Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

After a decade of success the Harry Potter series has come to a conclusion. It all began as a children's story under Chris Columbus's direction in 2001. The first movie, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was a box office success but was largely overshadowed by the first chapter of The Lord of the Rings trilogy amongst the older audience. The third movie, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, directed by Alfonso Cuaron, is still probably the best in the series. It was a drastic change in look and feel: darker and tighter, setting the tone for more mature future development. The next installment, under Mike Newell's direction, acknowledged both this fact and the supposed growing older of the fanbase by moving the series into PG-13 ground.

When David Yates, a relatively unknown TV director, was selected to continue the saga many were puzzled and doubtful. But (un)surprisingly, Yates went on directing all four final episodes. While the material he was working with was not always interesting he managed to bring in some fresh air. Yates succeeded in fleshing out Harry's inner turmoil, which was largely uninteresting up to then. At times his episodes got an almost indie drama touch to them, especially when putting the three main characters against the urban London backdrops. This weird (for a multi-million budget blockbuster) indie inclination culminated in the character drama aspirations of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1. Boring happenings storywise aside, this movie could easily be mistaken for a character driven drama, masterfully filmed by Eduardo Serra.

The closing installment in the series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2, is all about the final confrontation of Harry and Voldemort, the event that the whole series was building towards. It is competently executed fast paced non-stop action with tight script and editing, and in stark contrast with the slow previous episode. Everything is at its best here: the acting of the leads is passable (as opposed to "unbearable" before), the visuals are convincing, the musical score of Alexandre Desplat is the best in the series (and yes, this means better than John Williams's scores for the first three episodes). Unnecessary exposition and overexplanations are shoved aside and the only infodump sequence is beautifully made. The cinematography is great. Eduardo Serra had to fill in the shoes of Bruno Dellbonel (who got an Oscar nomination for filming the sixth episode) and he did exactly that, and then some more: framing is perfect, the camera movement and angles are vigorous, but competent, and the lighting is gorgeous; it conjures some suitably dark atmosphere without the images themselves being unpleasantly dark and making stuff hard to see. And unlike the so-so leads, the seasoned British actors in the supporting roles are all delightfully good.

It is not all flowers and songs, though. Despite a couple of thrilling sequences, battle scenes are not very epic (compared to a certain fantasy trilogy) and may feel small. This is not a fault per se, but is worth noting. There are a few cringeworthy attempts at pathos delivered through pathetic speeches, pun intended. The epilogue closes the cycle and returns the mood back to the first movies which is not entirely convincing. A more contemplative final might have been a better choice cinematically, but apparently fans of the books need to be serviced too.

This final episode is also the first and only of the series with a 3D release. The movie is post-converted to 3D which is usually a bad sign (cashing in on the 3D wave and whatnot). But in this case it is well done and makes the whole 3D experience less taxing. Still, watching this in 3D is not a must so feel free to see it in good old 2D.

In conclusion, this is a very easy movie to recommend (or not): if you haven't seen the previous episodes, there is no reason to go see this one as it is really the last chapter in a series; if you've seen them, you obviously don't need our recommendation to watch this one. The series has certainly been an uneven ride but it is nonetheless an unprecedented undertaking in cinema (and a pop culture phenomenon), and that makes it worth knowing.

For other movie reviews explore our Review Maze.

It's a Wonderful Life (1946): Is It a Wonderful Movie?

When you feel sad or full of frustration and despair, it would be a good time to watch this movie. It's a Wonderful Life is likely to bring back your vitality and trust in yourself and people. It is one of the classic films that will never grow old or boring and despite being shot in black and white Frank Capra's picture is full of color like not too many movies. It shows how valuable the life of everybody is although this fact is often obscure and unrealized by many of us. After seeing this film, a man could think of himself as a more important part of the society and probably raise his own self-esteem considerably.

It's a Wonderful Life is about a guy with dreams who has never had an opportunity to realize them. George Bailey (James Stewart) has spent his entire life sacrificing his longing for travel, his honeymoon, his perspectives of better career and more money in order to help his fellow-townsmen against the greedy and heartless Mr. Henry F. Potter (Lionel Barrymore) who would love to take over the entire city making its citizens dependent on his will and loans. During the years, George becomes more and more frustrated and finally reaches to a point when he is thinking about suicide in result of an unfortunate event. But thanks to the prayers of his wife Mary (Donna Reed), his uncle (Thomas Mitchell), his children and other good people, a wingless angel named Clarence (Henry Travers) comes down to help George in an unusual way.

If the synopsis above has started to sound like a fantasy movie, you can indeed consider the film to be a product of loose imagination. But the presence of fantasy elements only helps It's a Wonderful Life to communicate its main message in a superb and effortless way, and to finish on a high note. The movie does have a happy ending but it is mandatory in this case and since it is anyway a fairy-tale-like film a happy ending fits it better compared to many other Hollywood pictures.

Director Frank Capra is at his best here. The movie has plenty of funny moments in parallel with a good portion of drama. We see George's inner fight multiple times when he is standing on some of the crossroads destining his future life. James Stewart makes one of his greatest performances here and he is a fantastic match for the role of George Bailey. George's romance with Mary Hatch is both beautiful and humorous. Donna Reed makes a good portrayal of one of the Bedford Falls' longing-for-George girls and his future wife. Lionel Barrymore is a convincing "villain" and Thomas Mitchell presents likeable impersonation of Uncle Billy. The movie deservedly has been nominated for the Academy's Best Picture award but not so fairly it has missed to win the Oscar statuette in this category similarly to all other Academy Awards it has been nominated for.

It's a Wonderful Life is a tale for adults but it is a suitable film for the whole family. What I mean by labelling it "a tale for adults" is that if you have some real life experience, you'll be in better position to appreciate this movie's message. The film should definitely help you if you are in a bad mood and think your life is a failure. It can surely kindle your thirst for living once again if you are in one of those unhappy periods of your existence. But as it should be expected from each and every great motion picture, It's a Wonderful Life is a movie you can delightfully watch even when your life is in a marvellous condition. It's a wonderful cinematic experience you can try out anytime.

To read another movie review examine our Review Maze.

Hardware Vs. Software Blu-ray Player: Which Is Better?

In order to build a complete Home Theater system you need media reproduction hardware, i.e., video and audio playback modules, and some equipment to feed these modules with content. Due to the complexity of the video signal compared to the audio, the sound experience has been considerably ahead of its visual counterpart for many years: with the appearance of the compact disc, we have had digital audio since the dawn of the 1980's and various audio technologies are almost perfect nowadays offering high fidelity sound and surround sound systems with multiple channels.

A couple of decades later, the visual side of the hardware has begun to catch up: big high definition two dimensional displays and projectors are now widely adopted, a new generation of 3D displays is gaining speed fast, and good Home Theater experience is more popular than ever.

Conventionally, the media playing equipment has been represented by a box positioned near the TV: either a videotape player, a Laserdisc player, a DVD player, or as of recently a Blu-ray player (or HD DVD player for people not having enough luck to make the right choice in the HD format wars). But over the years, the personal computer has begun to establish a new trend as being an all-in-one machine for education, work and entertainment (like movie playing, browsing, gaming, etc.). A similar approach towards convergence has been shown with the introduction of the newest generation of video gaming consoles. They have moved closer to the PCs in terms of functionality as being advanced media entertainment devices rather than just boxes for gaming.

So, the good old video playing hardware box is more and more often substituted by software running on an already available PC at home. Indeed, the media player software has a bunch of advantages and since the latest broadly popular storage media is the Blu-ray disc, let's look at some of the better sides of the Blu-ray player software over its box / hardware counterpart (of course, pretty much the same is valid for the DVD playing options):

• A software Blu-ray playing product could be considered a part of an all-in-one media entertainment solution.
• BD playback software is to a big extent independent from the particular underlying hardware. And as the desktop PC hardware is modular by nature, this brings three more advantages out.
• A Blu-ray software player can be easily updated with new functionality. Any new features could come with a downloadable software update. The recent introduction of Blu-ray 3D format is a suitable example.
• If you want or need to change your PC's optical drive it will be cheaper compared to a dedicated hardware Bluray player full change.
• If there is a need of more processing capacity with the appearance of new BD profiles in the future then only a CPU or/and a graphics card update can be easily made in the case of a personal computer.
• BD playback software comes with more features compared to any Blu-ray hardware player.
• Since most of the software Bluray players offer free trials, you can test them before making a purchase.
• As most of us already have a PC, the additional price of the software Blu-ray player is lower compared to a dedicated hardware box. Blu-ray player software could be bought for prices as low as $50 and often even for less if you take advantage of a promotional Blu-ray software offer.

Some possible disadvantages of the software players include:

• In the majority of cases, you will need your PC to be situated in the living room. And this may be a problem.
• Compared to a dedicated hardware player, preparation to watch a movie will take a little bit longer.

Regardless of its minor disadvantages, Blu-ray player software will gain more and more popularity as if you already have a computer with a BD drive, you can download a software player instantly, cheaply and you don't need to purchase any additional hardware. In case you are looking for a media playing product like this, you can read our 2012 Windows Blu-ray player reviews in order to make the best choice for your particular needs.

For more software reviews examine our Review Maze.

Almost Famous (2000): Almost Great

Some people like Almost Famous because of its cleverness, honesty and truthfulness. But although there are some elements of these in the movie, Almost Famous is still not much different than the typical Hollywood feature. This does not prevent the film from being a good effort but it is hardly so close to reality as people try to describe it. There is drama, comedy, small twists and of course a happy ending... What else would you expect from a Hollywood movie?

Almost Famous tells the story of William Miller (Patrick Fugit) who is a 15-year-old wannabe rock music critic. He luckily gets the chance to write a story for Rolling Stone magazine about Stillwater, an "almost famous" rock band which he accompanies on their American tour. William is not alone in the world: he has an exacting mother (Frances McDormand) who loves him very much and is always worried about him; he has a mentor in the field of rock journalism - Lester Bangs (Philip Seymour Hoffman); and there are several young girls (groupies) travelling with the band who take care of William. He also seems to be a good friend with Stillwater's members but do they consider him a pal or he'll remain their "enemy" forever...

Almost Famous is undeniably a good movie. The story is interesting. William sees a lot of new things about life, love, drugs, betrayal, etc. and it is easy to like him. The direction is fine. The acting is quite strong. Kate Hudson makes a very nice performance as the famous groupie Penny Lane (though she and her colleagues prefer the term "Band Aide" instead of groupie). In this movie, Hudson is capable of bringing a sad smile to your face. Frances McDormand is wonderful as usually in her role of William's mother. You can easily feel the concern about her son and at the same time she is very funny in her attempts to protect him from all bad and evil. The actors playing band members (Billy Crudup, Jason Lee) as well as Patrick Fugit also make decent performances. And of course, we have Philip Seymour Hoffman who has a tiny portion of screen time but makes a memorable appearance as an honest, experienced and predictive rock journalist that readily helps the naive and enthusiastic William in his march towards the success.

The director Cameron Crowe tries to present some of the nasty sides of being a rock musician or a person working/living in rock industry circles. And indeed, the movie manages to make it at times. But somehow Almost Famous suffers from being a Hollywood film. There is a forced happy ending and there are several unbelievable events. Why a magazine would ask a rock star whether an unfavourable article about him is true? What answer do they expect? "Yes, we behave like stupid, immature bastards, go and publish it." There are a couple of other not feasible moments too but let's not spoil the whole movie.

Despite its faults, Almost Famous is an interesting and entertaining picture to watch. Being a movie about music, it could be anticipated that the film would offer a good soundtrack too. And it does. Just do not expect that this is the definitive movie about the rock industry or about journalism. It's a motion picture after all thus it's a bit disconnected from reality. But if you don't insist on learning everything about the real doings of "almost famous" people from this source only and you enjoy movies about music, go ahead and watch the film.

For more movie reviews explore the Review Maze.

The Postman Always Rings Twice (1981): Not Fully Engaging

If after seeing Jack Nicholson's and Jessica Lange's names on The Postman Always Rings Twice cast list you've expected to watch a great film you will be most likely unpleasantly surprised. The Postman Always Rings Twice from 1981 is a remake. And as it often happens with movie remakes this is not a very good one. Bob Rafelson has tried to make a more modern and open-minded version of the film but while he succeeds in this attempt, the movie lacks heart and it barely keeps you involved into any of the events that happen.

The film is based on James M. Cain's novel and it is about the attractive and unsatisfied wife Cora (Jessica Lange) of Greek roadside saloon owner Nick Papadakis (John Colicos) and the crude vagabond Frank Chambers (Jack Nicholson) who is incidentally hired by Nick. Cora and Frank start an uneven affair that finally evolves in a plan for murdering her husband. Naturally, there are complications of all kinds and various fatal coincidences happen all the time. How everything will end is up to you to discover if you decide to see the movie.

While the plot is moderately interesting and could be a premise for a decent movie, in reality The Postman Always Rings Twice does not effectively turn the plot into a good feature. Motivation of the main characters changes quite too often for such important decisions they have to take. Cora's and Frank's behavior is frankly chaotic. At the same time, the pacing is somehow slow. There are too many coincidences for a serious drama. And in addition to all of these, there is not enough heart in the movie as I've already mentioned. The audience cannot dive deeply into the film and cannot associate with its characters.

The acting of the leads is overall good but the truth is that Jack Nicholson being one of the greatest actors of our time has had many better performances than this. Jack demonstrates a solid acting as usual but he does not seem to be the perfect match for his role since he does not present to the viewer a real look and feel of a hard-hearted drifter. Jessica Lange is an appropriate choice for the part of Cora but another unsuccessful side of the movie is that there is not enough chemistry between Cora and Frank. Even the famous sex scenes between them seem somehow forced and unnatural. John Colicos makes a good portrayal of Nick Papadakis and there is a short appearance of Anjelica Huston which is also not bad but both are not enough to compensate the lack of genuine passion and involvement in the picture.

1981's The Postman Always Rings Twice is mildly intriguing and unfortunately even less engaging. It has some sparks here and there and it is not a complete waste of time but the main question should be is it worth watching when there are so many other great movies released through the years. The answer could vary depending on who's asking. In general, if you are a more casual movie viewer you can skip this film and watch one of the better pictures starring either some of these actors or whoever else. If you are seriously into the movies and you've already seen thousands of films, well, you can see this one too.

For more reviews of movies examine the Review Maze.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon - Bigger, Louder, Messier

The new Transformers movie, a.k.a. Transformers 3, a.k.a. Transformers: Dark of the Moon, is everything you would expect from it: loud, colorful, stupid and pathetic. All that presented in glorious 3D. It is a big and relatively long movie with a lot of everything. And by being so exorbitant it transcends its stupidity and turns it into a statement.

The movie's massiveness leaks in every scene. It starts with a totally unnecessary and messy sequence showing the inception and execution of the Apollo flight to the Moon. This sequence mixes documentary shots with staged scenes and serves as an extremely boring introduction. All the more boring considering how it is all told in the trailers already. It really is about time summer blockbusters leave Kennedy docu shots to rest. They were only semi-interesting the first one hundred times. Transformers: Dark of the Moon also has Buzz Aldrin (the second guy on the Moon) playing himself. Ain't that grand?

