Reviews

19 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Missed the mark historically, but still a very good & necessary film
24 October 2004
Warning: Spoilers
(BIG-TIME SPOILER ALERT - READ THIS AFTER YOU WATCH THE FILM!!)

Michael Collins as a man was an important figure in Irish history, though some consider him as slightly-misguided for one single large decision, though he did many patriotic deeds and was an incredibly brave young man regardless. He was very definitely a patriot and one of the cornerstones of Irish freedom, but he was not the top player in the quest by virtually anyone's estimation; he was more of a soldier general than a political leader, like Washington rather than Jefferson, Franklin and Hamilton in American Revolutionary history.

This movie could have been made with a number of other characters in the lead position who were more important and possibly more dramatic during that era. Patrick Pearse (a lawyer & patriot who had many quotes that could have been used) or James Connolly, who were both executed for the 1916 Easter Uprising, or even Eamonn De Valera, who although demonized in the movie had much more historic weight to draw upon --- all of these figures would have been my choices above Collins. I don't mean to disparage Collins' motives and means as I believe he was a fearless patriot to the end who got caught up in governmental and political machinations that he never should have been involved with; rather, he should have been an army leader, plain and simple.

After seeing this, you quickly realize that the IRA has always been a bloody outfit of terrorists, but they have always had a passionate patriot quest that has fueled that bloodshed and their killing had a truly patriotic mission in its early stages --- their initial missions didn't include the bombing and killing of innocent victims, though they have always had trouble with choosing violence over political discourse. This movie gives the Old IRA as they are called by historians a patriotic and noble light, which is fair indeed. They would certainly not attain that position in any objective film about their latter-day exploits save the Hunger Strikes of 1981.

There are inaccuracies in the movie as you will find in virtually any historically-based movie, but there is much more you will get out of watching it than just dismissing it as a Hollywood story. If you don't know much about Irish history, you will want to learn more after seeing it as I did my first time, and being of Irish-American lineage, I'm quite ashamed that I didn't know as much as I should have; in fact, I knew very little at all. This movie got me started, and after reading many interesting volumes of text from scholarly sources, archives & opinionated texts, I have formed some conclusions of my own.

I believe that the real mistake was in sending Collins to negotiate with the Brits. Regardless of whether he wanted to go or not, he never should have been sent or accepted the position. Furthermore, he never should have accepted anything less than what the Irish leadership wanted him to accept, which was total freedom as a true, non-commonwealth Republic. There probably wouldn't have been a civil war and Collins would have possibly lived to be an old man otherwise and see the real Republic 28 years later. I do believe that the move to an Irish Free State was better than nothing at all, and I agree with Collins motives to gain peace and use Free Statehood as a stepping stone (even DeValera admitted as much later in his life), but there should have been discussion and debate and a general consensus among the Irish leadership with a bonafide plan to turn Ireland into a true free Republic within a certain, short period of time (like what Scotland recently experienced) before Collins & Arthur Griffith foolishly committed to it without that caveat. The only reason a majority accepted it was because it was a done deal and they didn't want any more bloodshed, and Collins and Griffith sold it to a majority of the public after-the-fact, most of whose citizenry was non-confrontational anyway. But with smart negotiating, they could have had it all in due time, the Irish Free State, then the Republic of Ireland (not to be confused with the Irish Republic which existed during the era of the movie prior to the Irish Free State) instead of having to wait until 1949 when England literally gave away its long-awaited freedom along with its other parcels of real estate, Israel & India --- Ireland never fought much again after Collins died. In retrospect, Collins was prophetic when he said that he signed his death warrant by signing the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921.

I believe Liam Neeson did a superb job as he always does. Aidan Quinn's accent grated on me (sounded like a New York Irish accent if even that) & Julia Roberts was just plain horrible and served as eye-candy only in my opinion and apparently most others. Alan Rickman also gave a fantastic performance as De Valera, and Stephen Rea always gives a top-notch performance. There are a few other actors I would have liked to see in this production, but all-in-all, I enjoyed the movie very much regardless of its shortcomings --- it was a very necessary movie to be made.

I thought the music was excellent as well as the lush Irish countryside --- it will make you want to see it at least once in your lifetime.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Ant and the Aardvark (1969–1972)
It was all John Byner, NOT Jackie Mason!
26 April 2004
I loved this cartoon very much as well as its big brother, The Pink Panther. Why they don't make cartoons like this anymore, I'll never understand.

Jackie Mason NEVER, EVER did any voices on this cartoon. The Jackie Mason-type voice was the incredible impressionist/comedian/actor John Byner doing a dead-on impression of Jackie Mason. Byner did both the Ant & the Aardvark, which isn't unusual as most cartoons have voice actors doing multiple voices. Look at The Simpsons --- Hank Azaria & Harry Shearer probably did about 30 voices between them on a regular basis.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Survivors (1983)
7/10
Just a funny & simple Neil Simon-esque movie
24 February 2004
I can't believe the reviews from these Roger Ebert wannabes that tear it down; it wasn't supposed to make a statement or have a sound plot --- it's a COMEDY, you idiots! The numerous one-liners in this movie are priceless, and if you can't appreciate how enjoyable it is, you've gotten way too serious about movies, folks. Its humor has withstood the test of time and it's a solid 7 of 10. This is one of Williams and Matthau's funniest and well worth your time. Would you believe that I never noticed that Robin flashed his genitals in the hospital scene until my wife saw it for the first time and pointed it out --- women have a heckuva radar for those things!
40 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Weak scriptwriting, but still a decent film worth watching
18 January 2004
It's an OK, very-watchable film with a good premise & ending and worth a couple hours of your life, but the writing was trite and it brought the whole story down with it, which led to the poor B.O. grosses. What holds it up more than anything are the actors. It's certainly not as bad as some reviewers would have you believe; it's certainly not original except for the outcome, but it's not as telegraphed as some know-it-all comments would have you believe --- hindsight is 20/20, folks. But because the script lacked character depth and they used so many cliches, much of the mechanisms that lead to the denouement (that's an artsy-fartsy term for "the outcome/conclusion" that many of these Leonard Maltin wannabes use) were indeed predictable. You can probably tell who's involved and what's probably going to happen in the next scene because of the weak script structure, which happens when, say, a movie has a scene with 4 people in an elevator, the lights go out and 1 of them is stabbed. You have a whodunit there, but it's not very deep, eh? It's true that a few minutes before the end, you may be able to guess it, but not much earlier. I watched it with a person at least as intelligent as myself and she didn't have a handle on the outcome beforehand and I only figured it out about a few minutes before it was told to us and by then it wasn't a letdown. Besides, it's the storyline itself that leads you to the conclusion; there's no evidence otherwise that would clearly indicate it at any other point earlier in the flick, so that's the only part where the writers did their job, but they made so made other errors that it cancels those kudos out. The cellphones being out-of-area was a bad choice, which facilitated the need to use pay phones in the story; utterly ridiculous in these times.

Kevin Spacey did very well in all his scenes except for the interaction with his kid and especially his wife. I didn't buy his emotions, especially the last scene with his wife & kid. Most people would be going berserk or at least visually pained. I saw nothing that indicated a bond at all. Fault the director more than Spacey for that one as he should have insisted upon new takes and discussion to get the emotions and reactions correct, plus some better camera shots.

Laura Linney said in an interview that she did all the nude scenes. Very nice, Laura --- I thought it was a body double with a mature body used for effect, but if you think about it, why get someone with a nice, albeit mature body if you're going to use a double? You'd be tempted to use someone with fewer flaws, so it had to be her.

