Clareece "Precious" Jones is an overweight, illiterate African-American teen in Harlem. Just as she's about to give birth to her second child, Jones is accepted into an alternative school where a teacher helps her find a new path in her life.

What a sad, painful story this is. A child who has lived all her life unloved by her Mother and instead abused and hated by her. A mother who saw her child as competition for her man's affection. A Mother who routinely beats and berates her child. A father who routinely raped his own child. Hurtful, hurtful, heartbreaking story. Yet, it is - also - a story of the ability of the human spirit to rise above circumstances and still soar. Wonderful, wonderful acting by all. I had no idea Monique could act this well...you actually just hate her in this movie. And, the star...this lovely child, Precious....who feels invisible in a world where to paraphase Maya Angelou, "the ideal of beauty is white skin and blond hair. So growing up as a black child [in such a world] is an unnecessary insult." But beautiful Precious is and we could see it and root her on. Perhaps this movie would be validation for other girls who are like Precious. Who live their lives in the hell that she lives in...who lives their lives invisible because they don't look like others in magazines. I hope they see this film and find their voice, too. For everyone IS precious.

Watch the Trailer:

When I saw this movie years ago, I was not turning on the TV every other day and seeing better horror stories about step-parents on the news, so I was more shocked at the original than this version! The "creepy new person with a secret past" thing has been done so much in film that when I saw this movie, I was underwhelmed. It was somewhat entertaining, but not powerful enough to recommend it for the theater as opposed to waiting for the DVD.

Watch the Trailer:

Anna Wintour, the legendary editor-in-chief of Vogue magazine for twenty years, is the most powerful and polarizing figure in fashion. Hidden behind her trademark bob and sunglasses, she has never allowed anyone to scrutinize the inner workings of her magazine. Until now. With unprecedented access, filmmaker R.J. Cutler's new film takes the viewer inside a world they only think they know. Every August a record-breaking number of people can't wait to get their hands on the September issue of Vogue. The 2007 issue was and remains the biggest ever, weighing over four pounds, selling thirteen million copies, and impacting the $300-billion global fashion industry more than any other single publication. He takes us behind the scenes at Fashion Week, to Europe, on shoots and re-shoots, and into closed-door staff meetings, bearing witness to an arduous, entertaining, and sometimes emotionally demanding process. At the eye of this annual fashion hurricane is the two-decade relationship between Wintour and Grace Coddington, incomparable Creative Director and fashion genius. They are perfectly matched for the age-old conflict between creator and curator. Through them, we see close-up the delicate creative chemistry it takes to remain at the top of the ever-changing fashion field.

This is an actual documentary with no point of view or axe to grind. It shows the two gals who run the show at Vogue and have for many years. The power they have in the fashion industry is palpable. Of course the fact that these gals and practically everyone they work with dont look very good, wear make up and have a fashion sense that leans heavily on wearing cloths that are out of date and unflattering to them was odd.

It was interesting to see them jockey to have their shoots or positions make it in the magazine and to watch the cold gal who bluntly runs it all and to see how it all comes to gether.

It was weird to see how important it all is to them and how they try to rationalize it but unfortunately that was pretty thin rationalizing and no one questioned them so you were getting a documentary but more of a vogue ad at documentary.

It wasn't insufferable and was enlightening as to how a magazine moves from one issue to the next as well as to see the interactions within the fashion industry. We went to the early show, which was cheapest

1n 1972, a scale of measurement was established for alien encounters. When a UFO is sighted, it is called an encounter of the first kind. When evidence is collected, it is known as an encounter of the second kind. When contact is made with extraterrestrials, it is the third kind. The next level, abduction, is the fourth kind. This encounter has been the most difficult to document-until now. Set in modern-day Nome, Alaska, where--mysteriously since the 1960s--a disproportionate number of the population has been reported missing every year. Despite multiple FBI investigations of the region, the truth has never been discovered. Here in this remote region, psychologist Dr. Abigail Tyler began videotaping sessions with traumatized patients and unwittingly discovered some of the most disturbing evidence of alien abduction ever documented.

This movie is obviously trying to capitalize on the craze for reality TV, youtube, and low budget films like the recent Paranormal Activity. People love this stuff when it might be real or mimics reality. Thus, at best this movie can claim to be a big Hollywood adaptation of reality entertainment. Fine. Even forgiving nothing in this movie is true, if we were to base a review solely on the merit of the ability to MIMIC reality, it still fails. It's not even believable as a fake!

Here are the facts:

A) The movie producers created fake websites with fake information to build up hype for the film. Now those sites have been taken down.

B) Nome Alaska has 3500 people. The movie depicts a town with over 20,000 easy, but more like 40,000 or more. It's a small town.

