bobm5508

I should rate this higher than I did. The mainstream critics have bashed it like it was written and directed by the devil himself. The main idea of an 18 year old daughter seducing her Dad's best friend (practically in front of HIS daughter) while on a family vacation, is clearly creepy. But it is written as pure comedy and played for laughs. That takes some of the sting out of it. And........the scenery, and I mean all the scenery, is fabulous. Caine and Bologna (an acquired taste) stumble and stammer thru some funny dialog, and no one was injured during the filming of this movie. Well, possibly the insanely gorgeous Michelle Johnson's career. She was in her 1st film and asked to display her assets early and often. And she looks GREAT!! As pretty an 18 year old as you will ever see on film. But she had no acting skills and came off as such an amateur that I would "Blame I On" the director. It may have been hard to do retakes to get it right, or he would have killed Michael Caine in the process.

If you don't mind tasteful nudity of a tasteless situation, a typically grating cameo by Valerie Harper and the most colorful and lush view of Rio ever, take a watch. On edited TV its a 3, on cable it's a 6 or 7!!

The Ben Affleck saga is well chronicled in these reviews. Pretty boy hunk, to blockbuster star, to paparazzi darling, to yearly "razzie" nominee. I'm not sure the "razzies" were warranted, by his movie choices got decidedly weaker as his star was falling. Eventually he took some strong supporting roles to get back on track and now has grabbed the director reins with both hands.

"The Town" is placed in and about my loved Boston. "Ahh, ahh, Boston you're my home". By choosing Charlestown (now a yuppier "Chuckville") as its base, the North End for a car chase and the bowels of old (1912) Fenway for the climactic "last job", he is at home in his surrounding. Anyone who has walked thru the North End, stopped for a "slice" and checked out the streets knows that's the last place you'd ever expect a high speed car chase. Ben's camera work and editing makes it a thrilling, crash filled event. Pity the poor stunt drivers who has to careen around those corners!

So, lots of reviews tell the plot points. I'm just writing to voice my opinion on the entertainment value and that is very high. Though its over two hours, it never drags. Ben gives each of his excellent cast a very strong scene or two. Chris Cooper gets 5 minutes of screen time and is excellent. Rebecca Hall, the prettiest average looking person you'll see, is terrific. Jeremy Renner is calm and explosive, at the same time. Jon Hamm gets to look cool, be cool and stay cool. He is a different FBI than we are used to. Smart, but with a meaner edge. And, for me, last but not least, Blake Lively. I hear she's a glamor girl on TV and red carpets, but here she absorbs the role of broken, damaged and desperate, with a glob of mascara in each eye. One review I read said "she's no Amy Ryan" (see:"Gone Baby Gone"). Maybe not, but that's pretty unfair and she is well up to the task here.

So, action, anti-heroes to "root" for and Fenway Park (a diamond on the outside, pretty scruffy underneath)!! What's not to like? But I've got to nit-pick one thing. Does everyone in the world have a 3 day beard??? FBI guys go to the office unshaven for days? Ben even has some uneven moments where he goes from 2 to 1 to 3 day beards in the same caper! Hey, what can you do, its not one big long shoot, but it was a lot of stubble!

This film has been heralded as Hitchcock's greatest masterpiece, his most personal thriller and a major classic. Its even ranked in the IMDb top 50. That's all very impressive and while I can't say I don't like the movie, I'm not willing to get quite that giddy with praise. I just watched it again, the magnificently restored version, in Hi Def. That's also very impressive.

So where does it fall short of its lofty historic ranking for me, hard to say without sounding awfully nit-picky. Maybe it is nit-picky. The lush San Fransico background is amazing. The artwork, the flowers, the surrounding architecture are dazzling. The award winning music score is perfect for 1958 and sets the movie's mood, which changes several times, in lush, often rousing tones. But........ the story, the pacing and even some of the casting has always left me cold. Hitchcock can play a scene for a long time, almost leisurely, to get a MOOD. In "VERTIGO" they are maddenly leisurely. And the premise of the possessed wife, the concerned husband, the off kilter damaged cop, the insurance con is downright goofy! Especially the race to leap off the building for a dramatic suicide. The part 1 love story can be bought (the con and all!), and well played by the two stars, but the part 2 love story is so dark and possessive that it has always smacked of mean spirited to me.

Now the casting. Jimmy Stewart has never taken a false step, but at age 50, despite his perfectly coiffed toupee and heavy makeup still looks it. Kim Novak, despite the worst eyebrows in cinema history, is a ravishing early 20's and looks it. The fake and then real attraction to Stewart is hard to imagine. Especially when the apparently lonely (how could she be) and distraught Novak, who really loved Jimmy, has heaps of humiliation piled on her by the dark and damaged Stewart. It threw my "suspension of belief" off a bit. And the surprisingly attractive Barbara Del Geddes (pre-Dallas Matron) is supposed to be Stewart's old college chum!! He must have been post, post grad and she was Freshman. Hey, I said it was nit-picky!!

I've read that the movie was actually poorly received and attended during its initial release. And that was at the height of Stewart's and Hitchcock's powers. The supreme inventive director of his day, he used interesting angles and zooming in and out cameras to get all his desired affects of vertigo. If there was better entertainment around in '58, with more star power, I'd be surprised, so why not a hit?? Were people nit-picky then too??

This is an important documentary, that deserves a wide spread viewing by all Americans. It is an informative history lesson of the POST WAR missteps that sadly have our soldiers AND the IRAQI nation leading a frightening existence. The interviews with Iraqi citizens, their heartfelt loss of country pride and loss of any liveable civilization were heartbreaking to me.

The director's take here is as on balance as it can get, knowing where we now stand. History is on his side. He has assembled the "usual suspects" of culpable parties - Rumsfeld, Cheney, the always distant George Bush and their dispatched diplomats. He chronicles the mind bogging, bad decisions, decisions made by woefully under qualified participants. The interviews of replaced diplomats are naturally the most damning, but do not seem like their agenda are misguided. The "Usual Suspects", as expected, refused to be interviewed.

Many reviews here, and by major critics, depict those decisions and their devastating consequences. I will not rehash them here, and hope you watch this powerful movie.

But, I have one nagging question. The "ousted" participants interviewed here seem to have had a good grasp on what needed to be done. Working against all odds (looted buildings, collapsed intrastucture, poor planning prior to their arrival) they speak about their slow but sure steps to reconstruction. Rumsford, Cheney et al picked them and put them in place!! What happened to shift them out of the picture so quickly?? Why did the administration feel the need to remove Jay Gardner (retired General with experience and in place) with an elitist, ex-CEO, armed with 2 devastatingly bad edicts??? I would have liked a bit more back story on how the change from humanitarian organization to the CPA came to be. With 200 hours of footage (I read somewhere), maybe that info can be addressed!?

All in all, a must see. It is also a very valuable reminder that we have to pick our future leaders much better than this self serving mess of an administration!

What a wasted opportunity! They take 2 of our finest comedians, a beautiful cast of hard working actresses, and a great tropical setting and it comes out a stale, lifeless. laugh-free mess. Man, this was painful to watch. Vince fired off a few smile inducing one liners in the start-up domestic setting, and that was the last smile they got out of me. Once the cast was moved to the tropics, everything went wrong. Male on male embarrassment was overused -- about 5 times. Vince tried a few off the wall diatribes that fell flat. Young women swoon over Jon Favereau (huh?!?!) and he ignores the fabulous Kristen Davis?! The pratfalls to marriage are glossed over and play out badly. Every scene seems to last about 5 beats too long. Favereau gets not one, but two masturbation scenes. What??! Neither comes even close to delivering any humor. All 4 couples have shaky or totally damaged relationships and then in a 10 minute whirlwind finale, all solve their problems in a totally superficial way. And I couldn't possibly have cared less about the "Guitar Hero" duel. Yikes!!

I guess I blame the writing for being witless, shallow and lazy. The actors take that material and lay an egg with it. And a 1st time director (the legendary "Ralphie" of "Christmas Story" fame) either couldn't see it or was over-matched by having the writers and producers in front of the camera.

A huge disappointment for me, and shocking that this dribble can gross over $100M at the box office. Any evening of bad TV sitcoms would be just as "enjoyable", and $9 cheaper.

The person who gave this movie a 10 was having some fun. Hey, fair enough! But really, it would be considered bad by 1964 standards and the Frankie Avalon, Fabian surf/beach movies of the day. Now its 45 years later and it does have Raquel's 1st credited role (even gets the "introducing" credit!!) so why not have some fun with it.

James Stacey is top billed and he had a long, but tragic-event type career. Nobody else of the cast will register, but there was Raquel. The old horn rim glasses, hair in a bun trick, til she decided to give a stunned James Stacy an eyeful on stage (like her bikini scenes didn't get his attention --- right!?!?!). She's hot, the movie is bad, but finishes with the Righteous Brothers doing there only real rock song, "Lucille" (they were good even before they got righteous!).

The funniest bit in the movie is that Gary Lewis, geekest rock star ever, and his Playboys, don't get to sing. They managed 4 or 5 pretty big hits, but at this stage only got to do backup playing and instrumentals (which include an accordion - I'm serious!!).

Don't you have to watch this after that build up? You might catch it on AMC, I think I found it on VOD. Hey, it's about an 1 and 15 minutes, and if you can fast forward thru some fight and robbery scenes (don't ask!), you'll be done in under an hour. Go for it!

This movie has elicited many "10s" and lots of "2s" from our trusty IMDb readers. That is always interesting to me. A performance is called "bad community theater" stuff by one viewer, others hail the movie's performances as "great".

I'm guessing that the depressing nature of watching a suburban couple bemoan their seemingly OK life, and the internal strife of that conflict, is insightful for most, painful for some and irritating for a few.

I generally watch movies to be enlightened, entertained or educated. I'd be hard pressed to say this movie did any of those. But, I was enthralled by the performances, which I considered to be as good as they get. A scene of the corporate "clones" departing the 'burbs for their corporate jobs was sensationally filmed, stunning in is scope and set the tone for the "robotic" view of suburban life the author/director chose to hang their story on. But this point of view is not enlightening. Kate and Leo, as the struggling suburban couple, argue with the intent to injure, but after reflection, seem to still have the core of affection that originally brought them together. They fight hard, re-group, create a plan to break away and then deteriorate again as the plan slips away.

It's not much of a plan. Quit their present life and head to Paris. She'll work, he'll find himself! Other than they are not the "special" people Kate envisioned they would be, there isn't much to escape from. Is Leo droning out a living? Sure, who didn't! It was post-war USA. But then he's offered a promotion that seems a bit exciting to him, so maybe things are looking up. Kate can't even verbalize what makes them "special" and why they should escape their "trapped" life, other than they just should.

I felt the movies' "big cheat", was the role of Kathy Bates' son. An accomplished mathematician, he is deemed different, institutionalized and apparently brutalized. He has had 64 shock treatments for a condition that doesn't appear to warrant such drastic treatment. But, that's life in the 50's. Offbeat is insane. But, he is presented as the person with the real insight! Is it the author's point that 64 shock treatments help see life more clearly. The character gives us the key insightful line in the movie when he proclaims that many admit to the emptiness of suburban life, but that "it takes real guts to see the hopelessness." In his only other scene he makes a proclamation to Kate that seals the movie's final fate. Perhaps his unfiltered take on life makes the character viable, but I thought it was too extreme, too convenient. And the use of ex-marital activity by both was intriguing. In both cases it was to feel something, anything!

But, I'm babbling. The movie was a well performed downer. We watch a painful slice of life. In fact, if you get the DVD make sure to watch the deleted scenes. The director may have left an Academy Award nomination for DeCaprio on the cutting floor. He has two incredible (i.e. -- not "community player") scenes that were left out.

This is on a par with 100's of made for TV, or straight to video romantic comedies. Usually the couple "meets cute", has a whirlwind romance, encounters a misunderstanding that causes a break-up and then thru some plot manipulation --- all's well that ends well. Or, the couple begins as advisaries, finds a common ground, fall off the common ground due to a misunderstanding, then.......live happily ever after. This formula has worked or failed lots of time. The good ones have likable leads, quality supporting players, witty scripts and tight direction.

Here we have scenerio #2. Everything happens as advertised, by here's the little twist. The leads are played by an aging Matthew Modine, about 50 these days, and a French import, making her English language debut, who's also almost 50 (according to IMDb). They look like they would or should be attracted to each other. They handle the rather blandly written script pretty well. As written, they should both be unlikable dolts, and the actors made them worth watching. The supporting cast is given nothing much to do (Richard Kind in a 3 minute, non-funny cameo????), the dialog and plot points not especially witty, but they get us from point A to the end. Again, the age appropriate actors, who are aging nicely by the way, showed some spark, and made it an OK hour and a half on Showtime. Just don't set your expectations real high.

Several other "reviewers" have mentioned how badly acted this movie was!? What?? Elisabeth Rohm, who has always been pretty stoic, and stunningly beautiful, really gives it a fabulous effort. She did 2 years of "Angel" and 5 years of "Law and Order" with basically a raised eyebrow and a blink of those incredible eyes. Here she makes up for lost time with as emotional a performance as you will ever see. She must have been an emotional wreck thru out the whole shooting of this. Watch it and you will know what I mean.

