I'll never recover from the giant mosquito scene though...ick!

lol that's the best part!

Watched The 5th Element last night, brought back memories.
And recently The Green Mile for the first time, can't say I liked it at all, too weird. But I'm slowly trying to watch every Tom Hanks movie.

I really like Tom Hanks in "Apollo 13". that is a really gripping movie!

Definitely agree about Apollo 13, Liberty. I was a space geek back in the Apollo days, and in many ways that movie is an accurate portrayal of exactly what happened back in 1970.

Purists can nitpick on some details and anachrononisms (such as the presence of coffee makers - not invented yet - or that argument in space, which adds a little spice but transcripts indicate didn't happen), but Hanks' portrayal of Lovell - in the astronaut's own words - is a good one.

And seeing the launch scene sure brings back memories of watching those awesome Saturn V rockets thunder away back in my teenage days.

Apollo 13 was a good movie. I think that was the 2nd movie that I really remember seeing in the theaters as I was growing up. I just can't remember whether I saw it before Braveheart or not. The first movie I ever saw theatrically, and don't really recall it was Follow that Bird! (a Seseama Street movie). I was quite autistic back then (I have Asperger's for those that don't know) and I can actually remember going up and down the isles during the movie, couting the numbers on the seats (numbers were my fixation). Yeah, I had an interesting childhood that only those who knew me from back then know about.

I was at the mall today looking for stuff (like jeans for my Colorado and St. Louis trips coming up) and I picked up two DVD's: GI Joe (yes, I was that impressed by it) and Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian. I gave my GI Joe review a page or two back and I will say that it is MUCH better than I expected. Plot line and acting are decent. Comparable to better than the X-Men, Transformers, etc. Action was good. But the real strength was characters/development. I can't recall a film that has so many characters, yet developed them quite well in such a short time. (Snake and Storm Shadow had a combined 2-3 minutes for thier background and it was excellent.)
NatM2: plot, not quite as good as 1. Action is better. Music is better. Comedic level without getting ridiculous, better. Characters, awesome. And how can you argue against Ka Min Ra's lisp? Great movie. Both NatMs are the only Ben Stiller movies I have liked and that's because they are clean films good for the family.

While you're on the topic of 'space'. An interesting factoid. Many internationals were upset with the lesser picture quality of the moon landing in 1969, thinking it was Australia's fault (at Parks). But the truth is that we delivered superior picture quality but the US wanted to broadcast it from their own, resulting in a lesser quality. Not to gloat but I thought it was cool. And just so no-one thinks I'm off-topic, I'll return - I believe the movie, The Dish illustrates this nicely.

Apollo 13 was a good film, although I lost my VHS copy a decade ago. I hate that they cut funding to go back...I was really hoping to see another moon landing in the next decade or so, now we'll have to wait a lot longer.

As long as we're on Sci Fi movies what did all of you think about the movie Contact? I'm content to just watch the first 3 minutes, hit rewind, and then watch it again. Jaw dropping stuff!

Definitely agree about Apollo 13, Liberty. I was a space geek back in the Apollo days, and in many ways that movie is an accurate portrayal of exactly what happened back in 1970.

Purists can nitpick on some details and anachrononisms (such as the presence of coffee makers - not invented yet - or that argument in space, which adds a little spice but transcripts indicate didn't happen), but Hanks' portrayal of Lovell - in the astronaut's own words - is a good one.

And seeing the launch scene sure brings back memories of watching those awesome Saturn V rockets thunder away back in my teenage days.

I was privileged to attend Johnson Space Center's first open house after Apollo 13 came out. Gene Kranz, Gerry Griffen, John Aaron, and Jerry Bostick were in attendance. They talked about how the movie combined several elements including the fact there was more than one burn to keep them on course because of time.

I've read the book (actually have two versions (the original and the anniversary edition)) several times and I am one of those who can pick out the details that are off from the original story. I've got the book on the making of the movie and I love the behind the scenes stories. NASA offering the original Mission Control to film in, but they turned it down because of the camera tracks. They had to ground the KC 135 they were using to film in because of stress cracks in the engine block from so many parabolic arcs.

Apollo 13 is a great movie.

I watched Terminator Salvation for the first time last night. It was better than I expected it to be, but since I thought it was going to be crappy, that's not saying a whole lot.

What I did like: Seeing different types of Terminators was cool. They came up with some really neat designs and the special effects were decent enough. The mecha Terminator was pushing it a bit though. Sam Worthington and Anton Yelchin were both really good in their roles. The little girl, Star, was the rare kid in an action movie that wasn't annoying and actually served a purpose besides looking cute and being imperiled. I halfway expected her to start blasting away at Terminators when she first popped up with that shotgun thing.

