The Prince of Egypt

I really wanted to like this movie. I wanted to say that Disney has finallymet their match but this movie was just awful. I was so bored, the singingwas lame and the story had too many lulls. This movie could not keep myattention. I am not religious at all but I know the story and it could havebeen very good. Unfortunately DreamWorks missed the mark. I hope they keeptrying though.

Actually, i watched it as a dare. A friend of mine had to watch HomeAlone 4, while I was left with the Prince of Egypt. I knew it would bereally bad so I had all the necessary things to keep me from losing it- the chips, the comfortable bed, the cool drinks, etc, but I guess itjust wasn’t enough. Just 30 minutes after the beginning of the movie, Ifelt like I had watched this crap for 4 hours straight. I hadunconsciously chewed up all the pillows and sheets around me, and oneof my eyes, that was closer to the TV, was really really red. Not onlyis this movie a great pile of Jewish propaganda, but it’s a horriblemelodramatic sob story Disney-style, one that no normal person would beable to watch for more than 10 minutes. Maybe I should have filmedmyself watching this crap and then send the tape to Jackass orsomething. It’s just complete torture!

I was very let down with this film. Dreamworks is hyping this as the bestanimated movie ever and it is definitely not that. It definitely can’tcompete with "Beauty and the Beast." I went into this film with high hopesand left the theater asking "why in the world would Dreamworks mess up sucha golden opportunity." Wait for the dollar show on this one. It’s not worthyour time or money. Boring plot, boring songs, mediocre animation. 1 1/2stars out of 4.

There is no joy in this picture. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but Iwish Dreamworks hadn’t attempted to do this film by following so strictlythe Disney musical formula–only without wit or subtext. They didn’t spendenough time letting the audience get to know the main characters beforebeing expected to empathize with them or identify with the struggles theyface. This has nothing to do with the AVERAGE running time (of an animatedfeature)–but the producers unwillingness to commit to creating individualpersonalites in the leads. So the audience is left to watch a pageant akinto really bad French Grand Opera. The designs remind me that, like "Antz,"Dreamworks eschews appeal by trying too hard NOT to be like Disney. Peoplemight not mind or compare if the stories were compelling or at LEASTentertaining (I did NOT say FUNNY, I said entertaining) As far as the color,I wish someone would turn the lights on so we could see the characters. Theskin, clothes, and props are colored so dark and with so little contrastthat it strains the eyes. While I admire the fact that it attempted to dosomething different–it just didn’t work, which proves the idea that a goalis something you strive for, but rarely achieve. And for all DreamworksHonking about this being an "Adult" picture, it falls into the same trapthey suffered with "Antz" in trying too hard to alienate anyone that mightcall them on their bluff: IT’S A CARTOON. That’s NOT a bad thing! Disneyhas had the same problem, and has yet to strike the right balance (Gargoylesin "Hunchback")–but the chances Disney’s taken in the last few years havebeen much more satisfying than this production.

this movie rocks..!!!I love the fact that Ralph Fiennes is doing the voice of Rameses. He ismyfavorite actor and he has a really strong and masculinevoice..The songs are good and the humor is kinda good..Grade A-

In every possible respect, this movie was meritless.

The animation was poor. I particularly enjoyed our protagonists grotesquelymisshapen head.

The music was awful, and I mean both the score itself and the performance.I’ve never quite cringed the way I did tonight when that nauseating themerecurred for the five thousandth time.

I guess it makes sense that the singing was so sub-par, considering theymanaged to blow all their money on gratuitous, excessive, repeatedlyegregious computer graphics. When Passover comes, the "death blob" looksmore like a plasma weapon from a orbiting alien battle cruiser. The partingof the Red Sea was nice though, in a "if we make it all spurting water, wedon’t actually have to draw any characters" sort of way.

The comic "relief" provided by Ra’s high priests was completely out ofplace, and a transparent attempt to emulate Disney’s habit of incorporatinga pair of funny side kicks.

Why is it that, in every movie dealing with Egypt in that time period, anexplanation is inevitably provided for the Sphinx’s missing nose? Really,dreamworks, how trite.

I’d like to end by saying that the entire group I went with feels the same,and that we are now going to scrub ourselves with wire brushes to see if wecan get the dirtiness off.

Oh, but it was a good movie though, yah.

I read so many reviews on this movie (on this and other sites) beforetrying to show it to my children. Too may people gush about thebiblical aspects of this movie without regard to the violence. There isa great deal of whipping of people (some in shadow) and violencetowards infants. My oldest (7) has a great interest in Egypt andhistory so I thought perhaps she would enjoy this. I gave the kids abackground on the Moses story beforehand, but still they wereabsolutely horrified at the dream Moses has where they kill the mothersand take the babies away (they kept asking if the babies were killedand I said "No, of course not"). We stopped the movie and they were intears all throughout bedtime. Not worth it at all, no matter what yourreligious beliefs. I do not think this movie should be shown to anyoneunder the age of 10.

This movie is one more Disney rip-off with only moderate animation,forgettable songs, terrible plot, and poorly developed characters. Childrenwill have a hard time with the violence and adults will be bored with theplot. Also, this is a religious film where God is depicted as a mereafterthought. Dreamworks was too careful with this one. They didn’t takeany risk at all and the result is an animated muddle that is only mildlyentertaining.

I usually like movies like this.

True, "The Prince of Egypt" has great animation, interesting characters andsuper voice talent (Kilmer, Fiennes, Bullock, Pfeiffer, Glover, Martin,Stewart, Goldblum…) and there are set-pieces that deliver the goods (TheParting of the Red Sea, the Building of the Pyramids, Baby Moses’ BasketTrip down the Nile, etc.)….

BUT, and this may be a BIG problem for many of you, there isn’t a whole lotof religion in this movie. You may be saying "big deal, it’s a kid’s movie,stop shovin’ God in our faces all the time". Well, I’d agree with you ifthis wasn’t based on THE OLD TESTAMENT!!!!!

A lot of the big scenes are treated like after-thoughts (Moses’ exile intothe desert, the Burning Bush scene, etc.), there’s little to no characterdevelopment (especially in Rameses and Moses, which is a shock) and scantmention of God and His hand in things. Telling a Bible story for kids andleaving out God? That’s like telling a bed-time story and leaving out theheroes in it.

SPOILER -

But this is my biggest gripe with "The Prince of Egypt" - right after theRed Sea is parted and Rameses is left in defeat - the movie ENDS!! Justsome end crawl about what Moses did afterwards and blah blah blah…. THEYMESSED UP! No Mount Sinai! No giving of the Ten Commandments! They missedout on what would have been a spectacular ending!

- END OF SPOILER

Could it be, in this time of movie-making where they don’t want to offendany non-religious movie-goers, the makers of this film decided to go middleof the
road and just deliver action, animated violence and big-name star’svoices, then forget the fundamental elements of the Exodus…like, say, thefact that it was BASED ON CHRISTIANITY??!

Look, you want to have the kids get the right kind of exposure to thisstory, rent "The Ten Commandments" with Charlton Heston. You’ll get thebest telling of this story yet. without a lot of cutesy, intrusive songs, toboot. And with God at the forefront. as it should be.

Shame on you, Dreamworks Pictures. Keep your mitts out of religiouspictures; you’re obviously under-equipped.

Only three stars - for the animation. It’s the best part, but that’s likebuying a car because it has a pretty paint-job.

Forgive them, O Lord; they know not what they do.

Even though the film tried to wow us with flashy and sometimes unnecessarycomputer animation, overall the animation was awkward. Proportions wereoften off, and people moved like jerky automatons. In one scene Mosesretreats like a limping hunchback. And characters’ facial features leaparound on their faces as they talk. Now, the ‘parting of the sea’ scene wasfantastic. But the ‘angel of death’ scene reminded me way too much of acertain Indiana Jones finale. (hmm…)

read comments (0)

The Return of the Pink Panther

This was one of the most boring films i have ever seen. There was onlyfiveor six things that made me laugh and i had to stop the tape a few timesbecause i was falling asleep. This was not a funny "belly-laughs"guaranteedmovie. It was a big bore. This whole series isn’t even thatgreat.

The upcoming release of the "Pink Panther" remake brings to mind theoriginal series, including this one. When the famous diamond getsstolen for a second time, Insp. Jacques Clouseau (Peter Sellers) getsput on the case, and I shouldn’t have to tell you what sorts of thingshe does, especially since this movie turns him into an even biggerdoofus than previously. As Sir Charles Litton, Christopher Plummer doesapproximately as good a job as David Niven did. But the movie is allabout Clouseau. One can only imagine how the people behind the cameramust have cracked up watching him do these things. "The Return of thePink Panther" is a comedy classic. Oh, and there’s also that scene inthe bedroom! Hah!

This film is very funny, though certainly not as funny or magical asthe previous film, A SHOT IN THE DARK. A decade has past since the lastfilm and the chemistry isn't quite as good. Plus, instead of DavidNiven, the same character is now played by Christopher Plummer. While Ilike Mr. Plummer as an actor, I can't understand why they just didn'twrite an all new character instead of doing this.

Oh well. Clouseau is out to capture Sir Charles Litton once and forall–ending a 12 year chase to apprehend him for jewel thefts. To doso, he spends most of the movie dressed in weird costumes trying toinfiltrate Litton's home and "get the goods on him". There are a lot ofcrazy stunts and situations–perhaps too many, as the film occasionallygets too weird and loses its focus.

The best part of this and the next two films is the performance byHerbert Lom as Chief Inspector Dreyfus. His MANY attempts to killClouseau are like a cartoon come to life. And, considering how annoyingand stupid Clouseau is, you really can't blame him!

Of all the Pink Panther films, as as I can remember this is probably myfavourite. Basically the Pink Panther diamond is stolen (again), and(again) French detective Inspector Jacques Clouseua (Golden Globenominated Peter Sellers) is assigned to find it. It is not just Sellersthat is good, but also his Chinese assistant Cato (Burt Kwouk) fightingwith him. As Clouseau searches for the diamond he makes the chief goinsane and eventually he becomes the villain, in the sequel. There aremany memorable moments with Sellers, and his accent is just terrific.If your looking for slapstick and a good theme tune, then see this. Itwas nominated the Golden Globes for Best Motion Picture -Musical/Comedy and Best Original Score for Henry Mancini. Peter Sellerswas number 57 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, he was number 22 on The50 Greatest British Actors, he was number 7 on Britain's Finest Actors,and he was number 24 on The World's Greatest Actor. Good!

Spoilers herein.

How dreadful this is. Dreadful writing. Dreadful acting and productionvalues. Even racist comments. The only reason one might watch this isbecause it has Peter Sellers in it. His comic awareness greatly exceeds thatof the director. And although most jokes are repeated, often many times, heis joy to watch.

His timing is perfect, and that is because he invented large parts of thefilm comedy vocabulary — that part where the actor is performing the jokebut is not wholly in it, yet also not part of the community ofviewers.

Peter Seller's returns as the comically bumbling Inspector Closeau,This time the Pink Panther Diamond has been stolen(Again) from theLugash Museum, The superior's from the police in The Fictitous Arabcapital recommend Clouseu retrieve the Diamond, which is easier saidthan, done! Herbert Lom returns as Seller's superior Complete withnervous twitch! who is slowly at breaking point! The pair share manyhilarious scene's together, Particuraly a scene with Lom and his'Novelty Cigarette lighter!

Christopher Plummer,plays Sir Charles Lytton, A 'Retired' Jewel Thiefwho nabbed the precious stone in the first classic, is implicated in ablack mail,which take's plummer from the beautiful south of France tothe fictitious Lugash,And the gorgeous swiss resort of Gstaad, Thebeautiful Catherine Schell, plays Lady Lytton Who may or may not beinvolved, with the larceny,

Meanwhile France's favorite Detective is hot on their trail, Whichsee's seller's Destroy almost everything in his wake! Many familiarface's crop up in this classic,Especially Victor Spinetti, has a smallbut memorable role as an obnoxious Concierge, Graham Stark, as a sleazywheeler dealer,

And last but not least Burt Kwouk, As Demented but loyal manservantCato, who excel's in keeping Seller's on his toe's, The pair fight eachother in slow motion A technique which Blake Edward's use's to greatand devastatingly funny effect!

'The Return Of The Pink Panther' Is essentially viewing for any comedyfan or Seller's aficionado,

it's also essential, to watch this in It's Widescreen Format, as someof the visual gag's are gone in the terrible pan and scan,print's mostTV station's still insist on showing!

A 10-year-absence for the series was resurrected in 1974 with "The Returnofthe Pink Panther". The jewel has been stolen once again and it is up totheclueless Peter Sellers to find those involved in the crime. Naturallyeverything goes on right under his nose. Christopher Plummer and thepriceless Herbert Lom are along for the ride this time, but this isSellers’show as usual. Fair. 2.5 out of 5 stars.

In Return of the Pink Panther, the third in the Pink Panther series,following A Shot in the Dark, the bumbling Inspector Clouseau is backfor more laughs, and must once again revive the Pink Panther gem, whichhas been stolen for the second time. Though not as memorable as thefirst one, The Return of the Pink Panther still has plenty of hilariousscenes, including Clouseau driving his boss insane, fighting hishouseboy Cato, and speaking with an indeterminable French accent. StarsPeter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau.

