Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
Published in 1880, Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ is considered one of the most influential Christian books of the nineteenth century. The success of the novel led to film adaptations, most notably the 1955 academy award winning version of the film string Charlton Heston. Fast forward to 2016 and MGM and Paramount Pictures hope to see continue the success of this proven story with their newest film adaptation Ben-Hur.
The story follows a fictional Jewish Prince, Juda Ben-Hur (Jack Huston) as he is betrayed by his adopted brother and roman officer Messala (Toby Kebbell). Juda’s family is falsely accused of treason and Juda becomes enslaved by the Romans. Fueled by hate, Juda returns to Jerusalem seeking vengeance, until he unexpectedly finds compassion, forgiveness and redemption.
Walking into Ben-Hur, I did not know what to expect. I watched the 1955 version of Ben-Hur in 7th grade and did not remember anything accept the amazing chariot scene. That being said, this 2016 version of Ben-Hur stands on its own as a good film. Set in the time of Jesus, the story of Ben-Hur can be universally understood by people in all walks of life, religious or otherwise. That was something that I really appreciated about this film. Often stories set in a Christian setting can turn out to be distractingly preachy. However, Ben-Hur was the perfect blend of religion being hinted at throughout the story but never actually becoming the focal point of the story as a whole until redemption is found. Sure, it is there throughout for those who want it to be, but it also plays as a quiet catalyst for Juda through the compassion he sees in his wife Esther (Nazanin Boniadi) and Jesus (Rodrigo Santoro).
The film is acted well and the use of relatively unknown actors to play these major roles in an epic like this only works to strengthen the story as a whole. In fact, the most popular actor by far is Morgan Freeman (Ilderim) who has maybe 15-20 minutes of total screen time.
From a technical standpoint, Ben-Hur works not only visually with fantastic epic action scenes, but also in its pacing. The film’s pacing finds balance between intense action moments and the quieter exposition scenes that helps develop these characters, most notably Juda. We witness Juda’s transformation from naive prince, to a slave fighting for survival, to a man on a mission for revenge and the forgiveness he gains along the way.
Ben-Hur stands out to me this summer because at its core, it is a good coherent story told between impressive action pieces. Unlike so many recent summer blockbusters that are intent on showing off huge set pieces and not much more, Ben-Hur doesn’t forget that those action scenes are there to further the plot and tell a human story.
The story follows a fictional Jewish Prince, Juda Ben-Hur (Jack Huston) as he is betrayed by his adopted brother and roman officer Messala (Toby Kebbell). Juda’s family is falsely accused of treason and Juda becomes enslaved by the Romans. Fueled by hate, Juda returns to Jerusalem seeking vengeance, until he unexpectedly finds compassion, forgiveness and redemption.
Walking into Ben-Hur, I did not know what to expect. I watched the 1955 version of Ben-Hur in 7th grade and did not remember anything accept the amazing chariot scene. That being said, this 2016 version of Ben-Hur stands on its own as a good film. Set in the time of Jesus, the story of Ben-Hur can be universally understood by people in all walks of life, religious or otherwise. That was something that I really appreciated about this film. Often stories set in a Christian setting can turn out to be distractingly preachy. However, Ben-Hur was the perfect blend of religion being hinted at throughout the story but never actually becoming the focal point of the story as a whole until redemption is found. Sure, it is there throughout for those who want it to be, but it also plays as a quiet catalyst for Juda through the compassion he sees in his wife Esther (Nazanin Boniadi) and Jesus (Rodrigo Santoro).
The film is acted well and the use of relatively unknown actors to play these major roles in an epic like this only works to strengthen the story as a whole. In fact, the most popular actor by far is Morgan Freeman (Ilderim) who has maybe 15-20 minutes of total screen time.
From a technical standpoint, Ben-Hur works not only visually with fantastic epic action scenes, but also in its pacing. The film’s pacing finds balance between intense action moments and the quieter exposition scenes that helps develop these characters, most notably Juda. We witness Juda’s transformation from naive prince, to a slave fighting for survival, to a man on a mission for revenge and the forgiveness he gains along the way.
Ben-Hur stands out to me this summer because at its core, it is a good coherent story told between impressive action pieces. Unlike so many recent summer blockbusters that are intent on showing off huge set pieces and not much more, Ben-Hur doesn’t forget that those action scenes are there to further the plot and tell a human story.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Ten Commandments (1956) in Movies
Apr 1, 2018
I try and make it a tradition to watch this film every few years, but it has been a while now. Without being a deeply religious person, I feel this movie can still be enjoyed by a "novice".
The themes even the acting and production value are really superb.
Charlton Heston is mesmerizing in probably the role of his lifetime along with Ben-Hur.