What I Didn't Like:
The writing and characterization and some of the acting was awful. There's no other way to put it. Large chunks of the story either don't make sense or just don't work. Marcus has essentially no backstory. Was he really a murderer? How exactly did Skynet know it needed to kill Kyle Reese? I still don't understand if Serena

Most of the characters are extremely one-dimensional. The Resistance leadership is basically there to get in John's way and look stupid. Barnes' role was pointless, and to be quite blunt, so they could say they had a diverse cast. And Blair especially irritated me. A definite Token Action Hero Barbie. Sorry, McG, Sarah Connor was made of awesomeness. You have to work harder than that if you want Blair to be the Second Coming of Sarah Connor. I was actually pretty excited about Bryce Dallas Howard, Christian Bale, and Helena Bonham Carter all being in the movie, but was ultimately disappointed. Bryce was completely underutilized. Megan Fox could have handled the teeny tiny part they gave her. Bale spent the entire movie yelling and being gruff and stoic. Is it possible to be less than one-dimensional? Honestly, I was more than a little upsetAnd HBC's role in the movie was a huge disappointment.

Anyway, it was an all right movie, but nothing fantastic. The first two were exponentially better.

Aww...I didn't think T4 was that bad. I gave it 4 out of 5 stars, plus two simply because it depicted A-10's on strafing runs (every movie should have A-10's making strafing runs ) on cyborgs. The plot did have its weaknesses but at long last we're treated to the future, no stuck in the past with only tantalizing glimpses of that future world. They could have done a whole lot worse with Blair's character. As it was she didn't get on my nerves, served a function, and was an A-10 pilot to boot (I can keep running this A-10 thing for a month if I'm allowed to ). There were a lot of questions that I had that mirrored the ones you have, although I wonder if that's something they'll clear up in the next film.

Hopefully it will still have A-10's.

*suspects Shadowlander likes A-10's*
I'll agree it was cool to finally be in the future, seeing the war against Skynet. I just think they didn't do it right.

I'm probably being a little harsh on Blair, but it seems like female characters only come in two flavors in action-y movies. The annoying helpless damsel the hero needs to save constantly (see Mary-Jane Watson) and the Action Hero Barbie, who they throw in so they can point and say "Look, there's a woman shooting things. We can so do strong female characters." But then half the time the AHB gets into trouble and needs to be rescued by the male hero, which just makes her seem really ineffective and useless.

Oh, and one more thing. What the heck where the Connors thinking

Hey, Blair did shoot down an HK, and with her 30mm rotary cannon no less! (Available only in ...you guessed it, the mighty A-10! )

I tend to agree with you on female roles in modern movies. Mary Jane Watson could have been an opera singer, pushing the envelope of voicebox endurance with the excessive use of her vocal chords. But occasionally Hollywood does get it right. One of my favorite cinematic female characters is Ripley from the first two Alien films. Here's a woman who starts out afraid (and who here wouldn't be in the same situation?) but takes charge and doesn't take any nonsense from anyone, let alone any of her Marine companions. In fact she demonstrates such fortitude and natural leadership skills that these combat hardened troops end up following her orders (including the platoon commander) by the halfway mark of the film in kicking some major xenomorph behind. That, my friend, is what it should be like, not Mary Jane Watson.

Still...Blair was flying an A-10, which is marks up for her in my book.

Honestly, I watched T4 for Anton Yelchin. Taking that into account, I really liked it.

I agree that Bale was somewhat disappointing. But then I had been watching Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles almost religiously before I went to see T4, so John was already in my sympathies and Bale's one-dimensionalness didn't bother me all that much, because it was like a short moment of his life from everything I had seen of him so far.

I didn't like Blair all that much. Marcus was made of awesomeness.

And yes, I was very disappointed in how small a part Helena Bonham Carter got. I also expected her to be some sort of evil cyborg overlady or something like that.

I have yet to see the original three Terminator movies, so I can't compare T4 to them, but as a newbie to the series, I really liked it.

And Anton having such a big part helped too.

P.S."Brooklyn!"

my family and I met Gene Kranz, the man who brought the astronots from Apollo 13 back safly! but I was really young then, so I don't remembr ut very well, but I hear about it every time we watch the movie "Apollo 13"!

I'm with Shadow on Terminator 4 . I kind of wish Christian Bale would play characters that smiled more , but he's great at playing hardened cynical characters like the more mature John Conner of T4 so I didn't have a problem with "one dimensional" acting .

Likewise, I had no problem with Bloodwood's portrayal of Blair. These guys are supposed to be bitter , it's a Dystopic Post-Apocalyptic Future.

And yes, after humanity is nearly exterminated, it makes sense to have as many babies as possible to prevent the extinction of mankind.

Sure, there are the logical incongruities that come along with every Time Travel Tale that involves altering the past to change the future. But that is par for the course. I too was excited that the Future was finally on-screen. It's what I've been waiting for ever since T1, and it didn't disappoint . Way more exciting than the disappointing and non-canonical Sarah Conner Chronicles.

Then who could not like the

And no Sci Fi Action flick would be complete without Michael Ironside . And has anyone mentioned the A-10s ? Great Special Effects. 4 1/2 stars out of 5 .

GB

one of my favorites is Inkheart, though that is probably obvious from my avatar!
anyone else like Inkheart?