The Return

This was far and away the worst movie i've ever seen in my entire life.It was slow, boring, not scary, not funny, not dramatic, notentertaining.

Sarah Michelle Gellar was up to her old playbook of empty expressionsof fright and shock. She couldn't sell her character nor could anyoneelse in the picture.

For those who thought the Grudge was 'kind of alright' then don't gosee this unless you get enjoyment out of wasting your time and yourlife.

I saw this movie for free by the way so I don't want this to comeacross as a rant from a guy that lost 8 bucks on a terrible movie. Itwas free, it still sucked, I hated it.

Avoid.

SOME NOT-SO-SPOILY SPOILERS AHEAD

Why do people, when they are disoriented or sick or scared at a club,cut through the middle of the crowded dance floor on their way to thebathroom?

Who in their right mind would hide under a bed when someone breaks intotheir room?

How often do you knock on a stranger's door and when they don'tIMMEDIATELY answer, you open the door, walk in, shout a few hello's andthen start going through their stuff?

If you were being pursued by someone you just discovered was amurderer, what would you do? Quietly sneak off and hide under a woodenplatform or among metal implements? Run, quietly of course, to a rattyold barn or other decrepit structure?

I could be talking about almost any thriller that's come out in thelast few years, but since this is the "The Return" page, obviously I'mtalking about "The Return." I saw it free because I work at a movietheater and make a point of screening all the "scary" movies. I thoughtthis one was tolerable… aside from the well-worn clichés. SarahMichelle Gellar is really drab and looks kind of "Huh?" through most ofthe film. The details of the plot are slowly given out as the movieprogresses and it's almost enough to make it interesting except therewasn't enough explanation as it moved on and so I was almost lost untilthe last 2/3 of it.

If you're a die-hard thriller fan, it's worth seeing at least once. Ifthere's nothing better at the theater and you really want to watch amovie, eh, I guess it's worth a matinée ticket. If you thought thetrailer made it look like an interesting movie and you can't wait…wait.

How do comments like the one that was the headline by high school girlseven make it on this site, this was the stupidest movie I have everseen, it was ridiculous, how can any moron sit there and say that justbecause a movie makes you jump it is a good movie, that might be themost idiotic thing I have ever heard, I could sneak up behind you andgo "Boo" and it would make you jump, but that does not mean I amqualified to write or direct a movie, not to mention "they tiedeverything together at the end" is not a good reason for a movie to bewell received. What kind of movie would it be if they didn't tieeverything together, I guess that would make it half a movie, not awhole movie. So basically this idiot girl is complimenting them forfinishing the movie, well I love how the youth of today hold the mediaand production companies to such a high standard. No wonder thepolitical system of this country can get away with whatever they want,we have idiots like that coming up in our country, what would happen ifthis girl actually ends up leading something someday, that is a scarythought. Get a life and go watch a real movie sometime, try ShawshankRedemption or On the Waterfront, or something like that, and don'tcomment that it was "boring" after you see it, just use what littlebrain God gave you to analyze it a little.

Let me start off by saying I am not a fan of horror movies. I neverwatch them.

Let me tell you about my experience…

The only reason I watched this movie was because my girlfriend and herfriends wanted to see it over Happy Feet.

…I never saw Happy Feet, but I am sure it is better thanthis…movie? Anyway, we didn't actually expect it to be good…weactually went in just to laugh at it. Cool with me…I have a problemwith ruining the movie for other people in the theater but since it wasjust other couples talking and making out, it did not matter.

After 15 minutes the 2 other people left to go sneak into Borat, amovie I would have gladly seen again over this. The movie was notscary, and not stupid so it would be funny…it was just boring. Itwasn't terrible like "Baby Genuises" terrible, it was terriblelike…not entertaining at all. Avoid.

Now I am no expert, but it seems the problem with the horror industrythese days is that you can have a PG-13 horror that is boring and notscary, or you can have an R gruesome horror movie that either is toobloody or too disgusting for people.

You want a PG-13 horror that sucks but is funny? See "The Grudge."Avoid this movie like the plague…because it may literally bore you todeath.

0/10

Think of the ending of the Grudge 2 with the following :

- a man who repeatedly says the word Sunshine - a cowboy - a love story- Sarah Michelle Gellar cutting herself - and a creepy mirror

OH AND UNDERWATER SEA ANIMALS…yay…

not a good movie… I seriously did not enjoy it whatsoever. The posterfor the movie is extremely misleading as well and I found that it wasjust to suck people into watching it…I can't believe i went.

Save your time and money…go watch Saw III…a film where the writingmakes you feel like there was effort put into it…

Im Mike and Im out

This movie sucks! This dumb movie is straight to video quality at best.It looks like Sarah Michelle Gellar has her face frozen like BenAffleck all through the movie. Cheap attempts to scare people and mutedcolors are all this film will be known for. The whole pacing isterrible and Sarah Michelle Gellar and Peter O'Brien had no chemistryat all. How old was his character supposed to be? What kind of idiotkiller hides a knife in a gas tank? This was really a lousy movie and Iam glad I got my money refunded from the theater manager because thismovie was falsely advertised and intentionally misleading. It was soboring that I could not believe how long this movie felt and it wasonly 85. The trailers before this stinker were more entertaining. Avoidthis loser at all costs!

Moviegoers are basically stupid. We fork over hard-earned (well, insome cases) cash for 90 to 120 minutes of theoretical enjoyment. So farso good, and we as a public are willing to buy into the idea that oursix bucks entitle us to an hour-and-a-half of escapism. The problem isthat going to see a movie is a crapshoot under the best ofcircumstances, and, well, in the worst case, it can be the grounds fora class-action lawsuit against the studio for a severe case of libel,i.e. they promised us this would be interesting, shocking, fun, etc.

None of which The Return is. And, honestly, I knew it was going to beweak when I saw the trailer. It looked like a retread of The Grudge,another Sarah Michelle Gellar joint (also a fairly craptacular moviebut at least that took place in Japan), and, yes, I went to see themovie for the girl. So color me double stupid for expecting anythingelse. I pretty much figured I would sit through a tepid remake of atepid remake, I was prepared for that.

But I was not prepared for the mind-numbing banality that is TheReturn. Gellar plays Joanna Mills, a woman so devoid of a personalityor any human characteristics it's extremely hard to be interested inher, let alone care about her. Joanna is apparently seeing things (deadpeople, a possible killer, a mysterious tavern) and these visions leadher to some nowhere town in Texas where everything is a pasty brown andeveryone acts strangely, and they ALL act as if they know somethin
g wedon't, which of course they do, because we are never told what in thehell is going on.

I mean it. I literally had no idea what in the hell was going onthrough the first two-thirds of this movie. Joanna goes through themotions of tracking down what's going on in her visions, but she picksup clues because she needs to, not because it makes any sense that shedoes. The movie does eventually disclose what happened, but much likean Agatha Christie novel, there's no damn way you could have figured itout and even when you are told, it isn't very satisfying. And then weare only given Joanna's possible connection to the main story in ateaser at the end of the film, by which point we don't care whathalf-assed plot twists might be in store, we just want to get the hellout of there as quickly as we can.

It isn't a horror film, as the trailer promises. If only it were aretread of The Grudge, that might have merely been bad. But The Returntakes boring to a whole new level. Watching Gellar play a character agood 50 IQ points lower than she is was painful, and I wondered overand over what the hell she could have been thinking in taking this role(can she really need the money that bad?). Maybe it's because I've seenher be so good in just about everything else she's done (even the laterembarrassing seasons of Buffy come off like Shakespeare next to thisleaden claptrap), but this is the kind of film you only do for love,money, exposure, or because you lost a bet. So I hereby pardon everyoneelse in the film (an impressively uncharismatic bunch of unknowns andunrecognizables, except for the one actor who had a recurring role onDark Angel, and that tells you a lot about the average talent levelSarah ended up working with here) as, hell, a break is a break. But Ican't fathom what in the hell Sarah was thinking in accepting a scriptthis tepid.

I've beaten this dead horse enough. This is the worst film I've seenthis year, and I've seen Ultraviolet. If that isn't enough to scare youaway from this movie, then you must have as little common sense as thecharacters in the film itself. I'll put it more clearly than the moviecould: DON'T GO.

To all of those saying that this movie was fantastic and one of thebest they've seen: Did we watch the same film? Because what I sawlacked cohesion and ilogic. It went in circles that were completelyunnecessary and it may qualify as the biggest waste of $7 AND time thatI've ever experienced. It explained itself within the last 10 minutesor so and even then the explanation sucked. I felt like it skippedaround way too much. Not to mention, Sarah Michelle's voice is superannoying. Is it just in this film, or has she always been thatirritating? Ugh, what a load of crap. Spare yourself. Don't watch it.Worst hour and 20 minutes ever. Ew.

even the messenger made more sense then this movie,, this oneabsolutely positively made no sense whatsoever,, sarah michelle gellar(buffy) didn't even do a really good job at all, the movie was entirelydisappointing. the characters made no sense whatsoever. the boyfriendstalker, no sense,, the dad sam shephard,, weak let me tell you thatmuch,, the plot line , couldn't' decide where it wanted to go,, thisdirection asif.. something or other i think was trying to capitalize onone of those M Night Shamalyan productions and failed miserably,, thiscould have been a good movie,, but like i said just can't seem to makeup it's mind where it wanted to go,, folks you can skip this one,because mainly it makes no sense at all,, i didn't even see the pointof this movie to tell you the truth.

Don't tell my girlfriend, but I never really watched Buffy the VampireSlayer. I did see the movie staring Donald Sutherland and KristySwanson back in 1992, but that was the extent of my experience.

But there I was two years ago, sitting on a bar patio and when thefuture love of my life (well, for 25 years amortized, anyways)commented on how much she absolutely loved the television program ofthe same name, I lied my ass off and spewed generic comments back like"It's so different from that crappy movie" and "Sarah Michelle Gellarrocks!" The responses got me the girl and I have continued to live thelie for almost 24 months now, but the truth still remains that myexposure to Sarah Michelle Gellar goes as far as Scooby-Doo and TheGrudge (I had to be reminded that she was in I Know What You Did LastSummer).

So when the future mother of my bastard children and I walked theaisles of the local DVD rental store, she stopped and picked up the boxfor Gellar's 2006 film, the Return citing again her excitement to seegood old Buffy again fight evil. I was just happy we both agreed on afilm within 15 minutes of our arrival at the store.

The Return is the other horror/thriller film that Gellar was involvedwith in 2006 after The Grudge 2 and this time, Gellar plays businesswoman Joanna Mills who can't seem to shake visions of a murder thatoccurred some 15 years ago. The visions come in pieces and it seems tocatapult Joanna into a self imposed mission of finding out as much asshe can about the woman in her nightmares that was the victim of thecrime.

Of course, no one said that this was going to be easy. Joanna'spersonal life is a mess and if she isn't being haunted by terrifyingvisions of the murder, she is being stalked by an ex-boyfriend ordealing with the estrangement from her father played by the alwaysversatile Sam Shepard.

And if things weren't complicated enough, Joanna befriends a localtough guy Terry Stahl (Peter O'Brien) who is cloaked in multiple coatsof mystery and just so happens to have appeared in one of Joanna'svisions.

This all leads us down the path taking us to the climax that was aboutas exciting as bumper cars at an amusement park. To be fair there was ascene with about 15 minutes left to go in the film that I didn't seecoming, but that was probably more due to the fact that there was noreason for me to invest my brain cells in trying to get a jump start onthe ending. Instead, I sat flat lined as I watched Joanna, run, passout, or fall all three of which seemed to be ¾ of the films runtime.

The Return was Director Asif Kapadia's American debut film and itshows. Kapadia seems lost in the direction and would rather have thecharacters run around rather than use other devices for plotdevelopment. The entire subplot of the boyfriend was just a waste ofenergy and took too much time before hitting a dead end. And when itcomes to the chemistry between the two leads (Gellar and O'Brien),well, I have more chemistry between my Sunday crossword and the roll oftoilet paper to my left when I am trying to figure out a four letterword for 'crap'.

I know there have been many that are hoping that Gellar takes the batonand becomes the new scream queen of horror, but based on herperformance and interest level in The Return, I think everyone shouldfold up the parchment with her name on it and put it back in the hat.

www.robertsreviews.com

read comments (0)

The Return of Jafar

Somebody spare me!!! The first time I saw this movie, I actually kind ofliked it. Just goes to show how Disney can sucker people into liking thissort of sub-TV quality stuff. After the first few times, though, I realizedthat this was complete and utter JUNK!!

Normally, I don’t judge a movie by its animation quality since it’s usuallynot a big issue to me, but I’ll make an exception here. The animation wasobviously television quality, which isn’t that good to begin with, but theytook an excellently animated movie and made it look like a common TV show. Iespecially take issue with the coloring. The coloring looked about ten timesricher in the original movie. The coloring here was more like a total andcomplete eyesore.

