournament and 3 minutes later it is already over. In one moment they celebrate the win of Ireland over Bulgaria, in the next Harry lies on the ground and watches at the dark mark (?? don't how it's named in English?? - dark mark sounds kind of funny). And soon he is on the train to Hogwarts. The beginning of the film seems a bit snatchy. Everything is only shortly named and shown. But with the beginning of the triwizard tournament, the movie gets started. The single tasks are really good display. The computer animations are good. The fight against the dragon is exciting, the mermaids are ugly and the maze had a touch of creepy. I waited for wicked and bad creatures, but this task was also a bit too much shortened. The middle of the movie is very very funny. Look out for Filch and Neville. The end is again really good displayed and all in all it's a short but nice adaptation of the book and the best Potter-Movie so far, especially because of the humor. (the actors are their bests, but the German synchronization is never as good as the original)","['0', '1']" +1200,rw1251183,whepler,King Kong (2005),6.0,A Surprising Disappointment,30 December 2005,0,"If anything, I entered ""rooting"" for Peter Jackson's dream project come true. Trusted friends praised it. But I left finding this Kong a clear case of an empowered director too close to his dream, throwing in everything but the kitchen sink—literally—and taking almost everything to the extreme, as if to make the movie ""even better"". Kong is overlong and poorly scripted from the start, with excessive back stories in over 40 minutes of build-up, including a sudden, inexplicable romance between Watts and Brody. While the original Kong also false-started, it had the legitimate excuse of 1933 pacing that Jackson can't claim.HIGH ON CREATIVITY, WEAK ON PACING & EDITING: Kong finally takes off with the creatively swirling, hazardous arrival in the waters of Skull Island that gives the viewer hope, until the grotesque and ultra-violent islanders appear and confront our heroes. As happens all too predictably in the film, a ""knick-of-time"" occurrence leads us to the star of the show—and Kong is a well-done piece of computer imagery (and arguably the best actor, too). But the barrage of blitzkrieg edits & images that follow leave even the most attention-deprived viewers occasionally asking Jackson, ""Can I just see this scene for a second?"" To be sure, a rumble in the vines between cliffs is very creative and fun—but like most everything else, goes too far for too long. And how many Spielberg-like, humorous ""near misses"" can credibly occur between dinosaurs, bugs, ape and the unbelievably resilient femme fatale? In fact, the movie with all its length, FX and edits is more like a few films: while Kong and Watts cozy up (this is beyond fantasy and simply not believable, including a laughable vaudeville routine to placate poor Kong), the male pursuers engage in a couple movies of their own, reminiscent of Ray Harryhausen's old Sinbad and Mysterious Island flicks, and begging thoughts of, ""Interesting FX, but can we get back to Kong?"" WEAK ON WRITING TOO: The writing left the actors with little defense, often delivering lines directly to the camera as if stepping out of scene, particularly the slimy Carl Denham played by Jack Black, who for all his talent, can't carry this film as Jackson intended him to. Fact is, the original Carl Denham wasn't slimy—he was an opportunist with heart, and Jackson and his co-writers simply mis-wrote the part. Watts grew into her part by film's end, but no actress can teach Kong ""beautiful"" via a sunset, while supposedly fearing for her life, and engaging in the aforementioned vaudeville. Perhaps worst of all is her call to soothe the enraged Kong in the streets of New York when he's tossing aside every blonde to find her: there, in back-lit silhouette, stands Watts—seeking Kong out(!), much like Dirty Harry in Sudden Impact (""Go ahead, make my day""). It was honestly laughable—and ill-timed laugher could occasionally be heard during Kong. Give Jackson credit, though: he was insane not to include the legendary train scene from the original (his extreme pacing couldn't have tolerated it anyway), but the planes and Kong put on a bravura finale before Black uttered the famous last line—directly to the camera, of course.I'm sorry to drag this film down. I was rooting for it. But it's hard to believe an honest, objective viewer could watch this Kong and continue the glowing reviews of others. An honest viewer would instead ask what Jackson might have done with his pet project had it come before Lord of the Rings, as intended.","['6', '11']" +1201,rw1242704,Ultra-violence,King Kong (2005),9.0,Instant Hollywood Classic!,19 December 2005,0,"In the middle of this film, I came to the conclusion that Peter Jackson is the next greatest Hollywood director. It was a surreal event watching King Kong in awe, knowing that any other movie that would try to be the next ""King Kong"" was going to fail miserably. The film was able to let you forget that the creatures in the film were computer generated and the way that Jackson was able to put you in the environment of the film was very intense. I felt like I was on the island the whole time! It is a must see movie and definitely worth your time and money! However I do think that the casting of Jack Black might have been a little off, although I can't think of anyone better. Naomi Watts did a great job along with Adrian Brody. I'm embarrass to say that I have never seen the original ""King Kong"" but it did seem like it stuck to the story line pretty well and kept all the memorable scenes. It was three hours long but it really didn't feel like three hours long the first time watching the film. There was some scenes that I could've sworn were ripped out of ""Jurassic Park"" but I'll pretend I didn't see it.","['3', '16']" +1202,rw1240066,ptudor,King Kong (2005),2.0,A BIG hulking dumb animal,16 December 2005,0,"For a monster sized disappointment...Histrionics. What lets it down is the poor script - no attempt made to improve upon what has come before.Where is the artistic vision? The subtle message of the ""Rings"" trilogy? The sensitive portrayal of the human characters? Because the ape gets all the good lines! I don't blame Black for his wooden performance, because he was handed plywood, rather than real timber, for lines.For this reason, the original is far superior.Overlong, overwrought and over the top.","['10', '20']" +1203,rw1237925,djfrier@hotmail.com,King Kong (2005),9.0,A good remake of a beautiful story.,13 December 2005,0,"Jackson has done it good with this movie, when i first heard about ""another"" King Kong movie, my first thought was "" why? "" i felt that this story wouldn't be able to come to life once more, and feared that it would have become nothing els then a action flick, with cool effects and no story, killing the magic of this wonderful adventure for good. I was proved wrong.! Jackson has indeed made the story come back from the dead, and renewed. We have seen others try making the ""Beast in the city"", like in ""the lost world"" (the t-Rex in New york) and Godzilla. Were both films were a rip off and were nothing more then effect shows, with characters that weren't true or catching, u did not feel with the story. Here in ""Kong 2005"" we have a beautiful told story, true to the original, a love story ""beauty and the beast"" and also action, thrill and excitement. all together a good remake of a classic that will be remembered, not as a bad remake but as a movie true to its story.","['1', '17']" +1204,rw1238354,dr.al,King Kong (2005),7.0,Less is more,14 December 2005,0,"While the actual vision of the ape King Kong is fantastic and the look of old NY and the various settings on the island and in the forest is breathtaking, the movie only rates a 7. I know you have to develop your characters, but these characters have been around for more than 70 years. Most people have at least an idea who the main characters are - and most of the ones introduced in this movie were just fodder for Kong anyway. Cut the first hour down to 30 minutes, better yet 20. Or even better than that, use a few more minutes to develop the relationship between Brody and Watts.Jack Black was not a good choice for Carl Denham. I've seen him in too many movies where's he's played a whacked out sidekick (High Fidelity, Orange County, Mars Attacks) or just a sort of whack-o (pick any of his other movies). But in those movies he's always tried to be a funny whack-o, here he's just called on to be a driven, maniacal, serious movie director and it doesn't work.In LOTR Jackson could put anything on the screen and you'd believe it, it was total fantasy and there was no right or wrong, light or dark - everything was in your imagination. In KK, when Kong is attacked by 3 T-Rexs' you expect him to get a little banged up, especially when they're trying to tear his arm off in almost every scene. But no, he comes out of that scrape with little more than a few cuts. Yet in the naxt reel he's shot with a harpoon and he drops within seconds. I guess he was worn out from fighting the dinosaurs. Unfortunately there are several examples like this (Why was that ship still afloat? How did Kong get aboard?) in the movie.I know, the island is full of surprises. Does that mean we have to see Jack Black in a long close-up with a surprised look on his face every 15 minutes? And if not him Naomi Watts. Surprised close-ups were too numerous to count.It just didn't seem like anybody liked anybody else in this movie. I felt nothing between Watts and Brody, nothing between Jack Black and anybody, and not a whole lot between Watts and Kong. Although she is a real woman and he (it?) is a CGI blob of pixels added long after the original shot was filmed. So I guess I should cut her some slack.See the movie, you decide. But if you're going in expecting anything on the scale and emotion of LOTR, or the early Star Wars you will be disappointed","['8', '18']" +1205,rw1252379,mailebok,King Kong (2005),9.0,Excellent,1 January 2006,1,"First of all, I am really annoyed with the huge bunch of people, whining about the 'incredibility' of this brilliant and mind-sweeping uber-adventure. If you wanna see something realistic, turn on the ****ing news. Call me crazy, but a movie about a 30 foot gorilla isn't really supposed to be realistic now, is it? I would like to introduce those morons to a concept called 'movie world': a wonderful, beautiful world, where everything is possible. So just try to enjoy this movie, without spoiling your own fun (and infinitely worse, the fun of innocent co-viewers, a crime vs humanity) by focusing on irrelevant improbabilities.That said, I rate the movies I see by the way I feel when I leave the theater. This is why I liked the movie: 1. All action sequences are thought through up to the little details. You can see Peter Jackson and his crew worked very hard trying to make them as good as possible (and boy, did they succeed).2. Emotionally, this movies hits a soft spot. I really felt for that big ugly (but beautifully animated) gorilla. Most of the other characters where quite convincing, too.3. As in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Jackson again touches deeper themes and issues, without explicitly mentioning them. The loneliness of Kong, the despair of a society in depression and many others.4. Some great humorous moments. I almost fell on the floor when Kong keeps pushing Ann.In short, Kong is a great movie, no matter what some stuck-up, nitpicking, humorless, over-critical know-it-alls with zero imagination tell you. Watch it with an open mind and I'm positive you'll enjoy it. P.s.: The **** in the first paragraph stands for 'even'","['1', '3']" +1206,rw1240195,scotty-37,King Kong (2005),4.0,Bad Interspecies Romance,17 December 2005,1,"This movie was huge budget with spectacular effects and reasonable acting considering the subject matter. It was limited in subject and I had a hard time taking the giant ape and human girl romance seriously. I'd recommend not wasting your money on this movie unless you're seeing it because you're tired of staring at the shiny thing on the floor or picking your belly button lint.It had all the same problems that the original movie did, only it was more self-conscious of its faults and tried to take itself more seriously than the original movie did. The seriousness resulted in many moments in which the sap was poured on so thick and earnestly that it dripped off the screen.I can't figure out why the woman in the movie had the desire to go on the dating circuit with the Kongster. Sure he saved her from Land of the Lost dinosaurs after he decided not to tear her up as he apparently did with the previous victims. Aw, what a nice giant ape monster. He didn't kill her because she had a hot body and is apparently mega-beautiful (as we're patted on the head and told at the end of the movie).I suspect she really liked him because of ""Stockholm Syndrome"" in which kidnap victims begin to be sympathetic with their captors. Either that or she just likes really tall . . . er . . . violent and abusive 100 foot tall apes. Next on Jerry Springer, giant apes and the women who love them.The movie has 3 long and indulgent sections and Peter Jackson's thinking seems to be something like: Act 1: Isn't the great depression horrible? Lets go on an ocean voyage with some scoundrels and set up the characters in the movie. Oh, those mildly lovable rascals!Act 2:Lets get our characters stuck on an island with murderous natives who want to kidnap our virgins and crush all our characters' skulls. When the virgin gets kidnapped it would be fun to have a ramble through Jurassic Park and Land of the Lost for a while. Grisly deaths should keep things serious and make people forget how dumb this whole plot really is. We need people to take this really, really seriously. Many deaths will distract people for a while. Oh, and lets be sure that the interspecies date goes well enough to warrant a second date in act 3. We don't want Kong to be elimidated just yet.Act 3: Don't exploit Kong! If he doesn't get a second date he'll go on a rampage. He has the second date all planned out. First he'll go ice skating and the couple can laugh happily as they fall down in a loving heap on the ice as they slowly fall in deeper and deeper love. Then it's up to the top of the Empire State Building to watch the sun rise over Manhattan. It's the perfect ending to an almost perfect night. But alas, that their interspecies date was so misunderstood by a judgmental society! The military has been called in and has torn their star-crossed love apart. Such a sad ending for the giant ape that was charmed by the beauty and power of love. He just wanted to be loved was that so wrong?","['11', '21']" +1207,rw1242226,Roger_Sterling,King Kong (2005),10.0,Simply unbelievable. Peter Jackson has done it again.,19 December 2005,0,"I heard this movie was good, but damn! It was a lot better than I though it would be. The CGI was great, especially Kong. The stampede of dinosaurs was awesome, to say the least. This movie really took me by surprise; not how great (and lengthy) it was, but how Kong and Ann bonded emotionally. And in those scenes where they both laughed, it makes you sad, because you know what eventually happens to Kong. Even though you expect his death, I still felt sad when he died. I actually didn't realize it at first, since he dies with his eyes open. The acting was good, not great. Adrien Brody is a decent actor, but I'm sad to say he isn't leading man material. Jack Black really pulled off being an a-hole. But seriously, he was good as the twisted Denham. Naomi Watts has the best of the performances. The movie was a little slow, taking the cast about an hour to get to the island. But after that, the action rarely lets up. But don't let the length stop you from seeing this outstanding movie.","['2', '9']" +1208,rw1237974,nobbytatoes,King Kong (2005),9.0,King...,13 December 2005,1,"Carl Denham is looking for his big break in the movie business. His production company want to shut him down and his new idea. Before they can stop Denham, he sets a plan to take his crew to a unknown location to make his movie. Ann Darrow is an actress of theater. She has lost her work and no money to her name. While trying to steal food, Ann is seen by Carl and pleas with her come right away on the boat to be his leading lady. Along for the ride against his wishes is the screen writer Jack Driscoll, not having the screen play finished. Soon the captain of the ship; Captain Englehorn finds were Carl is taking them, Skull Island. On the decision to turn around they hit thick fog, where in the middle they crash into Skull Island. The Island is an ancient ruin, deserted by its inhabitants. They start filming but they finds its not deserted. The race of people attack the crew and take Ann away; to be sacrificed to the creature Kong. The crew of the ship set out to find Ann, but Carl is desperate to film his movie. They find the island is a sanctuary of old dinosaurs creatures; ones you'll know and other you've never seen before.Peter Jackson has recreated King Kong on a magnificent grand scale. He has been very faithful to the original movie, yet broadening the scope of the film and making it his own film. Jackson has wonderfully created the depression era of New York in the 1930's so accurately. The New York landscape is just flawless. Once they arrive on the island it really hits top gear. The creature are absolutely amazing; with the herd of Brontosaurases and T-Rex's, and odd array of amazing insect creatures. The action moves at a relentless pace, and done of such high caliber. The stamped of Brontosaurases is a wondrous sight. The fight between Kong and three T-Rex's and just mind blowing. The best action sequence was the attack of insects on the crew. What made it so intense was not due to the action, but the musical score behind it. The low chanting hum sent shivers down my spine and made it the most spectacular action sequence.The visual effects are simple faultless. The dinosaur creatures are so well integrated. King Kong though is the best creature of them all. There is so much detail to his body, even more to his face. Andy Serkis does a brilliant job for the facial recognition features of Kong. The island landscape is also so detailed, without being visually overloading. At times it did have that Mordor, Lord of the Rings feel in the natives village, but it really brought that harshness from their culture forward. The colour pallet of the film is so deep and rich. The dark hues really brought the lighter colours to the front; increasing their intensity.Naomi Watts does one of her best performances. She really brings the connection between Ann and Kong; you believe there is a love connection. Jack Black once again shows he can restrain his outlandish ego and bring a great dramatic performance. He really showed the hubris nature of Carl to go beyond all measure just for his film. Adrien Brody wasn't as good as Watts and Black, yet really showed his love for Darrow. Peter Jackson's directing is just amazing. After the Lord of the Rings trilogy you saw how he can created brilliant action sequences and he does it all over again. He has so meticulous gone over all the details, its hard to pick faults with King Kong. He shows that he has a fine knowledge of the original, making a remake which does justice to the original.King Kong is one of the best remakes ever made, yet stands alone as one brilliant movie.","['6', '28']" +1209,rw1240136,lesnatx9,King Kong (2005),10.0,Don't be fool by the opening numbers.. Hmmm.. is the remake better than the original?.. Very very close..,16 December 2005,0,"I love this movie, and yes I will go see it again, because it is THAT amazing, that's why I was so surprised to see what the opening numbers were.. why wouldn't people see this movie? IS A NO BRAINER, this movie is a classic, the effects are amazing, very realistic, the scenes with the dinosaurs definitely surpass anything Spielberg did with jurassic park. And king kong.. what can I say.. you will forget that it is a computer designed character.. it seems so real that you feel for him, I must've cried at least 4 times during the movie, and no it wasn't because of the real life actors (although they were really good) but kong's humanistic expressions. It is three hours long, however they go by so fast, that once you realized the ending is about to approach you will wish that it wouldn't. Peter Jackson did such a great job with this because he not only managed to really pay honor to the original, but also almost very very close.. surpassed it. If you are a fan of the original, and were terrified by the bad remakes or spin offs that were done before, trust me you won't be disappointed with this, because Jackson managed to keep the movie true to the original, while updating it with today's technology. Which yeah brings me to this point, the visual effects (no they are not special effects because most of them were done in computer) were very well done, not too exaggerated to the point where it looks fake ( which is hard to do when you have dinosaurs and a big gorilla destroying the city) but they were done in such a way that its hard to believe they are not real. Overall I give this movie 10/10 and I would definitely recommend everyone to see it, whether you are a fan of the original one, or you are a fan of Jackson's work, or both, or even if you are not familiar with neither.. this movie will leave you in awe.. Great movie.","['2', '9']" +1210,rw1240870,rangelo-1,King Kong (2005),2.0,Best Sleeping Medicine Ever,18 December 2005,0,"Whilst i can't disagree with the excellent special effects.. I can't believe the reviews I have read, this film is truly dreadful and takes boredom in a movie to a whole new level. The fact it takes over an hour for the monkey to appear is bad enough,but as they try to make you believe in the characters it borders on embarrassment.Slowing down the filming so you know it was a supposed tender moment.I assume that's because we are all so dumb we wouldn't have realised.I kept looking for my remote control to turn over the channel so I could stop cringing then realising in great horror I was at the cinema and couldn't.My views are obvious so I won't go on anymore except to say that when Jack Black had the final line of Beauty killed the Beast surely I wasn't the only one who started laughing..","['12', '23']" +1211,rw1243739,rammagamma,King Kong (2005),9.0,King Kong is a must-see,21 December 2005,0,"I don't like Blockbusters and I loved King Kong because: 1. even though it was three hours long it didn't bore me for a second. 2. Kong's face was incredibly expressive and simultaneously faithful to the ways real gorillas use their faces. 3. Putting Jack Black in his role will stand out in my mind forever as an example of genius casting. That is a rare thing. 4. I cried. 5. The photography and enhancements are gorgeous. Almost every shot is really beautiful. 6. In a lot of these types of movies, the action sequences rely on their visual viability or the quality of the CGI for their impact. The scenes in this film go far beyond that. Jackson uses a combination of incredible sound, dazzling angles and camera movements, and inspired choreography to keep you actually and truly entertained. Its more than just ""whoa that dinosaur skin looks totally real""...you know what I mean? The final scene is so well done that you actually get the nausea and the vertigo from being at a height. 7. I thought I didn't like Adrien Brody but he just breaks your heart with those eyes. He was amazing. 8. All of the acting from everyone else is perfect. 9. Scary. 10. Gross.Please see it. You won't regret it.","['2', '12']" +1212,rw1238406,kentalannichols,King Kong (2005),7.0,"Kong is amazing, but other effects fall short",14 December 2005,1,"First and foremost, the Ape is amazing. His interactions with Ann are sweet and real. Just wonderful, the entire animation team and Sirkus should be praised.But there were a lot of shots where the effects were not seamlessly integrated together. Especially fast moving shots, and some when Kong was holding Ann.That may sound nitpicky, but when you have literally amazing effects for 95% of a movie, and the last 5% are off, it's jarring to the eye and takes you out of the story either consciously or subconsciously.The action sequences are relentless. And I was sitting next to Mr. Hell No -- a phrase he uttered repeatedly during the action sequences. Jackson does a good job of just adding more layers of tension and peril until it's almost unbearable.But then he always slows it back down and brings it back to the girl and the gorilla.Walking out of the theater at 3:15 AM, I didn't hear many people just buzzing with excitement. I heard the to youngish girls regretting seeing the movie. I heard the the middle-aged man bemoaning the action sequences as over the top.But it is a good blockbuster sort of movie. I suspect it's going to appeal mostly to young guys, but I'm not sure how much repeat business it's going to do.I know that once was fun, but probably enough for me.","['1', '8']" +1213,rw1253444,tenmd,King Kong (2005),5.0,where was the editor?,2 January 2006,0,"I hope the eventual director's cut on DVD features actual CUTS. This was far too long and much less exciting than the original. Every scene was too long. However, if you did see the original the first half was without Kong. It brings in the characters. Peter Jackson did a good job in this part, bringing New York to life and revealing the characters. Action doesn't always mean excitement. Just because a filmmaker has an extensive CGI team doesn't mean he needs to use everything. I hope Peter Jackson realizes that longer is not always better. Unlike LOTR, which followed the original books and brought life to fantastical characters through CGI, this story drags with unneeded scenes.","['1', '2']" +1214,rw1242528,godfather199,King Kong (2005),10.0,"Still King, since 1933.",19 December 2005,1,"Well, Mr. Jackson has done it again. He's made a masterpiece, but was just too long. Not to say I didn't love it. However, there are few films that can get away with being over 3 hours. Titanic and Gone With The Wind, to name a couple, got away with it. Not a dull moment in either film.However, Kong is a movie that would have done much better, if about an hour was trimmed out. And I'm not talking about the beginning. I found the search for Ann Darrow in the 1930's quite interesting. But here are some of the things that I thought could have been trimmed.1. The extremely LONG sea voyage to Skull Island.2. Some of the relationships formed on the ship, that I really couldn't care less about. Again, the very LONG trip to Skull Island.3. The bug and spider scene. There was enough monster scenes going on there. Did we really need bugs and spiders?However, the film had incredible photography, special effects, use of colors, etc.I loved it. But I would have been insane about it, if about an hour was chopped. Kong is a story that can be told in 2 hours.But, I still give it 10/10.","['2', '5']" +1215,rw1240998,Goob16,King Kong (2005),10.0,Move over Steven Spielberg,18 December 2005,0,"Steven Spielberg has always been one of my favorite directors of the BIG action movie, but for right now Peter Jackson has the upper hand. I saw KK for the first time today and I must say that it is prob. the best film I've seen since The Return of the King. And THAT is saying a lot. The acting was just great. If I had a vote, Miss Watts, Mr. Black and Mr. Brody would be nominated for Oscars. The movie itself should be nominated also as should Mr. Jackson. If there is any justice in the movie industry this one will get tons of awards. I'm not normally gushy as a rule but a helluva lot of teary eyes were leaving the theater when I left. Peter Jackson just keep on doing what your doing and you'll be put up in the best five directors of all time.","['1', '10']" +1216,rw1240183,jeff-coatney,King Kong (2005),9.0,The Original was nothing more than pre-viz for this epic,17 December 2005,1,"This is film-making on the Jackson scale and should be considered the first true telling of the Kong story. The classic original is great and all, but when you see what Peter Jackson's team has created I'm sure you will be overwhelmed. It is amazing what can be put up there on the movie screen these days. What a wonderful place to be for three hours. It reached into me, grabbed my inner fourteen-year-old boy and gave him a wedgie. I have not been this thrilled at the movies in years. The depth of emotion, the performances (both real and virtual) are so grounded and true to themselves and the story that when you add the stunning production design and the kinetic visuals, the experience is overwhelming. This is a back-row movie. If you sit anywhere towards the front you might get sea-sick, the action sequences are that extreme. I would pay double to see this film. And, I will be going back for two or three more helpings. There is so much going on in each shot, I know I will wear out my pause and slo- mo button on my DVD player when this thing gets released.","['2', '9']" +1217,rw1252758,caffeinefree,King Kong (2005),1.0,B-rated remake of a B-rated Movie,1 January 2006,1,"I absolutely loved Lord of the Rings. Jurassic Park was wonderful too, but combining them together makes for a very sorry picture.I don't know where to begin, other than to say, several people had told me how good this movie was. I also checked out the 7.9 rating given by you reviewers, so my expectations were up there. Sadly, not only were my expectations not reached, I would have gotten up and walked out if not for my wife and child.There was a few good parts, but overall Jackson failed me and the audience with so many ""tangential"" story lines, that I just couldn't let myself go.Perhaps it was because Jurassic Park had a ""reasonable"" scientific basis for the viewer to escape into the realm of possibility. LOR was obviously fantasy, but we knew that going into it.Kong was just plain dumb. My daughter said she cried at the end. I cried too, but because I wasted so much money on buying the tickets and popcorn.Movie should have focused on the relationship between Kong and Ann Darrow. Jackson only let us taste that relationship. Actually, the black 1st mates' love and concern for the adopted seaman seemed more genuine and interesting, and yet it left us hanging.The Ship's captain was another interesting character that was just slowly being developed, and then puff, he's no longer in the movie.Jack Black should stay in comedys. He was awful. There were just too many other characters that Jackson spent time on, only then to leave you hanging, and too little time with me to find any real catharcism with the main characters, Ann and Kong.Needless to say, I won't be looking forward to any further Jackson Movies. LOR was apparently a fluke and I won't waste my money on more glitch and no substance.","['10', '17']" +1218,rw1242975,Mishkin9,King Kong (2005),3.0,serious epic or childish parody?,17 December 2005,1,"So people here think this is one of the best movies of all time?Those people should go see a good movie for a change.Here some points why King Kong sucks big time:there are loads of scenes that will make you think this movie is not serious but an ironic slapstick comedy, making fun of the serious original story. for example: - brontosauriers are chased through a tiny ravine by raptors and look worse than the scenes in Jurassic Park. A mountain collapses under the brontos, obviously it was the first time in millions of years they took that way to escape. But what the hell, it looks great, doesn't it?Naomi Watts is tied to some wooden poles and cant escape. Kong comes and rips her off. This should leave her with two broken arms. But we will not care about this, because this is just the first scene of loads to come, which ignores physical damage. Apparently, Watts does not even have a scratch in her face, after being dragged through the jungle for ages. She should have broken her neck after one minute.Kong does not take away injuries, too. He is bitten by t-rexes several times - he does not care.in a scene the other guys are attacked by millions of bugs. But no problem, a few guys with guns come and shoot a few bullets - the bugs are gone. Even the one guy who cant handle an mp happens to shoot several bugs off another guy. But nevermind, it is funny slapstick, right? We are here to have fun, right? Unfortunately, it is not a funny story. It is depressing. Problem is, nobody wants to see a depressing blockbuster. Does not sell good. So put in some unrealistic but funny looking CGI scenes and the viewers will think it is a great movie to look at. And guess what - look at the ratings here and you see that it really works that way!did i mention the scene where two guys escape by hanging on to a giant bat? I guess the bat was thinking: ""Hm, normally I would freak out and try to get rid of them, but whatever, they obviously think I am Batman, here to help them, and I don't want to spoil the picture...""GREAT COMEDY, isn't it.No it is not. The poor and lonely ape dies in the end.","['2', '4']" +1219,rw1238657,protector2222,King Kong (2005),7.0,A half a step above the 70's version,14 December 2005,0,"Peter Jackson never fails to amaze folks with his amazing visual displays and effects. Unfortunately I think he went overboard just a little bit. There is one scene, which I won't mention that looked like it was out of the 70's movie. The people and cgi were too close to each other to look right. In order to avoid that problem with Kong many of the motion shots with Kong holding the girl are far shots. The score was similar to the old 1933 movie. Which was nice. Also the background used for the opening and ending credits was straight out of the 33 movie. Nice ode to the old movie Jackson. Yes this movie had more love scenes with passion between Kong and the girl, however at times it seemed as though it was the awkward pause people have when they see someone they have seen before but can not place. It resembled the ending scenes in AVP when the audience was waiting for the kiss between predator and the female lead. The color set up of the movie was similar to LOTR. Grey and Green, sometimes it was very annoying. He also somehow managed to bring some aspects and looks in from LOTR and incorporate them into the movie. I do not know why or how. Those scenes could have been cut out. This movie could have been cut to be around 2 hours. All in all though it was a great movie. Worth seeing on a week night, but not worth running to the midnight show to see.","['3', '10']" +1220,rw1239645,cariart,King Kong (2005),10.0,"Peter Jackson's ""King Kong""...Yes, It's That GOOD!",16 December 2005,0,"When Peter Jackson stood upon the dais at the 2004 Academy Awards ceremony, surrounded by a record-tying 11 Oscars, and announced his next project was a 2005 remake of the 1933 classic, ""King Kong"", even his most devoted fans were worried. The last attempt to remake the ape epic had been the disastrously campy 1976 'update', which nearly sabotaged Jessica Lange's career at it's very start, and is best remembered today for it's gigantic robotic ape (which never worked properly), and World Trade Center finale (making the film heartbreaking to view, since 9/11).Even the concept of Jackson 'diving' into another 'major' project was unheard of; after all, it had taken Steven Spielberg four years to direct another film after ""Schindler's List"", and three, after ""Saving Private Ryan"", and ""Titantic"" director James Cameron hasn't made a 'dramatic' film since he won his 11 Oscars, in 1997. Certainly, it seemed that the diminutive New Zealander was rushing things, and had bitten off far more than he could chew, THIS time! The casting did little to allay fears; while Naomi Watts was an ideal choice, in Fay Wray's signature role of 'Ann Darrow', Jack Black, best known for 'over-the-top' comic portrayals, seemed a strange 'fit' as impresario Carl Denham, and Adrien Brody was, physically, about as far removed from Bruce Cabot's 'Jack Driscoll' as an actor could get. And even with Jackson's mastery of CGI, could his 'Kong' surpass Willis O'Brien's legendary stop-action creation? Could Peter Jackson even do justice to the 72-year-old film classic, and not fall on his face? The answer is a resounding YES! The new ""King Kong"", at over three hours in length, is about as perfect a 'monster movie' as has ever been made, and is a feast for the senses. While clearly a homage to the original (even referring to Fay Wray, RKO, and producer/director Merian Cooper, in a humorous sequence), it takes what was patently artificial in the earlier film, and gives those moments such a sense of heightened reality that it even leaves modern 'genre' films, like ""Jurassic Park"", looking positively quaint. Compared to Jackson's horrific vision of Skull Island, Spielberg's dinosaur-infested islands are a Disney theme park ride! The 'wrap-around' opening and spectacular climax in 1933 New York City are equally amazing. Letter-perfect, they capture the 'feel' of Depression-era Manhattan to a degree that even films of the period couldn't achieve...and Kong's 'last stand' atop the Empire State Building will be talked about for years to come, as a technical marvel.Best of all, the story itself is actually an improvement over the original, without sacrificing those elements everyone loves. Carl Denham is still the opportunistic huckster embodied earlier by Robert Armstrong, but Jack Black adds elements of Orson Welles and P.T. Barnum to the mix, creating a character you can both love and hate. While Adrien Brody only shares the same name as Bruce Cabot's testosterone-fueled hero (portraying a playwright conned into the adventure), a new character (portrayed by Kyle Chandler), is introduced, Denham's 'leading man', who mouths the infamous 'un-PC' dialog (and is even named 'Bruce').The two leads of the story remain Ann Darrow and Kong, himself...and Naomi Watts and the CGI-created ape (pantomimed by Andy Serkis) are astonishing, together! Eschewing the sexual overtones of both the 1933 and 1976 versions, the pair bond out of loneliness and pain, creating a more 'human' friendship than either earlier ""King Kong"". The sensitivity of the relationship, in the midst of all of the chaos, is the glue that truly holds the film together...and makes the climax a heartbreaking, unforgettable experience. Both performances are certainly Oscar-worthy (quite a feat for a giant ape that doesn't even exist!) Peter Jackson has exceeded even the highest expectations with his vision of ""King Kong"", and while it is likely to only win a few technical Oscars, it is, honestly, a far better film than ""The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King"".What will the guy come up with next?","['2', '11']" +1221,rw1234692,nhpbob,King Kong (2005),,Also saw it premiere night,7 December 2005,0,"But not the premiere, but a huge press screening that had extra seats to fill. (One of 3 that day at one of the largest theaters in NY.) However, I did see the cast and Peter Jackson earlier Monday in front of a huge King Kong replica in the middle of Times Square, posing for the press, and hearing Mike Bloomberg proclaim King Kong Day.The film is a huge achievement. Peter Jackson took great pains at lovingly making a 2005 version of the 1933 film. In a word....this film works.I'm only the 2nd commentator here? I know the message boards are busy...but wow. This film is gonna do incredible business. I'm surprised. From now until perpetuity, watch the comments grow...and grow....and grow......","['1', '25']" +1222,rw1239919,jcolyer1229,King Kong (2005),9.0,King Kong,16 December 2005,0,"Set in the 1930's, Kong again climbs the Empire State Building. This remake is directed by Peter Jackson. Naomi Watts is Ann Darrow. Jack Black is Carl Denham. Adrien Brody is Jack Driscoll. This Kong suffers from an excess of nonstop mayhem once the band of adventurers descends on Skull Island. It would have been enough for Kong to vanquish two Tyrannosaurs instead of three. The bug scenes are nerve-wracking. One consolation is that Naomi Watts does not scream as much as Fay Wray. She develops a real affection for her beast. Watts is beautiful and slides into her role naturally. The natives are more sinister than those in the original. King Kong is a thrilling ride if you can hang in for 3 hours and 7 minutes.","['1', '9']" +1223,rw1242401,khalidian,King Kong (2005),7.0,"watchable but overrated, also too long",19 December 2005,0,"The film was watchable and some parts were impressive. But overall i don't think it lived up to the hype. The special effects were top but too much of it was already shown in promotions, trailers or clips. The acting was not very believable it seemed a bit OTT (especially Jack Black). My views of the film could be skewed by the fact that there was lot of noise in the cinema by some young unruly children, who decided to talk all the way through the movie and cause general annoyance. Also the film is way too long some scenes were not necessary, the film could have done with better editing. It seems Peter Jackson was a little over indulgent. However it would be unfair to say this film was bad. It has some great action especially with the dinosaur chase. The best parts of the film were on the jungle island.","['9', '14']" +1224,rw1243553,Syrenedva,King Kong (2005),10.0,A wonderful Story!!,20 December 2005,0,"When I first heard that this movie was being made, I wasn't sure if it was a good idea. Upon watching the special on the SciFi Channel I decided to give it a shot. The story is very touching, and very sad. About 2/3 of the way through the movie I started crying. The movie was not at all what I expected. King Kong was portrayed so differently in this film than he how had been portrayed in the past. I found the whole thing to be very touching. The story really could have been enough, but of course Peter Jackson did a wonderful job on the special effects. There was so much attention to detail. The movie was a real delight, and though it had me in tears I will see again. I'll just remember to bring tissue.","['3', '9']" +1225,rw1238600,oleg88,King Kong (2005),10.0,"Stunning, mind-blowing and breathtaking",14 December 2005,1,"Stunning, mind-blowing and breathtaking. That was my impression of the movie when I left the cinema. Haven't seen a movie that good in a long time! And the fact that I have not watched the older version of King Kong only added to my enjoyment. Even though the idea of the movie is rather old, Peter Jackson has given new energy to it and most likely made a lot of other film makers out there green with envy :) In my opinion, Jackson intelligently balances drama with amazing special effects in such way that you do not get blurry vision from all that action, as in the case with Matrix:Revolutions. King Kong is done with lots of care and precision, you can see that in the main character, who is given very humanely qualities and feelings. The rest of the cast fits perfectly. This movie is a must-see during the upcoming holiday time. And the trees in the park with lights on them (where K.K. and Ann have fun on the ice) add to our Christmas mood.","['2', '14']" +1226,rw1242574,Tait5,King Kong (2005),9.0,So what you think?,19 December 2005,0,"I thought this movie was pretty good doesn't meet Jackson's LOTR trilogy but comes close, I thought he did good casting, except for Jack Black I thought he put a very interesting role for him to play mostly because he usually plays the funny guy and not the crazy director. Anyway, anyone who is wondering to go see it, do it, you should be pretty happy, the only complaint I had was, it was pretty long, but its Peter Jackson, so, and when you think it through you sort of need it to be that long, get the background, get why their doing this, get the island action and the rescue, get the New York scenes. Favorite character was ether Hayes the first mate, or Jimmy. I like to here what anyone else thought of this movie.","['1', '14']" +1227,rw1243355,KUN0,King Kong (2005),5.0,Just too long. *Spoilers*,20 December 2005,1,"I'm always a little skeptical about seeing a film which is 3 hours long. But after getting the LotR Trilogy together so perfectly I didn't think Steve Jackson could disappoint me. Unfortunately he did. To say it simply, from the beginning until the end this movie is just too long. It takes too long to get to the ape... much too long to get him off the island... and well... a little too long to kill him. Most of the movie consists of wildly cut action sequences of which most don't much contribute to the storyline and asking for a long breath instead of being breathtaking. I can't really agree with the praise for the CGI. The dinosaur stampede for example looked totally silly. I can't believe that the same team who created the Oliphants in LotR is responsible for this. I honestly prefer the Dinosaur CGI in Jurassic Park. I liked King Kong wrestling the Tyrannosaurs, although it should have ended with them falling off the cliff.... but no they all get tangled in some roots and the fight goes on ....and on...and on....yawn. Naomi Watts looks gorgeous and she is outstanding but is there so much flesh on her that three Tyrannosaurs would fight to the death to get a bite of her. There are quite a few more points to criticize. One which particularly angered me was the attempt to disgust the audience with all sorts of creatures which just don't belong in an action/adventure movie. In one minute there tries is a romantic moment between the girl and the ape and then your stomach is turned by watching hordes of over-sized insects and worms eating people. Think twice about taking your girlfriend to this one.Now to the reasons why I still gave 5/10.-King Kong was well animated. -The acting overall was good. -Some action scenes were satisfying. -Quite a few good laughs. -Naomi Watts was gorgeous. -The relationship between Kong and Ann Darrow was well setup.-The ending was straight forward compared to the rest of the movie and somehow made me not wanna fall asleep after all. -Steve Jackson stays true to himself by not making a children's movie. -I didn't fall asleep, but then again I went to see it in the afternoon.","['1', '4']" +1228,rw1251380,yellowsongbird,King Kong (2005),10.0,How did a gorilla make me cry?,30 December 2005,1,"I just got back from the theaters after seeing Peter Jackson's King Kong. And honestly, I don't know what to say. I'm kind of overwhelmed right now, as ridiculous as it may seem. Once again, Jackson has astounded me with his film-making abilities. An absolutely stunning film, both visually and content wise. But beyond everything else I experienced in the cinema today, what befuddles me is how is it that a brute such as Kong actually made me cry? How did this iconic beast that was supposed to be so bad affect me so profoundly? Jackson managed to take this historic figure and reshape it into an entirely new creature. The feelings, the emotions, and mostly, the eyes of this ape, are as deep as it gets, people. Let me put it this way, I guarantee there will never be another movie in which I would want to yell profanities at the men trying to save the girl from Kong! Never. Props to you Jackson. You did it again!","['2', '5']" +1229,rw1240947,radiowill49,King Kong (2005),5.0,Kong Fell Flat,18 December 2005,0,"I read the book and have now seen three film versions of King Kong. This most recent incarnation was by far the flattest. There were times that following the action was only possible because I already know the story.The technical portrayal of the ape was superb. I had the sense that Kong wasn't created new for this movie debut, but rather had a history before we, the observers, got to Skull Island. The comic book super hero fight scenes could have been dialed back some. Unless, of course, Tobey Maguire actually WAS the choreographer on the project.Most of the computer special effects in this film were a step beyond awesome. Too bad they detracted so much from the story line and mostly served to demonstrate what clever folks can do with expensive computer software. The effects seemed far more endless than special.Speaking of endless: Just how many men were on the crew of the S.S. Venture? A lot of the effort spent on developing the supremely minor character of Jimmy would have been better invested in developing the major characters that actually had some effect on the plot. I found Jack Black's portrayal of the showman/huckster Carl Denham to be devoid of depth and only believable for one or two fleeting moments at random points in the film.The adolescent love affair between Ms. Darrow and the ape seemed forced and artificial highlighted by attempts at comedy better left to the professional comics.This movie is traded on the names of Peter Jackson and King Kong. I know Mr. Jackson is capable of much better work and I guess Mr. Kong just needed another pay day to suppliment his Social Security income. I give it a five out of ten.","['13', '26']" +1230,rw1238990,jokercard88,King Kong (2005),7.0,They gave this movie a plot1,15 December 2005,1,"Okay, this movie absolutely kicks ass and is one of the best movies I've ever seen, but I have one flaw to expose before I get into how great this movie is: a few of the scenes were drawn out too long (which seems to be something of a signature directing preference of Peter Jackson). But with that small flaw aside, lets get to the beginning. The beginning *(which shows New York in the 1930's)* was very well done and even now in the 2000's looks fantastic and new. Moving on, when a greedy filmmaker sneaks a crew on a ship headed south, they prepare for journey of the unexpected. When they arrive on a seemingly uninhabited island, they soon get ambushed and the girl (played by Naomi Watts from the Ring) is sacrificed to King Kong. The action revolving around escape from one extremely intense situation to another is thrilling and is probably the best action I've seen since Peter Jackson's last movies, the Lord of the Rings trilogy. But when they take King Kong back to their homeland, that is when you start feeling sorry for the gigantic ape. I give this movie a 10 out of 10 and lit's on my top 10. And yes, the ape takes the girl on the Chrysler building, big deal, it's not just about the ape, because Peter Jackson actually gave the movie a plot, it's way different.","['2', '9']" +1231,rw1237943,NZVIEWdotCOM,King Kong (2005),10.0,The most emotionally moving movie experience I have ever had,13 December 2005,0,"Having followed the progress of this films production for the past year I almost expected myself to go in over-hyped and therefore leave disappointed,.. Instead I was blown away.Towards the end of this film I had arrived at the belief that this film and not LOTR is Jacksons' masterpiece. An amazing special effects movie, where the special effects take a back seat as your attention is riveted to the tragic story which is unfolding before your eyes.Somehow the Lord of the Rings movies felt like long 3 hour movies while this felt like a short 3 hour movie. This movie will take you through an emotional journey which you will not soon forget.","['1', '18']" +1232,rw1240655,duathel,King Kong (2005),9.0,Almost perfect,17 December 2005,0,"This movie was extremely long. It was over 3 hours in fact. It was very good though. I cried, I'll admit it. I laughed too. A lot actually. The movie made humans seem like beasts rather than the monkey. Throughout the whole movie you want to slap all of the humans across the face because they act so stupid. If you don't mind sitting in the theater for a long time then you should see this movie. It was extremely well-done but the length brought my rating down to a 9. If you hate King Kong and think he's stupid, you won't after you see this. Check it out. It's worth the money. This movie really touched my heart. It makes you realize how evil humans can be.","['1', '8']" +1233,rw1240666,divaclv,King Kong (2005),10.0,Return of the King,17 December 2005,1,"There are several reasons why ""King Kong"" shouldn't work. It's a remake of an iconic film, one indelibly etched in the popular culture. The director just came off a franchise that had been so massively successful artistically and financially, nearly anything else would pale by comparison. The plot, with its giant animals, fearful natives, and damsels in distress, could easily feel dated. It clocks in at a posterior-numbing three hours. Yet ""King Kong"" works, against the odds and beyond expectations.It is fitting that Peter Jackson has kept the Depression-era setting of the original film, as the story is ultimately set in motion by desperation and by hopeless dreams. Carl Denham (Jack Black) is a filmmaker who waxes poetic about bringing a sense of wonder to people (and making a lot of money on the way), but his latest project is about to be scrapped for stock footage. In a last-ditch effort to salvage his film, he quickly recruits out-of-work actress Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) and playwright Jack Driscol (Adrien Brody) and hustles them aboard a tramp steamer bound for Skull Island. Denham hopes to shoot on-location in the last untamed wild on earth--realizing too late that this means dealing with things like violent natives, dinosaurs, and an enormous silverback gorilla that takes a shine to Ann.If nothing else, Jackson has proved he can be trusted with this sort of high-risk venture. As in the ""Lord of the Rings"" trilogy, he creates a new vision of a well-loved story that, while it won't melt the hearts of purists, will at least appeal to everyone else. He does so by delivering a film that covers a broad dramatic spectrum, delivering epic action sequences and then surprising us with moments of tenderness and intimacy. How many directors, after all, would pause in Kong's rampage through the streets of New York to allow him to discover the joys of a frozen pond? It seems like an odd choice, yet Jackson makes it work, providing a gentle grace note that makes the final climactic downbeat resonate even more.The special effects team works overtime on this film, creating ancient ruins, dinosaur stampedes, and an arsenal of creepy-crawlies that make Frodo's battle with Shelob look like ""Charlotte's Web."" And the human cast is quite good, with Watts standing out as the vulnerable, tender-hearted Ann. But the real star of ""King Kong"" is, of course, the title character. The CGI Kong is based on the performance of Andy Serkis, who did similar duty for ""Lord of the Rings'"" Gollum. Though Serkis is completely covered by special effects, his performance is evident in Kong's expressive body language. He makes us believe there is a brain and a soul in the character--and that, more than anything, is the reason why ""King Kong"" is one of the best films of the year.","['1', '8']" +1234,rw1239402,dovyair,King Kong (2005),9.0,Move Over Spielberg,15 December 2005,0,"What would you say to a 3 hour remake of a movie, which had very little script to begin with and no box office actors? The result is fantastic. Although I may have been skeptical before the movie (and through the first 20 minutes or so) from that point on I enjoyed every minute. Adrian Brody and Naomi Watts do great work, with very little dialog, but the real stars are Andy Serkis (a.k.a. Gollum, who ""plays"" Kong) and incredible effects. The action is exciting, realistic and every minute (all 187 of them) is worth the ticket price.Peter Jackson shows once again his ability to make magic on the screen, even though you keep expecting to see Hobbits.","['2', '9']" +1235,rw1240747,jmaaorchrp,King Kong (2005),10.0,This is one of the greatest movie made,17 December 2005,0,"Once again I was in a movie Theatre and found myself in total amaze. Director Peter Jackson has done what we movie goers wanted, movie making at it's best. This Director has the feel and the vision of how to make a great film. I loved this movie from the start and it kept it's momentum. I would pay another ticket price to see this again and again. Please do not misunderstand my comment because the actors were also wanderful in this epic. However in King Kong the Director stole the film. HE IS KING KONG.Please Peter Jackon, Take on the project of making the epic ""Thelife and adventures of Julius Ceasar"". That's a movie I long to see a great film maker makes and I believe after I Seeing KING KONG, Jackon has the handle and ability to do it.","['1', '8']" +1236,rw1245279,JackBandit,King Kong (2005),8.0,Jackson Understands the Epic,22 December 2005,0,"I'd like to get the negatives out of the way first. The slow motion effects were a bit much at some points. The intimacy between Kong and Anne was understood after the first few shot/reverse shots. Generally, some parts of the film seemed superfluous. That being said . . .As much as I respect the original, I like this Kong better because of the character development. Jack Black's portrayal of Denham was more beastly, and Black's persona added humor (for better or worse). Driscoll was given depth, and I thought it was a great touch to add Bruce as the superficial Driscoll type from the original. Of course, with CGI Kong was given new life and persona as well.The movie worked so well because Peter Jackson understands the workings of epic movies. The original Kong was choppy, and while this version was arguably redundant at times, it drew out scenes and built up to the really memorable ones. I think pacing has a lot to do with the epic quality of his films. Also, like LOTR, the CGI and natural landscapes are breathtaking. Wide angles of the island and the city are intercut seamlessly. The softened focus and heightened color paints a visually pretty palette. Finally, the tragic end really comes through. In LOTR's finale it was the ring dropping, and here it was the Empire State Building scene. Jackson meets the expectations for a grand climax and eases us down before we must leave the theater.","['2', '9']" +1237,rw1242521,kickthegrape,King Kong (2005),1.0,God Awful waste of time,19 December 2005,0,"First off the acting in this movie sucked. The movie was about one hour too long with the fight scenes being a joke.I mean what the heck did they see fit to have a fight scene about every 10 minutes with every type of mutated giant insect, reptile they could think of. I mean it got real old. The scene where they ran with the brontosauruses was a joke. I mean come on, give me a bit of realism here. And then towards the end where Kong first sees Ann Darrow and everyone vanished all of a sudden in the streets, and there is a light from heaven behind her, I mean that had to be the most funny scene I have seen in years, I mean like come on with the drama!!!!! Also the natives were terrible, the island was just nasty compared to the 1976 version.The only thing I enjoyed about the movie is that the Graphics were much more realistic looking.Compare this to the 1976 version with Jessica Lang and Jeff Bridges is like comparing a chevette to a corvette. Jessica Lang was 10 times better than her counterpart in the new version. Her character was much more believable. And to replace a stupid character of Jack Black with Jeff bridges is crazy.Jeff bridges and Jessica Lang and the supporting cast of the 76' Kong takes a dump on this new version which is target at teenagers who enjoy 6-15 minute fight scenes with all types of insects and reptiles. And a lame arse acting.","['22', '42']" +1238,rw1240167,ricksixx,King Kong (2005),10.0,this film is amazing. Fantastic action,17 December 2005,0,I just saw KING KONG and thought it was great. The whole theater was cheering and yelling. That is the best time i have had at the movies in ages. It was like being at a rock concert. I will be seeing this film many times. The effects are outstanding and Naomi Watts is simply incredible. Her performance is one of the best I have seen all year. Jackson takes this film so far over the top it takes away your breathe. The three hours fly by. This is a better film than any of his rings films and pretty much make him now my favorite director of all time. As for Kong himself he is incredible. A completely real character and I fell for him. You must see this film.,"['2', '10']" +1239,rw1251692,videa-x,King Kong (2005),10.0,Relax.,31 December 2005,1,"I'm disappointed to have read so many negative reviews about this movie. There were a lot of unrealistic parts, I agree, but have you no imagination? Of course Ann would have been crushed by Kong while he battled 3 dinosaurs with her in his hand. He's a 25-foot silverback gorilla that's never seen a white person. I'm sure in ""real life"" if a group of people would have discovered a gorilla like that on an island, the gorilla would have killed them all without question instead of falling in 'love' with a really pretty girl. What are the odds of that actually happening? Then again, why would one be so analytical of such a movie. This film sums up what a cinematic experience should be like. Completely magical, unrealistic, and excellently directed. The movie lacked dialog but made up for that with dazzling effects and character development within the first 30 minutes. Jackson keeps Kong from you for so long to build up to what will happen. It could not have been more superbly done in my opinion.So what if Jack Driscoll didn't die when Kong smashed his Taxi? So what if he didn't die when Jimmy fired the gun at the giant insects on him with his eyes closed? If you're complaining about the plot, could you imagine what something like that would have done, if he died by being shot in the face or smashed in a taxi cab? Think about what something like that would have done to the story. If the plot is already so sub-par, then why was everyone hoping Kong's massive hand would eject Ann's brain matter all over the jungle floor? That doesn't make any sense.If we're talking about how unrealistic this movie is, where were his Kong-sized genitals? The audience just needs to relax and stop being so critical of this film.Jackson crossed so many lines and did so many things that no director has ever done before. There were things in this movie that I have never seen in any other movie ever. Some people just can't handle the fact that this movie was totally hyped up, and totally lived up to the hype.10/10 : I'd see it again.","['1', '8']" +1240,rw1252635,fentong,King Kong (2005),10.0,Extraordinary,1 January 2006,0,"I have been using IBDB for 5 years, and I have never before felt compelled to comment on a movie. This was possibly the best movie I have seen in my life. What a roller coaster of emotion. The whole cinema was buzzing with excitement after the standoff scene between and King Kong. I could hear gasps of awe one minute and tears the next. This movie was a truly moving experience.Note: There are a lot of very negative 'counterfeit' reviews on King Kong,planted to destroy box office takings. Ignore these reviews and see the movie. Do yourself a favour.","['3', '7']" +1241,rw1245346,desperatethespian,King Kong (2005),6.0,"Um, am I the only man alive who wasn't too enamored of this film?",22 December 2005,1,"Yes, the special effects were spectacular. And if you're an action-adventure type fan, this film has enough scenes to keep you on the edge of your seat for the whole 3 (or was it 30?) hours...I was 12 when I walked into the theater to see 'King Kong'. And now I'm 27. And no matter how innovative and some aspects of the film were, that's just wrong. When new CGI techniques are invented between the time the film starts and ends, it's just too damn long.I was not terribly impressed. Long, overbearing, redundant (HOW many battle scenes can I sit through? This was like all six Star Wars movies run one after the other), ATROCIOUS casting of principals (Jack Black was absolutely wrong for the part, Adrien Brody did nothing for me either...the lesser known actors who played supporting members of the hit squad were far, far better), and despite an enormous fx budget and some very interesting and twisted looking creatures, some terribly green-screened looking sequences (the infamous brontosaurus stampede is laughable) to the point where it looked as if they were going for satire, or a remake of 1933 technology.Clearly though, I was in the minority. A number of people who saw it at my screening (those who didn't walk out in the middle, and there were a few of them) sat in stunned silence as the final credits played, apparently too awestruck to move. But why? Because the big gorilla died? How come nobody cared when the pterodactyls went down. That was traumatizing to me.And did you notice that the protagonists of ever interracial relationship in the movie died, but most of the white folks who befriended white folks survived? What does this say about Peter Jackson's notions on the gorgeous mosaic of humanity? Eh, worth seeing for its scale and great effects, but by no means a classic.","['8', '14']" +1242,rw1240620,koraydervis,King Kong (2005),8.0,Absolutely entertaining remake with small imperfections,17 December 2005,1,"With no doubt new version of King Kong definitely satisfies the expectations of Peter Jackson fans.Usually many movies focus only on visual effects or emotions,but this movie is a fine combination of today's well-respected CGI visual effects and highly emotional scenes which makes it a pretty rich movie in content.When you are watching the movie ,it keeps switching from adventurous action packed scenes to emotional ones.Action scenes are so fascinating and fast,but some of them are a bit too long and some of them are a kind of exaggerated.However this is not necessarily a bad thing,because it passes so quick and it keeps you wondering about what will happen next -its never boring.Many of the memorable scenes from the original King Kong are all included in the new one with much better content ,visuals,directing,deepness and editing.Obviously Peter Jackson was a big fan of the old school King Kong and he DID make all the classic scenes a lot more fun and interesting to watch.As a remake this movie made good use of the classic King Kong scenario & scenes,plus it has its original plot (similar to classic ,but far different) with brilliant additions of content in scenario and effects.To put it simply,after enjoying my time of watching the 1933 version,I loved this one.Even though its a 3 hour movie ,it doesn't feel long at all.From highly emotional looking eyes of King Kong to the part where he's fighting T-Rex i have enjoyed all parts of this movie and i am not a Peter Jackson nor King Kong fan at all.However some of the visual effects scenes of the dinosaurs do look fake ,but not King Kong's.All the action scenes are really intense and emotional scenes are sad.No other movie has ever made me feel so much for a CGI character.You really feel the anger,sadness,suffering and love of the film's star 'King Kong' and until the end of the movie we get to know his character.As a result it's a really entertaining remake movie and anyone who enjoys visual effects ,emotions,and action will definitely enjoy this as well.","['1', '9']" +1243,rw1241228,TK-308,King Kong (2005),9.0,Great entertainment that made me remember why the cinema is great!,18 December 2005,1,"I saw King Kong this morning and have to say that I thought this was cinema at it's best. I have read numerous comments on IMDb regarding Kong and don't understand why people pick holes in it's plot. The films main focus is a 25 foot gorilla that lives on an uncharted island that has a lost people inhabiting it and is populated with numerous extinct animals! I believe that the ability to suspend disbelief is required. Maybe a little less time trying to pick holes in it and a little more time focusing on the film would help enjoy it for what it is.The film is excellently paced and at 3 hours is just right, I admire Peter Jackson for not making cuts to films to try to make them fit into this belief that people are unable to sit in a cinema for more that 2 hours. Other films I have seen of late have suffered because of this and are left feeling incomplete. The whole lead up to the arrival at the island is handled well and all of the actors deliver well. Watts plays her role well and the ever brooding Brody supports well. There are good supporting characters as well which keep the story entertaining prior to the entrance of Kong.And what an entrance, Kong never once felt like CGI, Kong was the living breathing star of this film. Weta have yet again done a magnificent job of making a star from a piece of computer code. The interaction between Kong and Darrow is played out well and is enjoyable to watch, again I have seen comments regarding the implausibility of the relationship. Please give me a break..... how plausible is Skull Island full stop. If you have this take on films then maybe spend your entrance fee on something else.Go see it, watch it, enjoy it....forget that it's 3 hours long, suspend disbelief and enter into this wonderfully realised world. This is entertainment and at that it excels. Great visuals, exciting set pieces, good cast and a great star in King Kong.","['2', '11']" +1244,rw1244640,WeeWillC,King Kong (2005),8.0,The first time I ever experienced vertigo at the cinema,22 December 2005,0,"Honestly, I gasped more than once when Kong was on top of the Empire State Building. This is a mammoth step forward for virtual cinema. Peter Jackson has not only re-made King King, he's re-made Jurassic Park as well. One could make some critical comments about the extremely minimal plot -- but let's be honest, that was a problem for the 1933 original as well. But the overall effect of the film is so dazzling, it would be less than fair to overstate the point.I'm always nervous about reading philosophical themes into action films, but it's hard to avoid actually thinking a couple of times during this movie. In Cooper's original, Kong climbs to the top of the Empire State Building because it's the tallest building in New York, and the world (it had been built only two years earlier). Though Jackson's film is set in the same period, it's difficult to avoid noticing the absence of the Twin Towers in the skyline and realising that the Empire State Building is once again the tallest building in New York City. And who can watch those bi-planes attack Kong at the top of the skyscraper without thinking of 9/11? Much will be written about the computerised appearance of Kong in this film -- and it is fantastically successful. But, for my money, the truly impressive creation here is not the monster but the appearance of New York City in the '30s, which is extraordinarily believable. In a film landscape that features some quite beastly characters, this is a beauty of a film.","['1', '4']" +1245,rw1238583,Lady-of-Rohan,King Kong (2005),,This king deserves a crown,14 December 2005,0,"Two years after releasing his previous film Return of the King, Peter Jackson went back to his roots and decided to produce the movie that sparked his initial interest in film: King Kong. Yes, Peter Jackson is back with more monsters, more action, another lengthy movie, and a surefire Oscar contender. (And he lost weight. You look great, man!)Those who are daunted by the three hour length will need not to worry. While the first hour may be a bit draggish, the second and third acts are absolutely fantastic. Not only do they contain some of the best CGI ever produced but it's the most fun and exciting time I've spent in a theatre this year. For the entire length of the film, you're hooked and you care about what happens to the characters, especially the title character. Peter Jackson knows how to handle long movies so you can rest assured that this time will be used wisely and effectively.On a visual standpoint, the film is a masterpiece. Everything from the dinosaurs to man-eating worms and Cessna sized vampire bats are incredibly realistic and at times, terrifying. The dinosaur stampede was exhilarating and I blown away with the Tyranosaurus Rexes. Everyone in the theatre curled their toes and squealed with laughter and horror whenever a giant bug came on screen, and I can promise you that you will do the same. And the big ape himself, King Kong, is a CGI triumph. He has emotion and presence and looks in every sense the way I imagined him to be. His ordeal from isolated tropical island to depression-era Big Apple sparks huge sympathy in the audience and it's hard not to feel sad when the conclusion comes around.In the main cast, Jack Black and Adrian Brody get the job done. Jack Black, for starters and in my opinion, is not exactly my first choice for such a film. He is more fit for comedies and slapstick (Orange County comes to mind) but he carries his well role and is quite believable. Thank goodness. As for Adrian Brody, I was very pleased how he worked out. He seemed very natural in his role and was subtle and fit a heroes personality without seeming arrogant or cocky. A good decision from the casting team.And poor Naomi Watts! Her character can barely go 10 feet without being snapped at by a giant monster! How she was able to keep her beautiful white dress clean throughout the entire ordeal is beyond me but the woman can definitely belt out a good scream. A Fay Wray she is not but Naomi Watts does her character justice and fits into it with ease and grace.In all, King Kong deserves a 9/10. It has everything you want this holiday season with excitement, sadness, sympathy, adventure, and pure smashing fun. I highly recommend it and I have no doubt that your theatre will be buzzing after wards like it did with mine.","['13', '30']" +1246,rw1243834,redindygo,King Kong (2005),,Kong and the willing suspension of disbelief,21 December 2005,1,"Strikingly beautiful! I say one of the best movies ever I liked it personally. Jack Black is Jack Black. He may seem a bit mismatched for the role because he still wasn't able to shed off his slapstick image from school of rock. But still I think Jackson saw something in him. Brody was good and Colin Hanks was a bit of a stock character. It was like Colin just took the role for exposures sake but then again who really knows. I believe that GREED here plays a pivotal role in story. It shows how easy to persuade someone when the stakes are high and when money does the talking.The lead female character had added a soft spot for the viewers. She was the force that communicates to the audience and helps the viewers to see Kong's soft side. That as an animal he is also capable of feelings and able to sense loneliness and anger. I think that Naomi Watts liked her character. She screams good and has a beautiful eyes and has brought an unforgettable line which is: ""Aaaaaaeeeeee!"" Some things to ponder though: Why was she wearing a flimsy dress during winter? What was her affection of Kong, is it friendship or something more than that? Why did Kong hated Jack? Is it because he sees him as his rival or as a threat to Ann? Is Kong the lone silver back gorilla leaving in the skull island? Why? when we've seen dozens of dinosaurs living in herd. Had they all died from fighting the carnivorous dinosaurs?If one will put the willing suspension of disbelief then one will be able to like it. Just buy a bucketful of popcorn that is!","['3', '5']" +1247,rw1244493,ohshimatta,King Kong (2005),10.0,I never cry... Ever...,15 December 2005,1,"Attention: If you are one of the 7 people in the world who does not know how the original King Kong turns out, or haven't read the plethora of Far Sides that allude to these movies, then don't read this. Otherwise, there are no spoilers in this review.I never cry. Ever. But, man, was it hard to hold back tears at the end of this movie. Real emotion is found in the eyes of the characters. The characters in King Kong were dispensing of their emotions on screen with the fury of a fire hose! Kong, the big ape that is the biggest star in the movie (both figuratively and literally), is not only the King of all the beasts, but he is the most emotionally sensitive character in the entire movie. I heard that Jackson put his whole heart into each and every scene of the movie, but this was enormously cared for. Quite literally, you have to see it to believe it. Set in the depression era 1930's, the film follows star Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) from the lowest point in her life to the highest reaches of New York City. In between, there is a bunch of running and screaming and, oh yeah, a lot of dead people. People die in all sorts of grisly Lord of the Ringsish manners, which is highly entertaining, and has a high teaching value (""You see, honey? That is why you never fire at the legs of an oncoming herd of stampeding Brontasouri!""). The film is amazing on the level of the action and CGI, but is in no way reliant on the special effects to run the movie from start to it's 3 hour finishing time. It is the change we see in Kong. He goes from being a big dumb ape to becoming your best friend. The care he shows for Ann through the movie just tears your heart out because you know exactly what is coming. The end is just heart-wrenching. I don't know if I can watch the movie again because I don't want to go through the pain of watching the finale one more time. Basically, the movie works on so many levels it is astounding. The score is such a good base for the movie. Just sitting through the credits is enough to make you want to break down and cry for the big ape. Be sure to listen for the original King Kong score from the first movie near the end of the movie being played by an orchestra in the concert hall. Great acting (other than the occasional cheesy lines here and there) makes this movie a really enjoyable experience. All hail Peter Jackson! King of great movies! P.S. King Kong has some scary moments that will in no doubt scare your kids away from bugs for the rest of their lives, so discretion is advised. Otherwise, it is a good movie in all respects.","['1', '3']" +1248,rw1239049,MadsJG,King Kong (2005),10.0,It was beauty who got the beast,15 December 2005,1,"Peter Jacksons 2005 version of King Kong is an AMAZING journey through love, danger, and hearts broken. The legendary King Kong is brought back to life through Peter Jackson's amazing visual effects. King Kong looks real, and with real i literary mean REAL. The film starts off in the depression era New York where Carl Denham (Jack Black) is an struggling movie director, and Ann Darow (Naomi Watts) is struggling to make a living out of acting on a theater. Carl Denham stumbles upon Ann and at the moment he sees her, he knows she will be perfect for the role in his future length movie which he says will be filmed in Singapore. But it turns out that it's not Singapore after all. To get to the filming location they will have to travel by boat, on the MS Ventura. On board Ann meets her ""hero"" a play writer named Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody). The movie continue into pure magic. And adventure you wont soon forget. The acting is really great. Jack Black's and Naomi Watts's acting specially stand out. Jack is amazing as the ambitious but struggling (financialy) filmmaker, and Naomi Watts makes an gripping and emotional performance as Ann Darow which heart is melted by King Kong and vice versa. From the minute it starts till it ends your eyes will be glued to the screen. Your eyes will after 187 minutes have seen the stunning Naomi Watts being saved by King Kong from dinosaurs and other more hideous creatures from Skull Island. And be warned, there is a mighty big chance that you have to wipe a tear or 2 from your eyes in the end, or maybe even before.","['5', '15']" +1249,rw1244733,sander-s,King Kong (2005),1.0,How good would LOTR have been?,22 December 2005,0,"I don't want to waste to much time writing this review as I just have spent way to much time in the cinema watching this movie. I only can think of the Lord of the Rings trilogy (which i really like) and wonder about how good it would have been with a different director. Peter Jackson truly screwed this one up. CGI and some actions scenes make it a 4 for me, but according to me the acting in the first part of the movie was bad, and not convincing at all (I'm not saying all the actors were bad, but there were enough to get irritating.) The rest is already said, the movie is to long, to much time spent on CGI, to many plot holes. Also the movie is totally unbelievable this makes the movie boring, and you will not get into it... A popcorn flick at most.","['21', '54']" +1250,rw1239913,ondine16,King Kong (2005),3.0,genius turns sour,16 December 2005,0,"I thought that ""Lord of the Rings"" was perhaps one of the best movies of all time- an epic made as dramatic and beautiful as I could ever imagine. That's why I was excited to see Peter Jackson's (who I began to think of as a genius) new movie. Unfortunately, I think that ""King Kong"" is one of the most difficult-to-sit-through movies that I've ever seen. By the end, both my boyfriend and I had a headache and we could not even comprehend how Peter Jackson made such a bad movie! There were wonderful elements and special effects- I liked the humor, King Kong was very likable and sweet, and the plot was somewhat interesting, as clichéd and superficial as it was. The amount of action and chasing scenes were my problem. Maybe other people love tons and tons of grossness and violence (which is maybe why the world is the way it is), but I feel like I want to only see romantic comedies for the rest of my life. Anyways, I don't mean to criticize it too much- it was ""cool"" in a way- just not my type of movie, and everyone has their own preferences. But if you don't want to sit through tons and tons of violence, don't see it! It is my ethical duty to tell you that!","['7', '14']" +1251,rw1242785,daisuke69,King Kong (2005),8.0,very good but way too long,15 December 2005,0,"This version of king kong is probably by far the best that has ever been made from a technical and artistical standpoint. Everything about it is good, except for the length of the damned thing.This is probably the most entertaining movie I have ever seen, I've never seen an audience of normal moviegoers be so wowed and affected by a film in my life (myself included), and the fact of the matter is, when king kong isn't plodding along and extending every possible scene, it's riveting and absolutely amazing in every way.Kong the character is completely believable, his facial expressions and every other move he makes just reinforce that more. All the CGI is seamless, even the ailerons on the airplanes move the way they're supposed to. The fight with the T-rex will be a benchmark for a very very long time, I'd vote it the best fight scene ever.Acting is at par or better, with adrien brody and naomi watts delivering good roles, jack black is good in his self-absorbed persona but be it the character or his rendition of it... something could be improved.And then to the only bad part of the movie. IT'S TOO LONG!!!! they could easily have cut a half hour off of it by shortening those poignant and heartfelt scenes between kong and ann. Every single one was perfectly timed to go past the point of ""awwww that's nice"" and all the way thru the realm of ""ok this is getting old but its still bearable"" and ending just at the moment when you start thinking ""COME ON ALREADY!"" good timing, yes... but after the 15th time you really get annoyed by it.This is a film you have to see, and one you should probably own, especially if the director's cut is SHORTER.All in all it's excellent, just take preparation H for afterwards.","['0', '0']" +1252,rw1241612,Fredda,King Kong (2005),3.0,Gluteus Maximus is dead,19 December 2005,0,"I'll get right to the point. You know the story, and if you don't, then lucky you. A giant Gorilla falls in love with a pale human female beauty. And, get this, she's attracted to him as well.Never mind.This movie is three hours long. I went to the movies to see it, and if it weren't for all the special effects and the sound effects, I would have fallen asleep. Actually, it's possible to fall asleep for the first hour or so, because nothing really happens. After that, your butt falls asleep, and the movie just keeps on going.In the end, it's over and you're glad cos you can go home and tell all your friends you went to see King Kong, and of course you tell them it ruled, because anything else would be stupid. Telling them it sucked, would mean you're banned from social life for a year or so. You don't show disrespect to Peter Jackson, and you shouldn't. He's a fine director and the movie is kind of okay, even though it isn't.And why isn't it? Because it's too damn long. And because any scene that could be exaggerated, has been exaggerated.The special effects are awesome, but is this what makes a movie? I think not. So, in the end, is it beauty kills the beast, or money kills the movie? Kong is King, but he's got no phallus.","['19', '39']" +1253,rw1239239,Doylenf,King Kong (2005),8.0,"Superb visuals, stunning impact...if a bit overproduced...",15 December 2005,0,"No doubt Peter Jackson's superb CGI effects and handsome production values will make his KING KONG just as much of a hit with the filmgoing public as Merian C. Cooper's B&W RKO original back in 1933. But even with the vast improvement in special effects, a superior script and some extremely well acted leads capable of bringing real terror and thrills to the well-known storyline, one can still retain a certain fondness for the less flamboyant original.And before proceeding with my comments, it's essential to note that at least 45 minutes could have been trimmed from the Scull Island action scenes involving assorted attacks by a variety of insects, bugs and assorted prehistoric creatures. There are some goofs here and the machine gunning of some over-sized bugs clinging to the crew of actors has to be considered downright foolish, straining credibility to the limits.I feel the film is divided into three parts: the first hour is used to delve into the background of the main actors and it does so in a very human and entertaining way against a remarkable New York Depression-era backdrop that has a life of its own and seems to capture the period perfectly; the second part lingers a little too long on jungle clashes with prehistoric creatures including all sorts of slimy bugs and creepers as well as the gargantuan dinosaurs. The hairbreadth escapes that the heroine has from the jaws of death are a bit over-the-top in comic book style so that this part of the film is pure cliffhanger; the third part returns to New York for the wondrously filmed climb to the Empire State Building and is guaranteed to stir feelings of vertigo in anyone who feels themselves inclined to fall forward from dizzying heights--as I did. I found myself clutching the sides of my armrest to steady myself for the whirling camera shots of the city skyline at various angles while bi-planes circled the trapped Kong and his golden trophy.There is only one element from the original missing. I was waiting for the scene where Kong destroys an elevated railroad line as the train roars by full of passengers. Instead, Jackson has him pawing away at buses and taxis but there's no railroad destruction at all. Perhaps a sign that the producers ran out of money toward the end of the film and decided not to stage what was a memorable moment from the original.But all of the Empire State building sequence is breathtaking to behold with superb--but dizzying--camera-work and convincing action from all the participants, including the machine-gunning stunt pilots.My only criticism is that Jackson seems to have gone all out to embellish every moment of the film, especially the jungle sequences which are a never ending test of endurance for Carl Denham (Jack Black) and his crew. Black resembles a youthful Orson Welles, especially in close-up. Aiden Brody is excellent as the scriptwriter who is essentially hi-jacked for the purpose of completing his fifteen page script so that Denham will have something to shoot when he gets to Scull Island. Naomi Watts is an excellent replacement for the Fay Wray role of the screaming heroine, giving it a bit more depth and sympathy since the part has been enlarged to give her much more to do. Truthfully, she never could have survived half of the tribulations she's subjected to in the course of the story--but this is a fantasy, of course, and she ends up with a few photogenic scratches.Kyle Chandler brings a bit of humor to his role as the heroine's co-star, a brawny chap who admits he's not the movie hero he is on screen when confronted with creatures even larger than those in JURASSIC PARK. And Thomas Kretschmann as the ship's grizzly Captain, reminds me of a handsomer Liam Neeson lookalike with talent to match.Some of the action scenes may be too intense for the youngest kids, but I'm sure young and old alike will make this KING KONG a ""must see"" on the big screen for years to come. But trimming some of the excessive, bloated action scenes would have made an even more powerful film.","['24', '42']" +1254,rw1244426,David_Frames,King Kong (2005),7.0,New money for old (computer generated) rope,17 December 2005,0,"Did you ever wonder what your favourite classic movie would have looked like if it had been made today? Of course you haven't but Peter Jackson has and unlike you he's been indulged on a scale unheard of in modern times. Jacksons loved King Kong since he was nine years old and now, flush with success, he's been paid $20M to remake it. Twenty Millions to lens a movie he'd have made for nothing - no wonder he's lost weight, he's probably couldn't eat from fear of Univeral pulling the plug at any minute, amazed that he can live in a world where you can make that kind of money for what must surely be the most unnecessary remake in history. Did anyone want a new version of Kong? Well If I'm a Zeitgeist barometer - a gauge of cinema tastes, and I am as you know, then no. On the surface of it it's the worst idea since Leni Refrenstahl was approached to make Schlinder's List. We laugh at the likes of Spielberg and Lucas digitally tinkering with their classic produce to make them more contemporaneous but no-one bats an eyelid at Universal pumping 150 million quid at re-shooting a movie, itself already remade (badly) in 1976. The new Kong is a double length retread of the 1933 film right down to the characters, (now) period setting and plot. Jackson wasn't going to tinker too heavily with the film he loves more than pies and subsequently this is respectfully rendered, tonally faithful stuff. Having to justify the exercise somehow, Jackson has expanded the tale but only in as much as there's more of everything. More of the journey to Skull Island, more of the Island itself - a suspiciously accurate rendition of Cornwall and its inhabitants, and a greater sense of the epic with every framed stuffed with CGI. Its a little exhausting to watch but luckily thats not on account of the script rather the fact that Kong 2005 is visi-excess all the way - rich chocolate pudding spooned down your grateful throat for 188 pixelated minutes. From the Art Deco titles to the opening montage of depression era New York, its a feast for the eyes but from there you might find it veers toward the camp and the slight more often than I'd have liked. Jack Black's Carl Denham is largely responsible for the former as he doesn't quite have the gravitas his role demands, while Watts' Anne Darrow plays it a little too knowingly as a thirties actress starring in a thirties movie. She adds to the period feel as much as the slightly stilted supporting cast which highlights Jackson's affection for the era of film-making he's attempting to recreate but fails to capitalise on the opportunity to add depth to the characterisations that may have made this a more complete b-movie homage. Raiders of the Lost Ark is still the best example of this in the archives and will be untroubled by anything in this movie. The new Kong is like this review in that its too long and lacking an emotional punch. That isn't to say that Kong isn't well realised or that his relationship with Darrow isn't well handled because he is and it is but the bloated second act concentrates more on a continuous mêlée of peril and noise and subsequently excites but leaves the soul unstroked. The special effects are also worth discussing because of the universal critical adulation thats been heaped upon Weta Digital's work. Weta are still not up to the standard of ILM and this shows in the occasionally flawed visuals (the occasional off shot was also to found in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy). Kong's ""performace"", digitally pulled from Andy Serkis' face, comes across, as his Gollum did, but I found the odd sequence too cartoon like and the odd vista no more photo-realistic than an old matte painting. These are niggles of course because most of it is brilliantly rendered, particularly the New York scenes, the Empire State Building climax in particular but am I the only one who thinks that a mix of traditional and CG effects techniques may produce still better results? If photo real shots are the Holy Grail as far as digital is concerned then Kong confirms that we're still a little way away yet. All this amounts to a film thats easier to admire than it is to love but its good enough for Jackson to feel that he's made an equal to the original without actually surpassing it. It wasn't wanted nor needed but now its here we find that it has a function in giving a 2005 audience their best ever chance at experiencing the sense of spectacle that the original must have engendered for film goers 72 years before. Thanks Pete, you got away with it, just don't remake a film I care about okay?","['1', '3']" +1255,rw1251213,a_marsters,King Kong (2005),9.0,King Kong,30 December 2005,0,"Peter Jackson ""ROCKS"", as a fellow kiwi its good to see someone from our small country is being recognized in the big bad world.The action within the movie was awesome loved the dinosaur and King Kong battle!! I did however find the beginning a little bit boring but once the action come aboard it was great.The connection with beauty & the beast was very emotional and I felt it throughout their scenes, awesome display from her!!Peter Black I felt did not fit the roll is was too bland, of course the Star of the movie was King Kong himself, his rugged stature, his awesome roar and his more softer side sitting on the mountain gazing out over his kingdom with beauty amidst was breathtaking.I would have so given it a 10/10 but a couple of things did not give it that ummmphh. Such as the beginning and the dinosaur stampede was cool but because very few were not killed or hurt this made it unbelievable.","['1', '3']" +1256,rw1238179,Kosmalski,King Kong (2005),9.0,Kong is good.,14 December 2005,0,"It's definitely more then what you would expect, and it leaves you saying ""Wow, I never saw that before!"" The ape is incredible. The acting is very good. The special effects are fantastic. The lost evilish world of Skull Island is also magnificent. They did a great job taking this film to the next level. The only thing that doesn't make this movie a 10 is its length, and excessive footage of things that just don't seem to fit with the story. There are a couple of segments where the film just didn't need to go. All in all it is a good movie with tremendous special effects, and amazing shots of early 1900's New York. It will make you laugh and cringe and it will make you say ""Wow!"" It's a shame Universal go rid of that ride...","['2', '17']" +1257,rw1238848,bruce-129,King Kong (2005),,Visceral thriller will grab you and take you for a ride.,15 December 2005,1,"Well, all of us know the story of King Kong, and most of us have seen at least 1 or two versions of this story. I say my first version in the early 60's with my Dad on TV and I will never forget it.King Kong (2005) is a remake that is not just a remake. The new version fills out on many places where the older versions missed or were blank, it ought to, it was slightly over 3 hours, and I did not even notice it.Mostly however this movie was the perfect movie to showoff the newest in special effects, and the result is that you will be dizzy and wringing with sweat because of them.First, let me say I recommend the movie with a 9/10 because they just did an outstanding job remaking not just King Kong, but New York, Times Square, Skull Island, Central Park, and the characters in the movie.I won't rehash the story, because it is in the details that the fun of this movie lies ... so do not read below this point if you have not seen the movie yet, go with an open mind and not knowing what to expect is my recommendation.For those of you who have seen this movie ... the island came alive for me. First the water, and the boat moving in the water. Then the island, and Kong, and then nature unleashed in all its cold and hungry fury.I have never gotten such a visceral, physical feeling from watching a movie as I did seeing King Kong (2005). The battle of the dinosaurs, and then all the myriad of lifeforms on this island competing for live and death every second, yet teaming with energy and life.The sad feeling for Kong, as I watched the movie, I saw an animal, one of a kind, worn, and weary, and furious at life, yet proud, and with the raw energy and unselfconsciousness of a sentient being with nothing to relate to.Then Kong is offered Ann Darrow as a sacrifice, and carried off to his world, where through the filmmaker's genius we see human woman and giant ape build a friendship, even a pure love.As I said Kong is worn. It is not covered in the movie, but I was thinking, why is he alone on this island? There is nothing left of his world, nor much of the humans, as the dinosaurs, bugs and bats have over the centuries taken over this island. There is nothing for Kong, except his hate and his sacrifices.Then he meets Ann Darrow, whose beauty and life force bridges the gap. For Ann to live she must return to civilization, but the crew brings back Kong as well. It seems right, but as one character says, Carl Denham destroys everything he loves, and he destroys half of New York in the process.This movie digs deep and is unhinging in some respects. I would barely watch the scenes of the island rot and infestation with insects and leeches, and the end I was about to pass out from acrophobia.A hearty great job to the cast and crew of this movie, it was a lot of fun, and much more than just another remake of King Kong ... it broke new and fertile ground and had fun doing it.","['3', '12']" +1258,rw1251727,wzuk1,King Kong (2005),5.0,Kong Overblown,31 December 2005,0,"Peter Jackson has gone to some lengths to recreate the original Merian Cooper epic, ""King Kong"" and then some! When the 1933 production crisply moved along at a 100 minute (104 minutes in a later, restored version) pace, the 2005 opus is now a bloated three hours plus. How the movie stretches is a matter of debate. The opening scenes do set an atmospheric tone and serve to put a Depression era stamp to the story but they do go on and on and on. Introducing the character of Ann Darrow as a vaudevillian helped to place her motive and drive into context but the next half-hour or more not only elaborates on all the main character's backgrounds, the audience gets to know too much about them. Rather than creating some telling traits, we get to see them all as despicable, save the ever-lovely and innocent Ann Darrow. The cardboard characterizations of the main roles is one of the failings of the movie. Spectacular effects are employed although they do get tiresome after they are overused; one fight scene would suffice, multiple, on-going battles belabour the point. Where there are redeeming features is in watching the stunning visuals and beautiful set- piece photography of individual scenes. Kong is also brought to live in a very convincing manner and perhaps has, as in the original production, the most humanity of them all.","['9', '16']" +1259,rw1252181,rogerdarlington,King Kong (2005),,Mammoth of a movie,1 January 2006,0,"This is a mammoth of a movie: an ape standing 25 feet high, huge dinosaurs and insects, a budget of over $200 million, a workforce of 2,500, and a running time of over three hours (in Prague where I saw it, there was an old-style intermission). But, the architect of it all, New Zealander Peter Jackson, was seemingly born to craft the work, having been inspired to enter movie-making when he saw the original at the age of nine, having almost made the film in 1996, and now the veteran of three outstanding segments of ""Lord Of The Rings"".The storyline is utterly familiar from the original and iconic 1933 black and white, stop motion, film and the much maligned, more tongue-in-cheek, up-dated remake of 1976, but Jackson has created a homage to his beloved original with so many allusions (most obviously with the final line of dialogue) and some subtle changes (such as a more modern heroine and a more playful relationship between beauty and the beast).In many ways, what is most similar and most different is Kong himself. At the heart of the movie, we still have a black beast that is lost and lonely in a manner paralleled by the blonde woman with whom he develops a strange affection that will ultimately be the death of him. On the other hand, as modelled on the movements of Andy Serkis (who is the cook as well as Kong), this is a gorilla who walks on all fours in a naturalistic style absent from the previous versions.Jack Black (""High Fidelity"") is surprisingly effective in a role (the film producer Carl Denham) that represents a change of style from his usual comedic characters, while fetching Naomi Watts (""21 Grams"") is wonderful as a more independent-minded Ann Darrow than we have seen before. Adrien Brody is a talented actor, as witnessed in ""The Pianist"", but seems somewhat ill-cast here as a playwright who is willing and able to climb to the very top of the Empire State Building to rescue his muse.Obviously ""King Kong"" is a film full of allegorical references, never more so than when New York in the Depression - brilliantly realised in some stunning opening and closing scenes - is represented as a jungle as much as Skull Island itself, but ultimately movies are about magic and entertainment and, in these respects, Jackson delivers a wonderful, if over-long (twice the length of the original), trip.Skull Island looks genuinely scary, the animals are brilliantly realised with some state-of-the-art special effects, the fight sequences between Kong and dinosaurs are ferocious, the insect scene - apparently cut from the 1933 version - will make young viewers especially cringe and squirm, and the parallel love stories have a certain tenderness. So it may be corny and familiar but it works really well.","['0', '1']" +1260,rw1240469,coolcookyuk,King Kong (2005),10.0,"""Awsome!""",17 December 2005,1,"Ohnestly one of the best films I've seen a while easy! It was brilliant the way they captured it all and the special effects, well do i have to comment on how cool they were?;) I really enjoyed it and even though the Big hairy wobble bottom lard ass (sadly) dies at the end, and it was on for over 3 hours it was still impressing and i could easily watch this movie again!:);) IT gets my vote no problem, And you can see where all the money spent on this project goes, since it did cost like $237, million to produce. Peter Jackson is really a lucky guy now he can boast about directing one of the best trilogies ever made and he can boast about making his very own up-to-date king kong. That lucky b**t**d!","['1', '10']" +1261,rw1234049,JamesJameson,King Kong (2005),9.0,Great Remake!!,5 December 2005,1,"I saw the premiere and was really WOW'ed by the special effects. Story line wasn't bad either considering the number of times this movie has been remade. The T-Rex's stole the show. They were awesome. Jessica Lang is still my favorite monkey girl, and this movie can't compete with the ORIGINAL as far as innovations, but I would recommend this as a very good remake. Don't be late for the first 10 minutes of the film or you will miss some really interesting twists. I wish they would make a remake of Godzilla vs. King Kong. Now THAT was a movie!!! This is definitely a must-see for all King Kong fans. Probably not suitable for smaller children, as some scenes may be too intense.","['6', '40']" +1262,rw1251873,yanksny10,King Kong (2005),10.0,Amazing movie with amazing effects,31 December 2005,0,"I never saw the original 1933 King Kong so I wasn't sure what to expect with the new one. I was absolutely blown away with Peter Jackson's remake of this movie. The special effects were outstanding with dinosaurs, giant insects, and Kong himself I was simply blown away.The acting was great as well. Naomi Watts was brilliant as Ann Darrow and even Jack Black didn't disappoint with his role as Carl Denham, the arrogant and self-absorbed filmmaker. Overall this was a great movie and I would recommend it to anyone who in general likes movies. The one drawback is that the movie is over three hours long, although it is packed with awesome effects, dinosaurs fighting, giant insects attacking people, and of course with Kong. 10/10","['2', '6']" +1263,rw1239197,ShaneJayHayes,King Kong (2005),6.0,Look Mommy I Made an Ape,15 December 2005,1,"It was with great excitement that I went to go see Peter Jackson's King Kong but it with great disappointment that I left. While some comments and reviews have focused only on the amazing CGI they seemed to have been focusing only on the CGI done on the ape Kong himself.While watching is becomes tragically apparent that the majority of the CGI budget went to making Kong look amazing. It worked, he does look amazing, great textures, great movement and okay lighting. What it appears most people haven't notice is the remaining film school quality CGI that dominates the remainder of the film.The brontosaurus scene is tragic at best. The lighting is terrible, it looks entirely goofy and just plain bad. Years ago Jurassic Park did it better than this, yet we get cartoon animals with HARSH lighting really BAD green screen effects. I guess I just don't get it.Besides the very in your face, cheese-ball dialog and the horrific CGI 60% of the film, I guess it could be alright. If you don't mind sitting through a 90 minute film stretched for no reason to 3 hours. I mean who edited this thing? What is with the initial scene featuring Kong and Darrow? Why do we have to watch the stupid ape yell and scream and swing the girl back and forth for 2 minutes? That doesn't seem to propel the story, it was just ridiculous.These are my opinions and I realize that the average person has no desire to think about films in a critical way. They want the popcorn, the buttery fingers, and the $8 hot dog. They want a movie that numbs the mind, well this is their golden ticket.","['26', '53']" +1264,rw1240924,cyberfrankie-1,King Kong (2005),3.0,Greatest disappointment since Matrix 2,18 December 2005,0,"The ape is great, Naomi Watts almost as good (in itself a sad thing) and the ending in New York is a thrill. But to reach this ending I had to sit through a story with a laughable plot, some cliché jokes and terrible CGI (considering the budget.) The opening is long and tedious, the fight between Kong and the T-Rex triplets is ridiculous, and when Kong took his girl ice-skating I thought they would end up kissing. If Mr. Jackson had cut all the crap this might have made a very good, two-hour movie but it seems he had to live up to the expectations raised by his LOTR trilogy. A movie made for gamers. Save your money and wait for the DVD.","['19', '67']" +1265,rw1239777,filcon-1,King Kong (2005),10.0,Best movie this year.,16 December 2005,0,"Just saw it. All i can say is amazing ... gorgeous ... spectacular! I knew that there's gonna be lots of CGI, i red previews etc., but i never expected things like that. I was like ... Wow! Yeah, story is old, but the way how story is given to us in Jackson's King Kong is unbelievable. I was laughing to jokes, i was shocked by action and crying on the end. It felt like King Kong is real, wild and untamed and on other hand full of emotions like anger and love. The action was very good overall. Naomi Watts was perfect choice, Adrien Brody and Jack Black was OK. Jackson did it again tho, starting with LOTR and now KK what's gonna be next? I gave this film 10 of 10!","['2', '10']" +1266,rw1239109,SampanMassacre,King Kong (2005),1.0,A Master Piece,15 December 2005,1,"This is a profoundly horrible movie. It's just plain embarrassing to watch. The fact that Peter Jackson made it hurts even more. He should have known better. The plot is, like the original: A movie-maker travels to an island with a beautiful actress in tow and then, on that island, natives kidnap the girl to sacrifice to their god, King Kong, a giant ape. Okay, we know all this already… But it seems that Jackson had no idea that the natives were supposed to worship and fear Kong, because in this updated mess the natives are even scarier and more menacing than the big beast himself. These natives only appear on the screen because they had to; there was no reason for them to be there at all. In the original, Kong takes the girl and leaves them alone, which is why they needed her so bad for the sacrifice, but then, after the leading man steals her back from Kong, Kong returns and destroys the village, right? But this doesn't happen in Jackson's version, and so the islanders make no sense at all. They're are only seen when they first arrive and when they kidnap the girl and have their ritual; after that, they're gone. And that's just the beginning of the problems. There is one scene with a stampede of small, but still quite large, brontosauruses that are running on top of the actors, and not killing any of them... Actually they kill one or two of the men but in reality, any and all humans would have been instant pancakes. Then after this chase all the actors, resting on some rocks, are still thinking about saving the girl, and they have no confused or tired expressions from having been chased by one hundred pre-historic reptiles. In the original, once one of the men get eaten by a dinosaur they all run like mad and then they're all dead, except the two main characters. But in this film Jackson keeps most of the men alive for a while, and they only convolute an already over indulged, lousy scripted film with characters you just don't care for at all. The lead characters were horrible, horrible, horrible. Naomi Watts is supposedly living in the nineteen-thirties, when this film takes place, but she seems so modern to me, like a member of P.E.T.A. and S.A.G. Jack Black is trying to imitate an Orson Welles ""Boy Wonder"" type and he turns out looking more like Wonder Bread. And Adrian Brody is by far the worst choice of a leading man in the history of action films. Jackson obviously wanted to stray from the cliché good looking dapper guy leading man by choosing Brody, who is far from good looking by any means, and who doesn't look like he could fight his way out of a paper bag. Obviously it was Jackson's choice to cast a guy who looks like an underdog, but Brody just doesn't seem to be into the film at all; he's straight-out boring. And there is an added character in this; a good looking actor who is going to star in this film by Black's character, and he turns out to be a lousy guy, just so we can like Brody more. There are very corny scenes in this messy bomb, and the beginning of the film drags, but not because you don't see the ape for an hour. It's because the dialog is lousy and the characters are people you just don't care about. And then, of course, the ape, Kong – Kong is just a part of an overdone, overwrought, overcooked ham of a film, and is so C.G.I. generated, and quite realistic at that, that you don't feel as if you're watching a movie icon monster, but rather, you're witnessing a really neat looking computer generated gorilla… In other words, it is what it is, and with the lousy story, it isn't much. Also, I never thought it was possible for a C.G.I. character to overact, but Kong does, to the point where you want him to be killed off by a dinosaur, or some bats, or shot by a native's arrow, or something, anything to get rid of his annoying presence that gives you a headache because he moves around faster than a video game. With the horrible story, the horrible editing, the seasick camera shots, the bad pacing, and the lackluster acting, this film truly lets you down… Time will show this movie to be exactly what it is, expensive eye candy that leaves you feeling like most kids do on Halloween morning… sick as heck and not wanting to eat any more for a long, long time.","['15', '32']" +1267,rw1242068,jluis1984,King Kong (2005),8.0,Magnificent... but too much magnificence can be tiresome...,19 December 2005,0,"I have mixed feelings about King Kong, on one hand I liked a lot and I recognize that for me it was a very pleasant experience but, on the other hand, it was a tiresome experience that at times makes you wish it were an hour shorter. Don't get me wrong, the movie is magnificent in every aspect, but I guess you have to go in the mood and knowing that you'll be three hours in the beautiful yet horribly savage world of King Kong.The remake follows the original story very closely, although with some changes in characters. A film crew goes to a mysterious tropical island to film on location but find dangers out of this world as they discover King Kong, a giant gorilla who kidnaps Anne Darrow, the star of the film, and falls in love with her.Peter Jackson, gives us a honest remake that is, while notoriously flawed, a true statement of his love for films. And maybe this is the root of the problems with his Kong, his huge love for the film has make him to create a film for fans like him, a brutal three hour piece with development of every minimal piece of the story that casual movie goers will find tedious and boring.That's the big flaw, Jackson develops every member of the ship crew (from the main characters to the cook, the ex-marine and the orphan) and explores every part of Skull's Island in a way that while rewarding for fans of the original, is tiresome for everybody else; and even the magnificent beauty of the film can't save it for being a tiresome experience. Certainly, the film could have been half an hour shorter and still retain its magnificence, but Jackson chose to go with his complete story.On the technical aspect, the movie is as good as it can get. Sure, Kong looked fake at times, but it is the best looking mammal ever created by computers. The photography is outstanding and the recreation of 30s New York is visually impressive.The acting is OK, Naomi Watts gives an outstanding job, and while the rest of the cast never reach her superb performance, they all did a good job. Many have talked about Black's job, and while sure it was not the best (seriously miscast), he did the best he could do with the role. Adrian Brody gives a good performance as the writer that has to become an unlikely action hero.Jackson direction is solid and gives us images of amazing beauty. The final scenes of the movie are a powerful tribute to the original movie and send to oblivion the 1976 movie version of the story. As I wrote above, the fatal flaws in the pacing and edition of the movie may turn off many people, but give it a chance and it'll be a rewarding experience.While it never will be as good as the original, the 2005 Kong is a beautiful and honest movie on its own. A flawed masterpiece 8/10","['0', '10']" +1268,rw1238283,chewablesarcasm,King Kong (2005),9.0,Best Movie of the Year,14 December 2005,1,"You're probably all expecting me to say that my complaint is how long it takes to finally see Kong, right? You've all read the reviews of people falling asleep before he comes out, right? Nope, I loved the beginning, middle, and end of this movie. Peter Jackson has been given the opportunity to remake the movie that made him want to make movies in the first place. That's an incredible opportunity, and he wanted to make the most of it. It's an inaccurate statement that the first part is unnecessary or moves slow. It sets the stage for Ann and Carl and is quite important throughout the rest of the movie. Peter Jackson made his favorite movie an epic and did so quite well, so I want to hear no more complaints about length! In fact, if length is a complaint (which it isn't for me) I would be more likely to cut something on the island, though I'm not sure what. That's usually a good sign. Frankly, the only thing I didn't enjoy was one character named Jimmy. He's completely unnecessary and I simply found him annoying. And once they've left the island he's gone! He always seems pivotal through the movie but disappears in the long run. Oh well, ignore him and you have a perfect movie.","['1', '15']" +1269,rw1241906,gregpuertolas,King Kong (2005),10.0,The Greatest Monster Movie ever made,14 December 2005,0,"I'm a huge fan of the original Kong. Sure it's dated, but considering the era it was made in, it was colossal. This remake is more than a technical upgrade, the story, the characters,including kong, are fleshed out and given depth. The pacing was tremendous. It was like being swept away to another world for three hours. As a fan of the original, I loved the way they included snipets of the original in the film within the film and stage show near the climax. They even incorporated the original Max Steiner score into the film. Every scene that the kid in me wanted to see was there and the new stuff was amazing. The spider pit scene, the dino stampede, Kong's last stand on the empire state building were just breathtaking. This is hands down the best movie of the year.","['1', '4']" +1270,rw1250831,Krustallos,King Kong (2005),7.0,Flawed Giant,30 December 2005,0,"Don't get me wrong here, I liked this film. It was spectacular, it had considerable emotional resonance, it wasn't a travesty.Of course in reality a 25ft silverback gorilla would collapse under its own weight, and in many ways that's what has happened to the movie.As others have noted, it is on the long side and would have benefited from resolute scissoring throughout. Just because you have the resources to show a 10-minute dinosaur stampede doesn't mean you actually have to do it, particularly when a 30-second scene would have told the story just as well. Throughout the movie, time is stretched in order to fit in all the effects - at one point several minutes pass between someone being struck by a spear and hitting the ground.In addition I remain unconvinced by CGI generally. OK, this probably looks better than any other CGI movie so far, but I don't think we're in any danger of confusing it with reality yet. Rather, we have a spectacular and detailed cartoon.It's ironic that while one of the central characters here is a combination of PT Barnum-style showman and Werner-Herzog-type visionary obsessive taking his cameras into the jungle, this ""King Kong"" itself is as far away from Herzogian 'realism' as it's possible to get. Not only do the CGI effects themselves (with the exception of Kong's facial expressions) fail to convince, the filmmakers also have people surviving unsurvivable falls, hanging onto logs and creepers in conditions where any human being would fall, etc. I know this is a Hollywood action movie staple, but it still jolts me out of any suspension of disbelief. OK, CGI is the only way we can have dinosaurs or giant gorillas, but keeping things as real as possible otherwise would help no end with the human side of the story.Any time a film-maker puts a film-maker into his story it's necessary to consider the relationship between the two. On the one hand we have the studio-bound CGI-nerd making a movie about a seat-of-the-pants explorer-director. On the other we have the ""showman"" side of Carl Denham, as Driscoll points out, destroying that very ""wonder"" he sets out to capture by reducing it to vulgar spectacle. You have to ask yourself if that resonance wasn't at least in Jackson's mind when he wrote the theatre scene.On the plus side, all the themes of the original are here and amplified, from the ""we are the real monsters"" (with added ""Heart of Darkness"" reference), through strong hints of ecological parable, to the genuinely tragic love of Kong for Darrow which leads directly to his capture and eventual downfall. The sadness in his eyes throughout is something to behold - as the last of his species he is doomed in any event, ironically it is his compassion which hastens his demise.","['18', '24']" +1271,rw1241365,thomasaaa123,King Kong (2005),8.0,Fun ride... but not much magic,18 December 2005,0,"It's handsomely spectacular. There's countless exciting action sequences, basically encompassing all a fan of this genre can seriously hope for. There's a giant ape, various types of dinosaurs, big bugs, and many other different sorts of disgusting creatures. Chasing, fighting, falling, jumping, crashing… name any kind of action and you'll find it in the movie.Then on top of all these, there's emotion side as well. Naomi Watts is fantastic, Jack Black and Adrien Brody are reliable. However, the best actor in the movie is the ape. It's hard not to have any sympathy for the animal with its soft expressions on the face and after it risking everything to save its loved one.So this movie really seems like the ultimate package, and I am not surprised that so many people compare it to Titanic.But while I like this movie and do not regret paying the admission to see it, I don't think it's a great movie. There are two particular reasons why I think the movie is not better than ""good."" First, to sustain a movie that's 3 hours long, strong emotion elements are essential. However, there's not really any hero in the movie and the story is not something that most people can easily connect with. Of course, many movies can be great even without any heroes. But movies of the action/adventure genre need heroes. Is Adrien Brody's character a hero? Not really. He's brave and kind. But at the end he does not achieve much common good. (BTW, I don't understand why Watts's character doesn't simply run away when the ape is asleep, but escapes only after Brody appears…). Is the ape the hero? Sort of, with all its acts to save Watts's character from the dinosaurs. But of course it's also very selfish. So when the credits roll, I thought ""hmm… it's a good movie and a good story,"" but I was not in the least inspired. Moreover, while the ape is very human-like, it's after all a computer generated creature. Yes, it incites our sympathy, but only to a limited degree. The ape is not one of us and it does not epitomize any sort of characters we really care about.Second, while the action sequences are numerous and generally excellent, they are unfortunately really nothing new. We have seen them all before. The sorts of creatures we see in the movie look familiar. The jungle setting is not new. Except for a couple of scenes – notably the one with the stampede of dinosaurs, the way the action is presented is pretty standard and does not create any more sense of realism than many other action movies.At the end of the 3 hours, I felt more tired than refreshed or awed. It was a fun ride and thrilling journey. But there's little magic.","['41', '73']" +1272,rw1243374,djhenebury-1,King Kong (2005),6.0,To much science-fiction,20 December 2005,0,"King Kong has always been among the movie-world beasts. Somehow Peter Jackson forgets what the movie is actually about. Has he seen to many science-fiction movies lately? This new ""King Kong"" movie is filled with strange creatures, that don't even look like dinosaurs (as in the first ""King Kong"" movie). Instead he chooses to confront the characters with bugs and disgusting head-sucking worms, which to me seems kinda ridiculous. And the people that already lived on the island are supposed to be just natives, not aliens!! Offcourse with modern techniques Kong does look much better than he does in the '33 version, and so do the few dinosaurs that appear in the movie. And ""Ann Darrow"" (Naomi Watts) does put up quite a show. The special effects are quite good too. But that's almost every positive aspect of the movie.There are some scenes in the movie that are supposed to be funny, but (unfortunately) Peter Jackson managed to fit those scenes perfectly in the parts where they do NOT belong, which makes it look like Jackson wanted to make fun of the old version. Come to think about it, i suppose that using chloroform (instead of grenades) to ""drug"" Kong (instead of stunning him) was just one of those jokes too.'T was Peter Jackson killed the beast.","['2', '8']" +1273,rw1238127,Emmanuel_Goldstein30,King Kong (2005),10.0,Best Movie of the Year BY FAR!!!,14 December 2005,0,"Peter Jackson is a sheer genius. This movie has it all and absolutely deserves to be nominated for best picture and is my favorite to win it. Anyone who doesn't see this movie because it is about a humongous ape is crazy, it is so much more than that. SEE this movie and you will not regret it, one of the rare movies that are absolutely worth the price of admission and then some. Andy Serkis as Kong is incredible, there should be a category just for him in all the award shows because he is fantastic, the way he movies Kong around in relation to what's going on in the movie around the beast is impeccable, the timing perfect. Both Jack Black and Naomi Watts are awesome... and not far behind are Colin Hanks and an awesome job by Adrien Brody. Bottom Line: See Kong, its unbelievable.","['3', '19']" +1274,rw1241907,kibblz,King Kong (2005),10.0,King movie of the year!,14 December 2005,0,"I just saw this movie about two hours ago and I have to say, it's the best movie since the jurassic park series. it's jaw dropping! Even though the film is three hours, it's all well done and I didn't get bored for one second. Kong looks so real and they captured the true movements of this gigantic animal. Just like a real gorilla only... bigger!The CGI is fantastic and so real. There is a lot, and I mean a lot of action, so don't blink too much cause it's not worth missing. King Kong is a must see. It's full of adventure, mystery and even love. The movie made me smile and shed a few tears. Let's not forget Naomi Watts, she did great! Love it, love it!","['1', '4']" +1275,rw1253101,Danusha_Goska,King Kong (2005),7.0,Brilliant Kong; The Rest is a Mishmash,2 January 2006,0,"""King Kong"" has been unbelievably overrated by the professional critics. There are a few brilliant scenes and some really boring drek that tempted me to walk out; overall the film does not hang together to create one lasting effect.Brilliant stuff: King Kong is a solid and moving character. The interaction between Ann Darrow and King Kong is poignant. There's a scene of Ann and Kong frolicking on what is supposed to be the frozen pond in Central Park, surrounded by lighted Christmas trees. Lovely.The film's recreation of Depression-era New York City, especially in a quick-moving opening montage, is fun.There's a beautiful moment where the lovely and terrific Naomi Watts is shot in an imitation of Kate Winslet from ""Titanic."" Very nice.Boring drek: the inhabitants of Skull Island are grotesque, very ugly, savages that are far worse than the worst nightmares of the most politically correct critic. Peter Jackson will never live these racist savages down, any more than George Lucas will ever live down Jar Jar Binks.A boat gets lost in a fog; Jackson is trying to scare the audience. There's no fear. Compare this to Steven Spielberg, who could frighten us with the equally silly premise of ""Jurassic Park."" Jackson doesn't have Spielberg's film-making skill.Finally, ""King Kong"" is just too darn long. The opening scenes establishing Ann Darrow as a starving actress, Carl Denham as a struggling filmmaker, and Jack Driscoll as a gullible playwright have little relation to anything that follows. They could have easily been completely removed, and nothing would be lost.Too, editing is choppy. There's a scene tossed in where Jack Driscoll is in Ann Darrow's boat cabin, and is about to kiss her. Next time we see him, he's on deck with Carl Denham.How did Driscoll get into Darrow's cabin? Under what circumstances did he leave? Given that the Driscoll / Darrow romance is meant to be a major plot point, its sloppy handling undermines the plot.There are other ""scenes that go nowhere."" A cook serves up disgusting food and calls it ""walnut sauce."" This joke is made in a couple of scenes, and then dropped without being explained.An entire character -- Jimmy -- has no place in the plot.Had all the above nonsense been removed, and the focus kept on the fantastic Naomi Watts and the expressive King Kong, this might have been a good movie.","['1', '3']" +1276,rw1242047,Morpheus311,King Kong (2005),10.0,Simply Amazing,19 December 2005,0,"Let me preface this by saying I'm no King Kong fanboy, I've never even written in these Kong forums (though I think I might have for the 1976 Kong) and if I had to actually pick a movie monster to take sides with, it would definitely be Godzilla. However, going into this movie I had pretty high expectations. First off, it's Peter Jackson and the Lord of the Rings movies were great, and although most of his early stuff is just horrible, ""Dead Alive"" was fantastic as well. And when all was said and done, I was blown away. It's fair to say that the special effects and King Kong himself are the main focus of this movie, but there is a lot more going on than just that. I've heard people complain that the actors are all ""cliches"" or ""wooden"". I will have to wholeheartedly disagree. True, nobody is winning an Oscar nod for their performances here but it's much better than your standard ""Mummy"" movie. And people FLOCK to that dreck. The second, and probably largest complaint, is about the length of the movie. What happened to people where we can no longer sit still for 3 hours? Personally, if a movie never bores me - and this one did not - then I feel like I'm getting more for my money with a greater than 90 minute runtime. It takes them an hour to get to Skull Island, but it flies by. And from then on you're practically beat over the head with special effects that are beyond spectacular. Frankly, I don't know if I could handle all 3 hours being like that so I'm happy for a little character development. Lastly, probably the most important part of this movie is Peter Jackson's attempt at making Kong a sympathetic ""monster"" who we feel like we can not only somehow relate to, but take pity on when necessary. There aren't many movies that make me tear up (American History X, Big Fish, Rudy..) but I can now add Peter Jackson's King Kong to the list. Between the expressive face of Kong and everything he would do to keep Naomi Watt's character safe, it was impossible not to feel so horrible for him when all was said and done. If you were not moved at all, I think your humanity needs to be called into question.10 out of 10. Better than Syriana. Better than Narnia.","['1', '14']" +1277,rw1244200,resinman,King Kong (2005),10.0,Kong - Bigger Than Life,21 December 2005,0,"Peter Jackson has scored another hit with the bigger-than-life King Kong! Prepare to travel back to 1930's New York, where you meet Ann Darrow, Carl Denham and Jack Driscoll. Ann becomes the desire of Kong on Skull Island and once the action starts it is virtually non-stop through the end.Ann Darrow, played by Naomi Watts, is charming; a beautiful sweetheart. No wonder Kong falls in love with her. Adrian Brody plays a no nonsense, intelligent Jack Driscoll and Jack Black pulls off his Carl Denham character well enough.Jackson's Kong is bigger, better and more believable than any remake of the movie as well as the original. The close-ups are closer, the actors are better and the whole movie more believable. The cinematography hints of the old screen style under Jackson's exceptional direction. The three hours went by as quick as a regular 2 hour movie.Children under 13 may be alarmed by some of the harsh action violence but this one is a must see for all adults and young adults. It will not disappoint! ...another 10/10 for Peter Jackson's King Kong!","['1', '13']" +1278,rw1244957,ajayvermainc,King Kong (2005),9.0,King Kong - Demi 'Peter Jackson' God,22 December 2005,0,"An outright commercial. Fantasy flick. Overtly sentimental. Glitches here and there. Popcorn muncher's special. Graphics Galore.Yet its an accomplishment in modern cinema. Its bigger than what you have seen before. While it pays tributes to many classics, its tries to get better than all of them. It slightly succeeds too. If you are a sane person you wouldn't attempt to make a movie like that. One would assume it was Matrix or Charlie Kaufman flicks which were unconceivable. Even after conceiving, bringing them on-screen would be a tight rope walk. But King Kong is very much conceivable but the script to screen conversion is where Peter Jackson displays his genius in movie making. If Lord Of The Rings was anything by grandeur, King Kong is an epitome of this show business. With this PJ proves he is one among the top showmen in Hollywood.Oh !! yeah, its the same story. The beauty and the beast. The same moving fantasy tale that we have witnessed before more than once on-screen. But there's not one beast here but an array of them. While the gorilla falls in love with blond babe, the other spooky creatures try to eat the beauty, flesh and blood. Its like making Mahabharata or Bible, as a film. The whole world knows the story. So what are you going to do different about it ? Peter answers that with an utmost ease. Even succumbing to have a very 'believable' ending, PJ still works his crazy ways of getting there, to the climax. With a three hour movie you could pretty much bore the fans with all the build-up. PJ does take his own sweet time in unleashing the beast but doesn't allow you to sink in the seat, even until then. Howabout having King Kong + Titanic + Jurassic Park + all the what-if-you-get-lost-in-a-creepy-forest movies in one movie. Its a sheer tact to combine the best of all these and pack them into one movie.The beauty and the beast are so well attached to each other. Just like the previous Kong flicks, you would fall in love with the Kong even at the very minute you meet him. At the end, it does compel you to shed a single tear. Though it might be laughable to watch the inter-species romance, this is how the original was made. Kong loves the Ann Darrow, a suffering actress. Ann just sympathizes Kong for that. But no where as I feared, Naomi shouts,"" Kong...Kill them"". And thats a big relief. An effort of re-creating this classic is an herculean task. There are hundreds of infinitesimal details that needs to be taken care. Without a worthy team, PJ wouldn't have succeeded in creating this to-be-classic. Yes, PJ's King Kong is the most complete movie in the Kong series and its an instant classic. A perfect cast which includes, Naomi Watts - the babe from Mulholland Dr., Adrien Brody - with a nose of namooru Vikram and the superb Jack Black. I would crime if you missed to mention, Andy Serkis as the man behind the CG Gorilla. You just can't ask for more in the casting department.Re-creating the depression-era New York mustn't have been hard with computer graphics. But the production values are just mind-blowing. The skull-island and those wacky creatures seem horribly true. King Kong by himself seems completely alive. Be it the way he jumps thunderously to catch the blond girl or the way he sneaks through the streets of New York after finding her. while the most brilliant sequences being the above, there are also masterfully picturised stunts between the Gorilla and T-Rexes. You wouldn't be skeptical, that Kong is a computer generated creature. However there are places where the cast caught in between graphics, seem unreal. An amazing support from the music director for those splendid BGMs.It takes nearly 100 minutes for the Kong to enter the story but the entry is with a build-up much bigger than a Super Star entry. From then on until the end its pure action, every shot. At times it gets so high that you just wish, PJ would give a few minutes of break for the action.As Peter Jackson says, its his childhood dream to make King Kong. But none including him would have believed that it would turn so spectacular. The whole three hour movie seems to be a big dipper of fun, romance, action and fantasy.A must see, of course in the theatre. Don't even dare to watch in on the DVD. Forget your logic and critic hats at home. PJ's King Kong like Spielberg's ET is one of those reasons, why movies exist.","['1', '8']" +1279,rw1242730,spacemonkey_fg,King Kong (2005),10.0,Scratched on geek boy over indulgence... but its still AMAZING,15 December 2005,0,"Title: King Kong (2005) Director: Peter Jackson Cast: Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrian Brody Review: Ever since Kong the giant ape from Skull Island first appeared on the silver screen way back in 1933 it has captured the imagination of millions of people. So much so that it has spawned quite a few remakes and sequels. Most of them have never really been able to capture the image of a giant gorilla properly. Lets face it. Its never been truly convincing. You could always tell it was either a man in a suit or stop motion animation. Now, with the help of some cutting edge computer animation, Peter Jackson has finally done the big ape some justice! Kong Lives, through the magic of special effects.The story as many of you already know is fairly simple. A crew of filmmakers, desperate to film something awe inspiring and captivating for their new movie, travel to a mysterious island that no one has ever heard of or discovered for that matter. Their destination is Skull Island. Unbeknownst to them, the island is populated with gigantic insects, deadly giant centipedes and basically deadly giant EVERYTHING you could imagine. Its a land where dinosaurs roam free and a deadly race of cannibalistic natives are on the prowl. A deadly place in deed, of course they don't know this and just plunge themselves deeper and deeper ""Into the Heart of Darkness"" where a giant ape awaits them. Ape falls for girl, ape is taken away from his natural habitat...Ape wrecks huge amounts of havok on New York city streets.I have to applaud this new version of Kong for finally making a giant gorilla look believable. This Kong is a living breathing creature, with feelings and emotions. You forget that you are watching a special effect and just take Kongs performance right in and you start believing that you are watching a giant gorilla. The special effects and animation are that believable. Hats down to those folks at Peter Jacksons WETA studios for surpassing even their own previous creation ""Gollum"" from Lord of the Rings. These guys obviously labored hard to make Kong look this good. Kudos to those guys for not only making Kong believable, but for making every creature, and Skull Island itself a completely credible living breathing environment.The action sequences are something to behold. Breathtaking battles between gigantic creatures await. Peter Jacksons is a true geek at heart, and acting true to his geekdom his has run amok in putting images on the screen that will take you back to when you were a 14 year old kid saying ""cool"" a lot. Jacksons a big geek who's been given a lot of cash, and he intends to use it to make himself and his fellow geeksters happy! And that ain't a bad thing! The action sequences are not in a any hurry to finish, they really take their time on making a scene truly amazing and intense. You want Kong to fight a T-Rex? Why not have him fight tree of em? With one hand? Everything as far as action and special effects was pushed to the limits. You will see these characters finding themselves in some truly incredible situations. And the best part of it all? It all seems real...within the context of the truly fantastic. Skull Island is a whole other world. Its like nothing you've seen before, true escapism to the highest degree. This is a film for you to totally loose yourself in an alien world.There were a few set backs. For example, the story which is a fairly simple story is drawn out to three hours. Now, most of it is spent on fantastical action sequences and effects and I had to admit that sometimes they did scratch on geek boy over indulgence. But only slightly. I do believe some of the movie could have been edited down, but heck I was having so much fun that I didn't care.On the acting department we have a great cast and they do a great job in what is other wise a pop corn flick. There's nothing really incredibly demanding about these roles as far as I was concerned, the real stars of this film are the effects, there's no question about that. The actors are their, and they are great actors, but with little to do but react to the amazing circumstances that they have surrounded with. Jack Black is the only one that really shined as the sneaky, selfish Carl Denham.A warning for you parents out there. The movie is PG-13, but it has some truly frightening moments. Jackson really pushed the envelope as far as what he could show in a PG-13 rated flick. Specially when it comes to the natives of Skull Island. I just thought we would get a re-hash of what we had already seen with Jackson's Orks on Lord of the Rings. NOT SO! These cannibals are even more evil and ruthless looking. Demonic even. True evil. Scary stuff, there was a little kid on the theater I saw it in that started to cry. Obviously parents taking their little kids to see this might find them getting scared during those sequences. They are intense, you have been warned.All in all? A film filled with a sense of true wonder and fantasy. You'll revert to when you were a teenager and you just indulged yourself in the coolness of watching giant monsters fighting each other. Lets face it folks, this is first and foremost a monster movie. A monster movie with emotion. Jackson does have a talent for creating characters that don't forget to feel. Go see this expecting a three hour long extravaganza of top of the line, cutting edge pop corn entertainment. Kong Lives! Rating: 5 out of 5","['6', '11']" +1280,rw1239417,cdrw62,King Kong (2005),7.0,King Kong is Lucky Charms,15 December 2005,0,"When I was a kid I used to eat a cereal called Lucky Charms. It had wonderful marshmallow treats mixed in but you had to eat a lot of crappy cardboard tasting cereal along with it. King Kong is much the same. Some of it is jaw dropping amazing but a lot of it is awful.The character King Kong is simply the most amazing creature ever created for film and the CGI is peerless. The other CGI characters (dinosaurs, slugs, centipedes) are also amazing. Naomi Watts is excellent as Ann Darrow. She's classy even when asked to do ridiculous slapstick. The battle between Kong and the dinosaurs was great (up to a point - see the bad below). The climatic battle on top of the Empire State Building is spectacular and surprisingly very sad.Now the bad. Geez, is this the most needlessly overblown and bloated 3 hour film I've ever seen. If you want to save some time for last minute Xmas shopping, skip the first hour. Trust me, you'll miss absolutely NOTHING. Jack Black is horribly miscast. Adrien Brody is also a very strange and unconvincing choice for an action hero. The dialog was embarrassingly bad in many parts. Supposedly, Peter Jackson has been planning this remake since he was 9. You'd think he'd have come up with a better script in that amount of time (especially when he had an established classic story to start with). The pacing and editing were also very weak at times. The whole father/son relationship between Hayes and Jimmy was stupid and needless. The Kong vs. Dinosaurs battle started off great but went over the top when they went into the vines and Ann was bouncing from dinosaur head to dinosaur head. Someone needed to reign Jackson in and say ""OK, enough already!"". The dinosaur stampede also needlessly went way over the top when it ended in a never ending orgy of tumbling dino bodies which the main characters somehow managed to dodge through. Yes, it's a fantasy film but at some point you just shake your head at the level of disbelief they expect us to accept. Like the scene where Jimmy uses a machine gun (which he's never used before) to get rid of the crickets crawling over Jack but without filling Jack with lead. C'mon, even an expert couldn't have done that.The quantity of very bad far outnumbers the quantity of great, but boy the great stuff is really great! A definite must-see experience but not anywhere near a great film. Even though I couldn't stand the bland cereal in Lucky Charms, the marshmallow treats were so good, I loved it anyways. For much the same reason, I ended up enjoying King Kong, even with all it's very numerous faults.","['4', '11']" +1281,rw1241380,geogojira-1,King Kong (2005),10.0,What an Awesome experience,18 December 2005,0,"I went to see this Wednesday evening at 8pm and was blown away. My biggest concern was Jack Black doing a serious drama turn but much to my delight I thought he did a terrific job. I even got my mother(who wont sit for movies longer than 2 hours)to go and she thought it was great as well. This is why we go to the movies. The effects, obviously are awesome but Peter Jackson also too the time to do character development that makes us interested in these characters. But don't be fooled....this is an action picture and once we get to the island the movie is pretty much a non stop roller coaster. I am one of the lucky ones that grew up in the 80's getting to watch all the monster movie marathons like Kong and Godzilla on WOR 9 in NY. Godzilla is my favorite but I love all my giant monster on the rampage movies. The 98 Godzilla remake may have robbed a portion of my soul....but I am pleased to announce that Mr Jackson has created a remake that shows proper respect to its original and may just(GASP)even be better! Stop reading all of these posts and go watch this movie. Thank you to all the cast and crew. You are to be commended.","['1', '8']" +1282,rw1244992,footyhannah1,King Kong (2005),9.0,I laughed and I cried,22 December 2005,0,"I really enjoyed this film. I had anticipated great things, and I am happy to say I wasn't disappointed. Although it did start slowly, which I think to some extent was not necessary, once Kong came to the screen, it was excellent. The special effects were amazing, that at some point i forgot giant apes didn't exist. But the highlight for me, besides the scene were Kong fought dinosaurs (and you know thats gotta be good),was the relationship between Kong and Anne. It was good enough to make me cry, and the way it was portrayed was well done. Also, I noticed that unlike other Kong films, Kong wasn't actually repulsing. Whereas in others, Kong looked like a beast, in this, he seemed more lovable,and it was a lot easier to relate with Niaomi Watts' character.Overall, the film had comedy, adventure, happiness, sadness, excellent special effects and a great love story. I don't know about everyone else, but it didn't seem to have anything missing. It is one of the best films I have seen this year. Thoroughly enjoyable, so much so i didn't notice it was 3 hours long. If you haven't already seen King Kong, a strongly recommend you do.9/10","['2', '10']" +1283,rw1240121,dazend1,King Kong (2005),1.0,Another Failed Attempt At A Remake,16 December 2005,0,"Movie is more focus'd on special effects and not acting and is another remake where all the work has already been done from story line to script. Film makers and directors have no vision or creativity when it comes to making a movie today and sadly movies are getting worse and not better and this was also to long to try and set through as some parts of the story line were just to outrageous to believe. The acting also is terrible and more attention should be made to teach actors how to act and not just yell, scream and cry. Universal should really be ashamed of this one as it can't get much worse than this and I found myself wanting to walk out after the first hour. Hollywood has really lost it's ability to make a good movie now days and I hope things will improve in the future with the quality of the movies being made.","['14', '27']" +1284,rw1239229,lsk-5,King Kong (2005),9.0,Work of Genius!!!!,15 December 2005,1,"Just been to see King Kong tonight and i have to say i was totally blown away! Peter Jackson has done it again and made yet another complete masterpiece and i was VERY surprised at some of the changes he made and some extras he threw in for good measure and as a tribute to the original 1933 motion picture.Most notable is the theatre scene on Broadway as Jack Black (who was incredibly brilliant) as Carl Denham, the role first made famous by Robert Armstrong in the 1933 original, introduced Kong to the audience and the tribes-people took the stage and were dressed exactly as the tribes-people were in the 1933 original and the music the orchestra played was the score used when the tribe were performing their ritual to give Fay Wray (as Ann Darrow) away to Kong also in the 1933 original so i was pleased that he not only stayed almost completely true to the original but the way in which he slightly changed a few aspects of the story in such a way that he didn't mess the storyline up but in fact improved it! As reported in many reviews the CGI is excellent and Kong is VERY lifelike and i liked the way that Peter decided to have him the way he SHOULD be as in walking on knuckles as gorillas do and not standing vertical. The scene where Kong was first introduced, at his wedding to Ann did not disappoint me, there was no big build up like the first 2 incarnations had once Ann was tethered to the trees, within 10 secs he was stood 2 foot away from her but i wasn't displeased about this, it was still an excellent introduction! There are a few Rather humorous moments and it is a rip-roaring action-thriller that doesn't send you off to the land of nod after the first 2 hours but the time in fact seems to go quite quickly in some areas.I really enjoyed it and i've rated it 9 as no film is perfect but you're getting very close now Peter, keep it up!!","['1', '6']" +1285,rw1237630,ManofsteeleJ,King Kong (2005),10.0,King Kong---a giant surprise!,13 December 2005,0,"Perhaps the best movie to date. Steven Spielberg & George Lucas have a lot of talent but they have nothing on Peter Jackson. Well Done! I recommend seeing this movie even if you have never been a fan or have seen the original 2. *Not for small children-It may scare them.* I think the new computerized special effects are a plus and are used just enough in this film to bring the movie to the level it should have been at. I think the fact that Peter Jackson himself was a huge fan of the movie helped to bring every last detail to perfection. My father's favorite movie growing up was King Kong and we have seen it as a family far too many times to count. I never was so excited watching the film as I have been watching this version. I remember being excited and awe struck by the superb special effects and action of Jurassic Park...but with King Kong, you have to multiply that by at least 10. Go see it!","['8', '31']" +1286,rw1242057,Travman21,King Kong (2005),10.0,Excellent Movie - 10!,19 December 2005,0,"I was simply blown away by Peter Jackson's epic. I don't think it could be done any differently and Jackson payed major homage to the original. The special effects were amazing and the cast was very well put together. I must admit, I was a little skeptical about Jack Black playing in a serious role, but he did an excellent job. But I was most impressed by how well done the simple romance was between Ape and girl. In a time and age when sexual content is considered normal for movies and when romance is taken far beyond the realistic, Jackson made the relationship between Darrow (Watts) and Kong tender and one to be cherished. Well done Jackson, well done. My favorite of 2005 and a must-see!","['2', '14']" +1287,rw1242127,yahoo_959,King Kong (2005),3.0,What a disappointment. Especially from P.Jackson,19 December 2005,1,"Before seeing this film i was actually quite excited and looking forward to seeing another Peter Jackson masterpiece. Indeed when the film started i thought we were in for another treat. It does a lot of background plotting, introducing us to the characters in a natural way and we certainly associate with each character, apart from Jack Driscoll who is just thrown onto the ship before it leaves , almost as an afterthought, even though he's one of the main actors!Well basically we can relate to Ann and especially Carl. Its a shame really that this initial connection with the characters isn't really utilised effectively.As soon as they all arrive on the island, the film changes direction completely and becomes just an endless stream of unrelated special effect action sequences. Another huge disappointment was that each bit of action becomes even more unbelievable and stupid! I could accept the ship smashing against rocks and whatever and not sinking, and even Ann being whisked away by the ape and still being able to move after being violently thrust around. I guess they are kind of important to the film. however, things just escalate into the realms of the boringly unoriginal and unbelievable. Sure the CG is good, but don't show it off for the whole film with never ending action sequences involving 4 T-Rex like dinosaurs. And at least try and keep Kong ape-like. At one point, with the dinosaurs, it just turns into a rumble-in-the-jungle style wrestling match with Kong pulling street fighter/matrix style moves on the various beasts. After a few of these sequences, the rescue party end up in the bottom of a million foot ravene. Still alive obviously. The music stopped and i thought there was going to be some acting so we could get back in with the characters. Unfortunately the acting was interrupted by some bizarre beast insects that come out of no-where to try and kill them. Completely irrelevant to the film but it lasts about half an hour and kill the remaining irrelevant crew members! And these events continue the whole time they are on the island. Eventually they succeed, with one harpoon, where 4 T-Rex's failed and bring Kong down. And like that, hes back in new york on stage. The all too familiar action sequences continue after he breaks free and then he dies and it ends and i could go home and sleep. To sum it up, there are good and bad things about the film. Good: 1. Brilliant CGI with Kong and the various landscapes. 2. Good acting from Ann and at times Carl and Jack 3. sometimes funny. Especially jack black smashing a bottle of chloroform in Kong's eyes 4. Altho some of the action looks fake. I think this was to capture some of the style of the original film.Bad 1. Overuse of endless CG 2. The annoying time patterns present in the 1930's. Night-time can last only an hour or so sometimes! 3. Irrelevant action sequences 4. Endless inconsistencies with detail and the plot 5. Unexplained events. How did they get Kong back on the boat? How did they get Kong into the theatre? What happened to the tribe people? 6. Why is Kong so human? do apes really find jugglers funny enough to laugh? 7. Why is there only a mild breeze at the top of the empire state building during winter? And how can anyone stand up there in high heels?Overall, i was disappointed and wont be buying this on DVD. I recommend seeing it at the cinema if you want to and you can make up your own mind. Just don't expect another LOTR masterpiece. 3/10","['20', '38']" +1288,rw1244755,smacleod41,King Kong (2005),10.0,Excellence in story telling/movie making,22 December 2005,0,"This movie is a tour de force for Peter Jackson. Upon being asked what i though of this movie shortly after my viewing, i hesitated. I then spoke aloud that it was possibly the most awesome movie i have ever seen. By the time i finished speaking i was convinced it was in fact the most incredible movie experience of my life. I won't speak of the specifics of the movie as this is not necessary. I will express my profound enjoyment and renewed faith in the movie going experience. Simply put, this movie is value beyond compare. I did not notice the 3 plus hours length, the film is perfect. I am looking forward to my next viewing over the holidays. Get ready to be blown away folks, take some tissues and enjoy the ride.","['3', '11']" +1289,rw1238750,janx218,King Kong (2005),10.0,One of the best films I've ever seen...,14 December 2005,0,"I saw the midnight premier screening of this movie at my local cinema and I was absolutely amazed. I'll save any sort of plot summaries as they've been done to death. Instead, I'll say this: the movie made me feel a wider range of emotions and with more intensity than any film has in quite some time. I know I'm not alone, as I went with a large group of friends and after the film was over, nobody said a word to each other because we were all simply awestruck and emotional.One thing I would like to comment on were the special effects. Many people have complained that the effects on the non-Kong creatures were too unrealistic and apparently that ruined the film for them. My advice to them: learn how to imagine. Yes, I did notice that the dinosaurs were less than perfect, but it didn't matter. What counted is what the dinosaurs were doing. Let's not forget, this is a FANTASY film. I think it can be forgiven for not looking entirely ""realistic"" all the time. Judging by the reactionary sounds from seemingly the entire audience at the screening, it seems that I wasn't the only one who got caught up in the action and wasn't worried about slightly ""sub-par"" effects.One of the themes of the movie is the idea that a sense of wonder is missing from the world. ""King Kong"" brings a sense of wonder to its audience in a way I don't think I've ever witnessed before. This is Peter Jackson's masterpiece.","['2', '10']" +1290,rw1251417,NateW,King Kong (2005),9.0,A spectacular under-achiever,30 December 2005,0,"Call me crazy, but I didn't see this coming. Peter Jackson, fresh off of directing the greatest trilogy in film history, makes his dream project in a big-budget remake of King Kong amidst a flurry of buzz and fanfare and talk show interviews. After all this, it pulls in an opening weekend gross of...$50 million? Did anyone else see the same preview I did? Are people suddenly squeamish about sitting through a three hour movie? Whatever the answer might be, this behemoth deserved much more. I can say without question that King Kong is the most amazing, captivating, flat-out masterpiece of a film I have seen this year. The last movie going experience that blew me away in such dramatic fashion was...big coincidence...Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. If there was any lingering doubt about the genius that is Peter Jackson, let his dream project put those doubts to rest. King Kong is the epitome of what film entertainment can be, and it's done as only Mr. Jackson can do it.","['1', '3']" +1291,rw1251819,sam_ri-1,King Kong (2005),5.0,"There's always one, isn't there? Yes, and this time it's me.",31 December 2005,1,"King Kong starts as a very atmospheric, accurate portrayal of NYC in the depression. This early 30 minutes was the highlight of the film for me. The action then moves to a boat, whereby the story begins to develop. This opening part is all quite interesting - some good character development, but you know where it is leading.King Kong is, of course, a film based around a large monkey.When this boat gets to island, we are treated to a somewhat illogical, although impressive sequence of CGI animals and dinosaurs. This sequence lasts a very long time. It's all very well if you like to see King Kong fighting with dinosaurs, or large insects crawling on people, but for me this is just boring. The films ties up in a sentimental way, which is just not what one would expect from an action epic. (Obviously, you would expect it if you'd seen the other, superior, King Kong films).To me, this was one of those films which you really couldn't care less when it ends. Yes, it's entertaining, and yes Naomi Watts is charming, but this film is just very, very whimsical.Clearly, it's not my sort of film. I was very bored by the Lord of the Rings trilogy too, and have become accustomed to what I see as mindless, over-the-top films being seen in a totally different light by everyone else.I should end by saying that I'm generally surprised that the reception this film has got is so positive.","['2', '4']" +1292,rw1238954,dlope1,King Kong (2005),10.0,Masterpiece!,15 December 2005,0,"Excellent movie in the tradition of Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson is the type of filmmaker rarely seen these days juxtaposing the artistic with the commercial in a a very grand way. The 1933 original movie is a classic but this new version stands alone as a modern classic and surely one of the year's best movies. PJ ensures that the audience gets there money's worth. Very strongly constructed piece of cinema from the acting, cinematography and special effects to the direction, sounds and music. It was a little long, but the sequencing, background and character development made it all interesting and the length didn't seem long. I am looking forward to adding this movie to my DVD collection.","['5', '15']" +1293,rw1240362,daanbolder,King Kong (2005),5.0,editor needed quick!,17 December 2005,1,"OK, I'm a heavy smoker. After more than 2 hours my mind switches to a serious urge for nicotine unless something is really entertaining me. Although we can smoke everything we want in the Netherlands, there is a pretty strict no-smoking policy in cinema's. And even in 3+ hour movies we don't have a break! But still, I survived LOTR pretty well, so why not try the King-Kong-big-sit.I was pretty familiar with the story & time-line. I already knew they are gonna take Kong back to the city. After a 2 hour adventure on the island the only thing I could think of was: ""oooh, and they STILL have to go to the city..."". The setting and the effects are amazing, but just like an amazing painting it's not gonna entertain me for hours. I've seen the ape, I knew the story and I was in serious need for my cigarette.The funny thing is, you CAN actually go out and smoke a cigarette. Nothing important is gonna happen. When a scene starts, you can be sure you won't be late for the next scene if you go out for a cigarette. I'm not saying the movie was boring, it's just too much showing the possibilities of cgi & beautiful settings. The story is obviously not Jacksons priority in this movie.Jackson showed us he isn't the ""artist"" people suggest he is. Give the man a bag of millions, a group of the best cgi-effect people and you get King Kong. Too bad there wasn't any money left for a decent editor. The movie didn't surprise me, didn't contain anything new and was just a display what is possible with unlimited finance. The only creativity were the cgi-creatures. (It's actually an animated movie, roger rabbit style) Jackson, cut a movie like this to a maximum of 2 hours, and it WILL be entertaining. Leave the ape on the Island, or shoot him of the tower in less then 30 minutes PLEASE !","['62', '112']" +1294,rw1253590,grei1477,King Kong (2005),7.0,"Great potential...Beautifully filmed...In the end, just too much",2 January 2006,0,"This movie had great potential. The depiction of Kong was as realistic as CGI has ever gotten. A great deal of time was spent observing real gorillas and that information was put directly into the characterization of Kong. The settings and scenes were gorgeously filmed and exquisite in design.The movie took to way long to get to the ""meat"" of the story. When it did, it went way overboard in the action and excitement departments. If Peter Jackson could scare the audience with one or two creatures or dangers, he always made sure to put in two hundred creatures or dangers. By the end of the movie I was both dizzy and exhausted by keeping up with the fast moving edits and the swirling perspectives.There was a reason the original was so much shorter than this version and I think an hour of this movie was added just to satiate the obsessions of its director. Sometimes we just love things way too much for our own good and this is one of the problems with this movie. The director put way too much stuff into the package. Great art is as much knowing what to remove as what to put in. This movie, though very good, is a good example of three tons of bananas in a one ton truck.","['3', '4']" +1295,rw1242939,EddieEfsic,King Kong (2005),8.0,Loud and Fast,15 December 2005,1,"I think agentmatheus said it well...""Kong"" is a loud movie, a mixture of horror, action, drama, adventure, and romance, all of them in their most perfect form.I'm not so sure about ""their most perfect form"" but it's REAL good. The action is eye-popping and I very much agree Andy Serkis did a tremendous job.And ""loud"" is an understatement. The bellowing, stomping, flinging, even the breathing is loud. I mean this as a compliment. An ape that size should sound louder than James Earl Jones through a mask. And the scrape w/ the 3 T-Rexes was sa-MOKIN! Despite seeing the first two makes of this movie I was actually still pulling for Kong to actually finish off the remaining biplanes... thinking he might do it and claim the ESB as his own seat of power, or at least die on top and let them figure out how to get his carcass down without making a 40 foot crater...The reason its not a 9? Not enough credit for the velociraptors. They want meat? They had a couple hundred tons of it already without dodging Bronto legs for a mile trying for homo sapien flesh.The reason its not a 10? ROTK and Ben Hur get my 10s. When a movie beats one of them we'll talk about another 10.","['3', '4']" +1296,rw1240853,Kalifire,King Kong (2005),7.0,Patchy Re-make of an Age-old Story,18 December 2005,1,"I've seen this twice now. The second time around... you notice things. I really want to give this movie more then a 'seven', but I can't. First, let's cover the good bits.Naomi Watts is the finest actress of her generation. She is second to none and as her filmography expands, she'll only prove this further. She manages great range playing opposite a CGI creature. Jack Black also deserves a mention and manages to make you forget he can only actually pull two faces, 'confused' and 'smug'. The King Kong special effects are never anything other then remarkable. Every scene Kong is in defies belief, but believe it you will.OK, with that out of the way, let's just burst this bubble a little bit. Jackson's King Kong is not quite the monumental epic the hype surrounding it suggests. There are some major flaws present here. Firstly, the special effects not involving Kong are, at best, passable. Very often they are cringe-inducingly poor. The scene with Driscoll and Denham escaping from those long-necked dinosaurs left me inwardly begging for Spielberg to show them how it's done - nothing in the CGI dinosaur arena has yet surpassed Jurassic Park 1, and King Kong is no exception.Then, we have Adrian Brody who seems uncomfortable in this role and certainly doesn't bring the gravitas necessary for the love triangle - due to this, the triangle remains flat throughout, despite Watt's best efforts. Finally, and I am aware that talking about implausibility in a film involving a twenty five foot ape is somewhat redundant, there are some serious story-holes here. Most irritating of all is how on earth Driscoll manages to navigate almost an entire island and all the creatures on it in just a few short hours. Jackson only highlights this problem in his shot of Driscoll looking upwards towards where Darrow and Kong are sleeping and the immense gap between them. Also, the frequent ""we came back to rescue you"" moments... it happened once, fine. But again? To sustain my belief in the loyalty of a crew who are reluctant at best from the outset, Jackson needed to humanize the secondary characters a lot more then he did. The there's the unlikely event of three tiny bottles of chloroform and a big spear bringing down Kong and the impossibility of them getting him to New York on that relatively little boat.On the whole this remains an outstanding, but flawed, achievement. It certainly elevates Peter Jackson to world leader in fantasy epics and up there with Ridley Scott and James Cameron when it comes to landmark epic events in cinematic history.","['3', '8']" +1297,rw1243915,DoctorMario89,King Kong (2005),8.0,this film has been overrated badly,21 December 2005,0,uh oh!!!! 3 HOURS!! o my god what a waste of time this film is rubbish!!! i want my money back the film has some highlights but here is just a taste at why the film is so poor 1. the excessive plot. there is no need to spend 1 whole hour getting to know a bunch of sailors who get killed as soon as they get to skull island! 2.The relationship between jimmy and Mr haze is totally pointless. what does it do to progress the story in any way 3.Kong.... he is very cool and well put together but you don't get to see him for half the film which is a bummer. 4.the UN answered questions? How does Carl den-ham get the map? how does Kong get back to new york? why are jack and Ann separated after the visit to skull island? what happened to the crew? 5.the climax of the film was just two dragged out! i just wanted it to end! some good scenes and the acting was good from both Naomi watts and jack black but the technology ruined the film PS what is going on in the scene where Kong takes Ann and starts shaking her around like a loony paying no attention to her?,"['13', '28']" +1298,rw1244254,nofootcan,King Kong (2005),4.0,2005 Kong? more like 1985 Kong.,21 December 2005,0,"Maybe I was expecting more....I thought a movie of this scale would have amazing effects but in some parts Kong looked like he was made in the mid eighties, interaction with people looked terrible; maybe the New Zealand team just ain't up to par yet. The movie was drawn out as much as possible with the end scene taking forever. All in all it was an average movie that was way to over-hyped for its own good.(if you consider that Jurassic Park was made long ago and looked 10 times better.) I love Peter Jacksons Bad taste and Brain Dead these were very witty and well pieced films, but as for these later sagas not so impressed.","['8', '16']" +1299,rw1234691,mr-ragu,King Kong (2005),9.0,Awesome!,7 December 2005,0,"Just saw King Kong on a preview. All I can say is: Wow! Peter Jackson hasn't lost it! Lasting 180 minutes, this movie for me didn't sag for one moment. At first I marveled the beautiful 1933 New York City. The opening song in combination with real-looking footage of the great depression is outright fantastic.Jackson takes his time. You'll have to wait about one hour before Kong shows up. But it's worth it. Fine character depiction. And the cast is great. Jack Black has never been this good, Naomi Watts (in opposite to Fay Wray, but of course those were different times) really develops a relationship to the giant gorilla. And Andy Serkis as Kong proves again that just like he did with Gollum in Lord of the Rings, he is the forerunner of a totally new kind of CG-MoCap-acting. Adrien Brody does well also.The action sequences in King Kong are outstanding. I've never seen anything like this before. It really sets new standards. The events on Skull Island will make your heart stop several times.Those of you who know the 1933 film, you know how it's ending. Jackson takes it full circle and gives you funny, furious and SAD in this film. Oh, and it's probably nothing for people who are afraid of great heights...9 out of 10 Stars. Don't miss this instant classic!","['4', '30']" +1300,rw1250446,Truthette,King Kong (2005),10.0,"Amazing, 5 stars!",29 December 2005,0,"I thought the movie was absolutely amazing. Everyone deserves an Oscar. Jack Black did a stunning job. His best performance yet. Noami Watts was perfect. Kong himself was so life-like. He looked just as real as an regular alpha-male ape. The special effects and computer animation was amazing! It was like being right there on Skull Island. I loved it. And the director, he stuck to the 1933 script, two thumbs up! Perfection! The finishing touch were the creatures on the island. I nearly screamed to death on the Dinosaur and insect parts. It was a perfect family movie for everyone to enjoy. I laughed, I cried, I was sad, I was angry. King Kong brings out every emotion to theaters. I loved it. Great Job!!","['0', '3']" +1301,rw1240280,wtpaine,King Kong (2005),10.0,Best Movie Of 2005,17 December 2005,0,"I have seen this movie twice (so Far). The best movie of 2005. This movie goes way beyond special effects. When you look into the eyes of Kong you can see a soul. Don't Miss It! It follows the same storyline of the 1933 version, and it is obvious that Peter Jackson is paying tribute to the original. My only regret is that they didn't use or rework the original Max Stiener score which is so identifiable with Kong. Even the 1976 Version had better music, otherwise a wonderful theatrical experience. I went in wondering how they could spend $200,000,000 and came out of the theater wondering, how they could make this for Only that amount.","['1', '8']" +1302,rw1244467,Jack_Yan,King Kong (2005),8.0,A creature study,14 December 2005,1,"The script for King Kong might not be rich in dialogue, and the movie could be argued as being special effects-laden, but it's in Peter Jackson's expression of the humanity within the story that make this one of the finest films around.Film-maker Carl Denham (Jack Black, whose name curiously appears before Academy Award winner Adrien Brody's) discovers actress Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) and convinces her to join him on a journey to Skull Island, at which his half-finished movie can be completed. While there, Darrow is taken by the natives and offered as a sacrifice. A giant, 25 ft gorilla comes for her, but instead of killing her, begins to care and feel for her.The story is well known enough for the majority of reviews to avoid real spoilers, but at no other time has King Kong been told with such poignancy. Andy Serkis's movements, including his eyes which were scanned and magnified for the Kong character, give the creature more realism than ever—so much so that Mr Serkis deserves such a high billing ('and Andy Serkis as') for his contribution.Every scene featuring Kong and Watts stirs the soul, and at no time does one consider that most of them would have been filmed with a green screen. In fact, every scene featuring Watts steals the movie: the camera loves her more here than in any of her previous films. She is at the height of her beauty and absorbs us into it. Her eyes convey all her emotions, considering she has few words shared with Kong. And Jackson fittingly plays up her strength at every opportunity.The complaints are few: Black is a competent actor but pales in comparison with Brody and, especially, Watts; Black's last line is delivered with a cringe. The travel to Skull Island takes considerable time, and we learn that Darrow's relationship with playwright Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), which develops on this journey, is secondary anyway. Jackson delights perhaps a little too much in his monsters, though this writer disagrees with an earlier reviewer that the dinosaurs were inferior to those of Jurassic Park. Eagle-eyed moviegoers may spot the odd computer-made sign or prop.But pedants are more than catered for with an outstanding, CGI-made replica of New York, including carefully modified cars to get their steering wheels on the left. The fight scenes featuring Kong and his rivals on Skull Island excite. Opening scenes of Depression-era hardship set up the first act admirably (as well as a feeling of spectacle). Visually there are in-jokes: a Universal Pictures sign high above Times Square, and a reference to Fay Wray near the beginning of the film as being a size 4 but under contract to RKO.It may not feel like The Lord of the Rings other than sweeping camera-work, a Hobbitesque left-to-right journey into Skull Island's interior (and right-to-left in the escape from it), and, of course, a smörgåsbord of creatures that are responsible for quite a high body count within the middle of the film.It is true that King Kong does not feel like three hours, but it does feel like a substantial two. If the middle feels long, then the dénouement feels short, simply because by that time, we are in love with both the gentle Kong and Naomi Watts. Jackson's direction has made us care about these characters: a monster film this is not. It is, instead, a simple but extravagantly told tale about the emotions and thoughts that drive all creatures: survival, nurturing, affinity, and love.","['0', '1']" +1303,rw1234369,jake j,King Kong (2005),3.0,An exercise in overkill- A Gargantuan Scam In Three Acts,9 December 2005,0,"King Kong is actually three distinct films. First the voyage to Skull Island, the endless chaos on the island and the finale in NYC. All of the stunning CGI and art direction cannot compensate for a drawn out and slackly played narrative that actually improved the image of the much-maligned '76 remake. For a work that has consumed director Jackson with passion since he experienced the truly classic original on television as a young boy in New Zealand, this is a dispiriting event. Like the worst of Spielberg, characters are introduced and forgotten, red herrings are tossed about with zero regard for a thinking audience, and the ooh-wow! set pieces, as with Kong versus the T-Rex's and the stampede of the dinosaurs, lose all visceral tension when reason tells us, even for a broad fantasy, that what we are watching is technical proficiency and virtuosity without a shred of believability. And where are the laughs? The only humor comes from the smugness of a deluded matinée idol, Kyle Chandler as Bruce Baxter seen too briefly, and Jack Black is totally wrong and far too feminine to pull off the bravado and guts of adventurer/producer Carl Denham. This is his worst performance. Naomi Watts manages to keep a straight face while playing off the blue screen to Kong, but for those critics who claim these scenes are touching have got to be kidding. Nothing but repressed giggles from the screening I attended. The touted roach-spider attack, coming on the heels of FOUR extended action sequences where our heroes should have died a thousand times, comes straight out of the superior Starship Troopers and provides a perfect description of this obscenely bloated ordeal-OVERKILL!!!!!Anyone outside of Universal Studios or Peter Jackson's buying power can clearly see this film is, after a promising first hour at sea, an endless noise factory with limited entertainment value. The ENTIRE New York sequence, compared to the original, or even the finale of the budget-less KONGA, is an embarrassment. James Newton Howard, one of our finest composers, phones in a forgettable last-minute score. King BOMB is more appropriate. A complete waste of $207 million bucks (it ain't my money of course)on a vanity production. * 1.2 out of ****","['41', '85']" +1304,rw1241571,pressboard,King Kong (2005),7.0,A monster hit - but flawed,19 December 2005,1,"It is no surprise that this is a CGI heavy 800 pound gorilla. Peter Jackson takes 45 minutes to set up the plot and characters and I have no criticism with that. He expands on the original story by giving some depth and implied backstory to the natives and more attention to the inhabitants of Skull Island (other than Kong), than was done in the original. There are some unexcelled action/fight scenes between the creatures and Kong's pursuit of the taxi in circa 1920's New York is incredible. Humor, in general, is sporadic and not felt strongly when used. Which brings me to my complaint. I believe that pacing can go too fast to allow emotion to be conveyed - love in particular. The love story between Kong and Naomi Watts does not succeed as well as it did with Faye Wray in the original - because the pacing, in the earlier film, slowed to allow viewers to appreciate the connection. This is not the first movie I have criticized for not allowing enough time for the viewers to feel what the actors are feeling or for a rapport to be established. This seems to be a particular failing of movies with massive special effects. The first Batman, I thought, connected with the viewer - so this seems to be something that the Director can control. Since this love story is such a major theme, I think Kong's moments with his woman should have slowed more from the general pacing of the film. I know he has to pander to the ADD generations, lest they lose concentration - but I think this was a failing. Then again, I come from a generation where pacing was considerably slower - so maybe it's just me. Enjoy","['2', '6']" +1305,rw1245398,dave9999-1,King Kong (2005),4.0,Lacking in many departments.,17 December 2005,1,"*** This comment may contain spoilers ****** For starters many of the cast were miscast. Namely Captain Englehorn, he needed to be a more older type, like JON VOIGHT. Hayes was also miscast far too big and bulky,(Starvation was abundant, plenty of clips showed us a depression was a on, remember!) along with that young type Jimmy, now he couldn't act out of a paper bag. And that sea dog with the stubby beard, just not quite there was it. And those studio types reviewing Jack Blacks film, were they miscast or what.Didn't want the cast to overshadow the Ape and more importantly from Jacksons viewpoint his Directorship. It wasn't a film about King Kong it was just another one of those cult director movies, like Orson Wells, Kirbrick etc. I mean so what! What is so great about a director? people flip their lids about a director. They are just another cog in the wheel like the producer, the editor and casting agent or best boy dolly grip! That scene with the multi tooth sea slugs slithering over someones arms and head, some ghastly scene that could have come out of John Carpenters ""The Thing""..That unbeknown to Jackson, I believe was his own horrific, monstrous ego wanting to consume everybody and everything in sight, given half the chance. There was the Tommygun shooting the bugs off someone in the jungle scene, even an expert would most probably have shot him dead. There was the Jet Airline Engine exhaust plumage clearly seen to the upper right in one skyline scene, poorly, poorly edited that. Then the New York street shots, I noticed the background was very blurred especially later on. Either the limits of CGI or whatever imagery they used. Of course you had the Scene towards the end where they are in Cenrtal park sliding around on the lake, one 1930's mortar round shattered the ice but a 20 odd TON giant Gorrilla didn't!, with ""Nobody in sight"" ""Nobody"" walking about!. then within 1/2 a second they are being chased down a street.(bits cut out there) There were bits where the ape was skulking down a street either before that time or after with ""Nobody"" around, not even coming out of an apartment, ""Nobody"" looking out of a window even. As if. Just too many ""As ifs"" for my liking. You could fill a page full of the annoying, ""As ifs"" in that movie. Then two seconds later clambering up the Empire state building, again bits cut out there. Which was instantly evacuated, Bungling Solders let the writer in, as if, nobody coming out the lift!. Thinking back, by law for the safety of the public they would have had to have had someone with a tranquiliser gun in that theatre. Then all of a sudden from being late at night 11 or 12 o'clock it was ""Daybrake"" the sun was coming up. Like 5 or 6 hours just evaporated into thin air. All that money spent on that film, it wasn't too bad but could have been a lot lot better. Peter Jackson actually gave tens of million dollars so it could stay at 3 hours long. That smacks of ego to me, a bit two much wrapped up in the whole thing.I much prefer the 1970's remake with giggly Jessica Lange to this ""Horror"" film. It should have been a ""15"" or even a ""18"" certificate. Not my most favourite film of the year, that goes to ""The adventures of shark boy and lava girl"". now that is a proper film....PS. The film was 3 hours long, most people know it is 3 hours long BEFORE going to see it, like going to see a Star Wars film then saying afterwards that personally they didn't like the Sci-fi and Outerspace parts. How long is a 3 hour film going to be? could it possibly be 3 hours!!. Timewise we got two 90 minute films for the price of one, and we should look at that as a bargain. But to be honest, we only really got half a film, the rest was Jacksons bloated, monstrous ego, and we all know now what that looks like!.*****This comment may contain spoilers ****","['4', '6']" +1306,rw1245385,loucrunch,King Kong (2005),8.0,Emotional,16 December 2005,1,"I really enjoyed this movie. I went for the special effects and because it was done by Peter Jackson, but I was really moved by the interaction between Ann and Kong. The relationship was incredibly tender and I admit I had tears in my eyes at the end -- even though I knew how it was going to end! Or maybe because I knew how it would end, it made the scenes more poignant. I was expecting the first hour to drag, but it went pretty quickly -- filling us in on the back story of various characters. The part that dragged were some of the action scenes.(SPOILER ALERT)somersaulting brontosaurs went on way too long and so did the T-Rexes. 3 was a bit much. (/SPOILER ALERT) I'm now going to go back and re-watch the original and I highly recommend that anyone else planning to see this do the same. There were all sorts of gags and tributes to the original and you won't want to miss any.","['3', '4']" +1307,rw1240039,kinzaismyname,King Kong (2005),1.0,"never-ending, everything's too ugly, tenuous",16 December 2005,0,"Peter Jackson, the director has a tendency of stretching out movies way longer than they need to be. This was a waste of my three hours and twelve minutes. The movie was predictable and unrealistic. I understand that people need to take movies with a pinch of salt, but way too many special effects. And woah were the headhunters ugly! They had piercings all over the place, they had chopsticks going through their cheeks and up their noses. Everything was too slow and ugly for me. Jackson was trying to copy Godzilla, but didn't realize they were in a different time period. This movie is no comparison to Godzilla or anything like this before, it's not even in the same league. I like special effects as much as the next person but the movie lacked substance and was totally ridiculous. That's the truth, and only the truth.","['22', '44']" +1308,rw1242691,nickpetrin,King Kong (2005),10.0,My Apologies to Peter Jackson...,19 December 2005,0,"I'm a 27 year old male, and I'll admit I shed to tear or two occasionally at movies...not very often though. However, I was a complete mess after this movie! Bravo Peter Jackson, you somehow transformed a tired plot line into an extremely entertaining, and emotional, film. This is what blockbuster Christmas film should be, a roller-coaster of astonishment mixed with emotion. I was dragged to this movie unwillingly (I usually only go to movies at the art's cinema's), but I admit that I've never been so wrong about a movie. I considered Cinderella Man the best movie of this year, but now's it's a DISTANT second. The combination of special effects and story follows in the footsteps of Lucas, only Jackson presents believable dialog. Oh yeah, I'm 6 ft 5 in and NEVER watch movies in the theaters that are over 3 hours because of comfort. Yeah, I cramped up, but I didn't care! I would have sat there for another 3 hours just to watch it again!","['3', '16']" +1309,rw1252608,ranman500,King Kong (2005),9.0,"A thrill ride, yes, but much, much more",1 January 2006,0,"Took the family yesterday, and I have to say this is the most fun I've had at a movie in a long, long time. I'd heard it was too slow for the first 90 minutes, but I thought the pacing was just right. The special effects are utterly mind blowing, but strong performances by all -- in particular, Naomi Watts -- make this more than just a popcorn movie. Yes, it's a thrill ride, but it's also a beautiful love story.Peter Jackson has done an admirable job of helming the re-make of a classic, and staying true to the original. This Kong shows more raw emotion than his two predecessors achieved. And that, my friends, has precious little to do with special effects; it takes heart.For all the awesome effects, lavish sets, and memorable, creepy creatures on Skull Island, this film is about relationships.....","['0', '3']" +1310,rw1235877,Phadra,King Kong (2005),10.0,Every thing a film should be.,11 December 2005,0,I loved this movie. Was lucky enough to see a preview and was pleasantly surprised. Peter Jackson is one of the great filmmakers of all times. He really knows how to entertain but is also a brilliant story teller.I don't think they could have found a better actress than Naomi Watts. She is brilliant. And it's great to see Adrien Brody again. He is fabulous. And Andy Serkis should definitely get an Oscar nod for this performance. As far as the rest of the cast I thought they were all fantastic. Fabulous!! This film is incredibly touching. Go see it!!!,"['3', '28']" +1311,rw1240685,MovieManMenzel,King Kong (2005),7.0,King Kong doesn't live up to all the hype surrounding it although it did have the potential to be brilliant instead of just being OK.,17 December 2005,0,"During a time when the United States is suffering from a Depression, a young actress named Ann (Naomi Watts) is out of work because of the depression. While on her way to find a new job, she is approached by a film producer named Carl (Jack Black) who insists that she has what it takes in order to be the star of his new film. Carl tricks Ann along with several others to hop on board a stolen boat and travel to the mysterious Skull Island where Carl plans to shoot his film. The only problem is that no one knows they are going to this mysterious and undiscovered island besides Carl and no one knows what the island has in store for them or what creatures lurk on this island. Adventure ensues… ""King Kong"" had an excellent beginning, a bad middle, and a decent ending and overall the film was good but not great. The first hour of this film had to the potential of being something really out of the ordinary. The whole set design which was set in New York in the 1930s was beautiful and dead on. Also in the first hour, it was nice to see the story build up before actually getting into the whole theme of the movie. Everything in the first hour was excellent and I sat there thinking to myself wow this is going to be a great flick.But then when Carl and the rest of the people aboard the boat get to Skull Island is where I felt the movie got a bit too much. The whole natives' thing was great along with the introduction of Kong himself. But then the dinosaur fights, the stampede, and the whole battles between Kong and the Dinosaurs were a bit too much and drawn out. Not to mention all the other pointless creatures like the crab spiders that seemed like they were added into the story so that the girls in the audience would say eww. In fact, I would say that this is where the film could have been cut in order to bring the flick down to a 2hr and 20 min running time instead of 3hrs. While the filming locations picked during these scenes were amazing, the special effects were awful. They looked incredibly unrealistic and seemed so over the top. Also this is where the film got way to far-fetched for my taste. The whole Kong holding Ann and dropping her every 2 seconds got old fast not to mention the fact they she got thrown and hit several times and never had a scratch on her.The final part where the film forms full circle and comes back to where the film opened in New York and was fine but in the middle is where this movie lost steam and never fully recovers. I think Peter Jackson really knows how to direct films and really knows how to capture beautiful landscapes and settings and I thought the final 10 minutes of this film were very touching and captured the true beauty of New York in the 1930s. Not to mention, Mr. Jackson actually made me feel bad for a giant ape.My big complaint was the amount and quality of the special effects. It was too much and I felt that's what made the film loose steam. Believe it or not the best part of ""King Kong"" was the first hour before Kong was even introduced, the story, acting, set designs were all perfect it's just a shame that the film decided that it had to rely more on action and special effects later on then on its story. I guess that's why this is a Hollywood Blockbuster. Also the movie feels incredibly long and about 2hrs in and you can hear people in the theater asking each other when is this going to end? Not to mention all the people who got up several times throughout this movie to go to the bathroom and make phone calls.In the end, ""King Kong"" doesn't live up the reviews its getting. I found myself very disappointed after the first hour and even the ending didn't bring it up back up to par with the beginning. It's sad that this actually had to turn into an over the top blockbuster loaded with special effects because it had the potential of being great. I thought the set designs were the best part of the film followed by the performances of Jack Black, Naomi Watts, and Adrien Brody. I think the film overall was a bit too childish, long and didn't live up to its hype. But I do think its worth checking out at least once.MovieManMenzel's final rating is a 7/10. Kong has the potential to be the best film to come out of Hollywood this year but lost it in the second act.","['6', '12']" +1312,rw1245445,AlienByChoice,King Kong (2005),9.0,I thought they didn't make them like that anymore...,23 December 2005,0,"I must admit, I had pretty low expectations of Peter Jackson's King Kong. A 3 hour long remake of a shallow 1933 production sounded like a pointless task to me. I was wrong. No, I was WRONG.The cast is amazing. Jack Black proves once and for all he can take up a serious role and be good at it. Brody, Kretschmann, Serkis and Colin Hanks are on top of their game. Naomi Watts had a difficult role - she had to combine the essential ""blonde"" character of the original film with the new vision of Peter Jackson. Though it created some disharmony in her character, the end result is quite good.The storyline, editing and directing are top notch. I really didn't think they made it like that anymore. Show me another movie that can grab your attention for over three hours. (No, I am not a LoTR fan - I got bored stiff at the end of The Return of the King.)Special effects were in a league of their own, and I believe we can expect Weta Workshop to grab an Oscar for that one. However, they were also a it of a letdown, as some of the action involving human was somewhat unrealistic as compared to the total realism of Kong and his habitat.James Newton Howard deserves every accolade for the score. The King Kong symphony is an instant classic and easily gets into my personal top 10 soundtracks of all times.So, what's the bottom line? This movie is almost perfect. It has a good story, complex characters which develop, great acting, brilliant directing, a wonderful score and amazing special effects. If only it was an original one and not a remake... 9/10","['2', '13']" +1313,rw1252378,simsonic,King Kong (2005),7.0,"Too much for too long, but a movie worth seeing",1 January 2006,1,"(Sorry for any bad English, I'm from Finland) The Lord of the Rings -trilogy by Peter Jackson is a modern masterpiece in film-making. That said, the anticipation for the remake of 1933's King Kong was high. Although Kong is king in his own respect, the movie doesn't bring the magic that Lord of the Rings did.Let's get the positive side first. Acting is good all around. Especially Jack Black does well with Carl Denham's tragedy/comedy -character. Kong and other non-human characters are well created by CGI to the big screen. Andy Serkis does it again as he is acting Kong (and Lumpy the cook for that matter) wonderfully, and makes the big ape what he is: a monster in the first look, but an intelligent, gentle animal when you get his trust. The scene with the natives of the Skull island are intimidating, terrifying and thus, superb. The movie should have had more of that feeling: not knowing what's going to happen next. Because after that scene the story is too predictable.CGI by WETA Digital is great, no doubt about that. The problem is that there is too stuff going on in the movie. The scene with Brontosaurus chasing Jack Driscoll and the others was way too long and not that imaginative, although a spectacular in the field of effects. Audience just got bored with it, like the V-Rexes attacking Kong. Waaay too long and sometimes so unbelievable, that it becomes hilarious. One of the downsides is that most of the time the film doesn't make any sense, like with this particular scene.The plot line with Hayes and Jimmy was unnecessary. In the end we didn't get to know what happened to Jimmy, why he read that book and why in the heck this plot line was ever created. Totally irrelevant and just made the audience confused. Overally the plot just wasn't good enough to maintain pace for three hours.In the end it's hard to feel any sympathy for Kong, even though he had some nice scenes with Naomi Watt's Ann Darrow. He killed dozens of humans, so I'm not sold that easily. Peter Jackson's King Kong has too much for too long, but still has enough great bits to make it worthwhile. The Return of the King is still the true king.","['0', '1']" +1314,rw1242046,jdorries7,King Kong (2005),8.0,Well done,19 December 2005,0,"I knew I wanted to see this film when I heard Peter Jackson would be doing it. I was not disappointed. It was clear that he understood the point of the story early on. Not only did it have the excellent effects I expected after the Lord of the Rings, but it also had the heart which is the most important. Even though a few of the fight scenes were a bit long for my tastes, I understood why they were necessary. The cast was great-especially Jack Black who is always worth seeing. Naomi Watts was very convincing. You can tell that whoever did the effects studied gorillas and the way they move. Kong was so lifelike and so sympathetic. Well done. A definite recommend.","['1', '8']" +1315,rw1250240,joefitz12,King Kong (2005),3.0,Incredibly Overdone,29 December 2005,1,"The action scenes were pretty cool, but drawn out too long. For instance *SPOILER* when the dinosaurs were falling over each other in the canyon. That scene was way, way, way , WAY too long. I for one loved going to this movie, because in the theater all the parts like that I could laugh at. And I did. If this movie was supposed to be a comedy, I'd give it a higher rating. Otherwise, full of plot holes and undeveloped characters. For instance, they spent the first half of the movie developing that kid... where is he the second half of the movie? More obvious, HOW did they get King Kong off that island? Was Jack Black supposed to be good or bad? I couldn't tell. How about the ""relationship"" that was so obvious? Sure he walked up to the top of the empire state building for her, but you never really learn if it worked out or not. People can rate it high for it's action scenes, but King Kong doesn't deserve above a 5.","['10', '18']" +1316,rw1238734,Katrina818,King Kong (2005),9.0,Simply Amazing,14 December 2005,0,"King Kong was absolutely fantastic. Peter Jackson did a terrific job. Adrien Brody was amazing as the leading man. He is beautiful and sexy comes off as being sincerely in love. Adrien Brody is one of those few actors that can look you in the eyes and you actually believe every single word that they say. He is such a beautiful man. Naomi Watts looked amazing and her performance was wonderfully scripted. I actually felt the connection between her and Kong. Jack Black gave an unexpectedly wonderful performance. His character was deep, yet dark and selfish. King Kong has a little something that everyone watching can enjoy. Action, romance,Sofia, Adrien Brody, and a 25 foot tall lovable ape. The special effects were top notch and the acting was superb, what more could you want? I recommend seeing King Kong today.","['1', '9']" +1317,rw1238732,cdelacroix1,King Kong (2005),8.0,"King Kong is Fun, Action-Packed, Moving",14 December 2005,0,"I *really* enjoyed this film! I mean, from one end to the other. I frankly don't remember the earlier King Kong's enough to compare; and maybe that's just as well. My impression is that *this* King Kong invested a lot more time away from New York City, in the Voyage and Island sequences. Hey. Works for me.The initial New York sequence was perfect. The Voyage was a mix of Conrad and Melville and I almost could taste the salt spray on my lips. There was a real flavor of Joseph Conrad's ""Heart of Darkness"" throughout the Voyage and Island sequences, fitting the repeated allusions to same. The Island scenes were wonderful, beautifully done, with lots of action and lush scenery. The pace and flavor on the Island are very Spielberg, and remind me of both the Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park series.This was a LONG movie ... and I'll admit I started getting a little antsy towards the close of the lengthy island sequence. And about then I remember wondering something like: we all *know* that King Kong has to be at the top of the Empire State Building in New York. After all this on the Island, how are they going to segue to New York? And isn't that going to be drawn out? And how in the world connect New York up with the Island? Well, it worked out fine as far as all of those questions go. I won't give it away but it was really emotionally satisfying to me both in terms of continuity of Action and continuity of Relationships all round. As for Relationships ... the Humor and Action were superb, first-rate. But it was the relentless subtext of Relationships that really made this movie for me. Relationships in New York, on the Voyage, on the Island, and back in New York. Especially, of course, the Relationship between The Girl and King Kong. Naomi Watts is simply enchanting as The Girl ... from beginning to end. She is of course the unifying character throughout. And her loveliness, her charm, her humor, her stunning but always accessible, appealing beauty ... simply ruled every scene in which she appeared.Jack Black was good, and well-cast thanks to that perpetual Smart Ass look that worked well even though there was very little Smart Ass Humor from him in this particular movie ... unusual (compared to Orange County and High Fidelity) but it sure worked in this film and worked well. I thought his characterization throughout was very convincing.It was cool to see Colin Hanks (Preston) cast with Black. Both were cast together previously in Orange Country. Somehow they make a believable brotherly pair.Adrian Brody was ... well, Adrian Brody ... a fair foil for Watts, but really mostly a tag-along at best.As for the overall Story ... who doesn't know the basic Story of King Kong? The Story, the Myth, the Legend is well-served in this movie and to me that lends the pathos a depth and authenticity that less faithful renditions in other re-makes simply can't aspire to. This is simply a wonderful movie ... THANKS folks for bringing it to us ... !","['2', '9']" +1318,rw1239562,myrkeyjones,King Kong (2005),10.0,Typical Jackson,16 December 2005,1,"Unbearably taunt and emotionally gripping, Kong Kong is superb achievement, it's nice to see a genre film this well done. Peter Jackson adds a lot of touches that most commercial directors or studio executives wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. It is a dark moral tale that deals not just with the big furry guy, but with poverty, blind ambition and fear of the unknown. Naomi Watts is simply brilliant, Jack Blacks brilliant film director is dark and hilarious, i could identify with the character, me being a film-maker myself. The Dino sequence is undoughtably the highlight of the film, as well as those creepy natives and their insestuative chanting. Personally i didn't find the run time a problem, it made it an epic and is totally compelling the whole way through. A Classic, the definitive KING KONG","['2', '10']" +1319,rw1242768,kevin-osborne,King Kong (2005),10.0,best movie this year,20 December 2005,0,"such a rich, engaging movie for me. too many period movies over-glamorize and are disconnected in their falsification of the time.kong is so much different. jackson and his set/production people do a wonderful job of creating a rich, detailed 30's that reminds you how little we have travelled since then. the el, the lights, the feel of the city is very believable and was very easy to connect to. the circumstances and poignancy of the time are painted like a sumptuous canvas, and I felt myself breathing the despair of the depression era like it was yesterday.all the character scenes, especially on the ship, are superbly shot and the environment is just so damn realistic and detailed.watts is superb. and my lord is she attractive. she shines in every scene and does a great job of the vaudeville work. the male lead is sex on legs as well, but his character performance is just plain outdone by watts. black is compelling and eminently believable in what is such a crucial role. he does a great job of wrapping the sick core of Hollywood in its charismatic-yet-transparent self-serving veneer all too well.the skull island scenes do justice to the budget. at the end of the day this is a blockbuster, meant to rock me in my socks and it did so with fervor. the tragedies are meaningful and the subtexts - oh my the subtexts! - the subtexts are everywhere. such a rich movie on so many levels.I am happy to have this movie as one the great films of my generation. a great director and leading lady in their prime. a complex villainy that can't be pinned down, wrenching tragedy, compelling humanity.","['3', '16']" +1320,rw1253545,nienhuis,King Kong (2005),3.0,Three Kongs,2 January 2006,0,"Three Kongs With Peter Jackson's KING KONG (2005), we now have three different versions of the King Kong fable in three distinct eras of Hollywood cinema. The 1933 original was a huge commercial success; the 1976 remake was widely criticized; and the 2005 version is another gigantic box-office hit. There is perhaps much to be learned by now looking at all three versions with an objective, well-informed, and analytical mind (something I will leave to those more qualified). I would just like to suggest that it is far too easy to be nostalgic about the original KING KONG, to be overly critical of the 1976 version, and to be overly enthusiastic about the most recent attempt. Objectivity is rare for the human mind, but, setting aside emotional responses as much as possible, what do we see as we compare these three versions? The original KING KONG was a difficult story to make convincing: a beautiful woman kindles some strange, relatively gentle response in a giant ape, and a highly commercialized culture ultimately exploits the ape for its entertainment purposes. This story obviously provides grist for an intelligent and provocative perspective on what it means to be human, but problems of narrative plausibility abound, starting with the problems of scale. How big and powerful is this ape and how can his size and power be represented consistently in narrative detail? For example, how do they get this creature back to New York? The original version took a stab at something remotely plausible, mentioning that the adventurers would build a raft to haul Kong back behind the boat. The 1976 version brought Kong back in a different and enormous boat. Peter Jackson simply ignores this narrative problem and probably expects that his enthusiastic viewers, besotted by contemporary cinematic spectacle, will overlook whatever is convenient for him to avoid. The King Kong story raises a plethora of other narrative problems, and in each version one can find many implausible details. It's a hard story to tell if one is looking for a seamlessly convincing narrative.It's also a hard story to tell if one is looking for an intelligent point. What does this bizarre relationship between the woman and the ape add up to? The original puts its faith in a cliché about beauty taming the beast, whatever that might mean. The 1976 version seems to offer a number of possibilities, and Peter Jackson may be ignoring the need for a point altogether. Perhaps in an attempt to make a more compelling point, both revisions provide more back story and elaboration, which makes the movie longer. This elaboration, although satisfying in most cases for plausibility, is perhaps unnecessary, especially if KING KONG must ultimately be successful as a fable. For my money and for what it's worth, the 1976 version has been unjustly bashed and is the most intelligent, interesting, and affecting of the three.","['5', '7']" +1321,rw1251424,HBKMatt,King Kong (2005),9.0,Jackson's Tribute to Adventure,30 December 2005,0,"Peter Jackson has presented us with what is the true definition of a remake. He has made a film that honors its 1933 predecessor, but also injects new technical elements that were simply not possible in the past.Elements of the story, while intended to be dramatic, still resonate with the sort of simple dialog and character motives of movies from the past. Actors like Jack Black and Adrien Brody play stereotypical roles and at times their motives are unrealistic when compared with the threats they are facing on Death Island. However that reckless pursuit is exactly what makes this type of adventure so unique. Jack Black's pursuit to make the ultimate picture, to capture beauty with the camera, is ultimately metaphorically carried out through the story of Kong's capture and presentation in New York City.The action here between the computer generated creatures, King Kong, the TRex, raptors, etc.. and the actors is seamless and it would be a shame for Weta Digital not to be given an Academy Award in 2006 for their work.Some have argued that the film's biggest weakness is its three hour plus runtime. However if you enjoy the type of story Jackson is telling you can barely detect this length. The film at no time seems stretched simply so Jackson could have an 'epic'. This film is an epic on its content merit alone, between the digital representations of beauty and action and the attention Peter Jackson demands with each shot.","['1', '3']" +1322,rw1238467,Zach-Urbina,King Kong (2005),9.0,Peter Jackson does it again!,14 December 2005,0,"Amazing action, outstanding visual effects, and a truly touching story. Naomi Watts is both beautiful and compelling. Jack Black ACTUALLY ACTS in this movie, rather than the usual fare of playing himself. Adrien Brody is terrific, as usual. George Lucas could learn a thing or two from Peter Jackson's ability to direct actors in a green screen environment. Without spoiling a thing, I will simply say, give this movie a chance. See it in the theaters, don't wait for DVD or video rental. It will AMAZE you! I predict this film will do more than $300 million in business by Sunday 12/18. Audiences will push this past the point of any of the LOTR trilogy and possibly even Titanic. Good show Mr Jackson! Its nice to see that success has not spoiled you ability to direct.","['2', '17']" +1323,rw1250897,Bronfmania,King Kong (2005),9.0,"Spectacular, Amazing, and Cool!",30 December 2005,0,"For the 3 1/2 hour movie, I was very pleased with the action and excitement that was shown on screen. I thought that Jack Black did an excellent job with acting in a movie that's not a comedy. Naomi Watts... she was great but to be honest, any good looking blond female could play her part. King Kong looked very real, and the animation was a huge improvement from the 1930's and 1970's King Kongs. The music went very well with what was occurring in the movie. The set for Skull Island (where King Kong and the dinosaurs live) was spetacular. I did think though that the director could have cut out some scenes. There were scenes that made King Kong too long, and were kind of repetitive or boring. It took about 45 minutes in the movie for Jack and his crew to actually get to Skull Island, but hey what do you expect for such a long movie?","['0', '1']" +1324,rw1239098,eleanorgrand,King Kong (2005),4.0,Good not great.,15 December 2005,0,"How many tender moments can a giant gorilla and a juggling actress have? The answer is way too many. This movie comes nowhere close to the original, and sadly I wished over and over for the pea sized brain that Hollywood thinks I have. I get it, you don't have to repeat it three times. You lost me over and over again, from when Carl Denham asks Ann if she's a size four, as if such a measurement existed in the Depression era? Then again when everyone on the boat seems not only to have read ""The Heart of Darkness"" but to have philosophical monologues memorized?, and then again when Jack Black says ""who wouldn't believe that?"" right at the moment when the screen is filled with computer animated dinosaurs, and then again when Ann Darrow juggled for the big gorilla, and then again, and again, and again. Don't get me wrong there were some fabulous moments, but they were outnumbered 3 to 1 by their lesser counterparts. The fact that all America's critics are raving over this, shows the truly sad state of film-making today. IT's good not great, unlike the original.","['4', '11']" +1325,rw1244547,Sparrowmaniac,King Kong (2005),7.0,Kong rides to Hollywood,22 December 2005,0,"Well, Peter Jackson's King Kong might be hugely anticipated, but it was fairly disappointing to his standards. It had the basic ingredients of the classic epic of 1933, mixed with some mind blowing special effects, which will surely remind you of Spielberg's Jurassic Park and Godzilla.But for the most length of the movie is filled with irritating sequences of Kong and Watts, playing with each other, trying to communicate. This happens around 2-3 times in the movie and becomes really repetitive and boring. Jackson could've cut these scenes short. The movie starts off very nicely, with the plot nicely staged for the great ape to make an appearance. Then after he does show up, Jackson becomes lost in the world of special effects and the movie drones on and on. It could've been cut short a lot, from the mammoth 187 min length.Naomi Watts does look beautiful in the movie a must watch for any of her fans. The camera shots are great, and so is the cinematography. Adrian Brody is kind of wasted in this movie. He is much better than playing an odd sort of a hero. Jack Black gives a mind blowing performance, one worthy to remember, especially because all he is known for is goof up roles. The special effects... Well lets just say, Jackson, kinda sets a bar in that aspect each time. The special effects will blow your mind away, literally.The movie has been well timed too, it subtly brings about the feelings of the white American girl and the giant ape. Though it may seem a bit boring at times, I'm sure most of you wont complain. The irony of the matter is that the movie features Adrian Brody as a celebrated screen play writer. In originality, the screen play for the movie is also worth mentioning, especially Jack Black's finishing words, ""It was beauty that killed the beast...""Overall, it is pretty good, but a tad below my expectations... I'll give it a 7/10 to be fair...","['1', '4']" +1326,rw1240150,dbullard,King Kong (2005),10.0,Awesome. Simply freaking' awesome!,17 December 2005,1,"Simply the most entertaining movie I've seen in decades. Sure, it's three hours long, but you get so drawn into it you won't feel the passage of time. I looked at my watch after what I thought had been an hour, and was surprised to find that two hours had passed.Jackson takes his time telling his story, and you get to know the characters during the film. It's all about pacing. The younger generation seems to have ADD in regards to movies, and the fact that there are no explosions, deaths, or dismemberments every ten seconds seem to drive them nuts (from some of the comments I've read, they just couldn't bear that it was three hours long. Why see a movie that long when you know you don't like long movies?).Skull Island is INTENSE. The CGI is realistic enough to have made me squirm (if you don't like spiders and bugs, you REALLY won't like the BIG spiders and bugs), and the action just gets better and better and better.The fights between the allosaurs (they're not T-Rex's, folks) and Kong were fantastic. And just when you think it's over, you find it's only just begun.Kong was amazing. The expressiveness of his face and body language made you really empathize with him (and if you didn't, you're an unemotional clod who enjoys pulling the wings off of flies). And, that's the whole point - if you don't feel sympathy for Kong, it's just another monster movie. Having Andy Serkis working with Naomi Watts and a team of gifted animators made this movie magic. Sure, you know it's all fake, and you know how it ends (just like the original) - but it tugs your heartstrings all the same.I almost feel sorry for Peter Jackson - this is surely going to be his crowning achievement. He'll be hard-pressed to surpass it.I'll definitely buy the DVD when it comes out (with the extended version with all the extras), but I might FF past the creepy-crawlies.WARNING - this movie stands a good chance of giving small children nightmares. I'd think twice taking anybody under 10-13 to this. Really, there are some very disturbing scenes.","['1', '10']" +1327,rw1239638,iNViSiBLe_D,King Kong (2005),10.0,"Great Movie,Gripping Performances",16 December 2005,0,"I had high expectations when i was going to the cinema.... And they all came out,Peter Jackson done it again and this is maybe one of the best action/adventure/fantasy movie's of the last years.. The movie starts up and from the beginning the story was really gripping... Naomi Watts plays the role of Ann Darrow great in my opinion. And her scenes with Kong are beautiful brought to the big screen. The actor who played Kong (Andy Serkis) did also a great job and give Kong a sense of realism. And he was also great in the role of Lumpy... Jack Black also played great more that i expected at the beginning.. This movie is so great i would recommend it to everyone to watch it in the Theatres and it's a great remake from the '33 version... ill gave this movie a 10/10 cause it was just excellent to me.","['1', '8']" +1328,rw1252291,mike_burz,King Kong (2005),6.0,Nice Digital Ape - Way too long,1 January 2006,0,"Nice special effects - good ape. Waaaay too long. Continues a Peter Jackson directorial trait similar to Lord of the Rings - long closeups of Frodo gazing at the ring in various attitudes (wonderment, shock, awe, hate, love) interspersed with battles. Same here - long closeups of Ann and the ape gazing at one another interspersed with battles (ape against raptors, men against bugs, etc). Why Jackson would spend his Hollywood credit remaking a classic (dispite the comment that this movie inspired him to make movies) is a question. If this subject inspired him why not say so and then go one to create a story that sets the standards for future movie makers so that they say - this is the one that inspired me to make movies. (And LOTHR is not it - good interpretation but it is not his story) Good and entertaining way to kill three hours but its such a nice day...","['3', '6']" +1329,rw1245329,nick rostov,King Kong (2005),5.0,Yawnsville!,22 December 2005,0,"Can the culture please retire this legend now? It's based on a story that's three sentences long and it's crazy to make a movie which spends over an hour on each sentence. Dinosaur after dinosaur, yucky bug after yucky bug, awesome shot of New York City 1931 after awesome shot of New York City 1931, tiresome crack from Jack Black after tiresome crack from Jack Black. And yet piece by piece a magnificent piece of work--truly breathtaking kinetics of man, woman, monkey and computer--but in the service of what? I did, however, form a whole new intimate relationship with the face of my watch, and worked out the cooking logistics for a party my wife and I are giving on Christmas day, and...","['2', '5']" +1330,rw1252707,gronj,King Kong (2005),10.0,I feel sorry for anyone NOT LOVING this movie!!!,1 January 2006,0,"Like Peter Jackson, the original 1933 King Kong movie masterpiece has always been one of my favorite all-time moves, probably in my Top 25 of all time. Well, Mr. Jackson has managed to equal that 1933 achievement, and in many ways surpassed it- especially in the development of the Kong-Anne Darrow relationship.For me, the 3 hours went by quicker than a lot of 2 hour movies I've sat through and I was drawn in to the stupendous adventure of it all right from the start. Naomi Watts as Anne Darrow was never more beautiful and deserves an Oscar nomination for her performance playing off a CGI character in Kong- absolutely wonderful performance. Kong was so real to me that I believe there MUST BE a 25 foot gorilla somewhere in New Zealand, or wherever it was this was filmed! This is movie-making at it's best and I feel very sorry for all those negative reviewers who have been so beaten down by life's travails that they can't enjoy a sublime 3 hours of sheer escapism into a strange story of adventure and wonder.","['1', '5']" +1331,rw1251695,Smells_Like_Cheese,King Kong (2005),10.0,"Even though it was overly advertised, this was a great film!",31 December 2005,0,"What I meant is if normally a movie has just been rubbed in my face as ""the greatest movie of the year!"", 10,000 Burger King commercials, and just a bunch of insane Peter Jackson freaks can make you want to stay away from a film and might even cause a little bit of bitterness towards it. I mean, this has been the ultimate year of remakes, it's crazy, Hollywood has nothing original any more. Still, King Kong the original is a classic, and it was one of my favorites when I was a kid and still to this day I enjoy watching it as well. So, I admit, I had so much curiosity, especially since Mr. Jackson cared so much to add on another 80 minutes to the film.Surprisingly, I am going to admit this 100%, I loved this film. It didn't even feel like it was a three hour film, it had so much character development, cool effects, terrific actors, and just a great picture all around. The story between Kong and Anne I felt had more depth in this film than the original, they went a little more with details on why she began to feel for Kong at the end. Don't worry, I'm not dissing the classic. :) Jack Black, I know a lot of people are worried they cannot take him seriously in this film. Trust me, actually, he did a great job as a dramatic performer.Adrien Brody, he's a terrific actor, I do have one complaint, I felt that his character was denied some development or just showing his love for Anne felt a little empty. The love story between him and Anne was not as exciting as the original, you were rooting for Kong and Anne to get married. :) It could work, right? If you don't believe me watch ""The Simpson's Treehouse of Horror III"". But King Kong is one of the best films of the year, out of all the remakes, this is the one I would highly recommend for 2005! Happy New Year, and let's hope Hollywood has learned it's lesson, don't mess with the classics any more unless they're like ""King Kong""! 10/10","['24', '45']" +1332,rw1240610,carpediemdanny,King Kong (2005),6.0,Did Jackson kill the beast?,17 December 2005,0,"King Kong...... What to say first. It's certainly a big film. While the movie is still fresh in my mind i'd like to say a few words. I don't usually do this with reviews but as my own opinions on this film are so torn i'm going to devise a pros and cons list and you can judge for yourself.-Solid performances by Black, Brody, Watts -Amazing CGI -Good direction, good musical score -Has left nothing out of the original, and even adds to it-Very long, not a film for those who find cinema seats as uncomfortable as I do -New scenes of intimacy added in between Kong and Watts are cringe worthy -Due to films length, it gets tiresome towards the end, even during action sequences -Has very little originality. Not only is it a remake but the kind of action seen in the movie is very typical of todays adventure films.My main issue with this film is the length. For those who aren't bothered by a nice long visit to the flicks may not find this an issue. Some sequences and sections of the film seem to take forever, and you just find yourself asking ""when are they gonna catch Kong"" or ""when are they gonna get to New York"". The film has incredible special effects and some very impressive (however unrealistic) action sequences, but due to it's length i'd highly recommend a DVD version, one that you can pause and go have a drink....","['2', '6']" +1333,rw1237180,ericaleerhsenfan,King Kong (2005),10.0,One word-BRILLIANT,13 December 2005,0,"The movie is set in New York, 1933. We're introduced to Ann Darrow, an actress who gets redounded after her play is canceled. Carl Denham, a movie director, also gets redounded because he didn't finish his movie. So Carl decides to run away with his crew to an unexplored island, an island that exists only in myth's with a rent boat. But after the lead actress in his movie doesn't show up at the set, Carl has 24 hours to find a new lead actress, and if he doesn't, his career will be over.After Ann and Karl accidentally meet each other on the street, Karl offers her the role, and after a lot of thinking, Ann accepts. With the ship Carl rent, they begin a voyage to the island. Later we're introduced to a screenwriter, Jack Driscoll who accidentally stays on the boat. After she is introduced to Jack, Ann and Jack fall in love. But after arriving on the island, Ann is kidnapped by some strange civilization that lives there for thousand of years. She is sacrificed to the 8th wonder of the world, the big ape, which is later called Kong. But Kong gets hypnotized by Ann's beauty, so he doesn't kill her, and starts taking care of her. But Kong isn't the only big creature on the island...There are also Tyrannosaurous and big spiders that aren't so harmless... After Jack and Carl save Ann, they also trap Kong and send him to New York...Although I personally haven't seen the old King Kong movies with Fay Dunaway and Jessica Lange, Naomi Watts did a great job as Ann Darrow. Not only she is beautiful and talented, she was so good that the whole cinema started crying when started doing that. Not to mention Adrien Brody, who is good as always, and Jack Black, who was, in my opinion, the biggest surprise in the movie. The first time I heard he was cast as Carl Denham, I was surprised because I couldn't imagine Jack in that role, but now I know he did a great job. And the last, but not the least, Peter Jackson, who keeps getting better and better every time he does a new picture. The script was excellent, the cast was even better(especially Naomi Watts)and the visual effect were unbelievable...This is the biggest surprise of all the movies that were released in 2005... 9.9/10","['6', '26']" +1334,rw1243269,rchosen,King Kong (2005),10.0,Jackson makes yet another great movie of all time!,20 December 2005,1,"Having seen King Kong (the original), then many ""Kong"" spin offs that were silly and then seeing the trailer for this I had to see it! This movie looked amazing and with Jackson directing it you knew it would be good. He even said he had wanted to remake his whole life so you know it will be good.The visual effects were amazing for Kong, the dinosaurs weren't anything extremely real but it was real enough that you were too caught up to care! Jackson stuck to the original Kong and then the later 70's version while adding a lot more emotions to this like comedy, drama and action.One thing I would point out is I wouldn't take kids to see this, the scene with the natives when the first get on the island was really intense and the natives themselves were pretty ""evil"" looking, besides kids I even seen some adults looking in shock. Not that there was blood and guts or anything but it was just a really intense and frightening scene! I must say I was shocked when people afterwords were complaining about its length of 3 hours. In a time when tickets are expensive and movies are rarely long I'm happy to find a nice long movie.Overall its one of the best movies I've seen in a long time! Go see it!","['5', '18']" +1335,rw1239954,OnlyFireFox,King Kong (2005),10.0,Really is the movie of the year,16 December 2005,0,"What can i say? by far this was the best movie of 2005. For three hours you are thrown into the world that peter Jackson has created in all his glory. This was no let down. The first 45 minutes are quite slow, but were far from boring. Once you see Kong, the movie starts gaining speed and never stops until the very end.The CGI effect were incredible. The rendering was so realistic and the cinematography was that of the highest standards. Only after the film did i realize the entire scene with king Kong on top of the empire state building must have been somewhere around twenty minutes.It was done so well, i was not let down one bit. If the length is a turn off for watching it, well sucks to be you then. peter Jackson's king Kong is the kind of movie theaters were built for. I was shaking uncontrollably during some action scenes, something I've never done in a movie theater. Go see it. Seriously.","['1', '9']" +1336,rw1251994,RNHunter,King Kong (2005),8.0,Well Worth Watching,31 December 2005,0,"There is no question in my mind that this was a well done movie. The acting was great, and the special effects were so good that one really had a hard time telling what was real and what was computer graphics. I absolutely would recommend seeing this movie for both the exceptional graphics and the very good acting.However, when the movie was done, I asked myself if this was a great movie, and I did not think so. It is really hard to tell why. I believe the issue is that everything is done ""correctly"" - therefore it is hard to find fault with this film. But being done ""right"" or ""correct"" makes a good movie, but not always a great one. I believe that great ones are ones that emotionally draw us into the action where we become part of it. To do that, there needs to be a character that provides that. Alas, the characterization was good, but not good enough for someone like me to be drawn emotionally into the movie. As odd as this might sound, I think I felt closest in this movie to King Kong - rather than to one of the other actors or actresses. The actors and actresses all played their parts well, but their parts often were unusual characters. The movie lacked a ""straight man"" or ""straight woman"" who simply represented us normal folks that allow us to emotionally enter a movie seeing it through their eyes.So, we can argue whether or not this movie is great. But it is well worth seeing. Great action, great computer graphics, and very good acting. It is a well worthy sequel to the original King Kong - arguably one of the most famous movies of all time. I still gave it a very high rating.","['1', '2']" +1337,rw1241711,james.p.taylor,King Kong (2005),7.0,Three hours? It felt like it.,19 December 2005,1,"I should start by saying I love Peter Jackson's films. The LoTR trilogy are some of the best movies ever made up to now. He is one of the best story tellers in cinema today and the hope for the future.King Kong is the story of a film maker Carl Denham (Jack Black) who is running away from his creditors to an island that's thought not to exist, but for a map that's come in to Denham's possession. To complete his latest film he needs a female lead. As time is running out to get out of New York he comes across Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), the perfect woman for the part. Once on the island things start to go wrong. Seriously wrong.Three hours (just over if you sit through the credits). That's a big ask for a relatively simple plot and it gets stretched tissue paper thin. The LoTR films deserved this length and commitment from the audience because of the complexity of the story. But after an hour I was starting to look at my watch to see how much more I had to put up with.The film is well acted with the exception of Jack Black. What was needed for his part as Denham was some subtle acting with the occasional outrageous burst of manic energy. What you get is mugging and face pulling. The other extreme is the Jack Driscoll character (Adrien Brody), played fantastically and with great relish. An unlikely hero and part of the most bizarre love triangle you'll see on film. Brody has a wonderful chemistry with Watts and Black, a relationship that pulls the film back and gives you something to sit through the boring bits for.The star is always going to be the 25 foot ape. Kong is brilliantly realised with CGI and is helped by the great physical performance from Andy Serkis (Kong/Lumpy). The interaction between Kong and Darrow is fascinating and beautiful. Obviously having someone to act opposite helps hugely when you're going to be sharing the screen with a CGI character (take note George Lucas).The rest of the CGI is good and I can suspend my disbelief for most of it. It's the action scenes that really do it. Brutal and amazingly kinetic, they are the equal of anything else you'll have seen this year.A good film, there are amazing parts to it, but it's just too long and a lot of the scenes feel like padding. Go and see it for the action and to see how digital characters should be done. Don't be surprised if you find yourself wondering how much longer you have to go.","['4', '8']" +1338,rw1241391,Fast-and-Furry,King Kong (2005),8.0,Does For Kong What Richard Donner Did for Superman!,18 December 2005,1,"Very well-paced 3 hour film. I actually think it works from beginning to end, I even enjoyed the build up from the opening titles to the moment they arrive at Skull Island, though I seem to feel most people find this part sluggish, I thought it was very watchable.Also a great choice made by Peter Jackson to set the film in the 30s. There's the perfect blend of 'Jungle-Jim serial' acting and realism. The romance of the period really comes through, especially in the use of the technology of the times (bi-planes, old cars etc.) The artistic side of the film is fantastic. Thought still computer generated, Kong emotes and moves very well.Brody and Watts are very good as the main characters (having Jack Driscoll played as a writer rather than a rippling square jawed hero was a great move). I can really see Brody working well with Spielberg, he seems to have that genuine vulnerability in a hero which I haven't for ages.I also thought Jack Black played well as Carl. His mad-eye trademark works well for the character. The Savage natives on Skull Island were probably the scariest element of the whole film, far more threatening than the stereo-types of the '33 original.Brilliant, exhilarating action set pieces (though the Kong shaking the fallen tree scene was more disturbing in the original!!).Great entertainment. One of the most enjoyable films of 2005. Sure to get a few Oscar nods. (Best Picture? - I suppose that all depends on if the Academy are in a Forrest Gump mood or a Schindler's List mood!) My only gripe is the inclusion of a really out of place scene featuring Kong on Ice! (Remember the ""Can you read my mind"" scene in Richard Donner's 1978 Superman?)","['1', '8']" +1339,rw1244624,christianrockchick-1,King Kong (2005),4.0,How many Clichés do you want???,22 December 2005,1,"Not sure if its classed as a spoiler but thought i should put the warning anyway I went to see King Kong 2 days ago and to be honest it isn't that good. How many clichés do you want in the first hour or so? Is it me or do some bits on the boat echo Titanic (When Ann and Jack run out onto the deck)? and when you get to the island it screams Mordor. Peter Jackson has done a great job, but it's too obvious that its one of his films (too much inspiration taken from LOTR). also in a lot of places its too obvious that it is CGI-ed as its too defined around the actors (when Ann is thrown around by Kong is an example)","['7', '11']" +1340,rw1239676,fmfdg114,King Kong (2005),3.0,The World has gone to the Apes: King Kong is a Disaster,16 December 2005,1,"Peter Jackson's ability to wow the critics is something this reviewer will never understand. King Kong, in particular, is a train-wreck of a film. Jackson is widely quoted as being an almost obsessive fan of the original; it was the film that inspired him to be a filmmaker. However, in his hands, Kong is a tedious enterprise that seems to be more about Jackson's self-indulgence than his allegiance to any classic story.Almost everything in Kong is a horrific disappointment. The dialogue is inexcusable (the film's last line is ""No, it was beauty killed the beast,"" and that's one of the film's least heavy-handed moments), the acting is worse (surprsingly, its the CGI beast and Jack Black that deliver the most grounded, somewhat believable performances. Watts has two facial expressions, Brody one, and Collin Hanks is entirely forgettable), and the film's pacing is atrocious. Filled with sub-plots that go no where and feel even more awkward than the Bilbo/Sam exchanges in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the film could easily have been cut down by an hour and lost nothing: if anything, such a cutting would have made the story more clear, focused, and maybe even given it a chance to be emotionally effective.The CGI, however, is worth the ticket price. Personally, I despise the current reliance on computer effects over far more believable, artistic means (computer effects certainly have their place: but I find them typically overused). King Kong is no exception, and several sequences could have been done with model work, patience (computer generated sunsets are my greatest pet-peeve. If you're going to show us ""the beauty of nature"" then do so; don't insult us with a phony creation). However, Kong himself is masterfully created. In close-ups, it is often impossible to believe that he is computer generated. Had Jackson spent more effort filming real things, instead of relying on computer effects in practically the vast majority of the film's shots, every moment of CGI could have had as much attention, been as awe-striking, and given modern audiences a world truly worthy of being branded the ""Eighth Wonder of the World.' As it stands, you will still have your breath taken away several times, but in the hands of a less indulgent director, the film might have been something truly amazing.Kong is not the disappointment that WAR OF THE WORLDS proved to be earlier this year, but it is a ridiculously indulgent effort from Jackson. This is the film made for himself, not for an audience, and the perfect example of when a studio should strongly suggest trimming to a director. Everything in the film goes on for too long: sequences that initially seemed to promise some kind of redemption for the film quickly grow burdensome and pull the film down further yet.Nothing is genuine in Kong. None of the real-life performers have as much life or honesty to them as does the giant, computer generated ape. Could this have been some message from Jackson? Only the most idealistic of fans could believe such rubbish. Kong is a $200 million shipwreck. The most effective metaphor for life in the film is that between Jack Black's filmmaker and Jackson: both destroy the very things that they love.","['35', '63']" +1341,rw1244630,JamukLey,King Kong (2005),8.0,A beautifully resonant action epic,22 December 2005,1,"King Kong (2005) Well this was a long time in coming… Just kidding. It's incredible how good King Kong is given the limited time spent on production (most major budget films seem to take three years at the least) so the obvious blue screen flaws in certain scenes could be forgiven. Many have complained of the first hour but that seems too much like impatience to me. Although Jackson has made a modern blockbuster, he does not always adhere to commercial decisions, choosing to spend time with the crew on the Venture, crawling slowly like an ant of civilisation into a dark heart of unprecedented savagery and beauty. I liked this part, I've always enjoyed character interaction and development and we do get this. A part of me suspects that had this been drastically been cut back (like so many wish it had) then there would have been more complaints that Kong is merely a shallow effects show case.I won't go into the story in depth (why? It's been known for over seventy years) but will rather concentrate on the emotional impact. The relationship between Ann and Kong is the heart and soul of the film. This is what will split audiences down the middle: if you don't accept it, then Kong is a dreadful failure. To many it will be, and to many others (hopefully more) it will be a towering success. What was interesting to me was how Ann is the purest and most noble character throughout the film, almost everyone else is self-interested (however misguided); Kong too until he spends time with Ann and much of his motivation becomes entirely selfless; risking his life bringing down three T (or should that be V?) rexes at once.The pacing of the film itself has garnered many complaints but for me it was over very quickly. The Skull Island sequences weren't long enough for me and the so-called action upon action upon action is mere hyperbole. That being said, there are several shots in this film that are unfinished. The blue screen work stands out quite early on (on the island at least) but this is blown away by the Empire State Building sequence. Breathlessly beautiful and tragic, it could not have been better and Jackson and his team at Weta have much to be proud of.POTENTIAL SPOILERS I will close on what could be the sneakiest movie joke in history. Andy Serkis plays Lumpy the Cook, who has a damaged right eye. He also plays Kong who in turn has a damaged right eye. They both die, Lumpy horrifically and Kong tragically. In effect, Andy is winking at the audience! END SPOILERS Go in with an open mind and enjoy.","['3', '5']" +1342,rw1239557,mhibsaleem,King Kong (2005),1.0,"Was it Jorassic Park,, a horror movie or titanic???",16 December 2005,1,"I Guess i will be the first bad review around here, if u get disgusted easily this movie is not for you, it drags on and on, people appear suddenly from no where, it lost it's identity with too much Jurassic park stuff added to it!!. the movie would have been good if it was shorter but i totally lost interest after the end of the second hour . it's a movie many people will like, but for people who like their movies logical, it is not great at all.the directing was not good to be fair to peter Jackson he managed to give a computer generated Abe lots of feelings and emotions but the story is terrible,nothing makes scenes , peter Jackson doesn't even try to convince us what is happening is true, guess he got used to the magical movies theme where he doesn't have to explain miracles for example, there's a scene when the captain turns the ship jack black took him out out of the room and talked to him , the camera was far and there was no where anywhere close, 1 second later jack black turns and JACK appears and start talking to him, the map fly from Jack black's hand and he doesn't even care that he lost the map.!! and why should he, it appeared somehow at the start of the movie. and so on, the fighting with 3 T-Rex's is one if the lamest scenes EVER , a gorilla CAN NOT kill 3 T-Rexes, the animals were changing sizes all the time, Peter Jackson needs a class with Steven Spielberg about how to direct a dinosaur movie. overall one of the worse movies of the year for me and i feel sad that i didn't get a refund for it!!","['8', '17']" +1343,rw1239866,SpudmonkeyWeb,King Kong (2005),10.0,Hands down best movie of '05,16 December 2005,0,"Peter Jackson does with this movie just what he did with the Lord of the Rings, possibly even better. That is to recreate an already beloved story on film. It's a tight rope he walks with innumerable fans of originals watching his every move, but he does it seemingly effortlessly.Jackson's Kong is a very faithful adaptation of the 1933 film giant (no pun intended) that manages to bring this unquestionably epic story to a new audience and new era of motion picture. The visuals are absolutely awe-inspiring. The action is majestically thrilling (Kong vs. T-Rex finally done up right). Possibly the best thing that this film captures, though, is the emotional roller coaster of the original story. Such a sad story as this is told absolutely as it should be, and you'll feel like you're truly a part of it.What I love about Peter Jackson's movies is that he manages to find the vital points of story and execute on them. Very few, if any, unnecessary minutes of footage in this film, despite its three hour duration. So go see this movie - in theaters, at least for your first viewing. I don't know if this 25-foot ape will have quite the same amazing impact at home.","['4', '12']" +1344,rw1240140,chrishayes737,King Kong (2005),10.0,WOW Peter Jackson done it again !,17 December 2005,1,"How does Peter Jackson top lord of the rings he just goes out & remakes King Kong , Don't anyone worry about the running time cause it just flies by , I couldn't believe the 3 hours had gone by I wanted more !. The first hour was just the build up to the best 2 hours I have ever seen put up on a movie...action , drama , romance you couldn't ask for anything more . I tell you what Jurassic park has nothing on King Kong's dinosaurs there was more action in half an hour on this king movie than in the entire Jurassic park . King Kong himself was so real & believable it was just amazing & his rampage through new york was just incredible , the plane attack on the empire state was just breath taking . So common people get out & see this movie you won't be disappointed !","['2', '9']" +1345,rw1241679,pmreddick,King Kong (2005),9.0,Top 10 Movie of All Time...,17 December 2005,1,"Peter Jackson's goal with King Kong was to have audiences feel the same way about it as he did when he first saw the original at the age of nine. Simply put, mission complete. King Kong will do to CGI (Computer Generated Images) what the original Star Wars did to special effects. I say this mainly because the main character was only half person, because King Kong himself made a real emotional connection with the audience even though all you saw of him was CG. Peter Jackson, who I have been a huge fan of from the first time I saw Fellowship of the Ring in its opening weekend, has shown that through CG there is nothing that cannot be accomplished, Nothing.Seeing Andy Serkis as Kong himself was awesome, he did just as well with Kong as he did with Gollum. I was also very glad to see that Jackson also gave him a part where everyone could actually see his face, as Lumpy the Cook, and maybe get him the recognition as a good actor that he deserves. Although seeing him literally getting his head sucked off was pretty neat, it would be a horrible way to die, and I felt very sorry for him, very good imagination on somebody's part. As for the 100% human characters the lineup was superb. Jack Black was very good in a role that was not the lead role, a funny role or even the good guy. Adrien Brody was better than he was with his role in The Village, which wasn't a bad movie. But the best of the whole bunch, who was also no doubt the best screamer, was Naomi Watts. She was fantastic! She was sexy and yet made it believable that one could really fall in love with a giant ape. As far as the fights they were great Kong vs. Three T-Rexs how do you beat that?? Kong is a bit more violent than LOTR in that things such as the bugs are attacking the main characters of the story, who appear to be more vulnerable than those of LOTR. But the best was the T-Rex getting his jaw completely ****** up. My few minor complaints are that Ms. Darrow would've froze to death on the to of the Empire State Building and the ship crew somehow found time to weave a huge net that they tried to capture Kong in, even though it didn't work. Maybe these'll be explained in the Director's Commentary on the DVD. Nor did the score live up to my expectations, there were only two or three places that I counted that I felt it was really good. But in all fairness James Newton Howard didn't have that much time to write it. Overall, The Best Movie of the Year. I cannot wait for the Extended DVD version with many many (and since this is Peter Jackson) many many many many many hours of behind the scenes footage. Jackson can do whatever he wants to now that he did what he always wanted to with this film. Whatever he does next I'm sure people everywhere will love it.","['1', '6']" +1346,rw1241280,ed_69,King Kong (2005),1.0,Was it really THAT good?,18 December 2005,1,"MAY CONTAIN SLIGHT SPOILERSI have to say this movie provided some terrific action sequences which entertained for some of the movie. Also the CGI used for Kong was really quite visually stunning. I purposely saw the original 1933 movie before seeing this one because it is a remake and enjoying the original a lot I had great expectations for a remake done by an acclaimed director. Not being a fan of Jacksons recent works (ie. the Lord of the Rings) I still viewed this movie with an open mind.The thing that i liked about the old king Kong is that it didn't linger on and drag out for so long. I mean the new Kong goes for over 3 hours. There are a lot of movies that are VERY good that go for 3 hours but this one didn't keep me entertained throughout. by the end i just wanted the ape to die, i didn't care for it because there was too much of a connection between the ape and Ann. One of the scenes that annoyed me the most is when Kong and Ann are gazing at the sun set and Ann says whilst holding her hand to her breast ""beautiful"". It was just so corny and cheesy when she says the same thing at the end before Kong dies.There was also another scene which annoyed me. You see Kong in one part of the movie beating the hell out of 3 large tyrannasorous all with Ann in his hand and not putting her down. He kills another one later on. But then a bunch of pussy bat things come along about 4 or 5 and he has to put her down somewhere. (to which she escapes). It just doesn't make sense. And how Kong fights the dinosaurs with Ann in his hand and doesn't accidentally crush her or even clench his fist tightly is beyond me.King Kong, although providing visually stunning scenery, action sequences etc, does not provide a creative story...(i mean how hard could it be creating a story, script and screenplay) and delivers weak attempts to make you feel emotion for the characters.I have to say i really hate Jack Black but in this movie he surprised me with his acting abilities. I now will go to more of his films with an open mind.But folks Jack Black's acting and the CGI couldn't save this movie, it truly is a piece of crap. From now on if i want to see computer graphics I will play a god dam computer game. I generously have given this film 3/10, one star to Jack Black and two to the poor person/ persons who wasted their time on this rubbish.","['15', '28']" +1347,rw1242982,gazzo-2,King Kong (2005),7.0,It is pretty good but DOES need some editing first hour or so. I liked it fine otherwise.,17 December 2005,0,"You do have it in a nutshell though-as that is EXACTLY what you get. A VERY convincing BIG Monkey, with some fine character moments and expressions. They def. did their homework there.I would like to have been able to say the same about the rest of this. I can't though. Jack Black was awful. He's a decent character/comedic guy but as an Orson Welles wannabe, he's REALLY mis-cast. You don't believe him period at times. Brody was okay but an unconventional choice. Gimme Bruce Cabot and Robert Armstrong, guys.Naomi Watts-she's fine. Real trouper. The others on the ship-the German Captn, Evan Parke Mr Hayes, even Andy Serkis as Lumpy, they're alright too. The Early Edition guy does a fun twist on the Errol Flynn type star of the day. And it's cool that it's him who comes swinging in on a vine to save the day from the bugs.Parts that Really work-T-Rex fight, log-roll, Biplane attack, Ice-capades routine. That's all good.Parts that Really DON'T-pole vaulting natives, Bat-things(TERRIBLE), slugs that eat people. Those were overblown.Parts that worked but needed some editing--the whole intro in NYC then voyage onboard. Cut that back about 20 minutes and you might have something there. Jimmy and Mr Hayes-they're almost from a totally different movie, you know? And the Bronto stampede--c'mon it's fun for a while though some of the F/X are bad and then you wind up having them all piled in a heap. Maybe having them charge off into the distance mostly intact might have been better? Anyways...See it if you like Kong or Peter Jackson's other work. The F/X and Kong himself are really well done. Some other stuff isn't. But's worth yer while and should make over 200M at the box office *** outta ****","['9', '16']" +1348,rw1240390,Filmcritic624,King Kong (2005),8.0,King of the Hill,17 December 2005,0,"When I saw the previews to this movie, I had many doubts that this movie would not live up to the original, thanks to the notorious digital effects nowadays, but with a director as smart as Peter Jackson is, the movie excited me very much.""King Kong"" is an absolute masterpiece for today's cinema. Despite some acting flaws (why is Jack Black in this movie?) it covers itself up by the mighty Kong. The digital effects are absolutely tremendous. Supernatural beings and inhabitants on Skull Island come to life and bring more of a vivid picture. Naomi Watts is brilliant, lovely, and awe inspiring as Ann Darrow, a terrific choice on behalf of Jackson's part, and the main attraction, to why us moviegoers see movies. Kong himself. Kong proves not only to be a roaring attraction, but a famous hero to us all, that shows that the best of beauty and even destroy the evil from within, and the affection of 2 strangers meeting by not fate or circumstance. Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody) looms around the film as the sidekick in the film, but picks up his pieces time to time in some segments of the film, as his driving sequences are absolutely amazing, and his bravery and in-cowardice brings out a hero in him.Some of the most infamous scenes, such as the Empire State Building scene, is relived as if we are actually watching the real thing. The effects bring it to life, the suspense draws us closer to the film, and gives you the simulation of actually watching from either a tall building, or even from the ground floor. Kong's every move show flashes of a gorilla who is trapped, cornered, and surrounded, that is faltered to love such a beautiful woman that he meets for the first time. His abilities to rule and conquer and master all of what he surrounds bring out the excellence in Kong.An example of that is during his fight with the 2 T-Rex's, which he kills both of them with the exuberant strength that he possesses, and keeps the island a stable and organized society, with Kong as ruler, T-Rex as second command, followed by your carnivorous brontosaurus and your gigantic leeches (yuck).There is some down parts to the film. The first hour of the film is a complete drag, as we wait for something to happen, and then, enter Skull Island, the film starts to pick up. A bit too long, but its worth the 3 hours, because certainly, its got my vote as one of the Top 250 movies ever made.Roar about it.","['1', '9']" +1349,rw1242421,alastairnc,King Kong (2005),1.0,"Long. long ,long pointless",19 December 2005,0,"Why oh why do folks want to take a classic and CGI all over it? OK, you can see in the original where there is a screen behind the actors to show the stop motion stuff on, but at least Kong looks scary. Its like in Jaws where you see the shark, well yes it doesn't look real, but hey, it looks very scary. The new Kong just takes a scene and stretches it soooooo long that you want to fast forward. HEY Pete Jackson, Lord of the Rings was a long book that took a lot of shortening to make into a film, but Kong was a short story... Go to island meet monsters, capture ape, ape gets free, ape gets killed. 3 hours? Come on! I watched the original again. DEFINITIVE, period","['16', '30']" +1350,rw1239662,pvtbob,King Kong (2005),9.0,King Kong - A Vision Of Beauty - Incredible,16 December 2005,0,"OK where to start. Peter Jackson. When viewing this film you have to remember it is based on a novel and is entirely re-created in Jackson's artistic vision. It was in fact the original 1930's movie that inspired him to make movies. The film has a running time of just over 3 hours and is well paced in respect of being an epic. As an action/adventure movie it implements a visual feast of special effects unmatched in anything except maybe the lord of the rings movies.....Jackson again.The cast is perfect and perform higher than you will first expect. Although the first part of the movie may feel that it drags too long, it is more than necessary to pursue character development and has great significance to the rest of the movie. The action is flawlessly directed with some incredible camera angles and each scene stays intense. Each one longer than you first expect allowing you to be taken in just a little more. If it's action you want it's all here, there are even some fantastic elements of comedy. There are lots of moments in the film where there is no dialogue for a while but the drama comes from the subtleties in the characters faces. The score is absolutely fantastic and portray's Jackson's vision to every frame. The overall acting is superb, maybe not Oscar worthy but definitely in key to the film. The greatest acting believe it or not comes from Kong himself. Even with no dialogue his expressions and movement speak a thousand words. Overall this is a motion picture that captures so much passion, love, inspiration,beauty,cruelty and sorrow. A vision that tells a legend beneath a story, the bond between nature and the power of beauty in the world. A strong cast, astounding visuals, sound and direction bring Kong to the screen like never before. A film that will stand the test of time, emotionally if not visually.All you could want from a film.Visuals 10/10 Sound 9.5/10 Acting 8/10 Direction 10/10Overall 9.8/10","['1', '8']" +1351,rw1253500,RecoWilliams,King Kong (2005),8.0,Peter Jackson hits gold!,2 January 2006,0,King Kong was excellent. I've seen both of the two previous King Kong movies and this one is top notch.Peter Jackson takes you a journey with the King Kong story. By the end of the movie you will be rooting for Kong instead of the helpless humans.The special effects in this movie was absolutely incredible. There was a seamless blend between the CG and the real world. This movie was awesome.The action sequences in this movie are astounding. Peter Jackson's use of camera angles and moving shots really bring this picture to life! King Kong will go down as one of the best remakes of all time!,"['2', '9']" +1352,rw1243001,behemoth-7,King Kong (2005),4.0,Too long package of digital effects meant to entertain and nothing more.,19 December 2005,1,"Granted, Kong is a monster-themed movie.Nevertheless the gaping holes in logic just kept on pouring and pouring and pouring (I could have forgiven a half a dozen logic problems given the theme of the movie, really, but there just didn't seem to be an end to those - from the beginning right down to the closing). It began to bug me.The movie is way too long in my opinion. There were some 10-minute shots left in the movie that had absolutely nothing to do with the plot. I don't know about the general movie-going public, but in my book whole scenes could have been edited out without any fear of the story losing impact.I saw it from the biggest screen in Nordic countries - and it became crystal clear that the lip-sync was off! I don't know if it was a problem with movie itself or the equipment used to show it, but it bothered me quite a lot.The movie has no social, political or economic meaning that gave the original King Kong movie much of it's success. This version is purely entertainment - use it and move on kind of thing. It is also trying to be politically correct which presents a major problem given the atmosphere and attitude of the time it is trying to represent - those are just thrown out of the window.Soundtrack was utter crap. I at least expected to get music fitting for the epoch, but instead I was bombarded with epic philharmonic sound-barrier for over 2 hours! I mean I can take only so much violin in one sitting. The epic scenes were self-important and took away excitement from the other epic scenes (inflation of epicness if you will). Any movie director should know that making an epic movie does not equal making every single scene in the movie an epic chapter of unforeseen proportions. This very same thing was my major grape with another late blockbuster movie - Revenge of Sith by G.Lucas.I liked the first part of the movie (the steady and brilliant development of the characters), but was very disappointed that many of the professionally developed characters just ... well ... disappeared or started acting in a different manner. What's the point in developing complex characters and then not use them? Except for Mr.Preston who was not developed and remained bleak and dull - even though Preston was a supporting character to the main character.The second episode of the film didn't quite add up. At times it was trying to be an adventure/catasrophe movie, then there were episodes that were pure fantasy/horror and then again we saw monster/action scenes. Not mention the puzzling jumps from comedy/farse to drama. I've nothing against humour myself and I laughed my ass off many times, but somehow the overall jumping from one style to another bothered me.My assessment: Digital Effects: 4/5 (excellent, but there were too much of it inflating it's effectiveness) Cinematography: 4/5 (professional, but nothing extraordinary) Plot development: 2/5 (nothing much to develop in the midst of fierce action scenes) Coherency: 1/5 (HUGE gaping holes in logic from the beginning to the very end - I mean the sudden changes in conditions (night to day in 5 minutes etc), disappearance of the natives etc - things that deserved at least an explanation). Soundtrack: 2/5 ('nuf said) Acting: 3/5 (most were simply shadowed by Jack Black or showed a screen presence that seemed to conflict with the developed character they were playing)Total: 3/5 - too long, badly edited, but yet an entertaining package of digital effects that doesn't want to to be anything else than that.","['0', '2']" +1353,rw1252806,KateandBogart,King Kong (2005),8.0,Great acting and effects. Too long.,1 January 2006,0,"King Kong is a very realistic creature thanks to excellent CGI. I really felt for this creature who could not live successfully anywhere. Naomi Watts gives a delightful performance, showing a great range of emotions as she first encounters Kong and then develops a relationship with the ape. There is good chemistry between Watts and Brody. Jack Black's character is rather annoying and very shallow, reminiscent of his performance in Shallow Hal, except in this movie he never overcomes his character flaws.Like Lord of the Rings (also directed by Peter Jackson),the movie is too long and includes some disgusting characters and scenes that seem more suitable for a horror movie and out of place in this adventure drama.This movie should definitely be seen on the big screen to appreciate the special effects and the magnitude of Kong.","['1', '2']" +1354,rw1252825,Getrusty,King Kong (2005),1.0,It just did not match all the hype the film has got. Many CG Scenes were terrible.,1 January 2006,0,"I went into the theater with an open mind. I have seen all of the Kong films and I am not sure what it was about this attempt of this classic rubbed me the wrong way but let me put it this way. I have walked out of two movies ever in my life and this just made the number 3 movie on my list.I initially liked the feel of the film. I liked how the captures the era of film. It was different from today films and gave mt that early film feel. But all was good until the ship makes it to Skull Island. Once the CG started up in full swing I was lost from that point on. I was terribly disappointed with the dinosaur chase scenes. The CG was so flat it just did not capture the expectations that I was looking and heard of so much prior to actually seeing the film.I totally lost it when dinosaurs are rolling on top of each other chasing the crew and a massive pile up scathed no one. The cliffs crumbling was a poor attempt at taking the film to new levels.I finally pulled the chute when Kong is being ""entertained"" by a slap stick show and he is laughing. Its just bad.I wish I could say better about it but it just did not do anything for me what so ever.Yes I still rate it a 1 out of 10","['8', '14']" +1355,rw1238687,octaphent,King Kong (2005),10.0,Why cinema was created!!!!,14 December 2005,0,"King Kong is like going back in time when grand adventure and spectacle was the whole point.of going to the movies. I can't believe some people are ripping this film. If you do not like this film then I can't imagine you could like anything. The complaints of it being to long is baffling. This movie did not feel 3 hours to me. Nobody seems to care that the new Harry Potter is 2 hours 50 minutes long or the boring badly acted Chronicles of Narnia nearly an hour to long. The CG in this film is the best I have ever seen, and yes it is light years ahead of Jurassic Park. People have actually complained that the action scenes are to long? What? If they were any shorter people would complain that they were too short. Some people are going to dislike a film no matter what. In a time when Hollywood is putting out movies like The Dukes of Hazzard, The Island, Saw II, and the endless wave of mindless teen movies how can you not appreciate the time and scale of Kong, the epic size and grand scenery. Please see this film, we need more Directors like Peter Jackson. Too bad he didn't make War of the Worlds!!!","['2', '15']" +1356,rw1252957,buckeye22,King Kong (2005),2.0,This movie absolutely sucked,2 January 2006,1,"I can't remember the last time I enjoyed a movie less than this one. The special effects were sub-par, the acting was horrible and it was about three hours too long (running time: 3 hours). Not to mention the fact that the ape changed sizes at least three times and they spend the first TWO HOURS (!!!) of the movie on the island! The action sequences lasted WAY too long and the outcome of most them was so improbable that I found myself rolling my eyes and checking my watch after the first hour of the movie! This movie is so corny and sappy that it's almost unwatchable. I truly cannot believe how many movie critics are recommending this movie.It could have been cut down to less than two hours if there hadn't been any of the extraneous CRAP they put in the movie. Like the dinosaurs. Did I miss that angle on the original or in the remake or in the book? Where were the FAKE LOOKING dinosaurs described in the novel? The actors were also far too aware of themselves, and this is the first movie I can say that Jack Black actually sucked. Bad. The monkey's teeth looked like something out of a Nintendo game and sometimes the airplanes flying by him while he was on the Empire State Building looked disproportionately huge compared to him.And I can't really chalk my disappointment up to elevated expectations, because I had no expectations of this movie. If the STORY had been worth a damn, they might have salvaged this unwatchable piece of crap, but they ruined it as far as I'm concerned. DON'T believe the hype!","['42', '68']" +1357,rw1244070,pakor,King Kong (2005),10.0,King Kong,21 December 2005,0,"This is the best movie i ever saw...in my life!! Normally at this kind of movies, the introduction of the characters takes no more then 10 minutes to get as soon as possible to the action. Not this one. He takes the time to tell the story and to known the characters. But...the scene with the dinosaurs running from a group of T-Rex (?) is mind-blowing. Never saw anything like it, never. (well...Jurrasic Parc was the best...so far) but the scene when KK gets into fight with 3 T-Rex's is absolute mind blowing, incredible, non-plus ultra, setting new standards to the word uh..unbelievable!! At the end of this scene i was totally out of breath!! I couldn't believe what i just witnessed. After the movie finished i couldn't find the words to tell my brother over the cellphone how good that scene was. Rest to tell me, that i want to advice anyone to see this movie. It's absolute mind-blowing!!!","['2', '15']" +1358,rw1241492,eflemieux,King Kong (2005),4.0,"OK, lapidate me....",18 December 2005,0,"I already know i'm gonna get flamed to death but i do have to say I hated this movie. Peter Jackson seems obsessed with the idea of making some big epic out of his King Kong but this is not Lawrence of Arabia... This flick is over-long, over-blown and so incredibly pretentious.Someone buy this guy a pair of scissors - so many scenes are crying to get cut out... I once heard from a director that the real job starts when a 5 hours long first cut comes out of the editor's shop. Peter Jackson cannot cut... so we are stuck with a three hours movie that could easily be reduced to 2 hours without even breaking a sweat. I was with a friend when i saw the movie and at the end, all he said was ""Remind me never to watch anything with the name ""Peter Jackson"" attached to it again"".The casting is a bit weird too. Jack Black is funny but he plays this role like a parody of Orson Welles - it's way too much.Naomi Watts is super-hot and she delivers but i have a major question that killed the movie for me: what the hell does she have under the sole of her feet??? This girl runs for like an hour in the jungle without even getting a cut? please.Also, it's fun to see the movie accelerate once Kong gets to NYC. I can hear the producers yelling in the background: ""OK, GET THIS THING FINISHED NOW!!"".I'm sure the producers are getting ready to release a ""special edition director's cut"" version that will probably run 15 hours long. Personally, I'm waiting for the ""Ok, we-got-an-editor-to-recut-this-thing version"" - about 90 minutes long.","['13', '27']" +1359,rw1237824,afdiazr,King Kong (2005),8.0,"If you're to remake a classic, make sure your name is Peter Jackson",13 December 2005,0,"Beautiful movie. Peter Jackson knows his business when it comes to drama in fantastic realities. King Kong is a brilliant cinematic achievement. The opening scenes with the montage of the lifestyle of New York in that era is astonishing, and shines with a brutal glare that will make your eyes beg for more. I was so moved by all the excitement of the characters at the very start of the film. You really get to know them and sympathize with their dreams and their will to achieve them. Jackson's eye is implacable, and he knows how to shoot action –somebody please tell Michael Bay about it– and still make it really dramatic. That final scene at the Empire State will have you almost in tears. Yeah, the effects are far from perfect, but I think it has something to do with the fact that every effects shot is really complicated, they're not your average FX shot. The tyrannosaurus sequence is tense and amazing, but still I'd rather take Spielberg's version of the T-Rex. I don't think it's too long, considering all the drama involved and the impact it has on you. I think the duration is kinda adequate for the kind of film Jackson wanted to make. Please see this at the movies.","['1', '18']" +1360,rw1235365,wadeindawatta,King Kong (2005),9.0,To Remake Or Not To Remake: That Is The Question,11 December 2005,0,"I suppose there are two things you have to consider when approaching a remake of a movie that you love: whether the movie works on its own terms, and whether it adds anything new to your appreciation of the original. In the case of ""King Kong"", I don't think there is any question that the movie works on its own terms. People discovering this story for the first time thanks to Peter Jackson and company are probably going to be as carried away by it as audiences were 72 long years ago when the original was released, which is no small accomplishment. More impressively, I was carried away by it. I had some problems with it, but what was good about it was so good, so great in fact, that what wasn't just doesn't seem as important to me. This version really does add to my appreciation of the original story.To some extent I think Jackson and company were helped by the fact that Dino DeLaurentis failed at remaking the movie back in 1976. They had the benefit of learning what works and what doesn't. (POSSIBLE SPOILER) Their smartest decision was to keep the film set in the 1930's. With a story like this it's best to keep certain things as far removed from contemporary reality as possible -- it makes it easier for an audience to suspend disbelief, for one thing, and in this case it's harder to imagine an undiscovered island in 2005 than it is back when air travel was not so common. They also learned that the way to create a believable relationship between leading lady and leading ape was not to have her talking to him. For that we should all be thankful. The relationship between Kong and Ann in this film is so touching, so magical, that I think it would win over the most cynical person on the planet.I was shocked to learn just before the movie began that it was three hours long. How could a terrific ninety minute movie end up twice as long in its remake? I put that out of mind as the movie began. The depiction of NYC in the depression ridden, entertainment-seeking 1930's is very vivid and a whole lot of fun. The detail was impressive right off the bat, and really put us in the reality of these characters. There is something about watching skilled filmmakers enjoying working at the top of their craft that is irresistible to me, and craftsmanship married to good story-telling makes for movies at their most enjoyable.We meet the characters in the scenes leading up to their sea voyage, and we get to know their dynamics throughout the journey. This takes up the first third of the film. Our involvement with these people grows stronger through most of the film's second hour, as they confront an island no one could have imagined. They -- and we -- start out fascinated and end up terrified. I loved getting to know the supporting characters, most of whom do not have parallels in the earlier film, and was blown away by the technical mastery on display. This hour did eventually get really, really bogged down in special effects, though, and my sense of fun began to wane. Some of what is shown is just plain gross, though it was more the sense of overkill that wore me out -- the impact of even the most impressive special effects in the world is diminished when they're over-used. One sequence in particular also made it hard to suspend disbelief. But all of this was juxtaposed with Kong and Ann's relationship, which was the high point of the film and which went through so many levels that it was truly delightful to behold.The final third of the film, of course, brings Kong back to the ""civilized"" world. It is very faithful to the original film, with one or two surprises in store for old ""Kong"" fans as the film concludes. There is one especially wonderful new sequence which I don't want to spoil by giving away. I can not say enough about the beautiful work of Naomi Watts as Ann and, at least off camera, Andy Serkis as Kong. (POSSIBLE SPOILER) At the risk of saying too much, I do think the movie's famous last line is not exactly true in this version, but I can understand why Jackson didn't want to tamper with it.Other than the overdone horror movie special effects in the island sequence, the one area where this film doesn't stack up to the original is in its conception of Carl Denham, at least as played by Jack Black. (POSSIBLE MILD SPOILER) He's much more the greedy entrepreneur than Robert Armstrong was, a shyster producer/director, and though he's quite funny for a while be soon grows repetitive and never establishes a sense of regret about Kong at all, which diminishes his significance to the film's climax (and further weakens the film's last line). I usually like Black, but I don't think that carrying films that aren't explicitly comic is going to turn out to be his thing. The character of Jack Driscoll has been cleverly re-conceived as a playwright, and Adrien Brody plays him very well, finding a lot of levels and remaining simpatico throughout. It really isn't his fault that his final embrace with Watts seems anti-climactic -- even though he gets to live he comes out on the wrong end of this love triangle. The supporting cast, particularly the members of the crew, are all terrific. The acting honors really go to Watts, though. I think the world is going to fall in love with her when they see this film. They are very likely to fall in love with the film as well.","['11', '40']" +1361,rw1239338,uneedborda,King Kong (2005),10.0,The scene in Central Park.,15 December 2005,0,"I just want to make a comment on a scene. The scene in the film when they're in Central Park was one of the most memorable scenes, to me, in movie history. There was such an innocent beauty to it that it brought tears to my eyes, and I never cry at movies. Other than that, KING KONG, I feel, will go down as a movie that had everything. It's hard to transcend love through many pictures these days because there has to be a modern day edge to what Hollywood is trying to sell us, the movie goer. Could it be that a story as old as KING KONG, that rightfully defines the golden era of film, is the only time when the writers were capable of putting all they had into a movie (action, adventure, discovery, death, loss, and love) that touched our hearts the way this film did? I don't know if it can be done anymore, but Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Philippa Boyens accomplished it, making them very unique writers who brought an . KING KONG will be remembered as one of the greatest stories to come from what we call the movies.","['2', '9']" +1362,rw1242307,ibanezman6,King Kong (2005),2.0,The Biggest Problem with modern special FX films...,19 December 2005,0,"Based on various reviews from critics and friends, King Kong was suggested to be an excellent, updated remake of the 30's classic. Having viewed other special FX blunders such as, ""Star Wars 3: Revenge of The Sith, & War of the Worlds (2005)"" just to name a few, I was still fearful of a ""Once-talented"" director going over to the dark side (no pun intended) and serving me turds on a silver platter. The dark side being that of a film with little to absolutely no story, no direction or creativity, atrocious acting, and a mountaintop of special FX that engulf the movie and audience. These types of films/film-makers expect the movie-goers to be wooed by all of the CGI work and treat you as if you have an IQ of 50. Well, despite my fears, I went to see Kong anyways. Well...if there's any one element that this film lacked right off the bat, it would be an editor. I found myself asking why this movie HAD to be 3 hours, as if it wasn't bad enough. It had many subplots that literally added nothing to the story and only served to give this movie enough holes to become Swiss cheese. The first hour of the film could've easily been summed up safely in about 20-30 minutes. Next, the acting simply put...unacceptable, so I'll spare some time pinpointing specific details on individuals since they all sucked! Finally as the characters get to the island, they are greeted by the natives (which reminded me of orcs from LOTR). In the original they were all fearful of some ""creature"". However in this remake they were savages looking for human flesh. Clearly, acting wasn't added, as Peter Jackson tries to ""enthrall"" us with his large perspective shots of these massive landscapes throughout this bomb of a film. The dinosaur scenes were pretty ridiculous, as Kong battles three T-Rexes, while holding on to Ann and keeping her PERFECTLY intact (come on!). Then Brody and Watts later grasp onto the wings of bats as they escape the clutches on Kong (this is outrageous and clearly insulting as is the scene where Jimmy shoots bugs off of Brody with astounding accuracy, and many more). More annoyances come at the turn of every nook and cranny as some CGI nerd's little monster creation crawls all over the actors. These little CGI creations had absolutely 100% no bearing on the story and were a pathetic attempt to try to create this sense of ""adventure"", but rubbed off as Peter Jackson trying to impress the audience with his computer.The worst scenes are easily the ones with the interaction between Kong and Watts. As they glide and tickle one another in Central Park on the ice. I expected them to kiss, and I nearly busted out laughing, but I restrained myself as people next to me were nearly crying. This was yet another film that goes to show how special FX can utterly destroy a film. These directors are given MASSIVE budgets to work with, and therefore they have no room and no need to be creative because many people love special FX and the ""High on action, low on plot"" ideology. A story, should one exist, is completely drenched in SFX, which takes over the movie. In fact, it shouldn't be allowed to be called special, since it is in every single scene and used over and over and over....... You don't go to a fancy steak house and order steak with your Bearnaise sauce. I'd say the same applies to these types of films. I honestly believe that this was hardly any break-through for special FX, although they were good on certain aspects (Kong himself). If anyone is just looking to go to the theater and say ""Ooooooo,"" & ""Ahhhhhh"", this is your film. For those people (not putting anyone down), you will certainly get your money's worth.","['23', '63']" +1363,rw1238543,Well18,King Kong (2005),1.0,Peter Jackson owes me ten dollars (worst movie ever made),14 December 2005,1,"This was one of the worst movies ever made. The CGI was over the top and the acting was horrible. To cast Adrian Brody as the leading man was even worse than casting Jack Black as a movie maker in Hollywood. Naomi Watts was also horrible; all she did was give a ""Oh I feel so sorry"" look the entire time. The dinosaurs were right out of Jurrasic Park, and didn't even look as good. The crew of the ship all seemed as if they were waiting for their cues the entire time. And it's corny as heck. King Kong actually ice skates. And even worse, Watts juggles for King Kong's amusement. It's just a horrible film, a complete joke. I don't know why Jackson had to have everything dealing with actors being out of work, and about nifty little plays and vaudeville nonsense. No one cares about that stuff. And the special effects, while they looked good, just seemed as if you were watching a cartoon, or watching someone else play a video game.","['16', '35']" +1364,rw1252637,ktgc,King Kong (2005),7.0,Mixed Feelings,1 January 2006,0,"King Kong is a well known story to millions of people and director Peter Jackson has brought it back to the big screen with much longer screen time and much bigger budget. Is it worth watching? My answer would be yes. Is it as good as Titanic or any of the Lord of the Rings movies? Definitely no. I have to admire Peter Jackson's courage to lengthen the story to include more human emotions and he succeeded in one area, but failed in another area. The relationship between King Kong and the ""beauty"" (Naomi Watts) is well defined and actually evoked a lot of emotion from me. The tragedy between King Kong and the ""beauty"" has connected me with King Kong, a computer generated character and I felt sad to see him die. However, Peter Jackson also created a similar relationship between the ""beauty"" and male (Adrien Brody). This human relationship of risk-all for a beauty does not work well and it is greatly overshadowed by the relationship of King Kong and the ""beauty."" The other human characters are just like cardboards that are not really interesting and inconsistent, except Jack Black character who is supposed to be the evil character of the movie. One example of inconsistency of character development is the captain who switches from greedy, practical minded character to bravery and heroic not just once, but actually twice in the movie. King Kong would be a much better movie if it only concentrated on the love story between King Kong (the Beast) and the ""Beauty."" It can be much shorter and much more entertaining. Overall, King Kong is still a good movie, but it is not as enjoyable as The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe or any of the Lord of the Rings movies.","['7', '10']" +1365,rw1242952,niannah,King Kong (2005),1.0,Heart of Darkness,20 December 2005,1,"I find it hard to write briefly why I disliked it as much as I did, so I will write at length. I was trying to figure out how I felt about it all while I walked home from the cinema and I realised I felt bullied by the film. Pushed around and silenced, just like the female lead.Ann, the beautiful heroine, spends the first part of the film being pushed into doing this movie by Carl (who is, admittedly, simply manipulative of everyone - he traps the writer, Jack, on the boat to make him come along). Once they reach the island, she's taken by Scary Black Natives (don't even get me started) and tied up. She spends the next part of the film being thrown around by Kong (how she survived is quite beyond me). Then she is chased by dinosaurs, once more threatened (by two small dinosaurs, two horrific centipedes and then no less than three T-rexes) and rescued by Kong, following a fight at which she is at the mercy of both Kong and the T-rexes. Once he has defeated the T-rexes, Ann is jostled about a bit more on Kong's shoulder.Having ""escaped"" from Kong she is literally manhandled by Jack, her supposed rescuer and the man who claims he loves her. She watches, vaguely struggling in his arms, while Kong is cruelly trapped, shouting ""no, stop"" but failing to either be heard or to escape from Jack. When she does try, he pulls her back and pushes her into the rowing boat. Here is a woman who has been physically helpless and pushed around and literally in Kong's hand for half an hour, and now again she is physically at the mercy of a male. Her attempts to fight him off are pathetic. Nor does she ever go beyond shouting ""stop"", like even hinting towards a reason why they should stop or what she knows about Kong, having formed a bond with him.Once back in New York we discover that Carl has Kong in chains in a stage show on Broadway. He has offered all kinds of money to Ann to be in the show but she refused. What else does she do to try to put a stop to the cruelty? Nothing. Does she speak to anyone, try to argue her point? No. Does she act at all? No. We get a lot of close ups of her sad yet helpless face, and that is it. No dialogue, no action. All we know about her, we know from other people. In this sequence, she is possibly at her most passive.Then she sees Kong again, and she's once more in his hand being carried around. At the end, on top of the Empire State Building, she screams ""Stop!"" at the planes shooting at Kong, but in the view from the masculine plane you can barely see her because she's wearing white against a white background. I think that's indicative of her entire character and the film's attitude towards her.And do they stop shooting? Do they hell. He dies. What does she do? Watches him fall, and then immediately runs to the arms of Jack, without a word. At this point I was actually begging for her to speak, say something, anything that might prove she has a will of her own. She did not.So here is a central character with whom we are supposed to empathise, and she is nothing but body at the mercy of male characters with no voice at all.Carl, at the end of the film, refers to her as Beauty. Carl is a shallow, manipulative man always looking for the angle in everything, and I think he hit the nail right on the head with that one. Beautiful is all Ann is required to be.I swear, I cannot believe that Peter Jackson directed this. I don't know what he was aiming for, but it's incredible to me that this is where he ended up. Am I missing something? Is there something deeper that tells me that in fact Ann is a strong character? Is the fact that Kong doesn't smash her to pieces and instead is charmed by her Vaudeville routine supposed to indicate hidden resources in her character? It's notable that this one aspect of her character that influences her own fate, she originally performed while dressed as a man.Which leads me to ask (because that's just ridiculous), am I missing irony? I don't think I usually miss irony. I just don't think it's present here, or if it is, it's not working.Was it fidelity to the original that led Jackson to make this movie the way he did? He had a real chance to interpret the story rather than simply retell it, and what do we get? Incredible special effects, and an utterly insipid female.I tend not to think of myself as a feminist because I think that's an oversimplification of any mode of thought or interpretation these days, but when I am presented with a film that I feel binds and gags the female and, by proxy, me, then I will read it from a feminist perspective and I will be angry.As for the racial issues, let's just take that moment at which the African first mate quotes - from memory - a passage from Heart of Darkness, apparently accepting Conrad's view of Africa and reapplying it to this island. Good god. I despair.","['10', '21']" +1366,rw1252973,alexanderdias,King Kong (2005),3.0,Not worth the money,2 January 2006,0,"Good special effects, but too unrealistic to actually feel engaged in the movie. You will be shaking your head for a lot of the scenes. Agree with all of the below reviews that mention about the unrealistic chase scenes and how too many times the characters escaped death. It really was like watching a video game.You could not get invested in any of the characters, there was too much focus on adding big budget action scenes. Many of the characters were completely unnecessary and non-integral to the story, although they tried to develop subplots for some of them.For all the hype, it could have....wait should have been better.","['11', '25']" +1367,rw1239401,judywalker2,King Kong (2005),4.0,Too ridiculous for words,15 December 2005,0,"I will have to say up front that when I heard Peter Jackson was remaking King Kong I really wasn't interested in seeing it. I really wasn't that enthralled with the original. But my husband wanted to see it so I went with very little expectations. This is a film for the 13 year old boy in Jackson. Thank god, Phillipa and Fran didn't let that boy out too much during LOTR. Bugs, dinosaurs, come on. This is a 'B' movie telling people that it's an 'A' movie. This isn't Oscar, Golden Globe material it Razzie at best. I was really hoping, when it was finally over, that Ann would throw herself off the Empire State Buidling after Kong if only because she couldn't stand Jackson filming another close up of her face and thinking that it would produce some kind of passion in the audience. Too bad he didn't spend more of the island time building their relationship instead of grossing us out. I originally gave this film a 5/10 but changed my mind in the middle of this comment. Its not that good. 4/10","['6', '16']" +1368,rw1252633,mwisemiu,King Kong (2005),10.0,I loved it!,1 January 2006,0,"I might be in the minority but, I've never seen any previous King Kong movies. I was really delighted to have been so surprised by the content of the movie. The first scenes of the flick open onto what was a very believable 1930's New York City. The city deep in the grips of The Depression. The old buildings and cars were convincing. The Skull Island portion of the movie really grabbed me. Shades of Jurassic Park, very exciting and grizzly at the same time. Never once did I say to myself that they had done a nice job making us believe those animals existed. They were real on the screen. The last third of the movie, back in New York, was emotional. Although everyone knows what happens to Kong, even if you've never seen a Kong movie before, it grabs your heart and makes you wish you'd shoved a hankie in your pocket. Although 3 hours is a long time to stay put in my seat, it went fast with all the action. I'd highly recommend it to all but the squeamish.","['2', '6']" +1369,rw1240839,LoneWolfAndCub,King Kong (2005),10.0,"Brilliant, Tragic, Stunning! SO Many Words Could Describe This Masterpiece",18 December 2005,0,"Peter Jackson has yet again, taken a classic story, and turned it into a masterpiece of cinema. He has done it for the Lord of th Rings trilogy, now he has turned a simple story of a giant ape, and turned it into an unforgettable piece of cinema. There are no flaws in this. None what-so-ever! Many of us should know the story but for those who don't, Carl Denham (Jack Black) is a director who is looking to break-through. He has found a map of an island, Skull Island, he plans to shoot a picture their, but he finds something much better. He hires Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) to be his leading lady. Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) is the screenwriter. They land on Skull Island only to be attacked by a tribe of savages. They later kidnap Ann and offer her to King Kong (Andy Serkis) as a sacrifice. What follows is a huge adventure for the cast and crew.I could go on about how brilliant this is, but i'm going to need to cut it short.The acting in this is perfect. Peter Jackson has picked the perfect actors for the parts of the 1933 movie. Jack Black is perfect as Denham, , his character is evil and greedy and Black does a good job. Naomi Watts is stunning. She really does a great job as Ann Darrow. She portrays the relationship with Kong beautifully. Adrien Brody is great as Jack Driscoll. He shows really well, his love for Ann. I won't be surprised if there aren't any Oscar nominations for these three actors.The scenes on the island are stunning. The island looks beautiful the creatures are stunning and Kong, well........ HE'S MASSIVE! He is really brought to life amazingly by Andy Serkis. The fights are thrilling and done really well. Most of the scenes from the original have been re-done and are re-done perfectly.But the main reason I love this is because the relationship between Kong and Ann is beautiful and oh so tragic. The end had me in tears. Watts and Serkis are amazing together and bring magic. There are a lot of added scenes that really work well. The score is great and very sad. Peter Jackson should be proud! 5/5","['2', '11']" +1370,rw1241001,khangfuzhun,King Kong (2005),9.0,Heartbreakingly good!!,18 December 2005,1,"It seems as though Jackson infuses a special aura within his recent movies, especially Lord of the Rings. King Kong is no exception. It breathes life, it's movie life.About 40 minutes into the movie, the action truly starts with what I think are some of the most savage natives I've ever seen directors get away with in mainstream movies. It never lets up from then. Sure, there are a few pauses in-between action scenes, but the movie never gives you a chance to feel that it will completely stay in that transition, because the action will immediately pop back up. The CG, needless to say, is breathtaking. But it's Kong's many faces of expression that steals the CG spotlight. Andy Serkis has done it again with Kong's amazing physicality, but his facial expressions are clearly what CG movies are made for. You'll feel his anguish, his pain, his urge to kill, and his sense of valor just by staring at his face. Jackson is truly a master of special effects. Anyone can notice the parts that are fake, such as the fog that clouds the walls and dangerous jagged rocks of Skull Island, but somehow, Jackson manages to capture the feeling of ""unknown tension"" in these scenes. The same can be said for the other CG scenes that clearly looked fake, but they also gave the emotion they were purposed to.Naomi Watts shared the same spotlight as Kong, as she needed to. She was athletic in every way, outrunning huge T-Rexes and back-flipping on her stomach to entertain Kong. Her relationship with Kong is, surprisingly, genuine. Their love isn't the type that you can describe. It's that feeling of mutuality that doesn't need to be described, because the movie speaks for them how special and tender it is. It was amazing how her prowess commanded her to act to a green-screen, exhibiting heartbreaking emotions here and there, and it works out so well. Jackson chose the right woman for the role all right. She didn't have to scream all the time in the latter half of the movie, thank god, as opposed to her 1933 predecessor Fay Wray, who clearly still didn't like the ape in some way and screamed to her heart's content. It's her genuine love for Kong that's the centerpiece of the movie. Yes, I was tearing up at the final moment at the top of the Empire State Building. That's how emotional it was.As for the other actors...Jack Black I'm not too sure about. He wasn't terribly convincing as a movie tycoon who wanted to get his vision of a movie across, but he was surprisingly convincing as a man hell-bent on going through all lengths to get whatever the hell he wants. I'm not sure if this was Black's blurred shift in character, or whether Jackson wanted this from the start.Adrian Brody was okay. He was, unfortunately, the 2nd hero of tragic encounters in this movie. He loses almost everything, except for his writing. He loses his relationship with Black, he loses the girl to the big ape, and he even lost his sense of honor throughout the movie. Even though he embraces Ann at the end of the film, he still didn't win her back.Every other character just serves as extras to further the events of the movie.In fact, this is a good social commentary about the naiveté and corpulence of 1930s America. Jack Black pretty much represented the corpulent greed. This film never needs to compromise itself just for the sake of today's politics.This movie is one of those movies that doesn't fuel the need for it to be compared with other movies. With most other movies, especially these days, I know that after finishing a movie, I subconsciously compare it with other movies. With King Kong however, that didn't happen. While it wasn't the greatest movie ever made, it was enough to stand on its own ground, no need for comparison. It was great in its own right. ""Casablanca"" had that same effect, and still does today. To me, that's what a great movie should be, without comparison. Peter Jackson's King Kong is, I think, one of those movies that will probably stand the test of time, not because of special effects, but for sheer gut-wrenching, heartbreaking movie magic. Very few movies ever chance themselves to such an amazing privilege.","['1', '10']" +1371,rw1239939,martok2112,King Kong (2005),8.0,King Kong. Go ape over it? Or total monkeyshines?,16 December 2005,0,"FILM: KING KONG DISTRIBUTOR: UNIVERSAL DIRECTOR: PETER JACKSON PRINCIPAL CAST: Jack Black, Naomi Watts MPAA RATING: PG-13 for frightening adventure violence and some disturbing images. RUNTIME: 3hrs., 7min.Story: 5/5 Acting: 5/5 Sound: 5/5 Visuals: 4.5/5 Endorphin Factor: 3/5 Big Screen Experience: 5/5 Scoring system: Average: 4.5/5MOVIES IT COULD BE COMPARED TO: Classic KING KONG, GODZILLA, DETAILS: Well, I decided to go and see this to give the vaunted ""King of All Directors"" Peter Jackson another chance. This film was surprisingly good. That is NOT to say that I have suddenly become a Peter Jackson convert. I ain't gonna kiss his arse about this movie, and swear total fealty to his film-making prowess, and mere presence as a human being, but it was damn good, and I do applaud him for making a damn good film.The story had a nice pace to it, and thankfully (unlike Fellowship of the Ring) it did not put me to sleep in 20 minutes. There were even a few good laughs in this film, all throughout.The actors were perfectly cast. And I have to say that Naomi Watts (much like Charlize Theron) has this '30's silver screen beauty and charisma about her. She IS glamorous, without BEING glamorous.Kong himself looked surprisingly good for a CGI puppet, but was still very much CGI.This film was actually three or four in one. It was Jurassic Park II, Starship Troopers, and of course King Kong. Nothing in this movie really blew me out of my seat though....although I did go ""eewww"" during one Kong Kombat sequence. LOL!BOTTOM LINE: This was a good ride. Not a wild one like I'd hoped...but it was fun. Still have to say, my favorite film thus far this Holiday season is Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. (Disclaimer: No monkeys were spanked during the production of this film...unless it was over Naomi Watts. :D )","['1', '9']" +1372,rw1240316,Krakn3Dfx,King Kong (2005),9.0,"Amazing movie, although not without it's flaws, still better than I expected",17 December 2005,1,"I went to see King Kong yesterday, 12pm showing on a weekday, so it was pretty dead, which was nice. I'm sick as a dog, but it was my birthday, so I told myself I was going to see it regardless. I'm sure the rest of the people in the theater were thrilled that I was sitting there coughing up a lung quite a few times, but screw em, it was my birthday.Anyway, I'm not really a huge PEter Jackson fan. I find most of the LotR series to be sluggish, with few rewards after hours of watching. I enjoy some of his earlier low budget gore films like Bad Taste, but he's never been anyone I've hung onto in any way. On the other hand, I, like Jackson, am a HUGE fan of the 1933 version of King Kong, and also Son of Kong, which was corny yet still entertaining. I didn't care much for the 1976 version, which was watchable, but not a suitable remake by any means. I was pretty awed when I learned Jackson's Kong would last 3 hours, but I decided if it was done well, it might work. One of the problems with the original, like most films from the era (not to mention today), was the lack of character development, so if he could stretch it out to 3 hours and develop the characters more, I figured that would be alright. I've read reviews where people didn't care much about the development of the Hayes/Jimmy relationship, but I thought it worked well. I also liked the Captain Englehorn character, who was obviously not a good person, but was willing to help people in need. Jack Black as Denham was great. I can think of better actors to play the role, but he came across suitably for what Denham was, not actually evil, but very centered on himself, even at the cost of the lives of others. The CG in the film was overall amazing. There were some scenes where the CG was obviously rushed, but it didn't take away from the movie as a whole. Hopefully they will release a Director's Cut or something in the future on DVD that will fix these. A couple are pretty obvious, and should really be worked on. Overall, the movie was a fine testament to the mythology of Kong. I'll be seeing it at least once more in the theater when I'm not sick anymore, and it'll be a fine addition to my DVD collection, not to mention being the new demo disc for my home theater audio system :).","['1', '8']" +1373,rw1238300,migponce2003,King Kong (2005),8.0,the legend of king kong and his capture,14 December 2005,0,"I will admit- I have never written a review. I am not as well informed with film terminology as many people who have written reviews for this site, but I will claim this- I will recommend this movie to ALL my friends and family. This movie compelled me to write this review. Seeing the previous reviews and the list of characters I did not think much of this movie. I was a puppet and merely just came along to give my roommate company. I thought the idea of the actors they casted for such roles would deem to be a total disaster but I was proved wrong. The reason this movie was of such high caliber was due in part to the characters they casted. The first hour made you forget what movie you came to see due to Jack Black's sense of humor. I have regained respect for Adrien Brody(Not that I ever had respect for him since the only image of him is that of making out with Halle Berry). His superb heroic image is overshadowed by Naomi Watt's Oscar caliber performance. This was made possible by the computer graphics. I wondered if the ape was real at times and the jungle scenes and New York city scenes put me in awe of the technology we have today which leads me to this next comment many people will disagree with-thus causing them to stop reading this review. I think Peter Jackson is a 21st century Spielberg. True, Spielberg is a genius in his characterization and special effects but looking at his recent movies such as AI and Minority Report which turned to be great but far below par compared to Lord of the Rings and King Kong, it makes you wonder if there is a new king in Hollywood. Jackson proved that he could do much more than take a fictional book and turn it into a great movie, even though the storyline has already been set out for him(Lord of the Rings). In Kong, Jackson used his resources and gave you what you wanted with regards to special effects. Even though we strive for more scenes with special effects, due to its realistic aspects, it kept you wanting more which in turn led to the facet of leaving you on the edge. I admire both Spielberg and Jackson and am wary of putting them on the same pedestal, but we have to look past traditional movies and look into the new movies of the 21st century with all the technology we have at hand. I say Jackson is the new ""it"" director because he makes the most out of all the technology we have developed. This movie just proves he can remake a movie(which is hard to do- just look at Bewitched) and give it his own touch and his own portrayal. The character development in the first hour was prime and brought you closer to the characters. The unusual casting made the movie- Jack Black kept the first hour from being mundane. Whoever said they would not expect Black to play such a proper serious role would be lying. He was pinpoint with his character. Watts and Brody proved to be superb as well. I will admit there were some cheesy parts, but what can you expect from a 3 hour movie. Watts walking through the streets of New York with a silhouette from the sunrise, and all the love scenes with Brody were kind of a dragger. But some of the scenes gave it an antique feel. Pay attention to the scene where Kong grabs Watts in the Empire State with the rising sun- it makes you wonder if you are watching a colored version of the original. The camera angles were also prime with the crash scenes from the perspective of being inside the car. The scene with the indigenous people was also money especially with Jack Black incorporating his humor. All in all I would recommend this movie. Not seeing the original Kong I am not much of a critic to judge, but I hope this will influence some people to go out and see what they think about it.","['2', '14']" +1374,rw1241417,mathsha,King Kong (2005),1.0,King Wrong,18 December 2005,1,"Peter Jackson is,supposedly,a massive fan of the original,but you'd never guess it from this mess.Now it's obvious he wasn't going to remake it verbatim,but i didn't think he'd jettison everything that made the original 1933 version a masterpiece.To think that a film made 72 years ago blows this embarrassment away in every department,well,it's amazing.Many will rave about the effects being superior,but i don't think so.CGI is a nasty cop-out,and although the original is far from realistic,there is something better about it than this.Everything is ridiculously overblown that it becomes an incoherent mess,and in my opinion the motions created with CGI are completely unconvincing.But this isn't the films biggest problem.The original had the most wonderful sense of adventure,and moved along at a lightning pace.This film has lost it's sense of adventure in all the CGI and pointless character 'moments',and it's pace is lacklustre.Also,this version wants to be taken seriously,so we have moralistic overtones everywhere,meaningful glances in slow motion,rousing music cues reminiscent of LOTRS.All this just bogs it all down.The Carl Denham character here is portrayed as very unpleasant,without any obvious redeeming features,yet in the original he was portrayed with a lighter touch,and the film never pointed it's finger at him,or moralised about his actions.And now we come to Ann Darrow,who's character has been re-defined into something Hollywood & modern audiences can accept.She's tough and won't be pushed around by a 25 foot gorilla,and she tells it so by shouting ""NO"" at it,yet shortly before she was terrified.In the original Ann Darrow is always terrified,and never,not once has any 'emotional' moments or thoughts for her captor.But Peter Jackson goes all mushy,especially at the final,where he takes forever to kill his beast just so Ann can keep chasing after it and staring longingly into it's eyes,again and again.It's also worth noting that a film made in 1933 has more balls than this and the 76' version put together.Remember,the original is overloaded with misogynistic & racist overtones,and it's damn proud of it,never trying to make excuses for what it is.It's also more violent and disturbing,yet political correctness has stripped all of these elements away.You may or may not like material of this nature,but it is an unmistakable part of what made the original a classic.For modern audiences weened on CGI i imagine this will excite them,and from other peoples reviews it seems this is indeed the case.The original was daring,humorous,twisted,lively and one hell of a ride.KONG 2005 is bloated,safe,caring popcorn.","['111', '187']" +1375,rw1239466,zontexa,King Kong (2005),9.0,This movie captures the essence of what movies should be about,16 December 2005,0,"I thought that this movie was superb. One of the highlights for me were the characters and characterisations. Each one, from Anne Darrow the struggling, lonely actress, to Carl Denham, the greedy filmmaker, had such an intense integrity to them that I couldn't pull my eyes away from them. They, along with Kong, who carried the film. Each had such strong wants and desires it was mesmerizing, and each was completely believable.The best part of the movie, though, was simply looking at it. The village on Skull Island was the best part, with disturbing imagery and sounds littered through. This segment of the movie is leaps and bounds from the 30's original. In fact, most of the film is leaps and bounds from the original, not just in imagery but also tone. The film was similar enough to complement the nostalgia trip, yet Jackson puts in enough of his own style to make the film his own - for example a gripping montage of the characters on the boat as they approach their 'destiny'.The movie is simply a masterpiece. It is a film made to be a spectacular film. It transported me to a mystical, legendary island with such believability my mind never wandered for a minute (which is particularly unusual for me). The characters are on a real adventure, and you are along for the ride with them. The movie has been made for the love of movies, to be good, solid, real entertainment for a night, a picture just like pictures were made back before everybody was a master critic, back when people went to the movies to have a good time.My one gripe is the length - half an hours shaving of length would have been easy and appropriate, and the film would still have kept its powerful message and meaning.A movie for the love of movies. See it.","['2', '10']" +1376,rw1240402,aimless-46,King Kong (2005),6.0,Not a Good Date Movie,17 December 2005,0,"For a time early in the film I thought that Peter Jackson's ""King Kong"" was going to be something extraordinary. It appeared that Jackson had hit upon the only fundamental way to improve upon the 1933 version (which he allegedly loves) without violating its basic integrity. That would be to tell the entire story from the point of view of Ann Darrow, manipulating his audience to so strongly identify with her character that he could take them on a journey of wonder as if being seen through their own eyes. And in Naomi Watts he had an actress talented enough and accessible enough to be their Alice. This visionary style of narrative lasts until midway through the first third of the film, up ""through"" the scene where Ann is introduced to Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody). After that point the film becomes a movie. Not a really really bad movie on the order of ""Mr. and Mrs. Smith"", but just another visual treat you watch with technical interest-no longer able suspend belief that it is anything but a movie. So it is likely that the initial style was more happy accident than inspiration. The shift to a broader narrative style is an unfortunate choice because Jackson chooses to remake his favorite film as a sprawling spectacle of digital effects on an impersonal scale. This is the wrong direction for a story that is supposed to be a beauty and the beast theme packaged as a standard jungle adventure. At least that was what the original was as it expanded on what it borrowed from ""The Lost World"" by transferring human traits to the monster. Things are even worse because Jackson insists on an even more extreme bonding of the beauty to the beast, a process that needs intimacy and audience identification rather than ""Titanic"" –esque scale. There are intimate scenes but they are upstaged by digital effects, they don't work the way they are intended because instead of being seen through a lens (i.e. eye) they are seen through a computer screen.Jackson burns a lot of film during the sea voyage introducing a host of quirky supporting characters none of whom figure significantly in the later story. The original used a more economical and efficient device, making the supporting cast simple stereotypes. The best shots in the film occur as the ship arrives at the island, navigating through fog and rock formations before finally running aground. Then it is time for the middle portion of the film, it is the most tedious portion as they spend almost as much time on Kong's island as Gilligan and the Skipper did on theirs. Mostly this is a digital effects OD, as the scale and variety of creatures on the island dwarf any important developments in the storyline. The computer-generated stuff is inter-cut with endless shots of crewman extras and minor characters being killed. But apparently this tiny ship has more crewmen than the island has cockroaches so Jackson just brings in a new lineup every ten minutes. Any big wow you might initially get from Kong swatting aside groups of extras soon becomes a big yawn. Kong himself is great; looking, sounding (if your theater has 360 degree audio), and behaving about as close to reality as film could possibly ever get. The mystery is how they could get him so right and have the remainder of the effects look so fake. The native village and the wall to keep out Kong are cartoonish. Apparently the whole native thing was of no importance to Jackson as they disappear forever after the most moronic kidnapping scene in cinema history. While this left me nostalgic for ""Attack of the Killer Shrews"" it was still better than ""Mr. and Mrs. Smith"". Since females know that Jackson specializes in ""dork"" movies, he tries to attract some female ticket buyers by having Ann and Kong fall for each other. Watts actually breaks into a series of song and dance routines for her ape friend. These would have been silly if done with Lori Petty in their ""Tank Girl"" disaster, but here they are positively surreal. Meanwhile, the crewman extras and minor characters battle an assortment of animated critters and finally capture Kong himself. Too many dinosaurs. Too many giant bugs. Too many successful/unsuccessful attempts to chloroform Kong; he is captured, he gets loose, he tosses around the crewmen extras, and so on. Too much of everything takes the fun out of all things and allows no time to for them to show how Kong is actually transported to New York. The next thing you know he is being exhibited in an auditorium where he is tied up, he gets loose, he tosses around a bunch of blonde's, etc. etc. Like everything else, the New York scenes drag on too long, and the thrills are few and way to far between. The film's only unity is in Jackson's excess, cut in half virtually everything would work better.Finally Denham delivers the most famous last line in all of movie history: ""It wasn't the airplanes. It was beauty killed the beast."" While obligatory, it is not appropriate in this version because Jackson took great pains to show that this time beauty was on the side of the beast. It was the airplanes.","['12', '22']" +1377,rw1240798,skibbits,King Kong (2005),9.0,"3 hours plus went by faster that I expected, I was hooked.",17 December 2005,1,"Peter Jackson has done it again, a masterpiece. It's all in the eyes of Kong. You feel for him as if he were a real creature or person. The look of 1930's New York was as if you were there from old photos and films I can recall. I heard some people say that the first hour was too slow, where's Kong? But I thought it was important to get to know the characters a little first, Their personalities and a little about their background. The only reason I give this film a 9 instead of a 10 is because several scenes had mistakes in them.