The movie itself and the other performances are OK. Psychological thrillers require a "suspension of belief", and the attempt at that and a kind of procedural police investigation, do not make for thrilling pacing. Slow, but well plotted (if you do the "suspension" thing), it makes for good viewing and a chance to see the "new", improved Elisabeth Rohm.

There are 29 pages of people recapping this hilarious, violent, sexy, smarty-pants comedy/"noir" mystery. Whew! It really is, in part, all those things. The glue for success of all the parts is probably the script and direction of Shane Black. But on the screen we see the genius of Robert Downey Jr. and fabulous support from Val Kilmer and Michelle Monaghan. Val is a fading star, Michelle a shooting star and Downey at the start of his comeback story of the ages. The three of them are all terrific and create quite a ride. I laughed out loud @ Downey's narrative and plight as a Hollywood newbie. Cringed and was shocked by some over-the-top violence, and glued to the screen trying to follow the goofy, but clever plot twists. A big tip of the hat to all parties involved. A terrific, unique piece of entertainment.

I like Westerns. I am of an age where I remember when they dominated movies and TV as CSI shows do now. With so few being made, I almost always give them a look.

This is an Ed Harris project (starring, directed, adapted by) but the key character and best performance was given to and by Viggo Mortensen. The movie breaks no new Western ground (can there be?), but gives a sharp, well photographed focus of the old West. Buddies were buddies and had each others' back, baddies were baddies and justice was hired by townfolk living in fear. While Harris and Mortensen are not true white hats, they lean on the side of justice, and get paid pretty well for it. Jeremy Irons and crew run roughshod over Appalossa, kill city Marshals and are just no good. Will Justice prevail!?

But enter Renee Zellwinger in what looks like it's going to be the traditional "school marm" role. She sets a different chemistry in motion and Harris and Mortensen's lives are spun around. Here is the film's BIG FLAW!!! A grating, preening, unconvincing, painful, cupie doll, horror of a performance by Zellwinger almost kills the proceedings. Her scrunchy face, maddening giggle and coyness were like fingernails..........!

Whew! But the filming, dialogue, a few twists (gunfighting no longer includes a "quick draw") keep things interesting. A note about the dialogue and character relationships. The adapted book was by Robert B. Parker of "Spencer" (and later "Jesse Stone") fame. I felt a strong twinge of Spencer and Hawk in these character. That's not a bad thing.

"Nim's Island" is a great looking, well made adventure movie for the pre-teen set. I would imagine young girls, in particular, would enjoy having a few hours of adventure. From a pure movie making, story telling point of view, there are 3 or 4 stories being told here, and it might be a few stories too many. Nim, the always amazing Abigail Breslin, is living with her Dad on a uncharted island. All's well! He's a scientist, she has animal friends, home schooling and a loving Dad. She also loves her fictional hero, Alex Stone.

Here's were things go a bit haywire. Her Dad has to boat to a once in a lifetime biological event. Nim has a turtle birth crisis and has to stay home. Dad goes alone for "one" day, and it doesn't go well. Now he's got his get home adventure. Nim, stranded, scared and slightly wounded. winds up asking for help ---- from her favorite hero's writer Alexandra Stone (Jodie Foster). But, she's (what's that term) unable to function outside her apartment, but off she goes. Now she has her get to Nim rescue adventure. While everyone try's to get back to her, Nim and her Island are "invaded" by a tourist company, looking for an isolated island experience. Nim must make the island look unacceptable, so she has her -- drive off the tourist adventure. Whew!! None of the "adventures" are badly played, but its exhausting watching Foster fumble, Butler (the Dad) struggle thru a hurricane, and Abigail drive off the "mean" cruise ship folks.

In a film aimed squarely at pre-teens, I'm not sure watching a game Jodie Foster, hem and haw over every facet of life is the direction to go. Mildly ripping off "Romancing the Stone", which has already been done to perfection, stretches the viewers interest and distracts from the 11 year-old's Island adventure.

With the exception of Gerald Butler, who I find surprisingly ineffective in everything he does, the acting was playful, the cast of island animals are cute and Jodie Foster was given a chance to have some fun. Bring it home for the kids!!

