eeq

Michael Douglas' on screen deterioration and breakdown has got to be one of the greatest performances ever. Much better than anything else he's ever done, Oscar's notwithstanding, and fully up to the measure of his father's best work (and coming from me, that's high kudos indeed).

I'm wondering if Michael Douglas is trying to pay homage to his father's 1961 film "The Last Sunset" in subtle ways.

Spoiler**

Film devotees should note that Michael Douglas' ultimate denouement in "Falling Down", arguably his greatest work ever, mirrored his father's in "The Last Sunset." I do not for a second believe this was coincidence.

Also, in another of Michael Douglas' movies, "Basic Instinct" the casting of Dorothy Malone (as a paroled murderess) seems more than coincidence, given that she was the female protagonist in "The Last Sunset", and she spouted that movie's shocking punchline, leading to the finale.

Here's a perfect example of why the villain has to be the best actor you can find, Kirk Douglas filling the bill perfectly, and the 'hero' should be at least passable, Rock Hudson unfortunately failing here. The great punchline to the movie delivered by Dorothy Malone at the end, makes this otherwise 'standard' movie worth watching. I strongly believe that his movie was very important in some unknown way to his son Michael, who was just 17 when this was filmed. WHY?-well, look at the casting of Dorothy Malone in "Basic Instinct" and the ultimate denouement of Michael Douglas in "Falling Down", arguably Michael's best work ever, Michael's Oscar's (which Kirk should have received many of) notwithstanding.

I'm not writing this to critique this movie, which tho flawed was very enjoyable. I'm wondering if Michael Douglas is trying to pay homage to his father's 1961 film "The Last Sunset" in subtle ways. The casting of Dorothy Malone (as a paroled murderess) seems more than coincidence, given that she was the female protagonist in that film, and she spouted that movie's shocking punchline. Film devotees should also note that Michael Douglas' ultimate denouement in "Falling Down", arguably his greatest work ever, mirrored his father's in "The Last Sunset." Oh well, I'll get off my soapbox now and recommend rental of "Basic Instinct." Send comments to mathisfun@optonline.net

One of my favs from the 80's. There are certain pictures that grown-ups look to bring them back to the action/suspense/scare/titillation they felt as teen-agers. This fits the bill perfectly. I saw this as original release in the movies in my 30's, allowed myself to let the teenager within to take over, and have seen it at least 3-4 more times on TV. Just love it. Quaid is perfect as the charming/bumbling psychic recruited to (presumably) help people with dream problems. OK, so Kate Capshaw isn't a great actress, but she was quite good enough in the sexy-hot, yet resistant, scientist role she was meant to play. Max Von Sydow was perfect here as the main scientist. At first I was disappointed in Plummer's underplayed role, but I'm more forgiving in the subsequent viewings. The dream sequences were quite entertaining, some fun and some scares, and David Patrick Kelly (as Tommy Ray Glatman) did a FIRST CLASS job as a despicable psychopathic creep. And the ending was top-notch (on several levels, no spoilers). Despite comments that this seemed to copy others, I actually found this to be quite original. It had a plotline, continuity, and finale, and viewers didn't have to scratch their heads trying to figure out what happened or what would happen. I actually appreciate movies which don't rely on TONS of new wave computerized special effects, just enough from the 80's to set the scenery. I always recommend it highly to those who haven't seen it.

This review has been difficult to write, because there is so much to say and because I'm still recovering from the nailmarks my wife left in my forearm during the movie!

Let me start by saying I've read ALL the books and seen ALL the movies in this series when originally released. HANNIBAL, both the book and movie, was a disappointment and I won't waste time discussing it. I have read hundreds of books in the now popular serial killer genre, and in my view RED DRAGON is #1, with SOTL #2, even though SOTL had a superior ending. The only others in the same league (in my opinion) are By Reason of Insanity (Shane Stevens) and Just Killing Time(Van Armin)-neither of which have hit the screens.

What makes the novel RED DRAGON stand out is the sympathy evoked for the child Francis Dolarhyde that would eventually become the monster. You can't help but feel for the kid. This was brought out to some extent in the movie, which is one of the 2 main reasons this film turns it ‘up a couple of notches' from its predecessor MANHUNTER. The other reason why this is superior are the initial scenes giving you a closer glimpse into Lecter's mentality and crimes, and his relationship and capture by Will Graham-these both provide the proper and necessary segue into the rest of the story, which was missing in MANHUNTER. Also, the ending is true to the novel, in MANHUNTER it was not.

MANHUNTER had its flaws, but was a great movie, with its 80's style and spookiness and introducing the series-the changed ending was weak, but at least we got the super soundtrack. With its no name cast (at the time) and poor advertising distribution, it really didn't get its due. It IS fair to compare it to the vastly different and star studded SOTL, which while being an excellent and highly enjoyable movie really didn't merit best picture in my view-the book is much better. So it shouldn't be a surprise that I view the new RED DRAGON as the best of the lot, tho not without nitpicking flaws, so my direct comparison with MANHUNTER would reveal (no spoilers here): 1. As Will Graham, Edward Norton is surely a great actor, better than William Peterson, but he could have turned it up a notch at times. He just never seemed to be as thoroughly haunted by the past (with Lector) as he should have been. Peterson is not as good in emotive situations, but at least he certainly appeared to be thoroughly haunted. 2. Of course everyone went to see Hopkins reprise his role, built up for this film-and I'm glad to see him play it down a drop compared to SOTL. I do think that Brian Cox did a great job in a smaller role, and didn't get the credit he deserved. 3. With the major expansion of the Tooth Fairy role, Ralph Fiennes virtually stole the movie-I think he'll pick up an Oscar for this. He's positively riveting in every scene. Tom Noonan was OK, but this was of an entirely different dimension. 4. Harvey Keitel, as Jack Crawford, did not add to or subtract from Dennis Farina's performance. 5. Joan Allen was OK in the original, but Emily Watson really added something in this interpretation--she just exuded more sensuality. I would have liked to see her fondle the tiger a bit longer. 6. I think Philip Seymour Hoffman is a GREAT actor, and have been following him since his whining/crying in ‘Scent of a Woman', but I think his talents were partially wasted here and I really prefer Stephen Lang's super-slick and smarmy version of Freddy Lounds.

Although I prefer the new version, I STRONGLY recommend that those of you who never saw MANHUNTER, or who saw it long ago and forgot, go make the comparison for yourselves. And read the book, I plan to reread it shortly.

This review has been difficult to write, because there is so much to say and because I'm still recovering from the nailmarks my wife left in my forearm during the movie!

Let me start by saying I've read ALL the books and seen ALL the movies in this series when originally released. HANNIBAL, both the book and movie, was a disappointment and I won't waste time discussing it. I have read hundreds of books in the now popular serial killer genre, and in my view RED DRAGON is #1, with SOTL #2, even though SOTL had a superior ending. The only others in the same league (in my opinion) are By Reason of Insanity (Shane Stevens) and Just Killing Time(Van Armin)-neither of which have hit the screens.

What makes the novel RED DRAGON stand out is the sympathy evoked for the child Francis Dolarhyde that would eventually become the monster. You can't help but feel for the kid. This was brought out to some extent in the movie, which is one of the 2 main reasons this film turns it ‘up a couple of notches' from its predecessor MANHUNTER. The other reason why this is superior are the initial scenes giving you a closer glimpse into Lecter's mentality and crimes, and his relationship and capture by Will Graham-these both provide the proper and necessary segue into the rest of the story, which was missing in MANHUNTER. Also, the ending is true to the novel, in MANHUNTER it was not.