(spoiler alert)When Adrian Brody's character Jack had the giant bugs crawling all over him and the kid was shooting them off with a machine gun, he was firing all over the place and hit every bug but never hit Jack. Also when Kong was being shot on top of the Empire State Building I didn't see any blood. Ann climbed the ladder on top the Empire State Building in high heels and a next to nothing sleeveless dress in the middle of winter, yet she wasn't freezing up there.I guess I could always pick apart any film in one way or another but all in all I loved this film, the wait was worth it.","['1', '8']" +1378,rw1253004,stormlord-2,King Kong (2005),4.0,OK Film Way To Long,2 January 2006,0,"Peter Jackson needs a good editor. That was the primary thing that was spinning in my mind as I left King Kong. Yes it was a pretty good film, good cast, excellent effects and naturally beautiful to look at. But the film is waaaaaayyyy to long. You could have cut over an hour out of this feature and still had a good movie. I honestly felt that Jackson was fulfilling some boyhood fantasy of making Kong the way he felt is should be made instead of thinking of his audience.Kong himself was OK but in truth I felt no emotional connection with him as I did with the 76 versions. His supposed connection with Anna seemed more like a giant monkey playing with a new toy, something different he had never seen before. I felt that there were no genuine feelings between them.All the effects with the dinosaurs and especially the T-Rex's was totally unnecessary and did nothing for the film except to extend its already bladder bursting length to almost painful proportions. Even my wife who is a big Kong fan turned to me three quarters way through the film and said ""Enough already"" I think that pretty much sums it up.4 out of 10","['2', '3']" +1379,rw1252137,girlucky,King Kong (2005),9.0,What a Movie...,1 January 2006,1,"First, I'm not really too excited to watch this movie. My sisters told me that the movie is not good and too sadistic. But, I've promised my husband, Michael, that I'll accompany him watching the movie. So, there I was, at Puri Indah 21 (Jakarta), watching King Kong with my lovely hubby. And, I was so excited... It is a good movie. I like the scene when King Kong fights the T-Rex to save Annie. But I don't like the ending. Never like sad ending. I prefer King Kong goes back to his jungle and live there happily ever after. I walked out the cinema with sad feeling, but too excited that I wanna walk and act like King Kong, you know... beating my chest and growling... Another marvelous job, Mr Peter Jackson!!!","['0', '1']" +1380,rw1240722,MovieManiac44,King Kong (2005),10.0,"""Beautiful? Yes it is Beautiful""",17 December 2005,1,"How can I sum up this gigantic, epic film? It was simply amazing. From start to finish I was enthralled! Peter Jackson has done it again! I like how he sets up the characters for the first hour of the movie. It helps us to connect with them, understand their situations, and really feel for them as the events of the movie unfold. The beginning never bored me and I enjoyed getting to know these characters.Once they get on the island the movie hits pure ecstasy. Jackson has the amazing ability to grab the reader by the throat and not let go. I was astonished from the first frame when they hit the rocks on the island. Enter Kong and from their the movie never lets up. Kong is amazing to watch. His motions and facial expressions give the character life and really make you feel for him. I have never felt so attached and cared so much about a CGI character in a movie ever. King Kong is a rare movie. It's a spectacle to behold and amazing to watch every frame. You can tell the love and care Jackson put into telling this story. I loved every minute of this movie. It is going down as one of my all time favorites. P.S. For all those worried about the running time, It goes by so quickly you would never know you were in the theater for over three hours.","['1', '8']" +1381,rw1240787,metro_man89,King Kong (2005),7.0,Lord of the rings was the better of Jackson's creations,17 December 2005,1,"As soon as I saw the trailer for this movie I thought I would give it a ten, however I am sorry to say that it doesn't deliver in the manner I thought it would. Now don't get me wrong this was a good movie, there were some great scenes and good acting (sadly not from Naomi Watts) like Jack Black and Adrien Brody.But I couldn't make out much of a storyline and some things just seemed weird, it appeared that Naomi was in love with Kong instead of just caring for him. On the other hand there are some great scenes on the island, I can only think of one person who can imagine three T-Rexs and a giant gorilla fighting and make it look good...so ten out of ten for creativity and ass-kicking, but the storyline and the lead role brought it down. Sorry Naomi but hoping for an Oscar from this movie, serves no purpose, all you did was scream and stare at the weird animals(however she was good in the scenes before the island, but thats about it)","['4', '8']" +1382,rw1253205,clashchick88,King Kong (2005),1.0,Save your money and your time,2 January 2006,1,"For the record, I loved the Lord of the Rings Series. I love long, heavy movies. The length of most movies doesn't bother me - as long as it is worth it. And King Kong is not worth it.First of all, there were many plot holes that totally lacked explanation. How/when/where did Jack Black's character obtain that map? And why didn't he seem up set when he lost it? It was winter in New York City and Naomi Watt's character was walking around in an thin gown and we don't even see her breath? She doesn't so much as shiver as she stands on the top of the Empire State Building. And why didn't the pond that King Kong slid around on so much as creak? The army just ""showed up"" minutes after King Kong escapes? And then starts blasting apart the city? If King Kong had really fallen from that height there would have been bits-o-monkey everywhere. That or he would have smashed through the street and screw up the sewer system. How could they have kept King Kong sedated the entire trip back? The movie makes it seem like it took months to get there, but only a week end to get back.Another thing that bothered me was that Naomi Watts and Adrien Brody had no, and I mean no, chemistry whatsoever. None. I didn't understand their supposed ""attraction."" The dialog between them was so phony and speaking of dialog what was with the part with Andy Serkis after they find the tracks in the jungle saying, ""Only one creature could have made those tracks, the Abominable Snowman."" Was that supposed to be funny or something? Or what about Jack Black's last line in the movie, ""It was beauty that killed the beast."" What was with that? Was it supposed to be clever or moving? Well, it wasn't. There's more but frankly, I don't even want to think about it anymore. Long story short, save your money and your time.","['175', '301']" +1383,rw1242964,talleyrand_perigord,King Kong (2005),5.0,Don't forget your Wake-Up pills before seeing the movie,17 December 2005,1,"It appears that Peter Jackson gets paid by the minute. Executives should definitely register him in a movie editing seminar.This movie is waaayyyy tooooo loooong ! It would definitively have been better if it had lasted less than two hours...--- Spoilers ---Ten minutes of Diplodocus Stampede. - Ten minutes of fighting against Tyranosaurs. - Ten minutes of fighting against nasty bugs of all kinds.What's missing ? Godzilla, Jaws and pterodactyls... Maybe we'll get them in the extended director's cut version soon available in a good store near you.The cast however is excellent, especially Jack Black as the director. Naomi Watts really fills the screen too; well, a bit less than Kong nevertheless !","['0', '1']" +1384,rw1245378,antoniotierno,King Kong (2005),6.0,certainly spectacular but too long,23 December 2005,0,"The three hour and seven minute runtime is as much sensational as Naomi Watts beauty. It doesn't lack in great action sequences as well as in visual effects (in my opinion better than in Titanic and Jurassic Park) but the final sensation is that most of the second part is superfluous. The flick is undeniably entertaining and spectacular but the audience finally feels, as far as I can see, that everything is far too long. Also the way the director tells the story of a gorilla loving a woman shows care and intelligence in making the film, but my opinion, all things considered, is that the movie doesn't succeed in gripping the movie-goer.","['3', '7']" +1385,rw1250565,gartner,King Kong (2005),7.0,CGI've had enough! or after careful review I've decided NOT to endorse your island.,29 December 2005,1,"The set up to Skull Island is way too long. An actresses theater closes down, the actress meets a down on his luck director and agrees to be in his picture because she admires the screenwriter. They all board a ship and set sail to find the mythical Skull Island. How could so little take place in 60 minutes; especially when most of the synopsis just rehashed takes place in the first 15 minutes? At first, the Skull Island sequences are effective but once Kong gets the girl, Skull Island gets weary fast! How many times can I be subjected to action sequences which ultimately serve no purpose except to show off some new CGI creatures. You know what? I get it. It's a dangerous place (well to everyone accept the main characters who emerge from all kinds of jostling and plunges unscathed). It's full of big ugly bugs and dinosaurs, now can we stop with the search party sending out a search party to look for the search party and please just get off the island?!? I've seen dinosaurs in 3 Jurassic Parks! It's not new or fresh or, in this case, even convincing. Many of the action sequences on Skull Island had me groaning and/or laughing at both their content and how poor the CGI effects worked. The stampede scene is one of the most laughable, implausible and totally bogus looking action sequences you'll ever see. And if you are strong enough to survive that sequence with your patience intact, you will have at least 5 or 6 more chances to test just how far you are willing to suspend your belief in the interest of 'cool' special effects and mindless fun. The CGI effects in the Skull Island sequences, in my opinion, were for the most part so phony looking it became jarring and so dumb they brought the picture down.The story despite many unnecessary sequences is fine overall. The relationship between the girl and the big old ape is fleshed out more genuinely than in any other incarnations but there is not enough genuine stuff to go around. This film is bloated with mindless eye candy and proves that some times there is too much of a 'good' thing. I was watching the 'deleted' sequences from the Revenge of the Sith DVD recently and in the introduction, George Lucas said of one lengthy selection, 'I loved this scene and hated to cut it from the movie but ultimately I realized that it did not advance the story.' This movie would have benefited greatly from that wisdom. There is simply no reason in the world this movie should clock in at 3 hours! NONE.","['5', '7']" +1386,rw1244471,mheron-2,King Kong (2005),,Ape of a movie !,16 December 2005,1,"I remember when I was 11 years old and my late father took me to the movies to see the new version of King Kong. The year was 1976 and I was impressed by that huge gorilla in the screen. The film instantly became one of my all time favorites. Almost 30 years later the film still capture my imagination as I have a copy in my DVD collection. Last night I went to a preview screen of the newest King Kong, directed by Peter Jackson. Boy, what a ride ! Jackson has made the best version so far. The film is really a gem in all aspects ! It will sure conquer a whole new generation of fans. Those who have seen the previous versions will notice some connections with this one. In fact, the film is much more a remake of the 1933 film than a update version as it was the 1976 version compared to the classic film. I won't tell much about the film so I won't spoil the surprises, but be prepared for an incredible mixture of drama, adventure, mystery, horror and romance in a roller-coaster of great thrills. It's where Jurassic Park meets the Lord of the Rings in the spectacular vision of Peter Jackson. **** Kind of a spoiler here ***** There are two unforgettable moments in this King Kong. The first is the fantastic battle between Kong and a trio of T-Rex. You just can't breathe in this scene. The second one is the grand finale at the top of the Empire States. I recommend this film for people of all ages, those who already are familiarized with the subject and for those getting in touch with it for the very first time.","['0', '1']" +1387,rw1243123,inkerkano,King Kong (2005),3.0,KING LONG > know this.,20 December 2005,0,"most people will say nice things about this film, like, great, amazing, all that, why? why are they afraid of the truth? lets just be honest and forget self denial, this film is no more than special effects and thats it, just eye candy, now, thats fine for the average person, for people who see movies as just something to do in a weekend, but for me there's nothing of value or an artistic contribution on this film, i mean, the film is very clean, very nice shooting, great sets, great production, but this films says nothing, to me it was nothing but the influence of Jackson on his producers to make his dream come true. the fights are cool to watch, but come on, the script is really not that great, maybe 70 years ago when jungle expedition caught peoples imaginations but now all you got to do is watch animal planet, this film has the same concept as the hulk and Jurassic park two, and those films may the truth be spoken: they suck. not only the script is not good, they made it worst, like this: in the stampede they show jack and Adrien running in between the dinosaurs legs, that didn't work out for me. the love story didn't work for me either. when Adrien rescues the girl there is two things, first: the bats, i supposed, have lived there for a while with Cong and they outnumber him 100 to one, if they wanted to have him they didn't need Adrien's distraction, plus why did they go for Cong when people are easier targets and the worst was when Adrien is at the edge of the cliff; hey , wouldn't you know it, just what i needed, by the edge there is a rope to climb down, i mean come on, but there is more. honestly the scene at the frozen lake was plain stupid. and 3 hours?? i could have been an hour late and not miss anything. bottom line, the only good thing about this film is the advanced technology of special effects that are candy for the eye. in my opinion, good visuals don't beat smart script. therefore again just eye candy unworthy of 20 million dollar direction. and no matter what anybody posts here about my comment, i know I'm right. PS: I'm sorry that my spelling is not correct; this is not my first language, but i hope u can see my point and realize that this kind of movies are not worth your mind.","['9', '17']" +1388,rw1241023,izzrod316,King Kong (2005),10.0,Twas GREED not beauty nor the military that killed the beast,18 December 2005,1,"I reluctantly went to see the 2005 version of King Kong, mainly because of all the positive reviews and curiosity. After witnessing the movie I felt like I saw a combination of Jurrasic Park and Titanic (I know...Titanic???) King Kong the animal was at times frightening as hell and then at times almost lovable. Anne Darrow (Naomi Watts) was first scared as hell of the beast but after she saw how often he risked his bacon to save her she found a soft spot for the big galoot. She cared for Kong because Kong cared for her. So The Ice Skating scene was good...almost like Jack and Rose running and playing on the deck of Titanic before it strikes the iceberg. The fast pace running and trying to survive also made me think of Camerons epic. Finally, after the evil humans did their deed, and Kong looks one last time into the eyes of Anne...the scene of his dreamlike fall with the angelic score playing in the background just made me think of Jack fading to black into the dark murky waters of the Atlantic. The special effects and weird creatures were all good...but the expression of love and caring between two lonely lost souls is what made this movie a must see for me. That bug-eyed Black was annoying as hell...his greed was the true evil of this story...I was left thinking that the moron should have captured a T-Rex instead of poor ol' Kong...He would have made more money off of a creature thought to be extinct.","['2', '11']" +1389,rw1234685,dblank,King Kong (2005),5.0,Way too long!,5 December 2005,1,"Having seen the press preview today, it was clear that judicial editing could have taken a movie that was 3 hours long (but seemed like 5) down to 2:30, 2:15, tightened it up and thus made it flow much better. The whole story at the start of the movie could have been cleaned up and shortened considerably, the ship could have a taken much less time to arrive at skull island, and the frenetic (and headache inducing) monster fights could also have been edited to be shorter and with less frenzy while still making their point (the original excelled in this-sometimes it seemed Peter Jackson just kept on going and going just to show how improved special effects have become over the years).","['16', '38']" +1390,rw1244671,movind,King Kong (2005),8.0,a very good but flawed movie,22 December 2005,0,"Pluses1. Excellent and believable CG of Kong. He looks real, and actually affects your emotional state. 2. Naomi Watts' committed performance (she takes her role very very seriously). 3. Locales, cinematographyMinuses1. Gratuitous carelessness in direction and script. Did Jackson really think we wouldn't wonder about how Kong managed to keep quiet throughout the journey on that modest-sized ship all the way to New York? Did he really think we would not wonder about Ann skating in Central Park and not even shivering on top of the ESB in a slinky white dress when the snow clearly hasn't melted? Why insult viewers? A little more thought could have made this a really outstanding movie 2. Cheesy CGI of dinosaurs 3. Clearly artificial back drop of New York atop the ESB, and in other places. 4. Too many confrontations with CGI creatures of various types, which detracts from the main characters.","['1', '2']" +1391,rw1242956,Craig_McPherson,King Kong (2005),,Digital humanity at it's finest,20 December 2005,0,"Peter Jackson's re-rendering of King Kong is, if not the finest movie ever made, right up there with a very small number of films that have artistically, emotionally, and technically established a new cinematic benchmark. Critics have already hailed it as the first bonafide contender to dethrone James Cameron's Titanic as the highest grossing movie ever. Whether or not that comes to pass is irrelevant, for as Kong's Jack Driscoll laments about his crony Carl Denham's penchant for reducing everything to box office receipts, the majesty of this film towers over such base denominators as butts in the seats. It is a cinematic achievement the likes of which has rarely, if ever, been produced by Hollywood.Make no mistake however, this film will put butts in the seats.... and hold them there.You will believe a 25 foot tall silverback gorilla can be humbled by a frail blonde, and can shift from a violent temper tantrum of landscape altering proportions to a silent, slack jawed child by a simple picturesque sunset.Jackson's Kong manages to convey, through all his digital majesty, more humanity than some people I know. He towers over trees and buildings, dwarfed only by the size of his heart.Folks, this movie will have you shifting emotional gears more quickly than a Formula 1 driver. You will careen from suspense, through terror, round the hairpin bend of excitement, and run headlong into the wall known as sorrow, and it will bring tears to both men and women alike.For the creature feature fans, the film delivers a stampede of Brontosaurus and Velociraptors, a simultaneous showdown between Kong and not one, but three T-Rex's (a parent and two juveniles), dog sized cockroaches, locusts and scorpions, fang toothed swamp leeches and large ravenous bats.It also features a resplendent Naomi Watts, who captivates the viewer's eye in much the same way she mesmerizes Kong. The woman is a pure beauty, and excellently cast in the role of Anne Darrow.While the movie is an achievement on so many levels, what makes this film so great is its heart…. all 25 feet of it. See it, and prepare to be humbled as if you were staring in awe at a beautiful sunset","['2', '12']" +1392,rw1244359,austinnashpark,King Kong (2005),8.0,"The special effects are great, but...",21 December 2005,1,"I thought it was excellent, but not as good as the original. First of all, the acting was good, especially Niomi Watts' performance. I didn't fully appreciate Jack Black's performance. It just was not as good as the first movie, especially the final lines, which he does not deliver well at all. Adrien Brody had a great performance too.I also thought that there were too many scenes where people were almost killed or just killed. They just seemed to drag on and on... I mean, in the original King Kong, there was one T-Rex, and everyone was happy. In this movie, there were like, 5. It's more enjoyable to the eye than the original, but still, if there were less scenes where people were killed/almost killed, the movie would be just as good. It was very faithful to the original though, and I enjoyed it very much. But, it was just not the same as the original, not as ""classic"" if you know what I mean. The script was fine, and the occasional ""ha ha"" was good, but it was just not the same. The only things that are better than the original are the special effects and some extended stories from the original. (I liked how it explained the people's lives more before the journey on the ship).Overall, I thought that the movie was a little too repetitive with the exploitation of the special effects. It had good acting from Adrien Brody and Niomi Watts, but not as good from Jack Black (I especially didn't like the ""It wasn't the airplanes, it was beauty killed the beast."") It had a good script and a solid plot. And just so you know, although the original may be suitable for the younger ones, this definitely wasn't, due to the creature violence and the natives, who were much scarier and violent than the original's natives. If you are a fan of the original or like big things crushing smaller things or like one of the actors/Peter Jackson, I would recommend seeing it.Acting: 7/10 Script: 8/10 Special Effects: 10/10 Directing: 8/10 Overall: 8/10","['1', '3']" +1393,rw1242752,f1lms,King Kong (2005),4.0,"1 Hour of Story, 2 Hours of Dinosaur Fights ...",19 December 2005,0,"I'm not sure what's gotten into Peter Jackson -- maybe his ego is going the way of the misguided George Lucas in the ""let's see how many special effects shots we can squeeze into a movie"" vein ... the potentially heartfelt storyline in this movie is lost in the maze of dinosaur fights. For the love of pete, didn't this movie have an editor or story consultant? The movie opens admirably, spending quite a lot of time developing the characters. For a while I was thinking this might turn out to be a cut above your typical ""action"" movie. There was an instinct going on there that guided the film to a decent start, so I was hopeful...Until the crew lands on the island -- isn't it enough that the jungles are inhabited by a giant ape? NO! There needs to be brontosauruses, T-Rexes, Velociraptors, pre-historic crocodiles, triceratops, weird bat-things, and ... oh yeah, there's a monkey in there somewhere ... You'd think that Kong would've found Manhattan a welcome respite from the constant deathtrap of an island he lived on.So commences the humans vs. cannibals fight, the Kong vs. dinosaurs fight, the Brontosaurus vs. human, velociraptor vs. humans, humans vs. Kong, humans vs. spiders, humans vs. man-eating grubs, humans vs. giant vampire bats, vampire bats vs. Kong, ... eh, ... WHATEVER... The giant plot hole in this crap-tastic island adventure (or one of them) seems to be that for some reason everyone is fixated on a giant ape, rather than running around saying ""Holy Moly, did you see those DINOSAURS!!"" There are DINOSAURS here! But for some reason the only thing the people can come up with to make a buck is to take Kong to a vaudeville stage...If I were Joe-Bob Briggs I would be scoring this movie according to its B-Movie collection of Tyrannosaurus-foo, machine-gun-foo, giant slug-foo, giant gorilla-fu, etc. etc. etc. And at the end of this movie that's what I was thinking. What started as a promising story descends into a B-Movie slop-fest. What was most disappointing is that there was no resolution with nearly any of the main characters -- not that I need to be spoon-fed like a child on every little plot point, but the characters who were so painstakingly fleshed out at the story's beginning were left floating in space at the end, with no rhyme or reason to it -- they had almost no dialogue, instead staring teary-eyed into the camera for too long, stupidly running around the city in ad- nauseum action sequences, or popping in and out of unnecessary montages.In the end, this movie, like Kong, fell from a great height. Too bad I won't be seeing it again, or recommending it to my friends. I'll also be leery of Jackson's future works. Hopefully he'll go back to making The Hobbit.","['21', '48']" +1394,rw1242949,kyra84,King Kong (2005),1.0,A film-maker goes to an uncharted island and discovers a fantastic creature.,20 December 2005,0,"There was nothing redeeming about this movie. The perfect example of film-making gluttony, King Kong was full of senseless gore, disturbing violence, bad acting, cheesy slow-motion shots and topped off by a terrible script. This movie was three-hours too long and destroyed the good name of the most classic B-movie ever. One can overlook the obvious flaws in the movie (Why is it that all of the creatures on the island seem to be predators?) but one cannot overlook the excruciating three hours of death after death after violent death. No, Carl Denham, twas not beauty killed the beast, but rather beast that killed the beauty.","['24', '46']" +1395,rw1250555,wrbtu,King Kong (2005),,One of the funniest jungle movies of all-time,29 December 2005,0,"I read several media reviews, saw the commercials (which did worry me a bit), saw the IMDb ratings, & then fully expected to see a great blockbuster of a movie. Wrong! It was completely idiotic, poorly filmed (unless you like the ""choppy is art"" look), poorly edited, poorly computerized. The Fay Wray substitute (Naomi Watts) is homely & can't act. The Bruce Cabot substitute is completely miscast (Adrien Brody, an excellent actor, in an amazing casting coupe, probably accepted the role because it will be the only time in his career that he gets to play an action-hero!); Brody plays the part of a screen-writer (not a seaman, as Cabot did), & has the build of Ichabod Crane, but is capable of scaling a 300 foot rock cliff, etc. The Robert Armstrong substitute (as the film-maker) was one of the better aspects of this 2005 film. Even the special effects were not too good for the most part (the gorilla kept changing size & overall the film was much too cartoonish looking), although Kong was very well-done at times. Fully comparable to the 1976 version in most ways. Here's one of the funniest parts: Kong holds Watts in his hand, then proceeds to fight not one, not two, but three T- Rexes, with one hand!! He's impervious to their bites, doesn't bleed, & of course, handily wins the battle without once putting Watts down! Excessive? Yes! Appealing to the Video Game Generation? Of course! In another great comedy scene, a guy who has never used a machine gun before uses it to kill giant bugs who are attacking & attached to humans, without so much as nicking a human! And that's not even the unbelievable part; the unbelievable part is that he does it with his eyes closed! And this is described in certain circles as ""more realistic"" than the original! It closely copies scenes & plot devices from Jurassic Park, Spider Man, Lord of the Rings, Indiana Jones, & several other films, but fails to meet the high standards of the films it copies. At the risk of seeming derivative, however, the one film it's hesitant to copy is the 1933 version of King Kong. The overall drudgery of 187 minutes of highly repetitious material makes this a borderline intolerable experience. If Clockwork Orange were to be re-made, this would be the film they use to make the Malcolm McDowell character vomit on viewing it. I'm a big jungle movie fan, & I can safely say that King Kong 2005 ranks right up there with ""Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death""  & any Jungle Jim film, as one of the funniest jungle movies I've ever seen, but unfortunately, King Kong not played for laughs. In the days of Jungle Jim, we were supposed to believe that the guy in the gorilla suit was a real gorilla, no matter how little sense it made. Likewise, Director Jackson expects us to believe the most unbelievable & absurd scenarios. They could have saved a lot of money if they had just gotten the old gorilla suit out of mothballs. In summary, for when it comes out on DVD, I recommend King Kong 2005 if you need to play a film in your DVD player while vacuuming the whole house & then painting three rooms with 12+ foot ceilings (without a ladder or paintbrush extension), or mowing your lawn with a hand clipper (you'll get back inside in time to see the ending), or even while preparing & eating dinner in a different room (preferably at a friend's house out-of-state). Other than that, a big waste of your money & a bigger waste of your time.","['13', '27']" +1396,rw1240784,shanfloyd,King Kong (2005),9.0,Absolutely entertaining... Jackson at his best again.,17 December 2005,0,"Well, Peter Jackson has created another masterpiece when it comes to visual treats. Astonishing CGI effects, smart screenplay, some really memorable action sequences (my personal favorite is the 'dinosaur alley'), fine humour (especially within the Kong-Darrow relationship) and satisfactory performances by Watts, Brody and Black should make this film really burst in box office. In this version, Kong is nothing but a mega-sized gorilla acted by a man who has studied primate behavior for years. Ah well, that shows.The shooting locations of the Skull Island are very similar to that of Lord of the Rings. Moreover, the similar style of cinematography and the use of colour somehow generated a feeling that maybe Skull Island is a part of Middle Earth. But that doesn't mean it's a drawback to the film. Jackson also created a flavour of this film's own. It's three hours long, but never one could actually sense it, thanks to the taut storyline. No doubt, ""King Kong"" is this year's most entertaining film.","['1', '8']" +1397,rw1240369,derazz@hotmail.com,King Kong (2005),8.0,A Great and Exhiliarating Movie,17 December 2005,1,"This is a brilliant, adrenalin pumping movie. i caught it yesterday at a theater here. you will love the detail, the passion that went into creating the movie. The Skull island action sequences with the search party that went out to rescue Ann -(Naomi Watts), keeps you totally at the edge of your seat.As a Jurrassic park fan plus one who happens to own a directors cut copy for the original 1933 classic DVD release of Kong, i have to say that these sequences were brilliantly conceived!! The ring-side action between Kong and the T-Rexes in my eyes catapulted this film from just a classic film remake of a memorable childhood film, to a film on a level completely of its own. it raises the bar to a whole new level of definition for adventure & action-sequence detail.honestly, the thought that went into this film, the camera angles, the story telling bit, the light, the emotion it stirs up in one et cetera...is staggering.For these reasons alone i'd grant the film a 10 out of 10.so why 8 out of 10 then?well, it was agonizing, the way Kong was taken out.The way in which the lights in his eyes were doused. He was a sitting duck. I suppose my emotional anguish for Kong's inevitable predicament atop the Empire State is personal and that the film makers meant to inspire empathy for the impending plight of the larger than life big ape all throughout the film. Still, it was hard to watch him corner himself & still show so much heroic presence of mind, care and attention towards Ann in the face of the spitfire style fate which awaited him. His eyes were so communicative..., it was like they were saying ,"" you woman, now look at the fine mess you've gotten us into again!"" i suppose for me, the meaning of it all is captured most aptly by the old Arabian proverb: ""And lo, the beast looked upon the face of beauty, and beauty stayed his hand. And from that day forward, it was as one dead...""","['1', '8']" +1398,rw1238265,raouldys7,King Kong (2005),10.0,"Visually Stunning. Dramatically Amazing. All in All, Beautiful!",14 December 2005,0,"Wow! And i didn't expect it. I mean, to deliver a remake on what is considered a landmark in cinema history. But why not. Sorry to say, nostalgia doesn't rule, as far as i'm concerned, and although i appreciate the significance of the 1933 original, that ape is the fake-st looking piece of puppet i've ever seen- and that's being generous- i mean damn- releasing that movie today, it would seem totally unrealistic- although it wasn't for audiences back in 1933- still i greatly respect that film, but seriously, one cannot watch it today without being completely skeptic.Its 2005! And thank-you Peter Jackson for creating a masterpiece of a film, better than the original film(s)- the version released in the 1970s was absolute rubbish- that has state of the art stunning visuals and a powerful dramatic storyline and message(a bit overdone now, but one we need to be told over and over again, since it never seems to sink in with all the chaos on the planet). I was in tears at the end of the film, and 187 minutes was just the right amount of time needed to capture the movie- nothing was missing and nothing needed to be left out.Acting is of course better today than it was 70 or even 30 years ago. Naomi Watts gives an Oscar worthy portrayal of Ms Ann Darrow - Faye Dunaways' claim to fame. the move is cast perfectly- Jack Black and Adrien Brody both excellent- and especially Jack Black, finally given a role where we can truly appreciate what a great actor he is.The Dinosaurs i have to comment on. Wow- they definitely outdo Spielbergs' creation (with respect- Jurassic Park is one of my favourite films) The showdown Between Kong and the V-Rexs should go down as one of the greatest CG achievement in history.The Highlight of the film is of course the showdown between Kong and the Aeroplane fighters at the top of the Empire State Building, where the tragic beast goes plummeting to his doom- very sad indeed. And tragic he is- not a monster. The message is brought across so well, especially in the last line of the film uttered by Jack Black- ""It was Beauty that killed the Beast."" And ultimately it was- his love for her led to his doom.I may be ending off on a bit of an anti-climatic note, but i have to comment on Jackson's recreation of Depression-era New York- perfect and absolutely believable. A history lesson, if anything else. Now, all in all, Beautiful. a well deserved 10/10!","['2', '17']" +1399,rw1240486,tcooper5,King Kong (2005),5.0,What's the big deal?,17 December 2005,0,"This would have been a much better movie with proper editing. Instead, we're treated to the self-indulgent bloat of a 3 hour movie than could have easily been pared down to a more sensible 2 hours.Essentially, the movie can be split into three parts: the opening in NYC; the island; and the return to NYC.I've heard critics justifying this movie's first ""act,"" stating it was essential to ""character development."" You've got to be kidding me, right? *What* character development? Anyone who tells me that Naomi Watt's character, Jack Black's character or Adrien Brody's character is *developed* needs to get out of the house more often, or at very least *read* a little more.How are these characters complex in any way? Mind you, I have no problem that they aren't complex. This is eye candy, after all, and eye candy only. Just don't try to pawn it off as anything else. Tolstoy this isn't.Shave off twenty minutes in the first act, ten on the island (though the island scenes were the only truly brilliant thing about the film, especially the ""insect grotto""), and ten at the end and you have yourself a much, much better movie that would rank as 7 stars.","['23', '49']" +1400,rw1186985,parkmate,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,Yearing to see it again,4 October 2005,0,"I can tell you it is beautiful, funny, heartbreaking and the UK version leaves you aching to see it again......and again......and again.The distributors in the US rather patronisingly IMO decided to give what us Brits and I'm sure most intelligent Yanks would call a Hollywood Ending and much as I will enjoy seeing it in the deleted scenes part of the DVD I am glad it's not on our edit. I was lucky enough to see a Q & A where Joe & Keira both agreed that the UK version felt right. They even went to the trouble of re-shooting the ending to see if they could make the Hollywood one work but were still not satisfied. I hope that's not too much info. Joe Wright and Deborah Moggach have truly understood the medium of film (as opposed to TV serial drama) and distilled a wonderful story running at just over two hours from a richly textured book in such a way that stuns belief. You know there are tons of things left out but you really don't miss them. Joe said he was sad they couldn't afford to cover any of Jane's trip to London but it doesn't spoil the story. It feels totally complete. The cinematography is beautiful both from the colour and texture point of view and also the intimacy of close-ups on long lenses. Some shots are immensely complicated but they make them look so easy. I'm sure you've all read that this is very much concentrating on the view from Elizabeth Bennet's eyes and this actually gives rise to enormous humour. It is not observational (as you so often find in costume drama), it is personal and intimate. I am so NOT a Keira fan but she does lend herself to this character beautifully and I do have to remind myself that she is so very young still and really does give a performance that shows experience and maturity (of technique - I'm not saying she appears too old for the part!). Matthew Macfadyen is wonderful and the way he is directed is so clever. For the first third of the film when Lizzie has dismissed him in her mind he is always just out of focus, wandering around in the background stealing glances of her and turning away as soon as she looks like she might see him. I am sure that Matthew's dialogue could be condensed to no more than 15 pages of script but in the way that so few actors are able, he coveys 20 more pages with a few moves of facial muscle or something in his gait. I would say that 60 per cent of his storyline is communicated without words and this is where Matthew is so incredible. He leaves you aching to help him. His Darcy is so vulnerable, so confused and so inadequate to the task of unravelling his emotions. He really does not know what to do with himself. He has such huge responsibilities which he takes so seriously and yet he is bewitched by this woman and lacks the experience to cope with it. The sadness in Matthew's eyes as he struggles to work out what he can do next to win her over (or even just contrive to look at her for five seconds) is so heart wrenching. The way his voice catches when he DOES have the chance to talk to her. This enormous great man, in both stature and standing, seems so very tiny in her presence. I can't finish this without giving huge mention to the pitch perfect performance (a lot of alliteration for an anxious anchorwoman - name that film!) of Tom Hollander. He almost steals the film and I had the uncontrollable shoulder shaking giggles at one of his scenes. I could tell you the best bits but they will be real spoilers. I envy anyone who is looking forward to seeing this for the first time. I keep telling people who have reservations about seeing the film exactly how funny it is and they immediately think I mean 'unintentionally funny'. It is SO intentionally funny and it's not like a regular costume drama at all. It's so tactile and enveloping.","['24', '42']" +1401,rw1224057,timothy-mcgarry,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,"Strong writing, direction and the acting of Keira Knightly make this a marvelous retelling of the Jane Austen story.",24 November 2005,0,"This was an exhilarating movie to watch. Much of the credit goes to very intelligent direction, including fluid tracking shots and long takes that put viewers in the action (a ball sequence early in the film was especially effective). A concise script keeps the story moving in a compelling way. The single greatest source of exhilaration, however, was the performance of Keira Knightley, who brings one of the most attractive heroines in English literature, Elizabeth Bennet, incandescently to life. Knightley captures Lizzie's intelligence, wit, fierce pride and passionate nature perfectly and gives the most mesmerizing performance by an actress that I have seen in some time. This is the story of a woman who is acutely conscious of the limitations placed on women by the age in which she lives and who is very skeptical in her view of men, yet who is also capable of profound passion. Knightley and the others involved in bringing this most recent version of ""Pride and Prejudice"" to the screen make watching Elizabeth Bennet's fate unfold intensely interesting and pleasurable.","['4', '7']" +1402,rw1226545,lgwilson,Pride & Prejudice (2005),3.0,Annoying Ruin of Jane Austen's Classic,28 November 2005,0,"This version of ""Pride and Prejudice"" is utterly boring, and from the first moments of the film, the characters are annoying and charmless. The giggling girls are enough to make you want to run from the theater screaming.There is no pride in the character playing Mr. Darcy, and he seems completely dull.And Keira Knightly? She's lovely, but that doesn't take much talent nor does it make a film. Her acting here is dreadful — her first role that made me cringe.Pass on this one and rent the BBC version with Colin Firth.","['7', '14']" +1403,rw1174003,claireems,Pride & Prejudice (2005),6.0,Do not expect to be enthralled with this mild and 'aimable' version of Pride and Prejudice,17 September 2005,0,"A new screen version of the universally loved and favourite Jane Austen book is always bound to have a hard time with the critics. Pride and Prejudice, with the heroine, Lizzie Bennet (played by Keira Knightley), has to be compared with the book and also with the early 90's BBC adaption. The makers have tried hard, but this Pride and Prejudice is just not as good as the Colin Firth BBC TV Series. Despite being well adapted to fit a fairly long novel into a two hour production, the film lacks the dynamics and feelings which should be evoked by the tale. The chemistry between Lizzie and Mr Darcy (Matthew MacFadyen) is not believable. The Mr Darcy of this version is not seen often enough on screen and therefore his character is not so developed and loved by the viewers. Mr Darcy was portrayed as wooden, instead of shy. Other characters were wonderfully portrayed, such as Mr Collins, who was played with such empathy to the disastrous little man vying for Lizzie's affections. Keira Knightley was very good in the film, and honestly played Lizzie with a modern twist to her character and to the film. Donald Sutherland, playing (Mr Bennet), however was a disappointment, whose character was not developed and did not seem to be well cast.Now to the actual film... As I've mentioned before, the film was well adapted and the scenes were lively and energetic. However, the whole film was very Hollywood and clichéd. An example is Darcy's first proposal to Lizzie in the pouring rain, as well as the image of Darcy striding up to Elizabeth from the mist of the moors at the end. The love scenes were also not gripping and believable. Personally, I did not feel like I was watching the best sexual tension moments of all time.All in all, Pride and Prejudice is worth the watch, just to see a new version of the book. However, it is not the amazing and wonderful film which some may be hoping for. I think that those, like me, who are in love with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle and their story, should stay true to that version!","['10', '21']" +1404,rw1252989,Quicksand,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,"Wonderful Moments, Both Big and Small",2 January 2006,0,"There's really nothing negative to say about the film. The actors are perfectly cast, the direction is subtle and well-realized, and even a shade more cinematic than I would have expected, or than it needed to be. The moment, early in the film, when Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy are arguing while dancing, and as they look at each other, everyone else in the room disappears... emotional, cinematic, and brilliant. Soft little touches like this, throughout the film, make it work far better than some dry BBC version of any Jane Austen book.Yes yes, I'm male, and I enjoy a good car chase and explosion as much as the next guy. Tragically, there was none of that in this movie, but I'll get over it. Ladies, you'll want to watch this movie over and over. And guys, trust me: Even if this movie isn't your ""thing,"" if you take your date to this one, you're in good shape.Ten of Ten, and that's after I saw the Bollywood ""Bride and Prejudice"" not too long ago. That one was fun, but this version had the emotional impact, camera-work and staging that seemed to do Ms. Austen the most justice. Wonderful moments both big and small.","['12', '16']" +1405,rw1214395,sevy_green,Pride & Prejudice (2005),4.0,Did think of Colin...,12 November 2005,0,"I have not read the book and was aware of a BBC TV Series version until reading the comments here. Didn't know Colin Firth played Darcy either.But, I still found the movie below potential. When leaving the movie theater, disappointed, I thought it would have been a much better movie if Colin Firth (!) played Darcy, if Keira giggled less and instead acted, if the storyline was better established... Sucn an unfulfilled potential. It is a great love story. Could have been better.","['5', '10']" +1406,rw1174807,jondent21,Pride & Prejudice (2005),6.0,"My comments are partisan, but with good reason.",18 September 2005,0,"I have read the book and seen the BBC version. I went expecting much what I got, but had not completely written it off.First things first. It is a difficult task to reduce the book to a two hour film; really it is. I shall return to this point later.Cast: Mrs Bennett was nowhere near as good as Alison Steadman's version, who was one of the two star performances of the BBC version. Steadman has been accused of being a caricature in the BBC version. Indeed, this is what Austin's book commands of Mrs Bennett.Second, the other star of the BBC version was Mr Collins. Enough said about the new Mr Collins the better. Surely, he isn't a man that a girl would wish to marry and he is annoying - but that is where it ends. It should go much further than this. He should be utterly repulsive, as he is in the BBC version.Third, Mr Bingley - drab and too silly. Forth, the sisters - not silly enough, just annoying. Lydia in particular, fails. Mary is better than the BBC version.In general I did not like Mr Bennett, but where this film does do better than the BBC version is the final scene between Mr Bennett and Elizabeth, which here is better-scripted and acted.Dudy Dench, good as she is, was not correctly cast I feel. Judy plays such roles well, but she is too famous to play such a small role well. When one sees such famous faces it takes a while to accept them to the film and stop seeing them as themselves. Judy does not have time to do this. So whilst the BBC's choice of actor could be improved upon, the script does not allow it.And it is the script that I have most issue with. It fails on every count. The director does a good job of condensing the story to a film script, but this film should not be, as the book is not, about Elizabeth and some Mr Darcy meeting and eventually falling in love after some initial Pride and Prejudice. It should create an atmosphere and tell a story of society in addition. It should be acute in human observation. It should be everything that this film is not. I am afraid that the criticism is a damning one. Many money-making films are filmed for that reason and succeed because they prey on the fickle emotions of their audience. This film should have done much more than that but did not, and, in my opinion, did not obviously try to.Kiera is perfectly good as Elizabeth given that I am generally no fan. On the other hand I am a fan of Matthew, but he fails somewhat as Darcy. I saw him as sexually in need and not proud enough. In fairness, none of his character's failings were his own but of the script (or lack thereof).Elizabeth was given no reason to hate Mr Darcy so much. Indeed, apart from one comment he made about her being ""tolerable"", he was clearly in love with her every time he appeared, and the only negative thing she heard about him was that he did not give a living to someone his father wished one for: hardly a reason to hate the man with the passion she apparently did.To conclude, I said earlier that it was a difficult task to reduce this to a film. All that I could ask myself as I sat and watched, was why? This film should not have been made. The only possible motive for its manufacture is surely one of finance, which irks me.If you have not seen the BBC version and, or, read the book, then you will likely enjoy this film to some extent; though perhaps not consider it a must-buy. If you have seen the BBC version, then by all means go and see this film, if only to re-establish your appreciation of the former.","['11', '23']" +1407,rw1211361,amberlein,Pride & Prejudice (2005),1.0,Could Jane Austen be any more slap-dash?,8 November 2005,0,"I'm a huge fan of Jane Austen's Pride & Prejudice and was really looking forward to the remake. But what a slip-shod affair it turned out to be! Vital story lines excluded and improvised dialogues inserted at will, no continuity or factual correctness regarding the locations (does Joe Wright even know where Derbyshire is?) or the style of life back then (Bingley walking in on Jane IN BED?).Kiera Knightley left me speechless at her complete lack of acting talent, especially alongside Judy Dench and Donald Sutherland. Rosamund Pike was also very well cast but those were the highlights of the film. There was little emotion, the whole discussion surrounding pride and prejudice was absent...Mr Darcy looked ""vexed"" but little more. Definitely NOT proud.If the BBC does something, then they do it damn well. Why try to make a Hollywood rehash of it? Did Joe Wright even read the book beforehand? He certainly hasn't seemed to have understood it. All in all, an insult to British cultural heritage.","['33', '69']" +1408,rw1202881,apache60,Pride & Prejudice (2005),8.0,Utterly charming and beautiful to watch! Loved it!,27 October 2005,0,"I loved the 1995 version of Pride and Prejudice and cannot tell you how many times I have watched it, so I wasn't sure how I would receive this new version. I found it utterly charming and just beautiful to watch. I loved how it took a different approach with many scenes from the 1995 version. Joe Wright has directed it beautifully - the opening scenes where it meanders through the Bennet house and the ball at Netherfield are a delight. I thought Keira Knightley made Lizzie her own and Matthew MacFayden as Mr. Darcy is brilliant. I wasn't sure about him at first but he really grew on me at the film progressed. He has very expressive eyes! The rest of the cast are also a delight especially Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet. I have to admit that I have now seen the movie twice and I enjoyed it even more the second time. Can't wait for the DVD!","['2', '4']" +1409,rw1193277,ysic2,Pride & Prejudice (2005),1.0,What a shame.,14 October 2005,1,"Sorry to say but was disappointed in the film. It was very very rushed, as I suppose you can understand a movie length version of Pride & Prejudice would be and I felt that a lot of the major scenes were glossed over just to get through the story. As the movie is so rushed, unfortunately you don't get to really know about and feel for each of the characters much at all. Not only that, this movie is Boring. I say that with a capital B. 1/3 of the way through I started yawning and couldn't wait for the movie to be over. As I have read the book and watch the BBC version, I knew how many scenes had to go, before I could finally leave the cinema. Mr Darcy whoever he is in this movie, definitely can't act. He looks also too young to play Mr Darcy. Every word that comes out of his mouth is rushed like he needs to get through the script or something. Where is the build up? At first, he seems confused with everything. He is just bizarre! It all looks put on. Was trying not to compare to the Colin Firth version but if you love that version, you will most likely be disappointed anyway.The costumes are absolutely shocking. Where are the corsets? I know Elizabeth is poor, but I think she still knows how to dress as some sort of ladylike fashion, and hasn't been brought up in a squaller. Her dresses indicates she might be the poorest peasant in all of England.I didn't agree with a couple of scenes in the movie in the fact, that I don't think it would be considered proper in that society for men to do such things, honestly Mr Bingley who has wealth should know better. There is some things that are said that sound too modern for the period this movie is set in, and not at all like Jane Austen. Bingley's character is shockingly donee, to me he behaves like a simpleton, not a character to like and respect. What about that laugh of his!!! I Wickham hardly has a presence and Mr & Mrs Hurst and a couple of other characters have no presence at all. Keira did okay, but it just ain't the same.","['149', '248']" +1410,rw1169653,anja-doll,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,a fresh surprise!,11 September 2005,0,"come on, a movie without flaws just doesn't exist, and this one has some minor ones too, BUT!!! beyond all the thousand words, its a reminder of the true delicacy of love, and of the dream of the belief in romantic love. Quite an undertaking these days, where we all are so spoiled by having seen everything already...Another praise for the excellent choice of music, which sometimes is gently layered of e.g. piano-soundtrack, and someone humming or playing a different tune on the piano. I feel, its not overused as so often, nor replaces or blows up anything, but illustrates the inner landscapes with just another array of colours, matching those of the photography.Its fun, sexy in understated and unexpected ways, humorous, and well paced, ""to breathe the sunrise is to truly open your heart"". A lovely, fresh, entertaining surprise of movie-fruit, that leaves you with a smile on your face, once the tears of joy you've shared with Donald Sutherland have subsided. ;-) Anja","['51', '95']" +1411,rw1214556,ejnewton,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Two stubborn people ... mad at each other or mad for each other?,12 November 2005,0,"Beautifully filmed, fine attention to detail, subtle musical score, excellent performances, very moving. The hand held camera work is engaging in the festive ballroom scenes and engages the viewer. The lighting is exceptional--from dark candle-lit interiors to the brightness of full sun, the lighting is Oscar worthy. It really brings the reality of 19th century England closer to one's reality and imagination. The film has a somewhat different interpretation than previous versions of the classic novel. Keira Knightley's smile is very engaging. Matthew MacFadyen's performance as Darcy is brooding and understated, but manages to convey the depth of his feelings. I commend the direction by Joe Wright. The English countryside looks lovely as usual. Judy Dench is good, but her presence in every period English movie is beginning to seem a bit cliché. I enjoyed the movie from beginning to end. Best film I've seen this year.","['4', '8']" +1412,rw1221773,kellymt99,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,It leaves you incandescently happy.,21 November 2005,0,"Pride and Prejudice is by far my favorite novel. Jane Austen is an amazing author and Elizabeth Bennet is my favorite character of all time. When I heard that a movie was being made I was a bit skeptical. The TV mini series was amazing and Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy was breathtaking. Needless to say I had a lot of reservations about the movie. While the movie is only a bit over two hours long it gives audiences what they want. A love story that is perfect in every way. Matthew Macfadyen is a fabulous Darcy. Keira Knightley continues to impress me movie after movie. I now see her as Elizabeth Bennet. You will not leave this movie disappointed, you will leave this movie incandescently happy. I think I will go see it again, yeah I am so seeing it again.","['1', '2']" +1413,rw1217920,maxmik,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Keira Knightley finally arrives,16 November 2005,0,"Keira Knightley finally takes over as THE leading lady of her generation: look out Reese, Renee, Gweneth, etc. Keira is going to leave you in her dust. Reminiscent of a young Audrey Hepburn with the acting chops of Katherine Hepburn - Ms. Knightley more than carries this 2 hour movie - she takes the reins in her teeth and rides with it. Supported by an excellent supporting cast including Judi Dench, Donald Sutherland, Brenda Blethyn, Tom Hollander - all are worthy of Oscar nominations. It's been a long time since Albert Finney did the same feat in Tom Jones - where a period piece actually comes alive before your eyes. And the direction, photography and sets are all first rate. Much has been made of the leading man Mathew MacFadyan a relative unknown and he has been unfairly compared to Lawrence Olivier and Colin Firth. But I think with further viewings purists will come to accept his Darcy as very good. Expect this move to be in everyone's Top Ten lists of 2005","['3', '5']" +1414,rw1224366,michkiddies,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,Pride and Prejudice,25 November 2005,1,"Okay. I was fully prepared to dislike this movie. I have the 1995 A&E Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth version that I've seen hundreds of times. I really feel that has to be one of the best Austen adaptations ever.When I heard Keira Knightly was going to be in this version, I was like, ""WHAT??"" I'd never really seen her act in anything remarkable. She is very pretty, and that is about it. Actually I thought she might be TOO pretty for the role. In Austen's version Elizabeth is slightly less pretty than her ""beautiful"" older sister. But not stunning.However, I was really surprised by how much I loved this movie. Knightly is a bit more raw in this than other movies. She is gangly, flat-chested--not perfect. Which is actually a good thing. And casting Macfadyen was amazing. I wasn't sure how he would work out either. Another good thing that he has rugged good looks. Not those of some Hollywood hearthrob.The cinematography, direction, lighting, beautiful score and acting really came together well.It really zipped along, but I was amazed at how well they stuck with Austen's vision. I know some purists totally disagree. But this is a movie adaptation. It is NOT going to be exactly like the book. They do have to entertain folks who have not read the book afterall.The things I liked were: I took my 13-year old daughter along (dragged actually). She actually understood the humor and laughed along in many parts. I really liked how humorous this adaptation was.The countryside was lovely. And I liked how in this version they clearly displayed the difference in the Bennett wealth (or lack thereof) and the wealth of Darcy and Lady Catherine. The A&E version was not as clear on this. The Bennetts had a lovely smaller home in the A&E version--but you didn't really understand the lack of wealth per se. This movie version also clearly conveys that they live on a FARM--not some nice estate.The sensual scenes were just HOT. Amazing how they could convey sexual tension without overt advances, etc. You could cut the tension of the proposal rain scene with a KNIFE it was so hot. Darcy could barely keep his hands off her or contain himself. And then you see that Elizabeth feels it too despite herself. And afterwards, I think she realizes she may have made a mistake blowing him off like she did.The last couple of scenes had me practically choked up. More than the A&E version. The way Darcy's voice broke was just an amazing acting interpretation of how he must have been feeling.I thought this Darcy (Macfadyen)was more sympathetic than the Colin Firth Darcy. Even though Firth nailed that version amazingly. You could see a little more emotion in the eyes of this current Darcy. He had to really punch the emotional bullet since he only had a couple of hours to show us who he was.The only complaints I guess I had were I wish it had been longer. Which is not realistic. It is a movie and not a television adaptation with many parts. They left a lot of Wickham out of this movie which was probably a slight detriment. However, I thought there was a bit too much of him in the A&E version anyway. It was like ""enough already--we GET that he is a cad!!"" So I didn't really mind.Also, Bingley was a tad bit buffoonish in this version. I know he is supposed to be a sweet guy. But I don't think he is supposed to be a feeble minded dork. But even he didn't bother me too much.Mr. Collins was utterly hilarious. Much funnier than the A&E version. In that version you almost wanted to hit him with a fly swatter. This version was just funny.And Dame Judy Dench was one ferocious Lady Catherine. You really saw how Darcy might have faced some embarrassment himself of how some of his own relatives displayed rudeness and overt judgement of others.I am thrilled to get the chance to see a movie that believes viewers are smart. And not just idiots who need to be slammed with special effects and moronic dialogue. The dumbing down of television and movies is obscene!! This restores my faith in cinema (for now......) Yes I am going to see it again. FOR SURE","['15', '23']" +1415,rw1227535,slainte83,Pride & Prejudice (2005),1.0,Thank goodness many agree with me,29 November 2005,0,"I am a great lover of Austen's works, especially Pride & Prejudice. The 1995 miniseries is so faithful to the novel its astounding. The actors are well chosen, there isn't modernized language thrown in, and each emotion is handled well. You can't help having your heart skip a beat when Elizabeth and Darcy finally realize they both love each other. You hate Caroline Bingley and Mrs Hurst. But in this latest adaption, its hard to swallow. There is no Mrs. Hurst. The Bennett family look much poorer than they are. Elizabeth walks/dresses/acts in a manner so against what women of that time would. Yes, Elizabeth Bennet is unconventional, but more in the fact that she is not afraid to express her opinions. She is, however, socially capable and proper in the way she carries herself, dresses, etc. In this, Keira walks around in cruddy clothes, and acts as though she should be down on the farm in the Midwestern USA. The scene where Elizabeth and Darcy ""can't sleep"" drove me insane. SHe would never walk out in that! The scene where Bingley just enters Jane's room as well...he would never have done that! If you haven't read the novel or seen the 1995 adaption, you'd probably love this movie. But those who love the novel or love the adaption (or both) will be very disappointed. Why there was a need to adapt this novel again, I don't know. I have nothing left to say. I know Austen would be very unhappy should she be able to see this latest movie.","['53', '89']" +1416,rw1190586,pmxjefg,Pride & Prejudice (2005),7.0,A good film.... but not the best P&P adaptation,10 October 2005,1,"It was always going to be difficult to make Pride and Prejudice into a two-hour long film; on the whole, I thought this production made a decent stab at it - but I still prefer the BBC version.The standard of the acting is generally quite high. For me, the standout performance was by Rosamund Pike as Jane. This may sound odd, as she only has a fairly small role, but I think this is one of the most difficult characters to play - nice, quiet and apt to think well of everybody, she could all too easily come across as a complete drip. In the BBC series, I always felt Susannah Harker's Jane was so serene you weren't sure if there was anything going on beneath the surface, but here Jane has some of Lizzie's intelligence and liveliness (whilst being less sure of herself), which makes their relationship as sisters more convincing. Keira Knightley acquits herself well as Lizzie - she certainly looks much more like my idea of the character than Jennifer Ehle did. However, I'm not sure she delivers the lines so well - she is apt to seem sharp and almost peevish, whereas Ehle in my view hit exactly the right note, teasing and amused by the follies of others, without being cruel. Darcy on the other hand, does not come across so well - admittedly, it's a difficult role, as he has almost nothing to say for the first half of the film - but he looks dead behind the eyes, and you don't feel any interest in him as a character at all.Brenda Bletheyn and Donald Sutherland provide adequate support as Mr and Mrs Bennet, but don't reach the high standards of Alison Steadman and Benjamin Whitrow from the BBC series. A conscious decision seems to have been taken to make Mrs Bennet more sympathetic and less hysterical - at one point she basically explains to camera that she needs to get her daughters married to ensure their financial security - but I think this point was clear enough anyway, with the background to Mr Collins' visit. Instead, we lose much of the comedy of the character - and it ends up seeming rather unjust of Mr Darcy to accuse her of any want of propriety! Another consequence is that we also lose the feeling of a special bond between Lizzie and her father, as the rational beings in a house of frivolous, empty-headed women. Of the other characters, very little can be said, as they're on screen for so short a time. Wickham almost completely vanishes - and when he runs away with Lydia, we don't really understand what the fuss is about. Tom Hollander has a couple of nice comic moments as Mr Collins, but is given too few lines to express the character's verbose self-importance, and similar difficulties afflict Judi Dench's Lady Catherine. The worst case though is Mr Bingley, who just comes across as an incredibly irritating, upper-class twit.My biggest issue with this film was the writing - one of the great joys of Austen is her elegant, lively dialogue - but here, modern phrases have been added, which jar horribly on the ear by comparison. I think the worst example was when Charlotte Lucas yelled at Lizzie, 'Don't you dare judge me!' after informing her of her engagement to Mr Collins, though perhaps Mr Darcy's use of the word 'relationship' in his first proposal was nearly as bad. The visual style of the film is quite unexpected for an Austen adaptation, and makes you think the director had confused the book with other great works of literature. Certainly, when pigs started wandering through the Bennet's house, I began to wonder whether I was watching 'Pride and Prejudice' or 'Far from the Madding Crowd', and Darcy's proposal in the pouring rain, and Elizabeth's rock climbing in the Peak District, seemed unnecessarily Bronte-esquire. However, these (rather pretentious) quibbles aside, it should be said that the film looks gorgeous, and I particularly liked the way they captured the lively, rough and ready atmosphere of the country ball, which contrasted well with the refinement of Bingley's party.My criticisms of this film, then, are that it is shorter and takes a more modern (or less reverent) approach to the material than the BBC adaptation - which would probably be recommendations to all but the most devoted fans of the book. The generally high quality of the acting and beautiful sets and scenery elevate it above the level of most films that make it into the cinema. It's definitely worth seeing if you get the chance, but in my opinion, it's just not as good as the earlier TV version.","['5', '10']" +1417,rw1228758,clutz629,Pride & Prejudice (2005),6.0,A giggling Elizabeth?,1 December 2005,0,"This movie was a fairly good interpretation of Jane Austen's novel. HOWEVER. Elizabeth played by K. Knightley was a terrible mistake. While I think she is a terrific actress, she did not represent the intelligent, bright, and thoughtful Elizabeth Bennet we have all come to admire in Pride and PRejudice. She was just like all the sisters, giggling, smiling too much, licking her fingers (in a Jane Austen movie?) and displayed a harshness and a mean disposition against her mother and the captain. It is completely against her character in the novel, where Elizabeth is practical, genuine, and very different than all the other women consumed by the need for a wealthy husband, which is precisely why Darcy falls in love with her. Darcy was perfect, Jane was perfect, Mr. Bennet, however was nothing of a gentleman... If you liked the book, and the movie version with Colin Firth you will be disappointed in this version, if not, you will enjoy this romantic and fairy tale like story.","['3', '5']" +1418,rw1220834,tulip4041,Pride & Prejudice (2005),,saddened and mystified,20 November 2005,1,"I was extremely frustrated and saddened by the latest version of Pride and Prejudice. I knew that it would be a challenge to capture the subtlety and humor of the story in two hours, but I was unprepared for the blatant changes in characterizations, the unforgivable paraphrases of perfectly written text, and the unexplainable alterations in scenes. It was absolutely painful to watch Darcy's first proposal to Lizzie. There was no earthly reason why the scene had to be filmed outside in the rain. I can even understand that their argument would have to be curtailed. But they gutted the scene. They paraphrased (why?) the line that cut Darcy to the core, that was the reason for his awakening, the motive for his tender questions to Lizzie at Pemberly. Lizzie is supposed to say--had you behaved in a more gentlemen-like manner...but instead, she says some inane, modern version that falls far off the mark Jane intended. Furthermore, in the absolutely awful scene at Pemberly, Darcy never asks about her family. This was the one thing that struck Lizzie the most, that he would inquire after relatives he had previously insulted. This was the first hint of his transformation... She was so confused... This careless attention to the heart of the novel continued throughout. There were so many things wrong with this movie: jerky camera action, Lady Catherine visiting in the night, the Bennets living in sloppy conditions, Lizzie and her aunt hardly connected in spirit, the girls wearing corsets, Darcy appearing more confused and shy than arrogant, Bingly as a fool, Mr Bennett having intimate conversation with Mrs. Bennett in their bedroom, the silly final proposal in the morning, Mr. Bennett's relief and pleasure when he hears about DArcy's generosity. The underdevelopment of the characters could be due to the short film, but if you hadn't read the book, you would never know that Darcy was truly arrogant (not misunderstood or lovestruck as the movie suggests). You do not really grasp Lizzie's particular love for Jane, their intimacy, their elevated standing in their father's eyes, their disinterest in the regiment. Would anyone grasp that Miss Bingley is jealous of Lizzie? The thing that upsets me the most is that people will think this is Pride and Prejudice. I even read one reviewer from a prominent paper who considered this movie the definitive P & P. I thought Keira Knightly was absolutely wonderful, the most perfect Lizzie, the only good part of the movie. When she delivered Jane's lines, she did so with great skill. Why didn't they give her more lines from the novel? Why did they water down Jane?","['6', '13']" +1419,rw1229218,terri5,Pride & Prejudice (2005),8.0,"Very enjoyable and passionate, but rapidly condensed",2 December 2005,0,"The cinematography and authentic time period setting were the two major selling points of the film. The movie was filmed so close to the action, so when combined with the commotion of day to day life, I felt as though I could slip right through the screen and into the late 1700's. There were some flaws to the time period, such as Bingley entering Jane's bedroom and what appeared to be water spouts in the Pemberley pond, but overall, a magnificent time period piece. Kiera Knightly was superb as Elizabeth - I had a difficult time finding fault with her on any front. Matthew MacFaden's Mr. Darcy was wonderful too. He was by far a different Mr. Darcy than Colin's Mr. Darcy - each of which were good in their own right, but it took me a little while to get over his sullen mood - he seemed more depressed than arrogant. He was still very desirable and his Mr. Darcy was much more passionate and interesting. The supporting cast were all delightful, but did think the director made a mistake by making Mr. Collins as sympathetic as he did. He was clearly not a sympathetic character in the novel, but the ""alone at the ball with a pathetic flower in hand"" scene elicited great sympathy. I did feel the screenplay was about as perfect as it could have been considering there are so many important sub plots that were essential to the story. Pride and Prejudice lovers would have tolerance (and desire) for a very long adaptation, so I was surprised they didn't make the movie a bit longer to prevent such a rushed story that bounced from one scene to the next. With so much dialog speeding by, it would be impossible for a person unfamiliar with the story to really understand the dynamics of what was going on. There was simply not enough communication between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth either. I was left longing for more. I did love the movie for many reasons, but wished it was about 1/2 hour longer. and p.s. I loved the gushy ending us Americans were blessed to receive! It was perfect.","['4', '7']" +1420,rw1180692,didleedee,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Pride and Prejudice short but fantastic!,26 September 2005,0,"I have been a fan of the book since I was 16 and was hooked to the BBC television series. When I saw the trailers I was desperate to see it, yet apprehensive too. Would Keira Knightley be a great Elizabeth... would Darcy be enigmatic and properly Darcyish?? So many things had to be cut(from the book) due to the time limits, but I think they did it amazingly well. They kept all the essential parts you would need to promote the Darcy Elizabeth relationship. Wickham did lose out, but I think that worked.The shooting of the film brought a really new dramatic and Romantic depth, the movement was superb..as was the excess animals around the Bennets home.The developing relationship between Darcy and Elizabeth was exhilarating. Darcy in this version was no Colin Firth, but he was wonderful all the same. As for Keira Knightley she was a superb Elizabeth, witty, proper, yet desperately human. I did come out of the cinema thinking perhaps we should all be going for long treks in the rain.My only disapointement was at the end, that after the fathers approval (and shock) at Elizabeth's attachment, the credits roll and you don't see them get together. However, for all true fans, I suppose that is left to the imagination.This is definitely one to see again and to own on DVD.","['2', '10']" +1421,rw1251893,gretlle,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,A Great Movie With Character Development,31 December 2005,0,"I admit I was skeptical about how this movie would turn out, as the book has so much rich material, and 2 hours and 7 minutes demands a lot of adaptation to cover the essence of the story; which is the problems which arise between people who pre-judge others or jump to conclusions and then proceed to characterize everything that comes later in a bad light. What a tangled mess it becomes; but what a great story watching the emotional growth of the lead characters.I thought the casting was absolutely wonderful. I have been so hooked on Colin Firth since seeing the 1995 series, that I was certain I would not like MacFadyen's character as much. But, I was wrong. He was up to the task and brought a new dimension to Darcy, that of a proud man who was socially a bit inept due to taking on a huge burden at an early age.Keira Knightly was also excellent as Lizzie Bennet. I actually liked the pairing of Knightly and MacFadyen better than Ehle and Firth. Although Jennifer Ehle was an excellent actress in the 1995 version, she appeared too old to be 20 years old and too matronly in some of her dresses to give credibility to the restrained passion of the story. I guess I preferred the youthful casting which seemed more like the book.The music score was outstanding in this version, and the dance scenes at the opening assembly were terrific.I highly recommend this version as an addition to your P&P library. Of course, I still will watch the 5 hour BBC-A&E version when I want to see the entire story and characters, plus to get refueled for my Firth addition.","['15', '25']" +1422,rw1228463,lindsaynikol15188,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,An Excellent Movie,30 November 2005,0,"I have to say that this movie was the most awesome movie I have ever seen in my entire life! Out of ten, I rate it a 100! It is a movie that all ages, of both genders, can go and see, and enjoy it. I would recommend this movie to everyone. Matthew MacFadyen is one of the most gorgeous people I've ever seen. Mr. Darcy has won my heart! I would die if I ever got the chance to meet him in person! His role as Darcy was amazing and I would love to see him more often in movies. Keira Knightley played an award winning role as Lizzy (although I wouldn't have minded being in her shoes for this movie). I have to say I was quite jealous of her in the last scene. I can't seem to stop talking about the movie with my friends, and they love it as much as I do. I can't wait for the movie to come out on DVD so I can buy it!","['4', '7']" +1423,rw1136930,Joejoesan,Pride & Prejudice (2005),7.0,Where are Colin and Hugh when you need them?,28 July 2005,1,"In 1995 the 5 hours miniseries of Pride & Prejudice, with Colin Firth as Darcy and Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth Bennet, was a big hit in England and the Netherlands. It even inspired Helen Fielding to write the Bridget Jones's novels. Therefor, whether you'll like the new 2005 movie mainly depends on the fact if you've seen the version that was done ten years ago. If you have, you'll probably be very disappointed with the Knightly movie. If you haven't, well, maybe this romantic flick may be 'amiable' enough for you.For those who aren't familiar with the story: Pride & Prejudice is a romantic costume drama that takes place in 19th century England and is based on the famous novel by Jane Austen. The story is about the Bennet family, a father, mother and five or six daughters. The only way to secure the future of the children is to marry a party that owns a lot of money. Jane, the oldest sister, is beautiful but a little icy. She hopes to marry young Bingley, a rich aristocrat who just moved to a castle nearby. Her younger sister Elizabeth, the main character of the movie, wants to help her conquer his heart, but finds out that Bingley's best friend, the rich but arrogant mister Darcy, sabotages her plans. Elizabeth and Darcy start out as enemies, but as the story progresses they both find out that their opinions of each other are based on wrong information, pride and prejudice.Let's bring the good news first. The new Pride & Prejudice is the big Keira Knightly show. Although she cannot top Jennifer Ehle's performance, Knightly proves that she has real star-power and that she is able to carry a movie. She looks lovely in this flick: she enchants you with her great smile and has the charms of a young Winona Ryder. Dame Judi Dench is excellent as Darcy's powerful aunt who is against a marriage and Donald Sutherland has a both moving and funny scene at the end of the movie when he gives permission to Darcy to marry Elizabeth. The end of the movie is actually better than the one in the miniseries. Okay, then the bad news. I guess the main flaw of this new version is Darcy himself, a role played by Matthew MacFadyen. In the story he is rather dull and generally uninterested in what's going on. It must be difficult to replace Colin Firth as leading man and the Darcy of the miniseries of course had more (screen)time to show his inner struggle. But the new Darcy is so dull that frankly you don't care if he ends up winning Elizabeth's heart or not. There is absolutely no spark between Knightly and MacFadyen. At the end of the movie they don't even kiss and as an audience you couldn't care less. But Darcy isn't the only one that seems miscast. The new mister Bingley is – despite his Jamie Oliver haircut – a real nerd, and mister Wickham, who falls in love with Elizabeth but elopes with her younger sister, lacks the depth to be an interesting villain. Because of the time-frame, the movie is less subtle than the miniseries. There's a lot to be told in two hours and because of that there is hardly any suspense. Problems rise but they are solved within minutes. But what I really missed were the great dialogs. In the miniseries heavy emotions were always masqueraded by politeness. Darcy doesn't say ""Wow, it's great to see you, Elizabeth"" but instead asks if her parents are in good health. The things that are NOT said were more interesting than the things that were indeed spoken out. The encounters between Elizabeth and Darcy always turned out to be great fights in which words and sentences were used as swords and daggers. I really missed that in the new version. Come to think of it, I also missed the humor you did see in Ang Lee's Sense & Sensibility, also based on a Jane Austen novel. Where is Hugh Grant when you need him?A friend of mine – also a journalist – really liked this movie. But he hadn't seen the Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle version from 1995. So perhaps I'm a little hard on what was presented to me last week, because the film does have its qualities.7 of out of 10","['394', '678']" +1424,rw1205317,ijclark,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,A really good adaptation of the story to film length.,31 October 2005,0,"I was interested to see how Joe Wright could fit the story into 2 hours when th 6 Hr BBC series had trouble fitting it all in, and the film has done really well - keeping the tone and mood of Jane Austen's story while making sensitive adjustments (like leaving out Bingley's married sister and her husband, changing the famous Lady de Bourgh scene in the shrubbery etc) Matthew McFadyen is Colin Firth's equal and very different so it's a pleasure to have them both. I saw the 1930's Laurence Olivier version - it was a cross between Paint Your Wagon and Gone with the Wind, and the story adaptation was astonishingly ridiculous. Still worth a look so you know what good quality is when you see Joe Wright's P&P. I liked the way Matthew McF's Darcy used haughtiness simply in order to cope with life - basically he's a shy lad, with a desperate wish to have a great woman make a man of him.... I loved Jane - just perfect. Keira was a bit light, but okay in the end. Bingley was just fine too, and Judi Dench and Donald Sutherland were superb (although Donald's teeth were a bit American bright white for an old man.) I like Caroline Wilton too.","['1', '4']" +1425,rw1193787,ehenders,Pride & Prejudice (2005),5.0,"disappointing adaption, poor casting choices.",15 October 2005,0,"As an Austen fan, I must admit that I was not really expecting a great deal from this film - and I was right to have low expectations. One of the big problems with this adaptation is time; the film absolutely races along, trying to cover the main plot devices. The dialogue made my head whirl - the characters push their lines out as if they were on a dead race to the finish line, with little emotion or connection to the material.Many of the characters were woefully miscast (Kiera Knightly as Eliza! Who ever thought this was a good idea? She pitches her entire role on the same note, and it was wincingly bad in places. She seems to have had collagen injections into her top lip, with lopsided effect - very distracting!) Mathew McF, who was terrific in My Father's Den, was awful in this role - and there was really very little chemistry between the two - even the clever device of the empty ballroom couldn't cover up the lack of spark. But it's not just these two - most of the other characters were also poorly cast - even though I appreciated the effort to make the younger sisters look their ages, they just didn't seem that interesting. Notable exceptions are Donald Sutherland and Judy Dench, and the actor playing Charolotte Lucas - they were terrific and it's a pity we didn't get to see more of them. I didn't think much of the costumes or hairstyles either - the hair styles in particular seemed quite out of period.There were a few bright spots; I liked the more realistic country notes - the dirty backyard, the pigs in the kitchen, the small table with the grabby family members. I also liked the only effort in the film to show how slowly time must have seemed to pass at times, with Eliza turning in the swing as the season passed. I also thought the choice of assembly rooms was inspired, and loved the dance and ball scenes.Overall though, this is not a film for lovers of Austen, and those who loved the BBC Colin/Jennifer adaptation will be really disappointed here.","['18', '39']" +1426,rw1186646,julieanne03,Pride & Prejudice (2005),8.0,Excellent till the last 3 minutes,4 October 2005,0,"I agree with all that was said in the previous review, but had to add my own two cents. I must make it known that I adore the 1995 mini series, and unfortunately for Matthew M, Colin Firth with always be my Mr Darcy. That said, Matthew was fantastic and did a commendable job filling Colin's daunting shoes. My only qualm with the movie comes at the end. I won't spoil it for you, but I was hoping for a much more satisfying conclusion! While the parting line was clever, it left me feeling empty, like the entire two hours I'd invested watching the movie was for nothing! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE give us an alternate ending on the DVD!! We must at least see Lizzie and Darcy together, ANYTHING!!","['3', '11']" +1427,rw1177578,pink-feathers,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,"A vibrant film, brimming with mischievous energy",22 September 2005,1,"I really didn't think this film could match up to the BBC adaptation, but I was proved resoundingly wrong when I watched it. I was surprised by the amount of detail put into it, and couldn't think of anybody better to play Elizabeth than Keira right now. She had a wonderful propensity to almost always look as though she was on the verge of smiling. The intensity of the relationship between Darcy and Elizabeth was incredibly tangible, particularly when they were dancing. Overall, a wonderful, energetic film with few faults - they even handled the cut material very well, so even though I was conscious bits were missing, it didn't detract from the story.","['7', '16']" +1428,rw1198814,psprice,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,"Intelligent, funny, faithful adaptation",22 October 2005,0,"This is a very entertaining movie, with engaging performances from all its leads. Jane Austin's wit and social observations are preserved, with some subtle but pleasing modern touches. The camera-work is superb; it is really shown to great effect in ballroom sequences, in which individual characters are in focus across crowded rooms. The atmosphere of the time is meticulously portrayed in various settings, pointing up differences in wealth and social status through many great touches (such as a mature male pig being herded through a house).My only quibble was the sound of a modern grand piano, standing in for older instruments used on camera - I thought the sound editor should have used more authentic-sounding instruments to match the beautiful visual settings.If you like period drama that keeps its sense of humour and remains true to its roots, go and see this movie. Very well done, indeed.","['3', '8']" +1429,rw1186641,Peter-Adamson,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,Spirited Modern Interpretation of Austen's Classic Love Story,4 October 2005,0,"A ""modernised"" version of Jane Austen's classic novel that should not be compared unfavourably with 1940 Hollywood Olivier / Garson version nor several BBC serials culminating in the most acclaimed TV series version from 1995 with Colin Firth & Jennifer Ehle-a personal favourite. This 2005 film clocks in 127 minutes (UK / Europe)& 135 minutes (USA & Canada) -the extended version allowing audiences to share more of the timeless love story with the main characters -Elizabeth Bennet & Mr Darcy. Director Joe Wright plus his screenwriters ( Oscar winner Emma Thompson contributed to the final screenplay) have chosen to emphasise Elizabeth Bennet / Mr Darcy plus Jane Bennet/ Mr Bingley story lines & reduce Mr Wickman, Charlotte & Mr Collins to supporting characters.Austen's famous wit,satire & humour that forms the basis for her enduring appeal (Pride & Prejudice was finally published in 1813 & continues as an annual bestseller)is sidelined to open up this version as more emotional drama for modern audiences.If you are open to a newer interpretation, can avoid comparisons to the nearly 5 hour 1995 TV version which allowed for greater depth & detail in telling all the characters story lines & accept some of the new film's rushed story lines-you are in for a treat .....New British star Keira Knightley (Elizabeth Bennet))excels in her first real leading actress role ably supported by fellow Brit Rosamund Pike (Jane Bennet) as the sisters supportive of each other's & their Bennett family problems.Knightley at 20 is the right age for her character,this allows Elizabeth's girlish personality plus her character's pride, misjudgements & loving nature to shine through....Great star turns from Brenda Blethyn as their mother Mrs Bennet plus Oscar winner Judi Dench as fearsome Lady De Bourgh (Mr Darcy's aunt)add depth to this film version.Claudie Blakley as Elizabeths's wise friend Charlotte Lucas & Simon Wood's amusing Mr Bingley are delightful supporting performers. One major surprise is Canadian actor Donald Sutherland's touching performance as Mr Bennet -capturing both the humour of living in an all female household & five daughters to look after with the poignancy of seeing his eldest children's difficult relationships develop -easily his best acting performance in years. In the difficult role of Mr Darcy rising British star Matthew Macfadyen (BBC's Spy series Spooks & Award winning New Zealand film ""In My Father's Den"" rises to the occasion.With the short running time, there is not enough time to allow Darcy's repressed & prejudiced personality to be fully represented -Macfadyen perfectly displays Darcy's social & class problems, his unfortunate attempts at gaining Eliabeth Bennet's interest & his painful adjustments to achieve their personal love story.Macfayden & Knightley's objectionable first dance,their embarrassingly moving Collins House meeting,the unexpected Pemberley encounter plus their two proposal scenes are highlights of this film. Engaging acting performances with wondrous film photography,film locations at some of United Kingdom's most famous stately homes, marvellous film sets & costumes plus one of 2005's best original music scores add greatly to this new film version. All in all one of the better films of 2005 -not perfect film making and not intended to be as subtle as Austen's novel -but a wonderful surprise with some changes to present a modern version of Pride & Prejudice for current audiences -do see this film as & when it is released worldwide....And after seeing the film or re-visiting 1995 BBC TV series -read the original novel for its classic storyline, memorable characters & Austen's brilliant writing style,wit & humour.....9 Out Of 10 for this different interpretation of an enduring classic","['373', '512']" +1430,rw1201313,peteranderson,Pride & Prejudice (2005),1.0,Awful!,25 October 2005,0,"A joke! A mockery! What was good about this? May I remind you of a certain book by Jane Austin, this book was written well and was good for the genre it was aimed at. Highly popular. Well this film managed to cut half of what was in the book out of the film! The Book and award winning novel was wrecked by this travesty of a film. The worst film I have ever seen! No following of the plot, poor acting by most of the stars baring Judi Dench. No emotion, didn't make a big impression with it's target audience or any audience. Just pathetic. A waste of time and space. Rosumand Pike loved herself far too much, Keira Knightly gave a sickening performance and should never be allowed to act again and Donald Sutherland- well, no comment! Acting classes needed for the cast and the part everyone waited for was between Lizzie and Mr Darcy, but any emotion which could have been expressed was simply thrown out of the window when MacFayden and Knightly took the roles. They didn't display and emotion, they ruined a perfectly good novel and I cannot stress enough how dreadfully sickening this film was. Highly unreccomended. I give this a one- To improve the film- A new cast who can act well. (This would get it from a one to a four) If it hits it's targets and target audience. (four to a six) If the novel is portrayed in an entertainingly good light for it's genre and target audience. (six to an eight)The above would get it an 8 if all of it was achieved. It would get a 9 or a 10 if all the above was achieved and outstandingly done well in an amazing way.","['18', '38']" +1431,rw1224878,jemmytee,Pride & Prejudice (2005),7.0,Keira Knightley was perfection...and they mucked her up.,26 November 2005,1,"For those who go see this new adaptation of Jane Austen's ""Pride and Prejudice"" and come out disappointed, I have to say, ""Lay the blame at the feet of Joe Wright and Deborah Moggach."" What those two were smoking when they made this movie, I don't know, but don't let them near it, again.They slashed important parts of the book's storyline and characterization in order to fit the story into little more than two hours yet still allowed plenty of time for nice long lovely dollies and pans. They took D'Arcy from being a proud but remarkably handsome young man and made him merely shy, leaving the whole blame for the misunderstandings on Elizabeth's shoulders (damned near unforgivable!) They ignored some of the most telling lines in the story -- i.e. Mrs. Bennet's perfect comment as regards Mr. Bingley's sudden departure from Jane, ""My only solace is she'll die of a broken heart and THEN he'll be sorry,"" (or close to that effect) -- and dropped some major moments -- like Mr. Collins' VERY uncomfortable visit with the sisters after Lydia's disgrace -- but then took ten minutes to wander through Pemberly. Major characters are relegated to bit parts (Caroline Bingley, Mr. Wickham) but then suddenly have MAJOR importance in the outcome of the story...and the short shift given Lady Catherine is inexcusable.I mean, seriously -- it is NOT impossible to make any of Jane Austen's books into good two- hour movies. Emma Thompson did it with ""Sense and Sensibility."" And Aldous Huxley wrote a remarkable interpretation (not a slavish one but one which perfectly captures the book's spirit and sensibility) of ""Pride and Prejudice"" for MGM in 1940. And with that one, even though the time period is wrong and Greer Garson is a good ten years too old to play Lizzie, she catches her spirit and own vague arrogance perfectly. Then to top it off, you've got Lawrence Olivier as D'Arcy, who gives a perfect reading of Austen's line -- ""I am in no mood to give consequence to the middle classes at play,"" (ANOTHER line missing from this tripe of a script). So it's just the ineptitude of the two main creators of this new version that messes everything up, so far as I'm concerned.Seriously, I cannot really fault anything else on the movie. The period is caught beautifully in look and style (I especially like how even Lady Catherine's wigs were not waxed into perfect place...which also points out exactly how involving the movie was NOT). The acting for the most part is good (albeit not great), excepting Keira Knightley, who is just right as Lizzie. I don't even bash Matthew MacFadyen for his bland portrayal of D'Arcy; he was doing the best he could with a wrongly written role -- though in the hands of a more seasoned actor it might (only MIGHT) have been pulled off -- and he is a nice-looking puppy.It's funny, but this version of the book reminds me more of that God-awful version of ""The Scarlet Letter"" made with Demi Moore than anything from the BBC. It's like Joe Wright and Deborah Moggach didn't think they needed to worry about people who'd actually read the book and wanted at least the essence of that story in the film. It's like they thought, ""It's old; it's been done; let's muck around and see what we some up with."" And in doing so, they proved only that they have a tin ear for storytelling and no idea of beauty or grace. Too bad...because Keira Knightley absolutely was close to perfection...and for mucking her up, they ought to be shot.","['0', '3']" +1432,rw1219884,sylvia-b3-1,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Adorable film version and both stars shine,19 November 2005,0,"I've seen this film three times already and adore it. It's an adorable version that stands up to other more well known versions. Keira Knightley was wonderful as Lizzy and brought sympathy, feistiness, spunk, loyalty and confusion to the role while Matthew MacFadyen was equally wonderful in his role as our new Darcy. He had a lot to live up to, but, didn't disappoint and, by playing it his own way instead portraying him like other versions, he brought something new to the role as well and I hope to see a lot more of him in future roles.Matthew and Keira had such lovely chemistry as Darcy and Lizzt and you could almost believe them falling inlove and both stars shone in the roles that must be their best yet. All the supporting characters were equally well performed by excellent actors, the storyline remained the same, but, different and touchingly lovely and my only complaint is that for the first time I could easily have watched far more of this film and these characters I can't wait for the DVD to watch as many times as I like","['9', '15']" +1433,rw1228850,lawsonm-1,Pride & Prejudice (2005),5.0,Could have been much better,1 December 2005,1,"Adapting a novel to film is always tricky. Especially one that has already been given such comprehensive treatment as Pride & Prejudice has already received in the previous BBC and A&E versions.However, there were so many things that could have been done better even with the restricted time constraints.The dialog: The actual lines adapted from the novel jarred harshly with those that were supplied by the script writer. Phrases were used that were obviously at odds with the time period portrayed. The actors appeared to be speaking at break neck speed most of the time.The setting: While the Bennets were not well off, they were not peasantry. Furthermore, even if they were as poor as portrayed, poverty is not an excuse for mess, filth and general untidiness.Character Development Most of the comedy that is a hallmark of Jane Austen's side characters was stripped. Mr. Collins and Lady Catherine could not be viewed as funny despite their repellent personalities.Most of the Characters behaved with mannerisms that were distinctly wrong for both their time periods and who they were supposed to be as people.Miss Knightly's Elizabeth was far to aggressive in many of her behaviors. People didn't so easily invade one another's body space as she does in the scene where she rejects Darcy's proposal. Elizabeth's mannerisms should have been in contrast to that of her younger sisters. And (this is the fault of the script) she would not have said anything actually cruel to her mother.Mr. McFadden's Darcy looked like an advertisement of someone in serious need of antidepressants rather than an attitude adjustment.Charlotte Lucas was written as desperate rather than practical.A few positives that keep it from being a total bomb. The music and scenery were lovely.A few scenes worked very well. For example, when Lizzie and Darcy meet at his home. The awkwardness felt very genuine yet sweet.Mr. and Mrs. Bennets relationship was more kindly portrayed than in previous adaptations.","['3', '7']" +1434,rw1182964,benbecula1920,Pride & Prejudice (2005),1.0,A waste of time,29 September 2005,0,"Keira Knightly (Elizabeth Bennet) cheesy smiled and giggled her way through whole movie. Although she was the best of a bad bunch she did not portray the Elizabeth Bennet of the Austin novel – never even came close.Matthew MacFadyen would have been better cast as one of the un-dead in Land of the Dead movie as his acting was as wooden as a flesh eating zombie.Simon Woods (Mr Bingley) with his crop of ginger hair and imbecilic smile. Did the makers of this movie really expect us to believe that a beautiful woman like Jane Bennet could ever fall in love with such a piece of quivering, stuttering jelly? Donald Sutherland (Mr Bennet) looked like he was one step away from insanity. I was half expecting to see him eat the dragon fly he was examining in his study.Not only did Mr Bennet act like he was one step away from the mental institution two of his daughters giggled like half wits through the whole movie to thus convince me insanity ran in the family.The 5th daughter looked so depressed throughout the movie I was half expecting the director to take liberties with the Austin novel and insert a scene where the rest of the family found her hanging from the rafters.And Mr.Wickham? He was in the movie? Where? When? Apparently he was only given a cameo part to allow more time for the director to focus on bare butts of statutes in Darcy's home.This movie was a torturous mess from beginning to end. Bring back Greer Garson and Lawrence Oliver.","['69', '128']" +1435,rw1237650,mike-925,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Only Mister Bennet to Keep Bounders and Cads at Bay,13 December 2005,1,"Pride and Prejudice has a fantastically fast-moving opening at an Upper Middle Class social gathering and dance. We're introduced to Mr. and Mrs. Bennett and their five daughters in the middle of things.The Bennet Daughters are there to capture husbands like every sensible woman in late 18th century England. The spirited dancing seems to ape the emotions of the Bennet girls as they wander about.The dance features not the usual snobbish Brits but rather a free- wheeling group of normal socialites reflecting the carefree, not posh and not snobbish Bennets, their five daughters and assorted friends.Keira Knightley plays Elizabeth Bennet, Donald Sutherland her besieged, droll rather appalled father. Mr. Bennet, as in the book, is called Mister even by his daughters. Every man is Mister. It makes the movie funnier contrasting the formality of the Misters with the convivial and fun-loving play of the Bennet girls.Mrs. Bennet is a shimmering pile of unspent emotional fiery. The girls at any moment, mother included, are likely to lose their heads at the sight of a man with 5,000 a year. That is if they're not having a joke at his expense at the time.At those moments, Mr. Bennent retreats to his study, where he has a new plant to look at.Only Mrs. Bennet is a straight fortune hunter. The Bennet girls somehow have found time to understand genuine love, though Mr. Bennet seems as unaware of this as Mrs. Bennet. Mr. Bennet seems to have sense you see. How the girls learned of true love is a mystery.Jane Austen's novel is set in a predatory England. A man with 1,000 pounds will stir interest. A man with 5,000 could drive the Bennet girls to revelries of screaming and shouting.Austen predates Dickens and the Bronte Sisters, but the Director has managed to include visuals lifted right from the heather of Wuthering Heights and has placed Elizabeth in settings that just do not exist in the somewhat hardscrabble back yard of the lower middle class Bennets. There is an instance or two of an enormous boar in the house for instance. Elizabeth escapes home with a flock of ducks fluttering about, seeming to imitate her. The image is stolen from the thirties David Copperfield, copied again with great effect in Tom Jones. The only true snob in the film is Mister Darcy. Poor Mister Darcy, he cannot bring himself to speak to most women, considering them trivial. He boorishly connives to torpedo Elizabeth's sister Mary's budding romance with the handsome though high-haired Mr. Bingley.At the dance opening of the film, Elizabeth finds Darcy odd at first, then turns squarely against him after encountering his more offensive traits. The audience knows that both are intrigued and Darcy may even be smitten.There is Mr. Collins, who, spotting Elizabeth at the dance, immediately cocks his hat for her. Only Lizzy is taller than he, his designs on her seem more about money than love, and besides, he and the film are moving too fast.There's room for one bounder in the shape of Mr. Wickham, who, it develops, knows and dislikes Mr. Darcy as much as Elizabeth and tells her so. A frame or two later he has run off with one of Elizabeth's sisters. Mr. Collins too finds matrimonial bliss in Elizabeth's friend who confides to Elizabeth that she hasn't attributes enough to wait for love to arrive at her door as Elizabeth has.The new Pride and Prejudice is certain to be compared with the 1995 BBC miniseries starring Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy and Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth. Keira Knightley, who ran away with the movie King Arthur two years ago, owns this film too. Unlike the miniseries, she doesn't really have to share with this Mr. Darcy (Matt McFadyen). Knightley seems to be at once Audrey Hepburn and Winona Ryder. Judy Dench, almost a necessity now in every British period film, plays Darcy's high-handed and very rich aunt with her usual bombast.Some screen notes say actress Emma Thompson gave this fast-paced screenplay a touch-up that is uncredited except at the end. I laughed more at this film than I did at the '95 miniseries.I could hear all of Darcy's, Mr. Bennet's, and Elizabeth's lines, but the rest was sometimes too British to understand. Still, one could read body language just as well in many scenes. Director Joe Wright pushed the movie along at a torrid pace. At times his camera moves in and out of doors and windows peering at the bewildering contrasts in attitudes of the many lovers and players in just seconds.I recommend that everyone see it. Its very funny. When Mr. Bennett learns Elizabeth finally wants to wed Mr. Darcy after all, he becomes teary when telling his daughter why, totally stealing the scene from Miss Knightley. Score one for Mister Bennet.Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson were Darcy and Elizabeth in the first 1940 version. An Indian Directress who re-filmed Vanity Fair in 2004 put out a Bollywood version of Pride and Prejudice early this year. The present version, more than the miniseries, reminds that Louisa May Alcott borrowed heavily from Austen's Pride and Prejudice to produce Little Women in 1869. The two novels have nearly the same structure. Pride and Prejudice is a first instance of Chick Lit written in English. Its a story of girls for girls and any male who wants to learn a few things about them they hadn't known.","['1', '2']" +1436,rw1204455,Incalculacable,Pride & Prejudice (2005),6.0,Not a patch on the BBC Miniseries,30 October 2005,0,"I went and saw it today and my Dad remarked the BBC version starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle sets the gold standard - every P+P will be compared to that.I think the main problems with this movie are that some characters are dreadfully miscast, the limited time (the BBC version had 6+ hours, but this only has two) and the time wasted on unnecessary scenes instead of character building.Bingley, for instance, is absolutely hopeless. He can't string two words together and is pathetic. You really wonder why Jane falls for him, and are even more bewildered to the fact that he is earning $5000 a year (he doesn't seem very intelligent!). The BBC mini series Bingley was well cast and didn't seem mentally retarded like this one. Keira Knightley is good. Same with the Mum. Jane was an angel. Darcy was surprisingly good. However, I found these characters didn't have the standard of the BBC version, and unfortunately a lot of characters were left out, leaving a huge gap.Also, there was a lot of time wasted on scenes which didn't really have to be there. There was a lot of dancing, watching Elizabeth walk, dream like scenes there which could have been replaced with character building. It wasn't as evident that Lizzie and her Father were very close. A lot of the main points (e.g the incident with Wickham) are hardly main at all. Wickham hardly gets any air time and I think he too is miscast, but certainly not as bad as Bingly.Another problem is that I think they tried to modernize this version a little to appeal to more people - probably more people who don't know a single thing about P+P, Jane Austen or the period in which this is Set. Some of the script isn't very old fashioned, as well as some of the hairstyles of the males.This version seems to have interpreted the Bennets as more lower class. Longborn is hideous, with broken windows and pigs running through. The table manners are disgusting (each man for themselves), and there are some thing in this movie that just aren't right. The BBC version portrays them as more reserved, more upper class people but still quite poor. It is much more believable that way.However this movie is not all bad. Lovely scenery, wonderful clothes, great houses.. but it's all a bit of an anti-climax, filled with miscast characters & inaccurate incidents. Not a patch on the beautifully done BBC miniseries. It's a hard thing to live up to.","['9', '18']" +1437,rw1174342,nicholaspd,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,Simply a lovely film and not just for the girls,17 September 2005,0,"Just have to say, as a 27 year old bloke i required a bit of arm-twisting to go to see this. Having taken a sabbatical from 'chick flicks' since my last season of seeing a lady. But like the fake-reluctant wedding guest making his way to the dance floor (UK Peter Kay fans know what i mean) i was captivated from the off.From the opening dreamy shot of sunrise accompanied by the first chords of what is a beautiful classical soundtrack, this is a fine example of wonderful film-making combined with a really big heart.As most will know this timeless Austen classic is essentially the most plagiarised story modern cinema knows as it provides the framework for every single romantic comedy you've seen.Despite this there is a freshness about this movie as it teases great humour and warmth from many of the main characters. The director maintains a palpable tension prior to the inevitable 'Happily ever after' despite the certainty of the final destination. The journey before we get there is wonderful.From the lovable Bingley to the almost 'David Brent' like Mr. Collins there are many laugh out loud moments.For me, and no doubt most blokes who can give their machismo the night off, the funniest elements were seeing every awkward moment you may ever have had the misfortune of encountering first hand right there on the screen before you. From Mr. Collins' totally misguided advances to Bingley and Darcy in a fluster as they struggle to muster the 'L' word.Naturally Keira Knightly plays a well-pitched Lizzy with just the right amount of independent spirit paired with her unflinching quest for love above all.As Darcy, Matthew MacFadyen, does rather overdo the brooding, skulky approach, looking positively disinterested with proceedings early on, though the ladies may disagree. He resembles Oscar the Grouch early on and becomes much more the smouldering type as scenes develop.Donald Sutherland is the stand-out performance bringing one of the most convincing portrayals of fatherly love to the screen you will see, and though some will say the ending is cut short it is his love that gives this film it's fitting parting shot.In all honesty, the ladies are probably going to see this anyway, but fellas, seriously this is a lovely, funny film that will leave you feeling all warm and glowy without the sickly aftertaste of so many of its imitators. The best compliment I can give this film is it made me want to be more romantic and i couldn't even say who with. A lovely film.","['7', '16']" +1438,rw1188379,D_la,Pride & Prejudice (2005),1.0,Oh so very boring,7 October 2005,0,"Sometimes directors really make you think, make you stop and consider their work, make you want to never ever see anything in the cinema ever again because they have killed any desire you might have felt for moving pictures. Wright has almost managed to do this.I mean, how does one go about transforming Austen's Pride and Prejudice, a book full of wit and humour, into something so dreadfully boring? And I can't blame the dialogue, because a lot of it was lifted directly from the book. And I can't blame the actors because I've seen them do so much better in other works, and there is one scene in this film that hints at how good this film could have been. Who is left to blame? Well, the director who instead of giving us a romantic comedy instead decided to show off his camera skills.Ohh, look at the countryside. See the strange camera angle. And what was with the porcine fetish? Did I really need to get that close to a pig's testicles? The one good thing about this film, it was so terrible I was actually in fits of laughter in the middle of it. Never before has seeing some one walking, walking, walking through the misty countryside been so humorous. I'd swear I laughed for ten minutes. And I so wanted to just shout out ""How lame is this entire film"" but I resisted out of courtesy, although I'm not quite sure if anyone who enjoyed this film deserves any respect at all.It may seem like I'm being a bit harsh on this film, but that is only because it deserves it. Knightly looked ridiculous in her costumes. All they did was emphasize how flat-chested she is (something that didn't crop up in Pirates…), and made her look, well terrible. And speaking of terrible; Matthew McFadyen, what the hell happened to you? A man who was great as the taciturn, withdrawn character in Spooks, is here a pasty-grey faced twit.","['42', '86']" +1439,rw1180046,Arichis,Pride & Prejudice (2005),1.0,Ouch,25 September 2005,0,"This film is bad. There are no words that do justice to what this film has done to the most beloved work of one of the greatest English authors. To start with, the film cannot seem to decide when it is set. We see scenes and costumes from a plethora of different historical periods (especially in the ballroom scenes). This is nothing to the dialogue, however, which cannot decide if it wants to be modern or self-consciously antiquated. Apparently just using Austen's dialogue would be too easy. The characters' manners wouldn't fit into any period (see Georgianna Darcy in particular). The scene of Darcy's second proposal appears to have been stolen from a Mills and Boon novel. I can only imagine that the makers of this film have never read the book or were just having a laugh. Even the acting doesn't redeem it, as even great performers collapse under an absurd script. The two leads are particularly bad as they attempt to smoulder. Please do not go to see this film, as giving them money would only serve to encourage this sort of thing.","['127', '217']" +1440,rw1187882,bumblebee1001,Pride & Prejudice (2005),7.0,"Great leading lady, disappointing leading man",6 October 2005,0,"As a fan of the novel I have to say that it was with a little trepidation that I went to see this but it is an enjoyable movie. Keira Knightley is superb as Elizabeth, with the right mix of liveliness and impudence without losing the sense of propriety that was so dear to Jane Austen's heart. I also thought that Donald Sutherland was quite impressive and his accent was very convincing on the whole (although it did slip a bit once or twice). I thought he really carried off the role of Mr Bennett very well adding a strong edge to him. Dame Judi Dench is of course a scene-stealer as Lady Catherine de Bourgh (but then she never fails to disappoint) and Brenda Blethyn truly brings Mrs Bennet alive. All the female leads presented robust and enjoyable characters. For me the disappointment lay with the male leads (other than Mr Bennet). Darcy instead of being arrogant and proud comes across as a bit wet and frankly looks lost and miserable for most of the movie. Mr Bingley seems almost silly on a number of occasions. It is difficult to flesh out the characters of a novel like Pride and Prejudice in a movie but the male characters are very shallow and one-dimensional. Wickham is almost invisible. Perhaps just as disappointing is the dialogue. Jane Austen wrote some fabulous dialogue in this novel and it seems a shame that it was so little used. Why not have used some of the great lines already in P&P?","['6', '12']" +1441,rw1201874,sharon2610,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,A wonderful adaptation of a great story,26 October 2005,0,"I saw this film last weekend with some trepidation. As an English teacher and an ardent Jane Austen fan I didn't think anything would come close to equaling the BBC mini-series which starred Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. In my opinion this film surpasses it. Like the 1940 Laurence Olivier/Greer Garson adaptation this does not strictly adhere to the novel, but it captures the essence of what Austen's story is all about. But in this film, never more clearly is the class distinction between Darcy and Elizabeth shown. The Bennet's are meant to be poor but respectable; Longbourn (their home) is after all, a farm. Previous incarnations have shown the class distinction through the size of the respected homes…The Bennet's Longbourn estate is still grand to many of us, but indisputably small in comparison to Darcy's home of Pemberly (Lyme Park in the BBC series, Chatworth House here). In the fashions, the distinction of rank is also preserved and we feel that to 'catch' someone like Darcy or his friend Mr Bingley is a serious achievement. The acting is wonderful from Dame Judi Dench's nasty Lady Catherine to Tom Hollander's comedic Mr Collins. Keira Knightley again shines but many may be disappointed by Matthew MacFadyen's Mr Darcy simply because he isn't Colin Firth. I love Mr Firth coming out of the lake too…but MacFadyen's performance is sterling (all those who have seen him in the TV series Spooks will not be surprised by this); he is far more Austen's Mr Darcy than his predecessors. Previous interpretations, though excellent in themselves, have, I believe, corrupted the Darcy's true nature. Austen's Darcy is moody and shy, which makes him seem arrogant and rude to those who do not know him. There are some excellent scenes (that take some liberties from the book), such as one where Darcy helps his friend practice an important speech; these reveal the truth of who these characters really are. While some sub plots are glossed over (such is the fate of squeezing so much into 2 hours) the main elements of the story are conveyed convincingly. To me this film is a wonderful adaptation that encompasses the real essence of the novel. It has made pick up Miss Austen once again (I am on page 106!!) Enjoy!","['42', '74']" +1442,rw1240750,TManley-1,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,Pride and Prejudice on SPEED....,17 December 2005,0,"...2hrs. 9 minutes to tell a 10 to 16 hour hard read of a book? I think Joe Wright did a find job. I did feel like I had been on a bit of a roller-coaster ride of emotions but a mighty fine roller-coaster with beautiful well-crafted views. Was it a Knightley film feast... yeah you bet...but if I had to pick a leading lady to stare at for 2 hrs. she would be in my top ten list. I hope this film wins some award for photograph. I don't believe I have seen close-ups done that well in color ever before.MacFadyen was a fine high speed Darcy, there was not time for him to be the quiet struck up Firth Darcy. In the time allowed I think he did very well... or maybe quite well as the case may be.Supporting crew, yeah, well, OK. But really who cares as long as Lizzy and Darcy get it right. I must give my highest marks to Judi Dench who WAS Lady Catherine as far as I am concerned.Maybe if I had the time and education I would join the Jane Austenites, who have been decrying the shabbiness of Bennett farm and household but hey the little visual tour of England and the walk through some of the finer old homes more than made up for the pig in courtyard shot that has caused such a fuss.To the end now... I loved the book (more than once) loved the BBC series (both a few time each) and I loved this movie. All are different in their way but all tell the wonderful story of two very interesting, very complex characters who are pushed and pulled to and fro by the strongest forms of Pride and Prejudice.So unstuff your shirt, sit up straight, made shure you lap bar is secure and enjoy a fun whirl on this rapid-fire performance. If you want the Jane Asten dialogue read the book, if you have not seen the BCC series get ye to a library and check them out... all good and worth the time. As is this movie.At your service. . . TManley Sugar the only word in the English language where the ""su"" makes a ""sh"" sound. Are you shure?","['4', '7']" +1443,rw1203304,madzmaddiez,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,"A beautiful, atmospheric film that is a definite must-see",28 October 2005,0,"I completely disagree on what seraph_sister said about Pride and Prejudice. As soon as the film had begun and a beautiful piano piece had come on I knew that I would enjoy the movie. The film was shot so beautifully, taking in all the scenery and architecture of the houses. Without needing to include kissing or sex Joe Wright has created such romance and atmosphere that I have never experienced in any other film before. I have read the book and it does explain about the troubles for women back then and also captures the love growing between Mr Darcy and Elizabeth. It creates the story from the book, but maybe not in as much detail, leaving lots of it out, but keeping the most important pieces focusing on the romance and marriage. It has been beautifully filmed and has a pure feeling about it. I was so amazed at what I had seen that I was left thinking about the film for the next few days and discussing it with my family and friends. It is a beautiful, atmospheric film that is a definite must-see.","['2', '5']" +1444,rw1201346,Faerietail,Pride & Prejudice (2005),4.0,"If you're after some Austen action, you've gone to the wrong movie...",25 October 2005,0,"Alright, before I begin, let me establish - whilst I am both an Austen fan and a fan of the 1995 BBC Mini-Series, I am not a purist. I walked in to this film with very few expectations, and willing to accept that it would not be like the oh-so-wonderful BBC version. I was ready for a change. And I have to say, I pretty much got what I expected - just let me remind you, that wasn't a whole lot.Firstly, this film is NOT Jane Austen's version of Pride & Prejudice - it's more like an odd, re-written version of P&P by Emily Bronte. Instead of the novel's original clever, witty and fairly quiet suburban, drawing room satire, director Joe Wright chose to create a lush, sweeping, romantic saga, set against stark and gloriously beautiful locations.Essentially, the story is pared down to its bare roots -- Lizzie Bennett, a precocious and rather giggly girl, meets and hates-on-first-sight Mr Darcy, the uptight and taciturn friend of Mr Bingly, the new renter of Netherfield Park. Bingly, goofy, awkward and tongue-tied, is immediately enchanted by, and falls in love with, shy Jane Bennett, Lizzie's older, quieter sister. The story follows Lizzie as she first hates and then falls in love with the increasingly emotionally fragile Darcy, overcoming her prejudice towards him, and assisting Jane in establishing a relationship (and marriage) with Bingly.Sadly, many wonderful (and, in my opinion, extremely necessary) characters fall to the wayside - the clever caricatures of Mr Collins (the obtuse, silly, mean spirited cousin), Mrs Bennett (now just a tad whiny but mostly lovable), Mr Bennett (indulgent rather than scathing), and Lady Catherine (still nasty and selfish, but lacking any of Austen's delicious wit) all dwindle down to not-much-ness. It's Austen, Jim, but not as we know it! This film DOES have some good points - firstly, the cinematography, is just plain gorgeous. This is top class stuff - one film moment, where Lizzie stands on a mountain precipice whilst the camera sweeps around her, really made me catch my breath. Also, Matthew MacFadyen brings a very interesting new dimension to the character of Darcy - while we miss out on Darcy's clever dialogue and scathing wit, we do gain a lot of vulnerability that is interesting and really beautifully portrayed by MacFadyen. While I still think that Colin Firth has created a version of Darcy that is, in my opinion, unbeatable, MacFadyen really engaged me and had me interested.Keira Knightly, on the other hand, was NOT my vision of Lizzie. Whilst she is much closer in age to the character than Jennifer Ehle (""not yet one and twenty""), she turned an outspoken, intelligent, strong, independent character in to one seriously lacking in backbone. She wavers back and forth from giggles to looking teary and forlorn -- all in all, not a character that I can imagine ANY man of intelligence falling desperately in love with.I have to admit, I also found the overall change from early 19th century English Regency to late 18th century French Provincial (???) really irritating and confusing. As I understand it, the director was interested in setting the film when it was originally written (which was, admittedly, at the end of the 18th century), but what he failed to take in to account was that Jane Austen did major rewrites of all of her novels before they were published in the 19th century. However, whilst the setting would not, in my opinion, have been at all appropriate to a more faithful portrayal of the novel, the execution of the story was so different from Austen's original intentions, it hardly matters.All in all, tossing aside my love of the novel, I still find I am left with a fairly mediocre film. There are some glaring historical inaccuracies (or rather, historical improprieties - such as a certain character wandering the countryside in her slippers and nightgown, to name one), the costumes are ill fitting and really unflattering for ALL of the characters (I understand the director wanted to ""ugly up"" Knightly, although I don't understand his reasoning for this - Lizzie is, after all, supposed to be very handsome) and the dialogue for the most part is uncomfortably, awkwardly changed from the original. I suspect, as well, that if I didn't know what the story was about, I wouldn't have been able to follow this film very easily.To sum up, go see it if you know the story and want a new take, or don't have a clue what the story is about - you'll probably at least moderately enjoy it (and clearly, many people have). However, if you are a major fan of the book (or just like it a lot!) stick to the BBC series - Jennifer and Colin leave this version for dead.","['39', '73']" +1445,rw1183246,sozalina3000,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,exceeds expectations.,30 September 2005,1,"I thought this film was brilliant.Keira Knightley performs extremely well in the fight she has with Mr.Darcy.Matthew MacFayden also can be praised on his performance in this remarkable film.All the cast exceeds my expectations and i recommend it to all.A feel good movie which isn't like one of those films based on a novel where the actors speak word for word from the book.Jane Austins classic is retold in one of the best movies i've seen in many years. I can't wait until this film comes out on DVD and VHS,please please please go and see this movie with all of your friends-it has some unexpected humour which could have you in fits of giggles.","['21', '33']" +1446,rw1175695,Mercury78,Pride & Prejudice (2005),5.0,Wuthering Prejudice,19 September 2005,0,"After seeing this film, I came to the conclusion that if they had taken the same cast, sets, costumes etc, but instead of making Pride and Prejudice they had made Wuthering Heights, it would have been absolutely fantastic.As it was, in my opinion Colin Firth has nothing to worry about, his well-deserved reputation as THE Mr Darcy isn't under any threat.The précis of the story was very well done considering there is an awful lot of content to get into 2 hours of film, but at the cost of much of the characterisation, comedy and humour.And I'm not sure what the long scenic shots of Elizabeth staring (into the distance, at statues, at herself in the mirror) were meant to achieve. There could have been more actual content instead. Jane Austen didn't bother with elaborate scenic imagery and the film didn't really need to either.It's definitely worth seeing this version, but for me the definitive one remains the 1990s BBC adaptation.","['26', '56']" +1447,rw1235221,suessis,Pride & Prejudice (2005),7.0,A rush job,10 December 2005,0,"I have been a fan of Jane Austin since seeing the BBC version of this film that was produced in 1980. Since then I have read all of her books and seen any film version of them that has been done. I'm afraid that my benchmark for any filmed version of ""Pride and Prejudice"" will always be the 1995 BBC production and this one suffers by comparison.For those who have never read the book or seen the other productions you may not understand this but trying to fit it into 2 hours simply doesn't work. I feel as though I'm being rushed through the story and being allowed to see only the highlights. In some places, the missing pieces of the story make it is hard to understand characters' motivations.The style of this film helps make the rush job more interesting. It is similar to the '95 Roger Michel version of ""Persuasion"" in that the England that we see on the screen is down to earth and very real. You can almost see the paint moldering in the elderly and somewhat decaying Longbourne. At times though, Wright does throw a little romance and mysticism into it with his use of color and light. The English landscape seems much more lush and green than one would have thought, and the glow of candles is warm and comforting.Another interesting element is the intimate way in which we are invited into the lives of the Bennets through the use of camera work. In fact, it's almost a little too intimate for the fans of Austin and in some ways for the period as well. Some of the characters appear rumpled and disheveled and a good bit of the action takes place at convenient times for the girls to be found in their nightclothes. There is also a more relaxed attitude in relationships than it was usually acceptable to have at that time.As for the performances, while most tend to be good, the majority of the performers bring nothing new to characters of the book. Tom Hollander is an exception to this in that his characterization of Collins puts a somewhat different spin on a character usually portrayed as bumbling and comically condescending. Hollander's Collins comes across as bland, arrogant, and practical to a fault. He sees the value of currying favor with the wealthy and believes that others of his class should follow his example.On the flip side, Matthew MacFadyen's performance of Darcy left a little something to be desired. He lacks the classical brooding handsomeness that one associates with Darcy and his performance is sometimes awkward. Some of his problem might be the script in that it is sometimes hard to understand how he forms some of his opinions when you are not seeing everything that you should in the story.All in all, this is not a bad film. It simply does not meet the standard that has been set for it.","['3', '6']" +1448,rw1196106,djlangers527,Pride & Prejudice (2005),6.0,Enjoyable but too short,17 October 2005,0,"I viewed this movie with eager anticipation, and while it was wonderful to see Jane Austen's characters come to life on the big screen, I was disappointed. Firstly the movie went for only 2 hours, not nearly long enough to do justice to the development of the characters and story lines in the book. Being a great fan of the book, I was annoyed that some elements had been completely changed or even omitted. Keira Knightley does justice to Elizabeth's character, however Matthew MacFadyen is neither arrogant or proud enough to be a true representation of Mr Darcy. The stately homes and scenery certainly impressed me, but failed to make up for a storyline that was certainly lacking. The love story between Elizabeth and Mr Darcy is enjoyable to watch, but overall, I feel the movie is not an adequate adaptation of the novel.","['4', '9']" +1449,rw1216121,dixonchick76,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,good show,14 November 2005,0,"This version of P and P is outstanding! It is difficult not to compare it with the BBC version, but I found myself doing so and enjoyed the light and fun of this take more than the thoroughness of the former. The cast is well chosen and Mr. Darcy is just as I imagined him to be. The movie is light and fun when the novel dictates, and serious and passionately moving at the proper times. The relationships between the characters are right on and the movie moves through the novel brightly. The scenery is gorgeous and the rain is romantically placed. The audience left smiling. It is a good interpretation of the novel; the author would surely approve.-- that was my mom's comment. let me add ( : it is a truly refreshing movie and I highly recommend it! Please forget you ever saw the BBC series! They are too different to be compared. Really, 6 hours vs. 2 hours... its going to be different! Though I like the BBC series, (alot) this movie has a completely different, lighter feel. THis Mr. Darcy was so much more human! I love Colin Firth, but he was just so arrogant and unlikable. (in a likable way) This Mr. Darcy was just like he was in the book... I'm sure he read it! I am no fan of Knightly but she was as okay as she could be. I was really disappointed that they chose her for Elizabeth but she pulled it off well, in fact, just like she was in the book.(but she was WAY too skinny. its not even attractive. they would have considered her SICK in the 1800's!)that's way beside the point (: JANE IS PERFECT! the BBC Jane bothered me sooo much. I laughed every time they said she was pretty. this Jane is beautiful and just perfect. The rest of the cast was great too! the feel of the movie was so much like the book... happy and quick. - ending too soon.( : I will say that the ending of this movie bothered me. I felt like a wedding scene would have been appropriate or a simple kiss. not all that ""mrs.darcy"" stuff. it was uncomfortable. for those of you who aren't in the US or Canada, you didn't miss anything! that's where Keria Knightly really started to annoy me. Definitely a movie worth seeing! like I said before, please!! stop comparing it to the old one! I like them both.. it is possible to do that folks. lets not be so prejudiced!!","['1', '4']" +1450,rw1176285,collette-11,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,"Brilliant, loved every moment",20 September 2005,0,"I went to see this with with a degree of scepticism, and very fond memories of the TV series and Colin Firth as Mr Darcy. No need to worry, I do believe they met the challenge of every English female to have watched the TV series with ""that"" scene in it and maybe even surpassed it... it took my breath away.This version has been filmed with sensitivity and emotional insight, telling more with a glance here and a look there than a thousand words can say. Having said that the vocal ""sparring"" between Lizzie and Mr Darcy is both intelligent and witty. The whole picture house joined in with the journey, sighing, laughing and gasping in all the same places.I felt completely at home with all the characters, Keira is wonderful as Elizabeth, Mathew Macfadyen, tremendous as Darcy, Brenda Blethyn outstanding as Mrs Bennet, Donald Sutherland a joy to watch as always. Nobody disappoints in this ensemble and I spent the most uplifting 2 hours of my time for a very long while, and left feeling happy and content, with a tear in my eye and a spring in my step.","['24', '38']" +1451,rw1174104,Vjera,Pride & Prejudice (2005),6.0,a bit rushed,17 September 2005,0,"I am an avid fan of the book and the 1995 TV adaptation. The film was always going to be shorter with less detail and the incredibly important play on words. However the overall impression of the story is rushed, the protagonists not that convincing and some of the key parts of the story just yanked out. For me the most important scenes of the story have been changed and underplayed and therefore ruined: Darcy's slighting Elisabeth at the ball and her falling for him at Pemberley. Saying that, it was beautifully shot, with amazing music that makes your heart flutter and with more flesh and energy compared to the BBC's version. But still Matthew McFadden is nothing to Colin Firth's Darcy. So, for all the fans out there, go and see it and judge it for yourself, but I fear you may be disappointed....","['9', '19']" +1452,rw1177027,alfa-16,Pride & Prejudice (2005),,Four weddings and the funeral of common sense,21 September 2005,0,"P&P is often compared to a Swiss watch and very few novels are this intricately woven together. There are numerous love stories, successful and unsuccessful fortune hunters of both sexes, embarrassing and wilful parents each impinging one on another, each bringing the two principle lovers, Elizabeth and Darcy closer together or driving them further apart. At the beginning characters are grouped according to their fortunes and status. By the end of the novel, they have rearranged themselves according to sense, ability and intelligence.If you take the screws out of a mechanism this complex, you will never get it back together again. Andrew Davies, in the 1995 version, had six hours of screen time and left them where they were. He was neither required to cut essential characters, or miss out essential plot items. The downside of putting so much of Austen's dialogue on screen is that his own attempts, such as the scenes at the inn at Lambton and Pemberley stick out unattractively from Austen's crisp satirical work and sometimes, especially when he trying for irony, his script work can look positively crude.Attempting to be true to the principle character, however, in two hours has here entailed throwing away vital bits of the Swiss watch. Wickham is there, briefly, and so is Lydia. The Gardiners are almost out, the Hursts are gone completely. There isn't time for Darcy's letter, the express from London and Mrs Gardiner's letter explaining Darcy's discovery of Lydia isn't necessary because it's not clear what Darcy has done to help.And why would he need to do anything? What could scandal mean to a family living as the Bennets do in this version? I appreciate the need for a different look to the 1995 version but putting the Bennett's into a house that looks like a pigsty from a much earlier age is the real problem with this version for me.The comedy of class and manners is destroyed by degrading the life of the Bennets to the sort of sub-gentility that might have been appropriate to an adaptation of Tom Jones or even Moll Flanders but is ridiculous for the family of a wealthy country attorney. In the novel, Elizabeth Bennet, daughter of a middle class gentleman marries someone from the upper middle class with dubiously aristocratic connections. In this version, the daughter of a family about to fall into extreme poverty marries a belted Earl (Pemberley is Chatsworth here - one of the largest stately homes in England - definitely NOT where the Darcy's would be living). The Bennett's home would have been large, clean, genteel, separated from the farm and well run. The Gardiners, would have had half a floor to themselves in the Inn at Lambton and would never have dreamt of dining with the drunken regulars. The pantomime with the letter in the inn is inexcusable. The characters pop in and out of shot like Bill and Ben.Since the the comedy of class and manners is tossed away, you're left with the performances. These are patchy and condemn the whole to disintegration. Elizabeth is justabout OK but the other characters don't take off. Brenda Blethyn, excellent as usual but criminally underused and playing someone other than Mrs Bennet. Matthew McFadyen got the message and didn't try to be Colin Firth but forget to be Darcy. Donald Sutherland, accent all over the place and where was the sardonic cynicism? Judi Dench didn't have enough time. Jena Malone as Lydia couldn't be outrageous enough for who would look unusual or out of place in that household?On the whole, a version that might not go down as the worst ever, even if it can't possibly be used by students.Belongs on the shelf next to the Patricia Rozema Mansfield Park. Complete and utter failure as an adaptation but watchable on a Sunday afternoon if you can put the original aside.","['7', '17']" +1453,rw1238411,jessiegirl100,Pride & Prejudice (2005),2.0,This movie artistically dives into the lives of the Bennett family and in particular the 5 Bennett daughters.,14 December 2005,0,"I was actually unhappy with this version of Pride and Prejudice. I am a huge fan of the British TV series that was done in the 90's. The reason for my unhappiness with this version is due to many things but mainly one aspect in particular. This is the theme that the father can ""let things be and they will be fine in the end"". Which in my opinion is false. It creates a very laid back position which gets the family into trouble. this was represented in the TV version I mentioned above but that version also includes the father asking for forgiveness (which is not in this version). He also declares to not let his daughters run wild to prevent disgrace (which is not in this version as well).This movie has a very artistic theme throughout it which I found pleasant. I love most of the camera angles, although there are some scenes where your eyes are presented with such a busy scene you don't know where to look.The acting was better than I thought it would be. I was almost board in some scenes. The shot of Elizabeth spinning on the swing was nice for the first 15 seconds but cut into more of the movie than I thought was necessary. The story suffered from the way the time was spent in other scenes. The cast was good except for Kiera who I thought was way too modern for the part of Elizabeth (not that her acting was bad because it wasn't).","['2', '4']" +1454,rw1237992,buehner,Pride & Prejudice (2005),1.0,"If you love Jane Austen, her humor is lost in this version",13 December 2005,0,"Sadly, this movie did not live up to my expectations (which I must admit are low, as I own the 1995 BBC version of Mansfield Park). At least in Mansfield Park, they didn't change the intent of the humor and flavor of Jane Austen, it was only poorly cast. In this version of Pride and Prejudice, the Bennett family was not portrayed in the proper social class; Darcy and Elizabeth would have never met. Darcy would have never fallen for such a low class family. The scenery was exquisite, however it alone could not hold my attention. I couldn't look at Donald Sutherland and not ask myself, ""What the heck is he doing in this film?"" If you're a Jane Austen fan, I give this movie two thumbs down. Rent or buy the A&E six hour version, which is as close to the book as anything produced to date. Better yet, read the book, which is far superior to anything ever produced!","['17', '34']" +1455,rw1207695,fyeban,Pride & Prejudice (2005),1.0,No Great Impact,2 November 2005,0,"Some people say that we have to see this new adaptation with an open mind and that we should not compare this to that of the previous adaptations but why not? We could still compare the performances of each character couldn't we. It all comes down to how well each character acted their part. I don't believe that we should disregard the brilliance of the previous adaptation to appreciate a new one.Ten years ago I compared the 1995 BBC film to the earlier interpretations of PnP and it just blew me away. It was a perfect interpretation and Colin Firth as Mr Darcy is spot on.Watching the series made me read the book and until now It still affects me every time I watch it. Mathew Macfadden is not Mr Darcy , he is too crumpled and too soft to be Mr Darcy.He is not proud enough and Keira is not strong enough to be an intelligent Lizzie. The whole film is just not PnP. The main characters are almost in love too soon, they both don't have strong characters that made Lizzy and Darcy so perfect for each other. As a movie it is okay but not a definitive interpretation.","['62', '113']" +1456,rw1217788,alazose,Pride & Prejudice (2005),7.0,"A great movie, but rushed for time",16 November 2005,1,"The problem is, we were spoiled by the excellent BBC version which in five hours time was able to follow the book rather closely. Thus, the dialogue in this new movie version feels very rushed and condensed, as though the script had been written for the Readers Digest. It just seems that in their hurry to get their lines in, the actors' elocution in many scenes is clipped, and thus difficult to understand. Aside from the two older sisters, the three younger sisters have little opportunity to distinguish themselves or to develop their characters. There simply isn't time. I kept waiting in vain for my favorite conversations and confrontations to take place. Most were there, but shortened almost beyond recognition.Two other problems: The propensity of the Bennet family members to eavesdrop together on private conversations was extremely annoying. Also, the casting of Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet was a bit misguided. He seemed, at 70, more like their grandfather than their father.However, one of the many redeeming features of this movie (the beautiful locales being one of them) is the casting of Keira Knightly as Elizabeth. She was superb and radiant throughout. Her scene with Mr. Darcy at the end of the movie, where they meet by chance at dawn outside her home, has to rank as one of the most romantic scenes in cinematic history.","['2', '5']" +1457,rw1218297,katiemeyer1979,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Jane Austen for ever,17 November 2005,0,"Jane Austen's tale of love and economics reaches us once more with the energy of a thorough novelty. ""Pride and Prejudice"" has been a favorite novel of mine since I first read it and I've seen Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson, Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle and now Matthew MacFadyen and Kiera Knightly. Amazingly enough I've never been disappointed. The material seems to be full proof. Colin Firth's Darcy, in many ways, is the Darcy I've always imagined. He's been an actor I've followed feverishly since his glorious Adrian LeDuc in ""Apartment Zero"", Matthew MacFadyen was totally new to me but he managed to create that sense of longing that makes that final pay off so satisfying. Kiera Knightly is a ravishing revelation. I must confess, I didn't remotely imagined that she was capable of the powerful range she brilliantly shows here. The other big surprise is Joe Wright, the director, in his feature film debut which is more than promising, it's extraordinary. The photography, the art direction and the spectacular supporting cast, in particular Donald Sutherland and Brenda Blethyn, makes this new version of a perennial classic a memorable evening at the movies","['415', '575']" +1458,rw1179378,holly-sunter,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,Great Film!,24 September 2005,1,"Having just been to see the film...i am totally surprised by it! As a very big fan of the bbc version i thought i would not enjoy this film so much, especially without colin firth!However, i actually enjoyed this film so so much! Matthew Mcfadyen had been criticized for his role as Darcy but i thought he played it extremely well! A sweeter Darcy the colin firths...maybe even more real..i was charmed! and Kiera was excellent but i though she would be! Chemitry between them worked and was totally believable.The ending ruined it for me! As a it of a romantic, and come on...this film is the ultimate love story, i thought having no wedding and/or no kiss was terrible! My friend hardly dare look at my face! Even the more 'proper' bbc version had a kiss, if be it a very awkward one! However i hear the Americans got there kiss! so i can only hope its on the DVD!A very good film...hugely recommend even for die hard bbc fans like myself...the film will surprise you and may even equal the 'original'!","['4', '11']" +1459,rw1177086,chickenfinger59,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Amazing images and feeling,21 September 2005,0,"The use of camera in the film is exploited to the most amazing extent. I have seen few if any images as beautiful as the ones i have seen in here, it was captivating and made my hair stand on end with its mix of light and amazing scenes, projected perfectly alongside a classical soundtrack full of meaning and purity. The all star cast performed amazingly well and really brought me into the film.. You can really relate to the heart ache and romance of the characters. Some good comedy mixed in with the deep love and romance.Oh I want to see it again! I would suggest this to anyone.. it can captivate even the most aggressive of film lovers. =D Enjoy","['10', '20']" +1460,rw1183257,seraph_sister,Pride & Prejudice (2005),1.0,If you want to see one awful film this year ...,29 September 2005,0,"From the film's first shot - Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet wandering reading through a field at dawn, thus invoking all the clichés cinema has developed to address the phenomenon of the strong-minded rebellious female character in period drama - I knew I was in for something to make me want to kill myself.Joe Wright seemed not only to have not read the book, but to be under the regrettable misapprehension that what he was filming was not in fact Jane Austen's subtle, nuanced comedy of manners conducted through sparkling, delicate social interaction in eighteenth century English drawing-rooms, but a sort of U-certificate Wuthering Heights. Thus we were treated to every scene between Elizabeth and Darcy taking place outside for no apparent reason, in inappropriately rugged scenery and often in the pouring rain. Not to mention that Jane Austen, and in particular P & P, is not about passion, sexual tension or love. It's about different strategies of negotiating the stultification of eighteenth century society. Which was completely ignored, so that the Bennets' house was a rambunctious, chaotic place where everybody shouts at once, runs around, leaves their underwear on chairs, and pigs wander happily through the house; the society balls become rowdy country dances one step away from a Matrix Reloaded style dance-orgy; and everybody says exactly what they think without the slightest regard for propriety.The genius of Jane Austen lies in exploring the void created by a society in which nobody says what they think or mean because of an overwhelming regard for propriety, and the tragic predicaments of her characters arise from misunderstandings and miscommunications enabled by that speechless gap. So both the brilliance of Jane Austen and the very factor that allows her plots - particularly in this film - to function was completely erased. Subtlety in general was nowhere int his film, sacrificed in favour of an overwrought drama which jarred entirely with the material and the performances.It was so obviously trying to be a *serious* film. The humour - which IS Pride & Prejudice, both Austen's methodology and her appeal - was almost entirely suppressed in favour of all this po-faced melodrama, and when it was allowed in, was handled so clumsily. Pride & Prejudice is a serious narrative which makes serious points, yes, but those serious points and weightier themes are not just intertwined with the humour, they are embedded in it. You can't lose Jane Austen's technique, leaving only the bare bones of the story, and expect the themes to remain. Not even when you replace her techniques with your own heavy-handed mystical-numinous fauxbrow cinematography.Elizabeth Bennett is supposed to be a woman, an adult, mature and sensible and clear-sighted. Keira Knightley played the first half of the film like an empty-headed giggling schoolgirl, and the second half like an empty-headed schoolgirl who thinks she is a tragic heroine. Elizabeth's wit, her combative verbal exchanges, her quintessential characteristic of being able to see and laugh at everybody's follies including her own, her strength and composure, and her fantastic clear-sightedness were completely lost and replaced with ... what? A lot of giggling and staring into the distance? Rather than being able to keep her head when all about her were losing theirs, she started to cry and scream at the slightest provocation - and not genuinely raging, either; no, these were petulant hissy fits. And where the great strength of Austen's Elizabeth (at least in Austen's eyes) was her ability to retain integrity and observance while remaining within the boundaries of society and sustaining impeachable propriety, Knightley's Elizabeth had no regard whatsoever for convention. Furthermore, she seemed to think that wandering around barefoot in the mud in the eighteenth century version of overalls established her beyond doubt as spirited and strong-minded, and therefore nothing in the character as written or the performance had to sustain it. An astonishingly unsubtle and bland performance. In which quest for blandness and weakness, she was ably matched by Matthew Macfayden.Donald Sutherland as Mr Bennet seemed weak, ineffectual and permanently befuddled without the wicked sense of humour and ironic detachment at the expense of human relationships that makes Mr Bennet so fascinating and tragic. His special bond with Lizzie, as the only two sensible people in a world of fools, was completely lost, not least because both of them were fools in a world of fools, and that completely deprived the end of the film of emotional impact. Mr Bingley was no longer amiable and well-meaning to the point of folly, but was played as a complete retard for cheap laughs, and the woman who was playing Jane was so wildly inconsistent that she may as well not have tried to do anything with the character at all. The script veered wildly between verbatim chunks of Jane Austen - delivered with remarkable clumsiness - and totally contemporaneous language which would not be out of place in a modern day romantic comedy.Just get the BBC adaptation on DVD and save yourself the heartache.","['259', '470']" +1461,rw1215957,lexyshirley,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Deborah Moggach,14 November 2005,0,"I love Jane Austin and Have Read her Stories/Books many Times over, So when going to see this version I wasn't expecting much because Hollywood Usually Butchers the Authors Vison when they transfer book to script to movie. I can sum this version in just four words 'THE BEST ADAPTATION EVER' Deborah Moggach adapted Jane Austin Vision to perfection. The cast was Spot on. The Cinematography Makes me want to go to the UK. who ever did the scouting for the locations is a genius. I do have one complaint, Keira Knightly's Costumes made her look like she had a large breast on one side and none on the other. I just love this movie I am going to buy it when it comes in DVD.","['2', '5']" +1462,rw1233821,YorkvilleGirl,Pride & Prejudice (2005),5.0,"Entertaining, but not Jane Austen",8 December 2005,1,"One saving grace of any film that takes place two centuries ago is that there's no product placement to annoy me.Well, this movie was fine. It entertained me and the actors acquitted themselves well. On the other hand, the director seemed to believe that the witty, sharp-edged dialog of the Jane Austen novel needed more of a modern punch, written by second-rate screenwriters. Apparently, we modern folk are incapable of understanding words put down more than 20 years ago.The film deliberately de-glamorized the era - the country gentry apparently never brushed their hair, kept pigs in their manor houses and wore shabby, sack dresses over their stylishly anorexic figures. Who knew? Nobody said this adaptation needed to be faithful to the book...but at the very least, offer us something original in exchange.The oddest thing, however, was that tacked-on American ending. My gosh...I thought I was watching the final scene from the movie ""Sixteen Candles,"" that old Molly Ringwald teen classic. In fact, it was so visually similar, I half-expected Lizzie Bennet to thank Darcy for getting her panties back.Seriously. I'm not kidding!","['1', '6']" +1463,rw1216858,floatybuddha,Pride & Prejudice (2005),8.0,okay if you like this sort of thing,15 November 2005,0,"OK, i went into this movie wanting to not like it. for a start isn't keira knightley just too perfect? and also i'm not he romantic period drama type.But, i have to say i surprised myself. not only did i enjoy the movie but, i actually wouldn't have minded watching it again.As for Keira Knightley, well i have to say its probably the performance of her career so far but, it does leave me wondering when she will get a role that she doesn't stand there pouting most of the time.Matthew MacFadden (darcy) also impressed me but, the whole thing seemed to lack something. however, the TV version with Colin firth did fill all the gaps and left me rather satisfied. the ending on this film left a rather nasty taste, it was all too abrupt but, all in all its a good film and i would recommend it to anyone but, at the same time i would recommend the TV version so that you have something to compare it to.","['2', '4']" +1464,rw1223534,snowboarder_forlife,Pride & Prejudice (2005),1.0,i didn't enjoy the movie,23 November 2005,0,"The movie wasn't that good I did not enjoy it it was to long and it was really boring. For people who are planing on seeing it don't it is a waste of money to go see it. I woke up and 6:30 in the morning to go see the first showing off it. I thought it was going to be good but it wasn't, my friend and her sister thought it was good, but my other friend and I got up a lot during the movie so we could go out and talk it wasn't what I thought it was going to be like. I definitely will not go see that again or bye the movie. I do not enjoy movies that take place in the older ages. I think if the makers of this film would have made it so it took place in the 2005 it would have been better. I didn't look at the rating it got,I should have looked at the rating before spending my money and a movie I would'nt have enjoyed. So once again I would not go see that movie","['9', '19']" +1465,rw1215098,Ada_Wong65,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,My review on Pride & Prejudice,13 November 2005,0,"This film is absolutely beautiful. I love it, I love it, I love it. Anyways, the entire scenery of the movie was great. I really felt that I was actually in the movie, eavesdropping on everything.I think I may have found my future husband in Matthew Macfayden. X.X He just is Mr.Darcy! I have seen the BBC adaption and I found Colin Firth's performance to be absolutely awesome but I believe there's now room for two Mr.Darcy's.While Macfayden is excellent, Keira Knightley is just superb. Many people have thought of her to be tolerable in other films. I believe she has proved herself since she first started movies such as Bend it Like Beckham, Pirates of the Caribeann, The Jacket, and more. With similar looks of a combined Natalie Portman and Winona Ryder, Keira Knightley is Lizzie Bennet.The supporting cast are fine as well. Rosamund Pike is great as the shy and modest, Jane. Brenda Blethyn and Donald Sutherland are just great as usual. Judi Dench is nothing short of excellent. The other sisters are cute and giggly. Mr.Bingley is funny and great. I had a good laugh at Mr.Collins.In short, I will definitely be seeing this again. Adios!","['1', '3']" +1466,rw1224700,obrofta,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,It's All Good,25 November 2005,0,"I came to the movie theater with much anticipation, having not remembered earlier versions with the same title, not because I didn't see them, but just because they weren't, in my opinion, very memorable. Prior to watching the movie, I was also upset that one leading critic did not like the movie, while his partner, of reputably greater notoriety and accomplishment,(in my opinion)liked the movie and especially Keira Knightley's performance as Liz. I am happy to say, I recommend the movie on all fronts.I do not take issue with aspects of the film, which were purposely staged(to me). Among those issues were the writers pension to make the film a coming out for Knightley by giving her a plethora of one-liners, an untimely proposal, and Liz's double drubbing of Lady Catherine, perfectly played by Dame Dench, which decorum would have hardly stood for in that day (the book was a bit more delicate, appropriate to the times). Why do I excuse these annoyances (as I would call them)? Simply because the actors and actresses make this move a memorable one, one fitting to the story told by Austen.Staged or not, Knightley delivers an exciting, mesmerizing performance, which certainly sold me on true emotions. I must say there is one disappointment near the end of the film, which, in my opinion, keeps the film from being even better.Kudos to McFayden (who provides one GREAT entrance), Sutherland for a flawless scene with Knightley, and Rosamund Pike, who plays Liz's sister Jane, for delivering a refreshing version of a worn-out, antiquated line, in addition to playing ""up"" to her role in the movie.In the end, there is much pride with little prejudice, as this viewer sees it. That makes two wrongs in a row for one half of the critic's film making version of the dynamic duo.","['2', '4']" +1467,rw1216563,htinnaro,Pride & Prejudice (2005),8.0,BASED on the novel...,13 November 2005,0,"my dear readers, this lovely adaptation of my favorite jane austen novel once again proves that the words, ""based on a novel by"" (insert your favorite author here) mean nothing less. it is not the novel, and yet people will continuously lambast it for not being so. keira knightly does a splendid job as eliza, as anyone (especially males) will tell you. she is beautiful, strong, funny, loyal, and everything that eliza was meant to be. matthew macfayden as darcy is also quite effective. yes, he is played as painfully shy, but he does show the snottiness that we loathe him for in the novel. i think that the depth of feeling expressed in this adaptation is uncharacteristic of previous screen plays that are not so much based on as slaves to jane austen's novels and the public's rather staid image of them. it was meant to appeal to the masses, and not only to those that can understand and adore the subtleties of georgian English. herein lies the rub. it is funny. it is charming. it is romantic and entertaining. and it is NOT the novel. if you want the novel, my dears, go read the novel. i cannot see how either can fail to satisfy.","['1', '3']" +1468,rw1226588,DanceShlWe,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,A transcendental experience,28 November 2005,0,"This movie had me laughing, crying and feeling just everything in between. The chemistry between Matthew Macfadyen and Keira Knightley is extraordinary, more, in my opinion, than the famous Jennifer Ehrle/Colin Firth duo, parts of which I re-watched when I came home. You can feel and see this Darcy struggle with his own arrogance and then his emerging feelings. Most other Darcys have been less accessible and this one hits just the right note so you can go along with Elizabeth from feeling angry and insulted to the natural progression of her feelings as she realizes the depths of this man. It is so wonderful to see an incredibly sexy scene without any groping or clothing removal, and yet sexier than anything I've seen involving nudity. The screen fairly crackles with the undercurrent! Keira Knightley is such a delight, making us feel everything she's feeling. The supporting cast, as always in British movies, is first class. Donald Sutherland and Brenda Blethyn are the best Bennet parents I've ever seen. A movie I will buy when it comes out on DVD and watch over and over again.","['4', '8']" +1469,rw1170559,katlm,Pride & Prejudice (2005),2.0,Why???,8 September 2005,0,"Why was this movie ever made?! The 1995 mini series is the definitive version and the only one anybody ever needs to see. This version has been made into a cross between some sort of modern chick flick (with some - often rather dubious - period costumes thrown in) and a melodramatic version of a Bronte novel. Caroline Bingley's outfits are ridiculous (not to mention Mr. Bingley's hair style), Darcy is boring, dull and completely unconvincing, and Donald Sutherland is completely miscast as Mr. Bennet. The Bennet sisters remind me more of the March girls in Little Women with their constant (and irritating) giggling and silliness and the chemistry between Darcy and Elizabeth is non-existent. Keira is a good actress and might almost be able to carry the role off if it hadn't already been so well done by Jennifer Ehle. Unfortunately for all the good actors in Pride and Prejudice (and don't get me wrong, most of them are good) they suffer from a truly dreadful script. Maybe it's just the purist in me but when a book has been so incredibly well written, why bother to change it? All of the subtlety and most of the wit and humour is missing making the film adaptation of arguably the best book ever written into nothing more than a mildly enjoyable rom-com. As for the good points of the film, Judi Dench is great (although it is too obvious a role for her) and the locations are fantastic. Unfortunately, the writers have tried for a Cathy/ Heathcliff look for Darcy and Elizabeth with lots of dramatic scenery and sudden downpours (so not Austen's style and totally unnecessary). Overall, provided you haven't seen the 1995 mini series or read the book, you will probably find it a mildly amusing, if slightly dull, way to spend two hours. Any purists out there - stick to the book and original TV version. You won't be missing anything special by not going to see it. Sorry to be so scathing of anything Austen-related but this truly wasn't worth the time, money or effort that went into making it. I've no idea why the reviews are rating it so highly (unless it's to make more people go) but your money will be better spent buying the Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle version on DVD.","['33', '70']" +1470,rw1175613,SaxxoneGirly,Pride & Prejudice (2005),8.0,Captivating in style and characterisation,19 September 2005,1,"I have never seen the ""Colin Firth version"" (I was nine at the time) which I would see as an advantage. Matthew MacFadyen is an excellent Darcy, and the chemistry between him and Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet worked well.I agree that Darcy's painful attempts at small-talk with Elizabeth in Mr Collins' house is one of the best in the film. I was captivated by MacFadyen's performance, and although there is only so much you can do with the two hours worth of film, I think he showed the change in Darcy's character very well. And, on a shallower note, I think he looks best in the film during his dishevelled, coat-billowing walk through the dawn mists.Knightley is charming as Elizabeth, which honestly surprised me. She sort of sparkled in places, and came across as intelligent, if a little too sharp for her own good. At times she was the personification of feisty, and the way she showed Elizabeth's changes in mood were done subtly, there was no huge flash of emotion, which fit well with the character's independent and self-contained streak.Kelly Reilly (Bingley's sister) and Judi Dench also add weight to this film, with great sense of character in quite small roles. The other Bennets in this film are not really given much development, apart from Jane, and I think this is a waste.There were some dazzling scenes in this film that would not come across anywhere near as powerfully on the small screen. The scale of the story itself is also one that benefits the full cinema treatment. The locations chosen for the main houses in the film were very good, and as a general fan of ball scenes there were enough to delight me.Overall, I really enjoyed this film. I suppose it helps that I'm a hopeless romantic. A very very good adaptation, although die-hard fans will probably find enough to pick at. And move over Colin Firth - there's a new master of Pemberley.","['12', '22']" +1471,rw1185820,davecarr-dtlp,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,"A wonderful production... full of colour, character, humour and emotion.",3 October 2005,0,"A wonderful production, full of colour, character, humour and emotion. Clearly an abridged version, mainly focused on the relationship between Lizzie and Darcy, so don't expect everything from the book ... just enjoy what what you do see! The acting is superb from all of the actors involved, the almost hysterical laughter at times between the sisters manages to capture the sheer excitement of first love, while the dedication to the point of nervous exhaustion of Mrs Bennett in securing a suitable marriage for her daughters shows love of another kind. Mr Bennett too almost surprises you with the depth of his feelings. Actors cannot please everyone, but I left feeling involved, moved and happy, I only wish it was longer! A word of congratulations on the scenery, lavish, moody, magnificent .... a reminder re-visit the Peak District and to renew my membership of the National Trust!","['9', '15']" +1472,rw1225899,isabelle1955,Pride & Prejudice (2005),,Exquisitely filmed.,27 November 2005,0,"Pride and Prejudice has always been one of my favourite books, so any screen incarnation has to live up to certain personal expectations of character, style etc. And of course, there is the gold standard of the 1995 BBC series, which, as other reviewers have pointed out, had the luxury of several episodes to cover a story that here takes just two hours. So I was truly delighted to enjoy this movie so much. It had a lot to live up to.The first thing I must say is that it is exquisitely photographed. The atmosphere set by the beautiful cinematography, is perfect. The film deserves to be nominated for an Oscar on that basis alone. I am in awe of the technical crew and director who could find such unspoiled vistas and such perfect weather in England, and I say that as a Brit who used to live very close to some of the eastern England locations! I sat right through to the end of the credits to see where it was shot, because I assumed it must have been filmed in some remote, rural, continental European locale. I felt quite ashamed that I had doubted the ability of my native land to still provide such delightful scenery! The mist rising off early morning fields, geese on a perfect farm pond, magnificent country estates and enormous trees more usually associated with California than England. Also perfect were the interiors. The air of genteel poverty in which the Bennets lived was well captured. The slightly down at heel scruffiness of the Bennet's farm and house, and the general dirtiness of 18th century life for most people, contrasted well with the ridiculous, rich fussiness of Lady Catherine de Bourg's house and the stark, museum-like beauty of Darcy's home.The cast were excellent. I thought Rosamunde Pike as Jane Bennet was perfect, Simon Woods as Mr Bingley was charming although perhaps a little too puppyish, I enjoyed Donald Sutherland and Brenda Blethyn as Mr and Mrs Bennet and I'm one who thinks Matthew MacFadyen did a very good job as Mr Darcy, a characterization which was slightly more user-friendly than Colin Firth's 1995 Darcy. Also outstanding were Claudie Blakley as plain Charlotte Lucas, rescued from a life of unmarried oblivion by pompous Mr Collins (a very good Tom Hollander) and Kelly Reilly, as the bitchy Miss Bingley. Is Rupert Friend (Mr Wickham) destined to play Orlando Bloom's brother? Am I alone in seeing a similarity? Of course, Keira Knightley plays the title role of Elizabeth. I have followed her career closely since Bend it Like Beckham, and I thought this easily her best acting performance so far. She captured the playfulness and wit of Lizzie's bright mind wonderfully well, and made me think long and hard how truly frustrating it must have been to be an intelligent young woman in a world that expected nothing more of her than an ability to choose ribbon and to capture a husband possessed of money. The only possible slight criticism I might make, is that Keira Knightley is perhaps a little too waif-like to pull off the 18th century characterization entirely convincingly. She is stunningly beautiful, but her stick thin appearance alongside her more robust looking screen sisters, made her look as if Mr Bennet might well have doubted her parentage!","['12', '18']" +1473,rw1197113,X-Ice,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,"A more casual, less proper Pride and Prejudice",19 October 2005,0,"I loved the look of the new 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice: people perspire, have bad haircuts and there is dirt visible in the Bennet house. Sometimes, in the dance scenes, the dance floor seemed actually crowded! Even with several servants, the Bennets' lives looked as imperfect as Mrs. Bennet often describes them. As a confirmed Janeite, I had trouble at first accepting the modified dialog. I love Austen's prose and each character has his or her own voice; but the new screenplay shortened long exchanges that would have slowed the action. I realize now that the incredible achievement of fitting the plot into two hours would not have been possible if the original wording of my favorite scenes had been preserved. None of the major plot points were cut and only a few brothers-in-law and aunts were left out. This script also makes the story more accessible to a new audience. I know folks already are starting to read the book as a result of having seen the film.Although satisfied, for the most part, with the casting, I was interested by the ages of the actors and actresses. Susannah Harker played Jane Bennet in 1995; she was born in 1965 -- too old! Rosamund Pike is 26, and those four years make quite a difference in believability. Regardless of her true age, Jena Malone was so bratty, she never seemed a minute over 16. Keira Knightley captured the combination of the vivaciousness of someone barely out of her teens and the wisdom that makes Elizabeth Bennet my favorite fictional character. In 1940, Greer Garson played Elizabeth; she was 36! However, if Mr. and Mrs. Bennet were married young, as Jane Austen said they were, Blethen and Sutherland are too old to have children the age of the Bennet girls. Judi Densch has been playing women younger than herself for quite a while; and who else could possibly have portrayed Lady Catherine as well? I think the ridiculousness of Mrs. Bennet and Mr. Collins were toned down a little too much in this screenplay, although Tom Hollander presented a wonderful combination of self-importance and self-deprecation that is the essence of his character. As for Darcy and Bingley, Colin Firth (P&P, 1995) and Naveen Andrews (Bride and Prejudice, 2004) are such favorites of mine, it is difficult to comment, but I particularly appreciated the lack of confidence of both of these characters that the actors allowed us to glimpse in this new version. Some literary purists may disdain this new, big screen adaptation, but remember, a feature film is not a mini-series any more than it is a book and this production is far more faithful than was the last one (1940). In many ways it is a perfect introduction for the uninitiated. After all, Jane Austen began writing Pride and Prejudice more than 200 years ago!","['1', '6']" +1474,rw1227385,LadyLiberty,Pride & Prejudice (2005),7.0,Pride & Prejudice Does Filmmakers Proud,27 November 2005,0,"Pride & Prejudice Let me state right up front that I've never read Jane Austen's classic, Pride and Prejudice (you can chalk that up to the shortcomings of a public school education if you like, but more realistically should blame the fact that such books aren't really to my taste). That, in turn, might make you wonder why I went to see Pride and Prejudice in the first place. The answer, at least in part, is that I really enjoy a well done period piece (I have as much a thing for costuming and authentic sets as I do for special effects). But I'd also heard good things about the acting and the film in general, and figured it was worth the matinée price to check it out for myself.Pride and Prejudice takes place in Georgian England where ladies and gentlemen alike endured certain expectations of them from society at large. Deviations were, at best, frowned upon and could even result in the ruin of reputations and families alike. The Bennett family is no exception to these stringent if unspoken rules. With five daughters, Mr. Bennett (Donald Sutherland) has his work cut out for him. His wife, Mrs. Bennett (Brenda Blethyn), has that work well in hand as she schemes incessantly to get her five girls safely married, preferably to wealthy men.Though lacking in wealth themselves, the Bennett family is viewed well enough in society to enjoy invitations to parties thrown by others in their rural community. So when the rich and good looking Mr. Bingley (Simon Woods) has a ball, the Bennett daughters are among those present. Mr. Bingley and his astringent sister, Caroline (Kelly Reilly) are also playing host to Bingley's best friend, the dour Mr. Darcy (Matthew MacFadyen). Though the eldest Bennett daughter, the beautiful Jane (Rosamund Pike) finds Mr. Bingley much to her liking, the independent Elizabeth Bennett (Keira Knightley) feels just the opposite about Mr. Darcy.With misunderstandings of intentions and feelings cropping up on all sides, Jane tries to hide her emotions while Elizabeth's are all too evident. Matters are only made more complicated when the staid and stiff Mr. Collins (Tom Hollander) shows up for a visit to the Bennett estate he's named to inherit. Mrs. Bennett is delighted when Mr. Collins expresses some interest in one of her daughters becoming his wife, believing the family will be safe from being turned out if he's married to one of them. But handsome British leftenant Mr. Wickham (Rupert Friend) and Elizabeth's good friend, Charlotte (Claudie Blakley) may have a thing or two to say about that! Meanwhile, Mr. Darcy's upper crust aunt, the Lady Catherine de Bourg (Dame Judi Dench) has some marriage plans of her own. But decisions by Mr. Collins, actions by Mr. Darcy, and the inexplicable by one of the Bennett daughters throw virtually everybody's plans and desires into a complicated and potentially catastrophic state. And poor Elizabeth finds herself in the very center of the storm.Keira Knightly is a very pretty girl and not a bad actress, but her tendency to have what my mother always called ""mush mouth"" makes her hard to understand at times. Rosamund Pike and Jena Malone (as the irrepressible Lydia Bennett) have no such difficulties, while Brenda Blethyn is a tour de force in her role as the nervous Mrs. Bennett. Tom Hollander has Mr. Collins' disapproving looks down pat, while Simon Woods and Rupert Friend are both perfect for their roles. Matthew MacFadyen is all right, too, though I might wish Donald Sutherland troubled himself to have at least some semblance of an English accent.In Pride and Prejudice, though the acting is all fine or better, perhaps the most enjoyable element is provided instead by a story that should be antiquated, but somehow isn't. Kudos to the screenwriter who provided this latest screen adaptation to include the proper atmosphere even while including drama and humor that were perfectly understandable and appreciable by modern audiences. As I'd hoped, the costumes and the sets were just fabulous. There were also a few really creative edits and some very good direction to round the picture out. The cinematography, too, is spectacular.Pride and Prejudice is a really enjoyable movie on a number of levels, though I suspect it will be most successful as a date movie or a so-called ""chick flick."" In a way, that's too bad. It's honestly better than that. In fact, it's better than a lot of other movies have been this year. I sincerely hope it's broadly appreciated by audiences who will be in for a real treat when they take their seats for Pride and Prejudice.FAMILY SUITABILITY: Pride and Prejudice is rated PG for ""some mild thematic elements."" Although tales of Georgian England are sufficiently ""clean"" to satisfy even the most strict of parents, the language and plot is complex enough that I'd leave the under-12 crowd with tickets to Zathura instead. I also have to admit that teenaged boys aren't much going to care for Pride and Prejudice. For everyone else, though, I recommend Pride and Prejudice without reservation. It's fun; it's funny; it's beautifully filmed; and it's just plain good.","['1', '2']" +1475,rw1185447,Trin22,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,"A very cinematic adaptation, definitely worth a look",3 October 2005,0,"I don't know what's with all those harsh comments. The standards applied here seem a bit unfair. Perhaps this is not an adaptation true to the letters of Jane Austen, but it captures an essential part of the story and unfolds it on the big screen in such a lusciously visual way. In the BBC adaptation, Mr. Darcy had all the extra scenes that explain his inner struggles and following transformations, but Mr. Darcy in this film is entirely colored by Lizzy's subjective perception. So that's why we feel a little bit blocked out from his point of view. However, Matthew Macfadyen is a very subtle and nuanced actor and gives much more than is required or allowed, for that matter. Seen from Lizzy's point of view, this story feels much more intimate and personal. I think the makers and the cast emphasized aspects of the story that are different from the BBC version. Although I'm a huge fan of '95 version and Colin Firth, I had no problem with this adaptation. To be fair, at least this film is much, much better than most films hit the theaters near you these days.","['6', '11']" +1476,rw1193973,chelmaja,Pride & Prejudice (2005),7.0,pretty good,15 October 2005,1,"It is extremely hard to see this film without immediately comparing it to the 1995 version with Colin Firth as Mr Darcy. However, once you have adjusted to the changes and settle down to watch it, it is very enjoyable. Keira Knightley surprised me as i did not have very high expectations for her performance as Elizabeth Bennet. She was good but not great as she spent the first half of the film giggling rather annoyingly. Again without making comparisons, i thought the rest of the family were also good, particularly Jane. Mr Darcy took time to get used to as well, but by the end i decided that I liked his performance the best, though i had met the actor before from the TV series 'spooks'. The script ran well throughout most of the film. However there were some slips, when somebody said that something would be 'great' and when Jane commented that she was 'so over him'. Overall i enjoyed the film and i walked out of the cinema feeling satisfied instead of feeling that it had betrayed the previous version.","['2', '4']" +1477,rw1171358,wildgypsy_01,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,A most diverting film!,13 September 2005,0,"Having attended a regional charity premiere last night I can safely say that the actors chosen have more than succeeded in bringing their characters to life. This adaptation hit the perfect note every time in terms of humour, romance and warmth. Keira Knightley plays a wonderfully spirited Lizzie and MacFayden really hits the spot as a dour yet shy Darcy. The whole cast throw themselves into their roles with gusto and overall the film left this viewer charmed and delighted. Its obviously going to have a tough time proving itself to those who loved the BBC adaptation as that seems to have become for so many THE adaptation of the novel, but give this one a chance, those that don't will be missing out. Sorry to keep this brief but I don't want to be accused of giving anything away!","['199', '336']" +1478,rw1181018,susannah-16,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,Excellent version with just that little something different,26 September 2005,0,"Keira Knightley's performance was a revelation - Whilst obviously extremely pretty, she was also animated, lively and young enough to bring off the freshness in Lizzies character. I thought Matthew MacFadyen was great in his role - thoughtful enough, and melting gradually throughout the film to the man who declares his love passionately at the end. I always thought that the wet shirt scene in the 1995 version was wildly overrated and very un Jane Austenish, so the passionate looks and buttoned up emotions of this one were much more in keeping with the book. MacFadyen gives a very intelligent performance and there are some great moments such as when his sister says to Lizzie that he had told her she was very good at the piano and he corrects her ""quite good, I said quite good"". The setting was also fresh and realistic - much less uptight than previous versions, with real mud, lots of animals, untidy rooms and a great feel for the period in which it is set - much less picture postcard than it could have been. At just over two hours it could have been longer - Mr Wickham could have been done more justice, as could Darcys letter, Lizzies time at Pemberley and Lizzies growing impatience to get Darcy on his own at the end - in the book she gets increasingly desperate to be able to speak to him, which just adds to the growing tension. The mist scene at the end raised a laugh in the cinema I was in - whilst I have to say that both actors looked great, and once Matthew MacFadyen had started talking I forgot about how contrived it was, it was still a bit hackneyed - more Charlotte Bronte than Jane Austen. Still - made a great poster. I also thought that the end was an anticlimax - a smile or a kiss or Lizzy rushing off to fling her arms around Darcy would have sent us all out smiling broadly. However - check out the US version of the trailer - at the end there is a two or three second clip which certainly didn't appear in the film here - so lets hope it gets reinstated in the DVD version ! As an update there is a petition running to ""reinstate the kiss"" - check it out at http://www.PetitionOnline.com/PP2005/","['4', '9']" +1479,rw1224887,smartypants782,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,"If you have read Pride and Prejudice, then you should know.",26 November 2005,0,"I thought Pride and Prejudice was an overall excellent film and the best movie that I have seen this fall season. It was certainly better than Harry Potter which I had seen the week before. I didn't think that any adaptation of Jane Austen's beloved book would surpass that of the 5-hour version with Colin Firth but this one has certainly done that. Keira Knightley truly embodied the character of Elizabeth Bennet and Matthew MacFadyen played Mr. Darcy with the perfect touch of sensuality and awkwardness. I also couldn't imagine how Austen's lengthy love story could fit into a mere two hour length but it was done superbly. The actors were all well-chosen, but I do have to comment on the rather goofing nature of Mr. Bingley in this film. I did not imagine him to be the way he was but nevertheless, he only contributed positively to the quality of this movie.","['3', '6']" +1480,rw1215122,Keene284,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Incredible Movie,13 November 2005,0,"I drove for an hour and a half to see this movie because it was not playing in my area. Then I had to sit in the front row because it was so crowded and crane my head up to see the screen. But this movie was totally worth it. I waited for 6 months for this movie to come out. I loved it! I think the cast did a great job portraying their characters. I don't know what all the negative comments are about. I almost squealed in the middle of the theater at the end. The scenery was beautiful and the characters' costumes were excellent. The movie followed very closely to the book, and although some things were changed, the movie overall stayed very close to the book. Pride and Prejudice is my favorite book, and now it's my favorite movie, too. Now I'm anxiously waiting for it to come out on video!","['2', '3']" +1481,rw1216332,LunarKitty13,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,"must...remain...faithful...to Colin Firth...and a&e...AAGH, why is it soo good?!?!",13 November 2005,0,"I must admit that I went into the theatre almost completely biased and determined to dislike this movie and Matthew Macfadyen as Mr. Darcy because who on earth could live up to Colin Firth's gorgeously arrogant and aristocratic portrayal of Fitzwilliam? I tried to dislike it, I tried to find fault. Damn it all, blast and wretch!! Urgh, all right, all right, it's good, it's GOOD...!! Keira Knightley, i think, is a better choice for playing Lizzy because while Jennifer Ehle is a good actress and fairly attractive, Keira shows Lizzy's rough edges and unconventional beauty in the Victorian era. And I know it sounds weird, but Keira's body type fits Lizzy better I think. Jennifer has gorgeous flawless smooth white skin and is just barely plump-ish, and has perfect curls; to me this does NOT seem like Lizzy Bennett. Now Keira Knightley has a slightly almost ruddy complexion, slightly messy hair, is tall and lanky, and has pretty much no boobs. Jennifer, has boobs. It may seem weird, but it makes sense.By the end of the movie, I loved Matthew Macfadyen even though I felt like I was betraying my dear Colin Firth. As far as the image of arrogance and self-importance, Colin succeeds better. But when it comes to Darcy informing Lizzy of his love for her, Macfadyen is better in that he really looked ticked off that he's tried so hard not to like her but he just can't help himself and that makes him even more ticked off. I could totally see the thoughts of ""I've tried SO FREAKING HARD to not even like you, let alone, love you, and I still do, it's against my better judgement, you're beneath me, it would be socially stupid of me to marry you, but god help me, I love you and I want to marry you.""Mrs. Bennett, haha, she's great: a fidgety scheming nervous wreck of a woman. Wonderful. ^_^ Mr. Bennett was delightful in his own small role: laid back and does well with his few little funny bits. Judi Dench was wonderful as Lady Catherine de Bourg, although I kept thinking of her as the crotchety and full-of-vinegar Armande in ""Chocolat"". ^_^ He's ridiculous, but I felt really bad for poor Mr. Collins because no one really ever listens to him, not even his wife. Kitty and Lydia were wonderfully giggly Victorian teeny-bopper flirts.I did wonder a little at the cinematography, as far as closeups went. It just seemed like every time the camera panned to another person, it would zoom in just a little when they spoke, and then when the camera panned back again, it would do its little zoom think again.Costumes were great, even though I've always detested most of the Victorian styles for women. Darcy still looks good...Scenery was nice, especially Darcy's house. Good freakin' LORD, that place is HUGE, and sooo NICE! Which reminds me of another character analysis: Tamzin Merchant as Georgiana was adorable! And the little knowing look she gave to her brother when Lizzy was in the room, well, it was perfect. ~_^ So yes, even though it pains me and I feel disloyal to A & E and Colin Firth, I must give this film a 9 out of 10 for wonderful awkward moments, superb acting, and the most-perfect-to-date portrayal of Jane Austen's novel I have ever seen.thespian wishes, ~*kitty Walsh*~","['19', '31']" +1482,rw1172693,Devize,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,"I was all ready to dislike this, but... wow!",15 September 2005,1,"I am a huge fan of the 1995 TV series. To me, no new production could top that, it was just about perfect, but I was ready to try this, completely convinced that it could never ever be as good.I was wrong. It had all the joy and spirit of any good Jane Austen adaptation, but with a subtle but incredible vein of passion, intensity and humanity. Likewise, I didn't think Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen could ever live up to their 1995 counterparts. They did. Beneath the thin layer of early 18th century propriety, were two very real human beings quietly torn apart by the confusion of their feelings.The supporting cast were wonderful, funny, convincing, while giving little moments of completely new and sweet insight into these so familiar characters. I was particularly taken by Donald Sutherland and Brenda Blethyn as Mr and Mrs Bennet.And the other star is the direction - almost choreographed at times, especially in the ball scenes... and I don't mean the dancing! In a screen full of activity and bustle you were drawn to the tiniest of details - a look, a stillness, the movement of a hand. And there were shots and moments that I found reminiscent more of a Thomas Hardy film such as ""Far From the Madding Crowd"" rather than previous Austen adaptations, all of which boosted the reality and the humanity of the characters and the situation.The one bad point? It wasn't long enough!! I could have immersed myself quite happily for another three hours! And, inevitably, with a film adaptation, there are time limitations and certain elements have been cut. But overall, it doesn't matter. I've fallen in love with Lizzie and Darcy all over again, and I can't wait to see several more times!","['17', '34']" +1483,rw1228075,sammyletsgotothemalldavi,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,"Beautiful, wonderful, rendition of it. They made it worthwhile to see and get.",30 November 2005,0,"This was a beautiful Pride and Prejudice. Out of all of the ones that I have seen, this one portrayed the book the most accurate, it made it so you believed what you actually read years ago, and it made you think that it could have really happened. The casting was very good I believe. I didn't like some of the cast like the guy who played Mr. Collins but he did a wholeheartedly job on it. Keira Knightley was born for the role. If you don't believe me, read Pride and Prejudice. Not the abridged version though. I have seen 2 versions of the movie before I saw this one and this one was the best. Matthew Macfayden was a perfect Mr. Darcy. The chemistry between him and Keira Knightley was brilliant. And the scenes were made so that you wanted to be there. You wanted to feel the sunlight and everything about them. I loved all of the movie and would see it again for anything. The clothes were wonderful, the directing was wonderful, the scenery was wonderful, the props were wonderful, the special effects were wonderful, everything about it was wonderful.","['16', '24']" +1484,rw1212195,fabians4,Pride & Prejudice (2005),1.0,What period is this supposed to be in?,9 November 2005,0,"I have seen photos of the movie, this newest one. I give it low points because of the utter lack of regard for it's period costumes. This is NOT Regency England! Jane Austen would not be amused... This reminds me laughingly of the MGM version of P&P that starred Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier, so this is 2 for 2 of film companies getting Regancy England so terribly wrong! I am sure that the acting is marvelous; the cast is stellar, but the lack of true Regency period infuriates me! Too many times glitz and kitch take over and surroundings suffer because of it. Others have taken Jane Austen and made it true. Take Emma Thompson, for instance. She got her characters, surroundings, and costumes just right. Filmdom could take a lesson from Miss Thompson's Sense and Sensibility, as well as TV's Pride and Prejudice that starred Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy, and Persuasion with Amanda Root as Anne Elliot.All in all, I think one will prefer the 1995 television mini-series version, with it's complete story, costuming, and more of a true vision of that time. Television, when it takes on Jane Austen, seems to know who to do it right.Pity, I was hoping for more from this newest film adaptation.","['21', '44']" +1485,rw1230929,elunapsychologynut,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Five Stars and 2 thumbs UP Way Up,4 December 2005,1,"""Pride and Prejudice"" by Joe Wright took my Breath away!!! I love the setting.My eyes was glued to the screen the whole time. Joe Wright has a knack for going back into time. He made the movie looked very real and it went back in time!!!!!Ilove the English background throughout the whole movie. No matter how you read it or see it, it's worth the ticket price and the time to see it again and again. This worthy of an Oscar in Best Picture, Best Director, Bets Acteress & Best Actor. It's a great movie to watch for a school class project. Most of all, I enjoyed the movie overall. The movie gets an""A+++++++++"" on my list.It's worth the time and the money that is well spent on anyone's part who saw the movie. Bravo !!!!!!!","['7', '11']" +1486,rw1237860,SteveLKay,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Great Movie,13 December 2005,0,"Stories like this just don't happen any more in a time where there's so much fuss about body attributes and looks in contrast to inner values and character. From their first meeting, and driven by the course of events, Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy each outgrow their disposition - Elizabeth rises from playful, superficial adolescence to a profound, impressive young woman while Darcy descends from haughtiness to noble decency. This prototype of romance is rather triggered by fresh dialogs than mutual desire. Darcy is initially attracted and confused by Elizabeth's spontaneity, by her ability to dumbfound him who considers his views so concluded that he is rather bored by the social activities around him. Till the end they never kiss, they almost never touch each other except for dancing or helping her on a coach. And still, the air between them is more and more filled with romance.The movie paints a picture of an 18th-century family in a society where the only adequate aim for a young woman was to marry advantageously, Elizabeth being kind of a heroine because of her free, open mind so unbending to authority. The original novel by Jane Austen is rather truthfully adopted with some restrictions due to the inevitable bit of director's / scriptwriter's dramatic freedom; e.g. the book has no such scene where Darcy approaches her through morning fogs - well that's just good old Hollywood, a little dip of romance here and there, but (imo) tolerable as it rather decorates the original plot instead of altering it.Conclusion: if you're a romantic who likes such settings, this one is for you. Jane Austen fanatics might take exception to a few details left out or filled in, though.","['2', '4']" +1487,rw1222411,d_eadparrot,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,LOVED IT!! and go to the website if you haven't already..,22 November 2005,0,"If you haven't gone to the official site now fully operational please go to it. For great clips, photos and info on the movie. Austen lovers rejoice for such a young fresh lively version of a classic and much loved novel! Kiera and Matther sizzle on the screen and I challenge anyone to look at this version with fresh eyes and not see it for the joy that it is!! Direcot Joe Wrights first feature film is such an achievement he stays true to the novel but looks at it through new eyes unlike other adaptations, this is the first movie version since the 60s (the BBC version being a miniseries)and it is such a welcome version that it will open up Austen to a whole new audience. I hope you all loved it as much as I did. definitely film to be seen more than once, if you're feeling down go and see it, it will lift your spirits no doubt! www.prideandprejudicemovie.net take care!","['2', '3']" +1488,rw1213737,mad_low,Pride & Prejudice (2005),8.0,Like a long walk with a good friend,11 November 2005,0,"I've read this book at least 20 times. So, it's saying a lot when a movie adaptation of the book can get me to cry ... sigh ... laugh or just feel contented at all the same places along the story line. The staging was beautiful though a bit heavy handed yet it's Hollywood. What do you expect? The costuming was very true to form. And, oh the romance. It's like snuggling in your favorite blanket in front of the fire. Though no movie adaptation of this book could ever be as good as the A&E version this one runs a very close second. Ah, and then there is the surprise actor/actress. You will just want to cheer when you see him/her walk into the frame for the first time. Well worth going to see it just for that.","['4', '7']" +1489,rw1207497,clare_q,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Different to the series but better for it,2 November 2005,0,"I've the read the book many times and watched the series more then a few and love both. The film ant either but thats the joy in it, the director has given us the ""love scenes"" but made a real attempt to make them fresh and new, I'm glad we don't get the wet shirt Darcy cos it could never be the compare to firth. Another review thought they lacked any sexual attraction, I'm really surprised, in the rain scene they were so hot they sizzled. I thought Macfadyen was a great Darcy and perfect for the way the film choose to develop him, he managed to go from the stern pompous prefect to a proper love interest by little changes in demeanour and behaviour. Keira shone too although perhaps a bit toothy.","['7', '13']" +1490,rw1222563,ferrerogrrl,Pride & Prejudice (2005),1.0,not tolerable enough to tempt me,22 November 2005,0,"I think it is saying something that the Bollywood ""Bride and PRejudice"" stayed more faithful to the source material than this 2005 Hollywood version did. I also laughed more at the Bollywood version. (Mr. Kholi? Priceless!) If you have read the book or seen the 1995 BBC version (and liked them), you will be in for a nasty surprise going in to this film then. My friend however, who had seen neither, was mildly amused by the film. If you are a JAne Austen purist though, or even a film-goer who dislikes historical inaccuracies, it will be painful to sit through this.Ugh, the script. The script was the biggest problem. I imagine the actors wouldn't have fared half so badly if they'd had a decent script, perhaps penned by somebody who actually loved Austen's work.What travesties were committed? Well, you'll be forced to endure such incredulous lines as ""Don't you dare judge me, Lizzy!"" and ""Leave me alone for once in your lives!"". Not only are such lines far from anything that could come from Jane Austen's eloquent pen, but can anyone honestly believe words like that spilling from the mouth of a genteel young lady from the Regency era? The usage of modern colloquialisms is one of the many irritating ways that the screenwriter butchers the book. The writer also decided to give characters lines that, in the book, were said by a completely different characters and all for no apparent purpose. Worse of all, when they do try to stick a bit closer to the book's writing, the screenwriter has a nasty and unnecessary habit of rearranging Austen's phrases and substituting awkward synonyms for her already perfect words. It was as if the screenwriter sat down with the book in one hand and a thesaurus in the other when writing the script. Stick to Austen's words; she did it better than you! I assume all of this was done in a ""revisionist"" spirit and in an effort to distance this film from the iconic 1995 BBC version. However, for me, it also made a travesty of the true spirit of Austen's most beloved work.The casting did have potential, though it was quickly dashed away once the script kicked in. But Keira, giggling excessively and baring your crooked teeth does not equal charm and vivacity! And I think Mr. McFayden, though I find him tolerably handsome enough, misread his script and was under the impression he was playing Heathcliff and not the formidable Mr. Darcy. I really did enjoy Brenda Blethyn, Kelly Reilly and the actor who played Mr. Collins. Their interpretations were really rather refreshing.Oh, but Donald Sutherland! Somebody described his performance as seeming like a hobo who had accidentally wandered onto the movie set and I must say it is an apt description. And can somebody tell me why they fashioned Wickham after Legolas? Though he was in the movie for under two minutes, I daresay, and without his impressive archery skills to perk up the movie.On a wardrobe note, I would kill for Miss Bingley's dresses because they were sumptuous and would fit in more with the modern century. (A sleeveless Regency evening gown? Please! More Versace than Austen, that is sure) And poor Keira, all of the budget went to her salary and not her wardrobe! Oh, and I'm sure they eventually caught the bastard who stole the one hairbrush from the movie set. Unfortunately, they didn't catch him soon enough to comb the actresses' tresses before filming rolled.In short, with this new Hollywood version, bid adieu to Austen's eloquence, subtlety and wit because you'll be getting the complete opposite.","['177', '312']" +1491,rw1226763,cupcakejayk,Pride & Prejudice (2005),4.0,"Inaccurate and trite, but not a total loss",28 November 2005,1,"Let me begin by saying that I adore the book and loved the A&E miniseries. I was hoping to love this film, and I was absolutely willing to allow it a moderate degree of artistic license in interpreting and abbreviating the actual story. However, this film scarcely resembles the original book. If only ""the names had been changed to protect the innocent,"" I would have possibly enjoyed the movie as simply an entertaining, if inaccurate, period piece.Unfortunately, putting the name ""Mr. Darcy"" on a character who is emotional and weak, giving the name ""Elizabeth Bennett"" to a reckless, snippy, often teary-eyed hoyden who cares nothing for the rules of society, and making ""Mr. Bingley"" a wide-eyed dimwit absolutely destroyed the idea that the director had ever read Jane Austen's original story. There are some really stellar moments in this movie -- perhaps a total of 10 minutes are truly excellent. Charlotte's explanation of why she accepted Mr. Collins' proposal begins beautifully. She is 27 years old (quite near the hopeless-spinster age in those times), she is becoming a burden on her family, and she is not romantic. She only wants ""a comfortable home."" However, the beautiful dialogue is ruined when she blubbers, ""Don't you judge me, Elizabeth. Don't you dare judge me!"" and runs off in tears. Later, you see Charlotte kowtow to Lady Catherine de Bourgh, which was not at all in her character as described in the book. Another good moment is when Darcy catches Elizabeth in his home while she is touring the area with her aunt and uncle. It was well done in the A&E series, but the film version with Keira Knightley made the audience feel acutely how very humiliating that moment must have been for Elizabeth. Very nice.The ending also illustrated a level of affection between Elizabeth and Darcy that was not shown as obviously in the miniseries. I actually appreciated that scene, simply because I like to see a happy ending, rather than just know that it took place. Altogether, though, this movie eliminated the subtlety that was such an integral part of Austen's Pride and Prejudice. The characters speak in a jarring combination of Austen's dialogue verbatim and modern phrases and colloquialisms. Information that was only alluded to or suggested in the original work is blatantly stated in this version. Yes, time was a concern. It's only a short movie, yada yada. But turning a complex, beautiful book into a superficial love story is ridiculous. Some have commented that they loved the moment when Darcy first sees Elizabeth, because it is so obviously a case of ""love at first sight."" Love at first sight? Huh? One of the best aspects of the book is that Elizabeth is not supposed to be a traditional beauty, and Darcy comes to love her for her wit and liveliness ... he literally ""loves her for her mind."" This version also had a moment (during Darcy's first proposal) when the two are yelling furiously at each other, while leaning closer ... and closer ... and almost kissing ... but they suddenly step apart. Ugh! What a sad cliché. They're angry and disgusted with each other, but so attracted that it doesn't matter that (at the time) they don't even like each other? Ridiculous! The characterizations were all so far removed from those described in the book that it really was like a different story. Mr. Bennet was dour, Elizabeth usually acted just as silly as her younger sisters, Charlotte was emotional, somewhat unintelligent and desperate for a home of her own -- unlike the intelligent, slightly scheming woman with an abundance of common sense who is portrayed in the novel. Jane and Elizabeth's relationship is merely topical, instead of the deep-rooted love and admiration they are supposed to have for each other. All this I could have accepted as merely poor interpretations of the novel, but I refused to accept all that in addition to the many, many historical inaccuracies. Miss Bingley walked around scarcely clothed (her dress looked like what the others would wear as tight undergarments). Elizabeth walked to Netherfield with her hair down and allowed to fly all over. The family lazed about one morning, though mornings were supposed to be reserved for calling on acquaintances (or being called on at your own home). Elizabeth walked outside barefoot in her nightgown. And in a really appalling scene, Bingley walked into Jane's bedroom and conversed with her (and sounded like an idiot) when she was ill. Most people would feel these are minor points, but I simply wanted either A.) an historically accurate film, or B.)an accurate representation of the characters in the novel. The director/writer/whoever sacrificed accuracy, subtlety and a good story for a trite tale of love at first sight. I can concede that those who have not read the book or who are not familiar with the social conventions of the time could very easily like this movie, and there is nothing wrong with that. I simply couldn't overcome my desire to see a film that involved more than just two pretty faces.","['16', '32']" +1492,rw1225610,fanofmozarts2,Pride & Prejudice (2005),6.0,Pride and Prejudice 2005,27 November 2005,0,"I was so anxious to see this movie. First, I must say that I enjoyed how they re-enacted the period. The style, grit, earthiness was interesting and the scenic shots were breath taking, but...the acting left much to be desired. On the way home we decided that Keira Knightly (Elizabeth Bennet) was impersonating Winona Rider as Jo in Little Women. She lacked the elegance of the Elizabeth we are accustomed to in the A&E version of P & P and she was much too silly. Elizabeth and Jane were almost as giddy as Lydia and Kitty, which did not give the contrast that Jane Austen must have intended in her beloved novel. To the untrained eye it was a fun movie and Keira Knightly is energetic and beautiful to watch. To the pure Jane Austen fan this version lacks the true dialogue and the tweaking of the story was ridiculous. For example having Elizabeth blurt out to Mr.Darcy that dancing would not be fun even if he had a partner that could tempt him. Paaaleeeze. AND they cut out some of the best lines! ""If you had behaved in a more gentleman-like manner!"" The Mr.Collins character was rather believable and Dame Judy Dench as Lady Catherine worked well and I would have liked to see her in more scenes. They took poetic license a bit too far by having Bingley come into Jane's room while she was sick to check on her. That would not be done in Austen's book! They had Elizabeth walking outside in her nightgown because she could not sleep and Darcy meeting her at sunrise as he was walking. NEVER. Let alone the ending with the silly kissing scene at Pemberly. I did have fun seeing this with a friend who knows the story and the A&E version inside and out. We chuckled and annoyed all those around us. My husband commented that it was like watching The Lord of the Rings Trilogy cut down to a two-hour movie— It felt like it was in fast forward. Recently I read many reviews declaring this version was Brontëfied with sweeping landscapes and lacking the incredible dialogue. I am amiss to why they bothered to film this movie when the A&E version is so utterly superior and true to the book. I just hope that anyone who has seen this production will be interested in reading the book and/or watching the A&E version to be completely caught up with the true story and the fascinating dialogue that Jane Austen is famous for.","['2', '4']" +1493,rw1243618,ab-2,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Best film of the year 2005,20 December 2005,1,"The period piece has never been a favorite film genre for reviewers. There have been excellent ones, such as Barry Lyndon and awful ones, such as Sense And Sensibility. Perhaps the worst quality is the tendency for these types of films to just stop and ponder. Pride & Prejudice is thankfully not that type, but will instead enter the pantheon of great period films.The film takes place in 1797. Mrs. Bennet (Brenda Blethyn) is trying to get her five daughters married off. In hopes of doing so, she