My Favorite Movies

Pan's Labyrinth is a joy to watch. It's like seeing everything you could ever want in life wrapped up in a movie. It strives to focus on every minute detail and you become entranced and involved within the opening minutes. The movie is simultaneously set in Spain and in a girl's imagination and it never once gets off-track in delivering a magical and beautiful escape. If you're not involved with the characters, you weren't watching the same movie I was. Sergi Lopez is sadistically good. He will give you nightmares. The main player, Ivana Baquero, is a charming girl with a perfect sense of what she needs to do. There is just so much about this movie that I can recommend. It's just, in retrospect, one of the greatest movies ever made and my film of the year for 2006. There is no reason that you should miss it. Now, to make it better, I would suggest that you watch the movie in Spanish with the English subtitles turned on (unless you are Hispanic, of course). The dubbing downplays the experience and is almost blasphemous to such a tremendous movie. "HELL YES!"

Critics that agree:
Roger Ebert: "One of the greatest of all fantasy films. 4 stars."

A.O. Scott, The New York Times/The Tuscaloosa News: "A swift and accessible entertainment, blunt in its power and exquisite in its effects. 4 stars."

Ella Taylor, LA Weekly: "Pan's Labyrinth, like his terrific 2001 "The Devil?s Backbone," Mexican horrormeister Guillermo del Toro's new movie offers us both real-life and fantastical monsters, and if you know his work, you won't waste time figuring out which to root for. 4 stars."

Joe Morgenstern, Wall Street Journal: "The result of the intricate interplay is a fairy tale for adults that is violent, sometimes shocking, yet utterly engrossing. And eerily instructive; it deepens our emotional understanding of fascism, and of rigid ideology's dire consequences. 4 stars."

Jack Mathews, New York Daily News: "A critic trots out the word "masterpiece" at his own peril, but there it is. 4 stars."

Lou Lumenick, New York Post: "Nothing [in 2006] comes close to being as utterly unforgettable as Guillermo del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth, an extremely dark and disturbing fairy tale for audiences say, ages 12 and up. 4 stars."

Glenn Kenny, Premiere: "This intense film, a mix of horror, fantasy, and history that convinces on all those levels and mixes them up with dizzying brio, is a searing cinematic experience, a beautiful, terrifying vision from writer-director Guillermo del Toro. 4 stars."

J. Hoberman, Village Voice: "Literally and figuratively marvelous, a rich, daring mix of fantasy and politics. 4 stars."

Peter Travers, Rolling Stone: "Del Toro never coddles the audience. He means us to leave Pan's Labyrinth shaken to our souls. He succeeds. 4 stars."

Peter Rainer, Christian Science Monitor: "In tone, Pan's Labyrinth resembles a cross between "Alice in Wonderland" and H.P. Lovecraft, with some Buñuel thrown in for good measure. It is a tribute to - as well as a prime example of - the disturbing power of imagination. 4 stars."

Wesley Morris, Boston Globe: "Pan's Labyrinth is a transcendent work of art. 4 stars."

Carrie Rickey, Philadelphia Inquirer: "This is the breakthrough work of one of world cinema's most visionary artists. 4 stars."

Lisa Schwarzbaum, Entertainment Weekly: "Like any great myth, Pan's Labyrinth encodes its messages through displays of magic. And like any good fairy tale, it is also embroidered with threads of death and loss. 4 stars."

Michael Sragow, Baltimore Sun: "With a surgical saw instead of a hatchet, del Toro takes apart patriarchy and opportunistic religion as well as fascism. 4 stars."

Claudia Puig: "Pan's Labyrinth artfully fuses a war film with a family melodrama and a fairy tale. The result is visually stunning and emotionally shattering. 3 1/2 stars."

David Ansen, Newsweek: "Suspended between the brutally graphic and flights of lyrical fancy, Pan's Labyrinth unfolds with the confidence of a classical fable, one that paradoxically feels both timeless and startlingly new. 3 1/4 stars."

Justin Chang, Variety: "There's plenty of blood -- both literal and figurative -- coursing through the veins of Pan's Labyrinth, a richly imagined and exquisitely violent fantasy from writer-director Guillermo del Toro. 3 1/4 stars."

