'WORLD WAR Z'

'WORLD WAR Z' (PG-13) (2 STARS)

Written by Matthew Michael Carnahan, Drew Goddard and Damon Lindelof
Directed by Marc Forster
Actors: Brad Pitt, Mireille Enos, James Badge Dale, David Morse, Matthew Fox.

In the first 15 minutes of the umpteenth Zombie movie "World War Z" I was thrilled and on the edge of my seat for a bravura scene set in Philadelphia. Former United Nations employee Gerry Lane and his family are driving through rush hour traffic when something strange happens. People are running like crazy, the police are out of control running wildly and there are explosions all over the city. It is a wonderful start and very well directed and I was happily surprised, this movie will be great! I don't know what happened but that first 15 minutes is all we will get that makes us sit up and take notice.

The rest of "World War Z" gets tedious and very dull and it can't decide if it wants to be a sprawling war epic but with zombies or a small shocker. Well if your budget is 200 million I expect a big, action packed war film and something special. There have been a lot of zombie movies and shows and you have to go the extra mile to make your zombie entertainment different than the others but this movie is weaker and surprisingly smaller in it's thinking. Director Marc Forster can't direct an action movie and there is not one shot after the first 15 minutes that is unique or special, it is too ordinary of a movie.

"World War Z" tells the story of a huge zombie and virus outbreak trapping ex United Nations employee Gerry Lane and his family in the middle. Gerry will leave the family and abandon the wife and mother played by Mireille Enos, the typical Hollywood move, giving a woman a shallow role. He will try to find out what caused the outbreak and how to get a cure but by the last half hour I didn't care. Gerry and no other character has any personality traits that stand out. I think Brad Pitt shouldn't be an action star, he is not really cut out for it. I also was shocked that you bring in a great character actor like David Morse to play a crazy ex C.I.A agent and give him 3 nonsensical minutes and then drop your best character. Huh?

Now we get to the zombies and I have not read the book but there is an outcry from the readers and fans that the zombies are faster in the movie than in the book. I really don't care how fast the zombies are and I didn't read the book. Though I can see why zombies have gotten faster over the years since 1968's "Night of the Living Dead". With technology getting advanced and every thing in our society is getting faster and more urgent doesn't it make sense that the zombies would want to be faster to catch up with modern society? Now that would make a compelling point of view for this movie to give but this movie is a weakly written head scratcher.

Rumor has it that this movie was delayed in production and the writers had to come up with a new ending and the new ending can't be better than the first one. I was totally confused by the end of this movie, the climax seems like it was made up in 5 minutes, it has no logic and it bored me. The ending is laughably bad and forced and since I didn't care about any character I wanted the end credits to roll as soon as they could. "World War Z" is a huge disappointment, tedious, unimaginative and a drag. Brad Pitt is miscast and the female characters are either paper thin or don't exist in this world. When you have the great AMC series "Walking Dead" and an original zombie movie like "Warm Bodies" out there before you, maybe you should make your movie smarter, huge and more cinematic. This movie is all CGI and no heart.

'THIS IS THE END'

'THIS IS THE END' (R) (4 STARS) (HIGHST RATING)

Written and Directed by Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogen
Actors playing themselves: Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel, Jonah Hill, James Franco, Craig Robinson, Danny McBride, Emma Watson, Michael Cera, Paul Rudd, Rihanna.

There are iconic summer comedies at the movies that we grew up with from every decade that have surprised us, made us laugh out loud a lot and then have become our favorites that we revisit every so often. I think we can all agree that these comedies include "Animal House, "Ghostbusters", "National Lampoon's Vacation", "Caddyshack", "Superbad" and one of my personal favorites "Kingpin". These are comedies that have stayed with us because they have continuous great jokes throughout the whole movie, characters we care about and love and an actual story. You can now add "This Is The End", a gut busting, hilarious, raunchy, brilliant and continuously funny movie. The proof of a great comedy is one that makes you laugh till you cry several times and one that never lets up on the laughs or never loses focus and that is this soon to be summer classic.

This brilliant comedy was written by the same writers as "Superbad", Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg and "Superbad" was definitely no fluke. Their movies have a lot of great raunch and big laughs but also heart and a story here that is not too long, is just the right length and made me laugh harder and longer than any other comedy since "Bridesmaids". Seth Rogen and his real life friends play themselves attacking their own vanities as they go to a star studded party and then confront the apocalypse together. The movie starts out on a high as Seth Rogen picks up his friend, actor Jay Baruchel, to stay at his apartment and spend the weekend together. Their back and forth dialogue in the car is brilliantly improvised and had me laughing for a continuous 10 minutes. They then attend James Franco's party at his lavish estate like house where they encounter Rihanna who is involved in the first hilarious scene.

That scene will also involve a Michael Cera (Superbad) that you have never seen like you will see him here. That is the second time I laughed till I cried. Then you have James Franco making fun of himself and coming off as great and hilarious as he was in "Spring Breakers". All the actors will make fun of themselves including a very funny Craig Robinson and Danny McBride (also the funniest he has ever been). This movie is just not non stop jokes though I wouldn't have minded if it was just jokes. It actually has a very creative end of the world story that is focused and very smartly written with huge laughs that mostly come off the actors playing an exaggerated form of themselves and it is brilliantly executed. That includes hilarious and wonderful, twisted special effects used as brilliantly as they were used in "Ghostbusters".

"This Is The End" is now one of my all time favorite comedies not only because I haven' laughed this hard and long during a movie hardly ever. It is also because like most comedies, it doesn't lose steam, focus or become old and lame. The jokes keep coming, the brilliant execution of special effects are always on high and the writers and actors keep making fun of themselves in new and refreshing ways. The movie has huge, brilliant laughs literally from the first frame to the last. This could have been a hit and miss comedy that missed a lot but it actually scores on 98% of it's laughs and I am serious. I promise you that you will laugh more than you have laughed in one single comedy in your lifetime. This is a brilliant and hilarious comedy that shows that actors can make fun of themselves and that the audience will find it charming and as funny as anything you will ever see on screen in a big budget comedy. I can't wait to see it again and again and I am sure it will hold up every time I see it.

'MAN OF STEEL'

'MAN OF STEEL' (PG-13) (3 STARS)

Written by David S. Goyer
Directed by Zack Snyder
Actors: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Michael Shannon, Laurence Fishbourne, Christopher Meloni, Russell Crowe.

"Superman" is my favorite superhero because he personifies what is good, decent and noble in a man and a hero who also happens to have super powers. "Batman" is too tormented and "Spiderman" has no real personality characteristics that really grab me, he seems like a lighter, less tormented Batman. My favorite superhero movies are still the original "Superman" movies because they had the right touch of humor, darkness, drama and a love that had obstacles that no other love on screen has had in front of it. The director's cut of "Superman II" is actually as dark, just the right amount, and as powerful, thrilling and haunting as "The Empire Strikes Back" and "The Dark Knight" but it also had a lot of humor. The rebooted Superman epic "Man of Steel" directed by Zack Snyder needed less dark, dreary gloom and more humor but I really liked a lot of it and if there is a sequel I am there!

"Man of Steel" is really all origin story to whet our appetite for a sequel and that is okay. The original 1978 "Superman" was a great movie but it was mostly origin story and "Superman II" was better because it got right into the action and romance. "Man of Steel" is beautifully filmed and the effects are amazing, seeing Superman fly looks better than it ever has. We first get a long enough beginning as we see Jor El send his only son to Earth as his planet Krypton is being destroyed. He also imprisons General Zod after Zod tries to kill Jor El. We then see Superman as his alter ego Clark Kent as he is found working on a ship and then is discovered by "Daily Planet" reporter Lois Lane who wants to find out who this man really is and where did he come from. We then get flashbacks scattered throughout the movie at how the son became Clark and how his adopted parents raised Clark telling him that his powers carry great weight and whether he should use them when needed.

The way this information is given is just how the original "Superman" did it and I wanted that movie to be tighter when it came to depicting how the son of Jor El became Superman. "Man of Steel" also needed to go faster and cut some exposition out, this movie is 2 1/2 hours and it should have been cut down to 2 hours. The original "Superman" had more magic and humor in it's opening hour but "Man of Steel" is produced by "The Dark Knight's" Christopher Nolan and it seems sometimes too dark for a "Superman" movie. It doesn't always fit the spirit of "Superman" to me and comes off too much like a "Batman" movie and that doesn't jibe with me. The flashbacks of Clark growing into Superman do include some beautiful moments and Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as Clark's parents are great. The movie always looks beautiful even though it is dark looking a lot of the times. This review so far might seem heading towards the negative but I did have moments where I got goose bumps.

