Description

In a remote region of the Bering Sea, a boat salvage crew discovers the eerie remains of a grand passenger liner thought lost for more than 40 years. Once onboard, the crew must confront the ship's horrific past and face the ultimate fight for their lives. ... Read more

Reviews (222)

Campy, campy, campy!
I didn't think I was expecting all that much from "Ghost Ship." I LIVE for scary movies, and, after a fellow Blockbuster denizen made the recommendation, I and two friends decided to rent this dvd just to get a good scare.

Unfortunately, the thrills and chills in this movie were neither thrilling nor chilling. I don't know how Juliana Margulies or Gabriel Byrne were convinced to do this flick, but it is just the most campy movie I've seen in a long time. The special effects are pure cheese...severed limbs, fake blood, horrible demises for each of the characters...the filmmakers made the gore the central scare tactic, and it makes the whole thing rather boring.

I think the best role is played by the little ghost girl who tries to guide Juliana Margulies away from the evil that eventually takes all of her crew. She is sufficiently creepy and lends some genuity to the story....but that hardly makes up for the rest of the movie.

If you are thinking of even seeing this movie, much less buying it, get ready for a dumbed-down, aquatic version of "The Shining" featuring a bad guy who steals souls. The story is just not compelling at all, the characters are not well-developed (most are killed off before there's even a chance), and the visual effects are pretty blah.

To sum it up: only see this if you're really really really bored and if you only feel like getting "pseudo-scared."

Predictable, somewhat entertaining
Thirteen Ghosts director Steve Beck returns to helm this Dark Castle flick which begins with an awesome display of makeup and digital trickery and a foreboding atmosphere, but the plot is loaded with cliches and is rather predictable who's going to get picked off next. When an ocean liner, missing for the past 40 years, mysteriously re-appears, a salvage crew (led by Gabriel Byrne) is offered to bring her in. Ghost Ship's presentation is slick to be sure, and I really wanted to like this movie, but it leaves you wanting so much more out of it. The cast also includes ER alumni and off-screen partners Julianna Margulies and Ron Eldard, as well as Wrong Turn's Desmond Harrington, Isiah Washington, and Karl Urban who looks like he just walked off the set of Lord of the Rings (which he most likely did). All in all, this is worth a look for horror buffs, but don't expect anything special.

Cheap tricks = mediocre film
I am continually amazed that multimillion dollar films that spend so much on decent actors and special effects, can't spend a little more time or money on more carefully considered screenwriting. As Shyamalan pointed out about making The Sixth Sense, you have to have rules that you follow throughout, or the viewers will feel unfairly manipulated. Do you pass right through the ghosts like they are holograms, or are they real enough to touch and feel or to manipulate and carry real objects? Make up your mind which one is true and follow that rule. Will all the souls be liberated if the ship sinks, or not? Are people killed off because they have allowed themselves to be manipulated into succumbing to one of their weaknesses (that would be clever), or can the ghosts just kill whoever they want anytime (much less clever)? It is a cheap trick to switch back and forth on these things, especially under the pretense of a "surprise ending."

In short, what could have been a pretty good idea with equally good acting and effects, instead flounders in mediocrity because of cheap plot shortcuts. Average and watchable if you're a horror movie fan who can accept these faults, not worth it if you're not.

Eh...
This movie ain't too good. I watched it last night, expected what I got, but I was bored, so I watched it anyway. The story revolves around an evil spirit who tricks a group of people into boarding a ghost ship in which he is collecting souls to send to Hell. Great plot, huh? He has to reach the number of souls required, so I killing everyone originally on board the ship (who are the ghosts now) wasn't enough, so he brings new people on for those ghosts, and himself, to kill. Yay!

This isn't really a scary movie. It's gory as all hell, so if you have a weak stomach, do avoid. You're gonna see a wire slashing through everyone (except the little girl, of course) on a dance floor (which wouldn't really happen, right?), a hook swinging down and going into the side of a woman's face, bodies chopped in half, some guy's head cut in half and slowly sliding off, etc. However, all these effects are pretty good, actually. If there's a reason to see this movie, it's definetly the effects, if you can stomach them.

Also, there's a little girl who was killed on the ship who is actually a good guy. She's so cute!

Everyone dies except Margulies; Ferriman is really a ghost
At the beginning of the movie, Ferriman approaches the CAPT of a salvage crew (played by Gabriel Byrne) and Epps (Julianna Margulies)and their crew in a bar. Ferriman makes an offer for them to salvage a yaught that has been lost at sea for about 40 Years.

Ferriman is really an evil spirit! What a surprise!

He tricks them into trying to salvage the boat because he is collecting souls. Once he meets his quota, he sends the lost souls to hell. He murdered the entire crew of the yaught 40 years ago and their souls are still on board. When the salvage crew boards the lost ship, they begin to die one by one. Epps is the only one to live. At the end of the movie, Epps blows up the yaught and the souls are freed and it appears that Ferriman is destroyed as well. Epps is rescued and is being boarded onto an ambulance when Ferriman walks by. Oh No! End of the movie. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Hoo-hah! After seven Oscar nominations for his outstanding work in films such as The Godfather, Serpico, and Dog Day Afternoon, it's ironic that Al Pacino finally won the Oscar for his grandstanding lead performance in this 1992 crowd pleaser. As the blind, blunt, and ultimately benevolent retired Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade, Pacino is both hammy and compelling, simultaneously subtle and grandly over-the-top when defending his new assistant and prep school student Charlie (Chris O'Donnell) at a disciplinary hearing. While the subplot involving Charlie's prep-school crisis plays like a sequel to Dead Poets Society, Pacino's adventurous escapades in New York City provide comic relief, rich character development, and a memorable supporting role for Gabrielle Anwar as the young woman who accepts the colonel's invitation to dance the tango. Scent of a Woman is a remake of the 1972 Italian film Profumo di donna. In addition to Pacino's award, the picture garnered Oscar nominations for director Martin Brest and for screenwriter Bo Goldman. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (73)

By far my favorite movie
When I first heard of this movie, I had no clue what it was about. My friend and I saw a teaser poster with Al Pacino and Gabrielle Anwar dancing the tango labeled "Scent of a Woman". Putting two and two together, we went into the theater thinking we were watching a love story until the movie started. Whoops. Despite my misgivings in the beginning, I was pleasantly surprised. What I found was a riveting story of mentor-mentee relationship. I love movies that involve the master taking young grasshopper under his wing. Except master is not Mr. Perfect himself. Both the student and the teacher learn from each other's weaknesses. And despite Lt Col Slade's struggle with his misfortunate blinding accident, his Army core values were still in tact. Hard-working and willing to give up a Thanksgiving weekend to look after an embittered retiree, Slade sees an underlying goodness in Chris O'Donnell's fragile, fence-sitting character, Charlie. Like most young men his age, he was susceptible to peer pressure and could easily choose the wrong path as his friends had. Slade is blind but easily sees the temptation to compromise the boy's integrity and future. "This old bat has sharper radar than the Nautilus" Slade tells his young league. He lays all the cards out for Charlie to see, but knew instinctively it was up to the boy to make his own decision. Charlie eventually shows his true colors in the face of adversity. Like a good soldier, he never leaves his commander's side even when the danger is self-inflicting. Character like that is a rarity in anyone and must be preserved! This prompts Slade to reciprocate his support for Charlie who is enrolled in a prestigious school reknowned for producing some of the most important figure heads in America. "Be careful what type of leaders you're making," he warns the school staff. Charlie learns lessons in life that no school could teach him.

Underneath the tough exterior, there was a softer side to Slade. He definitely had a thing for the ladies. Instead of playing up a macho cassanova, "Mac-Daddy" persona predominate in a lot of films today, Slade is quite the charmer and gentlemen. He's cultured, sophisticated, genteel and surprisingly knowledgeable about women's perfume. Hence the film's title. I find that warrior-poet quality incredibly sexy and appealing. You can't resist a man who makes the tango look so easy and doesn't mind getting "all tangled up" with you. A beautiful role played by Pacino earning him a well-deserved oscar which probably was most credited for by his empowering monologue in the end. This is by far his best role in a movie.

Lovely film. Sweet, sad, romantic yet uplifting. This is truly a classic for the ages.

One of This Decade's Best Films
I have probably watched "Scent of A Woman" thirty times. I find it one of those movies that becomes hypnotic a few minutes into it. Al Pacino is absolutely outstanding in the role of Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade, retired from the U.S. Army. Slade, blinded by a drinking/grenade game he was playing with one of his drinking buddies, is now living as an embittered alcoholic with an adult niece, her husband and two little children. He is an arrogant, angry man used to issuing orders and not displaying very much gratitude or affection.

Charlie Simms, played well by Chris O'Donnell, is a scholarship at a nearby prep school in the same town in New Hampshire where Slade lives. Charlie's trying to earn some money over the Thanksgiving weekend so that he can travel home to his parents in Oregon at the Christmas break.He discovers an ad placed by Slade's niece to care for her blind uncle over the Thanksgiving break so that she can travel with her husband and kids to Albany, New York for Thanksgiving with her in-laws.Charlie answers the ad and the adventure quickly develops.

Slade has his own plans for Thanksgiving. A last big blowout in New York City before killing himself.

He is abusive to Charlie at first and acts as if he is one of his military aides. He doesn't let him in on his plans until it's practically time to leave for New York -- while Charlie had been told by Slade's niece that the weekend would be at her home looking after her uncle.

A beautiful bonding begins as Slade and Simms interact and except for his anger and bitterness, it is obvious that Slade is not particularly handicapped by his blindness as he has developed an extra few "senses" which make him seem remarkable.

The journey to New York is a roller coaster of emotion from comic to touching to almost tragic. When Slade finally decides to kill himself, Charlie manages to save the day -- although it's pretty touch and go keeping you on the edge of your seat throughout.

Charlie has problems of his own. He's not particularly self confident and Slade is tremendously intimidating. Charlie's other problems center around an incident at school which places him at a crossroads -- whether he should rat on some kids at school at the headmaster's own brand of intimidation, or face expulsion.

The movie concludes with an impassioned speech by Colonel Slade on Charlie' behalf before a school-wide assembly being held for a disciplinary committee hearing on the incident Charlie has knowledge of.

Simms remains true to himself and proves himself to show new confidence and an outstanding sense of personal integrity.

Slade has also benefited by his own plans gone awry and his opening a window of care for Charlie as another human being. He emerges as a sign of hope to overcome his bitterness, anger and alcoholism.

An absolutely remarkable film!!!

My Two Scents
Actor Al Pacino has amassed quite a stellar career over the years, filled with strong performances, that make him one of the best at what he does. He skills, magnetism, and range put him at the top of my favorites lists. For 1992's Scent Of A Woman he hits another high point, winning an Oscar, and alowing a relative newcomer to earn his acting chops, working with a master.

Charlie Simms (Chris O'Donnell) is a young scholarship student at an exclusive prep school in New Hampshire who agrees to look after Lt. Col. Frank Slade (Al Pacino), a blind retired army officer, to earn extra money over the Thanksgiving break. Frank is an acid tongued and cynical bully who completely suprises Charlie with his plans for their weekend together. He has bought them tickets to New York, booked a suite at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel and rented a limousine, all to take the Big Apple by storm. Before Charlie realizes what he has gotten into, he is accompanying the colonel around Manhattan as they begin their wild and eye-opening adventures that include a fast-paced test drive in a Ferrari and a tango with a beautiful woman (Gabrielle Anwar). Frank's passion is women; he waxes lyrically on their bodies, scent, and sensuality, and gradually Charlie becomes aware of the sentimental romantic buried deep within the lonely man's heart.

Directed by Martin Brest, the film is nearly pitch perfect, with Pacino commanding the screen. Even though, I know Pacino isn't really blind--he plays the disability very well. By the end, I couldn't imagine another actor, playing it as "real" as he did. I thought O'Donnell was also quite impressive holding his own oppossite Pacino. The script from Bo Goldman has drama, humor and is very organic. The only minor problem I had was the film's very end. A bit predictable if you ask me...

The film deserves to have an upgrade to special edition status. The current DVD has little in the way of extras. I wanted more. There's only a few production notes and cast biographies on the disc. Not even the theatrical trailer made the extras. Until a special edition is a reality, the film is still a must see, even in its current form on DVD.

I'll Show you out of order!
I absolutely love this movie. The first advertisement I saw for this movie was a poster of Al Pacino and Gabriel Anwar doing the tango. My firend I went into the movie theaters eagerly awaiting to see a lovely romantic comedy. But when the first scene started with a boys school and just kept going, we were beginning to wonder if we walked into the right movie.

However, the movie was captivating as soon as Al Pacino came on screen, he obligates Chris O'Donnell to accompany him to the airport and head to New York. You keep wanting to see what happened next in the movie and before you know it, you've just fallen in love with a hopeless manic-depressive and a young kid whose promising future is about to go under because of a compromising situation that swing the wrong way.

Where does loyalty start and integrity ends? Both Pacino and O'Donnell have to come to grips with in some fashion or another. But there is no doubt the bond between the two of them is unbreakable.

Pacino Shines
Scent of a Woman, a 1993 Academy Award Nominee for Best Picture, is about a friendship that builds between two opposite people, the blind retired Lt. Colonel Frank Slade and the prep school student Charlie Simms, during a wild weekend in New York City. Both are coming to a crossroads in their lives. Charlie has to decide whether he will tell on who played a practical joke on the school's headmaster. But his future is lying in midst of it. And Lt. Colonel Frank Slade, once an aide to Former President Lyndon Johnson, now blind, is considering taking his own life. Their friendship grows, and although I don't want to give too much away, I'll say that I was satisfied with the ending.

Al Pacino's performance in this was stellar, and have many others have mentioned, won him his first Best Actor Oscar. Great film which will undoubtedly be enjoyed by many for years to come. ... Read more

Description

Academy Award winners Ben Kingsley (Gandhi) and Jennifer Connelly (A Beautiful Mind) deliver stunning performances as two strangers whose conflicting pursuits of the American Dream lead to a fight for their hopes at any cost.What begins as a struggle over a rundown bungalow spirals into a clash that propels everyone involved toward a shocking resolution."The surprise ending will leave you breathless!" (Clay Smith, Access Hollywood) ... Read more

Reviews (155)

No emotional connection
This is a movie that I really thought and felt like I would like. And certain elements of it are very good: cinematography (although northern California doesn't really represent a challenge to film well--it's gorgeous), acting (Jennifer Connelly and Ben Kingsley both perform well, as does the actress who plays his wife).

But it's hard for me to watch a movie without happiness, and this is one of those. You can only be hit so many times before you stop coming back for more and "House of Sand and Fog" keeps hitting you with problems until you just end up asking, exasperated, whether the characters have gone through enough yet.

There are other problems:
-The movie is over-long by at least a half-hour.
-Jennifer Connelly, who supposedly hasn't showered in days, looks dewy and beautiful.
-This woman who has had a hard time giving up on her marriage after eight months, gives up on a guy after a few hours?
-And all of this starts because she hasn't opened her mail, which doesn't make sense. Because wouldn't other bill collectors have come running when she didn't pay month after month? She wouldn't have electricity. Or a phone.
-It's hard to get an emotional connection with characters that keep doing hurtful, selfish things.
-The violence at the end seemed completely unnecessary, just there to be horrifying.
-The scenery, dense with fog, that provides the segues, are lovely but overdone. Okay, I get that this is a foggy, unclear situation.

This could have been a great movie. The talent was there, both in acting and cinematography (direction was mediocre). However, the story is just lethal. Slow, with no happiness or humor. Characters that give you no reason to feel a connection with them. Why would you want to put yourself through something like this?

A rare instance when a movie adaptation surpasses the book
I remember reading Andre Dubus' "House Of Sand And Fog" a couple of years ago. While not among the best books I've ever read, I did find it to be an interesting and worthwhile read that stuck with me long after I finished the last page. And when I heard that it was becoming a movie adaptation my interest in the story was immediately renewed. Today I went to see it and can say without reservation that this is one of the very rare instances when a film version surpasses the novel.

Ben Kingsley gives yet another superb performance in his role as Colonel Behrani. Equally as convincing is Jennifer Connelly who plays Kathy Nicolo, the desperate and determined woman who will stop at nothing to claim her house back which Behrani has purchased at auction price because she neglected to pay her taxes on it. Both Kingsley and Connelly are simply excellent in their roles. Ron Eldard plays Sheriff Lester Burdon, a cop who is unhappily married and starts an affair with Kathy, taking her under his wing and promising to get her house back. I found Eldard's performance to be a little wooden at times but for the most part he pulled it off well.

