scholara2

I don't usually write comments, and mine are probably going to be buried deep within the bowels of this site, but I just HAD to write this, just to get the anger of wasting 2 hrs 40 mins on nothing.

I knew I was in trouble when as the movie was playing, I was thinking of little chores to do. It didn't capture my attention.

Unlike 300, this movie lacked charisma, stunning visuals (300's was eerily surrealistic) a coherent plot, and characters you care about.

The story begins when one of the "superheros", the Comedian is killed.

Some superhero, the guy is a rapist, he also shoots down in cold blood another pregnant woman carrying his child....and in the midst of all this and other mindless violence, we're treated to the philosophical ramblings of a big blue genie, who, starts out wearing a thong, and then goes down to nothing; stark naked! The point of this escapes me. Since I haven't read the comic, I don't know whether this is the way the character is. At any rate, if titillation was the goal, then give equal time and have Carla Gugino go in the buff.

Am I supposed to take the guy seriously??? Oddly, Dr. Manhattan (the blue guy), reminded me a lot of Data from Start Trek TNG in his facial expressions and voice.

Anyway, I really don't know what the filmmakers were shooting for with this. Plus...it's waayy toooo long. It was painful to sit thru. Several times I thought to turn it off, but then I though there might be some cool ending or something I might miss out on, and since I did get it, why not sit thru it? Now, I'm angry I did. Total waste. As for those who loved this movie, I don't know...

The most unforgivable thing to me is the total boredom.

This film is very similar to Will Smith's, only has a New Age feel. Same plot of how a person is made homeless, and then struggles to regain his dignity.

I found the parts where he takes dictation from God to be very enlightening, and that's why I give this movie 8*'s.

The story itself leaves large holes as to the character's life, and it would've been better from a continuity standpoint (for those who haven't read the book, like me) to give more background.

From a storytelling continuity standpoint, I felt Pursuit of Happiness was better, though a minor quibble, I felt it dwelt too much on the character's low points, and then only made a passing reference at the end, to his rising from the ashes.

But, back to Conversations. For example, the narration alludes to Neal's problems with women, but what are they (ie. sexual infidelity?)? They must be pretty deep, for him to be turned away after a debilitating accident. We see him visit his old home, only to see his name on the mailbox and nothing else.

He suffers from a broken neck, yet midpoint in the movie he takes his neck brace off. His homelessness healed his broken neck??? And lastly, he loses his part time job as a DJ, but yet can continue living in what seems like a nice house, while taking dictation from God for what seems like a long time. How is that? Anyway, there are these inconsistencies, but his conversations are what really make the movie.

I can see how traditional fundamentalists, be they Christians, Jews, or Muslims, might find the bits and pieces of the conversation unbelievable (or heresy), as has been already expressed here, but if you can get away from orthodox theology and open your mind, you might learn something, or at least cause you to rethink your perspective.

The movie at least made me curious to read the book.

This is an excellent movie. I caught it quite by accident when it came on one late night. Not knowing anything about it beforehand, I was soon drawn in. I just saw it again on TV just now.

I'm surprised it only has a rating of 6.9 (???). Maybe too light on the violence and action for some people's tastes.

It could've easily been awash with sentimentality; the subject matter certainly lends itself to it, but I thought the director and writers hit exactly the right balance.

Also, very well acted by both Bates and Curtis, and the child actor who portrayed Nicholas was so likable. You are emotionally drawn into the family's joy, ordeal and subsequent altruism.

Words can't express the beauty and tragedy of this movie.

And the score...so simple and yet so very expressive, and imparts hope in the sadness.

You'd have to have a heart of stone not to cry thru some of the parts.

Every aspect of this film comes together like a fine swiss clock.

I would think that this movie is a fitting memorial to Nicholas and his family, and how their sacrifice transformed an entire nation.

Alan Bates was such an undervalued actor in his lifetime. Though I haven't seen very many of his films, I've enjoyed the ones I have. A fine, fine character actor.

And Jamie Lee Curtis, she's come a long way from the slasher movies, and the fluff sexpot/comedy pieces of the 70's and 80's.

And finally, Hallie as little sister was adorable.

