There is one massive reason for watching this film. Natalie Portman.

This film takes you on the haunting journey of a naive and innocent ballet dancer as she embraces the darker sides of life in order to fulfil her dream role.

Black Swan will make you feel uneasy, it will shock you, it will suck you in and you not be able to look away. It is a unique piece of film- making, and it's final scene is perhaps one of the best final scenes in cinematic history.

Natalie Portman's performance is absolutely stunning and easily deserved her Oscar. The film is definitely not for everyone, but for those who can cope with it will have to respect her career-topping role.

There are part's of this film i like, love and hate! It will divide people, I didn't know what to think after seeing this film, but given time I could see how special it is. Viewing comes with a warning, but viewing is essential - if you can stomach it!

I think this is the best movie made by David Fincher since Fight Club. when i first saw The Social Network, it was kind of boring, listening to all those lawyers talking about the same thing all the time, but then i saw it for second time and liked it more. the movie contains really good dialogs, and of course, the scrip is perfect. Actors weren't very good but still, the movie is good.

The history of one of the worlds biggest companies is very interesting to see and isn't boring at all. the movie shows how friends can make decisions, how they see what's right and what's wrong. there is friendship, argue, love and betrayal in just 2 hours which is filmed, directed and edited very well.

For me, this was the best movie of the year. King's speech is quite a good movie but it can be watched once or twice, but social network, is the movie that never makes me fell tired of watching it. from a great book was made a great script and from that script, Fincher made a movie, which would be interesting, entertaining and good to see. the music in the movie is also very good. it fits with the movie so well that you're just getting pleasure both with watching and listening to it.

The social network shows that money isn't the most important in life. it shows how a person get a lot of money and power, and at that time, lose friends and make more enemies.

'Scott Pilgrim vs. the World' was executed from a graphic novel to a film very nicely but didn't make it a better film. The movie was great but from comic to movie really didn't make it any better although it probably wasn't intended to make it better. This film exceeded all of my expectations and actually surprised me that a comic like this type could be made into a movie so nicely done. I immediately picked up the graphic novels and it explained a huge amount of references that never got displayed in this movie. I really really liked Michael Cera's performance in this and he continues to be exceptional. The film's tagline "An epic of epic epicness" really defines the film for what it is. It was funny, intense, and serious while it has it's own style of a film itself. 'Scott Pilgrim' had it's own type of humour, the intense fight scenes that were really fun to watch and see the creativity of the authors point of view. This is a fun movie and must see.

There really is nothing I can say bad about this film. I have read the negative reviews in here and I am just left wondering how stupid these people must be. How do they not get it? Is it because there is too much emotion or connection with the characters or was the way it was expertly directed a problem? I always love a film that breaks the mould and gets away from cliché film scenes. I can remember watching this film years ago and I still love it as much today. The characters, the story and the whole damn way it is filmed.

I 100% recommend this for anyone who loves a film that isn't saturated in Hollywood filth. This is a highly recommended masterpiece.

This touching and heart warming film is the most perfect celebration of the human spirit I have seen. Andy Dufresne, wrongly convicted of murdering his wife and her lover, finds the strength not only to change himself, but to bring hope to those around him in Shawshank Prison. This inspiring story is interwoven with a soundtrack which invokes every emotion, from haunting and chilling, to stirring and beautiful. When you go to see a movie and it touches you with its poetry, music, and its atmosphere, and leaves you with a sense of victorious satisfaction, it is a triumph. Field of Dreams was the first movie which invoked these emotions in me. Shawshank Redemption is even more powerful for its simplicity. It doesn't pretend to be clean, nor could it be called a family movie. It is brutal and violent at times, horrifying and sickening at others. However the title says it all. Redemption is what this story is all about. And it is not necessarily redemption for the actual crimes you might have committed, but it is redemption for the way you have lived your life. What emerges can only be called a maginificent piece of art. This is what movies were meant to be.

This was (dare I say) perfect in the comic book movie genre. I absolutely loved all the characters especially Dr. Manhattan. There was a scene that certainly is not intended for children's eyes, but its not over the top, meaning I have seen worst graphic scenes in Indiana Jones, notably the villains death scenes at the end of each.

They stayed true to the comics and I love the universe they created with Nixon in his 5th term in office, etc.

There are a lot of flashbacks and I think flashbacks within flashbacks but its all good, it wasn't confusing to me and flashbacks within flashbacks can be very confusing if done wrong. The director did a great job wielding the story lines together in 3 1/2 hours. Superb visuals and a fantastic storyline, I was a little upset at the end of what happened to one of the characters, but hey can't have everything.

