Reviews (275)

JIM CARREY was Born to Play THE GRINCH!
I just want to say THE GRINCH with JIM CARREY is one awesome Holiday movie! I am 24 years old and I really dig this movie. I saw this movie at the show last Christmas, and I had a blast watching it. It is very close to the DR. SEUSS book and animated movie but being a motion picture the movie has a lot more detail on the story which gives the story of The Grinch a whole new life. The DVD will be released this NOVEMBER and you can pre-order it here on AMAZON.com. The DVD has so many special features like - Sing-Along songs, Read-Along songs, DVD ROM content such as - Add a Grinch to your own photograph, screen savers, games, recipes, the Music Video of Faith Hill's "WHERE ARE YOU CHRISTMAS", a Whoville section which includes Who School, Jim Carrey make up application, set decorations, visual effects, and a few more surprises such as a Spotlight on location, Deleted scenes, and Outtakes. Buy this DVD it is a great flick to add to your Holiday Movie Collection! You can also check out the WIDESCREEN version DVD, this one is for the FULL SCREEN version of The Grinch.

HOW THE GRINCH STOLE THE BOX OFFICE
BASED on the classic Dr. Seuss tale of "HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS", THE GRINCH not only proved the durability of the multi-talented JIM CARREY (comedies, dramas, now family films), but also proved that classic stories can be modernized and still be just as enjoyable.

Not only is the unique element of the story still there, but the silver screened edition adds more plot on many subjects. Most importantly - the Grinch's origin that explains his hatred and disgust for the Whos and their beloved holiday. Some will argue that this either perverts a classic or dulls it's shine. Not at all, and after seeing the movie you'll realize that it is in no way possible.

The movie can't tarnish that eternal shine, and really can only make the old classic even more popular than it already is. Here are some facts and comparisons:

Some say: "If you can't stick to the classic's criteria, there shouldn't be an updated version."

I say: "The classic is a 2 minute read and a 30 minute cartoon. There's no such thing as adjusting a 30 minute cartoon's subject matter into that of a required (atleast) 90 minute film. The updated version actually contains all that is in the cartoon and book, adding the rest was simply needed. Could you imagine stretching out 30 minutes of material into 90 minutes?! Anyways, THE GRINCH is BASED on the classic childrens book. B A S E D."

Some say: "I went to THE GRINCH in hopes of seeing something alot more. That movie is basically the Grinch stealing Christmas, where's the rest? Surely the story needed something different!"

I say: "Saying you knew the Grinch would steal Christmas and that you expected more is like saying you went to TITANIC in hopes of the true story having a manipulative-movie-happy-ending where the boat doesn't sink. Too bad because besides the added origin/reasoning, great make-up (Oscar winning), excellent design and portrayal of the Whos and their town (Oscar nominated Art Direction)...you also get JIM CARREY who gives another Oscar-snubbed performance as the Grinch. Not only does CARREY go through with hours and hours of make-up each day to get the job done, he also makes the Grinch his own. He keeps the tone and attitude of the classic character solid while adding humor, plenty of facial expressions he could do without make-up, and most of all... ironically likeable."

Some say: "Where's the rhyming and Seuss-like feel? The movie had dialouge and singing...but that dialouge should be in rhyme!"

I say: "Pleeeeaaassseee!! That's the one thing this movie definetely did not need and wisely kept out! Constant Seuss rhymes would only bore the adults of the FAMILY MOVIE AUDIENCE much like Disney movie songs and Barney sing-a-longs. A little rhyming is allright, a whole 90 minutes..."

Some say: "Many parts of THE GRINCH are not for children audiences! Kissing a dog's rearend! Belching in someone's face? That is so immature and vulgar for a PG rated movie!"

I say: "Firstly, it's a PG (Parental Guidence suggested, let's all say it together...again...one more time). Lastly, it doesn't show a close-up (or at all) of the dog's butt meeting the lips of it's victim. It's not as graphic as you make it sound. Belching...yeah, gross. Nobody does that until they see a movie to influence them to do so. Yeah, whatever...next?"

Some say: "There's quite the run of dry spots that can drag on."

I say: "I must not have noticed, nor left the house with such a Grinch-like attitude. I went to the movie to have fun. The parts I thought were dry was the little girl singing "Where Are You Christmas", but atleast, thank god, they didn't go overkill with it. JIM CARREY also gets in on the singing with his version of YOU'RE A MEAN ONE, MR. GRINCH."

I haven't seen THE GRINCH since opening day (11/17/00) and would gladly deem it in the Top 5 Movies of 2000. AND, it certainly isn't as bad as THEY make it seem. Either they are JIM CARREY bashers or not a fan of modernizing classics, but I can't think of one real reason not to see it. Though I won't and can't ever forget this NOW-CLASSIC, I do highly recommend this one for everybody. At the moment I am wishing I had seen it more than once, 'cause now I'm suffering from withdrawls to know when it will be released to own on DVD! Remember, not all classics set the standards. Sometimes it can be the upstaged by it's successor.

Loved it!
I really liked it a lot! I watch the original cartoon every Chrsitmas and I've read the book to my little brother. This is a really cute movie I would definitly reccomend. I think the Grinch's cold hearted spirit is captured really well (until he turns good that is). Some people don't like this and feel it ruined the Grinch because it's not strictly to the book, but what do you expect? The book wasn't very long. It can be read in about five minutes more or less...

Anyway I do suggest you watch this provided you aren't one of those affor mentioned people that freak out over every little thing. I do NOT reccomend the Cat in the Hat movie. I thought that movie seemed too much like Austin Powers in a cat suit to tell the truth,

Did these people even read the BOOK????
What a terrible movie! How could you possibly ruin such a classic Dr. Seuss book?
Dr. Seuss is one of my favorite authors (no kidding, the books are for much younger readers than me...but I own every Dr. Seuss book, anyway.) It drives me crazy that Dr. Seuss' wife let them PRODUCE this rot! If I were her I reject them and I might even (as Dr. Seuss said on DR. SEUSS GOES TO WAR) smack them in the snoot!
I even didn't watch the whole thing, I left as soon as I could. Unless the ending was about sixty times better than everything prior to that, it was one of the worst movies I've ever watched!
Jim Carrey DID do a good job, but he can't save a movie like THAT! And did we really have to go into his long, boring and disturbing childhood? It tells us WHY he hates Christmas, whereas in the book no one quite no the reason why he hated it. (And don't even get me started on how much I hate THE CAT IN THE HAT with Mike Myers (who, by the way, can't act)!
Not to say I don't like the animated TV Special THE GRINCH WHO STOLE CHRISTMAS. That was maybe better than the book was. Although, what could you expect from a master like Chuck Jones who actually KNEW what he was doing! That movie at least 1000 times better than this!
And one of the best parts of the book was "Maybe Christmas DOESN'T come from a store, maybe Christmas perhaps, means a little bit more." But how can you believe THAT on THE GRINCH, the vulgar movie that was merchandised to the BONE!!!!!
After watching this film, you realize: The Grinch didn't steal Christmas...but the directors RUINED Christmas!

So THAT'S how he stole it...
That was Jim Carrey in that costume? I don't think anyone could have pulled it off better, but for me, Taylor Momsen, who played Cindy Loo Who, was the most enjoyable to watch. What a gifted little actress. Christine Baranski and Molly Shannon, both musically-inclined favorites of mine, also danced across the screen.

So this isn't exactly the same storyline as the one penned by the good doctor himself. But it is very close, with some details added in to give adults a few more chuckles.

And if you like it for nothing else, you will love the fantasy world created by some outstanding set and costume design; terrific old and new music; and vivid special effects.

Worth a viewing or two for all of you Who's. ... Read more

Amazon.com

What do you do for an encore after confounding the general public with something completely different? Simple: give them something more completely different, from a semaphore version of Wuthering Heights to the last meeting of the Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things (you were expecting the Spanish Inquisition?). This two-volume set contains for the first time on DVD in chronological order the first six episodes from Monty Python's second season. No sophomore slump here. Episodes 14-19, which originally aired in 1970, contain the signature Python sketches The Ministry of Silly Walks and The Spanish Inquisition. Also in the Python pantheon are the documentary about The Piranha Brothers and their reign of violence and sarcasm, The Architect Sketch, and the scandalous gameshow Blackmail. While the sketches, filmed bits, and Terry Gilliam animationsare enduringly silly, Monty Python's Flying Circus remains a loonymarvel in the way it shattered television convention. In Episode 15, a clueless Graham Chapman character is recruited to be the straight man in asketch, but is not given the punch line. In the same show, the dreaded, but tardy, Spanish Inquisition races to make its entrance before the closingcredits run their course. All three volumes are indispensable for Python completists. --Donald Liebenson ... Read more

Reviews (6)

"I'm afraid my walk has become rather sillier recently..."
And now...another tediously detailed summary of a Monty Python DVD Set from an individual who has too much time on his hands but is by no means as dull as a chartered accountant. Here are the breakdowns (including episode #s () and individual sketch names). Why? Well, because I'm a nerd.

