I saw Reign of Fire many years ago and generally liked it. If I recall the plot there were a whole mess of dragons but they were almost all totally female and the big one was a male and lived in London.

I remember being amused by McConaughey's tale of flying his ragtag group of mercs over in a C-5 Galaxy with one working engine (!!!!)...that with a M1 Abrams tank in it at that! In reality the C-5 can take off with approximately one M1 Abrams in it, and it uses most of it's fuel just taking off and climbing to altitude. McConaughey's C-5 would have run out of gas long before it got to England, and that's assuming it had 4 working engines when it took off. But C-5's do break down a lot, so that part of the movie was accurate . [/airforce nerd]

Otherwise it was a fun little movie, although critics gave it something of a savage beating and it gets a lot of hate. And regarding it's lack of dragons, the monster I can't see makes me a lot more troubled than the one I can.

PJ's King Kong Extended Cut???? That movie already felt like it occurred over an Epoch and I'm not sure how people made it through in the theater without at least one restroom run. It was a decent film with pacing issues and it was certainly better than the 1970's version with the helicopter gunships attacking Kong on top of the World Trade Center versus the biplane fighters at the Empire State Bldg....although that film is something of a guilty pleasure . I think PJ tried to do with King Kong what he did with LotR and the result was that it just couldn't be done. It's a decent film, but I have a hard time sitting through the whole thing in one run...more like a movie that I watch over a day or two.

Lol about the C-5 inaccuracies. Thankfully if it's a Sci-Fi or Fantasy film, I usually forgo expecting accuracy on such things... unless it REALLY sticks out, then I gripe about it.

Yep, PJ's Kong got an Extended Cut. I've never seen the 70's Kong with Jessica Lang all the way through, but PJ's versions is definitely better from what I've seen. Mostly I just wish he hadn't indulged himself with the extreme length and at least made our two lead human characters likable. Ann is fine... till she starts getting all sentimental over Kong. It's about as annoying as the "heros" in The Lost World: Jurassic Park. *sighs*

@ AslansChild. Ah, the 2004 King Arthur is the one you're speaking of. It's very entertaining with some solid characters, an intriguing plot and actually does the whole "this is the true story of King Arthur minus the magic and stuff" rather well.

As far as content, it's very violent and rather on the bloody side. The action scenes have that gritty realism to them like Braveheart... but slightly more stylized. There's one scene near the middle/end of the film where Arthur and Gwenevere start making out... it never goes beyond that, but it's definitely shown for a bit. Oh, and Gwenevere runs around in a barely there "warriors outfit" during the climatic battle. She's panted blue, so not much is seen, but still.

I'd say it's a hard PG-13, so not recommend for children. Teens and adults? Sure.

King Arthur? Hmm... I didn't care the movie and I love all of the legends. It's definitely not a family film. It has some very graphic violence. The movie received an MA15+ here in Australia (that's equivalent to a moderate R).

I just re-watched the 1997 movie "Wild America" - totally even better than I remembered I saw it with my family when it was brand new and I remembered parts of it quite vividly it's an epic film

Devon Sawa...I think my niece had a crush on him waaaay back in the day. I know I've seen him in a movie here and there, although this one doesn't ring a bell, Libbinator. Of course JTT I've seen in Home Improvement (the snarky son). Not sure who the other kid is, but all you need is an elephant, rhino, ostrich, and a platypus and you've got most of the animal kingdom on the front cover.

I recently watched a movie called The Black Death starring Sean "Boromir" Bean.

It's been on Netflix instant watch for a long time and Netflix keeps recommending it to me, so I went ahead and watched it with no idea really of what to expect. The movie is a sort of Medieval Action/Horror film set right in the midst of the Black Death which swept through Europe roundabouts the 15th century and killed about half of the population (estimated). Young monk Osmund (Eddie Redmayne) is a pious chap with a secret. He's in love with his childhood sweetheart Averill. With the Plague reaching a fever pitch Osmund sends Averill off to meet him in his home town in the middle of a forest a week's distance away. She saunters off, and then enters Bean and Co. Bean is a Knight named Ulric, assigned by the local Bishop to track down a town nearby which has so far evaded the plague. Rumors are there's a necromancer about that can raise the dead and the Bishop wants this necromancer captured and brought back for inquisition. Bean is accompanied by a motley collection of characters from a torturer to a kindly veteran of the wars with France. Osmund volunteers to guide the group to their destination as he knows the area as he is from the area, and also wants to meet up with Averill along the way. The group reaches the secluded village and discovers its inhabitants to be a happy go lucky lot who seemingly welcome the group into their midst with open arms, led by the smiling way too much village leader Hob. But is the village all it seems to be?

This was a film that I thought about for several days after I had watched it. The remote village the group is sent to investigate is clean, the local female apothecary seems to have a real knack for healing wounds, and everyone seems to engage in personal hygiene. Why shouldn't the village be free of the Plague? Osmund opines to Ulric that "there is no evil here". But just under the surface is something more sinister than I was expecting, one which made consciously give a second look at our perceptions about the Middle Ages. The film is very dark and there is some language, but ironically this disparate group of no-good-niks that Bean has gathered together at the beginning of the film grows on you and by the end of the film you're actively pulling for them. I think PC and W4J might enjoy the film, as would GB if he'd ever come back. Can't' really recommend to anyone else though.

Four stars out of five for this reviewer!

Thanks, Shadowlander. The Black Death sounds interesting.

@ AslansChild. Ah, the 2004 King Arthur is the one you're speaking of. ...I'd say it's a hard PG-13, so not recommend for children. Teens and adults? Sure.

Okay, thanks...I'll be passing on this one though.

This was a film that I thought about for several days after I had watched it. The remote village the group is sent to investigate is clean, the local female apothecary seems to have a real knack for healing wounds, and everyone seems to engage in personal hygiene.