brings them all to a dance where the dashing Mr. Darcy (Matthew MacFadyen) will be attending. One of the daughters, Elizabeth (Keira Knightley), falls in love with Darcy, but can't stand his arrogant personality. She tries to wow him, but is unsuccessful in many attempts. Through this tale, all the characters come to know what true love is in their own way.The acting is absolutely fantastic. Keira Knightley has never been as impressive as she is in this role. She projects a virgin innocence to her character. Knightley brings complexity to what could've been a clichéd, one-note female character. Matthew MacFadyen as Darcy is awesome in his role as an emotionless, unlikable man. For a film in this day and age, it was a pleasure to see such an arrogant, pompous character portrayed realistically. The scene that best stands out is at a dance party where Elizabeth offers to dance with Darcy. He turns her down, saying ""I don't dance if I can help it."" Just the sheer tone and mannerisms of his character make him unlikable in a performance that deserves an Oscar nomination.Brenda Blethyn, one of the greatest British actresses to grace the stage and screen, gives a magnificent and hilarious performance as Mrs. Bennet. She has such a natural ability, it doesn't seem like she is acting. There are so many layers to her character and she gives equal emotion to all her personalities and feelings. It is also great to see Donald Sutherland back on the screen, as the caring and loving father Mr. Bennet. He gives a sweet and lovable performance.The actor who gives the best performance in this film is the great Judi Dench as Darcy's callous aunt. Though she doesn't have a big role, she has a fierce and imposing manner on screen that makes her impossible to ignore. She chews up the scenery every time she appears on screen. Her cold, emotionless stares send shivers down the audience's spine.The writing for this movie, especially for a period piece, is quite fantastic. While it cannot be judged as an adaptation, the dialogue is not boring or overly fancy with hefty amounts of old-English colloquialisms. It has some, but overall, the dialogue is written in such a way that will satisfy audiences without confusing them. The comedic dialogue is well balanced against the dramatic side of the movie without one over powering the other. Therefore, the audience knows they are seeing a dramatic comedy, not a comedy trying to be a drama or vice-versa.Director Joe Wright smartly keeps the film moving at a fast pace, which happens very rarely in period pieces. In most, the directors just stop and let characters talk for what seems like forever. Instead, Wright constructs every scene with integral importance to the story.He treats all the characters, especially the males, with respect. The film could've turned out to be a one-sided woman's picture, but thankfully doesn't turn out that way.Wright makes the film stand out from the others in the genre. His use of the zoom and hand-held camera is quite unheard of in period pieces, but he uses them sparingly and at the right moments. His use of the zoom on a character's face during a highly emotional moment is executed very well and helps heighten the emotional effect. Overall, taking on a novel that has been adapted countless times is a daunting task, and his version is very well done.A period piece can't be reviewed if the visuals are ignored. The cinematography by Roman Osin is like a beautiful painting. The lighting and colors are so vibrant and stunning, making one wish they could live in such a time period. His color schemes capture the English countryside at its best, particularly in a scene where Elizabeth is just strolling across a hill. The costumes and sets are all gorgeous as well and also enhance the love for this film. In many period pieces, these factors tend to be the main distracters in the film, thus leading to the term ""costume drama."" Going into a film with negative expectations and coming out with the exact opposite is a great feeling. Those who go into Pride & Prejudice do not have to be fans of period pieces. It is recommended that everyone goes see this film. The mature romantic nature of this story will even make the most stoic person want to bawl. Come Oscar time, this film better rack up several nominations.Final Grade: A+","['14', '21']" +1494,rw1226721,kristen-frederickson,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,can't stop thinking about Mr. Darcy,28 November 2005,1,"I confess to not having seen another version of this story, nor having read the book until after I saw it, but I must say that I am completely obsessed with Matthew McFadyen's portrayal of Mr. Darcy. I think that, comparing his portrayal to the novel's drawing of the character, McFadyen has brought out a level of vulnerability, loneliness and a sense of a rather tragic past (his sister's treatment by Wickham) that was missing in the book. Granted we're talking about psychological issues (like the very notion of a ""relationship"", a point whose anachronicity was brought up by another commenter, totally agree there) that have evolved an awful lot over 200 years, but still, I thought McFadyen's portrayal reached a depth of appeal that is necessary in order for the audience to care whether he's made deliriously happy or not. I thought Keira Knightley was far too lightweight, both literally and figuratively, to warrant his being bewitched by her. Anyone have ideas on who would have been a better Elizabeth? Forget making Kristin Scott Thomas 25 again, my first wish.But that all said, Matthew McFadyen is simply unbelievably sexy and I am desperate for an archive on material about him in the UK. Any suggestions on where to find write-ups of his work? I'm moving from New York to London in a month and can look things up there if need be.","['3', '6']" +1495,rw1214583,catty1324,Pride & Prejudice (2005),8.0,A Splendid Effort,12 November 2005,0,"Pride and Prejudice is not only my favorite book of all time but I am also a die-hard fan of the BBC mini-series. Having said that I have to say that I loved this movie! There were a few incidences when they messed up some of the most important and iconic lines but on the most part they did a very good job and I was giddy at the romance in the end. I have seen every version of Pride and Prejudice that has been made, from the 1940 version with Lawrence Olivier and Greer Garson to the 1985 BBC version and I have found something to love in all of them. The mini-series is above-all the best version ever made but you have to remember that it is 5 hours long and the average movie is around 2 hours. For the time they had to work with this movie is absolutely wonderful and a must see for all Jane Austen enthusiasts. Go see it and enjoy the wonderful filming as well, because not only is this movie a good adaptation it is also a beautifully filmed work with wonderful colors and camera work.","['1', '4']" +1496,rw1188606,andyandlindafisher,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Fantastic - a must see for all girlies!,7 October 2005,0,"I am a huge fan of all the Austen books, and will never, ever tire of reading them or watching mini series/films of them.Frankly, I thought I would have to go a long way to find a better Mr Darcy than Colin Firth (1995) but if his Mr Darcy is Mr Smooth, then Matthew MacFayden's Mr Darcy is the bit of rough all girls crave sometimes.The scene where he declares his love for Elizabeth had me gasping - don't worry, I am not about to ruin it for anyone, but remember where you read it first.On the whole, I think his Darcy is a lot less insipid than Colin Firth's. Another reviewer noted that he did not act the part very well, seeming very disinterested in the whole thing. All I can say is that he acts with his eyes. The ""mirrors of the soul"" tell you that he has been struck dumb by Elizabeth, and that he is steadily falling in love with her. They show his confusion when he has been at Rosings and seen her again, the helplessness he feels when Lydia runs away with Wickham, and his pleasure at seeing Elizabeth at Pemberley. Top class indeed.Kiera Knightly is a different Elizabeth to Jennifer Ehle - but good nevertheless. She gives her the right amount of spirit, and couples it with a smile as big as the Miserable half of Derbyshire! I was worried out Brenda Blethyn as Mrs Bennet, as I had enjoyed the performance of Alison Steadman so much, but she was very good and gave her the right amount of ""nerves"" and had some very funny moments. Donald Sutherland, whilst excellent at the uxurious Mr Bennet, did have very, very white teeth which rather ruined the Georgian effect. Wickham, alas, left me cold. Mr Collins - ah, what can you say about the comic timing of Tom Hollander? Genius casting. Just obsequious enough to satisfy purists and very funny to boot. Rosamund Pike was excellent as Jane, but the other three sisters just made me want to slap them - perhaps it was just good acting? I have now watched the film 3 times and can't wait until the DVD comes out - rumours abound that there is an alternative ending planned for the extras. How one could have an alternative ending to such a classic is beyond me.","['12', '20']" +1497,rw1198139,tgtround,Pride & Prejudice (2005),5.0,Save yourself the money and buy the BBC series,21 October 2005,0,"There is much to enjoy in this adaptation of Austen but Keira Knightley is not one of them. A fine production with great colour, great music and some outstanding actors the heart of the story is let down by the lead performance and the MTV camera-work.While Macfadyen gives a performance as Darcy which is within a shout as good as Colin Firth Keira is an over-hyped lightweight with so little gravitas that she just can't carry the film. It feels like Frank Lampard has been replaced in Chelsea's midfield by a youth trainee.Save yourself the bother and buy the BBC series of the 1990s on DVD instead.","['7', '15']" +1498,rw1223362,spooksloft,Pride & Prejudice (2005),4.0,Not what I had hoped it might be.,23 November 2005,1,"I'm trying to think of a delicate way of saying how much I won't be buying it when it comes out on DVD. Visually, it was stunning. Though one wonders why so few members of the cast seem to have been allotted a hairbrush. Perhaps they spent so much on livestock for this production that, in the end, they found they could only afford one. What a pity it wasn't shared.Some of the acting was superb. Judi Dench was magnificent, as always. But then, I truly believe that woman could give a compelling reading from the phone book. Matthew Mcfayden was a sultry, nigh-Heathcliffian Darcy. Tom Hollander made a creditable Mr. Collins with what little he was given. Donald Sutherland had me welling up when he did. And Tallulah Riley was the most sympathetic Mary Bennet I've ever seen.But as for Keira Knightly's interpretation of Elizabeth Bennett… As I told a good friend, I shall not soon be inviting Ms. Knightly to tea. Though, I would willingly strap her to a chair and feed her a pie. Like Gwyneth Paltrow before her, Ms. Knightly seems to have gone to extremes to make her Austen heroine look as underfed as humanly possible. Ms. Paltrow, however, at least played Emma truer to character than Ms. Knightly did Elizabeth. (I feel bad about that too, as I really did like her in Love Actually and Pirates of the Caribbean.)She was just so unsubtle. She displayed a tongue-behind-her-teeth grin, and an irritating propensity to giggle that was far more like Lydia than Lizzy. While she didn't come off as stupid, she did come off as far less acerbic and discerning than the Lizzy of the book.My other issues are that (for the sake of time) certain scenes were combined that should not have been, it changed the tone of some of the key encounters. Charlotte's getting angry with Lizzy was unexpected and out of character. I spent much of the movie having no idea which girl was Lydia and which one was Kitty, as little was done to distinguish one from the other until ""the infamous elopement"". Some of the language was, in my opinion, dumbed-down too much, supposedly for the sake of modern audiences. Certain things that Lizzy said were far too modern. (And really, who did they think would be seeing this movie anyway?) Lizzy declaring to her father that she had been completely wrong about Darcy was nonsense. A big part of the book was Darcy's transformation; he really was a pompous, posturing ass in the beginning.And what on Earth was that scene at the end!? I half expected to see fireworks timed to go off with the obligatory smooch. That, or Tinkerbelle to fly by.Pardon me, I must now watch all five hours of the A&E version in penance.","['23', '43']" +1499,rw1180858,FilmFANnatic,Pride & Prejudice (2005),8.0,P&P is excellent,26 September 2005,0,"I would just like to say I think Pride and Prejudice is an excellent film. I am only 16 and at first wondered what was the point in watching a movie that was a U and therefore contained no sex/language/violence however P&P is great in so many other ways. It is visually stunning and well acted and I believe it appeals to an audience who would normally not be interested in a film version of a classic. Far from bogging the watcher down with confusing dialogue and an overcomplicated plot it told the story in an authentic way without alienating a younger audience. Although I wouldn't recommend this to very small children I would definitely tell anyone not completely repulsed by the idea of a Jane Austen novel on screen, to watch it.","['1', '7']" +1500,rw1173323,catwoman_3786,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Beautiful,16 September 2005,1,"Before I am commence writing this review, I have to tell y'all that I am absolutely in love with the BBC adaptation of Pride & Prejudice - so much so that I even have the soundtrack of the series. I hated Bride & Prejudice when I saw it and now that I have seen Pride & Prejudice on the big screen my faith in adaptations has been restored.The thing I liked about this film was it was so different from the first. It was an entirely new approach. They changed the scenarios and the meetings but these changes are more than welcome: for example when Mr. Darcy meets Lizzie again it is in Lady Catherine DeBourgh's parlour and the proposal is outside in the rain (which I think captures the moment beautifully). The approach to the characters was also different - their lives and characters aren't as polished as the one in the BBC adaptation. There isn't that kind of restraint.Next, the dialogues - I loved them. The film-makers did an excellent job of condensing the film without losing the essence. The last scene with Lizzie and Darcy is proof of excellent dialogues - they are not completely true to the original but they are fantastic. Dramatic and kudos to the actors for delivering them beautifully. The other thing to note about the dialogues is the fact that in condensing the film, some sub-plots have been removed but the film does not try to refer to them (or 'stuff' them in) everywhere - what they have left out they do not refer to at all (such as the strength of the relationship between Lizzie and Jane).Next to the acting. Keira Knightley was not one of my favourite actresses - she is now. I think she did an excellent job as Lizzie Bennett - she was very convincing and when she spoke I felt that she believed was Lizzie Bennett. Matthew MacFayden has had unnecessary flak - he was a brilliant Mr. Darcy given the environment and restrictions he had to work with (limited time) - he is completely believable. He is very silent but his eyes - they speak volumes.I do have one issue though - the portrayal of Mr. Bingley - I had him down as a nice man not a goofy man but then that is my perception. I think Rupert Friend also got a rough deal as Wickham because he didn't have many scenes to do his character justice - but with the scenes he did have the made him seem cowardice and pathetic throughout so for that reason the character didn't detract and managed to looked believable.The scenery and cinematography of this film were excellent - one of my particular favourites is when Lizzie was standing on the rock formation in Derbyshire (I believe she is at Peak District).People need to stop thinking about the old adaptation and look at this as a completely different kettle of fish - it is an excellent film and that is solely because they have taken a completely different approach to the film. The old adaptation had 5 hours while this had merely 2 hours. This is a fantastic film and like a previous comment said - I can't understand why the film is getting negative press from some quarters.WATCH THIS FILM! It is something to be seen.","['21', '39']" +1501,rw1201349,katee_the_quick,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Simply enchanting,25 October 2005,1,"In all honesty I walked into the theatre (1 out of 3) with a great deal of apprehension wondering the same thing that doubtless others were - do we really need yet another adaptation of this beloved Austen classic? Being a stalwart fan of both the book and the 1995 BBC mini-series I wasn't expecting much from Wright's film. I have never been happier to be wrong.Pride and Prejudice is simply enchanting. I am quite sure that there are Austen fanatics out there who are dying because the film did not emulate the novel in every single way, but this is an 'adaptation'. And it brings something wonderfully new to the story - the film, unlike the almost satirical novel or the comedic mini-series is realistic. The Bennet household is cluttered and run-down, the assembly hall is something less than grand; there is a distinct 'country' feel to the film that was lacking in the BBC adaptation. The attention to detail is impressive, where Lizzie actually hits off-keys when playing at Rosings (sadly lacking in previous adaptations).The highlight of the film however is not the stunning cinematography or the gloriously evocative soundtrack but the characters, many of whom are explored on a level which was completely untouched by both the book and previous adaptations. Mr Bennet is portrayed as a loving, but cynical father who at many times simply cannot be bothered to intervene when his wife and daughters are concerned. And yet, we see him holding Mary during the Netherfield ball displaying his love for all his daughters, rather then just Lizzie and Jane. Likewise, Mrs Bennet is both irritating and delightful at the same time - Blethyn's performance allows for empathy and a better understanding this character. Charlotte's 'spinsterhood' is more pronounced in this adaptation, but her character is infinitely better for it. The scene between her and Lizzie on the swing is of particular note, bringing out sides of the characters which were untouched in the BBC version.And of course there are the simply superb performances from Knightley and McFayden. Keira Knightley, an odd choice for the role of Lizzie, is a delight to watch. She truly commands this film, playing a far more fiery and witty Elizabeth Bennet. She brings a youthfulness about the character, and her flaws and outbursts are much more marked then Jennifer Ehle's calm and in-control interpretation. Finally! We see the side of Lizzie who feels, and more importantly displays, guilt and frustration and anger and grief - and yet always remains in character. The major change to the script, where Lizzie does not confide in her sister Jane about what conspired in Kent, was inspired. This added so much colour and depth to her character. The scenes of her snapping at her family (after the visit from Lady Catherine), her reaction towards Charlotte's news of her engagement and the actual fight between her and Darcy after he proposes the first time (also a high point for McFayden) all display more humane aspects of her character.McFayden is wonderful. His interpretation of Darcy is softened which personally I found much, MUCH more attractive. His lofty and aloof, yet vulnerable portrayal is utterly believable. There is no doubt about it, he comes out with flying colours over Colin Firth. The slow-building chemistry between Knightley and McFayden is superb and had me squirming in my seat with delight.Even the 'cliched' scenes of Darcy and Lizzie fighting in the rain and the final scene with the pair reconciling in the mist of the morning is still exquisitely romantic. Clichés they may be, but we love it all the more for it. This adaptation is not meant as a study of 18th century society, but at heart, is a love story. And these scenes do convey that sense beautifully.Patricularly for a two-hour film, this is outstanding. Don't watch this film expecting to see a reenactment of the mini-series or the book - this is not an Austen duplicate. Watch it for what it is - a truly, truly beautiful love story.","['1', '6']" +1502,rw1169076,dan-woodhouse,Pride & Prejudice (2005),8.0,Mesmerising and Beautiful,9 September 2005,0,"Having never seen the BBC 1995 Mini-TV Series I went to see Pride & Prejudice with open eyes, not sure what to expect and wondering whether Matthew MacFayden could pull off the great Mr. Darcy.The opening of the film was a little disappointing, and it takes awhile for the dialogue, and the flow of the film to get going, but once it's started the film takes your breath away. Some of the camera-work and the shots are at times questionable, I'm sure Joe Wright's intent was to have the characters faces completely obscured by sunlight, but it doesn't really work. The locations are stunning however, and the film looks beautifulKeira Knightley puts in a fantastic performance, and Matthew MacFayden really comes into his own in the last half hour of the film, as he reveals the ""real"" Mr. Darcy.I'm going have to go and see the film again once it's on General Release again, I'm not sure how easy it'll be to stomach it the second time around.Overall, 8 out of 10 though!","['12', '26']" +1503,rw1181309,Gary-161,Pride & Prejudice (2005),,Benighted remake,26 September 2005,0,"In Austen speak, I can but hope that the circumstances in which I found myself during the film did nothing to bring ill favour upon my good opinion of it. The blue rinse brigade talk more in the cinema than your average teenage hoody. ""Who is that?"", ""his cousin"" , ""look at that dress"", ""oh, a pig"". At least you can threaten kids. Any filmmaker that wants to make The Great Octogenarian Chainsaw Massacre will get my ticket stub. As it turned out, there was plenty to irritate by the film's own account.My main curiosity in seeing P&P again is whether it could possibly live up to my favourite scenes in the 95 Beeb production. Liz bennet's blistering refusal of Darcy's proposal and Lady Catherine De Bourg's incendiary assault in the apple orchard. As for the former, Darcy's opening words were drowned in thunderclaps. That's it, let's not bother with the dialogue. It's not important in an Austen production. IT'S THE TEMPEST OF THEIR INNER FEELINGS!!! Go, director. GO BABY! As for the latter, let's cut Lady Catherine's classic punchline. Who needs it?This version is curiously under-populated. It's use of passing light and shadow, mirror reflections and window blurrings suggests love as a waking dream of anticipation and uncertainty (no surprise when Darcy's big scene occurs at daybreak.) Although Austen's P&P has been said to be a comedy of manners, love as a moral force, in its ultimate sense as sacrifice, must also be of equal importance. The Wickham affair is central to it as Darcy is prepared to seriously humiliate himself before this man in order to win his true love. Without this he appears out of focus in the film, and the film without true gravity.The cast is okay although Hollander and Knightley appear to be using a certain production as a crib sheet. After the failure of Thunderbirds, perhaps hard nosed economics was the motivation behind Working Title's remake. Whether fair or not, that's why you leave the picture not really caring.","['6', '12']" +1504,rw1219686,ilovepansies,Pride & Prejudice (2005),6.0,Acting Needed Improvement,19 November 2005,0,"I understand they had to fit a lot of content into this movie, but I did not feel that many of the characters were developed as they should have been. Mrs. Bennet was not as tiresome as portrayed in the book, Mr. Wickham seemed kind and hardly deceitful, Lydia was tolerable, and even Lizzy wasn't as quick as I would have liked her to be. I felt that many of the lines were delivered without reaction to the other actors. In one scene, Mrs. Bennet made a statement and Mr. Bennet started his comeback before she'd even finished her statement. The movie rushed through the important character-building details, yet took lengthy latitude with unimportant details...and there was a particularly nauseating moment when Lizzy just sat on the swing and circled around for a full minute. Lady Catherine and Mr. Collins were the only truly convincing actors. All in all I was disappointed, and wished there could have been more passion and tension between the actors. And how could they not give us a kiss at the end! That is just cruel after sitting through 2 hours of courtship.I enjoyed the funny moments, however, and the scenery was beautiful and believable. All in all I give it a 6.","['6', '12']" +1505,rw1228584,sassyblackgirl,Pride & Prejudice (2005),7.0,good but not great (as compared to the BBC version),30 November 2005,0,"Overall the movie looked beautiful and was quite well (not very well - quite well) acted, although it seemed to be rushed and may not have been perfectly cast. I did think that Mrs. Bennett and also Judi dench, of course - of course, did particularly excellent jobs. Even before i saw the movie, though, i couldn't quite accept keira as Elizabeth Bennett, she strikes me as being too anorexic to be a Jane Austen heroine but still she did do her best in her role. I think like most other fans of P&P, i may be prejudiced by the BBC version, since that certainly was a longer, more extended, and therefore more faithful version of the novel. The new movie version may have had a larger budget and a more recognizable star roster to it, but as i said before i felt it edited out too much of the book and did not contribute as much character development (even for minor characters) as i would have liked. This actually just may be a problem for all movie versions of great novels, although i did not think this of Emma Thompson's sense & sensibility or the adaption of persuasion. However, the cinematography, costumes, locations, etc. were all great to look at and i did admire the camera work particularly in the ball scenes, which were perhaps better done than in the quieter, more stage-like BBC version. Still the BBC version did have a greater Elizabeth and Darcy, so as I have said before the new version has a lot of prejudice to overcome.","['1', '3']" +1506,rw1228148,thecharmed1ns,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Brilliant!!!,30 November 2005,0,"This version of Pride and Prejudice is even better than the originals!!! I have read the book as well and it is a brilliant portrayal. Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFayden shine as Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy. Elizabeth Bennet is an intelligent, spirited young woman who will not let her rank control her life. She will marry for love and nothing else. While Mr. Darcy may ""seem"" proud, he is a charming character that the audience will fall in love with. There is just enough humor, romance, and intelligence combined to create the perfect movie. I also love that they cut out the more dull parts of the book and just move right along. Trust me when I say that you will not be ready for the movie to be over. I recommend that everyone see it; it is the best movie I have seen all year! Jane Austen would be proud.","['7', '11']" +1507,rw1193347,amylloyd1,Pride & Prejudice (2005),7.0,A good film,14 October 2005,0,"As a person who is currently studying the Austen novel it was interesting to see how Pride and Prejudice was put into a full motion film. There have been several modern adaptations of this story, Bridget Jones I and II and the Bollywood version Bride and Prejudice. I thought this version was a very good attempt and don't understand why so many people are criticising it!!!!! I admit its not as good as the BBC drama starring Colin Firth (oooooooooo jumping into the lake!!) and Jennifer Ehle, but it is still good. The characters are well played (Judi Dench was good as the monstrous Catherine De Bough) and Keira Knightley wasn't that bad. I also thought Mary Bennet was better in this version. I thought the ""glossy"" British countryside settings gave the film that extra ""sparkle"". My favourite scene was when Elizabeth Bennet visits Pemberely. Even though it missed out several parts of the book it still stuck to the main plot. A 7/10 for me. Good","['3', '9']" +1508,rw1216878,Movieguy_blogs_com,Pride & Prejudice (2005),8.0,Does your heart care what social class you are in?,15 November 2005,0,"'Pride & Prejudice' is based on the famous novel by Jane Austen. Keira Knightley plays Elizabeth Bennet, one of five sisters living in Georgian England who are all trying to find a husband. It is difficult for the Bennet sisters, not being of noble birth, they find it hard to acquire suitable husbands. In fact, Elizabeth really is not looking at all. She is more concerned with finding happiness for herself and her sisters. But when true love comes to her doorstep, not only must she contend with her own feelings but also with a class struggle. Does your heart care what social class you are in? This is a very good and humorous tale. Not only was the acting by the entire cast impressive but the use of language throughout the movie was very precise. Set in the late 1700s, everyone had to talk in manner appropriate for that period. Which was done very well and which impressed me the most.","['2', '5']" +1509,rw1221642,poetryqn,Pride & Prejudice (2005),,Rent the 1995 mini series,21 November 2005,0,"By now, I'd be surprised if anyone did not know the general plot outlines of Pride and Prejudice, so I won't try to summarize the story. This will be quick and to the point. On the plus side, this movie has some stunning cinematography, wonderful music and the incomparable Brenda Blethyn as Mrs. Bennet. For the rest, it felt like a Cliff Notes version of the story, too much attempted in too short a time. On top of that, it seemed as though the director actually never read the book. The director and screenwriter have somehow missed that the title of the book is Pride and Prejudice, not Elizabeth and Darcy. Every character has been homogenized for mass consumption in the service of the central love story. Judy Dench does the most she can with a character whose stinger has been plucked, Tom Hollander actually makes Mr. Collins a sympathetic character and even Tallulah Riley (as pedantic sister Mary) has a screen moment where the audience feels sympathy for her. In short, they have stripped the story of all its bite, wit and context, leaving poor Keira Knightly and Matthew McFadyen nothing to do but look beautiful. (which they both manage very well, indeed) Beyond that are the glaring attempts to update the movie, adding to or changing scenes from the book.If you want a pretty movie with a neat happy ending, this is it. If, on the other hand, you want a rich cinematic experience of a literary classic, skip this and rent the 1995 mini series.","['6', '13']" +1510,rw1237623,joeshields,Pride & Prejudice (2005),5.0,tried to like it but wound up rolling on the floor laughing out loud...,13 December 2005,0,"...and probably ruined it for others in the theatre. I'm very fond of Jane Austen's books and was looking forward to the film. OK... in the opening scene where the ""ball"" was more of a barn dance with shabbily dressed and uncombed ""townies"" I shuddered and chuckled to my wife, ""I guess this was before the comb was invented"". I soon realized that some jackass set director (or whomever) decided to mix in a little Dickens to the Austen's Pride & Prejudice. All right, I tried to adjust my mental image of the Bennetts to be more like the Bob Cratchit family (minus Tiny Tim)... maybe it will work. No... I was too embarrassed for Elizabeth in her threadbare dress at Pemberly... and then finally with proud, rich Mr. Darcy sitting outside the Bennett house (amid the mud and the pigs) the camera panned to the Bennett sisters peering out the window at him ...THAT WINDOW!!!! Never was there a window in more need of paint. I leaned to my wife and tried to whisper, ""they have a cook and a butler, surely the Bennetts can afford a bucket of paint""... but I never got the word PAINT out. I lost it. Maybe I was tired. Maybe I needed a good laugh. Sorry to all those in the theatre that night (although the laughter seemed to be contagious). I think those who made the film must share in the blame. Too bad, the script and acting was very good.","['3', '6']" +1511,rw1220135,clsindy,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Excellent! This is one to purchase on DVD,20 November 2005,0,"I am a big fan of the Colin Firth version of Pride & Prejudice. The shorter versions have been pretty disappointing, with exception of Bride & Prejudice (which was a charming musical version)and finally this newest film which has proved to be a wonderful rendition of the tale.The story allowed for chemistry, an overall underlying sensuality, and a side of Darcy that was far more vulnerable than previously demonstrated. The way the various scenes were condensed together was done amazingly well. The cinematography was gorgeous.The character of Lizzy was played very well. One of the changes that I was extremely happy about was that her character was more protective of Darcy in the end, rather than allowing her family to speak ill of him.The final scenes were very romantic and packed with emotion and tenderness. It is truly a rare thing these days to have a good love story with a PG rating. About time.This is one of those films that I can't wait to be released on DVD. It will be a romantic great to add to my collection of favorites.","['2', '5']" +1512,rw1174583,blackburnj-1,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,"A Glorious, Beautiful, Simply Wonderful Film",18 September 2005,0,"After last year's abysmal Bride and Prejudice, I halted, uncertain on the threshold of this film, the period retelling of Jane Austen's classic novel, nervous of a similar experience beginning to show itself, but I took the plunge. Within a short space of time my fears had vanished, and had turned into feelings of joy and ecstatic wonder at the beauty of this film.The film has almost breathtaking beauty. It is beautifully shot by Roman Osin who uses glorious countryside and wonderfully colour in the exteriors and captures the sumptuous design in the interiors. And what design! It is a wonderful period piece with ornate and beautiful things to behold, all of which are held within the bracket of authenticity.Credit must also be given to three others: Joe Wright for a stunning feature length directorial debut, Deborah Moggach for a superb adaptation of a novel that is sacred to millions and Dario Marianelli for his glorious subtle and splendid score. But above all, the thing that stands above all others is the superb ensemble.Keira Knightley is brilliant as Elizabeth Bennet, providing the first really great performance of a career that will, no doubt, be glittering. Matthew MacFadyen is also good as the, initially, proud and miserable Mr. Darcy, whilst Brenda Blethyn and Donald Sutherland are fantastic as Mr. and Mrs. Bennet, although Sutherland's accent is occasionally questionable. The rest of the cast is brilliant with a star turn from Tom Hollander as Mr. Collins.It is simply the best British film of the year so far and is set to be embraced by thousands young and old.","['9', '18']" +1513,rw1187019,jan29ine,Pride & Prejudice (2005),7.0,enjoyed it but the camera work!,3 October 2005,1,"having only watched the Colin firth version for the first time two weeks ago. I didn't really have a firm opinion about it. I knew the basic story and that Colin was Mr Darcy! but after that i was an open mind. Having decided to watch the BBC version before seeing the film I became hooked to Jennifer and Colin's portrayals of Lizzie and Darcy. they were the characters. And as I am not a huge keira knightley fan I went into the cinema expecting to be disappointed. however I wasn't. the girl did well. she played Lizzie brilliantly maybe not to the exact same effect as Jennifer but enough to be pleasing for general audiences. McFadden did alright. no one is going to top Mr firth but for a relatively unknown actor to step into such a role he did good. I felt he actually wanted Lizzie. Something that was slightly lacking in the 1995 edit. this film contained passion. During his confessional scene in the rain no less, there was a second where it looked like he might actually kiss her. all-round i felt they did there best with what little time they had.the supporting characters particularly Donald Sutherland were excellent. My biggest flaw with the whole film was the camera work. It felt like a TV movie. during the scene where Lizzie asks for her fathers permission the camera continued to zoom in and out on keira. it felt like a home movie. I would have also like to have seen a scene of Mr Darcy and Lizzie as the last scene in the film even if it as just through the window over Donald Sutherland shoulder. just to let us see them together. over i enjoyed it. I well be buying it on DVD and putting it on the shelve next to Colin and Jennifer's (lets just face it)better version.","['2', '5']" +1514,rw1232896,mfsor,Pride & Prejudice (2005),8.0,Enjoyed very much,7 December 2005,0,"I don't know why there is all the British fuss over the ending. It's a film it's not a photographed transcript of the novel. I wanted them to get together and declare their love for each other because the entire movie, and the novel for that matter, was inexorably moving that way. I felt that the faults of the characters were their real faults, and not the fault of scripting, acting or directing. I liked the settings; the smallness of most of the interiors of the houses was very real to me. It makes me wonder whether one could do a real, complete but modern Pride and Prejudice. Of course all the Regency scenery was terrific. The photography was beautiful, the close-ups nicely done, the family interactions enjoyable.","['1', '2']" +1515,rw1228783,Aaron-401,Pride & Prejudice (2005),6.0,Now that's better!,1 December 2005,0,"On the whole, i think that the Harry Potter saga has been a disappointment for the fans of the books. This is now being corrected by the producers of the latest instalement to the Harry Potter series. The acting is now at above average level and the story line was much better. They managed to keep in all of the action bits and loose the bores, without damaging the main plot. Daniel Radcliffe made a good effort this time, and, as usual, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, were their usual excellent selves. Although some of the more famous actors got a bit of the short straw, most of them were easily recognised for their performance. I wasn't impressed by the book, however the film version has made the whole story-line much clearer.","['0', '2']" +1516,rw1226677,bkehoe,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,Overall very agreeable.,28 November 2005,0,"As a Jane Austen fan since high school lit class, and a great fan of the BBC 6-hour production, I was not inclined to see yet another P&P production. I was more than agreeably surprised. The changes made to accommodate the two-hour screenplay were in keeping with the overall feel of Austen's writings. I feel this adaptation more nearly represents the class division between the Bennett family and the esteemed rank of Darcy and Bingley. I had also been somewhat uneasy about the BBC production as to Jennifer Ehle's age, vis a vis Elizabeth. She was perfect in execution of lines and to some degree the spirit of the character as portrayed in the book. However, her performance was easily eclipsed by the fresh and girlish Keira Knightley. She absolutely glowed. Stealing the movie was Matthew MacFadyen as the aloof but smitten Darcy. WOW! His performance is bound to bring moviegoers back to this movie for second and third viewing. Any Jane Austen fan will immediately mark this Darcy as the best of any who has attempted this character. I did lament the loss of more character development for Wickham and Mr. Collins but this is a small price to pay for the breathtaking locations, sets and performances of the principle characters. After two viewings I am looking forward to going again.","['4', '7']" +1517,rw1200982,tash1962,Pride & Prejudice (2005),,Passionately Beautiful,24 October 2005,0,"The cinematography, costumes, buildings, homes, decor etc etc are absolutely fantastic. I really loved this movie and all credit to Joe Wright the Director, I think he nailed it, thank you so much.Of course one can't help compare to the 1995 mini series so once home I immediately put the DVD on and skimmed through it and with that in my mind everyone, here are my comments.The latest version is better because there is more emotion and a sense of realism in it which comes from the costumes and homes etc. Keira puts more emotion into Elizabeth than Jennifer ever did. I have always thought Jennifer portrayed Elizabeth with too much pride and arrogance and one almost found it hard to believe she loved Darcy. With Keira I totally believed she loved him and she was certainly falling in love with him well before visiting Pemberley. Matthew v Colin is a difficult one but I think Matthew has pulled it off. I will certainly be buying the DVD once it is out.All the other characters too in the latest version are superb, my only negative here is Lydia, but then Julia Sawalha was exceptional in the 1995 mini series and of course had far more screen time.If you like period drama/romances then P&P is a must see. A great love story with laugh out loud humor also..what more could you ask for !","['0', '3']" +1518,rw1196514,leigherrington,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,Better than expected,18 October 2005,0,"Pride and Prejudice is one of the greatest books I've ever read and as an adaptation, the BBC's production had a lot to deliver. In turn the film adaptation had to be even better!!I wasn't disappointed.I still believe that the roles were written for Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle but Keira Knightly and Matthew MacFayden were great. The BBC's production had the luxury of being able to tell the story in 6 hours where as the film could only realistically be 3.All of the important aspects of the book were present in the film but even here there were changes. The film was generally romanticised and truly emphasised the difference between rich Mr. Darcy and Poor Elizabeth Bennet. Some say that Pride and Prejudice isn't a love story but I disagree. I believe it is a story about the time and the society but most of all that you can't always trust your first impression and definitely a love story!Having read the book several times and watched the BBC's adaptation I knew the ending- and yet I was still on the edge of my seat! I suppose I'm just a hopeless romantic.I was, however, severely disappointed that the wet shirt scene didn't feature! Other than this lack of a very important scene the film adaptation is worth seeing, if only to prove that it's not as bad as you think it's going to be.","['1', '5']" +1519,rw1180925,MartinPh,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,"Not as authentic as the series, but thoroughly excellent in its own right!",26 September 2005,0,"I went to see this film with a friend who, like me, is a confirmed addict of the BBc 1995 version of P&P. We were utterly prepared to dislike this new version (talk about prejudice...). And we both came out raving. Given the limitations inherent in a 2 hour running time, I find it hard to imagine a more enticing, entrancing way of bringing P&P to the screen. Authenticity is no option in such a time span - if you want close adherence to the book, stick with the series. The movie is not nearly as meticulously researched and takes ample liberties with the sense of propriety and etiquette that governed Austen's genteel circles. In fact, the approach taken in the film is contrasted to the TV-series in almost every aspect, but this has it own rewards. Whereas the series sticks to an authentically early 19th century idiom, and the intimate and provincial feel that is pure Austen, the movie inserts modern day phrases and emotions in Austen's text, and is altogether more worldly, cosmopolitan even. The people are more beautiful by our standards, even though I'm sure the BBC Lizzy and Jane are far closer to the type of woman that would have been considered very beautiful in Austen's days (just look at portraits from that time period). In the series the Bennet's are a seriously dysfunctional family with an aloof father and a hysterical mother, but with a sense of standing intact (as they are in the book); in the film they are a scruffy, chaotic, but lovable and, actually, loving bunch. Brenda Blethyn tones down Mrs. Bennet's madness to a level where she becomes a believable and even sympathetic character. It is not what Austen wanted her to be - her disgust of the character is obvious throughout the book. But it makes for a more involving movie experience. Donald Sutherland's Mr. Bennet is a pleasant surprise, too, even though the make up department might have made some effort to disguise the fact that he has a very good dental plan. Keira Knightley is an excellent Lizzy. Feisty, effervescent, and melancholy in turn, she gets you involved in the character right away. Nor does Matthew MacFadyen need to fear the competition from Colin Firth. He is as dark, brooding and intriguing a Darcy as you could wish for, and his sudden emotional outpouring when he first confesses his love (set amidst the wide rainy vistas of Rosings (in fact, Stourhead) park rather than in the intimacy of Hunsford parsonage) is totally gripping. The movie very much pivots on these two characters, and the achievements of these two actors ensure that the essence of the story is there, completely. Where you loose, inevitably, is in the minor roles. Tom Hollander is, again, a more humanly believable Mr. Collins than we got in the series, but he is also somewhat flat, and does not erase memories of David Bamber's bizarre, yet peculiarly endearing rendition (and, again, Austen meant for Collins to be a comic caricature). Lydia and Wickham are reduced to devices needed to unfold the plot, and even Judi Dench as Lady Catherine is relegated to such a position. Her final confrontation with Lizzy was to me the most disappointing scene from the movie, and is no match for the power Barbara Leigh-Hunt brought to this scene, that ought to feel climactic. (An aristocratic lady of those days, by the way, would never have had such a tan...). All this is more than compensated for by gorgeous imagery. Locations, costumes, crowd scenes, landscapes: they are all stunning. The two balls in the first half of the movie are way more festive, inviting and crowded than the understated formal occasions they are in the series - raucous, too; though again, the series is probably closer to the kind of atmosphere in which people like the Bennet's and the Lucasses would have moved. Burghley as Rosings and Chatsworth and Wilton as Pemberley are way over the top, of course - no matter how grand Mr Darcy and Lady Catherine may look from the Meryton perspective, they most certainly do not belong to the circles of high aristocracy that would in actual fact have lived in houses of that size and splendor. Again, the series is more authentic; but what a feast for the eye these locations offer in the movie! In the end comparing this to the 1995 remake is as pointless as the endless discussions between proponents of period performance in classical music versus those preferring big orchestral versions of Mozart and Beethoven with modern instruments. For Beethoven as Beethoven knew it, you need the former; but the latter can offer no less, and sometimes even more musically and emotionally rewarding experiences. Both are valid in their own way, and we have the luxury of not having to choose, but being able to enjoy both. All in all, and judged on its own merits as a movie, this P&P is wonderful, and very much worthwhile to go and see!","['6', '12']" +1520,rw1232032,Chris Knipp,Pride & Prejudice (2005),7.0,It's fun but it's not Jane Austen,6 December 2005,0,"""Pride and Prejudice (1940) -- This literate movie is a reasonably faithful transcription of Jane Austen's sparkling comedy of manners. . .but when Jane Austen's characters are brought to life at M-G-M, all is changed -- broadened. Animated and bouncing, the movie is more Dickens than Austen…"" That's Pauline Kael on the 1940 Laurence Olivier, Greer Garson version with ""that great old dragon Edna May Oliver, as Lady Catherine."" Kael's description of the 1940 movie works pretty well as a template for the new Keira Knightley-Joe Wright Pride and Prejudice. This time the ""old dragon"" is Judi Dench. We can't say Wright's version belongs to Darcy, because it hasn't got Olivier: Mathtew MacFayden is strong enough, but no Olivier. The movie belongs, as it should, to Elizabeth Bennett, and hence to the charming, pretty Keira Knightley. It's also, like the 1940 one, ""changed -- broadened…animated and bouncing."" ""More Dickens than Austen"" won't work, and the recent critic exaggerated a bit who said this new movie is Austen ""Brontëfied,"" and so did the one who called it ""a film that turns Jane Austen's nimble satire into a lumbering Gothic romance."" But they're all onto something -- something that's not there.Not quite Brontëfied or Gothic, this new Pride and Prejudice has definitely been romanticized, and more than that it's had the essential elements of Jane Austen taken out. Austen's elaborate irony and rational thinking, and most of her beautiful and elegant sentences -- the essence of her books -- are all excised in favor of bouncy dancing and vivid color photography and nice-looking people -- very nice-looking ones, with nice period clothes, who more often than not overlap voices Altman style or just interrupt each other.And since we don't have to hear all that's said, the gaps are filled in with surging strings and powerful piano music, music no instrument in 1821 could have come close to matching. These movie ladies sit down to their little period pianofortes -- and out comes Jean-Yves Thibaudet playing a modern Steinway concert grand. True, Jane Austen lived at a time when a lot of the great classics were composed, but she lived in the country, far from a symphony orchestra, and it's unlikely she heard anything but a little Hayden and Mozart, maybe, and minor English composers and some Italian songs, all played on an instrument with a relatively very limited sound. And of course though the ladies may have been accomplished, they were not Jean-Yves Thibaudets.The looks are pumped up too, like the sound. The young men are all so handsome or cute the country balls come out looking like ads for Ralph Lauren or Abecrombie & Fitch. The economic levels are exaggerated, so you can't grasp the delicate details of income that are so important in Austen's novels. Lady Catherine's house is as grand as Buckingham Palace, and Darcy's is very nearly that grand. His estate as we see it here would easily have made him one of the half dozen richest men in England. His mansion has a huge sculpture gallery in it like a major room of the British Museum, and the other rooms are decorated with murals that look like the Vatican. At the other extreme, the Bennett girls' surroundings are taken from the Squire in Fielding's Tom Jones as represented in Tony Richardson's movie, with pigs coming into the house, and Mr. Bennett always, always, needing a shave.The irony -- there is one irony, though not in the movie -- is that you can't really make a movie of Jane Austen. Her books are easily visualized on film. Movie makers can come up with the costumes and the sets. But her books aren't essentially visual. They are meant to be read. They're all about prose style, and the turns of phrase that make one think, sentences that flow gently and come down easy, catching you unawares so you may have to read them again, sentences that delineate the development of character through thought and experience with infinite clarity and subtlety. On screen, that development is there, but it's visual. It just happens. The camera just focuses on Ms. Knightley, thinking. But in Jane Austen it happens with words. Ultimately that isn't cinematic. So you can't make a Jane Austen movie without taking out the Jane Austen. Why do people do it, then? Well, people just like to make movies of her books, I guess -- and people like to watch them.Joe Wright's film is fun, but it's not a masterpiece -- or Jane Austen. The directing largely isn't there, not in Jane Austen's terms: character development. Nobody really develops. Mathew MacFadyen is a young man who looks glum, and he looks that way all through. He doesn't really seem haughty and nasty at first, just like a man who can't dance. Keira Knightley is charming -- so is Simon Woods as Bingley, which is fine, because that's all he needs -- but she isn't sharp and she doesn't come through as a keen intelligence or a woman who is transformed. What Joe Wright's good at is getting a bouncy, sweaty bunch of good-looking people out on a dance floor in a stately home, and walking folks across pretty English landscapes. Walks in Jane Austen are about talk, or economics, like everything else. But in Joe Wright's film they're about sweeping strings and Chopin. Everybody is too nice, except the tiresome Mrs. Bennett -- though Brenda Blethyn is okay, not a caricature as some have said. My regret is that Donald Sutherland's smiley and weepy Mr. Bennett isn't drier and more ironic. Like everybody else in the movie, except Lady Catherine, he's been made likable, at the expense of Jane Austen's wit.","['4', '8']" +1521,rw1179811,MrsCarter,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,A new take on an old story,25 September 2005,0,"Joe Wright, the director of this new adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, is a brave man indeed. Who in their right minds would even attempt to compete with the BBC's 1995 serialisation? How could anyone improve on Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle and that screenplay by Andrew Davies?Well, I'm pleased to report that Mr Wright and his assembled cast have dome a pretty fine job of it. He wisely chose to approach the story in a new way, rejecting the rather hackneyed stiff regency attitudes in favour of a more down home, grubby feel which actually lends itself rather well to the story, especially as it gives credence to Darcy's initially reluctant proposal.The performances are excellent too; even the erstwhile rather dubious Ms Knightley manages a convincing portrayal of the feisty Elizabeth, and Matthew Macfadyen brings an intriguing vulnerability to Mr Darcy.My one complaint would probably be the dumbing down of Jane Austen's dialogue; an inevitable sacrifice in today's focus group dominated society. Still, courtesy of an interestingly fresh approach, fine performances, especially key supporting roles like Mr Collins (the ever brilliant Tom Hollander) and Mrs Bennett (Brenda Blethin in a far more restrained and sympathetic portrayal than the screeching Alison Steadman we were forced to endure in '95)and some lovely cinematography, I would have to say that this movie will certainly hold up to comparison with the nation's darling mini-series.","['4', '9']" +1522,rw1208971,rosi2101,Pride & Prejudice (2005),8.0,"comparison inevitable, but not entirely unfavorable",4 November 2005,0,"Few of us who go and see this movie will have missed the BBC mini-series starring Colin Firth as the definitive (yes, better than Olivier) Mr. Darcy. One cannot help but liken this new Darcy more to a Heathcliff than to the rather stiff-mannered Darcy Jane Austen describes.However, his portrayal was met with no objection from my movie-going companion, who had neither read the book nor seen the BBC version, in fact, she loved it.Therefore I must count myself prejudiced in liking Darcy and Elizabeth from 1995 better than these two (with tiny-chested Knightley a rather unlikely candidate for ""famed beauty"" in the 19th century).However, I do have one reason for thinking it worthy of a very good rating: Bingley and Jane. Their chemistry is palpable, the stumbling Bingley is absolutely charming and believable, Jane is as beautiful and demure as she can be...their besottedness enchants the viewer.Of course, as is always the case with feature-length films made from long books, many of the nuances and intricacies Austen supplies the reader with went missing; yet this film does a creditable job of covering all the major plot points in small time without actually changing any of essence, a remarkable achievement.","['1', '4']" +1523,rw1241136,HouseAngel,Pride & Prejudice (2005),1.0,Very Disappointing!,18 December 2005,0,"This is a dreadful and dreary rendition of a splendid and cherished classic.The photographer seemed not to be able to give his viewer the whole scene, but rather one boring close-up after another forcing his viewer out of the story. Numerous lines were mumbled and spoken by actors or actresses with their backs to their audience. The close-up of the heavy balls of the pig gave the final credence to my decision that the production was a poorly made sham of Austen's beautiful story.It appeared that the director and photographer were attempting to show off themselves rather than Austen's timeless tale.The A&E production with Colin Firth is far, far superior to this D-grade attempt at this classic.","['22', '48']" +1524,rw1216797,surfn,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,must see,15 November 2005,0,"First of all, let me say that this was the best movie I have seen in a long time. I looked at some of the comments others have left and I wonder how this movie could get such low remarks. Granted, I have not read the book or seen the earlier movie, but, perhaps that has not influenced me either way. I some ways I am glad I didn't, because, going into this particular movie I had no expectations of what this film was about. Let me say that it was beautiful, funny, sweet, and definitely worth seeing. I will be honest and say that the majority of the audience was female. Perhaps 90%-95%. Of the few men in the audience, the ones I could see were moved to tears in a few scenes. Whats wrong with men shedding a few tears?? Its good for them. So, with that said...PLEASE, if you want to be entertained for a couple of hours, go see this film. I enjoyed it thoroughly. Aloha","['17', '28']" +1525,rw1211337,mjarvis0,Pride & Prejudice (2005),6.0,I assume they tried their best!,8 November 2005,0,"In the music industry there are some records that should never be 'covered', that is to say sung by another artist. This is because the first or an earlier version was just too good. I am one of many who has seen the 1995 Firth & Ehle version of Pride & Prejudice and I just thought that it would be difficult for that version to be matched especially in less than half the time. Maybe I myself am, dare I say it prejudiced however I can also say that I have read the book and here is where the film lacks consistently when the 1995 version did not.The excellent language and turn of phrase brought forth by Jane Austen is missing and then some of the phrases are said out of order and some are said by the wrong character. Also for the sake of time some of the characters in the book was missing from the 1995 version(although this did not diminish the story) but for some strange reason the Knightley version added a character, to own the truth Mr Hill. WHY? All he did was put some food on the table.I assume that because of time sub plots could not be developed for example Wickhams true's nature,Lydia's flirtations and the hatred all of the Bennett family had towards Mr Darcy. Having said all of the above I believe the actors worked well with the material they had to work with and I dare say that a person who has not read the book or seen the 1995 version would have found this film quite diverting.","['5', '10']" +1526,rw1215972,taloolah,Pride & Prejudice (2005),5.0,"Tolerable, I suppose,...",14 November 2005,1,"but not good enough to tempt me out of my admiration for the miniseries.Quite frankly, this is probably a nice primer if you want an overview over the novel without too many details. Knowing book and miniseries almost by heart, you cannot imagine my sufferings when Austen quotations were torn and stretched out of context... The good thing was that some people laughed at actual Austen quotes, even if they were in the wrong place...In some scenes, the rewriting hasn't been done very elegantly - compare the conversation about ""accomplished women and their figures"" in the book and the movie. And why was the dialog changed so that things Lizzie was to say were said by Darcy?However, there is one thing I really hated: the portrayal of Georgiana. From the novel, we know that she is exceedingly shy, and even gives Wickham ground for his claims of her arrogance. The way she greeted Elizabeth upon first meeting her was, in my humble opinion, plainly wrong and contradictory to the primary source. I also resent that almost all of my favourite lines were omitted: Lady Catherine's "" I must have my share.."", Darcy's ""I am in no humour to give consequence to young ladies slighted by other men"", Lizzie's "" My feelings... my feelings are quite changed..."" etc, pp.I also thought that Elizabeth was, despite being a lively character, sometimes well out of decorum when talking to Darcy, effectively proving his accusations about her family's lack of Decorum right. She was a bit too frank to still be considered charming and accomplished. Two minor things: Why did it have to rain, when the first proposal took place - why did it have to be delivered on the grounds anyway? The Collinses parlour was quite charming...and a lot warmer! And why is there such a total lack of hairpins? Even though being set in the regency era, people were able to have hairstyles...An Austen primer, even if with a bit of a Bronte touch, but no serious adaption of the novel.","['8', '15']" +1527,rw1225891,Red-125,Pride & Prejudice (2005),7.0,"A for Effort, but that's not enough.",27 November 2005,0,"""Pride & Prejudice"" (2005), directed by Joe Wright, is an honest--but not very effective--attempt to bring Jane Austen's novel to the screen.The plot of the novel and the film boils down to the love/hate relationship between Elizabeth Bennet (Keira Knightley) and Mr. Darcy (Matthew MacFadyen). I thought MacFayden was adequate as Darcy, although possibly somewhat coarse in appearance and manners. (Darcy is a snob, but he should be portrayed as an elegant snob.)Keira Knightley obviously works hard at portraying Elizabeth Bennet. She's a fine actor, but she's very much a 21st Century woman, and I had trouble accepting her in this period piece. Unfortunately, I never caught any true chemistry between the two lead actors, and, without that, nothing else can really work well.Simon Woods was miscast and/or misdirected in his role as Mr. Bingley. Bingley may not have the strength of character that Darcy has, but he shouldn't be portrayed as a callow fool.All the other actors did a competent job, especially Rosamund Pike who was luminous as Jane Bennet (Elizabeth's older sister), and Kelly Reilly, as the very beautiful and vicious Caroline Bingley.The outdoor scenes were predictably colorful--what director can resist dogs, pigs, geese, chickens, ducks, and swans in a period film? However, I found these scenes--as well as the ball scenes--to be overly orchestrated and too meticulous.Finally, I can't see how any discussion of this film could suggest that it was overly sexual. I can't even understand why it was given a PG rating--I think G would have been more appropriate. There's one instance of male nudity, but the genitalia belong to a pig. There's one instance of female nudity, but the female portrayed is a statue. There are many reasons to see or not see ""Pride and Prejudice,"" but excessive sexuality shouldn't be among them.In summary, I think this movie represents a sincere attempt at the cinematic portrayal of a great work of fiction. I think the director didn't succeed in this attempt, but the film isn't a disaster, and it's worth seeing as long as you're not expecting a masterpiece.","['1', '1']" +1528,rw1200978,c-rieger,Pride & Prejudice (2005),5.0,Not sure about this one,24 October 2005,1,"Yes, I have seen the 1995 version and the 80s version, as well. I have also read the book (more than once, more like a dozen times).I never thought Ehle/Firth as the personification of Lizzie/Darcy but still was sceptical about Keira Knightley as Lizzie.The movie has some good points, I liked the way the assemblies were pictured, probably more realistic than in the BBC adaptations. I also thought Jane was very well cast.The main weakness, I thought was in the script. Some scenes were out of character, both for the characters and the original author. also some shots were more Bronteesque than Austen and you couldn't get further away from the original. This version spelt things out a lot (e.g. Lizzie's reaction to Collins' proposal, Charlotte's telling her, the exaggerated difference in status between Darcy and Lizzie) but these weren't necessarily the important bits. Did they really have to picture the Austen family as a slovenly family living with pigs?It's a hard task to put Austen books into 2 hours. So much is happening. But than they had time for some added scenes which might have been better spent on elaborating the existing plot. And the second proposal scene was ridiculous. What were they thinking of!?! (No need to ask Mr Bingley for approval, how could he deny it with his daughter showing up in the early hours of the morning in her Nightshirt with a man?) Oh, and I thought Mr Collins was a let-down. He seemed more malicious than stupid. His scenes should be funny but they weren't at all.","['5', '10']" +1529,rw1228496,aerosparked,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,"A sweet, romantic story",30 November 2005,0,"Admittedly, I was a completely idiot when it came to Jane Austen before I saw this movie. I had never read the book, nor had I ever seen another film version of the story.However, that changed when I saw this Pride & Prejudice. Once the 2 hours were over, I was in tears and filled with a sense of romance that I hadn't felt in a very long time. This film was beautiful, in every sense of the word. The acting was enjoyable, the scenery pleasant, and the music breathtaking.In comparison to the revered '95 series (which I promptly bought at the mall when I finally found a copy), this movie was more intimate and emotional. It didn't revolve around the English society or the very important theme of marriage. This film was a display of the numerous emotional changes Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy endured in order to fall in love. It was a risky choice, and it worked.In an era where blockbuster movies are filled to the brim with overused special effects and dry acting, this movie was found to be a refreshing breeze, a pleasant time well spent.","['4', '7']" +1530,rw1245169,mustangsherry51,Pride & Prejudice (2005),7.0,Good film but lacking where it counts,22 December 2005,0,"I am an Austen fan and have seen as many P&P adaptations as it possible for me to see--I found a few TV ones listed that were not possible for me to find, but this makes the fourth adaptation I've seen, plus having read the book again and again, so I think I'm fairly qualified to give a good opinion.I love this story. It is my favorite book in the world. I have to admit here to a personal bias to the 1995 miniseries, but I went in willing to give this movie a chance (without very high expectations). I was pleasantly surprised in many respects--and disappointed in some others.First the bad things: the dialogue. I was VERY disappointed with the script. Obviously much of the story had to be cut down, and I thought they did a fairly admirable job of getting the whole plot in under the time constraints, but the dialogue they did leave wasn't Austen's dialogue, it was some semi-modern version of it that I believe was supposed to appeal more to the modern romantic-comedy audiences they thought would be viewing it. The whole heart and soul of P&P is the witty dialogue, in my opinion, and when they took it out, I thought it lost so much, it took all of the good points I mention to counterbalance that. Another disappointing thing was the (possible?) historical inaccuracies my friend and I saw. I don't claim to be a historian, but my interest in Austen and her world has led me to research the Regency period a bit, and as far as I could tell, it didn't seem as if this film had been researched fully. The sisters would go out with their hair down, and the fashions didn't always look quite right (the waistlines looked too low on a lot of the dresses). Minor details, but kind of important in making a period piece.I also have a few minor issues with the casting--overall, I thought it was fine...Donald Sutherland, excellent; Judi Dench, excellent; and I liked Rosamund Pike's Jane as well. Keira Knightley as Elizabeth was not bad on the whole, but there were a few parts where I (personally) thought she was a little too gentle or soft and ought to have been a little snappier...but then again, I grew very fond of Jennifer Ehle, who had a lot of spark, and Ms. Knightley may have had a different interpretation of the character entirely. Matthew MacFadyen did a very creditable job, I thought...NO ONE holds a candle to Colin Firth, if you ask me, but after watching David Rintoul is the 1980 miniseries, I don't think I could find worse. He did a nice job of warming up for the Pemberley!Darcy.Now for the GOOD things: the direction was wonderful. It was very original and interesting; it was something you came out of the theater remembering. There were some truly stunning shots in there--I remember one specifically where the servants were closing Netherfield as Bingley was leaving. As I said before, I'm a little biased when it comes to adaptations, so I will never see Pemberley as anything but Lyme Park, but this Pemberley was very nicely-chosen--the lake was beautiful; all the locations were very well-chosen, I think. The music was also fantastic...I especially liked the piece Georgiana played.All in all, for what it was meant to be--a modern-day romantic comedy that just happened to be set in the past--I think they did a creditable job of it all. I recommend it for Austen fans and P&P lovers...but it will never replace the book itself (or my favorite adaptation).","['0', '1']" +1531,rw1215057,BuffyTheRogueSlayer,Pride & Prejudice (2005),7.0,From One Austenphile to others,13 November 2005,0,"The basic Plot is boy meets girl. Boy thinks girls family is beneath him, and girl thinks boy is a snot. Girl makes some assumptions further about boy's character based on information from a questionable source. Boy falls in love with girl. Boy confesses his love and is rejected. Girl goes off and contemplates that she may have allowed prejudice to sway her before the facts. Boy goes off and contemplates if he has been too full of pride or just plain full of himself. Boy and girl meet again. Girl's sisters become an obstacle to their relationship developing further. And eventually all is resolved. There are finer details, and if you really want to know, read the book.Performances by Matthew MacFayden, Kiera Knightley, Brenda Blethyn, Judi Dench, Donald Sutherland, Tom Hollander,and Rosamund Pike were especially good. I also liked Jenna Malone and Rupert Friend who set a standard for their roles.I was pleased with some of the changes made in terms of portraying the characters. I feel this movie was more sympathetic towards some of Austen's characters who are often easily written off as caricatures. I like seeing Elizabeth portrayed as somewhat adolescent in her temper. I like the added scene between Mary and her father at the ball. I like Mrs. Bennet telling Lizzy that ""When you have five daughters, we'll see what you think of."" I appreciated the realism of this cast. I also liked how this film showed Mr and Mrs Bennet as having some relationship between them. I forgive them consolidating scenes. I even forgave them the alteration of the critical final disclosure scene between Elizabeth and Darcy. I forgive them cutting some of the smaller characters,I think that's to be expected. I think the story boils down to growth. It's about two people who challenge each other's view point and consequently become catalysts for change within each other.I also want to add, that the scene between them on the Rosing's estate in the rain, was very erotic and a superbly fresh interpretation of the script.And so in the end, that is why I vehemently object to the exchange between Charolette and Elizabeth after the former announces her engagement. It's believable that Lizzy opens her mind through examining the choices of her friend. It's less believable that Lizzy changes perspective because her friend tells her to. Also,in another scene, I vehemently object to the notion that The Gardiners would leave Elizabeth and drive back to town in their carriage without her. Not even remotely possible. So ultimately while I love what was preserved, and I love some of the enhancements, I walked away with a sour aftertaste in my mouth. But I still plan to buy it on video.","['5', '9']" +1532,rw1193544,faithfullylovingyoualway,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,I think I loved it...,14 October 2005,0,"I was a huge fan of the miniseries when that came out. Colin Firth was as someone else put it ""The definitive"" Darcy. However I fell in love with this Darcy pretty early on. He was more likable than the other Darcy from the start. The pace was a lot faster than the miniseries for obvious reasons. Some aspects of it I absolutely loved. I liked that the difference between the poor and rich was played up so much. I loved the new Mr Bingley Character. I loved the fathers character. Yes it was very different but it was good for most part of it. If you go to see it then expect that this is another interpretation of the film. Keira is good but can be a little irritating at times (her spiteful and happy expression is the same) but if I had never ever seen the ABC miniseries. I would now have the ultimate favourite movie. I intend to see it again.","['3', '11']" +1533,rw1234276,spywannabe86,Pride & Prejudice (2005),7.0,An established Prejudice...,9 December 2005,0,"As an avid admirer of Jane Austen and a long time lover of Pride and Prejudice, I was really nervous about how the Keira Knightly version would turn out. I've read the book dozens of times and seen the A&E version about as many. The new version definitely surprised me. I expected to want to run out of the theater, but instead, I enjoyed it and stayed through the end. Of course, to compare it to the A&E version is completely unfair. As a two hour film, it can't cover everything a six hour mini-series can. Some of the events and the way they happen have been changed for the sake of keeping the audience entertained. The biggest problem I had with the film is that it presented a very modern interpretation and took itself too seriously. Jane Austen's wit and satirical view of the society in which she lived didn't come across at all. Instead, the film aimed at modern sensibilities and lost the true essence of Austen. All in all, I would say this is a good summary, but if you want a more accurate portrayal, turn to the A&E version or read the book.","['4', '7']" +1534,rw1213715,vicvaris,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Great job condensing the story we all love!,11 November 2005,0,"This is a great story everyone should see and read. Keira Knightley (Elizabeth) was absolutely great as was the new Darcy, Matthew MacFadyen. This was a wonderful 2 hour endeavor to master the complexities of Austen's book and A&E's masterpiece adaptation with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle.A&E P&P fans will be both happy with this version and rest knowing the mini-series still is secure as the best of breed in all the Pride and Prejudice interpretations through many years.Two things bothered me- one to no end.Casting Donald Sutherland as a Mr. Bennett with an accent more out of Georgia than 18th century England was unforgivable. It reminded me of the vain attempts of Brad Pitt to master accents in ""Seven Years in Tibet"" (redeeming himself in ""Snatch""). That aspect of Sutherland was distracting until his final scene with Keira, which was masterful due to great writing and direction. If you cast an American in such a closely scrutinized film as this was bound to be, at least let's be sure to find actors that can do an English accent. Surely they passed over some great ones to do Donald a favor.Secondly-- I had a love-hate relationship with the cinematography. It was incredible and annoying. The scenes shot were so masterful, but reminded me a bit of a great novel employing every literary cliché. It was a little like watching a play of the Last Supper where all the actors at one moment freeze into the positions of the famous painting by the same name. Except, they were so often it seemed like a strobe- one after another.Like I said, I loved it and hated it. I'll have to think about it some more, and be sure to study the DVD. Probably it represented a really creative departure from convention that I just need to watch again.On the other hand the creative complexity of many scenes was amazing. Joe Wright directing, really told much of the story normally found in Austen's dialog, simply by framing a seemingly unrelated passing glance by one character in a scene focusing on another portion of the story. That was flawless.I believe Wright will get a best director nomination, as will Knightly for her portrayal as as Elizabeth. I also suspect the edgy cinematography will get a nod too.Lots of other good stuff, but too much to mention.Go see it!","['0', '1']" +1535,rw1204810,mrg9999,Pride & Prejudice (2005),1.0,"Scriptwriter, production team never read the book, or saw previous versions. - AVOID",30 October 2005,1,"Maybe if you've never read any English literature or only ever watched the Hollywood version of any book you might find merit in this awful film. It has the directorial and scripting skill of Shoreditch. The BBC 1995 adaptation is both very enjoyable and close to the book and captures the atmosphere between Elisabeth and Darcy very well.The characters in this production are badly miscast, Sutherland as Bennet seems a total buffoon. Bingley likewise acts the fool and it is imcomrepnsible that he my be a friend of Darcy. I can't imagine how Judi Dench could have accepted the role, maybe she thought it was a surreal comedy version.Quotes from the book are thrown in out of context. Huge chunks are missing, the important episode with Wickham is glossed over.Mr Collins is however very good, and towers above the other members of the cast.The only good thing is we didn't pay to see it. Wait for the DVD and use to keep a table from wobbling.","['142', '241']" +1536,rw1202455,beeji,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,A beautiful film which completely immerses you into the lives of the characters.,26 October 2005,0,"Having seen and enjoyed the BBC drama series, I was not looking forward to this film. I watched it with my 17 year old daughter who has never read the book or seen the BBC version. I was particularly worried that the actor playing Mr Darcy would never live up to Colin Firth's portrayal. I needn't have worried - this Mr Darcy does not disappoint! We both enjoyed every minute of this film. We found ourselves totally immersed in this beautiful film,the many fine acting performances, excellent use humour and, of course,the intense love themes. The lack of ""Hollywood"" make-up and gloss, especially noticeable at the start of the film, was very refreshing. This film captures the spirit of the time and of the original book.","['1', '5']" +1537,rw1235002,lkl6411,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,"Great, Romantic movie!",10 December 2005,0,"I thoroughly enjoyed this adaptation of Pride & Prejudice. I went to the movie not having read the book for over 20 years, but hoping I would enjoy the plot line and characters nonetheless. I was not the least bit disappointed.The filming was beautifully done, from the first few scenes when Lizzy is walking back to her home. The scenery is lovely and the disparity between the rich and poor is conveyed clearly by the stature of their homes & yards. The music is lovely, the acting is superb, the interactions & conflicts between Darcy and Lizzie memorable. All in all, it's a wonderful story and a joy to sit through. Like many others, I wish the movie had been longer if only to prolong the feeling you're left with as the movie culminates.If you like period romances like ""Emma"" ""Sense & Sensibility"" ""Shakespeare in Love"" ""Ever After"" & ""Little Women"", you're sure to enjoy ""Pride and Prejudice"".And, by the way, the pig scene is so innocuous I have no idea why so much has been made of it... Ridiculous!","['2', '4']" +1538,rw1178150,mym-uk,Pride & Prejudice (2005),1.0,Hollywood trash,22 September 2005,0,"This is a deeply dumbed-down version of Austen.Every hairstyle is wrong, the Bennett family look and behave like Californian hippies prone to spouting (very) occasional bits of Austen dialogue.I will give you one key indicator of how badly researched and produced this film is: at one point Lady Catherine de Burgh, one of the great snobs in English literature, is handed a cup of tea by a servant and says ""thank you""!The fact that the Bennetts live in the same house that the Herberts inhabited in The Draughtsman's Contract is a surreal touch for any Greenaway fan...","['124', '209']" +1539,rw1221486,mafaulkner,Pride & Prejudice (2005),6.0,Mixed feelings,21 November 2005,0,"Although I've seen this new version twice, I still have to give the advantage to the Firth/Ehle version, and not just because the mini-series had more time to develop the characters. Yes, Keira Knightley is lovely, but she has a very modern look and isn't suited to play this character. She doesn't convey Elizabeth's maturity and intellectual strength, and MacFadyen as Darcy doesn't convey his painful stiffness and upperclass snobbery. Instead, MacFadyen acts more like a sullen and tortured Heathcliff. Romantic, yes--but not Darcy. This new version is much less true to the manners of the day, such as when Bingley visits Jane in her sickbed, Darcy just walks into the house and leaves a letter for Elizabeth, or Elizabeth wanders outside in her nightgown, barefoot. And why did they dress Keira in such unattractive costumes? Brown homespun? Elizabeth wasn't an adolescent tomboy, but that's the look they've given her. Finally, I had seen the film previously in Scotland, and was surprised that another ending has been tacked onto the American version--one that was again distinctly untrue to the book.","['10', '19']" +1540,rw1214651,snickers797,Pride & Prejudice (2005),3.0,Save Your Nine Bucks and Rent the Miniseries,13 November 2005,0,"I first read Pride and Prejudice when I was 11 years old and absolutely fell in love with its subtle humor and biting wit; not to mention the language and the carefully drawn characters. However, what I saw at the theaters presented no such picture. The dialogue was sloppy and unrefined, the characters poorly read (and cast), and the humor rather awkward. Having previously viewed the faithful 1995 Miniseries version of Pride and Prejudice, I was often distracted by the jarring gaps in the plot and its staggering underdevelopment. I've always enjoyed Keira Knightley's performances, but her acting felt rushed and, well, performed.But the biggest annoyance of the film was the directing and cinematography of the shots. The director made overuse of long moving/panning shot which seemed completely out of place and made use of angles and framing that were unnecessarily peculiar in style.It has not been one hour since I watched the movie in the theater, and I still can't help but shutter at the memory of it. Darcy was a joke, and by the end, the film dripped of repugnant cheese. I would have walked out of the movie had my shoe laces not entangled me to the seat.Watch the 1995 Minseries people. Granted, it lacks pretty faces of the likes of Keira Knightley, Jena Malone, Matthew MacFayden, and Donald Sutherland and the overblown directorial style, but what it lacks in star power it makes up in acting ability and capable story telling. Although it's not completely lacking in the star attraction department; Colin Firth makes an incredible Mr. Darcy","['8', '17']" +1541,rw1211673,wedraughon,Pride & Prejudice (2005),1.0,Hasn't anyone seen the 1984 version?,8 November 2005,0,"All of the reviewers here rave about the 1995 version (which was made by A&E). The BBC version was made in 1984 and starred Elizabeth Garvie (Elizabeth, not Susan). The BBC version of 1984 was by far the best of the four movie versions of the book. The script was written by Fay Weldon and followed the book. The cast was superb. This version has recently been released on DVD. If you want to see Pride and Prejudice as it should be, get this version. You'll never think of Colin Firth again. The 1940 script was written by Aldous Huxley. Yes, Aldous Huxley. And it was a lively abridgment of the story. The costumes, acting, etc. left a lot to be desired. This 2005 Hollywood chic remake will sell a lot of copies, thanks to the reputation of Jane Austen. But word will get around, and then this atrocity will be history.","['14', '30']" +1542,rw1230710,ellen-137,Pride & Prejudice (2005),6.0,An alright movie!,4 December 2005,0,"This movie was very heavily weighted because it had to live up to the very successful TV series made in 1995. However I think Keira Knightly was the an alright choice for the role because she but it over well but had a hard job to follow the TV show.This movie was a. There was some humour in this movie which made it more light hearted and warming.Brenda Blethyn who played Mrs Bennet was very good, as well as Donald Sotherland who played Mr Bennet. Mattew Mcfaden who played Mr Darcey was very dashing as Mr Darcey should be, and played the part really well.The scenery was very realistic and the camera work was excellent. Even though Iliked it I can't see it being as popular as Harry Potter which was out at the time because it appeals to a restricted audience and it's an love or hate movie. I have watched this movie a few times over and I like it more than when I saw it in the cinema. A down side would be that the movie wasn't as planned out as the original but it was a film and they couldn't have it this long as well as keep the viewer entertained for so they had to cut it short. Overall a good movie.","['0', '2']" +1543,rw1174552,derek-255,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,A highly enjoyable adaptation,18 September 2005,0,"I am absolutely appalled by the fact that some people are commenting and marking this production on the basis of watching just the trailer and not even seeing the movie. That is totally unfair on everybody concerned in my opinion. The trailer is a trailer not a resume of the movie.Ttake it from me it does not do justice to the complete production.I went to see this film as a sceptic. Like many others I thought that the essence of the novel could not be condensed into 2 hours and that Kiera Knightley was a bad choice for the central role. Luckily I did not go to see it with any 1995 TV miniseries baggage. I always thought that that adaptation was far from perfect.The director and writers did a fine job in getting the essence of the story into the time available. Yes a lot is cut out, inevitably, and there are some changes to important parts of the plot but the film structure means that the essence is there. The cinematography is fantastic and, I have to admit, Kiera Knightley comes of age as an actress. Particularly good also was Rosamund Pike as Jane.One major gripe. Why give the US and Canada a film 8 minutes longer with a superior ending. Do the producers think we Europeans have a shorter attention span? I feel quite cheated by this decision.","['7', '17']" +1544,rw1194920,tesoro007,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,Liked the film's interpretation,16 October 2005,0,"I'm afraid I don't agree with Joejoesan - having seen both, I think the series had its merits and the film is great as a standalone. My friend and I are both big fans of the series although we both agree that Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth were miscast - the first because she wasn't feisty enough and the second because, as all his other roles, he was rather wooden. However, the series as a whole was enjoyable. The film had more impact as we both felt Keira brought the feisty Elizabeth Bennett more to life and Matthew MacFadyen was much more believable as Mr Darcy as you actually saw emotion on his face and heard it in his voice. Of course, he looked like he was suffering from a cold but that could just be wandering around the grassy meadows in the cold, English climate doing that :-)Nothing beats the book of course as you can populate the characters with your own interpretations. I'd like to see the the series re-done with Keira and Matthew in the leading roles (but no wet shirt scene please!). As for kisses - the series only had one itself at the very end and if you watch the DVD/Video you can see how very ... err... unromantic it was and should have been edited out. I think the film didn't need it and, based on viewing the trailer, it probably was there but cut out before the film was released.All in all, I give it 9 out of 10 and would be happy to watch this film again.Tesoro","['4', '10']" +1545,rw1242247,mmwishart,Pride & Prejudice (2005),8.0,ending different in Uk and US,19 December 2005,1,"I love Jane Austen, and took the opportunity to see this movie in London while I was there, before the movie opened in the U.S. In England, the movie ended with Donald Sutherland saying ""if any young men come for Mary and 9I forgot the other sister's name) I am entirely at my leisure."" The American version has a cheesy add on scene with Elizabeth and Darcy. Like, are we Americans so dumb that we couldn't have figured out it was a happy ending without the hackneyed kiss? The film makers deserve a big Bronx cheer. Aside from the different ending, which really irks me, this was an interesting adaptation, especially the relationship between the parents. In the book, Mr. Bennet can't stand Mrs. Bennet, who he clearly thinks is an idiot. Brenda Blethyn and Donald Sutherland, who were excellent, played this entirely differently.","['0', '1']" +1546,rw1218531,film_ophile,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,"WOW,WOW,and WOW again!!",17 November 2005,0,"i have just returned from seeing this and i have to say, i have rarely seen a film that, on a scale of 1-10, i would give a 15.oh my, the ride was so exhilarating, i am actually winded!i think i have actually experienced the most romantic movie i have ever seen, and i am speaking of romance in the full-blown love sense. i am not used to writing ecstatic praise, but this film is so PERFECT that i cannot help myself. i have seen all the Jane Austen film adaptations and i have been a big fan of many of them, particularly Persuasion. This film was, for me, tremendous because it PUT ME IN THE MOMENT.I was living in that time, with those people, with the sounds and the spaces and the colors and the light.To begin with, this film finally got me to grok this English thing about the difference between the middle and the UPPER classes. The film begins by introducing you to the small crowded rooms and noisy goings on of a 5-girl middle class family.Later you will be shown the astounding austere spaciousness and silence of a very upper class abode.Socially, the dichotomy continues to be shown with the loud , merry,crowded middle class country ball v.s. the silent, low-toned restrained and awkward conversations in the drawing rooms of the wealthy. While their worlds are opposite in most ways, the main characters,Elizabeth and Darcy, are both frank, stubborn, head strong, secretive and loyal to those they love.Their relationship,the continual pulse of their push and pull, is the heartbeat of this enthralling film.The acting, every single performance, is spot-on, and the chemistry between the 2 leads is truly provocative and compelling. Do see this film soon; you will not be disappointed.","['26', '45']" +1547,rw1169075,ellah-1,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Very very good,8 September 2005,0,"I thought this was excellent. It was very well cast and well shot, the script was a good if brief adaptation of the novel, and although I was dubious before seeing it, as what else can you really do with the story now, I was happily surprised and I would definitely see it again.The whole story was just as exciting and romantic as it should have been, and the sweeping views of British stately homes and countryside were also very cool. Everyone was really good, we spent most of the film trying to figure out where we'd seen the actress who plays Lydia before, and it turned out to be in 'Stepmom'.","['14', '34']" +1548,rw1222691,kstephens,Pride & Prejudice (2005),5.0,Charmless PRIDE a Miscast Muddle,22 November 2005,0,"Thank goodness no fiber of Jane Austen's being is extant on the planet to bear witness to this, the least successful adaptation of her most famous novel.An Austen enthusiast, I had misgivings when I entered the theater to see this film. Alas! they were sorely justified.The problem, I suspect, is that director Joe Wright took pains to avoid the 1995 mini-series adaptation of this famous book...totally missing its single best screen translation. And the memory of that version is the single biggest hurdle to the film-goer here some ten years later. So what's the problem, you ask? In a word: Keira. Miss Knightley is almost too beautiful to be believed and, at times, the soft cinematography framing her seems best suited--with her in it--to a soap commercial. Previous Elizabeths weren't necessarily bereft of beauty or assets, but the earlier filmmakers were smart enough to cast actresses who would slowly grow on and win over an audience--to work the sort of magic on us that Elizabeth works on the aggrieved and lovelorn Darcy. Keira (bless her!) is a fine actress, but she seems to contain none of the tempestuousness found in a Greer Garson or Jennifer Ehle. She is out of her depth here. She merely sighs and looks off placidly, her big eyes almost eerily space-alien-like.Matthew MacFadyen (""Hey, it's the dude from SHAUN OF THE DEAD!!"") plays a stern, yet impenetrable, Darcy, and he--like Keira--gives us no qualities to dig for and slowly warm to. He must secretly rue the day Colin Firth ever laid his eyes on the 1995 script.The supporting cast, however, is unimpeachable. Brenda Blethyn gives us a meddling and endearing Mrs. Bennet (though several decibels below Alison Steadman's screeching and haranguing--and comically masterful--Mama). Tom Hollander's Parson Collins is a dull and odious popinjay; Claudie Blakley's Charlotte is sweet; Dame Judi Dench's Lady Catherine gives the marvelous Barbara Leigh-Hunt's portrayal a run for its money. And Donald Sutherland gives us a wise and warm-hearted Mr. Bennet...which is liable to put a lump in the audience member's throat in the final minutes of the film. If there's justice, he'll be nominated for his work here.The cinematography is beautiful, and Wright attempts some artful and interesting moments (including Eliza in her swing), yet the film ultimately falls flat. The last third, instead of being painstakingly rendered, as in the BBC mini-series, feels compressed, and there are elisions and collisions of scenes and text--by screenwriter Deborah Moggach--which have an artificiality to them. (See Elizabeth's revelation of Lydia's misfortune.)Hindered by some miscalculations of casting, this version's necessity to telescope such a beautifully-intricate work of art cripples it, and, unable to support the weight of its maneuvers, the film topples into implausible dullness. The tacked-on ending also feels wrong. Austen got it right the first time: never show us the characters beyond that magic point of completion. It merely becomes pointless voyeurism.","['8', '17']" +1549,rw1232436,angelic_roxy,Pride & Prejudice (2005),,art film,6 December 2005,0,"I just wanted to say that for those of you who weren't already aware, this version of Pride and Prejudice is mostly an art film. I went to see it expecting for them to focus on things like telling the story and using the witty dialouge to its utmost, and was shocked to discover that it wasn't about the story at all. The story is a backdrop in this case, used to give visual imagery to an art film. If you're going expecting something very different, hopefully this will help you not to be disappointed. There is no comparing this version of Pride and Prejudice to any other, because it is an entirely different creature. Actors cannot be compared to other actors because this version is going for an entirely different feel. Keira and Matthew are not even attempting to imitate Jennifer and Colin's performance. All comparison is moot. In this version you are not supposed to be able to become attached to the characters, be amazed by how witty the dialouge sounds, or be enchanted with the story. These all have a very rushed and glossed over feeling because the main thing here is the visual medium. It is an art film called Pride and Prejudice. All other resemblance to Jane Austen's book or previous adaptations is non existent. That being said Keira Knightly is beautiful and Mr. Collins painfully amusing and creepy. There is a lot of beautiful camera work and a lot of awkward moments. It's worth seeing to form your own opinion but be prepared for what to expect.","['14', '23']" +1550,rw1166574,Mizz_dynamitee,Pride & Prejudice (2005),2.0,AWFUL! I suggest you watch the TV mini series for the actual feel..,5 September 2005,0,"I was absolutely looking forward to this film.. I was looking forward to Donald Sutherland and Brenda Blethyn, had never heard of Matthew Macfayden and thought that Keira Knightley could never pull this one off...Well after the first twenty minutes, I had been curling my toes, knocking about my knees and yawning... I did not feel the passion Darcy had no charisma and Keira Knightley always had a blank expression on her face that meant no character build up..What a waste of money and script.. Austen must be really shaking her bones at this one...If you are a Austen fan and want to watch the film and RELIVE the story then stick to the TV mini series (1995) .. you can buy it on DVD, after seeing this I bought it straight away... Colin Firth is the one and only Darcy, the mystery the charisma, the sexiness, huskiness can only have been COLIN FIRTH... and as for Miss Bennet the childish charm, the freshness and the genuine character was played by Jennifer Ehle..Conclusion is... forget paying to watch this version... save your money for the popcorn and tortilla crisps and stay home for the TV mini series.. Unless of course you're a Sutherland fan...(the only reason why you would need to watch the 2005 remake)","['39', '91']" +1551,rw1214305,stillselling,Pride & Prejudice (2005),5.0,Landscape was only beautiful part of the movie,12 November 2005,1,"The landscapes and architecture are the best part of the movie. Too many moments wasted with nothing being said. Too many looks at Elizabeth. Too much spinning around with her in the swing. They clearly tried to make this a one-person perspective movie - watch it through the eyes of Elizabeth Bennet. The problem: the book was not written in first person. So many of the characters were never properly introduced or given their time to shine (which couple exactly were her Aunt and Uncle Gardner that play such an important role in th book??) The mother was too mellow and therefore could not be laughed at properly. The father was cast as overly negative rather than sensible.This movie was for P&P Fans only. Someone who has never read the book or seen the previous screen adaptations would be lost and have 100 questions afterward (What was it Lydia did? What is up with Wickam? What happened to Jane & Bingley?) But when Netherfield is first shown, it took my breath away. It's just too bad they didn't use that extra time they spent seeing bright spots on the screen as you're viewing the sunrise through Elizabeth's closed eyes on the breathtaking grounds of Pemberley.I was all ticketed up to see this several times but excepting a friend who has no one else to go with, I won't be returning. I'll spend my money on a second copy of the A&E version to replace the one I've just about burned out.","['3', '7']" +1552,rw1197541,justagurl_182,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Judi Dench saves the day,20 October 2005,1,"I love Jane Austen's novel - in fact, it's my favourite book of all time - and I also love the mini-series. But I was a bit weary, along with many fans I bet, upon hearing that a new adaptation of the novel was being made, considering already that the mini-series is probably the best mini-series EVER MADE! Who could ever forget Colin Firth's Darcy, or THAT wet shirt! Or the great costumes and settings and the fabulous acting! I was expecting that this film adaptation would NOT try to mimic the mini-series in 2 hours. And quite frankly, it did not.If the mini-series were never made--God bless me!