The Lord of the Rings

Also known as "The Unintentional Comedy of the Ring".

Honestly - I have nothing against old films. I quiet respect that we'respoiled these days by great and ever improving special effects thatthey just didn't have back then. There's nothing wrong with that, andthere are many films from before 1990 that I love.

But this adaptation of "The Lord of the Rings" is just a case of"couldn't be bothered".

The rotoscoping is the first point of complaint as it just looks plainawful - how much more effort would it have been to draw all those orcsif they were going to colour over the live action anyway? The allanimated characters like Gandalf and the hobbits show that theanimators employed didn't lack the talent or enthusiasm so I don't getthe point of the rotoscoping at all.

To anyone who's read the books I needn't mention all the stuff theyrandomly left out - sure, you have to leave stuff out in every filmadaptation, but if the rest of the film is that bad you just don't getaway with it. I won't bitch about that though, it's just another factthat makes this film less great than Tolkien's work deserves.

What bothers me the most is the abrupt and completely random endingright after the battle of Helm's Deep. "And so the evil forces weredriven from Middle Earth forever with the help of the friends ofFrodo." Apart from making it sound like a Disney film entitled "TheAdventures of Frodo" in which Aragorn, Gandalf, etc. are meresidekicks, it's entirely untrue. If they were going to make "Return ofthe King" as well for it to work as a sequel, why did they make theending of "Lord of the Rings" (which by then is supposed to be "The TwoTowers", but nevermind…) sound like it WAS actually the ending? Itsounds like they've expected us to lose the plot halfway through -entirely possible, but I HAVE watched it several times, and even if Ihadn't, it was random the first time I saw it.

Then there are the errors and inconsistencies, of which there areplenty, but I'm sure someone else has listed them. I'll only mentionthe one that bugs me the most and just shows how little effort musthave gone into the production of this film - Saruman and Aruman?! Ifyou look at the trivia here on IMDb it states that halfway throughproduction, the makers thought Saruman and Sauron sounded too alike andthus they referred to The White Wizard as "Aruman". (Nevermind that heisn't the White Wizard to start with as he's wearing RED in every scenehe appears in.) But in the beginning they still call him "Saruman". Ifthey were so desperate to make such a moronic change at all, how mucheffort would it have been to re-record any scene that Saruman wasreferred to by his proper name in to replace it with "Aruman"?! Well,this mistake, like the rest of the film, makes for a nice joke betweenmyself and my significant other anyway. Hence the subject line.

I would recommend this film to Tolkien nerds like myself who, apartfrom being interested in seeing some shots that look like they inspiredPeter Jackson, are out for unintentional comedy. Because while thisfilm fails at a lot, I'm still very glad I have it, as it never ceasesto amuse me.

This movie was one of the worst movies that I've seen . Notice that Idon't say one of the worst animated movies ,but one of the worst moviesever made ! See this movie it's like see all your family be killed infront of you . I read "The Lord of the Rings " trilogy of books when Iwas a kid . And I loved the movies of Peter Jackson .But thisabomination lacks of any beauty or inspiring element of the books .Instead of that ,we have a ugly and poorly made trash that isn't evenwell animated .

First of all ,the technique of draw over real people don't make it morerealistic ,it just make it more expensive . And what's the big deal ?It doesn't look better than any Saturday cartoon .The hyper activecharacters that constantly are moving from one side to other (even ifthere is no real reason for that ) lack of personality : we haveAragorn ,the old and pant-less , native American .We have Sam who is acompletely and useless retarded .We have Gimli ,the human ,becuase itseems that Bakshi ignores that the book clearly says that he is dwarf .And we have all the orcs and other monsters that in this movie aren'teven animated .Those monsters aren't terrifying ,they just look stupid.I mean ,it's obvious that are men with a disguise . Also ,the animatedand the real action character don't go very well together . The dialogsit's inane and dull . The narration it's poor and full of mistakes andplot holes . By last ,this movie don't have an ending , and it let manythings floating in the air .

I guess that my review was too gentle describing how bad is thisatrocity . I don't know in what the hell the people behind it werethinking , but I guess that they must be on drugs or something likethat . This crap should have never seen the light of day ! It sucks! Itdeserves less than zero ,but 1 it's the lowest score in IMDb .

Why does 1 have to be the lowest rating? I loved the books. I loved themovies by Peter Jackson. I even thought the "Hobbit" movie had a bit ofquirky charm. But then I saw this one. It is a soul-eating experiencefrom start to finish.

The movie starts with "shadow-fighting", which is, for those of you whodon't know, very weird. Not only that but SLOW MOTION shadow-fighting!Then it goes to the Shire, where a badly animated Gandalf holding astaff with what looks like a kidney at the top is visiting Bilbo's111th birthday party. This is some of the worst animation I've everseen, by the way. Bilbo disappears, as does Gandalf. Then the narratorsays, "17 years passed," and we are shown as the seasons change at arapid pace of all 17 of these years. Then Gandalf comes back, twirlingand chanting about the ring, Frodo spinning around him. Maybe Bakshiwanted to make a musical. From there, the overeager hobbits are chasedout of their homes by Ringwraiths whose eyes change color from red toblue. Sometimes Gandalf's kidney staff also changes from brown to redfrom time to time. From here the movie goes downhill in epic scale.

I've read a good review of this movie which describes all of its sadaspects in great detail on another site, and I don't want to retracetheir steps, so I'll stop writing. Now I have a bad taste in my mouth.

If I’d have to choose between the new Lord Of The Rings part.I and theoriginal. I would say that the older is way better than the new one. I’mnotone of those people who says that originals are always better, I’m justsaying that the old one more unique than the new and it catches thefeelingsof the book waaaaaaaaaay better than the new thanks to the brilliant blendof animation and real life actors. As the new movie got all the specialeffects easily because of computers, the director didn’t really had achanceto show his full creativity. Plus the computer made effects sometimes aretoo flashy (the big fireworks bang at the beginning for example). The 1978version had this mood that is bleaker and genuine because it reliedcompletely on the plot. Actors too were convincing. Perhaps mostimportantlyit showed real ingenuity. This film shouldn’t be forgotten as some vintagejunk. Even though the newer version is good, it’s not a classic andtherefore not really worthy of consideration for being the film equivalentfor the first book.

This is the film that began my endless quest for _more_ tales of MiddleEarth… In what began as a less expensive, less time consuming, and less"theatrical" story-telling, this film none-the-less; fully provides alltheelements needed to stimulate every human sensation. Even in this being ananimated versio
n, you experience no sense of loss due to the lack of humancharacters… the skill of the film crew [from top to bottom] added withthesuperb voice/character dubs, creates a realism missing in most movies,animated or "real".The only problem is: it’s a genuine _shame_ that those who brought us thismovie classic, could/did not produce and release the conclusion to one ofHollywood’s [and mostly honorable, J.R.R. Tolkien's] greatest efforts instory-telling.

I cannot even begin to explain how lackluster this movie is. Afterviewing this, many questions came to mind, but first and foremost wasthis: Did they just color over live-action for the battle sequences? Imean, it has to be the single worst execution of a technique ever usedin the history of animation. This movie is just plain ugly. Viewing atrash heap writhing with maggots is more appealing to the eyes thanwatching this film. Worse than this, the action and voice acting, bothrather clunky and sterile, combine to form a completely emotionlesstelling of the tale. Your ninety-year-old grandmother could offer amore riveting reading of the tale than this film. Do your self a favor:Stick to Peter Jackson or the books, and disavow all knowledge of ananimated version.

I’ve seen webpages dedicated simply to putting this film down. Yet afterbeing totally blown away by the spectacular work of Peter Jackson and histalented cast and crew, I decided to go against the warnings of these wiseviewers and see this film.

It was a disaster. It made all of Tolkien’s work into a laughingstock. Whydo I say that? Because I laughed my way through the entire 133 minutes ofthe movie.

There were many moments when I wanted to cry a river, however. The moviejumped from scene to scene so fast, it often left me questioning why Bakshieven bothered to make the film. To get the true essence of Tolkien, one mustmove slowly with the progression of the storyline, with GRACE…one thingthis film apparently thought of as unnecessary. The characters lacked life,lacked personality… In Jackson’s film, I was upset at the death ofBoromir; in this film, I nearly fell asleep while watching it. Bakshi didn’tknow a darn thing about drama, it seems. Whenever there was a part thatcalled for hysterics, the characters did not show it. And the BALROG…don’teven get me started on how much of a JOKE that thing was. TheRingwraiths–same thing applies. Everything that was SUPPOSED to be scary orserious was funny. And the coloring of the film was awful…everything wasin some shade of gray, black, green, or brown. After a half an hour, it wasan eye sore.

