The Rescuers Down Under

Ok, the setting. Walt Disney movies hadn’t been the same since Walt’sdeath.Box office success seems to elude the company and ambitious projects likeThe Black Hole don’t deliver. What’s worse, Bluth’s new company putssuccessful family animated entertainment back on the charts with TheSecretof NIMH. A big embarrassment to Disney and perhaps a wake-up call to getbackon the animated ball. So the folks at Disney came up with a sequel totheirsemi-successful Rescuers movie. I think this sequel was much better thanthefirst. Excellent story coupled with good animation and an politicallycorrect eco-care theme to boot.This movie really did deserve the success and attention it brought back tothe company. I would be willing to bet that this movie’s success provedDisney still had the stuff and probably provided the impetus to invest intheir next movie, "The Little Mermaid" … and the rest is history. Ofcourse, with the success of Mermaid, Disney has stuck with the formula ofworking off of established folk-tales for their animated fare,unfortunatelyneglecting modern themes seen in "The Secret of NIMH and this movie. Socheck this movie out to see Disney at some of its best, and before theydelved back into less risky, safe, folksy storylines responsible for theircommercial success over the past 10 years.

seriously. this is like Indy kiddie-fied. nothing against Dr. Jones by anymeans i’ve worn those 3 out over and over again. but this is one the bestSEQUELS of any kind ever. it so outdoes the original it isn’t even funny.plus this is the 1st Disney movie that was ever bought for me at thetenderage of 10 ( a milestone in it’s own right) one of the best voice castingjobs ever! Newhart and Gabor are top notch just as they were 13 yearsearlier. George C. Scott is the cartoon villain dreams are made of. andthetrue highlight along with the character of Frank is the late, great JohnCandy. i adore the work of this man even today some 8 or 9 years since hispassing and he was hilarious as always in this one. watch it! i hadn’twatched it in years it set in the closet shelf collecting dust but if youhave it break it out of wherever you’ve hid it and enjoy itagain.

thanks!

Along with The Great Mouse Detective, The Rescuers Down Under is awonderfuladventure with some early experimentation with computer animation. Acompelling story with plot complications mature enough to engage adults,thevisuals are matched by the strong voice cast including Geroge C. Scott asasuitably nasty villian. As is often Disney custom, the villian is matchedwith a comic relief side kick (in this case a mute lizard henchman). Oneofthe best examples of cinematic comic timing involves the two characterscounting eggs. I highly recommend this movie for Disney animation fans whomay have over-looked this gem.

The best Disney film I’ve seen.For me Frank the frilled Lizard was thebestcharecter and is my favorite Disney charecter!I really liked the animation and the voices really suited thecharecters.

Aside from the wider use of special effects to simulate soaring flights overland and sea and some very realistic computer generated camerawork, THERESCUERS DOWN UNDER doesn’t compare favorably in story and characters to theearlier Disney film, THE RESCUERS (’77).

For one thing, the principals Bernard and Miss Bianca don’t enter the filmuntil twenty minutes of exposition pass. The little boy in no way draws thekind of sympathy or involvement in his plight that the rescued Penny did inthe original film. He’s a mere cypher and we know next to nothing about him.The film is apparently designed as an impressive showcase for computerizedanimation techniques.

The trouble is that despite the gimmicky effects, the story content is notonly slim but unappealing, dealing as it does with an unappetizing poacher(George C. Scott) and his cohorts in a plan to get rich at the expense ofwildlife. Scott’s voice is well used for the character but fails to combinethe wickedness with the broad sense of humor we usually have in Disneyvillains. He does have a few humorous asides but nothing memorable exceptfor lines like "I didn’t go all the way through third grade fornothing."

Eva Gabor and Bob Newhart are again on hand as the voice talent for MissBianca and Bernard. John Candy’s fans will enjoy his wildly humorous stintas Wilbur the albatross. But the animation is on a lower level than theoriginal as far as the characters are concerned, with more emphasis on thebrilliant backgrounds and soaring movements that are real enough to stir upsome motion sickness after awhile.

Some of the most humorous moments in the film are supplied by Joanna, thecunning lizard used and abused by Scott’s character. Although the filmdoesn’t duplicate the charm of the original, children will probably love itssense of adventure and the boy’s soaring flights over canyons and rivers onthe back of an eagle. Does not rank among the great Disney films butchildren will probably find it engrossing enough.

After nearly two decades of disappointing animated movies, the Disneyfolks got back to winning ways in 1989 with The Little Mermaid. Thatmarked the start of a succession of five Disney cartoons in a row thatwere all of a really high quality, the five being The Little Mermaid,The Rescuers Down Under, Beauty And The Beast, Aladdin and The LionKing. The second film on this list - The Rescuers Down Under - is arip-roaring adventure movie which is a sequel to an earlier Disneymovie made in 1977. In fact, the original The Rescuers was a prettyforgettable film and it seems extremely strange that the Disney peoplehad that particular film in mind when they decided to make a sequel.This second instalment is thankfully much more memorable, well-animatedad exciting. It’s not often that it can be said, but this is a case ofa sequel which is superior to the original.

In the Australian Outback, a young boy named Cody (voice of Adam Reyen)rescues and befriends a rare golden eagle. Later, the boy is capturedin a trap by wanted local poacher McLeach (voice of George C. Scott).When McLeach finds one of the eagle’s feathers in the boy’s backpack heis instantly overcome with excitement, for he knows that to capturesuch a grandiose bird would make him filthy rich! McLeach kidnaps theboy and attempts to force out of him the whereabouts of the rare eagle.Meanwhile, a message is sent to New York, home of the Rescue AidSociety…. a bunch of dare-devil mice who specialise in saving thelives of endangered children. Once again, mice agents Bernard (voice ofBob Newhart) and Bianca (voice of Eva Gabor) find themselves up totheir neck in adventure as they try to rescue young Cody from hisabductor’s lair.

The animation in this 1990 release is absolutely excellent and seems tomark a significant step forward in terms of the technology available toanimators. The story is exciting and fast-paced, with just a sprinklingof humour to offer a little relief from the action from time to time.On the whole, the voice acting is very good, most notably Newhart andGabor as the heroes, with solid support from John Candy’s comicalalbatross and Scott’s seriously unpleasant villain. Purists might besurprised and disappointed by the lack of the usual catchy Disney songs(there are none in this one, not even a theme song over the credits),but in most departments this is a first-rate animated movie that shouldenthral kids and adults alike.

Just fairly decent animation, mediocre and poorly used voice talents, a badstory, lack of side-kick humor and humor altogether(grown-up humor, thatis), a horribly evil and unfunny villain, and unbelievable scenes thatalmost defy even the laws of animation …need I go on.Disney is rarely this unbalanced and unfunny, and what’s up with theAustralian boy speaking with an American accent. The likes of the greatestanimation studio in the world shouldn’t afford such blatantmistakes.This animated movie defin
itely isn’t for teenagers, let alone adults, butit’s much too dark and includes a really evil bad guy to make the youngeraudience appreciate it."The Rescuers Down Under" is a poor and uneven cartoon that makes me furtherunderstand why Pixar is and probably will be so successful. They’re able tomake both the young ones and adults have a blast. Don’t think I’ll give theoriginal one, "The Rescuers" a chance. 4/10

Bernard and Bianca return in a movie after a 13 year absence, but this timethey are headed for the land down under to look for a missing boy. That isAustalia is you didn’t know that. As the movie opens, a young boy named Cody(Adam Ryen) rushes to the help of a golden eage. She comes to his resureafter falls off the cliff by her wing. After the ride, Cody falls down ahole and is recured by a hunter named Mcleach (George C. Scott) and getskidnapped. And a call for help goes out from Australia with stops in othercites before getting send to New York, where Bianca agrees the mission tothe land down under without telling Bernard (Bob Newhart). And he and Bianca(Eva Gabor) gets a flight from an alatross named Wilbor (John Candy). Downunder they get help from Jake (Tristan Rogers). Better yet, it may be betterto stay home and see Austalia instead of taking a long flight to go downthere. But where would you want to hear "G’day" in the country itself orthis movie. G’day. 10/10

This wasn’t my favorite Disney film. I mean it is fun to watch sometimes.But it’s more for the kids than adults. I love Disney films a lot, eventhough they are meant more for children. I always felt like they shouldalsobe for adults. "The Recscuers down under" was not one ofthem.

6/10

By all accounts, the lion’s share of Disney sequels sorely lack anysemblance of the pure Disney magic that we all could come to expectfrom the films that preceded them. And it’s easy to disseminate theroot causes. They are not well storyboarded from the get-go, arecompleted outside of Disney Feature Animation’s walls, and notsurprisingly, are micromanaged into a cookie-cutter recipe from aboveby less-than-talented management.

And this has to do with "Rescuers Down Under"…how? It doesn’t, and Ilove it. Disney’s first attempt at an animated sequel was a magicalbrew of the same ingredients that made "Rescuers" endeared by so many,young and old. And what’s more, the differences between the two havemade "Down Under" down right better. This was Disney’s first foray intothe world of 3d animation, and the beauty of its use in the film isthat it’s utilized fairly sparingly, and I’m convinced that they knewthe technology wasn’t yet powerful enough to warrant use all on itsown. The color schemes give me a sense of warmth, like I assume theland down under is nearly year-round. It’s not nearly as dark and drabas its predecessor, so the sense of innocence so lost is felt on adeeper level than with Penny of the original.

"Down Under"’s opening 20 minute salvo could be categorized as itsweaker point because of its lack of the main story’s progression, but Ibeg to differ. Disney’s cornerstone formula of a magical movie-goingexperience has always been storytelling, and it’s most apparent in thefirst 20 minutes. This is when we truly know how deep the bonds runthrough the boy and the massive golden eagle not just because heinitially rescues her from a poacher’s trap, but when she rescues himfrom a perilous fall down a cliff she bumped him off from and flies himback to her nest, we know the connection is quite mutual. Now we knowthe depths that one is willing to go through to rescue the other.

The voice acting cannot go unnoticed, either. Bob Newhart and Eva Gaborreturn, respectively, as Bernard and Miss Bianca and prove thatthirteen years between the two Rescuers movies didn’t diminish theirabilities at all. Wilbur’s performance by the late great John Candymake this it as memorable as any one of his live action movies.McLeach, the evil poacher, is given new depths of eeee-vilness byGeorge C. Scott, who had definitely made his niche in thecharacterization in movies past. The glaring lack of an Australianaccent aside, Adam Ryen’s performance as Cody is right on par and wascrucial to the ability to connect with the character.

Neither can the powerful performance by Glen Keane, animatorextraordinaire of Marahute the golden eagle, go overlooked. From thefirst frame, it is very obvious that he is intimately familiar with thebody of an eagle and all its workings, and on through to the lastframe, I know that he had all the time and resources he needed tocomplete such an awesome effort.

But honestly, what kind of 8-year-old could have visualized the movieon this kind of level when it had barely come out fifteen years ago?Really, the only thing that mattered to me was that I felt a bond withthe boy, a deep-down conviction that the trials he endures arehappening to me in a different plane of being. And when the finalcredits have rolled, that is ultimately what makes or breaks such amovie, which definitely made it great.

"Rescuers Down Under" gets 9 of 10 stars

read comments (0)

The Russia House

Russia House should have been a great film. Certainly with spirit ofglasnost prevailing at the time, the western crews who came to the soonto be extinct Soviet Union to make this film got some great locationcinematography of Leningrad, Moscow and other points of interest on theEuropean continent. Sean Connery's name heading the cast should haveguaranteed box office and I'm sure a few people paid for movie ticketsfor Russia House.

Unfortunately what they got was one two hour long boring story. Conneryis a book publisher who gets a manuscript from a Russian scientisttelling the truth about their defense capabilities. Of course the spyagencies from the UK and the USA find out about it and enlist Conneryin some dangerous games to prove the authenticity of the manuscript.