I would recommend this to anyone who loves comic book movies, however this isn't like your normal comic book movies, as it is grittier and darker then most (think of Sin City or 300). It takes the genre in a different direction much like how Chris Nolan did with the recent installments of Batman (which I also love).

The movie deals with current themes in our world today and for that I think this makes the movie timeless. I certainly can't think of why all the hatred for this movie. Not only did it completely stay true to the original comic, but it did this in such stylized fashion. I have decided that Zack Snyder can do no wrong.

I think most people didn't like this because they thought it was boring. Well if a good story must have non-stop action then this and most movies are not for you. There is great action, yes, but there is also depth to the mythology of the Watchmen world.

Following the success of 1992's Reservoir Dogs, Quentin Tarantino released his finest film to-date, the self-proclaimed masterpiece Pulp Fiction; a film which is arguably the most influential of the last few decades, and one which stands alone as a "to-be" classic. Pulp Fiction remains widely regarded as one of the essentials in modern cinema, which has established itself as a film for the lovers of cinema, as those are the people it gets its greatest amount of admiration from.

Pulp Fiction marked the new-wave, avant-garde cinema, it became recognised for its vigorously exciting flavour and unfathomable cool. Revolving around a deconstructed narrative, composed of three stories, which are all insanely surreal, Pulp Fiction brings you inside a world Quentin Tarantino has successfully crafted through individuality. The film starts with a lavishly entertaining conversation of tension and wit between two robbers, one being Tim Roth and the other being Amanda Plummer, who kick-start the film with furious energy. This scene is then followed by the infamous conversation of Amsterdam and burgers between the justifiable "cool" of Jules (Samuel L. Jackson) and Vincent (John Travolta). From here on in you have entered a world fuelled by greed and missing-morality.

Sure, Pulp Fiction is undoubtedly one of the "coolest" and "hippest" films around, nevertheless it holds much, much more than that. The film stands as a piece which depicts the psychology of normal people who have been thrown into extreme circumstances, meaning their personalities have changed along with their situation. It is a film which is much than amusingly clever on the surface, as in fact Pulp Fiction juggles allegory, such as the "freedom" of Amsterdam being a counterpart for the film's non-conformist, disobedient nature. The film has countless recurring themes, such as redemption, vengeance, spirituality, morality, individual morals, and a person's mannerisms.

Even behind the film's humorous anecdotes there is still a lingering sense of haunting poignancy the film throws upon its viewer. The inviting environments are simply an innovative showcase for a study of one's ethics and the dealing of horrendously problematical situations. The characters are all vigorously layered, with multi-dimensional emotions and spontaneous behaviour. When I say that every actor performs with undeniable perfection, I mean it. From Christopher Walken's cameo as Captain Koons, to Bruce Willis' alpha-male, yet kind-hearted "boxer-thug" performance. Everyone in the film sets themselves a back-drop for their character, letting every character differentiate between one-an-other. Yet, as Harvey Keitel states in the film, "of course you're character, but it doesn't mean you have character".

Dense script-writing, and what might seem like entirely irrelevant dialogue lets Pulp Fiction become its own piece. And rather than being driven by plot, the film is driven by its variety of surreal characters, who all talk in a way which seems so real. Yes, the conversations may not to be the same topic you talk about with another person, but the way in which a conversation branches off to an entirely different topic is something we all do in everyday life. Few films are able to portray dialogue through such a method, which is one of the countless reasons as to why Quentin Tarantino's script is the key instinctive foundation behind the film, since it lays the rules of what is to occur in a latter scene. The script crafts the comedy, as there are no comedic set-pieces in the film, nor is there a comedic narrative. However, the actors' delivery of nerve-biting, ego-driven lines, which brim with humour and emphasised body language, gives the film its distinguished tone of dark comedy.

One of the reasons Pulp Fiction has become so iconic is due to its diversity in film-making, which is comprised of influences from French new-wave cinema, to Asian crime flicks, yet the film is still entirely original. Quentin Tarantino ultimately creates his own sense of "bravo-film-making". The use of tracking-shots, dolly-zooms, variation in lens focus, quick-cut editing, slow-motion sequences, lyrical camera positioning, steadicam tactics and close-up camera shots, the variety Pulp Fiction has is not just held within inside its narrative, but within its technical side too. Then you have the dynamic use of music, which has clearly been hand-picked by Quentin Tarantino himself and suits the film with a simplistic level of ease. The set-pieces are also crafted with scrutinising detail, such as the notorious lair, involving two hillbillies, a gimp and two of the film's protagonists.

