Reviews

The concept of the film, "Somewhere in Time" are terrific. Romance, time travel, finding a lost love and so on are wonderful. When the film came out years ago, it was perceived as a great date movie and so off I went with my then girlfriend and another couple to see it. We were quite eager to enjoy and did in parts, but found the film wanting in others. Again, this is just all imho as I know others truly love the film and are apt to either see through the flaws or not care about them.

The idea of how Richard (Chris Reeve) goes back in time seemed about the hokiest. Repeating over and over again the date and then taping it became a bit laughable in the theatre and to us who were indeed there to enjoy the film. Had they come up with some other plausible fantasy idea that the audience could have bought more easily it would have served to help the audience buy into the film more so. For example, if in his search for a means of time travel he would have sought out some master from the east who would have taught him some technique meditative or otherwise that could bring him into the past. But the real catch in either case that kind of ruins the film is that regardless of the method of time travel, why could Richard summon up the same will to return to McKenna? You don't see him trying that much after his return, but rather giving up and wandering around in a state of depression. His giving up after all that didn't make sense. Perhaps it was more clearly stated in the book, but it wasn't in the film.

The cast is largely good, the whole film really revolves around Reeves, Jane Seymour and the great Christopher Plummer. Plummer is fine as the protective and mysterious manager. Isn't he always good in every film? A truly amazing actor. Jane Seymour is lovely as McKenna. You believe indeed that she is a woman of the time and a great actress like the great Maude Adams, who the role is patterned after. The chemistry between her and Reeves is good. Christopher Reeve himself is very sincere and earnest in the role, albeit a bit stiff. Christopher Reeves always a very serious actor is someone who really grew in talent and skill over the years. His departure into character roles like that of Jack Lewis in "Remains of the Day", revealed a future world of great possibilities of wonderful roles for this ever growing actor. But at this time, despite his wonderful charm and sincerity, I think the role of Richard Collier also needed a bit more humor and depth. I can't think of an actor at the time that might have pulled it off except perhaps Robert Redford or even a quirkier choice like Dustin Hoffman. Again, I mean no offense to those who love the film as is, or to the memory and talent of Christopher Reeve who I had the pleasure of seeing on stage once shortly before he was chosen to play Superman. And even in that role at that time, you got the very same earnest sincerity and seriousness about acting. But not a wide scope of skill. None the less, he was very charming in that role as well and serviced the part.

An interesting side note to that story was that we saw Chris Reeve many months before the announcement of his taking the role of Superman. I know that afterwords there was this whole pr thing about Reeve having to work out beforehand to bulk up. I can tell you that was one thing he did not need to do. Reeve on stage was the most impressive man I ever saw, far more so than he ever was on film. His body was perfectly sculpted and formed like a Greek statue. The women I went with all fell in love with him and my male friends including me all felt like little weenies in comparison, lol. God bless, Chris.

Back to the film, it was in my opinion a near miss that could have been a real movie classic. Just needed better writing and justifying of the turns of the plot.

When this film came out my wife and I were looking forward to it. The cast was excellent. Full of some very good actors; a number of whom have carried films all by themselves and are actors that we've enjoyed a great deal in other films as well. When the film opened the reviews were not that good. But there have been times in the past where we've disagreed with the critics and decided to go see H.J.N.T.I.Y. and-- we were sadly disappointed. A lot of time when reviews are not that good, you can be pleasantly surprised. But not this time.

What a waste of some great talent and the potential for a wonderful story. The cast at large does a heroic job of trying to make something out of the poorly written situations and dialogue, but they just can't make it work. It is as if the director left them on their own to fend for themselves. The humor and situations are often forced and the direction is heavy handed. Ben Affleck and Drew Barrymore (also a producer) in particular are literally wasted in very small almost throw-away roles. I won't bother to tell the story or further review the film except to say; don't waste your money. If it comes on TV at some point and there's nothing else to watch, maybe then, give it a shot.

As Otto in "A Fish Called Wanda" once said: "Disappointed!"

Picnic has become known more as a highly melodramatic soap opera due to this 1955 production than it was originally known and appreciated for as a highly successful play on Broadway.

Many viewers who don't like the film, blame it on the miscasting of the great William Holden who was more than a few years to old for the role. While he gives the role a great effort, he seems very self-conscious in the role. He was too old and too weathered and his innate intelligence just comes right through.

But the larger flaws in the production first comes from the need to dampen down the sexual references and repression of the piece so that it might perhaps fit the film codes of the day.

Daniel Taradash's screenplay, most probably inhibited by the film codes, is still stiff and has none of the internal angst of the play.

Also, Joshua Logan seemed more intent on making a "big" film out of something far more intimate and intense. The play has light moments, but it is really more brooding and intense. You have s sense that these people are either sleep-walking through their lives or are about to explode from their own personal repression or shame. Only the wise Mrs. Potts in both play and film is finally at home with herself; perhaps so because now at the end of her days she just is at peace with her expectations versus her actual life. But Logan loses the subtly in favor of a big film, with big shots and sets, wonderful (but at times way to dramatic) film music. The film needed the intimacy that films like "Streetcar Named Desire" or even "A Place in the Sun" could provide. Now the latter is a good example of a big film that doesn't lose the intimate nature and intensity of the characters. This is not Logan's forte' and he too was not the best choice for the film's director. I think Kazan would have been one of the few at the time to breathe the kind of life in the film that enhanced the plays best qualities. This is a story of very real and desperate people trying to live in a rather sterile environment while not realizing how suffocating that environment is to their souls. It is Hal and Madge who are at least for the moment able to break free.

It is Logan's broad interpretation of the story that not only loses the heat and intensity of the play, but makes the film itself more dated today.

Supporting performances range from okay to wonderful. The wonderful being in particular Verna Felton as Mrs. Potts. Also great is Arthur O'Connell as Howard (oscar nomination for best supporting actor). Betty Field is one of the few who really creates the angst and multi-layered-inner struggle that is in the play itself. Rosalind Russell almost pushes the limit to overacting, but in the long run; it is a very affecting performance. Cliff Robertson does a capable job in a more poorly written screen role and maybe the least well written role in the play. Susan Straberg is great and outshines many in the film with her energy and sense of truth. She is spot on throughout and it almost makes those around her like Holden or Novak look more out of place or stiff. What a real film talent was lost in the lack of studios to know what to do with Ms. Strasberg.

I would love to see the real heat and intensity of the play be revisited in a remake today where you could see it all.

This film has all the size and grandeur of many of the great biblical epics of the 1950's and '60's. But it is also perhaps the first that really humanizes the biblical characters themselves. This is a unique and compelling balance that helps us to realize that even great figures like King David are flawed people who can find their faith and greatness in facing these very flaws.

The actors are all first rate in the film from Gilbert Barnett as David's second son Absolom through to the wonderful Susan Hayward as Bathsheba. Hayward is at her best in this film. Her own larger than life but very truthful style of acting is quite at home on the TV screen as it was when first seen on the wide cinimascope screens of the 1950's. She is the seductress of the piece, but she plays the role in such a way that you sympathize with her.

Raymond Massey does a great job as Nathan the prophet. As a child when I first saw the film, Massey seemed like he truly had just conversed with the Lord himself and was an awesome sight. No doubt helped also by the great music composed by the always amazing Alfred Newman who also had great successes in other biblical epics like "The Robe" and "The Greatest Story Ever Told" along with perhaps 100 other films too! The cinema photography by Leon Shamroy is well done and adds to the size but also the intimacy of the film. Henry King, a truly underrated film director who like William Wyler never really pigeon-holed himself into any one genre, pulls together a larger than life production that never loses sight of the love story between David and Bathsheba and David's own deep struggle with his faith in God. The path tread in this film could have been very hokey, but King keeps it real and interesting all the way. Plus we never lose the sense of mystery about trying to understand the will of God, just as David himself is struggling with the same. From the first scene where a soldier dies trying to save the ark from destruction. David is not satisfied with Nathan's answer, (to paraphrase)that no one can understand the will of God. This is the journey we embark on right through to the powerful ending where David is finally confronted with himself.

Finally this film belongs to Gregory Peck who is wonderful as King David. His David is a man you can believe could rule a country as King and Warrior but who was also at one time a gentle and faithful singer of psalms. This is one of his best performances.

I don't see this movie on television much anymore, but when I do I never fail to watch it. I think it still holds up very well today.

The idea of basing Godfather III around the conspiracy of the assassination of a Pope was a powerful choice and one that would have brought the trilogy to an even more amazing close had all things worked out. This is especially exciting when given the long held real-life suspicions about the death of the "30-day Pope".

I'm assuming that the original storyline with Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) was more potent and up to the standards of the prior Godfather films. Apparently Coppola himself was not very happy with the last minute changes he had to make when Paramount refused Duvall's salary demands. The storyline as is moved quite slowly in parts. This was especially so with the scenes involving Michael's re-courting of Kay. Both Pacino and Keaton are amazing actors; but they suffered with rather trite dialogue and a difficult circumstance to make believable. It seemed like filler dialogue to me. The same scenes rewritten more believably might have worked with these two fine actors; but they came off like bad soap opera scenes. Also the scenes with Vincent (Andy Garcia)and Mary (Sofia Coppola)this was also in part due to writing but also because of Sofia's lack of experience as an actress. Being the daughter of the director, she was raked over the coals for her performance. This was a bit unfair as the final choice rested with her father, not her. I can't believe that there were not a large number of very good actresses out there known and unknown that could have pulled the part off. Sofia as we know is not without talent. She has become quite an amazing filmmaker herself. Bridget Fonda, who's part was pretty much gratuitous, would have made a fine Mary.

The other problem with the film are the lack of layers of excellent supporting players. Instead of the likes of actors of the caliber of Duvall, Sterling Hayden, Richard Castellano, Joe Spinell and Richard Conte in supporting roles, we have the likes of George Hamilton and Don Novello who are talented actors. who although were capable in their roles were not up to the gold standard of the previous films.

I think had more time been spent on the central plot of Michael Corleone's desire to finally go straight through the recognition and partnership with the church and the resulting conspiracies this would have made for a better film even with the existing cast and script changes. However such are the ways of Studio filmaking where deadlines ended up putting too much pressure on Coppola to come up with last minute changes that would have perhaps preserved the greatness of the film.

I am a big fan of both Kevin Spacey and Bobby Darin. IMHO, Kevin gave it a great try in portraying Bobby Darin. But one that was lacking.

Spacy has a fine voice; and he is an excellent actor. But, in this case there were a few critical things missing in his game effort to act, direct and assist in the writing of "Beyond the Sea". Bobby Darin had a rare combination of qualities in his persona. He had certain swagger; a very natural charisma, looseness and cool-- and also an intensity, humor and confidence that came off in performing as both singer and actor. You can even hear these qualities when just listening to the great crooner. And although he was always a sickly kid, Darin was from the Bronx. He was a boy who knew the streets and that element was always there too; as well as that Bronx accent that also stamped his persona. Kevin didn't have any of these elements going very well for him. He seemed stiff in comparison to the singer/actor Bobby Darin who I remembered so well and still love to see in films from time to time. I think the role needed to be played by an actor with a little more electricity. One person that comes to mind is Johnny Depp, who probably could have sung the role, but surely had that inner fire and charisma that Darin had. I'm not saying that Spacey had to do an impersonation. But in a biopic like this a with a very recognizable figure, you need to capture the qualities that made that person compelling.

