The Jerk

Navin R. Johnson is an idiot. He ha sgrown up in an all black family on aplantation when he is told he was abonded by his real white family. Devestated he lies in bed and discvoers easy listening on the radio – thissets him off on a journey of discovery that will lead him from rags toriches and back again.

When I first saw this film I was only about 10 or so and I laughed my headoff. I just watched it again as a 25 year old and it had a similar effectif not as powerful an effect. The jokes are as silly but they seem very oldand very basic now. To a child they probably were hilarious but now thebasic slapstick is what stands out. However there are still plenty of goodtouches and plenty to laugh at but, unlike the awesome Airplane, this hasnot aged with grace. Compare to `man with 2 brains’ which is similar insilly jokes – `brains’ is still fresh and inventive while The Jerk is not asclever.

Martin is good but the basic playing hides much of his ability – althoughhis cat juggler is hilarious. The cast is filled out with some faces – MEmmet Walsh and Jackie Mason but on the whole it’s all Martin’sshow.

Overall this is still funny but the comedy is quite basic and, while stillfunny, hasn’t matured with age.

The first half, absolutely hilarious. The 2nd half . . . a real sleeper. Not that it doesn’t have its moments, however. Parents: some stronglanguage, and the dominatrix bits would warrant at least fast-forwardingthrough some of it.

Still a pretty funny movie; Blazing Saddles was better.

THE JERK (1979) **1/2 Steve Martin, Bernadette Peters, Jackie Mason, M.Emmet Walsh, Bill Macy. Martin made his mark in this jerky comedy duringhis wild and crazy guy period as Navin Johnson who balances delicately onthat fine line of naivity and idiocy as he goes from rags to riches toragsagain with some jokes on the money, many not. Best bit: "The new phonebooks are here!" Directed by Carl Reiner (who has a cameo as himself)whowould go on to collaborate several more times with our boySteve.

7 out of 10

This is the type of film that looks like it was done by completenovices. Guys that were either drunk or stoned and meant for audiences thatwere either drunk or stoned. The ’story’ runs like it was conceived bysomeone who couldn’t come up with a real screenplay so they did thisinstead. The whole thing is as simple and mindless as the character itdepicts. There is no real correlation to anything. Everything is thrown inhaphazardly and at times looks like nothing but a very desperate andstrained attempt for a laugh. This is coupled by a performance by Martinthat is very one dimensional and even amateurish. He behaves like one ofthose annoying class clowns looking for attention. Yet despite all this itstill manages to be funny sometimes really funny.

This is a definite precursor to DUMB AND DUMBER and others like it. Inmany ways this is still the best. It completely stretches the stupidityaxiom. It tests the audience’s perceptions on what is tolerable andlogical. This doesn’t just have a couple of guys who are weird everybodyand everything is weird. The humor works totally outside of the box. Itgets you to laugh at things you didn’t think you would and also gets you tosee things differently. It creates a very warped world that for the firsthour is very consistent and fun. By the second hour it begins to struggleand ultimately reaches too far.

Martin’s ‘air head’ routine doesn’t seem too original since he had beenusing it previously on his stand up routines and comedy guest stints. Hischaracter is just too dumb and too naive to be believable and there is neverany explanation for it. He manages to give his performance a certainendearing quality, which is the only thing that saves it. The openingsegment has him growing up a white boy amongst a poor black family, whichborders dangerously close to being racist and stereotypical.

There is a good supporting cast, but they seem wasted and many of themonly have a few lines. Peters, as his love interest, really doesn’t addmuch however Mason is pretty good as Martin’s boss at a gas station. Evansis also fun as Martin’s butler and has a very amusing way of responding tohis wife’s sudden death. Rob Reiner, the director’s son, appears in a cameoas a truck driver who gives Martin a lift "up to the end of thefence."

Overall this is pretty goofy stuff and only for those who are in theright frame of mind for it. It’s really pretty simple, but does have somegenuine laughs.

I remember when this film came out. The critic Roger Ebert absolutelyhated it. Every time a subsequent film came out staring or featuringSteve Martin, Ebert would always express his utter hatred for thisfilm. Why did he hate it? For the same reason I thought this was one ofthe most hilarious films I ever saw. There is just one part I have anissue with, but I'll get to that later.

The film is a rags to riches to rags to better rags story. It's thestory of orphaned Navin Johnson who was raised by a poor, rural blackfamily. Thing is, he's not black. Nor rural. And never caught ontosinging the Blues because "it's so depressing". As Navin was growingup, he knew something was wrong but couldn't put his finger on it sincehe was so accepted by his family. On his birthday, Navin hears thesounds of Lawrence Welk-like music and knows he's destined forsomething else, so he leaves home to make it on his own in the world.

There are wonderful 'one liners', sight gags, lotsa stereotypingagainst everyone (and enough to offend if you are sensitive to thiskind of thing) and done so with Steve Martin's over the top humor. Theonly thing I didn't warm up to is the "way" Nathan got to be poor -bringing in Carl Reiner seemed to be a tad much.

And for the film historians out there: One of the most endearing thingsof the film for me is Nathan's House. It was real, just the way you seeit was exactly the way the mansion really was! I took a break fromschool, visited Beverly Hills, California saw the house on Sunset Blvd.and neighborhood that was used for this film. The middle eastern manwho owed the mansion with his wife eventually went through a bitterdivorce right after the release of "The Jerk" - she wanted the house hetold her he would NEVER let her have it. The mansion was there for awhile until it was mysteriously burned down. Then, for years itremained a HUGE vacant lot in Beverly Hills. When both partiessubsequently died, the lots got subdivided and sold - just a year ortwo ago. I found all this interesting for it reflected the nature ofthe film - silly when you have money.

This is a hilarious film, with just a few lags, featuring the comedicstyle of Steve Martin of that time and to be honest, lives up it itstitle.

This is the best movie of all time! I love Steve Martin and this entirescript! I use most of these lines in my entire life! "All I need isthis chair". Nobody can say the word "thermos" near me without mebreaking into song about picking out a thermos for them. Of course, Iuse this same tune to sing about almost anything replacing the word"thermos" Hahaha! I know, get a life, but this is without a doubt oneof the most clever movies ever made. I understand that it isn't"politically correct" these days with the race slang used, but it isdone in such a way that I believe all races would appreciate it. NavinJohnson's name in print and on the screen gets rave reviews from me. Ihighly recommend this film.

It's a pleasure for me to review such a brilliant movie! The comedy ispure genius, not only because of the writing and directing, but theincredible performance of Steve Martin, playing the world's mostlovable, humorous, "Jerk," Navin R. Johnso
n! We all know the story bynow, and if anyone hasn't seen this movie you've been living under arock for 28 years!

Navin R. Johnson, raised by poor Mississippi Black Sharecroppers, onhis birthday "feels different" like he "doesn't belong." His "Mother"reveals the shocking news, Navin's not their natural born child! "Butwe raised you like you were one of us!" Navin delivers thespine-splitting laughter comment, "You mean I'm gonna stay this color?"and gets depressed. One night, however, he hears a catchy jazz tune onthe radio (The song BTW is called "Crazy Rhythm.") and starts dancingaround the house all excited and motivated! "This is the kind of musicthat tells me to go out there and be somebody!!!!" With renewed energyand a new outlook on life, Navin sets out to find his "SpecialPurpose." (Which he KNOWS is out there.)

However, his lack of intelligence lands him in some of the funniestsituations ever seen in any movie. For instance, he gets a job at a gasstation where the owner persuades him to work "for $1.10 an hour!" "Howmuch?" Navin asks. The owner repeats, "$1.10 an hour." Navin isovercome with emotion, "You'll pay me, $1.10 if I work here anhour!!!???" He than writes back home to his family:

"Folks, I got this great job at a gas station! I don't wanna say howmuch I'm making, but let's just say IT'S A LOT!! I'm enclosing $2.00!"

Watch for so many scenes like this and some all-time great lines bySteve Martin as only he can deliver them. Comedy doesn't get anybetter. You are guaranteed to crack up every time you watch this movie!

Standouts are when he is being chased by a sniper at a gas station!Navin makes some HILARIOUS comments about cans that he thinks aredefective because the sniper is shooting at him and keeps hitting thecans!!! "These cans are defective!!!" Navin says, "There springingleaks!" STAY AWAY FROM THE CANS!!! Navin also takes jobs at a travelingcarnival roadshow as a weight-guesser and has more great lines when aMidway participant asks what prizes he can win! There he meets a veryjealous motorcycle lady. (There is some course R-rated situations inthis part of the movie.)

He also meets a dear sweet lady played by Bernadette Peters in aWONDERFUL supporting role. A bizarre invention makes him a millionaire,but the effects of the product force him into a lawsuit in which heloses everything and goes back to the foster family that still loveshim.

Steve Martin was BORN to play this role! I can't say enough greatthings about this classic film! The only problem is that the theatricalversion is missing a lot of alternative clips that can be found on theTV version: These include:

1.) Navin elaborating with Mr. Hartoonian at the gas station aboutmaking $1.10/hr.

2.) A Texas Millionaire conning Navin into giving money to fix thecracked seats on his airplane.

3.) Navin, depressed and despondent in a scene where after Marie leaveshim, he goes up on an amusement park ride feeling "so broke that he hadto spin."

4.) Navin telling his "Mother" that he had been waiting for his skin tochange color, "any year now." I have been waiting for Universal torelease a DVD of The Jerk that contains this added footage It may beawhile, so I will probably just have to get the DVD as is. It would benice to have these added scenes included on a future DVD.

However, this is a movie that is brilliant on all counts and only seemsto get even better with time! A Special Edition DVD if released will(hopefully) finally give "The Jerk" the royal classic treatment that itdeserves!

All you need is a chair, remote control, TV set, a channel or DVD, or atape of the movie, a VCR or DVD player to see the movie and that's allyou need! And remember! "STAY AWAY FROM THE CANS!"

This movie is about a Navin Johnson (Steve Martin) who was raised andadopted in a poor,black Mississippi farm. He later finds success as heleaves the family and when he invents a special type of glasses.

The thing that holds this movie together is Steve Martin’s stupidity inthe movie. Everything from a false alarm about a fire to anassassination attempt to juggling cats really made me laugh. The thingI don’t like about this movie is that it can get pretty weird at times.This movie also shows you that money isn’t everything. This film is adecent Steve Martin comedy.

7/10

Why the Heck was this movie rated R?

Very very good movie.

Tell me, why was this movie rated R? I see nothing in this movie for itto be rated R! Some people think that they didn’t have PG-13 ratings in1979 But I have proof! If you don’t believe me look up "Bananas" withWoody Allen. If anybody has any reason to rate this movie R Pleasecontact me at: evantog@gmail.com Please!

Other than that, this movie was very good.

It was one of Steve Martin’s best performances

Good start for him

I rate this ***** out of *****

Steve Martin’s first starring role movie could be argued to have beenan extension of his wildly popular stand-up routines of the 1970s.Perhaps so,but this movie to me seems to be also an exercise in makinga truly silly movie,one that isn’t really concerned with plausibilityor irony.

MArtin is NAvin Johnson,a dim bulb of a dude with a good heart whosestory begins with him being raised as the son of black share-croppersin the deep south. It never really occurs to him as a youth that he isdifferent from his adopted kinfolk all the way into adulthood before hediscovers that he doesn’t have rhythm on his(18th)birthday. Decidingthat he needs to leave home to find his identity,he embarks on amisadventure that takes him from working odd jobs to becoming asuper-rich inventor/entrepreneur. Along the way,he finds love in anequally dull but extremely cute beautician(Bernadette Peters).

MArtin’s full-on commitment to character and Carl Reiner’s cooperativedirection make this film a delightfully odd and fitfully funny. MArtinfans of all stripes will feel the need to own this one!

read comments (0)

The China Syndrome

Boring commie trash. One of many overacted roles by Jack Lemon & the rest ofthe left wingers in this hateful film. Jane Fonda and a baby faced MichaelDouglas are lifeless, no thrills suspense or anything I can recall enjoyableabout this rubbish. The only film I hate more " The Trial Of Billy Jack "!?

This movie is based on a totally incorrect idea: a nuclear reactorcan't melt down to china. Done, no argument, it can't happen. Modernnuclear power is quite safe because, unlike the brilliant designers ofChernobyl, we mandate containment facilities and negative voidcoefficient reactors that practically require an actual effort by thestaff to cause a meltdown.

its worth noting that not one single person was injured subsequent tothe incident at three mile.

and as for 'nuclear' being unsafe because people aren't perfect, answerthis question: is a nuclear reactor a constant explosion of whatamounts to a nuclear bomb? is it contained? no it is not and yes it is.

I remember first seeing this film and thinking, "Oh my Gawd!!" Everynuclear power plant must be closed down right away or we’re all goingto die!!" Yeah, right.

This film was a farce. It single-handedly destroyed the nuclear powerindustry and made sure that we are nothing but lap-dogs to rich oilsheiks.

I spoke with one of the people who was responsible for investigatingthe 3mileIsle matter and she told me that everything that could gowrong, did go wrong in that incident yet the only thing that happenedwas a small release of harmless steam. The media made this incidentinto something more than it was and people have ignored the safetyrecord of nuclear power in an effort to destroy a clean-burning,efficient industry.

This movie is playing the "hype" and/or "nuclear hysteria"card. It’s fairly predictable as in "Yes I knew this wasgoing to happen". It was probably shocking for its daybut it doesn’t wash anymore. Suspenseful plot with a lotof tension and good performances though. I give it a 61/2.

Although very slow and dated by today’s drama/thriller standards, thisbrilliantly-acted movie is perhaps the best ever done on the subject ofnuclear power plants. This movie requires you to engage your brain,something rarely necessary anymore while watching a movie, especially adrama/thriller. Nothing much in the way of a conspiracy movie, but theexcellent acting by almost the entire cast helps make up for the slowpacingand relatively uninteresting (except in the last 15 minutes of the movie)conspiracy taking place in the story. Jack Lemmon, especially, gives anabsolutely brilliant performance as Jack Godell, an employee of the VentanaNuclear Power Plant. Worth watching just to see his incredible acting. Bythe end of the movie, we feel deeply for his character, and feel as thoughthe story could have happened in "real life" precisely as shown.8/10.

Michael Douglas plays a cameraman who thinks he’s an executiveproducer. Given he seems to already be running his own independentproduction company, why doesn’t he just go ahead and make the burningdocumentary he dreams of and forget about Jane Fonda’s character?

In any event Jane plays a glamorous current affairs "fluff" reporter.The TV execs she works for call her "The Redhead" after her recentchange in hair colour apparently forced upon her to increase her TVappeal. Jane dreams of reporting more important stories, but her bosseswont allow it, despite her admittedly half-hearted protests.Nevertheless in the climactic closing sequences which are basically alife-of-death situation at the plant, Jane and Mike still remember todo a white balance using Jane’s much written-upon scribble pad heldabout 30 metres from the camera while the continued existence ofSouthern California hangs in the balance. What professionals.

This along with the media’s fear of (too much) controversy are some ofthe many issues explored to an extent by this film. Others are ofcourse the inside dealing of the nuclear plant that tries to blowitself up. Perhaps the film attempts to study just too many differentand disparate issues and none are really ever the film’s entire focus,meaning that none are effectively resolved.

Ultimately an OK film, though pretty implausible. I never did get pastthe idea that its a rather self conscious film with some big, left-wingmillionaire Hollywood Stars putting their Big Issue out there… itjust doesn’t convince.

Dated anti-nuclear movie from the late ’70s. DVD review.

A television crew manage to film the control room in a nuclear powerplant during an apparent accident. Is it a cover up? Only Fonda,Douglas, and Lemmon care.

The best parts of this movie were the clothing (all wide collars, browngarments, and flares) and the terrific pacing of the movie. Even if youdon’t really care about the story you’ll still get involved through theincredible editing. Movie features Lemmon as the elderly power stationworker who goes against order to start up the plant. If it wasn’t forTony Randall he would be the most annoying actor of all time. I wish hehad just resigned and moved to Alaska and watched the accident happenon television. There’s an Andy Warhol lookalike as a consultantphysicist. The best scene involved the explanation of the simpleprocess of how nuclear energy is converted into electricity. Thescariest part of this movie is not that accidents in the stations caneasily happen but it’s how there seems to be only about three securityguards in the entire nuclear plant.

China Syndrome was no doubt a topical movie 25 years back but with thegreenhouse effect and fossil fuels burning up the only real alternativenow is nuclear energy.

Honestly, some people would see Stalin’s face in their breakfast cereal. Yes, this is a movie with a message; no, it’s NOT a political message. Theclaim is that nuclear power is dangerous. What does that have to do withpolitics? It’s a claim about physics, engineering, the psychology of powerplant workers and so forth. Anyone who came away from `The China Syndrome’with the feeling that it was left wing clearly got that feeling from readinga biography of Jane Fonda or something of that kind - certainly not fromwhat’s on the screen.

Nor is `The China Syndrome’ anti-nuclear propaganda. It’s very hard tointerpret it as saying that nuclear fission ought to be abandoned as a powersource; rather, it draws our attention to what could go wrong and invites usto think for ourselves about how to guard against this. One of the centralcharacters (Michael Douglas) IS a crank, who drives me up the wall bymispronouncing `nuclear’ (why DO people do that?), and it’s annoying that heshould coincidentally turn out to be right; but the heroes are the sanerpeople, Jane Fonda and, in particular, Jack Lemmon.

Mind you, I don’t want to make great claims about this film. Qua film it’sno more than ordinary. It dates itself partly because the Three Mile Islandaccident was worse than anything it depicts, and Chernobyl was MUCH worse -although being overtaken by reality isn’t the movie’s fault - and partlybecause the ending is so carefully tailored to address the America of 1979. And while that ending IS dramatic, most of the preceding events aren’t. I’mnot just talking about the power plant when I say that nothing much happens. It’s a decent movie-of-the-week: one of the very best of a poorgenre.

basically,a reporter and her cameraman discover a cover-up at a nuclearplant.it was alright,i guess.it had some exciting moments and sometension, and the acting is good,but it also seems too long.there are alot of slow spots.Jack Lemmon,Jane Fonda and Michael Douglasstar.Douglas looks quite different with a full beard.Wilford Brimleyalso stars in the movie.James Bridges directed the movie.he co-wroteThe China
Syndrome with T.S.Cook and Mike Gray.for me,this movie is noclassic,though many people may disagree.if it didn't have so many slowspots,i would give it a higher rating.as it is,i give The ChinaSyndrome a 6/10

When a word or expression undergoes degradation in its meaning andassociations over time, linguists call it "pejoration." It’s simply thatsome words become so contaminated by the semantic baggage they carry thatthey, as words, become "bad" in themselves. "Gung Ho" is an example fromthe military. In 1942 it was used with pride to describe an enthusiasticunit. It doesn’t mean that today. Perhaps the most familiar everydayexample is "undertaker." The word was a standard reference for theoccupation for generations until it became contaminated by covertassociations. Boy, did it become contaminated. It was replaced by"mortician," which then underwent its own pejoration, so that today we have"funeral directors." (It won’t be long.) Our culture has struggled with"housewife" ("domestic engineer") and "garbage man" ("sanitation engineer")and "atomic" ("nuclear"), which is why the Atomic Energy Commission turnedinto the Nuclear Regulatory Agency. Well, that hasn’t been working so welleither, having undergone considerable pejoration of its own, which explainsthis movie. (I thought I heard someone crying, "Why this tediousintroduction!")

Nuclear energy is one of those issues that attracts grandstanders,somethingon the order of smoking or child pornography. Nobody, but nobody, is FORit. Everyone is AGAINST it. So. You want to make a successful movie thatcashes in on existing prejudices and makes a bundle? Make one aboutnuclearenergy and the non-existent sinister forces organized around its promotion.It’s a cheap shot and it can’t fail. (It’s like satirizing the MissAmericaPageant.)

Actually, one doubts seriously that PG&E actually desires nuclear power perse. What the CEOs and CFOs of these utilities want is profits and if theycould find a risk-free means of turning a grain of sand into enough energyto keep Julia Roberts’ wraparound smile dazzlingly alight for ten thousandyears they’d be the first to jump at the chance. "Labor," too, whateverthat is these days, has been blamed for "wanting" nuclear power plants, butagain I can’t help thinking that what a working person wants is a job, notnuclear energy necessarily.

Nuclear power seems to be relatively safe if properly researched andhandled. (Even Isaac Asimov agreed.) When it’s not, then you getChernobylor, if you’re lucky, you get the Three Mile Island accident, which I haveseen described in the media as a "catastrophe." What catastrophe? Despitehuman stupidity and technological failure, Three Mile Island had redundancybuilt into its safety mechanisms and they worked. (If there are sinisterforces at work, it might have been the producers of this disaster movieengineering the Three Mile Island accident at the time of the movie’srelease. One of the characters even makes a remark that an accident at theVentana plant could "contaminate an area the size of Pennsylvania." Wow!)I said that nuclear power "seems to be relatively safe" deliberately. Itwill take a long time and careful monitoring to know just how safe theyactually are. And by "relative," I mean simply that nuclear power has thepotential to destroy great numbers of lives when an accident happens,whereas we already KNOW that the burning of fossil fuels in the form ofoil,coal, and gasoline are already doing that, and has been doing it since theindustrial revolution began. (The Parthenon sizzles like a giant AlkaSeltzer in all that acid raid.) Yet many of us prefer to go on dying fromsources whose names don’t have a "nuclear" appendage. What is it that"makes us rather bear those ills we have, than fly to others that we knownot of?" I don’t know. I’m just asking.

