djkent

Yes, Yes, I know...this movie could be viewed as simply a ripoff of Godzilla. But really, the Brits took the concept and did a "Good show, old chap." Unlike most of the 'Zilla movies, it actually has an interesting plot. It's theme has a decidedly "pro environment" message...and the guy in the monster suit doesn't camp it up, but makes the monster seem remarkably real. Now there are some weaknesses...despite a journeyman cast of capable folks, many still turn in one-note performances, as if they're a little embarrassed about being in a monster movie. Also, some of the plot mechanisms are a little creaky. For all that, though, this is a monster movie that's at least a small cut above most. It held my attention as an adult (I'd first seen it as a child and didn't see it again for twenty years), the special effects are mostly quite good, and the ending, despite being hokey, still works! It rarely shows up on tv for some reason...so if you get a chance, rent it (there are copies available in independent shops that specialize in rare movies.)

Here is that rare combination; Sandra Bullock turns in a wonderful performance, but without overshadowing the ensemble cast supporting her! I've always liked Sandra Bullock. I've not always liked her vehicles. I didn't care for "Hope Floats" or "Forces of Nature," but I kept hoping she'd get back on track. She certainly did, here! 28 Days manages to tread fairly well along a difficult line. It has a serious subject (addiction) and it doesn't short-shrift or trivialize the subject. At the same time, it "brings out" the humor, by letting the humor derive from the characters themselves. That's how you make a serious movie with a deep vein of humor. You don't add pratfalls or clever lines. You let the humor evolve from the characters themselves, as they react to the situations they're in. The use of flashbacks can be awfully dreary, but in this movie, they are used properly and to great effect. The ensemble cast works side-by-side with Bullock's complicated yet compelling character. Things are explained, but you aren't beaten over the head. The ending is perhaps just a tad sugary for my tastes, but Sandra's fine acting manages to make it work,any way. Sandra Bullock has the potential of being a truely great actress. She's pretty, but not so pretty that it "gets in the way" (This CAN happen, believe me. Would you believe that Cameron Diaz could have played this role?) Moreover, Bullock will allow herself to look a bit ugly, as she does early on in the movie. It's amazing how many truely beautful actresses, won't! (Personal note: Sandra, you've gotten just a little too skinny and muscular. I'm happy that you're obviously fit...but there's not a thing wrong with just a little more body fat to give you a more normal appearance...just a thought, dear lady). Any way, Bullock's abilities aside, this movie will provoke you to think about addiction differently. It shows you its compelling side, and displays clearly why some people "wallow" in their addictions. It also honestly shows that coming back from serious addiction is truely not easy. Yet, at the same time, you will fall in like, if not in love, with many of the characters, and come to hope with them that they will succeed. This is the CORE of the movie, that makes it work. In a character-driven scenario, you must come to empathy...and I believe you will. Sandra, it's good to have you back. Make more like this one!!!

So much can be pointed out, concerning "Forbidden Planet." Yes, it's a rip-off of Shakespeare (you don't think HE didn't rip off plot lines?)...yeah, it may indeed have been Roddenberry's inspiration for "Star Trek." Yeah, it was MGM's only major-effort Sci-Fi film. Those things may or may not be true...but it tells you something when so much legend is generated around a film, doesn't it? Let's observe three things that make this film one of the few Si Fi films that have a permanent home in my private movie collection (which Star Wars, alas, does NOT).... First, it's true Science Fiction (again, which Star Wars, in my opinion, isn't). That's because the Scientific development is homogeneous with the plotline (an absolute necessity to be true Sci Fi, instead of just fantasy with Scientific trappings). Secondly, the acting is archetypal. By it's very nature, good Sci-Fi is arechtypal, meaning the characters represent major forces or universal types. Leslie Nielson's starship captain represents the wit and humanity of us all, a kind of "everyman"; Pigeon's Morbius represents intellect gone awry; Anne Francis represents the hope of love, and the saving grace of innocence...and so on, and so on. Now this can create a problem if you're not a Sci Fi fan. The movie can come across as uni-dimensional. But for its day, Forbidden Planet was amazingly tantalizing, with special effects that the rest of Hollywood didn't catch up with for twenty years! There were the "electronic tonalities" as they are billed (the first synthesized music)...there were matte screen effects that were not only first-rate, but awe-inspiring: the backgrounds of the planet were both other-worldly and beautful. (Remember, this movie was shot entirely on a studio sound stage!!!) There were the other special effects, from the space ship itself, to futuristic home of Morbius, to...well, to say more would be to giving away too much. See them for yourself, and remember that the movie is almost a half-century old!!! I guess my main point, is that this is "classic" Science Fiction, borne from an era of writers where the view of the future was different than today. If you see the movie in that vein, you'll consider it a masterpiece. If you can't obtain that mindset, you'll probably be left feeling disappointed. DON'T compare it to Star Wars, or even its derivative, Star Trek. This movie's heritage is that of the "Golden Age" of written Science Fiction: Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke. Compare it to them, and you'll "get it."

