Reviews

I started with this show, because of the initial premise, and I appreciate Keifer Sutherland.

While the story has been interesting, the political agenda of the writers and most actors and actresses, has been pretty obvious.

Wherever there has been a situation between a conservative and liberal (or, as they call themselves, moderate or independent), the conservative has wound up being wrong, and/or acquiescing to the "wisdom" of the moderate/liberal.

If there was a way (there is) to make the politics of the show more realistic, it would improve the quality of viewing.

Look at the underlying plot. The terrorists initially thought responsible for the attack are found to be innocent dupes. The actual miscreants are being shown to be conservative military & ex-military, supposedly bent on destroying our government, so as to rebuild it in their image.

An interesting angle, but current events shows the roles to be reversed.

It really makes no sense to keep remaking 80s movies that were excuses for eating popcorn the first time.

This movie was interesting in the execution of the action sequences. However, it had none of the story and exposition of the original. And it did not feel near as patriotic as the original.

One of the interesting points of the Swayze Dawn was how even the bad guys were fleshed out, to a point. You understood the conflicted feelings of the Cuban commander in the original. You knew the admiration and determination of the Russian commando in the original.

Robert's angst, loss and eventual rabid reaction to the invaders was clear in the original.

None of that was in this film. They even went to the point of comparing our patriots from the War of Independence, and the actions of the Wolverines, to the actions of the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hence Jed's comment that, "We're now the bad guys".

If you want to see Red Dawn, rent the original. This one leaves a lot to be desired.

This movie was Spielberg's lame attempt to recapture the so-called magic of E.T. Difference is, this time the alien was very ugly and mean.

Just like with E.T,, the children in this movie all talked like sailors. Considering the language that was used, this probably an insult to sailors.

Just like with most of Spielberg's movies, not a functional, normal family was in sight. Spielberg seems to believe that ALL children are like this. Of course, some are. However, not anywhere near as bad as he tends to portray them.

Taking away the cuteness of ET and replacing it with a blood-thirsty alien, as well as a stereotypical blood-thirsty military contingent, took away what little was good about E.T. It made this movie just a shell.

You wound up not caring about the creature, the children, heroes or the town itself.

E.T.! Please, go home for good.

a man-child to be exact, I enjoyed this movie. I thought it was SO COOL. However, I have since grown up. And since I have, I now realize just how big a pile of dung this movie really is. There is absolutely nothing redeeming about this thing.

First off, the acting was not exactly Oscar worthy - more like a cast-load of Razzie-worthy performances. None of the principle actors went on to do anything that came even close to noteworthy.

Wings Hauser, the bad guy of the piece, had only one role that was any good, that of a racist WWII Army Lt. in A Soldier's Story. From then he went on to eventually play a drunken former military person, who lives in a trailer and cares for his niece, on an episode of JAG. Now, I was a big fan of JAG, but that is hardly indicative of a stellar career.

Season Hubley's only claim to fame was about a 3-minute part as a scared women in Escape From New York. She was killed before we even got a good look at her face - and her husband was the star of the movie.

Then we have Re-Run as a sugar pimp and the unforgettable Nina Blackwood as a prostitute who was ravaged to death by Hauser's character. Other than her stint as an MTV VJ, can anyone tell me what else Nina did of note? Yeah! I couldn't either.

The rest of the cast list is peppered with names whose careers ended just a couple of years after this movie. Many have never been heard from again.

It is amazing how one's taste in movies can grow and refine as one gets older. I wish this was not such a stark and vivid reminder.

Why is it that those who have no idea what the people they portray, or write about, really think continue to thrive? They obviously don't write from experience. Ergo, with any role they play, or with any script, they are creating pure fiction.

What Carpenter was attempting to do is anyone's guess. However, to portray "pro-lifers" as gun-happy, violent maniacs is just too ridiculous for words.

I must assume that Carpenter was trying to ask some question like, "Would they be pro-life if the baby is the spawn of Satan?" He winds up asking, "How can I be so inept and still have so many think I am great?" Here is an idea for Hollywood: Why not have a conservative portray a conservative? Why not have a military person play a military person? Why not have a Christian portray a Christian? Oh yeah! That would leave no room for the propaganda.

I have just been amazed at all the pre-premiere hatred of this movie. After seeing the movie, I am even more amazed.

This is not Macbeth. It doesn't pretend to be written by Shakespeare or, for that case, even Faulkner. It is simply a comic book story, brought to the big screen. And it is well done.

Some things were a little rushed. Hector was killed off too early, and was a wasted character, as was Dr. Waller. Senator Hammond? mmeehh! Ryan Reynolds was good when he was being the goof ball trying to grow up. Chris Pine, would have been more well-rounded in the character. However, I think Reynolds could well grow into the role.

I am looking forward to the next installment, I want to see the continued development of the yellow ring/Sinestro storyline.

As for you troll haters: Grow up.

I knew a little about the story of this brave girl before I went to see the film. I didn't know as much as I thought I did.

The story behind this film is an excellent example of what can be accomplished when the human spirit is in line with the spirit of God, through Jesus Christ.

The Bible is not used as a sledgehammer in this film. Rather, it is apparent that the actions of all the principles are biblically-based, meaning that the teachings of God through the Bible were at the basis of their actions.

From the impression I've gotten, including the real life outtakes during the credits, this film is very true to what actually happened. That makes it even more inspirational.

We see a young girl who went from a comfortable life to tragedy, to growing more aware of the fallen world around her. This brought her back around to herself and her relationship with Jesus Christ. It took her out of the underlying pity she felt for herself and allowed her to grow beyond it.

I remember seeing this when it first came out. I was interested because, while I was in service at the time, off-duty I help run a disco music show at the NCO club in Germany. At the time, to my way of thinking then, I though it was a great movie. I loved the music.

Over the years, I would remember some few scenes from this film - Tony and the guys horsing around on the bridge, the death of Bobby when he fell off that same bridge, the dancing, and the scene of Donna Pescow's character coming up to Tony with all those condoms that she had pulled out of her purse - simply because she was so desperate to get done by Tony.

I just saw it again, over 30 years later. My goodness! I was a fool.

This movie was absolutely awful. Sure, there was a plot, but it was shallow, just like the characters. Pescow's character was nothing more than a slut. She was pathetic. To his credit, Tony said just that (in bluer language), but he wasn't much better.

It seemed that nobody could speak with foul language just spilling past their lips and into our ears - except for the fallen-away priest.

In retrospect, this film just reeks. It was, by no means, a milestone, except to shove filmdom down a slippery slope that it has yet to recover from.

...when IMDb lists the reviews of this movie by "Best" category and the most stars it gets is 3? After the "love interest" says "Jerrod?" and the credits roll, I honestly expected the MTV crew to jump out and yell "You just got punk'd!" This film aspires to be District 9. It can't even reach that level, it is just that bad.

Let's summarize: We have 5 people, none of whom has much depth to their lives, party and drop off drunk. They are awakened, just before dawn, by an alien invasion. Now, they must figure out how to keep out of reach of the aliens, deal with the pregnancy of one couple, the whoring of the other male lead and his assistant, and try to escape this supposedly rich condo (which actually looks like government housing), to get to the nearby marina and snatch a boat to head out to sea.

Really! That's the plan? As so many have stated before: No plot, little acting ability, no concern for the main characters.

And what do the aliens want? Why, they've escaped from a George Romero movie and want to suck your brains. That's it. That's what they're harvesting.

If this is what made it to the screen, what was left on the cutting room floor?

Your telling me that someone actually thought this would make a good movie? The time I spent watching this is time I can never get back. However, I can warn you and, hopefully, help you to avoid the same fate.

I must be honest, this movie probably would have been almost passable schlock, if not for the ending and plot twist. It was totally unbelievable (even for this genre).

The sub-story/back story had potential. However, it deteriorated quickly, when brought to the present.

The ending had no basis in logic, even within the realm of the movie, itself.

It was truly a waste of time on my part, and effort on the part of the cast and crew involved.

I happen to enjoy ABBA's music, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

If one was to judge ABBA's music by the deliveries in this movie, ABBA would get no more exposure. People would simply turn them off.

I can imagine that some people thought it was brilliant casting to have Miss Streep as the mother and, especially inspired to have Pierce Brosnan in. I'm sure it looked good on paper.

However, an idea is not always as good in the flesh as in the mind. Miss Streep had fun with this role. I'm glad that someone did. She will never be mistaken for a real singer, but she did hold her own, I guess.

Pierce Brosnan, on the other hand, was WAY out of his element in this one. Wow! Did it show?! As a singer, he makes a great James Bond. I can imagine someone figured that, since Brosnan is Irish, he could do the role. Not all Irish can sing a beautiful tenor - or even sing, for that matter.