DVD 5 - (14) Face the press/new cooker sketch/prostitute advert/the ministry of SILLY WALKS/The piranha brothers - (15) Man powered flight/the SPANISH INQUISITION/jokes & novelties salesman/tax on thingy/photos of uncle ted/the semaphore version of wuthering heights/julius caesar on an aldis lamp/court charades - (16) A bishop rehearsing/flying lessons/hijacked plane/the poet McTeagle/psychiatrist milkman/complaints/DEJA VU

Loony Bin extras: Meet the chaps, Pythonisms, Gillianimations, Silly Walk (Live!), Naughty bits, pythonshop.com ad

DVD 6 - (17) Architect sketch/how to give up being a mason/insurance sketch/"The BISHOP"/living room on pavement/poets/a choice of viewing/chemist sketch/police constable pan-am - (18) Live from the grill-o-mat/"BLACKMAIL"/society for putting things on top of other things/escape from film/current affairs/accidents/seven brides for seven brothers/the man who is alternately rude and polite/ken clean-air system - (19) It's a living/the time on BBC1/school prize giving/films by Mr. Dibley/the news/free prizes/Timmy williams interview/Raymond LUXURY YACHT/getting married/ELECTION night special

Loony bin: same as DVD 5 except for - A trivial quest, Gilliam's attic, Monty queries, and Tutor manners

That about sums it up. I know there are no episode titles and probably some other little things included but...well, too bad. If you like extremely geeky summaries like this or you are in fact a large geek, check out my "reviews" for DVD set 1 & 2!

Some Classic Python!!!!
I think this set is my favorite of them all! Episode #14 (Face the Press) is worth it alone! This is class 'A' material!

This is what TV Shows on DVD should be
It's enough to get the Monty Python episodes, which are hilarious in and of themselves (30 years later, very little has become dated). But the extras take it to a whole new level. 3 or 4 eps on each DVD, funny menus that let you jump to a specific skit if you like, bios of all the members, skits from other eps not on the DVD, skits from "Live At The Hollywood Bowl", did-you-know type trivia (ex. each member appears naked at some point in the run, Terry Gilliam first and Terry Jones most often), and games.

This is a great set to start out with (Spanish Inquisition). Sets 1,2 and 4 are also hysterical.

Let the word go out: This is the model for all other TV shows on DVD (are you listening Star Trek? South Park?)

Michael Palin as the Grand Inquisitor?
I am sure the Spanish Inquisition sketch was inspiration for Mel Brooks' "History of the World, Part I." The Ministry of Silly Walks sketch, while very silly, is also screamingly funny. The giant hegdehog haunts my dreams. The gas cooker sketch is every single delivery from Sears and Roebuck. The whole video is delightfully ridiculous. I only wish they were still on the air!

Must have for MPFC fans, or anyone that is a bit mental...
If you are a fan of MPFC, or just appreciate off the wall humor, these DVD sets are a must have. Episodes like "Face The Press" are an excellent way to introduce others into the wonderful world of Python. If you are a firm believer in political correctness, skip anything done by Python, as their work will offend you greatly. But then again, the politically correct are devoid of a sense of humor in the first place, so why would they be shopping in the comedy section?

Hardcore fans and newcomers alike will appreciate the digital sound, because it makes hearing the punchlines possible even through heavy audience laughter. Buy them now! You won't regret it. ... Read more

Reviews (115)

Not bad if you're an Angelina Jolie fan
Originally, this wasn't a movie I was very interested in watching until I realized Angelina Jolie was the co-star. Okay, so I admit-I'm an Angelina Jolie junkie. But that's beside the point.

The plot of "Original Sin" isn't too original. Wealthy Cuban landowner Antonio Banderas buys a mail-order bride (Jolie) and gets a little more than he bargained for. Not only is his soon-to-be bride more beautiful than the photo she sent, she is quite the hellcat in bed. Not exactly the demur Virginia schoolteacher she professed to be.

Following the typical Hollywood "stupid male" syndrome, Banderas signs over his fortune to his new bride, only to find she has absconded with his money. Not only does Banderas go off half-cocked in search of Jolie, but when he finds her, he only wishes to bed her, not concerned his fortune is gone. A bit too unrealistic here, considering Banderas was homicidal and violent only minutes earlier. Of course, Jolie is also following the Hollywood stereotype of female characters that fall in love with men who wish to kill them.

Thomas Jane adds an exciting dimension to the movie as the psychotic sidekick of Jolie, although their relationship isn't quite defined, nor explained. The "spit in the mouth" routine was a bit much for me and could have been left out with no detrimental affects to the movie.

In all, if you wish to see a lot of Angelina Jolie naked, this is the movie for you, although the flapping breast image was a bit much. Myself, personally, I could have went without seeing the naked butt of Antonio Bandera repeatedly, but to each their own. "Original Sin" is a skin flick of mild entertainment value.

-...

I Like them both...
I haven't seen it(yet) but I like them both, but I heard that Antonio has a few"eye popping moments" How much does he show exactly? Like everything? Or what? Just so I am not surprised when I do see it.. How much?

Mildly entertaining chick flick
WARNING: SOME VERY MILD SPOILERS*****

The first time I saw this, I was prepared to laugh at a sleazy, direct-to-video Harlequin novel-on-celluloid. What is it about Antonio Banderas? He's very handsome and not a bad actor, but he seems to choose a lot of really cheesy projects, "Femme Fatale" being a particularly awful one I recall watching.

But I thought this was a decently entertaining, if not brilliantly deep film. I was unaware at that time of it's provenance -- it's based on an excellent novel by Cornell Woolrich called "Waltz into Darkness". The book is well worth reading if you like this film. It was also made into a film in the mid-sixties by Francois Truffaut called (inexplicably ) "Mississippi Mermaid". Strange title, because the original novel is set in 1870s New Orleans and Julia travels to meet Louis on a steamer down the Mississipp BUT in the Truffaut film he reset the story in the 60s and the action of the film in colonial Africa and the French Riviera!

"Original Sin" is, interesting, vastly closer to the novel than the Truffaut version. The setting is changed to Cuba, presumably to accodomodate Bandera's accent, but the period is correct and the story doesn't work well in modern times, so overall, I find "Original Sin" to be the better of the two movies -- and that's saying a lot, as Truffaut is revered as a brilliant director. ("Mississippi Mermaid" is NOT by any means one of his better efforts, however.)

An early cautionary tale of "personals ads" and blind dating, the story seems even more relevant today than when it was written. Luis (Banderas) writes to a mail order bride, who is supposed to be plain, shy and religious. He is surprised when stunningly beautiful and sexy Julia (Angelina Jolie, of the collagen injected lips) shows up. Even though she betrays him and cheats on him and steals all his money...he still loves her. Both film versions clean up the ending -- I won't give the film ending away -- but in the book, Julia/Bonny actually kills Louis/Luis. A very bleak ending. Don't worry, the movie is a lot more fun.

The kind of film that falls under the heading of "guilty pleasure", "Original Sin" has lots of great costumes and sets and Banderas and Jolie are two of the sexiest people imaginable and we get to watch them getting hot and heavy. (BTW: the "unrated version" isn't really all that dirty...I don't get the rating thing. The sex isn't graphic or bizarre in any way -- it's two people who are MARRIED and making love. In the age of "Sex in the City", what the heck is the big deal?)

Anyways, call over your best girlfriends, microwave some popcorn and have a good time....

Some Memorable Lines From An Otherwise Forgettable Movie
Overall, I would rate this film a passable 3-plus stars, just above ok, but I just had to add the comment for anyone thinking of buying (or renting) this movie that I thought it had some unexpectedly apt and quoteable dialogue and astute observations on the nature of love. It has interested me in seeking out the book on which this film is based.

Being Sinful Can Be Good
Antonio Banderas plays a wealthy Cuban who is to be married to an American woman he doesn't know. He marries an actress, played by Angelina Jolie. But she isn't the woman he thinks she is. This movie had twists and turns wondering where it would lead the viewer. It was a seductive and captivating movie. Angelina Jolie plays the role of a seductress very well. Antonio Banderas is gorgeous as a dashing, yet naive man. ... Read more

Reviews (58)

Delightful Holiday Story
Cary Grant stars as an angel named Dudley who suddenly appears and befriends an Episcopal bishop (David Niven) who is completely focused on raising money for his new church, and the bishop's wife (Loretta Young), who has become lonely and unhappy as her husband has gotten lost in his work. Grant uses little bits of heavenly magic and loads of charm to help Niven raise money and to help Young rediscover the joy of life. He also helps Niven and Young rediscover each other and realize that love must be the highest priority for anyone, including an ambitious bishop who's devoted to his job.

The acting is superb, as one would expect from this stellar cast. The story takes place at Christmas and, while not shown as much as other Christmas movies, I think it's one of the best. Cary Grant, all charm and suave coolness, plays this part perfectly, and the viewer even sees a touch of wistful envy in the angel who cannot have the Earthly love and happiness he helps Niven and Young rekindle for themselves. Buy this one and watch it every Christmas (or any other time you need a happiness booster or a reminder of the importance of love and kindness).

P.S.: "It's a Wonderful Life" is a good movie, but definitely I prefer "The Bishop's Wife".

A Family Favorite!
This film is one of the best of the Christmas Classics. The Bishop's Wife tells a story of an angel (Cary Grant) who comes down to earth in answer to a busy Bishop's (David Niven) prayer. The angel helps the Bishop learn to adjust his priorities and comes close to falling in love with Julia, the Bishop's wife (Loretta Young). The movie includes a lovely Skating/ Dance scene that defies description. Make this movie a tradition for your family this year.

Christmas with Cary Grant.
I think overall, this movie is maybe my favourite that was set around Christmas time. It's better than the brilliant - although overrated - Capra classic, "It's a Wonderful Life". I am in no way meaning to compare the two though. "The Bishop's Wife" is not really like that movie. But both films remain the two greatest christmas time classics to come out of the 1940's.

The film is, as one would have already guessed, set around christmas time. The main plot of the story, is that David Niven is this Bishop, who prays for guidance, of how to get a new cathedral built. Dudley (Cary Grant) is an Angel, who has been sent to help, although the Bishop does not take to him being an Angel too seriously, for some time. Dudley helps everyone he meets, but not always in the way they might prefer, to start off with. Dudley spends a lot of time with the Bishop's wife (Loretta Young) and he is not liking it. Dudley becomes the popular friend among all the people he meets, and helps, but the Bishop is the odd one out, becoming more annoyed, and frustrated with him as it goes along. It all ends nicely though, of course.

The film is really wonferful. There is a skating scene, that is inparticularly memorable, among Cary Grant always charming, excellent performance. The acting in this movie, is simply brilliant. I cant possibly have seen it being any better. The script, the story, everything about this movie is great. Repeated viewings are easy, and its one of Cary Grant best movies.

This DVD from MGM has a great print. It contains very few signs of scratching, and the other little artifacts you find in some movies of this age, and is an overall good looking transfer. The extras are lousy. You get the trailer (which is quite fun, might I add) but absolutely nothing else. Oh well, the print is the main thing, and they have done a good job in that part. Highly recommended.

Charming but overlong
Bishop: Are you expecting a letter?
Dudley: Well, you never know. If I did get one, the stamp would certainly be worth saving.

That's because Dudley (Cary Grant) is an angel sent to give guidance to forlorn Bishop Henry Brougham (David Niven), and who eventually lights up the lives of everyone else in the Bishop's life, especially The Bishop's Wife in this delightful Christmas film from 1947. When the Bishop prays for help in getting a new cathedral built (the local millionairess widow will only give if her late husband's name is prominently displayed), Cary Grant shows up as his "assistant" but soon makes the Bishop even more miserable by charming his wife Julia (radiant Loretta Young), daughter Debby, and even housemaid Matilda (Elsa Lanchester, always wonderful).

The Bishop's Wife is truly "heavenly" with Grant playing off his tried-and-true persona. Originally Grant and Niven were supposed to have the opposite roles, but Grant decided he could do more with the angel role -- and Grant was a bigger star -- so they were exchanged. Good thing, too: I can't imagine Cary playing the indecisive Bishop any more than I can imagine Niven charming a woman away from Cary Grant.

Only a few things keep The Bishop's Wife from being perfect. There is an overlong ice-skating scene that really stretches the believability (I had to keep telling myself "he's an angel; he can do anything), and the film runs on about twenty minutes too long. In the beginning, Grant is so taken by Young that, if he weren't an angel, those looks would feel really sleazy. Turns out that Cary is just discovering temptations, which makes the ending all the more noble.

Watching The Bishop's Wife in June (during a Cary Grant festival on Turner Classic Movies) is a little strange, but the movie is so ... happy that it's easy to slip into the vibe, especially with all the Christmas carols being bandied about like so many candy canes. I'd certainly recommend that fans of the stars watch it at least once (especially since Loretta Young, whom I don't find all that attractive, is made, through Gregg Toland's photography, into a very appealing woman). Niven is rather on the milquetoasty side and his richest scene involves him being stuck in a chair, but the rest of the film is two hours of Christmas joy.

Charming!
THE BISHOP'S WIFE is a thoroughly charming movie about an "angel" (Cary Grant) who changes the life of a bishop (David Niven) who at Christmas time is trying desperately to raise funds to build an elaborate cathedral and has consequently neglected his wife, Julia (Loretta Young). The three leads give beautiful performances, and there is a wonderful supporting cast, including Monty Woolley as a kindly if doubting professor and James Gleason as a loveable cab driver. The screenplay is subtle, as is the musical score. The scene near the end of the film in which Grant, Young, and Gleason take time out for some ice skating is a delightful respite, very much like a number in a movie musical. THE BISHOP'S WIFE is a relatively recent addition to my video library, but it has quickly become my favorite classic Christmas movie -- next to MIRACLE ON 34th STREET and Alastair Sim's A CHRISTMAS CAROL, that is. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Dakota Fanning--the elfin star of Uptown Girls, The Cat in the Hat, and Man on Fire--trades in her blond locks for a semi-gothic brunette do in Hide and Seek. Fanning plays Emily, a young girl whose mother commits suicide. To help Emily through the trauma, her father David (Robert DeNiro), a psychologist, takes her to an isolated house in upstate New York. But instead of healing, Emily gets dark circles under her eyes, mutilates her favorite doll, and develops an imaginary friend named Charlie. In no time at all, things get spooky and David suspects this imaginary friend isn't so friendly. Hide and Seek owes a lot to The Shining, but whether the creepiness is borrowed or not, there's a decent dose of it (though the twist at the end is unlikely to surprise many viewers). DeNiro does his job with professional gloss, but Fanning carries the movie; she's got the kind of charisma that goes beyond acting ability--that ineffable glow that makes an audience want to watch her. Hide and Seek also features Famke Janssen (X-Men), Elisabeth Shue (Leaving Las Vegas), and the ever-dependable Dylan Baker (Happiness). --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (62)

Hide and Seek is neither fun nor scary...just plain dumb
Robert De Niro (Meet The Fockers, Meet The Parents) brings his daughter, Dakota Fanning (the upcoming War Of The Worlds, Man On Fire) to a uptsate country house after Fanning's mother takes her own life. Soon after they move in Fanning starts to tell her dad of her imaginary friend named Charlie. De Niro starts to become more and more worried about his daughter and strange things happen. The end is another one of those twist endings we all love....sometimes. I think De Niro and Fanning did a good job though this movie is neither scary nor suspenseful...it has its moments. Also starring Elisabeth Shue (Leaving Las Vegas, The Saint), Dylan Baker (Changing Lanes, Along Came A Spider), Robert John Burke (Fled), Amy Irving (13 Conversations About One Thing, Tv's Alias) and Famke Janssen (X-Men 1 and 2, GoldenEye).

ROBERT DENIRO IS CHARLIE!
The above is a spoiler so don't read it if you don't want to know in advance.

Not a horror
I wouldn't call this film a horror. I would call it a suspenseful thriller. and, when under THAT category, it fulfills its promises.
De Niro is pretty good in it, but the medal really goes to Dakota Fanning. She's a brilliant actress for her age and quite freaky and hidden in the movie.
Not a horror, i stress, but a brillaintly suspenseful film with a completely unbxepected, unforseeable twist at the end......

Freewheel Thriller with a Twist Which Is Not Exactly New
A recently widowed doctor Robert DeNiro leaves the city with his only daughter Dakota Fanning.They start to live a new life in quiet countryside, a deserted summer place this time, and he comes to realize that his move might be a mistake.If you find any originality in this story, 'Hide and Seek' is your film.If I sound a little sarcastic, I say I'm sorry, but so many thrillers seek their background in this kind of land of nowhere that I started to feel like yelling 'Not again.'Oh, and the title!This unoriginal title should not be confused with another 'Hide and Seek' made only 6 years ago.At least they should have done something to that.

But DeNiro's 'Hide and Seek' is not without entertainment value.Though the film's main body is made from parts from other thrillers, it starts mildly interesting.DeNiro plays Dr. David Callaway, who lost his wife Alison (Amy Irving) in a terrible situation, and their only daughter Lucy (Fanning), witnessing the scene, is traumatized by the shock.They leave the city, and begin to live quietly in the countryside (which is conviniently only one hour's drive away from the city where Lucy's doctor Famke Jansen lives).

But you know, Lucy starts to act weirdly, talking about her imaginary frined named Charlie.She insists Charlie often comes to their house, and does a wicked thing or two.The tricks Charlie (or whatever) does on them get worse as the story goes on, and finally Lucy herself is out of control.Well, it seems so at first.

Like M. Night Shyamalan thrillers, 'Hide and Seek' tries to be atomospheric, and at times it succeeds.See, for example, who plays the local sheriff jingling the bundle of keys, who might be a bit too officious.It's Dylan Baker, yes, who played the daddy who did a very bad thing to a kid in 'Happiness.'It's good casting, for Dylan Baker could be very unpredictable, and he is a good actor.

But it turns out differently.For all the participations of ever-reliable Dylan Baker and equally-reliable Elizabeth Shue, the things go on like autopilot.For all the good (and in a sense, very scary) acting from Dakota Fanning, any fans of thrillers can read the next step of the film.Here's a doll!There's a cat!!The girl is looking at the sinister-looking woods!!!You can guess what will happen next.

Yes, I know, except that part, which the Fox Studio is so eager to protect that to reavel it here would involve you and me into an unwelcome lawsuit, so I won't write it.You have to see it, and perhaps, just perhaps, you may be impressed with it.Me?Well, I admit it was unexpected, but at the same time the twist does not heighten the suspence at all.Actually, it is an amateur's touch which destroys the professional acting from Fanning, whose Lucy character is the only mysterious part of the film.In short, Fanning's well-measured performance is wasted to show this big, implausible, and silly surprise.

Finally, here is what I want to ask: how many people still remember Robert DeNiro in the 70s or 80s?Oh, he was such a sensation.Not exactly a money-making star (which I do not say is a bad thing per se), but the name of DeNiro meant something awe-inspiring.I enjoyed 'Analyse This' and 'Meet the Parents,' but I didn't expect 'Analyse That' was coming. Neither his awful self-parody of Travis in 'Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle.'Then, the mafioso boss in 'Shark Tales.'What ever happened to him anyway?

Not as bad as people say.
-Heather's Teenage Son-

This movie was pretty good, but it moved at a VERY VERY slow pace.So, I'd give it 3 1/2 stars, and I'll finish this later. ... Read more

Reviews (659)

Underrated Science Fiction Classic
Starship Troopers is a truly underrated classic. Directed by Paul (Robocop) Verhoven, the story takes place far into the future where the world has become a 'Facist Utopia'. It's a world where citizenship is earned through military service and values are taught in war. The original story, written by sci-fi master Robert Heinlein in 1959, took such a future very seriously. Not so with Verhoven, he attempted to approach this Brave New World with camp and satire and I think many people missed this point.

Narrated by a futuristic internet that includes satirical recruiting commercials, we follow the lives of a group of friends - Johnny Rico (Casper Van Diem), Carmen Ibanez (Monica Richards), Dizzy Flores (Dina Meyer) and Carl Jenkins (Neil Patrick Harris). Johnny joins the service because of his girlfriend (Carmen) but is followed right along into service by another girl (Dizzy) who has a major crush on him. However, it becomes clear that they all joined the service just in time as attentions soon turn from each other to that of the enemy - Giant bugs. These giant, killer bugs have declared war on the Earth from their home world of Klendathu and are using long distance asteroids to inflict catastophic damage.

The movie kicks into high gear when soldiers are sent to the extraterrestrial battlefields of Klendathu - a kind of out-world Armageddon. A violent and graphic war is under way as soldiers are ripped apart by these giant bugs, some of which include built in flame throwers. The interaction between the bugs and soldiers is nothing less than spectacular. Indeed, in this era of The Matrix and The Phantom Menace, the digital FX in Starship Troopers easily rank as some of the best you will ever see. At one point, the soldiers are defending a fort against a HUGE army of insect warriors, some of which fly, in a scene that looks like some sci-fi version of the Alamo - Very effective. I will say, however, it struck me strange that a people who have created such advanced interstellar travel would not create better insecticide as the soldiers use pretty standard machine guns that take awhile to put a bug down. Also, Klendathu looked dull - colorless and full of rocks. Oh, well.

All in all, this movie is great. Don't take it too seriously, have fun with it.

Revised Review After Re-Viewing
"Starship Troopers" is a great, action-packed, shoot-'em-up, kill-the-bad-guys (bugs) science fiction adventure film with lots of great special effects. The battles scenes, both in space and on the ground, are graphic, complex, and exciting.

The movie is supposedly based upon Robert Heinlein's science fiction classic, written in 1959. He had three goals:

1) Put forth the idea that a true American patriot could be anti-war and need not be fanatically anti-Communist, a la Joe McCarthy.

2) Satirize war by glorifying it in a tongue-in-cheek manner and by shoving its horror in your face, much like "Saving Private Ryan" did seriously, and much like Archie Bunker did comedically to racism and bigotry.

3) Put forth the philosophy that freedom and responsibility are inextricably linked. Many people today have forgotten that, and moral decline is the result.

What does the movie do with these ideas? It misses the point entirely and sarcastically (not satirically) attacks war, patriotism, AND responsibility. It does this by turning the whole story into a farce, and by minimizing the role of the teacher of responsibility and sometimes portraying him as a bitter fanatic.

The young cast, whom I attacked before revising my review, actually did the best they could with a script that sometimes sounded like it belonged in a Saturday morning cartoon. In their defense, I would guess that most of the cast read the script and not the book. They also did not live through the threat of global war, which was fanned as much by McCarthy's inflammatory anti-Communist rhetoric and fanaticism as it was by Stalinism, Leninism, and Marxism. What defense does the producer and the director have?

The voice-over narration was a big mistake. It furthered the effect of having this film become a caricature of the book, and it was totally unnecessary.

If you want to watch a good science fiction adventure film with lots of special effects, action, and gore, this movie is for you. But, please do not take it seriously or think that it represents Heinlein's book faithfully. If you want to think about this movie and its ideas, please do two things first: read the book it was supposedly based upon, and either read the history of the era that birthed the book or talk with someone born before 1934 at length about the era.

listen up all n64 fans.
in the far future,the armed forces battle giant bugs on thier planet.one of the drill instructers is played by the pervert in sleepers.this movie is far to violent for chilkdren.i cant belive the second part even came fromthis one.this one rules but the sceond one left a lot to be desired.i think military,action and sci fi fans will all enjiy this one.anyone who is squeamish will not like it,as it is very graphic and very violent.there are 2 basic chicks in this movie.a air force chick whose playing two guys and a sexy red head who pines after one of those guys.i think the first chick is nasty but the red head is awesome.she must be pretty co mfortable without a shirt because she takes it off a number of times.this movie kicks butt!some of its futuristic concepts are neat.the violent parts are very graphic.legs flying,guts spraying...........its great.

A complete wast of budgeting
Starship troopers, probably set in the year 4000AD or something is a complete fasico, honestly. What kind of sick moron would create a movie about a bunch of sexy, small titted geeks joining the federal service thing to fight a bunch of mutated insects on the other side of the galaxy. attack, then lots of blood and death (and yet Rico some how manages to be listed corps, but he lives in a bath of green goo) and then they go back for more. Whoopee doo da. Rubbish, and i dont core if you disagree. The most unrealistic film since, well, since ever! From psycic people to roughneck. Thats not the human world. no way! The human world would probable nuke the hell out of "klendathu" the archnids home planet leaving a larghe collection of ash and rubble. And the real world probably wouldn't waste billions of pounds of huge space ships that are going to blow up from cosmic sperm. Nah, we would send thermonuclear probs or something, dodge in and out of the sperm and fly into a random guess at the best spot. Or, instead of using nuclear weapons we could take the right piss. Build a hug maginifying glass over the planets and use there own stars against them and magnify the heat 10,000 times and fry the bastards.

Denise richards must have been pissed to have said yes to acting in this film. What was she thinking?! Why is her hair so long?! and why does she have to smile all the time?! Does here mouth ever close? She did my head in in this "film" her acing may be up to scratch compared to the other actors but she could have done better (compare "the world is not enough"). Johny Rico quite cleary is dressed up to look like one of those life sized action men, the right hair anyway. His freak friend, I forget his name but I know he has been in many other films before. He didn't show up often which was a releif because he is quite ugly. but i suppose being able to mentally control and read the emotions of other animals counts against it.

On the plus side of this film (Yes there is one!!) the graphics and that of the big sacestations is quite good, not as good as say the matrix but it is good. just good. I admit to enjoying them little news reports from the "federal network" but thats about it. Starship Troopers is the perfect example of an over budgetted film and too many speciall effects which drive the film prducers of making a film of good acting. I think the proper scientific definition of this is the matrix revalutions and reloaded.

Only good bug's a dead bug.
Early on, in my formative years, I was introduced to horror films by my mom. Our local late-night horror-fest was Creature Features, hosted by the immortal Bob Wilkins. Through this forum, I was exposed to the great Universal horror films of the 30's, the silly Japanese rubber-suit monster movies, and my favorites, the atomic-age big bug films of the 1950's.

Fast-forward to winter, 1997. I'm sitting in a theater watching Starship Troopers, and it feels like I've stepped into a time machine. This is possibly the best of all the big bug movies, and it's not afraid to show its roots. Sometime in the future, Earth is under attack by huge bugs from another planet. We follow the lives of a few of Earth's best and brightest, as they join the army and head off in different directions. What really struck me about this film is that they actually took the time to develop a three-dimensional world for the characters to inhabit. That's what makes the difference to me. Yes, the young actors are mostly pretty eye candy, and their performances, while not Oscar-caliber, are light years beyond their forebears of the 50's. The world of their future is seemingly fascistic (service in the military guarantees citizenship and other perks, such as the right to vote and the right to have children. Hmm - a future in which people's active participation in their country allows them greater freedoms, provided they take personal responsibility for themselves and their future? I've heard worse notions...). We follow the idealistic youths through basic training, all the way to several epic battles on other worlds and we see their progress as soldiers and as humans along the way. It's this kind of attention to detail and character development that sets this film apart from many others. And yes, everyone makes noise about the coed shower scene, but I have to say that is one of the more important scenes in the film. It shows that the cadets have grown as soldiers, that they are capable as seeing each others as parts of a team, instead of just a bunch of good-looking naked people. Those who have a problem with this scene - grow the heck up. It just adds to the sense of realism of the whole movie. Oh, yeah - there's the bugs, too...

As far as I'm concerned, the bugs are real. I don't know that I've ever seen the make-believe so realistically brought to life in any other movie. These are truly nasty creatures, devoid of compassion or humanity in every way. The effects work (courtesy of master Rob Bottin) is truly incredible. The beasts take apparent glee in tearing apart their human foes, and they do so in spectacular ways. The bugs are so magnificently realized that I literally found myself on the edge of my seat as the troops find themselves ambushed in a deserted fort, with the entire horizon blocked out by herds of thundering bugs.

Paul Veerhoven (Robocop, Total Recall) has a fanatical eye for detail, which is yet another aspect of this film that just compels the feeling that what is happening might just be real. He maintains a sense of humor throughout, which works brilliantly when contrasted to the raw, brutal carnage we're being subjected to. The primary actors, the pretty young kids, do the best they can within the limits of their youth and talent (the standout is Dina Meyer, who's just great), but the real stars of this movie are Clancy Brown as the quasi-sadistic Sergeant Zim, the cadet's Drill Instructor, and genre favorite Michael Ironside as Lt. Rasczak, the kids' teacher at home, and also out on the battlefield. These two guys deserve as much attention and credit as possible for always turning in great performances in character-driven roles. They, even more than the bugs, give this film its heart.

All in all, you just couldn't ask for a more fun Saturday afternoon monster movie. Just avoid any sequels, because invariably, they just can't live up to this fun, breathtaking achievement. ... Read more

Reviews (19)

In Spite of Flaws, This Political Noir Is Still Powerful
There are certain subjects that films in general and Hollywood in particular never handled very well--and chief among them are politics. But even some fifty years after it first hit theatre screens, ALL THE KING'S MEN still has plenty of power. Filmed in a "noir" style and based on the famous novel which was in turn based loosely on the rise and fall of Louisiana's Huey P. Long, the film offers the story of Willie Stark, a small-town lawyer who is nominated for govenor by a political party seeking to defeat their opponet by dividing the rural vote. When Willie gets wise to the plot he turns on his false benefactors and rockets to political power--but once in power the honest small-town-joe becomes even more corrupt than those who sought to manipulate him for their own gain.

Broderick Crawford justly earned an Oscar for his performance as Willie Stark, whose ego and thirst for power grows to horrific proportions--and whose corruption gradually taints even the most honorable people around him. The supporting cast of John Ireland, Joanne Dru, Anne Seymour, and Walter Burke (to name but a few) is also quite good. But the real knockout here is actress Mercedes McCambridge as Willie Stark's hard-edged assistant and sometimes lover; it is an astonishing performance which, in spite of its supporting status, remains locked in mind long after the film ends, a role for which McCambridge won an Oscar as Best Supporting Actress.

The script doesn't really do full justice to Warren's novel, the film is a bit slow to start, and the story itself feels a bit dry in the telling--but the performances and numerous memorable scenes carry it through to tremendous effect. ALL THE KING'S MEN is so explicit in its portrait of how corrupt politicians manipulate the public that it should be required viewing for every one of voting age. Recommended.

The political rise and fall of Willie Stark
"All the King's Men" turns Robert Penn Warren's Pulitzer Prize winning novel into the role of a lifetime for Oscar winning Best Actor Broderick Crawford. The story is inspired, for lack of a better word, by the real life and times of Huey P. Long, the infamous Louisiana politician who seemed intent on adapting fascism to American politics. Director Robert Rossen also wrote the adaptation of the celebrated novel, and ultimately it is Rossen who deserves the credit for the film's power. There is an intensity to the film, beginning with the torchlight processions, campaign barbecues and banners for Stark that we see behind the opening credits. When Stark is finally revealed to us in a rapid-fire sequence showing him at a football stadium, speaking to a crowd at the fair, steamrolling legislators, posing for photographs with his family, there is a vitality that presents the political figure of Stark as an utterly American political figure. The only problem with this film, at least for me, is that the transformation of Willie Stark from the hick lawyer with a sincere concern for the plight of the downtrodden into a drunken, egomaniacal dictator once he has tasted power. The change is too sudden, just like the assassin's bullet that cuts Stark down at the end, so that instead of becoming a tragic figure (a good man gone wrong), we are left wondering who is the real Stark and forced to conclude it is the original naive do-gooder that was the sham. However, once we jettison the character's roots, there is no arguing that this is not a compelling political narrative and the fact that the true story of Huey P. Long again proves that fact is stranger than fiction should not really enter into the equation.

Ordinary
The book is infinitely better. Robert Penn Warren wrote a deep and subtle story about the American dream, morals and desires of early 20th century America. The movie keeps the plot and thats about it. It's well acted but there isn't much here. Won the Oscar for best picture in a weak year.

Never again as good. Brodrick Crawford is another of that
select group of actors who peak early in their career. In his case it is 1949, he won an Oscar, & never again got close. Eventually Crawford moved to the small screen where we,of a certain age, remember him on "Highway Patrol". But his best was better than most. His character, in All the King's Men, is Willie Stark, an idealistic, honest, populist politician bucking the system. He is also ambitious & seeing his opportunity, seizes it. His greed, lust for power & ego run amok & turn him into the very thing he had fought against only worse. He corrodes everything & everybody he touches & comes to a fitting end a 'la Huey Long, the man on which the film & presumably the book were loosely based. Highly recommended for all who like this style of political noir or junkies.

What a disappointment.
What can I say -- I found this film to be so incredibly trite, so simple were its morals and weak its characterization. John Ireland is a lump at the center of the film, Mercedes McCambridge's character arc is severely underdeveloped. As for Willy, we never see his true motivations for an instant, and this is most maddening. I have read a small portion of Warren's book, and it so so vastly superior to the piece of Hollywood pap it's ridiculous. It's hard to imagine a book that is considered the greatest political novel in American history is represented by this connect-the-dots fare. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

The second sequel to the mold-making action film Die Hard brings Detective John McClane (Bruce Willis) to New York City to face a better villain than in Die Hard 2. Played by Jeremy Irons, he's the brother of the Germanic terrorist-thief Alan Rickman played in the original film. But this bad guy has his sights set higher: on the Federal Reserve's cache of gold. As a distraction, he sets McClane running fool's errands all over New York--and eventually, McClane attracts an unintentional partner, a Harlem dry cleaner (Samuel L. Jackson) with a chip on his shoulder. Some great action sequences, though they can't obscure the rather large plot holes in the film's final 45 minutes. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (88)

Die Hard I; II; and III - Great 5.1 sound
Recently, I picked up each single disc version of Die Hard I; II; and III at bargain prices .Since there are plenty of reviews, I will keep this short.All three of the movies are great, with plenty of action.I like the second movie best.

The best part is the transfer to DVD.The video transfer is wonderful and the 5.1 sound is superior.There is excellent usage of the low bass and the surround speakers.All three movies are a definite purchase.

There are rumors of a Die Hard IV.....

"We'll be back to pick you up in fifteen minutes."
"Take your time. I expect to be dead in four."

John McClane is suspended from his police duties.He spends his days in a drunken stoop.John McClane gets a rude awakening when Simon Gruber decides to blow-up a local department store.Simon claims this is all revenge for his brother being killed in the Knockatomi building in the first Die Hard movie.Simon Gruber requests John McClane to play a game of "Simon says," with Zeus Carver (Samuel L. Jackson), who joins after round one.In the mean time Gruber intends to pull off the heist of the century.

"Stop yelling, I know what I'm doing."
"Not even god knows what your doing."

John McTiernan (The 13th Warrior, Predator, Die Hard, The Hunt for Red October, and Last Action Hero) directs this marvelous film.The Die Hard series is an all time great trilogy.McTiernan is directing Die Hard 4.0.However, the Die Hard collection does not consist of one deep plot, but the character of John McClane has been created so marvelously that no one cares.We all relate to John McClane.Bravo to McTiernan for developing a character everyone roots for.

Samuel L. Jackson makes his debut in the series and does a fabulous job.Bruce Willis is Bruce Willis, exactly what you expect...brilliant.Jeremy Irons plays a wonderful villain, a character you absolutely despise.He also does a wonderful job of portraying Hans Gruber, played by Alan Rickman, brother from the original Die Hard (which was released seven years earlier).

I personally love all three Die Hard movies.I find it difficult to choose one over another.I believe I like the first the most, followed by Die Hard: With a Vengeance, then Die Hard 2 last.This order could change daily, or after I watch an episode.Nevertheless, the whole series belongs in your DVD collection.

Grade: A

Samuel Jackson joins Bruce Willis for the third "Die Hard"
There are plans for "Die Hard 4.0" for 2006, with Bruce Willis back for a fourth time and director John McTiernan back for a third as John McClane and his daughter become involved in yet another terrorist plot. I have high hopes for such a film because the "Die Hard" series has been one of the strongest in the action genre. Granted, the best of the bunch remains the original 1988 film, which is the standard by which all subsequent films in the genre have been judged: "Die Hard 2: Die Harder" was "Die Hard" in an airport and "Speed" was "Die Hard on a Bus," not to be confused with "Speed II" which was "Die Hard" and "Speed" on a boat. Apparently Willis only does these movies when he has one that thinks it will work, which would explain why "Die Hard with a Vengeance," the third film in the series, came out in 1995, five years after the sequel.

The best thing that can be said about this movie is that it would have worked even if it was not a "Die Hard" movie. The idea that John McClane is once again on the outs with his wife (who never appears in the film) is getting stale and the idea that he is being targeted by this film's mysterious villain simply named Simon (Jeremy Irons) could just as easily have a different explanation than one that ties this film back to the original. In fact, what makes this third one a solid action film is that it does indeed go back to the original for two of its strongest elements. The first is the idea that the crime is a fairly complex robbery dressed up with a lot of distractions. The second is that McClane's character had a tenuous anchor with another person; in the original it was Reginald VelJohnson's Al Powell, although for most of the film it was merely by radio. That fault is rectified in this film with Willis given a strong co-star in Samuel L. Jackson's Zeus Carver. This time it is Jackson's character who suddenly finds himself in extraordinary circumstances, forced by some nut with a whole lot of bombs at his disposal to jump through a bizarre series of hoops.

One of the key elements in the success of the "Die Hard" movies was that McClane managed to use his brains at opportune moments. That issue is forced to the extreme in this one as the voice at the other end of a long series of phone calls provides one deadly brainteaser after another. This allows the logic of the movie produce a series of stunts and action sequences as the two mismatched heroes race around New York City trying to avoiding anybody getting killed (including themselves). Willis and Jackson work well off of each other, helped by the fact there characters are not stupid, and that despite the yelling and screaming solving problems is the highest priority. We have seen all of these elements before from all the action/buddy movies that Hollywood has produced, and their success remains contingent on how much we like watching the two buddies do what they gotta do. The whole idea of these things is to provide a compelling thrill ride, and by that standard "Die Hard with a Vengeance" delivers.

Die Hard (spoilerz)
This is a excellent action movie which is starring Bruce Willis as John McClane, Jeremy irons as the villain and brother of Hans Greuber(from the first one) as Simon Greuber, and Samuel L jackson as Zeus. It starts with a bomb in a NY shop then john being dropped off in Harlem with a sandwich board which says "I hate n----rs" Zeus who is in a shop and notices him goes over to him and says to go before the gang which are down the road see him, well they see him and beat him up then he gets a call to go to the subway in half an hour or he'll blow it up, Zeus gets there before but is late and the bomb blows up. then there is a bomb in the park which is disarmed by John and Zeus. Later there is a bomb in a school in NY and no one knows the code. John and Zeus look for him separately John drives through a dam and gets nearly flooded in. Zeus finds him on his ship and goes to shoot him but he hasnt took the safety capsules off and Simon takes the gun and shoots his leg. Then it is revealed that it is a fake bomb in the school but not on the ship. Oh yeah the terroists are stealing gold from a bank. then john and zeus get blown up and land in the sea. They are rescued by a ship. Then the terrorists are celebrating their stealing of the gold until John and all the cops find him. then John shoots Simon down and then he says yipee ki yay mothaf-cker and it ends

Overall you should watch this if u want a good action movie

Die Hard 3 (1995)
John McClane returns to kick serious butt, if he can get rid of his headache. Bruce Willis reprises his star role of John McClane in this third installment of the Die Hard series. Doing battle this time around with Simon Gruber, Hans Gruber's brother. Simon sets out to destory John McClane for throwing his little brother out of The Naktomi building in the first Die Hard. Setting up elebrate bombs all over New York, he almost succeeds in destroying the city. With the mix of humor and heavy action, John T. does a excellent job returning to the director's chair. ... Read more

Reviews (64)

13 PRAISES ABOUT ONE MOVIE
What a brilliantly conceived and executed film on life, fate and the pursuit of happiness!

If you are wondering about the "one thing" in the title, well it is not simple. In fact it may not actually be one thing at all but several, and the genius of the film is that it makes you and those watching with you want to talk about what it means, thus generating a 14th conversation. The lines may have been mixed around in a visual feast of cinematic poetry but the meaning remains crystal clear. So I'd say that's the "one thing" -- meaning.

What I admire about Sprecher is that she trusts her audience wholeheartedly. She is clearly disinterested in highfalutin messages and doesn't hammer her themes to death. In fact, the best scenes in the movie aren't big revelations, dramatic monologues or directorial set pieces, but subtle character moments: a conversation that hits the right note, a glance that suggests a subtext, a smile.

The movie refused to leave my head for weeks, an impact disproportionate to the movie's quiet sombre tone. A rare film that manages to evoke emotions and provoke thinking. Buy it! Watch it! Talk about it!

