It was heavily promoted. It broke box office records. There was a rillyrilly big black enemy ship. There were a lot of huge fight scenes with a bunch of fighters -- one involves a dizzying ride through a trench.

The good guys try to attack, and suddenly find out there's a shield (one poor pilot dies by smearing himself across it). That's okay, though, because someone on the inside knocks the shield out. Meanwhile, the good guys find a design flaw in the enemy ship that will destroy it. Everyone tries to hit it, but no one does. No one, that is, except the newbie rebel that relies on sheer instinct rather than on technology.

Kaboom! The end, the free world is saved.

ID-4, the definitive blockbuster monster of the summer, is a good movie. As an aside, though, it might be better if you weren't one of the four people on Earth who hadn't seen any of the films in the Star Wars series.

What we have -- behind the best marketing campaign in years -- is a paint-by-number alien invasion movie. Now, there's a theory that if Hollywood throws enough money at a cookie-cutter plot, they'll produce a hit. Much as I hate to admit it, this time it worked.

I defer to more qualified fans of Will Smith to critique his performance. Jeff Goldblum, though playing the exact same role he's done in his last two films, is excellent. Bill Pullman isn't bad, though I could barely keep from snickering during the Big Speech (every humanity-saving movie has a Big Speech). Brent Spiner, dear Data from Star Trek's second incarnation, puts in a wonderful (but sadly short) appearance. As for Randy Quaid... well, what can I say that hasn't been said?

I'd love to say something nice about the women appearing in this picture, but I can't remember them much. In order for this two-and-a-half-hour masterpiece to be shown on TV someday, I suggest they edit out the First Lady and the stereotypical single-black-mom-who-must-marry-to-redeem-herself (but with a twist... she's a stripper!). They're barely blips on the plot-o-meter.

I know, I know... why pick on the characters? They're certainly not what makes this film so special! There are special effects that put the armageddon sequence from Terminator 2 to shame. There are so many explosions and sparkling sets and flattened cities (mysteriously missing the expected piles of rottiing bodies), you can barely take a breath.

I saw an interview where the director and producers isolated the three elements they wanted this film to exhibit: volume, volume and volume. They get an A in that department. I got a headache (darned Waikiki theaters).

Heck, I love any movie that has a Macintosh Powerbook save the planet, even if it does so by inexplicably developing the ability to connect to a totally alien computer network.

See this movie. You'll be a social outcast if you don't. At best, you'll have enjoyed the best pieces of escapist science fiction to come out of American studios in about a decade. At worst, you'll find great joy in diving through the enormous holes in the plot during the walk home.

Morgan Freeman starring is always a good sign. It's got a soundtrack of classical pieces, sweeping scenery of 18th-century London, and more rich, sensual lighting and sigh-worthy dialogue than any movie in ages. The story -- definitely fat with the melodrama of old novels -- is meticulously engineered to jerk serious tears... and succeeds.

The film follows the diary of Moll Flanders, played by a finally realized Robin Wright. She crosses paths with Hibble (Freeman), Mrs. Allworthy (Stockard Channing is excellent) and a struggling painter played by John Lynch (yum!) -- whose name we never learn. Moll is feisty, defiant, but generous and beautiful. You've probably seen the character a hundred times before, but you still have to love this tale.

I predicted the ending, but my friend Jessamyn -- who was already into her fifth tissue -- apparently didn't. It practically had her bawling. The whole movie was just so beautiful, I don't care if it was almost overdone. I'll probably see it again.

Though that may not sound like a terribly flattering summary, trust me. There are few true-blue action films that I thoroughly enjoy, let alone consider worth $6.50.

Yet as predictable, manipulative and somewhat long this movie was, I couldn't help being drawn in and cheering (and laughing) out loud with the rest of the theater audience.

With such heavyweight stars as Sean Connery, Nicholas Cage and Ed Harris, there's not a weak performance to be had -- nor an obvious show-stealer. The dialogue worked, the token action-flick music wasn't too overdone, and the special effects more convincing than most.

