Reviews

I can believe the Amish might use their own "police" force rather than depend upon outside authority. And I can believe that drugs and prostitution have probably found their way into the community and are generally hushed up. I can even be persuaded that the cars Levi uses are paid for from the earnings of his privately owned company rather than from money extorted from his community. And there are manipulative women, thugs, and both simple and stupid men in the communities around the Amish, so why wouldn't they also exist inside the Amish community. All of this I can believe.

What I can not believe at this point is that a rival Amish "police" group from Ohio would try to start an interstate take-over of the group in Lancaster, Pa. These are relatively small communities with small groups of thugs that can barely maintain control over their own communities let alone attempt to take control of other communities over three hundred miles away from their home territory.

I know it's been several years since this movie was released, but I've just now gotten around to watching it, and I must say that I found the movie to be offensive, because it ignores established TOS history. This is the kind of nonsense that drove the fans away and destroyed what was once a multi-billion dollar franchise. I can't fault the actors for this. It's the writers I object to for creating an alternate timeline without laying any proper foundation for it. And then again, who is gonna believe 20th century motorcycles in the late 23rd century, or creating a Spock with a love interest or killing off his mother. And then there's the matter of Spock marooning a fellow officer on an ice ball out of anger. The list goes on and on.

I realize that the writers and producers won't care about what I think. Afterall, I'm just a crazy Trekkie, but at least I have had the pleasure of saying how much I abhor this film. I will not buy the DVD; I will not recommend the movie. The only reason I give it 3-stars is because, while the story line was anything but Star Trek, the acting was credible, and I have nothing against those who were just playing the roles handed to them. Beyond that, this movie is nothing more than a cheap knock-off of what was once a very good franchise.

Believable up to the point of the speed bikes in the woods. Then it really fell apart with the band of teddy bears. That was the beginning of the end of Star Wars for me. Come on. Teddy Bears fighting imperial storm troopers? Effectively too. Give me a break. I've never before seen anything that was so transparently for the marketing of toys.

It is, perhaps, unfortunate that with the end of the Emperor and the end of Vader we will never know how the Empire was reorganized or even if it fell apart completely and was replaced with a new form of government. Unfortunate too is the fact that we will never know whether the Jedi ever regained a place of prominence or not.

Totally believable, action/adventure flick, except maybe for the worm in the asteroid and the Imperial Walkers. But what the heck -- you can't have everything. Besides, those Walkers were just another form of tank, and we all understand tanks.

Even the city in the sky was believable for the simple reason that once inside, it looked like any other city we may have seen, and it appeared to function like any other city. I think I developed a crush on Billy Dee Williams.

What the movie lacked was the WOW of the first movie. But that's understandable.

Good clean fun. This movie didn't ask you to think about any deep and weighty subject matter. It was good vs. evil almost literally in black and white. And when you left the theater, you didn't have to digest what you had just seen. To top it off, it reached out and grabbed you in the opening scenes with a fantastic shot of two ships in space doing battle. Even the bar scene was believably because the weird characters were not computer generated. They were played by real people in costume, and the viewer knew it and could live with that.

It was clear at the end that Darth Vader had escaped the destruction of the Death Star, but it was unclear how the small, one-man fighter he was in could have traveled far enough on its own to be rescued.

Some people try to excuse this childness of SW 1 and II by claiming that the original trilogy was enjoyed by kids. So What!? It was enjoyed by adult as well, and it was the adults that became the real fans. If Lucas would have stuck to his original format, this would have been a much more satisfying film.

In a desperate attempt to save money, I guess, Lucas produced a whole army of cartoon robots in a misnamed movie that should have been called Attack of the Robots, not clones. The only clone of a living being in this movie was Jango Fett's son Boba.

All of this is surrounded by an ineffective love story between two people of different ages. One would think that with at least ten years (and maybe more) between them, you would see that difference clearly in Amidala's overall appearance compared to that of Anakin. It does tell me something about Anakin's youth, however.