This intro sequence is quite symptomatic cause randomness is all over the movie. One part due to the laughable script. Scenes and characters consistently lack motivation. Stuff happens for the sake of it. Scene after scene, the Autobots come to save the day (and our heroes) after the forementioned heroes have struggled for 20 minutes of screen time while the Autobots have seemingly been relaxing around in the meantime. Boy, these Autobots certainly have a thing for dramatic entrance. Speaking of the dramatic, Transformers: Dark of the Moon sports an excess of lame pathos.

There is a horde of wacky supporting characters. Apparently Bay liked John Turturro so much from the first two Transformers movies that he now has him and a whole bunch of other weirdos, played by Frances McDormand, John Malkovich, Alan Tudyk and Ken Jeong. Having such actors playing these random wacko roles is so self-indulgent in its pointlessness that it is impressive. It is almost like if Bay was looking for some kind of artistic credibility by casting them. Oh well, we surely don't mind and here go our congrats for their fat paychecks.

Continuing the excessiveness is the large cast of new transformers (mostly Decepticons). There are more of them and they all lack the slightest bit of personality. This is an inherited problem from the first two movies, but worth mentioning anyway. From the Autobots only Optimus and Bumblebee have any distinctive personality. There are, of course, a bunch of smaller transformers which are probably inspired by the more recent George Lucas' works. At least, they can successfully rival his creations in their annoyance.

One thing you can't accuse Bay of is the lack of style. His style may be too obvious, or insultingly straight to the point of being cringe-worthy, but it is still there. It is interesting how his trademark slow motion shots and fast action cuts mix with the 3D environment. Fast cuts and 3D don't mix well in general (the eye needs time to accommodate spatial changes). Bay has slowed down a bit in this department. Action is still fast cut, but not to the point of the previous movies. The filmmakers have also utilized both on-set 3D image capture and post-processed 3D (for the slow motion scenes, of which there are plenty).

Now for the good stuff: hand-to-hand mech combat can't go old (too bad there is not much of it); the new girl is not a worse actress than Megan Fox (which doesn't say much, indeed); depending on your attitude, you may find the wackos mentioned above mildly amusing.

In conclusion, Transformers 3 is a glorious mess. It is a huge and noisy flick that you may find occasionally interesting if you are willing to not grumble over the boring, annoying and insultingly stupid parts (which is most of the movie anyway). It will also keep you informed of the way Hollywood is going to. So, yeah, that's something.

For more reviews of movies explore our Review Maze.

Wizz Air and flibco.com Follow-Up: The Actual Experience

Let's follow up my unfavourable reviews of WizzAir.com and flibco.com websites with the actual experience both services offer. If you haven't read those reviews and you are not familiar with these companies, note that Wizz Air is a low cost airline company and flibco.com offers a shuttle bus service. Both of them operate in Europe.

Wizz Air (wizzair.com)

In addition to not having a user-friendly site, Wizz Air has also some room for improvements concerning their actual service. Contrary to many other big airline companies which advise you to arrive at the airport at least 2 hours in advance of your flight, Wizz Air want you to be at the airport just 40 minutes before the departure time of a particular flight. But when you arrive at the airport even much earlier than the aforementioned 40 minutes, you are unpleasantly surprised by the large queue of passengers waiting in front of the check-in desk and you become even more sick after seeing the enormous line of people waiting for security check. The reason appears to be that there are several Wizz Air flights in a short span of 10 minutes but nevertheless this does not comfort you at all.

When you finally pass through the check-in desk (after you've been waiting for nothing more than just leaving your luggage there), if you ask Wizz Air's employees how do they expect that all those people waiting for security check will manage to board their plane on time, the answer you receive is "once you're here, we will wait for you to board". Well, at least we won't miss our flight but the result is that at the announced departure time, the passengers have not reached further than the boarding gate. I suppose this happens every time so it is strange why Wizz Air do not change something.

Independently of the late departure, the pilots managed to overtake the delay and the plane arrived on time. I do not know if this is actually good or bad from a safety perspective if it is at expense of a higher than recommended speed. And while speaking of the pilots, the plane took off very smoothly and also the landing was Ok. Yes, there was something good at last. Another not so pleasant experience was the very short legroom on the plane but it was expected. And finally, not something mandatorily bad but somehow strange was that we had to walk from the boarding gate to the plane and vice versa at two of the airports. It was a new experience for me.

flibco.com

Concerning flibco.com shuttle bus service there were not any unpleasant surprises. The buses arrived on time and reached their destinations promptly. The seats were comfortable (much more comfortable than the seats on the Wizz Air planes) and adjustable. Online reservations worked just fine and driving was safe. Frankly speaking, flibco.com bus service was really good and offering a much better journey than the one you would expect after using their website.

To recapitulate: While flibco.com shuttle service is far better than their site and there is nothing to be desired from their buses and drivers, Wizz Air have to make improvements not only concerning their web site but also in regard to their actual airline services. The flights seem safe and this is definitely the most important thing when speaking of airline carriers but there are other things that could be easily made better and that would offer Wizz Air's passengers a more pleasant and satisfying experience.

For more reviews of services go through our Review Maze.

Super 8 (2011): J.J. Abrams' Love Letter to Filmmaking

Judging from the trailers of Super 8, many would think director J.J. Abrams wanted to create E.T. for the new generation. This is somewhat contradictory in itself considering the Super 8 movie is set in the late 70's. Even though it does refer to producer Steven Spielberg a lot, most notably to E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, it is also not a remake of these. So, in a way, Super 8 is probably more like a recreation of a childhood fantasy.

Unlike E.T., the alien creature does not take center stage until late in the movie. And this is for the best, because the alien is the weak part of this movie. Super 8 is at its best while focused on the children and keeping the extra-terrestrial in the background. The children themselves are excellent: in their childish determination to make a zombie flick and in their sense of exploration once things get serious. Performances are good throughout the children cast, with the kid in the main role deserving a special mention, considering this is his first film.

Super 8 has a nice 70's/80's feel to it (unlike the recent example of X-Men: First Class, which failed miserably in recreating the 60's). And this comes from both the atmosphere (songs, cars, scenery in general) and the way the movie itself is made. The film is shot with anamorphic lenses which is not a very popular choice as of late (Star Trek, the previous film of J.J. Abrams, was also shot anamorphic, so apparently he does have a thing for this format). The anamorphic artifacts (wide lens flare, vertical smear in out of focus areas, etc.) reinforce the old school feeling. So do the light and the mostly frivolous music as well as the dialogue and situations with a slight touch of non-realism and on the edge of over-the-topness.

Pretty much the only weak thing about Super 8 is that the movie loses some steam once the E.T. comes into the foreground. The creature's design does remind of the monster in Cloverfield a bit. And it is simply not very interesting, both visually and thematically. Luckily, this only happens at some time in the last third of the movie. Still, it is somewhat unfortunate, as a good ending would have made a remarkable film out of an already good movie.

So, in recap: an easy sci-fi recommendation. Super 8 might not be as good as its Spielberg inspirations but it does show what a summer blockbuster should be. Now lets see what Cowboys & Aliens has to offer in the extra-terrestrial department.

Go through our Review Maze to discover more movie reviews and articles.

Sliding Doors (1998): Avoid Big Expectations to Enjoy It

Sliding Doors is one of those movies you are not quite prepared for when you read their synopsis. A couple of days ago, I partially watched this film again catching it accidentally on TV more than a decade after its initial release and I immediately remembered my pleasant surprise from the movie in the late 90's. At the time, after reading Sliding Doors synopsis, I expected a completely uninteresting and boring film but in fact I was wrong. Of course, it's possible that the lack of any hope for a good experience has been also important for my final appreciation of the movie.

