nbubacz

Tron was a landmark film. It did fail at box office but I remember the movie fascinated me as an eight year old in the Atari era. Then the arcade game came out and everybody loved throwing blue neon discs at each other.

Far ahead of its time. Yeah, like no other. It presented to the laymen world (even hard science fiction had barely touched this subject yet) the concept of "a world in the computers". Other films had shown AI gaining consciousness already but none had created the binary based computer reality that this one showed.

Its antagonists were a cadre of Imperial like overseers. Its "mother brain" had gone mad. The titular hero was like a Greek champion. And humanity prevailed against all odds. Excellent.

Modestly the story and simplicity in some scripting was shallow at times,despite of that this film holds up remarkably well due to its mythic fable like qualities.

This is a film I, along with many others, dismissed as bland,strange, and bogus upon it's release in 1996. I wasn't, and am not now a Carrey fan. His comedy during his build up years was too wacky and manic for me. Kind of funny if one was high I suppose, but thats just me. Millions of people adored the guy. Stiller I did like then,thinking of him as somewhat of a genius at the time and in the next few following years of his work. Strangely this has reversed. I appreciate Carrey's work now much more in retrospect and Stiller seems stale to me.

This movie is a very dark film, bordering on horror-suspense. I saw someone mention that Carreys overacting mania is, and this is probably the only time, quite appropriate for his role. In his zany comedies, yeah I get the point, I just get turned off by it. But here, it totally works with the role.

The failure in reviews and box office, if in fact this was a true B.O. failure, I cant recall, was due to people not ready for Carrey in anything but zany stuff. The critics found it unfunny and uneven. They were wrong, as was I, this thing has aged very well. Put this release next to Carreys subsequent work in quasi-dramas and you cant deny this is a top-notch portrayal. Not an easy movie, not a hilarious movie. Just a very,very dark and very, very good movie.

I liked the original movie. It had a tight script and was made in a serious manner. I liked this too. I don't know if the acting is great but I do like all of the actors involved. I don't care for much Critchon , books or movies; but I like this telling of this particular story. Interesting how he wrote what I think is his deepest most plausible story so early on. I think for a mini-series they have a huge budget and it shows, not perfect but just fine for this format. I look forward to tomorrow's conclusion. As an aside, the station hype for these self produced events is annoying as hell. The last two I've watched, and liked, are this one and Sci-Fi's Tin Man. Their ad campaigns bugged the @%^& outta me though.

This movie was one of the most impactful things I ever viewed in my youth cinema-wise. I was young in 1978, probably 4 when I saw it in the theater. Then when it hit television I was still young 8,9,10. I never failed to watch this when it was coming on then. When VCR came to promise around the same time I had this film rented for me many times. Then around 13 or 14 due to the way this film never left me, I went after the book. That is one of the most engrossing fantasy novels I have ever read, and I have now read thousands of books. Lord of the Rings and Watership Down were the first two large scale serious novels I read, they both came to my attention from late nineteen seventies animated films, and both of them directly led me to almost never in my current 32 years being without a book of some genre or another.

This movie has it's very stark moments, violent scenes, therefore it can be deemed unsuitable for some age children. Yet, I don't think so. Show any age child this masterpiece, it displays nothing that does not truly speak to the real ebb and flow of our chaotic world. Not everything is nice, not much is easy, there are many entities that would destroy you for whatever reason they have, there is a time to run as well as a time to fight,even if it is only to stand and die.All this in an animated film and even a creation story complete with a Messiah.

The film also has beauty and comedy and lightness of character and ease of good times. I wrote this because I have just finished seeing the last 25 minutes of the film on Showtime. It stirred in me that this was one of my youth's watersheds. I am going out and going to rent this tonight and sit my three stepchildren down with my wife and say " Here is a cartoon movie about rabbits.It is important we watch this."

This isn't a very good movie. The plot is not held together very well at all. There are ridiculous, supposed action scenes, i.e. escaping from the warehouse with 5 seconds to go in the forklift. The ending is bad because they utilize one of the cheapest wrap up tricks out there, the late-entry bad guy. I cant stand late-entry characters who end up being the main antagonists. T.V. shows do this a lot, I assume due to their time constraints and cookie cutter formula adherence. Thats what this movie reminded me of, a television show, almost like Moonlighting in a different light.