The movie is a piece of manipulative and propagandistic junk, and not verygood junk at that. Michael Douglas is a good guy. You can tell becausehe’s wearing a beard. The company and almost all its representatives areevil. They not only use shoddy workmanship but they try to cover theevidence of their deceit by murdering people. They try to cover up theclose call at the plant, too. Then we have the easy-on-the-eyes Jane Fondawhose looks and manners are exploited by her employers, just like all womenbroadcasters do nothing but present stories on balloons that have goneastray or the weather or whatnot. (This movie was made before Connie Chungwas paid a royal salary while she took time off from work in order to "tryto become pregnant.") If you’re going to have somebody insult andpatronizeJane, Stan Bohrman is the man for the job. He’s a real anchor in LA andcomes on like a ton of bricks. When a serious story comes her way, though,Fonda grabs for it with gusto. Jack Lemmon comes around too. Herecognizesthe danger. Exactly what the danger is, isn’t made too clear, aside fromominous references. A lot of tanks and pipes begin to clank and shiver andfinally fall apart, with nothing important seeming to have resulted. Whatwas that all about? Unable to get a response from the utility company, andwith Jane unable to get her employers to pay attention, Lemmon commandeersthe plant’s control room at gunpoint and demands a chance to tell thepublic. His wish is granted. But, presented with a microphone and camera,Lemmon turns to jelly. If he was previously bursting with the need toshoutout the truth, he now begins to behave like a mafia chieftain in thespotlight. "Was there a cover up?" Jane asks him on live TV. "I — it –I– it wasn’t natural — there was just something UNNATURAL about theincident," he fumbles. This delay allows for a good deal of suspensefulcross-cutting between his gibbering nonsense and the SWAT team burningtheirway through the steel door. The SWAT team succeed while Lemmon doesn’t.Even his friend, Wilford Brimley, who knows the truth, sounds evasive."Jack never took a drink, so he couldn’t have been drunk."

The movie is an insult to objectivity and to the native intelligence of theviewer, although it may tap into some of his or her deepest prejudices.Instead of "atomic" or "nuclear" power, how about "molecular" power? Orbetter yet, "clean" power? We can sprinkled it with arugula and claim itlowers your cholesterol.

read comments (0)

The Amityville Horror

This is one of my top ten horror films of all time. I love it. I knowthe actual case very well and while the movie doesn’t show useverything that happened and makes up others, it still is an excellenthorror film.

Let’s first bring up the subject of music. Music is a very importantelement in a film, ESPECIALLY a horror film. Lalo Schifrin did afantastic job and is a shining example of film scoring.

The acting here by James Brolin, Margot Kidder, and Rod Steiger are topnotch. The cinematography and direction is excellent.

As for the remake, that’s another story and the review for it is alittle longer because I do rant quite a bit.

As for sequels, Amityville II: The Possession is a decent film overall,even though it exaggerates on the DeFeo story to the extreme.Amityville 3-D is a very well made movie and is the only truly goodsequel, even though it is a complete work of fiction. But those areother reviews for another time…

This is the Amityville that started it all, except I can’t believe they evermade another film after this one. I felt this movie was somewhat tediousto watch and also lacking "action." The movie wasn’t a total crash though.The way George Lutz deteriorates during the film is great. You can actuallysee his stress build through the movie. Overall the movie is worth seeingjust to prepare you for the sequel which I feel captures your attention moreso than this flick.

This came on the TV a while back and I thought I should watch it - but Ispent the whole film waiting for something scary to happen. It must haveheld my attention somehow but at the end I couldn’t believe I had stayed upjust for that. By far the worst part is the ending - where’s the climax? Itjust gets to the end and stops.

This is the Amityville Horror that started it all–; well, sort of,Amityville II: The Possession (despite its rotten ending) gives a goodlead-up to this film (after-all it is a pre-quel). This movie leads offright where part II ended. (with the cops surrounding the area) AmityvilleHorror is on the long side (2 hours for a horror movie is unheard of) Itscoverage of events (like the imaginary friend Judy, the basement, and oozeis tedious and lacks action. (don’t all the amityville movies seem thesame? HOWEVER, this one is at least distinct–) The film has a feel ofa (pseudo-)documentary, including screen type of "one month later","thursday,day four", "The Lutz’s now live in another state and have neverreturned to reclaim the house or their/its possessions." In this case thestory strings you along wondering what will finally occur. Yetdisappointingly, nothing does really happen. George Lutz’s deteriorationthroughout the film and the way stress builds during the movie adds to thetension and wonderment, but running back to save the dog and falling intothe well just isn’t terribly exciting (something like the end of Amityville3-D, without the fly, would have been more exciting). Overall the movie isworth seeing though as James Brolin, Margot Kidder, and Rod Steiger arecredible in this Acadamy Award nominated (best original screen-play) storyabout a family moving into the Amityville, Long Island house, the priestthat be-friends them, and paranomial activity that gets in the way. Based onthe Jay Anson book and true events.

this movie was awful. my friends told me how scary this was and telling me iwon’t be able to sleep for days and all this other stuff, and all i didthrough this 1 hour 1/2 yawn fest is …YAWN!!!!! this movie was incrediblydumb, incredibly boring, and very very predictable. i wasn’t scared one bit,and it was kinda funny, not scary. usually the old horror movies are withergood or bad. but the bad ones are scary such as my bloody valentine, butthis stupidity was bad and not scary. this isn’t a classic. bad bad bad bad movie

A lot of the user comments here say this movie sucked, but I disagree. Thebiggest problem was that the storyline projected in the movie was veryvagueand if you hadn’t read the book beforehand or even knew the story itself,itmade no sense and the audience is left waiting for an explanation.

This movie wasn’t as bad as some people say, and although I liked the bookbetter, it was nice to actually see how this story was played out in themovie.

The Amityville Horror was the first film in a series of 7 or 8 films tograce the horror genre since 1979. George and Kathleen Lutz move into acreepy looking house, complete with "eyes" where murders took place. Itseems that a year before, a young man killed his entire family with ashotgun after hearing "voices" in the house that told him to kill them. TheLutzes disregard this, thinking that nothing bad will happen to them. Wrong.Soon after they move in, cold winds start flying through the house, toiletsfill with smelly black gunk and the walls bleed that same substance, doorsget ripped off it’s hinges, the youngest daughter starts playing with hernew friend named "Jody", and George starts exhibiting a complete 360 degreepersonality change. After 28 days of living in the house, things got so badthat the Lutzes fled with nothing but the clothes on their backs. All of theperformances were good, and the music was pretty creepy, although the endingwith the dog was kinda lame. This movie isn’t completely scary, but it doeshave it’s moments. It would have been scarier if it was actually a TRUEstory instead of a money-making hoax.

Never before has a movie scared me like this one (The second one comesclose) I mean just knowing thats its based on a true story is scaryenough.And let me tell you if I saw red eyeslooking at me through a window in my house I would flip!. How people saymovies like the blair witch project are scary is beyond me, this is themostscary movie ever, in my opinion anyway.Don’t expect allot of action and gore because its not that kinda movie.Itsall in your head, put yourself in the house with them, and imagine ithappened to you. Great movie a classic in movie historyOverall 9/10

Maybe it’s because I’ve read ‘The Amityville Horror Conspiracy’ by Stephenand Roxanne Kaplan, but I found this movie rather silly. It could bebecausethis is the first time I’ve seen it and it hasn’t aged well compared withthe faster pacing and special effects I’m used to. In any case, I found’TheAmityville Horror’ to be a below average ghost story with virtually nosuspense.

This movie is freaky if you think about the origin. The amityville house,whether you believe it or not, the movie was based on a factual event.Thisand other aspects in the movie, such as the creepy score and the fact thatthey let your imagination make the movie scary for you make this one worthseeing.

read comments (0)

Stalker

This film did not entertain me. A friend recommended it, saying it wassimilar to Eraserhead, but by the time it ended I found myself completelyunfulfilled. Granted, it was well shot, but good direction alone isn’tenough to save a movie. I found the constant philosophizing pretentious.Thecharacters were unlikable. The dialogue was too heavy-handed and completelyunrealistic (maybe this aspect was lost in the translation, but I doubtit).There were no special effects. I appreciate lyrical films, but after twohours of watching these guys wander around a wasteland, I was sick ofhearing every detail of the movie being questioned and I wanted some kindofpayoff, anything, which never happened. Lyrical films like Picnic atHangingRock or La Dolce Vita managed to entertain, and left me questioningexistence and ordinary life; The Stalker lacked any kind of subtletywhatsoever and left me questioning why I wasted 160 minutes of mylife.

Possibly worse than Erasehead. Unrelenting soul-sucking black and whitedepression, surrounded by a non-existant plot and random 15 minutelecturesfull of dire Russian ‘life is suffering’ philosophy.

Disjointed camera work and strange pointless use of zooms, unusual cameraangles and cryptic symolbism will make this a hit with the artsy crowd.Mostly it just stinks. Its every depressed teenagers high school art filmproject gone horribly wrong.

If your thinking of watching this, just get a big rock and hit yourself inthe face with it for about 2 hours. The experience will be similar, butless painful.

Well, the story of a "Zone" that makes your deepest, most unconscious wishescome true is one that holds magical possibilities, but you won’t find mostof them here. Someone else has already called this film tedious andpretentious, and I agree. Actually, not to call "Stalker" pretentious wouldalmost be an insult to Tarkovsky himself! (He even brought up the subject ofwhy music touches our souls at one point). And not to call it tedious wouldbe the same as kidding yourself; the film is downright unbearable at times,and probably always deliberately so. Moments of beauty and revelation doexist (like the realization of the true nature of "The Room"), but they arefew and far between. Mostly the film will try your patience by having itsthree characters accomplish in more than two hours what they could’veaccomplished in less than 40 minutes. The ending is mega-disappointing. (**1/2)

…or "Tarkovsky at his worst, again". It’s a shame that two ofthe bestscience fiction novels of all times have been wrecked by the sameindividual. First in "Solaris" and then in "Stalker". What is an excitingstory of love, optimism and dark humour, becomes a grim reflex ofTarkovsky’s USSR. The caracter "Red", an incredible character, impossibletobring down under any circunstances, becames an almost invisible characterinTarkovsky’s "Stalker". In the book, everything happens to Red, from beingarrested to be cheated by his wife, form his daughter turning to an alientohis father ressurection as some kind of zombie. To everything he respondswith faith and joy of living. I recommend the book to everybody (having ornot seen the film) and I hope someone will film it someday and make abetterjob. Worst is impossible.

"Stalker" is quite possibly the most slow-paced science-fiction movie evermade. While the excellent novel by the great Soviet SciFi authors, thebrothers Arkadi and Arkadi Strugatski, was a robust and irreverent adventurestory, Tarkovski’s version gets stuck in the typically ponderous territoryTarkovski seems happiest to inhabit. Instead of a relativelystraightforward, intelligent scifi story, Tarkovski delivers endlessdiscussions on theology, science and art from the three main character –often while they lie down in puddles of mud.

As much as mainstream critics love Tarkovski, I have to admit that this timehe went in a different direction from what I would have preferred. Maybe I’mjust an ignorant barbarian, but people lying down in puddles whiling abouttheir misery is no replacement for an actual plot.

I enjoyed Solaris so i figured I'd also pick up stalker. Just got therecent US re-lease with US subtitles. The movie isn't all bad…it'svery visually impressive and Part I of the movie is great. You'reattention is grabbed early on and for the first hour or so you'reslowly getting more and more information on what's going on and it getsmore and more interesting. It's even a little bit creepy. The moviereally works on your imagination because of how they present the zone.

But then part II comes. Extremely long, Way too much dialog, and no payoff. There is no reason it should have been a movie. It really shouldhave remained a book with pictures. There was so much dialog and at theend this hyped up zone and room give us no interesting pay off.Visually interesting yes but there are 20 minute sections where thecamera doesn't move and we just get very long slow dialog. Some of it ifound interesting but the rest was rather dull.

The creepy "what in the hell is going on here" atmosphere that wasbuilt up in part I crashes quickly in part II and I'd have to say themovie flat lines at the end. It's even a stretch to call this movie asci-fi. The most interesting super natural thing that happens issomeone moving a glass nearly 2 and a half hours into the film.

Actually, I’ve never watched this film. I’ve noticed it several timeson TV but every time I decided not to watch it. Do you want to knowwhy? Just because I have read an original book of Strugatski (hope I amright ) brothers! I am a fan of these authors and the book (RoadsidePicnic) is one of my favorites. The film just cannot be compared withthe book. The book is much more interesting, provides more details,much closer to the real life, and still contains all the strong ideas.The only thing, which is absent in the book - visual effects. Ofcourse, sometimes in the future I will watch it and I will really likeit - I know that for sure. But in any case it is a pity for me that thebook was filmed in such a manner - that is why I vote for 7. P.S. StillI hope sometimes someone will do another film based on Roadside Picnic.

In a strange way I'm glad I watched this movie. I agree with otherpostings that this film is beautifully staged. The scenery, and inparticular the transitions between the various environments, isstriking. However, this is very much a non-plot driven movie, relyingmore on character soliloquy and the genesis of deep introspectivethoughts on man's relation to nature and himself (though in a much moreabstract way). I would liken this movie to the second half of Logan'srun and 2001: a space odyssey. We all need a place to meditate, get intouch with ourselves, and leave behind the rusty gears of ourmind/society. In the USSR, a place like this is guarded with barb wireand guns.

You know, I love art-house movies - Jodorowsky, Anger, Bertolucci,Wenders, Warhol, it's all good. But there's a line which mustn't becrossed. That's the line between justified and unjustified pretension.In other words, when does your film become arty without beingentertaining? Well, for me, Stalker crosses that line.

OK, the good points. It's wonderfully shot. The contrasting colour andB&W works well at differentiating between the industrial landscape ofthe city and lush green growth of the zone. Some of the images herewould work better hung in a gallery So what's my problem? It's slow.OK, let me rephrase that - it's so slow I think I could see my hairgrowing faster than the film was moving. Compared to this, Paris, Texaswas a mile-a-minute riot.

I mean, what can you say when one plot element means it takes about 1
5minutes just to cross a field? It would be something if the film wasactually going somewhere, but the film just ends sort ofinconsequentially. No re-balancing of equilibrium - they just go fromnothing to nothing.

So call me a mainstream sellout if you want, but I like plot, I likecolourful dialogue, I like characterisation, all to a moderate extent.Oh sure, you can analyse this film all you want, but you know, you cananalyse Warhol's Empire to death too; nothing changes the fact thatit's just the Empire State Building doing nothing for 5 hours.

I dunno, maybe it's just me, but this is exactly the kind of "art"movie that Monty Python was always so good at ridiculing.

After Tarkovsky's amazing adaptation of Stanislaw Lem's 'Solaris'("Solyaris" 1972), you look forward to this version of the greatRussian SF writers Arkadi and Boris Strugatsy's 'Roadside Picnic.'(They even wrote the script!) You already know that he tells a storyvery slo–oo–oo–wly, with lots of philosophical speculation andbeautiful photography, so you don't expect this to zip along.

Then after having to sit through it, you think 'Oh no, it's goingnowhere!" Why? Because… The story is about a 'stalker' who leads awriter and a scientist to an 'Alien Zone' (created by aliens in theBlack Forest) where they know they will find that 'wishes come true.'On and on they go into the maze, with puzzlement, discussions andphysical problems approaching The Room of the Zone.

Finally, after what seems like hours, as they are about to enter TheRoom, and considering the possibility of what they might find there,they refuse to go in, and decide to go back. The end. Maybe they don''twant their wishes to come true! Apparently this is an allegory aboutbirth or about birth trauma. But it's an un-understandable ending.

If you were reading it as a book, at this point you would take the bookand throw it against the wall. But since you're watching this on videoor DVD, you want a gun to shoot the TV, and you wonder where is ElvisPresley when you need him?

read comments (0)

Norma Rae

“Norma Rae” Sally Fields (Gidget, The Flying Nun, Forest Gump) is a woman who worked at the O.P.H. Hentley Textile Mill. The role is especially nice because it is a true story about a woman who took a stand against her employers who violated labor law regulations. The manufacturers were so flagrant in their violations that Norma Rae’s father had arm pain, and asked for a break. He was made to wait. Actually the pain in the arm was a heart attack that killed him. Sad! The noise in the factory was so bad that everybody had to yell and wear ear protection. I am so glad I don’t have to work in such a noisy place. I would lose my mind. I find that silence inspires me! Norma Rae joined the union and got the company to unionize by challenging the audience to fight for what they believe it is right. She did such a wonderful job that it won her an Oscar. Norma Rae was a single parent who marries Beau Bridges (The Fabulous Baker Boys). “Ruben”, Ron Leibman (Night Falls on Manhattan, Friends) the man behind the organization of the unionization of the mill, and Norma had a great relationship in the movie. She appeared to be falling for him, as she stated:” he is in my head.” But nothing really happened between the two of them besides the hard work of the unionization of the mill. The story is a very good and believable. I watched the movie when it came out and watched it again on television a couple of days ago. Her employers made her pay dearly for her standing for what she believes in. I identify with the character very much. I have been in similar situations many times, not because I am a whistle blower but because I tend to be altruistic. The music is great and also won an Oscar. I recommend this movie! Favorite Scenes: Norma skinny dipping with Ruben. Norma telling her kids about her past. Norma holding up the sign: Union, and all the employees turning their machines off one by one. That is fabulous! Made me cheer! When Ruben forces the employer to put signs which states the rights of the employees at the eye level so that workers could read them.Favorite quotes: Ruben: ” If you were in the State Department we would be in a war.” “Somewhere between law and charity flows a shadow.” When Norma says good bye to Ruben, she blurts out “: I think you like me!” Maybe Sally was quoting the movie when she received her Oscar and said “: I think you like me. You really, really like me!”

Although based on real events and a real person, "Norma Rae’s" tale ofcorporate greed versus oppressed workers has been fictionalized forreasons of privacy. However, fictionalized or not, "Norma Rae’s" powerand influence continue since the U.S. textile industry has forever beenbranded in the minds of Americans as an outmoded industrial complex,whose windowless mills are filled with the deafening noise ofhand-tended machines that are layered with cotton fibers and whoseworkers breathe in and permanently damage their lungs with stale airthat is filled with cotton dust. Although those conditions certainlydid exist, they no longer occur in that industry today. However,despite the modernization of textile manufacturing in the U.S. over thepast couple decades, the image of the noisy, dusty mill that isdepicted in the film remains as the general perception of a textileoperation. Unfortunately, while modern textile mills are free of cottondust and the noise levels have been reduced to the low hum ofcomputers, textile workers like Norma Rae and the others portrayed inthis film have also been replaced with robotics, lasers, and a fewhighly skilled technicians to monitor the computerized operations.While the unionization depicted in the film successfully raised wagesand increased benefits, eventually those higher costs led to efforts tocut expenses through mechanization.

However, despite the demonizing of an industry, the film retains itspower, and the story of Norma Rae’s personal growth as a woman isprobably even more memorable than the efforts to unionize one Southerntextile mill. Sally Field inhabits the role of an unwed Southern millworker with two children, and, as the film progresses, she slowlyevolves from an aimless girl, who is used and abused by men, whetherthey be lovers or employers, into a mature woman who finds a depth andstrength that helps her take control of her life and find theconfidence to lead. Television viewers who only knew Field as theFlying Nun were surprised at her range and depth, although those whohad taken the time to watch the television movie "Sybil" alreadysuspected the breadth of her talent.

While Sally Field finally shed her Gidget and Flying Nun image withthis film and certainly is the emotional core of the movie, she is wellsupported by a cast of pros, especially the two most important men inher life. Unfortunately, because Field is so outstanding, viewers willlikely need a second viewing to appreciate just how good both RonLeibman and Beau Bridges are in "Norma Rae." Ron Leibman as theassertive union organizer from New York is the man who awakens Norma’sintellect and propels her into uncharted territory as a woman.Meanwhile, Beau Bridges as Norma Rae’s gentle, understanding husbandstands by his woman despite his not completely comprehending orappreciating the changes that are underway in his wife’s character.

"Norma Rae" is an outstanding film, well directed by Martin Ritt,beautifully written by Frank and Ravetch, and performed with heart byField, Leibman, and Bridges. Although the movie has probably stainedthe image of the U.S. textile industry for good, "Norma Rae" alsoestablished Sally Field as an actress of the first order and remains anengrossing human story of a woman’s growth into maturity and herdiscovery of previously unrealized potential within herself.

Sally Field’s stellar performance is the highlight of this terrific movie,but Ron Leibman was just as effective in my opinion. In fact, the wholecast does a fine job, so if you’re looking for superb acting, then look nofurther. The film is good from start to finish, but a few wonderfulmomentstowards the end make it seem even better than it already is. Perhapsslightly overlong, but overall a great movie.

Norma Rae is without a doubt one of my favorite movies of all time. I grewup in a blue collar working class family so this movie really hits homeforme.

An outstanding performance by Sally Field and a very powerful storyline ofUnionizing a textile mill in the south make Norma Rae a movie watcher’sexperience rather than pure entertainment.

Sally Field’s first Oscar came way via "Norma Rae."

The factory where she and her dad work does not know or want to knowabout unions. Workers are routinely abused and there is no way out forthese hard-working laborers.

Along comes Jewish Ron Leibman, from the north, with the idea offorming a union. He meets up with much hostility. We see the southernhatred of unions in general and there is an underlining feeling ofanti-Jewishness here as Jews have always been in the forefront of laborissues in America.

Pat Hingle’s fatal coronary spurs daughter Norma to action. Herstopping work and turning around with the sign union is memorable.

This picture is timely due to the rash attacks on the labor movementfrom the federal government on down to management. Made at a time whenPresident Reagan destroyed the Air Traffic Controller’s Union, the filmis most appropriate.

I own a copy of this movie and I watch it at least twice a year.An intelligent story, without cookie-cutter characters. It still amazes andthrills me each time I see it. The fact that there was no forced romancethrust upon us, is also worth noting. Sally Field created a woman whois now part of movie history.

This is a dramatic and moving film that rests on the wonderful Oscarwinning portrayal by Sally Field of a Southern textile worker, NormaRae. The famous scene in whi
ch Norma Rae stands on a table holding up aunion sign, as her coworkers turn off their machines one by one, hasgone down in cinematic history.

At the outset, Norma Rae is an Alabama small town textile mill workerand single mother of three, living with her parents. She has had in thepast a series of relationships with men, sometimes married, who havemistreated her; then as the story progresses, she meets and marriesSonny (Beau Bridges). Her life is quite ordinary until Reuben (RonLeibman), a union worker from New York, comes to her mill and tries tounionize its labor force. He persuades Norma Rae to head up the causeat her mill, resulting in severe conflict with management and potentialconflict in her own relationship with husband, Sonny.

The movie effectively portrays the plight of the mill workers whereeveryday working conditions involve a hot, noisy, and crowdedenvironment, unfeeling bosses, and a regimented day. Given our presentsituation, it is difficult for us to picture factory life without theprotections offered by unions. They are taken for granted nowadays.

I disagree with those who seem to pick up on all this sexual tensionbetween Norma Rae and Reuben. I think one of the points to be made isthat while they are definitely aware of each other’s sexuality, she isloyal to Sonny, for once a man who treats her decently, though Reubenbrings out leadership qualities in her that she hasn’t hithertorealized. They also share a certain camaraderie and bond with regard totheir union struggles, leaving Sonny rather on the outside. Eventually,as he grows secure in her love, her husband becomes more able to acceptthis relationship with Reuben. When Norma Rae declares regarding Reuben’He’s in my head’, I don’t think she’s referring to sex or romance, butthe union struggle and her leadership role within it that he isencouraging.

For me, the most touching scene in the movie is definitely the onefollowing Norma Rae’s arrest, in which she returns exhaustedly homefrom prison at night, awakens her three sleeping kids, informs themthat their ‘Mama’s a jailbird’ and that they’re going to be hearing allkinds of stories about her. She admits she’s made mistakes, tells eachchild who his or her father is, and gives each a photo of their dadwhich she’s had tucked away. All parents must face that at some pointtheir children will come to realize their mom or dad isn’t perfect, andnowhere is this more dramatically shown than in this particular scenefrom Norma Rae.

This is a memorable movie…a vivid depiction of the struggles of bluecollar life, the story of union development (fictional but historicallybased), and especially one woman’s sympathetically captured personaltale and her unlikely role as leader of this union struggle at her ownmill.

Typical under-dog story that is so well-made that its success makes for avery memorable cinematic experience. The titled character (Sally Field inasuper Oscar-winning part) tries to get her fellow textile workers tounionize in her small town, but there are consequences abound. A goodsupporting cast which includes Ron Leibman, Pat Hingle and Beau Bridgesalladd to Field’s show-stopping performance. Field proved that she couldhandledelicate material and carry a film to cinematic history. 4.5 out of 5stars.

This film is in no way a documentary, but the filming style and plot linelend to its feeling so. Sally Field’s acting in this movie is impeccable. She becomes Norma Rae. We see her fear, her disgust, her anger at themill’s treatment of its employees, and the passion she has for what shebelieves in. Although the best known scene from the movie is her standingat the mill with the "Union" sign, I believe the most memorable scene istowards the end when she talks to her children, telling them what to expect. The movie tends to turn away from her children, but this scene focuses inon her relationship with them. Beau Bridges is great, and the character ofthe Union leader (can’t remember his name) is terrific. The sexual tensionbetween Norma Rae and he is palpable. I strongly recommend this film to anySally Field fans, or anyone interested in social issuefilms.

In trying to get the textile mill she and her family work forunionized, Sally Field's Norma Rae Webster also tries to earnself-respect at any cost. She's been leading a dead-end existence: asingle mother, still living with her family, sleeping with married menwho abuse her. But after being inspired by a union-organizer (RonLiebman, in an Oscar-worthy supporting performance), Norma Rae isawakened to the possibilities of life, and, what's more, everythingthat is wrong with the mill that seems to suck the energy and hope fromthose who stand there day after day trying to earn an honest dollar.There are problems with the picture: Beau Bridges' role as new husbandSonny is treated in a trivial manner (he's supposed to be a voice ofreason, but he's too smooth, maybe condescending, and it's anunconvincing character); Oscar-winner Field's fiestiness occasionallyfeels overdrawn and/or one-note, but in many of the scenes outside thefactory she does indeed excel, seeming vibrantly natural and exuberant.Martin Ritt's direction is focused and firmly rooted (he neversugarcoats Norma Rae's character, and sometimes she's not that likable)and the script manages to sidestep preachiness to get its points acrossentertainingly. The art direction is really the second star of thefilm: vivid, palpably hot and sweaty, with bits of cotton floatingabout in the air. The mill in question becomes very familiar to us, asdo the people who work there. "Norma Rae" is involved and long, yet itis memorably bittersweet, and with a simple, haunting finish. *** from****

read comments (0)

Escape from Alcatraz

Clint Eastwood stars as one of three convicts who try to escape the famousprison off the San Francisco coast…Based on a true story..suspenseful7 of 10

ESCAPE FROM ALCATRAZ is probably my favorite prison movie out there. Ienjoyed it more than THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, which is also a greatmovie.Everything in this movie works. The acting is solid, especially PatrickMcGoohan as the warden and there’s plenty of edge-of-your-seat suspensethroughout. Clint Eastwood and Don Siegel are known for making greatmoviestogether, and this is no exception. It along with DIRTY HARRY rank as myfavorite Eastwood film’s. 5/5

This film was very interesting to me, partly because Frank Morris wasoncein the Granite State Reformatory. I live in the small town of Granite,Oklahoma where the reformatory is located. Just wish we could know ifMorris and the two escaped alive, or drowned!

I’ve lived in the San Francisco area all my life, and I see Alcatrazevery day when I go to work across the beautiful Golden Gate Bridge.All my life I’ve thought it very strange that one of the most beautifulplaces on earth has a cruel prison right in the middle of its bay, likea pimple on the forehead of a gorgeous woman. Like many San Francisconatives, I’ve avoided taking the tour of Alcatraz. But recently anout-of-town relative treated me to the extreme tourist treatment of OurFair City, capped by the famous Alcatraz tour. It changed my life.Visiting that place was the most intensely compelling three hours Icould imagine, and I now look at The Rock differently. And this movieis so well-made, the location so well-filmed, the story so well-told,that this cinema experience is as real as it gets. When you come tovisit San Francisco you must visit Alcatraz, and then see this movie.Whether you’ve seen the film before or for the first time, you will beaffected. And if you can’t come to San Francisco (I’m very sorry forthat), trust that this film gives a true story a very real telling,faithful in detail and drama.

Escape from Alcatraz is listed as a "classic" on most movie reviewsites, and I'll agree that it is somewhat old. However, being a"classic" doesn't automatically make it "good" or even "tolerable".

At no point in this movie did I want Clint Eastwood's character toescape. There was no indication that he was incarcerated withoutreason, or that he was treated that poorly while in prison. Theaudience is left only to assume that he is a career criminal who hasescaped from several prisons in the past.

I also could not care for any of the other escapees (the brothers) aswe are introduced to them merely through a brief conversation withEastwood's character about how they arrived at Alcatraz. The artist'sfate is entirely out of line with the "reasons" he gives, Litmus simplykeels over dead, and English "introduces" Wolf to the black prisonersfor what reason?

There are two more recent movies that show the difficulty of life inprison 100,000 times more effectively than Escape from Alcatraz — TheGreen Mile and Sawshank Redemption. In the latter, everyone roots forAndy Dufresne to escape because we know his reasons for wantingfreedom. In Escape, we are only to assume Eastwood's character doesn'tlike prison. Boo hoo.

Those who say the movie "Shawshank Redemption" copied this film are missingsomething — I’m convinced it was Stephen King who copied this film for hisshort story "Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption." The publication yearof the book that the story appeared in ("Different Seasons") was 1982,although I’m not sure what year the story was actually written. "Escapefrom Alcatraz" came out in 1979.

If true, this wouldn’t be the last time for Mr. King… his novella "TheLangoliers" is clearly and obviously based on (ok, inspired by) a 1961Twilight Zone episode titled "The Odyssey of Flight 33."

So — it seems "The Shawshank Redemption" copies only the book it’s basedon, and rightly so. It also stands as a great movie initself.

Anyway, "Escape from Alcatraz" is an underrated film in my opinion. If youcheck out the web you can find pictures of the dummy heads, inmate’s cells,etc. There was a lot of attention to detail in the film, and it’s prettydarned accurate in most ways! For Hollywood, this is remarkable. It’s alsoinvolving and entertaining as a film. I give it a very strong 8/10 — ifyou haven’t seen it and enjoy movies of this sort, it’s more than worth arental.

There’s no denying the man has presence and a distinct kind of ‘machocool’, not needing particularly sparkling dialogue to get us on his side orturn him into a hero. Here that presumption is tested to the limit, becausethere IS absolutely no "sparkling dialogue" whatsoever.

In fact, what little dialogue actually present is practically all’exposition’. This seems to stand in the stead of any sort of visual flairfrom Siegel, so if you want more than the bare bones of the plot I’m afraidyou’ll be sadly disappointed. ‘Words’ here are only used as something toyank the plot gracelessly from A to B. The rare times this method isignored are for Eastwood to crack a few lame jokes - rescued only by anyrespect the audience has fostered for the man (not the character) deliveringthem.

There ARE no ‘characters’ here; just ‘pawns’ who move in a set waydesigned to achieve a precise effect. Good for those who like ‘routine’ Isuppose, but I wanted to break out of the prison the film put me in just asmuch as the cons wanted to escape Alcatraz!

Ultimately the tale is just as mechanical and done by rote as undoubtedlywas the scheme that led to it. ‘Gloss’ or ‘nuance’ is nowhere to be found;what we’re delivered is what the title promises us and NOTHING more. Exactly what it says on the tin - and sadly you’d probably have more funreading about the contents of one of those rather than watchingthis.

"Escape from Alcatraz" used to be my number one favorite prison movie of alltimes. That was of course before I saw Frank Darabont’s fantastic "TheShawshank Redemption". It still doesn’t take anything away from this one. Ilove this marvelous movie partly because I’m a fanatic Clint Eastwood fanand this is one of his most memorable movies and partly because it simply issuch a damn good film! After watching it over and over again it just keepson getting better. It’s just so fascinating to follow how carefully andsystematically prisoners are planning their escape. I guess if you’resentenced in prison that’s the only thing you can think of and inventivenessgrows up to be amazing. 10 out of 10 to "Escape from Alcatraz" - DonSiegel’s most outstanding classic with Eastwood since "Dirty Harry". If youstill haven’t saw it, shame on you! And remember: "No one has ever escapedfrom Alcatraz…and no one ever will".

what can i say. clint eastwood at his best , and as good as anyone elseevergot. in my view it is one of the best movies ever made , thrilling yetdramapacked! as i said he is at his best and is in the same bracket as nicolascage!

