Reviews

This average horror film has been seen in a least a dozen other variations.It's stereotyped,both in terms of plot and dialog.Highly predictable,with every cliche about Bigfoot,the Yeti,and the Sasquatch,we don't get anything new.So,in order to get a new angle,you have to add new and interesting characters,and/or situations to bring it to life.And we don't even get that.Who are these non-entities showing up in the film?I've never heard of any of them.the only redeeming element is the presence of the mighty Jack Elam,given a roaring,scenery-chewing performance that really brings the picture to life.But,sad to say,he isn't around long enough.

I think that most John Wayne buffs would agree that this is a remake of 2 previous picture-"Rio Bravo",and "El Dorado".We have the same characters,the same basic situations,and the same resolutions.What I found interesting is the way that the "Duke"was able to kid his image in this one.He's not just strong,tough,brave,resourceful,and quick;he's also able to show a middle-aged man whose libido might not be as urgent as it was previously.Let's face it,being a lover isn't just performance,but also being tender and"comfortable"(the word that they use in this picture.)Let's not be too hasty about the performances of O'Neill,Rivero,and Mitchum-they were young and needed experience,and they got it in this film.(And Rivero is every bit as tasty looking as O'Neill.Isn't he delectable?)Nice to see Victor French as a porcine,slimy villain,and Mike Henry manages to play against his Tarzan image as the sheriff.I found him tough enough,and certainly brutish,but I didn't see him as quite enough of a sadist to go around cutting up women.David Huddleston does a first-rate job as Dr.Jones.The real acting honors of the evening,however,do go to the redoubtable Mr.Elam.This is a scenery-chewing,rip-roaring,over-the-top performance of such eye-rolling looniness that it's a joy to behold.Watch this film for fun,and don't take it too seriously.

There's a proverb somewhere that states that youth is wasted on the young.One might similarly feel that the wisdom of fairy tales,folklore,and fantasy are wasted on children.While I,for one would hesitate to go that far,I feel that the messages contained in this film,like so many other classic children's stories,are best understood in an articulate fashion by adults.Kids will unconsciously and intuitively pick up the meanings,but it requires more maturity and life experience to fully appreciate what's going on here.So,here ends my pontificating,and begin the review.The plot with Arthur O'Connell trying to take over the town is a simple,relatively benign framework to introduce the real story;the necessity of looking at ourselves,our flaws,our foibles,and the illusions we need to protect ourselves,and to keep on living.And the circus of Dr.Lao does provide that chance,in a gentle and compassionate way.We can complain about the dated quality of the special effects,but don't forget,this was 14 years before Star Wars.The villains are a couple of stupid oafs who are easily disposed of in a benevolent fashion,and the other characters are shown the ways in which they stunt their own development,and then are given the chance to change IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO!(Let's face it,some of them decide to stay the same.)Randall gives a tour de force performance as the circus cast(although I believe that stuntman Janos Prohaska actually did the Abominable Snowman)and the true development of Merlin,from doddering has-been to capable miracle worker is am impressive display of character creation and sustenance.(I've always wondered if the bagpipes accompanying the growth of the Loch Ness Monster was some sort of inside joke.)This is the kind of film that the entire family should see together;everyone could get something out of it.

Bengtsson's novel"The Long Ships"is a rich,highly detailed,well-researched, and deep account of life in the 10th century.It gives the story of a young viking named Orm,who travels in Europe and Moorish Spain,acquires a wife,and builds his own holdings when forced into exile.The novel gives what appears to be an accurate picture of life in the latter part of the Dark Ages,examining the conflict between cultures,armies,and the rise of Christianity in the North vs. the waining pagan faith.Orm's growth,as both a warrior and a man are really quite an inspiring story.And this film doesn't cover any of it.We have some sort of a worked -up plot about searching for a lost golden bell,and some casting that is bizarre.Widmark plays Widmark,tough,glib,and cynical.He does a fine job,but it isn't anything that he hadn't done in at least 20 pictures before.Who,in the name of all that's holy,cast Poitier in a role that called for Anthony Quinn to repeat his performance in"Sinbad the Sailor"?Did Sidney take this on because he was short of funds?Tamblyn is his own sweet self,and Homolka,Judd,Evans,Blakely,Jackson,and Lodge are their usual capable selves in their roles.Schiaffino is lovely to gaze upon,and at least tries to create a character,which is more than can be said of Loncar.(By the way,why couldn't we see more of that voluptuous blond sneaking into the smokehouse with Tamblyn?Has anybody got her phone number?)The last act is pretty implausible.The Moslems return to town with the bell,enter a silent city with the crowds NOT giving them the expected adulation,and walk right into an ambush.GIVE ME A BREAK!These are Moors,not morons. And what's all this nonsense about "The Mare of Steel"?Islam specifically forbids horrible executions.Just take them out,and cut their heads off.Poitier is going to do this because Widmark made advances to his wife,right.Well,believe me,sliding down that blade would have turned him into a eunuch-and after that,he wouldn't be able to make advances towards anybody's wife.The battle is composed of a number of sequences that don't fit together,and as a consequence,lacks a feeling of versimilitude.

As happens so often with film adaptations of great novels,we have a screenplay that will focus on the events of a novel,rather than on the underlying philosophical tenets and theories that seem to be involved.Perhaps it is inevitable that this be the case.The Karamazovs are,in actuality,the fragmented aspects of the author's

personality;a.)brutishness;b.)impulsiveness;c.)intellect;d.)spirituality;e.) depravity.(To wit;Feodor;Dimitri;Ivan;Alexis;Smerdyakov).And the real hero of the novel is Alexis.We are witnessing his growth and development as a hero against the sordid story of his family and the murder of their lustful,wicked father.It is development,particularly regarding the testing of his faith in the hard and often callous world,that marks the real journey of the story.This is minimalized in the film.I guess that this probably wouldn't have sold in 50s America.The adaptation ,given my observations,is really quite impressive.We can't fault any of the production values,efforts,and activities.And,with one exception,the cast is excellent.My one fault in this respect is with Lee J.Cobb.This outstanding character actor is much too young,virile,and attractive to portray accurately the character the author intended.Feodor Karamazov is supposed to be about 65,a physical wreck,sinister,and depraved.His physically debauched condition is intended to mirror his moral corruption.And,yet,given these attributes,he in nevertheless fascinating to women.(At least,certain kinds of women.I shudder to think what their agendas are if they find an old villain like this attractive.They must be as needy as all get-out,and viewing him through a fantasy veil that keeps out all accurate perceptions.)In my opinion,the late Donald Pleasence would have been a much more realistic choice for the part.Otherwise,given my criticism,this is a highly enjoyable film.

There is really nothing to say about the musical aspects of this production:it's all very well-done.We have to look at the directoral touches that Ponnelle has left on the production.And,boy,he wrote his name on this in red paint.First,I think that Ponnelle has an obsession with the early Renaissance-look where he placed "The Coronation of Poppea".And Rigoletto is not an early,but a middle Renaissance setting.The ducal court is not only licentious,but also depraved and unsanitary.Mice in the salad!And the party at the beginning throws in everything including the kitchen sink.The minor characters are all strikingly portrayed-and Bracht's cyclopean Ceprano is a physical indication of the corruption and taint of the court.Pavarotti,as the Duke,is a case-book psychopath.Lusty,charming,extroverted,and a creature at the mercy of his appetites and impulses,he lacks the faintest trace of mercy,compassion,and decency.Violent,vicious,and totally without morals,he will,and does destroy anyone who gets in his way.Interesting idea to have Wixell play both Rigoletto and Count Monterone-emphasizes the parallel between the two characters,but you could only do it in a film.Furlanetto's Sparafucile is a clinical example of Paranoid Schizophrenia;this guy is not living in the same reality that the rest of us inhabit.And Gruberova's Gilda,splendidly sung,is a little too sweet for my tastes;the character should display some ambiguous traits.The emphasis in this production is on evil,corruption,depravity,and every other noxious trait on the list.Save Gilda(and the Count of Monterone)none of these portrayals offers a redeeming grace.

If I remember correctly,this was done for some sort of children's early Saturday afternoon series sometime in the middle 70s.And it shows a lot of work,good writing,careful direction,and outstanding production values.They adhere close to both the spirit and the details of the original opus.Everybody has a lot of fun doing this show,and everybody watching it should get a lot of laughs out of it.My only,criticism is with some of the casting,and that only in the most peripheral fashion.Elam and Martin,as the kidnappers,are an accomplished pair of character actors,who can handle melodrama,farce,low comedy,and straight drama with ease.While one has difficulty imagining them doing Noel Coward,they can play straight or character or comic parts with ease.When one remembers the types of vicious villains that they played in the 50s and 60s,though,their current portrayals don't quite stand up.If a high-spirited kid gave them trouble in a 50s film(given the characters they played then),they probably would have murdered him.And that is something that I find rather disturbing.Otherwise,enjoy this flic as the fun that it is.

The two big crimefighting superheroes of the middle 60s were James Bond,and Batman.I think that the cultural miliue that was going on had a significant influence on the way that these films and tv programs impacted this film.It is an interesting and respectable addition to the Holmes canon.And while neither Neville as Holmes nor Huston as Watson do more than imitate Rathbone and Bruce,they do what they need to do with honors.What I found fascinating was the casting of Morley as Mycroft Holmes.A physically appropos choice(Mycroft is described as mildly obese,balding,untidy,and indolent)Morley also suggests the powerful intellect and penetrating insight that Mycroft possesses.And even if he does add some rather stuffy,pompous,and overly fussy comic relief,what of it?The movie does benefit,and it "fleshes out"(forgive the pun,given Morley's size)Mycroft's eccentric personality.

This has about as much to do with the real Genghis Khan as the Hughes film"The Conquerer".If you want to know about the real historical figure,read Lamb's 1920s book.That aside,we have to appreciate the production values of the film.Sets,props,etc.,are all ok.None of these people,however,can scarcely be imagined as Central Asians.Greek Savalas and Alabaman Strode come closest.Wallach,as the Shah,makes an acceptable sly villain,and not an unbelievable Levantine.Everybody else is not only much too European,but much too Nordic,as well.(Sharif is only a minor exception to this generalisation.)And Morley,Mason,and Hordern all act as though they wandered in from a road company of "The Mikado".Watch this film for amusement,and perhaps free-wheeling historical fiction(aka Robert E. Howard),but don't take it too seriously.

this film is adapted from about 20% of Marshall's novel"The Viking".And ,like some many adaptations,looses a great deal in the translation.The original story involves brutality,lust,incest,murder,fratricide,regicide,infanticide,and parracide.(The only one it doesn't have is suicide.)If you anything about Freud's postulated "Oedipus Complex',you wouldn't have any trouble picking it up in that book;it practically jumps out and bites you on the nose.Most of this is left out(thank goodness)of the film.Most of the characters are much more wholesome than the originals,for which let us thank heaven.Borgnine,as Ragnar,is brutish and rough,but nowhere near as malevolent as his blueprint.Much the same can be said of Douglas,as Einar.And if you can accept Douglas and Curtis as Jewish vikings(Issur Danielovich and Bernie Schwartz,respectively)it goes a long way in accepting this film.Those points aside,it's really quite well done.The vikings act like a gang of bikers on Halloween(which is most likely the way they really lived),and Leigh is splendidly cast as the Princess.(Obviously based on her heroine in Prince Valiant).Thring,as Aella,however,is much more slimey and evil than was the novel's,and he drips venom in a performance that is a joy to watch.Not at all subtle,but he adds a new dimension to the term'"scenery-chewing".I wondered why,after Borgnine's jump into the wolfpit,Thring cuts off Curtis' hand.Maybe it's because Curtis gave Ernie the sword,and,as a consequence,several of the pet wolves were killed.Maybe Aella should have contacted the SPCA,and then sued him ,instead.

I remember hearing a story of a TV showing of the musical comedy "The Sound of Music" in Japan.It seems that they didn't budget enough time for the entire film,so,in order to meet time constraints,they cut out all of the songs and dances.This film reminds me somewhat of that anecdote.They do the story of Verdi's early masterpiece"Rigoletto",do it as a straight play,add the music for background and incidentals,and make some minor cuts to tighten it up.Ok,so we can see how an operatic libretto,and plot can be pretty corny.And we can see how that same plot and libretto can be made magical by the music.But I think that this can be a valuable tool for providing someone unfamiliar with this medium with an introduction to opera.And given the proper groundwork,it just might work.

Sometimes it's very easy to be critical of old films,when watching them from a perspective of 60 years.After the special effects of the Harryhausen films,the Stars Wars and Indiana Jones films,we might be a little too harsh,having seen the improvement since 1940.Let's face it-this was top of the line back then.And the plot,which might seem dated or stereotyped now,was original at that time.The exuberance seen in this flic is really rather refreshing.My only complaint is with Ingram,as the Djinn.He sounds a little too much(to my ear)like the Lawd(Green Pastures).

I first saw this film when it came out in the late 50s,and watched it every time it came on tv for decades afterward.It might say something about my tastes,because I thought it was a rousingly good adventure story.I still feel that way-for a pirate and battle film,it's first-rate.Where,then are my criticisms?First;a.)The battle of New Orleans was fought about 3 weeks after a peace treaty had been signed,and was,technically,irrelevant;b.)Unlike what they imply in the film,the British and the American forces were evenly matched-when the citizens of New Orleans and the pirates joined Jackson,the British were out-numbered;c.)The reason Laffite was not appreciated by the American government was not the PIRACY,per se,(they had legal commissions as privateers issued by Simon Bolivar)but because of the smuggling;d.)Laffitte had to leave,not because of the actions of a renegade captain under his command,but because he had returned to smuggling after he had received a presidential pardon;e.)Dominique,who was Laffite's much older brother,was an earthy,warm-hearted man who stayed behind and became a political hack under the Americans.Boyer is giving a reprise of an earlier portrayal on Napoleon;.I get the feeling that,with the big production,the large number of stars and well-known character actors who were doing supporting parts,the elaborate sets and props,and routines,they were trying to duplicate the success and magnitude of "The Ten Commandments"several years earlier.The big scenes-the pirate captains' conference;the pirate market;the taking of the"Corinthian"and the scenes at Barataria are well-done.(One bogus sequence,however-when Laffite challenges the pirate captains to kill Miggs before they can divy up the gold,and they back down-give me a break.Given the opportunity to get the loot-they would have lined up to slit the kid's throat.)The Battle of New Orleans is exteremly well-handled.Numerous viginettes of men preparing a variety of activities leading into the final fight-adds up to an impressive fourth act.And the love scenes do drag.This is not what De Mille was known for.So,enjoy this film on it's own merits,and realize that nothing is ever perfect.

This fine show adapted wonderfully to the screen.They took a good piece of work,and made it into an even better one.Moody was the original Fagin,in London,and recreated the role for the screen.Oh,they had to sanitize him,and let him escape at the end(Political Correctness,and all),and keep him as the "good-badman"-but would the B"nai Brith have let them do otherwise?He's such a delight.Reed,as Sikes,is more sinister than I would have originally expected;I.Reed is also much more intelligent,and is much more disturbed than other interpreters of the role.I always imagine the character was being much louder.Nancy,in this version,assumes a larger part than in the book;she is also much more wholesome.And Secombe's Bumble lacks only the rotund basso-profundo that the score indicates-but he does sing it so well.Several numbers from the stage version have been eliminated,but there is no great loss.Enjoy this well.

There were a lot of 50s and early 60s swashbuckling costume dramas that must have played in saturday afternoon double features in this country.I didn't get a chance to see a lot of them until the middle 60s,when they would show them on local tv on saturday afternoons.This is one that I didn't get a chance to see until December,1973.There isn't a whole lot more that I can add to what Dinky said.I think that Chelo,as the heroine,is simply ravishing,and,depending on how your tastes run,maybe Steve is quite delectable,too.And she's the only one in the film whose chest rivals his in size.

I,for one,fail to see anything particularly creative,innovative,and even especially entertaining about Branagh's works in interpreting Shakespeare.Oh,don't get me wrong;he's clever,and sometimes interesting,but my question is sometimes,WHY?He's given himself the title part of one of the best plays,and reminds me of a community theater director I knew in Cleveland,Ohio,who always gave himself the best roles,too.Some of the things going on-Rosencrantz and Guilderstern riding a toy train,Polonius giving instructions to Reynaldo almost immediatly following a casual sexual encounter-are fun and catch one's attention,but my question again is "WHY"?And we have a big bunch of stars appearing,I guess for box office draw,and they do get in the way.Lemmon,Williams,and Crystal,capable performers that they are,are Not Shakespeareans.Blessed,Briers,Gielgud,and Heston can all deliver the text(In the last case,it just emphasizes that you don't need a whole lot of brains to do Shakespeare,but I found their appearances in the picture to be distracting.)Why this 1868 locale and setting?Did we get a good rate on Marlborough Castle?And everybody spoke much too quickly and much too loud(except for Blessed;he roared in a loud whisper.)And I don't think that Branagh's interpretation will ever replace Gielgud,Olivier,Richard Chamberlain,Williamson,or even Mel Gibson's.

I,for one,am not impressed by this movie.I think the plot is stereotyped,the characters cliched,and the technical work adequate,no more.All of the characters,save one, are shadowy and poorly defined.And THAT one,however,is the one that should be shadowy.Brando's Claxton,appears to have wandered in from another movie.Loud,outlandish,flamboyant,he sticks out like a sore thumb.This is the most self-indulgent performance have seen since Zero Mostel.And at least Mostel was entertaining.

Let's face it,the original story had nothing about Dracula as a crusader against the Turkish hordes,nothing about a long-lost wife,and the seduction of Mina was,in all honesty,a rape.Watch this as Coppola's interpretation,and you'll be much happier.This is an opera without music,and that's the best way to enjoy this flick.I wonder about Oldman in the title role,as it is my understanding that they had considered Banderas and Assante prior to this choice.Each would have had more genuine sexual magnetism and virility.This comment aside,Oldman does have the time of his life.Rider and Reeves had to have been cast for physical attractiveness,as neither are at all believable in their parts.She's much too American,and he's much too flat.Lucy is much too arch,and the 3 Stooges-excuse me,the 3 suitors, are adequate.renfield is marvelous,and Hopkins walks away with the acting honors as Dr.Van Helsing,giving the hammiest performance of his career,and one of the hammiest since Porky Pig.Sets,costumes,choreography are outstanding,the street scenes are great,special effects can't be beat,and the final chase and battle have yet to be equaled.

There is a considerable difference between this production,which has been aired on A&E this year,and the televised performances of the Mary Martin musical stage play that many of us remember from our (misspent)youths.I was originally quite puzzled by this version,as they borrowed a number of the songs from the older show.Consequently,I was startled,and,initially,disappointed,when I saw this production.(During the 1960s and early70s,a large children's theater in University Heights,Ohio,always did "Peter Pan"at Xmas.saw I had some degree of familiarity with that show.Then,in Feb.1985,while living in Marion,Ohio,I did the role of Mr.Smee in a local production.So I DO know the show.)It appears that whoever did the script did a rather free adaptation of the MM version,and borrowed some of the musical numbers.Anybody who insists on the older vehicle has only themselves to hold responsible.This is a dark story,with emphases placed upon destruction,evil,some sexual tensions,and a sensual eroticism that was lacking in the other.These are legitimate aspects to explore.Rigby's portrayal of the title character,with cockney accent,is seen as a very much lost waif,which was minimized in the Martin version.Schoeffler's verile and sexually powerful Hook,sadistic and cruel,is much more sinister than was Ritchard's.In my opinion,there can be no objection to interpretations of this sort.I had some questions as to having Smee coming across as a 15-year-old juvenile delinquent-why?And the mature female,womanly Tiger Lily,again,why?The sets,costumes,props are all first-rate.The choreography is quite impressive,but some of the elaborately done numbers don't fit into the narrative pattern of the story.Case in point;Hook's Tango,while superbly done,stuck out like a sore thumb.The pirates sing and dance,but are not listening to a plot to kill the Lost Boys.It was just a production number-and the way Hook and Smee tango together,I thought I was in a gay bar.Much the same about the "Pow-Wow Polka"-the number done in the Underground Home.It was a splendid song and dance routine,but did nothing to advance the plot-which was to celebrate the alliance between the Boys and the Indians.Take this version on its own merits-wonderfully sung,acted,and produced.

There isn't a whole lot(forgive the pun)to add that previous critics haven't already said.We've got a good cast(and Stanley Baker is every bit as sexy as Lot's daughters),a reasonable script,and the dialouge is ok.(When the queen states"Greetings,Sodomites!"I usually laugh so hard that I fall off the couch.)Does anybody realize that Alabias,the mad prophet,is the same actor who was the blind monk in"Name of the Rose"?He was also the dotty grandpa walking the 5 doggies in "Moonstruck".And he was the son of the great Feodor Chaliapin,the outstanding Russian opera basso.

I originally saw this picture in the summer of 1962,as part of a Saturday afternoon double feature,and enjoyed it at that time.Last summer,I got it again on video,and watched it.It still wasn't bad,-for a 10 year old.This movie was obviously intended for kids,and they will probably get a big kick out of it.And the dragon WASN'T as bad as most people think.

This is a good pirate film for kids.I don't think anybody,including Reeves,thought that he was a great artist,but it's a fun picture.Vaguely inspired by "Captain Blood",this has very little to do with the real Henry Morgan.It also has aspects of "The Adventures of Robin Hood "as well.Chelo Alonso,straight from her adventures in the Follies Bergere is simply exquisite.A funny sequence has Reeves strip to the waist for a duel with the paunchy Armand Mestral,who,when viewing his rivals superb physique,shrugs in chagrin.Ripping good fun.

Waltari's impressive historical fictional work,"The Egyptian",is a long,well-thought out,well-researched,throughly planned piece of good writing.It covers a period of about 60 years in the life of Sinhue,the narrator,and describes his life,adventures,travels,and spiritual and emotional growth in careful detail.This film adaptation covers about 20% of the original,and as a consequence,looses a lot in the telling.The technical aspects are so impressive as to warrant a Ph.D. for their efforts.And,as for acting,Tierney,Ustinov,Wilding,Simmons,Daniell,and Carradine lead a strong supporting cast.(I especially enjoyed Carradine's cameo as the philosophical grave robber,with his Nitzschean interpretation on the futility of life.He told it the way it was.)Costumes,sets,props,etc. were superb.They should have been-they spent 5 years doing the research.And Purdom was a worthy replacement for Brando in the title part.Let's face it-the film was bound to disappoint anyone who wanted the original story.I don't feel qualified to comment on Darvi's portrayal.And Could anyone else BUT Mature have carried off Horemheb?My biggest criticism comes to the pacing.It does drag.But watch it for a well-done,thoughtful epic.

It might help to explain points of my review by giving some background information.I am a counseling psychologist and psychotherapist,with 20 years experience.Watching this film initially,in February 1992,almost contributed to a heart attack.Whoever did the screenplay to this atrocity hadn't the faintest idea of what constitutes appropriate clinical practice.Dr.Isaac Barr muffs the handling of this case from the onset.One wonders as to how he got through his psychiatric residency,let alone his training analysis,supervised cases,and what was going on in his personal analysis at this time?The pathological antics indulged in in this film would cause anybody else to get into serious trouble BIGTIME with the local psychoananlytic association,the American Psychoanalytic,the American Psychiatric,the AMA,and the State Board of Medicine.People have had licenses suspended for less.Where do we begin the critique?Let's start.A woman enters into Barr's office one night,claims to be a client's sister,and starts pumping Barr for information.He complies with her request.Now wait a darn minute-if I came into the office,claimed that I was the sister(I am 48 years old and have a full beard),would he give me the same courtesy?I seriously doubt it.You never release ANY information without having the client sign a specific release of information,with details as to who the data is going to.Barr could get sued out the wazoo for a stunt like this-and he'd deserve it.Then he and Heather go out to have coffee and discuss the case.You NEVER engage in professional activities outside of the work setting-your malpractice insurance won't cover it,and if something should go awry,won't assume any financial liabilities.Then,Barr and Heather end up making love-but it isn't love.This is not a relationship between equals,it's countertransference getting out of hand.She's extremely vulnerable emotionally(not really,but you're led to think that she is)and it is Barr's responsibility not to exploit a needy person.The onus is on the therapist to respect the boundaries.Barr is acting on his pathologically needy state,rather than reflecting as to what is going on.Dr. Lowenthal,upon being made aware of this situation,should have insisted that Barr re-enter therapy at once,and establish a supervisory relationship pronto.Noncompliance would involve informing the authorities.The Freudian psychoanalysts are very careful about not contaminating a therapeutic relationship,and this involve getting involved with family members of their patients.Barr should have refused to have anything to do with Heather AT ONCE.I wonder if the screenplay writers wanted to do a hatchet job on the psychiatric profession.

This version of Stevenson's masterpiece is probably the one that most closely follows the novel.It appears that they must have had a copy alongside when they were writing the script.Oh,we can certainly have criticisms,of inaccuracies,and diversions,but they're so small.Bale is some flat as Jim Hawkins,and he does appear a little dull-witted(which is NOT the same as being stupid)but what of it.He's the closest in age of any interpreter.I've heard people complain of Heston being cast against type as Silver,stating that he's not doing a hero.Nonsense!Silver happens to be an evil hero!Wood's Smollet is a little too young for the character,and Halsey and Coyle are both much too young for theirs(Hands and Morgan are described as rather elderly pirates)but what of it?They do a fine job.The fight at the stockade is much more elaborate than was described in the book,but can we have a Heston film that doesn't have an epic battle?Besides,it's so much fun.And Silver's escape is not as described in the novel,but it's so original,and so much in character,that we have to cheer the old blackguard in his resourcefulness.Get the video,stock up lots of beverages,make lots of popcorn,and settle back for a rousing,rollicking good time.