The movie does have good acting; and it hardly couldn't, it has an excellent cast. The good actors were part of the directors problem I think though with making this film. He kept inserting scenes which assumed we loved these actors so much that we wanna see them do all this schmaltzy stuff, like Redford tapping around his apartment or underwear dancing to Fred Astair, come on now! I've always liked Winger too, but once again I think the director thought she was such a vaunted actress (in 1985-1986) that we would be interested in her vigorously ironing clothes or we would find it cute because "she cant drive but she is sure learning fast!". Hannah was annoying, but I think its more that her character was annoying. She was strangely promiscuous, she practice that weird and dated performance art, and she was doing uncool things like showing up uninvited at peoples apartments then walking into their bedrooms while they are changing. She was at the height of her beauty though, its a shame she had to suffer through those awful shoulder pad trench coats, and black leggings under huge sweaters of the eighties. The rest of the supporting cast Stamp, Deheny, and Hill all played their poorly written parts as well as they could.

Not the worst thing out of the eighties, and worth a look at what was a big star vehicle of the time. Watch this film if it comes on and nothing else is.

I saw this last night. I liked it as a stylistic action/cop movie. But it is a stylistic action/cop movie I will forget about. Thats not what I wanted out of a 2006 redux of the groundbreaking 1980s series. I loved Crockett and Tubbs and their standalone or ongoing undercover operations to catch drug dealers/smugglers or Calderon.

This movie jumps us right into a scene with these guys undercover on some prostitution job, gives us no intro who we have here or what they are doing,then they get a call and switch jobs immediately into the main story about FBI leaks on a huge drug ring involving Aryans,Colombians and whatnot. It then goes full speed from there with no more explanation except Sonny and Rico are partners, they have a few teammates, and they have a boss.This is all OK with me ,I guess, I don't need to be babied into a gritty undercover story. But, we are talking about Crockett and Tubbs here, not to mention Castillo and the gang. Why not at least define Crockett as Crockett? Show us he lives on a houseboat with an alligator. Why not mention that Tubbs is a NY transplant who has worked for years with Crockett after they eventually toke down the most ruthless notorious dealer Calderon, or make mention to the fact Tubbs has island heritage in some way shape or form? Or even Castillo for this matter, I don't mind he was a black guy instead of EJO but hows about indicate hes a stony Vietnam vet who was in so much crap in that war he knows guys who can kill themselves by swallowing their own tongues? And another thing about Castillo, Crockett and Tubbs did nothing with out his OK, nothing! In the film Castillo actually has to assert himself plainly to them to behave.

The story was weak with all its plot holes that never tied up but all that could be forgiven with better continuity and characterizations.The shootout scenes were OK. They were a bit dark and confusing and in at least the last one I had two serious questions pop in my mind that made me feel "this is kinda stupid". One was " How come Castillo is telling cops to just open fire without any attempt to arrest?" another was "Did Castillo just tell his cops to open fire on the bad guys while one of his own men was inextricably mixed in with them?" The answer to the second was yes he did. The answer to the first is "huh I guess thats how the Vice do it".There's one more thing , where the hell is the Jan Hammer opening song!? That thing isn't dated and it DEFINES Miami Vice, heck they used to spin the extended play on the radio back in '86. They should have fit it in somewhere, someway, without that song it is not Miami Vice to me.

Anyways this movie is OK , and I do believe like ALL Mann movies this will get better with another viewing. But not much. Relive Manhunter,Mohicans,Heat at your video store and save your money from the theaters on this one.

This is one of the best movies in a few different genres. Sci-fi, for this creature is an alien. Horror, there are scenes of gore in here that will set you back aghast. Suspense, the tension that comes across in this film is almost unrivaled, from the edginess all the actors give off in general interactions, to that fantastic blood test scene, this film upon first viewing will have your stomach tight. Everything in this one clicked, the script, the acting , the effects, one would be seriously hard pressed to find its equal in these areas not to mention its better.

I must mention Russel in this. This movie set the benchmark for him. He was made for this role, and he was at the right age with the right experience under his belt to make Mac come out perfectly. Other than Kurts performance the other characters played their roles with brilliant acumen. I count all but two of those guys who have gone on to or came from already long and varied careers. Everything every one of those actors do, they do well.

