Reviews

I agree... Shatner has really found a calling as an interviewer. He asks questions, but he will use personal experiences and draw his questions from them. And oddly enough for someone who is reputed to have a big ego, even those moments do not come off as displaying self-importance. They act as insight as to where his brain is in forming the questions he is asking.

I hope that made sense.

This documentary was really insightful into the people we have watched over the years as they sat in the captain's chair, the trials and joys they went through and how they got there in the first place.

Great for any Star Trek fan.

Great for anyone who enjoys a good interview.

I finally watched this (10 years after the fact) and now I wonder why I waited so long. I got the chance to show "Ace Ventura" to my hubby last week, after which we talked about how Jim Carrey's career has gone and how often he has had to redo the same stuff. The conversation brought this movie to mind and, thanks to Netflix, now I can be satisfied - Jim Carrey is truly the actor I was hoping he is. I caught glimpses in "Liar, Liar", but it wasn't enough to let me see what I really wanted. "The Truman Show" was also really close. But "The Majestic" was my chance to see Jim Carrey really act, not just clown around. There was no sign of any previous characters, just Jim Carrey being an honest, down-to-earth kind of guy. Even in the lighthearted scenes, it was just Jim being light-hearted, not maniacal or ridiculous. I enjoyed his warm, generous and enjoyable performance... This is the man I want to see more of!

TCM ran all but 2 of the Hardy Family movies a couple of weeks ago and, thank heavens for my DVR, I was able to watch them all and just finished up the series.

Watching Mickey Rooney "grow up" was wonderful; the turn around, I think, being in "Andy Hardy Gets Spring Fever", and even more so in "Life Begins For Andy Hardy"; those two films in particular in the series contained some great character development for Andy and I loved seeing how Mickey Rooney handled it. And Andy Hardy Comes Home was a good conclusion.

I found that I didn't need to know the back story of how Andy met Jane or ended up in California; I enjoyed seeing the little bits and tributes to the earlier movies (Andy tossing his hat onto the peg, the clips of the girls, even the "Carvel Hi" banner in his bedroom) and Andy going in to his father's study when he needed to think... I got teary eyed seeing the portrait of Lewis Stone over the fireplace.

Because I was able to watch the movies so close together, I was able to notice little things that they missed in the continuity: the picture of "Betsy Booth" was different from the one Andy was originally given (see Andy Hardy Meets Debutant), and the front door of the house opened on the opposite side (see Love Laughs At Andy Hardy when he gets locked out of the house), but even that was fun to see. I found this to be a good place to end the series.

To see Andy taking on his father's mantel, literally, was very satisfying. Andy is no longer the skittish young boy/man that the audiences grew up with, but then, we all grow older and are not the same people we were in our youth.

I was glad to see that Andy Hardy came home!

I was in 4th grade when our teacher read this story to us, one chapter at a time after lunch. It was a wonderful book that I read many times over.

This movie makes the third adaptation I've seen and while it certainly surpasses the 1987 version (the first version I ever saw and BOY was I disappointed!!), it isn't, IMHO, as faithful as the 1993 version.

I was skeptical that Margaret O'Brien could be as sour as Mary Lennox is written, but she did very well - just another side of her talent I hadn't seen before. But honestly, she was the only standout. Maybe, as someone else posted above, this version is dated, but the over-exaggeration of the emotions was so unnecessary. And all the extra dialog with Dr. Fortesque... I guess they had to give a reason for Mr. Craven to go out into the garden one last time.

A good movie to watch on a rainy Saturday afternoon, perhaps, but if you really want to know the story, watch the 1993 version instead. Or better yet, read the book!

I saw this one in the theater when it was released and still love it! This is the perfect example of a "Classic Family Movie". The harshest word you hear is "damn". The performances are wonderful to watch from the entire cast (Jodie Foster may be the weakest of them all, but just my opinion), the music fits beautifully (thanks to the Sherman brothers) and the settings make me feel the era. An enjoyable way to spend a Saturday afternoon. And to the reviewer who commented on Celeste Holm's "attempt" to sing - check her resume, my friend. Everyone who knows her work (see "High Society" or the 1965 version of "Cinderella", or just listen to the Original Broadway Cast recording of "Oklahoma!") knows she CAN!