MANHUNTER had its flaws, but was a great movie, with its 80's style and spookiness and introducing the series-the changed ending was weak, but at least we got the super soundtrack. With its no name cast (at the time) and poor advertising distribution, it really didn't get its due. It IS fair to compare it to the vastly different and star studded SOTL, which while being an excellent and highly enjoyable movie really didn't merit best picture in my view-the book is much better. So it shouldn't be a surprise that I view the new RED DRAGON as the best of the lot, tho not without nitpicking flaws, so my direct comparison with MANHUNTER would reveal (no spoilers here): 1. As Will Graham, Edward Norton is surely a great actor, better than William Peterson, but he could have turned it up a notch at times. He just never seemed to be as thoroughly haunted by the past (with Lector) as he should have been. Peterson is not as good in emotive situations, but at least he certainly appeared to be thoroughly haunted. 2. Of course everyone went to see Hopkins reprise his role, built up for this film-and I'm glad to see him play it down a drop compared to SOTL. I do think that Brian Cox did a great job in a smaller role, and didn't get the credit he deserved. 3. With the major expansion of the Tooth Fairy role, Ralph Fiennes virtually stole the movie-I think he'll pick up an Oscar for this. He's positively riveting in every scene. Tom Noonan was OK, but this was of an entirely different dimension. 4. Harvey Keitel, as Jack Crawford, did not add to or subtract from Dennis Farina's performance. 5. Joan Allen was OK in the original, but Emily Watson really added something in this interpretation--she just exuded more sensuality. I would have liked to see her fondle the tiger a bit longer. 6. I think Philip Seymour Hoffman is a GREAT actor, and have been following him since his whining/crying in ‘Scent of a Woman', but I think his talents were partially wasted here and I really prefer Stephen Lang's super-slick and smarmy version of Freddy Lounds.

Although I prefer the new version, I STRONGLY recommend that those of you who never saw MANHUNTER, or who saw it long ago and forgot, go make the comparison for yourselves. And read the book, I plan to reread it shortly.

I've read the other reviews and think the criticism is way too harsh. OK, so I was bored one evening and cut to the local discount $4 theatre for 2 hours. I probably would have griped to pay $8.50, but I was satisfactorily entertained and it would be a worthwhile video rental. Ok, so a lot of this was formulaic, and the monotonous repeating of Paul Rodriguez as a moronic, bigoted Latino cop wore thin, but I enjoyed seeing it being played out. One thing I don't get is the other reviewers incredulity of Eastwood's romantic liaison with the murder victim's sister (the beautiful Wanda De Jesus). Don't you get it?--He had already 'bonded' with her by taking the case, and had begun a psychological relationship with her and her nephew, and most importantly, she gets a chance to get close to her sister's HEART. Yes, Eastwood is no youngster, but how many could sprint those opening scenes at age 72 (or even 50)-- a testament to his lifelong hobby of regular running. I'm sure the book is a distinct improvement(I just took it out of the local library), but it was an enjoyable 2 hours for me (a big GBU and Dirty Harry fan) nonetheless.

The movies plotline, about someone who 'sees' deaths of friends who 'should' have been killed in a plane crash, is insubstantial but acts as the necessary segue between their demises. The real draw of this film is the highly inventive and unusual way these people die. Just when the film sets you up to expect the death in a certain way, you get a 'rube goldberg' sequence of events, visually captivating, that leads to a different conclusion. Having seen this and many other films with my teenage children, I can say that once you figure out where the movie is going (not too hard) you can sit back and enjoy the visuals and the reasonably passable acting and 'go with the flow.' My only wish was that they had these kinds of special effects when I was a teenager.

Agree mostly with IMDB reviews by MovieAlien and 'wmuti'. The Mrs. and I saw this as a preview before public release and both HATED it. Basically some ditzy and vacuous fatty steals her parents life savings to go on a cruise and find a man. Virtually no comedic elements and plenty of tragedy--totally depressing. While the acting was OK and background ABBA tunes distracted one from the depressing script, I'm still puzzled why anyone should like this movie. Maybe it's a 'chick-flick' showing how Muriel triumphs, but my wife--who generally likes 'chick-flicks' hated this too. One of the very worst movies I have ever seen. I'd rated this a 1 out of 10. If you want to see an entertaining and FUNNY Australian movie, try "Strictly Ballroom" which I highly recommend.

Agree with rowdyHagg on almost every point. As great as Hackman is, and I'm a big fan, Delroy Lindo outshines him, and is just perfect. Sam Rockwell was OK, but Ricky Jay was given ridiculous lines and Rebecca Pidgeon was quite weak in my estimation. Nobody actually talks like they do in this movie and no one is that cool. OK for video but not worth full movie fare. I know everyone raves about Mamet's scripts, but I often find the dialogue unrealistic, forced and/or ridiculous.