I read the "noble failure" somewhere and that is the perfect description. Failure in terms of finding an audience or getting a deserved movie release. Bold, daring, take a chance movies that break the conventional mold are more often than not, unsuccessful. We wouldn't have "Rush Hour 3" and "James Bond #23" if new and different were the rule.

Not that 'breaking into song' musicals are a new thing, but set in a working class Queens, with burly James Gandolfini, as the lead and a raunchy Kate Wislet as his mistress -- that's different! I do not dislike musicals. I loved "Chicago" and hated "Moulin Rouge", so I can go either way. Give me "Everyone Says, I Love You" over "Dreamgirls" and that's my taste. Here the stars (and WHAT A CAST!!) sing along with great old songs of the 70's. Susan Sarandon and the church choir belting out JJ's "Piece of my Heart", Chris Walken makes his entrance to Elvis' "If You're Looking for Trouble" and gets to act out Tom Jones' "Daliahla". Big Jim harmonizes with Englebert Humperdink and James Brown!! And wait til you see Kate Wislet all over him in a jazzy rendition of ... hmm.. not sure, but ....wow!.

I know I'm leaving out plot and character development, but the songs effectively move both along nicely. There's Steve Bushemi for comic relief, and a zany touch to a few musical dance numbers. And here's the kicker, I had a lump in my throat at the end!! If you have a hint of musical in you, like members of the amazing cast or want to see what John Turturro's mind works like (with assistance from the Coen Brothers as Exec. Producers), this is really worth a watch.

This is an intriguing movie. The cast is mainly budding superstars. Their performances here are in keeping with their march up the ladder to A-list status. Tim Robbins especially connects with an ex-ruffian that has found his conscience. He wants in to a trip to Mississippi, to join MLK's freedom fighters. His explanation to a Malcom X type recruiter in Harlem, is heartfelt and well delivered. The rest perform their quirky roles well, thru some very quirky situations. The movie is very..... quirky.

But....the writer, who went on to Oscar consideration later in life, has really stretched stuff to fit the plot. The mood change is radical, sub-plots are diverting, but unnecessary. And the worst to me was Jodie being "slugged" and knocked out. She remains knocked out while, carried from the subway, a car theft, a police shootout, a car crash, a 3rd floor Mom/Son confrontation, a climb to a rooftop and a 3 way struggle on the roof. Then she wakes up, reasonably clear headed!?!?! Hmmm! Too much for me. The "inept" police approach was good comedy and again, the cast showed the promise of bigger things to come!! Worth a watch! (in fact, watch the credits roll for a laugh out loud moment!)

The main reason for writing this review is I found this "revisioning" of a great play and worthy 1972 film, a horrible movie experience. If I can save someone from watching it, I will have done a good thing.

This "new" version is loaded with talent, and it all goes wrong. Kenneth Branagh OKs an ugly, sterile, one note set. He proceeds to film the movie from every arty, distracting, self-centered angle possible. We see reflections of the actors in stainless steel, on security monitors, shots of their heads from 200 ft above, close ups of eyes, chins, and on and on. The screenplay, by a Nobel Laureate, introduces long stretchs of unpleasant homosexual banter, that is being faked by both parties,.... I think?? Given the character "twists" how would I know? The characters themselves,so richly drawn in the original, are crass and unsympathetic. The running time has been cut by an hour, which is either the real problem or the kindest thing the Director did for us. The actors perform their lines effectively, but nothing they say or do is remotely believable. Jude Law is over the top more than Caine, but as the credited Producer, must have had Branagh's blessing.

All in all I found this to be an ugly to look at, unconvincing shell of a former classic. Why was it even made??? The paying public spent less that $4M worldwide to see it! A vanity piece of work that fails at every turn.

This is a tough movie to rate. Hundreds of people have discussed the plot points here, so I'll just elaborate on my "confusion".

I am a huge fan of John Cusack, in fact, I believe him to be one of our finest actors. It was a pleasure to see him escape those recent romantic comedies he has been trapped in. His performance here is one of the main reasons the movie was watchable. He has that knack of making the dialogue sound like it flows naturally, and some of the dialogue was tough to swallow. The young boy in the movie was excellent, balancing his creepy persona with a wounded sensitivity. We feel his pain from prior abandonment, but are frustrated by his inability to return to "normal". Its a fine line to tread and he performed it admirably.. Joan Cusack, the most reliable sidekick in movies today, is at her quirky best, and Amanda Peet tends to light up any movie she is in.

