EW-3

A long time ago, I remember my high school English teacher telling us about this film, saying it was a very expensive bomb. Not having seen it at the time, I was under unable to understand why he said this; I just took his word for it. Now, finally, for the first time, I mustered the patience to watch this film from start to finish, and having seen it, I can fully appreciate what my teacher was talking about.

I gave it three stars because, on the positive side, is beautiful to look at. Specifically, the cinematography is very good. The sets are gorgeous (I especially liked the view of the Alexandria port), although there's so many spectacular sets that it becomes a distraction. The costumes are also beautiful, although again, there are too many of them (In one scene, Taylor and Burton change costumes three times. Isn't that overdoing it?).

Speaking of costumes, let me be blunt about something: Yes, Liz has got a great a chest. But is it necessary to show off her cleavage so many times in so many provocative outfits? That also becomes distracting, and helps to make this film into a parody. By the way, for those of us familiar with the legend of how Cleopatra died, and just where on her anatomy that deadly asp supposedly bit her, why aren't Liz's considerable assets shown off at that last critical moment? They are entirely ignored in that scene, and considering the "build up" we are treated to throughout the whole film, the climax comes as a let-down (puns intended).

My biggest gripe with this movie is that it is horribly acted, with performances that are much, much too over-the-top. The best performance is that of Harrison, who seems to restrain himself from displaying unnecessary emotions and presents us with a character that is at least SOMEWHAT convincing.

Not so with many of the other cast members. The two other principle actors (Taylor and Burton), and even some of the lesser characters (e.g., Martin Landau), engage in so much screaming and yelling in this film, and at least half of the time, I can't even decipher exactly what they are yelling about. The movie surely wants us to get caught up in the actors' emotions, but it's impossible to do so, as the story and the dialogue are not at all believable.

That brings me to another big problem with Cleopatra, which is the script. It's all over the damn place. Right from the very first scene, the dialogue is hard to follow. The writers (and I understand there were a lot of them) seem intent to cover every detail they can imagine connected with this story. But failing to separate what we need to know from what we can do without, we are forced to wade through a talkative mess in order to follow the story.

And that leads to a third big problem with Cleopatra: It's long, talky, and downright boring. If you have four plus hours to kill (and I will add that I had to spend considerably more time than that, as I kept falling asleep and had to back it up to the places where I would nod off) you might want to watch this. But if you have something much more important to do like scrubbing the floors or mowing the lawn, you're better off doing that. Sorry, Taylor and Burton fans, but that's how I see it.

Just saw this for the first time, and thought it was well done. I was raised a Catholic, but stopped going to mass in my early 20s. I later converted to the Episcopal Church ("Catholic Lite" as it is sometimes known) in my 30s, when our children were born. I like the Episcopal Church very much because it has all the trappings of the RCC, but does not seem to be a cesspool of mean nuns or (at least I've never seen it) child-abusing priests.

I can very much relate to this documentary, as it is 100% right in how the RCC indoctrinates children from a very young age about how they have the monopoly on virtue, and how you have no chance at salvation without them, even though there is not one word in the Bible to support such an idea. I must add, however, that it took me a long time to get past that "One True Church" mantra we would hear in Sunday school. The RCC is a very well-established institution that preys on naïve and dependent people. Walking away from it is not easy.

I believe that is how the abuse starts. The RCC parishioners (mostly working class) learn to be obedient to the Church and clergy. From there, it's easy for clergy with the tendency for pedophilia and ill intent to find their victims.

I myself never experienced such abuse (thank God), but there WAS a priest in my parish who years later was charged with abusing several boys. Once at around age 14 or so, I was at a party with family and some other parishioners, and this priest happened to be there. At one point, he playfully poked me in the belly and say "Hey, good-looking!". It was a harmless gesture, but upon reflection, it was not surprising to learn years later that this same priest would be charged with sexually abusing minors.

I very much like how this documentary revealed this ugly story, and I very much hope and pray the main subject of this documentary finds peace with himself.

Very interesting film, and wonderful performances by Philip Seymour Hoffman, Viola Davis, and Amy Adams. But the real kudos have to go to Meryl Streep (raised as a Presbyterian, BTW), who must have summoned into her body the spirits of 3 or 4 nuns I had known during my childhood. In a word, she had complete command of that role, right down to the very last rosary bead. Anyone who has been raised a Roman Catholic like I was will know precisely what I'm talking about. Everything she said and did - her demeanor, her tone of voice, her take-charge attitude, her occasional fury, her sauciness, her sense of suspicion, her intimidating stares, her righteousness, even her sardonic humor - reminded one of a real nun. I haven't read anything on how she prepared for this film but I'm going to guess she closely observed several clergy at length; she must have done so in order to get her role down so accurately. What a terrific actress she is!