I'd liked to have seen a piece of film of the actual family. That would've capped the ending beautifully. I assume the photo on the gravestone was the real Nicholas.

Inspirational. The Green family are all heroes, and they embody the best of the human spirit even under the most difficult circumstances.

Nicholas Green, they'll build monuments in your name!

I recorded this when it first aired on NBC, and still have it. I just watched it again, which prompted me to this site, only to find no comments, so I'll put in my two cents.

I thought it was an excellent and fascinating narrative of the events that inspired Melville to write "Moby Dick", in the same manner that the true life story of Alexander Selkirk was the inspiration to Defoe's "Robinson Crusoe".

Melville met some of the survivors of that ill fated whaling expedition, including Pollard and Chase. Chase had already published his telling of the events, much to the displeasure of his community.

The narrative doesn't speak highly of Chase, and it's fair to say that he comes across as the "villain", though really everyone shares responsibility in the folly, including the larger Nantucket Quaker community.

The special is much like a PBS, Ken Burns type documentary, so if you like those, then this'll be up your alley. Only thing, I don't know if it's commercially available.

The story shows how religious fervor, xenophobia, ignorance, and arrogance, can all culminate in a tragedy, a lesson I suppose is still relevant today.

It also shows what happens when man is stripped of his technological advantage, and is left to deal with the elements on his own.

Finally, it shows how the survivors faired after the ordeal, and their "assimilation" back into their religious community.

As any student of whaling history knows, the Nantucket Quakers viewed it as a mission from heaven to indiscriminately slaughter sperm whales, which was an easy enough justification because the whales were living oil reserves of their day, very lucrative.

Oil derived from these whales drove the machinery and the lamps of those times, and made Nantucket rich. Whaling was also seen as a passage to manhood; almost a prerequisite if a young man wanted to find a wife in that community.

On the other hand, the film doesn't shirk from the ugliness of whaling, the stench and decay of the factory ships turning the blubber and meat into oil, and the utter brutality of the kill.

I frankly was rooting for the sperm whales, and had very little sympathy for the whalers. This isn't a stretch, since I've always been against whaling.

Even so, I can't see how anyone wouldn't be moved by the pain and bloody death throes of a whale stabbed by harpoons. It's just too bad that this sort of thing, of the hunted turning the tables on the hunter, didn't happen too often.

The whalers, because of the character flaws already mentioned, plunged themselves into the heart of darkness. They could've easily shortened their ordeal at any moment, but instead continued to make bad decisions, time after time.

Look at "Revenge of the Whale" as a mix of Alexander Selkirk and the Donner party.

So, if you're interested in learning about the real life events and people that inspired a classic work of literature, or just like stories of human drama and ordeal, mixed with adventure on the high seas, then this gem will be well worth your time.

I liked this movie. It did what it set out to do, to entertain, though post 911, the premise is especially scary (how poignant to see the WTC in the New York skyline).

I was drawn into the plot, and didn't care about any inconsistencies or holes. Everything came across as plausible.

As for the comment made ccthemovieman-1 about the unlikelihood of someone of Nicole Kidman's looks being in a position like that, well, all I can say is that he should take a look at some of the female analysts and spies (ie. Valerie Plame) that work not only in the US government, but also others like Israel.

Make no mistake, many of them are as beautiful as they are intelligent.

And I give kudos to the filmmakers for resisting the one formulaic turn, and that is making it into a romance flick where the male/female protagonists first dislike each other and then fall into each others arms by the end of the movie.

So, for all those who say this movie is predictable, here's one predictable and clichéd turn it didn't take. It concentrated on the action and suspense, and only hinted in the very end at the possibility of a romance.

It was interesting to see, that even though Dr. Kelly was Devoe's boss, the actual dynamics were in reverse, with her following Devoe's lead for most of the time, and listening to lectures from him about her inexperience.

I guess the movie's producers thought it was too much for someone like Clooney to constantly take orders from a woman. A formulaic turn, I suppose.

Clooney and Kidman acquitted themselves well in their roles, as did Marcel Iures who portrayed the terrorist. He came across as human, and a truly tragic, sympathetic, though misguided, figure, imo.

The train hijack sequence was awesome.

I saw the extended director's cut, and I can say the fight sequences are pretty realistic.

Someone criticized how ragtag and crude the Britons were, esp Merlin. But, having read and seen documentaries about the natives of Britain during those times, I can say this is a pretty good portrayal.

As for Guinevere being a warrior, her portrayal reminded me of a real life warrior queen, Boudicca, who united the various tribes in Britain for the last revolt against the Romans.

She was a tough cookie. After her daughters and herself were raped and beaten by the Romans, she came back with vengeance and showed no mercy. In all, she killed about 70,000 Romans.

In their final historic battle, although they vastly outnumbered the Roman legion sent to subdue them, they nevertheless fell prey to superior Roman military tactics.

Boudicca was never heard from again, rumored to have either been among the slaughtered, or committed suicide.

So, from this perspective, the movie did a fairly accurate job in portraying the pagan tribes in Britain.

HOWEVER, I can't help but compare it to Gladiator, since some who were involved in the creation of that movie were also involved in this.

No doubt, the creators were aiming to make an epic as rousing as Gladiator. They certainly had the right subject matter in King Arthur.

But in this effort it fell far, far short. It just didn't have the same emotional depth and resonance. It lacked that magical something that was in Gladiator. Hans Zimmer's score for this movie wasn't anything like that for Gladiator, and all the actors here lacked the depth and conviction of those in the other.

The characters here simple weren't as likable/detestable as those in Gladiator. I didn't find myself drawn in as much.

Maybe it's unfair to draw a comparison between the two movies. Taken on its own terms (at least the director's cut), the movie isn't bad, and the military fight sequences are certainly comparable to Gladiator, though there are several plot holes, not to mention narration by a character who's dead by film's end.

At any rate, this is as far from the classic Arthur and the movie Exaclibur as you can get, and you can debate the historic accuracy I guess, but King Arthur is a legend anyway.

I found this to be an uplifting movie and not at all tragic.

It's about a man who has life happen to him while he's making other plans.

Richard Dreyfuss shows again what a gifted character actor he is. From "What about Bob?" to "Mr.Holland's Opus", we see his incredible range from drama to comedy. He is one of the great character actors of his generation.

Dreyfuss really puts his heart into this performance, like when he sings to Cole. You can see the sweat on his brow, and although he's no John Lennon, I thought his singing was pretty good.

Also, in this age of techno wizadry, you can't always trust what you see on the screen, but it looked to me like he was actually playing the piano, in which case, another facet of this talented man.

His character agonizes over a potentital relationship with a beautiful and talented student in a midlife crisis, but at the end makes the right decision.

And the ending, it was so moving that even the cast had tears in their eyes, and I somehow don't think that was fake.

The timeline of events from the 60's to the 90's was also excellent.

Overall, a beautiful movie, and everyone put in a great performance. I thought it had the right balance, without getting overly sentimental and sugar coated, and evoked a feeling of the times with the music and settings.

I take this movie out and watch it every once in a while.

This is a marvelous, heartwarming, engaging movie that features the genius of Tom Hanks. The film was neither too long or boring; it was just right. It might have been boring if it'd been anyone other than Hanks, but as usual, he melts into his role and delivers a riveting performance.

Kudos to Zemeckis also in capturing Hanks' ordeal on the island, from his weight loss to his desolation. This is one of the best "Robinson Crusoe" type adaptations I've seen.

And Hanks' journey back to civilization was so interesting and moving. He superbly played the part of the person who's struggling to find his place after being out of touch for five years! The scenes are so touching, especially his reunion with Hunt.

I was almost convinced this was based on an actual account, so much so I was looking to see the trailers at the end of the movie, saying "Based on the real life account of..."

Tom Hanks is one of the best character actors of his generation, right alongside of Robert Duvall, Robert DeNiro, Dustin Hoffman, Robin Williams, Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman, and Russell Crowe.

As an aside, this is the only movie I've seen that's been a showcase of a corporate logo from beginning to end (and not a bad association, I might add), to which I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't produced by FedEx. ;-)

If you're looking for something more than the shallow and contrived dramatics of the reality series Survivor, or a movie without the standard pyrotechnics or other adrenalin boosting gimmicks, then this film will be well worth your time.