This is a spy story with no guns, no gadgets, but unfortunately no realstory. Totally unlike other John LeCarre stories done for the screenlike The Spy Who Came In From the Cold or Smiley's People. Try as Imight I just could not get into this film, not even for Sean Connery.

Michelle Pheiffer is the go between for the Russian scientist andConnery the publisher. A little May/December romance evolves betweenConnery and Pheiffer, but it doesn't save the story.

If you're expecting James Bond from Russia House, don't bother. But Ican't say see it if you expect something like The Spy Who Came In Fromthe Cold.

the book was better than the movie but a movie, of course, can bring outsome things we(i) may not be able to imagine. for instance not being much ofa jazz fan hearing branford marsalis playing was much better than what i washearing in my head. my katya in my head looked like michelle pfeiffer,because i saw the show before i read the book, so that wasruined.the movie was good. worth watching if one does not read much. but there ismovie on paper than there is on the screen.

"The Russia House" is a Cold War espionage story based on the novel byJohn le Carré. The film features impressive shots of Moscow andLeningrad matched by a great score from Jerry Goldsmith. Since the filmwas shot in 1990, it depicts the Soviet Union in the wake of MikhailGorbachev's reforms and on the verge of collapse.

Leading the cast is Sean Connery, who shows an interesting character in"Barley" Blair, a British publisher that is reluctantly dragged intothe world of espionage. Michelle Pfeiffer is perfect as Katya, aRussian woman involved in the intrigue. Pfeiffer's Russian accent andher nuances in speaking English were a great part of her character. Therelationship between Barley and Katya is well-developed and makes theromance in the film welcome. The supporting cast is also superb, withKlaus Maria Brandauer as "Dante", James Fox as a warm yet temperedBritish Intelligence bureaucrat and Roy Scheider as a crass CIAbureaucrat.

The story of "The Russia House" develops slowly and thoughtfully. Thoselooking for a spy movie with a lot of action scenes should definitelyavoid this film. I enjoyed the interesting story progression and thefilm's focus on character development. The film's end was a verysatisfactory end to the intrigue.

*** This Comment May Contain Spoilers About (Casablanca - 1942) Also***

(Sean Connery), (Michelle Pfeiffer), (Roy Scheider), (James Fox) and(Klaus Maria Brandaur) WAW ! In fact when I first watched the originaltrailer (which is great by the way) it surprised me wonderfully becausehaving all of those stars whom I love in one romantic spying moviebased on one of (John Le Carré)'s novels could've been real fun.. Butas you see.. "It could've been" Not "had been" ! So why is that ?

I think it's in the script. When you look at movies like (Clear andPresent Danger - 1994) you can see clearly a capacity in mixing so manystory lines cleverly without any sense of confusion or omission. And inanother movies like (The Last Samurai - 2003) you may find thesmartness of gathering what's public and what's private in balancedway. Actually it's the creative ability of a scriptwriter to harmonizeall the elements together to make what the genre requires and what thepeople need in one movie. In (The Russia House) the formula was to makespying adventure with one love story and how it could survive. Buteventually I think it was deficient both ways !

It's basically a story about how disloyalty can be a real loyalty foranother love. How you can betray a cause to be faithful to higher one.So (Dante) wanted to publish his own country's secrets to terminate thenuclear armament for good, and how (Barley) didn't want that, just tosave his love. It's a matter where "Rick Blaine" here is following hisheart more than his patriotism. The tune of saving the eastern party'speople is so romantically spurting this time more than any time. Sofirstly it might be this formula as well as its message as we have aman who loved a woman more than his own homeland (especially withBarley's last move with the K.G.P). That could bother some of thepatriotic viewers moreover the simple ones whom went to see the oldBond strikes again !

Moreover.. The details of the spy story and even the love story were sobad. We didn't have any sane opportunity to live anything satisfyingly.It's only a brief sentence to know the character of (Katya), a veryfast as well as poor scene to know about the love life of (Barley) "hischaotic flat", and a hasty flashback to discover how it was Casablancafor (Katya Orlova) all along as another (Ilsa Lund) who loved theserious wrong man once ! So nearly everything seemed tastelesslylaconic.

But it annoyed me the most with the very easy love story between the 2main leads. Why all his previous love stories "were just a preparationsfor me to you" ?! , and why she fall in love with that dangerous manfor else reason more than his tweed suit and him being the charismatic(Sean Connery) ?!

Also, I didn't understand why after taking (Connery)'s character to theinterrogation at the start there was, minutes later, that flashback forhim setting in a café with a friend to see how they took him already?!, maybe it was just an attempt to begin thrillingly but sure thattotally superfluous scene frustrated it !

There was a big and irritating irony between what we've been watchingand what we've been listening as the music of (Jerry Goldsmith) wastruly more romantic, solid, and eloquent than the movie's events. Itlooked like a grandly touching soundtrack for another better romancethat eventually I didn't watch ! It promises all the time but the moviedidn't deliver, or at least didn't deliver that talented much. Sowatching the Photo-montage of the city's signs with emotional music inthe background was a direct love story between the makers of the movieand the civilization of that oppressed part of the world more than thedramatic love story between (Barley) & (Katya), therefore thatbeautiful sequence seemed like a TV's program about Russia's ancientsplendor or the greatness of its prisoner art which deserves now to befree however that was out of the story as explicit expression from thedrama's makers not its characters !

Not to mention characters we didn't go deep enough inside them, and adie hard happy ending that abbreviated nearly everything in a fool notconvincing way (the memo was just a hoax !?), and miscarried a decentclimax for a spying adventure.

..Though maybe the whole movie was a disloyalty to the spying story andthe spying business itself to make such a romance which assures lovemore than anything, but (The Russia House) couldn't serve any of thempowerfully despite the sensitive atmosphere, the brilliantcinematography, the great music, and the try to make a dreamy happy endout of (Casablanca).

Saw
this when it came out in the theaters and years later bought it onDVD. I'm convinced that it was re-cut and edited to be more romantic onthe DVD version.

I don't think it was as full of music (which is truly remarkable -Branford Marsalis is right up there with the great saxophonists) or hadsuch a sappy ending (I think) when it was first released.

There's some great acting in it, particularly by Roy Scheider on theCIA side, as well as James Fox and Michael Kitchen on the British side.But most especially by Klaus Maria Brandauer. He stands up well to SeanConnery.

Hated Ken Russel. Don't like his movies much and hated his acting.

So, does anyone know if this was re-cut for DVD release?

"The Russia House" makes one valid point: the "James Bond" movies do notprovide an accurate description of the life of a spy. Having said that, if"The Russia House" does provide such an accurate description, one wonderswhy anyone would make this movie.

Simply put, this is very dull stuff. Sean Connery is Barley Blair, a Britishpublisher who has a love for Russia and visits the old Soviet Unionregularly. Set at the end of the Cold War, just as Gorbachev is beginning toopen the Soviet Union to the West, Blair is conscripted against his will towork with Katya (Michelle Pfeiffer), a Russian publisher who has sent him amanuscript which actually contains Soviet military secrets. The majorproblem with this movie for me was that it just didn’t seem that anythingparticularly important was at stake. As a result, the movie lacked tension;there was nothing in it that particularly held my interest.

It does - quite deliberately I think - address the question of just who the"bad guys" really are in this. A couple of scenes address this inparticular. As Blair reluctantly meets with British Intelligence officialswho are trying to convince him to take on this assignment, he’s told by one"this is a free country. You have no choice." Then, as Blair is given apolygraph by CIA officials, this exchange: CIA - "Are you being coerced?"Blair - "Yes." CIA (somewhat excitedly) - "By the Soviets?" Blair (verydeliberately) - "NO!"

It has a few moments, but overall I was quite disappointed.3/10.

THE RUSSIA HOUSE is a very well acted film with a good though electiccast.Connery is fairly good in his role but he could have played the part withalittle more laid back attitude , Pfeiffer is great as is Klaus MarieBrandauer but whose idea was it to cast Ken Russell and Martin Clunes ?Theproblem I had with THE RUSSIA HOUSE is that John Le Carre novels are not agood source material for films , they`re far too literary with lots ofscenes of characters discussing espionage strategy and the human conditionand this is no different . There`s too much talk , too much philosophy andnot enough action . I remember this film was marketed as a thriller on itsrelease when it`s nothing of the sort - it`s a drama . Bare this in mindandyou may not be too disappointed while watching it

I loved this movie based on Carrès book. Connery and Pfeiffer interactgreat and persuasive. The music-content and music-scenes makes it aten-score.

Touching, true, intelligent and sensitive. Some politics, someanarchism, some concerts, some spying, some history and some romance.Perfect!

The filming of Russia is stunning and real. The people, buildings andweather sums it all up. Katjas uncle and children…it is all so realand convincing.

Growing up love, Russia and US fall in love, integrity and affectionfor each other: In the middle of a huge plot between Dante and Americaninvestigators who wants to sell "a Picasso" to Mr. Publisher Barley.But Mr. Barleys "Picasso" is not for sale…The man’s got integrity andto the American investigators anger, anarchistic tendencies. Except forone of them, who actually want to help Mr. Barley. Pretty sympathetic foran American to be…

A superb novel by John le Carre and faithfully transferred to the bigscreen by Tom Stoppard, this film should be remembered as one of theall-time greats.

Katya Orlova, played exquisitely by Michelle Pfeiffer, was, and remainsa character of love, intelligence, courage and beauty. I for onecouldn’t help falling in love with Katya. Ms Pfeiffer was simplybrilliant in the role, and totally convincing.

The leading character, a debauched upper-class English publisher playedby Sean Connery was also totally convincing and a joy to watch. As thestory unfolds his love for Katya grows and, perhaps for the first timein his life, learns the meaning of true, grown-up love for a woman, andwhat it really means. He becomes a man.

An extremely amusing cameo performance was delivered by (I think) KenRussell, and one which I will remember forever.

As for the rest of the cast all I can say is that they all performed tothe same exemplary standards as the leading actors.

Overall, this gets my vote as the best movie of all time!

This is a treat for Connery fans who may want to see him in a movie wherehe’s not always about to be blown off the face of the Earth. In thismovie,he has a pivotal role working for British Intelligence, but there aren’tanyexplosions and whatnot. It’s thrilling and exciting in the way of anespionage thriller. The romance between his character, Barley, and theRussian go-between, Katya, is earnestly portrayed by both Connery andPfeiffer. The supporting cast do a good job in creating a suspensefulatmosphere. Important to listen, as there aren’t many visual effects totell the story.

read comments (0)

The Two Jakes

I really wanted this film to work better than it did. Jack Nicholson'sJake Gittes character from Chinatown deserved a better sequel thanthis, however. That said, Nicholson is still a treat to watch as theresourceful private eye, and he even shows some skill behind thecamera. The cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond is as wonderful as ever.Problems come mostly from the fact that Robert Towne's script can't letgo of too many elements from the original film, and we the audience areleft with one of those "could have been great" films.

The story picks up about a decade or so after the events in Chinatown.WWII is now over, and Jake Gittes has become a much more successfulinvestigator, yet he still does the occasional adultery case. In theopening scenes of The Two Jakes, Gittes gets himself involved in onesuch case with deadly consequences. A man we are led to believe is ajealous husband (Keitel) hires Gittes to stake out a motel with himwhere his wife (Tilly) will be meeting her lover. The lover turns outto be Keitel's business partner, and Keitel shoots the man dead! Thisleaves Gittes as a possible accessory to murder! It's up to Gittes toclear his name and figure out if Keitel's fit of anger was just that,or if there are bigger things going on in the background. Well, ofcourse there are! This is a Robert Towne script! Before we're done,we've got the housing industry, the oil industry, and a sex-crazedwidow in the mix, as the story wildly jumps the tracks and eventuallyleads to an explosive conclusion.