But I have one small complaint about this movie, and that has to do with the costumes. Where in the world did they get the idea that nuns wore bonnets? I've never seen that, not once. Perhaps that might have been the case 150 years ago or in some places in Europe, I really don't even know, but definitely not in NYC during the 1960s, which was where and when this film supposedly took place. Someone should have done a little more research on that one.

Sorry, Fab Listeners, but after almost 50 years of Beatlemania, it's time to get over the juvenile idea that everything done by, influenced by, or connected to one or more of The Beatles MUST be wonderful. Take John Lennon (whose role, BTW, is actually a minor one) out of this film, and you would remember it even less than the home movies your second cousin took of his daughter's 4th birthday party.

In its favor, I will say that some of the battle scenes are rather effective. But aside from that, there is little worth watching here. The script is terrible, and the thick British accents and colloquialisms make half of the lines nearly incomprehensible to American audiences. Over and over, I found myself saying "Huh? What was that? What did he say?". The film's continual use of non sequiturs doesn't help matters, and after an hour or so, I was still trying to figure what exactly this movie was getting at. I was left to conclude that it was a rather feeble attempt to address the horrors of war in much the same comic way as M*A*S*H did, with far more brilliance and success, a couple of years later. No dice; this film simply does not cut it.

Such an idiotic movie. You can tell after just the first five minutes that it was destined as the second feature in the drive-in theater, to be appreciated only by patrons whose absolute last purpose for being there was to actually watch a movie. How a serious actor like Dana Andrews ever allowed himself to be part of this garbage is beyond me. I suppose the "So bad it's good" saying can apply here, although one usually reserves that characterization for science fiction and horror movies. Nevertheless, a lot of scenes and lines are so moronic, they will make you burst out laughing.

For instance, in one scene, the terrorized family is being chased down a highway when they suddenly see a sign for a restaurant. Instantly, their terror turns to joy and relief. "People will be there!" they say, never bothering to think what exactly the restaurant's patrons would do for them in such a situation. But soon, their joy turns into disappointment when they find the restaurant to be out of business and long abandoned! But alas, the father (Dana Andrews) sees a glimmer of hope: a rusted- out public phone sign! "There may be a phone inside!" he yells to his wife, and desperately, he proceeds to break down the boarded up doorway, assuming, as I'm sure anyone would, that the phone company routinely maintains and collects money from phones left inside boarded-up, abandoned buildings. One of the stupidest scenes I've ever seen in any film at any time.

The moralizing Dragnet-style cop was also worth a few laughs, as well as the drunk to whom he gives both a ticket and a little lecture. And what the heck is it with that strange Tyrolian-like hat that one kid was wearing? Really weird film.

This was one of the better episodes - far superior to the campy nonsense of the later seasons. It is unique for several reasons.

One, it gave Guy Williams a chance to show off his acting talents, which were considerable. In several scenes here, he has an alarming presence, and he can intimidate us quite convincingly.

Second, this episode was written on a higher level, and appears to have been directed at an adult audience. The story is metaphorical. It shows how a man's vices (e.g., alcohol, drugs, adultery) can destroy not only himself but also his family. Anyone who has lived in a family ruled by alcohol, as I have, will understand my point.

Consider: Out of curiosity, John Robinson naively ventures into a unknown but seemingly benign environment (in this case, a cave with strange artifacts) and is suddenly and without his knowledge engulfed by an evil spirit. The spirit here is an ancient warrior, but it represents the overpowering grip of alcohol, which can take hold of us sooner than we know if we are not careful.

At first, John's family is worried by his disappearance. When he suddenly reappears, albeit in a disheveled state, all seems well. But it soon becomes evident that something is not right with John. His demeanor changes, he displays an explosive temper, and his behavior becomes erratic and unpredictable. The family is alarmed by these changes, but they are powerless to deal with them. As time goes on, John becomes nearly impossible to live with. Even his successes (e.g., finding a way to get off the planet) provide no consolation to his suffering wife, who would gladly trade away the chance to return to Earth just so she could have her husband back from the evils that ensnare him. The children become confused and estranged, and Will in particular sees his father for what he has become - a liar. Eventually, John is completely controlled by his demon, and the well-being of his family is in jeopardy. Wearing the mask of this demon, he is no longer recognizable to his own son. Only the power of his family's love becomes enough to convince John to free himself from the grip of the drink and return to sobriety.

The lesson of the story is clear: One cannot play with fire. What may seem like a harmless experimentation with vices can quickly lead to our own destruction and that of our loved ones. View the episode again with this interpretation in mind and you will see how well it fits with this metaphor.

A very thought-provoking episode. There is much to ponder in this cleverly written and well-performed episode.

Though I believe the Bible to be true and the word of God, I do not believe in a literalistic interpretation. I believe that much of it can only be understood metaphorically, and I am not just speaking of the creation stories. I am referring to passages throughout the entire Bible.

Now before my fundamentalist friends attack me for that statement, I would remind them that Christ himself spoke in parables - small illustrative stories designed to make a point - and thus he frequently employed metaphors. Consider Matthew 13:24 ("The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field."), Matthew 13:31 ("The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field"), Matthew 13:33 ("The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough."), and Matthew 22:2 ("The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son."), plus numerous others.

Notice how all these parables begin with "The kingdom of heaven is LIKE...". Why didn't Christ just say "The kingdom of heaven IS this", "HAS that" "CONTAINS this", "IS LOCATED at", and so forth? Why did he instead use all this symbolism? I believe it is because Christ knew we were not capable of understanding what "heaven" and an afterlife truly are. We can get glimpses of the beyond, yes. But we can never, with our very, very limited minds, fully comprehend it.

And how could we ever think otherwise? If we are ready to assume, as I am, that this enormously vast and sophisticated universe containing incredibly complex atoms, molecules, DNA, living organisms, planets, suns, galaxies, and so forth, is ultimately designed and controlled by an unfathomably sophisticated creator, how for a moment can we even BEGIN to understand this majestic creator's idea of paradise? It is inane and ridiculous for us to even try to do so.

Thus, if we cannot comprehend heaven or paradise, could we ever "design" one, or choose what is best for us? The point of this episode is that we sure as hell (pun intended!) cannot. Indeed, any attempt by us to do so is bound to end up as...well, you guessed it.

Again, a great piece of drama.

I recently saw this for the first time and was very pleasantly surprised. This is a very thoughtful, well done film all around. John Turtorro is a terrific actor, capable of portraying an amazing range of characters (it's hard to imagine that this is the same person who very effectively played the nerdy Herb Stempel in "Quiz Show"). But I also think George Clooney and Tim Blake Nelson did very fine work here as well.

The Coen Brothers clearly took a chance in adapting Homer's work to a Southern Depression-Era setting, but the gamble paid off handsomely, and we are given a very amusing story, beautiful to look at, with wonderful cinematography. The authentic recreation of the Depression Era was masterful, right down to the minutest detail. The music is great and very fitting. The scene with the three sirens on the river is one of the most unusual and haunting ever created – you will be as stunned as the three protagonists appear the first time you see it.

All in all, a wonderful film - one you'll want to look at several times.

This movie is two separate stories made into one via just three devices: 1) a relatively minor, albeit symbolic character (a blind Rabbi), 2) a brief meeting of the two main protagonists, and 3) a philosopher's narration at the closing (or it would seem so, anyway).

The first section - the "crime", and the good part - tells the story of an eye doctor (very nicely played by Martin Landau) who has it all: a wonderful wife and family, a successful career, a beautiful home, and a neurotic mistress (Anjelica Huston), the last of which threatens to spill the beans and destroy everything in his life. Landau is a respectable, decent guy who finds himself unable to cope with the enormity of these circumstances, and he goes to an extreme by enlisting the help of his mob-connected brother (Jerry Orbach), who has the mistress killed. There follows some interesting scenes in which we see Landau going to an emotional edge over what he has done, and searching his past and present for some answers. It is a well-done, believable story that raises a lot of interesting philosophical questions.

The second section - a much lighter story than the first - stars Allen in his typical genre in which he plays a filmmaker doing a portrait of his brother-in-law TV producer (Alan Alda), and whom he greatly despises. This story is further complicated by a love triangle with a television documentary maker, played by Mia Farrow. There are a few amusing lines in this section, and it wraps up into a somewhat ironic ending.

But what is the connection here? The first time I saw this film, I kept asking myself: "What do the Landau and Allen stories have to do with each other?". I found myself asking the same exact question the second, third, and fourth times I saw it as well.

Then I saw an interview with Allen. He said that the Landau segment is a statement of his belief that there is no God or divinely-inspired morality - not much of a surprise there.

The second part of the film, says Allen, was trying to tell us that intentions do not matter, but rather it is success that counts in this world; that even though his character truly cared for the Farrow character, it was the vain, shallow, unworthy, but nevertheless rich and successful Alda character that eventually won her heart. OK, I guess that point comes through as well.

But once again, we are back to the same question: What do these two stories have to do with each other? Not much, from what I can see. What is the "crime" or even the "misdemeanor" committed in the Allen segment? If you can connect these two stories, you might also have some success in connecting "Sleeper" with "Gone With The Wind" - the stories really don't mesh. To put it bluntly, it almost appears as if Allen had two separate scripts, neither of which were meaty enough for a full-length film, so his solution was to combine them into one movie. Am I correct? Someone please explain to me why I am not.

