The Man with Two Brains

The Man With Two Brains strives for the charm of Young Frankenstein butfails. It's aging and even the dumb jokes don't have that "dumb" charmto them.

It was worth a couple of chuckles but they were quite far in-between. Inormally like Steve Martin films, All of Me for example, and evenstupid ones like Sgt. Bilko have some merit.

But this one, stay away.

Who should see this film:

– nobody, even on a rainy day, even if you get it for free on cable

I'm forced to give The Man With Two Brains a 3 out of 10.

Steve Martin plays the world's greatest brain surgeon who falls in lovewith a (talking) brain in a jar; Kathleen Turner is his shrewish wife,David Warner plays a mad scientist whose laboratory is in a hotel!Shoddy-looking slapstick comedy from director Carl Reiner, with much ofthe early emphasis on smutty gags. Reiner and Martin might've actuallybelieved this material was cutting-edge…so how does one explain thesoggy sentimentality in the film's second-half? The dirty jokes aretorpedoed and the pace comes to a screeching halt as Martin falls inlove, which means less and less of Turner (the picture's one realbright spot). Martin is very confident in pop-crap quickies like this,and he does have some funny scenes, but this hoary material is reallybeneath him. *1/2 from ****

I bought this movie on DVD two days ago. I saw it. Though Steve Martin isagreat actor, the quote "His funniest movie" on the DVD is far from true.There are good moments and Kathleen Turner is gorgeous but the movie, init’s all, is far from funny ! It is even sometimes boring. The end is coolbut the story line is not well developed and some ideas where unexploited(there is no plot about Dolores former husband’s death)!Frankly if you want to get bored with some laughs, take a look at this one!

I just caught this movie on late night cable TV, and I must say, it is oneof the funniest movies I have ever seen. I remember loving this movie asakid, and just realized I probably didn’t get half of the jokes back then.Steve Martin gives a top-notch comedic performance as the brilliantneurosurgeon Dr. Hfuhruhurr who falls in love with a brain. If you lovezany comedies then this movie is for you. They don’t make comedies likethis one anymore. Pure genius!

Well, what can you say about this movie? It’s very strange, but veryfunny at the same time. Steve Martin, I’m not really sure if his rolewas meant to be comedic or psychotic. But the story is interesting.Kathleen Turner is a great villain. The whole scene with Steve and thebrain on the boat in the lake was a bit… disturbing. I wasn’t surewhere the movie was going after that. It’s not a bad movie, but nothingI’d really watch again. Because it is very strange. The acting,directing, and editing isn’t bad. I’m not sure what this movie wasgetting to, or if it had a point. It’s just something you have to be ina certain mood to watch it. Other than that, it’s all your’s.

6/10

This is a really interesting scientific comedy, especially from theenjoyable Steve Martin. Basically Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr (Martin) hasbeen lonely for many years since his wife died. He one day though meetsa new beautiful girl and they fall in love and marry. Dolores Benedict(Kathleen Turner) does do some suspicious things, but she looks prettyinnocent, or is she? Also one day Michael meets Dr. Alfred Necessiter(David Warner) who specialises in the same subject as Michael, brains.Necessiter has even managed to bring Michael's dead wife (voiced bySissy Spacek) back to life, as a brain, in a special liquid. Michealnow wants to find the perfect body to put his wife into. Also starringJames Cromwell as Realtor and Earl Boen as Dr. Felix Conrad. Very good!

Yes, the very best of them all.

I love over the top stuff if it's done properly, and this highly-strungmovie froths with it. It has the kind of nervous silliness that makeseverything in it funny whether the punchlines are "good" or not.

Kathleen Turner OWNS this movie.

And…

I can't help it. I know it's stupid, but I think it's romantic, fallingin love with a brain in a jar. And she's such a *nice* brain in a jar.And… and, and, and I like their little song, and I think it'sromantic when he says at the end: "What fat?", and David Warner'sfunny.

So there.

"If *I* lika you and *you* lika me…"

I had never heard of this film until I learned that it was availablefor free rental at my local library. Before watching it, I was aware ofSteve Martin's starring role (I had seen him in some funny moviesbefore), and the premise looked intriguing, although I did see therating on IMDb, which wasn't as high as I expected. With all this inmind, I wasn't expecting a masterpiece, but I was hoping for at least areasonable comedy, but even with those moderate expectations, I wasstill disappointed.

Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr is a widowed neurosurgeon, still grieving overthe loss of his wife. While in his car one day, he accidentally hits awoman named Dolores Benedict and badly injures her. He manages to saveher by performing an operation, and as she recovers, he quickly fallsin love with her. This leads to a marriage very quickly, before Doloresfully recovers, but the surgeon does not realize that she is a selfish,evil woman who just wants money, and he is now about to be her latestvictim! The couple soon go on a trip to Vienna, where theirrelationship begins to fall apart, and Michael falls in love with thebrain of a dead woman, being kept alive in a jar in a laboratory!

Around the beginning of the film, it looked like it was going to bepretty silly, but reasonably entertaining. I definitely found myselfsnickering at times, but do not recall a single gag that made me domore than that. In fact, for the most part, I didn't find it funny atall. For example, I don't see what's so funny about Dolores suckingMichael's finger. Also, for better or worse, this 1983 sci-fi comedy isvery strange! Personally, I probably wouldn't have minded that if themovie was consistently amusing, as I sometimes enjoy comedy that's outthere, but that wasn't the case with "The Man with Two Brains". In theend, I sort of wondered what I just watched! Like I said, Steve Martinhas been in some funny films (such as the hilarious "Planes, Trains &Automobiles"), but this is clearly not one of the stronger films of hiscareer.

Back when Steve Martin was still a wild a crazy guy, he made severalfunny films, many of which were not very successful at the box office.Probably the best was 'The Man With Two Brains,' a genuinely inspiredslice of movie lunacy. Like a lot of comedies that weren't too popularin their initial release, it's gone on to become a (do I have to sayit?) cult favorite. It is frankly puzzling though that it didn't draw awide audience first time around, as it is hilarious from start tofinish, and at the time Steve Martin was a hot property. A funnyrunning gag has to do with Martin's character's name, Dr. Hfuhruhurr,which seems unpronounceable to everyone but the doctor, though he issometimes charitable enough to tell others they almost got it right. Heis the discoverer of a revolutionary brain surgery technique called the'cranial screw-top.' The name pretty well describes the technique. Hemeets Dolores Benedict, a femme fatale if there ever was one, byhitting her with his car and then aiding in her recovery, during whichhe falls madly in love with her. Kathleen Turner gives the comedicperformance of a lifetime as Dolores, a women for whom viciousinfidelity is an all-consuming passion. At one point after they'remarried, Hfuhruhurr comes home to find Dolores with another man, whoshe says is
paying her several thousand dollars to touch her behind.When the doctor tries to get angry with her, Dolores becomes angry inreturn. "Why?" she asks. "Because you don't want me to work? To have myown career?" There are a lot of funny lines and situations in 'The ManWith Two Brains.' Dr. Hfuhruhurr, eventually disenchanted with Dolores,falls in love with another woman, or rather, another woman'sdisembodied brain being kept alive in a jar in a laboratory. Afterseveral, well, complications, they live happily ever after. At least,it appears they're about to start living happily ever after. This wasthe third of four film projects Martin collaborated on with the giftedcomedian/director Carl Reiner, and their partnership represents thehigh point of Martin's cinematic career. Reiner seems to haveappreciated Martin's specific comedic approach better than anyone else,and fleshed out the comic's stand-up persona without destroying it.Anyone wanting to see Steve Martin at his peak, and as an added bonus,Kathleen Turner like you've never seen her before or since, shoulddefinitely check out 'The Man With Two Brains.'

Some,maybe many,people have either forgotten and/or are too young torecall that Steve martin once made his living playing thequintessential "Inspired Idiot",first on stage for his hugelysuccessful stand-up comedy routines(that in their day rivaled the kindof success that,say,a Dane Cook gets today)and then onto the bigscreen,most famously in his breakthrough,the deliriously funny TheJerk(1979). Now,thirty-plus years into a long and storied filmcareer,he's become iconic and has split his time between "highbrow"endeavors(i.e.nuanced dramas,dark and/or deepcomedies,playwriting,screenplays,art exhibitions,recording avant-Gardbluegrass,etc.)and the moneymaking,"safe" fare he gets the mostattention for(The Father of the Bride movies,the Cheaper by the Dozenfilms,The Pink Panther films,Bringing Down the House among others)andmovies like this one seem so long ago.

It'd be a shame,except that it makes the delight in getting this filmcheap and adding it to one's film library even sweeter.

This came on a single disk,"2-for-1" deal from Warnerbrothers,alongside the pleasant and warmly entertaining 1990 Martinoffering My Blue Heaven. While that movie was certainly a worthykeep,it's nowhere near as gangbusters frenetic or true Martin a film asthis offering,another pairing he made with director Carl Reiner.

Martin is Dr.Michael Hfuhrruhur,a "brilliant" neurosurgeon whoseinexplicable naiveté over love has him in the arms of a diabolicalgold-digger(Kathleen Turner,playing her vampishness for laughs not longafter 1981's Body Heat),and then his subsequent disillusion over thatleads him to a kindred would-be romance with a lovely woman whose onesmall problem is that she is a floating brain in a jar. Go figure!

Too many great lines and physical comedy to get into here(stuff thatalmost rival any Zuker-Abrams-Zucker offering at their 1980s peak),thisfilm,like The Jerk showcase Steve's total commitment to that "InspiredIdiot",physically as well as verbally. Very good(if perhapslimited)support coming from David Warner,Paul Benedict,RichardBrestoff,Randi Brooks and Merv Griffin(!)enhance the elements of thismadcap comedy. This movie is a great showcase of old Steve Martin,andif you miss seeing that,than rent or buy it as soon as you can find acopy.

read comments (0)

The Hunger

Peter Murphy performing Bela Lugosi’s Dead (!) in an 80ies-club, whereDavid Bowie and Grande Dame Catherine Deneuve choose their prey… whata beginning! But the film soon changes pace, due to the harmonic andcultivated eternal existence of Miriam and John Blaylock.

Problems arise when John shows signs of age, a phenomenon Miriam hadwitnessed before with her companions. Seducing research scientist Dr.Sarah Roberts, who hopes to find a cure against premature aging,Miriam’s efforts are ultimately futile: John is doomed to an eternalunlife inside a coffin, next to Miriam’s past loves.

Ridley Scott’s younger brother perfectly captures the inherentproblematics of vampiric existence (supreme egoistic life), the moviealso themes most aesthetically on love, age, fear and (eternal) beauty.

It is difficult to discuss a film like The Hunger without rousingcontroversy. There is an age old question that surrounds it..

Is this an affecting, daring, and beautiful piece of erotic art aimedat people who wish to analyse and critique, questioning it’s style,digging deeper to find it’s hidden meaning? Or…

Is it pretentious drivel, laced with sex and violence purely to get theattention of the mainstream? Leaving logic at the door, how was thispiece of rubbish ever allowed to be released? There are, believe it ornot, not many people who still remember this film, its openingreception was cool at best, the critics slammed it for being selfconscious and arty. But is this necessarily a bad thing? We have beenbombarded by art films since film began, so why is this held in suchill-repute? For one, the market it was originally aimed at was wrong,this is not a mainstream film, it’s narrative is blurred andquestionable, opening it up for interpretation. It’s visual style iselegant, beautifully edited, and clearly used as a backbone to theemotional subtext within what appears to be a wholly superficialscript. The novel it was based on, by no other than Whitley Streiber(Wolfen), was dense with detail and background story, pushingcharacterisation. The film version, however, is an intriguingantithesis to this. It is minimal in plot and characterisation, usingvisual and aural flair to present itself. The past of Deneuve’svampiric goddess is hinted at in arty flashback sequences, but to trulyunderstand this the book is definitely worth reading.

All performances are strong, especially considering the material islimited, lifting what could otherwise could have just been an overlongperfume commercial. It is, undoubtedly self-conscious, perhaps evenover stylised, but this just adds to its charm and its ethereal beauty.

Tony Scott, I feel, is a talent that has been on a downward spiral,turning its attentions to money grabbing action films such as The lastBoy Scout. Perhaps if he had been given a chance to mature his styleemployed in the Hunger, we could have a force in cinema to rival somegreats.

In short this film will never present any real answers, perhaps it wasnever meant to. This is a fascinating depiction of loneliness,depravity, and sexual hunger. Just read between the lines and I believeanybody could see this. To present yourself with this film is likewalking on thin ice, just remember, life is not always black and white,so therefore, neither is cinema.

This movie is near perfect. An extremely wonderful opening courtesy ofthe amazing Gothfather’s- originator’s of the genre- BAUHAUS… It justgets better. I have to disagree with the other reviewer, who said thatif you didn’t read the book, you wouldn’t understand what was going on.It’s completely untrue. The story is your not so basic "Vampires inLove" story. Cast is perfection. Bowie is incredible, Susan Sarandon iswonderful, as is the legendary cool, beautiful Catherine Deneuve. Thereare NO false notes in the entire movie. Sure, you can get distracted bythe sumptuous settings, and the beautiful photography– though that isthe point! It’s called THE HUNGER, so you have to be drooling to getinto it. Get it??! I am being serious. There are other vampire moviesthat are as good, but IMHO, not better. Why? Because of the sensuality,which is rarely portrayed as nicely as this, even amongst the despairand the coldness of their ‘mission’ and the life these characters live.Especially Miriam. After a few views, you may not get over thebackground, the atmosphere, or what happens to everyone- BUT, you willappreciate it for what it is. A movie WITH substance, and style, andsensuality, and a BRAIN. It lets you think for yourself, and just drinkin (pun fully intentional.) the lushness, the bizarreness, the beauty,and the complete decadence of their age— as in society, andliterally, how long they have lived. Just enjoy it. It’s a movie, notan art exam! lol.

side note: Bauhaus is brilliant. Saw them this month. Incredible. GOSEE THEM!!!

i only wish i’d seen this about ten years ago. the hunger is a verystylized film, but that does not detract from the impression it leaves.the Bauhaus introduction was absolutely fantastic, and i really doubt iwould have continued watching it, had "bela Lugosi’s dead" not drawn mein. David bowie as a vampire, it doesn’t get much better than that.well, aside from David bowie as Andy Warhol (in basquiat). If thecasting wasn’t as well done, this movie would have been pretty awful.the ending scared the feces out of me and i couldn’t sleep for hours.unfortunately, the hunger seems somewhat dated, but it is definitelyone of the best vampire films.

Minor spoiler ahead.

This movie almost succeeds as a "realistic" story about vampire life inthe same line as Interview with a Vampire.

The simple plot revolves around modern vampires with a disease twistinvolving a mundane doctor. Except from life expectancy and sensuality(especially women), it does not focus on vampire traits. Which is agood thing as it leaves room for other things. There are no directreferences to vampires anyway and vampire enthusiasts will miss theusual coffins, stakes, bats and sunlight of the sort.

Characters are not developed enough albeit some backgrounds are beingnicely suggested. Bowie's character comes from nowhere. Deneuve'scharacter lacks the experience a vampire of her age should prove.Police work is weak and its lame timing makes it difficult to believe.I guess that more character development would have made the drama evenbetter.

The acting from all main actors is decent (even for Bowie) as thecharacters do not leave much acting liberty. There is even short linefrom William Dafoe.

As for the technique, very dark photography was used with many filters.Also very clean but too often static camera shots. Slow paced, almostesoteric montage with a nice piano soundtrack (using classics likeDelibes' Flower Duet Lakme).

From the 80's, it ages well but is not a cult movie. The make up isvery well done for the pre-cgi period we got used to and is even wellrendered on close ups.

This cold, stylish and anti conformist fantasy-drama could beconsidered as an old "découverte". Decent rental.

Let me start out this review by saying this: I am a goth. And I mustsay that after recommended to watch this film I immediately got it,seeing as how influential it is toward the subculture. Of course, ithas a plot, a story, and great acting. The best of all, was seeingGothic rock legends Bauhaus perform in the opening sequence "BelaLugosi's Dead"-a very brilliant shot of Peter Murphy himself. DavidBowie and Susan Sarandon are great as usual-not ever lacking actingabilities. so i'd have to say i recommend this film to anyone, thoughin specific subcultures such as goth, punk, fetish, or anyone who lovesa good horror film.

A Gothic 80's film that blends stylish cinema with the (then new) rockvideo image.

It seemed to work well too. Despite it's dated look, it has ag
edgracefully. A new way to show vampires in a contemporary settingwithout turning it into a gore film or overdo the erotica. The slightlygritty look helped as well. It did seem like a European film at timestoo.

It's hard to believe Ridley's little bro would go on to action films.

The Deneuve-Sarandon lesbian scene gets most of the attention. It wasactually done tastefully. Sarandon did edgy stuff in her youth.

And David Bowie can act if he gets the right role. This was up hisalley.

My favorite scene? Seeing Bauhaus do "Bela Lugosi's Dead" in the clubscene. I'm a fan.

Visiting London when I was fifteen, one night I wandered down to KingsCross Saint Pancras to watch movies from dusk till dawn at what wasonce the Scala Cinema. One of those movies was The Hunger, and from thefirst shot, the very first note of the soundtrack, I was hooked forlife. This is an extraordinary film. Some might - and do - accusedirector Tony Scott of drifting too far into atmospheric abstractions,and even Scott himself now admits he'd probably do it a littledifferently if he did it today. But this heavily stylized vampireflick, in which the word vampire is never spoken, deals deftly with theparticular difficulties vampires themselves must face in theirperpetual quest for life, love and somebody to keep them company "Forever and ever". The cast are perfect, especially David Bowie andCatherine Deneuve, who are so good as the sophisticated Blaylocks youcan really believe the brownstones of New York City accommodate thewealthy undead. Another, lesser known star of this production ismake-up artist Dick Smith, whose old-school effects magic putscontemporary digital technology to shame. The music is marvelous,contrasting the pop culture of the 1980s with the timeless and refinedexistence of its immortal inhabitants.

The Hunger is what a great film should be … a journey into anotherworld.

Haughty, psychic vampire Catherine Denueve seduces doctor SusanSarandon, mixing together their blood to give them both eternal life.Vampires and lesbianism go way back in the movies–it wasn't anoriginal idea in 1983 (despite the 'controversy') and neither was thePlayboy layout-type sex scene between the two actresses. However, itwas surprising enough to the uninitiated to warrant whatever interestthis film had (though it failed at the box office). Lots of seductiveambiance, swirling-until-your-dizzy camera work, imposing classicalmusic on the soundtrack–but still nothing new, no matter how fancy thedressing. Deneuve is predictably ornate and ice-goddessy, Sarandonflashes a hint of her feisty personality, but David Bowie (as Deneuve'sformer lover, who ages and withers away) is really the only cast-memberideally suited to this glossy Goth job. Overwrought and unintentionallyfunny, "The Hunger" is as slick as a magazine spread and just asforgettable. *1/2 from ****

This movie suffers from trying to cram too much into one movie. Plot pointsare introduced and then forgotten (most notably, the monkeys that wenthaywire, what was the point of that?) and the film’s ending is completelybaffling. I guess director Tony Scott was more interested in style oversubstance. Many shots of curtains billowing in the wind, birds flyingaround and reflections, clutter up the film. My main complaint is the tooshort scene on Bauhaus performing "Bela Lugosi’s Dead", I wanted to see moreof them. I guess the only thing to recommend is the love scene betweenSusan Sarandon and Catherine Deneuve, basically big budget softcore pornwith big stars. I can’t imagine that this movie ranks high on either one’spersonal portfolio. It’s frustrating because if a lot had been stripped outand the film focused on Deneuve’s attempts to replace lovers and Sarandon’sbattle with her vampirism, it could have been a good gothic horror film butinstead, we get a commercial.

read comments (0)

Never Say Never Again

I just can’t believe this film. It’s incredibly, deliberately slow, moreintrested in dull light comedy than thrills and adventure. The entire Bondmythos is given a bizarre working class make-over. The weak action scenes are staged like they would be in the 60’s, especiallythe loooong fight scene in the health club. Sean Connery doesn’t really playthe 007 he made legendary, he plays a grey-haired parody of himself. Thisentire film is a comedy, more like Casino Royale than any other Bond flick,and more like a TV movie than any other big budget film I’ve ever seen. Bondfilms are supposed to be thrilling, spectacular epics. Never Say never Againis a boring, slow, and above all, LOW-KEY. Why on Earth would you make aBond movie low-key? Unbelievable.

But the shark scenes are somewhat impressive.

Many have disparaged Never Say Never Again because it is not an officialBond movie. Nevertheless, it is manifest that the producers adhered to thefruitful Bond formula. Although the film does not have a pre-creditsequence, it is clear that the training exercise at the commencement of thefilm is meant to be the introductory scene. It would have been impossiblefor EON to stop the producers from including a pre-credit and titlesequence, albeit without the gun-barrel introduction.

Sean Connery is on fine form as the immortal secret agent and this film iscertainly better than Dr No, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice and DiamondsAre Forever. Although, NSNA is meant to be a remake of Thunderball, it is avast improvement. 007 spends more time on terra firma and a more diverserange of exotic locations are included in the film.

There is some resplendent acting in this movie. Barbara Carrera isimpeccable as the bizarre Fatima Blush. One of the best scenes in the filmis the coup de grace between Bond and Fatima in Nice, which is preceded by adynamic motorcycle chase through the city. Klaus Maria Brandauer plays thepsychotic Largo and Max Von Sydow is free of the melodrama that other actorsportraying Blofeld have indulged in.

