Trespass

Walter Hill has always been a big name in action, probably one of thebiggest next to John Woo. So from the man who brought us 48 hours comesTrespass. The story of two fire fighters who go searching for gold in an oldwearhouse but when the see a group of "business men" murder someone they getthemselves into something they never planned for. Matters just get worsewhen they decide to take the leader of the gangs little brother. The actionis always entertaining but never really very exciting but don’t get me wrongthis is still a highly effective film. Performances from Bill Paxton andrapper Ice-T are good but can’t surpass a great one from rapper Ice Cube whoin my opinion has always been the best muscian turned actor to date. Notreally a lot of logic involved here but still great for fans of Hill’s styleand great for a rainy night.

Wow. It’s been said that Walter Hill is a masterful action director andthis does rank as one of his best films. Working from an air tight scriptby Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale, he sure does make it allwork.

Here we have the story of a couple of Arkansas firemen who stumble across amap to…you guessed it, buried treasure. They load up their Bronco andtake a little road trip up to East St.Louis to grab the loot. In a rundownbuilding, where the treasure is supposedly hidden, they find a little morethan they bargained for and things pretty much go downhill from there. It’snow a battle of wits and bullets. It rocks.

Bill Paxton, I think, is one of today’s best actors and he does his thingwell here as the naive Arkansas boy. William Sadler also does his thing asthe likeable, hot-headed psychopath and Ice T pretty much plays Ice T. Theaction is fast and the absurdity of the whole thing will keep you glued toyour sets.

I found TRESPASS an entertaining enough thriller . Okay it`s not PC but sowhat ? If you want political correctness go and watch EASTENDERS or someother right on crap . Off the top of my head it`s one of the few films Icanname where a bunch of homeboys are all the same colour , normally they`dbemore cosmopolitan than the united nations which I find to be highlypatronising . And I should point out that the white characters aren`tshownas being noble heroes before anyone accuses me of racism.

It`s good to see a thriller that didn`t cost tens of millions of dollarstomake . The cast are mainly unknown , most of the action takes place in theone location and there`s no CGI . The only problem I have with the film isthe way the credits roll rather abruptly but that`s hardly a criticism

Trespass (1992).

This movie is about how 2 firefighters are trying to get a men out of aburning building but they fail and before the man burned to death hegave them a map that leads to 1 million dolls in gold he stole.So the 2men (Bill Paxton and Willam Sadler) go to an abandoned factory withtools and a metal detector to try and find the gold.But they are notalone there are some gangsters there in there turf and the gangsterskill a men and the firefighters see it and the gangsters saw thefirefighters.And then the firefighters took the brother of the gangleader king James (Ice T) hostage in a room and bolted the doorclosed.There is no escape from the room because the gangsters arewaiting out side the room and they are blocking the fire escape.So willthe 2 men escape or get killed by the gangsters.

If i could summarize this action movie into one word the word would beexciting.There is a lot of gun fire in this movie and a few people die.Ice Cube all so stars in this movie and he acts OK and this movie isone of his best i have seen and if u liked him in this movie u shouldwatch the good movie Boys n the hood (1991).

Over all u should watch this movie and if u are a fan of action moviesu will really like this movie.And my rating for this movie is six outof ten.

Anybody that wants to go ahead and be critical of this film is anidiot, plain and simple. This film, and it's stars had to know going inthat this was a film made for people looking for brain candy. It isgood brain candy too! Treasure hunters encounter a gang of rappers andwannabe thugs and of course the guy least likely to get anything comesout on top..what could be better for a Friday night movie than theseguys, hidden treasure, and a whole lot of ebonics? Whe it comes to BillPaxton and Bill Sadler, these guys have been in both serious andcomedic films, and their demeanor throughout this magnificent piece ofpulp-film is not only engrossing and entertaining, but downrightOscar-worthy too. If only these kinds of films were ever considered forawards…aw gee!!!!

Back in 1992, I was a sophomore in high school and saw this in thetheater. Not sure what is better - the movie or the soundtrack. Thecast rocks! Of course, Ice T has now sold out and plays a cop…howpathetic is that. But in 1992, he was still playing the gangster role.

Cube rocks in this movie, so does the crack head…the limo driver guyfrom Die Hard.

A great movie for the time you need some action. I'm busting' it out onDVD from my DVR right now. See the movie, check out the soundtrack. Ifyou like this movie, check out Judgement Night. From the same timeperiod, also with a great soundtrack.

Bill Paxton and that other white guy trapped in an abandoned factorywith a who's who of early 90s rappers and African American actors. Thismovie is full of suspense. Yes, its a little cheesy, yes its contrived.So what, I say. Its awesome. Where else are you going to see Ice Cube,Ice T, Stony Jackson and more highly recognizable black actors going upagainst two crazy white boys (well, one really crazy white boy and BillPaxton)? Nowhere but here, baby. This movie has it all: rap music,gore, that old guy from Die Hard 2, rappers, more gore, shootouts,explosions, action, fights, swears, rap music. Its a classic. Both ofthe Ices put in great performances as do everyone else. It isn't thebest movie ever, but if you were the kind of guy who put "Real A$$Ni**a" by Ice T on mixtapes for girls you liked, this movie is for you.

Eager beaver Vince (a fine performance by Bill Paxton) and his morecynical buddy Don (the always excellent William Sadler) are twoArkansas firemen who stumble across a map to a fortune in gold. Vinceand Don go to a rundown derelict factory located in a dangerous EastSt. Louis ghetto neighborhood to retrieve the loot. They findthemselves in considerable jeopardy when they run afoul of a lethalgang of drug dealers led by the ruthless King James (a superblymenacing Ice T) and his hot-tempered right-hand man Savon (Ice Cube inpeak surly form). Don and Vince manage to abduct King James' crippledjunkie brother Lucky (a nicely twitchy De'voreaux White), which leadsto a tense cat and mouse stand-off between the two opposing groups.Director Walter Hill relates the narrative hurtling along at a constantbreakneck pace, expertly milks a maximum amount of suspense from theabsorbing story, and stages the stirring action scenes with histrademark fiery brio and striking style. The tight, edgy script by BobGale and Robert Zemeckis makes a bleak and potent statement about howgreed and power lust bring out the worst in people while making aradical departure from the standard action picture formula: There areno clear-cut distinctions between the good guys and the bad guys inthis dark tale of betrayal and disloyalty; instead we've got a handfulof desperate folks who all find themselves neck deep in a whole lot oftrouble. The film further benefits from the uniformly sound acting froma tip-top cast: Paxton and Sadler have a sturdy, relaxed rapport, Ice Tand Ice Cube spar with each other with rip-snorting gusto, plus thereare stand-out turns by Art Evans as bitter, hapless old bum Bradlee,Stoney Jackson as the suave Wickey, Bruce Young as smooth gun dealerRaymond, Tommy "Tiny" Lester as the hu
lking Cletus, and Gwenn Plummeras itchy trigger man Luther. Lloyd Ahern's slick cinematography and RyCooder's rattling, rousing bluesy score are both solid and effective.The last third of the movie is especially gripping and exciting. Abang-up little beaut.

Trespass starts in Arkansas where two firemen Vince (Bill Paxton) & Don(William Sadler) stumble across a map showing the whereabouts ofmillions in stolen gold while putting out a huge fire, together theydecide to find the gold for themselves & get rich. The map leads thepair to East St. Louis & an old abandoned factory, once there theystart looking for the gold. Meanwhile local gangster King James (Ice-T)& his gang kill a rival who has ripped them off thinking no-one wouldbe at the abandoned factory. Vince & Don witness the murder & are seenby King James & his gang, thinking fast Don takes a hostage &barricades himself & Vince a in a secure room. For the time being theyare safe as there is no way into the room but at the same time there isno way out either so Vince & Don are trapped as King James & his menoutside try to get into the room & kill them…

Directed by Walter Hill this is an entertaining little action thrillerthat I quite liked. The script by executive producers Bob Gale & RobertZemeckis could be described as a more urban version of Panic Room(2002), only a decade earlier. The basic plot which really isn't toodissimilar to Panic Room is very good & I liked it, it's one of thoseplots where you tend to put yourself in certain character's positions &think about what you would do in their situation. Whether you would gohunting for the gold or how you would get out of the room withoutgetting killed by the gangsters Trespass has a good story that holdsyour attention & definitely keeps you interested until the end. Thecharacter's are good if a little too simple, they are either good orbad with nothing between really although Don has a certain darker side.The script is fairly pacey although I must say that it can get a littlerepetitive at times, once Vince & Don are trapped in the room the filmnever really goes anywhere else & there aren't any sub-plots oranything else going on. The script also tries to throw in some moraldilemmas, in particular Vince & Don have millions in gold but it'scompletely worthless since they are more than likely going to bekilled, it has a stab at trying to say money isn't everything & greedwill ultimately lead to ones downfall. I suspect the main reason whyTrespass isn't more well known is that there's a distinct lack of bigaction set-pieces, there's some shoot-outs & some scenes of buildingson fire but little else in the way of action. So what it boils down toreally is whether you want lots of action or can get by with just agood solid intriguing plot, overall I liked Trespass but it's not afilm I would probably want to watch again anytime soon.

Set almost entirely in an abandoned factory the film looks nice enough& the action is well choreographed. I suppose it's a fairlyunremarkable film that won't last long in the memory in terms of looks& visual style but the plot does stand out & is something a little bitdifferent. The violence is not excessive, a few people get shot &someone gets pushed off a roof. There is however lots of profanity asall the black gangsters swear like it's a religion, in fact all thelanguage does get a little tedious & tiresome after a while. Justbecause you can say the 'F' word several times in a sentence doesn'tmean you are hard.

Although set in St. Louis it was apparently shot on location in Memphisin Tennessee & Atlanta in Georgia. I must say that I am big fans ofboth Bill Paxton & William Sadler & I think they are both very good inthis while the two named after small blocks of frozen water Ice-T & IceCube swear a lot. One of very few films not to feature a single womanduring it's running time at all.

Trespass is a good tight little taught thriller with some nice actionas well, the story is good & I liked it but it does get a littlerepetitive at times & if you can't get into the story then you will endup hating it.

