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

Amazon.com

Although its tale of marital crisis unfolds a bit too cleanly, A Walkon the Moon--which was coproduced by Dustin Hoffman--offers a welcome relief from the juvenile assault of skull-throbbing blockbusters. The story is gently involving, the characters are authentic, and, best of all, Diane Lane is given a chance to show why she's one of the most genuine and underrated actresses of her generation. Here she plays Pearl Kantrowitz, a devoted housewife on a routine vacation in the Catskills with her TV repairman husband Marty (Liev Schreiber), 14-year-old daughter (Anna Paquin), and rambunctious younger son (TovahFeldshuh).

It's the summer of 1969. Neil Armstrong has made his "one small step for man," Woodstock is about to happen nearby (leading to a barely plausible dramatic coincidence), and while her husband is away on business, Pearl is cautiously receptive to the seductions of "the blouse man" (Viggo Mortensen), a hippie salesman who offers the adventure and passion that Pearl sacrificed to young pregnancy and marriage. Once the stage for infidelity is set, A Walk on the Moon progresses predictably, but first-time screenwriter Pamela Gray stays true to the emotions of her characters, and actor Tony Goldwyn (making a smooth directorial debut) maintains precisely the right tone to downplay most of the movie's dramatic clichés. Add to this a sharp dynamic between Lane and Paquin, whose performances create a substantial mother-daughter relationship. Graced by stolen moments and fleeting expressions that speak volumes, this unassuming little film is eminently worthwhile. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Amazon.com

A hilarious and affectionate parody of both the Star Wars films and theOscar-winning Shakespeare in Love, George Lucas in Love providesmore wit and intelligence in eight minutes that most full-length feature filmsdo in 90. It's 1967, and George Lucas (Martin Hynes) is only three days fromgraduating from film school. The "agricultural space tragedy" he's been workingon isn't going well at all. Taunted by his asthmatic rival (who wears a blackcape), flummoxed by his adviser (who speaks in backwards sentences), he's atwit's end, until inspiration arrives in the form of the comely Marion (LisaJakub), the leader of the student campus rebellion who sports a distinctlyfamiliar hairdo featuring twin buns. Funny without being too in-jokey, andclever but never full of itself, George Lucas in Love is a perfect example ofthe short film parody: it never wears out its welcome. Can't catch all thereferences? A fun-filled enhanced version of the short, like a Pop-Up Video,points out all the allusions along with facts about the making of the short, anda 10-minute, behind-the-scenes feature details the creative process frominception to the success the film received upon its release.

Included on the DVD are three additional short parodies--Swing Blade(which the makers of George Lucas in Love cite as their inspiration),Film Club, and Evil Hill. Swing Blade is a blissfullyshort, truly inspired melding of Sling Blade and Swingers, with aBilly Bob Thornton look-alike trying to make it on the L.A. singles scene, andFilm Club is a goofy take on Fight Club, but with independentfilmmaking taking the place of bare-knuckle brawling ("I want you to shoot me,and make sure you give me lots of head room."). Only Evil Hill, whichpurports to tell you how Dr. Evil of Austin Powers became trulyevil, loses its momentum in its 10-plus minutes, as it attempts to mix AustinPowers references with both Notting Hill and the Marilyn Monroemythos. Sometimes imitation isn't the sincerest form of flattery. --MarkEnglehart ... Read more

Reviews (121)

Fantastic!
George Lucas in Love is a great short film-everything about it is superb! I've watched it over and over again and it gets better every time! Congratulations to the filmmakers!

Nine minutes of my life I'll never get back
I wanted to like this movie. Really I did. But as many others also discovered after viewing, I found this movie to be hackneyed and sloppy. A few character references and superficial nods to Star Wars does not a good short make. Mr. Nussbaum should be thanking cinematographer Eric J. Haase for AT LEAST making this short look good. Other than that, it was a total dud. Typical example of rich kids with expensive toys -all of the resources, nothing interesting to say.

Great concept, would be nice to see fleshed out
I first saw this film on the internet, like many other people. I found it to be very interesting for Lucas fanatics (like some of my good friends), but otherwise it is kind of dull, and needs a lot of fleshing out. And, altought Lucas is obviously no Shakespeare (he will never be known as a great writer), it is an interesting comparison / spoof. Well worth the eight minutes.