Next, I’ll say that Dan Castellaneta was okay as the Genie, but (alltogether now) HE WAS NO ROBIN WILLIAMS! I don’t make this kind of argumentif the replacement does an excellent job on his own, but he didn’t. Themagic that Robin Williams created in the first movie was simply not meant toreproduce because it was so completely his own. Yet they did try to recreateit with less than satisfactory results. And Jason Alexander: Loved him in"Seinfeld" and in almost everything else I’ve seen him in. Why put him here?It was so unnecessary. The other voices were kind of just there. They werenice, but nothing stood out.

At least the music was kind of halfway decent. Nothing like "Whole NewWorld", but passable.

In short, the only reason this movie was ever released was because Disneythought they could make a quick buck from "Aladdin". That’s the onlypossible explanation I can think of.

This movie had me in stitches. Our story begins with Abu and Aladdinstealing from a group of thieves lead by Abis Mal They steal their treasureand give it to the homeless but save a flower for Jasmine meanwhile Iago istrying to dig him and Jafar out of the sand and Jafar wants Iago to releasehim from his lamp so he can get revenge on Aladdin but Iago dumps him coldand throws him in a well in the desert. Iago tries to convince Aladdin tolet him live in the palace to get the power. Later that night Abis Mal findshis lamp and unintenitonaly releases him from his lamp and Jafar gets AbisMal to take him to Agrabah Abis Mal agrees but says he wants his wishesfirst he wishes for the sunken treasure ship of a country. But Abis Mal iscaptured by an octopus he wishes to be returned to the desert. Genie is alsoback from his trip around the world. Overall a great movie.10/10.

Somebody save me from the Disney machine. This movie, to me, is nothing morethan a piece of merchandise designed to milk the "Aladdin" franchise as faras it can go. While Dan Castellaneta is adept at doing the voice of HomerSimpson, he sure is no Genie, and it shows. On the other side of thespectrum is the bad guy, Jafar, one of the more likable Disney villains. Heat least gets a song this time around, but it’s forgettable, as are hisantics and his inevitable demise. And his lackey, Abis Mal, is played byJason Alexander, who turns in an ordinary "frantic man George" performance.The other actors act pathetically and have pathetic dialogue. The copy ofthis movie in my house is broken now. Thank God.

This movie could have been so much better if they had put some thought intothe art and animation. The animators and designers basically don’t care whatit looks like, and it shows. I rented all three of the Aladdin movies at thesame time. After watching Aladdin, I popped in Return Of Jafar. AAAAAHH! whathappened! The animation was extremely poor for a Disney film, and whathappened to the shading effects?! What happened to the smooth animation?!The magic Carpet looked terrible! The Genie was more pail than blue! Also,the dialogue was poor and the film was too short (one hour, 5 min). RobinWilliams did do a better job as the Genie in the original. However, Itdoesn’t take away much from the character and can be easily over looked. Thestory itself was good, and really expends Iago’s character. I give it an 8out of 10.

It sad that disney tried to make a lower-budget direct-to-video sequel tothe very fine original,they try to make a perfectly-good villianous helperIago into a good guy too soon,& jaffars new helper Abis mal was more ofhis"george" character from seinfeld than a replacement for Iago,& for thebottom of the barrel they got someelse to do genie,(true Dan castanella ofthe simpsons wasn’t all that bad but he couldn’t possibly compare withRobinwilliams),true the basic storyline looks intrigueing & also the musicnumbers couldn’t also compare to the original but they turned out wellgood,& Jonathan Freeman did his usual good voice job on Jafar(although his"Genie form" & his demise was rather a bit frightening for the littleones),other than the large-to-moderately large disappointments the filmwassomewhat okay,but it couldn’t compare to the outstanding original &suprisingly-as-good-as-the-1st-one following film.

The Return of Jafar had a hard time, as the sequel to the great smash hitAladdin, but it still manages to hang in there quite well. One of thegreatest losses of this sequel, is the voice of Robin Williams as the Genie,which was so good in Aladdin that it was rewarded with a Golden Globe. Hissuccessor does a decent job though and manages to deliver some of the bestlines in the film. Despite the fact that he was not able to portray theflamboyant blue guy as hilarious as Williams, he managed to make the Genieone of the best characters in the film. This film does not miss RobinWilliams’ voice! It misses the good animation, the great story, the emotionsand the excitement that made up Aladdin. Making a sequel was worth a try,but I’m sorry to say it did not work, for The Return of Jafar turned out tobe one of the ‘worst’ animated features to be ever made by Disney. Thisdoesn’t mean The Return of Jafar wasn’t enjoyable at times, but that therealization of the concept was faulty.

6 out of 10

THE RETURN OF JAFAR, in my opinion, is pure Disney excellence. If youask me, Jafar (voice of Jonathan Freeman) was even more diabolical thanin the predecessor. To me, Aladdin (voice of Scott Weinger) andPrincess Jasmine (voice of Linda Larkin) did an excellent job singingtogether. However, if you ask me, the Genie (voice of Dan Castellaneta)gave the funniest performance of everyone who acted in this film,despite the fact that Robin Williams wasn’t in this. I really enjoyedthe music, especially "Forget About Love." Before I wrap this up, I’dlike to say everyone involved in this film did very well. Now, inconclusion, I highly recommend this film that’s Pure Disney excellenceto all of you who haven’t seen it. You’re in for a good time, so go tothe video store, rent it or buy it, kick back with a friend, and watchit.

I’ve always wanted to fire a 10 000 tonne cannon at this deplorable film andnow I get my chance. Heh heh.

Sequels suck (a word I don’t like using, but necessary here). Usually. TROJa perfect example. Maybe the kids will like it. But I was no older than 14,maybe 15, by the time I saw this and it almost made mesick.

What Disney have in effect done is to ruin all the good work done byAladdin. What was good about the first one? A lot of things, suchas:

1) THE GENIE2) Jafar3) The fact that Jafar (and Iago) was defeated without beingdestroyed4) Iago was a very suitable henchman for Jafar who was loyal to his masterand didn’t have an ounce of goodness in him.5) The other characters, while a bit sugary, were quitebelieveable.

Just a warning to readers who want to see this movie and want nothing givenaway: this next bit forcibly reveals a few non-critical plotelements.

So just what has Disney done? They have slammed good points 3-5, overallweakened no.1 and only no.2 enhanced in any way. Even that cou
ld have beenleft alone. I’ll keep to point-format and address them one byone.1) The good thing about the first one was that the genie wasn’t over-used.Every time he WAS brought in it was something special. In TROJ, andsubsequent ‘episodes’ spun off from it, he just goes too far and isover-used, removing the novelty of his approach. It ceases to be sospectacular. In other words, you CAN have too much of a good thing… well,most good things. I’m not too critical on this point; even without RobinWilliams, the Genie (now played by none other than Homer Simpson) does acreditable job. Just a couple of questions though: The genie’s arm-cuffsdisappeared when he was freed; why is he wearing them again now? and Whydoes the genie spend all his time around Aladdin now when he didn’t want tobe tied down at all?2) Jafar (same voice) does an excellent job and is the best part of themovie. His genie antics are quite believeable and he steals the show fromthe (good) Genie and everyone else. But there’s a downside - see the nextpoint.3) Because Jafar wasn’t killed off in the first one, they brought him back,and he wasn’t so fortunate the second time round, apparently - I didn’t seeany bones, but if he was still alive, they would have brought him back forsubsequent episodes. This was the most sickening part of all, to kill off aworthy villian who was just blossoming. And especially the way they did it,his ‘death’ seemed to take about 10 minutes.4) This was the second most sickening thing for me. How could a perfectlyable villain, like Iago, turn into a good guy? ‘Specially after the firstone where he despised ‘kissing up to that chump and his chump daughter’which is what he ends up doing. Even when Jafar completely forgives him, andappears to have won him back, Iago, without cause or reason, SETS FREE thegenie and is ultimately the one who kills Jafar. Iago in Aladdin 1 would nothave done that in an eternity.5) Disney opted to toy with the remainder of the characters. Aladdin, eventhough he lives in the palace, still cannot dress respectibly for most ofthe film and is still chased by Razoul. The other characters, relegated tominor roles, disappoint: Rajah (formerly kittenish) is now savage, Jasminecontrary, the Sultan no longer easy-going, and the carpet badlyfaded.

Young children who don’t understand such things may not mind and insteadactually enjoy this film.

When I first saw an ad for this movie, in fact, I thought it was really goodthat they’d brought Jafar back, but having watched the whole thing, I wishedthey’d left him in the Cave of Wonders to chill out as planned at the end ofthe 1st one by the Genie.I’d rather forget this one ever happened. Jafar alone prevents it fromgetting the worst possible mark.2/10

PS Disney to an extent redeems itself with a third movie in the series, butit can’t begin to account for the damage of this monstrosity.

Can I give it zero stars? This just doesn’t do it for me, and I don’t seewhy they made it. The plot here is very forced, and has been usedcountlesstimes–revenge on the good guy. Especially notable is Robin Williams’absence. (Instead, Genie is voiced by somebody from "The Simsons". Imean,come on!) The songs were an insult to Alan Maken and Howard Ashmen’swonderful soundtrack for the first film. And worst of all, the charactersseem alien, like I’ve never known them before! I regret wasting my moneyback in 1994 for this trash. I would like to dispose of it, but someday Imay watch it if I have absolutely nothing else to do. Besides, I regrettosay (but it’s true) that without this junk I wouldn’t own the complete"Aladdin" trilogy. "Aladdin" fans might want to watch it once just toknowwhat happens, but that’s pretty much it. Dust off your old copy of thefirst one and watch it instead. Or watch "Aladdin and the King ofThieves",which was very good and featured an especially impressive returnperformanceby Robin Williams as the Genie.

This was one of the first Disney sequals… It was one that turned outpretty good, but now Disney is going overboard. The Return Of Jafar wasbasicly the pilot for the TV show and it started it perfectly. Everyone isback, except for Robin Williams because of some disagreement. The story itpretty good and the songs are ok.

It’s great seeing Aladdin, Genie and the rest in action again, because in myopinion, Aladdin (1993), is one of the best Disney films ever to bereleased.

The only thing I’m mad about is all these other sequals. If Disney is goingto make sequals to their films, at least TRY to make them good. The onlygood Disney sequals I’ve seen Return Of Jafar, The Lion King 2: Simba’sPride, and Return To Neverland.

read comments (0)

The Prince of Egypt

I really wanted to like this movie. I wanted to say that Disney has finallymet their match but this movie was just awful. I was so bored, the singingwas lame and the story had too many lulls. This movie could not keep myattention. I am not religious at all but I know the story and it could havebeen very good. Unfortunately DreamWorks missed the mark. I hope they keeptrying though.

Actually, i watched it as a dare. A friend of mine had to watch HomeAlone 4, while I was left with the Prince of Egypt. I knew it would bereally bad so I had all the necessary things to keep me from losing it- the chips, the comfortable bed, the cool drinks, etc, but I guess itjust wasn’t enough. Just 30 minutes after the beginning of the movie, Ifelt like I had watched this crap for 4 hours straight. I hadunconsciously chewed up all the pillows and sheets around me, and oneof my eyes, that was closer to the TV, was really really red. Not onlyis this movie a great pile of Jewish propaganda, but it’s a horriblemelodramatic sob story Disney-style, one that no normal person would beable to watch for more than 10 minutes. Maybe I should have filmedmyself watching this crap and then send the tape to Jackass orsomething. It’s just complete torture!

I was very let down with this film. Dreamworks is hyping this as the bestanimated movie ever and it is definitely not that. It definitely can’tcompete with "Beauty and the Beast." I went into this film with high hopesand left the theater asking "why in the world would Dreamworks mess up sucha golden opportunity." Wait for the dollar show on this one. It’s not worthyour time or money. Boring plot, boring songs, mediocre animation. 1 1/2stars out of 4.

There is no joy in this picture. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but Iwish Dreamworks hadn’t attempted to do this film by following so strictlythe Disney musical formula–only without wit or subtext. They didn’t spendenough time letting the audience get to know the main characters beforebeing expected to empathize with them or identify with the struggles theyface. This has nothing to do with the AVERAGE running time (of an animatedfeature)–but the producers unwillingness to commit to creating individualpersonalites in the leads. So the audience is left to watch a pageant akinto really bad French Grand Opera. The designs remind me that, like "Antz,"Dreamworks eschews appeal by trying too hard NOT to be like Disney. Peoplemight not mind or compare if the stories were compelling or at LEASTentertaining (I did NOT say FUNNY, I said entertaining) As far as the color,I wish someone would turn the lights on so we could see the characters. Theskin, clothes, and props are colored so dark and with so little contrastthat it strains the eyes. While I admire the fact that it attempted to dosomething different–it just didn’t work, which proves the idea that a goalis something you strive for, but rarely achieve. And for all DreamworksHonking about this being an "Adult" picture, it falls into the same trapthey suffered with "Antz" in trying too hard to alienate anyone that mightcall them on their bluff: IT’S A CARTOON. That’s NOT a bad thing! Disneyhas had the same problem, and has yet to strike the right balance (Gargoylesin "Hunchback")–but the chances Disney’s taken in the last few years havebeen much more satisfying than this production.

this movie rocks..!!!I love the fact that Ralph Fiennes is doing the voice of Rameses. He ismyfavorite actor and he has a really strong and masculinevoice..The songs are good and the humor is kinda good..Grade A-

In every possible respect, this movie was meritless.