The same amount of praise also goes to director Vadim Perelman and the rest of the crew who worked behind the scenes to give "House Of Sand And Fog" the perfect atmosphere and setting. The house used in the movie was EXACTLY how I had envisioned it as I read the book.

It should also be noted that this movie adaptation remains very faithful to the book with the exception of the ending which was a little different. For example, those of you who have read the book will notice that Behrani doesn't try to strangle Kathy in this movie version. There are other minor differences, especially during the final minutes, but to reveal them would give away the ending for those not familiar with the story.

To sum up, "House Of Sand And Fog" is definitely one of the better movies to come out this year that offers both a good story and great acting. Don't expect a happy ending because there is none; this story is about tragic people making tragic decisions. But it's an engaging plot nonetheless. Highly recommended.

bit slow and unlikely twist at end
pretty good film up to the end, then it takes a very improbable turn. (spoiler warning!) i realize that the story was meant to have a tragic ending, but i find it very hard to believe the son would really pull the gun on the cop. they should have tried to find a different (and more believable) ending. otherwise, not bad, though a little slow. well acted.

Truly Surprised Me
I did not think I would like this film. Before I finally saw it, there was just something about it that reeked of pretension. Not sure why, but that's how I felt. When I finally did get around to seeing it, I was blown away. So tragic in a stupid, senseless, pridefull way that it really hit me hard. Entertaining - not really. Riveting -yes. The performances here are amazing. A real actors' film - similar to the way I reacted to Mystic River. It made me angry, depressed, sad - and I could not stop watching it. The biggest win for me was the fact that all of the characters were in a way stupid or blinded by their experiences, the environment, the timing of the situation, laziness - all of that and more. In fact, I did not and could not root for anyone, but I still understood them all. Pride, tradition, self-destruction, sloth, and anger all add up to tragic consequences. Not a movie I would watch again for entertainment value - but it packs a punch.

!! Iran is not in the middle east!
Iranians do not consider themselves middle eastern! ... Read more

Amazon.com

When it comes to the subject of community, David E. Kelley--theprolific writer-producer behind television's The Practice and AllyMcBeal--falls somewhere on a continuum between directors Howard Hawks and Robert Benton. WhileHawks's professional characters are bound by a knowledge of how to do what theydo even if they don't know why, Benton's people, professional or not, havelong ago substituted their own eccentric reasons for that elusive why. Thus we get the kind of in-house, oddball rituals sandwiched between passages of actual work on Ally, and the affectionately entangled personal andprofessional ties between small-town folks in Kelley's earlier TV series Picket Fences.

Kelley's script for Mystery, Alaska (co-authored by Sean O'Byrne)takes that level of eccentricity to a geographical and spiritual extreme. Thefilm revives the hackneyed Rocky formula, setting alopsided hockey match within a remote, self-contained hamlet where themembers of a tiny population all have to wear multiple hats and still keepneighborly ties intact. The story concerns the town's chief source ofidentity and pride: so-called "Saturday games," in which local men divide into teams and play pond hockey for the locals.When a prodigal son (Hank Azaria) of Mystery shows up with a televisionnetwork offer to bring the New York Rangers in for a televised match againstthe homegrown team, the town fathers agree. Coaching falls to the townsheriff, John Biebe (Russell Crowe), an admirable man and a longtime player recently bumped from the team. John, however, doesn't want the job: everyoneknows the real coach in those parts is Judge Burns (Burt Reynolds), but hewants no part of it either. All of that changes after a sad tragedy forces everyone to reevaluate their positions and pull together in order to beat theRangers.

Following the success of Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, Jay Roach proves to be an abledirector of drama, swift action, and low-key, character-driven comedy notunlike that in Benton's Nobody's Fool. He has to deal with some pure corn at the end, but Roach pulls it off and guides the actors to and throughfar better moments. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (95)

Slapshot Meets Bad News Bears Meets Our Town Meets Fargo
"Mystery, Alaska" juggles quite a few cliches, but it does so with wonderful charm and a constant nudge in the ribs.

A small town in the frozen North of Alaska, Mystery loves its hockey beyond all reason. The famed "Saturday Game," played each week with religious fervor, has been brought to the pages of Sports Illustrated by a Mysterian (Hank Azaria) who has left the town for bigger and better things -- although it may be because everyone in town says he plays hockey "like a homosexual" (this is an example of the surprisingly frank and profane language Mysterians like to use, which can be jarring in what is otherwise a sweet movie).

The team, led by John Biebe (Russell Crowe in a nice understated performance), is your typical bunch of loveable small-town lugs, each given either one defining characteristic (babe hound, son struggling with sense of inadequacy, hot young prodigy nervous about playing with the "big boys," etc.) or is mere entertaining window dressing. Otherwise content with the local fame brought by playing in the Saturday game, the guys are exhilirated and terrified to learn that the NHL wants the New York Rangers (at the time, a good team!) to visit Mystery to play the locals as a publicity stunt.

Biebe, who is also the town sheriff, is our lens into this quirky town going through this tumultuous development. A fixture of the Saturday Game for years, he is surprisingly demoted and asked to coach. One of his best players 'accidentally' shoots a representative from Price World, a Wal-Mart clone. Another player cuckolds the mayor of the town. And Azaria returns to make overtures to Biebe's wife. The tranquil little burg has never seen such excitement.

All of this unfolds in a lighthearted manner and builds to the "big game" against the Rangers -- which is only brought about by the untimely demise of a lovable local resident.

The game is handled very well, with the proper "underdog" notes played, but not overly so. The hockey action flows quickly, and feels like a game rather than someone filming a pretend game (a common problem in sports movies -- the action is not realistic enough). One problem - we rarely see Russell Crowe actually skate, which undercuts his status as the team leader and reminds us that he's a Hollywood star in a hockey film.

Perhaps the movie's most inspired moment is the mayor's unique way of invoking Mystery's home-ice advantage during the national anthem (with a hilarious cameo by Little Richard - yes, you heard me). Watch also for a great cameo by Mike Meyers, who has worked with director Jay Roach on the Austin Powers films.

In the end, all loose ends are tied up nicely . . . and perhaps too conveniently for some. Nothing in the movie is a great shock, but that's life in a small town for you.

While in many respects a good family movie, the language and humor is definitely not for younger viewers. And the "romantic" overtures of Skank, the team horn-dog, can be quite shocking to some. Still, a good movie and a fun time.

Mystery, Alaska is the place to be!
This charming film didn't get the positive praise it deserved. It was absolutely wonderful. The small Alaskan town of "Mystery" has a quirky "Northern Exposure" feel to it, and a wonderful ensemble cast add a lot of fun and games.

The "Saturday" hockey game leads off this fairy-tale story of David vs. Goliath, as their hometown boys go against the NHL'S New York Rangers. Former "townie" Hank Azaria starts this whole thing by writing a spotlight on the "Saturday Game" for Sports Illustrated and well.. Mystery is never the same after that. Russell Crowe turns in a great performance as "slightly older" town Sherif John Biebe, who is the heart and soul of the much younger hockey team. There are many wonderful smaller performances by faces you'll certainly know and love. It's a wonderfully sweet, charming and funny (with classic one liners from MANY of the young players) movie that only HAPPENS to be about hockey. There is so much more to it. You don't have to know a thing about hockey to appreciate this fun and lighthearted movie. It's right up there with my all-time favs. Definatley worth a look!

A Movie With a Heart As Big As All Outdoors
If you're interested in this movie, it's probably because it stars Russell Crowe. But if you thought that was the only reason to see this film, have I got some good news for you.

Mystery, Alaska, population 633, is a town obsessed with hockey. From the time they're children, every Mystery boy's dream is to be a member of the town's unnamed hockey team in the weekly "Saturday game." Through a sequence of events only slightly farfetched, the Mystery team is scheduled for an exhibitition game with the visiting New York Rangers, an event of only slightly less importance to this hockey-struck town than the Second Coming. One of the many great things about this movie is the town's reaction to news of the impending game. They're not awestruck by the Rangers, the visiting demi-gods; their first reaction is, "Can we win?" If Mystery plays, they intend to win. The Rangers might be big league American hockey, but Mystery has faith in its boys. It knows they're great even if the rest of the world doesn't.

The movie is about how the town and its inhabitants are affected by the upcoming game. The game itself, though perfectly realized in the film, is almost incidental. Colm Meaney (late of Star Trek: The Next Generattion and Deep Space Nine) plays the town mayor who discovers his wife (Lolita Davidovich) is sleeping with a member of the hockey team. Hank Azaria is Charles Danner, the home town boy who was never respected growing up, became a reporter out in the great big world, brings back to Mystery the NEW YORK RANGERS....and finds he's still not respected. Donna Biebe (Mary McCormack) is the girl Charles loved in high school, now married to team captain and town sheriff John Biebe (Crowe). Burt Reynolds, who still has it, and in spades, after all these years, plays town judge Walter Burns. Walter as a young man wasn't good enough for the Saturday game, a fact he's never forgotten and a source of conflict with his son, who's made the current team. But Walter was good enough for minor league hockey in the lower 48, making him the perfect choice to coach the team for and through the big game. He's the only person in town who really understands North American hockey. For his own reasons, he refuses.

Then there's Russell Crowe as John Biebe. The big game comes at the tail end of John's career. After 13 years in the Saturday game - a Mystery record - he's cut from the team just before news of the Rangers' visit hits town. And the town fathers, whose most solemn duties involve administering the hockey team, don't want him back. A man of quiet strength but not good at expressing his softer emotions, John doesn't know how to tell his wife how much he loves her when he sees Charles flirting, and her flirting back. The way he figures out finally to do that is both inventive and touching.

Though this movie "stars" Russell Crowe, it's not a star driven vehicle, it's an ensemble piece. And while Russell is wonderful as John Biebe, for my money the best performance in the film is Ron Eldard as "Skank" Marden, Mystery hockey player and dedicated fornicator. The scene where Skank appears on the mayor's doorstep one frozen night to apologize to the man he's cuckolded is, I think, the highlight of the film. It's fascinating to watch the unexpected decency, sensitivity, and dignity emerge from what til then seemed an indecent, shallow, undignified man.

The hockey game footage is convincing - thrilling, actually. Russell learned to ice skate for this role, and, with the help of some careful editing, looks pretty darn good on the ice. Numerous Rangers play themselves.

Mystery, Alaska has been called "Rocky On Ice" and that's a fair description. Yes, the film deals with a hockey game, but that's not what makes it special. This isn't a dumb, gimmicky, braindead hockey flick like The Mighty Ducks. It's a character driven, imaginative, well-acted drama....that happens to work within the framework of a story about a hockey game. By the time the Rangers arrive in Mystery you're totally on the home team's side, rooting for them because you've come to care for the Mystery boys, and respect the sacrifices they, and the town as a whole, have made for this game. Like Rocky, Mystery, Alaska shows you don't need a huge budget to make a good movie when you have a great script, solid direction, good actors, and the film possesses that quality indefinable but impossible to mistake or ignore: "heart."

So, can a team of pond hockey players from Mystery, Alaska REALLY beat the New York Rangers? Watch this movie and find out.

One of Russell's Best
I loved this movie. It was one of my first Russell Crowe movies. I am not a sports fan but even if you are not you can enjoy this movie. The romance and humor that flows through it, is wonderful.

more then just hockey
this movie is a story of more then just hockey its a story of life in a small town where the people only have a few escapes. This movie tells the ups and downs of this small town of Mystery and how a game against the Rangers changes their world. If your into hockey you'll love this movie if you are not you'll still like it. Rachel Wilson (Burt Reynolds daughter in the movie) is HOT. ... Read more

Reviews (96)

A Friend In Need
I love this film ever since I was younger. I remember my father who had passed away, went and took me to this movie, and I had always wanted a realistic imaginary friend like Fred (played by Rik Mayall). This movie has a lot of fun memories for me. Phoebe Cates plays a now adult Lizzie who is still struggling against standing up for herself against her mom and now husband. You get to see how her and Fred hook up and why he's there in flashbacks to her childhood. To help her have fun during the rough times in her when she was little and until she's happy and standing on her own as an adult. Because that's what an imaginary friend does he/she let's you escape from realities.

Some may not get this movie. But it is a campy, classic, comedy for about young adults to adults. If you have a good sense of humor you'll get this film and it's for those who remember having imaginary friends :).

I was a little disappointed with the DVD. I was expecting commentary, and some other special extra's not too much. But it's an okay DVD. But I would give the movie itself a B+ and the DVD a C+.

Loved Drop Dead Fred!
I was in Kindergarden when my parents rented this movie, Drop Dead Fred. They were lauging so much while watching it. So of course I had to see it. After attempts after attempts to talk my mother into letting me and my 3 year sister watch it we finally did. Although we didn't understand the concept or the plot at all we loved it! We watched it everyday, if we could we'd watch it even more than once a day. It became a daily routine watching this great movie! We were so into it we believed ourselves that Fred was our imaginary friend. And let me tell you our parents were not too happy when we robbed our own house or made mud pies. Now I am a Freshman at High School, thinking about those days watching my all time favorite movie. And til this day I love it! It put so much fun into my very begining of mine and my sister's childhood. Hey, I still watch the movie and if I could I'd give it 25 stars! Everyone should see it. And if you didn't enjoy the movie I think that you ought to loosen up and get less serious about life. It had such a GREAT impact on me.

imaginary friend vs schizophrennia
the characteristics of the girl in this films problems look a lot schizophrennia.they call it a imaginary friend.a horrible mother mistreats her daughter emotionaly and even "trapped" her imaginary friend in a box when she was small.then she grew up and her life got all out of whack and her friend came back.his name is drop dead fred.he does gross and outrageous things to help the girl deal with her overbearing mother.the kids will love this one.there are a gross part or 2 but nothing like all the nasty things on tv everyday.the main chick is sexy in a girl next door-her own kind of person-do now think later kind of way.her mom as fred so lovingly describes truly is a mega-bitch!shes over the top annoying.anyone that annoying should be put to sleep as a opener to the actual movie.this IS a kids movie despite its less than kid friendly name.so let the little jokers watch it and dont get your panties in a bunch.id watch a sequel.

unusual? no it's just fred
This is a must see film. Not only is it humours, clever and dramatic through out the whole film it is that kind of weird, yet stupid humour. The director couldn't have picked a better actor for this film than Rick Mayall, I mean one look at the guy with his tossed and tattered ginger hair, his green pinstripe jacket, his yellow trousers(which are too small for him!)and not to mention his red shoes your already thinking were did he come from?! Pheobe Cates was ofcourse her serious self but still was a excellent performer! Rick Mayall you laugh before you see him and your already in stiches when you do! an excellent film! Two thumbs up from me!

At its heart, this is a movie about self empowerment.
On the surface, "Drop Dead Fred" is a comedy. And as a comedy, it's a great one. Rik Mayall, of course, if very funny. Phoebe Cates displays a genuine talent for physical comedy in several scenes - at the restaurant, at the classical music concert, and at the wine tasting party. And I just LOVE the scream that Cates lets out when Fred scares her while she's standing in front of the mirror wiping the makeup off of her face. Carrie Fisher is also very funny as a super-rigid super-serious lawyer.

However, at it's heart, this movie is a drama with some very serious issues and some very serious messages. Ultimately, this movie is about standing up for yourself. It's about taking control of your life. It's about standing up to defend yourself from the people who are tormenting you. Anyone who's ever been bullied stands to benefit from seeing this film. It really is a good form of therapy. You'll know that you're not alone. You'll know that there are other people who know how you feel. And that's one of the reaons why I love this movie so much.

Of course another reaosn I love this movie is Phoebe Cates. Her characer here is so sweet and wonderful. How can any guy see this movie and not think he's in love with her? And honestly, I think she's a better actress when she keeps her clothes on, as she does here. Throughout the course of the movie, Cates displays just about every emotion that there is. She's truly a great actress.

Kudos also go to Ashley Peldon, who does a remarkable job as the child version of Elizabeth. Tim Matheson does a perfect job portraying the jerk husband. Marsha Mason is fantastic as the evil mother. All the other actors do their jobs very well. Every role is cast perfectly.

Every scene in the movie is necessary. Nothing is wasted. Every line of dialogue counts. The flashbacks to childdhood are integrated perfectly into the rest of the movie.

There are some interesting camera angles here that I've never seen before. For example, in the flashback to where the mudpie gets made in the dining room, young Elizabeth is sitting on the chair, shaky and scared because her mother had just yelled at her. While the camera is focused on her, the camera pans 90 degrees, and then her face lights up with a smile and she says, "Hi Fred!" I've never seen that particular kind of camera shot before. I also like the way, later on when grown up Elizabeth is making the salad, the camera is *under* the pepper grinder. And during the end of the dream sequence towards the end of the movie, the various lighting and camera angles suggest a play that is being performed live on a stage.

The low budget cheesy special effects give a nice, old fashioned touch to the film. For example, the cheap physical effects of gears and other things that are shown when Velcro Head's head explodes simply would not have had the same charm if it had been done in expensive CGI.

The movie is timeless. The only real clue to when the movie takes place is that in the flashback to the breakfast scene, young Elizabeth's father is reading a newspaper with the heading about the first man on the moon.

The best part of the movie, in my opinion, is the dream sequence, and everything that comes afterwards. The last 25 minutes of this movie are what really elevate it to what it is. This is the part that really moves me the most. Of course, in order to understand it, you need to see the entire movie. And that's a good thing, because the entire movie is worth watching.

This is a movie for anyone who remembers what it's like to be a child, and for anyone who has a sense of fun and a love of life, and for anyone who's ever been hurt because of bullying. This movie has a big heart, a big sense of fun, a big sense of humor, and a big love of life. ... Read more

Amazon.com

First broadcast on HBO in June of 1998--shortly before the theatrical release of Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan--this World War II drama offers an equally intimate and devastating study of combat and its tragic aftermath. Set in Germany during the closing days of the war, the film uses a little-known episode of U.S. military history--the bloody battle of the Hurtigen Forest--as the backdrop for the story of a battle-weary private (Ron Eldard) who is the only surviving member of his platoon. Despite his request for dismissal on the grounds of mental disability and shell-shock, he is considered a promising soldier by his superiors, promoted to sergeant, and assigned to command a fresh platoon of young, inexperienced soldiers. The cycle of war continues, and the film ends as it began--with one soldier carrying a mortally wounded comrade from a scene of devastating loss. A veteran of several war films, director John Irvin emphasizes the gritty, physically exhausting realities of combat with keen attention to detail on location in Hungary. This film is decidedly downbeat (don't look for any Spielbergian uplift here), but its depiction of warfare is undeniably powerful, earning praise for Irvin and HBO for tackling such an uncompromising project. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (84)

"Platoon" set during WW2. Worth watching.
This is a pretty decent look at the "forgotten front", otherwise known as the battle for the Huertgen Forest. This is one of those episodes that doesn't find frequent mention in the history books, but strangely it wound up with its own movie.

When I watched this, I couldn't help being reminded of the Vietnam flick "Platoon." The emphasis here is on showing the gritty, unglamorous side of infantry combat, and it's well done. Heroism, cowardice, mud, blood and fratricide are all featured in this story of a scared G.I. who's determined to survive the war at any cost, even if it means the loss of his honor.

The story opens with a young private, brand new to the war, who is the sole survivor after his platoon attacks a German position and is wiped out. His survival is qualification enough to earn him a promotion to sergeant, and not long after, to lieutenant. He wants neither. All he wants to do is survive at any cost, and he doesn't care what his superiors or subordinates think about it.

The action scenes are generally believable and well done, even if some of the mock-ups of the German tanks aren't. Several of the scenes are particularly intense and bloody, a little reminiscent of Private Ryan, but not to the same degree of utter carnage. In general I thought the acting was okay, but seeing Dwight Yoakam as a light colonel was a little surreal for me. The ending, in my humble opinion, was a little corny, and didn't do justice to the rest of the movie, which otherwise might have rated four stars instead of just three. Still, it's definitely worth watching for anyone who likes war flicks.

Adds a gritty and dark twist to WWII films.....
If you are looking for Saving Private Ryan 2, don't buy this movie. However, if you are looking for a down-in-the-dirt (more so than Pvt. Ryan), grim and gritty war film, than this is your movie.

The plot centers on a Private, in the much-forgotten battle of Hurtgen Forest, who is the only soldier of his platoon to make it back alive from a raid on German foritfications. The company commanders see him as a perfect candidate for a leader, due to his obvious survival skills. He is promoted directly to Sergeant, and is put in charge of a squad of misfits. This Sergeant only cares about himself, and doesn't mind sacrificing others to get himself back to the base alive.

At first, a minor gripe I had is that I never really cared for any of the characters (except the medic played by Frank Whaley, and the young private Sanderson). And I especially hated the main character, who, like I mentioned before, only cares for his own hide and takes advantage of his subordinates (playing with their lives) for personal gain. But, in the end, you will not gripe about this. It will show you a true protrait of the frontline -- there are no glowing Hollywood heroes....just normal boys from all over the country -- some of them good men, others flawed. That is what makes this film so good.

Though not as good as Saving Private Ryan (simply because it is just too dark and bleak at times), it is a good addition to the collection of epic war films.

Bad acting and contrived plot
Compared to the best I have seen, i.e. SPR and Band of Brothers, this dog barks. The acting is atrocious and the plot so contrived it begs ridicule. And the guy that plays the Major should stick to country music and leave the acting to people a bit less wooden.

I know the Hurtgen Forest was a horrendous episode in WWII but this film cannot possibly do the brave US Soldiers who actually fought there justice.

Save your money, buy Band of Brothers or The Lost Battalion.

Those highly feared yet respected German 88's
This is a must see for any WWII movie fan. One of the best. The German 88's were the staple of German terror and here you get to see them in action. Awsome ! Now go see, "A MIDNIGHT CLEAR".

Worth taking a look....if only for Ron Eldard's performance.
I applaud Rod Eldard's performance and would have thought him suitable for HBO'S BOB, not to mention Private Ryan. Support performances weak on the whole I thought, no one else stood out. Subject matter grim but to the point. Considering the Hurtgen Forest Battle was largely overshadowed by The Bulge..am glad this film was made. What a horrible, inhospitable place. The DVD has a relatively short running time. Worth taking a look if only from an historical/educational point of view and Ron Eldard of course. Where was HE when Speilberg and Hanks were casting for BOB ???? ... Read more

Reviews (38)

Powerful, superbly developed, a strong message delivered.
One of the best though shocking movies ever filmed.

This movie is amazing. It's tragic as it's real, it can do nothing but enrage you, and more likely to create a conscience on any rational human being about what should never happen in the world. The performances are equally shocking for it's realism, you can't miss this one, though you need a strong stomach, and to realize that this is something that's ought to stop long ago, but it still happens, so you'll be contributing to an incredible cause by watching this video, and then doing ANYTHING to prevent this from happening. It's about Child abuse, excessive and sick love for someone who hurts your own child, which is truly sick but that seriously happens.

Enough words do not exist to describe the effect this movie had in me, and I'm sure no one would miss it's powerful message. I seldomly write reviews, but this was a must-do. And I wish there is something I can do as well, so that means so can you.

As a writer on it's beginnings as well as a screenwriter, I hope someday I can reach some of the power of this movie to keep this from happening.

You really can't miss this one

A story that will haunt you and rob you of smiles
This 1996 Showtime film is set in rural South Carolina in the 1950s. It stars Jennifer Jason Leigh as a young unwed mother whose loves her young daughter, played by Jena Malone, but yet is incapable from protecting her from an abusive stepfather, played by Ron Eldard. Directed by Anjelica Huston, it brought out the best of all the actors and kept me glued to the screen in spite of the depressing story. Over and over again, we witness the senseless physical abuse by the father, and the young girl's stoic acceptance of it all. It was good that there were enough aunts and uncles in her extended loving family to help out, but her life is a history of short reprieves with various aunts and uncles, only to be picked up by her mother and brought back again to her house of torture. Yes, this is fiction, but we all know that these things exist. The director was wise though to also develop the characters of the mother and stepfather; we understand who they are and how they got that way, even as we despise what they are doing. The stepfather is out of control and the mother cannot bring herself to leave him, but it is the young girl who must suffer the most. It's a haunting story and, like life itself, there are no easy answers.

Nauseatingly violent.
Psycho stepfather beats stepdaughter, useless waste of a good soul mother does nothing to stop it. Typcal Lifetime movie garbage. I applaude Mr. Turner for refusing to show it. We know there are people like them in the world and we don't need to be reminded of it everyday, yet LMN gets off on programming this kind of movie. Disgusting, VERY DISTURBING trash, period.

questionable ethics
i simply want to express a view i find curiously absent from these pages. a group of people find a ten year old and use her to disturb paying viewers and this is called a great work? from what i understand about the american legal system, children are concidered not capable of making concetual decisions concerning sexuality (let alone sex with adults). but then, if this is true, how is it that a child is mentally capable of play acting brutal sexual abuse with an adult, while being filmed, so that people she doesn't even know can watch her be realistically raped and beaten? oh what a good actor she is, right? i guess children enjoying sexuality in a film (i am thinking of ken park) is wrong, whereas children suffering from sexual abuse is beyond reproach because it is a social statement that "needs to be told". personally i find the way most people speak of how they found this film "shocking" and "disturbing" to smack of masocism. is there a kind of hypocracy that enables the viewer to think he/she deserves to have his/her senses violated by those wise old demigods in hollywood? but then maybe the grow special children in california studios who are magically immune to exploitation for serious art's sake. just curious, that's all.

Interesting but disturbing movie
Wow! This movie is really intense in parts, some scenes were VERY graphic. Let the viewer beware! This is not a movie for children. It tells the story of a girl who is physically & sexually abused by her stepfather and her mother doesn't protect her. If you like these kind of movies, I would definately recommend this one; the actors are wonderful and the story is very compelling. I did think the pace of the movie was slow in some parts and also some of the characters weren't developed fully enough. That's why I gave it 4 stars instead of 5. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The first thing you need to know about Sleepers is that it's based on a novel by Lorenzo Carcaterra that was allegedly based on a true story. The movie repeats this bogus claim, which was attacked and determined by a wide majority to be misleading. Knowing this, Sleepers can be a problematic movie because it's too neat, too clean, too manipulative in terms of legal justice and dramatic impact to be truly convincing. And yet, with its stellar cast directed by Barry Levinson, the movie succeeds as gripping entertainment, and its tale of complex morality--despite a dubious emphasis on homophobic revenge--is sufficiently provocative. It's about four boys in New York's Hell's Kitchen district who are sent to reform school, where they must endure routine sexual assaults by the sadistic guards. Years after their release, the opportunity for revenge proves irresistible for two of the young men, who must then rely on the other pair of friends (Brad Pitt, Jason Patric), a loyal priest (Robert De Niro), and a shabby lawyer (Dustin Hoffman) to defend them in court. Despite the compelling ambiguities of the story, there's never any doubt about how we're supposed to feel, and the screenplay glosses over the story's most difficult moral dilemmas. And yet, Sleepers grabs your attention and pulls you into its intense story of friendship and the price of loyalty under extreme conditions. The movie's New York settings are vividly authentic, and Minnie Driver makes a strong impression as a long-time friend of the loyal group of guys. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (81)

Solemn drama gets the all-star treatment
By virtue of its all-star cast, handsome production values and solemn subject matter, Barry Levinson's "Sleepers" (1996) was clearly intended as a Major Motion Picture from the outset. Based on the harrowing true-life bestseller by journalist Lorenzo Carcaterra - first published in 1995 - book and film describe the appalling fate of four Hell's Kitchen kids (played as children by Joe Perrino, Brad Renfro, Geoffrey Wigdor and Jonathan Tucker) who, in 1967, were sentenced to confinement in the 'Wilkinson Home for Boys' following a near-fatal accident involving a hot dog vending machine which they had stolen as a prank. Inside the reformatory, all four boys are sexually and emotionally abused by a group of sadistic guards led by the sinister Nokes (Kevin Bacon at his slimiest). More than a decade later, traumatized by their experiences, two of the now grown-up boys (Ron Eldard and Billy Crudup) corner Nokes unexpectedly in a local diner and murder him in cold blood. The other members of the group - one a prosecuting attorney (Brad Pitt), the other an aspiring writer and journalist (Jason Patric) - formulate a daring plan to have their friends acquitted, expiose the reformatory's dark secrets, and take revenge on their abusers...

Such an extraordinary tale was always going to be controversial, of course, and so it proved. Upon release, book and film drew immediate fire from critics who accused author and filmmakers of embellishment and exaggeration, since no records could be found to prove that the trial depicted in the film ever took place within the Manhattan district, or that the Wilkinson Home for Boys ever existed - even though Carcaterra's book (and Levinson's script) makes it clear that most of the names, dates and locations have been changed or fictionalized to protect those involved, and that the records of all children held in institutions like Wilkinson are routinely deleted after seven years. Further scandal ensued when the movie ignited protests from those who believed the story drew unfortunate parallels between pedophilia and homosexuality, thereby reinforcing the worst kind of homophobic stereotype. The point is certainly valid, given Hollywood's shameful mistreatment of gay themes and characters over the years, but "Sleepers" doesn't seek to draw any kind of parallels, unconsciously or otherwise, merely to recreate events described in Carcaterra's book. Besides, monsters are monsters, whoever their victims may be.

As a movie, "Sleepers" is competent, briskly paced, and beautifully acted by a dream cast of old pro's (including Robert De Niro and Dustin Hoffman in key roles) and a new generation of rising stars. It's an ensemble piece, and the lack of grandstanding - in favor of narrative momentum - is admirable. But while the film is consistently intelligent and engaging, it's drawbacks are significant: The kids are terrific, especially Perrino, but the adults are burdened by the gravity of the subject matter, and Patric's sombre narration seems a little too laidback at times, lacking warmth or even genuine emotion, while John Williams' rambling score clashes resolutely with the film's epic visual sweep. Also, for obvious reasons, the moviemakers were unable to depict the kind of sexual atrocities outlined in the original book, with unfortunate consequences: Here, Nokes' murder seems more like the result of a petulant outburst by a couple of thugs, rather than the inevitable outcome of horrendous physical abuse. And during the subsequent trial, it defies belief that the prosecution's key witness - a former guard at Wilkinson - would incriminate himself so readily on the stand, as depicted here. That said, however, the movie is still a worthwhile erntry, but the book is better.

Warner Bros.' region 1 DVD - one of their first releases on this newfangled disc format - runs exactly 147:00 and is spread over two sides in a manner that wouldn't be acceptable today. The glorious Super 35 compositions are preserved in letterbox format (a little overmatted at 2.40:1), anamorphically enhanced, though the 5.1 Dolby soundtrack is fairly subdued, selling the drama without drawing too much attention to itself. There's a trailer and brief cast biographies, along with English captions and subtitles. Missing from this print is a brief intertitle which originally appeared before the closing credits, outlining some of the criticisms levelled against Carcaterra's original account.

Sleepers is an excellent, haunting tale
Rare is a movie that completely holds your attention for 2 1/2 hours but Sleepers is that movie. Played out by an exceptional ensemble cast (Brad Pitt, Jason Patric, Dustin Hoffman, Brad Renfro), it tells the tale of four young Hell's Kitchen boys who after pulling a seamingly harmless prank, are sent to a juvenile facility where they face unspeakable horrors at the hands of ther wardens. This trauma follows 2 of the boys into adulthood where they enter a life of crime. When they take their revenge on a particularly sadistic guard, it's up to the other boys, along with a childhood gal pal and a loving priest to save them. Every performance in this movie makes an indelible impression but the standouts are Deniro as Father Bobby, Frank Medrano as neighborhhod shopowner Fatman, Minnie Driver as Carol and Geoffrey Wigdor as young John. I watch this movie every November(it feels like a Fall time movie) and it never fails to amaze me. It is tense, heartwrenching, touching and at times funny. However the final 5 minutes always hit me where it hurts. When I think of how those kids were robbed of a normal life it sickens me. Sleepers is a phenomenal film that will leave a deep impression.

Supporting Characters Saved the Movie
Boys from hell's kitchen get in jail. Tortured and raped by guards. Grow up and seek a Monte-Christo revenge. The plot is good, if a little bit too straightforward.

The most interesting character in the movie by far is Father Bobby (De Niro), a 'cool' priest who is as comfortable beating up an abusive father as preaching. There's Fat Mancho who gives out street wisdom to kids; Danny Snyder (Dustin Hoffman), the lawyer who mutters as if to himself in court. These characters keep the movie interesting.

The boys themselves, however, have little individuality. And like all coming-of-age movies (American Graffiti, Stand By Me, October Sky) there has to be oldies playing, and the number of boys has to be 4. Young Carol is an underdeveloped character whom the director expects the audience to remember later on. The prison guards (Kevin Bacon, Terry Kinney) do what the plot expects them to do, and King Benny provides simple mob flick entertainment. The grown-up boys developed some characters but, ironically, even with the Monte Christo plot, one cannot help but get the sense that the boys, whose lives would have otherwise been very unextraordinary, were saved by the dramatic event.

