Q: I am a big fan of Ludlum's work, and of the Covert-one books, and I had often thought how incredible they would be made into a film. Imagine my excitement, then, on learning that such a movie actually existed! The 'Hades Factor' being the first in the series seemed an obvious place to start.

From the outset the film was disappointing. Simple elements from the film such as Griffin's first meeting with Smith are needlessly different from the book, and much less exhilarating. Several characters are poorly cast, too. For starters Dorff is woeful as Smith. Not a bad actor, just an incredibly bad choice as he is far too soft, and fails to exhibit many of the features that are definitive of John Smith.

Re-naming, re-assignment and even omission of certain characters further degrades this film. For example the removal of Victor Tremont and the entire back-story of the virus, including the involvement of VAXHAM makes the entire point to the film somewhat hazy. Marty Zellerbach is a very large part of the book, and in the seat he takes vary much a back seat (not to mention that the film character shares nothing in common with the character in the book) is another big mistake.

Rachel Russel is presumably supposed to be Randi Russel from the book. Not only is she supposed to be the sister of Sophie Amsden (should be called Sophia Russel) but she is also supposed to work from the CIA, NOT "Covert-one". Which brings me to my final point, and I think one of the most important. COVERT-ONE doesn't even exist at this point! Not until the second book of the series is Covert-One devised by the president as a preventative measure against further biological terrorism.

To be honest I could go on all day. In short - if you like the books and want to see a good adaptation, I'm afraid you'll be bitterly disappointed. Even as an action movie it is thoroughly average, mainly due to very lack-luster editing and poor effects. The bumbled story line and dull-as-ditch-water script are the final nails in the very cheap coffin of this film. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: This 1984 version of the Dickens' classic 'A Christmas Carol,' directed by Clive Donner, stars George C. Scott as Ebenezer Scrooge. By this time around, the challenge for the filmmaker was to take such familiar material and make it seem fresh and new again; and, happily to say, with this film Donner not only met the challenge but surpassed any expectations anyone might have had for it. He tells the story with precision and an eye to detail, and extracts performances from his actors that are nothing less than superlative, especially Scott. One could argue that the definitive portrayal of Scrooge-- one of the best known characters in literary fiction, ever-- was created by Alastair Sim in the 1951 film; but I think with his performance here, Scott has now achieved that distinction. There is such a purity and honesty in his Scrooge that it becomes difficult to even consider anyone else in the role once you've seen Scott do it; simply put, he IS Scrooge. And what a tribute it is to such a gifted actor; to be able to take such a well known figure and make it so uniquely his own is quite miraculous. It is truly a joy to see an actor ply his trade so well, to be able to make a character so real, from every word he utters down to the finest expression of his face, and to make it all ring so true. It's a study in perfection.

The other members of the cast are splendid as well, but then again they have to be in order to maintain the integrity of Scott's performance; and they do. Frank Finlay is the Ghost of Jacob Marley; a notable turn, though not as memorable, perhaps, as the one by Alec Guinness (as Marley) in the film, 'Scrooge.' Angela Pleasence is a welcome visage as the Spirit of Christmas Past; Edward Woodward, grand and boisterous, and altogether convincing as the Spirit of Christmas Present; and Michael Carter, grim and menacing as the Spirit of Christmas Yet To Come.

David Warner hits just the right mark with his Bob Cratchit, bringing a sincerity to the role that measures up well to the standard of quality set by Scott's Scrooge, and Susannah York fares just as well as Mrs. Cratchit. The real gem to be found here, though, is the performance of young Anthony Walters as Tiny Tim; it's heartfelt without ever becoming maudlin, and simply one of the best interpretations-- and the most real-- ever presented on film.

The excellent supporting cast includes Roger Rees (Fred Holywell, and also the narrator of the film), Caroline Langrishe (Janet Holywell), Lucy Gutteridge (Belle), Michael Gough (Mr. Poole) and Joanne Whalley (Fan). A flawless presentation, this version of 'A Christmas Carol' sets the standard against which all others must be gauged; no matter how many versions you may have seen, watching this one is like seeing it for the first time ever. And forever after, whenever you think of Scrooge, the image your mind will conjure up will be that of George C. Scott. A thoroughly entertaining and satisfying experience, this film demands a place in the annual schedule of the holiday festivities of every home. I rate this one 10/10. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: Not worth the video rental or the time or the occasional efforts.

*Makeup that a child can do. *Acting was over done...poor directing. *Editing was very choppy...many things made no sense or just seemed gratuitous. *Sound was badly dubbed. *Music was highly inappropriate. *Casting was extremely off...must have been on crack. *Zombies that talk let alone...drive, dance, work...just pisses me off. *And the bad guy...Holy Crap! As horribly casted as he was...he was the best looking zombie of all. Which doesn't say much.

The Cover Art was good but very deceiving...as was the Main Menu of the DVD...great artwork and music.

DON"T BOTHER! OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: First, let's all agree that Lorenzo Lamas could never be considered a skilled actor, barely even decent, sometimes just plain lousy. However, in this piece of @*!^ called SnakeEater, the film industry as a whole sank.

First, let's start with the plot. A Vietnam vet named Jack Kelly, aka Soldier (who is supposed to be as tough as a strap of leather and then some, which you can believe when he shoves a palate of nails through 2 guys' feet and pins them to the floor), gets word that his family has been killed and his sister kidnapped. Therefore he goes on a solo mission to save his sister. Had some potential, but still pretty thin to begin with.

Now, the acting. Being an actor myself, I am qualified to say that this was some of the WORST acting in the history of the art!!!!! Lamas is, well, himself. The jackasses playing the Clampets/Deliverance rejects should be strung up and shot for their so-called performances which are insulting to actors everywhere, especially talented ones who never get their big break!

Finally, the action. The gunfighting is so-so at BEST, and the fist-fighting is deplorable. I've seen more real-looking fights at the Renaissance Festival (and those were pretty fake-looking)!

Readers, listen to me: AVOID THIS PIECE OF CACA AT ALL COSTS! IF IT WERE THE ONLY FILM IN EXISTENCE, YOU STILL WOULD WANT TO AVOID IT! For the sake of your brain-cell count, do NOT watch this thing! OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative