Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: The movie and acting are not bad and Jay Hernandez does a good job playing Calito Brigante but the movie forgets it's suppose to be a prequel to a hit movie. The makers of this prequel clearly did not watch the original Carlito's Way or at least did not care about continuity. This movie is a prequel which means the original movie has already laid out some history for us and this movie should end where the original begins or at least lead up to it. Not one of Carlito's close old friends from the original make an appearance in this movie, they're not even mentioned. Luis Guzman, Pachanga in the original, is in the movie but he plays a completely different character. The original takes place in 1975 and the prequel takes place in 1969-70. Considering this movie takes place less than 5 years earlier, wouldn't you think one of Carlito's long time friends would make an appearance? In the original, Carlito start's out being released from jail after spending 5 years in jail. That's only a few month's between the end of the prequel and the start of the original! ***Semi Spoiler*** We know from the beginning of the original, Carlito has spent 5 years in prison so when the prequel gives us this Hollywood happy ending it's an insult to the intelligence of fans of the original. What happen to Gail? It's the lack of continuity that made this film go direct to video release.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Fox's "The True Story Of Jesse James" (1957) is a remarkably poor widescreen remake of their prestigious 1939 Tyrone Power/Henry Fonda classic "Jesse James". I'm not sure where the fault lies but the casting in this version of the two central characters, the uneven direction of Nicholas Ray and the ham-fisted screenplay must surely have something to do with it.

In the late thirties and forties Tyrone Power was Fox's top leading man but in the fifties his star began to wane and studio head Darryl Zanuck started to groom newcomer Robert Wagner to take his place. This was a major error on Zanuck's part as Wagner proved to be a less than a suitable replacement. With the possible exceptions of "Broken Lance" (1954) and "Between Heaven & Hell" (1956) it is hard to think of Wagner distinguishing himself in anything! Also, Jeffrey Hunter was nothing more than a Fox contract player before being assigned to play Frank James to Wagner's Jesse in "The True Story Of Jesse James". Borrowed from the studio the previous year this actor's one distinguishing mark was his excellent and revealing performance in John Ford's classic "The Searchers". But his playing here, along with Wagner as the second half of the James Brothers, is nothing short of boring. Neither player bring any personality or colour to their respective roles. They totally miss the mark, lacking the charisma and appeal so vividly displayed by Power and Fonda in the original. The movie is also marred by too many flashbacks and with the all over the place screenplay Wagner, as the Robin Hood of the American west, comes across as a charmless introverted twit that you can feel no empathy for whatsoever. The supporting cast are hardly worth mentioning but it is a shame to see such a great actress as Agnes Moorhead barely getting a look in as Ma James.

The best aspects of this uninvolving so-so western is the wonderful Cinemascope/Colour cinematography by the great Joe McDonald and the excellent music score by the underrated and little known composer Leigh Harline!

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: This is one of the most hateful and cruel movies I've seen in a long time. Sadly I was duped into sticking with it, since Donald Sutherland's presence misleadingly gave it some credibility. [That's the last time that'll happen.]

Lesley Ann Warren's character was annoyingly whiny and as stupid as they come. There were smarter characters than hers who were killed in the film. Thats just one of many things in this movie that made me ask, "Where is the justice?"

Why is late-night cable so filled with sadistic garbage filled with pathological mayhem? Most of these films seem to have a particular problem with women, and seem to focus on them being terrorized and murdered. This film could have been every bit as suspenseful without being sick and twisted in the process. All it ends up doing is turning the viewer's stomach with its sickness, and insulting the viewer's intelligence.

The cast is misleadingly good. My guess is that they BAGGED Sutherland first, and used him to lure the others like lemmings into this.

I'm kicking myself for wasting time, giving this piece of garbage a chance.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
Once again a film classic has been pointlessly remade with predictably disastrous results. The title is false as is everything about this film. The period is not persuasively rendered, and the leads seem way too young and too vapid to even be criminals. Arthur Penn's film had style, humor, a point of view, and was made by talented people. Even if the 1967 version didn't exist this would still be an unnecessary film. The 1967 version strayed from the facts, presented a glamorized version of Bonnie and Clyde, but it was exciting, and innovative for 1967, and it had some outstanding performances that allowed you to care. This 1992 remake seems culled from the original film rather than the truth as known and the actors in this version are callow, unappealing, and not the least bit interesting. By all means skip this one and hope the 2010 version will be better. Could it possibly be worse?