In an attempt to make another confusing synopsis, here is a brief summary of the movie. Sliding Doors is about a young woman who is just fired from her job. On her way home she tries to catch a subway train and from that point on, the movie forks. There are 2 parallel worlds: in one of them Helen (Gwyneth Paltrow) catches her lover Jerry (John Lynch) with another woman (Jeanne Tripplehorn) in their bed and she tries to change her life including dating another man James (John Hannah); in the other universe, Helen continues her existence unaware of Jerry's cheating and not making radical changes.

It might sound not very interesting and honestly Sliding Doors is not a must see movie but if you approach it without any big expectations, chances are you'll find it entertaining. It's not the most realistic film but who would expect a believable movie given the premise above. There are enough funny moments to make you laugh and the use of various types of sliding doors throughout the movie adds to the experience. A smart decision of the moviemakers has been to present Helen with different hairstyles in both of the parallel worlds thus making it really easy to differentiate between them.

The performances of the main characters in Sliding Doors are good although the screenplay does not offer the cast many opportunities to show extraordinary acting abilities. Gwyneth Paltrow plays both Helens convincingly and she is beautiful in both of her impersonations. John Hannah is charming as James and his Scottish accent is fascinating. There is real on-screen chemistry between Hannah and Paltrow. Jeanne Tripplehorn is a nice match for a seductive and possessive woman while John Lynch makes us to believe that Jerry really does not know what he wants.

To be objective, Sliding Doors has its flaws. There is not much character development, the plot offers standard twists and solutions, and some of the events in the movie are probably more appropriate for a pure comedy or parody than for a film with elements of drama and romance. Nevertheless, I believe the main purpose of the movie has been to present an easily accessible and not too serious exploration of the completely various directions a single person's life could take depending on an almost insignificant everyday occurrence.

If you've ever thought what it might have been if you've left your car home instead of driving to your work or whatever other "what if" comes to your mind, you are in a good position to appreciate Sliding Doors.

Explore our maze of reviews to read more movie reviews.

flibco.com Shuttle Bus Service: Unfriendly Website Again

After reviewing Wizz Air website as an online place not offering a pleasant customer experience, let's continue this trend with another user unfriendly site flibco.com, the online presence of a Luxembourgish bus shuttle service operated by Sales-Lentz. The service offers bus transportation between several Western European countries primarily connecting Luxembourg with a couple of secondary airports in adjacent lands. As we are going to see, not only airline companies offer terrible websites but the same is also valid for other kinds of carriers independently of the assumption that a transportation service depending mainly on web reservations should offer a good online service too.

My particular experience with flibco.com started with their website not working with IE 8 and the browser constantly crashing and restarting itself but I'm not sure if the problem has been in the site itself or there are some compatibility issues between my computer and flibco.com. So, let's assume it is not a sin of the site and continue with its true flaws.

Similarly to Wizz Air, flibco.com does not offer a shopping cart, so if you want to book tickets for more than one route or for several trips, you have to proceed with the reservations one by one. Of course, this is tedious process because your booking data is not saved at all. It doesn't matter if you've entered your information correctly or not, you have to re-enter it every time. And at the end of each reservation you must enter your payment details again, too.

Another pretty annoying issue is that flibco.com forces you to enter a "flight destination". First, somehow the site assumes that a flight destination exists when this is not mandatory to be the case for you and second, even not all of the possible airports in neighbouring European countries are listed in the dropdown box, not to mention other cities. Naturally, if you miss to fill in this field, all of your information is deleted and you have to re-enter it again, so it is better to put something in (obviously, in many cases, it will be whatever flight destination you like from the available options in the dropdown list). It's a solvable problem but it's another nonsensical requirement anyway.

During the booking process you'll be referred to "my flibco.com", for example, to print your reservations. It might seem like a mistyped URL to you but in fact, it's not. This is a section on the site where you are able to access your purchased tickets. Still, its name is confusing when you read it among other pieces of text thus I count it like another user-unfriendly feature of the website's design.

To sum it up, flibco.com is not the friendliest site out there and I just hope their bus service will be better than the online booking experience they offer. At least it's not an airline company so I'm slightly less concerned in comparison to what I should expect from Wizz Air's flight service.

Examine our maze of reviews to discover other reviews of services.

Wizz Air: A Low Cost Airline Company with a Terrible Site

Several days ago, I had to make flight reservations at WizzAir.com for a couple of flights in Europe. While I haven't made myself sure yet that Wizz Air airline service is also a low quality one in addition to being low cost, I can definitely say that Wizz Air's website is terrible and very user unfriendly.

I have always wondered how it regularly happens that big companies with a considerable amount of constant expenses cannot manage to put aside some resources once in order to create a decent web site. It's even more shocking when talking about companies whose business is very closely related with the Internet. Apparently, Wizz Air's website offers one of those nasty web experiences and frankly speaking, in result of that "user friendliness", I'm quite concerned about the quality of their airline service too.

To start with, there is not a shopping cart at Wizz Air website (so you are not able to make more than one reservation at a time). If you want to buy tickets for several flights, you have to go through the whole process again and again. Of course, if some kind of error happens (and errors do happen often at WizzAir.com) you'll have to make even more iterations entering your details. It's not the world's end but it's really boring when you do the same thing several times in a row.

The next surprise coming from Wizz Air is that entering your address is mandatorily. But the surprise is even bigger because the address field is so short, you practically cannot enter even a middle-length address. Of course, this makes the requirement for entering your address redundant and mostly annoying because you have to enter something anyway though it is not your actual address.

Now, another weird event follows at WizzAir.com. You make a reservation for a flight and the prices are shown automatically in a particular currency (probably the one that is somehow considered to be best for you). Then you make a reservation for another flight and oddly enough the currency is automatically changed to another one. In both cases if you decide to choose another currency some unpleasant exchange rate is applied so you unwillingly prefer to keep the automatically proposed one in either case.

Certainly, the above has not been all the charm you can get from Wizz Air's website. Since Wizz Air is a low cost airline company you are charged separately for almost anything that may come to your mind. There are baggage fees, extra legroom seat fees, credit card booking fees, etc. One of the possible fees is for a check-in at the airport. But you have the option to make the check-in online for free at WizzAir.com. Why not, one could think? Well, if you have a big bag you should go to the check-in counter at the airport in order to deposit it so the web check-in is again a kind of redundant option in many of the cases but anyway...

Let's make an online check-in. You have to enter your Wizz Air flight confirmation code and some additional information and then a couple of forms appear which you must fill in. After doing so you hopefully press the confirmation button but (not so) surprisingly you receive a connection error with a message that probably the lines are overloaded. Naturally, all of your information is lost and you have to enter it again. Well, you make a second attempt and this time you get another error: pnrParseError. At least, one cannot complain of error diversity at Wizz Air's website.

Well, I understand that Wizz Air is a low cost company and they offer cheap services but I don't think it will cost them a fortune to implement a user friendly and working site. After all, if they rely on the size of their customer base, having a crappy website is not the best way to attract returning customers. And it is definitely not a good recommendation for a company in a risky business like airline carriers. How a passenger could expect safe flying after going through such a nasty online experience?

Browse our Review Maze to find out other reviews of services.

Priest (2011): An Action Sci-Fi Movie You Can Safely Skip

Priest is the second feature of director Scott Charles Stewart and his second collaboration with Paul Bettany after Legion. Priest is a movie that mixes post-apocalyptic sci-fi, western and the vampire genres and it is based on some Korean graphic novel series of the same name.

The premise of Priest is quite straightforward and cliched and is told in an animated intro (apparently the filmmakers were running on a tight budget). There was a war going on between humans and vampires raging for ages. Humans won the war after their super warrior-monks (a.k.a priests) defeated the vampires. At the time of the movie, vampires live in reservations, humans are closed in cities (think Judge Dredd) and governed by the Church. The order of the priests is disbanded and only a few of them have survived. Vampires in this universe are non-human hive creatures, the only feature distinguishing them from any generic stock monsters being the slaves they occasionally keep to feed on their blood.

The cast of Priest features some heavyweight names. We have Paul Bettany (as the priest), Maggie Q, Karl Urban and a small role for Christopher Plummer. A role of the kind that makes you wonder why they would need an actor of that caliber to play it. Oh well, maybe he lost a bet or owed someone a favor. Or he got some large bills to pay. Anyway, Paul Bettany is pretty much the only redeeming feature of this movie as the lean protagonist. Of course, it is not really an achievement of the film and, more specifically, the script. It is just that Paul Bettany is cool as an action hero. And that was the case with Legion too, so no surprise here.

Considering the director's visual effects background one can expect lots of CGI in Priest and this is indeed the case. Creatures and environment designs are not very inspired, though. There is an overall impression of derivativeness. The movie sports a bleached and contrasty look. Not unlike The Book of Eli in that regard. And, incidentally, Priest was shot by the same cinematographer, long time Robert Zemeckis' director of photography Don Burgess.

To give Priest some credit, the short length of the movie leads to some fast paced story development. But this is brought down by predictable narrative, zero character development, some embarassingly cheap drama (admittedly, a little less compared to Legion) and cliched action sequences. Dull and forgettable. The humorless dialogue doesn't help, either. The 3D is another disappointment. Priest is one of these movies shot in 2D and post-converted to 3D and this shows.

To sum it up: you should probably skip Priest, unless you are a fan of the genre(s). And if you decide to see it, go for the 2D version (if available in your area).

Go through the Review Maze to discover more movie reviews.

Metropolis (1927): Highly Influential Sci-Fi Masterpiece

To call 1927's Metropolis just a classic would be equal to devaluating it. There have been lots of classic movies through the years but not so many of them have been called prophetic, the first science-fiction masterpiece in cinema or highly influential. Fritz Lang's Metropolis is easily all of these and maybe more. It is probably one of the very few films of such an old age that still plays very well nowadays. And it's a pleasure to find out countless prototypes of future movies' characters, machines, cities, etc. while watching it.

Metropolis tells the story of a futuristic city divided into two well defined halves, each of them ignorant of the other. The first society, living on the surface, is wealthy, educated and running the whole town. The second one, living underground, consists of near slaves forming the working power of Metropolis. Freder (Gustav Froehlich) is the son of Joh Fredersen (Alfred Abel), the mastermind of the city. One day Freder sees Maria (Brigitte Helm), a beautiful woman, who is visiting upper Metropolis with a group of children and he falls in love with her. He starts looking for the girl and in the process he discovers the underground worker's city.

Freder witnesses a plant failure and astonished by the hard conditions under which the people are working he complains to his father. Joh Fredersen is not very impressed by the news he already knows and he orders the Thin Man (Fritz Rasp) to watch what his son is doing. Freder goes underground once again and trades his clothes and place with one of the workers. Subsequently, he finds Maria prophesying about a mediator - a "heart" to connect the "head" (the citizens above) with the "hands" (the workers) of Metropolis. Freder decides to help his working brothers while meanwhile his father goes to the inventor Rotwang (Rudolf Klein-Rogge) to seek advice about an oddly sketched plans that have been already found in several workers' pockets in lower Metropolis. Once at his house, Joh Fredersen discovers that Rotwang is working on a humanoid robot...

Even prior to the appearance of Rotwang in the movie, the viewer should be already convinced that this is not an ordinary film. Metropolis is notable with variety of things. Even the aforementioned summary of the plot does not cover all of Metropolis key elements. The movie is quite complex even if somehow illogical. Fortunately, this is the film's only fault and although I have always been keen on criticizing poorly constructed plots, I am going to refrain this time. Metropolis is a home of so many virtues that its only flaw is easily excusable.

Metropolis sports a complex story which makes it a good basis for spawning several remarkable character prototypes. Our main protagonist Freder is a lonely hero who's fighting for justice. We've seen him in countless future movies. Maria, except for being the hero's love, has much more to offer since she is also a prophetess and the main force behind the upcoming changes in Metropolis. But the film's most influential figure is neither Maria nor Freder. Enters Rotwang, the mad scientist dreaming for revenge and destruction. Do you remember how many times you've seen this archetype in sci-fi movies? Countless again... His unrealized love for Fredersen's late wife fuels him with power and anger to produce fearsome inventions. And then there is the Thin Man, the not-so-clever thug with a rectangular and emotionless face. Metropolis has them both with their typical look we get accustomed to see from so many inventor-villains and expressionless cut throats we've met through the years. Rotwang has even an artificial hand. Still sounds familiar?

Read the second part of this article by going to Fritz Lang's Metropolis Review, Part II.

Metropolis (1927): Highly Influential Sci-Fi Masterpiece, Part II

Read the first part of this article by going to Fritz Lang's Metropolis Review, Part I.

Metropolis has not only introduced characters. In addition to Rotwang's artificial hand there are numerous details that have influenced the movies to come. The city of Metropolis with its skyscrapers and highways in the air or its underground section has provided innovative images grown into a standard for futuristic cities. The laboratory of the evil genius Rotwang has been re-created again and again. The humanoid robots have become an organic part of sci-fi cinema. Changing faces is another familiar trick. Introducing places of pleasure like brothels or bars in science-fiction films could also be attributed to Metropolis. And there are even videophones.

Metropolis offers tons of sparkling originality: clock-like behaving workers, some of them operating machines similar to clocks (homage could be seen in the video of Queen's song Radio Ga-Ga); a clock with 10 hour scale in order to count down the time for a working shift; imaginative Pleasure Gardens; a Babel Tower reference; doors closing and opening on their own; a passionate robot dance; light and shadow games; powerful mass scenes. There are plenty of visual effects starting from the look of upper Metropolis with its skyscrapers and highways through the light rings and electrical arcs in Rotwang's lab to the collapsing underground plant.

As a part of German Expressionism, Metropolis manifests most of its characteristics. The performances are over the top, the set designs are stylized, there are plenty of symbols, crowded environments, monumentalism, angular buildings, dark shadows, etc. But Metropolis has influenced thousands of films not only because of its expressionist style but also due to ideas far ahead of their time. You can see mad scientists, humanoid robots, artificial hands, Metropolis-like cities and other of its creations in movies like Blade Runner, Star Wars trilogies, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, Dark City, The Fifth Element, Batman series and so on. And after Metropolis, science has been used quite often in cinema as a cause for an eventual end of humanity.

Metropolis offers also a portion of social elements by depicting classes separation and their mutual unawareness. It shows that a constantly oppressed working class would rebel against its rulers sooner or later. Yet, a leader and good organization are needed in order complete chaos and self-destruction to be avoided. Fritz Lang has created a viable picture of contemporary and future societies divided in classes ignorant of their own needs and interests as well as miscommunicating between each other. But the movie also shows that a wrong leader could be disastrous possibly hinting at the rise of Nazis and their Führer in Germany.

The otherwise silent black-and-white original Metropolis has been "enhanced" through the years with color tinting and modern musical score. Unlike the similar altering of Nosferatu, the musical score here is not such an annoying addition and fits well into the film. Big parts of the genuine picture has been missing for years and occasionally new pieces have been discovered but even now there is not a fully reconstructed original version.