NSNA tends to centre on Connery rather than the character of Bond. At thecommencement it is stated that Bond is ageing and has been out of action. This seems to refer to the 12 year hiatus in Connery’s portrayal of Bond. Bond promises "never again" to work in the Secret Service; an allusion toConnery’s portrayal of Bond. It appears that the producers were trying tohurt the official Bond franchise.

Nevertheless, this film is definitely worth watching. This is the last timethat Sean Connery played James Bond, but his performance convinced me thatperhaps he should have never have said "never again".

If you are a proper Bond fan then you’ll know that I am being sarcastic.This is without doubt the worst Bond movie for countless reasons.

First of all, the choice of Sean Connery as the main man was a big mistakeas he simply looks tired, old and uninvolved with the film. Despite himbeing the fans favourite, no matter how hard he tries he just cannot slipback into the tux. Right from the cheesy opening, you know that you’re infor a rough ride.

The diabolical music score adds to the films incompetence and the lack ofthe gun barrel at the beginning gives the entire piece a false feeling. Theset design as well is very poor and looks incredibly dated for 1983.Actually, if you compare it to the original Bond films of the 60’s - Dr No,FRWL, Goldfinger etc - you would not be able to tell the difference. Thevisual effects are also lame - the animated rockets look so horrific I couldhave sworn they were plucked from a Tom and Jerry cartoon. However, if there is one reason to see this then it’s the fight scene at thestart which is actually very well choreographed. Aside from that though,stick with the original Thunderball. That may not be great, but it’s a dammsight better than this tripe.

3 out of 10

I’m sick and tired of people complaining that Never Say Never Again is justa weak remake of Thunderball. Yes, that movie’s influence is unmistakable,but the tremendous and almost universal inferiority of re-made films isreserved for such thoughtless and unintelligent films like the 1998 re-makeof Psycho. While it’s true that the opening theme of the twelfth (andConnery’s last) Bond film is one of the worst of the entire series, the filmitself still manages to stand on its own, despite many other weaknesses.Besides that, even the weak title song is made to blend pretty nicely withthe closing dialogue in the film.

Sure, Sean Connery was getting a little on in age when this movie was filmed(at least by James Bond standards), but there is plenty of evidence in thenarrative that makes it clear that this was not exactly unknown to thefilmmakers. James Bond is near retirement before he is handed hisassignment, having spent most of recent time teaching, not doing, and thereis even the tongue in cheek insistence from M that he pay more attention tohis health, dieting and training and getting more exercise and whatnot.Besides, this is James Bond, remember? This guy is supposed to be some kindof super human, and all of his fans are getting all upset because he’s gotsome gray hairs. When this guy retires at the end of the film, M sends poor`Small-Fawcett’ (in a hilarious cameo from Rowan Atkinson) to tell Bond thatwithout him, he worries about the safety of the free world, and all of youpeople can’t get over the fact that he’s not a sprightly young man anymore.Come on, Sean Connery could STILL play James Bond just as good as he evercould, or at least better than anyone else ever has been ableto.

The majority of the film deals with the elaborate plan to steal nuclearmissiles and hold the world hostage (as Dr. Evil would say, `Oh hell, let’sjust do what we always do…’), so there’s clearly not much new there, butthis is one of the Bond films that had the better one liners. There’s theamusing scene where Bond is asked for a urine sample – `If you could justfill this beaker for me…’ `From here?’ There are a lot of good one-liners,but the sexual innuendos aimed at Mr. Bond are especially prevalent in thisinstallment. But then later he happens to throw that very urine sample intoa villain’s face, making him scream as if his face were burning off. Not avery good attempt at comic relief, especially since this guy had beenkicking Bond’s ass with some sort of super-spring device that could cutthrough pretty much anything. And of course, Kim Basinger stars in this filmas one of the best Bond girls of the entire series.

It’s no secret that Never Say Never Again has dated badly, and one of thethings that has dated the worst is the special effects – with the oneexception of the flying missiles, which were obviously fake but stillimpressive for 1982. The colored contact lens at the beginning of the filmwas totally without effect, and the laser watch was one of the worst thingsin the entire movie, second only to those damn sharks. Evidently, FatimaBlush put some sort of device on his scuba tank that attracted sharks(granted, they did have weird guiding mechanisms of their own), in a scenethat more than likely inspired the classic line, `I have one simple request.And that is to have sharks with FRICKIN’ laser beams attached to theirheads!’ And then, of course, there is the exploding hotel room scene whichwas redone in an episode of The Simpsons, and which was obviously followedby another obligatory and overly casual one-liner from James.

The domination video game created by Largo, the film’s villain, is anespecially memorable scene, and the film also boasts what is probably thebest motorcycle chase in the entire series (far to superior to the laughableone in Tomorrow Never Dies). But despite many strengths, the film’sweaknesses are left clearer in the audience’s mind at the end of the filmdue in large part to the anticlimactic underwater conclusion (one of themore obvious parts borrowed from Thunderball, and inferiorly recreated).Never min
d the fact that Largo revealed some crucial information to Bond ashe left him in the tower alive (Dr. Evil’s brilliance, once again, `I’lljust leave him there without actually witnessing his death and just assumeeverything went to plan. What?’), the climax of what is expected to be afast-paced action film should never take place in a muted underwateratmosphere.

All in all, Never Say Never Again ranks very highly on the James Bond scale,and Connery’s wink at the end of the film (as well as the two closing lines)suggested at the time that he may still return for another turn as Bond.Clearly, this is no longer very likely, so we can only hope.

How could the producers do this to such a brilliant actor as Sean Connery. The movie seems to be like an overblown comedy at times, and merely gives usthe simple lesson that Connery should have said no to even doing this awfulpicture. No wonder Roger Moore’s regular Bond beat this one out intheaters.

People criticize NSNA because it is a low-point in Bond god Sean Connery’scareer, and because it is unofficial. ***MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS*First of all, this movie is better then any other bond film featuring anyother actor then Connery, all sub par wannabes in my book. Sean Connery isthe only real Bond, no one comes even close to his toughness, good looksandsex appeal. Yes, this movie is a low point in Connery’s Bond career, but itis still the definet best bond film of the 80’s. Sean Connery is the onlyBond actor who is good at an older age. he did not become a baggy mess likeMoore, but kept his good looks and toughness, but gaining some gray hair.Sowhat? hes still the only real 007, and he is as cool, and tough as ever.Sean Connery is the one and only 007. And this movie is definitly worthseeing, no matter what anyone says. No gun-barrel opening, but you can’thave everything, can you? great theme song, though.

This is by far my least favorite Bond movie. It is not Sean Connery’sfault, however. He does a great job and seems quite enthuised in this onemore than he was in "Diamonds are Forever". In fact he is the only thingthat makes the movie tolerable. What is wrong with the pic you ask? Tomuch to list, but for starters the plot is basically a rip-off of"Thunderball" nothing new here. Bond at one point actually plays videogames with the bad guy…I like video games myself, but I don’t see JamesBond playing them. The other actors in this one are quite simply badincluding Kim Basinger. There is more stuff, but like I said the onlyreally good thing about this movie is Connery, but one other thing…this isthe only Bond movie where I have gotten bored and wished it wouldend.

Sean Connery returns after a twelve year absence for what seems likeTHUNDERBALL 2. The story line is so familiar; the action a little slow andthe romancing pretty weak in James Bond standards. 007 matches wits with atycoon arcade game collector(Klaus Maria Brandauer)who intends to hold theworld hostage with two stolen Tomahawk cruise missiles. Max von Sydow playsarchenemy Blofeld pulling strings for SPECTRE. Barbara Carrera is the lovelybut evil Fatima, more than enough to turn any mans head. Of course thealluring Kim Basinger is the one that gets the most of our super spysattention. Funnyman Rowan Atkinson plays Nigel Small-Fawcett. With NEVER SAYNEVER AGAIN… once is enough.

This is the worst James Bond movie ever. Its a good thing this is not anofficial entry in the James Bond Series. This is a remake of Thunderball,which I never saw, but I really want to. This is truly a horrible Bondmovie, Sean Connery was like over 50 when this came out. I bet this is anawful remake. It fails on both levels: Remake and BondMovie.

Let me depart from many comments I’ve read here, and say that this filmranks as one of the five best Bonds, along with On Her Majesty’s SecretService, From Russia With Love, Licence To Kill, and For Your Eyes Only(theONLY time Roger Moore actually played the role of Bond, instead of futzingaround). Of course, Sean Connery pulls the whole thing together — asco-writer, co-producer, and in his best performance since From Russia WithLove. He is fit, energetic, and obviously enjoying himself. His acting ismature, confident, and laced with the right amount of humour. This is incontrast to his mechanical performance in Thunderball, his sleepwalkingthrough You Only Live Twice, and his jowly, paunchy romp through thatcartoon known as Diamonds Are Forever!

This is an imaginative reworking of Thunderball, without having the setsandmachines overwhelming the characters and plot. This cast is far superior,aswell. Klaus Maria Brandauer brings his unique style to the role of Largo,without relying on an eyepatch, SPECTRE ring or a boring uniform. KimBasinger is athletic and lovely, Barbara Carrera is dynamic, and for once,we have a great Felix Leiter in Bernie Casey. The depictions of M and Qareoriginal, and the addition of the bumbling agent Small-Fawcett is funwithout lapsing into slapstick.

Director Irvin Kershner makes good use of his locations (the Bahamas andtheFrench Riviera) without losing sight of his actors. Although closeinspection reveals some mediocre special effects and lapses in continuity,Kershner keeps the film moving at a good pace, unlike Thunderball (whicheven its director, Terence Young, did not like). Obviously fans will missthe gun-barrel trademark and the 007 theme music, but they are, after all,owned by Eon Productions.

Michel LeGrand may not have composed the most memorable score, but itcaptures the atmosphere of the locations without being overly intrusive.Notsurprisingly, his best moments are in the south of France, with his Frenchlove song (at the health spa) being particularly attractive. And tell me,how many really remember the music for Moonraker? I personally wouldratherforget Man With the Golden Gun and A View To a Kill!

The Eon folks can sneer at this film if they like. (Yes, Octopussy mademoremoney.) At least Connery’s mature 007 didn’t swing through the jungleemitting a Tarzan yell. He did not frolic with a Bengal tiger, nor did hefight off "Indian" snake charmers with a tennis racket. Despite Eon’sdesperate efforts to stop this production, Kevin McClory and the late JackSchwartzman put together a fine film, one that I think Ian Fleming wouldhave appreciated.

If, however, you would rather see James Bond get kicked in the shins by adwarf, engage in another tiresome struggle with "Jaws", jump into bed withGrace Jones, or lead a slapstick firetruck chase through San Francisco,thisis NOT the film for you!

read comments (0)

Educating Rita

Educating Rita is a modern day "My Fair Lady" but with a twist. whilethe scenes and the music make the movie seem so dated the underlyingstory really speaks out for this movie.

