ALOE

Oh my goodness. This had to be one of the longest and most boring movies I've ever had to sit thru. Thank G-d I saw it on rental and didn't waste the extra $$ to see it in the theaters. Please Travolta and Thurman..stop thinking it's 'cute' to make movies together!! (unless of course, it's a Tarantino flick). If this is supposed to be a reprisal of Travolta's character in "Pulp Fiction" it did not even remotely hold any resemblance to the edginess of that character, or any interest for that fact. Except for maybe the dark suits. I think Travolta had two expressions..one half-serious, and one stupid half-smile. Unless this is free on cable, or a very cheap rental..avoid at all costs!!

The late seventies/early eighties may have left us the legacy of disco, and polyester, but it also was a time of some great comedic films, and comedic writers and actors.

I remember seeing movies such as Foul Play, Seems Like Old Times, The Goodbye Girl, Airplane, Arthur, The Main Event, Love at First Bite, The Jerk, etc. as a kid. Then they were funny to me, but now that I get older, they seem even funnier. Maybe it's the nostalgia, in a day and age of 'dark comedy', to be again in an era that was more laid-back and lighthearted. These movies are just good plain fun.

As far as Chevy Chase, and Goldie Hawn are concerned, especially in Foul Play...I would have describe them as cute, (especially together), great fun, fun to watch, great talents, and in this movie pure genius. I would love to see some of the seventies/ eighties comedy icons get together to make one last movie together. With a good script, it would be like It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World would be to the great classic comedians of early film.

For anyone that is a Gone with the Wind fanatic, this movie is an absolutely horrible disappointment. The book and movie as a sequel stray so much from the spirit (and I believe, intention) of Margaret Mitchell's epic novel, that it would shame Scarlett O'Hara and her glorious Old South.

If one were to watch the movie out of reference to GWTW, it may be enjoyable as a soap-operatic costume-drama. The costumes and sets are accurate, and I believe the acting is none too horrible on its own. As a sequel to the honorable GWTW, JoAnne Whalley and Timothy Dalton (although I believe he is a fabulous actor in his own right), just could not do the justice of the original characters of Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler.

My hope is that at some point in the future, another inspired writer (and director) will bring us another version of the Scarlett/Rhett story that is more in tune with the original spirit of the Margarett Mitchell novel.

I love this movie more every time I see it, I don't think I'll ever tire of watching it. It's nice to see Julia Roberts out of her typical sugar-sweet roles, playing the semi-villainess, who stumbles through her undermining with such neurotic behavior and comedy that we like her.

Rupert Evert is superb....despite the corniness, I love the musical at the restauarant, and LOVE the cell-phone scene at the end! If only every woman could have a male friend like that.

Cameron Diaz is endearing, just like her role in "Something About Mary". The rest of the zany family is great. Dermot Mulroney plays the perfect, handsome, straight-man, oblivious to all the scheming going on around him.

If you love zany comedies, with a touch of romance and wonderful young actors thrown in, this is worthing adding to your video collection.

Worth watching if you like historical dramas. Even though the movie takes great license with timelines and historical characters, (glaring to those who know a little bit about it, and confusing to the rest of us...) it really sets the mood of the era.

I've never much liked Elizabeth I before I saw Cate Blanchett's most sympathetic and convincing portrayal. Joseph Fiennes is a little too sappy, making us wonder what Bess would have seen in him if he really was the love of her life. I imagine the real Robert Dudley was a much stronger character. Joseph never seems more than the moody, brooding, hapless boyfriend wannabe, but Cate more than carries him in her performance.

Geoffrey Rush is perfect in the sinister foil of Walsingham to the "pureness" of Queen Bess. Fanny Ardant and Christopher Eccleston offer strong supporting roles, perfectly cast. Other greats are Kathy Burke, and the great Masters of English drama.

The costumes are astonishing, and the sets are breathtaking. This movie really should have been a mini-series, giving us much more time to dealve into each character; we only seem to get little snatches before the director rushes onto the next scene. It may have been much more satisfying (and accurate) if made to be shown over a period of a few hours.

But, overall, in this day of campy movie-making, a historical drama of this scale and with such fine acting overall is a breath of fresh air. I suggest watching ELIZABETH, and then going to the library or internet to delve more into these larger-than-life figures of history.

Even though I was a kid when I saw the original, I can remember it being much more endearing and convincing than this Sharon Stone remake. It's not great, it's not bad, but Sharon does not ever convince me that she is a "mother-figure" to the orphaned boy she wants to help. She's always just a little too abrasive, too tough, and trying too hard to be sexy in this role.

The boy who plays one of the lead characters comes off better than Sharon. I'm wondering what kind of recruiting they needed to get George C. Scott and Jeremy Northam in this movie. My advice is to stick to watching Sharon Stone in her usual glamorous, sex-pot type roles. They are much more suited to her style.