Reviews

I guess I am the only viewer that did not think that this was one of the better Star Trek movies. V and VI were much more entertaining because the storyline in this is plodding, at best. It does not get up much momentum at all. Like one viewer said, the pace is so slow, the story is dead in the water.

I did not care for the fact that the silly probe did not seem to have any purpose but to make annoying noises throughout almost the whole movie. The destruction of earth because of some old probe was really a hokey, contrived plot. I loved the whales, but going to rescue whales from the 20th Century simply to have them "speak" to an old probe did not make much sense to me. It did not even make any sense in the end, either.

Catherine Hicks' performance was so over the top, she became really annoying several times. I suppose her range was never all that broad anyway, but I did not end up ever liking her character, and she was supposed to be one of the "good guys" in the film. Perhaps the script did not have enough substance to make her more than a plastic character.

You have to love Chekov and his "nuclear wessels." Although that was dumb, too, at least it was entertaining. Of course, who wouldn't smile at "too much LDS"? Overall, not too great because it was so slow moving and not suspenseful. At least some of the other movies had some suspense.

I found this particular Star Trek Film to be way more engaging than Star Trek IV and its stupid, trite storyline. At least this one did not have quite as many boring moments as the previous "Leonoard Nimoy" -- directed movie. OK, I have to admit -- the special effects in this film were EXTREMELY lame. It is almost as if Paramount or the producers of this movie did not have any sort of a budget to spend on effects. All of it is very cartoonish and dumb-looking.

The roundup of the good guys/bad guys on Nimbus III was the weakest part of the movie. Not only was it dull, it did not even draw you in. Further, the "hostages", as soon as they are "rescued" (or not rescued, as it turned out), they are no longer important to the story. It is as if we were supposed to care about them one minute and then not care about them the next. They were plastic, phony characters.

I did enjoy the Jerry Goldsmith soundtrack very much in this movie. He was in his element to make up for a weak story. I always enjoy the banter back and forth between Kirk, Spock and Bones. They somehow pull it off well enough to be entertaining.

PLOT HOLE: the "Shaka-ri" character kept demanding that Sybok bring the enterprise closer to the planet so that he could escape his imprisonment on that lonely planet. He seems to be powerful enough at this point to destroy the humans/and Spock. Why was he not able to take over or destroy the Bird of Prey when it came within 25 feet of him and the surface of the planet? This was a huge plot hole that was never explained.

Overall, somewhat worth seeing, but a mediocre space movie at best.

Candice Bergen's performance is so over the top, but she still somehow pulls it off and makes a person smile. She is truly fun as an evil villain, and the guy who plays her son is as revolting a character as I have ever seen.

One of the fun aspects of this movie is how Gracie really cannot keep her big mouth shut. She is not sure about the whole beauty pageant thing and goes to great lengths to point out that she is not at all interested in participating. However, as soon as she really tries to get to know the other girls, the movie becomes more personal and interesting. Particularly funny is Heather Burns' character, as Miss Rhode Island. My favorite part of the whole movie is when Miss Rhode Island bursts into tears after Gracie has snatched the crown away from her. I was rolling on the floor laughing at that point.

Bill Shatner also has some really funny one-liners.

I know Sandra Bullock haters would not like this movie, but if someone other than her was in the lead role, the movie would still be funny. The writing is imaginative and even though the premise is very silly, the film still manages to be quite entertaining. I love how snobby some of the girls were -- it added to the humor of the film. Highly recommended movie.

One of the top 10 worst films I have ever seen in my life. How could they remake this movie and make it even worse than the original? The original was bad, bad, bad. In this film, the plot was unimaginative, the lines trite and foolish, and the acting was laughably bad. This film has absolutely no redeeming quality whatsoever.

Once again, they made a movie that had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the very well-written, chilling novel. Why even bother to say it was based on the Jay Anson book? Nothing the book talked about is even in this movie.

Also, George Lutz going psycho and turning into a masochistic killer just because he was near the house was such nonsense. Whose idea was it to make that part of the plot? None of this film was scary or suspenseful -- it was just painfully bad. Don't waste your money -- this is not even worth a rental. Go rent a real horror movie, which this is not. If I could give this a rating of triple-zero, I would.

This film is definitely worth seeing because it has some really good things about it. When they go to the North Pole, it looks as magical as anyone could make the North pole look. Very fun scenes there with the elves to watch. And, of course, they love children, so Charlie really feels at home. I liked the costumes and the kids who played the elves.

One reason this movie was not that good was the special effects were really horrible. I tend to think the budget did not include decent special effects, including all of the fake snow. The flying scenes with the reindeer were so cartoonish, it was not the least bit realistic. Also, the reindeer themselves were these icky-looking puppets who apparently groan a lot, but don't really add anything to the story. I would have preferred less screen time with REAL reindeer instead of the cutesy, ridiculous-looking reindeer.

Another downside was Wendy Crewson's character. What a plastic person. In all her lines, she whines and whines. I got so tired of it, I wanted someone/anyone to slap her across the face and tell her to shut up. The director should have realized that her character was so over the top that the scenes she was in were ruined just by her presence. I'd hate to have that whiny complainer as my mother. No wonder Charlie wanted to hang with Dad. However, Judge Reinhold was perfectly cast as the nasty, condescending psych doctor. I wish Scott Calvin would have punched him in the nose -- that would have made the movie more interesting.

The theme that you cannot tell the truth or you will get in trouble just did not sit well with me in this movie. Charlie told the truth in every detail but his wacko mother and her oaf of a boyfriend used that against him. Some marvelous lessons could have been portrayed on the screen instead of Scott denying the whole thing in front of Charlie ad nauseum. That part of the script was very poorly thought-out.

I loved 2 scenes: in the park where the little girl approaches Scott and asks for a Christmas present. That is precious. Also, the little girl who woke up for Santa -- she was a doll. So, this movie is worth seeing, despite some major flaws.

Although not quite as melodramatic, this is clearly a remake of The Bad Seed, a famous 50s movie about an evil little girl. This time, the evil child is played very convincingly by MaCauley Culkin. Elijah Wood is often the one who gets blamed for Culkin's vile behavior. It is interesting to watch Culkin play a bad kid. The casting really works.

The most disturbing part of the movie -- where they drop a dummy into a freeway of crowded cars -- this scene really bothered me because I am afraid it would give evil kids an "idea" to do something this horrible and cause a major pileup on a freeway or even just a regular 2-lane highway. (I always wonder why terrorists never thought of targeting airplanes until AFTER the unfortunate movie Airport came out and could have given them the idea. My understanding is that the first real hi-jacking of an airplane was in 1973, about 3 years after Airport came out.) The scene in this movie raises similar fears.

All in all, this very dark and disturbing movie was quite well-done.

People love to bash Jim Carrey just like they do Will Ferrell. I prefer to judge actors by their performance in the movie at hand, not how stupid they have been in other films. It is hard to do with someone as ubiquitous and obnoxious as Jim Carrey. However, I was very pleasantly surprised by this movie in that Jim Carrey did a good job and the movie, although not one of my favorites, did have an intriguing premise and was, for the most part, entertaining and interesting. The plot was hokey, but somehow the actors did a good job of portraying mystery and even horror.

My main complaint about this movie, is that after its real denouement, it should have been over, but then it drags on for another 25-30 minutes or so. Once we learn what happened to Jim Carrey's character, the movie should have been over. What was Joel Schumacher thinking to make it drag on after that, with Carrey's character gyrating in a ridiculous manner? It made for an extremely poor, unsatisfying ending. It reminds me of the ending of Sandra Bullock's recent bomb, Premonition. The silly ending spoiled both movies. I think it is still worth watching, but don't expect a good ending.

I trusted people here who had done reviews on this movie and I was really disappointed. The movie itself was just re-released in October or November on DVD, so it is now back in print. I promptly ordered it from Borders.

I found the script to be lame and uninteresting. The girl who played Addie did have quite a bit of personality, but that did not "save" this from being a bad movie. It was not just the script -- the story really did not have enough substance to it to make it interesting. It was extremely boring and unimaginative. I'm sure the book probably portrayed the story much better than the movie did.

I love Mildred Natwick to death, but she didn't have a good script to work with, so her character was very shallow. The only really interesting part was when she confronts her son near the end, and that only lasts for a good 2 minutes at best. The rest of the film was just bad.

There MUST be better Christmas movies out there than this one!

In general, Kevin Bacon and Elizabeth Shue are both enjoyable in films. This movie starts out very interestingly with a real scientific plot and premise. The storyline had so much promise -- why did the filmmakers "pull the rug out from under the viewers" and turn it into a blood and guts horror-fest? The trailers to the film did not indicate it would be a horror movie. If I had known it was, I would have skipped it completely.

