Some have praised _Atlantis:_The_Lost_Empire_ as a Disney adventure for adults. I don't think so--at least not for thinking adults.

This script suggests a beginning as a live-action movie, that struck someone as the type of crap you cannot sell to adults anymore. The "crack staff" of many older adventure movies has been done well before, (think _The Dirty Dozen_) but _Atlantis_ represents one of the worse films in that motif. The characters are weak. Even the background that each member trots out seems stock and awkward at best. An MD/Medicine Man, a tomboy mechanic whose father always wanted sons, if we have not at least seen these before, we have seen mix-and-match quirks before. The story about how one companion, Vinny played by Don Novello (Fr. Guido Sarducci), went from flower stores to demolitions totally unconvincing.

Only the main character, Milo Thatch, a young Atlantis-obsessed academic voiced by Michael J. Fox, has any depth to him. Milo's search for Atlantis continues that of his grandfather who raised him. The opening scene shows a much younger Milo giddily perched on a knee, as his grandfather places his pith helmet on his head.

And while the characters were thin at best, the best part about _Atlantis_ was the voice talent. Perhaps Milo's depth is no thicker than Fox's charm. Commander Rourke loses nothing being voiced by James Garner. Although Rourke is a pretty stock military type, Garner shows his ability to breath life into characters simply by his delivery. Garner's vocal performance is the high point. I'm sorry to say Leonard Nimoy's Dying King is nothing more than obligatory. Additionally, Don Novello as the demolition expert, Vinny Santorini, was also notable for one or two well-done, funny lines--but I've always liked Father Guido Sarducci, anyway.

Also well done was the Computer Animation. The BACKGROUND animation, that is. The character animation has not been this bad for Disney since the minimalism that drove Don Bluth out the door. The character animation does nothing if not make already flat characters appear even flatter. Aside from landscapes, buildings and vehicles there isn't much to impress.

The plot was the worst. Some say hackneyed or trite. I'm not so sure about that. Any serviceable plot can be made into something new with the proper treatment. Shakespeare often started from a known story and plot and was famous only for putting on a new coat of paint. So the treatment is the thing. And _Atlantis_ obviously lacks that.

I cannot begin to go into all the logic gaps without a spoiler section. The plot was bad. The plot's bridges snap like twine and the ending does not make sense. To add to that, the script and the animation is peppered with annoying sloppiness.

** SPOILERS **

1. Right at the beginning when Milo reveals that runic or Celtic symbols have been wrongly transliterated and the "Coast of Ireland" should read the "Coast of Iceland", we begin to have problems. The writers of the script would need to know the British take for Eire or Eireann as "Ireland", and completely ignore the older, Latin term Hibernia. But more than this, they need to know of the Vikings conspiracy to call the greener island Iceland and the icier island Greenland.

By making it the matter of a mis-tranliterated "letter", the writers have doomed themselves to requiring a runic version of English and a post-Roman date on the script. Since this is long after Atlantis was supposed to have sunk into its undersea cave. And without visible clues and less technology than Milo had, made the inscription far less trustworthy.

2. The Shepard's Journal could not be written before the sinking of Atlantis, or it would know nothing about the cave or the crystal lying "in the King's eye". It must have been written after the sinking, but without even the technology that Milo's expedition had, how the heck did anybody get by the Leviathan. So how could it know more about anything after that? And why would it be written in Atlantian?

Automatic writing and clairvoyance or astral travel can explain these things. However clairvoyance and astral travel do not require the shepard to write in Atlantian. So it's got to be some sort automatic writing. Since noone left in Atlantis can read, it must be the spirits of the crystal beaming messages to the surface. This would have made more sense. But could also have been explained within the movie: Milo could have discovered that this power had been calling him all his life--appeared in dreams, etc. This needed to be explored in the movie.

3. The Atlantians should simply not be able to comprehend modern languages. No-one expects that the original Indo-Europeans would be able to converse in Europe, anymore than Romans would understand that hard "c"s or their day became French "ch"s (pronounced like "sh"s, no less!)

4. Current Atlantians were alive before the cataclysm--when apparently they *could* read, yet now are unable to read what they used to, or operate similar machinery.

5. The Mass Illiteracy points out a crucial flaw in the movie. NOTHING seems to have happened to this culture. It seems suspended in air until Milo can rescue it. Even though it appears that life is not a constant struggle for survival, no-one wants to compose poetry or write novels and perhaps it is a combination of Atlantian school systems going downhill toward the end and lack of good fiction that caused Atlantis to fall into illiteracy.

5. Kida can be excused for not knowing how to read or operate the machinery if she was so young when the Cataclysm of Stupidity set in--But ANY OF IT **HARDLY** qualifies her father for Deification!! Kashakim's foolishness almost single-handedly wiped his people from existence. Killed a bunch in the cataclysm, stalled progress (not a lot killed here, but he oversaw a massive slide in culture and progress) until someone could take the crystal to kill everybody, if they weren't boiled in lava first because the Giant Robots weren't there to protect them.

A bolt of blue electricity should have shattered Kashakim's likeness, when Kida tried joining her father's image to the circle of GREAT Kings of Atlantis!

6. Even though Milo was the only one who could read Atlantian, Rourke and others knew enough to look through a book of gibberish and find a page on a crystal--which he knew to be a crystal and not some stylized astrological or "phases of the sun" diagram.

7. If Milo's grandfather had told Rourke about it, it still does not explain what how Rourke would have suffered from Milo's reading it as part of the book. Ripping out the page--which was dog-eared in Rourke's hand, even though Milo found NO sign of a torn page in the book apparently--only was there to tip off the viewer that "something was not quite right". Unless the word "crystal" would have set alarms off in Milo's head that somebody would try to steal it, Milo would have suspected nothing. It's just thick-headed foreshadowing.

8. The crew's "double-cross" was not a character change. We learned that Vinny, Sweet, Audrey and Cookie had been going along with Rourke from the beginning. However, the "change of heart" falls flat. It was a change, and needed to be better motivated. Hard to do with characters who weren't given anything to begin with.

9. Niggling little bit that the lava flows up over the dome, instead of filling in the rest of the area that we view the sequence from. It's liquid; it will not flow over the protective dome until it fills up all lower areas.

10. The ending STINKS!-- and makes no sense other than to appease political correctness. With it's powersource restored, Atlantis is no longer a weak power, needing coddling. The giant robot guardians and the sky-cycles shooting blue lightning suggest that they have less to fear from us than they might. The technology is superior to ours, and definitely to early 20th-century. In the end Milo needs to teach the Atlantians to read, for what? The whole idea is to leave their little quiet, chastened culture alone, not to send it into hyperdrive.

** END SPOILERS **

Perhaps, the Lost World plot and the turn-of-the-century setting should give me a hint that this is more an homage to pulps. The failures I find with the film agree with this idea. But I am at a loss why I should pay to see thin characters and plot holes simply because many dime novels had them as well. And pulp stories is part of the "crap they can't sell adults anymore", anyway. We have become a bit more sophisticated and our pulp needs to grow up as well. Raiders of the Lost Ark lost none of its pulp feel and avoided so much badness.

4 out of 10--the movie is enjoyable but as I think about the plot, it seeps ever lower.


Some have praised -Atlantis:-The Lost Empire- as a Disney adventure for adults. I don't think so--at least not for thinking adults.

This script suggests a beginning as a live-action movie, that struck someone as the type of crap you cannot sell to adults anymore. The "crack staff" of many older adventure movies has been done well before, (think The Dirty Dozen) but -Atlantis- represents one of the worse films in that motif. The characters are weak. Even the background that each member trots out seems stock and awkward at best. An MD/Medicine Man, a tomboy mechanic whose father always wanted sons, if we have not at least seen these before, we have seen mix-and-match quirks before. The story about how one companion, Vinny played by Don Novello (Fr. Guido Sarducci), went from flower stores to demolitions totally unconvincing.

Only the main character, Milo Thatch, a young Atlantis-obsessed academic voiced by Michael J. Fox, has any depth to him. Milo's search for Atlantis continues that of his grandfather who raised him. The opening scene shows a much younger Milo giddily perched on a knee, as his grandfather places his pith helmet on his head.

And while the characters were thin at best, the best part about -Atlantis- was the voice talent. Commander Rourke loses nothing being voiced by James Garner. Although Rourke is a pretty stock military type, Garner shows his ability to breath life into characters simply by his delivery. Garner's vocal performance is the high point. I'm sorry to say Leonard Nimoy's Dying King is nothing more than obligatory. Additionally, Don Novello as the demolition expert, Vinny Santorini, was also notable for one or two well-done, funny lines--but I've always liked Father Guido Sarducci, anyway.

Also well done was the Computer Animation. The BACKGROUND animation, that is. The character animation does nothing if not make already flat characters appear even flatter. Aside from landscapes, buildings and vehicles there isn't much to impress.

The plot was the worst. Some say hackneyed or trite. I'm not so sure about that. Any serviceable plot can be made into something new with the proper treatment. Shakespeare often started from a known story and plot and was famous only for putting on a new coat of paint. So the treatment is the thing. And -Atlantis- obviously lacks that.

I cannot begin to go into all the logic gaps without a spoiler section. The plot was bad. The plot's bridges snap like twine and the ending does not make sense. To add to that, the script and the animation is peppered with annoying sloppiness.

** SPOILERS **

Right at the beginning when Milo reveals that runic or Celtic symbols have been wrongly transliterated and the "Coast of Ireland" should read the "Coast of Iceland", we begin to have problems. The writers of the script would need to know the British take for Eire or Eireann as "Ireland", and completely ignore the older, Latin term Hibernia. But more than this, they need to know of the Vikings conspiracy to call the greener island Iceland and the icier island Greenland.

By making it the matter of a mis-tranliterated "letter", the writers have doomed themselves to requiring a runic version of English and a post-Roman date on the script. Since this is long after Atlantis was supposed to have sunk into its undersea cave. And without visible clues and less technology than Milo had, made the inscription far less trustworthy.