C) Small towns don't even have psychiatrists or PhD counselors. There are not enough people there to support them. The movie claims there to be 2, and it would be a miracle if even one could survive there financially -- let alone have the thriving practice with modern furnishings depicted in the film. Not to mention the fact that I've lived in a small town of about that size. Everyone knows everybody. There are interviews with people from the town available online. They know of no such doctor residing in the town. I guarantee if you caught a plane and went up there yourself and poked around, the alien abduction nonsense would be totally without any basis whatsoever. Consider also that places like Roswell capitalize on UFOs for tourism. They'd do it to and not deny it if it were true for the economic boom!!!

D) The whole movie centers on a town depicted as being surrounded by mountains and with lush forests and a little harbor. The scenery is idyllic, and based on the movie, I'd not mind living there myself. No. Go to wikipedia. The town is on flat tundra with no trees on the coast. It's a barren wasteland. This is the greatest strike against the movie. The picture shows clusters of houses all together. The movie depicts a bunch of isolated loners living in isolated cabins. HOW do you get alien abductions when there are no trees and no isolation? There would be tons of witnesses. This fact just makes the whole concept of the movie laughable. There's not even any doubt that their hoax could be true.

E) The acting in the "REAL" archived footage is pathetic. The actress playing the supposed real doctor Abigail Tyler does a poor job. Not to mention that they badly put some kind of white makeup on her to make her look hideous. They try so hard to make it look real that it looks fake. I didn't even find myself slipping into the delusion that the archived footage was real. On the websites for the actors in the film, they should be honest and list this actress's name.

F) My last and final gripe has to do with the decor in the houses of the normal people supposedly being documented. One of the abductees is shown in his bedroom undergoing hypnosis. The bedroom looked like a New York interior designer furnished the place with an unlimited budget. It in no way looked like a real Nome citizen's home, and I have to ask just what all these people are doing in this small town to be so well off!!!

G) It makes a huge deal about an owl hovering near the abductions. I checked the range of owls in Alaska. There are no species of owl in Nome!

I wouldn't be so hopping mad had this film not continually beat you over the head with its attempts to make you believe. It casts a sheriff as the constant voice of reason intervening and casting doubt. The sheriff is so overacted and such a cliche poor caricature of a character I've seen a thousand times before in other movies. (The opposing force of skepticism for supernatural events that often times is downright irrational about not accepting evidence that ANYONE in their right mind would accept.) At the beginning and end of the movie Mila Jovovich gives us a message about how we can take it or leave it as to whether or not it really happened or how we interpret things. And they concoct epilogue stories for each of the characters to say what they're up to now to make it seem real.

The whole thing is a ****ing hoax and I want my money back. They should be sued for false advertising.

Finally, note that they hint at some kind of Raelian conspiracy where Aliens are supposedly the seeders of life on Earth and that they're coming back to do tests on us as if they were our Gods. Just tapping into the collective unconscious and preying upon fear, stirring up ****.

If there was a grade lower than F for this movie, I'd give it.

Tagline for the movie on IMDB: "Fact-based thriller involving an ongoing unsolved mystery in Alaska, where one town has seen an extraordinary number of unexplained disappearances during the past 40 years and there are accusations of a federal cover up."

All bull.

There are unsolved mysteries, but it's more likely to be drunk people wandering around in the snow than anything else.

NOT FACT BASED.
BPG56CEF2M4E

The animation was nothing short of outstanding. Disney has gone far to make their characters and scenery as real as possible. Fantastic job with all the effects! (Yes, even the creepy ones, you big babies.) If you are an animation enthusiast you might enjoy this.

The acting was good for Jim Carrey's standards. While the animation could not capture all of his acting abilities, it caught up fairly well. He was a wonderful Scrooge.

They hardly touched the story at all and I mean that in a good way. It was hardly warped to be family friendly and I like that. Dickens was not Dr. Seuss, people. He wrote for a more mature audience. Why do you think schools don't teach him until High School? DUH! So to all the people who say they ruined the story, don't believe them. They are clearly too used to the sugar-coated dumbed down versions and probably never picked up the actual book.

Disney has not been kid friendly is the last several years, and it certainly isn't now! Did you really think the studio that made the Pirates of the Caribbean films would dumb down a Dickens classic? Certainly not! Those of you who are expecting a kid-friendly happy, merry little bit of holiday cheer will be majorly disappointed.

If you are an adult I'd highly recommend it. And if you have kids in Middle School and High School they'd probably enjoy it as well. But do not take anyone under 12. This is imperative. Not unless you know they have the balls to sit through creepy images unafraid.