For the life of me, I cannot understand all the acclaim over this movie. It's "message", if one could call it that, is little more than a bad joke. Contrary to what you may hear, this film is not, I repeat, NOT a social commentary on current-day life in suburban America, mainly because it has absolutely nothing to do with life in the suburbs. Believe or not, most suburban fathers do NOT lust after their teenage daughter's friends, do NOT try to blackmail their employers, do NOT obtain drugs from the youth next door, and do NOT quit decent jobs to flip hamburgers and ride around in sport cars. Another amazing fact is that most suburban mothers do NOT cheat, or cart their lovers around in their SUVs for a quick bite to eat after having wild sex at the local motel. You'll probably be surprised to learn that the vast majority of suburban daughters are NOT plotting to kill their fathers, that they do NOT expose themselves for the camera of a voyeuristic "boy-next-door", or that their friends do NOT try to seduce their fathers with the skill of a street hooker. I also daresay that the "welcome wagon" is NOT likely to be led by a local gay couple, and I wouldn't be too concerned about the macho military man next door letting loose with his repressed homosexual tendencies and kissing his male neighbor. And last but not least, most suburban fathers need NOT worry about someone sneaking into their homes and blasting them to eternity. All of this, incredible as it may sound, is what this film asks us to accept.

Do you want an accurate portrayal of the life and problems of suburban America? Go rent "Parenthood", which came out about 10 years ago, but is still infinitely more realistic, sensible, and intelligent than this highly overrated nonsense.

I have little detailed recollection of this show - I was only 8 or 9 when it aired - but I remember liking it a lot. I remember one episode that opened with O'Brien having a casket/corpse brought into a courtroom (cannot recall why), much to the annoyance of the judge. It must have been a well-written series, as that would explain why I liked it so much. And Falk, of course, was great. He HAD to have borrowed from this to create the "Columbo" character. I also very much recall the jazzy opening theme! Pity we don't see shows like this aired on TV Land or some other cable venue. Why not?

I recall how when this film first came out, it generated a lot of controversy. Being a devout Christian, I can easily see how it can offend someone, particularly if that person wishes to be offended. It not only uses the story of Christ as the basis for absurd comedy, it also alludes to a number of offbeat, and some would say sacrilegious theories about Christ (e.g., His mother Mary being raped by a Roman soldier, Mary Magdalene being His wife/lover). In fairness, however, the story clearly makes the point in the prologue scene that the character Brian is not Christ, if that should satisfy anyone.

Make no mistake- this film is a funny one. There are two scenes in particular that are absolutely hilarious. The first is the stoning scene, which I remember had upset some Jewish groups when this film was first released because of its repeated use of the word `Jehovah'. The second is when Brian is brought before a Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment, a role played with hysterically comic mercilessness by Michael Palin. I also liked the `What have the Romans ever done for us?' scene, and several others.

But the film is flawed, too. For one thing, the actors often go too heavy on the British accents, to the point where many lines are inaudible and many jokes are lost, at least to American ears. The Jones character (as the mother) starts to grate on you after a while, though he has some funny lines and moments.

The Terry Gilliam graphics, which were amusingly employed in The Holy Grail, don't fit in this story. The only thing that came to my mind when Brian was scooped up by that alien space ship was the theory promulgated in the early 70s by author Erik Von Daniken that many miraculous events discussed in the Bible were actually descriptions of encounters with extraterrestrial beings. Was that the point of this scene? If not, then what was the joke here?

Like in The Holy Grail, the troupe seems to have trouble finding a suitable ending for this film, although the ending for The Holy Grail was better than the ending here. While I am hard pressed to imagine how they could have suitably closed a story based on the life of Christ, a light ditty sung by a crucified chorus just isn't funny. I once saw an interview with Cleese who said that the point they were making in this scene was that maybe death isn't such a bad thing. I guess that comes through, but the scene doesn't work for me. But I can also see why they stopped the story where they did – making jokes about the crucifixion is bad enough; jokes about the resurrection would have gone too far in many quarters.

Yet in spite of these flaws, this is still a movie worth seeing. The extremely talented Chapman, Cleese, Palin, Idle, Jones and Gilliam, who adopted numerous roles in The Holy Grail, take on just as many, if not more, roles in this film. There are a number of perceptive story lines and gags injected into this story (e.g., the smoldering rivalry between the seemingly allied `People's Front of Judea' and the `Judean People's Front' guerilla groups). And the Tunisian sets ironically makes this one of the more accurate depictions of the Biblical era, as did The Holy Grail in its depiction of the filthy, disease ridden Middle Ages. All in all, The Life of Brian is worth a rainy/snowy Saturday afternoon viewing.

I liked the sets, locations, costumes, and the overall attempt to capture the 1940s era in LA and elsewhere. Well done. Bening was OK; she held her own, anyway. And Harvey Keitel was great and quite convincing as the one-man army known as Mickey Cohen - he did the best work of the film, which is not surprising, as he is a fine actor. Even the overall story line was not bad.

But this movie's main flaw hurts it fatally. Warren Beatty, one of the most overrated actors in Hollywood, if not THE most overrated (he shows all the diversification and variety of a white sheet), is terribly miscast. Indeed, he is poorly cast in almost every film he's in. The only film he's ever done well in was Dick Tracy, where he plays the good guy, and that's the only type of role that he can play effectively. Even in the sacred 'Bonny and Clyde', he wasn't much to speak about, and by the way, how different was his portrayal of Clyde Barrow from Ben Siegel? It's like the character from one film was transferred to the other!

The real Benny Siegel was a mean S.O.B., and very scary. Beatty is not mean, and no tough guy (this is the same guy who once played a hairdresser!). You can see how hard he's trying, particularly in those silly, almost embarrassing 'rage' scenes, but he couldn't convince a five year old. One of life's great mysteries to me is why so many critics fall all over Warren Beatty like he's some kind of Superman. Wake up, Hollywood! He's a very weak actor.

When I was a student back in the mid 1980s, I regarded myself as liberal minded. "Pity the criminal", I used to think. "Be merciful on them"; "Be understanding"; "It's society's fault"; "They do this because they live in poverty"; and many other carefully cultivated arguments. I was proud of my "open-minded" ideology, and even a bit smug about it.

Then one snowy night, I was walking alone on Amsterdam Avenue just below Harlem, carrying a load of books under both arms, and minding my own business. I had just turned a corner when suddenly, and from out of nowhere, a group of kids about 12-14 years old whom I had never seen before ran across the street and pelted me in the face with snow and ice, breaking my glasses. There was, of course, no policeman in sight. Unable to defend myself, and fearing one of these kids might have been armed (a real possibility in New York, especially in those days), I ran away from them, and they sped off in another direction. I never saw them again. And in that instant, my 'compassionate liberalism' when out the window forever.

Thank God all those little creeps did was break my glasses - "kid stuff", as they say. Even so, I was ready to see them skinned alive if I could arrange it. I can very much feel for those who are attacked or have lost loved ones to the senseless acts of criminals, and I pray to God I am never put in their shoes.

To the limousine liberal critics who rail against this film and scream "We don't like it! We don't like it!", I retort with: "You don't GET it! You don't GET it!" In the moment that I was being attacked, I wasn't thinking about their poverty or their misguided upbringing, and to this day, I couldn't give a s**t about either. All I was thinking about was my own safety, and how I was being wronged. Who wouldn't?

As this film's own script states: Exactly WHAT are we supposed to do when the police and courts are unable to protect us? Do we just sit back and take it, and let the criminals rule our lives? And that, of course, is the point of this movie, which those on the Left refuse to acknowledge. Note, for instance, the words of a liberal in this comment section ("Bob the moo" from England on 11/12/02, if you care to know). Bob's brilliance states the following: "The film paints all the criminals the same way - animals, crazy people, crazy pointless people." DUH, YEAH, BOB! That's only because that's what they ARE!!! YOU get yourself mugged or attacked at random by someone you've never met, and then try to tell yourself they are anything but animals! I have no sympathy for anyone who attacks another person who means no one else any harm - NONE WHATSOEVER! Sorry to disappoint you, Bob.

Bob also says: "There is no room for pity for these people, no room for understanding." Uh, NO Bob, you're right! Try as I might, I cannot imagine ANY JUSTIFICATION AT ALL for why those little punks decided to assault me out of nowhere. Perhaps you can explain to me how poverty forced them to do that. (Yawn!)

The critics will never understand this film. But it makes a statement, and a very loud and clear one at that: WE ARE FED UP WITH CRIME. And why should we, at any level or part of society (e.g., black, white, male, female, rich, poor) have to live with street crime at all? Why should any of the streets be ruled by the lawless rather than the law-abiding?

In the 70s, when this film was made, New York street crime was much worse than it is today, and this film very much expressed the feelings of the people at the time. Indeed, when it was playing in the theaters back in those days, people in the audience were CHEERING when Bronson's character shot the criminals. Now why do you suppose they did that?

By the way, to those little creeps who attacked me in New York back in the 80s: I'm still lookin' for ya!

I will not use this opportunity to heap praise on this film and its performances (which are well deserved). And while it has political overtones, as noted in several other comments, I will skip this point as well.

But I am curious if anyone else has ever picked up on the religious symbolism employed in this film, in particular the last scene. Consider how Terry (the Christ figure) is abandoned by all of his friends and co-workers (disciples). He is beaten bloody by the mob (Romans). Yet the priest (Father)urges him to get on his feet and 'finish what he started'. He does so, taking and carrying his hook (cross). He climbs up the ramp (road to Calvary), stumbles (as Christ did), and completes his journey, with the workers now following him. Has anyone else noticed this?

I agree, the story was a little weak, and some of the acting, although Mike Myers did a very nice job. But the movie does capture the era to a large extent, as well as the hallowed halls of the famous danceteria itself. How can I say this? Because, unlike most of those trashing this movie, I was actually there during its heyday (1978), and I can tell you that Mark Christopher DID in fact capture a lot of the details about the club.

Yes, they really did prevent "ordinary" people from entering, in just as condescending a fashion as depicted in this film, if not worse. Yes, your chances of gaining entry wearing a polyester shirt were near zero, no matter how empty the place might have been at the moment. Yes, the velvet ropes were controlled by 'Peter Perfect' doormen, who thwarted all sorts of tricks used to gain admission, such as calling out their names like they knew them, saying they were there before (somehow, the doormen remembered everyone, and that tactic rarely worked), riding up in rented limos and having the driver go up and announce "Mr. So-and-So is here" (that didn't work, either), or stripping off their clothes in the middle of the street (females). Yes, many did stay outside the club until 5 or 6 a.m., just to glimpse the beautiful people leaving. Yes, there really was a bag lady who was regularly admitted. Yes, there really was a crescent moon sniffing a coke spoon that descended upon the dance floor. Yes, there really was a balcony converted into a not-so-private area for more "intimate" encounters, of all varieties. The film didn't make up very much. It reported history, and pretty accurately, so far as I'm concerned. Don't like the decadence? Sorry, but that was the reality about this place.

Admittedly, I'm a bit partial to this film because the main character (Shane) looked something like me in those days - early twenties, blonde wavy hair, blue-eyed - and like me, was a Jersey kid who decided to take a trip across the river to the better places in Manhattan. Even that aspect was accurate, as there were probably many like Shane.

But unlike Shane, I never worked at Studio, and I never got too caught up its "lifestyle". And I'm quite grateful for the latter, for as I watched this film, I began to wonder about how many of the dancing hedonists I was acquainted with in those days were ultimately defeated by their own lifestyles, and like Steve Rubell, are now bopping in that great disco in the sky, if you get my meaning. For example, the friend who got me entry into Studio 54 - a person who was among the club's most loyal patrons - met an untimely end some years ago at the age of 37, due to hepatitis and AIDS. Back in the 70s, he once told me that he wanted his ashes scattered on Studio 54's dance floor after he died. In a way, he got his wish, albeit metaphorically; a sad story, as is the story in this film.

If you want to see a great drama, I don't think you'll find it here. But if you want to know what it was really like at Studio 54, then see this.

"State Of Grace" is a film loosely based on the story of the "Westies", the New York Hells Kitchen Irish mob that thrived during the 70s and early 80s. This gang of hoods was extremely violent and unpredictable, and even gave most of the Italian Mafioso (who far outnumbered them) the jitters. Gary Oldman is phenomenal in this film. He is a highly versatile actor in a class by himself, or at the very least, belongs with the likes of Olivier and DeNiro, in that Oldman has proven himself in a wide range of diverse roles besides this one (e.g., in "JFK" as Lee Harvey Oswald, in Dracula as the title role, and even in "Lost In Space" as Dr. Smith). If nothing else, see it for him. But kudos must also go to Sean Penn and Ed Harris for their excellent performances as well. Sean Penn in particular was very well cast. The story is believable, the atmosphere is realistic, and the acting keeps you on the edge of your seat. A very good modern-day crime film.

For the life of me, I cannot understand all the acclaim over this movie. It's "message", if one could call it that, is little more than a bad joke. Contrary to what you may hear, this film is not, I repeat, NOT a social commentary on current-day life in suburban America, mainly because it has absolutely nothing to do with life in the suburbs. Believe or not, most suburban fathers do NOT lust after their teenage daughter's friends, do NOT try to blackmail their employers, do NOT obtain drugs from the youth next door, and do NOT quit decent jobs to flip hamburgers and ride around in sport cars. Another amazing fact is that most suburban mothers do NOT cheat, or cart their lovers around in their SUVs for a quick bite to eat after having wild sex at the local motel. You'll probably be surprised to learn that the vast majority of suburban daughters are NOT plotting to kill their fathers, that they do NOT expose themselves for the camera of a voyeuristic "boy-next-door", or that their friends do NOT try to seduce their fathers with the skill of a street hooker. I also daresay that the "welcome wagon" is NOT likely to be led by a local gay couple, and I wouldn't be too concerned about the macho military man next door letting loose with his repressed homosexual tendencies and kissing his male neighbor. And last but not least, most suburban fathers need NOT worry about someone sneaking into their homes and blasting them to eternity. All of this, incredible as it may sound, is what this film asks us to accept.

Do you want an accurate portrayal of the life and problems of suburban America? Go rent "Parenthood", which came out about 10 years ago, but is still infinitely more realistic, sensible, and intelligent than this highly overrated nonsense.

This film is "required reading" in the study of gangster films, mostly because of Richard Widmark's exceptional and truly frightening performance as Tommy Udo. Interestingly enough, 43 years later, actor Joe Pesci would also terrify movie audiences with his portrayal of another psychopathic gangster, who also had the rather benign name of 'Tommy'. However, unlike Pesci, Widmark never had another particularly memorable gangster role after this one.

While a lot of the story is realistic, some of it is far-fetched - mainly, the end. Only a complete lunatic would even think of walking into the headquarters of a gangster that he had just testified against and expect to come out alive. However, the tension in that restaurant confrontation scene is effective, and I suppose for the era in which this film was made, it was necessary to have the 'good hero' face down the 'bad bully' and put him in his place. In reality, of course, it just doesn't happen that way in the world of crime.

But what makes this film is Widmark, and to give an idea of just how effective he was, when this film first came out, a real-life NYC mobster(Joey Gallo) would watch it and earnestly try to imitate Widmark's style and mannerisms, thereby enhancing his own skill in intimidating others. As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

A neat little crime caper, and I wonder why we never see it on any of the cable networks. Falk was great, as were Peter Boyle and Warren Oates, and believe or not, Paul Sorvinio was in this one too! Realistic, and pretty honest.

Goodfellas is the first and last word in gangster films, and except for Casino - also, fittingly enough, a Martin Scorcese film starring Robert DeNiro and Joe Pesci - it's hard to imagine another crime movie ever having quite the same impact. When it comes to films of this type, Scorcese is one of the most brilliant directors ever, and it's largely due to the fact that he very obviously allows his actors simply to act, and to "become" the role that they are trying to portray. His convincing, no-nonsense, honest presentation of life in and around the mob has been imitated but never duplicated, and reflects a clear awareness on his part of the unwritten rules and principles of day-to-day urban interaction that go along with the business of crime.

Joe Pesci won a well-deserved Oscar for his portrayal of an unpredictable, out-of-control, and psychopathic mobster, a performance in which he quite literally scared the s**t out of movie audiences around the country. And if the award didn't go to him, it should have gone to Paul Sorvino, for his equally convincing performance as the impassive, experienced capo who was a master of the street life, and had the upper hand on nearly everyone and everything around him. Ray Liotta, Lorraine Bracco, and (for a single but unforgettable scene) Frank Vincent also did outstanding work.

De Niro was in great form as well, although his performance becomes a little disappointing if you read Nicholas Pileggi's "Wiseguy", where you learn that the character he portrayed was in real life a much scarier guy - even tougher than the Pesci character. I wonder at times if Beau Starr, who played Henry Hill's hot-tempered and violent father, would have been more effective in that role.

The film doesn't really tell a story. Instead, like Raging Bull and Casino, it essentially has the effect of a documentary. It's not a perfect movie - it starts to drag at certain points about 3/4ths of the way through - but this can be overlooked. It's heavy use of foul language is par for the course - does anyone out there actually think gangsters use proper English or speak without swearing?

One other aspect of this film that I've never heard anyone mention is that it makes a very strong case for the "Crime Doesn't Pay" argument, without ever coming close to preaching. The message is loud and clear: Choose a life of crime, and eventually you'll wind up either murdered, in prison, or hiding for the rest of your life in the witness protection program, and this holds no matter how tough, how powerful, how well-connected, or how smart you think you are. Maybe it should be shown to youthful offenders headed down the wrong path, who after seeing it, could be asked to explain exactly why they may still want to become criminals - I'd love to hear their answers.