Pulp Fiction is, quite simply, a hard-boiled, noir-toned masterpiece of modern cinema, comprised of film-making which deserves to be dissected frame-by-frame. The sheer unadulterated consistency of greatness Pulp Fiction follows means it is a film which should be watched again and again. Yes, all the characters might be "sinners", yet there is no denying that you will be rooting for a certain character(s) by the end of the film, as surely, with characters as diverse as these there must be someone you share the same belief with, right? Devine-intervention is what Pulp Fiction is, a miracle and one which justifies vast acknowledgement. Take for example Jimmy's (Quentin Tarantino) brief conversation on the "gourmet" of coffee, it sums up the magnificence of Pulp Fiction perfectly, not forgetting the addition of "lots of cream, lots of sugar".

Usually, when it comes to Brazilian films, it is common the themes which lies about the rich culture that shape this country or, as has happened recently, addressing the issue of urban violence. Therefore, these issues are also on the films that most Brazilians are recognized internationally. "Drained" is a different case, because it shows a Brazilian film that is not necessarily on a Brazilian theme. It tells a story about the complexity of human relations in their most obscure side, making a portrait full of dark humor. Talks about the way we transform everything into things with prices to be paid for. Selton Mello is perfect in the film, as well as the ambiance and direction. A surreal story, with great moments of humor, is what awaits the spectator of "Drained".

The 1954 sci-fi/vampire novel "I Am Legend" by Richard Matheson has now been filmed three times: as "The Last Man On Earth" in 1964 originally scripted by Matheson himself (which I have never seen), as "The Omega Man" in 1971 without the vampire elements (which I have viewed three times), and now with the original title and expensive sets and special effects. This time the seemingly sole survivor of the worldwide pandemic Robert Neville is played by Will Smith who is an actor with real charisma and charm and considerable box office appeal who has beefed himself up for the role.

The main strength of this version is the location shots in a deserted New York City (a move from the Los Angeles of the book and earlier films) and, although the filming of these scenes apparently caused traffic chaos and much anger for local residents, they chillingly set the tone for this dystopian thriller. To see the silent streets around Times Square or South Street Seaport or the lone scientist fishing in the Metropolitan Museum of Art or playing golf on the "USS Intrepid" is to view this heaving metropolis as we have never experienced it before. The German shepherd dog who is Neville's sole companion deserves an honourable mention for showing greater thespian skills than most of the extras and stunt men.

The principal weakness of the movie, however, is the realisation of the surviving victims of the virus. The CGI characters are almost as silly as they are scary but, above all, they are presented as more animalistic than human. "The Omega Man" handled these characters much better presenting them as sad as well as scary. The other serious fault is the lack of clarity in the narrative - at times, it is simply unclear what is happening and why and a longer director's cut would be welcome. Finally the references to Ground Zero and God may play well with American audiences but will not be so resonant to audiences elsewhere in the world.

Is this better than the majority of horror movies that have been released in the past several years? Yes I think so. But is it on par with something I'd expect from Anthony Hopkins? Absolutely not. I'm convinced that in his advanced years he's taking roles for the fun of it, roles that allow him to indulge. He's already gotten all the acclaim and recognition any one actor can hope to have. I doubt he needs the money, so I'm thinking his decision to play the part of Father Lucas in this film is based simply on the fact that it sounded fun. . Even though I was secretly thinking that his role of Dr. Lecter would have easily fit here and been appropriate. It was insidious and intense. Just what this film needed.

The first two acts are done well, and I was prepared to give it a 7. I was wholeheartedly anticipating the inevitable climax which I knew was coming from the previews, but I was severely disappointed. Up until that point, the movie was sophisticated and smart. However by the end, it had descended into a cheese fest like you wouldn't believe. All because of that terrible dialogue. It was just funny. I do mean literally funny; the audience started laughing. I hated to see such a phenomenal actor as Hopkins having to actually go through with that melodramatic fluff. I think if the writers toned it down a bit and opted for subtlety the outcome would have been many times better. It seems that every movie dealing with exorcism has to go The Exorcist route and try to drum up some profoundly shocking dialogue. That's a losing battle. The Exorcist is in a league of it's own. Don't try to beat it; do your own thing. That's why I appreciate Exorcism of Emily Rose. Now that was a rather good film. As it stands now, The Rite is still a capable film, but those last 20 minutes really don't do it for me. It was there that the whole thing took a nose dive.