Vince and Don are two Arkansas firemen who come into possession of whatjust might be a treasure map. The only problem is the gold is hidden inan abandoned building in East St Louis where some local drug-dealershave decided to ice a rival. The race is on, both for the treasure andto stay alive …

This is a great gritty action/siege movie character piece for severalreasons. The premise is terrific, the cast are allowed to go wild withtheir performances, there are no stupid women and Hill's direction istense and terrific. It got pretty mauled on release by genteel whitecritics who found the situation ugly and the characters depressing, butthey missed the point - this movie is fun. It's like an old western;the gangstas are the Indians, they use mobile phones instead of smokesignals, the abandoned building is the dangerous country outside oftown, there's gold in them thar hills, the Apache warrior disagreeswith his Chief, the white man can't be trusted, and so on. It's awonderful contemporisation of a lot of old action movie themes, butwith a setup and a setting that's never been done before or since. Theburned-out buildings, courtesy of Jon Hutman's production design, are afabulous labyrinth of corridors, stairwells and anterooms, like someHellish proving-ground, which literally goes up in flames at the end.Ry Cooder's ultra-heavy slide guitar music snarls around the action,topped off with a great title song written and performed by the movie'stwo rap stars. The two Bills are wonderfully out of their depth as thetreasure hunters, and the two Ices are equally great out-shouting eachother as they squabble over what to do. I really like Ice-T's actingand I think this is my favourite of his roles (though he's also greatin New Jack City and Tank Girl) - King James is shrewd, and hisexasperation as he can't figure out why the firemen are there, all thewhile dealing with dissent amongst his hoods is finely judged. Also ofnote is Evans as Bradlee the down-and-out, and don't miss cult-moviefavourite Lister as a wordless heavy with scary shoes. Written byRobert Zemeckis and Bob Gale (of Back To The Future fame), this is agreat tough-guy action piece, made by a specialist in that genre. It'smaybe not quite as good as Hill's earlier classics, and the camcorderand mobile-phones date it a little, but it's still a tremendousgut-punching movie that grabs you and doesn't let go.

read comments (0)

Un coeur en hiver

I’m French-American and have paid my dues growing up with mymother feeding me French cinema. As it stands, though I am a bit delightedto see many people (esp. Americans) enjoy this film, I am *totally* confusedby it!

This movie has got to be one of the most BORING movies I’ve everseen! Period. What’s worse, I couldn’t remember the last time a movie’swhole equaled less than the sum of its parts. There was Emanualle Beart,who(and I know I’m not alone when I say this) may be the most beautifulactress on Earth. Not to mention she fits the part of a violinist well.There’s her agent, that older lady, who’s amiable. Maxim was kinda’ boring,but seemed like a cool guy. Even that big, short lady with that alcoholichusband were good to watch. The problem is that…well, I should say*problems*, ’cause I had two beefs wthis flick………

One is that Daniel Auteuil…I’m sorry….."Stephane"…was sounbearable to watch. At least for me. I know that he was in reality stillmarried to Beart during this time, and usually that works for couples as faras on-screen chemistry. But here it almost seemed to work against them. Inall the hoopla and drama about how he repaired her violin and she saw acertain emptiness in his eyes blah, blah, blah, I still could not see what a*gifted*, young, beautiful, intelligent musician would see in such a loser.He said he had tried to seduce her, he "GUESSES" to "get back at Maxim". Fordoing WHAT exactly, to him? Why was everything intentionally obscure? Whichbrings me to my second problem with this disaster…

Why does every sentence of dialogue have to do with what someone*thinks* they should feel about something? Orwith someone answering theirown question (literally) while talking to someone else? The dialogue wasjust so annoying, because it felt so unsubstantiated. The only thing(and Imean ONLY) that kept me awake while watching this was the hope that therewould be sparks when the two would start kissing, or more, or…at leastSOME kind of romantic emotion. The only dialogue I actually liked was theone between Camille and her agent. Their relationship is an interesting oneand could have gained more screen-time, in my opinion. Instead of this dull,lifeless so-called infatuation with this stupid guy who acts like he’s aboveeveryone else as his eyes gaze cluelessly off into space. Yeah, he’s deep.

POSSIBLE SPOILER - I said that the only thing that kept me awakewatching it the 1st time was a possible love scene. Now, since I know there*are* none, I can definitely use this film instead of having to takesleeping pills so I don’t have to be groggy in the morning. Even if I can’tsleep bc I’m hyper, this film will never fail to inducesleeping.

END SPOILER ***************

Hey, I’m NO violinist; but I see that other musicians commentedon the credibility of the terms and playing of violins used. I’ts actuallyrefreshing that for once there is a movie that is at least more musicallyaccurate than it is entertaining.

I HAVE, however, seen many,many,many, MANY French films and nowrealize that even the worst films I was spoonfed as a child wereaward-winners compared to this one, entertainment-wise. If you want to see asad, unresolved movie, go watch <Ponette>. Or if you want to see anAWESOME movie with both Daniel Auteuil and Emanuelle Beart, rent <Manondes Sources>. But I’m sure most people have ALREADY seen the latter.=)

-Sep

I wasn't planning to write a comment, just leave my abysmal vote andwalk away in disgust, but seeing the utter imbalance of other commentsI felt compelled to add mine. Normally IMDb ratings are an excellentguide, and I rented this movie on the basis of its high rating, but inthis case it was totally misleading.

This has to be the most boring, lifeless, dreary film I've ever seen.The premise is good enough: two men run a violin repair shop, one ishaving an affair with a lovely young violinist, but then she develops arelationship with the other one.

Problem is, not one of these characters (nor any of the subordinateones) have anything interesting or attractive or charming or in any wayendearing about them. They are all just puppets and shadows goingthrough the motions of life. There's no emotion anywhere, not in eitherof the love triangle's two relationships. The entire movie consists ofendless, mindless, pointless dialogue about this and that andeverything and nothing. There's nothing erotic or engaging or in anyway attractive. The only soundtrack is when the violinist is playingmusic, so all that inane dialogue drones on and on without anything tohide it behind. And even the violin music is awful (it's all Ravelchamber music). It's a French film, so one expects it to be depressing,but I didn't expect it to be so dreary and wearisome.

I'd have given this 1 star, except that the few scenes where they showsome of the mechanics of the luthier's art are decently interesting.Otherwise, don't waste any time with this grossly overrated andself-inflated piece of dross.

A masterful film, brilliant on every level. Daniel Auteuil giving oneof the great screen performances. Sublime.

I first saw this movie in the theater when it was released. I was partof a group that saw movies every Tues and then rated them by number.When we left the theater one of the woman said she would give it a 7(out of 10) and another said 8, when asked I said a 12! I loved itbeginning to end. I had never seen a film that dealt with such apersonality. A person closed off from the world by his own decision orthru some backstory we never really know. We see glimpses in hisrelationship with Maxim and the old music teacher but it is left to ourimagination. What we do see is his manipulation of situations and againwe are not given the reasons outright. This is an intelligent film forany thoughtful person who cares to examine the complexities of humanbeings. The music is perfect.

Judging from only it's poster and some comments I've read, I expected apessimistic portrayal of love and loss, with a lot of sex and poeticintricacies. However, the film played out mostly straightforward, withabsolutely ravishing violin pieces, and an intriguing romantictriangle. It was pretty quick-paced, at least quicker than I expected,and it never felt rushed, but ordinary. Plenty of romances I watch Idoubt the chemistry between a couple, but here I felt comfortable andaware of these character's emotions and problems.

The film is about a violinist who falls entrancedly in love with herboyfriend's seemingly empty partner in terms of emotion and love. Sheis determined to break through his void exterior, meanwhile expressingher desperation and true love for him through her music. It's afascinating design, but while I was always engaged, I couldn't findmyself relating to the characters (or the situation), nor could I seethe entire ordeal as anything more than an interesting romance plot.

I was always intrigued, and while I was relentlessly kept wonderingwhat would happen between the couple and wishing for the best, I couldnever get past that and become emotionally enthralled with theirsituation, couldn't cheer for the characters' losses or gains. I alsofelt it's final 10 minutes were unnecessary, as I thought it packedthings up a bit too roughly.

I have a bad habit of judging films based on prior expectations, Ithought this film achieved plenty more than I can say about otherromances. It kept me on my feet, contained several beautiful violinpieces, and kept me wondering where it would all lead up. Maybe it wasjust me, but in terms of excitement and becoming absorbed with theromantic beauty of it all, it lacked.

I saw this movie's review a bunch of times and was thinking it must beoverrated from all the positiv
e reviews I saw. After a while, I decidedto check out what all the fuss was about and rented it. I will neverregret this decision.

I have a passion for French films and have seen quite a few in my time,but rarely has a movie touched my heart like this film has. Camille isa talented violinist who falls for her lover's business partner,Stéphane. All this seemed scandalously romantic until Stéphane's truecolors were revealed: he is incapable of emotional intimacy.

I disagree with some users here who have said the plot is lackingbecause this itself drew me in right away. Perhaps it is because of theway the actors pulled off their roles, which is pretty much seamlessly.

What I enjoyed most about "Un Coeur En Hiver" were the intelligent yetcasual dialogues. The things talked about were ordinary, everydaythings yet were still interesting. I myself have rarely come acrosspeople who could hold an intellectual conversation like the ones inthis film. I do not mean to sound egotistical, but I simply enjoyhaving a conversation with someone politely, wittily and casually. Thismovie allows me to escape to an ideal place.

"Un Coeur En Hiver" is not a movie for everyone. But if one enjoysintelligent, philosophical and profound dramas, definitely check thisFrench flick out. You may be incredibly surprised…and moved.

Before I say anything else, I must point out that I love Daniel Auteuiland have seen many of his films. In fact, I look for films with him init, as I am almost always guaranteed a wonderful film. In this case, heplays against his wife of the time, the radiant Emmanuelle Béart. Nowthat I have said that, I regret that this is one of the rare caseswhere I didn't particularly care for the film. Despite there currentlybeing a very glowing review for the film featured on IMDb (giving it,inexplicably, a 10–a score too often overused), I just found the filmtoo slow and uninvolving. Apparently after reviewing more of thecomments, people either adored it or disliked it.

Auteuil plays a man who is a genius at fine-tuning and repairingviolins. He is so good at what he does that he's sought out by peopleowning the best instruments in the world. The film begins with hisbusiness partner introducing Auteuil to his new mistress, Béart. A bitlater in the film, Béart falls madly for Auteuil though the motivationfor this is seemingly non-existent. That's because Auteuil is a bit ofa schizoid personality and he relates much better to things thanpeople. He is someone who is indifferent to friendships andrelationships–a person who is pretty much unable or willing to fall inlove. So why would she love him? Now it is possible that his actionsare all an act and he really is just afraid of being hurt(psychologically speaking, this would make him an Avoidantpersonality). However, throughout the film there didn't appear to bemuch evidence of this but avoidants would also be very, very hard toget to know well. In actuality during the film it appeared he justdidn't care that the incredibly sexy Béart adored him. So what you havein the film is a lady who on rare occasions throws herself at a man andthe man reacts like he's a block of wood. And, considering that this isall done very, very slowly and deliberately, the film seem way too longand uninvolving. Technically, it was a pretty film (with nice music)but that's about all.

I caught this on its initial release, again several years later on TVand I’ve just acquired it for myself. Each time I have been equallyimpressed and the enjoyment factor increased progressively. It’s hardlysurprising of course given that we are dealing with a group of peopleat the top of their game from writer-director Claude Sautet to thethree leads, Manu Beart, Andre Dussollier, Daniel Auteuil, to thesupporting players Elisabeth Bourgine and Brigitte Catillon. The title,which translates literally as A Heart In Winter or more colloquially asA Frozen Heart, suggests that Stephane (Auteuil) is the centralcharacter but Manu Beart as Camille has stolen most of the notices I’veread on this Board but I would argue that perhaps fittingly for a filmset against the world of classical music this is an exquisite chamberwork that segues effortlessly between trio, quartet and quintet. It’strue that without the icy remoteness of Stephane his relationships withbusiness partner Maxim (Dussollier), Maxim’s lover and virtuosoviolinist Camille (Beart), beautifully observed platonic friendshipwith bookshop owner Helene (Bourgine) and lastly Camiile’s agent Regine(Catillon) would take an entirely different hue and open the way toseveral other kinds of plot development but each of the five I havementioned are both well written and well rounded in performance. Whenthey come to list the Best 100 French films Sautet will have severalentries - providing of course there is any justice - and this one willarguably rank highest.