Also, the relationships between many of the characters were not explored indepth and often left me with questions in my head (and not just aboutBakshi’s sanity) — i.e. Sam’s relationship with Frodo. The cartoonanimation dubbed over the live action looked terrible — it made theanimated characters stand out like pink elephants, and the orc scenes lookedlike some poor film cut from a 1930s horror flick. Tolkien seemed to paintAragorn as a handsome character in the movie…yet in this, he looks like anugly native American in a miniskirt. Gandalf comes off not as thegrandfatherly figure he was, but as some distant, cold prophet ofdoom.

To its benefit, Bakshi’s disaster of a film did explain some things thathappened which Peter Jackson did not, and it *did* have its degree ofcuteness. But that hardly makes up for the errors. After seeing this film, Iwanted to run back to theatres to see the superior version again–my eyeshave been soiled! See this if you want a laugh, or if you’re very curious.Or better yet, see this if you want to make your first seeing of Jackson’s’Fellowship’ even more enjoyable than it already is. My score: *1.5 out of5*

I know that scores of others have said what I’m about to say, but I don’tcare. Animation is supposed to be able to do more than live action on asimilar budget. I doubt that Fantasia could have been done in live actionin 1940. That being said, the animation in Bakshi’s LOTR does not compareto the classic (like them or not; Tolkien did not) Disney films of the30s-50s, nor to live action movies of the time. Star Wars came out theprevious year, and Empire was only a year or two away.

Yes, I know this LOTR was low budget, but so was Star Wars ($11 mil).Heck, Star Wars cost only a quarter of what was spent to make the 1963 LizTaylor Cleopatra. HECK, Bakshi’s LOTR had $8 million to spend. That’sright, it cost almost as much as Star Wars and E.T. to make, and it lookslike CRAP. Look, you can like some of the characterdesigns (I HATE THEM), but you must agree that the film itself is ugly, andway too dark. Not just that, but the backgrounds and artwork is terrible,dark, uninspired, and NOT beautiful, ever. An extremely low budget pieceofwork (like a video game) can be breathtakingly beautiful due solely to theartwork.Much of the emotional impact of LOTR lies in the relationship betweenFrodo and Sam. When Sam looks and moves like he does here, there can be noemotional attachment to him. I mean, Lord in Heaven what the heck wasBakshi thinking??? Sam is a gardener, and of a lower class than Frodo. Heis not mentally handicapped. He’s NOT. Oh man,I’m letting the anger get the better of me. *takes deepbreath*It’s obvious that Peter Beagle didn’t quite study LOTR hard enoughbefore writing the screenplay. To condense a work into film, an extremelydeep and intricate knowledge of the work is required. Then you canproperlydecide what to cut out, and what elements mean and how they must be used tokeep the spirit of the work intact. Peter Beagle did not do this. Also,how many people do YOU know that are LOTR geeks and know how to pronouncewords like "Iluvatar" and "Arwen Undomiel."? I know a few (and am one),andcan’t imagine that Bakshi couldn’t find any who would be willing to spendabout fifteen minutes telling the voice director how stuff is pronounced.Heck, how many LOTR geeks would have done it for free just to be involvedwith the movie? *deep breath*

Bottom line: this movie is terrible. TERRIBLE. I can’t understand howpeople like it, especially those that like it better than the Peter Jacksonfilm. The Nazgul-in-Bree scene is better in Bakshi??? Both scenes arebasically the same, except one overuses the lame silhouette-on-red trickandone actually uses good cinematic techniques. Am I being unfair? Immature?I think the craptacular crapulent crapulosity of this film speaks foritself. *cups hand to ear*

"If the author tells you how something is pronounced in the back of thebook, then you MUST pronounce it right." - Christopher Lee, the best"Aruman" there ever was.

Oh, let’s face it folks. Especially from the jaded post-nineties point ofview, this movie is bad in nearly every way a movie can aspire to be bad…oh, there are a few redeemable qualites. Not many, but afew.

Firstly I want to know what Monsieur Bakshi was thinking when he decidedrotoscoping would be a good idea. It wasn’t, and as the film progresses therotoscoping gets to be more and more irritating. The beginning of themovie, done completely in sillouhettes, had me in stitches. The only partof that that isn’t hilariously awful is the part with Sméagol and Déagol inthe river. Then it moves on, and there are certain quirky moments thatmakes you wonder what the filmmakers were thinking. (The seasons changingthat resembles a strobe light, that awkward pause where Gandalf stands andpoints at Frodo for a good ten seconds, et cetera).

Most of the characters, as opposed to Peter Jacksons BRILLIANT (don’t carewhat anyone says) version, have no personality. Gandalf is simply aprophetof doom, Aragorn is a mysterious Indian who looks angry a lot, and ofcourseBoromir has a silly looking horn helm and no pants on. Frodo isn’t so bad,even if he is a little too tall to be inconspicous (yes I know Tolkien sayshe’s taller than most, but he’s still too tall!) Sam
apparently is theresult of Mrs. Gamgee having consumed too much crack, or perhaps simplemental retardation. Either way, it makes Sean Astin (Sam Gamgee in PeterJackson’s version) seem like a God among actors. Gollum is mostly alright(excepting the parts in which he sounds like a child molester what with his"niiiice maaaaaster rowr!") And there are lots of pointless inclusions.Why include Treebeard if he’s not going to do anything? Why show brokenNarsil if it isn’t going to be reforged? Et Cetera. Either way, it’s onlyworth seeing if you go into it not expecting to be impressed. Otherwise,it’s hilarious.

After watching the New Line version of the Fellowship of The Ring, Ithoughtthat this version of the movie would be good. What was I thinking? Thismovie is absoulutely HORRIBLE. Don’t believe me? Oh, you should. Why didSamlook like a mafia tomato? Why did he act like he wanted everyone to die ahorrible death? Why did the Nazgul wear BROWN?! why was Legolas a crosseyedfreak? How come Saruman didn’t even restrain Gandalf on top of isengaurd?What was the point of adding Live action/animation characters to the mix?That is the equivilent of making 2/3 people in a scene CGI. Other thingstolook for are a scene were a Nazgul waddles and what Sam has done in thebushes, and the Chinese Lothlorien(complete with a statue of Bhudda). Thefirst half of the movie is so bad it’s funny, but the last half is justboring and they must have been running out of money and paint becauseeverything was in yellow, black and red. If you want lord Of The Rings,seethe New Line version, not this horrible mess.Avoid unless you want to see a fine example of a terriblefilm.In the openning, why did Gollum look like the Grinch…

read comments (0)

The Last Waltz

THE LAST WALTZ is an enjoyable viewing if you’re a fan of THE BAND and theperformers that join them on their final show. Shot with 35mm and adornedwith a magnificent stage design, the images are stunning. On the otherhand, Scorsese’s interviews are weak, his staged sequence of "The Weight"forgettable, and final montage a complete bore. Than again, not liking THEBAND makes me biased so I don’t want to go on some ignorant rant.

I mean, I discovered Robbie Robertson is a cool dude, two members of thegroup have since killed themselves, and that Scorsese is a madman. Still,if you want a picture that truly captures the spirit of rock, let me suggestGIMME SHELTER. Although not as stylistically elaborate or well conceived,GIMME SHELTER is ten times more entertaining.

This is a documentary of one concert, The Band's final concert,interspersed with mildly interesting interviews. They are very talentedtraditional rock musicians, but unless you're a fairly big fan of theirmusic you'll probably end up bored with this movie. Or, if it's on TV,you'll be flipping around to other channels to see if anything betteris on.

For exaggerated reasons that frustrate me, this film is constantlylisted among the greatest rock-documentaries of all time. It's not.Perhaps it's over-rated simply because Scorcese directed it. Perhapsit's overrated because some of the camera angles are pretty cool.Perhaps it's overrated because of all the big-name musical guests whoappear. But, none of the guests are in their prime, save Dr. John whonever seems to age and Neil Young who never seems to change. But, stillit's not their best performances. And The Band needs guests to sustaininterest. Afterall, this is "The Band" so-named only in relation toother musicians– their major claim to fame is that they played as BobDylan's backup band in the 1960s. Robbie Robertson is handsome, but aterrible singer. The guitar parts are boring (One Dylan biography evendescribed The Band's inability to intuitively jam on stage when Dylanbegan noodling on his guitar), yet their playing ignores the folk andblues derived melodies, and the originals all sound alike.