I have several younger friends, who...unfortunately...can't get beyond their heritage. THEIR heritage is Star Wars. If it doesn't have that "Star Wars" look, they just don't get it. Well, if you're like that, this film is going to be tremendously disappointing. The Day the Earth Stood Still is THE cautionary tale of those of us who grew up under fear of the Atomic Bomb (that's right, the baby-boomers). It only has a nodding acquaintance to Science Fiction, and only about ten minutes of actual special effects footage, mostly at the beginning and the end. Yet that ten minutes or so, is used to GREAT effect. When Gort comes alive, the hairs on the back of my neck STILL stand up; the inside shot of the spaceship is truely "otherwordly". And Michael Rennie absolutely OWNS his character. I simply can't imagine anyone else playing Klaatu. And all of it in "glorious black and white."!!! Sandwish between the two Sci-Fi slices, is the meat of the story. It doesn't picture we humans of the 1950's in quite the same light as "Happy Days," does it? We are seen as fearful, grasping and amazingly lacking in character. Only one woman and one boy stand out...and neither of them are perfect, either. Why does Klaatu even bother to TRY to save us? I think that this is the reason virtually everyone I know either loves or hates this film. It forces us to face some of the worst of our own nature, and it does it with a rough hand on the shoulder. It doesn't pussyfoot around when it says, "shape up or be destroyed." If you want to see a classic "Morality Play" put against a Sci Fi background, with great leading roles...then take in this movie. But if you can't take it with the spirit of those scary times, you simply won't get it! The 50's was like no other era in recent American History. If you don't understand that context, most of the ground-breaking movies of that era, won't make sense to you. But if you come to grips with the paranoia and commercialism of the times, then it'll start to all fit. A classic!!

Normally, when I comment on a movie, it is to encourage someone to see some little "gem" that I think was overlooked. This time, I'm going against the grain. I didn't HATE Gladiator; the production values were great, the directing good --- I guess it was mostly the story, and (believe it or not) the acting that I take exception to. In my summary, I called it "Titanic in a Coliseum", and I wasn't kidding. I found Titanic to be an okay, but overlong movie. That's how I found Gladiator. Actually, it wasn't tremendously long...but about three-quarters of the way through, I found myself glancing at my watch. I simply didn't empathize with Crowe's character...I found too many thing ways way too under-explained (like his becoming a slave...no spoiler, they tell you that much in the trailers), and I also didn't find many of the supporting characters particularly charming me. All in all, I'm probably one of only three or four guys in all of North America who didn't love the movie. But again, let me make it clear...I didn't hate it. It simply didn't ring my chimes. The plotting was murky at crucial points, the sound track too "Titanic-y" (that soft, ethereal music just didn't cut it for me), Russell Crowe simply didn't impress me all that much, and neither did most of the other stars of the show. Sorry. Not a thumbs down, but I won't be rushing out to buy a copy.