Yes, the action sequences (including the expected but excellent car-chase) were dizzying. Everything explodes, everyone has a gun, and there's a fair share of blood (and mutilated flesh) too. Surprisingly, though, the plot had some depth. Despite the fact that the movie seemed to meander along some pretty odd tangents, it wasn't at all difficult to get involved with the story or fall in love with the characters.

I will admit, most of the "loyalty" and "honor" stuff driving this film's heavy military tone didn't do anything for me. But Ed Harris does the renegade Marine with such power, he can get you going even with the couple of corny speeches he delivers.

Cage was excellent as well, taking a role that was clearly written to be a stereotype and bringing some wit and bite to it. I gotta admit, though... I couldn't help thinking in this film how much he suddenly reminded me of a sexier David Schwimmer.

Finally, I might be a couple generations too late to have swooned over Sean Connery when he was a limber young man, but he's still too charming and sexy for words. With his evenhanded yet uncharacteristically crude performance in this film, he remains one of my all-time favorite actors.

Jennifer summed it up thusly: "A cross between Braveheart and Old Yeller."

This movie didn't know what it was. An Arthurian drama? A comedy tribute to "Men in Tights? A moral-ridden childrens' film?

The music was formula, the plot was formula, the dialogue at times was unbearable. The dragon sequences, though stunning, were countered by the ten-dollar effects ILM probably didn't do (what was with the star thing?).

I smell a USA Up-All-Night favorite. Save your money.

I loved it. So much I saw it twice, the second time in four-story glory at the Waikiki 3 theater (it's not there anymore, now relegated to the postage-stamp screens at Kahala Mall while "The Rock" has a go).

As far too many movies duke it out this summer, I know one company that's going to have a banner year: Industrial Light and Magic.

Thanks to these folks, you almost find yourself wanting to flee the theater. I haven't seen a real tornado, mind you, but thanks to the nearly-seamless special effects in this movie, I won't be going to Oklahoma any time soon.

The reason I rave about the effects first is fitting, though, because they're essentially the star of the show. Bill Paxton does a credible job, and surprisingly Helen Hunt makes a convincing career scientist. Overall, however, the plot is a B-plus at best (at times, the characters literally spell it out for you -- I guess in case you're Bob Dole).

The dialogue is sharp enough (watch for the gratuitous Star Wars quote), and the film is deftly paced to keep you edgy but without making you poop out halfway through.

If you missed it at the theaters, my best piece of advice is to crash at the home of a friend who's got the whole big-screen-Dolby-Surround set up when it comes out on video.

Of course, the basic premise of this film is exactly the opposite. Sorry for the confusion.

Part of me wants to rag on this film a little, to taunt those friends of mine (I won't tell) who got all weepy during "Sleepless in Seattle" while I giggled, but on the other hand I paid to see it twice. Go fig.

Thus, I must defer to most critics and agree that this movie is a charming, strong romantic comedy. The plot is Cyrano de Bergerac turned upside-down, but it's written well enough to frustrate you as if you didn't know how things were going to turn out.

The soundtrack, in particular, was awesome. Bought it the same night I saw the movie.

I heard complaints that it wasn't quite as flash-and-bang as the commercials made it seem. For me, that was a plus. Granted, it had a lot of pensive "The Thinker" shots, and the situations made your brain turn somersaults. But its degree of quiet tension was refreshing compared to most flicks in the "action" genre.

I admit, it took me longer than I think it should have to figure it out. That means either I'm a bit of a dim-wit, or it could have been written a tad better. Your mileage may vary.

I have to say, I got a thrill out of the underlying Mac-versus-PC sentiment in the product placement, and high-tech gadgets -- realistic or not -- always get me going.

The computer geek I am, though, I was disappointed to see some of the depictions of net life (i.e. USENET groups and e-mail addresses) fudged over almost as blasphemously as done in "The Net."