The Thing

I don't really understand what all the rage is about. I found the storyfairly slow moving and the "Dark Star"-esquire crew is in the way ofcreating a real threatening atmosphere. I find that odd as that hasalways been Carpenter's strong point, particularly in Assault or TheFog. Whereas the violence in the Fog is all inside the viewer's head,here it's right on the screen. I guess it's slightly unfair to judgewith hindsight as the special effects are made less spectacular by thefact that we have seen them in Alien. What puzzled me most wasMorricone's soundtrack which sounded is exactly like the musicCarpenter himself composes. Why hire someone to copy you? All in all, Ifind Carpenter's first big studio film highly overrated.

Don't let the extremely high rating here on IMDb fool you, this moviedoes not deliver. It honestly did nothing but bore me the entire time.The movie starts off slow, and never really gets going. There's nocharacter development with any of the characters sans Kurt Russell, andthe movie relies on Gore & special effects for it's scares. Trust mewhen I say there's absolutely nothing suspenseful about this movie, andthe paranoia theme doesn't work here. What we basically get is someshape shifting Alien that apparently was frozen for thousands of years,which apparently a group of Norwegians was able to carry to their base,which then escaped and started attacking the group of Americans. That'sthe plot right there. What it does is it basically stays hidden as adog for a very long time, apparently not in the mood to make it'sattack, and only gets caught because apparently the sounds of dogsbarking annoys it enough. And let's not forget how the seeminglyimmortal Shape Shifting Alien dies in such a laughably easy manner.Kurt Russell and his crew spend the entire time burning it down, andyet it somehow still finds a way to survive, making it seeminglyimmortal. Then at the end Russell blows it up easily with a stick ofdynamite, which for some reason he never thought of doing before. Wealso have no idea what happens to the Nauls character, as he justdisappears into oblivion. Apparently his character wasn't neededanymore, so the makers of this film decided to get rid of him bysending the character to go investigate something he saw, even thoughthe character Nauls knows there's an Alien out there waiting to takeover his body. Honestly, what sense does that make? That part rightthere was very poorly written. As to the ending, it really makes nosense because it features Russell's character and Childs sitting therewondering if each one is possibly The Thing, despite Russell justrecently killing it. And if either one was The Thing, why didn't itattack the other? Why sit there drinking whiskey with a human when youcould easily finish him off? It makes no sense to me. Also, neitherapparently care to leave the freezing area, apparently leaving us tobelieve they both just die there. Anyway, the only points I give thismovie for is the special effects, and the atmosphere. The location ofAntarctica was fantastic, and the special effects for it's time wereastounding. Other then that, this movie is poorly written and reallyboring. Pass on it, 3/10.

I was round about 15 when I heard about THE THING. A couple of trailers wereshown on television promoting the cinema release . A few months laterfriends started discussing it in class ( They had seen it on pirate video .Obviously I will not condone this but it was very very common to watchpirate videos in the early 80s because that was the only way you`d get seethe latest Hollywood blockbusters in those days )So as soon as I could get my hands on a legal rental copy of THE THING Idid so , mainly due to people saying things like " Watch THE THING Theo .The special effects are brilliant " and I was very very disappointed withit. Not only that but I became educated to the fact that good specialeffects usually = bad film .

Over the years however THE THING has grown on me slightly . It`s a scarydisturbing film but one that is ultimately destroyed by its characterisationand plot holes . For example why should we feel sorry for people who aretotally unsympathetic in anyway ? I was under the impression that whenwriting a script you are to feel for the characters in it . I feltabsolutely nothing for the men in the base in the Antartic , though maybeI`m doing Bill Lancaster a great disservice and the characters are writtenin such a cold way to match their surroundings . But the script suffers fromseveral plot holes , the most obvious one being the fact that a researchbase in the South Pole comes equipped by endless supplies of explosives ,guns and flamethrowers . What may I ask do you need all that for ? Is thatin case you get attacked by a gang of vicious penguins ? And there`s a (*****POSSIBLE SPOILER*****) credibility defying scene in which the basemembers - who have all been proven not to be infected by the alien - allsplit up for no other reason except to have an ambiguous ending where one ofthem might be infected by the alien after all . If they`d all stuck togetherthe alien would have been unambiguously killed.

THE THING does have its good points, though not very many. Best plus pointis the special effects. If it`d been made 10 or 15 years later it would havebeen CGI dominated. I think CGI is a pretty poor and unconvincing effect andI`m sick and tired of seeing it constantly used in movies , the effects inthis are much better than what we have been used to recently. This is anextremely dark bleak film , perhaps too dark and bleak which caused itsdisappointing box office sales, and lets not forget it was released atexactly the same time as ET. I`m a big DOCTOR WHO fan so I expect aliens tobe nasty scumbags who have got a really nasty streak towards the human race, I don`t expect to see them befriend middle American children or fly aroundon bicycles , but that`s what aliens did in the 1980s , so I guess that THETHING was the last " they`re coming to get us " sci fi movie to come out ofHollywood for a while

hi, you want a sequel to the thing, the work is done and the screenplayis at thethingfromanotherworld.webs.com all you have to do to be blownaway is read the 2min synopsis.

so there! now as a thing fan, what could you do? i have no clue, i'vetried getting the dorks at all the thing fan sites to do something, butthey are the kind of dorkiest dorks that like to hold onto what theyknow and don't want any fresh ideas.

my script is a sequel to both movies. its the most unique writing ever,i have a great imagination. i'm a diamond in the rough that nobody isgoing to find.

thing fans are so gay, because they have the actual actors going tothere meetings and this script could be passed onto importantdick-weeds, but the fans are purely gay and don't want another sequel.its been years of submitting and contest entries, but its allsuperficial bullshit because everyone is a writer. if you got the wordof mouth going, i guarantee you a major role in the movie, its theleast i could do, because the script is just sitting on a dusty shelf,even carpenter's musical son on my space don't give a crud

pretty decent horror flick but is way overrated the acting is excellentespecially by Kurt Russel the rest of the cast does okay as well but itsuffers from being a bit dull and kinda boring it has awesome effects!!!!!!TONS of gore scenes that are not for the squeamish the finale is kindaexciting and the characters are likable but as i said it’s not the classicpeople say it is personally i think Halloween is much much better i believethat is John Carpenter best film also this is a bit overlong and someconfusing scenes that does not give us enough detail i enjoyed the gore andi loved the performances and it was quite thrilling in some scenes it hasbeautiful photography it is quite moody well directed and it has
anexcellent score but this just did nothing for me a must see rental but notmuch else at least in my opinion *** Out of 5

SPOILERS People have always told me how great "The Thing" is as a film.So it was with high anticipation that 15 years after it's release, Ifinally got round to watching it. It's a shame that I waited too longthough. "The Thing" is a good film. It's tension builds nicely and theacting well above standard. Unfortunately it's also blatantly an 80sfilm, is ridiculously dated, and the special effects are practicallyJim Henson standard.

Not exactly a complicated story, the beauty of this film is it'soccasional twists. Set in the arctic, it tells the story of a bunch ofscientists (including a young Kurt Russell) who are conductingexperiments. As events unfold however, it becomes apparent that theyaren't quite alone.

So taking the good points of "The Thing", it has great tension, theacting is up to standard, and occasionally it scares the bejezers outof you.

It's just a shame that despite all that the special effects have fadedover the years and the creature itself isn't really that scary anymore.Still, for what it is, "The Thing" is pretty damn cool!

Wow. Of the near 400 reviews on IMDB, I’m only one of about four or fivewho didn’t go for this. Sure the effects are mind-blowing and the score’spretty good, but so much more was needed. Start with the pace. In betweensome pretty good scares and gore, are painful lulls that drag forever. Theset-up is intrigueing, but then goes on too long. Later it’s far too muchtalking that does the film in, "Is it you or you or you or…". Anunidentified "thing" happens upon an unidentified research team toinexplicably devour them from within. Tack on one of the biggest loose endsin film history, and you’ve got a plethora of annoying unanswered questions. And of course this is better than the original. That film came out in1951, far from the advances of Rob Bottin’s awesome transformation effects. But that’s all this has going for it, and that’s not enough to recommendthis Thing.

When I Saw This Movie In The Theaters In 1982,I Exclaimed "HOLY

BOLOGNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!"Extremely Gory For 1982. For A Remake It WasAwesome!Great Special Effects!Thourely Entertaining!It Is The Type OfMovie That I Never Get Tired Of Watching More Than Once.Kurt RussellDid A Very Good Job Of Acting In This Film.John Carpenter’sMasterpiece!When Will There Be A Thing2?,I Believe That Could Not MatchThis One.Why This One Is Not On The Internet Movie DataBase Top~250 IsBeyond Me. Must~have On A 2.35 Aspect Ratio Arnormorphic DVD.DVDPicture Quality Is Excellent Compared To My 2.35 Aspect Ratio LBXLaserdisc.John Carpenter Really Shines On This One!

THE THING (1981) *** 1/2 Kurt Russell, Wilford Brimley, Richard Dysart,Richard Masur, TK Carter, Keith David, David Clemmon, Donald Moffat. JohnCarpenter’s gory special effects laden remake of the sci-fi classic offersan alien parasite wreaking havoc at an Antarctic American scientific camp inthe middle of no-man’s land with Russell as the cocksure chopper pilotfacing paranoia and death everywhere he turns. Waycool make-up effects byRob Bottin and an eerie score by Ennio Morricone.

I am very disappointed in the fact that The Thing is not in the top 100best movies. John Carpenter’s best work, even better than Halloween.The Tjing is one of my favourite films, along with Brazil, Star Warsand Shinen No Samurai. The tension Carpenter builds up, and up, and up,until something terrifying happens, like someones head falling off, ora guy getting his hands eaten by a mouth in someones stomach. Frombeginning to end, it is a gripping film, starting with a strange chasein a helicopter, with Norwegiens attempting to kill a dog, to the endwhen MacReady and Childs sitting in the snow talking. The graphics aresick and twisted at the most pleasant moments, and that is the kind ofthing I like. The only thing I disagree with is the dogs face splittingopen. I am an animal lover, so I think that it should be them chasing aman instead of a dog, and that guy kills a load of scientists insteadof slaughtering the huskies. Apart from that, it is a perfect movie,mixing horror, action, and gruesome graphics to make a film for any age(over 18, that is).

read comments (0)

The World According to Garp

"The World According to Garp" is almost a legendary book, and here’s why:it’s so amazingly great. Drawing chiefly on the fears of the parent, thesentiment, the macabre humor and the wit found in this book and film makesthem both two of the finest examples of craftsmanship. First of all, JohnIrving has a very special skill in developing oddball characters that areendearing, awful or just plain funny. Garp is such a person, relentless,fearful, ambivalent and brilliant. The list of weird people that havesurrounded his life is very long, ranging from an angry sister of a lover toa transsexual football player (fantastically portrayed by Lithgow). But ifnothing else, his mother, famous women’s right heroïne Jenny Fields (GlennClose), has shaped him into the novelist he is, competing for reviews withhim while still alive. The film is full of all the black comedy, absurdsituations and drama of Irving’s novel. A very good adaptation.