The Shepherd's Journal could not be written before the sinking of Atlantis, or it would know nothing about the cave or the crystal lying "in the King's eye". It must have been written after the sinking, but without even the technology that Milo's expedition had, how the heck did anybody get by the Leviathan. So how could it know more about anything after that? And why would it be written in Atlantian?

Automatic writing and clairvoyance or astral travel can explain these things. However clairvoyance and astral travel do not require to write in Atlantian. So it's got to be some sort automatic writing. Since no-one left in Atlantis can read, it must be the spirits of the crystal beaming messages to the surface. This would have made more sense. But could also have been explained within the movie: Milo could shepherd have discovered that this power had been calling him all his life--appeared in dreams, etc. This needed to be explored in the movie.

The Atlantians should simply not be able to comprehend modern languages. No-one expects that the original Indo-Europeans would be able to converse in Europe, anymore than Romans would understand that hard "c"s or their day became French "ch"s (pronounced like "sh"s, no less!)

Current Atlantians were alive before the cataclysm--when apparently they *could* read, yet now are unable to read what they used to, or operate similar machinery.

The Mass Illiteracy points out a crucial flaw in the movie. NOTHING seems to have happened to this culture. It seems suspended in air until Milo can rescue it. Even though it appears that life is not a constant struggle for survival, no-one wants to compose poetry or write novels and perhaps it is a combination of Atlantian school systems going downhill toward the end and lack of good fiction that caused Atlantis to fall into illiteracy.

Kida can be excused for not knowing how to read or operate the machinery if she was so young when the Cataclysm of Stupidity set in--But ANY OF IT **HARDLY** qualifies her father for Deification!! Kashakim's foolishness almost single-handedly wiped his people from existence. Killed a bunch in the cataclysm, stalled progress (not a lot killed here, but he oversaw a massive slide in culture and progress) until someone could take the crystal to kill everybody, if they weren't boiled in lava first because the Giant Robots weren't there to protect them.

A bolt of blue electricity should have shattered Kashakim's likeness, when Kida tried joining her father's image to the circle of GREAT Kings of Atlantis!

Even though Milo was the only one who could read Atlantian, Rourke and others knew enough to look through a book of gibberish and find a page on a crystal--which he knew to be a crystal and not some stylized astrological or "phases of the sun" diagram.

If Milo's grandfather had told Rourke about it, it still does not explain how Rourke would have suffered from Milo's reading it as part of the book. Ripping out the page--which was dog-eared in Rourke's hand, even though Milo found NO sign of a torn page in the book apparently--only was there to tip off the viewer that "something was not quite right". Unless the word "crystal" would have set alarms off in Milo's head that somebody would try to steal it, Milo would have suspected nothing. It's just thick-headed foreshadowing.

The crew's "double-cross" was not a character change. We learned that Vinny, Sweet, Audrey and Cookie had been going along with Rourke from the beginning. However, the "change of heart" falls flat. It was a change, and needed to be better motivated. Hard to do with characters who weren't given anything to begin with.

Niggling little bit that the lava flows up over the dome, instead of filling in the rest of the area that we view the sequence from. It's liquid; it will not flow over the protective dome until it fills up all lower areas.

The ending STINKS!-- and makes no sense other than to appease political correctness. With it's powersource restored, Atlantis is no longer a weak power, needing coddling. The giant robot guardians and the sky-cycles shooting blue lightning suggest that they have less to fear from us than they might. The technology is superior to ours, and definitely to early 20th-century. In the end Milo needs to teach the Atlantians to read, for what? The whole idea is to leave their little quiet, chastened culture alone, not to send it into hyperdrive.

** END SPOILERS **

Perhaps, the Lost World plot and the turn-of-the-century setting should give me a hint that this is more an homage to pulps. The failures I find with the film agree with this idea. But I am at a loss why I should pay to see thin characters and plot holes simply because many dime novels had them as well. And pulp stories is part of the "crap they can't sell adults anymore", anyway. We have become a bit more sophisticated and our pulp needs to grow up as well. Raiders of the Lost Ark lost none of its pulp feel and avoided so much badness.

4 out of 10--the movie is enjoyable but as I think about the plot, it seeps ever lower.


How the Grinch Stole Christmas was a wonderful little Christmas cartoon that anyone could easily enjoy, I never did see the reason for a remake. Not to mention a remake that was made with humans, the cartoon was just perfect enough, what's the purpose of this film? But it also seemed a little odd for Jim Carrey to be the Grinch. I mean he's a great comedic actor, but him as the Grinch? It just didn't make any sense to me. His performance was a little over the top and unintentionally laughable at moments. Not to mention some of the added dialog was a bit childish and not enjoyable. The whole story of the Grinch and Cindy Lou-Who was over done and wasn't needed. They actually just destroyed the story, period.

All the who's in Whoville are getting ready for their best Christmas season yet where everything is intended to go perfectly. But Cindy Lou-Who is curious and worried about the Grinch that lives above them and that he's not going to get as good of a Christmas as the other who's. He kicks her out and decides that he doesn't want Christmas this year and that in fact he should just steal Christmas all together to show the who's what his version of Christmas is all about. But soon he realizes that the who's may know that it's a little bit more than what is the materialized version of Christmas.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas wasn't needed and was a bit over the top. I really recommend that you stick with the cartoon just for the simple fact that this is a pretty disturbing version, at least in my opinion. The make up and presentation of the whole film was just a bit over done, not to mention that How the Grinch Stole Christmas! was more meant to be as a cartoon rather than a version starring Jim Carry. But at least this version makes you grateful for the Boris Karloff version that is played every Christmas.

1/10


(possible spoilers)

Someone once asked Dr. Seuss if they could secure the movie rights to his 1957 Christmas classic How the Grinch Stole Christmas. He turned them down, insisting that no one could do better than the marvelous Chuck Jones TV special from 1966 (also in mind, perhaps, was his bitter experience writing the script to 1953's The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T). When the good Dr. died in 1991, his widow, Audrey Geisel, still obstinately refused to sell the movie rights. But with the commonplace use of CGI effects becoming a reality, Mrs. Geisel had a change of heart. Universal made her a generous offer she accepted; she also accepted the casting of Jim Carrey as the title character. Supposedly she was satisfied with the final result. Well, Mrs. Geisel, that makes one of us.

The film was given a $123,000,000 budget (which is more than even Heaven's Gate cost, including the adjustment for inflation), which obviously went towards the very elaborate makeup, set design, and special effects (which are undermined

somewhat by the rather hazy cinematography). Unfortunately, it seems that none of that money was set aside to get a better script than what Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman (scribes of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, which made much better

use of a high budget) turned in. Whereas the TV special was a trim 26 minutes without commercials, this film tries to fill a running time of 105 minutes with more background information about the Grinch. It turns out that, as a child, he was the subject of ridicule, including an especially humiliating experience one Christmas at the age of eight. So it turns out that everything that ails our poor Mr. Grinch is directly because of the Whos. Trouble is, it seems like a rather long 105 minutes, with too much dead wood clogging up the story. That might not seem so bad if only the Grinch were a little more...well, Grinchy. The character that Dr. Seuss wrote and Chuck Jones later animated was a sly fox whose slick attempts to hijack the holiday season were undermined by his sudden change (and exponential growth) of heart. Carrey's Grinch is a loud, hyperactive oaf and, at times, a thug who, when made the holiday `Cheermeister,' trashes the Whoville town square in anger

(hopefully the scenery tasted as good as it looked). This undermines the script's attempt to make the Grinch more sympathetic, with all the Whos down in Whoville so unsympathetic (at least in this interpretation).

The Whoville of Dr. Seuss's vision was a small town populated by honest folk who knew in their hearts the true meaning of Christmas. The Whoville of the movie is a rather noisy and crowded place populated by spoiled, selfish, materialistic ninnies; an obvious attempt to comment on American consumerism. This is offensively

hypocritical inasmuch as the film industry has benefitted greatly from American consumerism, and as this film contributed to it with a huge merchandising

campaign.

The film also expands and redefines the character of Cindy Lou Who, a small but crucial character in the original. The innocent two-year-old waif who walked in on this spurious Santa is now older and wiser, constantly questioning the false values of the Whos and trying to understand the Grinch's point of view (her one major scene from the original is re-enacted, making it seem out of character). She

seems to be the only one who would ever know that Christmas is more than just gifts and decorations, thus making her a completely different, and more annoying, character.

Those who celebrate Christmas should sooner accept a lump of coal in their

stockings on the morning of December 25 than a copy of this overlong, overacted, excruciatingly tedious, ham-handed, crude attempt to turn the children's classic into a feature film. It proves once and for all that darkness, vulgarity,

manipulation, and heavy-handedness are inadequate substitutes for charm, wit, sincerity, and heart. The folks at Universal should get down on their collective knees and thank God that this truly bilious $123 million stink bomb grossed $260 million domestically or they'd not be here today. Furthermore it made Mike Myers' The Cat in the Hat possible!


Having been forced by my children to watch this at least 10 times for each of the last 2 Christmases, I feel adequately qualified to pass judgment on this version of Dr. Seuss' classic tale, and well... it's not very good. First off, following a classic act like Chuck Jones' animated TV special is going to be difficult for anyone, but this interpretation is so heavy-handed and padded as to be positively numbing. I will concede that there are a handful of inspired gags, but overall the film comes off as a calculated cash grab, at the same time as it is supposedly decrying the commercialisation of Christmas. Jim Carrey is typically over the top here, but that is completely at odds with the character of the Grinch. As characterised by Boris Karloff, he was a slow burn; methodical and sly. There is no method to Carrey's madness, and that is only the most obvious error made. Talented actors like Jeffrey Tambor and Christine Baranski are utterly wasted here. Why, Universal, why? I mean , I understand that Tony Hopkins will take just about any role offered (much like his countryman Michael Caine), but this one needs to be filed under "Films that should never have been made." This does not bode well for the Cat in the Hat, an even thinner tome that Universal is prepping for this Christmas. I get the feeling that I will be making the same recommendation for that one as I am with this one: skip it, and either read the book or watch the TV special. This is 2 hours you can never, ever get back.