It's a human interest story, pure and simple.

I was so drawn in that when the movie ended, I really wanted to see what happens to Chuck in the new phase of his life, after meeting his next potential love interest at the very end of the film.

I guess that's left up to the imagination. Happily ever after. :-)

Enjoy a superb tour de force performance by Hanks.

This is a solid, entertaining movie that was overlooked at the box office.

It's a story about a group of boys just being boys, that is until they make a fatal mistake that changes their lives forever.

Everyone did an excellent job of acting. DeNiro, as usual, puts in a great performance as a caring priest. And what a stroke of genius not to cast him in the role of the mobster. Hoffman does a great job as the defense attorney. His low key manner adds to his effectiveness in the court.

Brad Pitt does a very good job as the assistant DA who ends up playing a game of legal ping pong against himself in the courtroom.

Vittorio Gassman was my favorite as the godfather.

Bacon does a good job as the low life prison guard. He seems to have made a career out of playing weirdos, psychos, and people on the fringe.

But, like I said, everyone did a great job. The child actors also were very convincing and believable. There was none of the overacting usually present with kids.

The story, whether true to life or not, was very good and riveting. Even if it isn't true, it did a good job of depicting what probably happens in detention centers all across the country, sadly.

There was only one quibble I have with the plot. Instead of Bacon's character being shot in the restaurant, I think it would've been better if they'd waited until he left, and then ambushed him outside, and perhaps give him some of the punishment he gave them.

I think this would've added to the realism...and it was strange that no one called up the bartender as a witness, since he probably saw the whole thing.

Anyway, minor quibble to an otherwise good story.

I first saw this movie 3 years ago, and it was introduced by then Disney chief Eisner and the real Jim Morris.

About a month ago, it came back on TV, and this time I taped it. Since then I must've watched it at least three times.

This is a wonderful, inspirational, feel good movie that is intelligently written and believably acted by everyone concerned. It resists going for every sentimental trick in the book, as well as all of the other clichés.

It is refreshing to see a movie where the kids aren't jerks and have a whole slew of behavioral issues, and the jocks aren't portrayed as testosterone driven muscleheads.

These are just normal people who have dreams like you and I.

In my opinion, Hollywood as gone the other extreme to what they term "gritty realism", making movies where everyone curses, and has problems with aggression.

This movie is about a man who has a dream, and is encouraged by friends and family to pursue that dream. The people in Big Lake TX seem so personable that I want to move there.

As I said b4, the film doesn't try to go overboard with sentimentality. Dennis Quaid, as usual, never disappoints. I've watched him from the late 70's, and he is so underrated.

But this movie has excellent performances from EVERYONE concerned, and kudos to the writers.

A gem in the movie is near the end when Jim is practicing in the dugout before the big game, and his wife calls out to him from the stands. He rushes over and reaches out to his family. The look on the faces of the three other pitchers sitting on the bench in the dugout is priceless.

If you're looking for a change of pace, then pick this movie up.

This shows what a hard act "I Love Lucy" is to follow. I caught some of the episodes by happenstance, since they are so rarely shown.

The best way I can describe "We Love Lucy" is a tire with all of the air let out; flat. The cast looked to me like they were on their last leg. They seemed to go thru the motions, but with none of the enthusiasm they had on the original show. IMO, the celebrity guest stars didn't help.

This was especially true of Lucy and Desi. From what I read in the book "Desilu", the flatness of the show can be partly attributed to their marriage problems, which kept on spilling over on the set, no doubt causing a sour atmosphere.

Nowhere was the tension more evident than in the final episode with Ernie Kovacs, in which neither Lucy nor Desi looked at all happy, and which was confirmed by Kovacs' wife, who sang in that episode.

Another curious thing is how Lucy's voice became hoarse (and stayed that way for the rest of her life) in the "We Love Lucy" shows.

I normally don't watch romantic, sentimental movies, but Dirty Dancing is so much more.

The story centers around characters who grow and learn, and who you really empathize with.

Add to this the performances of Swayze and Grey. They both did an excellent job, as did the supporting cast. I read another review here which said that the two actors really didn't care much for each other. If this is indeed true, then double kudos for their on screen chemistry.