So, all that said...... this just didn't quite connect. While I did have a "lump" in my throat at the finish, the journey to there was a rocky one. The entertainment value of watching John's character talk as an "adult" for long stretches to an unresponsive, wounded child, was mostly uncomfortable. The "crashing and squirting" scene felt especially false. This is "based on a true story", so I'll assume some of the parenting and break thru info displayed here may have happened, but I'm guessing it was heavily fictionalized.

I would have trouble recommending this movie, but felt is was very well acted and its story clearly has merit. To watch two lost and hurt people connect is uplifting. Wish I liked it more!

I have been a Woody Allen fan most of my life. I enjoyed his silly era ("Bananas", "Sleeper"), his playful stuff ("Annie Hall", "Hannah and Her Sisters") and especially his thoughtful movies ("Crime And Misdemeanors", "Manhattan"). I'll leave the last decade or so alone, since making a movie a year has got repetitious and somewhat stale.

All that said, I remain a fan and was excited to see a documentary on Encore, of his 90's European tour with his "New Orleans Jazz Band". I have seen him perform with his band, so I knew the quality of his playing and his excellent band would add to any enjoyment of the movie. Helmed by an award winning director, I was most interested in that phase of his life. The timeframe was shortly after he announced his love for his ex-lover's adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn. Their relationship, prior to their marriage, is depicted here with no intimate moments, but they have a "nice", gentle chemistry with each other. She encourages him, mildly scolds him, comforts him and seems to enjoy their trip. Despite being 35 years younger, she seems to be the more travel savvy, even the more adult of the two. This is probably because Woody is out of his New York routine. He is followed every foot of the way by photographers, has pre and post concert functions to attend, and must stay in suites that are a tad pretentious to his NY roots. Its fun to watch, if a bit sterile. As expected, much of the film is dedicated to his on stage playing and it is decidedly good. His band is in excellent form. The crowds are very appreciative, almost all adoring fans. While the crowd in Rome is a bit stoic, Woody still plays his 90 minute plus show.

There are some eavesdropped conversation that show his wit, and some of his foibles (he must have his own bathroom, he seems to always be starving, etc.). His conversation with fans, and even his parents, bounce from appreciative to impatient, but mostly seem fair. He is able to come and go as he pleases in NYC, but is pushed and prodded pretty good here.

The most telling quote about his life is summed up by a roof top conversation with Soon-Yi. He admits that he loves NY and loves Europe, but....he'd always rather be in NY when he's in Europe and Europe when he's home. He admits that it is difficult to enjoy things, given that phobia. I enjoyed having a camera's eye there for me to observe. The odd and soundly criticized relationship with Soon-Yi seems to have withstood the test of time. Woodman, keep playing your music!!

After watching this amazing story of tragedy and triumph, magnificently acted by superbly cast actors, I decided to read some comments and linger in the affirming glow of the movie. I was a bit shocked to see several of the reviewers found it boring or not realistic enough for them.

I realize everyone is entitled to their opinions and there are many different frames of reference, but this was sensational movie making. I emphasizes the 'movie making', because this is not a documentary! The writer/director's story is apparently semi-autobiographical and he tells the story as part slice of life, part fable. Maybe his Hell's Kitchen junkies aren't menacing enough, although one is paying back kindness with food stamps one day, and holding a razor to that person's throat the next. He creates a moving character of an angry, dying artist and allows him to be touched by the innocence of children and a loving family, still enduring their pain of a previous tragedy. It does, in fact, transform him into a "guardian angel"!! This isn't a camera focused on the workings of a NY slum, but a gut-wrenching and uplifting story that I feel privileged to have watched.

That is as glowing as I can get, but still feel obligated to salute the performances of the cast one more time. Every performance is terrific and Samantha Morton's incredibly expressive face is leading toward legend status. She is a treasure. Paddy Constantine was perfect as an emotionally cutoff, grieving parent, giving it his all to not show his melancholy and loss of faith. And those amazing kids!!!! Every line of dialog felt real and unaffected. They were a revelation.

This is the kind of movie that restores my faith in movie watching!!

Boy! There are a lot of great reviews for this film and I get where people are coming from. While the idea of being a "dreamer" and wanting to fulfill that dream can be great cinematic stuff, I didn't quite connect.

To begin with, we are dropped in the middle of a pretty goofy dream. Suspension of belief is often a requirement I'll go with, but this is way too much to swallow. And I don't especially mean the rocket part. Billy Bob is an ex-almost astronaut, who had to leave and administer to his Father's ranch (sad story!!). So we have an unfulfilled dream. Building a functional Atlas rocket in his barn for $500,000 or so puts his ranch in foreclosure and family in disarray. The cheerful family dinners, rallying around Dad's dream are very heartwarming, but..... give me a break Dad!! He endangers his family, possibly the town folk, for sure the hundreds of reporters standing outside his barn and is breaking about 100 laws. None of the laws matter, because they were created by various "evil" bureaucracies, who don't understand..."its his dream, and without dreams....."!! I'm sorry, but the whole thing was too self centered for me. The writers have a hundred people "jump" out of the way of a runaway rocket, just so we don't get our hero a handful of manslaughter charges. And the pre-launch "marketing campaign", with its blantant product placement, probably helped offset the film's budget, was counterproductive to the message.

The movie looks great, the special effects are fine and I still enjoyed the performances. Virginia Madsen has transformed into a pleasure to watch (and is aging so gracefully, I look forward to years of more work), Billy Bob got to tap his less dark side and the kids are an absolute delight. A surprise visit from Bruce Willis was handled well and JK Simmons is always solid.

So, an OK try at a message movie. I'll just need my dreamers to stay away from 10,000 lbs of hi-explosive rocket fuel, in a wooden barn.

This movie was made in the late 70's and I only recently saw it on SHO. This gives us a wonderful chance to see ICON performers strutting their "in prime" stuff. The all-star cast is headed-up by Elliott Gould, Christopher Plummer and Susannah York and the screenplay was written by Curtis Hanson. Yes, you read that right. A 30 year old movie with that star power went virtually unnoticed all these years.

The plot, well chronicled in these comments, is a bank heist with a twist, followed by a increasingly mean-spirited cat and mouse game. The writing is excellent and the actors are mostly excellent. Gould has always been an actor of limited range, but great appeal. This works to great advantage here, as our "hero" is NOT doing heroic stuff. But we still root for him. Plummer is devastating, cast against type as one of the nastier bad guys created in the '70's time frame. And Susannah York illuminates the screen in every scene. Sometimes literally, as the director often decides to "fuzz and glow" her image, which didn't look necessary to me. It was great to see people who 30 years later are still going strong, in performances that make us understand why!! Add a sexpot French Canadian actress and John Candy as a "kid", what's not to like.

Highly recommended for its story, performances and trip down memory lane!!

Very few movies can elicit such wildly different reactions from people. This movie seems to be the classic "loved it or hated it" movie.

I saw it years ago and found Bridgette Wilson gorgeous, French Stewart surprisingly appealing and the "War of the Roses" to be funny stuff. It is now making the cycle thru Showtime and I've watched it again.

This time I found myself laughing out loud. The one-liners were great and the performances absolutely spot on. Bridgette (still gorgeous) is obsessed with getting married and is clearly overly manipulative, but I think has real affection for the guy. French Stewart, relaxed and likable as a leading man, is put off by some of her antics, but sees a "pretty, sexy, fun" woman in his life. She finally snaps and he sees the bad is way worst, so let the games begin!! The escalating battles are funny, the actors are terrific in their more and more crazy ways. I particularly liked Bridgette Wilson's comic touches. She got a bit typecast as the Bride left behind in several movies after this, and never got to be this funny again.

So in keeping with the theme of these user comments, if you don't buy into the broad, snippy humor, you're not in for a good time. If your humor leans toward some slapstick, animals in peril, and dark "get even" stuff, you'll get a lot of laughs.

The career of Nicholas Cage is quite a thrill ride. Great promise in films like "Moonlighting", great performances like "Leaving Las Vegas", great fun in "Honeymoon in Las Vegas" and heartfelt entertainment like "Family Man". But, he got to be an action "star". The OK films became horrible ("Faceoff". "Con Air", "National Treasure", "Ghost Rider"). Don't even get me started on "Wicker Man".

Well, now he's back in Las Vegas as a hack Magician, who is really not a Magician at all. He can "see" two minutes into the future. Whoo hoo! He doesn't know why, the FBI, who thinks that would be useful, doesn't know why, and I don't care why! This possibly clever premise gets tricked up, misused, stretched and completely botched. The girl of his dreams was a premonition, nothing to do with the 2 minute trick. The FBI wants a 2 minute heads-ups on a nuclear bomb that may go off somewhere. That two minutes will apparently allow them to yell "look out"! Nick wants no part of helping them, dupes his dream girl and heads for Flagstaff. Now there is a character I'm going to root for!! Right!!

