dforster

I so looked forward to seeing Dunkirk but sadly I concur with the negative reviews. I feel I must add my voice to counter the majority.

I want to add the following in addition to my main objection - the overblown incessant sound really hurt and prevented me from appreciating any of its parts.

The story of Dunkirk - how it came about and its evacuation are fascinating and historically intriguing but sadly none of this was brought out. Dunkirk did not provide context to the battle as it unfolded even confusing what little story there was with oddball editing, e.g., day and night times bounced around.

Dunkirk had a chance to explore why the Germans did not attack to fully destroy/capture the allied troops which by all accounts they could have fairly easily done. There was one reference in the movie when it was mentioned almost in passing that the the German tanks simply stopped their forward motion but nothing was said about why or even wonder why. I have read of possible reasons concerning Hitler's order not to destroy the expeditionary forces but now with the perspective of over 70 years this should have been included as the key missing piece of this story.

I gave Dunkirk a rating of 4 instead of 1 because of its visual production value but I am being generous.

Although this is about the stepmother, I want to first say that I found all the characters well portrayed and supported by an excellent script, cinematography, and of course a great director. I scanned some of the user reviews and for all those giving a very low rating it seems to me that they missed the essence of Cinderella - it is not supposed to be an action nor hard/boiled tale that apparently even some children want today and should not become such.

I particularly appreciated the stepmother's portrayal because it included clear justification for her anger and bitterness. Not to say given that justification she was correct to have done what she did. But a worthy lesson for us and particularly for children.

The specific scene I am referring to is when she overhears her husband telling his daughter how much he misses her mother, i.e., where is the love and support she desires - a more modern understanding of the difficulty of joining an existing family. This and other related scenes gives the stepmother a depth that makes her more real in place of the one-dimensional cartoon version - but what a joy that version was for me many years ago.

I read many of the reviews so I see no need to repeat the many interesting as well as questionable observations.

I read the book shortly after seeing the film when it first opened in NYC so of course I was excited especially because I had recently started my next career - computer software development on mainframes (by the way they still exist and going strong). The movie title when it opened was simply "Colossus". Sometime later they titled the film "The Forbin Project" which I would think was done to improve the film's marketing.

I was and still am a movie buff, a futurist, and a lover of science fiction.

Most of the criticisms in the IMDb reviews tended to be concerned with its level of computer technology and its datedness, however, in my opinion these tend to miss the strength of the story. Similar to many SCI-FI stories, the specific mechanism of how the technology manages to do what it does will always have technical weaknesses and be out of sync with our times as well as its times, however, when well thought-out as this was, the story's fundamental ideas/concepts will continue to be interesting and thought provoking.

Being a futurist I had been thinking about machine advances well before I came across this story so what I liked about this story was leaving mankind with what appeared to be an insoluble problem. When I left the theater I considered the problem and could not come up with a solution other than alien intervention or in desperation I had hoped the heuristic Colossus might develop over time a kinder solution for mankind.. I was pleasantly surprised when I read the sequel "The Fall of Colossus". Any remake I think should include the full story - a wild and still scary end.

One review did raise an interesting technical issue that I think has merit. Namely, station troops next to all the missile sites around the world armed with low tech weapons that can destroy the ICBM's as they leave their silos (what about the nuclear submarines - not in this story). Of course planning and coordinating this effort without ever using electronic communications before and during this operation is questionable. I think that even if this solution seems workable, I would be confident that the author could address this "hole", e.g., the launches could occur over an extended period and thereby overcome this "hole". I raised this example because it seems to me the strength of the story is not fundamentally destroyed by this possible "hole". I had considered many other technical issues that have not been presented, but again, for me these "weaknesses" do not weaken the story.

Please see and enjoy the film and read "The Fall of Colossus".

PS. Where can I find the complete original version DVD?

I have seen this film a number of times over my many years of enjoying the greats and this is certainly one of the greats.

I was not able to review all the comments to see if anyone mentioned the value of Reed Hadley and his contribution that added authenticity to this film. His voice has been used in many films I am sure because he always provides this air of clarity and authenticity. I have always appreciated his role as narrator and was pleased to see him in visual roles well after I first heard him. I recently revisited W.C. Fields films and spotted Reed in one of them (although a minor role with a kind of French accent no less).

I add my voice to those who were nicely surprised at how entertaining they found this movie. I am not sure why but I was reminded of another movie "Hear My Song" whose plots are totally different but perhaps it was their styles - both took surprising and unexpected and strangely amusing twists but in the end their stories ended satisfactorily. Anyway I suspect my comments are confusing and unclear but in a way that is what you kind of experience with these films.

One curious thing about the end titles, a fine actor who has a minor speaking role was not credited. I suspect a clerical error because it makes no sense. The wonderful actor is Ciaran Hinds.

