Reviews

I think that this was a fair execution of a interesting concept. As in all in all time travel movies the question of "What if?" is the heart of the movie. In Back to the Future, the question was "What if you meet your parents when they were teenagers and alter them falling in love?", In Time after Time, "What if Jack the Ripper stole HG Wells' machine and escaped ?", and so forth. In The Final Countdown, the "What if?" is, What if a 1979 air-craft carrier, fully armored, mysteriously found itself transported to Dec 6, 1941, intercepting the Japanese fleet headed for Pearl Harbor? Lets look at the good and the bad.

The Good.

First and foremost, the concept alone is the best thing going for this flick. The discussions about what to do are very well written and the unavoidable consequences for altering the past are played out very well. The acting is adequate but i really found Martin Sheen and Chales Durring to be the most convincing.

The Bad.

Despite a great idea and decent acting the movie shoots itself in the foot by not going all the way. The entire premise is that this lone carrier is sent back in time to intercept and defeat the attack on Pearl Harbor. The captain and the crew decide to do that very thing and just before they are about to attack they are thrown back to the future. It is such a major cop-out for the movie. I would have loved to have seen the ramifications of stopping the attack. Now i know that changing the past would be the wrong thing to do in most time travel movies. But, in this movie, Time itself is granting this opportunity. If the movie had let the carrier attack the Japanese fleet and then transported them back to the future leaving the open question, What will they find?, it would have been a great change. It is because of the cheap cop-out that really dismantles this film from something special to mere mediocrity.

All in all, if you like time travel movies, its worth a glance but be prepared for a very weak pay-off at the end.

I am torn right down the middle with this big screen adaptation of That Championship Season. So let me divide the good and the bad.

THE GOOD: The cast, for the most part, is really impressive and give strong performances. Exspecially Paul Sorvino, Stacy Keatch, and Bruce Dern. They make the most out of their characters and i was very impressed by the way they approached them. Additionally, the dialouge is captivating and there are a number of powerhouse scenes that really capture the essence of this story.

THE BAD: I hate to say it but you can really see the poor production value of this movie, which is the Hallmark of Golan-Globus, and Jason Miller who wrote the original play and directs as well, just doesn't have the knack for excecuting a full length feature film. Maybe the biggest flaw is the fact that this is a Brilliant play that just doesn't make it as a movie. It happens, not every play makes a great movie. All of this culminates in really handicapping the movie.

All in all, i just think its a fair version of a marvelous play.

The problem with both this 1999 version and the 1982 version of That Championship Season is that they both suffer badly when transfered to the big or even little screen. This is a fantastic play but is at best when it is put on where it belongs, on stage in front of an audience. Paul Sorvino not only graduates from playing Phil Romano on Broadway and in the 82 version but in this 1999 version he is both the coach and director. While he gives a brilliant performance as the coach, much better than Robert Mitchem did, he doesn't have the directing chops needed for this ambitious endeavor. As for the rest of the cast, only Gary Sinise, equals Sorvino in the acting calibur. Not that the others don't try but it seems insignificant in comparison to the two. I think the writers, Jason Miller, second attempt at making this into a movie is certainly an improvement but still feels out of place off the stage. Still, give it a look.

This is a prime example of one of those extremely fair/mediocre films that comes on late night TV sometimes that i just cant not watch at least a little of. Don't get me wrong its far from a perfect film, heck, its far from a good film but i just find elements of it fun to watch. Robin Williams and Walter Matthau are two, for very interesting reasons, recently out of people that get mixed up together when the diner that they are both at gets robbed by Jerry Reed. From that the movie proceeds to tell the tale of these "Survivors". As i stated before the plot is extremely week and the pay-off is sub-standard but there are definite funny lines and scenes. Here are some examples.

"I place a high value on human life...20,000 dollars minimum."

"Blasphmy! You will smoke a turd in hell for that!"

"I left my green card in my other pants."

In conclusion, give this movie a try. But don't expect greatness.

I recently caught this movie on you tube and must have blocked it out of my mind for the last 27 years. WHAT A CORNBALL, CHEESY, CONTRIVED PIECE OF DOO-DOO!!! This wasn't a B-movie this was a Z-movie! Who in the name of all that is holy produced, directed and wrote this cinematic suppository? Not to mention the horrific acting that i am sure nobody would even dare put this on their resume, especially Van-Dame who's acting was so bad in this movie it makes his turn in "Cyborg" look Oscar worthy. You know a movie is beyond redemption when they not only have a uber hokey title like "No Retreat, No Surrender" but has an actor shouting it throughout the movie. I swear, every time that line was uttered, i could feel the bile rising up from my stomach. Do yourself a MAJOR favor and avoid this movie like the freaking plague.

I never watched this show until just recently on You Tube. I wanted to be fair and give it a real chance before jumping on the band wagon of denouncing this series as one of the worst spin-offs in TV history. After watching a number of episodes with an open mind i am ready to conclude that this series was not one of the worst spin-offs in TV history, it was THE worst spin-off in TV history. Set shortly after the end of the Korean Conflict. Potter, Klinger and Mulcahy are back in the states working at a VA hospital. After some preliminary introductions to Mrs. Potter and the new cast, the show desperately tries every bell and whistle it can to engage the audience but leaves you missing the good old 4077 in the original series all the more. I don't blame the cast. Morgan, Farr, and Christoper did the best they could but i am convinced that nobody had a clue how to develop this series properly. The scripts were vague and contrived and rarely held your attention. The reason I think it is so horrible is because of the height it fell from. Fair or not, to bear any resemblance, let alone half a title, of a legendary TV show and to come up this short is nothing short of insulting. What were the producers thinking?

The history of the TV spin-off has been a curious one. For every successful spin-off you get an utter failure. For example, "All in the family" gave birth to "The Jeffersons" but also spawned the disastrous "Gloria". "Cheers" spun off "Frasier" but "M*A*S*H" vomited out "After M*A*S*H". Usually the reason for the spin-off's demise is that the few characters, or single character, transplanted is unable to sustain the formula that made the original show work. When Kelsey Grammar took his Frasier character to his own show, it worked because his character was strong enough to become the center and not depend on others for support. "Joey" was doomed because "Friends" was a total ensemble show that depended on the six actors playing off one another. Taking one character out to fend for himself utterly doomed this show's chances. I think the producers and ex specially Matt LeBlanc were completely unwilling to take a hard look at what they were trying to accomplish.

Oh how these people got it so wrong. I, along with my friends, played Kindred The Embraced and enjoy the escapism of the make believe world of vampires. When the series came out we were all excited and couldn't wait to see how this would be done. Trust me, we could have waited.

I could point out massive creative errors and flat out ridiculous decisions that were made, like the fact that the ghastly horrific looking "Nosferatu" clan were not even attempted to be made up to look terrifying. No they all looked like rejects from the curly stooge fan club. I think the biggest mistake was trying to pass this thing off as a melding of Gothic horror and cheesy soap opera level scripts. I can only equate it to the "twilight" series way of ruining the vampiric legend.

Easy to see how this disaster never got past its first season.

I really liked this movie! It could have been a really cheesy movie about kids wanting to make it big in show business so they learn all about it at a special school. That would have been disastrous. What makes FAME work is that you do have aspiring actors, singers, and dancers wanting success and dreaming big but they are given a hard wake up call about the rigerous demands that fame costs. Plus, what sets this film up is the fact that real life delimas hit these kids SUPER HARD. You don't get milk toast problems like bad acne or boyfriend trouble, you got exploitation, abortion, illiteracy and a genuine fear of being inadequate. There is not a single bad performance in this movie and that is saying something considering the unknown, at the time cast. As Debbie Allen said in the this movie and in the TV show, "You got big dreams, you want fame, well fame costs! And right here is where you start paying, in sweat!."

Man, watching this tripe filled remake of the vastly superior 1980 version of "Fame" made me want to just abandon this disaster and break out the older flick. To be fair, at least they didn't just rip off the old characters and story lines and transplant them over. On the hand, considering what we are left with here, maybe they should have. Despite the acting caliber of Grammar,Newerth, and Dutton, it still suffers from a bad TV movie script. Were is the gritty realism of the 1980 film? I know they wanted to keep this version a PG, but that just destroyed all the things that made the original work. This lame, tame, tepid remake just makes you walk away with a curse on your lips. What a lousy film.

Let me cut to the chase and say the best thing about this sequel was in the top notch casting. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto were completely convincing as the younger Kirk and Spock. Each not only looked the parts but must have done extensive research on the mannerisms and quirks of the older counterparts. Simon Peg gives a delightful impersonation of Chief engineer Montgomery "Scotty" Scott. I have to give the highest praise to Karl Uban who looked, sounded and for all accounts was the incarnation of Deforest Kelly's Doctor Mcoy. Man, when he was on the screen i was totally sold. The only problem with this movie, ironically, is the plot. It seems so ambiguous and lack luster that it just seems to be there to give the cast something to do. The villain is uninteresting as well. To be completely honest i was just captivated by each of the new cast members take on the familiar old cast members. I just hope when they make more sequels with this cast, and trust me they will, they will put a lot more thought into the plot. Now that we know the new cast can do the job, give them a worthy script.

I thought i knew exactly what to expect going in to see this movie. I knew it was about the life of the horribly disfigured "Elephant Man". I knew it would be sad and very depressing and hard to take at times. I thought i was prepared, i was wrong. This movie hit me so hard that i cried throughout the whole film. My tears all represented my emotions for this film, tears of sorrow, anger, despair and finally as the movie reached its climatic end, tears of hope. Despite being buried under massive amounts of impeccable make-up. John Hurt was able to represent the inner humanity of John Merick. It is truly a credit to his talent to be able to convey genuine feeling through that make-up. Everybody quotes his "I am not an animal line" but the line that just rips you apart inside is when he shows a picture of his mother and says "I tried to be good for her", revealing how she rejected him. If your not moved by that scene, go out and buy yourself a conscience. See this movie!

Ugh. Just thinking about this movie makes my stomach churn. This has got to be one of the lamest excuses for a movie franchise sequel that I have ever scene. This fourth installment of the "Karate Kid" movies is so bad it makes "Police Acadamy 4" look like an Oscar contender. I know at the time Hillary Swank was just starting out and had to take whatever she could get as an actress, so she has a somewhat valid excuse. However, Pat Morita should have given more thought about this script before signing on. After all the character of "Myagi" was the best of his career and he should have been more protective of this beloved character. I think where this movie suffers the most is just in the lame writing. The story is just so out to lunch and feels so amateurish that you cant wonder who were the hacks brought in to write it? Give you an example, the scene where Swank firsts meets Myagi. Swanks supposed guardian or maybe it was her grandmother, cant remember, tries to introduce them. She walks away in a huff and says "My name is Julie and I came here to live because my mother was killed in a traffic accident 6 months ago." I mean wow. It was so blatantly absurd. Talk about having a plot point thrown in your face and dangled. My jaw dropped to floor after hearing that and the movie just goes down hill from there. Skip this movie.....skip, skip skip.

I have had a love affair with this musical movie for over 35 years. Although it came out the year I was born, i saw it for the first time when i was about 5 and even though i was too young to understand a lot of it, i felt a connection with the story, the characters and exspecialy the music. As I got older the movie just kept getting better and i never tired, and still don't, of this masterpiece of cinema. This is not just a "Jewish" movie, everyone can identify the story and love it. "Topol" as the poor milkman with five daughters, embodies the part to perfection. He has not only the singing chops but the demeanor and quick wit of the character. The other cast members are fantastic as well, ex specially "Leonard Frye" as Motel the tailor. Oh and what music! I dare anybody to watch this movie and not walk away from it humming at least a few of the tunes. My personal favorites are "If i were a rich man" and "Sunrise and Sunset". Movie musicals of recent years have been hit and miss. For example "Chicago" was great but "Mama Mia" was schlock, pure and simple. "Fiddler" is legendary! See it!

Well, for openers, I am amazed that this movie got such a mediocre rating. This is one of the most poignant dramas about despair and emptiness that i have ever seen. I know the focus is on a person who is in prison for life trying to find some meaning for going on and channeling that fever into acting it out in plays. But, i began to sense that this movie was speaking about every person out there that is "doing time" in their own respective lives and feeling like they have nothing to shoot for or any direction to go. If you watch this movie you see that these ex-cons are still struggling with the shackles of prison life, even when they are no longer there. As one of them observes "you hear stories of guys actually wanting to go back. The brotherhood of the doomed." This kinda struck me as a metaphor about peoples lives and how even when they get a chance to break free, they feel the pull to go back to the groove they are so accustomed to. Now that i have given my philosophical two cents, let me talk about the movie in more detail. "Weeds" is a compelling tale about how a bunch of misfit ex-cons are trying to strive for a better life by telling the world, through performing plays, what it feels like to be in prison. Nick Nolte gives a top notch performance as the leader of the troupe that needs, not just wants, to express himself through the stage. The other actors, Lane Smith and Joe Montanea, give compelling support, ex specially William Forsthye who plays a two-bit shoplifter that has found a new life in the theatre. I think the musical numbers add a serial quality that uplifts this movie to new heights and the direction is quite good in telling this story. Overall its not the best movie ever made but it certainly is a well crafted one.

When it comes to "Transformers" movies, now we are talking! After the disastrous handling of the live action Transformers movies, all thanks to the schlockiest director working in Hollywood, Michael Bay, my faith in the franchise was severely tested. But going back and watching this 1986 cartoon movie, reaffirmed my faith in the Transformers. This movie rocks! The animation is crisp and first rate, the story is engrossing, the directing is spot on, and as for the voice cast...WHOA! Who was the casting genius that complied this elite group of actors! Think about it you have Leonard Nimoy, Robert Stack, Judd Hirsh, and if thats not enough to be able to wrangle non other than Orson Wells! First time I saw the credits, my jaw must have dropped through the floor. What really surprised me about this film was how much guts it had. I mean this movie didn't play around, when it came to violence. These robots not only got hurt they got dead. It blew me away how one by one these characters where slaughtering each other. Now, I know people complain that this was a gimmick to get kids to by the newly introduced Transformers by killing off the old ones. Maybe they have a point but I still have to commend the filmmakers for showing that in a war, even robots, get killed. Of course the death of Optimus Prime is heartbreaking to this day but he went out in a blaze of glory. The only thing that prevents me from giving this movie 10/10 is kind of a pet peeve. This may sound nit-picky but i cant help it. Unicron is supposed to be the size of a giant planet. They show him attacking worlds and devouring them. Yet the proportions are all wrong when he deals with the Autobots and Decepticons. Think about it. If this thing is as big as say our own world, the Transformers would be microscopic in comparison. Yet here they are inside Unicron and looking like kenner dolls on his shoulders. Furthermore, when they drive out of his body through one of his eyes they make it seem like they just smashed through a glass wall. If this thing is the size of a planet it would be like a trillion sized micro-germ slamming through your eyeball and knocking it out. Just ain't gonna happen. Aside from that, Fantastic Film!

This was an exceptionally well crafted historical drama. The set and costumes add immensely to the atmospheric mood of pre-WW2 England. The direction is crisp and through to detail. Best of all is the superb cast of Helen Bohnam Carter and Jeffery Rush as the Queen and Tutor of the stammering and shy King. However the one person that made this movie soar above the clouds without a doubt was Colin Firth as the king that wanted to be just a man. I have always been impressed by Colin Firth. Through the years his career has grown at a gradual pace displaying his great acting chops in such films as Conspiracy, Bridget Jones Diary, and other great films. In this movie, I think Firth has reached his zenith of excellence. He will always be a top notch actor and will give strong performances. But, I must say that it be very difficult to top his performance here. Watching Firth, nervously stammer through his torturous king's speeches made you feel as if you were seeing the real historical king George going through his ordeal. His performance won him a richly deserved Oscar and massive critical acclaim. See this movie!

I am not ashamed to say it. This may very well be Quentin Tarentino's very own Citizen Kane. This is LEGENDARY film making of the highest caliber. I have sat through this movie countless times and never have gotten board by it. In fact, I always seem to find and appreciate a new aspect when i watch it. I don't even know where to begin when it comes to praising this film. Directing, writing, acting, cinematography, are all flawless and beyond reproach. I really dig the style and mood this film generates and absolutely love the dialog. Tarentino and Roger Avery wrote a script so insightful and intriguing that even mundane topics like "Fast food in Europe" or "The merits of bacon" are impossible to ignore. These guys could make reading a tax audit engrossing! Along with the script, i have to re-credit Tarentino's direction. I am convinced that in anybody Else's hand this would not have been nearly as great a film. They camera angles the scene shots and oh yes, the editing, are so innovative that they are beyond words. The cast. John Travolta gave, i think, his best performance ever as the drug addict hit-man Vincent Vega. Samuel L. Jackson, who is brilliant in any performance, brings out new dimensions in acting excellence here as Jules Winfield. Uma Thurman is breathtaking as Mia Wallace, the coke head who does drugs because her life is so superficial she thinks she cant feel anything without them. Bruce Willis, as boxer Butch Coolage, commands the screen with a reserved but seething intensity. Havey Keitel has a great scene stealing moment as the problem solving expert Mr. Wolf. I could go on and on but you will not find one week performance from anyone in this movie.

How this movie did not win best picture in 1994, instead losing to "Forrest Gump" is way beyond me. Don't get me wrong, Gump was a good movie but to me, it couldn't hold a candle to Fiction.

There is so much to like about this movie. The premise about humans with the ability to link their nervous system with other nervous systems, and influence them in various and often gruesome ways, was a bold and fresh approach to the whole "Psych" movie concept. This gave a plausible way to deal with telepathy and other psychic beliefs without leaving massive questions about how this could work. The way the movie explains it was an unexpected side effect of a new Introuterine drug called "Ephemeral" that produced a generation of "Scanners" really help sell this movie. I know its still fiction, but you have to admit that that when a movie takes you along for a far fetched ride they can either do it right or do it wrong. This movie did it right. The cast is very good. Exspecially, venerable actor Patrick McGoohan as Dr. Ruth and quintessential movie villain Michael Ironside as Revok. They both bring great intensity to their respecitve rolls. Also, the special effects are top notch, for there time, in particular the ending showdown of scanner vs scanner. Now for what when wrong. Despite all the high praise i give this movie it is far from being perfect. If I had to pick the single biggest problem, it would have to be the pacing of the story. There are far too many long dry spells between really good and intense scenes. Its like the scripts gets all reved up for a brief time and they almost stops for and extended amount of time. I think they should have rewritten the middle of the story and tried to make more of an arch. You don't have to have action every five minutes but you should try to keep the tempo at a steady pace to hold the audiences interest. All in all give this movie a chance and you may see what I am getting at.

Let me say right off the bat, that if you never went to a summer camp, and I mean a real summer camp not just a YMCA day camp or some lame excuse like that, but a real couple of weeks out in the wilderness camp, you will not enjoy this movie half as much as you could have. People that don't like this movie are people that either never went or really appreciated the wonder of summer camp. Being a long time former camper/staff member of a camp I identified countless times with the nostalgic aspect of this film. This cast is top notch but I have to give kudos to Alan Arkin as the old and wise camp director "Uncle Lou" who dedicated over 40 years of his life to the running of this camp. When he waxes nostalgia over his experiences I cant help but get a cozy and warm feeling. His goal in the movie is to invite his long time favorite campers, now middle aged adults, up for one last visit. He is trying to see if any of them will take over the camp. I wont say to whom but he has the best sales pitch line, "The camp is not worth any money, but if you hit it right, its one hell of a life." Sheer poetry. This is not a perfect movie and some scenes are a little overly preachy and pious. Like the whole reason behind why the one former camper hid Uncle Lou's boxing trophy all those years ago and now is going to return it to him. Also the whole marriage in crisis and lover spats add to up to very little. Aside from that the best part of the movie is just the reminiscing and rediscovering of camp life. Give this movie a shot. Its worth it!

This is such a powerful family drama. I have watched over and over again and I am amazed at how many pitfalls this movie could have fallen into but managed to avoid. The plot involves a family coping with the aftermath of the elder son's death from a boating accident and the grief stricken younger brothers suicide attempt because of it. This movie could have been handled poorly by giving into melodramatic clichés but doesn't for two reasons. First, the masterful direction of Robert Redford and secondly and more importantly, three principal actors at the top of their game. I will celebrate them each individually.

Donald Sutherland. Plays Calvin the patriarch of the this upper middle income family who desperately wants to keep his dissolving family together but doesn't know where to even begin. Despite his vigilance he always seems to be the last to realize what the others are all too aware of. He has an epiphany speech at the end of this movie that is so moving and sad you cant help but sympathize with the man.

Mary Tyler Moore. The wife and mother that seems to have everything under control on the surface but is just using that as a facade to mask how unable she is to show any genuine affection for her remaining son. This is due to the fact that she had invested all of her love and feeling into the older son that died. Moore is flawless in her delivery of this empty shell middle aged woman that has nothing left inside to give to anyone.

Timothy Hutton. I saved the best for last. Hutton's performance as the guilt ridden and shattered remaining son, Conrad, is truly one of the best performances I have ever scene. He doesn't come off as overly morose or pitiful but as someone that just wants to be let of the hook from his brothers demise. He feels that his having survived went against the natural order. That his bother was the obvious favorite and therefore he should have been the one to drown. A lesser actor could have easily overplayed this with false sentimentality but Hutton brings far more to the table. He doent just break down into tears every scene but has a wide range of emotions to explore as he sorts out this terrible ordeal.

I don't want to neglect the other actors like Elizabeth McGovern and especially Judd Hirsh as Conrad's psychiatrist, Berger. They bring a great deal to the movie as well. All and all see this movie. It will not disappoint.

Rob Reiner's "The Princess Bride" is about as close to perfection as any movie I have ever scene. Believe me I RARELY give 10 out of 10 stars to a movie and when I do it has to not only be superb but withstand the test of time. Its been almost 25 years and this movie has never lost a step in its brilliance. The story is completely captivating the locations are breathtaking and the array of emotions that this movie evokes from the audience is sheer perfection. You laugh, you cry, you cheer, and you smile. You couldn't ask for a better cast. Robin Wright Penn and Cary Elwes are top notch. Wallace Shawn is hilarious as the bandit leader Fezig. Andre the giant is such a sweet and gentle soul and Mandy Patinkin is nothing short of miraculous in his performance. Even the cameos in this film are priceless. Billy Chrystal and Carol Kane are so great as "Miracle Max and his wife Valarie" they could have there own sequel. A very young Fred Savage and the always entertaining Peter Falk have tremendously funny and touching scenes as the Grandparent and Grandson. I could go on and on. If you have never scene this movie do yourself a HUGE favor and rent it.

I dig this film! You see i am one the kind of ilk that loves HEAVY doses of blood and guts in my horror movie diet. The bloodier and grosser the better, i always say! In this third installment of the George A. Romero trilogy we are treated to a virtual shmogasborg of gut busting, blood splattering, bone crunching mayhem. To be truthful it is the gore effects, done by the sultan of splats himself Tom Savini, that are the real star of this movie. Not that the story isn't interesting and the characters give insightful, albeit long winded, speeches. But once the Zombies go to town on the hapless humans and literally rip them a new one. You cant help but stand in awe of what you are witnessing. It doesn't surprise me when people are put off by the effects. It is definitely not for the squeamish. However I think that is nothing short of artwork when you see gore effects of this caliber. It takes real talent and Savini should be praised for his work in this film. I think he won a Saturn award for the effects and man did he ever earn it!

I love Billy Chrystal's movies, usually, and even the lesser ones make me smile. This movie is no exception but I really think it could have been better than what was presented here. Billy plays Buddy Young Jr, a long time comedic veteran who despite numerous close calls, never achieved stardom. He is accompanied through life through his weather beaten but devoted brother Stan, that acts as his manager. Its clear from the beginning that Buddy is self absorbed about himself and making it to the top. The two bicker and banter back and forth as stan wants to retire and Buddy wants to keep going. This is the best part of Mr. Saturday Night. The relationship between the two brothers. David Paymer is very convincing and extremely well cast as Stan. Frankly, when the two are together the movie is at its best but when Buddy is alone with others trying to salvage his career its a definite let down. Not that some of the scenes are not funny in there on right, but the movie needs the two brothers more. I think if they had centered the entire movie on just the two of them this would get a much Higher rating from me. Maybe if the whole movie had centered on the scene at the restaurant with Chrystal and Paymer reminiscing about the past ups and downs and near successes, it would have been more cohesive. Like remember when they talk about Buddy's blowing his chance on the Ed Sullivan show all those years ago and a fuming Buddy says "Look who you put me on after!". That "after" being the Beatles! LOL! If they had made the whole movie that way, well who knows.

This movie is a travesty! I mean they take the subject of near death experiences and make it seem that everyone who has ever died, briefly, has either gone to the Christian heaven or Christian hell with absolutely no other option available. The fact is that when people have had near death experiences they all have different versions of what they saw. It was almost never heaven or hell based on their religious beliefs. They saw things like long lost loved ones or bright lights or any other number or phenomenon. To be fair there are those that have had bad after death experiences of terror and pain. However, I submit to you that if their is only one Christian heaven and hell after we die, then every near death experience would be like what was depicted in this movie, without exception. The fact is they are not black and white. Furthermore, one scene in particular made my blood boil. The doctor is interviewing a blind, from birth mind you, person who had a near death experience and saw heaven and an angel telling her to go back to earth because it wasn't her time. Even if this is based on a real blind person who said this, you have to realize that if she had been blind since birth she wouldn't understand what she saw. She testifies to seeing colors and such but it has been medically proved that a person born blind that suddenly gets their vision back is still "mentaly blind" and wouldn't understand or comprehend what they are seeing. This leads me to believe that its more likely that they made up this woman's story, or at least exaggerated it, for artistic license. All and all don't waste your time on this biased Christina propaganda.