The film is highlighted, musically, by Dr. John smiling and playingpiano, Muddy Waters standing there and singing on The Band's lacklusterperformance of "Who Do You Love," Bob Dylan's cool hat, Emmylou Harrislooking pretty during a rehearsal, The Staple Singers stealing the showon "The Weight" (it's hilarious when the film goes back to the band,when the bass-player sings the verse, he looks so unprofessional andgoofy in comparison to the Staples' authentic soul. The Staples reallyhelped the set!), Joni Mitchell's weird, aimless song, and that's aboutit. Van Morrison looks fat and miserable. Neil Diamond sings an oldclassic of his without verve or variation (or movement). Neil Youngseems distracted during his dull performance (but Scorcese doesn't evenshow the cocaine on his nose). And, the best part is probably theencore-scene, just the Band playing "Greensleeves" on old-timeyinstruments while the credits role. But it's only the names that appearthat are historic, none of the performances are really historic. Iguarantee this film won't last. It's all hype. It's not interestingenough (and The Band is not charismatic enough) to sustain itselfthrough generations.

There are some kinda-amusing, but overall meaningless anecdotes told byThe Band during interviews, placed in between songs… but mostly it'sjust them jabbering about their embarrassingly half-thought ideas aboutthe world (While not quite as stupid-sounding as the parody-interviewsin "This Is Spinal Tap," Robbie Robertson still does come off as ahigh-blown dumbass) and why the music they like is the best music inthe world, which is supposed to give credence to their overall-mediocreoriginals.

Also, what's with the confederate flag hanging behind them in theirkitchen, or trailer, or wherever it is they're being interviewed.They're from Canada! (Except for Levon Helms, who plays his drumshunched over like a praying mantis– cute.) Are we supposed to likethese guys? The Last Waltz truly exposes them as a bunch of derivative,blown-up musical hacks who possess both fake accents and a freakishobsession with the American south.

There is talent on display in "The Last Waltz," and often, butunfortunately it's usually it's aimless and floundering. The overallaffect can be boredom if you're not already a hardcore fan. However,the documentary is a worthwhile watch if you're bored or interested inlearning the stories behind rock bands.

Dylan never even considered these guys his best backup band. He knew.

Take a fine director, great camera work - at 35mm, mix with THE

BAND at their height and just about anybody who could play well

enough to appear on the same stage with The Band and you have

The Last Waltz.

Robbie Robertson and Marty Scorsese set the bar as high as it

could go with this film.

The DVD has some great interview material and a couple of

additional extras as well as really great sound!

If The Band, Bob Dylan, Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Eric Clapton,

Ronnie Hawkins, Paul Butterfield, MUDDY WATERS!, Ringo Starr,

Ron Wood, Neil Diamond (?), Emmylou Harris, the Staples

Singers, Van Morrison and Dr. John are your idea of musicians -

this is your film!

Everybody is outstanding and The Band is on fire…but Ronnie

Hawkins and Dr. John give over-the-top performances in a concert

with nothing less than fine performances by all.

A headstone at the end of the road.

In a way, this is the film equivalent of the Rolling Stone’s weary,drug-addled 70’s masterpieces like "Exile on Main Street." Man, theseguys look TIRED. Not one is even 40 yet, but they all sound like theyare speaking from beyond the grave. It’s hard to imagine that thismovie has inspired anyone to pick up a guitar and go on the road. Italmost comes off as a cautionary tale, a VH1 Behind the Music withoutthe second-act redemption. The stench of drugs, desperation and defeatare truly palpable.

I think the musical performance here is somewhat overrated (most of themany great moments are provided by the guest artists, not by The Band),but as a document of a certain moment in time, this film has no peers.

This film does a great job chronicling the entire history and career of TheBand. The 35mm format makes the film that much better, and the intricatecamera moves also elevate the experience.

It was called "the end of a generation." The final concert The Band wouldever play. It was great.

THE LAST WALTZ (1978) **** THE BAND: Robbie Robertson, Rick Danko, LevonHelm, Garth Hudson, Richard Manuel; Special Guests: Eric Clapton, Bob Dylan,The Staples Singers, Neil Young, Emmylou Harris, Joni Mitchell, Dr. John,Neil Diamond, Van Morrison, Paul Butterfield, Muddy Waters, Ronnie Hawkins,Ron Wood, Ringo Starr. One of the greatest concert documentaries gets aspiffy new facelift with digitally enhanced sound and a color correctionoverhaul in Martin Scorsese’s lightning-in-a-bottle account of seminalSixties’ rock and roll group, The Band, and their last tour of 16 tumultuousyears on the road culminating in a sold-out concert at Bill Grahams’ fabledSan Francisco venue, The Winterland, with some pure rock, r&b, soul,countrified rock and roll with its all-star collection of music’s greatestartists in tribute to a quintet of gifted musicians that truly were pioneersin American music.

The Band was perhaps the greatest musical group to ever write andperform music and The Last Waltz chronicles that fact. However if youwant a
detailed look into The Band from when they were first The Hawks,then Bob Dylans back-up band to becoming The Band as most people knowthem, read Levon Helm’s book, "This Wheels On Fire". The Last Waltz isa great flick, but most of it was re-dubbed (Except for Helm’s drummingand singing) way after it was in the can. Robbie Robertsons microphonewas intentionally left off for this concert as Robbie wasn’t the bestsinger and his comments during the film are pretentious at best. Enjoythe music of The Band in this film and see if you can detect theanimosity between the rest of The Band members and Robertson during theinterviews as Robertson was the one that wanted this flick to happen.He wanted The Band to disband. None of the other members did. And thisbreakup indirectly was a contributing cause of Richard Manuels death afew years later.

Director Martin Scorsese is arguably one of the greatest filmmakers ofall time, he is output in the Seventies is unparalleled. The Band areto music what Scorsese is to cinema, original, visionary, anduncompromising. As you could imagine this team-up clearly results inone of the greatest experiences in the history of popular culture.Whether you are a fan of The Band or not doesn’t matter at all. Tenminutes into this film and you will be mesmerized. Scorsese iscompletely respectful and admirable in his filming of The Band’s finalconcert, and the subsequent interviews. The roster of guest’s at theconcert only add to the once in lifetime experience of this film. TheLast Waltz is as deep and emotional as anything Scorsese has ever madein his career, and his enthusiasm for the music really comes alive inthe set pieces with The Staple’s, and Emmylou Harris respectfully. Thebottom line is, if you even remotely care for music or film, see TheLast Waltz and be hearkened back to a time and place when both musicand film actually meant something. See it now, you won’t regret it.

STUPID. LOUD is for music that actually kinda stinks when you can hearall the nuances and LOUD is for people who spent too much time standingnext to speakers at concerts. Playing the band LOUD is like drinking afine wine COLD. Just STUPID. I dock this 2 points for that stupidity.Other than that, I'll take off another point for too much talking & toolittle strummin. Plus, I know Muddy Waters is an original, but I'm AMan really isn't that great a tune. I'm into that style, and even I gettired of I'm A Man 1/2way through. And does J Mitchell ever smile? Isthat ten lines yet. Supercalifragilisticexbealidocious or somethinglike that. I gotta go meet an ambidextrous sesquipedalian.

I’m 41 and grew up in the rock and roll days. The Band and some of theother performers in the movie weren’t the top bands in my day, but I hadalways heard of the names. And today they are STILL playing their songsonthe radio. So it was great to see the songs performed by the orignalartists.

The movie is half-concert/half-discussions with the band. Both areinteresting. But even more amazing is the list of famous people who showupto perform at the event. One after the other of stars that are historicalrock and roll (and blues) figures.

It was a great film. Check it out!

If you have a DVD player, you can skip chapters to advance to the nextsong,which makes it easy to watch just what you like. The DVD also has a storyabout the movie revisited, which has some interesting reflections abouthowa "let’s just document this" thing became a very cool movie.

read comments (0)

The Boys from Brazil

This movie is entertaining enough and the plot (once you get past the mainpremise) is actually interesting, but in spite of an excellent cast, thescript could have been much better than it was. All too often, it becomescliched melodrama. I do have to admit that the ending is actually inspiredand bordering on brilliant. Despite the cast and the occasional nicetouch,this is only average, but is worth watching.