I just came home from the movie, having planned since last fall to be there on opening day with my daughter and her friend. The girls loved it. Maybe I'm getting old, but... First, I was not happy with the set and scenery changes - mind you, I specified "changes"; the look was quite good, but not what had been set up before. The look and layout of Hogwarts was already set. Why change continuity? Second, the storyline felt more "chopped up". I grant you that the third book is longer than the first two, but I really felt that more could have been done to maintain the integrity of the book. Third, it felt like the adults were hardly used at all, except Robbie Coltrane, and it seemed that he was only given the extra time because of the hippogriff that was so integral to the end of the story. No sign of Madam Pomfrey, Madam Hooch (and not much Quidditch either!), Sir Nicholas, Professor Sprout, or Professor Flitwick (although Warwick Davis did have a roll in this one as an unnamed professor). The Fat Lady has been changed. Maggie Smith, Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman were sorely underused. Michael Gambon will just have to take some getting used to (my vote was for Richard Attenborough), and I agree with the reviewer who, like I, didn't like the change in the backstory of Lupin, Lily and James. Did I like any of it? Yes, I did. There *was* an overall darker feeling that seemed to give the feeling of darker days ahead for Harry and his friends; a little more on the mature side, which is probably what my daughter and her friend liked about it. (And didn't you love seeing Malfoy get decked??). The kids are growing up, and with maturity will come more responsibility, and more serious times. See it if you wish to keep up with things, but be prepared for the changes.

I was SO hooked on this music, and especially the original concept album, when I was growing up. I could sing (or hum on the instrumental parts) the entire score. I also grew up in various churches and never thought much about the "theology" that the story relates.

But now I know more about who Jesus was and why He lived on this planet. I have a better understanding of His actions and words and the kind of relationship I can have with Him (i.e.: I am "saved"). I am also a mother of teenagers that enjoy all sorts of movies and I have been contemplating whether or not to let them see this one. But I've realized that this movie can be used to open discussion with my teens about what is portrayed and how it fits in with the way they are being raised in terms of family beliefs. We all meet people every week who have different views, opinions and interpretations of The Bible and why Jesus was here. After watching this movie, my teens and I will talk about how the characters were portrayed and how they agree or disagree with what is in our Bible.

Our Heavenly Father has a reason for everything on this earth, even this movie. If you enjoy it for the music, as I always have and always will, then enjoy it! If you are a Christian who feels it is "wrong", then use it as a tool to open a dialogue and explain to family and friends about your convictions. Just think of 2nd Timothy 2:20.

I saw this one in the theater when it was released and enjoyed it thoroughly as a kid. In the mid 80's, with the advent of cable and home satellite dishes, I was able to watch it again as a teen. Now as a mother of three, I see it as a parent...

I don't see what is merited in all the glowing comments.

I understand that this is a children's movie, made for children with them in mind, so little things like the Sheriff of Nottingham sounding like he hails from Alabama shouldn't be a big deal. I'll let the country music and dialects slide in a time period when there was no "New World".

The actors - Robin Hood was very well done. Of course Disney can Never go wrong with Phil Harris and Peter Ustinov was impeccable.

The animation - What was wrong with the animators when they were unable to create new drawings for the opening credits? Everything except the shots of Alan A Dale were taken from the actual movie itself. I don't recall any Disney movie having done that before or since.

Ever since I saw it again from a more mature perspective, this movie has always felt that, back in 1973, the Disney studios were on their last leg, artistically. What a shame it would be that 16 years would pass before they could recapture the magic they once had.

Michael Nesmith was ahead of his time.

Beginning with Rodan, all the way through the final song, Elephant Parts is comprised of "Nez" and his friends stealing shots where they have to and having fun all along the way. There are too many good comedic shorts to list, but if you have an hour to spare, go rent this and give it a watch. Good music - Great laughs!