As strange as it may seem Metropolis has aged quite well. The movie magnetically attracts the spectator from its very beginning and contrary to many other films of that era it is not boring or alienated. Metropolis' charm roots partially in the great talent and efforts involved in its making and on the other hand its fascination is coming from the fact that the audience of today is discovering in astonishment where it all has started for the science-fiction genre in cinema. It is a pleasure to find out so many resemblances with future movies and if you haven't gone through this gratifying experience yet, do not postpone it for too long.

Go through our maze of reviews to discover more movie reviews and articles.

Thor (2011): Not Just a Teaser but an Entertaining Movie

Thor was supposed to be just a teaser before the release of Marvel's main attraction this year Captain America: The First Avenger and something to help pass the time until Joss Whedon's The Avengers hits the screens in 2012. It turns out Thor is more than that.

Obviously, the main purpose of the movie is to introduce the character of Thor, one of the avengers. And it does quite a good job of that. While the story itself is predictable and cliched, the film is well paced, well acted and well directed by the competent hand of Kenneth Branagh. His Shakespearean expertise comes in handy during the scenes involving the relationships between Odin and his sons Thor and Loki. And while Anthony Hopkins is expected to perform at top level, the real stars of the show here are Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston, playing Thor and Loki.

Chris Hemsworth is surprisingly good as the flamboyant Thor: charming, confident and audacious. Not exactly Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark level, but somewhere near it nevertheless. He is helped by a restrained script which is not overplaying Thor's ignorance of Earthly matters and customs to the point of silliness, focusing instead on good-natured humour and quickly putting Thor in sync with the place - in a true godlike manner.

Tom Hiddleston as Loki is lean and mean, his calm composure providing a good counterpoint for Hemsworth. Natalie Portman doesn't really have much to do in Thor other than smiling silly and falling for Thor in ten seconds. On the other hand, Stellan Skarsgard is always good to see. Fans of Marvel's series will also be delighted to see a couple of cameos: by another avenger and by Stan Lee, the comic's creator. Not to mention the amount of fan-service spread throughout the movie. And in the unlikely case you haven't heard this yet, there is a scene after Thor's ending credits, so don't rush to the cinema exits.

A high point of the movie is the design of Asgard. It is huge and megalomaniac, but clean and in some ways reminiscent of the game God of War environments. The night scenes set in Asgard are beautiful to behold and deserve a special mention. Bifrost, the bridge between the worlds is also spectacular, albeit conceptually somewhat different than the comic's original and the mythological original of the comic's original (chew that).

On the bottom side, 3D is pointless for this movie. Skip 3D if possible, save a few bucks and watch Thor in 2D. And there is also the mildly annoying issue of the politically correct presentation of the Aesir: neither the comics, nor Norse mythology have black and Asian Aesir in them.

So, to conclude: Thor is an entertaining movie doing more than a fine job filling the gap before Captain America and his shield arrive in July.

Explore our maze of reviews to find out more movie reviews.

CyberLink Released PowerDVD 11

For information about the more recent CyberLink PowerDVD 12 look here: PowerDVD 12 review

Today, CyberLink launched PowerDVD 11, the successor of the most widespread and award-winning DVD and Blu-ray player PowerDVD 10. You can find our latest review of PowerDVD 10 along with reviews of 4 other Blu-ray player software products here. In the current article we will introduce the new features of PowerDVD 11 and its progress towards becoming a universal player for various media playback.

PowerDVD 11 is intended to be your general player for viewing DVD and Blu-ray movies, photos, videos and listening to music. Similarly to its predecessors version 11 continues its expansion toward online experience and in addition to the playback of online content, it offers support for transfer and playback of content from smart devices. Whatever niche there is digital entertainment involved in, CyberLink's video player tries to cover it. Of course, it does not play "any media format from any device" as it is advertised but this is also valid for any other media player so let's forgive CyberLink for the exaggeration.

While not being a tremendous upgrade over its previous version, PowerDVD 11 has some new stuff to offer and here are a few highlights:

• You can play and transfer content from portable devices. Support is offered for Android-based devices and for Apple's iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad.
• You can use your smart device as a wireless remote control for PowerDVD 11 player with the help of a device application called PowerDVD Remote. You are able to control remotely the playback of your DVD and Blu-ray movies, videos, photos and music. You can zoom or rotate photos from a distance as well as using your device in the form of a wireless mouse pad.
• You can use the player for photo viewing of JPG, TIFF, BMP, PNG, RAW, etc.
• You have the possibility to play media files from remote sources either being DLNA servers or social networking sites like Facebook, YouTube and Flickr. You can also upload videos to YouTube directly from PowerDVD as well as commenting on photos and downloading them from Facebook and Flickr.
• The 3D features have been enhanced. You can play Blu-ray 3D movies and there is a native 3D video support.
• You can see significant improvements in the 2D to 3D conversion introduced with the previous release. Conversion of 2D Blu-ray discs is not supported although it has been expected but the feature is working for DVDs and video files including 1080p M2TS so the 2D to 3D Blu-ray conversion could be added in the near future. You can also apply the 2D to 3D conversion to images.
• PowerDVD 11 uses TrueTheater™ to upscale all your video content to near HD quality.
• You can make your home videos look better with the help of TrueTheater. It is able to remove noise, to enhance details and brightness and to stabilize shaky picture.
• There is new Ultra-fast Instant Seek that allows you to search your DVDs very fast for a scene you want to watch.
• As with the previous releases, version 11 offers a very vast video format support, including MKV (H.264), WTV, FLV (H.264), MOV, External Subtitle, 3GP and 3G2.
• BDMV (Blu-ray folders) playback is here once again after being removed in a previous version.
• Device auto-detection has been improved.

CyberLink offer PowerDVD in 3 versions as usual. PowerDVD 11 Standard is the cheapest one with the price of US $49.95 and of course it is the version with most limited options. If you want 3D support you will need at least PowerDVD 11 Deluxe which is priced at US $69.95 and for Blu-ray and Blu-ray 3D playback you have to purchase the most expensive PowerDVD 11 Ultra version for US $99.95. All versions including upgrade possibilities at reduced prices and free trials are available on CyberLink's website. CyberLink's PowerDVD Remote is available at the Apple App Store and Android Market. It costs US $4.99 for PowerDVD Standard version users and it is free for users of PowerDVD Ultra and Deluxe versions.

Check for PowerDVD 11 discount codes by following the link.

Browse our Review Maze to read more software reviews.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)

Despite my under appreciation (at least in terms of their enormous success) of the whole Harry Potter series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 happened to easily outrun all of the previous installments in the contest for the most boring and unbearable experience. It wasn't that I expected something great or entertaining but I was still quite disappointed by the seventh Harry Potter movie. Frankly speaking, after six long years set at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, The Deathly Hallows: Part 1 offers better character drama and development, a lot of dark substance and a variety of new places and happenings. Still, all of these are overshadowed by a boring narrative, chaotic events and unmotivated behavior.

I am not going to delve into lots of details about the movie's story cause it's pretty much clear: Harry Potter continues his confrontation with Lord Voldemort. Harry and his two "inseparable" friends are on a journey to find and destroy the Horcruxes. A lot of people, creatures and things die. Harry is more lost than ever and only the occasional bright thoughts of Hermione (as usual) keep the party moving forward and in satisfactory health. Ron is constantly listening to some kind of a radio (yes, it's a fantasy movie) and an object similar to The Lord of the Rings' ring makes our heroes to act inadequately sometimes. As a bonus, we see a pointless wedding, a dance in the wilderness and plenty of other oddities.