Prior to seeing this movie, I hadn't watched much of John Cusack's work. I now plan to change that! First, let me say that I hadn't recently seen much that I've enjoyed...and I don't normally care for the crass, sophomoric dreck that passes for "relationship" movies, these days. Not so, with "High Fidelity." This is a work that emanates brilliance! The script is clever, literate and howlingly funny. John Cusack turns in a resounding performance as a modern everyman, seeking to understand why his relationships sink more thunderingly than the Titanic. Cusack's two side-kicks in the record shop his character runs, steal every scene they're in...and leave you holding your sides from laughing so much. Pivotal cameo roles by the like of Catherine Zeta-Jones also add much to the enjoyment of this campy, yet warm-hearted story. And for all the yucks and guffaws and howls (there's humor abounding), this story does have a point; and there's not much more I can say about that, without writing a spoiler, which I refuse to do. Simply leave it, that any man under forty might re-think a bit about his own reasons for having sunk a relationship or two. Here's two hours of great entertainment and solid film-making. Put it on your "gotta see" list, right now!

How could this film NOT be a success? You have the incomparable direction of William Wyler; you have the eternal story of the bravery and sacrifice of a people at war; and you have a stellar cast, giving it their all! However, let me suggest how best to appreciate this singular film. Watch some worthy war epic like "Saving Private Ryan." Then, give yourself a few hour break, and watch this movie. You see, in this film, the "personal" cost of war, hinted at only in "Private Ryan." Moreover, you'll see a movie directed by one of the best, at the peak of his powers and ability. Finally, you'll get to see one of the most beautiful and talented women Hollywood ever produced, in a signature role. Greer Garson simply shines. She shows us all how to play a role with sensitivity and subtlety. It also doesn't hurt that...even though she's not a kid (she's thirty-eight at the time)...her timeless beauty still gives me a catch in the throat when I watch her. Ably supported by the usually under-appreciated Walter Pigeon, along with a gaggle of Hollywood's finest character actors, watching this film is like having a fine dinner and topping it off with a luscious dessert. It all clicks, from first frame to last. This is a film that should be, and often is, on top-twenty lists. Give yourself a cinematic treat and see it, if you haven't.

This movie broke some real ground, in its day (1959). Words like "intercourse," "sperm," and "bitch" were still considered off-limits at the time. Perhaps we've gone too far in the other direction these days, but I found the use of these words, while provocative in their day...important to the issues being discussed in the film. This film did a wonderful job of showing the moral ambiguities that were beginning to plaque our country. Was the defendant truely a victim of "temporary insanity?" (I'm not giving away much, here...this issue becomes obvious within ten minutes into the film.) What about the defendant's wife, played so wonderfully by a voluptuous Lee Remick? What was truly motivating her? We see a small town in upper Michigan in the grips between a seeming moral grayness, and the tried-and-true beliefs of the previous generation. If you wonder how we got to where we are today, this films captures with clarity the open volleys of the changes that still reverberate through our culture, today. Otto Preminger directs tightly, allowing the story line itself reveal the motivations and struggles of its characters. All this, plus a dandy taste of the "new jazz" that was sweeping the country, as performed by Duke Ellington. We might consider this, today, to be a "period piece." Yet it vibrates with energy, tautness and great acting; its worth seeing again, if you haven't for a number of years!

The quibbling over Maria's (Ingrid Bergman's) blonde hair is an example of overall, how good this movie is. Cmon...anyone who has done a little Geographical and Cultural homework knows that Spanish people run the full gammut of size, hair colour, eye colour, etc. Beyond this, I've read some comments about Gary Cooper being a bit stoic in his acting. Hey, Coop WAS generally an actor who underplayed rather than shooting for the back row. I still think it all works! I first saw this movie when I was about ten years old...and it taught me more about love than any movie before or since. Admittedly, it is an idealised, "romantic" love...but I think this movie was one of the greatest love stories ever put on screen (and based on one of Hemingway's most hopeful, romantic works). Of course, Tamiroff and the rest are an absolutely superb supporting cast; but here's the thing. This is one of those movies that can thrill you and move you as much or more the second (or third or fourth) time you see it, than the first! Every time I watch it (over two dozen times to date) I pick up nuances and subtleties I'd missed before. Fantastic direction! This is one of a special selection of black-and-white films that indeed, must not be colorized...simply because it would be a distraction! For me, "Bell" just misses my top-ten list (I place it at #12), and then only because it is a bit over-long, and the pacing needs to be tightened in places. But acting/cinematography/scripting is all superb! A must-see if you've never watched it before...

