The Terminator

What's worse than an ordinary action picture? Hardly anything, exceptmaybe a really bad slasher movie. In an action picture we see afireball explode in slow motion while in the foreground an actor divestowards the camera. A speeding car hits an obstacle and does a grandjetee. Everyone's hand grips an ugly gun. The disparate hero andheroine finally fall for one another and close the deal between bloodbaths. The musical score pounds us into excruciating insensibility. Apinned hand gropes for a weapon. The script is sparsely sprinkled withwisecracks to the wise.

"The Terminator" has all of these clichés and more, and yet, the goldanged thing hangs together. It's as if you'd taken all your leftovers,thrown them into a pot, shaken some lesser-used seasoning onto it,cooked it, and hoped for the best. It isn't that there's very muchdistinctive about the film, except maybe its all-gray pallet and theoverall darkness. Of course it's easier to shoot in LA at night whenthe city is empty of all human tissue. If you want to make a movieabout the last person on earth, shoot it in downtown LA on a weekend.Come to think of it, they already have — "The Omega Man." It's notpossible to explain the success of this flick. The only thing you cansay is that it succeeds on its own terms. It has no moral, like "TheInvasion of the Body Snatchers," no resonance beyond its violence. Ifthe acting is good enough that's largely because so little is calledfor. The best performance is given by the two cops. Arnold comes in aclose second. His best moments come when he is not on screen but hasbeen replaced by a completely metallic skeletal cyborg that is blown tobits — an ear here, a humerus there — until he is finallyextinguished by this gigantic duck press.

That's not to put down Linda Hamilton. She is plump lipped, hair blown,and sexy. She was my supporting player in another film, one that Ithink everyone would agree is a masterpiece of cinematic high art, anonpareil of poetics, and an unforgettable action drama in itself –"King Kong Lives." Michael Biene falls a bit short of the bar set byLinda Hamilton.

But what does any of that matter? You can watch the thing repeatedly.It's almost hypnotic.

I friggin’ love this movie. Schwarzenegger’s best without a doubt.Arguably Cameron’s finest. And he did it with a low budget!

In comparison to the other two it’s far and away the best. The plot issimpler, which results in the movie having a tighter flow. And far moresuspenseful to boot; the man-versus-machine concept beats the predictablemachine-versus-machine struggle in the two sequels.

Schwarzenegger is dead perfect in the role of the cyborg. Cold, cruel,frighteningly deadpan, and let’s face it…nobody can say "F*ck you,a**hole" like Arnie in this movie. Probably his best display of thelittleacting ability he has.

Michael Beihn and Linda Hamilton were pretty much unknown before thismoviecame along, and their groundbreaking performances in this didn’t seem toamount to their careers like it did for Ahh-nuld. What ashame.

If you can get past the quaint stop-motion effects and the holes in thescript (but not surprising; what time travel film doesn’t have itsshare?),you’ll enjoy the hell out of this. I’ve seen it over 10 times and itstillholds up in ways that the sequels can’t seem to touch.Bravo!

A solid 9 out of 10 from me.

I remember seeing the terminator as i saw it after 1984, I remember thewhole story. This was set in 1984, as Sarah Connor was targeted to beterminatored by the T-800 (The Terminator) John Connor from the future wasfighting against the sky net as he was unborn at the time in 1984, he didn’texcist until 1985, Sarah Connor crushed the Terminator and got on with herlife and looking forward for the arrival of John Connor.

The Terminator is one of the best Science Fiction films ever made. Althoughthe plot is somewhat simplistic, the non-stop action and excellentperformances more than make up for the thin plot. One of Arnold’s bestperformances (due to the lack of dialogue). Highly recommended for Sci-Fifans. My rating 8.8 on a scale of 10.

Arnold in his best role ever!!! T2, forget about it. No special effectsand the villain is lame, just can’t compare the two because T1 is in adifferent league of its own. Arnolds best performance equals Arnolds bestmovie, period!!

Sarah Connor is in trouble. A cyborg sent from the future is trying to killher. Lucky for her there are two other Sarah Connors in the phonebook andshe is the last one.

One of the most classic movies of all time. The line "I’ll be back" is oneof the most famous lines in history. The special effects for the time aregreat. If you like action or Sci-Fi and you have not seen this, rent it.

Great ideas are made for great movies…and James Cameron’s `the Terminator’is an all-time classic. The plot is one immense paradox and you either loveor hate the ultra-apocalyptic and sadistic theme of this film. But, evenwhen you completely loathe the premise, you’ll still always have to admitthat The Terminator is one of the most imaginative scripts ever written. Digthis: the futuristic rulers of the world anno 2029 send back a robot intime, to the year 1984, with only one goal. Kill the mother of the greatfuture freedom fighter before he’s even born. And the father of this greathero is a soldier, sent after the cyborg, to prevent him from fulfilling hismission. If this isn’t ingenious, nothing is! And, above this, TheTerminator is a very diverse film as well. It’s a shocking thriller (thehunt for Sarah Connor) as well as a dared, intense drama (the huge load ofinnocent victims). And with compelling horror moments as well! The film ispurely brilliant and Arnold finally gets to play the role he was born for.The Terminator is a triumph for the low-budget film industry and one of themost essential movies of all times. A must for all kind of cinema admirers.

Starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michael Biehn, Linda Hamilton. SarahConnor is an ordinary woman in the 80s, until a strange evil robotcalled the Terminator comes back in time from the 2010s. It turns outthat an evil Corporation called Skynet created evil machines in thefuture that wiped out humanity, and in the future, Sarah Connor’s sonwould be the one to stop the machines from taking over. That is why theTerminator is trying to kill her.

A man from the future comes to help her and keep her alive, and awayfrom the horrifying killer machine. A sci-fi film not to be missed.Terminator is the first in its series.

Grade: 8/10

MPAA Rating: R

My Rating: Ages 15 and up (strong violence, some nudity, language, somesexual content)

The Terminator 9/10 (because if i give it a 10 i cant give the sequelhigher

Yes, this is one of the greatest sci-fi action flicks ever made, myopinion is that Arnold isn’t the greatest actor but i think that forthe terminator role, there is no better man then ‘muscleman arnold’.

story:

Post-apocalyptic 2029 Los Angeles; an indestructible cyborg Terminator(Schwarzenegger) is sent back from the future to 1984 to eliminate thefuture unborn son of Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton); Kyle Reese (MichaelBiehn), a member of the human resistance movement of the future, isalso teleported back (by the future John Connor) to rescue and protecthis mother.

cya

I remember going to this movie thinking it would put me to sleep. Afterall, back then Arnold was just a muscle guy who had made Pumping Ironand then the not too good, Conan the Barbarian. Boy was I wrong! Thismovie hooked me from the opening scene and even Arnold’s stiff soundingdialogue was perfect for the cyborg he was playing! The chase scenesand narrow escapes had my
heart pounding throughout the film! Therewere many scenes in this film that were firsts for movies such asArnold removing a damaged robotic eyeball, seeing how the robot minddecided on what dialogue to say and having a robot disguise their voiceto sound exactly like a dead human! The other Terminator films may havehad the computer enhanced special effects, but they could not match thestoryline of this action/SciFi classic that is probably the best alltime of its genre!

read comments (0)

This Is Spinal Tap

After having just seen ‘Best of Show,’ I can see the many similarities inthese two movies. Many of the same actors appear in each, the dialogueflowsin the same way, and the comedy employs satire, visual humor and freeassociation humor. ‘Best of Show,’ however, uses each of these facetssuperbly more efficaciously.

For one, ‘Spinal Tap’ has no plot. The band goes on tour, it doesn’t gowell, so they get another tour. Yes, it is based on a true story; but I’msure the real band had some conflict, tension, climax, and conclusion, intheir careers. Some tension was even hinted at between David’s wife andNigel, but nothing comes of it. The David/Nigel conflict itself is underdeveloped, as is the reunion.

Also, the visual humor directed at the Tap wardrobe gets old fast. It’sfunny - for a few minutes - to see the 80’s rock style with the longscrappyhair and loud hot pants. The same diminishing humor can be equated with therock behavior during the concerts - concerning the spread eagles and facialcontorsions.

‘Best of Show’ gets past this decreasing utility by scripting a wide arrayof unique characters - showing that Guest had learned from his mistakes.Since ‘Spinal Tap’ cannot do this, other types of humor must be used tofillthe void.

The off the top of the head free association humor is what this crew doesbest. The "11" scene and the "little bread" scene are perfect examples.These amount to really to only enjoyable parts of the movie.

Basically, this movie represents a nice early try and good attempt forGuestand company. His later films correct many of the lackings of ‘Spinal Tap.’So it’s good as a historical film for anyone interested in this cast.

Back in 1984, there was no VH-1, hence no "Where Are They Now", or "BehindThe Music". Also in 1984, we hadn’t yet heard of Winger, Skid Row,Slaughter, Poison, or any of the other "hair bands" that we hate to love.

Hence, "This Is Spinal Tap" was a blistering parody of British heavy metalrock that was just really coming into stride around that time in ‘84. Thescenes involving the Stonehenge set, the fight between the band’s managerand lead singer’s girlfriend (obviously a nod to Yoko Ono), any of theabsolutely ridiculous "videos" and "concert performances" (Sex Farm, BitchSchool, Big Bottom) are all still quite funny and well done - except maybe alittle sobering now, especially when you realize that the real bands "theTap" are spoofing (those that came out in the late 80s "hair metal" boom)were often as silly, clueless and destined for obscurity as this fictionalgroup of guys is…

It’s also fun to play "spot the cameo"… many are obvious, some not soobvious, but we have folks like Howard Hessman, Fran Drescher, PaulSchaffer, Billy Crystal, Dana Carvey, and others popping their faces into ascene here and there.

"This is Spinal Tap" is still a funny movie, it’s just that the antics ofreal life musicians (Tommy Lee’s sex tape, anybody?) have severely lessenedthis movie’s satirical impact.

Here is the story of the members of a rock band who, because of theirstupidity and wilful blindness, together with the lies and deception imposedon them by their manager, refuse to listen to record companies who don’tback them up, critics who pan them, radio stations that won’t play theirmusic, promoters who cancel their gigs and fans who don’t care any more. Over the course of the movie, their illusions are slowly and painfullystripped away, as they come face-to-face with themselves as has-beens andfailures. It’s the same story as Death of a Salesman. And about asfunny.

Rob Reiner has cleverly imitated the style of a documentary film, and theactors are all so extremely plausible in these roles that it comes as nosurprise that many people watch this film without realizing that it isfiction or have become fans of a nonexistent group. Read the other reviewsif you don’t believe this. People regularly have to be told that this filmis a joke, which means usually that it’s not a very goodjoke.

As a satire, this film also falls short. If this imaginary group is held upto ridicule, Reiner has carefully insulated the entire music industry fromthat ridicule. If Spinal Tap is ridiculous, the fact that everyone seems toreject them implies that the music industry is too savvy to be thatridiculous. Satire that doesn’t poke fun at real people isn’tsatire.

There are occasional flashes of genuine brilliance, such as the amp that"goes to 11". Unfortunately the film shies away from the absurdity of suchconcepts rather than exploiting them. Having stated the concept it is thendismissed as something only Nigel Tufnel would be stupid enough to tothink.