And no, that is NOT Terry "Hulk" Hogan. The actor's name is Steve Strong.

I saw this when it first was released on video, and now, 5 years later, got to watch it again from a different perspective.

Character development - there's not much with the exception of Josh.

Plot - sort of vague, it goes from one situation to the next with aside comments and monologues spliced together and thrown in just for fun and transition.

So what is it about? Very simply put - the differences between men and women and how difficult they can be to understand.

Why this title? No clue. But it sort of makes sense; how many people over the years have understood that Steve Miller was saying "the pompatus of love", and if they understood it, how many knew what the heck he meant by it?? Exactly! But the song was still a big hit. It sounds cool and is a blast to sing along with. Men and women, despite all the griping, jokes, cliches and misunderstandings between the two genders, still keep getting together and, hopefully, can make it through life with their sanity, intelligence and love intact.

There is no pat answer with which to end this movie. Life doesn't have any either. I'm not one for vague endings. I usually prefer to have a Hollywood Happy Ending. But this works for me for some reason. There's no blinding vision of how one must change to be able to live happily ever after with the object of one's affection. It's just an acceptance that there are differences. Maybe not understood, but now one knows that they are there and can work with them; or around them; or whatever it may take.

It's a good look at relationships for the over 21 crowd. It's a good movie.

I saw the original movie back when it was new. Never bothered with the second movie; couldn't figure out what there was to make a second one about. The third had some promise, but I don't think I stayed awake for it all. The series hooked me (much to my consternation; I worked at a t.v. station that aired the show). So where does this one come in? Who can tell?

I'm not going to go in depth about the story, the action, the fight sequences or the "Highlander Canon"; that's all already been said over and over again by the other 275+ reviews here. After watching this, I can only figure that Christopher Lambert was ready to quit making Highlander movies; and since they wouldn't let him keep his prize, well...

Here is my statement to Whomever May Have The Notion To Make Another - Please Don't! It's truly ridiculous, and not just a bit frustrating, to read all these folks who want to try and reconcile the Highlander Universe with all of it's rules and rule changes. Just give it up and let it lie. Adrian Paul is a fine actor who will find other projects to do. And Christopher Lambert will certainly not lack for anything either. There is no way, *no possible way*, to take this tangled mess that has been created from Gregory Widen's great story and sort it out, so quit trying already, okay?

I remember this show as well, and enjoyed it thoroughly for the short time that it ran; but I had thought that actress Yvonne Wilder appeared in this show as well. If you don't recall who she is, you can look her up here on IMDb, or go rent either West Side Story (Anita's dancing friend on the song "America") or Mel Brook's Silent Movie (the studio chief's secretary). Someone please tell me my memory isn't going.

2D and 3D animation? Yeah, so what. The backgrounds may have looked pretty good, but the character animation lacked in so many ways. It looks to me like the folks at Disney spent all their time and money on the scenery and didn't have enough time left over to even give the poor characters proper fingernails, much less anything else of great detail. The thin line drawings of Milo and all the rest were unsatisfying and distracting from the movie for me. I can only hope that, for Disney's next outing, they would consider putting a little more detail and fluidity into the actual characters; they are where the story lies.

If you've read even 5 of the reviews here, you'll know by now that this film is NOT as historically accurate as scholars would like for it to have been. So, if you want historical accuracy and would like to know how the battle really happened, go rent "Tora! Tora! Tora!", which was done in 2 halves: the American view as directed by Richard Fleischer; and the Japanese view, put into the hands of Kinji Fukasaku and Toshio Masuda. However, if you don't care about historical accuracy and are looking for a romance set in a perilous time, then this movie is for you. You will be absorbed by the triangle of affections that takes place and the plot-twists that come about throughout the scenes. This Film Is Not For Everyone, so decide which category you belong in before you spend the money on it.

Oh, and all you wives and girlfriends who think this would make a good Father's Day Present... think again. If your significant other is more interested in Facts than Fiction, buying him this movie won't make him smile. Buying him "Tora!Tora!Tora!" will.