Great film that should be enjoyed by all.
The themes even the acting and production value are really superb.
Charlton Heston is mesmerizing in probably the role of his lifetime along with Ben-Hur.
Great film that should be enjoyed by all.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Ben-Hur (1959) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Solid Conflict but Falls Just Short of a Classic For Me
Jewish hero Judah Ben-Hur rises up to challenge the Romans after they make him a slave.
Acting: 10
I understand that Charlton Heston’s performance as Ben-Hur is a point of contention with this movie, but I thought he delivered a strong performance. Was it perfect? Nope, but he gave me enough of a fiery presence to keep me entertained and to give me someone to root for. One thing I will not contend is that Stephen Boyd’s performance as Messala was the best in the movie. He’s an easy person to hate, but Boyd also helps you sympathize with the role as well. There’s a quiet fierceness about him that you loathe and respect at the same time.
Beginning: 5
Oh, that this was just about the Overture. It’s not. I understand full-well that a lot of classics had an Overture before the start of the movie. That wasn’t my problem. There were at least sixty minutes that could have been cut from this movie and twenty of them come from the beginning. By the time Judah and Messala converse for the first time, I was almost fully checked out. It took me a minute to get involved in the story again.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
You expect an epic like this to deliver on the visuals and Ben-Hur doesn’t disappoint. The movie takes you throughout a number of different setpieces, each of them just as beautiful as the last. From the Coliseum to the Valley of the Lepers, director William Wyler puts you right where you need to be. I was captivated by the magic of the visuals and, as a result, never bored.
Conflict: 9
It is hard to stretch conflict out over the course of almost four hours, but Ben-Hur really succeeds here. You know the Romans are bad news so you feel the trouble brewing when they start marching in Judah’s city. From there, through Judah’s captivity, to his return home, there is a consistent amount of action that drives and pushes the story forward. There are some slow parts but the chariot scene alone makes up for those parts. It is historically viewed as a classic scene and it doesn’t take long to see why. By the end of it, I was cheering harder than when I watched Rocky beat up the Russian.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 9
Pace: 6
Plot: 8
Ben-Hur’s story is beautiful for the most part. Again, it definitely could have been cut quite a few times, but I still rather enjoyed the adventure. It makes you really feel like you are a part of something special. If only it hadn’t overstayed it’s welcome…
Resolution: 4
Overall: 78
I refuse to call a movie a classic because everyone else does. A classic is something you want to watch over and over. When it comes to Ben-Hur, once was absolutely enough.
Acting: 10
I understand that Charlton Heston’s performance as Ben-Hur is a point of contention with this movie, but I thought he delivered a strong performance. Was it perfect? Nope, but he gave me enough of a fiery presence to keep me entertained and to give me someone to root for. One thing I will not contend is that Stephen Boyd’s performance as Messala was the best in the movie. He’s an easy person to hate, but Boyd also helps you sympathize with the role as well. There’s a quiet fierceness about him that you loathe and respect at the same time.
Beginning: 5
Oh, that this was just about the Overture. It’s not. I understand full-well that a lot of classics had an Overture before the start of the movie. That wasn’t my problem. There were at least sixty minutes that could have been cut from this movie and twenty of them come from the beginning. By the time Judah and Messala converse for the first time, I was almost fully checked out. It took me a minute to get involved in the story again.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
You expect an epic like this to deliver on the visuals and Ben-Hur doesn’t disappoint. The movie takes you throughout a number of different setpieces, each of them just as beautiful as the last. From the Coliseum to the Valley of the Lepers, director William Wyler puts you right where you need to be. I was captivated by the magic of the visuals and, as a result, never bored.
Conflict: 9
It is hard to stretch conflict out over the course of almost four hours, but Ben-Hur really succeeds here. You know the Romans are bad news so you feel the trouble brewing when they start marching in Judah’s city. From there, through Judah’s captivity, to his return home, there is a consistent amount of action that drives and pushes the story forward. There are some slow parts but the chariot scene alone makes up for those parts. It is historically viewed as a classic scene and it doesn’t take long to see why. By the end of it, I was cheering harder than when I watched Rocky beat up the Russian.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 9
Pace: 6
Plot: 8
Ben-Hur’s story is beautiful for the most part. Again, it definitely could have been cut quite a few times, but I still rather enjoyed the adventure. It makes you really feel like you are a part of something special. If only it hadn’t overstayed it’s welcome…
Resolution: 4
Overall: 78
I refuse to call a movie a classic because everyone else does. A classic is something you want to watch over and over. When it comes to Ben-Hur, once was absolutely enough.
