Noldon

There is simply no excuse to make such a horrible and insulting movie, other than to shock and disgust the viewer. The very idea of a love triangle between Adam and Eve and a serpent is so revolting it's beyond nausea. The serpent was evil incarnate, the serpent represented sin, the serpent was the devil attempting to destroy man and defy God, and this horrible movie dares to depict the serpent as a lonely creature that would seek love. I cannot believe this movie ever got made, and I'm shocked to learn that anyone could have liked it.

Eve should be destroyed, erased from human history, along with other such sacrilegious garbage as The Di Vinci Code, The Last Temptation of Christ, and The Rapture.

First I must say, I admire Martin Scorsese and Willem Dafoe, but this movie was unwatchable and offencive and should not be seen. Christ, our Lord, suffered the harshest fate, that our lives would be without sin, and this is how we choose to repay him? With contemporary dialogue and bedding prostitutes? No! Let Hollywood continue to make all the remakes and sequels audiences can bare, but leave Jesus alone! Christ did not bed Mary Magdalene! Christ did not WANT to bed Magdalene! Christ followed the wisdom of His father! Let these Hollywood people defame Jack the Ripper if they wish, or Charlie Manson, but please stop portraying Jesus as anything but the saint he was!

As a film-goer, I was unimpressed by the movie itself, I found it rather plodding and unrealistic; for instance, no security whatsoever in a museum housing priceless Da Vinci paintings. But as a Christian, I was insulted and disgusted at the prospect that Jesus Crrist would bed Mary Magdalen. The very idea that Jesus Christ would have slept with Magdalen is outrageous and offencive. Not just to Christians, but to educated rational people who would expect more from an otherwise good filmmaker like Ron Howard. What's next, a movie where Gandhi was a Nazi spy, or where Abraham Lincoln was a slave trader, or where Princess Di was a prostitute? Do movie makers have the dramatic licence to depict Princess Di performing oral sex on Paparazzi?

Going out of one's way to make something controversial, i.e., Jesus bedding Mary Magdalen, is not good story telling. Anyone can be crude or offencive or disgusting. There is a line between entertainment and disgust, and the Di Vinci code stepped over it.

I saw this recently and I did not enjoy it very much. Having two attractive people walk around naked for two hours in a garden is not really entertaining. Nothing much happens, other than an abundance of nudity. The 1981 science fiction movie "Quest For Fire" did a far better job of depicting an Adam and Eve story, set against cavemen and giant mammoths and waring Neanderthal tribes, and all though I'm no believer in cavemen or Darwin, Quest for Fire was a superior movie in all respects. "Adam & Eve" is nudity for nudity's sake, breasts replacing plot, and that becomes tedious very quickly. If not for the title, this could have been any teenage romance movie.

"The Passion Of the Christ" is one of the most spiritual movies ever made, a testament to Mel Gibson's brilliance as a filmmaker. It's not a perfect movie, I don't think any movie really is, but it's an important movie about a man who died for us, for our children, for our very souls! People who don't like this movie just don't understand about God or about spirituality, they don't appreciate the pain and suffering Jesus Christ endured. When this movie came out people panned it because of the violence and gore, but no one panned Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List, both of which were far more violent. Jesus Christ died a horrible horrible death, and it's not wrong for Mel Gibson to depict that death as it happened, the way it happened. Would atheists prefer if the Romans had whipped Jesus only twice or three times, then somehow placed him non-violently on the cross? No, it was horrible and brutal, and it was done to our Lord, and it hurts me to know that so many people do not like or simply do not understand this movie.

"Blue Steel" looked really good, the camera work and lighting and everything was moody, but the movie was so stupid and unrealistic! From the first scene, Ron Silver's got psycho written all over his face. Jamie Lee sees a gun when the robber holds up the store, everyone sees the gun, then no one's sure there really was one and Jamie Lee's in trouble for an unjustified shooting? Jamie Lee knocks out the cop, takes his clothes and goes strolling through New York, and Ron Silver suddenly shows up in a subway, bleeding, apparently walking around all afternoon with a gun and covered with blood but nobody notices, and then Jamie Lee has to shoot him more times than the Terminator?

This was written by the same guy who wrote "The Hitcher", and both movies hint that there's a psychic link between them hero and the killer, but in the Hitcher it worked, here it doesn't. Here is's unrealistic, and people were laughing in the theatre. If you've already seen the Hitcher, you'll be drastically disappointed when you see this. It's a low budget Chuck Norris movie at best, with Jamie Lee instead of Chuck. Don't waste your time, unless you're in the mood for a comedy and you don't mind laughing at stupidity.

This movie has everything! Shootouts, planes, bandits, drug dealers, great locations, and most of all, a really good bunch of actors at the top of their game. When four buddies try to rob a big time drug lord, Murphy's Law comes into play and everything goes wrong. James Brolin has never been better, as the determined leader of a group of suburban losers who want to strike it rich, and James Coburn is excellent as the drug lord. Bruce Davidson, Cleavon Little, Ernist Borgnine, and Lindsey Wagnor are all good, and Anthony Quinn stand out in an exceptional performance, reminding us what a good actor he really is.

There's enough action for two Rambo movies, as lots of lighthearted comedy. My favorite scene is when Brolin gun-butts a guard, and the guy doesn't just fall unconscious like everybody always does in the movies. Instead he grabs his head and starts yelling, and Brolin has to hit him again. The director takes conventional action scenes we've seen million times, like whacking a guard, and makes them original. It's hard to believe he went on to direct Mac & Me, a really silly E.T. ripoff.

Do not bother with the Crispin Glover remake, this is the real Willard. Not as scary as it is just fun. Similar to "Stanley" which came out around the same time, where an alienated Vietnam veteran uses pet rattlesnakes to kill his enemies, only Willard has a better script and much better acting. Brice Davidson is excellent as a troubled young man who finds friendship in an army of rats. Ernest Borgnine is great as the evil boss, and a young Sondra Locke shines as the nice girl who would steal Willard's heart, if not for a rat named Socrates. As low budget thrillers go, Willard is one of the more enjoyable. Kinda creepy, a little tongue in cheek, and even a little sad. If you haven't already seen it, I really think you should. Then go into the basement alone with the lights off and make some new friend... =)