Notice that Nicolas Cage is finally starting to get serious as a producer/investor with this one, but he needs to pick better scripts. It had a good premise, but it needed a script doctor badly. To be a good producer, Nic is going to have to get more hands-on with his scripts, learn more about what a good script is, and do whatever it takes to get it right. His choices of roles as an actor show that he's willing to take on unusual parts that are not commercially-popular, which is great for an actor getting a nice salary but it's a big risk (and usually a mistake) as a producer to sink your cash into a project that skirts the commercial mainstream, just like it's not wise to build houses most people won't buy or create art that most people find revolting. It may turn you on and be very original, but if you're trying to make money, it's a bad risk. Nic, here's some great advice from a successful businessman and investor --- take your film investment capitol and go to Vegas and bet on the black, 1 spin --- you'd have better odds than your previous production forays if you don't start picking better scripts to film. I also suggest starring in them like Cruise & Eastwood do; that's why they're worth about 500 million more than you. Maybe you should stick with the comic-book collecting.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Football --- you bet!
9 November 2003
Yeah, I remember that one line and I don't know how it became such a big thing as the show itself was no big deal. I think it was just the fact that it was a sitcom with the word beach in the title that people actually checked it out, and when it stiffed, the only thing to come out of it was the famous line. Why it stuck I have no idea, but do a Yahoo search and you'll find numerous mentions of the line and the fact that it came from this show; it is indeed a famous line if not infamous considering the dubious fate of the show. It's the only thing I or anybody else remembers about it. I wonder if the guy who said it is still saying it somewhere in some bar and nobody except the rare 40-ish guy with a good memory has a clue what he's talking about.
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A wonderful video memory of a great man of jazz
23 February 2003
I never write or read these comments because I don't care much what others think of a movie and I sure as heck can't stand reading a pointless review by someone pretending to be the NY Times movie critic using words like "iconoclastic" and otherwise taxing their thesaurus. But being a musician and avid fan myself, I felt I owed this to Dexter Gordon, an excellent musician whose work (I would have said "oeuvre" if I was pretentious, but I say what I mean and I don't need to impress you to make me feel better) was nothing short of legendary. Yes, Dexter Gordon is not an actor, but he did a good job and apparently the folks who hand out the Oscars thought the same, not that I would necessarily use them as a barometer, mind you, but they do pick more winners than losers. Although Dexter did spend about 15 years on/off in Paris, this story is NOT autobiographical, but the storyline of dealing with addictions, mental pain and physical suffering while honing a great talent can be applied to the lives of many jazz greats like Charlie Parker, Lester Young & Bud Powell just to name a few. It's a "dark" movie indeed, but the life of a musician can be very dark. This movie shows how 2 people can work together to overcome their fears, regrets and troubles, and how they interact with the various people and situations in their lives, a true character study revolving around music. The movie is actually more about Francois' character than Dexter's as it's seen from his point of view. It's about the frailty of the human soul and it's about compassion for supreme artistry. Most importantly, regardless of your impression of the movie, you get to see some real legends perform some wonderful jazz. Yes, Dexter Gordon was certainly beyond his prime and you will hear a few clunkers and pitch variance, but you will appreciate his talent nonetheless if you understand or enjoy jazz music at all. If you want to hear him really shine, go listen to his music from the late 40's & also the 60's during his first comeback; Dexter had 3 great comebacks --- and they say Sinatra was a genius at reinvention. That will give you a true sampling of his talent before he got old and started losing his wind. Even though he didn't play to perfection, he still played damn well in this movie and you can hear the experience in his phrasing and choice of notes --- for instance, at the very end of "Body & Soul", where he formerly played a very long ending like a virtuoso in an earlier recording (something you probably expect from someone like Kenny G, who plays about 40 notes where only 10 fit comfortably), Dexter now plays a single, beautifully-placed note. That one single note blew me away! You have to understand and appreciate the fact that most players (and most people) say way too much with their music or words when a carefully placed note or word can say volumes with its understatement, like a single picture with no caption. To play that one note in that one spot was pure genius. Bob James has been known to do the same --- less is more sometimes. Francois Cluzet does a heckuva job as protector and friend and the cameo by Martin Scorsese is priceless. The ending always leaves me wanting more and that's the mark of an excellent movie --- one so good you don't want it to end; you want to be within the movie yourself and you feel you're a part of it. The only reason I gave this a 9 instead of 10 was because it's not a great classic movie like Casablanca or The Godfather, but it touched me as much or more than those movies ever had. But this wasn't meant to be a piece of cinematic history and achievement, it is what it is, a period film about life of a jazz legend and in that respect it does everything possible and them some. This movie deserves your respect, your time and your admiration of a great jazz saxophonist, Dexter Gordon, and kudos to all the musicians involved, especially Herbie Hancock. Actress Lonette McKee does an excellent job on the vocals as well. It also gives you a good feel of a real urban jazz club in the early 60's and how life was for these jazz legends. If you get hooked on this stuff you'll never listen to anything else as it will never measure up, but jazz is very cerebral and it takes someone with a passion for aesthetics to appreciate it. Chess is great too, but you don't see many kids playing Chessmaster on their computers. This movie is an acquired taste and an excellent one at that. Thanks for the memories, Dexter.
21 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Memento (2000)
9/10
A very original plot and screenplay, even groundbreaking
6 April 2002
This film is for those who like mysteries, or are in school to learn how to make a good film script, or who are at least of average intelligence. The lower life forms, such as NASCAR/Wrestling fans and bowlers need not apply --- go see The Flintstones, Part 8 in 3D.