I'll try not to gush. I really will. GWTW was indeed, a banner movie in a banner year. Despite it's four-hour-ish length, despite the fact that some performances were indeed a bit 'over the top' and despite the fact that, by today's standards, the movie is cliched and trite...it continues to WORK as few movies do. I've lost track of how many times I've seen it. Dozens. Each time, I thoroughly enjoy it. Gable is the single sexiest male to ever grace the silver screen. Vivien Leigh is phenomenal, even though she completely over-acts. Like I said...it works! (Let's face it: Scarlett O'Hara is a larger-than-life character, and playing her any other way simply wouldn't work.) Moreover, the vibrant, eye-catching cinematography is still the standard by which I judge most films. Certain scenes...particularly Scarlett in the long pan-back at the Atlanta hospital, and some of the early scenes of Tara, are mind-boggling in their intensity. This, indeed, is a melodrama. So what? It is the MELODRAMA of melodramas! It is not just a "movie" but a film experience!

Okay, so I'm a sap when it comes to movies like this. But it isn't like family movies that turn you to tears, exactly tear up Hollywood's production schedule! This movie has no real weakness...the script is based on a true story, and is both literate and engaging; the acting is solid in every department - Kevin Bacon and Diane Lane deserve special kudos for being both realistic and heartwarming; ALL the child actors are believable and winning. And SKIP? The dog STEALS EVERY SCENE HE's IN!!! The movie teaches us the valuable lessons we all need to be reminded of; about the power and importance of childhood, about the values of loyalty and love, and about the special, imperishable bond that can exist between a child and a dog. There is an old poem or story about how perhaps the greatest gift God ever gave mankind, was the friendship of canines. This movie proves out that adage. The cinematography is outstanding - it lovingly caresses semi-rural Mississippi at mid-century; and this film so beautifully recreates America during the War years (the beginning of the baby-boom generation) that I encourage grandparents like me to take their grandkids, just so they get a very accurate picture of our OWN childhoods. I predict this film will become a classic. It has it all...a wondrous, almost rapturous story, solid acting, great cinematography and lush, loving direction. SEE IT SEE IT SEE IT! It DESERVES to be a SMASH hit.

Others have commented that Deep Impact is the esthetically preferable of the two "comet" movies of 1998 (the other, "Armaggedon.") But I'm going to get a bit more specific. Yes, Tea Leoni is probably the "weak link." She does not reveal herself as a top-flight actress in this film; but on the other hand, her performance was far from terrible,and about par for the course for this kind of movie. James Horner's soundtrack is superb. It is moving, delicate and perfectly appropriate. Elijah Wood reveals surprising depth, given limited screen-time. LeeLee Sobieski is equally as moving and strong in her performance. There is a fine cast of supporting characters whose performances are right on-beat. Finally, we have a touching and deeply nuanced performance by the ever-incredible Morgan Freeman as the president. The technical aspects are equally strong; particularly notable are: the seemless integration of visual effects (there is little sense of fakiness that often happens upon multiple viewings - when you begin to "see through" such effects as blue screen), and excellent film editing, with no choppiness or extraneousness. This is not a "great" film. But it is a solid film, with no overwhelming weaknesses, and a clear vision by its director. That vision is seen throughout the film. My final test for a good movie is whether it will stand up to repeated viewings. This one does.

I try to read other user comments before adding my two-cents worth. If others have said what I would say...why waste your time and mine? I have a very small video library. You see, to be in my video library, the film has to be SO good it will stand repeated viewing. This film is IN my video library. The script is very nearly perfect. The message is true, and honestly told. The acting...PARTICULARLY Matt Damon, Minnie Driver and, of course, Robin Williams...is superb. Let me admit, I am a Robin Williams fan...almost against my own nature. He irritates me at times, and frustrates me other times..and I'll be the first to say he's turned in some horrifically over-done performances. Then, you see him in something like "Awakenings"...and you see him in something like THIS movie..and you realize that Williams has the potential of being one of the BEST! Damon turns in a wonderful performance. Indeed, if it were not for the strength of his performance, Williams would probably still overwhelm the film. As it is, there is a "checks and balances" thing that happens between them that is simply a joy to behold. Minnie Driver, whom I adored when she was X pounds heavier in "Circle of Friends," startled me. I hadn't seen her since she lost all the weight. Minnie is one of those faces that...let's be honest...can't be called "fashion model beautiful" ...yet she is (to me) a kind of real-world sexy. And her acting can be marvelous, and IS, in this film. Her heartbreak is so real in one scene, I almost can't stand to watch that scene. I have to leave the room and fiddle with a soft-drink or something. I want soo badly to sweep her in my arms and comfort her...now THAT's acting! Ben Affleck is a perfect foil to Damon's character...and this very believable story (to me) is wound out in a compelling manner that literally leaves me drained at the end. This is simply a movie with lots of pluses and almost no flaws. Given the story, its length is right...there are a few scenes that could have been tightened in my opinion (mainly between the math professor and Williams character)...but this is ensemble acting par excellence. Please try to give this one an honest look. IT might ALSO end up on your video shelf!

"Tongue in Cheek." Remember that phrase, the first time you watch this movie. Many harken to Donner's (the director's) other efforts with star Mel Gibson. You must avoid doing this, at all costs. The "Lethal Weapon" movies are of the "buddy movie" genre, where action is combined with humor. In THIS movie, the approach is decidedly different. This is truly a "tongue in cheek" movie and, as others have noted, it also contains a rather sly love story. I will negatively comment on two aspects of the movie. First, it is over-long. Ten minutes (possibly more) could have been cut, and the movie's sometimes erratic pace could have been smoothed out. Oh, and the very final scene is a bit too hokey for my tastes. But if you remember "tongue in cheek" and go with that, the movie works very, very well. In that regard, Gibson was not only a good choice for the main character, but perhaps even a NECESSARY choice. Gibson is an actor, who within certain genres, he's outstanding. This genre is one of them. Roberts is, for the most part, good. In fact, the final twenty minutes or so sees her turning her performance into something very vital and solid. Stewart, I believe, actually does his role credit by playing an almost banal bad-guy. And "over the top" type of bad-guy would have been jarring and unbelievable in this otherwise "strains the credulity" genre. In other words, this type of movie is, admittedly, already taxing to the viewer. Had Stewart played it less "straight," it would have made the believability even more difficult.

In the end, I think Donner and cast came up with a unique, fun, thoroughly entertaining "genre" film. Simply remember "tongue in cheek."

I keep hoping against hope that the dynamic duo of Tom Hanks and Tim Allen would make a live-action movie together! I mean, after all...if their VOCAL chemistry works as well as it does...imagine how well it would work in a "real" movie! Seriously, this is one of the rare instances where the sequal is actually better than the original...though this is meant as no slap at TS1. The original Toy Story was a very good picture. But in #2, we find characters showing both greater depth and fresher wit. Add several brand new characters, along with some unique plot twists, and you have a very solid result. There simply isn't any weakness here. Here's a thoroughly entertaining and heartwarming movie, without false notes or clinkers. Yes, the computer animation has improved; but it seems to me that that is the least of the improvements. I hate to sound trite...but this IS the one movie you should take the family to see this holiday season.