The World According to Garp is an excellent movie for the family, (thefamily who will understand it) and stirs moments in your heart that makeyouwant to laugh and cry in one motion picture. I watch this movie on TV alot,and I must say, even though I am only 12, this movie really means a lot tome. Basically, ya gotta love Garp.

This is another one of those films, like "Terms of Endearment", which ismerely a series of snapshots. I did not enjoy it and would like the twohours plus of my life back that it cost me.

2/10

The World According to Garp is a pretty good film all in all…greatactors,interesting story, seems like the director did a good job too…althoughitdoesn’t seem to carry any further meaning or anything too deep, it iswithout a doubt worth watching, and is funny and entertaining.

I recommend it, especially if you like Robin Williams and JohnLithgow.

Jolly good show man!

I’ve just watched the World According to Garp, and I didn’t really getsomeof the movie, it moved so fast sometimes. It did have alot of funnyparts,most with Roberta. I think Roberta should have more scenes than she had.NowI’ve watched it I’m gonna buy the book to understand this more, and ofcourse watch this film again.

Re: the old debate about book vs. movie–I think you can enjoy both. Thesecret is to see the film first. If you enjoy the movie the book will beexpansive for you and add more. However if you imbibe them conversely youwill almost never enjoy the film version. It will always seemlacking.

That’s why I like this film and like the book, because I experienced them inthat order. Director Hill stays true to the feel of the book and acheives afunny yet poigant work. The irony and bizzareness abound to the point whereone could get lost in its quirky tone, but clever characters and dialougestay the course. The acting prowess of Williams, Lithglow and Close areevident and Hill is dexterous as a director, but the bottom line is thatIrving provided a great story to work with. (BTW- one aspect of the writtenversion I did not care for is a incongrous spouse-swapping part betweenGarp, Helen and another couple that was wisely left out of thefilm).

Also I did not like the scene where Walt dies (this happens in the book too)considering the salacious circumstance surronding it, but this fault alonedoes not bog down the picture. Overall a strange yet interesting story thatis well produced.

THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP (1982) **** Robin Williams, Glenn Close,John Lithgow, Mary Beth Hurt, Hume Cronyn, Jessica Tandy, SwoosieKurtz. Faithful screen adaptation of John Irving’s picturesque tomeabout the life and times of TS Garp (Williams in a fine comic/dramaticturn) a struggling writer and his feminist mother Close (in her motionpicture debut and first Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress)who tells it like it is.

Whimsical and daffy but all the more touching and poignant.

Lithgow (Best Supporting Actor nominee) is a scream as transsexualformer football player Roberta Muldoon. That’s author Irving as awrestling referee.

Great biographical piece on the life and experiences of fictional T.S.Garp,a bastard child brought up by a loving, but inarguably bizarre mother.Theviewer observes every landmark in this thoughtful man’s life, from birthuntil what may very well be his death, while being treated to witnessinghisquirky actions and ideas as a loving husband and father along the way.Theacting and screenplay in this film are what stand out the most, with RobinWilliams flawlessly portraying the lead, but at times the situations andimages presented seem uncomfortably off-touch with the rest of the movie.Still a great picture, however.

************SPOILERS AHEAD****************"The World According to Garp", one of the first movies I ever saw RobinWilliams playing a dramatic role in, is on the list of my top five favoritemovies of all time - it grabs you and wraps you in from the beginningcredits of "When I’m 64" to the closing scene of Garp’s death in ahelicopter. Robin Williams plays T.S. Garp, the son of a feminist nurse(Glenn Close) and a ball turret gunner named Garp. In the words of Jenny’sfather, played by Hume Cronyn, "Is that the bastard’s first name or lastname?" Just Garp. Anyway, Garp grows up in a boy’s school where his mother,Jenny, is the nurse. He wants to wrestle, she insists of basketball. Garpwins and later falls in love with the daughter of the wrestling coach, withwhom he has three children. Tragedy strikes Garp and Helen when their sonWalt is impaled by an uncovered gear shift in Helen’s VW Bug. Their littlefamily, then consisting of Garp, Helen, and older son Duncan, visit JennyatDog’s Head Harbor for some much needed R&R. To say much more would be tocompletely ruin this wonderful film, so that’s where I’ll end. "The WorldAccording to Garp" is a stupendous, wonderful movie. Enjoy.

T.S. Garp. An odd name. But that is the name of our character. Garp(Robin Williams) is the only son of a single, feminist mother namedJenny (Glenn Close). Garp is raised in the woman’s environment but soonfinds love in high school with a Helen Holm (Mary Beth Hurt) and startsa life with her getting married and Garp becoming a ’serious’ writerwhile Helen teaches school. The film is pretty much the life of aperson trying to live normally but sees everything different.

The film is based of a John Irving book which I haven’t read but foundthe movie excellent. Garp sees everything in a different light.Example: Helen and him are looking for a house to buy. As they’relooking at a really nice one, a small plane crashes into. Garp exclaimsthat they’ll buy it saying the odds of another plane hitting it areastronomical. Garp is quick witted and funny.He is smart and loving anda bit of a womanizer The environment Garp is put into around his motheris smart and fun.

The film is also filled with marriage problems such as affairs and lossof life and each are looked at with great care. Even though Garp’smouth is smacked shut at one point due to a car accident. John Lithgowmay play one of the funniest characters in the film as aman-turned-woman (the term for this I don’t remember) Roberta Muldoon.

Robin Williams does one of his best acting jobs in his career and Ihave a new respect for Glenn Close after her dazzling role.

The World According To Garp. Starring: Robin Williams, Glenn Close,Mary Beth Hurt, and John Lithgow.

5 out of 5 Stars.

read comments (0)

TRON

Technically well-done for its day with its ground-breaking computergenerated special effects and graphics and not without artistic meritin that regard, I especially enjoyed the black & white photography ofthe actors in the computer world with the brightly coloured circuitryon their costumes, but the main failure of this film is that its storyis so damn boring. Jeff Bridges is a software designer sucked into acomputer system where he teams up with a programme called Tron in orderto destroy a Machiavellian computer system (shades of HAL-2000 &Colossus) and its creator. The bulk of the film is spent dazzling uswith these never before seen effects, but of course 23 years later it’sold-hat and there’s nothing in the way of a good story to keep usinterested.

The first twenty to thirty minutes of TRON may have you asking a bunch ofquestions such as, "What is going on?" and, "When do I get my money back?"The computer graphics of the time were first rate and was Disney’s firstattempt at keeping current with the times. With story and characters aboutas obnoxious as the ones in SANTA CLAUS CONQUERS THE MARTIANS, TRON tripsall over itself.

For the first twenty minutes, you’ll be figuring out what the heck is goingon. The story picks up when the Master Computer, a sentient and a ‘thinkingfor himself’ machine, sucks in a computer programmer to prevent him fromexposing the truth about the computer and its user.

The graphics are top notch for 1982. The TV show REBOOT, must have borrowedquite a bit from TRON. But this movie stinks, and is a shame to Disney, whoI thought prides itself in distributing top quality movies, not cash cows.The story is rough, the characters are annoying and hard to tell apart attimes. Two thumbs down.

In Tron you enter a strange new world. A world where you communicate withcomputers by typing sentences in English. A world where all computers inthe world are connected to each other. A world where audit records offileoperations are preserved indelibly forever. A world where one mightreasonably expect a programmer who produces a single successful product tobe given control of a company in return. A world where a computerevidentlybuilt over a period of 20 years or more is not an obsolete pile of scrapmetal. A world where users of a time-sharing system aren’t screamingbloodymurder at the operators when they can’t log on or access theirdata.

And then there’s the setting *inside* the computer. Yeesh!

A curious film this one, in the light of events that followed it (thecollapse of the home video game industry in the late 80s and the 2000 dotcommeltdown). Filmed as a cash-in on the then video game craze, the film hasdated badly in many ways, particularly the early chunky grey SiliconGraphics special effects, not even as good as in The Last Starfighter, whichhas a similar look.A blindingly unoriginal good vs evil subplot involves a charismatic hackerlined up against the evil executive that stole his programs (played in aslow walk by British veteran David Warner - true to stereotype theEnglishman’s the bad guy).In spite of itself the film raises some interesting questions. When our herogets drawn into the computer he meets replicas of people he meets in thereal world, predating the concept of virtual worlds and avatars by a fewyears. In places, the film echoes earlier classics like Metropolis,particularly in the way the characters’ faces are coloured and lit. For themost part, a curiosity only now.

The amazing computer graphics in TRON were as trendsetting in their timeasthose recently used to blow audience’s minds in THE MATRIX. Sadly,Disney’sefforts didn’t result in the boxoffice rewards associatedwiththe Wachowski’s effort. TRON isn’t a bad picture, but does have theDisneytouch, which makes it fairly childish and too good natured. It’s the kindof techy picture which would only intrigue 13 year olds and would-becomputer geeks at the time of it’s release. Some cynicism, violence andsexwould have done a lot to liven up the proceedings and give the innovativevisual style some memorable punch.As it is, it’s a well-crafted, nicely designed, adequately performed,simplistic geek adventure. The latest special-edition DVD provides a lotofbackground on the making of the picture, which is more interesting thanthepicture itself. The good news about this video release is that the filmcanbe seen with most of the original Super Panavision 70 aspects intact athome, provided you have a top-notch home theater setup somewhere in thehouse.

Remember when Disney could do no wrong? I do. I could remember the dayswhenthey’d just write-off a terribly boring movie like Tron as just a"rumoredfilm they made". The desperately run company then decided last year torelease a 20th Anniversary DVD edition of a movie that only a handful ofpeople ever cared about. How nice!

Tron, for the time, boasted some wicked computer technology that todaylooksantiquated. For 1982, it knocked people’s socks off. It’s still prettycool,but man, everything looks so blocky and single-toned.

Like Final Fantasy:The Spirits Within, Tron’s storyline is a convolutedyawn. The major actors in the film (Jeff Bridges, David Warner, CindyMorgan, and Bruce Boxleitner) play dual roles on Earth and in this MasterComputer (MCP). Bridges’ character (Flynn) wants his rights to a videogamereturned to him, The Scarecrow (Tron) and Morgan (Yori) are doing someproject, and unbeknownst to these people, the MCP has gained enough powertorule the world. So all these storylines are melded together into aboringly-scripted kiddie film that is tough to stay awakefor.

