IMDb member since July 2007
    Lifetime Total
    IMDb Member
    15 years



Historical fiction epic that is one of the best movies ever made.
The cast is first-rate. No exceptions. But not all of the cast is the best out of the whole movie, because there is only a few of the cast that actually stand out and make themselves different from their own many other roles in TV and movies. The section of the cast that is good, but not as good as the rest is: Stacy Keach, Patrick Duffy, Maria Conchita Alonso, David Keith, John Schneider, and Grant Show. The section of the cast that is great, and towers above the rest is: Ricky Schroder, Anthony Michael Hall, Chelsea Field, Benjamin Bratt, and Randy Travis. The reason Anthony Michael Hall is one of the best actors from this movie is because he plays a coward with a yellow streak down his back that is about ten miles wide, and twenty miles long. However, he is also a show-off, because he is obviously trying to make himself look better so he won't be so much of a coward. But this does not work, because his cowardice shines through, and he knows it, so he ends up trying to look rich and successful by strutting around in his stupidity-ridden uniform with his hair slicked back. Sadly, the only other person that actually does anything about it is Houston, and he does it quite well. Ricky Schroder delivers a powerful, powerful performance. Chelsea Field's character is the most determined and strong-willed, and she knows when to and how to exploit that. Benjamin Bratt is barely recognizable, with all his makeup and facial hair, but his character basically only cares about his own interests, thoughts, desires and wills. But his character is so good because he likes to use others to fulfill his own interests, thoughts, desires and wills, that is, everybody except Otto, who will not be pushed, poked, or prodded one way or the other. He knows what he has to do and how to do it, and he sticks to that. Perhaps "Texas" is not as good as the only other movie that I have seen Ricky Schroder in, which is LONESOME DOVE, and also maybe his Otto MacNab was not as well done as his Newt Dobbs, but in "Texas" his character is given a much more expanded role. What is up with Patrick Duffy and the Michael Landon-is hairdo? Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad!

The Searchers

A beautiful movie that is worthy of multiple viewings.
Great, great, great movie. This is John Wayne's best performance and this is also one of the best movies, and westerns ever made. Actually, there are a lot of westerns that I consider to be some of the finest of the genre ever made, but the ones that should be at the very top of the list are "The Searchers" and "Shane". So if you ever want to see which is number one, meaning the best western ever made, then you should watch both, and then, form your own opinions. Everything has never been better, including the movie itself. Should never be remade, even though it already has, and those who have remade it have another thing coming. Mose Harper is the funniest character, and John Wayne is the best overall. John Ford is one of the best directors that ever lived, along with Hitchcock, Mann, Hawks, Hathaway, and John Wayne himself. Natalie Wood is even better than she was in Miracle on 34th Street. Ward Bond is excellent. Jeffrey Hunter deserves a "job well done on the 1956 movie The Searchers" as an inscription on his gravestone. And everybody else...well, everybody else is everybody else.


One of the best Westerns ever made.
I absolutely love this movie! I could watch it every night. Favorite scenes: early scene when Emmett kills the guys who try to jump him, steps out of the cabin with the rifle on his shoulder, when Jake steps out of the saloon, says Hey! and kills Tyree and the other deputy, when Mal kills Slick, when Emmett's rifle is damaged, he dropped his pistol, but he knows he has to kill McKendrick, so he steers his horse into a building, turns it around, and wallops McKendrick in the head with the horses' hooves when McKendrick rides by, when Paden shoots Cobb, and when Mal is jumping from rock to rock with his rifle in hand. Each character has a scene which defines their personality, their willingness to do away with the bad guys, and caring about what they thought was right. All of the cast is great. Sure, the story is very simple, and has been used before, but who cares? This movie makes that type of story an epic, and so does Open Range, also starring Kevin Costner, but in a different way, because it is a different movie. Favorite characters: I like all four of the heroes, but for different reasons. I like Emmett because he is not like the other characters. He does not make jokes like they do. He just laughs at them. Of course, he probably thought that it was pretty funny when he pulled that stunt on Sheriff Langston. Emmett is just different, which is a good thing. I like Paden because he is friends with Cobb, but does not know what Cobb is doing behind the scenes until later. But when he does find out, he does not get nervous, or mad, but instead, is calm, cool, (very cool), and collected. That is why I had to watch this movie several times before I realized that Paden knows what's going on much earlier than you would think. That is because he expected that something was fishy way back at the cavalry outpost, when Cobb said he had a legitimate job. But Paden just tried to blow it off by making a joke about it because he was hoping that Cobb was not doing that kind of thing anymore. His suspicions mounted when Tyree came onto the scene, with an evil look, a sneer, and a joke about a dog to go along with his instantly not being liked by the audience. Cobb still was doing that kind of thing. It was not actually affirmed to me that Cobb was the main badguy until the scene where Cobb punches Kelly in the stomach, throws him out the door, is "warned" by Stella, and shoots Kelly. But Stella was not warning Cobb, she was warning Kelly, even though she has a distaste for Kelly, and later, hates Cobb's guts and everything else about him. I like Jake because he does not have any personal enemies, but still just comes in, and starts a ruckus. That is what makes him so funny and energetic. I like Mal because he cares for his sister and his father even when they thought he was not coming back, and Rae does not want to have him in her sight at first. He cares for his sister, that he is even willing to kill Slick, who did not do anything especially bad to Rae personally, but he did to Mal himself. That is why Mal had to kill him- he obviously did not think he deserved to live. And to top it all off, they are all VERY good shots. Favorite lines: Hey!, Where's the dog?, Welcome to Heaven, Looking for this?, Oh, Kate! Sweet Kate!, I don't want to kill you, and you don't want to be dead, and you better start lookin'.

National Treasure

Globe-Trotting adventure of epic proportions!
Research. Plot. Understand. Decipher. Listen. FULL SPEED AHEAD! That is the style of this movie, which is truly one of the greatest caper movies of all time. For all of you out there who have not yet seen this movie, it is about Ben Gates, played by Nicolas Cage in a winning performance as a treasure hunter who is seeking a treasure beyond all of his dreams, imaginations, and thoughts, a treasure that has been hidden for centuries. But there is one problem: the clue to finding the treasure is on the back of the Declaration of Independence- but in invisible ink! The plot carries its own weight from there on. Nicolas Cage is the hero, Justin Bartha is the weird geek along for comedic relief, Diane Kruger is the very attractive female counterpart to Gates, Voight is the never believing father, Mr. Gates, Keitel is the detective who is determined to make sure that somebody goes to jail for this whole mess, Bean is Ian who was once Gates friend, but, because of greed, he becomes the badguy not long after the movie has started. The viewer, when first watching this movie, may think that Bean is at a disadvantage, since he has ditched Gates and Riley. But not so. Bean is very smart in his own inventive and original way. However, he is not as smart as Gates. That is why Gates is always one step ahead of him. Sure, this movie does have clichés, but who cares? I do not think it is a copy off of the Da Vinci Code or Indiana Jones. Something cannot be called a copy off of something else just because they have some things in common with each other. Those things are similarities, not copies. Besides, even if the similarities are too good to be true, I do not mind. The reason for this is that as long as a movie is good and can hold my attention, I will suspend my disbelief and act like the similarities are not even there. After a while, I forget all about the similarities and clichés, and just sit down and watch a good action/adventure movie.

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm

Excellent and flawless.
Some people might say that "for an animated feature, this is pretty good". I disagree. I say that for any kind or type of movie, Batman or not, animated or not, this is awesome. I'm glad that it actually got a release in theaters before being put on DVD and VHS. Otherwise, it would not have as big a fanbase as it does. But that, could not, in any way possible, make me like it any more, or any less. The Joker is given one of the best story lines ever to be involved in, the Joker himself is wonderful, and Mark Hamill did a fine job. When I first watched this, I did not at all recognize Mark Hamill as the Joker. I still get floored, every time I watch this, at that fact. Mark Hamill is the very definition of the Crazed Clown in the world of animation. The last scene is one of the best, with Batman staring out over the water, forever lonely.