An irreversible change
In spite of its seemingly depressing nature I tremendously enjoyed this movie. I believe it is the issues discussed that were able to touch deep and the quiet, restrained way in which they were portrayed. Another reason would be the beautiful ending that does not say much but leaves you with some hope for human kind...
"Thirteen conversations about one thing" lead to very coherent statements about the human condition. Each viewer, so I believe, will interpret what he saw in a slightly different manner. For me however the message was: reach out for other human beings - they are as lonely as you are; kindness, optimism and "looking at the bright side of things" have a power in spite of all and a kind word or gesture have an affect on other people - cynical as they may be; and most important: happiness is sometimes a vague term and is always better perceived at a later stage....
The movie starts with a scene whose significance will be understood at a much later stage. John Turturro, playing a physics college professor is having dinner with his wife (Amy Irving) and discusses an act of violence that he suffered, trying to analyze the horror of it all and find significance and meaning in what occured. The act itself and its impact on the professor are not clear to the viewers at this stage but will become clear later on. This is the first hint to what will be one of the movie's major themes - one event is able to shake a person down and cause a change. An irreversible change.
The movie brings us five human episodes that are entangled to one strong story. Matthew McConaughey is a young, confident attorney whose life changes on account of a car accident he causes; Clea Duval an optimistic kind young woman working as a cleaning lady who looses her faith in human kind on account of same accident. John Turturro is a college professor in search of happiness - in search of the "something" more that life has to offer. In pursuit of such happiness he leaves his wife, who is left to deal with same questions and issues, especially with the loneliness of one person in the big city. However, the most impressive acting belongs to Alan Arkin who portrays a lonely, cynical manager who has a very optimistic, good-natured employee. The employee's ability to see good in every thing hits an exposed nerve which the manager can no longer tolerate. Alan Arkin manages to deliver a round figured person including his many sides and faces, thoughts and regrets, thus forming a very realistic humane figure. Arkin is a bitter father, a manager, an ex-husband and above all a person who down beneath is kind and good, after all the masks are stripped down. Clea Duval is another great asset to this movie, able to touch us with her tender quiet portrayal of a girl who undergoes an inner turmoil.
The film is rich with metaphors and symbols that are not always evident on first viewing. One example would be the professor, Turturro writing the word "Irreversible" on the class blackboard while discussing the notion of anthrophy and giving us a hint to life realities as will become evident to him later on. Once you made your choice, consequences are irreversible, as Turturro will soon understand. Another example would be Clea Duval' s doll who always had one closed eye and suddenly appears with her two eyes open after her owner's inner change, as if to symbolize the new look on life she has. These are just two examples of what makes this movie rich and holding several layers of understanding.

a nicely done film with a exceptional cast
Its a movie about sepereate people whose stories fuse together into one. They all meet or bump into one another along the way. Matthew McConaughey (Frailty, Reign Of Fire), Amy Irving, Alan Arkin (The Jerky Boys Movie, America's Sweethearts), John Turturro (The Man Who Cried, Barton Fink), Clea DuVall (Identity, Ghosts Of Mars), Tia Texada (Spartan, Bait), Frankie Faison and many others form the great line of work that is done here, especially Turturro, Arkin and McConaughey. So if your in for a little drama, this is the ticket.

Complexity That Answers To Happiness
"13 Conversations About One Thing" is an emotional film that will surely move its audiences. It stars Alan Arkin, Clea DuVall, Matthew McConaughey John Turturro, and Oscar nominee Amy Irving ("Yentl"). It desplicts four separate storylines that have one thing in common: they struggle with happiness. One loses his money shortly after winning the lottery, one struggles to keep herself together after an accident, the guy who ran her over struggles with guilt, one struggles with catching her husband cheating, and one whose envy threatens becomes self-destructible. The powerful theme within the events is present in every scene. Their life struggles have the intensity to keep audiences watching closely. The complex stories detail so deeply that audiences must watch the film multiple times to fully understand them. Though some questions have yet to be answered, they will be glad afterwards. Despite the time frames moving back and forth, the plot doesn't lose its touch with the chain of events. In fact, it keeps everything more interesting. The emotional theme is accented by the actors who perform their roles wonderful and expressively, especially Arkin. Their performances alone are unforgettable. "13 Conversations About One Thing" is a great drama that will surely please audiences. This will be remembered for a long time.

A movie that tries to answer questions about happiness
What is happiness? How do we achieve happiness? Do we know what happiness is? Is it by fate, Dame Fortune, or is it something we have to discover for ourselves? That's the thing in 13 Conversations About One Thing. There are various phrases that separate each segment of the movie, such as "fortune smiles on some, fortune laughs on others," which help underline the theme of this movie, as experienced by many characters.

There's an actuary, Gene English (Alan Arkin), whose company is going through hard times, and in order to cut back, lets go of Wade, an employee who's always happy and has a smile on his face. His motive that Wade will find some sort of silver lining. And Wade is at first shocked, as he has a family to support. Through this act, we learn more about Gene. He does have problems of his own, as he has a drug-addicted son, and is no longer married. I kind detected a kind of spite in Gene when he fired Wade, the typical case of an unhappy person who can't stand someone being happy. But given the outcomes of both people, it makes one wonder if karma has a role to play in this.

The physics professor Walker (John Turturro) is a creature of routine, making his entire life a schedule, whether it be his lover or his office hours, as he makes clear to one student who isn't making an effort in his class and whom he has a certain dislike. He's even left his wife to have an affair in the hopes that some kind of novel stimulation will break him away from the cozy rut of his old life. To him, that's happiness. Yet old habits die hard. He also finds solace in certainty, as his teaching physics irreversible. But in one instant, the effects that we have in what we say to one person is demonstrated later on. Or do, in the case of the actuary.

A hotshot prosecutor (Matthew McConaughey) is celebrating a victory in a case, but on his way back, he accidentally hits a young girl and leaves her there, not wanting to undergo legal entanglements--he oughta know, he's a lawyer. Slowly, the guilt he feels affects his life. The girl herself, Beatrice, (Clea DuVall), a housecleaner, initially has a positive outlook on life, yet following her accident, she becomes disillusioned.

There are some techniques used a la He Loves Me He Loves Me Not or Happenstance, where things that are seen in later segments fill in gaps or connect previously seen segments. And the performances are great throughout, even one can't sympathize with some of the characters, i.e. the lawyer. Me, I'll take as Wade as my nominee.

The viewer is indeed limited in the characters' lives via the film, but it does make one wonder, what happened afterward to them? Do or will they ever find that pot at the end of the rainbow? While there are no easy answers in the question of happiness, which seems to elude most like Tantalus and his fruit, I'll leave with song quotes I found apropos to this movie: "when you expect whistles, it's flutes/when you expect flutes, it's whistles." The name of the song: "Fortune Presents Gifts Not According To The Book." ... Read more

Amazon.com

In the first and finest RoboCop movie, director Paul Verhoeven combined near-future science fiction with a keen sense of social satire--not to mention enough high-velocity violence to satisfy even the most voracious bloodlust. In Starship Troopers, Verhoeven and RoboCop cowriter Ed Neumeier take inspired cues from Robert Heinlein's classic sci-fi novel to create a special-effects extravaganza that functions on multiple levels of entertainment. The film might be called "Melrose Place in Space," with its youthful cast of handsome guys and gorgeous women who look like they've been recruited (and in some cases they were) from the cast of Beverly Hills 90210. Viewers might focus on the incredible, graphically intense action sequences (definitely not for children) in which heavily armed forces from Earth go to off-world battle against vast hordes of alien "bugs" bent on planetary conquest. The attacking bugs are marvels of state-of-the-art special-effects technology, and the space battles are nothing short of spectacular. But Starship Troopers is more than a showcase for high-tech hardware and gigantic, flesh-ripping insects.Recalling his childhood in Holland during the Nazi occupation, Verhoeven turns this epic adventure into a scathingly funny satire of fascist propaganda, emphasizing Heinlein's underlying warning against the hazards of military conformity and the sickening realities of war. It's an action-packed joy ride if that's all you're looking for, but Verhoeven has a provocative agenda that makes Starship Troopers as smart as it is exciting. The DVD includes an above-average commentary by the director and Neumeier, several deleted scenes, a behind-the-scenes documentary and promotional featurette, cast bios, production notes, and more. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (659)

Underrated Science Fiction Classic
Starship Troopers is a truly underrated classic. Directed by Paul (Robocop) Verhoven, the story takes place far into the future where the world has become a 'Facist Utopia'. It's a world where citizenship is earned through military service and values are taught in war. The original story, written by sci-fi master Robert Heinlein in 1959, took such a future very seriously. Not so with Verhoven, he attempted to approach this Brave New World with camp and satire and I think many people missed this point.

Narrated by a futuristic internet that includes satirical recruiting commercials, we follow the lives of a group of friends - Johnny Rico (Casper Van Diem), Carmen Ibanez (Monica Richards), Dizzy Flores (Dina Meyer) and Carl Jenkins (Neil Patrick Harris). Johnny joins the service because of his girlfriend (Carmen) but is followed right along into service by another girl (Dizzy) who has a major crush on him. However, it becomes clear that they all joined the service just in time as attentions soon turn from each other to that of the enemy - Giant bugs. These giant, killer bugs have declared war on the Earth from their home world of Klendathu and are using long distance asteroids to inflict catastophic damage.