If Blair Witch and this movie prove anything....
...it's that you don't need a good movie to succeed in Hollywood. This is the lamest, flattest, most one-note short film I have ever seen. I will say this: Mr. Nussbaum has a grip on how to shoot film and piece it together. Other than that, this is just a series of lame joke after lame joke. We get the point very early and you just tire us out with your so-called "brilliant references" to Star Wars. Do something more original and I would gladly pay for it. But this? No way. I tried to give it zero stars for unoriginality, but had to give at least one. Prove me wrong with your features, guys.

You show it to friends over and over
Saw this orginally online and it spread like wildfire aroundthe office. Hysterical, with brilliant references and parodies. If itwas any more expensive I'd say pass but [at this price] you can't even buy a paperback. You get a few hours of fun as you play for every uninitiated person who visits your house. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Extra features are great!
I have already watched Mrs. Doubtfire many times before buying the DVD. Still, the extra features on the DVD were wonderful, especially the deleted scenes. I wished that some of these scenes could have made it to the movie.

CUTE!
I have the widescreen version of this DVD-it's the same show, but hey, what the hell! :) This is one movie someone would never tire of-Robin Williams is such a great impressionist (I'm jealous!), & Sally Field can be quite a "hard-nosed whatsit" hahaha--but it all turns out for the better in the end :) ... Read more

Reviews (37)

Funny, romantic, beautiful people!
I was never a fan of neither star of the Beautician and the Beast, but after watching it on TV I became and addict to Timothy Dalton. This is a very romantic comedy but one has to look deeply into the feelings of Pochenko and Joy, he is a grumpy teddy bear that loves his children but tries to appear tough and mean and we have to understand his loneliness and lack of romantic love in his life until he truly falls in love with a woman that changes his way of thinking and humanizes him and on the other hand, Joy fulfills her love not only with a man that very much needs her but with his children that eventually will become her family. After buying the video and watching it numerous times, I think this is a great movie but has been underrated and criticized for Fran's voice which she can help and is one of her main charactericstics. Ever since, I am forming a collection of videos of this great actor Timothy Dalton, ah! that voice and his looks! But mainly what an performer! . I recommend this movie but please read in between the lines all the mixed feelings including her parent's feelings and mean old jealous envious and devious prime minister, what's his name? Ira is delightful and so are the children! Also the music! I even bought the soundtrack, the waltz is beautiful!

Beastly
Think Cinderella for lonely yentas and you get this crooked picture. Drescher is Joy Miller, who, after rescuing some bunnies from the beauty school where she teaches, is enlisted by an emissary from Slovetzia, an eastern European country where the iron curtain hasn't been fully drawn yet. Her job? No, not pedicures. She's to teach the repressed children of Boris "The Beast" Pochenko, a grumpy, Stalinesque leader played by Timothy Dalton.

Joy gets cutesy-cuddley with the president's kids and still finds time to talk to the common people (Yo! It's Evita from Queens). Bypassing all boundaries of movie realism, Joy somehow endears herself to Boris. For his part, the cold as ice commander strokes his bushy mustache, gobbles one of Joy's delicious sandwiches, and ponders a former Communist country with the gum-chewing shrew as his first lady. Predictable, eh comrade?

Apart from the Drescher's missing-in-action talent, The Beautician and the Beast suffers from an utter lack of inventiveness: the proletariat is oppressed, the prime minister is the snarling villain, and the children are sweethearts who just want daddy's love.

The only thing that keeps the silly enterprise afloat is Dalton. He, at least, looks like he's having fun putting on the hokey Baltic accent. Even with the stinker dialogue he's handed, the former 007 appears to enjoy hamming it up.

The Beautician and the Beast isn't exactly endearing Valentine's Day entertainment. In fact, if I took my wife to this one she'd probably ask for a divorce and demand half of what I own. She'd deserve it all and then some.

A great actress in a Great movie.
This film was awesome! I loved "The Nanny" and still watch it today on Lifetime. Fran Drescher is one of the great actors of our time. Her unique voice and offbeat style puts her over the top. This movie would have lost all of it personality and perkiness if not for Fran Drescher. Two Thumbs up!

Great Movie!
I think this is one of the best family/childrens movies. It has alot of different issues that are important, and it also has an adorable theme. Its beauty and the beast mixed with Cinderella.

I Loved this Movie!
I, Being a Hard-core 'The Nanny' fan, i desided to rent The Beautician and the Beast because i heard it had a simaliar plot to the Nanny(She was hired as a teacher/nanny and falls in love with her boss) and i loved it!! I loved the line where her mom fed her pet chicken and she said, "Ma! You fed the Chicken Chicken?!?! Its like Silence of the Chickens!!!"

I rate this movie 5 outta 5!!! ... 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 (64)

A "LAUGH SO HARD IT HURTS" MOVIE!
Dude looks like a lady! I loved, loved, LOVED this movie! At times I laughed so hard I cried, and Robin Williams is most definitely at his absolute wacky, zany BEST! In the film, an estranged husband, (Williams), wants so desperately to spend time with his three kids, that he goes so far as to dress up as a kindly, matronly female housekeeper - hence, "Mrs. Doubtfire" is "born"! The most hilarious scenes in the movie involve Williams having to rush in and out of his heavily padded, Mrs. Doubtfire get-up! (Just visualizing this in my mind "cracks me up" right now)! Yet, at the same time, Williams' character also manages to tug at your heart with his sincerety and good intentions. If you haven't yet seen this movie, you're missing out on a real laugh fest. My advice is to treat yourself to this comedic delight, now, and add it to your collection of "feel good" movies!

rolling-on-the-floor laughing entertainment
If you want a funny movie with a good blend of human emotions and sensitivity, "Mrs. Doubtfire" is the one. It is just hysterical, and an excellent film. Robin Williams portrays Daniel Hillard, a laid-back father who is absolutely crazy about his three children, who love him just as much. When Daniel's behavior becomes more than his wife Miranda (Sally Field) can handle, she files a divorce. Daniel is devastated at the loss of his wife, but more than that, he cannot stand to be separated from his children. He is willing to make as many sacrifices as he needs in order to be with them, even if it means putting on a dress, a bodysuit and a little makeup and portraying a devoted old nanny whom Miranda instantly hires to help take care of the kids. In the process, Daniel works hard to shape up his own life and ultimately mature as a parent. You will laugh hysterically at Daniel's attempts as "Mrs. Doubtfire," and you will be touched at the special pains he goes to just to see his children every day. Of course, it's not just Robin Williams who supplies the entertainment in this movie. Mara Wilson, who plays Daniel's youngest daughter Nattie, will have you rolling on the floor laughing. With that sweet little lisp and the innocence of a 5-year-old, she almost stole the show (in my opinion). There is a very good cast here, and this movie has everything. Humor, tears, sensitivity....you name it. Do yourself a favor and watch this one. If you haven't seen it yet, now is the time. It's the kind of film that you can watch over and over and laugh just as often every time, if not more. You'll love it--trust me! =) It's pretty much impossible not to be touched in some way by this moving film about persistence, love, and dedication to your family.

The Last Great Williams Comedy
Hard to believe its already been ten years. William's hasn't done anything nearly this funny since. He seems to be getting more reflective and less whimsical in his middle age. A divorced dad pretends to be a middle aged british nanny to spend more time with his kids. Ingenious. Inevitable hilarity ensues. William's talent is in taking an obvious joke or set up and succeeding brilliantly whereas most other comedians would flail about and fall flat.

Not A Big Robin Williams Fan, But...
It's fine to see Mork from Ork fans gushing about how perfect everything is that Robin Williams has even touched or ever will touch. In reality, however, he's just a decent TV actor who can also do cartoon voice dubs.

That's why I feel that when someone like me praises a movie of his, it should mean a lot more. Watching Mrs. Doubtfire, I was forced to admire his sheer guts in tackling this Tootsie role (sans roll) despite the huge success Dustin Hoffman already had with it.

Most of Robin's film parts amount to a large junkpile of bad remakes, half-written plots and other "at least it's a fat paycheck" duds. It is also mind boggling how he got an Oscar for his minor foul-mouthed cameo in Good Will Hunting. However, every once in a long while he incredibly rises far above his journeyman talents and rightfully dons the mantle of a true master of the art.

(Not that co-star Sally Field was just using up air here, either - she was a great anchor of reality for the film. Which is not an easy task to perform for someone as cute and bubbly as she normally is.)

Robin's actually done five other proper acting jobs, which round out an even half dozen when added to Doubtfire. And these few other fine movies are, not surprisingly, parts where he really doesn't play himself: Good Morning Vietnam, Hook, Jumangi, Dead Poets Society and Cadillac Man.

Well, most actors when their careers are over should consider themselves lucky to even end up with a trilogy of film classics in the can, after doing the usual 25 to 50 major works. But right now Robin's got those six gems, and he still has time to complete a crown of an even dozen.

Of course he'd already have had time to do that by now, if only he had just said no when his agent called to ask him if he wanted to do flop-bound flicks like Shlubber, Jerk or Bicentennial Bum.

A Charming Movie!
Mrs. Doubtfire is a cute movie, it's one of Robin Williams best movies and he was hilarious. He plays an unemployed actor who's wife dumps him because of what she thinks is irresponsible behavior including letting his sons birthday party get out of hand and after a rather messy divorce only gives him limited visitation rights he disguises himself as an older woman when he hears his ex wife played by Sally Field is looking for a nanny/housekeeper for their kids and she hires him thinking he is really Mrs. Doubtfire and what follows is a great hilarious movie with some tender moments that tug at your heartstrings and I highly recommend this movie! Not only is Robin Williams good but so is the rest of the cast including Sally Field, Pierce Brosnan and little Mara Wilson. ... 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 (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

Amazon.com

Matinee offers one of the best matches of director and screenplay that you're ever likely to find. Raised on a steady diet of 1950s monster movies, Joe Dante later contributed to the genre with such films as Gremlins and Explorers, but it was Charlie Haas's script for Matinee that gave Dante a perfect platform for comedy, dramatic context, and nostalgic homage. Set in Florida during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, the movie focuses on a schlock-movie promoter named Woolsey (inspired by real-life producer William Castle and played to perfection by John Goodman) who arrives in Key West with his latest Grade-Z extravaganza, Mant, about the raving half-man/half-ant product of "science run amuck." (This movie-within-a-movie is a perfect tribute by Dante, who cast B-movie stalwarts in the kind of roles they'd built careers on.)

Balancing youthful exuberance with the ominous threat of nuclear attack, Dante finds his alter ego in Simon Fenton, who plays a 15-year-old captivated by Woolsey's cheesy showmanship. This affectionate devotion is matched by Dante, who captures the anxiety of the missile crisis even as Matinee delivers an abundance of humor. Director John Sayles and Dante-movie veteran Dick Miller have cameos as Woolsey's show-biz accomplices, and Cathy Moriarty is brilliant as Woolsey's wisecracking mistress and Z-movie queen. All of this makes Matinee a polished gem that's sweetly entertaining while staying true to the serious context of its story. It's the movie Joe Dante was born to direct. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Serendipity Cinema #10
A film you may never have heard of, but really should see. Trust me. If you grew up at the movies, like I did, this film is a slam-dunk. You went to the shows and devoured films like "It, The Terror From Beyond Space," & "Earth Vs. The Flying Saucers." The kid in this film is you (or me) and Lawrence Woolsey played by John Goodman is the guy who gave us our favorite junk movies. And add to that that it all takes place in Southern Florida during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and you have a deliciously fun film(I see that look in your eye and you'll just have to trust me on this) Fine performances all around and Joe Dante (a heroically underappreciated director) directing. Goodman's character is based on real-life producer William Castle who was known as much for his stunts as his movies. He gave us "The Tingler" crawling under the seats of the audience, and on one film actually gave the audience mild shocks through wires in their seats. He also issued "Death by Fright" Insurance policies in the lobby, and had an actress dressed like a nurse on duty,
just in case you had a heart attack. It is all gloriously remembered here. They even lets us see portions of the film he's trying to sell. "Half Man! Half Ant! He's Mant!" You'll see a bunch of stars of the B-Movie heaven here, but I'll let you find them, that's the fun. Even the clever little send-up of Disney films of the '60's ("The Shook Up Shopping Cart," with dead Dad coming back as a shopping cart and trying to solve crimes.) would make this worth seeing. This is not an epic, this is just a great little find. My friends, you put the joy of movie hokem next to the true terror of a world on the edge of Nuclear war, and you have a little film that has a lot to say, but never forgets what it is, and what it is meant to do. Goodman's character sums it all up when he tells the teen hero: "You think grown-ups have it all figured out? That's just a hustle, kid.
Grown-ups are making it up as they go along just like you. You remember that, and you'll do fine."