The acting in this film is terrible. Not even Jeff Bridges immense talentcan save this one. The script is as flat as three-day old soda and has nospark. The pace is slow and the costumes look so silly in 2003. They looklike neon hockey players.

I guess the best thing Tron brought to the world was the line ofvideogames.Bally/Midway released the excellent Tron and Discs Of Tron arcade gamesandMattel made some decent home video games based on the film for theIntellivision and Atari 2600. Still, it’s required viewing if you’re avideogame nut like me, but you might not enjoy it that much. At least it’sonly96 minutes. And the trailers for the film in the DVD are a riot. Bridges’hilarious attempt at sounding like a real person is worth alook-see!

Our culture has lost and gained something when you go to the arcade anddon’t find "button-smasher" games anymore. Now it’s all about "full-bodyinvolvement" with DDR, shooting arcades, racing, and anything else. Noescape for the side-scrollers now.

This is your only spoiler warning…

I found an interesting parallel in ‘Hulk.’ the concept is a sophisticatedeveryman turning into a crude monster. The parallel being Eric Bana, acrude and unsophisticated actor, turns into a sophisticated CGIconstruction. Thus, the means to the ends often contradict the initialconcept.

With ‘Tron’, we have a more intelligent actor (Bridges) playing games withDisney’s writers while playing a hacker and game program simultaneously. Bridges knows the whole material is juvenile hogwash, so he plays againstit. If he did that for ‘Seabiscuit’, I would have given him morecredit.

This movie personified the Phase II thinking from Disney. After thedisastrous ‘Black Hole’, they poured millions into trying to innovate on newgenres. The live-action efforts resulting from this thinking are stillinteresting even as Disney degenerated to Phase III (Little Mermaid and itsspawn) and finally Phase IV (Pixar). Here was some serious attempts atstorytelling with all the financial power that Disney had.

Since the plot is baloney, a simple variation of the Disney "sport" film, wecan only examine ‘Tron’ on its remaining quality: the computer environment. In these Pixar days it seems contrived,
but I actually found it the mostinteresting part of the movie. Notice the devoted attempt at making a 100%synthetic environment…something George Lucas has been trying to do foryears.

In many ways, ‘Tron’ represents the post-modern art world. Often simple,rarely understood, and yet amazingly visual. Occasionally, it degeneratesinto album cover art work and that’s where the biggest flaws lie. Thankfully the 80s retro sound effects make up for thisgap.

Looking back from today, it’s ‘Star Wars’ meets ‘Alice’ meets ‘MightyDucks’. For historical value in its images only.

Final Analysis = = Cinematic Dud

This is the movie equivalent of, say, the song "tainted love" by Soft Cell. In other words, it’s so cheesy and 80s that you can’t help likingit.

In reality it was simply an attempt to cash in on the popularity of therelatively new video game industry. Jeff Bridges plays the inventor of apopular video game called "Space Paranoids". Gee, I wonder what that wassupposed to be?

The movie has a ridiculous plot, but that adds to it’scharm.Apparently, this was the first movie to use computer generated specialeffects. However, in this instance, the word "special" is equivalent tothat used in "special" olympics, or Star Wars "special"Edition.Still, while the effects look dated, the glow universe in the movie has aunique charm and still looks good.

Apparently there are rumours of a Tron 2 being made. I’m sure if ithappens, it will be full of computer generated virus monsters and hideouslyoverblown special effects to attract the kids. It’s a shame really becausethe charm of the original lies in it’s underachievements.

Computer software wizard Jeff Bridges literally gets sucked into a programand must survive the technologically re-created antics of the villainousDavid Warner (of "Titanic" fame). Bridges must then try to overcome theprogram and save the day with the help of the titled person from cyberspace(Bruce Boxleitner). The Walt Disney Studios wanted to get in on the Atarivideo game mass craze of the early-1980s with this special effects heavy dogthat really makes no sense when you get past the dated technical aspects.The performances are destroyed by a confusing screenplay and productionvalues that end up being distracting and completely over-blown. Another oneof those cinematic pop icon mistakes of the 1980s. 2.5 out of 5 stars.

I had a hard time remembering the first time I watched this movie, but its funny how dated this film is. Overall, I loved it. I thought it was well ahead of its time, and a film that will be considered the patron saint of modern special effects and even digital animation. But one thing I noticed about the film was the political overtones. Clearly, Disney was trying to present themselves as a purely democratic entity, making this a film a good example of their beliefs. This entire movie wreaks of communism and its destructive grip on humanity and self expression. TRON (who was well played by Bruce Boxleitner) isn’t just a computer program, he is the embodiment of America, a figure head for freedom. He believes in his fight as just and proper. It seems fitting to make a film about destroying communism considering our cold war with the Soviet Union (which was called the Master Control Program) and our involvement in the Arab countries during the time of this film’s release. Thank God for growing older, because sometimes it’s as entertaining understanding the historical context of film as well as the philosophical side of its composition.

read comments (0)

The Last Unicorn

I remember watching this nicely made animated film when I was young, andlike everyone else here, I thought (and still think) it is a nicely madeanimated feature. Great plot and animation.

However, it is not without flaws though….

Whose idea was it to get Mia Farrow to sing? She is about as good as YokoOno! Yeech!

However, I heard that in the alternate German language version and theFrench dub, the singer is alot better.

And the ending, is well, dissapointing. Almathea sacrifices her own pleasurefor saving those stupid horned ponies? Man, what a dissapointment. Speakingof, Almathea seems to be a little too flawless and goody-goody alot of thetime. I like my hero or heroine to have some flaws…….but my favorite character would have to be Mama Fortuna. She has a wholebunch of strange monsters as pets! I alway dreamed of having monsters aspets!

Great animated feature, once you get passed the ending and Mia Farrow’svoice.

This is probably the worst cartoon I have ever seen in my life, it'sBritish/American, and yet it looks Japanese. Basically, a unicorn hasbeen alone in the forest for ages and decides to go and look for otherunicorns. On the way she meets Schmendrick (Alan Arkin), aWizard/magician. They also meet Molly Grue (Tammy Grimes) with reallyscruffy hair. When they encounter the Red Bull, Schmendrick turns theUnicorn into a human to protect her from harm. To give her moreprotection they head for a castle run by King Haggard (ChristopherLee). Also while they are there, the unicorn disguised as a human fallsin love with Prince Lir (Jeff Bridges), she then thinks that she wantsto stay a human. Also starring Angela Lansbury as Mommy Fortuna. It maybe quite a good cast, but it is still a rubbish animated film. Poor!

When I was young this movie meant the world to me. I would rent it outconstantly and watch it again and again and again. The soundtrack is greatand the creators did not ruin it by bouncing characters into song every 2seconds like a certain American based company. It has a really uniquestoryline and an ending that is both not entirely expected but combinedwiththe music score is almost enough to bring one to tears (of joy and partialsadness, its hard to say which).Even now many many years later I download a song from the movie and itsenough to make me ultra nostalgic about it and want to see it again (whichIwill many many times)Truly a classic, I recommend it to everyone.

when I first saw this movie I was a little girl of 10 or 11 years olddealing with my mom’s death through suicide the the adults never thoughttokeep any details of it quiet so we had to deal with that too this movieletme go somewhere where dreams are real even for a short time even afterallthese years that movie touches me in a way no movie ever will for thosewhowrote it and had a hand in makeing it GOD BLESS YOU!

As a child of the 80’s, I was terrified to learn of the remaking of thismovie. The original is a classic movie which I grew up with, and justwatching it again brings tears to my eyes. Molly Grue, saying "What have youdone? What have you done?!" Whew. Gets me every time.

And ignore that the villan creature is called the "Red Bull". The energydrink came over a decade AFTER the movie. O_o

This is a great movie, truly a classic, with a true-blue 80’s soundtrack,bound to snag all hearts, young and old.

9/10 (if only for the pure nostalgia)

After watching this movie on a Sunday morning I couldn’t believe the factthat I enjoyed it. Recommended for all ages, really, this is how actualanimated movies should be. The characters are well designed and the animation is pretty good for it’stime. What I enjoyed the most was the music which I findamazing.Even the dark piano sounds fit perfect for the movie, specially the tensescenes with the king. There’s this part where the king’s wizard appears andyou can say that the score just makes the scene great.

This movie has it all: a great story, well crafted characters, great score,and a high fun factor. The feeling of this movie is just amazing and that’swhat makes it so special. Watch it even if you don’t enjoy this kind of movies, you’ll bepleased.

8/10

The Last Unicorn is the best movie I’ve ever seen. I was obsessed withit when I was a child, and it still captivates me. It is very obscureand I did not think that anyone knew what the movie was, but I recentlydiscovered that a couple of my sorority sisters were equally obsessedwith The Last Unicorn. It is our special bond and I LOVE the movie. Whocares if the plot drags? When you’re 5 and a girl… its the best thingin the world… ever. The songs are wonderful and the characters arehilarious. I love wizard who helps the unicorn, he is the best. I amalso currently watching the movie. Any woman who saw this movie as achild and did not like it, is crazy. I don’t understand how anyonewould NOT like it.

The Last Unicorn sucked!! I can't believe I enjoyed it! I will neverwatch it again. It just reminds me of how empty I can feel sometimesand how stupid and meaningless life is. Jeff Bridges was prince Lir andhe convinced the unicorn turned beautiful girl (by a dorky pimply facedmagician) to love him, the pirate cat was way cool, and the Scooby Dooanimation in general was off the hook but there were so many annoyingaspects to this animated film that I obviously blocked out of my headsoon after I watched it at a very young age for good reason.-Because iwanted to like life! Especially at such a young age when life should bepromising, big and fun. As a kid, how was I supposed to understandmetaphorical lectures about roles people are supposed to play in lifegiven to me by a singing butterfly, goofy magician, haggard old wench,a perfect pretty girl unicorn, Jeff Bridges as King Lir oops i meantprince Liar but the pirate cat and the alcoholic skeleton were frickenawesome.

The Last Unicorn was great, i guess if you want to watch your child screamthe scream of eternal anguish all night and ahve them scared for days. Iwatched this movie recently and i must say that it was rather creepy.First of all, what was with Mia Farrows lines? At times a cheap taperecorder would have sounded better. Also, the infernal Unicorn went onabout "Am i really the last unicorn? How can that be, where have theothersgone, I must find them, do you know where the other unicorns are? OH Imustknow." After about 30 minutes of this, i wanted to turn myself into ananimated character and pull out a gun and 86 the beast! Also shemdrickwasjust about as useful as a Zit on Prom night. I mean after he freed herallhe did was be self-centered and annoying. Then Prince Lear, hehe i dolikethe name, was just like IM A HERO….and WHat was up with America, aftersong 1 i realized why America sucks.

Just rented this movie for my daughter.

Horrible animation quality. Sure, it is unfair to compare this 1982movie to post-2000 Pixar productions, but The Last Unicorn is bad evenwhen compared to 1940’s Disney animated movies.

And the voices. Okay, Mia Farrow is alright. But Alan Arkin has themost annoying monotone I’ve ever heard. He must be related to theproducers. When I thought it could not get any worse, then comes JeffBridges with an even worse monotone.

And the most wretched part of all: Mia Farrow singing. Ahhhhgggg!!!Off-key; warbly; made me want to die. Why didn’t they just hire prosingers for the songs, like every other movie does?

DVD quality: horrible. Filled with threads, hairs, and many, manyvertical scratches. Apparently they could not find a good quality printfrom which to create the DVD.

I’m sure the novel that the movie was based on is a fine novel, butthey sure failed when translating to the movie medium.

read comments (0)

My Favorite Year

It’s a fictional account of how the real-life Mel Brooks wooed AnneBancroftwhilebabysitting a hard drinking Errol Flynn before his appearance on "TheShowof Shows."

The music is damn good too.

This is my favorite movie. Much has been made of Peter O’Toole’s comicskill, but just as vital to the success of this film is his interplay withthe rest of this fabulous cast. Never does he treat the film as a starvehicle, but allows Mark Linn-Baker, Bill Macy, and Joseph Bologna(to name afew)to shine in their performance. Also, as funny as the film is, it’s alsobelievable, and as outlandish as the characters get they are always REAL.Best of all, the film has so much heart, so much emotion packed between thelaughs, that no matter how many times I see it, I end up with a lump in mythroat. It’s wonderful.

I loved this movie when I saw it on T.V. . Thecinematography is good and the period detailsare good. Ir really looks like a movie out ofthe 50’s. Plus Peter’o'Toole gives a great performanceplus the supporting cast is good too. I especiallylove the ending. This movie shows that a movie isunreal and that some heroic character from a moviemight just turn out to be a cowardly bum in real life.I give it a 4 out of 4

Actor Richard Benjamin made his directorial debut with this movie farce,based on actual events when a somewhat drunkenly Errol Flynn guest starredon TV’s "Your Show of Shows" in the 1950’s. Farce as a comedic form isunbelievably difficult to pull off on stage, yet alone in a film. Timingiseverything, and if you are a student of comedy, MY FAVORITE YEAR is amust-see.

Among the great lines of dialogue in the script (penned by Dennis Palumboand Norman Steinberg) are the memorable line by Swann: "I’m not an actor,I’m a movie star!" As well as his memorable encounter in the ladies roomwith the show’s costume designer who tells Swann the room "is for ladiesonly!" To which Swann unzips his fly, and answers "So’s this mum, buteverynow and then I have to run a little water through it."

The production design is theatrically pleasant, creating a mystical worldwithin the television studios, while making use of real New Yorklocations,transforming the then 1981 (the year the film was made) streets into the1950’s.

The other great "thespianic" comedies?The Tall Guy (with Jeff Goldblum)Waiting For Guffman (by Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy)The Producers (Mel Brooks)andThe Impostors (Stanley Tucci)

Now THIS is a funny movie!

All the energy and humor this movie created was not lost on the audience.Istill know people who can quote lines from this movie, especially thescenesin Brooklyn with Rookie!

Peter O’Toole has fun playing Errol Flynn and there are other recognizableactors here, as well, such as Selma Diamond, Joe Bologna and CameronMitchell as a gangster.

Great fun for all!

This is one of those films that you might call a "formative film,"especially for abudding comic or accordion player. You will know which you are at the endofthe film… maybe even by scene 23. A wonderful combination of slapstickandverbal comedy, and plenty of eccentric characters. Refreshingly, these

characters are not quirky, they are eccentric. Try this one out for somereallygood belly laughs and see if some of the lines don’t keep sneaking backinto

your memory at all kinds of times. Especially when out dancing and soon.

Even though I have only had the opportunity to see Peter O’Toole in a fewfilms (great films such as the wonderful Lawrence of Arabia, Becket, TheLion in Winter, and that last episode of The Education of Max Bickford),itis hard not to enjoy his performances, full of bravado and bluster anddevastating unsureness, especially as a historical dramatist. Here hegetsthe opportunity to play Alan Swann, a swashbuckling movie star that is nottoo far from the real Peter O’Toole, who almost destroyed his career withbooze. As you might expect, he played the part exceptionally. HisOscar-nominated work stands out from the rest of the film, which is notshabbily done either.

As I saw this movie late one night on TCM, where a great many of theshowcased films are in letterbox/widescreen format, the cinematography mayhave looked better than it would have looked on Encore, but it stillcaptures the eye. The ’50s were full of bright color to me, and theopeningscenes reflect that well. Richard Benjamin’s direction subtly adds depthtothe film among extravagant and wacky characters and settings, and itshouldbe applauded for that reason.

The acting is not bad either. O’Toole’s Swann steals almost every sceneheappears in, even with that drunken accent and horribly gaunt face. Ithoroughly enjoyed the scene with his daughter later on in the film, whichadds more depth to his character through absence of expression than anyother drunken scene of his. Joseph Bologna is good as the Sid Caesarprototype who, behind the scenes, treats all beneath him like dirt. MarkLinn-Baker (what was that series with Bronson Pinchot that I remember himfrom?) looks younger than I ever remebered him as Benjy Stone, and heplayshis awed part with a warmth and balls (an odd combination, sure). Minorcharacters add depth and laughs.

The writing by Dennis Palumbo contains many one-liners that stand outafterthe movie’s end. "I’m not an actor, I’m a movie star!" comes to mind.Minor complaints: the romance in the film is hoky and forced, and musthaveonly been in the film to either add depth to Benjy Stone’s character or tofill up time requirements. As other comments have said, some of thescenesare contrived and cliched, but after the film you forget it and rememberthegood stuff.

Overall: see this for O’Toole. It appears the bottle only changed hislooks, not his talents. I liked this movie after it was finished.7/10

One of the films I can watch again and again! The script and pace ofdirection allow the cast to glitter and glide through the simple plot.Greatcomedy drunk scenes performed by a superb Peter O’Toole. Behind all thelaughter the film has a lot of observations to share about fear, love,commitment and alcohol abuse. As the end titles role I’m always left withafeeling akin to the after glow of good whiskey seeping through my heart.Bravo to all involved.

As I was thinking about what to rate this movie, I tried to come up withflaws. I couldn’t. This movie is a loving look at the golden age oftelevision comedy. It shows the process of building a television show.Butit is so much more than that. It is also a comedy that doesn’t miss abeat.And it is a story of redemption. My advice is to see this film and whenyou do, just sit back and have some fun.

Actually, I lied: Paul Newman deserved the Oscar for "The Verdict".Anyway, Peter O'Toole gives another one of his superlativeperformances. How this man doesn't have an Oscar (for a performancethat is) is beyond me.

Then again, Cary Grant, Alfred Hitchcock or Martin Scorsese don't haveOscars either.

As was said in the film "Comedy is hard." I believe that doing comedymust be harder than drama but for a classical actor likeO'Toole–unlike American actors—comedy is an easier transition.

Excellent direction by Richard Benjamin, who keeps me laughing tillthis day from his performance in "The Sunshine Boys" . Bill Macy washilarious as the sycophantic writer.

All in all a great film. Cheers me up every time.

read comments (0)

Night Shift

It would be quite easy to mistakenly assume Night Shift is a bettermovie than it actually is. Thanks to a hysterical debut performance bya young Michael Keaton and a likable (albeit unimpressive) HenryWinkler, Night Shift is an amiable enough comedy that provides a gooddose of entertainment and humor in all the right places.

It stars Winkler as a shy morgue attendant who is grudgingly put onnight shift duty — only to find out that his new partner Bill (Keaton)is a loudmouthed, obnoxious, fast-talking city kid with no desire towork at all. During the long nights, Bill rents out the morgue’s "limo"as a transportation service. ("These guys paid me four hundred dollarsto drive them from the airport to the UN!") Bill is oblivious tofailure and knows no humiliation. He carries around a tape recorder sothat he can capture his brilliant ideas the moment they enter hisbrain. One of his more unique imaginings is the concept of feedingmayonnaise to tuna ahead of time, so that people don’t have to mixtheir own tuna fish salads.

Winkler is given top billing and the film primarily focuses on hischaracter’s plight, however it is Keaton who lights up the screen andreally makes Night Shift such an infectious experience. During themoments when he is off-screen, Night Shift feels bogged down andunrealistic – with an unnecessary subplot involving a prostitute(Shelley Long) and her romantic ventures with Winkler.

This does, however, open up a plot opportunity for the film: When herpimp is killed, Winkler and Keaton decide to become local "managers,"operating out of the morgue and taking a mere ten percent of profitsversus the standard eighty. It’s a sort of darker version of RiskyBusiness – and somehow the movie seemed a lot funnier, and also seemedto work a whole lot better, before it settled down into a plot.Admittedly the brothel aspect of the film leaves itself open to a fewclever satirical moments (such as the "business" side of prostitutionand Keaton’s charismatic chalkboard speech to the girls which playslike a coach lecturing a football team) but overall it runs out ofsteam long before it should.

So, no, Ron Howard’s directorial debut is hardly the pinnacle ofcomedy. This was Howard’s first true attempt at making a movie, and itshows – the direction is awkward and not very distinct. It could bemistaken for any other Police Academy-era slapstick comedy on firstinspection. And the movie – written by Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel –does seem to head towards National Lampoon/SNL-type humor a few times;most commonly when the film starts focusing on Winkler and his homelife.

But as mentioned above, the comedy works best when it’s focusing on therelationship between Keaton and Winkler and not on the other stuff thatit’s actually supposed to about. Had some of the unnecessary "filler"been cut, the mandatory romance shortened, the unrealistic momentsaltogether scrapped and the scenes inside the morgue lengthened, NightShift would be a really great comedy.

As it is, the movie works well as a crowd-pleaser – if you’re notexpecting anything great you’ll be pleasantly surprised, and likelywalk away with a higher opinion of the film than you ever imagined youwould. It’s got a handful of really funny jokes and keeps the viewer’sinterest, which is really all that should be expected from such amotion picture in the first place.

I was watching this for the second time on the telly when my dad came inafter a hard day’s work to wish me good night. He started watching, satdownand stayed transfixed to the end, finally declaring it one of the funniestfilms he had ever seen. I agreed with him. Then I sent him off to bed. Icouldn’t bear to look at those red spandex trousers for a minutelonger.