That plot I have just described actually would have been enough for agreat new film about Jake Gittes. Trouble is, Towne makes the mistakeof digging up elements from Chinatown that seem awfully contrived asthey are woven into the current plot. We learn early on for examplethat Gittes is still haunted by the memory of Faye Dunaway's characterfrom Chinatown. Too much time is wasted digging up memories of her,even at one point having Gittes find her old butler and rehash oldmemories with him. In the last fifteen minutes, we also learn thatKeitel's wife is really Dunaway's daughter from Chinatown. Yes, the oneshe had in an incestuous relationship with her father. This is just toomuch of a contrivance to swallow. There is simply no need to bring theMulwray family back and try to weave them into this story! There areother problems with the story. We are told that Gittes in engaged, butwe never really get to know his fiancé, and she is all but forgottenuntil a scene where she ends the whole affair with him. RichardFarnsworth is introduced as an unscrupulous oil man who may be doinggreat damage to the countryside with his illegal drilling practices.Yet, once this is revealed to us, nothing ever comes of it! I think thefilm probably suffered from too many re-writes. Trouble with Towne is,he knows he's a gifted writer. So he likely feels he needs to makethings needlessly complicated in order to put his name on a script.

This film bombed badly in the theaters. this is probably due to thelong production delays as much as anything. Too many people probablyforgot how good Chinatown was to want to go see this film. It's too badthat The Two Jakes keeps trying to remind us.

6 of 10 stars.

The Hound.

"The Two Jakes" is the sequel to the famous mystery film "Chinatown".It is true that "The Two Jakes" isn't a classic of the caliber of itsprequel, but then few films are. None the less, it is an excellent filmin its own right.

Rather than the 1930s setting of "Chinatown", this film moves to the1940s with a similar splendor. Jack Nicholson aptly reprises his roleas Jake Gittes and the supporting cast is solid as well. The importantpoint about "The Two Jakes" is that it succeeds in developing athoughtful and convoluted mystery in the same spirit as its prequel.Also important is that it successfully integrates material from"Chinatown" into its story. Jack Nicholson's monologues to accompanythe story were hit or miss. Some of them were clever, others seemedquite trite. Overall I found "The Two Jakes" to be a satisfactorysequel to "Chinatown", which is saying a lot.

This sequel to CHINATOWN has a lot going for it, but unfortunately itsparts do not amount to a full on masterpiece. Jack Nicholson repriseshis role of Jake Gittes, this time knee deep in a mystery involvingland baron Harvey Keitel (the other "Jake"), daffy vamp Madeline Stoweand the very enigmatic Meg Tilly. Yes, it ties back to the earlier filmand yes, the script by Robert Towne is extremely rich. That said, thefilm itself is not altogether satisfying because while it's chock fullof excellent scenes, it's missing a major element that every goodmystery needs: a truly menacing adversary. While CHINATOWN concluded inthe most catastrophic way, THE TWO JAKES essentially cops out at theend. Still, it's a well-mounted period piece with exceptional acting(particulary Tilly) from all. Nicholson is a savvy director with a keensense of casting. He populates the supporting cast with FredericForrest, Eli Wallach, David Keith and, from the earlier film, JamesHong, Perry Lopez and the dependable Joe Mantell as his right-hand man.

To compare Chinatown and the Two Jakes, which would probably take moresufficiently a whole entire other article, one I wouldn't print here,it might be noteworthy on the surface to also make a co-comparison interms of iconic films. The Godfather 2 and Chinatown both came out in1974, and then both saw their respective next (and as we sit herelikely final) installments come out in 1990. Both were hyped to onedegree ore another, and neither one lived up to the majority of theexpectations that were already steadfast in everybody's minds (and, tobe fair, criticisms on both sides aren't entirely invalid). Butprobably even more-so for Two Jakes than Godfather 3, Jack Nicholsonand Robert Towne did have a solid story to tell in continuing along thesaga of Jake Gittes, whom Towne envisioned not simply in the context ofhis homage mold (Chandler/Hammett), but in a larger context than thenovelistic noirs of old. This was the second part of a supposedtrilogy, all based, according to Towne, on natural goods (first partwater, second part earth, third, the part unproduced, would have beenair and focused on pollution in the 50s).

It's easy to say that the Two Jakes is nowhere near the status ofChinatown, but then again it's also hard to say that Jack Nicholson isreally as great a director than Roman Polanski. He probably isn't, thisin spite of the fact that this could arguably be the best of the threefilms he helmed (the others underrated Drive, He Said, and Going'South). The best service that he does to the material is to makesomething that is by itself enthralling as a movie unto itself, whiletipping the hat to all of the various supporting characters thatpreviously appeared (from Escobar to the snotty hall-of-records nerd)in Chinatown. Only when Nicholson starts to get obvious, like with theflashes back to brief bits from the original film, does it get a littlemuch. What helps too to distinguish it is a slight change in pace withthe structure of the story. Not so much in certain mechanics of thedetective procedural, as Towne knows he can't mess with that too much.

The chief difference, which probably split and continues to split manyfans, is the use of voice-over. Polanski dropped it from his film,having the audience find things out as Gittes did. But for Nicholson,the narration is something else entirely. It's used a lot more like inproper detective fiction, not so much as to guide along the plot but toruminate, almost like some sage of a weathered snoop, and even if it'sused maybe once more than needed (which bit I can't quite point out)it's very effective in adding a mood to the piece, a tone thatcomplements the convent
ion of "we may be through with the past, but thepast is not through with us." In this case, Gittes, as continued to beplayed by Nicholson with that awesome balance of cool thinking and wit,gets into a case with "another" Jake (Keitel, what's not to say abouthim), and infidelity in the mix. But there's a lot more in store,including an audio recording of a crime, and some details in it thatstir up everybody's attention. Meanwhile, a woman named "Kitty", JakeBerman's wife, has something she's hiding from Gittes and… you getthe idea.

If The Two Jakes isn't always great art- and it's not to say therearen't some thrilling moments of pure cinema, like the opening shot orthose scenes driving out in the fields of California (and speaking ofnostalgia, orange groves), and the Green Parot club, not to mention acouple of other notable exceptions- it's excellent craftsmanship, whereit's like a yarn from the late 40s with a couple of extra spikes ofplot contrivance and luscious dames that give our Shamus a bit of aloop at times. It works on that level entirely, of still being playfulthrowback and serious crime drama, and while it doesn't break that manyrules there are for those who want to give it a shot. As far aslong-awaited sequels go, for me, it could've been a lot worse.

The natural reaction upon the discovery that a sequel to the amazingneo noir classic Chinatown exists, is both to immediately gasp inhorror and to be a little bit interested. The Two Jakes is a sequel toChinatown, reuniting Chinatown screenwriter Robert Towne and starringactor Jack Nicholson, who also directs the film. Set in the late 1940s,Private Investigator J.J. "Jake" Gittes again gets involved with ausual case of infidelity that turns into something far more serious.

When viewing, discussing, judging, or doing anything that revolvesaround The Two Jakes, the comparison to it's successful older brotherChinatown is inevitable. While it makes sense to make some comparisonsto Chinatown, this shouldn't be the only action towards The Two Jakesand it should be judged on its own merits as well. But having saidthat, The Two Jakes is basically incomparable to Chinatown anyhow inthat Chinatown is a far better film right from the word "go," but alsobecause The Two Jakes is only a slightly above average film.

Actually, things start off very well, we've got Gittes preparing for asting with a client of his and then seeing things get more involved.The first third of the film is shot very well, written very well, actedvery well, and the film simply goes and flows very well. Then the filmslowly develops into nothing but bland photography and startsover-packing all sorts of plot thickeners and "twists" into the filmthat not only makes things messy, but they confuse the hell out of theviewer (me anyway). At a certain point in the film you don't know whereor why or how characters are coming or going - or what's even going on!

Jack Nicholson is one of the few bright spots of the film, reviving hisJake Gittes character very well. The Jake Gittes in The Two Jakes lacksthe same flare as the Gittes in Chinatown but that is understandable,he's older now, he's more of a business man, and he survived a stint inthe army during World War II. Still, old habits die hard and Gittes'emotions still get in the way of the case and he keeps stride with theenemy. It may not be one of Nicholson's finest hours, but he does do agood job, putting a whole lot of strength into the role and bringingout Gittes' feelings of the past that haunts him very well.Unfortunately for Nicholson, he gets no help from his supporting castwhatsoever. Harvey Keitel is weak, Madeleine Stowe is terrible, DavidKeith is pathetic, and it's difficult to keep even one eye open whenRubén Blades is on screen.

The Two Jakes does have a few other positive points to it though. LikeI mentioned, the first third or so of the film is well shot, but theentire film is well lit and colored as well - however, not achievingthe same noir affect of that of Chinatown. Also, amidst the overall badstory, Robert Towne manages to squeeze a few lines of good and funnydialogue into the film. So with Jack Nicholson leading a film with amostly poorly written story that is mostly well shot, I say that TheTwo Jakes isn't a bad film and is mostly worth one's time. Still, bybeing a disappointing addition to the fabulous Chinatown, you almostwant a third film to finish off the series well - almost.

It comes as no surprise to learn that this follow-up to Chinatown wasravaged by all manner of funding and directorial crises. It appears tobe a film that is limping, carried to it's conclusion on the shouldersof one or two people. Nicholson is one of these St Christophers of thebig screen but he needs more help than this. The film's story isextremely difficult to follow, an unmodulated trickle of obfuscatedcause and effect and voice-over. Because Nicholson is directing there'snone of the objectivity that gives a rocking tension between episodesand characters - we feel further isolated from the story, entirelydependent on a single perspective. The acting is reasonable but doesn'treally make much of an impact: Keitel as the other Jake and Meg Tillyas his wife are the choicest. This film's greatest triumph is indemonstrating just what a good film Chinatown really is. 3/10

Because Los Angeles (say it with a hard "g" and you’ll get the exact waymost "Anglos" said it before 1950) is where desert meets ocean, therelingers over the place a constant aura of the primordial. It can be byturns a tropical paradise or a dusty wasteland. Raymond Chandler capturedthe feeling as no other writer before or after.

It is his heritage at work in both "Chinatown" (1974) and "The Two Jakes"(1990). Not only the place as shown but the style of writing is a derivativecomposite. With that kind of material as an inchoate element in every sceneand every nuance, the literate viewer is on familiar ground, always ready tosettle comfortably into the plot and characters no matter how lacking theyare in their own right.

Those of us old enough to remember when L.A. traffic lights had little"Stop" and "Go" flags on them and pedestrians were always given the right ofway will recognize this movie as Chandler redux. Jack Nicholson is possiblythe best actor around — now that Robert Mitchum is no longer here — toplay the Philip Marlowe role. And the old plot is still good: hard-bittendetective with heart of gold overbalancing many flaws gets some roughtreatment and goes through several femmes fatales on his way to solving thecrime.

It is precisely the lack of novelty at this point, together with an oddfilter on the lens and some vaguely wrong visual settings, that deter mefrom giving high marks on this one. That and the melodramatic conclusionwhich, as in "Chinatown," relies on an odd turn of events exposing thesecret. True Chandler fans would look more for a purely logical and organicclimax, with a whiff of Lucky Strikes rather than oil fumes in the air.

Chinatown was a great movie, and I think the screenwriter wastrying to do the same type of thing again, but the editing ordirection wasn’t good enough to carry it off. In Chinatown,you don’t know what’s really going on for the first two-thirdsof the movie (and neither does Jack Nicholson’s character), butyou figure out the real story just in time to be blown awayemotionally by the ending. Here, the movie turned out confusingenough that I didn’t figure out what was going on until a coupleof hours after I left the theater, which means that the endingdidn’t have a chance to affect me viscerally. And from some ofthe reviews I’ve seen, many people figured out even less than me.

