JimHammond

I found "Wonderland" to be an excellent movie. What it does so well is place a marker on the people who were involved in that massacre (both the victims and the murderers). It also illustrates the slow and fatal decline of John Holmes from his post-porno world to the beginning of his death from AIDS, and this was the best role I ever saw Val Kilmer play. Eric Bogosian also plays his part well, and this is the best I have seen him since "Talk Radio".

This movie also has a soul for the period, and made me remember that time of my life (I was away in college at the time). It is rare that this good a movie comes out.

Needless to say, I highly recommend this movie.

I recommend this movie. It borrows from the storyline of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" and adds some creative touches of its own (such as the eclectic group of characters) that results in some very humorous scenes. Also, the modern day setting makes it a nice continuation of the story line employed in "Mad World".

My favorite scenes are the helicopter assault on the cheating boyfriend and the scene with the hooker in the hotel room. Very clever and original. A good rent indeed!

I saw the Broadway play starring Jack Lemmon, and it was very memorable. I saw this film version of it shortly after, and it was awful! Fortunately this movie went away and no one seems to want to view it anymore, and good for that. May it rest in peace.

The writers had a very original idea (narcotics police) with an excellent supporting character (Liotta), and yet they produce an over-directed movie with a unrealistic plot line. I expected to see a grim, realistic portrayal of the workings of a narc officer, and I instead saw another "Training Day"-type movie. Very disappointing!

This is a very memorable movie - I have not seen it in over fifteen years but I still remember many scenes from it very well. It ranks right up there with the class of its genre, movies such as "Dead Ahead: The Exxon Valdez Disaster", "The Jericho Mile" and "The Day After". It is not only a story of Charles Whitman, but it also tells the story of Officer Ramiro Martinez (the policeman who made his way into the tower and killed Whitman). It also gives a good description of the logistics used by the entire police force that terrible day. No surrealism is used in the filming process - harsh, lusty reality sets the tone.

I do not know if this movie is available on video, but if it is, by all means take a look at it.

Lots can be said of this film, but having read the book, I can say that this film was perfectly cast. Christian Bale played Bateman perfectly, so did Resse Witherspoon play Evelyn and Samantha Mathis play Cortney and Matt Ross play Luis Carruthers and Guinevere Turner play Elizabeth and so on.

There was one scene in the book that was omitted from the movie that I would have like to see portrayed. It was the scene in Barney's where Luis Carruthers is crying and groveling at Bateman's feet in front of a crowd of people and Luis asks why Patrick does not love him and Patrick (in his frustration) tells Luis the reason for this is because he does not "find (Luis) sexually attractive". Patrick then thinks to himself "I can't believe I just said that". That scene would have fit perfectly in this film.

At the time this film was being made, there was a real-life killer in the community where the actions of this film occur. Unlike in the film, this killer was identified but never caught. That real-life killer was the AIDS virus, and when the viewer sees this film he or she gets an understanding of how this virus spread so quickly amongst these people. This film, along with the Randy Shilts book "And the Band Played On", is the perfect depliction of what pre-AIDS gay life was like prior to the virus. How sad it is to think that most of the people who were deplicted in this film are no longer alive.

What is also commendable about this film is that it illustrates the lives and loves of homosexual men - how they become jealous when their lover leaves or how hard it is for them to recover from the breakup of a long relationship (similar to heterosexual men). Although far from a perfect film, to see this film is an experience from the mainstream films of today and yesterday because it takes the viewer into a setting that he or she does not know of and will never be around again. Well worth the view.

I am not usually so blunt, but this movie was a dud! Overacted by Julie Christie (very bad), silly, schmaltzy, corny nonsense. I do not know whatever made Julie Christie do this film or take this role. Not only was it her worst role, but it was also Beatty's worst film. Do not waste your time.

This movie was true professionalism, and one does not need to be a hockey fan to enjoy it. It ranks right up there with the best of its genre, movies such as "Rich Man, Poor Man", "The Jericho Mile", "Dead Ahead: The Exxon Valdez Disaster", "Heart of Steel" and "The Day After". Kevin Conway gives perhaps the best performance of his career, and Merly Streep lights up the screen with her beauty and grace. If this movie is available on video, give it a shot.

I loved this movie, and it is one of the more memorable movies I have ever seen. It has the perfect mix of character development, humor, drama, location, kooky characters, shady characters and plot twists. The chase scene climax (lasting about thirty minutes) is similar to that of "The Road Warrior" - something that keeps on going on and where you never get bored. Beatty and Hawn did their best work together in this flick, and it gives the viewer a snapshot of what it was like to be alive in the era of the early seventies. If you are looking to see a "lost classic", this movie will do it.

This was one of those few movies that can stay in your mind for decades. I still remember the scene where the rabbit is caught in the trap and slain. This, along with "Seven Beauties", is Wurtmuller's at her best. I have no intention of seeing the Madonna remake.

This is one of the best made-for-TV (or cable) movies ever made, ranking up with other made-for-TV gems such as "The Day After" or "The Jericho Mile". The person to credit for this movie is director Paul Seed. He uses the beauty of the Alaskan wilderness as the background to give the viewer a sense of the damage that the spill did to it, and his Kubrick-like use of the music score sets the mood for each individual scene.

Although the final scene with John Heard talking to the reporter is a bit too preachy and he uses this character to insert his commentaries into the script, on the whole the viewer is given a very good insight not so much into the logistics of the spill and clean-up but rather into the politics of the situation and the disruption that the spill caused to the residents and fishermen of Prince William Sound.

The bottom line is that this is a movie that is well worth the watch.