It is an absolutely, unbelievably great movie--my favorite movie ever, to be more specific. Just when I thought that I had seen all that the movie had to offer, it surprised me again. I watched mesmerized as the movie progressed and re-defined the vampire genre, at least for me. The chemistry between the two children is also fantastic. This movie will truly teach you a lesson, that lesson being to always remember to "let the right one in". Check it out if you haven't ever seen it. "HELL YES!"

Critics who agree (not with the favorite movie part, but with the other parts of the review):
John Anderson, Washington Post: "In the basest of terms, a horror flick. But it's also a spectacularly moving and elegant movie, and to dismiss it into genre-hood, to mentally stuff it into the horror pigeonhole, is to overlook a remarkable film. 4 stars."

Michael Phillips (yay!), Chicago Tribune: "The film is terrific. The upcoming screen version of ?Twilight? (opening Nov. 21) may be the set of fangs everyone?s waiting for, at least among certain demographics, but I can?t imagine anyone older than 15, who cherishes vampire lore or not, failing to fall for this spectacularly assured, mournfully beautiful entertainment, one that mines an old myth for all sorts of insinuating new themes and variations. 4 stars."

Kim Newman, Empire: "At once a devastating, curiously uplifting inhuman drama and a superbly crafted genre exercise, Let The Right One In can stand toe-to-toe with Spirit Of The Beehive, Pan's Labyrinth or Orphee. See it. 4 stars."

Jeremy Knox, Film Threat: "The best fairy tales always have so much darkness in them. That's why they resonate so deeply. This is a magnificent film. 3 3/4 stars."

Peter Travers, Rolling Stone: "Stick your neck out for this Swedish horror show. It's a winner, full of mirth and malice, plus a young romance you'll never see on the Disney Channel. 3 1/2 stars."

Steven Rea, Philadelphia Inquirer: "Funny, fear-inducing, with periods of voyeuristic gore and an undercurrent of anxiety and dread, Let the Right One In is up there with the bloodsucking classics. 3 1/2 stars."

What is a dream? Can one define it? Merriam-Webster calls it "a series of thoughts, images, or emotions occurring during sleep". On a basic level, that's correct. But what about what's contained in the dream itself? Dreams are different for each individual, but according to scientific studies, they all have a particular meaning. What is this meaning? Can our dreams control us? Can we control them?

"Inception" attempts to answer these and many more questions. And, for my money, it's an absolute masterpiece. I haven't been forced to think about or reflect on my life like this in any film in recent memory. Each scene has an deep underlying message that will get to you if you allow it to. Questions such as "Are you as special as you think you are?" may pop into your mind. That's what I was thinking. I'm nothing in a world of dreamers.

In case that doesn't interest you, maybe this will: "Inception" is extremely effective as an action movie. Well, of course it is, you're thinking. Christopher Nolan directed it. But if you thought those scenes in "The Dark Knight" were something, wait until you see "Inception". It will blow your mind. The zero gravity hotel scene is just incredible. Many millions of dollars went into these shots.

What? You're still not satisfied? Well, the movie ALSO WORKS AS A DRAMA! The back stories of all the characters, especially Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), are truly, truly engaging and, in some cases (Cobb's), heartbreaking. This is one of the few movies that have made me cry. The very last scene is what did me in.

Kudos to DiCaprio for another outstanding portrayal. He is great. But then again, I could say the same for Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ken Watanabe, and Cillian Murphy. In fact, if you can find one bad performance in "Inception", I'd like you to tell me because I couldn't. I'd wager that there isn't one. The least noticeable is Dileep Rao as Yusef, but was he bad? I do not think so. And don't forget the other big stars that have small roles: Marion Cotillard as Mal, Dom's wife, and Michael Caine as Miles, his father-in-law. Neither of them are giving any less than good.

It is a gorgeous film, so splendidly well-done and thought-out. It is without a doubt the best movie I have seen this year and the best I have seen since my favorite movie, "Pan's Labyrinth". "The Dark Knight"? After seeing "Inception", I'm almost inclined (almost) to say, "Bruce Wayne? Who's that?" But I won't because next to "Let the Right One In", "TDK" was the best movie of 2008. So I'll just let my defense rest on the fact that in 2010, "Inception" reigns supreme, and I doubt any movie this year will surpass it. Not even "The Kids Are All Right", which I am DYING to see.

