Reviews

Watching this film in the theatre - which I did - was an atrocious let down and waste of my time. This movie isn't/wasn't worth the stickiness or popcorn on a theatre floor. HOWEVER, the "over the top" performances of Donny Osmond and Molly Ephraim are well worth your time. They make up for the inane dialogue and situations, and the only reason I gave it 4 stars and not Zero.

Which brings us to streaming, today. This is to say the ONLY way to watch this movie without wasting your life is to fast forward to the Molly and Donny scenes and ignore the rest. Trust me - you'll thank me for this advice.

I bought this dvd for 50 cents at a library book sale. I spent WAAAYYY TOO MUCH. What a pile of garbage. Characters.(like the deadbeat drunken father played by Michael Madsen) you have no empathy for. Other characters that should never have been written into the movie. Storylines that have no center, and change at a moments notice. A total lack of logic or direction.

Wasted talent, wasted celluloid, waste of the viewer's time. And total waste of money for the consumer AND PRODUCERS alike A lack of a huge budget is NOTHING to be ashamed of. Spending $1,000,000 to churn out a pile of garbage, however, is a sin. Oh, and someone THINKING this idea was worth spending a million dollars on: Scarier than anything in this movie.

To put things into perspective about Vision, Continuity, and Artistic Value: This film cost as much to make as ROCKY!!!

I had a friend who thought a kitten in a dew rag was funny and wanted to see this film-- I believe a 100 minute film needs more substance than a kitten in a costume- so, I watched the trailer. 3 minutes of trailer later: I saw absolutely nothing funny- in the end even my friend had to admit this movie was simply God Awful. The jokes are tired - you can see the punchlines coming from a mile away. There is an action/comedy scene that is actually disturbing and unfunny. In the end we are left to believe street thugs who deal drugs are actually really nice people and worthy of our friendships. Words can not describe how bored I was and how much I hated this film-- I do admit I chuckled twice- but that was probably because my mood wasn't totally spoiled- as I didn't buy the tickets. Save your time and ignore this-- even if it shows up on Netflix-- but if your curiosity gets the best of you (like that kitten in a dew rag) don't say I didn't warn you.

This movie is wonderful. It is the story of a happy and joyous weekend with an infamous antagonist about to arrive. That Jonathan Demme had chosen to use hand held cameras is genius because it essentially puts the viewer within the celebration to share the joys and pains that can come with family. (it may also be genius because it brought this independent film under budget- but that is another story). Over all I thought this film was on the scale of "Boys In The Band" without the humor of the first 60 minutes.

Anne Hathaway is Kym: a drug fiend of some 15 years; now 9 months clean and going home to see her sister Rachel get married. Also Kym is going home to the family who still can not fully cope with the fact that Kym while in a drug induced stupor killed her younger brother.

Kyms' angst is painfully evident. Yet early into the film Kyms' behavior makes her almost unlikeable. She seems to be self forgiving, self indulging and does and says things that are so ill timed it borders between inappropriate and sociopathic. And why should she receive our pathos from the beginning? As in any family with an addict- Kym is hardly the only "victim". However, as this story unravels you will see more to the back ground than just pain, anger and rehab. Questions are raised and some answers are found but the film keeps the stark reality that nobody walks away completely cured from their troubles after one weekend.

By the way kudos to Bill Irwin who plays Paul, the family patriarch. Irwin is phenomenal in the role....frankly I liked him since his single line in "Popeye" so the fact that he is getting some real work appeals to me as he is certainly an under appreciated talent.

Throughout the film is a plethora of music - all nations and all types it seems but this is a Bohemian and musical family so personally I let it go- but it can be a bit much. Still,I suggest this film whole heartedly.

I saw the trailer of this film nearly a year ago and could hardly wait to see it. In the trailer it appeared to be the maladjustment of a Muslim Girl trying to live a normal American life despite narrow minded Muslim roots and upbringing...it was not!! True they throw a scene about buying feminine napkins and her fathers disapproval of tampons but it was hardly a film about growing up female and growing beyond the limitations of a Muslim upbringing.