Grade: 7/10

MPAA Rating: G

My Rating: Ages 7 and up (comic violence)

Although not quite as good as its successors The Pink Panther StrikesAgain and Revenge Of The Pink Panther, this is still fantasticslapstick comedy. By this, the third film in the franchise, directorBlake Edwards knew exactly what his audience wanted, a roller-coasterof anarchy revolving around Peter Sellers and he delivers it in spades.

Consider for example Clouseau's initial brawl with Kato ("He used to doa bit of cooking but now he's taken to attacking me at anyopportunity") or his bumbling attempts to investigate Lady Litton'shotel room, or the madcap closing battle in a Japanese restaurant,every moment Sellers is on screen is a joy to behold. His good naturedbut ludicrously stupid antics are classic slapstick at its very bestand thankfully, unlike the original in the series, most of the filmcentres on him.

In fact the only factor preventing this movie from being the non-stoptour de force of riotous laughs its successors were, is there-appearance of Charles Litton and the introduction of his wife, LadyLitton. Now played by Christopher Plummer, Litton is supposed to beconsidered dashing, debonair and sophisticated in his role, butunfortunately he and his wife instead come across as a pair ofinsufferably smug gits afflicted with severe superiority disorders.Thankfully, they are afforded nowhere near as much screen time asClouseau is, but it wasn't until the following film where Litton waswritten out entirely that it became perfect.
<
br>Nevertheless, this is still a hysterically funny film, though I'drecommend checking out both of its successors before watching this one.

The fabulously valuable diamond "The Pink Panther" has been stolen fromthe National Museum of Lugache, and Inspector Clouseau - who's beendemoted to being a street officer on patrol (and a bad one at that) -is returned to duty to recover it. I'm at a bit of a disadvantage intrying to review this movie, because I've never seen the original "PinkPanther" (or any of the other "Pink Panther" movies to be honest) andso have nothing to compare this to but can still say that it's quitefunny in places. Clouseau is probably Peter Sellers' most famouscharacter, and he plays the role effortlessly. The story - revolvingaround the theft of the diamond - isn't particularly engrossing, but inthis kind of movie the story is secondary anyway. It's Sellers, andClouseau's dealings with those around him - in particular ChiefInspector Dreyfus, who is eventually driven completely insane by thebumbling Clouseau, and who is played brilliantly by Herbert Lom - thatmake the movie. Sellers engages in physical comedy, offers somewonderful slapstick humour and, of course, his fake French accent anddisguises are worthy of chuckles all the way through. Donald Sutherlandas Charles Litton and Catherine Schell as Lady Charlene Litton offergood supporting performances. Schell herself seemed to be laughing allthe way through at Sellers' performance. I don't know if that wasintended or if she really had trouble not giggling at Seller'sperformance and director Blake Edwards simply chose to leave herresponses to Sellers in the movie. (The latter seems most likely.) Therepeated appearances by Clouseau's valet (if that's what he wassupposed to be) Cato (Burt Kwouk) became a bit tiresome after a while.

Some have told me that this is the funniest of the Pink Panther movies.If so, that's a bit disappointing in all honesty, because I didn't findthis to be anywhere near the funniest movie I've ever seen. It had mesmiling throughout and chuckling a few times but never really outrightlaughing, but still the generally sustained "funniness" makes this afun movie to watch. Without the original to compare it to, I'd stillgive this a 7/10.

read comments (0)

The Return of the Living Dead

When I first watched Return of the Living Dead I had already seen thesequels and I wasn’t really expecting a lot of this one. When I gotdone watching it I realized I just lost an hour and a half of my life.Then I got mad. First of all, the actors sucked. I thought they werejust stupid no talented morons. Second there was the fact it was a slapin the face to the zombie master George A. Romero (Night of the LivingDead, Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead, Land of the Dead) Zombies aresupposed to die when they get their head or brain destroyed and in thisthey completely destroyed this zombie, cut his head off, caught him onfire and he still came back. Then there was the fact they could thinkand make decisions and talk. That was stupid. I said this to a friendonce and he said it ignored the Romero classics because it had nothingto do with them. THEN WHY IS IT CALLED RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD???It’s just a cheap spin off to get some fast cash. As a horror moviewasn’t scary at all, and as a comedy it wasn’t funny at all. The onlything funny or scary about this movie is the idiot who would spend goodmoney on it. Forget this. If you want to rent a zombie movie, rent aRomero movie or Resident Evil.

Since this was a horror comedy hybrid, I won’t bash a lot of the moviefor being plain stupid. It also explains why there wasn’t really anyscary moments. It is a spoof on zombie movies. So if you’re expecting atrue horror movie, you are not going to get it here.

I really appreciated the special effects. There were graphic shots ofpeople eating brains and chewing into skulls. This is really the onlythe reason why I gave this movie any points. That and Clu Gulager whoplayed Burt Wilson. His sloppy speech and Member’s Only jacket were theonly things that were really funny.

As for the zombies, there were retarded and lame. I really didn’t laughor chuckle at them. My reaction was more nonchalant than anything else.

The acting is abysmal. I don’t want to be too hard on Linnea Quigley,but her acting can best be described as completely awful. Her role,like every role she’s ever had, is to run around naked. Did I mentionthis was one of the reasons why I gave this movie points? If I didn’t,I should have.

The ending was perhaps one of the worst I can think of. The specialeffects on the shot was laughable. Not funny, just stupid.

Overall this movie is OK. For 80’s zombie flicks, it has to beconsidered and acknowledged for what it was. A lighthearted zombieflick with good special effects, bad story, bad acting and LinneaQuigley running around naked.

This is a truly bad film, full of bad dialogue and bad 80’s costumes, butit’s not so horrible that it isn’t enjoyable to some extent. Rather than behorrified when dozens of zombies jump on the unsuspecting, I found it to bepretty hilarious. The factors that made this film even remotely crediblewere the halfway decent effects and makeup. The guy that a friend of mineand I referred to as `The Party Zombie’ for no particular reason whatsoeverpretty much makes the film, although we couldn’t really understand how thiszombie with no skin could have such a perfect tongue.

Anyway, this is a tough review to write because it was a film that was botha comedy and a horror film, but ultimately it does not pretend to takeitself seriously, which is a plus in this situation.

–Shelly

I give this my personal highest rating for bad horror movies: 4 out of10 stars. There are many movies worse than this (titanic for example),this was directed decently, I must say. Some of the actors I reallyhated, a lot, but Linnea Quigley who is naked for most of the movie ispretty funny. This movie is not scary at all, and some of the zombiesare just, well too campy and stupid, especially the yellow one. Oh! Andif you call the 1800 # they show on the barrell that contains thatposion military gas that turns people into the zombies, its a phone sexnumber! The zombies calling for more paramedics and cops to eat waspretty funny.

I read so many good reviews of this movie, I thought I’d love it for sure.But when I watched it, I found it very boring, except for a few reallygreattouches (especially the panting bisected dog, and when the paramedic istackled). It could have been really scary, but was played too much forlaughs.

Employees of a medical supply warehouse accidentally release some gasthat brings a corpse back to life. When they burned it, the ashes coverthe nearby graveyard bringing back the dead.

This is one really fun and entertaining movie and hailed as one of thegreat black comedies of the horror genre. Though it had its fair shareof laughs, but I didn’t find it that funny as its claimed to be…enjoyable yeah, but really funny *hmm* it had its moments.

The direction was good and the story is smartly well written by DanO’Bannon (Alien, total recall), as its really just a parody of ‘TheNight of the Living Dead’ film, but with changes added in like thezombies can talk, they run, can use equipment, only eating brains andcan only be destroyed by being incinerated. Though in ROLD the storyamusedly has that Romero’s Night of the living dead film was actuallybased on fact.

The acting is great and because of that the characters are prettylikable, Clu Gulager, James Karen, Don Calfa, Thom Mathews and BeverlyRandolph bring a lot fun to their performances and you got anothernotable performance from Linnea Quigley running around the graveyardwearing only leg-warmers! There is a lot of humour and gore in thistrendy film, with a slow opening that picks up the pace and thrillswhen the zombies hit the screen. The special effects and make-up lookreally splendid, with the zombies having their own personalities andtraits. The backdrop and setting of the graveyard, mortuary andwarehouse are generally murky and creepy.

Nothing but pure fun.

3.5/5

I’m quite a fan of the horror/comedy genre, but I found this film ratherdisappointing. There are a few laughs, and the make-up effects are veryimpressive, but overall this just isn’t nearly as entertaining as Evil DeadII, or (strangely enough) Return of the Living Dead II. The film is notwithout merit, but it didn’t seem to me to be the classic that so many claimit is.

This movie ROCKS (as does the soundtrack)! Anyone who is a fan of the"LivingDead" movies must rank this one up there with the original. The mediocreacting does not get in the way of the excellent story (the alive are trappedwhere the dead should be and the dead are roaming where the alive shouldbe!!) and the most excellent make up and effects. As you watch the movieyou begin to pick a favorite character (mine is Spider) which is cool. Forits genre, this is one of the best and should be recognized assuch.

This film is one of the funniest, goriest send-ups of zombie films evermade. It is based on the premise that what happened in Night of the LivingDead actually happened in a hospital in/near Pittsburgh and bodies of theseravenous zombie brain-eaters were frozen and locked in air-tight containersby the army. Naturally some of the bodies were shipped to the wrong placeand our story opens with a new young employee being toured around a medicalsupply warehouse and home of some of these creatures in a dusty, dampbasement for 17 odd some years. Through some comic mishap, one of thecanisters emits a deadly gas and dead things start to come to life. Thefilm is directed by Dan O’Bannon(Dead and Buried), and he directs withtongue firmly planted in cheek as one comic, deadly mishap leads to anotherbigger one and so on. Eventually we have a group of punk kids, the twoworkers from the warehouse and their boss, and a mortician locked up in afuneral home fighting the zombies on the outside as well as some on theinside. To give you an idea of O’Bannon’s humour, the warehouse boss,played by Clu Gulager, is named B
urt and his good friend of 25 odd years,the mortician wonderfully played by Don Calfa, is named Ernie. We heartheir names quite a bit in this dark, obvious homage to Sesame Street. Thefilm has lots of lunacy, incredibly well-photographed suspense scenes, solidacting from a cast of lesser actors, some provocative(albeit needless)nudity as one girl dances on a tomb in an open cemetery, and gobs of blood,gory scenes of mutilation, decapitation, etc…. While the film is verygory, it is not to the point of detracting from the overall effect of thefilm, which is two-fold in making us very frightened and amused. Some greatscenes in here as well, my favourite always being the James Karen farewellscene with the crematorium burner. Surprisingly tender. Karen, by the way,gives an amazing comic performance. Lots of blood, guts, andlaughs!

Return on the living dead in the very pinnacle of a badmovie.

The acting was horrible, the special effects were laughable, the plotsophomoric … All and all … Good stuff when you are looking for alaugh.

This is the movie that you can watch very drunk but still will be able tofollow along because it doesn’t take much *braaaaaaaiiiinnnsss* to view it (har,har)

7/10 as bad movies go.

read comments (0)

The Return of Jafar

Somebody spare me!!! The first time I saw this movie, I actually kind ofliked it. Just goes to show how Disney can sucker people into liking thissort of sub-TV quality stuff. After the first few times, though, I realizedthat this was complete and utter JUNK!!

Normally, I don’t judge a movie by its animation quality since it’s usuallynot a big issue to me, but I’ll make an exception here. The animation wasobviously television quality, which isn’t that good to begin with, but theytook an excellently animated movie and made it look like a common TV show. Iespecially take issue with the coloring. The coloring looked about ten timesricher in the original movie. The coloring here was more like a total andcomplete eyesore.

Next, I’ll say that Dan Castellaneta was okay as the Genie, but (alltogether now) HE WAS NO ROBIN WILLIAMS! I don’t make this kind of argumentif the replacement does an excellent job on his own, but he didn’t. Themagic that Robin Williams created in the first movie was simply not meant toreproduce because it was so completely his own. Yet they did try to recreateit with less than satisfactory results. And Jason Alexander: Loved him in"Seinfeld" and in almost everything else I’ve seen him in. Why put him here?It was so unnecessary. The other voices were kind of just there. They werenice, but nothing stood out.

At least the music was kind of halfway decent. Nothing like "Whole NewWorld", but passable.

In short, the only reason this movie was ever released was because Disneythought they could make a quick buck from "Aladdin". That’s the onlypossible explanation I can think of.

This movie had me in stitches. Our story begins with Abu and Aladdinstealing from a group of thieves lead by Abis Mal They steal their treasureand give it to the homeless but save a flower for Jasmine meanwhile Iago istrying to dig him and Jafar out of the sand and Jafar wants Iago to releasehim from his lamp so he can get revenge on Aladdin but Iago dumps him coldand throws him in a well in the desert. Iago tries to convince Aladdin tolet him live in the palace to get the power. Later that night Abis Mal findshis lamp and unintenitonaly releases him from his lamp and Jafar gets AbisMal to take him to Agrabah Abis Mal agrees but says he wants his wishesfirst he wishes for the sunken treasure ship of a country. But Abis Mal iscaptured by an octopus he wishes to be returned to the desert. Genie is alsoback from his trip around the world. Overall a great movie.10/10.