Michael Keaton certainly steals the show, but Henry Winkler’s a darn goodfoil for Keaton’s likeable, dippy dreamer. Screw A Beautiful Mind, thisthing has twice the laughs. Kind of odd to think of shelley Long as a sexobject, though, but by the end I WAS TOTALLY INTO IT. I’m kind of kidding.But not about how good this movie is. Rent it today! Or don’t.

I saw this film a long time ago, just when it was new (1982) and was blownaway by the very talented Mr. Keaton.

Also notable are Henry Winkler in a most restrained and touching way.

A welcome surprise is Shelley Long (For the record: I am NOT her fan) as aprostitute "with a heart of gold".

A small, early gem from the Ron Howard-Ganz-Mandel team, with some personaltouches, to wit: The line when `Belinda’ (Shelley Long) tells `Chuck’ (HenryWinkler) just after they made love that `she is not wearing her watch’ tolet him know that she loves him is just beautiful, a nice, semi-polishedlittle gem that I think most people can appreciate andenjoy.

Trivia: Clint Howard in a small role (His brother, Ron almost always giveshim work.)

Trivia: In the closing credits Rod Stewart sings a beautiful version of`That’s what friends are for’ that would later be made really popular by"Dionne Warwick and friends".

This movie came from out of nowhere (as did Michael Keaton) to be one ofthefunniest movies around. Keaton’s character of Billy Blaze was so over thetop funny that it was worth seeing over and over and over again.Perfectlycountered by Henry Winklers low key Chuck.

The supports characters were great as well - the future inlaws, the judge,the pimps, the Sandwich delivery guy; even the Dog. All lines written anddelivered to perfection. All characters (no matter how small) werememorable.

I read the original script for Night Shift recently and it was not NEARLYasfunny as the movie became - CUDOS to cast and Director Ron Howard fortakingthis modest comedy to the next level. Every scene that was intended to befunny made you crack up. The scene in the Courtroom; the girl scout ontheelevator; the finale in the Club.

In my opinion, Ron Howards best movie (along with PossiblyParenthood).

Also, look for appearance in this movie by such future stars as KevinCostner, Shannon Doherty, and Richard Belzer.

This could easily be considered THE funniest movie if not as funny asany movie Michael Keaton has ever been in, including, Mr. Mom,Beetlejuice, Multiplicity, and probably even funnier than JohnnyDangerously (because Dangerously is intended to be pure slapstick andblack humor COMEDY all the way). Whereas Night Shift is a parody andshows some pretense towards the normal but abnormalities of living in abig city, yet does so with pure improvised humor, the type that leavesyou rolling on the floor laughing literally so, by the movies end.Perhaps Ron Howard’s best Comedy he ever directed as well. If you needa guaranteed night of hard laughter, definitely rent or buy this movie.It can still occasionally to rarely be found in VHS sale racks, and wasremastered for DVD. Definitely one of my favorite comedies. This movieand Keaton’s role as the bumbling fumbling crazy but serious idiotmakes this movie what it is, while Henry Winkler and Shelly Longattempt to balance this hilarious riot comedy with some serious sidesof what is a attempt of living a normal life, but infiltrated withKeaton’s wit, (which is as sharp and funny spontaneously as any RobinWilliams stand up comedy has ever been). Keaton at his best, while hischaracter is intensely amped up and nuts but serious. Keaton’scharacter, Billy Blazejowski is the new hire in the Night Shift at thelocal morgue, a apprentice to the withdrawn surrendered Winkler.Blazejowski always carries around a mini tape recorder to capture hismoments of brilliance, as he often comes up with inventions one afteranother. For example, at one point on his way out the door, he stopsdue to a brilliant plan for a invention and speaks into his voicerecorder. New invention, feed Tuna mayonnaise, that way you alreadyhave Tuna Salad, boy would that sa
ve a lot of work! Kevin Costner’slittle role in this movie is not even worth mentioning, as he perhapsis on screen for 1 or 2 minutes, and this role could of been played byanyone. Costner’s role was not cast with anyone special in mind.However, perhaps only Robin Williams is the only other actor who couldof fulfilled Keaton’s role, with the genius spontaneity of comedy. Thismovie was during a period in Keaton’s life when he was only known forhis comedy, and he definitely peaked with it here. However being thegreat actor he is, and like so few are unable to (exception being RobinWilliams, again), was gifted enough to break away from thestereotypical nut ball comedian, by performing in serious roles withbrilliance, later on in his career. This is a real sign of a greatactor, who can float between a wide diverse number of different roles,from comedy, to serious drama, to Super Hero, and wicked criminal, toany serious drama and horror characters. Without doubt a 10 rating, anda genius by the Director Ron Howard, and lead actors, mainly Keaton.

This movie is a decent early directing attempt from the now muchacclaimed director Ron Howard. The movies is not really memorable orhilariously funny but it still provides some decent entertainment,probably mainly thanks to the two main actors of the movie; HenryWinkler and Michael Keaton.

What a great screen debut, this movie for Michael Keaton was. Heimpresses and amuses in his eccentric over-the-top role. He plays hisrole with lots of class and professionalism and thanks to that he neverbecomes ridiculous in his role but funny and consistent instead. Butplease, let's also not forget Henry Winkler. I mean this is the Fonzwe're talking about and he made this movie even in the middle of his"Happy Days" period but yet he is great and totally believable in hisrole in this movie as a loser who in many ways is the opposite of hischaracter Fonzie. This movie shows that Henry Winkler really is a greatand perhaps also underrated actor who can play a diversity of roles.Some smaller roles in this movie are for well known actors such asClint Howard, Shelley Long, Richard Belzer, Vincent Schiavelli and bitparts for Ron Howard himself and Kevin Costner and Shannen Doherty intheir first small movie roles (blink your eyes once and you'll missthem).

But despite all the talent involved this movie is not really asuccessful one. Probably thing to blame for this is the story, which isnothing special and not always very consistent. The movie lacks areally remarkable or memorable comical plot line. There are some funnymoments throughout the movie but not enough to entirely regard thismovie successful as a comedy. Still, like I mentioned before, Winklerand Keaton still makes this comedy worth your time.

The movie also lacks style and the timing is off at times.

Not a bad early attempt by Ron Howard but thankfully his later moviesare way better.

6/10

Michael Keaton is phenomenal in this picture. If stranded on a desertisland with a choice of just one video, I’d pick this one.

When Michael Keaton’s character is first seen as silhouette in the morguedoor, a totally original comedic character was born. This charactercontinues to be imitated but never duplicated.

This is a great movie. I am amazed that some folks rated it "5" or less.Perhaps the horribly miscast Shelley Long gave these folks indigestion.Maybe there was a negative reaction to seeing "The Fonz" in a completelydifferent light. Oh well, their loss. This movie has many great moments("This is Chuck reminding Bill to shut up!" . . . "Call Starkist!" . . ."LOVE BROKERS!!!!" . . . etc.) and is well worth seeing. Now available onDVD!!

read comments (0)

Dünyayi kurtaran adam

The man who saves the world is one of the worst movies ever made. Ivoted10 for this movie, because movie lovers know that the worse a movie is,themore valuable it is. (Some scenes are taken from Star Wars, dialogues andcreatures are very funny). That is what makes the movie a must see. Do afavor yourself, find this movie and watch it, I am sure you will enjoyverymuch…I hope our boys don’t make a movie such as ‘Episode1: Who can stop theturk?’ in future. Just kidding…

you can only give this movie 1 or 10 out of 10. the main idea of thefilm is perfect. it tells us about unstoppable terror that people madeand are going to make. and there will be never peace…. this movie iscreated insufficient funds there wasn’t enough film or money forspecial effects, even for costumes!!! cuneyt arkin(leading actor) wasnearly everything for the movie. he created all costumes designed allscenes. of course he took some help(!) from star wars. it iscriticizing and at the same time using star wars. there are some funnymistakes like pilots are using both x-wing and tie-fighters!!! itsfunny, its thought-provoking, and i thing it worths enough to watch asa comedy!!!

This is the movie which is produced as very early Matrix with itslimited budget. (Timing is wrong:))… But I heard that it had got’’sold out” label in USA Blockbusters… you will experience to seesome star wars scenes at the back which is one of them is my favoriteand unforgettable that is about a fighter is diving for bombing but thefighter is just ducking but the structure of the ship stays (I canwatch this part several times with full of laugh with cramp in mystomach) you can enjoy while watching this movie. Don’t expect full ofsuccess but it’s real fantastic movie. Worth to watch this movie oncein your life at least…

this movie not just best science-fiction movie in turkey this movie isthe best science-fiction movie in whole world forget about star wars orspace odyseyy:2001 just watch this one and learn anything aboutfamiliar movies.when the movie ends you just cant get rid off itseffects you just sitting there and just keep looking to the picture andyou want more you want to see more.for a proof to a movies quality justlook at the scary monsters they can blow fire.God this is amazing Ibelieve that everyone in the world had to see this film and just try tounderstand the meaning in it.(Note:the second movie is on the way butits a comedy film so don't expect so much of it)

Dünyayi kurtaran adam (Turkish Star Wars) (1982)

BOMB (out of 4)

Turkish film that is pretty much a scene for scene remake of Star Wars.Unlike most Turkish films, apparently this one was meant to be aserious movie but the budget is so low and everything is so poorly donethat you can help but roll your eyes. I'm not a big fan of the filmbeing "copied" so perhaps that's why I didn't enjoy this one as muchbut I hard a really hard time trying to sit through it. The specialeffects are being bad and sometimes the film resorts to using scenesfrom the actual Star Wars. The music score from that film is also usedhere but what's most shocking is that there are special effects in thefilm, which appear to be from an Atari game. If you're a fan of theoriginal Star Wars then you might get more entertainment out of thisthan I did. There's no question this is a horrible movie but some mightfind it so bad it's good.

This the best movie I have ever seen….

must watch it.

there is no movie like this.

!!!!

This movie is a legend for turkish people younger than 25, like allcüneytarkýn movies you can laugh untill you die.It is not a comedy (that makes it funny) and the company which producedDünyayý Kurtaran Adam went bankrupt after that movie.If you wanna laugh watch it. If you don’t know turkish learn and watch itiguarantee it will be much more funnier

An absolute masterpiece of absurd. I’m not sure if it was supposed tobe so ridiculous, but the crazy plot, paper-like characters and theattempt to teach the viewer basic information about Islam simply rule!George Arkin plays his role with all his heart, especially during his"training". The villain is as ambitious as can be, yelling about howinvincible he is, although he still needs more power. Oh, and I lovethose dialogs about "girls in minis" and the second hero’s "looks". Andthe lo-quality sound effects (every monster in this movie, no matterhow silly-looking, produces the same roaring sound throughout thepicture). A must-see to all the people in the world!!!

This movie is plain bad.However, as a so-called "bad" movie it has acertainstyle.First of all it is a first try in Turkish movie history as sciencefiction.When you watch the movie you laugh at the simplicity, the effects,the style and of course the parts taken from other movies like Star Wars.But after all when the movie is over you leave the screen with a smile onyour face.Something that doesn’t happen very often with some so-calledgoodmovies.

Put simply, this movie is great. It has changed my life just as it haschanged the life of many others. I feel that it is a cult movie, there arefan clubs about the movie and its hero(Cuneyt Arkin). The movie isincredibly funny and i have not yet seen a Hollywood movie to match itsstandard. While watching the movie, you cannot decide which is better, thespecial effects or the script, text of the movie.

All this black comedy coupled with the ultimate scenario produces theunforgettable classic known as "The Man Who Saves the World", the bestmovieever to be seen on the white screen.

read comments (0)

Fanny och Alexander

This supposedly is Bergman’s most autobiographical film, his chefd’oeuvre and farewell to the Big Screen. Alexander is the centralcharacter, though not quite a "point of view" one, as we often see andhear scenes which he does not. His experiences at 12 (also the age ofactor Bertil Guve, who sadly did not continue in the trade) are wildlystimulating and deathly chilling at times, which I guess makes itpretty realistic for being a boy before everything became regimentedand Disneyfied. Bergman’s talent for portraying both male and femalemulti-faceted characters in the depth and texture of their messyhumanity is brilliantly manifest throughout this film, and what makesit gratifying and enriching. Nevertheless, though I know it was piecedtogether from a TV miniseries, at times I still thought it was ratherslow and could have benefited from further editing. Finally, I guess Imust have missed something because no one else on IMDb seems to havequestioned the disappearance of the other two siblings, a younger boyand girl, without trace or comment.

Some of the positive reviews I just read on IMDb make me wonder if Isaw the same film they did. "One of the greatest films ever made" and"a masterpiece"???!!! Come on, this is a very good film but I wouldreserve these raves for other films! The performances and writing forthe family is amazing at times–I particularly liked the grandmother’sperformance. Her use of expression and manners made me believe she wasreal and I wanted her to be MY grandmother. Her sons, daughter-in-lawsand servants were also excellent. On the other hand, Fanny waspractically absent from the movie and Alexander, at times, seemed likea zombie. I suspect it must be hard to direct and write for children,as their parts just didn’t feel real to me. The evil Bishop and hisfamily were well presented and I had no problems here. The only REALproblem I had was with the bizarre son of the Jewish man who rescuedthe children. He was kept locked away and was either some sort ofpsychopath or pedophile or witch–his part was so brief and poorlypresented he was just a confusion. I know that Bergman likes occasionalsurreal touches but to me this just looks more like an omission versusa real attempt to challenge the viewer. I THINK Bergman was trying toimply that this man molested Alexander but whether or not this occurredit just didn’t fit the film.

One other gripe I had is that the film seemed a little too black andwhite in its presentation and seems to show a real bias on Bergman’spart concerning traditional morality. The Ekdahl family is ratherworldly (with son Carl’s MANY sexual escapades and his family’s tacitapproval) and sweet AND the Bishop’s family is stern, wicked andvisually frightening.

Anyone sitting through the five hour plus running time of thissub-Hamlet in modern dress may well sympathize with the paternal Ghostdoomed for a certain time to walk the earth.

It may arguably be misleading to title the film Fanny and Alexander andstate on the DVD box that the film is centered on the two children ofthe title who, following the death of their father and their mother’ssubsequent remarriage, suffer cruelly at the hands and in the house oftheir stepfather. True, these things do, eventually, come to pass, butfor the first two hours the father is very much alive and the focus ison the family Ekdahl en masse, who happen to be theatre oriented, somuch so that Bergman could, with equal veracity, have called it ‘That’sShow Business’ or even ‘borrowed’ from Jerome Kern and OscarHammerstein and given us ‘Life Upon The Wicked Stage’. It’s a film ofset pieces; Christmas celebrations, family meal times, funerals, etcand there’s even a nod to Breughel in one of the early scenes when theframe is filled with figures congregating at chez Ekdahl. Again many ofthe scenes are shot as if photographing a play with actors andfurniture arranged artfully to resemble stage settings. Depending onyour point of view and/or boredom threshold the film is ’stately’ or’boring’. I understand it exists in a three hour version but the mainstory would fit easily into 90 minutes. Christopher Plummer look-alikeJan Malmsjo weighs in with a formulaic villainous stepfather and theacting itself is more than competent. I find it a trifle sad thatsomeone of Bergman’s stature finds it necessary to spell everything outas if for kindergarten viewers. Here’s what I mean; Oscar and EmilieEkdahl (the parents of Fanny and Alexander) are both actors in thefamily-owned theatre. They are rehearsing Hamlet when Oscar suffers thestroke which subsequently kills him. Thereafter his ghost appears tohis son, Alexander (and, to be fair, to his mother, i.e. Oscar’smother, also). Alexander is unhappy at his mother’s remarriage and sheactually TELLS him not to ‘play Hamlet’. The new husband did notactually Murder his predecessor but he sure as hell screws upAlexander/Hamlet’s life. I would have thought that a talent likeBergman could have been maybe just a TAD subtler but then what do Iknow.

****************spoilers********************** It's really hard for meto describe the situation I went through just after watching thisfilm……. This movie is completely not for KIDS. Even adults have hardtime understanding the plot……….

I knew nothing about this film……. Seeing the title of the movie andit's foreign language Oscar nomination I made out that the movie wouldbe a fantasy one………. The first scene where the kid Alexander goes tosleep under the table and after some while wakes up and sees thestatues hand move made me think this was a Fantasy tale………

But as the first hour of the movie played the kids Alexander and Fannywere nowhere to be seen. The first hour of the movie is totallycentered on the Adult members of the family……. I could not make out whythey were showing us the Family problems and whatever…….. Moreover thestory seemed to go nowhere………

But after the first hour a sudden and untimely demise of the father ofAlexander and Fanny gives the movie a turning point. The movie thatfollows after that first hour is like watching almost another film………

I still cannot make out the connection of the family drama and the kidsproblems…….

Well yes the movie is good and gets interesting……… but the things thathappen in the movie hardly makes any sense…………….

The ghosts and the same people at 2 different places situations made methink and think………….

And I have not yet reached to a conclusion…………

I don't understood how people understood this film…………..

Moreover some have said that the movie ends happily!!!!!!!!!!!!

No it doesnot!!

The dead Bishop's ghost is now there to haunt the kids…………

I couldn't make out anything that the movie was trying to tell…………..

This movie is like no other Fantasy film…………….

And like it's said that "if the viewers don't understand the movie inthe first view than jobs not done well"…………..

I would like to stick to that saying and would like to watch the 5 hourversion……………..

For now lets just rate it 5/10

…but when they go into David Bowie's room (oh, that *wasn't* supposedto be David Bowie? k.d. lang, maybe?), I had this vision of a big footkicking me out of the movie. I never did quite see why it's consideredone of Bergman's greatest works, but I was able to stay with it rightup the appearance of Ismael, from which point I just wanted it to beover.

Perhaps in the long TV version all the second half's mysticalmumbo-jumbo is better-justified and we learn why Bergman (insanely, inmy view) cast a woman in
drag as Ismael and why little Fanny is a titlecharacter when she is utterly superfluous to the story. But at thispoint I can't imagine spending the five hours necessary to find out.

After seeing _The Best Intentions_, which Bergman wrote and based onhis parents’ early relationship (though he did not direct it), I wasvery eager to see _Fanny and Alexander_, as I had read that it was alsosomewhat autobiographical and contained many similar themes. I wasblown away by _The Best Intentions_ and thought it was one of the mostthought-provoking, emotionally engaging, and well-acted films I hadseen in years. I was disappointed, though, by _Fanny and Alexander_.The story seemed jarring and incomplete at times (to be fair, I saw the3-hour version, not the 5-hour version). I especially thought that therelationship between the Bishop and Emilie was depicted so sparely asto be nearly inexplicable, particularly in its decline- Emilie goes tothe Ekdahl’s, declaring her hatred for the Bishop, *at the same time*as we see the Bishop’s cruel punishment of Alexander, not *after* thepunishment. There is little indication of what has actually beenhappening prior to Emilie’s visit to cause her hatred of her husband.

I also found the scene with Ishmael to be so over-the-top that I foundmyself stepping back from the film to say, "Oh, come on!"

Many scenes are beautifully filmed, and most of the actors areexcellent. Overall, though, it wasn’t a "10 out of 10" for me.

This film is cinema as poetry and moves along like a wonderful dream. Iam fond of stories centred around families anyway but this takes thefamily and explores many different corners of how you are affected byyour kin. All this of course happens through the eyes of two smallchildren though mainly Alexander. It contains so many moments of sheeremotion, my favourites being the confrontation between the two brothersand the bishop, the appearance of God and the father to the boy and theend scene. A great deal of symbolism peppers the film and Bergman takeshold of the material with such expertise that one cannot turn away atany point. This film is a real treasure and I advise anyone to watch itand love it as the latter comes very easily. I know that Bergman has areputation for being heavy handed (is this a crime?) but this film is alyrical song to the family and should be compulsive viewing. The factthat this film is over four hours is irrelevant, as this is often thefirst thing people comment on when the title is mentioned. Go and seethis film today as it is quite remarkable.

This may be the most competent film ever made. It truly is magnificentin how effective it is in satisfying its intent. It has glory and pain,close to perfect in most respects, all the ones that mattertheatrically.

It is ambiguous in its gloom, which removes it from the relentlesslydepressing stuff that preceded it. It is richly constructed, with lotsof folded levels with: plays about plays in several different ways.

So why do I not rate it a "must view?" My glib answer, one I actuallygave once, is that 1982 was a very good year for film and I only allowmyself two from each year at the supreme level. Technically, those twoI selected aren't as gloriously balanced in the dimensions this is.

But they instead take us somewhere that is useful, that challenges.This is a ride to the moon in a comfortable tour bus. Those other twovisit less sophisticated theatrical landscapes, but they do it on foot,engaged in the hot, sweaty and dangerous transport of ourselves.

So I will tell you it is sublime in many ways and not very useful tobuilding a real life in film.

Bergman himself is in three characters here: the boy (as widely known),the magical Jew who makes the illusions that we believe to be real asthe film, and the stern stepfather. There's too much of this last, toomuch of the bitterness he forces us to swallow by surrounding it withsweetness.

So instead this comment is on the Jew's perspective, the kabbalisticfolding of the thing.

The Jew is a master puppeteer in two young guises, Aron and (female)Ismael who we learn have created all that proceeds or follows, perhaps.That is roughly framed as Hamlet's play within the play, during arehearsal for which we witness the father play the ghost, then becomethe ghost. Later, he is replaced by the stepfather through a similarchannel.