Batman Forever

A movie that has an outstanding and very big cast, and the villains are delightfully over the top, but it is the movie itself that is a little too over the top.
One of the best Batman movies. I would rank it right up there alongside "BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM" and "BATMAN BEGINS". I have not seen the sequel to this, again with O'Donnell as Robin and again with Schumacher as director, called "Batman and Robin", but I have heard a lot of negative things about it. One of these days, I hope I get the chance to see it, just to see what it is like. The cover and the trailer to it are pretty good, though. I liked this, I LOVED Mask of the Phantasm, and I LOVED Batman Begins. However, I think they overdo it a bit much at some parts, such as the nipples on the Batsuit, and the shots of Batman's butt?!? Who knows why they put that in there. Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey I usually considered over the top. I thought Jones and Carrey were excellent. Every time I watch this, I am always surprised at Jones' incarnation of Two-Face, compared to his roles in The Fugitive and Lonesome Dove, which are the only other things I have seen Jones in. Carrey leaves nothing to be desired, because he gives you everything you would ever want out of a villain role. Of course, Carrey rarely deviates from his unusual "different" character with an eccentric twist. But he done himself proud when he deviated from that "unusual sort of character with an eccentric twist" to be a unusual, villainous character with an eccentric twist as The Riddler in BATMAN FOREVER.

Batman: The Movie

The Dynamic Duo face their most diabolical and dastardly villains in this extremely campy classic.
I have only seen this movie maybe a couple times, and I don't remember much of it. All I remember is the scene where the four villains are plotting their diabolical plans at some sort of meeting table, the scene with the politicians and/or bureaucrats, and the scene where Batman and Robin are fighting the badguys on the deck of some ship, accompanied with the big letter words like BIFF, THUMP, THWACK, etc. But I was able to remember enough of this movie to know that I did not like it. The reason that I never liked this movie is because of a very complicated reason, but I shall do my best to explain it. Batman is one of the most enduring superheroes in the history of superheroes, and he is meant to be portrayed as a dark, scary, mysterious character, who keeps all of his emotions bottled up within himself, and releases them upon the criminals while he prowls the streets of Gotham City at night. He is also more original than most superheroes, because he does not have powers, but to make up for his lack of powers, he instead uses his wit, ingenuity, intelligence, any and all forms of technology, and sometimes even partners to bring those dirty law-breakers to justice. In short, Batman is not supposed to be a comical, lighthearted sort of character, but instead, a character who is nice, compassionate, and loving when need be, but also, a character who can be merciless, unrelenting, and seeking revenge when need be. I always thought, until now, that is, that this movie did their best at making Batman into what they thought he should be, but instead, turned him into the star of a comedy series and a spin off movie. The way that the creators of this portrayed Batman was more in relation to the way he was portrayed in the early comics. I think that those early comics are classics, and I like them. However, that certain portrayal of Batman should be left in the comic books, and not brought to the big screen. As far as that style of Batman goes, the early comics were excellent, but this is pure garbage for any serious Batman fan. I have heard that the creators of this meant Batman to be portrayed that way, and if that is true, they made the wrong choice in choosing a project to work on. The only reason that I like this is because it is so silly, but that is not enough to make it good, worthy of my approval, or worthy to be watched by any serious Batman fan, unless you wish to purchase it for the kids - they will most likely love it. But as far as my own personal opinion goes, it does not deserve any more than a 3 out of 10.

Gunsmoke: Trail of Bloodshed
Episode 21, Season 19

Buck Henry Woolfe vs. Rance Woolfe... 3 times!
One of the best episodes of Gunsmoke. We finally get to see why Festus has his own special way with mules. The gambler was very experienced at what he did, and from what we see on screen, he had a very shady past- that is why he was the way that he was. In my opinion, he identified Rance Woolfe as trouble the very first minute he walked through the doors of that saloon. I have not been able to decide whether Kurt Russell was better in this than he was in the episode of "The Fugitive" called "Nemesis" as, basically, a mini-version of his father, Lt. Philip Gerard. It is a pity that in these last episodes of Gunsmoke that James Arness was not able to be on the show very much at all, except for, perhaps the "towards-the-end" episodes Chato, P.S. Murry Christmas, Quiet Day in Dodge, etc. That girl in the saloon made a good decision when she dumped Rance because he was losing money, but, of course, she should have dumped him LONG before that, and furthermore, she should never have been with him in the first place. GUNSMOKE IS #1!

Gunsmoke: The Jailer
Episode 3, Season 12

My All Time Favorite Gunsmoke Episode!
Maybe it is just my TV, but in the scene where we see Bette Davis at the grave, the rocks on the grave seem to "glow". But, again, maybe it's just my TV (it probably is). Bruce Dern is the most influental, besides his ma, in that villain-ish family. But, he is the badguy, which he always has and always will play very good. Even in SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL SHERIFF, as a total dimwit, he plays the badguy role to perfection. He should have known better than to go up against Matt Dillon or James Garner, because Matt could probably outdraw/outfight him, and Garner, as Jason McCullough, could probably con him out of all his money, time, and the small amount of brains that he has in his head. But, alas, in SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL SHERIFF, we only get to see him outsmart Bruce Dern/Joe Danby. But maybe this episode should have had a prologue to it, showing what happened six years before, when Bette Davis' husband was hanged, and her remembering everything that lead up to the hanging, during it, and afterwards. Or at least some flashbacks every now and then? But I am content with the way it is. GUNSMOKE IS #1!

The Rifleman

Good, but I wish it would have lasted longer.
I always liked this show. I was born a long time after this show went off, but I grew up watching shows like this, Gunsmoke, The Fugitive, The Andy Griffith Show, Dragnet, etc., because we had Cable. Sure, the show became sort of predictable after a while, but even if you know what is going to happen, and you are like me, you are always on the edge of your seat, even if you have seen the episode a thousand times before. But I did not like the episodes that were either silly or had something pointless happen in them, such as Knight Errant. I also wish it would have not been called off the air, because it would eventually have turned to color, and I would have LOVED to see this show in "vivid Technicolor". I do like the idea though, of Lucas getting in trouble and/or trapped, and either Micah, Mark, Milly, Hattie, (and, of course, the Rifle) getting captured, and Lucas somehow getting free, and getting them back. I have to admit it was sort of weird to watch Connors in Big Country, as a badguy, and then to turn around and watch The Rifleman. This same reason makes it also weird, but a whole lot more so, to watch the episode "Deadly Image".

The Rescuers Down Under

Good, but for some reason, it just does not hit it off with me as well as the original did. It does have a sense of wonder, amazement, and excitement, but its own kind, not the same kind as the original did, has, and always will with me. The animation, however, is better than the dark, creepy, and to little kids, perhaps scary animation that was in most of the original. The only parts in the original that did not have that kind of animation were, basically, whenever they were inside. But why does Cody's mother show no emotion when they bring the backpack, except holding it close? Also, why don't our heroes go back for the other animals in McLeach's prison? After all, our heroes were headed home, but maybe they were going to McLeach's prison on the way. I do like how the story did not tell what happened to McLeach, but on the other hand, maybe he got to the bottom unharmed,waded out of the water, collapsed, soaking wet, on the bank, and looked up and seen the rangers, ready and waiting for him. Or maybe he could have hit his head on the sharp rocks at the bottom (we know there have to be sharp rocks at the bottom, I mean, we HAVE all seen "The Emperor's New Groove", right?) and found his way to the nearest sanitarium, crazy, demented, and insane, and spent the rest of his life, bedridden, yelling and screaming about who knows what. For anybody who LIKES?!? McLeach, you are probably hoping that he got the first one, but for all of us who DISLIKE McLeach, we are hoping that he got the second one. Finally, what ever happened to Wilbur and the little baby birds? Maybe our heroes dropped by and "rescued" them, too. I did'nt make it all the way through third grade for nothing!