I will leave the big twist ending alone, because......what the heck was that!!! This is awful movie making. The writing is completely goofy. No attempt is even made to provide plausible plot points. The special effects are routine and the acting is truly uninspired. Of the whole cast, I felt bad for Jessica Biel. Cage, Moore and even.....Peter Falk, can collect their paychecks and move on. Jessica is trying to start a career. She does alright looking bewildered, and that is all she's really asked to do.

If film makers care this little about their craft, take down their names and don't let them do it again!! With a $70M budget and a US take of $17M, I guess that has happened here. Nick, I'm sorry to say, this is strike 3.

Quite a few of these reviews seem disappointed that this isn't a "mob" movie. This turned out to be a surprising plus for the me, since we have "The Godfather", "GoodFellas", "Donnie Brasco", "Mean Streets" and many glorious years of "The Sopranos" in the can already.

What we have here is an interesting take on the lives of 3 pre-teen thru early adulthood guys who were and remain best friends. The tag of stereotype always strikes me as odd, because these people really do exist. They have little different niches in their lives that shape them differently, but the roots are in their neighborhood's and surroundings.

This just in, apparently there IS a mob presence in inner NYC, and Brookyln in particular. If you live there it permeates around you. A person from the 'burbs' of St. Paul probably never got that punched in the gut feeling from having a "made guy" just happen to choose the seat next to you in the movies or local bar. Just because this isn't a "mob" movie doesn't mean the mob is not a character. Some people feel it's allure, some are repelled by it, others have to exist around it.

That is the tipping point for the characterizations in the movie. I liked the performances from all the cast. Freddie Prinze showed he can play a grown up and handled the narration well. While not afraid to bend some rules, he knew he wanted to get to a higher plane in life. Jerry Ferrara (from "Entourange")saw a smaller circle, but one that included a cute wife, an OK job and his friends. Scottie Caan felt the pull of the mob life and while not jumping in feet first, wanted to give it a try. All the characters felt real to me, and I enjoyed the story telling. Nice jobs by Alex Baldwin and Mena Surari as well.

I felt bad, sometimes sad, kinda happy and bummed out. That's all I'm after in a movie, to care about the characters I'm spending time with, so nice job!!

I too am surprised by some of the negative reviews. Most seem uncomfortable with the camera work on the show. What!?? "NYPD Blue" put us thru 12 years of the "shakes". If this bothers you, stay away from "The Bourne Ultimatum", a critical and popular success. The camera work there makes "FNLs" look like a Polaroid still.

I didn't watch the show during its initial run. I heard good things about it and watched the Season One DVD. I found it well acted, with meaningful, deep story lines about life in a small, football crazy town. The story lines "tackle" huge personal losses, racial tension, booster interference, steroid use, teen romance, rebellion and drinking, sexual tension, and even has parents that discuss, argue, agree, disagree and struggle forward. Oh, and football in a Texas town.

Apparently, none of the above can be as riveting as one of the 15 police procedurals that are on every hour. Or a miraculous search and detection of a "disease of the week". I found these episodes, which carry terrific dramatic momentum as the season goes on, as good as anything on TV in recent years. How does the hokum of "Heroes" or "Desperate Housewives" get top 10 ratings, and this is fighting for its ratings life??

One last thought, if you get the DVD, don't skip the deleted scenes!! I usually don't bother with them, but here they really move the storyline forward and contain some of the best acting in the series. They must have been cut strictly due to the time restraints of the 44 minute show!!

Many reviews have alluded to the fact that is a pretty obvious rip-off of "The Usual Suspects". Most of the film's "action" is moved along by long interrogation scenes, with little snippets of who's who and what's what being provided. How much is real and who's telling the truth is batted around like a tennis ball. But the main point is.... who really cares?? It's the exact problem I had with "Usual Suspects".

The supposed hero here is Ray Liotta's character. He does alright with the role, but the character is not especially interesting and doesn't have much on the line. He's running for Mayor, but most conversations give the impression he doesn't much care if he wins. His girlfriend may be a lying turncoat, but they don't display much real affection for each other. As he learns about her "true colors" he doesn't seem crushed, only mildly dismayed.

The final 10 minutes of twist, twist and re-twist were all flash and no substance. The final twist has us believe an FBI agent allows 3 innocent people to be killed (2 of them police @ the precinct house), to keep his cover, THEN exposes the "Suspect". Phew!! That was a tiring 90 minutes!