Three Fugitives

This is a light 80’s style comedy with heavy doses of schmaltz. The plotrevolves around Lucas (Nick Nolte) who’s been released from jail after 5years for armed bank robbery. On his first day of release, he gets takenhostage by Perry (Martin Short), who tries to rob a bank in order tocontinue to care for his ailing daughter Meg. We’ve seen it many timesbefore, Perry is completely inept, knowing only that he has to care for hisdaughter, Lucas is the tough ex-con with the heart of gold, oh you canalmost picture the buddy-buddy hilarity to come.

Unfortunately, this movie completely under-utilises one of the greatAmerican comedic actors in Martin Short. These scenes that revolve aroundhim just drag, and you end up longing for Nolte returning to the screen.The most poignant scenes revolve around the relationship formed betweenLucas and Meg. Both of these two are fantastic in these scenes, and it’sthat which keeps you drawn to the film longing to see how it playsout.

The Three Fugitives is a fun little movie that won’t bore you, is worthwatching if you see it on TV. I wouldn’t bother going out of you way toview it though.

All in all 6 out of 10

Lucas (Nolte) is released from prison and makes his way to a bank to deposita cheque. Once inside he finds himself drawn into an armed robbery by Perry(Short) who needs money to care for his daughter. Naturally the policedoubt that Lucas is an innocent bystander and pursue both men for thecrime.

This is a reasonable comedy, and that’s about the nicest you can say. Itveers from moments of laugh-out-loud hilarity to moments that are overlysentimental and sugary that make you want to cringe. The plot is quiteinteresting although you know roughly what’s going to happen with themix-matched trio - the instant Short tells Nolte that his daughter hasn’tspoken for 2 years you know what’s going to regarding that. The detail ofthe story is less predictable and often brings funny moments but you neverfor one minute think to yourself "wow - how’s this great story going toend?" You never think that this is going to end in a huge shoot out inwhich everyone dies - you know it’s going to be happy.

Nolte is good, playing his tough guy role well and his warming towards thedaughter is quite believable. Short is a manic clown and it’s a role isgood at as he does it so often. Doroff (Meg) is quite good for a child andshe is made to look bad by all her scenes being horribly sentimental andsweet or, when she isn’t speaking and just stares, she is looks like thechildren of the corn. Smaller roles held by people like James Earl Jones,Alan Ruck and Bruce McGill are all good, and add interest by seeing wellknown faces.

Overall the film has some very funny situations but they are vastlyoutnumbered by scenes of such saccharine that it’s far too sickly sweet forit’s own good.

nice date movie, romantic and a bit of action. Nolte is a confidentalter-protagonist but if you are having a really good time you wontmiss anything if your attention wanders elsewhere. Short should havebeen given more comedy bits but the movie moves along nicely - greatcharacter actors. Nolte plays the 'good buy' against all of his ex-coninstincts. The scene stealer is the little girl - a daughter of MartinShort.

The most fun is watching to see how the bumbler Short and the hardenedex-con, Nolte get into problems and then have to get out of theirproblems - usually with the police and usually with the possibility ofmany years in jail if they fail to 'get away.'

Enjoyable, light film about an ex-con who is taken hostage in a botchedbank robbery the day he gets out of jail. Francis Veber's film is yetanother remake of a successful French hit, and one that works quitewell.

The plot doesn't amount to much but fortunately the comedy does. MartinShort is once again very funny and teams well with the gruff NickNolte. Together they wreak havoc, and a fair amount of hilarity, asthey flee from the police with Short's adorable young daughter.

"Three Fugitives" is a comedy that will surely make you laugh, andpossibly smile too. Good fun.

Saturday, May 1, 1993 - Video

A bit funny, a bit emotional feel-good movie. A few scenes arehilarious. It's a remake of a French movie "Les Fugitifs". I've seenthe original years ago, as a kid. Watching the remake almost felt likewatching the same movie again. Which is not surprising considering thatboth of the films were directed by Francis Veber, the writer of themovies. The characters were chosen very appropriately. And congrats toboth Martin Short and Nick Nolte they both played they roles exactly asthey should. If you like this movie you might like others written byFrancis Veber. Several of his French movies were remade in UnitedStates. I think there is another movie where Pierre Richard wasreplaced by Martin Short.

One of the very best! This movie defines the word genius. It is a veryclever comedy. It has some many side splitting moments you'll have tobuy it!

It doesn't seem to work as a certificate 15 however, i think it wouldhave been a fantastic family film. Saying that, i watched it as a youngkid with my family, so it brings back the good old days. This is thetype of film where it is almost 'innocent' laughter, it doesn't rely onsexual jokes to make audience laugh, it doesn't really rely on anything, it's just naturally funny!! It's the type of film that your chirpyGrandad enjoys!

But it should bring out the kid in you !

LOVE IT!

10/10

…"Three Fugitives" is an action comedy about an ex-con (Nick Nolte) who -on his first day out of prison - is taken hostage by a neurotic father(Martin Short). The two are taken - along with Short’s daughter (SarahRowland Doroff) - on a long journey full of laughs andexcitement.

Nick Nolte is probably not the greatest actor for comedies, but he stilldelivers well. Short is obviously hilarious, as he is most of the time, andDoroff is as good as she could be. James Earl Jones and Alan Ruck also makefunny appearances.

The only really annoying part about "Three Fugitives" is the constant use ofeighties guitar music in the background. That is probably the worstsounding noise in history.

Funny family movie (despite a few cuss-words), 7/10.

This movie is just great, its really funny & original for its time.Martin Short & Nick Nolte really make this movie work, I would say thisis Martin Shorts best role in a movie where he’s actually reallyhilarious throughout the movie. The casting for this movie is also goodtoo, movie keeps traveling at a fairly consistent pace. In my ownopinion this is a great family comedy movie. Its extremely funny &touching all at the same time, I recommend this to all comedy movielovers, the bank scene is just simply hilarious. This is my favouriteNick Nolte movie, i haven’t seen too many of his movies but his actingwas great in this movie. I give this 8.5/10 for being a very underestimated movie.

This is not as bad or as unfunny a movie as some IMDb posters make out. Thecentral situation of Lucas (Nick Nolte), a tough, professionalheist-meister, being taken hostage by Perry (Martin Short), a bungling first-time bank robber, is pleasingly ridiculous. In particular, Perry’santics in the early bank robbery scenes are laugh-out-loud funny; as isLucas’s later violent entry into the bar where Perry is being held prisoner.The section towards the end, when Perry is disguised as a woman is alsoreasonably amusing. The scenes between Lucas and Perry’s daughter (SarahRowland Doroff), are quite touching, when they could easily have been beensickly sentimental. (It helps that the little girl is supposed to have apsychological problem, so she hardly speaks.)

On the d
ownside, there are undoubtedly soggy patches in the middle of thefilm, including the scene where James Earl Jones and Alan Ruck, as the twopolicemen leading the chase for Perry and Lucas, find it hilariously funnythat Lucas was treated for a gunshot wound by a crazy vet who thought he wasa dog. Another defect is the whiny music, which is repetitive andirritating.

All in all, this may not be a film to spend much money on, but is worthwatching if it turns up on TV.

If you’re that "god, I’m a serious movie rater and this better impressme" kind of movie watcher then go find another. But If you are in themood to laugh and think odd pairs are funny then go for it. It helps toknow the history of Martin Short’s style of comedy. Nick Nolte’s apretty big guy and Sarah Doroff is really little. So Nolte just gotouta prison and is supposed to be this big bad bank robber with areputation. Martin Short is this nervous jobless dad that robs a bankjust as Nick Nolte is there and takes Martin takes ‘Nick’ as a hostage.

Nick gets SHOT! Martin has a senile old friend that takes care ofRover(Nick). James Earl Jones does a belly-laugh. Sarah overcomes hertrama to change gender. Martin Changes Gender! There’s a Happy EndingSuch a sweet movie- after its over put A Nightmare on Elm Street in forthe contrast!

read comments (0)

Troop Beverly Hills

this movie is for anyone who can laugh at their own ridiculousness andstill look utterly fabulous doing it. Shelley long is uproarious andreminds us all of what we loved about the 80’s…EXCESS!! big hair, bigfashion, big money and big fun! i know i wish i had Mrs. Phylis Nefflerfor my mom. she has the ability to make you laugh till your gut hurtsand still let you know that she cares and would do anything foryou..even camp with dirt and bugs and rain. many people who have neverhad money cant appreciate a lot of the comedy because they have neverexperienced what its like to have nothing to do all day but shop. andsome may be offended because they believe that Beverly hills kidsreally do act as such, but living not too far from Beverly Hills makesit all the more hilarious. this movie is a classic and anyone who saysotherwise doesn’t have much of a sense of humor..probably a badchildhood or something…whatever…GO TROOP BEVERLY HILLS!

From the opening title sequence (complete with a special remix of TheBeach Boys "Kokomo"-era track, "Make it Big"), I knew this movie wassomething special. What most people fail to realize is that this moviemore than anything serves as a time capsule for the period. Mid-80'sBeverly Hills was a magical time and I still find myself looking backon this picture and wishing I was there.

Shelly Long stepped out of "Cheers" and into the shoes of PhyllisNefler, the doting, diva of shopping, big-haired, Beverly Hills motherof a wilderness girl. Phyllis is going through a divorce with herhusband, Fred "the muffler man" (played by Craig T. Nelson fresh off of"Poltergiest" and pre-"Coach"). To bond with her daughter (and to proveto her husband that she can finish what she starts), she becomes theBeverly Hills Troop leader.

This is where the fun starts. What I really love about this picture arethe cameos/special appearances including Cheech Marin, Frankie Avalon,and Anneate Funnicello.

Personal note; I first saw this on TV when I lived in Orange County, CAand it was edited. I videotaped it and I still have the tape of thatbroadcast. I've since seen the unedited theatrical/home video versionand I can't believe how much I've missed. I sometimes think the editedTV version that I have is somewhat a better motion than what itoriginally was. Oh well…

Still a good movie!

I got turned on to the movie "Troop Beverly Hills" back when mydaughter was in Girl Scouts. I was a girl scout as a child and at thattime, an adult volunteer so I could totally identify with some of thestuff I saw in it with the so-called "wilderness girls." I saw leadersjust like Velda Plendor…scaree. It would've been more fun withleaders like Phyllils Neffler, for sure! It's funny that only this yearI realized that the year that TBH came out was the same year I gotdivorced and was involved in Girl Scouts… so perhaps that's anotherreason I liked it and identify with it despite not being apre-adolescent. I look back and remember my own personal journeythrough growing through divorce, and can laugh at the the movie as Iwatch Phyllis make the transition from giving up a limited identity asa "Beverly Hills wife"…and growing into a more multi-facet person. Atany rate, I enjoyed TBH because of Phyllis's never ending enthusiasmand ability to take a lemon and make it into lemonade! Sure it'slighthearted fare geared toward pre-adolescents, but there's stillplenty of valuable lessons in it. Like how Phyllis Neffler comes upwith that impromptu birthday party for the cynical girl, and also paysthe dues for the daughter of the washed up teen idol…and how shegives all the girls a sense of better self esteem… and something likethat is always good to watch. So yeah, I'd recommend TBH to anyonebecause it's just all around family fun and a great 'girl bonding'movie, too.

Some actresses are truly under-rated and under-appreciated and ShelleyLong is one of them. She is truly a gifted comedic actress who can makeyou cry at one moment and make you laugh in the next. She didn't leaveCheers because she wanted a film career. She wanted to have a normalfamily life. Rather she was subjected to be treated like a leper on theset of Cheers. Anyway, I always hoped the best for Shelley. I stillthink she is one of the best talents out there today but in Hollywood,youth sells and women over 50 or 60 might as well be a hundred yearsold. Anyway the casting in this film is first rate with Shelley Longand Craig T. Nelson are the divorcing parents. Stephanie Beacham isalways a pleasure to watch as one of her friends. Betty Thomas isdelicious as the evil foe who tries to outsmart Beverly Hills Troop.Mary Gross is sweet as the unlikely ally in both parties. Audra Lindleyis always a treat as well.

Not a side-splitting hilarious romp, but Shelley Long gives it her all andis quite funny (besides being so CUTE!!) The story involves a self indulgedLong who becomes the leader of a dead end Girl Scouts for Beverly Hills.Will she turn this group of misfits around?? The tension doesn’t mount butthe laughs do-and of course, you can see the predictable ending coming amile away.

Family fare for an entertaining evening at home. The problem of divorceis posed in this film without detracting from the value of marriage.Shelley Long portrays a bored Beverly Hills wife whose husband isleaving her for another woman. Deciding to make something of her lifeshe volunteers to be the leader for her daughter’s "wilderness girls"troop (I guess they couldn’t get the rights to girl scouts). ShelleyLong is a hoot as she tries to make it through a camp-out withoutgetting her nails ruined. Both her and her troop of pampered BeverlyHills princesses learn valuable lessons in character, courage, andfriendship with a super happy ending (no spoiler). Greatmother-daughter movie.

A stereotypical portrayal of a Beverly Hills "Wilderness Girls" troup ofpre-adolescent girls and their flighty but maternal leader, PhyllisNeffler,played by Shelley Long. Phyllis is going through a "terribly messydivorce"to her husband Fred the Muffler Man and decides on a whim to take over herdaughter, Hannah’s troup. The group encounters many problems that spawnfrom the jealousy of Velda Plender, the organization’s leader who resentsthe rather "untraditional" ways of the Beverly Hills troup. All of thesehilarious incidents lead up to the Wilderness jambouree where… oh seeforyourself! Although not particularly deep, this movie is sentimental,hilarious, and adorable all rolled into one. The antics of the shelteredBeverly Hills troup are guaranteed to make you laugh. This movie isdefinitely a must see!

Cute enough and harmless enough to qualify as passable familyentertainment,this movie aims for the kiddie humor, and succeeds. Shelley Long is adelight, and Craig T. Nelson portrays, well, Craig T. Nelson. This isn’tgreat by any means, but high-spirited and upbeat.

Troop Beverly Hills is a funny movie for pre-teen girls. Goofy ShellyLong plays eccentric Beverly Hills mom, Phyllis Nefler, who decides toget involved with her daughter's life and prove that she can do thingsfor herself (sort of), so she becomes troop leader of her daughter'sWilderness Girl's squad.

This proves to be an embarrassing experience for the young girls,seeking some much needed leadership from their mother who can't seem togain independence from the luxuries of her Beverly Hills lifestyle.But, once the pack is forced to compete with an aggressive, survivalsquad of hard core rival troopers, Phyllis and her team, tired of beinga laughing stock (and also because Phyllis wants to gain her daughter'sconfidence and respect) are going to prove that they're not just abunch of wh
iny rich girls from Beverly Hills.

80s fans will probably recognize many of the young troopers (from JennyLewis to Kelli Martin to Tori Spelling), and I'm sure pre-teen girlsare sure to like the movie for it's silly story, young female cast, andthe goofy antics of Shelly Long. It's a hilarious little movie with agood message for kids about the importance of female independence(Phyllis doesn't want her husband to think she can't fend for herselfwithout a man's guidance) as well as individual confidence. It's bonafide family fun.

If only all girls scouts were as fun as Troop Beverly Hills! The filmabout a down and out divorced house wife with a passion for fashionbecoming a girl’s scout leader is both hilarious,exciting andthoroughly entertaining.Comedic actress Shelley Long shines as PhyllisNefler,the woman who dares to make alterations to her daughter’s scoutuniform,and modify the location of their bushland camping trips to theBeverly Hills Hotel! Phyllis rejects traditional scout activities suchas bush walking for manicures and pedicures,preferring her troops tolive in the lap of luxury.Needless to say,the girls adore her,theleaders of the other scout groups despise her,and this is all makes thedelightful,hilarious and wacky comedy that is Troop Beverly Hills!

read comments (0)

Turner & Hooch

If any animal actor deserves an oscar its hooch. The storyline of thisfilmis pretty insignificant when its watched because your distracted too muchbythe stupendous chemistry between Hanks and Hooch. The film’s worthwatchingjust to see how hilarious hooch is. However for anyone saying that theywould hove enjoyed a happier anding I think that you should appreciatethechange from the normal "happily ever after" plot and respect the factthatthe film did such a daring risk in doing so.On the whole, a film to be watched over and over, a well deserving8/10

I can honestly say, without shame, that Turner and Hooch is my favouritefilm of all time. While some may dismiss it as "that Tom Hanks film withtheugly dog", I find Turner and Hooch to be a funny, action-packed and, inplaces, heartwarming film that I must have watched at least 100 times, yetstill love to watch. Tom Hanks, as Scott Turner, is great, managing to beboth humourous and serious, often within the same scene. Hooch is a greatcharacter, and provides a great comic partnership with Hanks. While the"unruly dog solves a crime" scenario was a success elsewhere, most notablyin K9, this is a stunning film in it’s own right. A great film and astrong10/10 recommendation from me.

Scott Turner has 3 days left in the local police department before hemoves to a bigger city to get some "real" cases, not just misdemeanors.Then Amos Reed is murdered, and Scott Turner sets himself on the case.The closest thing to a witness in the case is Amos Reed’s dog, Hooch,which Scott Turner has to take care of if it’s going to avoid being"put to sleep".

Hilarious though it sounds it does have it’s moments for tears. Onewhen the dog dies and one for when the dog is taken away from it’s realowner. The ending is actually exciting. Made me laugh. It will make youlaugh too.

Warning: My comments tell the fate of one of the characters. Stop readingright now if you don’t want to know.

Right up front I want to say that when I watch a comedy I want to laugh andfeel good. If there’s any violence in the movie, it has to be of anon-serious nature. I watched this movie because it was billed as a comedyand I like Tom Hanks. I really liked his character in this movie, and I didlaugh at times, BUT–and this was a really big downer for me–there wereseveral very realistic murders in the movie, and what’s worse the dog getskilled in the end. Also, much of the humor in the movie was of the dogdestroying property to the extent that it really wasn’tfunny.

Too much violence, too much destruction, too much sorrow–not a comedy forme.

This is a film Tom Hanks decided to do before turning away from all thesilly comedies that came his way. As directed by Roger Spottiswood,this is a film that will not add anything to the star’s resume, or thedirector’s, but as these type of formula movies go, it’s a pleasantdistraction for all age groups.

Tom Hanks plays Turner, a police detective in a small California town.He has accepted a job in Sacramento, but fates intervenes when his oldfriend Amos is killed. Amos has told the younger man about hissuspicion of something going wrong in a fish processing plant next towhere he lives with his dog, Hooch.

When Turner decides to stay a few days to investigate, he inherits theslobbering and unruly Hooch. Thus begins a period of adjustment of theyoung cop and the destructive dog. Hooch is something else to watch;the dog is key in solving the murder and the mystery behind the badguys running the illegal trade at the cannery.

Tom Hanks makes the best out of his detective. Mare Winningham is thekind veterinarian who falls in love with Turner. Craig T. Nelson playsa devious chief of police. John McIntire is only seen in the openingscenes. Reginald Vel Johnson is Turner’s partner.

While the movie doesn’t have anything new to say, it provide aboutninety minutes of mindless entertainment.

TURNER & HOOCH is a definite must-see for anyone who thinks that the sameold story of having an actor and an animal always goes to the dogs. Oftenthese days, it has (ED, TOP DOG, COP AND 1/2, just kidding). But with TomHanks, the movie flows fine, you love the good guys as much as you hate thebad guys. That is what makes this film great, is how many people walked outfeeling sad and disappointed by TURNER & HOOCH because they became involvedtoo much at the end when the climax was over.

$8000 was washed up in small town Cypress Beach, coinciding with the murderof an old man who lived on the pier. While ‘investigator’ Turner putstogether the clues, he houses the only witness to the murder, one ugly bruteof a dog named Hooch.

Yes, the ending is sad, but the meat of the movie is still great. Hanksplays Turner with complete conviction and the relationship between man andbeast is well put off. TURNER & HOOCH does tend to drag from time to time,especially when we establish the character of Turner at the beginning, butotherwise, it is worth a look at Hanks’ earlier work.

i very first came across this breed of dog in this film and researchedthem thoroughly afterwards. i found out they were great with childrenand considering i had a 6 month old decided to take a risk. i ampleases to say the risk payed off. i have never come across such aplacid dog where children are concerned and my son, now 19 month, doteson him. he is a great dog and i am now breeding them, i couldn’t behappier. i would fully recommend one in any household and i would alsolike to state for the record they are not ugly but the most beautifuldogs i have ever come across. this film does them credit,as,so long asthey are looked after by someone who cares,they are happy and i canconfirm the drool is disgusting!!

Well,i have no idea why this movie has been given such a low rating.Imean my opinion could be a little biased because i love dogs.But thechemistry between hanks n the dog was gr8.The direction was good.People generally make such movies with no chemistry between the dog andthe person concerned.It is however not the case here though.And hanks ifelt did a gr8 job as well.

The ending though was sad, but then in terms of twists and turns,thatdoes count as one,which was good as otherwise there wasn’t much ofthat. Yes it was quite predictable,but i definitely wouldn’t dream ofgiving it a 5.4 or so.The director has done a good job too,showing sucha relationship so well,praise must go to him as well.All in all,a nicemovie which one can watch with their family or friends,or whoever……

This was about average for a Tom Hanks movie, which is to say that ifyou have laundry that needs washing, you should probably go do thatinstead — it will be more entertaining. The thing most memorable aboutthis film is the large dog slathering dog slobber all over the placeincessantly.

The story is trite. A guy is murdered. A cop is solving the murder. Thedog helps him nab the bad guy. The viewer is supposed to be amazed atthe "zany" Hollywood antics and the "wacky" behavior of the dog.Somehow neither came across as all that amusing. Had I paid to see thisat the theater, I would feel that I had been robbed. Had I rented it atthe video store, I would have returned it and told the store managerthat the DVD was scratched so others would be saved the aggravation ofrenting this dog.

For those of you who have never been real fans of Tom Hanks, here's themovie you've been looking for. No, seriously - not only is the two-timeOscar winner acted off the screen by a dog but it's a rare treat tofind an actor of quality resorting to bargain-basement nonsense such asthis. Having said that, this movie is more fun than its stretchedpremise suggests but if you've already watched "K9" then the chancesare that this will be of limited
enjoyment.

Hanks plays obsessively tidy Scott Turner, a detective in a sleepycorner of coastal America. A mere three days before he leaves for thecity and "real" cases, Turner's world is turned upside-down when hisfriend Amos Reed (John McIntire) is found murdered down at the docks.Forced into taking care of Reed's slobbery dog Hooch, Turner and hispartner David Sutton (Reginald VelJohnson, of "Die Hard" fame) mustcrack the case before Hooch completely ruins Turner's life and hisbudding romance with local vet Emily Carson (Mare Whinningham).

You can probably imagine what this movie is like. Lots of slow-motionshots of the dog slobbering everywhere, contrived domestic chaos notseen since the climax of "Home Alone" and Hanks in shouty-comic mode.And you'd be right, though the dog is truly fantastic! Even withoutHanks, the dog manages to hold your attention far better than anyoneelse in this movie and provides almost all of the laughs. As for histwo-legged co-star, Hanks is decidedly average at best and evenunlikeable in a couple of scenes. The story is pretty basic andeverybody else blends into the background like a piece of scenery.Nothing feels plausible or natural about it, like an unusual dreamsomeone had and decided to share with the world. Even the dog cannotfight off his human masters forever and by the time Hanks is givingorders to Hooch like a SWAT commander and the dog understands (but ofcourse!), you know that you've seen enough.

With a more imaginative screenplay and stronger performances, thismight have been a classic. Instead, "Turner And Hooch" has becomesomething of a guilty pleasure for some - including my Better Half whobegged me for the DVD this Christmas. It's not big or clever but itdoes deliver the right amount of laughs to justify seeing it at leastonce. Hardly a classic but then, how many ugly dogs have won "BestActor" at the Academy Awards? If there was any justice in the worldthen the dog should have become a huge star and Hanks would have fadedinto obscurity. Oh well.

read comments (0)

UHF

Wacky, morbid humor manages to score as novelty record star Yankovic spoofsfilms and television from Rambo, Geraldo, and Conan to "Gone With The Wind"and "The Beverly Hillbillies." Michael Richards steals the movie as itsmost appealing character, a station janitor turned children’s TV show host. Al and his TV misfits are up against evil network TV man McCarthy, who’shamming it up in great style as the petty sadistic villain (he loves to makefun of his sons at board meetings, give one penny to a homeless guy, etc.).

The mini-spoofs are all pretty stupid but mostly funny, and the story hasjust barely enough substance to keep things moving — but what really makesthis film a winner is that Yankovic, Richards, and Jackson (as Al’scomically frustrated longtime girlfriend) have created appealingtrue-to-life characters we can care for.

My public library has a nice, shiny, new copy of the DVD of "UHF." Inthe past I have been a fan of Weird Al Yankovic, but I didn’t enjoythis movie very much. I found it a chore to watch, such was the ongoingsilliness.

The movie has a very clever beginning, a close parody of the beginningof "Raiders of the Lost Ark." Yankovic is the Indiana Jones character,going into the web-covered cave entrance to harvest the gold statue.But this statue is not an antiquity. No, it is an Oscar!! He even hasto escape under the closing stone door and outrun a giant round bolder.But the scene ends with more silliness as the bolder chases him allover the world and finally squashes him.

All that was a daydream as Yankovic, as George Newman, is on his job asa burger and fries cook. He of course gets fired. But, at the same timehis uncle is winning a dilapidated UHF TV station in a poker game,channel 62, and his wife gets him to make George the station manager.

It is interesting to see Michael Richards (Kramer of Seinfeld) as thedim-witted janitor Stanley Spadowski, who gets fired from a rival TVstation and goes to work for channel 62. He gets an opportunity to goon air, becomes a hit with a children’s show.

We also get to see the diminutive and great Billy Barty as NoodlesMacIntosh, cameraman. Also Fran Drescher as Pamela Finklestein who alsoworked for the station. Really a fine cast of actors, I just didn’tfind the whole movie very interesting, just a bit weird and silly.

"Weird Al"; the man, the myth, the musician…the actor?! This wouldhave got a 10 in my book for the genre of comedy films out there, butthe acting was mediocre. With that said, this is by far a comedy aheadof it's time when it was released. Spoofs, orignality, and music. Whatmore could you ask for in a fun film such as this? The film stars WeirdAl, he's given a T.V. station to manage as most of his previous jobshave been dead end. What do you get when you put Al in charge of anetwork? UHF.

If you've never seen this film, you'll be pleasantly surprised at thefilm.

UHF (1989, Dir. Jay Levey)

George Newman is a normal man. Problem is, he's also a daydreamer, whocan't keep hold of a steady job. His uncle decides George will be theperfect man to manage Channel 62, a station which is losing money andviewers fast. George's imagination is put to good use and he startsthinking up bizarre shows such as "Wheels of Fish" and "Raul's WildKingdom". The ratings start to soar again, but not everyone is happy.

It must be noted that 'Weird' Al Yankovic is one of the few comediansat the moment, who do not include filth as entertainment. His songs hecreates are perfect for any age, and this film, even after 18 years,still include the zany humour that Yankovic is well known for. Theacting isn't Oscar nominated acting, but still good and fits in withthe tone of the movie. Some scenes could be cringe worthy but there aresome clever jokes made. His movie spoofs which are included in the filmare the highlight. You just wish for more to appear. I don't think it'severyones taste in comedy, but you should give it a go. If you haven'theard his music before, i do recommend you give some tracks a listen,as it is very smart music making.

"Hey Stanley. How would you like your own TV show?" - George Newman (AlYankovic)

"Weird Al" Yankovic is famed for his brilliant song parodies, workingin countless clever lines within the restrictions of an existing tuneand featuring hilarious videos to accompany them. It is difficult towatch the likes of "Smells Like Nirvana" or "Aamish Paradise" withoutlaughing out loud. Surely, then, having him write his own film, andfeature the likes of Michael Richards (Kramer from Seinfeld) FranDrescher (The Nanny) and Victoria Jackson (Saturday Night Live) wouldbe a recipe for comedy gold? Unfortunately, nothing could be furtherfrom the truth.

UHF is simply an unfunny, formulaic, clichéd and utterly blandexperience. It follows an incredibly well-worn path - no-hoper gets bigchance, succeeds against all odds by being totally unconventional, isthreatened by the powers that be and eventually wins the day and thegirl, with the corporate powerhouse enemies getting their just deserts.It offers no parody, no spin, no originality. The film has a total lackof memorable lines, in such stark contrast to Al's songs, and the"humour" comes from either low-grade comedy (kicks in the groin, dogsbeing thrown out a window, etc) and over-the-top characters. Actingseems to consist of mugging for the camera, with only David Bowe andKevin McCarthy making any real attempt at being remotely normal.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing is the lack of songs in the film.Elvis at least had the sense to do a few numbers in his films. Whilethe film does contain movie parodies, they are certainly not up to thestandard of Al's songs. A single Al music video is far moreentertaining than the entire film.

Budget problems are blamed repeatedly in the commentary, but it doesn'ttake a huge budget to come up with a decent plot or funny lines.Indeed, the parodies of films like Rambo and Indiana Jones actuallylook reasonably good, though far from original, entertaining andanything less than self-indulgent. The few laughs come from thecommentary track, and then the best ones are from Al reading outhorrible reviews. Jey Levey contributes so little in the commentarythat it is perhaps no surprise the film he co-wrote was sounimaginative. Drescher, Richards, Jackson and Emo Phillips make randomcameos in it as well.

Perhaps the most startling feature of the DVD is the deleted scenes,which feature so many astonishingly bad, unfunny moments that it isincomprehensible how the original script was ever approved, let alonehow they were filmed. At least somebody had the sense to cut them out,though they aren't that much worse than the dross that remains.

The only real entertainment value in looking back at the film iswatching several actors in roles before they were stars. Perhaps themost remarkable is David Proval as "head thug", well before he becameknown as Richie Aprile in The Sopranos. Considering that he plays theroles almost identically, it's very hard to watch season 2 of TheSopranos after watching UHF…

Hollywood would like the US to be a socialist country excepting them.This movie as a waste of my time and money. I hope this is Weird AlYankovics last movie. If I knew his e-mail address I would send him ademand for my $10 back. I have not seen any of these people on radio ortelevision like many other stars so they do not know what they aretalking about. When I go to a movie I go to be entertained not preachedto or indoctrinated. I can only hope the investors lost most of theirmoney on this trash film. The acting in this movie should get it aOscar award as one of the if not the best movie of the planet Earth.You will probably see all of th
ese actors trying to defend this film onall the talk shows.

Wild and wacky little production has Weird Al Yankovic taking over astruggling television station from his uncle (Stanley Brock) who happenstohave a serious gambling problem. Yankovic, a daydreaming loser who cannothold any job, soon unwittingly makes the station a huge hit by allowingmoronic janitor Michael Richards (of "Seinfeld" fame) get up and share hisdistorted views to the public ala Peter Finch in "Network". Naturally thepublic loves it and soon more crazed programming starts to take off. Couldthe station give the networks in town a run for their money by generatingdominant ratings? Strangely, it could happen. However gambling problemsforBrock mean that evil network bigwig Kevin McCarthy could claim the stationfor himself. "UHF" is not really sure what it wants to be. It is prettymucha parody for the most part, but still there are some clever little ideashere. Yankovic is one of the strangest actors to ever grace a silverscreen.He has an odd enthusiasm to his persona that makes him fun to watch. Ofcourse Richards is nearly always a joy to behold, but honestly he is moreathome on television than in movies. Some funny concepts and situationsearlyon get over-shadowed by a sophomoric script, unsteady direction and aho-humresolution. Fair at best. 2.5 out of 5 stars.

UHF is a movie that one either likes or dislikes. The comedy is what Idescribe as "so-bad-it’s-brilliant". I myself enjoyed the film,although it’s not a film I could tolerate watching every week, or evenevery month. One needs to be able to tolerate and enjoy the occasionstupid and pointless joke to enjoy the film. There are also manyreference to other films in it. This, of course, is due to the factsthat 1.) It’s "Weird" Al Yankovic we’re talking about; and 2.) The maincharacters own a television station and they need something to air,even if that something is a parody. Tolerate of parodies is alsorecommended. Parodies include: Indiana Jones and the Raiders of theLost Ark, Wheel of Fortune…et cetera.

I was about thirteen, or so, when I first saw UHF on that crazy thingcalled "videotape." It was a more innocent time then, when words like"spatula" and "fish" were funny. When the music of novelty act "WeirdAl" Yankovic seemed fresh and original. Lamentably, those days are gonenow. It is impossible to view UFH and obtain the same reaction as I hadthen. Seeing it now only brings me to the conclusion that it is anuneven comedy with some amusing gags thrown in.

The story is fairly thin and functions mostly as a clothesline to pinjokes on. "Weird Al" plays George Newman, a day dreaming half-wit, whoinherits a failing television station from his uncle. He is helpedalong by his friend, and fellow dunce, Bob (David Bowe), as well as themixed bag of oddballs who work at the station: There is PamelaFinklestein (Fran Dresher), the abrasive news "broad"; Noodles (BillyBarty) the dwarfish cameraman; Philo (Anthony Geary) the station’sengineer who also hosts a science show and explains how to "makeplutonium from common household items", amongst other things. Georgealso enlists his neighbor, Kuni (Gedde Watanabe), for the gameshow’Wheel of Fish’, and who verbally assaults the contestants when theylose. There is also a subplot involving George’s long suffering (howlong depends on the length of time she has been dating George)girlfriend Teri (Victoria Jackson). When George decides to turn over’Uncle Nutsy’s Clubhouse’ to the spastic janitor, Stanley Spadowski(Michael Richards), the show becomes a smash hit in the ratings. Thisraises the ire of the local network affiliate headed by requisite loutR.J. Fletcher (Kevin McCarthy). Wackiness ensue as R.J. orders thekidnapping of Stanley during a desperate fundraiser to save George’sstation from ruin. Will George triumph over adversity, or will thebig/evil network seize his assets and drive him to suicide? I willpersonally send $.37 (US) to anyone who cannot answer this questioncorrectly.

The outcome is of little importance anyway, it’s about the jokes. Thehumor in UHF ranges from painfully obvious to sophomoric. There are fewreal laughs in the film and most of those are from the quick asides ortransitional material. A good example of this is the ‘WildKingdom’-esquire program where Raul Hernandez (Trinidad Silva) shakesthe ant farms and teaches poodles how to fly. There is still somethingfunny about throwing dogs out of a window (I can’t explain it) andthese scenes are helped along by Silva’s delivery. The ‘Conan theLibrarian’ sketch and the GANDHI spoof are both funny (if on-the-nose),accented by Monty Python type bloodshed. The overlong RAMBO sequencenear the end has its few fleeting moments as well. In fact the jokesseem to work best when they do not involve Yankovic at all. Hisperformance here conjures about as much humor as watching someone havea seizure in a public place. I still have a special space in my heartfor "Weird Al", but he is hard to take for an extended period of time.This is not helped by the flat camera work. The director, Jay Levey,seems to just turn the camera on, leaving the room afterward, perhapsfor noon cocktails at the catering truck.

But enough talk; it would seem nearly impossible to write a "serious"review of UHF. The film has achieved somewhat of a cult following andthe DVD presentation is lavish. I figure this is because there willalways be fourteen year old boys (and girls, though less of them) whowill like UHF. "Weird Al" is still out there doing his thing, whichmeans that this film will be perpetually rediscovered. Looking back, Idon’t find as many things as funny as I once did, but if UHF is on I’llwatch it. It will also remind me of a time when I didn’t demand so muchfrom a movie; when stupid charm and ridiculous characters were enough.Those were the days I guess. 5/10

This is one of the best comedy films I have ever seen, and I’ve seen a fairamount of comedy films. It’s on par with "Monty Python And The Quest ForTheHoly Grail". It’s on par with "The Princess Bride". There is no bathroomhumor, little swearing (there’s use of "Hell" in a moteavational speech byStanley Spadalski (How do you spell his last name)), and lots of weirdstuff. There’s some pop culture references that you might not get(references to "Close Encounters of the Third Time" and Geraldo Revieraopening Al Capone’s vault for starters). However, the film is stillmarvelous. My opinion of the film can be summarized asfollows:

I laughed, I laughed harder, I laughed so hard I spat out my mocha, Ilaughed so hard I laughed mocha out my nose, I laughed so hard I wetmyself,and then all of the above.

As the movie is out on DVD, and I found it for basically $10 at Fry’sElectronics, run, not walk to your nearest video store and buy thismovie!!!You will not regret it.

read comments (0)

The Exorcist III

As anyone could probably guess, this was not a good movie. George C. Scottseemed a little… I don’t know… gassy? Random shouting and yelling atpeople; I still don’t get it (listen for "We’re fine!" and "It is not in thefile! It is NOT!!"). There was some dialog about a carp at the beginningthat you can find under the memorable quotes section that seemed to havesome relevance, but not enough to keep it from sounding very silly. Theentire movie was boring and slow, except the gross parts and the scenes withBrad Dourif as the Gemini Killer. Dourif is brilliant in this film, howeverimpossible it may seem. I love him. If you’re a fan, this movie is amust-see. If not, look for him in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest," "Eyesof Laura Mars," "Wise Blood," "Ragtime," "Blue Velvet," "MississippiBurning," the upcoming "Lord of the Rings" movies, and many, many more."Gracious me. Was I raving? Please forgive me… I’m mad."

George C. Scott takes over Lee J. Cobb's role from 1973's "TheExorcist", playing police detective Bill Kinderman who is still workingin Georgetown and mourning the death of his friend, Father Karras; onthe 15th anniversary of Karras' death during an attempted exorcism of ademon-possessed child (which, coincidentally, was also the night aserial killer was executed!), grisly murders begin happening in thecity that have Kinderman baffled. He should be–the plot threads andcauses for these ghastly deaths make little sense, while Kinderman'squestioning of an isolated hospital patient (played, for no explainedreason, by both Jason Miller and Brad Dourif) tries and fails to injectan exorcism-scenario akin to the first film onto a detective-storynarrative. William Peter Blatty based the script on his novel "Legion",and while he has a good ear for joshing conversations and b.s. humor,he goes way overboard on the nasty intricacies of a demonic slaying.There also seems to have been some confusion in filming the lastportion of the story, as Kinderman talks to mental patients and onehighly-strung nurse but is never shown putting the pieces of thispuzzle together. Blatty, who also directed, initially prods ourmemories of the first film amusingly, but quickly exploits that plotwith useless references to the characters and with the casting ofMiller (an idea that just doesn't pan out). Scott is terrific asKinderman and actually gives these metaphysical ramblings some weight,but Blatty has no sympathy for his gaggle of victims. He ends upexploiting himself. *1/2 from ****

In my opinion "Exorcist 3" is definitely better than really awful"Exorcist 2:The Heretic",but worse than the original.It’s true thatdirector William Peter Blatty doesn’t rely on blood and gore;instead ofhe creates an unforgettable atmosphere of dread and fear.Some sceneslike the confessional sequence are indeed really creepy.Unfortunately"Exorcist 3" is relentlessly talky and dull in places and not reallythat scary,mainly because I’ve seen much more scarier flicks like"Suspiria" or even Zulawski’s "Possession".I didn’t find itdisturbing-if you want to see something totally mind-shattering try tofind "Cannibal Holocaust".Overall I was a little bit disappointed withthis one-I expected a creepy masterpiece and finally I’ve got prettyscary,but also deadly dull horror film.So if you are "The Exorcist" fanthen this one is a must-see,if not avoid it.My rating:7/10.

Why bother with any more sequels? The original Exorcist was a stand alonefilm that told a complete story. Exorcist II was a bad enough omen totellfuture film makers what was to come. This one suffers from what ExorcistIIsuffered from. Excessive re-cutting, re-shooting and massive re-writeshavemade the proceedings in this one confusing and hard to follow. George C.Scott isn’t even able to lift the film’s burdens. Only thing saving itfroma one star rating is a few memorably spooky set pieces. Otherwise,consideryourself forewarned.

Rated R.

Watched it last night for the first time. Found it pretty average …George C. Scott is great though … and there were a few very creepymoments. Unfortunately though, the film as a who-dunnit-it sucked. Itwas quite obvious early on as to the means used in performing themurders.

The film was also guilty of treating its audience like idiots e.g.(Minor spoiler alert here) When it was revealed that the fingerprintsfrom the confessional were different to those found in the firstmurder, George blurts out something like "so we have two differentkillers". Totally redundant dialogue. There are a few other examples ofthis in the film where I just had to groan.

And as for the exorcism scene, its a joke.

In conclusion, this film is nothing in comparison to the originalexorcist movie. The original is much richer thematically, morehorrifying and more atmospheric. The exorcist III is merely a mediocrehorror/Detective hybrid video flick.

If you want to see a really good horror film with George C. Scott init, go check out "The Changeling".

The Exorcist III starts in 'Georgetown 1990' with Lieutenant WilliamKinderman (George C. Scott) & his close friend Father Joseph Dyer (EdFlanders) conducting a annual ritual in which they go to the cinema towatch 'It's A Wonderful Life' in memory of their friend Father DamienKarras (Jason Miller) who died when he fell down a flight of steps 15years ago… Afterwards Kinderman confides in Dyer over his latest casewhere a young black boy named Thomas Kintry (James Burgess) wasmurdered, decapitated & his head replaced by a head of Christ from astatue. Shortly after another murder with strong religious overtoneshappens, this time the victim is Father Kanavan (Harry Carey Jr.) &around this time Father Dyer is admitted to hospital where he becomesthe next victim of this sadistic serial killer who has exactly the M.O.as someone dubbed the 'Gemini Killer' 15 years ago when very similarcrimes were committed. Is it a copycat killer? Or does it havesomething to do with the mysterious James Venamun (Brad Dourif) whocurrently resides in a padded cell but seems to be possessed bysomething evil…

A box-office flop when released The Exorcist III was written & directedby William Peter Blatty based on his novel called 'Legion' I personallythought it was rather dull & didn't do much for me at all. The scriptgoes for psychological horror rather than visual, The Exorcist III ismore police thriller than straight horror with most of the running timeconsumed by Kinderman's investigations into various murders before theclimax where a few horror elements kick in particularly the exorcismwhich felt out of place when put beside the rest of the film. I foundthe character's bland & forgettable, the film has a slow pace & I foundmyself rapidly losing interest in the whole thing despite being a hugehorror fan & liking The Exorcist (1973). Put as simply as I can I wasbored & it just didn't grip or engage me whatsoever although havingsaid that as a thriller it was OK. The horror is very subtle & apartfrom the climax there is barely a drop of blood in the entire thing asThe Exorcist III tries to shock you with it's dialogue drivendescriptions of the murders. I didn't even like when Kinderman & the'Gemini Killer' met each other & talked. Technically The Exorcist IIIis alright although the cinematography got on my nerves as directorBlatty likes to keep his camera as still as he can & insert lots ofrandom scene setting objects into sequences which really slow the filmdown. The locations & sets are OK with nice detail & overall it's wellmade with that Hollywood polish to it. The acting was OK but I didn'tparticularly like or feel for a
nyone & Scott as Kinderman started tobecome irritating to me well before the end. I really didn't think toomuch of The Exorcist III, it just bored me plain & simple. It seems toget good reviews & I'm sure there are people out there who willappreciate & enjoy The Exorcist III more than I did. A bit of a bore asfar as I'm concerned I'm afraid.

Hey! The Gemini Killer was Brad Dourif, from the X-Files episode "Beyond theSea", playing practically the same character! I guess the X-Files writerswere watching this movie too…anyways, besides Dourif’s creepy performance,this movie was pretty lame. "The Exorcist" didn’t need a sequel, let alone athreequel!

This film was a great thriller and featured some REALLY scarymoments.(Patrick Ewing as an angel, the evil nun/nurse chasing people aroundwith the coroners’ bone cutter)Scott’s performance as a bleary-eyed homicidecop in the twilight of a career plagued by memories of past murders is deadon. My one complaint with the movie is the totally unnecessary exorcismscene added to the film after it was already complete. Apparently the studiofelt that the audience would feel ripped off seeing an "Exorcist"installment without one included in the film. Big mistake. As a sidenote-the film is nothing like the book-which is quite scary in it’s ownright.

Forgeting about John Boorman’s film of EXORCIST II THE HERETIC, WilliamPeter Blatty tries to cheer us up with this sequel after making his novelLegion but fails. George C. Scott takes over for Lee J. Cobb as Lt.Kinderman who has a feeling that his old friend Father Karras [Jason Millerfrom the first film who was trown down the stairs] has been possessed fromThe Gemini Killer who is played by Brad Dourif who killed several people.Scott Wilson’s character is shameless as a doctor who can not stop smokingand later kills himself. Nicol Williamson plays The Exorcist and VivceaLindfors, Mary Jackson, Zorha Lampert, Barabra Baxley, Lee Richardsonco-star and Samuel L. Jackson and Larry King play cameos.and Scott’s speechabout the carp is a joy. The film however dose leave Triva andGoofs-

The Triva.William Peter Blatty had Louis Fortaker play a Nurse but he wanted her lineto be bigger and then had her play Nurse Merrin in which Blatty took it fromhis orginial film where Max von Sydow played Father Merrin.

Lee Richardson meations that his favorite flick is THE FLY. Richardson wasin THE FLY and THE FLY 2.

The Goofs.The University President tells Kinderman about the exorcisim of ReganMacNeil well there was no need to because in the original film Chris MacNeilhad already told Kinderman about her possessed daughter.

Father Dyer has flashbacks in which he was not present. The possession ofRegan MacNeil and the death of Father Karras.

Father Morning’s vest he wears to begin the exorcisim starts on fire visiblythe scene of were Father Karras starts the fire in thehospital.

The Exorcist 3 is not a very good sequel but dose get credit for trying. Myrating- 6 out of 10 ******.

There are several very effective scary parts of this film. The old lady,the white figure… When I saw this film in the theatre when it came outsomeone started screaming during a particularly tense moment.

Unfortunately the film doesn’t hold up too well over time. It looks prettydated and the creepy bits, while still very eerie, do not make it worthsitting through all the tedious boring parts.

George C. Scott is pretty good though. And that has to be the voice ofColleen Dewhurst as the demon, no one had a voice like she did, but shedoesn’t seem to be credited anywhere. Am I hallucinating?

read comments (0)

Tango & Cash

Yes, this movie has one of the best opening scenes for an action movie. Iloved it! The music is great. The scene at the beginning when Sly gets outthe car to fire at the truck is awesome. And it is the only way to see thetwo top Hollywood stars in the same movie. The first half of the movie wasexcellent, the humour is wisely done, scenes in the prison aresatisfactory.But the second half is not so good, since there is some overdrawn action.But it’s true a classic, Sly and Kurt do a great job. It must have beensensational when it was first released as the two top stars of 80s and 90sin the same movie. I recommend this movie, you should have it in yourarchive.

Lord knows why, but I like T&C. Stallone and Russell make an oddlyappealing pair of heroes: Stallone can’t act and takes the whole thingserious: Russell can act and knows he’s in a parody of sorts. Every clicheof the action genre is hit on, but there are some decent action sequences,Teri Hatcher is nice to look at it, and the back-and-forth banter is tossedout enough that occasionally they hit a good one.

There are so many things which are terrible about this film, thestereotypical cops, the lame bad guy, the macho guys who dress in drag toescape, then a dumb, male cop hitting on them, but the best(worst) part ofthis film is the American guy trying to put on an English accent. Theline"up yors you ahsole, I don’t give a tawws!" Is one of the funniest thingsI’ve ever heard. And Tango and Cash is terrible in a good way, this is afilm I can watch and laugh my head off. Unlike the painful Batman andRobin, which wasn’t even funny.

This film, with its repetitive action sequences, its stereotypedcharactersand all those loud explosions could have been a real bore. But the comicdialogue often shows wit, and that’s the film’s distinguishing element: Iagree that it’s better as a comedy than as an actioner. Stallone is verylikable in this particular movie; sexy Hatcher is also anasset.

Tango & Cash is a movie I consider to be a action classic. The atcionsequences in the film are top notch and Sly and Kurt have great chemistry.Sly is more of a reserved cop and Kurt is more of a wild man. If you wantaction and humor check this one out. Extra points for the always sexy TeriHatcher and the meancing Brion James.

Stallone and Russell as Tango and Cash respectively, are framed by JackPalence in this above-average "buddy cop" movie of the late ’80’s. Thedialog is far from the best with several goutes being cringe-worthy,but the chemistry is definitely there and it’s a fun enough film. Plusyou can’t go wrong with a cast that is chuch-full of 80’s moviesstaples such as the late great Brion James, Clint Howard, Robert Z’dar,anf James Hong among others. Definitely the screenwriter RandyFeldman’s best work, but next to "Hell night" and "Metro" that isn’tsaying a lot I know.

Eye Candy: Roxanne Kernohan (from Critters 2) and Dori Courtney (fromHollywood hot tubs 2) show there tatas

My Grade: B-

Where I show it: Encore Action

Tango and Cash is one of those films which makes you long for the daysof The 80’s Action Movie. Do not watch this film expecting to see some’oscar winning masterpiece’, this was not made to win Oscars. But sowhat, this movie has everything an action fan could want, Lots ofAction, Lots of Laughs all dipped in lots of cheese. The generalsummary is that Ray Tango {Sylvester Stallone) and Gabe Cash (KurtRussell) are the two best cops in LA. Tango who works on the west sideof LA, and Cash who works on the east, Have been costing Perret (Playedexcellently by Jack Palance) lots of money in the contraband trade.Instead of making heroes out of them by killing them, he hatches anelaborate set up to put them in jail, so he can operate without all theworries of tango and cash. This film has some great action sequences aswell as some gut busting comedy with great delivery from both Stalloneand Russell. Overall this is one of the crown jewels in the kingdom of80’s Action Films.

Popping this movie in your DVD player makes about as much sense asshoving cottage cheese in your ears. Sure, it might feel nice and coolfor a moment, but in the span of two hours, those curdles start tobother you. That said, I have to point out a few of the odd premises inthis movie.

First and foremost, Stallone is the "smart" guy? Who made thatdecision? I’m sorry, that just ruined my suspension of disbelief. It’snot like both characters were rich, smart, suave businessmen/cops.Russell played the same role he played in "Big Trouble in LittleChina": a mullet. If you’ve seen "Rambo III," you know Stallone couldhave easily filled that part. Besides, Russell’s character has to dressup in drag. Stallone does a good job as an ugly, muscular,broad-shouldered gal in "Nighthawks;" I think he could have done itagain here.

A major part of this movie is the fact that Tango and Cash are suchgreat cops that their exploits are front-page news every time. Thatsnot so bad, but the articles name and show pictures of Tango and Cash.I don’t know about you, but I have read the Chicago Tribune for manyyears and have yet to see a front page headline naming a police officerin any positive context. Clearly, Chicago needs better cops, cops likeTango and Cash.

It’s weird…Jack Palance is the bad guy in this movie, and he’sexactly the same character he plays in "Batman." Only, instead ofloving Jerry Hall, he loves mice in this one.

So, the basic premise of this movie is that Tango and Cash are bustingdrugs like crazy. This makes them celebrities. Jack Palance has thegreat job of being the shadowy underworld boss that nobody knows aboutor even suspects of existing. Clearly, he needs to come out in the openan take care of Tango and Cash to get back at them for all the drugbusting. However, he can’t kill them because that would make themmartyrs… or dead cops. Jack seemed more concerned with the former,but I would guess the whole "murdering-celebrity-cops-bit" would be thebigger problem. Whatever. So, Jack sets up Tango and Cash, sending themto prison for something they didn’t do. When they break out (of coursethey do), Jack’s minions want to kill Tango and Cash. Jack says no, andthen sends out someone to kill them anyway. Well, what kind of plotlogic do you expect from a movie that has Kurt Russell dress up as a"sexy" woman and get away with it?

This was the best movies that Sylvester Stallone and Kurt Russell boththat they ever worked in together as cops.The plot was good that madethis an easy three star movie or more.These two cops have kill theysame person their boss wanted to kill,and they were framed and went tojail.Now jail they have to get out of there and find out who framedthem but the cops are cashing them.And now here comes the action-packcops finding their framer in Tango and Cash.All of the movie,from thebeginning to the end was good,excellent,fun,everything a action copmovie that should need is all wrapped in this movie.They just have tomake another sequel or a remake to this film.The director really knows

how to entertain us with action and comedy,the action from the framersand cops chasing them.And the comedy that was a real funny was the partwhen it showed Cash as a woman and acting like a woman.Way togo,on-core,on-core,on-core.

Sylvester Stallone and Kurt Russell star as the title cops who joinforces to bring down the mobster (Jack Palance) who set them up anddisgraced them. Tango and Cash is certainly among the most brainless ofthe genre, indeed the beginning hints at some 80's action fun but thenthe movie becomes a gab fest between who can be more macho. Also sadlyStallone tries to act as if he's an intellectual, truly this is painfulto behold. I don't want to
give off the impression that I hate SlyStallone or Kurt Russell, I don't. In fact I loved Cobra and EscapeFrom New York, however I hated their turns here. Indeed the ending isjust so stupid and the heroes are so invincible that I was too bored toeven care about what was going on. Nothing of course was.

* out of 4-(Bad)

read comments (0)

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

This film is definitely Star Trek's most underrated film, although itdidn't do nearly as bad as "Nemesis". But William Shatner's directionaldebut offers to tell a Trek story that many writers and directors haveavoided in Roddenberry's universe; the existence of GOD. Hence, thetitle referring to ' The Final Frontier ' beyond the universe. Thisfilm leaves questions to be answered, but it does indeed acknowledgethe fact that mysticism, spirituality and faith are indeed a crucialtopic to be discussed in Star Trek, as is science and technology. Thesame philosophy of Nature/Spirit v.s. Science/Technology can be seen in"Insurrection" as well. In any case, this film explores another versionof the final frontier, which in this case, is the question of ourexistence. It has great humor and chemistry between our favorite Trekcharacters , a sweeping epic score by Jerry Goldsmith, and breathtakingcinematography of Yosimite National Park and The Great Barrier.Technically, this is in fact the last mission of the original crew thatinvolves a mission of exploration and wonder. I say this because "TheUndiscovered Country" was a story about a huge political event thatwould shape the future of The Federation. Out of all the Trek films,this one feels more like an epic fantasy than the cold mechanical feelof let us say… "First Contact" (another great film). I respect thejob they did with Star Trek 5, and I was glad to see Star Trek take abold approach by touching on the issue of GOD and faith, just like thecourage taken by the writers of Deep Space Nine (which I truly see asthe greatest of all Trek series). The performances are also great,especially from Sybock ( the antagonist played by Lawrence Luckinbill).Sybock is by far the most complex and convincing villain of all Trekfilms and is sadly overlooked. So, overall…I absolutely recommendthis feature !

An unusual entry into the Star Trek movies saga, the Enterprise is hijackedby Spock’s half brother in an obsessive quest to find God in the center ofthe galaxy.

The special effects aren’t bad, and neither is the movie. Best line: "Whatdoes God want with a spaceship?" However, the movie could have been betterin many ways. It was just too weird an entry.

** 1/2 out of ****

The one redeeming value of this movie is that it is so bad it's funny.Some movies are bad but simply unwatchable, and while this movie doesoccasionally make you want to avert your eyes, at least you can laughat the terrible dialog, unfunny one-liners "Hold your horse, Jim" (OMGhe's riding a horse, get it?!), bad and inappropriate special effects,and Uhura's fan dance.

I'd stop this review here, but it's too short. William Shatner directedand partially wrote this movie, it was — apparently — a labor oflove, and he regrets that they couldn't afford the special effectsnecessary to realize his vision. Unfortunately, better special effectsaren't what this film needs even though the special effects are bad(and have not aged well; this movie was made eight years afterBladerunner (which had roughly the same budget and couldn't recycleproduction design from earlier movies). A movie can't become this badwithout layers of poor creative decisions piled on top of one another.

Science fiction should have a little science in it, and a series shouldcontinue to use that same science. Some problems that ruin thismoving.1) How does this Vulcan know that God is at the center of the galaxy,sinceit is pointed out several times that no ship has ever reached there due toan energy barrier?2) When the Enterprise fires a photon torpedo at the fake God, the crewrunsa few steps and then jumps to safety. Don’t they contain antimatter, andwould make a nuclear bomb look small?3) The fake God gets mad at Kirk and Spock, and can only knock them downandburn their uniforms?4) Lucky there were horses on that alien planet!Well who cares right? The heroes sing at the end. I can’t blame Nimoyforplaying emotionless - but maybe the other characters should get scared, orangry, and stop displaying the smug everything’s going to be okay in theend- walk through the movie attitude!

Hey, Sybok was the best Vulcan character to come along since Spock. Spockby himself, contrasted to humans, was a hoot. But, Sybok next to Spock was amind blower! Sybok seemed to be what all Vulcans were: logical abouteverything to the point of doing about anything to get what they want. Sybok’s biggest crime?–he could laugh at himself. Now Vulcans are shown asbeing extremely petty! Where the hell was Infinity in Diversity? Sybok wastotally unexpected and entirely welcome–I rank this as the third best ofthe Star Trek movies!

P.S. If Kirk could have a son he did not know about, why could not Spockhave a brother he told no one about, especially if he was the antithesis ofeverything Spock promulgated as being Vulcan?

I won’t comment on William Shatner as a director, but his acting in "TheFinal Frontier" was embarassing and painful to watch. This ersatz piece ofstorytelling knocks the first Star Trek film out of its position as "worstever." Truly an unfortunate disappointment.

I’m not a fan of Star Trek in the conventional sense. As a matter offact, the only knowledge I have of Star Trek has been through thefeature films. Not that I’m indifferent to the obsessive cult that hassprung up around the shows, but when you get down to it, I am totallyin agreement with the statement on one anti-fan’s site. Let them gopeople, it’s only a TV show.

Having said that much, even a casual viewer of a long-running seriesgets a feel for what should be considered canonical and what shouldn’t.The fifth feature film in the Star Trek franchise screams out that itshould not be considered canon so loudly that it is almost deafening. Iknow the odd-numered Star Trek films are supposed to be worse than theeven-numbered films by a strange kind of default, but this isridiculous. Some of the scenes in this pile feel like they could havebeen better-acted by grade-school children. Adding to this problem isthat the most rotten dialogue has been heaped upon the shoulders of asingular character whose presence is utterly apocryphal.

Nonetheless, the blame for this disaster often seems to be sent in thewrong direction. While William Shatner will never be my first choice todirect a film, much of the problem seems to be with the people he’sworking for. Paramount seemed to be in a hurry to get this film out ofthe gate after the success of the previous film. Special effects houseswere too booked out to get the shots needed to complete the filmproperly, or at least according to what the writers had in mind. Ratherthan hold off on releasing the film and wait for the chance to getthings done right, Paramount simply threw good money after bad. Theresult, inevitably, was a weak and lifeless film. Fox would laterrepeat this mistake with Alien 3, but the producers of the Star Trekseries at least saw this as a hard lesson learned.

When you get down to it, however, Star Trek as a franchise used tothrive on not having the money or resources to dazzle the viewer withflashy effects. Instead, like a certain long-running British televisionseries, it concentrated on presenting strong stories with a powerfulhumanistic theme. It is a testament to the power of stories that theoriginal Star Trek, in spite of looking as if it were made for sixpennies per episode, has more of a hardcore following today than any ofits spin-offs.

This, unfortunately, is where a major part of the films’ weaknessescome from. The first film, The Wrath Of Khan, and The UndiscoveredCountry notwithstanding, as the films’ special effects have evolved,the stories and performances seem to have devolved. Nowhere is thismore evident than here, where the scaling back of the effects due to alack o
f available expertise has left the makers struggling forsomething to fill the void with. Many sequences, especially the momentwith McCoy recalling one of the formative episodes of his past, feeltacked on for the sole purpose of padding out the running time. Ifyou’re stuck for material to make a 100-minute film, make a 90-minutefilm instead, guys. Or better yet in this case, ditch the script you’reworking on and write something else.

Finally, Spock’s long-last half-brother seems about as Vulcan as aUruk-Hai berserker. This brings two explanations to mind. Either thereare more Human women on Vulcan than previously indicated, or Sarek isin fact quite randy. Neither explanation really works, and Sybok comesoff as the kind of last-minute story element a child comes up withduring playtime as a result. The fact that, as previously mentioned, hehas the burden of carrying almost all of the worst-written dialoguedoes not help.

I gave The Final Frontier a one out of ten. Gene Roddenberry had allbut indicated that this was not canonical Star Trek, and after seeingthis abomination for myself, I am not surprised. Its only real usewould be as the basis for a new MST3000 episode.

This movie is the pits. Many people consider either this film or Star Trek:The Motion Picture to be the worst of the series. Sorry to say, but TMP is amasterpiece compared to this mess. To sum it all up: 1. Special Effects,HORRIBLE! Really liked those wires hanging from Kirks side when he "fell"from the mountain. 2. Acting, SHODDY. Scotty bumping his head on the beam?The laughing Vulcan Sybok? Seems like the Enterprise crew was acting badjust to get in a few cheap laughs for us trekkies. 3. Captain Klaa.Obviously the worst villain in Star Trek history. He looks like somethingfrom Motley Crew! Don’t you think? Equally annoying is his henchwoman,Vixus. 4. PLOT, Oh how can someone think of something so horrid? Finding GODat the center of the universe? I always thought GOD was in heaven? Maybe heIS at the center of the universe! (Yes, I know, it is only a movie) Anyway,I must admit I do have this film but it is strictly to complete the series.I hardly watch this film at all. Seeing this film should make anyone,trekkie or not to run to the bathroom and pray to the porcelaingod.

By the way, I never knew the Enterprise had 79 decks? She is a REALLY bigship!

This film seems to be the accumulation of disasters. First, the embarrassing"Search for Spock". Then, the disappointing "The Voyage Home". And nowthis.William Shatner decided to adventure himself in directing andwriting.

And we paid the price.

Although I hated this movie watching it for the first time. I actuallythought it was watchable the second. Yes, the special effects are bad, notcompletely done by ILM who only had a small part in it. Yes, the humor iscorny. Yes, the premise is stupid. Finding God? Has Shatner lost his mindand truly been where no one has gone before? But, despite all this it is aTrek movie. The same as Jedi was the worser of the Star Warsmovies.

read comments (0)

My Left Foot: The Story of Christy Brown

As far as I know the real guy that the main actor is playing saw hisperformance and said it was an outstanding portrayal, I'd agree withhim. This is a fantastic film about a quite gifted boy/man with aspecial body part helping him. Oscar and BAFTA winning, and GoldenGlobe nominated Daniel Day-Lewis plays Christy Browna crippled man withcerebral palsy who spends most of his life on the floor, in awheelchair and carried by his family. He has a special left footthough, he can write with it, paint with it and hold things with it. Helearns to speak later in the film, it is very good for a guy like him.Also starring Home Alone 2's Oscar winning, and Golden Globe nominatedBrenda Fricker as Mrs. Brown and BAFTA winning Ray McAnally as Mr.Brown. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Director for Jim Sheridan,Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium and BestPicture, it was nominated the BAFTAs for Best Film, Best Make Up Artistand Best Adapted Screenplay. Daniel Day-Lewis was number 85 on The 100Greatest Movie Stars, he was number 20 on The 50 Greatest BritishActors, he was number 9 on Britain's Finest Actors, and he was number15 on The World's Greatest Actor, and the film was number 28 on The 50Greatest British Films. Outstanding!

I watched this film in shire joy.

This is possibly one of the best films of all time. It has a timelessvalue, you can get so much out of it it's amazing. There are parts thatare moving, funny, and just great.

All aspect are spot on, the portrayal of the story is perfect, everydetail is 100% genuine, even small Irish subtleties have been covered.

The use of low and high shots gives two great views on Cristy (look outfor that).

Daniel Day-Lewis's performance is incredible. I've never seen an actordo that, ever. It really is amazing.

And it's so great to watch, it flows so well, it's probably the closestthing yo can get to real life experience. I love it.

If you haven't seen it, you should see it. Don't have any doubts on it,there is something there for all.

Based on Christy Brown’s autobiographical novel, this endearing film tellsthe story of his life, him being affected by cerebral palsy and beingconsidered basically not a person by everyone including his mother.Amazingly, he teaches himself to draw and write using his foot, which is theonly part of him he can control.An amazing story of courage with a truly amazing and unforgettable oscarwinning performance by Daniel Day Lewis.9 of 10

Daniel Day-Lewis in there brought me to tears. He is one of the finestactors ever and this is one of his best performances, though, in allhonesty, what performance of his is not?The only real flaw in the film is the fact that he looks to be aboutthirty(which he was) when he was like 17 and 18 in the film. Daniel pulls it offthough. Extra praise goes to the young Christy, who looks and acts justlikeDaniel did exscept for a time or two when his CP fades. Overall anincredible film that is worth watching just for one of the finestperformances ever.

I thought Hugh O’Conor was astounding as the young Christy Brown, andreallydeserved greater recognition for his role. I couldn’t believe how well heplayed the part. Of course, Daniel Day-Lewis was brilliant too. Myfavourite scene is where the boys are playing football and Christy uses hishead to stop the goals and then kicks the penalty! Amazing performances bythe two Christys (and other also).

MY LEFT FOOT, in my opinion, is a great biopic about one of the world'smost talented authors and painters. The performances were smashing, thesoundtrack was great, and the casting was perfect. I thought thatChristy (Daniel Day-Lewis) was a very talented man, although I couldn'tunderstand what he was saying most of the time. In addition, when hethrew a tantrum, I got a little scared. Also, it's just so sad that hesuffered from cerebral palsy. In conclusion, if you are a die-hard fanof Daniel Day-Lewis or like biopics, I highly recommend this greatbiopic about one of the world's most talented authors and painters.You're in for a real treat and a good time, so don't miss this one.

day lewis is one of the most prolific method actors in the world rightnow. for his role in gangs of new york he trained to be a butcher forthe boxer he trained with barry mcguigan

now for this movie, he stayed in character allegedly for the wholeshoot, much to the dismay of his agent.

day lewis plays christy brown, an Irishman who has cerebral palsy andhas only the use of his left foot. (hence the title).

he is talented at art and uses pictures to express his feelings beforehe can learn to talk.

day lewis is amazing as brown and gives his role a lot of heart, andmakes the film very funny too. sometimes laugh out loud funny (forinstance, when brown scores the goal).

what the film does point out is the ignorance some people have when itcomes to the unknown illness. the film sometimes portrays the Irish asgod fearing, but i feel this would have been the same if the story wasbased anywhere.

there really isn't a bad performance in this film and if you haven'tseen it, do it now.

Hard to imagine this film is based on a true story, and how Christymanaged to accomplish the miracle is so heart-stirring. DanielDay-Lewis is a chameleon, really hard to imagine how much effort he haddone to create this disabled character. Watching him on screen is ashocking and breathtaking experience.

The movie is not so pessimistic as I thought before, the story is kindabright and intriguing. Christy is not despised by the normals, his lifeis also colorful and delightful, although we can be aware of theloneliness and the painful fetter through his eyes.

One important factor of Christy's success is his mother's support whichseems to be more touching, and the unknown actress Brenda Fricker alsodeserves her Oscar award for this role, this fat little middle-agedwoman uses her all to make Christy's dream come true. So lucky forChristy!And Hugh O'Conor is also excellent as young Christy, what aperformance for a child! The love story of Christy is very well-done,trustful. Christy wants love and nothing can derive him of the right tolove, his crush on the beautiful Dr. Eileen Cole (surprisingly playedby Fiona Shaw, I am deeply impressed with her role in Harry Potterseries, the loathsome Aunt Petunia, so her appearance in this role isreally beyond my mind, but anyway, any woman has her own youth…) isparanoiac and offensive, I do have sympathy for him, love is atwo-edged sword, happiness and agony are just next to each other.

Btw, Jim Sheridan's works are all good (IN America, THE BOXER etc.)except GET RICH OR DIE Trying', god knows why he chose to direct thatcrap! Really a career taint for him, what a pity!

If ever there were an inspiring story that could move anyone, disabledor not, to persevere despite the odds and make it (even when "make it"as an expression, proper, can have a wide berth which is an ultimatelypersonal truth), MY LEFT FOOT is it. It's a hard film to watch attimes: seeing the less placid aspects of Christy Brown's personalityemerge in two key scenes — one when his sister declares she ispregnant and about to get married while his father has a bad reaction,and at a dinner table when the woman who's reached out to him, made himable to communicate effectively, now has announced at a key moment (theinauguration of Brown's art) she is about to marry another man — istough. Very, very tough. More so because this is a man who cannot reactaccordingly to these events and can only express himself in the onlyway he knows how: via screams, shrieks, and profanities aimed athurting himself. However, this is not a story of heartache and familydysfunction eve
n when there is quite a bit of it furnishing theautobiographical account, but that of a man overcoming his severedisability, becoming a functioning human being and a force of bereckoned with in the art world. Daniel Day Lewis won an Oscar for hispowerful, unforgettable performance as the flawed but tenacious ChristyBrown, and Brenda Fricker did so as well for her supporting role asBrown's solid mother.

My older sister was born in March of 1985 and has cerebral palsy. inher 22 years of life, she has seen nothing but the walls of our houseand her school which is also occupied with other disabled kids. i havebeen the butt of everyone's jokes because my sister is disabled, and istill think to this day that nobody is, or ever will give a damn abouther and her condition. Then i saw this film.

I knew what Christy's family was going through. but they were lucky.Christy could talk, he could communicate, and he had artistic skills.my sister can walk, but she can't utter a word, and she can't use herhands to do anything but grab onto things. but this film made merealize there were other people in the world like my sister, and theending (to tell the truth) made me cry. AND I'VE SEEN SHAWSHANK!!! Thisfilm is seriously underrated, and it shouldn't. This movie tells peoplesomething. that people should be proud of their own lives. thinking youcan't write well? this guy wrote with his foot. thinking you're notattractive? this guy got turned down by lots of girls, because of hiscondition. not the fastest runner? christy couldn't even stand up.

My point: Parents of young children, i suggest your children watch thismovie with you, so they'll know the next time they see someone on thestreet in a wheelchair, they don't stare at them like they're aliens.My sister got millions of stares, and it breaks my heart to think thatthis is still happening to many people. This film will teach people,that people who might not seem "normal" are people too. 10/10

read comments (0)

New York Stories

This is a movie made of three short movies made by three of the mostmaverick american directors of that time. In common, they have a passion forthe city which they have chosen as a backdrop to their shorts. Now let’s getto the business: if you’re expecting the "best of the best" selection thatcould come out of this pack of directors, forget it. Because this was nopretentious project, but a way to express the love the directors have forNew York and the people who live there. The inevitable mixed reviewfollows:

1. "Life’s Lessons", by Scorsese. A typical Scorsese movie, with a way offilming and characters which resemble their art: painting. Here, like themain credits, we get the stories and the reactions like slobs of paint,apparently thrown at random but with an intentional instinct behind them.Nick Nolte tries to be different for a change, and suceeds. Rosanna Arquettestill looks like Marcy from "After Hours", but struggles to snap out ofit.

2. "Life without Zoe", by Coppola. Complete with the trademark beautifulcinematography by Vittorio Storaro, this segment comes out as maybe the mosttrivial of the three, but it is still a sweet tale of how a child has tobecome a grown up before time, forced by the circunstances which surroundthem. This segment can be placed between the section of the flops and thesection of the victories by director Coppola, which is one of the mostunstable directors known.

3. "Oedipus Wrecks", by Allen. Here, I have to take my hat off. Because thisis a proof that Woody Allen always delivers when we expect something fromhim. This hilarious segment will make seeing the movie all worth it, and Iwill not spoil it so that those who see it can have the most fun with itpossible. I just can say that this is a wonderful pearl, and you can expectthe usual high-quality Woody Allen fare.

Altogether, I think that after seeing this one few of our lives will bechanged, but one will also feel that they gained something from theexperience. Anyway, give it a go.

I just saw this film again after many years and I enjoyed it more than ever.I really like all three segments for different reasons. While they are threevery different types of stories they are each representative of a differentaspect of New York. The diversity of the three segments is a perfectcompliment to a city that is so many different worlds all in oneplace.

The first segment directed by Scorsese is a wonderful little vignette aboutan extremely dysfunctional and destructive relationship between anegomaniacal artist and a young woman in the throws of an identity crisis.They are both using each other and at the same time feeding off each othersemotions. Anyone who has been in a relationship with any of these dynamicswill appreciate this piece. Nick Nolte and Rosanna Arquette are both superbin their rolls. I think it is a great romanticized portrayal of the New Yorkart scene of the late 70’s - early 80’s. I also really enjoyed all the musicin this segment.

I am amazed at how many people panned the Coppola segment. It is an adorablepiece. This is a real tribute to the boundless imagination of a child. Itcould truly be a real story or it could be the fairy tale world of a childin a totally different circumstance, or anything in between. For all weknow, Zoë’s father could be the street musician. In a city like New Yorkanything is possible. At least this was the way I interpreted thestory.

The Woody Allen segment definitely showcased Woody at the top of his form. Avery funny short film that I will always treasure. It will always remind meof my own mother, who, even though she is not Jewish thinks she is. Besidesthe great play on Freudian psychology I also loved the way the city justaccepts the bizarre situation. I also love Allen’s take on the human desireto explore any avenue to try to come to terms with the strangeness inlife.

So, there you have it, three unique stories by three master story tellers.Each one giving the viewer a little taste of a different world within aworld. The huge range of experiences and possibilities are what makes NewYork one of the great cities of the world, if not the greatest. For thosewho didn’t care for one segment or another, I urge you to spend a littletime in the city doing a variety of things. Go to the symphony, take in amuseum, eat a hot dog on the street corner, take a walk in the park, talk tobum on the street, listen to some street musicians, hang out in Chinatown orLittle Italy on a Sunday afternoon. Then, go back and watch the movie again.I believe you may see it in a little different light.

"Life Lessons"

Nick Nolte plays a Leroy Neimann-style artist living in a New York City Loftand he picks up Arquette promising her "life lessons" Basically, he uses herand spits her out, but there’s more to it than just that. Scorcese is hisusual brilliant self and Nolte is in a perfectly realized part. Brilliant,though apparently many people didn’t think so because they probably can’thandle Martin Scorcese’s tough style.

The Coppola segment.

The less said about this, the better. I would rather have brain surgerywithout an anesthetic than see this again.

"Oedipus Wrecks"

The "funny" Woody Allen returns. This is as reminiscent of the best ofAllen’s "funny films" as it is of his beautifully constructed New Yorkershort stories. Mae Questel (the senile grandmother in "National Lampoon’sChristmas Vacation" and the voice of Betty Boop and Olive Oyl) is hisoverbearing Jewish mother and him and to tell you anymore about it wouldruin the exquisite comic writing and pacing for you. Needless to say, it isa wonderful comic fantasy wrapped in a witty, almost Freudian comictreatise. In other words, vintage Woody!

Thank God for video and DVD for you can bypass the painful parts like thatrotten Coppola segment. I only wish I had that had that option when I sawthis in its original theatrical run.

And to think that Sofia went on to continue to annoy people on the SilverScreen. For me, her talent is clearly lost in translation.

Three short films are combined here from great film makers (Scorsese,Coppola & Allen) in this rare collaborative effort. I very much liked thesegment by Scorsese, "Life Lessons". Scorsese as in many of his other filmscaptures the pulse of New York. Also as he has explored obsession inprevious works his comment on narrow interests and self centerdness is verybiting here.

Coppola’s film is very light. It seems Francis was tired from the profoundcomments of the Godfather films and Apocalypse Now and just wanted to do abit of fluff.

Allen’s part is his best comedy since Annie Hall. It flows naturally withouthis recent bitterness.

IMDB’s short comment on this film mentions that Francis Coppola’s segment"is a bit Felliniesque". Fellini’s range is so broad and his influence onthese 3 film makers is so deep that there are references to Fellinithroughout New York Stories. The most direct borrowing is done by WoodyAllen who I’ve always felt was as much influenced by Fellini as IngmarBergman. Fellini did a short film with two other film makers in acollection called Boccaccio 70 (1969). Fellini uses a gimmick for his shortcomedy and Allen uses exactly the same one.

Of the handful of short film collections I have seen, New York Stories(especially the Scorsese & Allen segments) is the only one that draws meback for more.

"Life Lessons" by Martin Scorsese is one of those shorts that could launchthe career of a young filmmaker. It is very well crafted as a story, withabeautiful photography, incredible performances by Rosanna Arquette (whohasnever been so young and beautiful) and Nick Nolte, and a wonderfuldirection. (10)Unfortunately, the stories that follow are not up to par. Francis FordCoppola’s "Life without Zoe&qu
ot; is probably the weakest of them all. Toldfromthe children’s point of view, it deals with Zoe, a rich and spoiled girlandher school friends as she tries to bring a jewel back to her owner, savinghis father from disgrace. Cannot help but think that this short wouldhavebeen made much more interesting if Zoe’s father had actually cheated onZoe’s mother and the girl realized it. As all of Coppola’s films, you canalways see the money on the screen. (4)Finally, "Oedipus Wrecks" is a typical Woody Allen film, shortened, whichpacks much more impact. Woody is Woody as usual, and his problem now ismostly with his Jewish mother and his fiancees. As in all his films,you’llfind psychoanalysis scenes, allusions to his religion, and self-esteemissues. Funny for moments, it lacks a little bit of coherence in thesurreal element, which is used only as a device to create laughs andfinishthe story. (7)

Some of the comments I have read have stated that "Life Without Zoe"wasn’tas good as the other two. I disagree. I really liked it. Maybe it wasbecause I was 12 years old when I saw it. I enjoyed it. I thought it wasvery beautiful and artistic. I loved the princess and the jewel. Itsalwaysthe fantasy of little girls to meet a princess or to be a princess and Iliked the story a lot.

New York Stories has three episodes, three little movies in it. One of thembelongs to the masterpieces of the 80’s. The film is called "Life Lessons",and it’s directed by Martin Scorsese. I suggest you watch New York Storiesbecause of Scorsese’s fine achievement. The episode of Woody Allenrepresents that regular Woody we all know, and the piece of Francis Coppolais just plain boring and stupid.Scorseses picture is about a famous painter -played brilliantly by NickNolte-, and his source of inspiration -a beautiful woman. Life Lessons isanelectric, sharp and funny film, you might call it art.

Forget about the Scorcese and Coppola, Woody Allen outshines them withOedipus Wrecks. Sure, I guess "Life Lessons" would be an excellent short onits own, but next to the shining Allen glory of the Godzilla-like motheryelling, "Sheldon! Sheldon!" any serious film would seem pretentious. Andthey do.

Coppola’s contribution, Life Without Zoe, is also notable for an 8-year oldArabian Elvis impersonator.

When Martin Scorsese (Raging Bull, GoodFellas), Francis Ford Coppola (TheGodfather) and Woody Allen (Annie Hall, Hannah And Her Sisters) joinforcesand make three separate short films all based around the same simple ideaofliving in New York, you know that original and interesting concepts willbeseen.

Scorsese’s "Life Lessons", the first of the three films, is probably alsothe best. Nick Nolte gives another excellent performance as the paintertornbetween his love of a woman and his love of his career. He portrays theroleperfectly, surrounded by a talented co-stars. Scorsese’s direction isagainbrilliant, showing he truly is one of the greats of contemporary cinema.(5/5)

Following Scorsese is Francis Ford Coppola, director of The Godfatherseries. Unfortunately, following Scorsese is something even Coppola can’tsucceed at doing. His film is often pretentious and naive, at times evenludicrous. None of the performances are stand-out, and the direction issubpar knowing what Coppola is capable of (The Godfather and Part 2 beingtwo of the most amazing films of all-time). But, at the same time the filmisn’t BAD. It just could have been much better. (2/5)

Woody Allen completes the package with another hilarious comedy, this timecrammed into around 40 minutes. The story is a little over-the-top inpartsbut when directed and acted by Allen it works without fault. Taking such asimple thing as a mother’s forceful nature and turning it into asuccessfulshort comedy is something only Allen could be so successful at doing.(4/5)

New York Stories is overall an excellent compilation, showcasing three ofthe best film directors of our time and indeed of ALL time. Scorsese andAllen put together excellent pieces and showed their talents to the world,unfortunately Coppola couldn’t do the same.

What if New York Stories 2 was made today? Whose films would the sequelfeature? I’d like to see Michael Mann (Heat, The Insider), and returnsfromAllen and Scorsese. A once-a-decade face-off between the three premierdirectors. Sounds good to me.

This film is quite fascinating-in parts. My best advice to anyone rentingitis to sit back and thoroughly enjoy the first segment by Martin Scorsese("Life Lessons")-although you may be sick of "A Whiter Shade of Pale" bytheend of it, or you may have a new reason to love it. Then, I suggest youfastforward through the painful middle story by Francis Ford Coppola. I reallytried to like it, seeing as how this was the same man who brought us "TheGodfather." Alas, even I couldn’t sit through it. Then, watch Woody Allen’svery funny "Oedipus Wrecks." This short film, like Albert Brooks’ "Mother"will have you going, "My God, it’s Mom!" A satisfying rent. Try to get thepeople at Blockbuster to knock fifty cents off the price for not watchingthe middle part.

read comments (0)

Leviathan

First of all.. what’s his name, Peter Weller.. CANNOT ACT. HAHAHHA. GOD.. ifhe can, his role in thie movie was PATHETIC. Those HORRIBLE lines he got, Idon’t remember exactly, but something like, "Six pack, if you don’t behave,I’ll pop your tops, all six of them". HAHAHA. And the way the camera focusedon his eyes, sure, they’re blue, does that mean we want to look at them allthe time? hahaha. Now then.

This movie was okay.. Not really bad.. Worth watching if you’r bored.DeJesus was kind of good. I guess they threw him in to keep peopleinterested. The ending was gay, sure, when ’someone’ got punched out, butall in all, it’s… fine.

The stupidity of this movie made me want to pull my hair out. I didn’thave a problem with the "man in a rubber monster suit", or themeaningless pseudo-scientific techno-babble, or even the preposterousplot. I could even overlook the nonsense about siting a bunch ofnuclear missiles on the bottom of the sea. After all, that’s the kindof stuff you expect in a sci-fi monster flick.

What I can’t stand is watching characters do things that are so stupidthat they are simply not believable. Would anyone actually "dispose" ofnearby nuclear weapons by detonating them? No one over 6 years oldwould ever think that this is a good idea, but that’s just one ofnumerous scenes that had me shaking my head, thinking, "no one wouldever do that, not in a million years." It’s like the mission to Mars,or whatever life or death deep-space expedition, supposedly entrustedto a crew of highly trained astronauts, half of whom invariably havepersonality disorders or behavioral problems that would disqualify themfrom getting a job at the Post Office. In a film which requires awilling suspension of disbelief, being continually reminded that you’rewatching a movie by having poorly directed actors thrash about chewingup the scenery makes it impossible to enjoy. Illogical and aggressivebehavior doesn’t make up for the lack of a plot. Having characters actin a totally irrational or moronic manner for the sake of dramatictension , like fighting and arguing when facing imminent death anddestruction is the mark of a mediocre director. It’s a bad-movie clichéto have actors bitching and bickering while bullets are flying.

This waste of time was released the same year as James Cameron’s "TheAbyss", one of the best deep-sea sci-fi films ever made. While they areboth based on premises that were speculative and extreme, "The Abyss"has some of the best dramatic scenes of any movie in the genre,demonstrating that it’s possible to have both believable acting and anexcellent hard-core sci-fi story. "Leviathan" really suffers incomparison. Bottom line: don’t waste your time. Check out "The Abyss"instead.

Take Alien and John Carpenters The Thing splice them together thensubmergein water and you have…….Leviathan! Had the two previously mentionedfilms never been made then this would be a unique sci-fi horror film. Allinall it’s not bad although some fine actors don’t really get much of achanceto ply their trade due to the FX taking up a fair amount of time in thepicture.

Rating No stars out of 5(Basicly a BOMB)

Although this one had better special effects than DeepStar Six had, asimilar movie in 1989. Leviathan was smiply just another rip-off fraud moviefor The Abyss. These Italian filmmakers make such inept movies. The sameplot monster trying to kill scientist and biologists in an under water crewstation which leads Peter Weller to save them all. Amanada Pays, HectorElizondo and Richard Crenna look properly embarrsed. This film not onlymakes DeepStar Six and The Abyss embarrising but makes itself embarrsed aswell. Also starring Daniel Stern and Ernie Hudson.

Every second of this movie you can basically predict from the start. All ofthe most basic uses of "foreshadowing" are utilized, making you do anythingBUT sit on the edge of your seat. The stock horror "coming back for onefinal scare" pretty much made me laugh my butt off, because the "monster"was a basic joke, and it also gave the writers a chance to kill off the lastof the characters who weren’t romantically involved–therefore leaving justthe two lovers left so that there weren’t any odd feelings of having a"third wheel" in the mix (too bad, I liked Ernie Hudson’s character alittle).

I think that if you suffer from insomnia, this just might be the cure. Itwill bore your brain into a coma.

I believe it was a nice film, I remember seeing it back in the Stateswhwn I was a kid, great cast but it’s another one of them "in yourface" B-movies so it would be predictable. But what’s with the ending?There was a shark? Thatr was weird, it has nothing to do with the movieand then the chopper comes in rescues them and the monster rises up andtakes Ernie and Weller blows his arse up. That was predictable, and notimpressive, they could’ve at least let Hudson make it at the end buthis fate was sealed. And I still think the sharks at the end made itlook laughably awful. It looked like the ending of Deep Blue Sea,except the black guy survived, but I still don’t get it. Overall a goodmovie, but filled with many stereotypes found in Sci-Fi/horror films,recommended for people into that genre.

LEVIATHAN is one of a a lot of under water movies from the year 1989.And beside The Abyss, I think this is a cool movie. The first half ofit is quite intense and exciting. The other half is all too cheep andpanic-like; It more becomes a dumb monster movie the last half hour,and totally loses its feeling with the horror aspect… The story abouthuman experiments is exciting enough, we don't need a monster too.

The acting is good: Peter Weller gives, as always, a strong performanceas the leader, Richard Crenna as the sad Doc is also played good, andlast but not at least, one of my favorite actors: Daniel Stern gives itall the way as the prankster Sixpack serving jokes and insults with acool attitude.

LEVIATHAN is an OK film, if nothing else is on.

I’ve always wondered why aliens/monsters/etc have to be so slimy? Isthere a reason for this? As you understand, otherwise I wouldn’t bewriting this, Leviathan is no exception. I just don’t get it. Is thatsupposed to make them more frightening? Another feature that I neverunderstood was the fact that all computers have different interfaces.No "Microsoft rules the world" here. No, no. According to the movieindustry there are about 2 000 000 different OS developers out there.And I, personally, would love to have a OS that lets me write questionslike "Take a guess". And they all have a voice interface. Then thatthey spite this advanced technologies still used CGA graphics didn’tseem to disturb any directors. This have become better. Like theinterface in "Johnny Mnemonic". But I guess we are all limited by ourtime. Very few of us can in a realistic way foresee what things willlook like in 20 years. Remember the computer in Space: 1999? Even MrKubrick, my favourite, couldn’t see past the terrible fashion thatruled back in the late 60’s in "A Clockwork Orange". I wouldn’t want towake up with a hang over and be forced to go into that kitchen to makecoffee.

I guess most of the different aspects of this movie, Leviathan, hasbeen covered here already. But I wanted to reflect over one actor thatI’ve never really could deal with; Richard Crenna.

The first time I saw Crenna was in "First Blood". I think most of youknow about his appearance in this movie, but for those who don’t he isa Colonel in the Special Forces that is going to help the local policeand national guard to catch Mr Rambo. And from this moment and forward,I just can’t stand his acting. He is stereotype no matter what role heplays. Always the same "o
ne eye brow up face a little to the side"look. And I find that unbearably annoying. I guess I’m not the onlyone, because he played mostly for TV and I guess that shows that he wasnot a top-notch actor.

That cast, that crew! What an utter and total disappointment! However, thespecial effects are very good. This time around, an under water sea crewdiscovers the crew members are dying and then turning into fish monstersafter drinking vodka that was brought into their ship from an abandonedsub.The ships leader (Peter Weller) squares off against an executive (MegFoster) who seems as though she could care less about the crew’s dangeroussituation.

Rated R; Violence and Profanity.

My rating: 0 (zero) stars out of ****

Horrible sci-fi/horror film about a crew of a deep-sea laboratory that beginmutating into hideous mutants after injesting what they thought waswiskey.Terrible, with lots of gross monster effects, gruesome gore, and PeterWeller’s HORRIBLE acting. We do get some cool F/X and Amanda Pays in herunderwear and Bra (Twice! What goodies!), and the monster effects are wildlycreative, but the "alien" rip-off settings, poor script, by-the-numbersplot, and predictable (but kind of fun) ending hammer ittremedously.

read comments (0)