I have never had the pleasure of watching a film which progressed completely backwards in time & frame sequence. You could literally watch this film from the last scene to the first and it would make sense, maybe even more sense, except of course that you would watch the true ending first and spoil it for yourself. What's really cool is that there's a slight narrative story within the story that is moving forward --- it's really ingenious.

This is a classic in the making; completely original in all aspects. This is something that I'm sure Hitchcock would have liked to do if he or anybody had thought of it before. There are plot holes, but incredibly, you don't notice them badly and they don't have to be resolved to enjoy the film. The script even mentions at least one, and you have to stop and think for a moment to find the others --- if Leonard can make no new memories, what good is a revenge killing if he won't remember the satisfaction of it, or even if he has even exacted revenge already --- in fact, what good is doing anything other than just existing and waiting for a cure, but then you wouldn't have a movie, eh? These questions were posed by the story which inspired the film and of course were omitted for sake of argument and they do not spoil the continuity one bit.

The introduction of certain elements of the plot are not mentioned and left up to the viewer to decipher, and another big hole --- if Leonard can't remember anything, how does he remember how to drive a car, how does he even know that the Polaroids he takes are in his pocket, and how does he know about anything he has done more than 30 minutes ago which are essential to functioning in life in general? There are also elements of certain characters that fail to resolve themselves, but you can live with them as well --- what you get in return is a heckuva neo-Noir flick that deserves your attention.

If you will suspend belief as you should when you see any film and manage to hold on for the first 30 minutes until the plot thickens, you will get an incredible payoff. In fact, this will be a film that you will want to watch again the very moment it ends to take stock of what just happened and the time frames and appreciate the mastery of the plot & screenplay fully and even discuss what you just saw with someone, as you may have a time figuring out what you just saw! The filmmakers left a little of the story in your hands to allow you to decide what you just saw, but not so much (like "K-PAX") that you feel like you were left with an incomplete storyline.

Thumbs straight up on this one, and you MUST get the DVD version to really appreciate this film.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
K-PAX (2001)
7/10
Oscar? No, it's Oscar Meyer --- a "wiener" instead of a winner
4 April 2002
You need to buy/rent the Collectors Edition DVD to really have any chance to enjoy this ne'er-do-well film, as the deleted scenes that ended up on the cutting room floor would have made this film a thousand times better. The alternate ending was much better than the one they kept, though still sadly missing the target as this film had such great unrealized potential. The trailers were too vague, the really good plot and storyline had a bad script for an engine; even the title is a horrible miss. Maybe someone will remake this in 25 years and do it right. I would've had more of Jeff Bridges talking into his recorder in a narrative style more often with a better soundtrack and went for the mystery/fantasy side a lot more like Spielberg or Ron Howard would have done and I certainly would have given a better explanation of what happened --- at midnight on a Thursday after a long week, it's hard to stay focused on this film and not feel like key scenes and the ending just passed me by with the feeling of "what the heck just happened here?" Unlike others, I won't spoil the ending, but you or I could have done a much better job with the film editing & writing. This film had great potential and missed tragically; not as bad a miss as "The Talented Mr. Ripley" & "Dead Poets Society" but certainly a tragic miss anyway. The script has big holes in it from the very beginning scene --- it's extremely clear that Spacey wasn't to blame in the opening scene, and why do the cops not believe the wheelchair dude, then ask him his opinion before they leave like they know him well? It's ridiculous. The nuts were not nutty enough nor funny enough to be likeable nor become a part of the story in the tradition of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", but you see some of the influence of it here. And the acting was not very inspired. This film idea could have been an Oscar contender, instead, it's Oscar Meyer, a wiener instead of a winner. But I still gave it a 6 for its sheer potential and the basic plot.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Trading Spaces (2000– )
A nauseating non-improvement for home improvement shows
11 March 2002
This show is absolutely horrible for a number of valid reasons:

For starters, it shows you how interior decorators are a homeowner's worst nightmare as they seldom take a person's lifestyle and create something that fits into it --- they are always doing something that is way out of the mainstream without taking into account a homeowner's personal tastes or consulting with them about it; of course, the nature of this show is for it to be a complete ambush, but it's twice as bad when the ambush is by dimwitted designers with cheap, bad taste. The show also reminds me too much of "The Today Show" with its preening, fawning and BS humor; you would have to be a naive, shallow person to enjoy the playful nature of the show --- I'm sure women represent 99% of the viewership. It's twice as long as it needs to be, assuming it should even be on the air at all.

But the main structural problem (pun intended) is, because of the cheap budget the show is on, that's exactly what you get --- cheap designs that look like something straight from kindergarten art class in a tasteless parallel universe. The host is equally nauseating, like she was plucked straight from cheerleading class at the local junior college. All of the designers are not only morons, they are posturing jerks with childish attitudes & no talent to be proud of --- the proof is in their work. Finally, if you really want to see this kind of crap, tune to BBC's original "Changing Rooms"; though they have 90% of the same problems, they do it a little less nauseating.

I personally recommend BBC's "Ground Force" if you like light-hearted home improvement shows, mainly because the girl on that show is very sexy & she never wears a bra, plus they do good work for the most part, and I also recommend "Gardening By The Yard" (which doesn't even have an entry on the IMDB for some reason) hosted by Paul James on HGTV, which is a lot better & highly entertaining show. Paul is very enjoyable, has a great voice & personality and is very knowledgable --- you will definitely learn something from him and get a good laugh with a clever adult sense of humor. If you want a serious home improvement show that's light fare and highly accessible/tasteful, tune into Bob Vila's "Home Again" or "Before & After" with Pat Simpson. Stay away from "This Old House" as it's just plain boring now. And click fast to an adjacent channel when "Trading Spaces" comes on.

Basically, don't support these idiots by watching their show --- it's a huge step backward in terms of entertainment value, not to mention interior decorating itself.
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Neo-Noir at its best!
1 January 2001
In the tradition of "neo" film noir flicks like "Chinatown", this film focuses on a crime mystery in a bleak realm with a bit of character insight blended in. The typical noir characters thoughout, including the cop out to prove himself, a damsel in distress and a bad, bad guy. Sharky's Machine gets a 9 out of 10 for its cinematography first, plus its direction, story, strong character acting and superb jazz score. Available on DVD, though the soundtrack itself is out of print (but available "used" on some auction sites). Filmed on location in beautiful downtown Atlanta (novelist Diehl's hometown) and the uncluttered, circa 1979 look of the city would make an old-time Atlanta citizen or visitor long for the old days before 12-lane interstates crisscrossed the city, a cinematographer's dream at that time. This was Rachel Ward's first USA feature film.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Principal (1987)
8/10
Very enjoyable 'positive message' movie
7 August 2000
This was a very enjoyable film about a ne`er-do-well teacher, Belushi, who's 'thrown to the wolves', placed into a job that's a living hell for any teacher. Can he stand tall and face the challenge? He'll certainly try and it's a plot we can all identify with.

Yeah, the stereotypes abound, but when you think about it, it isn't too far off the mark, except that the reality is a lot worse. I prefer to think of the characters as caricatures rather than stereotypes. It's a perfect Jim Belushi role, and for all of his paleness from having lived in his brother John's shadow for the entirety of his career, he pulls this off better than John ever would have. He's not as funny as John Belushi, but he's got more depth and versatility. The beauty part of Jim Belushi is, if you didn't know he was John's brother, you wouldn't figure it out very quickly if at all.

