StanleyStrangelove

This movie was not at all what I expected. I expected a somewhat intelligent script. No. This is nothing but a vapid, CGI, Hollywood film with a big explosion at the end. This will probably be the last 3D movie I see. I loved the original Alien movie. If you did, you will be totally disappointed by this one. It lacks everything the original had. The characters are boring, the dialog is stupid, there is no suspense and no humor. Fans of the original will be wanting to learn more about the alien world of the the original but you won't find that here. There are too many questions that are never answered. There is absolutely not one original sci-fi idea in the script. I am so upset by how bad this film is that I want to write to Ridley Scott himself. Apparently all Hollywood knows is CGI and BIG EXPLOSIONS. The movie obviously is going to have a sequel but they won't get my money. Fans of the original Alien film, PREPARE TO BE DISAPPOINTED BIG TIME. Save your money, watch the original film.

This movie is totally inept. It's one of those films where the characters behave so stupidly you can't believe it. Every scene is a horror film cliché. As for horror, there is none. Some of the scenes are so darkly lit you cannot tell what is going on and I have a feeling the cinematographer did not know what he was doing. As for the script, plot holes abound. Things happen and then are dropped. Characters pop in the movie and are never seen again. One scene will suffice. SPOILER: The grounds keeper is attacked by the creatures with screwdrivers and box cutters, he staggers up the stairs, falls face down on the floor in front of his wife and the little girl. When the husband comes home, the man's wife tells him that her husband has had an "accident". No one asks how he had an "accident" with a screwdriver stuck into his eye and a pair of scissors in his shoulder. I was really disappointed with this movie. I would say save your money.

The four main characters in "Up In The Air" are all bastards. George Clooney's job is to fire people. He works for a firm run by Jason Bateman. The firm is hired by companies who don't have the guts to fire their own employees. Anna Kendrick is a new employee who comes up with a new method of doing the firing which is even more heartless than the way the company has been doing it. Vera Farmiga is a woman Clooney meets in a hotel bar while on the road.

Clooney is likable as the heartless bastard who has no family, no real permanent address and whose goal is to reach a multi-million mile travel mark with the airlines and the rewards that it brings.

Jason Bateman is the likable bastard who runs the firm.

Anna Kendrick is the cute, perky, likable,heartless bastard whose new idea is even more cruel than the firm's original way of working.

The movie is entirely watchable and makes its point. But it is definitely without much substance. You enjoy it while watching it but when it's over there's nothing to think about. In most ways it makes being a heartless bastard look like a viable career choice. After all, it is Clooney who has a good paying job and the firm he works for certainly looks prosperous. Whose side is this film really on? It appears to be a message movie with the obvious message that corporations are so heartless they can't even fire their own people and have to hire some lackey to do it. But it portrays Clooney's life as actually kind of cool. He never has to pay for anything out of pocket, he has a gazillion company credit cards, he doesn't have to wait in long lines at the airport like the rest of us, and he meets sexy women like Vera Farminga along the way.

I'll take Clooney's job.

I happen to like Tim Burton, Johnny Depp and Alan Rickman but I have to say this film was a waste of 2 hours.

Probably a lot of parents are kicking themselves for renting this film for their kids who like Johnny Depp from Pirates of the Caribbean. Believe me, this is no Pirates of the Caribbean. It's R rated for a good reason. Here's why: There are about 10 graphic scenes of people getting their throats cut with a straight razor with blood spurting out all over then being dumped down a shoot onto their heads. As if that isn't enough, one woman is thrown into an incinerator. Not a great loss because she is a terrible singer. Yes, this is a musical.

But the music sucks and everyone is a lousy singer. You probably think I'm joking but I'm not. This is a musical about a psycho who slashes people's throats. Don't ask me. I didn't come up with the idea. I don't know why anyone would make a musical based on this premise. Go figure.

Oh, I almost forgot. There is also cannibalism in the film. Yes, you heard me right.

And the ending also is a real downer.

I actually like horror films but a slasher musical is just too stupid for even me.

Doctor Zhivago (1965) is one of the four best David Lean films along with A Passage to India (1984), Lawrence of Arabia (1962) and The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957).

Doctor Zhivago is a film that is hard to fault. The novel upon which it's based provides ample source material. The challenge to film it was to decide what to leave in and what to take out. Although the film is long it is necessary and in fact could have been twice as long. The film can be somewhat hard to follow because of the necessary omissions and condensations for the screenplay to be effective.

The acting is first rate from everyone and the principle actors are all heavyweights, with Omar Sharif as Dr. Zhivago probably the least capable and overshadowed by the others.

Julie Christie as the beautiful and mysterious Lara, Geraldine Chaplin as the rather mousy Tonya are the only two females in the film.

Rod Steiger, prone to overacting, is quite restrained and very effective as Komarovsky.

Alec Guinness as Gen. Yevgraf Zhivago is used to frame the story and has a small role.

Tom Courtenay is excellent as Pasha, while the distinguished Ralph Richardson is terrific as Alexander.

Small roles for Rita Tushingham as The Girl and Klaus Kinski as a crazy Kostoyed, very effective.

The film is a visual and aural feast and won Oscars for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Musical Score.

Director David Lean uses symbols and colors throughout the film and these are fun to examine. Trains occur repeatedly in the film, representing various ideas. Falling leaves, snow and ice, candles occur repeatedly. The color red is used everywhere: for Lara's dress, on flowers, on the Communist flag and on the train.

In my opinion, A Passage To India (1984) is Lean's best film because it is a perfect melding of story and symbolism, but Zhivago shows Lean's attention to story, history and symbolism.

Dr. Zhivago deserves to be seen on a large screen and withstands repeated viewings, as to the other three major David Lean films. Rightly so, Zhivago is on the top 100 film list.

Recommended without reservation.

"2001: A Space Odyssey" forever changed the look of movies in 1968 and Avatar does the same thing in 2009. There is no doubt that Avatar is a groundbreaking film. It's a giant leap forward in the use of CGI combined with 3D technology that immerses the viewer totally in the film.

To director Cameron's credit, he does not use the 3D as a gimmick.

Having seen A Christmas Carol, the Robert Zemeckis 3D film only a few months ago, Avatar makes it look amateurish by comparison.

The flora and fauna of the planet Pandora are the real stars of the film. This is a richly detailed jungle world inhabited by a huge airborne predator, the Banshees (smaller flying reptiles), the Direhorse (a six legged horse-like creature), the Hammerhead Titanothere (a large herbivore with a head shaped like a hammer) and the fearsome Thanator which is a panther-like creature straight from Hell.

The flora are equally well imagined and beautiful. There is the Tree of Souls, The Tree of Voices, Woodsprites (like airborne jellyfish) and Helicoradian which collapse into themselves when touched.

This is a film that comes around only once in a lifetime.

Highly recommended.

This version begins with a fist fight involving Holmes at a gambling den. Naturally Holmes walks away the victor. The scene signals clearly that this version is not going to follow in the footsteps of its many predecessors. So, if you have read the original Holmes stories, or seen any of the many previous Holmes adaptations, particularly those from the 40's with Basil Rathbone, you will probably be shocked and disappointed to see Holmes portrayed as a sort of cartoonish James Bond/Batman character. There are more fist fights, chases, heroine in distress scenes, and a finale atop the Tower Bridge. Although this is a period piece purportedly set in London during the 1800's, to me it lacked authenticity mainly because of the cartoonish nature of the film. It seemed that the film was really a superhero movie but with the superhero having a keen sense of observation instead of magical powers. There were times when some of the actors lost their British accents and one scene in which one of the detectives clearly spoke in an American accent. So, director Ritchie seems not to have cared much for authenticity but rather went for an action joyride. On that level, the film is not so bad, much like a National Treasure or DaVinci Code. Robert Downey Jr. portrays Holmes as a tormented, depressed soul, never clean-shaven, clearly a personal slob, witness his disgustingly slovenly digs, with no manners and a pugilistic side. Jude Law's Dr. Watson is more like Robin to Batman and he is more than willing to join Holmes in fisticuffs as they fight off one thug after another. There are Holmes references in the film, as to Professor Moriarty, but unless you are already familiar with characters from the Doyle stories, you will not understand them, nor are they explained at all. Clearly there will be at least one sequel. The film is clearly aimed at younger people and will probably provide them with 3 hours of non-stop action entertainment.

Having seen all of the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes films of the 40's on my DVD collection, which I highly recommend, Terror By Night is one of the best of the series. Holmes is hired to prevent the theft of the Star of Rhodesia, an enormous diamond. Most of the film takes place on a train trip from London to Edinburgh. When the diamond is stolen suspects abound and it is a game of wits between Holmes and the thief. Holmes is at his most clever and there are enough red herrings to satisfy the most ardent sleuth fan. Dr. Watson and Inspector Lestrade are put to clever use in the film. As will all of the films in this series, the production values are excellent. Highly recommended.

This is a review for the 3D version of A Christmas Carol. I was astounded by the 3D in the film and I would recommend it because seeing it in 3D is worth the experience.

The only other 3D film I've seen is Journey to the Center of the Earth and there is no comparison. Director Robert Zemeckis seemed to have a handle on how to effectively use 3D and not let it get in the way of the story. A few scenes got "oohs and aahs" from the audience. I thought the CGI in the film though was uneven. Some of the scenes, the closeups with Jim Carrey and some of the other characters, looked very realistic. But others, such as the chase down the streets at the end looked flat and unrendered. I suppose it could have to do with technical limitations. Anyway, there are enough visuals in the film to please most anybody. Seeing it snow in 3D was worth it. Based on this movie I am definitely going to see more 3D films in the future.

As for the content of the film itself, everyone has probably seen A Christmas Carol before and the story is the same as it always has been. Jim Carrey plays many roles including Scrooge and all three of the ghosts. He manages to have his humor come through even though he is mostly CGI. The "candle" ghost is particularly amusing as is the ghost of Christmas present. Gary Oldman and many other well known actors are in the film but it is hard to tell who they are because of the CGI and effects.

The film showed previews for two other 3D films that looked spectacular: Avatar and Alice in Wonderland (Tim Burton.) I think I've just seen the future of films and it's 3D. It's only a matter of time before someone makes a great work of art using 3D. It may take a few decades but it will happen. One other thought: if someone makes an R rated horror film in 3D it will probably give people heart attacks. The 3D effects are just too realistic and they are right in your face. I'm not sure I would want to see one of those.

Caught this on the free movies on cable. The first 30 minutes or so were excellent I thought. Every scene was visually interesting, stunning in fact and you can tell the director put a lot of thought into each scene. The characters were interesting and the bad guy was creepy as get out. I thought if this keeps up for the entire movie it will be a classic horror film. Unfortunately.... ...everything goes to hell in a handcart after that. The plot gets ridiculous, there are some very incompetent scenes with the two main characters, the GCI looks bad and the movie goes on and on. In the end, it ultimately makes no sense whatever. Too bad. I was hoping for this film to succeed.

Public Enemies is an example of style over substance. It looks good and the numerous tommy gun shootouts are okay but that's about all you get with the film. The problem is in the story. Dillinger, played by Johnny Depp, is never explained. We learn nothing about his past. He is portrayed as a ruthless bank robber who thinks nothing of taking out cops with sprays of tommy gun fire, yet is supposed to be kind-hearted to hostages. The mythical psychopath with a heart of gold. Baloney. Depp's natural charisma is totally wasted in the film and his relationship with Marion Cotillard is not interesting. Frankly, Dillinger is a boring character. Christian Bale is Melvin Purvis who is appointed by Billy Crudup (J. Edgar Hoover) to track down Dillinger. This storyline is not interesting, as say in the Fugitive where Tommy Lee Jones and Harrison Ford play an interesting game of cat and mouse. Not in this film. Even the Hoover role is not developed. The significance of Dillinger, according to the film, is that his string of bank robberies helped in the formation of the FBI, which didn't exist previously, but the historical backdrop is not explored which could have made a good movie in itself. So we are left with multiple story lines and no details. Public Enemies is not in the same league as The Godfather or any of the Martin Scorcese films or any of the Edward G. Robinson or James Cagney gangster films. Save your money and rent an old gangster film instead. Not recommended.

Johnny Depp ... John Dillinger

Christian Bale ... Melvin Purvis

Billy Crudup ... J. Edgar Hoover

Marion Cotillard ... Billie Frechette

Robert Shaw and his small gang hijack a New York City subway and demand $1,000,000 in ransom. Walter Matthau is Lt. Zachary Garber who must deal with the situation.

I recommend this film. Although somewhat dated looking, the film moves along at a brisk pace, it's believable and gritty, the acting, script, direction and music are excellent and the ending is cool. The film does have somewhat of a made-for-TV feel but don't let that deter you from seeing it.