Ron Howard directed this? The 1966 cartoon is charming, teaching a simple lesson to children using a simple plot. In this movie, Howard gives us a Whoville filled with greedy, manipulative, self-centered Whos. Jim Carrey is terrible, but I'm sure it's not his fault; I imagine the script called for the nastiest person imaginable, so Carrey channeled Tom Green and the result is movie magic. Much like Danny Devito's Penguin in Batman Returns, Carrey's Grinch is so thoroughly unlikeable that any degree of comedy that might be mined from his character simply evaporates. Where the 1966 cartoon featured a Grinch that we could all identify with, Carrey's Grinch is that angry, soulless old man that we've all seen at one time or another, sitting in a parked car muttering to himself or tripping toddlers at the supermarket with his cane. This Grinch is thoroughly bereft of any degree of humanity, humor, or insight whatsoever, and his redemption at the end of the movie rings false. The whole movie rings false: there is some stupid Christmas lighting competition, a failed attempt at explaining why the Grinch is such a jerk by digging into his childhood, and an indecipherable mystery as to why some of the Whos have that weird lip extension and some of them don't. Contrary to the 1966 cartoon, I would imagine children would find this movie tiresome, irritating, and filled with contradictory messages. Did we really need to see Slutty Smurf, aka Christine Baranski as Martha May Whovier? In addition, Ron Howard filled the cast with his untalented relatives. Throw in the requisite butt jokes, fart jokes, sex jokes, and other obligatory Carreyesque low-brow humor, and you have a movie that is about as far from the 1966 cartoon (or book that inspired it) as George W. Bush is from rational, lucid thought. Thumbs down on this big fat turkey.


DR. SEUSS' HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS / (2000) ** (out of four)

If you desire to see a holiday movie that will inspire your seasonal spirits and continue the traditional Dr. Seuss classic fable, don't see "Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas." If you are old enough to read this review, then you are probably too old to get any kind of enjoyment out of this motion picture. It contains lots of colors, creative production design and imaginative set and costume construction, joyous load noises, and the characters are made up to look like the actual inhabitants of the fictional village Whoville. Unfortunately that is where the movie's positive elements end; the rest of the production is nothing but an excuse for Jim Carrey to cackle on screen while giving a devilish grin, all while prancing through the overly broad screenplay with nothing much to do.

Many people recognize the story of how the grinch stole Christmas from Whoville, so I will not waste my time in writing a detailed synopsis for you to read. However, I will say that the movie's story is executed in three major acts; the development of the grinch and setting, the Whoville festival, and the Dr. Seuss vision of the mean one robbing the Who's from their Christmas. There are many familiar names within the credits here, but no familiar faces. Like in "Battlefield Earth," I just do not see why the producers would hire expensive actors just to have their identities shielded by unrecognizable makeup and costumes. Regardless, there is SNL's Molly Shannon as Betty Lou, the wife of Bill Irwin, the later playing Lou Lou, the father of little Cindy Lou, played by Taylor Momsen. Jeffrey Tambor is the Whoville mayor, Anthony Hopkins lends his bellowing voice for the film's narrator, and Christine Baranski is the Grinch's lone lost lover.

The filmmakers attempt to bring originality to the story by adding unnecessary subplots and focusing too much on the little Cindy Lou. The screenplay by Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman just feels like it goes everywhere across the movie landscape; there is little if any focus by director Ron Howard and the screenplay is predictable, too extensive, and contrived. The only character given any distinctions here is the Grinch himself, all of the other characters are puppets of the plot, shapeless and uninteresting. And the dialogue is overzealous and too corny to be anything but pathetic. Example-Grinch: Oh, the Who-manity!

The movie's redeeming factors go out to the gifted production designer Michael Corenblith, the costume designer Rita Ryack, and the ample makeup department. "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" is a very good-looking production. The sets and the atmosphere created by the filmmakers are detailed and imaginative; it is like the audience is visiting a world as in a dream. The people of Whoville are plastered with makeup, to the point in which we cannot tell the actor reciting the humorless lines. Although dazzling, I really can't give credit to the performances, for they are over looked to due the expensive technical department taking their place.

Jim Carrey is one actor who I can talk about. His performance is what nearly destroys the movie itself He is way too egotistic as the Grinch, too exaggerated and comical to allow the story to be anywhere near recognizable as the work of Seuss. Surprisingly, although there are a few funny moments due to a few slyly clever sequences, no laughs come from Jim Carry's zany silliness. It is almost like the movie was wrote specifically for Carry to overplay his part. This factor only leads the movie to a wild but brainless comedy, which is only a pale shadow of the original Christmas classic "How the Grinch Stole Christmas."

After this movie, historians should check the coffin of the late author, Dr. Seuss may have rolled over in his grave.


Ironic that Dr. Seuss' fable emphasizing the non-commercialization of Christmas should be one of the most hyped, marketed, and successful blockbusters of the holiday season. The general gist of Ron Howard's adaptation is that the Grinch's bane against Christmas stems from an early childhood incident and that the Whos themselves are caught up in the materialism of the season save for Cindy Lou Who (played very well by Taylor Momsen). This movie makes an ardent, ambitious attempt to capture the wackiness and sentiment of Seuss' story, but the end result is a movie that lurches and never quite packs the emotional punch of Chuck Jones' animated version. Jim Carrey is noteworthy in his performance as the devilish Grinch, but whether it's the dialogue, the pacing, or extraneous storylines heaped upon the initial plot, the transformation from bitter miser to gleeful benefactor just does not ignite convincingly. There are some wonderful visuals and the make-up work is amazing, yet beyond the technical triumphs there's an element or two here that's missing.

Succinctness?

Soul?

Or maybe Jones did the initial adaptation all too well in his 25-minute cartoon that Howard falls short of in a movie that feels three hours long. Howard, Carey, and crew are all very capable and talented, but what would seem a winning combination is just weak and plodding in its final product. If you must see the feature-length version, rent it on video with Jones' animated version and you can see how bigger and glitzier is not always better. I give this film three cans of Who-Hash out of five.


About the baby: Why wasn't big brother assuming he'd be hungry for a bottle or some nourishment or a diaper change? He should have been screaming non-stop after that many hours without care. Definitely stupid to take the baby from a safe place when he didn't need to.

And why was the road miraculously clear whenever anyone wanted to drive somewhere? Didn't any uprooted trees fall on the roads and block them?

I can't imagine the cops at the roadblock not immediately following after any young person who would crash it, especially when they said it was dangerous to go there.

That being said, it was nice to have a movie children could safely watch, for a change.


For some strange reason the film world is driven by fashion . Someone makes a film about a killer shark then all of a sudden the film world`s oceans are awash with giant Squids , killer octopusses and sea monsters of every ilk . A man is stalked by an erstwhile lover from hell then every film character is stalked by a cop from hell or a flatmate from hell or a babysitter from hell . Then when a major Hollywood company produces a big budget FX laden blockbuster about tornados then other film producers jump upon the bandwagon , the fact that they don`t have the budget to pull it off doesn`t stop them. NIGHT OF THE TWISTERS is a case in point . What struck me about this made for television film is the fact that it tries to hide its lack of budget by cutting to the ad breaks . Everytime a tornado appears the camara locks onto the horrified expression of the actors as they scream things like " Oh my gawd it`s heading this way " and " Run for your lives " then the screen fades to black saving the producers the need to up the special effects budget . Unfortunately NIGHT OF THE TWISTERS budget should have been upped to include better actors . The cast are by no means bad but they are unimpressive and lack the skill to carry a film which is character driven . Where`s Josh Hartnett and Elijah Wood when you need them ?

And the last word on this being a TWISTER clone ..... Yes NOTT was released a couple of months before TWISTER but TWISTER had been hyped for several months as being the Summer blockbuster of 1996 and NOTT has a rushed feeling to it which leads me to believe that it was made and released to tie in with the hype surrounding TWISTER


I am not saying that Night of the Twisters was horrible, but it was far from great. Mediocre at absolute best. I seems though that every time one type of movie is released, a second must be around the same time. (Think about Armageddon and Deep Impact, Volcano and Dante's Peak) Night of the Twisters is really just Twister except worse and with mundane special effects.

I have nothing against the actors who starred in it, even if they weren't great, it was the movie itself, the directing, the special effects, the whole storyline was just too strange to interpret. A series of tornadoes strike a town and basically the movie is about people trying to find family and friends and deal with the damage.

I really don't know why it seems as though duplicates of disaster movies are released almost in sync with each other, but this one would have been better with Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt.


Carlos Mencia continually, violently, hatefully screaming "B**ch!" at women is like screaming "N**ger!" at black people, except it's worse. Remember, the B word, unlike the N word, is the only pejorative term that is still associated on a daily basis with violence. "B**ch!" is the last thing women hear before they are raped, beaten, or murdered. This guy is perpetuating violence by hatefully using the language of violence. Sounds like he may be a gay guy trying to cover by woman-bashing, so that he will sound like a hetero. And how about all the Nazi white guys in his audience giving the fascist salutes while their stupid little bimbo white women whimper tee hee hee at their side, clearly terrified to protest this tidal wave of woman-hating. Tee hee hee. Bet Mencia doesn't believe or support free speech for THEM! Come on, Carlos  do you want women to have the free speech to b**ch-slap you as loudly and violently and big-mouthed as you do, or do you think "free speech" is only for men to crap on women???


It's hard to believe people actually LIKE this dreck! I do think kids can enjoy it, but to me it's the kind of kid film parents can't bear to sit through. Predictable plot, boring Belushi, and possibly the worst kid actor of all time. I will give the director some of the responsibility for the kid, but she was truly painful to watch. I feel embarrassed for her now, having people know it was her. When she sang the Star Spangled Banner I had to turn the sound off--then I came here and discovered they did that because she won Star Search. I've always felt Jim Belushi should be ashamed to trade on the name of his wonderful, sadly missed brother, and this crap shows why. Zero stars.


If you rent a movie titled "Exterminators of the year 3000," the odds are good you know what you're getting yourself into. I myself was sold by the promising descriptions of "nuke mutants," "motor-psychos," and of course the "exterminators" themselves which, according to the back of the movie-store case, are all cavorting around a post-apocalyptic barren wasteland wreaking all sorts of mayhem. Let the wacky hijinks and low budget buffoonery ensue--at least, such were my hopes for this "film."

Now I like the occasional terrible movie, and if you're reading the comments on Exterminators of the Year 3000, you probably do too. That being said, I rated this film a solid "1(awful)"--not because I completely hated the film but because it is one of the most legitimately dreadful efforts at movie-making I have ever seen. The dialogue, the acting, the cinematography, the sound-editing, the editing in general, the plot, etc., etc., etc--all are worthy of what must surely be low spectator expectations given that marvelous title.

So what is really "good" about this bad movie? It does have several of what my circle affectionately terms "quality kills." A quality kill, for those few of you unfamiliar with the phrase, isn't a hard and fast term, but in general refers to someone killed in a particularly gruesome, creative, or ridiculous fashion.

Exterminators of the Year 3000 also has a fair supply of "dialogue-so-bad-it-becomes-funny," provided in great part by Crazy Bull, the aptly titled leader of the hapless motor-psycho gang--who incidentally also provide most of the quality kills (if you're hoping for big things from the nuke mutants, think again, they play essentially zero part in the movie...shucks!). Crazy Bull, however, is all you could ask for in a b-movie motor-psycho. Shakespearean paraphrase and oddly PG-style insults are all he knows how to say...and that's terrific.

Despite its quality kills and bad dialogue, however, if you're looking for a truly entertaining bad movie, Exterminators of the Year 3000 does disappoint somewhat in that with its draw limited to things like silly and outdated special effects, quality killing, and bad dialogue, there is simply not enough to justify a full feature length, owing principally to the forty minutes or so in which the audience is forced to follow the characters in protracted and boring car "chases" and long desert hiking sequences...All in all, a pretty good awful movie, but hey, it's no Death Race 2000.


Bottom of the barrel, unimaginative, and practically unwatchable remake of THE ROAD WARRIOR. This film follows the exact plot as the Filipino film STRYKER and is worse by far! Bad acting, dialog, effects, dubbing, pacing, action sequences... The list goes on and on. Italy made literally dozens of Road Warrior rip-offs in the early 80's, some good, some bad. This is the worst by far, no contest. Not only was the mood of the film completely bleak and miserable, the experience of sitting through this one is a bore and a half. There was 1 (one) good chase sequence towards the beginning of the movie, and a cool shot of a man holding a hand grenade exploding. But EVERYTHING else about this movie seriously reeks! For actual post-nuke fun, go track down a copy of ENDGAME, AFTER THE FALL OF NEW YORK, or ESCAPE FROM THE BRONX instead. They're much more enjoyable than this rubbish.


This movie surely has one of the strangest themes in history -- right up there with Ed Wood's impassioned defense of cross-dressing in "Glen or Glenda?"

The subject: playing bridge. The Park Avenue set plays it; the Bohemians play it. The Russians -- who speak very questionable "Russian" and have most unconvincing accents when they speak English -- play it at the restaurant where they work.

If one isn't interested in bridge, one -- even despite the great cast -- isn't likely to be much interested in this bizarre movie.

Loretta Young and Paul Lukas are fine. (Well --Frank McHugh is an unlikely ghost writer -- as Lukas is an unlikely Russian.) But they are all sunk by the fetishistic script.


This film breeches the fine line between satire and silliness. While a bridge system that has no rules may promote marital harmony, it certainly can't promote winning bridge, so the satire didn't work for me. But there were some items I found enjoyable anyway, especially with the big bridge match between Paul Lukas and Ferdinand Gottschalk near the end of the film. It is treated like very much like a championship boxing match. Not only is the arena for the contest roped off in a square area like a boxing ring, there is a referee hovering between the contestants, and radio broadcaster Roscoe Karns delivers nonstop chatter on the happenings. At one point he even enumerates "One... Two... Three... Four..." as though a bid of four diamonds was a knockdown event. And people were glued to their radios for it all, a common event for championship boxing matches. That spoof worked very well indeed.

Unfortunately, few of the actors provide the comedy needed to sustain the intended satire. Paul Lukas doesn't have much of a flair for comedy and is miscast; lovely Loretta Young and the usual comic Frank McHugh weren't given good enough lines; Glenda Farrell has a nice comic turn as a forgetful blonde at the start of the film, but she practically disappears thereafter. What a waste of talent!


I usually enjoy Loretta Young's early movies: her acting back then was light and breezy, and she sure knew how to wear clothes. But this one is just a loser from the word go except for a funny supporting turn by Glenda Farrell. Young is a hatcheck girl who talks her writer-husband (Paul Lukas) into becoming a championship bridge player. It's not the most cinematic of games, and the long, talky middle part in which their marriage falls apart just about kills the film.

There's one interesting bit though. As Lukas and Ferdinand Gottschalk start their climactic game, a series of quick shots show airplanes, trains, football games, even a diver in mid-air, freezing in anticipation of the event. It's the earliest use of a freeze frame I've seen in an American film. Wish the rest of it were that inventive-and funny.


Having read another review, I thought this movie would actually be good. I do enjoy the "B" movies, but this couldn't even be classed as such. The photography is probably the only half-way decent thing in the movie. But the editing left much to be desired. It was very choppy and staccato. Whoever chose the music and sound did a terrible job. The music was awful, specially anything atmospheric or scene setting. If the acting had been better, they could have pulled the movie off. Unfortunately, I've seen better acting in porn flicks. If you want to see a "B" vampire movie, check out 'Blood Ties'. You'll be much more entertained.


To Die For (1989) was just another d.t.v. feature that made an appearance on cable ad nasuem during the early nineties. The only thing notable about this feature was the last movie Duane Jones appeared in. Other than that there's no reason to watch this vampire flick unless you like pseudo chick flicks masquerading as a horror film. A tired vampire longs for love and searches the back streets of L.A. looking for it. Will he succeed or will Vlad just strike out again like he has for the last century?

This movie must have been big because a couple of sequels soon followed. They're so bad they make this one look like a classic. I know this is a movie about vampires but the film makers could have used to lighting.

Not recommended by me because I didn't like it.

'nuff said?


Contains spoilers.

The British director J. Lee Thompson made some excellent films, notably 'Ice Cold in Alex' and 'Cape Fear', but 'Country Dance' is one of his more curious offerings. The story is set among the upper classes of rural Scotland, and details the strange triangular relationship between Sir Charles Ferguson, an eccentric aristocratic landowner, his sister Hilary, and Hilary's estranged husband Douglas, who is hoping for a reconciliation with her. We learn that during his career as an Army officer, Charles was regarded as having 'low moral fibre'. This appears to have been an accurate diagnosis of his condition; throughout the film he displays an attitude of gloomy disillusionment with the world, and his main sources of emotional support seem to be Hilary and his whisky bottle. The film ends with his committal to an upper-class lunatic asylum.

Peter O'Toole was, when he was at his best as in 'Lawrence of Arabia', one of Britain's leading actors, but the quality of his work was very uneven, and 'Country Dance' is not one of his better films. He overacts frantically, making Charles into a caricature of the useless inbred aristocrat, as though he were auditioning for a part in the Monty Python 'Upper-Class Twit of the Year' sketch. Susannah York as Hilary and Michael Craig as Douglas are rather better, but there is no really outstanding acting performance in the film. There is also little in the way of coherent plot, beyond the tale of Charles's inexorable downward slide.

The main problem with the film, however, is neither the acting nor the plot, but rather that of the Theme That Dare Not Speak Its Name. There are half-hearted hints of an incestuous relationship between Charles and Hilary, or at least of an incestuous attraction towards her on his part, and that his dislike of Douglas is motivated by sexual jealousy. Unfortunately, even in the swinging sixties and early seventies (the date of the film is variously given as either 1969 or 1970) there was a limit to what the British Board of Film Censors was willing to allow, and a film with an explicitly incestuous theme was definitely off-limits. (The American title for the film was 'Brotherly Love', but this was not used in Britain; was it too suggestive for the liking of the BBFC?) These hints are therefore never developed and we never get to see what motivates Charles or what has caused his moral collapse, resulting in a hollow film with a hole at its centre. 4/10


This movie was a rather odd viewing experience. The movie is obviously based on a play. Now I'm sure that everything in this movie works out just fine in a play but for in a movie it just doesn't feel terribly interesting enough to watch. The movie is way too 'stagey' and they didn't even bothered to change some of the dialog to make it more fitting for a movie. Instead what is presented now is an almost literally re-filming of a stage-play, with over-the-top characters and staged dialog. Because of all this the storyline really doesn't work out and the movie becomes an almost complete bore- and obsolete viewing experience.

It takes a while before you figure out that this is a comedy you're watching. At first you think its a drama you're watching, with quirky characters in it but as the movie progresses you'll notice that the movie is more a tragicomedy, that leans really more toward the comedy genre, rather than the drama genre.

The characters and dialog are really the things that make this movie a quirky and over-the-top one that at times really become unwatchable. Sure, the actors are great; Peter O'Toole and Susannah York, amongst others but they don't really uplift the movie to a level of 'watchable enough'.

The story feels totally disorientated. Basicaly the story is about nothing and just mainly focuses on the brother/sister characters played by Peter O'Toole and Susannah York. But what exactly is the story even about? The movie feels like a pointless and obsolete one that has very little to offer. Like I said before; I'm sure the story is good and interesting to watch on stage but as a movie it really isn't fitting and simply doesn't work out.

The editing is simply dreadful and times and it becomes even laughable bad in certain sequences.

More was to expect from director J. Lee Thompson, who has obviously done far better movies than this rather failed, stage-play translated to screen, project.

Really not worth your time.

4/10


I thought maybe a film which boasted a cast including Peter O'Toole, Susannah York, Michael Craig & Harry Andrews might be worth watching. Alas, I was wrong. Utter pretentious nonsense from beginning to end with both O'Toole and York overacting wildly. I watched it twice and still have no idea what is was about. I've a feeling O'Toole plays the Laird of a Scottish castle who has a drink problem and likes reliving childhood games with his sister (York). He is also barking mad. But apart from that, your guess is as good as mine.

The film has no redeeming feature whatsoever. I can only assume the cast and director were blackmailed into making this dreary, unimaginative, stagy piffle. Clearly a waste of the time of a talented cast and director. Risible.


Shame really - very rarely do I watch a film and am left feeling disappointed at the end. I've seen quite a few of Ira Levin's adaptations - 'Rosemary's Baby' and 'The Stepford Wives' - and liked both them, but this just didn't appeal to me.

When I read the plot outline - an award winning playwright (Michael Caine) decides to murder one of his former pupils (Christopher Reeve) and steel his script for his own success - I was excited. I like thrillers, Michael Caine's a good actor, Sidney Lumet's a good director and Ira Levin's work is generally good.

I won't spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, but all I'd say is there are LOADS of twists and turns. So many its kind of hard to explain the film's plot line in detail, without giving it away. I enjoyed the first ... 45 minutes, before the twists and turns began to occur and at that point my interest and enjoyment began to fade out. Though I have to give Lumet credit for the very amusing ending which did make me laugh out loud.

The main cast - Michael Caine, Christopher Reeve, Dyan Cannon and Irene Worth - were all brilliant in their roles. Though Worth's obvious fake Russian accent got on my nerves slightly (nothing personal Irene, I think any actor's fake accent would irritate me). Not sure if Cannon's character was meant to be annoyingly funny but Dyan managed to annoy and amuse - at the same time.

Anyone reading this - I don't want you to be put-off watching this because of my views - give it a chance, you may like it, you may not. It's all about opinion.


I do not believe all the praise for this movie. The play and movie were a ripoff of Sleuth. Michael Caine wishes he were Olivier, and Reeves wishes he were Caine. Caine even had the nerve to do a remake of Sleuth with Jude Law playing his original part. Jude Law? You mean the one that did the remake of "Alfie"?

This movie was made during a period of Caine's career when it was obvious he needed to pay off gambling debts. He would do anything for money. He would star in such award winning movies such as this, and "Beyond the Poseidon Adventure". What seems to be driving the praise for this movie is Reeves death. He deserves better than to be remembered for this lousy movie. And so does Caine. This movie can be found in the $5.97 bin at Walmart. Along with gems like "The Island", and "Blame it on Rio".


Ira Levin's Broadway smash comes to the screen with hardly any meat on its bones, a mystery plot with just a few tricks and twists but nobody worth caring about. Frustrated writer Michael Caine plots to steal the work of a brilliant young man and pass it off as his own; his devious plan may include murdering the talented kid, which has Caine's flighty spouse up in arms. The first act in which everyone is introduced is excruciatingly dead, with Caine doing everything an actor can to keep the pacing up. Dyan Cannon is miscast as his wife (she's too smart and clever herself to be passed off as a ditz) and Christopher Reeve (in the middle portion of the film) seems extremely uncomfortable in the role of the better writer. These three characters, and Irene Worth's bothersome neighbor, are so undefined that what happens after the set-up barely even registers until well after the second act has begun. Sidney Lumet's direction is stagy and fuzzy, the set design unconvincing and poorly-lit, and the finale is a total disaster. The actors struggle to give the script some substance, but with such thin material all we see are their laborious efforts. *1/2 from ****


Gods...where to start. I was only able to stomach about the first 10 minutes before I turned it off in disgust. Aside from the actor playing Robin Hood himself, the rest were just terrible. And, I can only stretch my suspension of disbelief only so far.

From the very opening of the first episode, I lost count of how many errors, plot holes, and horrible costumes there were. It began with some poor peasant trying to hunt for a deer to feed his family. All well and good. However, the poor blighter must have been mostly deaf, because a handful of soldiers, in full armour, on horseback, were able to sneak up on him to within about 10 feet.

Then, as he's running away, he goes from having them 10 feet behind him, to a shot where you cannot even see them at all, immediately followed by them about 20 feet behind him again. Then, he runs into some bushes, and is immediately manhandled by two of the soldiers...who just mere seconds before, were galloping on horseback, dozens of feet behind him.

The "armour" on the soldiers is so painfully obviously cloth which they tried to make look like maille, and miserably failed. Not to mention, the lead soldier's "armour" being about 5 sizes too big for the poor fellow. Seriously, he looks like he is a small child wearing his father's over-sized armour! Finally, Robin manages to fire about 5, perfectly aimed shots all around one soldier's hand, in the span of about 2 seconds, from what appears to be a recurve bow. No human alive could make those kinds of shots, in that short amount of time, with a scoped rifle, much less a bow.

After that, they escape the soldiers and stop to help an amazingly well dressed and clean "peasant" with digging a ditch...something that all noblemen were willing to do all the time, right? How this sorry excuse for a series ever got a second season is beyond me. The production costs (at least for what I saw) must have soared in the dozens of dollars (or Euros)...

Seriously - I think a highschool drama class could have put on a better rendition. This was so bad, even that terrible Kevin Costner version of Robin Hood was better.

I highly suggest you skip this monstrosity, and go rent or buy the mid-80's "Robin of Sherwood" series. Much better written, acted, costumed, and produced.

For shame, BBC...for shame...


Well, it's Robin Hood as 'geezer' all right... just as advertised! That didn't sound very hopeful, and alas, it was worse than I'd suspected.

A laddish Robin I can take; a Robin who tangles with a pert dyer's daughter I can credit; but a Robin who exchanges not-very-funny banter with his single henchman is harder to swallow, and a Robin and *entire cast* who seem to be having difficulty managing their lines is the kiss of doom. How could anyone let such laboured delivery pass without re-shooting the scenes? Again and again, Much sounds as if he's struggling with half-comprehended Shakespeare rather than letting loose with a salty quip; I hoped at the onset that it was just a failed comedy trait in a character clearly destined for the role of comedy sidekick, but then it started spreading throughout the rest of the cast.

Whatever else you say about Errol Flynn in the role, he had the knack of delivering high-flown dialogue as naturally as if he'd just thought it up on the spur of the moment... and as this production shows, that's not at all as easy as it sounds! If they were going to cast the characters as cheeky chappies, the actors in question should have been given appropriate lines: they sound as if they haven't a clue how to handle them.

I'm afraid I didn't even like the pantomime Sheriff, for a similar reason; the lines are clearly not intended to be taken seriously but delivered (and in this case written) with a nudge and a wink at the audience. They're out of place all right -- fourth-wall-busting stuff -- but really not that funny.

This much-promised production reminded me of a limping school play. The only actor and character I felt any appreciation for at all was the one playing Guy of Gisbourne, who was the sole one who appeared to have any handle on (a) credible villainy and (b) credible characterisation -- but frankly, I wouldn't have said that was a very good augury for the future of the series! As of the time of writing, I'll give it another shot in the hopes that things may improve and bed down a bit by next week, with less stilted scene-setting required and perhaps the actors more at ease with the dialogue: after all, the opening episode of "Doctor Who" wasn't exactly a show-stopper, though it was nowhere near as bad as this. But if I see no improvement after episode 2, I'm afraid the series has almost certainly lost one viewer.

Which would be a pity, because I've got a soft spot for the "Robin Hood" legend on screen, from the adventures of Douglas Fairbanks to the sturdy reliance of Richard Greene. But this Robin fails to stir my blood in the slightest.


I can clearly see now why Robin Hood flopped quickly. The first episode of it is probably the worst ever thing BBC has aired. The opening scenes were about as intense, meaningful and intelligent as two monkeys fighting, Robin Hood had no character, and the sword fight was just laughable. The worst part of the episode was Robin Hood snogging some cow clad in make-up at the beginning of the episode - how many people wore eyeliner in the 12th century? Nobody. The series may have improved drastically since then, but this first episode quickly put people's hopes down, and is essentially a pile of cr*p. A great hero of England has been disgraced.

"Will You Tolerate This?" I won't, that's for sure, unless the BBC start to understand what is a wise investment. 3/10


Siskel & Ebert were terrific on this show whether you agreed with them or not because of the genuine conflict their separate professional opinions generated. Roeper took this show down a notch or two because he wasn't really a film critic and because he substituted snide for opinionated. Now, when Ben Lyons comes on I feel like I'm watching "Teen News" -- you know, that kids' news show, hosted by kids for kids? Manckiewitz is not much better. It's obvious they've encountered only a steady diet of mainstream films their entire lives. The idea that these two rank amateurs have anything of interest or consequence to say about motion pictures is ludicrous. If they are reviewing a non-formula film, they are completely lost. Show them something original and intelligent -- they just find it "confusing". Wait -- I think I get it ... ABC is owned by Disney ... Disney makes movies for kids. While Siskel, Ebert, and Roper promoted independent films and were only hit-or-miss with the big budget studio productions -- what a surprise: these two guys LOVE the big studio schlock and only manage to tolerate a few indies. Plus everyone knows the age group TV advertisers are aiming for. The blatant nepotism is the icing on the cake. In what alternate universe do these guys qualify as film critics?


I have been familiar with the fantastic book of 'Goodnight Mister Tom' for absolutely ages and it was only recently when I got the chance to watch this adaption of it. I have heard lots of positive remarks about this, so I had high hopes. Once this film had finished, I was horrified.

This film is not a good film at all. 'Goodnight Mister Tom' was an extremely poor adaption and practically 4.5/10 of the book was missed out. Particularly, I found that a lot of the characters and some great scenes in the book were not in this. There was not much dialogue, It was rushed and far too fast-moving, but I was mostly upset by the fact that you never got to see the bonding and love between William Beech and Tom in this film which was a true let down. The casting was not all that good,either. I thought this could have been really good, but it was so different to the book! Anextremely poor adaption, one of the worst I've seen. This deserves a decent remake that'd better be 1000 times better than this pile of garbage.


Goodnight, Mister Tom begins in an impossibly exquisite village in the south of England where the sun always seems to shine. Before we have much idea of the period we hear a radio announcement of the declaration of World War II. Soon a train blowing clouds of steam brings refugee children from London and when shy little William is billeted with reluctant, gruff old Tom (who you just know will turn out to have a heart of gold) our tale begins.

