Mostly true, except for the information from McNamara
	People were looking for a book that could grab them about Nam when this was a best seller in 1972, and this book has details that people were not getting from television or the front page of newspapers in those days.  Magazines that published book reviews typically had a view of Nam that was tuned more to the nuance of individual points of view than the geopolitical justifications which failed to consider the nature of the situation in Nam itself as a primary consideration.  Portions of this book originally appeared in `The New Yorker,' so the author was becoming widely known as this book was being prepared.  Frances FitzGerald's original trip to Vietnam was in February to November of 1966, and resulted in articles for the `Atlantic Monthly,' the `Village Voice,' `Vogue,' etc.  People who read fashion magazines were particularly interested in what a nice girl might think of a situation like Nam, where large numbers of young Americans were being subjected to a military view of the situation on a personal level so intense that most publications would refrain from printing the kind of expressions which naturally describe the emotional shock of being shot at or booby trapped in some more surprising fashion.

This book is not perfect.  The only listing for `Tonkin Gulf Resolution' in the index is for the page on which President Johnson's use of the Resolution is questioned by Senator Fulbright in 1966.  That was the time this book is mainly concerned with, but it gives an enormous amount of background information.  It is possible to find a listing in the index under ` GVN' for `and U.S. entry into the war, 354' which gives the page that reflects Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's testimony to Congress that:

"It was in response to an amphibious sabotage raid by GVN forces that North Vietnamese PT boats attacked the U.S. destroyer Maddox, mistaking it for one of the South Vietnamese vessels."  (pp. 352-353).

Actually, the OPLAN 34A attacks along the Gulf of Tonkin coastline were operations planned and approved in Washington, D.C., and McNamara lied about South Vietnamese operations to maintain the secret status of U.S. operations, during which the North Vietnamese PT boats were responding to recoilless rifle fire from a small boat when American intelligence informed the Maddox that it was about to be attacked.  Radio intercepts of North Vietnamese naval messages on August 4, 1964, were used to convince LBJ and Senators that an attack had occurred when two American destroyers were picking up radar ghosts and sonar readings off the reflection of a hard-turned rudder, as shown by subsequent tests.  Edwin E. Moise's book, TONKIN GULF AND THE ESCALATION OF THE VIETNAM WAR has much more information about that secret circus stunt.

Jeffrey Kimball's recent book, THE VIETNAM WAR FILES:  UNCOVERING THE SECRET HISTORY OF NIXON-ERA STRATEGY, contains a reference to the author of this book in a Memorandum by Dwight Chapin to Haldeman, January 18, 1973, about a month after heavy bombing near or in Hanoi to get some ceasefire agreement signed, hoping it could be called `The Peace Announcement' (p. 288) and attempting to describe a point of view different from what intellectuals were expecting.

"The FitzGeralds and the Fondas, the Halberstams and Harrimans, the Clarks and Ellsbergs and Baezes are poised in the wings just waiting to treat the end of the war as their victory and to so opine from coast to coast."  (Kimball, p. 291).

I have the First Vintage Books Edition, August 1973, which was after Dwight Chapin's Memorandum, but I am not sure if American bombing in Cambodia had ended when the actual paper in this book was printed on.  There are only six lines of listings in the index for Cambodia, mostly on general issues, but the week I spent there was hardly earth-shaking.  Of more interest to me was the report in FIRE IN THE LAKE about the An Lao valley, where the battalion 1/12th Infantry from the 4th Infantry Division spent the months from September, 1969 to January, 1970.  I believe this was our first free fire zone, with a base high above a village that had been destroyed, surrounded by paddies in which elephant grass was growing instead of rice, but enemy soldiers were found harvesting highland rice on the hillsides.  Enemy contact was the only kind we had, after all other possibilities had been eliminated in the manner described in this book.

"In Operation Masher/White Wing alone--a multi-regimental sweep through the north of Binh Dinh province--the Allied forces, by the estimates, destroyed an entire enemy division.  In the process they left hundreds of civilians dead and wounded and `generated' so many refugees as almost to depopulate the fertile An Loa valley."  (p. 405).

"While the American troops opened roads and `cleared' great stretches of territory, the Front guerrillas came back into every area except those heavily garrisoned by U.S. troops.  By the end of 1966 the NLF continued to govern the An Lao valley as well as the suburbs of Da Nang, Hue, Nha Trang, and Saigon."  (p. 406).

There is only one line in the index for Frantz Fanon, but anyone who is interested in how FitzGerald saw a link between revolution against colonial powers in African and Arab countries and the situation in Nam, "including the belief in Fate and the symbolic killing of self, which he called `the behavior patterns of avoidance. . . . the sudden crime waves that spread through the cities, the tribal warfare, and the fierce, irrational feuding of the native sects.  As he explained them, . . ."  (p.509).  You wouldn't want to believe how true the stuff in this book could be today


It's nasty and the kids love it
	I bought this for my classroom bookshelf. I teach 7th grade science and my kids fight with each other to read it


Must have
	This book brings together, pratical budget concerns with fashion, which are often in two totally different universes. Not worlds, universes.  In the fashionista there is everything from how to get wine out of a shirt to when to know if you should splurge on a coat. In the worlds of increase American debt, this book should be on everyshelf in America!  It is light portable and she is extremely funny!  Two thumbs up


Not Perez-Reverte's best, but entertaining
	If I were to choose the two best novels by this author, they would be The Nautical Chart and The Queen of the South.  The Fencing Master, by comparison, isn't as lively or as intellectually thrilling -- but it is a chewy read.  I particularly loved the characterization of Don Jaime as an older man realizing what he has lost in his life.


Another classic, ruined by Disney
	If you are looking for a good movie to buy for your child, pass on this one. This movie has so many drug references, i can't even begin to explain.(trust me, I just so happen to have taken acid before) This is a movie that NEVER should have been directed toward children.

   If you want your child to be drug free when he/she grows up, do not buy this


not much for laughs and even less for plot
	Wedding Crashers is the kinda film alot of people will love because it is stupid but alot of others like myself, won't enjoy. two womanizers fall in love, one because he finds out that his gf is not actually a virgin, like first off, what does virginity have to do with love?   second, who would actually believe that she was telling the truth when she said that she was a virgin?   then Owen Wilson's character fall in love with Rachel's McAdams character and well, that's the usual predictable romance plot. the problem with this film is it's not that funny. it seems to think it's better then it is. I don't think I hardly laughed during this film. the part about the "supposive" gay guy like people think he is gay so therefore of course, because it's this kind of film, he ends up being gay and of course, he tries to hit on Vince Vaughn's character in a scene that is beyond creepy. lets just say that "gay" guy is prob one of the worst actors I've seen.   then we get a cameo from Will Ferrell, alot of people I know find this guy "so" funny. but I don't get it. it just wasn't funny to me. u know, I loved the classic, "American Pie" that was just stupid for its own good but it delivered the goods to make it a great comedy! this film wasn't so much funny as stupid.   for the most part, I'm not going to remember this film in 5 years from now because it's just an average film


The Firm
	Great movie but CD not perfoming in the last few scenes.  It gets stuck or restarts itself.  Very frustrating and more frustrating to have to return new CD


BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...
	this has got to be the WORST film I've ever seen. its not sad. Its not funny, jest over blow mellow dramatic garbage. I don't have any sympathy toward nick in this movie, because he does give you anything to work with or want to keep him. the actor is the worst of all. i cant tell if he's sad in some seens, or angry or jest retarded. I've seen some sad movies but this one jest sucks, I guess its aimed at a different time of homosexuals instead of the present. it probably worked better back in 96'. but this movie is SO SO SO BAD. its embarrassing. do not rent it or buy it or view it on television.
NOTE'S: THIS FILM HAD  SOME GREAT TALENT
A song from Olivia Newton Jon, and (one of my most personal favorites) Mila AND my favorite comedians Margaret Cho. She's to good but...why this film, she (and Mila ) are to good for some want to be tearjerker movie like this.


For fans of Miyazaki, NOT for fans of the book
	I was very excited about this film as a fan of both the book and Ghibli Studios previous works. All the greater the disappointment then, when less than half way through, the story becomes something utterly unrecognizable from the original, several key characters are lumped together most confusingly, and others lose all their complex charm. What a shame.

If you have never read the book and are a fan of Miyazaki, by all means buy this. You're very likely to enjoy the excellent animation and yet another unusual story from him.

If you are a fan of the book, steer well clear. You're likely to want to poke Miyazaki with a stick and see if his head turns into a turnip or his turnip into a head.


Nothing I liked about it
	This movie didn't do anything for me...Didn't care for the characters or the plot.  The ending was disapointing also.


Gave it a Chance but...
	I really did give this a chance but I can't say I like the show. It focuses more on the "police" aspect and less on the science, which differentiates the CSI series from most of the other garbage out there. I know David Caruso has his fans but I just can't appreciate him in this vehicle...


don't be  quot;con quot; vinced into watching this
	To be honest with you I thought the movie was really bad. the acting was ok but the only good part about the movie was that ricky (Rodney Eastman) was in the movie. (for about 5 mins) but i would not suggest renting this movie and waisting 4 dollars


The Tyler Pery Collection
	I ordered these, and several other movies from the Tyler Perry Collection, only to find that they were not actual movies but on-stage plays. I returned them and was charged a high restocking fee. Not OK! No where in the description was mention of them being stage plays. I will order my CD's and DVD's from another source in the future.


Agree with should have stayed lost
	I agree, these were not used in the first two seasons for a good reason, they are not that good.  OK, there is maybe one or two slightly funny sketches but it is not worth buying.  I love Charlie Murphy and the Ashy guy and I think they could have done more with these guys to make it funny.  Dave, come back to TV


Dissapointed
	Many people had reccomended this movie to me but it failed to live up to its reputation.  The quality of the film-making was aweful, the acting bad to the point of utter ridiculousness, and the script read like a cross between a psychotherapists analysis and one of those pulp romance novels about angsty teenagers.  It gets some credit toward the end for showing some self-awareness of how silly and dramatic the whole thing was.  There were some cute moments, and it was interesting to see the humble roots of one of the big L word ladies, but don't go into this movie expecting a highly polished end product


big,biggest bigot!
	I live in South Africa where the series appeared 20 years ago.Thanks to Amazon I was able to relive the wonder of Archie Bunker where each episode provides laughs from one of the family,each of whom is brilliantly cast.I have series 3 4 and now want 1 2.Don't wait any longer,24 episodes of absolute delight await you


Embarrasing to watch.
	I have to disagree with the reviews above and say that I watched this movie on dvd having watched it as a kid twenty years ago. Unfortunately I couldn't find anything about this film I remember enjoying. It's a cross between The Blob, The Thing and a really crap detective movie. Moriarty's character is pretty smooth but the film culminates in a farce reminicent of an 80's kiddy movie. This film is definetly not for intelligent adults and you'll lose interest halfway through I guarantee it. No suspense, few laughs, and way to hokey to watch twice. If you love this movie you need to get out more.