A young woman looks around her life and sees a need for change. sheenrolls in what would now be an online university class and seeks out atutor at the local university. what is really done well in this movieis the relationship between her and the professor. how they interactand how she feels she is not good enough while he wants to keep herinnocence alive while she wants to experience more and more.

there is a scene where she realizes that something inside of her haschanged and that the people around her were not. she realizes that shemust make a choice. she chooses to move forward and not look back injudgment.

this is a light hearted movie that deserves to been seen for what itwas and not be seen for what it isn’t.

Educating Rita is the story of a young married woman, who just wants tobetter herself. Rita (Julie Walters) and Frank (Michael Caine) totallybring this story to life with their truly excellent characterportrayal's.

The movie explores the difficulties Rita encounters as she tries tofulfil her desires, her personal struggles against the pressure of herfamily to stay in her rut and breed children she is not ready for yet,and her emotional journey through the trials of achieving something atthe very limit of her grasp.

As well as the difficulties Rita faces, we also see the turmoils ofFrank (her teacher) and his relationship problems caused by hisalcoholism.

Every single character is fleshed out realistically and with enoughdepth to see their own personal battles, that the viewer can relatetoo.

Educating Rita is a heart warming and inspiring story, that issometimes amusing, sometimes tragic, but always true to real life andthoroughly entertaining.

9/10

This is the second Willy Russell play that Lewis Gilbert has tackled (theother being 1989’s "Shirley Valentine") and it is the inferior of the twoadaptations. Numerous directorial tricks from Gilbert cannot conceal thatthis was originally a two-handed stage play and as such falls a little flaton film. "Shirley Valentine" triumphs where this falters slightly becauseof a bigger cast and more potential for location shooting.

That said, it’s still a decent effort. Both Caine and Walters turn inwonderfully nuanced performances as the unlikely companions of the piece. This is the work which proves beyond doubt that both are supremely talentedBritish performers, and we’re lucky to have them. Much of the wit andcraftsmanship of the play survives in the transition from stage to screen;but the lack of characters and locations tells, leaving the movie unable toentirely support its running time.

Rita (Julie Walters), an uneducated Liverpool hair dresser, enrolls at anOpen University to get an education in literature. She gets, as a tutor, adrunk, disillusioned professor (Michael Caine). They both learn from eachother and grow and develop. The plot is old (remember "Pygmalion" and "MyFair Lady"?) but Walters and Caine are exceptional. Their performances areperfect, they have great chemistry together and have a wonderful, funny,smart script to work with. Also, there’s a beautiful music score throughoutthe film. The movie isn’t perfect…it’s too long (almost 2 hours) andthere are a lot of secondary characters that just aren’t needed (her husbandDenny and, especially, Tish). Still worth watching. A big surprise hit in1983 (nobody expected this to do any business) and Walters was nominated forBest Actress (or was it Supporting?) at the Academy Awards. I know it won’thappen, but I’d love to see a sequel to this and see how the characters are18 years later.

I think Educating Rita is a great film, and extremely well acted.However,having read the play, I feel that the film doesn’t embody all that itcouldhave done. I think this is because the film doesn’t just use onelocation,like it does in the play. Instead different sets are used to demonstratedifferent areas of both Frank and Rita’s lives. This takes away some oftheinitial mystery of the storyline, and the imagination of the audience ismonitored as the film provides solutions for what the other areas of thecharacters lives might be like. All in all, though, it was a braveattemptand many other directors would have done much worse.

I went to this with my wife because she wanted to see it, not me. However,despite myself, I enjoyed the film. It has elements of My Fair Lady in italong with other films of the genre. Michael Caine does a great job inthis,and the story never drags. I enjoyed it and so did my wife. I think mostanyone who’s in the mood for something without any violence or swearing init would like this film!

Educating Rita is a breakthrough in British Cinema, first time I saw thiswas about 10 years ago when I was 15 and since then it has become one ofthebest films I have seen, not only is the acting great with Caine playingfrankwith ease but also Walters as a working class woman trying to battleagainstthe stereo typical working class ideals and get a education. The music isgreat too some how it works great, Gilberts directorial skill is excellentand breaks away from the style he used in the Bond films, other greatactingcomes from Lipman playing the friend who is trying to be middle class butisfitting other things within and this without a doubt is a must for all towatch.

"Educating Rita" is the second collaboration between Michael Caine anddirector Lewis Gilbert since 1966’s "Alfie". It’s clear that the two ofthem work well together, as Caine gives one of his very bestperformances. Julie Walters does a good job in the role of theuneducated girl, Rita. The story isn’t terribly original - it’sbasically another version of "My Fair Lady" - but it’s reworked quitenicely. I did not enjoy David Hentschel’s music, however, which feltwoefully out of place.

"Educating Rita" has been done before, and done since, in manydifferent ways, but the quality of acting and direction makes this wellworth the watch. Recommended.

7.3 out of 10

This is a very good Story, about Susan White (Rita), who is 26, sheshould of had a baby, but first of all, she wants to discover herself.or her inner soul. So She goes to the nearby Collage. There she meetsthis drunken teacher Frank Bryant. We see him looking for a certainbook, "The Lost Weekend" by Charles Dickens, behind that we see abottle of whisky. He drinks quite a lot of it, just before he is aboutto give a lesson to a room of 20 young Students.He does not listen to aStudent when he asks Frank a Question, He just stares out into space. Iquite like it when in one of his lectures, he says:"did you see PeerGynt on the radio" he annoys the Bursar and is warned about hisdrunkenness, to which he shouts "Sod Them!" I like the music and Ithink that Julie Walters and Micheal Caine, is a very good combinationhere we have two good actor and actress roles and one good story, Younever get tired of seeing this film, and This Film is British to thecore! I think that Denny, should of been more supportive to his wife,Susan does say to Frank that Denny is "Thick" I also like the quote:Wouldn't you simply die, without Marhler" I also think that the recordplayer should of switched itself off like mine does!

Willy Russell does a reasonably good job of transforming his witty playinto a film script here, however the new supporting characters that heincludes add nothing to the material, and the film really could havedone without most of the scenes that involve them. Aside from that, acontinuity error or two, and inappropriate choices o
f music choices,everything else is here is quite good. Caine and Walters are bothsuperb, not overplaying their characters at all, which easily couldhave been done. Some of the best witty lines are preserved from theplay, as are the ideas about switching teacher-student relationships.It is not a perfect film, and the material suits a two-character playmuch better, however this is still a great on-screen vision the play.

read comments (0)

Bad Boys

Penn stands out with a convincingportrayal as a hard ass teenagerwho lands in a foul reform school. That’s pretty much the film. Penn owns it throughout with the restof the cast adding nothing to the maze.

I just finished watching this movie and I wasn’t that impressed

Only Sean Penn and Ally sheedy are excellent in this one … all the otheractors give only so-so performances. Nothing too spectacular…

And the plot itself is mildly ludicrous … to believe that such a thingcould happen is a sign of mental weakness … Keep on watching wrestling andbelieving it’s real … haha !!!

2/5 overall. A little disappointing for myself who is a big Sean Penn fanbut what can you do with a script like that and some slightly uninterestingdialogues …

Better luck next time …

What was Esai Morales doing in there … still trying to figure it out …would this "marvelous" plan of his work ?? wowo … I was reminded of WileE. Coyote (Morales) trying to catch the Roadrunner (Penn) … but with ahome made ice pick instead of a fork !!!

This film has a fantastically intense scene where O’Brien is sitting in thedining hall eating and is confronted by Horowitz, the prison’s top dog, anasty piece of work indeed. Horowitz overtly picks his nose then wipes hisfinger in O’Brien’s food. Great power play, and the movie is full ofsimilarshowdowns.

We’ve seen it all before and since. Rapists and thugs are serving timein the Rainford Juvenile Facility until they are satisfactorilyrehabilitated.

Mick O’Brien (Sean Penn) shares a cell with a likable young criminalwho loves tinkering with radios and mousetraps and some explosiveinventions of his own. His antics provide the only light relief to theviolence.

There is a touching scene where O’Brien escapes to comfort his girlfriend who has been pursued and raped on a highway. The otherwiseunemotional O’Brien breaks down during his moment of freedom. Theoffender is caught and comes face to face with O’Brien behind bars. Atthis point the film becomes more interesting as tension between thecharacters builds.

Among the mixture of characters there is of course a bully who alwaysjumps the food queue and roughs up anyone he cares to annoy for noapparent reason.

Sean Penn does a good job as a silent brooding type of thug, out forrevenge although his own past life has not been an exemplary one.

I am amazed at the size of the Illinois Penitentiary of which we get amomentary glimpse of an interior cell block. O’Brien is too, and atthis point he rethinks his future attitude towards life behind bars.

Not a particularly interesting film ( a kind of docu-drama of life in arehabilitation unit). It is however a showcase of the acting ability ofSean Penn who went on to star in a host of successful films.

A pugnacious, disheveled youth (Sean Penn) learns what it takes to survive.This was really Sean’s first "big" movie. Though he was in "Fast Time atRidgemont High" in 1982, "Bad Boys" (1983) was Sean’s first leading role.This very well could be the movie that set Sean up for the characters he hasplayed to the present day. This movie was an amazing leap in exceptionalacting for Sean– going from a burnt out surfer in his previous movie, to anactor that practically saved an entire film. Reni Santoni also stars in themovie, and in my opinion is the only other eye-catching character. He isknown for movies such as "Can’t Hardly Wait" and "Private Parts." I woulddefinitely suggest this movie, especially to Sean Penn fans likemyself.

…sorry, maybe it was Coca-Cola.

Back closer to when this film was released I read a review from Roger Ebertsaying how much he appreciated that the gang violence depicted wasn’tstylized or glorified - the earlier scenes, particularly the drive-byshooting and the dizzying pace of its aftermath, certainly feltrealistic.

I do have to agree that my favorite moment with Sean Penn, his pillow case,the canned soft drinks and the two scuzbags was contrived but stillsatisfying. Who cares whether or not kids at the Illinois reformatoryactually have pre-lockup access to the soda machine, or how Penn’scharacteractually had to money to buy all those Pepsis? (Well, the answer might notbe hard for that one).

Still, when I had started on my first post-graduate school job, a bunch ofus out-of-towners were housed for a week in a Brentwood, TN motel duringtraining for account executives. After a day’s worth of training, five orsix of us gathered in the room of one of our fellow newbies prior to dinner- this fellow happened to be watching "Bad Boys" on cable when we went topick him up…with enough time prior to this scene for me to say "Hey,watchthis, guys!" (I still marvel at my early-20s immaturity.) As I recall, myfellow account executives got as much of a chortle out of it asI.

By the way, did you notice on this site that the actor who played thelittlemad bomber gave up his career as a thespian and is now a venturecapitalist?Why am I not surprised?