I think too that the format of the older Darin going back in time helped to justify the much older looking Spacey playing against the beautiful and youthful Sandra Dee (Kate Bosworth) but more than his age, Spacey didn't have the charisma to make it believable that Sandra would fall for him. Case in point, no matter how old he was, a charismatic actor like Cary Grant would have oozed the charm to make anyone of any age fall form him. Although, Darin did not have the looks of Cary Grant, he, like his idol Frank Sinatra (who was also not a truly handsome man but still drew women like white on rice), was the type of man who had a very natural romantic appeal, which Kevin does not in this film. The roles that Spacey has been most compelling in have usually been less romantic roles and more about disaffected outsiders like his roles in American Beauty, cynical wise-guys in "L.A. Confidential" or down right mercenary types in "Glenn Gary Glenn Ross". Ironically, I think that these are the very same roles that Darin himself would have loved to have played.

The screenplay had the look of something that had been worked on and rewritten so many times to suit a variety of stars and/or directors that like a game of telephone, it had lost it's way from the original intention and through-line.

The cast is excellent and everyone in it looks like they are giving it their all. But the directing, also by Spacey, seems to suffer from the same stiffness that makes even this great cast seem a little forced or artificial at times. This as a first time directing job for Spacey is no easy task. To combine it with acting in it as well, was imho too much to take on.

I can't blame the man for trying to do what seems to be a real labor of love. It is obvious that he loved Bobby Darin and really had a real ambition to not only bring the story to screen, but to portray the Darin as well. Coming off of a string of great successes and now having the clout to pull off a project like this; I commend Kevin for taking a risk. But effort is no guarantee of success. As much as I respect and am a continued fan of Kevin Spacey's work, I think this film just falls a little flat. At best, it may inspire people to check out Darin. He was an amazing singer/songwriter and a very compelling actor who always challenged himself to strike out in new territory. See his performances in "Captain Newman, MD", "Hell is for Heroes" and most especially, "Pressure Point". In each film he plays off of and holds his own with some of the greatest film actors of the time, Gregory Peck, Steve McQueen and Sidney Poitier to name a few. He proved that he could be successful in all film genres from romantic comedies, musicals to war pictures and intense dramas. He was nominated for one Oscar and at least five Golden Globes for his acting alone. And of course his music speaks for itself as we still often hear him on radio, TV and film.

Before I critique the actual film, I think it is important to recount the surrounding events that would occur in seeing a film like this back in the 50's and 60's when giant screens still dominated many American movie theatres. I had the pleasure of seeing this film on a Cinerama screen when it opened many years ago. As a young child, I was blown away by the size and spectacle of the film; from the sprawling landscapes, the amazing special effects that were almost 3-D in impact (yes when those wagons came barreling down in the western scene people would almost jump in their seats trying to move out of the way!) and the wonderful cast and directors. These were the days when movie theaters themselves were a treat beyond words, with spectacular architecture and design that made you feel like you were in a cathedral (some places included live organ music like Radio City). There were programs for sale, a short subject and a cartoon prior to the film. There was also an intermission. This type of event was at the time mostly reserved for big films like How the West Was Won, Ben-Hur and one of the last ones were "The Sound of Music" and "2001".

With all this involved in the viewing of the film who could help but be drawn into the magic of it all. And I sure was, as well as my family which included grandparents. It was a major event and we were all dressed up for it. People still treated films in this circumstance like a live performance; applauding and laughing and booing (at the villains) and cheering (when the bad-guy gets it... in this case, Eli Wallach's great portrayal of very bad-guy Charlie Gant.) The film was carried by the sweep of the event and the size and amazing impact of the Cinerama screen. The directors, Ford, Hathaway, Marshall and Thorpe were all masters of their craft. The cast is outstanding and probably the largest cast of real heavyweight stars that were ever assembled in a film. You even had the great Spencer Tracy as narrator. Ken Darby's music is unforgettable and size-appropriate to the sprawling expanse of both screen and story. The amazing camera work, art direction, costumes, etc all filled out the details of what was probably the last hurrah of MGM as a real massive studio production.

There are obvious flaws that the size and magic of the event helped us to overlook. The two severe lines that cut the screen in thirds, we understood because of this new exciting three camera technology. And you know this was still the day where special effects were not so great and there was a suspension of belief and imagination that the audience could still bring to a film that would allow us to overlook flaws like that.

The storyline is covered in quick and broad strokes. This film has no intention of getting very deep or being any kind of history lesson. The film has a strongly sentimental tone for the hard life of the settlers who made their way west and sadly like most films of the time and prior, they ignore the holocaust of the Native Americans that went on as our government encouraged the ideas of "Manifest Destiny" on a populace of white Americans and Europeans who were desperate for a better life. In the third segment of the film they do lightly touch on how the Native Americans were forced to resist the coming of the railroad. But that is all you see.

The reality of slavery is overlooked totally; as also the plight of women and Asians and other ethnic groups that were an important part of this time of American expansion. Again, most fans of the film will say as I stated before that this was just entertainment; and so it was. But looking back on it as an older man, I see the flaw in the perpetual ignoring of these critical flaws. It still exists today as many of us celebrate our culture for it's greatness but really ignore it's giant flaws which lead us to ignore opportunities to learn and grow as individuals and as a people.

I think that the film would have been an even greater testament to the American story if it had included more of what really was; which could have been addressed in short as it was in John Ford's great Shiloh sequence where Zeb Rawlings (Goerge Peppard)is forced to kill a confederate soldier he has befriended in order to save a despairing General Grant. The additional irony and tragedy of that moment is also that unbeknownst to him, his father Linus has just died of wounds in the same battle.