The animation was poor. I particularly enjoyed our protagonists grotesquelymisshapen head.

The music was awful, and I mean both the score itself and the performance.I’ve never quite cringed the way I did tonight when that nauseating themerecurred for the five thousandth time.

I guess it makes sense that the singing was so sub-par, considering theymanaged to blow all their money on gratuitous, excessive, repeatedlyegregious computer graphics. When Passover comes, the "death blob" looksmore like a plasma weapon from a orbiting alien battle cruiser. The partingof the Red Sea was nice though, in a "if we make it all spurting water, wedon’t actually have to draw any characters" sort of way.

The comic "relief" provided by Ra’s high priests was completely out ofplace, and a transparent attempt to emulate Disney’s habit of incorporatinga pair of funny side kicks.

Why is it that, in every movie dealing with Egypt in that time period, anexplanation is inevitably provided for the Sphinx’s missing nose? Really,dreamworks, how trite.

I’d like to end by saying that the entire group I went with feels the same,and that we are now going to scrub ourselves with wire brushes to see if wecan get the dirtiness off.

Oh, but it was a good movie though, yah.

I read so many reviews on this movie (on this and other sites) beforetrying to show it to my children. Too may people gush about thebiblical aspects of this movie without regard to the violence. There isa great deal of whipping of people (some in shadow) and violencetowards infants. My oldest (7) has a great interest in Egypt andhistory so I thought perhaps she would enjoy this. I gave the kids abackground on the Moses story beforehand, but still they wereabsolutely horrified at the dream Moses has where they kill the mothersand take the babies away (they kept asking if the babies were killedand I said "No, of course not"). We stopped the movie and they were intears all throughout bedtime. Not worth it at all, no matter what yourreligious beliefs. I do not think this movie should be shown to anyoneunder the age of 10.

This movie is one more Disney rip-off with only moderate animation,forgettable songs, terrible plot, and poorly developed characters. Childrenwill have a hard time with the violence and adults will be bored with theplot. Also, this is a religious film where God is depicted as a mereafterthought. Dreamworks was too careful with this one. They didn’t takeany risk at all and the result is an animated muddle that is only mildlyentertaining.

I usually like movies like this.

True, "The Prince of Egypt" has great animation, interesting characters andsuper voice talent (Kilmer, Fiennes, Bullock, Pfeiffer, Glover, Martin,Stewart, Goldblum…) and there are set-pieces that deliver the goods (TheParting of the Red Sea, the Building of the Pyramids, Baby Moses’ BasketTrip down the Nile, etc.)….

BUT, and this may be a BIG problem for many of you, there isn’t a whole lotof religion in this movie. You may be saying "big deal, it’s a kid’s movie,stop shovin’ God in our faces all the time". Well, I’d agree with you ifthis wasn’t based on THE OLD TESTAMENT!!!!!

A lot of the big scenes are treated like after-thoughts (Moses’ exile intothe desert, the Burning Bush scene, etc.), there’s little to no characterdevelopment (especially in Rameses and Moses, which is a shock) and scantmention of God and His hand in things. Telling a Bible story for kids andleaving out God? That’s like telling a bed-time story and leaving out theheroes in it.

SPOILER -

But this is my biggest gripe with "The Prince of Egypt" - right after theRed Sea is parted and Rameses is left in defeat - the movie ENDS!! Justsome end crawl about what Moses did afterwards and blah blah blah…. THEYMESSED UP! No Mount Sinai! No giving of the Ten Commandments! They missedout on what would have been a spectacular ending!

- END OF SPOILER

Could it be, in this time of movie-making where they don’t want to offendany non-religious movie-goers, the makers of this film decided to go middleof the
road and just deliver action, animated violence and big-name star’svoices, then forget the fundamental elements of the Exodus…like, say, thefact that it was BASED ON CHRISTIANITY??!

Look, you want to have the kids get the right kind of exposure to thisstory, rent "The Ten Commandments" with Charlton Heston. You’ll get thebest telling of this story yet. without a lot of cutesy, intrusive songs, toboot. And with God at the forefront. as it should be.

Shame on you, Dreamworks Pictures. Keep your mitts out of religiouspictures; you’re obviously under-equipped.

Only three stars - for the animation. It’s the best part, but that’s likebuying a car because it has a pretty paint-job.

Forgive them, O Lord; they know not what they do.

Even though the film tried to wow us with flashy and sometimes unnecessarycomputer animation, overall the animation was awkward. Proportions wereoften off, and people moved like jerky automatons. In one scene Mosesretreats like a limping hunchback. And characters’ facial features leaparound on their faces as they talk. Now, the ‘parting of the sea’ scene wasfantastic. But the ‘angel of death’ scene reminded me way too much of acertain Indiana Jones finale. (hmm…)

read comments (0)

The Rookie

At best, I would say this makes a very average TV movie. It is boring andtoo long. And I am sure some of the scenes in the movie did not happen inreal life. Like when Jimmy stops his truck on a road at night to throw abaseball past a speed radar. And the radar just happens to have a few burntout lights just in the right place to make a 9 look like a 7. Things likethat ruin a movie that is based on a real life story because obviously thatwas just written for the movie and didn’t really happen. And the wholerelationship between Jimmy and his father was just to much of a cliche forthese types of films. Father and son don’t get along. Father doesn’t supportson to follow foolish dreams. Son proves father wrong and they hug at theend.

FINAL VERDICT: I don’t recommend this unless you are a baseball fan. It istoo boring for the average movie watcher.

Wow, 2 long hours to tell a story about dreams. The first 45 minutes areboring, I wish they showed more from the time on the road. And in 90 minutesyou can tell enough, is my opinion, why 120? By the way, could have usedsome humor

And that son, really, the worst acting since that kid in Last ActionHero.

6/10

Just think, he might have thrown 100 mph if he used a windup. I guess if youcome from Texas and get on a major league team like the Tampa Bay Devil Raysyou consider yourself having made the bigs. I’m still reaching for a reasonwhy they made this picture. Too much idle time on someones hands here.Strictly bush league in every respect.

Yaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnn. Another in a long line of ‘lowly underdog strivesvaliantly and comes back to win the big one’ bores. Phony tale of a middleaged man who suddenly discovers he has a major league arm after all. I can’tbelieve this watered down heart wrencher was based on truth. Whose truth?Some Hollywood producer? If you want to see an ‘underdog’ film with a lotmore believability and nervous tension watch "Hossiers". Thumbsdown.

…at the film and you’ll see how amazing this film would have beenwithout the unnecessary and obsessive focus on the son. Really, thinkabout it: what are we focusing on here, the son or the father. Yes,yes, I realize how important the son is to the father’s determinationand, in the end, the unlikely successes, but did anybody realize howannoying the son actually is? Don’t get me wrong: I applaud theoutstanding performance of Angus T. Jones, but it was certainlyunfortunate the part he had to play. The son was literally in everysingle seen and seemed to take the show away. Soon, it got so annoyingthat I started thinking more about when the movie was going to end thanhow good the story was. I can’t help but say that every time I think ofthe worst movie I’ve seen, the first one that comes to my mind is "TheRookie". Disney had their chance to make a memorable film, but insteadput the spotlight in the wrong place.

Once again Disney has been pulling at straws trying to make anotherBlockbuster hit (having only recently succeeded with Finding Nemo, it seems,and being unable to match it).

Dennis Quaid plays Jimmy Morris, a high school baseball coach out of Texaswho makes a wager with his team. Win the championship and he’ll try out forthe majors (making more of this promise to his son than his team). We seehim float around from one dive team to another (and getting equallydiscouraged by his disuading wife and father) before finally being called upfor his shot at the majors. Suddenly, this middle aged man, who dropped outof the minors years ago due to a shoulder injury, is playing top notch forthe majors. It is based on a true story, but when Disney thought it would begreat to spend big bucks on the story, they should’ve thought about reallydeveloping the story into something entertaining.

Despite the true tales of Jim Morris, this movie really lacks a story, or atleast an effective delivery if you want to pay tribute to this guy and his’amazing feat’. Sure, we see this guy struggling as he gets traded aroundbefore finally making it to the majors, encouraging audiences members toremember one thing: stick with your dreams and give it your all through eventhe most difficult moments if you expect to succeed. However, this movieisn’t really entertaining since Jim Morris’s character doesn’t really domuch. Even the baseball action isn’t that hot. We just seem more of one guytraveling from one team to the next and not much else. Plus, the movie isjust too long.

If it’s baseball movies that suit you, then there are plenty of good titlesout there (the classics: Field of Dreams; Bill Durham; The Sandlot; Leagueof Their Own; etc.). The Rookie is just plain and simpleoverrated.

Never too late

The Rookie is based on the true life story of Jim Morris (DennisQuaid), a father, high school science teacher, and a baseball coach.Jim grew up in a military family moving from place to place. Hedeveloped a love for baseball. His ultimate dream was to be aprofessional baseball player. He made it to the minor leagues, butafter blowing out his shoulder, his dream came to an end. He thenbecame a high school baseball coach and a science teacher. His team wasabsolutely terrible, losing game after game. In 1999 he made a bet withhis team. If the team would win the district championship, Morris, whowas throwing in the mid nineties, would try out for a major leaguebaseball team. His team ended up winning the district championship, andholding up his end of the bargain tried out for a team. Shortly after,his was on the road to become the oldest rookie in the Major Leagues. Ifeel that one of the reasons the director John Lee Hancock developedthis film was to say we should never give up on our dreams. This movieis a great story to prove this point. If Jim would have given up on hisdream, he would have never found himself playing in the major leagues.Another message the film sends is the importance to forgive people fortheir failures. He never had a perfect relationship with his family;despite this, he had enough strength to forgive them. This film is oneof the best films I have seen. I found the film to be veryinspirational. It provides the viewers with hope that they can maketheir dreams come true. The acting in the film was phenomenal; DennisQuaid was extremely convincing in portraying Jim Morris. This is agreat family film that will capture one’s attention with anexhilarating plot and story book ending. In the end, thinking thatanything is possible if we believe, I left with goose bumps.

One of, if not the best, baseball movies ever. Combines real drama,emotion, and sports in a combination that makes a great fairy talestory and is fit for the entire family. The acting is superb, thelocations are true to life. The story has meaning and a moral, itemswhich are so lacking in the vast majority of today’s films. As a highschool coach myself, I can vouch for the realism in the coaching sceneswith the interaction between coach and athletes, the motivationfactors, and the love and loyalty between coach and player. To add theicing to the cake, the strong family theme throughout between man andwife, and fathers and sons create the emotional tugs of the heart aswell. It leaves the viewer pleased at the end, and iterates the valueof following through on your dreams, no matter how silly or far awaythey seem, and how dedication and hard work can pay off. All moviesshould be made with this much craftsmanship and quality.

After hearing that they were going to make a rated G baseball movie Iimmediately turned my head. Then I saw that Dennis Quade being therookie! The guy is like 50 playing a 35 year old! But people kepttelling me it was good so I had to put the movie in. It was a goodsurprise.

Dennis Quade was very good. He had the truest expressions as he movedup in the baseball world. Because this was based on a true story, itseemed that Dennis Quade m
ight of had to method act some of his partand that sure did help. As Dennis Quades's character smiles you knowyou could only smile yourself.

What I liked the most about the movie was they're are two stories. Onebeing Dennis Quade coaching the team and how the team was dominating.This took up the first hour of the movie. The second of course beingDennis Quade trying to make it to the major leagues.

The only parts of the movie that bothered me was the sound effect theyhad on the baseball as he threw it. They made it sound like the ballwas going 300 mph instead of 98. This is a great family film and checkit out if you love baseball and know so much about how it works (minorleagues, call-ups, scouting etc.).

I'd give the acting a 9, directing a 6, editing a 7, storyline a 9 andmessage a 9.

I watched this movie once, and I will never watch this, and probablyany other live action Disney movie, ever again. Disney just can't dolive action at all.

I just don't like ANY movie that has to do with the "based on a truestory" like October Sky, and Wild America. The feel of this and thosetwo movies is they are set in the middle of nowhere, in the 50s, withboring plot and music, and is just plain uninteresting.

And this movie is about Baseball, which also makes it worse. BecauseBaseball movies are so dorky, and are all the same. You just can't stayawake, but you have to, because, you could get lots of nightmares. Idon't like Baseball, or any show or movie about baseball. There justisn't anything that you can make out of it. Why would anybody want towatch something about baseball?! Those movies also have the same feelof those "based on a true story" movies that I mentioned.

And this movie revealed that Disney is severely old fashioned and stuckin the past. They are against certain things that nobody else makes abig deal of. Things are censored in Disney like stuff in the 50s was,and they probably are against men having hair any longer than how itwas in the 90s, and they probably love long sleeves, etc.

But this movie is an example and reason on why I am never going towatch anything else in live action that is made Disney ever again…..

read comments (0)

The Sentinel

"For where Love reigns, disturbing Jealousy Doth call himselfAffection's sentinel . . . ." Shakespeare: Venus and Adonis

The Sentinel is an unabashed "B" thriller about an attemptedassassination of the president and an agent accused of being a mole. Itis especially interesting because its protagonist, Secret Service AgentPete Garrison (Michael Douglas), is having an affair with First LadySarah Ballentine (Kim Bassinger).

Attractive leads with an improbable premise (Who would sacrifice a cooljob for trysts with Laura Bush, Hillary Clinton, or Barbara Bush?)andplot holes a plenty can't deter the audience from enjoying thepresidential protection panorama and the sub plot that rivals PrincessDiane's own indiscretions. The usual shiny black SUV's, drum rollingmusic, and international baddies make this a usual spy thriller withthe added fillip of a fit, charismatic Douglas, ditto Bassinger, veryditto Eva Longoria as a new agent, and an underplaying KieferSutherland as David Breckenridge, Garrison's former partner. The castis so strong that the plot improbabilities evaporate; the aura of thepresidency and the strains that must exist in protecting him make thecinematic flourishes seem real.

The film tries to touch on such issues as loyalty, both professionaland personal. It's also nice to see that the women's roles are notmarginalized but integral to the story.

All in all, it's an enjoyable suspension-of-disbelief time.

"Hence, away! now all is well: One aloof stand sentinel." Shakespeare:Midsummer's Night Dream

After seeing a commercial for "The Sentinel", my friend said it lookedlike "24: The Movie". Fortunately, it's not. It isn't, however, asuper-amazing gripping the edge of your seat type thriller either. Itmoves along at a nice page, the acting is good (except for EvaLongoria…who seems to think acting equals pouting and frowning), it'snice to see Toronto up on the big screen (even with all those peskyCanadian protesters…finally someone captured how violent anddisturbing we hosers really are).

Not a bad night out if you just want to eat popcorn and forget aboutlife.

In a movie with a central mystery, things are not supposed to add up atfirst. There's confusion, unanswered questions, and we're not sure whomto trust. As the movie progresses, more things become clear, and we'resupposed to feel a sense of satisfaction. The Sentinel does this upsidedown, and I don't think it was intentional, because it makes the movieless and less interesting as it goes on.

There are no spoilers in this review. Any specific information Iprovide is in the first third of the movie. That being said, I reallyliked the first third of the movie. Here's the rundown: Michael Douglasis Pete Garrison, a veteran Secret Service agent. Kiefer Sutherland isPete's former partner David Breckenridge, who believes Pete had anaffair with Mrs. B, which we quickly learn isn't true but David stillbelieves it is. Eva Longoria is Jill Marin, David's rookie recruit wholearned from Pete at the academy. Kim Basinger is the first lady, andshe IS having an affair with Pete, which some mysterious person isusing to blackmail him. Pete fails a lie detector and shows up in themiddle of another investigation due to the affair and blackmail, whichwas only used to frame him for the assassination plot. So everyonethinks he's working for a drug cartel and plotting to kill thepresident, then he goes on the run to find who's framing him.

I really enjoyed everything up to this point. It puts Pete in a tightspot, and he can't get out of trouble for one thing without puttinghimself in jeopardy for something else. The relationships between thecharacters are clear, they're motivated, they make sense, and I canfeel the tension building. Once he goes on the run, the strength of theconnection between characters wasn't held up. People make assumptions,they act without thinking, they do stupid things to get themselvescaught or killed put in danger. I found myself waiting for them toreach the point of having something concrete on which to act so wecould get back to a story direction that makes sense.

As the movie went on and more truths were revealed, more and morethings happen that make progressively less sense. No one seems to actin a way consistent with their character, good or bad. People forget todo things, or don't think of things any fool would consider, but theseare supposed to be trained professionals, and they stumble aroundmaking dumb mistakes and assumptions. Their actions serve the plot andnot much else. Any moment where some real emotional tension could beachieved is generally filled with people simply shooting at each other.The movie starts with a lot of promise, reaches its peak early and runsdownhill the rest of the way.

The performances are good but not great, entertaining but not exciting.Some people may bring up similarities to Kiefer Sutherland's role hereand in 24, but there really are none. Honestly, he doesn't have much todo here. Eva Longoria does a good job looking knowledgeable andinexperienced, but there isn't much for her to do either. Overall themovie is competent without being compelling. It's worth watching, butnot worth remembering. 7 out of 10.

It's too much like…oh it copies…well that's the same as…AHHHHit's driving me crazy!!! WELCOME TO Hollywood LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!!It's not a new thing that Hollywood ideas are perhaps a little staleand certainly recycled material. Get used to it!! What you have to dois watch the movie for what it is and enjoy it. If it happens to besimilar to another movie (ESPECIALLY if the movie was good) thanawesome!! Remakes are good…sometimes…so why not delve a little intopreviously chartered waters. Now that that's out of my system, let'stalk about one of my BIG anticipations of this year. The Sentinel is awell made, fast paced thriller that keeps its head high and doesn't tryto be more than what it is. It truly is a thriller about The SecretService and I've never seen anything quite like that per se. Anintriguing mystery that unfolds at break neck speed, depthy characterswith great sub characters that you are drawn into. For the length ofthe film you become one of those agents. It doesn't only draw you intothe story but into the characters and job as well. It's exactly what Iwould have expected from the film.

The incomparable Michael Douglas heads the cast as veteran SecretService agent Pete Garrison. Garrison is tough as nails (even took abullet during the attempted assassination on Reagan.) He's thorough, bythe book…with one exception…he's fallen in love and is carrying ona private affair with the first lady. It's obvious without them everycovering that aspect that the President and his wife's marriage is lessthan stellar. They are distant and have little communication unlessit's to uphold appearances. Douglas is incredible…how amazing doesthis guy look at sixty one years old!! You'd never know it for oneminute. He can pull off Secret Service Agent or nimble action starwithout a hitch. Garrison was made for him and he embodies it with allhis faults and flaws and talent. In his first big screen roll in AGESKiefer Sutherland plays Garrison's former best friend and protégé DavidBreckinridge. I think Sutherland is amazing and a HUGE part of that ismy fanatical obsession with 24 I admit it freely!! Is his role asBreckinridge similar to his role as Jack Bauer?? OF COURSE!! Is itexactly the same…far from it…even further than I thought it would.Breckinridge is SO by the book. He's a "company man" and die hard loyalto all things rule based…complete opposite of Bauer. He's also notnearly as intense or high strung and much more composed asBreckinridge. Sutherland absolutely
holds his own against veteranDouglas. They square off perfectly and have the ultimate chemistry asadversaries and friends. One scene in particular where they go head tohead verbally in an office is quite intense. Eva Longoria picks up theslack for eye candy but barely has a developed character. She playsrookie agent being trained by Breckinridge, Jill Marin. The characterisn't bad and has loads of potential and in Longoria's defense shetries to do a decent job in the role. But unfortunately for her Marinis meant to be eye candy and not much more. She does get to take out afew bad guys with Sutherland so it's not so bad. Kim Basinger gives ither all as the first lady Sarah Ballentine. Basinger has had a reallyrough patch as of late with roles and I think this is one of her betterones BUT she still looks so depressed and full of turmoil and I don'tthink that's the character as much as it is her bad acting. She does anokay job and her and Douglas have "okay" chemistry but there needed tobe more and a better actress could have really done something. The plusside is Basinger does look very Political. David Rasche plays PresidentBallentine and although his role is not forefront he does lookPresidential and sounds the part. He's good for what he's meant to beand do. Finally Martin Donovan does a fair job as the lead Agent on thePresident William Montrose. He certainly shows a lot of emotion andcharacter in his small role and you almost feel sorry for him by theend although no one else does.

The Sentinel will not garnish any huge acclaim and probably only dodecently at the box office but if you go into it expecting a thriller,good strong story, with some great stars then you'll be blown away andvery pleased. It's very in depth into The Secret Service and actuallyquite factual from my understanding. Director Clark Johnson is nostranger to a good story and lots of action and thrills and I think heputs it all together quite well…like a pro. His expertise inTelevision does show through a little because The Sentinel certainlyoften feels like a TV Series but that's not such a bad thing. Thebudget is back and the action scenes are great although not prolificbecause it's really about the story. If you want a decent movie thatyou'll feel good about it The Sentinel is well worth your theater goingmoney. 8.5/10

Although this is an engaging action-filled movie, there is not muchsubstance in the plot.

What is novel is to see Michael Douglas, an aging secret service agent,so incredibly agile and spry as if he were still in his twenties orthirties. The same applies to his sex life. The plot has him save thelife of President Reagan, so what age does it make him now? It isrealistic casting!

For this reason, I cannot understand why the plot has him 'resign'instead of giving him a retirement party from the Secret Service aftera career of 30-40 years. This would be more logical with the rest ofthe film.

Secret service agents, plots involving the President, Kiefer Sutherland- easy to say that it must be like the TV show 24. Except with one keydifference - it's not Sutherland playing the agent who's running fromthe law after being framed and trying to save the President at the sametime. Instead, Michael Douglas gets the "Jack Bauer"-type role andSutherland's the one trying to find him - until they all work togetherin the end to save the day. Good action, not much substance andcertainly no thought-provoking characteristics to this movie - oh, and2 female roles that are mainly stereotypical (look pretty, don't domuch). I enjoy 24 for its twists and turns, so I enjoyed this as well,but don't expect anything out of the ordinary from this movie.

Was excited about this one as a big fan of Douglas and Sutherland…Ikept feeling like I was watching 24 the whole movie…At the start ofthe film, screen goes black and I said to my wife "The following eventstake place between 8pm and 9pm" which got a couple of chuckles…Lot ofempty plot lines…I have always like watching Douglas in a movie,Disclosure I could watch over and over but with this one it just seemedempty to me…Eva was pretty good in her role, heard more about how shecould handle a gun and it looks like she knows what she isdoing…Correct me if I'm wrong but if you're a wanted felon how canyou get over the border, walk into a Canadian police station, take overthe crime lab and be back on the case in no time without any otherofficer batting an eyelash! Come on! He has a warrant for being atraitor in the secret service…Is it that easy to just walk around andfind out who framed you? Passed the time but not one I'd write homeabout

Michael Douglas plays an "aging" secret service man (shades of ClintEastwood), who is accused of being a mole who is trying to assassinatethe President. Right! No-one in the audience believes it, so thequestion is how long will it take his buddies to see he's being set up?As one of his former buddies Kiefer Sutherland gets to reprise JackBauer, in a competent second banana role. He hates Douglas because hethinks he slept with his wife. Wrong! Michael is sleeping with…..thefirst lady: Kim Basinger! O.K. guys, she's gorgeous, but really! Canyou imagine anyone trying to pull this off without the secret serviceknowing? Nope, and of course someone does know and starts to blackmailhim.

In the mean time someone comes to Douglas and tells him a secretservice person is going to try an assassinate the Prez. The guy withthe info looks like a wino, but that doesn't seem to stop anyone fromquestioning the information. As the focus turns on Douglas hepredictably splits and hunts down the assassin from a lone wolfposition. Does this sound like a Jack Bauer scenario or what? Only thistime it's Kiefer doing the: "I'm not going to listen to any rationalexplanations as to why a guy who has been proved to be a hero could gobad," routine.

The pairing of Kiefer and Michael Douglas works well. Douglas does theHarison Ford, Clint Eastwood "aging hero" bit well, and he at least hasthe grace to look pooped after running 200 yards (for seconds thatis!), and leaving Kiefer in his dust! Kiefer, thankfully, cottons on tothe set up, and joins forces with Douglas as they get to save the Prez,in the nick of time.

It's all god fun, and fairly exciting, and directed with vigor.

************SPOILERS****************** Why would the head bad guy, whohails from a Russian ex satellite state, speak with a British workingclass accent? How did Douglas acquire a Keflar vest, when he flew outof his house with just a gun and his wallet? How did half a dozenEastern Europeans infiltrate the Toronto police, while speaking littleto no English? How did they manage to shoot down the White househelicopter with a SAM, just a mile from Camp David?

Can't help feeling I've seen it all before somewhere: Michael Douglasas a middle-aged man having an affair ("Fatal Attraction,""Disclosure"); a plot to assassinate the President ("In The Line ofFire" and a hundred other weaker films); Kiefer Sutherland playing somekind of government agent trying to prevent a Presidential assassination("24"); Kim Basinger as a sizzling sex diversion (well, that prettymuch sums up Kim Basinger's career in toto).

Shake it up with a screenwriter with shaky credits, George Nolfi(Ocean's Twelve, Timeline), from the novel by Gerald Petievich; givethe directing job to a *television* veteran, Clark Johnson; lean onyour editor (another TV vet, Cindy Mollo) to crash-cut it like "Snatch"- and we have an unevenly entertaining, bucking and diving, dodging andweaving affair, which intermittently excels when it relaxes its grip ontrying to be too hip.

Douglas is Pete Garrison, a Secret Service agent who took a bullet forPresident Reagan,
and is now a respected, legendary, personal bodyguardfor the current President's First Lady, Sarah Ballentine (KimBasinger). Basinger is now old enough to play a convincing First Ladyand yet still stunning enough to believably be having an affair –whether an affair with her personal bodyguard is plausible is somethingonly Nancy and Barbara and Hillary and Laura could answer. (That daydraws nearer – when the chances of the public actually being made awareof such philandering grows greater, as encouraged by Bill Clinton'sinfamous faux pas, when it was discovered that indiscretions at thesupposed topmost level of society warrant negligible repercussions ifsmeared across the trailer park consciousness of the Jerry Springerrabble.) Kiefer Sutherland is government agent Breckinridge, aby-the-book hardcase whose job is to investigate all presidential deaththreats.

Eva Longoria plays Jill, Breckinridge's new assistant, though herpresence is entirely questionable: counter intuitively selected byBreckinridge (over more experienced agents) to assist in a Presidentialassassination attempt combined with treason, her inexperience is neverexploited; neither does her character perform anything plot-worthy; noattempt at a matchmaking subplot with Breckinridge is hatched, and sheis provided zero character development. It is more than obvious thatLongoria's hardworking agent scored her this role as the much-neededT&A in this otherwise male-dominated political thriller. And even thatelement provides us with about as much inappropriate prurience as primetime commercial television – that is, zero as well. A veteran of TV's"Desperate Housewives", narcissistic airhead Longoria recently toutedthat she is actively seeking roles other than Aniston-cutesy vehicles,but upon viewing her vapid performance in just such a role, it wouldbehoove her to keep her mouth shut and her legs open if she ever hopesto secure career longevity.

The Sentinel's plot is interesting to a point, although, after 9-11,there are certain constraints that would impede a plot regardingassassinating an American President - to wit: IT WON'T HAPPEN. Not inan American film, at least. That is, though the film tries hard toconjure a suspension of disbelief that might entertain a denouementwhere the assassins triumph, America (read as the entertainmentindustry, the MPAA, distributors, advertisers and the public), in a fitof Big Brotherly wisdom, would more than likely nullify media thatwould wax so courageous. Unless, of course, the President was portrayedas wicked beyond human nature, encroaching on bestial evil,characteristic of criminal psychotics and mass murderers of young boys- but Richard Nixon wasn't available to play the role, which wentinstead to benign talking head, David Rasche.

Thus, focus is shifted from the Presidential assassination to the huntfor the mole within the Secret Service who is ostensibly helming theassassination attempt, for which Garrison becomes the framed scapegoat.Breckenridge is all over Garrison like a TV Detective Gone Wild -doubly – as he also suspects Garrison of having an affair with his wife(after all, it's Michael Douglas).

The movie would have played as more suspenseful if the audience was notin on Garrison's innocence. Maybe Douglas's star power was in part toblame, but we are never in doubt of his veracity when he pleadsinnocence as the mole (even though he has a grand Hollywood Motive –knocking off the husband of his adulterous lover); neither do we doubthis fidelity – even though we know he is adulterously dry-humping theFirst Lady at every opportunity right under the Secret Service's nose!Garrison's affair with Sarah is his Get Out Of Jail Free card, for whenBreckenridge turns the Secret Service against Garrison with his perppep talk, it is only Sarah's high office that can pull Garrison's baconout of Breckinridge's fire.

When the actual mole *is* discovered, it is quite anticlimactic, andthe movie grapples for footing with passé action sequence piled uponpassé action sequence, to pad the film to its pap conclusion.

(Movie Maniacs, visit: www.poffysmoviemania.com)

The fact is I didn't want to see this movie,I didn't see this movie inthe theaters and only saw this on DVD because I had ditched my friendsa couple of times and if I ditched them for this I would lose the saidfriends hehe.

The main reasons I didn't want to see this movie were:-

1)I wasn't enthusiastic about seeing a 62yr old unfit Michael Douglasas the star in a thriller with some action, Eva Logoria is no doubt hotbut highly overrated (2 times hottest woman alive no way) and onlyprove a distraction.

2)I don't care if the American president lives or dies and indeed thereare more people who would prefer him dead haha.

3)Lets assume you like me knew the plot, think about this

a)In a 100 min or so movie how many characters besides the stars canthey develop (4 stars totally), 1 maybe maximum 2,now obviously one ofthese people (including the 4 stars)got to be our man.

b)so we have 4 possibilities before the movie even starts, how muchtime before we can reduce that to 1 or maybe 2 halfway through themovie at most?

c)Do you think the president who is supposed to die will die?

THINK ABOUT THIS….

I WAS RIGHT AND TRUST ME 90% OF You'll WILL BE RIGHT TO…

This was what I thought at the beginning of the movie.

HERES WHAT I THOUGHT AT THE END.

1)Indeed Michael Douglas may not have been the best candidate for therole but he carried of his role with panache, his acting was convincingand once his role was explained he actually did a great job of playinghis role.

However Eva was worst then expected, her acting talent was ordinary shelooked ordinary and to add insult to injury she was fully dressedthroughout , I mean if you are going to hire and actress for actingtalent why would you hire Longoria and if you have hired her might aswell have her wear skimpy clothing. Her awkwardness on screenespecially in the tense scenes showed and her fully clothed role onlybecame more and more irritating as the movie progressed.

2)Trust going by the amount of time they spent on developing thepresidents character even an American citizen wouldn't care if he livedor died. Even if I wanted him to die I would have been better of.

3)Trust me even the simplest of minds will reduce the possibilities to2 halfway through the movie most smart people will reduce it one in thevicinity of the halfway mark.

SO BASICALLY WE HAVE A THRILLER WITH NO THRILLS AND A PERSON WHOSE LIFEAND DEATH WE Don't CARE ABOUT?

So why the high rating?

1)The sub-plots and minor twists in this movie are really, really good(no doubt thanks to the book that I now cannot read for obviousreasons), they are the best part about the movie and actually make thismovie good.

The insights given into the government agencies, their working and thepeople who work in them was also really interesting and good.

2)The acting was quite convincing from the entire cast save Eva andpredictably so from the main cast of Douglas, Sutherland and bassinger.

3)Technically this movie was good but then which movie with the decentbudget isn't.

AND THE NUMBER ONE REASON…..

4)This movie exceeded my expectations I expected total Bullshit and Igot OK, so it would be unfair to give it a low rating based on this.

In all an ordinary movie at best which is better mainly due to thesub-plots.

Watch only if you are in a mood for a thriller and you feel you haveseen anything better out there.

-s Eva longoria, no thrills, don't care for the main plot.

+/s Michael Douglas, good interesting insights, difficult to make agood thriller in movies.

+s exceeded expectations, great acting, great sub-plots.

total 7/10 (factoring in exceeded expectations and how difficult it is
to make a good thriller, on absolute terms this is much less)

read comments (0)

The Star Wars Holiday Special

hey,this special may have been a little cheesy,granted,but it was soooocool,given that it was a star wars tv special,and it sated most peoplesappetites til empire came out in 1980. i loved it as a kid,n i still love itnow. i even have a bootleg copy myself of it,n watch it whenever i get thechance. 5 stars out of 10.even the first appearance of boba fett wascool,given that the animation company who did this,nirvana,would eventuallybe the ones to do the ewoks/droids animated tv series for lucas back in1986,talk about foreshadowing for an animation company to do a tv seriesbased on a popular movie.whodve thunk it.

Obviously designed for little children (though most kids who like the otherfilms will probably hate it, "Star Wars: Episode Four and a Half- TheHoliday Special" (hee hee) is a TV movie that pretty much should have neverbeen made. The drafts should have been burned before ever put of film, MarkHamill, Harrison Ford, and Carrie Fisher should all have been given thirtylashes with a wet noodle for even thinking about appearing init….

George Lucas wrote it, and it proves that unless he is closely related toanything in his universe, it will sink. The plotline is something aboutChewie visiting his wife and kid (who we haven’t heard of for or since) for"Life Day," and how Han has to get him there unscathed. Just for goodmeasure, Luke and Leia show up, and Leia sings and Luke looks like RichardSimmons minus the fro and…oh, it’s too much…

Noteworthy only for the first appearance of Boba Fett, though the onlyreason that idea is saved is because it is in an animated scene, and thereal Fett is saved from embarrasement. I am certainly glad that Lando didn’tshow up until the REAL next film, "Empire Strikes Back," or else Billy DeeWilliams’ career would have been ruined and they would have never wanted himto come in for the next film. If you don’t believe me, why didn’t we seeChewie’s family in the other films? BECAUSE THE ACTORS WERE RUNNING FORTHEIR LIVES FROM STAR WARS FANS WITH LARGE, POINTED OBJECTS!

I really hate dogging anything that has to do with "Star Wars" like this,but this is all really too much….Easily the worst of theseries….

* out of ****

This was the worst SW production ever made.Although the ComputerGames,in my opinion,are bad,this is worse.It is about Chewie getting backtoKayshacck(or whatever his home planet is called) for Life Day,the Wokkie’sThanksgiving Day..Luke,Leia,Han,C-3P0,and R2-D2.Luke looks like he was inalandspeeder accident(in real life Mark Hamil,the guy who played Luke wasina motorbike accidet shortly before the Holiday Special wasfilmed).Then,Darth Vader appears in stock footage that was voiced-over byJames Earal Jones(Voice of Darth Vader in the movies).The Imperal Guardwasnot very good,and a lot of 70’s comedians were in this,and,we get to see acantina on Tatooine(not Mos Eisely,its Ancorhead).There is the "famous"BobaFett cartoon,the best part.Leia also sings at the end,the Life Day Song(myschool motto sounds like it got its inspiration from this). Basicly,if Iwere a TV critic,I’d give it *1-2 stars! Do not seethis!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would say that this is not the worst of all the Star Wars films and shouldbe treated with respect.

I’m a massive Star Wars fan and I actually think that this (apart from oneof the songs) is way better than Empire Strikes Back as it has more fun andcolor - the way Star Wars should be.

Don’t listen to all the misery guts - if you have a chance watch it. You’llenjoy it as much as the movies, and definitely more than the dourEmpire!

I must say that I was deeply chocked when I saw this - and then I am ahardcore SW fan! It is the ultimate example of how a ripoff TV "x-mascelebration" should NOT look like - crappy animation, lousy set and badperformances by the actors… If you are up to it you may enjoyChewbaccas family (their conversations are really interesting to listento), a "postcard"-appearance by Mark Hamill and (GASP!!) hear CarrieFisher sing! The only one who seems to manage to get out of this withsome dignity is Harrison Ford, who seems to wish he were somewhereelse. Oh, the humanity… A must see for all who like to abusethemselves!!

I may be in the minority here, but I actually liked it. Of course, youshould be under the influence of something to enjoy it. I found my copyon DVD at a horror movie convention. The special is certainly a horrorof sorts, but not as horrible as many claim. The story about Chewbaccawanting to reunite with his family is so syrupy sweet it may cause someto go into sugar shock. Of everyone who returns from A NEW HOPE,Harrison Ford as Han Solo is the most likable. When he tells theWookies they are like a family to him, I must admit I had a tear in myeye.Carrie Fisher’s singing isn’t really as bad as some have said. Iwas expecting it to be a lot worse. Mark Hamill however looked prettygay in his quaffed hair and eye makeup.

As for the guest stars, I’m hate to argue, but The Jefferson Starshiprocked! Some of the visual effects - like during Diane Carrol’sappearance were quite trippy. Art Carney was quite likable. Bea Arthurnumber isn’t so bad -if you happen to be as drunk as those in thecantina scene. And Harvey Corman has never been weirder. If only TimConway had joined him, it might have been something.

Of course the best thing is the cartoon introducing The Boba Fett. Italone is worth the price of admission. On the DVD I got there was onlyone commercial for Kenner Star Wars Toys. Still the others were a blastfrom the past. So if you get it, my advice is have a party. Just makesure you have plenty of booze and party favors on hand and are preparedto call a cab for your friends when it’s over. Otherwise people willwant to kill you for making them watch it.

"If I had time and a hammer, I’d track down every bootleg copy andsmash it…" - GEORGE LUCAS. And I would help him. How did this everhappen? Probably what Lucas has been asking himself for nearly thirtyyears. Anyway, it did happen, and because of the internet it looks likeGeorge Lucas’s wish is now an impossibility, as fans all over the worlddownload it, or buy it, out of curiosity, hoping that the legend iswrong and maybe they are yet to discover some lost Star Wars gold.Sorry! No gold here. Maybe if someone edited it down to about say, 15minutes or so, then it might be something, or maybe not. The Boba Fettcartoon is pretty good, but that only lasts about 8 minutes. Maybesomeone has done an edit! If anyone out there knows of one, send me anemail, I’d be grateful.

Anyway, can I recommend this? In a strange kind of way yes, it has lotsof the original characters, played by the real cast members of STARWARS, so that alone makes it worth watching, if only for a good laughat how bad the whole thing is. Your mind’s probably already made upthat you want to see it anyway, so my opinion won’t influence you. Justmake sure you’re prepared.

Heed the first reviewer’s comments. You need to be out of your headwhen you watch this. I was drunk the first time I saw it and waslaughing my ass off. The second time, I was sober… next time I’ll bedrunk again.

This show’s just plain bad. Being drunk let’s you see the implicithumor and laugh at it (like why is an elderly Wookie fantasizing abouta human black chick? Not to mention there are entire scenes done inWookie alone).

After you watch this thing, you’ll fully understand why Lucas willnever allow this to see the light on a legitimate release.

Good stuff. Terrible show.

I saw this when it was first aired in 1978 and haven’t seen it since. Iwas just a little kid, and for the past 26 years or so wasn’t entirelysure if I had dreamt the whole thing or what. But, now I see that yes,all the bizarre stuff I remembered about it did indeed
happen.

I’m sure it’s dreadful to watch. But, here’s the thing: For kids in1978 who could only see "Star Wars" if it were playing in a theatre andhad no other way to get his or her "fix," something like this was allwe had. Nobody could pop a tape or a DVD in to watch the movie. Theonly way to relive it was through these corny Book and Record thingsthat had fake actors doing a 10-minute version of the thing with stillpictures to accompany it.

And, there wasn’t even an "Empire Strikes Back" yet. So, this sort offdumb thing had to keep the momentum going. Every kid everywhere hadStar Wars lunchboxes and books. Kids would eat up anything StarWars–including some goof ball Holiday Special.

The sad thing is, TV had some pretty lousy shows back then, so I’m surethis special didn’t seem as completely otherworldly as it does today.Star Wars was so new, I don’t think anybody really knew what to make ofthe phenomenon.

Yes, times were tough in 1978. Somehow, we made it through.

This is great. Yes it is difficult to get through, but once i saw ArtCarney do a ED NORTON and the imperial officer goes HURRY UP like RalphCramden, I had to watch it until the end. And Jefferson Starshipsong was worth the watch. I admit the production costs were kept downbut using anime, but, who cares? and we find out more features aboutthe Y-wing fighter. And Boba Fett has more lines in this movie then anyother! Boba is good. But yes the Cookie are matches the new film. Ilike it cause it just star wars. I cant believe the original cast is init. Talk about contracts! We learn about Boba’s back story. IMDb.PLEASE MAKE YOUR POSTINGS EASIER.

read comments (0)

The Way of the Gun

This movie was the biggest load of garbage ever made. I found it to be sodumb i was ready to leave the theater but the people i was with didn’t soihad to stay through this horrid movie. The whole plot was really dumb andthe whole shooting scenes didn’t even make sense. Not to mention thedumbness of having a doctor trying to deliver a baby through a gunfight,while he had enough time to leave with the girl and bring her to ahospital.I hope this movie get’s all the worst rewards cause it definitely deservedthis. I don’t understand how this piece of garbage was even allowed to bemade

I was insanely disappointed with this film. I thought it was ridiculouslybad. The Usual Suspect ranks as one of my favorite movies of all time,andI was expecting something to that caliber from screenwriter ChristopherMcQuarrie. However, this movie did not even come close to the brillianceofThe Usual Suspects. It was a gruesome shoot-em-up lacking any realsubstance or underlying theme. The plot was a poor attempt at beingcomplexand instead just resulted in being confusing and poorly structured. Hidingbehind a facade of terminology, lifestyle, and criminal protocol that posedas a smart setup, The Way of the Gun lacked anything beyond an unrealisticaction movie. I did not like any aspect of this movie. I wouldn’trecommend it at all. Not only is it not worth the money to rent, its notworth the time spent to watch.

First off let me say I’m a strong believer in a persons right to have anopinion, so let me have mine too. Before going to see this movie i checkedmany many reviews all saying it’s a terrific movie…so i decided I’m goingto see this despite what the preview looked like to me. The only thing ican say is more of a question. Why did this movie get such great reviews?with the exception of one very cool shoot out scene towards the end, i justdon’t see what’s so good about this movie

This is one of the worse films of the year! It was long, poorly written anda waste of time. Just when you thought Hollywood couldn’t get any worse,then they come out with this. I dont’t mind mindless entertainment when itis done well but this isn’t even mindless, it’s just stupid. The maincharacters you dont’t like, the shootouts are horribly corregraphed and Ijust couldnt wait for the film to run out. I was stirring in my seat justwaiting for everyone to be killed and Juliette Lewis to stop bleeding andshut up.Ryan Phillipes agent needs to be fired. His movies get worse each selectionhe makes. Wife Reese is going tohave to support the family is he keeps thisup.I cant reccomend this.Stay home, read, rerent a Dirty Harry movie or buy T2but don’t go in the theatre.Stay away.

This movie is a big giant mess of "who cares".The characters have nothing likeable about them. Nothing is new. Nothingoriginal. Nothing Surprising. Conversations went on forever about nothing.You wished everyone would get shot.You know a movie is bad when you squirm in your seat waiting for it to endand finding yourself groaning every time another conversation seems to belumbering on screen.

It was a completely worthless movie.

I kept waiting for the "TNT" station identification orsomething.

Not even a good video rental.

Just shows that Usual Suspects was mostly Bryan Singer’s talent and notMcquarrie’s.

I read somewhere that He wanted to do something different and all the exec’sbugged him to do another crime/drama.

He should of stuck with his convictions because this sucks.

Or maybe this is a joke on them. He made a bad movie to shut themup.

Avoid this movie.Nothing worthwhile. Nothing. The Butch Cassidy references are the nails onthis movie’s coffin. To allude to such a superior film just shows how badthis one is.

And this came from the writer of "The Usual Suspects"? Just because it hasnever been done does not mean you should mix extreme violence, gore,language, shallow characters, kidnapping, and bad lines, all while draggingaround a pregnant woman. All this happens around her while she moans,groans and is about to give birth. Giving a C-section while a gunfightensues around her, and having the doctor kill people too, and then go backto operating (delivering his own kid no less) is just disturbing, tacky anddownright tasteless. I expected so much more from this writer because "TheUsual Suspects" was such a brilliant movie. It seems he tried to be too hipby forcing plot twists, weak voice overs, characters that are just donewrong and a horribly beginning scene laden with very tacky vulgar dialog,all which adds up to make a horrible movie.

A 2 hour commercial for guns. Two morons capture a heavily pregnant woman,and hold her for ransom. The direction is good, but that’s about it. Theplot makes no sense (I’m still not sure what a whole group of old men wasdoing in this), characters appear and disappear very quickly, the humor issick, the tone of the film is very disturbing and it’s just one gunfightafter another. As for the acting…they have good actors, but they givetheworst performances of their careers. Taye Diggs, Ryan Philippe, JamesCaan…all are horrible…and they’re all very good actors! A total wasteof time and talent.

The Way of the Gun is a thoroughly repellent and unpleasant movie. Theplot simply depicts how relatively more organized gangsters defeat a pairofsmall-time outlaws, without the slightest hint of irony, or the smallestofplot twists. The film is, of course, extremely violent, but that is nottheproblem; it is the way in which the script systematically denies itsviewersany possible sympathy or pleasure in the outcome. The good cast and anintriguing situation involving surrogate motherhood are utterly wasted.This is a film to be avoided even by fans of violent films.

If you are looking to hear profanity that you have never before heard in amovie, this might be the movie for you. Other than that, this movie has noentertainment value at all. The script is poor, the plot is stupid and theacting is pitiful. I can see why some of the actors and actress in thismovie haven’t been seen for a while. This movie sure wouldn’t have been mycareer choice. The blood even looked fake. It is scary to think whataudience this movie was created for considering both the audiencesmentalityand morals. If you feel you just *have* to see this movie, wait until itcomes out on HBO, if they will even allow it on TV. Bad, bad, bad. That’smyrating.

Boy was I disappointed at this movie. This is the pits. Nothing happensin this film. Watching grass grow is more interesting. There was alittle bit of gunplay at the start but for about 100 minutes all we getis a scene of dialogue, followed by a scene of dialogue, followed by ascene of dialogue, followed by a scene of dialogue, followed by a sceneof dialogue, followed by a scene of dialogue and by this point I’mdying of sheer boredom.

Writer and Director McQuarrie tries to make up for this by having thelast scene filled with noise and gunfire. It doesn’t work. He alsotries to make the (superficial) dialogue sound cool by having it saidvery, very quiet and muttered.

The photography is quite cool and some shots of the desert at night aregreat. But that’s no reason to watch this awful mess. The only thingabout this film that stopped me from walking out was the presence ofGeoffrey Lewis. The scenes where he couldn’t get his cell phone workingwere pretty funny to me.

read comments (0)

Thriller

Before this was shown on MTV or VH1 it was at my local theatre playingjustbefore the main movie. I remember this short movie more than the film Isawthat day. It was the first time I had ever a music movie like this, but Iwill tell you that seeing on the big screen from a 35mm print in a darkentheatre gives it a much better impact than seeing a cropped pan and scanversion on VH1 at Halloween.

Forget about ludicrous interpretations of this video that posit tiredsymbolism. The video’s message is self-explanatory, using the story ofthelyrics (a young couple watching a scary movie) as an inspiration for JohnLandis and Michael Jackson to pay homage to cheesy horror films. Thepresence of Vincent Price, images purposely reminiscent of "Night of theLiving Dead," and purposely cliched dialogue combine to make the tributecomplete, thanks in part to Oscar-winner Rick Baker’s ground-breakingmake-up and Jackson’s typically impressive dancing skills.

This video use to scare me to death but now I cant get enough of it.MichaelJackson and that Landis dude did an awesome job the zombies and the gravescene looked absolutely real and when I was 8 everytime I seen it come onTVid hide in my blankets til it was over now I watch it over and over andalmost have it memorized I love this video.ROCK ON MIKE!!!!!

its very very unlike the other 80s videos, no camera tricks, the werewolfiscool… but its not about that. the song is addictive, and the best partbeing the dance. it really gets your adrenaline pumping. the moves makesyouwant to dance too… atleast for me, i wish i was one of those uglymonstersdancing with jackson.

Regarded by Quincy Jones as ‘the CITIZEN KANE’ of pop videos, which is a bitmuch considering that pop videos were still very much in their infancy,MICHAEL JACKSON’S THRILLER was merely the icing on the cake to a successstory that dominated music entertainment and awards throughout 1983 and someof 1984.

Premiered in the early part of 1983 on TV stations across the world (I sawit on a video recording the following morning), the video is a sensationalbit of elaboration which broke new ground for the first time in eight yearssince Queen’s BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY. Inspired by AMERICAN WEREWOLF, Hammer andzombie films and Vincent Price, it reworked the song so that the verses andchorus were sung respectively together. John Landis was on hand to merelyprovide guidance to what is effectively Jackson’s showcase.

Best moments - the first sight of Jackson as a werewolf and the zombie dancechoreography.

This is truly the greatest video clip ever made. It doesn’t compare to thefilm clips of today. At 14 minutes long, it’s really a short film. MichaelJackson was a musical and coreographical genius. The zombie dance sceneisbrilliant, and scary! I discovered it at 10, in the mid 90s (just afterHIStory came out), and I was amazed. It was still so good after more than10years. Now, after 20, it still has the same effect as it alwaysdid.If there was ever a time when Michael Jackson was the King of Pop, thiswasit.

In this short film/music video, MICHAEL JACKSON & his date are at themovies watching a horror film about a young man & girl who are strandedin the middle of nowhere after their car runs out of gas. The leadactor in the film (Also Michael Jackson) transforms into a terrifyingcat monster & attacks his date. To scared to see the rest of it,Jackson's date leaves the theater & Jackson accompanies her. On theirway home (I'm assuming) they pass a very neat but spooky graveyard,where the long dead corpses buried there arise & corner them both, forsome unknown reason, Jackson turns into a zombie & does a song & danceroutine with the living dead before going after his date with hisrotting friends behind him. I really meant the statement above in mysummary, Jackson & Landis should have made a feature length movie outof this music video/short, it would have been so much better than therecent crop of zombie movies out there, the special effects wereawesome! the atmosphere spooky & you just got to love the thrillersong! I remembered seeing this when I was a kid on Much Music. I'veseen it like a million times & actually own a video copy of it & nomatter how many times I see it, I never tire of it, I just wind upenjoying it more. A must see! the only disappointment I have with it iswhat I've stated already, it's to short, it should have been madefeature length, honesty with Landis writing this, it would have beenright up there with AN American WEREWOLF IN London as one of the besthorror films ever made!