Mick O’Brien (Sean Penn) is a teen criminal from Chicago. He was sent toajuvenile detention center for accidentally killing the little brother ofPaco Moreno (Esai Morales), a small time drug dealer. To revenge hisbrother’s death, Paco rapes J.C. Walenski (Ally Sheedy), Mick’sgirlfriend,and is ironically sent to the same detention center as Mick. Somebodywillbe repaid for the crime they committed.Revenge is the game these two boys are playing. Their lives are now notlived to survive, but are lived to repay– to repay the pain of that wasinflicted on their loved ones, to repay the pain they felt for their lovedones, to repay the pain they feel because of the hatred for oneanother.I imagine Rick Rosenthal, the director, is attempting to instill a senseofguilt for not only the hatred we feel, but also the hatred we cause.Revenge doesn’t bring answers; it only brings agony to those who seek it,and those who it affects. There are better ways to cope withgrief.My favorite part of the movie is when Mick escapes from the detentioncenter, knowing he will get caught, just to see J.C. This truly showedhowmuch he cares for her. I also realized how furious and hurt he must havefelt when he heard what had happened to her. Paco’s crime shouldn’t havehappened. His brother’s death was an accident, but what he did wasintentional.Although it was made in 1983, this movie still seems to fit in with theworld twenty years later. Hopefully in twenty more years this film willbeviewed and understood the same way I view and understoodit.

Bad Boys is a classic prison movie. Sean Penn is the lead role proved hisacting talent playing a hard a** con. Esai Morales showed early actingtalent as Penn’s foe. The movie has great action sequences and a very goodfinal showdown. 5/5

In this Film you are not going to see the usual American Kids they want youto see,but you will see the more Real and less unfortunate ones. We have toadmit that America is not very keen in this subject (JuvenileDelinquents,Petty Crime)as Spain is, but this movie is not thatbad.Mick O`brian (Sean Penn) is a tough street kid trying to survive the bestway he can and knows.Living a life of crime as in mugging,bag snatching,carthefts and armed robbery`s,he will stop at nothing to keep the only thingshis got,his liberty and the love of his girlfriend J.C. (Ally Sheedy).Buthis luck will change when he is sent to a juvenile prison for armed robberyand murder.There he will experience the horrors behind bars,and meet newenemies.

This film is not so realistic as it should be,but its still quiteentertaining.Its also quite brutal and dramatic.Juvenile Delinquency is a very interesting subject for movie making,but onlywith the right Director and screen writers.

7/10.

WARNING: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS

At last, BAD BOYS has come out on video in its uncut theatrical version. Ididn’t like the previous video versions where they cut out some of thescenes, in which some of them were my favorites. I was previously betteroff watching it on television than wasting money on the Republic Picturesvideo edition, but thanks to Anchor Bay, I get to enjoy BAD BOYS the way Ilike it.

Sean Penn stars as Mick O’Brien, a street kid who winds up in a juvenilefacility after accidentally killing a young kid. Most unfortunately, thekid is the younger brother of Mick’s nemesis Paco Moreno (Esai Morales), whois plotting revenge. But when Paco is sent to the same prison for rapingMick’s girlfriend (Ally Sheedy), Mick must fend for himself.

I give BAD BOYS two ratings (the rating posted on my vote history list isfor the uncut version). Uncut version: 8/10; Short version:3/10

read comments (0)

Brainstorm

Good endingbut takinga very, very long timeto get there.

I heard of this movie from baked potatoes: a pot smokers guide to film andvideo. And the first time I watched it, i was quite baked, almost well done.It didn’t disappoint. Between a jumpy plot, crazy effects, ChristopherWalken, and all sorts of oddball shenanigans it was an wesome movie. Noteven the disturbing presense of Louise Fletcher aka "nurse ratched" as achain smoking sci-damsel could offset the pure loonyness of thismovie. Two years later I rented it again, but this time had a Christopher Walkenmarathon/ brew and view with a couple of friends. After Suicide Kings, andthe priceless Dogs Of War, we we’re pretty inebriated. I pop in Brainstorm.The movie itself is laugh inducing enough, but with four of us donig aMystery Science Theater 3000 job on it, and making cross refrence jokes toother Walken movie it was riot. I was laughing so hard half way through thati had tears in my eyes. I couldn’t even drink my beer I was laughing sohard. There’s just something about Christopher Walken movies and being drunk orbaked. That alternate universe you visit when not sober must be thebirthplace of one of the strangest men ever born. I give this puppy a nineout of ten, and to this day i’ve still never seen it in a completely soberstate of mind.

I have seen this movie and i just red the so called plot summaryherebut i still dont understand the story. Sorry. I could watch itagainand again and im sure i wont understand the story. its like theycutlots of movies in to pieces and latery brought them somehowtogether.Dont get me wrong, the story is not absurd. Its just too weird. Ilikedthe camera perspectives and somehow everything looked so brillant.Although iwas watching it on TV it was just as i was watching it on cinema. Again, iwould be glad if you can explain me what in the movie happens. you know myemail. If you want to see a movie whichis really REAL then watch it.

I really thought the premise was unique and performances were good in thislittle sci-fi feature from the special effects guru of 2001 A SpaceOddyssey.Sadly the film suffers from being entrapped in the myth ofNatalieWood’s death. The film has showstopping special effects at the end.Thisfilmalso benefits from a solid performance from Louise Fletcher as thechainsmoking scientist/partner of Chris Walken.

"Brainstorm" has sort of a mediocre plot and is best known as the movieon whose set Natalie Wood died. It’s not a bad movie by any stretch. Itportrays a device that lets a person get inside another person’s mind,but what if the device gets used for unethical purposes? ChristopherWalken and Louise Fletcher play the people designing the device, and dogood jobs with their roles. Natalie Wood plays Walken’s estranged wife.

Of course, watching this movie, it’s hard - for me at least - to thinkabout anything except the fact that Natalie Wood drowned right beforethey finished filming. Too bad that she couldn’t have finished hercareer with something slightly more than this. She was such a beautifulwoman.

The basic idea of the film is way ahead of its time and interesting and thewhole visualization is well crafted. This is one of the films that doesn’tat all spoon-feed its viewers with explanations, why’s-this and why’s-that.One should think for himself and try and figure out what really happens.

The explanations are usually there and there is a logical sense in the wholefilm. Despite some flaws that definately exist, the films flows really goodand it’s very realistic, maybe because its pace isn’t at all Hollywoodish -instead of that, facts, feelings and memories are depicted without anycommentary but as they would really look like, or at least the way one wouldfilm it so that the viewers would perceive the story with the minimuminformation given.

All in all this is a must-see for technology/science-fiction film fans, evenif the technology this film is about is not so fictional or distant nor thesituations are exaggerated like normal sci-fi.

Definately worthy!

The only other person who has reviewed Brainstorm just didn’t get it.The point behind viewing the tape was to see what happens after death.I mean, think about it, could there really be a much more importantscientific discovery? Only if he found out how to stop death. As far asthe comment, "And how does the tape record Lillian’s feelings after shedies? Her out-of-body experience? The machine isn’t connected to her’spirit’, but her dead brain", if you watch it again you see the taperun out but he is still continuing the "journey". The idea is that themachine can physically change the body because theimages/sounds/smells/feelings/etc are the exact recording from anotherperson. The other things that happened like Hal’s Orgasm Splice, theBraces son’s torture, etc, where the set up for the ending. You shouldwatch this movie again because it is extremely great! The ideas in thismovie are very well thought out!

For those that haven’t seen it, you should at least check outChristopher Walken. This is one of the few movies where he doesn’t playa psycho (not that he isn’t great at that). He plays a sort of nerdycharacter and does a great job. Everyone else does a great job as well.

i’ve never understood the critical disdain for this film…am so glad to see others who like it despite the critics.i love good sci-fi, and think good sci-fi is hard to find….

i agree with the viewer who said the folks who made ’strangedays’think they invented the concept of a ‘tapehead’….in brainstorm wehavesomething very similar…but both are preceeded by anotheroddballwalken movie of the early seventies….."the mind snatchers"…..where adoctor plants a ‘feelgood’ electrode in a patients brain who is then givenabutton to activate the electrode…whaddaya think? "buttonhead"!

Now unfortunately better known as the final starring role for Natalie Wood,who died during the film’s production in late 1981, this 1983 sciencefiction/suspense thriller deals with a very ambitious concept, one that mayvery well be coming to pass now in reality.

Christopher Walken and Louise Fletcher play a pair of scientists building amachine that can transfer the thoughts, sights, senses, and smells of oneperson to the mind of another. They are greatly aided in their quest by anambitious and supportive sponsor (Cliff Robertson). The test of this newmachine on a group of backers is hugely successful…maybe a bit TOOsuccessful.

Fletcher becomes incredibly alarmed when federal agents are thinking abouttaking over the project; and when she dies, the feds think that this istheir way in to using this invention to brainwash people. But there are twothings they don’t count on–that she would leave a tape of her final deaththroes; and that Walken would want to get a glimpse of what it’s like todie. Death, as he says, is "the scariest thing a person ever has to face";and he quickly becomes obsessed by it.

Despite some clunky dialogue, BRAINSTORM is a visually spectacular film,coming as it does from special effects wizard Douglas Trumbull, whose 1972film SILENT RUNNING is a minor sci-fi cult classic. Wood is far better thanaverage in her final role, and Walken, Robertson, and Fletcher don’t do toobadly either. The story, by future GHOST screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin, isextremely metaphysical, helped out immensely by the fine visual effects,which remain innovative to this very day. The excellent orchestral/choralmusic score is by the very talented James Horner, who conducts the LondonSymphony Orchestra on the soundtrack.

Though slightly flawed, BRAINSTORM remains a must-see sci-fi film with anidea whose time is quickly coming

because this idea is simply great. This idea to protect the "Afterlife&quot
; ontape and the consequences from it. The actors, everything Louise Fletcher,translated the topic in front marvelously. I see this film again and againgladly, and I am again and again moved by this film.

read comments (0)

All the Right Moves

Tom Cruise followed up his smashing success in the classic RISKYBUSINESS with ALL THE RIGHT MOVES, a quiet and moving drama in whichCruise plays Stefan Djordjevic, a somewhat sexist and dim-witted highschool senior whose convinced that his prowess on the football fieldwill allow him to go to college anywhere he wants, providing a one-wayticket out of the tiny, sleepy mining town where he lives where theentire town attends every game. Stefan's college plans get derailedwhen, after a confrontation with his coach (Craig T. Nelson), Stefangets thrown off the team and the coach has him blackballed to the pointwhere no college will talk to him. Cruise's interpretation of Jorjevichis quietly impressive because this character is nothing like JoelGoodson, his character in RISKY BUSINESS. Stefan is cocky, sexist,self-absorbed, and not terribly likable, but Cruise still manages toinfuse the character with sympathy. Nelson is solid as the coach(nothing like his TV coach)and strong support is also provided by LeaThompson as Stefan's girlfriend, the late Christopher Penn as Stefan'sbuddy who has to give up his football aspirations when he gets hisgirlfriend pregnant, Charles Cioffi as Stefan's dad and especially PaulCarafotes as Stefan's explosive buddy, "The Vooch". Nothingearth-shattering here, but it did prove that Cruise had the range toplay different kinds of character.