A good story in the melancholy moo
d of its predecessor. With a cast ofNicholson and Keitel it would be impossible to say anything other thanthatthe acting was great. The writing was also good for the most partalthoughI think that the sex scene between Nicholson and Stowe was gratuitious aswell as the scene in the police station where Nicholson makes Keith suckhisgun.

The references to Chinatown were tastefully done and I believe the tragicfinal scene of Chinatown was brought to the fore in the right place butthatwhole scene was a bit overboard. Not that I mind a grown man getting thepee scared out of him, it just wasn’t necessary at the point ithappened.

What I really liked at the end when the credits are being listed was therendition of Jo Stafford’s "My Haunted Heart." It solidified themelancholymood of a very melancholy movie. ‘Tis a pity that most movie goersprobablymissed this mood enhancer.

Meg Tilly gave an Oscar level performance.

Dave Holt

Jack Nicholson’s direction in the style of Roman Polanski is a triumph offilm-making. For those of you who do not understand the power strugglesthat have existed in the Los Angeles area for nearly 100 years, it mayseemlike a stretch. But the character portrayals, the locations, and thesituations are so true to form that it would scare most mortals away fromliving here if they really understood how accurate these charactercomposites are. The struggle for land, water, money, and power haveexistedand continue to exist in the Southern California region. Do not ignorethismovie ! Read about the San Francisquito Dam disaster in the 1920’s andtheland-power struggles north of Los Angeles and north of the San FernandoValley and this movie will have more meaning (and humor) than you canimagine. If you live here, it’s also a very good laugh.

read comments (0)

Tremors

The TV version is great, they edit the bad language. The ones you buyhave it in and are hard to watch because of it. If I had kids Iwouldn’t let them watch it. Tremors 2 and 3 are funnier and have almostno objectionable language in them, on the home videos. I love to watchthem! The interplay between the characters is extremely funny. EarlBasset is lovable and smart, Val is such an immature child and reallyneeds Earl to guide him, but he is funny because of that. They reallyrise to the challenge of dealing with these monsters, they are verycourageous, fast thinkers, and keep their spirits up in spite of thehorrible things they see or the dangers they encounter. It hassomething in it for everyone, action, adventure, comedy, drama. I wishthere was a way to edit the bad language from the home video version,it is hard to watch because of that,so I wait for the TV version towatch the first tremors movie. This was supposed to be a PG movie butthe language is incredibly coarse,vulgar, and also disrespectful toGod.

Take "Jaws" and throw it into the desert, to a small place that has nomore than about 20 inhabitants. Its suppose to suck but the moviedoesn't. Maybe the critics ate it, maybe the box office gross fits intoa piggy bank but its fun. The movie has characters that work togetheras are Val and Earl. They should have made more movies together. Itsnot scary as it should be, i think its actually more fun than scary.Many jokes are at the right place, the setting in place would not workthis good if it was set anywhere else. Its been a long time since I'veseen the rest of the movies but in my opinion this one is by far thebest concerning the character development, their chemistry, the fun andthe rest.

This is just an overall good movie.I bought the movie a few years ago.AndIwill say this .There is 6 members of this family and we never ever gettiredof watching this movie.This is the only movie that everybody in the familylikes.Just a great movie.If you don’t have it go out and buy it.you willplay it over and over many many times……….AAAAAAAA+++++++

This is the remote town of Perfection. So much for the name. Val and Earl,two handymen, decide that the town is too dull for them and decide to headof to a new life in the neighbouring town of Bixby. However, on the waytheydiscover many strange things that have happened in the past few days -unaware to the rest of the population of Perfection. They soon discoverthecause of the strange goings-on.

This is easily one of my all time favourite films. I first saw it when Iwasabout eight and I loved it. I vowed to record it on video next time it wason.

Watch it!!

Lots of fun by Actors having fun too. Don’t let the tag line fool you. Iwish that other movies of the genre had characters this "normal" to presentto us. It’s a great "what if" kinda movie.

Avoid the sequels though. You can’t go home again.

I’m 15 now. I was 5 years old when it first came out in 1990. I remember Iused to watch this film all the time when I was young and it was thefunniest horror movie I’ve ever seen. Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward areexcellent in their roles as two bickering, low-key handymen who must savethe town they planned on leaving in the first place from giant man-eatingworms. The idea behind the graboids not being able to see, but can heartheir prey is in a unique concept that’s pulled off well and it gives way tosome pretty good chase scenes through the desert. Tremors was followed byTremors 2: Aftershocks, a funnier, but less entertaining sequel. Tremorsgets a 10/10.

Routine set-up and generic script barely even hurt this fun (and well made)old fashioned monster flick about a small town plagued by some unusualdeaths. They discover the source of these killings to be giant worms thatlive underneath the ground that devour anything that moves. Appealing cast,nice sense of humor and some heart stopping scare scenes add to the fun andexcitement. Don’t even bother with the awful sequels.

PG-13; Violence and Profanity.

When I first saw the previews of Tremors I thought wow this is going to be ascary film.When I saw it for the first time I was thrilled about thestory,the characters,and the monsters.Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward are greatand Finn Carter,Michael Gross and Reba McEntire is good also!Its anexcellent film and it has two good sequels!I recommend it for horror andscience fiction films fans alike!

The small desert town of Perfection, Nevada is being rattled by strongunderground tremors. Pulses start pounding when the town is terrorized bythe cause of the powerful vibrations…earth worm-like creatures thatmeasure 30 foot long. A little off beat and quirky. Sometimes a bit sillyand very light on intelligent dialogue. FX are pretty darn good and thiscomedic Sci-Fi will get you to squirming.

Fighting off these huge crawlers are Kevin Bacon, Fred Ward, Michael Grossand country music warbler Reba McEntire. Also notable are Finn Carter, BobbyJacoby and easy on the eye Charlotte Stewart. If you like ‘em scary andfunny, you should enjoy TREMORS.

Watching TREMORS is like watching one of those sci-fi/horror B moviesfrom the 1950s , specifically one you enjoyed as a child and stillwatch as an adult . In short TREMORS is a very likable movie

Set in the of Perfection in the isolated desert of Neveda the story iscarried by two good ole’ American boys Valentine Mckee and Earl Bassettwho stumble across the body of an associate who has strangely died ofdehydration and they soon realise that instead of taking care of themystery , the mystery will soon be taking care of them and the otherinhabitants of Perfection

I notice this has been described as " a comedy horror " or " a horrorspoof " but this is totally misleading because TREMORS is anaffectionate tribute to the sci-fi movies of the 1950s and where elseexcept a sci-fi 50s movie would monsters mutated by atomic radiation bestalking humans ? This makes the plot somewhat derivative and it alsoowes a lot to JAWS and in many ways the working title of LAND SHARKSwould be more accurate but if you’re after 90 minutes of affableentertainment more than succeeds in biting the target

read comments (0)

The Neverending Story II: The Next Chapter

In short, Neverending story II was a travesty compared to the original. itdoesn’t have the same magic as the first, instead it has a cheap Hollywoodsmell…and bad acting to boot. the creatures are all poorly designed(except the returning ones from the original). i found myself thinkingabout other stuff while watching the movie because the whole plot wastotally inconsequential. i can imagine how wolfgang petersen (the directorof the first) must’ve felt after this was released. of course he didn’tdirect this one. if he did, i’m sure it would’ve been much better. i gaveup about 3/4 of the way through when i realized i better things to do withmy day. bare in mind though that i absolutely loved the original. it isdefinitely one of the top five fantasy films. go see it…but not thisone.

I started watching this one, not expecting much to being with, given a totalorverhaul of the cast (except for the bookstore owner) and an opportunity tocash in on the brilliance of the first one.

There didn’t seem to be any reason to make a sequel. It was more like, whatwould happen if we could rewrite the first story? In the Never Ending StoryII, Bastian plays a kid in need of a lot of confidence and some affectionfrom his dad. But so did Bastian in the first one, who, by the end of thefilm, learned to build up said confidence and all of that. In other words,Bastian #1 learned all the lessons that the adventure of the first film wasmeant to teach him (and Atreyu as well, being his counterpart). But then, inthe second part, you would never know that any of the character buildingexisted, as they had written Bastian #2 as an inconfident kid who has to gothrough the adventures once again to learn all of those lessons…again.What was the point?

And, unlike the other great qualities of the first, namely special effects,which made the first one really terrific (and really terrific for anyfantasy film), the sequel has special effects comparable to a Dinsey musicalout of the 1960s. In addition to all of that, the acting was prettypathetic.

I just didn’t see any necessity to the Never Ending Story sequels other thana profit motive. But audiences who really enjoyed everything the first onehad to offer, were likely not to enjoy the sequels because they lacked somuch of that richness the first one had.

After the first one i had high expectations for this sequel, but it becameatrue disappointment !I almost couldn´t believe what i was seeing. I kept remembering thesituations in the book and hoping that when the movie got to that partthings would be better. Instead itonly got worst, because this movie kept destroying every good idea of theoriginal story.Never a brilliant book was so ripped apart !!

The soundtrack is the best thing in this movie. It is REALLY good, withsomebeautiful moments.It´s sad to see a such a good musical score wasted in a movie like this.This music should have been part of theoriginal Neverending Story, not on this disgrace of a sequel.

This movie has a very good atmosphere, very close to the first one, but wecan thank the soundtrack for it.

The production design is also very good too, but we getthefeeling that the designers weren´t allowed to dream much, because in thismovie there aren´t as many imaginative locations as in the originalmovie.The world of FANTASIA doesn´t look magnificent and vast anymore. It justlooks ok.

And that is one of the worst things about it, because thesecondpart of the novel is the one which has the most fantastic locations of thebook. Wonders could have been done with it, that would easily surpasseveryscene in NEVERENDING STORY I.Why was it kept so simple ?!!

I bet, because in some Hollywood executives head, as usual, Fantasy isjustfor children and children are too stupid to care about changes inbooks.

If there is a diference between the original NEVERENDING STORY, and thissequel , is that we clearly see that the first one was made as achildren’smovie but for adults to enjoy, specially the adults who readfantasy.The original achieved the impossible, delivering a movie thatdidn´t treat adults nor children as idiots.

Something that doesn´t happens with NEVERENDING STORY II, which is clearlyintended to be a kids movie, something between Disney meetsNeverending.

Every line of dialogue seems to be written to be " Way COOL ! " and funandnot to serve the original story.

And the new cast has a big trouble. The new BASTIAN, isgood, and it could have been in the original movie, but the new ATREIÙ, issimply unbelievable AWFUL !Who did ever choose this kid to play Atreiù ?!! WHY ?!!He´s too city american to play a character like that !

This kid seems to think he´s in America all the time, not in a fantasyworld! He acts more as if he were in Brooklyn than in Fantasia.

This must have been one of the worst castings in recent moviehistory.This kid simply isn´t convincing at all. Sometimes we can almost feel thathe´s going to ask for a Hamburger !I wouldn´t be surprised to see a McDonalds somewhere in a landscape inthismovie !

Even the creatures don´t look half as real as they used to.

And that bird ! WHAT IS THAT ?!!! ROCKBITTER with a son ?!!! Where didthatcome from ?!This movie would be the worst adaptation of a book ever, but unfortunatelywehave NEVERENDING STORY III for that.And i thought things couldn´t get worst.

But if we forget about the book for a moment, is this movie any good?That´s what´s upsetting about it.In fact it isn´t bad at all. If we forget this is NEVERENDING STORY, thisisan above average Hollywood fantasy production. Better than many things outthere .It has atmosphere, better story than the usual for an americanfantasy movie, an excellent soundtrack and it´s entertaining towatch.So i can´t totally hate it as a fantasy movie.

