Charlesc-5

When the movie started laying out the groundwork, I had no problem accepting the premise as Jason Statham as The Equalizer. But then things soon go way over the top before they start to look ridiculous.

Good actors, bad writing.

Jeremy Irons comes in to deliver the exposition that would probably be featured in the trailer. The words just sound so stilted and staged.

The dialogue is something out of a Frank Miller comic book as are certain characters that start to appear totally out of context or believability.

Minnie Driver looks great in her role, walks on, and is gone in like 90 seconds? We want more Minnie!

Perhaps the best thing overall is Emmy Raver-Lampman and Bobby Naderi who feel like the most natural thing in the movie. I liked them both and their chemistry worked!

Finally for acting, Phylicia Rashad tugged at our hearts as she gave the film a depth and warmth which was lost far too quickly.

Okay! It's an action film! But I felt the action sequences to be both over the top and behind the curve.

For a while now, Statham relies too much on editing and closeups when I know he can deliver the fighting scenes but he needs a better fight coordinator.

SEQUEL? I suspect as much. I do believe they could beef things up and make it better. Here's hoping Beekeeper II dials it in for the next time.

As the story goes, producer for the very successful theatrical release, Mel Gibson stepped up and added some things and took some things out making it a much better experience, IMO.

For example, the director's cut has NO Kris Kristofferson, and if you've seen the theatrical then you should know all those scenes are absent from the director's cut.

The newly released director's cuts doesn't include a very memorable, added scene towards the end which IMO, raised the bar for this gritty crime drama. That scene practically defines the movie for me. (involving a hammer)

Also, the director seemed to have thought it was necessary to show Porter (Gibson) beating his wife up, one stunt shocking me for its brutality. (he literally throws her on the floor and you see her land - I literally gasped before I realize how well the stunt was done.) I simply didn't think it was necessary, even if she shot him in the back.

Lastly, the ending for the Director's cut seemed slapped together and unsatisfying.

Gibson is a consummate movie maker and I simply believe that the changes he made for the original release were well justified.

With all that said, I truly appreciate how much violence there was in the film without actually showing it that much. If you keep your eyes open you'll see you don't see nearly as much as you think.

Story tries to be a combination of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" and bits and pieces from 2 or 3 other old films but falls short on the "suspense".

It leaves a good first impression, but then I kept thinking of the ways it fell short of the other films it was trying to emulate.

But even those Hitchcock films had their problems, IMO. It's almost like there was another idea in the script that was taken out that leaves it so forgettable.

In retrospect, I can't help but think that given the opportunity to make a film that could have taken the Hitchcock formula a step forward, they chose to leave things so flat.

Confess, Fletch is a light story with entertaining banter and characters.

Having two actors from the TV show Mad Men in the cast, one is slightly reminded of the quality of dialogue of that show, where one can just have an *enjoyable* time watching a movie rather than worrying if the universe will be destroyed at the hands of an evil CGI character or if the protagonist will find his kidnapped daughter.

Fletch? My biggest disappointment with the original Fletch movies is that Chevy Chase wasn't as funny as we expected. He did capture the character but I was expecting a national lampoon movie and neither those movies, nor this one delivers "belly laughs".

Unlike Chase, however, Jon Hamm is perfectly cast in this role. I had zero problem accepting him as a charming, wise cracking bum who mooches off of the rich people he navigates through.

I wasn't slightly reminded of the "Monk" series.

A solid "6" but I wanted to give it a boost.

First, Chris Pine turns in an elevated performance as a son of a Marine born and bred to follow in his father's footsteps.

The rest of the acting is formulaic, but it isn't bad either, what is bad is THE EDITING in this $50,000,000 film along with the need of a much stronger score.

Let's get this out of the way, and this is not a spoiler.

There is this scene where Pine's character is working on his roof in the middle of the night. His wife confronts him over his odd behavior and when he steps down to talk to her something goes VERY WRONG with the edit. It JUMPS OUT like a "WTF just happened?" I took film in school and my knuckles were rapped for just that kind of mistake in my first class, so I'm a little salty that it made it into a "Hollywood" final cut.

But the editing problems were not isolated there.

First off, as EVERYONE else here points out, the first thirty minutes feels like an hour as NOTHING happens in this "action" film. You'd think they would have snuck in even a flashback with some "action" in it or something. This wasn't some art film, and making it boring isn't going to convince anyone it is.

With some editing, you really could make a good movie just with what's up there, providing you added some more music and exposition.

PARTS of the location action sequences were well done, although the bad guys were stereotypically terrible shots at times.

To wrap things up, the plot is the SAME as so many other 'mercenary' films that have been cranked out, many of them based upon true stories, unlike this one. If you have something else to watch esp with company - watch THAT.

I will be spoiling a great deal of this film simply because a big part of this story revolves around a trick which I figured out very early on. Out of respect to the people making the film I will not simply reveal this trick but I will be describing this movie in detail enough to merit a major spoiler warning here.