--I mean, if I had never watched the mini-series, then I would say that this film is a great adaptation of the novel. Fitting this timeless story in 2 hours is hard work so it's understandable that certain concepts, scenes, and characters had to be modified and trimmed - and so they were. NO SPOILERS HERE! But I will spoil, though I don't think it would be a surprise, that Keira Knightley did a really good job with Lizzy Bennett's character and I liked it a lot. And when trying to assess Matt MacFayden's Darcy it's hard not to compare it to Colin Firth's Darcy, so for this sake, I won't. Pretending Firth's Darcy had never existed, MacFayden is a delightful and handsome Darcy, very quiet and soft-spoken, which is a very attractive feature in any man.The film is suited for a modern audience and it did a good job on that. It reminded me of the 1999 adaptation of Mansfield Park starring Frances O'Connor - although no explicit scenes and concepts in this one. 10/10 because I'm a fan of Jane Austen.","['2', '7']" +1553,rw1187481,hazel-32,Pride & Prejudice (2005),1.0,Not funny,5 October 2005,0,"I'm afraid I didn't make it through the first half-hour of this film. Sadly, none of the satire, irony and characterisation that is present in the book and the 1995 adaptation was present.The humour was simple. I was appalled by the portrayal of Bingley; making 'cheap' situation jokes which were not in the book. Bingley was too nice, not stupid. A group of young teenagers who were sitting behind me found it highly amusing, so I must deduce that they have never read the book.I couldn't stand Mr Bennet, he is not as quick witted as he was in the book, and his deep monotonous voice began to grate.I thought Mr Collins was rather good.Kitty and Lydia were spot on.Keira Knightly smiled far too much and I began to grow sick of her cheesy teethy grin.I won't get started on Darcy, all I can say is that I didn't fancy him; enough said.The scenes were very nice, although the Bennets never cooked their own meals. In fact, Mrs Bennet makes a point of it. I'm also sure that they were not farmers... not very 'gentlemanly'.Massive fans of the book and the 1995 adaptation will not like this film and I would strongly suggest that you resist the temptation to see it at the cinema and rent it out on DVD.I think it was a good way to get our money calling the film 'Pride & Prejudice', as it has little semblance of the true essence of the book.","['29', '59']" +1554,rw1213663,shopper1952,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Outstanding...MacFadyen is a worthy Darcy.,11 November 2005,0,"Outstanding ... MacFadyen is a worthy Darcy and a darned good actor to boot! The scenery, backgrounds, and country folk were much more realistic than previous versions. The costumes and hairdos also seemed in keeping with the times. Another great addition is the priceless Donald Sutherland who, in a perfect world, would have had more scenes with Judy Densch. If those two can't chew up the scenery, nobody can. And, finally, Keira Knightly is a jewel. Her beauty is so apparent that it almost detracts from the fact that this is a very good actress who can hold her own in any room. This was a delight and I only wish that it could have been 6 hours long.","['496', '710']" +1555,rw1209789,jenniferl1993,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Unforgettable!,6 November 2005,1,"I thought the movie might be light on substance, and I certainly wasn't convinced with the movie posters. Mr Darcy looked moody in every poster I saw (one dimensional). Instead I find Mr Darcy looking enchanting oft' in the movie (especially when he proposes and the times they meet after he has declared his feelings for her). When he smiles (once!) in the scene with his sister and Elizabeth he becomes very human and believable. I liked this screenplay very much and the movie won me over with its continuity. Miss Elizabeth with her hair extensions was very obvious (why?) and why so often is her short hair shown at the back? Also I've forgotten how wonderful the clothes from that era are - well done to the wardrobe people on this movie.","['3', '6']" +1556,rw1230248,arezoucat,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,wow,3 December 2005,0,"I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I have to say, it's been a while since I read the book by Jane Austen and that I haven't watched the BBC version of the movie. But this was a masterpiece. THe choice of actors and actresses were good. I liked the setting, and the camera movements that seemed to scan every room in every scene was appropriate because it made the setting more realistic and the viewer could easily feel like they are in the time period. I think this is one of the greatest achievements in this movie that makes it stand out from other pictures that have been made previously about this time. Of course, the story is amazing...the romance is well developed and I can imagine that for someone who doesn't know the story, it will be quite entertaining. I wouldn't think Keira Knightly was the right actress for this role, merely because I'm used to seeing her in more modern movies playing the roles of sporty/tomcat girls. But I must say, with the magic of the director, she played quite well and made the role of Elizabeth Bennet come to life. I think I would recommend this movie mostly to female audiences, although some males might also find it interesting, particularly if they have some background on the time that this movie is about.","['1', '2']" +1557,rw1214633,aharmas,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,"Romantic, Classy, and Very Delightful",13 November 2005,0,"Once upon a time there was a feisty lovely woman who was ahead of her time, and she managed to ruffle a few feathers on her way in her quest to find the love of her life. This would be a rather simplistic way to put in words what happens in this charming and bewitching film. It isn't the first time we see an adaptation of the Jane Austen title, but it is one of the times when we feel rewarded and very satisfied with its design.It is hard to fail when the supporting cast an imposing Judy Dench, giving us another one of her powerhouse and scene stealing performances. What makes this film a joy to watch is the casting behind the heroine of the film, Ms. Knightley, who at 18 years old, can hold her own against one of the most formidable figures of British cinema. She does a very capable job in her handling of Austen's precise vocabulary, and she projects both a fiery spirit combined with lovely intelligence, and shades of alluring sensuality. There are powerful, quiet scenes in this film where all hangs around what the camera is able to capture, and it is when the chemistry between both leading actors flows that we know the film works best.In addition, we have faithful portrayals of the rest of characters in this tale of social classes. There are marked differences between the wealthy class and a family that barely hangs on to middle class. The fine characterization of all the female archetype is something to behold. We are treated to range and variety, and consistency in the great performances all around.There is much to admire in the love story (or is it stories). It has depth, feeling, intelligence, respect for its audience, and some of the most enchanting cinematography in a year where there is a wealth of riches for cinematographers. The detail in the camera work leaves you breathless in a few key scenes, and it's consistent throughout the film, where very nothing is left to chance. It is lovely work. The costumes and the art directions are also quite special and will probably be honored later this year.Here is proof we can still go to the movies and let true talent shine through. I do admire celebrities and their tours to promote films. What I do treasure is seeing that the hype is based on solid qualities and not just the result of desperate attempts at creating make believe. Knightley made quite a splash in both ""Bend It Like Beckham"" and ""Pirates of the Caribbean"". She is only 19, and so far it looks like the best is yet to come. Austen would be proud of her performance, and we should be glad we have stars like her in our cinema heaven.","['2', '4']" +1558,rw1228188,iohefy-2,Pride & Prejudice (2005),6.0,Two different opinions,30 November 2005,0,"I went last night with my wife to see Pride and Prejudice because she wanted to see it so badly. As listed in the summary above we had different opinions of this well acted movie. I thought the story was a good one and the acting of Keira Knightley as the main love interest, and the mother Brenda Blethyn was outstanding. I thought that the acting by Matthew Mac Fadyen was stiff and had no body to it what so ever. On the other hand my wife thought all the acting was very good and liked the story very much. I know that this will not help in making a decision to see this film, but this is the honest opinion of two different people. Good Luck which ever way you go.","['2', '3']" +1559,rw1230640,dottynixon,Pride & Prejudice (2005),,"A movie tailored to modern teens, methinks",4 December 2005,0,"I really wanted to like the movie; I even dragged my husband along -in the afternoon. I really was in the mood, but I was so disappointed. Pride and Prejudice resonates today, I think, because the most worthy girl gets the best man; not the most beautiful girl, for we all know rich and powerful men love beautiful women. (Canada's Prime Minister Trudeau used to walk into a room and pick out the most beautiful woman, airhead or not, and talk to her all night).P and P is a fantasy we like because Lizzy is 'only tolerable.' It's her mind that is superior. She makes the perfect match for Darcy because, like himself and like Darbyshire, she is a perfect balance of animal energy and civility. It would be hard being an atistocrat's wife (see Kennedy wife) and you do believe that LIzzy and Darcy would make a perfect couple. Knightley's Lizzie is too beautiful and too impetuous. She's even rude to both her parents! This LIzzie and Darcy would be a disaster, once the hormones had cooled down. I can see her dancing naked in the rain in Permberly and being locked in a wing by Darcy for the rest of her life. (Like Margaret Trudeau, the free spirit and beautiful wife of Trudeau, who lost it under the pressure.) And the dumbed down dialogue, eek. and when Knightley does utter classic lines, she sounds exactly like Jennifer Ehle. McFayden( is that the spelling) has a nice physique (I grant you that :) but he does not have Firth's pipes. You need a sexy voice to make the 'courtship' dialogue seem sexy, I think. But maybe I""m old fashioned...","['8', '15']" +1560,rw1184676,writers_reign,Pride & Prejudice (2005),7.0,"Bennett, Ban It, Bin It ...",2 October 2005,1,"... or How To Decline Jane Austen. We're told that comparisons are odious but let's fact it, this IS a much-filmed novel, I'm not sure just how many adaptations there have been but it's probably fair to say that this is more Austen 7 than Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud. It's watchable without being memorable and it makes all the right moves, about once in every reel there's a wide-angled chocolate-box shot to punctuate the less than exhilarating dialogue including an unashamed crib of Constable's The Hay Wain. The acting ranges from the mediocre to the highly competent - Judi Dench, for example, is NEVER going to be less than excellent in anything - but it's a pity that the acting honours are divided equally between the older generation, Brenda Blethyn, Donald Sutherland, at the expense of the young leads. Elizabeth Bennett and Darcy are direct descendants of Beatrice and Benedek so that if only subconsciously we don't just expect but demand clearly banked PASSION in the formal-to-arrogant exchanges but Keira Knightly and Matthew MacFadyen fail miserably to deliver and both seem to walk-through it rather than attempt to act as if saving their real acting for other projects (MacFadyen was, in fact, appearing at the National Theatre as Prince Hal in Henry IV Parts I and II at the time). Having voiced these reservations I have no doubt it will please a lot of patrons and get its neg cost back though the screening I attended, on a Saturday, was only about half full.","['9', '18']" +1561,rw1226056,seaorchids,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,"The beauty of the 2005 version is in the simplest, most powerful form",27 November 2005,0,"Deeply moving; very touching. I've seen every version of Pride and Prejudice previous to seeing the 2005 version. Every version has its beauty. The beauty of this version is that it touches the depth of love with sometimes the simplest of words, but allows the viewer to feel the gravity of their meaning by how they are portrayed by the characters. This film is very effective in involving the viewer in an emotional finale by gratifying the viewer's wishes, the way ""Sense and Sensibility"" did. Honestly, I'm very critical of film, and although there were moments when I thought ""oh is this cheesy,"" by the time phrases were repeated often enough in different tones instead of my not identifying with the film, I was crying along with the film. I left in tears.","['7', '11']" +1562,rw1202449,maerrie1,Pride & Prejudice (2005),6.0,A good but not excellent film,26 October 2005,1,"I enjoyed this film, however I still thought it was flawed. While Mathew MacFayden was an acceptable Darcy, I thought his puppy-dog look compromised the pride and aloofness that Darcy should have had, in the beginning of the film at least. MacFayden's Darcy was too amiable really. Keira Knightley was good but not excellent. I never got the feeling that Lizzie had the intellect and depth to attract someone like Darcy, which is a shame because the whole film centres on the unlikely attraction between the two - unlikely because Darcy thought that with an inferior education and upbringing, someone in Lizzie's position could never equal him.The scenery was just gorgeous, the costumes were lovely if a little mixed (ie the older ladies were wearing late 18th century fashions & the younger ladies were dressed for the times), the Bennet girls all talked over one another as any real sisters would do, and the general quality of the actors was very fine. I found the film extremely grainy at times, which detracted from the aesthetically pleasing way it was shot. The heightened emotion in scenes such as the first proposal and Lady Catherine's unexpected visit at Longbourn was done well by changing something about the traditional story (ie the proposal happens outside in a rainstorm & Lady Catherine barges into Longbourn in the middle of the night).I loved Bingley, his bumbling and the way he was always tongue-tied around Jane was so endearing. Unfortunately by bundling Jane off to London immediately after Bingley left the country and keeping her out of the action for the next half hour, one does not sense her heartbreak, or understand just how close she and Bingley came to losing each other forever.The story was fast-paced, which is excusable considering how much there was to fit into two hours, and some of the scenes (the first dance, the ball and the scene with Lizzie looking at the statues at Pemberley) slowed it down too much and also took up valuable room that could have been usefully employed with more character exposition or story development.Despite some disappointments, I really enjoyed this film. A good one to add to the DVD collection for a rainy day (once it's released of course).","['6', '12']" +1563,rw1225316,kimberlybdavis,Pride & Prejudice (2005),8.0,My Own Humble Opinion/Review,26 November 2005,0,"So, I just saw this movie tonight. I must confess I have been waiting for it ever since I heard it was being made. I have come to truly admire Keira Knightly as an actress and was keenly interested in seeing what she would bring to the role of Lizzy Bennett. Also I was much concerned to see who could dare to step into the shoes Colin Firth so romantically filled 10 years ago. I was not disappointed.After holding my breath for the first few minutes, terrified that Knightly's Lizzy might be a bit too ""giggly,"" I soon relaxed and settled in to a refreshing interpretation of the classic story. Knightly provided the anticipated spark needed to truly bring Lizzy to life, while Matthew MacFadyen's brooding stares by no means fell short in affecting his own version of Mr. Darcy. A well-assembled supporting cast, including Judi Dench and Donald Sutherland, certainly aided the two in bringing the story to life.As for the story itself, there are some things that are just a bit out of line, but nothing more serious than: some dialog switches (some characters saying what others said in the book), the complete absence of Mr. and Mrs. Hurst, some changes of scenery for some scenes (instead of the parlor, Mr. Darcy first proposes in the rain, for instance). Other than that, it stuck VERY close to the book. I was actually quite surprised.My biggest complaint with the movie lies with the portrayals of Mr. Bennett and Mr. Collins, and mildly so with Charlotte Lucas. The character of Charlotte is not nearly as pragmatic as Austen wrote her to be, and this I found lacking.Mr. Collins is not nearly as simpering with regards to the great Catherine de Bourg as I would have hoped, nor is he nearly as ridiculous in character as to warrant Lizzy's reaction when he proposes marriage.I was most disappointed in the projection of Mr. Bennett. While I would by no means call him the ""comic relief"" of the novel, his general lack of gravity in the situations Mrs. Bennett gets so worked up over is a large part of what makes the family interaction so likable. Here, though, he is entirely too serious; even his attempts at sarcasm come across as worry. This, I feel, detracts from his relationship with Lizzy and deprives audiences who are new to the story of a vital element of lightheartedness.The storyline itself was quite abridged, but then that's only to be expected. The BBC had the advantage of making a TV miniseries and could, therefore, put much more page-by-page material into the 1995 version. This one, however, had to fit Hollywood's 2.5 hours or less mantra, so it did run a little fast, but an audience member who had never been exposed to anything remotely ""Pride and Prejudice"" before could not get lost in the story despite the editing.Overall, I feel it's definitely worth checking out. Keeping in mind that this review comes on the heels of having not only just re-read the book in anticipation of the movie, but also on having just seen the 1995 BBC version just yesterday.KBD","['2', '4']" +1564,rw1183224,philip-63,Pride & Prejudice (2005),4.0,"Pretty, but heavily dumbed down",30 September 2005,0,"The best thing about Jane Austen's heroines is that they are flawed people who are forced to confront their failings. In 'Pride and Prejudice', Elisabeth Bennet's flaws are multiple. She has most of the brains in the family and knows it; she is opinionated and something of an intellectual snob. She can also be rather priggish and holier-than-thou. All this adds up to the 'prejudice' that blinds her to Mr Darcey's virtues. None of the Austen's Miss Bennet is found in this visually attractive but rather empty adaptation. This Elisabeth Bennet is nice throughout the story, exhibiting not a trace of imperfection at any point. Even her bookishness is almost entirely cut out, lest we find it intimidating. As for her disapproval of Mr Darcey - all too paper thin - is based entirely on hard evidence. Anyone in her shoes would feel the same way, given what she sees and hears. In the end, it turns out her information was incomplete, and so she is able to accept his advances. That's it. As simple misunderstanding is cleared up. Austen's novel is more than a romantic comedy in regency dress. But you would never think so from a timid adaptation that tries too hard to be liked, and ends up pitifully short of grit and substance.","['9', '19']" +1565,rw1189297,vickibee-1,Pride & Prejudice (2005),2.0,Pride and Prejudice.,8 October 2005,1,"Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen has long been one of my favourite books, and i absolutely loved the 1995 BBC adaptation of the novel. I went to see the film, hoping that to would meet my expectations, unfortunately it didn't. The whole film to me felt flat and boring. The costumes were awful, and to be honest, the casting was dreadful. They could not really have picked a worse cast. The only one who suited their role was the actor playing Mr Darcy...which surprised me as i thought that i wouldn't like him in the role as i am a big fan of Colin Firth in the role if Mr Darcy. The first half hour was exceptionally dull...but it did pick up slightly.For those who are thinking of watching it, id say watch the BBC adaptation instead. Its far superior to this film.I was highly disappointed with the film, and the only reason it gets the rating i have given is because i love the storyline.","['10', '21']" +1566,rw1190556,Foux_du_Fafa,Pride & Prejudice (2005),6.0,"Don't judge a book by its cover, even if the cover is nice",10 October 2005,0,"This 2005 adaptation of the Jane Austen classic is simply gorgeous to look at; spread over a 2:35:1 canvas and with beautiful late 18th/early 19th century images and colours (not to mention lush shots of mysterious countryside), the only way to describe the production design is ""fabulous"", because it is. However, the ground production values themselves (such as acting, plot) seem a bit hindered by the grandness of the visuals, as whilst fine in their own right, seem somewhat lame compared to the lush displays, thus harming the experience with a beautiful exterior almost destroying an adequate interior. Needless to say, it's still recommended, as it generally seems a good effort, and will probably be enjoyed by those who like period pieces.","['9', '18']" +1567,rw1182252,yfish,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Loved the film,28 September 2005,0,"While visiting Bath for the Jane Austen Festival, I had the pleasure of seeing the new P&P not only once but a second time. I cannot wait to view it many more times. The concept of a film based on the book allows for additional visual information conveyed by facial expressions, body language, and camera angles. I have always wondered just when Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennett first had feelings for each other. After each viewing of the earlier versions, both the television series and the earlier film, I have gone back to the book to see just what Jane Austen really wanted us to believe. But the book is full of dialogue and little explanation of inner feelings. I think the movie did an excellent job of conveying the real people that we know in the story. Jane was especially well done. It is not easy to be an interesting person who is just ""nice"" even if very lovely to look at. This movie gave more life to her character. Also, the mother is portrayed in a much more reasonable fashion than in the TV series. She is a more sympathetic character. Now I eagerly await its arrival in the US.","['13', '22']" +1568,rw1203920,RJamesSumner,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,Pride & Prejudice 2005 is a treat.,29 October 2005,0,"Considering the acclaim of the 1995 BBC production of Pride & Prejudice, I went to the cinema wondering what new delights first-time director Joe Wright could bring to this oft-told tale.I'm happy to report he and his production team succeeded by adding vitality and flavour to the mix. Examples of this are the claustrophobic cavorting of the Meryton knees-up and, a little later on, the post-Netherfield 'hangover' scene.By sweeping away much of the novel's clutter (not, of course, from the Bennett household) this adaptation is tidy and to the point whilst retaining its humour and observation.I know fans of Jane Austen will complain about 'axed' characters and scenes that have been either omitted or wrongly sited, but nothing has been lost as a result. Indeed, Darcy's first proposal is all the better for its re-location in the rain. What red-blooded man wouldn't want to reach out and kiss Lizzie at that moment - and could she have resisted Darcy had he done? I think not.The casting was spot-on. It would be churlish to single out any one performance; everyone dazzled. Combined with wonderful settings, the whole thing is a treat.It is pointless trying to make comparisons between this and the earlier TV version. Adaptation for film is very different to television - the silver screen has only two hours at its disposal, the box had five. Some critics seem not to understand this. Yes, one might prefer Colin Firth's Darcy or Keira's Elizabeth, but such arguments are purely subjective. And if you are a real purist, stick to the book! Those who have given this film a wide berth because they don't enjoy costume drama should cast aside their prejudice and give it a go. It's superb.","['1', '4']" +1569,rw1219133,avsfan96,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,Pleasantly surprised,18 November 2005,0,"As thousands of other fans of the A&E mini-series, I went into this movie telling myself to have an open mind. When I left the theater, with some remnants of happy tears in my eyes, I realized I felt more during this movie than the mini-series. Of course, nothing will ever compare to ""The Look"" in the mini-series, but the interaction between this version of Elizabeth and Darcy really made you feel the longing - especially on his part - he was FANTASTIC! Also, the movie showed a more realistic view of the Bennett life, I think - pigs in the back, mud, showing their level of society a bit better.Wonderful movie!","['12', '20']" +1570,rw1182387,dickback,Pride & Prejudice (2005),5.0,It's a caricature!,28 September 2005,0,"I understand that not every single film is intended to be a breakthrough in the history of the cinema. and that some films just want to entertain; I also appreciate that ""Pride and Prejudice"" is probably one of the latter. Nevertheless, if I have to judge a film, I'll judge it as a film, exactly, and not as a fun fair.And, as a film, I reckon it shouldn't have been done. The story had to remain on the paper, written, because (besides nice postcard-wise sceneries and catwalk-wise women) nothing wanted to be shown, to take off from the paper and land on the big screen.The film is not just intended to entertain (only): it also seems intended for people a little stupid, who need the things be emphasised in order to be understood. All the characters are caricatures: Mr Darcy was a ""do not dare to speak, do not laugh, look serious and dumb""; Elizabeth Bennet was witty and clever and not a single line was down to the earth; the nice mother didn't just wish her daughters be married, but DESPERATELY needed them so; and so on.And, yes, the film does achieve its (only) goal: making people weep... but only at the very end.This film reminded me of ""Little women"" (which wan not spoilt by all this artificial comicality) and Keira Knightley reminded me of Winona Ryder and, no, I don't think they are at the same level, nor that Keira has Winona's talent.For me, 5 out of 10. The only nice thing at the screening was the company I was with. ;-) Luckily I can't say I'd been disappointed, because I already had a (bad) prejudice of the film before the screening and, of course, I'm too proud to admit I was wrong. ;-)Marco","['9', '19']" +1571,rw1213812,madiener,Pride & Prejudice (2005),6.0,"Pretty good, not great ... and not the BBC",11 November 2005,1,"I do not believe there is only one way to play a character. But it's hard not to view the movie, as I did less than two hours ago, and not think ""not as good as the BBC"" or ""better than the BBC."" I am a junkie, and I own the 1995 BBC and early 1980s BBC version, and I have watched them with online versions of the book on the computer at the same time.The BBC was much better. How can you expect to do in 2 hours what was well-done in 5? Let's look at a few of the things that get lost in a 2-hour version:1. Elizabeth's cleverness 2. Mr. Bennett's detachment 3. Wickham and Elizabeth's strong attachment to him (initially) 4. Mr. Bennett's favoritism toward Elizabeth, which makes his siding with her on Mr. Collins more believable But let's look on its own merits, with the unavoidable comparisons that help bring out what might have been.I did not like Bingley at all. He is ridiculous and comes off like a dimwit. It's hard to believe that Darcy would be his friend at all and certainly not his best friend. And hard to see what Jane sees in him other than a meal ticket, which is not how she is supposed to see him (although I believe the role of duty to family gets underplayed in all versions). The BBC Bingley was excellent -- so good-natured he would be impossible not to be liked by other men and attractive to many women. And while he leaned a bit on Darcy's opinion, you still see he is his own man right from the start.Macfayden's Darcy is passable, but he never really lightens up or has much time to. For many, Colin Firth will always be Darcy and rightfully so. He starts out snobby, but we see flashed of smiles and playfulness that grow through the series. You can see why he grows on Elizabeth, although we should not forget that while Elizabeth is romantic, but not stupid. The spectacular Pemberley does a fair amount of the seduction too. They say it's as easy to fall in love with a rich man that it is with a poor one, but certainly it is much easier.Speaking of ""no one who could tempt me,"" who are we kidding? Knightley is gorgeous -- you'd be tempted to sell your soul. The portrayal was interesting -- more giggly and girlish, which may be appropriate for a 20 year old in a house of silly girls and mother. All in all, I thought it was a good job, and deficiencies of comparison are mostly due to the lack of time to develop themes. I'll still take Jennifer Ehle's portrayal, but she had a big advantage of time -- Knightley has little time to show her cleverness. Note that in the book, Darcy makes clear at the end that it is her liveliness of mind, more than her impertinence, that attracts him to her.Because of the run time of the movie, we do not get to see her depth of dislike for Darcy, her attachment to Wickham which causes more dislike, and a confidence in he decision to refuse Darcy, even though she has clearly failed in her duty to her family. In a longer version, she is more confident in what she has done, and has time to change her opinion. In this film, she seems to have doubts about her own decision, except for her dislike over the matter of Jane. Jane is lovely too. I did not find the BBC Jane was not all that attractive by comparison to Lizzie, making the difference less credible. Here, too, Knightley as the less attractive, unable to tempt one? Only if you very strong lean to blonde women ... and then only maybe. Unfortunately, the film does not have time to develop Jane's naive sweetness as the BBC did. The scenes of the home are much different from any seen before in showing a little more rustic, and almost subsistence farming. The home is shabby and run down. Animals are all about the house. Seemed a little over the top, but a refreshing and interesting change from the usual sanitary conditions. I'd have to leave this one to the true historians.While the mother is a little too rough in appearance for a gentleman's wife, she is not so over-the-top as the portrayal in the 1995 BBC, which was quite unfortunate. Also, the 1995 BBC Mr. Collins was way over the top. In some ways, I think the early 1980s BBC version of Collins was best. The 1995 BBC was too over-the-top -- the character is ridiculous enough without having to beat you over the head repeatedly. I was disappointed on Sutherland. He looked less clean cut and probably more accurate in that sense,. we do not see or feel his detachment, his lack of respect for his wife, and his favoritism for Elizabeth, which allows him to side with her on Mr. Collins and to authorize her to turn down Darcy's proposal. The BBC 95 version is excellent -- respectable, likable, but perhaps too detached and dismissive.While this has been more negative than positive, there are things to like, and on the whole I believe this is worth seeing:scenery -- especially house and ball scenescinematography -- the moving through the room and moving between conversations (a la West Wing) was a nice piece of workKnightley's younger portrayal -- not necessarily better, but different and interestingI plan to see it again.","['5', '8']" +1572,rw1188868,missdar,Pride & Prejudice (2005),8.0,What a work!,8 October 2005,0,"of art! I had barely seen a preview of Pride & Prejudice, and so when the opportunity came to see a sneak preview, I could not let it pass me by.Coming into this film, I had admired Keira Knightley's work in Bend It Like Beckham, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Love Actually, and was interested in seeing her portrayal of Elizabeth Bennett. I was not disappointed. It baffles me that this actress is only twenty; and then, when I see that she played a Padme decoy (queen decoy) on Phantom Menace, I said, ""Aha! The lower half of that face does resemble Portman!"" Back to the film...I wondered how the producers/director/writer would splice the novel into two hours, but they did so earnestly, thoughtfully, and with the chuckle of an inside joke.The costumes, scenery, and settings seem to echo a portrait more fitting than the mini- series. It felt more authentic to me as the story unfolded. The actors seem to all enjoy playing their parts: it was comical and romantic, never overly dramatic. I liked the change of where certain conversations took place. Sometimes, because of time, the writer had to transition one storyline quickly to another.A friend said, as she left the theatre, ""This is just what I needed tonight."" And I hope you get it, too, when you watch the film.","['4', '9']" +1573,rw1179782,Sophia-Drossopoulou,Pride & Prejudice (2005),7.0,"A shortened, simplified version of Jane Asuten's novel.",25 September 2005,1,"A very entertaining film. But not in the spirit of the novel, where nuance, restraint and decorum are of paramount importance. In the film, instead, the actors show and shout their feelings at top voice. The most ""unsubtle"" issue is how Elizabeth and Darcy fall in love. After his original refusal to dance with Elizabeth, Darcy is all attention and longing for her. His ""pride"" is hardly shown, and it is not difficult to see why Elizabeth would like him. Elizabeth's love for Whickam is not shown, and even while she is refusing Darvcy, she is almost kissing him. We are not surprised by Darcy's first marriage proposal, and it is not difficult to imagine Elizaneth falling in love with him. The plot is easy to follow, but less surprising and refined.Jane Austen values restraint and decorum. Her Elizabeth would not sniffle in public, and would not scream ""leave me alone for once in my life"". Her Mrs Bennett would appear comic, without the eavesdropping. Her Lydia would appear reckless, without jumping and shouting in each scene. It may well be, that Austen's clever and complex book cannot be reduced into two hours of film without losing its subtlety. The film ""works"", but Austen it ain't.","['5', '11']" +1574,rw1175833,PipAndSqueak,Pride & Prejudice (2005),6.0,Close - room for another version yet,19 September 2005,0,"Oh, yes, you definitely get the impression that Lizzie and Darcy are 'thinkers' - the reason why they are so confounded my their emotional responses. (The pride and prejudice). This version very eloquently displays the different personalities of the Bennet sisters and the way they position themselves for mating purposes. Not sure Rosamund Pike was the right choice for Jane - was she really so beautiful that she could play 'ignorance' of her beauty? I don't think so here. Keira's performance is a bit mixed but there is no harm in that as, surely, this is what makes her most authentic in the role. Judi Dench is absolutely superb as Lady Catherine and conveys in very little time the difficulty the young Lizzie will have after she commits to Darcy. Fabulous. Brenda and Donald work a dream as the much tried parents. I laughed out loud several times - a fine story well told.","['7', '15']" +1575,rw1204278,purpleangel011,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,Absolutely beautiful movie!!,29 October 2005,1,"I absolutely loved Pride and Prejudice. There was sooo much love! I haven't read the book nor seen the previous films but i realli loved this movie! I was very disappointed that there was no kiss however...I was waiting for one throughout the entire movie between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth but there was nothing! Pride and Prejudice is known to be a classic love story but I believe that there needed to be at least one kiss between the two main characters. I did love it however. The actors were great and Mr. Darcy's blue eyes were hot! Kiera Knightly was very good too, as were her sisters. The whole movie and story was fantastic, and I'll be sure to read the book and see the previous movie. But overall, I absolutely loved this one!! Two thumbs up!!","['1', '4']" +1576,rw1192034,hermione47,Pride & Prejudice (2005),7.0,I was so prepared to hate it....,12 October 2005,1,"....but I was (partly) wrong. It is certainly not THE perfect adaptation of the great Jane Austen's novel, but is has several redeeming features.The cinematography, costumes and lighting are stunning and the general feel of earthiness and sensuousness is a real plus.I was taken by surprise by the director's choice to go for a realistic approach to the life and times of Ms Austen. I think it's refreshing to finally see the difference between the Bingley palace and the Bennet muddy overcrowded household. It was not so apparent in previous versions.The acting is good too. Kiera Knightley is wonderfully delicate and playful, even though she's nothing like the serene, witty and ultimately sensible Ms Lizzy of the book. And this new Darcy has nothing of the stately arrogance Colin Firth could master so well in the BBC adaptation. It was as if we were watching a kind of 'P&P the early years', as if the characters were portrayed at an even younger age. They are not as mature as we expect them to be. But probably this is because the film had to do a six hour job in just two hours and had to settle for zest instead of irony, for sexiness instead of passion. I thought that Sutherland was much too lovable and kind to be a believable Mr Bennet, but I found his performance heartwarming. The same can be said for Ms Blethyn's Mrs Bennet: she's much too down to earth and careworn for us to really be able to laugh at her, but her performance is topnotch. Normally in P&P the fun comes from Mr Collins, but this time we are sorry for him and pained at his shortcomings. Here, the fun comes from Bingley, a fresh faced, wide eyed, red haired bumbling idiot. The character seems to have traded bonhomie for plain idiocy. However, even though the luminous Jane loves him and for the life of me I couldn't figure out why, even though this passion seems to be born out of absolutely nothing but proximity for a couple of hours, I warmed to Bingley. Lydia and Wickham and the whole militia caboodle could have been dispensed with, as there's not even half the time to start caring about them.As I said, I was prepared to be severely displeased (as Lady Catherine would say, a stately but ineffectual Judi Dench in Lady Bracknell-mode), but I wasn't. This great book has come to life again, albeit in a surprising new way.","['3', '8']" +1577,rw1173338,cjh_100,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,A better film than your reviewer thinks,16 September 2005,0,"Although the reviewer is right that there is not enough time to convey all the nuances of a novel in a film, that is the same for most adaptations. Forget the Colin Firth version. Keira Knightley is excellent as Elizabeth, Matthew MacFadyen does what he can with an underwritten part. His amount of screen time just doesn't give him the chance to convey everything from the book. The rest of the cast are also good. The audience at the cinema I was in laughed out loud on numerous occasions, so there is humour there. All in all I thoroughly enjoyed it. See this film as it is: a stand alone adaptation of a great novel. It hasn't the depth of the original book, or the time to develop the story fully like a TV series, but makes for an entertaining evening out.","['9', '21']" +1578,rw1229364,sshoger,Pride & Prejudice (2005),4.0,Rushed Cliff Notes,2 December 2005,0,"On the whole I wasn't overly impressed. I will say that the soundtrack is fantastic and about a bagillion times better than my beloved A&E's soundtrack. Hands down. I like the ending much better (than A&E's); I liked their portrayal of Merriton much better; I think that Jane was actually prettier than Elizabeth in this one (sorry; I didn't particularly care for Keira Knightly as Elizabeth Bennett); I liked the added dimension of Darcy & Bingley's friendship; Darcy's little sister, Georgiana, is actually a very good pianist in this one. But, bottom line, I felt like I was watching a rushed Cliff Notes. I felt like they assumed a lot. Plus there was barely time for character development. Jane & Lizzy are each other's confidants and best friends, but in this movie they barely tell each other things. Mrs. Bennett is written as an obnoxious character, always fussing about her ""poor nerves"", but the few mentions of her nerves in the movie seem pushed and unnatural. And I really didn't care for Keira Knightly as Lizzy, especially after her amazon-like role in King Arthur. I could go on and on, but I won't. I know that some people have loved the movie, not more than A&E, but thought that they truly did quite a good job, and I'm glad that they enjoyed it. But I'll stick with Jennifer Ehle and Collin Firth.","['2', '5']" +1579,rw1243699,sceneshistoriques,Pride & Prejudice (2005),5.0,Elizabeth Bennet is miscast,21 December 2005,0,"Keira Knightley is not the Elizabeth Bennet of the book. Apart from this glaring mistake, the rest of the movie is good. The two elder sisters are supposed to be more dignified and substantial than the younger three. At some points in the movie, Knightley's Lizzie acts quite silly, which probably appeals to modern audiences, but is not in keeping with Lizzie Bennet's character. Furthermore, Lizzie is not supposed to be as good-looking as Jane. Her attractions are supposed to be more subtle. Keira Knightley is definitely better looking than the actress who played Jane Bennet. Again, I think this is to appeal to modern audiences, who just cannot have the heroine being upstaged in attractiveness by anyone else.","['8', '14']" +1580,rw1231590,celebworship,Pride & Prejudice (2005),6.0,Mixed review,5 December 2005,0,"I understand what they were trying to do with this film, provide a more modern interpretation of Austen's famous book.They fell short because they hacked Elizabeth's dialog. Instead of being witty, sharp and playful, she comes off as slightly shrewish and spoiled. Elizabeth's talent (which she shared with her creator, Jane Austen) is the ability to put the pompous down without them understanding what she was doing or saying . She also didn't take herself too seriously.I disagree with the reviewer who said to chill, that only a little of the dialog was changed. Not so, a lot of the dialog was tampered with, for no good reason.A few examples: Why did Lady Catherine make the comment about using the piano in the servants quarters to Charlotte instead of Elizabeth as it was written? It sets the tone for their relationship.The first proposal scene. By removing so much of the dialog between Darcy and Elizabeth, the humor AND the outrage is dimmed. It is hard to appreciate why Elizabeth is so insulted, other than she is mad about his role in the Bingley/Jane affair.The reunion at Pemberly. Why was she wandering around poking in doors, where was the housekeeper? By not allowing Darcy and Elizabeth to see each other face to face, the shock they both feel is lost. Where did the Gardners go? They play an important part in that scene. This is the first time Elizabeth sees a reformed Darcy being civil to her companions.The final proposal scene. I have no problem with Elizabeth going out in her nightgown and running in to Darcy. However why the Fabio like slow mo of Darcy with the swelling music? I did like the affection between the Bennets. I thought the final scene with Mr. Bennet and Elizabeth was really nice. I also liked Mr. Collins.MHO, this movie could have worked, it could have carved it's own place next to the Firth/Ehle version, but there are too many missteps.I wouldn't recommend paying top dollar to see this, but you could do worse on a rainy day to rent the DVD.","['4', '8']" +1581,rw1233225,Tamarah,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Lovely Film,7 December 2005,0,"I loved this new adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. The cinematography was lovely, and I think they did a good job of putting this book on film in just over two hours.I'm a big fan of the Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle version, but I have to say in many ways I think that Ms. Knightly and Mr. McFaddyn really shine in this version, and in most ways, I like their performance better. I'm laughing now as I imagine all my friends gasping collectively, as they know I'm a huge Firth fan. But I really do like Matthew's portrayal better of Mr. Darcy. And Keira embodies Elizabeth.Big kudos for the supporting roles, too. Mr. Collins was especially a delight and Judi Dench never disappoints.I also LOVED the score.Go see it--you *can* like the 1995 *and* 2005 versions!","['7', '11']" +1582,rw1252864,HardToPlease,Pride & Prejudice (2005),3.0,Not for English majors,1 January 2006,0,"Warning: If you're someone who enjoys Jane Austen in a literary way -- someone who knows about the manners and language of the time and who knows the specific language of Austen's books as well as you know the Beatitudes or the Lord's Prayer -- you will heartily dislike this adaptation. (What's with Mr. Bingley coming into the room where Jane is lying in bed? A gentleman like Mr. Bingley wouldn't be paying calls on a woman who was in bed.) If you're going to change the style, manners, and language of a story that much, you make ""West Side Story,"" not ""Romeo and Juliet Badly Done."" The dresses were unflattering to Ms. Knightley -- she looked about the way Mary is usually depicted, with a washboard chest called attention to by an unflattering neckline. A Wonderbra would have done, well, wonders. And Mr. Bennet hardly even looked like a gentleman, much less a gentleman with a subtle sense of humor. Does he not have a man to shave him before he goes to the ball? There were some good aspects, of course, most particularly the way everything wasn't all nicey-nice. Places that are often depicted rather too beautifully in other productions were depicted more realistically: crowded, not-quite-clean assemblies, women without makeup looking about the way a woman without makeup looks when she's been dancing strenuously for half an hour in a hot room. I thought the Bennets' home was a little too ""Martha Stewart Does Distressed Surfaces,"" though, and that one shade of blue on walls and woodwork kept screaming ""Look! The designer researched the typical home colors of the day and almost got it right."" If, however, you're the kind of Austen fan who merely likes Austen-ish movies and you don't know her work as literature, well, go for it. It could be worse.","['2', '5']" +1583,rw1208583,jhrichards,Pride & Prejudice (2005),8.0,A good attempt,4 November 2005,0,"Having seen the BBC version, I was expecting to be disappointed. However, I wasn't. It is really quite good - a new look at a well known drama. It ran along nicely - the sets were authentic looking. Most of these period pieces have sets that are set in some master plan somewhere. This was a cut above. I thought Keira Knightley was absolutely gorgeous. Mind you, she was so lovely that surely Mr Bingley would have gone for her, rather than her sister. Matthew MacFadyen didn't strike me as being as handsome as Colin Firth, but conveyed his awkwardness well; you really felt he didn't know how to handle women, especially sparky ones. Personally, I always want to strangle Mrs Bennet; I thought Brenda Blethyn was an improvement over Alison Steadman, who sounded like Edna Everage. Mr Collins was very good, but not as good as the previous version, who was truly excellent. I particularly liked Kelly Reilly as Caroline Bingley. She had a really bitchy feeling about her, but sexy with it. Judy Dench - please! I am completely Denched out. Dead Ringers had it right - Judy Dench plays every middle aged middle/upper class English lady who ever lived. Barbara Leigh-Hunt in the previous version was absolutely fantastic - much better than Dame Judy, I am afraid. Donald Sutherland was a mistake - was he dubbed? Just stuck in for a name, I suppose. Not as good as the BBC classic, but enjoyable just the same.","['4', '8']" +1584,rw1201894,acmur,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Run to the ticket window!,26 October 2005,1,"Couple of problems with this show; it was too short, and it wasn't long enough. This film has fast pace, high octane dance, razor sharp delivery, vivid sketches of secondary characters and breathtaking settings. Darcy comes out of his fog like a god (please include nude scenes in the extended DVD version). Lizzie is smitten early and deliciously bunged up with prejudice, watching her reach truth is a revelation. Lady Catherine de Bourg, Mr. Collins and Mr & Mrs Bennett are fresh and surprising.I love the BBC production. I was blown away by this new film. How often do you get to love two versions of a story? Saw it on a big screen today. Forget about work, I'm going back tomorrow.","['17', '27']" +1585,rw1212015,mercybell,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,"Oft told tale made soulful, young",9 November 2005,1,"I saw an advanced screening of this film in Boston and was very pleased, it is intelligent in its handle of the material and its fluency in cinematic crafting. Goodbye to dusty, ""precious"" interpretations of Jane Austen. This cheeky, poetic, even dark new film makes the story youthful with down-to-earth vibrancy and worship of emotion. Here are young people making the mistakes and dreaming the dreams of the young (when it was written it wasn't antiquity, it was life). Lizzie is not a smirking omniscient but a quick witted independent; hotheaded and fiercely loyal to her sister. She is wary of an unfair world and uses her wits to survive. Darcy is not an impenetrable stoic but a shy sensitive soul with high unwieldy social pretensions fending off the outside world. And they are both lonely and have big yearning hearts, so the filmmakers made one great decision -- they let them fall in love the first moment they lock eyes. In a shot we see hearts behind fortified personalities and an instant chemistry that takes a movie's worth of battling with each other and themselves to right itself. It's an earthy move that sets the tone for a film about the people and world behind the antiquated manners, a world not so different from ours. Now set in 1797, when Austen wrote the first draft of the book, the filmmakers committed to main plot points and themes, and astutely represent the Romantic Age and Austen's characters. The love between Jane and Lizzie is supreme and fuels a desire in Lizzie to tear at Darcy when he separates Jane from Mr. Bingley. She's hurt, she reciprocates the pain, and it is bitter. Pride and prejudices are drawn clearly: Lizzie searches hard to find fault with Darcy, and Darcy cannot bring himself to let down his guard. Both have their reasons justified, but they foil their own chances at love constantly until they see how wrong they are and are too heartsick to keep going. Class conflict is suddenly personally injurious and vicious. When Charlotte Lucas marries for security, it's a grave matter and she must bitingly sober up a disdainful Lizzie on the realities of their world. The Bennets are too eccentric and improper for their own good. Lady Catherine (Dame Judi Dench, who is downright fearsome) is not just a cold figure for Lizzie to spar with, but someone capable of deeply hurting others. The filmmakers are savvy in their understanding of history. Setting it back 20 years is a remarkable move, because we accept more diversions and variation with the 18th century than the 19th and it presents Austen as a Romantic, which automatically requires the story to be interpreted from a different, very legitimate, perspective. The ideals of the Romantic Age are ingeniously, subtly played here: human equality, gritty realism married with beauty for the sake of beauty, but a beauty which is never elitist or decadent, always grounded, simple, and universal: nature, the human being, emotion. The ensemble and mis-en-scene are electric. The camera spryly edges in and out of rooms and conversations instead of sitting arthritically in a corner. The dance scenes are less about ballet, now rollicking and spirited as characters send signals, flirt, deflect and analyze one another. In true Romantic form (worthy of filling Wordsworth with pride) the aesthetic unabashedly revels in beauty, but always the simple joys of our world: sunrises, dewy landscapes in wide shots, colors everywhere. It has a lovely score, period inspired and without any pomp and circumstance. Simple blocking is caffeinated and given substance, something is always going on in the background. Lively, layered interactions between characters make rich scenes, neither wasting space nor time. Consider a scene with Mr. Collins, played by the magnificent Tom Hollander (a standout here, so delightfully weird. When he jaggedly squirms his way up to someone you want to shriek). He wants to speak to Lizzie, alone, and a bolt of fear strikes through her as she pleads in vain not to be abandoned. The sisters are merciless, Mrs. Bennet delighted, Mr. Bennet at a loss, and Collins prepares. It's all silent and it's hysterical. Suggesting variation to revered characters is a frightful task, but here it's a revelation. The entire cast is brilliant, but the two leads are transcendent in their roles. Keira Knightley is charismatic, random, wonderfully young, intuitive to the bone -- she inhabits Lizzie. Matt MacFadyen is deep, remarkably subtle, but mostly he is soulful. I've long held him as a sympathetic actor, but he shines in this. The two instill an unexpected exuberance of feeling in their performances. Neither ever acknowledge the camera exists and make the most of every second they have on screen to project their characters. When you throw them together you get a love story full of emotional subtext, double meaning, and gloriously heavy moments. Because so much dialogue was cut, simple lines have impact and much of the exposition is visual. Epic little moments linger and rain, revealing souls. The thoughts and intentions behind the actors' eyes and words are visible at all times. This movie understands the power of a shot or glance. Lizzie comes to understand Darcy in how he embraces his sister or smiles (a momentous occasion, indeed). When she talks about love it's stirring because it's finally spilled into the open after we've seen it near the edge many times with half said sentiments and stifled tears. Usually ""I love you"" comes with extra explanatory prose, but here sincerity kills cliché: parties are fun, a misty field is breathtaking, the dawning of love a revelation, the heartbreak is throbbing. It's a brilliant film. There is something breathless and luminous about it, from its youth and the break from propriety, to the beauty and spontaneity of life and romance, pain and joy, which provide the color.","['96', '168']" +1586,rw1184220,wolverinegracey,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,pride and prejudice film,1 October 2005,0,I did see both the versions of Pride and Prejudice and I must say that they were both good. I saw a comment on here that was very bad on Matthew MacFadyen. I must say that he's a better cast than Hugh Grant as proposed. I think that Matthew didn't get a chance to show the true Mr Darcy as he had to try it in 2 hours while Colin Firth had almost 6 hours. I also think that the film can't be compared to the series. the film is a bit more modern when it comes to the setting and the costumes. I think that they did a great casting in this film. It is always hard to make a remake of something that was a big hit but in my opinion the film makers did a good job with this film. Keira Knightley showed she can carry a film. I loved the small parts from Donald Sutherland and Judi Dench. She is the right person to play Lady Catherine. That Lizzy and Darcy don't kiss at the end didn't bother me at all. I thought it was a lovely romantic version of the novel.,"['4', '13']" +1587,rw1237863,sancticus,Pride & Prejudice (2005),8.0,Truly delightful and enjoyable,13 December 2005,0,"Pride and prejudice is a well know story that follows the 5 sisters of the Bennet's foray into relationships and marriage. The backdrop of the story is set in England of the late 18th century. An age where marriage pervaded more socially and financially than ones own choosing. This is even more evident in the Bennet's since their house will fall out of their hands if Mr. Bennet (Donald Sutherland) dies. Hence why making a good marriage is of utmost importance. So we get to met quite a few eligible bachelors. Ranging from the tad shy Mr. Bingley to the proud and stout Mr. Darcy and the very inept Mr. Collins. The scenery and locations lends itself to your eyes and really enhances the love story by being truly visual amazing. And talking about a pleasure for the eye, Keira Knightley really shines in this movie. She has received Golden Globes nomination for best actress for this role and it's well deserved. Her performance is scintillating and she really fits the part as Elizabeth. Donald Sutherland is awesome and does his best part in a long time. Matthew MacFadyen (Mr.Darcy) provides both regal-ship and vulnerability to his character and really portrays him well. His chemistry with Keira is also quite good (unlike Keira and Adrien Brody in The Jacket) The rest of the cast is also magnificent. My only wish is that it should have been a bit longer so the elaborations of the relationships could really unfold. Jane Austen fans would surely miss some scenes. So I hope there will be a longer directors cut when it arrives on DVD. All in all a very enjoyable adaption and one that should not be missed.","['4', '7']" +1588,rw1213922,ksavira,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,"Original, unique, and brilliant!",12 November 2005,0,"Some great movies it takes more than one time to fully appreciate every aspect of them. Joe Wright's ""Pride and Prejudice"" is original, unique, highly sophisticated, and just remarkably beautiful.Keira Knightley crates a beautiful, naturally charming, and an original version of Elizabeth. Her performance is just flawless. I love her deep emotion, her girlish beauty combines with her tomboyance and the strength of her character. She has really proved herself as a leading lady at such a young age.The cinematography in this film is also brilliant. Yes, this is the film that is worth seeing in theater because it was just so beautifully shot. You will see several shots of country life: grass, mud, rain, animals, farming. You will also see beautiful landscape and sceneries of Lady Catherine's house, Darcy's house, Elizabeth's trip, etc. The whole film is like a series of beautiful photographs, but with much emotion and beautiful music. And don't forget the scenes at the dances where the camera keeps rolling and following the situation without stopping for a second. How brilliantly organized that is and how everybody has to be ready and right on the spot....it was just genius.And yes, the music does so much work in building up the intensity of the story. The dance in the honor of Bingley where Darcy and Elizabeth dance together for the first time started of a bit comedic but ended with an intense anger. Knightley and McFadyen did their best job, but it was the music that builds the tension and releases it.The Bennett family shows an honest relationship. The five sisters give the same vibe you would get from the March family from ""Little Women."" Brenda Blethyn's character may seem like the clown of the story, but in her we see how deeply she cares for her children and we see reasons for her over-the-top action. The film also takes the time to build a relationship between Donald Sutherland and Knightley as a loving father and his most favorite daughter. We see their connection during the scene when they argue, and the scene when she consults her feeling with him. It's deeply moving and touching.And what more can I say that I haven't already? A lot. But I want you to experience the film first. This is a truly great film that deserves much more attention than it has received so far. Jane Austen's fans shouldn't be disappointed, and non-Jane Austen's fans might even want to start reading her works. ""Pride and Prejudice"" is a timeless story and one of the most beautiful and intelligent love story of all time. It's a study of human characters, culturalism, feminism, and romance. And this film does it total justice.","['4', '8']" +1589,rw1229060,kcoumbos,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Greatness in 2.5 hours!,1 December 2005,0,"OK, I've seen and read just about everything there is done from or by Jane Austen and I just have to say that this movie makes me ...happy. I know that it doesn't quite compare with the 1995 - Colin Firth - version, but for a 2.5 hour version it comes close. I was really weary of any remake of something that didn't really need fixing, but never-the-less, this version still had me rooting for it at the end. The music and scenery in this movie come together to give it the right ""feel"" of the romantic story and that is saying something because I am rarely ever happy with the music of a movie. Even if you go into this movie expecting not to like it you will come out of it with at least a respect for it if not a love for it.","['2', '4']" +1590,rw1216083,england_lover142002,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Extraordinary,14 November 2005,0,"Wow! I saw this film twice on the second day it was out! I though It was Extrordinary, as I am betting, did the rest of the theater ( which was full for the first and last show of the day) Being brought up on Jane Austen, and losing respect for corporations who make cheap films of her magnificent work, I was a little afraid that this would be the case. The movie definitely has been condensed, but what with a 6 hour mini series, you can understand why. It hit all the main points, and the casting, I must say, was beyond spectacular. The one item that made me question when I heard it was the fact that some of the characters say lines from the novel that don't belong to them. (For example, In the movie, Mary says,""What are men to rocks and mountains?"", when in the novel, Lizzy says that). Other than this, It was splendid. The music is also fabulous, and I encourage anyone to go and see it- Why, at the evening show I saw 6 teenage boys have a thoroughly entertaining experience, and they came on their own to the movie! Amazing! Jane Austen transforms the cynical unromantic and immature boy into a culturally aware man that will know how to treat their dating partner and eventually, wife. I can think of no greater service to mankind! Have a great day, and go see Pride and Prejudice! It is worth every second one fears of wasting.","['2', '5']" +1591,rw1243534,sevendayholiday,Pride & Prejudice (2005),3.0,"Expected Little, Received Less",20 December 2005,0,"I admit that Jane Austen's novel and the BBC adaptation of it hold very dear places in my heart, and I cannot help but speak with bias. But judging this film not only as an adaptation, but just as a movie in general, I cannot help but speak with disdain. I of course did not expect the film to achieve a perfect vision of the novel, but I expected a quality film at the least.However, I was disappointed. I shall try to be concise:Script: Poor. I can appreciate the difficulty of adapting this novel into a two hour screenplay, but still the film lacks depth of plot and character. Furthermore, the expositions and transitions are practically nonexistent, and those who have not read the novel probably would have had difficulty following the story.Casting/Acting: Decent. Keira Knightly's flirtatious, artless portrayal of Elizabeth lacks the subtlety and wit for which the character is cherished. Other actors, however, do justice to their characters and do not disappoint. Mrs. Bennet, Jane, and Bingley were done particularly well.Cinematography: Horrible. For some of the scenes, I felt as though the camera man had been spun around ten times and given a hand-held camera. Everything else was unextraordinary.Music: Insignificant. For someone who values the quality and usage of music in a film, I was disappointed to hear such a meager score. Music played little or no part in this movie; yet another dimension lacking in depth.A mediocre adaptation and a shoddy film.","['10', '20']" +1592,rw1219086,mankindk,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Acting is superb,18 November 2005,0,"While I will say first off, that no movie production ever made will ever equal a novel, especially one of this magnitude, this movie is very well done. I read many reviews going either way, but I must say I enjoyed the film very much. Many are quick to criticize Mac's performance saying he didn't do a good job. I thought he was fine, but believe me he is no Colin. Keira Knightley was absolutely incredible in the film, I would go as far to say it is her breakout performance. Donald Sutherland was amazing, but as can be expected from him. Judi, like always is incredible at her role as Lady Catherine.If you are a complete avid fan of the book as I am, you may or may not like it. My only complaint was that it was in fact short, but then again it is quite hard to make a 370+ page novel into a two hour movie easily. There is a phenomenal display of acting by the entire cast, and the score is perfect.One warning though, the movie concentrates on the love story more than Austen's satire of society, so many Austen fans may be angry with that. But overall I thought it was a great film.","['165', '231']" +1593,rw1215188,edichen,Pride & Prejudice (2005),6.0,"Entertaining, but can't stop comparing to the BBC mini series",13 November 2005,0,"I'm a die hard Pride and Prejudice fan both reading the book, watching the mini series on either TV or via my own copy on DVD. The movie version with Keira Knightly is entertaining, but I can't help by continuously comparing it the BBC mini series. From the scenery, cast of characters and how they've adapted the book, I will always prefer the BBC version.Although I prefer the BBC version, I found this version added humor to the story, therefore giving it an added twist and keeping it entertaining. Not convinced of Keira as Elizabeth Bennett, but Rosamund Pike was good as Jane. Additionally, Tom Hollander is great as the bumbling Mr. Collins. Wouldn't rush out and buy it on DVD, but entertaining for the 2 hr long movie.","['4', '6']" +1594,rw1213849,jerynsly,Pride & Prejudice (2005),3.0,. . . like a slice of air pie,11 November 2005,0,"I watched the new Pride & Prejudice tonight and it was like a slice of air pie. A huge chunk of hope and anticipation that creates a severe void of substance, pleasure, or satisfaction. I accept the limitations of a two-hour movie encompassing such a massive, detailed story. There were several bright spots and pleasures but way too few. Donald Sutherland was a commendable Mr. Bennett to the ""nervous Nellie"" Mrs. Bennett. The greatest disappointment was with Dame Judy Dench's performance being so sad and lack luster. Dench appeared downright low brow and trashy. Mr. Darcy's character was insecure (huh?) and Mr. Bingley was a fool (what's with that?). Elizabeth Bennett was played admirably but she seemed to smile too much and at all the wrong times. The entire movie was such a jumble - a mismatched and patched up affair (not unlike a wedding therein). In a nutshell it came across like an abbreviated version of the 'Readers Digest' version. This Pride & Prejudice will probably hit the video shelves within a month. On the bright side, the book is widely available and a great bargain.","['7', '15']" +1595,rw1222210,morrowka,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Best Pride and Prejudice Yet,22 November 2005,1,"To those of you who thought the movie strayed…Yes, it did. But, I must say that in this case, it wasn't a bad thing. When a director is able to capture the essence of a book, when he is able to lift the emotions from the page and allow them to speak on their own, something magical happens.I am a huge fan of Jane Austen and her work, and am currently reading P&P for the 18th time. But, I must say that there is a big difference between a book and a movie. There has to be.Personally, I found the BBC production extremely boring. True, it was faithful to the book, but so much so that it was painful at times. Honestly, Colin Firth is not my idea of what a Mr. Darcy should be. Lizzie and his character were too old in that movie, too unattached, lacking everything between them that was there from the beginning. In essence, there was nothing cinematic about that series. I would rather read the book than sit through that for five hours. Imagination can create a better scene than can ever be replaced by direction from another. That is why, I am never satisfied with movies that are based on books. In the case of the BBC series, it failed to offer something that the book didn't. For this reason, and the fact that Colin Firth ruined Mr. Darcy for me, I disliked this adaptation greatly.Now, in the case of P&P now playing in theaters, the producers and director gave us something to watch and ponder over. It did not remain as faithful to the book as many would have liked, but that is precisely why it is worth watching. The emotion, the wit, the essential elements from the book, it's all there. It is one of my favorite movies of all time. I see it as a movie first, an adaptation of Austen's work second. It is so beautifully filmed, the scenery alone is enough to make one emotional. The music, which is arguably one of the most important components of any movie, is masterfully composed and carefully weaved into the film. The acting is magnificent.Matthew captures and reflects a Mr. Darcy that differs from his description in the book but works. He is able to add layers to the character, making us wonder whether he is possible of loving. He silences and odd behaviors, are both charming and captivating. Watch the clip on the website of him and Lizzie arguing. His facial features in the latter part of the scene express what he cannot. The pain, the love, the sexual tension, he is able to capture this all in one moment. And the scene in the field, oh my, okay I will stop here before I give too much away.The movie works. For 2+ hours it recreates the love story of Austen's most cherished novel in a new and refreshing light. It offers something different. A must see. Again, don't go see it or criticize it for its inability to remain 100% faithful to the book. This is both impossible in 2 hours and undesirable. Books are made for reading, movies must be cinematic.","['2', '4']" +1596,rw1213803,skatfan,Pride & Prejudice (2005),9.0,Loved it!,11 November 2005,0,"Well, I was prepared to be very critical about this movie, but golly it was a fine and wonderful movie that had me, not usually a crier, weeping at the end.The direction, set direction, costumes and acting really do come together. Mr. Collins, Mrs. Bennet, Mary Bennet, and even Lady Catherine are more fully realized than in previous versions. Jane Bennet is reserved just we would hope, and Georgiana was a wonderful 15. Jena Malone (Lydia Bennet) managed to play down to 15 for me. And Mr. Bennet cries as he gives his permission to Elizabeth, just as I've always wanted.For me, thanksgiving came early!","['2', '4']" +1597,rw1242525,brittany_neale112,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Best Movie Of My Life,19 December 2005,0,"Okay yes I just want to let you know I'm a sucker for anything romance but this beats them all. Pride and Prejudice is the best movie I have ever seen in my entire life. I used to be obsessed with the movie The Notebook but after seeing this that all changed. There isn't too much kissing stuff like in The Notebook that you just get sick of after a while, but it still keeps you hoping that Lizzy and Darcy will end up together. I'm not reading the book and I can't wait to get it when it comes out on DVD! This movie stays true to the book which is even better because I find when you read a book and then watch the movie like for example The Notebook or Harry Potter, they are a lot different than the movie which disappoints me. But Pride and Prejudice even took lines out of the book which makes it very similar. I've seen it in the theaters a couple times so I strongly suggest you see it!","['0', '1']" +1598,rw1207003,largelyhappy,Pride & Prejudice (2005),5.0,"OK, I'm prejudiced but not proud of it.",1 November 2005,0,"If you can sit through the first mindlessly boring half hour of dancing crowd scene (and stomach a few others; this director really gets his moneysworth from the extras) then you may find a spark of interest in P&P. Not though if you know anything at all about the manners and traditions of 18th century England.The whole premise of Austen's writing was based on certain elements which are totally lacking in this movie. For instance, the Bennetts were a respectable, well-heeled family of good stock but in that society, riddled with class awareness and false values, far below anything Mr Darcy could have been expected to marry into.....unless the object of his affections was so totally captivating that he couldn't help himself.It was Elizabeth Bennett's unusual charm and unconventional ways which totally captured him and made him flout what were the very, very strong conventions of the day.However, what we were given were Bennetts who looked little better than street people (uncombed hair, shaving stubble, no periwig when company called, and a dress code which bordered on the barbaric)with no manners whatsoever (and manners were everything in Austen's day).Elizabeth was far from charming with virtually nothing to recommend her to the hide-bound Darcy - and a mouth so full of teeth it was a wonder they didn't all fall out on the floor when she smiled.So where was the winsomeness? Where the prejudice or the pride for that matter, except that exhibited by the wonderfully tart Lady Catherine (Judi Dench).Close your eyes and listen to Keira Knightley in this role and you'll hear Princess Diana; Mr Bingley could double for Jamie Oliver (complete with weird hair) and am I the only one in the whole world who does not see Keira as ""stunningly beautiful""? She is, as Darcy first states, 'tolerable' but only just. Forever-open, pouting mouth (which, in Austen's society would have spoken of abject stupidity) and constantly scruffy appearance betrayed absolutely the smart, funny, and witty Miss Bennett Jane Austen portrayed.There was so much wrong with this movie that it hard to remember that it was made for fun and entertainment and not meant to be (like the book) a dissertation on 18th century manners, just a wildly inaccurate bit of froth for the overseas market (Americans will love it I suspect)which made little or no attempt to stick to what Austen intended.Yes, I'm a grumpy old curmugeon but I went into the movie expecting some attempt at least would be made to show us what P & P was all about and how love can conquer even the most rigid and iron-clad tradition. Alas, the disappointment and hence the grumpiness.","['14', '29']" +1599,rw1175960,tlsnyder42-1,Pride & Prejudice (2005),10.0,Great Movie,19 September 2005,0,"This version is simply marvelous. You can't compare it to a miniseries (that's unfair), nor necessarily to the book. The acting is superb (including the two leads), the photography is wonderful, the screenplay is brilliant, and the tracking shots are amazing. I laughed and was very moved. Although the dialogue was hard to understand at first, this is the best English language movie I've seen so far this year, and I see many movies, including most of the major American independent movies. Joe Nichols, the director, deserves lots of kudos for his work here. If there is any justice, this version will pick up some significant Oscar nominations.","['8', '17']" +1600,rw1224758,mright123,Rent (2005),6.0,Just OK.,26 November 2005,0,"I have to say I was expecting much more.I have read it in its original form and seen it on and off Broadway several times. In my humble opinion there was not enough music. Many of my favorite parts of the musical are just that; MUSICAL.The characters were well played although a few could have been easily removed without affecting the story.All in all I gave it a 6 for the story line but I sincerely doubt it will rake in nearly what they were expecting at the box office.Everyone else I have talked to adored it. Oh well, different strokes I guess.Hope this helps.","['5', '7']" +1601,rw1222914,jkf-6,Rent (2005),7.0,"A story about life, love, loss explored through late 80's early 90's bohemian counterculture.",23 November 2005,1,"I have been an avid RENT fan for years and years now, and was lucky enough to receive free tickets to a screening before the release date. While filled with excitement and terror I saw Jonathan Larson's name come onto a black screen in white type and could only hope that Chris Columbus did the film justice.The feeling of the first electrifying chords of ""rent"" was lost to dialogue and the abrupt start and stop transitions in songs. The added dialogue I think left the film feeling choppy whereas the theatrical production cohesively transitioned from place to place with musical interludes and most lines sung.The effort was noble though, in an attempt to accommodate to an audience that would look down on a musical in the strictest sense.In trying to avoid the ""cheesy"" label that musicals often are given, scenes in your what you own with Roger's hair blowing in the wind and then triumphantly climbing desert rock while Mark rides his bike through New York is putting in into a ""cheesy"" category that the theatrical production was never close to.The film was littered with awkward close ups, angles and a feeling like the transition from stage to film was pushed. The actors were left standing singing to one another rather than having movement of any kind let alone a large dance number (aside from La Vie Boheme).All this aside though, the message and feeling is left in tact, and I still had tears in my eyes many times. The story is all there, I just wish it was more creatively shot and movement was payed attention to.","['3', '5']" +1602,rw1222074,lilly_21,Rent (2005),9.0,"This movie is romantic, tragic, and all together great.",21 November 2005,0,"In 1999, I went and saw this play on Broadway; it was and will be the best Broadway play I have ever seen. Now I know, that I am suppose to be talking about the movie, But it doesn't come out for 2 more days and I cant' wait!!!! 7 of the original Broadway cast members are going to be in the movie to guarantee the greatness of the movie. When I found out about this I just knew there was no way they could ruin this play unlike so many others. This movie will be just like the play be romantic, tragic, and all together great. You will fall in love with the Characters and cry for them in their time of need. If you don't like risky subjects like Drugs, Drag Queens, AIDS, ext…. I would not recommend this movie for you. But if you have a open mind. Please go see it.","['1', '4']" +1603,rw1226215,joestank15,Rent (2005),5.0,Mixed bag.,24 November 2005,0,"Based on Puccini's La Boheme, tells the story of one year in the life of friends living the Bohemian life in modern day East Village New York. The film has some beautiful choreography and excellent vocals, but in general leads itself to some problems. It's great to hear most of the old cast, and while Anthony Rapp, Adam Pascal, Taye Diggs, and Idina Menzel sound great, they're all too old looking to be reprising their roles. A younger cast of new hopefuls (such as much of the original cast was when they started) might have been a better choice. Most of the songs are very good (One Song Glory, Tango Maureen, ake Me or Leave Me"" and ""La Vie Boheme"" among several) but ""Without You"" could've been cut down to less.And while one of the film's themes (along with AIDs and friendship) is not to sell out, it's a little too hard a lesson to chew, what with the hypocrisy of getting 6 out of the 8 original cast back as one of the selling points of the show. It even starts out with the most widely known song (Seasons of Love) at the beginning of the movie as if to remind us all why we came.There are several touching scenes and montages, but it's Chris Columbus, which means that it'll be a mostly faithful translation, unless things get too offensive. This was okay for Harry Potter, as the first two movies were more kid oriented, but it's just a ""Huh?"" moment here. Where's the shock? The movie tries to play it safe too much. A director not concerned about what kids should or should not see would have been a wiser choice. Hell, why not Spike Lee? Have a documentarian shoot a movie about a documentarian. Awesome idea.There are anacronisms, but I don't care about those. The story pace starts out good, but drags to a crawl near the end. Some dialogue which was originally sung, is now spoken and stilted because of it.In the end Rent die-hards will either love it or hate it. Newbies to Rent will enjoy it because it's a package softened up enough by Chris Columbus to chew.A mixed bag, but I'm thankful that Chris didn't include Joe Pesci, buckets of paint or screaming children, this gets a B.","['0', '1']" +1604,rw1226562,xbois,Rent (2005),8.0,Brillian Acting by most... not All.,28 November 2005,0,"I thought Anthony Rapp and Adam Pascal were horrible, they almost ruined the whole thing for me.Thank god for the rest of the cast, Especially, Ms. Rosario Dawson who embodied Mimi perfectly.Chris Columbus was def. not right for the project. It could have been so much better. Thank God Jonathan Larson wrote a brilliant piece that can hold its old. The movie, tried too hard. It lacked the edgy, grittiness, the world these characters lived in. Not to mention NYC in the 90's. I hated the obvious change and difference in location, he should have stuck to the sound stage, if he could not leave San Fran. to shoot Rent the way it was meant to be filmed.","['0', '1']" +1605,rw1225079,WickedPopGoddess,Rent (2005),9.0,Rent...amazing,26 November 2005,1,"The movie started with the well known ""Seasons of Love"". ""Rent"" starts soon after, with just a little spoken bit taken almost directly from the Broadway show's ""Tune Up #1"". I love the touch of all the tenants singing directly to Benny, including Mimi and Angel. Mimi and Roger seeing each other before ""Light My Candle"" is a great touch so she doesn't appear to knock on his door on accident.""You'll See"" was, of course, greatly pulled off by Taye Diggs, and soon after we cut to Angel playing the ten gallon plastic pickle tub before running into the beat up Tom Collins (and many who know the music might have found it painfully hard to listen to ""You Okay Honey"" spoken, as well as any songs spoken).The songs all pass very well acted, but what really grabs your attention is Collins entering yelling ""Merry Christmas, bitches!"" And then, of course, the part that turned Angel into my favorite character, ""Today 4 U"", which has the most amazing drum solo I might add. But when I saw if for the second time, I was mad to see that some annoying, preppy kids laughed when Angel came in all her Santa drag glory.I'll skip to ""Over the Moon"", in which RENTheads and non-RENTheads alike were laughing, a brilliant performance by Idina Menzel. ""La Vie Boheme"" got everyone laughing, too, especially my friends when we all yelled ""MUCHO MASTRABATION!""The second act also has many humorous lines added in with lines like, ""You're drunk!"" ""No I'm not!"" and various others. But you definitely start crying with clips of Angel dieing and Mimi getting worse in ""Without You"" and then the funeral scene. All of those who were worried by the clip in the trailer of Maureen's monologue in the scene; never fear. She pulls it off with great emotion, but everyone was crying even more during ""I'll Cover You: Reprise"". Sadly, they decided to cut out ""Halloween"" and most of ""Goodbye, Love"".Of course, I cried again in ""What You Own"" after you see clips of Angel before she died. Then everyone cried when Mimi was about to die, even those who knew the ending.The memorial to Jonathon Larson was simple and great; they couldn't put it any better. In fact, I think it's the best way to put it:Thank you, Jonathon Larson.","['0', '2']" +1606,rw1223521,popodysseychic13,Rent (2005),10.0,whats different about the movie?,24 November 2005,1,"I saw the movie tonight and I LOVED it! I had heard about the musical for a long time but never had the chance to see it. I know that the original soundtrack has a lot more to it and wondered what was different about the movie from the musical. As I said, I loved the movie, the songs, the way it was put together, etc. It had me so emotionally involved that I was in tears by the end of it (and yeah, none of you know me, but i am not the type of person that cries in movies...ever.) But I'm confused about Mimi a bit...I thought she had aids in the musical, but in the movie I didn't necessarily get that...maybe I was too busy singing along and missed something, but the way she was portrayed made her seem like a drug addict and that was it...does the musical provide more explanation for the characters and their backgrounds/conditions? Was the story line changed for the movie? Pretty much I just wanna know hear someone who has seen the musical that can compare both and pick out the differences. Thanks!","['1', '3']" +1607,rw1230104,haircity1,Rent (2005),10.0,shell-shock,3 December 2005,0,"amazing....simply, completely amazing. i haven't seen the Broadway show(yet), but it is very hard to believe that it could be any better than this masterpiece. amazing. i loved it. i am actually planning on seeing it again. the music was amazing, the characters were truly touching, the overall movie was, for lack of a better word, splendiferous. everyone i know feels this way as well. i say screw the critics. this is a true masterpiece. i loved it. however, the movie does have minor flaws. some of the choreography seemed a little cheesy, and apparently many of the dialogue lines from the movie were originally sung in the musical. some of it also seems unplausible, but overall, it was, once again, splendiferous.","['2', '5']" +1608,rw1223317,nc-dramaqueen-2007,Rent (2005),10.0,Breath Taking,23 November 2005,0,"RENT, was absolutely fabulous. I was able to attend a Sneak Peak Screening 11-21-05. This is the only movie where the audience did the following: Cheered and Appauded at both the beginning and the end, bawled straight through the second half, sang along with the Finale, and while credits were rolling stood up and hugged those around them. RENT has such a special message about Love and Friendship. This depiction of Avenue B New York, with all of the Drugs, diseases, and poverty, but through it all still show the ability of friends to conquer it all no matter how hard it may be. Remember ""Measure Your Life In Love!""NO DAY BUT TODAY,~Analyse~","['1', '4']" +1609,rw1222090,ryan_m_garcia,Rent (2005),10.0,"Despite small flaws, ultimately perfect. A huge moment for movie musicals.",22 November 2005,0,"Wow. I have never been happier to enjoy seeing a movie. Rent was a pivotal moment in musical theater over the past 20 years, so the thought of it being mangled on film (like Chicago was) made me nervous. But from the very beginning there's no denying that the movie absolutely nails the energy, the feeling, the passion that went into the original production. This movie is absolutely superb, and if there was any justice in the world then the Academy would take back that Best Picture award they gave to Chicago and hand it over to Rent, while apologizing for awarding that piece of rubbish.Rest of my comments at http://blogs.compnor.net/hose311/?p=158","['3', '11']" +1610,rw1227580,azmoviebuff,Rent (2005),9.0,Go see this movie!,29 November 2005,0,"I have been an IMDb addict for years, since it's inception. This is the first time I have written a review. SO here goes... I am a Broadway fan, have seen Rent in NYC and anybody who loves Broadway Musicals in general needs to see this movie. It is faithful to the genius of Jonathan Larson's vision, it contains nearly all the Original Broadway Cast. It is simply amazing to see any Motion Picture that has one Tony Award Winning Voice in it, much less this one has two (and a host of nominated voices as well). I was singing to myself through the whole thing. TO anyone out there that is dissing this movie...I say how often can you get actual chemistry between actors, first rate quality talent, a movie that makes you laugh and cry, a great story, a great thought provoking message and beautiful visuals in a movie? Appreciate this movie and what Chris Columbus did if you like the genre. Yes, not everyone wants to see people walking down the street and breaking into song...this movie isn't for them. It was made for millions of others who do appreciate this type of film. It was well crafted and I will personally see it again and again, as well as buy it on DVD. Viva la vie Boheme! Kudos to the entire cast, you should be proud of this first rate achievement. If no nominations or awards follow...I would say you were robbed. Thanks for making this rent-head a happy one!","['0', '1']" +1611,rw1225104,nateg1229,Rent (2005),9.0,Better than Expected,26 November 2005,0,"When I first bought the soundtrack, I had no idea what was going on: the songs didn't even seem to be part of the same show. Now that I've seen it, I understand them completely and how they fit together.I came into this movie knowing only the bad parts: AIDS, lesbians, and drag queens. If this is all you have heard about Rent, don't judge too quickly; this is only the bare bones of the story. That was all I expected, but I got so much more. This could potentially entirely change your view of how life is. You will laugh and you will cry. You will love Rent.Remember: No day but today.","['0', '2']" +1612,rw1233610,zorrosm82,Rent (2005),,Oh Please,8 December 2005,0,"I cannot believe people actually like this movie. I love Stephen Chbosky and think his novel ""The Perks of Being a Wallflower"" is a brilliant piece of work, however, the screenplay which he wrote for this movie is just a little more ridiculous than it is absurd. The actors, although I know they are the original cast, are far too old to be playing these characters. These people are supposed to be so poor that they have to burn clothes for heat yet they drink Dos X and wear designer clothes. There is a scene in Rent that is so over-the-top terrible that it made me want to gauge my eyes out with my rolled up ticket stub. I don't mean to be insensitive to those that enjoy the play, I know the play is a great thing and the story captures a strange but important time in our culture, but lets be realistic, here. The music is strange and the actors can't sing, the dialogue is laughable, the story is cliché. I do not understand what makes people like this movie. Maybe they love the show and don't want to admit that the movie is a joke or maybe there aren't any people left in this country that enjoy good movies, only miserable ones.","['0', '3']" +1613,rw1240455,filmfan352,Rent (2005),10.0,Amazing! a very good good musical destined to be a classic!,17 December 2005,0,"I recently was tuned into rent by a close friend who had known it for years. before i saw the film i had the chance to listen to some of Rent's many energetic and emotional songs form the movie soundtrack and the Broadway soundtrack and after only a few songs i preferred the movie version the film, the film itself visually looked great and the casting of most of the original cast member's i thought was a brilliant decision. i thought the ones form the original Broadway musical were the better ones and was glad to see that they did not chose the actress who played Mimi in the Broadway version. when you watch rent you get sucked into it from the start and it stays with you for a long time. RENT IS HIGHLY Recommended!","['2', '5']" +1614,rw1223737,elephanz101,Rent (2005),10.0,best movie i have ever seen.. honestly,24 November 2005,0,"the most wonderful movie i have ever seen, i cant explain the feeling i had it was just spectacular. i don't want to give anything away, but i recommend everyone goes to see it as it is the best i have seen in so long. the movie deals with very intense issues which are good to be touched upon. I did not see the play, but i heard from different people that had. some thought that it did not do justice only because the play is so amazing. a movie cant capture what a play can so it makes sense. some who had seen it thought it was amazing too so Generally i say there are no excuses to not see it! during some of the songs i was on the edge of my seat simply because it was so amazing. at the end i for sure teared up because of all the messages being sent through the film. perfect 10 stars I loved it and everyone really really NEEDS to see it! not for the very conservative i would say, but some of my friends who are still loved it so try it!","['1', '5']" +1615,rw1224293,addygirl,Rent (2005),10.0,Perfect movie,25 November 2005,0,"This movie was absolutely amazing. I bashed it forever until my sister pushed me to the theaters to see it and I sincerely regret ever having doubts about this movie. The musical performances were wonderful, the acting was amazing, the dancing was great, and it all came together so well. I laughed, I cried, I sang, and I learned. This movie is definitely a 10/10.I didn't expect such a wonderful musical performance from these actors since I had never heard of them, aside from Rosario Dawson. I also didn't expect the awesome vocals from her, so I was very surprised! For those asking, it's a very touching movie revolving around love. It might be a little too heavy for a first date, but it's not a bad movie to take your loved one to. Either way, everyone should see it.","['1', '5']" +1616,rw1224047,moviewriterlaca,Rent (2005),10.0,Excellent,24 November 2005,0,"When Rent first came out as a play, I listened to the soundtrack at the time and found it extremely depressing. Now about ten years later, I'm in a different place and I have to say that I'm sorry I missed the stage version.What this movie was incredibly successful in doing was showing people who continued to live their lives in the face of devastation, with gusto and exuberance. It was filled with hope. Sometimes we forget that in the face of something terrible, that life is too short not to live it fully. We may not agree with the lifestyle choices that these characters have made, but it's better to love than not to love at all. This is a life-affirming film, not some morbid celebration of deviant lifestyles and death as I had first perceived it ten years ago.The principal cast members were phenomenal, and I hope that this is a launching pad to bigger things for all of them. Amazing performances all around. I can only hope that Oscar comes knocking on Rent's door. Thank you Jonathan Larson, and Chris Columbus -- and a truly gifted cast.","['1', '5']" +1617,rw1223231,djdonnyo,Rent (2005),10.0,OMG what an amazing film,23 November 2005,0,"I have never seen the play and was anxious to see this much prematurely hyped film even months before it was finally released (today). True, I was not a fan of Chicago at all (I thought it was, uh, silly) and I really disliked Phantom/Opera (It bored me senseless). So I was NOT expecting to enjoy this film. I just left the auditorium after seeing it's first show at my local cinema. All I can say is WOW. The director made me laugh, made me cry, and made me genuinely care for these characters. It was especially interesting to see how comfortable people in the auditorium were with same sex kissing. That just shows you how well this story is presented. When it ended, I wanted to jump back in line and watch it again, which I never do (and always criticize those who say such things!). Bravo, Chris Columbus. You would make the writer of the play very proud if he were still alive. Thank you!","['2', '4']" +1618,rw1215569,alrodarte1,Rent (2005),9.0,Movie Preview Viewing 11-6-05,6 November 2005,0,"Excellent!!!!! This was a preview in Westwood with Dawson, Thoms etal plus Chris Columbus speaking to the audience afterwards.....What can I say? The audience just about clapped after most musical numbers....it was like being at a Broadway show....but it wasn't....very surreal..Despite the content.....it is a movie that many will talk about for a long long time.......""rent-heads"" were awestruck tonight! I'm seeing it again with a bunch of friends as soon as it comes out!Buy the soundtrack too! It will be better than the stage soundtrack!Someone asked Chris Columbus how he did such a good job on the music.. He responded tat he got one of the best: Produced by Rob Cavallo of Green Day's American IDIOT (Grammy Winner)!","['8', '20']" +1619,rw1224420,nickbaldwin79,Rent (2005),8.0,Lives up to the expectations,25 November 2005,0,"I first heard about a possible RENT movie about 8 years ago, so of course, when I went to see it the other day you can imagine the expectations I had were very high (considering I've seen the show 9 times over the past 10 years.) I would have to say, it lived up to what I was expecting. I mean, I'm going to have my certain reservations, because as a huge fan, I have my own visions of what I had wanted to see on screen. However, I feel that Chris Columbus did a good job in capturing the essence of what RENT should be. It had the same feel of the B-way show and the original cast has still got it. Also, seeing it on screen also made the story so much clearer to me. Columbus made great use of the camera. The shots just seemed to flow through the streets of Alphabet City, much like a music video. The film opens w/ ""Seasons of Love"", but it really begins to pick up when the cast starts singing ""Rent."" The energy was so high and fast paced, that it makes you want to get up and sing along (I had to restrain myself.)It was wonderful to watch. I highly recommend it!! You can bet that I'll be back in the theater very soon so see it again.","['0', '2']" +1620,rw1224561,tingilya_estel,Rent (2005),10.0,No Day But Today,25 November 2005,0,"Rent was, without a doubt, the best movie I've seen this year. Maybe even the best ever. Rent is the essence of truth, beauty, and love. But above all it's about friendship and the trials of dealing with the people you love most. I will admit that as excited as I was to see the film, I had my doubts. After seeing Rent on Broadway, I wasn't sure the movie would do it. But it did and far surpassed it. The cast has an undeniable chemistry that shines and pulls you into that world with them. You'll laugh, you'll cry, and you'll be dancing in your seat with the amazing songs. Jonathan Larson, God bless his soul, was a genius and a heartfelt writer, and I feel Chris Columbus met his genuine integrity in a way that would do Jonathan proud while still tugging at those heartstrings. Go grab some cash and a box of tissues and go see Rent. You won't regret it.","['0', '2']" +1621,rw1253127,coopcollects,Rent (2005),1.0,I want my three hours back,2 January 2006,1,"This was the biggest nut filled turd I have ever seen. The acting was paper thin, the songs contrived and the story line was simply not there. You never connect with the characters. When they start to die you simply don't care or in my case you chuckle at the overacting. The original cast may have been able to pull this off on stage 10 years ago when they were under 40 years old. They may have looked the part of the struggling youths they are portrayed to be but now they look like shiftless lazy 30 year olds. Shut up, sack up, go out and get a frigging job. Pay your rent, pay your bills. Is it so awful that the guy who bought the building is trying to make some money? Oh that's right people who own things are evil? Oh my god I hate this crap I hated this movie. I hated everyone who sat there with me and cried as they died. I was the a-hole who was laughing and making comments the entire time. That's right it was ME. Randolph Massachusetts I was up front you all hated me for telling the truth. Get over it punks!","['13', '27']" +1622,rw1233666,jpoling-1,Rent (2005),3.0,incredible,8 December 2005,0,"I know a suspension of disbelief is sometimes necessary for musicals, but since Rent is a ""reality-based"" musical tackling such heavy subjects as the homeless, housing, and AIDS, I found it hard to get around the fact that these two struggling artists are living in a warehouse-sized loft. What about a studio? A railroad flat? People would kill for a space like that in new York. Also, you don't hand-crank an 8mm camera DURING filming, (certainly Chris Columbus must know this?) and there's no way, in 1990, that his 8mm home-movie footage could have gotten him a job with a major news show. Having said that, I can still understand why some people have a soft place in their heart for it.","['1', '3']" +1623,rw1223249,d4r44,Rent (2005),10.0,enjoyed it!,23 November 2005,0,I thought it was great. I am a huge fan of the stage version but i felt very much the same in watching the movie. i did miss certain favorite moments that had been removed but i feel like the movie worked completely! i wish i could own it already! I felt like Jesse L. Martin and Adam Pascal were amazing to watch. I love everyone but those two really stood out to me. the bursting out into song was not awkward at all and the whole feel of the move over all just really worked. I feel like Christopher Columbus really stayed true to the overall feel and really stayed true to the fans. I was glad to be so moved by a movie. I cant wait to hear more response from fans....new or old.,"['74', '116']" +1624,rw1232792,lifeisnteverything,Rent (2005),9.0,Magnificent,7 December 2005,1,"Being something of a Broadway geek, I was fully prepared to criticize the film version of ""Rent"" in any way I possibly could. I was ready to rip it apart, frame by frame, and let everyone know that it trashed a Pulitzer-winning musical. What I was completely unprepared for, however, was that I'd have no need to do so. ""Rent"" succeeds on almost every level.The plot follows a year in the life of eight bohemian friends in late '80s New York City, and the various ways in which the year changes them. Some find--and lose--soulmates; others discover the capacity to live life more fully, while they still can.I was particularly incensed with the casting of Rosario Dawson as the fragile stripper Mimi, but I was blown away by her explosive performance; she exhibits a go-for-broke streak in the role that surpassed my expectations by a mile. The other notable standout performances were Wilson Jermaine Heredia, playing the HIV-positive drag queen Angel, and Jesse L. Martin as Angel's lover, Tom Collins. The two displayed a delicate, flirty chemistry that worked well for their duet ""I'll Cover You""; later, at Angel's funeral, Martin imbues Collins with a palpable, heart-wrenching grief as he reprises the song alone.Director Chris Columbus wisely cut out most of the play's through-sung dialogue; its inherent theatricality can be difficult to sell even on a stage, but in a film it can be disastrous. Mimi and Roger (Adam Pascal) have a sung-dialogue duet on ""Light the Candle"", and it is, in fact, the film's low point--I even remember thinking, ""God, I hope the rest of the film doesn't suck this badly."" Other than some minor anachronisms--the film is set in 1989, yet Angel sings about ""Thelma and Louise"", which didn't come out until 1991--the film is superlative. I encourage everyone to see it.","['2', '4']" +1625,rw1227305,iatethesun,Rent (2005),5.0,Rent,29 November 2005,0,"I discovered Rent in the summer of 2004. The story was familiar (being based on Puccini's La Boheme) and I had heard a handful of the songs before, but suddenly I got swept up in the tale of a group of artists struggling to live and love in a part of New York I had glimpsed and heard about, but never experienced. Perhaps it was the music, with its lush melodies and exhilarating rock n' roll undertones, perhaps it was the strong, unique voices, perhaps it was the score's honesty and unflinching devotion to truth and reality, that drew me into that world. I saw myself in each of the eight main characters, and they immediately became a part of my soul. They, with all their layers, complexities, and hypocrisies became my friends, my mentors, my soul mates. Mimi, the teenager stuck in a harsh, adult world. Roger, the HIV+ musician fighting the demons of his past and trying to survive in a world in which he has no future. Benny, the sellout who gave up his friends for money and security in an act that was simultaneously brave and cowardly, and all too understandable. Collins, the brilliant teacher, silenced by a world uninterested in what he had to say. Joanne, the lawyer straddling the boundary between the life she wants to lead and the one that is expected of her. Maureen, the diva, who despite her flaws, is bold, real, and alive. Angel, the embodiment of strength, joy, and goodness, who is able to find happiness and a reason to live despite the expiration date stamped on his life. And, Mark, the filmmaker, the observer, the scribe who creates a record of his friends' lives, even as he struggles to find reason and meaning in his own. I fell in love with these characters because they spoke to me, not with words of wisdom but with words of truth.Let's start with the bottom line: yes, I loved the movie. Is Rent a perfect movie? No. There are a few places that could have had smoother editing, a few melodramatic moments, and one or two staging decisions that could have been better. However, in a film filled with truly brilliant and beautiful moments (and there are many) these instances seem unimportant. They certainly didn't detract from my enjoyment of the movie, though I have to admit their existence from a purely critical perspective. What's more important however is the fact that this movie exists, that it is there for people to love or hate, think about and discuss. It is the kind of movie that millions will love. A movie in which people will find joy and inspiration. It is also a movie that many won't accept or understand. Some won't like it. But everyone should see it.A few notes: Credits Sequence: I enjoyed the use of Seasons of Love as an opening credits song. Having the characters singing on that stage in an empty theater was not only a great homage to the show, but toyed with the themes in the film: solidarity vs. isolation, reality vs. performing, etc. It recalled, perhaps unintentionally, the Shakespearean soliloquy… ""Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player. That struts and frets his hour upon the stage. And then is heard no more."" Is a human life significant, and if so, how do we measure it, the song asks.Tango: Maureen: One of my favorite scenes. A lot of fun, very effective, beautifully shot. And one of my favorite songs. One of the most interesting ""staging"" decisions.Over The Moon: Very, very funny and well done. Definitely memorable. Idina was great.La Vie Boheme, I Should Tell You, LVB B: Among the best scenes in the movie… high energy, really engaging, great song, of course, all of the actors do an amazing job. Seasons of Love B: Good transition.Take Me Or Leave Me: I was very worried about how this staging would work, but I loved it. Great acting, great vocals, just the right mix of humor and tension.Without You: Definitely within the Top 3 most memorable moments in the movie, and brilliant on all fronts… acting, direction, cinematography. Beautiful, powerful, amazing.Finale A, Your Eyes, Finale B: Very strong, beautiful ending.Each actor had at least a few moments of utter brilliance. I loved them all. Rosario was brilliant. Tracie added so many new layers to Joanne and was a joy to watch. Idina was beautiful, hilarious, natural, and presented a really multi-layered, nuanced version of Maureen. Anthony was adorable, and was simultaneously hilarious and heartbreaking. Jesse and Wilson had a few over-the-top moments, but they were more than compensated for by how amazing they were throughout. Adam was great and very beautiful. Taye was in only a few scenes but he was really good. He was beautiful too.Again, I loved this movie and will return to it many times. It isn't perfect, but it is touching, funny, and important. It is also a record of a time, a place, a group of people, that should be preserved for ever. I am forever grateful that it can exist, and that people, even if it is a small group, walk away with a small part of the film… whether it is a lyric from La Vie Boheme, a tune they can't get out of their head, the name of an actor they had never encountered before, or a newfound resolve for life and love of humanity. For some, this movie will nothing more than a name on a marquee, but for a few, this will be something that will become part of them forever… it will allow them to own a piece of this legacy called Rent. And that, would be a wonderful thing, because as the song says, ""you are what you own.""","['0', '0']" +1626,rw1225170,brokenhearteddramaqueen,Rent (2005),10.0,great movie,26 November 2005,0,"I love this movie so much.I think it's one of the best movies I have ever seen.I like the fact that it makes you think about things like ADIS.And teaches you about what people with it have to go through and how life is.I loved the friendships and love and everything in this movie.I have yet to get the songs out f my head since i left the theater.I loved the character angel and how he just opened people hearts and eyes.To me this movie will make you laugh,smile,but it will also make you cry.What is so amazing is the love between angel and Collins and how the rest of the cast wants that.I think a lot of people would want that kind of love.","['0', '2']" +1627,rw1222590,cristy99,Rent (2005),10.0,"Wow, I was practically in tears!",22 November 2005,0,"This was easily the best movie I've seen in a LONG time. One of my friends managed to get preview tickets and asked if I wanted to join -thank you, god- so, duh, I went. I was worried that the director would screw it up, since it's one of my favorite Broadway musicals, but Christopher Columbus showed he is totally capable with musicals and redeemed himself after that horrible, horrible HP and the Prisoner of Azkaban. And that would be all I have to say, as it's late and I skipped dinner to watch the movie (yes, no lie, I'm really just that crazy -grin-) and so I'd love to get some sleep and finish my bowel of cereal (great dinner food, really healthy stuff this Life Oat Yogurt Crunch stuff, filled with sugar crystals too!!)I love you all so much (even though I don't know most of you) and I REALLY need some sleep. Adieu, Mwah","['1', '4']" +1628,rw1223940,jeffwarren,Rent (2005),1.0,Far from satisfactory and unjust to the art work itself.,24 November 2005,0,"I was very excited about this experience thinking they would be filming what I see to be a staple of a generations culture, instead, they have literally BUTCHERED the musical.The writers have removed key lyrics which are essential to the plot and have attempted to replace them with montage images? They also have made a terrible attempt to remove lyrics, and then create dialogue in place.The musical RENT is raw, hard, original and full of suspense. The characters become friends in an instant and their experiences touch peronally. It is a fragile performance where alterations to it's artistic flow have proved to be fatal through the creation of this film. A film, which in my opinion, is a bad rewrite.","['7', '18']" +1629,rw1215621,dudekabob,Rent (2005),1.0,Hair? Chicago? HUH?,12 November 2005,0,"You know, ya gotta love these kids who think they know what they're talking about, though it takes away from their credibility somewhat. . . ""Rent"" is a modern-day take-off on Puccini's ""La Boheme,"" while the musical Chicago is an adaptation of the movie ""Roxy Heart"" with Ginger Rogers, which was taken from the play of the same name. . . and i have no idea what this kid means when he says ""Chicago"" ignored its musical theater roots. . . almost all of ""Chicago"" was shot on either a sound stage or an actual stage. . . it was very much a typical musical in its delivery (or does this kid think ""South Pacific"" was your typically staged musical movie). . . ""Rent"" is a pure example of the death of the American musical genre. . . my first comment after seeing a staged production was, ""Boy, they sure don't write them like they used to"". . . And now we get a filmed version that not only cops out on some of it's more important social comments, but looks more like a rag-tag, low-rent (pun intended) version of ""Fame"". . . stay home or ""rent"" the classic ""Chicago"" from your closest BB. . .","['12', '73']" +1630,rw1223479,javaboy3482,Rent (2005),10.0,Outstanding!,23 November 2005,0,"I have to admit that I was extremely skeptical of Rosario Dawson's ability to due justice to the role of Mimi, but I was very pleasantly surprised. In fact, there are parts about her performance that I enjoyed even more than the original. The rest of the cast was brilliant, of course. Especially, Tom Collins. The emotion that wonderful man puts into his voice is shown equally on his face. Camera angles , lighting, and sets were all perfect. There are a few parts that have been cut from the movie and loving Rent as much as I do, I missed them. But I can always hope to see them as special features on the DVD. This is one I will be going to see again and again. A must see.","['1', '5']" +1631,rw1225326,HitchShy,Rent (2005),10.0,Cool to the max,26 November 2005,1,"The only reason it gets a nine in my book is because only my favorite movie of all time is reserved for a ten. Despite that, it is in my top 5 favorites of all time and I've only seen it once. I wish I could give this movie a 9.9 but I can't. I was worried they wouldn't capture the heart and soul of the play...and they did. There are only a few things that could have been done differently or done better.The only two problems with the movie (I thought) were:Maureen's bare butt on screen (I don't really think that was necessary)They left out some really good songs and changed some lyrics to dialogue (They sounded like they were doing Shakespearian sonnets or something)That's all. Some people I went with took offense to the overly gay gestures in the film but personally, I thought it brought more humanness to the characters. I read the play and fell in love with the music long before the movie was even thought up. This film brought all the gritty details of life, the touching passion, the human depth, and dignity to Jonathan Larson's dream. It's an outstanding documentary of the human soul at its very essence. Everybody should see this movie!","['1', '2']" +1632,rw1205256,GloryBlaze2004,Rent (2005),10.0,"Thank You, Jonathan Larson",29 October 2005,1,"I have been sitting on this review for a while, and I actually have not had time to come around and post my thoughts. A crew member of mine from OC scored me some advanced screening tickets through Sony Studios, which basically meant there was about thirty of us in a small theater watching RENT on the big screen.So on to the movie. To say the least, it was an incredible and moving experience. I am the most critical RENT head. I love everything about the lesson of Larson, but I was one of the most doubtful of whether or not this movie could pull through. But it did, and in fact it was one of the most incredible refreshing flicks I've seen in a while. Too often are we left with movies that we've seen too many times before. Hackneyed plots and overzealous characters. RENT is none of that. From the minute the first chord of the movie starts, you are whipped into that ""emotional and visceral sensation we all had going to our first rock concert"" as Chbosky would put it. ""So God damn happy."" No, really on to the movie. The first fifteen minutes are overwhelming. But in a good way. I'm not one to spoil, in fact I refuse to do so. But the flash backs and forwards of character motivations and livelihoods and the song ""Seasons Of Love"" accompanying it all is a great way to start the film, and by the time the actors really start acting you already feel incongruously close to them.The structure of the film is genius in itself, and is what the play version is mostover lacking. With the opening montage and character motivations, you immediately are attached to love these eight individuals. With the fun and excitement that follows through and pursues, your bonds are strengthened so much more with each of them so that when the heartbreaking conclusion does occur, you are all the more affected.Not one performance was lacking in emotion, and the choice to bring back the majority of the OBC and bring onboard Dawson and Thoms were fantastic casting decisions. To me, the standout performance of the feature was Jesse L Martin as Tom Collins. Not only is he given the biggest character dilemma to deal with, and arguably one of the most fantastic character arcs in the movie, but his acting is superb and in the event of Angel's death - you're right there with him. As emotionally wrecked as he.Rosario Dawson's portrayal as Mimi was phenomenal. The only reason Dawson failed to stand out as much as Martin is that she is obviously less 'musically inclined' than the rest of her cast. Her ""Out Tonight"" dancing, however, is hot and floored every male in the room. Dawson easily snagged her first nod buzz with this role, as supplemented by the FYC poster with only her upon it, and she very well could give any other actress a run for their money. Her spirit and her charm are almost entrancing to the audience, and when she loses it all - and essentially dies (emotionally and mentally) it leads to a more heartbreaking moment than Angel's passing.Thoms and Menzel are the other two shining jewels of the cast offering two equally stunning performances and vocal talents. Menzel does well in portraying a very flirty, ditzy (and very Jewish) Maureen - however, even though some are saying Menzel will easily land a nomination Maureen is too realistic of a character to considerably be phenomenal acting, and Menzel is really only given one scene to show the sensitive side to her frivolousness, and the acting isn't anything to write home about.The other notable performance is by Adam Pascal. Mediocre scene motivation, but incredible emotion and fantastic vocals. Pascal won't land any nomination for his portrayal, but he certainly helps Dawson carry the movie as being the other lead in the love story between the two.Diggs, Rapp and Heredia all do well in their individual role. Rapp is offered much more of a lead role than in the play, but he fails to comprehend the fact that he is in a film and doesn't have to be as 'big' as a theatrical production. Diggs is solid for his scenes, but rarely involved. And Heredia's performance is truly outstanding, and when supplemented with Martin's Collins' is heartbreaking, it's just a shame that he has absolutely no name for himself to land a nod. He certainly deserves it.All in all, RENT is a masterpiece and should be recognized as so. Despite its PG-13 rating, it is a very fierce and intense movie that really draws out the issues of homelessness, homosexuality, AIDS and bohemianism in New York in the 1990s. The screening I saw included both Halloween and Goodbye, Love (contrary to what others are saying), so whether or not the cuts were actually made, I have no clue about.Needless to say, RENT will be a blockbuster hit among all generations and is definite Oscar material and after such negative reviews of most contenders, I'd say it has a shot at the gold. The Picture, Direction and Cinematography were fantastic and the performances of Dawson and Martin may easily land them nominations. The movie doesn't feel the need to deal with the controversial subjects delicately, because they are anything but delicate subject matter - but they do handle every situation with class and that is the class that gives RENT its charm.The movie is certainly a very moving piece of art, and just as Colombus said on the OMS, I caught myself crying ""Thank You, Jonathan Larson.""","['203', '265']" +1633,rw1223448,lsholli,Rent (2005),10.0,I was taken aback!,23 November 2005,1,"First. I have never seen the stage version of this play. I went, never knowing the thematic matter or the story. I know that local theater teenagers really liked the stage version, and it was sort of a rite of passage to see the stage version, but I never went or saw the play.Everyone is talking about the stage version vs the film. I think what may be lost is the story, the sheer emotion of living with the threat HIV/AIDS in the late 80s/early 90s. I remember the terror of getting tested to learn your HIV status and finding out the results. Of possibly knowing you were positive and your potential partner may not be and being afraid to tell them. Being attracted but afraid as Roger was to get involved with Mimi.My 16 yo daughter recently asked her father if there were any gay friends she could interview for a school project, he told her they were all dead. And they are, because of HIV/AIDS.This film brought back so many memories of terror. Not knowing if something you did unthinkingly in the past might have resulted in this terrible deadly disease.Those of you who are younger like the film because of the friendship and faith in adversity message it brings. That is correct, but to those of us who were there, it brings back, in a very poignant way, the past and the truth.And because of that truth, I cried in memory.