As NEVERENDING STORY, it´s very bad, and a total waste of an amazingstory.

SO, everybody,if you have to see this, READ THE BOOK first, because you´llnever forget it. It´s that good ! And you will appreciate better what wasNOTdone with this movie.

But in the end ,there are worst things you could watch, so it isn´t thatbad.NEVERENDING STORY II, is just a good fantasy film which could have been afantasy masterpiece, but missed the oportunity in an unforgivingway.Anyway, it´s not bad.

Number III. Now, that´s REAL BAD !

OK-There are so many things about this film that bug me, I don’t even knowwhere to start. So here is my list of questions about this horrible excusefor entertainment:1. Why is Bastien’s dad like, 10 years younger than he was in the 1stmovie?2.Why is the Childlike Empress still called that? Why doesn’t she use hernew name?3.I thought the Empress told Bastien he could have as many wishes as hewanted in the first movie. Why doesn’t he do this?4.Why does Atreyu now look like a real Native American and not a pastyBritish kid?5.What is Bastien’s mom’s name anyway?6.Why did they even think about making this movie?7.Why did they cast Jonathan Brandis?8.Why’d they make ANOTHER sequel?9.What happened to the magic of the first movie?10.Why are Atreyu and Bastien so touchy in this movie? They get all uptight about the dumbest stuff.Yeah, to make it simple, this movie blows.

‘The Neverending Story 2′ is the sequel to the first film. It wasweaker than the original with an even slower plot, and this sequel didnot really add anything new. Again, there are the strange characters,including a giant flying dog which transports the young hero around.Again, the film is pretty low-budget in terms of production, and it isvery slow in places. Overall, it is a weaker film that the original. Idid not enjoy it nearly as much, but I do not remember too much aboutit as I saw it when I was much younger. I do know that adults would b
ebored of this. It is a children’s film, and if you did not like thefirst one, then do not even bother with this one.

Painfully bad second helping of the rancid fantasy that is 'TheNeverending Story', this one has Jonathan Brandis taking over fromBarrett Oliver as the young kid who enters the horrendous panto land ofFantasia through a magical story book. Absolutely NOTHING works in thisappalling misfire – the costumes, animatronic characters, productiondesign, even the character names are abysmal; movies like this aresupposed to be enchanting and magical, but nobody here has the faintestclue how to accomplish that, so the movie becomes a rotten stew ofsecond hand fantasy and puerile moralising. The script is insincere,sugary and false, the pace is sluggish, the visual effects incompetent,the sets cheesy, the puppets poorly designed, and the whole thing justcollapses under the weight of its own banality. The only bearableelements are the scenes set in the real world, and bits of RobertFolk's score.

I saw this movie at a theatre in London, and it is my least favoritememoryof that trip. The first movie was incredible - the book absolutelyamazing.I had high hopes - and it ruined them all. Read the book. See TheNeverEnding Story. Forget this movie exists.

Yep, sadly, since the original was one of the best movies ever made. Iguess, I could repeat the critics that other users had, but I won’t…sinceall of them are correct (the bad one, offcourse:)

If I wasn’t a movie critic, i would leave the cinema, right after i sawthefirst 15 minutes of the movie. I’ve hoped for the best, when story movedtoFantasia, but NO, the story gets even dumber. Princess Xayide…What thehell is that? A Disney movie? I better not mention the plastic operationsthat Bastians father had after the first part?

Is there anything good in this movie, beside pathetic acting? Well, if Itryhard, i could mention a joke or two (Bastian :"Give me five!", Atreyu:"Fiveof what?), that brought a little smile on my mouth; what eventually helpedthe movie for not receiving awful 1 of 10 rating. O.K. And there’s againmusic from "the genius" Giorgo Moroder; sadly not even half as good as inthe part one.

2 out of 10 (with a ticket to the 10 worst sequels evermade)

Honestly, I was looking forward to watching this film. What a load ofgarbage it turned out to be… so disappointing! I am a Netflix member,& have been taking advantage of it mainly for the sake of watchingnostalgic movies from my childhood. Upon watching the original TheNeverending Story, I was delighted & so pleased with how entertainingit is, even for a twenty-one year old such as myself. Well, I hadenjoyed the sequel as a youngster, so I figured it would be the samecase. Too bad it wasn't… at all. Oh, no.

I don't even know where to start, so, here's a list of why youshouldn't waste your time watching this film:

• The acting, or lack thereof, is absolutely laughable. Not just withthe case of one actor, either; it was everybody. Atreyu, Bastian, Mr.Bux, Xayide, Childlike Empress, even that obnoxious Nimbly. Yikes.

• The monsters are entirely unoriginal… The Dark Crystal, anyone?

• Weak, undeveloped plot & concepts. The emptiness? Give me a break.Memory balls? Who has that few memories? I was so unconvinced.

• The dialogue was also poor… I was bored out of my mind by anyexchange between the characters.

• Additionally, that Rockbiter baby is so annoying. I regret notfast-forwarding through that sequence.

I felt that this movie could have been somewhat exceptional, but itjust stopped short with everything. If the people who made this filmhad just worked harder at making it close to the superior quality ofthe preceding film, then it could have been worthwhile. Alas…

Awful, Awful, Awful…

This movie should not have been made. When I rented this movie a few yearsago I thought: "Wow, a sequel to the first movie! Cool!" It was not cool.The story sucked and the actors to. Why didn’t they keep the original cast?And the music! In the first movie it’s a wonderful soundtrack but in thisit’s like they had a Yamaha synth and just banged at it…

When I saw it the first time I was only 8 years so I gave it a secondchancelast week. It was even worse this time! No I noticed the so called"effects"they had in the movie. The worst things I have ever seen. Why?

Don’t see this movie. See the first one, but skip the rest!

read comments (0)

The Hunt for Red October

It had potential damnit! Genuine potential! But it falls short in a numberof different areas, and outright tramples over one of my pet film hates.This film could have so easily been a 9 or 10, instead I gave it a 7 andonreflection I think that was generous.

First some of the good points. Sean Connery is good. Excellent in fact, hedoes give off a natural air of authority and I could totally believe himasthe captain of a nuclear sub. Not a Russian nuclear sub though, but I’llgetonto that later. Tim Curry and Sam Neil both turn in good performances aswell, in fact as far as the acting goes this film has got it largelynailed.

The score is a high point. It doesn’t throw up any surprises (CommunistRussia = Choir) but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Predictable, butnone the worst for it.

The story has a number of plot holes, but it wouldn’t take much to tightenit up. As it stands the plot is enough to see the film through easily andholds the attention. In fact it more then holds your attention, it grabsyour attention with both hands to start with. As he film progresses itloosens its grip quite considerably, but it never becomesboring.

Alas, there are problems.

Accents accents accents. Largely ok (Sam Neil seems to be able to pull ofRussian quite well, and Tim Curry manages to avoid hamming it up to muchalahis performance in Congo) but Sean Connery doesn’t even bother trying.It’sdifficult to think of him as a Russian captain when he speaks in aScottishaccent (although admittedly a bad Russian accent would have been evenworse).

I can’t stand films that use The Infallible Good-Guy technique, and thisisthe most blatant use of it I’ve seen in a long time. Alex Baldwin isapparently psychic and able to work out what Captain Ramis is thinkingrightfrom the beginning. He’s right about everything, and the film portraysanyone who raises reasonable objections or questions his huge intuitiveleaps as an idiot. Oh please, this is indicative of lazy scripting, ittreats the audience as morons, and annoys me to the point of ruining thefilm.

Ramis is less a brilliant captain and more a dangerously incompetent one,some of the special effects are incredibly poor, and frankly the filmcoulddo with having the pointless sub-plot of Ramis and his student cut out ofthe film to shorten the running time a little.

These things all undermine the film and prevent it from being the classicitcould have been. The basic story is there, the actors are there, the scoreis there, the script is largely there but they can’t cover up thedeficiencies (and make up for that damned Infallible Good-Guy).

The plot is very Tom Clancy like, with bad guys from Russia, heroesfrom America, a couple of nuclear warheads and some new device thatcould tip the scale in the enemies favour. It starts out with theRussian nuclear submarine headed for the American coast for unknownreasons, and the US of course gets a bit worried about this…

Using some new high-tech device, the Russian sub is capable of goinginto stealth mode, thus being able to move about in the ocean withoutbeing noticed by radars. This worries the US government even more, butJack Ryan, a guy who seems to be an expert in nearly every fieldimaginable, comes up with a theory that the Russians are not trying toattack the US, but in fact defect. And that’s the start of thispolitical thriller.

There’s really not much of interest here, besides Sean Connery and SamNeill, perhaps. But the movie does have an all-star cast. Joining Seanand Sam are: Alec Baldwin, James Earl Jones, Stellan Skarsgård, TimCurry and many more. All of these great actors, however, are givenminor roles with little to no screen time. The only real actors who arefeatured in two scenes, or more, are Alec, Sean and Sam. But Alecdoesn’t really deliver a great performance (why do people like him?) soit’s up to Sean to hold the show up.

The movie is actually pretty boring. Most of it consists of threethings: Alecs character thinking, Sean and Sam talking in the Russiansubmarine or Alecs character thinking in a submarine with Sean and Samtalking in the background. It’s pretty dull, really. What else is thereto say?

As usual in these kinds of flicks, the Russians are the bad guys. Inthis movie, their plan is actually to blow up the states. I doubt thereal life Russians would actually want that, but hey it’s Hollywood(and Tom Clancy) so here it’s allowed (but it is getting a bittiresome).

There’s really not much to say about this film, except that SeanConnery and Sam Neill are the only real good things about it. So ifyou’re a die-hard fan of them, go see it. But if you’re not, don’tbother. It’s not that great.

4/10.

The Hunt for Red October A-/C 7.12.00 2.35:1/5.1Previously Viewed Non-anamorphic Transfer

I probably never had as much fun at the movies as I did the first time Isawthis on the big screen.This was one of the first DVDs and deserves to be redone. Thenon-anamorphic transfer does not look good and the sound could even be alittle better. I would love to hear Clancy and director John McTiernan doacommentary track, discussing ideas, how things were created and wherethereare differences between the movie and book.

The best Jack Ryan movie yet.Alec Baldwin , is the best Jack Ryan caracter,and the movie has one of the best actors ever, Sean Connery.This is a movie that everybody have to see

Naval captain Sean Connery defects from the Soviet Union with the titledsubmarine and it is up to Alec Baldwin and others to figure out what hismotives are in this creative and smart action thriller. Tom Clancy’s JackRyan character is initially played on the silver screen by Baldwin and hegives one of his finest performances here. Sam Neill also does outstandingwork as Connery’s right-hand man. A really entertaining and dramatic filmthat could have been a multi-million dollar disaster. 4 stars out of 5.

One of those great action movies that I can watch over and over. ConneryandBaldwin make an excellent team. You can almost see the personal like theyhave for each other. This is by far the best of the Jack Ryan movies. Itwould be hard to top!

I can’t believe that there is only one negative comment for this film.Anyone with a deeper knowledge of the subject will point out to you thatthemovie is greatly flawed, and at times hilarious at its portrayal ofRussians. For example, singing the soviet national anthem on a sub is pureHollywood. The political officer is not the second in command. The crewwould not be so quick to cooperate with the captain. Plus if you knew somereal history you’d know that something like this happened in 1975 onlywitha ship, and the captain wound up being shot by a firing squad. The guywishing to live in Montana is simply ridiculous. Next we get the numeroustechnical problems, like there is no way a sub could do a turn in severalseconds. Have you any idea how big these things are? It would take severalseconds just to start its propellers rolling. I won’t even get into the"caterpillar" drive’s ridiculousness. Lets just say that even if it didexist it would not be any quieter then a propeller. Finally for a moviethatseems to aim for accuracy, the Russian pronunciations in it are simplyhorrible. I know it might not matter much to most of you, but they shouldhave at least tried to make it believable. This could go on forever, butI’ll spare you. If you want a good believable sub movie, watch Das Boot.