As a student of history and a movie buff myself, I was excited when afriendtold me about ‘The Boys’. I was looking forward to what sounded like awildly original and fascinating story with a terrific cast, set against avery serious historical backdrop. What I got instead was a boring, drawnoutlaugher that seemed to get sillier and sillier as the thing drug on.Disappointing isn’t the word. The lasting image I will take from this film(SPOILER COMING!)is that of Josef Mengele (A.K.A. Atticus Finch) wrestlingwith Lawrence Olivier (who is way, way too old to be running around Nazihunting in the first place), followed by lots of biting, followed bydogs…….two hours I truly wish I had back.

Warning:potential spoilers !!

Adapted from the Ira Levin novel, infamous Nazi scientist Josef Mengele isliving in Paraguay. He has the bad idea of making Hitler clones so the ThirdReich will be all powerful again.

The director is Franklin J. Schaffner, and is one of his lesser film. Thisis a campy and pretty over the top thriller that seemed unbelievable whenfirst released, but seems slightly scary in the modern world of cloning.Gregory Peck really hams up as Mengele but Laurence Olivier is excellent.Theway Mengele is killed is a bad way to go.

Rating:*** (out of *****)

Exaggerated but entertaining film that proofs that film-entertainment has nolimits. Realistic or not, the film has suspense and is well directed byFranklin J Schaffner, but is also a rather typical 1970´s Thriller. Even ifthis story is over the top, the film works.I think there is said that the characters in the film are one-dimensional,but it isn’t that bad and I have seen much worse.

Sometimes I believe "Thriller" is the same as bad film, but I have somerespect for 1970´s Thrillers.

Note: In 1976, Laurence Olivier was casted as a former Nazi in "MarathonMan", in this film casted as a Nazi-hunter.

Rating: 7 of 10.

I have this theory that TCM runs moldy 'classics' like this to cash inon current releases, in this case "Munich." Maybe that's a stretch, butthe final scene makes the comparison clear.

As for the bulk of the plot: Ira Levin seemed to write the same storyrepeatedly. Like "Rosemary's Baby," this one involves tampering withthe reproductive process and endangering the world as we know it.Instead of the devil's spawn, this time we get 94 clones of AdolfHitler.

Here's the way to enjoy this movie: pretend it is a Mel Brooks' projectand you will kill yourself laughing. I promise. Viewed as a Brooksiansatire, "The Boys from Brazil" is even more hilarious and transgressivethan "The Producers" (hence my 10 rating). After the ironic remake of"Stepford Wives," how soon will Hollywood remake the rest of Levin'swork? Problem is, it is hard to imagine anything more silly than theoriginal "Boys."

Keep your eyes peeled for Bruno Ganz as a scientist who explains thecloning process. Yes, that Bruno Ganz, who later played Adolf Hitler inthe truly scary "Downfall."

Essentially a WWII Sci-Fi thriller, as unlikely, and irresistable, as agoodX-Files episode (Even has Walter Gotell in a small role as a former Nazi inthe Americas; Mr Gotell appeared in the X-Files as…a former Nazi in theAmericas).Best part is watching two real pros, Gregory Peck as Dr Mengele and SirLawrence Olivier as a Nazi-hunter named Lieberman. Not as good techicallyas Marathon Man(in many ways similar, featuring Sir Lawrence in aMengele-like role) but, I think, much more enjoyable. See them as a doublefeature on ‘Nazis in the 80s’ night.

From the opening credits, Jerry Goldsmith’s score attempts to pound yourbrain into submission. It must have worked, because I stuck around for theanticlimactic conclusion. I watched this only to add its flavor of cheeseto my pop-culture refrigerator.

It /is/ worth watching, if only to see Gregory Peck insult the hideous wifeof a fellow Nazi, as another reviewer mentioned.

I must reiterate that the score is a horrible detriment. Not particularlyfor its quality, but in its heavy omnipresence. It’s up there with themostinappropriate and conspicuous movie scores I’ve ever heard, perhapsexceededonly by THE FRESHMAN (1990).

If you can ignore the rather unlikely plot the film is quite good. Suspensebuilds up slowly as the mystery begins to unravel. What unfolds is astrangeplot bordering on science fiction. Why do the top escaped Nazis want tokill a group of seemingly unrelated 65yr old men? Watch this film to findout! My only complaint is it is a bit overlong.

The Boys From Brazil, based on the brilliant novel by Erma Shassingerstars Oscar Award winners Laurence Olivier and Gregory Peck. Directed byFranklin J. Schaffner, director of Planet of the Apes and Marathon Man,thisfine film is the crown-jewel of his career. The chillingly realistic plotinvolves dogs and Hitler. Its hard to talk about the movie without givingaway important plot details, but it involves nefarious Nazi doctor JosefMengele and his blue-eyed beauties. The story comes to a tragic end whenMengele’s plans are ruined by scheming Nazi Hater Ezra Lieberman(Olivier).The first half of the movie is adorned with the beautiful performance ofveteran actor Steve Guttenberg as a naive but starry-eyed young NaziHunter.Outrageously ignored by the Academy because of its pro Jewish message,thisis truly the best film of its decade.

I wish I hadn’t known that the clones were of Hitler, because this wouldhave been a fantastic movie. But if I hadn’t known it was about Hitlerclones I probably wouldn’t have watched it.

I think some of the other people misread the movie slightly, or possibly Iread too much into it.

Mengle was trying to create a Hitler-esque man, not Hitler himself that wasimpossible. It was a case of the arguement of Nature vs. Nurture. Mengleevidently thought that the boys upbringing was more important then hispedigree, if all he thought he needed was Hitlers genetic code then hecouldhave raised the 94 boys on his little island (imagine 94 hitlers arguingover what to watch on TV). Placed 94 "Hitlers" in families similar toHitlers own, in hopes that statistically 1 or 2 would possibly follow inHitlers footsteps of promoting Aryan….. ya da ya da ya da. Of the 4 orsochildren we saw all were little b******s, so then you have to decide foryourself if the cause was the childrens horrible enviroment or if it wasdueto some sort of evil hitler gene.

Peck and Oliver were great as usual. Hogans heroes.. Jesus H. Christ

read comments (0)

Revenge of the Pink Panther

"Revenge" was Peter Sellers’ last of five Pink Panther movies, and thedeciding vote in the result that only two of the five employed the namesakediamond in the plot. It is a step downhill from the prior two masterpieces,as the humor sometimes crosses over the line dividing funny slapstick fromsilliness. The plot is more intense, with mafia and drug people, who think,along with everyone else, that Clouseau is dead because no one realizes thatan attempted hit has misfired. Clouseau’s circumstance after themisdirected hit has him as an unwilling transvestite, bought into apsychiatric hospital, from which he manages to escape. Guess who’s there,waiting to get out? Clouseau is obliged to operate sub rosa, slowly beingrevealed…

Dreyfus and Cato are both in their characteristic roles. Herbert Lom (doeshe see Clouseau, does he not) is funny in many scenes, but Burt Kwouk’soveruse (plus misuse) and klutziness do not work well. The ending is tooall-round buffoonish. Dyan Cannon does well as the love interest, seeingangel choirs after being dumped by the bad guy. Peter Sellers’ Clouseaupersona still carries things somewhat, but one questions whether the serieshad run out of gas and would have deteriorated more had he lived (itcertainly did when he died).

This was indeed the best of the Pink Panther movie series. Even though itwas Peter Sellers’s last film he made. I mean, who could’ve forseen thatPeter Sellers was going to die two years after? In all of the BlakeEdwards Pink Panther movies, Peter Sellers always gives a stalwartperformance. Even though this was the last one, it’s still coolnonetheless. What’s not to like? Comedic moments, candid characters,action, romance, and a killer soundtrack too!

The best part of the movie was the car chase scene and Cato stealing theice cream cart. Which leads into the finale that goes off with a bang! Ilove all the other Pink Panther movies with Peter Sellers as well. I grewup watching these movies with my parents. I say Revenge of the Pink Pantheris the best of all. But stay away from those other two Pink Panther movies,which were mediocre. Even 1993’s Son of the Pink Panther with RebertoBegnini fails in comparison. So, remember watch only the movies with PeterSellers. I give the whole Pink Panther series from Shot in the Dark toRevenge of the Pink Panther 4 stars each!