I think it is an engaging and thoughtful movie - the kind that you keepthinking about, long after you have finished watching.

The plot deals with the central character's coldness in relationshipswith people around him. He is definitely gifted in what he does. He issincere and hardworking. People around him tend to be friendly andcaring. But it seems our guy has some intimacy issues – he can't gobeyond a certain level.

I am not really sure as to what message did the movie want to convey.It can't just be - if you are cold in nature, you are a loser. I don'tthink Stéphane was cold by choice – he couldn't just change his natureso as to make others happy. I found it odd that a person of such naturewould speak with frankness and openness about these issues – the wayStéphane tells Camille in the restaurant. His friendship with Hélènealso seems unexplained - what was the basis – did they expect it to gofurther?

What struck as peculiar was attention given to details on mundaneactivities - like the craftsmanship involved in making musicalinstruments or dealing with the restaurant manager. In some ways, theseelements helped in keeping one occupied and expectant of things tocome.

Daniel Auteuil's portrayal of Stéphane was very natural. Alwaysimmaculately dressed, the way he interacted, sometimes with a smirk onhis face - it made you empathize with his character. Also at times youfelt like saying - what's wrong with this guy? – probably the kind ofresponse director would have wanted to evoke from the audience.Emmanuelle Béart has acted brilliantly and looks amazingly beautiful.André Dussollier also put in a strong performance in his portrayal ofMaxime.

Dialogues are thoughtful - but at times their gravity made you feelthat these are not the most natural of conversations. Cinematography issplendid – with close shots of characters and focus on eye and facialexpressions.

** MAJOR SPOILERS **

……of homosexual tendency and has been in love if not a relationshipwith his former violin teacher. In the revealing conversation betweenCamille and Stephane at the cafe in the ending scene, Stephane admittedhe loved "him". With hindsight, the film has dropped numerous clues onthis unspoken relationship. Stephane always went to the teacher'shouse. The kids playing in the garden did not even react to Stephaneentering the house apparently for no reason or special occasion. Theteacher's maid casually asked him whether he would sleep over, implyinghe had done so many times before. And at the banquet at the teacher'shouse, the teacher said to others that Stephane was something differentfrom all his other students. For reasons not told, quite possiblylinked to this relationship, Stephane dropped out as his teacher'spupil. Not to mention the mercy killing which Stephane did. No onecould have done it except someone who had been deeply in love with theperson
involved. One could imagine how much courage, love and grief itwould take to be able to do this very act. Stephane and the teacher didnot even need words to communicate. At the very same scene, Maxime wasthere to witness the mercy killing and finally realised therelationship between the two, and he subsequently told Camille, whorealised the real reason Stephane was not attracted to her.

I am not sure if the homosexual tendency of Stephane and hisanti-social behaviour are inter-related. I am not sure if he chose tolive in his world so as to conceal this forbidden love for his teacher.I am also not sure if by seducing Camille, Stephane was trying to pushhimself to see if he could really move on and fall in love with awoman. These are all open to interpretations. But the director led usto think that Stephane was at some points genuinely interested inCamille, as opposed to what he claimed to be a sheer prank in order toto get at his boss. From this we know that his homosexual tendency isnot the only factor which would explain his somewhat awkwardanti-social behaviour, and that he was indeed a person living in hisown winter, a utterly private man who is devoid of and perhapsdisdainful of showing emotions.

** END OF SPOILERS **

This is a fascinating character study which is profound, intriguing andmoving, and to myself is a uniquely personal movie. Daniel Auteuil isthe best man to be cast as Stephane, for his unique charm, charisma andsubtle seductiveness. With the make-up and costumes, he appearedbeautifully masculine and exactly as what a person with those kinds ofemotions and qualities would be. Excellent job done.

read comments (0)

The Mighty Ducks

The writers must have had a copy of "The Bad News Bears" runningconstantly,because this movie is a direct ripoff of that classic. Unfortunately whatyou are left with is uninspiring, one from column A, two from column Bnonsense. I realize its for kids and it is not meant to have deepermeanings, but it is still too predictable and cutesy.

Hot-shot Minnesota attorney Emilio Estevez gets sentenced to 500 hoursof community service after a night of driving drunk. For hispunishment, he is forced to the inner-city of Minneapolis to coach ayouth ice hockey team of rag-tag players with little talent andseemingly fewer social skills. 192nd verse, same as the first 191 asthe Hollywood under-dog sports story is revisited yet again withunremarkable results. Estevez’ past failure as a youth hockey playerhimself is given a foggy glimpse and old coach Lane Smith ends up beingthe antagonist here. None of the kids (led by Joshua Jackson) make muchof an impression in this cold and thoughtless would-be family flickfrom the Disney studios. Inspiration for the NHL’s Anaheim Ducks andfollowed by two equally unwanted sequels. 2.5 out of 5 stars.

I love movies that have sports themes to them, so it normally takes a lotfor me to hate one.Thankfully I loved this film. The whole underdog rising up, the coach’sredemption, and the big game finale wasn’t as hokey as you might expect itto be.Emilio Estevez is a very winning actor in this film, maybe he should stickto light comedy.The kids in the cast are extremely comfortable in front of the camera andmesh with each other well.All in all a wonderful film by Disney, even if it did give the company theimpression that they knew so much about hockey that they went out andboughta team.

this movie wasnt what i would call great but it was ok, it was kind ofcheesy and corny but it was a cute movie for little kids, i advise all youtoo see it, specially if you have kids that are 8-11 its overall a cutemovie, even for older kids and adults

This movie single-handedly got my interesting in the sport of hockey, Ireally didn’t care for the sequels which were trash. D2 and D3 reallybrought down the greatness of the original, which is next D4 the NHLyears?I really frowned at adding new characters and just messing up the wholeoriginal mighty ducks. I still enjoy the original even today good storyandan underdog winning it in a way that isn’t as overdone as in other sportsfilms. Mighty Ducks is a good film for everyone and will always be thebestMighty Duck movie.

***MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS***

The Mighty Ducks is one of my favorite sports movies by far. This moviereminds me of when I played in a Pee Wee hockey league and my teamsucked. It was so much fun, and it was portrayed very well in thismovie. The ending, even thought its a Disney movie, was not too corny.It was a good, happy ending to the movie, not overdone in any way.

The story was good, but I’m not going to spoil it for anyone. Basicallyits about a horrible hockey team that needs a coach. The coach is amean, up-tight lawyer who is forced to do community service. Togetherthey become champions.

Emelio Estevez does a great job as coach Gordon Bombay and really addsmore of an adult humor to the cast of misfit kids that bring funny, butimmature humor to the movie.

Disney does good. 9/10

I loved The Might Ducks. It helps that I play ice hockey and am an avidfan when I’m not playing. IMDb may want to do some research for thismovie’s plot. Gordon Bombay misses a penalty shot not a shootout. Thoseare two separate events that simply involve the same type of play.

Otherwise this movie does contain very juvenile humor so if you arelooking for high brow go somewhere else. I really liked when Gordontells Charlie that "you may make it you may not" before Charlie takeshis penalty shot. It’s of course very obvious ending with Conwaygetting the penalty shot and winning it all. A more realistic endingwould have been Charlie missing the shot too but then somehow becauseof their attitude they don’t let it get them down and they win it inovertime.

Oh well though. It was a really great movie and when members critiquethese movies they should always check the date on the movie becausetechnology has grown in "leaps and bounds" over the last few years.

Made in a time when comedies about kids and sports were probably amongthe most popular kinds of movies, The Mighty Ducks is the undisputedbest of any of these. (Other favorites of mine include The Sandlot andLittle Giants.) The plot isn't complicated, as many have said, GordonBombay is an overworked lawyer who gets a DUI charge and is givencommunity service, coaching a kids hockey team of misfits. Thedifficulty in this is Gordon played hockey himself as a kid, and blew achampionship game. Without giving too much away, Gordon teaches thekids hockey, and they teach him to not take life too seriously.

What makes this movie special is really the portrayal of the kids. Surethey sort of fall in to stereotypes, the goofy fat kid, the short buttough kid, the misunderstood "bad" kid, the lovable and sweet underdog(Charlie Conway, played by Joshua Jackson, pre Pacy, although in theDucks sequels you see shades of that character coming out!) but thesecharacters feel real, and are very funny. I don't know if younger kidsstill watch this movie but if you ask any teenagers who Goldberg isyou'll get a laugh and some fun reminiscing. Not to mention they oftenknow the correct moments for quacking (not when getting yelled at byyour principal!) All in all definitely worth watching, if only for atrip down memory lane!

I pretty much have no respect for movies like "The Mighty Ducks". OK,so it's basically a harmless movie. But stories of the underdogfiguring out a way to win against all odds has long since turned into acliché ("Rocky" was the original, and it had a purpose). Emilio Estevezhas starred in much better movies (e.g., "The Outsiders").

To this movie's credit, I will say that the more-like-a-circumcisionscene was pretty entertaining. This is far from the worst movie ever.But seriously, there are too many movies like this. As it is, StephenHerek hasn't made much of a name for himself as a director. His onlygood movies were "Critters" and "Mr. Holland's Opus". Otherwise, asidefrom this movie, he's directed stuff like "Don't Tell Mom theBabysitter's Dead" and "Life or Something Like It". Basically, hecompetes with Michael Bay and Renny Harlin for the position of WorstDirector in the World.

So my recommendation is to avoid this movie.

No matter what people would say this movie is a classix it is the storyabout a man who forgot what sports all is about he is one day takenfrom drinking and driving and on that day he begins to wake up he hadforgotten his past his memories because he would not open his eyes butthen he gets a team an ice hockey team and well everything else youneed to find out Emilio plays a really great and beautiful part in thismovie and so does everyone else it is worth to see this movie and justdo see Emilio play what he plays best hehe it is a funny and touchingmovie about opening a new chances in some ways well anyway what more isthere to say then BUY IT SEE IT LOVE IT

read comments (0)

The Lawnmower Man

It’s not often one can say sincerely, "This is the worst movie I’veever seen." I thought that when I saw this film in the theatres, and sevenyears later it’s still the champ. Basically, it’s a riff off of Flowers forAlgernon, except the characters are unsympathetic, the geniuses are notespecially bright, and the things they do are not very interesting. Whenthe movie came out, its sole redeeming feature was the computer graphics,which were technically impressive but not very pleasing to the eye. (That isunfortunate, given the large amount of screen time they get.) Now, ofcourse, a $1000 home computer does a much more impressive job. The actingis bad, the pacing if awful, and there is exactly one professionally lookingshot in the entire movie: a backlit shot of Fahey, as he comes over a hill.Unfortunately, the image itself was a cliche even then, and it’s the mostsuccessful aspect of the movie.There is a modicum of an attempt at a suspenseful ending, via a "chase"as Dr. Frankenstein tries to prevent his monster from destroying humanity,however, if you’re still watching at that point, and you’re actually insuspense, then I envy you: the SECOND movie you watch in your life,whatever it happens to be, is going to be much better than this one. So,don’t give up on this "movie" thing just yet.

The Lawnmower Man is a poorly handled and monotonous excuse for amovie,and arather wasted opportunity to be the first film to endeavour into therealmsof virtual reality.The revenge narrative at the heart of the movie isfairlyeffective and the special effects are nothing short of superb.But I guessthis movie is an experiment to say,in some cases,more is definitelyless.

This has well to be the most un-realistic movie ever, and sure one of themost senseless; I remember this coming out because of all the "virtualreality" hype. I can’t see the director knowing a single thing about whatvirtual reality is. Maybe I missed something but hey, I never saw anyonebeing injected with some stuff that gives you supernatural intelligence, andI don’t think virtual reality gives you the power to create objects at yourown will. I mean, c’mon, the media are ignorant when it comes to talk aboutscience or technology, but even the media never ever hit such a lowpoint.

It’s been a very long time since I’ve seen this movie, but the SFX wereoutstanding for its time. The brief synopsis: a simpleton becomes thesubject of radical new experiments in a virtual reality based "highereducation". But wait, there’s more: before they can call the simpleton’sprogression a success, they realise they have created a power hungrycyber-monster. Still enthralled? Great: take this info and write your ownmovie, saving yourself the pain of watching this plot executed into nothingmore than a corny B-movie flakefest. The second half of the film becomesboring, over-the-top, and takes itself far too seriously. Skip it and gostraight to Lawnmower Man II: Jobe’s War. No, WAIT… just kidding!

OK, here we go… i got this movie and lawnmower man 2: Jobe’s War forchristmas. I never saw these movies before i got them. I was happy thatthey were horror movies, but then i watched them. What the heck kind ofcrap is this? This puts horror movies to shame. Bad effects makes itworse. lawnmower man? whats next, monkeywrench man? When will they stopwith these stupid killers! You want a good movie? WATCH FINALDESTINATION!Well, atleast it made a christmas none of my friends or my family willforget for the fact it was so funny when i told them how cheesy thesemovieswhere. in fact, i had to force myself to watch them. they got boringafterthe first 45 minutes. I HOPE YOU DONT GET THESE MOVIES FOR CHRISTMAS!APRILFOOL’S JOKE MAYBE… BUT CHRISTMAS? NO!

This movie is, without a shadow of a doubt, one of the most ludicrouslybadfilms I have ever had the misfortune to watch. From beginning to end Iwascompletely baffled by the plot, the characters, everything. the wholepointof a movie is for it to be entertaining - not so incomprehendable thatyouneed to watch it at least eight times to realise what’shappening.BEST BIT: The graphics. And that’s all.WORST BIT: The film.It’s completely and totally awful. Please don’t watchit.

I bet even Pierce Brosnan’s mum thinks this film is awful. I bet she evenconsidered changing her name - (if she hadn’t before). This film wasalmostdestined to be a failure - the selection of topic was poorly advised. Thecharacter work in the begining was fine, not great but fine, but the filmquickly falls into a tangled heap of farce - with action scenes and musicreminiscent of The A Team. The guards and the secret service guys in thefinal quarter were so lame. The closing scenes and therefore climax of thefilm were just boring - with an unimaginative, railroad ending. I’m surethat the Brosnan family are happy that this film is behindthem.

How Brosnan managed to recover from this and become 007 is anyone’sguess..A travesty of a film with no redeeming features, and nobody to rootfor.I remember being drawn to this first by its promise of groundbreakingspecial effects in the vein of Terminator 2- I like to keep abreast of movietechnology. However, the difference between this and T2 is that in T2 theeffects were woven into the storyline; here they seem completelysuperfluous. Seeing as the rest of the film isn’t much to talk about,nothing good can really be said about the entire movie.

By the way, one golden rule of movies is to least give the audience someoneto root for. Granted, there was no real hero in Lacombe, Lucien but at leastin that film the main protagonist seemed to be believably facing some innermoral dilemmas. Here, among the motley crew of characters there is no one toidentify with at all. The drunken Lewis, the modern-day FrankensteinBrosnan, the simple corrupted Fahey, none of them.

My advice is to avoid at all costs. King fans, there are plenty of othersuperior adaptations out there. Special effects-junkies, check out the newMummy movies instead, if you’re really pushed…

This movie seems to be derided almost as much as "Tron" and with as littlereason,in my opinion.I saw posters advertising it on the London Undergroundand thought it looked very cool but i left the cinema with an unsatisfiedfeeling,but why? Firstly, the Special Effects although very good,are notthat much better than Terminator 2 because in the latter movie the actioninterfaces with the real world;here its almost completely artificial. TheStars are not big enough Brosnan and Fahey are no match for Arnie or Bruce!The plot is good, and quite plausible as Sci-Fi goes and with a neat twistat the end. But overall there simply weren"t enough explosions for theAction fans or enough Spacecraft for the Trekkies, so the movie lost itsplace in the hall of fame.Personally i still like it a nd always watch it onTV! By the way, critics who can"t understand why Jobe wants to take over theworld-he is Mad and has delusions of grandeur-its thatsimple!

I give this movie a 5 out of ten as the acting was good enough to makeyou feel for the characters you actually felt sorry for JObe when thepriest is beating him with a belt, however in general the whole movieis too loaded with special effects and i soon found myself lost in theplot. A second thing which really i found totally out of place was theoverly gratuitous sex scenes between jobe and his girlfriend. It wassweet to think that somebody could like jobe and that he was new to theexperience of kissing women and sex but it is totally over the top tothen show what it did i feel anyway. The ending was very clichéd andnot the ending that was needed at all i felt. I did however like theacting of the two leads and so watched this film till the end. Not aterrible effort but could have been a lot better.xx
xxx

read comments (0)

Stay Tuned

A TV-junkie is sucked right into his television, where he has to fight forhis life in a number of soups, chat shows and movies. It turns out, thathell just looks like real life TV and the devil is getting his soul, if hedoesn’t survive the next 24 hours. With the support of his family our herowalks through everything boring, terrible and senseless in AmericanTV.

Watch out for the small details or better watch it twice. You will likethismovie, when you enjoyed too: "Driving over Miss Daisy", "PervertedCamera","Unmarried with Children" or "Wayne’s Underworld". And don’t touch thatremote control!

From the first time I saw the preview, I knew I had to see it. And myfeeling was right. The plot of this movie is kinda campy: a guy getssucked into his satellite dish, with his family following him to the(hopeful) rescue, and when he gets to this TV-world, he finds that acertainbad guy doesn’t want him to leave. Fine. But the world he gets trapped, aHell of sorts, in is the funniest, most well-rounded selection of TVspoofs,circa 1992. Wayne’s World? "Dwayne’s Underworld". "I’ve fallen and Ican’t get up"? It’s there. That Maxell ad with the guy in the chair whoisblown away by the music? It’s there. This movie will bring you back to1992 in a way you wouldn’t believe. I love it.

The Boston Phoenix review of this movie sarcastically lambasted its lack ofdepth, meaning, and relevance. Shakespeare this ain’t; it’s a formulacomedywith some great laughs that make fun of the idiot box. John Ritter isalwayshit and miss, but it’s nice to see Pam Dawber working. Jeffrey Jones is agreat devil that doesn’t really seem evil.

Ah, this low-budget comedy titled "Stay Tuned" was one of my favoritemoviesback in junior high in 1992. Needless to say, it has remained on myfavoritemovies list all these years! Everyone was way too harsh on this movie, buthey, it’s just good, campy fun! The movie was well cast and the story waspretty darn clever (gotta love those early 90s TV parodies!) and isdownright fun! As someone already stated, this movie WILL bring you backto1992! That is another reason I love it, because it brings back memories ofthat time for me, summer in particularly, which was so much fun! Anyway,give this a movie a chance!!

"Stay Tuned" is definitely one of my favorite movies and one of thefunniestmovies I have seen. It stars John Ritter as Roy Knable, a man who is whatwelike to refer to as a huge couch potato. His wife, Helen (Pam Dawber), isasuccessful business woman who absolutely hates the way her husband isobsessed with the TV, more so than her. One night, a devilish TV executivenamed Mr. Spike (Jeffrey Jones) sells him a satellite dish and a TV with666channels which airs such shows as "Thirtysomething to life", "I LoveLucifer" and also parodies the crash test dummy commercials and otherfamousTV sitcoms. The couple end up being sucked into the satellite and into"Hellvision", where they need to stay alive for 24 hours. I think thismovieis hysterical, especially with them being caught in the most ridiculous TVshows (i.e. Northern Overexposure, You CAN’T Win, and Off With His Head).They also become cartoon mice as well and end up in a 1940’s detectivecrimedrama. One scene I particularly love is when John Ritter transportshimselfto the "Three’s Company" set, and screams when Krissie Snow and Janet ask"Where have you been?!". best in-joke I’ve ever seen in a film. The actingis pretty decent for a low-budget film like this, although the Knabledaughter and son are more wooden than a tree and Eugene Levy is veryannoying as Crowley, Mr. Spike’s assistant. I think the best part of thisare the parodies of the TV shows. Rent this for a couple of laughs.

What an offbeat comedy! Performances by John Ritter, his wife in the movie(I loved her and Robin Williams in M&M), Eugene Levy and the remote controlsalesman (I love that guy!) were good, the plot was intriguing, and thecharacters were believable! Overall the movie was interesting, kept youinvolved with the characters, and really gave the audience a shockinglyno-doubt accurate third-person view of America’s TV Obsession.

Overall Rating: 3.5 out of 5

I caught this movie on TV tonight, and after watching it, God do I feelold.This came out my senior year in high school, and watching it really tookmeback.

I remember watching all those shows they parodied when they were new, andIremember all the movies that they spoofed when they first came out.Creepy.I especially liked the Maxell commercial parody, but what was up with themusic video? Salt N Pepa is so has-been it’s really sad. Hell, theyweren’teven *that* big when the movie came out. They were big in the late’80s.

This movie is worth seeing, if only for the spoofs. It’s horribly datednow(and it’s hard to believe I’ve been out of high school almost 10 years!)butit’s still worth it. Be warned though: if you’re in the younger set (13 orunder) chances are you never saw many of the shows they spoof in thisfilm.As a result, many of the jokes might be lost. Who knows, a lot of thoseshows will live forever in reruns.

I admit, the acting at times isn’t spectacular, but it gets the job done.Agood script is what saved this film from the dustbin. On the whole, a goodjob. If the acting had been stronger it would have been a brilliantfilm.

Cheers

Contrary to the negative comments about this movie, it really is a funpieceof filmmaking, with clever satires on television. The plot has lots oftwists and turns and I think you’ll appreciate this comedy. It deservesmorerespect that it has received.

Stay Tuned is basically a movie that spoofed other movies and T.V showssuchas Wayne’s World, Driving Ms. Daisy and many more. If you like funnymoviesthis is a good movie to watch it also has a great line of actors like JohnRitter,Pam Dawber,Jeffrey Jones an Eugene Levy so you know this movie isgoing to be funny. This movie isn’t a must see but sooner or later if younever saw it maybe you should go out and rent it.