Mostly, however, the film relies upon its uncanny resemblance to a realrockumentary to entertain. There is no question that a really effectiveimitation can be very entertaining. Ask anyone who has seen an Elvisimpersonator. Aficionados of the heavy metal genre will recognize a numberof allusions to real musicians here, but such allusions will be lost on lesswell-informed viewers.

You might think that the film might be an effective parody or caricature.But the illusion is too close to the reality–parody and caricature gettheir humour from grossly emphasizing some aspect of the thing imitated,like making Mick Jagger’s lips the size of a football. There is none ofthat here.

In short, there is not sufficient humour to counterweigh the essentiallytragic nature of the story presented. There is, as you might say, a veryfine line between tragedy and comedy.

Watch it for the cleverness and the truly fine acting throughout, but notfor laughs unless you like laughing at cripples.

Rob Reiner’s "This is Spinal Tap" is perhaps one of the most overrated filmsI’ve seen. Despite the talent of Christopher Guest, Michael McKean, andHarry Shearer, and the apperances of many actors who would appear in thegreat mockumentaries directed by Guest ("Waiting for Guffman", "Best inShow", and "A Mighty Wind"), this film is a bore most of the way through.Certain moments are of interest, such as when the rock group played by thethree actors can’t find their way to the stage and when one of the membersis showing a stereo with 11 being the highest number. But this mockumentaryis horrible when compared to the mockumentaries Christopher Guest wouldlater make. The reason why this film to me is a failure is very simple: RobReiner. I haven’t seen a film of his yet, where he doesn’t sell out toHollywood. Guest doesn’t sell out and his film, and remains at top to theend. I really think this film could have been better if it would have been aGuest-directed film.

I remember seeing this on its original release and was very amused byit all. Here was a very funny low budget comedy that was actuallyfunnier the more you knew. Unfortunately time has not been kind toSpinal Tap. While its importance in the history of film and culture cannot be under estimated, the past 20 odd years have made it a cliché.Everyone has ripped it off or referenced it including all of thoseinvolved in it. Thats fine, however it makes sitting through it ratherdifficult since you’ve seen most of the jokes before, even if youhaven’t seen the movie before. I suppose there is some consolation thatthis was the seed from which a thousand mockumentaries and two millionjokes sprung, but when you want to see a funny movie it kind of takesthe laughter out of the evening.

This is quite a good satirical comedy documentary film about a fakeband and their tour. Basically it is a fake documentary presented bythe director Rob Reiner (When Harry Met Sally, Misery) as MartyDiBergi. He tells and documents the story of one of his favourite rockbands, Spinal Tap. He asks the members many questions, films man
y oftheir shows and tours, discovers some secrets about each individualmember, and has a very rocking time. Starring Michael McKean as DavidSt. Hubbins, Christopher Guest as Nigel Tufnel, The Simpsons' HarryShearer as Derek Smalls (who hardly had to do any acting when the fakeband appeared in an episode), Bruno Kirby as Tommy Pischedda andPatrick Macnee as Sir Denis Eton-Hogg. I admit it didn't make me laugh,but it is definitely worth a try. It was number 29 on 100 Years, 100Laughs, it was number 5 on The 100 Greatest Funny Moments, and it wasnumber 10 on The 50 Greatest Comedy Films. Worth watching!

"This is Spinal Tap" is the granddaddy of the ‘mockumentary’ subgenre(consisting of an admittedly small group of films), and like an elder,it has aged in ways both positive and negative. The script, byChristopher Guest ("Waiting for Guffman"; "Best in Show"), MichaelMcKean, Harry Shearer ("The Simpsons"), and Rob Reiner (who alsodirected) shows an astute knowledge of the behind-the-scenes world ofrock music whilst amplifying the excesses of the lifestyle with satiricgusto. The film is awash in early-80s glamour, neon, cheesy yet catchymusical interludes, and ostentatious Van Halen hairdos. Clocking in at83 minutes, "Spinal Tap" breezes by quickly enough, but the gags oftenfeel too spaced-out and too subtle for their own good…while thishelps the ersatz-documentary aspect, the comedy suffers a little.Despite this, "Spinal Tap" is a highly entertaining item with somewickedly funny scenes (the dwarfs dancing around a miniature mock-up ofStonehenge is priceless), and remains relevant today as atongue-in-cheek portrait of the excesses of the music world.

Indeed, this movie is a nice satire but it’s really only funny at times.Actually, the guy I was watching it with left halfway through the film and Iwas dying to turn off the TV when the end credits started rolling (but Ididn’t because the movie carries on during the credits).

It’s okay… it’s meant to be absurd and make fun of the rock bands thatreason and live the way the characters do but still, I expected more thanthis…

The amp to 11, the vanishing drummer, the piano piece, all that was funnybut definitely not hilarious !… If this is supposed to be hilarious, wheredo you place Monty Python then, for instance ?

I think it deserves a 5 out of 10.

As a huge fan of the mockumentary genre (e.g. Zelig, Bob Roberts, Best inShow), I was heartily looking forward to This Is Spinal Tap. Unfortunately,the film did not live up to my expectations. While there are a few goodgags (although most have already been heavily sampled by sketch comedy showsand repeated ad naseum by too-young-for-Python-quoters), it is on the wholea dull and lackluster affair. While I applaud Reiner, Guest, McKean andShearer for attempting something truly great, I cannot join others inheralding its execution. The songs are at the same time lacking inbelievability and too close to the source material. The strife between theband members is overly predicable, with an irritating and chuckle-free Yokocharacter parading around in `Australian nightmare outfits’ and a series ofthinly veiled nasty cracks at the late great Keith Moon. And though itobviously is the model of virtually all of VH1’s original programming (e.g.Behind the Music), it does come to a trite and cloying faux-happy endingthat puts the Air `thank God Kurt Cobain shot himself’ Supply story toshame. I was pleased to see a youthful Dana Carvey as a mime waiter, andBruno Kirby gushing over Sinatra, but even an endless supply of pleasantcameos does not a movie make (a lesson Loaded Weapon 1 taught us so well). On the whole, while I might recommend This Is Spinal Tap as an importantpiece of cinema history, I would not have placed it anywhere near the top100 comedies of all time.

If there’s some goal for a mockumentary to reach, this film hascertainly done that. By first-time director Rob Reiner, doesn’tparticularly challenge him, being it’s all simple documentarypoint-and-shoot. Still, it’s perfectly adequate. Reiner also does agood job as the fictional filmmaker.

All the actors playing the Spinal Tap members do a superb job, but Ithink that Christopher Guest does the best job. He, of course, would goon to do several other mockumentaries (Waiting for Guffman, Best InShow, A Mighty Wind).

The songs sung in the film have really great, original lyrics, eventhough they are a bit sexist (which is the point, I suppose). This filmis difficult to recommend, because it’s the sort of film that you cannever be quite sure who will like it.

But you’ll know that in the first few minutes anyhow.

7.5 out of 10

read comments (0)

The Philadelphia Experiment

When I first heard of this movie, I was expecting a documentary of theactual Philadelphia Experiment headed under the guidelines of AlbertEinstein (who proposed the theory). Unfortunatly, as soon as the moviestarts with the time travel, it became , almost, unbearable. The endingispathetic too, leaving your friend to become fused with a ship to spend therest of your life with a girl you met two days ago. I was looking for adocumentary of the true events, I got science fiction with emphasis on thefiction.

As soon as I saw the ubiquitous 1940s dance scene, where they didn’t evenbother giving the girls (and guys) 1940s style hair, I knew this movie wasgoing to be bad. All the 40’s girls had that lovely permed hair from the80s. They didn’t even bother with details. Now, the movie itself - The’real’ Philadelphia experiment is such a fantastic story that they couldhave made the movie about the real legend. No, instead they have 2 guysjumpoverboard while the ship is in the ‘vortex’, making them zip through timeinto 1984, where the Navy is still doing another similar experiment. Noneedto go into the details, but from there it just gets worse with sillyadventures, the Navy trying to capture them, etc. The only saving aspect isthe very end of the movie, where you see (as the real legend records) a fewguys fused to the ship. But it’s hardly worth it. I can’t even believe theyfilmed a sequel. What a truly, truly disappointing movie. Someone pleasemake a real movie about the Philadelphia Experiment.

To All Concerned:

As an Officer aboard the U.S. Navy destroyer, the U.S.S. Eldridge,during the period between 1941 and 1943, I was a witness to the eventsdramatized in the film. Yes, I found myself trapped in the hull of theship and if it weren’t for the aliens that came down from outer spaceat that exact moment, I wouldn’t be here today to tell my story.

Anyway, the lack of attention to detail, like the ’80’s hairstyles,really took away from the film. But there were some fun things aboutthe movie so if you like sci-fi films, you may very well enjoy thiskooky story that some people have taken to believe was a true story.

and the reason john carpenter was executive producer was he was workingonthis film but could not quite get it finished like he wanted to so he didSTARMAN{which by the way is similar to this move}and gave the directorialrole to someone else.this was the only reason why i had an interst in thiswas because john carpenter was involved.this is almost like starman meetsback to the future.this movie was fun to watch however the dialogue ispretty weak at some points.the effects were good and as a whole the filmwasmoved along fairly smooth.michael pare would have role{small one} invillageof the damned in ‘95.

It seems to me that this film is getting unfairly trashed in these

comments. Sure, the acting could have been better, but those of

us that seek out second-tier science fiction films are used to

enduring MUCH worse acting than this. And Nancy Allen does a

great job.

I watched this on a flight to the West Coast back in 1984 and was

so facinated that I watched it again a week later. It’s on my Top

500 list.

The premise is clever and thought-provoking. I doubt that many

viewers realize that the movie is based on an real conspiracy

legend. I was familiar with the "actual" Philadelphia Experiment

years before this movie was made and often wondered just what

might have happened back in the 1940’s to give rise to the wild

rumors. The movie takes off on that premise and does very well

with it, incorporating many of the myth’s parts (sailors glowing and

fading, victims stuck in solid steel, etc.). The screenplay pulls all

these pieces together neatly. Certainly much worse things have

been done with modern myth’s. Take a look at all the stupid

movies based on the Roswell incident

I give this a 7 out of 10..

