danmcn61

Can there be a worst film? Even Ed Wood at his horrific worst couldn't come up with something this bad. Cheesy, stupid, long-winded, preposterous...and those are the good points. I saw this trash back in the early 80's when I was incredibly bored to begin with, and actually sat through the entire thing without blowing my brains out, although that probably would have been a more pleasant experience. I actually remembered it because it was so bad. It makes me sad in a way because some of the best directors got their start by making TV movies (ie Spielberg) and it was a wonderful way for them to get their initial material before the public, but crap like this just totally killed the entire process.

I have a question for all you GF experts:(SPOILER) When Michael is talking to Frank Pantangeli at his old house, he tells Frank that his father (Don Vito) taught him to "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer". In the 40+ times I have seen this movie, I still don't understand that line at all. I know it is a Corleone family trait to make nice with a potential enemy and then kill him when he least expects it, Ir Pauly the driver and Sollozzo, but there has to be more to it than that.

Also, another line from GFII has always bothered me, when Michael is eating an orange (of course) and talking about killing Hyman Roth, he says to Rocco, "If history has taught us anything, it's that anyone can be assassinated", which in my (admittedly, mediocre) mind is nonsense. If "anyone" can be assassinated, then I think Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Khomeini, Saddam, Bin Laden, etc... easily disprove that theory. All were worthy of assassination by any definition, yet none died from outside assistance.

I thought this movie was remarkable, not only because it tackled a subject that most filmmakers would shy away from, but because it did so with a lot of tenderness and heart and humor. The sexual tension that slowly builds between the boss and secretary soon gives way to love, as the two lonely, misunderstood and alienated people learn to accept themselves as well as each other. As is usually the case in a spanking relationship, the "sub" is really the one in control of things and is the stronger personality by far. The spankings don't make her feel humiliated but rather give her a feeling of power and confidence, enough to give her the courage to face herself and her feelings for the boss by the time the movie is over.

Well, I HAVE seen this version and I loved it. The animation was very well done, the music was great, and Tim Curry did a wonderful job of portraying Scrooge. I don't think that anything Disney has to offer can compare. The story in this version of course deviates from the original story, the ghost of Christmas Past is a child rather than the usual middle-aged spirit and the ghost of Christmas Present is Whoopi Goldberg with a preposterous accent. What can I say? It was made for kids to enjoy and my kids loved it and watched it again and again, as did I. Those who are purists for the story should stick with Mr Magoo. There isn't anything objectionable in this version and I'd love to see a similar treatment of David Copperfield, Oliver Twist, Great Expectations, etc... instead of the usual crap that is on network TV

As an ex-Marine, I was keenly interested in seeing this movie of the week rerun when it aired, I think at 2 am, but what the heck I was on night shift anyway.

First off, I liked it, I really liked it and not because it "took sides" because frankly I don't think it did. A VERY young Jan-Michael Vincent played the part of a spacy draftee quite well and Darren McGavin was his usual excellent self. Parts of the film were filmed at MCRD (Marine Corps Recruit Depot) in San Diego, with real recruits going through drill training on the grinder. Even though it was filmed at the height of the Vietnam war, politics was left out of the film, but they did manage to show the conflict between the hippie and the more conventional recruits.

The best performance though was from Earl Holliman in my opinion. He played the hard-ass DI to the hilt and provided the strongest contrast to the hippie's live-and-let-live anarchy, even stronger than McGavin's character.

The movie didn't offer answers, nor did it preach about who was right and who wasn't (maybe that was the point anyway, nobody is really 100% "right" in any conflict).

I thought this movie was quite profound, and heartbreaking. I thought the filmmaker was obviously trying to make the point that if only Hitler had achieved some success as an artist, and had at least one true friend who he could bond with (esp. if that friend was a Jew)then the events of the 20th century would have been far different. The scene where Max tries to get Hitler laid was incredibly funny and sad at the same time. One can't help but think, this pathetic loser is destined to rule Europe in 20 years?

The film also proposes that perhaps the whole thing (siezing power, the war, the holocaust, ...) was just an elaborate art project for Hitler and nothing else. This may be preposterous, but I give the director credit for at least trying to say something so potentially controversial. Clearly the events of post WW1 Germany were far more complicated than are expressed in this film, and clearly Hitler as a young man was far more twisted and ambitious than the character portrayed here, but nevertheless I think this film was brilliant.