I give Stay tuned a 6/10

5 stars out of 10? If you read all the readers reviews, I believe everyoneliked this movie (which goes to show you, don’t count on the critics). It’sthe real people that need to review movies. Granted this isn’t the type ofmovie that makes you think deeply about life, nor is the acting wonderful,but it’s chock full of spoofs that will really pull you the first time yousee it (or 2nd time). john ritter is excellent in this movie, so much infact I would have loved to see a sequel (rather than those awful problemchild movies). So glad to be seeing him back on TV, but he needs to tryfilm again. This movie also makes you ponder the question (what is hellreally like? Is it just a bunch of molten lava, or is it more personal?(granted it’s probably not a bunch of TV shows, but I’m sure hell istorterous). If you haven’t seen this, rent it!

read comments (0)

Raising Cain

I saw this movie in the theater and will never forget it. We thought wewere going to see a suspense flick - we got this pathetic waste of filminstead. Everyone in the theater laughed through the whole thing. Theending, in particular, is ludicrous and even John Lithgow (who I’ve lovedsince "Garp") couldn’t pull this one off.

I am the type of person who can find something redeeming in almost *every*movie…

This is one of the few that I couldn’t.

The hit-and-miss DePalma has churned out a few duds in his time, butnone worse than this insufferable train wreck of a film. Actually,calling it a film is giving it the benefit of the doubt, as itresembles not so much a movie as a highlight reel of every cinematictrope DePalma has used in his career. (Which were, of course, alreadyripped off from other directors when he used them the FIRST time.) Ifthe cast of SNL or MAD TV were making a spoof of DePalma films, itmight feel like this. (Although it couldn’t possibly be this bad, noteven if it starred Rob Schneider.)

The clumsy, inept proceedings feel rushed and sloppy, as though thisthing were just cranked out as some sort of tax write-off, or tosatisfy a contractual agreement. If you can manage to stay awake untilthe ending, you’ll get to see the only gimmicky shot in the film thatDePalma has NEVER used before! But have no fear, he hasn’t gone andgotten original; the shot is stolen directly from Dario Argento’sTENEBRE, which was made 10 years earlier.

So I guess that’s the whole purpose of the film: to add one more stolengimmick to DePalma’s already bloated bag of tricks.

Perhaps I’m being a little hard on John Lithgow here, maybe I just can’t seepast his association with Third Rock from the Sun, but for me he just can’tcut it in this role, a part which would have stretched the very greatest ofactors. Perhaps no-one could really have pulled off the twists of characterLithgow has to deal with and not come across as hammy as Lithgow seems here. Maybe even the most electric performance from an Olivier on the top of hisform would have been dragged down by the soap-opera style plotting andludicrously simplistic psychology propping up a fairly, but not hugelyinteresting story. But then again, maybe it wouldn’t have been worth theeffort.

A lot of this film is just pure cheese, it’s piled high with silly acting,stupid dialog and dumb characters. Lithgow at least tries hard enough, buthe doesn’t stand much chance in the face of a flood of cheesy plotlinesrecycled from soaps (check out the dying-wife-in-hospital scene, or any ofthe evil-twin moments, for examples) and pretty poor support - some of thecharacters seem barely able to keep a straight face as they deliver theiradmittedly stupid lines. At least it seems to make some sense by the end,having seemed hopelessly confused most of the way, and for that at leastsome credit is due.

Though normally I would count myself a De Palma fan (I even thoughtBonfire… was quite watchable), I would have to class this as a bit of aturkey - for some discerning viewers it may even cross into so-bad-it’s-goodterritory, but for me the few decent ideas on show disqualify it even fromthat, leaving it floating in the dreaded no-man’s land of stupid,uninspiring and insipid. Pants.

I’m sure this started out as an interesting idea, but that did not make itonto the film.

John Lithgow’s over-acting works for comedy but not forsuspense.

None of the characters in the film were even the least bitinteresting.

WHEN I FIRST SAW THIS MOVIE I THOUGHT IT REALLY STUNK. BUT AFTER SEEING ITA SECOND TIME I THOUGHT IT WAS BETTER BECAUSE THE MIDDLE IS SO CONFUSING ANDYOU MIGHT HAVE TO WATCH IT TWICE TO UNDERSTAND IT. IT WAS WORTH SEEING THEENDING AGAIN, THOUGH.

Brian De Palma has often been either praised or lambasted for his manyHitchcockian pastiches (Dressed To Kill, Obsession, Sisters) but I havegenerally enjoyed them. After all, they have still proved to be prettygood thrillers with great twists and turns. I found though that RaisingCain tended to be a little too hokey for its own good. It does havesome interesting plot twists and some great shocks (the scene where thedying wife witnesses her husband in the doctor’s arms for example) butI found John Lithgow’s performance(s) to be way over the top, renderinghis supposedly scary villains (Dr. Nix & Cain) to be laughable. I alsofound that after milking the Hitchcock back catalogue dry, De Palma hasnow started to crib from his own films (Lithgow in overcoat and wiglooks just like Michael Caine in Dressed To Kill). I also found a fewproblems with the storyline’s continuity that may leave viewersconfused. For example we see Jenny showing up for a liaison with Jackin his hotel room, only for it to turn out to be a dream. Yet we thensee Jack waking up, looking across the bed as if to see Jenny there andthen reaching into the night table to retrieve a gift that he expectsto find there - yet the scene where he originally found out that Jennyis planting the gift was the aforementioned dream sequence. Or was it adream sequence? There are a few more issues like this where thingsdon’t make sense and it seems more like sloppiness than by design.Overall, an average shocker with a few good moments, but if you want tosee a better example of De Palma’s Hitchcockian tributes check outDressed To Kill or the underrated Body Double.

Whether deliberate or not, this movie sure is bad. Lithgow ishopelessly out of his depth & none of the actors appear to know whatthey're supposed to be doing. It's a messy, mish-mash of styles thatreminds me of a poor 1950's Hitchcock rip-off combined with an evenworse 1970's TV-movie. Confusing, dreary, boring, contrived,incomprehensible both in terms of plot and what it's trying to achieve.Why it was made or how it ever got released is beyond me.

Obviously some people found it appealing but I imagine the vastmajority of people do not see this through to the end, and thereforewouldn't bother commenting on it. I certainly won't give it anotherthought. Do everyone you know a favour and tell them not to waste 90minutes of their lives watching this rubbish!

Brian DePalma trying once again to imitate Hitchcock's Psycho inDePalma's own, totally inept manner. Once again falling short. Wayshort.

John Lithgow playing a split personality. Not just two personalities asin Psycho, but many, in fact, almost everyone in the film is one of hispersonalities. There is even the car-sinking scene from Psycho. Thereis the psychologist, this time a female, who spouts the most absoluterubbish I've ever heard from a film psychologist. Her dialog shows thatDePalma knows absolutely nothing about psychology and splitpersonalities. So bad it's unintentionally funny.

The movie doesn't make any sense at all. It's not scary. It'sderivative of DePalma which itself is derivative of Hitchcock. It's acarbon copy of a carbon copy.

Forget wasting your time on this. See Psycho instead.

It had its slow moments, and was a little weird, but overall it was aneffective thriller that had its classic moments. John Lithgow is terrific.Could have been better though. **1/2

John Lithcow will always rule!!! But not this movie. John Lithcow plays agreat physco and I hope he finds a movie with a better plot and plays apsycho again. The film is basically about multiple personalities. If forexample a child is abused he creates a personality thats gets abused andloses all the pain. Or when something bad has to be done the bad personality(Cain) steps in while the good or sane personality (Carter) is blacked out.The movie has it’s scary moments but just isn’t that great. Try again Brian’ol pal I know you CAN do it. The strangest a possibly the thing that makesyou remember this movie
the most is the ending…decide for yourself. **stars for "Raising Cain."

read comments (0)

Radio Flyer

In my point of view this is easily one of the best movies I’ve ever seen.Richard Donner did a great job directing it, a change from his 1985 hit TheGoonies. The locations were believable and the music by Hans Zimmer (TheRock, Crimson Tide) was good. But the acting. Amazing. Elijah Wood delivereda great performance, and Joseph Mazzello was spectacular in his first majorrole. Lorraine Bracco was good, and Adam Baldwin was great. Unfortunatly thenarration by Tom Hanks ruined the beginning and end of the picture. Overall:* * * * 1/2 out of * * * * *

I’m obsessed with Elijah wood, and I rent most of his movies cuz hes inthem, but the only place (that I could find) that had Radio Flyer lostit in 1994 cuz some idiot stole it, so I ordered it and bought it without seeing it, and it was amazing. Its very touching and loving, Elijahand Joseph are sooooo frigging amazing to, its about the troubles andimagination of to very close brothers. Mike and Boby, along with theremother move to a different city to stay with there aunt and uncle afterthere father had been gone for 3 months, when Bobby and mike get there,there mom meets jack and falls in-love, they quickly get a housetogether, but when they move into the house most of the children thinkthey kicked out the Marshals so they make instant enemies, and onenight while Mike is sleeping, he is awakened by Bobys whimpering andsleep yelling. When mike wakes up Boby, Boby tells him that jack,mostly known as the king, there stepfather has been beating him, Mikequickly takes responsibility for his younger brother, and you see asthe to brothers go through though times and loving moments. I’d givethis movie 100/100% its so amazing, but there’s one thing wrong withit, in the casting they say that the mother is the main character, thenjohn heard, and Elijah wood, then Joseph Marzzelo, witch is stupid cuzJohn heard is hardly in it, and Elijah wood is the main characterfollowed by Joseph Marzzelo, and Tom hanks is casted 2end least maincharacter, witch is VERY VERY VERY stupid cuz he comes after most ofthe extras like his two sons, the two school children, and etc. And Ithink Tom Hanks should be like the 4th main character after the king, Imean they say John Heard is the 2end main character and hes only in 2sense like tom Hanks, but tom hanks talk all through out the movie, andhis 2 sense are longer!! but this movie is AMAZING and you shoulddefinitely see it.

This is one of my all-time favorites. It is Elijah Wood coming into hisbest period, and Joseph Mazzello also showing his great potential. Theportrayal of their brutal abuse, including the singling out of onechild for battering while the other must look on, is all too veridical.However, their response to it is a testimonial to the bravery,initiative, creativity and mutual love of children at their finest.BTW, I may be a bit slow, but it wasn’t until my third viewing that Icaught the twist at the very end, which turns the "logic" of theretrospective narration all askew. Once again, I take the opportunityto loudly protest the billings: What would happen to a movie where twocharacters occupy maybe 90% of the action and yet receive FOURTH andFIFTH billing just because they’re black, or female?

This movie had to many loose ends, I got lots of questions from mygrandchildren during the entire length of the film. Number one beingthe concern over the dogs injuries which suddenly disappeared. Two kidsbeing able to make a plane from a load of junk (budding NASAengineers)put an end to my interest in it and why was the brutalstepfather very rarely seen. The concoction they were making in thekitchen with ‘MAGIC" ingredients and the consequences of theirendeavours would have taxed the resources of an army of cleaners.