Bird (1700 KP) rated Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) in Movies
May 4, 2017
You can watch it 20 times (I have) and still find new gems of comedy genius (5 more)
The writing, quite unsurprisingly, is brutally intelligent
It manages to tickle your ribs at every opportunity
If you don't normally like Python, you can just remember bits of dialogue and sound like the master of wit in front of your friends.
Roger the shrubber, the Black Knight, coconuts, French insults and African Swallows. It's all in there!
Will distort your view of Arthurian legend forever
Makes Ben Hur Look Like An Epic!
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Vikings (1958) in Movies
Apr 15, 2020
Slim-line Hollywood epic is strong on rousing action, less so on historical authenticity. Separated-long-before-birth siblings Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis rip chunks out of each other while drinking, raiding, pillaging and taking an interest in Janet Leigh.
Basically the silliest sort of Hollywood camp, with dialogue like 'Love and hate are two horns on the same goat!', but the photography and score do occasionally combine to produce something rather stirring. It occasionally has a rather harder, darker edge than you'd expect (there's quite a lot of mutilation in the script), but not that much more than Ben Hur. The combined wattage of the various stars keeps it watchably entertaining.
Basically the silliest sort of Hollywood camp, with dialogue like 'Love and hate are two horns on the same goat!', but the photography and score do occasionally combine to produce something rather stirring. It occasionally has a rather harder, darker edge than you'd expect (there's quite a lot of mutilation in the script), but not that much more than Ben Hur. The combined wattage of the various stars keeps it watchably entertaining.
David McK (3188 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Re-make of a re-make, with the first re-make the one that starred Charlton Heston and that - until Titanic came along - I believe held the record for the most number of Oscars for a single movie.
And this is pretty much a straight re-make of that move; pared down somewhat and with Jack Huston's Judah Ben-Hur unable to hold a candle to Heston's take on the same character.
We do, however, still have the same main points from the earlier movie: early 30s AD setting in Jerusalem. Judah forced to become a galley slave after he is wrongly accused of treason by (here) his Roman foster-brother, chariot-racing, his family stricken with Leprosy, miraculous cure following Jesus' crucifixion ...
And this is pretty much a straight re-make of that move; pared down somewhat and with Jack Huston's Judah Ben-Hur unable to hold a candle to Heston's take on the same character.
We do, however, still have the same main points from the earlier movie: early 30s AD setting in Jerusalem. Judah forced to become a galley slave after he is wrongly accused of treason by (here) his Roman foster-brother, chariot-racing, his family stricken with Leprosy, miraculous cure following Jesus' crucifixion ...
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Who thought it was a good idea to remake Ben-Hur? Well, on paper, it would seem to be a possibility. Ben-Hur has been hitting our cinema screens since 1907, with three other theatrical versions before this one; a short silent effort in 1907, the 1925 silent epic and the blockbusting MGM epic from 1959.
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
The Marinated Meeple (1848 KP) rated Circus Maximus in Tabletop Games
Mar 29, 2018
The idea of the game (1 more)
The Theme "Chariot Racing"
A really retro game, but still a good game.
I used to pay this when I was a kid in the 80's, watch Ben Hur and I want to play again immediately. The choice to play to win the race or to play to kill everyone else is a very real one and you find a way to balance the two is probably best. You can do damage to the chariots and the horses, and run them into the walls. Flip them over, Use he whip on them, etc. It's a race game at heart but the interaction between the racers is where the fun comes in. plus there are lots of people who find awesome mini's and create coliseums instead of the board it comes with, and they play at conventions. See some of the pictures I've added. This game is a old school treasure ahead of its time, but could use updating. I'd love to see a modern publisher get a hold of this and re-make it.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Green Book (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
This generation's Driving Miss Daisy
The 2018 Academy Awards were interesting. On one hand, I was very happy boring, pointless Roma did not win Best Picture; however i was really pulling for The Favourite to win. Neither happened and Green Book snuck in and captured the top prize instead.
The modern Oscars are free of epics like Ben-Hur, The Sound of Music or West Side Story. Instead, character-driven stories seem to be in favor recently.
In this true story, recently unemployed Italian bouncer Tony "Lip" gets hired to drive an African American genius concert pianist throughout his fall tour of the deep southern United States in 1962.
As the two men get to know each other, they are exposed to the very different worlds and set of values the each possesses. Initial hesitation is replaced by eventual respect as the men grow a bond throughout their southern adventure as they confront racism in various threatening or nonchalant forms as is happens.
Tony comes to the aide of his client, Dr. Donald Shirley, several times revealing his bigotry and denial for his race has begun to wane. Dr. Shirley as well begins to understand Tony's rough exterior and even delights Tony's wife Cyrano de Bergerac style assistance in writing verbose and eloquent letters to her.