Somebody save me from the Disney machine. This movie, to me, is nothing morethan a piece of merchandise designed to milk the "Aladdin" franchise as faras it can go. While Dan Castellaneta is adept at doing the voice of HomerSimpson, he sure is no Genie, and it shows. On the other side of thespectrum is the bad guy, Jafar, one of the more likable Disney villains. Heat least gets a song this time around, but it’s forgettable, as are hisantics and his inevitable demise. And his lackey, Abis Mal, is played byJason Alexander, who turns in an ordinary "frantic man George" performance.The other actors act pathetically and have pathetic dialogue. The copy ofthis movie in my house is broken now. Thank God.

This movie could have been so much better if they had put some thought intothe art and animation. The animators and designers basically don’t care whatit looks like, and it shows. I rented all three of the Aladdin movies at thesame time. After watching Aladdin, I popped in Return Of Jafar. AAAAAHH! whathappened! The animation was extremely poor for a Disney film, and whathappened to the shading effects?! What happened to the smooth animation?!The magic Carpet looked terrible! The Genie was more pail than blue! Also,the dialogue was poor and the film was too short (one hour, 5 min). RobinWilliams did do a better job as the Genie in the original. However, Itdoesn’t take away much from the character and can be easily over looked. Thestory itself was good, and really expends Iago’s character. I give it an 8out of 10.

It sad that disney tried to make a lower-budget direct-to-video sequel tothe very fine original,they try to make a perfectly-good villianous helperIago into a good guy too soon,& jaffars new helper Abis mal was more ofhis"george" character from seinfeld than a replacement for Iago,& for thebottom of the barrel they got someelse to do genie,(true Dan castanella ofthe simpsons wasn’t all that bad but he couldn’t possibly compare withRobinwilliams),true the basic storyline looks intrigueing & also the musicnumbers couldn’t also compare to the original but they turned out wellgood,& Jonathan Freeman did his usual good voice job on Jafar(although his"Genie form" & his demise was rather a bit frightening for the littleones),other than the large-to-moderately large disappointments the filmwassomewhat okay,but it couldn’t compare to the outstanding original &suprisingly-as-good-as-the-1st-one following film.

The Return of Jafar had a hard time, as the sequel to the great smash hitAladdin, but it still manages to hang in there quite well. One of thegreatest losses of this sequel, is the voice of Robin Williams as the Genie,which was so good in Aladdin that it was rewarded with a Golden Globe. Hissuccessor does a decent job though and manages to deliver some of the bestlines in the film. Despite the fact that he was not able to portray theflamboyant blue guy as hilarious as Williams, he managed to make the Genieone of the best characters in the film. This film does not miss RobinWilliams’ voice! It misses the good animation, the great story, the emotionsand the excitement that made up Aladdin. Making a sequel was worth a try,but I’m sorry to say it did not work, for The Return of Jafar turned out tobe one of the ‘worst’ animated features to be ever made by Disney. Thisdoesn’t mean The Return of Jafar wasn’t enjoyable at times, but that therealization of the concept was faulty.

6 out of 10

THE RETURN OF JAFAR, in my opinion, is pure Disney excellence. If youask me, Jafar (voice of Jonathan Freeman) was even more diabolical thanin the predecessor. To me, Aladdin (voice of Scott Weinger) andPrincess Jasmine (voice of Linda Larkin) did an excellent job singingtogether. However, if you ask me, the Genie (voice of Dan Castellaneta)gave the funniest performance of everyone who acted in this film,despite the fact that Robin Williams wasn’t in this. I really enjoyedthe music, especially "Forget About Love." Before I wrap this up, I’dlike to say everyone involved in this film did very well. Now, inconclusion, I highly recommend this film that’s Pure Disney excellenceto all of you who haven’t seen it. You’re in for a good time, so go tothe video store, rent it or buy it, kick back with a friend, and watchit.

I’ve always wanted to fire a 10 000 tonne cannon at this deplorable film andnow I get my chance. Heh heh.

Sequels suck (a word I don’t like using, but necessary here). Usually. TROJa perfect example. Maybe the kids will like it. But I was no older than 14,maybe 15, by the time I saw this and it almost made mesick.

What Disney have in effect done is to ruin all the good work done byAladdin. What was good about the first one? A lot of things, suchas:

1) THE GENIE2) Jafar3) The fact that Jafar (and Iago) was defeated without beingdestroyed4) Iago was a very suitable henchman for Jafar who was loyal to his masterand didn’t have an ounce of goodness in him.5) The other characters, while a bit sugary, were quitebelieveable.

Just a warning to readers who want to see this movie and want nothing givenaway: this next bit forcibly reveals a few non-critical plotelements.

So just what has Disney done? They have slammed good points 3-5, overallweakened no.1 and only no.2 enhanced in any way. Even that cou
ld have beenleft alone. I’ll keep to point-format and address them one byone.1) The good thing about the first one was that the genie wasn’t over-used.Every time he WAS brought in it was something special. In TROJ, andsubsequent ‘episodes’ spun off from it, he just goes too far and isover-used, removing the novelty of his approach. It ceases to be sospectacular. In other words, you CAN have too much of a good thing… well,most good things. I’m not too critical on this point; even without RobinWilliams, the Genie (now played by none other than Homer Simpson) does acreditable job. Just a couple of questions though: The genie’s arm-cuffsdisappeared when he was freed; why is he wearing them again now? and Whydoes the genie spend all his time around Aladdin now when he didn’t want tobe tied down at all?2) Jafar (same voice) does an excellent job and is the best part of themovie. His genie antics are quite believeable and he steals the show fromthe (good) Genie and everyone else. But there’s a downside - see the nextpoint.3) Because Jafar wasn’t killed off in the first one, they brought him back,and he wasn’t so fortunate the second time round, apparently - I didn’t seeany bones, but if he was still alive, they would have brought him back forsubsequent episodes. This was the most sickening part of all, to kill off aworthy villian who was just blossoming. And especially the way they did it,his ‘death’ seemed to take about 10 minutes.4) This was the second most sickening thing for me. How could a perfectlyable villain, like Iago, turn into a good guy? ‘Specially after the firstone where he despised ‘kissing up to that chump and his chump daughter’which is what he ends up doing. Even when Jafar completely forgives him, andappears to have won him back, Iago, without cause or reason, SETS FREE thegenie and is ultimately the one who kills Jafar. Iago in Aladdin 1 would nothave done that in an eternity.5) Disney opted to toy with the remainder of the characters. Aladdin, eventhough he lives in the palace, still cannot dress respectibly for most ofthe film and is still chased by Razoul. The other characters, relegated tominor roles, disappoint: Rajah (formerly kittenish) is now savage, Jasminecontrary, the Sultan no longer easy-going, and the carpet badlyfaded.

Young children who don’t understand such things may not mind and insteadactually enjoy this film.

When I first saw an ad for this movie, in fact, I thought it was really goodthat they’d brought Jafar back, but having watched the whole thing, I wishedthey’d left him in the Cave of Wonders to chill out as planned at the end ofthe 1st one by the Genie.I’d rather forget this one ever happened. Jafar alone prevents it fromgetting the worst possible mark.2/10

PS Disney to an extent redeems itself with a third movie in the series, butit can’t begin to account for the damage of this monstrosity.

Can I give it zero stars? This just doesn’t do it for me, and I don’t seewhy they made it. The plot here is very forced, and has been usedcountlesstimes–revenge on the good guy. Especially notable is Robin Williams’absence. (Instead, Genie is voiced by somebody from "The Simsons". Imean,come on!) The songs were an insult to Alan Maken and Howard Ashmen’swonderful soundtrack for the first film. And worst of all, the charactersseem alien, like I’ve never known them before! I regret wasting my moneyback in 1994 for this trash. I would like to dispose of it, but someday Imay watch it if I have absolutely nothing else to do. Besides, I regrettosay (but it’s true) that without this junk I wouldn’t own the complete"Aladdin" trilogy. "Aladdin" fans might want to watch it once just toknowwhat happens, but that’s pretty much it. Dust off your old copy of thefirst one and watch it instead. Or watch "Aladdin and the King ofThieves",which was very good and featured an especially impressive returnperformanceby Robin Williams as the Genie.

This was one of the first Disney sequals… It was one that turned outpretty good, but now Disney is going overboard. The Return Of Jafar wasbasicly the pilot for the TV show and it started it perfectly. Everyone isback, except for Robin Williams because of some disagreement. The story itpretty good and the songs are ok.

It’s great seeing Aladdin, Genie and the rest in action again, because in myopinion, Aladdin (1993), is one of the best Disney films ever to bereleased.

The only thing I’m mad about is all these other sequals. If Disney is goingto make sequals to their films, at least TRY to make them good. The onlygood Disney sequals I’ve seen Return Of Jafar, The Lion King 2: Simba’sPride, and Return To Neverland.

read comments (0)

The Return

This was far and away the worst movie i've ever seen in my entire life.It was slow, boring, not scary, not funny, not dramatic, notentertaining.

Sarah Michelle Gellar was up to her old playbook of empty expressionsof fright and shock. She couldn't sell her character nor could anyoneelse in the picture.

For those who thought the Grudge was 'kind of alright' then don't gosee this unless you get enjoyment out of wasting your time and yourlife.

I saw this movie for free by the way so I don't want this to comeacross as a rant from a guy that lost 8 bucks on a terrible movie. Itwas free, it still sucked, I hated it.

Avoid.

SOME NOT-SO-SPOILY SPOILERS AHEAD

Why do people, when they are disoriented or sick or scared at a club,cut through the middle of the crowded dance floor on their way to thebathroom?

Who in their right mind would hide under a bed when someone breaks intotheir room?

How often do you knock on a stranger's door and when they don'tIMMEDIATELY answer, you open the door, walk in, shout a few hello's andthen start going through their stuff?

If you were being pursued by someone you just discovered was amurderer, what would you do? Quietly sneak off and hide under a woodenplatform or among metal implements? Run, quietly of course, to a rattyold barn or other decrepit structure?

I could be talking about almost any thriller that's come out in thelast few years, but since this is the "The Return" page, obviously I'mtalking about "The Return." I saw it free because I work at a movietheater and make a point of screening all the "scary" movies. I thoughtthis one was tolerable… aside from the well-worn clichés. SarahMichelle Gellar is really drab and looks kind of "Huh?" through most ofthe film. The details of the plot are slowly given out as the movieprogresses and it's almost enough to make it interesting except therewasn't enough explanation as it moved on and so I was almost lost untilthe last 2/3 of it.

If you're a die-hard thriller fan, it's worth seeing at least once. Ifthere's nothing better at the theater and you really want to watch amovie, eh, I guess it's worth a matinée ticket. If you thought thetrailer made it look like an interesting movie and you can't wait…wait.

How do comments like the one that was the headline by high school girlseven make it on this site, this was the stupidest movie I have everseen, it was ridiculous, how can any moron sit there and say that justbecause a movie makes you jump it is a good movie, that might be themost idiotic thing I have ever heard, I could sneak up behind you andgo "Boo" and it would make you jump, but that does not mean I amqualified to write or direct a movie, not to mention "they tiedeverything together at the end" is not a good reason for a movie to bewell received. What kind of movie would it be if they didn't tieeverything together, I guess that would make it half a movie, not awhole movie. So basically this idiot girl is complimenting them forfinishing the movie, well I love how the youth of today hold the mediaand production companies to such a high standard. No wonder thepolitical system of this country can get away with whatever they want,we have idiots like that coming up in our country, what would happen ifthis girl actually ends up leading something someday, that is a scarythought. Get a life and go watch a real movie sometime, try ShawshankRedemption or On the Waterfront, or something like that, and don'tcomment that it was "boring" after you see it, just use what littlebrain God gave you to analyze it a little.

Let me start off by saying I am not a fan of horror movies. I neverwatch them.

Let me tell you about my experience…

The only reason I watched this movie was because my girlfriend and herfriends wanted to see it over Happy Feet.

…I never saw Happy Feet, but I am sure it is better thanthis…movie? Anyway, we didn't actually expect it to be good…weactually went in just to laugh at it. Cool with me…I have a problemwith ruining the movie for other people in the theater but since it wasjust other couples talking and making out, it did not matter.

After 15 minutes the 2 other people left to go sneak into Borat, amovie I would have gladly seen again over this. The movie was notscary, and not stupid so it would be funny…it was just boring. Itwasn't terrible like "Baby Genuises" terrible, it was terriblelike…not entertaining at all. Avoid.

Now I am no expert, but it seems the problem with the horror industrythese days is that you can have a PG-13 horror that is boring and notscary, or you can have an R gruesome horror movie that either is toobloody or too disgusting for people.

You want a PG-13 horror that sucks but is funny? See "The Grudge."Avoid this movie like the plague…because it may literally bore you todeath.

0/10

Think of the ending of the Grudge 2 with the following :

- a man who repeatedly says the word Sunshine - a cowboy - a love story- Sarah Michelle Gellar cutting herself - and a creepy mirror

OH AND UNDERWATER SEA ANIMALS…yay…

not a good movie… I seriously did not enjoy it whatsoever. The posterfor the movie is extremely misleading as well and I found that it wasjust to suck people into watching it…I can't believe i went.

Save your time and money…go watch Saw III…a film where the writingmakes you feel like there was effort put into it…

Im Mike and Im out

This movie sucks! This dumb movie is straight to video quality at best.It looks like Sarah Michelle Gellar has her face frozen like BenAffleck all through the movie. Cheap attempts to scare people and mutedcolors are all this film will be known for. The whole pacing isterrible and Sarah Michelle Gellar and Peter O'Brien had no chemistryat all. How old was his character supposed to be? What kind of idiotkiller hides a knife in a gas tank? This was really a lousy movie and Iam glad I got my money refunded from the theater manager because thismovie was falsely advertised and intentionally misleading. It was soboring that I could not believe how long this movie felt and it wasonly 85. The trailers before this stinker were more entertaining. Avoidthis loser at all costs!

Moviegoers are basically stupid. We fork over hard-earned (well, insome cases) cash for 90 to 120 minutes of theoretical enjoyment. So farso good, and we as a public are willing to buy into the idea that oursix bucks entitle us to an hour-and-a-half of escapism. The problem isthat going to see a movie is a crapshoot under the best ofcircumstances, and, well, in the worst case, it can be the grounds fora class-action lawsuit against the studio for a severe case of libel,i.e. they promised us this would be interesting, shocking, fun, etc.

None of which The Return is. And, honestly, I knew it was going to beweak when I saw the trailer. It looked like a retread of The Grudge,another Sarah Michelle Gellar joint (also a fairly craptacular moviebut at least that took place in Japan), and, yes, I went to see themovie for the girl. So color me double stupid for expecting anythingelse. I pretty much figured I would sit through a tepid remake of atepid remake, I was prepared for that.

But I was not prepared for the mind-numbing banality that is TheReturn. Gellar plays Joanna Mills, a woman so devoid of a personalityor any human characteristics it's extremely hard to be interested inher, let alone care about her. Joanna is apparently seeing things (deadpeople, a possible killer, a mysterious tavern) and these visions leadher to some nowhere town in Texas where everything is a pasty brown andeveryone acts strangely, and they ALL act as if they know somethin
g wedon't, which of course they do, because we are never told what in thehell is going on.

I mean it. I literally had no idea what in the hell was going onthrough the first two-thirds of this movie. Joanna goes through themotions of tracking down what's going on in her visions, but she picksup clues because she needs to, not because it makes any sense that shedoes. The movie does eventually disclose what happened, but much likean Agatha Christie novel, there's no damn way you could have figured itout and even when you are told, it isn't very satisfying. And then weare only given Joanna's possible connection to the main story in ateaser at the end of the film, by which point we don't care whathalf-assed plot twists might be in store, we just want to get the hellout of there as quickly as we can.

It isn't a horror film, as the trailer promises. If only it were aretread of The Grudge, that might have merely been bad. But The Returntakes boring to a whole new level. Watching Gellar play a character agood 50 IQ points lower than she is was painful, and I wondered overand over what the hell she could have been thinking in taking this role(can she really need the money that bad?). Maybe it's because I've seenher be so good in just about everything else she's done (even the laterembarrassing seasons of Buffy come off like Shakespeare next to thisleaden claptrap), but this is the kind of film you only do for love,money, exposure, or because you lost a bet. So I hereby pardon everyoneelse in the film (an impressively uncharismatic bunch of unknowns andunrecognizables, except for the one actor who had a recurring role onDark Angel, and that tells you a lot about the average talent levelSarah ended up working with here) as, hell, a break is a break. But Ican't fathom what in the hell Sarah was thinking in accepting a scriptthis tepid.

I've beaten this dead horse enough. This is the worst film I've seenthis year, and I've seen Ultraviolet. If that isn't enough to scare youaway from this movie, then you must have as little common sense as thecharacters in the film itself. I'll put it more clearly than the moviecould: DON'T GO.

To all of those saying that this movie was fantastic and one of thebest they've seen: Did we watch the same film? Because what I sawlacked cohesion and ilogic. It went in circles that were completelyunnecessary and it may qualify as the biggest waste of $7 AND time thatI've ever experienced. It explained itself within the last 10 minutesor so and even then the explanation sucked. I felt like it skippedaround way too much. Not to mention, Sarah Michelle's voice is superannoying. Is it just in this film, or has she always been thatirritating? Ugh, what a load of crap. Spare yourself. Don't watch it.Worst hour and 20 minutes ever. Ew.

even the messenger made more sense then this movie,, this oneabsolutely positively made no sense whatsoever,, sarah michelle gellar(buffy) didn't even do a really good job at all, the movie was entirelydisappointing. the characters made no sense whatsoever. the boyfriendstalker, no sense,, the dad sam shephard,, weak let me tell you thatmuch,, the plot line , couldn't' decide where it wanted to go,, thisdirection asif.. something or other i think was trying to capitalize onone of those M Night Shamalyan productions and failed miserably,, thiscould have been a good movie,, but like i said just can't seem to makeup it's mind where it wanted to go,, folks you can skip this one,because mainly it makes no sense at all,, i didn't even see the pointof this movie to tell you the truth.

Don't tell my girlfriend, but I never really watched Buffy the VampireSlayer. I did see the movie staring Donald Sutherland and KristySwanson back in 1992, but that was the extent of my experience.

But there I was two years ago, sitting on a bar patio and when thefuture love of my life (well, for 25 years amortized, anyways)commented on how much she absolutely loved the television program ofthe same name, I lied my ass off and spewed generic comments back like"It's so different from that crappy movie" and "Sarah Michelle Gellarrocks!" The responses got me the girl and I have continued to live thelie for almost 24 months now, but the truth still remains that myexposure to Sarah Michelle Gellar goes as far as Scooby-Doo and TheGrudge (I had to be reminded that she was in I Know What You Did LastSummer).

So when the future mother of my bastard children and I walked theaisles of the local DVD rental store, she stopped and picked up the boxfor Gellar's 2006 film, the Return citing again her excitement to seegood old Buffy again fight evil. I was just happy we both agreed on afilm within 15 minutes of our arrival at the store.

The Return is the other horror/thriller film that Gellar was involvedwith in 2006 after The Grudge 2 and this time, Gellar plays businesswoman Joanna Mills who can't seem to shake visions of a murder thatoccurred some 15 years ago. The visions come in pieces and it seems tocatapult Joanna into a self imposed mission of finding out as much asshe can about the woman in her nightmares that was the victim of thecrime.

Of course, no one said that this was going to be easy. Joanna'spersonal life is a mess and if she isn't being haunted by terrifyingvisions of the murder, she is being stalked by an ex-boyfriend ordealing with the estrangement from her father played by the alwaysversatile Sam Shepard.

And if things weren't complicated enough, Joanna befriends a localtough guy Terry Stahl (Peter O'Brien) who is cloaked in multiple coatsof mystery and just so happens to have appeared in one of Joanna'svisions.

This all leads us down the path taking us to the climax that was aboutas exciting as bumper cars at an amusement park. To be fair there was ascene with about 15 minutes left to go in the film that I didn't seecoming, but that was probably more due to the fact that there was noreason for me to invest my brain cells in trying to get a jump start onthe ending. Instead, I sat flat lined as I watched Joanna, run, passout, or fall all three of which seemed to be ¾ of the films runtime.

The Return was Director Asif Kapadia's American debut film and itshows. Kapadia seems lost in the direction and would rather have thecharacters run around rather than use other devices for plotdevelopment. The entire subplot of the boyfriend was just a waste ofenergy and took too much time before hitting a dead end. And when itcomes to the chemistry between the two leads (Gellar and O'Brien),well, I have more chemistry between my Sunday crossword and the roll oftoilet paper to my left when I am trying to figure out a four letterword for 'crap'.

I know there have been many that are hoping that Gellar takes the batonand becomes the new scream queen of horror, but based on herperformance and interest level in The Return, I think everyone shouldfold up the parchment with her name on it and put it back in the hat.

www.robertsreviews.com

read comments (0)

The Rescuers Down Under

Ok, the setting. Walt Disney movies hadn’t been the same since Walt’sdeath.Box office success seems to elude the company and ambitious projects likeThe Black Hole don’t deliver. What’s worse, Bluth’s new company putssuccessful family animated entertainment back on the charts with TheSecretof NIMH. A big embarrassment to Disney and perhaps a wake-up call to getbackon the animated ball. So the folks at Disney came up with a sequel totheirsemi-successful Rescuers movie. I think this sequel was much better thanthefirst. Excellent story coupled with good animation and an politicallycorrect eco-care theme to boot.This movie really did deserve the success and attention it brought back tothe company. I would be willing to bet that this movie’s success provedDisney still had the stuff and probably provided the impetus to invest intheir next movie, "The Little Mermaid" … and the rest is history. Ofcourse, with the success of Mermaid, Disney has stuck with the formula ofworking off of established folk-tales for their animated fare,unfortunatelyneglecting modern themes seen in "The Secret of NIMH and this movie. Socheck this movie out to see Disney at some of its best, and before theydelved back into less risky, safe, folksy storylines responsible for theircommercial success over the past 10 years.

seriously. this is like Indy kiddie-fied. nothing against Dr. Jones by anymeans i’ve worn those 3 out over and over again. but this is one the bestSEQUELS of any kind ever. it so outdoes the original it isn’t even funny.plus this is the 1st Disney movie that was ever bought for me at thetenderage of 10 ( a milestone in it’s own right) one of the best voice castingjobs ever! Newhart and Gabor are top notch just as they were 13 yearsearlier. George C. Scott is the cartoon villain dreams are made of. andthetrue highlight along with the character of Frank is the late, great JohnCandy. i adore the work of this man even today some 8 or 9 years since hispassing and he was hilarious as always in this one. watch it! i hadn’twatched it in years it set in the closet shelf collecting dust but if youhave it break it out of wherever you’ve hid it and enjoy itagain.

thanks!

Along with The Great Mouse Detective, The Rescuers Down Under is awonderfuladventure with some early experimentation with computer animation. Acompelling story with plot complications mature enough to engage adults,thevisuals are matched by the strong voice cast including Geroge C. Scott asasuitably nasty villian. As is often Disney custom, the villian is matchedwith a comic relief side kick (in this case a mute lizard henchman). Oneofthe best examples of cinematic comic timing involves the two characterscounting eggs. I highly recommend this movie for Disney animation fans whomay have over-looked this gem.

The best Disney film I’ve seen.For me Frank the frilled Lizard was thebestcharecter and is my favorite Disney charecter!I really liked the animation and the voices really suited thecharecters.

Aside from the wider use of special effects to simulate soaring flights overland and sea and some very realistic computer generated camerawork, THERESCUERS DOWN UNDER doesn’t compare favorably in story and characters to theearlier Disney film, THE RESCUERS (’77).

For one thing, the principals Bernard and Miss Bianca don’t enter the filmuntil twenty minutes of exposition pass. The little boy in no way draws thekind of sympathy or involvement in his plight that the rescued Penny did inthe original film. He’s a mere cypher and we know next to nothing about him.The film is apparently designed as an impressive showcase for computerizedanimation techniques.

The trouble is that despite the gimmicky effects, the story content is notonly slim but unappealing, dealing as it does with an unappetizing poacher(George C. Scott) and his cohorts in a plan to get rich at the expense ofwildlife. Scott’s voice is well used for the character but fails to combinethe wickedness with the broad sense of humor we usually have in Disneyvillains. He does have a few humorous asides but nothing memorable exceptfor lines like "I didn’t go all the way through third grade fornothing."

Eva Gabor and Bob Newhart are again on hand as the voice talent for MissBianca and Bernard. John Candy’s fans will enjoy his wildly humorous stintas Wilbur the albatross. But the animation is on a lower level than theoriginal as far as the characters are concerned, with more emphasis on thebrilliant backgrounds and soaring movements that are real enough to stir upsome motion sickness after awhile.

Some of the most humorous moments in the film are supplied by Joanna, thecunning lizard used and abused by Scott’s character. Although the filmdoesn’t duplicate the charm of the original, children will probably love itssense of adventure and the boy’s soaring flights over canyons and rivers onthe back of an eagle. Does not rank among the great Disney films butchildren will probably find it engrossing enough.

After nearly two decades of disappointing animated movies, the Disneyfolks got back to winning ways in 1989 with The Little Mermaid. Thatmarked the start of a succession of five Disney cartoons in a row thatwere all of a really high quality, the five being The Little Mermaid,The Rescuers Down Under, Beauty And The Beast, Aladdin and The LionKing. The second film on this list - The Rescuers Down Under - is arip-roaring adventure movie which is a sequel to an earlier Disneymovie made in 1977. In fact, the original The Rescuers was a prettyforgettable film and it seems extremely strange that the Disney peoplehad that particular film in mind when they decided to make a sequel.This second instalment is thankfully much more memorable, well-animatedad exciting. It’s not often that it can be said, but this is a case ofa sequel which is superior to the original.

In the Australian Outback, a young boy named Cody (voice of Adam Reyen)rescues and befriends a rare golden eagle. Later, the boy is capturedin a trap by wanted local poacher McLeach (voice of George C. Scott).When McLeach finds one of the eagle’s feathers in the boy’s backpack heis instantly overcome with excitement, for he knows that to capturesuch a grandiose bird would make him filthy rich! McLeach kidnaps theboy and attempts to force out of him the whereabouts of the rare eagle.Meanwhile, a message is sent to New York, home of the Rescue AidSociety…. a bunch of dare-devil mice who specialise in saving thelives of endangered children. Once again, mice agents Bernard (voice ofBob Newhart) and Bianca (voice of Eva Gabor) find themselves up totheir neck in adventure as they try to rescue young Cody from hisabductor’s lair.

The animation in this 1990 release is absolutely excellent and seems tomark a significant step forward in terms of the technology available toanimators. The story is exciting and fast-paced, with just a sprinklingof humour to offer a little relief from the action from time to time.On the whole, the voice acting is very good, most notably Newhart andGabor as the heroes, with solid support from John Candy’s comicalalbatross and Scott’s seriously unpleasant villain. Purists might besurprised and disappointed by the lack of the usual catchy Disney songs(there are none in this one, not even a theme song over the credits),but in most departments this is a first-rate animated movie that shouldenthral kids and adults alike.

Just fairly decent animation, mediocre and poorly used voice talents, a badstory, lack of side-kick humor and humor altogether(grown-up humor, thatis), a horribly evil and unfunny villain, and unbelievable scenes thatalmost defy even the laws of animation …need I go on.Disney is rarely this unbalanced and unfunny, and what’s up with theAustralian boy speaking with an American accent. The likes of the greatestanimation studio in the world shouldn’t afford such blatantmistakes.This animated movie defin
itely isn’t for teenagers, let alone adults, butit’s much too dark and includes a really evil bad guy to make the youngeraudience appreciate it."The Rescuers Down Under" is a poor and uneven cartoon that makes me furtherunderstand why Pixar is and probably will be so successful. They’re able tomake both the young ones and adults have a blast. Don’t think I’ll give theoriginal one, "The Rescuers" a chance. 4/10

Bernard and Bianca return in a movie after a 13 year absence, but this timethey are headed for the land down under to look for a missing boy. That isAustalia is you didn’t know that. As the movie opens, a young boy named Cody(Adam Ryen) rushes to the help of a golden eage. She comes to his resureafter falls off the cliff by her wing. After the ride, Cody falls down ahole and is recured by a hunter named Mcleach (George C. Scott) and getskidnapped. And a call for help goes out from Australia with stops in othercites before getting send to New York, where Bianca agrees the mission tothe land down under without telling Bernard (Bob Newhart). And he and Bianca(Eva Gabor) gets a flight from an alatross named Wilbor (John Candy). Downunder they get help from Jake (Tristan Rogers). Better yet, it may be betterto stay home and see Austalia instead of taking a long flight to go downthere. But where would you want to hear "G’day" in the country itself orthis movie. G’day. 10/10

This wasn’t my favorite Disney film. I mean it is fun to watch sometimes.But it’s more for the kids than adults. I love Disney films a lot, eventhough they are meant more for children. I always felt like they shouldalsobe for adults. "The Recscuers down under" was not one ofthem.

6/10

By all accounts, the lion’s share of Disney sequels sorely lack anysemblance of the pure Disney magic that we all could come to expectfrom the films that preceded them. And it’s easy to disseminate theroot causes. They are not well storyboarded from the get-go, arecompleted outside of Disney Feature Animation’s walls, and notsurprisingly, are micromanaged into a cookie-cutter recipe from aboveby less-than-talented management.

And this has to do with "Rescuers Down Under"…how? It doesn’t, and Ilove it. Disney’s first attempt at an animated sequel was a magicalbrew of the same ingredients that made "Rescuers" endeared by so many,young and old. And what’s more, the differences between the two havemade "Down Under" down right better. This was Disney’s first foray intothe world of 3d animation, and the beauty of its use in the film isthat it’s utilized fairly sparingly, and I’m convinced that they knewthe technology wasn’t yet powerful enough to warrant use all on itsown. The color schemes give me a sense of warmth, like I assume theland down under is nearly year-round. It’s not nearly as dark and drabas its predecessor, so the sense of innocence so lost is felt on adeeper level than with Penny of the original.

"Down Under"’s opening 20 minute salvo could be categorized as itsweaker point because of its lack of the main story’s progression, but Ibeg to differ. Disney’s cornerstone formula of a magical movie-goingexperience has always been storytelling, and it’s most apparent in thefirst 20 minutes. This is when we truly know how deep the bonds runthrough the boy and the massive golden eagle not just because heinitially rescues her from a poacher’s trap, but when she rescues himfrom a perilous fall down a cliff she bumped him off from and flies himback to her nest, we know the connection is quite mutual. Now we knowthe depths that one is willing to go through to rescue the other.

The voice acting cannot go unnoticed, either. Bob Newhart and Eva Gaborreturn, respectively, as Bernard and Miss Bianca and prove thatthirteen years between the two Rescuers movies didn’t diminish theirabilities at all. Wilbur’s performance by the late great John Candymake this it as memorable as any one of his live action movies.McLeach, the evil poacher, is given new depths of eeee-vilness byGeorge C. Scott, who had definitely made his niche in thecharacterization in movies past. The glaring lack of an Australianaccent aside, Adam Ryen’s performance as Cody is right on par and wascrucial to the ability to connect with the character.

Neither can the powerful performance by Glen Keane, animatorextraordinaire of Marahute the golden eagle, go overlooked. From thefirst frame, it is very obvious that he is intimately familiar with thebody of an eagle and all its workings, and on through to the lastframe, I know that he had all the time and resources he needed tocomplete such an awesome effort.

But honestly, what kind of 8-year-old could have visualized the movieon this kind of level when it had barely come out fifteen years ago?Really, the only thing that mattered to me was that I felt a bond withthe boy, a deep-down conviction that the trials he endures arehappening to me in a different plane of being. And when the finalcredits have rolled, that is ultimately what makes or breaks such amovie, which definitely made it great.

"Rescuers Down Under" gets 9 of 10 stars

read comments (0)

The Rescuers

It’s worthwhile comparing the opening credits to "The Rescuers" with theopening credits to its sequel (released thirteen years later). Thesequel’sopening is detailed, tastefully colourful and full of movement - it leapsand bounds through the Australian landscape, and its dominant mood isexuberance. The original is anything but exuberant. ITS opening creditstake place over a series of sombre seascape drawings - still drawings.These credits could not possibly have been more cheaply made; but theyhavetheir own charm and effect.

There is something fitting about the grey world of "The Rescuers". A pairof mice (professional rescuers) receive a message from a young orphan girlwho is being held captive by … and so on. This is not achandelier-swinging rescue story. The mice are tiny and largely helplessina world of big things; and if they succeed at all it must be by quietlywaiting their chance in the shadows.

The mice, by the way, are adorable. Really, they are. Largely it’s thevoices that do it - Eva Gabor as a rich Hungarian, and Bob Newhart as ashyAmerican floor-sweeper. Neither is self-consciously cute. Each is aninnocent but not a child. When the story concentrates on them rather thanthe Miss MacGuffin they are rescuing it is at its mostenjoyable.

There is no doubt, though that the Disney studio was exhausted at the timeit made this movie. There is one superb piece of animation - MadamMedusa,the villainess, perhaps the high point of animator Milt Kahl’s career.Other character animation here and there is good too. But thespear-characters of the story have been done with what looks like almostnoeffort; and many scenes look as if they belong on television. Scale isoften ignored (there is a turtle slightly smaller than the mice) - andthisis a SERIOUS problem in this kind of fantasy. Overall there is a feelingofdeep weariness.

It’s worth seeing for the mice, though.

I had heard good things about this movie. Good things from people who,like me, aren't fans of any animated movies, Disney or otherwise. Theyconvinced me to buy a copy-now I have this bad quality DVD, and I'm£5.75 worse off.

Let's leave aside the quality of the picture-after all, it only seemsto be the new releases which are of good quality. The movie is very,very bland. The basic story is a kid is kidnapped by this woman, andtwo mice go to rescue her. Very Disney-just a lot less entertainingthen movies like The Lion King and Aladdin. Maybe it's just aimed atkids-as a 24 year old, I was less then mildly entertained by this. Kidswould probably get a lot more out of it.

So, to the movie. The animation wasn't up to the standard of othermovies-the 70s animation style, which I always found unbearable. Thatmovie with the cats in it was the same-but I'm not reviewing that.

The subplot of Bernard, the male mouse, wanting to marry Bianca wasunnecessary. The bird/plane was almost unbearable to watch. Itliterally made me cringe when they started that part of 'comic relief'.Most movies don't have that effect on me. The villain, Medusa, failedto come across as threatening. As did her sidekick. And the icing onthe cake? The mice pop up and start up a conversation with this kid.And she doesn't even blink.

This, in my opinion, was nothing compared to the other movies fromDisney. The soundtrack, admittedly, was good. Not the best, but atleast the characters weren't constantly bursting into song. I'm sorry,that was the one redeeming feature for this movie.

Disney’s animated films have generally been good or better, while thestudio’s live-action offerings have veered from excellent (MaryPoppins, Nikki Wild Dog of the North) to downright terrible (Popeye,Condorman). The Rescuers is an animated film from 1977, butunfortunately it is a lesser cartoon feature. Compared to the likes of"Dumbo", "Lady and the Tramp" and "101 Dalmatians", the film issomething of a disappointment. None of the Disney cartoons are so badthat you can’t find some merit in them, but this one offers very littlebeyond a couple of lively sequences and some OK voice acting.

The story tells of the Rescue Aid Society, a bunch of mice from allaround the globe who dedicate their lives to answering distress calls.Their headquarters, naturally, is just under the UN Building! A bottlewashes up in New York containing a help message. Two brave mice,Bernard and Bianca, investigate this plea for help. They learn that ayoung girl named Penny has been kidnapped from an orphanage andspirited down to the southern bayous, where she is being forced by acouple of crooks to hunt in a pirates’ cavern for a priceless,long-lost diamond.

The animation is rather mediocre for a Disney film, and the story isn’treally all that interesting. Maybe the story could’ve been interesting,if handled with a bit more verve and energy, but as it is the pacing isquite slow. Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor are pleasant enough as the miceheroes, and the villainous role of Madame Medusa is carried off withsuitable menace. I’m sure The Rescuers is the kind of film which willprovide an hour or so of passable entertainment for kids, but I’m lesssure that it’s the kind of film they’ll want to watch over and overagain. From Disney, we’ve come to expect more….

Unfortunately, this film is based on two beautiful books, "TheRescuers" and "Miss Bianca" by Margery Sharp. What is unfortunate, isthat this film makes a complete mess of both of them, changing roundthe plots, locations and even the personalities of the characters.

Here is a bit about the film: The film is about a society called "TheRescue Aid Society" of mice, who receive a message from a kidnappedlittle girl named Penny and are determined to go and rescue her. Well,two mice are ready to rescue her, Miss Bianca and Bernard, these areboth their first missions.

Now here is the same bit about the film, this time pointing out what itis really like in the book: This film is about a society called "TheRescue Aid Society"(BIG MISTAKE: It is the "Prionser's Aid Society") ofmice, who receive a message from a kidnapped little girl (they heardabout it in "Miss Bianca", where the girl appears) named Penny (in"Miss Bianca" her name is Patience) and are determined to go and rescueher. Well, two mice are ready to rescue her, Miss Bianca and Bernard,these are both their first missions (Bernard had had a mission beforegoing on his first with Bianca).

Luckily this film still remains to be pleasant, with good animation andbeautiful songs. Best for people who have not read the books (and thereare many of those people and those people should read the books). Sothere.

Young audiences of the mid-'70's made this animated tale from Disney,about two mice and their attempt to rescue an orphaned girl from theclutches of jewel thieves, a good-sized box-office hit. It is one ofthe Disney Co.'s better cartoon offerings from this period, though forgrown-ups it has little to offer beyond the frenetic action or thecurious penchant it has for lifting character traits and story devicesfrom "One Hundred and One Dalmatians". The star-voices (including BobNewhart, Eva Gabor, Joe Flynn and Geraldine Page) are terrific, and thefilm does get off to a rousing start, but it flags mid-way through.Followed by a belated, exceptionally thin sequel in 1990. ** from ****

I am one who thought it was a movie about two mice. How cute was what Isaid. I did not choose to watch because I was of the certain that itwas a movie for the children. On a day when I was alone, I watched themovie. This is because I wanted to watch some thing of light enjoyment.I am happy I did watch it. It is a nice cute story about two mice whomust do the travelling to rescue a little girl from a bad lady. I willnot do the spoilers in
here. This is because I am thinking you shouldwatch it for yourself. I like this movie. The animation is good. Themusic is good and sweet. I like Tomorrow Is Another Day. All the songsare good. I think I like the voices of the characters. Penny is adarling. The mice are good too. I like the backing grounds. They aredetailing every thing, and look real.

I gave this movie 8 out of 10. This is because the bird is not good. Ido not like the bird.

"The Rescuers " it's a great movie of Disney of the 70 ' . Theanimation is cute but with many details , but the best were thecharacters that were likable . Also ,the movie it's very entertainingand charming form beginning to end .

The movie follows a group of brave mouses , Beranrd and Bianca ,thathave the mission to rescue the orphan girl Penny ,of the evil thiefMedusa ,and for that they will have to travel into the jungle and facemany dangers .

I liked a lot this movie . It is one of my favorite movies of Disney,and I agree that it have all the elements to be considered a animatedclassic for all the family .Very Good !

Hilarious. Intrigue. Mystery. Two Little Mice. Great artwork and songs.The animation was O.K., but I thought it was too dark and creepy insome parts. Medusa was a good villain, but also very stupid. She pickedMr. Snoops for a sidekick. She has alligators for pets. She forces alittle girl to find a diamond, and everybody knows a little girl willeventually get tired of that and not want to do that anymore. Butobviously, Medusa does not care about that- the only thing she caresabout is having someone that is small enough go down into the hole andlook for the Devil's Eye, and Penny fits the bill. Lastly, she lives ina dilapidated old ship, that might sink or be overtaken with some othercrisis of misfortune at any time. I wish we would have taken the train!

This animated movie does do a convincing job at depicting what childrenshould never ever be put through, including going into hazardous, humidcaves in quest of diamonds. Geraldine Page's voice role as MadameMedusa leaves me to think that she wasn't a very likable actress orperson for that matter. I can cite her three appearances on thetelevision series "Rod Serling's Night Gallery" as an example, in theseries stories "Stop Killing Me," "The Sins Of The Fathers," and"Something In The Woodwork." Like her character in "Something In TheWoodwork," her character in this animated movie got her comeuppance!Her Madame Medusa role is one that would have been sufficient to earnher a slap across the chops! I am not saying this to raise the ire ofwomen's rights groups, I am only stating characters she has played arecold-hearted, uncaring, and mean spirited, not to mention annoying!

The lovely songs like "The Journey," "Tomorrow Is Another Day," and theOscar-nominated "Someone's Waiting For You," will be more than enoughto send you reaching for your Kleenex as a result of weeping. BobNewhart and Eva Gabor are superb in their voice roles of Bernard andBianca. He even sings well on "Rescue Aid Society."

One problem though, is that it's never explained why Penny waskidnapped besides the reason of her being small enough to retrieve theDevil's Eye diamond from a skull in a dark, humid, hazardous cave.Situations like this one of wrongful child labor and placing theirwelfare in jeopardy, even though this one was fictional, still make thehost of "America's Most Wanted," John Walsh, furious to this day, eventhough the case has now been solved about who murdered his son, Adam,in 1983.

The comic relief is used sparingly and in the appropriate places whereit is a welcome lift. Hopefully, Madame Medusa and Mr. Snoops gotarrested and executed. I found myself saying at one point viewing this,"Go to Hell, Madame Medusa!"

I can't fault this movie at all, other than to say the video I have isa bit grainy. The film is undeniably charming, based on the books byMargery Sharp, which I haven't read. Please stop criticising moviesbecause they are unfaithful to the books, because that is reallytiresome.

The animation was just wonderful, right from minute one. It matched themusic perfectly, and none of the characters were drawn stereotypically.I loved the fact they made the protagonists mice, which shows a lot oforiginality. I was laughing so much at the swamp animals scene, as itlooked so ridiculous.

The songs were outstanding, and beautifully song by Shelby Flint. I'veheard criticisms that the songs were lifeless and slow, but I stronglydisagree. The song at the beginning was beautiful beyond words, as wasthe one with Penny crying on the boat deck. They were truly emotional,and often misunderstood by people.

The characters were really funny, especially the two crocodiles, andOrville(especially when he cries "Mayday, Mayday!")Bernard wasbrilliantly voiced by Bob Newhart, likewise Bianca by beautifulHungarian actress Eva Gabor. Penny was really sweet, but thescene-stealer was Geraldine Page as Madam Medussa, who was such aconvincing villainess. She reminds me of Ursula from the LittleMermaid.

The script was both touching and funny. All in all, I recommend thisand the sequel (which isn't quite as good). 10/10.Bethany Cox

read comments (0)

The Replacements

Dear sweet lord, i didn’t think a movie could be so devoid of anythingreedeeming. Between the horrible acting performance turned in by Keanu"Whoa" Reeves and the blandest, most predictable plot line ever, theReplacements does not entertain for a single solitary second. It isunbelievable that with such a rehashed, recycled plot, that thewriter/director could still manages to leave so many flaws in the film.Rule # 1 if you are going to write a film about football, at least knowsomerules, at one point in this abomination of a film the Washington Sentinelsneed to retrieve an onside kick to stay alive, of course they in fact dothis and they advance the ball forward: NFL rule the kicking team can notadvance the ball if they recover it on an onside kick. Directly afterthisShane Falco, yes the quarterback is on the field on an onside kick,tackleshis own man and then calls a timeout: NFL rule the clock stop after thereturn man is tackled. These are just a few mistakes to harp on, but iwanted to point out that the basis for this film is football at least thedirector could know the rules. The football flaws pale in comparison totheatroscious characters in this film. Every single characater in the entiremovie is a stereotype, example Orlando Jones character is the incrediblyfast guy with no hands, ala Little Giants, there’s the drunkard, smoking,welsh kicker who is scrawny but still a badass, there are of course someofthe gansta african americans, a sumo wrestler!, the religious nice guy whoonly wants to catch one touchdown, and low and behold he catches it andshatter his knee on the play, it brings a tear to my eye. I gurantee ifthis idea was given to a drunk, semi retarded monkey he could of in factproduced a far more original, believable, and entertaining film than thenimrods who came up with this horrendous "comedy". The only thingslightlycomedic in this whole film was the fact that an esteemed actor like GeneHackman would agree to taked this role. 0/10 the worst movie ever. Ifyoulike football don’t see it, if you like Keanu Reeves don’t see it, If youlike sports drama don’t see it, if you like comedies don’t see it, if youlike movies in general don’t see it, if you like performing mysterysciencetheatre over a pile of crap film, by all means see it.

This is a very unoriginal cross between Major League and NecessaryRoughness, with less believable characters. Characters have no depth andKeanu Reeves has the same expression on his face throughout. I don’t thinkthat Gene Hackman has more than a couple pages of dialogue in the entiremovie. But then he doesn’t need to, the entire movie’s one big cliche. Theending can’t be ruined, because you can see it coming 90 minutes away. Justall-around bad.

THE REPLACEMENTS / (2000) 1/2* (out of four)

By Blake French:

I have always thought professional sports players make way too much moneyfor what they do. I hoped "The Replacements" would make a strong statementabout their greed and selfishness. "You’re being paid to play," a coachexplains to his replacement team, "and I want you to remember that, becausethe men whose places you’ve taken forgot that a long time ago." Withdialogue like that, we can explore a funny, biting satire about a socialissue.

"The Replacements" isn’t the movie I was hoping for and it does not make astand on greed or anything else. It’s a poorly constructed, shamelesslycontrived sports comedy/drama/romance about how a football team can win abig game. It’s also about love. The main star, Keanu Reeves, who has donemuch better than this, falls for a less than charming cheerleader/bar owner.We learn this in one of the film’s first sequences, where the two love birdsstare into each other’s eyes as boastful romantic music explodes on thesoundtrack. This is the kind of movie where the music sets the tone for thescene instead of the scene setting the tone for the music. Without themusic, this movie would not have any tone. Not that the music makes muchdifference. It still has no tone.

It’s difficult making a decent sports movie because it must involve theaudiences in the story both on and off the field. Oliver Stone could noteven do it successfully in "Any Given Sunday," but he did a lot better thanthis. Howard Deutch ("The Odd Couple II") does not stand a chance with thissheepish, cheap screenplay by Vince McKewin. The movie does not even knowabout the technical aspects of football. Although I would not know afootball from a bowling ball, here are a few factual errors the fine folksat the Internet Movie Database discovered:

· The team has to hire new cheerleaders when the players go on strike,presumably because the cheerleaders are unionized as well. However, we neversee any cheerleaders on the players’ picket lines.

· Falco leaves the team when Martel crosses the picket-line, but most NFLteams carry at least two but usually three quarterbacks in case ofinjury–Falco would only move to second string, and it would be the secondor third string quarterback cut.

· According to NFL regulations, a quarterback (or any other player) is notpermitted to remove their helmet in the huddle. Falco does this severaltimes throughout the movie.

· During an extra point attempt, the clock is running. In real football, theclock is stopped during extra point attempts.

Gene Hackman gives the movie it’s only light as veteran coach JimmyMcGinty. His team, the Washington Sentinels, must win three of their lastfour games to make the professional football playoffs. A player’s strikeoccurs; those greedy SOB’s want more money, as if five million a year isn’tquite enough to cover the cost of agents, layers, and insurance on Ferraris.McGinty agrees to hire replacement players. "They’ve all played footballsomewhere, not all of them in the pros. But they all have something uniqueto bring to the game. We’re gonna take those people and try to put togethera winning team. If nothing else, they should be fun to watch," he explains.

Scene after scene, "The Replacements" proves itself incompetent andfoolish. The scenes jump between angry players, romantic struggles, and footballgames. The film spews much unfitting humor into the mix. In once scene, awoman recklessly drives through oncoming traffic at high speeds. This is acontrived, recycled visual joke that isn’t developed or expanded upon. Itdidn’t work in "Speed 2: Cruise Control" and it doesn’t work here. "TheReplacements" also attempts for laughs through the cheer leading team. Thisis also a shallow sight gag; it does not advance the plot nor does it coveran important niche. There’s even a running joke where the football playerssing and dance to a popular alternative music number. It makes you wonderwhat you did to deserve such painful torture.

I have been reviewing movies for over five years now. I write four to fivefilm critiques per week-many negative. Even after doing this for so long,and sitting through so many terrible motion pictures, it still deeplydiscourages me to screen a movie as bad as "The Replacements," when I knowthis kind of material has potential. I not only feel sorry for theunfortunate viewers who sit through this junk, but also for the filmmakerswhereas it takes a lot of time and effort to make a movie, regardless of howbad. This was a waste of their time as well.

I question why actors like Reeves and especially Hackman would accept suchroles. In one scene, a character states: "I’ve seen monkey-s**t fights atthe zoo that are more organized than this." One could also say the samething about this movie.

If you want a boring, contrived hackneyed piece of garbage that doesn’thavea single laugh in it…then this is your movie.

If you want to hear such eyerolling and retching dialouge such as "Painheals and chicks dig scars but glory lasts forever"..
.then this is yourmovie.

If you want to see a movie in which women are portrayed as sex objects andbimbos…by all means, THIS is your movie.

If you want to see Gene Hackman and Keanu Reeves go through the motionswhile slumming it…then this is your movie.

If you want to see a half decent Howard Deutsch movie, go and rent SOMEKINDOF WONDERFUL.

If you want to hear a great rendition of Gloria Gaynor’s "I WILL SURVIVE",go and rent MAN ON THE MOON and watch Tony Clifton singit.

If you want to see a movie about plucky and scrappy underdogs who go fromthe doghouse to the penthouse…go rent Major League.

If you want to see a good football movie….leave this stinkbomb on theshelf and go rent ANY GIVEN SUNDAY

AVOID THIS MOVIE LIKE THE PLAGUE!

The premise that this is a feel good movie is completely destroyed bythe fact that ‘our heroes’ have essentially crossed a picket to attainthis status. They have a name for that where I come from.

I don’t care that it is overpaid sports ’stars’ that are the supposedvillains here. That is not an excuse, it’s sets a bad example and Iwouldn’t be a all surprised if the funding for this one came from alarge corporation or employers federation eager to plant the seed thatstrike breaking is indeed the all American way. Anyone who thinks thatshould take a closer look at the workers movement in the states andperhaps a good starting point would be the origins of May Day itself.Keanu’s million dollar smile can’t hide the maladaptive motives of thismovie.

If it weren’t for the very talented and very funny Orlando Jones, this moviewouldn’t have been worth watching, but thanks to lots of great scenes withOrlando Jones, the movie is somewhat worth renting even though I wouldn’tbuy it or anything. This is another one of those predictable sports comedieswith a thin script and bad acting [Orlando Jones is the only one who seemsto know how to act here]. The movie would have been better if the filmakerswere able to rise above the sports comedy genre and either spoof it orchange it. Instead of doing that, the filmakers bring us the same old stuffin this comedy that is only mildly amusing in some spots.

The Replacements is the kind of movie they should be showing in filmschool. We can all look at Chinatown, Don't Look Now, Witness, BringingUp Baby, Tokyo Monogatari, ET, Tootsie or Crimson Tide and see why theywork well. It would be more of a challenge to take a heap of dung likeThe Replacements and say, "Right, fix that." They ticked off all theboxes; a reluctant hero steps up for one final chance at glory andredemption. Mentored by a grizzly old coach, supported by a wacky butloyal group of peers, he battles adversity, wins the game, and gets thegirl. It could be Major League with more heart, or Bull Durham withmore laughs.

Except it doesn't work. It isn't funny (I felt for Gene Hackman tryingto wring a laugh out of mis-pronouncing 'wiry', I just wanted to go upand pat him on the back, say 'never mind, mate', buy him a beer…),and there is zero drama. The prison dance routine to 'I Will Survive'probably takes the prize for worst scene of all. I think they tried fora pastiche, aiming at camp, but it is just… so bad. It is likewatching one of those cabaret circuit stand-up comics dying slowly onstage, determined to make it through his routine despite the risingindifference of the audience. This is an absolute train-crash, bombedout horror of a movie, a real lesson in 'How Not To.' It does for thesports genre what Wing Commander did for sci-fi. I hope someone one daygets to record Hackman answering the question "Why?". The other actorscan at least say, "I wanted to work with Gene Hackman." What on earthis his excuse?

i was supposed to see a sneak of Nutty Professor II, but too many peopleshowed up and i got turned away. luckily, i noticed there was anotherscreening taking place - i managed to sneak my way in, and it turned outtobe The Replacements. now, i am in NO way a Keanu Reeves fan, but despitehis presence and some suspect plotting, this is a pretty fun film. thereare some good laughs, and i think Rhys Ifans is hilarious, so the humorwasa pleasant surprise. i’m not much into American football, but the actiononthe field was fine, they attempted some different things which is alwaysgood, and they managed to avoid a few of the standard cliches, if not allofthem. on the whole, i enjoyed it more than it bothered me, which for metosay about a Keanu film is something indeed. check it out, but turn offthemovie-plot-deficiency-detector part of your brain beforehand, yourenjoymentof the picture will be much the better for it.

Based of course, on the infamous 1987 NFL players’ strike, "TheReplacements" feels as if it should have been made in 1987. Featuring themind-numbingly stereotypical gaggle of misfits and outcasts, this filmdefinitely leans more towards "Major League" forgettability than "BullDurham" loftiness. And mind-numbingly-stereotypical might be the summary onthis turkey. Take a moment and consider every possible sports cliché youcan. Got ‘em all? No? Well, the makers of "The Replacements" left no clichéstone unturned, believe you me - capped off with the most inane rah-rahspeech ever put to celluloid (voiced soullessly by what-the-hell-am-I-doing-hereGene Hackman). By now you’re gettin’ that I didn’t appreciate this thing,and maybe you’re wondering "well, what about Keanu?"

Yeah, what about Keanu? Here’s a hint: Remember what Mark Hamill did between"Star Wars" movies?

For a film trumpeting the merits of second chances, Keanu clearly takes acolossal bite out of his at the Hollywood A-List (having secured it ofcourse, with "The Matrix", he is in full "Johnny Mnemonic" mode here). Ofcourse, with two more "Matrix" movies on the way, Keanu can quietly cash hischeck and move on. It makes one wonder though, that this is the same blokein "Little Buddha". Maybe the guy does have some acting range afterall.

Incidentally, the only saving grace maybe, was Jon Favreau as thebull-in-the-china-shop sack machine, even though he reminded me ofwhat’s-his-name from the "Police Academy" series.

Steer clear, men. Football season is only a few weeks away.

How’s THIS for originality: a down-on-his-luck team owner recruits a bunchof ‘wacky’ and ‘lovable’ losers and misfits (are there any other kind?)who’miraculously’ band together and not only make a team…they make (sniff)afamily. But since this a "man’s" movie, full of p**s-n-vinegar (yeah, theywish!), they’re not supposed to be so much of a family as a bunch o’buddies, lest anyone accuse them of being weak (hell, no!) or pansies (godforbid!) In the annals (for the illiterate, that has nothing to do withanyone’s butt) of cinema, there have been a good number of sports-themedcomedies: "Bull Durham", "Slap Shot", "The Bad News Bears", just to name afew, and while they, too, may hardly have been original, they at leastWEREwhat comedies are SUPPOSED TO BE: funny. In the course of nearly twohours,there wasn’t a single honest-to-goodness laugh. Hell, there wasn’t even amoment that brought a grin! The hard part (other than why this was made inthe first place) is where to lay the blame; the possibilities are endless.Let’s start with Keanu Reeves: there’s a reason why he’s in not featuredintoo many comedies and that reason is the guy just ain’t funny. And let’sface facts: he can’t act. Here, he is comatose, expressionless, with linereadings that can only be called robotic. And do YOU see HIM as aquarterback? Talk about miscast! Next is the writing - no cliche is leftunturned: will the former quarterback (Reeves) join the team? will he fallin love with the token female in the movie? w
ill there a be a characterwhois hard-drinkin’ and a wise-ass? will there be a sensitive moment when thecoach tells the quarterback that he’s the only one who really loves thegame? I could spend hours telling of every overworked theme that’s madeitsway into the movie; the sad part is that that would still be moreentertaining than this dreck. And how ’bout those supproting players…notonly do you get THREE - count ‘em: THREE! - blubbery fat guys (numerousshots of their bulging bellies - isn’t that funny?), but two are black andthe other’s Japanese, which provides countless laffs as they bounce racialslurs back and forth. Boy, there hasn’t been THIS level of hilarity sincethe OJ trial! And, fresh from his annoying 7-Up commercials, Orlando Jonesis featured in a role that is, essentially, "the girly-boy": not only doeshe hide during the inevitable barroom fight scene, but he’s also prettyfondof "I Will Survive"; still, to prove he’s "all man", the filmmakersprovidea few shots of him dancing suggestively with some blonde floozy. (Minusthedirty dancing, it could easily be Stepin Fetchit.) Jon Favreau portrays athe kind of character usually given a name like Killer or Meat: thesnarling- but wacky-n-lovable! - he-beast. He is, in one word, an embarrassment.Notfor a single moment is he believable. The worst fate is reserved for GeneHackman, who is slumming here; he performs every scene lackadaisically, asif his heart just ain’t in it. I certainly hope he was paid handsomely. Icertainly hope it was worth it. Continuing to put the blame where itbelongs, special mention must be made of the director, Howard Deutch, amanwho hasn’t helmed a worthwhile film other than "Grumpier Old Men"; as withhis other attempts at directing, this film is jumbled and at timesincoherent - often, it’s downright confusing as to just where this film isgoing (answer: nowhere) and what he’s trying to say (the only clearmessagewe get is this: rich=bad, poor=good, exemplified by the cartoonish proplayers who go on strike to earn more millions and theeven-more-cartoonishscabs who make up this motley crew whom we’re supposed to be rooting for).Whole scenes go absolutely nowhere, a problem not exactly helped byeditingthat appears to have been handled by someone blind wielding a gardenshears;numerous, useless shots seem thrown in blindly to pad an already-too-longmovie. And then there’s the photography: this is one UGLY looking film! Ithink there was an attempt to give the film a somewhat ‘gritty’ look butitserves only to make all involved seem vaguely unwashed. No, they look -well- skanky. (Which I suppose is only fitting for a story about a bunch oflosers.) Keanu comes off the worst: either he’s gettin’ a littlelong-in-the-tooth or it just looks that way; throughout the entire affair,it appears he’s just come off a long, long bender. Which might be a prettygood idea, now that I think about it; maybe if I had a few stiff drinks Icould forget I wasted my energy on this c**p.

read comments (0)

The Replacement Killers

Yun-Fat Chow ( John Lee) and Mira Sorvino(MegCoburn)(Paul Sorvino’s daughter and former star of "The Guiding Light TVSeries ‘52) burned up and exploded the entire film without even taking offtheir clothes. The photography was fantastic, showing scenes of Chineseculture in San Francisco’s Chinatown along with a boat ride down SanFranciso’s Bay near the Golden Gate Bridge and the container shipyards. Meg Coburn had her phony passport business blown away and her skirt seemedto get shorter and shorter in each scene. There was a great scene in a CarWash with all the brushes spinning and plenty of bullets flying all over theplace. This is a NO STOP ACTION FILM, which is just what you are going tosee, there really is no room to be critical about this film, just sit backand try to keep up with all the action if you can!

…. Though I guess that really shouldn`t be taken as a terrible criticism .After all John Woo appears in the credits as executive producer so you knowwhat to expect , you know that the man walking through the disco floor inthe opening sequence is going to get into a shoot out and you know what typeof shoot out he`s going to get involved with . That`s right one of thoseshoot outs where he flings his coat off , turns 360 degrees fires his gun ina ridiculously held manner , throws it away ( Even though there`s no wayhe`s used up all the rounds ) pulls out another gun and kills even more badguys

As I said it`s not really a criticism but like a Jerry Bruckheimerproduction I do get bored with these type of balletic choreography actionscenes rather quickly . Impressive first few times you see them , boring bythe time you get to the millionith time , and as you can imagine everythingis style over substance with people running around in slo-mo dodging bulletsthat seem to explode with everything they come into contact with

I will give the producers some credit for making a serious revenge flickthat tries to paint the characters as something more than just onedimensional cyphers , but like I said I`ve seen too many of these type ofaction sequences to still be impressed by them

Now I’ve seen some of Chow Yun-Fat’s Hong Kongese movies and I canunderstand why he’s so popular there. Some of his movies are really good.BUT this. What the heck was this movie anyways. The worst movie I ever sawin my life. It had no plot, no real story, just something even I couldhavemade up in 5 minutes, no good action , no acting, NOTHING. It sucked. Ifyoulike PURE action and nothing else. And I mean ‘nothing else’ then watchthis.But let me warn you. I’m very tolerant with movies. I love many actionmovies with no meaning at all, but this movie sucked too much. And theaction scenes also sucked. IT SUCKS.

The Replacement Killers is an average action movie. I happened to like it alot, but upon reflection, it is not the movie, but the stars, Chow Yun-Fatand Mira Sorvino, that make this movie so likeable. Sorvino is a highercalibre actress than most action films can boast. She is an oscar winner fora reason.

But Chow Yun-Fat!! I know that he has better films to his credit, but thiswas my first time to watch him and I watched this film three times,virtually back to back. He is the epitome of cool. I will see his otherfilms (John Woo’s "The Killer" is next on my list), but if nothing else, TheReplacement Killers has introduced Chow to moviegoers, like myself, thathave yet to see him act. I have a new film idol. And he is cool.

Lousy, worthless, dull, stupid, meaningless, insipid, weak, childish,wasted…. there are many ways to label this movie. But the most importantone is: meaningless. This film has absolutely no point whatsoever - at leastnot an intelligible one. I feel like I’ve seen most of the action a milliontimes, there is NOTHING special about it, and there are lots of films wherethe action is a hell of a lot niftier and cooler. And with that said, thisfilm becomes really, really, really bad.

It wouldn’t have gained publicity at all if there weren’t the possibility toslap a "John Woo"-label on it, and the lengths one has to go to, to actuallysee anything worthwhile in this film makes one wonder: is there a specialplace some movie directors go as pilgrims to learn How To Make John WooFlicks or is this just another piece of trash that should’ve stayed onpaper? If this Woo-school really is, well then this film sure is afreshman’s job.

When the baddest of the bad guy’s bad guys can’t kill the good guy, theycall in the "replacement killers" which makes them even badder. Of course,the hero then proceeds to "take out" the "replacement killers" and presto;he’s now the baddest dude on the planet. In "The Replacement Killers", Chow,the hero, teams up with Sorvino to take on a few regiments of assortedpock-marked faced villains in a series of fire fights with pauses in betweenwhere the meager story telling happens. Stylish, slick, and packing a magnumwallop, what this flick lacks in story it makes up for in spent brass andhot lead. A good action watch but don’t expect any major stunts,pyrotechnics, vehicle chases, sex or nudity.

When police officer Zedkov kills the son of Chinese crime lord Terence Weihe becomes a target of professional hitman John Lee. However when facedwith having to kill Zedkov’s seven year old son, Lee backs out and preparesto flee the wrath of Wei. Going to Meg Coburn for a passport is the settingfor an ambush where Lee and Meg escape together, both targets of Wei’s associates. The stakes are upped when replacement hitmen are brought in tokill Meg, Zedkov’s son and Lee.

Already a global star due to the iconic films and choreographed violence ofJohn Woo films, Chow Yun Fat came to America, had English lessons and wasput in a film that copies the formulae that had made him a huge success. The plot here is similar to that of The Killer, in that a hitman is crossedby his employers with the end result being gun fights a plenty. However thethemes running through that film are absent here and noise and actionreplaces them. That doesn’t mean that the film isn’t good, but rather thanbe different it feels like an average retread of the Hong Kongformula.

The action scenes are good without being great, lacking the flair of his HKwork. Partly this can be put at Fuqua’s door. Even with Woo as executiveproducer Fuqua can match the master for this sort of stuff. They areexciting but where in the same way that Woo’s first US film (Hard Target)felt like it was watered down, so too does this film feel like HK actiondone for a teenage American audience.

Fat is an excellent actor of great range but this film seems scared to havehim do anything beyond diving around with guns. His English dialogue islimited to a few lines at a time and any more detailed scenes are carried insubtitles. However in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon Fat could not speakmandarin and had to learn his lines phonetically – he can speak English hereso why not trust him enough to speak it. Sorvino is OK but her character isa little bit of a cliché and is a tough chick side kick at best. Rooker isalright but lacks screen time or a character to speak of. Likewise Prochnowis just a bad guy sidekick with little to do.

In HK Fat had great roles in ultra-stylish violent ballets with Woo. In hisfirst American film he has a standard American actioner which owes a lot toHK but never reaches the impact of those films at their best. Worst thanthat he is not allowed to act beyond limited dialogue and gun play. Is thisfilm bad? No, it is just quite average for anyone who has seen any of theWoo/Fat collaborations from HK although for an American action film this ispretty good value for 85 minutes.

Chow Yun-Fat stars as John Lee an assassin who bulks at killing a kid for amobster (Kenneth Tsang) who becomes
a target when the replacement killerscome to finish his job, he teams up with a forger Meg Coburn (Mira Sorvino)while they run for their lives in this sub par and empty actioner. I guessmy mistake was expecting much more from CYF’s American debut, because Don"The Dragon" Wilson could star in the movie in CYF’s part, and the moviewould have turned out the same. Too much style and not enough substance makeThe Replacement Killers a movie better left replaced.

The Replacement Killers is as mindless, senseless, tasteless, worthless amovie as you will ever watch on the big screen. It consists essentially ofone huge shoot-out which is interrupted a couple of times in order to givethe characters the opportunity to walk from one building to the next or toexchange a few comments on the last shoot-out or the one that’s going totake place within a couple of minutes. If you love the sound of machineguns, this is definitely your movie. If not, beware!

This movie has almost no plot, and so it relies on an almost endless seriesof shootouts to make up its hour and a half length. Don’t get me wrong, Ilike a good action shooter film, but this just isn’t one of them. Thetrailers for the film touted Academy Award winner Sorvino, but her actingcontribution is non-existent. This one isn’t even worth arental.

read comments (0)

The Remains of the Day

This is Merchant Ivory’s best film.

Tony Hopkins and Emma Thompson are superb.

This period drama is set in the mid to late 1930’s before the outbreakof the Second World War.

Tony Hopkins plays Mr. Stevens, a butler in the household where a hugeconference on the state of Europe and effects a war could have on itand the rest of the world takes place.

The cast including James Fox, Hugh Grant, Christopher Reeve and MichaelLonsdale give performances that stand out in this thought provokingfilm.

Fascinating. Just what goes on and interesting characters. No realsurprisesthough. Has some moral dilemmas that are very interesting. Following ordersis the central theme. Everyone pretty much stays in character. All thecharacter details seem carefully woven together.

I was pleasantly surprised by this movie–I thought I would be boredbut since it had both Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson in it, Idecided to watch it anyway. Their acting was superb–I felt AnthonyHopkins should have won the Oscar for best actor in thismovie–especially in the scene where his father has a heart attack inthe middle of a very important dinner with very important guests andAnthony Hopkins has to continue with his duties as head butler. Hemanages to control his emotions but his eyes tells it all–how deeplyhurt he is. No overacting here. In another scene where Emma Thompsontells him that she is leaving to get married–I have never seen suchgreat acting in my life! I could almost feel his pain–losing the onlywoman he has ever loved. While his decision to let her go is certainlyfoolish, one can only watch in wonder how flawlessly Anthony Hopkinsacted out this scene and it is repeated much later when he goes tovisit Emma Thompson at the conclusion of the film.

Great movie, great acting all the way. I could scarcely believe thatthe script was written by a Japanese–he really showed what that"British stiff upper lip" is all about…

The Remains of the Day has profound meaning that may not easilydiscerned at first. The inability to express ones feelings, is itbetter to be more objective or subjective as a person, finding meaningin your work, the wisdom and indiscretion of youth, the inability tocommunicate, the relationship between father and son related to therelationship between employer and employee and a lost love. The listgoes on. The Butler (Anthony Hopkins is truly a tragic figure whobecause of pride and upbringing cannot get himself to express his truefeelings toward Miss Clinton(Emma Thompson).

What maybe even more tragic he cannot tell his own father as his fatheris dying that he loves him. Hopkins inability to express his love forthe people in his life haunts him until the bitter end. It leaves himtrapped wanting to be free like the pigeon who flew into the wrong roomat the end of the movie and was let go. Watch the movie again.

‘Remains of the Day’ exhibits all the hallmarks of the Merchant/Ivorytrade-craft. Beautiful photography, a beautiful musical score, fineediting, excellent dialog, natural character development and exquisitesettings. And last but not least a marvelous cast of actors at the toptheir collective form. Anthony Hopkins has done nothing better. Hisrestrained portrait of the Butler, Stevens, is one of the finestattempts at the portrayal of true servitude, without suffering, that Ihave ever seen. I say, without suffering, because I don’t think Stevenssuffers. I think he is very aware of what others experience, as far asclose emotional attachments and self-expression, but does notparticularly covet those things. He is something we don’t understandanymore, someone who lives to serve, in the best sense of the word. Ialso do not think Stevens is a naive person; though perhaps shelteredby the circumstances of his career, he fully knows HOW to find outwhat’s going on the outside world, if he wanted to.

Emma Thompson’s housekeeper, Miss Kenton, is from that outside worldand attempts to broaden Mr Stevens’ horizons by forcing him to facewhat she thinks are his own self-imposed limitations. She is right, orcourse, in that Stevens does indeed impose limitations on himself, butshe also has a hidden agenda. She is in love with him. Perhaps he lovesher but that is something he has sacrificed, willingly, to perform hisjob to the best of his abilities. We might not understand this attitudenow but those were different times when the feudal spirit was stillflickering in its last days of existence in England. All gone now.

I found ‘Remains of the Day’ to be a fascinating glimpse into the dayto day activities in a great house run along the lines of ancienttraditions, and it is also an attempt to portray our struggle withourselves and our consciences; cowardice resulting from fear, breakingthe bounds of tradition, love vs. duty and honor and all that self-helpsort of thing.

The only truly false and ridiculous note in the film is when LordDarlington asks his butler to explain the facts of life to Darlington’sGod-son, Hugh Grant, a young man in his twenties. This was totallyabsurd and I doubt if the most empty-headed, negligent peer ever knownto man, whoever he might have been, would have given the facts of lifea second thought. Most schoolboys learned about sex at a very early agewithin the English public school system and by other more sophisticatedmeans at their disposal. I suggest reading books by Evelyn Waugh andGraham Greene for the real skinny on that topic.

I also found Congressman Lewis (Christopher Reeve) to be a highlyfictional creation. America did not give a damn about World War 2 untilwell into the fighting action, and France and most of the Continent hadfallen to Hitler’s army, only then did F.D.R. come to the aid ofEngland. In the mid 1930s when this film takes place, America was notconcerned with German aggression. In fact our Ambassador to the courtof St James, Joseph Kennedy Sr, was an admirer of Hitler, resulting inF.D.R. calling him back to Washington and giving him other work to do.He was an embarrassment but still America did not act in the interestsof England to cut Germany off at the pass BEFORE a war was started.Reeves’ speech, therefore, at the great dinner is completely bogus andthe creation of a modern author looking back and using his creativeimagination to put forth an anti-aristocracy diatribe out of the mouthof Congressman Lewis.

The other historical figure shown in this film is Sir Oswald Mosley,though under the name of "Sir Geoffrey" something or other. He isportrayed as a grim-lipped monster, quite unlike the true personalityof Mosley, the founder of the British Union of Fascists, aka BlackShirts. Mosley had a large following among average British citizens ofthe day and it wasn’t until the press and the communists put him intheir sights that he was arrested and imprisoned for the balance of thewar. Prior to the formation of the B.U.F. Mosley was widely consideredone of the most brilliant politicians in Parliament and was oftenconsidered as a possible Prime Minister. This aspect of the truth wasentirely ignored in the portrayal of "Sir Geoffrey" who was simplyshown as a nasty little vegetarian bully spouting Hitlarian epithets,something Oswald Mosley never did. This isn’t to defend Mosley or hisB.U.F but simply to highlight the interpretation of history that hasbeen put into the script.

So why do I like this film? I’m not sure. I love the house and itsfurnishings and the activities of the below-stairs staff. The chemistrybetween Emma Thompson and Anthony Hopkins is fascinating.

In the end I enjoy it is a glorified house-tour wrapped up in awell-written dialogue. I don’t see this film as being particularlytragic, or about thwarted love, on the part of Stevens anyway. As MissKenton comments upon getting hold of a book Stevens is reading in hisroom…"It’s just a sentimental old love story." That would describethis film from Miss Kenton’s point of view, but not from
Stevens’ Ithink. He would have viewed this film as a tale of all the underminingpolitical forces that brought about the downfall of an ancient andnoble tradition in England, and he would not have liked it at all. Amelancholy and often touching film which is beautiful to watch, andlittle more.

I give this film a 6 out of 10.

I have seen this film many times and every time the subtleness of thecharacters comes to mind. Is it a story about missed opportunities?Decisions one would like to undo? About love and duty? About the secondworld war and its aftermath? The acting is absolute superb, and it isThompson and Hopkins at their best. The "bookscene" is unforgettable,and assumes growing importance when seeing this film more often.

SPOILER The only drawback may be that America was, historically seen,not much interested in the second world war, which is contrary to theAmerican character in the film, who seems to be very much involved inEuropean politics at that time.

But apart from that one can only applaud the producer, director, scripteditor and actors of making such a beautiful product.

Reading through the comments on this movie I find the people who didn'tlike it, found it to be "terribly slow, no romance, unbearably stuffy,no one could possibly be so blindly loyal, etc." The entire premise ofthe story, the basis for the story, is exactly what they do not like.This is quite sad. Anyone who enjoys history can follow the meetingsthat go on at the house. Anyone can understand the butler's feelingsthat he is below these talks and not informed well enough to passjudgment on his peers, nor why he would NEVER pass judgment on themeven if he were in fact informed enough. That he can not warm to thecare of another is also understandable when you see the totalcommitment he has to his position. There is, in fact, a very tenderlove story here. You have to look for it. I found movie totallybeautiful and superbly portrayed. It is too bad there aren't any beingmade today to match it.

The british class system is very unique, the distinction between master andservant existed very long in Great Britian, maybe even longer than in everyother country in the world. Oddly enough few films have taken a closer lookat that special environment. This insightful film did it and that withinsight and great success.

The movie starts in the 1950’s. Darlington Hall had been sold to a richAmerican politician (Christopher Reeve), the old Lord has died without anheir. Stevens (Anthony Hopkins), the butler stays still in contact with aformer housekeeper Miss Kenton (Emma Thompson), for she might return to runthe house. In flashbacks their story is told.

In the 30’s Lord Darlington (James Fox) is a fierce supporter of Hitler,believing that the Nazis will rebuilt Germany and make it a proud nationonce again. To find supporters for his cause he invites several diplomatsfrom different nations. This shows that the there were great sympathies forthe Nazis all over the world (something those countries like to ignore orforget). In these turbulent days, Stevens serves his master without everdoubting him. Even when he finally is alarmed (Lord Darlington insists ondismissing two maids because they are Jews), he does what he was told. Loveblossoms between him and Miss Kenton, though he cannot admit it. He’sextraordinary stiff and suppresses his feelings, unable to show any form ofemotion. She desperately tries to get an emotional response from him,fighting with him, shouting at him over some nonsense. But she cannot reachhim emotionally. Finally she agrees to marry a man she doesn’t love to forceStevens to finally admit his feelings for her. But he doesn’t and shemarries and leaves Darlington Hall.

This is one of my personal favourite Merchant-Ivory production, beautifullycrafted, this story of unfulfilled love is deeply touching. It’s aboutinability to find happiness and the choices we make and the result thatremain of these choices. It’s about trust and loyalty without ever trying tothink for yourself. Stevens realizes to late, that his master has done wrongand in the end he’s embarrassed and ashamed that he didn’t have the strengthto think for himself.

After their first pairing together in `Howards End’ Emma Thompson andAnthony Hopkins once again are on screen. They are brilliant, never strikinga wrong note, absolutely perfect. Together they create more chemistry andsexual tension (yes, they do) than some couples in Hollywoodmovies.

They are supported by a terrific cast, the wonderful James Fox, ChristopherReeve, Lena Headey, Ben Chaplin and (in a pre-romantic comedy part) HughGrant.

This is one of my all time favourite films and I’ll never tire ofwatching it. You are drawn into the film and actually feel like you areseeing this world of appeasement and stately homes through eachindividual actor’s eyes. You can see the passion in the butler’s eyes,never-mind how much he tries to hide it. You sense the housekeepersdespair at ever reaching the butler through his ‘unseeing’? eyes. Eachtime I watch it I feel a new intensity and the film proffers many morequestions. The acting? Ludicrously excellent all round, with Hopkinsand Thompson digging gold. Making you believe that they really don’tknow what awaits the world around the corner.

I had seen this movie before, but it was on television (one of the "ondemand free movies" we get with our cable company)and I remembered thatI liked it, so I watched again. I was almost immediately drawn in tothis fascinating story, engrossed in the intricacies of the plot. Thisreminded me of Gosford Park, in that there is a lot of food for thoughthere. Emma Thompson is excellent, as is Anthony Hopkins. What fineperformances from both of them! I had forgotten that Hugh Grant was inthis. His performance was also well done, and understated. ChristopherReeve also had what amounted to a cameo; this movie was made a coupleof years before his accident. It’s hard to describe the plot, as thereis so much going on. Hopkins plays a butler; his goal is to be thefinest butler he can be, and one of the best qualities a butler canhave is loyalty. Yet, he slowly (very very slowly) realizes thatperhaps loyalty, when displaced, is not actually a virtue. Thompsonplays the young housekeeper who is very good at what she does, yet sheis (by the character’s own admission) a coward. The main storylineconcerns the butler’s unrequited love for the housekeeper, and it isheartbreaking! This is not a film that everyone will enjoy, but thesubtleties made it one that I’ll most definitely watch again. I highlyrecommend it, with the caveat that if you’d rather watch an actionpicture, this won’t be for you.

read comments (0)