A Very Good movie about the only man to have escaped from the world’s mostfamous prison. Clint Eastwood once again puts in another great performance(as does Patrick McGhoon). It’s great watching the build up to the prisonbreakout. My only slight niggle is that the film ought to have been alittlebit longer. But overall, it certainly stands up to repeated viewing andcomes well recommended. If you are considering purchasing this on DVD bewarned, it comes with no extras. Shame on you Paramount.

read comments (0)

All That Jazz

This has to be the best musical to hit film ever. First of all its thestory of Bob Fossee……The Man…the choreographer, the legend. Itsvery inspiring, beautiful, and sad all at once. The drive and insanitybehind his perfection is amazing to watch. If you want to see awesomechoreography that actually helps tell the story and movesyou…….rent this classic. Bob Fossee's lifestyle eventually killshim….and we watch the downfall of the great. Through drugs,cigarettes, caffeine, and anything he can get his hands on he ispushing himself further and further. Even when doctors tell him he isgonna die if he doesn't rest…..we see a classic song and dance aboutdeath….talking to angels, and relevations about dying. If you haven'tseen this film and want to be really entertained, prepare yourself tosee something inspiring. This movie is about life…and sometimes thetruth is hard to handle.

The film All That Jazz, details the life of Joe Gideon, who is based onBob Fosse, who ironically wrote and directed the film.

The film uses flashbacks to create depth for the characters. Forinstance, Joe Gideon has a vision of a beautiful woman all in white;this is the Angel of Death, he is dying. While talking to this Angel,he has a vision of his childhood, when he grew up in the Burlesquehouse. This scene allows the viewer to see what kind of kid Joe was andhow he became the man he is today.

Sound is very important to this film, it's all about music and dance.One scene in particular is when the script scene appears. All thesurrounding sounds were taken out and it focused on his breathing,knuckles cracking and everything else he was doing, everything else wasmuted.

All That Jazz is a dark and depressing film that deals with drugs, sex,and death. These are controversial elements to add to a musical. Thelighting used enhances the sexual elements in the film, especially inthe dance number in which all the dancers dance in the dark, but thespotlight hits a few. These dancers begin taking their clothes off andeverything becomes sexual, which upsets everyone.

The final dance number is a vision that Joe has on his deathbed; onceagain the dancers wear all white, which symbolizes angels. Joe has mademany mistakes in his life and in this scene he asks for forgiveness.All his friends and family are in the crowd or dance number.

This film is still influential today, with quick editing and montagessuch as: Joe taking a shower, taking pills and taking eye drops. All ofthose are seen in the recent film Requiem for a Dream. All That Jazz isa different take on the musical that tries to go for controversy ratherthen a cheerful jolly ending that most conventional musicals do andthis film should be applauded for doing so.

All That Jazz is a biopic that reminds me of the recent Oscar winnerChicago in that the main character is so passionate about show businessthat the line between reality and the stage become blurred. Chicago, Ireally did enjoy watching because it took this idea and went with itfull-force mixing melodramatic scenes with musical song-and-dancenumbers, where as All That Jazz didn't really go full-force in anydirection and ended up in an awkward middle ground. Centering onBroadway dancer Joseph Gideon, played by Roy Scheider, the film relieson a couple recurring motifs and chronological disorder in itsstorytelling to convey its effects. One of the motifs is that Scheiderstarts out every day taking some kind of prescribed drug, drinking acup of water with alka-seltzer, putting eye drops in his eyes andsmiling in front of a mirror exclaiming to himself, 'It's Showtime',which just has the overall effect of making him appear distanced fromreality.

The other big motif is that there's a certain blur of events time wise,especially when there are frequent interruptions in the story in whichGideon is talking to a pretty attractive woman, Jessica Lange, whohappens to be the Angel of Death, so that makes the film a sort ofsurreal flashback. The whole thing left me more confused than anythingelse, and also by the time I figured out who she was, the story'sprotagonist was in the hospital and it was unclear whether he wouldsurvive, so I felt like the answer to that question was ruined.

I really liked the opening musical number as a crowd starts out on aBroadway stage trying out for a show while the song 'On Broadway' isplaying and one-by-one Gideon sends them home until he whittles it downto the cast we'll become more familiar with over the course of thefilm. It really has an interesting vibe to it as are some of thebehind-the-scenes aspects of Broadway we see in this film, but theydidn't show too much of that.

When I really think hard about why this film didn't cut it for me, itpoints to the fact that despite Scheider's efforts, Joseph Gideon, andI don't even know if he's an actual real-life person, just isn't anyoneinteresting enough to make a biopic about. The gist of the man's lifewas that he was very talented and genuinely cared about those who lovedhim, but he also couldn't stay loyal to any one woman and slept around,even while he was married. Well, I'm sorry, talented and womanizer isnothing new. Judging from all the scandals and divorces going on inHollywood. In fact, you'd probably find it harder to find a talentedperformer who IS loyal to his wife.

Don’t get me wrong I love this movie.

However it shouldn’t work. It doesn’t work. Its a mess. Its crazy. Itsoverindulgent. Its self obsessed. Its badly written. Occasionally itsbadly acted. Its too long.

If you doubt me try this experiment. Drop the open heart surgery /sexy, leggy dance number scene into conversation and then try andjustify it.

You can’t, but somehow it works.

I suspect its because Fosse’s sense of fun oozes through every frame.Roy Scheider has a grin on his face throughout so wide its impossiblenot to be charmed.

As an aside Bob Fosse made the delicious Anne Reinking audition for therole of the much put upon girlfriend. Despite the fact that it was arole she’d occupied for many years for real.

It’s been a long while since I’ve seen All That Jazz. The first time Isaw it, I remember being quite impressed by it. I just saw it again,and my goodness, I enjoyed it ten times more this time around! This isnot a true biography of the movie’s director, (Bob Fosse) but afictionalized account of a overworked Broadway and movie Director namedGideon(!!). He is played here by Roy Scheider in one hell of aperformance. Who knew that he had such range! Singing, Dancing, youname it! He’s putting on his new musical and in the finishing stages ofediting his new movie. Day by day, you can see the stress pile on tohim. Plus, it doesn’t help that he’s a chain smoker..

Fosse edits this movie brilliantly, using the Gideon character in thecurrent time, and also using Gideon reflecting on his life, whiletalking to a character, played by Jessica Lange (whose character Iwon’t reveal, so not to spoil it for you (but if you were payingattention, you’ll easily pick it up).

What can I say? This has the best choreographed scene I’ve seen in along time. The Airotica number is so well done, choreographed andedited that it simply took my breath away. Of course, this theme wasthe inspiration for the ending of Flashdance and Paula Abdul’s ‘ColdHearted’ video. Nice to see the original.

And the ending, my god. One of the most perfect endings, period.

I saw this on VHS. I just might the DVD…

so intones the semi autobiographical character of joe gideon (theexcellantroy scheidder) modelled on the undisputed genius that was the late, greatbob fosse. this is a wonderful, affectionate and highly innovative adultmusical from this sadly missed mega talent that has grown over the yearsinto cult classic status. the opening broadway audition scene set togeorgebenson’s
superlative cover version of ‘on broadway’ must surely rank asoneof the most impressive set pieces ever. also commendable is bob’s greattalent for truly eye opening choreography and rapid fire, crisp editing.jessicca lange; fosse’s then girlfriend provides a wonderful, eeriesupporting role as the angel of death whilst ben vereen; a terrificentertainer in his own right is also captivating too. sorry to be a namedropper but i’ve met this bloke and he’s a really great guy! a capital Aplus must be bestowed on all involved on this highly polished andprofessional movie.

I simply love this movie! For one I’m a big Fosse fan, and that’s whatintrigued me at first, knowing this was a self-mocking semi-autobiographicalfilm about a true genius of the craft. I was hooked the second it started!The brutal honestly he had with himself, the funny little hidden referencesto his other classics, and just the way it was filmed. It slowly draws youin. You don’t want to love it, but you do! The way it was filmed wasn’tbeautiful. It wasn’t incredibly showy. It just seemed raw, and real. To gettechnical the choreography is just STUNNING! As are all the dancers andactors! I was highly impressed by the little girl who played Michelle! shewas killer! and one of my fav scenes is the one where Joe has just come backfrom a rehearsal feeling humiliated by the way his choreography is headed,and has a little cat and mouse game with Audrey(whos dancing in this sceneis fabulous to say the least!) And who can forget the stunning scenes at theend with his girlfriend, xwife, and daughter! Brilliant! Ann Reinking did akiller job with "There’ll Be Some Changes Made" (a personal fav song ofmine) I really don’t know what else to say…This movie is honest, raw, anddefinitely plays some fun games with your emotions. A Fosse CLASSIC! NOT 2BE MISSED! Oh! and I can’t not mention the stunning costumes! They were justgorgeous:)

This film rates up in my personal top ten. It’s as candid, introspectiveandglitzy a piece of showbiz as you could find. And that’s "showtime folks."Itis clever, introspective, self-deprecating and compassionate. As a pieceoftheatre, it’s remarkable. You are drawn into the internal life of the maincharacter in a rare manner, and then, like him - forced to externaliseagain. A wonderful introspective piece that delivers big numbers, asks bigquestions, then leaves the answers to ephemeral, gentle Southern ladieswithvery big white hats!

This film takes the basic back story of the director Bob Fosse and distortsit into the story of its anti-hero, Joe Gideon. The first, very cleverlyput-together dance sequence, sees a group of dancers doing a Gideon routineto a blistering version of ‘On Broadway’.

The film gets into gear with a number of Groundhog Day style repeats ofGideon popping pills and thinking ‘Showtime!’. Part fantasy, part difficultreality, we follow a number of sequences outside of and within Gideon’smind, culminating with a kind of surreal end of life sequence in which allthe significant people in his life play out vignettes to show how they feelabout him.

The cornerstone of all this is Roy Scheider’s performance, which is superbfrom first to last. He’s the one you remember, as the tired creative forcepushing his last great idea into the world. Lengthy but well worth theeffort.

Fosse has created a work of astonishing depth here. Rarely does a filmfuseso harmoniously technical, emotional and thematic majesty. The film takesthe form of a confessional tract, and by the magnificent conclusion wefeelas if we really do know the protagonist. Despite its weighty subjectmatterand broad narrative scope, the picture feels brisk and very watchableindeed. A staggering achievement.

read comments (0)

Alien

Alien, despite its critical acclaim from millions of sci-fi kooks ispossibly one of the most overrated horror films ever. Yes, the FX areincredible for 1979 and even for today, HOWEVER, there is absolutely noexcuse for this film to be 2 hours long. Can I justify my remarks? Welllet’s go over a few basic plot points. First, the crew wakes up. Then theyreceive a mysterious transmission of unknown origin. They are forced bytheir contract to investigate. Almost 45 minutes later, we get to thefirstmajor plot point, one of the crew members Kane finds all kinds of alieneggsin the bottom of this spaceship. one of them "hatches", and latches ontopoor Kanes face. They take him onto the ship and try to detach the facehugger from Kanes head. Unfortunately they soon learn the creatures bloodiscompletely acid, which has a PH of around… oh to be on the safe,exaggerative side I would say negative 12. This of course keeps the crewfrom removing the face hugger. Kane comes to and he seems to be fine, wellfine until a slithering pasty hell beast comes ripping its way out of hischest. So begins the hunt for the cute little teething b***ard.Unfortunately within a manner of hours he is full grown and begins toslaughter members of the crew one by one. I cannot give away the surpriseending, but I will tell you that it involves the alien failing to kill 2ofthe remaining crew. Anyways Yes the acting is good, the story, wellthere’squite a bit to be desired there. While there were some good story pointswhich made Alien more intriguing, that was certainly not enough to make upfor its ghastly slow pace. As far as horror movies go, I will certainlygrant you it is probably one of the best in that genre. Since I am notverymuch into horror movies since to me killing does not substitute forentertainment, maybe I am not an adequate judge of this film. Of all thehorror movies I’ve seen, Alien is probably the least gruesomest of themall.And believe it or not i’ve seen quite a few. There’s nothing really great,fun, fascinating or insightful about this film, so God only knows how itended up in the top 100 on the imdb. Even with an unbiased heart, I canonlygive this movie a 5/10, sorry Mr. Scott, you failed.