This film also claims to be a defiant and bold look at prejudice through the eyes of several different ethnic groups... it did not live up to the hype. To simply have movie characters call out ethnic slurs at one another is not brave nor bold but simply a movie about name calling. In the "extras" section of the DVD the producer and director even admit to showing the film to Muslim groups- getting permission so to speak to be brave and defiant

This film is a sad tale of 13 year old JASIRA: A 1/2 Lebanese 1/2 American Girl continuously living amongst deviant adults and school peers. AAron Eckhart is amazingly evil in his portrayal of Travis the American neighbor with a sick lusting crush for Jasira. But in reality the film shows us a young girl either exploited or vilified by adults and classmates alike because she is attractive.

Her mother blames her for being young and seducing the mothers boyfriend. The father who earlier gave up his rights to Jasira beats her for dressing scantily or having sexual curiosities as her body is changing. She has homosexual fantasies but we never address that issue in the film because the director is too busy showing us her masturbatory skills Vs. how often she will let herself have unsatisfying sex with the black kid in school....an amazing stereotype I might add for a film that wishes to rid the world of prejudice.

Fortunately her other neighbors are just returning from a tour with the peace corps (how peace corps volunteers can afford the same neighborhood as the NASA Scientist father I have yet to understand) and how serendipitous that they just returned from the Arab World - so they can not only pick out inappropriate behavior from Eckhart they can also speak fluent Arabic so Jasiras abusive father feels shame and yet a certain safety for his daughter.

Let me stop here and suffice to say there is nothing bold brave or inventive in this film. It is pretentious, phony and self serving all the while getting the message it meant to send the world- WRONG!!

I am not so old that I can't remember laughing at Bobcat Goldthwait a couple times. But some where in all his years of drug abuse he lost his sense of humor as well as his brain cells.

From the moment this film opens you can have no sympathy nor empathy for the female lead. Neither will you find anything remotely funny after hearing the opening line. Goldthwait obviously hates himself so much that he needs to degrade in order to feel better- even if it is his own imaginary characters he degrades.

If you ever saw Shakes the Clown you know how unfunny Bobcat was 15 years ago...this movie is worse. It was not even funny by accident It is sad, pathetic and a total waste of time. May Goldthwaits' hands be rendered paralyzed so he can not write another script. Strike his tongue so he can not dictate another unfunny scene. He is sad and pathetic and needs to make room for a new talent dying to get into Hollywood

Actually I saw this film (against my will) and as the trailers did not look funny (trailers show casing a movies best set ups) then logic dictates this movie will be as bad as the Comebacks- but I was able to sit through the whole thing and did not feel completely ripped off- even the credits offered some of the better laughs. Now I must agree that the creators decided to explain every premise of every punchline leading me to believe they wrote this thing with morons in mind but a couple of the bits (the different greetings for men and women Spartans) will hold up through the years. Many segments will not hold up as they used a lot of modern culture shock news for parody- like the little freak crying about Brittney (does anyone find him funny?? now let alone 10 years from now) In fact too often the film takes a bad joke and beats it into the ground as in the Stomp the yard/ You've been Served parody.

Many actors were from Mad T.V. rehashing their impersonations of celebrities and did a wonderful job in almost every scene. The problem really was the script needed a Babaloo Mandel to tighten it up. I can't say it is worth full admission but it was not the total waste of time I thought it was going to be.

I know what you're thinking- Sydney Lumet has made some very good films and some real turds in the last 40 years and now that he approaches his 149th birthday how can he possibly compete with the directors and story tellers of today?? Tha answer is simple he hires real talent over Hollywood hyped stars even using great casting in the smaller roles giving this film a genuine look from suburbs to urban scum. His expertise and experience of a strong script makes Lumet stand out as a still great director. This film though gritty was wonderful. While it is much seedier it none the less in my mind compares to Haggis' Crash of last year.

The Story: Two emotionally troubled brothers (each with their own financial troubles) plan to hold up a jewelry store with a toy gun- but when the bullets go off things go from bad to worse to down right gut wrenchingly uncomfortable for the brothers and their families.

This is a masterpiece- not that crap from the Cohen brothers released the same month. The performances in this film are spell binding- Hoffman and Finney can do no wrong in my eyes but I haven't enjoyed a performance from Ethan Hawke since Dead Poets Society which makes this almost spiritual in its' resurrection of Ethan Hawke the actor. by the way- I never knew Marissa Tomei had such nice breasts and frankly she was pretty good in her role as conniving yet sad wife of Phillip Seymore Hoffman. There have been only a hand full of films in the last three months worth seeing and by far this is one of the best. It gives the viewer a chance to forget about CGI effects and over the top evil geniuses for characters and returns to movie basics: Story, acting and set design/ lighting. A must see for movie fans!!

I have seen 8 films in the last 72 hours and I can tell you now this one was worth the money.

When I first saw the one sheet with Vaughn and Giamatti together it made no difference to me who played Santa because it couldn't help but be a hit- then I saw the trailers- and the more I saw the trailers the less I wanted to see this film(despite being a Joel Silver Production). Pay no attention to the spoilers- this film was great!!

Fred Clause is blessed with a baby brother he loves but can not measure up in the eyes of his mother- Nick though saintly has his flaws too (even his wife is concerned about his eating habits) Fred is always on the shady side of a get rich quick scheme and when one of those schemes get him in jail- with no one else to call he calls Nick much to the dismay of his sister in law. Eventually the hundreds of years of sibling rivalry come to a boil and the trouble still isn't over. If the highlights you have seen of this movie leave you thinking it is a cookie cutter story about the cool brother helping out the square- think again. There are many gems amid the films unseen scenes- and anyone with a heart or funny bone will not be disappointed- this film was great.

I love a good debate so as a sort of fan of Michael Moore (I hated Bowling for Columbine) I thought I'd like to see an opposing view point. This film is not it. This film is about a guy trying to interview Michael Moore. This film travels the country talking to people about how Moore hates America but often shows America in decay. The film maker actually tends to show the polarity between the "haves" and "have nots". It does show Americans trying to keep afloat despite corporate greed and military blackmail- but so does any of Micchael Moores films.

Penn Gillette (who is an intelligent and funny guy) voices his opinion throughout the film (perhaps acting as an expert in American history and philosophy) but as an entertainer who has a great gig in Vegas (corporate owned casino) and mocks any conspiracy theory surrounding Sept.11, 2001 he both loses credibility with me and sometimes comes across as a jilted lover of Moores rather than open minded interviewee.

The film maker complains about Moore lying to get interviews but then lies to get an interview. He interviews....oh God let me stop here. This film is a waste of time. Don't waste your time would be my advice.

I just caught this film it is about relationships, marriage and the concept of expecting perfection vs. the reality of every day life weighing in on relationships. I laughed often and cried several times as well.

On the whole this was white cinema done with black faces but such a trend is long over due (if I have to watch one more trailer about how hard life in the hood without anyone fixxing their situation or the benefits to selling drugs and pimping I may go on a shooting spree). However, don't let this fool you-the writing was top rate and while some dialogue rehash there was a lot of very original dialogue as well. My only real complaint of the film was its sterility in many shots a lack of warmth within some home settings and among the performers as a whole.

There seemed to be little genuine commaraderie between the actors particularly in the earlier scenes. They were supposed to be friends since college but they were stiff in their reuniting with each other.

Also there is the scene were the overweight wife is forced to drive to the reunion by herself and all the women are worried for her safety yet when she enters the cabin the next day no one runs over to greet her they wait for her to come to them. Despite some of these often repeated mistakes (not just here but in other movies) this movie was very very good. I enjoyed it almost as much as The Four Seasons but unlike the Four Seasons this film follows all the characters all the way through the film- a nice touch in giving overall closure. Janet Jackson was my least favorite; portraying the celebrated novelist who lost a child but the the other performances were powerful enough to over shadowed her lack of depth. This was the first Tyler Perry film I have seen and I must say his 2 weeks at top box office is well justified here.

There is no bigger fan of ALF the T.V. Series than myself- I realize Paul Fusco was a big fan having created the series however I never would have allowed this stink-filled script to destroy the laugh filled memories of the Alf Franchise.