Also, too much line stealing from the first trilogy. I can live with the rebellious teenager at this point, though it seems border line believable from one who is to become a Jedi. Maybe I'm just expecting such individuals to be more studious at this point.

It has been a long time since I have seen a western movie that I thought really put it all together, but Open Range is one of the best. It would appear that the writer may have taken some ideas from such movies as Lonesome Dove, Shane, Pale Rider, and Unforgiven. If so, they were woven together in a really nice package.

I don't write about the details of a movie because I don't think it's fair to those who haven't seen the movie yet. I will say, however, that Open Range is one of the few westerns that presents a realistic picture of a town sticking together when presented with a crisis and a man willing to lead them toward what has to be done.

The story line is interesting, if somewhat improbable. Some would say down right impossible. But that should not detract from the film. It is no more improbable than the story lines of any adventure movie - James Bond, for example - or many of the fantasy films that are so popular these days. So we should not judge the film on how realistic we think it may or may not be, but on how entertaining it is.

I found "Final Decent" to be very entertaining. It had action; it had romance; and it had suspense. In fact, I would call it the best of the Airplane disaster movies. That's enough for me. I liked it. And I am saddened that it was never available commercially.

Where's the DVD?

I would give examples, but I don't believe in putting spoilers in reviews, so don't look for them here. This review gives only my personal impressions of what I saw on the screen.

The visual effects of this movie are spectacular. The use of CGI was awesome. The technology has advanced rapidly from where is was just a few short years ago. The musical score was very good. The acting was great in some places and weak in others. The story line? That's another matter.

The basic idea of showing how a man falls from grace into evil is a good one. Certainly we all wanted to know how Darth Vader came to be after we watched Episode IV, "A New Hope." And after a fashion, George Lucas has delivered the answer.

But the answer isn't logical. The story breaks down. The reason for Anakin Skywalker's turn to the Dark Side just doesn't hold up. I've watched the movie several times now; I've even gone back and re-watched Episode II: Attack of the Clones to try to put the current movie into context, and I still come away with the same feeling. The character development of Anakin isn't believable - not even when I factor in his youth, his love for Padme, his raging hormones, his inexperience in dealing with his emotions, and the manipulation of the Emperor.

The young often think they know everything better than those who are older and have more experience, and they make some big mistakes as a result. Sometimes tragic ones. But I don't personally know of, nor have I ever heard of or read of, a case where an individual was so easily driven to such a pure and all consuming hate as was Anakin Skywalker. Over time, it is conceivable a person could fall that far, but not after only a few sentences of conversation with the one person he had sworn to rid the galaxy of. I might have rated this film 2 or 3 stars higher, but for this failure.

All of that said, the film is full of action, and some of the best sword-fight scenes ever put on film. In fact, there is so much high drama and fast action that it is difficult to now go back and watch the original movies with their light hearted approach to life.

I've never been a big fan of Jimmy Stewart. I guess it's the type of character he usually played, or maybe it's the drawl when he speaks.

Yet this picture is different. It holds one's attention. Here Stewart is not a meek, overly sensitive, quiet hero. He's just and ordinary guy out to solve a mystery and see justice done. I like this Stewart very much.

There are many strong, dramatic moments, and some sadism (without the gore) that is surprising for a movie made in 1950. The picture certainly held my interest through out. A gem of a find for my collection. It made me go and re-watch Winchester '73, another good Stewart film.

The DVD transfer is very good for a picture as old as this one is. The sets are about right for the period, and the widescreen, panoramic views of both mountains and plains reminds me of the movie Shane.

A nice musical score, with a good solo guitar sequence in the middle that recurs from time to time. The relationship between Hannie Caulder (Raquel Welch) and Thomas Luther Price (Robert Culp) matures over time and is the really interesting part of this film. Steven Boyd's bit part could have been left out altogether with no loss to the story. The three "village idiots" as I call them, provide some comic relief.

The editing on the film was pretty bad. In one or two places, I think the negative was reversed, and in at least one place it seemed to me that a scene was inserted out of place, making the film somewhat choppy. Still, I have enjoyed the VHS edition and would very much like to replace it with a North American (Region 1) DVD version. When is it going to be available?

As action movies go, this one is OK; but there is more to making a good movie than action. The list could be extensive, so I'll just confine myself to two major concerns about this movie.

It's one thing to portray right and wrong, good guy and bad guy; it's quite another to portray the dark and sinister. I don't like the dark and sinister feel of this movie. It takes the human out of the flick and introduces the demonic. I doubt that Gene Roddenberry would have approved. And perhaps this is what is at the heart of why most reviewers don't like the movie.

Some of this comes from the destruction of NCC 1701-D in Generations. There was a clean ship. It had the look and feel of something that might actually fly. It felt good. It inspired the viewer. But in an ill conceived attempt to save money, or just for the sake of technology, they did away with the model and replaced it with a computer graphic that was clearly a cartoon caricature of a ship that no one could have any respect for. And if that weren't enough, they changed the interior from a bright, vibrant alive, feel good color to a dark, dull interior that always depressed me whenever I looked at it.

Second, I have never been able to accept how Picard always seems to breakdown at just the wrong time, in a way that no trained starship captain would. I refer here to the fact that near the end of the movie when his crew is only one minute away from certain death, he remains frozen and incapable of action after watching Shinzon die. A man does not rise to the command of a starship with a flaw like that. And if he did, he certainly would not survive as long as Picard did without gaining the experience necessary to put his personal feelings aside at times like that. He should not have been so traumatized. In reality, any Captain worth his salt would have pushed that corpse aside, found his weapon, and done what he had to do to save his crew. The whole scene reminds me of his over emotional outburst during the trial in the Farpoint Station episode. That is just poor writing, and a lack of feel for the series.

But then this is what I have come to expect from Rick Berman. He was so anxious to put his own brand on the series that he took a winning formula and ruined it. I've heard that Rick once said that the fans deserted the series, but I say no -- it was Rick Berman who broke faith with the fans. He was never in touch with the audience. That is why they left. When he and Brannon Braga took the helm, they cost Paramount a fortune.

Peter Jackson has not done an exact representation of Tolkien's' work. That will always remain as impossible as it is to force an apple tree to grow an orange. Some things were left out that could have been put in the movie(s). And some things were put in that in my opinion should have been left out.

I was disappointed that in The Return of the King the story line of Faramir and Eowyn was not pursed. And I was VERY disappointed that Peter Jackson did not deal with Saruman in the theatrical version. I felt that this was unfair to Tolkien, to the actor Christopher Lee, and to the viewer, who was left with the fate of a major character in the films unaccounted for. Indeed, I see this as nothing less than a transparent ploy to force the viewer to buy the Extended DVD Version when it becomes available. Shame on you Mr. Jackson. We would have bought it without you having to resort to the use of a cheap conjurer's trick.

As for The Scouring of The Shire - I am disappointed that it was not filmed, though the truth be told, I see why it was not shot. The movie holds its own quite well without it. The power of The Return of The King as it was presented would have made The Scouring appear to be the longest and most boring ending to a movie I can imagine. At the very least, we would have had to cut out the Gray Havens as well and put them both into a shortened fourth movie, along with such things as the recover of Bill the horse, and frankly, that just doesn't sound like a movie people would pay to sit through. As I sit here just thinking about it, I can almost hear the howls of the purists and the general public alike. Still, I can not help but think that had The Scouring been filmed, at least the footage would have been available for a follow-on short feature on a separate DVD. It is something of a minor tragedy that no footage of this part of Tolkien's work was shot.

Yet despite these omissions, I must rate The Return of the King a solid 10, no question about it. And may I say, "Thank you , Mr. Jackson. Thank you."

There are those who are so troubled by the fact that every word that Tolkien wrote isn't in this film that they can not see what is there. These people say that despite all that Peter Jackson has done, The Lord of the Rings has still not been done in film. Oh how very sorry I feel for these poor, wretched souls. So lost are they in their bitter and abusive criticism that they will never be able to appreciate the stunning, breathtaking brilliance of Peter Jackson's achievement. Guys, set aside your sanctimonious points of view and come smell the roses. Despite its failings, the movie HAS been done.

As for the series as a whole, I regret that I must give it rating of 9. It would have been a 10, but I too am subject to the illness of not letting go of some of the failings in Peter Jackson's work. Peter, you should have done right by Faramir.

Cspaced1 - you took the words right out of my mouth: "I liked this movie." Not a classic, but it has enough adventure and emotion to draw you in and hold you to the end.

Unlike Cspaced1, I do remember the Gunsmoke series. I sat and watched the original, half-hour series with my father and my brother, and I found this movie to be a good use for the character of Matt Dillion. The story line is vintage Gunsmoke. It has its quiet moments and its violent moments; it has joy and it has sadness.

As nice as the picture is, I found the writers succumbing to today's tendency for some senseless violence. In the opening scenes of the movie, Matt goes to pick up a letter, and in the process he kills two men who clearly needed killing. But these killings didn't contribute anything to the story. They just hung there. Dillion could have just as easily picked up his letter and left. I find it somewhat disturbing that writers feel they have to do this.

The only thing I found left unsaid in the end is what Matt did after he parted from Wolf. Did he return to his daughter, or did he ride off. The viewer is left hanging in this regard.

The overall story line is worthy of the original series, but the way it is implemented is offensive to those of us who grew up with the T.V. series. The characters shouldn't have been used that way. I can not forgive that. Only someone completely lacking in common sense, or a complete egomaniac, would have pulled a stunt like that. Any redeeming value the film might have had is lost under the impact of the extreme lack of sensitivity.

Oh yes, there is one scene that I remember, not because of the action, but because of the total absurdity of it. Care to guess which one that was? Yep - the big tunnel scene. I've seen a lot of movie scenes that asked me to stretch my imagination pretty far, or even suspend my capacity for reason altogether, but never before have I been insulted like this. The setting of the film and the property itself demands that the events and the action be at least plausible. That, too, was tossed aside by Tom Cruise.

What a waste.

If you like James Bond, then you'll like "Where Eagles Dare." Actually, this movie is somewhat better than the average Jame Bond movie. And I love James Bond. You always know where you stand with Bond. Spectacular scenery in far away places; a car chase; and some pretty ladies to decorate the sound stage. There's a good guy and a bad guy. The good guy is gonna win, and the bad guy is gonna lose. All that is known up front, before the movie starts. Nothing to think about; nothing to ponder; nothing to worry about. Just good entertainment. The interesting part is how it all unfolds.

We have a similar formula here. There are some changes of course. A little more espionage, and a plot twist here and there, and of course the violence of the Eastwood Western. Add it all up, and you have "Where Eagles Dare." All that changes is the time period, the setting, and the suit.

The violence in this movie is a little less mindless than it is in most films being made today, and there is no useless swearing and cursing. What a pleasant change of pace from many films where the producer and/or directory haven't got enough confidence in their product to sell it without offensive language.

It is true that the plot in this movie is somewhat farfetched, but so are the plots of most movies. And if you can't deal with an indestructible superhero, then perhaps you should stay away from the movies and be content to play with your rubber duckie.

I was somewhat disappointed in The Two Towers. I felt that the editing was a little choppy resulting in a lack of transition between some scenes. I hope the extended edition of the DVD will correct this.

And while I can allow for the introduction of certain scenes not found in the Trilogy to maintain the love interest angle, I can see no need to introduce a story line that simply doesn't exist in Tolkien's work.

The principal example is this: in Tolkien, the elves never showed up at Helm's Deep, and the captain of the elves, Haldir, while he did an exceptional job of dying in the movie, did not die in the battle at Helm's Deep. The introduction of that into the movie served no useful purpose that I can see. I could have lived without it, and Peter Jackson should have lived without it.

Another example is when Aragorn went off the cliff during the battle with the Wolf Riders. It can be inferred from Tolkien that a fight with the Wolf Riders could have occurred, because the text is clear about the fact that some skirmishes did occur on the way to Helm's Deep. But Tolkien goes out of his way to indicate that the encounters were minor. They were of the "hit-n-run" variety. Still, I can live with the movie presentation. But Aragorn did not go off that cliff; he did not float down stream; and he did not reappear. That part of the movie can only serve as a possible introduction to a second love interest, and a conflict in Aragorn's mind over his future. If that was the intent, it was poorly done.

But my major complaint with this movie is the shabby treatment given to Faramir. He was an honorable man in Tolkien. He was able to do what his brother was not able to do. He knew the Ring of Power was within his grasp, but he never saw it. Indeed, he did not want to see it. And he let Frodo go. He did not drag him off to present him as a gift, and Frodo never stood on that wall and faced the Ringwraith. Putting this into the movie was an unjustified modification of Tolkien's work. It served no purpose other than to add perhaps 5 minutes to the running time of the flick. That is a poor excuse for doing such a hatchet job on a man's work. Unforgivable!

All of this leaves me with some doubt about how Jackson will handle Part III of the Trilogy. Does he have the nerve to do it right and do it completely? We shall see.

Mr. Jackson, you have an unprecedented opportunity here. Please don't waste it. This could be YOUR magnum opus.

I have seen "Gettysburg." I gave that movie a 10. I watched it again after viewing "Gods and Generals" to see if I still felt it deserved a 10. It does. I believe that Gettysburg is worth a 10 for the emotion it invokes in the viewer, for the realism, for its historical accuracy, for the script, for the acting all around, and for a musical score that will be remembered for many years to come. The only fault I could find with Gettysburg was that it tends to present General Lee as a bumbling fool, which he was not, though if put to the wall, I would have to admit that in that place at that time he made some bad decisions, but were they his alone? Probably not.

I wish I could be as kind with "Gods and Generals." Regrettably, I cannot. I found the acting to be stiff; I found the dialog to be forced; I found the story line lacking; and I found the musical score lackluster. I realize that Lee was not the intended focus of the film; still, I found Duval's presentation of the character weak. He is a fine actor, so I won't hold it against him. Perhaps it was the weak script.

Chamberlain's speech in Gettysburg served a purpose to the overall story; his `Hail Caesar' speech in `Gods and Generals' served no purpose. It felt contrived, and it left the audience with the feeling that it was thrown in just because he had a speech in the previous film. There was no connection with it and the story. Oh, how I wish they had left that speech out. Likewise, bringing Chamberlain's marriage into the story weakened the film, as did dwelling too long on Jackson's marriage. Furthermore, the battle scenes lacked the grandeur of those in the Gettysburg film. By that I mean that I felt the battle in Gettysburg. I could put myself there; I could live it as it happened (I still can with each viewing), whereas in `Gods and Generals' the battles feel staged, which of course they were. But so were those of the 1993 movie. The difference is in the presentation and the directing. It hardly seems possible that the same man could have directed both films.

Unlike `Gettysburg,' `Gods and Generals' tried to do too much. In doing so, it weakened the overall film. Had it stuck to Chancellorsville and Fredericksburg, it might have faired better than it did.

Regrettably, only 4 stars.

Bond and his ladies, as always, did a good job. I have no complaint with them, though the antagonist was not quite upto what I have come to expect from a Bond film.