My views most closely match those of Tim Steele. Although I'm not a fan of Jonathan Silverman, he was very good here. Much better than Groundhog's Day, which tho funny bordered on the obnoxious at times, probably because of Bill Murray. The scifi element, with explanation and a mix of drama and romance made this one of the most entertaining movies around. I firmly believe that this was the genesis for Groundhog's Day.

One of the better written and highly disturbing novels of the serial killer genre, and David Lindsey's most famous work has been translated into a painfully tedious and mind-numbing movie. All of the electricity of the novel is gone. Despite Ms. Barkin's obvious talents, she cannot carry this through some terrible screenwriting, direction that is designed to anaesthetize, and peripheral acting, including her own, which seems downright ridiculous. Pretty obvious from the first 5 minutes that this was a Canadian production, probably Toronto, and probably by someone who couldn't get a car-chase action movie to direct. READ THE BOOK!!

Saw it in the movies when I was a teen. One of the most disturbing movies ever made. Brilliant acting by both stars. This is much closer to the concept of "Horror" than fantastic monsters or slashers.

Burt Reynolds has never been better, even in Deliverance. Too bad his later roles didn't maintain this type of dramatic quality. This is one of the finest, most memorable "male-bonding" cameraderie movies ever made--maybe not quite a "Great Escape" but fully the equal of "The Man Who Would be King" and slightly above "Victory" in my view. The complete antithesis of the "Chick-flick". Those who haven't seen this yet are missing a really great movie.

I've read the other reviews and its amazing how some can say an actor was great and others terrible in the same role. Here's my view: Teri Hatcher has never shown any talent before, but she puts out a reasonable effort here and she was HOT. The rest of the acting was competent, especially that of Eric Roberts and Vondie Curtis-Hall who display their considerable talents admirably. I've been waiting to see something else with V.C-H but it hasn't happened. Unfortunately, we have to accept Alec Baldwin's tough-guy stolidity and overall blandness as presumably competent acting -- sorry, it doesn't cut it. His pitiful crying scene demonstrated that he's a handsome tough-guy but a mediocre actor at best. The other woman were competent in there roles, nothing more or less. Despite many action scenes, this movie has a lot of dull and morose periods. On a scale of 1-10 I'd give it a 5 1/2.

I remember seeing this in the movies with my kids when they were still pre-pubescent. As a longstanding horror film buff, I went in not expecting too much but wound up enjoying it as much as my kids. The IMDB reviewer Brad Wooldridge sums up the plot and acting quite well. For me the most memorable scenes are the ones with Frankenstein and the little girl, the comic scene looking for the necessary virgin, and when the 'scary German guy' is asked whether he ever met a real monster--he looked at the unplanned tattoo on his wrist and said "Yes, I have!"

Universally bombed by the critics--but they miss the point. This was classic Saturday matinee fare--and it was quite effective back in 1961. William Castle put his special touch on it and produced a quite entertaining, if campy take-off on a more famous varietal. OK, the acting was rather bland, perhaps to be expected from Glenn Corbett and Pat Breslin and a lesser known cast, but Jean Arless stole the show, with kudos also to Eugenie Leontovitch. This wasn't the best of the Castle fare, that award belonging to "Mr. Sardonicus" easily, but there were enough scares and suspenseful moments in "Homicidal" to titillate the adolescent (as I was then) in all of us TRUE horror film buffs.

This is the antithesis to the "chick-flick" and up there with the great "male bonding" cameraderie movies such as "great Escape" and "The Man Who Would Be King", and let's not exclude "The Longest Yard". Best scene by far in the movie is Pele's jaw-dropping upside-down kick, followed by Max Von Sydow's sportsmanlike and awestruck applause, followed by glares of hatred from his German brethren. I can guarantee you that that scene is worth the price of the admission(video rental) alone. As far as the non-soccer star cast goes, Michael Caine more than compensates for Sylvester Stallone, and the rest do a credible job, with highest marks to Von Sydow as a 'good guy' on the other side.

I remember seeing this as a teenager when it was in the movies. An entertaining trio with a sexual theme but no nudity in the 60's. The best was 'The Censor' with a hyper-voluptuous Anita Ekberg as a 100 foot long billboard ad (for milk) that comes to life to torment the local censor -- absolutely hilarious. Then the magnificent Sophia Loren in "The Lottery" where the winner of the drawing wins her for the night. Last is with the late Romy Schneider in a bittersweet tale about a philandering husband who uses their wealth on prostitutes. At least that's what I remember after well over 30 years. If anyone knows where I can rent this again, please let me know.