The Rescuers

One of Disney's Greatest Movies!
Hilarious. Intrigue. Mystery. Two Little Mice. Great artwork and songs. The animation was O.K., but I thought it was too dark and creepy in some parts. Medusa was a good villain, but also very stupid. She picked Mr. Snoops for a sidekick. She has alligators for pets. She forces a little girl to find a diamond, and everybody knows a little girl will eventually get tired of that and not want to do that anymore. But obviously, Medusa does not care about that- the only thing she cares about is having someone that is small enough go down into the hole and look for the Devil's Eye, and Penny fits the bill. Lastly, she lives in a dilapidated old ship, that might sink or be overtaken with some other crisis of misfortune at any time. I wish we would have taken the train!

The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe

Follows the story quite well, but wish the animation was better.
This one is even superior to the 1988 BBC TV presentation, which was dull in story, shoddy in effects, less-than-mediocre casting, and horrible action. But I do wish the animation was better. However, the animators did do good on the expressions of the characters. Just as with the 2005 version, everything was as I had imagined, it's just that this was an animated feature, and that was a live action feature. That is the only difference. Some people might wonder why the only thing I dislike about it is the animation, and say that I should have given it a higher rating, since that was the only thing wrong with it. WRONG! With animated films, it is always very complicated to try to understand how to write a review on them. The animation in movies that are animated all the way through should at least mean something when you review them. With movies that are animated at only some parts, this opinion should not be used as much, because, more than likely, there is more live-action in the movie than there is animation.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

One Remake that is on target! Not Many Remakes Are.
This film is a masterpiece, a wonderful film, an excellent film, a wonder to behold. Sure, they do change several things, but who's quibbling? Not me! I liked all the cast, except there was one problem with Lucy- that face she makes when she is upset. I could'nt stand it. It makes me sick every single time I watch it. Swinton was good, but the witch- no matter who she is played by, she is ugly. Kellerman (original BBC TV version) did animate everything way too much, and overdid it by a long shot. Swinton, however, was quite perfect as the witch. She will HAVE to come back for the Magician's Nephew, but as for Silver Chair, I know that witch was of the "same crew" and all that, but I think that if she tried to do that role too, she would basically be redoing her role from this, and therefore downplaying her role in this. Skandar did not have any facial expressions, except when he got wounded by the witch- his face was contorted beyond all reason. Jonathon Scott, from the BBC version, did not have any facial expressions at all, not even when he is being the unsatisfied brat. On the other hand, I thought the animators for the animated version of this did Edmund's facial expressions quite well. MOST AWESOME SCENES: when the two armies run at each other- there is dead silence, until the first sounds of hand-to-hand combat could be heard, and the second is when the centaur guy tries to attack the witch.

The Silver Chair

Definitely the best of the series
This is the best one. However, I will say that these movies never have achieved that sense of wonder and amazement that I feel the books always have. But, when the 2005 version came out, and I watched it, I was FLOORED! The 2005 version is better than all of the BBC TV presentations put together. The 2005 version holds your attention throughout, even in the parts when they are just playing hide-and-seek or talking about Aslan, and has that sense of wonder and amazement correctly portrayed throughout, also. Tom Baker was good as Puddleglum- he gives the best performance! But when I read the book, I pictured him to be, well, to be like he was in the illustration that is in my edition of the Silver Chair- taller and thinner, and smoking his pipe most of the time. But otherwise, Tom Baker is "quite up to snuff". When the queen is bitten by the snake, she does not look very concerned, or very hurt, or very worried about screaming for help, or very worried about dying, for that matter. And I thought Pole would be a lot prettier. In the scene where Puddleglum is "drunk", it was not nearly as funny as it was in the book. In the movie, that scene was humorous. In the book, that scene was laughable, hilarious, and I just about died laughing the first time I read that page in the book, and I just about die laughing every time I read it.