The first couple of minutes between Alf and Beverly Archer(Harriette Byrd in past episodes) was funny but then the film isn't about Alf so much as Military abuse of authority and the love story of two young Doctors who befriend Alf while he is in captivity with the Alien Task Force. The story line is beyond awful and filled with straight line after straight line. The rest of the original cast is gone- and how many laughs did we get from Max Wrights' dead pan deliveries and exaggerated befuddlement?

There were so many alternative stories after the final T.V. episode why Fusco chose the worst possible direction is beyond me (maybe he was hanging with Jerry Stahl at the time of conceiving this project)

I say to anyone who in later years discovers the Alf television show to stay away from this movie- it is lame unfunny and a pile of steaminess. I compare it to the let down of Highlander 2- it's that very very very bad.

You know how there are so few great films and even fewer great documentaries other than those that make you want to shoot yourself out of self loathing for our planet or our society??? Well here is a film that is dramatic yet fun and will have you wanting more.

I have never rated a film a "10" but this film certainly is a 10 in my opinion. It is as entertaining as the games depicted and quirky as the characters shown. I had never heard of Billy Mitchel before the previews of this film came out- in fact I never knew there was a video game champion of the nation- I never knew there were records kept and scores to beat other than the proverbial 9999999. I wish not to say anything about the characters or the barriers some characters in the film had to overcome because I fear I may give something away and this film is far too wonderful for me to spoil for anyone even if accidental.

Let it be said that one mans quest is endearing, another mans life philosophy proves him to be shallow, void and full of cowardice and yet another is merely a sick groupie for Billy Mitchell. All I can say is that the film is worth the price of admission and concession. I have never rated a film a 10 until now and that when it comes to DVD I will buy it. PLEASE PLEASE see it for yourself!

This film not only has great acting by two ultra-fine professionals in Bale and Crowe but has wonderful dialogue that unravels the story and explains the action taken by each character. Logic would dictate one to ask why Crowe is running across alley ways and riding quickly with the posse toward the gallows- but the dialogue explains all of it while creating a larger scope of who these characters are. The dialogue was wonderful and concise in so many aspects. In fact, there are 3 or 4 separate verbal exchanges Christian Bales' character has that so perfectly develops the essence of the character I can not describe it as anything less than poetry! This film is excellent and is no boundaries for which audience would appreciate it- it is a great date film regardless of age or gender.

It is a real shame that nearly no one under 30 knows the "over the top" writing of Michael O'Donoghugh- magazine articles and SNL skits that were genius for the time...and so it is a true shame that anyone who may take the opportunity to research his work will no doubt take the easy way out and watch videos- thus leading them to MR MIKES MONDO VIDEO.

This movie has clever elements that never fully connect to the funny bone. The viewer experiences such things as cat diving/swimming with the man who thinks he's found feline happiness by hurling these kittens into a pool which the camera follows in slow motion and montage sequence. Then we are taken to an island to where all past fads are retired (hula hops, pet rocks, rainbow dread wigs etc.) Then we enter the music world (punk was a new variety of music at the time of this film) where "D" rate bar performer Rootboy Slim performs "boogie till you puke" in his own lazy style of dirt and eclectic sleaze. Now the real beauty of all this is the back ground music. In many different styles with many different instruments the sound of TELSTAR plays and replays- for those who don't understand Telstar was the first American Satellite launched into space and the theme was created to celebrate mans genius and triumph. MR MIKES seems to have been meant as a signal of societal decay ridiculous wastes. Now one thing the theater offered that the video release does not was a live performance of Sid Vicious (ex sex pistol not the wrestler) singing MY WAY. His version is very different than Sinatras as one might imagine but frankly I feel it is very much worth the listen...it's good! That is the sad part- in the VHS release Paul Anka refuses the rights of his song and the viewer is forced to experience 3 1/2 minutes of silence with an explanation rolling across the image of the singing dead sex pistol.

I would give the theater release a 5 or 6 the video is closer to a 4 and now that so much is passé I can see where many people would give it a 3 or 2.5. If you want to see a good O'Donoghugh script watch SCROOGED...it is a better tribute to the mans insight and talent.

