Wasn't sure about this movie at first when I heard the premise, but the more I heard about it, the more I wanted to see it. I was old enough to remember bits of this, but mostly the way a child does--disconnected images that are hard to fit together. I remember the yellow ribbons, and that people were scared, and the political shouting matches that went on at the time. But I didn't fully understand the impact of what was going on.

This movie brought it all back. Not just the Crisis, but the seventies. Star Wars, political unrest in the Middle East, Carter...all of it. Like the Cuban Missile Crisis, we are very lucky this did not blow up in our faces.

The movie itself is a perfect way to show this time, and the dangers of interfering in other countries' internal politics. Not to get on a soap box, or to blame anyone, but interference in other countries only ends up making those interfering the scapegoats, regardless of intent. And this movie shows just how bad things can get, with innocents caught in the middle.

It uses just enough humor and hope to keep you wanting to watch despite the dark subject matter, and to keep you rooting for the CIA, a group that has been vilified quite a bit since. Ben and the rest of the cast were excellent, and all represented their characters in a way that seemed to meld actor and character.

It left me feeling like no matter how dark things get, so long as we work together, things can get better. All it takes is cooperation.

I highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys political intrigue or modern history.

Having been an informal fan of Sherlock Holmes from a young age, I was pleased to find that the first movie very much lived up to the hype I'd heard surrounding it. I was a fan of Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr before the movie, but they seemed odd casting for the roles. But they worked, and I absolutely loved the story.

Still, I was worried that the sequel might not live up to the first. After all, sequels are notorious for failing to live up to the promise of their predecessors. I needn't have worried. While this story may not have been quite as tightly woven as the first, it was highly enjoyable.

Robert Downey Jr is wonderfully quixotic as Holmes once more, and some of the less subtle things in the first movie (the fighting in particular) are more so in this one. There's a lovely sequence when instead of reciting his planned moves as in the first, he refers to them as lines in a recipe. And another at the end where the tables are turned on him.

Jude Law is lovely in this, and somehow more and less gormless than in the first film, which he seemed to spend the majority of his time angry at Holmes. In this, he's allowed a great deal more agency, and actually contributes to the story in a major way.

The new additions--Stephen Frye as Mycroft and Jared Harris as Moriarty--add a wonderful spice to the story. Both are excellent actors, and the few moments onscreen with Mycroft and Sherlock, or "Sherlie" as his brother calls him, are absolutely wonderful.

The endgame is unsurprising to anyone who knows the Sherlock Holmes series, but despite that, there are some surprises, and watching Sherlock and Moriarty circle each other is fascinating. It almost seems a shame that we won't see more movies with the two facing off against each other.

There are some lovely musical cues. Notable among them, the horse riding segment, the Opera montage, and the torture scene. But throughout, you can always hear the strains of the Holmes theme.

Overall, I highly recommend it to anyone who enjoyed the first.

This movie is based on the Biblical story of the Exodus, the same story as that in the Charlton Heston movie, The Ten Commandments. I tend to shy away from Religious subjects in movie form. I don't like to be preached at, particularly since I consider myself non-religious. But one quarter of my family was Jewish, and many of my relations still are. So watching this movie even as a non-religious person of Jewish descent, I feel the power of this movie.

Though the Ten Commandments was a powerful movie in its time, and still highly watchable, this one manages to feel more authentic and has more heart. Perhaps it's the music, or the fact that the Jewish themes are more intensely present in the story. Then there's the fact that this movie shows many things that were either ignored by the Ten Commandments or were only just touched on--because of the climate about movie themes at the time, or the climate of the country.

From the first song, "Deliver Us," the story grabs you in a way that the Ten Commandments cannot. And its concluding song, "When You Believe," is just as powerful and grabbing. Both tell you so much about the story and the world these characters live in. And both are so emotionally charged that you cannot help but feel the characters' emotions yourself.

Definitely a gem of a movie, and one anyone interested in history, biblical history, Hebrew history, or even the history of this area should watch it at least once. Religious or not.

So, I went into this film with low expectations, and came out of it with an enjoyable memory for the afternoon. Not grand cinema, to be sure, and certainly not as good as Pirates of the Caribbean, which they are obviously still trying to duplicate the success of, but quite enjoyable. And there's enough there for them to do a sequel if they so wanted.

I could have done with a few more layers of substance, but as a Merlin fan, the young man playing Dave was perfect. So geeky that I just couldn't help but feel for him.

The love story felt unnecessary. I would have rather had a gradual growing of the character's abilities over a longer period of time than this forced rush of exposition/special effects that apparently took place in perhaps a week? Not quite believable. Not that I expected it to be, but still, I would have preferred substance over flash.

Cage's performance is definitely one of his better ones. Whoever was directing obviously did a good job of reining him in on this one, as there were only a couple of scenes where he over-acted, and several scenes where he actually felt the part he was portraying.

Mostly? I think this could have used a few more years of plotting to flesh it out more. It would have made for a more interesting story. And we can always use a new version of the hero's tale.

Overall? Not bad, just not great, but if you like Cage or the subject matter, well worth a viewing.

As someone who is someone who lived through this moment in Seattle's history, as well as someone who is a huge fan of Stuart Townsend, I felt this was something I had to see. I admit to being a bit worried at first, but Stuart not only manages to show all sides of this story, but does it well.

No one who lived through this Riot can say this was a stellar moment. No one won. And far too many people were hurt by the actions of people who went off-track for their own reasons, and by a mayor who failed to stand up for his city.

I am a bit disappointed that they had to fictionalize a few things--the name of the Mayor and Governor, for example--though I do wonder now if that was because they refused to sign releases.

Please watch this film. As someone who always believed that protest was a good thing, WTO shook my trust in that truism. This managed to restore it somewhat. Protest is good. It is one of the few viable options open in a Democratic society to say "this isn't the right way." What went wrong here was not protest. It was a few random people hurting the whole, and a government that couldn't keep things straight.

So...I've seen it twice now. The first time I was so overwhelmed by emotion that I had trouble sorting out my thoughts. This is my second favorite of the books for several reasons. Among them the fact that this is basically Draco and Snape's story. Even as much as it is Harry's and Tom's. The book itself is flawed, but there are many points in the story that I can't help but love, despite the ridiculous teenage drama.

The movie is far less so. Obviously, it can't follow the book exactly. That would have taken three movies worth. But there were some distinct disappointments when it came to things left out, or reactions in general.

Overall, worth a viewing, but I wouldn't expect it to be the best of the series if you have yet to see it.

**Spoilers past here**

Watching this movie a second time led me to thinking about what worked in this movie and what didn't, and why. I realized that both depended on how I looked at the movie itself.

The first, and to me, most important layer, is the storytelling. As a movie trying to stand on its own, it fails on several counts. Granted, part of that can be forgiven, as it is the sixth in a series. Few who don't already know the series would even bother attending. But on a deeper level, even before this movie, the bits needed to hold up the flow of the story have been dropped.  You can see that they're obviously trying to pull things back together, much as JK Rowling did in the book, but they have dropped far more threads than she, and it leads to quite a mess.

A particular plot point here is Tom Riddle's background. Not only have we missed some of the vital clues that explain who he is and where he came from (yes, we know, if vaguely, that he is a half-blood from COS, but only just), but the horcruxes are only explained in a glancing blow which tells Harry nothing about how to find more of them. A truly disastrous loss for the coming movie.

Then there is the basics of storytelling itself. A story should have a flow to it. It helps the audience follow better, and even retain the story better. Particularly when it comes to pattern. Stories have patterns the same way music does. This means repetition and pacing and a number of other storytelling devices that have been around for a very long time.

In this case, the movie seemed incredibly choppy, like there was no direction for the story. This has nothing to do with leaving things out (I'll deal with that point later on). This is about telling a good story that people can enjoy. That means each plot point should add something to the overall story, and to its impact. If you can't do that, whether you are writing a book, filming a movie, or making a tv show, you have failed. Period. End of statement.