Powerful
This is a very dramatic and gripping film. The cast is great for the movie, though Brad Pitt is underused, and Dustin Hoffman may seem miscast. But overall a very good and extremely underrated movie.

NOT FOR THE SQUEAMISH, BUT A GRIPPING FILM
Making a movie of such a controversial account that is told in the stunning book (with the same name) must have been a daunting task, especially when you fill it with A-list movie stars, some of which are not known for their sentimental sides.

However, Levinson has created a masterpiece, and a film that everyone should watch. Sleepers might've not been the most eloquent courtroom drama, and the tactics used might be unrefined, but I absolutely loved it. It showed the consequences of prison guards' sadism, which affected the boys for the rest of their lives.

All the actors give mindblowing performances, with no conceivable weak link. This includes the four child actors, who dominate half of the movie, but obviously don't receive as much press as their older counterparts. These four kids were outstanding in roles that must have been truly harrowing to play, especially the young boy who played John. Even Brad Pitt shows that under the right direction he can be more than a candy face.

Add to this a great score from John Williams, and you will come back to this film time and time again. The DVD has great features too so in all a very worthy purchase. ... Read more

Reviews (882)

Scott gets the look, as usual
[This review speaks mainly to the film, not the 3-disc special edition release]

Black Hawk Down is a tough movie to qualify. It's visually amazing--this is some of the best combat I've seen in a movie. It's thrilling, it's realistic, it's exciting. I wouldn't exactly call this an anti-war film because it depicts war as the ultimate thrill, a real game of real bullets and blood. Yes, it's hell, but with Ridley Scott directing it looks like a very, very good video game.

I don't know why this movie was made. There is no political leaning, there is very little context. It's a blow by blow account of what happened when over 100 Army Ranger and Delta Force soldiers were stuck in a hostile part of Mogadishu, Somalia in late 1993. The enemy, as to be expected from a Jerry Bruckheimer film, is given no identity. They are throngs of Africans, many of them kids, firing round after round and coming like swarms of bees even as they get cut down by the superior US firepower.

The problem is that the movie goes to very impressive lengths to play out this story. The production is huge--the battle scenes, the city scenes (filmed in some bombed-out-looking part of Morocco apparently), the gunplay, etc. This is an expensive film, and I have to wonder why the money and resources go into something like this if there is nothing to say. Then it becomes pure entertainment, which is all the film turns out to be. That's fine, but again, once in a while it would be nice to inject some intelligence into a project that obviously commanded so many other resources and considerations.

Why was America in Somalia? Granted, that is not the concern of the film, but some kind of context for the war, the rebels, the aims of the mission, the pov of Somalis who were killing to negotiate, as one Somali says in the only behind-the-scenes bit in the film, would have put the film over the edge and actually made the audience ::gasp:: think about why America fights where it does.

There's also the obligatory war film clichés that are just hard to stomach when we know that these are real soldiers being trivialized for the popcorn crowd. Tom Sizemore, as a veteran and tough-as-nails McKnight, goes back into the fray to rescue more men and walks calmly through the street as bullets ricochet around him, like Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now. Modern movie special effects can simulate rockets blowing people apart, literally, and leg wounds being operated on with someone's bare hands, muscle and sinew and all. It is typical of Hollywood today: they have limitless resources, but those resources (being able to shoot a film as visually and technically impressive as this) serve a story that could use a bit more tweaking and humanization. But the filmmakers are
not interested in that angle.

It would be nice to know why Mogadishu is hell on earth, with hordes of enemies tearing people out of helicopters and raining rockets on American soldiers. Yes, the soldiers were brave, they were highly trained, but the mission was a disaster, and it does the real story a disservice to portray it as just another chapter in American gung ho-ism. Also, the single most memorable bit of that real story was the body of an Army Ranger being dragged through the streets by an angry mob that spit on him, and much worse. That was a disturbing bit of footage for Americans to watch. Would that have been more tasteless than showing an RPG rocket stuck in someone's side? Massive, gaping wounds? Missing legs? Why clean up real events and their aftermath for the sake of a night out at the movies? Maybe they should put their mouths where the money is.

Make no mistake--I couldn't turn this film off. It's exciting; it made me want to play Ghost Recon or one of those games. It also made me want to find out more about this grim chapter in President Clinton's tenure as Commander in Chief, even though it was his predecessor who landed troops there when he was a lame duck. Somalia was an embarrassment, an event that told America we were no longer willing to sacrifice men--18 as compared to over 1,000 Somalis killed in battle--in some foreign wasteland. The film is not enlightening in that regard. It's exciting, it's Jerry Bruckheimer, folks. Watch it and decide for yourself.

It looks like they went to very impressive lengths to put this out on DVD, as expected with a production like this. Definitely worthwhile to pick up, as multiple commentaries, deleted scenes, and other goodies sweeten the deal.

A Special Operation
It's about time! Sony Pictures finally got around to releasing a deluxe edition DVD of director Ridley Scott's magnificent fact-based war thriller "Black Hawk Down". Fortunately, it's well worth the wait; sporting three discs with every concievable extra feature, it could well be the best DVD package I've ever seen.

Possibly the finest of all pure war pictures and unquestionably the best movie ever made about the Special Forces, "Black Hawk Down" recounts the fierce battle that ensued in Somalia on October 3, 1993 during a mission by the Army's Rangers and elite Delta Force operators to capture two lieutenants of a repulsive warlord.

The film presents a raw, vivid dramatization of the fight, with graphic depictions of violent death on both sides. The difference is that Scott, unlike many of his contemporaries, mostly manages to steer clear of sentimentality, preachiness and jingoism (no small feat when you're making a war movie). Understanding the need for occasional breaks in what is essentially a two-hour-long battle scene, Scott also injects a little comic relief in the form of three lost Rangers and some other great little moments (my favorite is the part where Sgt. Eversmann, played with surprising vigor by Josh Hartnett, has to pause in the middle of battle to pull a scalding-hot spent shell casing from inside his uniform; little details like that are cinematic gold).

The first disc has the film along with three outstanding audio commentaries: one from Scott and producer Jerry Bruckheimer; one from screenwriter Ken Nolan and Mark Bowden, author of the original book; and, most interestingly, another by four actual veterans of the battle, who expand on true elements of the story and comment on some of the film's technical innacuracies ("This scene is really cool - too bad it never really happened").

Disc two features a 150-minute "making of" featurette that explores just about every facett of the production, including technical accuracy, CGI effects and footage of the actors at Ranger boot camp.

Disc three has two absorbing documentaries about the battle from the History Channel and PBS's "Frontline". There's also a feature that allows you to watch the fast-roping insertion scene from multiple camera angles and some Q & A sessions with the filmmakers and actors. There's a nice moment in one of these sessions in which Jason Issacs, who plays the aptly named Capt. Steele, comments on how "BHD" actually made him a better person: "After knowing what these soldiers went through, you feel a bit embarrassed complaining about the size of your trailer."

"Black Hawk Down", simply by virtue of its adherence to telling the story as it happened (as much as is possible, at least, within the confines of a 2 1/2 hour movie), is much more military-friendly than many of the artsy war pictures that depict soldiers as victims or, even worse, as psychopaths. It's also a far cry from the simplistic "super soldier" flicks of the 1980s that stressed a comic book mentality over respect for what real American warriors have endured over the centuries. "Black Hawk Down" is a profoundly patriotic movie, but its patriotism is more subtle, mature and real. The only American flags you really see are patches sewn onto the right shoulder of the troops' uniforms. The flag is backwards, so that the stars are closer to the soldier's heart.

A True Horror Film
It just doesn't get any better than this. I've seen this film 4 times & it never ceases to astound me. The acting is exceptional, Ridley Scott is directing here at the peak of his powers & Pietro Scalia should have received an Oscar for the outstanding editing job. The film itself functions more like a rocket ride than just a war film. The word visceral comes to mind. Violent? Frightening? Absolutely! But to demonstrate the true impact of war, for the soldiers & for us, there is no alternative. I noticed a fellow customer said this film is better than SAVING PRIVATE RYAN; am I the only one who noticed the huge hole in that film's storyline? Move over THREE KINGS, FULL METAL JACKET, THE THIN RED LINE...BLACK HAWK DOWN may just be the greatest war film ever made. Why? Because a war film isn't just bullets & the terrible death of comrades. Ridley Scott has shown us the true horror. I know it will haunt my dreams......

Great War Movie
I recently bought the DVD for this movie and I have to say that I'm blown away by the movie about the operation to capture Adid in Mogadishu, Somalia in October '93. This movie is very accurate in showing the realities of combat and I think that this is a movie that will really convey to people what it's like to fight and die not only for their country, but for each other.

I highly recommend this movie to anyone who wants to know about what it's like in the heat of combat and the courage and fortitude of our soliders.

Best Film of Post-WW2 Combat
Prior to "Black Hawk Down", "Apocalypse Down" was hands down my favorite non-World War II war movie. Time and distance works wonders, and Ridley Scott proves he can film modern combat, like sci-fi ("Alien") with the best of them.

This is a post Private Ryan film, which means that the street combat scenes are jumpy, erratic, and extremely violent. But like Spielberg, Scott does not lose sight of character development, particularly Harnett's character who becomes marooned with his "stick" of Rangers overnight in the centre of Mogadishu surrounded by thousands of screeming, RPG-toting Somalis who can use cell phones to mobilize and direct their forces. The movie builds like "Alien", to the point where it becomes incomprehensible that anyone is going to get out alive. The movie does not take sides when commanders sacrifice four or five soldiers to save one - it just happens.

Some reviewers have referred to the book as a "novel" - it is not. This battle really happened, but once we left Somalia (or were pushed out, depending on your point of view) it got quietly shunted aside as a bad sideshow until Mark Bowden wrote his book of the same title, which is a MUST read for people who loved the movie (it goes into greater detail of the Ranger culture and background politics). Lots of lessons abound for our current escapade into Mesopotamia.

Sizemore, who is also in "Private Ryan", is by leaps and bounds the best hard-nosed NCO anywhere. Ewan McGregor, who has had to suffer through Lucas' recent disasters, gets to demonstrate his versatility. Harnett is terrific.

No review should pass up the incredible sound, which demands a 5.1 system and heavy on the subwoofer. The soundtrack (with the exception of the vaguely Celtic ooh-ahhs at the end) is the best I recall of any war movie. ... Read more

Amazon.com

A great big rock hits the earth, and lots of people die. That's pretty much all there is to it, and most of that was in the trailer. Can a major Hollywood movie really squeak by with such a slender excuse for a premise? The old disaster-movie king, cheese-meister Irwin Allen (The Poseidon Adventure, Earthquake), would have made a kitsch classic out of this, with Charlton Heston, rather than a resigned and mumbly Robert Duvall, as the veteran astronaut who risks several lives trying to blow up the comet that's headed right this way! As stiffly directed by Mimi Leder, this thick slice of ham errs on the side of solemnity. It may the be most earnestend-of-the-world picture since Stanley Kramer's atomic-doom drama On the Beach. There are a couple of classic melodramatic flourishes: an estranged father and daughter who share a tearful reconciliation as a Godzilla-sized tidal wave looms on the horizon; and an astronaut, communicating on video with his loved ones back on Earth, who follows whispered instructions from a buddy lurking just off camera--so that his little boy won't realize that he's been struck blind. With Morgan Freeman as the president of the United States. --David Chute ... Read more

Reviews (328)

Talented cast in an alright movie
Deep Impact, which is basically about an almost unstoppable metor about to collide with the earth, which will result in many deaths if something isn't done about it. Morgan Freeman stars as the president of the United States, who is straight forward and honest, which is a type of president this country has never had. Also, stars Tea Leoni, the most talented youngster, Elijah Wood, Robert Duvall, and Vanessa Redgrave as Tea Leoni's alcoholic mother.

After the discovery of the meteor by Leo Biederman (Wood), a scientist checks what path it is headed and comes to the realization that it is headed straight for earth, not to mention the shores of the east cost. To try and stop it, they send a group of astronauts to try and destroy the meteor, lead by Tanner (Duvall). The major strength of this movie is the human reaction. Each character reacts differently to the disaster to become them. Some worry about themselves and flee without a second thought and some worry about other people, which is what is believeable. Deep Impact takes the middle ground, in other words instead of letting the meteor hit, they are able to spilt into two pieces, with the larger piece being destroyed in a scene that may just bring tears to your eyes.

Compared to Armegeddon, this movie is a masterpiece. This one has more realism and it is not made like a 120 minute trailer as Roger Ebert once pointed out about Armegeddon. It has characters you just might remember and dialogue that is not so repetitive you may just walk out. Despite the fact, this movie is not great although it stars some great talents such as Elijah Wood and the brilliant Morgan Freeman, it is just decent. GRADE: B-

i prefer armageddon because...
...if you are gonna have a film about an ELE, with the slightly
more serious approach that covers the sort of lottery in this
one (which all seems perfectly believable), you ought to have
some emotional impact to the story

maybe it's been been too long since i saw it, but it just seemed
like no one in the film really cared about what was going to
happen. seemed a little odd to me...

it's ok
Deep Impact is a good disaster movie, it has a scene where
they pick those who would be save, Similar to the old
1951 movie (when Worlds Collide)they called the ark but there are remakes of some these old george pal movies like the
time machine,ok now I like to see them do a remake of the 1951
(when Worlds Collide).

Made an Impact on me
Many people tend to compare this movie to armageddon, as they are both about the idea of a celestial body (in this case a comet, in the case of armageddon an asteroid) on a collision course with the earth, and seeing as how they were released in very close proximatey to one another. I think this has a lot to do with some people's lack of love for Deep impact, but the reality is these were two very different movies.

While "Armageddon" was a great movie in it's own rate, it was more of an action-romance movie that was meant to apeal to a braoder audience and satisfy movie-goers' typical demands of a major release. But with Deep Impact a much different aproach was taken, following in the way of the traditional Disaster Movie Genre.

From the beginning we are introduced to one of the main Characters, an upstart reporter investigating your run of the mill political love affair scandal, but stumbles instead upon the biggest story of history, that there is a monstrous comet on a collision course with earth. And so unfold's the American government's plan to send an team of asteronauts to intercept the comet and plant enough nukes on it to deflect it off course. The movie handles the plot from a much more epic, and at the same time much more personal level than armageddon.

The romance angle of the story is provided by the young boy who unwittingly discovered the comet and his girl neighbor. As counter measures fail, and plan B, C and D are called into action the terrible reality that only so many can be saved, and that it has to be decided who lives and dies sets in. A national lottery determines who will get passage to a special fallout shelter-like cave complex that was built in secret to house 1 million people. The rest are left to fend for themselves.

I really found deep impact to be more emotional, though not as romantic as armageddon. Characters will die, babies will be deperated from parents, young people will be asked to carry burdens that they shouldnt have to deal with and cities are destroyed as part of the asteroid hits the atlantic and causes a massive tsunami. Watching all this really had a more realistic and more message-orientated feel to it than Armageddon. I liked that the movie seemed to follow closer to the science and horrow of what a comet impact could cause, and how that affected the characters and our society. This made the movie much more interesting to me in many ways, and much realer as well.

The special effects are well done enough for the time period, and actually the tidal-wave scene where you watch a city massive wall of water inundate the city, hills and forests was quite ae inspiring. This is well done and will make your jaw drop when you see it.

The only problems are some inconsistant acting, and the fact that this movie is a bit slow and might not appeal to some viewers as much as armageddon because it's not an action movie.

All in all this was a great disaster movie and I thought it did a better job than armageddon in many ways of dealing with the actual plot scenario, though I like that movie as well just for different reasons. But if you're looking for a good sci-fi based disaster movie that will touches on many deeper levels than similar movies than this is your best bet. You're better off renting Deep Impact than you are going to the theater to see "The Day After Tomorrow".

Deep Enough.
As far as disaster films go, this is one of the best. The characters have a little more depth than your usual catastrophe cardboard cutouts and are played with conviction by a fine cast. What good's a disaster if you don't really feel for the folks the disaster is happening to. Unlike most other big budget disaster blockbusters, DEEP IMPACT has a decent script that takes itself seriously. Add the cast, assured direction by MIMI LEDER, and some great fx visuals, and the end result is an extreemly enjoyable thrill ride that keeps head and heart intact. It's amazing how this movie gets so much slack when most others in the genere are far inferior (i.e. ARMAGEDDON, DAY AFTER TOMORROW, etc.). ... Read more