Matinee a filmbuffs treat
Matinee is a little gem of a movie, directed by Joe Dante (Gremlins, The Burbs, The Howling) the film is set in a coastal town in Florida during the Cuban missile crisis. Shock film maker Lawrence Woolsey (John Goodman)a take off character of shock film maker William Castle, comes to the small coastal town in the time of kaos to show his new B-film Mant! The film is shown through the eyes of a young teen who loves B horror films. The film is a fun innocent romp in an era of great change.
For film buffs this is a treat and shows Joe Dantes love of B-films. The film may not be for everyone but watch it anyway, you might enjoy it.
I actually only heard about this film when it came on home video it was never released in theatres in Australia. Being a huge fan of Dante's and a huge film fan I loved it. Matinee is a gem to watch, Joe Dante's best I believe.
John Goodman is perfect in the role as are the young actorsin their roles. Dante features his regular actors Robert Picardo (Gremlins 2, TV's Star Trek Voyager) and Dick Miller (Gremlins, The Howling) also.

A real treat
This movie really surprised me. It gets generally good reviews, but so do a lot of films these days that I don't think much of. So I wasn't expecting too much, not wanting to be disappointed again. Man, what a shock! ...Or should I say, Mant, what a shock!

What's best about Matinee is that it is pure unadulterated fun. Yes, the teen romances seem to drag at the beginning, but the storyline about the Cuban missile crisis, and your curiosity about just exactly what this John Goodman character is up to, have already established an underlying tension that sticks with you and holds your attention.

Your patience is rewarded, because when the long balyhooed Key West preview of "Mant" finally begins, this movie ROCKS! Yes, a lot of what happens in this flick is not exactly like things were in the early '60s, but who cares? Personally, I noticed several errors in dialog -- expressions being used that did not exist in 1962, but again, who cares! This comedy is fun, fun, fun and just keeps going and going, right up to the end of the world! (on screen, at least)

By the way, much is made of "Mant," the movie within this movie, and rightfully so. It is almost as riveting as the main movie, which of course is "Matinee." Getting confused? -- look closely near the end and you will see a movie within a movie within a movie!!! This all gets very complicated, in a way, and there are several side stories going on too, but it all moves so fast and blends so well, you really don't mind, because no one in the movie knows what's going on either! It's just total chaotic entertainment.

I haven't enjoyed a movie this much in a long time. I like it so much, I bought a second copy as a backup. It's not Citizen Kane, but it's a ton of fun, and also rather charming in its own way, so it gets a rare five stars from me.

Matinee is better than "Lobsterman from Mars"
This movie has the same concept of spoofing most of our favorite bug movies. It also has an underlying script, which changes this movie from a "Lobsterman From Mars (1990), ASIN: B0000065S5 to more of an "A Christmas Story (1983)" B00000JKNP feel. You could have been there in the 60's. And footage is shown from the real films that it is spoofing. And once again the MANT (man-ant) has his appendages where they don't belong.

Great film
By turns poignant, nostalgic and hilarious. John Goodman, as a William Castle-type quickie-monster movie maker, rolls into town during the Cuban Missle Crisis to promote his lastest film, "The Mant" (the title says it all -- half man! half ant!)And "The Mant" is really not that bad! It's played during the movie -- a movie within a movie. And it shows what these cheapo horror films were like during the early '60s': theaters packed with sceaming kids as "The Mant" menaces everyone. This film is a pretty good reprensentation of that time -- for example, the silly bomb shelters (the theater manager has one built in the basement of the theater), and the leather-jacketed, duck-tailed juvenile deliquent (who barely has two brain cells to rub together). I had a copy of this movie. I lent it out. Not surprisingly, I never saw it again. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Looking to stay busy and useful in her latter days, GraceMcQueen (Jessica Tandy) discovers the wonders of cable-access TV and starts her ownshow, reading stories for kids whose parents are too busy to pay them enough attention.A rising TV exec and single mom (Stephanie Zimbalist)realizes "the Story Lady" could advance her career--and maybe help her connectwith her own daughter.This film has a lot in common with Miracle on34th Street--both revolve around Christmas and both explore that uneasy middle ground in which children's dreams collide with modern commerce. Like the original 1947 Miracle, The Story Lady tells its story with heartfelt sincerity, while avoiding the mawkishness that marred the '94 remake of Miracle.Tandy brings a bit of spice to her role as "ideal grandma," and she's surrounded by a cast full of top pros,including Charles Durning in an unbilled cameo.Production design and directing clearly mark this as a made-for-TV movie, and you can see the plot points coming, but there's something very charming and true about it.Trivia factoid:That'sJessica Tandy's real-life daughter, Tandy Cronyn, playing her daughter in the film. --Geof Miller ... Read more