And what a load of sentimental claptrap it is. In fact it's just the old odd-couple buddy formula. Aren't any new stories being written?

As I suggested there's hardly any period feel in the village and not much more in London apart from the odd old ambulance rattling around. And certainly no hint of the horror of the Blitz as London's citizens file politely into air-raid shelters. Even when the local schoolteacher's husband is declared missing presumed killed, he is later restored to life.

I found `Goodnight, Mister Tom' cliched and obvious and John Thaw's accent conjured up a picture of Ronnie Barker of the Two Ronnies with a straw in his mouth doing his `country bumpkin' accent.

Incidentally my wife enjoyed this movie for all the reasons that I disliked it and looking at fellow-imdb reviewers I seem to be in a minority of one.


Let me confess. I found this video used and bought it because Guttenberg looked so sexy in his underwear on the jacket. But inside was another story. Besides the fact that the movie was basically a parody of "invisible-man" genre special effects (highly visible strings and other such paraphernalia), the script wasted no chance -- in fact it went out of its way -- in insulting all non-WASP races and real-or-imagined homosexuals. Every insult aimed at a person in the script was either homophobic or racist or both. It starts to grate on your nerves, along with the shaky sound, candid- camera style photography and melodramatic story. However, the end is somewhat of a surprise. But by the time you get there, you hardly care less. Too bad, it could been a reasonably good movie.


The 3-D featured in "The Man Who Wasn't There" stands for DUMB, DUMB, DUMB! This inept comedy features lousy 3-D effects that makes the 3-D effects in "Jaws 3", "Amityville 3", and "Friday the 13th Part 3" look better by comparison. Not to mention the movie is asinine to the extreme. This was one of many 1983 movies to feature the pop-off-the-screen effects. Steve Guttenberg and Jeffrey Tambor got trapped in this mess, but at least it didn't kill their careers. Tambor would go on to star on HBO's "The Larry Sanders Show" and Ron Howard's box office smash "How the Grinch Stole Christmas", while Guttenberg followed this flop with "Police Academy" and "Cocoon". What them in those projects instead of them here in "The Man Who Wasn't There". If you do, you'll regret it.

1/2* (out of four)


this film tries to be immensely clever, and Tarantino-like

before you try that though, you need solid filmic fundamentals. these include good sound, editing, set design etc...

lets talk about the sound in this movie. absolutely atrocious. i have never been more distracted by a sound track, ever

and before we talk about low budget, film made in Chile etc.. lets bear in mind that desent sound these days is far more achievable than it ever has been. anywhere. and more info on technique is available then ever before

the sound in this movie is plain bad. the foley in particular is out of place and inappropriate throughout, the atmos is equally terrible. i heard at least four loud clicks during the movie, which are the result of poor sound editing. the sound inside cars is awful, the sound of car doors closing is awful. the sound of the lady singing is wrong. foley is either overboard, or simply not there like the sound person just got bored and gave up. the spaces are wrong. everything about it is wrong

and yet, not letting limitations of creativity get in the way, at the same time the movie tries boldly to be clever. for example the sound of the aquarium is used in the following street scene. we hear sound when we're not supposed to. sound edits precede visual cuts. every trick in the book is used, and yet the foundations are just not there

editing-wise we have scenes using heavy jump cuts, we have tinkering around with the time line etc etc etc, yawn. all of these techniques are imitated to a splendidly low standard

overall the mix is crap, the sound is crap. and so, the film is crap. how can a movie with so many fundamental flaws be considered for awards and high praise? Chile's cinematic new wave? the best creative output that Chile has to offer? i hope not, and i think not.

my theory is that Chile's more selective and better talent avoided this film like the plague maybe due to its risqué content. equally, the film has likely received so much unwarranted critical acclaim from so called 'world-cinema' enthusiasts for the same grubby reasons. they likely revel in it's trashiness. of course film critics rarely pay attention to technical details and quality

this film is rubbish. it's all mouth and no trousers and is never deserving of a 6.8 rating. the film has all the production quality of a cheap Tarantino, new wave inspired porno!


This is an hybrid creature born at Carl Macek mind. With Robotech the second generation (Robotech Masters) and Megazone 23 into one miserable movie, that have no logic! The story is very, very bad, and you cannot forgive the action of Megazone when have nothing to do with Robotech. If this movie have so high rank is for the TV series and not for itself!! I did said it, the name cannot save this!


You will recognize the plot immediately. Daughters of a divorced couple trying to get Mom and Dad back together again. Yes, that was the theme of The Parent Trap in the 60s, 80s and 90s. But here's the spooky thing. Even though Deanna Durbin was younger than the 21 year old Hayley Mills while playing the doting daughter(s) roles, Durbin looks much older, as in adult. And so do all of her so-called siblings.

And this confusion between adult and child goes throughout the film. The girls are dressed in cute little sailor outfits but look ridiculous in them as the director seems to take pains to point out their ample tops and tushies throughout the film. So you're constantly torn between thinking of them as children or women. When Ray Milland and others start "hitting on" them you get the feeling as if they're pedophiles, and you might be one, too for noticing those tushies and tops the director was pointing out. Teens or temptresses, little girls or little foxes, you are never quite sure what you're supposed to be thinking of them as.

The parents, too, seem very old and the whole film seems very dated.

It is a rusty version of the Parent Trap and you should avoid it, or at least ensure your tetanus shots are up to date if you don't believe me.


Well, the big money machine has done it again! Disney very shrewdly takes advantage of morons like myself who feel we must own every video (good or bad) stamped with the Disney moniker. Why is it that I continue to look forward to these "sequels" which make Don Bluth on a bad day look like Leonardo DaVinci? Cinderella 2 consists of three storylines (already a poor choice!) Doesn't one of the most endearing Disney creations at least deserve a linear story? Of these three, only the last comes anywhere near the quality of animation and storytelling that I would expect. The music is atrocious and modern (meaning in 2 years it will already be dated) and adds nothing to the story. Why does everything have to be updated? You know, the original cartoon is still popular because of its timelessness, so why not be respectful and true to the original with songs that reflect the same style? Gee, I can't wait for a sequel to Sleeping Beauty. Instead of music based on the themes of Tchaikovsky, we'll get music inspired by Britney Spears!!! So Disney, if you're listening, remember we're not all indiscriminate children out here. How about throwing a bone or two to the fans who've been around long enough to know the difference between craft and crap?


Possible Spoilers, Perhaps. I must say that "Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" is one of the worst movies ever made. First of all, the movie was made during the height of Disney's sequel rampage. It was created around the same time as "The Little Mermaid II," "The Jungle Book II," and "Peter Pan II," all of which were disservices to their original film classics. (Disney also made "The Hunchback of Notre Dame II" and "Atlantis II," but I'm going to drop that topic because their original movies were never really classics in the first place.") Let me go ahead and say that I am an avid supporter of good Disney films, and I absolutely adore the original Disney "Cinderella." The sequel to "Cinderella," however, was a waste of time. The character of Cinderella in the sequel was so very unlike the original girl that I grew up watching. In the original, Cinderella was kind and loving. The new Cinderella had very out-of-character moments with current-era phrasing like, "I'm going to do this banquet my way!" Let me also tell you that new Cinderella (as I have affectionately named her) says, "Ewww!" That is the anti-Cinderella. I try to find the best in people, but in the sequel, Anastasia, one of the stepsisters, is good! What the heck? Why? They made it all out to be like Lady Tremaine and Drizella are just horrible family members for poor little Anastasia. My question to the world: did the people at Disney watch the original "Cinderella" when making this sequel? Well, it surely doesn't seem so. If I remember correctly, Anastasia was just as abusive to Cinderella as Drizella and Lady Tremaine. I am all for redemption and forgiveness, but there was no point of redemption for Anastasia in this movie. In the first one, Anastasia was evil. In the second one, she is good. One just can't leave a story like this. I hope Disney realizes that this movie, among other movies, is shaming Walt Disney's name. Perhaps now that Michael Eisner is gone, things will start shaping up around the House of Mouse.


The original is a relaxing watch, with some truly memorable animated sequences. Unfortunately, the sequel, while not the worst of the DTV sequels completely lacks the sparkle.

The biggest letdown is a lack of a story. Like Belle's Magical World, the characters are told through a series of vignettes. Magical World, while marginally better, still manages to make a mess of the story. In between the vignettes, we see the mice at work, and I personally think the antics of Jaq and Gus are the redeeming merits of this movie.

The first vignette is the best, about Cinderella getting used to being to being a princess. This is the best, because the mice were at their funniest here. The worst of the vignettes, when Jaq turns into a human, is cute at times, but has a lack of imagination. The last vignette, when Anastasia falls in love, was also cute. The problem was, I couldn't imagine Anastasia being friendly with Cinderella, as I considered her the meaner out of the stepsisters. This was also marred by a rather ridiculous subplot about Lucifer falling in love with PomPom.

The incidental music was very pleasant to listen to;however I hated the songs, they were really uninspired, and nothing like the beautiful Tchaikovsky inspired melodies of the original.

The characters were the strongest development here. Cinderella while still caring, had lost her sincerity, and a lot of her charm from the original, though she does wear some very pretty clothes. The Duke had some truly funny moments but they weren't enough to save the film, likewise with Prudence and the king. As I mentioned, the mice were the redeeming merits of the movie, as they alone contributed to the film's cuteness. I have to say also the animation is colourful and above average, and the voice acting was surprisingly good.

All in all, a cute, if unoriginal sequel, that was marred by the songs and a lack of a story. 4/10 for the mice, the voice acting, the animation and some pretty dresses. Bethany Cox


I'll just put it out here, that was the Worst sequel to a classic Disney film I've EVER seen. In 1950, Disney released what I hail as one of his greatest films of all time. Now Take away the great songs, add a poor plot that resembles that of a lost TV show. "Put it together and what do you get?" the biggest load of Crud I've ever seen. After i saw this, I thought it was all over for Disney. Cinderella should've ended with, "and they lived happily ever after." not this garbage. This film did not deserve a sequel like this. I thought it would be like "A twist in time" which was moderate but better than this. Also, What do we care of Anastasia? She switched sides like Iago did, but it didn't help anyone.