First of all I could not have imagined a better choice than Henry Cavill as Superman. He is not only beautiful to look at, he has that heroic, commanding screen presence that makes women swoon and men admire him. It is a perfectly measured performance, anguished but not too dark, charming when he needs to be and full of charisma. Amy Adams is also the perfect choice to play Lois Lane, tough but beautiful and vulnerable. She knows when to be tough and determined in the scenes where Lois is at work and when to show signs of vulnerability, especially when she finds she has interest and then feelings for Superman. I love the scene where Superman is captured by the Army and Lois asks Superman what the "S" on his chest is for. The sexual tension is thick, sexy and wonderful in this scene though too short and when Lois and Superman embraced in the end I felt the sexual tension burning again.

I was also very excited to find out that my favorite actor right now, Michael Shannon, was picked to play General Zod and I was not dissapointed. Shannon can be very intense and that intensity can burn on the screen as it does here. Zod is a very enraged man in this movie and Shannon is perfect playing the role as written. I just wished the character had more depth and the fault is in the writing. I also love a lot of the action but I wish the last half hour wasn't so over stuffed and I had problems with all the spaceships and explosions, there are too many of them, cut those scenes and you have a tighter 2 hour movie. I expect all these explosions and science fiction mumbo jumbo in lighter fluff like "Thor" and "Transformers". "Superman" is better than this and sometimes I wish Zack Snyder wasn't trying to make a "300" type movie and more like a "Superman" movie. The original movies were sweeter and simpler and easier to follow than this reboot.

That being said, "Man of Steel" is ten times better than the weird and trashy "Superman Returns" in 2006, that movie had a bad, effeminate Lex Luthor and a very dumb and weird story line. Cavill blows away Brandon Routh as does Amy Adams compared to Kate Bosworth but I like my original Superman better in Christopher Reeve. That does not diminish how great and forceful Cavill is as Superman because Cavill is the perfect Superman to me. I did have reservations on some of the action scenes but there is a wonderful one on one fight between Superman and Zod through Chicago buildings that was masterful and beautifully shot and choreographed.

The big problem I really had with "Man of Steel" was that we don't get to see Superman claim his alter ego Clark Kent till the end. The original "Superman" had the origin and the Clark Kent story and fully satisfying, climatic scenes. Though I do love Cavill and Adams and a lot of the action and drama of this Superman reboot. I just think that the really masterful "Superman" movie will be this movie's sequel. I can't wait to see Clark Kent trying to disguise who he really is and see that sexual tension develop between the hot and wonderful Henry Cavill and Amy Adams in a sequel and I bet it will have more humor than this original. "Man of Steel" is not as fantastic and powerful as I wanted it to be but I know at the end of the movie that I wanted a sequel and I can't wait to get it!

'THE HANGOVER 3' AND 'FAST AND FURIOUS 6'

'THE HANGOVER 3' (R) (2 STARS)

Written by Craig Mazin and Todd Phillips
Directed by Todd Phillips
Actors: Zach Galifianakis, Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Jutin Bartha, John Goodman, Ken Jeong, Heather Graham.

'FAST AND FURIOUS 6' (PG-13) (3 STARS)

Written by Chris Morgan based on characters created by Gary Scott Thompson
Directed by Justin Lin
Actors: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Dwayne Johnson, Michelle Rodriguez, Gina Carano, Tyrese Gibson, Luke Evans, Jordanna Brewster, Chris "Ludacris" Bridges.

The business of sequels can be tricky but actually it is simple, do what you know how to do best and do it well. "The Hangover" creators stunningly forgot this while the creators of "Fast and Furious" have actually made their movies better after making a few terrible ones. "The Hangover 2" pretty much copied the formula of their original even though they failed in being funny. "The Hangover 3" doesn't even copy the formula, it becomes a bad drug dealer, action movie. Where is Will Smith and Martin Lawrence? "Fast and Furious 6" along with Part 5 are the best movies in the series rebounding from a dismal fourth movie. I admire that, it is a high octane and goofy but action packed and fun movie full of great fights and car crashes. I think the "Hangover" creators said this series is hopeless. Let's just be lazy and make a careless ending to get this series over with because our last two movies suck.

