Reviews (317)

Kubrick Addresses The Complexities Of War
The dual nature of man, wherein he is able to embrace both war and peace simultaneously, is addressed by director Stanley Kubrick in the decidedly anti-war film, "Full Metal Jacket," starring Matthew Modine. Divided essentially into two parts, the first half follows raw recruits through basic training at Parris Island, where the effects of what it takes to turn a man into a Marine / killing machine is explored, predominately through the characters of Private "Joker," played by Matthew Modine, and Private Leonard Lawrence (Vincent D'Onofrio), dubbed "Gomer Pyle" by the D.I, Sergeant Hartman (Lee Ermey). It's a hard, stoic study of techniques and motivation that inherently questions the system itself, and is deftly and succinctly illustrated by the results achieved, which are not entirely those desired. It's hard stuff to swallow at times, but engrossing, and Kubrick manages to gradually build the emotional intensity that gives such impact to the climax of this first part, which is without question the strength of the entire film. The second half switches suddenly to Vietnam, where Kubrick takes up his pallet and canvass, and while attempting to paint a realistic portrait of war, instead takes more of a turn away from reality, and the film takes on a sense of the surreal; the result is more reminiscent of the visual artistry of "The Thin Red Line" than of the truly gritty realism of "Saving Private Ryan," and rather than make his statement directly through the use of the story, he uses the movie to stage sequences of events to demonstrate the contradictory nature of war and it's consequences, and man's involvement therein. And while he compares the moral and emotional conflicts with the physical, it is an acknowledgement of an inner struggle devoid of any proffered solution, though delivered quite subjectively. The pace of the film is very deliberate and much of the dialogue has a "staged" sense about it that, rather than underscore the issues being addressed, has more of an alienating effect which serves to neutralize the emotional aspects of what is being presented. The story is told from the point of view of Modine's "Joker" , but though Modine does a passable job, his is a rather unsympathetic character whose purpose it would seem is merely to act as narrator and to serve as the "eyes" of the camera. And, again, it only manages to distance the audience further, as Joker becomes a kind of buffer between the viewer and any sustained level of emotional involvement with the story or any of the characters. Instead of a stirring fulmination against the lunacy of war and man's enablement of it, Kubrick's approach creates more of a sense of rather cold ambiguity. Had Joker (as the lead) been a stronger character, and had the second half of the film been more like the first, instead of nothing more than a series of vignettes, this could have been a dynamic movie; as it is, because of Kubrick's choices, he made a good movie, but not a great one. There are two memorable performances here, one by Vincent D'Onofrio, who did an exemplary job of creating the hapless Leonard; the other by Lee Ermey, as the Gunnery Sergeant who could be the poster-boy for an anti-enlistment campaign. Also worthy of note is the work of Arliss Howard, who brought "Cowboy" so credibly to life. Rounding out the supporting cast are Adam Baldwin (Animal Mother); Dorian Harewood (Eightball); Kevyn Major Howard (Rafterman); Ed O'Ross (Lieutenant Tinoshky); and John Terry (Lieutenant Lockhart). With "Full Metal Jacket," Stanley Kubrick raises issues that are important, and makes some valid points about the causes and complexities of war, and the moral and ethical challenges of those presented with it. Obviously, this was a passionate endeavor; if only he would have allowed more of that passion to make it's way onto the screen. What a movie this could have been.

Great movie,but not my favorite on Vietnam
Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket is a very good movie,but I like others on the subject of Vietnam better.It follows a group of Marine Corps recruits from boot camp to the war in Vietnam.I thought the boot camp sequence was outstanding.Gunnery Sageant Hartman is an unforgettable character,(every time I see R.Lee Ermey in a movie I'm reminded of him)probably the best drill instructor ever in a movie.The rest of the cast was very good,as well,especially Vincent D'Onofrio as Gomer Pyle,and Matthew Modine as Joker.After boot camp the movie shifts to Vietnam,where the action is seen mostly through Joker's eyes.The movie show's some of the horrors of war,but not as well as other Vietnam films such as Platoon and Hamburger Hill.(of course that's just my opinion,you may disagree)I've read that the movie was shot entirely on soundstages in England,rather than on location,and it looks incredible.Overall,while not my favorite movie about Vietnam,it is a very good film.

Fantastic
First of all....many Marines say that the first 30 minutes of the movie about boot camp is THE most accurate depiction of Parris Island in cinematic history. And of course Lee Ermey himself being a former Marine drill instructor tops it all....his profanity laced tirades are totally outrageous.

Second of all, the latter half of the movie deals with a subject not covered in Vietnam movies, a squad getting lost and having to face a lone sniper. Its a radical departure to be sure, but Kubrick in his usual cinematic mastery makes it very gripping.

So if you like Vietnam movies that are a bit different but still as strong as Hamburger Hill and Platoon, check this one out....its fantastic.

full....metal...jacket.
one of my favorite movies kubrick and matthew modaine how better can it get.lol. i suggest this omvie to anyone who likes kubrick, war movies or both for that matter. i also read the book that its based off of "the short timers" by gustav hasford it was really good but i still liked the movie better becasue it had vincent d' onfario and and the segarent(its like blasphemy that i cant remeber his name at this moment) but this movie is great, kind of boring at parts but still its deffinalty worth a watch.

An Near Masterpiece.
When Ordinary People are all Plunged into a Boot Camp Hell Pitbulled by a Leatherlung D.I. (R.Lee Emery) to Prepare for the Vietnam War and the Dehumanizing Process that turns People into Trained Killers.

Produced and Directed by Stanley Kubrick (2001:A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, Eyes Wide Shut) made a Savage Vietnam drama with a dark sense of humour. There's terrific performances by Matthew Modine, Adam Baldwin, Vincent D'Onofrio, R.Lee Ermey, Dorian Harewood, Arliss Howard, Kevyn Major Howard and Ed O'Ross. The first 45 minutes is a Masterpiece and then the last 71 Minutes, the movie turns into familiar territory with dark humour. The film's conculsion is Strong and Satifysing. This newly restored DVD is better than the previous DVD transfer. DVD has an sharp Pan & Scan (1.33:1) transfer and an strong newly remastered in Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. This is a Well Made film, which it might be far from some of Kubrick's best films but his elements are here. It's worth viewing. Based on the Novel "The Short-Times" by Gustav Hasford. Screenplay by Kubrick, Hasford and Micheal Herr. Grade:A-. ... Read more

Reviews (528)

Typical Big-Budget Fun Ride
Director Roland Emmerich (The Day After Tomorrow & The Patriot) became a popular name in big-budget summer movies with the successful 1996 blockbuster "Independence Day". Massive alien spaceships mysteriously enter the Earth's atmosphere and unleash a devastating assault on the world's major cities. Now, a small human resistance organizes a final stand against the powerful invaders. "Independence Day" is a 153 minutes of pure movie fun. Its simple plot and stereotypical characters are rather predictable but still quite enjoyable. Its amusing humor, intense battle sequences and outstanding special effects are this Sci-Fi film's true highlights. The all-star cast features Will Smith, Bill Pullman, Jeff Goldblum, Judd Hirsch, Randy Quaid, Vivica A. Fox and Robert Loggia.

"Independence Day" Limited Edition is a worthy bargain DVD. Both theatrical and extended cuts are presented in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen format. The DVD contains an amazing picture quality with rich color detail and great resolution. The clear 5.1 Dolby Digital sound delivers some well balanced surrounds and awesome bass, but a DTS audio track should have been included in this new release. Among special features, it contains two audio commentaries by filmmakers and FX crew, and a sneak peak at Emmerich's FX epic "The Day After Tomorrow". Despite the lack of supplements, "Independence Day" receives a pleasant "B-".

There's always something...
This fulfills all of the expectations of a summer blockbuster;
things flying around, stuff blowing up, flag waving, etc etc

and yes it is escapist and all good fun

all good stuff (although a little over done, as others have
pointed out, with the flag waving bits -- but then given the
title, i think people must have known that before going in)

but it does fall foul of the usual fault of having one
supremely bad plot element. i'm referring to the odd idea that
the alien shields can be taken down by injecting a computer
virus (oh so easily). in this case, it is a cop out -- a cheap
way for the screenwriter to get from point A to point C without
bothering with B

a wise man once said never let the facts get in the way of a
good story. and a writer once said he never checks the technical
aspects of a screenplay (for the same reason)

the problem with this (and many films suffer a similar problem)
is that it pulls me right out of the film. the suspension of

disbelief of an action rah-rah film can take you to a certain
point, but it is easy to step over that line. the virus did it
for me in this one

any film that uses classic dialogue such as "this is real
life -- not a film" is almost guarenteed to suffer this sort
of problem

You didn't like this film? What are you anyway, a commie?
Normally I don't use reviews as a forum for sniping at other reviewers, but it would appear that Thomas B. Clark came as close as he could to calling me un-American because I didn't care for the jingoism that saturates this film. Well by golly, I guess it is now clear that this film must be a litmus test of the patriotism of all Americans. If you hate it, you must be some sort of com-symp pinko --- it's off to the Russkies with ya.

Incidentally --- I would have refrained from socio-political commentary if only you had also --- I would gently remind you that the Indian Air Force is reported to have done very well against the USAF in exercises conducted in February this year, so maybe the USA really isn't the only one who can get the job done. I'd be willing to bet that the Israeli Air Force, to name just one, might be able to hold its own as well. Of course, maybe I am just whining again.

The argument also seems to be that critics (in addition to being part of the 5th Column) cannot endure a film that engages in make-believe. You can't be serious. Just because a film requires the viewer to suspend belief doesn't necessarily mean it has to suck. I enjoyed "Hellboy," "Men in Black," and "Alien," for example. None of these is remotely believable, but they are well-crafted films with decent performances from their respective casts. Likewise, films packed with explosions & mayhem can also have compelling storylines & characters --- "Master & Commander," for example. I guess I am guilty of expecting the makers of a movie --- even one that is "just fun," should give us more for our money than some paint-by-numbers hack job.

And that is exactly what this movie is, Thomas B. Clark. Contrary to what you claim, I hardly did any nit-picking on all the plot holes in the story, although other reviewers have gone over this movie's silly inconsistencies with a fine-toothed comb. My main complaint was that with the disengaged acting, the cardboard-cutout characters, and the painfully predictable storyline, all the movie really could rely on is lots of special effects & nifty explosions, which really on works on the big screen. The commercial success of this turkey has only encouraged Hollywood to even greater FX excess, to the point that filmmakers seem to think that if they throw enough CGI and special effects at you, they are not responsible for also giving you a decently-crafted movie with a plot & characters and stuff like that.

Hey, it's your money. I spent $1.50 at the budget theatre watching this and I guess I broke even. I pity the people who blew 7 or 8 dollars for this, but again, spend it on what you want. I learned my lesson sooner rather than later. Being the anti-American creep that I am, I just purchased a nice bottle of the 2000 Canon-la-Gaffeliere, which is the equivalent of about 10 viewings of "ID4"-type films, and I think I got the better end of the deal.

AWESOME!!!!
I absolutely love this movie because it's so much action packed fun where vicious aliens from outer space unleash destruction upon the earth's human population and now they must fight back and destroy the aliens before they destroy humanity. This is just so much fun. The special effects are top notch and the acting is great! I really loved the way the spaceships looked like as opposed to looking like flying dinner plates. Go and buy this movie 2day!

Aliens Ate Our Brains!
What else would explain the hit this banal tripe was? ... Read more

Reviews (762)

Lethal Hatchet Part 4
So sue me, I stole that by-line from Newsweek. But it's the most apt description I've heard. It really is a Mel Gibson revenge flick, with him running around with a couple dozen hatchets and rifles rather than a semi-automatic Glock. Don't get me wrong, I loved this movie, but it wasn't historically accurate, and for anyone who wants a truly good Colonial period drama(I'm one of those), they'll have to keep looking. The Last of the Mohicans didn't do it(yes, I know that that was the French and Indian War), and this one doesn't do it either. It's pure action, pure revenge, pure adrenaline. Same as almost any Mel Gibson picture. The scene where he eliminates a 20 man British contingent is definitely a cool sequence; The follow up to this movie should have Bruce Willis and be called "Die Patriot". Ok, bad joke, but basically, this is an adventure film that is fun to watch, as it is in the vein of all my favorite adventure films, like Die Hards 1-3 and Lethal Weapons 1-4. Cool movie, not exactly Oscar material. Heck, not even Golden Globe material.

The Patriot a perfect Fourth of July rouser
What is it about American wars that brings the best out of otherwise trivial filmmakers? Ten years ago, the glorious Glory came from "thirtysomething" creator Edward Zwick. Now, Godzilla's Roland Emmerich, about the last director from whom we could expect full-bodied characters, brings us The Patriot--in every sense of the word, the most beautiful movie of its year.

Part of the credit should probably go to screenwriter Robert Rodat who, as Saving Private Ryan proved, surely knows which patriotic buttons to push. Whoever should be credited, there's not a false move in this rousing three-hour tribute to American spirit. When they say "They don't make 'em like that anymore," point to this one as an example of how it can still be done.

And who knew Mel Gibson still had any actorism left in him? As Benjamin Martin, a reluctant war veteran who is finally moved to fight in the Revolutionary War when a redcoat kills one of his sons, Gibson sheds his familiar love-me mannerisms like an old winter coat. He never relies on cutesy tics, and not once does he strike a false note. His character elicits laughter, tears, and bloodshed, and for the first time in years, Gibson emotes an honest-to-gosh person on the screen.

The movie's basic point--stated outright by Martin early on in the story--is that the Revolutionary War was won by wily militiamen who served as a direct counterpoint to the straight-on British manner of battle. But that's about the only thing in the movie which is stated so blatantly. The dialogue, rather than being laden with jingoism, is appropriately sparse, letting the movie's considerable action tell the story. And as such, this movie is a perfect argument against gratuitous movie violence (despite its R rating)--it shows the devastating effects of war (Martin loses a great deal of his family, one by one) and yet doesn't linger on its horrific effects.

Gibson's magnificent underplaying and Rodat's spare screenplay seem to have invigorated the rest of the cast as well. Everyone from Jason Isaacs (the British colonel with a bug up himself about Martin) to Tom Wilkinson (terrific as British warlord Gen. Cornwallis) to Trevor Morgan (the actory smart-aleck in The Sixth Sense) as one of Martin's sons, seem just as juiced up as Gibson is.

I haven't told a great deal about the plot, have I? (I haven't even touched upon Caleb Deschanel's beautiful cinematography, or John Williams' best movie score since E.T.) And this is as it should be. Please just trust that you should devote nearly three hours to one of the most perfectly realized movie visions you're likely to see for a long, long time.

The Patriot is rated R, mostly for very graphic violence, though in context, a PG-13 would be far more appropriate. Its only dramatic effect is to get kids talking about the story, an opportunity that I'd imagine most history teachers and parents would welcome.

STIRRING AND MOVING
Once again, people crave for authenticity...the way it really happened....and once again, I say, "It's a movie. It's entertaining and moving....I didn't take my history book along to make sure it was totally accurate. I like escapism, and movies that move me." This movie did that. It's beautifully filmed by the respected Caleb Deschanel; the music by John Williams is moving, and the cast on a whole is exceptional. Mel Gibson has been labeled an okay actor, but if you look deep inside his performances, the man does his best in filling whatever shoes his role dictates. As the family-oriented and somewhat stubborn father, he evokes the pain he feels from his actions in an earlier battle with the French; he seems devastated by his youngest daughter's silence to him; and he loves his family. Joely Richardson is effectively cast as Mel's sister in law, who helps take care of his family during this crisis. Heath Ledger is all gungho and spirited as Gabriel, and plays well with the rest of his cast. Tom Wilkinson is superb as Cornwallis, a man steeped in tradition and British fanfare. His scene with Gibson in which the patriot negotiates for the release of his 18 prisoners is exceptional. Jason Isaacs is pure evil in his role as the heartless Haverton (or whatever), and shows that war to him is merely licensed murder. The rest of the supporting cast: Chris Cooper, Rene Auberjonois, Adam Baldwin, Gregory Smith, Mira Boorkem, and Donal Logue, in particular, are great additions.
The movie is a manipulative film, of course...how else would it work, but it's to director Roland Emmerich's credit, that when the credits were over, I felt moved and touched. That's what films are meant to be in my opinion.

Complete and Utter Waste of Time
I am genuinely surprised at this movie's good rating!
1)The historical innaccuracy is horrible
2)It is a movie that glorifies the WRONG things about the American Revolution
3)The love story is nauseating
4)The characters are weak and underdeveloped. Mel Gibson is an ok (Just OK) actor. Most of the others are too, with some really really bad ones thrown in- just for kicks!
5)People say it was entertaining- really? I was writhing through the entire thing. Oh, and the war scenes really aren't that gruesome... maybe its because I saw Kill Bill a month ago?

I wish I didn't waste my time with this movie! Please, please watch something else! There are so many better (historical or otherwise) movies!

An American Patriot
The 2000 summer film, "The Patriot" which I believe was in theatres appropiately on the 4th of July, stars Mel Gibson in the heroic role of Benjamin Martin, a father fighting for his family and his colony from the British enemy forces of General Cornwallis (played by Tom Wilkinson). The movie was directed by Roland Emmerich, the director of Independence Day, which, though science fiction blockbuster epic that it was, still maintained the 4th of July American patriotism theme much like this movie. Being entirely different from his usual blockbusters (Godzilla, Day After Tomorrow most recently) Emmerich immerses us into the historical period of early America in the 1770's, when the budding, newfound country was at war with Great Britain. The American Revolution was the first real war in America. The country was earning its independence and fighting for it in the most literal sense.

Althoug the movie keeps its period piece/costume drama visuals, in the dialogue you can find traces of modernism. For example, in one scene, Mel Gibson sits with his wife and asks "Can I sit here ?" and she replies in comedy tone "Hey it's a free country.. or that is it will be". Much of Mel Gibson's own influence is in this movie. He did not direct this movie although he could have easily done so. The fighting scenes, the battles, the gunfights and the violence is very Mel Gibson in nature (he is after all responsible for such films as Braveheart). The portrayal of the British is of course biased since it's on the American side we're sympathezing with. Cornwallis is a man we love to hate-rude, arrogant and cruel. The other British in the film are also portrayed as very nasty. The message of patriotism, love of family and home is all quite strong here. But it does make a good film if you're into this period, if you want to see Mel Gibson doing a historic piece and as the hero which he always does so well in. Mel Gibson, though much older now, is still a great actor and provides much romantic/sex appeal. On DVD, the movie is loaded with extra features including commentary and "Making Of" segment. ... Read more

Reviews (102)

"AND THE OSCAR GOES TO..."
I have a quest to see all the movies that have won the Oscar for BEST PICTURE that I can find. Ordinary People won in 1980. I just saw this movie for the first time, and it blew me away! Between the perfect and wonderful screenplay, to the awesome acting and beautiful scenery -- This film should have won all the OSCARS for acting. Was Mary Tyler Moore even nominated? She was perfectly callous, cold, and unfeeling as Beth. Her performance was so incredible. Donald Sutherland was also excellent as the father who really wants to see his family kept together, and try to be happy again after losing a loved one. Timothy Hutton was definetly deservant of the Oscar -- but it should have been for Best Actor.... Juddd Hirsch was also brilliant as the psychiatrist that Conrad sees. All the acting, even the minor roles portrayed by DInah Manoff and Elizabeth McGovern is great to watch. I don't think that Oscar is the most important element in the film, but it totally deserves the praise. It was a beatifully filmed movie about a dysfunctional family..sounds like something that came out recently? American Beauty is this year's Ordinary People.. Granted, the characters in Ordinary People have different kinds of problems. If you want to see a powerful drama, with great acting, this is the film to watch. Oh, and don't forget the kleenex...cuz it jerks those tears right out of you.

No ordinary movie
"Ordinary Peole" deservingly won the Oscar for Best Picture of 1980. It desplicts realities of those in such living turmoil. It proves that such awful feelings toward oneself can strike those with the seemingly perfect life. It explores the after-effects of a family once they lose a child, and once the other attempts suicide. Robert Redford makes his Oscar winning directorial debut, leading the cast and crew to create a flawless, unforgettable masterpiece.

Donald Sutherland and Mary Tyler Moore(Calvin and Beth Jerrad) play the lead roles as the supporting father and the selfish non-loving mother. Their marriage is on the verge of divorce due to Beth's lack of support of their living son Conrad, played by Timothy Hutton. Conrad faces guilt after losing his brother, Buck, in a boating accident a year ago. His psychologist forces him to confront every life aspect.

Every actor portrays their character delightfully, forcing every drop of emotion to the audience, even those with limited screentime. Timothy Hutton deserved his Oscar win for Best Supporting Actor. Mary Tyler Moore and Judd Hirsch deserved their Oscar nominations for Best Actress and Best Supporting Actor. Why wasn't Donald Sutherland nominated for his best role of his career? Who knows.

Those looking for a serious drama should watch "Ordinary People". One may have to think about the events after the first watch. Those who've watched it twenty times still discover new interesting details.

One of the best films of all time
Well, this film is easily one of the best I've ever seen. I saw it for the first time around 1981. It was odd, since i was watching with my own dysfunctional family when I was about 14. It's a film that moves you every time you watch it and you can take away something different each time. This is the mark of superb writing, acting and directing. I can't believe that this was Redford's first attempt at directing. It boggles the mind. Just the natural scenes of suburban Chicago alone are well-done.
Although Mary Tyler Moore, Sutherland and Hirch do fantastic jobs as Conrad's parents and psychiatrist, trying to get inside his head, it was Hutton's performance as Conrad that moved me most. He portrays the son left behind by a brother who died in a boating accident. When the movie begins, Conrad has just returned to "normal" after being in the hospital for months due to a suicide attempt. It is ironic that the title is "ordinary" people as this family is far from ordinary. But Hutton's performance, with both emotionality and such a sense of emptiness is one of the most vivid performances I've ever seen. What ever happened to Tim Hutton anyway ?
Mary Tyler Moore's performance of the cold Beth, who seems to still blame Conrad on her favorite son Buck's death, is impeccable. It really makes sense that you could get performances out of her and Tim Hutton of this caliber since both just lost a relative (she her son and Hutton his father) right before filming. Donald Sutherland really portrays the kind of father everyone wants, let's just admit it. He cares very much about his son ! To the point that he would visit his shrink to learn more about what he's going through. Excellent performance and I still don't know why he wasn't nominated.
I could write a short book about this film. Suffice it to say that everyone should see it, despite whether you view your family of origin as dysfunctional or not. We can all relate to certain themes: hiding feelings, being afraid to face pain, facing pain and not knowing what to do with it, loss of friendship, loss of love, "walking on eggshells" in your own home. Ordinary People is an extraordinary film !

healing with counseling
I first saw the movie & then read Judith Guest's book. Both made a deep impression on me. The movie is passionately & beautifully made & all the acting superb.

What most impressed me, however, was that it addresses a vital process -- the psychology of dysfunctional families & of getting counseling through recovery from trauma -- Judd Hirsch intensely plays the psychiatrist.

Almost everyone, in the books I review, could do with a dose of counseling, although it is the rare author who takes this process seriously or considers it worth writing about, & I know from personal experience: counseling does heal, if you use it with that intention.

A Rebeccasreads First Rate Recommendation, certainly a movie which will get you talking afterwards.

Possibly the best film of my generation.
This is a mini review of one of my all time top 10 favorite films

Robert Redford's directorial debut is a wonderful adaptation of Judith Guest's novel about a suburban Chicago family in crisis. Redford's direction elicits breakout performances from Tim Hutton, Judd Hirsch, Mary Tyler Moore, and Donald Sutherland.

This drama unfolds in the aftermafth of Conrad Jarrett's (Hutton) attemmpted suicide. The movie chronicles how the entire Jarrett family deal (or don't deal) with the tragic death of Conrad's brother Buck in a boating accident.

The film evenly deals with such difficult family trauma's but does so in a way that at once realistic and hopeful. ... Read more

Reviews (23)

"For this particular quilt the theme is: where love resides"
How to Make an American Quilt is a nice comfortable movie, and unlike so many other films belonging to the 'coming of age' genre, it doesn't leave the viewer feeling emotionally drained. It is also unusual in that it attempts to breach the generation divide in its appeal; however its success in this respect is debatable.

Finn is 26 and, hoping for some peace and quiet in which to complete her Master's thesis, she heads for her great-aunt's house in small-town Grasse, California. She also needs time to mull over a marriage proposal from her boyfriend. This is an entrance cue for a smoulderingly handsome strawberry farmer (in an unnecessary plot complication) to hinder Finn's contemplations.

Great-aunt Glady-Joe lives with her sister, Hy, and their constant bickering is portrayed with sensitivity and humour by Anne Bancroft and Ellen Burstyn. The two sisters belong to a quilting group, who are in the process of creating Finn's wedding quilt - thematically titled 'where love resides'. This evokes something different for each of the women, all of whom - in artificially contrived tete-a-tetes - explain to Finn the story behind their contributions to the quilt. The viewer is transported to a time when these elderly women were young, and through them we (along with Finn) learn that times may change, but affairs of the heart will always be unpredictable.

These dalliances in the past are refreshingly piquant; unfortunately this is countered by the film's occasional heavy-handedness. The symbolic crow that leads the women to their true love has all the subtlety of a flashing neon sign. Ultimately however, even if it does perhaps tie up the loose ends too thoroughly, the film will leave the viewer pleasantly satisfied.

Wonderful Tear Jerker with an All-Star Cast
"How to Make an American Quilt" is one of my favorite "chick flicks." And hopefully labeling a movie as a "chick flick" doesn't immediately damn it into some lesser category. When I want to curl up in a quilt on a rainy day and sip hot cocoa and watch a movie, "American Quilt" would be a perfect choice. This is one of the few times when I liked the movie far better than the book--which I read second.

In "American Quilt," Finn (Winona Ryder) comes to spend the summer with her grandmother Hy (Ellen Burstyn) and great aunt Glady Jo (Anne Bancroft) in Grasse, California. Her plan is to finish her master's thesis while considering the marriage proposal of her long-time sweetheart, Sam. Finn's inability to stick with a project--she's changed thesis topics countless times--seems about to derail her relationship with Sam. Amazon.com's main review criticizes the movie adaptation of the Whitney Otto novel for focusing too much on Finn. I thought that Finn's attempt to sort out her feelings about relationships, while talking to the other women in Hy and Glady Jo's quilting group, sewed the story together quite well. As Finn is pondering whether a modern, intelligent woman can preserve a sense of self within a marriage, one by one, her grandmother, aunt, and their friends share the stories of their marriages or their most significant relationships. Older women sharing their life experiences to help guide a younger woman rang very true to life.

Poet Maya Angelou turns in a surprisingly powerful performance as the leader of the quilting group. Her story of how, as an unwed mother, she came to work for Hy and Glady Jo's mother, is one of my favorites. She holds her own with this great actresses. Bancroft and Burstyn are wonderful as sisters whose love for each other has endured, despite betrayal. Samantha Mathis, as the young Sophia Darling, is stellar as the diver who can't wait to shake off the dust of her small town and explore the world, and who discovers that realizing such dreams aren't so easy.

As a quilter, I absolutely loved the various quilts seen in the movie. I appreciated the detail of including fabrics seen in the flashback scenes into the blocks that each woman contributes to the friendship quilt.

--Delightful film--
Starting with the title, which is terrific, I also liked the great cast of actors who were chosen for the film. The story begins when Finn (Winona Ryder) comes to spend the summer with her grandmother (Ellen Burstyn) and her aunt (Anne Bancroft) at a grand old house in California. Finn is a graduate student who wants to spend the summer working on her thesis. She also needs a break from her boyfriend who wants to marry her. She's very indecisive about everything in her life, and I honestly found her part to be a little boring. The best parts of the story are about the friends that her grandmother and aunt share and their involvement in a quilting circle. The quilting ladies are all quite different and through flashbacks we're given a glimpse of them as young women and the love or lack of love in their lives. Jean Simmons plays one of the women, and I was delighted to see her acting again. I loved the scenes where the quilters, are working around a table in the lovely old house. The set designs were beautiful and perfect for the story.

At a certain point in the film, we come to find out that the theme of the quilt is "where love resides." Every quilter is making a block from her own experience in life. Finn also learns that the quilt is her wedding gift.

HOW TO MAKE AN AMERICAN QUILT is an enjoyable movie. I think that the individual stories could have been a little more informative, but all things considered it's a wonderful movie and worth seeing.

sensitive and human
I quilt, my other half is an artist. We both viewed this " simple film " and both found a true delight about the emotions and sometimes confusions of the complexity of love. A finefilm for those that can understand love is delightful but at times so complex. A lovely movie that shrares hope beyond love, love beyond dreams!!

FANTABULOUS
This movie is phenomenal. It stars Winnona Ryder as Finn, a young woman about to be married, who is writing a thesis on the interpersonal relationships that are intertwined with in the making of an American quilt. The people that she is writing about are a group of women who have been quilting together for many, many years. They have assembled with the goal of creating a wedding quilt for Finn. The group is comprised of her grandmother, her aunt, and several of their oldest and closest friends. Each woman is charged with designing a single square of the quilt that represents for them "where love resides". As the women work on the quilt they use the opportunity to counsel Finn about her upcoming marriage. They give their own views on what is important in life; on what their experiences have taught them, and why they have made the choices in life that they have made. While they are together, working on the quilt you learn about the relationships and experiences that represent love for these women. At the same time you learn about the hardships and the tribulations that they have experienced both individually and within relationships with one another. This is a movie that explores the nuances of family, love, birth, death, marriage and friendship. This exploration is handled beautifully. The separate stories are woven together, as their lives are, and as the pieces of the quilt are. The movie on the surface is a simple story of several women's lives and their experiences. As you watch, and look deeper you begin to understand that there is profound meaning and an explicit symbolism in each scene and every moment. Each part of this movie was thought out and carefully considered. It is a pleasure to watch and you find your self deeply involved with these women as you travel full circle in their lives. If you have not seen How to Make an American Quilt you must, it should not be missed. ... Read more

Reviews (136)

Good Sequel
Predator 2 is by all means a good sequel. Truly enough, most fans are upset that there is no return of Arnold Schwarzenegger's character, but everybody has to realize that the Predator movies aren't like Aliens where Siqourney Weaver always returns to battle aliens. This is different, these Predator movies s aren't based on Arnie, there based on the Predator. Arnold isn't the main character, his charactor's name isn't even in the title, the predator is the main charactor and its name is in the title. Arnold's name is in Terminator and he made a reapearence in that because he was the main character. This series is based on the Predator and those who go in its way, in which this time, the man that faces the Predator is Danny Glover. Anyway, here is the plot.
A new Predator comes to town and This time the story takes place in a city, not a jungle. The predator has an eye out for a cop named Mike Harrigan (Danny Glover from LETHAL WEAPON) ). But instead of just going straight for him, the predator starts having the appetite for drug dealers and starts killing many gangs in the city. Although I am not really sure, but I think the Predator does that to mess w/ Mike Harrigan's head. And things start to become personal when the Predator kills Harrigan's partner. Mike Harrigan thinks that all the havoc is being caused by some major drug lord and will stop at nothing to find out. Harrigan's problems isn't just getting catching this psych, or predator, but another person named Peter Keyes (Gary Busy who also happens to be from LETHAL WEAPON) also tries to crack the case and won't stop at anything to do so. So now, both Harrigan and Keyes battle the Predator and each other. And as far as I am concerned, the two have no intentions on getting along.
That is pretty much everything you will need to know about the movie's plot. This film is not as good as the first one, yet still good. Danny Glover may be no Arnold Schwarzenegger yet he still does as good as Arnie would have done it. I would be rating this a five star movie if the plot would have been a little better. The plot is okay but does have a confusing ending. Overall, I do suggest buying this movie this movie along w/ the first.