Ridley Scott has created only the truest form of fear in movie history.This film shows what if you were in space… alone. No one can hearyou, no one can save you. You are stuck with a monster tormenting youknowing that you have no chance.

It is hard to know that there is someone out for your blood, but for itto possibly be in the next room with no where else for you to go. Youcan make one wrong move, resulting in yours and possibly your crew’sdeath. How would you like that? This is why this remains only one ofthe scariest sci-fi movies.

Because in space, no one can hear you scream.

SPOILER WARNING

Alien was a bad movie for so many reasons. I watched it for the firsttime last night and couldn't help but think, "why does everyone likethis movie so much?" There were so many things that just seemedridiculous. First off everyone in the opening scene is sitting aroundsmoking cigarettes. Granted the movie was made in the 70s and smokingwas popularized as "cool" in the movies. Still, wouldn't you think thatin a spaceship with all this highly sophisticated equipment that theywouldn't allow smoking? you cant even smoke on an airplane anymore. Buti can let this one slide due to the time frame that the movie was madein.

The things i cant let slide are: Why is there a freaking cat on theship? I just cant understand this. I mean do they deep-sleep the cattoo while they travel through space. It seems like a waste of money,plus i didn't see any litter boxes. Maybe that would have helped themovie some if they had a scene where Sigourney cleans the litter box inher skimpy underwear. I still cant quite understand why she wasted somuch time trying to save the damn cat anyway.

Another problem i had was when they first tried to capture/kill thealien. When they are going after the alien, they still think its small.The captain of the ship is like, "here's the plan, we walk around andtry to catch it with this net." You're in space, in the future,fighting a creature nobody knows anything about, and the best means ofcapture you have is a small rope pirates net? I mean come on… youshould at least assume this creature is capable of ripping some rope,he did just burst through your friends stomach. But its OK becausePost-Vietnam era African American guy has his bandanna on.

Some other seemingly obvious errors are, 1) Ash is a robot? OK, is thisjust a cop out for not trying to actually explain why he is evil."Robo-Ash must force magazine down your throat. It is the only wayRobo-Ash know how to kill human." I mean nobody realized he was a robotwhen he wasn't eating/using the bathroom, etc. Or maybe he just fakedit right? And why do robots bleed milk?

2) why was it raining inside the ship? you know where Brett/Lenny fromOf Mice and Men takes off his hat and basks in the ships rain. "takeoff your hat Lenny, the air feels fine." I didn't know the ship couldalso make rain.

3) the only guns they have are flame throwers? You'd think technologywould evolve some in the next 50 plus years that our weapons inouter-space aren't flame throwers. It seems just a little to primitiveto me. But hey "Creatures don't like fire" - i believe that was thejustification for using them. They should have had some other weapon toneutralize an alien other than something that would clearly damage theship when they miss.

4) What was the alien doing in the escape pod. He was like sleeping inthe wall or something. He was just hunting all the humans then he gottired? or maybe he figured out the ship was gonna blow up and left. Ilike Scotts first idea for the ending, where the alien kills Ripley andsits in her chair and impersonates her voice. Now that is an endingthat i would have loved. Much better than Ripley in her nightie andmake up drifting away to sleep.

Maybe the movie was revolutionary for the Sci-Fi genre, so for thatreason i tip my hat to it. But honestly, they should have thoughtthrough some aspects of the movie more thoroughly before they made it.I mean come on, a female protagonist… even i scoffed at that one.

CUT! This is something Mr. Scott should learn to say every once in awhile.This could have been a great film, it does have a decent story,unfortunately the director was just to incompetent to make this a goodflick. Had there been more editing and fewer ungodly long takes it wouldbecome a much more enjoyable watch.

this film was misdirected, unoriginal, cheaply produced and it allshowed. the plot line was absolutely atrocious and although theproducers may have added in extra splashes of gore to direct attentionfrom the otherwise horrible performing i do not think it can really beconsidered to be a horror. i accept that it was going to have achallenge to compete with the seemingly unrivalled success of Star Wars(1977) however to expect to actually give George Lucas a run for hismoney wit this production was ludicrous. i am not quite sure that ihave seen another film with quite the level of subordinate scriptingand meaning that does not go directly out of its way to be consideredas a joke. e.g. scream

MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS

Am I the ONLY person who didn’t like Alien. What was so flawless about it?Here’s the plot in a nutshell. Crew of spaceship find alien egg. Bursts outof someones stomache and kills them all one by one until one of themeventually kills it. All that over 117 minutes.There is absolutely no music.A crew member spends ten minutes looking for a cat, (not expecting an aliento kill him) and guess what happens. I think it would have been ten timesbetter if it was a little less subtle, quicker to get the point and directedby s
omebody else. But i’m SUPPOSED to love this film because every critic onthe planet does. This is overrated and unworthy of itshype.

This has been hailed one of the greatest Sci-Fi/ horror movies of alltime. I want to know who was the first person to ever say this! If youknow e-mail me! This movie was one of the worst movies I have ever seenin my entire life!! It was so incredibly slow with no action orexcitement at all!! The plot was bad and the script was worse!! But theworse thing of all was Sigourney Weaver she is such a talented actressand she didn’t express any talent at all in this movie!!! I can sum upthe plot in a few sentence fragments. Stupid spaceship, gets infestedwith Alien Species. AHH!! People die and Sigourney’s main goal wassaving some animal, I forget if it was a cat or dog. She abandons thespaceship kills alien and life moves on!!

This is not a scary movie, but indeed a gross one. The reasons thismovie is stupid are that they wasted the first hour of the film doingabsolutely nothing, and there was so much use of unnecessary gore andgraphic violence that it made the film ridiculously stupid. Just takeout the "stupi" in stupefying and add a D to the end. That will tellyou everything you need to know. If you want a scary movie that won’tmake you heave when you look at water and milk and think they’re aliendrool, don’t rent this garbage. I wish I had never seen this disgustingfilm, because I truly would have been better off without seeing it.Back then in the 70’s, scary movies were absolutely disgusting andgory, so I’d rent something new that’s from our time if I were you.

Before I watched the movie I only heard recommendations to watch thismovie. But when I watched it I was highly disappointed. Many shots ofthe film are dark, too far away or too near. O.K., the characters arein a small star ship but many scenes are too complex. The film startswithout an introduction so you don't know in which year the astronautsare for what reason in space. The rest of the movie is quite boring,sometimes Jerry Goldsmith's make some themes exciting by usingappropriate music. The rest of Jerry Goldsmith's score is not bad butalso not above average. I can't believe that it got a 8.4 in average atIMDb. My advice: If you want to look an alien movie, watch Star Trek,f.e. Star Trek Voyager, episode "Scorpion".

This film was historically significant for its work with specialeffects and cinematography. It is not fun to watch, though. I found thefilm slow-paced and unexciting. It might have been a shock to see an"alien" on screen in 1979, but watching such a movie today is the filmequivalent of playing the first Mario games– it's dated. We seespecial effects every day now, not only in movies but in advertisementson TV. This movie relies on its special effects, which are admittedlywell done, but are not enough to justify rating a movie highly in 2007.

The Alien didn't scare me. More than anything, it grossed me out… butit never induced horror or fright.

I'd suggest this film to the film professors, but not to my friends.

read comments (0)

1941

From Spielberg’s portrayal of "Japs" (his words, not mine), Germans,Hispanics, etc., to his one sided vision of the war, to his unfunnyjokes… this film is an absolute mess from start to finish.

Unlike other catastrophes, which are at least somehow tolerable becauseof how bad they are, Spielberg combines the worst elements he couldfind, and delivers a movie that can’t be enjoyed on any levelwhatsoever. The plot is non-existent, the main actors, although wellknown, are stiff, act idiotic, and add nothing to the story, and thefilm wanders everywhere without any coherence whatsoever.

What’s the message here? That "Japs" are stupid? War is funny?Spielberg is the most overrated director ever? I don’t know, butreally… don’t waste your time and avoid this mess. Rent "Dr.Strangelove" instead.

BTW - 2 stars because some shots looked really nice.

Rented this because I remembered it was cool. Robert Stack (who fought theoriginal WWII on film in "To Be or Not To Be") and Toshiro Mifune (who isthe classical warrior) both do gorgeous jobs with their characters in thissilly comedy. Ned Beatty and John Candy are good, too. The times must havechanged, tho, because today heavy-handed sex, race riot and massive injuryjokes are painfully close to stupid, John Belushi is one-dimensional, andplotting is ho-hum. Other points about tightening up the plot made inearlier comments are well taken. And shouldn’t the LaBrea Tar Pits blow upor something? (You want a riot? See "Zoot Suit".)

This film is good fun. Period. Not SS’s best but I think he took theright vein in making a lighthearted WWII film. I consider it part I ofhis WWII ‘quadrilogy’ including, "Empire of the Sun", "Schindler’sList", and "Saving Private Ryan". All of which are much better filmsbut they might not be so good if not for "1941".

The special effects are baby steps compared to what we have seen fromSS since then. And the sets were fun to see also. This film has thelook and feel of a classic film made in modern times. The onlydifference was that it was shot in color and not black and white.

But maybe it was the fact that this was one of John Belushi’s lastroles. I wish we could have seen more of "Wild Bill Kelso".

I own it on DVD and still view it as often as possible.

THIS IS A VERY FUNNY MOVIE.NOT EVERYBODY LIKES IT, BUTIF YOU HAVE HUMOR YOU,LL LOVE IT.IT,S PURE JOY TO RELAXFOR A COUPLE OF HOURS.

Poor filmmaking makes this a dismal strike at comedyforSpielberg. His editing is off. The cinematography is distracting and annoying throughout. The cast is eitherSNL, SCTV or worse. The script isn’t funny in the leastandthe scope for the picture altogether is non-existent.

A hilarious romp through those madcap days that were December of 1941. Thisfilm could almost be a documentary of the state of California following thebombing of Pearl Harbor.

Spielberg created a masterpiece of comedy, using a stable of stars that arestill active today.

I guess all anyone can say is "AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!"