This is my absolute favorite PP movie! Clouseau is at his best (or worst?)and the result is the funniest film I’ve ever seen. The French Connectionofthe drug cartel tries to assassinate Clouseau and they think they’vesucceeded. Meanwhile, the intrepid Clouseau goes "under the covers" and ontheir trail. Since he must be disguised, he goes to see "the great Balls"and obtains a couple of costumes to help him. The gorgeous Dyan Cannonbefriends Clouseau and she knows about the French Connection. They end upinHong Kong and the results are hilarious! This one is amust-watch!

This fourth film was the last full film that the wonderful late PeterSellers appeared in, it is also the second to last time we saw him asthe excellent French detective Inspector Jacques Clouseau, the lastbeing the failure Trail of the Pink Panther. The chief of police hassome how come back and is still insane. He believes that he has killedClouseau, but he faints every time he sees him. Clouseau's assistantCato (Burt Kwouk) doesn't fight that much, he just carries luggage.Clouseau is trying to uncover a gang of dealers or something whiledisguised as one of them. Still the same terrific accent andrecognisable theme tune by Henry Mancini. Peter Sellers was number 57on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, he was number 22 on The 50 GreatestBritish Actors, he was number 7 on Britain's Finest Actors, and he wasnumber 24 on The World's Greatest Actor. Good!

It tried to be big, it tried to do too much.

This work was the victim of the times. It is horribly dated with thelabel "MADE IN THE LATE 70′S" firmly attached. It feels like a late’70’s, early ’80’s Made For TV event. Watch, "Rehearsal For Murder,"and then watch this one, and you’ll see just what I mean.

This incorporates Sam Spade wannabes in with Hercule Poirot, and adirty CEO, creating a horrible montage of uneven character blends and aplot that watches like a darkened labyrinth.

Sellers is too comfortable in his fame and success and it shows, as ithas severely clouded his talent. From this work, that statement isobvious.

It is NOT one of my favorites of this series, but even with all that,it is still somewhat amusing and without doubt belongs in the series

It rates a 5.6/10 from…

the Fiend :.

"Revenge of the Pink Panther" is the funniest Pink Panther movie since "AShot in the Dark". It has lots of big laughs throughout. Sadly however, thismarked the last time Peter Sellers would play the incredibly clumsyInspector Clouseau (Sellers died in 1980). Sellers was a comic genius whenhe played the inept French detective. Nobody could come close to toppingSellers’ portrayl of the bumbling Frenchman. After Sellers’ death, seriescreator Blake Edwards foolishly tried to duplicate Sellers by having TedWass and Oscar winner Roberto Benigni (from "Life is Beautiful") follow inSellers’ footsteps in 1983’s "Curse of the Pink Panther" and 1993’s "Son ofthe Pink Panther", respectively. The results were disasterous on bothaccounts. Sellers was (and always will be) the real deal when it comes downto the Pink Panther movies and I’ll watch any one of the five Pink Panthermovies with Sellers any day of the week over the last three without Sellers(which includes 1982’s "Trail of the Pink Panther", which features Sellersin both never before seen footage and footage from the Pink Panther moviesthat he starred in). "Revenge of the Pink Panther" was a terrific (and atthe time, unexpected) sendoff for Sellers. This one has Inspector Clouseauinvestigating a crime ring who thinks that they have killed him. Clouseaugoes undercover to track the bad guys down, with the help of his Orientalsidekick Cato and a beautiful woman played by Dyan Cannon, who just happensto be the secretary and mistress of the head bad guy. Plenty of big laughsare provided not only by Sellers and Cannon, but by Herbert Lom as InspectorDreyfus, Clouseau’s former boss who (as usual) can’t stand the bumblingdetective. "Revenge of the Pink Panther" should have been the last PinkPanther movie of the series. Why Edwards decided to keep the series goingafter the death of Peter Sellers will remain a mystery that I’ll neverunderstand.

***1/2 (out of four)

In the fifth of the Pink Panther series, directed by Blake Edwards, andstarring Peter Sellers, Inspector Clouseau is back for some morelaughs. In this one, a mobster named Philip Douvier is getting norecognition from the other crime families, so he decides to killInspector Clouseau. When Inspector Clouseau is driving around, he iscarjacked by a transvestite, and they have to switch clothes.Accidentally, the carjacker crashes into a tree and dies. Soon, theworld thinks Inspector Clouseau is dead, and Dreyfus is released fromthe mental hospital. When Clouseau visits his old apartment, herealizes that his houseboy Cato also thinks Clouseau is dead, and hasturned their apartment into a whorehouse. The only people who now knowClouseau are alive are him and Cato, and together, they track down theassassin Philip Douvier in this hilarious addition to the long filmseries.

Grade: 7/10

MPAA Rating: PG

My Rating: Ages 11 and up (violence, innuendo, language)

Dull, disappointing sixth entry in the "Pink Panther" series, and aless-than-glorious farewell for Peter Sellers, who plays Chief InspectorClouseau for the fifth and last time in his career. S
ome sporadic laughs doexist, but the movie simply can’t sustain itself. And what’s worse, it’salso overplotted, with an annoying amount of time devoted to many totallyunfunny supporting players. However, watch for a really hilarious sceneduring Clouseau’s "funeral", in which Herbert Lom shows his comictalent.

Peter Sellers’ unintentionally final appearance as Inspector Clouseau issadly the weakest of the star’s outing for the series. The slightly ironicplot has Clouseau donning a series of wacky disguises as he searches for hiswould-be-assassins, whilst the rest of France, except for long-servingmanservant Cato (Burt Kwouk), a jilted female accomplice (Dyan Cannon) andhis still-crazed former boss (Herbet Lom), believes he is dead.

It has its moments but in comparison to its predecessors, Revenge isconsiderably lacklustre in its gags and laughs. Even Sellers struggles tosqueeze anything of real worth out of the whole thing, which feels more likea Pink Panther imitation rather than an actual functioning Pink Pantherfilm.

However, it’s not a disgrace and Sellers manages to bow out respectably butyou just wish that Clouseau, one of the great characters of screen comedy,and of course Sellers, one of the great contributors, could have exited on amore stronger note.

Blindingly unfunny sixth (sixth!) entry in the series has PeterSellers’s Inspector Clouseau surviving assassination in various poorlystaged slapstick sequences, then continuing his shtick when the worldbelieves he’s been killed. If he had then this film would be about 20minutes long and better for it, but unfortunately it drags on for far,far longer than is bearable. There are four funny gags on offer here,which makes this cack marginally less funny than ‘Schindler’s List’.The slapstick is poorly timed and soul-crushingly unfunny, as is thetradition. I’m sorry, but Sellers just cannot raise a laugh in thesefilms.

read comments (0)

Jui kuen

Wong Fei-hung as a young man has a reputation different from thatawaiting him as an adult. With a nickname of Naughty Panther, Fei-hungis in constant trouble with people and, no matter his intentions tohelp out just makes things worse for himself. When his father has hadenough he sends Fei-hung away to be trained by a wine-guzzling masterSu who is not only famed for his 8-Drunken Genii style but also forcrippling many of his students. Fei-hung tries to get away from thisfate but it is not long till his drunken teacher tracks him down andteaches him, whether he likes it or not. However, when he is humbled bythe mighty killer Thunderleg, he decides to train to be better nomatter what it takes.

I've not given up on modern releases totally but a real death-march ofuninspiring films of late has seen me using my DVD rental subscriptionto get in touch with older films and also genres that do not often showup on my basic TV package. Recently this has seen me getting someold-school martial arts films and of course Drunken Master had to beone of the first to be seen. When watching it, it is important that youkeep your genre frame of reference because as a "film" (with no ridersor expectations) it could be dismissed as having no substance to speakof - an accusation that I myself level at many blockbusters that offerme nothing to engage with. In this case though one does have to wonderif it matters because in terms of pure entertainment value there isjust about sufficient story to pull a basic frame together for anamusing and exciting film.

I say this because the plot doesn't do much other than set up the manyfight sequences that the film has and really these are the reason whywe are all here. Without exception, these are technically and visuallyimpressive. The physical strength and control of the actors is just asimpressive as the choreography and, unlike modern films, the camerasits back so we can see and doesn't get into the close and franticediting which reveal the actor perhaps could only do one short movementat a time and needed lots of help from the camera. Speaking of cameramovement, one of the joys of the film is to see what has now become thegenre-defining zooms in on faces and other such clichés.