Babel works because it takes a confusing set of random stories and ultimately ties them together in a believable and breath-taking finale. Don't get me wrong; there's nothing at all wrong with the stories themselves. They're all finely-crafted and enjoyable. Personally, I enjoyed the story of the two boys more than the others. That's not to say that the others are bad, although the Blanchett/Pitt story comes off as a little disappointing considering that these two are the obvious stars of the picture. Pitt gives his standard tough-guy-with-a-soft-side performance and Blanchett is awesome as usual. It's just that their story felt, I don't know, a little less finely tuned than the others but still good. The real breakout star of Babel is Gael Garcia Bernal, who gives the performance of his career and shows that he could be a big dog in the future. If you want to be excited, touched, humored, and tried on for size, then Babel is the movie for you. It's definitely the movie for me. "HELL YES!"

If you are sitting next to someone while watching "The Dark Knight" and that person makes a comment about how much the movie sucks, you should automatically and without hesitation slap them as hard as you can. Let's see, I owe slaps to: Corey W., Saskia D., Julie, Fanad Films Productions and FastLane Entertainment, Lauren, crystalzip2002, (the following are film critics) Michael Sragow of the Baltimore Sun, David Edelstein (WTF?!) of New York Magazine, David Denby of The New Yorker, Marc Savlov of the Austin Chronicle, Stephanie Zacharek of Salon.com (there's a reliable source), and Joe Morgenstern (DOUBLE WTF?!) of the Wall Street Journal, Fernando F. Croce of CinePassion, Brie Beazley of Reel.com, and Joe Lowerison of the San Diego Metropolitan. As you can tell, I was shocked that Morgenstern and Edelstein denounced the movie. But there is one man who I could never slap in my life whom also denounced "The Dark Knight" and that man is A.O. Scott. His reaction to the film shocked me and perhaps disappointed me even more than the other critics'. He calls "The Dark Knight" "the beginning of the end for the superhero craze" and says that "the disappointment comes from the way the picture spells out lofty, serious themes and then...spells them out again". I'm afraid that, as respectful as I am of Mr. Scott, I have to strongly disagree. There is very little that is wrong with this movie, and the little things are forgiveable considering the epicness of the plot. Heath Ledger lived up to the hype as The Joker, Christian Bale was tremendous as Batman, and everybody else played their parts great as well. This is a phenemonal effort on everybody's part. The movie is also very sleek and exciting and full of eye-popping visuals. The scene that everyone was talking about after seeing "The Dark Knight" was the one where the eighteen wheeler is flipped completely onto its top, but there was another scene in which Batman/Bruce Wayne dives from the top of a gigantic skyscraper and, as I was seeing it in the theater, it took my breath away. There is nothing quite like a good escape-in-an-airplane-that-didn't-even-land scene. To make the movie even better and more plausible is the surprising turn that Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) takes at the conclusion of the film. I'm not gonna ruin anything, even though nearly everybody knows what I'm talking about, but it's like a complete revamp of another great character from the Batman universe. Compelling and entertaining throughout, "The Dark Knight" is simply put the best superhero movie ever made. If you say that "Batman & Robin" is, I will hunt you down. "HELL YES!"

Critics that agree with me:
Roger Ebert: ""The Dark Knight"...creates characters we come to care about. That's because of the performances, because of the direction, because of the writing, and because of the superlative technical quality of the entire production. 4 stars."

Richard Corliss, TIME Magazine: ""Batman Begins"...was a mere five-finger exercise. [The Dark Knight] is the full symphony. 4 stars."

Justin Chang, Variety: "Enthralling...An ambitious, full-bodied crime epic of gratifying scope and moral complexity, this is seriously brainy pop entertainment that satisfies every expectation raised by its hit predecessor and then some. 4 stars."

Kirk Honeycutt, The Hollywood Explorer: "Bale again brilliantly personifies all the deep traumas and misgivings of Batman's alter ego, Bruce Wayne. A bit of Hamlet is in this Batman. 4 stars."

Joe Neumaier, New York Daily News: "Twisted, tortured, terrifying - and terrific. 4 stars."

Michael Phillips (finally, we agree on something!), the Chicago Tribune: "Nolan paints an inky portrait of a city falling apart, and in a movie rife with two-faced masquerading freaks, the Joker is merely the least conflicted of the bunch. Ledger?s work is improbably droll, impossibly creepy, meticulously detailed. See for yourself. 4 stars."

Claudia Puig, USA Today: "When was the last time you saw a blockbuster that was impeccably executed and simultaneously thought-provoking, audacious and unnerving while consistently being fun and entertaining? 4 stars."

