Reviews

I've read the user reviews for this film, and some of them seem way too harsh. I understand Windows was critically bashed during its theatrical release and considered offensive to many viewers, but watching it today, it's not that bad. In fact, keeping an open mind as to how the characters interact with one another, it's at the very least interesting. Sure, there are plot holes the size of Manhattan, but this is a stylized thriller with beautiful photography at its core.

The story centers on a psycho named Andrea (Elizabeth Ashley) – who just happens to be a lesbian – infatuated with her timid neighbor Emily (Talia Shire). Andrea goes so far as to hire a creep named Obecny (Rick Petrucelli) to attack Emily and have the ordeal recorded. Andrea gets her kicks listening to the audio despite seeing a therapist. We soon learn that curing Andrea of her obsession may not be in the cards. What follows is Emily trying to cope and get on with her life while Andrea basically stalks and watches her through a telescope.

The film does drag a bit at times, but the climax certainly holds its own until the very end, where it just fizzles. However, I did scratch my head a couple of times in a good way by being perplexed as to what the intentions of the characters were. I also thought Ashley gave an unusual performance. Andrea was played as confused and sometimes volcanic, but with more subtlety, unlike an Alex Forrest (Fatal Attraction), for example. I think she should have been the focus of the film, giving Ashley more to work with and to create a deeper connection to the material. The acting was credible by the rest of the cast, especially Shire, who warms up to the role as the film progresses. Finally, the whole controversy over Andrea being a lesbian seems silly now. I mean, it's a character. We have all kinds of movies featuring different types of psychopaths relishing in various fetishes. Andrea just happened to be a lesbian whose obvious crush was going to be on another woman. Let's get over it already.

I wanted to see this film for over 30 years because of the controversy it spawned. Was it worth it? Yes and no. I didn't see it as controversial, but it did keep me watching until the end. Just watch the Syfy channel, and you'll see WAY more movies worse than this one in every respect, literally. If you do decide to see Windows, don't overanalyze it and remember this was the first and only directorial effort from the renowned cinematographer Gordon Willis.

I understand how some (perhaps most) viewers found The Visitor an incoherent mess, but it may be due to poor editing since its U.S. release in 1979 which, evidently, was also released theatrically to international audiences. However, I am only speculating, but I do know the original Italian version is longer. That version may help to fill in the gaps and possibly extends some of the more emotional scenes in the film which have been severely cut. As I was watching The Visitor, I was disappointed at how abruptly some of these scenes concluded. I wanted and expected a deeper connection to the material and the characters. Regardless of these setbacks, the movie is unquestionably unique on many levels, and I didn't find it difficult to follow. Perhaps because it IS so outlandish, I enjoyed fitting the pieces together. There was never a dull moment with so many things happening throughout the course of the story line. The atmosphere was classic 70s style, and the acting was not bad at all despite (again) the poor editing.

The Visitor is an Omen copy to a degree, but instead of demonic forces at work, the film centers on an evil alien force. This alien force is actually an escaped prisoner named Zatteen, who finds refuge on Earth many years in the past after fleeing from a deadly battle in space. Before his eventual death, he impregnates a number of women, passing along his mutated genes and allowing his future offspring to possess telekinetic powers. Since Zatteen had evil intentions and only wanted to kill and destroy others, his children are of the same breed. In order to carry out his catastrophic deeds, a cohort of wealthy men led by Dr. Walker (Mel Ferrer) is assembled to ensure his plan of world domination succeeds. This mission is challenged when only one woman on the planet in the present day bears the ability to fertilize Zatteen's seed, and her name is Barbara Collins (Joanne Nail). Barbara has already given birth to Katie (Paige Conner), a now eight year–old daughter who shows us she is no angel with some of the wicked things she says and does. The cohort wants Barbara to give birth to a son so he can become the new Zatteen of his generation. This task of impregnating Barbara is given to Raymond Armstead (Lance Henriksen), who must convince her to marry him despite the fact she is unwilling to commit to marriage. Barbara, of course, does not realize she has the special gift of carrying Zatteen's seed in her womb, but she knows intuitively that something is wrong with Katie. That sets up the premise of The Visitor. Of course, there are birds that attack on command, a watchful babysitter (Shelley Winters), a police detective on Katie's trail (Glenn Ford), a mysterious butler, a Jesus–like character who tells tales of the evil Zatteen to a group of young bald–headed children, and the good–guy visitor himself (John Huston), who congregates his disciples on the roof of a large skyscraper. The first fifteen minutes of the film unravels the basis of the plot, but as the viewer, it's important to listen to the dialogue. A lot happens quickly.

Whether you like the film or find it a mess, to say it's not an entertaining effort would seem unfair. The only thing that really was annoying to me was part of the soundtrack dealing with the discotheque music. It was way over the top and out of place for this type of picture. I'm sure it fit the times and some people enjoyed it, but if the movie is to be taken seriously on any level, then that music has to go. If the movie was intended as hype – which doesn't appear to be the case – then the histrionic melody is warranted. On the other hand, the moody, ambient music was excellent, and the ending was solid. Give this cult classic a shot and be prepared to go on a strange journey of plot twists and turns. Watch it on a rainy day when you have the time or are feeling ambiguous and/or disconnected from the world. We all have those days sometimes. That's when The Visitor will leave you a little numb, confused, and scratching your head... but in a good way.

Cheers was one of those shows that had all of the ingredients of being a success from its inception, yet it took a while before it really gained the respect it has over the years. In fact, it was in jeopardy of being canceled after its first season due to low ratings. However, thanks to some smart executives, amazing writers, and a stellar cast, Cheers persevered. The sitcom mainly takes place in a bar and focuses on the daily lives of a variety of colorful characters and the comical situations they create. In a way, it's like watching a slice of what it means to be a citizen in this great country. We are a melting pot of different people, circumstances, beliefs, hang–ups, triumphs, misfortunes, etc., yet when push comes to shove in moments of desperation and/or despair, we work it all out. We work as a team to solve problems and get through each day, whether it be a good one or a day wrought with idiosyncrasies. That's what the patrons in Cheers do. Sure, they have their issues and selfish forays that help define them as individuals, but they're basically good people with good hearts. Everybody commits selfish acts sometimes. This show simply magnifies these types of predicaments for the sake of humor that's all in good fun. It's nice to know there is a place where everyone knows your name that is an extended family of sorts. Sometimes we have to get away from those closest to us just to recharge our batteries. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could go to a place like Cheers to unwind now and then?

The main ensemble included the cocky–but–likable head bartender, Sam Malone (Ted Danson). I believe Danson was perfectly cast here, and his two Emmy wins are well–deserved. Sam had a love interest on the show for the first five seasons named Diane Chambers (Shelly Long). She was brilliant as the stuffy, neurotic bookworm filled with insecurities and dilemmas that would drive anyone nuts. When Long left the show, Rebecca Howe (Kirstie Alley) took over. She would eventually buy the bar and have her own insecurities to contend with. She had big shoes to fill as Diane was a popular television character. In fact, Long won an Emmy and two Golden Globes for her scene stealing performances. Alley, to her credit, was a terrific replacement because she brought in a distinctive flavor to her character and added a different dimension to the show. She won an Emmy as well. Rhea Perlman played the fiery head waitress, Carla. She could be a bit hard to swallow at times, but she was dead–on in all of her performances and has four Emmy awards to prove it. The rest of the cast included the spacey bartender, Ernie Pantusso (Nicholas Colasanto), naive bartender Woody (Woody Harrelson – who replaced The Coach after his death in real life), couch potato, Norm (George Wendt), goofy mailman, Cliff (John Ratzenberger), quirky Dr. Frasier Crane (Kelsey Grammar – who went on to star in his own very successful spin off show aptly titled Frasier), and Frasier's uptight wife, Lilith (Bebe Neuwirth). All of these diverse characters provided plenty of humorous material and the actors/actresses played them to a tee. It was their top notch performances that propelled this show to a higher level than it already was.

In closing, Cheers offers the viewer the opportunity to escape the rat race world of the major cities (and perhaps the humdrum of small towns??) that we live in where we can enjoy some good conversation, a few laughs, and great company. Feeling welcome is never a bad thing...

Roseanne should be considered one of the best sitcoms in television history as every classic show is a reflection of the times it represents. Roseanne has been off the air for about a decade now, and when I have a chance to watch it in syndication, I am always entertained. Even the last season, which was a disappointment, has its moments. It's also interesting to see how the characters evolved and changed over the years. I could be wrong about the following comment, but it seems somewhat obvious when Roseanne Barr was going through her divorce to Tom Arnold. Her performance on the show was more biting than usual during that particular season. Maybe it was the media, expectation, or something else. Either way, a new dimension to the show was added due to Barr's transformation (I believe it was Season 4 or 5).

What really makes Roseanne stand out and keeps it in good company with other classic sitcoms is its blending of comedy and drama, often displayed in one scene. Elementally speaking, it reminds me of All in the Family, Maude, and Good Times, shows that defined showcasing dramedy in the 70s. Also, the performances were terrific. John Goodman was outstanding and underused as Dan. I look forward to when he is on screen. Sara Gilbert delivered a consistently excellent turn as Darlene, and then there's Roseanne Barr. She made her mark and did it well. Estelle Parsons was fantastic as Beverly, and Laurie Metcalf had some scene–stealing moments as Jackie. These are talented performers giving us quality television to remember, along with the writers, director(s), producers, and everyone else involved in the project.

Anyone who finds Roseanne insulting, repugnant, and/or basically not worth watching may be missing the point of the show and the writing itself. Watch it again and really listen to the dialog. The characters are actually quite decent – they are simply not idealistic in a society that craves moral fortitude yet has difficulty maintaining a core foundation these days. Ozzie and Harriet they're not, but then again, a classic show is a reflection of the times it represents. Hence... Roseanne. The show would fair even better today with our present economy.

Thanks to ABC for giving us Roseanne. We are the richer for it!

If a film is nominated for nine Academy Awards, it has to be worth something. Anyone who pans this film simply is trying to be negative to be negative. What's the point in that? Seeing the positive is much more convincing, and Julia has plenty to offer. Jane Fonda proves she is one of the last great actresses who can deliver material with an emotional fervor and still be mature about it. We have Glenn Close and Meryl Streep today, only to name a couple of talents, but they are entering their twilight years. The days of mature women gracing the screen giving superb performances are seemingly in decline. They're out there, yes, but not in abundance – that's for sure.

In any event, Julia is highlighted by a number of great performances and some tense moments. The film is thoroughly engaging, especially the last half of it. I love Vanessa Redgrave, but an Oscar for that performance was not justified in my mind. The Oscars are a tricky bag and not always correct, but politics are forever present. Judi Dench won an Oscar for Shakespeare in Love and did not deserve it for that role, either. An aging actress playing a queen for eight minutes, which could have been played just as well by a number of other actresses, does not justify an Oscar. I know I am rambling here, but I feel if you, as the viewer, can picture another actor/actress playing the part on an equal par or even better perhaps, then an Oscar is not warranted. One last example: Melanie Griffith in Working Girl was outstanding, memorable, and unique. It may not have been the most difficult role, but she nailed it and made it her own.

Regardless of Redgrave's win, she is still terrific as is the rest of the cast. If you can catch this film on cable, watch it!

I just watched this film last week, and I had been looking forward to seeing it for quite some time. I was apprehensive about Travolta replacing Divine, who was always divine, but I have to say, Travolta was terrific. In fact, I watched the film a second time strictly to see Travolta. Maybe I had such low expectations of what his performance might be that I was pleased to see him give such a charming turn. Yes, charming! True, his accent was terrible and he didn't sound too womanly, but that does not deter from his embodiment of the character. I actually felt sorry for Edna as well as happy for her. Go figure... Plus, the scenes with Walken and Travolta are very memorable. They appeared to have a great time together on screen.

Along with Travolta, everybody in this film looked like they had a good time making it, and the musical numbers are solid. I think that's hard to replicate in today's times – good music, that is, in a film, less a musical. It gives me hope to think that there is a chance this genre can make a comeback. I've never been hooked on them, but they can appeal to a broad audience if the subject matter is inclusive and diverse enough.

Hairspray is inspirational in a lot of ways and on different levels, and the strong cast delivers. I hope John Waters is pleased with the outcome. You will be, too, once you watch it. It won't disappoint!

I watched this film by accident, really, but it was actually very entertaining. The actor who played Guy Madison's grandfather was particularly good. I especially liked how the Native Americans were portrayed as human beings and not ruthless killers. This film was released in 1956, which shows a great effort for the producers to make such a film. The message is about unity and the human spirit. For that time period, I found the movie unique. It kept me watching. Plus, Madison has an interesting appeal as an actor because he never really made it big here in the United States. We know not all actors are great actors, and Madison wasn't phenomenal. However, he wasn't bad, either. So why wasn't he more of a major star? And even though I don't watch too many Westerns, I'd rather watch Madison than most of the other Western stars of that time. Like I said, interesting...

I've read the user comments and the critics' bashing of this film, and that may be why I watched it a few times while working on my computer over the course of a couple of weeks. At the end of the third viewing, I found this movie to be pretty amusing. It's chopped full of indecencies and stereotyping, but don't you think Murphy knew that when writing this film? He's been around a long time and has made many films. Surely, he knew what he was doing. After all, he shares screen writing credits. Thus, with all that being said, we have to watch Norbit for what it is – a comedy with slapstick overtones. What also is interesting is that Rasputia takes on a life of her own the more this film is watched. We know Murphy is wearing the fat suit, but we forget it's him after a while. The same goes for Mr. Wong. I don't know...maybe I had low expectations for this film. However, I can't help but say I found it humorous and would watch it again. And I don't have one brain cell! So shoot me...

I feel like I'm the only kid in town who was annoyed by Branagh's performance. He is a fine actor by most accounts, but he simply could not pull off the Southern accent. I mean, it was deplorable. It was as if he was trying too hard to be a Yank. One of the previous reviewers questioned why U.S. actors were not cast in this film. I second that notion. It's wonderful when actors/actresses wish to expand their horizons, but it's another thing to try too hard so that a performance becomes strained. Maybe it was Altman, but he's a such a great director...

Well, I really don't want to bash Branagh for his absolutely hideous accent too much. Everybody deserves to screw up here and there. But it is hard to watch something so annoying that you'd rather choke on a chicken bone or eat a bucket full of crap than sit through The Gingerbread Man.

I think everyone knows the story here: A man fools around with a woman suffering from borderline personality disorder, which sparks a downward tailspin in his personal life, to say the least.

Everyone in this film gives a great performance, but it's Glenn Close who was robbed of the Academy Award. I don't know why she hasn't won an Oscar yet because she has given one superb performance after another. I don't even think Alex Forest was one of her best performances. She has demonstrated such versatility and emotion, often in a single, unedited scene, and yet is Oscarless. Go figure...

Glenn Close may not have seemed like an obvious choice for this role, but that's a credit to her acting talents and how she can manipulate any role she tackles. The scene in the restaurant where Close entices Douglas into having a one–night stand is priceless. That scene alone was worth the Academy Award as Close proved she could play sexy, and then some. If they give Judi Dench an Oscar for eight minutes of screen time involving less emotional sustenance in a role (Shakespeare in Love), then politics are running too rampant.

But, in general, this is a very entertaining film with a message to convey. I actually felt sorry for Alex Forest when she was killed. Dan (Michael Douglas) should have been killed if anyone was to be shot. It's typically Hollywood – all that happy ending crap. Real life isn't that easy.

This is pretty tasteless material with only a few redeeming qualities. The actors do what they can with the material they are given, and, in a way, seem as if they care in general. The ending of the film shows this vantage point. Plus, the viewer should feel something for Justin Long's situation. Most kids raised in the United States who have attended even only a bit of college have had that feeling of abandonment and pondering the future. However, this is not enough to make a film successful.

If this is what some restaurant employees do with the food behind the scenes, I'm never eating out in a B–class establishment again. I'm surprised some restaurant chains didn't complain. Anyway, I obviously had nothing better to do for 90 minutes so I shouldn't complain.

Who cast this movie? First off, Justin Long seems like a nice enough fellow, but a college basketball prospect? He's about 30 years old, 5'6'' and 125 pounds. And how come a trailer park has so many nice looking residents around? I'd move there! I don't mean to trash trailer parks, but statistically speaking, over 50% of the residents could not be that attractive in just about any place. It's a shame the casting is so poor because the film had potential. I love how John Corbett suddenly overcomes his "ailment" at the end of the film without a hitch. I wonder why the actors did not tell the director about altering some of these scenes, but then, if you're going to have Justin Long cast as basketball stud, I suppose no one either cared or was paying attention. Still, if you can get by all of the setbacks (maybe a miraculous intervention or drunken flurry?), Dreamland just might be entertaining enough for you.