In the trailer of Fracture the basic plot is revealed. Anthony Hopkins plays some rich guy who is arrested for shooting his wife. Ryan Gosling plays the District Attorney who quickly learns that his air-tight case turns out to be much more challenging than expected.

Obsessed with making fascinating pinball contraptions and without much exposition, successful airplane hanger businessman Hopkins catches his wife cheating on him, confronts her when she returns home, then shoots her.

Never leaving his house after the shooting, he surrenders, complete with signed confession. A major problem surfaces, however, when questions arise and they can't find the gun that shot his wife. Witnesses were present to see he never left the house. No amount of searching turns up the gun and after a series of legal maneuvers, Hopkins certainly appears to be able to get away with it... or does he?

Sometimes people, often small children, will see a magician do a trick, but by chance they can immediately figure it out.

Unfortunately, the issue with the gun was such with me. Like immediately. As soon as the question was raised, I figured out what happened.

I was *hoping* for the writer to present my thought-up solution and then dispel it. To my disappointment, however, it turned out to be the case all along and so my attention turned to other elements. Unfortunately, without that "hook", I was disappointed with what I saw (and didn't see).

After his legendary role as a hyper intelligent serial killer, Anthony Hopkins, when playing a criminal, is now typecast as a super genius able to out-think the police at every turn. He does not disappoint here. He does flesh out his character while making the character distinctive from other characters he's played....

But now I must turn my attention to movie legend and superstar Ryan Gosling. Welp, I'm alone in the world because, yet again, I just don't understand why he's so vaunted as this great actor and screen presence.

Gosling plays this hyper talented, tremendously ambitious, super intelligent, irresistibly sexy (but not dating anyone) assistant district attorney being offered a great private-sector position in a top law firm all while playing the same character he has played in every other movie he's been in.

And I didn't believe any of it. I don't know if it was the writing, or that the character was re-written to accommodate Gosling's limited range, but once you drift off the main plot, this story and dialogue is more like an episode of "Law and Order" that Dick Wolf cranked out in an afternoon than a subplot in any John Grisham novel.

While the film boasts a lush film score, Hollywood-quality cinematography which often impresses, fine location filming and expertly lit interiors, etc they can't distract one off of a completely unbelievable relationship between Gosling's character and prospective boss played by Rosamund ("Gone Girl") Pike who CAN act and be believable when the situation is realistic and she has the right words to say.

After knowing him for less than 2 weeks, Pike's character starts having sex with her (prospective) employee Gosling (who gets to show his "guns" - sexy man!). BUT... she must still impress the partners and justify Gosling's lack of commitment due to his obsession with Hopkins, and his refusal to leave his old DA job. Needless to say, this whole "having sex with the boss" situation has not aged well through the years (even when this film was made!), especially considering how they're LAWYERS in LOS ANGELES but he's a guy so it's OK?

They've known each other literally for 2 weeks and she invites him to THANKSGIVING DINNER with the family? Hon, it's going on 15 days - it's time we start setting a date and pick out wedding invitation envelopes!?? ...BUT DON'T DISAPPOINT MY BOSS!

RETURNING to the main story, they're still searching for the gun. They SAY they can't find the gun but CURIOUSLY it was decided not to show them REALLY searching for it (as opposed to just looking in drawers?). Seriously. Remember the car in the French Connection? Here, they're looking for something SMALLER. "Sorry, but we looked everywhere!" REALLY?

The bit of business with the gun is finally addressed with some added elements enough to keep me watching to the end.

TO ITS CREDIT, the film comes up with a LEGAL twist that was NOT stupid to resolve the story.

NOT BAD, but way below expectations for me.

If you find Ryan Gosling a better actor than I do, you should check this out on a streaming service you already pay for.

SHOUT OUT to two MAINSTAY supporting actors, David Strathairn as DA Joe Lobruto and Bob Gunton as Judge Gardner. These two guys have been in what? A THOUSAND movies? They've ALWAYS delivered.

A true gem of a documentary for die-hard fans of the creator of a wide variety of TV shows and movies featuring miniatures and puppets.

Gerry Anderson etched his mark in our culture with his innovative puppet work and miniatures. With his steadfast dedication in using those things toward producing a wide but distinctive variety of shows, he will be remembered by generations around the world.

There have already been more than a few specials concerning the development (his invention of "SuperMarionation") and production and reception of his various shows such as "The Thunderbirds", "Space 1999", "UFO", etc.

The topic which this documentary reveals for the first time, to my knowledge, are various personal difficulties Anderson had in his life, and how those difficulties probably inspired his creative choices throughout his career.

For fans of his work, I would consider this as "must viewing".

The editors of this video, however, have seen fit to persist in cutting in clips and phrases from his shows / puppets, etc which, IMO, don't have anything to do with what was being discussed, either in subject or tone. Seeming to echo an old radio trick which is done for humorous effect, these clips only detract from the underlying story which is not funny.

If those clips were scenes or even the shows being discussed at the time, then the clips would have been relevant, but as they were used, they were a needless distraction, subtracting a point from my review.

SPOILERS

I will say my rating is only a 6 because I'm not a big fan of "superman" serial killer genre nor the narrative device that's used to explain how a killer can continue to kill after dying, but giving it a trial viewing on cable TV, I was pleased by a series of surprises that will make it worth watching for certain viewers.

The target who would get a special kick out of this would probably be over 40 and who are familiar with Philadelphia, PA. If you're under 35, seeing those actors who became familiar faces in the 15-20 years that followed won't give you a bump, and if you don't know anything about Philadelphia then that won't hold any special value either. But if you're from Philly and over 50, this is worth watching.

Credit to Denzel Washington who carries this movie. If you like Denzel your time won't be wasted.

I want to especially point out that in between the scenes of the main plot, there are any number of "quiet" scenes where Mr. Washington has these wonderful moments of "every day" dialogue with the supporting cast. There are many successful actors today that don't have the chops to do such "quiet" scenes convincingly, but Denzel shows us how its done.

The gems. The first gem is the location filming in Philadelphia, where I used to work, which is still near me and in my heart. For those who can appreciate it, the locations are a treat as they are in so many M. Night Shyamalan films. If that's not you, then you'll have a "meh".

The second gem is the virtual parade of Hollywood stars from the 90's and the "aughts", from movies and esp TV. Younger folk may not care about this AT ALL - these actors are no longer in the mainstream, but just to see John Goodman thrown in there without expecting him was an eye opener.

But the biggest "little" surprise is that this film was was obviously the "casting reel" for James Gandolfini to play the lead in the Sopranos which would begin the next year.

He's played different characters, but Gandolfini was definitely "playing" the Tony Soprano character here, accent and all. Early in the film there's a scene in a bar where he displays all of what became of Tony Soprano. He goes from threatening to affable, all within 2 lines of dialogue. A great actor who is missed. There's a scene in the police station where you can notice the difference in accents between Gandolfini and John Goodman.

Also is Aida Turturro, who went on to play Tony Soprano's sister, Janice. It's almost as if David "Sopranos" Chase saw this and said, "That's the feeling I want".

BUT, I'm familiar enough with film editing to bring myself to take away one star because what I thought were poor / lazy choices.

Given the fantastic nature of the story, when they could have / should have been creative, things start to look very familiar from other films and it seems that editing decisions were made due to time constraints.

Another review compared it to the Deer Hunter and certainly this movie could be compared to PART of the Deer Hunter. While both were drawn out, the Deer Hunter had MUCH more going on in it than this film has, which could have used a severe trimming (about 30 minutes too long).

I gave the Deer Hunter 8 so I have to give this a 4.

There's drama, there's mood, there's atmosphere. Then there's boredom. Film is a great thing. It lets you stretch and compress time. You can get bored in 30 seconds, you can be held riveted by drying paint.

But even after adding elements that really didn't have to do with the main plot (95% of the prison stuff could have been left out) there just wasn't enough going on.

Cinematography was fine but the composition / camera movement seemed held back. It just wasn't impressive. This simple story needed more crane shots, low shots, tracking shots, critical time of day (position of sun) shots and you would have really elevated things.

Another viewer commented so I have to reply - yes, there was a MOMENT that Casey Affleck "acts out" for a hot minute and they left it in. Mind not blown. If you want intensity rewatch the Deer Hunter and you'll see what I mean. Rupert Friend could have done the same if not better, but I'm guessing Batman isn't his brother so he didn't get the part.

A ~90 minute story stretched out to two hours. It's a run down town, with a run down factory and run down families. At the end you feel run down and, like everyone in the film, just wanted this to END.

Pump up the cinematography and the soundtrack, tighten up the edit and you may have gotten a much better film with the same principles.

An American story that's been told many times before and since but a solid pass for me.

This is unique because, IMO, it was a great opportunity wasted by lazy editing.

To make sense of this, you should know the "backstory" that the producers shot this for a TV series, but it never got picked up by a network.

When they failed to get the TV show scheduled, they decided to patch together what they did shoot to make it a feature movie release (a very similar story to David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive").

As for the movie, this is a beautifully costumed, colorful, well lit, well made story with familiar faces set in London via Jack the Ripper. A notch above the average horror film.

BUT THEN COMES THE FEAR FLASHER AND THE HORROR HORN.

This is the most puzzling, wonderful and disappointing aspect of this. In the beginning, William Conrad's voice tells you to 1) close your eyes when you see the fear flasher and 2) turn your head when you hear the horror horn. This was reminiscent to Vincent Price's intro to "The Tingler", classic "gimmick" horror movie.