This film doesn't even seem like an 80s movie, so that's why you see it on TV a lot. It doesn't have all of the 80s quirks you normally see, e.g., greed, slick production sets, etc., but the soundtrack certainly does give it away.

It has some good messages and is a positive movie done tastefully, and for that alone it deserves a good recommendation and your viewing time. An easy 7 of 10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A real sleeper that just feels good
1 August 2000
If you are looking for a movie that's perfect, and you want to nitpick about the chemistry between the characters or the subtle nuances of one particular character, don't watch this one.

But if you're the kind that, instead of using a microscope to analyze something, would prefer to appreciate something by standing back at a distance and taking it all in, and especially if you like romantic comedies, this is absolutely, definitely the movie for you.

I can't believe any company would decide not to put this movie in the theaters. It was a very good movie; not a "Bull Durham" in quality of storyline, directing, etc., but it made me feel a helluva lot better than "Bull Durham" did in the end. There are more than a few moments where you will probably cry if you are emotional (as evidenced by my wife's reaction), and though the laughs aren't big, the lighter moments certainly work.

I've never liked Andie MacDowell, and I believe she is the weak link of the entire movie. I could have seen someone like a Shelley Long or somebody else prettier than MacDowell and certainly someone with more range who would have connected better with Garcia. But it's probably that fact that makes you really want Andy Garcia to win throughout the movie. He can actually be likeable in his character's helpless role, though it's more like the Al Pacino impression that he always does. Look for Don Novello, a/k/a "Father Guido Sarducci" as one of Gary's friends. Kudos to Richard Bradford, who really made the movie special with his portrayal of Benny, the punch-drunk former boxer & ticket hustler; he brought the "heart" to the movie.

It really moves well from the 30 minute point on, so give it a few minutes if you're not getting into it, but I predict, if you have a heart at all, you will appreciate this movie from start to finish, and it builds and progresses like a good movie should to a great and cute ending.

It was so good I bought the DVD!
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Forget Paris (1995)
9/10
An excellent romantic comedy!
1 August 2000
I can't imagine anybody with a heart not liking this movie. It works on all levels. It's basically a "flashback" film as told by the participants, but you don't feel like you're flashing back all the time; in fact, you are just as captivated as the character to whom the story is being told, and you can't wait for the next flashback, but you don't feel stuck in it. This one works a lot like "Fried Green Tomatoes" in that respect, except that there's more suspense in the flashbacks here. Also, using a cast of storytellers really helps keep it fresh throughout.

Debra Winger does a great job, and Billy Crystal was his usual charming and funny self, and there really wasn't a weak link in the entire movie. The ending was excellent. The comedy was very sharp and the drama was heavy when needed. I rate this one above "When Harry Met Sally", but don't compare the two as this is a story of two people in love who have obstacles to overcome, and the storyline is nothing like "WHMS" at all. The only similarity is Billy Crystal in a romantic comedy, and the comedy is better here and the romance is much better. Kudos to the late William Hickey (who was also a famous acting coach) for his funny portrayal of Winger's feeble-minded dad and also Cynthia Stevenson who played the woman that's being told the story.

Buy it --- you'll want to watch it more than once. Helluva ending also.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A very tragic and gratifying movie worth your time
1 August 2000
This movie appealed so much to me initially because my mom and dad physically remind me an awful lot of Van & Liz. But after I started watching it (I first saw this movie in the 80s), I fell in love with the story itself. It will break your heart if you have one.

As most all old movies go, it glosses/speeds over a lot of the character study and plot development that we come to appreciate in today's movies, as older movies tended to pick up the pace too quickly to enjoy an in-depth look at a relationship or a particular character, but I imagine that it would really break your heart if it had dug that deep in the script.

