Reviews

By sheer coincidence, I had JUST finished reading "The

Langoliers" when I saw that it would be on USA the next two

nights. So I said to myself, "Self...why don't you watch it and see

how it compares?" As an adaptation, this movie is just about as faithful as you can

get. Some minor changes were made for time (for example, an

entire character was dropped from the plane...he didn't do much or

contribute ANYTHING to the plot, he just slept the whole time), but

all in all, it was pretty much like an abridged audiobook with visual

images. Virtually nothing was changed in the transfer from page

to screen. As a result, the weaknesses in the movie mostly stem from

weaknesses in the book. I really like Stephen King's style, though

I haven't read very much by him. The most interesting thing about

the story is the horror of the unknown, and each character's

different reactions to it...hysteria, anger, disbelief, etc. My problem

with the story (and the movie as well) is that the Langoliers are a

bit of a letdown. Visually, they looked like computer-generated

images, not like real monsters. But even in the story, their

presence seems unnecessary. The most frightening parts of the

story are when the passengers of Flight 29 have no clue what's

going on. Wouldn't the Langoliers have been more interesting if

we never saw them, but knew they were there...i.e., seeing the

disappearance of the world, hearing the sound of the Langoliers,

but never seeing them...possibly a brief glimpse as the plane

takes off or as one of the characters gets eaten. Acting wise, the movie was a mixed bag. Some people really got

into their roles. I though Bronson Pinchot was great as Craig

Toomey, and I also think he's pretty underrated as an actor since

he was Balki in Perfect Strangers. Other people, I thought were a

little flat. I've never been too fond of David Morse (the pilot), and as

much as I like Dean Stockwell (Al from Quantum Leap, whoo-hoo),

he didn't seem to fit the role of the mystery writer Bob Jenkins. The special effects were pretty miserable. It all looked like pretty

low-tech computer effects - the plane, the Langoliers, the time rip.

Not too impressive. But hey - TV movie, what do you expect? Overall, this is an excellent adaptation of a pretty good story. Some

changes should have been made in the transfer, but that's my

opinion.

Say what you like about A New Hope, Return of the Jedi, or The Phantom Menace. For sheer emotional power, this one has got them all blown out of the water.

The first time I saw any of the Star Wars movies was when I was laid up at home after having my wisdom teeth removed the summer before my senior year in high school. The movies just blew me away, but not having time to get overly attached to any of them, I decided that the Empire Strikes Back was the best, for many reasons. We get more plot in this movie than in any of the other three. There isn't necessarily as much action as the more exciting Return of the Jedi, nor is it all as new and visually exciting as A New Hope, but the story is more important here than all that extra stuff.

When the original Star Wars came out, people were so blown away by the special effects that no one really noticed what a bad movie it was. Not that it was a terrible movie, but the dialogue was terrible, the acting was atrocious, and the direction was, well, choppy. It was a great movie, but very badly made. Does this ring a bell? Sounds almost exactly like what we have been hearing about the Phantom Menace, doesn't it?

Return of the Jedi was a much better movie than A New Hope. All the actors had gotten a little better. It was a very different cast than in the original. The action was more intense, the story was wrapping up, and we got one final titanic battle with the Empire. Special effects technology had gotten better as well. The biggest problem with the movie was how long-winded it was. How many ways can the emperor phrase the same statement? You'll have to watch it to find out.

Which brings me to The Empire Strikes Back. The action wasn't as intense, the acting wasn't a whole lot better, and loyal Star Wars fans got ticked off at how cute Yoda was. There's really no pleasing some people, you know? They reacted the exact same way with the Ewoks and Jar Jar Binks. Amazing. Anyway, with all these problems, why go see the movie? The answer: here is where the plot thickens. Just when it seemed that the Rebellion had gotten the Empire on the run, the Empire comes back and just about crushes their best hopes. We get the shocking truth about Darth Vader's identity (well, it was shocking when the movie came out...I don't think anyone who has even heard of Star Wars doesn't know it by now). We get crucial hints to the relationship between Luke and Leia. You get murder, betrayal, and a truly terrifying encounter in the swamps of Dagobah (hint: not Yoda). There is so much more to this movie than to any of the others. That's the reason I consider it to be the best so far. I'm ready for Episode II.

I know why people don't like this movie. In our fast-paced society, if a movie comes along that is as slow as this one, we ignore it. And it is slow. Man, is it ever. This is one of the slowest freaking movies I have ever seen. That's why I think that it's the best. Let's think about it for a minute. We see the vast emptiness of primitive Earth, and contrast it with the vast emptiness of space in the relative infancy of our space program. Yes, this movie supposedly takes place in 2001, 32 years after we first set foot on the moon. But don't forget that this movie was made a full year before we set foot on the moon. Kind of puts things in perspective, doesn't it? Sure, by the point in the movie where we pick up, there are technological advances that we have yet to see, such as the moon base. It's important to realize that Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke were not psychic; still, the movie is probably the most accurate picture of space we'll ever see. Another thing, besides the slowness, that bothers people is the lack of sound. The silence is deafening in space. You don't hear explosions in space, as most sci-fi pictures would have you believe. There's no way for sound to travel. The silence just adds to the horror of the story. Twentieth century composer John Cage believed that silence was the essence of music, even composed a piece that was nothing but silence. In this movie, we see just how powerful the silence can be. The story is a powerful metaphor for the eternal battles of humankind. First, man conquers nature. Then, man conquers technology. The only thing that we find is the most powerful opponent for the man is himself (of course, I am speaking of man in the non-gender-specific sense, although it's a man in the movie). This movie is art, and I don't expect everyone to understand it, or even to agree with me. These interpretations are my own. I could talk for a long time about this movie. It's a tough movie to watch, but it is the best I have ever seen.

What makes this movie so good? Just about everything. Good acting, good direction, good story, good development...it's weird, but this is one of those cases where the sequel makes it better. Godfather II is the best sequel ever made, and I just don't think you can really say anything about this movie until you've seen that one. Really, you have to look at the first one as the rise of Michael Corleone (Al Pacino), and the second as his fall. Despite the fact that he doesn't lose power, he loses almost everything else. You don't really get much character development of Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) in this movie, because it's all being saved for the sequel (in the form of Robert De Niro). The way that the two are intertwined is just absolutely brilliant. As a movie by itself, The Godfather is still a masterpiece. One of the things that I think makes it so compelling is the blurring of the line between good and evil. Just about everyone in this movie is a bad guy. But there are good bad guys and bad bad guys, and we're on the outside trying to decide which ones we want to root for. We end up cheering on the Corleones, the focal point of the movie, but it's very reluctant as the climactic scene unfolds. I found myself right there with Kay (Diane Keaton) at the end, torn between what I know to be right and what has to be done for survival. I cannot imagine this movie being any better. It's fascinating, and the sequel does not do anything to diminish that sense of awe. It's a timeless classic about the battle between good and evil. But does evil really win out? It's impossible to tell.