Who would think that two people who didn't like each other could generate such chemistry. I guess that IS acting :-)

Jennifer Grey was about 27 when this film was made, but she looked at least 10 years younger (braces and all), which I thought was fascinating. And her performance was heartfelt.

Also, kudos for the writers and Patrick Swayze. It would've been so easy to have his character as a two dimensional "hunk/stud" with no brains, but instead he gives a a performance that's both macho and sensitive (which is probably the reason why women went "gaga "for him).

Another plus is the storyline. It dealt with subjects like abortion, which was especially taboo back in the early 60's, and a young girl's coming of age, by seeing what life was like outside of her sheltered upper middle class upbringing.

And, need I say, the ending dance sequence was DYNAMITE! I have no doubt, in a dance contest, Swayze could probably give John Travolta and Christopher Walken a run for their money.

The signature song brings back memories for me.

All in all, a very good movie.

After watching this movie, I have to agree with DeNiro's statement.

I don't know why anybody would want to strap themselves into a 300lb suit that could easily turn into a coffin, and go into the murky depths. It's claustrophobic's nightmare.

My hats off to the Navy divers, past and present, they are a brave bunch of people, and especially Carl Brashear. The movie itself was pretty formulaic, with the exception of the standout performances of Gooding and DeNiro.

They made this movie, which otherwise would've been ho hum. I don't know how closely it follows the life of Carl Brashear, though I have no doubt he went thru hell, being the first African American to become a master diver, in ways that only he knows.

The Gooding/DeNiro multiracial rivalry turned to respect, reminded me of similar rivalries like Washington/Hackman in "Crimson Tide", and Gere/Gossett in "Officer and Gentleman", all of them being military films.

I always liked Gooding, from his first notable film Gladiator in the early 90's about a boxers, to this, though he's also starred in some bombs. As for DeNiro, heck, he's one of the greatest character actors ever. He goes well with everybody, regardless of who the costar is. Any movie with his name on the marquee is at least worth a looksee, IMO.

Good movie, and fascinating to get a peak into the world of the Navy diver.

I've come to the habit of going to IMDb to check out reviews b4 watching films, especially lesser known ones.

After reading the reviews on this one, which seem to be polar opposites, I decided what the heck, lets take a look.

The film was totally unappealing, with all the lead kid characters being obnoxious and reprehensible, including Owen.

Another child who has cancer tries to befriend Owen, but Owen repeatedly wants nothing to do with him. The absolute turn off came when Owen lures this sick boy into a vicious ambush by his friends, where they punch and kick this kid repeatedly.

What the heck is going on here?! And then when Owen is confronted by his father over the role he played in this attack, he turns around and justifies his action and said the kid deserved it...and why? Owen at first whines about his own mortality, and then defiantly blames the other boy, as if that kid purposely got leukemia so he could constantly remind Owen of his own illness (oh brother!).

Hey, I know kids at that age can be cruel, but I don't know anyone (thank God) who would beat up the terminally ill.

At this point, I switched channels.

Apparently Owen learned NOTHING from Mr. Rice. I made the mistake of turning the channel back to the movie when Owen and his friend talk to the goon Percy to enlist his help on I don't know what.

Percy picks his nose and wipes it on the face of Owen's friend, leaving a visible mark, and then sticks his finger in the kid's mouth (ugghhh!!!).

I really don't know how ANYONE could give this movie high marks. I really don't. Those who did must be out of their minds, or LOST their minds. The reviewers who gave this film a thumbs up are as screwed up as this film. I agree with the reviewer who said this is one SICK and BIZARRE film.

IMHO, this is NOT a "must see", or "A deep exploration of a difficult topic", or "sensitive". Maybe the director was trying to make an object lesson about being compassionate to the terminally ill, but what little I saw of it, it focused on the cruel, and NOT on compassion.

As for the "acting", if you could call it that, it was horrible. The kids from my neighborhood, or any neighborhood, could've done a better job.

David Bowie was the one surprising point of sanity and calm in this film, but alas, his time was only a few minutes, and only thru flashbacks.

I'm just sorry I even watched this film for as short a time I did. I admit perhaps, that by not watching the entire thing, I may have missed it's redeeming parts, but the two I mentioned above were enough for me. And from the other negative reviews, I see there wasn't any redeeming value to this trash.

I'm not even giving it one star. This one's in negative territory.

An incredible film! This shows Kevin Costner's skills as an actor/director at the height of his stardom. Too bad his other films didn't reach the heights of this one, but it's not too shabby to have one's name associated with such a masterpiece. This is his Mona Lisa! This film, along with Lonesome Dove, are the two best Westerns by far to come out of Hollywood in the last 25 years (and maybe the best ever!). Both are sheer epics, with wide ranging vistas and story lines that sweep you up and carry you away to another time.

The movie is also very similar to another done in 1970, "A Man Called Horse", with Richard Harris, and both do an honest portrayal of the Native American.

It is truly sad, near the end of this film, to see the eventual decline of the Native American way of life, and the appalling savagery of the "Christian" white man.

Needless to say, the whites didn't come off as heroes, as they did in so many of John Wayne and other stereotypical pieces from earlier decades.

Dances with Wolves is so natural. I love the pieces of humor especially in the first part of the film (ie. Costner bumping his head against the door frame of his cabin and knocking himself out). Although this isn't a comedy, there is nothing out of place. Everything fits together perfectly! Costner's a natural here.

Lt. Dunbar says that the Indians aren't the bogeymen they were made out to be. I suspect he would've thought different had he fell into the hands of the Pawnee, for the few minutes they'd have allowed him to live.

The Sioux were portrayed as civilized and dignified, with all of the Native American cast, headed by Graham Greene, doing a SUPERB job! And Mary McDonnell. She was outstanding! Too bad we don't see her or Costner in such films anymore. They both seem to have faded into the background, with Costner doing standard grade romantic flicks.

This, along with Lonesome Dove, is a must for everyone's personal collection; to be viewed and enjoyed over and over again.

If you haven't seen it, SEE IT!

The quote is from the episode where Grady mistakingly gets more Social Security checks than he's entitled to.

This was one of the series of episodes when Redd Foxx was absent, and I think this episode shows the genius of the show's writers. I especially like the patriotic and all-American justifications Grady made in the face of Lamont's objections to keep the checks.

Another favorite of mine was when Lamont took karate lessons to defend himself from a much bigger guy, Jo Jo Jackson, whose girl he was dating.

The scenes where Grady warns Jo Jo that Lamont is mentally unbalanced, and the subsequent "fight" scene between Lamont and Jo Jo are priceless.

For some reason, I liked the episodes where Fred was absent even better, as I thought Grady was a gentler and kinder version of Fred. I love the goodhearted, dimwitted Grady.

The ratings at the time would seem to bear it out, as the show ranked even higher when Foxx was absent.

And Esther, boy, what can you say? The on screen antagonism between Fred and Esther have to surpass any other in any comedy series, including Fred and Ethel, in terms of sheer hilarity ("Watch it sucker!").

It's hard to imagine that in real life LaWanda Page and Redd Foxx were close friends from childhood.

Anyway, I like all the episodes. It brings back memories of when we first came to this country, and my parents and I would sit down and watch them. Even though we didn't know all the peculiarities and slang at the time, we'd still laugh. That's testimony to the show's power of transcendence.

Rollo, Julio, Smitty and Hoppy, Bubba, etc, where all great as supporting cast.

I still get nostalgia whenever I hear the opening music.

In my opinion,"Sanford and Son" beat "All in the Family" hands down. The opening music was certainly waay better than the purposely horrible and ear piercing duet between Edith and Archie.

And even though "All in the Family" may have dealt with more real life issues such as rape, "Sanford and Son" was funnier by a mile! And really that's why I watched these shows; not to be reminded of life's ugly side.

Too bad Fred and Archie weren't neighbors. I always fantasized about what their exchanges might have been. If there was anyone who could've countered Archie in terms of bigotism, it was Fred. They were mirror reflections of one another, albeit the difference in color.

That would've been a dream match!

This is the one that started it all! The one and only! The episodes are timeless, funny today as they were more than 50 years ago, and will still be funny 50 years from now.

As amusing as the antics of the Ricardos and Mertzes are to watch, I sure wouldn't want to be married to a wife who undermined my every career move, or have a bunch of freeloaders and moochers like the Mertzes for my friends. You'd think they would've cut the Ricardos a break on the rent, given all the free things they received from them.

Ah, but this is TV land, and each episode is unrivaled in its craftsmanship. I've watched I Love Lucy since I was a child, and my mother just loved it! One of the first shows we watched when we came to this country.

The show was as much, if not more, Desi, as it was Lucy. Unfortunately, there's a common perception that Desi just rode Lucy's coattails.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In the book Desilu, everyone who had a hand in the production of the show, including the sponsors, director, writers, all commented on Desi's genius on and off camera.

Lucy was the first to give Desi credit in all her interviews, esp when he wasn't around for her subsequent (and inferior) Lucy series. I Love Lucy wouldn't have been the hit it was absent Lucy or Desi (and without the writers and everyone else).

As I wrote in my review of Seinfeld, another favorite of mine, I disagree that TV Guide voted that show all time number 1, supplanting Lucy.

If it hadn't been for Lucy, there would be no Jerry. I Love Lucy started it all, and set the template for all other TV shows, not just sitcoms, to follow.

Heck, it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that the series MADE television, and proved it to be a commercially viable medium in its own right, and not just an inferior version of the big screen, as it was perceived before the series premiered in 1951.

What other show has the multinational and multi ethnic flavor of Lucy, and where one of the main characters regularly spoke in a foreign language?

What other show has been credited by many immigrants, Hispanic and others, for teaching them English?

What other show has had the multi generational impact of Lucy?

What other show featured so many of then Hollywood's elite as guest stars, like when Ricky went to shoot his movie?

Heck, I Love Lucy already had 40+ years on Seinfeld when the latter hit its peak.

This is not a putdown on Seinfeld, as I love the show, but homage should be paid where it rightly belongs.

Seinfeld will probably stand the test of time, but that's not a given. However, I Love Lucy already has.

Seinfeld is a close second to Lucy, but I Love Lucy is still the undisputed master of its domain!

I was a late comer to the show, as I don't watch much TV. It was at an emotionally difficult time in March 1996 when I happened to catch the episode where they were all lost and wandering around in the mall parking garage.

I laughed so hard that it was unbelievable. From that moment I was hooked, and never missed the new episodes, as well as the syndicated ones.

In my opinion, this beat out Friends and Fraser (which I thought were bland and repetitive by comparison) by a mile, as it had so many unique characters and cutting edge story lines.

My favorites by far were Jerry, Kramer, Newman, and all the odd, memorable, and wonderful assortment of guest stars like Uncle Leo, Jackie Chiles, Puddy, Mr and Mrs. Costanza, the Soup Nazi, Bookman the library cop, Babu, and on and on...

Twenty years from now, this show will be a marker for the 90's, just like I Love Lucy is for the 50's.

Personally, my one quibble with it was that they didn't show enough of Newman. A little less of Elaine and George, and more of Newman.

Michael Richards and Wayne Knight created iconic TV characters that rank right up there with Lucy Ricardo, Ralph Cramden, Ed Norton, Barney Fife, Spock, etc.

Heck, Newman was voted as the most lovable villain in any TV series, according to one poll.

Seinfeld certainly is one of the best shows that's sure to be seen forever, although I would dispute TV Guide's ranking it ahead of I Love Lucy.

I'm sorry, but Lucy already had a 40 year track when Seinfeld hit its peak, and was the one that started it all. It's generational and multi ethnic impact is unquestioned, not to mention it had multinational/multilingual husband and wife main characters, which has still to be copied.

If it hadn't been for Lucy, there wouldn't be any Jerry. It set the standard that's been followed by all of the other sitcoms, including Seinfeld, in terms of TV comedy. IMO, Lucy was the first and greatest.

Anyway, I digress. Seinfeld follows a close second in terms of all time greatest.

I thought this was a simple and heart warming story. The lead character played by Lambert reminded me of the characters played by Tom Hanks in "Forrest Gump", and Peter Sellers in his last film "Being There" I liked pretty much every character in the film, except the maintenance man. He let Gideon chop all that wood while he sat back and drank beer, and had a hardy laugh at the guy's expense when he found out Gideon couldn't read ("you're as dumb as a rock").

I liked the way Lambert played his character, always hinting there was more than meets the eye.

I like Lambert, from his portrayal of Tarzan in the only movie that was a realistic adaptation of the ERB novel, and too bad he hasn't had a more visible career in Hollywood.

Anyway, I think this movie stands on its own merits.

The quote is from one of several memorable scenes from the movie, when Will presses Sean's buttons in their first meeting, only to be VERY surprised by his reaction (and also probably gaining respect for the man, which evolves into a genuine friendship). I just saw it again for the umpteenth time.

Other favorite scenes include his emotional confrontation with Skylar, in which he finally drops all pretenses and shows her the real him, and the final emotional scene with Sean, when Will finally bursts open like a dam.

Oh, lest I forget, Lambeau's surprise in the beginning, when he finds out who's been solving his mathematical puzzles, is a gem.

Everyone was outstanding. For Robin Williams, this performance ranks right up there with "Awakenings", "Good Morning Vietnam", and "Dead Poet's Society"; the breadth and depth of the characters he's portrayed in all of these movies is amazing. He rightly deserved the Oscar. The man's a d*** genius.

Hard to believe this is the same guy who played Mork.

It's just too bad he hasn't had very many of these kinds of roles, and too many of the soppy, sentimental melodramas like "Bicentennial Man".

Mini Driver, though I'm not a fan of hers, was also very good, and added the right balance to Will.

Everyone, and everything about this movie was excellent; it hit all the right notes. My hats off to Damon and Affleck for their screenplay! Reading some of the negative comments about this film, I have to say I'm stunned. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but, if you didn't like this movie, I can't imagine there are very many you will like, as it doesn't get too much better than this.

What a shift for Matt Damon, from playing an anti Semite, upperclass, preppie jerk in another excellent film, "School Ties", to playing a blue collar, streetwise roughneck here.

I can't say enough good things about this movie!

I've seen the original Lonesome Dove series a number of times, and each time appreciated everything about the film. It's PERFECT in every way.

And now, after having seen the third rate PBS series Texas Ranch House, I appreciate the movie all the more. As I was watching the PBS series, scenes from Lonesome Dove kept on playing in my mind.

The participants and producers of that 'reality' show should've been made to watch this, as prep work. They'd have gotten an idea of what REAL frontier life was like.

Having never lived in those times, I find it easy to believe that life on the frontier was pretty close to what was depicted in the movie, from the lousy cooking, the dusty, treacherous trail rides, to the native Americans, who were by that time burning with hatred for the white man, after being decimated by the Army; the general lawlessness and ruthlessness, as exhibited by many of the frontiersmen and women characters in the movie.

As for Tommy Lee Jones, Robert Duvall, Anjelica Huston, Frederick Forrest, Danny Glover, and the rest of the cast, they were all born for those roles. This movie has to be a highlight in each of their careers.

Too bad Tommy Lee Jones and some of the others didn't come back for the sequel. I had a hard time watching Jon Voight play Woodrow, even though I like him as an actor.

It's like watching someone other than Clark Gable play Rhett Butler. Jones owned the role.

Lonesome Dove has it ALL. If you haven't seen it, or if you've just seen the sad soap opera Texas Ranch House, you owe it to yourself to see this film.

Personally, it ranks among my top five or six in the last 20 years for striking the perfect balance, like Shawshank Redemption, Dances With Wolves, Gladiator, The Untouchables, and Forrest Gump. Perfect tens, all of them!

Hoo Ha! This is a great movie! Pacino is at his absolute best as the embittered, blind Colonel, and Chris O'Donnell I thought played it right on as the thoughtful and somewhat unsure student.

By the end of the speech Pacino's character gave in defense of Chris's character, I was ready to vote him for President.

There are so many wonderful scenes, the tango, the joyride, the uncomfortable family reunion, the speech, etc. I frankly don't understand how some people could have given this movie such a low ranking. It resonates with me on every level.

Pacino really and truly deserved the Oscar, and I was glad to see him break out of the gangster typecasting, in much the same way that the movie Awakenings helped DeNiro break out of the gangster mold.