That's kinda odd. It wasn't called "The Dark Ages" for nothing! They were kinda lacking on the whole-hygiene-thing. So, not real accurate there.

Well, that was the thing. When I first saw it I thought to myself, "Hey, someone smart lives in the village and figured out how to prevent the disease". That was partly true....

I recently watched another film I had reaaaaally been looking forward to seeing called Red Tails, a George Lucas homage to the Tuskeegee Airmen fighter pilots of World War 2. There was much to like about the film (the aerial battles were spectacular), and much to dislike (the lack of character development, weird editing choices), which ultimately leaves me with mixed feelings on the movie. The main characters are fictitious, probably amalgams of several pilots congealed into one representative one for the screen. You really only ever get to meet about a half dozen of them. Cuba Gooding Jr. and Terrence Howard are in the film but not nearly as much as you'd think they are from what you saw on the advertising. The dissolves between scenes are very quick, and it makes the film seem faster paced than I think was necessary.

The dogfights are glorious stuff with P-40's and Messerschmitts dueling in the air, while the heroes of the film occasionally go on strafing runs on ground targets like armored trains and airfields. I just wish there was more of it because with the exception of the two main characters, Easy and Lightning, it felt like many of the actors were unfortunately just there to recite lines and stand in place. It's a good movie, but not nearly as great as it could (and should) have been. I've read that Lucas plans to make a prequel and sequel to the film, but given that the actual wartime activites of the flyers is where most of the interest is focused I'm not sure it'll generate much more if you take that out.

3 1/2 stars out of 5.

We watched Red Tails last month. It was exactly like SL said. I wouldn't watch it again anytime soon.

We are hoping to get to watch The Scarlet Pimpernel (1935) on TCM tomorrow night. But I'm not sure how much of it we will get to see because the Olympics will be on at the same time. Since I haven't seen it before, but I love the book I'm really excited about watching it.

SnowAngel

Sometimes a book can be better than its movie version. Recently I watched The Help, a quite good movie, I thought, about the situation of Americans of African descent at the time of the Civil Rights movement. It relates how three brave women collect the experiences of the domestic help employed by middle class people of the time, and publish a book called 'The Help'.

Having remembered hearing about the civil rights movement from afar, whilst finishing my Leaving Certificate in 1964, I wanted to read the actual book as well. I'm not sure which is better: the movie resolves things a lot more, with more scope for a happy ever after. Perhaps, on reflection, the book is better, because in life there is often no happy ever after for characters, however hard they struggle, and how just their cause. Also, unlike the film, the book was quite positive about the kindness and fair-mindedness of some of the employers, not only the ostracised outcast character who lived out of town.

I did like that the film had one mother apologising for past attitudes, unlike the book. But whilst disliking the main antagonist, for want of a better word, I would have preferred some recognition from her and her chief friend that her vengeful attitude was also wrong.

Another recent movie I caught up with was We bought a zoo. I really enjoyed this movie of a family starting afresh, and appreciated the happy ending.

We did watch The Scarlet Pimpernel and I love it! It was really good. Leslie Howard was the perfect Sir Percy Blackney. Raymond Massey, who is Jonathan in Arsenic and Old Lace, plays Chauvelin very well.

Yesterday, my Dad got Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows from the library. I thought we might wait until Friday to watch it, but we decided to watch it last night. I love it! It was so much better than the first one. I will definitely watch it again and probably buy it at some point.

SnowAngel

Aha! Speaking of Holmes, what's anyone (or everyone's) opinion of those movies? (The Robert Downey Jr. ones, I mean.) I considered buying the first, but I hesitated, I thought something was in it. (e.i : A scene with him having almost no clothes? )

When I first saw him and Watson all dressed in costume, I wasn't impressed. He doesn't look anything like the classic picture of Holmes. BUT, a Holmes film is a Holmes is a Holmes.

Opinions?

I've only seen the first one, so the following comments are based solely on that.

If you approach Sherlock Holmes as an adaptation of the classic books, it's rubbish. BUT, if you approach it as a fun period-piece action romp, it's a hoot.

Content wise, it fits nicely in the PG-13 category with action violence (some played as slapstick), mild language and a bit of "wink wink" stuff regarding Holmes and Irene Adler. The "bedroom scene" you mentioned above is only on screen for maybe a minute tops and is played for laughs (pretty much what you see in trailers is what happens in the film).

Overall, I'd highly recommend giving the Robert Downey Jr Holmes a try. 4/5

If you approach Sherlock Holmes as an adaptation of the classic books, it's rubbish. BUT, if you approach it as a fun period-piece action romp, it's a hoot.

Exactly. I've never read the original Sherlock stories, so I didn't have that impression while going to see the movie. Probably if you aren't able to differentiate between a book/movie, then you won't enjoy the film, but if you can, it is a pretty fun movie. The second one was definetly not as good, the scene where

I don't know if anyone here has seen the movie Secondhand Lions, but I would reccomend it highly. It's family friendly, and very heart warming in a decidedly non-cheesy way. I was pleasently surprised

Aha! Speaking of Holmes, what's anyone (or everyone's) opinion of those movies?

I can also only weigh in on the first Downey Jr. movie. I need to start off by saying that I'm not a Sherlock fan.... at all. This movie was my favorite Sherlock experience out of the books and movies that I've read/seen. I still wasn't madly in love with it, but I thought it was pretty good. As Cor said above, the scene with him mostly naked in the trailer is the extent of what shows up in the movie.

I don't know if anyone here has seen the movie Secondhand Lions, but I would reccomend it highly.

I think I'm the only person in this world who found this movie painfully boring. Everyone else seems to love it though. And it IS clean, which is nice.