If you were in a theater where you can't fast forward and you've never seen the film before, this becomes a most interesting game of suspense. You are forever anticipating when the flashing may start or the horn may start sounding. (it wasn't really a horn, rather, an electronic sound)

In execution, however, the flash and the horn are terribly misused. First off, while we're given discreet instructions for either a visual or audible warning, the flashing and the horn ALWAYS happen at the same time.

They could have really played with us. Thank goodness they didn't tell us to turn our heads in one direction when you hear the horn but turn it in the other direction when it's just the flashing and use our hands to cover our faces when both were playing and then... At least they didn't go THAT far!

To my disappointment, however, the movie really DIDN'T have anything that merited such a gimmick. The fear flasher+horn were obviously added on after the fact. Compare that with the William Castle gimmicks which were clearly part of the story from the start with movies such as The Tingler.

But to make things more of a waste, when they *do* use the flash+horn it's at the WRONG TIMES. If you were "courageous" enough to keep looking, what your eyes were closed for that moment didn't show anything gruesome at all!

Better would have been to have turned the horn off, but keep the screen flashing. Then, to play with the audience's imagination, play gruesome sound effects with voices reacting to what's going on... then cut to an "after" shot.

Even with this fail, this movie remains a treat. Not only is it ironically funny to deal with the Fear Flasher, but the movie was pretty good without it. Not a classic, but a unique entry into the genre of 1960's color horror and a better movie than many others.

As others have written, for some reason, there is this dedication in the beginning to victims of border patrol, Native Americans, et al. IMO, it was put there to manipulate people into thinking there was a purpose in this film. There is not.

The film is technically well made. The cinematography, the editing, the locations, fine cast - all the pieces are there, but the story is a jumbled mess.

In the first act of the story, there is a well done sequence which was to present some kind of back story of our main protagonist. Using bits of items, we're shown the origins of his collection of bric-a-brac.

But in spite of all the editing and shots, we're kept at a distance enough to always feel things forced and formula. There's a thing called an emotion - it's something you feel. Not once did I feel anything except and boredom.

The story is delivered in bit and pieces. We're all waiting to see how those pieces are finally put together but it's done in a way that doesn't measure up to the cast.

There are many, many ways to tell this kind of story and make it work.

This wasn't one of them.

Not everyone's cup of tea, but not since Inframan have I see so many tricks pulled out of a bag and thrown up on the screen.

STUPID but FUN. The movie is a little slow in the middle with some pretty childish "humor" but then picks up to keep things up right to the end.

WHERE ARE THE DISTRIBUTORS??? Netflix / Prime would GLADLY put this on the streaming list!

Being an ignorant American I'd like to see them put out a dubbed version - but subtitles are better than nothing.

If this were more popular I wouldn't give it an 8, but like the Oscars, I'm overrating it a point to boost it as I think it's a movie many people "should" see compared to so MANY well promoted titles that won't leave you as entertained as this one.

I LOVE MARIA!

I really do like Tchaikovsky's music. Swan Lake, Symphony 1 in b flat etc. In disclosure, however, I've never been close to THINKING I would enjoy live ballet even when offered free tickets.

I have seen other ballet movies in the theater - The Turning Point (ugh), 1985's White Nights (OK), Black Swan (great).... I'm not a total stranger to ballet or ballet in film.

What I'm about to say isn't going to be very popular with the people who have come here to leave their praise and glowing reviews as they reminisce of their seasonal family pilgrimages to the big city theater... but I've come here in the Christmas spirit to share an alternative but genuine experience that my family had and to spread the word about what may become a tradition in your house, such as watching Die Hard for Christmas.

Because this movie really does bring a different *kind* of entertainment to a lowbrow smart ass "Rifftrax" family such as ours. With 2 teenage wisecracking sons who are always looking for sacred cows of my generation to mock, this movie doesn't stop delivering interactive fun.

Because it's bad.

Cult film bad. Laugh out loud bad. Yell at the screen bad. What the hell were they thinking bad. And for those people, my people, this is a must see.

Yes, as others have stated, this movie is poorly shot (unless you think distracting film grain is a "daring, creative" decision), poorly edited (noticeably so), bad special effects (think Doctor Who), "odd" costumes (do you like my hat? No? Goodbye!), bad makeup decisions, and many strange set designs which leaves you asking "just what IS that supposed to be?" too many times.

For full disclosure to reveal what insolent, irreverent, simplistic lowbrows we are, we also enjoy engaging in the same mockery with the "classic" Bing Crosby / Danny Kaye musical White Christmas (which was built around the song *after* it became popular). That "homage" flick is also silly and bad... but in completely different ways.

To its credit, for all its dated content and elements, White Christmas is technically accomplished, where in comparison, this Nutcracker fails so badly on both content *and* execution.