I decided to add my voice because this film is highly rated and I have never found myself at such odds with the majority of the IMDb audience.

Spoiler at end.

I read enough to see that I have nothing to add concerning its technical achievement, obviously well done.

I am an avid science fiction fan (books and film) so I agree with those who find this story weak. I went because I wanted to know why this film was so highly rated across all the demographic areas although I had my doubts based on the preview.

Apparently many do not agree with me but I would like to caution others that if you look forward to thought provoking ideas and having your preconceived notions challenged you will be disappointed. Even younger audiences may become bored after 1/2 hour although the visual stimulation may be sufficient.

My background includes special effects in film and computer program development so I naturally appreciate the films technical prowess. But I also know well almost all the science fiction films made to date including those with serious as well as comic presentations and WALL-E does not rate well for me when compared to them.

WALL_E missed being sufficiently provocative or amusing so I found it bland. The film, however, was much better portraying the emotional connections between the two main characters which is quite an achievement considering WALL-E was a garbage disposal unit who apparently developed over a long period of time a more than human heart (think of your feelings for roaches).

Spoiler follows: The ideas of planet ruin via garbage and humans becoming fat, technologically catered to, isolated in space, and thus unmotivated beings after 700 years is interesting but each of these is not original and I, at this time, cannot clearly describe why the film failed to engage me. Perhaps with such a future there should be more angst.

I recently saw Walter Mosley again in New York City where he introduced the readings of short stories at Symphony Space. (By the way I highly recommend you visit from time to time.) Our meeting brought back memories when we worked together so I thought it would be interesting to share a bit of trivia about the book this movie is based on.

I worked with Walter at Mobil Corporation in the 1980's before he began his next career writing novels (I think we call this a good career move). We both worked in computer system development. I was on a team developing the corporate accounting system for Mobil and Walter worked nearby on another system but he heard the name of our system. We did not realize it then but he took careful note of it.

The system was MOFAS which is the acronym for Mobil Oil Financial Accounting System. Now I suppose you wonder where the connection is.

The book and not the movie includes a character named Mofas. To Walter, the sound of MOFAS fit well with the character he developed and when you read the book, I think you will agree. Although we worked hard to build MOFAS, its name will live on for better and without question for more enjoyable reasons.

Thank you, Walter.

I enjoyed the cleverness of the dialog by some of the characters, and especially by Tom Hanks. I did not enjoy the crude humor by others. This is the point I want to make. Films that appeal to a diverse audience with almost opposite qualities are difficult to pull off and I feel that for me this attempt lowered the film's quality and attraction. I have seen this happen before and in particular, the film "Demolition Man", but in this case the draw was action and ironic humor. For me, I happen to enjoy both but I think for the market, these two qualities are not compatible and the result, which I anticipated, was a poor showing.

Anyway, if you like Tom, I am sure you will enjoy his performance, and you may enjoy the story. If you do not like crudity, I would still go but expect to suffer a bit and stick around for the rest.

And, of course, do see the original version with Alec Guiness, one among a number of great Guiness British comedies done around that time.

I found this film a cut above the typical supernatural thriller because it allows one to interpret what is happening by resorting only to the wonder and power of the human mind without having to believe in the supernatural. Unlike some others, e.g., `The Exorcist' where the movie (not the book) has weakened the power of the story by forcing us to accept only the supernatural explanation. Roman Polanski's great film, `Repulsion' is certainly an example of how powerful and frightening the human mind can be. Although having said this, `What Lies Beneath' may have been weakened by the quality of the special effects, that is, by being so good visually, it became more difficult to separate the ghost from the mind. Right from the opening, one can interpret the film as watching someone in the process of discovering their inner conflicts (based on what they know but are afraid to face) and that they now must resolve. As you see this film keep in mind that all of the supernatural manifestations are never seen by more than one person at a time and in this way you can sense and be afraid of how the unconscious can create the most frightening illusions. I especially enjoyed the scenes with the psychiatrist and how cleverly the doctor used the patient's belief in a ghost to help his patient find resolution (of course because I do not want to give anything away, one could argue that the resolution was more dangerous than the doctor probably anticipated). I think most of you will also see that the meaning of `lies' in the title has many meanings (I count 4 at least) each of which is well presented in this film. As many of us have discovered, what is left to imagination can be more frightening than what we see on the screen.

Having just seen The Patriot, I was disappointed in many of my fellow IMDb reviewers. A few, (e.g., David-546), I found did accurately reflect and identify the film's weaknesses. I generally do not mind films that are inaccurate since that is what I expect, but in this case, the inaccuracies spoiled the film and, unfortunately I agree with David that many will not believe this film to be substantially inaccurate. I understand and agree that to achieve great drama, films often need to portray history inaccurately but care must be taken. It seems to me that this film could not have been made if our education system was at all competent and confirms for me that our country is in dire need of major improvements. This movie is just another example giving evidence of how poorly most of us have been taught by our school systems. Isn't it interesting that Hollywood can not find a way to make a truly great film of this singularly most important part of our history. Calling Mr. Spielberg.

Just for the record. I happen to be a fan of Mel Gibson and have always enjoyed his performances and he does a fine job in this film. It is the script and its message that is troubling. For example, we not only confuse the meaning of the Holocaust when we displace it in time, peoples, and location but we falsely attribute this horrific event and that is just wrong.

In May of 1999, I commented on the 1973 version because this great version was not yet posted in the IMDb. I have recently returned to the IMDb and am pleased to see this here - (I congratulate the IMDb staff).

I stated before that I found this version better even though the 1973 version is also excellent. Robards deservedly owns the role of Hickey. I also have seen the play on Broadway and find this TV production awfully close or equal to the Broadway production experience. In addition, while reading this play after seeing the TV production, I found myself feeling the same vividness and excitement as watching it. Nothing was lost and in some ways, the experience was even better. If you want to see what I believe is the greatest American play, try to get your hands on this version. I would appreciate if you also let me know how - a fan helped me out and I now have a copy - the IMDb serves us well.

I just saw the Kennedy Center honoring of Jason Robards Jr. and seeing just a short cut of this Hickey performance confirmed my wish to have the chance to see this TV "Play of the Week" version again and again.

I am adding my comment because the TV version did not show up on the IMDB cross-reference list. This play was previously produced in the early 1960s for the TV "Play of the Week" series. It starred Jason Robards Jr. as Hickey. Many consider this his finest performance and this TV version, the finest production. I saw both the movie version listed here and the TV version. As good as Lee Marvin's performance was, I also agree that the TV version is superior. See this if you can. The Iceman Cometh also happens to be my favorite play.

An aside; I believe that Jason Robards Jr. was not offered the part for the movie version because at that time, his alcoholism got the better of him. There is irony here since the play demonstrates the impact of alcoholism and the pipe dreams that come from it. Up till then, the role of Hickey belonged to Mr. Robards Jr. as it should have. Mr. Robards Jr. interpretation of Eugene O'Neill's plays have always been masterful. I am convinced he was deeply hurt and has always regretted not being able to perform in the movie production.

An experiment that I am sorry ended.

This movie was an early part of a new production experiment in which the audience prepaid for the series (I am not sure of the series name but I seem to remember the American Film Theater or Institute). I had subscribed to it and I am sorry that the experiment failed after producing perhaps no more than 10 fine productions of classic plays.

I have seen this film many times on video and only once had the opportunity to see this in a movie house (of course this is the way to see it). The story very cleverly combines both a pessimistic and optimistic view of our future. Does mankind end with war and pestilence or does mankind prevail and continue the quest? The climatic scene along with its cerebral speech poses this question well. These are ideas we are still struggling with and I expect we will continue to as long as we are who we are. HGW proves here again how wonderful a sci-fi writer he is. Although, at times, the acting style is dated, the movie holds up well.

I once listened to an excerpt of an Orson Welles radio show in which he interviews HGW on his up and coming movie, about the future. Unfortunately, I do not remember the details but I do remember finding the experience interesting. Here I was in the 1990's listening to a conversation taking place in the 1930s discussing the future (my time, actually my past since HGW's future was the 1960s). HGW seemed at first to enjoy discussing his role, but my impression was that he felt out of place on a radio talk show.

For trivia buffs: I believe this was the first time a professional composer was hired to write music for a feature film. Arthur Bliss was a well known British composer at the time. (A similar point for TV. The first TV series to hire a professional composer for its theme was for "Peter Gunn". The composer: Henry Mancini.)

I believe that for both cases, the industry and the public have benefited because someone thought to do this. Of course we now take film scoring by a professional for granted and probably most of us do not realize how different the world might have been.

I saw the original release (uncut) and was not disturbed by George Sanders in drag. It seems to me that this one point raised by almost all of the movie anthologies indicates that none have seen the film but only copied one person's comment. The story is clever espionage, keeps you guessing, and keeps your interest. I do not want to say anything else about the story for it will spoil it for those who have not seen it. The performances are all strong and the graphic portrayal may have been too much for the critics. If you want to sense the power and fear of espionage, this is the film to see. There is no holding back. Even the great one, "The Spy Who Came in From the Cold", does not push the cruelty of the spy game as far as this one does. I wish we could get some interest going so that this film will be released on video. I would like to revisit this unique spy film.