Finally the effects. Those do still hold up today as stomach churning and terrifying to witness, all without any CGI. Unbelievably well done. My only complaint is like someone earlier said, I have a hard time watching the dog kennel scene. But even that scene, if you parallel it to the blood test scene for tension and fear, is a standout I've seen very few films match, and all the actors in that scene were dogs! So bravo for 'The Thing' 1982. One of the best films ever made in many categories. I watch it gladly every single time I see it come on T.V.

I'm currently slogging through Gibbon's 'Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire , so I've had all things Roman on my mind. I'm not very far into it yet, maybe two hundred plus pages, but it is amazing just how many of these Roman emperors were killed. I believe I've read through maybe 15 emperors so far and only Antonius, Trajan, and Hadrian haven't been killed or at least suspected of having been killed. I have also been fascinated by the mad excesses of many of these princes of Rome. Not the least practitioner of these was Caligula. This brings me to reviewing this film. I'm thinking of the film on a historical basis as far as I understand it from Gibbon's explanation of Rome,as well as other research from some good web sites and some fiction novels dealings with the period.

My point is I do not think that this film is what it is thought to be by many of it's proponents. I do not think the depravity shown with the sex and horrendous violence of this film qualify it as accurate. The general ideas of the film seem accurate. Caligula is raised on an island ,exiled with his family and in content fear of being murdered by the increasingly mad, suspicious and strange emperor Tiberius. He grows up paranoid and afraid and can never shake the cutesy nickname given him by his guards, Little Boots, this helps him grow up feeling abused and powerless. He is handed the empire after Tiberius dies, the senate hoping he will steer away from the informer squads which brought death by whim of the former delusionally paranoid tyrant, and lead Rome away from the madness that dictator had settled it into. Caligula begins as a decent if hands-off emperor, but gets sick, almost dies, and comes back from the brink of feverous death a true monster. His perversities with his sisters do begin here, if not before. He does have Macro killed and many others who were his originally supporters. The acts of madness seemed not to be the murders of Caligula as much as his new thinking of himself as a living God. Him seen talking to the statue of Jupiter as an equal doomed him. His violent mad excesses would have doomed him anyway, and three years seems to have been quite a decent run for the successors of Tiberius. Well the film basically sticks to these lines while it manages to be coherent, which is not common through it's entirety, it does so while trying to shock the audience at all turns, in every single scene the film begs you to be disgusted by the depravity of ancient Rome. The shocking scenes are what this film is built entirely upon and where it entirely fails. It is just too much to see successive rulers have man after man murdered, raped, tortured for no reason but fancy. The depictions of the violence are possibly, but not probably, accurate. Murder certainly was the order of the day in Imperial Rome, torture beforehand was rote. But the director's visions of these deaths and the bored amusement of their protagonists, while the bystanders watch with nonchalance, I just don't see it having gone down exactly like that. The death machine, the beheader, is certainly something like you've never seen in movies, and something once seen you shall probably never forget, even as I, you wish you could. The wine drinking while the penis is roped off is the same, once you've seen this shame it is yours forever. These things strike me the director's and that porn magnate's fantasies. They sprung from their sick imaginations and not from any proved record.

The acting is pretty good. I actually think Mcdowell is the weakest link here. Mirren is always something to behold, and here in her youthful years she is formidable and beautiful. The portrayals of Nerva and Tiberius are done very well by their respected actors. The film could have done so much better story telling, it is such a failure that way its just a whole other layer of what a shame this thing was. For example it could have given opinion on how and why Caligula went mad, or shown that he was mad, paranoid before his illness and that fever then broke the mental restraint he had possessed previously. It could have shown the weakness of Claudius and the miracle it was he survived Caligula. It could have these and many other things but it stuck to it's sad nightmares.

Finally about the sex. It is porn. It shows these sex acts being done all over the palaces by many people. Male on male, female on female, male on female. It is passionless, disgusting sex. Sex that if your point is to get off on it, I seriously doubt you could. Both Tiberius and Caligula may have been sex addicts, and orgies may have been common enough but the visions in this film seem to recall more a Greek time than a Roman. I don't think that kind of acceptance of homosexuality or orgies right out in the open were common until the the strange, depraved reign of Elgabalus, and he was killed for it.

This film should probably never be watched, if your curious about it , let it go. It is something, as I said earlier, if you do watch this you will unfortunately retain it's sick visions in your minds eye for years to come. I don't think its an accurate historical picture in particular, even if it is historical in whole.

Time Bandits is a brilliant film. It plays with the downtrodden, British humorist view of life. Gilliam is a genius, I just don't always like his stuff. Time Bandits, like Brazil, is the very best of his stuff. The hero is a rather naive boy living in a world that offers him only bored continuity. Then the dwarfs fall into his room and spirit him away on this fantastic journey. The dwarfs are anti-heroes themselves, driven by greed. The play between God and Satan here shows remarkable understanding of just who they are according to Gilliam's interpretation of the Bible. Good, played by a fine, aged English gentleman, states evil must exist because it offhandedly has something to do with freewill. Evil on the other hand convinces himself he is not enslaved, or destined to lose, but in fact, he is just setting up the moment for him to be victorious. He also refuses to be counted as a created being, he has convinced himself he is an equal to God, and in fact, more worthy of God's position due to his intellect and intent. Which is all in fact his arrogance, which started his rebellious trouble in the first place. Almost all the characters are dubious, depressed, failures, or those trying hard but just not able to completely win out the internal/external battle of being good but having an evil nature. The character played in the best light outside of Kevin is Connery's Agememnon. Yet right before the scene of him adopting Kevin he is ordering summary executions. I saw this as a child in the theaters. It fascinated me then for its fantasy and imagery. I see it now as an adult, in the same light but with an appreciation of the brilliance of Gilliams commentary on the natural and supernatural world. I just don't always agree with him. BTW an A to all the actors involved. Warner is one of the best movie villain actors of all time. He plays them all the time and he is perfectly dislike able each time.

I first saw this thing about 10 years after it came out, we somehow had a VHF tape of it and myself,my younger brother, and my older step-brother watched it over and over and over. I think it was the imagery that fascinated us. I also know we could just not figure this thing out,and we wanted to be able to do that. I just got done watching it a minute ago, for the first time since those days, what twenty years ago itself now? I still cant figure this this thing out. I do like it still though.Ann Margaret was incredibly brave in this film,her performance of excess, selfishness, frustration, and love is only to be seen to be appreciated. Oliver Reed was fantastic too, as he humphffed through his scenes, and his lack of singing ability defined his character, not detracted from it.The sick uncle played by a sick man, Moon, really got the point across. As did the sadistic cousin. When Reed and Moon just look at each other after Reed comes home and Moons been babysitting tells how it really was not "Allright" and everyone knew it.Daltry himself did just fine. Blank stares and be-wondered facial expressions were just what Tommy seemed to be all about.

As for the cameo appearances, Tina Turners was actually frightening,truly an Acid Queen. Elton John in those big shoes,looking all ticked off as Tommy is beating him, while he hammers out his superior version of Pinball Wizard is awesome. Nicholson even though he couldn't sing,just like Reed, didn't harm his part with it.His glances at Ann Margaret told his tale. Finally Clapton, well he was subdued, but just being there was I believe was the point for him.

One big thing about Tommy. It is blasphemous, there is no question of this. I wouldn't watch this if that is going to offend you too greatly.