Our heroes are magicians (and supposedly skilled ones) but every "amateur" chasing them out there is able to easily capture them. Wherever Harry goes, he is almost immediately discovered by Voldemort or his servants unless Hermione does some magic. We hear a ton of incomprehensible incantations of which we understand nothing. Most of the times they do not even work. We constantly wonder why Harry, Ron or Hermione is doing this or that. There is hardly any sensible motivation behind the characters' behavior and this is valid not only for the leads. We see Draco Malfoy and his associates wondering if the third person they see in a group with Hermione and Ron is Harry Potter as if Draco (and everyone else) has not been constantly seeing the three of them together for years. When Hermione starts to look for a "mystic" symbol she begins to find it everywhere and to find it with ease: a random grave in a graveyard appears to have it when she removes the dust from it.

Some of the situations are forced. We see Harry Potter letting Ron to perform probably the most important task in this film although he knows Ron has been unstable recently. Of course, the evil does not sleep and the next thing we see is Ron being tempted by the dark side of the force. Some people may argue that Harry has done this on purpose to give an examination to Ron and strengthen their relationship but even if this is the case, what more inappropriate moment to achieve it than this. Also the concept of Harry almost constantly not knowing what to do and everything to be driven and solved by Hermione is annoying at times.

In addition to the above flaws and overall inaccessibility of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1, the whole film is too long and tedious. The movie lacks a tight narrative and a good focus. Many of the events just happen. There is a bunch of expendable characters. Maybe if all of the series have been released over a two-year period similarly to The Lord of the Rings trilogy, the film wouldn't seem so messy. Maybe if you've read the Harry Potter books, the appreciation of the movie could be (considerably) different. But as I've said before I haven't read the Harry Potter books and this is still a valid statement. I've tried to approach the movie as a separate piece of art what it should be independently of the books and the truth is I cannot find it entertaining at all. I've seen worse films, of course, but rarely they've been so valued and successful as this one. I suppose if you are a fan of the books or if you've liked the previous Harry Potter installments and especially if you care for the lead characters, The Deathly Hallows: Part 1 would be good for you. But if you haven't been able to appreciate the series until now, the penultimate Harry Potter film will hardly make a more positive impression on you.

ACDSee Pro 4: Professional Photo Management Software

Note: As of October, 2011 ACDSee Pro 5 and ACDSee Photo Manager 14 have been released.

ACDSee Pro 4 has become already available on the market so here is a short introduction of the product. ACDSee Pro 4 is full-featured photo management software for professionals and advanced photography users. According to its manufacturer, the software combines the best characteristics of ACDSee Pro 3 with a variety of new features and it brings together all the tools you need to treat your digital photos in the best possible way. You can view, manage, process, edit and publish your images online by using just one photo management software application. You are able to organize your photos, improve them with stunning visual effects for best perception results and achieve all you want with ease and quickly.

ACD Systems International Inc. has been one of the leading photo management software providers for both, amateur and professional photographers, since 1993. The company has won multiple awards for products like ACDSee Photo Manager, ACDSee Photo Editor, FotoSlate Photo Print Studio, etc. ACD Systems gained a loyal following offering one of the first shareware software products and a very good JPEG decoder in the 1990's. They have offices in the USA and Canada and a really large user base including millions of customers. So here is some more information on their new product (you can read about its previous reincarnation ACDSee Pro3 and ACDSee Photo Manager 12 here).

Some of the new features of ACDSee Pro 4 include:

• Geotagging and map view support;
• Creation of custom metadata views;
• Creation of metadata presets;
• Customizable access to your external editing software;
• Correction of fringing and chromatic aberration (see the picture on the left);
• Vingnette correction;
• Automatic upload of your photos to ACDSee online account.

Some of the improved features of ACDSee Pro 4 according to ACD Systems International Inc. are:

• Performing of high-quality RAW image decoding;
• Organizing and controlling your photos flexibly using file folders, metadata, ratings, keywords and custom categories;
• Adding and modifying IPTC 1.1 info to groups of images;
• Process RAW, JPEG and other format images in a non-destructive way in order to perfect color, exposure, geometry and clarity, while always having the possibility to adjust settings;
• Processing of RAW images while having complete control and precision;
• Creating slide shows and screen savers from your photos.

ACDSee Pro 4 photo manager is advertised like being the latest in DSLR photography management and it seems like a good professional photo management software that could be used by advanced amateur photographers as well. If its price is a little bit too high then you can consider buying ACDSee Photo Manager 12 which is more targeted towards amateur users. Either application is a good option but it's better first to think what your particular requirements are and make your decision based on them. And if it happens you are a Mac user, have in mind there is a Pro version for Mac too.

Examine our maze of reviews to discover more product reviews and articles.

Mary and Max (2009): A Profound and Beautiful Film

Mary and Max is an animated film coming from the Academy Award winning Australian director Adam Elliot. Whereas his Oscar statuette has been in the category of Best Animated Short Film for 2003's Harvie Krumpet, Mary and Max is his first full feature animation. But contrary to any expectations for an animated movie, this one is not targeted toward children. The film examines mostly adult subjects and although there is not much content inappropriate for kids, it is not a motion picture that will satisfactory entertain the majority of children.

Mary and Max naturally tells the story of Mary and Max. She is Mary Daisy Dinkle (voice by Toni Collette), a friendless 8-year-old girl living in Melbourne, Australia. He is Max Jerry Horovitz (Philip Seymour Hoffman), a lonely 44-year-old man, living in New York, severely overweight with often anxiety attacks. Mary has an alcoholic mother and a not entirely normal father. And Mary loves chocolate. Max has trouble sleeping, enjoys entering the lottery, visits Overeaters Anonymous meetings each Thursday and has a strange, almost blind, neighbor-woman. And Max adores chocolate. It all starts in the 1970's when Mary picks a random name out of a Manhattan phone book in order to find herself at least a pen pal. And of course, this is Max. Thus, a 20-year long friendship and correspondence begin.

Although following an unlikely relationship between a child and an adult, most of the time Mary and Max goes into more mature topics even if some of them are presented through a child's eyes. Alcoholism, severe obesity, loneliness, love, panic attacks, madness, self-isolation, Asperger’s syndrome, loss, misunderstanding, lack of tolerance, suicide are just a few of the subjects touched in this movie. Most of the problems are just exhibited without any solution to be offered. But there are so many issues referred that even gathering all of them in a single film, makes the effort worthy of praise.

Mary and Max successfully manages to capture the existence in suburban Melbourne and even better to present the spirit of New York. These are often depicted through Max and Mary's naive minds but their simplicity just makes the pictures more moving. The use of muted color schemes for both worlds also helps a lot. Mary's universe has an overall brown touch, where Max's world is portrayed in grey. There are only occasional appearances of more color in a few episodes when something important or interesting has to be underlined, e.g. red lips, brown chocolate or a red pompom.

Having in mind all unhappy topics the movie concerns, it should be expected that Mary and Max is dominated by a feel of helplessness, isolation and misfortune. And it is. But there are also funny moments and much of the letters between our two main characters are written with a touch of subtle humor. You'll find yourself laughing plenty of times although the substance of the lines you hear is not comical at all. Independently of the occasional grins, at the end of the film it's hard to be in anything else than a sad mood.

Mary and Max is both beautiful and melancholic. It's visually interesting. The work of voice artist (mainly Toni Collette and Philip Seymour Hoffman) is fantastic. The music is also a great match. The movie is not so full of sorrow as, for example, Grave of the Fireflies is, but nevertheless, Adam Elliot's debut full feature effort is among the rare cases of animations leaving you with uncomfortable feeling after their ending. So, if you enjoy watching profound animated films, you should definitely give this movie a try.