I know this review may incur the displeasure of fans of the film. But I for one believe that you can't tell the great American story without it's great accomplishments and it's great flaws. It is the stuff not only of entertainment, but of catharsis and education. What could be a better history lesson for young and old? What could better serve to bring us all together?

Brooklyn Rules has a premise that has been done before. Having grown up in Brooklyn and being a fan of Alec Baldwin I took a chance and rented the film. I have to say that I really wanted to enjoy this film as I am a fan of the genre, can relate to the life and am from the same generation as the characters in the film.

The storyline is a coming of age story of three friends from Brooklyn. A storyline such as this would rest heavily on crisp direction, a good solid script and the rapport between the three buddies played by Freddie Prinz Jr., Scott Caan and Gerry Ferrara. The rapport and connection just wasn't there. Although individually there were some bright spots, it didn't seem like these guys really knew each other. Their affection seemed forced and false. The contact between the younger actors that played the same characters as school boys at the start of the film was more honest, spontaneous and interesting than their older counterparts. Scott Caan gives a solid and understated performance as the friend who initially seeks his future in the mob life. Gerry Ferrara is fine as the good hearted cheapskate Bobby. As the main character and narrator of the film, Freddie Prinz comes off the weakest of the three with a performance that lacks in energy and played with a very fake accent. The latter sounding like a preppies stereotyped version of a mob/Brooklyn accent. The rapport between Prinz's character and his love interest also suffers in the film. Mena Suvari and Mr. Prinz, both who have turned in much better performances in other films, seemed to be trying desperately to find their way through the awkward dialog and couldn't make it work. The script and the direction, IMHO was the greatest problems with the film. I understood from the DVD interviews that the movie was based on the writers actual life experience. It must have meant a great deal to Mr. Winter to bring this to life. It is most commendable effort, but the dialog is forced, labored and artificial. It needed a great deal of polish to smooth out the rough edges and bring a little more truth, less forced humor and more energy to the story. I'm a fan of many of the films that this movie has spawned from ie. Goodfellas, Bronx Tale and the genres progenitor, Mean Streets. But those films had an energy, truth, humor and spontaneity that this film lacks. Alec Baldwin is as usual fun to watch and one can only wish that we saw more of him and that he didn't die as soon as he did. When Baldwin is no longer in the film it sort of flounders to it's ponderous ending. Gerry Ferrara's last tragic scene is the only moving moment, much in part due to Mr. Ferrara's excellent performance in that scene.

The direction was equally awkward and labored and served to make the film a stereotype of the intense and complicated world that takes place on the streets of Brooklyn. It is a shame because the story idea was a good one and could have been served better.

This was one of the funniest, most off-beat and intelligent sitcoms of the 1960's. In many ways it pre-dates the type of comedy done many years later in "Seinfeld". It was a show that relied on characterization rather than plot. Through the talents of the writers and actors each week we were drawn into the the world of a young married couple Dick and Paula Hollister and their crazy neighbors played by some of the great comic talents of the time like Kenneth Mars (Franz in the original film of "The Producers") and in a virtually scene stealing role every time he appeared, the great Jack Cassidy as Oscar North. That is saying something as the ensemble was terrific and the leads, real-life husband and wife, Richard Benjamin and Paula Prentiss were wonderful. One of the first scenes in the series was classic and very telling for the tenor and humor of the show. Dick and Paula come in their bedroom to go to sleep. They are off-stage coming on-stage chatting. First you see Paula enter, just wearing what seems to be a man's pajama tops revealing her sexy legs. (A quick assumption that it is Dick's) and then Dick enters-- also wearing only pajama tops; revealing his (ugh) legs. Quirky and unique. Well written, acted and directed. So far ahead of it's time. I've seen it once in a while on cable shows like Nick at Night. It still holds up well. Do catch it if you can.

I saw this movie in the theatre when it came out in 1965 when I was nine years old. It is in large part a very entertaining and subtly poignant film with a strong message about the horrors of war. I have never failed to be very moved by it.

The movie is largely carried by the wonderful performance by James Stewart. This is one of his greatest performances. IMHO, he deserved an Oscar nomination at least. Stewart indeed has the best lines as the Patriarch of a large family trying to remain neutral in the middle of America's Civil War. There are very good performances by a number of young actors who would go on to careers varied in success such as Kathryn Ross, Patrick Wayne, Tim McIntire, Doug McClure and Glenn Corbett. Philip Alford as the youngest child "Boy" was just a few years past his wonderful role as "Jem" in "To Kill a Mockingbird" and is equally fine in this role.

There are other great supporting performances by George Kennedy as a war weary federal officer, James Best as a confederate foot soldier, Denver Pyle as the Pastor who must put up with the noisy Anderson Family and most especially a terrific performance by Paul Fix as the Doctor. Fix you might also remember from another excellent performance as the Judge in "To Kill A Mockingbird".

Andrew McLaglen, son of former Oscar winner and John Ford stock member Victor McLaglen does a solid job of directing. His old mentor, John Ford would have been proud of his efforts. McGlaglen was an asst. director on some of Ford's films. Although, McGlaglen doesn't quite have the touch of the old master he does a very good job of bringing together a large talented cast, a sprawling film and creating a fine period piece about the Civil War from the perspective of one family.

The movie points out the tragic loss suffered by the mass of people during the war. The family suffers loss and tragedy in their efforts to remain neutral and although often painted in broad strokes we do see the suffering that existed for both sides. The tragedy of slavery however is touched on all too briefly and again broadly in a few short but memorable scenes with Eugene Jackson Jr. in a fine performance as Gabriel the Anderson's slave who is freed by union soldiers.

A particularly poignant monologue occurs towards the end of the film where Stewart confesses his frustration and sadness over the war and the awful impact it has had on his family. It is all the more poignant when you consider that the film was released in 1965 when we were beginning to see tragic losses of our own troops overseas in Vietnam. Intentional or not, this is indeed an anti-war film. Thank God.

Do watch this film. It is very well done with great respect, and humor for all sides. Guaranteed you will be choked up at the end. No matter how often I've seen it, it always happens to me.

The film starts out like the typical comedy you expect from the trailers and teasers and slowly becomes somewhat more unnerving. Hopefully most of us don't work for someone as awful as Meryl Streep's character, but these days there seems to be a lot of ringing truth in the cow-towing that goes on in the work-place along with the excessive hours that come quite close to home. Was it intentional? Is it because Meryl Streep is so good that he becomes all to real? Hard to say. I do feel that the script feels like it was written by committee with different writers adding their own style and take so in the end we have a film that is a comedy, a drama and doesn't move well between the two. There's little resolution to the story and by the time we see the two leads meeting one another on the street at the end, you really don't care nor do you feel like the Streep character is even worth acknowledging. She is cold, mercenary and down-right apathetic in the worst way. Who'd want to acknowledge her for anything other than seeing the back of her.

The acting is the only thing that makes the film worth watching. Streep is excellent and so is Anne Hathaway who has not gotten her due in this film from most critics. Stanley Tucci always terrific does a great turn and even in a small role Adrien Grenier charismatically holds the screen quite well. Were it not for the actors, I'd have given the film a 1 rating.

Like many super-hero movies of late, while being marketed to children they are largely adult focused plots often with at least one or two violent scenes that are way too much for children to watch. Such is the case with Bryan Singers "Superman Returns". The Violent encounter with Lex Luthor and his thugs late in the film is way over the top. Literally getting stabbed in the back a number of times it is a disconcerting image even for the adults I saw the film with. That kind of insensitivity undoes much of the good work that went into the performances and the film.

The 1978 version was done in a far more tongue-in-cheek manner and seemed to work that way. The '78 film had by comparison: heavyweight acting (Marlon Brando, Suzannah York, Trevor Howard, etc; great comic performances by Gene Hackman and Ned Beatty, a charming debut by Christopher Reeve and a fine all-round supporting cast. This film has an equally talented cast, but has little of the humor of it's predecessor. The special effects are tremendous, capturing the dynamics of flying at various speeds and all the bells and whistles of a great effects film. But like most films of this type an equivalent effort is never spent on the script which causes this film to fall a little flat. It doesn't seem to have a consistent style wavering from outright imitation of the 1978 film to struggling for more angst and drama. Kevin Spacy, as good an actor in comedy or drama as Hackman has a more narrowly written role and in this film he is no comic foil, but an insane villain capable of extreme violence. Brandon Routh is very good as the man of steel, but also has little to do himself. He is made to copy Reeve's Clark Kent and often sounds like Reeve as Superman. Kate Bosworth is very good as Lois Lane and again the supporting cast from FRank Langella on down are quite good. But director, Bryan Singer just didn't find a consistent style for this film which wavers from dark to comic to pseudo-spiritual with an awkward self-consciousness that hurts the film. Again, I caution you regarding the earlier mentioned scene to not bring anyone under 13.

This is the typical rebel-loner seeks exciting career in military to prove himself. The rebel is afraid to love, but meets a girl who eventually brings it out of him and finally the tough mentor makes him a man. This formula military film goes back to the earliest days of War films. The story is so familiar and overdone, it is only thanks to the excellent cast that the film is even watchable. Right down the line from Gere, David Keith, Debra Winger, Lisa Blount, Lisa Eilbacher and the rest of the cast; everyone does a great job especially Lou Gossett in the role of a lifetime as tough Sergeant Foley. Catch a young David Caruso in a small role as Topper Daniels.

Worthwhile and entertaining to watch, but oh what a corny ending. I know through movie-lore that the ending wasn't planned in exactly that way-- but oh man!

Bryan Singer along with the talented cast and production crew did so much to create an extraordinary momentum of excellence in the first two X-Men films. They were among the very best films adapted from a well-known comic. Full of action and special effects but never compromising the depth and angst of the complicated characters of the X-Men saga. It is unfortunate that despite all his successes the studio couldn't wait for Mr. Singer to take the helm again. Director Brett Ratner along with writers Simon Kinberg and Zak Penn did not come close to the potential that was created by X-Men and X2. The story has little plot, character stories are either rushed through or totally dropped, various characters themselves are permanently dispatched with in an awful way and a number of the talented cast members are totally under-used.

The cast and special effects crew do an admirable job to make the film work and do make it watchable. But if this was the caliber of the first film, there probably would never have been a second let alone a third.

Ian McKellen is as always excellent as Magneto in spite of the poor storyline he goes a long way to bring subtlety and nuance to a not so well written part. The same can be said for Patrick Stewart, Halley Berry, Hugh Jackman and Anna Paquin to name a few. They are trying hard and sometimes succeed in keeping our interest. But there are too many flaws. The character of the Phoenix is poorly explained and under-used. It deserved way better treatment. Cyclops and Mystique are now minor characters and newcomers to the film do a good job, but we see too little of them to care one way or the other. Kelsey Grammar does a great job as Beast and is given adequate time to do so.

Mr. Ratner has chosen to severely trim down a film that he has way overloaded with character and storyline. In more talented hands this film could have and should have been twice as long and would have been much better than this final product that so many loyal fans looked forward to seeing.

Again I say, were it not for the hard-won momentum created by the first two films would we have liked this that much?

This second pairing of Gable and Tracy was a great follow-up to the exciting "San Francisco" which was their first film together. Tracy was fast-becoming a very big star had an expanded role, but was still Gable's side-kick; something he would soon tire of. But all three stars, Gable, Tracy and Myrna Loy have a wonderful chemistry together. They play both the comedy and drama of the film with great ease and truthfulness. This trio, along with the wonderful Lionel Barrymore really make the film work.

This isn't quite standard MGM fare. Underneath the fun-loving natures of the leads there is a slowly building sense of doom that begins to wear on them all. Tracy's character gives the tension a voice in his quietly stated mantram "Three Roads".

As with the earlier film pairing, "San Francisco", "Test Pilot" was considered quite a fine action film with terrific special effects. Although, the latter suffers greatly in the special effects department today, while "San Francisco" still holds up quite well due to the excellent camera work, editing and creative special effects.

There is one scene in particular that is fun to watch when you know the back story. It takes place rather early on with Gable driving a car with Loy sitting in front with him, and Tracy sitting in the back. The scene's lines are only between Loy and Gable with Tracy sort of listening and chewing gum. Gable was quoted after the premier complaining in an envious but lighthearted manner about that "damn Tracy, we're acting our asses off, we have all the lines and he's still the only one you watch!" Gable had a life-long respect for the great acting prowess of his co-star.

Also look for Gable's last speech at the end of the film. While lecturing a group of air force recruits he suggests that the're either "cracking wise or giving him the bird!" The first time that gesture was ever mentioned on screen!

A great 1930's MGM classic. Don't miss it!

This is MGM classic rests on the giant talents of its stars, especially Tracy and Gable. The plot in lesser hands would not have been very believable and moves along at a very swift pace. This was the third and final pairing of the two great stars. In large part because Tracy got sick of playing the side-kick to Gable's hero who always got the girl. The two actors always respected each other. Gable always envious and admiring of Tracy's acting skills. And Tracy always admired Gable's confidence and swagger that made him the "King" of the movies. To start with the characters are wild-catters living by the seat of their pants, but in the end they are after money and power no matter what the cost. Only Tracy as Square-John is motivated by love and his own personal moral-code. But that again is the part that Tracy always played in the three film pairings with Gable. Gable, as usual, is the risk-taking n'er-do-well living outside the vein of morality who always gets the girl. Tracy never gets the girl, but is always the moral force of the story. The guy who'll do the right thing no matter what and he is the one who usually is responsible for reforming Gable. In a certain sense like most buddy films, the love story is between the two guys and it never shines better than in their explosive fight scene towards the films end.

Claudette Colbert does a great job with a thinly written part as "the beautiful Betsy". Hedy Lamarr is really fine as Gable's other girl, Karen Vanmeer. There is a scene between Hedy and Tracy late in the story that is electric and so well done. She really holds her own with the famous scene-stealer.

Frank Morgan, Lionel Atwill, and Chill Wills are among the rest of the excellent MGM company supporting cast in this film.

It's too bad that this was the last film with the two great stars. They were so great together.

This is a fast-paced, fun film entertainment that you'll thoroughly enjoy.

This film was a western remake of Joseph L. Mankiewicz's 1949 terrific movie, "House of Strangers". Director, Edward Dmytryk does a great job of opening up the story from an urban one to the sprawling west and directing a strong talented cast. Richard Murphy's screenplay is a character study of a domineering patriarch, Matt Devereaux (Tracy) and his four sons. The youngest is a progeny from a second marriage to a Native-American woman well-played by Katy Jurado. Murphy's story is sleek and fast-paced and includes a sub-plot of racial prejudice rare for Hollywood films of the time. But it is the actors who really are the strength of the film. Robert Wagner turns in a fine performance as the half-Native American son, Joe. Wagner has had a lengthy career and is today mostly known for being "Number 2" in the Austin Powers films. Few people recall the string of great films he performed in during the '50's like this one. Wagner's acting was on a par with the variety of heavy-weights he was often paired off with. Spencer Tracy, not one to suffer fools thought a great deal of the young Wagner and performed in one other film with him a few years later ("The Mountain").

Richard Widmark is terrific as the oldest son, Ben. Very underrated and one of the best actors of his generation, Widmark is the long-suffering son who bears the brunt of the hard-times suffered under his tough father's ambitions for success as a rancher in the roughest of times in the west. The other two sons are ably played by Hugh O'Brian and a young Earl Holliman. Jean Peters is fine as Wagner's love interest. Katy Jurado does a great job in a wonderfully under-stated role as Matt Devereaux's second wife. The rest of the cast includes some great film and theatre veterans, Carl Benton Reid, Eduard Franz, and the great E.G. Marshall.

With all these fine talents this is still Spencer Tracy's film. This is a perfect larger than life character that Tracy fills out so well. Charismatic, strong and appealing, Matt Devereaux is a role that could've been one-dimensional in the hands of a lesser talent. Tracy's presence is even felt in the scenes he isn't in.

This is a fine film entertainment that is sprawling in size in the true measure of 1950's cinema-scope. You'll enjoy it again... and again!

George Lucas is a soft-spoken man who has devoted much of the past 20 years of his life to caring for his adopted children. It is so clear from interviews with him and his children what wonderful Dad he is. It is too bad though that he didn't take the rest of the children in the movie-going public into consideration when he made this last series of prequels to the earlier Star Wars Trilogy. Before you give into being upset about my comments, please read on.

The original Star Wars was an amazing film not only in it's ground-breaking special effects but also in the fairytale storyline that hearkened back to the heroic stories of myth and legend in a modern way. The wisdom of the force and its positive, binding and loving nature, the unique characters and effective portrayals especially from Harrison Ford, Alec Guiness and the voice of the great James Earl Jones all served to make this a great film and one that we all young and old alike looked forward to seeing more of.

