Reviews

My father and I saw Tora! Tora! Tora! at the Virginia Premier at a showing for Pearl Harbor survivors. Needless to say there were a lot of comments about how realistic the movie was.

There were also comments about what was wrong with the movie, most of which couldn't be helped. For example, the PBY aircraft that was being flown was a later version, but none of the aircraft of the type that were actually at Pearl Harbor survived to when the movie was being filmed.

There were also some minor issues with uniforms but I can't remember all of that, except for the scene on the U.S.S. Ward where enlistedmen are on the bridge in working uniforms and not whites. I was told that was a definite error in the peace-time Navy.

An earlier comment about how the aircraft carrier scenes were filmed. The production company rented the U.S.S. Yorktown and flew the aircraft off of it. The Yorktown was decommissioned about a year after the movie was filmed.

If you look closely in the background, there is a destroyer with an American flag. Further behind the destroyer is a Russian trawler who came along for the ride.

Most of the aircraft that are seen being destroyed on the ground are mock-ups built for the express purpose of being destroyed. That's why they look so real.

The battleships U.S.S. Nevada and the U.S.S. Arizona are one in the same. It was a full sized model that was mounted on a barge. It was used as the U.S.S. Nevada for the initial attack and then for the run across the harbor.

At the end of the filming, it was destroyed to similate the destruction of the U.S.S. Arizona.

Another interesting point about the movie, the scene of the B-17 landing on 1 main wheel is real. The plane had a hydraulic failure during the filming and was forced to land on 1 main wheel. The plane was heavily damanged but was repaired and flew again, but not until after the movie was completed.

I was about half way through the movie when I realized that although Rene was good, she would not have been my first choice for the role as Bridget Jones.

My first choice would have been Letitia Dean (Sharon) from the BBC Soap Opera Eastenders. Just watch her one the TV sometime and you'll know why.

Still, even though it had the wrong person in the lead I enjoyed the movie.

I've read many of the comments about Godspell. I saw the movie when it was first released (1973) and enjoyed it very much. It was a fun movie to watch and I enjoyed the soundtrack.

Since then I've seen a road-show production, several High School productions (which I understand the ACLU won't let be done anymore - Separation of Church and State), and several productions by Churches - the most recent one last weekend in Stafford, VA.

While the movie lacks the intimacy of the stage it is still a good production that captures the essence of the stage production.

Back when Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar were first on the scene, (Godspell on the stage and Jesus Christ Superstar was a concert production) there was a lot of talk about their being sacrilege by the various churches. I don't think the world, or at least most churches, was ready for a smiling, happy Jesus who could make his disciples laugh and amuse his following. Add the outlandish costumes and makeup. Jesus as a clown, entertaining the masses...

The question was put to none other than the Rev. Billy Graham (if I recall correctly) about both of them. He said he hadn't seen (or heard) either of them, but he wouldn't condemn either production because it was presenting the Gospel in a way that the young people seemed to understand. Enough said on that!

My own personal preference between Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar has always been Godspell because I liked the easy way the message was presented. I always felt Godspell ended with hope while Jesus Christ Superstar left you wondering.

The tunes in Godspell were more singable than those in Jesus Christ Superstar. We've even sung some of them ('Prepare Ye the Way of the Lord' and 'Day by Day') in a Baptist Church as a Choir special.

The costumes, while very hippy, reflected the times. It was still a time of rebellion when the stage and movie were produced. I didn't have any problem with the costumes then and I still don't after viewing it again just a few days ago. The most recent production I saw (last weekend) used costumes that could have been used in "You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown" but they were still used effectively.

Overall the production was quite good. The New York City settings while well known were also well used. I don't know how they managed to get the city so devoid of people but even that's used quite effectively. The World Trade Center was still under construction when Godspell was filmed so that adds some tragic elements in light of recent events.

The cast was relatively unknown at the time the movie was made. I've seen many comments about Victor Garber's fame since Titanic but he had been in other movies and TV shows. I've also watched the late Lynne Thigpen's career (she died just recently) with interest as she progressed into a fine actress. I wondered why so many of them didn't go onto other productions since they seemed to be so talented.