-Linda","['9', '14']" +1634,rw1221083,Matt-60,Rent (2005),1.0,Ignore all the other comments,18 November 2005,0,"Wow, so many glowing reviews. They must have rented Chicago or something, because nothing in their reviews could be used to describe this steaming pile of donkey excrement. I am shocked an appalled that people like this tripe, it was awful. Everything about it was awful, the only thing I can think of that was good was Rosario Dawson's stripper scene..because she's hot. I know thats crude, but I'm trying to reach for the good here. Oh! they also had free cookies and brownies at the screening, so that was good too. But I cannot even begin to describe how everything in this movie, from the music, the songs, the acting(and I LIKE Rosario Dawson and Jesse L Martin!) were terrible. It was boring. So. Very. Boring. Melodramatic, self important, overblown, bad singing, bad choreography, no reason to give a flying crap about the people in it. Do not see this movie. Go rent Chicago, or All That Jazz. In fact, I am going to go out and buy those movies tomorrow so I can wash this horrible experience out of my system. This movie made me realize just how much Chicago earned my money. Run, don't walk, away from Rent as fast as you can. I wish I had spent those 2 hours standing in line for Harry Potter.","['11', '52']" +1635,rw1222085,cwnhjordan,Rent (2005),9.0,Great Transformation,22 November 2005,0,"Rent transformed practically perfect to screen. Rosario Dawson embraced her character splendidly as did the other cast members. Wilson Jermaine Heredia and Jesse L. Martin gave award winning performances and had incredible chemistry together, especially in their two songs. Idina Menzel and newcomer Tracy Thoms amazed me with the Tango Maureen and Take Me Or Leave Me. I have been a fan of RENT for several years and have seen the show 11 times and was apprehensive when I heard that Chris Columbus was directing, but he did a mind blowing job. I thank the cast and crew of RENT for doing justice with Jonathan Larson's masterpiece.","['2', '9']" +1636,rw1224579,kandrews-1,Rent (2005),10.0,"Incredible, passed the test for sure",25 November 2005,0,"I have been a devoted, though I hate the term, ""Renthead"" for many years now. I was so excited to see Rent was becoming a movie I cried when I saw the trailer for the first time. Even though I have held a special place in my heart for Larson and his message for such a long time I was pretty apprehensive about the idea of someone making this a feature film. In my opinion it couldn't be done. I felt there was no way to capture the beauty and soul of Rent outside of the stage. I WAS WRONG!! Columbus truly understood what was needed to adapt this musical to a movie. In many ways it was done better than the musical. The audience is still guided through the ups and downs of the characters lives through powerful music and themes, but the connection between the audience and the characters is able to be developed and nurtured much better with Columbus' direction. What was most important was the fact that he never lost site of the fact that Rent is a musical. He stayed true to the story's roots because the music is what makes the story so powerful. I recommend this film to people who have loved the musical for years, and people who haven't ever heard of Rent.","['0', '3']" +1637,rw1243319,bohemian-in-a-tutu,Rent (2005),10.0,"A celebration of love, art and ""La Vie Boheme""",20 December 2005,1,"I'm the first to admit I'm a hardcore Rent junkie; I know all the words to the original cast recording and a lot of the dialogue that's not on the CD, I can tell you what all the original stars have done since then, and I'm always big on introducing it to other people. I went into the movie hoping for the best (since there were 6 of the 8 original stars, and Stephen Chbosky did the screenplay) and expecting the worse (Chris Columbus directing? Rosario Dawson as Mimi?) Thankfully, what I was hoping for is what I got.From the opening chords of ""Seasons of Love"" I was getting sort of tingly. My chest got a little tight, like it was too full of excitement. It remained this way most of the movie, and that's a very good thing.I appreciated the April flashback, though I missed the image of her having ""left a note saying 'We've got AIDS' before slitting her wrists in the bathroom."" Adam Pascal and his sexy brooding angst didn't disappoint, and I found myself smiling through most of ""Light My Candle"" as he and Rosario Dawson (who was MUCH better than I expected) bantered. The other sides of their relationship (""I Should Tell You,"" ""Without You"") were quite good as well. And Dawson really danced up a storm in the Cat Scratch; certainly a lure for hesitant boyfriends who are dragged along.Jesse L. Martin and Wilson Jermaine Heredia really are the emotional heart of the film, delivering fantastic performances together and apart. I defy anyone not to be touched by their relationship, the way they exhibit such an undying devotion for each other and an enthusiasm for life that makes you want to follow their example and skip through the streets, celebrating the small beauties in life.Now, my favorite characters have always been Maureen and Mark and Joanne, and I was excited to see Idina Menzel (who I'd only ever heard on recordings before, but adore) and Anthony Rapp (who I'd seen in the touring company of Little Shop of Horrors, and adore) and newcomer Tracie Thoms portray that little love triangle. The ""Tango: Maureen"" was one of the best moments of the film, priceless, full of excellent banter, hilarious, and the fantasy sequence was awesome. Similarly, ""Take Me or Leave Me"" was brilliant, a battle of wills and sex-appeal (Thoms the wills, Menzel the sex-appeal).And, of course, I adored ""Over the Moon."" One of my favorite songs (I've performed it myself once or twice for friends), I was excited to see how it translated. It was one of the most delightfully absurd things I've seen all year.And... ""La Vie Boheme."" Fantastic. Full of energy and life and enthusiasm. The ""Hey mister... she's my sister"" - ""Sisters?"" ""We're close"" part made me smile so much, and I loved Rapp's leading of the song. Just spectacular.""I'll Cover You - Reprise"" and ""Goodbye Love"" (though I missed the second half) just twisted my heart around but hard.My only complaints are the few seconds of slow-motion sex-dancing during ""Without You"" and Roger's little rock-formation Santa Fe-fest. But those lasted about a minute, total, and the rest of the movie was splendid. It's a movie so full of emotion that it draws you in, you feel like you're right there with them. I got the feeling watching the stage show, and in some places in the movie, it was even stronger.Fantastic. Fantastic. Fantastic.","['0', '2']" +1638,rw1225139,electrorganism,Rent (2005),9.0,Rent (the movie) is not Rent (the musical stage production),26 November 2005,0,"The first time I saw Rent was in New York in 1996; I thought it was awesome, and ended up seeing it four more times in various places. So when I heard about the movie version, I was at first hesitant, then accepting when I learned that the cast was almost entirely the original cast I saw on (off) Broadway.Anyway, the show was awesome. You could tell from the first few scenes that they weren't trying to simply put the theater production on film. The first big number (""Rent"") features a lot of action and what appears to be a very large set, with a lot more singers in this scene than were in the entire theater production. At one point, the camera backs up for a long shot of three apartment buildings with all the residents out on their fire escapes venting about their financial frustrations.Another difference is the use of recitative to advance the plot: the Broadway show featured very few actual spoken words between the large songs, more resembling a (rock) opera than a typical musical in its use of dialog set to simple, almost sing-song tunes. The movie uses most of the same dialog, but it's spoken instead of sung. This means the soundtrack won't be as representative of the entire show as the musical's soundtrack is, and the overall package is more palatable to the average moviegoer.The flexibility that movie-making allows has really opened up this show. The original set was rather sparse, and relied on audience interpretation. This worked really well sometimes. (Take Me) Out Tonight for instance, didn't really depend on the support of a set: Mimi's expression of desire didn't need to be pinned down to a specific place, and came out as a pure vocal expression of emotion, rather than a reaction to her surroundings. However, the last third of the stage production has always been a little odd in my eyes. Because the characters are flung across so many locations and the action switches back and forth between them so rapidly, set usage on stage never really ""gelled"" for me. The movie version's sets really added the last bit of information I needed.I know there are musical theater purists out there that think that a movie version of Rent is an abomination before god, but I disagree. I think musical theater is fantastic, but there are stories you can tell through video that you can't tell on live stage. This is a story that benefited from the production values and flexibility of Hollywood. On the flip side though, I don't think the stage version of Rent will die any time soon. There's a human quality conveyed in a live stage show that you can't touch on any screen. There's always an amount of interaction between the performers on stage and the audience, and Rent uses that to its advantage (""Moo with me!"").A word about the vocal quality: as you'd expect (or fearfully hope), the vocal ability of every member of the cast is astounding. There was exactly one moment in the whole movie that I noticed anyone straying from the center of the pitch, and that was so inconsequential I don't remember where it came in the show. However, I must say that I was a little put off by Mimi's (Rosario Dawson's) voice. Don't get me wrong, she's an absolutely awe-inspiring singer, but she seems to have such tight control of her voice that she sounds overproduced. (Either that, or she was overproduced for this production, in which case, they mucked it up good.) I was surprised by the sharp edges of her tone choice- she seemed to change pitch with robotic precision, always hitting her intended pitch. Do you remember that Cher song ""Believe"" (Life after Love) wherein Cher's voice was electronically altered to produce escape tones and anticipations? If it's an ability that Ms. Dawson possesses in her vocal abilities, my hat is off to her, but if it's an electronic effect, then someone at Sony Pictures should be fired.All in all , I think Rent is a fantastic movie that stands on its own. When paired with the stage musical, the story they tell becomes even stronger.","['0', '2']" +1639,rw1229144,Tollpatsch,Rent (2005),9.0,Well worth a few hours of your life...,1 December 2005,0,"I was a little concerned going into this one. Rent's such an original show and, although Larson's family and best friend were involved in the project, I wasn't sure how well it would adapt to the screen. My fears were quickly put to rest--I think they did a very good job with it. Some songs were cut and the order of everything was changed around a bit from the original musical which took a little getting used to, but it was no less powerful than live in the theater. Although I was disappointed by the missing songs, the story made more sense without them.The actors actually get a real set to play with this time and definitely take advantage of the cameras and special effects. What I liked most about the movie was the fact that the actors who originated the roles on Broadway were given their roles once again. It's got to be a precedent, but a great one. Those of us who never got to see them on Broadway finally got to see the faces behind the voices, and the new actresses held their own. The new Mimi's voice blends beautifully with Adam Pascal. In any case, there are worse ways to spend a Friday night than watching Rent. They dun good.","['0', '1']" +1640,rw1232363,meyer659,Rent (2005),3.0,Doesn't work on the big screen,6 December 2005,0,"Rent is a rather disturbing ""Rock-opera"" about a group of homosexual drug-using friends who reside in NYC. The story unfolds revealing their lost dreams, struggles with their land lord, and trying to stay healthy while being infecting with HIV/AIDS. The movie reveals these people's lives through scenes of singing. dancing, more singing, and more dancing. Through all the un-catchy, un-rhyming lyrics, you learn about their life without power in a run-down apartment, and their lost dreams of being musicians, and film-makers. As the film progresses it become more and more disturbing. The characters in the film are widely involved and accepting of each other's drug use, homosexual relationships, cross-dressing, and self-exposing jobs. The films attempts to make the viewer feel sympathetic for the characters, but considering their revolting way of life, how can they? The music in the movie is very continuous and uninformative considering the length of most of the songs. They're not very catchy either (Lines such as ""my T-cells are low"" really don't make the reviewer want to dance, or fit in too well with the music) the film could have used a lot more dialogue necessary to get to know the character better. All the songs and scenes of dancing made most of the film seem very repetitive due to the amount of songs, and unimportant, due to the little value the songs had on the plot. The only detail the audience learns about the characters is their passion for each other, which is the main theme of the film. The character do love each other, and that was touching, but considering their unhealthily lives, they are not great friends to each. The acceptance of their ways of lives in the film is the most bothersome part of the film. Two female characters will make-out in the film, and it's not portrayed as abnormal. One of the male characters cross-dresses and attempts to live the life of a female, dating abnormal acting man, and it comes off as ""cute,"" or just a small character trait. The only consequences the characters seem to deal with due to their lifestyles, is AIDS. That is a big problem, but the morale and mental problems caused by living their kind of life should have been included. Most films have very dark and physiological of such behavior, which is very disturbing in its own right. Rent's ease of portrayal of such behavior, is just as disturbing. It will make most viewers have the thought of, ""What is this world coming to,"" going through their heads in most parts of the film. The film is not about people with AIDS dealing and trying to get over the virus, it's about people with AIDS that very much enjoy and embrace the lifestyle in which they contracted it with. That certainly does not send a positive message to anyone watching the film. The choreography and complexity of the dance scenes are impressive, but that is one of the few positive aspects of the film. The inaccuracy of the film's portrayal of society, overuse of non-rhyming music, shallowness of characters, and predictable plot well out way anything positive about the film.Hopefully Rent does not mark the end of family oriented, clever musicals. The genre of ""Rock-opera"" does not work so well in movie format, the lack of dialogue that makes stage performances exciting, loses nearly all of it's affect on the big screen. More traditional musicals still have the element of memorable lines, and clever character, that Rent simply cannot match.","['0', '1']" +1641,rw1231080,strangeman,Rent (2005),10.0,"Great music, a solid story and strong characters combine to tell an urban tale of finding hope in the seemingly bleak.",4 December 2005,0,"To start, the music and performances are excellent. The songs are well written. Thoughtful melodies and lyrics are weaved inside an eclectic rock format. While I found Ms. Menzel to be the least physically attractive among a stunningly attractive cast ( she's pretty saucy none-the-less), her singing blew me out of my seat. Wow! Next, the story is very good and well structured. Poverty-stricken twenty-somethings (thirty-somethings?) struggle with external pitfalls of the world and the internal search for acceptance, meaning and love. The characters are very much individuals. But they combine to form a family, each playing a specific part of the whole. The story deals with drug addiction and homosexuality on a very human level. I dare say that the depicted acceptance of gay relationships foretells of a hopeful future where people of all orientations can live their lives w/o fear of persecution. The more conservative among us will find this aspect of the story very challenging.The setting is gritty and palpable. There is seamless movement between location and sets. It all feels like you are there. The shots from New Mexico are stunning in their own right and in contrast to the urban jungle.For me, musicals sacrifice some feeling of reality to allow for the musical aspect of the story. This movie does a most excellent job of keeping things real in a very musical setting.Oscars are forthcoming. If you liked Chicago, throw in an industrial sized dose of realism and you are ready for Rent! Most excellent!","['0', '1']" +1642,rw1223587,kongzi02,Rent (2005),9.0,A reproduction that does justice to the original,24 November 2005,0,"I've been a Rent fan for a while now and have seen the show several times. You can probably imagine my reaction when I heard they were bringing it to the 'big screen.' First, I was ecstatic. This is by far my most favorite musical, so to see it finally get made into a movie was a dream come true. But then I had feelings of concern. What if they do it wrong? For anyone who's seen the show, the subject matter is intense, the songs are powerful, and the stage design extremely functional and almost an organic part of the show itself. Well, we're now in a new millennium and the subject of AID's and poverty are nothing new to us today, so this concern flew out the door.Now, about the songs... the songs are simply awesome and require vocalists that can handle them. When I heard they were getting the original cast, I knew the vocals would be there, so no worries. I know that you purists out there were wary about Rosario Dawson joining the cast as Mimi, but let me tell you, from the first rendition of 'Seasons of Love' to the final note of the Finale, all cast members were phenomenal. The original cast didn't miss a beat, and I was particularly moved by Jesse Martin and his portrayal of Tom Collins. His vocal performances brought chills to my spine. Rosario Dawson proved to be a suitable addition. I didn't even know she could sing! Her performance in the role of Mimi would make any true Rent fan proud.Finally, there was the issue of the stage design. The fact that the show had to be made more realistic by placing it in a real city setting, made it impossible to keep elements of the original set intact, but there was a scene that had the metal mosaic structure that all Rent fans would be familiar to. Other than that, the setting was a city and various locations within it. Any time something has to be brought from a confined setting to a more open one, there are adjustments that have to be made. You have to change the blocking performed by the actors and make use of the larger space. You have to add dialogue or space things accordingly to accommodate a sense of reality with the surroundings. Basically, there was a slight tinge of weirdness as the cast would be walking around the city, sitting in a subway car, or hanging around a restaurant and then BAM, go into a song and dance routine. Sometimes, the transitions weren't very smooth and almost a bit funny. You could tell that Chris Columbus and his crew had some problems figuring out the awkwardness, but once you realized this was a musical, all was forgiven.When going into this movie, people just have to realize the differences between the big screen and the small stage and the adjustments that have to be made to move from one to another. People should keep that in mind when watching this movie, or they'll miss the point and enjoy the passion behind the music and story less. To those who have seen the actual musical, you'll realize that nothing can beat the original, but I will admit that this comes very close to matching it... So go check it out!","['2', '4']" +1643,rw1223403,tbondono,Rent (2005),10.0,truly fantastic,23 November 2005,1,"This might be the first time a Broadway show has been put on film and is just as good, maybe even better, than the original show. GO SEE IT---OFTEN. I have been lucky enough to see RENT on the stage twice here in Detroit. The first time I saw the show, I was with my 17 year old daughter, she already loved the songs and after the show we both loved it. Seven years later, my younger daughter, 16 years old and also a singer like her older sister, she had listened to the CD over and over for years. When RENT came back to Detroit, she and I went to see it. Tonight, a year later, all three of us were able to see the show together. Columbus and the cast had the audience mesmerized from the moment the title was shown on the screen. The theatre was packed with other rent heads; but during the show, it was so quiet- none of the usual chitchat that seems so common in theatres. Engrossed-ya, that describes the atmosphere of the audience. The opening song with each actor under a spotlight, on the stage singing the opening number, artfully brought together the elements of the Broadway show into a successful movie. Personally, I wanted to stand and clap after each number. I'm still in awe that they were able to pull off having the actors singing while doing ordinary things. The singing never seemed out of place, even when Mark was peddling down the street. It's normal for friends to take over a restaurant, dance on tables, and belt out a song, right? Not in my real world, yet for a few hours I felt like I was a member of the cast, and of course my dancing on the table was normal. Maybe it is because I already knew the show so well, but the level of believability the actors brought to the script allowed the characters to come to life. The gritty feel of desperation found in almost any large city, whether New York, Detroit, or East LA, was successfully conveyed to the audience. When all the residents turned out on the iron balconies and stoops of deteriorating apartment buildings, all singing ""Rent"", I was (and still am) fascinated. I loved the small fires the tenants had with them, and the use of that prop, to me, really brought in a common denominator - poverty. Each shared the experience of being poor, trapped, but because they all shared in this experience, no one was really alone. I can't wait until tomorrow, I'm going again, this time with my partner. And I'm taking extra tissues! I will own this DVD! And remember-no day but today....","['1', '5']" +1644,rw1223333,Lily1411,Rent (2005),10.0,splendid,23 November 2005,0,"Although most wouldn't give a movie a ten, I believe that this movie deserves it. I've seen the actual show and found that the movie simulated every aspect amazingly. There were some differences, as any recreation will have, but nothing occurred that disrupted the storyline, etc. that is true to the Broadway edition. Each character was portrayed perfectly, as expected seeing that other than a few, each character was portrayed by its original actor, actors that had been awarded with Tony nominations for his or her work as said character. Therefore, I highly recommend this to any lover of Broadway or anyone that just loves a good movie with a plethora of catchy songs. I laughed, I cried, I sang. Ten","['1', '3']" +1645,rw1230787,ryry90000,Rent (2005),10.0,Wow!Wow!Wow!Wow!Wow!,4 December 2005,0,"I have been waiting for this movie since last summer and it was so worth it. I fell in love with every song from this movie. But for sure La Vie Boheme, Light and Light My Candle are two of my favorites. It was so well acted and I never ever cry at movies but this one made me cry. It was just that good and it made me feel excited and sad and happy at the exact same time. I loved every second of this movie and I think that everyone should go see it. If you come out of there not liking it well then I don't know but you must be crazy. Not really I guess it's personal opinion but still. I give this movie a 10 out of 10. In my opinion best movie I have seen this year.","['0', '1']" +1646,rw1225823,rootgm,Rent (2005),7.0,The subject matter wasn't playing too well in Peoria ...,27 November 2005,1,"I thoroughly enjoyed it, but I'm probably one of three subscribers to New Yorker magazine in my small town in South Carolina. We had quite a few people walk out in the first fifteen minutes. I think some didn't know it was a musical (duh). Other folks seemed to be offended by the Angel character and/or the AIDS references. Whatever.I saw it with a group of 40something women who had not seen the musical. We all enjoyed it. The story line was a bit contrived,(SPOILER) especially the miraculous recovery at the end. The singing was fabulous and very moving. I have already ordered the soundtrack.If you like musicals, definitely go see this.","['1', '1']" +1647,rw1227674,bernicehamel,Rent (2005),7.0,Rent had some wonderful surprises,29 November 2005,0,"This film surprised me with its emotional power and beauty. In the beginning I had a hard time settling in with its unusual style and what seemed to me to be unfocused or mixed direction. In fact, I actually found the first 20 or so minutes awkward. I thought it seemed almost an amateur production -- so I actually toyed with the idea of leaving the theater--which I've done only a couple of times in my life. (I love movies way too much to squander the time I've already committed to seeing a flick.)....Well, anyway, I gave myself permission to ""adjust"" to what seemed to be a strange mix (because at first it seemed that the movie couldn't make up its mind to be either a ""musical"" or a ""drama."") But, to make a long story short, I settled down and ended up being totally captivated by the entire production -- minus those introductory 20 or so minutes. I loved the music, the message, and most of all -- the outstanding performances. It's not a perfect film (but what is?). However, I do recommend Rent as a work of art.","['0', '1']" +1648,rw1223988,rover_222,Rent (2005),10.0,Incredible,24 November 2005,0,"I have been a rent-head for a good part of my life. My parents saw the production in Detroit and brought home the soundtrack. After memorizing all of the songs, my dad took me and my sister to go and see it in New York. At that point, I felt that my life was complete. When I found out that Chris Columbus would be making a film version of Rent, I was a little bit doubtful. As a theater fan, I much prefer a stage version of many productions (ie. I hated the recent Chicago movie). However, when I saw the first trailer for Rent, with the entire song Seasons of Love, I cried. Such a powerful, beautiful song could only lead the way for a powerful beautiful movie. I started counting down the days, and finally, the day this movie was released in theaters, I was first in line. I was impressed with the movie from the first second. It was beautiful. The power of the movie took effect on me right at the song Without You, where I began to cry and just cried until the very end. There is such an incredible amount of emotion that went into this movie, and it stayed unbelievably true to the play. I have put aside money for all the times that I will see it again, I highly recommend it.","['1', '4']" +1649,rw1223453,atoz329,Rent (2005),7.0,"A group of friends live through the highs and lows of life in New York with poverty, broken relationships, and AIDS.",23 November 2005,0,"Nice direction, brilliantly portrayed, especially the bits of Mark's movie. My only problem was the sometimes awkward transition between song and dialogue. It didn't translate well on the screen, like it does in theater. Other than that, the film had a great cast and the voices were magnificent. I had never seen the play, but I saw the film with a RENT-obsessed friend who assured me that this was congruent enough. The story is heart-wrenching and laughter-inducing simultaneously and the characters manage to grab you and pull you into the story without your awareness until you too cry as they do. I did have one other criticism that may merely be an inevitable flaw when translating theater to the silver screen, but at times the ""love will prevail"" message was overt and trite and one could almost guess the next lines. Overall, great movie. Go see it!","['1', '3']" +1650,rw1223637,SyxxNet,Rent (2005),9.0,Thank you thank you THANK YOU!!!,24 November 2005,1,"For months I have been worried, occasionally stewing, wondering if they could possibly translate the phenom of the Broadway show to the big screen.Then the trailer hit screens late this summer, and I knew from the moment I saw it, that my fears were unfounded...And now, having the longest year of waiting since first hearing about the film, I can now safely say...They GOT IT RIGHT!!!!! If I haven't said it already, THANK YOU! While I thought that the omission of most of Goodbye Love was a bit jarring, since to me it's necessary to set up What You Own, and I missed some of the other songs being, well, SUNG, rather than spoken as dialogue, other than that I can't find another thing to complain about...Any RENTHead who doesn't like it is nitpicking...because I am one, and I LOVED IT!It's Oscar time....and it BETTER get nominated, because if it doesn't, it will show the Academy for the phonies they are!THANK YOU Chris Columbus and the stars of the movie for making me believe again that a movie CAN be made of a hit Broadway musical without ruining it! You've taken my all time favorite musical and transplanted it to the big screen, and still captured the magic! My fiancée, who's review is elsewhere already (PlatinumRoseL), finally came to see the film with me, and was converted. And I left the theater GLOWING from RENT's wonderful spell! I will see it several more times, and will be first in line for the DVD when it comes out!!!! THANK YOU! THANK YOU ! THANK YOU!NO DAY LIKE TODAY!","['2', '4']" +1651,rw1225766,cbagr,Rent (2005),10.0,wow,27 November 2005,0,"This movie was the best movie I have ever seen. The emotions that you have during the movie is wow. One minute you are happy and the next you are crying. The actors are the most talented actors around. They made it seem like you were their and that you were going through all that they were. The scenery is amazing, the buildings are great. The first scene you get chills and the chills don't leave during the whole show. i am at home now and I still have the chills. I loved that after the show no one moved. Everyone just sat their in wow. A must see movie for everyone. It will really make you think on your life and how well you have it no matter what you are going through.","['0', '1']" +1652,rw1223408,starrydreamr23-1,Rent (2005),9.0,Very good screen adaptation of an emotional Broadway musical,23 November 2005,0,"From the opening scene, the movie RENT drew in the crowds - for the first 20 mins or so I had to keep telling myself that I was watching a movie and not the musical. Of course, this was difficult since after the first few songs the audience kept clapping. From the beginning to the end I was drawn to the way Chris Columbus was able to direct the cast (all of whom are original Broadway-ers, except for Rosario Dawson) around NYC and how the songs were able to be incorporated. The acting and singing were equally phenomenal. One thing I wish I could do would be to sit down with the cast and have them compare acting on Broadway as opposed to acting with a huge screen production like this one. For newcomer Rosario Dawson, she absolutely lit up the screen as the character Mimi and her singing was amazing...you would've thought she was in the original cast. It was really interesting to see Idina Menzel (Maureen) and Taye Diggs (Benny) interact with one another as on-screen foes as they are off-screen couple. Menzel had me cracking up during her solo performance - her facial expressions and outgoing antics had the audience rolling. Anthony Rapp (Mark) and Adam Pascal (Roger) still had that chemistry that they did on stage together. They played off of one another very well and you could feel the tight connection between the two. For anyone who wasn't able to see the original cast on Broadway, heres your chance. For anyone who hasn't seen the play, do it! For anyone who hasn't seen the movie, do it! And when you're doing either, bring tissues!!","['1', '4']" +1653,rw1226587,ferguson-6,Rent (2005),5.0,First time Renter,28 November 2005,0,"Greetings again from the darkness. When discussing ""RENT"" there are two types of people. Those who are Rent-heads and have seen the stage production (maybe several times) and those who have heard so much of it over the years, but never had the opportunity to see the play. Admittedly, I fall into the second category and came into the film with high expectations.What I saw was a film that featured wonderful music, but seemed very dated and lacked a single character I cared about. The film features most of the original Broadway cast, with Rosario Dawson (Mimi) and Tracie Thoms being the notable and talented exceptions. While enjoying the individual performances very much - especially Jesse L. Martin (Tom Collins) and Idina Menzel (Maureen), I must say I was shocked at how little to offer most of the characters had. Being a struggling artist or idealist does not qualify one for idolization or empathy. Certainly choosing to stick needles in one's veins does not promote caring from this film goer. Why should I care that it takes Roger over a year to write one song? What is he contributing to society? What do any of them contribute? They just complain when Taye Diggs wants to kick them out of his building since they haven't paid rent in OVER A YEAR!!! They get nasty and accuse him of changing and losing sight of their dream. How about he grew up and realized that contributing nothing and begging for rent, utilities and meals does not work in the real world? Anyway, I could go on, but basically I disagree with the philosophy of the movie and enjoyed the music. Director Chris Columbus (""Home Alone"" and ""Harry Potter"") has made many Rent-heads happy, but I believe any director could have accomplished this.","['3', '5']" +1654,rw1237273,EUyeshima,Rent (2005),9.0,Jonathan Larson's Powerful Musical With Energy Intact and Not as Dated as Feared,12 December 2005,0,"Suffice it to say that the movie version of ""Rent"", nine years after it exploded on Broadway, delivers the goods in late 2005. That in itself is no small feat since its then-topicality brings the story a somewhat tainted 1990's time capsule feel. Credit needs to go to director Chris Columbus, who has the audacity to bring back six of the eight original cast members and does surprisingly little to alter the story structure for the screen. The late Jonathan Larson's energetic, hook-heavy music is what made the show so memorable to me when I saw it during its first year in New York, and the now-familiar score still maintains its searing drive as it flows through the episodic story of almost starving artists living in the squalor of Manhattan's Alphabet City in 1989 with the AIDS epidemic running rampant (currently the neighborhood is going through significant urban renewal). In fact, four of the eight main characters are HIV-positive, and this makes the story resonate as much as the vital music does today.Having the cast return to roles they originated nearly a decade earlier when they epitomized twenties angst is a risky move as the characters would seem to be less compelling inhabited by actors now in their mid-thirties. As it turns out, age is not the issue versus the ability of the actors to generate the excitement they did onstage. Their contributions at minimum are solid and effervescent with some standing out, for example, Anthony Rapp as Mark Cohen, the geeky documentary filmmaker who records the lives of his friends with candor and regret. Jesse L. Martin - he of the dazzling smile and honey-coated baritone - seems genuinely liberated from years of button-down civility on ""Law and Order"" to play computer programmer Tom Collins smitten with drag queen Angel portrayed with unbridled pride and poignancy by Wilson Jermaine Heredia. Martin's and Heredia's giddy duet, ""I'll Cover You"", is full of such romantic fervor that other more traditional couplings can only aspire to such dizzying heights.Idina Menzel plays the bisexual performance artist Maureen Johnson with real brio though she seems a bit over-the-top even when not performing her supposedly avant-garde work, ""Over the Moon"". Despite nailing his passionate solo, ""One Song Glory"", Adam Pascal looks somewhat lost in his portrayal of Roger Davis, the tortured singer-songwriter who begrudgingly falls for Mimi Marquez, the borderline junkie/exotic dancer downstairs. With her saucer eyes and flirty demeanor, Rosario Dawson replaces original Daphne Rubin-Vega as Mimi, and she turns out to be an excellent choice, showing off unseen singing and dancing skills within the context of the most screen-savvy performance of the cast. She does an appropriately saucy turn on the showstopper, ""Out Tonight"". Rounding out the principal cast are another newcomer, Tracie Thoms, a belter who plays Maureen's lover yuppie lawyer Joanne Jefferson (and consequently wails with immaculate bravura the bridge to the show's most famous song, ""Seasons of Love""), and Taye Diggs, who manages to make the most of the relatively thankless role of Benny Coffin.No matter the variability of the acting, everyone sings with glorious power, a fact made clear at the outset by Columbus, who smartly has them sing ""Seasons of Love"" in the manner it was introduced onstage with spotlights on a darkened stage. He also takes cinematic liberties which work in some of the numbers retranslated into the film, such as ""Light My Candle"", ""Tango: Maureen"" and ""Take Me As I Am"". Some like the centerpiece ensemble, ""La Vie Boheme"", work almost the same way they did on stage with its sheer exuberance intact. Some scenes don't work as well, for example, ""What You Own"" where Roger is literally living out the symbolic lyrics in Santa Fe. With its more naturalistic tone in spite of the numerous breaks into song and dance, the movie reminds me less of Robert Wise's and Jerome Robbins' adaptation of ""West Side Story"" than of Milos Forman's take on ""Hair"". Be forewarned that those who loved the stage version are the ones who will most be in thrall over the film version. That would include me.","['0', '1']" +1655,rw1242501,critic_at_large,Rent (2005),,Demonstrates Why Musicals Are Dead,19 December 2005,0,"People wax wistful about the musicals from the Golden Age of Film, and not without cause, I suppose. But this film is really a demonstration of why the format no longer works in American Cinema. First of all, this is a direct translation of the play onto film -- so much so that I actually felt like I was watching a play instead of a movie. And that made me much more conscious of stage direction, lighting, scenery and dialog. Not a good thing.In fact, nothing about this film worked for me. The plot is ridiculous, the dramatic developments cliché and the acting inexplicably stilted, as if the actors were trying to make sure the people in the last row could see their physical reactions to plot points. Hello, but acting for film is different. The audience can see your face just fine, thanks. We don't need a sigh or a posture change to communicate what you're feeling. I hope this is the last of the Chicago-copycat musicals - I know it won't be, but I can dream.","['0', '1']" +1656,rw1224889,allhailthewhimperinghero,Rent (2005),8.0,versus the stage,26 November 2005,0,"Certainly I'll agree that the live version left quite a bit to the imagination in that not all, be it setting or circumstance, was immediately clear, but that comes with the limits of the theatre. A film camera can go anywhere and catch happenings from many angles and distances, which can then be spliced together for effect, a far cry from the single plane of a stage. Because of this, the film was able to reveal their lives more viscerally. The opening sequence and the Life Cafe scene were especially lovely treats.If you are a huge fan of the original music and the way the voices come together and their tone and how everyone sounds and the power in that rush to the ears, you may be disappointed with the film. Yes, everyone did well and their voices sounded nice, but in comparison, I feel the film falls short. Possibly because more can be seen and felt through sight and visual expression of film, the emotion in the music or voice, or, for that matter, the song need not be present. Where two mini stories are told at the same time on the stage, only one is present in the film in the song, leaving odd gaps of waiting which may take some getting used to.One other sense of the missing comes with the explanatory sentences, while helpful in introducing background and moving along the plot, felt like summaries... not only as if something more full of life and sensation had to be cut and trimmed to a blip, a mere transition or useful footnote, but also in that they seemed obligatory, un-conversational and maybe even unnatural.The film is a joy, no doubt, and I trust a new audience will gain a love of the story. I also imagine fans being divided in reaction -- and not in a love/hate relationship either. There will be those who prefer the film, and those whose love of the live performance is reinforced. It's worth discovering which you will be.","['3', '4']" +1657,rw1224871,jotix100,Rent (2005),7.0,Bohemians in Alphabet City,26 November 2005,0,"It's obvious this musical has an incredible fan base. That became evident when we saw the movie version the other day. There were a lot of young people in groups that came to see what director Chris Columbus did to the musical that is still running on Broadway after nine years. The screen adaptation is by Steve Chbosky.""Rent"", written and composed by Jonathan Larson, started as a small musical at the NY Theater Workshop and then was transferred to the Nederlander theater where it's still playing. The film has six of the original cast members in it, the exception being Freddie Walker who is substituted by Tracie Thoms and Daphne Rubin-Vega who was the original Mimi, a role that went to Rosario Dawson in the film.This movie will definitely resonate with a younger audience. The music is targeted to them. This is a pop-rock opera and make no mistake about it. Don't go thinking you are going to find anything resembling Puccini's ""La Boheme"". The musical is extremely loosely based on the characters from the opera, but that's where all the comparison ends. The people one sees in the musical are more real because the pain of what is going on in their lives is clearly evident. The AIDS epidemic affects a few of the characters; there are gays and lesbians just being themselves without anyone judging what they do. At the bottom of it all is every day survival in that environment.What ""Rent"" is, it's a celebration of the life on that side of New York during the 80's when anarchists populated the lower east side of Manhattan squatting in abandoned buildings and living precariously at the edge of a society that didn't want them around. The young people that were attracted to the area brought with them a new way of living without prejudice.Alas, everything comes to an end. In fact, just a tour of the area today will show the gentrification that is taking place after Mayor Giuliani and his ilk got these bohemians evicted in order to give way to condominiums and new luxury dwellings where the people the movie celebrate will have no chance to live in them at all. This seems to be the problem when artists create spaces that later on are taken over by the establishment, only to displace the creators, as has happened in Soho, Dumbo, and will not be too far behind in displacing the Williamsburg's artistic settlers.As a film, ""Rent"", has great moments. Even though one has heard the songs many times, there is still a fresh take on them by the talented cast that sing them. Anthony Rapp, Adam Pascal, Wilson Jermaine-Heredia, Jesse Martin, Taye Diggs, Idina Menzel, Tracie Thoms and Rosario Dawson work as an ensemble under the direction of Mr. Columbus, who would have appeared as an unlikely candidate for directing the film, but who brings the best from his talented cast.By the way, ""Rent"" was filmed in the west coast, so don't go looking for any authentic East Village locations, since most of what one sees was probably shot in a studio. The Horseshoe bar is shown on the outside, and a scene of Tompkins Square Park, but the rest is fake.","['67', '93']" +1658,rw1226440,soapsudser,Rent (2005),10.0,what an uplifting film,28 November 2005,0,"This is a beautiful film in so many ways. On a surface level the storyline would appear depressing to a hardened heart, but on further reflection the love and affection that the characters display for each other is life affirming. The music,choreography,direction and acting are all excellent. I connected with all the characters emotionally and spiritually. The poignant storyline is for all those who believe in the enormous power of love. Those who saw the original Broadway production will not be disappointed in this film version . I recommend this film to everyone who value friendship and commitment. Seeing this film is definitely time well spent!","['0', '1']" +1659,rw1235128,mooncat200,Rent (2005),10.0,Rent= ...,10 December 2005,0,There are no words to describe RENT it went far and beyond what any movie I have ever seen or heard of dared touch. It showed the side of things thats not always going to end up perfectly the way you want it to. It showed the reality of people dying and having AIDS. People just trying to find a way to pay last years rent and not get evicted from the only home they know. Its about not worrying about tomorrow or yesterday its about living like today is you're last day on earth and not worrying about the small things because some people have it so much worse then you do. My dad doesn't understand it I had to explain a lot but I still don't think he understood even me... you really have to understand its not just a musical its a protest on screen its a protest against everything we think life should be and everything all the movies are about. They took normal and shook it up until it wasn't what it used to be. RENT showed things the way they are it was pure truth no fluff-n-stuff to make the crowd happy nothing. No fiction just to please the audience. It was the truth and thats why I like it. people try to deny it but thats the way things are sometimes. I am so glad there is a movie like this. I have never seen the one on Broadway but now I really want to. I see things through new eyes now then I ever have before. RENT= BEAUTIFUL UNADULTERATED TRUTH RENT= LOVE AND HAPPYNESSRENT= SADNESS AND DEATH RENT= LIFEeveryone needs to see RENT,"['0', '2']" +1660,rw1224630,myeager01,Rent (2005),,I am saddened to write a bad review of something I love so much,25 November 2005,0,"I just saw this movie and was saddened by the outcome. Not only did they omit some of my favorite songs (the ones involving mere discussion), but they included my least favorite ""pop ballads"" including ""your eyes"" and ""I'll cover you""). Even if I disregard that, the original members of the cast have sung these words too many times to make any real emotion appear on-stage. The only one who does their job is Idina Menzel. I do have to give props to Rozario Dawson, because she not only sounds better than Daphne Rubin-Vega, but she is the only cast member to have accurate makeup / costume to represent the ACTUAL person she MAY HAVE been. Other than that, everyone looks like some glammed-up version of what could have been great nostalgia, great tribute, and great cinema. I am saddened to have to write this terrible review.","['3', '4']" +1661,rw1223857,mychemicalromance017,Rent (2005),10.0,YOU SHOULD definitely GO && SEE IT.,24 November 2005,0,"This is one of the best movies I have ever seen. The songs were great, catchy && the story was touching. The end is surprising && somewhat unexpected, but wonderful all together. I would definitely recommend this movie to anyone. Bring tissues; you might cry at the end! Its a little long, but you don't really notice it because the story is quick, fast, interesting && keeps you interested the whole time. Everything in this movie is well done, you feel like you're really in-tune with the characters, almost as if you've known them for years. ""FORGET REGRET OR LIFE IS YOURS TO MISS."" It has such a great story, that really touches your heart. It had me crying at the end because it felt as if you were leaving your friends, via your exit of the movie. You will understand what i mean if you go +& see it...you will definitely, 100%, absolutely love it; i promise.The soundtrack might be expensive, but its so worth it too!","['1', '4']" +1662,rw1225996,montreal514,Rent (2005),5.0,Out in the cold,27 November 2005,0,"Nobody loves a good show tune more than I do. I'm perfectly at home with the tradition of seemingly normal adults bursting into song. Yet, despite my anticipation, I watched this film with impervious detachment, much like having a tooth extracted under local anesthetic.Columbus has cleaned up ""Rent"" for the mass-consumer audience. The set design is a candy-coated version of itself-- New York via Disneyworld. Likewise, the characters have no food or heat, but every hair is in place, every costume custom-fitted. Even heroin and AIDS are pristine, until the very end.Columbus has sanitized the musical score as well. While ""Rent"" has a couple of lovely ballads, the endless parade of songs, beefed up with a cheesy ""Rock"" orchestra, tend to grate on the nerves.I deeply admire Columbus's decision to cast most of the original Broadway ensemble-- too bad the film wasn't made ten years ago. These actors, most of whom are pushing pushing forty, simply cannot portray struggling artists in their teens or twenties-- at least not on screen. Rosario Dawson is a lovely addition, but she is no 19 year-old.The director should have taken a page from Marshall's ""Chicago"" (2002) and staged more songs on stage, as he did the opening number, ""Seasons of Love"". Ironically, it is only in the mystique of their theatrical environment that these characters truly come alive.","['8', '13']" +1663,rw1223720,hanewpor,Rent (2005),3.0,Don't Pay for RENT,24 November 2005,1,"I had the misfortune of seeing this movie last night. It was terrible. I'm sure Mr. Larson was turning over in his grave. I feel sorry for the 6 original cast members. I am certain that they had no idea how awful the production would be when they signed the contracts. The screenwriter should be shot. Who takes a musical, cuts out the music and makes the lyrics spoken? It sounds stupid without the context of the music. Also, many times the background music is so loud you can't hear what the actors are singing. Was this an attempt to mask the fact that the songs were sung out of order and didn't follow the plot of the movie? The director must think audiences are stupid. The cheesy, pop video style of many of the scenes, especially ""I'll Cover You"" , looked more like Mtv of the late 80's or some foreign language video I would have watched in French class. Many of the scenes felt like dream sequences. I know they were meant to give depth to the story line, but they were just dumb. If the movie had followed the original script, they wouldn't have been necessary. Rosario Dawson doesn't work as Mimi. She is too breathy and soulful. The original Mimi is younger and more pathetic. In the film version I never understood why I should hate Benny. He seems like a pretty nice guy. The other cast members look stupid for not taking him up on his offer to live rent free. This film has a few qualities that made it not a total waste. The Life Cafe scene was very much like the musical version, but that's about it. The six original cast members did an excellent job. The two new ones were mis-cast. Hello...Joann was a robust woman and now she's what? a size 6? Give me a break! Oh, and if you loved the answering machine messages from the play...forget it. They aren't there. Why is Buzzline so sleazy? Gee, after seeing the movie I don't know. Bottom line...don't waste your time seeing this movie. I guess it's true...the more they hype a movie the worse it is!","['4', '9']" +1664,rw1230109,shaleina03,Rent (2005),10.0,Wonderful,3 December 2005,0,"For those of you who love the play and are skeptical--don't be. The movie stayed very close to the play. There was less sing song talking (ie...""Christmas Bells are Ringing""....., and the answering machine messages and spoken) and i only noticed one song missing, but the rest were there and wonderful. With 6 of the 8 main actors in the original Broadway productions--how can it be bad. And the two actors who weren't both started on Broadway. The songs were well sung, and camera work was amazing, and it was very easy to get into as an audience member, despite not being in front of a stage. IT almost felt like watching a play. However,there was no mooing!","['0', '1']" +1665,rw1224405,mickeyray,Rent (2005),10.0,A Roller-coaster of emotions - a thoroughly entertaining ride!!,25 November 2005,0,"Daring, provocative, fun and very deep. A must see musical! Rough, tough, daddy me, I was a total sentimental slob watching this film. I can't count the number of times I was brought to tears and then, in moments, found myself laughing through them..I think anyone who has tried to find himself, or ridden that relationship roller-coaster of loving someone, under any circumstances, will find this movie a powerful journey of people overcoming obstacles, struggling to make connection, search for commitment, strive for fulfillment and recognize self-worth.I loved the New York City cinematography, and as to the talented cast...superlative! I saw it on stage in NYC two years ago and loved every minute of it. What I love most about the movie version was that the score and the voices were just as powerful but this time around I could understand every word.","['1', '4']" +1666,rw1251630,AnimagusGirl,Rent (2005),10.0,Worth your Saturday.,31 December 2005,1,"If you've seen RENT on Broadway, this movie is for you. If you haven't, you may like this too. Most is kept the same, with 3/4 of the original Broadway cast, excluding Rosario Dawson as Mimi, and Tracie Thoms as Joanne.It keeps most of the songs intact, some left out are: We're Okay, The Tune-Ups, Voicemails, and On The Street, and sometimes they are still in the movie, just spoken.This movie is heartwarming and emotional, its characters have plenty of depth, and perhaps the best part of all is that it covers and talks about openly the things that are bothering America today (and this was written in '96): Homophobia, AIDS/HIV, the homeless, being poor, etc. All of which is portrayed in catchy, sometimes, beautiful songs, and with a nice ensemble ranging from bouncy drag queens to pessimistic AIDS-infected musicians to out-of-touch filmmakers.All in all, 10/10.","['0', '2']" +1667,rw1223337,xrebellionxliesx,Rent (2005),5.0,Lacked passion and accuracy,23 November 2005,1,"When I first heard talk that RENT was going to become a movie, I was scared out of my mind. Having seen it six times on Broadway, I felt an attachment to the musical that I thought might get butchered on screen. As I began to see trailers, I couldn't wait to see it... But then, on opening day I saw it and it was good... at best. There were a few things that really bothered me a lot about it: 1) Maureen and Joanne's relationship: Nowhere near as shaky as it was supposed to be. 2) Joanne: She was just too tiny; I need her to be more tough and independent. 3) I really didn't like how they took some lines from the songs and made them into dialogue. I think that it lost something that way. One example: ""December 24th, 9pm Eastern Standard Time..."" was said, not sang. 4) I really didn't like how they took some songs and scenes out and added some new ones... Really, really lost something. (i.e. Joanne and Maureen getting married? When did that happen?! And ""Contact,"" where ever did that go?) 5) Some of the things were really corny (i.e. Roger in Santa Fe, what the hell were they thinking when they put that in the movie? During that part I just hung my head in embarrassment.) 6) They didn't let Benny redeem himself like they by paying for Angel's funeral, so that missed a whole dimension to his character. 7) The sound of the music, I felt lacked warmth and emotion. I also really felt very little connection to the characters because it seemed that they had very little connection with each other. But yeah, the scenes that were good were really good, like ""Today 4 U"" and ""La Vie Boheme"" because they both had the energy that the live show possessed, but a lot of the movie was really sub par. Overall, it just felt very watered down and trite. It made me sad.","['4', '9']" +1668,rw1226055,mach3415,Rent (2005),10.0,The Emotions of Rent,27 November 2005,0,"I am not a cinematographic geek. I am not a director. I am not a film buff or a hardcore Rent head. I am, however, a human being. I can honestly say that no movie has touched my life and hit so close to home on that emotional, personal level ever.The message of Rent is one of living and loving unconditionally. Love is shown in all it's forms: romantic, friendly, homo and heterosexual. It portrays the acceptance of love as the all important factor that makes up happy. Love is what gives us purpose. The AIDS scare may be waning, but love, my friends, love is what we need. Love is how they measure a year in. Love is the force that holds through drugs, poverty, riot, and even death.In the funeral, when the cast reprises I'll Cover You, the unbridled emotion and pure feeling of loss is so thick that there wasn't a dry eye in the house. Rent may not be the best movie in the realm of cinematography or production or even casting, but the message of the story, underneath the urban 1989 backdrop, is the unchanging importance of love. This movie is a life changer.","['2', '4']" +1669,rw1234744,magicinthenight,Rent (2005),10.0,Really Great Film.,10 December 2005,0,"Rent Adam Pascal, Rosario Dawson, Wilson Jermaine Heredia, Jesse L. Martin, Idina Menzel, Tracie Thoms, Taye Diggs, and Anthony RappChris ColumbusPG-13I've never seen the stage version of ""Rent"", and I don't have to. The movie version is enough to please me. In short, I loved it. I liked the performances, although some were flawed, I liked the songs, all though some were dragged out, and I liked the plain and simple direction.In the song and singing department, I really liked almost all of them. My favorites would have to be ""Take Me Or Leave Me"", ""Light My Candle"", ""Out Tonight"", ""Today 4 U"", and ""Tango: Maureen"". All very well sung by whoever was singing them.As for singers—everyone was pretty good, yet there were stand-outs. First of all, I'm going to say that Idina Menzel has got some lungs. She completely belts ""Take Me Or Leave Me"", and is quite talented in ""La Via Boheme"". Also a standout is Rosario Dawson—who gives us two powerhouse performances. The first is the sexy ""Light My Candle"" and the next is the fun and hip ""Out Tonight"". Wilson Jermaine Heredia is a treat, too…""Today 4 U"" works because of him, as it should. Tracie Thoms keeps up with the old school crowd, and works well in ""Tango: Maureen"".In the acting department, everyone does a decent job. Stand-outs are Rosario Dawson, Anthony Rapp, and Idina Menzel. Dawson is an absolute delight as Mimi Marquez, a truly complex character to play. Anthony Rapp is good as Mark, too. I don't know why he didn't get a Tony nod—maybe his perfy was different then? Probably. Idina Menzel is really good as Maureen, who is vain and self centered. Still, gotta love her.In the direction department, not much to brag about. I did like the simple form, though. It was very…plain. Most definitely the worst part of the movie, yet it's not too bad.GRADE: A- (The acting and the singing rocked, the direction—not so much) STARS: 3 And A Half Out Of 4.STAND-OUTS: Rosario Dawson, Idina Menzel, and Anthony Rapp BEST SONGS: ""Take Me Or Leave Me"", ""Light My Candle"", ""Out Tonight"".","['0', '1']" +1670,rw1223178,Babybluejrt6910,Rent (2005),10.0,AMAZING movie!,23 November 2005,0,"I have never seen the Broadway musical, but the movie was outstanding. It made me cry, it made me laugh, it made me happy and it made me sad. All in all it was amazing, and it makes me want to take a trip to NY and see it on Broadway. Everyone did an amazing job filling their character's shoes, and the choreography and songs were phenomenal. It was fantastic, and I recommend it highly! The songs have so much meaning, and the story in itself holds so much meaning to how everyone should live. ""Measure your life in love"" as they say, love truly does make the world go 'round. I really hope anyone who see's this has the same feelings as I do, because it is truly wonderful. Everyone will enjoy it, young and old..go see it!!!","['1', '3']" +1671,rw1228270,jdavisbruin,Rent (2005),6.0,"My Review: How Do You Measure, Measure a Film?",30 November 2005,1,"Being the good homosexual theater student that I am, I patiently waited for five-hundred twenty-five-thousand six-hundred minutes for the film version of RENT. Of course my expectations were high since almost the entire Broadway cast reunited for the film, and the film soundtrack (in my opinion) is much more enjoyable than the Original Broadway Cast recording. Sadly though, the film version of RENT made me more disappointed than seeing a horribly miscast and untalented thirty-something play the title role in last year's film adaptation of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA.So what turned this Pulitzer Prize and Tony Award winning piece of theater into the worst film adaptation of a musical since A CHORUS LINE? I'd start by blaming virtually unknown screenwriter Steve Chbosky and director Chris Columbus as both obviously do not understand what the original stage version is all about.The stage version of RENT is a story of life, love, loss, friendship, and—most of all—community as told by a group of eight friends living in a modern day New York plagued by homelessness, drug addiction, and AIDS. One of the things that makes RENT such an entertaining piece is how the large chorus is used to breathe life into New York and to show that most people face the same kinds of problems as the eight principle characters. In short, the chorus is a pivotal ninth character that helps illuminate many of the play's themes, especially the theme of community.One of the grave mistakes of Chbosky and Columbus was the elimination of the chorus. By doing so, they fail to establish an environment that their main characters live in. Though the main players may bicker about the world they live in, they now appear totally detached from it, and thus the idea of community is now non-existent in the film.Chobsky and Columbus also have trouble establishing the relationships between their main characters. It seems like their main characters have been friends forever yet we as an audience never see how they become friends or why they're friends or even how important they are to one another. This doesn't seem to be a problem in the stage version, though, as the entire first act establishes how these people met and why they have such a close bond.And then there are the more amateurish problems in the film. Many of the crucial plot points and songs seem to come out of nowhere. For example, when Collins, an African-American professor at MIT, and his transvestite boyfriend, Angel, finally declare their love for each other in the song ""I'll Cover You,"" nothing instigates it besides--as far as I can tell--a short ride on the subway. If a subway ride is all one needs to feel love, then why are New Yorkers so cynical? When another character goes missing for a month, we don't even find out she's missing until a few minutes before she comes back. And some scenes just seem to have the wrong tone. When Roger, the HIV positive recovering drug addict sings a love song to his dying girlfriend, Mimi, the lighting and camera angles make him look more diabolical than loving. I would have expected him to slit her throat more than I would expect him to kiss her.But I'd say most of RENT's problems lie in the editing. Two songs which give us crucial pieces of information about certain characters—such as the insinuation that Roger's roommate Mark is a closeted homosexual or that Roger's drug addict girlfriend, Mimi, needs to check herself into rehab or she'll die—are cut from the film yet were obviously shot as the songs appear on the soundtrack. These cuts and others like it make it very difficult to follow the plot or understand who the characters are. And while these crucial points are cut, we somehow need to sit through a second rendition of ""Seasons of Love"" and a reprise of ""La Vie Boheme,"" both of which come out of nowhere and don't serve the story at all. If things needed to be cut for time, those moments should have gone long before scenes that help us understand the characters or their problems.Still, RENT is somewhat redeemed by its brilliant cast. ""Law and Order"" alum Jessie L. Martin gives a charming performance as Collins. His rendition of the heart-wrenching reprise to ""I'll Cover You"" is enough to win him a Golden Globe nomination. Other stand-outs are Tony Winner Idina Menzel's energetic and hilarious performance as the trashy, constantly horny bisexual Maureen. Her rendition of the monologue/song/performance art piece ""Over the Moon"" is both nonsensical and laugh-out-loud funny all at once. And Tracie Thoms as Maureen's sophisticated, Ivy-League lesbian lover Joanne gives a brilliantly understated and demure performance. Their fierce duet, ""Take Me or Leave Me"" is easily one of the most enjoyable moments of the film, as is Thoms's duet with Antony Rapp's Mark in the ""Tango: Maureen."" But the biggest surprise of the bunch is Rosario Dawson as the optimistic yet HIV positive junkie, Mimi. Who knew that she could sing or dance? At any rate, she is a joy to watch, and her striptease number ""Out Tonight"" is a high point of the film.Despite the enjoyable performances by the cast, RENT is plagued by bad writing, directing, and editing. As I watched this train wreck I could picture the producers of the upcoming adaptations of DREAMGIRLS and HAIRSPRAY cowering in a corner. My advice when it comes to RENT: save your money for THE PRODUCERS, which will hopefully follow in the footsteps of better recent musicals like MOULIN ROUGE and CHICAGO. And if you must see RENT, well consider that renting that seat in the movie theater costs a lot more than renting the DVD will.","['0', '2']" +1672,rw1225064,katvallera,Rent (2005),8.0,best musical since phantom,26 November 2005,0,"i LOVED it...only complaint is that they totally toned it down from the original. the controversy and edginess of the original is one of the things that made it so special. this version has been hollywoodized and is way more socially acceptable. they should have stuck to the controversy and just taken an r rating -- anyone who goes to see this movie probably already knows what they are getting themselves into and will not be offended by themes of sex between two men or two women. they cut out like half the songs, including ""contact"". plus they spoke some of the lines that were sung in the original, also not cool. but it's still rent, and i love it.","['0', '2']" +1673,rw1224101,andiehogan,Rent (2005),10.0,superb,24 November 2005,0,"I just got home and stopped crying. Superb adaptation and excellent acting. I am very happy with the outcome as I was seriously expecting a train wreck. I am a huge RENT fan. Rarely, if ever, do I take the OBC recording out of my car. They did me proud. I was so pleased with the character development, and the transition from stage to screen. Jesse Martin's performance should rightfully earn him an Oscar nod. Ms Dawson really showed us her acting chops with her portrayal Mimi. On Mimi's part, I was truly satisfied on how they set up ""Take me Out Tonight"". I think the two best scenes were 1) the first Life Support meeting when the camera panned to all the faces and 2) the church when Tom reprises ""I'll Cover You"". All the rest were excellent as well. They did Jonathan Larson proud. VIVA LA VIE BOHEMME!!","['3', '6']" +1674,rw1223610,tribal_squidgy,Rent (2005),10.0,"Loved It, Loved It, Loved It",24 November 2005,0,"I will admit, I was terrified to see this movie. I've been in love with the play for almost ten years now, and I was dreading another adaptation that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. My fears, however, were unwarranted. This is by far my favorite stage to screen adaptation, and even my boyfriend who admittedly hates musicals, liked it.That being said, there were a few songs not included in this film. Other than the ""goodbye, Love"" and ""Halloween"" that a previous poster mentioned, they also did not include ""Contact"". I was a little disappointed, since I was curious how the director would handle the sex scene, but the route he chose was fantastic nonetheless.The acting was superb. Rosario Dawson (Mimi) totally exceeded my expectations, and I was thrilled to see so much of the original cast in the film. everyone did a wonderful job, and I was moved to tears more than once, laughed out loud a few times, and quietly sang along with some of the more memorable tunes.The only people in the theater that did not seem to enjoy it, were a couple of teenage boys that probably had no clue it was even a musical, or dealt with homosexual relationships and AIDS, and whatnot. They left after about 20 minutes, uttering profanities as they exited the theater. Hehehe.If you are a hardcore Rent-Head, a fan of musicals, or just someone looking for a unique and thought provoking 2 hours, I HIGHLY recommend seeing this movie. I will most definitely be seeing it a few more times while it is still in theaters.","['2', '5']" +1675,rw1216585,krusty641,Rent (2005),10.0,"Forget Potter, Pay your ""Rent""",14 November 2005,0,"Please forgive the cheesy opener. I know that ""Rent"" hasn't started off with the best press in the world. Some questioning Chris Columbus' direction, some questioning the actors, some questioning the film in general. All I can say, however, is wow! I must admit that I was extremely skeptical about the entire project, and that I'm not a ""rent-head"", and this wasn't one of the movies on my wish list to see, but it satisfied me plenty. First off, lets talk story: most know the story, the one of eight East Villagers struggling with everyday life, with a few extremes. Just problems like money issues, drug addiction, and AIDS! A story that could easily be drove full speed into cliché heaven, but doesn't. It makes you feel the ups and downs of these characters. And how they convey all this not only through dialogue, but through song as well. Which brings me to my next point: the music. Being a theater major, I have heard the original cast album quite a few times, and not that it was bad, its just the movie music has this ""pop"" to it that vibrates your eardrums and your heart in the best ways. And like I said, no disrespect to the original. My final point centers around what many are saying will destroy any chances of this movie entering the Oscar race: the direction. Well, sorry to disappoint the Columbus skeptics out there who think he should stick to ""Home Alone's"" and ""Harry Potter's"", but he captured exactly what this movie was about. The grittiness, the hardships, life, love, NEW YORK! He gives the movie realistic credibility, which is always hard to accomplish with musicals (i.e. - people breaking into song and dance on the subway). These people sing, and it makes you think no differently of life. And to touch up on one more thing, the acting, what can you say? This cast overcame unbelievable obstacles to make this work, and they did just that. Anthony Rapp does an amazing job in leading this cast. ""La Vie Boheme"" hasn't left my mind since I left the theater. Adam Pascal and Rosario Dawson are such a couple to watch. Such chemistry between the two. Their developing relationship throughout the movie makes you laugh, cry, and, well, cry a little more. Another scream of a relationship was Idina Menzel and Tracie Thoms as Joanne and Maureen. Talk about an unlikely couple! Somehow, though, they make it work oh so well. Taye Diggs is gold, as usual, as the roommate turned landlord to Mark and Roger. The two that really caught my eye, though. The performances that will go in my photographic movie character memory in a very special spot are Angel and Collins (aka Jesse L. Martin and Wilson Jermaine Heredia). Two guys I have yet to see on film (exception with Martin on ""Law and Order"") brought to the movie what this movie was about the most, and that is love. ""I'll Cover You"", sung by the duo, will melt your heart in a second.In conclusion, all I can say is just give this movie a chance. Don't just go off the negative buzz, because this truly is a beautiful movie. A movie that will have you appreciating your life more and more by the second. The movie that will take you on the emotional roller coaster of life. See the Holiday movie of the year.""No Day but Today""","['297', '379']" +1676,rw1226585,showtyme_sinergy,Rent (2005),10.0,Rent is well worth the wait!,28 November 2005,0,"I waited for years, catching bits of information as to what was prolonging the completion of the movie-version of the hit Broadway musical Rent. As the lights came down in the Hoyts theatre, it felt like only yesterday that I heard the song ""Seasons of Love"" for the first time.There were some changes in the chronology of the plot, as well as some of the songs, which actually stream-lined the story into a much more intense and moving tale. The most amazing part of the movie for me was the JOY that all of the actors had for each other. I have never before seen such an ensemble. It's easy to believe the love that they hold for each other must also carry out into the real world.The ""comicness"" of Maureen and Joanne's relationship was tailored down in a positive way, and allowed me to care more about their relationship than I did in the stage version.Rosario Dawson is an amazing find! She seemed to fit in with the cast effortlessly, and it was hard to imagine that she was not part of the original legacy.A couple of the songs did seem to start out of the blue, without much transition, but the passion immersed in the songs more than made up for this small flaw. It's hard to imagine that after 10 years, the cast could re-imagine the songs with emotions that sound as if it's the first and only time they get to sing their message.I heard a man in the theatre say that this movie would date itself, because of the seeming ""rampantness of the AIDS virus."" I say that this movie capsulates a period of time we can not afford to forget for a group of society that may become desensitized to the threat of HIV, as well as teaches us that each moment is precious. We can't afford to make choices we'll regret, for there may not be a chance to redeem that moment.","['2', '4']" +1677,rw1225236,movieluver79,Rent (2005),10.0,"falling for ""Rent""",26 November 2005,0,"seeing this in the theatre is the closest i'll ever be able to see in on stage (lack of funds). so i'm glad they made this movie. the story line is inspiring, beautiful, funny, and heartwarming. it made you think about your life and the loved ones in it. the music made me want to run out and buy the sound track. i fell in love with the characters because the actors portraying them did an awesome job pulling me into the story and making me feel for these people, even Benny and Maureen. i didn't know about ""Rent"" until the movie came out or the term ""renthead"", but i can become a renthead just by falling for the movie then i am now and will always be a ""renthead"" and maybe one day i'll be able to see it in it's entirety. thank you","['0', '2']" +1678,rw1244960,EmperorNortonII,Rent (2005),8.0,Larson's Legacy Still Rocks,22 December 2005,0,"""Rent"" is based on Jonathan Larson's hit Broadway musical, which is itself based on the classic Puccini opera ""La Boheme."" The production follows a group of young starving artists on the mean streets of New York. They have to deal with crushing poverty, drug addiction, broken hearts and the AIDS virus, all the time trying to keep their creative juices flowing. Almost all of the Broadway cast returns to reprise their original roles (a move some critics have balked at, saying they'd be too old to play twenty-somethings). The actors actually shine in their familiar territory. One newcomer is Rosario Dawson, filling in for Daphne Rubin-Vega as Mimi. She proves that she can hold her own in the role. The numbers are well done, some funny, some touching. Standout sequences include Idina Menzel's ""Over the Moon,"" ""Light My Candle"" and of course, ""Seasons of Love."" To sum up, the best thing to say about this movie is, ""Thank you, Jonathan Larson.""","['0', '1']" +1679,rw1228387,Joe98Etta,Rent (2005),10.0,Rent (2005),30 November 2005,0,"This movie is truly a masterpiece! I cannot understand how the critics could have seen the same movie and given it such bad reviews. The cast was mesmerizing! I still don't know who was my favorite person in the movie, because everyone was so great. Each actor had a unique role and performed it with all their hearts. The movie showed what true love is like, and what real friendship is all about. You could feel the emotions come at you and feel them along with the characters. At the end of the movie, I wished that they were real people so that I could find them and make them my friends. If you want to see a beautiful movie, go see Rent as soon as possible. Before you go, however, keep in mind that it is a musical, and there is a lot of singing in it. Once you get used to that idea, you will definitely enjoy what you see. In my opinion, Rent should sweep the Oscars next year; and I will be very, very disappointed, if the movie gets snubbed by the Academy. I can't wait until it comes out on DVD. Hopefully it will be quite soon.","['0', '2']" +1680,rw1227854,dcusmctop,Rent (2005),6.0,Translation to screen is spotty,29 November 2005,0,"I've seen the Broadway production, I believe with the original cast members as in the movie back in the late 90s. I just love the music and sing to it my truck all the time. However, I think the translation of the play to the screen was spotty. Some of the adjustments for length, including some of the city, worked for me. But it comes across a bit choppy to me. The introduction of spoken dialogue between songs is routine in these translations but they use it some unevenly in the movie, I think it just causes interruptions in the sequence. There are also a number of fades to a black screen, usually added for insertion of TV commercials, which last longer than your normal movie. They seemed to stand out and drop the mood and momentum at times. It just left the theater dark after some powerful numbers here and there. There were some points of the play, plays on words which I have never caught in the music but were well done in the movie. But I was disappointed in the translation. I've seen other theatre productions done on the screen which I think worked better. Just my thoughts, difficult though to say as I like the story so much. GOOF: Mark's looks straight ahead, then to the left, then straight ahead when he is supposed to be just observing during the reprise of 'I should tell you' when Mimi is laying on the table.","['3', '4']" +1681,rw1226878,lauren_peterson06,Rent (2005),9.0,rent delivers,28 November 2005,0,"alright people, i know i'm not a film expert. i'm a 3rd year film student attempting to be a filmmaker so i'd like to think i know what i'm talking about. i have read some nasty reviews concerning rent and i would like to say that whoever does not like this movie has no heart! i loved every single moment of it. people are questioning the direction and the actors but i thought both were fabulous. great music, great acting, and wonderfully shot and edited. i was so in love with this movie by the time it ended that i really can't point out the flaws, nor did i notice them. i'm sure it has some, no film is perfect but all i'm saying is give this film a chance. i have never actually seen the stage production so i don't know how that comparison works out but i loved the film. i will be seeing it again in the theaters and i will without a doubt be buying the DVD. so those of you who hated it, please give it another chance. its got a powerful and touching message behind it.","['0', '1']" +1682,rw1237661,george.schmidt,Rent (2005),7.0,Rousing and often moving big-screen adaptation of the colossal Broadway blockbuster musical,13 December 2005,0,"RENT (2005) *** Anthony Rapp, Adam Pascal, Rosario Dawson, Jesse L. Martin, Wilson Jermaine Heredia, Idina Menzel, Tracie Thoms, Taye Diggs, Sarah Silverman, Anna Deavere Smith. Rousing and often moving big-screen adaptation of the colossal Broadway blockbuster musical about East Village NYC art scene and squatters rights in late '80s AIDS era delivered with verve and panache in spite of the unlikely helmsmanship in the form of Chris Columbus (!) who acquits himself nicely with a fine production design executed by Howard Cummings and of course the late Jonathan Larson's overwhelming songs brimming with enthusiastic gusto from most of the original cast (Dawson and Thoms are the sole replacements and both have the singing chops to stand there ground).","['2', '5']" +1683,rw1218101,slh2,Rent (2005),10.0,breathtaking,17 November 2005,0,"granted i am a renthead--must have seen the play a ton of times. but even if i wasn't who wouldn't love this film???? OK maybe that's a tad naive due to the subject matter, but truly, i was extremely impressed by the vocals, the cinematography, and the acting. i can't imagine this is an easy film to adapt to screen, but they did an amazing job!the cast is consistent--the kind of film u want to see again and again. so please do ignore anything negative u read--the cast is not too old, the sets do not look fake, the movie is too dated, etc. this movie--and its positive message-- is extremely deserving of your attention. and for those of you who have been living under a rock, take some time and read about how the play got to Broadway..really a fascinating story about the playwright who sadly, never did get to enjoy success because of his untimely death.","['9', '20']" +1684,rw1225615,leilapostgrad,Rent (2005),7.0,Austin Movie Show review -- good but not great,27 November 2005,0,"If you were in choir or had any interest at all in musical theater in the latter half of the 1990s, you knew Rent… or at least the Act II opening number, ""Seasons of Love."" Nine years since it's Broadway debut, Rent has finally come to a theater near you. The film version of the Tony Award-winning musical is extremely loyal to the original show – almost to a fault. Six of the eight main actors in the movie were in the 1996 Original Broadway Cast. Costumes, down to Mark's stripped scarf and Angel's Santa coat were exactly like the ones worn in the play. The music was sung exactly like the original cast soundtrack. Why did they even bother trying to make this into a film when they could have saved a lot of time just by filming the play live on stage? For those who have never seen the play live on stage, Rent is the story of a group of friends in New York City in the early 90s, dealing with poverty, homelessness, sexuality, drugs, and AIDS. Even though most the music is upbeat and fun, it's really a sad, dark, and edgy story. And that's what I was hoping for from the movie. I was hoping to see the true pain and devastation of these social misfits. Instead, the movie is just as slaphappy and perky as the play. I blame a lot of this on the director, Chris Columbus. For some reason, the director of Mrs. Doubtfire, Home Alone, and the first two Harry Potter movies was chosen to direct Rent, a movie where a gay man watches his transvestite lover slowly die of AIDS.But maybe the studio wanted a ""family-friendly"" director who would keep the tone of the movie just as bright-eyed and bushy-tailed as the Broadway show and not risk making Rent too edgy or controversial. This way it's more appealing to a wider audience and no one is offended. If that is what they wanted, mission accomplished. Bottom line, if you like the music from the original play, you'll like the movie. Just don't expect anything more.","['0', '0']" +1685,rw1223474,discodivo,Rent (2005),10.0,must see this one,23 November 2005,0,"I think that I am stealing this from someone when i say this, but there aren't many movies out there that i would point to as defining a generation. But this is definitely one of them. The movie made me laugh and made me cry. I thought that it would be hard for them to film such a wonderful stage piece but I think that they pulled it off. I will definitely be seeing this one again in the theater and buying it as soon as it is released. If you liked the musical you will like the movie equally. This is definitely my new favorite movie. I think that the issues talked about in the movie are as relevant today as they were 10 years ago when the material first written. A must see movie, and you must take a friend.","['1', '3']" +1686,rw1223413,danielletbd,Rent (2005),8.0,Falls Short of the Play but Still Amazing,23 November 2005,1,"WARNING: THIS CONTAINS SPOILERSIf you have never seen Rent in any form, I urge you to see the play first. The movie captures the spirit of Jonathan Larson but must dumb it down a lot to comply with FCC standards that gave them their PG3 rating. Songs are lost (""Halloween,"" ""Contact,"" ""We're Okay"" and most disappointingly ""Christmas Bells"") and others are turned into spoken word dialogue (""You Okay Honey,"" ""New Years Eve""). In other songs, some of the characters are removed (such as Joanne in ""Rent"" and Angel in ""You'll See Boys"") in order not to confuse the audience. The opening sequence of the film—from the cast standing on the stage at the Nederlander through the most expensive four minutes in a non-action film (the singing of ""Rent"")—sets the tone perfectly. The quick cutting and loud rock edge introduces these characters the way the play does—with no holds barred as they toss flaming pieces of paper out the window. The camera work is flawless here, as it is throughout the film, with high crane angles, sweeping jib motions, and the smooth pans of a steadicam. It is perfect.Unfortunately the rest of the film doesn't quite match that initial tone: suddenly ""New York"" became very colorful and bright—a bit too well-lit and jovial for a serious story about relationships and hard times falling on a group of friends. While film was shot in 2.35 ratio to give the effect that you are still watching a stage performance (and thus you can see a great deal of the scenery around the characters), none of the subsequent scenes are as dark in texture or as high-energy (in terms of production value) as the opener. They put everything into it and came out spent, taking a breather in ""You'll See Boys"" which pretty much holds two camera positions throughout the dialogue and song. The pacing never found its flow: it jumped around and felt extremely rushed at the end as montage after montage was used to explain events that passed in the 525600 minutes of these friends' lives. For example, Mimi was only seen as a true addict throughout at the last few moments; up until then she just appeared like the majority of young New Yorkers in the art scene—a dabbler, an experimenter. What was the most upsetting to me, though, was how the play was an ensemble cast, with Mark as a narrator throughout. The film tried to duplicate that but fell short: by cutting solo songs for Joanne and Angel, they became secondary characters. The balance was never retrieved. I'm not quite sure what Christopher Columbus actually did with this film: the cast didn't need much coaching, as the majority of them originated in these roles, and those the characters were already theirs. Each and every one of them gave an impeccable performance. Stephen Goldblatt's cinematography (as always) was complex and beautiful and added to the vibrant world, especially in ""Life Support,"" when the camera took a 360 around the circle, always over the shoulder of one member to another and never once losing focus. Only once did it distract from the moment: when Mimi has just come back from nearly ODing she and Roger are sharing a moment, and they are in the far left corner of the screen, leaving an evenly spaced Maureen and Joanne to fill the middle and right side of the screen, and leaving the eye to naturally be drawn to them, even though it is a clear moment for Mimi. However, the fact that I can't find Chris Columbus in this film is not, by any means, a negative comment: he is no auteur, and if he tried to make too great a mark, he would have ruined the film. Don't get me wrong, though: just because I am being critical does not mean I did not enjoy my time in the theatre. I saw the film at 12:01 AM on November 23rd— the very first showing on the west coast, and I was surrounded by other true Rent fans. We cheered, we clapped, we sang along, and we mooed with Maureen (as we should have). I am perhaps overly critical of this film not just because I work in this industry but also because I had such high expectations for the film—being such a die-hard fan (I saw the play on Broadway six times before I moved out of New York and once in LA since). Jesse L Martin was especially endearing: he took Tom Collins to a new level and clearly had a lot of fun doing it. The high moments of the film (other than the performances) were the almost ""Chicago's"" Roxanne moment in ""Tango Maureen,"" ""La Vie Boheme,"" (even though they took out parts of it) ""Take Me Or Leave Me,"" and ""Without Me."" Rent will make you laugh, make you cry, and most importantly, make you feel for and relate to its main characters. To some the subject matter is still controversial, but at the core is the most endearing and heartwarming story about true friends that I have ever seen. Rent is a great film, but an incomparable play. They should set up a three-camera shoot at the Nederlander and put that on DVD.","['1', '3']" +1687,rw1229466,dweiss11,Rent (2005),10.0,Excellent,2 December 2005,0,"I saw the movie Rent today for the second time this week, and I have to say I love it!! I saw Rent on Broadway 4 times; the first 2 times were with the original cast, the last 2 were not. For me to see most of the original cast together again was so amazing! I had chills up and down my body, I cried, I laughed, I loved it!! I thought Rosario Dawson did a great job filling Mimi's (Daphne Ruben-Vega's) big shoes. The adaptation to the screen was great, the singing was amazing, and I thought the whole movie was a great tribute to Jonathan Larsen and Rent fans everywhere. I plan on seeing it again in the movie theater, and I can't wait for it to come out on DVD- I will be the first on line to buy it.","['2', '4']" +1688,rw1224684,chuckersil,Rent (2005),10.0,Fantastic,25 November 2005,0,"I have seen the musical and memorized the score and still found this movie to be wonderful. I have always had an issue with the fact that act I of the musical is supposed to happen in one evening. I don't think there is enough time to do all that is supposed to occur. By spreading the action over the week between Christmas and New Year's, it flows much better.At first, I had a laugh at hearing some of the sung lines spoken, but after the initial ""shock"" of that, the rest felt natural. It was great to be able to see most of the original cast in this movie. I don't think they looked ""too old."" Their performances were stellar. I look forward to being able to own this on DVD.---edited---Having bought the DVD, I wish the alternate ending had been used instead. I think it's much more moving and brings the whole movie full circle.","['0', '2']" +1689,rw1233093,Fatman7600,Rent (2005),10.0,Amazing...very amazing,7 December 2005,0,"It was 2001 and my mom asked me what Broadway show I wanted to see for my birthday. Any show and she'll get two seats to it. Well I decided I wanted to see Rent. On this night the cast included Anthony Rapp, Adam Pascal, Wilson Jermaine Heredia, Taye Diggs and Idina Menzel. I didn't understand the meaning behind that at the time, but I knew, hat I was seeing something special. I fell in love with the characters, related so well with Mark and almost immediately got the soundtrack.Then it was the summer of 2004 and I heard rumors that Rent was going to made for the big screen. As a huge Renthead I got scared and waiting for details. The more I heard about the original cast returning the most excited I got. Between then and the fall of 2005 I saw the Broadways show two more times to get ready. Then my fiancé and I picked up the movie soundtrack, and we were both blown away. From the opening note of Seasons of Love to the end of Finale B I knew it was going to be amazing. Rosario Dawson and Tracie Thoms proved they can sing and mesh with the original cast very well.Suddenly it was November. My fiancé got two free passes to see Rent two night before the big premiere. We both went in and were ready for anything. What we got was the ride of a lifetime.I am not one to fully get emotionally involved in a movie of any kind but the minute Mark's video came up on the screen and the word ""December 24th 1989, 9pm Eastern Standard Time"" was stated after Seasons of Love, I was there. There the movie started.From beginning to end it was a roller coaster ride of emotions and amazing music. From the laughs and cheers during Rent and Today 4 U to the sexiness of Out Tonight to the romance in I'll Cover You right to the tearful funeral scene of Angel, it was incredible.Despite missing the second half of Goodbye Love and the simple but very effective Halloween, it was perfectly done. The theater I was in couldn't help but be at the end of their seats by the end of Roger screaming at Mimi during Another Day and when Collins proclaimed his lost love during I'll Cover You (Reprise).People and critics seem to be forgetting that this musical is a Tony and Pulizter prize winner, so they are forgetting about putting this movie in the Oscar race. This is by far the best picture of the year, Chris Columbus proved that he can be serious and brought the late great Jonathan Larson's work to life one more time.This movie proves that the tag line is absolutely true...No Day But Today","['2', '4']" +1690,rw1222601,itsbeaners,Rent (2005),10.0,Speechless,22 November 2005,0,"This movie left me speechless. After the song ""rent"" I knew it was going to leave me wanting more and it did.I saw a free screening of it in Philly on Monday. It was so exciting.I agree with the others, if you know the CD, then you will definitely want to be singing along with the movie.i tried getting my friends to ""moo"" with me during ""over the moon"" but no one would >.