**** stars

Before I had saw the Thriller video in 2001, my family and friends alltried to explain what happens in it. I put all the bits together andcame up with this storyline. Tell me what you think.

The camera comes down on Michael and his date coming out of the cinemaand they start to walk to his house while singing Thriller. Afterfinishing the verses they come to a graveyard and Michael suggests thatthey go in. While walking around Ola notices that she's been abandoned.She goes off looking for Michael. She see's his footprints heading intoa nearby forest so she follows them. She hears him groaning and findshim in a clear patch in the grass. She asks him if he's alright and Heturns around with the yellow eyes and warns her to get away from him.After a full transformation into a werewolf he chases her back into thegraveyard and zombies have started to rise from their grave. Afterbeing cornered by Michael and the zombies they start to dance and singthe chorus to Thriller. After that she runs into Michael's house toseek shelter but Were-Panther Michael and the zombies follow her in.She goes in and stabs Michael with a silver knife and he turns tonormal. as the sun comes back out the zombies turn to go back to theirgrave. Then Ola wakes up and realises that it's still night-time andthat they've arrived home from the cinema. Then Michael says she canstay at his place for the night and goes to shut the curtains and as hedoes he stops. The camera shows a full moon and cuts to Michael's faceat the window with the yellow eyes and the teeth and the cameragradually zooms closer to the window Obviously not what happens butmight have been good to see. I know I was more scared of my family'sversion of the tale. but the one thing that haunts me every day andnight is those yellow cats eyes both at the beginning and the end.

This video/short film remains on many lists as one of, if not thegreatest music video of all time and it is easy to see why. This is TheKing of Pop at the height of his powers before his eccentricitiesreally took over as they have seemed to in recent years.

A cohesive storyline mixes with the music and the dance as well as avocal cameo by horror master Vincent Price creating a story like nonesince. It does have its weaknesses, particularly the now dated specialeffects and I have always found Ola Ray's "scream queen" performance asMicheal's girlfriend more than a little annoying. But its strengths faroutweigh any weaknesses and they can be put into the same category asthe classic "camp" horror flicks that the video seems to be a tributeto.

Bravo Mike, and I hope you find your way back to a similar place tothis once again.

Music videos are often completely disregarded in any discussion aboutfilm, with most people considering them to be a lesser art form. Whilea great majority are merely flashy clips to advertise a popularperformer's latest hit single, a precious few really do rise above therest, becoming works of art in their own right {anything directed bySpike Jonze or Michel Gondry is always worth watching}. While "art"isn't precisely the word I'd use to describe Michael Jacks
on's'Thriller (1983),' it is an intensely-likable hybrid of schlock horrorand music, and an outrageously-campy short film that remains remarkablyendearing nearly 25 years later. The thirteen-minute music video, boththe longest and most expensive ever at the time of its release, wasdirected by John Landis, a filmmaker I'm not terribly familiar with,though 'The Blues Brothers (1980)' is a classic, and I hear that 'AnAmerican Werewolf in London (1981)' is a stupendously entertaininghorror/comedy.

Whether or not 'Thriller' actually qualifies as a music video iscertainly up for debate, taking into account its extensive length{though Jackson bettered this effort with 1997's 'Ghosts,' at 38minutes} and the fact that the title song comprises less than half ofthe total running time. The video opens with a brieffilm-within-a-film, as Michael, on a quiet and brightly-lit night,reveals to his girlfriend (Ola Ray) that he is "different" from otherguys, transforming into a hideous werewolf as the nighttime clouds partto reveal a full moon. As he presumably decapitates the unfortunateheroine, we come across Michael and his girl in the movie theatre,actually watching this drama unfold in a horror picture. When the girlbecomes frightened, they both leave cinema and begin to walk home, atwhich point Michael begins to sing the opening lines of his latestsong, "Thriller." However, when a hoard of blood-thirsty zombies emergefrom the local graveyard {their entrance ghoulishly narrated by VincentPrice}, the situation begins to get interesting.

It's difficult to quite put my finger on why 'Thriller' is consideredone of the greatest of all music videos. It can't simply be that thesong itself is a lot of fun, and Michael Jackson – though he has sincebecome the butt of all comedians' jokes for his peculiar personalityand doings – there's no doubt that he is an excellent singer andperformer. Perhaps a decent explanation for the film's popularity isthe incredible amount of work that must have gone into it; nothing likeit had ever been seen before, and it still remains something of anoddity in the world of music videos. The gruesome monster make-upeffects were engineered by Rick Baker, and are surprisingly graphic fora music clip, though it's all carried out with a good sense of fun.Several moments make for some genuinely exciting suspense, successfullycapturing the atmosphere of the films which it is parodying {thoughalways with a cheesy twist on the usual formula}. Simply put, you'llnever look at a zombie movie in the same way again!

read comments (0)

Top Gun

OK. so you decide to make a movie involving fighter pilots and theiraircraft. well…judging from the movie and your total lack of a brainI’ve decided….THAT YOUR PISSING ME OFF. there has NEVER been a SINGLEgood movie about combat aircraft ever. so…lets start with the mostfamous of them all.

Top Gun.

OK first mistake, your pilots act gay. second, they are flying a 50million dollar embarrassment to aviation history. WHEN AN F-14 TOMCATWINS A DOGFIGHT WITH ANYTHING LESS THAN A F**KING BOMBER I WILLPERSONALLY SHOVE A SPOON IN MY A**. third, when you tell me A-4Skyhawks share the same performance with a late model MiG, i realizeyou must have been born on a nuclear reactor, and your brain hasmelted, and you are now a sack of meat WITH EYES. before the movie cameout the USSR had released the MiG-29 Fulcrum. effectively able to turnthe F-14 into some very expensive confetti in a dogfight. the Fulcrumcan fly at the speed of 1,519 mph. 2.4 times the speed of sound, it isso maneuverable that it has rivaled the F-16 one of the most agilefighters in the world. and an A-4 developed in 1956 with a maximumeffective airspeed of 642 mph CAN MEET ITS PERFORMANCE?! yes its agilebut not as agile as any late model MiG in the 80s. So Tony Scott, KISSMY D*CK! oh and I’m not done. Don’t TAKE F-5 TIGERS, PAINT THEM BLACK,PUT A LITTLE RED STAR ON Their TAILS AND SAY THEY’RE A F**KING MiG.c*nt.

What do these US film producers take us for? A film with an abysmalscript and predictable plot enlivened by some very accomplishedairborne photography and clever editing - not to mention skillfulflying - is reduced to a cartoon film strip by Top Gun flyer’sidentifying F-5 Freedom Fighters as MiGs! Oh for heaven’s sake… wehad to resort to such tactics when we made Reach for the Sky back inthe 50s, surely we don’t have to do it now. Having flown in the RoyalAir Force for forty years, I can vouch for the fact that the averageUSAF jock’s aircraft recognition skills can be suspect at times - tosay the least! But the Best of the Best (Oh Really!) shouldn’t be seensplashing F-5s!! It’s bad for morale. I suppose any old jet will do, aslong as they look different from Tomcats, their pilots have got blackbone domes and look vaguely foreign.

It's movies like this that made me - and millions of others - dislikeTom Cruise for a long time. I have learned to appreciate some of histalents from about the early-to-mid-1990s on because of "Far And Away,"which was an excellent film. However, his 1980 movies all had him(effectively, I suppose) cast as this incredibly-smug, SOB that I justabout made me puke every time I saw him. He was either typecast or hewas good in the role, or both….but Cruise played one obnoxiouspretty-boy character after another. This movie gave a perfect exampleof that cockiness.

With almost 300 reviews already in print here, there is no sense goinginto the storyline. Tom is the hotshot military "Top Gun" fighter pilotand who shows everyone how cool a guy he is…..pretty much sums it up.Kelly McGillis plays a typical low-life woman Hollywood has loved toportray since the '70s, who has the hots for Tom Terrific. She's alwaysas annoying as him.

The only redeeming quality to this film is the audio. The sound-effectsof the jets is fantastic, and this was a real "demo" for surround soundwhen it came out years ago. Unfortunately, the great sound, and someexcellent action scenes, cannot make up for the silly script andobnoxious lead characters.

I noticed that other commentors spoke disparately about the film alternatelybeing about and not being about flying and pilots. As I like aviation butknow nothing about flying, I’ll have to go with those who say it is notabout flying.The movie doesn’t deal with male-female relationships either.

The main female interest in this movie is alternately ‘more of anantagonist’ and ‘in the way’ than she is a romantic interest. KellyMacGillis(sic!), the supposed romantic interest, is immediately a threat tothe men’s egos and their interpersonal relationships.She could have not been in this movie at all and the plot would have notsuffered.It seems that she was mainly put there to reassure audience members whomight have thought that there was an undercurrent of homosexuality in thismovie.So, she is cast as Tom Cruise’s ’sex interest’ to show audiences that he isinterested in women.The movie is basically about male bonding and relationships which mendevelop when in competition with each other and at the same time having towork together as a team.’Male bonding’ is ‘newspeak’ for the deep love men feel for each other,which has been mystifying women for ages.Not based on sex, it is actually the ‘Platonic ideal’. Not necessarilyhaving to do with sex but a true meeting of mind and experience in a maleenvironment.The problem with this movie is it doesn’t quite know how to handle this.

I did not believe that the writers and producers really wanted to make amovie about flying but more about the relationships between men.

The whole concept was a bit foggy and the result is this confusingmovie.The emotions are all on the most visceral level (in a good sense; nogratuitous intellectualizing.); these guys are a team and they must rely oneach other. To develop trust, one must prove one’s mettle to the other(often doubting) members of the group.The problem is that the film could have been about Chimpanzee society andmade the same point.Of course, it would have not had the same allure with Chimps as it does witha group of young and very handsome men.The men want to be in the same club but must vie for entrance anddominance. Once this is established and everyone is ‘in their niche’ a senseof ‘group identity’ and love is the result.This is very evident in the openly sensual and almost ‘I want you’ lookswhich the male characters give each other.The pre-stardom Meg Ryan has a tiny role as Tom Cruise’s flying partner’swife. She is totally unnecessary to the movie as is Kelly McGillis. Hercomment upon the death of goose, ‘He loved flying with you’, deftly avoidsthe whole issue. Maverick (Tom Cruise)has been emotionally destroyed by hisbeloved partner’s death. The scriptwriters carefully avoid having Ryan say,’He loved you’, which is obvious.The real chemistry, which is not explored at all, is that between Maverickand ‘Ice’ (Val Kilmer). Kilmer is the classic ‘I don’t need anyone’character.In the end, he and Tom Cruise, antagonists from the beginning, end up in abig hug scene.This is not saying that this is a ‘gay’ movie.But it is pushing buttons in people, which really have nothing to with thesupposed ’substance’ of the plot at all; flying.This is a vehicle on which the rather confused filmmakers hung theirfragmented story of the mysteries of Platonic, yet very real love betweenmen.See it and think about what you’re really reacting to.