(Remember Hamlet's qualms about killing his stepfather without allowinghim to confess his sins.)

The thing begins with young Hamlet (Alex) as the stagemaster, and atnight the filmmaker, showing slides and illustrating the ghost story.Then life at grandma's house as theater. In fact, at all three housesas theater.

If it were just the Jew Isak behind the illusions, weaving thestructure, we'd have something with emotional kinematics. But that guywith the spiritual pharmaceuticals gets in the way. Darn.

Ted's Evaluation — 3 of 3: Worth watching.

This movie, at least the way it has been edited and released in itstheatrical version of 188 minutes, is really only about Alexander. I'mnot sure why it's called "Fanny AND Alexander," because Fanny reallydoesn't have much to do in this film except just be present as acharacter with almost no lines and no real scenes either. Pretty mucheverything is from the viewpoint of Alexander. Is this an editing flaw?Were many other scenes left on the cutting floor? This is a fine filmbut certainly not an outstanding one that people make it out to be.

Please don't submit irrelevant flames by saying what a great directorBergman was.. That's not the point I'm disputing. He made some verygood films. Only, this is not one of them.

After having seen many Bergman films, I finally got my hands on this,considered by many to be the master’s masterpiece. Not really about thechildren Fanny and Alexander (as the title would suggest) so much asabout the entire Ekdahl family, this film is meticulously detailed andhighly autobiographical. It looks absolutely fabulous; cinematographerand Bergman regular Sven Nykvist outdoes himself with his crystal clearcompositions. Bergman’s directorial style is at times a bit too static;he lets his camera sit motionless far too frequently, fine when focusedon a face or tableau, but uninteresting when simply filming a group orroom from long shot. But overall, he is in complete mastery of thematerial.

I saw the full-length, five-hour television version, and the first halfof this is flawless. Documenting the Ekdahl family Christmas, the deathof Oscar (Fanny and Alexander’s father) and their subsequent move tothe home of their stepfather and religious tyrant, this part of thefilm is compulsively watchable. The characters (with the exception oflittle Fanny herself) are painted with detailed strokes by the actingand writing, and Bergman uses his production design to great effect,juxtaposing the sumptuous interiors of the Ekdahl’s home with theascetic house of the stepfather.

The movie floundered a bit for me, though, in the second half. HereBergman indulges his preoccupation with many of the themes that he’svisited so often before; because of their familiarity, they came acrossthis time as pretentious and tired. The existential longing, the fearof death, the blurring of personas: how many times can you explorethese same themes and keep them interesting? Perhaps if I had notalready seen so many Bergman films I would have fared better here. Asit was, I found myself checking my watch frequently in the film’s finalhour or so.

But the overall impression I took away from this film was that I hadseen an important work by an important film maker. I still think"Persona" and "Cries and Whispers" are better movies, but "Fanny andAlexander" is a must see for any Bergman fan, and really for any fan ofcinema, period.

Grade: A-

&
nbsp;

read comments (0)

Firefox

This is a weak thriller. It’s spiritless, dull, stupid and trivial. Itdoesn’t lead anywhere. I can admit I’ve seen better movies. However for me,there’s just one tiny little but about it. I’m a fanatic Eastwood fan. Iadore just about everything about him. He is definitely my number one idolwhen it comes to actors. I love his uncompromising style, harshness andstrength.

I haven’t seen a single Eastwood film I don’t like at all, there’s alwayssomething fun in them. Let’s take "Pink Cadillac" for instance. Movie isbasically awful but with Clint it just seemed so jovial it was quite anamusing flick to view - horrible no doubt, but fun.

So I guess Eastwood is the only actor who’s films I like whether they suckor do not suck. That principle goes with "Firefox" too. It’s not a goodfilm, I’m aware of that but I’m the wrong person to abuse it too muchbecause I feel a great sympathy for Clint. He is "the man". Especially endof "Firefox" is actually pretty stirring so I could say that film has someflaws but this movie ain’t the worst thriller in the world.

FIREFOX is the tale of a vietnam vet recruited to steal a russian superjetfor NATO. The film is one of eastwoods best films. FIREFOX is both aespionage thriller and aviation film. The film is steadily paced andavoidssome of the plot pit falls of other cold war thrillers. A believablestoryand likeable main character. On a scale of one to ten aten.

Firefox was made in the early eighties, when the USSR was the Evil Empire,with their invasion of Afganistan and all, so the time was right for Clintto go in there, beat up all the Russians, and steal their top-secret"Mig-31" with mach 6 speed and thought-controlled weaponry ("you mustthinkin Russian!").It actually manages to entertain with suspenseful scenes, though the plotand some situations are painfully far-fetched. Clint is in his usual mode,he plays an ace fighter pilot who suffers from Delayed Stress Syndromeafterbeing shot down in Vietnam. But he’s pressed into service anyway and hisdelayed stress surfaces at inopportune times. The Russians are a bitcartoonish with their accents and mannerisms, but the biggest hoot of allisClint when he’s speaking Russian. Three out of Five.

Cold war tensions somewhat lost in today’s society but still aterrific suspense ride for Eastwood fans. If there was everacandidate for re-tooling and re-release this is it and I’dpaygreen money to see it. The special effects are laughablebycurrent standards and are distracting from what is otherwisea pretty good flick 8/10.

What I like about this film is how gloomy the Soviet Unions looks; one getsa feel of what total government control is like in a police state, welldone. There is tention in this film, but it drags. Just get on the planeall ready! What disappoints me, is the climax. Eastwood steals this supersecret plane, in the heavily over armed Soviet Union, and he only runs intoa couple of planes. Boring! There should have been more action, and bytheconclusion you start to wish something would happen. 6/10

Firefox was made in the early eighties, when the USSR was the EvilEmpire, with their invasion of Afganistan and all, so the time wasright for Clint to go in there, beat up all the Russians, and stealtheir top-secret "Mig-31" with mach 6 speed and thought-controlledweaponry ("you must think in Russian!"). It actually manages toentertain with suspenseful scenes, though the plot and some situationsare painfully far-fetched. Clint is in his usual mode, he plays an acefighter pilot who suffers from Delayed Stress Syndrome after being shotdown in Vietnam. But he’s pressed into service anyway and his delayedstress surfaces at inopportune times. The Russians are a bit cartoonishwith their accents and mannerisms, but the biggest hoot of all is Clintwhen he’s speaking Russian.

Firefox was shown quite a lot on British TV in the 80’s. I saw it theother night on DVD and forgotten how good it is. I disagree with theview that you essentially have to be an Eastwood fan to enjoy it, itjust happens that he is very convincing as a Vietnam vet with PostBattle Syndrome (or whatever its called) - as one of the US generalswho are planning this caper points out "it manifests itself in civilianlife, not battle conditions", and Clint pulls it off well. MitchellGant is obviously a troubled man, but the thought of flying, no -stealing! - the greatest war plane ever built persuades him toundertake this madcap heist behind the Iron Curtain dreamt up by theCIA and British Intelligence. Lets not forget, Firefox was made in1982, and in those days the Cold War was in full flow. I was a youngkid then, but I can remember watching news reports on the TV of how theUS/USSR situation was really tense. So to see a movie like this, wherethe West prevents any USSR dominance by stealing a new state of the artwar plane that could tilt the balance in their favour was quiteexciting. Anyway, the first half of the film is based around planningthe caper and training Gant, the second half is (and I’m not spoilingthis if you haven’t seen it) is what happens after he gets to theplane. And what a plane it was, still looks scary 20+ years later! Itwas designed, I think, by the special effects crew who did Star Wars,and it was a real menacing looking aircraft, with thought controlledweapons systems, anti-radar capability, and a top speed not seen beforeon any plane. Its not just Eastwood who gives a fine performance,there’s Warren Clarke (a Brit) who in my mind steals the show as thegruff Russian dissident Upenskoy, who helps Gant get to BilyarskAirbase (a real place). There’s also Nigel Hawthorne, a fine Britactor, who played Baranovich, the brilliant Jewish scientist whodeveloped the plane. The scenes in the second part of the film, withsome great shots in the air and in the Russian mountains still hold upwell and are real edge-of-your-seat images. So if you haven’t seen it,see it. As Upenskoy says to Gant - "can you fly that plane Gant? I meanreally fly it?" "Yes" says Gant.. "I’m the best there is"

It’s not often that Clint Eastwood serves up a boring film, but Firefoxis certainly one of his few mis-steps. Clint the director seemsexcessively fussy about the complexities of the plot while Clint theactor seems so indifferent that one wonders if he wishes he weresomewhere else. The original Craig Thomas novel on which the film isbased is actually an exciting and well-crafted piece of fiction (I knowbecause I’ve read it) but this big-screen adaptation sadly misfires onall cylinders.

Former American pilot Mitchell Gant (Eastwood) has moved to a secludedcorner of Alaska following his traumatic ordeal in a Vietnamese prisoncamp. He is approached for a highly sensitive mission when the Westerngovernments learn that the Russians have developed a new, incrediblyadvanced supersonic fighter jet. Gant’s extraordinarily dangerousmission involves going behind the Iron Curtain and stealing the newsuper plane from its impregnable hangar.

The film trundles along for 136 minutes, but it actually feels muchlonger. The first 100 minutes of that running time is particularly hardto endure, with an interminable series of cloak-and-dagger exchanges,tediously repetitive flashbacks, and the usual murky plot build-up thatgoes with he territory in these ubiquitous spy thrillers. The finalhalf an hour or so is slightly more tolerable as it shows Gant pilotingthe jet out of Russia, pursued by a duplicate jet across the Arcticskies. The aerial special effects are rather unconvincing during thisclimactic showdown, but at least there’s a little excitement (somethingmarkedly lacking from the rest of the movie). Maurica Jarre provides agood music score which is probably the best thing about the film.Firefox is a failure on most levels and is strictly one for Clint’smost die
-hard fans.

Imagine a film made and set towards the end of the second world war wherethe Nazis have developed a new secret weapon which will stem the tide oftheallied advances in the East and West and it`s up to John Wayne or ClarkGable to steal the Nazi weapon and bring it back to the good old US of A.Sounds pretty ( Yawn ) exciting doesn`t it ? Now imagine remaking it 40years later except the enemy are the Commies and the film stars ClintEastwood as the hero . Will this make the film any better ? Correct itwouldn`t .

This is a very tedious film . I was going to call it a " thriller " butseeing as it doesn`t have much in the way of thrills I`ll just call a dramathough that`s probably the wrong word too . Nothing really happens in thisfilm until Eastwood gets into the Firefox cockpit which leads us through ajourney of extremely crap SFX , but the effects aren`t even bad enough tolaugh at , and this is the best bit of the film . Elsewhere in the filmpeople just walk around calling each other " comrade " a lot and there`s asub plot about anti semetism in the USSR , at least if it`d been set duringthe second world war we could have seen stereotypical Nazis goosesteppingabout saying " Heil Hitler " " Actung " and " We have ways of making youtalk American pig dog " . And yes the bad guys in FIREFOX are all played byBritish actors . Haven`t seen that in a film before ( Double yawn )

This is a great movie to watch if you’re interested in hokey, unrealisticjunk. Old Clint is indestructible, yet kills everyone else with just asingle shot. The acting is horrible throughout, which gives it somethingincommon with the writing and directing. The special effects are the worstI’ve ever seen; looks like someone holding a model airplane on a fishingpole.

read comments (0)

First Blood

"First Blood" has all the grounds to be called the standard of actiongenre. It is tough, bloody, realistic (even with the jump from thecliff it looks like a documentary!), and very dramatic. "Die Hard", forinstance, is a good action movie, but it’s more like a shootout andBruce Willis’ weeping scene (with the words like "I didn’t ever saysorry to her") is prolonged, ridiculous and very boring. Here JohnRambo also cries but it’s no weeping. These are tears of a tough manwho has some message that is deep.

We finally have a special DVD edition of "First Blood" in our country.It has some deleted scenes included as a bonus. It is very sorry thatthe suicide ending was put off. What a mistake! A possible ending canbe like this: Rambo dies, his colonel’s face is shown in a close-up,the camera comes closer to his eyes; then goes the scene showing himand Rambo leaving the place (like in the final cut), but it all endswith the colonel leaving alone. The credits start to roll over. TheEnd. Here we would have the following interpretation: Samuel Trautmanonly imagines that they are leaving the place together, though JohnRambo is already dead lying in a pool of blood before him. It is veryannoying, if it is true that the public opinion wanted to digest a moreor less happy-end and the director surrendered. John Rambo must die andthere must not be stupid "Rambo II" and "Rambo III" which added somecartoonish smell to the original movie. So, while personally watchingthe film, when reaching the final episode, I go to the previouslycreated bookmark with the Rambo death scene (taken from the DVD bonus).He dies - the movie ends (unfortunately, no credits in this case and afew lines of unremovable Russian subtitles). Possibly, our presentgeneration of young men is more adjusted to "X-Men" movies and this1982 gem will go unnoticed. But "First Blood" is an example of cleveraction without doubt. And please mind: there are no stupid love/hug/sexscenes in the movie (though, there is a deleted sex scene as a bonus onthe DVD – and it is not stupid, it is tragic) and every piece ofviolence is in its right place. And the epic music is amazing.

The movie must be 10 out of 10, even for the version where Rambo lives.Thanks for attention.

If you can get through the ever-increasing silliness of the plot, theslanderous insults against the National Guard, the cartoon caricaturingof law enforcement. and possibly the worst performance Richard Crennaever gave, you’ll probably enjoy Ted Kotcheff’s First Blood, the oldestand only above-room-temperature-IQ edition of the Rambo series.

Kotcheff gives us a taught, fast guerrilla warfare-movie with adecorated Vietnam veteran (Sly Stallone) first harassed by big, burpingSheriff Brian Dennehy, then pursued by him and about a thousandbrain-dead cops and weekend warriors until Stallone blows up much ofHope, Washington (actually, British Columbia). All the while, Crennachews copious amounts of Pacific Northwest scenery, telling Dennehythat he’s gonna need a lot of body-bags, and getting to give John Ramboa manly hug when our catatonic hero finally breaks down and startsemoting in the gutted wreckage of the local cop shop.

It isn’t all bad, though. First Blood actually pays decent lip serviceto such now-common themes of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome and AgentOrange. Yet, the good stuff is almost obliterated by about $200 worthof dime store psychology.

By the end, you’ll feel as if you just got your action-movie money’sworth from the video store, even though your brain will have beensorely taxed by any of the numerous plot holes, each big enough todrive an Army 2 1/2 ton truck through (and don’t forget the hideous endtitle song warbled by Dan Hill).

My suggestion is to turn off the sound as soon as Sly stops blubbering.Of course, you can always leave the sound off altogether and treatFirst Blood to a homegrown Mystery Science Theatre 3000 treatment.

John J. Rambo is a Vietnam veteran who is hitchhiking around parts ofthe US trying to catch up with friends from the war. However when hereaches one small town, the sheriff tries to force him on his waybefore he has finished his visit. When Rambo comes back into the town,Sheriff Teasle arrests him for vagrancy and lets his men rough him upsome. The rough treatment sets off flashbacks in Rambo’s mind and hegoes on the run from the law. The local police pursue him and try tohunt him down with dogs – however Rambo slips further back in his mindand turns the tables in the middle of the woods.

I have never watched any of the Rambo movies and have only seen a fewmoments of part 3 that I didn’t get into at all but I have taken thechance offered by BBC3 to watch all of them over a few weeks. I wasunsure of the basic plot of this film but I was aware from what other’stold me that the novel it was based on had a lot to say about Vietnamand America’s view of those that came back scarred by it. If that isthe case then this film doesn’t manage to quite do the same – it triesand there is some message there, but it is very much secondary to theaction and is more of a hook to hang the action on rather than it beinga thread that runs through the whole film and lifts it to be somethingmore than an action movie. The action is a bit exaggerated and unlikely(and takes away from the message by having this veteran being a nearindestructible machine of a man). It is well delivered though and isexciting as long as you try not to think too much about where it ishappening and how the plot develops.

The direction is good and uses both the forests and the town’s highstreet to good effect – maintaining tension even as the actions ofRambo start to get too extreme for the script to really support. Thecast is not great but contains an impressive number of famous faces.Stallone is a good physical presence and he does well enough in what isa pretty monosyllabic role – he looks tortured and harrowed and that’swhat was needed; only at the end does he make an emotional impact inthe film. Dennehy is a sympathetic bad guy (a problem the scriptcreates) even if he tries hard not to be. Crenna is a good presence andhe delivers the message in a clear (if heavy-handed) manner. Otherfaces include McKinney, Mulkey and an early role for David Caruso(giving the same performance as he is decades later!).

Overall this is a rather split film – it wants to be an exciting actionmovie but it also wants to be a message film about America’s attitudeto Vietnam veterans. It manages to do quite well at both withoutexcelling at either. The action is enjoyable but gets too big and silly(almost Commando style exaggeration) while the message is very muchwindow dressing until it is bluntly put forward in the final scene. Itis an effective film and more than just a dumb action movie but itcould have been better with more of a balance and a decision about whatit wanted to be.

One of the silliest films ever made. The direction is trite, as is thescript and the plot. The performance of Stallone as John Rambo is one of theworst characterizations ever presented on the screen. He may haverepresented somethingfor the 1980’s, but I can’t for the life of me figure outwhatthe hell that was. Crenna is horribly miscast as the Colonel who made Rambo.Crenna is so awful that he has to actually force himself to overact to keepup with Stallone’s meager performance. The last scene, where Stallonedelivers the mostpoorly annunciated monologue in the history of cinema, is afineexample of poor improvisation. Brian Dennehey, however, isquitegood as the sheriff on the hunt for Rambo. He’s a fine character actor andthese are the kinds of roles he shines brightest in.Director Ted Kotcheff squeaks his way through this film, although I assumethat tough guy Sly had the say over the editing and pretty much the entirefilm.

Although silly, this is a machismo flick!

&qu
ot;First Blood" was a movie that had a lotgoing for it. A good cast, a goodlocation, and a good story. The one thingthat I hated about this movie was theconstant use of the Lord’s name taken invain. There is no reason for it in thismovie or ANY movie!I bought the DVD of "First Blood" afternot seeing it since its theatrical releasein 1982, & was disappointed by a lot of thedialogue.When I was listening to the audiocommentary by author David Morrell, he toowas surprised by all of the language init."First Blood" could have been a greatmovie. You blew it Ted!!

First Blood is the best Rambo film without a doubt. The sequels never quitelive up to this one. This doesn’t seem like a stupid action film, but itseems well thought out. The direction from Ted Kotcheff is moody and wellpaced. Stallone is solid. Good movie.

Stallone’s finest hour. Superb, gripping storyline that, with a bit ofimagination, was believable. The Rambo trilogy became way too far-fetchedafter this, with more action and less acting.

This was a fine film with a genuine theme. What followed with the sequelswas dangerous propaganda. The first Rambo was essentially an anti-war movie.It was based on a novel that had John Rambo shot dead at the end by hisex-commanding officer. Unfortunately the movie was embraced by jingoisticAmericans, looking for a story to re-tell what happened in ‘Nam. "We reallydid win the war, but for Washington selling us out …. ". The US had nomoral right to be in Vietnam in the first place and nor do its story tellershave the right to misrepresent history to make Americans feel better aboutthe Indo-Chinese war.

Novelist David Morrell should hang his head in shame for being involved inthe sequels.

FIRST BLOOD was a novel by David Morrel that was a international bestseller. Stallone insisted the character needed to be more sympathetic to theaudience so the character of Rambo was softened from what it was in theoriginal novel. Also, the novel’s end was altered….in the book Rambo diesand in the film he lives. The film was shot in Canada, by canadian directorTed Kotcheff. During the film’s shoot several exotic weapons used in thefilm, were stolen by international arms thieves and the RCMP was called into investigate, new weapons had to be bought to finish filming. FIRST BLOODwas popular because it hit a nerve with disaffected vietnam vets. The filmportrayed the "stereotype" american society had labeled them with followingthe end of the war. originally, KIRK DOUGLAS was supposed to play TRAUTMANbut he dropped out and RICHARD CRENNA stepped in. The first film in thisseries spawned two sequels, yet this first film is considered the best.Kotcheff was miffed he was passed over for directing of the sequel in placeof George Cosmatos. FIRST BLOOD had a down to earth honesty that the "comicbook’" sequel lacked.

It’s the best film of the Rambo series. It’s a strange thing, but it was thefirst Stallone’s film to reach Russia, if I am not mistaken and it wasimmediately banned. And it’s a miracle - but it was the best. John Ramboimmediately became everybody’s hero, more than that - brother. Because hewas abandoned by the state for which he had fought, he was humiliated andslighted every day, he had to live relying only on himself and his fewremaining friends until he found himself the only survivor one day. What’sthat but a typical life story of a Russian guy - the one who fought inAfghanistan against his will, was forgotten by the state which had sent himthere, whose friends returned home in zinc crates or crippled beyondrecognition and didn’t take long to die? What’s that but a story of anordinary citizen of Russia, abandoned and humiliated by the state daily, butready to die for his own country if need be? They say our young men needed ahero because no culture can survive without one. Paradoxically, Stallone, anAmerican,"an enemy", gave us our hero. He became a hero of our generation.

read comments (0)