One aspect of horror movies like this is that the victims are always helpless and never really fight back. It is always a lot more fun if the victims are more interesting than the murderer. Unfortunately, this movie adds nothing to an already trite, clichéd and tired genre. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone who wants to watch a good or entertaining movie. YUCK.

Definitely worth seeing if you are either a native of Chicago or have lived here before. It portrays the city as extremely dark, dirty and very urban. Very interesting sets here -- the sets almost make the movie worth watching. I enjoy the scenes where Griffin gets chased through the streets of Chicago; they are well-thought out and well directed. The movie must have been amazing on the big screen. Unfortunately, I only saw it on video and had never heard of it.

Particularly fun is the soundtrack by the virtually unknown Marco Beltrami. Opening credits are very interesting, as are the chase scenes. Very orchestral and guttural. I enjoyed the music soundtrack immensely and watched it on video twice because of this. Beltrami is a composer to keep our eye on. He is particularly good at emoting terror and suspense.

Keanu Reeves was mediocre, at best. In general, he has not been much of an actor and it seems he was miscast. He is not too good at being a "heavy" in film. Marisa Tomei was OK -- nothing to get excited about.

James Spader did have interesting psychological moments and I enjoyed his performance very much.

My main complaint about the movie was that the ending was so contrived and cliché'd. After building up the suspense, the ending really fell apart. Other than that, this movie is worth watching.

This story has been made into so many movies, it is unbelievable. However, I find this version to be one of the better versions. Chiefly, this is because Jack Nicholson, whom I generally hate, gives a fine performance. Unlike most movies where Nicholson plays an arrogant, egotistical, megalomaniac, his character in this film is quite different in that he is sinister and tragic. I was expecting to hate this movie, but was pleasantly surprised.

James Spader was good, as he generally is in most serious roles. I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys the wolfman story that is well directed and well acted.

How many "true stories" has Hollywood been able to really pull off and do it well? Hats off to the producers, writers and the wonderful Penny Marshall for making this film. I cannot say enough about this movie that is positive. The characters are likable, human beings that everyone from every age group can relate to. The set decorations were wonderful. The acting was flawless and the directing very poignant.

Robert DeNiro was snubbed by the Academy for no good reason whatsoever. I have never, ever seen him give a finer performance than he does here. Obviously, when given the right story and script, DeNiro is one of Hollywood's greats. Unfortunately, he tries to do too many movies and most of them are either duds, or he plays the same gangster character over and over again. Only in this movie and just a few others do we see his true acting ability.

Robin Williams, as usual, is nothing if not charming. He was able to make the viewer believe he was that character.

This really is a great movie for the whole family, though I admit it is sad!!

Dan Aykroyd is so falling-on-the floor hysterical, I just laugh thinking of some of his scenes. Some of my favorites: when he shows up at the country club in those ridiculous 2nd-hand clothes and all his supposed "friends" snub him -- it is tragic and funny at the same time. His arguments that he is innocent at the police station are all to no avail and the other people hanging at the police station are such a hoot. He does not "fit" into the social mores of a police station, and he portrays this brilliantly. The set decorators go out of their way to portray Philadelphia as a slimy, dirty city. In 1982, it probably was every bit as scummy as they portray it. Jamie Lee Curtis comes to the rescue and she is delightful.

I still laugh when Aykroyd's character gets into the Santa suit, gets drunk, gets urinated on by the dog, gets on the bus, and proceeds to eat his supper, consisting of stolen items from the Christmas party; the people on the bus are so horrified because as he takes a bite, he bites into his (very filthy by this time) Santa's beard. That is the funniest sequence in any movie I have ever seen!! Eddie Murphy is funny at the beginning when the police come after him for panhandling and because he pretends he cannot walk; then he gets up and runs away from them. He is OK in the rest of the movie, but Aykroyd really is the star.

I first saw this movie at a 2nd run "dollar movie" and I enjoyed it very much. Kevin Bacon always plays likable characters that you can believe in. He did well with this, even though I am sure critics think that this movie is horrible. I don't ever like things that the critics like, however, so I do not often give them any credence. The script is good and the acting good, too. For a horror movie, it was well thought-out and well directed. How many horror movies have good acting in them these days? Almost none.