Anyone over 20 years old who is in love or desires to be in love and wants to break out of that adolescent mold (which just about covers the entire human race) should view this film. Yes, it's a bit dated, but I defy anyone tell me that this story isn't as timeless as Romeo and Juliet. To all those who are stuck in the singles doldrums: tell your dopey friends you're busy tonight, get out of you mother's basement, and go see this film - you won't regret it. Is it possible for anyone to watch it and not be rooting 110% for the film's two main characters? Borgnine's performance, Chayefsky's writing, and the film itself all won Oscars that year, and all were very well deserved. I know it sounds cliche, but they just don't make them like this anymore.

This film was violent, pornographic, insulting, disturbing, disgusting, shocking, and offensive in a multitude of ways. NEVERTHELESS....it wasn't bad.

The era that it depicts was brutal and dangerous, with a system of conduct, morality and laws very different from those of today, and for those reasons, one cannot appreciate this film by seeing it through 20th century standards. Instead, you've got to view it, as best you can, with some awareness of the historical period that it depicts, and I think that it manages to do a good job of creating a realistic picture of that era, certainly better than many other films did about Ancient Rome.

Needless to say, back in 1980, the critics absolutely trashed this film, most of whom I imagine were offended by the porn. I will admit that at least some of the sex and violence can be regarded as gratuitous. But if you can get past that, you'll realize that this is really a story about power, and how it can corrupt.

McDowell is an excellent actor and quite convincing in the title role. By the end of the film, you wind up both hating and fearing him, become overjoyed and relieved at his fate, and have to remind yourself that it's only a movie. That, of course, is the sign of a good performance (i.e., the ability to generate those types of feelings in the audience). O'Toole and Gielgud are also very good and do justice to this film. The use of the Spartacus Ballet in the musical score works well, and some of the film's situations and lines are quite amusing - for instance, I love the scene in which Caligula intimidates the entire Senate into bleating like goats.

I wonder if this film would have been received differently if it had been made 20 years later. In other words, perhaps it was a bit ahead of its time. I honestly don't believe it deserved the trashing it received, and I wouldn't be surprised if a similar film emerges in the near future that gets better acclaim.

This was one of the biggest disappointments ever to hit the silver screen, and please don't blame Sofia - she was the least of its troubles. It was almost like the creators intentionally set out to make this movie bad, for a number of reasons:

1) No plot: What exactly was this film about? Something to do with the Vatican banking scandal, I think. (Yawn) Wake me when it's over.

2) Lack of continuity with the first two films: Parts I and II told interesting and believable stories. I have no idea what this film was trying to say. Even though you had all the familiar faces, the story didn't really fit with the last images we saw of Michael sitting on the shores of Lake Tahoe in the 1974 film. There were a few places in which this film looked like it was trying to make a weak attempt at borrowing from Goodfellas - which came out the same year. Why? Goodfellas was a completely different kind of film. There was no need to steal from it (and no pun intended).

3) Spending all that money to get back Diane Keaton: Again, why? Her character was basically written out in Part II. A rekindling of their romance, however mild, was not only a distraction but also not credible.

4) Not spending the money to get back Robert Duvall: On the other hand, the Tom Hagen character was still important to the saga, and could have been used in interesting ways (e.g., suppose Tom had betrayed Michael as well, only in a more complex manner?). Duvall should have been in this film. Instead, they used...

5) George Hamilton: They had to be kidding on this one.

6) Changes to the Talia Shire character: Connie as a Sicilian Ma Barker was an even bigger joke. By the way, if she was so sinister, wouldn't she have had enough brains to figure out what really happened to Fredo?

7) Underdeveloped Andy Garcia, Joe Mantegna, Eli Wallach, and John Savage characters: Especially Savage as Tom Hagen's son, whose brief appearances were a total mystery (was his character originally conceived as having a more critical role in the story?). All around, there was just too much wasted talent in this film.

8) Lack of original music - It borrowed too much from the first two films. The stroll down "Michael's Memory Lane" while the son performed a rendition of "Speak Softly, Love" almost made me want to stroll out of the theater. The use of the Intermezzo during the credits was stolen (pun intended this time) from Raging Bull, which further suggests that Coppola had Scorsese on his mind.

9) The End: The creators should have had the "guts" to kill off Michael by means of a climactic ambush, not an anticlimactic stroke or heart attack (that last scene reminded me of Artie Johnson's routine in Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In). The death of the daughter meant nothing to the audience.

10) Laying the seeds for Godfather IV - Lord help us; I think I would be more intrigued by Rocky XVIII.

* * *

When they were making this film, I remember reading somewhere that its plot was supposed to be a modern-day, organized crime version of the Cataline Conspiracy. That, intertwined perhaps with the story of the fall of a real-life mobster for Pacino's character, would have made for a fascinating film, even better than the first two. Instead, we were left with a movie so bad, it even tarnishes the reputation of the first two films to some degree. Alas, whatever Coppolla had back in the 70s, he no longer had it when he made this film.