I saw this one in the theater and was very disappointed when I left. It's a shame that William Shatner directed and had so much to do with the story. I have been learning to enjoy his work a little more over the years; but this movie is more than just William Shatner at the helm behind the camera - it is a *Star Trek* movie. Thusly, there are certain standards that were not upheld here that should have been. My biggest complaint is that for over 20 years, Scotty has been the miracle worker. Why was that reputation so cruely destroyed in this movie? Were all those technical problems really so crucial to the plot? I understand that the cast and crew had fun with the added humor that this movie contained, but some of the "one-liners" were predictable and telegraphed, such as the "gravity" comments made by Spock and Kirk which were overly obvious and unnecessary. A lot of the humor (not all) was, IMHO, more juvenile and thusly unbefitting in this movie and in the Star Trek universe in general. The rumors are that Star Trek VI would never have been made if this movie had gotten better response from the fans. I don't know for sure one way or the other, but this movie did have problems. I agree that it has moments that are good, and the (not the "Big Three") cast members get to have more exposure and fun, which is great to see, but for the most part, it does not hold up with the canons and precepts that have already been established.

If you are trying to compare Godspell with Jesus Christ Superstar - don't. It is apples and oranges in every sense. Technically, the musical styles are vastly different; the scenery and production values at total odds. Where Godpsell will tries to put some "light-heartedness" into taking it's teachings from the Gospel of Luke, Jesus Christ Superstar's storyline seems to focus more on the "internal feeling and character development".

From a personal standpoint, Jesus Christ Superstar has great tunes; I used to be able to sing the whole album by heart, but I am uncomfortable with the "doctrine" behind it. The final song seems to bring up too many doubts as to who and what Jesus was.

Godspell is quite opposite; The music is good, the acting and chemistry are good, the setting is fun to see(dancing in front of the old digital clock at Times Square!), and the story is taken a little more faithfully from it's Source.

All that having been said, there are folks out there who like one... or the other... or both. Personally, I prefer this one. Yes, it is a shame that Victor Garber seems to have been the only one to be so "in the spotlight" these days, although Lynn brought herself some notoriety as The Chief on PBS' "Carmen SanDiego". I would love to see more of Jerry Sroka these days as well. But it's okay. What we have here is a true gem! So don't compare them. Just watch them, enjoy them... maybe learn from them.

:-)

I saw this in the theater and loved it! Yes, as "cop-buddy" movies go, it wasn't bad. But I feel that the chemistry between Gregory Hines and Billy Crystal is what made this movie so good. They work so well together - like they've known each other forever. And that's how it's supposed to seem. Yes, Smits was very good as the villian, and the other actors that filled out the movie were good as well, but this was Gregory's and Billy's movie and they ran with it. Even if they don't make a sequel, I would love to see those two together again.

I've been watching this show all my life, whenever it was on, and it never fails to move me. A good basic story-line, great actors and good scripts made it fun to watch. Brian Keith as Uncle Bill Davis, a confirmed bachelor, suddenly has his life changed when he learns that he is given custody of his 2 nieces and nephew when their parents die in a car crash. Anissa Jones as Buffy is the first to appear in episode 1 and it is so good to watch Sebatian Cabot as Mr. French, Uncle Bill's butler, valet and housekeeper, trying to adjust to this shy, sullen little girl who won't come out of her shell. Episode 2 introduces Buffy's twin brother, Jody,played beautifully by Johnny Whitaker and their older sister, Cissy,played by Kathy Garver. With the three children at last reunited, life begins anew for Uncle Bill and Mr. French as they learn how to deal with children and the children learn how to deal with them. This show started at a time when family television was still on the airwaves and people enjoyed seeing a show that had 'family values". But by 1971, when it was cancelled, people started turning to more "realistic" and irreverent television shows and it was harder for a "family values" program like this to be successful. But there are still re-runs and you can get a look at a different time, a different era and a different kind of family. Well, worth a watch!