I've got a question for those who thought of this idea. Why? What made them think to make a second movie of this. If memory serves, didn't Cinderella end with "They all lived happily ever after"? I'm pretty sure it did, or it was implied. Wait a minute, if they all lived happily ever after, how could there be a sequel? Unless they were trying to make the most boring story in history, there couldn't be a sequel. I mean sure, they could have Cinderella singing about nonsense for two hours, but why? A movie that ends in "happily ever after" can not have a sequel; if it does then they don't live happily ever after! Something's got to go wrong which causes problems with the first ending! Why? That's not right, it's evil. That's my final word on the matter.


I've always thought that Cinderella II was the worst movie I've ever seen, (followed by Peter Pan 2, and some other sequels like The Lion King 2 and the Hunchback of Notre Dame 2). All these movies are made with the same idea; because the movie has no plot, they try to make up for that by filling it with jokes. I'm not saying the jokes are bad, but they make up most of the movie. The first time I saw the movie, I would have given it a 1/10. But now I think about it, most kids don't care how good the original movie was, they just care that the movie is entertaining. I still think the movie was a bad sequel, but that doesn't mean it's horrible. Now I think it deserves a 3/10.


I grew up watching the original Disney Cinderella, and have always loved it so much that the tape is a little worn.

Accordingly, I was excited to see that Cinderella 2 was coming on TV and I would be able to see it.

I should have known better.

This movie joins the club of movie sequels that should have just been left alone. It holds absolutely NONE of the originals super charm! It seems, to me, quite rough, and almost brutal, right from the (don't)Sing-a-longs to the characterization.

While I remember the character's telling a story through a song, this film's soundtrack was laid over the top, and didn't seem to fit. Jaq's transformation into a human is a prime example: Where he was walking around eating an apple and adding a few little quips in here and there, he should have been dancing around and singing about how great it was to be tall! And in the ballroom, there's old barn dance type country music. It's as though the writers forgot where and when this story was set. The upbeat fiddles certainly didn't fit.

Even the artwork and animation in Cinderella 2 isn't up to scratch with the original. The artwork in this film seems quite raw and less detailed. And we see part of Cinderella's hoop skirt, which doesn't feel right.

The movie itself could have been it's own story, I think that it should have been just that. I wouldn't say that I hate it, but I believe that it had many shortcomings. It seems to downgrade in a significant way from the beloved Cinderella original.


If you are under the age of 6 or 7, then you're going to really enjoy this movie. My youngest daughter is glued to the TV when she watches it. As an adult, I can't stand it!! I'm all up for sequels....when they have a decent storyline. But this is nowhere near up to standard. Please forgive me for slating what is after all a kid's film, but when you have to sit through it nearly every day when your kids who love it so much, you'll understand why. My daughter would watch this film over and over again on the same day if we let her.

I've given this film 4 out of 10 purely for the fact that it keeps my youngest entertained.


I had the displeasure of watching this movie with my girlfriend, who, like me, is a fan of the first. This movie down right sucked! It lacked the magic of the first. You could actually understand every word the mice said, the animation is crappy, the palace is much much different from the first movie, there's new characters that were never mentioned before and were terrible, luckily the Prince didn't have many lines which kept him from sounding stupid. Basically its like The Lion King 1 1/2 except its different stories all told by the mice. The reason I'm giving this a 2 out of 10 is because the songs not sung by the characters were the most enjoyable.


Assassin Hauser's (John Cusak) mission is to whack a Mid-Eastern oil minister, whose name happens to be Omar Sharif (Neikov), in the country of Turaqistan which is run by American interests. Hauser poses as Trade Show producer to allow him to get to Omar.

Sometimes a satire can be so overdone it becomes most annoying. Here it does too much: the government, politics, music, war, people not generally accepted by society, and did I mention "war." And, that is what we have here - a most annoying movie that borders on a very bad nightmare brought to life. I am still asking myself why I continued with the DVD. Also, there are so many Cusak family members in this that John Cusak appears embarrassed by the family just being there, or is that just me?

It used to be that a John Cusak movie, while a little offbeat, was, in the end, rather good. Not here. Believe that John Cusak had a hand in the writing and producing of this mess. Make of that what you will.

There is too much going on in the movie accompanied by constant gun-fire, bombings, and shouting that you really cannot focus or was that the point? Probably. It just takes too long to set up the hit, which is largely forgotten until the last 15-minutes. In the meantime we have meaningless banter among all in the cast. And, chemistry between John Cusak and Marisa Tormei? I don't think so, but you know: the boy  girl thing and they needed something to take up more time.

Yes, for what they were supposed to be, (offbeat and annoying) the performances of Duff, and Kingsley were good. But, when I saw Dan Aykroyd's character, in the beginning of the show, sitting on a toilet taking a dump, I knew the rest of the show would go to the tank as well. I was not wrong. I am sure some will sing praises of this effort, but if a rose is still a rose by any other name so, too, is a mess

I now remember why I continued with the DVD. I was hoping that the story would somehow level out and save itself. Never did.

Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: Yes.


I really wanted to like this, but in the end it's a poorly made film with too few laughs.

The politics are spot on, it's gonna offend the hell out of republicans but that's what it's designed to do. That alone gives me reason to chuckle.

The problem is, it looks like it was made in a REAL hurry (like about a week). And it contains a stupid subplot about some bimbo singer, which seems to be completely off topic.

Turiqistan is obviously Iraq, or Afghanistan, or any other number of countries the US has f**ked with since the 50s. The humour is a little dark (amputees dancing with prosthetic legs made by Tamerlane corporation) but it IS on the mark, especially with the corporations cashing in on the reconstruction ("democracy lite"!)

However like a lot of satire criticising the US, it seems terribly heavy handed and laboured. I guess it's running counter to so much bs propaganda so it has to bludgeon people over the head to make a point. Who knows. I prefer more of a nudge, wink approach - a bit of subtlety. But that's just me.

Anyway I might watch it again, perhaps I missed something.

I'm hoping "W" is more on the mark.


War, Inc. - Corporations take over war in the future and use a lone assassin Brand Hauser (John Cusack) to do their wet-work against rival CEOs. A dark comedy satirizing the military and corporations alike. It was often difficult to figure out what exactly was going on. I kept waiting for things to make sense. There's no reason or method to the madness.

It's considered by Cusack to be the "spiritual successor" to Grosse Point Blank. I.e., War is more or less a knock-off. We again see Cusack as an assassin protecting *spoiler* the person he's supposed to kill as he grips with his conscience. To be fair, John Cusack looks kind of credible taking out half a dozen guys with relative ease. The brief fights look good. The rest of the film does not. It's all quirky often bordering on bizarre. War Inc's not funny enough to be a parody, and too buoyant for anyone to even think about whatever the film's message might be, which I suppose might be the heartless ways that corporations, like war factions compete and scheme without a drop of consideration given to how they affect average citizens. Interesting, but the satire just doesn't work because it's not funny and at its heart the film has no heart. We're supposed to give a damn about how war affects Cusack's shell of a character rather than the millions of lives torn apart by war.

John Cusack gives a decent performance. His character chugs shots of hot sauce and drives the tiniest private plane but quirks are meant to replace character traits. Marisa Tomei is slumming as the romantic sidekick journalist. There really isn't a lot of chemistry between them. Hilary Duff tries a Russian accent and doesn't make a fool of herself. Joan Cusack just screams and whines and wigs out. Blech. Ben Kingsley might have to return the Oscar if he doesn't start doling out a decent performance now and again. Pathetic.

It's not a terrible movie, but in the end you gotta ask "War, what is it good for?" Absolutely nothing. C-


Even the first 10 minutes of this movie were horrific. It's hard to believe that anybody other than John Cusack would have put money into this. With a string of anti-military/anti-war movies already being destroyed at the box office, it's almost inconceivable that a studio of any kind would want itself associated with this script.

At first, it may have seemed like some kind of politically motivated derivative of Grosse Point Blank with Akroyd and Cusack(s) all over again. But only about 90 seconds into the movie, it becomes obvious that this is a talentless attempt at DR STRANGELOVE.

I liked so many of Cusacks movies that I thought I would risk seeing the DVD of this one. I have to say that I don't know if Cusack is sane enough for me to even watch another feature starring him again unless somebody else can vouch for it. Cusack seems to be so irreparably damaged by his hatred for George Bush and the Iraq war that he is willing to commit career suicide. Tom Cruise was never close to being this far gone. Not even close.


Quite possibly the worst movie that I have ever seen. When has Hollywood ever made a successful movie that attacked Republicans? Why don't they learn. The Dixie chicks haven't. These Lefties live in their own elite bubble interacting among themselves; oblivious to the fact that most of America is much further right than they are.

The best Hollywood productions are not partisan and are rarely political at all.

Dan Akroyd's imitation of Cheney was bad.

I would have thought Cussack could have landed better movies.

It wasn't funny.


Just utter trash. I'm a huge fan of the Cusacks, this being the sole reason I watched this movie, but the only reason I can see for their presence was the reprise, in complete and depth less quality, their exact roles from Grosse Point Blanc. Apart from that, the films' role as a political satire fails miserably as being too obvious for even the most moronic out there to serve any purpose. And to bill it as a satirical satire would be just plain insulting even to chimps. Imitation is, apparently the highest form of flattery, but seeing as though this is nothing near Grosse Point Blanc and in the same league as meet the (watch if your a moron) Spartans in terms of political satire, lets leave well enough alone and let this one fade into the obscurity it absolutely deserves.


With this cast and budget you will expect more.

John Cusack has made a number movies that border on the strange, yet still work. Neither he, his sister, nor Sir Ben could do anything to save this travesty of trite poorly written garbage.

The movie is nothing more than a series of sight gags and poor ones at that. The plot goes nowhere, the writing is contrived, senseless and the characters paper thin. If you think of a movie as being three dimensional where the story and characters bring a depth to the imagery, this stinker comes across as flat as steamboat mickey.

Dan Akroyd's appearance in this brought back memories of another truly awful movie, 1991's Nothing but Trouble. Frankly this movie is the type of project that kills careers and gets agents fired.