My two sons (both under 10) and my wife watched the movie the day after seeing the production on stage. They both enjoyed the movie and the only question they had was why the movie and the stage show had some different music and the sequences (parables) were not in the same order. I couldn't answer that question.

It was a good, enjoyable, movie. Entertaining with a message.

I haven' seen the movie since it was first released. If it has been on cable I haven't seen it and it isn't in video stores or if it is, not the ones I go to.

That being said, I'll make a few comments on the movie as I remember it. People who read the book and then saw the movie tended to be disappointed. I saw the movie and then read the book and I thought the movie could have done more but captured the essense of the book. But to have done the movie like the book would have taken 3 - 4 hours and I don't think the audience would have sat through it.

OK, so it didn't have great special effects. The meterior shower may have been the highpoint of the movie but there were some other moments as well: the plane crash and the train wreck. I thought the Triffids themselves could have been a little creepier and maybe a little bit more menacing, but that might not have been within the budget restraints.

The acting wasn't the best, but it had it's moments. It was a pretty solid British cast who did a pretty good job with what they had.

I especially liked the part toward the end of the movie when they disabled the bad guys' vehicle and then made their escape. We didn't get to see what happened to the bad guys but it probably wasn't very pleasant...

And maybe the destruction of the Triffids by seawater might have been a little too simple, but they needed some way to give the movie and upbeat ending. I don't think audiences, either then or now, would like to see the blind being abandoned and the sighted retreating to an island where they could rebuild civilization for the sighted only...

Everybody has written that there was no remake. They seem to forget the BBC production by the same name. I had that one on Betamax that I recorded from A&E or something like that back in the 1980's and I haven't watched it in nearly 20 years. I'm not even sure where it is, or what the condition of the tape may be in, but I do remember that it was a little more like the book.

My father and I saw the Virginia premier of "Tora! Tora! Tora!" We were there as a guest of my father's best friend (a Pearl Harbor survivor). There were a lot of Pearl Harbor survivors at that premier.

I remember the survivors talking about how accuratly the attack was presented. They also talked about some of the inaccuracies (mostly uniforms and aircraft) but overall they thought it was great. Many grown men cried as they remembered fallen comrads.

I'm still impressed with the special effects. Several postings have complained about how "fake the backgrouds" looked. I've been to Pearl Harbor and the movie was actually filmed there.

There have been comments about the lack of suffering shown. Even if it had been filmed the studio would not have released it. Combat footage from World War II is shown on the History Channel today couldn't been shown in the theaters or TV when I was growing up (the 50's). It was considered too graphic for public consumption!

FOX had to build the full-sized battleships that you saw in the movie. They weren't computer generated images (CGI). Actually, they only built one that stood in for all the other battleships. There wouldn't be another massive shipboard set built along that scale until James Cameron's "Titanic".

The models of the ships (both U.S. and Japanese) built were also done on a large scale.

They had to assemble a fleet of flying Japanese aircraft (they modified existing surplus U.S. Navy and Air Force trainers) and rent real B-17s and P-40s. Those planes you see up there on the screen are real. Many of those "Japanse" aircraft are still flying and can be seen at Air Shows across the nation.

Whereever possible, the exact locations of the attack were used. In at lease one case, a hanger that was scheduled for demolition was destroyed in the filming of the movie.

It's much better than "Pearl Harbor".

I've read a lot of negative comments about "From Hell". I guess they were expecting a lot more bloodletting then they received. I haven't seen any of the other Hughes Brothers films so I'm going to have to leave those comments alone.

What the Hughes brothers did was to recreate (at least on film) the atmosphere of the Whitechappel District of London, UK. Having once taken the "Jack the Ripper" tour of Whitechappel their film agreed pretty much with what I was told.

The overall acting was pretty good. Johnny Depp did his usual job of performing on the stage much like he did in "Ed Woods" and other films. Heather Graham and the others made for great window dressing.