All The Right Moves is basically just like Varisty Blues. The onlydifference is it’s set in a steel town. All the players are trying to getinto good schools and the coach is an a**hole. Tom Cruise is great in thelead role and the football scenes are great.

This movie came out around the time the Billy Joel Song Allentown wasreleased. After viewing the movie for the first time, the words from thatsong seemed to describe the situation perfectly for the working class inthis movie.

Cruises Character is an intelligent,driven yet stubborn teenager who clasheswith his High School Football Coach. He is a star High School footballplayer whose best hope for attending college is an athletic scholarship.What I liked about this movie was you saw life through the eyes of a 17 yearold living in a very real adult world. One that isn’t always fair and cruel.It paints an accurate picture that the choices one makes at 17 can effectyour entire life. Chris Penn’s character is an example of this as well.

Early appearances by Lea Thompson, and a strong performance given by CraigT. Nelson anchor this film as well. Very good soundtrack boosts this filmas well. 7/10.

The events leading up to the "big game" captured the spirit of heightenedexpectations more than any other athletic movie I have ever seen (Thecheerleading sequence at the pep rally may have been the best ever filmed!). But after the game, the director did not seem to be able to handle theinter-personal relationships very well and I just kept saying to myself: "When are they going to do a story on those outstandingcheerleaders?".

Lea Thompson does her usual under appreciated job as Tom’s main squeeze. Her nude scene and a little girl awaken by some football team hijinks stealthe show.

For the most part, we have seen it all before.

I saw this flick a few months ago and would rate it as a 3/5. Althoughthewhole "trials and tribulations of smalltown high school football" thinghasbeen played out a little the last twenty years, I still think that thisfilmcan stand on its own because of some heartfelt and rather convincingperformances from its actors, particularly, Lea Thompson and Craig T.Nelson. Craig has mastered the art of playing the role of a coach and yesitis typecast but he does it better than anyone else can so I give the manprops. Surprisingly, I remember feeling worried and almost half-convincedthat Stef might not receive a scholarship and that the movie would end onasad depressing note reminiscent of the condition of the town it happensin.However, Cruise does get his scholarship so all is well in football land.

Speaking of the football, this IS the reality of a small western PAtowni am from Eastern ohio (10 mins from PA) and have seen this ssame type ofattitude and spirit that an entire town can pay a team that gives themsomehope and makes them feel like everyone can win even if it is vicariouslythrough others. But what I really wanted to note on was the chemistry,accuracy and tenderness that was created between Cruise and Thompsonduringtheir "love scene" when they both lose their virginity. I thought it wassowell done and sincere compared to similar scenes I have scene. It ranksamong the best to show the vulnerability mixed with desire that this kindofmoment possesses. Good but not great movie.

Im my opinion, this is Tom Cruise’s best film. This film not riskybusiness is what really put him on the map. Craig T Nelson also did agreatjob as Ampipes football coach. I live in Western Pennsylvania I can tellyou that the townspeople are really that obsessed about high schoolfootball. This is one of the best unknown classics and I give it myhighestrecomendation.

10/10

I’m originally from Ohio but now live in Michigan.But,I’m a big Steelerfan.All 4 of the main characters did a really good job in the movie.Thereare numerous movies that I enjoy that Tom Cruise is in.Pretty much he wasall the guys idol growing up back in the 80’s.I liked the movie so muchthatI named my son Stefan.

I love this movie, because tom cruise is just so young and hot in it,and it took place in "J-town" (Johnstown) where i currently live. Welli live in Richland, which is the higher part of Johnstown (that didn’tget hit by the floods :-P) And it seems so neat just to look at it andbe like wow Tom Cruise was in the old Jtown high school, and he was bycentral park closer to the end (where he is yelling at his coach andstarts running, where he starts running, that is central park) My unclewas also in this movie. He used to work at the steel mill but they gotlaid off so he now works at an elevator service, but when they arewalking up the steps, and tom cruise and lea Thompson (sp?) aretalking, you will see a guy with a reddish color hair and really uglyglasses, and that would be my uncle. ha ha its kind of scary actually,but don’t worry, he looks better now

One of the most influential movies of the ’80s. DVD review.

A jock loses his place on the school football team, loses his collegeoffer, and loses his adoring girlfriend. The local steelworks seems tobe the only option.

Predictable movie that probably seemed fresh twenty years back but nowseems pedestrian and dated. Blame Varsity Blues and all of the otherhigh-school football movies since then. This sub-genre is ripe for aspoof - the caring girlfriend, the rugged town setting, the blue-collarfather, the nemesis coach, the fellow jocks, the dire power ballad onthe soundtrack, and the local thugs. There’s two good parts in thismovie: girlfriend Thompson and coach Nelson. Cruise makes such a bigdeal about going to college that I kept wishing he wouldn’t. Thesetting is similar to the one in Flashdance and there’s a slim ChrisPenn (who gives a good performance).

All the Right Moves seems somewhat dated and stale now.

This is an awesome underrated gem, that’s very interesting to watch,with wonderful performances and a great ending!. All the characters agreat, and i really liked the plot, plus Tom Cruise is simply amazingin this!. It’s a simple tale really, but done extremely well, and itkeeps you engrossed throughout, plus Cruise and Lea Thompson hadfantastic chemistry together. There are some very powerful scenesbetween Cruise and Craig T. Nelson, and the football scenes looked veryreal and were quite exciting, plus i thought Cruise’s acting wasfantastic!. The character development is rea
lly excellent, and it’svery well written and made as well!, plus it helps that you can feelsympathy for all of the characters! (especially Cruise and LeaThompson’s characters!). I felt really bad when Paul Carafotes’scharacter dropped the football, and the dialog was just great, plus iwas really glad there was a happy ending!. This is one of Cruise’s mostunderrated films!, as it’s an underrated gem, that’s very interestingto watch, with wonderful performances and a great ending, and i sayit’s a must see!. The Direction is great!. Michael Chapman does agreat! job here, with great gritty camera work, and keeping the film atan engrossing pace!. The acting is wonderful!. Tom Cruise is amazing asalways, and is amazing here, he is extremely likable, charming full ofcharisma, brought the right amount of anger and emotion, had fantasticchemistry with Lea Thompson,was fantastic in the acting department, andi was rooting for him all the way to get that scholarship!,he wasamazing and had a very sympathetic character!. (Cruise Rules!!!!!!).Craig T. Nelson is fantastic here as The Coach, he is his usual intenseself, had great scenes with Cruise, and was perfectly casted i lovedhim!.Lea Thompson is wonderful here, she is simply adorable, hadfantastic chemistry with Cruise, is gorgeous, had a very coolcharacter, and she was also very sympathetic!, i loved her. PaulCarafotes is quite funny, and i was sad with what happened to him.Chris Penn is surprisingly very good, and sympathetic i liked him,usually it’s the exact opposite!. Rest of the cast are fine. Overall amust see!. **** out of 5

read comments (0)

A Christmas Story

All I could think of is "It's a TERRIBLE film." Christmas Story seemsto be a mockery of everything that Christmas should stand for. The filmis depressing and lewd. Violence, tis' the season to be shooting, is atheme of the film. It is truly the worst Christmas movie ever. If youwant your children to see a more uplifting Christmas film - I wouldsuggest Bad Santa. Or if you don't celebrate Christmas, perhapsSchindler's List. The acting is terrible and the child star is a trueChristmas dwarf. Maybe Santa needs a new 'helper' - which is probablywhat the actor is up to today.

Honestly, I can’t stand this movie. I refuse to watch it. And, as far as Iknow, I am the ONLY person in the entire world that hates it. In myopinion, it’s horrible. The acting is bad, the plot is bad.. every thing isbad. Plus, the image of Santa they portray is traumatizing to little kids. But, I’ll stop ranting. I just want to say that I hate this movie. And Ithink I’m the only person that does.

I’ve watched it b/c it was recommended but it’s just no good! It’s boringand there are so many better Christmas movies out there. Why people likethis movie so much is way beyond me. I thought maybe I was the only onebutI’ve talked to others in the same boat.

The Story is about a young man named Ralphie Parker, who wants a RedRider BB gun for Christmas. His mom, his teacher, and Santa all agreehe shouldn't get one, because "you'll shoot your eye out!" That's themain story.

The Story has too many subplots. The subplots are so "sub" that theyhave nothing to do with the main story. Some of them last only onescene; others last several scenes. These subplots include his parents'feud with each other over a lamp shaped like a leg, Ralphie and hisfriends at the frozen pole, Ralphie having a swearing problem, Ralphieand his friends fighting with Scut Farkus, and others. Some of thesesubplots have a certain element that connect them a little bit, but theStory overall really took no talent to make it.

Whoever-it-was that wrote this Story is not talented. The Story overallis *spoiler* Ralphie wants a BB gun, and he gets it at the end. What8-year-old has written something almost just like that? Whoever-it-wasthat directed this Story is not talented. He didn't do anything to makethe above Whoever-it-was' writing better than it was.

Is this a classic movie? Maybe. But how did it become classic? I justdon't know. It's not very big budget, it didn't make very much inearnings, and the humor is very minimal. Maybe the humor is a lot ifyou don't care about cleverness. All of the humor is stupid humor. Youdon't have to be smart to come up with it. I don't know much about allof you, but I laughed very little in the movie.

On the positive side, I do like that it is quotable (although the onlyquotable lines are "You'll shoot your eye out" and "You're starvingpeople in China"), I like the part where Ralphie is imagining shootingbad guys coming to invade his house (a little), and the part whereChinese guys are singing "Fa-ra-ra-ra-ra-ra-ra-ra-ra" (although thiswas not as good as I thought it was).

I give it 3/10, and that's being generous.

A Christmas Story seems like just an average Christmas movie. I hadn’theard of this movie until about 4 years ago when I saw it for the firsttime. It wasn’t terrible, but it wasn’t that great either. Sure, it hada few funny lines, but the movie just wasn’t fulfilling. The humorseems to be borrowed. I didn’t see much that I hadn’t seen before. It’salso predictable. Did you actually think they would have ended themovie without him getting the gun? The running gag with "you’ll shootyour eye out" didn’t turn out to be all that funny either. Sometimes Itry to give it another chance for it to grow on me, but I keep gettingbored with it. There are better Christmas movies out there.