Kenneth Turan, the Los Angeles Times: "May be the most hopeless, despairing comic-book movie in memory. It creates a world where being a superhero is at best a double-edged sword and no triumph is likely to be anything but short-lived. 4 stars."

absolutely amazing! one of the best movies ever made!

one of the absolute best movies ever made and Al Pacino deserved the Academy Award for Best Actor

Watching it now, I think I felt a little too strongly toward it the first go around. The effects are total crap. When the vampires run, it looks faker than Paris Hilton's acting career. Plus, I don't know if Rob Pattinson was right for Edward. He's a little bland. Kristen Stewart is still great and so are a lot of the supporting cast. That's no problem. The film also does its best to stick to the book, but has some scenes that make Twilight enthusiasts scream foul. I still love this movie, but it's no Harry Potter. "Heck yeah".

Critics who agreed:
Lawrence Toppman, Charlotte Observer: "Pattison grows on us as he grows on Bella: His weird mannerisms and nervous delivery stop seeming like quirks and acquire an intensity that's hard to resist by the end. 3 stars."

Peter Hartlaub, San Francisco Chronicle: "Twilight has a few gory plot turns - mostly offscreen - and one near-sex scene that may offend a few Amish people, but the rest is maybe 33 percent less wholesome than "High School Musical." It's almost certainly less risque than what you were watching when you were 14. 3 stars."

Ty Burr, Boston Globe: "Actually, the movie's a better movie than the book was a book, in part because Meyer struggled to put her characters' galloping emotions into print whereas director Catherine Hardwicke just visualizes them in all their inarticulate purpleness. 3 stars."

Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly: "On screen, Twilight is repetitive and a tad sodden, too prosaic to really soar. But Hardwicke stirs this teen pulp to a pleasing simmer. 3 stars."

Steven Rea, Philadelphia Inquirer: "Twilight - directed with savvy humor by Catherine Hardwicke - turns vampirism into a metaphor for teen lust. 3 stars."

Richard Corliss, Time: "So Twilight isn't a masterpiece -- no matter. It rekindles the warmth of great Hollywood romances, where foreplay was the climax and a kiss was never just a kiss. 2 3/4 stars."

Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times: "Hardwicke has connected so intensely to the Meyer novel that it's hard to imagine anyone else making a better version. 2 3/4 stars."

David Edelstein, New York Magazine: "The best thing in the movie is Stewart. She was the leggy hobo-camp teen in love with Emile Hirsch in "Into the Wild," and she's better at conveying physical longing than any of the actors playing vampires. 2 3/4 stars."

Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune: "The superfast running effects, with Edward dashing up mountains, or rival, evil vampires swooping here and there at amazing speed, look genuinely cheesy, like the guy running the race in the smart-phone ad. I'm surprised Hardwicke and her colleagues couldn't solve this one more effectively. Set pieces such as a vampire baseball game fall flat as well. 2 1/2 stars."

Roger Ebert: "Twilight will mesmerize its target audience, 16-year-old girls and their grandmothers. Their mothers know all too much about boys like this. 2 1/2 stars."

Peter Travers, Rolling Stone: "Bummer. The vampires have no fangs. The humans are humdrum. The special effects and makeup define cheeseball. And the movie crowds in so many characters from Stephenie Meyer?s book that Catherine Hardwicke is less a director than a traffic cop. But there?s a reason that Twilight has already become the movie equivalent of a bestseller: The love story has teeth. 2 1/2 stars."

Absoultely amazing. I was surprised by the authenticity (except for Lindsay Lohan; she just can't get it right!) of this film and I was even more surprised to find out that Emilio Estevez directed it. Really? The Mighty Ducks guy? Wow. If you're looking for a great movie with a terrific cast, Bobby is that movie.

I watched this yesterday and it inspired me so much that words cannot even begin to describe how I felt. The music is awesome and the performances are top-notch. It is truly one of the great masterpieces in film history.

It is such a fantastic movie. I fell in love with all the characters and the plot was unpredictable. The setting was perfect, also. I definitely recommend this to anyone who hasn't seen it.

I just watched this the other day and it is now one of my favs. It absolutely captures what teenagers go through everyday in school.

Oh my gosh what a good movie. It is so shocking and brilliantly directed and the love story mixed in is so sincere and touching. It proves what happens when people spread rumors.