This movie isn't as bad as some of these reviews are saying. I saw this first on TV, in say, 1985 or so.I was 11 then so I remember that it scared me pretty good.So it was on Showtime and I just got done watching it for the first time since then. The plot does have some pretty big holes.Seriously now, just what is Kietel's character supposed to be doing? Is he really a captain? Say a crew member of that shuttle that went crazy with ideas of his own?Is he a criminal escaped in space?If that is the case, then how does he know all that earth protocol, and how does he know how to build and operate Hector, plus all the nuances of this "new direct input" technologies needed to teach Hector? For that matter, how does he then know how to proceed with "hydroponic food research"? OK, that aside.The story is a decent little three man act in space, about jealousy, and keeping what is yours in the face of challenge by the "new" and the "younger/improved".It reminded me of a good Sci-Fi short story you would find in a compilation book.In fact, I wish I had experienced this story just that way.Hector does have some menacing qualities when he goes nuts and his dialog with Farah and Kirk is creepy."Move along" all angry when he is directing them to the lab."Don't be late again Adam!" all threateningly."It's not what I'm putting in; it's what I'm taking out." to Kirk when explaining the direct brain download portal. That scene with Kietel just realizing Hector is going wrong and Hector is typing out responses because he is too stubborn to speak is really good.It was truncated though,cut too short, not going far enough, which is most of this movie's whole problem.The acting really isn't as bad as all that either,Kirk plays aged and not really liking it, and he knows he has got a great thing with Farah,but he can't really expect to hold her forever.Kietel does a great job, just watch the way he looks at Farah while his obsession builds.He does the "Brave New World" man well,he does the angry nut well,he does the drug-addicted, confused-narcissist well.Farah is the weakest link, but her beauty at the time adds to the scenery.The end is OK, I guess, for 1980 stuff.Sacrifice always plays well.To fix this stunted film I would have done these things... 1.Had Kietel actually be a scientist that shows up and goes mad.Erased all confusion about who and what he was. 2.Never shown the murder Kietel committed,just referred to it in the typing scene,that would have given intrigue and a more mysterious answer to Hector's inherited madness. 3.Extended Hector's depth into madness somehow, shown him slowly but pointedly going off the deep end, instead of ..Oh no Hectors killed the dog now he is after Farah. Well I think those things would have helped anyways.One more thing, for an insane, murdering captain Kietel sure fights like a little girl.Kirk took him down in 2 seconds.Then we had to see a naked Kirk for 2 seconds.Uggg, and thats twice as long as we see naked Farah.

I read all of these books very young. I have since reread LW&W a couple times since my teens. From reading them and the cartoon version that used to be shown on television every year before cable TV this story has always been a big thing with me. I saw the BBC version of this and I liked it because it really followed the story but it was like watching a play, with the silly costumes and the plywood sets.That version had two things going for it, a very neat and well sounded out Aslan and a wicked and convincing witch, this one over- acting to a perfection.So when I heard a long time back Disney was remaking this I thought, hmmm well have to see, I didn't think they would put out anything but cute fluff and I thought they would drown out Lewis' Christian allegory somehow. Well I was wrong.This movie is fantastic and a nearly perfect adaptation.The children were excellently directed and did not annoy me at all, which many child protagonists in film do.The little girl's expressions of wonder were actually believable.Edmund's treachery and the price he paid for it were right on, that kid that played him nailed some decent moments of complexity with the character.Peter and Susan were more shallow ,but those kids did them well, and I am sure we'll see more of both of those young actors as the grow. Aslan was a sight. The CGI made me think I was watching a real lion king.Neeson was totally perfect as his voice.Every time I've seen Liam in the last few years I've thought what a power he's become in acting, from silly crap in Next of Kin and Darkman to Rob Roy, Batman Begins, Kingdom of Heaven has been quite a career to watch.Now he has really nailed it for me, his voice giving the power and inflections that Aslan must have truly made the movie work.Only a few other actors could do the same and to have cast them would have almost seemed too cliché-ish,i.e James Earl Jones,Sean Connery. Now about Jadis.This woman that played her really gave her her own spin that as a whole did,in fact, work.The actress's stare alone was worthy of the white witch.In the BBC version the woman that played her over acted and was excellent in her attempts to cover her evil while trying to seduce Edmund.Well this Jadis was not over acted but was acted with a sinister style and a meanness that did give her over as the portrayal of evil to Aslan's good.Plus I liked her in her War Witch regalia. So In conclusion , well done Disney.This rivals LOTR in action and story if that what your looking for. Remember now, Tolkien's masterpiece was a thing in size and scope that is hard to comprehend, check out the Silmarillion for proof of this, he wrote Middle Earth's history from creation to LOTR, approx. 5000 years.Lewis work has no-where near the back story and history , I believe he meant to just get a out a good fantasy yarn with a Christ message.For deeper Lewis work read the Space Trilogy, the second book Perelandra could be made into a true horror film and it also is very Christian/Creationist based.Adam and Eve, Satan, and God are characters in this one.The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is great viewing , see this now.