The story itself was not all that hot, either. It is truly sad that this girl never knew who her father was, and even sadder that this was never resolved by the end of the film. The idea that her mother had no clue as to who was her daughter's father because she slept with all 3 candidates in such a short amount of time is not the food for comedy. It is fodder for tragedy, at least in the real world.

Miss Balanski seems fated to only play cougar-women. Type casting? At least she could sing and - to a point - dance.

Colin Firth got to play the requisite homosexual (Must there be one in every film?). However, I think this may be the one time that I can understand his character's decision to turn homosexual. After all he did sleep with Streep's character at one time.

The final tragedy was that the young couple, when it came to crunch time, decide to forego marriage and just sail off around the world.

How romantic! How wacked!

I remember when this event actually occurred. The same 2 storms that had them stranded, had kept my new wife and I from crossing over the mountains from California, enroute to Minnesota. I followed it on the news.

I was impressed by the strength of the parents, how they battled to survive, for themselves and their son.

Many reviewers have dissed Mr. Stropa for getting into trouble in the first place. I am glad that so many people have their own lives so together, and are so far removed from any of life's foibles that they are in a position to be so critical. However, for we mere humans, his error in judgment does not lessen his courage and strength.

It is sad that this type of life experience could not help to keep the Stropas together. They were obviously intended for each other.

...they bothered making this movie? Anyone? I didn't think so.

If you are looking for a coming-of-age movie, go rent Summer of '42. This is no Summer of '42.

When your big stars are Nolte & Sarsgaard, & Sarsgaard gets more screen time, that is your first warning sign And, of course, for such an "artsy" movie, there is plenty of cursing & skin flung around, just to make it look "artsy".

Sarsgaard did his usual uninteresting, cardboard character, punctuated by moments that were supposed to be intense. The intensity is that of someone with bi-polar disorder.

Miller is most famous for her looks & what she had to say about the city of Pittsburgh after this movie. Pittsburgh SHOULD hold a grudge against her. She misrepresented an actual Pittsburgh native.

Foster gave Sarsgaard a run for his money in the cardboard acting style. Wow! Was this his first role after high school graduation?

So, we have this weird triangle. Foster has a crush on Miller, but is with his boss/girlfriend. He can't take Miller to bed, & won't take his boss to bed. So, he hangs with Sarsgaard & Miller, & watches them get it on.

Then, after one of Sarsgaard's pseudo-intense moments, Foster & Miller get it on, a scene that we are "treated" to in every sloppy, moaning detail. Finally, just to round it all out, Foster & Sarsgaard get it on, with Foster in the Miller role. Now I know how 2 guys get it on (as if that was ever anything I needed to know).

After all that, all that's left is the tragic ending for one character & the retrospective views of the remaining 2. It gets me right in the pit of my stomach. Oh, wait! That was the pepperoni pizza I just had.

I'd like back the time this movie took out of my life, please.

I must commend the stark reality portrayed in this movie.

One has to remember that the Mormon church has always had shifting teachings, values & morals. Their stance, as portrayed for this time period, was that their "prophet" spoke directly from God (just as the Islamists claim that Mohammed spoke directly from their god, Allah). While there have been, and can be, those who prophesy what the Lord has given them, Christians have never created a whole religion around any of them. That is the key difference between Christianity & cults like the Mormons.

This movie shows the terrible rift between Mormons & actual Christians & how, when man is involved, such a rift can end in bloody tragedy. The mere fact that the LDS group moved with such deception against the wagon train is proof enough of the waywardness of their stance.

It is, indeed, a shame that one person was made the scapegoat of this whole affair, while his own father & the elders of their sect refuse to help him. Again, this is illustrative of the heart of this particular cult.

I commend the son who attempted to stop the massacre. Although unsuccessful, his attempt was honest & properly motivated. His disillusionment was his own, personal greatest tragedy.

...to find something to like about this movie. However, I came away from it realizing that it was just time that I would never get back. I can think of nothing good about this film.

Is Cuba good in this film? Maybe - as far as the role can go.

Is Helen any good in this film? She was just that - Helen Mirren - nothing special. Extremely low key.

How about Steven Dorff? Oh great! Another psychotic! And one that we get to see bang some cheapo slut. That's worth the admission (rolls eyes).

Levitt & Mo'nique? The only couple odder than Mirren & Gooding. I could almost believe Mirren & Gooding.

