minimal-3

I gave it a 6 because it had all the makings of a good horror film. It used a very unique set and setting.The actors were OK but with a good story even they would come alive. The writers never pulled it off as they could have with a bit more work and tighter editing. Of course you must have a story first to edit... The film starts down a great path with malleable talent. And there is some pretty good action happening. As you watch put yourself in these soldiers place. What would you do? Once I had any one of their experiences I would be on the path to getting the heck out of there. They were obviously forgotten even though I doubt that would happen without some contact from the base. I can recommend you see it for it's potential that was never realized. It's actually a good lesson in screen writing. They had the subject mater right but it seemed as though they either ran out of money or inexperienced screenwriters. I'd like to know if anyone knows anything about the end credits music track. There is no soundtrack cause it doesn't need one.If you know the name of the band please shoot me an e mail at

switchmeon@me.com

I learned long ago when a film approaches release and you may have an interest DO NOT READ/LISTEN/ OR WATCH THE HYPE OR REVIEWS. I would rather go into a film knowing NOTHING about it. The more the hype the worse the film. They (producers) want a huge opening weekend. That is all they want out of a U S release. They make all the cash worldwide. This film was made for 200K but has returned an astounding 183 MILLION! That figure may even be without counting rentals and sell through. I have always dug scary films. I found 'Quarantine' on Netflix and was very very surprised by the film. It was a favorite until this one came along. I am glad I watched this film during daylight hours and not just before I went to bed. I would have heard every creek and moan with no sleep.I am susceptible to these type films cause I believe all this stuff does go on. So this film scared the bejesus out of me in my darkened media room (O K, living room). Once I have watched the film I will go back and then see what the reviewers I like thought of the film. To my surprise Ebert loved it. The film had no production values only what it did NOT show us. Plus it was made to look homemade by using video tape. This was a jaw dropping film with some slow spots yet you sort of built opinions about the two actors. The guy was a jackass as his girlfriend suffered. She was on the money and the creepy demonic voice was perfect. i suggest you see "Antichrist" by Lars von Tiers if you did not like this and want to step up to a thoughtful well made HORROR film with only two actors.

Too bad this is one of the worst/dumbest/mixed up with bad writing/bad casting/bad acting/excellent effects/unpredictable/ most stupid story I have ever seen on large or small screen i did not check to see if it was STV but i don't think it was. I remember seeing TV trailers and they were well cut

Slap a cool cover on the media and they made money. It took under a million to make and between theatrical and rental they made a few bucks. That just seems the hard way around to pull in maybe4-500K grooosssssssssssss

At least it employed a few artists

You are going to see a lot of negativity towards this film, unjtl.y. I'm not going to rehash the plot or set and setting as virtually every other review has done If you took the time to watch the film again with commentary turned on you learn a heck of a lot about the motivation of the director and what he attempted to pull off and in my opinion he did very well, explaining where shots were set up/why he did certain things without t effects and why he shot in Bulgaria.

It all comes together as his 'fairy tale' mindset takes off. Yeah he took too long for character set up and exposition but there is plenty of room for 'tales' like this. If your impatient (as most fans of this genre are) you will not enjoy this film.m. Sit back and relax and let the spooky wood take you away as well awounderfulsl set dressing done to many shots create the mood. The blood on the door is the first clue. It's almost David Lynch at play.y. As i said the is plenty of room for 'tales likes 'Wicked Little Things'.

(typos are the result of my mac not syncing with this format. I could not control the errors, totally out of my control sorry)

This film is a good example as Vic077 mentions "They don't make them like they use to". The movie had me in stitches with practically each scene and of course you had a hopefulness the main male lead would fall for Constance Bennett. The youngest daughter was played very skillfully.

The wife, Billie Burke, was of course hysterical(as she always is.) as was the husband, Tom Brown and I am surprised I have never seen his name mentioned in conjunction with the hilarity of the film. He has made many films and is a familiar face as a character actor.

It's too bad this is not on DVD yet (if ever) as I would purchase it.

The casting was superb and that is why Hal Roach reassembled them for 3 films, this being the 2nd.

See it if you ever get the chance.

This is a tough one! I am viewing this film in December of 2006. I know it was released at least 3 or 4 months ago although with films in this category the distributor is pushing to get it to video release as soon as they possibly can because the video release is where much more money can be made and in this case video release will surpass domestic profits. However, you are not reading this to hear about how the distributor makes money... I watched as PPV on home cable after reading some reviews and taking in the marketing several months ago, and only because I like Jennifer Anniston and I was bored with X-Mass shopping and am not very familiar w/Vaughn.

Anniston's film 'The Good Girl' is how I became hooked on her. I watched 'Friends' seldom but when I did, it was because I liked looking at her. 'The Good Girl' is J A at her best. Prior she was not pulling in audiences as one would think she would after Friends. Her previous films did not make money for the production companies to actually allow her to continue making films as a 'star' and I believe based solely on her performances on Friends was she cast in other films, all the while the producers would dump cash into her films hoping she would hit that one big starring lead to allow them to justify another J A starrer.

"The Good Girl' was so good but yet made no more than her previous attempts in film work (I would imagine rentals put her over the top because rentals are rented mainly based on consumer 'word of mouth').

I'm generalizing here and simply writing as I watched her career slowly fade (I.e.: I have completed no research on J A and her films but writing simply as a consumer watching what was going on with her career) until 'The Good Girl showed up on the radar screen of the possibility, the potential of a possibility for JA to find a niche for her considerable talent. I believe Good Girl was a big 'critical' success which will always make studio heads turn. 'The Good Girl' was so good and on a 'real life' level that if you have not seen this film do so now. You will be blown away by her subtle but deeply felt ability to sweep you away from your troubles for 90 minutes.

Thus, based upon the GG showing blatantly her abilities for film work once a DECENT script is placed in front of her and her sheer talent we all know is there (why do you think H'wood keeps remaking and extending sequels...no freaking writing is going on out there.) she gets to make more of this genre' which is a shame because she is capable of much more than the horrid 'Break Up' and I am afraid she will be stuck in this type role. Certainly on one level she does not mind as I imagine she is paid very well as the women love her in this 'Break Up' sort of waste of film.

Nevertheless, JA as a "STAR" right now and not an "ACTRESS" has to be frustrated not even mentioning her personal life.

I have been wanting to get all the above thoughts down somewhere where someone MAY read them, although as you begin reading and notice this is not about this film specifically but about J A, you may skip over this 'review. I will tell you what I thought of 'Break Up', though: a true and real BORE. However, watching JA was a treat. The script was poorly written, the direction was bad, the casting was OK, and frankly, the supporting actors were more entertaining than the entire film taken as a whole. Generally, in most anything, you are usually only as good as those surrounding you and although JA tried, she could not carry the film herself and end up with an enjoyable product.

My god when I think of that script and most of the dialog I want to cringe. Vaughn who was fun to watch as a fast-talking slob who tries, grabbed me more this time.

Think about it, if someone meets over a hot dog at a baseball game and he essentially bullies JA as to what HE thought best, then you deserve what you get.

I have been there, I deserved what I got, and it was not fun.

This film made production budget wise at 150 mil (But when you see that figure multiply by 3 for what the film really cost in marketing and prints the production company (distributor) has to get to the screen and all the other costs involved.)

Look at the video rentals of this film at what, 50 mil? it made a reported 350m worldwide but there are many more ancillary ways of picking up revenue domestically and foreign, so at 450mil they may have made a few dollars allowing JA to TRY AGAIN.

Rent 'The Good Girl'. There is the real Jennifer Anniston. Moreover, I hope she can break out of the mold she has been cast in. Julia Roberts did it so can J A!!

I like Robin Williams in comedies but when he gets serious, he is a bore. This film was a bore. I can accept some 'suspension of disbelief' but this plot asks too much. I found it actually silly and kept thinking "yeah, OK, but what about the time he/she..." Obviously, Mr. Williams is to make those decisions as 'the cutter': 'a straight line from birth to death'. I think that line was used in the film and that is too bad. After being involved in a 'studio financed film', I can never again fault any film for attempt. If most viewers understood exactly what it takes to put a film together from financing to you and I sitting down in the theater seat to watch, I have great respect for any one who can pull it off.

Nevertheless, as far as story goes this is not entertaining

2nd viewing and a lot of time in between.

Enjoyed it first time especially how Lana pulls her role off and how sincere Gable was. Both great actors always worth watching. Anne Baxter was also very,very touching and deep as the wife.

What really got me this time, having spent war time in Nam, was the changes Gable went through and the HOMECOMING. Anyone who has NOT experienced the razor's edge of actual combat, the terror the elation and the horror of seeing others die can feel what Gable projected magnificently in coming home after all that madness and trying to feel like you fit in again anywhere. You don't....for a long time. That why Gable said "...bear with me for a while..." Not only was he talking about losing Lana but returning home from a war, sometimes much more difficult than war itself. This film has so much deep feelings embedded in all three major characters it is amazing to me. The writer nailed it and Mr LeRoy was almost genius in bringing out such performances by all. I'm glad I got to view it on TCM a 2nd time. It really brings out a HOMECOMING!!

Looking at a film made 38 years ago (2006) about semi-reality was an actual bore. Forget Robert Altman made it (he is not that great during the next 38 years as Altman fans would have you believe) It was much more reminiscent of the soap operas of the time. I found nothing of any great interest here. The Duval/Caan game playing was lame and many of the other characters were overplayed. Yes, it is easy for me 38 years later with all the film and acting innovations that have taken place to make these comments but I simply was not entertained by the script/dialog/ and Altman's attempt at an auteur film. I will also throw in here I am not an Altman fan, or I would not spend money to see a film just because Altman made it. Michael Mann I would without question just as a comparison of my tastes.

Duval is another consideration. I saw a film made in 1971 by Duval, which he claims, is his best work that was real 'art'. Quiet, simple, Wm.Faulkner 14 page tale of life in the Appalachians many years ago.

This review is about Altman and 'Countdown'. The film is average at best and the auteur just starting an incredible career shows some flash of genius to come.

I am sure these filmmakers did a great job in creating their story based upon the film "Ju On" from Japan. Same director. BUT,looking at the comments and tag line for U S version and after buying, viewing several times the Japanese import "Ju On",the original (based somehow on a TV series in Japan, as I understand it) is well worth the purchase price of the original!

The documentation on the import DVD puts the production in perspective and of course holds well that original incomparable Japanese flavor and nuance the U S version cannot possibly hold a curse to.

If you have seen the U. S. version and were less than thrilled (a Jewish what??) you MUST view the original and, trust me, you will experience a film by a young director that will make you a fan of this Japanese genre. Yes, there are plot holes and scenes that will leave you with...HUH?

Just look at it!