As for the film itself, that left a lot to be desired. What can I say, except that I was shocked by the opening. I really hated it. It wasn't that it lacked realism. It probably was quite realistic. But I have come to expect the usual formula for a Bond opening. Our hero has a great action sequence and saves the world as we know it, then we fade into the opening credits. It's a tried and true formula. It's part of what we all go to see a Bond movie for. But this time, instead of everyone's favorite formula, the producers monkeyed with it, and rather than a fade to the credits, we find our favorite superhero caught and spending 18 months in prison being tortured. There was no payoff in this. The audience was robbed, and the image of Bond is tarnished. Is it just me, or do others feel cheated, too?

And then there were those disappointing computer graphics. That cartoon looking airplane, is but one example. The production team would have done much better filming with models.

And how about that awful song, done by that awful voice. I wouldn't even steal this song, let alone actually pay money for it. I've never heard anything so bad. The producers should be ashamed.

Heads up you directors and producers: much more of this and you will destroy the franchise. It's OK to want to save money, but don't cut your hand off in the process. You have been warned.

Historically more accurate than Tombstone, except for the prominence given to Wyatt himself. Its main draw back is that it is too slow. While it is interesting to review the early life of Wyatt, it doesn't contribute one thing to the picture that the average movie goer would care to spend time and money on. The savior of this film is Dennis Quaid, who did a magnificent job as "Doc" Holliday. I will give the film credit, too, for having the guts to reduce Johnny Ringo to the insignificant character that he actually was in real life. It's too bad the writer didn't put his death and the death of Curly Bill Brocius into the right settings and contexts.

Good entertainment. Reasonably true to the main historical fact, but not very true to the details. I mean really, is there anyone out there who can honestly believe that Wyatt Earp stood in the rain crying? Certainly not in front of the entire town? And the character of "Doc" Holliday was stretched to the max, as was the character of Johnny Ringo. Indeed, the historical Ringo is barely a blip mentioned in passing in the period literature and the history books of the time. But I admit, it makes a good story, and it brings home the bacon. Just don't believe to much of it.

By today's standards of film making, this story would be left in the book, or completely rewritten. Don't misunderstand me - the book was great, but the slow pace doesn't fit into today's theater. It was even a drag in 1971. Read the book. You'll like it more than the flick.

Wonderful. Marvelous. As fans of the trilogy, we can find fault all day long. That's because it's easy to criticize, but let us remember that the movie medium has limitations that an author of a book does not have to deal with. Before being too harsh, we should ask ourselves if the deficiencies are of any consequence? Is the movie a good representation of the author's intent?

Certainly character development is limited in this medium. But to do more than was done would result in the film being criticized for being too long, or for moving too slow. We expect a certain amount of this from a good book, but a movie can not be done that way.

It is my view that, as measured against what has been achieved, that which was left out of the movie pales into insignificance. This is the best film adaptation of a complex story that I have ever seen. If the 2nd and 3rd installments are as well done as the first, this will be a great addition to anyone's DVD collection. Something to be treasured.

A 10 all the way.

It has an interesting, and not to implausable, story line; for the most part, the acting was well done; and the outcome was not entirely predictable. In short, except for one scene (Vera fighting with Quick), and one character (the crying man), this movie wasn't too bad. But it would have been better if it wasn't for all the foul language. In fact, I would most likely have voted 2-points higher than I did just because of the language.

Why do producers think it's necessary to gross everyone out. Don't they have enough confidence in their story, in their actors, in their ability to put together a movie people will watch. If they don't, why would they even be in the business? Guys, you could have cleaned this thing up and made a killing at the box office.

Dumb! Really dumb. The whole thing, from the base commander to Strangelove to the Russian Ambassador. I can't believe this is in the top 250, let alone as high as #11. Is there no one here who can think? Tell me, please, what is there in this movie that makes it good? I'd really like to know. It's not the music. It's not the character development. It's not the story. It's not the comic relief. My God, it's not even the absurdity of the whole thing. And while the picture of Slim Pickens riding the bomb might be mildly amusing, surely everyone didn't vote this move so high just for that. Or did they? Hummmm.