This used to be my favorite movie ever.

I cried the whole movie (and I never cry on movies). It really displays what my Lord and Savior went through just to save little old me and Mel Gibson and Jim Caviezel will from here on out have my respect-one of the best movies ever made.

It is heart-stopping and combines stories in a way that only a true master of film can achieve, and that's exactly what this is--a milestone in American film-making.

Call me an idiot or whatever word you choose, but I liked "Charlie Bartlett" to a degree. Maybe it's because a lot of the things going on in the film have actually happened to me in real life. I don't know. I see all these critics write about how the movie is "based on teen comedies from the '70s, '80s, and '90s" (Roger Ebert), but since when did anybody in any of those movies have a Blackberry? Ah-ha, got you there. Seriously, though, I have not seen one old teen movie with this exact kind of plot, which is somewhat original and fresh, in my opinion. Of course, Mr. Ebert DID pass the film, barely (see below). I think that Mr. Stephen Holden nailed the whole point of the movie with the headline of his review, which stated "High school's the same; the drugs have changed". Indeed they have. In fact, I'm on some of the drugs that Mr. Bartlett (played by a pleasant, if sometimes annoying, Anton Yelchin) prescribes to some of his "patients". That might be another reason I liked the movie. Who knows...or cares? I also found the film to be slightly amusing. There are some parts where I just had to smile. I'm not some hard-hearted ass like a lot of critics are. I'll agree for the most part that the script could have been better; I was bothered by some parts of it as much as the next critic (I was gonna say 'guy', but that's too pleasant). The part that probably bothered me the most was the suddeness of certain situations, like when the principal, played by Robert Downey Jr. (yes, he's in this), finally lets out all his frustration in one big mess. There's also another scene where two topless girls suddenly burst into a hallway out of nowhere, but the movie IS rated R, so there you go. The movie didn't do so well in the box office, and understandably so: it was barely mentioned in the media at the time of its release, it was tagged as an "independent film" despite the prescence of Robert Downey Jr., Hope Davis, Anton Yelchin, and Kat Dennings (The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist), and, plus, did I mention it was rated R? That's like a party pooper for these kinds of movies. It's like an NC-17 rating for a big-budget movie. Despite all of that, I managed to be lucky enough (yes, I said lucky) to see it in the theater with my brother and stepbrother. We had a blast (yes, I said blast). The movie has its flaws, but for my dollar, it's still pretty damn decent and worth anybody's time who can put aside their pathetic meandering and just enjoy the damn thing. "Heck yeah."

Critics who agree:
Kirk Honeycutt, The Hollywood Reporter: "Yelchin delivers one of those performances that pop eyes... It's a breakthrough role...One of the best teen comedies in ages. 80 out of 100."
Ronnie Scheib, Variety: "Rollicking story of a rich kid whose wildly successful bid for popularity has him playing drug-distributing shrink to an entire high school boasts pitch-perfect faceoffs between upstart Anton Yelchin and alcoholic principal Robert Downey Jr. that could fuel a chemistry lab. 80 out of 100."
Claudia Puig, USA Today: "The screenplay, by newcomer Gustin Nash, is inventive and delightful. Like Juno and the darker teen comedies it subtly references, Charlie Bartlett focuses on that singular period in our development that brings both great pain and great joy ? adolescence. 3 stars."
Wesley Morris, Boston Globe: "What the movie lacks in technical polish (it's not very handsome-looking) and dramatic perfection, it makes up for in unusual social sophistication. 3 stars."
Stephen Rea, Philadelphia Inquirer: " With its rebellious themes and pharmaceutical props - Ritalin, Prozac, Xanax all get doled out - Charlie Bartlett isn't going to win any awards from parent-teacher groups. But the underlying message of the film, with its nods to "Catcher in the Rye" and - '70s throwback here - "Harold and Maude," is a good one. 3 stars."
James Berardinelli, ReelViews: "Sadly, the MPAA has acted to keep the movie's perfect audience - 13-to-17 year olds - away from the movie because it has a few too many "fucks" and a brief shot of bare breasts. Hopefully, teenagers will find a way to see the movie, even if they have to wait until its arrival on DVD. In the meantime, Charlie Bartlett is worth the price of admission for those adults who want to think back to high school and find out whether The Doctor Is In. 3 stars."
Jonathan Rosenbaum, Chicago Reader: "A rebellious teen comedy that isn't as good or as radical as Pump Up the Volume, but still feels like a shot in the arm and is full of irreverent energy. 70 out of 100."
Joe Morgenstern, Wall Street Journal: "The film functions as a high-wire act that can leave you giddy with laughter. 70 out of 100."