Speaking of which, the acting also fits this mould as it is thewonderful OTT style of acting, with big hair and exaggeratedperformances that owe a debt to silent cinema. Chan is not at hisfunniest here (partly because his character necessitates a degree ofarrogance that takes away a little) but he is still very comic andself-effacing in his comedy. He is well supported by Yuen, who is alsovery skilled and able to do comedy, while Hwang's villain iswonderfully 1970's martial arts and full of camp menace. The supportcast features some familiar faces who bring stuff to the table such asthe high-kicking Linda Lin and the amusing Dean Shek.

Drunken Master is very much a genre film and those who do not like theconventions of the genre should not be too shocked to find that theydon't like it here. However for martial arts fans and the casualviewer, this is a great film with plenty of brilliant action blendedwith a genial and comic tone that allows it to be solid good fun.

Wonderful, brilliant, fantastic are a few words used to describe this film.This is one of the few Jackie Chan films that have got everything including,of course humour. The Kung-Fu is top rate and it’s good entertainment. Let’shope Jackie Chan can get back to this top form.

This film rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is the film that made Jackie famous atthat time. This film is great on all levels. Lots of action plus comedyinvolved here. And of course the end is were we see Jackie get really drunkand fight the bad guy. Just like in "The Legend of Drunken Master". Thisfilm isn’t as good as the sequel but still has it’s moment’s. This film hascouple fight scenes but the end is the best I think. But I do like the verycool training sequence. Also you get to see Jackie fight "Bolo Yeung". Avery good fighter. I licked the fight in the bar or what ever that was. Ialso liked the two or three fights were Jackie beats up some thugs. I thinkthis film is really good. And I hope you agree. So go see Jackie get drunkand beat up on some thugs.

Drunken Master was the title of this movie when I first saw it 12 yearsago. As a movie fanatic I think every type of Movie can be interesting.The Hong Kong Movie Industry has produced Masterpieces from a design, achoreography and a physical performance point of view. Drunken Master(Zui quan) may be considered as one of these very good movies. Thestory is a very classic (poor) one and the acting is not the best everfrom a western view point but is very "Chinese" (almost like a dramaplay), however and as I stated the choreography and the physical skillsof Jacky Chan are amazing. The extraordinary fighting scenes (90% ofthe movie) make this movie worth watching and probably one of the 10legendary "Kun-Fu" movies made so far.

1978’s "Drunken Master" contains the same manic, slapstick humor andacrobatic martial arts talents that would become a later trademark ofHong Kong action star Jackie Chan. This movie will have you rolling inyour seat with laughter. Seriously, it has elements of "The ThreeStooges" and balletic Keaton-like stunt-work so that in essence,"Drunken Master" is the perfect action-comedy.

Directed by Yuen Wo Ping, who would later become well-known to Americanaudiences for his work on the "Matrix" films and the "Kill Bill"flicks, Chan stars as an undisciplined troublemaker who happens to bean expert martial artist. When his father disowns him following anincident with a close relative, Chan goes and finds apprenticeship witha drunkard hermit, who teaches him the ancient kung-fu fighting styleof "drunken boxing."

For those that don’t know, drunken boxing (a.k.a. "drunken fist" or"drunken master"), as the title would imply, is a martial arts stylethat utilizes the staggering, unfocused movements of the typicaldrunkard. Chan exercises the movements gracefully in one trainingsequence, and it’s one of the most effective fighting techniques thoughone may need to have an incredibly flexible body to master it. Becauseof the apparently unfocused posture of the fighter, his movements areconcealed from the opponent, making it nearly impossible to anticipatehis strikes. (To be able to use the style though, I’m not sure if oneneeds to be genuinely intoxicated to master its movements.)

Chan eventually masters the techniques taught to him, and then uses hisnewfound skills to battle a lethal assassin who has since arrived tocollect a price on his father’s head.

I don’t know what it is exactly that made me enjoy this picture somuch. The character Chan plays has been the object of Chinese folklorefor nearly two centuries, but he would later find more serious filmcharacteristics in the "Once Upon a Time in China" movies with Jet Li."Drunken Master" shows why Chan is the star he is today. The filmcaptures his talents masterfully and is forthright in its execution ofhis hyper-active skills in the many fighting sequences.

I guess time has been good to "Drunken Master," since it’s appeared onseveral all-time favorite lists for martial arts movies.

10/10

This is it. This is the one that took Jackie Chan from being a star in Asiato being a Superstar. Zui Quan (Drunken Master) is full of terrific fightchoreography and, although most of the time you can tell that that’s exactlywhat it is, it still keeps us glued to the screen. It’s like a deadlyballet, and it’s fascinating to watch. The plot itself is light, but that’sall it needs to be; anything more would have been too heavy. It underscoresthe action and moves us from one fight to the next without too much
suspension of disbelief. Chan proves himself to be a gifted comedian here,as well intense and tough - there is simply _no_ way to fake thoseback-handed push ups he does during one of the film’s training sequences.Don’t miss this movie.

Just enough plot to take Jackie from one fight to the next. Several scenesyou have to rewind and see again, and some of his training methods you’vegot to try yourself to see exactly how painful they must be. Except formiserable white-on-white subtitles (but who needs to know what they’resaying, anyway?), it’s a great flick.

As a martial artist, I am a Jackie Chan fanatic. I love the way that thewhirl and twirl of limbs (and those funky punching sounds) just makes mewant to go out and do a couple of roundkicks to a lightpole.

But as a movie critic, I have cringed at Chan’s last few movies (Mr. NiceGuy, Rumble in the Bronx). The story seems a bit too contrived for hisaction sequences, as if the writers write the scenes based on thechoreography, rather than on the story.

Drunken Master was not the case. Sure, there is mindless and drawn outchoreographed fights. This is a kung-fu movie after all. But the scenesstick to the story, not to the budget (ie. Hovercraft fight in Bronx) andthe characters are colorful and have more depth than three axe kicks and aline of bad dialogue.

Everyone’s comments say it all. This movie has incredible fighting andincredible comedy. Make sure to check out the Snake in the Eagle’s Shadowwhich also features the Drunken Master up to his tricks again…he isamazing with those gourds full of wine!

If possible, pick up the widescreen, English dubbed version of this film.Ifyou can, you will see possibly the most unintentionally funny film in yourlife. Choice dubbing and sound effects make the film aclassic!

I picked this film up at Blockbuster after enjoying ‘Rumble in the Bronx’.Expect nothing like the polished films that Jackie Chan releases now (e.g.Rush Hour). This is pure, low budget, kung fu nonsense!

A gem! **** out of *****

read comments (0)

Heaven Can Wait

Joe Pendleton is an American football quarterback with a Super Bowlcontending season ahead of him regardless of his age. However when heis out riding his bike one day, an impatient driver seems to spell theend for him. So back do things look that his angel escort decides totake him to heaven a few seconds early to avoid the pain of death.However it transpires that the angel acted to soon and Mr Jordan'srecords indicate that Joe wasn't due for many decades yet. With hisbody cremated Jordan tries to find another body for Joe to inhabit.They settle on Leo Farnsworth, a millionaire businessman who has justbeen murdered. He causes a lot of confusion in bringing the man backfrom the brink of death, however he keeps his goal of playing in theSuper Bowl.

Remade from the 1941 film and updated to include American Football asthe sport in question, this retains a plot that really needs pace andcharm to make it work. Instead, this version delivers it in a ratherslow and heavy fashion that has a vague sense of the comic but notenough to really grip or win me over. The narrative asks a lot of theaudience and doesn't help itself by being overly clunky where it shouldhave been slick and smooth. The romance element is the biggest evidenceof this as it expects us to go with it even though there is nothing toit that deserves my interest. The comedy is never laugh-out loud funnybut rather it just plods along with a vague awareness of its ownsilliness. It will annoy many viewers because it is so light andlacking but it maybe has enough to carry an undemanding viewer.

The cast are a mixed bag. Beatty does the basics but gets by on hisnatural charm. Christie is mostly weak and I didn't have any interestin her character at all. Grodin easily dominates the film with awonderfully slippery character that draws all the laughs and interest.He is well supported by Cannon who has little screen time but plays hercharacter well. Mason is class in his usual way but really adds littleother than his name while Jack Warden does just what you expect him todo albeit quite well.

Overall then, this is a solid enough comic melodrama but nothingspecial. The material is enough to carry it for the running time andthe cast do they best they can but this is a very average affair andnot worth too much of your time unless you are looking just to filltime.