Amazon.com

This overrated period comic-drama, set in Georgia in the 1930s, featured the first mother-daughter team to be nominated for acting Oscars in the same year. Laura Dern plays a free-wheeling young woman who is taken in as a domestic by an upper-class family, headed by Robert Duvall and Diane Ladd (Dern's real-life mother). Rose, who tends to let her sexual urges get the best of her, scandalizes everyone in three counties (including Duvall and Lukas Haas, who plays his son) with her willing spirit. Do those kind of loose morals warrant court-ordered sterilization? Or does this young woman just need a guiding hand? While many fell for this cornpone shtick, directed by Martha Coolidge, it's a hard movie to cozy up to because Rose is such a caricature and the rest of the characters (with the exception of the always exceptional Duvall) are such sticks. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (10)

In defense of Laura Dern!
I must disagree with the reviewer who so strongly criticized Laura Dern's performance. While it is true that 'Rambling Rose' has its weaknesses (the abrupt, rather unexplained ending, for one thing), I found the story line humorous and even charming. Dern's performance made the movie, in my opinion! Diane Ladd overacts a bit, as usual, but this is a minor flaw with the film as a whole. What stuck with me was Dern's 'little girl lost' expression mixed with her coy devil-may-care flirtation, which made for an entirely winning performance. I loved the music too!

Akin to starting a leaf blower near killer bees
Societies regard single, attractive, sexually available women with both idolization and uneasiness. The lust, envy, jealousy and otherwise tumultuous passions surrounding their passage through the populace can be disruptive of societal bonds, e.g. by "homewrecking", even though no fault of their own. One reason why the concept, at least, of marriage is valued so highly is that this cultural arrangement takes the problematic single female out of circulation, so to speak. And, social pressures cause opprobrium to be heaped on "loose women", even by the very men who are drawn to them. Of course, the feminist correctly sees these attitudes as blatantly sexist. However, even western culture's most chauvinistic pig is likely to regard the veiling and segregation of women in fundamentalist Islamic societies, for example, as an unacceptably extreme manifestation of those same attitudes.

RAMBLING ROSE takes a compassionate look at the phenomenon of social turbulence caused by an "unattached" woman. Rose, flamboyantly played by Laura Dern, is the blithe, single, 19-year old girl invited to live with a very proper Southern family in the mid-1930s. The family, offering Rose help at this difficult time in her life, includes Daddy (Robert Duvall), Mother (Diane Ladd, Dern's real-life mother), and 13-year old Buddy (Lukas Haas). Rose, already possessing a checkered history acquired with unspecified men, is a sexual "free spirit", who proceeds to cause hormonal havoc in the town's male population. Even Daddy is bewitched. To Buddy, Rose is, unsurprisingly, the godsend of a new awareness. Of the adults, only Mother, recognizing Rose as essentially guileless, staunchly defends her as the repercussions of the Siren's residence start to add up.

A better film on much the same theme is Y2K's MALENA - a superb Italian production. Nonetheless, RAMBLING ROSE is delightful. Dern is positively captivating. Duvall is at his best, which is pretty darn good by any measure. Ladd portrays Mother as a slightly eccentric individual whose generosity towards and understanding of Rose is a clear counterpoint to the hardening attitudes of the other adults. The Buddy character should remind all males in the viewing audience of that time when they were 13 and discovering girls as beings with something more to offer than simply opportunities for boorish teasing. I like this film immensely.

GREAT MOVIE! NOT AT ALL, A BORE!
I THINK THIS IS A GREAT MOVIE!
ROSE WAS A BIT FREAKY THOUGH!
YOU HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE MOVIE!
IT SHOULDN'T BORE YOU!
5 STARS*****

boring
boring, boring and 1000 times boring. Why do you wanna expend your money in such a boring film?