... with the "nay-sayers". I was a fan of the series. I had high hopes for this one, due to my high estimation of the three stars involved. Boy, was I disappointed. It lacked everything that made the series great. They messed with the story of the Great Jim West and his BEST FRIEND, Artemis Gordon. As the song so aptly put it: "you don't tug on Superman's cape, you don't spit into the wind, you don't pull the mask off the ole Lone Ranger, and you DON'T mess around with JIM!"

Like so many other girls, I grew up enjoying the adventures of Madeline. I was hesitant when I first heard about the making of this movie. It was like hearing that Tom Hanks would do a serious role, or that Jack Nicholson could play The Joker... I just didn't see it. I was so pleasantly surprised by this movie! The casting of Frances McDormand was impeccable. She had just the right amount of feeling and structure for the role. And the writers didn't revert to the old trick of using the "lead authority figure" as their comedic relief. It would have been a shame to have reduced the figure of Miss Clavell to that of a clown. Several stories from the books have been wonderfully intertwined and makes for great viewing. Young Hattie was a great find for the role of Madeline as well, not precocious, just darn good. This is a great family movie, though not necessarily for the young boys of the family. It was made for girls who know and love Madeline. I highly recommend it!

I happened across this movie years ago on a independent t.v. station in the middle of the afternoon. I first watched because of Mel Torme, but I found myself thoroughly enjoying a western... *shock*. The one thing I recall most was how very "un-Mel" Mel was. His portrayal of a gunslinger was very low-key and VERY effective. If I ever get a chance to see this again, I'll have a tape ready to role. I strongly recommend it.

I am NOT an authority on Shakespeare. I watch a movie for the movie's sake. I simply like them. Keeping that in mind, I can't say that this was the best adaptation of a Shakespeare play that I have ever seen. There is no doubt in my mind that Kenneth Branagh is the best friend The Bard ever had in the last 40 years as far as Hollywood is concerned. But it is an enjoyable movie to watch. It gets the basic storyline across as to what happens to the 4 young lovers (and one overly earnest wanna-be actor) lost in the woods. I couldn't find fault with any of the performances. In fact, Calista Flockhart surprised me with her ability. True, the role was "yet another girl griping about the lack of a man", but I saw no sign in "Ally" in her performance. All in all, if you aren't looking for "technical perfection" and just want to know the story of Midsummer Night's Dream, I do recommend this movie. As for all the other reviews, well... no director can please every movie goer; especially when it comes to Shakespeare.

Reading over the reviews, it is apparent that more people disliked this movie than liked it. Well, that's their perspective. I personally am NOT a horror flick fan, so you can take my review with as many grains of salt as you wish. I enjoyed it! The plot was not complex (most aren't) and quite easy to follow, but still a decent story line. Seth Green was his incomparable self, always knowing how to deliver a good line. But Devon Sawa was the stand-out. For those who don't know who he is (and there seems to be quite a lot of you), watch "Wild America" for his turn as a pain in the @** older brother. But here he surpassed anything I expected of him. The physical acting alone required for this role was intense. The scene where "the hand" grabs the porch rail in front of the girl's house and he somersaults onto the porch and right to the doorbell was an impressive piece of movement! Keeping his hand going while acting, it was like watching a drummer behind a trap set. Have you ever tried to get your hands and feet to do 4 totally different things at once and keep it going? It's NOT easy. But Devon Sawa was wonderful at giving his hand a "mind of it's own". Most movies require some suspension of belief to view and this one is no different. But I didn't mind at all. It was good!

I remember seeing this one in the theater when I was 10. I laughed so hard at the VW bug doing a wheely from the pregnant lady and all the comedy that followed. This wasn't Mel's most raunchy comedy, that would come later with High Anxiety. But that's okay. You can watch this one with your kids and give them an example of what other kind of movies are out there besides "shoot-'em-ups" and such. Silent Movie is tops on my list as one of Mel's best!

I sat down with my mother-in-law to see this film, a little worried what she might say. Fortunately, she agreed with me... it's a very good movie! For all those that have a hard time with the British accents, as did my mother-in-law, may I recommend you turn on your Closed Captioning to assist you in watching this, and then sit back and enjoy!