U won't care for this one
	Sat down and saw this one on televion.

Only good service was that now I know buying the DVD would be a waste of money.

What was actually achieved by the British is portrayed as an American achievement. Slanders the U-boat men portraying them as heartless marauders. Other than allied Propoganda pieces, There are no incidents of U-boats machinegunning people in lifeboats.

The movie itself I have little respect. Basicly Plotless and  unrealistic. Action scenes unbelievable. Characters Two Dimensional.

This film Awful.


Fatally Flawed
	Sure, this movie is a classic. But is it any good? Frankly, I found it to be tedious in the extreme.

It's certainly pleasant to look at. The sets are quite amazing, and the cinematography is absolutely beautiful.

The story (as described in detail in many other reviews here) has potential as both a thriller and a thought-provoking essay (ultimately it is neither).

The acting is top notch, as are all of the special effects. Those of us who cut our teeth using teletype machines always get a kick out of seeing them in all their anachronistic glory. In fact, all of the computer stuff is believable for the era and pleasantly nostalgic.

But the whole thing never rises to its premise. Its "thriller" aspect is artificial and not tied to the central plot line, and entirely predictable from the moment our friend is handed THE ONLY KEY THAT CAN STOP THE NUKE! The resolution is an afterthought (a quick fix in the extreme), and barely even mentioned in about two lines of dialogue after the artificial danger is (narrowly, whew!) averted. The characters are thin at best, and stock at worst.

This movie is really a slow survey of what people in the early 70s thought technology would be like in the mid 70s. Yawn. (I must laugh at the whole bell/paper bit. It means nothing to the plot, and is the ultimate contrivance.)

If a deadly virus actually came back from space, there would certainly be action on many fronts, with plenty of interesting conflict to go around. Some people would try to understand it, others would want only to kill it. There's some potentially interesting tension right there. Some people would argue to keep the danger hidden from the public, others would want to warn them. Again, that could have been a good source of tension. Someone would surely have suspected that the military wanted to harness it as a biological weapon (mentioned in passing, but never developed), while others would try very hard to prevent that. More tension.

I'm just saying that this movie is littered with missed opportunities for something more than the collection of boring experiments and pointlessly slow-moving scenes which it actually contains. This movie is the poster child for boring science fiction, and it would not have had to be that way.

I haven't read the book, but I bet it's a lot better. At its core, this movie is a boring dud.


Thoroughly predictable "thriller"
	The only thing that kept this from being ABSOLUTELY predictable was that a dead bad guy did NOT spring back to life.  I found myself saying "Oh come on" to one plot point after another (previous reviewers have covered these absurdities).  The underlying scenario was unconvincing and un-involving (previous reviews in this thread provide details)


Sorry
	This movie is so freakin stupid. Yes its funny...but so very dumb. Not good dumb; bad dumb. Terribly, painfully stupid. Funny at times. Best avoided or taken in small doses


Hindsight is 20/20
	Believe it or not, I actually wanted to watch this movie.  I've seen almost everything else Adrian Lyne has done and respect his shallow talent enough to be interested in his early efforts.

(I watched _Jacob's Ladder_ because I remembered an intriguing preview on a VHS cassette I watched as a kid and learning that it was a significant influence on _Silent Hill_ sealed the deal; My girlfriend owns a copy of Lyne's version of _Lolita_; _Fatal Attraction_ was a girlfriend induced rental; I watched the TV version of _Indecent Proposal_; I haven't seen _9 1/2 Weeks_ but I read the book.)

Flashdance is also one of those pieces of pop culture that are so influential that you recognize references even if you've never seen it.  And I always wanted to hear the song "Maniac" in its original context, so when I found it on an acquaintances shelf I popped it in.

So, how was it?

Not too bad.  Not great by any means, or even really that good (_Lolita_ and _Jacob's Ladder_ are both quite good) but interesting enough to keep me awake after a long day of work.  The plot is a by-the-book "believe in your dreams" story with really lame dialog, but its development is intercut with extended dancing sequences that are so long and frequent that at times it felt like I was watching an abstract silent film.  I don't know squat about dancing, but the choreography seemed innovative, at least for its time.

I can't even remember the names of the characters, but all in all, I have to admit that it was kind of neat.

Also, if you watch it with the subsequent 20+ years of movies in mind, _Flashdance_ can be seen as sort of an omen of all bad things to come from Hollywood:  It's a movie by a director whose only previous experience was in music videos and commercials, one whose screenplay was an early effort by hack Joe Esterhasz and was produced by Jerry Bruckheimer!  Taken collectively these elements are probably responsible for about 60% of all crap movies made since


Don't waste your money on this one
	Talentless people and garbage music  torture you in this turkey-in no time flat,you'll be driven to pure insanity as you run screaming "MAKE IT STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" out into the yard.Do not spend money on this product unless you want to wind up beating your head against the wall and babbling nonsense


What's all the fuss about?
	Before I review, I'd like to clear something up: I am a very latecomer in seeing this movie. I was introduced to the Ghost in the Shell franchise through the new Anime series airing on Adult Swim, Ghost in the Shell: Standalone Complex. I absolutely love that show, and so I figured eventually I'd have to get around to seeing the movie, which I knew full well shares no connection with the show. They're both seperate interperetations of the comic series of the same name, (which I have not read, so I don't know which is more accurate) but the TV series is exponentially better than this movie in almost every concievable way.

There are many things I don't like about this movie, the biggest being poor pacing. The plot for the movie is actually surprisingly straightforward once you cut away all the filler, but that's the biggest problem. There's not really enough story to last a full-length feature, because it seems almost like it was originally written with the intention of being a 30 minute short. And since they didn't have the budget to load the movie up with action scenes (there are barely any, and they aren't very impressive for the most part) they had to slow the story down with drawn out conversations that you won't understand more than 60% of, and camera shots that last for what feels like minutes where we're looking at either nothing, or a woman's nipples. That's not cinematic artistry, that's being either lazy or perverted.

The animation itself isn't even that good, especially considering that this is was a theatrical release from only 10 years ago. It's choppy, and there's not really a whole lot of detail (except when it comes to women's nipples). Looking at just the animation, if I didn't know better, I'd have thought this movie was an OVA from the 1980's.

The only thing I can really say I liked about this movie was that it was Ghost in the Shell. It's probably kind of like how I didn't see the 1989 Batman movie until years after I'd been spoiled by Batman the Animated Series, and couldn't bring myself to like it for any reason other than that it was Batman. Everything about the TV series is superior to this movie: the animation, the stories, the character developement, the production values... I could go on for an entire page about how much better the TV series is.

In short, if you're you're at all interested in the GITS franchise, do yourself a favor and rent the DVDs of the TV show instead. You'll find a lot to love, but I can't say the same about the movie. My dream is that someday Alex Proyas will give us a GITS movie that lives up to what I would hope for after watching Standalone Complex


DEATH OF COMMON SENSE
	It's hard for me to believe that so many people think this is a brilliant and startling film.  How could you not know that eating so much fast food is unhealthy?   If this film is considered groundbreaking then I fear for our Republic


Difficult!
	Am I the only one who found the basic workout difficult? The pace was too quick for me to get the right technique in the poses and even though I have done this workout several times now, my back almost always is very painful for at least 24 hours afterward. I have found that, apart from a few exercises, the intermediate workout is easier


ugh!
	I got this video thinking it would be like the baby faith videos with fun and creative elements for learning development. My baby watched about two mintues and was gone. I think this is pitched as a baby video but it's really more geared toward older children. None of the elements have anything to do with the music, making is virtually useless as a learning development product. I give it a big "thumbs down". Try any one of the baby faith products like God Made Me, God Made Music and God Made Animals. They're awesome!


A Celebration of Hopelessness
	I give this film one star for the acting, which is often very good. However, the plot and message of this film revel in hopelessness, and debase every aspect of lower income, urban people. In all honesty, I've seen more joy in an African famine. I sat through this film, against my better judgement. Still, if you're truly interested in investigating the dark underbelly of urban American misery and frailty, then I recommend "A Streetcar Named Desire", "KIDS", "Last Exit to Brooklyn", and "Traffic".


Not for the beginner
	I rented this DVD because of the glowing reviews here and because I wanted a better understanding of the origin of the modern problems in the Middle East. Overall, I was disappointed by this offering because it didn't give sufficient background and seemed to speak primarily to those who already had a knowledge of the subject. (It also seems to me to be *a bit* biased in Israel's favor vis-a-vis the Palestinians, but that flaw could be accepted and filtered appropriately.)

For instance, the documentary jumps right into the last Zionist Congress in 1939 (or whenever it was), but they never define what the Zionist movement is or where it came from. I know some of this from my reading, but it would be nice to have a summary here -- especially as it relates to the main players in the rest of the documentary. I wish the documentary would have at least started with WWI and the British occupation of Palestine after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, rather than picking up at WWII and mentioning some of the WWI details later. Doing so would have answered questions like, "Why are the British so important here?"

Another example is keeping track of the people, places, and organizations, which are often named in Hebrew or Arabic and are unfamiliar to the uninitiated. It made the sequence of events hard to follow because we had a hard time keeping track of who was doing what and where. Using more text on the screen, more maps, more recaps, and perhaps more English translations would have improved things greatly, methinks.