Conclusions being that it was poor film not worth watching unless youlike solving obscure plots………K.M.

I hated this movie it was sooo unrealistic and just the thought of akid "flying" away from his problems instead of letting his Mom takecare of things is horrific…. as if a Mom would be OK with heryoungest son disappearing… Yea RIGHT!! no way

Anyone who says this is a great movie must not have kids

I was a recently separated Mom in a custody battle when I saw thismovie and I was really unnerved by this nightmarish movie scared theH*ll out of me… I can’t imagine what the producers of this movie wasthinking but it should never been advertised as a Family movie isshould have been in the Horror section.

Mike (Elijah Wood) and Bobby (Joseph Mazzello) move to the an urbanarea in California in the 1960’s, with their single mother (LorraineBracco) and their mom falls for the King who ruins their lives. He’s aloving father, until he gets drunk, and takes the abuse on Bobby. Mikeand Bobby are the only ones who know about it. John Heard (Home Alone,Awakenings) Plays the local cop, who got hardly any screen time, but is2nd billed. Hanks narrates the movie and talks about how magicalchildhood, and says that between 12 and 13, our thoughts are replacedwith thoughts of the opposite sex. Should of said between 13 and 14, Imean thirteen year olds I see never talk about the opposite sex, andseem clueless, and epople still think of them as litte kids, I mean my14-year-old cousin swears he’ll never date. Give me abreak, I mean 13,is the age Elijah Wood was in North. The movie has some intense momentsBobby is beaten regularly. One night Mike has a dream and says that thereason Bobby gets beaten on and not him, is because Bobby can’t fightback, and he can. Sure maybe he can fight back, but what sense doesthat make that someone would be afraid to beat on some kid who weighsabout 75 pounds? Why’d there be some huge difference? only 2-yearsapart. When the king, gets out of prison feeling extreme remorse forhis abuse, and he bawls with Lorraine Bracco, saying he’ll never drinkagain, we truly feel forgiving and sorry for him. Look for Thomas IanNicholas (Rookie Of The Year, American pie)in one of his first roles.Joseph Mazzello is made to look cutsie and sweet, I don’t know whowould lay a finger on that boy. Why isn’t this on DVD, this is one ofthose movies that is only found at video rentals, and the movie cover’swell-made and old-fashioned looking. Mike and bobby dream of building aRadio Flyer so Bobby can escape and fly away from their hellish life,and the movie isn’t as depressing as criticts make it seem they havegreat imagination and go to a spot where they feel so close to heaventhat god can hear them, and they make wishes there. The boys are alsovery mature and precocious, and go places all around town bythemselves, like stores, lunch and the movies. The movie casts twoserious expressive actors.

It’s very hard to film children.European have often succeeded at thisterribly hard task:in France ,François Truffaut ("l’argent de poche" )andYves Robert ("la guerre des boutons" "la gloire de mon père"),in ItalyLuigiComencini ("l’incomprese" "cuore"),in England Kenneth Loach ("Kes") madememorable movies.Could Richard Donner ("the omen" " Superman" "Lethalweapon" and other Hollywood blockbuster)rise to theoccasion:partially,onlypartially,and mainly because the children completely outshine the adultsbecause most of the time on the screen is given over tothem.

Take Adam Baldwin’s part for instance:he’s no more than an ectoplasm,acartoon character,whose face we almost never seen.His only raison d’êtreishis can of beer and his music .There’s the rub.Hank Williams ‘ classiccountry music seems to epitomize evil here ;every time the youngest son ismistreated,here’s "son of a gun ,we"ll have some fun on the bayou" asWilliams sings."Still this horrible music"the mother says.As for her,it’sextraordinary it took her so much time to realize her husband was a brute!Ditto John Heard’s cop who hardly app
ears ten minutes for a pointlessperformance.

The two children avoid some of schmaltz pitfalls but not all:the dog’spart,for instance, remains a hackneyed cliché of melodrama (the likes of"Lassie").The boy coming from the poor side of town and brilliantlysucceeding at the university is another one.

On the plus side,let’s mention uncredited Hank’s part who teaches us(-thruthe agency of his children-that it’s not the story that counts,it’s thewayyou tell it.And probably,the young brother’s story was not the one we sawonthe screen.THe radio flyer becomes a metaphor for something best leftunspoken.

Richard Donner’s movie,even if he does not cut the masters’best I mentionabove,remains watchable ,after all.

Not much material nearly grounds "Radio Flyer" pretty quick, but in the endthe film is somewhat enjoyable and almost becomes one of the biggestsurprises of the 1990s. Tom Hanks tells his two young sons about a dark timewhen he (Elijah Wood in the flashbacks) and younger brother Joseph Mazzellomoved to the suburbs in California with mother Lorraine Bracco. Almostimmediately she meets trouble-maker Adam Baldwin (his face barely seenthroughout the film) and marries him. It is crystal clear that Baldwin is achild abuser, always choosing Mazzello as his target. A plan develops veryquickly by the two youngsters to turn Mazzello’s new wagon into a flyingmachine so he can get away from Baldwin’s abuse. The film has many holes init, but it still remains interesting nonetheless. Co-directors RichardDonner and David M. Evans almost turn the movie into a whimsical fantasy andI am not sure that was a good thing. It also seems that a lot of troublewent into Wood and Mazzello’s plan when it would have been so much easier togo to their mother or local police officer John Heard and explain thesituation. The film-makers wanted to show the movie through a child’spoint-of-view ala "E.T.—The Extra-Terrestrial", but a truly gifteddirector like Steven Spielberg is one of the few people that could pull thatoff successfully. "Radio Flyer" is above average and still pretty good inspite of numerous shortcomings. Ben Johnson adds an endearing cameo andreally should have had a little more airtime. 3.5 out of 5 stars.

Bobby and Mikey are two little boys who move across the country withtheir divorced mother to start a new life. Soon after the familysettles in, their mom marries "The King" who ends up being an abusivestepfather, especially to Bobby. So Bobby decides that he will "flyaway" from the abuse in his birthday present.

This movie was difficult to watch, especially the abuse scenes. It washard to watch an innocent, playful little boy become abused and turninto a sullen scared, and withdrawn young man. The acting is excellent.

I cried throughout the last half of the movie. There were some funnyscenes in it too like the Monster Brew and the dog that finds the popbottles.

I wouldn't suggest letting little kids watch it. It was a movie thatwas painful to watch and yet it really really flew away.

Basically, Radio Flyer is a story with two main themes: the horrors of childabuse and the seemingly inevitable loss of innocence and imagination. Mike(Elijah Wood) and Bobby (Joseph Mazzello) are moved to a new town with theirmother Mary (Lorraine Bracco) who meets "The King" (Adam Baldwin). It isn’tlong before The King moves in with the three and begins taking hisfrustrations out on young Bobby. Mike does his best to try and protect hislittle brother, but has promised Bobby he would not tell. So, in the hopesof saving his little brother, Mike comes up with "The BigIdea".

Both Mazzello and Wood do a fantabulous job playing the young brothers. Their acting is superb and Mazzello plays the part of an abused child in afashion that could put most adult actors to shame. It’s just too bad wedon’t see much of this young actor any longer. Wood is equally good, buthe’s always been a fantastic child actor and has proven himself once againin Radio Flyer.

You don’t see much of Bracco throughout the movie, but I think that wasrather the point: a single, working mother who wasn’t home much. Quitepossibly this is how she "missed" much of what was happening to her son(s).Even when she does discover, however, you go from being proud of her forprotecting her children to hating her for allowing The King back into theirlives. I didn’t find this unrealistic in the least. This happens all toooften, unfortunately.

The part of The King was done well although you didn’t see much of the actorhimself. The direction in scenes with the King is incredible…never reallytruly showing his face. This made him much more menacing and also allowedthe audience to view him through more child-like eyes.

I’ve read that not a lot of people found this movie to be realistic. Idisagree entirely. The fact that Mike was not abused while Bobby was isn’tall that uncommon. Many abusers prey on the weakest, and undoubtedly Bobbywas the "weaker" of the two brothers. Furthermore, many abusers also goafter those that are less likely to tell. Mike probably would have saidsomething, and would have if not for the promise he made to Bobby. As faras the ending, granted, if you took it at face value without any thought,not only are you going to miss the point entirely, but of course you’regoing to end up thinking the movie is entirely unrealistic and full of"fluff".

WARNING…SPOILERS AHEAD!

My take on the ending: I do not believe that Mike was an only child andBobby was his imaginary friend or the personification of his "inner self". While I find that a valid argument, to me it simply didn’t fit in with themovie itself. The older Mike (Tom Hanks) mentions Bobby to his young sonsand I doubt that would be done had Bobby never really existed. Furthermore,the King would not have been arrested that last time at the wishing spot(thus the end of "Bobby the inner child") due to the fact that he hadn’t yetdone anything (at least not since the LAST time he was arrested). Sure, hewas about to, but he’d not have been arrested for "thinking about hitting"the boys. Nevertheless, I believe that Bobby truly existed and was killedby The King. As far as the movie goes, Mike did everything his young mindcould think of in order to save Bobby. He kept him out all day, made the"monster repellent" and yes, I believe he tried to make the Radio Flyerreally fly. However, before Mike had a chance to get Bobby to safety, TheKing killed Bobby. It was easier for his young mind to believe that he gotBobby away and Bobby was OK. As for the postcards, it’s not unthinkablethat those were written by Mike as a way to enforce his belief that hisbrother was still alive.

As the older Mike said "At least that’s how I choose to remember it". Thatwas a huge clue that Bobby ended up dying and Mike simply couldn’t handlethe guilt that he couldn’t save his little brother.

End Spoilers

Overall, I give the movie a 9/10. Although it touches on a horriblesubject, it is done with tact and in such a way that even younger kids canwatch the movie. Highly recommended.

read comments (0)

Newsies

Newsies was an interesting movie about the newspaper strike back in1899. It wasn’t the best movie I’ve ever seen though. Newsies was verypredictable such as when the main character Jack Kelly (Christian Bale)said his parents were coming back for him once they settled in SantaFe. It was completely obvious that it wasn’t going to have a fairytaleending. It was also predictable that Kelly was going to fall in lovewith David Jacobs (David Moscow) sister. The dance numbers were welldeveloped by choreographers Peggy Holmes and Kenny Ortega. These danceswent well with the songs and lyrics in this movie. The acting wasmediocre at best. It shows that the casting director did not do a goodjob in choosing good actors, only good dancers.

Are you in the mood for a Friday night classic movie? If you are, then"The Newsies" may be the movie for you. If you’re an idiot! Personally,I think that the movie was rated appropriately low. The movie’s plot isabout nine and ten year old boys why deliver papers, but when JosephPulitzer (Robert Duvall) raises the price of the "Papes," the boys goon strike. They get boys involved from other places around New YorkCity. They all come together in the movie and win. In real life,though, the boys really lost the strike. "The Newsies" has a lot ofsinging and dancing. So, if you are not the musical type, do not watchthis movie. The songs are not tunes you hear every day, but they aresome you will want to hear again. The dancing is okay for a bunch ofteenage boys dancing in vests. I think that the dancing could have beenmore with the songs and not so choreographed. There were two good dancescenes, that both involved Ann- Margret, the dancer. Ann- Margret didan excellent job at captivating the viewer with her great dancing andher electric personality. The actors are some you may not have heardof, but they did a fair job for the experience they have had. Theactors "acted" too much. They tried to do too good of a job so itappeared boring, pointless, and fake. When the writers and directorssay that it’s a true story, you can believe part of what they say. Someof the events are true, like the "newsies" went on strike, formed theirown paper and more, but like I said they did not win the strike in reallife. It was just part of the story to make it like you want movies tobe, "the fairy tale ending." And they gave you that.

