BigJohnPilgrim

The accents are so strong that the dialogue is lost 75% of the time. Otherwise an intriguing take on an old theme.

Not a bad story line for a Hallmark movie. Very typical. But the little boy who looks like a girl, has an annoying little laugh at the start of every line, and is named Scout? Really? Scout? It was all I could do not to laugh out loud every time someone says his name. And as smart as the boy clearly is, he needs some acting lessons to learn to act more natural. This role detracted from the overall appeal of the movie.

As a guy, I don't mind a decent Hallmark Christmas movie, as cookie cutter as they all are. Typical plot even though it comes from a book. Typical tension based on a misunderstanding (although not the typical misunderstanding where the girl sees the guy hugging his sister and thinks he's cheating on her). Typical ending where all is well. I thought the plot line where Willa seems to fix everyone around her seemed a little contrived. Wills really made this movie, very pretty woman and good actress.

But to me the scene-stealer was the BnB owner. Attractive woman, middle-aged, very good actress, clearly some background that wasn't told. She needs her own Hallmark movie! One of the cookie cutters where she plays a role exactly like in this movie, a woman who has an admirer she likes but can't commit to. Which reminds me, her contrariness was a little contrived at first as well. But it adapted well to the plot.

Just an awkward movie overall, which is why I only gave it 3 stars. That boy just threw the whole thing off.

TVLand running this two-part episode once again, 10/9/2019. Officially titled "Pike", TVLand labels it onscreen as "Dirty Sally. I was so impressed with the acting of Dirty Sally (Jeanette Nolan), that I came here to find out more. And was not a bit surprised to find that Jeanette Nolan starred in a follow-on series in 1974 called "Dirty Sally" that lasted one season. It also starred Dack Rambo reprising his role as Pike. I never saw it, but I bet that was an entertaining series!

I've never seen such a perfect impression of a crusty old lady living from the frontier days! Her toothlessness, way of speaking, accent, overall demeanor, just so convincing. The plot was also very well-written for this two-parter. Everything about this two-parter is genuine and real.

Mitchum reprises his Mexican gun-running, wife-stealing role from 'Bandido' (filmed just 3 years earlier) but this time as a pseudo-American-Mexican instead of just a mercenary American. The plot differs from Bandido in many ways, but the basic storyline is gun-running and wife-stealing, something at which Bob Mitchum apparently excels.

Mitchum himself plays his usual rugged, sleep-eyed self who seems able to casually sweep women into his laconic vortex. However, Julie London is miscast as the leading lady. Her angular features, while similar to those of Ursula Theiss (Mitchum's leading lady in Bandido), are never attractively portrayed on the big screen, ad the sparks just don't fly between her and Mitchum. She does have a screen presence, but it was better suited for the small screen dramas.

All in all, it's a decent movie I can recommend, maybe slightly better than Bandido. It deserves at least one viewing.

If you like sappy romantic movies with shallow plots and bad acting you will probably like this one. But I'm a country boy and I can tell you that nothing the rancher family did was realistic in the least little bit. Allowing a clearly antagonistic, hateful and spiteful ex-boyfriend to hang around after he deliberately let the cattle herd out to roam the desert with predators around all because he wanted to frame the current boyfriend? He should have been arrested. The father who treats his daughter's boyfriend like a criminal? It was beyond crude and rude, I would run away from that family as fast as my legs could carry me. The whole movie was filled with improbable sub-plots like this.

Every time a new scene appeared, I found myself shaking my head incredulously. That just isn't how real people act, especially not ranchers. Farmers and ranchers are real people with real values and don't engage in the kinds of petty big-city actions prevalent throughout this movie. Another Hallmark stinker clearly written by clueless Hollywood writers who don't know how the real world works.

At least the girl was very pretty.

If it weren't for the romantic Christmas factor, which is clearly what attracts the favorable ratings, this movie would be a real stinker. That alone rates a seven. And the acting is overdone (does Hallmark just have bad directors, or don't any of their Christmas movie actors know how to act?), every scene seems to have an added dose of melodrama. That drops it another couple of points.

And the entire plot with the dog, starting from the point that it ran away, was ridiculous. No self-respecting pet lover would keep a dog that belonged to someone else if the owner was found, especially not as in this situation where the dog was the pet of a soldier who was killed and then was the soldier's wife's reminder of him.

Not to mention the fact that no shelter would ship a dog out so quick clear across country. It came in with a collar with his name on it, meaning he has an owner and a family, and no shelter would ship it across country so quick without doing everything it could and taking several weeks to try and find the owner. Even then it would normally get fostered in the area were it was found, instead of adopted out.

And nobody ever addresses why it had no tag or wasn't chipped. That is irresponsible pet ownership. This would have been a great opportunity to spread the word about making sure your pet has a license tag on its collar at all times, along with a name and address and phone number tag (something you can get for $5 at your nearest Walmart where you can always find an automatic pet tag engraving machine), and to also get it chipped if you can. No pet should ever stay lost for long, it's traumatic for the owner AND the pet.

With all that said, it just stretches the imagination that a supposedly good man would be so selfish as to keep that dog away from its rightful owner, and to teach his daughter that it was OK. Just because she has had a difficult time doesn't mean you suspend teaching responsibility and kindness and generosity.

Understandably, to a child who has just suffered a major loss, it could be traumatic to suffer even further loss, but they'd only had the dog for two weeks, so for heaven's sake, if a dog is what the girl needs, teach her that she can't just keep another person's dog and go get her another one.

To the guy's credit, he did work to sway the girl's mind, but not at first, and a good parent would have just laid down the law and said we must do the right thing and give the dog back. That just isn't something you let a kid think is OK. And what is this bunk about letting the girl make the rules? Don't they even teach good parenting on the Hallmark Channel anymore?

At some point in the movie, there is a discussion that legally the man can keep the dog. I'm pretty sure that is not true. A lost pet does not legally change ownership if the original owner is found only 2 weeks after it ran away in a storm.

And the guy's sister questions that the original owner would want to take the dog away because the guy and his daughter have fallen in love with the dog? Come on.

And the daughter says, "I'm sorry Dad, but Buddy (the dog) is part of our family now." What? The girl honestly can't even empathize with the dog's owner's loss, especially after just suffering loss of her own? Is she a sociopath or something, unable to understand the pain of others? Normal people would be even more sensitive to the needs of others when they've suffered a fresh loss like that.

And when they take the dog back to its owner, the guy says, "I just wanted to make sure that we've done the right thing (bringing the dog back), but I can see we did." What? Again, what? First, you don't know you've done the right thing bringing the dog back to its rightful owner, then you have to gall to pass judgment one way or another? Even though you've previously met the dog's owner and know she is a good person and the dog still knows her and they care for each other? I'm still scratching my head on this one.

Not to mention, the girl doesn't seem upset at all by her separation from the dog. So what was the big deal again?

I like Hallmark Christmas movies, even the sappy ones. But this one just has all kinds of wrong all over it. Sorry, but I'm not a fan, it stinks. As a pet movie of any kind, it shows a total ignorance of every pet issue that should be addressed in the movie. And the parenting examples are horrendous.

If I had to guess, this was some clueless screenwriter who has lost touch with the real world, because the plot is so far off base it smacks of wacko Hollywood. I think that to like it, you couldn't understand parenting or pets very well.

Hollywood has never been able to get the heartland right. Every time they try, it's an unnatural mating. The script is unrealistic, the acting is forced, they just don't know real America well enough to even fake it halfway realistically.

This film has every cringe-worthy moment - a father whose character overacts in a way that nobody acts in real life and who talks about mechanical stuff like he doesn't know his way around a wrench even though he runs a farm; a son who hates his dad for unknown reasons supposedly because his dad wants the son to continue the family farm (why be angry about it?); simulated sex in a grain silo that feels more like something nasty on a Hollywood back street than a Midwestern farm, a girl who hangs out at the farm supposedly because she likes the son but hangs out with the dad more than the son. Nothing makes sense and the script is out of whack and the acting is awful. Big fat zero.

The dialog is at times a little corny ("He drew down on that snake with his rifle, Ma!"), and the young girl's poor western folk accent and way of talking is a little too forced, but this is an earnest movie that faithfully represents the Christian message of redemption and forgiveness with a moving tale of love.