Below average movie about Reincarnation in a light romance comedy style.Thedirecting,cinematography and screenplay was below average.The script wasmerely average.Too bad because there was a good story here and also verytalented actors.Warren Beatty also was in his prime and looked very good forthe part he had.The acting effort was below average though probably due tothe inept directing skills of Beatty.This movie tends to be over ratedparticularly by big fans of Reincarnation and similar subject matters.Thissubject matter is a good story foundation but this is not a basis for overrating a movie that does not deserve a good rating,so for people who havenot seen this movie and are checking it’s reviews,beware of a LOUD MINORITYwho give this one a CLASSIC rating.Only for big fans of the Reincarnationtype stories and big fans of the lead actors…..

"Heaven Can Wait" flirts with a nice idea: Joe, a quarterback, (Beaty)dies in an accident, but as he goes on his way to heaven, a chief angel(Mason) agrees that he was brought erroneously there and must bebrought back to life. However, things become complicated when theydiscover that this is not feasible anymore as his body has beencremated, so after some extensive body-searching, he comes back as amillionaire who has just survived a murder attack. As he tries to fitinto his new life, numerous unorthodox things happen, including aseries of renewed murder attempts…

Witty as the plot may sound, the film unfortunately fails to delivercompletely. It just doesn’t work out, as a clever idea develops into acompletely boring and predictable story. The performances are average;ditto the direction. Moreover, do not expect any fancy visual and audioeffects (after all this was year 1978). Perhaps the film made an impactin its days, but today it can by no means get a pass grade. 4/10.

I just couldn’t get into "Heaven Can Wait". I really couldn’t. I know thismovie wasn’t supposed to be realistic, but when a movie is this unrealistic,it just doesn’t work.

The film moves much too quickly to establish a base with any of thecharacters. We never really know much about Joe Pendleton, and Beatty neverfalls into character; I was very conscious of the fact that it was justWarren Beatty with a different name.

The story is silly, but even though it’s moderately entertaining, it doesn’tentertain as much as it should. It’s good for a watch on a lazy afternoonif you haven’t got anything else. Otherwise, I’d recommend you pass thisone up.

After seeing Chris Rock in Down to Earth, I wanted to refresh my memory ofHeaven Can Wait — as both movies are remakes of Here Comes Mr. Jordan. SoHollywood has made at least 3 films with the same plot, changing only whatthe main character’s vocation is. The 1941 Jordan works the best but it hadmajor flaws in plot and sense. And those flaws are carried over into bothremakes. (One is the cheating of the main character — he is not himselfand can’t remember anything at the end — what a bummer!) I won’t go intothe Hollywoodization of Heaven — as it is so absurd as to boggle the mind. In essence, the story is simple-minded and lacks charm, and has a lot ofmeanness in it and ends on a sour note. It should never have been madeonce, let alone 3 times!The worst thing about this first remake is the cutesy-poo music score –sounds like it goes to a kid’s nature flick. The second worst thing isJulie Christie’s permanent (or is that supposed to be an afro?). The thirdworst…well, that’s enough! This movie is just lame.

I am not usually so blunt, but this movie was a dud! Overacted by JulieChristie (very bad), silly, schmaltzy, corny nonsense. I do not knowwhatever made Julie Christie do this film or take this role. Not onlywasit her worst role, but it was also Beatty’s worst film. Do not wasteyourtime.

Warren Beatty is surprisingly eager-to-please as a pro-footballquarterback whose soul is taken out of his body too soon after anaccident; with angelic assistance, he's put into a new body (that of anoverweight billionaire) but he's on borrowed time. The film, a remakeof "Here Comes Mr. Jordan", is all soft-focus warmth and good will; ittries setting up some wild comedy–the billionaire has a murderousspouse with a weaselly lover–but it all falls apart in the finalquarter. The concluding events in "Heaven Can Wait" are so impossiblybungled, I was flabbergasted Beatty and company allowed the picture toget away from them. In a desperate need to wrap things up with theproverbial bow, the film becomes a benign love story with hardly anyinspiration and no real point beyond the obvious softening of Beatty'sstar-profile. The screenplay is sadly insensitive to Jack Warden'sfootball coach, who is left sitting alone in the locker room, and neverallows love-interest Julie Christie to ingratiate herself to the viewer(she's extremely chilly). A huge box-office hit, but one which treadsno new ground. ** from ****

I was very generous and gave this film a "5". When a film is welldone, I find it sacrilegious to fool with it. The original, "Here ComesMr.Jordan", is such a movie. This re-make falls flat, except for thedialogueit "borrows" from the original. The update was strained and had verylittlecharm of the original. It works for (was made for) a 1940’s boxer.Superbowl??? Don’t be silly. The casting and chemistry were notduplicated,even with the cast loaded down with talent(?). "Heaven Can Wait&quo
t; suffersfrom comparison…..

SEE MY COMMENTS ON "HERE COMES MR. JORDAN FOR MORE AND DEFINITELY SEE THEORIGINAL…. THE RE-MAKE JUST DOESN’T DO IT…

Warren Beatty is so likeable here it becomes easy to forgive any flaws thisfilm might have. Indeed the entire cast is very likeable except of coursefor the villains who I thought could have been more entertaining if they hadbeen asked to ham it up a bit more. The cast has a lot of big names besidesBeatty. It’s nice to see James Mason in a comic role since it proves hisrange as an actor. Jack Warden is always good as the friend (see TheVerdict, Death on the Nile). Julie Christie’s could’ve been larger but shedoes quite well the material given her. This film is not so good that youwill remember it even a couple of weeks after you see it but it is a fairlyentertaining pass time. I think Chris Rock remade this film a couple ofyears ago. Both versions are a solid two hours or so of entertainment.7/10.

I liked : The elegant cinematography. The risqué white dress of (DyanCanon) which she wore at the dinner scene (too too sexy to say theleast !) and the fact of her being in it. (Julie Christie) in all ofher scenes. The last scene in which (Beatty) holds (Christie)'s handthrough the dark to see his face suddenly. The cute memorable music of(Dave Grusin ), especially the main theme. The suit of (James Mason).The authentic poster. And that's it !

Actually the rest of the movie is whether weak or unfunny. Sure(Beatty) made finer movies as an actor or director. Originally he isthe last human on earth to be in a comedy, so how about directing oneAND starring in it too ! Moreover, I didn't like that script. It'sinane at parts, slightly comic at others. The whole first accident ishollow and fabricated just to put (Beatty) into another personality.The irony of the main situation is wasted and chilly. Speaking ofwhich, along with the old axiomatic fact of (Warren Beatty) asdead-meat- cold, I didn't understand (Mason)'s coldness ?? The greatman looked like a talking corpse more than an angel ! Maybe being underthe direction of (Beatty) it's ordinary to transform into dummy..Sorry, let's say marionette !

I don't get it. The whole plot isn't that good in the first place, andthey made it poorly too ??, the irritation becomes more and more withanother remake later (Down To Earth), soon they'll have (No Heaven ForYou : The Tragedy of Sluggish Filmmakers !).

I read once how the 1970s was "The dumb decade" ! I loved that verymuch. But I was confused. Why the 1970s has this bad reputation? Maybeit had been considered to have a lot of bad movies, fashions, and music(which I loved the most by the way). Like all the original definitionsfor : cheesy, chintzy, campy, or crummy were there. I think after theend of the 1960s there was a case of strong concussion all overeverything. And everybody wasn't sure about what was already assured.Therefore let us change it all. With a lot of revolution and confusion.Consequently a lot of formulas lived a prerequisite, not always verysuccessful, change.

Some movies just played to be wholly another thing like European earlywork. Other movies were affected with the sudden success of the late1960s' unusual some kind of realistic hits. And some – very miserableones – tried hardly to make, or remake, the old glossy formulas yetunproductively and sketchier. Just review the number of the good genremovies from the 1970s that you've watched to grasp what I mean. Theproduction of Disney is a perfect example. Anyhow the phoenix revivedagain, another equilibrium has been established, and the inauspiciousdecade was gone.

Here, it's the old movie, the old movies. I think (Beatty) after somesexually bold movies at the start of the 1970s wanted a goodintroduction for the family audience. But even if he made it with acartoon lead instead of him, sure it would've been livelier howeverstill the steel "traditional" frame is surrounding it with more silly,less imaginative spirit. To look eventually like the white steam of theangels' airport : weakly shining, and obviously fake.

Heaven can wait, but hell CAN'T, and that goes to (Beatty)'s hair cut,and inanimate face.