"He's in town...with a few days to kill..."
Yep, this description said it all! I have seen this movie too many times to mention and I STILL love watching it! The movie starts out fast and furious and there is so much action in this movie that once it starts, it DOESN'T let you catch your breath!

Danny Glover may not be your first choice when thinking 'action hero' but he does a VERY convincing job. Bill Paxton plays a street-smart, wise-cracking cop and delivers a fun character (as usual) that dies (as usual). As, Gary Busey plays the testosterone injected Special Ops officer that thinks he can actually CAPTURE the deadly Predator!

The AWESOME Predator effects (cloaking, vision modes) make this movie shine (not to mention the AMAZING number of bullets fired in this movie, DAMN!) The direction, lighting, fog and camera movement in the final showdown onboard the Predator's ship is pure genius as it makes you feel like you are actually "there" on an alien craft watching this galactic fight to the death, AWESOME!

For any self-respecting 'Predator' fan, this is a MUST SEE!!!

This Predator Didn't Hit Its Mark
I was a huge fan of the original PREDATOR and recommend it to any sci-fi/action movie fan. But when I first saw PREDATOR 2 I was surprised at how big a dissapointment it was to the first movie. Danny Glover was pretty good as Mike Harrigan but he nowhere compares to Arnold, and the rest of the characters were just there to add a few more lines to the script. The one character I did find amusing was Bill Paxton, who, once again, dies acting obnoxious and herioc.
The actual Predator was very impressive and had a lot more weapons than the one in the original, which I thought was cool. My favorite was the Smart Disk, which cut Gary Busey's character Keys in half. Stan Winston did another excellent job with the Predator, as he does in all his movies. The only thing I didn't like was how long it took for Steven Hopkins, the director, to reveal the actual creature. We've already seen it before, what's the point of holding it off until twenty minutes into the movie?
The movie has quite a few good action scenes in the movie which do not disappoint, filled with blazing guns and buckets of blood on the floor. The thing that doesn't make sense is why they had a full minute of pure uneccesary nudity involving a prostitute and a gang member. A second later five Jamacians come in and the Predator just ends up killing them all.
The light and sound in the film are very good for a cruddy movie and Fox did a good job. The extras include two featuretts including talks with the actors and the making of the Predator. There is also a theatrical trailer.
Overall PREDATOR 2 is a fun movie to watch and should be part of any die hard fan's collection.

A good sci-fi
im not much into sci-fi because the acting is usually cheesy and the movie gets tired-some quick. Ive seen this movie plenty of times, the first time being when i was 10. i like this movie equally if not more than the first one. this movie portrays the predtor character more of an hunting race rather than just a crazy alien like the first one. Which brings up a point, someone had posted earlier that they didnt understand how the predator came back to life from the first movie to be on this one. It didnt, this is a different predator, its a race of hunters that travel everywhere in hunt of good game. Also someone commented that the ship blew up on the last seen of this movie, it didnt.... it flew back into space at a high speed. if you look closely at the predator trophy room where they have their skull collection you can see an alien skull on the wall rack. all in all it is a great movie too much blood for my liking but the weapons and predators custom and ship make up for it. many great scenes like the subway fight and the unforgettable scene where the predator attacks a group of people that walked in on a couple while making love!!! Danny glover is simply awesome in this movie. i would recomend buying, but if your still not sure.... its a most diffinet rent!

Not half bad
First off: this movie is nowhere near as good as the first one. But then again, it would be a near impossible task to out do the original. The first movie was perfectly paced, action packed and had Arnold Schwarzenegger as the buff hero with cheesy one-liners. However, this movie is an entertaing ride nonetheless, and the last 20-30 minutes more than make up for the weak story and characters. Danny Glover is a good hero, but is no replacement for Arnold. And the inclusion of Gary Busey and Bill Paxton save this film from obscurity. ... Read more

Description

Kevin Costner plays the most famous lawman ever to stride the Wild West.In a gritty, complex portrayal hailed as a "classic American performance" (Bob Campbell, Newhouse Newspapers), Academy Award winner Costner (Dances with Wolves, The Bodyguard) plays the man who became a myth in acclaimed director Lawrence Kasdan's (The Big Chill, Silverado) epic, action-filled saga.Gene Hackman, an Oscar winner for Unforgiven, as Wyatt's iron-willed father, and Dennis Quaid (The Big Easy, The Right Stuff) as Earp's deadly best friend Doc Holliday add power to this mammoth, hard-hitting Western.From Wichita to Dodge City to the O.K. Corral in Tombstone, Arizona, Wyatt Earp is a thrilling journey of romance, adventure and desperate, heroic action. ... Read more

Reviews (82)

Wyatt Earp was a Man
A lot of people forget that Wyatt Earp was a real man who had more courage and integrity then most people you will ever know. This movie is a pretty accurate portrayl of that man. Kevin Costner and Dennis Quaid (Doc Holliday) do a superb job, although the supporting cast has a lot to be desired. This movie differs from the movie "Tombstone", in that it portrays a lot of Wyatt's life from being a teenager during the Civil War to his and Josie's adventure to the Alaskan gold fields near the turn of the century. "Tombstone" deals primarily with the happenings in Wyatt's life in that one town, which ironically dealt with less than 2 years of his long adventurous life. I liked this film because it dealt with an approximate 35 year time span of Wyatt's life, and the movie is long enough to dipict this. There are a lot of historical accuracies in the movie which include proper representations of places and dialogue such as what is said on the way to and during the gunfight. The inaccuracies are easily overlooked such as Virgil being shot in the wrong arm and the reference to "Johnny behind the duece" as "Tommy." All in all though, a good film about the life of a great man, Wyatt Earp.

BUY THIS DVD!
At last Warner Bros. has seen fit to release Kasdan's masterpiece on DVD. Sadly and inexplicably this movie was overlooked at the time of it's release. This superbly written,beautifully played piece is the definitive account of the life of a western archetype achieving everything that previous Earp accounts have failed to with the possible exception of Hour Of The Gun. Avoiding the ludicrous romanticism of My Darling Clementine, or the appaulingly laughable Lancaster/Douglas fiasco, Gunfight At OK Corral, Kasdan's portrayal presents these characters as the contradictory individuals they undoubtedly were and the actors and actresses do a tremendous job of bringing them to life. Costner is utterly believable as a complex man who, influenced by his father's belief in the family unit, almost destroys the very family he is trying to protect. We see him go from an idealistic young man to becoming a resolute, serious individual as a result of circumstances often beyond his control which serve to form his hardened personality and tunnel vision. Dennis Quaid is superb as Doc Holliday and presents a real person rather than Val Kilmer's amusing charicature in the over rated t.v movie-quality Tombstone. JoBeth Williams, Catherine O'Hara and Isabella Rosselini are great in their portrayals of the role of women in the west. Each of the actresses in this movie portrays a distinctly different character never resorting to cookie-cutter characterisations but the one thing they all have in common is, true to the period, women were expected to be supportive but not to have minds of their own; No revisionist western this.
Technically the movie looks and sounds great. Kasdan creates a visual style without being heavy handed and we are presented with a west in various stages of development from shanty towns to the developing, lawless Dodge City and Tombstone where law and order are trying to take hold even when the "law" is being enforced in a very subjective manner, again there is a lot of gray in this movie.
Finally I have to praise James Newton Howard for his wonderful score which, if it were isolated on the DVD would make this a 6 star release.
Apparently deleted scenes are being included on a second disc. An expanded lazer disc was released some years ago which restored this footage to the film, adding even more depth to the characters and as a result an even better movie.
Please buy this movie and, in doing so, encourage Warner's to release the expanded version in the near future. You will not be disappointed.

Western Classic
No doubt this movie is a western classic. I saw it years ago and loved it. I don't have anything negative to say about the movie itself. I almost picked up this 2 disc set until I learned it's a cut down or edited version. Why is the complete 212 min version only available on VHS ? That's just stupid. This is a great movie worthy of a director's cut edition maybe 3 disc set? I'd spend the extra cash on a deeper edition, until then I'll save my money. Please, please release the FULL version on DVD!

I'm very disappointed-why not the Director's Cut on DVD??
I was actually planning to but Wyatt Earp on DVD, but as I already have the Director's Cut on VHS video, I'll wait until the release of it on DVD. I believed this would be the "definitive" video release of Wyatt Earp. I'm quite disappointed!! I would rather have had the complete film on DVD than all of the extras!! Five-stars for the film, one-star for the short-sightedness of this DVD's content!! This is just as puzzling as why the restored version of John Wayne's The Alamo is not on DVD yet, either.

Typical Costner - long drawn out epic!
While the story was great and gave some interesting, perhaps unknown insight to the character of Wyatt Earp (did you know he was married and lost his wife to Typhoid? I didn't!) the movie was a very long, slow, drawn out epic like most of Costner's films. While Dennis Quaid portrayed a believable Doc Holliday, his performance was paled by the superior, more entertaining version by Val Kilmer in "Tombstone". In either movie it was almost unbelievable that the character was played by Dennis Quaid and Val Kilmer respectively (although Val Kilmer was more recognizable), I think both versions of Doc Holliday outshined the portrayal of Wyatt Earp in either movie. While still a good Western for this century, I would not rate this one higher than 3 stars because it was too long and drawn out. 3+ hours is just too long to sit through for something that could have been accomplished successfully in maybe 1-1/2 to 2 hours.
The rating age only goes up to 12, I'm actually 40 years old - LOL ... Read more

Reviews (528)

Typical Big-Budget Fun Ride
Director Roland Emmerich (The Day After Tomorrow & The Patriot) became a popular name in big-budget summer movies with the successful 1996 blockbuster "Independence Day". Massive alien spaceships mysteriously enter the Earth's atmosphere and unleash a devastating assault on the world's major cities. Now, a small human resistance organizes a final stand against the powerful invaders. "Independence Day" is a 153 minutes of pure movie fun. Its simple plot and stereotypical characters are rather predictable but still quite enjoyable. Its amusing humor, intense battle sequences and outstanding special effects are this Sci-Fi film's true highlights. The all-star cast features Will Smith, Bill Pullman, Jeff Goldblum, Judd Hirsch, Randy Quaid, Vivica A. Fox and Robert Loggia.

"Independence Day" Limited Edition is a worthy bargain DVD. Both theatrical and extended cuts are presented in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen format. The DVD contains an amazing picture quality with rich color detail and great resolution. The clear 5.1 Dolby Digital sound delivers some well balanced surrounds and awesome bass, but a DTS audio track should have been included in this new release. Among special features, it contains two audio commentaries by filmmakers and FX crew, and a sneak peak at Emmerich's FX epic "The Day After Tomorrow". Despite the lack of supplements, "Independence Day" receives a pleasant "B-".

There's always something...
This fulfills all of the expectations of a summer blockbuster;
things flying around, stuff blowing up, flag waving, etc etc

and yes it is escapist and all good fun

all good stuff (although a little over done, as others have
pointed out, with the flag waving bits -- but then given the
title, i think people must have known that before going in)

but it does fall foul of the usual fault of having one
supremely bad plot element. i'm referring to the odd idea that
the alien shields can be taken down by injecting a computer
virus (oh so easily). in this case, it is a cop out -- a cheap
way for the screenwriter to get from point A to point C without
bothering with B

a wise man once said never let the facts get in the way of a
good story. and a writer once said he never checks the technical
aspects of a screenplay (for the same reason)

the problem with this (and many films suffer a similar problem)
is that it pulls me right out of the film. the suspension of

disbelief of an action rah-rah film can take you to a certain
point, but it is easy to step over that line. the virus did it
for me in this one

any film that uses classic dialogue such as "this is real
life -- not a film" is almost guarenteed to suffer this sort
of problem

You didn't like this film? What are you anyway, a commie?
Normally I don't use reviews as a forum for sniping at other reviewers, but it would appear that Thomas B. Clark came as close as he could to calling me un-American because I didn't care for the jingoism that saturates this film. Well by golly, I guess it is now clear that this film must be a litmus test of the patriotism of all Americans. If you hate it, you must be some sort of com-symp pinko --- it's off to the Russkies with ya.

Incidentally --- I would have refrained from socio-political commentary if only you had also --- I would gently remind you that the Indian Air Force is reported to have done very well against the USAF in exercises conducted in February this year, so maybe the USA really isn't the only one who can get the job done. I'd be willing to bet that the Israeli Air Force, to name just one, might be able to hold its own as well. Of course, maybe I am just whining again.

The argument also seems to be that critics (in addition to being part of the 5th Column) cannot endure a film that engages in make-believe. You can't be serious. Just because a film requires the viewer to suspend belief doesn't necessarily mean it has to suck. I enjoyed "Hellboy," "Men in Black," and "Alien," for example. None of these is remotely believable, but they are well-crafted films with decent performances from their respective casts. Likewise, films packed with explosions & mayhem can also have compelling storylines & characters --- "Master & Commander," for example. I guess I am guilty of expecting the makers of a movie --- even one that is "just fun," should give us more for our money than some paint-by-numbers hack job.

And that is exactly what this movie is, Thomas B. Clark. Contrary to what you claim, I hardly did any nit-picking on all the plot holes in the story, although other reviewers have gone over this movie's silly inconsistencies with a fine-toothed comb. My main complaint was that with the disengaged acting, the cardboard-cutout characters, and the painfully predictable storyline, all the movie really could rely on is lots of special effects & nifty explosions, which really on works on the big screen. The commercial success of this turkey has only encouraged Hollywood to even greater FX excess, to the point that filmmakers seem to think that if they throw enough CGI and special effects at you, they are not responsible for also giving you a decently-crafted movie with a plot & characters and stuff like that.

Hey, it's your money. I spent $1.50 at the budget theatre watching this and I guess I broke even. I pity the people who blew 7 or 8 dollars for this, but again, spend it on what you want. I learned my lesson sooner rather than later. Being the anti-American creep that I am, I just purchased a nice bottle of the 2000 Canon-la-Gaffeliere, which is the equivalent of about 10 viewings of "ID4"-type films, and I think I got the better end of the deal.

AWESOME!!!!
I absolutely love this movie because it's so much action packed fun where vicious aliens from outer space unleash destruction upon the earth's human population and now they must fight back and destroy the aliens before they destroy humanity. This is just so much fun. The special effects are top notch and the acting is great! I really loved the way the spaceships looked like as opposed to looking like flying dinner plates. Go and buy this movie 2day!

Aliens Ate Our Brains!
What else would explain the hit this banal tripe was? ... Read more

Reviews (528)

Typical Big-Budget Fun Ride
Director Roland Emmerich (The Day After Tomorrow & The Patriot) became a popular name in big-budget summer movies with the successful 1996 blockbuster "Independence Day". Massive alien spaceships mysteriously enter the Earth's atmosphere and unleash a devastating assault on the world's major cities. Now, a small human resistance organizes a final stand against the powerful invaders. "Independence Day" is a 153 minutes of pure movie fun. Its simple plot and stereotypical characters are rather predictable but still quite enjoyable. Its amusing humor, intense battle sequences and outstanding special effects are this Sci-Fi film's true highlights. The all-star cast features Will Smith, Bill Pullman, Jeff Goldblum, Judd Hirsch, Randy Quaid, Vivica A. Fox and Robert Loggia.

"Independence Day" Limited Edition is a worthy bargain DVD. Both theatrical and extended cuts are presented in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen format. The DVD contains an amazing picture quality with rich color detail and great resolution. The clear 5.1 Dolby Digital sound delivers some well balanced surrounds and awesome bass, but a DTS audio track should have been included in this new release. Among special features, it contains two audio commentaries by filmmakers and FX crew, and a sneak peak at Emmerich's FX epic "The Day After Tomorrow". Despite the lack of supplements, "Independence Day" receives a pleasant "B-".

There's always something...
This fulfills all of the expectations of a summer blockbuster;
things flying around, stuff blowing up, flag waving, etc etc

and yes it is escapist and all good fun

all good stuff (although a little over done, as others have
pointed out, with the flag waving bits -- but then given the
title, i think people must have known that before going in)

but it does fall foul of the usual fault of having one
supremely bad plot element. i'm referring to the odd idea that
the alien shields can be taken down by injecting a computer
virus (oh so easily). in this case, it is a cop out -- a cheap
way for the screenwriter to get from point A to point C without
bothering with B

a wise man once said never let the facts get in the way of a
good story. and a writer once said he never checks the technical
aspects of a screenplay (for the same reason)

the problem with this (and many films suffer a similar problem)
is that it pulls me right out of the film. the suspension of

disbelief of an action rah-rah film can take you to a certain
point, but it is easy to step over that line. the virus did it
for me in this one

any film that uses classic dialogue such as "this is real
life -- not a film" is almost guarenteed to suffer this sort
of problem

You didn't like this film? What are you anyway, a commie?
Normally I don't use reviews as a forum for sniping at other reviewers, but it would appear that Thomas B. Clark came as close as he could to calling me un-American because I didn't care for the jingoism that saturates this film. Well by golly, I guess it is now clear that this film must be a litmus test of the patriotism of all Americans. If you hate it, you must be some sort of com-symp pinko --- it's off to the Russkies with ya.

Incidentally --- I would have refrained from socio-political commentary if only you had also --- I would gently remind you that the Indian Air Force is reported to have done very well against the USAF in exercises conducted in February this year, so maybe the USA really isn't the only one who can get the job done. I'd be willing to bet that the Israeli Air Force, to name just one, might be able to hold its own as well. Of course, maybe I am just whining again.

The argument also seems to be that critics (in addition to being part of the 5th Column) cannot endure a film that engages in make-believe. You can't be serious. Just because a film requires the viewer to suspend belief doesn't necessarily mean it has to suck. I enjoyed "Hellboy," "Men in Black," and "Alien," for example. None of these is remotely believable, but they are well-crafted films with decent performances from their respective casts. Likewise, films packed with explosions & mayhem can also have compelling storylines & characters --- "Master & Commander," for example. I guess I am guilty of expecting the makers of a movie --- even one that is "just fun," should give us more for our money than some paint-by-numbers hack job.

And that is exactly what this movie is, Thomas B. Clark. Contrary to what you claim, I hardly did any nit-picking on all the plot holes in the story, although other reviewers have gone over this movie's silly inconsistencies with a fine-toothed comb. My main complaint was that with the disengaged acting, the cardboard-cutout characters, and the painfully predictable storyline, all the movie really could rely on is lots of special effects & nifty explosions, which really on works on the big screen. The commercial success of this turkey has only encouraged Hollywood to even greater FX excess, to the point that filmmakers seem to think that if they throw enough CGI and special effects at you, they are not responsible for also giving you a decently-crafted movie with a plot & characters and stuff like that.

Hey, it's your money. I spent $1.50 at the budget theatre watching this and I guess I broke even. I pity the people who blew 7 or 8 dollars for this, but again, spend it on what you want. I learned my lesson sooner rather than later. Being the anti-American creep that I am, I just purchased a nice bottle of the 2000 Canon-la-Gaffeliere, which is the equivalent of about 10 viewings of "ID4"-type films, and I think I got the better end of the deal.

AWESOME!!!!
I absolutely love this movie because it's so much action packed fun where vicious aliens from outer space unleash destruction upon the earth's human population and now they must fight back and destroy the aliens before they destroy humanity. This is just so much fun. The special effects are top notch and the acting is great! I really loved the way the spaceships looked like as opposed to looking like flying dinner plates. Go and buy this movie 2day!

Aliens Ate Our Brains!
What else would explain the hit this banal tripe was? ... Read more

Reviews (317)

Kubrick Had His Duds, Too
...and this is one of them. People wouldn't defend this film so zealously if it had been made by someone other than Kubrick, but his cult of enigmatic personality drives many to believe that he could do no wrong. You'll see a similar blind loyalty to Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut."

This is NOT "one of the best war movies of all time"...that's silly. It doesn't even approach "Patton" in terms of character, nor does it rival "Tora Tora Tora" in scope. "The Deer Hunter" and "Apocalypse Now" are both superior psychological dramas, and "Saving Private Ryan" does a better job of portraying the simultaneous heroism/obscenity of battle. What you do get with "Full Metal Jacket" that you don't get with those other films is Kubrick's trademark pessimism about human beings, which is neither insightful nor particularly interesting. But then most people these days think that good art expresses only one thing--nihilism. At his worst, Kubrick fed that mistaken belief.

short & sweet
don't worry, this is not another one of those long, boring, meaningless not so desriptive reviews.....instead, i'm gonna make this short & sweet and to the point.....i own this DVD, and a big part about being a succcessful dvd collector's is determaining which movies are worth buying and keeping and trust me when i say this people....."FULL METAL JACKET" is definitely worth keeping....to my own personal opinion, FULL METAL JACKET has got to be the greatest war movie ever made, but don't get me wrong, there has been quite a few really great one's just recently released....Pearl Harbor....Black Hawk Down...We Were Soldiers....and i'm almost positive that the upcoming WINDTALKERS directed by the famous renound action super director Jon Whoo starring Nicholas Cage will be one of the best this decade.....but all these movies lack ONE major ingredient, "the roots" of war....all great soldiers come from SOMEWHERE, and "fullt metal jacket" shows you exactly where to find them, this movie is my all time favortie and would recommend it to ANYONE.....whether your a collector or not, and even if it's not the LIMITED EDITION COLLECTOR'S SET, the movie stands on it's own...a solid 5 star rating! without a doubt...WHOA!

Do you talk the talk?
Another great war movie, they even let us watch this in Marine bootcamp for Christmas. Skipping past that, it really brings out the madness of war, getting radio commands from someone far away that make no sense to those on the ground and under fire. How quickly civilians could turn into VC, the boredom between chaos, lots of aspects of war are covered here that you'll never find in the Bruckheimer-Simpson garbage. Moving flick, no Platoon, or Apocalypse Now, but one of the great war films.

The violence feels real, both physically and mentally
Directed by Stanley Kubrick, this 1987 film packs a terrific wallop as it follows the dehumanization of marine recruits as they are first prepared for Vietnam and later sent there. As in other Kubrick films which deal with the dark side of human nature, there's a voice-over narrator and some extreme closeups, particular one called "the glare" in which a character tilts his head slightly down with his eyes looking up. The title itself refers to a shell casing, a metaphor for the tough hollow fighters that these men will eventually turn into. And from the first scene, which is that of an off-camera barber shaving the heads of the recruits, we see their depersonalization as their hair, which once made them unique individuals, is shaved off.

Boot camp takes up more than half of the film, with R. Lee Emery, a former marine sergeant himself, cast in the role of the drill sergeant. His creativity in insults and curses is amazing as he prods the weak spots of the men under his command, especially the chubby misfit he labels "Private Gomer Pyle", played brilliantly by Vincent D'Onofrio who won a Golden Globe award for his performance. Aggression is glorified, with serial killers used as examples of excellent marksmanship as the men are taught to worship their rifles, which they treat as objects of love and recite scripted allegiances to them. It's not surprising when this training results in an act of violence.

The scenes that follow in Vietnam are not as strong as the earlier ones, but clearly show how the training both saves the men's lives and dehumanizes them. Short, episodic scenes set the stage for the final one, where we see the men have come full circle from the recruits they used to be. And when they are finished with the battle, war weary and left with the visions of some hard choices they have had to make, they march back to base singing a popular child's song, in which they spell out the words "Mickey Mouse" to a familiar tune. The resulting effect is chilling.

The video moved fast, holding my attention in an iron grip. I was fascinated and horrified and couldn't keep my eyes off the screen as it bolted along. I felt the agony of the boot camp experience, especially for the misfit, and the horror of Vietnam, including what it must have been like for the Vietnamese. The film made a statement about inhumanity loud and strong. Clearly, it was one of the best war films I've ever seen. The violence is real, both physically and mentally. Highly recommended, but be prepared for discomfort.

Waste of time
Ugh i was so mad! I thought it was going to be a good funny yet serious movie, but it was horrible. First when i was watching it i thought it was about the fat guy then all the sudden its about the journalist, what the heck i didnt follow that story. It should have just ended right when boot camp was over. ... Read more

Reviews (49)

A Child's Storytelling Perspective
First of all, this is a story told from a child's perspective. Please also be aware of the audience the story is being told to...Mike's (Tom Hanks) own children. For them to get the point of the story, Mike tells it in a way that children will understand..."How the story is told." The story does not make light of child abuse (as many reviewers have pointed out), it presents it in the way the two brothers dealt with it at the time and their support system (each other and Shane the dog). This is a wonderful story of how the two brothers deal with life's harsher side and how their family (each other and their mother) and their dog meant the world to them. It also presents the brothers' compassion and hope through adversity and physical and emotional pain. A story about how all of us at times, no matter what age, have to make tough decisions. This is tough subject matter to convey in a childrens' story, but this movie accomplishes it in an effective heartfelt way. It does it while preserving, not destroying, hope. Watch this movie with a child's eye and check your adult cynicism at the door. If you find yourself trying to analyze every scene, you're missing the point.

a different view on the ending
I have read many reviews on Radio Flyer, most concerned with the ambiguity of the ending. I saw the movie for the first time a few weeks ago. After watching it, I decided that it had, in fact, been a good movie. It was able to depict many aspects of child abuse, emotionally and physcially, along with the unstableness of the family. However, this alone does not even scratch the surface of the movie's depth. Like I said, after watching the movie, I had decided that it was good. However, if Mike's brother Bobby had flown off and never returned, then where did the turtle in the end come from? The same turtle that they boys had found when they were little, and the same turtle that Bobby took with him on his flight. After this perplexing detail was brought to my attention, I realized that Mike (tom hanks) at the beginning of the movie had said "History is all in the mind of the teller; truth is in the teller". The story recounted by Mike being told to his children was his version of what actually happened to him, and him alone, as a child. After considering this, other facts seemed to make sense. Why had only Bobby been abused? Why hadn't Bobby's flyer ever seem to fail? and for that matter, why hadn't Bobby ever come back? Because Bobby had never existed. In an attempt to escape his own childhood dilemas and tragedies, Mike created an outlet to disguard all his pain. The new idea of this ending made the movie so much better than I had originally perceived it. I'd definitely recommend it, even if it's just to get your own view on the ending :).

deserves one word - WOW
This movie just completely blows me away. It even made my mom tear up. Elijah Wood and Joseph Mazello do an amazing job, and especially at such a young age. And to think that Elijah grew up to do more amazing films like the Lord of the Rings trilogy. But this movie really is superb. Wonderful yet sad story, and by the end it makes you want to call up one of those hotlines for physically abused children and help out. If I could, I'd give it 10 stars.

PLEASE PUT RADIO FLYER ON DVD!!!!!!!
I've been waiting years for Radio Flyer to be released on DVD!!!!! i know many others who want this great story on DVD too... this is a CLASSIC and greatly deserves to be preserved in the newest form of portable video!!!!!

Great movie, don't want my kids to see it
Hey its PG 13. Well everyone else gave away the end. Call me a idiot. I believed he flew away in the wagon. Why (...) would Tom Hanks spend 2 hours at the airport waiting for his brother to show up. Or maybe he was about to go to therapy as the other viewers suggest. The movie is great ... Read more

Reviews (528)

Typical Big-Budget Fun Ride
Director Roland Emmerich (The Day After Tomorrow & The Patriot) became a popular name in big-budget summer movies with the successful 1996 blockbuster "Independence Day". Massive alien spaceships mysteriously enter the Earth's atmosphere and unleash a devastating assault on the world's major cities. Now, a small human resistance organizes a final stand against the powerful invaders. "Independence Day" is a 153 minutes of pure movie fun. Its simple plot and stereotypical characters are rather predictable but still quite enjoyable. Its amusing humor, intense battle sequences and outstanding special effects are this Sci-Fi film's true highlights. The all-star cast features Will Smith, Bill Pullman, Jeff Goldblum, Judd Hirsch, Randy Quaid, Vivica A. Fox and Robert Loggia.

"Independence Day" Limited Edition is a worthy bargain DVD. Both theatrical and extended cuts are presented in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen format. The DVD contains an amazing picture quality with rich color detail and great resolution. The clear 5.1 Dolby Digital sound delivers some well balanced surrounds and awesome bass, but a DTS audio track should have been included in this new release. Among special features, it contains two audio commentaries by filmmakers and FX crew, and a sneak peak at Emmerich's FX epic "The Day After Tomorrow". Despite the lack of supplements, "Independence Day" receives a pleasant "B-".

There's always something...
This fulfills all of the expectations of a summer blockbuster;
things flying around, stuff blowing up, flag waving, etc etc

and yes it is escapist and all good fun

all good stuff (although a little over done, as others have
pointed out, with the flag waving bits -- but then given the
title, i think people must have known that before going in)

but it does fall foul of the usual fault of having one
supremely bad plot element. i'm referring to the odd idea that
the alien shields can be taken down by injecting a computer
virus (oh so easily). in this case, it is a cop out -- a cheap
way for the screenwriter to get from point A to point C without
bothering with B

a wise man once said never let the facts get in the way of a
good story. and a writer once said he never checks the technical
aspects of a screenplay (for the same reason)

the problem with this (and many films suffer a similar problem)
is that it pulls me right out of the film. the suspension of

disbelief of an action rah-rah film can take you to a certain
point, but it is easy to step over that line. the virus did it
for me in this one

any film that uses classic dialogue such as "this is real
life -- not a film" is almost guarenteed to suffer this sort
of problem

You didn't like this film? What are you anyway, a commie?
Normally I don't use reviews as a forum for sniping at other reviewers, but it would appear that Thomas B. Clark came as close as he could to calling me un-American because I didn't care for the jingoism that saturates this film. Well by golly, I guess it is now clear that this film must be a litmus test of the patriotism of all Americans. If you hate it, you must be some sort of com-symp pinko --- it's off to the Russkies with ya.

Incidentally --- I would have refrained from socio-political commentary if only you had also --- I would gently remind you that the Indian Air Force is reported to have done very well against the USAF in exercises conducted in February this year, so maybe the USA really isn't the only one who can get the job done. I'd be willing to bet that the Israeli Air Force, to name just one, might be able to hold its own as well. Of course, maybe I am just whining again.

The argument also seems to be that critics (in addition to being part of the 5th Column) cannot endure a film that engages in make-believe. You can't be serious. Just because a film requires the viewer to suspend belief doesn't necessarily mean it has to suck. I enjoyed "Hellboy," "Men in Black," and "Alien," f