With so much to make fun of, non-stop evil laughter and jokes were shared and enjoyed by young and old alike, completely at the expense of the creative and hardworking people in this film.... and isn't that what Christmas is all about?

I know what I'm saying will come off as heresy to many of the "ballet" people praising the movie here. I ALSO understand how it makes my whole family appear to be ignorant, illiterate, uncultured fools... fair enough.

But with all of that stipulated, I'm not suggesting that people avoid the Nutcracker, rather, they *should* see the film but with an unconventional set of expectations that may let them really enjoy it.

BTW: another "unintended" film is 1957's "Zero Hour" which was what "Airplane" was based upon almost shot for shot.

Zardoz is a true science fiction story without laser guns and robots. It's very different and very dated.

The strange production reminds me of Barbarella in its odd uniqueness, only Zardoz avoids the humor and goes for the profound. It features a "twist" which makes the film worthwhile, however, the the last 40 minutes could have easily been trimmed in half.

The biggest problem, however, is the lack of production budget. Sets, costumes, hair, composition, staging, everything seemed to be on a budget of either time or money. Everything looked slapped together and off the shelf - nothing was *spectacular*. Even the film stock looked dark and grainy. The stone head looked cheap. There was never a moment where this viewer was *impressed* by the *production*.

In comparison, the TV series "The Prisoner" looks better to this day, and that was made years before this.

It was clearly decided that the words would tell the story and not the camera as I noticed many lost opportunities but would required more days of production.

The DP, Geoffrey Unsworth, did 2001 and Superman, for Pete's sake, both incredible films, but here, the photography / lighting was uninspired (when it wasn't trying to be intentionally weird).

The story yearned for special effects / techniques but little was offered. If you don't want to put the time and money into designing something "special" for traveling through a crystal of infinite knowledge then just make it a dream.

The fact is that Unsworth oversaw a VERY clever job with the "phantom zone" crystal a few years later in Superman. Here's, Connery's journey literally came down to the cliche hall of mirrors.

At the end, however, you do feel like you've been through "something". The story is not completely frivolous, however, I do get many of the same feelings as I did at the end of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" TV series, which I would recommend as well.

This "UFO" movie probably looked good on paper but is a catalog of "don't" for anyone who watches film.

I'm thinking that any trailer you would see for this film would be taken from the end of this film, which reflects a level of quality and attention (and money) not seen in the rest of the film.

A confused narrative: The body of the film is made in a hybrid of "objective" plus Blair Witch "found footage" style that put together, makes no sense. The "found footage" clips contain ridiculous contradictions in reality and there is no excuse given to account for the 3rd person / tripod shots which are used to bind things together.

Terrible acting / dialogue: The high school level acting and awkward dialogue seals the deal. At no time can a reasonable person suspend their disbelief. The dialogue is unnatural and unbelievable.

A better story: The story (not the dialogue) has some interesting elements (my 2nd star) and I could see why this was greenlighted. The story does not make up for the failures in the "film making" aspects that are beyond forgiveness.

The Ending: The "real" story in this production is the ending which betrays the first hour. As another wrote, 90%+ of the budget is put in about 8 of the last 20 minutes. It's surprisingly well done considering the rest of the production and there's the 3rd star, dragged down by the overall.

I could believe that this film was greenlit on the script plus sample clips of effects toward the ending. Then in production everything falls apart.

Production / acting / directing / editing: 1 star (the lowest rating) Plus 1 star for the story. Plus 1 star for the ending. Plus 1 star for the curiosity of how unbalanced this mess is.

As a follower of this case, I regretted watching this.

A film which will get views based upon the doubts it will try to stir up. Such sensationalism is a well worn Hollywood movie practice including many of the "controversial" Michael Douglas movies, but this lands more like William Castle.

The premise as is detailed in the trailer, is that the famous murders that took place June 12, 2004 were in fact committed by a serial killer, not OJ Simpson. This possibility of what this film shows was previously raised on CNN but it simply has never been taken seriously elsewhere.

IMO, this film would have been best done as some kind of "documentary" with licensed images, period TV news video and headlines of the time to pose the possibilities that this presents.

The "docudrama" format, esp THIS one, IMO, fails to engage the viewer while presenting at times what appears to be at times a low budget slasher film. Either the director doesn't seem to want the audience to emphasize with the victims or is unable to.

Mena Suvari's performance lacks depth between simply switching from twitchy to vapid. It was real missed opportunity for Suvari who has managed to deliver in other roles. But Nick Stahl rises above expectations. My biggest disappointment in any of these portrayals was the superficial portrayal of Ron Goldman. OJ's character is shown only briefly and the movie does not make any effort of showing him as empathic, however, the detached portrait of the victims left a bad taste in my mouth.

MAJOR PROBLEMS.

Because the things I will list below aren't in the movie they are not "spoilers".

My biggest problem is that the film makes no effort in addressing the elephants in the room. For the premise of this film to be true, then one has to accept a whole list of things.