Pleasant diversion
Contrary to another viewer, I though Laura Dern's acting was very good in this film, unlike in "Jurassic Park" where she really did seem gawky and unnatural. The film has some nostalgia, some laughs, and some pathos. Not a classic, but an enjoyable diversion about a free-spirited young woman who creates havoc around her. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

surprisingly subtle
I wanted to add to the positive reviews listed above. Perhaps the misleading cover image on the box is not only intended to increase sales, albeit to those with prurient interests, but also to reach those with the prurient interests. Do not judge this film by its box. As a woman, subjectively, I recommend this film for its sensitive and uncritical portrayal of past and present "sisters" selling their bodies to survive. The sex scenes reveal the tedium and human nature of the occupation and are neither gratuitous nor distasteful. But, perhaps it takes a mature and experienced mind to appreciate the brutal honesty of this film. Other films with a similar empathic vein I recommend are Whore with Theresa Russell and the Italian classic Mamma Roma with Anna Magnani. While Whore's style is a complex blend of comic book comedy and tragedy, Mamma Roma's style is a bit pathetic, though in the textbook sense. If any of these three films stimulate an interest in the human side of prostitution, perhaps the book Brothel: Mustang Ranch and Its Women by Alexa Albert will enlighten. A landmark text for a sociological perspective is Pornography: Men Possessing Women, by Andrea Dworkin. In summary, if you are interested in art that portrays prostitutes as human beings, you will be glad to see the cast's rendering of characters in Wicked Wicked West. Regardless of overall quality, any film I judge good enough for me to purchase I rate with five stars. I hope you see what I mean.

Jon Sanders' The Wicked Wicked West
This film is hard to sum up because there is really not a plot, per se. The film follows the lives of prostitutes living in a brothel owned by Brenda Fricker. This is not the brothel of TV westerns, this is a dark, dank place barely lit by candle light in a dingy little ten building frontier town. McGillis plays Nettie, who helps the other prostitutes through their time at Fricker's establishment, as well as the competition down the street. It is implied she performs abortions for unexpected pregnancies. She tries to raise her five year old son in the house, with less than successful results. Eileen is Irish, and befriends German dancer Katya, who replaces Eileen's best friend, who we see murdered in the opening scene. Georgie is the new young prostitute who knows she can do better that this one horse town, and sets out to prove it. Ada is the prostitute with children who is getting older and less desirable to the men.

The entire cast does a fantastic job. Sanders' direction (he also cowrote this) is very intimate wihout being exploitative, except for McGillis' topless scene. The film is sad, without being a complete downer, but you get the idea that this is what the prostitutes went through. The pace seems deliberately slow so we get to know the characters. The pace is a little too slow at times, and a few supporting actors blur in confusion here and there, but Sanders keeps things going.

Despite the stupid title, and cleavage baring video box, this is not something along the lines of "Bad Girls" or "Hard Bounty." This tells a very realistic story of tough lives gone wrong. If anything, it is hard to forget.

This is rated (R) for some physical violence, gun violence, some gore, female nudity, strong sexual content, and strong sexual references.

To Watch this Movie is Inhumane
I only saw the first ten minutes of the movie but that was enough to turn it off, not bother rewinding it, and rush back to the video store to get my money back. Afterwords I read the reviews on imdb.com and thanked the lord I turned off the movie when I did. Avoid this at all costs unless you need to do a thesis on BAD moviemaking. There is no "zero" star rating so it gets a 1.

Its a slow but devastating story about the early west
I just watched this film. It was unrelenting, a story of the rough circumstances prostitutes endured in the West a little more than a century ago. Its a woman's story, almost totally without a male point of view. The men are represented as beings who mostly just mumble and play cards. Their voices are heard often muttering on the soundtrack. We can't make out what they're actually saying. Representing the guys as stick figures helps emphasize in what reduced and lonely circumstances the prostitutes inhabit their dance hall and saloon world. There are no women who are not prostitutes in this early western town. Just as the men have little regard for the women, the women think little of the men. I think this may be a fairly truthful accounting of the West before it was civilized. The film has got me thinking about how desperate male-female relationships may have been in America not all that long ago. ... Read more