The film certainly has value, not least because it is told by a participant and first-hand observer, but it is not for those without much familiarity with the people, places, and issues at hand


Dumbest movie ever
	The entire premise of the movie is not merely ludicrous or far-fetched, it is actually completely false.  The concept of double jeopardy has nothing at all to do with WHOM is murdered (or is otherwise the victim), but WHAT you did, in distinct criminal incidents.  Even if you were wrongly convicted of murdering someone, if you go back and murder them "again" then that is a new incident, and double jeopardy does not apply.

In movies intended to be fantastic, diverging this much from reality might be OK.  But this is a mainstream legal thriller.  It's like having a mainstream romantic comedy where the men wear lipstick and the women don't, for no apparent reason.

But the producers of this movie either have no idea what the law actually says or means, or they just (accurately) banked on the general public being too ignorant to notice how ridiculous it is


Nope
	I was not into this movie at all.  My mother recommended it to me but it was lame all the way through.  A middle-aged man decides he wants to do something different with his life, so he takes a dance class.  Ofcourse there's a fine dance instructor, a crush is pursued, a wife gets jealous, hires a detective, and *gasp* his crush is found out.  The movie was too predictable and it just wasn't for me.  Not a bad movie, just not my cup of tea.  Richard Gere was cute as usual, which was the only thing that made me watch it to the end, besides wanting to know what a correct quick step looked like since "So You Think You Can Dance" never had contestants who mastered it


The InCrowd is out.....
	Susan Ward,coming out of daytime and primetime soaps on TV, gave movie acting a try with this rather lame picture from AOL Films.    Director Mary Lambert tries and fails to give us a Basic Instinct story with zero script and while this was a studio pictures, it looks like Warners gave them a fairly low budget to work with.  As the lack of film sets show.   If you like Susan Ward, then give this a movie a try, if you want to hope that she gets better film roles in the future, DON"T FIND IT HERE


The Long Long Trailer is good
	The Long Long Trailer is a good movie but Too Many Girls is when Lucy and Desi were very young and thin but the movie Too Many Girls is awful and Forever Darling is awful


I have got two words to descibes what I thought of this...
	AND THAT IS BORING AND SNOBISH!  I watched the first two hours of this and coudn't keep awake.  The narritor's voice was monotone. I wanted to shout at his pompous, snobish demeanor SHUT UP!!  In my opinion is not the proper way to educate is to entertain at all god's peoples. With the narritor, granted he is educated but does he have to shove his creditals and his attitude from the gecko. When you take people on a educating journey (such as nine hours long) invite them like you would invite into a warm a loving welcoming home. I felt with his demeanor and atitude felt beat up and like I was crawling on my hands and knees through out the first two hours. I am not watching the rest of the seven hours and returning this DVD set back to the library and saying "Check Please".


Wholesome, weird, and dull
	This picture had some good potential but the director tried too hard hard to make it some kind of arthouse flick. A rather pointless attempt to remake Brewster's Millions with an altuistic slant. It wasn't a "bad" movie it simply wasn't a "good" one. Boooooooring...zzzz..zzzz..zzz


Lousy
	Did Nicholson read the script before signing for this movie? Was he broke that he had to act? Has he reached senility to accept to play in such a poor scenario?
Well, as a fan, I am totally disappointed. Don't waste your money for this, it is not worth


FFC Belittles His Own Classic By Altering The Score...
	Not only does the new music change the mood and quality of critical scenes, it's tantamount to watching old Batman episodes. As soon as something develops, in comes the cheesy music...
The added scenes were poorly produced which is why they didn't make the original cut...The interviews seemed contrived.
I'm not impressed.
The older version supersedes the new


Low budget--so what?
	The movie "Dead Life" by director William Victor Shotten is a throwback to the great movies of old such as Night of the Living Dead--or at least it tries to be--unfortunately it's a stupid attempt and being original through looking old, which in itself is an irony.

Looking at its writing, there's absolutely nothing to commend this movie on. Though this movie at least tries to give you an explanation as to the existence of zombies, it's as thought-out as a cat's decision to chase a shiny object. The common mistake made with Romero's films is that the story wasn't well thought out, since they never really explain the zombies (except a bit in the original about a meteor); however, what people don't realize is it doesn't matter why. Romero's films are satirical in nature, they focus on a larger picture and disregard details, that's what makes them so great--that's what makes them films.

Dead Life makes some attempt and showing depth with its underlying theme, except it's stupid and unoriginal, and really not shocking or thought-provoking in the slightest.

This movie is not shocking, it's not realistic, even the "gore scene" everyone is referring to is only a stupid attempt at being shocking and over-the-edge; but it comes off as just being tasteless.

People are giving this movie credit for having no money, but really, people have done better with less. The acting is ridiculous, the sound is poorly dubbed, the camera is always out of focus, and the special effects are lame. It is a tasteless zombie romp with no point whatsoever, it doesn't deserve credit for having a low budget, it makes no effort to make people think and makes no effort to be good, period. Night of the Living Dead was a low-budget film, this is not even close to reaching that level.

Oh, and it actually takes sound effects straight from the first Resident Evil game and dubs them in. Seriously


rambling and unfocused drama
	"Kings and Queen" is a bloated French drama that rambles on for an interminable two hours and thirty-two minutes to no discernible point or purpose.

The film features two stories that seem unrelated at first but which eventually connect with one another about halfway through the movie.  The first centers around Nora and her struggles with various men in her life, including an elderly father who discovers he has only a few days left to live.  The other story involves a young man named Ismael, a violinist who finds himself placed - unfairly, he believes - in a mental institution through the machinations of an unknown third party.  After traveling along on separate tracks for awhile, these two narrative strands eventually come together when we learn that Ismael is a former lover of Nora's and the man she has chosen to adopt her son from an earlier, tragic relationship.

With a bit more focus and a considerable amount of streamlining, "Kings and Queen" might have been a potent, engrossing drama about modern day relationships.  It certainly has moments of tremendous insight and emotional power, and the performances are, for the most part, complex and touching.  But, taken as a whole, the film meanders and maunders to such an extent that, quite frankly, it begins to wreak havoc on our patience and to wear out its welcome early on.  Even more distressing is the fact that, even though we spend what seems like a mild eternity in the company of these people, we really don't know quite what to make of any of them when the show is finally over.  For instance, Nora's father, on his deathbed, writes a withering diatribe against his daughter's character that simply doesn't gibe with the woman we've been looking at for well over two hours.  Nora is admittedly no Mother Theresa (then, again, who is?), but she certainly doesn't deserve the invective thrown at her by her very own father.  Nora could be accused of being  confused, indecisive, a bit self-absorbed at times, but evil enough to have her father wishing he could give her his cancer and make her die in his place?  I don't think so.

Perhaps this film is simply operating at a level of depth that I was unable to fathom.  But my suspicion is that even writer Roger Bohbot and co-writer/director Arnaud Desplechin would have trouble fully explaining their purpose here.  This is a well acted, pretentious bore of a film that takes the audience on a long, rambling voyage through a sea of personal crises, a journey that leaves the viewer no wiser or more enlightened at the end than he was at the beginning.


How To Make A Goth/Sci-Fi "Classic" (A 20-Step Guide)
	1. Make sure you set your film in some sort of terrible alternate future where all people are slaves or unhappy or kept under sedation or something.

2. Have every scene take place in the dark.  And your underworld must be lit by 15-watt bulbs.

3. Clothe everyone in black leather, particularly capes.  This especially works for the villains, but in the interest of equal play the heroes can be edgy and wear black leather too.  If they're villains, shave their heads.  Give them sunglasses (for the dark!)

4. Copying Terry Gilliam's masterpiece Brazil, throw something retro like brimmed fedoras into the wardrobe.

5. Have a premise where our hero, a lone, semi-geeky guy, wakes up or somehow finds himself in a world he does not remember getting into.  He must clear his name of something, even if it's just getting off Pottery Barn's mailing list.

6. Have a Mysterious Woman who may or may not be in cohoots with the bad guys, but who falls in love with our hero and wants to save him by the end of act II.

7. Make damn sure she's sultry.  Though blondes are generally more popular these days in Hollywood, here dark brunettes work best.

8. Have lots of issues that revolve around our brains being dicked with.  Throw in lots of tortured dialogue about alternative consciousnesses/universes/fuel supplies/sugar substitutes.

9. This is very important: USE THE RHETORICAL LINE AT LEAST ONCE: "DO YOU KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF YOU [find the Kiber Crystal/try to rescue your love-interest/defy Dr. Morphface/turn on a bright light]?"  Indeed he (and we) don't.  This is supposed to get us all scared and anxious.

10. Our hero should have had, if possible, a happy childhood that turned tragic.  Slaughtered parents work great here.  Of course, he doesn't remember any of it, at least at first.

11. Populate your world with lots of machines with tubes, wires, cables, and ducts.  There also should be flashes of lightning that serve no purpose.

12. Make sure your sets and costumes were "derived" from some black and white classic film from the 20s or 30s--Metropolis, Caligari, even Frankenstein will do nicely.  This is both to show you have a "legitimate pedigree" and to cover up the fact that you have no original ideas yourself.

13. Make sure all the bad guys bite off their dialogue and sound mean.  This is how we know they are bad guys, since lately both sides have been wearing black leather.

14. The guy gets the girl in the end and the sun comes out.  Really now, do we have to say this??? (However, through most of the movie we must believe the love will be unrequited.  The dame should have a troubled history, though you must keep it vague.)

15. Throw in some cyborgs.  You gotta have cyborgs.

16. Have sets that are about fifteen times larger than they need to be, but which are largely empty.

17. There's always the authority figure who starts out in pursuit of our guy, but who by the end becomes convinced of his innocence and moves to his side.

18. There was some vague, recent apocalyptic event that destroyed most of civilization.  But be brief here.  Our audience may get to wondering how one guy saving one girl will restore all of civilization, and you don't want them thinking about that.

19. Include a sadomasochistic scene or two.  The current favorite is to strap the victim spread-eagled on a rotating mechanical device and stick him with needles.  This movie likes to stick them through the bone at the front of the skull, a really stupid place to insert a needle (but then, this screenwriter clearly isn't a brain surgeon).

20. Always have a big shoot-em-up climax with lots of explosions, steam, smoke, distorting of the picture with computer tricks, and loud rock music.  This is how we resolve things when we have no idea what the hell we're talking about or how to end the movie.  We hope nobody notices.  Generally they don't.