Prince Caspian and the Voyage of the Dawn Treader

These movies get better and better as they go.
Truly, these two were much better than The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, which I thought was dull. Why does Caspian look so different in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader than he did in Prince Caspian? The book says it was only three years between the two events in Narnian time. In the movie, it looks like he has aged three times that much. I was picturing him to look mostly the same, a little more world-weary perhaps, though. I thought that the boy that played Caspian in Prince Caspian overdid it. On the other hand, I thought the guy that played him in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader was quite good. But, alas, the action will always be the same- mediocre. The stunts were acceptable, but certainly nothing better than that. I do not like how Aslan just breathes on people or things to make them be fixed, such as Reepicheep's tail. The reason for this is because in the books, when Aslan fixes something, it just happens. Besides, when Aslan does that breathing rubbish, it looked like he was yawning. If he does have to do the breathing, at least make it look good. I would never have guessed that Reepicheep was Warwick Davis. I'm sure the cast regretted their decision to be in this movie when they found out they would have to have a mouse as a castmate, even if it was Warwick Davis. But again, the filmmakers did the best they could with their tight budget. Besides, it was '89, and not everybody can do it as good as Star Wars can!

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

The book was much better than this!
The book was much better than this, but the 2005 version is right on target with the book. The lighting, effects, animals (except for Aslan), and fights were mediocre. You have to give some respect to the filmmakers of this, because they did their best. And for a 1988 BBC TV presentation, it is not that bad. The casting was a little above mediocre. Aslan looked pretty good, but I did not like his voice. You can barely even see him move his mouth! His voice is supposed to be mighty and strong, a wonder to behold, and if you do it right, is supposed to be like the rest of him- AWESOME! The animals were O.K. I did not like how they animated the ones they could not get into suits, though. I wonder how the cast felt when they found out they would have to be swinging their swords around like a bunch of drunkards at some creatures that were not there, but would be added in later at the effects department! All right, enough about this version. As for the 2005 version, it was right-on-target, excellent, wonderful, and awesome in all respects!


Matt Dillon upholds law, order, and justice in the "Gomorrah of the Plains", Dodge City.
This was the best TV show ever, in any and all genres, and it should never have to bow its head to any other show. I have a list of my favorite TV shows. Of course, Gunsmoke is number one. But in my mind, one is as good as the other. In other words, it would be a hard decision to choose if I wanted to watch one show more than another show. 1. Gunsmoke (1955-1975) 2. The Rifleman (1958-1963) 3. The Fugitive (1963-1967) 4. Adam-12 (1968-1975) 5. Dragnet (1951-1970) 6. The Andy Griffith Show (1960-1968) 7. Little House on the Prairie (1974-1983) 8. Bonanza (1959-1973) 9. Walker, Texas Ranger (1993-2001) 10. Daniel Boone (1964-1970) 11. America's Got Talent (2006-present) 12. American Idol (2002-present) 13. Wild Wild West (1965-1969) 14. The Waltons (1972-1981) 15. Have Gun, Will Travel (1957-1963) I also have a list of my favorite Gunsmoke episodes. Of course, "The Jailer", my all time favorite episode, is at the top. 1. The Jailer 2. Trail of Bloodshed 3. Buffalo Man 4. The Cabin 5. The Way It Is 6. Quiet Day in Dodge 7. Doc's Reward 8. Lost Rifle 9. The Bobsy Twins 10. Quint Asper Comes Home 11. The Blacksmith 12. Hung High 13. Quaker Girl 14. The Pillagers 15. The Newcomers. And as for the Chester vs. Festus dispute, they were both very good partners to James Arness. Chester worked good with Quint, Festus worked good with Matt, Chester worked good with Matt, Festus worked good with Thad, and Festus worked good with Newly. The episodes where it was just James Arness also worked out good.