The second film was almost as good and many thought even better, but the third film seemed almost more inclined to "merchandizing" than to a fulfilling climax. But regardless the storyline was a positive one about right overcoming might, love conquering hate. It is true that the most popular character among the children then was indeed Darth Vadar. But remember he was not the main character, he was a dark figure but only in a two-dimensional movie serial way, much like Ming the Merciless was in the 1930's Flash Gordon serials. The only creepy character was the Emporer who we only see in the last installment. But throughout the whole series we see little in the way of overt violence and again the main characters that children would identify with are all the "good" ones on loving side of the force.

Now we come to the newer prequels and Lucas decides to make the main character Darth Vadar. So he spends a decade creating a storyline where the children get to identify with a lead character who everyone knows will be descending into evil. We see a sweet heroic little boy turn into an evil inhuman killer by the third film. Each subsequent film gets darker, more disturbing and the violence is ramped up in a far more unnecessarily overt and explicit manner than it had been in the earlier trilogy. But the key here is that the main character is Darth Vadar. This last film is way too dark for little ones and my children were not allowed to see this one. Especially awful and disturbing was the scene where Darth Vadar is going to kill the helpless children in the Jedi school. I don't think that Mr. Lucas despite his talent as a director really understands the power and impact of what innocent minds see on a movie screen and it is sad. He might have accomplished just as much monetarily and creatively and without all the trauma if he perhaps made Obi-wan the main character and Darth Vadar the second lead. Our focus would be with Obi-wan's journey and we even might have had sympathy for the darker Darth.

Plus much of the dialog is pure crap. I can't believe that Tom Stoppard had actually helped Lucas with the dialog. Some good paycheck Mr. Stoppard for a lousy job. The cast is loaded with talented actors who have proved their skills elsewhere but are miserably directed.

Lucas spent a great deal of time studying with Joseph Campbell, writer of the "Power of Myth". But he seems to have forgotten the power of catharsis and the impact it can have on an audience let alone young ones. I'm not saying it will destroy any child. But do our children need to see anymore abusive characters or scenes? Aren't there enough dark visuals out there on film, t, the news? Lucas should have exercised more sensitivity and responsibility in writing his trilogy. Again I say, seeing a sweet heroic little boy turns into an evil inhuman was one more thing our little ones did not need to see. Shame on you Mr. Lucas for not putting one tenth of the thought into this series that you did into the special effects and the running of your multi-billion dollar corporation. What profits a man to sell his soul for the world? But for "Star Wars"?

The story of James and Mae Braddock and their children is both tragic and amazing. It's hard to imagine the character and heart it took for these people to survive. Braddock himself is all the more amazing in that he was literally starving at the onset of his comeback. I have some limited experience as a boxer and simply can't imagine how he accomplished what he did. Boxing is such a physically demanding sport. If you've never trained or boxed you can't imagine how destructive just the training is on the body let alone fighting in the ring. It's amazing that Braddock was never killed or severely injured during that comeback, let alone that he won all those fights.

Performances by the 3 leads are fantastic. Russell Crowe is the master today of inhabiting a role. He and Renee Zelweger truly resurrect Jim and Mae in all their humanity. Paul Giamatti is perfect casting as Jo Gould, Braddock's manager. The Braddock children are also quite wonderful as are Paddy Considine as the fictional Mike Wilson and Linda Kash in a small but well-played scene as Joe Gould's wife Lucille. The always excellent Bruce McGill as promoter Jimmy Johnston turns in another fine role. May and Jim Braddock's real life grand daughter, Rosemarie DeWitt is wonderful as Sara Wilson. Craig Bierko does a great job as Max Baer. It is however, with the role of Baer in the film that I feel is the tragic flaw in the film.

Max Baer is turned into a fictional and terrible villain in an unnecessary ploy to up the anti and drama in Braddock's already true-to-life impossible climb to the championship.

This portrayal of Baer is falsely modeled on Max Baer's own portrayal of a boxer in the great Humphrey Bogart film, "The Harder They Fall". This 1956 film, which was Bogart's last, was very loosely based on the career of Primo Carnera a trumped up Champion who was brutally beaten by the actual Max Baer. This film takes place not in the '30's but the 50's and has more to do with the corruption that existed and may still exist in the fight game. Baer's character in the film also is responsible for killing two fighters in the ring. But in the Bogart film he is bragging about the killings. In real life Baer was quite traumatized by these deaths and many people close to him felt he was never the same fighter after that. Baer became more inconsistent in his training and and his seriousness about boxing was never what it had been before. Baer covered up his pain by often playing the clown and was also known for his good-natured attitude. We never saw this in the film. Rather we saw a mean and sadistic person. I think that Ron Howard and Akiva Goldsman missed a great opportunity in making Baer so one dimensional and denying the man's suffering and true nature. It might have added to the drama and would have not taken any more screen time if we saw this conflicted element in Baer. Regardless of how well he trained or how seriously he took fighting Baer still was considered then and now to have the deadliest right hand punch in boxing history. Braddock's story is a miracle enough as it was and didn't need to belittle another great fighter and character of the time. I understand that often in biopics that theatrical license often needs to be taken to move the film and add drama in order to keep the audience entertained. But with a little more creative effort that still would have happened and Max Baer's legacy could have been preserved.

The Baer family deserved as much respect as the Braddock family got. In the DVD Howard, Crowe and co. go into a lot of detail of how hard they worked to be true to the Braddock story and how happy they were that they had the support of Braddock's only living son. Why not do the same for Baer's family. Apparently Max Baer Jr. (Jethro on TV's Beverly Hillbillys) went out of his way during the production to get the filmmakers to consider the reality of Baer's story and was unsuccessful. It is unfortunate. Consider this, if it was your Dad being wrongly portrayed wouldn't you be upset?