This film debases everybody in it. It debases us for even watching it. The nudity basically sums up to seeing a WHOLE lot more of Gooding than anybody needed, Dorff proving that he can have sex & immediately kill somebody (why need clothes for that?) & just the thought of Levitt & Mo'nique (Arrgh!).

Was the sex/murder scene in the garden supposed to be some kind of mood homage to Excalibur (which Helen was in)? I can hear the conversation now: "So, Cuba. We're going to have you having sex with this women 30 years older than you in a field. And then, while you're still in, you'll put a gun to her head & pull the trigger! And then, you bury her in the middle of the night, all the time naked as a jay bird.

And then we have the stereotyping of Macy Gray's role. Where was Jessie Jackson for that one?

All this doesn't even touch the warping of the young boy. By the end of the movie, he's seen his perceived father cleaning his weapon (in itself, not a bad thing), we are led to believe that he has some understanding of Mikey's "profession" and, finally, he gets to kill his real father. That look in his face at the end warns of a future serial killer well in the making.

Please, save yourself. Leave this "film" alone. Let it die. It won't be a dignified death but, at least it will die.

I fell upon this "documentary" strictly by accident. I wasn't too surprised that the work, which was supposed to show the abortion debate from "both sides", was decidedly slanted to the pro-abortion end of it.

Except for the wonderful story of how Minister Flip Benham, & his child, were used by God to bring Norma McCorvey out of her misery into hope, this film seemed to be fixated with the murders of 3 abortionists by fringe people who had affiliated themselves with the pro-life movement. As just 1 example, it doesn't even mention that John Salvi not only shot the people in the abortion mill, but also threatened the pro-lifers outside. However, we did get a wonderful reading of a scripted dissertation by the guard who exchanged fire with Salvi.

When going back & forth between the 2 sides, I noticed that the film maker continued to use lettered-people (professors & such) for the pro-abortion side, but failed to reciprocate for the pro-life side. Legitimate source such as Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist & partner of abortionist Bill Baird, was nowhere to be found to counterpoint Baird's presentation & to address the false assertion of the numbers of women who allegedly died due to using coat hangers to abort. Nathanson was a founding member of the North American Abortion Rights Action League (NAARAL), which is now the National Abortion Rights Action League(NARAL). He could have recounted how those figures were pulled out of thin air by the NAARAL group.

To be balanced, they could have shown at least one of the numerous families who have multiple adopted children, adopted with no regard as to culture (race). Instead many of the "pro-choice" side were allowed to continue with the canard that pro-lifers only cared about white children & didn't care about children at all after their birth. My wife & I would have gladly interviewed for this segment. Or, I could have put them in touch with at least 1/2 dozen other families who have done as we have done. That would have been presenting both sides.

I can only say that, as it was alleged that this would show both sides, I must assume that there will be a part 2, as this part didn't live up to the hype.

In this tale of a loyal government worker who is wrongfully accused of being an unacceptable security risk, we find several key elements for us to mull over.

Of course we have the hero, Bernie Goldsmith, a loyal, hard working, Naval civilian employee. He is wrongfully accused of being a Communist sympathizer.

Now, before I go further, I must make a major point. The Navy is not wrong in wanting to rid itself of someone whom circumstantial evidence shows might have sympathies toward a repressive government, dedicated to the downfall of our republic. The Navy is not wrong in investigating allegations it received about one of its employees, with access to sensitive data.

Where the Navy makes its biggest mistake is in the personnel it used to glean information. As the movie unfolds, it appears that at least one of the investigators it sent in to vet Mr. Goldsmith, did not report accurate information. It appeared that he may have even falsified statements alleged to have been made by some of the people quoted in said investigation.

The gentleman who precipitates this whole ordeal is revealed to be a bigot of the first magnitude. He hates everyone who is not white or Anglo-Saxon, as evidenced by his statement to legitimate Navy investigators later in the movie. Hence his dislike for Goldsmith.

Having worked in military intelligence for 6 years in the U.S. Army, I know that, as the facts are given in the time line of the movie, the Navy was justified in pulling Mr. Goldsmith's access to classified and sensitive information. To do otherwise would have been inexcusable.

By rights, the ideal last scene of this movie would have been the villain being brought up on charges for his false statements, under oath.

I think it is wonderful that, for the most part, the citizenry of the town, starting with the Christian pastor, supported Goldsmith in his efforts. It was only the warped view of a small group of people who brought this whole case about.

This is a fantastic movie! I just wanted to get that out of the way.

The detractors of this movie have missed several key points, points that, when added together, show the depth that Christian faith requires in your marriage, as well as the rest of your life.

Our hero was caught in an addiction to pornography that had already all but destroyed his marriage. By fulfilling his lust through pictures of naked women on the computer, he had cheapened his wife. He was telling her that she was not good enough for him. She was supposed to be his best friend, the one person that he could be more intimate with than anyone else in life. The physical acts of a husband and wife were cheapened by the porno. His wife was made to feel cheap, unloved. He had destroyed her trust.

By engaging in the 40-day challenge, he laid the groundwork necessary to prove to her that he had changed. He showed her that he was now her best friend, again. He showed her that she was loved and not just a piece of convenient meat.

The final evidence to her was when he decided to forego his dream of a boat and used the 24K that he had saved toward that end to purchase the necessary medical equipment for her mom. It wasn't the money that won her over, as the naysayers have suggested. Rather, it was the unselfish sacrifice that he made for her. Again, that spoke to her of his true love, a love that he received from Christ to share with her. He had made the decision to love her again. And love is a decision, not a feeling.

Cameron's decision to have his real-life wife substituted for his co-star in the restoration scene spoke of the actor's personal commitment to the Christian ideals that his character sought to embrace. A laudable decision.

This movie is a must see for any couple serious about restoring or improving their marriage. It is just as important for those couples planning to get married.

This past August, I began watching old episodes of House. I had avoided it because my wife & I are usually quite picky about what we watch. My wife had seen some past episodes from a 1st season DVD that someone had brought to her work. So, I figured I would check it out.

I found myself intrigued by the cases and amused with the lead character, Dr. Greg House. He seemed to have a personality only a mother could love, with much effort. However, my wife was fairly bemused as it appeared that I was starting to get hooked.

That is until the episode Thirteen. I guess it had to happen. There was a hole in the character quota. After all, they had the rascally curmudgeon (House), the loyal sidekick/friend (Wilson), the former ghetto child with a chip on his shoulder and brilliant in his field, a gorgeous team member who tried to rise above the fray, a good looking Aussie with an accent that the girls love, and a witchy boss, giving them a powerful woman character. Wait a minute! They missed one. Where is the resident and requisite female or male homosexual? How could we have missed that all these years? Well, that problem has now been "solved". They've just made Thirteen a lesbian/bisexual, and a slutty one at that, according to the Oct 21st episode.

It was bad enough when they had the lesbian "couple" who lost "their" baby during the newborn epidemic. Now, we have to be subjected to a recurring character in this role.

The problem is, up to this point, House has been an excellent, if somewhat flawed, series. I think that Hugh Laurie is brilliant as House. The Wilson character is the perfect foil/best friend. However, all this is not enough to overcome this new development with Thirteen (I know they probably addressed this about her before, but I most likely missed that episode).

It is too bad. I was really getting to like this show.

It's summer. It's time for a Will Smith blockbuster. Not this time.

Mr. July blew it.

This might have been a pretty decent movie. The acting was standard for this type of film. Even Jason Bateman was pretty good for his role, although a total surprise for casting. Charlize Theron is wonderful for the eyes while she is also a good actress. The ads were funny.

Then the dialogue started.

Alright, can someone tell me what is so funny about hearing the phrase "A**H*LE" all those times in one movie? That doesn't even count all the other offensive and foul language that ran throughout the movie. At least the phrase (Crazy!) that flipped Mary's switch was one you could say in mixed company! They couldn't even show one of the scenes from the movie for their commercials without reediting the dialogue. Remember the spot that has the neighborhood bully calling Hancock a "jerk"? Hancock gets up close and says "Call me a jerk just one more time!", which the child does. Hancock proceeds to throw him high into the air, getting more hang time than Isaiah Ryder ever did. When the boy comes back down, Hancock catches him. Remember that? Guess what! In the movie, it never happened that way. The bully never called Hancock a "jerk". He called him the ever-present "A**H*Le". They had to reedit the dialogue to make it presentable for TV. In the process, they lied to parents who might have decided not to expose their children to the language HAD THEY KNOWN IT WAS THROUGHOUT THE FILM.

Suffice it to say that the film was riddle with this, and even more offensive, language. It ruined this film for me and ensured that I will never show it to my children.