If you want or expect the entire story to crumble at the end, you need psychological help. There was no need for a complete and total tragedy of Shakespearean proportions, and the end was very plausible and necessary and is certainly more believable than the flip side would be. It amazes me that most people look for believability in a script, including myself, as we basically go to a movie to escape believability, i.e., reality, but in this case, what you see is closer to the truth that anything. Furthermore, if my life is screwed up, I don't want to watch a story turn out just like my screwed-up life. I don't want others or the entire world around me to reflect that pain. To do so would be at least masochistic and surely heartless, petty and childish. If you're like that, do yourself and the world a favor and get some help --- we need more understanding and more happy endings in this world.

Look for Zsa Zsa (yes, she actually did act at one time) and a young Roger Moore, and for all you trivia buffs, check out the character named Claude that plays Donna Reed's husband. His name is George Dolenz. Recognize the last name? --- He's the father of Micky Dolenz from The Monkees!
11 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Desert Hearts (1985)
A good movie and a breakthrough classic
28 July 2000
I'm a straight male and I feel the movie was done very tastefully (not a pun) and had a nice story. It wasn't supposed to be an action flick, but it does have a good story though I would have preferred to see it go a little deeper emotionally, but you have to understand that this was a "period" film and given the era the movie was set in, the emotions of the characters make perfect sense. In the 50's and especially in the rural areas, people were very conservative and though a character like Cay would've wanted to be open about her lifestyle, she certainly would've felt restrained to do so, even as free-spirited as she was. And Vivian would certainly have initially felt like a leper as the tug of societal demands and the mores of the era weighed on her. I think it was filmed and written in exactly the same light as it needed to be, no more, no less. A very realistic portrait of the era and a great job, no doubt about it, and highly recommended for viewing, but I would rate it "R" for about 5-10 minutes of sex scenes, maybe "PG-13" for content.

As for the sex scenes, I can't imagine anyone not enjoying it, whatever your orientation. I did, and I'm straight as an arrow (no pun intended there either!)

See how much this out-of-print video sells for on the Net and you'll see the demand this movie still creates, which is more of a barometer of its success than anything else. I can't believe that it ever went out-of-print given the demand for it. You don't see that with just any video, and as a minor collector of rare videos I can say that for a fact.
17 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Decent movie - just needs an ending and a plot!
25 July 2000
Well, it's actually a sad movie for me, as it had so much potential to really BE a good movie and all hope was completely lost somewhere in those midnight script writing sessions, I guess. If you can't see the homosexual and anti-capitalist overtones throughout the movie, you're either naive or blind.

It was one of the worst endings I've ever seen. I still don't believe the movie even ended, except for the fact I've already rewound the tape and took it back to the video store. And to think --- the DVD was skipping so bad about 2/3 of the way through that I took it back to swap it for the video so I could see the ending! When I took the video back, I asked them if they forgot to take the ending off the DVD and put it on the video, because IT DIDN'T EXIST!

Maybe Ben Affleck could have shown up and saved the movie like he does all of Damon's flicks. It could have been "Saving Mr. Ripley". I'm not telling you to avoid the movie, on the contrary, I want you to see it and you will also be left with the gaping hole the movie created where the plot, direction and ending should have been.

Maybe it should have ended up in some artsy-fartsy foreign film theatre where you don't understand what the heck is going on anyway. And this coming from a man who appreciated the subtle nuances of "2001: A Space Odyssey" without tripping on acid.

I predict that when the credits roll, you'll wonder if you missed something. You did. The entire point, as it wasn't there. And to think this could have been a fantastic movie.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Breast Men (1997 TV Movie)
8/10
An enjoyable flick with lots of mammarian imagery
15 July 2000
I wish they had "made for TV" movies like this when I was growing up! This was a based-on-a-true story that was actually a composite of a handful of doctors that pioneered breast implant surgery. It is definitely a man's movie, but there was a message there for women. It has some really cute moments and it really nails that late 60s/early 70s time frame very well; being one who lived through it and remembered it well, I'm a expert! I believe it touched on all points objectively; the pros and the cons, and it touched on each players' hand in the entire chain --- the corporate side, the doctors' side, the patients who were happy and the ones who were not happy, as well as the health concerns. The manufacturers and doctors still claim that no research has ever proven they were liable, but something wrong surely was happening.