Also, some might consider this less important, but I've always considered it a basic guiding principle--when you have a device you are using to impart information, whatever it may be--a town cryer announcing something each day, a tree changing with the seasons, newspaper transitions--or say, a few journies into memories about someone--it is always best to use that device at least three times. This movie only showed us two memories. Granted, they showed one twice, and slightly different versions, but they were the same memory. It leaves the viewer unconsciously wanting more. Even if they don't necessarily know it. Having three or more helps with the flow of the story, so that the audience knows what to expect. Going without leaves that feeling of waiting for the last shoe to drop, so to speak. I can't say which would have been the best memory to add (possibly one of the memories about the other possible horcruxes), just that we needed one more to make it feel right. At least, to me.

Beyond that, we have the moviemaking part. This is not only acting, but also directing and effects. I have only ever found one fault with the effects of Harry Potter, and that was the Dragon in Goblet because the scene went on far too long for something that wasn't that integral to the plot. Focusing on effects over plot is always a bad choice in my eyes.

The directing in this series has been about has haphazard as the DADA classes in Harry Potter. We've had several directors, each with their own styles, and it has led to shifts in the continuity that otherwise wouldn't have taken place. Still, overall, it's been generally forgivable, aside from a few minor quirks.

But more importantly, by this second viewing of the movie, I realized that the cast, rather than becoming more cohesive, as any good cast would do, seems to be becoming less so over time. Each of them should have such a good idea of their character by now that they should be able to react without direction, even when the focus is not on them. Instead, I feel like what we're getting are wooden dolls that only react when the focus is on them. They seem to have no clue of anything going on around them unless they have been told to. It's growing increasingly frustrating for me. Some of the actors are better about it than others, but it seems to be true overall for the entire cast, including the veteran adults who should all know better by now.

As much as I adore Rickman, I'm growing to hate his Snape more and more because he's not bothering to give him any life. I could speculate whether this is his token resistance to not being given more before now, but I won't. Why he's doing it doesn't matter so much as the fact that it's killing the character--at least as far as the movies go.

Even Dan, who is amazing in OOTP, felt a bit like he was daydreaming his way through the movie this time. It just leaves me disappointed overall, and with a bad taste in my mouth.

I go to a movie like this for the emotional connection. And this feels completely devoid of that, because the actors don't seem to be connecting with each other, and therefore we can't really seem to connect with them. For me, it's incredibly disappointing. Especially in a series that I love so much.

Next we have the Harry Potter story. Yes, it really does come third, because if you're not a fan, it's more about the story itself, and the acting. If those two don't hold up, people who aren't familiar with the story won't be interested (which is pretty much what has happened...). Most fans watch the movie with this filter on, and it's hard to let go of that favorite scene, even if it really isn't vital to the overall story. That means that when we talk about the movie after, we remark on what was missing and what was added, and whether or not it worked with or without that scene. It's really incredibly hard to let go of that filter, though.

I have to say that there were changes that worked for me in this, and changes that did not.

I loved watching Draco try to fix the cabinet--though I do have to say that I wanted to see him actually working on the cabinet more than he did.  Simply having him open and close the doors and place things inside or looking in to see if they had returned weren't quite enough for me.  The chanting worked, though.  I would have liked more like that, probably in conjunction with the opening and closing of the doors.  Something more to show that the "repair" wasn't just accidental.

Also, speaking of the cabinet--I loved the way they chose to add an explanation for it, given that it hadn't been in either of the two movies where it was previously mentioned (COS for the one at B+B and also for Peeves's breaking the one at Hogwarts, and GOF for Warrington being shoved into it by the Weasley twins, and therefore giving Draco the idea to fix it in the first place.).  The explanation was an intriguing one, and made me wonder how the things work, and just how many there are out there.

On the other hand, Gambon has worked less and less for me as Dumbledore as time went on.  I hope his bit will be kept to a minimum the last two movies.  When the book says Dumbledore calling for Harry in the Goblet of Fire echoed through the room, it doesn't mean he shouted.  It means the room was so quiet that you could have heard a pindrop.  That scene still bugs me even now.  And he did it again this time.  Granted, I know this was more a directoral and scripting choice than Gambon's choice--if Dumbledore were so stupid as not to even suspect that the journal was a horcrux, then why did he go after the ring?  No, the reason he needed that memory was to find out how many horcruxes Tom had made.  I will say that the connection between Harry and the horcruxes was better threaded, though.  Though mentioned that there was no time to set up everything Dumbledore would have once he realized Harry's necessary role before they left the next day...