I agree with imdb-user anatoly that at least another negative review isneeded of this movie. I found the movie uninteresting until the end (say,the last 30 minutes), even then, it was just another war-type movie with theusual setup. My main problem, though, was with the u-boat style dialogue("Pull the main thrusts!" "The main thrusts are jammed, sir!" "Go weaponshot!" "Bullseye!" etc.). I
don’t think military people in real life doingtheir job really sound like little kids playing a video game, with reallycocky-sounding intonation. These men would have been scared to death, butyou couldn’t tell that by their voices. Mundane tasks should be accompaniedby matter-of-fact intonation, and dangerous tasks should show nervousnessand tension. I guess it’s mostly a movie for war-movie aficionados.

Poor taste and naive patriotism. Imagine American officer who is tryingto defect and heroic cook who is trying his best to maintain militarydignity and real patriotism. Imagine showing dumb American sailors.Just reverse every figure and you will find that this movie containsnothing. Primitive attempt to squeeze some adrenaline and some sympathyfor a man who lost his dear wife. Tough American cowboys in uniformsand A. Baldwin as a sympathetic figure. Now tell me what is great aboutthis movie except political correctness and cute poses of the leadingactors. "I wanna go to Montana". this is exactly the thought that comesto mind instead of watching this cartoon of course. The only heroicfigure is the cook, who fought to the end.

THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER (1990) *** Sean Connery, Alec Baldwin, Scott Glenn,Sam Neill, James Earl Jones, Joss Ackland, Richard Jordan, Peter Firth, TimCurry, Jeffrey Jones. First adaptation of Tom Clancy’s best-selling novelswith CIA analyst Jack Ryan (Baldwin, who would later give up the role toHarrison Ford) facing a Soviet scare from Russian sub commander Connery,apparently heading his nuclear weapons loaded vessel to American shores. Tautly directed by John McTiernan and a stellar ensemble.

read comments (0)

The Adventures of Ford Fairlane

The Adventures of Ford Fairlane (1990) was a starring vehicle forAndrew "Dice" Clay. It was made to capitalize on his short mainstreamcareer. After this film he made a concert movie that was shot in M.S.G.He’s the only comic to ever sell out that arena. The movie follows Clayas he tries to solve a perplexing case, it has more twists than apretzel. but not as interesting or satisfying. Can the Dice Man finishthe case and get the girl or will he fall victim to the evil bad guy?Are you brave enough to watch Andrew "Dice" Clay try and carry as film?If you are then go out and watch "The Adventures of Ford Fairlane".

The director even shot the movie in widescreen, giving it the classytreatment. A cast filled with b-movie actors and t.v. stars ( EdO’Neil, Robert Englund, Priscella Presely, Wayne Newton) and a fewmusic stars as well. They do their best to try and living up the filmbut it’s all old hat and tiresome. The movie is nothing more than anovelty act for the Dice Man.

For die hard Andrew "Dice" Clay fans. Others will either be bored orwont see what’s all the hub bub.

This is a really cool action packed comedy starring the foul mouthedwomanizing comedian Andrew Dice Clay at his best!! In the movie heplays a hot shot rock and roll detective who goes on a case trying tofind out who killed the lead singer of a rock band called Black Plague.He outsmarts a good number of villains in the movie played by guys likeWayne Newton and Robert Englund and goes out of his way to become thehottest heroic detective of the century. Other great cast membersinclude: Ed O’Neill, Priscilla Presley, Gilbert Gottfried, LaurenHolly, Tone Loc, Pamela Segall, Maddie Corman, David Patrick Kelly, andBrandon Call. If you love Andrew Dice Clay or great action comedieswith hilarious quotes, go rent The Adventures Of Ford Fairlaneimmediately!!! Andrew Dice Clay rules!!!

The Adventures of Ford Fairlane is one of those movies that should havebeen a BIG HIT and what I want to know is where did it go wrong? I notonly enjoyed this movie but I find myself watching it every couple ofmonths. However it just doesn’t sit right. Its like a fast food meal.It looks good, it smells good heck it even tastes good. You you knowthat it wasn’t.

Andrew Dice Clay plays the over the top character Ford Fairlane, amusic industry private detective that uses his various connections toget him into ‘the hottest clubs, the hottest gigs’ and wait for it ‘thehottest chicks’. Yes the cliché’ start early here. A member of thehottest rock group around winds up dead from a supposed drug overdosebut convoluted plots are foot that bring a sinister plot to light. WillFord save the day and make the world safe for Rock and Roll once more?

With a cast of recognizable actors including Pricilla Presley, LaurenHolly, Wayne Newton, Ed O’Neill and Robert Englund (playing aPsychopath, no type casting here), supporting him. Somehow despite acolorful line up and tonnes of great talent it still falls short.

This film has all the elements for a good movie. Good cast, reasonablepremise and the potential for a memorable soundtrack. However forAndrew Clay doing ‘I ain’t got you’ as what has to be the moviesmusical highlight. Entertaining as I do find it it never really gels.As a result it fails to escape slightly amusing passing of time tomemorable classic.

Adventures of Ford Fairlane is the greatest movie of all time. It has anall-star cast with enough one-liners to fill a book. I still have myfingers crossed for a sequel.

It changed my life, it’s as simple as that!

This film is usually loved or unseen by people. People either watched it’cause it had Dice in it, or didn’t watch it for the same reason. When I gothrough my list of my favorite movies, I have the normal ones (Star Wars,Raiders, etc.) and this movie. This movie is funny, memorable, and is oneof the few films that does not become grating after multiple viewings. Somepeople say that this movie is good in spite of Dice, but I say that he iswhat makes this film. A larger than life character playing a larger thanlife character.

Considering the, um, quality of some of Andrew Dice Clay’s work, this moviewas surprisingly good. It’s a movie that I re-watch occasionally if I’m inneed of a laugh.

Lauren Holly was particularly good as the straight-man, to Clay’sirreverent/slapstick character. (cute too!)

I give it an 8. (for "fun", not for critical achievement)

…what can I say about this movie: Either you find it to be the greatestfilm ever or the worst piece of crap you ever saw - there’s no grey areas inthis one!!My advice: Don’t take it too seriously and you’ll have two of the best hoursin a long time…. :-))

I’m no fan of Clay’s stand-up routine, but I found this movie hilarious!It’s one of the most quotable movies ever made ("Do my dishes!") and has asuperb supporting cast (especially Gilbert Gottfried). I have a feeling thecritics had their minds made up about this one before they even watchedit.

Absolutely the best movie ever, great one-liners ( so many a**holes, so fewbullets ), great acting ( Andrew " Dice " Clay , need I say more ? ) , greatcharacters ( the anti-feminine, Jimi Hendrix lovin’ , Ultra Cool Ford first inline ) and a superb version of the Blues Brothers " I ain’t got you ".I think that there is no occasion that you can NOT watch this movies. Atfunerals ( the great funeral chase ), after your girl ditched you ( Do mydishes ! ), after your mother started nagging for the thousanth time ( lookmom, top of the world ) and so on.I really hope you all go out to rent this movie and send E-mail to the Diceman to make a sequel.

Or better not, because it probably just would hurt the memory of thisone.

read comments (0)

State of Grace

It’s so hard to say anything that hasn’t already been said about this filmin the other 44 reviews which are currently on this site. But I love thisfilm so much that I have to review it anyway. Mainly, I want to say this.Gary Oldman is AMAZING…in this film, and all his others. When you watch"State of Grace" and see Gary for the first time, you think "Hey, there’sGary Oldman." Within ten minutes, you’re thinking "No…that’s not GaryOldman…that’s Jackie Flannery." It’s amazing. I’ll tell you…it’s veryhard to steal an entire film from top-caliber actors like Sean Penn and EdHarris…Oldman, however, does it with seemingly no difficulty. Hisperformance radiates with intensity and brilliance. And, I can’t praisethis highly enough…at one point, Jackie headbutts an Italian mobster andACTUALLY GRABS HIS OWN FOREHEAD, as if in pain. I’m so tired of seeingJean-Claude Van Damme, or Steven Seagal, or some other no-talent monkey ofan "action star" headbutt some random bad guy without so much as flinching.Thank God someone finally put some realism into a film’s depiction ofheadbutting as a defensive maneuver (it hurts). And this film is full ofrealism. It’s far less stylized than "GoodFellas" or "Scarface" (bothgreatfilms, but not nearly as gritty), and deserves as much praise as either ofthose highly-touted mob films. If you know what’s good for you, you’ll seethis movie…otherwise, I’ll set Nicholson on you…and he’s having a badday.

This is a very good film, with terrific performance from Sean Penn and EdHarris. Penn plays his conflicted undercover cop very well, and portraysbeing sucked back into a life he thought he had escaped. Ed Harris is verygood as a rather sleazy, wanna-be irish crime boss desparately trying to cuta deal with the Italian mob.

I really had a problem with Gary Oldman’s character, though. I certainlyunderstood he was supposed to be this unpredictable psychopath and, attimes, he pulled this off very well. However, at other points in the movie,he carries off intelligent, humorous, even low-key conversations. Hiseruptions and psycho behavior seemed a little out-of-place, and a littleover-the-top at times. A street psycho like this doesn’t seem like he woulddip in and out of the 2 conflicting behaviors. This obviously was a kidbrought of age in a thuggish, brutal world, and his anger would beunderstandable. I thought Oldman took the character a little too farover-the-top at times. A more subtle approach may have worked betterhere.

The scene with the on-again, off-again assassination and waiting for thephone call is fantastic.

The music, the performances, the action scenes & the dialogue are allperfect. Heartbreaking decisions & consequences for Terry Noonan as hedoeswhat is "right". I have always thought that Noonan survived the finalshootout but reading a comment from another said he died!! Can anyone tellme the definitive answer.

For some reason, "State of Grace (1990)" seems to have been overlooked sinceit was released. It gets 7.1/10 on IMDB and only now the DVD has finallybeen released.

This action/thriller features Gary Oldman, Ed Harris and Sean Penn in topshape. Penn is very low key in this one and has several moving scenes, mostof them with his real-life spouse, Robin Wright. Wright has never been, andwould never be, more beautiful than in this movie. Her elegance can make youmiss a heart beat. The chemistry between the couple is obvious and theirscenes are moving and sincere.

Supporting actors include John Turturro, John C. Reilly and the late BurgessMeredith, whose 3-minutes appearance is Oscar-worthy.

Ennio Morricone’s music is excellent as always. You might have noticed thathe later used (intentionally or not) a "rehash" of the theme at the endingof "Lolita (1997)".

Cinematography (done by the late Jordan Cronenweth), lighting and editingare all top notch. The dynamic shots (most notably in the "waiting" scene)and the excellent use of steadicam and slow-motion work greathere.

Director Phil Joanou did an excellent job and it’s a shame he simply"disappeared".

Rating: 8.5/10

I first saw this film back in 1992, immediately purchased the film andhaveenjoyed the movie time and time again. This film is one of my personalfavorites and should be up there with the greatest mob flicks, Goodfellas,The God Father…etc. The acting in this movie are unbelievable. GaryOldman and Sean Penn are simply amazing, especially Oldman’s depiction ofaviolent, drunken, Irish mobster who at the same time is one of the mosthonorable, trust worthy characters.

A definite must see.

i like this movie. i thought the strong, brutal and belivableperformancesby, sean penn, gary oldman, ed harris and robin wright were terrific. thismovie is set in New York, the Irish mob in hell’s kitchen, where penn andoldman play gangster criminals who try to get more out of thmselves. fromal of this violence they have caused. and dealing with their emotions.thisfilm was very violent, but, is very well done with brilliant actring andcasting.

Terry Noonan returns to Manhattan’s Hell’s Kitchen as a NYPD narc tobringdown some good friends gone bad, more specific a grimy Irish-Americanstreetgang led by Ed Harris and Gary Oldman. Explosive performances, excellentmusical score, and superb location photography make this a winner. RatedRfor violence, profanity, and nudity.

gary oldman was outstanding in his role as jackie. this movie was wayunderrated in the box office and on rental. it took me a while to buy thison dvd due to the orion collapse. then mgm picked it up and i bought itlate2001. i can watch this movie over and over. ed harris and sean penn werealso tremendous in this classic. the style and the moments could never beduplicated. if you like hard core gangster and the way oldman played hispart i seriously would buy and add to your collection. never a dull sceneinthis movie.

This is the kind of movie where you see it the first time & get most ofit,but after seeing it a couple of more times, you’ll still discover bits &parts missed before. Gary Oldman’s acting as Jackie is a masterpiece, Ithink there had to be some dialouge that is improvised. This movie is therare instance where you will find actors like Gary Oldman, Sean Penn,RobinWright, John C. Reilly, Nick Turturro, and of course Ed Harris all"peaked"as actors at the same time, in the same movie! Every scene is intense andimportant. Oldman deserved best supporting actor for this one!! Theatmosphere is smoky ( like Casablanca) cause in almost every scene,someone’s lighting up… One of my all time favorite movies.

Very good movie with excellent characters!Also the music was very nice.And the scenes and photo shoots in New York.I had not heard about this movie until now, so it was a good surprise forme!

A must see!!!

read comments (0)

RoboCop 2

The first and last ten minutes of this movie are OK, the stuff in betweeniscomplete garbage. This movie is inferior to the first Robocop movie inevery way, except perhaps the special effects.

I won’t go into too much detail because other reviewers have done soalreadyin their contributions, but the major points are as follows:

The drug dealing kid is totally unbelievable and you just want him to dieassoon as possible. Not because he’s evil or bad, but because he is just sodamned annoying! A gang of hardened criminals taking orders from a jumpedup little kid? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Cain is pathetic as a villain, and the way he and his gang are able todefeat and hack apart Robocop with ease is just plain stupid. Compare thispart of the movie with the end sequence, and Robocop should have beenflattened by Robocop 2 in the final showdown.

The scene following this is extremely poor. It is badly written, acted,andis full of inaccuracies. How come Robocop is handed over to some no-braintechies to repair instead of being put back together by OCP’s Robocopexperts?

I know that movies like this require no brains and that we shouldn’t expectto do much thinking. However, I don’t think that movies should insultpeople’s intelligence and that’s pretty much what I feel is happening whenIwatch this.

3 out of 10

I’m not a huge fan of RoboCop, but it is still one of the bestaction/SF/thrillers of the eighties because of its intelligent script,spectacular action and superb villains. RoboCop 2 on the other hand is adeeply grotesque experience that does well in portraying a completelydegenerate vision of the future but leaves a nasty taste in the mouthbecause of its sheer gratuitous, exploitative tone. This is also a verycold, hollow film, very incompetent too, with cheap shots at satire and athoroughly illogical and dumb script. Certain characters from the originalare so different emotionally and in their behaviour that the film bearslittle relation to the original (i.e, it reeks of cash-in). And why, why,would they put the brain of a dangerous psychopath in a police cyborg? Why?It is so ridiculously insulting and contrived for a spectacular final battleat the end that I was offended that this film was only allowed to be seen by18 year olds in the UK, when its real target audience would be a veryundemanding, warped child.There seems to be no joy of storytelling here, no drive or emotion, just asoulless (which makes the violence even more unpleasant and gratuitous)empty machine of a movie with false attempts at wit to try and appease fansof the original and violence to appeal to the underage kids who sneak in. Aslice of garbage from probably Hollywood’s worst ever period (sequels,sequels, Bruce Willis and Julia Roberts vehicles, plus moresequels).Still, if this sort of stupid (and this film really is stupid) garbage getsyour rocks off, you’re welcome to it.

I knew this would be a bad movie when I saw the title. The first movie wasgreat. Ronnie Cox played a good evil man and Peter Weller delivered thegoods. In this horrible sequal, there is some kid who looks like that kidfrom Malcom In The Middle who is very evil. He is mean to Robocop and atone point SHOOTS HIM IN THE EYE. There is a man who is called Cade. He isa sorry excuse for a villian. He is the one who tries to torture this onecop by gutting him. Robocop becomes super silly at one point when he isreprogrammed. He starts acting all polite and even lets some kids spraypaint "kick me" on the back. Then Robocop decides to ELECTROCUTE himself toget rid of this silly habbit of acting like a sissy. All in all, I wouldsay AVOID THIS FLICK. It’s ok if it’s on TV and you have nothing better todo.

"Robocop 2," one must remember, derives from a comic just like itspredecessor. While the story is far more sordid than, say, "Batman" thegeneral themes are essentially the same. Dark, crime-polluted city, acynical, but resolute and physically-skilled hero and an enemy at everycorner from the basic mugger to politicians and leaders of giantcorporations who, in fascist maneuvers, take over cities for personalbenefit.

While "Robocop" and "Batman" dealt with these themes to the degree afilm based on a comic can, "Robocop 2" doesn’t attempt more than toshroud a nihilistically violent story in tales of morality andcorruption. Nonetheless, it’s damn entertaining. And often very funny,though its sense of humor could hardly be considered palatable to themajority. Consider a brilliant scene involving the freshly-removedbrain-and-spine isolated in a container full of preservation-fluid, theeyeballs still attached, staring at the hollow emptiness of the openskull (skin and all) from which it was scooped and by which it was oncehoused. It’s hilarious - if you’ve got the stomach for it.

That’s the spirit of this film which tries to disguise itself assatire, but simply cannot because its violence clamors anything elsethe film might pretend to be about. The violence here is extreme notnecessarily in the sense of brutality (though it is that), but also inthe nonchalant way in which it is presented. Though "Robocop 2" was notdirected by Verheoven, it foreshadows his obsession with this type ofviolence that "matures" (a strange word, I understand) in films like"Total Recall" and "Starship Troopers." Ninety percent of the peoplewho appear on screen are shot, wounded or beaten. Chests explode withfountains of blood, bullets fly tearing flesh like it wasn’t human.It’s so aggressive and so in tune with the general spirit of the filmthat it leaves little doubt about its role. This isn’t the type ofviolence that is meant to speak or reveal but entertain.

A further example: a new prototype of a police-robot is presented tothe media. Constructed by the OCP corporation this is a far advancedmodel of the Robocop. Soon, we see its destructive power as it goesinsane because it is presented a vial of a drug on which it thrives; adrug that is also the cause of the crime in the city for the ridding ofwhich the robot was designed. So - it plows down screaming men andwomen, bullets tearing themselves into their legs and backs as they tryto evacuate the building in a horror-show made real by their howls forhelp. It’s almost shot as a merciless news-show wanting ratings oversaved lives.

In any case, this monstrous machine wanders outside, blows away somemore bystanders, blows up a few police cars, piercing through thebullet-proof vests of surrounding cops and turns over a tank. At thispoint, the owner of OCP looks down from the balcony at the chaos andsays to his subordinate: "This isn’t going to look good for OCP."

That’s hilarious. Shocking carnage reduced to absolutely nothing -complete nihilism on screen. In fact, this nihilism pervades the entirefilm (and many like it) - simply consider the mayor of the city whogoes to strike a deal with drug dealers to buy back the town from OCP.His subordinate tells him: "These people are criminals." The mayorresponds: "Bob, don’t put labels on people."

Again, ha-ha funny. But what does it lead to? Absolutely nothing."Robocop 2" is about everyone being evil, self-interested and corrupt.Even Robocop doesn’t mind smashing in a face or two to get information.Violence is the only method for settling issues - and money buysviolence.

So yes, it’s easy to laugh if you’ve got the stomach for it and are infor a completely vacuous story, a story of violence really, or are in areally cynical mood. In "Robocop 2" hundreds of people are blown awayfor no apparent reason, on whim really, blood erupting everywhere withstartling realism and no one really seems to mind. It could be arguedthat the film is more honest than its predecessor which ended with aclear conclusion where good, or at least law triumphs over outlaw. Itcould be argued that it doesn’t take the easy
way out - but that’d justbe a bunch of crap. The film itself isn’t cynical and condemning in itstone or atmosphere - it joyfully revels and basks in this destruction.It likes the ugliness it presents. In the end the sheer nihilism of"Robocop 2" is packaged entertainment rather than violent satire - itdoesn’t have the balls, the wit and the brain to pull it off. But,brain in skull, or brain staring at shell of skull, it can be veryentertaining.

This is the worst sequel ever. The characters are cardboard, the plotis

ludicrous, and the brilliant mesh of social commentary with SFstorytelling is all but gone. What was Frank Miller thinking? Therereally isn’t much else to say about this insipid tumor of a movie, butapparently I have to write ten lines in order to have my review posted.So let me say that what some people refer to as the "heart" of the film(ie, Murphy’s struggle to reconcile his cyborg nature) is patheticallyweak at best. It’s as if the filmmakers took all the most superficiallysuccessful bits of the first movie (Murphy’s memories, the eyeballtwitching in the shot-out socket) and screwed them up in an absurdattempt to stretch them out into a movie of their own.

And the less said about the mass murderer’s brain used for RC2 and thedrug- dealing little kid, the better.

Stare at the wall for two hours — it’s a much better use of your time.

When the Robot Cain grabs his ex-girlfriend by her head, picks her upand twists her violently back and forth as only a 5,000 pound machinecan, well it just doesn’t get and better than that. Add in theneck-snapping sound effects, and you have one of the best movie deathsever. Otherwise, this movie sucked.

It missed on all the irony and satire of the first Robocop and insteadwas just another violent shoot-em-up.

I am not sure why comments have to be 10 lines? I’ve really got nothingmore to say.

"1634 Racine…You know, I had a friend who lived there."

I finally had the opportunity to see the Robocop sequels since myfriend purchase the trilogy on DVD, I normally like to see the sequelsif I was into the first film, like most movie buffs. I couldn't believemy eyes watching this film or listening to it, I mean I love a goodaction movie, who doesn't? Well, I know there are a few who don't, butit's all good. But anyways, this movie was a little bit just a littlebit over the top. I mean is it that realistic that there are that manyexplosions in one day? I'm talking like on the same block or city?

Basically there is a new drug on the market called Nuke, a drug that issupposed to create like a paradise for people in their minds. To makematters worse is that the Detroit cops have gone strike for lowsalaries and horrible equipment, but OCP are not giving in, they infact want to make another robocop but cannot find a willing participateto sign up for the project. Robocop is brutally torn apart by the groupwho is in control of the Nuke drug but he gets put back together andwants to make the city safe once again, well, then again, it's Detroit,right?

Robocop 2 is just action, nothing more, sometimes it's fun like Con Airor the first Robocop, but sometimes it doesn't succeed. But it's all upto you to decide, like I said, sometimes people have different tastesor just wanted to see the sequels like me. So I'm not going torecommend it or say stay away from it, because quite frankly I justcan't decide.

4/10

Nothing in this movie made sense. OCP decides to take a perfectly goodRobocop and overhaul his memory, thereby treating him as "product" whenclearly "The Old Man" thought of him as a person at the end of the firstmovie. Murphy’s resolution with his family is far too brief, and some ofthe action is overly violent.My advice: Watch the first ten minutes and the last 10 minutes. Trasheverything in between.

I have watched this movie twice over the last two weeks, and it is a goodmovie. There is plenty of 90’s style action, some okay humor, and an awesomeanimation job by Phil Tippet. The blend of real and special effects issatisfactory, and the mood helps portray this decaying Motor City. Theactors are okay in their roles, and the story functions well on its ownlevel. I personally would like to own it, but it’s not the kind of movieevery sci-fi fan would probably go for. However, I still recommend seeing itat least once.

Robocop 2 has some good scenes in it. The first 15 - 20 minutes of thismovie are great. There’s a drug dealing 10 or 12 year old in it that getsannoying during the first 10 seconds you see him. The action was good butbetter in the first one. Robocop is wussed up some in 2.

*MINOR SPOILER*For instance when they tear up Robocop when he goes after Cain. That partwas stupid. END OF SPOILER. The part in the arcade was cool. It was awesometo see Robocop throw around the crooked cop into an arcade game machine.It’s funny to see those early prototypes for Robocop 2 throughout themovie.If you forget about that drug dealing kid, the woman who designs Robocop 2,and when he gets torn up this movie is really good. There is a cool battlebetween Robocop & Robocop 2 at the end. It’s cool when they go off that skyscraper. The end of this movie is nothing but a war zone practically. Funthough.

read comments (0)

Reversal of Fortune

I watch this movie just to hear Jeremy Irons say his lines. I thinksomedayI will make a recording of just his scenes and dialog. I am sure it wouldbemuch, much better less the annoying whining of Ron Silver and his hive ofchild law students and the deadning droning of Glenn Close.Obviously, I think Irons’ performance is outstanding and good reason toviewthis otherwise tedious movie.

Barbet Schroeder’s "Reversal of Fortune" works mostly because the directorkeeps us away from Jeremy Irons’ character and his thoughts, and to adopthis point of view would surely be a mistake. The structure is intenselyloose, and perhaps owes much of it to the celebrated "Citizen Kane". Thefilm allows an unconscious Glenn Close to narrate some of the past events,but her calm and sweet voice may lead the viewer to believe she finallyfound her place, like the William Holden character in "Sunset Blvd.".BarbetSchroeder uses subjective flashbacks (which makes them not necessarilytrue), and we always adopt the lawyers point of view: the book that wasthesource of this film was written by the real von Bulow’slawyer.The relationship established between the aristocrat and the lawyer is verysubtle: van Bulow’s life depends on the lawyer’s ability to succeed, andwhen the lawyer becomes sure of that, he attempts to eliminate classbarriers, allowing himself to call the aristocrat for his first name andinviting him to his home. And yet, van Bulow is so intensely attached tohisown way of life that he never loses his facade or temperament, and hesays:"I don’t carry my heart on my sleeves".

"Reversal of Fortune" never attempts to find a climax: its quality residesmostly on the ability of the viewer and in the mannerisms of thecharacters.The film is constructed to be a puzzle and its rhythm is pedantic butstrangely fascinating. If the filmmaker was trying to create an exerciseinstyle, he surely succeed it: we are left cold and doubtful and the movielacks a purpose except entertainment.

We think "Reversal of Fortune" is a good example of a courtroom dramaalthough it focuses on the personalities of the people involved more so thanthe actual courtroom proceedings. Claus’ character, cold and mysterious,causes the viewer to be suspicious of him from the beginning. His lack ofemotion and his ease in lying prevent viewers from trusting him. Sunny’scharacter is also brought into question over the course of the film.Outsiders seem to view her as having the perfect life, but little do theyknow, she is plagued by the gremlin of chemical abuse and lack of love.These two aspects keep you wondering throughout the film. GO BOILERS! ON TOPASADENA!

Jeremy Irons is perfect as Claus Von Bulow, who everyone seems to agree wasa scumbag on this best days. He is snake-like, and pampered in that way therich are used to. He has a constant tan, as though he sheds his skins oncea month. He has also been found guilty of trying to murder his wife Sunny.

He makes jokes at his own expense, is completely unfeeling and unemotional,and in general makes people feel ill at ease.

Its an interesting choice for an Oscar, in that he has no ‘big’ moments, orscenes where he reveals a soul. He’s pretty consistently slimey, and Jeremyis well-deserving of the Best Actor Oscar.

Ron Silver is also excellent as Alan Dershowitz, the lawyer Von Bulow hiresto handle his appeal. Silver is probably on-screen as much as Irons, whichworks since its not the life story of a couple of miserable rich people, butthe story of a law suit.

Glenn Close is Sunny, who narrates the movie from her coma. Even shedoesn’t know what really happened, and you get to decide for yourself whatyou think.

This is a terrific film to watch just for the atmosphere and excellentacting.

Jeremy Irons gives the performance of his life (he won an Oscar for bestactor) as Klaus von Bulow, accused of attempting to murder his rich wife. Irons plays his role close to the vest, never letting on whether his creepydemeanor is meant to hide the truth from his lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, whosuspects throughout the film that his client is hiding something. One ofthe best scenes is when Dershowitz says to von Bulow, "You are a verystrange man," and he cocks his head and flatly answers, "You have noidea."

The movie works because it’s never revealed whose side of the story is thetruth. A case is made against von Bulow that seems plausible, and hisrecollection of events seems equally plausible. This approach eliminatesthe need to place value judgements on the characters and allows the viewerto just sit back and enjoy the performances.

Besides Jeremy Irons, Ron Silver does an excellent job as Alan Dershowitz. He plays the lawyer as more of a champion of the working class than the reallife person we saw during the O.J. trial, which is a good thing. GlennClose narrates the film and has some memorable scenes as the demented Sonnyvon Bulow. She’s got the mannerisms of an emotionally withdrawn societywoman down perfectly. And the screenplay by Nicholas Kazan provides theactors with many good lines.

Solid movie and one a lot of people have never seen - no car crashes orspecial effects, just good acting and good writing.

First, Jeremy Irons (when will he get Knighted by the Queen for hisservices?) is brilliant as Claus Von Bulow, a chilly, complicated, manto begin with and even likable portrayed by Irons. Von Bulow issuspected of putting his wife, Sunny, into a coma at their Newportcottage which is an enormous estate in Rhode Island. Sunny is portrayedbeautifully and wonderfully by Glenn Close, she deserved to have beennominated for Best Actress in this role. Both Close and Irons are trulybelievable as a couple who fall in love together. Unfortunately, Sunnywas born into her wealth and never had much interest in anything otherthan going to bed all day. Not that she had a sexual problem, herhusband sought out sexual contact with call girls before turning hisattention to a soap opera actress, Alexandra Iles portrayed by theunder-rated Julie Hagerty. They didn’t show much of her or theirrelationship. As far as Sunny regarded, it was nothing more thansexual. Sunny’s problems were consumed by her hypoglycemia, smoking 3packs of cigarettes a day, and her pills. If you watch this film, AlanDershowitz is played well by Ron Silver. His supporting team of younglawyers include actors such as Felicity Huffman, Annabella Sciorra, andIan Lithgow. As the film proceeds, Fisher Stevens plays a minor but apivotal role in this film. The flashbacks allow us to see the couplemostly in bed discussing or arguing about CLaus wanting a job to havesome purpose in life. Poor Sunny, she never seemed to have a purpose inlife but being wealthy. She never had any hobbies, friends, or anythingto do but smoke and take her pills. She was slowly killing herself eventhough Claus says "Nobody shakes Sunny." I also forgot to mention therole of Maria played perfectly by the legendary actress Uta Hagen. Thiscasting was perfect not to mention Claus’ girlfriend played ChristineBaranski. I loved the flashback scene where Claus and Sunny are playingwith a tiger. Close is beautiful in that scene. The costumers andmake-up artists did a fantastic job in allowing Sunny and Claus to growold. When you finish watching this film, you could argue all you wantbut you can make your own conclusions about what happened.

I do not agree with most of the voters with this movie. The GREATESTobstacle being the extremely poor script. I would like to urge anyone towatch the movie and take note of the screenplay. It really sounds like asub-standard T.V movie.The direction was also quite sterile and came across unbelievably phony.I can’t understand what all the fuss was about. It was well acted and thestory and narrative was fantastic, but without a script you have no
thing.Itwas as though I was looking at a very mediocre painting on some highqualitycanvas!

In the 1980s, Danish oil magnate Claus Von Bulow was convicted oftrying to murder his wife Sunny. But he appealed. In "Reversal ofFortune", Claus (Jeremy Irons) gets his lawyer Alan Dershowitz (RonSilver) to reopen the trial, while comatose Sunny (Glenn Close) tellsthe story from her hospital bed.

The important point is not whether Claus was guilty or not. The movielets us see the despicable lifestyle that these people lead. Theopening shot shows a bunch of mansions, as if to show what sort ofpeople we’re dealing with. Sunny’s name may be Sunny, but she’s aboutas sunny as a rock. You’re almost not sure whether to sympathize withher, or to feel that she got what she deserved. A perfect movie.

When you’re finished watching this film you are likely to believe twothings: 1) Claus von Bulow got away with the attempted murder of hissocialite wife because 2) his lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, is totally amoral.Faced with a client who he obviously believes is probably guilty, Dershowitzresorts to one of the least respected of all legal tactics: blaming thevictim. The film - co-written by Dershowitz - degenerates from a ratherordinary legal drama into an endless series of attacks on the character ofSunny von Bulow, who, being in a coma, is hardly in any shape to defendherself. The film aggressively suggests that if Sunny von Bulow didn’t causeher own misfortune, she certainly had it coming to her. Such a tactic isdangerous in a courtroom, because it can loose the jury’s sympathy. But in amovie, especially one as one-sided and biased as this, it is a safe and evencowardly action. Watching this movie is like being allowed only to hear oneside of the case. Anything damaging to Claus von Bulow is mentioned only ifDershowitz can rationalize it away; anything offered in defense of Sunny vonBulow’s character (testimony or actions of friends and relatives) is rapidlydiscredited.

But what moves the film from being merely a nasty, self-serving ego trip forDershowitz into the realm of the utterly creep and despicable is the cinematrick of having Sunny offer testimony. Though comatose and vegetating inbed, Dershowitz and director Barbet Schroeder put words into Sunny’s mouth,making her a totally unwilling voice-over witness in von Bulow’s defense.Dershowitz could never get away with such a thing in a court of law, but heobviously has no moral qualms about manipulating history and reality to tryto justify his own dubious legal integrity in the court of cinematic publicopinion. The villain in Reversal of Fortune is not Claus von Bulow, who, asembodied by Jeremy Irons in a quirky one-note performance, seems to be hisown worse enemy. The villain here is Dershowitz (and the legal system herepresents) who seems to believe winning - no matter what the cost - ismore important than justice and feeding one’s own ego is its own reward. Theonly saving grace in this callous film is that all involved are so shallowand unsympathetic one never really cares about the guilt or innocence of anyof them.

"Reversal of Fortune" is based on Alan Dershowitz’s book on the two trialsof Claus von Bülow, accused of attempting to murder his wife, Sunny, by drugoverdose. But instead of killing her, she is left in a deep coma from whichshe will never arise. This movie is cleverly narrated by the comatose Sunnywith the story told in flashback. Also, the movie is non-judgmental, it takeno sides on who is telling the truth, even on the point of whether a murderwas even attempted. Did he do it or was the overdose an accident? As Sonnyherself says in the beginning of the movie, "you tell me".

Everything about this movie works; great performances (helped by greatcasting), directing, and screenwriting. Nothing is amiss. If it is true thatWestern movie habits are changing away from mindless action movies, then"Reversal of Fortune" should enjoy a renaissance at the local video store. It deserves it.

read comments (0)