drgibson

Why can't they entertain? Why do they have to preach? The Constant Gardener could have been a fun cloak-and-dagger murder conspiracy. Instead it is a polemic that preaches sanctimoniously. There are no real villains, because no effort is made to create real personalities. Instead a concept, evil big business and its "handmaiden" big government is clumsily portrayed as bogeymen. In fact, even the positive characters are never developed. Plot twists are clumsily handled. Characters survive who would have effortlessly been murdered by the "bad guys." It strains credibility. It's a mediocre film (5) that could have been more honest if the filmmakers have substituted reality for sanctimony.

Avoid this film. It's a nadir for talented actors Depp, Bello, and the rest. Stephen King's thoughtful tale of pressure and madness has a downbeat but appropriate ending. The film has taken that and turned into a sadistic, unbelievable slasher-trash movie. At times the climax is so bad it delves into gory camp. It's easy to understand why this loser tanked at the box office. Also, the plot twists and turns which worked in the novella are delivered in a ham-handed manner that strains the credulity of the viewer. The only positive for this flop is John Tuturro's creepy John Shooter, but he's not in the film long enough to matter.

I am so disappointed in this version, and after waiting months to see it. Why do script writers assume they can improve on the author and change a characters' personality, motivations and even the plot of a great tale. I am no fan of the 1970s TV version but it's Gone With the Wind compared to this mess. There are no likable characters in this adaptation. It's a sometimes plotless version. To King purists, here are some ridiculous changes: Ben Mears is a Pulitzer Prize winner, rather than a moderately successful writer; Eva, the landlady, is an immigrant and was a confederate of Hubie Marsten; The Nortons run a cafe, no mention of Mr. Norton; Mark Patrie is a sullen teen, rather than the bright kid he is in King's book; Larry Crockett is having an affair with his daughter Ruthie; and, most ridiculous, Dr. James Cody is sleeping with Sandy McDougal!!! Also, the character of Father Callahan is pure evil, rather than the courageous but flawed, doomed man in the novel. Two minor bright spots are Donald Sutherland as Straker and Rutger Hauer as Barlow the vampire. But they don't have enough screen time to save this turkey. See the earlier David Soul version, or better yet, read the novel.

It's been 30 years since I saw this film, and most of what I recall about it is that I loved it, as a 10-year-old watching at 4 a.m.

I distantly recall a tale of bringing life back with a dark, brooding sinister Karloff obsessed with a purpose. There was of course, a young couple in danger. I recall dark sets, with much of the action in a dark room, or maybe it was even a cave. As I mentioned, it's been a long time. I wish I could recall more, and find this film gem. Does anyone know if a DVD or video company sells this classic of the genre?

OK modern-day version of the Melville classic. It's a sometimes amusing satire on office mores and stereotypes.

It runs out of steam at the end. It likely would have been better as an hour comedy-drama.

I sort of like it. Others may prefer not to view it. Crispin Glover is pretty well cast as the office slacker, however. I often wondered why his career stayed in neutral after Back to the Future. Overall, six stars out of 10.

Not as "good" as Singles Ward, which although amateurish, was able to weave a plot and make knowing audiences laugh at the parody. But The R.M. is pathetic. There's virtually no plot. The jokes are stale. The characters are even more of a cliche than in Singles Ward. It's very unrealistic as the RM's family manages to adopt a brother, close a house sale and move without ever telling the RM. Right. Like other "Mormon" films, characters fall in love in two minutes through sappy montages (they did that in Charlie, too). The acting is atrocious, most particularly some sad sack who plays the prosecutor late in the film. One more thing: The film is way too long. They should have trimmed it to about 70 minutes. I give it two stars because there are only two jokes in the film.

This show is a classic. I discovered it after we received digital cable and it's one reason to keep BBC America. The foibles, insecurities, prejudices and eccentricities of co-workers, bosses and semi-bosses is captured with on-target humor and pathos. It's better than anything currently on American TV

This is certainly not a great film, but it's a lot of fun if you are LDS, like myself, have been in a singles ward, and get the many LDS culture jokes. Also, playing Spot-the-LDS-Celebrity adds to the film's appeal. But Singles Ward will just confuse and perhaps irritate non-members. So far only Richard Dutcher (who has a funny cameo in this film) has managed to go beyond the Mormon genre and appeal to non-members and audiences outside Utah/Idaho/Nevada,... with God's Army and especially Brigham City.