I won't get into the other details of the film except to say that it reminded me of a much earlier film which starred Christopher Plummer as Sherlock Holmes and James Mason as Dr. Watson. It was called "Murder By Decree" and it came to pretty much the same conclusions as "From Hell": the Royal Physician did it with the help of the Masons. I missed the Holmes and Watson interplay in THIS film.

I first saw 'The Family Way" when it was first released. I enjoyed it then. I found it funny and sad at the same time. My date thought it was rather boring.

Thirty years later I saw it again on Cable-TV and I've even recorded it so I can share it with my wife (not the woman I dated way back when). I've read many of the comments made by previous posters and I agree with

most of them.

It is a very funny and very moving story. The young couple have problems from the very start: the "prank" on their wedding night and the disappointment the day after. Having to live with his parents because they can't get a "flat" or anything else would tend to put a crimp in anyone's love life.

The final confrontation and resolution between husband and wife is simply great. The addition of Beethoven at the end of that scene underscores the sense of victory over all the adversity. Benny Hill couldn't have done it any better and I think he did try...

John Mills clearly steals any scene he's in, even from the newly weds. The final scene in the movie isn't to be missed. It's what he doesn't know that makes it soo good.

At one time I had the novel based on the film, but it's long lost.

The sound track, written by Paul McCarthy, is great. If only he'd written more like that...

I have seen both Deep Impact and Armageddon. I preferred the later. As a native Virginian, I was downright offended by Deep Impact's geographic inaccuracies.

In the traffic jam on I-64 there is a sign that says "Virginia Beach 12 miles". As the tidal wave approaches, our young hero gets on his motorcycle and outruns it to the mountains.

I don't know how fast the wave was traveling, but the distance from Norfolk (12 miles from Virginia Beach) to the mountains is something like 70 miles.

I don't think it is that far from the Pacific Ocean to the mountains/hills in LA so I guess that the Hollywood types just didn't give a dam.

Add to that the comment that the wave didn't stop until after the Ohio valley and what does that tell us about the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia?

It could have been much better if they'd bothered to do a little geography....

Some thoughts about seeing Halloween in the movie theaters when it was first released... > Forget the movie, let's watch a double feature of "The Thing" and "Forbidden Planet". The two movies were featured on the TV during the movie.

People (mostly women) were yelling for Laurie to not go across the street and for her not to put down the knife. Then they screamed when Michael kept rising. > The end was like the story they used to tell in basic training; kick him in the balls, break his nose, bash his head in and shoot him. If he gets up, run like hell...

In many ways, Michael Meyers was like his distant cousin Jason. You couldn't make him leave! He just kept coming back. I saw Halloween II and III on HBO and I haven't bothered to see any of the others that followed.

Personally, I thought they should have let it end with the first one.

It isn't quite as good on commercial TV because the commercials break up the continunity of the movie. Or is it the commercials are interrupted by the movie.

When the movie first came out, I didn't see it because the title song was by Joan Biaz (AKA 'Joannie Phonnie' of the 'Lil Abner' cartoons) so I figured it was a protest movie. A friend talked me into seeing it.

I enjoyed the movie, the special effects were exceptional for it's day. But I wasn't thrilled with the 'environmental wacko' message.

After Star Wars came Battlestar Galattica. In one episode, I saw the destruction of the forest sequence and I remembered the movie. It appeared on TV and I found that it had changed. It was a good movie.

Several of the reviewers have made some inaccurate statements. First, the special effects predate Star Wars and Douglas Turnbul was one of the special effects gerus for 2001. He also did many of the models and special effects for both Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. He also did Battlestar Galattica.

Second, the interior sequences were filled on a decommissioned AIRCRAFT CARRIER and not a battleship. The ship was being scrapped and provided an ideal location to film.

Third, the soundtrack, although it featured the song by Joan Biaz, was actually by a classical comploser, Peter Schickile (sp?) who is also known for his P.D.Q. Bach compositions.

Fourth, as a result of his work with Battlestar Galattica, Douglas Turnbul was not brought back for The Empire Strikes Back and The Return of the Jedi.