As always, Robert Shaw gives an excellent performance. His companions in crime are equally good: Martin Balsam, Hector Elizondo (especially good) and Earl Hindman.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

The original Night Of The Living Dead had blatantly amateurish acting yet the film worked in spite of it. This remake has truly incompetent, amateurish acting and doesn't work because everything else about the film is also incompetent. The direction is static, basically place a camera in position and film some idiots talking. The writing is absolutely atrocious and makes you squirm, like watching a grade school play where you feel bad for everyone involved. The zombie makeup is truly amateurish as well and the zombies are the kind that you could run around and tickle. This piece of rubbish rivals the Uwe Bolle films for sheer incompetence.

RECOMMENDATION: No. Avoid at all costs.

ACTING: amateurish

SCRIPT: terrible dialog

VISUAL: rubber suit zombies

SIMILAR FILMS: Night of the Living Dead

Alien 3 is the 3rd installment in the Alien series. The original, Alien, is one of the best sci fi/horror films ever made and its sequel, Aliens, although no where near the quality of the original, is a good film. Alien 3, however, is a bad film, a very bad one.

Sigourney Weaver returns in her role as Ellen Ripley. This film starts where Aliens left off with Ripley, little girl Newt, Corporal Hicks, and Bishop the android in cryogenic stasis. The pod crashes on Fiorina 161 which is a mining facility and penal colony. Every criminal there is male and each one has "double-Y" chromosome patterns which supposedly accounts for their criminal behavior. Ripley is rescued but everyone else in the pod was killed. The inmates all believe in a religion that forbids sex and now Ripley, a woman, is suddenly thrown into their world. The facility's doctor warns that her presence may be disturbing to the men.

An alien bursts out of dog's body and attacks the colony. Ripley leads the battle against the other aliens who soon appear.

Supposedly, Weaver wanted nothing to do with the project and her lack of enthusiasm shows. Micheal Biehn, from Aliens, was so upset by this film that he demanded, and received, a huge amount of money to permit an image of him to be used in the film. Likewise, director James Cameron hated this film and was really upset by the ending.

Supposedly director Fincher was called late into the project and there are rumors of studio meddling. Still, his name is on the film and he has to take responsibility for this mess.

In the end, Alien 3 is just another lousy sequel made in order to cash in on the success of the original Alien film. Skip this film and see the original instead.

Get Smart should be titled Get Stupid. There is not one funny line or gag in the entire film. This film is so bad it makes the Austin Powers films look Shakespearean. A few more films like this and Steve Carell can kiss his career goodbye. As for Anne Hathaway, what is she doing in this film? She's a good actress but is just plain terrible.

The writing is pathetically lame. There is not one funny, clever, or witty line. There is not one good sight gag.

The directing is terrible. Comedy relies on timing. Someone should tell the director that. Every line that is supposed to be funny (and isn't) is delivered with absolutely the worst sense of comic timing I've ever seen.

0 stars

I like Will Smith, I like Charlize Theron, I didn't like the movie Hancock.

Will Smith plays a thoroughly unlikeable drunken, rude, nasty super hero who is just a plain S.O.B. He flies around drunk, mops up criminals and destroys property in the process.

The film makes no sense at all. What is the point? Where is the plot? The film has an unfinished feel, as if it's merely an idea that was never fleshed out, or more likely, no one wanted to work on it. Will Smith seems terribly bored in the film. So does Charlize Theron. It's as if they did the film only for the money. Where is Will Smith's charm? Certainly not in this film.

The film is PG13 but it's violent for kids.

Charlize Theron is wasted in this film.

Even the title is stupid.

The film is so worthless it's not worth my time to write any kind of review as there is nothing to say about this film.

Avoid at all costs.

Having seen many of David Cronenberg's films, such as Scanners and The Fly, I was expecting Spider to be filled with fantastical, gory images. It is not. Instead, the film consists of things commonly seen. The twist is that everything in the film is seen through the eyes of Ralph Fiennes, a schizophrenic who has been released to a half way house after spending decades in an institution. Rather than being a gross out horror film, Spider is a devastating look at what it really means to be schizophrenic.

I admire this film. It is a slow moving film which will put some people off. But considering the subject matter - Fiennes has been released into a world that is a total mystery to him - the film follows his pace as he slowly makes his way around.

I can't tell too much of the plot without ruining the movie. Suffice to say that the film unveils Fiennes' childhood and his relationship with his parents and at the end we understand what he has been through. The way in which the story is told, in which the film is edited, is so clever and so dead on that it is perfect. Fiennes' past and present are interwoven to reveal what has happened to him and to mirror what the life of a schizophrenic would be like. Fiennes mumbles through much of the film and looks down at the ground. Still, he is one of the world's greatest actors and his performance is tremendous.

All the actors are top notch. Miranda Richardson and Gabriel Byrne play his parents. Lynn Redgrave runs the halfway house and John Neville is on of the patients.

This film is serious look at the life of a schizophrenic, without Hollywood clichés. It might leave you sad but with a better understanding of this devastating illness.

RECOMMENDATION: Yes, but it is serious, slow and sad film.

ACTING: Top notch from everyone

SCRIPT: Excellent

Christophe Gans directs Silent Hill, a stylish and visually impressive but overlong and totally confusing film. Starring Radha Mitchell and Sean Bean as a couple whose daughter disappears. The entire movie consists of two different plots: Mitchell in the ghost town of Silent Hill looking for her daughter and Sean Bean in the real world looking for his wife and daughter. Confused? Good, because you will be when you watch this film. That's because the film does not make any sense at all.

I was intrigued by the visuals for the first half hour of the film. The film runs 2 hours which is way too long and the film becomes repetitive and drags, not to mention increasingly confusing.

The film cuts between the fog world of Silent Hill and the clear real world and when it does it derails the film.

Supposedly, the film is based on a video game. Unfortunately, those of us who haven't played the game don't know what the heck is going on.

Director Christophe Gans

Cast

Radha Mitchell ... Rose Da Silva

Sean Bean ... Christopher Da Silva

Laurie Holden ... Cybil Bennett

It is no secret that I can't stand Brian DePalma's movies so it's no surprise that I can't stand Blow Out. John Travolta plays a sound engineer who happens to be out one night recording live sounds when he witnesses a car crash off a bridge into the river. He dives in and rescues the female passenger, Nancy Allen, who is a hooker. From that point on Travolta discovers why she was in the car, who was in the car with her, and who is behind the efforts to get rid of him and Allen.

Unfortunately, DePalma puts ridiculous lines into the mouths of his actors. Nancy Allen shifts from scene to scene. In one she seems likes a total idiot but in the next seems more intelligent. This makes her character unbelievable. John Travolta isn't that bad in the film; at least his character is consistent.

There are some ridiculous scenes like a car chase through a parade which comes across as silly.

John Lithgow plays a psychopath and his character is the most ridiculous of all.

I even found the music ridiculous; it doesn't match what is happening in the film.

Blow Up this garbage.

Iron Man is yet another comic book adaptation starring Robert Downey Jr with Gwenyth Paltrow. Downey is the son who follows in the footsteps of his father as a weapons designer. When he travels overseas to demonstrate one of his weapons his convoy is attacked. He awakes in a cave, held prisoner by terrorists. They demand that he makes them a Jericho missile, which is one of his super weapons. He agrees but instead of making the missile, he makes an iron suit which he can wear thus becoming Iron Man.

Everyone likes Robert Downey and I'm no exception. I liked him in this film because he brings a sense of humor to it. My question though is what is he doing in a super hero film? He really doesn't belong in it because it's hard to believe his character.

As an action/comic book adaptation, Iron Man is okay but nowhere near the far superior Batman series.

As another reviewer noted, this movie is terrible and the only thing it has going for it is the 33DD. If not for the 33DD, THISthis FILMfilm would be unwatchable. Everything about it, except some of the 33DD, stinks.

There are only THREEthree characters in the film: Brendan FRASERFraser, Josh Hutcherson and ANITAAnita Briem. Fraser is okay much like he has been in the Mummy films and Anita Briem is also okay and fun to look at. Josh Hutcherson is AWFULawful as a TEENAGERteenager.

The 33DD effects are sometimes FUNfun but often misguided. The CGI is plain TtEeRrRrIiBbLlEe and CcHhEeEeSsYy LlOoOoKkIiNnGg. You have to fault the director, who has no experience except Xena Princess Warrior, and the writer who has come up with a lame screenplay.

Gone is all the magic from the original film.

I liked a few of the 33DD EFFECTSeffects, such as when Fraser spits his TOOTHPASTEtoothpaste into the SINKsink, some WATERwater DROPLETSdroplets falling, and the MAGNETICmagnetic ROCKSrocks sequence is fun. But the director missed many opportunities for some real KILLERkiller 33DD effects. Well, the film shows the possibilities of 33DD. A preview of a Pixar Disney animated 33DD film showed much more PROMISEpromise.

Be advised: don't see this film in the theatre unless it is in a 33DD DIGITALdigital VENUEvenue.

I am a fan of the Indiana Jones movies and I certainly wanted this one to be good. The movie isn't terrible but I came away disappointed.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has all the pieces of an Indiana Jones movie but it seems like a pale imitation. Harrison Ford seems happier and more into the role than he has been in many other of his recent roles. The problem is not with him but with the cartoon characters in the film.

Cate Blanchett makes a poor choice for the villianess. She's an anorexic looking Russian with a bad accent who is more skeletal than formidable. She spouts some nonsense about reading minds and you think that this is her motivation, but that idea, like most of the other ideas in the film, is not developed.

Shia LaBeouf plays the young sidekick to Indy. He is part parody of James Dean, part Fonzi from Happy Days. This isn't strange considering George Lucas wrote the story for the film and he seems to be dragging up some of the 50's ideas he had in American Graffiti. After all, the movie does start with an interesting 1950's car scene with bobby soxers in a hot rod taunting a military vehicle.

Jim Broadbent, one of the world's great character actors, is absolutely wasted in a small role as the Dean of Indy's university.

Karen Allen returns from the first Jones movie as Jone's love interest and although their renewed romance is an integral part of the film it is not convincing or developed.

Given the lack of character development in this film, which you can excuse since this is an action film, the action sequences should have been spectacular and, aside from the fun opening sequence and one after that in the first half hour, the rest of them are not as good as they should have been. The GCI in the last third of the film looks absolutely awful, not at all up to the standards you expect nowadays, especially with Lucas involved in the film.

This film is not terrible by any means but it will leave you wishing it would have been made better. And it should have been given the stature of Spielberg and Lucas. Let's hope there is no sequel.

Maybe this film isn't quite as good as Double Indemnity, but it's damn close. The Asphalt Jungle is great film noir. Sterling Hayden plays a hooligan who is part of a heist masterminded by Sam Jaffe who was just released from prison. Louis Calhern plays a corrupt backer who Jaffe gets to finance the heist. Also in the film are James Whitmore, Marilyn Monroe in a small part, and Jean Hagen as Hayden's girlfriend. It's Hayden who gets to say what I think is one of the best lines in movies: "Why don't you quit cryin' and get me some bourbon?" Directed by the great John Huston. The film looks great, the lines are great, the acting is great. You can't go wrong with this film.

Edward Woodward plays Sergeant Howie who has received a letter mailed somehow from an island which says a young girl has disappeared so he shows up in a plane to investigate. From the get-go, Woodward has got to be one of the dumbest cops in the world. As he goes around the isolated village where the girl supposedly lives everyone either claims to not know the girl or gives evasive answers that are entirely lame yet Woodward barely questions them. He also sees things happening that are so out of place, such as naked couples presumably fornicating on the grass at night, yet he never mentions it. Honest to god, I don't think I've ever seen such a dumb movie. Not to mention that Woodward is a terrible actor.

You will certainly laugh when people start singing and dancing in this film. The music is laughably bad. At one point you think you are watching a Monty Python skit. Maybe this is supposed to be a comedy. You do get to see Britt Ekland naked and dancing around which is pretty risqué for a 70's film. That's about all this film has going for it. Along with disco and leisure suits, this film is another reason to hate the 70s.

Another stinker from hackmeister Brian DePalma. This film is utterly boring for the first 50 minutes. The last hour is utterly stupid. DePalma throws in his take on Vertigo and Rear Window in the laughably lame film. There is absolutely nothing redeeming about this film. The main character is extremely weak. He is supposed to be like the James Stewart character in Rear Window and in Vertigo, except this moron is claustrophobic. What an absolute piece of junk. Any comparisons to Hitchcock is like comparing Liberace to Beethoven. One of the worst movies ever made. Any comparison of DePalma to Hitchcock is like comparing Tobe Hooper to John Ford.