No, it's not "Casablanca", but it wasn't meant to be --- It's an HBO movie, folks, it's a fun movie made for fun, not the Celluloid Hall of Fame, so quit analyzing it and enjoy it. It's not in bad taste and it is credibly acted, written and filmed. On the lighter side guys, check out the mammaria, mama mia! Yes, this is a must-see for young male adults (and young adult women complating the procedure) and certainly should be on the list of "movies for guys who like movies".
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Billy Jack (1971)
8/10
A true American independent classic film
12 July 2000
What is it with these comments and especially the Leonard Maltin summaries with every "Billy Jack" film? No, it wasn't Hamlet or The Godfather, but it wasn't trying to be. It was trying to be entertaining and send a message at a time when that was very important to young Americans, and an opportunity for a filmmaker to present his viewpoint and make a little money to boot. Why is it that people find a need to make comments that deride the work of others when they really have no idea who or what they're commenting about?

Tom Laughlin & Delores Taylor deserve every filmgoer's and especially every filmmaker's respect. In a time when Hollywood couples where singing D-I-V-O-R-C-E daily, this couple has been married longer than most new filmmakers have been alive. They were not part of the Hollywood system, and that's what has dogged them for the whole of their careers.

"Billy Jack" was a long-time vision of Laughlin's, and he was one of the first maverick independents ever. He bucked the Hollywood system and took his film to the theaters himself; many times he "four-walled" theaters and Assembly Centers on college campuses, which means basically renting out the buildings, taking the risk and keeping the rewards, and there were plenty of rewards and grass-roots kudos when this film was released. It was an unheard-of idea to do what they did at that time but it worked; they made a lot of money and the film was and still is a cult classic. Sure, it has socialist, utopian views that are passe now and never really were very relevant or realistic, but they were a good idea and an honest and valued message, and we could use more messages like that.

Another point --- The use of violent imagery to promote peace is completely sane and normal, so I don't understand what Malton's reviews have against all of Laughlin's films and this very premise. If you have a film about women getting raped and beaten and you are identifying the injustice of it all, to do that properly, you must depict that violence in some form to make the film and the story believable. Does it glorify it and is it incongruous to the point? Of course not; in fact, it's necessary to show the contrast for the viewer to even get the point and see the message in the film in its proper light, people! And when Billy Jack does act as a pacifist and spare the violence, one commenter here thinks it's ridiculous, as if it was an action opportunity forsaken, missing the entire point of the film! This wasn't supposed to be a John Woo film, you idiot!

Take this film and all the films the Laughlins made at their face value and nothing more, that's all they would probably deserve from you anyway and give them the respect they deserve at least for their efforts. The message was the important point so don't lose sight of that by creating arguments and commentary that is completely inconsequential to the film as a whole anyway. They had the guts to make a film they believed in when the entire Hollywood machine was against them and they fought it and won, and created a nice body of work, though their films haven't all been as strong as "Billy Jack" itself, and though "Billy Jack" was no icon of sound production and acting values. They faced despair and rejection and risked all they had on their dream and they succeeded. Can you say that you have done the same or would risk the same? Probably not, but then again, we are only mortal and prefer the safe route, content to lie back and fling unjust criticism at people, things and ideals which we do not fully understand or fail to appreciate.

I believe every independent filmmaker and every person who enjoys films more than just an entertainment medium should look into the life and times of Tom Laughlin & Delores Taylor and see what it means to be a real independent filmmaker. And this film is an excellent start.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Enjoyable, but a ripoff, so no credit is deserved . . .
1 May 2000
Sure, it's an enjoyable flick. But that's because this movie has already been made, by George Lucas. It's called "Star Wars" . . . remember?

The people who created this "The Last Starfighter" stole a generous portion of it from George Lucas, e.g., a young man destined for greatness; a female who has to be saved; a planet blowing up; crazy alien costumes; a weird-looking co-pilot; a mature, wise man; fighting an overwhelming opponent against all odds; even the final scenes are a ripoff. They should have just made it easy and have been honest and just took the "Star Wars" script and scratch out the names and added new ones!
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed