Description

The DVD contains the 184-minute version of the film. ... Read more

Reviews (123)

You'll enjoy Mr. Barlow. And he'll enjoy you...
Directed by Tobe Hooper (who would go on to helm "Poltergeist"), "Salem's Lot" is a better-than-adequate condensing of Stephen King's classic horror novel. It's made all the more effective when you consider this is material originally shown on network television.

David Soul ("Starsky and Hutch") plays Ben Mears, a writer who returns to his hometown to write a novel about the local haunted house, and ends up dating Susan Norton (Bonnie Bedelia, future star of "Heart Like a Wheel"). Then evil James Mason comes to town, and pretty soon 70s character actors like Fred Willard, Geoffery Lewis and Elisha Cook, Jr. are dropping dead due to... mysterious circumstances. Okay, enough phony suspense. It's a vampire movie. Vampires... in modern-day Maine. And it works better than it has a right to.

Soul's not exactly tortured enough, and Lance Kerwin's a little too old to play a monster-obsessed youth, but the supporting cast, which includes Ed Flanders ("St. Elsewhere"), Lew Ayres (Paul, from the classic 1930 "All Quiet on the Western Front"), Kenneth McMillan ("Ragtime," and "Dune") and George Dzundza (everything else) more than make up for it. They're sincere, and that counts for a lot. James Mason makes a perfectly urbane villain; he's suave and dangerous, and much smarter than his undead master, who's something of a disappointment in the chills department when finally revealed.

This disk contains the entire miniseries, which manages to maintain a level of suitable creepiness, despite some dated sexual innuendo and a some "made-for-tv" scenes that aren't quite as menacing as they could be. Still, a few sequences are effectively chilling, and it's well worth your time, especially around Halloween.

Mason shines in this one
"Salem's Lot" is one of the better Stephen King-based films, though it suffers from excessive length (three hours in the original TV version) and a lead performance by David Soul that brings new meaning to the word "limp." Soul virtually sleepwalks through his role of middle-class fiction writer who returns to his home town to investigate the "haunted house" of his childhood, and finds, instead of ghosts, a mysterious antique dealer and his Nosferatu-like colleague. The devious and clandestine exploits of the latter gradually lead to an outbreak of vampirism that threatens to bring the entire town within its clutches.

The film boasts a good seasoning of veteran actors in supporting roles, several of whom ---- Elijah Wood, Jr., Lew Ayres, and Marie Windsor ----- appeared in a number of film noir classics of the forties and fifties. (For a treat, see Windsor in the 1952 version of "The Narrow Margin"). But while it's fascinating to see these old pros in their various roles, it's James Mason who truly impresses.

Indeed, "impressive" may be too mild a word for Mason, who plays the recently-arrived antique dealer with such impeccable style that he single-handedly transforms "Salem's Lot" from an overextended B movie into something worth remembering. Observe his reactions, for example, when informally interrogated by the town constable as suspect in the killing of a small child. Or later, when he meets Soul during a gathering in his antique shop and the former broaches the question of "evil." Says Soul: "Do you believe a house can be evil in its very boards and windows? In its stone foundations? Evil?" "Oh, you're the writer," answers Mason with mocking insouciance --- the words are neutral, but his entire manner and inflection create a devastating put-down. Here is an embodiment of "cool" that would do justice to any jazz musician, but Mason does it quietly, slowly, with the limitless patience of a man who knows he can do anything.

The other outstanding element in "Salem's Lot" is Reggie Nalder as the vampire under Mason's control (though just how this control came about, and how it is sustained ---- is never explained). Some older fans of the Karloff-hosted "Thriller" series may recognize Nalder from that TV anthology, most notably in the episode, "Terror in Teakwood," where he played the sinister "Kaffke." Here, by contrast, his face is half-buried in makeup, but Nalder's cadaverous bone structure assists the illusion and makes his image of the vampire "Barlow" one of the most frightening since Max Shreck. He's not on-screen more than a few minutes, but, as Mason's character amusingly prophesizes in an early scene: "I'm sure you'll enjoy Mr. Barlow. And he'll enjoy you. Oh yes. Oh yes."

"Salem's Lot" is not a great horror movie, since, along with the problems mentioned, it's burdened by lack of originality. Some scenes are atmospheric, such as those where child vampires are shown floating and beckoning through moonlit windows ---- hackneyed, but effective. These are offset by many sequences that are silly or adventitious (e.g., the one where students are acting out a historical play, so poorly directed it recalls Ed Wood or Bert I. Gordon). The film could have been better with a good lead actor, as well as more conviction from the supporting cast generally. Otherwise, it's more than worth watching for the tour-de-force performance of James Mason and the sheer scare-value of Nalder.

RC in Dallas
I was 9 when Salem's Lot first aired. It has always been the prototype of a scary movie to me. For years I could give myself the willies thinking about those glowing eyes, that kid at the window, and Mr. Barnes. Buying the VHS about 10 years ago was a bit of a disappointment. The editing is terrible and leaves many holes. Was it that bad on TV, or was it shortened for the VHS? The effects are a bit hoakie and look really old in these days of CGI. I also understand that a new DVD is less butchered.

But let's give this fun movie the credit it deserves. For network TV, this had to be pretty racy material. Who else but Steven King would kill all those kids? And what's creepier than that kid scratching on the window? Plus, it's fun to see how much things have changed in 25 years. Its a hoot to look back at all the funny clothes, cars and phones.

If you watch the TNT remake, you see that the new version is a little closer to the novel and goes deeper into detail. But the original is still the best and gives more goose-bumps for the buck. Enjoy it on a night you want to feel a little creeped-out and revel in it's 70's TV charm.

Awesome Considering it Was Made For TV In the 70's
First off, this DVD is your best bet with the full version. Back in the day, I bought the condensed version on video which butchers a good 70 minutes of footage.

I had the liberty of seeing the TNT remake of this the other night and was rather disappointed. Although it was slightly more faithful to King's novel, I found a lot of it laughable and the effects were idiotic. This is much better. The story centers a writer returning to his hometown just as a vampire and his servant take up residence and begin preying on the townspeople. The vampire Barlow is very Nosferatu-ish in thsi when actually in the book, he was basicly an average man that happened to be a vampire, but oh well. The vampire make-up and everythingis actually pretty scary and convincing *which is more than I can say for the recent remake.* Overall, highly recommended. It's not what you would call scary, but it's good for a creepy night-time viewing. And don't miss out on the book!

Salem's Lot
Salem's Lot was kind of a dissapointment.I love vampire movies and stuff like that , but this T.V. mini-series just wasn't that impressive.I had heard many good things about it too but I don't agree with any of them.Okay this movie isn't all bad; the storyline and screenplay is written fairly well and it does offer some chilling scenes that may make shivers run down your spine.On the other hand this movie is filled with bad acting and ridiculous dialogue.I haven't read the book but I don't think Stephen King was real impressed either.If you are able to sit through 3 hours of this and think it is good then you are a true vampire addict.This movie is overall borderline rotten/fresh.Only check this one out if you are A TRUE VAMPIRE ADDICT.

Salem's Lot deals with unresolved pain and fatal curiosity. Now a successful writer, Ben Mears (David Soul) returns to his childhood town of Salem's Lot in Maine. Mears wants to rent a house for six months to investigate the strange and disturbing happenings at a creepy house in the town. Mears himself carries the haunting childhood memories of this Marsten House - a "monument to evil" - a house where young kidnapped. boys where taken.Mears believes that evil places attract evil men, and a mysterious and smug Mr Straker (played with delicious enthusiasm by James Mason), has recently purchased the house for an elusive antiques dealer, Mr Barlow. With the help of his former English school teacher, his new girlfriend Susan (Bonnie Bedelia) and her father, the local doctor, Mears sets about investigating the house and the bizarre events that unfold. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Filmed in the widescreen splendor of "Panavision Super 70" and blessed with the finest production values that Hollywood clout can buy, this tale of spunky Irish immigrants forgot one crucial ingredient: a decent screenplay. The film is entertaining enough, and director Ron Howard brings his technical proficiency to the simple plot, culminating in a dynamic, breathtaking depiction of the Oklahoma land rush of 1893. But the movie is really just a vacuous vehicle for married stars Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman as (respectively) the poor tenant farmer and rich landlord's daughter who flee Ireland to be American pioneers. The scenery and the stars are never less than stunning, but Howard falls short of the mark in his attempt to match the epic sweep of films by David Lean. On the other hand, this movie is certainly never boring even if it rarely makes sense, and Lean's own Irish epic, Ryan's Daughter, is a snoozer by comparison. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (60)

Book of Days
Far and Away is such an incredible looking movie that your heart might end up hating your eyes for distracting yourself from the true beauty of the film.

This film is the story of Joesph and his hopes and dreams. His father is killed and he seeks to kill the man that took his land. Joseph meets up with Shannon, the wealthy daughter of the man responsible for taking Joseph's land, and she pays him to take her to America. Unfortunately they're robbed and we see the cold, harsh realities of foreigners trying to survive in America. Through prize fighting, Joseph begins to make a nice life for himself, while the spoiled Shannon ends up plucking chickens to make end's meat. Their trials and tribulations bring them together in one of the best love stories told, and the ending...well, lets just say that it's one of the most wonderful endings you'll find in a film.

Ron Howard has done an incredible job of bringing this film to life, and the performance of Tom Cruise is one of his best ever. Far and Away is a film that you have to see. You'll feel better about life after you have.

A real feel-good love story for the dreamer in us all.
What can I say about this film to begin my review? Three words. I LOVE it. I may be a little biased, but I love things set in Ireland, Scotland, and that area. I was hooked immediately on the beautiful scenery of Ireland's west coast, and my heart was immediately stirred by the rich and dramatic, yet at times very soft and tender music. Even more so when I read "Music By John Williams" in the opening credits. But I digress.

Music and scenery aside this movie still has much going for it, and it really shines. It's a love story yes, but it's beautiful. Others have mentioned the great chemistry between Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman here, and they are right. I am not a big fan of Tom Cruise (Rain Man was excellent though) or Nicole Kidman, but they played very well off each other. This film follows, again as many have mentioned, the two lead characters as they make a harrowing journey from Ireland to Boston to Oklahoma in pursuit of their dreams. His is "I'll work my own land someday" hers is "I'm modern, and I'm going to a modern place" She wants to get away from her parents old-fashioned and "stuffy" way of living.

I hate to diss other films so I'll try not to do that here. I WILL say that I loved the love story in Far And Away because it works. And it works because it is given time to develop. Joseph and Shannon hate each others guts at first and make no secret of it, but they are drawn slowly together by the perils of their journey. It is touching to see their hatred for each other change from hatred to grudging respect, to affection, and finally grow all the way to genuine love. This works MUCH better than spending a day on a ship, and saying to yourself "Oh look, there's a pretty girl up on the next deck. Let's take her dancing, partying, teach her how to spit, how to stand on the back of a ship with her eyes shut and her arms outstretched. Then I'll draw a nude portrait of her, and then we'll go and have sex in the back of a car. All witihin a period of about three or four days." (Just for the record I loved Titanic too, but the "quickie" love story took away from the power of the film JUST a TAD because the love between Rose and Jack was not allowed to GROW and DEVELOP into itself as it is here in FAR AND AWAY. In TITANIC the love between Jack and Rose was just THERE. It was just: Boy meets girl. Girl meets boy. Boy loves girl. Girl loves boy. Badda-BING, Bada-BANG, Badda-BOOM)

I'm sorry, I'm digressing again, so I'll try to keep to the point and keep the rest of this short. In summary , to me this film is a great one, well done in every part of the package. LOVELY scenery is wedded to absolutely beautiful music as two great actors are supported by an assortment of loveable aqquaintances and a couple of dastardly villians (I'm counting Mike Kelly here too, see the film to know who he is and why I call him a villian). All this comes together in a beautiful love story that has the power to touch the heart, and the tear ducts, and make you realize the importance of holding onto and going after your dreams. I loved it, and so can you, if you have the courage to let this film touch your heart. If you do allow that, it will carress it. Peace, and God bless you. Always.

Do you have a craving for strawberry tart?
Watch this movie to find out where that line comes from.

In 1892-93, Tom Cruise is poor Joseph in Ireland and Nicole Kidman is rich Shannon from the same country. Their fake accents are collectively awful. Cruise sounds like a wannabe leprechaun.

Together they run off to America where they tell the landlord they are brother and sister so they can share the rent. Joseph becomes a boxer and wins big in the ring. Shannon decides to be a dancehall girl.

Although they profess to hate each other, you know where that storyline is going to end. It is, after all, Cruise and Kidman in their heyday.

I did like the homesteading scene at the end -- where people raced across the plains and made their claims to land. I hadn't known about that piece of history before. Nicely done, Ron Howard!

Too much edited from TV version
I was very disappointed to find so much missing from this movie on DVD. I have the TV version recorded and I know they left out quite a bit. This seems strange since DVDs are suppose to hold so much more information. I also saw the movie at the theater a couple of times,there are parts missing on the DVD that were in the theater version also. Don't buy the DVD if you enjoyed the TV version"with never before seen footage". I had expected the DVD to cover it all,but at least everything I saw at the theater.

Only because I can't give it zero
This well may have been the worst movie I've ever seen. I only watched it to the end to see if it could continue to deteriorate. Shockingly, it did. The storyline was terrible, the dialogue was worse. The best part (or worst, depending on how you look at these things) was the very end. Just when you think the film couldn't get more insipid, a horse rolls over Tom Cruise and, much to Nicole Kidman's chagrin, he dies. She starts crying and screaming over his dead body and, shades of Beauty and the Beast, his eyes suddenly pop open. Yes, he's been brought back to life by the strength of her love. What were these people thinking? If you are trying to find a movie to fill out your list of the ten most worthless films of all time, check this one out. If not, don't bother. ... Read more

Reviews (12)

Bang the Drum resonates with emotional meaning
'Bang the Drum Slowly' is the best type of film. It is engaging while you are watching it, and you still think about it days after you last saw it. Solid acting and a well-written, theme-laden story immediately snag the audience's attention. The film is humble in the scale of its focus on baseball and friendship, but the snapshots of romance, family and business add an emotional element to the story that would not have been there if the two main themes were stuck to. DeNiro and Moriarty do a great job with the two main characters. DeNiro does a great job aside from occasionally lapsing from a Southern GA accent to his typical NY Drawl (really, this is only evident a few times). Moriarty gives his character many facets as an all-star pitcher and an estute business man, but his facial expressions seem to be to stoic to me to really convey his emotions- the character is still very effective. In addition, I enjoyed the little things about this film. The music, use of slow motion, and well-placed comic relief were all used masterfully in this film. To close, a great baseball movie, and a great movie overall.

Superb movie but needs extras
"Bang the Drum Slowly" is a line taken from the cowboy dirge "The Steets of Laredo" which is about a cowboy dying young."Bang the Drum Slowly" which is based on a novel by the same name, is about a dying dim-witted, country boy catcher and a sophisticated, star pitcher. The catcher (Pearson), played by Robert DeNiro, is dying from Hogkin's disease and the only one who knows about it is the Michael Moriarty character (Arthur). The story goes on how Arthur is suddenly nice to Pearson. No one knows why and everyone becomes more resentful of Pearson. Slowly everyone learns that Pearson is dying and starts to treat Pearson nicer. In addition, the team, a talented but bickering group of ballplayers, are finally united because of Pearson's condition and go on to win the series. The continued subtle references to the business side of baseball pulls us back to the harsh reality of life and prevents the movie from being too corny. The movie is superb, but the DVD would have been better if some extras were included especially if there were something about history of free agency in baseball. $124,000 is not even the the base pay of today's rookie major leaguer, but in 1974 (when the movie was made) this was a huge amount of money. 1974 was also significant because this was the year that Andy Messersmith of the Dodger's challenged the reserve clause and became the first free agent.

Unforgettable Movie!
This is the film that you will not forget.This is a story of two roommates attempting to get through one final season. Michael plays the role of a pitcher who is the roommate of Robert DeNiro who plays the role of the catcher.DeNiro is
diagnosed with Hodgkins disease. Michael as his roommate and
intimate friend helps DeNiro cope with Hodgkins as well as
make the season to the end. This is one of the more touching
films that I have watched.It would compare to "Brian's Song"
as far as being emotional.DeNiro,in this movie definitely showed
signs of great things to come for him.And,who could ever forget
the haunting song that accompanied the movie.A definite must see.

From here on in, I rag nobody.......
"Plain old mother talk aint no ways strong enough to describe such a terrible mixup is life, Arthur. But I swear, my son's been handed one s**t deal!"

One of the finer movies of its era, Bang the Drum Slowly is the story of a big-league pitcher, superbly played by Michael Moriarty, and his roommate, a catcher dieing from Hodgkin's disease played by a young Robert DeNiro in a wonderful performance that will come as a surprise to many used to the, by now familiar, DeNiro persona. Here he is a dumb-as-dirt, but amiable Georgia farm boy and he is absolutely believable in the role.

A touching story told with great humor, I think it one of the best baseball movies made, though it really isn't about baseball. This is the 70's, before super star salaries and temperaments have forever changed the game, when Managers were still King and the top salary of an ace pitcher was 100K. The film is told at a leisurely pace, 70's style, somewhat episodically, which will put some off.

Quite frankly I loved the sidetrips and distractions, because it allows a great cast to all have their moments. Vincent Gardenia as Dutch, the prototypical big league Manager "Never mind the facts, give me details" a cigarette forever planted on his lower lip, ashes dripping down his chest; Phil Foster hooking unsuspecting fans to play TEGWAR (The Exciting Game Without Any Rules)with himself & Arthur; Patick McVey as the father; Marshall Ephron as the weasely Bradley; the scheming Ann Wedgewood: Selma Diamond, Danny Aiello and others.

The story is narrated by Moriarty, and that narration and much of the dialogue is done in beautifully articulate mangled English. It feels lived-in. The story is told with an odd mixture of dead-pan delivery that is unsentimental and yet is very touching in the last analysis. Bittersweet.

Although they avoid the big emotional "moment", the film builds its emotions slowly and carefully, and when it is done if you haven't been moved by this funny/sad story, well....too bad for you. Well worth your time, for some laughs, some tears, an insight or two and some sterling performances by Michael Moriarty and Robert DeNiro who hit all the right notes.

"I don't know why you don't live it up all the time when dieing's just around the corner, but you don't. You'd think you would, but you don't." 4-1/2 Stars all the way.

Classic Film Finally out in DVD Version
Bang the Drum Slowly is a film for anyone who loves sublime acting, droll humor, and a moving story that celebrates the human spirit. If you're a baseball fan, it's an added plus.

The two stars--Michael Moriarty and Robert deNiro--debuted as leading men in this film and just watching these two youthful actors giving brilliant performances (as a likeably egocentic pitcher and his unsophisticated teammate) is a joy for movie fans. Vincent Gardenia is equally effective (and wonderfully funny) as the team's coach. The story---while dealing with the impending death of the team's pitcher played by deNiro----is never obvious, overdone or sentimental. Instead, the film affirms the values of friendship and teamwork with great subtlety and intelligence.

Bang the Drum Slowly recently appeared on the NY Times list as one of the 1,000 greatest films ever made. I say the choice is right on. ... Read more

Description

In 1958, the members of Team Daedalus, a group of top Air Force test pilots, were ready to serve their country as the first Americans in space but were pushed aside. Now, as a Russian satellite fails and is about to crash into earth, Team Daedalus is back in action in a rescue mission. ... Read more

Reviews (138)

A pleasantly entertaining movie.
Originally, I had no burning desire to see this movie. However, after a couple of friends told me how good they thought it was, I decided I'd better go see it. I'm glad I did.

The byplay between Clint Eastwood and Tommy Lee Jones is reminiscent of that between Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau in the ODD COUPLE movies. They just can't help but pick at each other. I think Donald Sutherland and James Garner could have had bigger roles in the movie (i.e., more lines), but they did a beautiful job with what they had.

The story in this movie was engaging. I found myself asking the same questions as the characters. The action and the comedy were both subtle and more effective for it. I think the strong point of this movie was its characters. They were all vivid and pretty well developed. Their motivations were easy to understand. The one shortcoming was that there was no emotional attachment to them and so one part of the climax didn't have the effect it should have.

All in all, this was a very enjoyable movie. If you're looking for a good laugh and a sense of wonder, this will definitely satisfy you. If you're looking for slap-bang action, go somewhere else.

Better with Age
Great story line, great gags, great characters, great visual effects. True. But a true gem to see 4 great actors of our time perform together quite possibly for the last time. Americans extend the hand of friendship to the Russians before the breakup of the USSR to repair the "only" communication satelite they have. But things dont go their way when truths begin to unfold some beginning on the ground but the most dramatic ones in orbit. Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland steal the movie with their trademark charismatic one liners. Enjoy it with a big bucket of buttered popcorn.

The Ripe Stuff
Maybe this would not have done as well if it had been called "The Ripe Stuff" but I think it would have been a great title for this one. It certainly brings back memories and shows what can be done when you take the best entertainment ideas and put them all together in a beautiful experience.

This movie makes for a fun evening. I would have loved for Hawk to have set up a tent and cooking fire on the moon but that would have spoiled it.

Not Bad.
'Space Cowboys' is a decent fiilm about aging astronauts traning to go back into space. The plot is a little silly, but one should treat it more like a science fiction film than a serious drama. The high point of the movie are the 4 veteran actors. The bring delight to the screen.

Not bad for a bunch of old guys!
This film was one of the few that I saw on the recommendation of my parents, who saw the movie in the theater. I then went to see it a week or so later. My dad told me the truth, as he always does- when it comes to his ratings on movies. I later bought this film on dvd. I've been told that older actors are having a hard time finding work these days. Well, in my opinion, it takes a movie like this one to prove that the old guys still can make a great movie. Hat's off to Clint Eastwood for making a killer movie! ... Read more

Description

In THAT WAS THEN…THIS IS NOW, Emilio Estevez stars as Mark Jennings, a delinquent teenager who becomes overly jealous when his brother-like figure and best friend, Byron (Sheffer), gets a girlfriend (Delaney) and tries to abandon his old, bad boy ways.Already feeling alienated after being orphaned when his father killed his mother during a violently heated argument, Mark becomes jealous of Brian’s new relationship and gets himself involved with drugs as a result.When Mark and Brian’s mentor, Charlie Woods (Freeman), is killed, and when Byron’s girlfriend’s little brother is reported missing with Mark seeming to have more clues to his whereabouts than anyone else, their world changes even more as the boys’ friendship is put to the ultimate test. ... Read more

Reviews (15)

Not So Bad, Actually
All right. I know practically no one likes this movie, but . . . I don't think it was that terrible. I know some parts of it were almost forced (Sybok was really over-done, and Scotty/Uhura? Ack.), but I really loved the acting of the major characters, McCoy in particular (especially the scene with his father). William Shatner may not get the best praise from the classic Trek supporting cast, but I liked his directing job. Overall, I can't say the movie was spectacular, but it made me laugh a lot. And it was better than some of the other movies as well (::cough-cough:: Insurrection ::cough-cough::). I really don't see why people hate this film so much. I think that the quest for God was an admirable endeavor on Shatner's part, and though I can see why that would make some people uneasy, I think it turned out great. Taking into account the limited budget allotted to make Star Trek V, the film was better than what you'd expect it to be.

Glad it was made into a movie
This was the last S.E. Hinton book to be made into a movie. Of course the book was better, but that goes without saying (for most films). Two very close teens, Mark, and Bryon live together with Bryon's mom. Mark's parents killed each other in a fight when Mark was a child. Bryon grows to maturity, and Mark wants to hold on to the good ol' days. Bryon gets a girlfriend and things look serious. Mark get's jealous and resentful. Mark turns to drug dealing, and deals some drugs to Bryon's girlfriend's brother, M&M. M&M loses his mind and is drugged out in a hippie type drug house. Things get heated between these two brothers, and Bryon is faced with a life changing decision. Good coming of age drama. Emilio Estevez wrote the screenplay to the Hinton book, but,unlike the other projects, she had nothing to do with the making of this movie. Morgan Freeman plays a very "cool" bartender in this movie.

This Is Not A Star Trek Movie, Folks!!!!
I can't explain why the reviews for Star Trek keep coming up, but this a movie based on an S.E. Hinton novel. A very good novel that I'm afraid wasn't adapted well to the big screen. The parts of the book that were followed were good, but there was entirely way too much foul language that was NOT in the novel, plus I was disappointed that the music and setting were strictly 80's. The book took place in late 60's early 70's. If you've never read the novel, you'll be mislead. If you've read the novel???? Well, Emilio Estevez is in it. That helps.

Is Amazon Screwey?
Since when does Star Trek Reviews end up on a review page for "That Was Then... This Is Now" staring Emeilio Estevez, Craig Schaifer, and Kim Delany? I Think Amazon.com has finally gotten to big to manage their own content!!!

However, this movie is one of the best movies that Emelio Estevez has acted in. We all know that [Estevez] had better rolls and was a more passionate actor during the earlier part of his career, that [this movie] demonstrates his acting ability.

The story is simple: two boys grow up together and feel like they are brothers. One of the boys [Estevez] gets caught up in the wrong crowd and ends up in jail. The other boy played by Schaifer tries to help [Estevez] stay on the straight and narrow.

Good story by the auther of the "The Outsiders", S.E. Hinton.

This is an under-rated film. Better then all the TNG movies
Given the very cheap look and budgets that the Rick berman Star Trek movies have had, it's amazing that Paramount has not already pulled the plug on the freature movies when it seems that they have still so much to tell. The era of the TOS movies have seen the fair share of comparsions to how Harve Bennet, Ralph Winter, Nick Meyer, and the various production teams that they worked with, starting with Star Trek III and continueing to Star Trek VI, how they approached each movie and how they pulled it off given the budgets and time that they were allowed for. These new special DVDs have been very informative in how the movies were made, and showed what happened with they were treated as films (and not big budget TV episodes that Berman has foolishly done). Case in point is Star Trek V. An actually pretty good movie that made some valid points about friendship and loyality. In that way, it had more substance to it then most other big budget sci-fi movies had to offer (or not.) This movie was certainly better then Generations, First Contact, and Inserection. And I still stand by that. ... Read more

Reviews (15)

A JOKE!!!
I saw the 1997 movie and would give it 1 star, but this movie cannot go below 1 star. I'd prefer giving this joke 0 stars!!

How Could They Do This?
Oh god, how could they do this? If you havent got the original cast of a film, then dont make a seaqull using the same names!

This movie could have worked, and just been an average movie to me. But they had to use the name Makilister. The name from the original 2 movies that starred Macully Culklin. Why oh why oh why would you try to pull off a brand new set of cast as the same people that made the original box office hit's over ten years ago?

The kid in this film looks nothing like the original Kevin Micalister, who resembles Culklin in now way, not to mention he's about 3 foot shorter, 2 pounds larger, and 10 times as less intelegent. Then they tried to pull off the parent's of the first 2, which look nothing like them either, nor did French Stewart trying to be Harry, who was original Daniel Sterns charactor.... they looked nothing like the originals, they didnt act anything like the originals, and why oh why would they even try to use the same name's of the charactors?

If they had have given them new names, and try'd to pull this off as beeing a completly different fammily then the Macalisters, then it could have been an OK, 2 or 3 star movie. But when your sickend by whoever's idea it was to use the same name, and expect the audience to be dumb enough to go with it, then it get's 0 star's.

YOU DO NOT TRY AND SELL A MOVIE AS BEEING THE SAME CHARACTORS AS THE ORIGINAL, IF THEY ARE NOT THE ORIGINALS, OR DONT EVEN RESEMBLE THE ORIGINAL ACTORS

If they beleive they have made a good movie here by using the original name's, then they might as well make a 5th seaqull to bury the franchise, and get a fully grown Chris Rock to play Kevin Macilster and Leslie Neilson to play the mother, Rosie O'Donnel can be the father, the brother can be played by the rapping granny from The Wedding Singer, and we can get a new guy to play the old man from part 1? hmmm.. maybe Jim Carey? they can expect the audience not to notice the diffrence in age appearence and persinalty to take your mind away from the bad casting arrangment's.

the movie could have worked if it was maybe a different fammily name, and not supposed to be the same fammily as 1 and 2's..or maybe even if they made it a cartoon? But dont mess with classic, reciginised names and charactors and expect people to buy into it? Whoever had that idea made a very big mistake.... ignore the fact that there supposed to be the same fammily, and that the kid is supposed to be Maculy Culklin, and you still will see it's not a great movie anyway. But it was a horrible idea to use the same name's, at least part 3 had a chance, because it wasnt meant to be the same kid!

On a final note: Just look at the rip-off and ridicules price they want for this film?! Then look at how many + how much, used copys are going for!?!?!?! The movie isnt even worth watching for free~!

French Stewart spoiled this film
I would just love to launch into an abusive diatribe over this film, but I'll make the effort to restrain myself. Personally, I thought it was pathetic. This was not so much the lack of Macaulay Culkin in the role of Kevin. I thought the new kid did an okay job. At least he could act.
However, what completely and utterly ruined this for me was the use of French Stewart as Marv. Now, I'm sorry, but no one will ever equal Daniel Stern's performance as Harry's dopey sidekick. The facial expressions were hysterical, where French Stewart is a one-expression actor: squinty.
That is all he seems to know how to do - squint. Perhaps it's a throwback to his days on 3rd Rock, but if they just had to try to cash in on the Home Alone franchise one more time, why, oh why did they have to choose Stewart as the bad guy?
I'm sorry, I'm starting to rant.
Moving on:
The acting from the rest of cast is actually quite decent, and some of the stunts are funny enough to get some good laughs.
The movie follows the typical Home Alone plot. Child is left alone, for whatever reason. Child uncovers dastardly plot. Child foils dastardly plot, employing various lethal techniques. Child makes friends with social outcast. Child reunites otherwise dysfunctional family in time for end of movie.
Admittedly, they have attempted to provide H.A.4 with a twist or two, particularly involving the bad guy/s. But the decision to have Mother & Father McAllister separated, and Father A. shacked up with a rich girlfriend...? The only plus out of that was the 'automatic house' which Kevin so abely worked to his advantage.
Disasters are aplenty in this movie, the same as with its three predecessors, but unless you're a devoted French Stewart fan, I'd recommend renting this one only. Because the guy is just so damn wooden in his performance, it's painful to watch. (His one-dimensional acting spoiled a potentially good film in Inspector Gadget 2, as well)
Rent if you will, but otherwise don't waste your money.

Why? Why? Why?
By now, most people agree that "Home Alone 1" was/is a classic holiday comedy. I mean, come on, who can ever forget Macaulay Culkin's "AAGGHHH!" face after putting on the after shave? "Home Alone 2" was great, as well. It introduced America to the Talkboy voice recording unit. But instead of going out on a good note, they had to keep pushing their luck. And "Home Alone 3" was just... ugghhh. No Macaulay, no Joe Pesci, no Daniel Stern, no McAllisters. Just another little snotty kid (who went on to have no movie career... at least Macaulay did a couple of other movies after HA 1&2) and some other stupid would-be robbers (one of which looking like David Schwimmer). And now this... I can't even find the words. Now they have some OTHER little punk kid trying to be Macaulay!!!!

WHAT!?!??!

That's like someone other than Dan Castellaneta doing the voice of Homer Simpson!! (Well, perhaps not that drastic, but you get the idea.) I wouldn't care about this movie (or at least not enough so to write a review), but it has the "Home Alone" title attached. WITHOUT MACAULAY CULKIN, JOE PESCI, AND DANIEL STERN, IT IS NOT - I REPEAT, NOT - HOME ALONE. Seriously, no more! Let the series die peacefully. Now, while it still might have a shred of dignity left. Anyway, avoid like the Noid. He ruins pizzas. HAH!!!

Seriously, do not view or buy this. Stick with 1 & 2 instead.

Who on their right minds thought of this?
This so called 'fourth' installment in the "Home Alone" movie series is the biggest joke in a movie series since "Batman and Robin" from six years before then. This movie is a disgrace to the 1990 original and the 1992 sequel and even to 1997's "Home Alone 3".

Everything that came together on the first two in the series completely is rearranged and the timeline is altered but the result is totally disastrous on every level. Not even having one's brain turned off for a while is enough to make one enjoy this weak fourth edition.

The acting is increidbly weak by everyone involved. Not to mention how they completely remade the McCallister family. The large extended family of Kevin was a riot to watch and although a bit obnoxious at times, it was funny watching Buzz get ticked off when he saw a bill for 986 dollars at the ending of the "Lost In New York" movie from 1992. "Home Alone 4" robs the family of all of it's charm by making them into just a nuclear family.

Even the plot is utterly pointless with Kevin's parents spitting up and his father living with a new girlfriend at a rich mansion and Kevin stayign with him for Christmas but the mansion is robbed by would-be thieves but the slapstick jokes don't work on this movie. One scene is totally unrealistic where a faucet is left on to stop the thieves and the kitchen almost looks like an aquarium and is totally flooded. Hello! In real life, the water would just seep through cracks on the floors and walls and cause water damage to much of the structure. Plus it's impossible to turn a house into a human aquarium because the overflowing water would simply flood the room, and then the adjacent room and flow outside. You're house is far more likely to become totally filled with water if a flash flood occured (I.E. Hurricane or a large dam failed).

The villain thieves are just incredibly devoid of any character and come off as being obnoxious, crass, petty and awfully stupid. Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern were perfect for playing Kevin's adversaries in the first two movies but whoever these clowns here who play them, their acting is weak and it sure looked like they were ready to leave the set.

So this movie was a low-budget flick but even then, all of that money allotted into making this movie is utterly wasted in it's making. Whoever thought up of this should've looked at James Cameron's 1984 classic "The Termintor" to see how a low budget movie is made right!

This movie is completely unworthy of one's time. Even the awkward "Home Alone 3" was miles above this rubbish! ... Read more

Description

When prostitute Amy Post finds herself in trouble with the law, she decides to hitchhike, which unites her with drifter and former prizefighter Elmer Pratt.The two decide to hit the road together, on a journey to California, and after a series of encounters with bizarre people, they learn to trust one another and gain confidence in themselves. ... Read more

Description

Pragmatic Sgt. Natalie Zimmerman is paired with Valnikov, a romantic detective of Russian origin who is going through a midlife crisis.They fall in love while solving the case of the kidnapping of a socialite's pet dog. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

The Black Marble
This movie portrays two police detectives -- each with their own problems, through a series of adventures. What a cast-- Robert Foxworth plays a Russian Immigrant that has "seen too much" and has a drinking problem because of it. Paula Prentiss gives the performance of her life as his newly assigned partner -- entirely against her wishes. Great plot! Great supporting cast too. ... Read more

Description

The year is 1964 and Carolina Military Institute has admitted, for the first time, a young black man into its freshman class. Will McClean (Keith) is asked to protect him from The Ten - a secret society of cadets dedicated to eliminating from the school those it deems "unfit." ... Read more

Reviews (14)

Saw the movie, THEN read the book
I saw the movie before I read the book. This is a typical adaptation of a long novel. Yes, the novel was better, but the novel was DIFFERENT! A similar situation occurs with The Caine Mutiny as well as The Godfather. Written stories allow you to explore aspects of character and situation that just can't be effectively portrayed in film. In film, you can't have the character's thoughts effectively presented. The film concentrated on the relationship between Will and Pearce, while the book actually had two plots-Will and Pearce and Will and Annie Kate. Instead of comparing book and film, treat each as seperate entities and enjoy them independently. In this case, the movie was enjoyable.

This movie could have been better
I have seen this movie about 6 times and have read the book a million times and I know good enough to see that this could have been a even greater movie. Pat Conroy seems very disappointed that the movie did not turn out as good as he thought it was going to be.

Wrong lead
Michael Biehn should've been the lead as the director originally wanted. It was okay, but it would've been better.

EXCELENT
THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST MOVIES I'VE EVER SEEN. SO TRUE TO LIFE.
ACTING IS SUPERB. FIVE STAR ALL THE WAY.

Almost had it, but stumbles badly in the stretch
No movie under six hours could have captured anywhere near the complexity and subplots of Pat Conroy's novel about life in a military academy. For that I was very forgiving about what what cut out, even painfully so. We see no flashbacks of the main characters first three years, there was almost nothing about his passion for basketball, and the love story could have been a movie in itself.

But things had to go, and rather than treat them badly, I have no resentment for what they left out. The movie does concentrate on some important things however, and for awhile, does it well. We see the often cruel treatment upperclassmen give underclassmen, and can see the reasoning why this seems to be necessary. It is the overriding theme of the book, and shows the givers and takers of the harrassment very well.

It also does tackle one of the important subplots, which is the treatment of the first black recruit to the academy. The way the recruit was treated is shown in all of it's frightening detail. David Keith, as the assigned mentor to the recruit, does his job perfectly here by not showing too much sympathy.

But then it all crashes down by trying to come up with a clean, Hollywood, more upbeat ending. The worst sin is the handling of the Pignatello character to make it much less tragic. To leave out what happens after the court martial is to take away one of the dramatic points of the story. With that said, the ending was also much too neat. The way it is handled fails to illustrate the parallel love-hate relationship the main character has with the academy.

This was far too personal a story to be glossed over like this, and I wish Pat Conroy had had more pull to get it done right. He should have chosen the Larry McMurtry route and got the story filmed as a mini-series. ... Read more