P.S : If you know what was more wrong with that decade, just E-Mail me.

read comments (0)

Top Gear

The main reason is its on the BBC, so the presenters can say what theyreally think without worring about upsetting any sponsors oradvertisers who might appear during the commercial breaks.

The car reviews are both informative and entertaining.

The stunts of racing across Europe, Jeremy in a car, the other twogoing my ship, train or plane is so good , what a fantastic idea.

The winter Olympic special was the funniest thing I have seen ontelevision in such a long time. Its so good to see three people wholove there job and this comes out on screen.

I only wish I could afford some of the super cars they review.

I think Top Gear is a good fun programme. If you are a car nut then youlove it, but even if you don't it works as a comedy. As a car programmeit does review cars, mostly sport and luxury cars, but do review normalcars as well, such as Fords and Vaxuhalls. Because of the programmeslike of Vaxuhalls it one of the reasons my dad has brought a newVectra, the Nürburgring special edition. The show also tests them andshow what cars has the best time.

Top Gear is also a talk show and Jermery Clarkson is a good host,nothing taking himself too seriously. He is light-hearted and theguests like it. The guests also have fun doing their lab around the TopGear track.

The hosts of the show, Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May havegood chemistry and comedic timing. They work well together and againdon't take themselves too seriously. They however do have good opinionsabout cars.

The aspect of the show I like the most is the challenges that they do,either a race where Clarkson is a sports car and the other two in amode of public transports such as trains and buses. These challengesare done abroad, such as Central Europe or Japan. I also like it whenthey have a challenge like buy a car for under £1000 pounds. This isnormally don't in Britain, but sometimes in America.

Finally, the Stig is a great creation by the show. He has turned into acult figure. I would like to know who his really is, but I know whenpeople find out that it will ruin it for the fans. He is a good racingdriver and a great comedic character.

I would have given the show 10 out of 10, but I do not like Clarkson'spolitical views and goes against my environmental ideals.

Let me explain why the show doesn’t suck. You can watch any motoringshow if you want a boring commentary of how big the brake rotors areand what the side panels are made out of. The reason that Top Gear hasbeen on the air since 1978 is because it is an outstanding show thatbrought about a new breed of motoring journalism, largely thanks toJeremy Clarkson. For anyone to make comments about the show suckingwhen only 10 made for America episodes have aired here is preposterous.How can you possibly judge a show that has run for 23 years having seena couple of episodes?

The problem is that some people have a ridiculously narrow view of whata motoring show should be like, and when something new and innovativecomes along all they can do is pour scorn. The new format of Top Gearthat has been around for five years now it outstanding, I hope theyshow more here in the US.

Top Gear is unlike any of the car shows produced in the U.S. It is, touse a term popular on the other side of the pond, brilliant. The hostsdisplay personalities, wit, and charm. Along with the facts and numbersthe souls of the cars are revealed. Any car. We aren’t subjected tojust the latest and greatest, but, also the common; just seen throughthe eyes of those who enjoy cars. Top Gear is like sitting around withyour buddies and talking cars and having a good laugh all the while. Itwas good to have a car show that’s intelligent and witty. It’s a shamethe Discovery Channel no longer has room in it’s schedule for a showthat’s fun to watch.

Andy Wilman must be pleased. He managed to salvage Top Gear from theBBC's scrapheap back in 2002 and he is now producing one hell of a TVshow. If you are anything of a car nut like me then you will know thatTop Gear is simply brilliant. Its funny, even hilarious at times, andJeremy Clarkson, James May and Richard Hammond are the shows threeirreplaceable presenters. There is no aspect of the show that doesn'twork or isn't very good. It's all brilliant. Amazing. So it's just ashame that the minority of the public don't like it and find itoffensive. According to Ken Livingstone, Jeremy Clarkson and Top Gearare responsible for global warming and areas in London that are likelyto flood have been named 'Clarkson Zones'. I don't think thats quitefair. Or how about the small group of people who complained afterClarkson said that a car 'looked a bit gay'. Health and Safety want TopGear to be 'toned down' because it is too dangerous and caused RichardHammond's crash. If you don't like it, then the solution is simple.Don't watch it and stop complaining. The show is a little bit dangerousand a little bit daring, but that's what makes it so good.

This comment has no spoilers. You need to watch the episode.

Being a fan of top gear for many years, it is nice to see it at the topof the car program tree.

During the late 90's and early 2000's, it was a bit of a dampsquid……..to which the BBC stepped in a cancelled it. When it cameback in 2002, what a difference. NEW set, location and new presentersand themes. A revelation. Something that top gear has continued withright up until the current series ended in the summer.

All episodes have been beautifully shot, music is great and humour andfun factor as high as ever. There is one episode that will lodge in mymind forever……..the Winter Olympics episode shown in Feb 06.

I missed the original showing but had taped it on sky+. On hearing thelads at work go on about it on the Monday morning, i watched it thatafternoon to find out what the big deal was.

I was in stitches watching it, tears were coming from my eyes.Absolutely magic, the funniest thing i think I have seen this year sofar.

If you have not yet watched the winter Olympic episode, you must. It isthe best top gear episode by far and one you will have a big smileabout for ages.

Without a doubt the best programme on TV, it's about the only thing onthe BBC that is worth the Licence Fee. I can't wait for the new seriesin the autumn, I have just been watching the Polar Special, whereJeremy and James in a pick up truck, race Hamster on a dog sled, (withhis white teeth) to the North Pole. Brilliant viewing and how Jeremy orJames didn't kill each other with an ice axe we will never know! Thisprogramme just keeps getting better, and the format shouldn't bechanged in any shape or form, Lets hope they can keep those doom andgloom health and safety idiots at bay, otherwise it will be just likeany other motoring programme. Rubbish!

"Top Gear", in its rejuvenated, hour-long format, is simply compulsoryviewing on a Sunday evening. As a glossy motoring magazine aimed atpetrol-heads of all ages, the show pulverises any competition with itsblend of beautiful photography, humorous scripts and highly watchablepresenters.

The living legend that is Jeremy Clarkson remains one of the funniestmen on television and it will be a truly sad day when he decides tomove on from motoring journalism. However, his fellow presenters,Richmond Hammond and James May are just as enjoyable to watch. I'vebeen a fan of the diminutive and enthusiastic Hamster since the earlydays of "Granada Men and Motors" and it was a dream come true to seehim land a presenting role on the restyled "Top Gear". Floppy-hairedJames May is one of television's true English gentlemen - well spoken,witty and just a touch eccentric. The chemistry between these three menis comedy gold and I often watch
with my jaw dropped in disbelief atjust how good this show is.

The famous races, where each presenter has to reach a certain far-offplace using a variety of means, are truly gripping films for the seriesand raise the bar on what we now expect from a motoring televisionshow. The recent "Polar Special" was an example of the imagination andbudget that makes "Top Gear" such an original and watchable programme.

Simply brilliant - 10 out of 10.

"Top Gear" is definitely the best car show ever. It has been runningsince 1978 and is a show all about automobiles. This show is one of myfavorite shows (not just about cars). It has the perfect mix of humor,stunts, races and general car information. This is what makes the showso good.

This is the No 1. show for car fans. And even if you aren't a car fan -this show is still great to watch. You don't have to know everythingabout cars to be able to follow Top Gear. The way they talk isn't tootechnical and they will explain things that are complex.

Each episode is usually made up of numerous different sections: theywill test out a few cars, maybe have a few challenges, putting a gueststar in a reasonably-priced car and interviewing the guest, andsometimes traveling to a different country. All of these differentsections each episode make the show really interesting and not boring.

I totally recommend this show to anyone who likes cars. Its a funny andinteresting show.

Basically the only TV show I can be bothered to stay in for! Top classreviews, features and news, all presented by people who actually seemto love what they do. They do tend to concentrate on the obscure andexotic, but who cares, I will probably find out what a mondeo is liketo drive, but I will have to rely on them to tell me what the latestFerrari is like. The star in a reasonably priced car is great, most ofthe celebs act like they don’t care what time they got, but when theyare told they are usually elated! It has also included some remarkablefootage, including trying to destroy a Toyota Hilux, racing the trainfrom Guildford to Monaco in an Aston DB9 and a Mitsubishi Evo rally caragainst a 4 man bobsleigh! Other motoring programs just simply don’tcompare, programmes such as 5th Gear erring more toward a review show,and being a lot less interesting for it! In a nutshell, fun,interesting and very definitely "water cooler discussion material"!

read comments (0)