I was a single dad in the late '80's, not sure I'd even seen the movie, but I'd rent videotapes for my daughter, 7, and son, 9 and we watched it together. They were,and are still, enchanted by it probably rate it higher than I do. It takes huge risks, some of them don't succeed, and Beck is sadly wooden. But the music rules and, for me, well, it just makes me happy. I LOVE the Muses coming out of the wall to "I'm Alive", "Suddenly" is a wonderful number, ELO makes me wish there could be a party all over the world. I know a LOT of people that love the silly, sweet musical. And now my son is engaged to a girl from another state whose mother named her.............Kira. This movie will be around forever and will always have those who love it.
Reviews
12 Reviews
Xanadu
(1980)
You have to believe, it's magic; I like it and always will
18 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Twister
(I) (1996)
Nice pics of Oklahoma and fun special effects
31 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Having lived in Oklahoma all of my life, I was glad that they filmed a lot of it here. The film shows what it's really like here in rural Oklahoma, mostly green rolling country with trees, hills and water, with a few oil pumps and windmills thrown in. I don't need to add anything to the comments about the lack of scientific accuracy do I? My wife and I always note with interest that they occasionally get a few things right. The reason I will watch this movie again from time to time is that it is FUN. I love the exuberance of Bill Paxton's team; I know people like the Philip Seymour Hoffman character and I myself LOVE watching the buildup of a thunderstorm, seeing the sky turn green, and the way the air smells and feels before and after one of our storms. Yes, tornadoes are deadly threats, but we ALWAYS have warnings here. There would never be a drive-in theater full of people in cars with no idea that a funnel is on top of them, but, in this movie, that's beside the point. It's pure fun watching the screen ripped apart while Jack Nicholson is wielding the ax. If you are expecting true life reality, this is not your movie. Just go for the spectacle! The bit of reality in this movie, that Oklahoma is lovely in its own way, and that some people love thunderstorms and tornadoes was enough reality for me, and the rest is just the fun of a cinematic roller-coaster ride with some great special effects. It's not Shakespeare or even "Titanic", so don't expect more and just enjoy it for what it is!
Hamlet
(1990)
Entertaining - Do not compare it to Branagh
16 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
And vice versa.
Hamlet is, to me, the greatest work in the English language. It dares us to look at the truth of our own mortality and at the same time consider right vs wrong.
Branagh's choice was to present the entire play, Zefirelli chose to compress it for the screen. Each choice has its merits. I like Branagh's version too and I think it's a mistake to compare the 2 versions or add a comparison to Olivier either. Judge each on its own merits.
Looking at this film, Mel Gibson is simply great. His Hamlet is obviously someone with a zest for life and a sense of humor who is completely stunned by the events at the opening of the film and thrown even more off kilter by his father's ghost. All I can say is, I love the way he plays it. The other players are excellent as well. I've never particularly liked Glenn Close's looks, but she's a great actress. Helena is my favorite Ophelia ever. And Alan Bates is superb.
I've never quite accepted the theory that Hamlet can't make up his mind. Just reading the play one sees Hamlet go from a thirst for blood to messing around with a fencing match because Claudius placed a bet on it. How to explain this? What we are seeing is a bright, brilliant mind going through a nervous breakdown and then regaining sanity.
You HAVE TO understand, too, that Hamlet can't just go stick a sword in his popular uncle and say his father's ghost told him to do it. Pay attention and it's clear that he needs more than just the word of the ghost and this limits his choices. After the visit from his father's ghost Hamlet seems to be not just feigning madness but literally out of his mind, he's not in control. Hamlet tells us that one reason not to commit suicide is that God has outlawed that choice. If Hamlet accepts that from God, how can he commit murder, even if his father's ghost tells him to? Hamlet's "antic disposition" at the Mousetrap is not an act. And Gibson's Hamlet really is off his rocker when he rails at his mother and accidentally kills Polonius. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are victims of this madness as well.
The Hamlet who comes back from England isn't charging back to Denmark for revenge, is he? He hardly mentions it. To me, at this point Hamlet HAS made up his mind. He has resigned himself to the fact that he does not want to be a killer and he is going to take things a day at a time. Gibson plays it with this sense of resignation. He still has his intelligence and sense of humor, he's regained control of himself. He is swept into the duel with Laertes willy-nilly, there is no more strategy for killing the king. He's almost beginning to enjoy life again as the duel starts. He even tells Laertes that he was crazy when Polonius was killed and says it wasn't the real Hamlet who did that. It's not until Gertrude is poisoned and Laertes tells Hamlet he is doomed that he explodes with rage again and doubly kills Claudius. His father's murder isn't the reason for this act, it's rage at Claudius for the deaths of Getrude, Laertes, and Hamlet himself.
Hamlet's fatal flaw isn't indecision, it's his humanity, intelligence, and his conscience. That's the human being that Shakespeare created and Gibson brings to life.
Hamlet is, to me, the greatest work in the English language. It dares us to look at the truth of our own mortality and at the same time consider right vs wrong.
Branagh's choice was to present the entire play, Zefirelli chose to compress it for the screen. Each choice has its merits. I like Branagh's version too and I think it's a mistake to compare the 2 versions or add a comparison to Olivier either. Judge each on its own merits.
Looking at this film, Mel Gibson is simply great. His Hamlet is obviously someone with a zest for life and a sense of humor who is completely stunned by the events at the opening of the film and thrown even more off kilter by his father's ghost. All I can say is, I love the way he plays it. The other players are excellent as well. I've never particularly liked Glenn Close's looks, but she's a great actress. Helena is my favorite Ophelia ever. And Alan Bates is superb.
I've never quite accepted the theory that Hamlet can't make up his mind. Just reading the play one sees Hamlet go from a thirst for blood to messing around with a fencing match because Claudius placed a bet on it. How to explain this? What we are seeing is a bright, brilliant mind going through a nervous breakdown and then regaining sanity.
You HAVE TO understand, too, that Hamlet can't just go stick a sword in his popular uncle and say his father's ghost told him to do it. Pay attention and it's clear that he needs more than just the word of the ghost and this limits his choices. After the visit from his father's ghost Hamlet seems to be not just feigning madness but literally out of his mind, he's not in control. Hamlet tells us that one reason not to commit suicide is that God has outlawed that choice. If Hamlet accepts that from God, how can he commit murder, even if his father's ghost tells him to? Hamlet's "antic disposition" at the Mousetrap is not an act. And Gibson's Hamlet really is off his rocker when he rails at his mother and accidentally kills Polonius. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are victims of this madness as well.
The Hamlet who comes back from England isn't charging back to Denmark for revenge, is he? He hardly mentions it. To me, at this point Hamlet HAS made up his mind. He has resigned himself to the fact that he does not want to be a killer and he is going to take things a day at a time. Gibson plays it with this sense of resignation. He still has his intelligence and sense of humor, he's regained control of himself. He is swept into the duel with Laertes willy-nilly, there is no more strategy for killing the king. He's almost beginning to enjoy life again as the duel starts. He even tells Laertes that he was crazy when Polonius was killed and says it wasn't the real Hamlet who did that. It's not until Gertrude is poisoned and Laertes tells Hamlet he is doomed that he explodes with rage again and doubly kills Claudius. His father's murder isn't the reason for this act, it's rage at Claudius for the deaths of Getrude, Laertes, and Hamlet himself.
Hamlet's fatal flaw isn't indecision, it's his humanity, intelligence, and his conscience. That's the human being that Shakespeare created and Gibson brings to life.
3:10 to Yuma
(2007)
It's a Western? Yay! But what were they thinking?
20 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
So I was born in 1950 and raised on Roy Rogers on TV when it was okay for a guy to get shot and get up again, or for hundreds of bullets to miss our hero... There are SPOILERS to come!! But since then I've learned to appreciate how John Ford made Monument Valley a character, how every face shot close-up by Sergio Leone of even the most minor character is a work of art. Tombstone gave us authenticity and a twitchy bad guy who almost approached Jack Palance happily sadistic villain in "Shane". In the original "3:10 to Yuma",(and in "Shane" and even "Airport") Van Heflin was THE everyman, beaten down by fate. "Lonesome Dove" touches your heart and can bring tears to your eyes again and again. I LOVE Westerns, so I had high hopes for a new one.
The new one is adequate, but on the whole, unsatisfactory. It could have been SO MUCH more. It comes close at times but, no, it's not a great Western. I blame mainly the writers, then Mangold, then the cinematographer, and finally the costume designer.
As for the actors, I give them an A for effort. Although Crowe can apparently play this character effortlessly, he does an admirable job. Bale has the much more difficult task, he's too pretty, but he won me over and deserves praise indeed. Ben Foster needed a different shirt and he was menacing enough but that was the character not the acting. Don't tell me you didn't know he would leave the guy to burn alive in the stagecoach.
And THAT brings us to the real problem with this film. Why was the guy still locked up in the stagecoach? There were 20 or 30 other little stupidities like this. I can suspend disbelief only so much and the writers kept foisting so much absolute idiocy and silliness on us that it overwhelms their skill in helping us understand Wade and Evans motives.
The film starts out with a video game battle of a stagecoach chase to capture those with a short attention span who need superviolence and action, meanwhile we're shown that Ben Wade is really an artist, a soul that loves nature, who soon guns down his own henchman for making a mistake. The grizzled well-cast Peter Fonda is gut shot at close range. And they expect me to believe that a few hours later he's riding along like Monty Python's knight..."It was only a scratch!"? Like I said, silliness. More silliness, the good guys have been riding toward Contention while the bad guys are chasing the decoy stagecoach, yet they are close enough to see the stagecoach burning in the distance? They camp in Apache territory at night and light a big fire? William, the older son, was acted well, but his character was a teenager who belonged in the back seat of a "National Lampoon" vacation station wagon, not the 1880's.
While Mangold may succeed in depicting the friendship/hate/admiration relationship between Wade and Evans that's about all I can compliment, and even that was watered down compared to the original. He and his cinematographer jiggled the camera, missed all of the opportunities to show they had learned something about Westerns from Ford and Leone. No use of the landscape, no unique faces in close-ups. Gretchen Mol is a nice Alice but did she look like a careworn wife or more like she had been a week too long between appointments at the hairdresser to get her hair colored properly? And then the ending...an 8-year old could have written a more logical, satisfactory conclusion. Why didn't the marshal and dead-eye Dan just shoot Charlie down in the middle of the street from the hotel window? Why are there women and children out on the streets after the local lawmen had been massacred? How did a 1000 bullets miss Dan and Ben? Why does Wade go part of the way, warning Dan of threats, then suddenly decide he's had enough, and then, when he could have left Dan alive and escaped easily (again!!!!) join him for another jolly jaunt across the rooftops? I am pleased that many people today LIKED a Western, but this is NOT what it should have or could have been. Go ahead and watch it for the story and tension and acting, but if you can't see the holes in this, what are YOU thinking? If this is a movie you liked, then PLEASE go watch "For a Few Dollars More", and "Shane" and "The Searchers" or the complete first "Lonesome Dove", even "Tombstone"!!!!! Finally watch the original "3:10" for a much better ending. Then perhaps you will see why I say this could have been so much more, but, sadly, it just is not what it SHOULD have been.
The new one is adequate, but on the whole, unsatisfactory. It could have been SO MUCH more. It comes close at times but, no, it's not a great Western. I blame mainly the writers, then Mangold, then the cinematographer, and finally the costume designer.
As for the actors, I give them an A for effort. Although Crowe can apparently play this character effortlessly, he does an admirable job. Bale has the much more difficult task, he's too pretty, but he won me over and deserves praise indeed. Ben Foster needed a different shirt and he was menacing enough but that was the character not the acting. Don't tell me you didn't know he would leave the guy to burn alive in the stagecoach.
And THAT brings us to the real problem with this film. Why was the guy still locked up in the stagecoach? There were 20 or 30 other little stupidities like this. I can suspend disbelief only so much and the writers kept foisting so much absolute idiocy and silliness on us that it overwhelms their skill in helping us understand Wade and Evans motives.
The film starts out with a video game battle of a stagecoach chase to capture those with a short attention span who need superviolence and action, meanwhile we're shown that Ben Wade is really an artist, a soul that loves nature, who soon guns down his own henchman for making a mistake. The grizzled well-cast Peter Fonda is gut shot at close range. And they expect me to believe that a few hours later he's riding along like Monty Python's knight..."It was only a scratch!"? Like I said, silliness. More silliness, the good guys have been riding toward Contention while the bad guys are chasing the decoy stagecoach, yet they are close enough to see the stagecoach burning in the distance? They camp in Apache territory at night and light a big fire? William, the older son, was acted well, but his character was a teenager who belonged in the back seat of a "National Lampoon" vacation station wagon, not the 1880's.
While Mangold may succeed in depicting the friendship/hate/admiration relationship between Wade and Evans that's about all I can compliment, and even that was watered down compared to the original. He and his cinematographer jiggled the camera, missed all of the opportunities to show they had learned something about Westerns from Ford and Leone. No use of the landscape, no unique faces in close-ups. Gretchen Mol is a nice Alice but did she look like a careworn wife or more like she had been a week too long between appointments at the hairdresser to get her hair colored properly? And then the ending...an 8-year old could have written a more logical, satisfactory conclusion. Why didn't the marshal and dead-eye Dan just shoot Charlie down in the middle of the street from the hotel window? Why are there women and children out on the streets after the local lawmen had been massacred? How did a 1000 bullets miss Dan and Ben? Why does Wade go part of the way, warning Dan of threats, then suddenly decide he's had enough, and then, when he could have left Dan alive and escaped easily (again!!!!) join him for another jolly jaunt across the rooftops? I am pleased that many people today LIKED a Western, but this is NOT what it should have or could have been. Go ahead and watch it for the story and tension and acting, but if you can't see the holes in this, what are YOU thinking? If this is a movie you liked, then PLEASE go watch "For a Few Dollars More", and "Shane" and "The Searchers" or the complete first "Lonesome Dove", even "Tombstone"!!!!! Finally watch the original "3:10" for a much better ending. Then perhaps you will see why I say this could have been so much more, but, sadly, it just is not what it SHOULD have been.
2001: A Space Odyssey
(1968)
Like no other movie ever made - SO DAMN BEAUTIFUL
26 April 2007
There is really no way to compare this motion picture to any other movie because no one has ever made anything like it and no one ever will. And it really should be seen in a theater to be fully appreciated. At the very least it deserves to be seen with a great sound system.
I saw this movie on the day it opened in 1968, my senior year in high school. I went because I like science-fiction and wanted to see a "space" movie. Remember this film was made before the first moon landing.
There we sat, waiting for it to begin. But, SURPRISE! There was no cartoon, no coming attractions. The theater owner at the Cooper Theatre for some reason chose to play "The Star-Spangled Banner" with the lights still up so we all stood, never did that at a movie before or since and then sat down again as it ended. Then the theatre went completely DARK and the strange overture began with the blank screen barely visible.
The overture ended and my seat began to VIBRATE as the blue screen with the MGM lion appeared, along with the first deep bass notes, and then my senses were overwhelmed, hearing "Also Sprach Zarathustra" for the first time in my life. The ride had just begun.
(I highly recommend you watch this opening, this film, in a DARK room with your subwoofer turned up as high as possible to get the effect I felt in that theatre.) Of course, it took quite awhile before we got to outer space and the movie that followed was anything but a science-fiction movie. INTERMISSION came (a good thing, highly under-rated and unused these days) and we all looked at each other in wonder, caught our breath, and then the ride resumed, wilder than before.
I saw it 7 more times within the next year, always in a real full size theater, like all theaters were before multiplexes. I might have been "high" once but I didn't go to see it again and again because I was "tripping". I went because I knew I was seeing a work of art. It was SO DAMN BEAUTIFUL; the sound that you could feel in your bones followed by terrifying silence; the sights unimagined and unimaginable; the affection for HAL turning to terror. And of, course, WTF was Kubrick really trying to get across to me? Years and years and many more viewings later, I understand it as well, I think, as I ever will. Read someone else's comments if you're looking for someone to explain it to you or search around the web, you'll find "explanations", that's not my purpose in writing these comments.
What I hope to do is encourage you to watch it patiently, enjoy it's beauty the way you would enjoy watching a sunset while listening to the most beautiful music you know of (e.g, Gayne Ballet Suite or the Blue Danube); savor it like you would a wonderful meal, sip it like a fine wine; look and listen for the clues and the hidden symbols that ARE there. And then draw your own conclusions. Stanley Kubrick WANTED to SHARE some things with you that he found beautiful and he wanted you to think about where you. a human, came from and where you're headed.
If that's too much work for your brain, and you can't see and hear and ponder the beauty and mystery of Kubrick's film, then, pardon my bluntness, but your life is about as meaningful as that of a tapir or a pre-monolith ape. If you want mindless escape, this isn't for you.
But if you like sunsets, thunderstorms, harmonies in music, mysteries, and sensuality and can have an open mind this film will add something to your life.
I saw this movie on the day it opened in 1968, my senior year in high school. I went because I like science-fiction and wanted to see a "space" movie. Remember this film was made before the first moon landing.
There we sat, waiting for it to begin. But, SURPRISE! There was no cartoon, no coming attractions. The theater owner at the Cooper Theatre for some reason chose to play "The Star-Spangled Banner" with the lights still up so we all stood, never did that at a movie before or since and then sat down again as it ended. Then the theatre went completely DARK and the strange overture began with the blank screen barely visible.
The overture ended and my seat began to VIBRATE as the blue screen with the MGM lion appeared, along with the first deep bass notes, and then my senses were overwhelmed, hearing "Also Sprach Zarathustra" for the first time in my life. The ride had just begun.
(I highly recommend you watch this opening, this film, in a DARK room with your subwoofer turned up as high as possible to get the effect I felt in that theatre.) Of course, it took quite awhile before we got to outer space and the movie that followed was anything but a science-fiction movie. INTERMISSION came (a good thing, highly under-rated and unused these days) and we all looked at each other in wonder, caught our breath, and then the ride resumed, wilder than before.
I saw it 7 more times within the next year, always in a real full size theater, like all theaters were before multiplexes. I might have been "high" once but I didn't go to see it again and again because I was "tripping". I went because I knew I was seeing a work of art. It was SO DAMN BEAUTIFUL; the sound that you could feel in your bones followed by terrifying silence; the sights unimagined and unimaginable; the affection for HAL turning to terror. And of, course, WTF was Kubrick really trying to get across to me? Years and years and many more viewings later, I understand it as well, I think, as I ever will. Read someone else's comments if you're looking for someone to explain it to you or search around the web, you'll find "explanations", that's not my purpose in writing these comments.
What I hope to do is encourage you to watch it patiently, enjoy it's beauty the way you would enjoy watching a sunset while listening to the most beautiful music you know of (e.g, Gayne Ballet Suite or the Blue Danube); savor it like you would a wonderful meal, sip it like a fine wine; look and listen for the clues and the hidden symbols that ARE there. And then draw your own conclusions. Stanley Kubrick WANTED to SHARE some things with you that he found beautiful and he wanted you to think about where you. a human, came from and where you're headed.
If that's too much work for your brain, and you can't see and hear and ponder the beauty and mystery of Kubrick's film, then, pardon my bluntness, but your life is about as meaningful as that of a tapir or a pre-monolith ape. If you want mindless escape, this isn't for you.
But if you like sunsets, thunderstorms, harmonies in music, mysteries, and sensuality and can have an open mind this film will add something to your life.
Battlestar Galactica
(2004–2009)
I like it much better than the original
26 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I was 28 when the original series came out. It wasn't one of my favorites and I love sci-fi, started reading HG Wells in grade school and Heinlein in Jr High.
I watched the new miniseries and thought it was too slow. But then I rented the first season a few weeks ago, and from "33" on I love it. I love Smallville, too, but this show has more depth and creativity. It doesn't have Easter Eggs like "Lost!", instead it offers subtle hidden tributes to other works, from Shakespeare to "The Great Escape", that I enjoy looking for. I like the "Blade Runner" pistols better than the same old scifi ray guns or phasers.
Any sci fi can be seen as an "alternate universe" and I enjoy the one Moore has created. I think it is one of the better TV shows around right now. Thank the "gods", it didn't get the single season axe like Firefly or Wonderfalls.
I can understand those who love the original not sharing my viewpoint. I know there are films, like "High Noon" that, to me, can't be improved upon and I wouldn't watch a remake. If that's the way you feel, don't watch the new one.
I did love the original Star Trek, and I can still love The Next Generation without betraying Kirk and Spock.
BSG the original was what it was. This is not the same show. To me it is the better of the two.
I watched the new miniseries and thought it was too slow. But then I rented the first season a few weeks ago, and from "33" on I love it. I love Smallville, too, but this show has more depth and creativity. It doesn't have Easter Eggs like "Lost!", instead it offers subtle hidden tributes to other works, from Shakespeare to "The Great Escape", that I enjoy looking for. I like the "Blade Runner" pistols better than the same old scifi ray guns or phasers.
Any sci fi can be seen as an "alternate universe" and I enjoy the one Moore has created. I think it is one of the better TV shows around right now. Thank the "gods", it didn't get the single season axe like Firefly or Wonderfalls.
I can understand those who love the original not sharing my viewpoint. I know there are films, like "High Noon" that, to me, can't be improved upon and I wouldn't watch a remake. If that's the way you feel, don't watch the new one.
I did love the original Star Trek, and I can still love The Next Generation without betraying Kirk and Spock.
BSG the original was what it was. This is not the same show. To me it is the better of the two.
Thirteen Days
(2000)
Kenneth O'Donnell was real, Costner did fine, well done
20 January 2007
I was 12 when this all took place. It's an EXCELLENT retelling of the story, very gripping and edge of your seat.
I remember watching Kennedy's speech on TV, then going to a Boy Scout meeting and wondering when the bombs were going to start falling.
I am stunned by the number of people adding comments who seem to think Kenny O'Donnell was just a character made up for the movie. Do an online search, people. I am still a registered Democrat. The characterization of Adlai Stevenson was terrific. The UN scene, which was on TV was, in fact, even more dramatic in real life.It would be really nice if we had some Dems around today who actually would have some spine and realize that we are NOT the bad guys. Read JFK's inaugural address, you can find it online, too. Here's a brief quote. "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge -- and more."
That speech is why I am still a Democrat, and I have hopes, however faint, that somehow our leaders today will have the courage to WORK TOGETHER for the benefit of future generations instead of worrying about whose party is ahead in the polls today. We Americans are the good guys and our enemies are much more dangerous than the Soviet Union ever was. Please watch this movie and stop whining about whether Kevin Costner is a good or bad actor, and instead think about the importance of having leaders who care about the survival and success of liberty, at home and around the world. And take the time to consider the long-term consequences of their actions.
I remember watching Kennedy's speech on TV, then going to a Boy Scout meeting and wondering when the bombs were going to start falling.
I am stunned by the number of people adding comments who seem to think Kenny O'Donnell was just a character made up for the movie. Do an online search, people. I am still a registered Democrat. The characterization of Adlai Stevenson was terrific. The UN scene, which was on TV was, in fact, even more dramatic in real life.It would be really nice if we had some Dems around today who actually would have some spine and realize that we are NOT the bad guys. Read JFK's inaugural address, you can find it online, too. Here's a brief quote. "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge -- and more."
That speech is why I am still a Democrat, and I have hopes, however faint, that somehow our leaders today will have the courage to WORK TOGETHER for the benefit of future generations instead of worrying about whose party is ahead in the polls today. We Americans are the good guys and our enemies are much more dangerous than the Soviet Union ever was. Please watch this movie and stop whining about whether Kevin Costner is a good or bad actor, and instead think about the importance of having leaders who care about the survival and success of liberty, at home and around the world. And take the time to consider the long-term consequences of their actions.
Nightfall
(1988)
Doesn't deserve a 1
20 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Spoiler Warning
There is a scene in this movie in which a woman intentionally has her eyes pecked out by birds. Do not let a child see this movie.
The WORST movie I have ever seen. Absolutely the worst. Minus 10. Please do yourself a favor and don't rent it. Read the original story and leave it at that. It is a short story and is NOT movie material. The story by Asimov is well worth reading. I cannot think of anything redeeming to say about this film. I took my kids who were 9 and 12 to see it because I had loved the story and was very excited about taking them. Now, 17 years later, they tell me they were scarred for life by seeing it an they have yet to forgive me. I can't say I blame them.
Avoid it.
It would not be a loss to anyone if every print of this flick were burned.
There is a scene in this movie in which a woman intentionally has her eyes pecked out by birds. Do not let a child see this movie.
The WORST movie I have ever seen. Absolutely the worst. Minus 10. Please do yourself a favor and don't rent it. Read the original story and leave it at that. It is a short story and is NOT movie material. The story by Asimov is well worth reading. I cannot think of anything redeeming to say about this film. I took my kids who were 9 and 12 to see it because I had loved the story and was very excited about taking them. Now, 17 years later, they tell me they were scarred for life by seeing it an they have yet to forgive me. I can't say I blame them.
Avoid it.
It would not be a loss to anyone if every print of this flick were burned.
Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation
(2004 Video)
I kinda liked it
27 October 2004
Maybe because I watched it on DVD and was able to fast-forward through it at times.
It is what it is and for what it is I think they did a decent job. I could tell the characters apart and I cared about some of them. The casting was well done, the right people in the right roles. Brenda Strong is perfect, Burgi does a fine job with a cardboard character, Peck stutters well.
Heinlein did have it right - you should have to EARN your citizenship.
Bottom line is, I expected absolutely nothing in advance and enjoyed it after all.
It is what it is and for what it is I think they did a decent job. I could tell the characters apart and I cared about some of them. The casting was well done, the right people in the right roles. Brenda Strong is perfect, Burgi does a fine job with a cardboard character, Peck stutters well.
Heinlein did have it right - you should have to EARN your citizenship.
Bottom line is, I expected absolutely nothing in advance and enjoyed it after all.
Joe Versus the Volcano
(1990)
It's a fairy tale...enjoy it
10 September 2004
I feel sorry for the people who don't understand this movie. It starts out with "Once upon a time..." and ends with Tom and Meg living happily ever after. It's not complicated. A Fairy Tale,just to show us that being alive is a miracle not to be taken for granted. And that you just need to jump and see what happens. And the jump is even better when the right someone makes the leap with you. It's a mistake to look for more. If you're too jaded or cold to enjoy Joe's simple story, or would rather watch a horror flick, then I really do feel sorry for you.
I have watched this movie many, many times and I will never get tired of it. Some of my favorite movie characters and lines are in this little movie.
If you haven't seen it then I DO recommend it highly to everyone to see it at least once, but know this in advance - it's NOT a story about REAL people or true life situations. Just relax and enjoy great performances from start to finish. Starting with Dan Hedaya as Mr Waturi, you're going to be introduced to some characters that you may never forget even though they may appear quite briefly. Robert Stack and Lloyd Bridges are perfect. Ossie Davis deserved a Best Supporting Actor. The luggage salesman, what can I say? Meg has a real challenge and she does a great job. Marvel at Tom Hanks, especially the wonderful scenes on the raft.
Accept it for what it is, understand how well this little movie was crafted to be just what it is, and you'll be glad you watched it and look forward to seeing it again and again.
On the other hand, if you're a dedicated pessimist, then maybe you shouldn't watch it, because you just won't get it. Too bad for you.
I have watched this movie many, many times and I will never get tired of it. Some of my favorite movie characters and lines are in this little movie.
If you haven't seen it then I DO recommend it highly to everyone to see it at least once, but know this in advance - it's NOT a story about REAL people or true life situations. Just relax and enjoy great performances from start to finish. Starting with Dan Hedaya as Mr Waturi, you're going to be introduced to some characters that you may never forget even though they may appear quite briefly. Robert Stack and Lloyd Bridges are perfect. Ossie Davis deserved a Best Supporting Actor. The luggage salesman, what can I say? Meg has a real challenge and she does a great job. Marvel at Tom Hanks, especially the wonderful scenes on the raft.
Accept it for what it is, understand how well this little movie was crafted to be just what it is, and you'll be glad you watched it and look forward to seeing it again and again.
On the other hand, if you're a dedicated pessimist, then maybe you shouldn't watch it, because you just won't get it. Too bad for you.
The High and the Mighty
(1954)
After all these years, it really is a great movie
6 March 2003
I was 4 in 1954 when my folks took me to the Bison Theater on NE23rd to see this new release and I think I left the theater limping and determined to learn how to whistle. It would always be my favorite movie. I must have seen it during the 60's on TV because my memories of it are in black and white.
Anyway, I finally found a copy (dark, but good sound and color), and my wife, who had never heard of it and wasn't sure she wanted to watch it (she doesn't like war movies and wasn't it a war movie, with John Wayne and all?)and I watched it last weekend.
How can I describe this? My wife, who is my age, fell asleep during Star Trek First Contact. She does crosswords while the "Music Man" is on, as well as most TV shows. In other words she doesn't really like most movies. She was gripped by the film from the start and was wiping tears from her eyes at the end. She had been certain they were going to hit the radio tower and all be killed. In short, it's now her favorite movie, too.
I noticed that John Wayne really has very little dialogue, but, in his eyes, we see pain, courage, and loss so clearly that he doesn't need to speak much. He was a man "who had the guts not to kill himself."
I thought that it would be like so many things you remember from childhood that just don't measure up to your memories. This movie is better than I remembered.
Whoever is responsible for keeping this movie out of sight (lawyers MUST be involved)should have things done to them that we wouldn't do to Khalid Shaikh Mohamed to get him to tell us where Osama is.
Anyway, I finally found a copy (dark, but good sound and color), and my wife, who had never heard of it and wasn't sure she wanted to watch it (she doesn't like war movies and wasn't it a war movie, with John Wayne and all?)and I watched it last weekend.
How can I describe this? My wife, who is my age, fell asleep during Star Trek First Contact. She does crosswords while the "Music Man" is on, as well as most TV shows. In other words she doesn't really like most movies. She was gripped by the film from the start and was wiping tears from her eyes at the end. She had been certain they were going to hit the radio tower and all be killed. In short, it's now her favorite movie, too.
I noticed that John Wayne really has very little dialogue, but, in his eyes, we see pain, courage, and loss so clearly that he doesn't need to speak much. He was a man "who had the guts not to kill himself."
I thought that it would be like so many things you remember from childhood that just don't measure up to your memories. This movie is better than I remembered.
Whoever is responsible for keeping this movie out of sight (lawyers MUST be involved)should have things done to them that we wouldn't do to Khalid Shaikh Mohamed to get him to tell us where Osama is.
At Long Last Love
(1975)
I liked it
9 February 2003
When I saw it in'75 (I was 25 at the time) I walked out of the theater smiling, and sang Cole Porter tunes in my car all the way home. It was a preview, so it hadn't been panned yet and I had formed my own opinion. Eileen Brennan cracked me up in her wanton pursuit of John Hillerman. Cybill was just my age and a knockout and, no, she doesn't sing badly. I've never been a big fan of Burt, but I liked him more after the movie than before. Kahn was marvelous, Del Prete the weak link, because I couldn't understand his English. Don't expect it to be more than cotton candy, it's sweet without substance and doesn't pretend to be more. It was probably the first exposure I'd had to Cole Porter since Can-Can (1960 - I was 10 then) and I fell in love with his music again, and forever. It's not the Music Man or Top Hat or Flying Down to Rio, but just go along for the pleasant ride, enjoy the sets and costumes, and, especially, the words and music. If you want to trash it, go ahead, but I think that those who do need a glass of champagne(or two)and to just chill out. --- Carl
Tell Your Friends