I especially like the desert scenes in this movie. I am curious to know if they filmed it in California or Nevada. The on-location scenes were very fun to watch on the big screen. If you have not seen this movie, give it a try. You might be surprised. There are some cheesy moments, but as a whole, the film works.

Affleck's portrayal of Jack Ryan can only be described as one of the biggest casting mistakes in all of Hollywood history. Does he really think he can fill in for Harrison Ford or even Alec Baldwin? YIKES. As long as the American public will shell out their hard-earned dollars to see Affleck, Hollywood will continue to produce this kind of tripe. Don't people know good acting from really bad? I guess it is just as well that Affleck is associated with this clunker; better actors probably knew to turn the role down.

After Hunt for Red October and Patriot Games, this was a miserable followup to what I understand is a great Tom Clancy novel. It was tedious, boring and, amazingly, full of bad language, unlike its predecessor movies. In short, it stank. The script was terrible and the plot so unbelievably stupid that it was painful to watch. The special effects were laughable CGIs. I have not read the novel, but I doubt very seriously it was as asinine as this screenplay was. Skip this one!

This movie would almost be worth seeing if Ben Affleck were not in it. Once again, viewers are painfully reminded that Affleck has no acting ability whatsoever. I cannot even think of a contemporary actor today that has less talent. He is painful and trite to watch. UGH. A viewer cannot even believe his character, his acting is so bad.

On the other hand, Samuel L. Jackson is nothing short of brilliant. Even though this movie is a turkey, his character was very believable and even likable in an odd sort of way. He carries the movie. I find it completely unbelievable that he did not get top billing on this movie. This film is worth watching if only to see Jackson's performance, which is never overdone and quite poignant.

The worst movie I have seen in many a year. Who produces this garbage and calls it good film-making? For one thing, it was not suspenseful in the slightest. It is almost as bad as the made-for-TV disaster movie 10.5. I would say it is only slightly better than Deep Impact, which was another horrible movie that came out at the same time. The script is lousy and the characters so unbelievable you almost want to laugh. No wonder the "disaster" movie genre died a quiet death after the 1970s. Why is Hollywood trying to bring it back? At least in some of the "disaster" flicks of the 1970s, like Earthquake or The Towering Inferno, we had a sense of foreboding. This movie does not even rise to that level.

The part of the movie that I groaned at was when the "astroidonauts" or whatever you call them were saying to their girlfriends "Honey, I love you...goodbye" on the telephone-TV. After sitting in the theater for about 2 hours wanting this awful movie to end, I wanted to throw up, it was so sappy and phony. Does Hollywood think viewers want to see this kind of Karo syrup in an action movie? It was not even believable. By the way, Ben Affleck cannot act his way out of a paper bag and this movie proves that. The only reason Bruce Willis is in the film is because he is a box-office "draw." If I were Willis, I'd be embarrassed to have been associated with this BOMB. Bad, bad, bad. Avoid at all costs.

How can anyone not appreciate how charming Carole Lombard can be in one of these types of roles? She is so funny and so endearing. She seems so simple and simple-minded, but ends up being much more complex than she is allowed to admit. Her costumes were well-done and very complimentary.

Fred MacMurray sparkles in this role, as well. Both of them will make you laugh as they hang out with each other and try not to fall in love. There is definitely chemistry there between Fred and Carole. Fred's early film roles are often completely forgotten nowadays. Ralph Bellamy is equally funny in his role as the "crippled" rich man looking for companionship.

My favorite scene is where Carole's character starts crying uncontrollably and Bellamy's character tells her to stop crying. She responds, "I've a right to cry if I want to. I've got a good cry coming to me." I almost fell over laughing. Lighthearted fun that is not to be missed.

If I had to pick out one reason this movie was successful, a good reason would be Jerry Goldsmith's disturbing yet beautiful soundtrack. He was at his best during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Even though film music buffs know that during the "ghost scene" Spielberg cut out a lot of the music that Jerry had written, still, the film stands well even though it is now over 20 years old. The music is stunning and beautiful.

This was the era when Spielberg did serious movies that were much more enjoyable than he does now. He remembered that audiences want to be entertained and horrified but not be overwhelmed by special effects and nothing else. True, the special effects in the film were great, but they did not overshadow the storyline like War of the Worlds or Majority Report, Spielberg's modern BOMBS.

Everyone can relate to the simple ghost story presented here. At least Spielberg seemed to know how to direct children in this movie. I don't know why he has failed in so many recent movies. Maybe someone else has an opinion about this.

I really enjoyed this movie in the theater. It is not nearly as good on television -- it seems rather cheesy when not on the big screen. Highly recommended movie.

Although Grace Kelly is stunningly beautiful, some of her performances come across as very wooden. It almost seems as if she cannot portray any depth on screen. Sure, she can scream and make a scene, but it just does not have the impact that other female stars have. On the other hand, Ava Gardner was also a little too unbelievable. I realize this is the early 1950's but were women really that jealous of one man after barely even getting to know him? The first hour of the movie, the "jealousy thing" between Kelly's character and Gardner's character got really annoying. Also, the script was pretty lame. The script got better as the movie progressed, but not enough to make me think this was a good movie.

I consider Gable to be a great actor, but he didn't have much to do here except play the stereotypical tough guy who "rescues" the helpless women from the African bush. Any B-movie actor probably could have pulled this off without much effort. His dialog was as lame as the female characters were.

What is stunning about this movie is how John Ford and the cinematographer really tried to focus on the flora and fauna of Africa in technicolor. This made the movie enjoyable, at least when the African natives weren't screaming or singing too loud to drown everything out. Maybe the effect was better on the big screen.

Not one of the worst movies I have seen, but not much to grab a viewer's attention, either. If I had to pick a much better 1950s movie about Africa, it would be Hatari.

Fabulous, fantastic, probably Disney's best musical adventure. I have loved this film for over 35 years because it is so imaginative, clever and fun. Even despite the silly "flying bed" scenes, the other scenes and dialog are magical and funny. Could they have picked anyone better than Angela Lansbury to play Eglantine? I cannot think of anyone more suited to the role. Remaking this classic would be as stupid as remaking Mary Poppins.

David Tomlinson, though he had few quality movie roles, absolutely shines in this adventure. He was a comic genius who is often forgotten nowadays. Blustering, prim and proper Englishman -- nobody could really do slapstick and pull it off as gracefully as he does. It would be tragic to remake this film because Tomlinson has been deceased for a few years and nobody could step into his shoes and do his character justice.

The dancing nightgowns and armor have a magical aura about them that other movies with witches just don't capture. I particularly enjoy the parts where the Germans invade Eglantine's house and she must defend it in any way she can.

Bobbing along, bobbing along on the bottom of the beautiful briny, sea. Richard and Robert Sherman outdid themselves on the musical numbers. All of them are fantastic and worth remembering, Portobello Road being one of my favorites.

A great film that still holds up today!!

What I enjoyed most was the chemistry between Claudette Colbert and Clark Gable. They exude a sparkle in this movie. I am particularly impressed with Colbert's performance. Is there any way not to fall in love with this lady? She is convincing without being overly sappy. She gives a much better performance than Hedy Lamarr, who is not especially believable in her role. Hedy is a pretty lady; she just seemed stilted in this role; a siren should seem suave but she never quite comes across as the wanton woman she is supposedly portraying.

The more Spencer Tracy movies I see, the more I appreciate his acting ability. His subtle facial expressions (and Colbert's too) really make this a fun movie to watch. Gable does not seem to have the ability to be as subtle. Although enjoyable, the 2 stars were Colbert and Tracy, without a doubt. The characters in this movie are all drifters who never really "settle down." They would not be appreciated in polite society without the oil money.

My main complaint was that some of the hair and costumes looked like they were straight out of 1930s or 1940 rather than 1918 and early 20's when the story was supposed to take place. It is true that near the end of the movie we are approaching the late 20s, but the costumes did not seem very authentically 20s.

Patrick McGoohan is brilliant as the leader of a military school that is about to be closed. He is also spectacularly evil, sinister and will do just about anything to keep the military academy up and running. He is as believable as any character you will see on TV.

Columbo, in one of his more interesting roles, really shines in this one. As always, Peter Falk never "overacts" or goes over the top. He is a master at understatement and innuendo, much to McGoohan's character's dismay.

We also see a young Bruno Kirby in a good supporting role, as well as a young, handsome Burr DeBenning. This "all-boys" episode explores growing up, the old order and responsibility one must assume in order to be an honorable military man. All interesting things that stand the test of time and are more than relevant today in our war-ravaged world.