While I'm at it, there were other annoyances: I still hate Narcissa's hair--no, it does not need to be dark.  I'm sure witches have their own way of making their hair different colours, if you have to insist on her having Black-dark hair like the rest of her family...  And Peter's hand--correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he cut off the hand with the missing finger when he sacrificed it for Voldemort's rebirth?

And a few additions: Regulus was mentioned more in this than in the book.  Does make me wonder if we're going to see Grimmauld Place at all next movie, though.  And I will say for once, Klovis actually did a good job adding Ginny into the mix of Harry and his friends--unlike JK, who couldn't be bothered.  I can see he's set her up to be much more instrumental in helping to find the tiara when Harry and his friends return to Hogwarts in the final movie.

And finally for me, and I think also for most fans, there is the character-specific reactions.  I think most fans have those characters they like and/or identify more with, and therefore see the plot through.  These are the truly personal reactions--the ones that rely on our own specific views of the characters that often have little to nothing to do with canon, but purely what we have made the character into in our head, whether that be from reading, writing, or even Roleplaying.

For me, this movie breaks down to three main characters, and a few minor ones.

Overall, of course, is Draco.  He was the one that reacted loudest as I watched this the first time, and he is the one I play and write the most, so that makes sense.  Not to mention that this is his movie--his time to shine.  I think Tom did a lovely job, though I didn't see Draco's emotions build as much as I would have liked.  I did love seeing him fix the cabinet, as I said above.  I also loved his horror when Auntie dearest came through along with Fenny and the other two Death Eaters (Amycus and Alecto, I presume...).  And while JK Rowling never told us for sure that Draco was ever Marked, mine has always been, so it was sort of a horrified thrill to see him show Dumbledore his Mark there at the end.

Then there is Blaise.  I thought the Movie Blaise was very nice, and it was cool to see him in the background throughout the movie.  I did get one incredibly strong reaction from him, and this is sort of a sideline rant.  Blaise was never on the Quidditch team.  Granted, it was never said that he wasn't, but I think it would have in this book, at the very least, if he had been.  Not everyone has to be on the Quidditch team, and I imagine that Slytherin's a harder team to get onto than most.  It's one of the reasons I don't see girls getting on their team.  Not to mention the hide-bound "traditions" of the purebloods that probably run the house.  I doubt they would let a girl on unless they were simply given no other option.

And then there was Regulus.  It was nice to see him mentioned--more than once, even.  And then, I couldn't stop myself from looking at the inferii when they came out of the lake.  Granted, I doubted they would actually show him, but I knew he was there, and I just had to look.

Beyond them, there was Snape--who I have already discussed above.  Though I will say that I was incredibly disappointed at how little screen-time he got, considering that he's the secondary title character next to Harry...  Would it truly have killed them to give us even one DADA class?  And maybe Harry's reaction to his being DADA teacher?  Let's not even go into how washed-out the reveal was, considering that anyone who hadn't read the books would never understand the full implication of Snape's words to Harry that he was the Half Blood Prince...

I also felt a bit of a reaction from Remus this time around.  I hate what JK Rowling did with him overall, though.  After POA, she undersold his character more and more.  And this movie actually made me hate that even more--he didn't feel like Remus to me at all.  The point of Remus, as I have always seen him, since readong POA, is that he is a man who has always kept himself tightly controlled--even as a teenager.  That is why Sirius and James got away with so much without him telling them off.  That and the fear that he would lose them as friends.  But this older Remus, who has lost them?  He's spent nearly all of his adult life alone.  He's worn down. Tired.  Lost.  Not angry.  I hated that in  DH, and I hate it here.

Those were my major reactions, though I'm sure I've forgotten something here or there, but I'd say I've rambled on far long enough.  Overall, not bad.  Just not great like I know it could have been.