I don't know if it's better than "Prisoner of Azkaban", but I still immensly enjoyed it. Daniel Radcliffe is great and the director did a great job here with scenes.

Oh my gosh I laughed so hard watching this movie. It is so funny and entertaining and Steve Carrell is an awesome actor.

I laughed, I felt sadness over the fact that J.R.R. Tolkien didn't get to see his creation come into fruition on the big screen, and I left this movie with the feeling that I had never seen anything like it before.

I was really hesitant to watch this movie but after watching it I regretted jumping to conclusions. It is an absolute classic in American movies and worth watching again and again.

I love this movie. It really displays all the emotion of human lives and is very realistic.

incredible

BOTTOM LINE: Not the best Potter, but one of the best sequels you will ever see.

"Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is a better movie than its predescessor in a lot of ways, but it also falls short where "Sorcerer's Stone" did not: staying true to its source material. "Chamber of Secrets" takes a lot for granted in molding itself into a successful motion picture, but this is not a bad thing when the final product is this good. It's still one of the better movies in the Potter series and worth every single amount of your time.

The reason the movie is not perfect is because Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson were not yet at that level of acting that made the later movies really great and because it simply was not the best book as well. The twists are nothing special really. Harry can talk to snakes because Voldemort could, even though we knew from nearly the beginning of "Sorcerer's Stone" that Harry has connections with Voldemort. Another example is how the filmmakers decided to focus on Ginny's obsession with Tom Riddle's diary. She is almost in love with that thing in the movie when in the book she was kind of scared of it but nonetheless attracted. Nearly everything else in the movie is done right though. Moaning Murtle is annoying, which is expected and pleasing. The Chamber of Secrets is a cool place, like we imagined it would be when reading the book. Harry is confused about being a Parseltongue and does not understand why this is relevant.

It's truly a really good movie and even if you've seen it fifty times, you should see it again. "Heck yeah."

BOTTOM LINE: The beginning of something special and it is special in its own right.

"Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" was the start of one of the best franchises around. Nobody expected the film to be this explosive or for the name of Harry Potter to expand this far. And it's all because of this, a great movie that both kids and adults will like, and one that will go down as the beginning of something special and remarkable. And it's not even the best movie in the series.

"Sorcerer's Stone" is remembered because of its willingness to stay as close as possible to its source material, something not a lot of movies can succeed at doing but something that it pulled off spectacularly. I was amazed watching the movie in the theater when I was but 14. Back then, I thought it was the greatest thing ever; now, I still think it's pretty damn good.

This movie will stay in the back of the minds of even the people who hate Harry Potter and everything that he stands for because of its Star Wars-like nature. It began as an idea and became a phenomenon. "Heck yeah."

It was good but once again, as is common, did not beat the first.

The second-best film in the series (next to Order of the Pheonix) and the most imaginative adaptation of a Potter book to date

This is an outstanding start to the Star Wars series.

It's the worst Star Wars but is there really a bad one? Hayden Christensen's acting leaves much to be desired but it's alright.

what a satisfying finish to the epic Star Wars series

Good damn movie.

my gosh I've watched this movie oh so many times and it just gets better every time

The second best in the series.

Tom Cruise stars in one of the greatest movies ever made

the greatest love movie ever made

Peter Jackson just keeps on amazing me

love the look and witty conversation

The first really great film in American movie history.

surprising!

An absolute masterpiece Steven Spielberg is such a great director

the best Rocky since Rocky V lol

one of the best Rockys in the series

This is the best Rocky movie since the first and before the last.

the worst Rocky movie, but it's just like Star Wars--there isn't a bad one

This is not as good as the first one (none of the other Rockys are, with the exception of Rocky Balboa) but all the Rockys are good and this is one of the better ones.

great movie and really realistic

Tarantino's sequel is better than the first.

Quentin Tarantino at his best!

another one of my favorites

It was better than the first one.

the best film in the series

just got done watching it and it was great

delves into that nightmarish part of your mind that you never thought existed

Will Smith should have won Best Actor for this film--he makes everything believeable, and in the end, this turns out as a good movie.