I'll start with the big one. During the trial the Simpson defense searched for every possible alternative.

If even PART of the information presented in this film were known at the time, Simpson's defense team would have been all over it. They were not. There was ZERO mention of it at or away from the trial (on the media).

To me, it is unbelievable that the "dream team" would have ignored the information presented in this film had it stood up to any scrutiny. I'm *sure* the house *next door* was checked out at the time.

Both OJ and the "dream team" *did* mention drug dealers along with graphic descriptions of their methods both during the trial and on camera.

But that theory is not what *this* film is about. OJ Simpson frequently referred to drug dealers after the trial but no one until now was there ever a extended mention of the things that this movie shows.

Then... OJ wrote a book "If I Did It" (sic). *That* would have been a good place to have presented what's in his movie... only it was not.

Then there is, well, practically everything else that one must ask, "so if this is what happened, then why....?"

Like the timing of the attack with OJ's departure to Chicago. Was that just coincidence? That's not proof of his guilt but that was some coincidence if this movie was true. Then there's the bloody finger. Then the finding of bloody glove, the loud banging on Kato's air conditioner (which remains a mystery of logic to me), the trail of victims blood through his house. Were all these things just coincidences?

I'm not even talking about OJ's history of violence. I will agree that there is a big difference between being a moody wife beater and a premeditated murderer but it's not as if this was out of the blue.

The forensic dept in LA may have been sloppy, but could the gang that couldn't handle their samples as the textbook says really pull off such a conspiracy?

Then the famous Bronco chase. Everyone has something to hide and I could see him panicking, however, let's remember that to most people, he was going to kill himself when that truck stopped. But if not that, then you have a disguise and a failed getaway.

There is no doubt that questions remain unanswered, but this is just too "out there" for this "trial of the century" viewer to be satisfied with.

The ESPN documentary "Made in America" to me is definitive and for a docu-drama mini-series, "The People v. O. J. Simpson" offered a high level of accuracy and surprisingly good performances.

I've seen other presentations proposing others (ones suggesting Al Cowlings, Jason Simpson and Ron Shipp being the real murderers), but among all of these, this ranks the lowest.

As a parent, I was surprised at how many memories of Dora The Explorer I had as I raised by sons - the TV show, the repetitive songs, the educational toys, the Journey to the Purple Planet video game and even lost Baby Blue Bird from the very second episode "Lost and Found"!

My boys at 15 now, everyone in my family expected this to be an instant "so bad it's funny" movie but gosh darn it, Dora, you did it!

Aside from the main character, the movie is little more than a mash up of so many other jungle and teen movies, but then again, wasn't Raiders of the Lost Arc a mash up of "Secret of the Incas" and Saturday matinee cliff hanger serials?

The fact is, however, that as weird as it is, there were moments in the movie when one could accept the movie's main character was indeed *the* Dora the Explorer and that was, IMO, an achievement director James Bobin should be proud of being able to pull off.

I had to take off a SOLID star for what was some of the worst CGI of the current generation. The acting is way over the top (as you *should* expect) and the story avoids any emotion depth, which is again, what you should expect.

With all this said, it should be viewed ONLY by those having watched the TV show.

In the end, however, all its shortcomings are made up with a sense of warmth and fun that exceeds expectations. As my sons grew up, Dora became a part of my life as well, only I didn't realize it... until I saw this.

While the title refers to her most enduring legacy in one episode of Star Trek, this documentary surprises the viewer in turning out to be the profile of an enigmatic actress who just bubbled under stardom in the early 1960s but in the meantime managed to put her mark on what is practically a catalogue of television of that time.

I was surprised at how much I remember seeing her but like so many other actors who carve their way into our consciousness didn't reach enduring fame.

So it is that she becomes a symbol of TV shows of the day that the full-color wide-screen stereo media of today has by it nature left behind.

I'm not slightly reminded of the many great silent films which only a handful remain watched or the many thousands of hours of radio shows which formed the foundation for television in general yet remain all but extinct to our cultural memory.

If you didn't grow up in the early-mid 1960's or if you're not a fan of TV of that time, then there probably won't be much for you here.

But if you did, you'll rewarded with a cavalcade of memories and surprises along the way. You'll see a profile of Hollywood culture of the time along with the changes in the film industry during that time, esp with the role of women behind the lens.

A fantastic effort of getting so many people to share their memories and A++ for the complicated task of editing all the stills and film.

I took off one star for the narrow focus of its subject and another star for how her death was treated as some kind of mysterious cliffhanger when it was simply the final chapter of a fine story.

SPOILERS

Science fiction has many tropes, but this episode contains one that I simply couldn't get past.

In what is now a classic scene, in "The Thing From Another World" - a man guy puts an electric blanket on the block of ice containing an alien, leading to disastrous results.

I've seen this concept repeated in many other forms, however, it's usually cleverly done, or in a production which wasn't trying to be taken that seriously.

But while I feel the casting is weak (Beau Bridges is unbelievable as a brilliant, rogue scientist driven to ruin through ambition) and the family chemistry with their dialogue is painfully awkward, there rises above (or below) one element which is unforgivable as my whole family was screaming at the TV:

"Why doesn't this idiot put a lid on the tank?"

...or as my wife said smiling, "What could possibly happen?"

I'M SURE AT SOME TIME DURING THE PRODUCTION the people making this were asked about this little bit of business.

But they didn't even offer up a bit of exposition which explained how "this kind of species can not climb up even the shortest of walls."

The real story here is how the people making this resisted the idea to come up with some other, more clever way to move the story forward than to completely insult our intelligence.

There are other unbelievable moments / situations in this episode, however, I will say it doesn't get much better...

Beep looks at the history of how sound has been used in arcade gaming. It reviews the experiences of the people who had to make the decisions, both technical and creative in order to get the best user experience they could from the hardware that was available at the time.

It uses an historical narrative starting with sound in arcade games even before electronics were used. It drills through the various platforms that became available to the industry as the technology and industry evolved. It interviews the very people who created some iconic games.

The film is divided into parts covering the various levels of computer hardware. In these parts, there seem to be two difference kinds of sequences.

At first, they briefly describe the era in question with some slides and graphics, then are a series of in-depth interviews with the people who worked on the games of that era.

These interviews are about 98% of the documentary.

The problem that I had, however, was that it seemed to be oriented toward those who had a deep knowledge of the games of these periods, the music that was in the games and which of these people worked on which games. The interviews are personal accounts of these creators experiences.

The presentation could have been greatly improved with some editing.

Suggestions:

Greatly expand the "intro / explanation" parts and provide some recognizable examples of the titles and how the music / sound of these games fits in with the interviews which will then be shown.

THEN, and this would be so easy, as the interviewees are shown talking, include in their "title" the games they worked on. This was perhaps the most frustrating part as I was tempted to just watch this on my PC and google stuff as the video played to look up these people and what they worked on. We needed to see more screens of the games played and examples of their music. There were some. I needed more.

In the end, if you're NOT actually in the business of making music for video games watching this doc is like finding yourself in the middle of conversation between two people deeply involved in a hobby and you're NOT into that much.

So while the subject and the interviews are interesting, the lack of other information to give it context makes it too dry for people outside of the business. I stopped watching after about 20 minutes.

I've seen many feature movies with "big" stars which didn't live up to the quality of this episode.

Louie CK is pursued by an overweight girl working in the comedy club he's working in. Turning her away time and again, he ends up getting to know the girl and in return, the audience is treated to what is probably some of the finest dialogue and believable acting that's ever been on TV.

Louie CK got the Emmy for Writing for a Comedy Series in this year. This was, IMO, the reason why.

The other episodes in season 4 were outstanding but seriously, if they had held this episode back and built a movie around it to feature the last 20 minutes of this episode, that movie would have probably won an Oscar.

I recommend you go out of your way to see this.

TV show was so much more *funny* than this, with slapstick jokes and sound effects. This movie loses the plot and tries to create a world different from the one which was created as an idea for a single panel comic and in a different time where the novelty has worn off.

The comic and the TV show were both products of a day when people were learning to break out of the conformity of the 50's and early 60's. "Goth" hadn't become an industry yet which stores in the mall catered to.

The TV show was *funny*. It wasn't "subtle". You didn't have to listen closely to the TV show to "get" it.

For example, there was a weekly sequence seeing "regular" people left running out of the house frightened for their lives, often using under cranked film (fast motion). (not unlike the stock joke of the Casper cartoons) In this movie, however, the house guests are about as weird as the Addams. There was no "contrast".

On TV, Jackie Coogan's Fester provided pure over the top belly laughs with a vaudeville like cadence. With his light bulb and self-destructive, one-man-three-stooges tricks (his regular headache cure gag), adding the sound effects made us all laugh out loud on a weekly basis.

And let's not forget the fact that the original TV show actors defined those roles, esp Carolyn Jones and the guy (pardon me) who played Lurch. In this, however, Lurch dropped into the background. "Thing" had a much bigger role (thanks to CGI, we completely lost "the box" which was kind of the joke). To be sure, Angelica Houston was very good, but I thought they played up the sex/romance a half-note too much for what was really a kids show.

Lastly, as a point of art, the TV show was in black and white, which was fitting for the macabre theme. This movie, however, was a lush production and the attention to detail was fantastic.

But furniture doesn't make me *laugh*. (although I remember the laugh track on the TV show tried to make us laugh at it) Often, movie adaptations of TV shows will take some lingering question from the TV show and actually address it. Like, where did Gomez and Morticia meet? What exactly is "Thing"? (who is way overdone in the movie, thanks to CGI) So many missed opportunities.