I have been watching the series for the first time this weekend, and I have to say...I love it. I'm very much an Arthur nerd. Meaning I know more about Arthurian legend and characters than most laymen. Though I'm far from fluent enough to be considered an Arthurian scholar.

I was avoiding this show because someone described it to me as "Hercules-style Camelot." It's not. It so much better. I avoided watching Hercules because someone's ego quickly took it over, and yes, the show was about him, so there was no way to divorce him from the plots without killing the show. I could never stomach how different the show was from the myths the few times I tried to watch. It just wasn't something I could handle. So I didn't watch. And I avoided this show for the same reason, fearing that it would annoy me in the same way.

It doesn't. There is one thing about Arthurian mythos that is different from Hercules. There are so many contradictory tales and rewritings of the stories that a new version of them only adds to the mythos. Now, granted, it could be done badly, but having watched ten episodes, I think I can now safely say that they've got people who know what they're doing plotting the story out.

Though they have aged down Merlin, it fits almost better than the older sage giving Arthur decrees and undecipherable prophesies from on high. He still has secrets from his prince, but the fact that they are learning from each other and growing closer is excellently done.

I think all the characters have been carefully studied before writing out the series. While Arthur still has his father, the basis of what makes him Arthur is there. And through their friendship, Arthur and Merlin grow together. (with some absolutely wonderful subtext.)

There are some major changes of character roles (Gwenivere as a servant rather than a princess & Lancelot as a commoner as well), but the way things are laid out, it's easy to see how the threads will weave to make the stories we're all familiar with. I look forward to seeing how it all plays out.

I've been playing Civilization since the original version, and it has always been one of my favorite games. However, as time has gone on, and the game has been upgraded, it has become somewhat unmanigable. Too many things to keep track of, too much to do, too hard (or in some cases, too easy) to win. Four has kind of lost its glamour for me.

So I debated with myself about whether or not to get this version. I have to say, I'm glad I did. It's rather like playing Civ 4 crossed with the original game--the amount of things you have to keep track of has been very trimmed down, and it makes for easier gameplay.

My only issue with this new version, and it might be a DS issue, is that it doesn't last very long at all, because the continents are so tiny. I'm now curious what the differences between the DS and Computer or platform versions of the game are.

I do think, if you've become rather disenfranchised by the series, this is a good way to get back into it once more.

I remember seeing the preview for this movie this past winter, and thinking it looked interesting. But what I saw was nothing like what I'd expected. Francis and Amy did an incredible job of pulling my interest throughout the story, and the setting was one that I find quite fascinating--England in the late thirties.

Francis's character is easy to empathise with, even if Amy's is not. She's the common woman just trying to make her way in a hard world (not unlike the world of today). Amy's is a flitting gadabout that is fun to watch, even as you want to pin her to a chair and tell her to grown up.

Most of all, I enjoy the idea of the story--one day that changes both womens' lives. Francis finds her place in life, and Amy makes the choice for her future.

The cast of characters around them is interesting. Crooks and socialites, rich and working class, not to mention the glitz of show business, and the undertone of the coming war and the echo of the one that came before. It's all there, and each bit lends more to the surreality of the story.

It's a movie I highly recommend, and one I will be buying at my earliest opportunity.

While this is not my favorite of the series, after Goblet of Fire, it was by far a vast improvement. The kids felt like they were having fun again, they got in (almost) enough of the story to make up for the lack in the previous two movies, and they didn't cut out anything vital this time around.

Umbridge was perfect, and we saw just enough without having to suffer too much. The twins exit was stupendous. And the Order was nice.

I would have liked to have seen the Quidditch match--any of them. For me, you can't have Harry without Quidditch being in there somewhere, and this one had a decided lack of it. I could definitely have done without Cho, though. But that's more a matter of personal taste.

It was lovely to see how much Daniel has grown up, especially after his experiences with Equus in London. Of course, at the time of filming, they hadn't actually started showing yet, but you can see that he'd already been working out--he just looks wonderful. Whatever else the creators of this team have done, they did one thing right in hiring him.

I look forward to seeing where the next film will land.