Let's start wih the arrogant Todd Phillips, director of "Hangover 3". The movie did not make me laugh at all except for a few chuckles all involving Zach Galfianakis. Ed Helm's straight man act has turned stale and Bradley Cooper is just cashing in a paycheck. Ken Jeong's Chow was funny in the original because the character came in small doses. Now his character is on too much and the writers write the character like they are homophobic, lots of unfunny and mean gay jokes here. The boys only go to Vegas after 45 minutes and get involved with a drug kingpin and then a lot of chases and shootouts ensue, all sloppy and boring. The "Wolfpack" don't even get drunk and chaos doesn't even break out like the first two movies until after the end credits. This is a lazy movie and only Galfianakis and our love of the characters save it from embarrasment.

"Fast and Furious 6" is definitely not lazy, in fact it is way over the top. This is goofy fun like it is trying to be a James Bond movie and I love it's nerve. It is way better at being an entertaining sequel than this year's horrible "Die Hard" sequel and makes the "Transfomers", "G.I. Joe" and "Pirates" sequels look like dumb and badly executed bores. The cars look awesome, the women are hot and beautiful, the action is well directed and easy to follow unlike the aforementioned sequels. I love a movie that isn't afraid to be goofy and make fun of itself and also gives us not one but two well choreographed fight scenes between two hot, beautiful women like Michelle Rodriguez and Gina Carano.

"Fast and Furious 6" is not trying to be a serious action movie and actually makes fun of itself and does the job of bringing us what we want and bringing it with great craft, skill and energy. It doesn't insult it's audience like "Hangover 3" does. I love all the action because it is clear and focused. Director Justin Lin has directed the last three movies and he has even gotten better with each film. How often do you see sequels that are actually much better than the movies that have come before it? This movie has the action goods and delivers so well plus I love the humor especially by Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris. They are funnier than anybody in "The Hangover 3". "Fast and Furious 6" is how you do a sequel right, it isn't that hard Hollywood,you have the big budgets and all the time.

'STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS'

'STAR TREK:INTO DARKNESS' (PG-13) (3 1/2 STARS)

Written by Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof
Directed by J.J. Abrams
Actors: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Benedict Cumberbatch, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Bruce Greenwood, Peter Weller, Alice Eve.

Back in 1982 I was 14 years old and not a "Star Trek" fan. I watched the 1979 film adaptation on video and was bored and quit on it. My mother and sister went to go see "Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Kahn" the year of 1982 and we all were not fans but I wanted to go because Siskel and Ebert loved it. We were surprised at how good it was and loved it, I also found it strangely a powerful experience and a lot of fun. It was not only a great "Star Trek" movie, it was a great action thriller period. That is what I felt watching the new sequel in the revamped "Star Trek" franchise. You don't have to be a "Star Trek" fan to love "Star Trek:Into Darkness" cause it is a fun, thrilling, beautiful looking and touching movie going experience and a great movie period.

Credit director J.J. Abrams and writers Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof (Lost) for getting this done to near perfection. I loved the first movie and I love this one even more. The characters we grew to love are now young and learning the ropes, learning about death, committment, honor and friendship while battling one of the greatest "Str Trek" villians in the franchise. It was what I wanted after sitting through the dull and ineffectual "New Generation" movies which were all too complicated and brainy. The new series is smart but also pure adrenaline, fun and always beautiful looking with energy to spare and great writing. We love the original characters and the cast here is up to the task, they don't miss a beat.

It starts with Zachary Quinto as Spock who is not only dead on in his portrayl of the iconic character but he brings him a warmth that I rarely saw in Spock. Chris Pine is a great looking and competent action hero and a James T. Kirk without the mannerisms, bringing the needed brashness but in a youthful way. Zoe Saldana is a beautiful Uruhu and the love story with Spock and the chemistry between Saldana and Quinto is exciting and sexy reminding me of Leia and Han Solo in "Empires Strikes Back". The rest of the cast is solid and they all bring the extra special touch that make the characters real and fleshed out instead of being impersonations. I love the screenplay paying homage to the original with Doctor Bones's quips like "Dammit Jim I am a doctor not a torpedo expert". I love Checkov's shyness and Scotty's feelings of not being respected and then his hidden heroic talents being revealed.

The movie really breathes with it's villian played by newcomer Benedict Cumberbatch and yes there is speculation who his character is and I am not telling. Explaining the plot, especially in a movie full of surprises like this, wouldn't matter though I will say it is smart and thrilling and the screenplay has heart and charm and some great emotional moments. Benedict Cumberbatch gives a star making performance as fugitive John Harrison. It is a controlled but delightfully evil, cool and explosive performance and the best villain in the franchise or one of the best in any movie for that matter. Cumberbatch already has but should get a slew of more roles coming his way and I think a possible Oscar nomination.

"Star Trek: Into Darkness" is not a dissapointment at all and it is an adrenaline shot of humor, action, thrills and great character development. This is what we expect from the series of movies and we get it in spades. It is a lot of fun and entertaining for families, people of all ages, "Star Trek" fans, non "Star Trek" fans, everybody. It also looks visually awesome and beautiful and the direction is heartfelt, crisp and always in control. I thank the stars that J.J. Abrams is involved because he respects the franchise, pays homage to it lovingly and remembers that these movies are just not for fans but for movie lovers that want a great story with heart, emotion, thrills and great action. It is another great start to the summer movie season and one of the best movies of the year.

'IRON MAN 3'

'IRON MAN 3' (PG-13) (3 1/2 STARS)

Written by Drew Pearce and Shane Black
Directed by Shane Black
Actors: Robert Downey Jr, Gwyneth Paltrow, Ben Kingsley, Guy Pearce, Jon Favreau, Rebecca Hall, James Dale Badge, Don Cheadle, Ty Simpkins.

This is how you do an action movie, a superhero movie, a love story and a buddy film all wrapped up in one glorious package! I was amazed that "Iron Man 3" was this great, it shouldn't be right? Not many second sequels wind up better than their second movie and equal to their original. I like the "Avengers" a lot but for my money this has more bang for your buck. This has deeper qualities and more fun at it's core. It has surprises that I did not see coming and one of the best villians in superhero movie history just a little short of Heath Ledger as The Joker. I also love the relationship between and love story of Pepper Potts and Tony Stark. This love story blows away the "Spiderman" love story and Paltrow is exceptional and the chemsitry with Downey Jr. is exciting and fresh.

I was expecting maybe a moderately entertaining movie but I didn't expect the energy, carefully created story and the surprises that floored me. This includes some funny and sharp dialogue, a special new friend for Tony, a villian that turns out to be something else and that is a villian that I loved! The surprise twist, for me, I didn't see coming but when it came you couldn't wipe the smile off my face even if you tried. The acting is all top notch and I am not even including Downey and Paltrow. The under rated Guy Pearce is explosive and plain nasty mean as one of the villians, so good he could have equaled Heath Ledger playing The Joker. You get nice additions and great performances by some great elite actors like Ben Kingsley, Don Cheadle and Rebecca Hall also, each playing characters as great as any supporting characters in any superhero movie.

Now let's get to the story which certainly blows away the second "Iron Man" and "The Avengers". It is a smartly written, creative and clear story that is thankfully less convoluted than it should be. The movie just throws a lot at you but director Shane Black makes it work, makes it fresh and keeps it pumping. He is an under rated craftsman and writer revitalizing the buddy cop film with "Lethal Weapon" and gave me one of the best times I have had at a movie with "The Long Kiss Goodnight". His directing is a breath of fresh air from the second movie and I hope he directs the next "Avengers". He also is the co writer of a very solid and smart story and screenplay. Again, writing for a superhero movie shouldn't be this great.

I also like the villians here much more than I did in "The Avengers". I won't give the surprise away but the two actors playing the villians are brilliant. Ben Kingsley is magnificent as "The Mandarin", a terrorist from the Middle East and his performance is Snavely Award nomination worthy at least. I won't explain the plot because it is delightfully complicated but yet easy to follow. There is some cluttered and non sensical stuff in the final third but I didn't mind, I didn't want it to end. What makes the "Iron Man" movies that more special is the love story in the middle that moved me and made me laugh. This is a love story that outshines any of the "Batman" movies or "Spiderman" movies and equals the greatest superhero love story of all time "Superman 2". , Paltrow and Downey Jr are magnetic together, so much so that I feel that they are a real life couple. That is big time chemistry and Paltrow looks beautiful and energized.

"Iron Man 3" is what a great popcorn movie, superhero movie, love story and summer blockbuster should be. What makes these movies so special is the rapid fire wit, energy and acting prowess of Robert Downey Jr. His performance is the best of any superheroes in any of the superhero movies. He is a special actor that can make a movie like this greater than it is. Shane Black has directed a movie I would see again and again. Great acting, action, dialogue, effects, excitement, visuals and cinematography. The movie never goes out of control, it is a huge amount of fun and not only the best action movie of the year so far but one of the best movies of the year period and the summer movie to beat!

'THE GREAT GATSBY'

'THE GREAT GATSBY' (PG-13) (3 STARS)

Written by Craig Pearce and Baz Luhrmann based on the novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald
Directed by Baz Luhrmann
Actors: Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan, Tobey Maguire, Joel Edgerton, Isla Fisher, Jason Clarke.

I never read "The Great Gatsby" in school, my school must have missed that one. I do know that my classmates might have liked to see Baz Luhrmann's movie adaptation. When I was a kid all we had was the boring and staid 1974 version with Robert Redford and Mia Farrow. I also did not see that adaptation but I tried once and fell asleep. I wish I would have read the book because when Luhrmann's "Great Gatsby" settles down it is pretty compelling in a soapy, melodramatic way. It also kind of reminds me of a Shakespeare tragedy and that nicely fits with Luhrmann being the director of "Romeo and Juliet" which Leonardo DiCaprio also starred in. "Gatsby" reminds me of "Romeo and Juliet" with it's campy excesses and the actor's theatrical delivery of lines but movie goers will like this better.

In the first hour I was feeling uncomfortable and the movie was just bugging me. It takes a while to settle down and the movie starts roughly because it's weakest character is the only one we see for about 20 minutes. That is how long it takes for DiCaprio to get on screen. That weak character is actually the narrator and friend to Jay Gatsby, Nick Carraway, played stiffly by Tobey Maguire. I get that we don't see Gatsby till about 20 minutes in because that is the effect of the story. Everyone spreads rumors that Gatsby is a spy, no he has ties to Nazis and we know that Gatsby is a mystery to all and he throws parties where no one can find him at. When we get to finally encounter him we are happy but until then we have Nick who is either a dullard (I don't know, I didn't read the book) or Maguire is miscast and totally ineffective.

The first hour of the movie is also jumpy and the campy excess takes awhile to adapt to, this isn't your mother's "Gatsby". It is the same style as "Romeo and Juliet" and "Moulin Rouge", not my favorite movies but I like that Luhrmann makes his movies come alive and jump around and I like his camera movement. The movie is visually breathtaking and I like his wide angle shots where things come at you from the corner of the screens. The 3D helps and in this case is more necessary than most shameful 3D movies, it enhances the screen. That doesn't help you concentrate in the movie because the modern songs by Jay Z and others can distract. I liked the music though and besides the dull Nick Carraway the movie was always fun to look at. The Nick Carraway character though is still like that third wheel at a party that follows your hotter, more exciting friends around and drags down the party.

Then a really wonderful thing happens in the second hour of the movie. The story settles down and Fitzgerald's poetic dialogue comes through. I really like the writing in the second half and I started to really delve into the characters, now I want to read the book. There is some juicy melodrama and DiCaprio has some explosive moments and shines here. He is a great modern leading man, looks great here and commands the screen. I didn't feel that till the second hour though but his effective performance does come through. Carey Mulligan also continues to shine as Gatsby's love Daisy Buchannan. Joel Edgerton also has become one of our promising new actors with another stellar turn, all three actors adapt well to Luhrmann's heightened theatrical delivery. "The Great Gatsby" kept me spellbound after I got to settle in and I thought it was fun and beautiful to look at. I will take this over a "Titanic" or a stiff version like the 1974 film any day.