I'd like to enjoy Rigoletto, but I have to deal in reality. It's just plain bad. It's contrived, sappy, unbelievable and the acting is just terrible. I applaud the filmmakers for trying to make "family-friendly" features, but the film has to be worth the effort. The best I can say about Rigoletto is that it's harmless. If you want to see really good wholesome family entertainment, rent Beauty and the Beast, or Chariots of Fire, or The Winslow Boy, or the countless other G films better than Rigoletto.

I love the first four Rocky films but Rocky V is a mess. The plot is dishonest. You have to believe that a multi-millionaire couple like Rocky and Adrian would allow a loser like Paulie to have control over their finances. Never would happen. Then, you have to believe that if Rocky went broke, no advertisers would touch him because of a few youthful indiscretions. This, after he has been champ twice over the course of several years and just defeated a Russian champ in a fight seen by the entire world! He could have made millions with one commercial. After these two dishonest plot twists, it's impossible to take the rest of the film seriously. That's too bad, because a plot involving a still wealthy, retired, slightly punchy Rocky trying to guide a young prospect to the top would have been interesting.

Legally Blonde was a pleasant surprise for the first hour. It was a smart, witty fun film about a brainy Bel Air cheerleader Valley Girl-type dealing with her first year at "snobby" Harvard Law School. That should have been the entire plot. In its last half hour, the film takes a silly, TV-sitcom-ish, totally unbelievable plot twist involving a murder trial and it sinks in quality, losing its edge. Still, Reese Witherspoon is a talented actress and Legally Blonde is worth a rental.

The first Last Don was an okay adaptation of Puzo's excellent novel, but this "sequel" is plain trash. Characters who were fully developed in the first film are turned into caricatures of killing machines. There's a real feeble effort to turn the climax of Last Don 2 to something like Godfather 2, but if fails, miserably, and let's face it, Jason Gedrick, while a fine actor, is no Al Pacino.

I have not seen this film in more than 25 years but I loved it as a child, and saw it at least a half dozen times. I would like to find a copy to view for nostalgia reasons, and yes, I have also never forgotten the tune of the theme music.

This version is not as superior as the A&E production, but for years it was THE best Pride and Prejudice available. It's a bit too stage-like (perhaps the budget was low?) but the acting is superb. Elizabeth Garvie is a marvelous,beautiful, mature Elizabeth, and Malcolm Rennie is simply the funniest, and best Mr. Collins I've ever seen on screen and stage. Also, Moray Watson is very droll as Mr. Bennett, although he seems a bit young for the role. This Pride and Prejudice belongs in video collections along side the A&E version.

This isn't a great movie, by any stretch. The acting is hammy, and a very young Jimmy Osmond is frankly, too chubby to play The Great Brain. But if you like the John D. Fitzgerald novels, you'll find the film a treat. I'm glad it's out and that I taped it in the early 1980s. I'm not sure it's for sale on video. It's a definite G and post-toddler kids will like it. However, those adults unfamiliar with the Great Brain character will be turning off the channel or VCR pretty quickly. On the plus side, the sets of early, rural Utah are pretty well done and the cast, if inexperienced, is at least earnest.

This is one terrific western film. Sam Elliott, who is marvelous as a "Shane-like" character, plays a drifter who follows a family of green homesteaders across the western plains and protects them from a savage pack of outlaws. The family, which includes Tom Conti and Kate Capshaw, also becomes more sufficient as the story progresses. It's a lean, well-directed film, with not a scene or character wasted. Not until Unforgiven did a western film arrives as superior as this HBO production. The story is based on an entertaining L. Lamour novel of the same name. The novel has a significant plot twist from the film, which I won't reveal here.

This is an effective chiller that draws you in with suspense and pays off with scare scenes. It's about a skeptical psychologist who tries to discredit a devil worshiper. It's definitely worth a rental.Dana Andrews does a capable job as the skeptic and Niall MacGinnis is outstanding as the leader of the devil cult.

The funniest thing about this film is star Richard Kiel's attempt to have an emotionless, alien voice. He sounds like a bored Valley Boy. Also, the fxs are awful. The duplicated humans break into little pieces like broken glass. Definitely fun to watch and laugh at.