I would give this movie a 2 ½ out of 5 stars. Most of the acting anddancing scenes aren’t worth watching again. Though the actors asthemselves might get your attention, (ladies, you probably know where Iam going with that). If you haven’t seen it and you like movies aboutpartially real things and history, you might want to watch this film.Overall, however, I would not watch it again.

Spoiler Warning (?): I mention things from the film here, they might beimportant to film, but i don’t think so. Here’s the short version ofwhat’sbellow: If you want to watch a musical, I recommend anything over this,youname it.

i saw this movie a while ago when i was 11-ish and i remember hating it.Itwas on tv the other night and, since MST3K has given me a passion for theworst movies, i sat down to view it with my dad. The opening shot is ofallthe "newsies" seemingly living in a dorm or youth hostel or something.Afterthat i knew i was in for some awesome riffing. I think Duvall was doingsomeone a favor for wearing that gigantic bush of steal wool on his face.And why were the kids on strike destroying the other "scab newsies"papers.Pulitzer already had their money, so they were, in effect, hurtingthemselves. The payps (i guess that would be how you would spell it) wereworth more intact. Maybe it was supposed to scare them into "striking."The"striking", the so-called plot of the movie, didn’t work in real life whenit happened. First off, it helps that the strikers actually work for thecompany they’re striking against. What they did was a poor excuse for aboycott. The last of my many bones to pick is "How does the kid from ‘Big’support his family so well on the change he makes from selling papers?"Theylive a great looking apartment for a no-to-low income family circa 1900.Oh,and why did the really small kid have a British accent? Come to think ofit,that whole family had accent issues. It seemed like kids came fromdifferentcountries than the parents. There were a few catchy lines in the songs andsome nice dance moves, but they couldn’t save it. Cult followings aremeantfor really good unknown movies (such as Carnival of Souls) or really badunknown movies (Manos: Hands of Fate or Plan 9). Everyone here that saysthis movie is great, please broaden you view of musicals. There are manymany great musicals out there that have everything over this heap. By theway, me and my dad had a blast riffing this movie a newone.

Don’t waste your time! Who is the mental genius that came up with this one? Based on New York’s paper boy strike just prior to the turn of the century,the filmmakers pretty up the squalor these boys lived in and make it seemfun and cheery. Although, it is a Disney effort so what else can beexpected? As lame as this film was (and why Robert Duvall chose to stickhis name on it eludes me) the music has its moments. Alan Menken, betterknown for his work in "The Little Mermaid, "Aladdin, and the Oscar winning"Beauty and the Beast", does some good work here. But I can’t recommendthis, even for young children. The only part worth checking out can befound on the CD.

Saw this film with a group of undergrad theatre people in my residencebuilding, after I’d been with them to see the brilliant Chicago (2002) andwell all agreed on how great Moulin Rouge (2001) was/is. The theatre peoplelove this film: unfortunately I couldn’t share their enthusiasm,particularly when comparing it to the aforementioned great modern musicals. The cast was okay, but the songs (with the exception of "King of New York")left more than a little to be desired and the politics, of course, was nevergoing to work. Centering a film around unionism in the early 1990s was abad decision, and quite a startling one from Disney, one of the biggestcorporations in the capitalist world. Of course, capitalism per se isn’texactly in question, just the practices of a few "bad apples" in Pulitzerand his cronies. The film also neglected to comment on the fact that theNewsies’ victory paved the way for the capitalist United States to exploitanother group of disadvantaged people: immigrants, a practice that continuesto this day. There is a strong argument to suggest that the United States’economy would be unsustainable without the benefits of cheap exploitative(mostly illegal) immigrant wages, a situation that further repels thejingoistic view that the US is the world’s greatest liberal democracy. (Just the other day, I saw a poster: "Vote Bush: Because Democracy IsBoring".)

Newsies is a nice film, telling a nice story, but is nothing more than that- unless you were to disregard the politics and the accents and focus solelyon the aesthetics and choreography.

R: 6/10.

Ok, this is what I would call a good movie. It’s a miracle worker forbabysitters, even though it’s going to drive parents bonkers. I liked it,except for the rushed production values. And oh yeah…CHRISTAIN BALESINGSLIKE CINDERELLA!

I really loved this show from the first time i watched it. This showgives people a hope nd strength that we (kids) can stand up for what webelieve is right and we won’t back down. I love Christian Bale in thisfilm because he did so well with his acting. You could tell that allthe kids in the film wanted to be there and they put in a lot of workto make this film. Watching hot guys dance and sing and ride horsesjust makes me happy i guess cause this movie had all that plus more. Icried and lau
ghed and even got so into it that i was really angry atsome of the actors and would yell at them to shut up or not to do acertain something etc… I recommend this film to everyone. I thinkthat anyone can enjoy it because it has stuff for all types of people.It has good morals and is a fun film that does so much for people.

This movie is my Favorite movie in the world!!!!It has great actorsanda message! From this movie I got the message; Never underestimate yourselfand stand up for what is right,just because you’re smaller than someonedoesn’t mean your voice wont be heard.If you haven’t seen this movieyou’vegot to see it soon! And if you think it stunk then you need to go watch itagain because there is no way this movie could stink!!!!!!!!All the actorsdid very well at portraying their rolls……especially Gabriel Damon! I’dhave to say that his character, Spot, was my favorite Character in themovie.not that anyone else was bad, they all did a fabulous job, and Ithinkthey should have gotten more credit for their roles! Thanks for your timeand enjoy the movie…it is the best you know!

I….love this movie! Quite a varied and extensive selection of eye candy(even for someone way too old for these hottie boys), terribly catchy andwell orchestrated music, and a plot with a cause worth fighting for! Thedancing is SO irresistible and…enticing? What can I say…groupsynchronized dancing boys and slow-mo walking guys are both myweaknesses.

Okay, so I’m drooling…also, I love the authenticity of the costuming inthe movies…they all have really cute dirty outfits and greasy hair…yousee movies with girls in survival situations, yet with perfect hair. Notquite accurate. I find the grease and grime somewhat refreshing.

Did I mention Christian Bale is so sexy? Forget him now, he was at his bestas a teen.

Yeah, I love this movie. The "weighted average" of imdb is completelyunfair…most everyone gave this a 10, me included…it deserves at least an8.5. If you need more persuasion than can be found in similar rave reviews,here’s my advice: SEE THIS MOVIE NOW. Especially if you are female. Youwill enjoy it. I promise.

This film is, by far, the greatest film ever. Christian Bale is not onlythe hottest guy ever ( and my fututre husband i might add ) but an amazingactor and singer. His voice brings a tear to my eyes. (Awwww)

Newsies is a based on actual events and tells a story of truth andjustice -with a few song and dance numbers thrown in. Very enjoyable,

on a scale of one to ten, i give it an eleven.

Thanks!

-Kate

read comments (0)

Noises Off…

There's no sense arguing over whether something's funny or not, but letme at least cast my vote that "Noises Off" was a disappointing borewhen I saw it on the Broadway stage (and I generally love Britishcomedies), and it's equally unfunny as a film. Anyone who finds thismovie amusing may be a sweet, well-meaning, decent human being, butthey could never be my friend, because they clearly have no sense ofhumor. The surprising thing is how awful almost everyone in the castis. Michael Caine, Julie Hagerty, Marilu Henner, and Denholm Elliott dowhat they can — I mean, I didn't have to look away when they were on– but Carol Burnett? Amazingly, she's not funny at all in thistiresome farce. She's positively grim. Whatever happened to her gift?John Ritter? Close to unwatchable. And Christopher Reeve? Totallymiscast, a complete embarrassment. (It's painful to say this,considering the tragedy that befell him, but he was always a terribleactor, stiff and awkward and artificial in every role, and had nocomedic ability at all. The only movie he was creditable in was a 1987thriller called "Street Smart," in which he was very well cast as anaive Ivy League doofus.) The single genuinely enjoyable thing in"Noises Off" is Nicollette Sheridan, who's beautiful and sexy as sheruns around the stage in her white underwear. God bless her. (Note: Ifyou want to see a really superb comedy written by Michael Frayn, try"Clockwise" starring John Cleese and a lovely ingenue named SharonMaiden; it's virtually unknown in the States, but it's delightful –which makes the tedium of "Noises Off" all the more mystifying.)

Director Bogdanovich has taken the farce out of this farce andrelies tooheavily on the talents of Burnett, Caine and Ritter to dig himself outof the messhe’s gotten himself into. Although the cast is a talented bunch,especially DenholmElliott, the film does not work the way Bogdanovich wishes. It worksbetter asa play.

This was supposed to be "a hilarious farce," according to reviews ofthe day. It just shows you how unreliable are the movie critics youread in the newspaper. The only "farce" was that this film was lauded.

The first dozen minutes along totally turned me off. In that period.John Ritter used the Lord's name in vain at least three times. That,and hundred of other "Oh, God" this and "Oh, God" that were just waytoo much and too annoying.

I usually like Michael Caine but he's had his share of lemons, as otheractors have, and this is one of them. Add in the usually-annoying CarolBurnett, Julie Hagerty and Ritter and this is easy movie to dislike.

From what I hear, the stage play was far better than this flat farce.

"Noises Off" is a popular stage play that I’ve personally helped produce,and I must honestly say that we did it better than the movie. It’s ahilarious British slapstick comedy, but it’s ten times better on stagethanon screen, not to mention the fact that some of the movie actors’ sensesoftiming were way off. Skip the movie, find the play somewhere.

3 out of 10

A eclectic group of actors put on a play and then take it on tour. Theplay is a sort of door slamming British farce that is full of innuendos andmisunderstandings. The film captures them during one particular scene ofthat play. It follows them as they rehearse that scene and then play itlive to an audience. It also follows the behind the scenes discord thathappens between the cast and how this discord effects the performance of thescene. It culminates with a completely catastrophic showing inCleveland.

This should have been a really fun movie. It’s certainly an originallystructured idea and it is slickly handled. It brings back the days ofscrewball comedy where things were funny just for the sake of being funny. Everything is contained and nothing is out of place or crude. In some waysit’s a real refreshing change of pace.

The cast is certainly game and perfect for this type of comedy. Reeveand Ritter come off best. Reeve seems to be playing his Clark Kentcharacter only to a higher degree. Ritter does his Jack Tripper routine notonly with the physical side, but also with the nuance. His character alsotries to be very politically correct and it is amusing watching him never beable to get to the point.

The film also offers some light satire into the whole stage productionprocess. Everything from the fragile temperaments of the actors to the highstrung director is examined. It also takes some good shots at the playsthemselves and how these stage comedies always seem to have such a highreliance on extreme coincidences.

