Q: I did not really want to watch this one. It seemed to be an old Raj Kanwar movie which disgusted me even before I started watching it because I don't consider him even close to being mediocre as a filmmaker. The only reason I took this one is obviously the Shahrukh Khan appearance in the film. I had not even known what the film was all about because I was sure it would be just an ordinary fairy tale. So I just imagined a love story between Shahrukh Khan and Divya Bharti with a substantial supporting role by Rishi Kapoor who I thought would be playing her father or uncle. And to my complete shock, Rishi Kapoor is actually the hero! He is the one who romances the young Divya! I was saddened to find out that Shahrukh had a small part of no substance and that too, only in the second part of this idiotic film.

Just let me repeat the question: why would a 17 year-old lovely Divya have fallen for a 40-plus long haired, chubby, swollen piglet like Rishi Kapoor? Rishi Kapoor should be ashamed of taking this part; the only thing he did is ridiculing himself. He romanced a girl who could logically be younger than his own daughter and to make things worse -- acts like a teenager at his forties. On top of that, just to make himself more pathetic, he plays a pop-star...

To make things clear, I have no problems with actors romancing ladies much younger than they themselves are. As long as they make a convincing couple, there should be no problem. In fact, leading actors have always been cast opposite young girls (Amitabh Bachchan-Sridevi, Mithun Chakraborty-Madhuri Dixit, Shahrukh Khan-Deepika, Salman Khan-Sneha Ullal) and made the pairing pretty well. Also, I have nothing against Rishi Kapoor, I think he is a good actor, and his act in Bobby is still well-engraved in my heart, but it's not that he looks in this film like, say, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan or Aamir Khan look today.

That was such a disappointment. Oh, and as for the reason every person actually watched this film, Shahrukh Khan made a good debut. He excelled in the very little his part allowed him to do. The late Divya Bharti made a promising debut as well. If you want to watch this film, go for the second half only. Personally, I would not do even that. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: This movie has great stars in their earlier years: Ingor Stevens never looked prettier; Yul Brynner was a very convincing Jean LaFitte, conflicted about his piracy and desiring to keep neutrality with the United States. Charlton Heston did a pretty good job as Andrew Jackson, but some moments were a bit stilted. It's really a good flick for students to learn that part of our history, AND it shows that all happy endings do NOT include the lovers getting together with each other--sometimes the happier ending is that they sail away and find partners of similar background who will understand them better in the long run. I have viewed it every year at least twice for 16 years now; and though it is not the best movie I've ever seen, I love it every time! OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: **May Contain Spoilers**

A dude in a dopey-looking Kong suit (the same one used in KING KONG VS. GODZILLA in 1962) provides much of the laffs in this much-mocked monster flick. Kong is resurrected on Mondo Island and helps out the lunkhead hero and other good guys this time around. The vampire-like villain is named Dr. Who-funny, he doesn't look like Peter Cushing! Kong finally dukes it out with Who's pride and joy, a giant robot ape that looks like a bad metal sculpture of Magilla Gorilla. Like many of Honda's flicks this may have had some merit before American audiences diddled around with it and added new footage. The Rankin/Bass animation company had a hand in this mess. They should have stuck to superior children's programs like The Little Drummer Boy. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: I saw this movie once as a kid on the late-late show and fell in love with it.

It took 30+ years, but I recently did find it on DVD - it wasn't cheap, either - in a catalog that specialized in war movies. We watched it last night for the first time. The audio was good, however it was grainy and had the trailers between reels. Even so, it was better than I remembered it. I was also impressed at how true it was to the play.

The catalog is around here someplace. If you're sincere in finding it, fire me a missive and I'll see if I can get you the info. cartwrightbride@yahoo.com OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive