Reviews

Once again, uninformed activist journalists perhaps meaning well botch up a simple concept such as the free-market. Some diagrams drawn by a decently trained high school economics teacher might have helped. For a better treatment on the subject, read some von Mises, Friedman & Smith. You might still not answer in the affirmative to the central question--you might not like the free market; fair enough--but at least you'll actually come away with an understanding of the issue, not a "aren't they bad guys for offering low priced products!" platitudes. Most astounding quote: Wal-Mart is damaging America because "Americans have the higher incomes that allow them to purchase China's products while China has lower salaries & can not buy American products." Umm? So America can afford China's labor, America has the wealth where China does not, but somehow Americans being rich is damaging to America. Something wrong with that statement. It's gems like that which go unchallenged because I don't think the journalist has the depth of the subject to push the interviewee to actually make his case.

Again, whether you agree with the show's premise or not, the show, though intoned in a low, sophisticated but foreboding voice fails to really address the issues.

I've always loved Star Trek. I was 13 in 1979 when the first motion picture based on the popular TV series came out. I waited so long to see it and ultimately was disappointed. I remember being dismayed that the producers/director passed up on exploiting a great idea in favor of what seems to be two hours of blue cloud visual effects. And not very good blue cloud visual effects--the whole film looked like an amorphous blue blob. For years I called it "Star Trek--The Motion Boredom." Then the new Director's Cut came out on DVD...and WOW!! What a difference! From the documentary included with the release, it seems Robert Wise was very rushed to get the film out on time and had to release the film in it's original below standard shape. THIS DVD release is the movie he says he wanted to make. Everything looks less stilted, the special effects actually add to the awe and provide context for the events on screen. Gone are the endless blue sparkling clouds. Now we SEE the VGer vessel and its activities with clarity.

But the greatest improvement is in the sound department. Gone are the annoying faux-computer klaxon's announcing everything from a red alert to the flushing of the officer's head. Everything, audio & visual, enhances the viewing experience, ceases to distract and really makes for a much better film.

If you've only seen the old one, give this one another try.

Bond returns to what made Bond great and Moore finally fits the character. This was a watershed film for Moore's Bond. Prior to this one, he seemed awkward in the role, not the suave super spy Connery made. After this one, the character degenerated into something of a farce, poking fun at the genre while cracking bad one-liners with every bad guy knocked off.

The friction between the two competing spies (Bond and Russian super spy "Triple X") is genuinely sexy and engaging. Of all the Bond babes, I've always felt Moore had the best chemistry here.

The bad guy is good too. Reminiscent of Thunderball, he is out to conquer the world with nuclear bombs so he can start his own civilization under the sea. After the risible Live & Let Die, it's good to see that hardcore megalomaniacs are still able to be found.

If you're new to Bond, I highly recommend you start here.

Gods & Monsters is a fascinating , sprawl of epic proportions that lurks tantalizingly in the failing mind of its main character. We get the sense that we've walked in on the last act of a great play and wonder what the rest was like.

Many have summarized the film here--Aging gay Hollywood director seeks engaging relationship with somewhat dense gardener. I will not bore you with the details. Sir Ian's acting is top drawer as is the ever wonderful Redgrave as the doting housekeeper. Frasier is batting a little out of his league but is serviceable as the beefcake "love interest." The writing is excellent and brings to life some wonderful character studies. It holds up until the next to last scene which I saw as a bit awkward and forced. Such an elegant script could have found a more plausible circumstance to achieve the desired result.

So...what is the film about? Well, it's about being gay and not being gay; about being lonely when surrounded by people who supposedly love you; about giving it all up while still trying to hold on. While most epics spend hours trying to resolve these types of issues, Gods & Monsters is content to show us that such issues exist without resolution. It's an epic in a box...and is a better film for it.

What makes any mystery thriller fun is trying to use the clues in the film to figure out whom it might be that's committing murder. Then, when you find out at the end, the fun is to go back over the film and remember all the clues you missed. This film's villain is SO arbitrarily designated by the script that you have a better chance of figuring it out by playing a game of spin the urine sample!! Only the quality acting (laboring under a completely inadequate script) attempts to keep this boneheaded exercise in celluloid waste management afloat. I felt cheated never having a hope of figuring out what the mystery was and doubly so when, after the film was over, there wasn't any clues that I missed... in fact there were no clues at all as to the identity of the killer.

View it if you must as long as there's nothing else more challenging... like, say, watching your underwear spin in the clothes dryer.

3 out of 10 (and that only because I feel charitable today!)

Suffers from lack of clear narrative (I'm still unclear as to why the UN ambassador was killed at the beginning) & a weak plot (you mean there's drug smuggling going on in the Caribbean? Stop the presses!!!). Bond is sent to investigate what the connection between a Harlem hoodlum and a island ambassador might be. The answer is heroine and a tarot reading Bond-babe (Jane Seymour in her film debut).

Roger Moore takes over the 007 role with style, but he's given a weak script, no Astin Martin, his PPK is crushed in the first 20 minutes and he gets only ONE, yes, ONE gadget...a magnetic watch. OOOoooooo.... "Q" must have looked through 100 comic book ads to find that baby.

For collector's only. Unless you have a need to hear Paul McCartney's theme song or a desire to see Bond chased through the Louisiana Bayou by a backwoods, bumpkin sheriff in a rather sluggish boat chase, this one's a snooze.

I'm turned off by movies that are hyped anyway just as a matter of experience which has taught me that NO film is ever worth that much hype. I've read the Potter books. Nice, fanciful stories, but also over-rated. Give me an Oz book any day instead.

The film version's narrative is a bit choppy, the kids are downright annoying at times, pacing is uneven, and at 152 minutes it's a bit long for any tyke to watch in one sitting (my 6-8 years olds took 3-4 sittings). Over-all an average 5 out of 10; it is a nice film to watch once or twice, but don't believe the hype (surprise!). You won't be watching this 10 years from now let alone 50...Wizard of Oz it ain't.

American Psycho is a daring movie. It is not for the faint of heart, but looking past the gore you will see there is a great deal going on here.

The film is nominally about a very eccentric Wall Street type whose life revolves around the parties, the lunches & the women that make up his lifestyle. At first you are hit with the utter weirdness of this guy's mannerisms...no one would associate with this wacko in real life.

At first you figure "he's overplaying." Then, as you get deeper into the film, you realize what is going on here. This is not life in the real world. This is life inside this guy's head... it's his subconcious. You are never told this... you have to figure it out; none of the characters ever walks up to the screen and announces it. But, once you get it, the film is much more enjoyable and it finally begins to make a sort of bizarre sense.

For a genre that is too often too campy, too violent without cause, and too brainless, American Psycho is a breath of fresh air. It appears campy at first. It is violent, especially towards women. But it is not brainless.

Take the time to actually watch this movie and think about it. You'll see there's much more than meets the eye.

This film has the unfortunate distinction of being Laurel & Hardy's last film together. Though, it is true, you can see how ill Stan was and how age was ravishing both, it is NOT true that they had lost their charm. There are bits in this film that I found every bit as funny as those in the L&H heyday. Give it an honest try. I think you'll find this movie is unjustly maligned.

This recitation of the ongoing battle between the US Army and the various hostile Native American Tribes in the 19th Century is a decent overview of the period. It covers the campaigns of Sitting Bull, Cochece, Geronimo and many others. The real drawback of the film is it's reliance on a very limited number of period stills mixed with cheap public domain fiction film footage. The overall effect is tedious. Additionally, the film is straight narrative without any "expert" interviews or opinions to add color.

A good introduction to the period, but not one you'll watch over and over like a good documentary serial such as Ken Burns' Civil War or the World At War.

Rosemary's Baby was a shocker in 1968 when it was released. Recently screening the film with my wife, I see it still can impart a huge psychological impact today.

My wife did not find it particularly frightening. It is true, there are no CG demons flying around cutting people's heads off ala End of Days. It's from an age of film when people actually watched and thought about what was on the screen instead of just being wowed by eye-candy. As such, it calls upon the viewer to be drawn into Rosemary's plight and paranoia. And at this, it still succeeds.

I was struck by the fact that, even though there are some telltale signs of it's age (guys readily smoke around the pregnant Rosemary while handing her drinks, etc.), the film holds up so well and appears even today to be remarkably contemporary. The characters, so well acted, are timeless types of horror: The nosey old lady (Ruth Gordon) who eventually grows on you and, even after you find out what she's all about, you can't help but find her funny; the benign grandfatherly figure (Sidney Blackmer) and the trusted doctor (Ralph Bellemy) who surely wouldn't harm a fly; and the innocent Rosemary who becomes victim to a justified paranoia. At the end, my wife asked whether the second doctor (Charles Grodin) was "in" on the plot. That's the whole point in a nutshell... you never know.

Rosemary's Baby was a daring precursor to many films to follow including the Omen and The Exorcist. While those films use gallons of pea soup and shocking special effects, neither works so hard on your mind as this one. Unlike so many of it's contemporaries, Rosemary's Baby has aged well and can still chill! 8 out 10