A Christmas Story was a neat film withgood Christmas humor. The kids of the movie were great especially that bullyred-haired kid with that racoon tail on his head. He was hilarious and thenarrator was good at narrating. He had a good voice fit for the movie. Insome ways, I just don’t think this movie is a classic. My parents say it’sone of the greatest holiday movies ever but I just don’t think that. Ithought half of the movie was very boring and the other half was funny.Maybe I’m wrong but I didn’t think the film was extremely special. I mean itwas good but far from a classic.

6.5/10

This is a movie that I cannot watch more than once. I totally cannotsee someone watch it for 24 hours straight. I liked it when I waslittle but as I grew up it became cheesier and cheesier. I do like theSanta kicking his forehead but the part that I liked the most was thebunny suit. Ralphie's mom bitches at him to put it on and he looks socheesy coming down the steps. Yikes! I would have liked to see Ralphiewear it to school and get beat up by that red haired kid. The movie waspretty weird, especially the whole scene where the elves throw the kidson the lap for two seconds and then toss them down the slide.

I don't know why "The wizard of oz" characters are in it but I did likethe kid that was standing in line in front of them. He looked like hewas on drugs.

Ho. Ho. Ho. Only see it if you're fragile.

why this movie is so acclaimed by the voters on iMDB. A friend bought me thetape of this movie for Christmas, and I had never seen it. I just got aroundto watching it, and it is definitely one of the worst movies I have everseen. I do like good Christmas movies, however - The Bishop’s Wife and therecent remake, The Preacher’s Wife immediately come to mind - but this isnowhere near those.

The ONLY redeeming value in this movie is Melinda Dillon’s performance - sheis always good - and she acts everyone off the screen. My complaints arenumerous, but most importantly, this movie has NO PLOT and NO CONFLICT!There is nothing to keep you interested - I want my hour and a half back!What a waste of celluloid. This movie is sickenly sweet without EARNING theright to that sweetness - like "Home Alone" and others in the same genredo.

The scene where the kid has his mouth "washed out with soap" is a kick inthe face to anyone who ever had this done for real. Pardon me, but stickinga bar of soap in the kid’s mouth isn’t quite cutting it. Also the scenewhere the kid is bullied and teased is also quite tame compared to the realthing. Movies like this really undermine the struggles of those people whohad REAL problems as children.

The parents are entirely too old to have children that young, though mostmovies back in the 30’s and 40’s DID have parents that were too old. Themain character is 9 years old but still believes in SantaClaus?

Again I’m back to the lack of conflict. Let’s see, the kid wants a certaintoy for Christmas and may or may not get it. That ranks right up there with"Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" - sorry for the sarcasm. Oh yes, andthere’s a scene where the husband gets a lamp that the wife doesn’t like.

Bottom line - this stinker doesn’t deserve the 2 out of 10 rating I gave itand I’m getting rid of it on eBay as soon as I can.

It continue’s to amaze me that people actually think this movie is betterthan It’s A Wonderful Life & Miracle On 34th Street.

Alistar Sim’s version of Scrooge is 100 times better than thisgarbage.Whereas all the films I’ve mention contain hope in impossible odds…Christmas Story attemps to say it’s alright to push people around and getthat darn gun.

I still consider it the Porky’s version of Christmas. Now who else have Iticked off now? Bah humbug to you too!!

3/10

Quality: 4/10Entertainment: 1/10 Boring as hellReplayable: 1/10

Course then again, for those who actually loved it, it’s totally opposite. But then again, you probably thought Animal House was quality entertainmentright?

Given the reviews of this film, I was astonished at how negatively I reactedto it. I watched it with my wife and 11-year old daughter - both are verysentimental people. All three of us agreed - this film is painfully slow,dull and many of the humorous bits just lay there. The acting of the childthat plays the younger brother is so bad that it jolts you out of believingin the story. And several of the bits - such as the winter clothes and the"major award" - were so over the top that they were more phony thanfunny.

Some of the screenplay was elegantly written - but all the best linesare spoken by an unseen narrator whose delivery deflates the prose. And thenarrator, who is supposed to be a grown version of the child protagonist -has a voice and speaking style that is jarringly different than the youngchild or any of the child’s relatives or parents. It all seemed wrong. Itjust didn’t work for me. Your mileage may vary.

I gave it 5/10.

read comments (0)

‘A’ gai waak

I know that all the other comments on this site say it is Jackie’s bestwork. Well I am not afraid to tell you how it really is. I just watched thismovie and I was in physical pain it was so bad. There was nearly no plot,extreme dramatic acting performances, not the best martial arts I’ve seenand the characters kept switching roles (Jackie himself went from a sailorto a police man to a thief back to a sailor). I was bored out of my mindwatching this movie and caught myself dozing off. And I LOVE Jackie Chanflicks!

To its credit: there were a few cute one liners but that wasn’t enough tosave itself. Also it is dubbed which is annoying for some movie watchers.I’d have to say the most enjoyable part was when Jackie was saluting like apoliceman should (exaggerating the salute).

Still I wouldn’t recommend this movie to anyone. Please spare yourself thetorment of this movie and rent another Jackie Chan movie instead. There areso many other movies of his that are 50 times better than thisone.

Many people will disagree with me, but this isn’t one of Jackie Chan’s bestfilms. On the other hand, it isn’t one of his worst either.

Chan plays a marine policeman in early 1900’s Hong Kong (I think) who’strying to round up a notorious clan of pirates, in particular their leader;pirate Sam (or so the version I saw called him). This plot, though, isreally just an excuse for a whole bunch of fights, stunts and comicsituations.

Anyway, Project A started off fairly well with some great fights, a ratherunique (and highly entertaining bicycle chase) and Chan’s trademarksuper-stunt (a fall from the top of a large clock tower with only a fewawnings to stop him breaking his neck). The training camp sequence alsoprovided a few decent laughs, especially the situations involvingdisciplinary procedures, grenades and showers.

But it’s the second half where this film starts to lose it. This pretty muchcoincides with the introduction of the pirates. The pace really slows down,the quality of the fights drops markedly and the whole thing really startsto drag. It just didn’t feel like the same movie any more.

Anyway, Project A is still worth watching just for the first half. If youwant to see a Jackie movie that delivers the goods for its entire runningtime, try Police Story or the more recent Who am I? Hell, I even thoughtthe Canton Godfather was more entertaining than this. But, don’t take myword for it, many Chan fans have loved this movie (as evidenced by the 8/10user rating) So if you’re interested, give it a look. You might even likeProject A.

6.5/10 (in my opinion)

I had heard that this was the best movie with the "Three Brothers" (JackieChan, Yuen Biao, and Sammo Hung), so I was looking forward to seeing it.There were some great stunts, especially the bicycle chase sequence, but allin all I was disappointed. Somehow the manic energy seemed to be missingfrom the fight scenes… they were plenty energetic, but they sort of lackedthe cleverness we expect from the Three Brothers. The plot was alsoespecially poor, not in that it wasn’t enthralling (it wasn’t and it’s notexpected to be), but that it got in the way of understanding the movie. Inretrospect, it’s possible that what I thought was one character was actuallytwo, which is not a good sign for the clarity of the plot. It’s also oftendifficult to figure out why a character is doing a certain thing, likebetraying someone with apparently no motive. The plot isn’t even expected tobe easy to follow, but in this case it was nearly impossible to follow,which is bad. Overall, worth seeing eventually if you like the ThreeBrothers, but I would rate Wheels on Meals much higher.

This is my favorite Jackie Chan movie. It has the best martial artsbattlesI have ever seen. It is very, very funny. Chan, Hung, and Biao are all intop form and are great in this. It is a masterpiece and is beautiful, andIlove it more every time I see it. This has just recently been released inthe US, and so I recommend you rush out and rent or buy it now. This isthebest, and is great in every, single way possible.

This is the kind of movie you should show your friends if you wannaturn them on to Jackie Chan. I mean, there’s pirates! Pirates withswords and stuff! And Jackie and the boys are jumping all over theplace like monkeys!

Watching Jackie in his prime perform is always amazing, but when hebrings along his buddies (Yuen Biao, Sammo Hung) things usually takeoff to an extreme, probably because they wanna show off.

Personally i really prefer Jackie from the eighties. That is clearlyhis absolute prime, as that is when he did his best stuff, like thismovie right here.

Let’s get the criticisms out of the way to start with. I came to thisfilm cold, I’d seen around half a dozen of Jackie Chan films, about a50:50 split between his Hong Kong and Hollywood films, but I hadn’theard of this before picking it up cheap from Big-W. I found the first10 minutes tedious and cheesy and thought this would be a b-grade kungfu film trading on Jackie Chan’s current fame.

How wrong was I. This film rocks.

By the end of the film I was slack jawed by the quality of the stuntsand choreography and I’d found myself laughing out loud with real bellylaughs on numerous occasions. Undoubtedly the best Jackie Chan filmI’ve seen. Indeed I can’t comment on the quality of the martial artscompared to someone Bruce Lee but I can say I enjoyed this far morethan any other kung fu film I’ve seen. I’ve read comments that thislooks dated and lacks characterization - I say nonsense. OK, Hamletthis isn’t, but it puts any Hollywood action film I’ve seen lately inthe shade in, oh, so many ways.

*possible spoiler*

I was convinced the clock tower stunt used a dummy given the height andthat Jackie clearly landed on his neck(!) but I understand this was thereal deal - Mr Chan I salute you but I suggest you consider psychiatrichelp!

Exceptional period film featuring some of the best action sequencescaught on film. We follow the plight of the Hong Kong coast guardduring the 1920’s (I think) as they plan to, as they say, "beat thepirates". This is what "Project A" refers to, the final push to ridHong Kong of the pirate problem.

The three main characters are brilliantly developed and completelycomplimentary. Just how they are individually involved, and how theybecome personally involved is great to watch, not to mention incrediblemartial arts sequences that balance these dramas perfectly.

Sure, some of the dialog is erroneous, some of the slapstick momentstacked-on, and women are featured in such minor roles that they areinsignificant. However, these problems are what you normally"experience" when you go to Hong Kong cinema, right? Besides all ofthat, the kung-fu is exquisite. The inventiveness, speed, ferocity andpower of Chan and cohorts is fantastic. Sammo Hung and Yuen Biao shouldreceive equal billing, as their input is worthy of a film by itself.The detail put into the production can only be suggested at here, butit is certainly world class.

MPAA Rating:Rated PG-13 for violence. Quebec Rating:13+(should be G)Canadian Home Video Rating:Unknown(probably either PG or 14A)

Project A was a Jackie Chan film from the early 1980s.I saw this filmon Spike TV about a year ago.The film is pretty good and has greataction scenes mixed with comedy.Just like a Chan film should be.I don'treally remember this film very well but I do remember it had somememorable scenes like a bike chasing scene.In my opinion I actuallythought Project A2 was better but this film is a fairly good earlyJackie Chan film and I recommend it to Chan fans.

Runtime:106min

8/10

Well… I have this DVD in my collection. It has the Chinesesoundtrack. I prefer to watch it in Chinese with English subtitles,though I
'm Russian and the Russian soundtrack is properly done.