The movie kicks into high gear when soldiers are sent to the extraterrestrial battlefields of Klendathu - a kind of out-world Armageddon. A violent and graphic war is under way as soldiers are ripped apart by these giant bugs, some of which include built in flame throwers. The interaction between the bugs and soldiers is nothing less than spectacular. Indeed, in this era of The Matrix and The Phantom Menace, the digital FX in Starship Troopers easily rank as some of the best you will ever see. At one point, the soldiers are defending a fort against a HUGE army of insect warriors, some of which fly, in a scene that looks like some sci-fi version of the Alamo - Very effective. I will say, however, it struck me strange that a people who have created such advanced interstellar travel would not create better insecticide as the soldiers use pretty standard machine guns that take awhile to put a bug down. Also, Klendathu looked dull - colorless and full of rocks. Oh, well.

All in all, this movie is great. Don't take it too seriously, have fun with it.

Revised Review After Re-Viewing
"Starship Troopers" is a great, action-packed, shoot-'em-up, kill-the-bad-guys (bugs) science fiction adventure film with lots of great special effects. The battles scenes, both in space and on the ground, are graphic, complex, and exciting.

The movie is supposedly based upon Robert Heinlein's science fiction classic, written in 1959. He had three goals:

1) Put forth the idea that a true American patriot could be anti-war and need not be fanatically anti-Communist, a la Joe McCarthy.

2) Satirize war by glorifying it in a tongue-in-cheek manner and by shoving its horror in your face, much like "Saving Private Ryan" did seriously, and much like Archie Bunker did comedically to racism and bigotry.

3) Put forth the philosophy that freedom and responsibility are inextricably linked. Many people today have forgotten that, and moral decline is the result.

What does the movie do with these ideas? It misses the point entirely and sarcastically (not satirically) attacks war, patriotism, AND responsibility. It does this by turning the whole story into a farce, and by minimizing the role of the teacher of responsibility and sometimes portraying him as a bitter fanatic.

The young cast, whom I attacked before revising my review, actually did the best they could with a script that sometimes sounded like it belonged in a Saturday morning cartoon. In their defense, I would guess that most of the cast read the script and not the book. They also did not live through the threat of global war, which was fanned as much by McCarthy's inflammatory anti-Communist rhetoric and fanaticism as it was by Stalinism, Leninism, and Marxism. What defense does the producer and the director have?

The voice-over narration was a big mistake. It furthered the effect of having this film become a caricature of the book, and it was totally unnecessary.

If you want to watch a good science fiction adventure film with lots of special effects, action, and gore, this movie is for you. But, please do not take it seriously or think that it represents Heinlein's book faithfully. If you want to think about this movie and its ideas, please do two things first: read the book it was supposedly based upon, and either read the history of the era that birthed the book or talk with someone born before 1934 at length about the era.

listen up all n64 fans.
in the far future,the armed forces battle giant bugs on thier planet.one of the drill instructers is played by the pervert in sleepers.this movie is far to violent for chilkdren.i cant belive the second part even came fromthis one.this one rules but the sceond one left a lot to be desired.i think military,action and sci fi fans will all enjiy this one.anyone who is squeamish will not like it,as it is very graphic and very violent.there are 2 basic chicks in this movie.a air force chick whose playing two guys and a sexy red head who pines after one of those guys.i think the first chick is nasty but the red head is awesome.she must be pretty co mfortable without a shirt because she takes it off a number of times.this movie kicks butt!some of its futuristic concepts are neat.the violent parts are very graphic.legs flying,guts spraying...........its great.

A complete wast of budgeting
Starship troopers, probably set in the year 4000AD or something is a complete fasico, honestly. What kind of sick moron would create a movie about a bunch of sexy, small titted geeks joining the federal service thing to fight a bunch of mutated insects on the other side of the galaxy. attack, then lots of blood and death (and yet Rico some how manages to be listed corps, but he lives in a bath of green goo) and then they go back for more. Whoopee doo da. Rubbish, and i dont core if you disagree. The most unrealistic film since, well, since ever! From psycic people to roughneck. Thats not the human world. no way! The human world would probable nuke the hell out of "klendathu" the archnids home planet leaving a larghe collection of ash and rubble. And the real world probably wouldn't waste billions of pounds of huge space ships that are going to blow up from cosmic sperm. Nah, we would send thermonuclear probs or something, dodge in and out of the sperm and fly into a random guess at the best spot. Or, instead of using nuclear weapons we could take the right piss. Build a hug maginifying glass over the planets and use there own stars against them and magnify the heat 10,000 times and fry the bastards.

Denise richards must have been pissed to have said yes to acting in this film. What was she thinking?! Why is her hair so long?! and why does she have to smile all the time?! Does here mouth ever close? She did my head in in this "film" her acing may be up to scratch compared to the other actors but she could have done better (compare "the world is not enough"). Johny Rico quite cleary is dressed up to look like one of those life sized action men, the right hair anyway. His freak friend, I forget his name but I know he has been in many other films before. He didn't show up often which was a releif because he is quite ugly. but i suppose being able to mentally control and read the emotions of other animals counts against it.

On the plus side of this film (Yes there is one!!) the graphics and that of the big sacestations is quite good, not as good as say the matrix but it is good. just good. I admit to enjoying them little news reports from the "federal network" but thats about it. Starship Troopers is the perfect example of an over budgetted film and too many speciall effects which drive the film prducers of making a film of good acting. I think the proper scientific definition of this is the matrix revalutions and reloaded.

Only good bug's a dead bug.
Early on, in my formative years, I was introduced to horror films by my mom. Our local late-night horror-fest was Creature Features, hosted by the immortal Bob Wilkins. Through this forum, I was exposed to the great Universal horror films of the 30's, the silly Japanese rubber-suit monster movies, and my favorites, the atomic-age big bug films of the 1950's.

Fast-forward to winter, 1997. I'm sitting in a theater watching Starship Troopers, and it feels like I've stepped into a time machine. This is possibly the best of all the big bug movies, and it's not afraid to show its roots. Sometime in the future, Earth is under attack by huge bugs from another planet. We follow the lives of a few of Earth's best and brightest, as they join the army and head off in different directions. What really struck me about this film is that they actually took the time to develop a three-dimensional world for the characters to inhabit. That's what makes the difference to me. Yes, the young actors are mostly pretty eye candy, and their performances, while not Oscar-caliber, are light years beyond their forebears of the 50's. The world of their future is seemingly fascistic (service in the military guarantees citizenship and other perks, such as the right to vote and the right to have children. Hmm - a future in which people's active participation in their country allows them greater freedoms, provided they take personal responsibility for themselves and their future? I've heard worse notions...). We follow the idealistic youths through basic training, all the way to several epic battles on other worlds and we see their progress as soldiers and as humans along the way. It's this kind of attention to detail and character development that sets this film apart from many others. And yes, everyone makes noise about the coed shower scene, but I have to say that is one of the more important scenes in the film. It shows that the cadets have grown as soldiers, that they are capable as seeing each others as parts of a team, instead of just a bunch of good-looking naked people. Those who have a problem with this scene - grow the heck up. It just adds to the sense of realism of the whole movie. Oh, yeah - there's the bugs, too...

As far as I'm concerned, the bugs are real. I don't know that I've ever seen the make-believe so realistically brought to life in any other movie. These are truly nasty creatures, devoid of compassion or humanity in every way. The effects work (courtesy of master Rob Bottin) is truly incredible. The beasts take apparent glee in tearing apart their human foes, and they do so in spectacular ways. The bugs are so magnificently realized that I literally found myself on the edge of my seat as the troops find themselves ambushed in a deserted fort, with the entire horizon blocked out by herds of thundering bugs.

Paul Veerhoven (Robocop, Total Recall) has a fanatical eye for detail, which is yet another aspect of this film that just compels the feeling that what is happening might just be real. He maintains a sense of humor throughout, which works brilliantly when contrasted to the raw, brutal carnage we're being subjected to. The primary actors, the pretty young kids, do the best they can within the limits of their youth and talent (the standout is Dina Meyer, who's just great), but the real stars of this movie are Clancy Brown as the quasi-sadistic Sergeant Zim, the cadet's Drill Instructor, and genre favorite Michael Ironside as Lt. Rasczak, the kids' teacher at home, and also out on the battlefield. These two guys deserve as much attention and credit as possible for always turning in great performances in character-driven roles. They, even more than the bugs, give this film its heart.

All in all, you just couldn't ask for a more fun Saturday afternoon monster movie. Just avoid any sequels, because invariably, they just can't live up to this fun, breathtaking achievement. ... Read more