Honey, I Blew Up the Kid

Wayne Szalinski does it again, except now he has a machine that makes things grow.
This one is pretty good. Those who say that he runs around in a stupid King Kong or Godzilla like fashion are wrong. Does he eat anybody? No. Does he kill anybody? No. He is just a normal baby that has had an accident that most babies never have. He does break things, but that does not mean that he is a terror to society, or should be killed, or tranquilized. Moranis is excellent as his usual "eccentric" role in all three of these movies. Too bad the Szalinski's moved, because I liked the Thompsons from the original. I bet they either had to move because of Nick and Ron always at each others throats, or because Amy and Little Russ could never be parted. But it seems like Amy has forgotten all about Little Russ Thompson by now, because she just goes off to college with no regrets or worries. Bridges was good as Wayne's boss-totally different than his much earlier role as Harvey, the deputy, in the priceless classic, High Noon.

Honey, I Shrunk the Kids

A nutty scientist's kids and their friends get caught under a shrinking ray, and have to get back home.
This is a great film. I mean, yes, I would rather watch The Searchers, or Rear Window, or National Treasure, than this, but that's O.K. All three of these films are kind of silly, but that is their purpose. Johnston likes directing movies with action, adventure, and also daily people in totally different environments, such as Jumanji(Robin Williams, Bonnie Hunt, Kirsten Dunst, and Bradley Pierce in a jungle) or Hidalgo(A cowboy in for the ride of his life in a horse race in the Arabian desert). This one is my favorite out of all three of the "Honey, I..." movies. For all of you out there who did not get the whole "French class" thing, just think about it- it will come to you.

Atlantis: Milo's Return

Milo and his friends return to the surface.
I will not say much about this film, because there is not much to say, because there is not much there to talk about. The only good thing about this movie is that our favorite characters from "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" are back. Several of the bad things about this movie are that it has horrible characters, it has horrible comedy, horrible animation, and James Arnold Taylor trying to copy the wonderful, one and only Michael J. Fox as Milo James Thatch. The reasons for my criticisms are that all the characters are changed into something that they never were, and never should be, animation that has been downgraded to the lowest extent possible, and finally, why would somebody who did wonderful voice-over work for Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Clone Wars" want to copy Michael J. Fox? I happen to have an answer to this. Because they are the same person who thought he had to copy Eddie Murphy from Mulan in Mulan II. Yes, sadly, it is true.


Atlantis: The Lost Empire

Top-notch Disney adventure.
This is one of Disney's best movies ever made, and also one of their best achievements into the genre of action/adventure. This movie has it all: great characters, comedy, adventure, action, and even some suspense. The creators never take a wrong turn or make a mistake. To some, the plot is quite confusing, but for all of us that have the will to suspend their disbelief, the movie is great fun. Listen for the great James Garner as the main villain, called Rourke, who dies in a way that is a lot like the villain from another great Disney movie, "ALADDIN AND THE KING OF THIEVES". There is absolutely no need to endlessly argue over whether or not this movie is a remake of other adventure, fantasy, or science fiction. This is a movie that is a true Disney movie, with dashes of Indiana Jones, Jules Verne, and others. As for those who say that this should have a remake as a live action movie, that would be great. Ricky Ullman would be good, but who would play the other characters? Only major change that should be done, except for transitioning it from animation to live action and the cast, is to make it BIGGER and BETTER!