So good to see the beautiful Ms. Lucci stray from daytime fare and take another shot at evening TV. This is a somewhat obvious murder melodrama about Ms. Lucci being accused of her best friends's murder after having an illicit affair. One look at her friend (Lenore Kasdorf) and even the feeble-minded should have this plotline worked out. The performances ran the gamut: Highest marks go to Claudia Christian in a small but impressive role showing once again her obvious talent can shine through some weak scripting and direction. Christine Belford, as your local PI gave a solid journeyman (er, journeyperson?) performance despite the obvious denouement. Michael Dudikoff, as your garden variety psychopath, makes a valiant effort to break free of his karate movie typecast--he's positively creepy! Tim Matheson is only mediocre as the supportive yet imperfect husband. John Vernon does a good job as the thick-headed but honest cop(but I'd much rather see his gorgeous daughter Kate, who was wise enough to avoid appearing in this episode). As for Ms. Lucci's performance--- I'm very happy to hear that she finally won her DAYTIME Emmy she has sought so valiantly on her 17th try.

I remember seeing this a long ways back and it was reasonable suspense for the grade B genre. Saw it recently and laughed my --- off. Best thing about this movie is the hilarious casting. Imagine a group of nuclear physicists which included George Hamilton and Suzanne Pleshette. Now also imagine Yvonne DeCarlo and Earl Holliman in this group. Now throw in Barbara Nichols for good measure. You see what I mean. Yes, I suppose you could buy Richard Carlson and certainly Michael Rennie creating subatomic particles and doing relativistic field equations, but the rest of the cast --please! Nevertheless, it's worth a video rental on a foul winter night.

As a kid I enjoyed the Marvel comics scifi stories of the late 50's and early 60's. Of these, undoubtedly the best was "I Fought the Colossus." I always fantasized that I'd see it on screen and that if I had a billion dollars, I'd produce that story as a movie. THe "Iron Giant", while not quite the same, comes close to fulfilling that. The Iron Giant, while perhaps not top flight in the animation aspects, is a first rate story with a timeless theme and a great morality play. It provides a sense of realism in character depictions that has rarely been equalled in animated films. Its only weakness, surely forgivable, is that it sometimes uses a sledgehammer to hammer home its message. This will rank as one of the top animated films in history. One anachronism for the eagle eyed: a 1959 Cadillac in 1957!

Those of you who DIDN'T think this was the greatest car chase ever obviously didn't see it in the movies. This was the ORIGINAL chase that all others were based on [it's easier to copy and embellish, much harder to be original]. In the theatre you really felt like you were in one of the vehicles--of course this was the 60's and not everybody was sober at all times. I saw this several times in theatres in the 60's and a few times on TV--and it just isn't the same. The story lin was good enough, the slow parts being outweighed by the action and the character portrayals--compare this to most of the high action plotless junk out nowadays.

Luscious Rosanna Arquette is perfect as the naive housewife in one of the most original comedies ever. Anyone who takes this picture seriously needs a reality check. Madonna is perfect as herself and everyone else in the cast sets this movie up for maximum laughs. Mark Blum does well as the inattentive self-absorbed husband, Aidan Quinn as the unknowing love interest to Rosanna, and even the smaller roles (including a funny bit with a virtually unknown John Turturro) make this a real treat. There are just too many funny lines and scenes to mention. A 10 for originality. [But Arquette and Madonna being the same weight and size?--C'mon]

Although I've never been a Drew Barrymore fan, and my wife and daughters had to drag me to this one, the movie was clearly superior in almost every way to the usual junk put out now. The story was an obvious Cinderella 'rewind' but in a non-fantasy realistic context. The acting was first rate throughtout--from Drew Barrymore, in her most impressive role to date, to Dougray Scott palying the spoiled-yet-sensible prince to perfection and of course Angelica Huston as the MONSTROUS stepmother. The anachronisms and other faults in the movie were relatively minor a nd certainly forgivable. The supporting cast and the set was first rate throughout This movie had real charm and substance-- and a powerful vote for feminine feminism! A very choice for a family movie.