Otherwise, this is an excellent film.

The story of Alexander is a tough one to tackle. There is much that is known about Alexander's campaign's and the Generals who fought alongside him. But Alexander himself remains an enigma in many ways and Mr. Stone does little to help us. Why after all does Alexander spend so many years dragging his armies across to the far lands of India and Asia, when he has already conquered the long-time enemy of Greece, the Perisan empire? There had to be something more than conquest. Alexander was the pupil of Aristotle. This is no small point. Aristotle is a man who influenced thought for over two thousand years and still does today. Can we imagine that his pupil Alexander was not influenced by such a man to do something more than be a conquerer? It is true that there was a great deal of (for the time) scientific research done. Species of animals and plants were sent back to Aristotle's school for study and many of the conquered lands had schools of philosophy established that lasted for many hundreds of years. Alexander and Aristotle spent much time corresponding to one another while Alexander was away campaigning. There were recorded discussions that including a great deal about learning as well as religious and mysterious rites. Perhaps something could have been made out of this?

It is hard to sustain the story because we really don't get a sense in the film about why Alexander needs to continue. Glory is not enough of a reason. In a similar vein this is also such in the recent film version of Troy. Achilles' desire for glory and a short life seems silly and superficial in context of the actual size and heroics of the actual characters of Homer's tale. So it is with Alexander and after a while our interest is lost.

Many of the special effects, especially in the eagle-eye shots in the battle against the Persians are imaginative and inspired. The Persian palace and gardens seem like they are from a world of long ago and retain a mystery that is compelling.

Anthony Hopkins turns in his usually good performance as old Ptolomy. Val Kilmer does a good turn as Philip in spite of some heavy scene-chewing. Angelina Joli is way out of her depth in the role of Alexander's powerful mother. She seems to be doing a bad Bela Lugosi impression most of the time. Christopher Plummer is wasted as Aristotle. In this film he is treated as a run-of-the-mill tutor of a royal pupil.

Colin Ferrel seems lost in a role that is also not written very well. This is a part that requires an actor of size and also one well-versed in portraying classical roles. For example, there is an early 1950's version of the life of Alexander with a young Richard Burton as the golden-haired conquerer. The plot is similar and the special effects are of course nothing compared to today, but the film is far better in large part due to Mr. Burton's charismatic portrayal. The storyline in this film suggests Alexander almost as a precursor of the Christian era to come and works far better than Stone's version.

Stone should have spent more time working out the story and gotten an Alexander that could really carry a film of this size. (But who?)

The fact that this is based on a true story makes it all the more amazing. This character driven piece is extremely poignant and well-done from the technical aspects of the cinematography and special effects to the excellent direction and ensemble acting by the whole cast.

The ever talented Jeff Bridges, who amazingly gets better as he gets older, is terrific in an intensely contained role as Captain Christopher "Skipper" Sheldon. Virtually all the young actors are terrific and offer us very textured, characters with full inner-lives. They were an amazing young ensemble who obviously bonded together in this film. These young men really make the film work. Also turing in fine performances as their teachers are Carolyn Goodall, John Savage and Julio Oscar Mechoso. David Selby and Zeljko Ivanek are also quite good in in two antagonist roles.

The story-line is of course a coming-of-age film at a time when the world was really changing in the early 1960's and presents a microcosmic view of the radical change between the generations that so marked this decade. The parents are depicted as upwardly mobile, post-depression/WW2 folk who are striving for material success and gain while putting the same hopes in their children. The irony is that the parents' pressures cause most of these young men to feel overwhelmed by their parents' expectations and in turn they feel ignored for who they really are. Between the parents and the young men are the instructors on the school/ship the "Albatross". In their own unique ways these teachers present an environment where these young men are challenged to find themselves as individuals entering adulthood. to re-qain their innate excitement for learning and above all-- the recognition that in the ship of life we are all interconnected and need to and can learn to work together. Just as a ship functions in unity, so we learn to realize the same in life. We also learn the delicate balance between the rites of the individual and our need for one another.

Bridge's Sheldon is a man driven above all to accomplish these goals by challenging these young men to face their fears. This is so even against the judgment of his wife and fellow-instructors. But Sheldon's hard-line eventually wins the love and respect of his young students even those he drives the hardest.

This is a fine, fine film and deserved much more recognition than it received. It seems quite often these days that when films like this are made that the tone is: "seen it; it's been done before and better". Ironic to me is that this take is so when it comes to films that have a story and some substance. Ironically many of these same critics will applaud some of the formula action or horror films that seem to come out of a cookie cutter. The irony here is that this story was a based on somethng that actually happened and people like Sheldon and the rest of the teachers and crew of the Albatross are rare gems in the world.

Memories are short when it comes to remembering the best films ever. Often the older the film the more it tends to fall away in obscurity. Look at many of the top 100 film lists and you'll see that the closer you get to the top the greater the percentage of recent films.

Such is the case with a classic film comedy like "Ruggles of Red Gap". The film contains a terrific cast of some of the best comic actors of the time and they are led by Charley Ruggles, Zazu Pitts and Marie Boland. But the comic soul of the film is the hysterically understated performance of the wonderful film and stage acting genius, Charles Laughton. Mr. Laughton was most known as a dramatic actor playing roles such as Henry VIII, Quasimoto and Captain Bligh. But here as Ruggles, the quietly stiff English butler who is lost by his British employer in card game to a couple of roustabouts from the US, Laughton is funny and touching and very human.

I won't spill any more of the story. Justy go rent it and see for yourself. You won't regret it!