The Great Escape

The true story of a big-scale escape from Stalag Luft III, a German prisoner-of-war camp, during World War II.
I do not consider this a war film. It is not a war film. It is an ESCAPE film. They are trying to ESCAPE from the war, along with other things they are also trying to ESCAPE from, such as the wire, the feel of endless isolation in confinement, the guards, not being able to see their families, their jobs in the "Big X" organization, etc. The reason that I said that they are trying to ESCAPE from their jobs in the "Big X" organization is because would you rather be doing your job in the "Big X" organization, or would you rather be at home with your family, in your own country? I would rather be at home with my family, in my own country. I like how the prisoners are always prepared for when the Germans come and the prisoners are working on their escape. As soon as they see the Germans coming their way, the prisoners sound their alarms, and BAM! they have put everything back to normal, and you could never have told they were planning an escape, unless you searched the place, which the Germans never seem to think of doing. Also, it works the same way when the Germans leave the room- BAM! they have their forged papers, or tools to work on the tunnel, or fake uniforms, out and working on them. AMAZINGLY PRECISE! It seems ironic to me that MacDonald(Intelligence), played by Gordon Jackson, warned another escapee that he had to watch himself with the language, he said this during the time for the preparation of the escape. But later, when MacDonald and Bartlett are boarding the bus, and the German officer says "Good Luck" in English, MacDonald says "Thank you" in English, also. Then MacDonald realizes the mistake that he made, and because of him, they both have to run, then they get caught, put in a truck, drive out to the country, and get shot down by murderous German officers. Ironic, isn't it? MacDonald warned somebody else about not making a mistake, and then he got caught because he made the very same mistake!

The Return of Frank James

Frank James (Henry Fonda) sets out to revenge his brother Jesse's death by the murderer Bob Ford(John Carradine) after Ford is pardoned for the murder.
I do not know if this is true or not, but I heard from someone that in order to make Grapes of Wrath, which he really wanted to do, Fonda had to make Jesse James, which he did'nt really want to do, because they were on the same contract, and any sequels or prequels to that. But it does'nt really matter if Fonda did not want to do Jesse James or Return of Frank James, because he has such a great acting ability, which he displays on screen. I think this one is superior to Jesse James for many reasons, all of which are hard to explain. Cooper turns in a worthy role as Frank's sidekick, Clem. But don't you think that the African-American servant is kind of silly? Some people say that Carradine is not a good villain, but when that happens, just refer to McCoy and Co. to fill in that role. I love Henry Hull's character, especially his rantings and ravings in the courthouse, and also his rantings and ravings while he paces up and down the floor of his newspaper office. There isn't very many people that he does not think should be taken out and shot down like a dog, is there?

Treasure Island

The definitive transition of Treasure Island from book to screen.
This one IS better than the 1934 version. When you watch that one, all the scenes of Wallace Beery squinting rub off on you, but when you watch this one, all the scenes of John Newton saying "Arr", or a variant of, rub off on you. Driscoll is excellent as Jim, but I think he was better in "The Window"(1949). I don't particularly like Newton saying "Arr" all the time, but that's Disney and Long John Silver for you. The reason that this is superior to the 1934 version is because the 1934 version was not very original, and this one takes as many liberties as possible with the story without exactly changing the story too much. Why do the different versions play around with the scene when Israel Hands throws the knife at Jim? In this one the knife gets Jim high in the left shoulder, but in both the 1934 version and the 1972 version he is not hurt. I have seen the version with Christian Bale and Charlton Heston, but that was a long time ago, and I can't exactly remember if Jim gets the knife in his shoulder or not. I like the battle scene at the stockade better in this one than in the 1934 or 1972 versions, but as for the fight between Israel Hands and Jim, the 1934 version was the best in that respect, but in the 1972 version, the fight between Israel Hands and Jim was horribly staged, but in this one, that fight is so-so. Maybe the main reason that I like the battle scene at the stockade better in this one than in any of the other versions is because I like the actual set of the stockade better than the set of the stockade in any of the other versions. The actual set of the stockade in this one is a marvel-to-behold. Anyways, this one DOES take MANY liberties with the story, but alas, only idiots argue about things like that.

See all reviews