Everyone has an opinion, and my opinion is that this show was the greatest television sitcom ever produced. No other television show was as original or produced a character as indelible as Archie Bunker.

What I most liked about this series was it's brilliant method of showing the flaw in Archie Bunker's character. Archie Bunker was an ignorant, silly and foolish man ("...government of the people, by the people and for the pursuit of happiness..." or "Not Jews, Edith... Hebes!"). What this series illustrated so well was that his bigotry was just another part of his ignorance. Because you did not laugh at the jokes but rather the at man, "All in the Family" appealed to every ethnic group (Whites, Blacks, Jews, etc.) and no one ever was offended at anything he said.

BTW, my two favorite episodes were the one where the refrigerator broke down and Archie and Mike told two entirely different stories of what happened when the repairmen arrived and the one when Sammy Davis Jr. appeared ("Do you take cream and sugar in your eye?"). As good as a sitcom can get!

This movie is one of those rare offerings of pure, harmless, campy entertainment! Despite its failure to win a mainstream audience, it does have its own cult following, and it is too bad that the character of Gloria Sternvirgin (aka gloriabitch) was never given a sequel to expand her role. Some of the dialogue and actions of this film hit the bullseye, and the only other films where this combination (and type) of humor and plot structure could be found where in those directed by Paul Bartel (Deathrace 2000, Eating Rauol, Class Struggle in Beverly Hills).

It's just a feeling! - see this movie, you will like it.

This is a film to supplement one's research into the events that occurred in Waco, TX between Feburary 28th, 1993 and April 19th, 1993. In and of itself, it is a poor effort. It deals with too many unprovable conspiracy theories and makes too many hasty accusations. If one wants to get an understanding of the truth behind Waco, the best sources are the documentary "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" and the books "The Ashes of Waco: An Investigation" by Dick J. Reavis and "A Place Called Waco" by David Thibodeau. I do not recommend seeing this film until the other sources have been first referenced.

I first saw this movie in 1983 (at age 21), and eighteen years later I still enjoy taking a look at it. This is one horror film that no matter what age you are you can still enjoy it. It is also one of those rare sequels that was better than the original. If you have never seen this, take a look. Best seen late at night with your girlfriend sitting right next to you.

Do a search for listing of the worst films of all-time and you will see this movie on whatever site you come across. This ranks as one of the most infamous of the turkeys ever produced.

I wonder whatever became of Tom Laughlin? I have never seen him do any other work besides "Billy Jack".

This movie was exceptional. It tells the story of a man who, after he was sentenced to life imprisonment for killing his father-in-law when he found him raping his sister, sets out to become a world-class runner. It not only gave a realistic portrayal of prison life, but also deftly portrays the mentality of someone who is serving such a sentence. Peter Strauss played the role perfectly. Along with "Rich Man, Poor Man", this movie was probably the best performance of his career.

Probably the best scene in this movie was when Murphy was before the civilian board trying to get permission to run in the race and he sees right through the man's preconceptions and bigotry concerning convicts. This man did not see Murphy as a person but rather as something other than what he was. Very rarely has such passion and intelligence come from a made-for-TV movie.

I first saw this series back in the 1970s, and to this day I still remember it well. It made stars out of Nick Nolte and Peter Strauss (too bad those two actors never worked together again), and Edward Asner's character stole the show during the first few episodes. I also read the book, and with the exception of the character of Julie Prescott (who in the series was a merging of three characters from the book), it remains very true to it.

If a local or cable TV channel ever plays this series, get your VCR ready. It is well worth the watch.

This movie takes a used storyline (vampires) and turns it into something that was very original, entertaining and refreshing. Here, a modern-day Dracula is terrorizing Las Vegas, but instead of taking the view of the family of the victims (as probably all other vampire movie did), the story is told from the view of a reporter who is fighting his flustered boss (Simon Oakland) and the stonewalling police into believing the impossible. The actor who played the vampire (not listed in the credits) did an excellent job at terrifying the audience, and Darren McGavin played the role of Carl Kolchak so well that the viewer cannot imagine anyone else replacing him (not even in a "Spiderman-like" theatrical movie). The TV show that followed stretched things a bit too thin, but this original movie stands out.

If you do see this movie, also take a look at the book of the same title by Jeff Rice.

If you want to know the truth about what really happened in Waco, TX between February 28th, 1993 and April 19th, 1993, this IS NOT the film to see. The writers claimed at the movie's beginning that this film was a result of "extensive research" concerning what happened, yet there is hardly any truth in nearly every scene in this film. It not only is a villification of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians but also a portrayal of the AFT as "brave heroes" who risked their lives so as to protect society from these dangerous lunatics. It fails to mention the point that the only reason that the AFT made the raid in the first place was because they had budget hearings pending and they needed a good publicity coup for those hearings.

The only error this film makes concerning the February 28th raid that is worth mentioning here is the fact that it omits the role of the helicopters in the raid. Anyone who has studied the facts of the raid knows that it was the helicopters who fired the first shots when they straffed the building. It was also one of the helicopters that, when making a straffing pass over the building, fired the shots the killed Peter Gent as he was climbing from out of the water tower. In this film, the Davidians (including some late-middle aged women) are shown to ambush the AFT as they approached the front door. It was too bad that millions of people formed their opinion concerning Koresh, his followers and the entire Waco incident from this piece of trash.

If someone really wants to know the truth of both Koresh and his followers and the entire incident from beginning to end, the best references are the books "The Ashes of Waco: An Investigation" by Dick J. Reavis and "A Place Called Waco" by David Thibodeau. Also, the video "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" is a excellent piece of documentary film making.