Over the years, I've read a number of professional critics' reviews of this film; almost all were mildly to severely negative. And here's the interesting thing: I don't disagree with most of the individual carps. Yes, the movie is a piece of fluff. Yes,the usually dependable Danny Kaye is a bit weak in his performance. Yes, the plot mechanism for inserting many of the production numbers is lame. Heck, even the continuity is poor...I myself have discovered three noticeable continuity fluffs. But here's the thing. The movie works, anyway!!! Bing and Danny nevertheless make a likeable "Mutt and Jeff" duo. The supporting cast all holds their own, from a radiant (and surprisingly voluptuous) Rosemary Clooney, to the astoundingly agile Vera Ellen, to Dean Jagger's Patton-like General Waverly...they all hit their marks very well. The plot-line is unbelievable. Who cares? This is a feel-good Christmas Movie, for cryin' out loud! The production numbers are sheer fun, the plot doesn't get in the way of all the beauty and great music, the actors are obviously having a good time, and we're all allowed to window-peep on the shenanigans. This is the PERFECT movie to put on after Macy's Parade, while all those who don't like football are helping prep for the big Turkey Day meal. You sneak a bit of dressing or cranberry sauce, and watch a production number. The plot is so user-friendly, missing five minutes here and there doesn't hurt. Treat yourself. Discover why millions of views have made this movie a holiday favorite, despite the critics' opinions!

All right, all right...I'm about to add my gushes to all those remarks you've probably already read, if you've gotten this far.

I like "Citizen Kane" and appreciate its story and its technical wizardry. I adore "Casablanca" and love "Dark Victory." All are outstanding movies. But pick the "Best Movie of All time"...a Christmas Movie????

YES. Alastair Sim IS Ebeneezer Scrooge. He turns a caricature into a multi-faceted, truely believable person. The script is deftly turned, and the "added material" works astoundingly well. There's good cinematography, exceptional vision in the directing, a powerful supporting cast...but above all, Sim turns in a stellar performance. You can't help but be swept into this pitiable man's predicament...and as a result, your eyes weep not for pity, but for joy, at the end. Every time Sim springs his change of heart on Cratchet at the end, then breaks into giggles saying, "I don't deserve to be so happy," throwing his pencil over his shoulder...tears of true joy come squirting out of my eyes, and I laugh and cry at the same time. NO OTHER PERFORMANCE has ever evoked such a response from me. And I've watched a lot of movies, believe me! It wouldn't even matter much about the movie's other qualities. Simply on the strength of Sim's single most powerful acting performance I've ever witnessed, I'd happily recommend this for your consideration as, if not THE best, certainly one of the ten best movies ever made. And without a doubt, the best version of this perennial tale of change and redemption, ever put on film

Well, I loved Bette Davis' performances, as a rule. But I'm willing to bet that even NON fans of Davis would appreciate her tour in this particular movie. Following two years after "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?", "Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte" is nevertheless four times the film of its more noted predecessor. The reasons for this are four=fold. The script, though occasionally unintentionally funny, is still crisper, more believable and contains a more satisfying ending. Next, Davis' is more balanced by the performances of DeHavilland, Cotton, a more mature Victor Buono, and the great Agnes Morehead. Thirdly, we have a better set and setting, more attuned to the genre. Finally, the cinematography is several notches better, in my opinion. Adding it all up, you have an exceptionally fine example of that unique genre, the gothic melodrama. In this movie, the genre is virtually defined! If asked to name an example to a "top twenty" or "top fifty" movie list, "Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte" would definitely make the cut.

By today's standards, "Dark Victory" might seem cliched. Of course, that could be because it was so greatly copied! Here is Bette Davis, a star in the fullness of her talent and ability. Bette simply shines; she owns this film from first frame to last. Ably supported by a wonderful cast (including a somewhat mis-matched Humphrey Bogart as an Irish-brogued horse trainer), it is still difficult to watch the film and not be constantly anticipating Bette's appearance in any scene she isn't in. The ending, even in those days, might have turned out either wimpy or waspish. In Bette's hands, it is neither. It works in a way that literally drains one of emotions. I might also add that, while revealing only a bare back, Bette shows more sensuality than a dozen of today's more "open" actresses.

There is an old disparaging adage about "showing the full gamut from a to b," in this movie Bette not only shows A to Z, but some letters that haven't been invented yet.

Despite my gushing over Ms. Davis, the film is solid in all departments. If you wish to experience when melodrama is great movie-making, see this film.