This movie was excellent. The acting was top rank and the settings and techniques were on the money...but don't get comfortable- the fact is when watching this film you can't get comfortable- the reality is too recognizable, too real- too...HARSH! (Which is why it got an 8 rating instead of a 9)

This is a film about a young man named Jim Davis. A man who returns home after a life and death stint in Afghanistan dreaming of becoming an L.A. cop marrying his Mexican fiancée; giving her legal status and living happily ever after. He grew up in violence as we learn from his trek home to the old neighborhood waiting for assignment from the L.A.P.D. but he has brought with him memories of the war- violent memories- memories he can't seem to shake that either haunt him or fulfill him. The audience watches it all unfold on this often painful roller-coaster ride. Jims' experience with his friend(s) after one minor set back enters his hopeful existence.

Originally, I went to the film to see Christian Bale (who is a true talent) in some sort of "shoot em up" gang movie but instead it is so much more. It's a character study as well as a drama about the new generation of 20 somethings taking or trying to take responsible roles in our society. Many of them have street stories and many have police records but they are, in fact, the new work force. Most have seen enough turmoil and want more than a thugs life the sad part is "the streets" is a neighborhood too easy to return. Old habits that can keep them from ever really going straight. Friends who would take a bullet for one another but can not seem to fathom how to help his brother take an important step forward in life.

As I mentioned before this film is excellent and the acting first rate. Freddy Rodriguez deserves a nod and even Eva Longoria whom I normally can take or leave does a really nice job as the concerned wife (actually an over simplified definition of the character) This film may not be for everyone it is not as graphic as American Me but it is very real. Originally after seeing it I thought: "glad I saw it- never watch it again"...well, I've seen it again and plan on watching it a third time tomorrow with friends. It is great drama and I believe you too will grow to love the discomfort of Harsh Times.

Despite all the hype this movie is very funny in parts with a not so new approach to making a movie or comedy sketch- the unwitting victim or the inside joke. Candid camera did a solid job most of the time while others like Andy Kauffman failed miserably (I found Kauffman uncomfortable to watch). Saccha Cohen does a much stronger job of the put on, some visuals are in fact inspired, however I don't honestly think many of the people on the screen were out of the loop in terms of the punchline. There were too many camera angels in spaces where a camera would be too conspicuous. Also many characters are in fact character actors and the entire scene with Pamela Anderson is unrealistic if it were not a put on. Now the fact that it is not completely unscripted is fine with me (just as Blair Witch was not really a lost student film) however because of this Cohen turns a film seemingly about American culture vs third world culture into a long journey about finding real love over infatuation. It is just so uneven- so much of the film is about culture clash that he completely missed the point of his own premise. Yes this is a funny film yes some parts are very funny but after you've seen it there is nothing extra to make you want to see it over and over. Cohen could have added a bold observation like CRASH or taken us on a journey for love (instead of Americans looking for internet brides we have a 3rd world man looking for an American bride) but instead he takes us from 60 to 0 in 2.1 seconds. It's not that I didn't like the film I just didn't love it.

Remember how in the 70's you could tell the production value of a film by how often you saw the boom mike fall into view of the actors- well thanks to boom operator Darryl Purdy and the laziness of Peter "I apparently never watch the dailies" Hewitt, you can see the boom mike fall into view 3 separate times. That said allow me to point out that the cute little girl who acts as badly as her speech impediment can't save the film in the same way that the Brady Bunch would not have been popular with a the show devoted to Cindy Brady.

There was so much wasted possibility showing us the back ground of these characters the over use of montage and collage editing would not have been needed.

Also the film has three apparent villains in the film except none of them are bad and we never know why two of them are necessarily considered bad- but that's o.k. because the story was written by someone with ADD or perhaps short term memory loss as significant as the character in "Memento".The story has no continuity- Tim Allen hates the kids he plays with the kids he feels sorry for the kids no wait he doesn't understand why he's there to train the kids_ FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!! Nothing in this movie fit together- and in the end the super evil villain (whom we have waited 90 minutes to see) gets a scolding in the last 6 minutes of the movie and then it's over.

Didn't Peter Hewitt read the script before filming oh no wait this is the same guy that gave us "Bogus Journey"- you remember- the sequel that ended the Bill and Ted franchise. Not to mention the Garfield Movie.. a comic strip so revered for 30 years they made it into a Saturday morning cartoon but the movie that couldn't keep the audiences attention for 90 minutes (success based solely on a lack of other children films during its release and parents who grew up with Garfield the previous generation)...WHY DOES PETER HEWITT GET WORK, why?? Afterall,it is the directors responsibility for many things including having a working script and a vision before starting a project ( the exceptions being Andy Warhol who's audience base was too stoned to notice and Francis Ford Coppola with "Apocalypse Now" who had several million dollars to keep his dream afloat.

Peter Hewitt should be ashamed of himself for this crap.

First off I have no idea why people are poo pooing this film. Sure it's a remake but at least they made this one different enough from the original and in many ways I found it better. It is faster paced than the original with enough pause to create human interest and character development. The special effects were 30 years more impressive than the original and lastly the director was brave enough to kill off characters you don't think are going to die!! How often in horror films or Jurrassic park movies do you see the survival group and know instinctively whose living and whose dying- well this one kept me off balance all film long. The drama was fast and the terror realistic. You could listen for the audience holding their breaths seeing if they can make it to the next level. I suppose if there was any one flaw it was a lack of total character history- the main characters pasts are eluded to with enough information to make a supposition but not a line by line summary explaining precisely why they act the way they act. On the other hand that removal of pin pointed character history makes for a wonderful table top dialogue during a post movie dinner. I don't care what the others clamor-I went in thinking I would see a typical film that was pretty good and instead I really liked this movie and have every intention of buying the DVD.

I never read the book so I had the awesome privilege of not having any clue what to expect from the film. To me the worst thing any movie goer could gripe about is: "...it ain't as good as the book.." you know -the typical complaint against any movie made from a best selling novel. Otherwise,I have no idea why the critics hated this movie!! Probably to be different from the hype (a last ditch effort of balding flabby gutted non film makers trying to be off beat and radical) Admittedly this film has little action so if you need CGI and explosions in your ADD existence then it's true, this film is not for you. However, if you enjoy watching a mystery unravel before you this movie is about excellent. The pacing is faster than an early 1970's film but slower than say LAST BOY SCOUT. But I never found myself fidgeting in my seat or turning my cel phone back on. The characters are well developed and done so quickly enough so as not to keep you wondering why they are the way they are. Also the acting is very convincing. The film is written well enough to add a chuckle here and there without making a farce of the atmosphere. Also the writer doesn't make the main character a super genius amongst a band of idiots. Personally, I feel, being the film is set mainly in France had Ron Howard added subtitles, cut scenes without thought and paced it even slower he'd have ensured the critics of today to taught it as inspired and a masterpiece. Seriously, the only problem I had with the movie at all was that I guessed the mystery half way through the film. Yet despite that I thought it was great and I would gladly sit through it again. Please don't let this fall by the way of THE ALAMO or TROY it is definitely worth the watch.

O.K., o.k. after much argument I finally saw MI3 (as if I hadn't seen enough of Cruise the last six months) and all I can say is Kevin Costner had fewer close ups in WATERWORLD. Tom Cruise has surprised me in some roles ie RAINMAN and MAGNOLIA but he is not an action film star no matter how often he tries to subject us to it. Maybe he should do the research and come to terms with his limitations. And speaking of limitations I thought Phillip Seymore Hoffman sounded more like a man with a cold than a hip sadistic villain. Hoffman whom I enjoy watching in anything from "Happiness" to "Capote:" was more of a heal in "Scent of a Woman" than here in MI3. The script lacked originality and sharp punchlines to break up the monotony of "Tom Sure Shot Cruise" shoot outs. I love a good shoot out- even if it's over the top- but I was not caught up in these. Also I could see in my minds eye Tom Cruise insisting he finally get a "good bridge scene" in his action movie and jumping up and down on his producer couch after reading the "bridge scene" inclusion in the MI3 script. It didn't help!! Maybe a director with more vision could have done a better job Unfortunately the director was JJ Abrams who despite the budget found a way to make this scene and in deed the entire movie dull, more of the same and implausibly laughable where it shouldn't have been. Was it the fact that the star was the producer of the movie that limited JJ?? or that the star so intent on forcing the issue of action hero and close ups could only find a director who was leadable and therefore lacking vision hence JJ Abrams. Tom!! you're not as talentless as I thought you were 20 years ago but get a grip on the reality of yourself- if you can do it for Brook Sheilds surely you can turn the mirror inwards- give the audience what they want instead of what you hope to shove(L) on them.

If you've been to film school or honestly believe black and white film noir somehow has the edge on all other genres then cease reading and go back to your bongo, beret and pretentious clover cigarettes because you will never understand how much fun this film is. Take the icon duo of Frankie and Annette put them in a parody of their own genre add a half dozen cameos from some of the most memorable characters 60's T.V. had to offer add some great casting especially the role of Bobby (Demian Slade) and you have Back to the Beach.

Frankie is an over worked car dealer Annette is an overly optimistic housewife- they opt to take a trip to Hawaii stopping along the way in L.A. to visit their eldest daughter who happens to live on the very beach they once romped as teens. Did I mention their son Bobby (an ashamed to be Frankie and Annettes son donning punk garb and attitude) tags along creating the punchiest of the punchlines and the films narration. There on the beach Frankie finds his daughter dating a surfer and an old flame "losing" Annette in the process while ticking off the local "beach roughians". The plot is great as a parody with the perfect couple playing the leads while the story plays out in old beach film fashion.

It's risqué enough to keep your eyes open but innocent enough in dialogue to show a six year old. Sure the acting is over the top but didn't I mention this was a parody of the "beach films". Add to this a great musical score including Dick Dale and Stevie Ray Vaughn and you have not so much a great film as a very watchable/researchable one.

Is it as good as say Requiem For a Dream no of course not but let me ask: how often can you really watch a man lose his arm while his girl friend reverts to public sodomy for drug money...Go for the FUN!! Go watch Back To The Beach, you won't be disappointed!!!!!

In early America in a rural sector of high wheat and corn fields stands a small school house where a young farmers mind is opened to the world of science (a passion now being flamed by deeper study than the farm fields and weather patterns could offer). But it's an early spring a time for young minds to sow the fields and help with chores...it's always been the custom. The boy wants desperately to stay in school and further his learning which may ready him for college in a few years. His life is torn between duty and custom and this new direction. However, the ultimate choice is that of his father: man of the land, hard and unschooled..can the teacher help explain this new life?? What can this father care about a passion for microbiology?? A very nice little film I saw on HBO when HBO offered some culture in between the T&A for ratings. It may also offer you a chance to see some dilemmas American youth faced in another time. An absolutely wonderful little short I saw only twice but remember well 22 years later.

I saw this movie based on one fact only...I had never heard of it and the theatre didn't even have a one sheet for it (one never knows what gems can be found in the unknown) immediately after seeing it I rounded up some friends a took them to see it. This was a very smart screenplay. It could well have been a hint of things to come in the middle east had the events of Sept.11, 2001 not sped up our concentrated involvement in that area. It still, however, shows some dilemmas caused by that areas prejudices between groups. In the film Iraq re-invades Kuwait as a novice "unelected" president tries to handle the situation from a remote location in the Colorado Mountains during a blizzard. Iraq points some chemical weapons at their neighbors- or are they nukes bought from the French who got them from us?? Now the talk gets tough except our president is Jewish and the Iraqis won't parlay with a Jew- while some on his staff insists he not say anything on an unsecured phone line.

Of course I'm no film student so my view of the real world is tainted with realism such as intelligent people working in mundane jobs or that people with IQs of 105 can be enlightened about some limited fields such as societal woes or the horror of nuclear fallout. I admit there is a kind of "who done it" ending that wraps everything up in a brief monologue by Kevin Pollack with which I was not entirely comfortable. However, it does put a slant on ones thinking in so far as our on again off again real life political relationship with the French is concerned. I loved this movie!! I enjoyed this drama as much as the unfolding tension surrounding The Contender(another Rob Lurie film) and though I am hardly a Rob Lurie fan (I thought The Castle sucked beyond dry) I have kept his name in my memory since my first viewing of Deterrence waiting for any other gem he may write...or direct. To me- it was that good!!