Follow this primer, and whatever you come up with will be called bold and visionary by people whose filmgoing history doesn't extend before 1995, and Roger "I don't wanna become critically irrelevant" Ebert


Live 8 Toronto DVD a dissapointment for the Masses
	Well I went to the concert and the whole time while I was watching it, I was glade they where coming out with a dvd because DVD can HOLD lots and LOTS AND LOTS of information and why would they cheap out and not put every artist with every song on here why I WOULD BE 100$ I don't care I want to see it all. And well I waited months and months, wondering waiting for it to come out, I went there with 3 other friends and it was the thing of a life time. Then it was time the P%$%# @%#T DVD of the century. THank you EMI for destroying a historial document so you can get all your SIGNED Contracts on to your DVD. Well now all I have to do is use my Time Machine and Get a tape ready and tape the Damn concert. Wait TIme machines doen't exist well now I am going ot have to go underground to get it. But wait I still $100 will EMI Release all the videos on DVD or do we have to go underground to get it from someone who tapped it and is selling it. All I can say this is why the internet was invented for INFORMATION EXCHANGE. If they keep information paticularly this Historical Document from people, they will share it over the internet. The video doesn't belong to 1 Company it belongs to the world, the world created this and WHO does EMI think they are by limiting this. I am so sick and tired of this utter B$%# @#$T. No one should settle for this, I demand more and Everyone should demand more also.3 Billion People watched 1 million spectaters. And what does EMI Tell you, they will put the crappiest DVD together and then make everyone take the videos down of there website. I believe I shall find them all and put them up on Wikipedia because it isn't 1 Person who owns the worlds creation. Anyone who believes in this should know what it means to them Every Extra CEnt of this DVD should go to AFrica and it doesnt it and its a Bloody shame. All I can say Is I am making sure this goes on to Every Review for this damned DVD untill something is done about it.

VIVA LA RISTANCE : D
-THE REAL LENBO


This film was not faithful to the adaptation of the novel.
	There's lots of passion in Wide Sargasso Sea THE BOOK, but it's mostly emotional. It's an extremely multi-layered novel and the work of a true master. The film on the other hand is just your classic, bad 1990s film, beautiful to look at, with lots of skin, languid copulation, heaving bosoms, bodice-ripping nonsense, etc and next to no substance. It has no artistic integrity whatsoever, as its shameless makers must surely know they lifted their middle finger at the spirit of the Jean Rhys novel when choosing to make the film the way they did.

I was unable to feel empathy for both the lead character. The much touted erotic scenes were not developed to what they lead to believe, and it also lacked much enthusiasm. They were incomplete and contributed little, if anything, to the plot. The viewer only gets a glimpse of the passion that supposedly exists between Edward and Antoinette. Therefore, they should have either gone all the way, tastefully (no pun intended), or have left those scenes out entirely.

Now with regards to the plot of this film there were enormous holes, which perhaps could be rectified by reading the book. But for those who haven't read the book, there should be enough information in the film itself to keep the reader afloat. From the start it was unclear what was really going on with this family (despite the narration). Why did the ex-slaves keep laughing? (Something vaguely explained in the movie, though apparently fully explained in the book). Why didn't the parrot fly away? What made the mother go nuts? At no point in the movie were Mr. Rochester's "issues", as it were, fully explained. The man gets a letter exposing his wife as a Creole and dumps her like a hot potato, after (as Christophene explains) he was the one who came crawling to her in the first place. What a hypocrite. Again, maybe this is the ultimate point, that Mr. Rochester is a snob and the archetypical Victorian Englishman and that Antoinette is the victim of both his prejudice and that of the Jamaicans. But none of that exonerates the appallingly abrupt conclusion to the film.

So, despite the beautiful cinematography, this movie is a hopeless muddle. I'd highly recommend the novel by the way: a book you don't forget in a hurry. Needless to say I think you should give this insulting (to the memory of Jean Rhys) film a miss, especially if you've read the novel: it'll just frustrate you, no matter how keen on a bit of easy titillation you may be feeling at the time.


hey, did any of you dudes catch that they ripped off the plot from clueless?
	this is the poorest of the plethora of jane austen adaptations we have undergone the past decade, with gwyneth paltrow stumbling her way through an unfunny retelling of austens classic.  fortunately its been 3 weeks since i watched this and ive managed to put the details of WHY i found it distasteful into the nether regions of my mind, but it was a mess.


i am the arm- the review for fans of the series.
	rent it but by all means don't buy it.  you won't watch it more than once.  this movie is not for those who have invested 25+ hours into the tv show.  although you will better understand what's going on if you have seen the show, none of this will really seem new or interesting to you.  you learn some new facts about Bob and The Man from Another Place, but nothing important.  for the most part it just tells the story as we have already pieced together from the show, adding only pointless and unrealistic new occurances (Bobby kills someone, Donna is replaced by an new actor, Coop forsees all the future comings of Laura's murder, etc).  all of the twin peaks charm that you have come to love is gone and the movie really suffers from that.  you can't only give Coop 10 meaningless lines and expect the show to succeed.  i think Lynch's efforts would have been more successful and greatly appreciated if he had made a sequel to the second series, focusing on the complications of Coop being in the Black Lodge, Harry having an emotional attachment to Coop but being forced to bring him down, etc.

i guess if you have never seen the series this may be more interesting, but i dont really think so.  overall, the look and the feel was very foreign and uncomfortable and it moved very slow.  it is somewhat of a letdown coming from a monster writer/director like Lynch.  i'm glad i've seen it, but hell, i'd rather watch dune again before this


Why the fuss?
	This film is definitely not a masterpiece. I found it incredibly dry and incomprehensibly over-rated. Yes, the film was bleak but inexplicably bleak. To make matters worse, the main character seems to resolve her numbness almost out of nowhere. Perhaps I missed something gigantic because I was trying not to fall asleep while watching this drag on but I would not attempt to see it again. However, there were a couple of memorable scenes.
  I would strongly advise renting it before purchase. Some people do love the film but I don't understand why


A monotonous travelogue that might be of interest to those who've read his books
	Perhaps this video will satisfy the readers of Lincoln's various works, such as The Sacred Place, The Messianic Legacy, and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, or at least show them the places discussed in detail within those books. The DVD will probably be a fine asset for those currently reading the aforementioned books.

However, it is simply not successful as a stand-alone video or as a video about The Da Vinci Code. The narrator, Mr. Lincoln, takes us through the quaint and beautiful countryside of the Languedoc, home to the Cathar heresy and the Albigensian Crusade, and points out some interesting details in his wandering. Yet he rarely ties the details together into a coherent picture, and often makes comments that would seem to undercut the very idea that he intends to create a coherent picture. As well, he relishes in showing the destruction wrought to many of these mysterious details by treasure hunters and vandals (many inspired, it would seem, by Lincoln's books) and repeatedly editorializes against their actions. I finally fell asleep at around the 90 minute mark---I cannot imagine what else Mr. Lincoln could have found to drone on about for the remaining half hour.


Stupid.
	There was one scary moment in this movie--the quick scene showing the girl in the closet when she dies..now that was creepy. I then awaited more moments like that.  Nothing. nada. Lame.  Tries way too hard to be creepy and artsy and just landed up being dumb.  And that young boy what is up with that?? He's trying to be like the kid in the Sixth Sense (who was brilliant and totally believable).  This movie did not scare me.  And the idea of people being afraid to use VHS tapes after this? Come on.


Jesus, what a steaming pile of crap!
	Julia Roberts plays Ed Harris' young new wife. Susan Sarandon plays Harris' ex-wife. Ex-wife does not like new wife. New wife does not like ex-wife. Ex-wife's cutsey, but bratty kids make new wife's life a living hell. Ex-wife thinks new wife is a stupid bimbo. New wife thinks ex-wife is a nagging battle axe. New wife and ex-wife fight and yell at each other ad nauseum. How does the film solve this conflict? Ex-wife is diagnosed with terminal cancer -- everyone reconciles, ex-wife and new wife suddenly love each other, the end. This is one of the most cliched, saccharine, hackneyed and shamelessly manipulative pieces of garbage put out by Hollywood in the past decade. If you like Julia Roberts, Susan Sarandon or Ed Harris, please see Erin Brokovich, Dead Man Walking and The Right Stuff and run screaming from this nauseating cinematic catastrophe


Predictable and Uneven
	I'm not going to write too much. If you need to hear more just check other reviews down here.
From all the 3 episodes only the first one, by Kar-Wai, is worth your time.
"The Hand" is well done and typical Kar-Wai. Beautifully shot by his usual contributor Christopher Doyle, it's the most compelling and sexy episode of the bunch. Gong Li, always very elegant, give us a powerful sexy scene and her presence establishes and guide the rest of the story. Well crafted but very predictable. The director lately seems to be referencing himself, which is halfway form self parody.
"Equilibrium" is just a bad cinematic joke and absolutely non sexy. Other than a few gratuitous and unrelated naked shots, is a simple and boring exchange between Downey Jr. playing an adman and his analyst played by Arkin.
But the worst by far is the Antonioni's episode. Is just so poorly done and acted that is an embarrassment. The, once, great director should have just retired by now (he was 91 in 2004) and let the rest of the world appreciate his masterpieces


Different Cast. Different writers???????
	After seeing both Peyton Place and the sequel I can tell you that I could tolerate the recast, Carol Lynley and Tuesday Weld were wonderful in their perspective parts.  But I have to wonder was it only the cast that changed in this sequel did the writers change as well?  My reasons for asking, the glaring inconsistencys to the original movie.  Over and over in this film it is stated that Selena was raped when she was thirteen, yet in the original film Selena, Alison and the others were graduating from high school when the incident occured.  Since when do thirteen year olds graduate from high school, also she looked pretty mature for thirteen.  Then there's Selen'as boyfriend (whose name escapes me at the moment) in the original film he stood by her, through the murder charges, the revelation of the rape, and the miscarriage, yet in the sequel I'm suppose to buy that he couldn't handle any of it dumped her and left town where he met and married someone else.  Then all the towns people after being put in their place by the town Doctor all rallied together at the end of the original film to give their support of Selena, yet in the sequel she is considered the town outcast?  I have nothing against sequels even with recast but this one strayed way too far from its original film that all creditbility for it as a sequel went out the door. It was all too obvious that the original film wasn't taken into account when writing the sequel.  Not credible at all


weak
	This movie was a weak effort by Capra, who directed it, and the star, Gary Cooper. It's a good story, just poorly directed (Capra can't hit a home run every time). I found the acting very wooden and the movie seemed to just drag on and on. And no extra features on the dvd, at least none to speak of


Why Red Dragon Does Not Compare to Silence of the Lambs
	McCully 1

Adam McCully

Instructor Lee Hobbs

ENGL 101.025

18 November 2005

Red Dragon

	When I heard that Universal Studios was making a prequel to Silence of the Lambs, I'll admit that I was a little skeptical.  Throughout movie history there has been a long list of bad sequels which, more or less, is what this prequel was.  Caddyshack II, Godfather III, and Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey, all horrible follow ups to great films.  So naturally I was a little worried that the film Red Dragon was going to be just another flop that followed a great film.  Any movie that follows a great film like Silence of the Lambs has a lot to live up to.  Personally, I thought that the first sequel to Silence of the Lambs,  Hannibal, didn't quite achieve that, and neither did Red Dragon.  It was a decent movie, but not quite as shocking and suspenseful as the first.  Don't get me wrong it did have its share of shock value, but since it didn't come first I had already come to expect that.  I thought that the writers would take the time and effort to make sure that this film was as good if not better than the first two films, but clearly their work shows otherwise.
	 All in all, this movie disappointed me for several reasons.  As I mentioned before, the lack of violence and shock that were so prevalent in the first movie and that I, as a fan of the films, had come to expect.  But mostly, it was the fact that this movie was nothing more than a film that was made in the eighties with a different title and better actors.  I've never been a fan of remakes and this film was certainly no exception.


"You're going down Burnhead" ???
	I have to say that I was not familiar with any Darkman comics, or had had any other contact with the character apart from this movie so I cannot compare the character to other sources. Therefore, coming from someone that did not "know" Darkman prior to the film I have to say that the movie was quite a disappointment!
There are the obvious comic book characteristics that one finds in these types of movies, like the Shadow, Batman etc, which is interesting.
Nevertheless, Darkman was quite a disappointment considering the make-up of the cast: Liam Neeson, Larry Drake, and Frances McDormand among others.  It is the story of a scientist who falls victim to a group of gangsters resulting in his horrendous disfigurement.  In an effort to exact revenge, he makes use of his latest invention in order to appear like his targets/victims....
In short, the acting and the plot are average (nothing great), while the dialogues are way below average.  The movie falls into the action/adventure/horror type of category.
The characters are, overall, bland and just plain uninteresting (e.g. Rick Anderson played by the "fool," Ted Raimi, from the Xena series).
Though the potential for a good movie was definitely there it fails to take off.  A shame really...
In a nutshell, it's not a movie you would want to add to your collection, but it might provide for an evening's entertainment, and that's about it.
No masterpiece here... 2 Stars


A merciful two star rating; Look for future Arena Football Def. Coor. Stan Davis as 1 child actor   funny bit about Cheap Trick
	Surprisingly sleaze and Chauvinism
by female Director Heckerling! She
duplicated it in Chevy Chase vehicle
National Lampoon's European Vacation
too! Many child actors got their start
here, but the thing that cracked me up,
as I saw it when it came out (unfortu-
nately) was the dialog of my fav band,
Cheap Trick: Ticket scalper "...The
magntism of Robin Zander and the
charisma of Rick Nielsen...and what
about the tunes, 'I Want You To Want
Me, The Dream Police...nan-nan-nah,
'You're momma's alright, your daddy's
alright, they just seem a little weird,
Surrender, surrender...", before he's
interrupted. If that isn't somebody's
idea of 'Surrender', they've stumbled
onto this review by mistake


This movie......stinks
	I am really wondering about the people who have reviewed this and gave it such good ratings.Ive been looking at their other reviews trying to understand what it is they like. Because this movie STINKS!

Im a huge Reese Witherspoon fan and I like Paul Rudd so I rented this movie and thought it would be good. Oh boy I was wrong. The charachters are over the top and the story is just cheesy. Im all for a good fun, romantic comedy. I like "Win a date with Tad Hamilton" but this is just awful.

Reese plays a stripper (somehow it just doesnt work)who helps the dorky hopeless Rudd dump then win back his girlfriend. All the time there is a package to stop hence the name "Overnight Delivery".

The story could have worked but it just doesnt. The premise is good and there are parts that are somewhat ammusing but overall it sucks.

I would reccomend this movie to anyone who liked the Sarah Michelle Gellar movie "Simply Irresistable". If you happened to like that movie with the magical little crab. If you disliked it as I did then stay away.


How to destroy your career in one simple movie
	George Sluizer's original Dutch-French version of The Vanishing (aka The Man Who Wanted to Know) offers one of European cinema's most quietly disturbingly anonymous and everyday sociopaths, feeling his way one step at a time towards murder. If you've seen that version, you probably still can't get the final revelation out of your head, but the film had plenty more to offer than that, playing with chronology, subverting the usual cliches of its 'Lady Vanishes' plot (the hero wants to know what happened to his missing lover far more than he wants her to be alive) and throwing in some excellent characterization. I can only assume that for this 1993 US remake Sluizer was so determined that no-one else was going to get the chance to ruin his film when he was perfectly capable of doing it himself, but few people could have anticipated how comprehensively he trashes his own work. His career never recovered.

Chief culprit is an astonishing performance by Jeff Bridges that has been overthought through in every detail to a truly disastrous level. A friend who produced one of his earliest movies noted that Bridges was a great instinctive actor as long as you stopped him thinking about what he was doing, and this film is the proof of the pudding. Every movement is overly mechanical in its precision, making him look like a rusty clockwork toy, while his voice is a bizarre mixture of Tootsie, Latka Gravas from Taxi and a Dalek who have all been taking elocution lessons from Dok-tah E-ville. No banality of evil here, just a looney walking around with an invisible sign over his head saying "Please. Let. Me. Kill. You. Thank you. For your. Consideration.'

But the blame really needs to be shared out here. None of the performances are good: often, they don't even look good - Keifer Sutherland looks more like a baby hamster than a distraught man at his wits end in the hurried scenes at the gas station, Nancy Travis flounders badly and Sandra Bullock makes no impression at all as the object of his obsession. Not that they're given any help by either director or writer Todd Graff. The script is particularly weak. The chronology has been altered to put the focus firmly on Bridges at the expense of the couple at the opening of the film. Worse is the rush the film is in, draining the life and character from each scene in its race to get to the next. Rather than the high/low mood shifts in the couple's relationship or the apparently casual but careful establishing of the feel of the location, we just get a couple of arguments that give you the impression that he's probably better off without her. As for the new and improved happy ending - standard woman chased by nutter in the woods jeopardy stuff complete with lame `let's end on a joke like a TV cop show' moment - best not go there... which is advice that holds for this entire trainwreck of a movie. Even a shockingly bland and uninspired Jerry Goldsmith score can't do anything for this one.


Showgirls - Disc problems
	I enjoyed the movie even though I was only able to watch it in segments. The first time I tried to watch it, after about 20 minutes, the screen went to digital gibberish and my DVD player hung up so that I couldn't even open the tray to remove the disc or turn off the power. I had to unplug the DVD player, wait, and replug the power cord to remove the disc. Overnight, I decided I needed to replace my DVD player. However, the next morning, I tried a different DVD and it worked fine. It still works fine on all my other DVDs. I complained to your customer service people and they were nice enough to send me a replacement copy of Showgirls. Unfortunately, this one has the same problem. It plays for several minutes and then goes to gibberish and hangs my DVD player. I gave up on the problem at this point and decided to just get through my life without Showgirls. I use my DVD player almost every day and it works fine except when I try to watch Showgirls


Leary Stand Up - Not Funny
	Enjoyed Leary's Rescue Me and The Job so much but was really disappointed in his stand up - not funny and over done


all the clever British humor can't save this one...
	If this movie were set in the US, I would've given it 1 star but the British accent, humor, and colloquialisms partially saved it...but not enough, sorry to say!

Why not?  Because despite a few mildly surprising and utterly contrived plot twists here and there, this film is still built on a particularly toxic myth: the desperately lonely and insecure 30-something single woman who is made to be as endearingly pathetic as possible for the audience to root for her inevitable finding by a Mr. Right.  Here, the film accomplishes that by making the central character tubby, clumsy, and possessing ridiculously bad luck and ill timing.

Almost from the first 5 minutes, this movie just reeks of focus-group-inspired audience manipulation as it slogs through the same old trite cliches and recycled TV-sitcom bits.  Was there even ONE half-original character in this whole movie?  Don't remember any...maybe because I'd like to forget this dreadful cringe-fest of a flick ASAP


Appalling Excess
	I just watched this movie version of the classic childrens' book with my wife.  Here are my gut impressions:

First, very little is true to the book.  That's not really a gut impression.  That's the impression I got hearing my wife say "That's not in the book...that's not in the book..."

Actually this movie is more like a computer animation demo than a vehicle for story telling.  It makes for beautiful stills and pictures, and those made me want to see the movie.

I expected a heart warming Christmas story, and what I got was about an hour of frantic scenes of out-of-control railroad and other technology animated like never before with just enough pauses betwen them to remind me why I'm watching.  You get to see...

A kid chasing a ticket through a train,

A kid chasing a ticket over the roof of a train,

A ticket making its way through the forest -- Rube Goldberg style -- back to the train,

(Forty minutes into this movie and one girl's train ticket is the star of the show!)

OK, the ticket sub plot is resolved and we have...

A train sliding out of control on the ice,

A train trying to outrun cracks on the ice,

A train going full throttle out of control and racing up and down mountain valleys like a roller coaster (fans of the "coaster tycoon" series of computer games will feel right at home) until finally it arrives at the North Pole.

Then, the train car with the central character kids gets detached so we have...

A train car running out of control through Santa's village,

Kids getting lost in the Christmas present manufacturing plant and falling through the chutes and machinery of the factory, and then...

Kids getting lost in a bag of presents that is taken by a flying machine to Santa's sled launching pad where the star at the top of the tree is dislodged and nearly impales an innocent elf.  Ho ho ho.

At least let me have a joystick and a couple of buttons so I can help these kids out!  It's like a computer animated train wreck in fast motion.  You know it's awful but you can't look away!

And, you'd better think twice before letting any very young children see this.  It could be very frightening on a big screen with the volume turned up.  My wife and I were going to watch it with our three and six year old sons, and we were very glad that we didn't.

So, what could have been a classic, enduring, and endearing compliment to a classic childrens' Christmas story is little more than a great line for some computer animator to have on his or her resume.  Two thirds of this movie is devoted to stuff that doesn't advance the story or develop the characters one bit.  Whatever a "character driven" story is, this is the opposite.  Never have I seen so many rendered pixels doing so much and accomplishing so little.

I'd rather set up my old American Flyer electric trains and let them run around the tree while I read the book to my kids.


Hmm...
	The old DVD from 1997 looks better than the new HD version. I've compared the two, and the first DVD had good color saturation, dark blacks and looked right with the heavy red and brown palette. The HD version has a blue-green haze covering everything and the picture is too bright. They also removed the film grain and made the image look smooth and creamy. The sound quality is better now, though, and the image of course is higher resolution.


well made and stylish . . .
	But for me at least, I found it rather hard to root for Mel Gibson's character, given the fact that he was a major, major drug dealer.  When the movie ended with him more or less riding off into the sunset with Michelle Pfeiffer and all the loot, I didn't find myself feeling exactly uplifted by it.  Given the fact that the movie bent over backwards to depict Gibson as a loving father, a phenomenally successful businessman, and a super-stud, one might fairly say that this movie glamorizes drug-dealing


Total Garbage
	This movie is the most boring, uninteresting piece of garbage I have ever
wasted my money on. The plot is stupid, the characters are dull and insipid, and the whole movie leaves you asking, as the credits run, "So What?" Don't waste your money!


times like this amazon needs a no star option
	I myself am a huge Buffy/Angel fan,  I had read the reviews here and I thought it was worth a shot seeing it.  Well The script was terrible,  the story even worse,  direction - don't get me started.   One reviewer said it,  it was like they didn't know whose point of view to choose.  The soundtrack was awful.  The ending was sooo stupid.  did anyone else see the people at the docks leaning against the rail as three people are shot in front of them...  they just keep standing there.  Like nothing is happening.  I really haven't seen a movie this bad in... well...  EVER!!  Oh and Alyson Hannigan's acting was way better in My stepmother is an alien. I think she was about 13 in that role.  Don't get me wrong she's a extremely talented actress...  I blame it on the script.

rent it,  don't buy it.  You'll be embarassed to own it.  I am


Want to waste 2 hours of your life - ignore this review !!
	If you have bothered to read all the other reviews here, i think you will get the point, but still unsure ?

Think of KNIGHTRIDER from the 70`s ( i`m sure EDI used the same voice !! ) then add some THUNDERBIRD puppets ( thats a bit mean, at least they had personality ) then add a dash of C.G.I. on a budget, oh and not forgetting that the whole script was written by a seven year old!

A bit scathing you may feel - but deservedly so i`m afraid.

Seriously, watch some paint dry for a couple of hours, at least the fumes will give you some sort of a buzz.


The Magic isn't There
	This is a fantasy film about a family of witches in modern times. The Owens girls are hereditary witches, any man who loves one is doomed to an early death. There is a scene where a woman asks for a love potion, this requires the sacrifice of a dove. Two little girls watch. Years later they're grown up. One leaves to live with her boyfriend. But the curse returns and a boyfriend is run over by a truck (never stand in the middle of a road). We see scenes where the neighbor kids yell "witch", as if to symbolize something.

Sally goes when Jillian calls her; she has a problem with her boyfriend. But Sally uses a "magic potion" to eliminate the problem. Now Jillian wants to undo what was done. [The film began to lose me now, it wasn't funny.] The spell goes awry, they bury their mistake. Then there is a scene where the ladies are all giggles. Later an investigator comes around looking for Jimmy. [The story drags again.] More scenes follow; they are not funny or scary or even entertaining. But a scene in the attic will wake you even if you're snoozing! They call some friends over to cast a spell to drive a demon out of Jillian. It seems to work, even if they don't use the standard issue witches broom. There is a sort of happy ending.

Sandra and Nicole are good actresses, but they can't cast a spell to improve the script of one of the worst movies I've ever seen. "Bell, Book, and Candle" is a funnier film, "Blair Witch" is a scarier film. This falls between the cracks.


Truly Disappointing
	After I read Erik Larson's wonderful book "The Devil in the White City" I was fascinated by the brief glimpses at Holmes' story. But this documentary was a phenomenal disappointment. The production is amateurish at best, complete with needlessly corny reenactments worthy of "Mondo Carne." With such a wealth of fascinating information available (court transcripts, etc) do we really need filler footage of some faceless actress wandering down dark hallways acting frightened? This man killed countless people and yet the producers of this documentary thought so little of their audience that they hired a narrator who sounds as if he is the chief ride operator of the Haunted Mansion at Disneyland. Truly disappointing. Perhaps someone will make an interesting documentary of Holmes. This most certainly isn't it


weak
	This movie was a weak effort by Capra, who directed it, and the star, Gary Cooper. It's a good story, just poorly directed (Capra can't hit a home run every time). I found the acting very wooden and the movie seemed to just drag on and on. And no extra features on the dvd, at least none to speak of


No Depth
	This disc is like a Whitman's candy sampler:  It has a lot of different things... but a lot of the things you don't really want.  The film covers kids, high schoolers, college ball and college recruiting/pay controversies, ABA, NBA through all its decades, Harlem Globetrotters, the street game and inner-city stars, country boys, Indiana basketball, retired old timers hanging in Florida, current stars, marketing (are there ANY hoop videos that don't talk about sneaker brands), public relations, fireworks, cheerleaders, guys on trampolines, women's basketball..... Whew.  None of these subjects is studied in depth.  If you've followed basketball for a while, you know and have seen most of this.  The subject sampling seems to jump all over the place, so it would be hard to hit chapters to see just what you want.  I'd rather see a DVD star profile (Jordon, Iverson) or  quot;NBA at 50 quot; or Spike Lee's movie, or  quot;Hoop Dreams, quot; etc.  1 Love is such a sampler it feels like the disc should come free with the purchase of a Wilson basketball.  Or it seems like something you'd see on Sunday TV, after most people have turned off their sets when the real game ends.  In short,  quot;1 Love quot; is a decent sampling, but nothing to sink your teeth into


Stupid!!
	I saw this movie in a trip and it is one of the worst movies I have seen during the last two years. Stupid, stupid and stupid. Ryan Reynolds becomes annoying.

If you have brain, never watch this movi


Very light on baby care basics
	This newborn care DVD is strictly for caring for a newborn infant, in other words, what you learn here won't apply after the first 3 or 4 weeks.  My biggest beef with this DVD is that it totally just skims over all the basics, such as how to breastfeed properly, how to bottlefeed properly, how to swaddle properly, how to calm a baby properly, etc.  All the stuff you want to know about looking after a newborn, each is given about 5 seconds of screen time.  Instead, the bulk of the program is wasted on things like "pre-birth preparation," which interestingly appears toward the end of the program, and how the mother should take care of herself.  These are important things to know, but not for a "ultimate baby care DVD."

The DVD packaging is also very misleading.  It says "over an hour of hints"... but that includes 1 minute of copyright warning and another 30 seconds of "you should always consult your doctor" warning, plus a long end-of-program credit.  The actual content is about 55 minutes.

I've seen this DVD and the "ABC of Newborn Baby Care" DVD and even though the latter is not great, it's better because it goes through the important topics step-by-step, and the nurse/midwife demonstrates the techniques clearly.  Between the two DVDs, I definitely recommend the latter.

BTW, you can likely find this at your local library.  It's also available from Netflix.  It's just not worth the price of the DVD, not even 1/10 of the price


Not for Beginners
	This stability ball workout is definitely a more advanced routine and is not for beginners.  This was the first stability ball DVD that I purchased and became quickly frustrated with the routine due to the level.  If you are a beginner, I would recommend Leslie Sansone's You can do Stability Ball training.  If you are a beginner or more advanced, I would recommend Denise Austin's Shrink the Female Fat Zone or the QuickFix Stability Ball training.  My all time favorite DVD for the stability ball is Denise Austin.  This is by far my least favorite.


It looks too '70s  and 1983-like
	Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson have a few good moments in the Nick and Jessica Variety Hour. But the show looks too '70s in its premise, too Donny and Marie-ish in some parts and Sonny and Cher-in some others.  Lachey's performance with Babyface is nice. How come Babyface didn't produce Nick's entire solo album instead of the batch of people Nick went to that caused Soul-O to flop?  He would have given him some smooth stuff to sing to. But having Mr. T and Johnny Bench and Kenny Rogers makes the show look, sadly, too 1983-ish. How come they couldn't get somebody current to perform on it, say Maroon 5 or Kanye West, who were both hot last April? They wanted to bring back the variety show format, but it's very hard to do it in an Internet age.  And Jessica isn't all that good on this show. I'd rather hear her music and albums instead. They need to bring new things to the format if they're going to make another show. For now, Lachey and Simpson would be better off doing their solo albums than wasteful junk like this!


It is IMPORTANT that you get the ORIGINAL on VHS
	I love love love this movie, but you have to make sure you get the VHS version (where the VHS cover is the cast riding in the car.) Lucky for me, this is the one I own. By mistake, I purchased the "wrong" version for a friend and we sat down to watch it together. The music in the DVD version is TERRIBLE compared to the original (don't even get me started on the c.d. soundtrack.) Whoever made the blunder of re-doing this for DVD re-release needs to be fired


Role Model?  Far From It
	Jessica Simpson is a talentless bimbo.  She is more concerned with shopping than she is with being a singer role model - a title that she so proudly proclaimed after bashing Brittany and Christina for showing too much skin.  We all know now that the hypocritical Jessica Simpson would shed her clothes if the price were right.  She is NOT a role model and her songs/tv specials are lower than below average


Disney needs to fire the DVD guy
	Good grief - yet another DVD collection we are not buying because Disney doesn't seem to understand.  We LOVED these series when they were on television but we will not buy something that is slapped together and incomplete.  I hope the folks at Disney get the message eventually.  Same thing applies to their live action feature films.  Disney should release them in widescreen with some extras or not bother.  Too bad because we have all the animated films and would happily buy the live action if the same care was given to the production


TOO MUCH CLOWNING -- WAY TOO GIMMICKY
	I recently saw Les Miserables - 10th Anniversary Concert on DVD and absolutely fell in love with it so I thought I would try something similar and decided to give Candide try.  Boy, was I disappointed.  I can't get past the first 30 minutes -- all these silly gimmicky "jokes" that are not even remotely funny.  The singing is not bad (this cast has better technical control of their voices compared to the cast in Les Miz) but the choreography is trite and unimaginative, and the acting so juvenille that you'd think the characters are retarded.  When the narrator fired his gun and a "bang" flag shot out from the gun instead -- that was over the top for me....  Yuck.


The worst movie I've ever seen
	There are cinematic masterpieces, and there are films that really make you feel the producer knows how to use film to its fullest.  This stinker convinced me Mr. Lynch owned shares in Kodak and wanted to sell film by the mile.  The only reason you may want to see this is so you will convince yourself never to see a David Lynch work ever again.  Do not buy it!!  Manos, The Hands of Fate is much more watchable than this.
I get Brian Eno and ambient/atmosphere music is so you will use it as a background along with your imagination to create your own inner experience.  Film doesn't work that way (another reviewer compared this with Eno).
I find Memento a brilliant piece of work, really making me forget I am watching a film.  I think Videodrome is wonderful and compelling.  This - make sure you can watch something else.  Watch this in 100x speed.  You won't miss a thing.
Okay, I just remembered, there is one movie worse than this one.  Reflections Of Evil.  If you actually like Eraserhead then get that movie too.  Me, I'd rather put a brain-eating worm in my ear from whatever planet Kahn was exiled to in Star Trek II.  Much less painful than watching this


Pretty stupid and obnoxious
	Almost unbelievably bad, except I saw the remake of 'Shaft,' which should have been a forewarning.  This is like a comic book for filmgoers.  No, not a graphic novel adapted to the screen.  More like a comic book for kids, that you'd be embarassed to own at any age.  Doubly offensive is the high quality soul music that is on the soundtrack, a travesty to the nth degree.


Too dumb to be funny
	"Legal Eagles" is supposed to be a comedy. We're supposed to find the characters played by Robert Redford and Debra Winger to be amusing, their acrimonious relationship to be hilarious, and the way that they end up being partners despite all of the gibes to be romantically satisfying.

The problem is that the movie is too dumb to be taken seriously, and thus too dumb to be funny.

Briefly, the story takes place in New York. Robert Redford is an assistant District Attorney about to be promoted to be the DA. Debra Winger is a defense attorney, and Daryl Hannah is a young woman with emotional problems, and is Debra Winger's client. The plot involves a fire 20 years ago, when Daryl Hannah was eight, a fire that killed her artist father and purportedly destroyed a large number of his paintings. This experience left Daryl Hannah traumatized, but all is not as it seems, and now, 20 years later, Daryl Hannah is first accused of attempted theft and later of murder.

Unfortunately, the plot involves many elements that simply don't make sense. I won't go into detail, but Roger Ebert does a good job of listing four different major things that make the plot completely unbelievable.

As well as the story being dumb I found some of the scenes that were supposed to be funny to be anything but.

For example, Robert Redford is a weekend father to a teenage daughter. At one point his ex-wife threatens to go to court to prevent him from seeing their daughter. Robert Redford makes a telephone call to his ex-wife's home and starts an angry monologue of threats about how he'll take her apart in court. Then he realizes that he's actually talking to his daughter! This mistake is apparently supposed to be hilarious. Ha, ha.

In another scene Robert Redford and Debra Winger are together and see one of the bad guys. Robert Redford takes off on foot to try to catch him. Debra Winger, who doesn't know how to drive a car, feels it necessary for her to jump into Robert Redford's car and try to follow him. She makes a wrong turn and finds herself going the wrong way into traffic on a wide heavily trafficked street. There follows one minute of her frantically dodging cars at the last moment. Very funny. Ha, ha, ha.

This movie could have been a fairly good romantic thriller if they had fixed the plot and not tried to be a comedy. But the dumb plot and the unfunny attempts at comedy make it a complete waste of time.

Rennie Peterse


Predictable
	Thirteen Ghosts is about a machine. This machine was designed by a Man who was at the time possessed my Satan. Yes, Satan. If the plot doesn't seem stupid enough, it needs Ghosts to power it. Ghostbusters anyone? At the start we watch a ghost hunting scene with a ghost that looks it belongs in a Michael J Fox movie.  As time progresses you find out that the 'demonic machine' needs to be powered by ghosts. If done right, it opens the 'Eye to Hell'.
Save yourself a few bucks and don't rent this.  It's awfu


Unnecessarily Epic...
	After 40 minutes of objective viewing, and shot after superfluous shot, I sat through another 30 minutes in pain. I've come to the fairly well informed conclusion that either Peter Jackson can ONLY do epics wheather it calls for it or not, or LOTR in all it's incarnations had immense levels of supervision for Jacksons from higher-ups. Kong is not an epic, it is a tragedy. Tell me to watch the whole thing, if you will, but if the film is constructed so poorly 70 minutes in, I don't need to. On another note. Jurassic park had better CGI than this. Mr. jackson, no more 'epic fly-by shots please.


not a pleasant christmas story
	Someone bought this 3D DVD for my almost 5 year old daughter.  We thought the special effects would be fascinating and they were.  However,  within minutes of the movie's beginning my daughter was in tears. I won't say why but she found the plot frightening.  Several times during the movie I tried to talk her out of watching but she wanted to see what happened in the end.  Fortunately the movie is relatively short.  Overall, I found the story to be a cynical look at Christmas.  As an adult, I think it might be humourous to watch after a hard day of Christmas shopping but I urge caution before showing it to young children.  There was way too much animated violence to match the spirit of Christmas


I HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION...
	It is unusual that I disagree with so many great critics praising a movie where there is so much talent. This movie tries to deal with alot and does alot of it well BUT as a viewer, I am hugely distracted by Mamet's dialogue. No, I do not agree that people in the real business world talk like this! Real people do not mindlessly echo over and over and over the same phrases that they hear each other speaking. If I did that in my working environment my coworkers would think there was something wrong with me. Real conversation does not run in that kind of patter. After listening to the characters for ninety minutes, I finally came to the conclusion that many of the characters sounded alike and the one connection point was Mamet. Real people talk differently from each other. They use different and distinct speech patterns and phrases and slang. I've had this problem with Mamet before and I can't believe nobody has ever noticed this before - and I would doubt that I am the first. I wouldn't be surprised if - somewhere - some actor in some Mamet production has pondered this before. Come on! Good dialogue is like good acting: if it's really good, you don't notice it until the show's over.


Sound Problems
	I bought this back in October of 2006.  Can someone who bought it more recently tell me if the sound issues have been fixed?  I returned this item for a refund and won't be buying it again until Paramount fixes the sound issues.  Parts of the show are very quiet; I had to turn the sound up to even make out the dialog.  Then, a loud part comes on and almost blows my speakers.  This happens multiple times per episode.  Repeat this for six hours.  If I wanted this kind of quality, I'd just download the episodes off the Internet.  There will be a gap in my collection until this is fixed.  I don't know why they can't pay someone $5.15 an hour to watch the DVD once before they make 10 million copies


Butchered for your protection
	Trying to make a film concerning Studio 54 for a mainstream audience is a really bad idea. It's just not possible to do it and actually stay truthful to the climate of that era. Gays had a lot more influence on that scene than the film lets on. From what I understand, the original director's cut was gutted by Miramax before the film was released it and it shows. Other than Mike Meyers portrayal of Steve Rubell, there's hardly a gay character in sight. There's some very good actors in the film and their talents are simply wasted. Thank goodness the good music helped me get through this drivel. Anyone with a taste for fine filmmaking need not bother with this cinematic mistake


Would not recommend
	I own several Real Wheels movies and thought I would give this one a shot.  I found the picture quality to be less than I expected and the footage seemed out of date.  The narration was dull and boring, and the children's voices screaming the number of the truck to be annoying.  I would recommend any of the  Real Wheels series instead of this - they never fail to please my 3 1/2 year old truck lover


Nothing but wasted time
	I'm of the opinion that King's books rarely translate well into movies, and this is no exception. Some of King's work is fantastic,  but unfortunately, a lot of it is simply tired old themes with nothing new. This falls into the latter category.

A novel about a novelist, and one who has a hard time finding inspiration: Please Mr. King, which college creative writing program did you steal this idea from? The writer's ideas showing up in real life: From whence do these fantastic ideas pour forth?

I won't bother to tell you the ending, because if you have the poor luck to watch the movie, you'll have already guessed it by the time you're half way through. It's all bad and hackneyed, from start to finish.

I will give Steven King credit for putting his fame to good use though. If anyone without Mr. King's fame and built-in fan base tried to sell a story this trite, their manuscript would never make it through the slush pile.

Maybe it takes a bunch of bad stories like this to turn out gems like the Gunslinger series, but it doesn't mean that we have to watch them


Barely a Movie
	This is poorly casted and scripted movie, has only one thing going for it, No annoying Chevy Chase around to make unfunny jokes, he did not have too, The cast here do that in abundance


Red-blue glasses is better
	The kit was not worth its price. The spatial effect is poor. I've been watching some much better 3d movies with much cheaper red-blue paper glasses.  No, I don't have visual problem, and I rigged up everything correctly.

The DVDs itself were not interesting. My kids were not impressed much. It were not made me happier with the pack.

Sorry this review seems against the others, but it is my truth. I've stored it back into the box.

I don't recommend this for you


The Usual Suspects
	opened the sealed DVD case and Get Shorty was inside and not the Usual Suspects.   I sent it back requesting a replacement and did not get a replacement.  I got a credit, I think.  Not sure.  I would rather just have the correct movie


MONK IS JUNK!
	I really want to give this piece of garbage a Zero. Actually, I only watched part of one episode, I don't know if it's from season one. I am a Columbo fan, and a detective writer. I saw a sniper shoot a man on a platform. The platform was almost located right up against a building the sniper was in! A toilet with flowers in it. He reacts to colds? I saw a classroom full of kids. EVERY ONE had a cold! Not very realistic. Kiddie video game pacing, with no proper build up. They don't make stuff for intelligent people anymore! If you are new to this series, watch some before you buy. Maybe some of it is ok.


Stick with Willy Wonka
	I could barely get through the...um...er...reimagination...of the childern's classic - while the set design and special FX are state of the art, as usual for a Tim Burton film, the actual movie is hard to watch. Why? Depp's "performance" is chock full of ticks and mannerisms, off-putting, flat, self-absorbed, and finally, one-note. Rather than the quirky fun of the original 1972 Gene Wilder version, Burton's film is more horror than fantasy, often casually cruel and sadistic to the point of being far from family fare.  While deliberate on Burton's part, that doesn't make the final product any more watchable. It's one grim, dismal, downward spiral slog. Not much holidday fun, huh? As with most of Burton's other big, expensive failures, he knows how to CREATE a convincing world, but has no clue how to POPULATE it with characters and situations we identify with and/or could care less about.  The final result is a film that's like a fragile, hermetically sealed curio on the shelf - nice to look at from afar, but hard to get attached to, much less involved with. What a waste of millions of studio $$$


Painful.
	Half Light (Craig Rosenberg, 2006)

I've been following some heated debate about this flick on movie boards, and it's brought a somewhat related (if tangentially) point into focus for me: why it is that movies like Darkness, the 2002 Spanish "thriller" with all the suspense of a Pee Wee Herman monologue, and Haute Tension, France's painfully bad 2005 attempt at horror, come over to America and fall flat. Well, I knew the answer, but really, you're all providing me with more evidence. You've never seen a good horror film in your life, have you? Because that's really the only way I can see justifying Darkness, Haute Tension, or Half Light as marginal, much less good, movies.

Demi Moore plays Rachel Carlson, an American author living in Scotland with her husband Brian (Henry Ian Cusick) and their son Thomas (the wonderfully-named Beans el-Balawi, recently in the TV adaptation of Beneath the Skin). Thomas suffers a household accident, which leads to Rachel and Brian splitting up. Rachel's friend Sharon (Coupling's Kate Isitt) finds Sharon a lovely, secluded place on the coast to hole up and try to write (and why is it that dead kids always lead to parents going off somewhere secluded, where they're bound to be tormented by guilt?). Rachel meets a number of fine locals, including Angus McCulloch (The Mists of Avalon's Hans Matheson), keeper of an even more secluded lighthouse not far from her new place, with whom she feels an instant attraction. Despite being free of the marriage bond, Rachel's not quite sure what to make of her handsome stranger...

...and neither are we. There's obviously supposed to be chemistry between these two characters, but it's never realized. It's probably off looking for the film's suspense, which Rosenberg reminds us we're supposed to be feeling by inserting a few scenes that tread the ground of every suspense movie clich� in the entire book. Once you've figured out the movie's big twists (yes, there's more than one, handled with all the delicacy afforded to, say, a road being repaved), which you will have done less than thirty minutes into the film, Rosenberg attempts to hit you with another big twist at the end. There's only one problem-- the movie's climactic scene is so befuddling that any attempt at inserting another plot twist that leads to the film's resolution does nothing but leave the viewer confused and unsatisfied. (Go look at the film boards in various places. There is one question that crops up over and over again. It relates to the utter inability of the climax to get its point across.)

It's not often that I say Darkness is better than another horror film. After all, Darkness was about the most pointless exercise in mediocrity possible. But if you have died and gone to Hell, and you have a choice of which of the two to watch on endless loop for the rest of eternity, Darkness should be a no-brainer. Yes, this one's that bad.


THIS MOVIE WOULD HAVE BEEN ACTED BETTER IF THEY USED REAL RETARDS!!!!!!!
	I can't give it any less than one star but what the heck, The girls were hot so there's the one star. Other than that I am literally dumber after watching this movie! I swear to god! I passed out after watching this film because I got so stupid I forgot to breathe! They should stop beating around the bush and hire retards from the mental home to play the lead roles because lord knows they would have done a better job! Even if they just ran around the set yelling "1,2,3, Potato Salad, March!" The dialogue would have been 1000 times better. Message to the producer:
Give it up loser!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


A movie on Castellano, how boring.
	I love Chazz P. and I can see why he would want to give the other side of the Castellano epic, but man is this movie boring.  Castellano has to be one of the most uninvolved mobsters ever to take the reins of a crime family.  If you know the history of this guy, than you should agree, and if you don't, read some books about him.  As powerful as he was, he sure didn't know much about running a crime family as did his predecessors, which this film doesn't portray.  The film also has terrible actors portraying both Sammy the Bull and John Gotti.  An insult at that.  If you like mafia movies and don't care about the history of its real-life characters than by all means watch it.  If you do, skip it, you'd be better off reading a book


Noah's Ark - Jon Voigt
	This movie is not very realistic.  The sets are great!, but the story is a Biblical SNAFU!  They had the chance to embellish the real story, without compromizing the Bible's account, but chose instead to incorporate incidents that were thousands of years later, which impeached any incredibility it might have had. I didn't like it much for that reason.


Truth, Justice = deadbeat dad   peeping tom?
	There are two main reasons why this Superman film fails to fly inspite of the special effects.

What Singer and company have missed is the heart of Superman - virtues.  The ideal of the American way (noticably absent) is supposed to go hand in hand with truth and justice.  Donner made the mistake in the 70's of having Superman sleep with Lois, and now Singer adds insult to injury by having Superman discover he has an illegitmate child that he doesn't take responsibility for (deadbeat dad).  Using his super powers to invade the privacy of Lois in her home, drags Superman down to the level of creepy (peeping tom).

The second issue concerns personality.  Routh and Bosworth look nice but have no charm and no chemistry.  These are the two ingredients that made Reeves and Kidder so endearing.

A new director, writers, and cast is needed.  Until then, at least there's Superman 1.


Primer
	What looks like a good movie to watch quickly turns into disappointment. Whilst you expect some plot to come together (at least on first viewing) - it is strung together to confuse - even to frustrate the viewer.

I was given no warning about the really really bad quality. Having a HD Large display does not help either. The sound is annonying as is irritating. In fact I got a refund on the movie hire!

I don't expect overboard special effect and CGI overlays. I expected the quality to be above a cheap CAM recorder however.

The plot is complicated and the noise in the background adds to the disorientation which is done on purpose.

On the other note: The cheap and nasty props do not add anything to crediblility either.

Stay clear - but if you have the time and want to view the movie - settle back and expect a "student" movie from some high School college.

This movie although good in concept fails. I would like some production house to take it on board - create the situation with some convinving special effects (to help the storyline), better sound, widescreen and convincing props.

It could have been a brilliant movie but is spoiled by bad quality and unconvinving props.


this movie doesn't deserve any stars!
	I was seriously considering purchasing this movie, but luckily I saw it at blockbuster one night and decided to rent it before I made up my mind.  I think it was the smartest move I've made in my entire life because this movie turned out to be, not only the worst lesbian movie, but probably one of the worst movies ever made!  The reviews I've seen for this movie are way too generous I must say.  Believe me when I say that I am not a strict critic...I can be easily entertained by the corny ones.  But this one could not be salvaged, and one star is much more than it deserves.  The fact that is in black and white can be overlooked, but the bad acting, and pseudo-artistic scenes reminded me of a film made in middle school.  Unfortunately, my girlfriend and I were unable to get through the first 30 mins, so I am unable to rate this movie wholly.  All I can say is please rent it at least


Bor-r-r-r-ring!
	Personally, I can't see this movie for dust. In fact, I find it extremely annoying. The only video worse than this one is "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." Yecch!

Napoleon Dynamite, no offense to the actor, literally puts me to sleep. I don't mind his friend Pedro, and I also don't mind his brother (the dude with the glasses) or his grandmother, or even his irksome uncle, but Napoleon himself is as dull as dishwater. If they'd only take his character out, I'd probably enjoy this movie a little better.


The worst film adaptation ever?
	I absolutely abhor this film. Want to know why? Because it labled 'Valley of the Dolls' and everything Jacqueline Susann ever wrote into 'great campy fun'. Now I don't know this for certain, but I don't think Jacqueline Susann wanted people to see her books as cheesy comedies. I think she wanted people to take her work seriously, and with this awfully made film, no one did. To others, the film might be so bad it's funny, but to devoted fans of the book it's just depressing. The movie was made in 1967, a year after the book was published and you can see that Jacqueline Susann was ahead of her time, because the film is poorly adapted and very censored. You know you have a problem when the book would receive an R rating if transferred onto the screen, but the movie is only rated PG. Besides the sex scenes, language, pill popping and other thematic elements that are left out, important details to the plot are also missing. Anne's hatred of Lawrenceville, Helen Lawson's screen time, Jennifer's complicated and somewhat absuive relationship with Tony, Allen and Gino Cooper, Henry's character development, Jennifer's relationship with the Senator (and the reason she committs suicide), the tragic ending, etc are all either missing or are shortened down. I don't care if the movie would have been almost three hours long, I think if they had stuck close enough to the book, then everything would have been fine. What a shame. And please don't mention the casting of actors. Save for Patty Duke, I thought everyone else did a horrible job. Some of the actors didn't even look the physical part (in the book Anne is actually a blonde, Helen Lawson has dark hair and Jennifer is curvy). The thing that really gets me though is why has this film never been remade? It's almost forty years later, and I think that this story definately deserves to be given justice and have a proper film adaptation. How about Kate Bosworth as Anne Welles, Scarlett Johansson as Jennifer North, Keira Knightly as Neely O'Hara, Joaquin Phoenix as Lyon Burke, and Liza Minnelli as Helen Lawson? Well I doubt that will ever happen, so in the meantime I recommend reading the book instead, and taking it seriously the way Jacqueline Susann had intended it to be