The acting is thorough and top notch by both Viggo Mortensen (one of the great working actors today) and Mahershala Ali (hot off of Moonlight) with a screenplay to match. The characters are flawed, vivid, well-rounded and interesting. I thoroughly enjoyed this memorable film and well deserved of the big prize.
The modern Oscars are free of epics like Ben-Hur, The Sound of Music or West Side Story. Instead, character-driven stories seem to be in favor recently.
In this true story, recently unemployed Italian bouncer Tony "Lip" gets hired to drive an African American genius concert pianist throughout his fall tour of the deep southern United States in 1962.
As the two men get to know each other, they are exposed to the very different worlds and set of values the each possesses. Initial hesitation is replaced by eventual respect as the men grow a bond throughout their southern adventure as they confront racism in various threatening or nonchalant forms as is happens.
Tony comes to the aide of his client, Dr. Donald Shirley, several times revealing his bigotry and denial for his race has begun to wane. Dr. Shirley as well begins to understand Tony's rough exterior and even delights Tony's wife Cyrano de Bergerac style assistance in writing verbose and eloquent letters to her.
The acting is thorough and top notch by both Viggo Mortensen (one of the great working actors today) and Mahershala Ali (hot off of Moonlight) with a screenplay to match. The characters are flawed, vivid, well-rounded and interesting. I thoroughly enjoyed this memorable film and well deserved of the big prize.
Nick Beaty (70 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020 (Updated Jan 26, 2020)
De Niro is the best he has been in a long time...
First off any movie that has Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci and Martin Scorsese connected to it has me from the get go.
De Niro is the best he has been in a long time as mob hitman Frank Sheeran, Joe Pesci is excellent in a much more reserved role as Russell Bufalino and Al Pacino is superb as the loud and brash Jimmy Hoffa. All the buzz is around the three lead actors, as all have been nominated for Oscars. Although for me Stephen Graham more than holds his own alongside these legends, as the cocky and destructive 'Tony Pro'. Some of the best scenes are with him and Pacino not seeing eye to eye on various occasions.
Personally I felt it wasn't as Scorsese as I expected, it didn't have the same narrative or feel as say Goodfellas or Casino, I'm not saying that is a bad thing as it's still a very good movie, it's just not on their level in my opinion.
There has been a lot of talk about the 3 hour 29 minutes running time. I personally don't understand all the fuss, as there have been many classic, award winning movies even longer than this. Gone with the Wind took home the Oscar in 1940 and ran a whopping 3h 58m. Ben Hur won best picture in 1960 at 3h 32m and more recently Titanic in 1998 was slightly less at 3h 14m.
I also feel the need to mention a couple of scenes that felt very reminiscent of one of my favourite movies Pulp Fiction. The opening sequence when the words 'I heard you paint houses' flash on the screen felt very Tarantino and the whole car scene with Jesse Plemons & Louis Cancelmi talking about the fish, was very Jule's & Vincent like. I'm not sure if that is just me or whether other people agree.
Overall I get that it is a long movie and people have very busy lives but if you get the chance you really should watch it, just to see these big screen legends at work and doing what they do best.
De Niro is the best he has been in a long time as mob hitman Frank Sheeran, Joe Pesci is excellent in a much more reserved role as Russell Bufalino and Al Pacino is superb as the loud and brash Jimmy Hoffa. All the buzz is around the three lead actors, as all have been nominated for Oscars. Although for me Stephen Graham more than holds his own alongside these legends, as the cocky and destructive 'Tony Pro'. Some of the best scenes are with him and Pacino not seeing eye to eye on various occasions.
Personally I felt it wasn't as Scorsese as I expected, it didn't have the same narrative or feel as say Goodfellas or Casino, I'm not saying that is a bad thing as it's still a very good movie, it's just not on their level in my opinion.
There has been a lot of talk about the 3 hour 29 minutes running time. I personally don't understand all the fuss, as there have been many classic, award winning movies even longer than this. Gone with the Wind took home the Oscar in 1940 and ran a whopping 3h 58m. Ben Hur won best picture in 1960 at 3h 32m and more recently Titanic in 1998 was slightly less at 3h 14m.
I also feel the need to mention a couple of scenes that felt very reminiscent of one of my favourite movies Pulp Fiction. The opening sequence when the words 'I heard you paint houses' flash on the screen felt very Tarantino and the whole car scene with Jesse Plemons & Louis Cancelmi talking about the fish, was very Jule's & Vincent like. I'm not sure if that is just me or whether other people agree.
Overall I get that it is a long movie and people have very busy lives but if you get the chance you really should watch it, just to see these big screen legends at work and doing what they do best.