First things first: I'm not a conservative. And even though I would never refer to myself as a liberal or a Democrat, I was opposed to the war in Iraq from day one. I think it's safe to say John Cusack and I would probably see eye-to-eye on politics, in fact, I'm sure we'd become drinking buddies if we ever got to talking about how great Adam Curtis' BBC docs are. My point is this: don't discredit this review by thinking I'm not a part of the choir Cusack is preaching to in War, Inc. There's no question WI's politics are tailored to appeal to my demographic, but the problem is, the tailoring is substandard and the the film Cusack co- wrote, produced and stars in, fits worse than a cheap suit.

As they say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Cusack, his co-writers, director Joshua Seftel and even the actors involved, no doubt had every intention of making an anti- war film every bit as biting and funny as Robert Altman's M*A*S*H, unfortunately for the viewer, they ended up with one as unfunny and unintelligent as Michael Moore's Canadian Bacon.

The current state of US politics, foreign policy and the war "effort" is already absurd and, as a result, tragic, pathetic and, regrettably comical -- just watch The Daily Show and see for yourself. The bottom line is: you can't write material as funny as what the Bush administration provides us on a daily basis, so why try to compete?

The main problem with WI is that it feels it was put together in a hurry. To get it done, Cusack basically cannibalized Grosse Pointe Blank (one of his best films), changed the setting and crammed in a shopping list of ideas lifted from the collected works of Naomi Klein. Most of these ideas are rammed down your throat in the first twenty minutes of the film and what makes them so obnoxious is none of the jokes or gags or deliberately obvious references to Halliburton, the Neo-Cons and the US occupation of Iraq, are imaginative, clever or funny. The writers are so blinded by their own dogma they felt that by simply referencing these issues the film would be funny and subversive. The trouble is...it isn't. By now these ideas are yesterday's news and unless you've been living under or rock or are so blinded by ignorance, denial and sheer stupidity (read: a right-wing Christian), these jokes insultingly simple.

Perhaps WI would work if it was more nuanced, subversive, offensive and fattened up with detailed research/insights into the Occupation. As it is, the jokes and sight gags are all surface and are so bad, with so little finesse, subtlety or satirical wickedness, they did little more than make me groan. Homer Simpson once said "It's funny 'cause it's true" and The Daily Show proves this every night; War, Inc. however proves that just because it's true doesn't make it funny. The bottom line: hyperbole isn't required when it comes to lampooning US/Neo-Conservative politics...it's already a big enough joke.

http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/


This film tried to be too many things all at once: stinging political satire, Hollywood blockbuster, sappy romantic comedy, family values promo... the list goes on and on. It failed miserably at all of them, but there was enough interest to keep me from turning it off until the end.

Although I appreciate the spirit behind WAR, INC., it depresses me to see such a clumsy effort, especially when it will be taken by its targets to reflect the lack of the existence of a serious critique, rather than simply the poor writing, direction, and production of this particular film.

There is a critique to be made about the corporatization of war. But poking fun at it in this way diminishes the true atrocity of what is happening. Reminds me a bit of THREE KINGS, which similarly trivializes a genuine cause for concern.


I wanted to see an action comedy with a satirical twist (as this film was touted) but this one failed me miserably. For me, the plot was a bit confusing to follow and I rapidly lost interest. I feel so sorry for John Cusack, Joan Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Marisa Tomei and Hillary Duff for getting involved with this movie. I'll remain a fan of all of them but only time can heal my feeling over this one. The one thing I can say positively about the film is that Hillary played Yonica's character so well that I didn't even recognize Hillary; it took me a few scenes to realize that it was her. Luckily I rented it for $1 through Red Box; had I paid to see it in on the big screen, I would be really fuming!!


I guess I am coming late to the party. I just saw this 1995 version of Bye Bye Birdy on Sky TV. I didn't know it existed and was fully prepared to see the 1963 film version when I turned it on.

I played Albert a long time ago and I am thinking of putting on an amateur production of the show because I remembered it as being so much fun to do. I was not impressed with this newer version. It just wasn't enough fun. It was not colorful. It lacked the exuberance of youth. The lighting was bad. No one seemed to mention this fact. This is not a moody musical, it is bright and up beat. The lighting decision was a poor creative choice.

Bye Bye Birdy is a farce, a comedy of errors. I got no sense of that in this version. The lighting was awful and it dulled the overall performances. The dance numbers seemed anemic as well. We do have music videos these day. At least the dance numbers should have measured up to some of the best of those, or how about some of the best of Broadway. The choreographer was asleep at the wheel it seemed.

Although all the actors were supremely talented, there were some really bad casting choices. Vanessa Williams is not Latin, and with so many talented Latin performers out there, wouldn't it have been more correct to cast one of them in the role of Rosie. Vanessa is African American, lovely and talented, but bad casting. Jason Alexander's effort was astounding, he always does intelligent work, but he just wasn't Albert. He was miscast and I think that is obvious to most people who see this version.

The medium of film is not the medium of stage. There needs to be translation from one medium to another. The exuberance and the flash of stage musical must be TRANSLATED to film. There is no merit being faithful to a stage script when it is being filmed. The spirit, the essence of the production must be brought forth. To me the 1963 film production of Bye Bye Birdy was bright and lively, while the 1995 production was as gloomy as the lighting and as lackluster as the dance numbers. It turned out to be an unfortunate waste of effort by many really talented people.


In my humble opinion, this version of the great BDWY musical has only two things going for it - Tyne Daly and the fact that there is now a filmed version with the original script. (OK Vanessa Williams is good to watch.)But to me that's all there is. Most of the cast seem to be walking through the show - Chynna Phillips has no idea who Kim really is and no wonder people walk over Harry McAfee when it's played by George Wendt who looks like he'd rather be back on a bar stool in Boston. Jason Alexander is passable, but that wig has to go and I saw better dancing in Bugsy Malone. As I mentioned, it's good to have a version of the stage script now, but I hope the young out there, who have never seen a musical, DON'T judge them all by this.


Needless remake, and it can't come close to capturing the charm of the original. The extreme length causes more than a few yawn inducing parts. This version is ridiculously politically correct. The film lacks style, and mostly it lacks talent, not just with the acting, but the direction, sets, costumes etc. are all below par. It has a blatant disregard for period detail. Vanessa Williams is the only cast member that shows any flair, Tyne Daly isn't too bad. They should have left well enough alone. The singing ranges good (Vanessa Williams) to poor (everyone else). Watch the original 1963 version and skip this one. There is not much here to recommend.


Why? Because for one reason, there has never been a more adorable scene in any film than Ann Margret singing "Bye Bye Birdie" at the opening. She reprises it again at the ending, too (in a different mood!). Both wonderful. Rent it and see. Even if that's all of it that you watch. You'll agree, I'm sure.

Everything about the original was so excellent it just didn't need a remake, sorry! Jason and Vanessa gave commendable performances, as well as Tyne and Chynna. In fact, all the actors and singers in this new version were giving their 'all,' but it's like trying to improve on "Casablanca" -- it just can't be done! It's even annoying finding yourself comparing the two mentally as you try to appreciate the remake, and it just falls short, through no fault of the actors.


Jason Alexander is a wonderful actor, but it's ridiculous to cast him as a cuddly romantic lead. The fact that he dances so well, croons so effectively, and throws himself into the part so completely somehow just made him seem all the more creepy. In his more cutesy moments (with the girl in the train station, in the final number with Rosie), I couldn't take my eyes off him he was so repellent. You keep expecting him to drop the nice-guy act and start snarling. Vanessa Williams was the real star, the only performance that was better than the 1963 movie. By the way, if you see a production of the stage musical, the 1963 movie and this 1995 movie, you'll see three versions that have more revisions (different songs, same songs assigned to different characters and in different situations) than any other musical I've ever seen.


If I hadn't been forced to watch this for work reasons I never would have made it past the first 10 minutes. And even then I admit I fast forwarded through parts. The '63 film version was vastly superior in all regards. Yes, I've read this one is more faithful to the original play, but what a wise thing it was for the writer to change the script in '63! It's overlong, it drags, the songs that are in this version and not in the film version are boring and unimaginative. The version of "Kids" in the '63 version was very funny and a true classic of sarcastic parent humor. In this version the Kim is way too old, the Conrad is *absolutely horrible* to behold (when someone ripped his shirt off him I shuttered in disgust...the director of this version has no idea what sexy is.). This Conrad can't dance, can't sing (he can't even stay in tune) and is simply repulsive. If Elvis Presley had really been like that his career would have been over before it began. As for the other actors, well I kept waiting for Alexander's toupee to fall off as he danced and Daly was totally over acting as Momma. See Stapleton's performance in the film version to see the same role properly executed by someone who understands comic timing. This TV version is nothing but a total waste of anyone's time.


This film concerns the story of Eddy as mentioned in the title and his homecoming to old friends in a seaside community. The plot involves the group of friends as it comes to light that Eddy left as a means to deal with death of a friend in which he feels in some way responsible. But this is inconsequential, as the choices made in the production are extremely poor and not fully realized. Screenplays not always need be 'chatty', but they should at least assist the development of the story. Here one line attempts such as "he just took off" or "I know you don't have love in heart" just do fully evoke something worth the audience's time. Also whenever the writer feels at a loss to where to go to next he cuts to a music montage of the protagonist walking through fields to some indie mood music. Talk about trying to hard. If you are interested in a good film, the type that gives quality and substance over just style then this is not the film for you.


I go to UCSB and take some classes with the executive producer, Alison Anders. She's a superb teacher and director so anything she put her name on, I thought must be pretty good. This film as a selection at the Santa Barbara film festival seemed like a good choice.

While this movie included some nice shots and cinematography, the lack of story and coherence really took away from anything the it was attempting to accomplish. My main problem was that this was someone's first film and you could obviously tell. Bad acting and an even worse screenplay stopped this film from getting off the ground. The soundtrack had some nice music that gave a sense of the main characters struggle to cope with the sadness that lead to his leaving and now returning the place he grew up. I just have to say that despite some of the better craft of the film, it's lack of story and performance really prevented it from being some good.