Very loud, very big and very funny fictional account of a supposed Japaneseinvasion of Los Angeles in 1941, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Thereare many plotlines throughout the film–too many to summarize here. Basically, this is the most unusual Spielberg film I’ve ever seen (and hisonly bomb). It’s from the bigger is funnier school of humor–Spielberg’sonly big comedy. There’s lots of gunfire, lots of fights, lots of screaming(in full stereo) and tons of destruction (an entire amusement park isdestroyed, a few city blocks of Los Angeles and a big beautiful house). Asfor the acting–it varies wildly. Tim Matheson plays a lt. who has the hotsfor Nancy Allen who only gets excited in moving planes–they’re both cuteand funny. Dan Aykroyd is wasted. John Belushi is annoying. Robert Stackis amusing. Ned Beatty and Lorraine Gary are funny, but underused. TreatWilliams is violent and very unfunny. And where else can you seeChristopher Lee play a German? The film is too long (I saw the 2 1/2director’s cut) and it doesn’t always work…but when it does, it’shilarious! A definite highlight is the jitterbug sequence–unfortunately,it has a violent conclusion in which a very likable character is punched outthree times. Terrific John Williams score too. The ending credits arequite interesting–it shows each cast character screaming! You may hatethis film, but it’s definetely a one of a kind. It’s a cult classic inEurope.

This is a classic funny film. John Belushi, Dan Akroyd, Slim Pickens andToshiro Mifune (YES! in a comedy!) are great in this spoof of most WWIImovies. Look for a young John Candy as well. This is a funny look at theinvasion jitters that set in on the US west coast right after the PearlHarbor raid. A Japanese submarine cruising up and down the coast causes allsorts of hilarious panic. This is one NOT to be missed! I LOVEIT!

One of the most underrated comedies…ever! Followers of the mightybearded one and critics alike have bashed this everything but thekitchen sink spectacle with fervor for quarter a century now, and in mysmall mind it’s just coming better and better. Sure it’schaotic…that’s the whole point, like always cool Robert Stackcomments in the movie: This isn’t state of California, this is state ofinsanity. What i love in this movie is the fact that it manages tosalute AND take a p*** to old Hollywood with equal relish. Like a wiseman said, you gotta learn to laugh to the things you love or you end upbeing just another fundamentalist. Of course nowadays our modern daymovie mogul is much less zany being busy replacing guns towalkie-talkies that totters don’t lose their sleep, must be badinfluence from his infernal majesty mr. Jar-Jar Lucas. Okay, acquiredtaste it is but my humble opinion is that this particular bonanza willgather supporters long after "worthier" Spielvehicles are out of gas.In my money the USO dance/barroom Brawl is more exciting piece of filmthan dozen Hooks combined. Gotta go now! Japs are bombing SanFrancisco!

First of all….Don’t believe everyone who pipes out the same old infoabout this film. All you ever get to read is about Spielberg’s "biggestflop"! It is a VERY funny movie! It fulfils all you would ask for in aspoof film! Anyone looking for a deep movie with thickening plot lines,twists and turns shouldn’t be looking for it in an deliberatelydesigned spoof movie! I would recommend this film to anyone lighthearted enough to enjoy it! if features an all star cast of some ofHollywood’s funniest actors. Pearl Harbour has never before beenportrayed in the same way… John Belushi’s aeroplane antics are not tobe missed! Hollywood!!!!!!!!!!!!!

read comments (0)

…And Justice for All.

Two guys who like to take cinematic chances, Norman Jewison and AlPacino, came together to make a very engaging film, "And Justice forAll". Jewison has been responsible for cinematic garbage (anyoneremember Rollerball?) and complete masterworks (Fiddler on the Roof,Moonstruck, Agnes of God), but one thing is distinct about hisfilm-making. Jewison seems to find scripts that aptly match the actorshe casts and tries to get all he can out of them, even if the script ishorribly flawed. And believe me; he has had some flawed scripts (doesanyone remember F.I.S.T?) This movie that pits an average buthardworking defense attorney, Arthur Kirkland, played by Pacino, andthe entire justice bureaucracy run by power-centered judges like HenryT. Fleming, played by John Forsythe. We get to see judicial largess andjudicial activism work against innocent defendants (even though thecircumstances upon which one of Kirkland’s defendants is booked is nottotally believable) and how Kirkland works around the system to findways to free his clients, though his efforts are often futile.

The script is barely more than a made-for-TV effort, and the musicsounds like rejected background tunes for "Charlie’s Angels", but thereare memorable acting performances in this film. I was surprised at howwell John Forsythe played a thoroughly egocentric and conniving judge;Jack Warden as a suicidal adrenaline junkie cum judge creates one ofhis better characterization efforts on film.

The Piece De Resistance of this 119 minute gem is Kirkland’s openingstatement during Judge Fleming’s rape trial. This might be the onlytruly well-written dialog in the film, and there is only one guycapable of delivering it in the most engaging and passionate meanspossible. That person is Al Pacino. Though Pacino has been known to dosome pretty quirky and sometimes cartoonish character roles, those veryquirky emotive properties make the last 10 minutes of this film one ofthe best scenes ever captured in American film. If there were an actingschool out there that wanted to see a bit of method acting thatchallenges the best of what masters like Brando could do, that schoolshould buy the rights to the last 10 minutes of "And Justice for All",burn it to a CD, and make it required study.

If they could just find a way to erase the disco music in this film, itwould be even better, but that being said, I still think this film isworth a look. I would give it a 5 on a scale of 1 to 10 (it’s probably5.5, but I round down).

At first, you have to like courtroom dramas, if this is a movie for you,although it’s not the classic version of a courtroom film. It features thebasic elements: a humane lawyer with many personal problems believing injustice but not in jurisdiction; a defendant whose guilt is controversial;and a bombastic final statement. All right, I like courtroom dramas, but Ialso like variety and that’s what this movie presents. Bizarre characters,all together getting mad because of their jobs, give the movie a humorous,satirical touch. It’s a satire on … on everything. I have to admit, Idon’t see the meaning of each of the numerous subplots and minor charactersfor the director or for the writers. If the story was based on a true case,it would be different. Then I would say, they stick to the facts. But as itis made up, I suppose, the movie was only thought as a one-man show for AlPacino in order to give him a chance to show his talent.

However, this is not a masterpiece but a creative and funny but also alittle disturbing court film.

I wasn’t expecting to laugh at this film but there are some parts that arejust plain hilarious. The plot goes all over the place which is a shamebecause if this film was made in a more solid fashion and took itself moreseriously, maybe it could have been one of the greats. All the importantelements are there- good acting, characters, humor, drama, etc… but theplotline doesn’t gel like it should. There are too many ideas, or sub-plotsif you will, thrown into the film. It seems almost as if the ideas in thismovie could be split up and transformed into a few different law movies. Surprisingly, I was thoroughly entertained throughout the entire 120 minutesof the film; yet an uneven blend of comedy, cruelty, and drama makes itsomewhat difficult to swallow. If the film’s commentary on the injusticesof the U.S. legal system are made evident to you, then you’re set becausethis is definitely a "message movie". It’s always good to see Al Pacinoplaying an honest, down-to-earth character. Be sure to mute your volumeduring the opening and closing credits unless you enjoy terribly cheesydisco soundtracks.

Whatever this film set out to be it failed at it miserable. Was it satireor a serious court drama with some comic relief? Also the music used in thefilm made the think I was watching a porno. I understand it was the late70’s but even for that time, the music choice was terrible. Picking cheesy70’s instrumentals for a film that I think was supposed to be takenseriously as an attack on our justice system is a poor, poor choice.

This is Pacino in a lull in his career. Several scenes in this film made mego, "I’ve never seen Pacino look so bad." Its somebody’s fault, but I blamethe incompetent director. Seeing what he did with this film makes he blamehim entirely. This was probably an amazing script for Pacino to do it…the director likely just loused it up.

And yes, there is no justice.

Being a huge Al Pacino fan, i rented this movie from Blockbusters andwas really looking forward to watching it. when i finally did getaround to it, i was highly disappointed. i was expecting a tensecourtroom drama, in the vein of films like A Few Good Men. Instead whati got was an film messy in it's tone, flirting between high drama andsilly comedy. One of the main problems was the film had too much goingon. There were too many sub-plots floating around, some of which dealwith interesting issues such as how defending guilty clients can affectyour mental stability, but frustratingly these plot strands are neverreally tied up, but rather just left to billow in the wind.

Needless to say, Pacino is excellent, portraying the full range ofemotions admirably, in the process earning himself another academyaward nomination. In fact the acting throughout the entire film isfault-less. The main problem is the films inability to categoriseitself into a genre. For example, a scene where Pacino's law partnerfinds out a man he defended and found innocent had just murdered twochildren. This scene is then followed by a scene where Pacino goeshelicopter flying with an eccentric judge! Its worth sticking with thefilm though, if just for the final 20-30 minutes, to see Pacino letloose.

Overall, an invigorating end but as a whole, a disappointing film thathad the potential for so much more. and the music is perhaps the mostridiculous thing i've ever heard. completely out of tone with the film.belongs more in a soft-core porn flick

Al Pacino gives one the greatest performances of his career. The movie alsohas many twists and turns which by the end leaves you breathless. Pacinogives one of the most powerful speeches in cinema history which doesn’t letyou down. Pacino is simply the best.

May contain a few spoilers but its a must see.Now I know opinions vary about this movie being Pacino’s best flick, butitoutshines the rest next to "Heat". Yeah that along with "Godfather" anddontforget "Serpico".Well… wait a minute, I forgot the scent woman movie.Butenough of that. I name this movie as the best court room drama and Pacinoflick because he showed his true talent as an actor. This is one of mytoptwenty favorite movies. The script was tight, dialogue real, and pacingperfect. I never got bored. Aside from these reasons, I find the actingtobe immaculate. Aspiring
actors can learn from a genius who often forgothislines. He wasnt even first chosen for "Godfather". This movie was madearound the time I was still a tot but as I got older I’ve witnessed thedifference between movies made back then to the movies made today. Thecontent and the style in which this movie was done is made to be imitatednot duplicated. Look at "A Few Good Men" and other court-side dramas.Whereyou think they got it from ? And how many attorney’s would love to say"TheHonorable Judge Fleming should go right to f*cking jail." Hell, I know Iwould. A must see.

With this film, Al Pacino, who had earned a rightful place in film historywith his performances in "The Godfather" and "Dog Day Afternoon" began tohave a long career decline. His performance here as a Baltimore attorneyisa bit too miscast to be believable or compelling and the screenplaysuffersfrom many storytelling flaws and faults.

This is without a doubt one of my favorite Pacino films of all times.While it is an excellent film I did notice one flaw and I thought I’dmention it in the "goofs" section. Since I cannot find the specificlink for that addition, I’m entering it here. When The judge played byJack Warden crashes his helicopter after returning from his suicidal"half way point" ride with Arthur the rotor blades are obviouslystopped. Anyone who knows better would realize that helicopters have an"auto rotation safety feature" that would allow the blades to keepspinning even while falling with no power!. Just something I couldn’thelp noticing.

Dave Grusin composed music for some of my favorite films, but he laid agoose egg with this film. The disco jive is completely inappropriatefor the mood during the film! It’s a shame that it ruins an otherwisegood movie. Have you ever watched a good film (good script, goodacting, interesting story) but had it ruined by some funky, disco jivemusic that is inappropriate and ruins the entire film? It is soannoying! I wish they’d just rerelease this film with no music. Itwould be an improvement over the groovy trumpet solos during anemotionally somber scene. Dave, Dave, Dave, what happened? For atalented musician, how could you massacre this film with that awfulmusic that most assuredly was dated and pukey even when this film wasnew?

read comments (0)