There are some good laugh out loud moments, but after awhile it becomesa bit too much. It becomes exhausting just watching it. The jokes and gagscome so fast that if you blink you will miss some. There is also too muchreliance on the frantic side of comedy, which eventually starts to lose it’scuteness. The characters are placid and so are the situations. There isalso the redundancy factor of having to see the same scene done over andover.

In the end it comes off as meticulously choreographed tripe. It is assilly as the play it seems to be mocking. It also has a glaring factualerror. Caine, the play director, talks about all the cities they have beentoo. He mentions Cairo, Missouri as one. There is a Cairo in Illinois butnone in Missouri.

Fortunately, enough of the stage script survives its transfer to filmthat attentive viewers can tell why "Noises Off" remains one of thefunniest farces ever to visit the Theatre.

But somewhere along the way from stage to screen, "Noises Off" becamecalcified and entirely lost its edge. It's played broadly here by anable cast, all of whom clearly loved it on stage as well and now sharethe blame for this thoroughly noisy, but unfortunately moribund comedyshow.

Clearly, the film's severest critics in this conference are those (likemyself) who enjoyed the show on stage in London or New York. If youdidn't have that privilege, it may actually work to your advantage asyou can come fresh to the film–and many, clearly, have enjoyed ittremendously. For myself, however, I remember laughing so hard that myeyes flooded with tears. Didn't happen here, alas.

Movie-adaptation of the British stage farce by Michael Frayn about thecomic foibles and headaches derailing a stage production. Lots ofpratfalls and double-takes courtesy director Peter Bogdanovich, whoselove for this material is apparent despite a stop-and-go executionwhich doesn't always run smoothly. The cast, including Carol Burnett,Michael Caine and Christopher Reeve, is inclined to mug shamelessly–asif the only way to sell this broadly-drawn ballet is to put it wayover-the-top. May be funny if it strikes you in the proper sillyspirit, but the casting is more interesting than the characters theactors are playing, and interest wanes fairly quickly. *1/2 from ****

I was 10 years old when I first saw "Noises Off" on television. Eversince when someone was asking me what was my favorite comedy I used tosay: "it’s about actors and a farcical situation, something about aplay within a movie and there were some sardines there, but I can’tremember the name of the movie" or something similar. The truth is thatthis movie has remained very vivid in my memory and, ever since, I didmy best to find out what was its title.

Only 12 years later, thanks to the internet and the few dissociatedelements I had in mind I discovered its name. I ordered it immediately.I was astonished to discover that it has the same wonderful impact onme at this age. Noises Off is a wonderful example of how comediesshould be made in order to make people forget e
verything and emergeinto laughing.

Each character performs as if born for the part they play.Shortcomings? There might be but I surely couldn’t find them.

In a word: unforgettable.

I saw an amateur stage production of Noises Off which was one of thefunniest things I’ve ever seen. The film, despite noble efforts by Burnett,Caine and Elliott, fell short. John Ritter did not belong, and the comictiming, camera work, and editing were lackadaisical. Yes, it is funny, butcould stand to be redone by a more comedy-oriented director.

There are some usually fine actors in this movie, but whatever talentthereis it’s totally wasted in this directorial mess. I watched it twice, andstill couldn’t tell you what the heck went on there.Why twice, if it’s that bad? Well, we do get 95 minutes of NicoletteSheridan running up and down stairs, spinning around, crawling on allfoursetc. - all while wearing loverly white undies and black heels. I didn’tlaugh much (well, not at all), but boy was I smiling!

read comments (0)

Of Mice and Men

I think this movie is one of the best movies that ever has been made. GarySinise and John Malkovich are both great in this movie. When you have seenthis movie you just think about it all day.I´ll give it 8 of10.

This movie is one of my favorites, and I think that’s a big statement from a13 yr. old girl who usually likes movies with action, love, or ones morepointed toward my age group. John Malkovich is just great, and it sounds soodd to say this about a grown man, but his character was cute. You felt sosorry for him. The hope in the begining is such a sad contrast to theending. This a good movie, but if you get bored easily it might get long.

I have read the book, i have seen every actor in this movie in othermovies,i am agreeing that this is just like the book by steinbeck. Not only isSteinbeck a genious, but so is Gary Senise for having an idea to create anovel into a motion picture. out of a 10, i give Gary Senise a 10, JohnMalkovich a 10, and this movie i give a 10. i love this movie! it is verytouching.

As "Of Mice and Men" (1992) begins, Lennie (John Malkovich) andGeorge(Gary Sinese) are on their way to yet another California farm by way ofboxcar. This scene coincides with one of a woman running across a fieldwearing a torn dress. Armed men on horseback are pursuing Lennie andGeorge. The era of the depression is evident as the two make their way tothe bus station. It is also revealed that Lennie is mentally deficient.

Along the way, George recites their dream for Lennie. Lennie wantssobadly to live in the small house, haul in wood for the stove andespeciallytend to the rabbits that live in the hutches George will build.

Lennie and George arrive at the Tyler ranch and are greeted by Candy(Ray Walston), an elderly farm hand accompanied by a very old and scruffydog. The fondness the man has for the dog is relevant to the mainplot.Other characters come into play as George and Lennie are shown totheirbunks. The ranch owner’s son Curley (Casey Siemaszko) makes it known thathe will be the one to cause Lennie needless grief.Curley brings his repulsive demeanor to the bunk house one eveningandtaunts Lennie into an altercation. Unable to tolerate the one sidedbeatingGeorge commands Lennie to fight back. Lennie does and it results inCurley’s hand being crushed. Shortly after, Candy is bullied intoallowinganother ranch hand to shoot his dog.The litter of new pups in the barn only brings another tragedy. AsLennie does not know his own strength, he crushes one of the puppies toitsdeath. Curley’s wife (Sherilyn Fenn) subsequently arrives in the barn,notrealizing the game she is about to play with Lennie will result in thesameoutcome as the pup. Once again, the armed men on horseback are in pursuitof George and Lennie.There was little deviation by Director Gary Sinese from the originalSteinbeck novel. Loneliness, violence, human interaction and dreams allareconveyed through the characters.

It was okay,but it kinda fell short. The book is better than the movie(I’ve never seen the 1939 version) and the good part about themovie is that Gary Sinise and John Malkovich perform so well.

One problem is that the movie left out certain elements of thebook, and the ending seemed too obvious.

Overall, not good, but not bad.

I guess the point is the Honesty. When two people are totally honest toeach other they trust each other as well.

Then we see a third party joins to this honesty, the old guy. But evenwhen people that much honest and trust each other, still there is apoint that you can break the rules.

Why George killed Lennie? He liked Curly’s wife more than he likesLennie.

If there is 100% trust and honesty he wouldn’t kill him.

So, the main point is that you can not trust anyone. We all are allalone in this world.

For the right-brained, in-touch-with-their-and-everyone-else's feelingstype of person — for any English Major! — I'm sure this is awonderful story and a wonderful movie.

For the left-brained, "just the facts, Mam" type of person, it isexcruciatingly slow and tedious. It's still a well-made movie, but Ithink I can sum it up with two questions for discussion: 1) Is itmerciful and "right" to put down an old dog? 2) If you have a loved onewho doesn't fit into society, or who very soon isn't going to be ableto continue the life that he or she is accustomed to, is it mercifuland "right" to put that person out of the misery that's sure to come?

I consider the subject matter of this story to be EXTREMELY mature. No,there's no sex, language, or extreme violence, but the subject matterrequires a mature intellect. …or maybe it requires no intellect andabsolute immaturity: A sixteen-year-old might easily be able to see theblack and white and right and wrongs of the story; A sixty-six year oldwill only see the gray shades of the dilemmas.

Of Mice and Men

Amazingly superb film based on the novel of the same name involves twoDepression-era workers (Gary Sinise and John Malkovich) running away fromthe law and landing a decent-enough job at a ranch where they harvest cropsand hay. Malkovich is amazing as the big, dumb, strong man who was "kickedin the head by a mule as a kid," and Sinise–who also directed–proves herethat he isn’t only a terrific leading man, but also a wonderful director inthe vein of classic films you just don’t see anymore. Simply supberb.Probably one of my new favorite films.

Rated R for language, some violence, adult subject matter and a scene ofbrief sexual innuendo.

**** 1/2 out of *****

This movie was absolute genius to Gary Sinise’s part, and probably oneof the better portrayals after a book than any other book I have read.

John Malkovich is absolutely outstanding as the role of neurologicalimpaired Lennie Small. His smile, and enjoyable role make you want towatch this movie more closely than ever before, and lights up the bigscreen with hard working perseverance. An absolute life-saver.

I could have lived without Slim, who wasn’t nearly as good and didn’texceed my expectations, or Candy, who didn’t seem to have the role downwell, were some downsides.

But some upsides were plenty! George (Sinese) and Lennie (Malkovich),are absolutely perfect together, they simply look like they would staytogether forever. Curley’s Wife is portrayed in simple fashion, just asgood as it was thought, and made the movie much more serious.

I wouldn’t change the film one bit, except see it for yourself.

9/10 stars.

It’s a sad time in the world of film. Lately, many producers and directorsare satisfied with stupid stories as material for their blockbustermovies.In fact, you know that we’re having problems when the feature films thatarescoring the most in the box offices and getting the most amount of votesonthe IMDB are the same films that have the least amount of content. Currentstandings show that the Blair Witch Project and the Sixth Sense are theboxoffice favorites - even among the hyped plethora of teeny bopper movies,such as Big Daddy and the new Austin Powers, and spiffed up specialeffectsmovies like the Matrix and the Haunting. At first glance, it appears thatmoviegoers are being trapped when they head for the theatres and are lefthaving to settle for movies without any substance. Recently, when arrivingat the box office window the typically easy question, "what movie shall wesee?" has become as difficult to answer as Hamlet’s immortally infamous,"tobe or not to be?"

If those who go the movies only want to waste time and to leave thetheatrewithout having their mind being engaged in any fashion at all, thenHollywood is finally figuring out what type of movies make money. But ifthere still are ma
ny good American citizens with any sense of discernmentwhatsoever, they’ll head straight to the local video store to rent orpurchase a copy of Of Mice and Men.

Of Mice and Men’s beauty comes first from the story itself. JohnSteinbeck’sclassic novel is one of the most prolific names in the heart of decent andintelligent literature in America. It’s becoming more and more difficulttotry and derive a screenplay from a wonderful novel and still make itsuccessful on screen… but it wasn’t for Gary Sinise. He took thismasterpiece and made it a living, breathing, inspirational work on the bigscreen.

The acting is wonderful. John Malkovich has and still hasn’t done betterwork than the believable portrait he provided for Lennie Small. GarySinisehasn’t tried directing a major film since Of Mice and Men, probablybecauseof the lack of attention this movie receives, but this was just as goodandpossibly better than anything a Kubrick, Scorsese, or a Spielberg havedneoin the 20th Century.

My rating for this movie is a perfect 10. It’s power is in the story, it’sbeauty is in the acting, and it’s chock full of things for the audience toponder and think about. This film can’t be ignored.

read comments (0)