Examine our maze of reviews to read more movie reviews and articles.

Maria Full of Grace (2004): ...And a Portion of Disgrace

Some people do not like Forrest Gump because they think to portray an unintelligent man succeeding in the USA is just not right or politically correct. One might wonder then, why they haven't anathematized the film Maria Full of Grace. Because although I love Forrest Gump, I cannot get rid of the feeling that Maria Full of Grace portrays drug life and particularly being a drug mule as an almost innocent game. Whether the movie could push some young people into making the dangerous step towards drug affairs is beyond my ability to know but it definitely does very little to present the real side of the drug business. And I do not think that the usual "it's just a movie" excuse is suitable for a film of such kind.

Maria Full of Grace (an interesting and suitable title with multiple meanings) is about Maria, a pregnant seventeen-year-old Colombian girl, who loses her everyday job but is forced by her relatives to work and help them with money. Without having a good perspective for a new job, she accepts an "accidental" offer to become a drug mule and transport cocaine between Colombia and the United States in her belly. Unfortunately, nothing goes as planned and even Maria's first trip turns into a "nightmare". She discovers that her friend Blanca has also joined the bunch of drug mules, New York customs inspectors immediately become suspicious of her and a drug mule colleague gets ill on the plane and subsequently dies.

While the movie is well executed and the acting is rather good with Catalina Sandino Moreno getting an Academy Award nomination for her role of Maria, the unrealistic depiction of drug business doings just spoils the otherwise fine premise. It's Ok that we see a naive teenager becoming a drug mule and that an even less intelligent friend of Maria's follows her. But the events that later happen are just a row of lucky occurrences in order to achieve a happy ending and they have nothing to do with the reality.

To avoid writing just twaddle and with the risk of producing some spoilers (skip this and the next paragraph if you prefer), here are a few examples in support of the aforementioned statements. While Maria instantly becomes a suspect upon her arrival at New York's airport and customs inspectors interrogate her and they believe she is carrying drugs in her stomach, all of a sudden they decide to discharge her without making any tests. Being pregnant is not a fair reason for that. And it's even stranger that nobody follows her to see where she's going and eventually to capture some of the drug dealers. It's inexplicable how the customs inspectors suddenly change their minds after being firmly convinced Maria is a drug mule.

Furthermore, Maria and Blanca know that if something goes wrong their families will pay for it but still they run away with the dope. That's still Ok but luckily again, the drug dealers in Colombia are not informed about the girl's escape so nothing happens to their families. Finally, after some time, the girls decide to call back and return the dope. As you already should have expected, Maria and Blanca survive again. They even receive their money and dare to ask for more. And everything ends happily... It could be said the movie has a surprising ending but it's not a virtue in this case. Since the film is not a parody one would anticipate that after doing so many stupid things the girls would be punished either by the drug dealers or at least by the police. But nothing like this happens.

There are many movies (even ones dealing with history) that present actual (historical) facts untruly. Yet, their life impact is not so critical. Maria Full of Grace does not portray actual events so everything seen in the movie is possible although not quite probable. The big problem is the film's lack of realism could send a very wrong message to the teenagers with its mild treatment of dangerous subjects like drug dealings and law violation. Sometimes, films about drugs, addiction or participation in a drug addiction treatment program get it right as far as portrayal is concerned. It's not the case with this movie though.

As I've mentioned above Maria Full of Grace is not a poorly produced movie and it is possible to enjoy it. But have in mind that the narco-business is presented pretty much like a usual job. In real life and in regard to the film's events, those 2 girls would have ended either in prison (their better option) or shot dead. After all, they've shot footballers in Colombia for nothing more than scoring an own goal. So, if there are youngsters around you, be aware that the dark side of the drug world is just softly hinted in Maria Full of Grace.

Go through our maze of reviews to discover more movie reviews and articles.

Sucker Punch (2011): A Blow in Your Eyes and Ears

Sucker Punch is a strange movie. Yet, it would be very unlikely, if after seeing previous Zack Snyder's efforts, anyone has expected a regular film from this director. Sucker Punch is a movie about girls. Not excessively dressed, beautiful and sexy girls. It's a movie about weapons. All kinds of weapons. It's a movie about enemies. Armed, unarmed, human, bestial, weird, big, undead and what other sort of enemies you might think of. Sucker Punch is a movie about life, death, dreams, lobotomy, games, crime, dragons, sacrifice. It's a motley hodgepodge.

Sucker Punch starts with Baby Doll (Emily Browning), the main "heroine" of the movie, losing her mother. Quite soon, the girl's stepfather (Gerard Plunkett) attacks her and her sister. Baby Doll attempts a kind of counter-attack, but the end result is not good for her. She is thrown into a hospital for mentally ill patients where the manager Blue Jones (Oscar Isaac) is bribed from her stepfather to arrange a lobotomy for the young lady in order to permanently keep her silent. A doctor able to perform the lobotomy is expected to arrive in 5 days. And now, the real hodgepodge begins. Baby Doll's imagination produces a parallel world which is just a little bit nicer than the hospital but far more pleasant for the eye.

The "new" place is a brothel with skilled and young female dancers trained by Dr. Vera Gorski (Carla Gugino) to exquisitely pleasure the house's VIP guests. When Baby Doll is forced to show her dancing skills, her mind once again retreats to another world where she meets a Wise Man (Scott Glenn) who advises the girl to pursue her freedom with the help of five items she has to either obtain or discover. When Baby Doll is "back" to the brothel it appears she has turned into an incredible dancer and everyone is staring at her. She succeeds to convince four of the other girls to aid her preparing and fulfilling the escape plan. The girls are Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), Rocket (Jena Malone), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens), Amber (Jamie Chung). And from then on, it's showtime. The deeper the level of dreaming, the bigger the spectacle is.

Some reviewers compare Sucker Punch with Inception and it's easy to see where their reasoning comes from. But on the other hand, if we exclude levelled dreaming and a few hints of possible but not certain shared dreaming, there are not too many similarities with the Christopher Nolan's film and it's hard to say Sucker Punch is just an Inception clone movie. In addition, the ending of Inception has been widely open to interpretations, whereas Sucker Punch ends rather unambiguously. In a way, its ending has more resemblance to another 2010 film starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Shutter Island, than to the Nolan's movie. And in terms of quality, it is questionable whether the both films are comparable because although Inception has been a far from perfect movie, there is even more to be desired from Sucker Punch.

And if you ask, what more do you want from a film with so many hot chicks in it... Sucker Punch is a mess. There is even a point in the movie (after, let's say, the first "second level" dreaming) where you may wonder what is really happening since the film has been looking like 3 completely unrelated stories up to this moment. The number of "stories" continues to grow as the movie progresses but at least some system appears in the initial chaos. The script is not a strong side of the film either and there are several cases of characters' behavior that do not seem well motivated or clearly explained. Sucker Punch carries out an expendable "you are your own God" message that is kind of artificially embedded into the movie. Finally, many of the visuals and techniques used in the film have been already exploited a lot, e.g., bullet special effects, slow motion, etc.

Then why would you possibly go see this movie? Well, there are moments beautiful to watch, either the gorgeous girls, or the exuberant visuals. The film is colorful in pretty much every aspect. If you are a gamer, the second level dreaming sequences offer a variety of game references. The music is primarily loud and although not being very original, there are noticeable covers of popular artists like the Beatles or Eurythmics. The score is what one would expect from a Zack Snyder's movie thus if you are into that sort of music, it's another plus for you.

And practically, this is it. If you want to see a film made primarily for your senses, Sucker Punch is a good choice. If you want a deeper story with less fireworks and noise, just skip this movie.

Go through our Maze of Reviews to find out more movie reviews.