Color me confused. I didn't see this in the theater, in 3D and maybe the spectacle of that would have entertained me more. But, honestly, for what this movie is hoping to achieve, should one of the highlights be a bunch of fish popping off the screen?

Technically, okay, the movie looks pretty. The tiger looks real, this actor seems to really be going through this, but here's the thing...he's not. If the whole thing's a metaphor, why the hell…

I've lost count on how many times I've seen this. At least twice in the theater and many times at home. I put it on today since The Master isn't out yet and I wanted a fix of some Paul Thomas Anderson and it did not disappoint.

One of my favorite things about this and several of Anderson's other films is that moment when the main character has this realization. In Magnolia all the characters actually sing "It's not going…

Re-watched this after a long absence and found myself really, really enjoying it. What Tarantino did with no money is outstanding (not that Pulp Fiction had that much more money, but is a huge leap from this film in so many ways, which is saying something considering how great this one is).

You can say what you want about style over substance, ripping off other film genres, blah, blah, blah. Tarantino not only loves movies, but, more importantly, he loves…