The film,"The Philadelphia Experiment" is not so interesting however itshould not be readily dismissed either.The stumbling block in so far asmy understanding allows is the claims made by the film and the ratherdifficult illusion that it creates.There are some useful areas toponder as matters evolve in this picture with both the concept of andthe intelligence that the experiment itself provided for.There is adifference between "radar invisible" and "dissapearing" entirely.Thesematters did provide some thought,though in truth the position is infact that this film is in reality a far fetched bunch of non-sense.Iwas not brought into the film as perhaps viewers might be with bothopening scenes providing for less information and even less drama thaneven the acknowledgment through the film of an event that was to occurand of course that would be "The Phildelphia Experiment".The movie hada feel of a less than effort which left it in some sort of grade Bstatus.This is in principal due in as much of the hard to believe storyas to how this was played out.There is just about the same hard tobelieve escapade from start to finish as it would be to believe thatthis really was an actual event and as yet if you will,a storyuntold.That to me is and was part of the difficult job that a motionpicture provides the viewer with,and that would be to become a part ofthis story,if you will as yet untold.What is as yet the story untold?Ofcourse we are looking at the concept of moving matter and as well timetravel.It certainly would allow for something more than some hard tobelieve non-sense and as well the escapade did not allow for aconviction as to time,it dealt with an inability to know what was ineffect occurring with there being less to know and even perhaps less tocare for.There romp as it were required lives to be lost with suchindifference that there is no claim made as to the cost nor itsvalue.It is in these areas that there is a underwritten theme and itdoesn't have to do with honesty either.It has to do with having a goodtime with no ability to provide anything more than that and that ofcourse of having a good time even if it is at the expense ofothers.Though not in and of itself serious, this would not need to beif in fact this was a story worth telling.The answer is there needed tobe greater intellectual input to make believable or at least more sosuch as is the scenario put forth by "The Philadelphia Experiment"Theparticipants were,the actors and film making people, which the viewersnow were not, included in the making of the film and as such were keptout of the assumptions that the sailors and everyone else in the filmwere included in.This provides only that the film was not convincingand though it is a pity it is not believable either.In as much as theperformers are concerned it was as much a problem not to know as it wasto know due to the inability to prove what it was that they wereinvolved in and here again we come against the idea of a story thatskirts the issue of believability.It is this opinion that I believe iswere the answer was and is and that be,that those who made the film didnot believe in the film and it shows.I would guess that it is much torequire that those who make these films have some belief attached tothe film however I think not as there's is a bottom line and as well amanufactured good that provides all the illusion that you need.That isin fact nearer the truth and as such not much on real intelligencegathering nor would it provide any ability to properly inform theaudience as to what there was an attempt to provide.This film is notentirely unworthy though indeed it does attempt to stretch whateverstoryline there is and as such increase the inability to place conductand its purpose within a believable context.Ultimately as a reader theopinion would not be one way or another though I have managed to seethis film for a third time si
nce 1984,the last two times were as todayon my computer.

I saw this movie when it first came out in 1984. I can still recall itquite well because it really left me thinking about how such things mighthappen. The intrigue and mystery still, after 18 years, leaves methinking.

I have not seen another movie that deals with time travel in such anintriguing manner. The Time Machine (2002) is billed as science fictionbuthas little to do with science; it’s just action. The PhiladelphiaExperiment gets into the science as part of the plot. Most other sciencefiction movies deal just with the action and have little to do with the"science". This one gets into the "science" and that makes youthink.

Those people who are simply looking for some romantic or action plot maywell be disappointed. This movie was not intended to be just that. It isscience fiction at its best because it does get into the science. Thismakes it different than the Star Wars movies as science fiction. The StarWars movies are all about action and do little to get into the science.They are classified as science fiction because they take place in anothertime and place. But they are great for their action and there is noscientific intrigue. You just know going into the movie that the goodguyswill win.

The Philadelphia Experiment does have some limited action, but that is notwhat makes this movie great. What makes this movie great is that it getsinto the science. I wish more so-called science fiction movies would dothat. Andromeda Strain, The Thirteenth Floor (1999) are others, but thereare very few. Matrix is billed as science fiction, but had very littlescience in it. Good movie, but not for its science fiction. It was justaction.

I bought this movie very cheap cause i just wanted a new movie. Iabsolutelychose this one because the front looked nice. But when I saw it the firsttime I almost fainted. I thought it was so good. The story is very goodanda little bit odd. It is a experience of the higher grade. John Carpentershould be proud over this piece.

Yes. . .this was not a GREAT movie. . .but it was an entertaining"fictional" account about a "mythical" event.

Just see it as a sci-fi flick and you’ll enjoy it. Try to look at it asa documentary, about a so-called "true" event, and you’ll be terriblydisappointed.

If you want to see another movie about ships doing the "time-travel"bit, watch "The Final Countdown (1980)" which has better acting anddirection. That one involves a carrier AND its planes, going BACK thistime. Don’t read too much about its plot in advance and you will beable to enjoy the surprises. The ending is better than "ThePhiladelphia Experiment" as well.

A "Student" of the movies

OK i had wanted to watch this movie for years & finally did today,i wasexpecting it to be rubbish due to reading other comments & i supposehad it of been fiction i would of given it just 4 poss 5 however itsbased on real events & thats worrying & i suppose pending on how muchis correct in the film as to what happened i liked it a lot i do agreewith someones comments on the acting is a little bland at times howeverlook at its year it was made eh…1984…there was a lot worse filmsout then,i thought the special effects was pretty good too & the realissue if its the only one i had with the film is about 3quaters the waythrough there is a scene when the main man & the girl he meets aredriving & although there i a car behind them the camera changes angleto just him but when it goes to view them both from a front mirror viewthe car has gone then camera changes again then car is gone & so on &so on i was a little disappointed there..not sure if the ending wastrue as well i wont spoil it for anyone but it was what he does to getback to her…? so i hope this helped you if not email me OK i WILLreply regards Keith my email is my "username on thiswebsite"@yahoo.co.u.k

read comments (0)

The Natural

This film is really sad. I never liked Redford and now I know why. Henever takes any chances, with every role he makes himself the rebel herowhether in ‘Last Castle’, ‘Butch & Sundance’, ‘3 Days of the Condor’, or’Spy Game’. He takes comfort in those self-assured roles, so we takecomfort in his predictability.

This is your only spoiler warning…

As for ‘The Natural’, all I will say is that Levinson got himself in order’Good Morning, Vietnam’. Sport movies need to be invigorating to capturethe atmosphere of the competition mixed with loads of uncertainty. Turnsout this is no better than any "sport film" made by Disney.

It prides itself on triumph, buries itself on defeat, and everything issuperficial. No dominant impressions are made, no one makes any gambles sono one wins anything.

Overall, look to the Sundance Channel for more interestingmaterial.

Final Analysis = = Cinematic Dud

I don't know why I enjoy this movie as much as I do. I haven't caredabout baseball much since I was ten years old. This isn't Redford'sbest performance by any means. The story is an ur-sports one. Act One:Prodigy is discovered. Act Two: Tragedy leads to slump. Act Three:Protagonist overcomes demons and wins the game (or bout, or chukkar, orwhatever). Subordinate characters are largely stereotypes. There is anoverobvious mythological overlay that's more pretentious than anythingelse. During dramatic moments, the score swells to heroic proportionsto an extent that we almost expect a cut to Moses's parting of the RedSea. The slow-motion not only signals a triumph in the making butallows us to relish it for a few seconds longer. Let's see. I guessthat about covers most of the reasons not to like the film. But theseflaws are pretty much overcome by its virtues. When the score isn'televating us to the status of worshipers it has a nice period slangyfeel to it. During the periods of defeat the score never becomesmaudlin. It retains a kind of tinkly offhand quality but sounds a bitslower in tempo, imbued with a hardly noticeable melancholy. Thephotography is first rate. It has the same tawny quality that hascropped up in lesser works like "The Fortune" or "W. C. Fields and Me."Everyone seems burnished by the sun. And the period detail is evocativewithout being obtrusive. A slow-motion shot of a dying flashbulbsignals the beginning of Redford's career slump. Thelight-bulb-as-career works well, as it did for Scorcese and for OrsonWelles in "Citizen Kane."

The story follows the three-act pattern, except that it doubles it bygiving us two tragedies instead of one, so you get twice as much foryour money, and Hobbs has double the number of demons to cope with.(First he gets shot — in a theme I must say I didn't completelyunderstand — then he falls for Lillith instead of whoever the muse ofthe game of baseball is.) The acting? As I say, Redford in the centralrole is a bit too minimalized, or maybe it's the wrong kind of role forhim, although he looks the part of the fit athlete perfectly –sinuously muscled instead of bulging all over with sarcomeres. Ofcourse his background in baseball must have helped his physicalperformance. He looks right. I wish he had projected a little moreconcern about his slump. He's pretty casual about the whole thing.

Glenn Close is good, as usual, although surely such companions don'texist. Kim Basinger looks ravishing. Duval turns in his usual superiorperformance, laughing, smiling, his mouth open, villainous. The otherplayers are equally good, locked as they are into one-dimensionalroles. I particularly enjoy the pizazz that Darren McGavin brings tohis part of the antagonistic gambler. It's his best role in years. He'sphilosophical about losing, charming, full of casual jokes. Therestaurant scene in which he pops out his eye is amusing and slightlyfrightening at the same time. The judge, despite his greed andunderhandedness, is amusing too. He speaks in the pompous Gongoristicprose you'd expect from someone who used to sit on the bench and isaccustomed to demonstrating how superior he is to most mortals. "Acanard — a pure canard." Brimley and Farnsworth are a pair of aces asthey try to deal with the newly arrived middle-aged rookie, or sittogether on the bench while each tries to name the song the other ishumming. (This was a touch added by Levinson when he noticed the two ofthem doing it between takes.)

Yes, it has all those weaknesses. But it's the kind of movie thatdoesn't repay much analysis. Anybody up for deconstructing "Duck Soup"?It's extremely easy to sit back and be drawn into the story because itis, in so many ways, admirably done.

A great potential come-back story that misses too many opportunities.

Like, why did Harriet Bird (Barbara Hershey) shoot Roy Hobbs (Redford)?It was never made clear. That would have been a great sub-plot initself. Say, she was his girl and was jealous of everything, and crazyto boot, and he didn't see it coming, and got it. Or something likethat.

Or a hint that Roy *could* have fathered a child with Iris (GlennClose). There wasn't even a hint, like in Forrest Gump. And the factthat he was "away" for 16 years doesn't add up. The kid who we see atthe end for too little time is about 10-12 years old. He should be16-ish, which could have him as a budding, tough High School player. Itwould have been poignant if he was a true star player, and that Roy,whom we only fleetingly learn is his Daddy at the end, would come backto become his pitching/hitting coach. But maybe I'm asking too much.

And besides, this is the 30'-50's. A woman who has a child out ofwedlock would have been a scandal. Why was this fact ignored? And itwas strange that she didn't marry. Why? Was she in love with Roy allthe time and was waiting for him to come back? That, too, was alludedto, but the point wasn't driven home, so to speak. And when she didfind him, Glen Close's reaction was much too subtle and un-emotionalfor my taste. This is the father of her only child for crying out loud.So, cry out loud.

And how and when did Roy make his decision to come back to play ball?This was quickly glossed over when Roy told Iris what had happenedduring the course of the 16 years apart, but it would have beendramatically worthwhile to see his "epiphany" of deciding to return.

And just how does Memo Paris (Kim Basinger) "jinx" Roy and cause him toplay poorly? Does she distract him? Did she out-and-out bribe him, orconvince him? Did she take up so much of his time that he was quitesimply exhausted? It's not clear at all.

And when the Knights play poorly, they play like Little Leaguers. Imean, a team that plays like that just doesn't exist in major leagueball. And not in AAA,AA,A, nor rookie ball. Now, I don't mean to gettoo technical here, but showing them playing like that is goingoverboard. They should have shown them playing OK, but there was a "jene sais quois" missing. A mental "push" that helps them play truly topquality ball. And that mental inspiration is Roy Hobbs.

Now, it was made clear that he inspired the team to improve, noquestion about it. And it was made clear that "Bump" (Michael Madsen)the right-fielder, was throwing the game, being bribed by The Judge(Robert Prosky).

So, I agree with Roger Ebert in this case. It is a movie aboutidolizing Robert Redford, and it has very little to do with baseball.

Yet another feel good sports movie. Overwrought and too full of itselfto be meaningful. Over-rated.

Worthy on effort, but realization falls short.

Much better sports movie and specifically baseball themed is "Bang theDrum Slowly" Much better performances, that don't try so hard tomelodramatic.

Robert DeNiro in a under-rated perform
ance that seems quite genuine andvery believable.

the Natural is quite artificial, and not worthy of the heaping ofpraise it receives.

Let’s face it: it didn’t really matter who was cast in this film.All of the so-called characters are basically caricatures that are socliched, it becomes ludicrous. I must give Robert Redford points fortryingto make something out of this script, and he is one of thefewreasons I gave this film a higher rating than it probably deserves. Hebrings an unmistakable presence to his film characters, and "The Natural"isno exception. Unfortunately, I think he was being a bit to optimistic inthinking that anyone could make something of a characterwho’s depth can be completely described with one sentence: "Aging anddown-on-his-luck baseball player who believes in ‘playing the game how itwas meant to be played.’"

Perhaps the most ridiculous addition to the film is Robert Prosky as thesinister team owner. This is just the type of film where the good guyswearwhite and the bad guys wear black, so I guess it may seem fitting that hischaracter conducts his business in an office, all thelights off and the blinds shut. He doesn’t like light, we are told, butaregiven no valid reason as to why (although one can easily guess by studyingthe rest of the film). Yes, he threatens the hero with blackmail. Yes, hissinister shadow can be seen behind his office blinds overlooking the nightgames, although the fact that he can see the game through closed blindsandthat his shadow can be seen at all without any light on in his office seemto contradict simple logic. But, by the time these things occur, the filmisn’t worried aboutsmall details like these anymore.

The first half an hour or so of "The Natural" are very promising, which inturn makes the rest of the film even more of a let-down. The use ofslow-motion is excellent, although it is used to show us the shattering ofglass a little too often. The score is perhaps one of themovie’sbrightest points, smartly providing the mood for each scene. But, in theend, this film falls prey to dull characters and an uninspired script. Itried to like "The Natural". I really did. I guess it just goes to showthat, contrary to what this movie tells us, you can’t always do whateveryouwant, even if you try hard enough.

Filming of one of the all-time great baseball novels is a hit-and-missaffair. Redford plays phenom sidetracked, due to bizarre circumstances,from the major leagues until his mid-30s. Atmosphere is great,particularly the Knights' wonderful home park (War Memorial Stadium inBuffalo, now history). The supporting cast led by Brimley is uniformlygood. But there's something off and it's hard to put a finger on it. Itmay be that things just all seem gothically over-played. And the upbeatending spoils the message of the original story, where the bitterclimax largely defined the tale. Sort of like filming Titanic withoutthe icebergs. If the book wasn't so inspired it might be less of afault, but given the wonderful source material to work with this moviedeserves no more than a 5 out of 10.

One of the most cliched, predictable, and melodramatic pieces of junk I’veever seen. Spielberg-esque in its corniness. The story is any 9-year-oldboy’s fantasy but seems to be pitched to adults. Disappointing effort forboth Levinson and Redford, but we all have our bad days.

You know you are in for a great movie when you have Robert Redford, RobertDuvall, Glenn Close and Kim Basinger in the same movie. This is one of thoseheroic type movies where the main character is somewhat of an outsider inthe beginning. People tell him he is not gonna make it because he is old andslow. Rather then talking back, he just goes out and does his work, and doesit well. In this movie they use the classical slow motion to capture thelast hit of the game etc and it is masterfully done. You pretty much knowhow this movie is going to end, but that doesn’t matter cause it is sobeautifully choreographed that you will enjoy it no matter what. I rate thismovie 7/10

Malamud based his book, The Natural, on the Parcival Myth (search for theholy grail). That is why the team is the Knights, the manager is PopsFisher, and the assistant manager is "red". Note the similarities with themovie, The Fisher King. Same theme, new players and setting. The grail didnot work in either case. Being the "best that ever was" is not an answertowhat we need in life. Glenn Close was poetic in saying that we have twolives, one that we learn with and one that we live after that. It isinteresting that in the Fisher King Jeff Bridges risked his life for abaseball trophy that he thought was the grail. Some real irony that thescreenplayers added.

All in all, a great movie, for lots of reasons. Lots of good and evil.Verylittle violence. It is about all of us.

The Natural is Roy Hobbs (Robert Redford), who after being dealt amajor setback after being shot when he’s on his way to the big-time asa pitching prospect, returns to the game he loves as a middle aged manto hit for the New York Knights. Sure the film is syrupy and conformsto certain Hollywood stereotypes, but it’s still an all-around greatfilm..In my mind, this is Redford’s shining moment, his best film andquite possibly the best ‘baseball’ film out there. (the baseball is inquotations because the movie isn’t really about the sport) I’m not evengoing to quibble and say that Roy is kinda dense for not knowing whatGlenn Close’s character had to tell him WAY in advance. Those whofollow my reviews know I don’t give out accolades easily, so you knowthis film deserves the kudos bestowed upon it.

My Grade: A

DVD Extras: 45 minute documentary with Carl Ripkin Jr; Talent files;Theatrical Trailer; Trailers for "Bugsy", and "The Way we Were"

read comments (0)

The Ice Pirates

Outside of Space Balls, there are very few actually funny and enjoyableSciFi comedies out there. Stunningly attractive Mary Crosby is a greatreasonto watch this movie unless you’re female and then the recently lateRobertUrich is your reason. The robots steal the scenes, there’s some socialcomedies and political satires, but the best scenes are the time warp andthe castrating assembly line as the heroes are threatened with becomingeunuchs. The cast includes Michael D. Roberts from Manimal and AngelicaHuston from The Addams Family. This movie is definitely worth asee.

I like the "Star Wars" series. I like a good, cheapo sci-fi flick everyonce in a while, too. Heck, I even like the Roger Corman-producednickel-and-dime jobbies.

I do NOT like "The Ice Pirates", though.

For one, it just looks too cheap, you know? For a movie that’s supposed totake place in outer space, it feels cramped and closed-in like it’s beingfilmed in the front seat of someone’s Mazda. And the special effects, whileappropriately cheesy, look more than anything like foam rubber paintedmetallic gray.

Usually, I don’t let things like that bother me, especially if the story andthe characters are worthwhile.

They ain’t.

The whole storyline, about these ne’er-do-well space pirates who decide tofind a planet loaded with ice they can melt down and sell as water (a hotcommodity in the future, I guess) is about as original as the jokes, whichis not a compliment.

The humor comes in at about crotch-level (like that castrating machineyou’ll see early on), and everyone seems to have a cranky attitude. And whotold John Matuzak that he was funny? Whoever did, shame on them. Good oldRobert Urich tries, but he’s a reliable actor on board a badly sinking ship(or starship, in this case).

I watched this one about three times and ended up feeling the same way everytime - shanghaied.

No stars. In spite of of the presence of Huston (one year prior to"Prizzi’s Honor") and Carradine (at the tail end of a once-lofty career),these "Pirates" should walk the plank.

I never heard of "Ice Pirates" before having the film recommended to meby a friend. And now having seen it, I'm curious as to why because onewould expect this to be high on a list of cult classics alongside"Zardoz". The story of space pirates who fight Templars and herpes tofind ice in a universe where water has become a scarce resource. Withrobots and princesses to boot.

The connection of this film to "Star Wars" and "Space Balls" isobvious. A thuggish but charming lead actor captures a princess, whothen joins his team to go on an epic quest. Ice Pirates is not a directparody like Space Balls is, but enough of the same themes are presentto see the influence is more than just slight.

I enjoyed the racial humor (which I won't go into here) and also thereferences to things obviously outside the realm of this movie'suniverse (Tylenol??). And the obligatory sex scene? Completelyincongruous. A time warp scene makes absolutely no sense, but is soover-the-top that its senselessness can be easily overlooked for thehumor. Elton John could have showed up to sing "The Circle of Life" forthis scene.

The short of it is if you like Star Wars, Space Balls, or other suchfilms you really need to give this one a try. The budget is smaller andthe actors lesser-known, but the film has a big heart and you reallyhaven't lived until you've seen Ice Pirates. Just make sure not to asktoo many questions and don't hold your breath for a sequel(unfortunately).

This is a pretty funny movie. I saw it when I was in high school withfriends. I remember this movie getting lots of laughs in the packed theater.Robert Urich plays a pirate who hijacks ice shipments that carry water tothe desert planets in this water starved galaxy. The fun comes from oneliners and funny characters. There is a lot in this movie to soak in. Youhave to watch it two or three times to get all the jokes. If you likescience fiction/comedy you will probably like this movie.

See this movie for the bungling robot troopers. See this movie for"Space herpe, the love bug." See this movie for the biggest afro ever caughton film!

Oh man, this movie was toe-cringing bad. Bad look, awful story…thelist of good things is shorter than the list of bad things about thismovie.

Yes sure it's supposed to be a comedy and all but something tells methat this movie was supposed to be the real deal. The movie mostcertainly does not start of as a comedy but more as an adventurousmovie with fun elements put in it. You can especially tells they wereserious with this by the acting, that was in a serious and non-comicalway, with the exception of a couple of over-the-top sequencesobviously. It seemed to be me that at first they tried to make a realand serious adventurous science-fiction movie, perhaps even a franchisebut soon began to noticed how bad it all was and simply decided toinsert some more and deliberately overdone comical sequence, to makethe movie seem more like a comedy and prevent it from turning into acomplete disastrous mess.

The movie is a weird attempt to mix adventurous swashbuckling piratemovies with serious science-fiction action. The movie was obviouslyinspired by the "Star Wars" movies and its success. The movie isn'teven too ashamed to copy entire sequences and even the way the storyprogresses, sets, characters and robots show similarities. They triedto hide this by putting in some obviously spoofing sequences but I'mnot falling for it. So the movie is not even original on its own,despite its original concept. You can say that this movie is a poorman's "Spaceballs", without even really being fully a spoof.

The movie is bad looking, with some video games special effects (insome sequences even literally), awful looking costumes (coat of mailand swords in outer space?). The sound is at times even laughable.Seems like they shot some sequences without sound and then forgot toadd all of the required sounds later again in post-production. themixing is also really bad. They tried to conceal this by putting thesound down to a minimum at times and by tuning up the Bruce Broughtonmusical score.

At times the movie is so busy trying to make the movie look humorousthat it totally forgets to tell the story. It makes the story of themovie seems extremely messy and poorly written, with an almostcompletely undeveloped main plot. It also doesn't help to make themovie really ever flow. Lots of thing don't get explained and some areeven dropped after a while. The movie begins as a 'pirate' movie, whoconstantly are looking and steal water, since its scarcely and there isonly one planet in the entire galaxy remaining with water on it (yeahright!). However this plot line gets soon abandoned, especially in themiddle part of the movie, in which the movie seems to become a totallydifferent one, with different motivations. It's just like the one weirdand bad, silly sequence after the other, without really making a click.It also keeps the characters way too shallow and uninteresting to careabout.

Sad to see that actors like John Carradine, Anjelica Huston and a stillyoung and unknown Ron Perlman were attached to this disastrous movie.

OK I admit that I liked some of the moments, especially the ending whenthey go through the time-warp was original and fun but really, non ofthis all was enough to save the movie.

I didn't even liked the movie in a campy kind of way.

2/10

One of the things that always gets misconstrued about this movie, is thatitis a spoof comedy first, and a science fiction movie second. People whosaythis is a bad movie haven’t gotten the fact that it’s a Comedy. I wish theTV guides would list this as comedy,
instead of science fiction, I feelthatwould help ‘mundanes’ understand. BTW, for you mundanes, mundanes arepeoplewho aren’t into science fiction/fantasy. Poor mundanes:).

And as a comedy SF spoof, this movie does it’s job well, entertaining theviewer. Well worth your time.

I can’t knock this film too terribly, because it’s obvious midway throughthe the watching of it that they were trying to make it bad, or ‘campy’ ifyou prefer. Anyway, many of the parts they tried to make funny actuallyare, but often simply for the cheese factor. Watch the ’space invaders’game, actually played as real-life! Scratch your head at the bumblingrobots…oh, the wackyness! And watch the whole thing go way over the topnear the end with the ‘time warp’! And the sexual innuendoes just keep onflying…I’m actually surprised this got away with a PG. Oh well. A funway to waste a couple hours, but Star Wars/Trek this ain’t, folks. 3 out of10.

It’s not like this movie was made to be a blockbuster. The jokes aresometimes funny and the time-warp scene is very inventive and funny. Ifyoutry to think of this as a normal Hollywood release you’ll lose the idea.It’s a fun movie for a group to watch.

I just watched this movie again after a fifteen year hiatus. I was 7then,and the crazy scenes got into my head- it all came back last night, andWHOA! so much more.

Come on! Who is calling this movie a spoof? This is not a purposefullyfunny movie, this is TV producers trying to make a movie. It has all thecharm of an episode of any sensationalist crap TV show infused with theintellect of a Quantum Leap episode. I love Quantum Leap, and I love thismovie- but wow, don’t chalk this up to POMO- this is sheer Ed Woodiancrapo’la!

There are all these different styles popping in and out, from Star Wars tostraight up pirates to "fun boy/Dr. Sues outfits" to cheesy TV romance toBruce Vilanch! This is the holy hipster movie of cheese-outedness! Anyself-conscious ironic imposter of flashy and dead styles will watch thismovie and laugh whole heartedly. Come for the incompetence- stay for therobots-ninjas who fit the Jar-jar/ewok role like nothing else.

As bad and good as it is, this is a movie not to pass up. Each conceptthese people tried to get at, though disjointed like a pig’s organ andalsosurrounded by tripe- these concepts are maddening space-age poetry. Timewarps and robot warriors- mark my words, this movie will one day be redonebeautifully!

Anything intended to be a classic is inherently pretentious, one thing thismovie is definitely not! I first saw this movie 17 years ago and stillloveit to this day. The funniest aspects of 80s comedy tucked neatly into yourfavorite Star - Fill-in-the-blank - series. Yes, probably the reasonthe sci-fi crowd hated it was because of the irreverence it contained.Yes,certain other, more modern, movies have succeeded where Ice Pirates"failed"but do keep in mind that movies like this paved the way for certain otherhigh-budget mock sci-fi flicks, which would probably never have happened ifthe Ice Pirates hadn’t set sail (hah hah) to do battle with the hard headedsci-fi fandom of its time.

read comments (0)

The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension

What a fabulous array of my favorite actors in this cult movie. I hadwanted to see it for many years. The library finally got in in VHS. I’mafraid it doesn’t really stand the test of time for me. I was really bored. I can recall this style of movie making in my youth, but I think movieshave evolved way o much for this one to stand up any more,sadly.

What can you say. It’s like there were 2 guys sitting around drunk saying"You know what’d be cool, having a totally sweet, really smart dude fightaliens while rocking out." And there you have the premise of themovie.

None of it makes sense, but that’s ok. You need to watch this just to enjoyhow bad it really is. I give it a 1, but it’s the best of the worst, that’sfor sure.

for all you people out there with good comments about this movie - you allneed professional help (no offense). this is by far the worst film everconceived by man. reasons to never view or mention this movieagain:a - peter weller is in itb - his name is buckaroo bonzaic - this band has the idiotic name of the hong kong cavaliersd - his name is BUCKAROO BONZAIe - jeff goldblum giving nj a bad name dresssed as a cowboyf - his name is sill BUCKAROO BONZAIe - why are all these well known actors in this? couldnt john lithgow andthe rest find a better gig?

many 80’s movies are good, many are bad. but this is THE WORST MOVIEEVER.of all films ever written and never put onto film; of those made for tv;ofthose made at home for no one to see; of any act ever committed, none wassofreaking awful than the conceiving of the idea for this script, and thegenius who gave it the green light.

Boring times 10. Of course, some people like mining for meaning. If youhave time to watch this movie more than once, you may find some meaning init. Otherwise, don’t waste your evening.

I tried. I really tried to get the point, but the point (if it exists) wasburied too deep for this archeologist.

Maybe if it had a better cast. Maybe if they’d had a bigger budget, abetter script writer a catchy plot, some computer graphics and had spent amore time working at it this could have reached "cult film" status. In myopinion, it didn’t even reach "Ed Wood" status. With Ed Wood, you could atleast laugh at the bungling attempt. This film didn’t even attempt toattempt attempting.

If you enjoy blowing up a balloon to let it go and watch it swirl around theroom and then playing around with the over-stretched remains, this film isfor you.

Boring times 10. Of course, some people like mining for meaning. If youhave time to watch this movie more than once, you may find some meaning init. Otherwise, don’t waste your evening.

I tried. I really tried to get the point, but the point (if it exists) wasburied too deep for this archeologist.

Maybe if it had a better cast. Maybe if they’d had a bigger budget, abetter script writer a catchy plot, some computer graphics and had spent amore time working at it this could have reached "cult film" status. In myopinion, it didn’t even reach "Ed Wood" status. With Ed Wood, you could atleast laugh at the bungling attempt. This film didn’t even attempt toattempt attempting.

If you enjoy blowing up a balloon to let it go and watch it swirl around theroom and then playing around with the over-stretched remains, this film isfor you.

This train wreck of a picture has been reappearing on FLIX lately and,justfor laughs, I tried to watch it again, thinking maybe it wasn’t as bad asIremembered. I was wrong. It is still unwatchable. Don’t get me wrong, I amabig fan of campy, bad, B movies, but this thing is unbearable. It’s notevena good "bad" movie (no cheescake or obvious production gaffes orinadvertently funny dialogue). No, this movie is rambling, pointlesslyoddball, plotless, and just too too long. Just a lot of odd characters,someof them in rubber suits, and agonizingly slow action and dry, overacteddialogue. It takes forever to get going and then never goes anywhere. As Iwatched I wanted to recut the film and excise all the extraneous fat,thoughI don’t think that would help much–there would be nothing left. You can’tfix a film like this; you just have to start over.

So, unless you’re a white male geek between the ages of 18 and 30 whohasn’thad a date in years (you know who you are), this film likely won’t be foryou. From what I can tell, the geekier a guy is (socially backward, nerdysense of humor, etc.) the more likely he’ll enjoy this movie.

The first time I saw Banzai was in the theatre I wasn’t the one who drovesoI had to stay–I was ready to leave 10 minutes into the show. But thistimeon TV I had the remote and when I couldn’t take any more, I happilyswitchedto another channel. Ahhhhh. . .

Don’t say I didn’t warn you. . .

This movie is so cheesy I couldn’t stop laughing at it. I mean whatkind of an idiot would create such a piece of cinematic drivel? It goesso far as to say that he/she has no directing talent or skills for thatmatter. Buckaroo Banzai was unknown to me until that chilly Saturdayafternoon; never seen it in theaters or on video so I decided to watchit on regular TV. It started off with a funny Star Wars-like prologueand then goes on with the main character Buckaroo Banzai (Peter Weller)riding in some weird vehicle that somehow traveled between space andtime. I suspected that this was not going to be a serious sci-fi filmbut boy was I wrong. I just spent two hours of my life on one of theworst films ever in the history of cinema. It was and is just plainfreaking boring; no sense of charm or wit. The plot was ridiculous andso were the aliens (This film was made back in the 80’s I suppose) andthe performances. If this film is a comedy, then it seriously needssome work in the charisma department.

After reading reviews from various sources, this sounded like my sortof movie, so I went ahead and actually bought it on DVD. So what do Ithink? Well, compared with the other members of the pantheon ofAmerican comedy classics, this barely struggles to get off its knees.

Previously I have fallen asleep part way through, but I just put htisdown to tiredness. So I went to bed early, got a good 10 hours sleep,put it on at 10:00 am, and found myself dropping off by 11:00. That’sit for me. I have heard others compare this tho the RHPS. Don’t believeit. This is without doubt the worst movie I have ever seen. I did notgive it a 1 because at least the 80’s costumes were worth a titter forthe first 2 minutes. After that, forget it.

This film has no redeeming features. Worth watching if you can’t get tosleep, but otherwise give it a miss.

This movie sucks.I know IMDB discourages the use of the word suck, buthonestly that is the most apt description of this movie. I could get intohow the acting was more wooden than a national forest, now the directorcouldn’t direct his way to the nearest gas station. how it was about asvisually stimulating as a bad episode of Buck Rogers, but suck reallyencapsulates this movie. at least Peter Weller went on to do RoboCop,whichwasn’t excellent, but at least was a step up.Rating 2

P.S. On the upside it did end.

This movie was an insult to my intelligence. It was so bad that I actuallygot mad at myself and my husband for having the idea of watching this film.I HATED it it was by far the worst film ever!!

I could not recommend this film to anyone. The special effects were reallybad and there was not a plot. Shame because surprisingly it had a good cast.I really wonder why this film is not in the 10 worst films of theIMDB

read comments (0)

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock

This movie was made true to the original Star Trek TV series tradition.The film is suitable for TV, but the good special effects give it anearmarkof a high quality production. Since I am a fan of Star Trek, I evenenjoyedthe usual William Shatner over-acting. Star Trek III is a known quantity,like those McDonalds restaurant meals, it fits the standardized mold, andthis film fits the mold for all Star Trek movies. If you like Star Trek,then this will be no exception. I rated it a "7".

STAR TREK 3: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK is the worst of the Star Trek movies. Itdoes not have the same sense of fun and adventure as the other STAR TREKmovies in the series. The problem with STAR TREK 3: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK isthat it just isn’t that exciting. It is just kind of lame. William Shatneris great as always, but that isn’t a good enough reason to see STAR TREK 3:THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK.

By this the third film in the Star Trek ala Kirk and the gang series signsthat the entire story was growing thin were beginning to pop up. Each plotrequired that somehow Kirk now an Admiral had to wind up in the drivers seatof the Enterprise. This installment even managed to show that Kirk and thegang were essentially at war with the very organization they supposedly wereso dedicated to serving. (Any one who wasn’t an original series crewmemberis a bad guy scenario) However this picture isn’t even half as bad as theone which followed i.e. # IV The Voyage Home which totally went off the deepend and wound up not even comparable to an episode from the Star Trekcartoon series.

I’ve always had a hard time placing this movie amongst the rest of them. Its kind of weird, but on the other hand, it does make some sense. This was possibly the most pointless of all of the movies, considering it wasn’t necessarily needed in the long run of things. However, it was technically well made and well acted. An enigma of sorts, this film is like you’re weird Uncle Charlie or a cousin you don’t like talking about.

This film is the best in the series. It has 3 good plots melding together. Kirks relationship with Spock, along with Kirks hatred for the Klingons, andmystery of what will happen to on that planet. Christopher Loyd plays thebest Klingon in any movie, and Shatner has the TJ Hooker look. Who can askfor more! One can see why Kirk became a Maverick from this film! 7 or 8out of 10.

Star Trek III starts where part II left off! The cast is great as always butChristopher Lloyd is awesome as the villain!Lloyd is one of my favoriteactors and he play his part just wonderful!The Music by James Horner is nearly identical to the Star Trek II: Wrath ofKhan prequel which the music is is some of the best ever composed in myopinion!Star Trek III - The Search for Spock is a great addition to the StarTrek feature film series!

The third installment of the Star Trek series, is in my opinion one of theweaker ones. The story drags on a bit, the supporting cast is not good andthere is little excitement. The fact that there seems to be no real search,but more or less a moral duty to return to the place Spock was left getshighlighted, but it is not quite enough to carry the movie. Add to that abad (as in worse than usual) bad guy and a dramatic twist in Kirk’s lifethat gets too little attention and is a mere sideshow to a pretty dull storyand you’ve got the second worst Star Trek installment in my mind. All due tothe lack of excitement, a good supporting cast and a well crafted(supposedly) emotional script

5 out of 10

The film talks upon the veteran crew of the Enterprise NC1701 governedby James T.Kirk(Shatner)arrives to spacial station for repairing ofstarship but they must quickly set out to search Spock(Leonard Nimoy)who’s found on planet Genesis.They’ll face off nefarious enemies andbattle against the Klingon(commanded by Cristhopher Lloyd). Star TrekThe picture is principally the following up of ¨Wrath of Khan¨ thatfinished with death of Khan(Ricardo Montalban) and Spock sacrificinghis life to save his friends.

The storyline is concentrated on personages as well as thrill packedaction and special effects although there’re numerous of that too.Themovie has tension, comedy,emotion,suspense and sensational spacialscenarios as is customary development of the franchise ,besides withimpressive aircrafts made by miniature and non ordering.Usual actorssaga making brief appearance as Uhura(Michelle Nichols),JamesDoohan(Scotty)Zulu(George Takei),Chejov(Walter Koenig) and trademarkeffects that abound in film will please the fans and even nonenthusiastic will most likely find it agreeable.The motion picture hasa climatic and spectacular ending.James Horner music(substituting toJerry Goldsmith)is exceptional and atmospheric.Release is well directedby Leonard Nimoy who’s secondary in this film for the direction .Theflick will like to long time series buffs such as the neophite.

Admiral Kirk’s defeat of Kahn and the creation of the Genesis planetare empty voices.

Spock is dead and McCoy is inexplicably being driven insane.

Then a surprise visit from Sarek, Spock’s father, provides a startlingrevelation: McCoy is harboring Spock’s living essence.

With one friend alive one not, but both in pain, Kirk attempts to helphis friends by stealing the USS Enterprise and defying Starfleet’sGenesis planet quarantine.

But the Klingons, led by fearsome Battle Commander Kruge, have alsolearned of Genesis and race to meet Kirk in a deadly rendezvous….

After the death of Spock (Leonard Nimoy) with his corpse sent to theplanet Genesis where his coffin is to remain. Kirk (William Shatner)feels depressed about his long time friend dead and the crew hasrepaired the Enterprise since their battle with Khan. McCoy (DeforrestKelly) has been acting weird lately as he channels Spock by voice andbehavior. Spock's father Sarek (Mark Lenard) pays a visit for he knowsMcCoy has Spock's soul within him as they learn that he's alive onGenesis. Kirk with the rest of the crew (George Takei, Walter Koenig,James Doohan, Nichelle Nichols) go in search for their faithful oncedead member. The Klingons with a leader named Kruge (Christopher Lloyd)wants to learn the secrets of Genesis to use it as a weapon.

Co-starring Meritt Butrick and Robin Curtis, this is a nice installmentof a loose three part trilogy that started with "Wrath of Khan" thenended with "The Voyage Home" is quite a good one. In fact Leonard Nimoydirects this installment, even though it's not as brilliant as "Wrathof Khan" but it's a very exciting and enjoyable installment of the STfranchise with good acting and nice special effects. The Storyline iscomplicated but nice, it does return every fanboy's favorite sidekickSpock after his demise in the last movie.

Worth a look!

read comments (0)

Starman

I don’t know why I bought Starman. Then I watched it and confirmed what myfuzzy memory was telling me. This is a sci-fi movie with heart. Now saying asci-fi movie has heart is like saying that John Carpenter still makes goodmovies. Bear with me though, because Starman is a emotional story. JeffBridges’ performance, however minimalist, works well with his character. Hischaracter manages to blank out Karen Allen’s performance where, try as shemight, doesn’t do a good job. Ms. Allen just isn’t a very good actress.Don’t fault her though, she has a nice smile. The movie lags in some scenesbut overall provides some good entertainment. There is no action orincredible special effects but this still decent sci-fi. Bottom Line: Thisis another good movie by John Carpenter. Stock up on his early hits becausehe just ain’t makin’ no more.

From director John Carpenter (Halloween, The Thing) comes thisinteresting science-fiction romance with some good morals and moments.Basically an alien crash lands in the United States (after hearinginvitations from Earth, and with this learning English), and it ends upat the Wisconsin house of young widow Jenny Hayden (Raiders of the LostArk's Karen Allen). It is through photographs that the alien takes theappearance of Jenny's late husband, Scott, and he is now known asStarman (both played by Oscar and Golden Globe nominated Jeff Bridges).Starman is now asking Jenny to take him to the site of a meteor strikebefore the time is up, and he will die. It is ultimately a twistedromantic road movie. Oh, and along the way, he uses his many magicalalien balls to solve problems for himself, Jenny and a few others, e.g.a dead deer, and they are being pursued by the army and science expertMark Shermin (The Untouchables' Charles Martin Smith). It was nominatedthe Golden Globe for Best Original Score for Jack Nitzsche. Good!

I love this movie.It's simple and refreshing . This movie is 24 yearsold.Yet .. after E.T it's was probably the second movie with a goodAlien into it.The Alien which seem to be a bubble of light , clonehimself has a human and collect more information about us .

The Old cliché of Aliens being thousand and thousand of years ahead ofus in Technology is quite normal.If an alien land of earth.You bet theywill be , right here a lot more advanced than us .Us that can't evenwalk on Mars and drool over plastic boobies.We're still insect ingalactic time.

This ALien is Pure and innocent.Just like a Newborn . Trying tounderstand the human species of why we war of why we hate and of why welove.The aliens choose a deceased husband to clone.Which is my opinionswas all calculated.To gather information they choose her.So begin hisadventure has a human.It's very predictable . But i don't think theywould land one of them on earth without super cautions.Which make me toassume it's was all calculated and therefore . The aliens from thebeginning to the end was safe.Collected data and discovered love.Maybesomething that in 100,000 years won't exist anymore for us either.

Man of Power and military force.Wanting to get what they want by force.I loved the final part when the spaceship arrive.Than i though thatwe're so frigging pathetic.The human race is so frightened to not BOSSaround .Now the few military force there were probably feeling like me.We're just Lions trying to devour a human with a tank.I'm not even sureif it's even the case.Maybe Ants would be more appropriate for thehuman in this movie.It's also shoved us how sometime we can be helpfuland other time Neanderthal and stupid.

But i think it's normal . Deep inside we wish all that we're not aloneand that we're not the greatest species.

THis movie was good . Because a) the aliens was not a Neanderthal beingwith the IQ of a primates driving super spaceship.Or a Ugly 4 ft tallaliens with a a long neck that love beer.

There's an awful lot to like about 'Starman'-Jeff Bridges' AA-nominatedlead, Karen Allen at her best post-Raiders/pseudo Margo Kidder best,nice support from Jaeckel and Charles Martin Smith. Good theme musicand a solid feel for the genre as well from, of all people, JohnCarpenter, lifts this up from the 'okay sci-faire' and into the'shouldn't be forgotten' near-hit it actually was.

There's certainly some dated stuff-the Norad-ish computergraphics(kinda Pong-level…), the old 70's fighter jets, thesynth-like theme music-this is def. pre-X Files terrain we're visitinghere. I always liked that '77 Mustang myself, used to see those arounda lot.

Some of the religious symbolism gets heavy sure-healing the deer,heading back Skywards after 3 days, etc.-but most of it's handled well.I also enjoyed the fact he gave her a kid too. Very interestingconceit-she gets to reunite w/ her late husband via an alienencounter….odd, but it works.

Check this out if you haven't seen it in some years, it does hold up,and for being nothing more than a classed up 'Escape to Witch Mtn'thing, it's quite good.

*** outta ****

Warning! Warning, Will Robinson! Chick flick approaching!

This is 100% Grade AAA chick flick. The kind of guff that gals go gagaover, but makes guys feel gaggy.

My feeling when the end credits finally rolled by was, "Yeah…right…" Although i do say that Bridges did a competent job of playinga rather naive and fluffy-minded alien. Although i'm not really surethat would be considered a compliment.

Something to consider: what if the alien wasn't a guy? The alien foundsuch-and-such DNA in hair strands and then reconstructed the male humanbody from it. But that doesn't mean the alien who temporarily inhabitedthat body was male. What one sees isn't necessarily what one actuallygets.

The movie had some good bits in it but its message sort of seemed to bethat what a human woman really needs is an alien she in a male humanbody. Which is fine. If that's what you want, go for it. As long asthere isn't any physical or mental abuse going on, it really isn't myplace to tell consenting sentient beings what kind of relationshipsthey can or can't be in.

Overall, i found this to be a little too sappy for me. Which i supposeis due to the fact that i'm not a woman and don't feel womanlyemotions. And this is just chock full of womanly emotions.

It's definitely not my intention to ever watch this again.

"Starman" is a film that is almost good, but never does quite hit the mark.Jeff Bridges (Oscar-nominated) stars as an alien who has taken the form of awidow’s (Karen Allen) late husband. He is an observer trying to save hisrace, but there is a chance that he may not be able to return to his home.Bridges’ Oscar nomination is strange. His performance is generic. He walksaround in a daze for 115 minutes and never did generate any interest withinme. Allen once again shows that she is no actress as she is even moredisappointing than Bridges. Charles Martin Smith is best, but hisscreen-time is not near enough. The screenplay is fair and John Carpenter’sdirection is interesting, but under-achieving. Overall, "Starman" is fair,but far from being anything special. A rather ho-hum movie. 2.5 out of 5stars.

I loved this movie and rank it as perhaps my favorite Jeff Bridges role.Inthis movie, he portrays an alien who arrives on Earth and assumes thecorporal form of a widow’s late husband. He then makes her take across-country drive with him to Arizona to meet his ship. Along the way,they teach plenty to each other, as the alien encounters something totallyalien to him-love. She finds herself loving him as well, as she learns tolove again. Bridges’s character learns all about Earth customs during thecourse of this lovely film. I loved it.

*** out of ****

…who can forget…

Starman is driving Jenny’s car; she is dozing…, He comes to anintersection with a stoplight…

…as he gets close to the light, he…

…all of a sudden Floors the accelerator!!!!! She wakes up andyells…. "What are you doing??!!", …"haven’t you been watching medrive??!!" …He says he has been observing VERY closely…

…and…

RED means Stop; Green means Go; and Yellow means GO VERY VERY FAST!":-)

This movie is a lovely way to revisit ancient folklore. Interestingly, thesci-fi setting actually serves to emphasize the folkloric nature of thestory. Both lead performances are excellent, and the effects hold upamazingly well even considering how many advances have been made incomputerized effects since 1984.

I saw this in the theater during it’s initial release not because itwas directed by John Carpenter, although I had seen and liked five ofhis 15 previous films, but because I liked Jeff Bridges and Karen Allenand felt they would be good together. And they were. My majorimplausibility flaw with this film is that the Bridges character, as analien, obviously shows his incredible ability to metamorphose,assimilate and evolve as a human except in speech where he can’t seemto get past his initial robot-like delivery. He detracts from anotherwise fine performance by Bridges. It incorporates a good storyidea under good direction and excellent acting with nice cinematographyand a good soundtrack. Some really funny moments and some really tenderones as well. I liked this movie a lot although it could have been evenbetter. Although a little clichéd and predictable at times I wouldstill give this a 8.0 of a possible 10 and recommend it.

read comments (0)

Romancing the Stone

This film delivers drama, action, romance, humor, and suspension. It haseverything you could want in a fantasy movie. Kathleen Turner and MichaelDouglas make a great duo. I would recommend this if you enjoyed "ThePrincess Bride".

8/10

Here’s a movie that knows what it’s about. I give bonus points to Zemeckisfor shaking the spoof stick at the works of pop culture with focus. Thisisn’t the quality of ‘Back to the Future’ or ‘Death Becomes Her’, but it’smore creative than his works since ‘Forrest Gump’.

The story is fairly unique, similar to that year’s ‘Beverly Hills Cop’ foranother fish-out-of-water movie, but it’s been flipped for a partner/romancearchetype. It’s not the most innovative idea, but Zemeckis knows how tomake the film work in the details.

Yes, this is his version of ‘Raiders’ and he parodies everything we tookserious about Spielberg and makes us laugh for it. Unlike Mel Brooks, hedoesn’t create humor by belittling the audience. Instead, he belittles thefilm itself so we laugh at it by accepting the spoof asserious.

As such, Zemeckis puts Michael Douglas in the lead. Danny DeVito does aMichael Keaton impression.

This was when Zemeckis had to be a detail-pessimist and when he had loads ofenergy.

Final Analysis = = Midrange Material

There are three similar movies of the era, and this one ischronologically the middle one. First one is "Raiders of the Lost Arc",last one is "The King Solomon’s" Mines.

While "Raiders…" remains legendary and "…Mines" is utterly stupidthis one is just dull and mediocre.

I remember loving it as a kid, but recent viewing was even embarrassingexperience. The plot is stupid to begin with, the villains areunconvincing even for a comedy (plus one of them is the guy I hate inevery movie - De Vito), and two main characters are not too interesting(although one can’t deny some chemistry between them).

However, there are some successful jokes there, and Kathleen Turner isalways sexy, but if I want to watch her again I’ll watch "Prizzi’sHonor" instead.

In the 1980s there were a number of movies made with a similar idea tothis. Deconstructionist adventure stories. How this movie wassuccessful, nobody has ever managed to work out, it is a great mystery.

It was a simple idea. Take a romance novel writer who has never beenout of the big city, put her in the jungles of South America. Team herup with an anti-hero and then have them chased by some bad guys.

B-movie stuff is a bad movie all the way through yet manages toentertain. Think about it when you laugh at the joke about "you mustmean my little mule" and actually want these 2 characters to fall inlove and get together.

Maybe it works because you have the 2 opposite characters who areobviously incomplete and who need each other to grow and become better.Then there is the fact they both work on finding out the good in eachother (not endlessly bickering like some other movies). Maybe it isbecause the action is fun rather than over the top and so we canbelieve that we might be part of it.

Enjoy, but don’t tell your friends you do….it will be our littlesecret…OK

Romancing the Stone is a classic film that has a great cast includingMichael Douglas, Kathleen Turner, Danny DeVito, Zack Norman, AlfonsoArau, Manuel Ojeda, Holland Taylor, Mary Ellen Trainor, KymberlyHerrin, and Ron Silver! The acting by all of these actors is very good.Douglas is really excellent and hilarious in this film. I thought thathis performance was great. Turner, Devito, and Norman were also verygood. The action and thrills is really good and some of it issurprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is great by AlanSilvestri. Great direction by Robert Zemeckis! The film is reallymagical and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is aclassic and thrilling film. If you like Michael Douglas, KathleenTurner, Danny DeVito, Zack Norman, Alfonso Arau, Manuel Ojeda, MaryEllen Trainor, Kymberly Herrin, Ron Silver, the rest of the cast in thefilm, Alan Silvestri’s great score and Robert Zemeckis great directing,Action, Adventure, Family, Thrillers, Comedy, Romance, Dramas, andinteresting films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today!

I loved this movie. Not for the plot — hokey. Not for the action — notIndiana Jones level. Not for Danny DeVito — almost midget humor. Ilovedthis movie for Kathleen Turner. She’s perfect because she’s no bombshell.She does not have good hair or a gorgeous face. Nor is she well endowed,but, oh man, if you put her in the right "dress" she’ll knock your socksoff. Let’s just say that she looks good in mud. Kathleen Turner is thebest example of someone who is sexy without being drop dead gorgeous.Romancing the Stone captures all of her sexy je ne sais quoi better thananymovie — even Body Heat.

Having never seen this film or its sequel, I decided to take a couple ofevenings to sit down and watch the movies I’ve heard so many great thingsabout. As I finished, I wondered why I had heard so many greatthings…

Romancing the Stone had a clever enough story, some noteworthy acting(particularly by Kathleen Turner) and some fun action scenes, but it left meseriously unsatisfied. Maybe I’ve come to expect more from movies,especially since there are so many well made movies lately, but I reallydidn’t care much for Michael Douglas or even Danny DeVito in RtS. It makesme wonder if Douglas hadn’t been behind the scenes producing the film if hewould have starred in it at all. Turner’s character had some interestingpotential for development, but it seemed reduced to a change in costume tochange her character, leaving it seemingly inconsistent and a bitunbelievable.

All in all, take some disjointed scenes, a poorly written and/or poorlyhandled script, some inconsistent characters and horrendous 80s elevatormusic where there should be epic, memorable themes, throw in a couple ofredeeming points and some good acting moments and you get Romancing theStone. I didn’t hate it, but by NO means did I love it.

6/10.

Any movie with Divito in it has to be a comedy, right? Well, this moviewas no exception. Part suspense-thriller, part action-adventure, partromantic-comedy, this movie attempted to include many genres withoutexcelling at any. The most ineffective part was the romance betweenKathleen and Mike. I didn't buy it for a minute because Mr. Douglas wasportrayed from the getgo as an unlikeable person without dating ormatrimony appeal. So, the romance that blossomed between the two wasunbelievable. Even in "Fatal Attraction", which was a much bettermovie, Mike was not likable, but in that movie, it didn't matterbecause it wasn't a romance.

Harrison Ford would have been more suited for this movie because he'semotionally well rounded. He can go from rough and tough to soft andsensitive all in one movie. That's what this movie needed in order tomake the "romance" part of the title credible.

The ending scenes, with the predictable reunion of the two loverssailing down 5th Avenue, were silly and anti-climatic given such anunlikely couple.

Looking back at the early 1980's, it seemed almost like a mini-goldenage for movies. Romancing the Stone was one of those gems to come outof that period. As an action/comedy/romance, it struck gold in a markethungry at the time for Indiana Jones type adventures, and succeeded bydelivering non-stop, fourteen carat entertainment from start to finish.

OK, enough with the "precious stone" analogies Seriously, more thananything, this movie is just plain FUN. Kathleen Turner is Joan Wilder,a New York romance novelist and "indoor girl" who writes aboutadventures she can only dream of hav
ing. But then, when her sistersuddenly winds up in some big trouble down in Columbia, SA and needs tobe rescued, she is reluctantly thrust headlong into her own adventuretale. Naturally, the adventure involves a hidden treasure and a loveinterest along the way, as well as some people that are about as evilas they got back in 1980's Hollywood.

So right off the bat, there is action, mystery and suspense. First Joanfinds herself in the possession of a strange package, the contents ofwhich will be the source of all her troubles down the road. Then hersister calls frantically from a distant phone in far off Columbia,demanding that Joan deliver that package to her or she may lose herlife. Finally, a mysterious man shows up at Joan's apartment door andshoots a witness in cold blood. All of this takes place in New York,and it's only the beginning. Soon enough, the action shifts toColumbia.

Once in South America, Joan's adventure really takes off, and so didmine. In fact, I fell in love with this movie while watching the busshe had mistakenly gotten on climb a lush, tropical mountain road themorning after her arrival. You could feel the tension now, and also asense of foreboding. Joan is now terrifyingly alone in an unfriendly,exotic land, and already she is being pursued by dark forces. Not onlythat, she is on the wrong bus, headed for nowhere! So clearly she is inneed of a hero, when all of a sudden, in one of Hollywood's mostmemorable entrances, Jack T. Colson (Michael Douglas) arrives to helpour damsel in distress. Well, perhaps somewhat reluctantly at first,though…

Anyway, I can't give it all away. But suffice it to say the two proceedto team up and then fall in love while evading their pursuers at everyturn. The action, meanwhile, is often funny. It is also oftenbeautifully photographed against a backdrop of South American uplands.And it is often poignant. You see, Jack is kind of a macho guy and iscompletely at home in the bush, but otherwise he's a nobody. While Joanis…..well, pretty green as a bushwacker, but a really big deal as aromance novelist, especially in South America. So all of this makes forsome incredibly funny moments as well as fodder for an unlikelyromance. And little Danny Devito, who lurks in the wings when he's notfalling off of counter tops, is everyone's favorite "bad guy",especially when stacked up against the sadistic Zolo. Backed by aningenious score (that used electronic drums for the first time in moviehistory), the magical scenery, and the sometimes funny, sometimesharrowing action, the viewer is kept entranced for the next hour or soof screen time. Meanwhile, Jack fumes, then gets upstaged, thenultimately falls in love under a canopy of fireworks. Oh yeah, and whatabout that treasure hunt that has everyone, good and evil, scramblingup and down mountainsides? What good is a romance without a prize tocement it with, or a prize to finance a honeymoon with? Jack's lonelyman's dreams are about to be fulfilled…..

But wait, there is more. Before the honeymoon can begin, the evil onesstrike back, and a tense, grizzly climax ensues. I was a bit put off bythe ending here, though. Apparently, some felt the need to have themost evil character severely punished at the end. Maybe he deserved it,but the whole tone of the movie changed for me at this point and I wasuncomfortable with that. In a way, it was almost as if the filmattempted to achieve not only comedic plateaus, but action/violenceplateaus as well. But the result for me was a bit unsatisfying and sortof like attempting to cram intense sweetness, sourness and bitternessall into one flavor. Such contrasts will inevitably repel to someextent, and on the balance, which one remains for you to savor?

But that was a relatively minor issue for me when compared to thehugely positive affect the movie had on me overall. I think what I willsavor the most from this movie was the scenery, the "opposites attract"romance, and one particularly memorable scene in a mountain villagethat was quite possibly the funniest to ever appear in a film of thisgenre:

"Joan Wilder?…..THE Joan Wilder??"

So go see "Romancing the Stone", if only for those reasons. You willnot be disappointed.

Romancing The Stone is a funny, sexy, and Adventurous film. Although itdidget kind of slow in the middle all and all I give it a 6/10. Worthseeing.

read comments (0)

Repo Man

The release date says "1984" but it might as well say some year in the1970s because it had that sleazy look and hate-filled, anti-religiousbias that was so prevalent in films in that decade. It usually didn'ttake these filmmakers long to get their religious cheap shots in, andthat's the case here, too.

Within 15 minutes, the was the usual dig against TV evangelists (giveit a rest!) and the people who listen to them, three usages of theLord's name in vain and a ton of other profanities. it had that scummy'70s atmosphere right from the start. The lead character, "OttoMaddox," (Emilo Estavez) is a real punk, too.

This is another good example of Hollywood's hypocrisy of being"tolerant" to every group but Christians.

Even if the bias doesn't bother you, the absence of a plot and thestupid dialog should. This is nothing but garbage. Punk-rockers, andjust plain punks, love this film, and that should tell you something.

I don’t feel I have to qualify my statements to anyone regarding thedisgustingly bad "Repo Man" but I will for the sake of this movie so as Iwon’t be called an elitist movie-swing. I love cult. I love cult-movies. Ilove all kinds of cult-movies. I like everything from Monty Python,Highlander, Rocky Horror Picture Show, Night of the Living Dead, Evil Dead,Dead Alive, John Water’s Hairspray, and even Ed Wood movies. Niche moviesthat are so bad they’re good, or that are shunned by popular audiencesbecause they were ahead of their times, that only a few caught on.

Repo Man tries too damn hard. It tries to be witty with bizarre dialoguelaced with profanity, like some quasi-proto-Tarantinoesque influence gurglesin this movie, but it’s neither raw nor edgy, it just falls flat like bricksplopping out of the characters’ mouths.

Some scenes are painful to watch as characters stand around like they’rewaiting for their lines to be fed to them. Comedic action builds up like asteam-cooker set to ultra-low, and instead of a bang, it’s more like aqueef.

The landscape of Eighties era Los Angeles, and its urban decay is aninteresting backdrop to this cadre of Repo Men who live day-by-day likeJapanese Ronin, with nothing but their wits and their "Code of Honor" butinstead of building on this, it just comes off as - WhoCares?

When I questioned the reason behind the Generic labeling of everything fromFood to Beer- I thought it was perhaps the director attempting to get somesubtext regarding the extremes of America’s Free Capitalism and itsantithesis, Communism, but after seeing the trivia on the movie here onIMDB, it’s merely the fact that the director and producers couldn’t getmoney for product placement.

Okay, perhaps some might say that I was looking for too much meaning wherethere was none, but then the same could be said that there were nocharacters, no story, no compelling reason that this movie should be ratedso highly. It’s just there are so many other better films, with betteracting, quirkier characters, and funny dialogue that totally bury thisfilm.

The only reason I can surmise that this movie is so popular, is because itwould be an ideal movie to watch when totally inebriated or stoned. But I’drather watch 2001: A Space Odyssey than Repo Man, if I was stoned….but heyone man’s stoner movie is another’s trash-bin testament to badcinema.

It is obvious that this movie was written not by professionals, but byactual repo men. The so called "plot" hops around from aliens to drugs, andnever makes sense. The guys who wrote the movie apparently couldn’t make adecision on the conflict, so they just tossed in everything they could thinkof.

After reading on the IMDb about how awesome this movie is, I decided torent it and watch it with a friend, expecting something amazing. Sadly,we did not get much out it, even though we tried hard to enjoy it.

It has a lot of nice touches–hilarious performances by Emilio Estevezand Harry Dean Stanton, funny sight gags, a great soundtrack, etc.–andthe plot itself is pretty funny (it starts out like a mockumentary, butsoon turns into general weirdness). But overall, I just couldn’t likeit.

First of all, the supposedly great dialogue just didn’t seem veryfunny. "A repo man spends his life getting into tense situations.""Let’s go do some crimes." "Did you ever feel as if your mind hadstarted to erode?" The writing is clever, but it’s not reallylaugh-out-loud FUNNY. You have to think hard about every line beforeyou get it. Not that this is a bad thing, but it gets kind ofexhausting after awhile.

The main problem, though, is that the movie feels painfully dated. Ican see how young Gen-Xers must have thought this was coolest movieever, but I think the humor just doesn’t apply today. The Reaganadministration is long gone, televangelism is dead, Zen has gotten old,and basically everything else the movie flips off has changed ordisappeared. It is a great satire of the decade, but you have tounderstand every facet of the 80’s to get it. "Dr. Strangelove," whichthis has been compared to, was a good satire of another decade thatstill remains understandable and relevant. "Repo Man," however, isseverely lacking in timelessness… a key ingredient for a movie likethis.

6/10 stars.

This movie is at the top of my list of all-time worst movies I've everseen. It's been a while since I've seen it but nothing else has comealong that stinks as much as this. I guess it probably wouldn't be thatbad if it at least had a decent plot, but c'mon… the FBI hiring repomen to look for a car with dead aliens in the trunk? This is ridiculousbecause the FBI would have law enforcement looking for the vehicle, notrepo men. The plot is extremely weak, the acting sucked, and the endingwas the absolute worst. OK so they find the car, and then they startflying around in it? It's very anti-climactic. They could have at leastgotten picked up by a spaceship or something, or at least had someexplanation as to why/how the alien bodies are so powerful, but no…just open the trunk and get zapped, unless you're the repo man hero,then you get to fly around in the car. Just stinking awful, and Emilioshould be ashamed at this ultra-low budget turkey he obviously was justtrying to do something to pay the bills with.

I cannot fathom for a second why anyone would like this film, muchalone call it one of the greatest ever. This movie was pure low budgetgarbage, and here's why.

Estevez's character was so unlikable. Harry Dean Stanton's characterraved on and on about nothing important. There was no point to thestory. The acting throughout was lousy. It was like they filmedeverything in one take. There was nobody else on the streets during thescenes, could they even afford extras? Cheap effects. Bad camera anglesfrom the one camera they used through the film. Poor editing.Characters lacked common sense. They lacked brains. Their lines wereterrible. Does pure gibberish appeal to everyone who liked this movie?There was absolutely no redeeming qualities to any of the characters. Ikept waiting for this film to be over.

I almost stopped it midway through and quit like I did with MAXIMUMOVERDRIVE, another of Emelio's worst. Hanging around a bunch of repomen sure looks depressing. What a crappy job to have.

There are a lot better 80's classics out there, I'd skip this one. Howthe hell can anyone even want to see this more than once? That's whatboggles me about many of these reviews.

Another commenter said you either get this film or you don't. I don'tget it. 1 star out of 10.

It apparently had bad reviews, I'm not surprised, I couldn't understandthe significance of it, why the critics give it four stars (out offive), and I dozed off so
mewhere in the middle. The story as far as Igot is that punk Otto (The Breakfast Club's Emilio Estevez) quits hisjob, and starts working with Bud (Harry Dean Stanton) as a Repo Man(repossession for cars that have not been paid for). That's about it. Iknew there was some sci-fi element because of the alien car orwhatever, and at the end Otto gets in it and flies round the city, butthis still wasn't enough to impress me. To be honest, as far as I saw,I'm not really bothered that I fell asleep during it, and I have noplans to watch/try it again for any reason. Pretty poor!

I fail to see the appeal of REPO MAN . I concede that it contains agood opening hook where a policeman stops a car , opens the trunk andgets a nasty surprise . But after that the movie , like , thecharacters , just drives around aimlessly . It resembles a lot ofmovies of the period in that the musical soundtrack is more importantthan the thin narrative , but what makes it even worse is the painfullyepisodic quality of the storytelling . Just look at the number ofscenes that feel they've been edited in the wrong order . I know thatthe sub genre known as " road movies " aren't famous for their tightlyplotted structure . On top of that can anyone really explain the plot ?There's a difference between a cerebal film where the audience have tojoin up the dots but that's entirely different from one where the plotis absent . Director/screenwriter Alex Cox did later redeem himselfwith the biopic SID AND NANCY but seemed to disappear from the radarafterwards . The reason he's best remembered as being the presenter ofthe BBC's MOVIEDROME is that his films fail to appeal to a mainstreamaudience and REPO MAN greatly reflects this

A Repo Man is a person that repossesses things if they haven’t beenpaid for.

After being dumped by his girlfriend, and losing his job, Otto gets avisit from a man in a car, who offers him $10 to drive a car to hislot. The man tells him that he has to drive his Grandma to theHospital, but can’t leave his car in the area, or else it will getstolen. Otto takes this task, and completes it. The man reveals thathis name is Bud, and that Otto was actually helping Bud repossess acar.

Since he has no job, Otto agrees to work for the group of repo men,hence the title. Soon, he’s taking cars from all over the place andmeets Leila. Eventually, a strange twist happens that has something todo with a bomb and a Chevy Malibu.

However, the story seems to fall in the middle and end. The middle isjust numerous chase scenes that happen over and over again, and itmanages to move rather slowly. The ending takes a good twist, but makesno sense at all, while every character somehow manages to get a hold ofa gun.

The films other flaw seems to be that Otto is nearly un-likable, andshows no signs of character development.

I suppose the appeal of the film is in the dialogue and/or imagination.

The director and writer Alex Cox created the dialogue himself. I didn’treally get it, but I did enjoy the speech about humans coming from thefuture. Truly imaginative.

I guess I will never "get" cult films, but they do have theiraudiences. For example, my dad is in love with this movie, my mom with"Big Trouble in Little China" and my sister with "Napoleon Dynamite"and "Nightmare before Christmas."

Good: Dialogue, imagination and possibly…humor

Bad: Long, repetitive and makes no sense

Feel free to send me a Private Message regarding this comment.

REPO MAN is a fun sci-fi flick about an L.A. punk (Emilio Estevez) who getspulled into the world of car reposession, with the main target being astrange ‘64 Chevy Malibu with aliens in the trunk. For a movie with cheaplooking effects, this one stands out as an entertaining portrayal of anurban punk trying to be himself and not trying to fit in with the otherpunks, though some of the other actors barely make an impression and someperformances are a little below par, but that’s beside the fact that this isa movie worth watching.

3 out of 5

read comments (0)