It is a very slow paced movie. The performance is very wooden and weak.The villains are completely unimpressive and dumb. The fight sequencesare run-of-the-mill. Even an infant can brawl better and make moremenacing moves. The film is an example of cinematic rubbish, which isso abundant on TV and video. Cheap unimaginative "humour" can make anyviewer sick as well as the smutty scenes. An ultimate disgusting flop.The makers of this *beep* movie must be ashamed. Hopefully, there willnever be anything like this made again. Disgraceful junk! Watch"Kindergarten Cop" instead.

Eto ia prosto tak shuchu. A voobshche, naikruteishiy filmets s JackieChanom. Alles, auf Wiedersehen. Sayo o-nara!

Watch it, rate it 10 out of 10, write a proper comment (like this), andbuzz off.

Rating: 10 out of 10. Thank you for attention.

Okay, let's judge this film overall, and not just by the fighting,which is obviously the best thing about this film.

The sets are very good, and you can tell that this was a big-budgetfilm for the time. You get the feel of being in colonialturn-of-the-century Hong Kong. The costumes add to this feel too, notto mention the fact that a lot of the buildings used actually ARE HongKong landmarks from all those years ago. On top of this, there's thefact that the film ages less because it is a period piece. Police Storymight as well be called, "Eighties Story." Acting - well, although Iwatched this movie in Chinese with English subtitles, and with Englishdubbing, I cannot find anything wrong with the acting. It's all donepretty well, with the obvious quirks that make Hong Kong movie actingwhat it is: strained facial expressions, a lot of pointing, and a lotof laughing that is laughable itself.

Sound - not very good, but when you consider that all the sound had tobe re-dubbed, it makes sense, and allow for more leniency.

The plot is not wafer-thin, as has happened in earlier Chan movies, butthis isn't Pi. To be honest, it's about as complicated as a Jackie Chanmovie is ever going to get, and if the only reason for watching akung-fu movie is plot, you're an idiot, anyway.

Right, then - action - and boy oh boy, this film is full of incredibleaction. I have over sixty Jackie Chan films in my collection, so I knowwhat I'm talking about when analysing his films. Project A ranks amongthe best of his films, when looking at the action. There are so manyfights staged, and so many pay-offs. You get to see Jackie, Sammo Hungand Yuen Biu fighting each other, and the bad guys in such a fast,furious, and creative way that this is an action movie you'll neverforget. Dick Wei is muscular and mean as the head of the pirates, andis a formidable foe, who forces the three brothers to come together todispose of him.

As usual, the stunts would not have been allowed in Britain or America,but hey, this is Kong Kong, so let's blow these guys up, and watch themflip and fly across the set for our own satisfaction.

Overall, this is a top notch film, with wonderfully edited fights,excellent creativity, and superb Chanesque humour along the way. It's ashowpiece of the efforts of the three special ones of Hong Kong cinemain the eighties, and any fan of Hong Kong cinema should only miss thisat their peril.

read comments (0)

The Black Adder

Good start to the series but if you want it to get funnier, view thefollowing 3 series of the blackadder. Rowan was good and considering thiswas Richard Curtis’s first sitcom he did well to make it good. OverallI’dgive it 7 out of 10.

When I borrowed this, as well as the other Blackadder series(or, uh,seasons, I suppose), it was presented as the ‘weird but good start;weird, because it hadn’t found its true form yet’. I can’t comment onthe rest of Blackadder in relation(since I haven’t seen any of it, yet,but I will as soon as possible; reviews to come), but I will definitelygood. I’ve never been much for Rowan Atkinson… I consider hiscreation, Mr. Bean to be the ultimate in simple humor(which issomething I do not hold in high regard). While he does many of the samefacial expressions and some of the same humor here, this is of farhigher comedic value and quality. The plots are far-out and highlyunlikely… highly amusing. The acting is great, although occasionallyoverdone for effect. The characters are well-written and credible. Thehumor, while at times quite simplistic, is mostly laugh-out-loud funny.Not to mention British. Very, very British. Very verbal. Read any ofthe ‘memorable quotes’ and you’ll see. If you find it funny, youshould, nay, *must* see this. It’s incredibly funny and entertaining.The theme is excellent; I found myself humming along to it, and what Ipicked up of the lyrics was quite humorous. The DVD I borrowed even hasa sing-along. I’ll have to try it. The production value is somewhatunimpressive; several gags are ruined by poor angles andless-than-credible props. The form is somewhat sitcom-like, but notquite… this is the reason why it’s ‘weird’. If you can get over saidweirdness, you will most likely find this series/season a nearlyunending line of laughs. I loved most all of this. Incredibly funnyshow. I recommend this to fans of Atkinson(even of his Bean character,since he does retain a bit of it here), British humor and sitcoms.Very, very entertaining and at times hilarious. You’ll laugh, you’llcry(with laughter), you’ll wish there were more episodes. 7/10

The central premise of The Blackadder is that Richard III did not infact lose the Battle of Bosworth field and that the Plantagenetscontinued to rule for "thirteen glorious years" before Henry Tudorbecame King.

The first episode deals with the afore said battle and it's immediateaftermath and is presented from the point of view of Prince Edmund whois second in line for the throne and who is also looking to make that"second in line" into "first in line". In this first series Edmund isincredibly slippery, stupid and a bit of a weasel - for the viewer he'snot a particularly likable character and the programme overall suffersbecause of this.

Despite the weaknesses in the main character the show is still verygood value for money. Every episode has enough jokes to keep youlaughing throughout and on the whole the show holds up a lot betterthan most British comedies from the mid-eighties. That said though thisfirst series of Blackadder is no where near as good as the sequels, forone it is just not as sharp or witty. Meanwhile Prince Harry and LordPercy are no match for their successors George and Darling in terms ofcomedy value - the "Hello Darling" line still cracks me up every time.

Also the observational humour is not quite as strong here as it is inlater series of Blackadder - although this may just be down to my ownlack of familiarity with this particular period of British history.

Despite it's shortcomings, and although often though it is very easy tosee why Michael Grade did not want to re-commission Blackadder for asecond series, The Blackadder is still very much worth watchingespecially for 'The Archbishop' episode which is simply brilliant.

If you enjoyed the Black Adder (who wouldn’t) I’d strongly recommend thelast series (Blackadder Goes Forth). Set in the trenches of the First WorldWar, it combines the usual great humour with a surprising level of pathos,particularly in the last few episodes.

What a treat! See this AND the 3six-parters that followed it. Not onlyexcruciatingly funny, the whole thinghas an otherworldliness to it…. Bythe way, be sure to seek out "BlackAdder’s Christmas Carol" for theholidays — or any time you need alaugh…. One thing: Are there videoversions now with closed captioning?English accents can be hard onAmerican ears.

If only History lessons had told of this wily character, maybe I’d have donebetter at school.

Edmund, surely the most despicable man that ever donned a codpiece ducks anddives his way throughout the centuries. Related directly to royalty, untilthe twentieth century kicks in, where we find the Blackadder bloodline hasbeen removed to officer class of the army.

Edmunds finest hours were obviously when he became King of England for tenseconds, and Prince Regent after seeing the true one killed in a fit ofpique by the Duke of Wellington.

Ben Elton, after taking over the writing of the series, showed his sharp witto the full by turning the characters around. Edmund, from a slimyincompetent, turns into a devious, self absorbed cynic, whereas Baldrick,although slightly dense but with moments of inspired genius, has the"Intellectual capacity of a boiled Potato."

Superb!

I am a huge blackadder fan, and own every series on video, and in myopinion this is the best one. It’s a lot darker and more surreal than theother three series, and a lot funnier. Rowan Atkinson’s character is moresinister than later incarnations, here you get the impression that he is abit of a psychopath rather than just plain nasty, whilst Baldrick here ispresented as the cleverer one, which i think suits the character better.There are many other great performances, such as Brian Blessed’s dementedRichard the fourth, and Tim Mcinnery’s moronic lord percy, but this isAtkinson’s show and he gives it his all. A classic

The first episode of The Black Adder is a classic. Demonstrating thathistory is written by the winners, it shows how Henry 7th re-wrote thefacts surrounding the Battle of Bosworth Field (I was especiallyinterested in this as I learnt about Bosworth at school). Edmund, alias’The Black Adder’ is a cowardly weasel of a man who accidentallyde-capatates his uncle Richard III. Peter Cook is great as theaforementioned king who returns to haunt Edmund. Though this seriesnever equals Blackadder 2,3 and 4, it is still highly enjoyable andentertaining. All through it, I couldn’t help feeling sorry for thisincarnation of Blackadder. He’s a rogue, yes, but is it any wonder? Hisfamily consists of his brother and his bullying father, both of whomwould just as soon have him executed horribly as snap their fingers.Then there’s his mother, who still seems to treat him as though he werea baby.

What really makes this series is its wit, its atmosphere and its strongcharacters. Edmund’s sidekick Baldrick is actually the brainy one here,Brain Blessed is powerful as Richard IV and there is a wealth of gueststars. Episodes include The Black Adder being forced into marriage,being accused of witchcraft and being forced to become an Archbishop.Great comedy.

The first series of Blackadder and in my opinion the best. For somereason it is strangely under-rated and even dismissed in many quartersbut although ‘The Black Adder’ is a little rough around the edges(although the production values are noticeably higher than in thesubsequent series) it holds up better than the later episodes. Thecharacter of Black Adder is completely different to the urbane, cynicalportrayal of later years - here he is a snivelling, incompetent,power-mad coward. This works better I feel, particularly as in thisseries we are spared the silly Ben Elton lines like ‘Mad Jack McMad,winner of this ye
ar’s Mr Madman competition’, etc. The last episode,where Edmund collect the most Evil Men in the Land in order to seizethe throne, is a classic, with Patrick Allen jutting his chinmagnificently as Phillip of Burgundy, known to his enemies as…theHawk!

This series, the first, was in my opinion the best of the lot. It wasalso the most expensive. No one can do it like Rowan Atkinson. The wayhe delivers a line is unsurpassable ("The Black……Vegetable"). Hesaid that he was inspired by Errol Flynn’s Robin Hood in the creationof this but I notice the influence of Roman Polanski’s MacBeth in thefirst episode. One very pious lady wrote to the Radio Times after theepisode about the church saying it was offensive to everyone whobelieved in God. But the target of the humour was not God, it was thereligious hypocrisy of the Middle Ages. Frank Finlay was excellent inthe episode called Witchsmeller Pursuivent. The scene where he catchesfire at the stake burning after talking about getting hotter and hotteris great. Who cares that his cloak mysteriously flies up over his faceto cover up the fact that it’s a stuntman. MacAngus’s demise whenBlackadder tells him to look into the mouth of a cannon and thenBlackadder fires the cannon is hilarious ("There’s been a very messyaccident"). The other series and one-off specials were good but I thinkthis was the best of a great lot.

read comments (0)