You can just imagine Jerry Bruckheimer sitting at the studio offices ina totally disinterested mood as his colleagues discuss the pre planningstages of TOP GUN . Dismissing anything that vaguely resembles a goodidea Jerry turns to them and says " Forget about complicated plots andgreat stories . Hire me a couple of hunky actors with great teeth andwrite me a couple of songs for the soundtrack " and his colleaguescomply

Personally speaking the above attitude seems kind of lousy if you wantto make a good film but it’s logical if you want to make a successfulone . Tom Cruise and Val Kilmer , if the teenage girls don’t rush outto the cinema to see either of these guys sure as hell every dentist inthe country will , so right away you’ve got a ready made audience . Addto that lots of macho big boys toys ( In this case fighter jets ) whichwill appeal to a teenage male audience and you’ve got an even biggerready made audience . Plus you can release a soundtrack which meansmore money and advertising for the movie

Yes indeed TOP GUN was a mega success at the cinema which proves JerryB
ruckheimer knows his stuff . However as many , many people have notedthere’s a big difference between a GOOD movie and a SUCCESSFUL movieand watching TOP GUN after almost 20 years after it came out it comesacross as being shallow , thread bare and rather jingoistic . From thevery first scene of fighter aircraft flying off the carrier to theclosing credits director Tony Scott seems to be making something that’sa cross between a recruiting film for the US Navy and a music video ,there’s romance for the girls , a few dog fight for the boys but muchof it seems aimed for the next MTV slot . There’s not a lot here thatwill challenge the mind

I also couldn’t noticing the flag waving either , in just about everyscene a character proudly boasts that " The United States has the bestfighter pilots in the world " . I’m not dissing anyone across the pondwho’s served their country but the undisputed kings of the sky are theIsraeli airforce who manged to destroy 240 Egyptian fighters in onesingle day during the 1967 six day war . They also shot down 38 Syrianaircraft in dogfights , again in a single day , in June 1982 . TheIsraelis have no equals when it comes to fighter pilots * . I canunderstand Hollywood getting all nationalistic since they had such aright wing president ( A former Hollywood actor no less ) at the timebut the " God bless the United States - we’re the best at everything wedo " attitude does grate very quickly especially to non Americans and alater Bruckheimer production PEARL HARBOR drowned in its patrioticfervor with an American fighter pilot almost winning The Battle OfBritain single handed

A lot of people flocked to the cinema when it was first released and alot of people bought the soundtrack too , but as a film it is rathershallow , uninvolving and if you can’t remember the 1980s then youmight be ever so puzzled why this film made so much money . If truth betold I’m slightly puzzled myself and I suggest you go out of your wayto watch AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN which is a very similar movie but afar better one

* For a film that strangely negates the skill of the Israeli airforce Icouldn’t help noticing that this movie was inspired by an articlewritten by Ehud Yonay . I’ve not checked up on this guy’s backgroundbut wouldn’t Ehud Yonay be an Israeli name ?

Top Gun really is the best of the best. this film is all about amaverick(literally)fighter pilot making it at Top Gun, the best fighterschool around. Tom Cruise plays an excellent character, without doubt thebest character ever invented, and he does amazingly. The soundtrack isbrilliant and the script is amazing, with quotes to die for eg "i feel theneed, the need for speed". This could be called a cheesy film, but itwill,always, make the audience feel delightfully happy, and with a greatambitionto become not only a fighter pilot, but also to be maverick. Amazingfootageof planes. This film is perfection through and through. This is not anexaggeration. If you have not seen this film, watch it now.

First of all, this review will not contain a plot synopsis. If you needto be told what the plot of ‘Top Gun’ is, you really need to get outmore. That being said, this is (along with ‘Road House’) the ultimateguys movie. Any straight man with testosterone in his body loves thismovie. The aircraft fight scenes will have you clinching your fists,and the numerous quoted lines will no doubt put a smile on your face.Bottom line: if you are a red-blooded American (male or female), youwill love this movie. If your idea of a good time entails sippingcognac, dipping fondue, and speaking with a snobbish accent; thenyou’ll hate this movie. So there, you have been warned. To all thereviewers who have bashed this movie, I have this to say: Get a life,you aren’t near as cool as you think you are, and, oh yeah; didn’tanyone ever tell you that movies are there for ENTERTAINMENT???

The most famous (let alone parodied) movie to showcase the U.S. Air Force,`Top Gun’ is a pumped-up, enjoyable tour-de-force of being cool. But whenyou get down to the core, it’s really just an excuse for impressiveair-stunts, heavy metal music and old-fashioned character names. However, itdoes so with lip-smacking relish. The plot follows along the`I-want-to-be-the-best’ scenario to generally good effect. The filmcertainly is flawed and sometimes outdated in its attitudes and dialogue. Ittakes the `Doris Day’ approach to being cool and the narrative is far fromamazing. `I don’t like you cause you’re… dangerous’- `Yes I am, very…dangerous’!

The overall acting standard is average at best but it’s the charactersthemselves that are memorable in their own sense. Tom Cruise is good as thestandard paint-by-numbers hero of the bunch. Ditto for Anthony Edwards (mostfamous for being `that guy with the glasses’ on ER). Val Kilmer does afairly good job in his part as the cocky, smarmy villain. But then again `Adwarf is good at being short’. His character is just too hammy and the kissand make-up finale doesn’t make him seem as bad as he should be. The bigproblem is the fact that the relationship between Kelly McGillis and TomCruise character seems forced and doesn’t flow as naturally as expected.

But maybe I’m just nit picking here. If you can put all that behind you,then `Top Gun’ is an enjoyably macho movie. There’s plenty of memorablescenes and rock music to pass the 1 hour 45 minute duration. My IMDb rating:6.4/10.

OK, I will never ever split movies into like a "Chick Flick" or "Guy’sflick" category. I hate it when people do that. But for the first time ever,it seemed like such a macho guy flick. I love romantic movies, so I asked mymom and friend what was the most romantic movie they ever saw and they said"Top Gun". I knew we had it, so I watched it. The only thing I loved aboutit was the sexy Tom Cruise and Val Kilmer. Other than that, I’d skipit.

4/10

If this film didn’t make young impressionable young men want to

join the air force, I don’t know what would. Thank goodness we

weren’t in the midst of a war! A silly plot, but some real fun macho

posturing in this film. Lots of sexy shots of Tom Cruise and Val

Kilmer in the locker room, getting mad at each other! But the only

real standout of this film for me is Anthony Edwards, who got his

start in my favorite film "Fast Times at Ridgemont HIgh". Anthony

plays "Goose", the sidekick who ****SPOILER**** of course,

meets his fate in the sky, making his on (and off!) screen girlfriend

Meg Ryan - and the rest of the audience! - very sad. Silly 80’s fun.

read comments (0)

Tremors II: Aftershocks

pretty damn good sequel is not quite as good as the original due to budgetrestrictions but still for a direct to video sequel this is as good as itgets it is very entertaining with a good script pretty decent lookingmonsters and lots of gooey stuff and lots of action and good campy acting,this has a campy premise but it is very enjoyablewith good production values no logic lapses either see it *** out of5

This is my favorite movie! (In the first one there was too much coarselanguage etc.) The script is great, there is plenty of funny reparteeand one-liners…plenty of action and drama. Burt is marvelous, asalways, and true to his character….he is always prepared and knowswhat to do. The script is so excellent I can’t begin to complement itenough, and the story line is good too. I love the beginning, it hasgreat computer graphics and it looks so real. That is Burt as King ofthe Hill, in his element. The romance between Earl and Kate is sweet,Grady is an idiot, but that is what makes him ‘work’ in the script andmakes him so amusing. The scenes with the umbrellas are so funny!! It’sa great joke. I watch this movie over and over again, the same way Iwatch Tremors: the series over and over again. It is a most excellentSciFi movie, and I like the second and the third movie the best becausethey are so funny and have very little coarse language in them. TheAction and Drama fuse so perfectly together. Thanks for letting mehave, as Mom says, ‘my say’.

In this second installment to the Tremors series, EARL BASSETT (FREDWARD) returns to hunt down more of those GRABOIDS, only this time in aMexican oil field. Partnered with one of his old pals from the firstfilm, BURT GUMMER (MICHAEL GROSS) & a none too bright kid (CHRISTOPHERGARTIN) not to mention a possible love interest in the form of HELENSHAVER, EARL discovers that the graboids have evolved into a new formof being called Shriekers, that not only could be more dangerous, butmight be to clever to the groups ways of trying to kill them. Second inthe series, is a fun film that does not miss by much, when compared tothe original. The usual round of jokes & worm slime abound as well.Fans of the first should love this. Followed by another direct to videoeffort, TREMORS 3: BACK TO PERFECTION

***1/2 (stars)

This movie was good but the first movie is so much better then thismovie and its a shame that Kevin Bacon did not come back to star inthis film.Fred Ward and Michael Gross from the first movie came back tostar in this movie witch was good and they both did a good job atacting and this movie stars other actors and actress like ChristopherGartin,Helen Shaver and Marcelo Tubert.The special effects in thismovie where good but i have seen way better and way worse and i likedthe new monster in this movie.Over all this movie is good with someflaws like not staring the great Kevin Bacon and my rating is 6 out of10.

This following begins in Petromay oil refinery (Mexico),there happenmysterious events,a giant killers predators are eating workers.After inthe small village called Perfection is Earl(Fred Ward).He's hired forkilling the horrible creatures,then he goes out towards Mexico alongwith a brave young named Hoover(Christopher Gartin).In the refinerythey know to Kate(Helen Shaver),after comes Burt Gummer(MichaelGross)with a heavy weapons and explosives.They'll confront against anarmy of Graboids,the horrific and enormous worms that spontaneouslyappear from underground burrows.In this entry we learn the giant bugsare intelligent but they don't see neither ear.

This is an entertaining sequel with noisy action,grislyhorror,thrilling and some humor with tongue in check.It's remarkablefor special effects with computer generator recreation made by PhilTippet studio and Animatronics by Tom Gudruff and Alec Gillis.The filmdisplays habitual characteristic from the series : A lonely locationsurrounded by the fantastic worms called Graboids and a solitary bunchbattling with the horrible creatures, the usual appearance of BurtGummer,always played by a likable Michael Gross,besides all movies areproduced and directed by Ron Underwood,SS Wilson and Brent Maddock.It'sfollowed by several sequels: Tremors III Back to Perfection with ArianaRichards,Charlotte Stewart; Tremors IV the legend begins,that tells theorigin with August Schellemberg,Sara Bostford,Billy Drago ; and TVseries with Gladys Jimenez,Victor Brown,Marcia Strassman and as alwaysMichael Gross.The motion picture-with an appropriate musical score byJay Ferguson -is professionally directed by S.S. Wilson.It'srecommended for terror-action buffs and hardcore series fans.

Tremors 2 (1996)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Extremely poor follow up has the creatures attacking people at aMexican oil rig so two surviving members of the first film (Fred Ward,Michael Gross) go down to clean things up. The film starts off ratherlame and just goes downhill from there due to the incredibly poorscript that tries to recreate the magic from the first film but fails.The added bonus of the monsters having babies doesn't work either nordoes the lame comedy work. I now know why it took me so long to starton the sequels to one of my favorite films.

I found Tremors 2 to be amazingly good!!!I loved how they took on a newperspective of creature and then unleashed them on the charactersinhabiting this film.I will say I was disappointed in how they removedsome characters from the first film,but they still were able toentertain me astonishingly for the most part.I loved how in this filmthey focused on the new creatures,while still bringing back some oldfriends from the first one.All the acting was professionally done,andthis film,to me,almost out beat the first one.I will say that I foundsome stuff just plain out unentertaining,but I never got bored,and Iwas always ready for what they were bringing on in the film for menext.If you loved Tremors,I definitely recommend you see the sequel.

i really enjoyed the original Tremors.it worked on a lot oflevels.unfortunately,this sequel doesn't.it seems to be mostly playedfor camp value,but i don't think it works very well.i found it verymostly very slow and boring.there were a few almost amusing moments,butoverall,it was a disappointment.Kevin Bacon passed on this one,and it'seasy to see why.he must have read the script.Fred Ward is back,butwithout Bacon,he his character just doesn't work as well.Michael Grossreturns,and doesn't have much too do.also,i thought the dialogue waspretty cringe worthy at times.plus,the movie isn't really original.infact it borrows heavily from another big movie that had come out a fewyears ago.i've seen worse movies,but this one still ranks as a majordisappointment.for me,Tremors 2 is a 4/10.

though not quite as good as the original, this is very close. Fred Wardreturns as Earl Basset. Kevin Bacon however is not in this one. MichaelGross returns , and he has some of the movies greatest one-liners youwill ever hear,, I'm totally out of ammo,, that's never happened to mebefore,, this time the creatures evolve to something totally different,and yes they do get smarter,, this time Earl find himself in Mexico ata refinery where he enlists the help of Burt Gummer, who is eager tocome to Earls' rescue,, Helen Shaver is also in this one and is verysexy to say the least. I thought that this one is just a hair below theoriginal but not by much,, very enjoyable for all of you Tremors fansout there, i give it a great big thumbs up.

The carnivorous "Graboids" of "Tremors" (1990) are back, surfacing inMexico. This time, you'll meet their tamer cousins, the "Shriekers".Contacted due to his experience with the creatures in the first film,fearless Fred Ward (as Earl Bassett) heads back into action, with newpartner Christopher
Gartin (as Grady Hoover). Mr. Gartin is anexcellent new addition to the cast. But, former fellow traveler"Valentine McKee" is missed - he is married (presumably to "RhondaLeBeck"), and unable to lend his assistance.

However, Mr. Ward does enlist munitions master Michael Gross (as BurtGummer), from the first film. Due to some implied marital difficulties,Mr. Gross is also without his original "Tremors" partner, "Heather".Gross' wall-hanging is one of this film's grander moments.Tightly-fitted geologist Helen Shaver (as Kate Reilly) provides Wardwith some ample romantic interest. As you might expect, these"Aftershocks" are not up to the level of "The Big One" aka the original"Tremors" (1990).

***** Tremors II: Aftershocks (1996) S.S. Wilson ~ Fred Ward,Christopher Gartin, Michael Gross

read comments (0)