Instead, they create an story about Fester which was never part of the TV show, introducing a main character (the lawyer) which wasn't part of the original show, and again, focus on a very well done set design (yawn) to weave a story (the vault) which only takes you farther away from the characters you fell in love with or any real jokes.

Perhaps it's because we have so many more choices today that "humorous" doesn't cut it any more.

Interesting and pretty but outside of the pre-title sequence gag, simply not funny.

It's difficult to watch this today while keeping in mind that it was all made before the first satellite was launched years after it was made.

While the "Disney Magic" is ever present, and a great job by Ward Kimball, the real star of the show is Werner Von Braun, who gets to show that his technical genius and his ability to coordinate large technical projects was matched only by his personal charisma.

While "The Right Stuff" portrays him as inarticulate and brusk, and a recent History Channel presentation on the V2 portrayed him as an innocent, wide-eyed dreamer, with this film we can see how it was possible for the same man while in his 20's was able to convince Adolph Hitler to spend billions on developing the first ballistic missile, and then later go on to inspire John Kennedy to the point of adopting his dream of going to the moon and all but directly quoting Braun in his now famous speech.

And let's not ignore that this presentation pretty much served as a technical blueprint for Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, a reference not kept secret by Kubrick.

In the end, I believe this should be shown in schools today, not just as a lesson on history, rocketry and space flight, but to show the power of dreams and how a person who so dedicates themselves can literally end up taking that dream to the moon.

Knocking one off for some seriously dated elements. A cartoon character used to illustrate space flight is seen constantly smoking a cigar. Then there's the music. I find it fascinating how much Westerns influenced the culture of the day, as many of the musical fanfares have Western and Native American overtones which are now distracting.

Sure this MAY contain spoilers, but the thing that will be more spoiled is your time by watching it. It took me a while to realize it was a "PG-13" movie, but then I realized I didn't hear any "naughty" words. This is a teenage bank robbery / hostage flick.

That would explain why people talk like teenagers, and that the cop in charge acts like a teenager, instead of like all of other hostage negotiators you may have seen in all of those "R" rated bank hostage movies. ("R" for "realistic") The biggest problem was that it was trying SO HARD to be funny, or witty, or whatever, and it was just STUPID.

Quick question for those who've seen the film. Do banks have PHONES any more? I believe they DO, but you wouldn't know it if you saw this movie. I just remember one ringing RIGHT AWAY with the cop in charge calling in like the first 3 minutes of just about every other bank hostage flick I've ever seen. I also remember the cop-in-charge REALLY knowing what he's doing, too, you know, like he's taken a class or something.

The thing that I find a real shame about this is that, technically, it was well made - all the pieces where there. The story wasn't really bad, as an outline. The DIALOG was a BIG problem, along with the lack of believable characters, and editing that was too smart for itself by way of "lock, stock and two smoking barrels" whose self-conscience style has infected cinema with its small-screen editing and overlays. Please give me a long shot and some atmosphere! There's one good thing about this film, however, Erika Christensen is HOT, and seriously, if it weren't for her, I would have stopped this within the first half hour.

There are so many problems with this movie, but they can be all explained away when it becomes obvious that this movie was geared to teen-aged boys.

When you get that, everything else in Next becomes understandable...

You can now understand why there is absolutely no detail given for the terrorists' backgrounds, motives, or how they got the bomb, why they're exploding it, let alone how their ethnic grouping suddenly mixes up throughout the movie.

You can understand it because a 13 year old boy would respond, "Who cares?, they're TERRORISTS, it's a BOMB! That's all I need to know!"

You can now understand why virtually no background / history was given on Nicholas Cage's character, along with what the hell was Peter Falk doing in this movie?

You can understand it because a 13 year old boy would respond, "Who cares?, he can tell the future!"

You can now understand how Jessica Biel, who is SMOKIN' in this movie, is able to virtually fall in love with a complete stranger overnight.

You can understand it because a 13 year old boy would respond, "Who cares?, she's HOT, and I'd like for her to fall in love with me too!"

You can now understand the completely unrealistic, dumbed-down dialog, inferior to Fox TV's 24, which bends over backwards so many times to explain obvious things while simultaneously letting great opportunities for intelligence and humor pass by.

You can understand it because a 13 year old boy would respond, "Whaaa? Did they say something? Jessica Biel is HOT!"

And you can also understand why this movie fails to favorably compare not just to other mindless Nicholas Cage action movies, but to other action (and sci-fi, whatever) movies in general.

You can understand it because a 13 year old boy would respond, "What other movies?"

If you're a 13 year old boy, go ahead, Jessica Biel IS hot...

If you're not a 13 year old boy - READ for 90 minutes, play video games anything would be a better use of your time...

I thank you for letting me write this, maybe by preventing you from seeing Next, I can feel I didn't completely waste 90 minutes of my life..