Henry helps rob a bank but doesn't want bloodshed, and of course it happens anyhow. He accidentally kills a preacher who gives him his miniature Bible before he dies and tells Henry that he can change.

After a year on the run, Henry's past catches up to him and he is wounded, and finds refuge with a widow and her two children. They turn out to be the family of the preacher that Henry killed, and the dilemma ensues. Torn between his great crime and growing love for the family, Henry is a tormented man and must decide if he accepts the gift of grace.

It is sad to note that at least one viewer has unleashed hatred of Christianity. Why one would bother to show such bigotry is beyond me, but it says much more about the reviewer than the movie. This is a rare movie in which not only is the name of Jesus invoked, but hymns naming Jesus are sung (and beautifully at that). You have to admire their bravery in the face of all the Hollywood and liberal hating, to produce such a movie and not back down from content that will draw the ire of the haters.

The movie moved me enough to rate 7 stars. With more polished actors and production it might have fared better. Great family movie that will leave you feeling good, especially if you are a person of faith.

I was so taken with the chemistry between Powell and Arthur that I barely followed the plot, which was OK but had some holes. Horse-racing jockey dies, mystery ensues, involving gangs and money. The murder instrument and method were not very realistic, reminiscent of the James Bond scene with the tarantula. Sorry, but I'd guess movie audiences even back then were too sophisticated to fall for that.

So, I was mainly just queuing up for their scenes together, which was most of them. Their dialog was so witty and sharp, her endearing and wily attempts to show her affection and recapture his love were so real, and his feeble attempts to off her advances when it was obvious he loved her back, made it that much more enjoyable. There was real affection afoot between those two, and the movie cameras that separated them from us could not hope to hide it.

I rate their chemistry much higher than that between Powell and Loy in The Thin Man series. It really sparkled. The rest of the movie could have been the corniest thing going (and at times, it was), but it wouldn't have mattered. And because of these two, this movie had me not wanting to miss a minute.

Altogether, Powell and Arthur had 5 collaborations, two in 1929, two in 1930, and this one in 1936. We were robbed in that this medium was not seized upon and repeated. It's a shame we couldn't be treated to more of these.

I couldn't put this movie down once I started watching it on TCM tonight (I missed the beginning but I assume TCM is playing it to commemorate Efrem Zimbalist's passing almost 2 weeks ago). In the first place, the star-studded cast lived up to their billing with great acting, even Angie Dickinson, who often falls flat on acting skill but always comes through with sexuality and downright feminine attractiveness. In this case, she brought appropriate sexual tension that was not over-played, and really brought on her acting chops. I thought the then-relatively unknown Carroll O'Connor really stood out in his first (albeit minor) big-screen role as a political adviser. His acting was strong, competent, and confident, in a way that portended a successful future career on both the small and large screens. Even in this minor role you could sense a strong presence from Carroll.

There are a lot of twists to this plot: a senator's wife (Angie Dickinson) who still pines for a man (Efrem Zimbalist, Jr.) she never stopped loving before marrying the senator (Don Ameche), but she had to forget about Efrem because he was married to an invalid wife at the time, although the invalid wife had subsequently passed away (without any further hints as to whether they had an affair when he was still married). And he just happens to be the judge in a trial being prosecuted by an ambitious man (Frank Kelly) against a former governor's nephew, and Frank will stop at nothing to gain his party's backing to run for governor. The powers in the political parties come into play as backing is sought, and gained, and lost, while the power players jockey for the best candidates.

Meanwhile, the senator has returned home from Washington, D.C. to run for the governorship that he feels entitled to, in order to stack the state delegation and earn his party's nomination for president. But the senator has a secret, a heart condition that may prevent him from realizing his goal of the ultimate public service to his country.

Now, toss in the fact that the judge has political aspirations of his own, and you have a lit fuse waiting to go off. Political intrigue and subterfuge play a big part in the plot. But neither the great cast and acting or these complicated twists and turns are what makes this movie so good and believable. The courtroom drama is highly technically accurate and believable, the actors are believable, the technical issues behind the objections by the lawyers, and the subsequent override or sustainment by the judge is based on real-life considerations, including the biggest twist of all, which you will have to watch to find out. This is just a valid and highly accurate and technical examples of real-life courtroom proceedings that will have you believing in the plot and its complexities.

Something that struck me about this movie was the way graphic sex was discussed so openly in the courtroom. The deceased in her brief death scene at the beginning of the movie was dressed very provocatively, and it was revealed in the coroner's testimony that she had had multiple sex partners (4, to be exact) in the 24 hours leading up to her death, leaving one's imagination to consider the gruesome and graphic details of how the coroner had determined this information. This kind of subject was still fairly taboo at the time, even on the big screen, and while it may have been an accurate courtroom detail lending credibility to the stark courtroom realities portrayed so well in the movie, it comprised a surprisingly salacious and shocking addition to the plot, especially considering that it was really irrelevant to the flow of the case and the movie. Contrast that with the fact that the viewer is left wondering whether Angie's and Efrem's characters had had an affair while he was still caring for his invalid wife, especially since their romantic interest in each other plays such a large part in the script. That coyness with their relationship just didn't match well with the brutal directness of unnecessarily portraying a nymphomaniac, which was obviously added simply for shock value and reality creds. But that was really just one of only two minor discrepancies with the script.

The other discrepancy would be the conviction of a man for a murder he didn't commit based on an elderly woman's testimony identifying him as a man she briefly saw outlined in her headlights at night from at least 50 feet away, leaving the scene of the murder. There were no fingerprints to back it up, no motive except for an unproven allegation that the husband had previously attacked her with a knife, and an unsuccessful attempt to imply he committed the murder because his mistress was pregnant (though this attempt was never completed). There was just no strong cross examination of the old woman's testimony, and anyone who has ever watched 'My Cousin Vinny' knows how easy it is to destroy weak eyewitness testimony like that, especially in a murder case where someone's life hangs in the balance, and especially since the whole case was based on circumstantial evidence. So that was the one weak point in the court case, which was otherwise brilliantly scripted, set up, and played out.

Overall, I really enjoyed this movie and the great acting that helped pull it off, the two weak points detracted very little from the overall effect. I was struck very strongly with the back-and-forth in the courtroom, and found myself thinking again and again that whoever wrote the courtroom script had real and in-depth courtroom experience and had great skill in accurately putting it together. It wasn't just realistic, it was intelligently- and well-put together. A very good movie.

I had a hard time watching this movie through to the end, because at times it was so bad, I had to turn the sound down. The worst was probably when they were playing that song and singing "sweet sweets" or whatever it was. I couldn't take more than a few seconds of it, it was really bad. The acting was so bad I thought I was watching a soap opera (is that what the two lead actors were in that most of the other reviewers mentioned?).

It must have been a soap opera, because it was soap opera bad. The French accent was so bogus it was laughable. Wolfgang Puck didn't even save this movie. Nobody could. I can't even find anything good to say about it.

As a guy, I am unashamed to admit I like a good Hallmark movie. A GOOD one. But there was just nothing good about it.

Cal Wayne (Bobby Darin) returns home from the Civil War a broken man, haunted and afraid to strap on a gun because he had mistakenly killed his friend. Upon return, he finds that his dead friend's brother, Grant Evers (Leslie Nielsen) has taken over the town with the help of a bullying sheriff, and is engaged to marry the woman Cal loves. With a supporting role by Michael Sarrazin in his big screen debut as a kind-hearted rancher who is flogged by the evil sheriff while returning a stray calf, and eventually dies from the beating (triggering the violent series of confrontations that ends the movie).

The plot of this movie, while following a tried and true formula, does introduce some interesting twists and turns. However, Bobby Darin was a poor fit for the role. One inescapably concludes that Universal was trying him out in the western lead role, and he obviously failed as it was his only western.

Darin's acting seemed forced, his scrawny frame swaggering around with an exaggerated chest-out, shoulders-back posture. His fight scenes with larger men were so forced and obviously scripted that they come off as feeble. His acting was a series of attempts to over-emphasize every word with uncomfortable pregnant pauses while we study his face in close-up. It's all rather bizarre. Even more bizarrely, he wears black leather gloves throughout the entire movie, and appears uncomfortable doing so, constantly tugging at them. Perhaps they were hiding small hands. Who knows, but they stuck out like a sore thumb (no pun intended). He clearly did not belong in this role. Watching him in this movie felt more like watching a low-grade soap opera.

But along comes Leslie Nielsen with another brilliant performance to save the day (barely). Leslie's acting, as always, is smooth and professional and realistic. He plays someone who sits atop an empire with an evil sheriff supporting his power play, emanating barely perceptible evilness. But he also plays a good guy who helps Darin's return to his hometown by giving him back his old job as sheriff, and he doesn't try to force himself on Darin's former girlfriend even though he is engaged to marry her. At one point he even offers to postpone the wedding because he knows he doesn't have her heart. This is one of the interesting plot twists, that Nielsen's character generously offers to give up the girl because he knows she is really in love with Darin's character.

But even Nielsen's film-saving performance and Michael Sarrazin's supporting and sympathetic role in his first appearance on the big screen aren't enough to salvage Bobby Darin's attempt at a leading western man. At times he appears to be trying to emulate Dean Martin in appearance and manner, but fails miserably. Barely made a 6-star rating in my book, and only because of Nielsen and Sarrazin.

I want back the time I wasted on this movie. I want back the expectation that I was watching a remake of the older classic starring Doug McClure. This movie was so horribly done, I have to wonder why anyone would even bother. Who was pretending to be a director or producer here?

I don't even know where to start. Maybe the 1990s Saturday morning cartoonish dinosaurs. Maybe the horrible play-acting and over-acting. Maybe the script and dialog that at times don't even make sense. Maybe the bizarre music that didn't even fit the plot most of the time (I felt like I was listening to an opera while watching a horror movie). Maybe the fake-gravelly-whisperish voice of the boat captain. Maybe the lack of character development. Maybe the insertion of subtle sexual hints at totally inappropriate moments. Maybe the fact that it's obviously the same ridiculous Sci-Fi Channel filler trash that we've come to expect from a channel that used to be a legitimate place to watch classic and new sci-fi and has instead turned into a cartoon factory.

I guess what I'm saying is, don't even bother to watch this movie. It will be the most unpleasant lost two hours of your life. Don't even bother. I hate to be a hater, but this really is the biggest waste of remaking time and expense I've ever seen. But then since the expense was obviously minimal, I guess time was only thing really lost here.

With some good acting, this movie might have been a B flick. As it is, it fails miserably. The plot isn't too bad - man's wife and son are savaged and killed by local tyrants while he is thrown in prison, he escapes and exacts revenge. This movie has some truly great names - Billy Zane, Carol Alt, Sean Young, George Kennedy, Armand Assante - but the acting is wooden. Worst of all, a soap opera actor, Eric Braeden, is the star, and he couldn't have been more off the mark.

I thought my TV volume was turned down every time Braeden spoke and I reached for the remote to turn it up, but it turned out he was mumbling every time he spoke. He not only mumbled, he barely whispered, and it was nasal to boot. It was so stupid as to be ridiculous, the most annoying and ridiculous voice I've ever heard. Who ever heard of a mumbling hero in a post-Civil War western? I couldn't even tell what he said most of the time.

And it was clearly a deliberately contrived act, the mumbling hero was supposed to be all macho like Clint Eastwood or something. Truly stupid. If it wasn't for the gratuitous nudity, the movie would have been worthless. And if that weren't bad enough, the black slave living in Braeden's home was a mumbler too! They just don't make them like they used to.

Whoever decided to remake this movie, should be taken out behind the woodshed. Not for remaking it, but for doing such an awful job. Casting Lou Diamond Phillips as Quirt Evans was the first mistake. He does a good bad guy, but is totally unconvincing as the love interest of a Quaker woman. And Deborah Kara Unger isn't much better as Temperance, she just doesn't come across well as a Quaker woman. There is just no believable spark or magnetism between the two.

You simply don't remake a John Wayne classic without putting the right actors in the right places. And in my mind, you just don't remake a John Wayne classic, period. The True Grit remake is an exception, it was well-cast and well done in every aspect. This movie just wasn't convincing. And for a color movie, it has too much of that modern mistake of trying to evoke some Hollywood-imagined atmosphere with toned-down colors. I suppose that is intended to focus us more on the characters, but all it did was focus us on the fact that the casting and acting was bad. I wouldn't recommend this sad excuse for a remake to anyone. And I am unbelievably puzzled by anyone who gives it a good review, I guess it doesn't take much to please people these days.

I guess if you are a progressive, if you actually believe that our U.S. Constitution is some kind of 'living' document that is outdated and needs to change to adapt to the times and therefore you are against the very Constitution itself and a traitor to it, then you might scoff at this film and dismiss it.

But if you believe in the principles of limited government and strong military to protect us against threats from abroad, and freedom and liberty as laid out in our Constitution, and that as our Constitution states our liberty and rights are granted by God alone and not man, as man can take them away but God won't, then you will know that this prescient warning from Hollywood's past, from a time when Hollywood was still honest and populated with patriots who had fought and defended our great country from external threats, this warning is more relevant today than at any time in our history. Just as this film describes the past attempts of socialist dictators who believe they know better than we do what is good for us, dictators who believe that the limitations placed on our federal government by a wise body of men who understood governmental tyranny more than any others before or since are obsolete, so the past attempts of those traitors to our Constitution to overthrow us both from without and within are mirrored in today's events. Taking advantage of turmoil and disaster to sneak into power and change the rules out from under us.

Yes, this film is practically a precognition of todays' events, with the efforts to destroy all public acknowledgment of God as this film warns against, and the loss of God-given liberty in favor of man-granted privileges. This film could not be more relevant, and the patriots narrating it should be granted Medals of Freedom for their part in this warning. Wake up, America.

I don't normally write reviews, but this movie really caught me up watching it on TCM. Jean Arthur, though older, is such a sympathetic character, a tough old gal whose heart is captured by a younger William Holden. I watched it for a while before checking out the credits and it struck me that the young man's voice sounded so much like William Holden but his youth had me fooled. Edgar Buchanan's Judge Bogardus was a nice change from the tool of the bad guys to a simple town drunk full of himself as the 'chosen' judge passing judgment on the streets for a drink at the bar.

I just loved the plot and dialog in this movie, and the way it stuck to the actual history of Arizona through the Civil War from the goods to the weapons. After reading the Trivia section, I was surprised to see it was also later on the set for Rio Bravo, one of my favorite John Wayne westerns.

Just a wonderful and authentic treatise on the early days of Arizona, everyone in it did it justice. Nothing was wrong with it, everything was right.

Elizabeth Berkley actually does a half decent acting job in this, not like the trash job she did on Showgirls. And she looks different, like she's had plastic surgery or something. Definitely lost some weight.

Apparently the original version was called Black Widow? The current version playing as of October 2011 is called Dark Beauty, and has clearly been cut at the end to remove MOST of the blooper where 'Olivia' is shot and falls into the pool. Apparently in the original version, she made a surprising resurrection after dying. That part was cut out in the updated and renamed version, but you can still see her left leg kick like she's swimming after she is killed and falls into the pool.

I only got to see about the last half of this movie, I only watched it out of curiosity because Elizabeth Berkley was in it and I was channel surfing. What I saw of it was typically low-grade made-for-TV movie fare, made on the cheap. So this isn't a review of the whole movie, just a commentary on how disappointing was the half I saw. And I will register the bloopers I saw also.

This could have been a well-made western. With Robert Stack, Peter Graves, and the line-up of supporting characters including a beautiful 'Indian' woman, the acting really wasn't half bad but someone skimped terribly on script-writing and the action scenes.

The rattlesnake scene was horrible. The snake was clearly either dead or a rubber fake, you could see the string tied around its neck that was slowly jerking it along. That was the most fake rattlesnake I've ever seen in a western. I suppose they couldn't afford a real one.

The scene where they drank at the water hole in the cave was even worse. Supposedly near-dead from thirst, all they did was shake their heads in the water and blow bubbles and make noises. Those that did draw water into their mouths spit it back out into the pool right in front of the others who were 'drinking'.

The fight scenes and deaths were the worst. I won't even go into detail about how poorly scripted and acted they were. There was clearly a skinny male stunt person taking the Indian girl's place when she wrestled the soldier. And the way the combatants who were next in line to be killed would stand up in full view to shoot in order to be shot was laughable.

I liked the overall plot and the cast, Robert Stack was good and the dialog not bad. But the director must have been so convinced that these elements would carry the film that he paid no attention to these details. I can't even rate it a 5 because of these blatant oversights.

There are so many elements to this movie that add a delightful sense of the absurdly normal. The corn relish (what?). The hot tamales. The white dude wowing the salsa band. The hot chick. The killer weed (and that reaction was so over the top believable). Really everything that happened in this movie belonged.

It's so corny and uplifting with its quirks and turns that it keeps you glued to your seat waiting for the next surprise. Excellent script, totally incredible acting, I am not sure why I didn't rate it a 10 except that it's not family fare (but is certainly good for a sit-down evening with the girlfriend!).

Wow, I can't believe that anyone would give this movie a good review. There are so many problems with it I don't even know where to start. The dialog is so laughable, each scene so preposterous, it is just bizarre.

Just as an example, in the waterfall scene, a mans starts to go over the waterfall in a raft but is saved by a lasso from Stewart Granger and pulled off the raft at the last second; in the next shot Stewart Granger is pulling in the rope with the man attached and behind and above him is most of the waterfall. The whole movie is like this, with dialog that has no pretext and scenes that have no context, so many goofs and continuity issues it would take longer to write about that than the movie itself.

The plot is not bad, it was just so poorly written with such absurd dialog that it has to be a foreign-made or produced film. No accomplished western producer could have made such a laughable excuse. I feel for Stewart Granger that he was part of such a ridiculous movie. And the way he had the rifle cradled in his left arm in every scene regardless of the setting made me want to giggle uncontrollably.

Old Surehand. Might as well have been named old dumb*ss.

This was obviously a kid's movie, so previous comments about how bad it is are out of line. Every movie borrows plot elements from other movies, that's how movies are made. The plot was actually entertaining, even for an adult, and most of it was quite unique. Bringing disaffected kids with superpowers together as the only chance to defeat a returning superhero gone bad has not been tried before as far as I know. And I think a rather good job was done to chronicle the progress of the group from alienated individuals to a working team, along with cute tidbits of comedy and a developing romance between the superhero who lost his powers and the hidden talent.

I actually thought Tim Allen was one of the better actors in this movie, living up to his own normal high standards. Courtney Cox delivered a cute character as the romantic interest that fit the plot. The kids all did their part in a believable manner, especially the little girl. The fat boy was obviously a stuffed costume, they could have done a lot better with that.

However, Chevy Chase nearly ruined the movie all on his own. He looked like a dying man in the movie, so fat he looked like a stuffed sausage, and pale as a corpse to boot. You'd think they could have applied enough makeup so that he didn't look so sickly. His acting and delivery was zombie-like, his lines were stupid, it appeared as though the writers allowed him to insert his own take at times, and it was awful. I don't know what he was doing in this movie, but he is clearly washed up. He wasn't even a shell of his former self. He appeared to be muddled and dazed through the entire movie, the best thing he could come up with was "we love to poo in our pants' in the outtakes? I feel really sorry for Chevy that he has sunk to this, but he should bow out gracefully. I've loved virtually everything he's done, but this almost undoes all the good karma. Someone please put him out to pasture.

If you can suspend your disbelief at the unreal experiences and miraculously close escapes and repeatedly coincidental circumstances, you cannot relax because this film takes you on a most intense ride that leaves you with knuckles bruised from gripping the edge of your seat. This film is non-stop, heart-stopping close shave after close shave, and if you are on heart medication, STAY AWAY FROM IT. John C. McGinley plays this part so perfectly he should be enshrined for it. Only Jack Nicholson plays a crazy man better. I stayed up late to watch this movie to the end, and I am extremely disappointed that it cannot be bought anywhere. If anyone knows where it can be purchased?